Raif Badawi and Saudi Arabia’s intolerance

truthbetold wrote:Cd
Your responses are more like the whining of a drama queen. No substance. Lumping unrelated groups and throwing irrelevant rants do not make an argument.

Just for clarification . Neither Iran of 1970s or turkey of today are modern. They are somewhat westernized by the force of their despotic or semi dictatorial rulers. The societies are prone to extreme changes as witnessed in Iran in 1980.

Apply your mind and comeback with a coherent argument.

truthbetold wrote:Cd
Your responses are more like the whining of a drama queen. No substance. Lumping unrelated groups and throwing irrelevant rants do not make an argument.

truthbetold wrote:

Just for clarification . Neither Iran of 1970s or turkey of today are modern. They are somewhat westernized by the force of their despotic or semi dictatorial rulers. The societies are prone to extreme changes as witnessed in Iran in 1980.

Apply your mind and comeback with a coherent argument.

Kinnera wrote:

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

Badmouthing? Is that what you got from that post? Reading comprehension problems much, CD. Go read it again. Read the last part again and again. Maybe you'll get what i was trying to say.

Kris wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

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.

Compare the US and Europe in terms of application of law and policing. How widespread is ground level islamic terrorism in the US compared to Europe? Therein lies the answer as to whether robust policing works or not.

Kris wrote:Maher calling it a religion of violence is his free speech right as a free citizen.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kris wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

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.

Compare the US and Europe in terms of application of law and policing. How widespread is ground level islamic terrorism in the US compared to Europe? Therein lies the answer as to whether robust policing works or not.

Sorry to burst your bubble. This has nothing to do with "robust" policing. France actually has 43% more cops per 100,000 population than the US.

The reality is that the US has a mere 1.5 million Muslims (~0.6% of the population) while France and UK, thanks to their colonial past, have 5 million (~9%) and ~3 million (~4.5%) Muslims respectively. There is no practical way to police such large populations without the active assistance of the community.

Kris wrote:Maher calling it a religion of violence is his free speech right as a free citizen.

I call a strawman. Nobody is disputing his right to free speech. Maher is a talking head and enjoys the pleasures of power, shooting his mouth off on whatever he pleases, without any responsibility. But you'll never hear any responsible leader say something like this (aka "treading on eggshells") for the very practical and pragmatic reasons I mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

Kris wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kris wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

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.

Compare the US and Europe in terms of application of law and policing. How widespread is ground level islamic terrorism in the US compared to Europe? Therein lies the answer as to whether robust policing works or not.

Sorry to burst your bubble. This has nothing to do with "robust" policing. France actually has 43% more cops per 100,000 population than the US.

The reality is that the US has a mere 1.5 million Muslims (~0.6% of the population) while France and UK, thanks to their colonial past, have 5 million (~9%) and ~3 million (~4.5%) Muslims respectively. There is no practical way to police such large populations without the active assistance of the community.

Kris wrote:Maher calling it a religion of violence is his free speech right as a free citizen.

I call a strawman. Nobody is disputing his right to free speech. Maher is a talking head and enjoys the pleasures of power, shooting his mouth off on whatever he pleases, without any responsibility. But you'll never hear any responsible leader say something like this (aka "treading on eggshells") for the very practical and pragmatic reasons I mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

>>>1) No bubble being burst here. Post 9/11, within 2 hours of where I live, there was a community with some Islamic group engaging in shady activities. The  police zeroed in and identified the culprits, despite protests about police surveillance. Berkeley's student newspaper published a cartoon with the hijackers in hell or meeting allah or some such thing. There were protests from islamic groups, but the newspaper refused to back down on the basis that it was an editorial opinion. If the protesters had resorted to violence, the police would have bean at hand in a matter of minutes. The robust policing I referred to is that aspect of it not the police to population ratio.

2) if I recall, your comment about my naivete was in response to my comment about Maher, not about any politician. I pointed out that he is well within his rights. Why is that a strawman argument? In any event, it doesn't matter if he is a leader or not. As a media person, he has just as much reach and maybe more than many politicians. In that sense, he is not inconsequential. He is not bound to some benchmark of some "responsibility" parameters to qualify for free speech rights.  The same article cited Carly Fiorina (ex-HP) and Salman Rushdie, hardly people who can be dismissed out of hand. 

Finally, this idea that due to saudi arabia's oil reserves or the need to not give umbrage to someone as the basis to self- censor free speech, the "walking on eggshells" I referred to, seems like a compromising of american free speech ideals more than being responsible, if that is indeed what politicians are up to.  That is not to say they are not doing that, in which case I have a lot more respect for maher for speaking his mind.

This is what wrote:
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...

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kris wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kris wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

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.

Compare the US and Europe in terms of application of law and policing. How widespread is ground level islamic terrorism in the US compared to Europe? Therein lies the answer as to whether robust policing works or not.

Sorry to burst your bubble. This has nothing to do with "robust" policing. France actually has 43% more cops per 100,000 population than the US.

The reality is that the US has a mere 1.5 million Muslims (~0.6% of the population) while France and UK, thanks to their colonial past, have 5 million (~9%) and ~3 million (~4.5%) Muslims respectively. There is no practical way to police such large populations without the active assistance of the community.

Kris wrote:Maher calling it a religion of violence is his free speech right as a free citizen.

