Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

So another atrocity, and more death and destruction in the name of Religion!
Its like a nightmare that has no end. No waking up from this one.
Back in the '70s, the world population was 3 billion. Today we are pushing close to 8 billion people! We are using up the World's resources at an alarming rate. Soon, there will be very little food or water.
We have punched holes in the protective ozone layer with the production of toxic substances; we have poisoned the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels; and Nuclear weapons and wars, and will continue to do so at an ever accelerating pace.
In the post WW2 years, there was hope, but now the population of the world is getting more and more polarized. Race, color, caste, religion, ethnicity, you name it and we are ready to pick up cudgels and attack "the other". What's going on?
In the past we had leaders and great nations, today we seem to have nothing. Just delinquents. How can these guys give direction to a Planetful of people that are rapidly going astray?
In the past, we admired and respected human diversity. Today, we ridicule and criticize anyone that is different from us.
So what is the solution? When do we get to start thinking of the issues that really matter? Or is our immatiruty finally going to do us in, as we face off and destroy the whole of humanity??
To use religion for badness is just an excuse for being bad and evil.
The making of the film in California is condemnible.
But equally condemnible is the savage brutality in the Muslim countries. And the killings. And whatever was done to an innocent man, the American Ambassador in Libya! A most horrific and unnecessary murder!

The link that Nucleus gave in the other thread is relevant here too, I think:
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/09/amb-chris ... ttack.html

My argument is that religion is part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Misusing religion is part of the problem, I don't disagree - but I don't think that no religion is the solution.

I'd argue that looking at the unnecessary deaths around the world, greed and lack of empathy are the main causes - not religion. Sometimes religion is used to reduce empathy - but by-and-large religions teach empathy and equality.

My view would be that wars and killings would reduce if people returned to the moral core of all religions.

Frequentflier wrote:But equally condemnible is the savage brutality in the Muslim countries. And the killings. And whatever was done to an innocent man, the American Ambassador in Libya! A most horrific and unnecessary murder!

All killings, murders, terrorist acts are to be condemned. I get riled at the deaths due to preventable causes such as hunger and easily treatable diseases too - and also those from accidents which could have been prevented by better safety measures - but then again, I deal with numbers of deaths in my day job and have to put things in perspective from that angle.

In short, people dying unnecessarily is to be condemned, but wars/terrorist attacks aren't by far the biggest killers worldwide, and of those dying in wars/terrorism religion is a factor in a minority of the cases... people are dying in conflicts in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Europe - but the nature of the media (and indeed internet forums) is to focus on the 'newsworthy' deaths.

In the case of this ambassador's death - yes, it is to be condmemned as any other death. Was it done in the name of Religion, or in the name of revenge for the killing of Al-Libi? Should we condemn the killing more if the motive was religion and not revenge, or vice versa?

Greenwald made some observations that rang true with me:

It is hard not to notice, and be disturbed by, the vastly different reactions whenever innocent Americans are killed, as opposed to when Americans are doing the killing of innocents. All the rage and denunciations of these murders in Benghazi are fully justified, but one wishes that even a fraction of that rage would be expressed when the US kills innocent men, women and children in the Muslim world, as it frequently does. Typically, though, those deaths are ignored, or at best justified with amoral bureaucratic phrases ("collateral damage") or self-justifying cliches ("war is hell"), which Americans have been trained to recite.

...

The death of Ambassador Stevens and the three Americans who died with him is as tragic as the constant killing of innocent people by the US, but not more so.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ings-libya

Cheers,

Shafique

It is hard not to notice, and be disturbed by, the vastly different reactions whenever innocent Americans are killed, as opposed to when Americans are doing the killing of innocents.

This is of course completely different when Americans, Shi'ites, Westerners, and Israelis are killed by Muslim terrorists and the huge uproar in the streets and press of the Muslim world compared to when Muslims die or a video is uploaded to YouTube.

Glenn Greenwald and the people quoting him are wise beyond years.

Personal liking or disliking aside so for Morsi has shown good leadership, which was needed http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/eg ... islam-film

--- Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:51 pm ---

The making of the film in California is condemnible.
But equally condemnible is the savage brutality in the Muslim countries.

No, free speech is not equally condemnable to religious apartheid in Muslim nations and the violent reactions by many thousands of Muslims.

What's really shocking are the idiots who believe Americans place more significance for American lives than others are placing greater importance over a book and historical figure than the thousands murdered every year in their name.

Who besides these adherents are so prone to murder, riot and mayhem over cartoons, books, and YouTube videos?

Your spin is weak ray and can't disguise the fact that those who share your hatred of Islam and Muslims to the extent that they defend this film, are just an extremist minority.

Nakoula even appears to be a convicted criminal and not the Israeli-American he pretended to be:

US authorities now say they have identified Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, an Egyptian-born Coptic Christian living in California as the man who made the film. Basseley, who was found guilty of fraud in 2010 and ordered to pay more than $790,000 in restitution, is thought to have used the pseudonym "Sam Bacile" to hide his identity.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19606155

Cheers,
Shafique

Your spin is weak ray and can't disguise the fact that those who share your hatred of Islam and Muslims

You mean your stance is weak and can't address what I actually wrote.

Do you want to address the vastly different reactions in the Muslim world to a YouTube video compared with the reaction to the reaction of Muslims attacking a dozen embassies around the world?

to the extent that they defend this film, are just an extremist minority.

This is coming from a Nazi - calling someone an "extremist". What does it mean when an established Nazi starts calling others "extremists", eactly?

