Raif Badawi and Saudi Arabia’s intolerance

Mr. Badawi acted in the spirit of freedom of the modern age. A blogger, he called for open debate about interpretations of Islam. His blog posts were sometimes satirical and sometimes irreverent. They also infuriated the kingdom’s hidebound religious clerics. On Friday in Jiddah, he was given a punishment from a bygone century: 50 lashes, the first of 20 floggings, once a week, to a total of 1,000 lashes for his outspokeness. The word barbaric hardly captures the depth of this depravity.

Mr. Badawi is hardly alone; there are dozens of others being punished for similarly simple deeds. Just last month, it was announced that two women who have been detained for defying a ban on female driving are to be tried in a specialized court for terrorism suspects. Why? According to the BBC, the women both have large followings on Twitter and their cases were transferred to the specialized court because of comments they made on social media. The kingdom effectively prohibits women from driving by refusing to issue them a driver’s license. It also wants to prohibit them from speaking out on Twitter.

The Obama administration briefly on Thursday called on Saudi Arabia to cancel the flogging of Mr. Badawi. On Friday the kingdom ignored the plea and carried out the first of the 50 whippings. So much for strong language from the State Department. It had no impact because it came with no consequences.

Riyadh’s Criminal Court is scheduled to announce a verdict Wednesday in a trial of two of Saudi Arabia’s leading human rights activists. Mohammad Fahad al-Qahtani and Abdullah al-Hamid face 11 criminal charges, including tarnishing the reputation of the state and providing false information to international organizations about thousands of Saudis who have been arbitrarily detained.

The six-month trial has received scant media attention — Saudi police detained a Sky News crew that tried to report on the final court hearing on Dec. 29.

Washington has been silent. With the Middle East in turmoil and its other bedrock Arab ally, Hosni Mubarak, gone, the United States has become ever more reliant on Saudi Arabia to help restore regional stability.

The Obama administration wants Saudi Arabia to keep supplying arms to Syrian rebels to force the ouster of Bashar al-Assad and to continue pumping oil at levels that keep gasoline prices low. In return, the United States says little or nothing publicly about human rights abuses in the kingdom, apart from its annual State Department human rights report.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Mr. Badawi acted in the spirit of freedom of the modern age. A blogger, he called for open debate about interpretations of Islam. His blog posts were sometimes satirical and sometimes irreverent. They also infuriated the kingdom’s hidebound religious clerics. On Friday in Jiddah, he was given a punishment from a bygone century: 50 lashes, the first of 20 floggings, once a week, to a total of 1,000 lashes for his outspokeness. The word barbaric hardly captures the depth of this depravity.

Mr. Badawi is hardly alone; there are dozens of others being punished for similarly simple deeds. Just last month, it was announced that two women who have been detained for defying a ban on female driving are to be tried in a specialized court for terrorism suspects. Why? According to the BBC, the women both have large followings on Twitter and their cases were transferred to the specialized court because of comments they made on social media. The kingdom effectively prohibits women from driving by refusing to issue them a driver’s license. It also wants to prohibit them from speaking out on Twitter.

The Obama administration briefly on Thursday called on Saudi Arabia to cancel the flogging of Mr. Badawi. On Friday the kingdom ignored the plea and carried out the first of the 50 whippings. So much for strong language from the State Department. It had no impact because it came with no consequences.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/raif-badawi-and-saudi-arabias-intolerance/2015/01/10/2b291bfc-984c-11e4-aabd-d0b93ff613d5_story.html

So what do our maha-patriots and critics of moderate muslims have to say?

The Obama administration, which has loudly and repeatedly called for Mr. Assad’s departure, has had much less to say about King Abdullah’s repression. In December, it approved a $30 billion arms sale to his regime. Now it chastises Russia for supplying arms to Syria. Of course the violence in Syria is far greater than that of Saudia Arabia — more than 7,000 people have been killed, and rebels are being attacked with tanks and artillery. But brains, justice, morals and fairness are in short supply not only in Mr. Assad’s Damascus but in the royal palaces of Riyadh as well.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Mr. Badawi acted in the spirit of freedom of the modern age. A blogger, he called for open debate about interpretations of Islam. His blog posts were sometimes satirical and sometimes irreverent. They also infuriated the kingdom’s hidebound religious clerics. On Friday in Jiddah, he was given a punishment from a bygone century: 50 lashes, the first of 20 floggings, once a week, to a total of 1,000 lashes for his outspokeness. The word barbaric hardly captures the depth of this depravity.

