Discussion in 'World Events' started by Plazma Inferno!, Dec 4, 2015.
Be Alert, not alarmed:
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Than the living in fear that you do.
That was a dishonest edit of my post, which ignores its point. Feel free to go back and respond to what I said.
Only in America, not in France, Germany, or Italy. Those countires have not changed their way of life - they cellebrate it still and hold to their values but do increase their alertness. The US in stead is thinking of ending religious freedom (closing Mosques, accepting only Christian immigrants, and most state governers have told Lady liberty to GFYourself." They will have no more of that silliness about "Give me your tired and hungry, wanting to breath free air ..." Only America has changed as the terriorist wanted all to. Where is our courage?
I don't live in fear. There are no cops in the back of my car, nor are their "signs every ten feet that says "put your seat belt on or you will die like that other driver did!" " Which is good. I wear a seat belt (or not) based on my judgments of the risks and rewards for doing so, not due to an "indefinite state of seat belt emergency."
If you cannot live like that, and need that constant state of emergency to get you to make such decisions, well . . . fortunately most people are not like you.
OK. You are either being deliberately dense, or did not read the original post.
At least two interpretations :
If I am not mistaken a "state of emergency " is a legal or governmental tool for allowing emergency laws to come in to effect with out unnecessary red tape.
More in line with the OP a "state of emergency" is a state of emotional need to act and act urgently. Example: If complacency exists more lives will be lost.
It appears that ISIL thrives on keeping the world on edge and will do what it can to maintain that "brinkmanship".
They appear to be taunting the world into rash and unwise action, testing it's self restraint when dealing with what amounts to and could be considered to be, a serious collective mental illness. (Salafism)
By calling to the Muslim world to draw the line between religious duty and fundamental human rights.**( claiming the theosophical high ground thus shaming more moderate Muslims into supporting their cause)
**Universal declaration of human rights (1948) underpins most Western Democratic values ( legal and social) and it is those basic human rights that afford individual freedoms that are under attack by the Salafi movement.
Basically Salafist Muslim males have been dis-empowered by the propagation of contemporary Human rights reinforced by the advent of the recent global Internet medium which inspires Salafi Muslim women, in particular ( the most oppressed) and men to seek freedom. The Internet has opened many eyes in the Middle East that were closed before and the Salafist Muslim male is being dis-empowered accordingly.
So the war is really about Salafism vs Human rights.
I believe that most contemporary Muslims would be happy to sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it is only the extreme Salafi Muslim that would strenuously resist it.
Those are two reasonable interpretations, although from the OP's post it seems pretty clear that it's the governmental-tool side of things; a state where normal checks and balances and/or individual rights are suspended to deal with what is perceived as a greater threat. And that is, unfortunately, one of the goals of terrrorism - to deny others rights (and advance their cause of reduced rights) by maintaining a constant state of fear. The other is to foment anger between the west and conservative Islam, so that they can gather converts for their cause.
Agreed - and we seem all to eager to fulfill their wishes.
Well, I'd be a bit more specific than that. The activists and jihadists within Salafism are indeed a serious problem, one that threatens other religions/people throughout the world. It is important to make a distinction between them and the purists within Salafism, who preach nonviolence and restraint, and advocate for change through political channels.
I'd equate the Salafi purists to the Westboro Baptists - people who I think are completely off-base when it comes to their interpretation of both religion and human rights. But provided they are not violent in their protests, and work for change through demonstrations and political action, they have a right to their opinions, wrongheaded though they are.
Really because only like 3% of all terrorist attacks in the US are done for islamic pruposes. in fact for a long while thanks to the JDL Judiasm was behind most of the religious motivated terror attacks in this country. this is so off base it isn't funny. Your putting fear and hate way ahead of facts and coming across as a jack ass.
perhaps you should learn your own message. No they don't. killing is a means to create fear. repeating the lie that there goal is to kill as many people as possible won't ever make it true.
Obama response to the threat of terrorism - 2015-12-07
Having watched President Obama's 13+ minute speech a couple of times I feel he has handled the situation reasonably well. However I seriously think it could have been much more inclusive ( globally ) if he referred to The Declaration of Human Rights ( United Nations) rather than only USA human rights. The quest for freedom is a global issue not only USA.
I believe if he referred to the protection of human rights as agreed via the UN he would have managed to include all nations joining them in a common struggle providing a more united front.
Human rights are not the sole province of the USA so to speak, to protect and maintain.
good points , thanks!
This comes under, "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck." If you act like you're in a state of emergency and fear, you probably are, even if you're also in a state of denial.
Repeating it won't ever make it true.
Killing people is seldom a useful goal. The reason they kill people is to affect the living.
Separate names with a comma.