Oh, very nice get out. Even the people not being violent secretly approve of it, so their inaction mean they're also responsible. Same with the people who are directly opposing the violence too, I assume, as it's just some sort of misdirection?
You can demonise anyone you want with that tactic, it's quite handy.
"They each think that the other lot aren't really proper Muslims. This has been going on since the day Mohammed died."
So, same with any major religion, then. The trick has been not to let one sect have direct power over everyone else, something that older nations learned the hard way and countries like the US who took note and explicitly prevented this have had reasonable results with. Even majority Muslim countries had some success with that as, I recall, before things happened to get the fundamentalists in power.
"Stop putting words into my mouth. I've said repeatedly that I don't favour any kind of force."
You've said you wish to convert entire countries to the religion you think they should be following. How are you going to achieve that without force?
"look at the history of the middle east and east asia"
The colonial history, where much of the problems have been caused by Westerners splitting up regions and countries in ways that encourage conflict, then followed by deliberate sabotage for access to oil supplies? Or, some other history?
"I assume that youare not actually a muslim"
I defend a lot of people whose group I'm not part of. Women, children, racial minorities, members of the LBGT community, Americans, people who don't share my religion. Hell, I've even been known to defend people I vehemently disagree with if I see they're being unfairly targeted.
"The problem is that you only seem to be looking at terrorist attackes in the west."
Yes, those are the only ones that directly affect me in any way whatsoever. I'm similarly more concerned with knife attacks in the countries I live in than I am with random gun-related massacres in the US, although I do take note of them both.
Funny thing, though - people take great steps to label anything related to a Muslim as terrorism, and those not related to them as not terrorism, no matter how obvious it is that the Muslim was just a random nut and the non-Muslim had a clear stated political agenda. That's intriguing to me.
"However in Islamic majority countries there is much violence directed at minorities and the perpetrators often become heroes"
Same with numerous other countries, be the violence perpetrated against people due to religious, political and other reasons. That's also a very simplistic way of putting things, since the victims of many of these violent actions are also Muslims.
Again - there's a great many problems, but the fundamental issue is combining religion and state, not which flavour of fiction the rulers happen to favour. Nominally Christian countries have just been historically a bit better at not letting religious leaders keep control of both the church and state.
"Only one faith has "being a theocracy over everyone" written into its agenda"
Well, depending on who you ask there's a lot more than one. It all depends on who's cherry picking what out of their texts and who's taking every word literally, and who's taking what in and out of context.
The reason why all major religions have so many offshoots and sects is that they disagree on fundamental issues like that. But, I only ever see one being attacked for being a monolithic hive mind. Again, this seems very interesting to me.
"Same as with the Occupy Wall Street movement, they went around intentionally getting the dumbest and moronic people to represent the movement on camera."
Well, to think that is to completely misunderstand what OWS was. It was a truly grassroots movement. Thus, they had no actual central leadership - there was no actual spokesperson. Factions calling themselves OWS in other parts of the country had little to no direct involvement with the NYC movement. There were "leaders" who claimed to represent the movement, but they were either only leaders of an offshoot, or did not actually represent the majority since they were not elected or chosen by the group as a whole.
Thus, sadly, it was easy to propagandise against. Anyone looking to discredit them just had to interview the sillier-looking people among those who claimed to represent them, and point out the inevitable misbehaving people who claimed to be a part of the group. Therefore, their clearly stated aims were ignored or muddied to the point of irrelevance.
"The draft also outlaws the use of DRM on copyright works that have fallen into the public domain, works which support cultural heritage, and works that were created by public entities or funded with public money."
This, I like a lot. Now, if they can just work on getting things into the public domain in a reasonable amount of time, we'll be all set.
"They all said words to the effect "the true faith of Islam has nothing to do with it"."
Interesting how you keep paraphrasing, rather than supply the actual quotes you have a problem with. Perhaps you realise you can't twist the words when they're accurately quoted?
"Fair enough - but they specifially exonerated the ideology"
The ideologies of the extremists that are not shared by the people they're saying were not involved? Yes, they did indeed.
"True - but the analogy fails"
It's not really an analogy, although not an identical situation there are many parallels. Fighting took place due mainly to extremists, the "sides" were strongly split among religious lines, progress was never made by fighting them head on and in fact direct fighting caused massacres and other atrocities that only helped as recruitment tools.
True, there's no similar overarching political motive to address here, but you're a fool if you think that all Muslims agree on pretty much anything as a whole anyway. there's no single agenda to address, except for the one espoused by extremists that are not shared among all believers. The majority of the issues we're facing are a direct result of meddling in the middle east by people who don't understand the issues, or think that oil is more important than a stable region.
"The agenda of Islam is conquest of the entire world - by force if necessary"
Yet, the majority of the 1+ billion Muslims of the world are trying to do no such thing. You yourself admitted that many Muslims are working peacefully. You can cherry pick quotes from any religious text to demonise the beliefs of the whole.
If they all adhere to the same aim so strongly, why are there so many different sects that violently disagree with one another?
"The difference is this."
Really, you're wishing to destroy a religion and forcefully convert people to other religions because you don't like your interpretation of what happened nearly a millennium ago vs 2 millennia?
Stop backpedalling. You stated a dumb idea, and are now looking foolish when called on it.
