Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2012 17:49:37 GMT -5
Not enough of it as far as i'm concerned, and i don't know why obama is attempting to make peace with the worst elements in islam i think its more important to stand up for your values and not to cower to extremists.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Sept 24, 2012 18:45:53 GMT -5
these rioters are the same people who believe women are not equal to men and do not deserve the right to vote. they believe that jews are descendants of pigs. they believe that they have the right to kill when any tom, dick or harry says something critical of muhammed.
and what does obama do? he tries cowers to them by attempting to force google to take the video down. he needs to show the muslim world that the united states will not be bullied out of its core principles and beliefs. shame on him.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Sept 25, 2012 7:39:25 GMT -5
^tbf, America's done so much shit and have killed so many people in secret operations to keep dictators in power who kill innocent people in the process of trying to those "core principles and beliefs." I'm seriously tired of America sticking to their "core beliefs". FFS, Mubarek was an ally of the US, up until the uprising. And he was clearly a murderer.
The Islamic world will always have a quick trigger on the US, as well they should. Because in the end, the western world has only screwed over the Islamic world. In the same sense that Latin American nations become weary whenever the US sticks up for their "core beliefs". Which usually entails America taking over your, economy, government, instituting their own puppet leaders, and then taking many of the natural resources that that country should own.
Guess what, America purposely causes coups to take out leaders. Many times to put in people that America knows they can control. And many times those people tend to be some of the worse dictators in history. But it's all worth it, because America is sticking up for their core beliefs and principles. Noriega? Yeah, put him in power. Mubarek? Yeah, put him in power. Pakistan? They keep screwing us over, but they're suppose to protect Israel (I mean, everyone else in the region hates us), so let's send them more money. Let's overthrow the government in El Salvador.
If more people studied American foreign policy, and actually knew what it means when someone says, America should stick to their core beliefs and principles, I guarantee you they would never use it. Because when you hear the President say, "we are sticking to our core beliefs and principles" it usually means that there's some vital natural recourse that America wants to keep a steady supply of, so they need to overthrow a government which usually sends that country into a civil war while killing thousands of people in the process.
If America tried to understand the complexities of the region much more, than there would be a better relationship. Israel is in the position it is in (politically that is) because of western powers. Such as America overthrowing the Syrian government, causing a dictator to come to power, which the country has still clearly not recovered from. The main reason Iranians hate America is because of the overthrow of Mohammed Mosaddegh because Britain didn't want Iran to nationalize their own oil. The killing of Mosaddegh caused the country to turn into a tailspin and it's why Iran is at where it is now.
America has never given the middle east a reason to trust them and to negotiate on the safety of Israel. I'm not saying that centuries of religious strife would suddenly go away, but had America not had the history that it has in the middle east and in Latin America, we would find it a lot easier to stick up for those core beliefs and principles which have cost thousands upon thousands of innocent lives. We would also find it easier to stick up for an ally like Israel. We also find it easier to seek common ground on social issues. That is not absolve the Islamic/Arab world for their actions, but to act as if America has no hand in this. That America's own policies of trying to stick to our core beliefs have not set up this scenario, is reading history with blinders on. The Islamic world's dogmas and hatreds have only been hardened by a country that far too often tries to control countries that it shouldn't. Which is why they feel as if they have the right to kill whenever possible, because in the end, America has killed whenever possible. Two wrongs do not make a right, but it's harder to turn the other cheek, when a country has been trying to control you and has directly caused the deaths of thousands of your citizens.
This really wasn't a defense of Obama, but more of a, please when discussing understand that religiously, these strifes stretch back centuries and this geopolitical strife is much of America's own doing honestly. And it's easier to see why the Arab world has an itchy trigger finger. Just as it is easy why Israel might have one too considering their country and people's history.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2012 12:00:43 GMT -5
Some of the extremists come from countries that are US allies so i don't think you should start blaming america for what they do. The people that carry out the violent acts are the only ones responsible for their actions.
They also set the bar very low as far as what they will decide to be offended by. In Pakistan i think it was last year a politician was murdered not for blasphemy but for saying he didn't agree with the blasphemy law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2012 12:16:48 GMT -5
Some of these people aren't right in the head there's nothing you can really do, you can rip on any religion, but say one thing about muslims and you get threats from these super-religious nuts who won't come into the twenty first century like everyone else. They will happily throw themselves into a building full of harmless people with no hesitation. Some of these people are sick.
