Man United NSR Politics thread

[SirManchester]

For some reason, methinks that people are just looking for a way to start off an international incident. Hey! Maybe not, but you never know in these times.


I wouldn't doubt it, centuries worth of aggrivation and political turmoil, then Europe's and US' involvment there in the 20th cent....it all culminated into this mass of anti-western fundementalist mentality and it's not going away.

[Motterman]

See? I knew us Christians should have rioted and burned down those museums for showing crucifixes immersed in urine... :rolleyes:

[johno]

I wouldn't doubt it, centuries worth of aggrivation and political turmoil, then Europe's and US' involvment there in the 20th cent....it all culminated into this mass of anti-western fundementalist mentality and it's not going away.

when people use hate to accomplish their goals they don't need logic. You are applying or attempting to apply logic to a situation that is bereft of logic. After-all, the best way to prove to the meddling Western world that you can handle your own affairs is to actually, handle you own affairs - rather than putting more money into terrorism than schools.

what excuse do you give drug-lords in the us? do they hate americans and as such want to kill them, albeit slowly? when someone gets shot outside a highschool for looking the wrong way at someone else's girl where's the logic in that? people are stupid and do stupid things, to associate religion with the crap that's going on in the middle east is to be completely removed from what religion is about and what islam is about. I'm not Muslim, I'm Christian but I live in a country that's a pretty even split between Hindus, Muslims and Christians and yes we have some militants in our country but they are a minority. People who think the conflict in the ME and the global terrorism situation is about religion are as naive as those who thought the crusades were about religion. War and Terror are always about 1 or 2 things. Hate and Economics... nothing else - everything else is window dressing or gets pulled into the picture as secondary.

[StrikerCW]

In that statement you quoted he never really said anything about religion he just said what you said. The West meddling in the affairs of others coming to a boil (again and again and again).

However, I ask another question. If its not about religion (ie the people rioting and killing in the ME don't think its about religion) then why do they always proclaim about this religious crap for fighting? Are you trying to say that it isn't really about religion that these radicals get angry in the name of? Why bother to go to so much effort then?

[Sapphire]

The first thing that interests me about the whole cartoon controversy is that it's ostensibly about freedom of the press. But our press in Western countries and certainly in the US is not totally "free" is it? I mean, its free-er than presses in, say, Saudi Arabia or Indonesia. But, one could not publish a cartoon with explicit nudity in it for example, or explicit violence, torture, etc. Assuming it could get past an editorial board, there would be serious public outcry and probably government interference in the case of such publication. In the US, we have a sense of collective public morality (bridging beyond religion) that in many islamic countries is synonomous with their religion -- so morality=Islam, and that is enforced by the state to ensure hegemony. In many Islamic countries, (including the new Iraq--yay, democracy) there is little or no separation between church and state, and the state usually has exclusive control over media publications. One can see in the demands of protesters in the islamic world a fundemental lack of understanding of how we think about collective morality outside of religion (unfortunately, we see it increasingly within the US as well). What is interesting to me is that our presses ARE actually subject to constraints of public morality; they're just not constraints based solely on religion, as in much of the islamic world.

The second thing that interests me is the response in the West to the initial outcry of muslims over the cartoon. The cartoon was published, and in the wake of criticism, they were published again, all over Europe, in a sign of solidarity for freedom of the press. It has only been in recent days, after serious violence, that the newspaper has even apologized for causing offense (One does not have to apologize for publishing the cartoons, in order to apologize for offense it caused.) By way of comparison, the closest analogy I can come to, is that racist cartoons have been a hot topic on two University campuses I have been on the past five years; both times deeply racist cartoons have been published, they have been met with a public outcry. On both occasions, the student newspapers in question admitted to an error in editorial judgement and apologized to the student body. On both occasions, University administrators (while they did not assert nor exercise any claim of power over the student paper) decried the publications as in poor taste and apologized as an organization to those offended. Why, in the current case, did it take the newspapers and corresponding governments so long to apologize for something which, rightly or wrongly, is being viewed as an offense on their part? It seems stubborn, stupid, and I would imagine based on widespread xenophobia and racism for arabs/muslims in Europe.

