Gandhi once said “Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.” Do you think he only meant that this was the case in India?
When you have Holmes taking about freedom of thought or Gandhi talking about non-violence, they’re talking about the universal value of these ideas.
The second Iraq war was certainly a clusterfuck, but Islamic terrorists were blowing shit up for decades before the first Iraqi war even started, so - no, I don’t think we can blame it all on that.
Yeah. Speaking of “radicalization”, I wonder where France will stand the next time international sentiment decides to form another coalition?
Are you familiar with Salman Rushdie? The fatwa issue calling for his death in retaliation for writing a book predated the invasion of Iraq by 14 years.
I don’t doubt that the invasion of Iraq has caused an increase in Muslim radicals that are a headache for any number of nations. But the OP seemed to be implying that the Hebdo attack was an act of revenge for the invasion of Iraq. Which makes about as much sense as, say, invading Iraq because of a terrorist attack carried out by a bunch of Saudis.
Oh, so the ones who killed people on 9/11 were the unradicalized strain? :rolleyes: Good to know.
And not getting that is an attack on common sense.
To put it mildly.
I agree with there being a mess.
However, polling fails to show a net radicalization correlating with the US waging war in Iraq. Look at the “Levels of Support for Suicide Bombing Over Time” chart at the bottom of this link:
One can as well argue the other way, even from an anti-American standpoint: Brutal bullying sometimes works. That perhaps was bin Laden’s view (“When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.”)
It may be that net radicalization from hatred of the US due to Iraq, and its opposite, due to not wanting to provoke a rampaging American elephant, roughly balance. While I do think the US goes to war too often, asking how the Arab street will react is not a way to design a foreign policy.
Responding to the US invasion of Iraq with violence is fair. Because we did not invade Iraq with free speech, we used bombs and bullets.
So the Mullahs of Iran never issued they’re fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie until after the US invaded Iraq in 2003?
What exactly does France have to do with this?
If you’re going to make comments about Islam or the Middle East please brush up on your recent history because so far you’ve done little to suggest any understanding of either.
Was this comparable to the “vicious campaign against Catholicism” conducted by Monty Python.
What???
Did Monty Python ever do anything like this?
As others have clearly and articulately pointed out, the Paris attack was an attack on speech by definition. That there may have been other factors at play is irrelevant – it’s not as if the cartoons were just a smokescreen for a completely different motivation, as this is far from the first time that people have been threatened or attacked by radical Islamists for perceived insults to Islam or its prophet.
Many media have chosen not to reproduce the cartoons in question. Thus, not only was this an attack on free speech, it was an attack that was at least partially successful at suppressing it, a fact that I find chilling and depressing.
A few other observations …
This is true, but as John Mace says in the part I bolded it need not be exclusively one or the other. It is in fact a complicated interplay of several factors – escalating violence between the West and the Middle East and the extreme sensitivities of radical Islamists to their religion and its iconic symbols and its central role in their culture and society. Those factors feed on each other in an escalating conflict in which the religion itself plays a dominant role in justifying barbaric violence. It’s all of those things, but the outrage at the supposed “insults” to Islam is very real.
Try saying exactly that same thing to Kim Jong-Un. When instead of “smack” what you get is a life sentence in a gulag for traitorous speech against the Great Leader, it doesn’t seem so silly any more, does it?
It’s not just “continental Europeans”. Britain, Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth all have carefully limited laws against hate speech. It’s notable that it is the US, in fact, that is pretty much the lone outlier in holding to the view that free speech must be unconditionally absolute.
That poll doesn’t address net radicalization at all.
I could be wrong, but I read it that the OP was speaking specifically about the actual Charlie Hebdo shooters, who - as I cited earlier - were notably secular French citizens who became radicalized specifically as a reaction to the Iraq invasion.
However tangential to the original premise of the OP, I cannot believe there is any doubt that the Iraq invasion was a significant and effective recruitment tool for extremists. Of course it was an attack on free speech, technically speaking, but the censorship by violence is somewhat peripheral to the main extremist objective, is it not?
Perhaps you came looking for a different discussion? This one is about the issue you see as on the periphery of your issue.
The people who are humiliating Muslims are the infidels who kill in the name of Allah the merciful and compassionate. Either they believe God is too weak or lazy to smite those who displease him or they got the concept of a loving God all wrong.
Is it beyond belief that the Muslim attacking cartoons could be a smokescreeen for justifying “cracking down” on Muslim imimmigrants?
Yes, it’s true, we didn’t drop pamphlets containing drawings of Mohammed doing disgusting things on the people of Iraq, we used bombs and bullets. It’s a fact. You can look it up.
You’re, uh… you’re aware that Charlie Hebdo isn’t an American magazine, right?