Mr. Badawi is hardly alone; there are dozens of others being punished for similarly simple deeds. Just last month, it was announced that two women who have been detained for defying a ban on female driving are to be tried in a specialized court for terrorism suspects. Why? According to the BBC, the women both have large followings on Twitter and their cases were transferred to the specialized court because of comments they made on social media. The kingdom effectively prohibits women from driving by refusing to issue them a driver’s license. It also wants to prohibit them from speaking out on Twitter.

The Obama administration briefly on Thursday called on Saudi Arabia to cancel the flogging of Mr. Badawi. On Friday the kingdom ignored the plea and carried out the first of the 50 whippings. So much for strong language from the State Department. It had no impact because it came with no consequences.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/raif-badawi-and-saudi-arabias-intolerance/2015/01/10/2b291bfc-984c-11e4-aabd-d0b93ff613d5_story.html

So what do our maha-patriots and critics of moderate muslims have to say?

>>> It is despicable. With or without US disapproval, they would have done it. Does it then follow that the US or France or Maha-patriots should not criticize and call for harsh punishment when the lowlives bring terrorism, an out growth f the same cultural mindset, to their doorstep?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Mr. Badawi acted in the spirit of freedom of the modern age. A blogger, he called for open debate about interpretations of Islam. His blog posts were sometimes satirical and sometimes irreverent. They also infuriated the kingdom’s hidebound religious clerics. On Friday in Jiddah, he was given a punishment from a bygone century: 50 lashes, the first of 20 floggings, once a week, to a total of 1,000 lashes for his outspokeness. The word barbaric hardly captures the depth of this depravity.

Mr. Badawi is hardly alone; there are dozens of others being punished for similarly simple deeds. Just last month, it was announced that two women who have been detained for defying a ban on female driving are to be tried in a specialized court for terrorism suspects. Why? According to the BBC, the women both have large followings on Twitter and their cases were transferred to the specialized court because of comments they made on social media. The kingdom effectively prohibits women from driving by refusing to issue them a driver’s license. It also wants to prohibit them from speaking out on Twitter.

The Obama administration briefly on Thursday called on Saudi Arabia to cancel the flogging of Mr. Badawi. On Friday the kingdom ignored the plea and carried out the first of the 50 whippings. So much for strong language from the State Department. It had no impact because it came with no consequences.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/raif-badawi-and-saudi-arabias-intolerance/2015/01/10/2b291bfc-984c-11e4-aabd-d0b93ff613d5_story.html

So what do our maha-patriots and critics of moderate muslims have to say?

>>> It is despicable. With or without US disapproval, they would have done it. Does it then follow that the US or France or Maha-patriots should not criticize and call for harsh punishment when the lowlives bring terrorism, an out growth f the same cultural mindset, to their doorstep?

It depends on who you call lowlives i.e. terrorists or all muslims?. From what I gather, per our maha-patriots every muslim taking a breath on this earth or not calling out on terrorists is a lowlife/terrorist.

Kris wrote:
>>>I am puzzled by this. The thugs who went on a killing spree because they took offense to some journalist's satire-- you can't bring yourself to call them low-lives?

Kris wrote:
This 'all Muslim' angle is a red herring.

Kris wrote:
It doesn't take all Muslims to set off bombs or go on killing sprees that cause panic or fear

Kris wrote:
The problem is not 'maha-patriots' on a forum with about 30  people or their opinions. The problem is the insistence that terrorism in various parts of the world in the name of Islam should not be discussed or analyzed in the media. This walking on eggshells  may be comforting in the short run, but will not make the problem go away. A lack of vetting this out will not bode well. Firstly, this gives no confidence to the moderate Muslim immigrants to sideline the radicals, since the host society is wishy washy in identifying the problem, much less act on it. In my opinion, this is a problem in Britain at least. Secondly, it gives nationalist extremists ammo to retaliate. This is not some idle fear. You are going to see this unfold in Europe in the not too distant future, if there are no meaningful measures to curb this scourge. That will not happen of there is no acknowledgement of the problem.  Lastly, you did not answer my question in my previous post I have bolded above.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>I am puzzled by this. The thugs who went on a killing spree because they took offense to some journalist's satire-- you can't bring yourself to call them low-lives?

