Havent said anything on the whole Paris issue and i just replied to a status with this... enjoy! #jesuischarlie #jesuistoutlemonde I like the ideas of empathizing with the terrorists (and yes i used that term on purpose) because essentially they were attacking unarmed people who were expressing an opinion, theyre using terror to silence, oppress and deter others from such activities. Yes i agree it is almost bullying in a sense and is distasteful but Charlie Hebdo bully everyone, their purpose is to satirically mock peoples beliefs and ideas which is a big part of the secular philosophy of France. Whether they took it too far.. maybe? But the problem is designating Muslims a certain right to not be criticized which goes against equality and freedom of speech; the problem is where does it end? What can/cant you say and then how do you align this with other satire about other religions. You said that Muslims dont have a platform, but I dont know of anyone stopping Muslims getting involved in debates (and people like Medhi Hassan does with great success in my opinion) I agree the media is terrible and exacerbates islamaphobia, but in the interest of empathy, think about Jews in Paris who have to worry about they will be shot at their local supermarket? However i do agree about, who are the real terrorists? and Medhi Hassan showed that many terrorists attacks by muslims were politically motivated, hence the main issue... western exploitation of the arab world. But that unfortunately is less interesting for the west as its not so close to home. There are A LOT of semantics and nuances of these arguments that we could discuss but in my opinion the main issue with western-homed terrorists is a clash of culture and society. Throughout the arab world (depending on how liberal the country is) Islam is either the law literally or underpins much of their society, religion isnt just a belief its a way of life in EVERY sense, clothing, eating, social interactions etc etc. which is becoming polar opposite to the west whos increasing secular nature is to do what you want when you want within the parameters of the law. So to come from these countries with constricting laws to a society with a complete difference in moral values, of course the place you live in (the west) will potentially disgust them. I feel sorry for many Muslims because of this cognitive dissonance, they live somewhere that im sure they enjoy the luxuries of yet (if they truely believe the Koran and Islam) they are living sinfully everyday by just being in these countries. The majority deal with it in whatever way they want to yet some are brainwashed by clerics and resort to this violence in the name of Allah. I respect and dislike Islam at the same time more than other religions for not updating their religion like Christianity seems to adapt tot he 21st century. To talk about freedom of speech, if you shouted f*** in the middle of the morning of course youll get funny looks, and im sure charlie hebdo were used to condemnation. BUT you wouldnt expect someone to turn around and shoot you for it. I think if you are purposefully antagonizing people to their face, e.g. selling charlie hebdo magazine outside a mosque then yes retribution is likely and understandable. If these terrorists didnt like what CH were printing then dont buy/read the magazine! If they want some sort of legal retribution they can pursue legal action against CH for discrimination or something along these lines (dont know the laws in and out) but to kill people because they express something you find offensive is barbaric. Western societies have allowed freedom of speech which maybe should be restricted to some extent like you said, but thats another discussion in itself. However to say freedom of speech isnt a right because other places around the world dont have it is a fallacy, because it is a right but other countries suppress this right! Like food and water is a right yet many people dont have access to these in less develop countries, does this make it any less of a right? I think freedom of speech is a paradox around this issue of extremism and terrorism because hate preachers like anjem choudary are allowed to radicalise young Muslim men as he isnt breaking the law because of the freedom of speech act allowing him to say what he wants. So maybe youre right, freedom of speech should be changed to freedom of discussion to stop the polarization of extremes. Either way I think everything would be better if the west hadnt F***ed up the arab world in the first place leading to a less resentful Muslim population in the west as well more social cohesion because of a less us and them mentality.
Posted on: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 18:35:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015