Thirdly, on violence. Most of the people protesting live in countries which have been seriously embroiled in political turmoil colored with Western involvement, and I would add: violence. Violence is acceptable and experienced everyday in many of these cultures. It's not that Islam encourages violence (read the Qur'an sometime); it's that the cultures practicing this religion are unstable, poor, politically tulmultous, and thereby entrenched in cultures of violence. And poverty and instability, not to mention the corresponding lack of education with these problems, leads to people accepting fundamentalist and extremist views of the world (See the rise of Hitler). People in the US didn't burn down museums over the crucifix in urine, in part because they have too much to lose; and, if anything, we'd just snipe the museum curator, cause thats how we exact violence in our culture, individually. I think it sells people short (and sells yourself short, if you really want to understand the way the world works) to say these people are just stupid or barbaric or "primitive" (*shudder*) or acting in the true violent nature of Islam, or whatever. If people are acting en masse, there's usually a reason behind it, in this case socio-political effects.

[johno]

In that statement you quoted he never really said anything about religion he just said what you said. The West meddling in the affairs of others coming to a boil (again and again and again).

However, I ask another question. If its not about religion (ie the people rioting and killing in the ME don't think its about religion) then why do they always proclaim about this religious crap for fighting? Are you trying to say that it isn't really about religion that these radicals get angry in the name of? Why bother to go to so much effort then?

I really just quoted him to let him know i was responding to his views on religion being poisonous.

The people in the heart of the movement are puppets, much like hooligans, or gangsters, they - the ones who pay the price, have bought into the ideology of the leaders - the leaders sell relgion because its an easy sell and therefore an easy cammoflage for their real motivation which is hate or money and the religious dressing is just that, dressing. Religion is also useful because if you are just a thug or a warmonger then you can be taken out with no problem. If religion enters the frame then you can be either a martyr or can claim that you are being discriminated against.

[johno]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Sapphire again.

[Sapphire]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Sapphire again.Likewise ;)

[StrikerCW]

Saph, you say that they are not barbaric in their actions (they being the overreacting Muslims, IMO of course as you stated because of where I am from) but you also say that they are uneducated and live in an unstable atmosphere that is suseptible to violence on an everyday occurance.

How.. then pray, is that not barbaric? I guess that word does not directly apply because the word insinuates lack of class or culture, not education, right? I can not really think of the word but how can you not say the actions are somewhat 'barbaric' because of the apparent way the people live in an violent atmosphere compared to the way the Western world is?

edit: I didn't articulate that very well. I'm not sure if you will understand what I am saying... :(

[Vermont Red]

I can not really think of the word but how can you not say the actions are somewhat 'barbaric' because of the apparent way the people live in an violent atmosphere compared to the way the Western world is?

Using the word "barbaric" reveals your own bias in evaluating the actions of these people. In order to use this word you have to first put your own culture above theirs.

[Sapphire]

Saph, you say that they are not barbaric in their actions (they being the overreacting Muslims, IMO of course as you stated because of where I am from) but you also say that they are uneducated and live in an unstable atmosphere that is suseptible to violence on an everyday occurance.

How.. then pray, is that not barbaric? I guess that word does not directly apply because the word insinuates lack of class or culture, not education, right? I can not really think of the word but how can you not say the actions are somewhat 'barbaric' because of the apparent way the people live in an violent atmosphere compared to the way the Western world is?

edit: I didn't articulate that very well. I'm not sure if you will understand what I am saying... :(I looked up "barbaric" in my dictionary right now, and it says "Wild, unsophisticated." It implies that there is no reason to what they're doing, it's animalistic; it's fundamentally different than what you or I might do in a similar situation. Not because you have a different culture or worldview, but because they're animals and you and I are not.

I might not bristle at the word so much, if I didn't know the history of its use. If you read colonial literature, which I do alot of (Literature nerd :D ), you can see that often these kinds of terms (barbaric, savage, primitive) are used to describe people who are eventually colonized or dominated. It's a way of dehumanizing them--label them an animal then treat them like an animal. I know it's not something you probably intend with your use of the word, but I think it makes it alot easier to not think of them as thinking feeling people, just like you or me. Most importantly in this case, it makes it easy to ignore what understandable reasons there might be for what they're doing; which I think are really important to understand.