I'm dumbfounded by your baseless accusations, Kris. How did you deduce that?  I did call them terrorists in my previous posts.

Kris wrote:
This 'all Muslim' angle is a red herring.

That was my point. I thought you are impressed by the new "an orchard full of bad apples" theory?

Kris wrote:
It doesn't take all Muslims to set off bombs or go on killing sprees that cause panic or fear

That's precisely what I'm saying; then why blame all of them they're not a homogeneous group.

Kris wrote:
The problem is not 'maha-patriots' on a forum with about 30  people or their opinions. The problem is the insistence that terrorism in various parts of the world in the name of Islam should not be discussed or analyzed in the media. This walking on eggshells  may be comforting in the short run, but will not make the problem go away. A lack of vetting this out will not bode well. Firstly, this gives no confidence to the moderate Muslim immigrants to sideline the radicals, since the host society is wishy washy in identifying the problem, much less act on it. In my opinion, this is a problem in Britain at least. Secondly, it gives nationalist extremists ammo to retaliate. This is not some idle fear. You are going to see this unfold in Europe in the not too distant future, if there are no meaningful measures to curb this scourge. That will not happen of there is no acknowledgement of the problem.  Lastly, you did not answer my question in my previous post I have bolded above.

Exactly Kris, walking on eggshells ain't gonna fix this. You need fix the root of this issue, dry up the funds so mullahs won't have resources to spread extreme ideologies. Go to the source
The effect over the last 30 years, at least according to Alexei Alexiev, is that some 85 to 90 billion dollars – that is “billion” with a B – have been spent fostering and spreading Wahhabism in the world

Kris wrote:
2) I am no fan of Faustian bargains either, but drying up the money well for the Saudis will not make the terrorism problem go away. It will put a dent in the lifestyle of the House of Saud and may alter the internal politics of that country, but the genie is out of the bottle in terms of Islamic terrorism. Disgruntled youth looking for easy ways and 72 virgins in the afterlife, the crazy ideology that promises this and mullahs who prey on them are not going to go away. In case you haven't noticed, this riffraff is low maintenance and the operations are low cost ( a crude bomb, a small team with time on its hands and a few tube tickets or a few plane tickets  is all it takes).

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Kris wrote:
2) I am no fan of Faustian bargains either, but drying up the money well for the Saudis will not make the terrorism problem go away. It will put a dent in the lifestyle of the House of Saud and may alter the internal politics of that country, but the genie is out of the bottle in terms of Islamic terrorism. Disgruntled youth looking for easy ways and 72 virgins in the afterlife, the crazy ideology that promises this and mullahs who prey on them are not going to go away. In case you haven't noticed, this riffraff is low maintenance and the operations are low cost ( a crude bomb, a small team with time on its hands and a few tube tickets or a few plane tickets  is all it takes).

i think we both agree that a robust surveillance over mosques and the muslim clergy in the west, and ensuring that the youth don't turn to jihad is required to curb terrorism. while doing that it's also important that this doesn't go over into the sort of witch hunt that took place in the nazi era and during the commie hunting years in the US. no fear of that at all for now at least in the US which has managed this well.

but in addition it is also important to turn off the money spigot. also there is a principle involved here -- don't associate with enablers of terrorism whether they are individual actors or state actors. don't know why you think this is not important.

confuzzled dude wrote:My 2 cents to superpower apologists. Pointing fingers at others won't devolve you of responsibility. If Saudi got rich with petro dollars, US made them stronger & powerful with their arms deals and coddling, kissing of Saudi kings a$$es. They have been handling them with kid gloves to protect their selfish interests. If Saudi clerics created this terror monster, US helped it find its feet. Do you think arming of & providing training to Syrian rebels now, Taliban etc., in the past, which enabled them to wield power against ordinary citizens, was/is a good idea? Isn't that funding & fostering of Islamic radicalism? How do you expect moderate muslim world, who are as powerless as other global citizens, to tackle this monster by themselves? If we can't get ourselves to criticize our own (govts) faults then STFU and deal with the consequences and stop whining and blaming others everytime some lunatic kills someone in the name of Islam. Why can't the US, other countries & Modi/chaddis, for all their 56-inch wide chest thumping & constant criticism of piecefuls, grow a pair and stop importing oil from Saudi Arabia which is about 15% & 20% of their crude oil imports which for sure will weaken them.

