Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 6Jesus6Christ6)
    Freedom of speech works both ways, don't cry just because your illogical behaviour is being illuminated.
    You're right, it does. Which is why both ways should be kept.

    Muslims cannot ban people from drawing Muhammad, and I likewise cannot ban muslims or you or anyone from insulting me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    You're right, it does. Which is why both ways should be kept.

    Muslims cannot ban people from drawing Muhammad, and I likewise cannot ban muslims or you or anyone from insulting me.
    Agreed, I'm just calling you out because I feel it's rather needless to go out of one's way to insult and degrade the values that other people hold dear. Given that the vast, vast, vast majority of muslims are peaceful and productive citizens, I don't believe there's anything to gain in going out of my way to insult their prophet.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Clearly they are responsible. However, when we look at at least one of the brothers in earlier material, he comes across as basically a sweet, well-meaning guy. Drastic things have happened in the past to set someone up like that to be so receptive to messages of hate and violence. I am of course not saying it's justified, but I am intrigued by the background to this. We are being sold a French propaganda message - this is all about liberty and equality - vs - medievalism - but it isn't that, at all. It's at least partly about the recent legacy of European colonialism in Africa and the Middle East and at least partly about the French role in it and the refusal of France to address these things.

    They were born in France, but of Muslim Algerian parentage. Algerian violence did not end when the country formally gained 'independence', indeed, it intensified and the country has been wracked with bloodletting ever since. In many aspects, it is strikingly similar to Egypt, another place where Western-backed governments have brutally suppressed Islamic-minded but originally peaceful movements, or at least, neo-rational movements and turned them, like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which inspired much of the violence sweeping the Islamic world now.

    To interpret this as a simple war between high-minded elite French enlightenment and some sort of medieval pseudo-fascism is utterly to miss the point and to wear willful blinkers to the West's part in having developed the situation.
    History is quite simply full of oppression and blood letting and perhaps you wilfully forget the part Islam has played in that since it's inception. Islamist terrorism is a huge problem which must be tackled but your musings do not help to extinguish the atrocities of Islamic "Allahu Akbar!" Terrorism, but only seek to find blame in the Western corner.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marco1)
    History is quite simply full of oppression and blood letting and perhaps you wilfully forget the part Islam has played in that since it's inception. Islamist terrorism is a huge problem which must be tackled but your musings do not help to extinguish the atrocities of Islamic "Allahu Akbar!" Terrorism, but only seek to find blame in the Western corner.
    I totally agree that there are likely to be things within Islamic countries and cultures that have contributed to this. But 50 years ago, there was no Islamic mass-terror against the West. What led to that? That's my question. We should know, because otherwise we are just stumbling around in the dark, not addressing the real issue and continuing to lose, which is basically what is happening. The extreme radicalised version is winning, not just countries (which it is) but people's minds as well.

    We could make a list of likely causes. High on it would be the way that Europe and the US got the sort of governments they wanted in Islamic countries and the way those governments have subsequently treated their own people.

    More recently, we could add into the mix the way the West has responded to waves of anger about this, which has varied between clumsy, dumb and incredibly oppressive.

    We could add onto that the latest responses to the latest outrages.

    Clearly we have a huge problem on our hands. Either we go down a route of ever-increasing ignorance, violence, revenge, more bloodletting and terrible situations in our own countries, or we try different things. Do we really want this country, France, etc, to become Bosnia? Because that's plausibly what we are talking about and I don't mean just because Muslim youth is angry, resentful and potentially violent, although a part of it clearly is.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Itotally agree that there are likely to be things within Islamiccountries and cultures that have contributed to this. But 50 yearsago, there was no Islamic mass-terror against the West. What led tothat? That's my question. We should know, because otherwise we arejust stumbling around in the dark, not addressing the real issue andcontinuing to lose, which is basically what is happening. The extremeradicalised version is winning, not just countries (which it is) butpeople's minds as well.

    We could make a list of likely causes.High on it would be the way that Europe and the US got the sort ofgovernments they wanted in Islamic countries and the way thosegovernments have subsequently treated their own people.

    Morerecently, we could add into the mix the way the West has responded towaves of anger about this, which has varied between clumsy, dumb andincredibly oppressive.

    We could add onto that the latestresponses to the latest outrages.

