Murder attempt against Danish Cartoonist

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Mrs.Lucysnow, Jan 2, 2010.

  1. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Most of that isn't news to me, and does not rule out that axe-boy could be nuts. I haven't heard details on the "close links" yet. I'm interested in reading more about that.

    Terrorist connections need not be sane? Again, I'm not following your reasoning.

    I'm amazed at how extensively you seem to have figured out this case. I admit that I made offered a few hypotheticals, but you're getting way ahead of me.

    Come on, ice. Westergaard got himself world famous with his iconic (!) cartoon of the Prophet Muhammed. There was no need for an underground connection with Yemeni masterminds, for a nut to target Westergaard.

    No, the murders did not advance the meme in Jibla, it went the other way. The murders were recognized in the community as inspired by madness, as would be expected, for reasons that would take a long time to explain. In a nutshell, that hospital forged a lot of caring raltionships. In trial the murderer was not coherent. He did make claims of acting in the name of God to halt the sterilization of Yemeni women. The murderer was not revealed to have been part of any terrorist network. "The meme" did arrive to Jibla later, in the form of officials from Sana'a. The worldwide spotlight on a Christian-administered hospital in Yemen challenged the insecurities of the national government, and so the presence of western missionary physicians in Yemen came to an end as an indirect result of the murders.

    The point I would like for you to consider is that Jibla was a fairly remote place, where politics really were mostly local. In the relative absence of media, and the nearly complete absence of "the meme" if you will, that community weathered an attack without it being considered by the local community involved to have involved their religion (Jibla is entirely Muslim) in any way. The meme had yet to manifest in Jibla when the missionaries died- it was imported later.

    There was no planning in evidence for the attack. A man simply walked in with a barely-concealed rifle, shot the first foreigners he could see, and gave up when security guard responded to the shots.

    What is apparent to me, with a little less separation from the event, was that witnesses to the killings and the arrest had the distinct impression that the man was crazy; not playing with a full deck. That is the only reason the anecdote came to mind. Do I mean to suggest that all terrorist attacks are the work of crazy people? Not exactly.

    There is a certain level of crazy necessary in killing people at all. But in similar ways that you can compare how a person does something else- say in the way a person might attack another online (and I'm referring to no actual people or events here): There are various levels of cognitive function possible and in evidence even while committing acts of aggression.

    Do you really expect that any Muslim man killing American missionaries in Yemen would be described any other way? I've read various reports too, and I don't know what to say about them, other than reading those after learning about the murders through more direct channels- well, it was part of my discovery that things are not always what they seem in official reports.

    Reviewing what I've written, I know this can come off like I'm spinning a conspiracy theory, or making things up. The story isn't of much value in making my point, being merely anecdotal. I'm just offering you an idea of why I am willing to reserve judgement in the Westengaard case- that he might have been attacked by a crazy person, and not a cold, calculating, and trained agent in a network of radical conspirators driven by a flaw in a mainstream religion. What I'm trying to get across is that sometimes crazy people who do something violent get a lot more credit than they deserve, because there is an eager (dare I say lucrative) market for stories about terrorist networks today.

    It's the same thing with the Times Square Fizzler: Official and major-media narratives are flying about international intrigues, explosives training in Waziristan, etc... It's hard to re-iterate these stories without checking on them, because they don't make any sense. Do you really think that Times Square was an example of the car-bombs and bombers trained in Pakistan? Car bombs (sadly) explode regularly in Pakistan, and with a lot more force and shrapnel than the device Shahzad device ever could have done. It's as if he had gone to Sicily to learn how to make-a pizza, and then came back to try and make a tasty pizza-pie with a frisbee and some cheese doodles.

    It's crazy. But there's a difference between a crazy nut swinging an axe, and networks of terrorists who plan an execute an attack with some evident coordination. But in our media and popular culture in the USA, we are breathlessly informed that every Muslim who attacks someone has deep connections with the Islamist Underworld. Most people buy it, so it must be true, right?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Hype, there's no need to invoke terrorism. The man simply represents the extremity of opinion and motivation based on a distribution of the same within his community. There's no need to speculate at al Qaeda, or whatever pointless name is attached to the action, or at any equally pointless 'connections' to faraway places. He might well have received training there - but so what?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Why is it impossible for a Muslim to attack this cartoonist because a Muslim is crazy? We're only speculating here. It's as if you're worried we're in court now, and a calculating criminal is about to get off on an insanity plea. It's as if you've already convicted Islam of triggering the aggressions of every violent Muslim while also ensuring their perfect sanity. You're wearing me down- I give up. Islam makes these really inept killers act crazy, but they're really sane, see? OK

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I'll try to follow along one more time.

    No, let's compare the cases we have been discussing with 9-11 or the Mumbai attacks. Then I can easily accept it that the perpetrators had their brains in gear, and it's also a lot easier to accept that they were part of a network with a specific agenda.


    Oh, Godwin:

    I'm pretty sure he wasn't working for al-Qaeda.