Kris wrote:
>>>Nice thesis if this is a critique on myopia in foreign relations. Unfortunately, the tie-in is not solid, given the immediacy of the problem to France. The low-lives  who killed did not take umbrage to blasphemy because the US mollycoddles the Saudis. Nor did they need Saudi funds to muster up a couple of rifles.  Ditto with acts of terrorism in Kashmir, Mumbai, Spain, Mindanao or Coimbatore. The cost is so low in these operations that it is hardly  a deterrent. The idea of force as an option is not alien to Islam and the mullahs who preach that will not go away, if money flow dries up (if it is coming in in the first place). The moderates in immigrant communities need not be powerless either, if the host country takes a non-nonsense approach to hunting down the radical elements. If the approach is namby pamby in the name of political correctness, you end up with people in the communities not willing to speak up.

truthbetold wrote:CD

your logic is solve all the world's problem before asking followers of islam to take responsibility. 

The weak and disorganized afghans resisted Russians. Poor and starving Vietnamese taught USA a lesson or two.  They won by organizing people in their own countries. Not creating terror in unrelated places. 

The people maximum impacted islamic terrorism are followers of islam. Example: People of Pakistan.  The followers of islam should organize themselves and push the extremists from their lands along with dictators.  Arab spring is good start. Now they should take it to next level.  What west does or does not do is of minimal impact if followers of islam realize what is good for them.

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:CD

your logic is solve all the world's problem before asking followers of islam to take responsibility. 

The weak and disorganized afghans resisted Russians. Poor and starving Vietnamese taught USA a lesson or two.  They won by organizing people in their own countries. Not creating terror in unrelated places. 

The people maximum impacted islamic terrorism are followers of islam. Example: People of Pakistan.  The followers of islam should organize themselves and push the extremists from their lands along with dictators.  Arab spring is good start. Now they should take it to next level.  What west does or does not do is of minimal impact if followers of islam realize what is good for them.

You & the whole world has been shouting your lungs out forever, has it been working? Forcing sanctions on Saudi and other states that are funding terrorist outfits is telling them to take responsibility for the reckless actions done in the name of Islam. Why not give it a try?

truthbetold wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:CD

your logic is solve all the world's problem before asking followers of islam to take responsibility. 

The weak and disorganized afghans resisted Russians. Poor and starving Vietnamese taught USA a lesson or two.  They won by organizing people in their own countries. Not creating terror in unrelated places. 

The people maximum impacted islamic terrorism are followers of islam. Example: People of Pakistan.  The followers of islam should organize themselves and push the extremists from their lands along with dictators.  Arab spring is good start. Now they should take it to next level.  What west does or does not do is of minimal impact if followers of islam realize what is good for them.

You & the whole world has been shouting your lungs out forever, has it been working? Forcing sanctions on Saudi and other states that are funding terrorist outfits is telling them to take responsibility for the reckless actions done in the name of Islam. Why not give it a try?

CD

stop acting like a fool. The world and I  are merely inconvenienced and we will find a way to work around and crush the terrorists. Unfortunately the people who live in those countries and those immigrants who belong to islam will face the worst isolation and endless problems. The associated stagnation of living standards will hurt the followers of islam more than anybody. 

