+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: US ambassador killed over a film (/thread-14167.html)
RE: US ambassador killed over a film - shoju - 09-14-2012
(09-14-2012, 04:34 PM)ShadowHM Wrote:(09-14-2012, 02:49 PM)shoju Wrote: I'm crossposting this from Maintankadin. One of the members over there is a Marine, currently stationed abroad (not in Libya). He took some time and gave us a breakdown of what happened in Libya.
It offers a little more insight into things, including the culture of Libya, and some other information that shoots shows that while the protest was about the movie, the attack was more than just a protest gone wrong.
Thank you very much for sharing this, shoju.
Sure.
I have much respect for the poster who took the time to post this. I may not always agree with him, but his outlook on a portion of the world that he has spent much of his enlisted time in the Marines in has been a breath of fresh air.
And referencing Tal's link, Yesterday on CNN (At least the international edition, there were a few stories about the crew disowning the movie, and pointing at this very thing. I'm starting to see more and more stories come out about it.
RE: US ambassador killed over a film - kandrathe - 09-14-2012
(09-13-2012, 11:00 PM)shoju Wrote: You missed the point man.No, I didn't.
I linked to Steve Klein, because I think this group is more responsible. Is Klein a Copt? No.
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was the film maker, but he doesn't represent Coptic Christians. He may be one, and by his criminal past, not a very good one. Does it matter that Breivik was a Lutheran? Not really. It's the hate part that should be emphasized here. Being a Copt doesn't make him an extremist anti-Islamic radical -- hanging out with Steve Klein did that.
So, when we, or Huffy post exclaim "Egyptian Coptic Chistians" do a horrible thing, we denigrate Egyptian and California Coptic Christians and put them at risk of reprisals. It exacerbates the problems.
This is a right wing, Christian militia, anti-Islamic extremist bunch of crap. These groups are in the twisted fringe, as are the Islamic fundamentalist extremists. So, let's not get sucked into the propaganda war between Christian and Islamic extremists, and inadvertently help them with their hate mongering, eh?
RE: US ambassador killed over a film - shoju - 09-14-2012
(09-14-2012, 05:13 PM)kandrathe Wrote:(09-13-2012, 11:00 PM)shoju Wrote: You missed the point man.No, I didn't.
I linked to Steve Klein, because I think this group is more responsible. Is Klein a Copt? No.
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was the film maker, but he doesn't represent Coptic Christians. He may be one, and by his criminal past, not a very good one. Does it matter that Breivik was a Lutheran? Not really. It's the hate part that should be emphasized here. Being a Copt doesn't make him an extremist anti-Islamic radical -- hanging out with Steve Klein did that.
So, when we, or Huffy post exclaim "Egyptian Coptic Chistians" do a horrible thing, we denigrate Egyptian and California Coptic Christians and put them at risk of reprisals. It exacerbates the problems.
This is a right wing, Christian militia, anti-Islamic extremist bunch of crap. These groups are in the twisted fringe, as are the Islamic fundamentalist extremists. So, let's not get sucked into the propaganda war between Christian and Islamic extremists, and inadvertently help them with their hate mongering, eh?
Really? So... What you are telling me, is that Being a Coptic Christian FROM EGYPT in no way shape or form influenced his decisions? That is was all "hanging with someone else?"
I'm not blaming his Coptic Christian heritage. I NEVER said that "All Coptic Christians" do these things. Just like I never argued that Breivik represented ALL Lutherans.
But I will say, that his Coptic Christian Roots, given the right nudge, moved him into an extremist category.
I think you are confusing me with Ashock or something. I was the one arguing that even Christianity has it's religious extremist zealots who will go to extremes.
I'm not Anti-Christian. I'm not Anti-Muslim. I'm not Anti-Hindu. I'm not Anti-Buddhist. I'm Anti-Extremist, and maybe even a little Anti-Fundamentalism.
But to paint my remarks as being Anti-Christian and bigoted misses what I'm saying completely. In a thread where I've argued that there ARE Christian Extremists, and then I point out, that the man who made this, is in fact a Christian Extremist, is not bigoted.
RE: US ambassador killed over a film - Ashock - 09-14-2012
You people are still skirting the real issue here.
What kind of people go nuts in the tens or hundreds of thousands over a movie? Any movie. It is irrelevant as to the movie being right or wrong. It is the reaction. No sane individuals would ever go crazy like this over a movie.
Of course there are always a few nuts in any group. But a few is a few. A group that is always so angry about every little perceived insult is a group of beings who do not deserve to be a part of the civilized world. And why should they? They do not exhibit the behavior of civilized people.
You guys want to compare one or two Christian nuts who bombed abortion clinics to hundreds of thousands of violent fanatics and you want to say that that is equivalent?