"Islam hasn't achieved its status in those countries fairly"
Neither did America. Neither did the current populations of a great many countries, including those conquered by Christian nations while some of us were building empires. So, you'll be calling for them to be reverting to tribal religions as well, right?
To a lot of other things as well. It's just that when someone other than a Muslim commits a terrorist act, some people tie themselves in knots to try and explain why that person doesn't represent America/Christianity/Republicans/whatever while every lone Muslim who does something is representative of the entire religion in every country. It's pretty transparent, and as someone who has lived and worked most of my life in countries that were regularly attacked by "Christian" terrorists, the hypocritical scapegoating is pretty disgusting.
"I want to see your own culture treating other cultures with respect and dignity. Now show me an Islamic nation that treats women, children, and peoples of other faiths with due respect? I will be waiting!"
Do you hold every religion to the same standard (for example, the Christian nations in Africa who so similar things)? Or just that one?
In my view, it's only the countries that keep religion as far away from government as possible that do what you ask. Theocracies - no matter which faith is in charge - are always very bad for minorities.
"Theresa May's recent speech came pretty close to it and we have seen similar from David Cameron, the Pope, Barack Obama and George W Bush."
What did they say? "Islam has nothing to do with it", as you claim, or "The people responsible are extremists, we shouldn't hold all Muslims accountable for their corrupted view of their faith any more than you should hold all Christians responsible for their extremists"? There's a big difference.
"The point is this, when western leaders, whose knowledge of Islam is minimal, say things like that it adds no value to the conversation."
"Leave innocent people out of this" is a valuable message in my mind. Certainly more valuable than the "we should kill their families and children" message Trump espoused or the "let's wipe them all off the face of the Earth" message from other right wing morons that only help create more extremists. The IRA was defeated by working with them for a peaceful solution, the massacres on both sides didn't do anything to bring the troubles to a close. I don't think there's anything more valuable to say than "let's only attack those actually responsible for these crimes" and "let's work with the peaceful members of the faith/race/nation/whatever".
"Yes -and we should certainly listen to - for example the Ahmadyya and any of the other minor sects that have a reliable theology of non-violence."
So, you admit that Islam itself as a whole is not the fundamental problem?
"My agenda would be to restore their pre-islamic culture"
That's not going to happen, and it won't be something you can do without killing more innocent people than the Muslims extremists are. You sure as hell won't do it by waging a literal war on their current religion.
"The thing is that there are no indigenously Islamic countries"
Nor are there indigenously Christian countries, or indigenous countries of most religions. What kind of silly argument is that?
As many as competition and the free market allow once infrastructure monopoly is removed. This is why the major US ISPs are mocked when they try to pretend the US market has real competition and why their sycophants are mocked when they try to pretend it will magically happen if you just got rid of the FCC.
1) I don't think anyone says that Islam has nothing to do with it. There certainly is, especially with extremist Islam. But, trying to pretend that all of the 1+ billion Muslims in the world are trying to kill you also achieves nothing. Stop demonising the entire religion, and the extremists narrative of a war on islam will stop gaining more recruits.
3) They also have their own agenda. Plus, "religious minorities" in certain regions would include some sects of Islam. Are you suggesting that you ignore the words of Shia Muslims because they're persecuted by Sunnis, or vice versa? If, so, why?
4) I'd love it if our governments stopped cosying up to despicable regimes, no matter which religion they claim to follow.
5) ...and here's the problem. You dislike the way those countries operate, so you won't be happy until you've destroyed their culture and reshaped it to your own values. That's exactly what the extremists are trying to do to you. I'd prefer it if all the citizens of those countries have the same rights that we purport to have in the west, but you won't get there easily - especially since the thing that allowed extremist Islam to gain a foothold in places like Iran was Western intervention in the first place (look at the history of Iran before the US-driven coup).
"But something's changed recently. Macron may be the moderate who doesn't want European nations to turn into police states in reaction to terrorist attacks. But he appears to feel there's a certain amount of security/privacy that could be sacrificed to fight terrorism."
There's a fair argument that anyone opposed to such reactionary policies needs to make some noises about doing "something" whether or not they plan to. There's been a number of high profile attacks recently, and it won't take much for the right wing extremists to get more popular support if they're the only ones visibly promising something. The people who are scared of terrorists won't let little things like pragmatism and caution enter their minds, and it can't be a complete coincidence that recent attacks have been occurring close to France in the run-up to their elections.
If there's something that can be taken from the idiocy of the Brexit and US election results, it's that standing back and offering calm facts about situations won't get you elected opposed by loud liars pandering to fear. Better to promise talks and later say they weren't fruitful / you found other solutions than be painted as someone who refuses to get results, even if you know that results will never be forthcoming in that manner.
Now, I don't follow French politics closely enough to know this guy's actual thought processes or leanings, but not promising something is a good way to fall foul of the likes of Le Pen, and nobody wants that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The right to hire counsel of one's choice in complex cases [Was: Re
He said he'd come willingly on the proviso that some conditions were met by the DOJ. Has the DOJ honoured those conditions? If not, it's pretty faulty reasoning to say that he's not honoured his part of the deal.
Not to say that this isn't their stance, but you really can't blame Dotcom for not wanting to fly to a foreign country where he's openly being denied a free trial, no matter which country that happens to be.