Your endless cycle of parroting secondary or irrelevant issues will not help those people. It is important that we put pressure from outside for change but more importantly people in those countries and societies have to organize themselves to get a better future.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>Nice thesis if this is a critique on myopia in foreign relations. Unfortunately, the tie-in is not solid, given the immediacy of the problem to France. The low-lives  who killed did not take umbrage to blasphemy because the US mollycoddles the Saudis. Nor did they need Saudi funds to muster up a couple of rifles.  Ditto with acts of terrorism in Kashmir, Mumbai, Spain, Mindanao or Coimbatore. The cost is so low in these operations that it is hardly  a deterrent. The idea of force as an option is not alien to Islam and the mullahs who preach that will not go away, if money flow dries up (if it is coming in in the first place). The moderates in immigrant communities need not be powerless either, if the host country takes a non-nonsense approach to hunting down the radical elements. If the approach is namby pamby in the name of political correctness, you end up with people in the communities not willing to speak up.

Terror in Kashmir was not funded by western dollars, really? One can wiggle out of it by suggesting that Pakistan misappropriated US funds but truth of the matter is PAK wouldn't have been able to fund or provide training without those monies. I see that you've ignored the part about US supplying arms to  fundamentalist groups thus making them powerful. About your point about low cost of operation, do you think mullahs will be able to sustain in the west without Saudi funds? Can they maintain mosques, schools that foster radical ideology? About your last point about host countries, may be countries like Australia should stop talking from both ends, on one hand begging for Saudi funds and on the other hand talk tough on terrorism.

truthbetold wrote:
CD

stop acting like a fool. The world and I  are merely inconvenienced and we will find a way to work around and crush the terrorists. Unfortunately the people who live in those countries and those immigrants who belong to islam will face the worst isolation and endless problems. The associated stagnation of living standards will hurt the followers of islam more than anybody. 

Your endless cycle of parroting secondary or irrelevant issues will not help those people. It is important that we put pressure from outside for change but more importantly people in those countries and societies have to organize themselves to get a better future.

Kris wrote:

1) Terror is Kashmir will happen with or without American money. This is Pakistan's convenient bogeyman to deflect the topic away from Pakistan's failure as a state.

2) US arms being supplied is an issue for the US to vet out in terms of ROI, but that is not going to stop Islamic terrorism. You think Afghanistan or Pakistan are going to be success stories,  ever, regardless of who is there?

3) Mosques/ schools in London or Birmingham or Marseilles survive because they can leech off the largesse of liberal western governments who have a compulsive need to see no evil and hear no evil, even when the evidence stares at them in the face. They don't need the Saudis to survive and the ideology is already in place.

Kinnera wrote:To the ones who are arguing that this Islamic terrorism will stop if the money supply is cut off.....if money can make ppl do crazy stuff like killing others and killing themselves, try doing that with ppl of other religions. Give a million dollars to a chaddi guy, tell him to shoot others and finally blow himself up. Will he do it? He won't do it for all the money in the world.

Kinnera wrote:
Unless a person is totally brainwashed and blinded by some crazy ideology, he can't do such a thing and islam in some form is doing that. That is the root of the problem and that's where it needs to be tackled. The US doing business with the saudis is not causing this, nor will with stop if the US stops its business dealings/alliance with the saudis.

truthbetold wrote:Cd

"Going by this logic of yours why can't those Kashmir Pandits in Kashmir resolve the issues by themselves? "


It always amazes me how twisted your logic gets. Kashmiri pandit issue is not in any way similar islamic societies internal problem.  If you want to find a problem similar to jihadi islamic internal discussion facing indian society, you can bring up treatment of women, rape, and cast bias.  These problems are similarly deeply entwined with indian life, they sap India's energy and hurt its people and its economy. One can find excuses for caste problem by blaming it on british colonists/ islamic invaders etc. but solution lies with indian people. These indian problems can only be solved by Indians. 

However, none of the indian problems are causing direct threat to non indian societies nor are they indulging in riots or terror outside India. So the outsiders may not say much more than an occasional comment about them. We can say a lot more about these problems in other threads or at other moments. 


Do not confuse kashmiri pandit issue with islamic internal struggle. ( Kashmiri issue has more similarities to palestine issue if you want to open another thread about it.).

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:To the ones who are arguing that this Islamic terrorism will stop if the money supply is cut off.....if money can make ppl do crazy stuff like killing others and killing themselves, try doing that with ppl of other religions. Give a million dollars to a chaddi guy, tell him to shoot others and finally blow himself up. Will he do it? He won't do it for all the money in the woexrld.