I call a strawman. Nobody is disputing his right to free speech. Maher is a talking head and enjoys the pleasures of power, shooting his mouth off on whatever he pleases, without any responsibility. But you'll never hear any responsible leader say something like this (aka "treading on eggshells") for the very practical and pragmatic reasons I mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

>>>1) No bubble being burst here. Post 9/11, within 2 hours of where I live, there was a community with some Islamic group engaging in shady activities. The  police zeroed in and identified the culprits, despite protests about police surveillance. Berkeley's student newspaper published a cartoon with the hijackers in hell or meeting allah or some such thing. There were protests from islamic groups, but the newspaper refused to back down on the basis that it was an editorial opinion. If the protesters had resorted to violence, the police would have bean at hand in a matter of minutes. The robust policing I referred to is that aspect of it not the police to population ratio.

2) if I recall, your comment about my naivete was in response to my comment about Maher, not about any politician. I pointed out that he is well within his rights. Why is that a strawman argument? In any event, it doesn't matter if he is a leader or not. As a media person, he has just as much reach and maybe more than many politicians. In that sense, he is not inconsequential. He is not bound to some benchmark of some "responsibility" parameters to qualify for free speech rights.  The same article cited Carly Fiorina (ex-HP) and Salman Rushdie, hardly people who can be dismissed out of hand. 

Finally, this idea that due to saudi arabia's oil reserves or the need to not give umbrage to someone as the basis to self- censor free speech, the "walking on eggshells" I referred to, seems like a compromising of american free speech ideals more than being responsible, if that is indeed what politicians are up to.  That is not to say they are not doing that, in which case I have a lot more respect for maher for speaking his mind.

No sir, I have nothing against Maher or his freedom of speech. Let me refresh your memory.

This is what wrote:
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...

Maher was not tiptoeing around anything. It is the comity of world leaders who are. And I'm trying to explain to you why.

If you still think the post-9/11 police action is scalable or even replicable when their numbers and densities are an order of magnitude higher, you are welcome to your illusions.

Kris wrote:
>>>My point about the fallout is one we may well (unfortunately) see unfold in the not too distant future in Europe. The brushing of this issue under the carpet is already resulting in resentment in the general population. You can conduct random straw polls in England or France or Germany to verify this. With regard to any american politician who is holding back only on the basis of not giving umbrage to arabs, it would be wise to keep this aspect under wraps, if he wants to get re-elected. If America has managed to ward off terrorism post 9/11, I don't see it losing the battle with internal skirmishes with immigrants. There is no illusion when it is grounded in a tried and tested machinery. It has more or less preserved its integrity despite sea changes like the sixties and integration.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>My point about the fallout is one we may well (unfortunately) see unfold in the not too distant future in Europe. The brushing of this issue under the carpet is already resulting in resentment in the general population. You can conduct random straw polls in England or France or Germany to verify this. With regard to any american politician who is holding back only on the basis of not giving umbrage to arabs, it would be wise to keep this aspect under wraps, if he wants to get re-elected. If America has managed to ward off terrorism post 9/11, I don't see it losing the battle with internal skirmishes with immigrants. There is no illusion when it is grounded in a tried and tested machinery. It has more or less preserved its integrity despite sea changes like the sixties and integration.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense. If the US didn't face any problems calling a spade a spade thanks to robust policing, France and UK should also please their general aka Christian population by calling Islam the religion of violence and vilifying their Muslim citizenry. And if those folks get upset and do bad things, just send in more cops.

Kris wrote: What is the problem with robust policing or calling a spade a spade?

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kris wrote: What is the problem with robust policing or calling a spade a spade?

Depends on what problem you are trying to solve. Breaking up a bunch of Muslims rioting over the depiction of Pro Mo is not in the same category as infiltrating a jihadist network and preventing a terrorist attack. The former is just brute force aka robust policing. The latter is impossible to pull off without the community's goodwill.

So with your prescription, you can have the smug satisfaction of calling a spade a spade without provoking a riot, but you will have an upsurge in bombings and mass shootings. You will win a battle and lose the war.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:no terror attacks since 9/11? how do we classify fort hood and the boston marathon bombings? yes the US has been better at this than europe, but that doesn't warrant smugness.

yes i am aware that the fort hood shooting was conveniently filed away as workplace violence precisely to continue making the smug claim of no terrorism since 9/11.

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:no terror attacks since 9/11? how do we classify fort hood and the boston marathon bombings? yes the US has been better at this than europe, but that doesn't warrant smugness.

yes i am aware that the fort hood shooting was conveniently filed away as workplace violence precisely to continue making the smug claim of no terrorism since 9/11.

>>>It doesn't warrant smugness, considering the need to not let your guard down when it comes to terrorism, but the US being better at managing this is not happenstance either.

truthbetold wrote:CD.


I provided an answer to your question on blueprint in the above post.

The Paris march is because, we in the west do not want to tolerate few days disruption to our way of life , to our business. We do not like the possibility of  threat to our lives. It may not mean much for those who do not care for other people's life or their quality of life but it means a lot to those living in the west.

That is to say, the American-led invasions of the Middle East, openly and explicitly were carried out to “bring democracy” to the Middle East. We would like to think – and in every way our societies act as if – what happens there, in the name of democracy, under American leadership, has nothing to do with what happens here. Nothing could be further from the truth. What happens there – the “collateral damage”, the violence, and our governments’ support for autocratic regimes that brutally repress democracy and free speech – undermines any argument that the west stands for justice and democracy. Until that is addressed, the notion that denigrating Muslims reinforces the fight for a free society is a joke of the vilest sort.

If our real concern is freedom of speech, democracy and human rights, then let’s first get our own house in order. Anyone asking Muslims to distance themselves publicly from these attacks, needs to first distance themselves from the violence, repression and denigration done in “our” name.

Anyone fearing Muslim totalitarianism, needs to first challenge our governments’ warm support for totalitarian friends across the world and the opportunistic suppression of free speech in the name of security at home. Until then, as Reporters without Borders puts it, we will be letting “predators of press freedom spit on the graves of Charlie Hebdo.”