You want to convince yourselves that those few that were upset by this event make up for those who are going crazy right now in much higher numbers? Would that make you people feel better about your views? Yes, see they ARE a peaceful religion!!!
You people only see what you believe. You do not believe what you see.
RE: US ambassador killed over a film - FireIceTalon - 09-14-2012
(09-14-2012, 10:15 PM)Ashock Wrote: You people are still skirting the real issue here.
What kind of people go nuts in the tens or hundreds of thousands over a movie? Any movie. It is irrelevant as to the movie being right or wrong. It is the reaction. No sane individuals would ever go crazy like this over a movie.
Of course there are always a few nuts in any group. But a few is a few. A group that is always so angry about every little perceived insult is a group of beings who do not deserve to be a part of the civilized world. And why should they? They do not exhibit the behavior of civilized people.
You guys want to compare one or two Christian nuts who bombed abortion clinics to hundreds of thousands of violent fanatics and you want to say that that is equivalent?
You want to convince yourselves that those few that were upset by this event make up for those who are going crazy right now in much higher numbers? Would that make you people feel better about your views? Yes, see they ARE a peaceful religion!!!
You people only see what you believe. You do not believe what you see.
We already established there are no such thing as peaceful religions. Just about all of them, in some form or another, have bloodshed in their history. Your precious Christianity included, and perhaps especially so.
All your statements are shallow and full of sweeping generalizations and affirmation of consequents - something tells me you do not know how to think critically about issues like these, or that you know what critical thinking is period.
It is because of the type of philosophy that YOU propagate in part as to why they hate us so much. Your thinking isn't part of the solution, it is in fact part of the problem. It isn't that we do not believe what we see, it is that you are still stuck in Plato's Cave stroking it to Sean Hannity and the rest of the Fox News pundits.
RE: US ambassador killed over a film - Taem - 09-15-2012
(09-14-2012, 10:52 PM)FireIceTalon Wrote:(09-14-2012, 10:15 PM)Ashock Wrote: You people are still skirting the real issue here.
What kind of people go nuts in the tens or hundreds of thousands over a movie? Any movie. It is irrelevant as to the movie being right or wrong. It is the reaction. No sane individuals would ever go crazy like this over a movie.
Of course there are always a few nuts in any group. But a few is a few. A group that is always so angry about every little perceived insult is a group of beings who do not deserve to be a part of the civilized world. And why should they? They do not exhibit the behavior of civilized people.
You guys want to compare one or two Christian nuts who bombed abortion clinics to hundreds of thousands of violent fanatics and you want to say that that is equivalent?
You want to convince yourselves that those few that were upset by this event make up for those who are going crazy right now in much higher numbers? Would that make you people feel better about your views? Yes, see they ARE a peaceful religion!!!
You people only see what you believe. You do not believe what you see.
We already established there are no such thing as peaceful religions. Just about all of them, in some form or another, have bloodshed in their history. Your precious Christianity included, and perhaps especially so.
All your statements are shallow and full of sweeping generalizations and affirmation of consequents - something tells me you do not know how to think critically about issues like these, or that you know what critical thinking is period.
It is because of the type of philosophy that YOU propagate in part as to why they hate us so much. Your thinking isn't part of the solution, it is in fact part of the problem. It isn't that we do not believe what we see, it is that you are still stuck in Plato's Cave stroking it to Sean Hannity and the rest of the Fox News pundits.
Lol, gawd your such a dick sometimes FIT. I love this place! I highlighted the part of your statement I do agree with, but let's be honest here, Ashock does have a point re: the volatile state of affairs in the middle-east. But where does his thinking lead? The only place thinking like that eventually leads is to genocide, so it's not constructive thinking. I believe he's just ranting about the issue without presenting a solution. We're obviously all on edge about it. The people/culture in the middle-east is very volatile, and nobody can dispute that, so if Ashock is arguing that the middle east is a very volatile place, then he is correct, but this is an already known fact. The real question is, what to do about it? How do we foreigners (Americans, Canadians, English, Germans, French, etc.) deal with this situation? The flash-mob also bombarded the German embassy today so, it isn't just an American problem, but a worldwide issue. Is it necessary for the U.N. to develop a special standard - biased because it profiles this group of people - when dealing with this specific culture (culture = the people and their religion, since they are so intertwined)? I don't have the answers, but theses are the types of hard-hitting questions that need to be answered before the middle-east can be dealt with. Otherwise, the whole situation is a political/religious ticking time-bomb waiting to either be diffused or blown up!
RE: US ambassador killed over a film - FireIceTalon - 09-15-2012
(09-15-2012, 12:56 AM)Taem Wrote:(09-14-2012, 10:52 PM)FireIceTalon Wrote:(09-14-2012, 10:15 PM)Ashock Wrote: You people are still skirting the real issue here.