Read up on conflicts between Shaivites and Vaishnavites or Hindus and Jains/Buddhists etc.,


>>>>>> so somebody gave them money to get into conflits? . Try giving a few million dollars to an Iyer or Iyengar or a Buddist or a Jains or any hindu and tell them to shoot ppl at random and then blow themselves up. Do you think they'll do it? You can start your experiment with the ones on this forum.

Kinnera wrote:
Unless a person is totally brainwashed and blinded by some crazy ideology, he can't do such a thing and islam in some form is doing that. That is the root of the problem and that's where it needs to be tackled. The US doing business with the saudis is not causing this, nor will with stop if the US stops its business dealings/alliance with the saudis.

I suggest you do some research before dismissing this as hogwash. This is the root of the issue not the moderate muslims living in the west, they're not telling their kids to join IS or Al Qaeda.

>>>>>>>>The moderate muslims in the west are not telling their kids to join IS or Al Qaeda, but the immigrant mullahs and the internet is poisoning their minds with the sick ideology and belief system. And that sure is a problem.

truthbetold wrote:CD 

what the moderates in islam have to do is open for discussion.  If you look back, all religions have a history of  violent past. Some much worse than others. A good read of those religions will tell you that they had several major and minor reform movements. some of them were violent. But combined with political and economic changes, the reform movements over past 500 plus years have pushed western socieities into more efficient socieities to improve human life. India learned some of those lessons and is making progress selectively. 
 
Islam because of its structure did not join the reform process even though few countries experienced some change due to geography and specific local history (turkey and south asia).  But core of islamic states remained firmly in 18th century or earlier times.  Whatever little change was there is again challenged by iran's shia revolution and saudi wahabi expansion.  

Moderate islamic followers have to find ways to come out of the power of these obscurantist forces and reshape their societies.  One of the options is an islamist movement that can co-opt democracy to help fight off islamic backlash. Arab spring is an indication that there is desire for change.  But that desire needs to be organized better to survive govt brutality and islamic extremism. 

I do not have all the answer for moderate islamic forces but they have a historic role to play.  My hope is that those forces will emerge from within. West and rest of the democratic world have keep pressure on islam to change and push the middle east govts for more democratic rights to allow moderates some breathing room. 

(history lesson:  US supported shah till the last but he was pushed out by weak iranan people.  Recently mubarak was supported about a week or so before by US govt. but he could not survive in power.)

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

1) Terror is Kashmir will happen with or without American [url=#]money[/url]. This is Pakistan's convenient bogeyman to deflect the topic away from Pakistan's failure as a state.

2) US arms being supplied is an issue for the US to vet out in terms of ROI, but that is not going to stop Islamic terrorism. You think Afghanistan or Pakistan are going to be success stories,  ever, regardless of who is there?

3) Mosques/ schools in London or Birmingham or Marseilles survive because they can leech off the largesse of liberal western governments who have a compulsive need to see no evil and hear no evil, even when the evidence stares at them in the face. They don't need the Saudis to survive and the ideology is already in place.

1) No mujahideen entered Kashmir for more than 35 years (till '87) since independence but hundreds of them infiltrated in less than a decade since the US mission in that region became operational, is that a mere coincidence?

2) Yes, Pakistan would've been a different story without American/Saudi funds and influence.

3) How many mosques in India are [url=#]promoting[/url] Wahhabi Islam (majority don't receive any funds from Saudi, at least till recently they didn't)? by your logic India should have been in a similar situation as  Pakistan.

Kris wrote:>>>CD,

Two quick points:

1) Maher is spot on. It does not have to be every Muslim. If the numbers involved are enough to create problems and they are all invoking the same playbook and it is growing  and no comparable behavior exists in other groups, deliberately tiptoeing around the ideology seems rather weird. The fallout to this strange pretend game will be huge, as I said in my previous post.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kris wrote:>>>CD,

Two quick points:

1) Maher is spot on. It does not have to be every Muslim. If the numbers involved are enough to create problems and they are all invoking the same playbook and it is growing  and no comparable behavior exists in other groups, deliberately tiptoeing around the ideology seems rather weird. The fallout to this strange pretend game will be huge, as I said in my previous post.

 

I must say I'm very surprised by the sheer naivete, coming from you.