I don't think Obama should bend over backwards for them like politicians here in England do but there's really not a lot he can do IMO.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Sept 25, 2012 12:20:44 GMT -5
Some of the extremists come from countries that are US allies so i don't think you should start blaming america for what they do. The people that carry out the violent acts are the only ones responsible for their actions. They also set the bar very low as far as what they will decide to be offended by. In Pakistan i think it was last year a politician was murdered not for blasphemy but for saying he didn't agree with the blasphemy law. So I should not blame America for creating an environment which produces more extremist?
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Sept 25, 2012 12:20:50 GMT -5
I hear all that you say spaneli.
It's a complicated terrain. But the fact is that Obama should stick to his guns and not apologize or try to pretend that he has any control. He should embrace the idea of freedom of speech and support it. "These are my citizens, but they are not representative of me, my administration, or my country and should be viewed as such. The American government allows for freedom of speech even if it contradicts the opinions of government...and we are unwilling to give up the freedom that we currently enjoy in our country"
There is no way to prevent all criticism of Islam or the Middle East...end of story. What is Obama going to do? Silence the Internet? What sort of precedent is he trying to set? That he'll shut down all the objectionable things on the Internet? Impossible
You can't shield all of the Muslims from the world and the fact that there are differing opinions. And he isn't going to be able to stop exactly this from happening again. What he needs to say is that he and most Americans are not in agreement and that this doesn't reflect the American opinion at large. Every population has it's fringe elements...which Muslims, of all people, should understand are not indicative of all people in the larger population considering that their "fringe elements" are doing a lot worse than make internet videos.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2012 12:56:39 GMT -5
Some of the extremists come from countries that are US allies so i don't think you should start blaming america for what they do. The people that carry out the violent acts are the only ones responsible for their actions. They also set the bar very low as far as what they will decide to be offended by. In Pakistan i think it was last year a politician was murdered not for blasphemy but for saying he didn't agree with the blasphemy law. So I should not blame America for creating an environment which produces more extremist? If it's all about america then how come they have attacked denmark, spain, britain & bali ? Do you think 9/11 was americas fault?
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on Sept 25, 2012 13:36:32 GMT -5
While most of me believes that free speech is a cornerstone of any modern Democracy, part of me can't help but think was that video really worth it for the death's that have happened. It carried nothing important, it wasn't really satire, it didn't promote a political msg and it wasn't humorous in anyway.
Thats the sort of provocation that serves no purpose.
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Sept 25, 2012 14:01:28 GMT -5
I think the deaths are the fault of the people murdering. The video killed no one.
People chose to get upset enough to kill a fellow human being because there was a video on the Internet that they didn't like.
Obama isn't going to be able to control the Internet. It wouldn't take much for these rioter to control their brutal impulses.
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on Sept 25, 2012 14:07:28 GMT -5
I'm not saying they aren't responsible for the people who died but the video is connected to this you know. Is something of no value to anyone and that was created to provoke really worth what follows.
It has nothing to do with Obama, he can't control the internet but it would be good if youtube could just use a little discretion/common sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2012 14:57:46 GMT -5
it would be good if youtube could just use a little discretion/common sense. where would it end?
|
|
|
Post by manny on Sept 25, 2012 15:05:17 GMT -5
it would be good if youtube could just use a little discretion/common sense. where would it end? 1984
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Sept 25, 2012 15:43:36 GMT -5
So I should not blame America for creating an environment which produces more extremist? If it's all about america then how come they have attacked denmark, spain, britain & bali ? Do you think 9/11 was americas fault? Well actually, Britain is also to blame in creating an environment where there's a greater chance for extremism. Extremism doesn't exist in a vacuum as your suggesting. We've gotten to this point because of a few reasons, mostly to do with foreign policy and how we treat the people of a foreign nation as people who are in the "free world's" dominion. And while 9/11 was certainly not directly America's fault, America's foreign policy started a chain of events that led to the rise and growing of those extremists (and to a point, Britain too). Many of those extremists who have grown up completely hating Israel for religious and geopolitical reasons (which is completely the fault of the western world because the western world has really deepened what was already strong religious tensions) and disliking anything to do with the "free world", such as the UN, Nato, the G8, and America (which is a reason Spain was attacked. Guilt by association. If you notice, Spain is in two of the three of said organizations). Look Ross, I respect you, but you clearly have never studied foreign policy. I haven't said that America is fully to blame, as with my first post that clearly said that my explanation does not absolve these extremists of any blame. They chose to take lives. But to act as if America, or Britain for that matter, have not practiced foreign policies which have increased (meaning not completely caused, but increased) the likelihood of someone becoming an extremist is ignoring fact. Extremism isn't in a vacuum, in the end it's reacting against something.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2012 15:52:09 GMT -5
I am extremly critical of U.S and British foreign policy, but that has nothing to do with this.
Which foreign policy desicion was it that earned Salman Rushdie his fatwa?
