^^^ :">
Bay,
You may want to look at post #213 which has an article about the 2002 Gujarat riots which was sparked by a train burning which Hindu extremists…including some in the regional government blamed on Muslims even though conclusive proof of that accusation still has not been conclusively proven in investigations up to the present. Hindu extremists including some state officials* were amped up and inflamed by state officials affiliated with the Hindu extremist party. It lasted several weeks, killed hundreds of people including nearly 800 Muslims, and caused international controversy even here in the US as seen here:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29392744
What’s more ironic and disturbing is the then governor of Gujarat, Narendra Modi of the BJP party who has been accused by victims as responsible for not only his inaction, but also actively contributing to inflaming the riots is now the current PM.
You’re also forgetting the religious based violence in prior Indian history such as in the 1947 partitioning of what was British India which created the nations of India, Pakistan…and after 1971, Bangladesh. It also factors into the Kashmir dispute which has been the flashpoint of several wars between India and Pakistan from 1947 onward.
Ironically, this was partially one of the bitter fruits of the British Raj’s divide and conquer/rule policies to implement and maintain control over their Indian domain. Especially considering they had horrific memories of the 1857 insurrection/First Indian War of Independence in which both Hindu and Muslim Sepoys and regional leaders united in an effort to expel British rule which was then run through the British East India Company.
Also, there has been an ongoing Maoist guerrilla insurgency since the late '60s:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalite%E2%80%93Maoist_insurgency
Some of their militant actions could be considered terroristic under some popular definitions.
- One former BJP state official working under Modi during his tenure as Gujarat governor has already been convicted in court for her part in instigating and encouraging the riots and the consequent deaths and injuries which resulted.
Nrdsb4,
In addition to the high likelihood he felt social pressure for his Muslim association, there’s also the factor he’s a member of the British Conservative party which advocates complete adoption and assimilation of what they consider “correct” British culture/values. Reading between the lines, it means conservative White British values including forgetting or disregard of anything not fitting such values.
The British Conservative party is their counterpart to our Republican party though the latter is more right-wing politically due to how the American political spectrum tends to be more right-wing overall than Britain or moreso, many other European countries. Especially after our political spectrum veer further rightward after the 2000 election.
Also, keep in mind that the Daily Mail is regarded by many British and knowledgeable readers as the British equivalent of Fox News in tabloid form…though not as nearly as extreme or nutty from my observation.
Terrorism is one of those issues, which I believe academics and government bureaucrats over-think and over-analyze.
It is no more than the ultimate extreme of bullying. And what is the foundation of bullying? It is that the bully does not like you and wants you to spend your resources (whatever those are) the way he wants, not the way you want. It does not matter how much or how little resources the bully has, as that is not the point. The point is to make you rearrange your resources.
Therefore, poverty and economics have zilch to do with it. It is ideologically-driven, as many here have stated. An easy way to think about it is there are bullies in the worst public schools and bullies in the best prep schools, money notwithstanding. Now scale up and envision a bully culture - that is what terrorism is.
I do not over-think the ideology, because it does not matter. The only thing that really drives the bully’s violence is, “I do not like you; I do not like what you stand for; and, I will bully you to try and make you change.” Ideology is irrelevant because someone who does not like you will always find a reason not to like you. It therefore follows that appeasement, empathy, and negotiation could never work. The only result that satisfies any bully is you give him what he wants and do things his way, i.e., total capitulation.
As for combating terrorism, we do not need to go beyond what works in the schoolyard because all bullies rely on the fact that the target is afraid to fight back hard and fast. Bullies are successful not because they win the war; they win solely because the targets are intimidated and afraid to even fight back in singular battles. Avoid fighting back in enough battles, and the war is lost without any return fight.
As far as combating terrorism, there are two parts to this solution, and the one part was already stated by @Lergnom:
However, the above is only one aspect of the solution because if it were the entire solution then a parent, school principal, or a group of students talking to a bully student should solve most bully problems. This type of intervention can extend the time between incidences, but rarely stops it to any degree.
The other necessary part to fully stop a bully is for the actual target of the bully to hit back hard and make clear that there will be no giving over of lunch money or, in this case, no change in values, e.g., western values. If the target shows fear, provides appeasement, and exhibits empathy, then that only proves to the bully he is correct you are weak and makes him more emboldened and the next step is he ups his demands.
Academics and government bureaucrats live in a world of words and thoughts and think that everything can be talked out, massaged and nuanced. But, they completely miss the most essential element of a constructive conversation, the person on the other side must be listening. Too many have not noticed that terrorists have already tuned us out, so thinking that talking is constructive is the equivalent of whistling Dixie past the graveyard.