If you think the world's leaders and opinion-makers are just overwhelmed by the need to be politically correct, you couldn't be more mistaken. Regardless of what reservations one might have about Islam and its followers, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to badmouth the religion itself or its holy book because you then alienate 1.6 billion people on this planet who follow that religion, including several nations that straddle the world's biggest oil reserves and one which is nuclear armed.

It is just common sense.

At a more operational level, every Western country has a significant Islamic population, many of who are citizens, enjoying the full protection of the law. So it is not some distant group you can diss, safely insulated from any retribution by your national borders. Those folks are in your city and in your neighborhood. On the whole they are a peaceable lot, but there might be some bad apples among them and the best hope the intelligence agencies and cops have of identifying those bad apples before they do any damage is through the goodwill of people in the community who might have seen or heard something. You wouldn't want to lose that goodwill.

So you see, all that treading on eggshells that you find so abhorrent is actually helping keep you safe.

Kris wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kris wrote:>>>CD,

Two quick points:

1) Maher is spot on. It does not have to be every Muslim. If the numbers involved are enough to create problems and they are all invoking the same playbook and it is growing  and no comparable behavior exists in other groups, deliberately tiptoeing around the ideology seems rather weird. The fallout to this strange pretend game will be huge, as I said in my previous post.

 

I must say I'm very surprised by the sheer naivete, coming from you.

If you think the world's leaders and opinion-makers are just overwhelmed by the need to be politically correct, you couldn't be more mistaken. Regardless of what reservations one might have about Islam and its followers, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to badmouth the religion itself or its holy book because you then alienate 1.6 billion people on this planet who follow that religion, including several nations that straddle the world's biggest oil reserves and one which is nuclear armed.

It is just common sense.

At a more operational level, every Western country has a significant Islamic population, many of who are citizens, enjoying the full protection of the law. So it is not some distant group you can diss, safely insulated from any retribution by your national borders. Those folks are in your city and in your neighborhood. On the whole they are a peaceable lot, but there might be some bad apples among them and the best hope the intelligence agencies and cops have of identifying those bad apples before they do any damage is through the goodwill of people in the community who might have seen or heard something. You wouldn't want to lose that goodwill.

So you see, all that treading on eggshells that you find so abhorrent is actually helping keep you safe.

>>>Bill Maher is not a politician. He is a media personality and has the right to speak his mind. The world's political leaders may have their own agenda, but he is presumably reacting to the usual 'religion of peace' sermon that is unleashed in the media after each terrorist incident.  No, the goodwill that you speak about is not happening for the reasons you are mentioning. If anything, it is the opposite. The absence of sound policing due to fear of giving umbrage to the "community" has resulted in the number of bad apples growing (London comes to mind here). This does not engender confidence in the moderates within the community. I think it is the UK where a sharia court route is an option for the muslim community (I need to double check if it is the UK or some other western european country). The long and short of it is there have been complaints from women who have been harassed for opting to go to the regular courts. There are scandinavian countries where the police refuse to go into these enclaves.Naturally, this doesn't engender confidence in the moderates in the community, much less incentivize them to cooperate with the police. As opposed to Europe, America's policing is more robust and there is no need for the eggshell approach. I do find that abhorrent and thankfully, it has not been a necessity at least thus far.

truthbetold wrote:Cd
Yes. Multiple Arab springs are required.

truthbetold wrote:Md
Read history. Learn how change occurred around the world.

Kris wrote:

3) India has not been free of problems, but I am not clear on what your point is. India is not a muslim country.

You can believe whatever you choose to believe, but no one is seriously entertaining the possibility in Europe that the murders in Paris were because America cozied up to the Saudis.  At the end of the day, this is what is going to inform the reaction. I can tell you this. Islamic terrorism is not that far away from many minds in Europe, even very liberal ones.

truthbetold wrote:Cd
Yes. Multiple Arab springs are required.
External help comes in the form of goodwill from rest of the world. Such goodwill will not start with western govt's action but it is likely to be the end point.
It is not a question of whether moderate Muslims can do it or not. It is a question of when. If they keep failing, the required change will be delayed.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:these right wing nut jobs are funny. when it comes to gun control, they say a few bad apples shouldn't result in all guns being take away, and they say this over and over again. but they'll readily trash all muslims for the action of a few. inconsistent much?