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Sept 25, 2012 16:16:08 GMT -5
I am extremly critical of U.S and British foreign policy, but that has nothing to do with this. Which foreign policy desicion was it that earned Salman Rushdie his fatwa? You're completely missing the point of what I'm saying. What I have said if you read, is that poor foreign policy has caused the rise of extremism. That is not say that if American and British foreign policy were changed that it would eliminate all extremism, but those policies have heightened extremism and have made Muslims more vigilant in "defending" what they perceive to be attacks. You're taking a very micro view, rather than a macro. You can bring up a lot of individual cases of fatwa's, but my point is that those fatwas would be far less prevalent, if extremism had not been given a shot in the arm by poor foreign policy. The only people who do fatwas are extremists. So therefore, if there were less extremists, wouldn't it stand that there would be less fatwas? So if poor foreign policy had not increased the likelihood and the environment for more extremism to grow in, wouldn't it stand to reason that there would be less fatwas? Nothing exists in a vacuum. And while events are sometimes not directly connected to policies. Policies send reverberations through the world, which then send them through governments of countries, which then affect people's everyday lives. So through indirect causation, certain policies could lead to a rise in extremism, which would lead to a heightened sense of paranoia and violence, which would lead to a rise in fatwas on everyday people. Policies affect people and many times those effects and implications are not restricted by borders and can cross over decades. Take America and the Monroe Doctrine. That was written over 200 years ago, yet it still affects every major foreign policy decision that America makes, which then affects different governments, which then affects everyday people in some small way. Or Woodrow Wilson who used the basis of we're going to spread democracy around the world (Wilson doctrine). That's a line that America's used for a full century. Yet those two major foreign policy decision have affected millions, if not billions around the world in some capacity. And that's just a couple of examples. Many other countries' policies can do the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2012 16:35:42 GMT -5
It's not a vacum it's a 1500 old religion that is claimed to be the direct word of god.
I guess the murder of Theo van Gogh was down to the Monroe doctrine, even though he was dutch.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Sept 25, 2012 19:39:26 GMT -5
i'm sorry, spaneli, but this is not the fault of america. america's done plenty of wrong all over the world, but that is not the reason for this behavior. this is the fault of the religious extremists who use these people for power.
let's say, for your argument's sake, that this is in fact all america's fault. fine. then, is it the fault of the united states that indonesia attempted genocide in east timor? is it america's fault that muslims in karachi throw acid in the faces of unveiled women? do you think it's america's fault that cartoonists in copenhagen were killed for satirizing the prophet muhammad? do you think it's the west's fault for the fatwa on salman rushdie for writing a piece of fiction?
muslims do not have a special right to be offended. it does not have an immunity from criticism.
i have an additional question for you, spaneli. why is it that whenever jews are caricatured in the most egregiously offensive ways in the arab press, jews don't go out rioting and killing people? they don't violate diplomatic immunity by storming embassies and killing ambassadors because their feelings were hurt. have the jews not been the targets of racism, genocides and diasporas all over the world? they've been persecuted plenty, but i don't see jews exhibiting the violent reactions i see from muslims due to a fucking youtube video.
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on Sept 25, 2012 19:46:12 GMT -5
I am extremly critical of U.S and British foreign policy, but that has nothing to do with this. Which foreign policy desicion was it that earned Salman Rushdie his fatwa? You don't think foreign policy affects how other countries view us? Right... I don't really get your question to me either. Islam states that Muhammad is not to be depicted and this video goes out of its way to do just that but without having any worth to anyone else. Its like you see every rioter as a terrorist when the majority are pious people deeply offended by a flippant and unneeded video.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Sept 25, 2012 20:02:55 GMT -5
Ummm yeah, I wish people would read my posts. Where did I say that America completely caused this particular event? Again, I said that my first post was not a defense of Obama, but more of a caution that before we speak on this that we understand all the factors that go into attacks like these.
I was troubled by the fact that the first two posts within this thread seemed to take the situation on without reviewing any of the nuances within the issue. Such as generalizing that everyone who was protesting were automatically sexist anti-semites. Some are and some are not, some are just people who believe that they should defend their god. And my first post and continuing posts were just pointing out that some of the geopolitical strife, meaning events prior to this one, were at least somewhat the cause of American foreign policy. And that this foreign policy has created a chain reaction to the point where America is now viewed within the Islamic world.
Please, again. READ.