France is in trouble, for the most obvious reason. It allowed unimpeded immigration by a set of people who openly said they do not like France and its western values. Do you invite people into your home who you know openly do not like your house rules, your furniture and your food? Didn’t think so. But, somehow, stupid governments think (maybe not anymore) that is a good thing. Well, their kids and their country are now paying the price.
interesting article from the NYT
I’m not sure. All we seem to do anymore–after terrorist acts, domestic shooting sprees, other outrageous incidents–is hold candlelight vigils and public “shows of solidarity.” The situation in France is appalling but not unexpected. Until we address the root causes of extremism, these events will continue.
I agree with those who have said this is not about poverty. Yes, poverty may cause some to enlist in extremist groups. But it’s the ideology that drives it.
This may sound random, but I wonder how much of it is related to the subjugation of women. There have to be some psychosexual issues at play here…and the fact that in many Muslim countries women have so little voice means roughly half the people are silent or subdued by necessity.
cobrat, no matter how many words you use trying to explain whatever it is you are trying to explain, it really comes down to this:
“When people tell you who they are, believe them. They know themselves much better than you do.”
(That’s a combo quote from Maya Angelou & Oprah)
cobrat, you cannot dissociate Islam from terrorism. Of course no one thinks all Muslims are terrorists, though many will certainly be wrongly blamed and punished for it. And why you feel using your Hindu riots example does anything to support your argument is beyond me.
You have no idea whether or not he is succumbing to social pressure for his Muslim association, you just made that up.
Furthermore, using your “reading between the lines” comment is merely YOU inserting your own interpretation without having to support it one iota. We could take any comment anyone makes and say “reading between the lines,” blah blah my opinion blah blah my opinion.
Questions for the forum
-
Do you think we were wrong not to send someone higher ranked than the ambassador? I,am trying to think back to 9/11, did other countries send a bunch of folks over here to stand with us? I dont think so, but please correct me if I am wrong.
-
Why do you think this particular attack caused such a public outcry, as there have been plenty of other attacks?
-
While I feel sorry for the Parisians killed and their loved ones, I am appalled at the worlds indifference to other terrorist attacks. Boko Haram, an islamist terrorist group, killed 2000 people last week in attack, in the town of Baga. It barely made the news. They have killed over 5000 since 2010, and it seems that it doesnt matter. The poor girls they kidnapped have yet to be found.
Yes, that attack was incredibly horrific in scope and scale.
To make a point clear, I distinguish between holding all Muslims responsible for terror and believing the only workable solution is for Muslims to work much harder to stop these people. The former is idiotic, while the latter is the pragmatic reality for combatting this.
I have read many inapt comparisons in a number of places. One, for example, is that we didn’t ask Catholics to take responsibility for priest child abuse. But that’s wrong on two levels: that child abuse didn’t affect non-Catholics and Catholics did in fact act by suing the Church into huge payouts, by bringing a wide variety of lawsuits - including criminal charges - and so on.
Another I’ve seen elsewhere but occurs on this page, meaning reference to things like Hindu violence against Muslims in India. The key words in that sentence are “in India”. The world is full of problems and we have no way at all to fix them and that’s even more true when talking about within a country of 1 billion plus people (or within Pakistan, with its 190 million). But “in India” isn’t the same as bringing it to France or to the US.
As for history, we all love history but ISIS and Islamist ideology is current day. It’s rooted in a set of beliefs that we see as medieval but which they see as modern. They have no trouble using technology while they cut off your head to bring about the rule of God on earth.
Someone mentioned the role of Saudi Arabia. There are 3 points. I’ll keep this short. Wahhabism developed mostly in Saudi Arabia. That is what we label as extreme, as fundamentalist to the nth power. It took power during the 20th C as part of the Saud’s family efforts to consolidate control. Wahhabism is inherently unfriendly to every other religion, including less devout forms of Islam, including other Sunnis - Shia are, in their eyes, essentially irredeemable. That’s one. Two is that Saudis pay many of the bills for groups that conduct terror. They financed and carried out 9/11 and, it seems, at least financed 7/7 in the UK. There is an irony that the two largest funders of Sunni terror are the Sauds and Qatar and both are our allies and both host US military bases. Three is the Saudis pay large amounts to push Wahhabism on Muslims around the world, including in the US. Muslim education and the materials used - in a language nearly no non-Muslim speaks - is a separate topic. There are many examples of intolerant, inflammatory, even jihadist materials used in Muslim schools all over the West. In fact, in France, large chains sell books, tapes, etc. that actively call for war against the West - because they’re in Arabic. That speaks to my first point in this post: the Arabic speakers should be calling for that stuff to be removed rather than passively letting it spread. This is more a cultural problem, but that’s also a separate topic.