    Let's just let the Danish authorities do their work, and then check back here, shall we? Axe-man sounds like a nut to me- a "religious nut" if it pleases you- but I doubt that he is seriously an agent of a serious terrorist organization. I acknowledge your guess that he is part of something bigger. Most people in the USA, for one place, probably assume the same thing.

    But neither of us really knows at this point, and we've both offered our best guesses. That'll do for now, for me.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    It isn't. It's just not known whether he is. You or I might call him that - but it hardly matters as to motivation, if he's merely a representative of the extremity of a meme. We could ask whether all such fatwa-ish types are mad, of course. But why wouldn't a Baptist have as equally likely gone for Westergaard's head? Everyone buys the same size jars in the food mart, you know. It's not as though only this fellow has the 20 gallon jar.

    I'm only speculating too. Crazy is a relative thing, really. Merely an extremity of means, on a quantitative scale. (We're all a little mad, really.) Anyway: would you categorize all such individuals as insane? I well might: but does it matter as in respect to the meme that fosters this specific act? Or, taken this way: would anyone really mind so much if religious conservative thought had demanded that this fellow burst into Westergaard's flat and give him an enormous, conciliatory hug? Of course not; and it would hardly matter if he were mad or not, in such a case. (Personally, I would be moved to tears by such an act.)

    Your case, councillor.

    Why, though? Individuals can't act as individuals? Not every loner is carrying around a Catcher in the Rye, just to scratch and sniff the bar code. I'm perfectly capable of acting in an individual manner. If I do something extreme as an individual - say, attacking a man with an axe - for reasons of ideology, am I less sane than if I do it because some git with a hook and an eyepatch tells me to, again for reasons of ideology?

    Oh, Godwin schmodwin. Everyone gets to compare something to something. I use a standby. You'd prefer George Bush? Insert historical figure here. Pick a Trotsky out of the barrel, if you'd like; he's still in the original packaging.

    As am I.

    Well, actually my point was that he doesn't need to be part of anything bigger, or at least not an organization. Rather, if not a nut, he might just be part of a meme. Who rushes to judgement now, councillor?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Best regards,

    Geoff
     
  8. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
  9. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    So what? My over-reacting country is being brainwashed into further reacting to every violent crime perpetrated by a Muslim (1/4 of all violent crime) with the assumption that each crime is part of a coordinated campaign. It's a staggering potential for provocation, and we're having a lot of problems with national anger management. I understand that if I supported terrorism, I might not only say "so what" but also "thanks a million" about the this bold new breakthrough in criminology.

    Did I really forget to mention that I don't support terrorism?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I agree that it's a deplorable way to look at it, but I'm not your country. I get the subtleties, I promise you.

    Hmm. Well, maybe and maybe not. I think a deeper understanding of the motivations of violent religious lunatics would be a good thing for society and a bad thing for terrorism. I do understand about the national overreaction syndrome: still, there really hasn't been the kind of backlash that's been endlessly fretted over in the US. Maybe it's all just hot air.

    Well, it was well understood, hype.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Yeah and all it will achieve is a backlash in Europe strengthening European nationalism and making themselves an unwelcome group:shrug:

    If that's the way they want to rock and roll they can go ahead but it will only lead to revulsion and disgust.

    I'm disgusted with it. Eventually people will get tired of hearing their ranting and raving. The moderate Muslims will have to root out their own cancer or suffer because of it. If the Danes and the Swedes stopped all immigration tomorrow of muslims I wouldn't blame them one bit. If they placed measures forcing integration or inviting them to leave I wouldn't blame them one bit. I don't blame the Swiss for banning further building of mosques and i don't see why the british have to bend over backwards supporting assholes like Anjem. I cannot blame the French or the Belgians from banning veils and burkhas. They cannot allow this to continue and not expect the threat of nationalism and anti muslim sentiment to be the fruits of these actions.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2010
  12. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,383
    I could blame them because that would be counter productive. Banning Islamic extremism will strengthen Islamic extremism. It seems so obvious to me based on basic human nature.

    If you want to stamp something out by force the force must be extreme. Unless Europe is prepared to ethnically cleanse Europe they should not play these antagonist games just to feel like they are doing something.

    Religious extremism is stupid. It will fade on it's own under the right circumstances.
     
  13. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Hardly. Its to be expected. What else can come out of radical muslim extortionist methods!

    Western artists have the right to express themselves, its a bloody western tradition and it shouldn't have to change because of a small minority. If they don't bloody like it then they shouldn't go to his talks or look at his art. Religious extremism is getting worse not better and I am sick of the fucking excuses and hand wringing of why they are so god damn sensitive that they feel the need to violently attack those who practice the long honored tradition of satire and artistic freedoms by people in their own bloody country!! If muslims don't like it and cannot resist behaving like barbarians they can go and live elsewhere. I'm sick of hearing all the fucking excuses.
     