What kind of people go nuts in the tens or hundreds of thousands over a movie? Any movie. It is irrelevant as to the movie being right or wrong. It is the reaction. No sane individuals would ever go crazy like this over a movie.
Of course there are always a few nuts in any group. But a few is a few. A group that is always so angry about every little perceived insult is a group of beings who do not deserve to be a part of the civilized world. And why should they? They do not exhibit the behavior of civilized people.
You guys want to compare one or two Christian nuts who bombed abortion clinics to hundreds of thousands of violent fanatics and you want to say that that is equivalent?
You want to convince yourselves that those few that were upset by this event make up for those who are going crazy right now in much higher numbers? Would that make you people feel better about your views? Yes, see they ARE a peaceful religion!!!
You people only see what you believe. You do not believe what you see.
We already established there are no such thing as peaceful religions. Just about all of them, in some form or another, have bloodshed in their history. Your precious Christianity included, and perhaps especially so.
All your statements are shallow and full of sweeping generalizations and affirmation of consequents - something tells me you do not know how to think critically about issues like these, or that you know what critical thinking is period.
It is because of the type of philosophy that YOU propagate in part as to why they hate us so much. Your thinking isn't part of the solution, it is in fact part of the problem. It isn't that we do not believe what we see, it is that you are still stuck in Plato's Cave stroking it to Sean Hannity and the rest of the Fox News pundits.
Lol, gawd your such a dick sometimes FIT. I love this place! I highlighted the part of your statement I do agree with, but let's be honest here, Ashock does have a point re: the volatile state of affairs in the middle-east. But where does his thinking lead? The only place thinking like that eventually leads is to genocide, so it's not constructive thinking. I believe he's just ranting about the issue without presenting a solution. We're obviously all on edge about it. The people/culture in the middle-east is very volatile, and nobody can dispute that, so if Ashock is arguing that the middle east is a very volatile place, then he is correct, but this is an already known fact. The real question is, what to do about it? How do we foreigners (Americans, Canadians, English, Germans, French, etc.) deal with this situation? The flash-mob also bombarded the German embassy today so, it isn't just an American problem, but a worldwide issue. Is it necessary for the U.N. to develop a special standard - biased because it profiles this group of people - when dealing with this specific culture (culture = the people and their religion, since they are so intertwined)? I don't have the answers, but theses are the types of hard-hitting questions that need to be answered before the middle-east can be dealt with. Otherwise, the whole situation is a political/religious ticking time-bomb waiting to either be diffused or blown up!
LOL, I couldn't resist with that last comment. But in all seriousness, his thinking is the very type I see all the time, and it really annoys me to no end. It's that same "lets blow them all to kingdom come and turn that place into a parking lot" mentality that many reactionaries have.
There are things about Middle Eastern culture that I deplore - in particular how they treat their women and the very strong constraints they put on their citizens personal freedom. But you know what? They can easily say the same thing about us - we are an extremely racist, homophobic, sexist, and bigoted nation also. We shun the poor and very often we victimize the victims, and we keep our citizenry dumbed down with anti-intellectualism, commodity fetishism, and a heavy-handed police state to protect plutocratic interests, much in the same way they keep their citizens ignorant through their religion and state force. They teach religion to kids there at a very young age to indoctrinate them, much like we teach our kids discipline, patriotism, and to respect authority here while they are young. In short, our culture is every bit as volatile as theirs, we are really in no position to be pointing fingers.
The culture war is a joke really, but somehow we think we can go over there, and just change thousands of years of culture over night by force - well, the hard reality is, we cannot. I don't like how they run things over there, but guess what? It isn't our job to fix it, not right now anyway. But we are over there of course to expand capital interests, and we use culture wars and clever terms like "regime change" and "democracy" to cover it up.
RE: US ambassador killed over a film - shoju - 09-15-2012
(09-14-2012, 10:15 PM)Ashock Wrote: You people are still skirting the real issue here.
What kind of people go nuts in the tens or hundreds of thousands over a movie? Any movie. It is irrelevant as to the movie being right or wrong. It is the reaction. No sane individuals would ever go crazy like this over a movie.
Of course there are always a few nuts in any group. But a few is a few. A group that is always so angry about every little perceived insult is a group of beings who do not deserve to be a part of the civilized world. And why should they? They do not exhibit the behavior of civilized people.
You guys want to compare one or two Christian nuts who bombed abortion clinics to hundreds of thousands of violent fanatics and you want to say that that is equivalent?
You want to convince yourselves that those few that were upset by this event make up for those who are going crazy right now in much higher numbers? Would that make you people feel better about your views? Yes, see they ARE a peaceful religion!!!