I thought so at first, but France is dealing with an amped up threat and a security nightmare. When Obama goes somewhere there is a security nightmare in itself, even if it’s the safest town in America. So from the standpoint of not adding to the headaches of the French police/security forces, perhaps it’s better not to send in even more targets.
I do think Obama should have gone. Other world leaders did come after Sept 11 to look at the ruins. There was no march and leaders came individually not en masse. And they came weeks later after the area was cleared etc. but it was a different situation.
The reason for the march is not just the loss of life due to terrorism but because the terror struck at a symbol of free speech. That’s what sets it apart from Boko Haram and other recent terror attacks. There were no marches after the bombings of the London subway or the train in Madrid either. It’s because the terrorists are trying to silence opposition.
As for security for Obama, the other leaders are security targets also. They went. Obama should have gone. I haven’t heard any reason for why he didn’t. Holder was in Paris and didn’t go. No reason given. I really don’t understand why not.
If anyone is interested, there is a thread specifically addressing the American presence or lack thereof in Paris for the march.
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/1730121-americans-in-paris.html#latest
@Lergnom, a quick word of thanks for your posts. I’ve learned a lot from them.
To go back a few pages, I thought rhandco posed an interesting question, and I didn’t find the responses to really address it clearly: can there be speech that is so reckless and irresponsible that the speaker should absorb the risk to him of saying it? The example was given of a person using his personal freedom to climb a mountain irresponsibly–and being charged for the cost of being rescued. To give an example involving somebody we (probably) all dislike, do we think that the Westboro Baptist Church should be charged for the cost of police protection when it wants to picket a military funeral? My civil libertarian instincts say no; however, I do think that there are some groups–Westboro being the prime example–that cynically exploit their civil liberties in the interests of evil. That certainly annoys me. Still, I think I would come out on the side that says that if the speech or action is something that is legally permitted, the government should protect your right to say or do it.
Climbing a particular mountain isn’t necessarily a guaranteed civil right. Freedom of expression (within certain limits of course) in the US most certainly is. So I totally disagree with rhandco’s premise, and think the comparison to mountain climbing is incredibly weak.
And no, as much as I despise WB and their message, as long as they are acting within established guidelines of legal and acceptable behavior, they should not bear the cost of LE protection.
“When people tell you who they are, believe them. They know themselves much better than you do.”
Words that couldn’t be more true. I might just write this after every post that cobrat tries to explain, rationalize, and give excuses for violent and vicious murderers.
So I ask you cobrat, without giving a two page history lesson that doesn’t answer the question, what do you suggest people do who are threatened by this violent ideology? Submit as directed? Give more money to make it stop? Do whatever they are told (which is Shariah or die)? Realize that this is all the Western countries fault, so it’s nothing more than we deserve anyways?
Do you think appeasement is the answer? Maybe you can go on over to Syria or Yemen and explain the historical significance to them, if they allow you to keep your head.
Because those riots are widely considered by many in the international community as an example of religious motivated terrorism and worse, state-sponsored considering the BJP dominated Gujarat state government of the time under then then governor and current PM Modi and some officials are considered responsible for not only inaction to stop the riots, but actually aggravated them by encouraging Hindu extremists to go on a violent orgy which killed hundreds within extended to a matter of weeks.
One of those officials working under Modi has already been convicted though many within and outside of India felt Modi and other officials working under him when he was governor should have also been investigated, tried, and convicted for their parts in the riot.
Some within the international community want Modi and other state officials involved in inflaming the riots during his tenure as governor to be tried in the international court for the violence and deaths.
Even the US agreed which was a reason why Modi was denied a US visa to visit the US in 2005 and the only reason why that travel ban…which is technically still in effect isn’t applicable is because Modi is the current PM of India and gets an automatic Visa as national leader:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29392744
It’s an interpretation derived from having studied and discussed British politics with those with informed knowledge of British politics and culture who actually lived or work there.
There is such strong social pressure for minorities to conform…especially from those who are part of or sympathize with the British Conservative party’s interpretation of “British values”. Being a member of the British Conservative party with a platform which calls for return to their conservative interpretation of “British values”, Javid must toe the party line to remain part of the party and thus, maintain the political career he has built for himself.
Anything even slightly smacking of multiculturalism or his issuing statements like J.K. Rowling’s refutation of Murdoch’s holding all Muslims responsible for terrorism:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/11/jk-rowling-rupert-murdoch_n_6453306.html
would mean he’ll be ejected from the Conservative party for not conforming to their platform and principles and with it, his political position/career.
More words does not equal more sense. They want to kill us for who we are which is never a good reason.