    Clearly we have a hugeproblem on our hands. Either we go down a route of ever-increasingignorance, violence, revenge, more bloodletting and terriblesituations in our own countries, or we try different things. Do wereally want this country, France, etc, to become Bosnia? Because that's plausibly what we are talking about and I don't mean justbecause Muslim youth is angry, resentful and potentially violent,although a part of it clearly is.



    You seem to suggestislams problems are our problems, No – they have become so recently purely because the islamic world has done absolutly zilch to doanything about their mess. What if the west had done nothing aboutthe naziis, would someone else be expected to clear up that mess?


    And you cant blame theWest either for the rise of islamisc fundamentalism entirely. Yes they may have past flirted with the idea of supporting them ( which agreed was a mistake) purely as an excersise to piss off thecommunist bloc, but the islamists have had their own agendas as soonas they got they own countires to plot in and a steady stream of oilincome. You are fully aware too that islamist ideology has featuredin the last 30 years in various areas other than simply greivancejust against the West
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 6Jesus6Christ6)
    Agreed, I'm just calling you out because I feel it's rather needless to go out of one's way to insult and degrade the values that other people hold dear. Given that the vast, vast, vast majority of muslims are peaceful and productive citizens, I don't believe there's anything to gain in going out of my way to insult their prophet.
    I'm just telling you whilst muslims hold the 'value' 'not drawing the prophet' dear, other people hold the value freedom of expression dear.

    To ask people to respect the former but not the latter is merely asking people to accommodate islamic views.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    In many aspects, it is strikingly similar to Egypt, another place where Western-backed governments have brutally suppressed Islamic-minded but originally peaceful movements, or at least, neo-rational movements and turned them, like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which inspired much of the violence sweeping the Islamic world now.
    Nasser? The man who brutally suppressed the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Assad pere et fils?

    But 50 yearsago, there was no Islamic mass-terror against the West.
    What about 45 years ago? 400 passengers on three airliners hijacked to Jordan.

    Or 130 years ago this month? Chinese Gordon murdered on the steps of his own Residency in Khartoum.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meenglishnogood)
    You seem to suggestislams problems are our problems, No – they have become so recently purely because the islamic world has done absolutly zilch to doanything about their mess. What if the west had done nothing aboutthe naziis, would someone else be expected to clear up that mess?


    And you cant blame theWest either for the rise of islamisc fundamentalism entirely. Yes they may have past flirted with the idea of supporting them ( which agreed was a mistake) purely as an excersise to piss off thecommunist bloc, but the islamists have had their own agendas as soonas they got they own countires to plot in and a steady stream of oilincome. You are fully aware too that islamist ideology has featuredin the last 30 years in various areas other than simply greivancejust against the West
    Of course I am aware - much of it rotates around Israel/Palestine and the way the Palestinians successfully turned their cause into a global Islamic cause.

    However, I am puzzled what you mean when you say 'the Islamic world' as if there is something there that can act. The 'Islamic world' consists of a large number of dictatorships and a few democracies. Most of the dictatorships (in fact, almost all of them) were installed and maintained as part of the cold war, primarily by the West but also by the Soviets in some cases.

    These have evolved into completely corrupt client states, that either promulgate extremist Islam to help maintain their aristocratic ruling class (Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Iran) or else engage in brutal suppression of Muslim Brotherhood-inspired Islamist movements as part of their service to the West (Egypt, Iraq and in the past Turkey, also Algeria and some others) or to the Soviet version of that. (Syria, Iraq)

    Most of the problems that currently exist go to the complete failure of the US to engage Israel determinedly about its treatment of Palestinians and Palestinian lands and also to the dedication of the West to maintaining the corrupt dictatorships in the Arab world. A classic example is the way in which the US has constantly aided and secured the ruling elite of Saudi Arabia, even though that country is a bastion of tyranny and brutal religious extremism. No issues of liberalism there! I am standing by, waiting to hear Obama on the subject, as he rushed to praise the cause of freedom in France, I thought he might mention it.

    How can more rational interpretations of Islam (of which there have been many in the past) possibly succeed in countries dominated by evil governments backed up to the hilt by our comfortable and indifferent countries?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    I'm just telling you whilst muslims hold the 'value' 'not drawing the prophet' dear, other people hold the value freedom of expression dear.