You people only see what you believe. You do not believe what you see.
2 People? The group in 1984 was 4 people (2 men, 2 women), so right there, it shows that you aren't even taking the time to read anything that has been posted for you to read, let alone look at any of the other evidence, and other forms of extremism that has been linked for you to look at.
If you aren't going to take the time to read, you are being willfully ignorant, and in this case, you are being willfully ignorant because you think that it's helping your cause.
I'm done responding to you. If you want to be willfully ignorant, that's your business, but you are the only one in this thread who thinks that you are even remotely, possibly, have some sort of leg to stand on anymore.
RE: US ambassador killed over a film - DeeBye - 09-15-2012
(09-14-2012, 10:15 PM)Ashock Wrote: You people are still skirting the real issue here.
What kind of people go nuts in the tens or hundreds of thousands over a movie? Any movie. It is irrelevant as to the movie being right or wrong. It is the reaction. No sane individuals would ever go crazy like this over a movie.
I totally agree with you on this point. I posted this Onion link earlier in this thread (which hits the nail right on the head), but I guess no one saw it or otherwise cared to comment.
RE: US ambassador killed over a film - Taem - 09-15-2012
(09-15-2012, 02:52 AM)DeeBye Wrote:(09-14-2012, 10:15 PM)Ashock Wrote: You people are still skirting the real issue here.
What kind of people go nuts in the tens or hundreds of thousands over a movie? Any movie. It is irrelevant as to the movie being right or wrong. It is the reaction. No sane individuals would ever go crazy like this over a movie.
I totally agree with you on this point. I posted this Onion link earlier in this thread (which hits the nail right on the head), but I guess no one saw it or otherwise cared to comment.
I believe both FIT and I did comment on the concept: how far do you want to take it? What's the next step with "that" logic?
Ashock Wrote:A group that is always so angry about every little perceived insult is a group of beings who do not deserve to be a part of the civilized world.
Can you tell where "this" leads? That logic is not part of the solution. Complaining about the issues with the Arabic community in general is obviously not that big of a deal, but suggesting they somehow be ostracized from society? What immediately comes to mind here is the Native Indians in America, Hawaii, and Australia. It's true there has to be a way to deal with people who think like they [middle-eastern] do, but without a true standard that upholds the virtues the rest of civilized society holds true (personal respect, i.e. not-stereotyping, not-profiling, not-segregating), then obviously we are at a stalemate. The fact is, we as a concerned world-wide entity have to establish a way to communicate on their level, and if that means treating middle-eastern's a certain way to get results, then that possibility really needs to be explored; the status quo of treating the middle-east with the same respect as our neighbors isn't working too well for anyone at the moment. I suppose the real question is what's a good way to go about drafting a proposition for something like this? I can't think of any that aren't overtly prejudiced, and thus bound to be rejected anyhow, can you?
RE: US ambassador killed over a film - FireIceTalon - 09-15-2012
Nah, I have him on ignore. No idea he even posted it.
RE: US ambassador killed over a film - shoju - 09-15-2012
(09-15-2012, 02:52 AM)DeeBye Wrote:(09-14-2012, 10:15 PM)Ashock Wrote: You people are still skirting the real issue here.
What kind of people go nuts in the tens or hundreds of thousands over a movie? Any movie. It is irrelevant as to the movie being right or wrong. It is the reaction. No sane individuals would ever go crazy like this over a movie.
I totally agree with you on this point. I posted this Onion link earlier in this thread (which hits the nail right on the head), but I guess no one saw it or otherwise cared to comment.
Except Catholics have gone out in droves in recent memory to protest films that were far less offensive.
And there is a massive culture difference between fundamentalist and non fundamentalist countries.
And the film was unbelievably offensive to them. Seriously. To get to this level of offensiveness for a catholic / christian, you would have to make a film about jesus where he went into the temple, and was tag teaming mary magdaline with john the baptist, while they did incredibly awful, things to children.
Then, we might be getting to the point where it would be offensive, but not quite, because Christianity allows people to "make art" of Christ, while Islam expressly, and specifically forbids it. Even in a "positive light".
If you actually take the time to understand what the religion is all about, and how they do have this incredibly strict code of things, and then add in that it isn't just a religion in this part of the world, it is the way of life, and you can begin to fathom why it is such a big deal to them.
RE: US ambassador killed over a film - Ashock - 09-17-2012
(09-15-2012, 08:09 PM)shoju Wrote:(09-15-2012, 02:52 AM)DeeBye Wrote:(09-14-2012, 10:15 PM)Ashock Wrote: You people are still skirting the real issue here.
What kind of people go nuts in the tens or hundreds of thousands over a movie? Any movie. It is irrelevant as to the movie being right or wrong. It is the reaction. No sane individuals would ever go crazy like this over a movie.