  14. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,383
    Sure banning the head covering or some other idiotic gesture of intolerance is a perfectly normal reaction to Islamic extremists going to extremes targeting people who offend them.

    None of what has happened is surprisising but it is stupid and evil.

    The employers of the world want cheap foreign labor but the locals resent them and treat them badly. Some of the cheap labor embrace extremism to try to feel superior where they are resented and not wanted. The extremism then becomes evidence for the people who never wanted the cheap foreign labor to prove that the foreigners are bad. The locals agitate against the foreigners and do stupid meaningless things like banning the head coverings or banning ethnic studies in Arizona. These stupid acts by the locals are used by the extremists to prove to their more moderate friends that the locals are mean hateful people and this helps create more extremists.

    Hate breeds more hate.

    It's pathetic but they are only humans.
     
  15. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Well, it's fine that they're only humans - in point of fact, I'm actually one myself - but the question is what to do about them. Haliburton are only humans, too, the poor things.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I don't think that's the problem in my neighborhood.

    In my neighborhood the crazy is blamed on a vague conception of the Muslim religion and mindset, not specially coordinated terrorist outfits. All Muslims are thereby tarred.
     
  17. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,383
    Do nothing. Treat them well. If everybody treats each other well hate will fade.

    Maybe I am wrong. Maybe people are hardwired to hate somebody. If that was the case then all the governments of the world should collaborate to provide us with a fictitious but believable bogeyman to hate who can't be hurt by our hate and who can't retaliate against us.
     
  18. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I utterly agree. The trick is getting everyone to agree to do this.
     
  19. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    See now, this seems to make good sense to me. The right circumstances is social pressure and good education. Attack the reason FOR wanting to wear the veil. Which have more in common with segregation and ideas of supremacist than "classical" Islam.

    How does that sound?


    I like this idea of Classical Islam. It came to me the other day when I was thinking about neo-Islam. Neo-Islam sounds more appropriate to me, because I'm thinking of changing contemporary Islam. But, I'm not religious. Religious people don't like change. And so neo-Islam probably sounds bad to them. wa-la "Classical Islam" ... which to their ears sounds better and is in reality no different than what I was thinking of as neo-Islam.

    No one knows what the hell was gong on in the first few decades to centuries after Islam came about. Muslims didn't even call themselves Muslims.

    So, we reinvent Islam and call it Classical Islam. Which just so happens to be inline with the religious morals of contemporary Western society. Everyone is happy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Sounds Buddhist.

    Here I disagree. We must be proactive. We have to make people "feel" different. Like when people read the word nigger. They should kind of cringe. Good education can help people adopt the appropriate feelings in circumstances we can't control. You can't stop a person from having a conversation with a WASP. But, you can make sure that when that person has this conversation, if the WASP should mention things like the Chosen Race (as in Whites) or protecting one's "Race" (again White) the educated person will key in on the misconception of "race" and know that the entire monologue is illogical. They may also recognize that the WASP is not only illiterate and ill informed but also, sadly, somewhat infected - with the race meme. There's no point hating this person. It's not their fault they were infected. No different than hating someone who caught the flu. Pity them.

    Of course this strategy starts by working on the kids now and seeing outcomes 20-40 years hence.

    Maybe too long for most people?
     
  21. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,383
    My first reaction was huh what, you think calling blacks niggers helped motivate them to assimilate.

    Then I quickly saw that is not what you were saying.

    We can pressure "us" to renounce hate. Pressuring them to renounce hate is something "they" have to do. We should be wary of even being caught funding "their" moderates in a way that looks like we are condemning some aspect of "their" culture.

    You can say whatever bad things you want about your mamma but if I simply agree with you, you might get mad at me.

    I can criticize the type of bad behavior your mamma is engaged in as long as I keep it general so that it could be about anybody's mamma. I should not directly disrespect somebody else's mother but I am allowed to criticize bad behavior without risk of creating a backlash.

    I can criticize my mamma to my sister.

    The patience required is irritating but I don't think quick methods can work.

    The other problems are that I am not sure we are really mature enough to use this approach, and there are always politicians and media people around who want to exploit our weaknesses and being mature is like fighting gravity because our own tribal instincts want to drag us back to tribalism.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2010
  22. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Think about that statement a bit. Think evolutionary advantages. Religions grow. Atheism doesn't.
     
  23. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    I don't think atheism is going to work for most people at this time in our social development. However, once aging is cured, then I'm sure Atheism will be all the rage - for a few decades for sure. Then people will return enmass to one religion or another.
    I'm coming to the conclusion that the reason people need a religion, which most do seem to, is because people are mentally quite lazy.

    RE: Religions grow
    Then for now, lets support a return to Classical Islam - the one where all Humans are multiple Allahs.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    RE: Atheism doesn't grow.
    Sure it does, Philosophy matures and changes with new ideas over time. From Socrates to Kent to Campbell.



    RE: Evolution
    The Buddha .... kind of reminds me of this phrase: The Prophet ..... we needs our alpha male icons don't we

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page