Je Suis Charlie
Posted by: Iver van de Zand on 07 January 2015
!
Some good ideas, in principle and also in practice.
The following are just a few initial thoughts prompted by your suggestions.
The UN and NATO involvement in Iraq2 was not initially about regime change, even though that was an outcome. Ditto in Ahfganistan. If you start to consider events back to 1953 in Iran (despite my suggestion that histroy is just that - history) then I suppose we should question the wisdom of the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of the State of Israel ? Personally I think Balfour was right, but there are many who might disagree.
The UK has remained at a noticable distance from Syria. It has responded to a humanitarian crisis in areas surrounding Syria and in NW Iraq. I am aware that others are more closely involved and in this respect, share your view.
The UK has worked with Saudi and others over thae past 50 years to help stabalise the region. But alliances and politics are dynamic. You suggest we shouldn't intervene in Syria but we should intervene in Saudi. All i'm really saying is that in a dynamic situation the best way forward isn't always obvious, We also do have a right to consider our own interests as well as those of others. I'm sure we shall continue to work with the Saudis and Qataris using diplomatic pressure.
I agree that getting on with our lives despite terrorist threats is sensible, but ignoring them isn't an option. They don't just go away. For example, we do need to stop the most promminent current ones selling oil to fund their activities.
the best way to stop terrorism is put an end to geopolitics as a shameful practice of meddling in other countries affairs.
Dear Haim,
If... is where one must stop.
The "if" hypothesis allows for any kind of unprovable different course of events.
ATB from
Ah, yes. "If" !!
"If" the Romans hadn't come to Britain. "If" the Romans hadn't taken up Christianity. "If"................
So what's the best way forward in dealing with the multitude of problems in the Middle East and the world at large ?
A few ideas:
Stop thinking in terms of regime change. The last three (Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya) were disastrous. The current attempt in Syria is not going any better and the ancient one (Iran of 1953) made you loose completely your credibility in talking to Middle-Easterners about democracy.
Don't intervene and don't take sides in internal moslem conflicts like the Syrian civil war or ISIS. Let them take care of themselves. Just prevent your own citizens from joining the fight.
Apply (despite economic interests) a severe political pressure on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to stop the spread of the radical-militant Islam which translates very easily into terrorism.
Find a better way of defiance than buying three additional millions of the prophet Mohammad cartoons after the killing of Charlie Hebdo and his crew. The best way I know of defying terrorism is to carry on with our lives as usual.
Dear Haim,
I agree with you entirely.
Keep calm and carry on.
Don't interfere and don't take sides.
ATB from George
the best way to stop terrorism is put an end to geopolitics as a shameful practice of meddling in other countries affairs.
Including Russia's meddling in Ukraine as well?
for that matter i had seen footages claiming there's AIDS while there was none.
Most interesting. Could you supply the rest of us with a link to that footage? And the proof, whatever it was, against said footage?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmY2ANu2ek0
the proof is that none of the people i know have AIDS, nor anyone they know does.
I though you might say something along those lines: nothing if not predictable. India used to be part of Britain's dominiions once; and France was part of England. Things change, borders especially.
So if the Ukranians (particularly those in the western part of the country), change their minds and decide they want to go off on their own, and maybe join the EU or NATO as well, you wouldn't have any objections, would you? There's no way you'd want to interfere with such a move, is there?
I have emphasised the word "always". I am suspiscious of "facts" that include the word "always".
Perhaps you would like to re-phrase that particular assertion ? or explain the limitations associated with your use of the word ?
Modern humans only arrived in the area we call Ukraine c.50k years ago, so "always" can't extend further back than that. The national boundaries within Europe have changed during the past 1,000 years and as recently as the 1600s for example, much of modern-day Ukraine was part of Lithuanian-Poland. So "always" is a bit far-fetched in terms of recent history.
As Kevin says, borders change. If the people of Ukraine (who by any time-line were only fleetingly associated with Russia) wish to enjoy their (even more) recent independence from Russia, why is Russia so opposed to this wish ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmY2ANu2ek0
the proof is that none of the people i know have AIDS, nor anyone they know does.
okay let's try Kiev Rus - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27 - the Ukraine is a cradle of Russia.
to 'enjoy' there 'independence' they would first have to murder me (as i previously said i'm half-Ukranian living in Russia) and my relatives who live in the Ukraine.