Btw, people who value free speech are defending this film, including Google. But thanks for your opinion, your views fit right in with those of al-Qaeda who want the film banned just like you.

rayznack wrote:people who value free speech

Lets not allow personal biases to cloud our better sense.
"Free Speech", above anything else, must also be considered as a great privilege.
It has to be used with care and responsibility.
Wanton abuse of the privilege of free speech can have unpleasant consequences, in particular in geographical locations that are still not Democratic. That's the reality on the ground.
We must learn the art of peaceful co-existence.
Hate wrapped in the guise of free speech, particularly with the intent to incite violence, such as the case under discussion, is despicable, and totally condemnible!!

"Free Speech", above anything else, must also be considered as a great privilege.

Free speech is actually a right rather than a privilege in the civilized world.

Hate wrapped in the guise of free speech, particularly with the intent to incite violence, such as the case under discussion, is despicable, and totally condemnible!!

I'll simply quote a commentator at another site explaining the difference between incitement and provocation:

vildechaye wrote:One more thing, regarding language usage:

This movie clearly “provoked” some (very stupid) Muslims, but it did NOT “incite” them. To do that, the movie would have had to say: Go out and burn the U.S. embassy and murder the ambassador.” That’s incitement. This film did nothing of the sort.

http://hurryupharry.org/2012/09/14/the- ... y-nakoula/

Frequentflier wrote:Lets not allow personal biases to cloud our better sense.
"Free Speech", above anything else, must also be considered as a great privilege.
It has to be used with care and responsibility.
Wanton abuse of the privilege of free speech can have unpleasant consequences, in particular in geographical locations that are still not Democratic. That's the reality on the ground.
We must learn the art of peaceful co-existence.
Hate wrapped in the guise of free speech, particularly with the intent to incite violence, such as the case under discussion, is despicable, and totally condemnible!!

Your double standards are mind-boggling.

Frequentflier wrote:Hate wrapped in the guise of free speech, particularly with the intent to incite violence, such as the case under discussion, is despicable, and totally condemnible!!

Well said.

As eh's link to Haaretz reports - the UN is also quite clear on this:

A statement on his behalf said that while "nothing justifies such killings and attacks," the video that reportedly sparked the demonstrations was "hateful" and "appears to have been deliberately designed to sow bigotry and bloodshed."

I see that the film-maker is now denying that he was actually involved!! And he was not only convicted of fraud, but also of drug offences back in 97.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19609051


What's interesting is that the resident anti-Muslims are still intent on hype and misinformation. First the Libyans carrying the ambassador to hospital were 'parading the body', next we have a report of him being raped, a conspiracy theory about killings of Christians (quoting an author who says there is no conspiracy ) - and then a thread celebrating the deaths of people and calling for more deaths.

What a sad lot they are.

Cheers,
Shafique

The UN should read Benjamin Franklin sometime:

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.


Muslim mobs should curtail their violence instead of Westerners curtailing their rights to free speech.

Btw, how do you design a film to sow bloodshed? Let's think for a moment we're not dealing with Muslim extremists; has a YouTube film ever been accused before of sowing bloodshed?

This is the logic of morons.

You are in a very small minority of extremists who are supporting the film made by Egyptian Christians, and supported by your fellow evangelist US Christians.

Do you consider Coptic Christians to be 'Westerners' or only the few Evangelist extremists who are promoting the falsehoods in the video as the truth?

cheers,

Shafique

What does it say about one's intelligence when they frequently employ an Argumentum ad Populum?

Who are you asking?

Just imagining that you're not just a small bunch of extremist hate-filled fanatics out of step with the rest of the world who are condemning this video won't help you.

Cheers,

Shafique

Who are you asking?

Anyone intelligent enough to intuitively know what a bandwagon fallacy is, which wouldn't be you.

All fringe, fanatical, extremist, conspiracy nuts are sure that everyone else is wrong and are falling for the 'bandwagon fallacy'.

I'm not surpised that you believe that all normal people are wrong, but I'm surprised that you're celebrating your extremist minority views for all to see.

Cheers,
Shafique

Actually, I'm saying you're using a bandwagon fallacy (not believing everyone is falling for one - what?)

Your arguments are almost always fallacious as you're unable to think critically.

I happen to agree with the 'extremist' Ben Franklin:

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.

But apparently we can add Google to the list of free-speech extremists you imagine exist.

I wasn't aware that agreeing with all the normal people who are condemning the video for what it is constituted an 'argument' or amounted to a demonstration of, or lack of, critical thinking.

Neither is pointing out that it appears only extremist anti-Muslim haters like yourself are the ones who are supporting this video (and believe it to be telling the truth).

You may want to believe everyone else is wrong - and that's your right. Just don't expect to convince many people, outside the banned gang, to join you in this belief.

Name calling and strawmen are all you seem to be offering now, so I'll leave you to your conspiracy theories and misinformation.

Cheers,
Shafique

I wasn't aware that agreeing with all the normal people who are condemning the video for what it is constituted an 'argument' or amounted to a demonstration of, or lack of, critical thinking.

Mischaracterization as well. Careful, someone might find a field mouse to replace you.

(I imagine a field mouse is more intelligent and could make better arguments than the ones you're attempting)

Neither is pointing out that it appears only extremist anti-Muslim haters like yourself are the ones who are supporting this video

What did I say about the field mouse? How many times have I pointed out that Google is supporting the filmmaker's right to free speech - therefore, based on your idiocy, Google policy is extremist or you're simply not bright enough to figure out you're mischaracterizing reality.