Do you really think that israel has the capability to attack a country as large as iran? Well of course there is the chance that the US will back them. If they do attack they will just show that the muslim's rage was justified.Originally posted by: Ero-Fan
Maybe Israel will use it as an excuse to attack. They probably hate this guy anyways.
Here's a pretty comprehensive timeline of all the events so far, compiled by CBC: Timeline.
Maybe someone mentioned it already, but I didn't know that Danish muslims travelled through the middle east at the outset of this with copies of the cartoons to raise protest. "The newspaper wants to prove that they can publish anything they want without fear of violent retaliation from radical muslims. I have a great idea. Let's go to the most violent and extreme muslims we know of and prove the newspaper wrong!" (KitKat's imaginings of what they were thinking.)
With such dedicated and hardworking Danish citizens making it their goal to provoke a response, they shouldn't be surprised when they got more than they bargained for. Or maybe this is what they wanted? I have no idea what they were trying to acheive, but out of everyone I think they were the most irresponsible. I can understand people who are living in troubled countries, already angry and frustrated, lashing out in ways that they know. Violence is not new for a lot of people in these countries. It's part of their lives. However, for citizens of Denmark, they should be held to a different standard. As far as I'm concerned, their actions were criminal. The only logical outcome of what they did was violent retaliation, and Denmark should hold them accountable for that.
So, we should hold different people to different standards, is that the gist of what you're saying? And violence is the only logical outcome to an insult? Wow. Just, wow.
Edit: I wish I could use where I was born or what religion I am as an excuse to commit murder, hold violent protests, and generally wreak havoc because I don't know any better.
"Pudding can't fill the emptiness inside me! But it'll help."
No, I'm saying that violence is the logical outcome of taking offensive cartoons showing the prophet mohammed into muslim countries that are already notorious for violence, and currently have not so great relationships with the rest of the world. And I'm saying that people should be held to the laws of their countries, which are obviously different. Personally, I don't think it's possible to hold everyone in the world to the same standard. There are too many difficulties with that, and it would get extremely complicated very fast. Obviously, there are some standards that the UN has deemed universal, but in my view people in developed countries have much higher levels of priviledge and education, and should have more responsibility and accountability for their actions.
So, how is that an excuse for violence? And its not like those Danish cartoonist took the cartoon to those countries, it was other muslims living in Europe that took those cartoons there. And despite all that, they attacked a foreign embassy, which is considered that country's property. Its also considered to fall under the owning country's laws. So, shall we hold them to the same standards now? Also, what about the protests in European countries that turned violent and had threats made? Are we supposed to excuse it then? And I am sure destruction of foreign property and violence are breaking UN regs.Originally posted by: KitKat
No, I'm saying that violence is the logical outcome of taking offensive cartoons showing the prophet mohammed into muslim countries that are already notorious for violence, and currently have not so great relationships with the rest of the world. And I'm saying that people should be held to the laws of their countries, which are obviously different. Personally, I don't think it's possible to hold everyone in the world to the same standard. There are too many difficulties with that, and it would get extremely complicated very fast. Obviously, there are some standards that the UN has deemed universal, but in my view people in developed countries have much higher levels of priviledge and education, and should have more responsibility and accountability for their actions.
"Pudding can't fill the emptiness inside me! But it'll help."
You misunderstand me [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]
I apologize for making broad sweeping statements. I didn't mean to imply that I condone the violence. What I said is that I can understand it, because of how human nature is, and how people are affected by their environments. I'm not excusing them for their actions. I just don't think it's possible to hold them accountable in the same way that Denmark can hold its citizens accountable. They are a stable peaceful country, with all due processes of law in place to take care of these things. And if you look at my post above you'll see that I was talking about the Danish muslims as being irresponsible.
Get off your high horse, Ero-Fan. Your statements are bordering naivety already. If the people of those countries have lived all their lives in the middle of wars, oppression by dictators and secret police, hunger, diseases, zealous, fundamentalist teaching that could be called brainwashing already, do you seriously expect they should or would still behave exactly like us who only see wars on the TV? For many of them the religion is pretty much everything they have in life.
Things aren't that simple in the real word. No matter if it is acceptable or not, but it was highly expectable nevertheless. And thus natural.