    To ask people to respect the former but not the latter is merely asking people to accommodate islamic views.
    The fact that someone has the right of freedom of expression does not mean that they should exercise that right in a manner that is gratuitously offensive to others.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Nasser? The man who brutally suppressed the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Assad pere et fils?



    What about 45 years ago? 400 passengers on three airliners hijacked to Jordan.

    Or 130 years ago this month? Chinese Gordon murdered on the steps of his own Residency in Khartoum.
    Read my next comment. Nasser was working for the Soviet agenda at the time, which wasn't so different to the Western one, at least in so far as it played out in the Arab world.

    The plane hijackings as you know (but don't say - interesting that) were linked to the PLO and the growth of the Palestinian cause which is at least one proximate cause of the current developments. Perhaps you don't believe they have a cause?

    The Gordon of Khartoum point seems silly to me - of course in the past there have been periodic flare-ups of radicalism in Islam, but are you really not aware that that particular one might not in some way have been related to the struggles against British imperialism and colonialism in Africa? Are you aware of ANY of the real history of this country's activities abroad in the 18th and 19th centuries? I sometimes wonder, because your comments come across more like a Sun journalist than someone really interested in the issues.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The fact that someone has the right of freedom of expression does not mean that they should exercise that right in a manner that is gratuitously offensive to others.
    And this adds to the discussion, how?

    I found your manner gratuitously offensive.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Ofcourse I am aware - much of it rotates around Israel/Palestine andthe way the Palestinians successfully turned their cause into aglobal Islamic cause.
    The Palestinians didnt createthe cause, the gulf arabs did and the islamists, painting it asmuslims fighting for their 'holy land' against the jews, just asmohammed was said to have
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    However,I am puzzled what you mean when you say 'the Islamic world' as ifthere is something there that can act. The 'Islamic world' consistsof a large number of dictatorships and a few democracies. Most of thedictatorships (in fact, almost all of them) were installed andmaintained as part of the cold war, primarily by the West but also bythe Soviets in some cases.
    During WWII deomcracies,monarchise and even socialist dictatorships (plus ill add, a billion or so asians and africans) all come together to fight a nazi Whycant a bunch of muslims come together to change instigate reform intheir society?Make no mistake the scumbag islamists in paris were being comanded by global islamist powers, as are ISIS etc


    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Thesehave evolved into completely corrupt client states, that eitherpromulgate extremist Islam to help maintain their aristocratic rulingclass (Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Iran) or else engage inbrutal suppression of Muslim Brotherhood-inspired Islamist movementsas part of their service to the West (Egypt, Iraq and in the pastTurkey, also Algeria and some others) or to the Soviet version ofthat. (Syria, Iraq) .
    True, but they have all been given theopportunity for democracy, apart from maybe saudi, but then I doubtmost saudis want change. The islamic world is not ready for democracynecessarrily, they have never had it in 1200 years. Mohammed was amilitary dictator was he not, so clealry they are happier with it. Idont care what they have, as long as they dont let their problems spread.




    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Mostof the problems that currently exist go to the complete failure ofthe US to engage Israel determinedly about its treatment ofPalestinians and Palestinian lands and also to the dedication of theWest to maintaining the corrupt dictatorships in the Arab world. Aclassic example is the way in which the US has constantly aided andsecured the ruling elite of Saudi Arabia, even though that country isa bastion of tyranny and brutal religious extremism. No issues ofliberalism there! I am standing by, waiting to hear Obama on thesubject, as he rushed to praise the cause of freedom in France, Ithought he might mention it.
    I agree about Saudi, its a**** hole, run essentially by royals, appeasers of the islamist sunniruling classes. But this here is not about spreading liberalism, itsabout combatting islamism in world politics. I have a bigger issuewith saudis funding of ISIS, and various smaller projects ofspreading islamist influnces through mosques they fund across theglobe , because that all affects us.


    The rest is bull.Palestine is not our responsibility anymore, they dont want us to betheir nannies – they were given a settlement to work out wit thejews, and as soon as israel was formed, all the arabs attacked it.Britain should have accepted there and then it could not solve asectarian hatred that started 1200 years ago with mohammed, it didwhat it needed to do, give both arabs and jews their originalhomelands back. What happens from now is their business, though wecan all sypathise with israels constant fight with islamists, whodont want any jewish state to exist, an attitude no civilisedcountry will accept.