I totally agree with you on this point. I posted this Onion link earlier in this thread (which hits the nail right on the head), but I guess no one saw it or otherwise cared to comment.
Except Catholics have gone out in droves in recent memory to protest films that were far less offensive.
And there is a massive culture difference between fundamentalist and non fundamentalist countries.
And the film was unbelievably offensive to them. Seriously. To get to this level of offensiveness for a catholic / christian, you would have to make a film about jesus where he went into the temple, and was tag teaming mary magdaline with john the baptist, while they did incredibly awful, things to children.
Then, we might be getting to the point where it would be offensive, but not quite, because Christianity allows people to "make art" of Christ, while Islam expressly, and specifically forbids it. Even in a "positive light".
If you actually take the time to understand what the religion is all about, and how they do have this incredibly strict code of things, and then add in that it isn't just a religion in this part of the world, it is the way of life, and you can begin to fathom why it is such a big deal to them.
How many people were killed in that Catholic protest? How violent was that protest? You don't see a difference between a protest and mass violence?
I am unhappy about a lot of things in this world, but I don't go around shooting people, burning property and inciting others to do the same. If I come over and tell you that your grandpa is a moron and in retaliation you come over to my grandfather and shoot him in the face, do you think that those are equivalent actions?
Muslims have been calling for death to Christians, killing foreigners, persecuting Christians for many years. Do we riot here or in Europe and attack their embassies? Do we call for DEATH TO IRAN, SYRIA, YEMEN on the streets, while buring their flags and killing their councilate workers?
You are a lost cause.
RE: US ambassador killed over a film - shoju - 09-17-2012
(09-17-2012, 06:25 PM)Ashock Wrote: How many people were killed in that Catholic protest? How violent was that protest? You don't see a difference between a protest and mass violence?
Yes. because everyone that was there was involved in the assault right? Every single person there was storming the place, and blowing people up right? Again, you want to lump everyone into your hate bubble.
Quote:I am unhappy about a lot of things in this world, but I don't go around shooting people, burning property and inciting others to do the same. If I come over and tell you that your grandpa is a moron and in retaliation you come over to my grandfather and shoot him in the face, do you think that those are equivalent actions?
Again. You are trying to lump everyone in with the extremists, and when someone points out when you are wrong, that there are extremists everywhere, in every religion, you just shut your eyes, and plug your ears, and scream
NANANANANANANNANANANANANANANANANANANANANNANANANANANANANANANNANAN I"M RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG NANANANANANANANANANANANANANNANANANANANANANANANANNANANANANANANANANA! Like a 2 year old.
Did you BOTHER to read what I posted previously? From someone who isn't part of the media, who actually took the time to talk to people? No? Right... Because you're too busy telling everyone how right you are, that you don't want to possibly read something that could prove you are wrong.
No. I wouldn't expect that would be right. But, I would expect, that if I did in fact insult your family, you and I would probably have words. When amplified, to something that offends a culture, I would expect it to end up in a protest.
The extremists, would go to your grandpa's neighbors house, and kill all of them, while they forced your grandpa to watch, and said "Tell your grandson to stop being offensive, or we'll keep killing people you know."
Which... is pretty much what happened. And like I, and Kevin have alluded to before, The Muslim world is going through a MASSIVE change. The place where this took happen is just rife with tension over a civil war. The same came be said for the protests that took place in Egypt. But you want to discount that ifnormation, because it speaks to the larger picture, and puts holes in your "ISLAM IS EVIL!!!!!!!!!111!!!11!!!" ideology.
Quote:Muslims have been calling for death to Christians, killing foreigners, persecuting Christians for many years. Do we riot here or in Europe and attack their embassies? Do we call for DEATH TO IRAN, SYRIA, YEMEN on the streets, while buring their flags and killing their councilate workers?
And Christian Ministers have been fearmongering about muslims since who knows when. I remember as a kid, I was taught all the time: Catholics, Jews, Muslims, are all going to hell. Don't be friends with them. Don't listen to what they say about God. They are wrong. They are corrupted. They are twisted. They pray to idols, and believe in terrible things. You know why? Because even though they believed in the same God that I did, They didn't believe in all the finer details the same way I did, and you know what they say; The Devil is in the Details.
The difference, between "Us" and "Them" as you like to call it, is that there society is still fundamentalist. Their "pastors" double as their politicial leaders. The religion, is still catching up with the times, because their fundamentalism has made them xenophobic and isolationist. They look at what we do, and they hate it, because it has broken from the tenants of their religion. The arab spring was the beginning of their cultural revolution. Things are changing for them.