Edit: My bad for that mistake.Originally posted by: KitKat
You misunderstand me
I apologize for making broad sweeping statements. I didn't mean to imply that I condone the violence. What I said is that I can understand it, because of how human nature is, and how people are affected by their environments. I'm not excusing them for their actions. I just don't think it's possible to hold them accountable in the same way that Denmark can hold its citizens accountable. They are a stable peaceful country, with all due processes of law in place to take care of these things. And if you look at my post above you'll see that I was talking about the Danish muslims as being irresponsible.
Ahh. Misunderstandings are so fun. Well, those muslims from Denmark might be to blame, but quite frankly I don't see as how they broke any laws. Unless, of course, the countries they took the cartoon to have laws against bringing in foreign reading material. Yes, I agree they are at fault, but nothing they did was illegal. Instigating a fight through words doesn't put you at fault, but you should know better. And I'm not sure if they were Danish muslims or just from the Middle East and taking it back to their home country. Then again, we see how European muslims have reacted, so I wouldn't be too surpirsed.
Again, I'm not saying all European or Middle Eastern Muslims are violent or evil, just the stupid ones.
Edit2: My high horse, eh? Sorry, but you know what? The peaceful protests that I mentioned before were from Middle Eastern countries. So its not like they all don't know how to behave. And using past abuse as an excuse is just that, an excuse. Real life example: Just because someone was physically abused by their father doesn't make it right to abuse a kid if they have one. But by your explanation, I guess its ok.
"Pudding can't fill the emptiness inside me! But it'll help."
This sums this topic up...Originally posted by: Deadfire
Before an explanation of this subject proceeds, it is important to add this disclaimer: There is always a disconnect between philosophical ideals and political realities. Also, opponents of any belief are apt to describe that belief in different terms from those used by adherents.
I'm still on the idea thats it's not all the muslims that react like what has happen, It's more of the extremists that are, almost just like some of the groups we have in North America that give other groups bad names because they take it to far and go to far with it
image fail!
I've always said its not all of them, only the loudest. I even mention peaceful protests a couple of times, which is fine. I still question the reason for these peaceful protests, but I don't question their methods. Its the violent, threatening protests where I question their methods.
"Pudding can't fill the emptiness inside me! But it'll help."
Oh, is that so? And exactly where in my post did I say it's OK? You can go and check statistics: Abused people are more likely to abuse their own children. I'm sure you are not denying that, are you? What I said is that's it's statistically to be expected. And if you want to close your eyes and say it's not so, it can't be so, it mustn't be so, then you are back on your high horse.Originally posted by: Ero-Fan
And using past abuse as an excuse is just that, an excuse. Real life example: Just because someone was physically abused by their father doesn't make it right to abuse a kid if they have one. But by your explanation, I guess its ok.
People who have a long history of violence in every form are more likely to see violence as a fitting means for every little problem. It would be naive to deny that. You have to accept that, or you can't even do anything about it.
I have never said in any of my posts that I didn't expect it. I always said that they should be held accountable. So explain again how saying people should be held accountable for their actions is me being on my 'high horse'?Originally posted by: Kraco
Oh, is that so? And exactly where in my post did I say it's OK? You can go and check statistics: Abused people are more likely to abuse their own children. I'm sure you are not denying that, are you? What I said is that's it's statistically to be expected. And if you want to close your eyes and say it's not so, it can't be so, it mustn't be so, then you are back on your high horse.Originally posted by: Ero-Fan
And using past abuse as an excuse is just that, an excuse. Real life example: Just because someone was physically abused by their father doesn't make it right to abuse a kid if they have one. But by your explanation, I guess its ok.
People who have a long history of violence in every form are more likely to see violence as a fitting means for every little problem. It would be naive to deny that. You have to accept that, or you can't even do anything about it.
Edit: Oh, and trust me, I know statistics. Doesn't make it 'natural' as you put it, either. Expected? yes. natural? no.
"Pudding can't fill the emptiness inside me! But it'll help."
Oh, well. Perhaps I should have read your posts a bit more carefully. It looks like our dispute doesn't even quite meet head-to-head, making it less than valid. We seem to agree it was expectable, so no use to continue the debate, really. I don't of course undertand the violent demonstrations in such a way that they would be acceptable. But I don't really see how anything could be done to prevent them for a long time.