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on Sept 25, 2012 20:21:14 GMT -5
i'm sorry, spaneli, but this is not the fault of america. america's done plenty of wrong all over the world, but that is not the reason for this behavior. this is the fault of the religious extremists who use these people for power. let's say, for your argument's sake, that this is in fact all america's fault. fine. then, is it the fault of the united states that indonesia attempted genocide in east timor? is it america's fault that muslims in karachi throw acid in the faces of unveiled women? do you think it's america's fault that cartoonists in copenhagen were killed for satirizing the prophet muhammad? do you think it's the west's fault for the fatwa on salman rushdie for writing a piece of fiction? muslims do not have a special right to be offended. it does not have an immunity from criticism. i have an additional question for you, spaneli. why is it that whenever jews are caricatured in the most egregiously offensive ways in the arab press, jews don't go out rioting and killing people? they don't violate diplomatic immunity by storming embassies and killing ambassadors because their feelings were hurt. have the jews not been the targets of racism, genocides and diasporas all over the world? they've been persecuted plenty, but i don't see jews exhibiting the violent reactions i see from muslims due to a fucking youtube video. What constructive criticism did it provide in the way in which it was presented? Some might consider the Anglo/American invasion of Iraq a 'violent reaction' based on some fabricated/flimsy evidence. The fact that we are both from countries with a recent imperialist past must make us rethink why these events occur. In pure statistical terms the death count on this is incredibly small compared to some of our dealings of recent times.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Sept 25, 2012 20:22:11 GMT -5
It's not a vacum it's a 1500 old religion that is claimed to be the direct word of god. I guess the murder of Theo van Gogh was down to the Monroe doctrine, even though he was dutch. Ross are you NL4E now? Please read my posts. On multiple occasions I have said that the religious strife between Jews and the Islamic world goes back centuries. My statement was also that geopolitical strife has been within the region the last the 60 years, so foreign policy is not in a vacuum. That's fact. Up until 1948 there was no unified foreign policy by either country. Because Israel didn't exist up until then. My point is that foreign policy does not exist in a vacuum. Which is another fact. You continue to take a micro example and then graph it over a macro issue. And as I have said, policies affect people in inconceivable ways. It is not to say that extremists are absolved of all blame or even any blame or that America is completely to blame. As I have said multiple times, I do not believe that. But to assume that foreign policies are restricted to two counties and cannot affect people in their everyday lives whatsoever no matter what country their in, is having complete blinders on. You say that you know of foreign policy, yet you speak it as someone who has basic knowledge and nothing more than that. If you actually understood the implications that say the Monroe Doctrine or the Wilson Doctrine have caused and how many lives they have cost you would not gloss over it as mindlessly. There are hundred of thousands of lives who have been lost directly or indirectly because of the actions of such policies. It's not enough to see one piece of the puzzle as you do, the point of foreign policy is to understand direct and indirect effects of what it can cause. No one who legitimately studies foreign policy would say that it's within a bubble. And no one who legitimately studies foreign policy would say that the complete explosion of extremism in the Middle East is at least not somewhat a direct or indirect cause of certain policies that have been instituted.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Sept 25, 2012 20:46:23 GMT -5
here's the thing. i feel that this is an open and shut case.
if someone's a muslim, he/she should be able to say, "my belief in allah and muhammed is strong enough to withstand criticism, whether warranted or unwarranted."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2012 12:07:13 GMT -5
I am extremly critical of U.S and British foreign policy, but that has nothing to do with this. Which foreign policy desicion was it that earned Salman Rushdie his fatwa? You don't think foreign policy affects how other countries view us? Right... I don't really get your question to me either. Islam states that Muhammad is not to be depicted and this video goes out of its way to do just that but without having any worth to anyone else. Its like you see every rioter as a terrorist when the majority are pious people deeply offended by a flippant and unneeded video. sure foreign policy it does affect how countries are viewedd but you don't see the south americans acting in the same way. I'm not saying people can't be offended but i am also defending the right to offend. Lets face it muslims set the bar very low when drawing the prophet is enough to offend.
|
|
|
Post by mkoasis on Oct 6, 2012 15:30:49 GMT -5
here's the thing. i feel that this is an open and shut case. if someone's a muslim, he/she should be able to say, "my belief in allah and muhammed is strong enough to withstand criticism, whether warranted or unwarranted." And most people who were upset by the video most certainly were. They were upset but they didn't go and burn buildings down or shoot anybody. That is a fringe, orthodox/conservative group that is presented as the majority because a)it makes a better story and b)we all know the media present what they chose to present. Please remember. Judging all muslims by the actions of these extremists is like judging christians by the actions of the Klu Klux Klan. And I think Spaneli you are 100% spot on in your argument on understanding the context at work here. Very articulate and poignant. I couldn't have put it better myself. Nothing exists in a vacuum. Your examples certainly show this. Well argued.
|
|