Privacy and the State

[scottycelt]

But Osama bin Laden's Letter to America made a number of claims, following 9/11, all relating to alleged US intervention in a number of countries, or US support for regimes that were attacking Muslims. Can we believe them?

Well, you can if you like and there you have your 'reason', so why then go searching for further 'understanding' of the problem.?!!

Did Osama represent all Muslims? Of course not! I don't know about you but I believe the great majority of Muslims just want to live in peace and get on with their lives just like everybody else. Osama had no right or mandate to speak and murder innocent civilians (including other Muslims) on behalf of Islam.

That's what many of us already 'understand' and have indeed always 'understood'!

[french frank]

Yes, and as I questioned in #1186 I really can't see that applying in this case.

I meant it was the same principle at work, not that it 'applied' directly in this case. No one is suggesting that all global terrorism is the result of Western interference in other countries: it occurs in Russia too.

[french frank]

Obama had no right or mandate to speak and murder innocent civilians (including other Muslims) on behalf of Islam.

Well, the American voters were warned by his opponents that he was a 'sleeping' Muslim before the presidential elections.

[scottycelt]

... well, my professional life would certainly have been simpler if I had been able just to believe that the motivations for what people did were precisely what people claimed. Unfortunately perhaps I have found that life, humanity, politics, history, society and so on make it all a little more complicated than things seem to be in scottyworld.

I think it's probably more a case that in vinteuil's world simple things become unnecessarily complicated ...

If someone says he/she intends killing me I feel it is safer to believe them rather than spend my time searching for a 'reason' why they would ever contemplate doing such a horrid, horrid and dastardly thing to poor scottycelt!

[scottycelt]

Well, the American voters were warned by his opponents that he was a 'sleeping' Muslim before the presidential elections.

<oops>

I had a feeling this sort of typo might arise eventually!!

Better amend it now before ahinton notices ...

[ahinton]

<oops>

I had a feeling this sort of typo might arise eventually!!

Better amend it now before ahinton notices ...

It wasn't worthy of mention, really - it's been done so often before, occasionally as a typo but more often as a feeble attempt at a joke.

[amateur51]

Suppose then that Gay Rights/Marriage legislation was violently opposed by a certain minority group, who made their point by bombing Gay pubs and clubs, or attacking a ""Pride" parade with assault rifles? Would you suggest that the Government of the day should sit down and negotiate with them? Perhaps accede to some extent to their demands?

By your logic, that would be the solution. Because violence is either an acceptable way to further a cause, or it is not.

You can't have it both ways.

(P.S.- I have slightly edited your original post. "Terrorists" is enough.)

You miss the point, as usual - the people you call terrorists frequently refer to themselves as freedom fighters.

You also miss the point that David Copeland did bomb The Admiral Duncan pub in Soho. He was put in prison.


You miss the point that lesbian and gay activists were the victims of verbal terrorism in both Houses of Parliament from the 1950s to the 1990s.

This is what comes of attempting to patronise someone who is making a series of valid points.

Finally do you deny that ALL British Prime Ministers since Macmillan have had to negotiate with people they referred to as terrorists initially? The solution is ALWAYS political.

[amateur51]

I meant it was the same principle at work, not that it 'applied' directly in this case. No one is suggesting that all global terrorism is the result of Western interference in other countries: it occurs in Russia too.

I think you'll find that the Triumvirate of Complacency forgot that

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I meant it was the same principle at work, not that it 'applied' directly in this case. No one is suggesting that all global terrorism is the result of Western interference in other countries: it occurs in Russia too.

I understood you perfectly well. I said nothing about it being Western interference, and indeed, you had it down to Kenyan interference.

And no, I still think that in this case external interference was not the cause of the Nairobi attacks. Not in the slightest. If anything, Anna's explanation was a good first step, and there's plenty more in the wiki reference I gave to explain the motivation.

[Mr Pee]

You miss the point, as usual - the people you call terrorists frequently refer to themselves as freedom fighters.

You also miss the point that David Copeland did bomb The Admiral Duncan pub in Soho. He was put in prison.

I am fully aware of that.

You miss the point that lesbian and gay activists were the victims of verbal terrorism in both Houses of Parliament from the 1950s to the 1990s.

" Verbal Terrorism"????...Oh for an emoticon.... <laugh> <laugh>

Perhaps we could persuade Al Queada and their various hangers on that Verbal Terrorism should be their new tactic. Then we could all sleep safe in our beds again.

Verbal Terrorism...you really have out-done yourself this time....

[scottycelt]

No one is suggesting that all global terrorism is the result of Western interference in other countries:

I humbly beg to differ ... that would appear to be quite a common suggestion here. Or at the very least an impression given ...

it occurs in Russia too.

Yes, and in many other countries as well, some of which have already been mentioned.

[Pabmusic]

...Did Osama represent all Muslims? Of course not! I don't know about you but I believe the great majority of Muslims just want to live in peace and get on with their lives just like everybody else. Osama had no right or mandate to speak and murder innocent civilians (including other Muslims) on behalf of Islam.

That's what many of us already 'understand' and have indeed always 'understood'!

A proportion of Muslims (Five percent? Fifteen? Fifty?) demand that all non-Muslims conform to Islamic law. While they do not usually resort to violence in their protests (in the West) they threaten it. Carrying a sign that reads “Behead those who insult the prophet” may still count as an example of peaceful protest, but it is also an assurance that infidel blood would be shed if the person holding the placard only had more power. This appalling promise is, of course, fulfilled in most Muslim societies - certainly in Middle-Eastern ones. (In Pakistan too, as that young girl learnt to her cost. For wanting to go to school.)

