Jump to content

Fed up


idun
 Share

Recommended Posts

Tonight on french news they showed the manif's all over the muslim world against the Charlie cartoons that were published a few days ago.

That the people who were doing this were sometimes 'stone age', ie they really were throwing stones.......... the most shocking was a big group of lawyers in Pakistan who burnt an effigy of a french person and said that mocking the prophet, the punishment was beheading. These men in suits, should be intelligent. They are simply ignorant evil men who obviously have not read what their prophet said and did and are just making it all up to suit their own agenda.

So I am fed up. I am fed up on so many levels, if I said what I was thinking I reckon tonight I'd sound like a rabid fascist........ and maybe this is driving me down that horrible path.  I do know that if I have never liked the idea of religions, but my fear of them and aversion to them all grows daily. 

I have no idea what those that believe who are 'good' people, (I'm sure they'd be good people without 'believing') should start doing, but seems that they need to start doing something, NOW!

And who is financing the daesh and al queda? Why can't something be done about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Sorry your feeling fed up. I don't watch much news and it leaves me in a much better state of mind! The problem with 'news' is that it has to be sensationalist to be newsworthy. The millions of people sitting in their homes getting on with their lives don't make interesting TV. When the 9/11 attacks happened I was working in East London at the Royal London Hospital. There was an incident when a group of Muslim medical students were found chanting 'death to the west' type statements in the library. I can't remember exactly the outcome but in the end it all blew over, life went on and calm returned. The aim of terrorism is to incite hatred and stir people up into frenzy and worry.

My guess is with the funding, that it comes the same way as funding for criminal activities always has.. organised crime such as drug smuggling, people smuggling, arms dealing etc. Isn't Afghanistan the centre of the opium trade?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Linda 'The aim of terrorism is to incite hatred and stir people up into frenzy and worry. '

But Muslims in a couple of countries have set fire to churches and terrorised Christian shop owners.......that is physical. The Charlie Hebdo cartoons are non physical.

And why should religion have to be sacrosanct to those not of that faith?

A debate topic 'this house views religion as detrimental to peace and harmony'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="PaulT"]Yes Linda 'The aim of terrorism is to incite hatred and stir people up into frenzy and worry. '[/quote]

Perhaps the most famous statement on this topic was made by one Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, otherwise known more commonly, as Lenin.

"The purpose of terrorism is to terrorise!"

More profound, perhaps is the Chinese military philosopher and strategist Sun Tzu's statement, that:

"Kill one: and terrorise a thousand". See Here

[quote]But Muslims in a couple of countries have set fire to churches and terrorised Christian shop owners.......that is physical. The Charlie Hebdo cartoons are non physical.

And why should religion have to be sacrosanct to those not of that faith?

A debate topic 'this house views religion as detrimental to peace and harmony'.[/quote]

Whilst it is tempting to blame all religions for causing social upheaval and disharmony, such a generalisation is fallacious and illogical.

In history, certain religions and more critically, their confrontational difference has caused and does cause violence and social disharmony. For example, the violent disagreements between India's Hindus and the majority of Muslims in what we now call Pakistan (and what then, after a further internecine civil war, became Bangladesh) despite Gandhi's fervent desires and wish, India eventually separated, since Mohamed Ali Jinner and Pandit Nehru could not come to accord.

However, The Salvation Army does nothing but good: same with the Quakers and indeed, many others.

The problem herein is in trying to meld hugely disparate cultures in hugely different countries, in the spavined myopic hope of Left Wing Liberal fantasists, into one multicultural melting pot of social utopia.

Here is an excellent example of incomers, demanding their archaic religious perspectives and rights be superimposed upon an extant majority, with a wholly different culture and mindset.

It will never work; and it never ever could.

See here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said Gluestick, I don't believe that good people would be, or become bad without their faith. And I believe that many people are good.

And the senstationalist press, well, we all love it to be ignorant peasants carrying on and burning effigies etc, but today it was supposed educated lawyers in Pakistan and that then becomes scary in a general sense. And some things in this life, we cannot put an 'exact' on it, we just know, and I know I am seeing profoundly evil people at work here.

And tomorrow we'll be asked........... the forever begging, on tv and radio and in the post, to send money to the third world, to feed and heal the kids, who should never have been born, because I am in my sixties and know that the endless money goes down a black hole and the ignorance remains, I know this because the populations continue to explode and we apparently are in some way responsible. ONLY when the people get 'here' for a better life, some then decide they want to kill us all................

Muddled thinking, perhaps, but I am past caring.