Kinnera wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:these right wing nut jobs are funny. when it comes to gun control, they say a few bad apples shouldn't result in all guns being take away, and they say this over and over again. but they'll readily trash all muslims for the action of a few. inconsistent much?

You ain't no libby, max. You just want to believe that you are one and try hard to prove that you are, but you are not. We see too many such pseudos around. Guys like Bill Maher are the real deal. In fact, ppl in Europe are the real liberals. Most of the ones in US are just wimps and most of the desi ones are pseudos and not even close to being real liberals. Yeah, hippies are liberals.

Resisting an ideology or a toxic belief system doesn't amount to resisting all muslims. This is nothing against ppl.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:these right wing nut jobs are funny. when it comes to gun control, they say a few bad apples shouldn't result in all guns being take away, and they say this over and over again. but they'll readily trash all muslims for the action of a few. inconsistent much?

You ain't no libby, max. You just want to believe that you are one and try hard to prove that you are, but you are not. We see too many such pseudos around. Guys like Bill Maher are the real deal. In fact, ppl in Europe are the real liberals. Most of the ones in US are just wimps and most of the desi ones are pseudos and not even close to being real liberals. Yeah, hippies are liberals.

Resisting an ideology or a toxic belief system doesn't amount to resisting all muslims. This is nothing against ppl.

Badmouthing that guy in that grocery store who did his bit to save a few people nothing against ppl, that's right

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kris wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kris wrote:>>>CD,

Two quick points:

1) Maher is spot on. It does not have to be every Muslim. If the numbers involved are enough to create problems and they are all invoking the same playbook and it is growing  and no comparable behavior exists in other groups, deliberately tiptoeing around the ideology seems rather weird. The fallout to this strange pretend game will be huge, as I said in my previous post.

 

I must say I'm very surprised by the sheer naivete, coming from you.

If you think the world's leaders and opinion-makers are just overwhelmed by the need to be politically correct, you couldn't be more mistaken. Regardless of what reservations one might have about Islam and its followers, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to badmouth the religion itself or its holy book because you then alienate 1.6 billion people on this planet who follow that religion, including several nations that straddle the world's biggest oil reserves and one which is nuclear armed.

It is just common sense.

At a more operational level, every Western country has a significant Islamic population, many of who are citizens, enjoying the full protection of the law. So it is not some distant group you can diss, safely insulated from any retribution by your national borders. Those folks are in your city and in your neighborhood. On the whole they are a peaceable lot, but there might be some bad apples among them and the best hope the intelligence agencies and cops have of identifying those bad apples before they do any damage is through the goodwill of people in the community who might have seen or heard something. You wouldn't want to lose that goodwill.

So you see, all that treading on eggshells that you find so abhorrent is actually helping keep you safe.

>>>Bill Maher is not a politician. He is a media personality and has the right to speak his mind. The world's political leaders may have their own agenda, but he is presumably reacting to the usual 'religion of peace' sermon that is unleashed in the media after each terrorist incident.  No, the goodwill that you speak about is not happening for the reasons you are mentioning. If anything, it is the opposite. The absence of sound policing due to fear of giving umbrage to the "community" has resulted in the number of bad apples growing (London comes to mind here). This does not engender confidence in the moderates within the community. I think it is the UK where a sharia court route is an option for the muslim community (I need to double check if it is the UK or some other western european country). The long and short of it is there have been complaints from women who have been harassed for opting to go to the regular courts. There are scandinavian countries where the police refuse to go into these enclaves.Naturally, this doesn't engender confidence in the moderates in the community, much less incentivize them to cooperate with the police. As opposed to Europe, America's policing is more robust and there is no need for the eggshell approach. I do find that abhorrent and thankfully, it has not been a necessity at least thus far.

A fear of applying the law of the land to Muslims  is very different from shying away from calling Islam the religion of violence. By all means, the former has to be done but if you think the latter will reduce incidents of terrorism, and robust policing can solve the problem,  you are not very different from say, an Upps Aunty, who thinks the solution to the Kashmir problem is deporting Kashmiris to Pakistan.