Edit: Maybe to answer you further : If you want a different way to say that they live in a violent culture, I'm not sure what to tell you; I think you can just say that directly. That seems to be a different point than to say "barbaric."

[Motterman]

Most importantly in this case, it makes it easy to ignore what understandable reasons there might be for what they're doing; which I think are really important to understand.

Is it more important to know why they want me dead, or just knowing the fact that they want me dead?

Is it really all George W. Bush's fault? I mean, the 9/11 attacks were in the planning stages when Clinton was still president...

[Vermont Red]

Is it really all George W. Bush's fault? I mean, the 9/11 attacks were in the planning stages when Clinton was still president...

Everything would certainly be easier if all this really started in 2001.

[Motterman]

Everything would certainly be easier if all this really started in 2001.

I was mainly being rhetorical... I realize this problem dates back thousands of years.

[Vermont Red]

I was mainly being rhetorical... I realize this problem dates back thousands of years.

We need a smiley for rhetorical. :D

[Sapphire]

Is it more important to know why they want me dead, or just knowing the fact that they want me dead? If you want to stop someone from hurting you, it's usually a good idea to understand why they want to hurt you. You can't just build up walls to keep people out; eventually they get in. You have to use diplomacy and tact and negotiation, AND walls. Who was it that said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick"?

Is it really all George W. Bush's fault? I mean, the 9/11 attacks were in the planning stages when Clinton was still president...I don't think George Bush has any relevance to the cartoon riots??

But I think the idea that he was responsible for 9/11 is ludicrous, frankly. (And you know I despise him). The responsibility he bears is post-911, where he turned a small organization of radicals into the basis for a "global war on terror", which according to him will never end in our lifetimes -- whatever a "war" on an ideology is supposed to look like. He should have focused on destroying Al Qaeda, which at the time was a small and well-financed organization, end of. He should have used tact and diplomacy (remember when there was a shadow of those in our government?) to at least argue to the muslim world that the US was not attacking them per se, but someone in their midst who was exploiting them.

[Achtung]

Is it more important to know why they want me dead, or just knowing the fact that they want me dead?

Knowing why might help you change their opinion of you. Being purely reactive to the situation is the international equivalent of swatting at flies rather taking the garbage out of the house.

[Achtung]

I was mainly being rhetorical... I realize this problem dates back thousands of years.

Indeed, one could easily argue that the "middle east vs west" war goes back to the Punic Wars at least. Or further.

[Motterman]

If you want to stop someone from hurting you, it's usually a good idea to understand why they want to hurt you. You can't just build up walls to keep people out; eventually they get in. You have to use diplomacy and tact and negotiation, AND walls. Who was it that said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick"?

I don't think George Bush has any relevance to the cartoon riots??

But I think the idea that he was responsible for 9/11 is ludicrous, frankly. (And you know I despise him). The responsibility he bears is post-911, where he turned a small organization of radicals into the basis for a "global war on terror", which according to him will never end in our lifetimes -- whatever a "war" on an ideology is supposed to look like. He should have focused on destroying Al Qaeda, which at the time was a small and well-financed organization, end of. He should have used tact and diplomacy (remember when there was a shadow of those in our government?) to at least argue to the muslim world that the US was not attacking them per se, but someone in their midst who was exploiting them.

Well, this conversation has moved past simply a cartoon and gone into why the Islamic people who are rioting over that cartoon harbor such ill will towards non-Mulsims and are so easily riled up to protest, riot, etc. Obviously, some here have already touched on the anti-Western world sentiment component as some of these people see us and our allies as part of the reasons they live in squalor, etc. Groups like the Taliban and Al Queda are no doubt behind the inciting of many of these incidents, and using the anti-US sentiment as gasoline for the fire.

The problem anybody trying to fight these Islamic extremists face, is that they are fighting Islamic extremists.

[Motterman]

Knowing why might help you change their opinion of you. Being purely reactive to the situation is the international equivalent of swatting at flies rather taking the garbage out of the house.

Yeah, you can strive to understand "why" they want you dead, just don't let your guard down and forget that they want you dead.