I am not scared though, I am fed up and angry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit to a slightly ambivalent attitude to free speech. I am all in favour of the freedom of people to express views in agreement with mine but  I must admit to reservations about the right to express views I do not agree with. I also suspect that many other people take this view.

At present I suspect that most people in western Europe would condemn the recent violent attacks on the magazine and the jewish shop but would be utterly opposed to any attempt to defend these (in my opinion) reprehensible actions.

For most of us free speech is not an absolute but a relative right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel torn by the whole thing, yes we have the right to free speech, but why go out of your way to upset a group ypu know operate by different standards ? What is free about that ?

Of course what happened was totally wrong, but I have a feeling things are moving backward, not forwards ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Russethouse"]I feel torn by the whole thing, yes we have the right to free speech, but why go out of your way to upset a group ypu know operate by different standards ? What is free about that ? Of course what happened was totally wrong, but I have a feeling things are moving backward, not forwards ....[/quote]I agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Idun wrote 'And tomorrow we'll be asked........... the forever begging, on tv and radio and in the post, to send money to the third world, to feed and heal the kids, who should never have been born'

Perhaps the long term answer is to send condoms and not money - irrespective of what happens to their current kids they will just knock out more.

At present I am listening to some radio recordings from 1984 and there are adverts for a Christian Aid organisation pleading for people to send £11 per month to feed, clothe and educate children like little Rockie in Thailand. Still, I presume things must have improved because all the TV ads ask for now is £2 or £3 per month.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am surprised that many seemed surprised that the publication of the second cartoon by Charlie Hebdo didn't go down well in traditional Muslim countries. What did people expect, that everyone in the world, including Muslims, would all say what a good gesture it was to publish yet another image of what is forbidden to devout Muslims?

What was the point Charlie Hebdo was trying to make?

What if some Christians somewhere, already living in difficult conditions in largely Muslim countries, are killed because of the reaction to the second cartoon? Will we all still be saying how good it is to have the freedom to insult all people and all religions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thibault wrote ' to publish yet another image of what is forbidden to devout Muslims? '

Is that not the point, it is forbidden to devout Muslims to publish images of Mohammed BUT how is it forbidden for non Muslims to publish images?

I have read somewhere that there is nothing written to forbid this but radicals interrpretation - someone will correct me.

I can always remember as a child if Charlie Drake came on the TV my sister would say 'I don't like him, I don't like him' and the reply she got was 'then don't watch him, don't watch him' ( she was 23 at the time :) )

Same principle applies surely, if Muslims do not like it do not look at it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've gone passed being fed up and have now hit the 'despair' stage. Within a week of the 'solidarity march' nearly 50% of France thinks CH was wrong to produce yet another Muhammed cartoon. So why in god's name are millions buying the bloody magazine? Instead of unifying the country what has happened is in danger of making it even more divided and if that occurs where does that leave the 6 million Muslims here the vast majority of whom are French citizens?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People have been doing nasty, repugnant shit to other people since cave-man times. Anyone who thinks that is ever going to change is a bloody fool. There will ALWAYS be slaughter, genocide, rape, pillaging, war and death. Breeding mates, territory, religion, resources, money....there will always be a justification. Firstly, its human nature, and secondly - more importantly - it makes some people rich and powerful.

I find the best bet is to not watch TV and certainly never read newspapers. Granted, I am now hopelessly ill-informed about which pop start is shagging who and all the other tedious bullshit that is "news" these days. But I also dont have to put up with endless, pointless debate about the opinions, rights and wrongs of situations like the Charlie Hebdo attack.

I barely know what happened and thats only from what I have picked up listening to others or through the occasional thread like this that I dip into on various forums.

I just dont care enough to better inform myself.

That probably makes me sound like a selfish prick, and you would be right - I am.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="PaulT"]Idun wrote 'And tomorrow we'll be asked........... the forever begging, on tv and radio and in the post, to send money to the third world, to feed and heal the kids, who should never have been born'

Perhaps the long term answer is to send condoms and not money - irrespective of what happens to their current kids they will just knock out more. [/quote]

Surely, Paul, the first question one must therefore ask (relevant to the highlighted part} is why?

Back in the mid 1970s, a dear friend asked me to assist, in her post-retirement work of promoting a new  global body, the ICM (International Confederation of Midwives). A life long nursing sister who became a midwife early in her career, she finished up as the Executive Secretary to the Royal College of Midwifes; yet still wished to do more for mothers and babes. She had travelled much and helped mothers birth children all over the World, even designing the Red Cross Midwifery bag still in use today much as it was. She called in the backing of Sir John Peel (HM The Queen's Gynaecologist and Keith Thomkins, HM's Obstetrician.). And many others. I used to write her speeches for big international fora and symposia etc and deliver the dear lady to Heathrow and collect her as she jetted off on her travels as well as assist in strategy development.