But you can't be bothered to look at the big picture. The culture, the society, the "details". You want to paint everyone with broad strokes, because their fanatacists, zealots, and extremists do awful, terribly, mind blowingly catastrophic things.
Between 1,000, and 700 years ago, a similar war happened against the muslims. It was blessed by the pope himself. A few hundred years later, the protestant reformation began, and the catholic church as a whole began to wield less and less power in the world. If you look at history, and compare it to what has happened recently in the Muslim world, you could think that a very similar set of events are happening. The religion is morphing, and there are calls for more moderate views. There are actions taken against the moderates. Things are changing. But this time, instead of being in a technologically deficient society, it is happening in the digital age.
Quote:You are a lost cause.
No sir. I'm not a lost cause, just because I don't hold your bigoted beliefs to be my own. Your constant sticking with the same arguments, and your lack of desire to actually read what is put in front of you, and maintain your willfully ignorant stance in front of heaping evidence is ghastly. Your desire to be bigoted towards billions of people because of the actions of their extremists, without looking at the evidence that has been given to you that would explain the contrary is mind boggling.
I leave you with one final thought.
Mr. Ashock, the view that you have espoused in this thread is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent responses were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
RE: US ambassador killed over a film - Bolty - 09-17-2012
(09-17-2012, 07:02 PM)shoju Wrote: Mr. Ashock, the view that you have espoused in this thread is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent responses were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I love that scene. Not commenting on the dispute here between shoju and Ashock; just saying I love that scene.
I think a main point that so many people overlook is that there are a number of societies in the Middle East that are built upon a power structure that is dependent on the majority of their citizens to be in a constant state of external blame. As long as focus is kept elsewhere, the people will not realize how poorly they are being treated by their leaderships, and will not focus internally to see how they are being taken advantage of. This goes on everywhere, by the way, to different extents. Something has to keep the proles in line. In America, we have TV, abortion debates, sports, and other distractions. In other countries, we have...hatred of other people and violent fundamentalism. Whatever works, right?
Blaming that on religion is, in my opinion, false. Religion is simply the tool used by the ruling elite; if religion were not available, it would be something else.
RE: US ambassador killed over a film - NuurAbSaal - 09-17-2012
(09-17-2012, 08:15 PM)Bolty Wrote: snip
I quite enjoy this scene.
take care
Tarabulus
RE: US ambassador killed over a film - kandrathe - 09-17-2012
Hezbollah leader delivers rare public speech
The stakes are high. The leader of Hezbollah, and other Islamic leaders are asking the free world to write laws limiting the freedom of speech with regards to anything perceived insulting to Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. Of course, then one must ask about those omitted such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and the diaspora of regional minority faiths.
Those who identify with Christianity comprises about 1/3 of the world population, Islam is comprises about 1/5, and Judaism is .2% -- That leaves about 1/2 the world's people in the remaining or no faith categories.
As to the conversation or implication that Islam is more violent, I think there is a grain of truth. However, I don't think it's a result of a religion per se, but more related to the history, and the way in which power is meted out in the Middle East, compared to Western culture and democracies. There are non-Islamic countries where the mob response and resort to violence as a means of expression are just as likely.
Only by cultivating a culture of peace will people become comfortable with peaceful expression, and find violence reprehensible. In some more tribal cultures, you are not considered a "man" unless you carry at least a knife, if not a loaded AK47 -- and are willing to use them if ANYONE insults your honor (of that of your family or faith). The reliance on administering justice (personally or by mob) comes from a lack of experience or faith in the local, national, or international rule of law.
In this case, right to free expression, to insult a religion, trumps any right to not be offended by that speech. They will not get satisfaction from our notions of freedom and law here -- so they will seek justice in their own way and in the manner they are accustomed. In our 24-hour news though, we are only shown those places where shocking things are happening. It would be a pretty boring news report from the streets of Malaysia, where people are going about their business as usual. Such as... Malaysians Pray Against Prophet Film -- Oh, my! Get the film truck!
And, if you look, you would find other peaceful Middle Eastern Islamic nations (e.g. Bahrain) and non-western peaceful multicultural Islamic nations (e.g. Malaysia ) where various religions are constitutionally protected and practiced.
But, in the US it's 2012, and we don't get it. We used to settle disputes of honor through armed combat, even into the late 1880's -- we've just moved away from it as we've become comfortable with the rule of law (and order). It shouldn't shock us that there is much of the world out of sync with European (including US, Australia, and some other former colonies) notions of freedom of expression. There is also much of the world that is out of sync with our ideas on human rights, including equality for women.
RE: US ambassador killed over a film - FireIceTalon - 09-17-2012
(09-17-2012, 06:25 PM)Ashock Wrote: Do we call for DEATH TO IRAN, SYRIA, YEMEN on the streets, while buring their flags and killing their councilate workers?