Yeah, sigh. This is my second misunderstanding with someone in less then 30 minutes. That has got to be a record here! Anyway, I'm not sure there is a way, short of having another crusade in which Islam gets its ass handed to it instead of Catholocism. It seemed to diminish the power of the church quite well. I wouldn't want to see that happen, especially in today's age. Maybe a religious leader charismatic enough could help, but I don't recall if the Islamic faith allows for a leader like a pope to take control. Someone who knows the Koran better than I do maybe could answer that for us.(hint, hint) Oh, well.Originally posted by: Kraco
Oh, well. Perhaps I should have read your posts a bit more carefully. It looks like our dispute doesn't even quite meet head-to-head, making it less than valid. We seem to agree it was expectable, so no use to continue the debate, really. I don't of course undertand the violent demonstrations in such a way that they would be acceptable. But I don't really see how anything could be done to prevent them for a long time.
Edit: I seem to be very good at getting people to hate me rather quickly. Must be a skill of mine. Seems to happen irl too.
"Pudding can't fill the emptiness inside me! But it'll help."
I think they can. Just look at the October War in 1973, where they took on Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan without the US. I don't think size of the population or army really matters, I mean it was a 10 to 1 ratio in this war.Originally posted by: el_boss
Do you really think that israel has the capability to attack a country as large as iran? Well of course there is the chance that the US will back them. If they do attack they will just show that the muslim's rage was justified.Originally posted by: Ero-Fan
Maybe Israel will use it as an excuse to attack. They probably hate this guy anyways.
There is supposed to be one leader for the Muslims, called the Khalifa (anglicised as Caliph). Trouble is since the destruction of the Khilafah (Caliphate) in 1924 there have been many rulers/leaders of the Muslims, all that are not recognised as true rulers of the Muslims in the eyes of Islam by the way. Problem is people like Don Rumsfeld and the rest of the Pentagon seem intent on making all non-Muslims believe that the Caliphate is a terrorist entity because groups like Al Qaeda talk about it as well.Originally posted by: Ero-Fan
Yeah, sigh. This is my second misunderstanding with someone in less then 30 minutes. That has got to be a record here! Anyway, I'm not sure there is a way, short of having another crusade in which Islam gets its ass handed to it instead of Catholocism. It seemed to diminish the power of the church quite well. I wouldn't want to see that happen, especially in today's age. Maybe a religious leader charismatic enough could help, but I don't recall if the Islamic faith allows for a leader like a pope to take control. Someone who knows the Koran better than I do maybe could answer that for us.(hint, hint) Oh, well.Originally posted by: Kraco
Oh, well. Perhaps I should have read your posts a bit more carefully. It looks like our dispute doesn't even quite meet head-to-head, making it less than valid. We seem to agree it was expectable, so no use to continue the debate, really. I don't of course undertand the violent demonstrations in such a way that they would be acceptable. But I don't really see how anything could be done to prevent them for a long time.
Edit: I seem to be very good at getting people to hate me rather quickly. Must be a skill of mine. Seems to happen irl too.
You are touching upon quite a complex subject, which if you delve into will exaplain to you much of the history of the Middle East and the rest of the Muslim world. The Caliphate existed for about 1300 years, and the last 200 years of its history will show you why things are the way they are in the Muslim world today. The Muslim world from being pretty much one State into about 50-60 states, carved up in its final years by the likes of the British Empire, The Russian Empire, the Austro-Hungarian empire and many others. I could really go on and on about this but I think I have answered you question.
Most people don't realize that most Muslims aren't even in the Middle East, they're in Indonesia and India. I don't think it was 50-60 states, but yeah there was a book that was comparing the splitting of countries in the Middle East to the fall of the Roman Empire. It took Europe a couple of centuries to recover and to create stable nation states, so we shouldn't expect the Middle East to be peaceful and stable any time soon.
I went to a lecture for my senior seminar about Shaykh Nazim and Muslim leadership. If you're interested in Muslim leadership you should read about him and Shaykh Khalid.
I have to say I have never heard of these two characters... they have such generic names too. Could you provide a link?Originally posted by: Xollence
I went to a lecture for my senior seminar about Shaykh Nazim and Muslim leadership. If you're interested in Muslim leadership you should read about him and Shaykh Khalid.
Shaykh Khalid had millions of Muslim followers and was a Muslim saint. You can find them both on Google.
----
Oh and if you didn't notice that's not they're full names. Maybe that's why they sound generic.
Ahh, that does answer my question. Thanks, guys. I'll have to look that up sometime.
Edit: By look up, I mean both Shaykh Khalid mentioned and the Khalifa mentioned above. Not that I like religion, but expanding my knowledge of it and other things can never hurt. Besides, I'm bored at work.
"Pudding can't fill the emptiness inside me! But it'll help."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