Sharik, you remind me of the old Soviet newspaper called 'Pravda' which means literally 'truth' but in reality it contained lies and fantasy to appease the Soviet dictatorship.
you remind me of the old Soviet newspaper called 'Pravda'
but what did i say wrong?.. have you ever been to Russia by the way?
indeed, why that Fry fellow might think he would be lead to the pearly gates instead those of Hell...
secondly, what makes him think all the suffering this world has to offer is the worst yet and not in fact a blessing if compared to what we could have suffered had there not been the sufferings we already have?
PS: the show's host was spot on pointing out that Fry went out of his way answering questions he wasn't asked.
So another nutter, in Denmark this time, has decided his views are the only ones worth listening to and he's shot people who disagree with him.
I'm getting really fed up with this. I don't care if you are a Muslim and don't like pictures of your prophet, nor do I care if you are a Christian who murders anyone who is involved in abortions.
I don't care what sort of belief system you wish to follow, that's your problem, but YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO INFLICT IT ON OTHER PEOPLE.
Why can't these people just ignore things they don't like and get on with life? There are enough problems to deal with - widespread hunger, violence against women, climate change, etc, etc. Why make it worse by attacking other people just because they don't follow your team?
steve
I notice that it took less than 24 hours for that despicable mouthpiece of mealy-mouthed equivocation and self-abasement, The Guardian, to post an article about how the Danes - and presumably all of the West - should adopt a more "pragmatic" attitude towards the defence of free speech. In other words, craven submission to clerical fascism.
If you have a strong stomach, you can read it here
Er... it's a comment published in the "Comment Is Free" section. It reflects the views of one person, not the Guardian. I wonder who is despicable.
Not even the ones with real hair?
Er... it's a comment published in the "Comment Is Free" section. It reflects the views of one person, not the Guardian. I wonder who is despicable.
Yes it is, but the vast majority of pieces in The Graun on Islamist fascism and the problems this particular religion causes to free expression and open, pluralistic societies have been similarly equivocating.
Just do a search on their site on subjects like Charlie Hebdo, the Rotherham sex scandal, the Danish cartoons, etc and you'll find little but handwringing from the likes of Hugh Muir, Giles Fraser, Nabila Ramdani, Jonathan Freedland (a Jew, FFS!), Seumas Milne, Owen Jones, etc. Nick Cohen is one of the rare dissenting voices.
Nobody denies the right of the paper or its columnists to express an opinion, no matter how muddleheaded or even dangerous, but if anyone (including me) sees that as despicable appeasement or (let's be charitable) naivety, then so be it.
For a self-styled voice of liberalism, the poor old Graun seems mightily confused at best. No wonder circulation is tanking.
So another nutter, in Denmark this time, has decided his views are the only ones worth listening to and he's shot people who disagree with him.
I'm getting really fed up with this. I don't care if you are a Muslim and don't like pictures of your prophet, nor do I care if you are a Christian who murders anyone who is involved in abortions.
I don't care what sort of belief system you wish to follow, that's your problem, but YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO INFLICT IT ON OTHER PEOPLE.
Why can't these people just ignore things they don't like and get on with life? There are enough problems to deal with - widespread hunger, violence against women, climate change, etc, etc. Why make it worse by attacking other people just because they don't follow your team?
steve
http://www.reuters.com/article...dUSKBN0LJ10D20150215
And then there are these guys.
Don't worry Winky, I'm sure someone will pop along soon and blame it on Obama, Israel or some heinous Westerner. If only those daft Copts hadn't launched all those drone strikes...
On the upside, sometimes there is justice. Score one for the bulls.
I don't care what sort of belief system you wish to follow, that's your problem, but YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO INFLICT IT ON OTHER PEOPLE.
ah, let us not be hypocrites... ever heard of such thing as 'soft power'?
right, if you fail to 'inflict' yours on others, then be sure others will impose theirs on you.
that's the way life is, as practice shows.
Problems are on both sides. Killing people for this reason is NOT an accepted solution. However, offending 1.4 billion people by assulting their religious Prophet is also not accepted. Learn to respect one another and live in peace together is the true solution.
Problems are on both sides. Killing people for this reason is NOT an accepted solution. However, offending 1.4 billion people by assulting their religious Prophet is also not accepted. Learn to respect one another and live in peace together is the true solution.
Can you see how the two things aren't equal, though? "Offending" (stupid word) 1.4Bn people with a sketch of some long-dead person is absolutely and utterly trivial compared to even one murderous death. I don't care how offended you choose to be, don't kill people. I don't care how many of you choose to be offended, don't kill people. Just don't. What's so hard about that?
(What do you mean by not accepted?)