3 words: The Tea Party.
(09-17-2012, 08:15 PM)Bolty Wrote:(09-17-2012, 07:02 PM)shoju Wrote: Mr. Ashock, the view that you have espoused in this thread is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent responses were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I love that scene. Not commenting on the dispute here between shoju and Ashock; just saying I love that scene.
I think a main point that so many people overlook is that there are a number of societies in the Middle East that are built upon a power structure that is dependent on the majority of their citizens to be in a constant state of external blame. As long as focus is kept elsewhere, the people will not realize how poorly they are being treated by their leaderships, and will not focus internally to see how they are being taken advantage of. This goes on everywhere, by the way, to different extents. Something has to keep the proles in line. In America, we have TV, abortion debates, sports, and other distractions. In other countries, we have...hatred of other people and violent fundamentalism. Whatever works, right?
Blaming that on religion is, in my opinion, false. Religion is simply the tool used by the ruling elite; if religion were not available, it would be something else.
Yep. I dislike religion, but more for the fact it is grounded in total Idealism and not reality (materialism), than because it is used as a tool by the ruling class to discourage critical thinking. Without an oppressive state to propagate it, religion would probably be a relatively harmless thing - which is why I think it would (and should be) tolerated in a Communist society, just as it should be in the current system. Iran uses fundamentalist Islam to control its citizens, we use Nationalism/Patriotism with a small dose of Christianity to control ours - both are forms of Idealism, different in nature but used to accomplish the same thing. The State itself however, is much more problematic than the Idealism is.
Heaven forbid (pun intended) the Proletarian ever achieves a high level of class consciousness, and the ruling class will certainly have very much to fear.
RE: US ambassador killed over a film - Taem - 09-17-2012
(09-17-2012, 09:53 PM)FireIceTalon Wrote: Without an oppressive state to propagate it, religion would probably be a relatively harmless thing - which is why I think it would (and should be) tolerated in a Communist society.
If religion were based on any scientific facts whatsoever, then I might agree, however I can't see for the life of me how anyone with any intelligence to read would ever believe in what is written in the old testament, and I'm not saying this lightly or in an ad hominem way, nor am I trying to attack any particular group or person by making that statement. My integrity comes from the document I wrote showing the history of how the Judeo-Christian (the Old Testament which is used by the Jews, the Muslims, and the Christians) bible came to be, but apparently people are going to believe what they want to believe instead of looking at the hard evidence. I showed my mother and mother-in-law - both devout Christians - the truth, and because they grew up in a Christian household and had Christian friends, they couldn't conceive of a lifestyle that didn't have Christianity involved, but they acknowledged the facts I brought to the table and now admit the bible was most likely made by man, but they feel elements of god can still be gleamed from the verses. To each his own. The point is, FIT, you cannot "reach" religious people at all, period (see Point #3)! Rather you talk to a Christians, Muslims or Jews of the Judeo-based faith, the thinking and logic are all the same and almost always based on faith and anecdotal experiences these people have had that make them "know" their faith is deserved and right. Here is a link to ONLY the page for HOW THE BIBLE WAS CREATED (link) that I made; I hope those hyperlinks still work.
Points:
1) THE GOD EXPERIENCE (link)
The phenomena of "feeling" gods presence can be documented with an EKG machine, and that same state can be achieved through meditation by non-believer also. That wave of euphoria, that feeling of being close to a higher-power... all in the mind. Prayer can be like a drug/sex to the brain! (link) Read both links before commenting!
2) FAITH BY WORKS (link)
People who want to believe in a deity will believe what they want to believe; what this means is, because all Good = from God, and all Bad = from Satan, then of course when something happens in your life that you have been praying about, and it "miraculously" comes true, then the incident is labeled in your brain as god influenced. When something negative happens in your life or your prayers are not answered, these events are forgotten about in terms of your deities effects on your life. So what am I saying? There are no miracles, only peoples perceptions of events, and desire to believe. By associating only the positive experiences with a deity, it's easy to see how people can "feel" the hand of god working in their lives, when in reality it is the power of the mind at work.
3) CONTROL = HATE
I've been to a lot of churches in my lifetime, raised Christian and having attended many modern churches and Baptist churches, as well as having gone to many friends churches whom are Catholic, Jehovah's Witness, and Presbyterian. I've even been to my wife's sisters Jewish orthodox church twice. The message I've heard in all of these institutions? Those who are not Christian/Catholic/Baptist/Jewish/Whatever... can't understand "true" love, can't understand "sin"; they must be evil. Don't listen to them; they must be converted! Also, women who bleed are evil, women who don't obey their husbands are evil, and foreigners are evil. Finally, you must give something important of yours as sacrifice to god; you must give 10% of your earnings in tithing. Yada, yada. The entire religious structure is designed to control its subjects. The truth is, all groups who label themselves as a "religion" are nothing but enormous cults.