The Sultan of Brunei (about 600 miles south of me) has just introduced Sharia law (an idea unknown in SE Asia) with stoning for adultery and amputations for theft. A few weeks ago, a Muslim uprising in Zamboanga (Philippines - about 330 miles south of me) killed many Christians and was put down with reasonably high loss of life. Neither of these incidents involves apparent protest against the West.

Religion works as a pretext for political violence because many millions of people actually believe what they say they believe - that imaginary crimes like blasphemy ('dissing' the faith) and apostasy (leaving the faith) deserve death, and that paradise awaits martyrs. To suggest that religion is just a way of channeling popular unrest, and that the true source of the problem can be found in the history of western aggression in any region, is a fantasy. I believe that much that we regard as the way to live depends on our overcoming this suicidal self-deception.

[amateur51]

I am fully aware of that.

No you're not otherwise youwouldn't have made such a glaring error.

" Verbal Terrorism"????...Oh for an emoticon.... <laugh> <laugh>.

The sort of stuff that Barbara Young for one came out with would be illegal today thanks to Hate Crime legislation. Your complacency slip is showing again, Mary.

Then we could all sleep safe in our beds again.

I'm certain that each member of the Triumvirate of Complacency sleep soundly in their beds (certainly no-one else's) every night

[amateur51]

A proportion of Muslims (Five percent? Fifteen? Fifty?) demand that all non-Muslims conform to Islamic law. While they do not usually resort to violence in their protests (in the West) they threaten it. Carrying a sign that reads “Behead those who insult the prophet” may still count as an example of peaceful protest, but it is also an assurance that infidel blood would be shed if the person holding the placard only had more power. This appalling promise is, of course, fulfilled in most Muslim societies - certainly in Middle-Eastern ones. (In Pakistan too, as that young girl learnt to her cost. For wanting to go to school.)

The Sultan of Brunei (about 600 miles south of me) has just introduced Sharia law (an idea unknown in SE Asia) with stoning for adultery and amputations for theft. A few weeks ago, a Muslim uprising in Zamboanga (Philippines - about 330 miles south of me) killed many Christians and was put down with reasonably high loss of life. Neither of these incidents involves apparent protest against the West.

Religion works as a pretext for political violence because many millions of people actually believe what they say they believe - that imaginary crimes like blasphemy ('dissing' the faith) and apostasy (leaving the faith) deserve death, and that paradise awaits martyrs. To suggest that religion is just a way of channeling popular unrest, and that the true source of the problem can be found in the history of western aggression in any region, is a fantasy. I believe that much that we regard as the way to live depends on our overcoming this suicidal self-deception.

Isn't there also the concept (not sure if it is Quranic) that an attack on one Muslim is an attack on all Muslims? This seems to be what 'validates' in cultural/religious terms the attacks such as those in New York, London and Madrid.

[scottycelt]

A proportion of Muslims (Five percent? Fifteen? Fifty?) demand that all non-Muslims conform to Islamic law. While they do not usually resort to violence in their protests (in the West) they threaten it. Carrying a sign that reads “Behead those who insult the prophet” may still count as an example of peaceful protest, but it is also an assurance that infidel blood would be shed if the person holding the placard only had more power. This appalling promise is, of course, fulfilled in most Muslim societies - certainly in Middle-Eastern ones. (In Pakistan too, as that young girl learnt to her cost. For wanting to go to school.)

The Sultan of Brunei (about 600 miles south of me) has just introduced Sharia law (an idea unknown in SE Asia) with stoning for adultery and amputations for theft. A few weeks ago, a Muslim uprising in Zamboanga (Philippines - about 330 miles south of me) killed many Christians and was put down with reasonably high loss of life. Neither of these incidents involves apparent protest against the West.

Religion works as a pretext for political violence because many millions of people actually believe what they say they believe - that imaginary crimes like blasphemy ('dissing' the faith) and apostasy (leaving the faith) deserve death, and that paradise awaits martyrs. To suggest that religion is just a way of channeling popular unrest, and that the true source of the problem can be found in the history of western aggression in any region, is a fantasy. I believe that much that we regard as the way to live depends on our overcoming this suicidal self-deception.

I agree with some of that, Pab. I think it is appalling that the massacres of Christians ... not just in the place you mention but in the Middle East as well ... has largely gone unreported in the UK. The media here seems much more concerned about 'women's rights' in Saudi Arabia or 'gay rights' issues in Russia. Christians are not reckoned to be part of the modern 'cool culture', so are simply ignored.

However, it is unhelpful to lump all religions together as if these were all the same. Christians, for example, generally don't go around calling for others to be beheaded, at least not these days. Thou Shalt Not Kill is a clear intruction as part of that faith. If it is broken it is the people who are at fault not the religion.

I'm sure you'll agree that many of these conflicts in the east are as much tribal as religious ... the same is even true closer to home in Northern Ireland.

Surely most 'ordinary' people of any religion ( or none) just want to live in peace and get on with their lives? Mobs taking to streets do not necessarily represent the overwhelming majority of all peoples in all countries who do not. They (the majority) are probably far too busy simply trying to survive at home.