    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Howcan more rational interpretations of Islam (of which there have beenmany in the past) possibly succeed in countries dominated by evilgovernments backed up to the hilt by our comfortable and indifferentcountries?
    what ones have been there in the past ( thatwerent torn up in the rgae of islamist fundamentalism)? Reform cannotcome from minorities, it has to be a majority movement – if we areconstantly told the majority of the islamic world is moderate andabhors islamist activity – when will they put actions behind theirempty soundbytes? Of even denounce the ideology that leads to this? When they eventually do this, there will be no need for the west totravel 1000s of miles to chase their homegrown problems. And thewest has had great success in reforming saudi btw, did you know womencan drive there now? Because of our pressure.Maybe one day they willvote. But why is it always our job – why dont the muslim worldsort themselves out I wonder? How much islamic charity money has gone tohelp terorrists in palestine, compared with nothing that went to womens rights in saudi. Hmm?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 6Jesus6Christ6)
    Whatever kid, if you haven't grown out of atheism by the age of 20, don't expect to make any meaningful mental progress.
    please, do enlighten us about your meaningful mental progress
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The fact that someone has the right of freedom of expression does not mean that they should exercise that right in a manner that is gratuitously offensive to others.
    so, it's a right but it's not a right

    correct ?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    so, it's a right but it's not a right

    correct ?
    you'll have to forgive nulli tertius, he's the product of a gentler age when rights rode happy tandem with responsibilities.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meenglishnogood)
    You seem to suggestislams problems are our problems, No – they have become so recently purely because the islamic world has done absolutly zilch to doanything about their mess. What if the west had done nothing aboutthe naziis, would someone else be expected to clear up that mess?
    I was just thinking a little while ago a similar thing. That the very best way for Islamist terrorism to stop is for the moderate Muslims to band together and rise up and annihilate the problem. It is called for. There are radical groups popping up all over the show and nothing is done! You're right. We got rid of Hitler's lot and it cost us dearly but it was worth it in the long run.
    It's definitely about time Muslims got with the program man and had a big fight with these knobheads. Fat chance of that though, I guess. Instead all they seem to do is put their energies into talking about how afraid they are of increased attacks on peaceful Muslims in the wake of Islamist terrorist atrocities. It naturally leads me to think that moderate Muslims tolerate extremism because at least they are fellow Muslims and not unbelievers. Must be something in the ideology that produces inertia and avoidance of facing up to these jihadist filth.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The fact that someone has the right of freedom of expression does not mean that they should exercise that right in a manner that is gratuitously offensive to others.
    Everyone knows that Muslims have a thing about not drawing their Prophet. So then that's fine, they shouldn't draw him. But no one can tell a non-Muslim what he or she cannot draw. The impudence of some Muslims getting all angry about such things is like a toddler's temper tantrum. I find it very poor behaviour and I am offended by it. It's pathetic coming from grown adults.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    We are being sold a French propaganda message - this is all about liberty and equality - vs - medievalism - but it isn't that, at all. It's at least partly about the recent legacy of European colonialism in Africa and the Middle East and at least partly about the French role in it and the refusal of France to address these things.
    I am struggling to fathom how you have reached that conclusion. The Salman Rushdie affair and the Danish cartoons affair show that it is everything to do with freedom of speech -vs- the fundamentalist adherence to a religion which has yet to undergo an enlightenment in a similar vein to Christianity. History may have put the brothers in a position where they were more susceptible to radicalisation (although I still doubt your claims of a strong causation), but this was motivated by the same irrational religious piety that we saw in the Salman Rushdie affair and the Danish cartoons affair, for which colonial history played a very minimal role.

    To interpret this as a simple war between high-minded elite French enlightenment and some sort of medieval pseudo-fascism is utterly to miss the point and to wear willful blinkers to the West's part in having developed the situation.
    With respect, it seems to me that you are also wearing wilful blinkers, and ignoring precedent for this sort of attack against freedom of speech, in order to find a way to put blame on France for historic events.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    "Gratuitously offensive" is so wholly subjective that many would have to withdraw their right of freedom of expression in order to avoid offending others.
    this is obviously not right. That 'gratuitous' secures the determining as done by the speaker.

    I will tell my children 'don't be afraid to offend' but as well 'don't give offence gratuitously'. It's how my parents taught me.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    so, it's a right but it's not a right

    correct ?
    So one can say or do whatever the hell they like because 'freedom of speech'?..

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 22, 2015
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.