Anyways, to sum this all up, people of intelligence whom are educated about religion are afraid to touch the religious topic with people of faith for fear of retaliation. If religion wasn't as big of a nuisance as it has become, then maybe people could become educated and stop fighting about religious extremism. Tell me, do you really want your Communistic society ran by a controlling religion? If you're interested, you can view my entire document: HERE. (link)
RE: US ambassador killed over a film - FireIceTalon - 09-18-2012
You must remember, even many scientists are men and women of faith. Science and religion of course, are incompatible, but I think most scientists know this and they keep their religion out of the profession anyways - since it is known that all religions rely entirely on faith while science can be tested and proven empirically. Nor would I say that a person is necessarily lacking in intelligence if they believe in a deity - this is simply untrue and overly deterministic, and again, many prominent scientists are religious.
Marx called religion "the opium of the masses", and while I generally agree, it should still be taken into the context for which he was speaking - which was in class societies. Religion itself is not only a tool used by the ruling class to pacify and divide the working class - it is a product of and necessitation for alienation in class society. When the proletariat experiences alienation, religion is sort of a crutch to bring them a 'false' happiness, that masks them from the genuine happiness that would be obtained in Communist society - they in turn see the afterlife as their hope if they just subscribe to the principles of religion, not realizing their chains. In Communist society, religion loses its power, because there is no State apparatus to use it as a control device, nor is there any alienation in Communist society for religion to be a so-called crutch. I think suppressing religious beliefs though, just because Marx hated religion, kinda defeats the principles and values of being a Communist - which is to free humanity - primarily the working class, from exploitation and to have not only tolerance, but a genuine respect, for all cultures, races, religious beliefs, sexual orientations, etc.
Now, some aspects of some religions would not be tolerated in Communism, those which allow or provide justification for the subjugation or discrimination of others - such as the oppressive nature in Radical Islam toward women - this no doubt would not be allowed or tolerated, but it wouldn't exist to begin with because the old order of class society would be loooong gone. Peoples behavior, nature, outlook on life, and so forth would be radically different than it is now. In Socialist society, it is a different story since this stage still has elements of the old order present, but the transition from Capitalism to DOTP to Socialism to full-blown Communism is a very very long one. And during that long process, the views on religion, and quite possibly the religions themselves, would have changed drastically over many generations. To put it as you did, religion as a 'cult' would probably even cease to exist even before pure Communism is reached, but personal religious beliefs would still probably be around, and I don't really see a problem with it. Now, something like Nationalism, would be a different story altogether. Nationalism, by its very nature, is reactionary, borderline racist, and would not be compatible with Communism. Religion and Nationalism are both social constructs to be sure, but the first one was not developed as a tool by the ruling class to suppress lower classes - it developed simply because there was no science or prior knowledge of history to explain things. Nationalism, however, DID develop as a tool to propagate cultural hegemony, war, xenophobia, racism, and as a divisive tool to split the working class into opposing factions, even though their class interests are one and the same regardless of nationality.
Religion and Marxism are not compatible, but that isn't to say that Communism and religion are not - remember Communism (like Capitalism) is a social and economic material condition of society, it is observably tangible - Marxism is a science for analyzing and critiquing dynamic economic/social relationships in class societies that actually involves using the scientific method in the same way scientists do in Historical Anthropology or even the hard sciences. Some of us believe that Communism and religion are completely incompatible, some do not - I am in the latter camp. In my opinion, oppressing personal religious beliefs only feeds the stereotype that all Communists are blood thirsty dictators that want to control everyone. I'm not a religious expert, but to my knowledge there is no religion that is explicitly and intrinsically anti-Communist. People should be free to hold their religious beliefs in the privacy of their own home, regardless of what type of society they live in. It is when people try to force that religion onto others when it becomes problematic. But again, that in itself is result of and necessitation of cultural hegemony in class society. In a classless, stateless, borderless society, this doesn't seem possible much less probable. Who the hell knows, these are only my thoughts on the role religion would undertake in Communism - the truth is the material conditions leading up to it, depending on the changes in culture and social relationships that organically transcend and form between Socialism and pure Communism, will be the determining factor for where religion will be, which of course cannot be predicted. It was the same with the transformation of society from Feudalism to Capitalism, no one could predict the role religion (or even how Capitalism itself would be constructed) would have in this society at the outset of the French Revolution, its role was determined entirely by existing social conditions that existed as a result of the Revolution.
At the end of the day though, the solution is to abolish class systems and the suppressive State that necessitate and protect them , not to abolish religion(s).