Out of the blue, she received an invitation from US State Department, to visit Washington DC and address their then vigorous AID (Aid for International Development) Committee, which sought her urgent help on spreading the benefits of birth control throughout the Third World. The net result being she flew back to Heathrow in something of a daze with a $1 million donation! The programme planned to give shiploads of pretty multi-hued condoms to the target nations and they wanted the ICM to spread the word.......... (N.B. British midwives could at the time, freely travel into and be welcomed to nation states where others weren't: my friend had visited most places, including Red China and Russia. British midwifery training was viewed then as the very best)

Despite a further $750,000 donation and shiploads of free condoms, the initiative failed, dismally. Why?

In Third World nations, most people's wealth is vested in cattle; and more critically, children! So many kids die early, the ethos was to breed many more. Since girls children can be sold for a dowry and more importantly, when old and unable to work, then the children become their pension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="DraytonBoy"].... So why in god's name are millions buying the bloody magazine? ....[/quote]

Because its an "important" issue and an awful lot of people are buying it to tuck it away somewhere in the hope that in the future it will be worth money in the way that the few surviving papers announcing various historical events are worth money to collectors today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because we have a right to do something does not mean we have to do it. IMO it is not very big or clever to do something that gives offence to a lot of people just because we can. Rights should be used responsibly and with due thought for their consequences. At the present time it would be helpful to keep the moderate Muslims onside and not give them any excuse to help or support the extremist elements that are causing so much trouble
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PaulT wrote:

Thibault wrote ' to publish yet another image of what is forbidden to devout Muslims? '

Is that not the point, it is forbidden to devout Muslims to publish images of Mohammed BUT how is it forbidden for non Muslims to publish images?

I have read somewhere that there is nothing written to forbid this but radicals interrpretation - someone will correct me.

I can always remember as a child if Charlie Drake came on the TV my sister would say 'I don't like him, I don't like him' and the reply she got was 'then don't watch him, don't watch him' ( she was 23 at the time :) )

Same principle applies surely, if Muslims do not like it do not look at it. unquote

Well, there were riots in Niger because of this latest cartoon and people were killed, churches set on fire, French own-businesses attacked etc. There were riots in many other predominately Muslim countries.

All this because it is so important for Charlie Hebdo to have freedom of expression to insult someone's religion.

So is the world a better place because they think it important to be able to say and print just what they like regardless?

I'm afraid I don't think so.

Free speech also implies responsibility for the consequences.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If  France is a secular country with strong principles of liberty equality and fraternity, surely this explains why French people are so insulted ?-

by a challenge to their ideals by a different nation.

Or are the Muslims French too, if so have they the right to oppose the ideals of their hosts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Patf"]If  France is a secular country with strong principles of liberty equality and fraternity, surely this explains why French people are so insulted ?-
by a challenge to their ideals by a different nation.
Or are the Muslims French too, if so have they the right to oppose the ideals of their hosts?
[/quote]I am sure some of the muslims are French and were born and brought up in France so in my opinion they have as much right to their ideals as any other French person.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But surely, the ban on depicting the prophets (plural) as well as whatever else is banned by certain person's restricted interpretation of their holy book, only applies to the members of that faith?

And isn't this ban "justified" in those interpretations on the basis that members of that faith may be tempted to worship those images, and therefore that the people need to be protected from such temptations?

And therefore are they really trying to say that they might be tempted to worship the cartoon in Charlie Hebdo, and they need to be protected from that temptation?

If so, these people have a very weak faith ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How far should "everyone else" be required to adapt their behaviour to pander to the demands of a minority who are unwilling to adapt their behaviour and use the threat of force?

Where do we draw the line?

No more bacon butties in case it leads people astray?

What about halal/kosher meat - whose production process is considered inhumane by some?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Rabbie"][quote user="Patf"]If  France is a secular country with strong principles of liberty equality and fraternity, surely this explains why French people are so insulted ?-
by a challenge to their ideals by a different nation.
Or are the Muslims French too, if so have they the right to oppose the ideals of their hosts?
[/quote]I am sure some of the muslims are French and were born and brought up in France so in my opinion they have as much right to their ideals as any other French person.[/quote]

I think there is a fine line between France being a secular country ( which I broadly don't find it to be ) and being a secular state which it is.

Rights bring responsibilities....I guess I have the right to be rude to my neighbour, but if it was going to bring trouble to my doorstep why would I choose too.....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...