Since
the attack on Charlie Hebdo, and the subsequent rally of support for
the people killed and their right to free speech, there have been
voices raised in protest against the nature of what the magazine was
publishing.
While
the analyst in that clip seems to view the magazine's actions as
being intentionally directed at Muslims, from what I can gather
Charlie Hebdo has been equally offensive to other religions.
I
understand how difficult it can be to watch something one holds dear
be mocked or dragged through the mud. But, an insult should not
carry with it a death penalty, at least not in a just society.
Certainly
the cartoons were in poor taste, as even many people in France allow.
But
being able to express a dissenting opinion to an idea in a non
violent manner is a cornerstone of a free society, and that is why
so many people have supported Charlie Hebdo. It has nothing
whatsoever to do with wanting to deliberately mock or offend any
group of people. Those people who find it offensive are free to not
read the magazine.
A
recent article written by Noam Chomsky accuses the West of hypocrisy
because he seems to think some of our past actions were comparable to
the attack on Charlie Hebdo, specifically the NATO bombing of the
Serbian television station RTV.
"Abrams is right in describing the Charlie Hebdo attack as "the most threatening assault on journalism in living memory." The reason has to do with the concept "living memory," a category carefully constructed to include Their crimes against us while scrupulously excluding Our crimes against them -- the latter not crimes but noble defense of the highest values, sometimes inadvertently flawed."
Article 71 of this document pertains to the NATO bombing. You may have to scroll back up a little bit.
While
I would question his reasoning, and want to research the issue myself
before coming to any conclusions, I would not question his right to
express his opinion. Free speech is not just for those we agree
with.
When
those people who have been so busy protesting about the “offensive”
Charlie Hebdo cartoons look just as critically at actions of people
within their own countries I will have more respect for their ability
to judge fairly.
53 comments:
Noam Chomsky? You've been doing your homework, haven't you? I saw that piece a few days ago; started down it and then quit on account of it seemed fairly over the top. When I looked back up and saw that it was by Noam Chomsky I just closed the page. Maybe I'll have to go back and actually finish it this time.
But…
"…while scrupulously excluding Our crimes against them…"
Parse this: Serbian TV station; Serbian = Orthodox Christian Slavs (Europeans); Serbs committing war crimes against European Muslims.
How the hell does work out to ‘Our crimes against them’, when ‘Our’ crimes presumably refer to crimes by whites, or Europeans, or Christians, or more specifically by Americans. And ‘them’ is figured to include Muslims, or Arabs, or both? We hit a radio station of a white Christian, European, war lord who was bombing the shit outta Muslims. How the hell does that work out to be a crime against Islam or Muslims or Arabs, or whomever it is--is supposed to be ‘them’?
About there was where I quit reading his piece and went looking for something else to read… I can usually find a way to disagree with Noam Chomsky, and this was turning out to be no exception. But, I may have to go back and read that now.
So, in case you can't tell, I'm not much in favor of most of the arguments I've heard so far trying to blame the massacre at Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish deli on anybody other than the Muslim radicals who committed it, and those who cheered it on or try to explain it away as somehow reasonable in some light.
How the hell does work out to ‘Our crimes against them’, when ‘Our’ crimes presumably refer to crimes by whites, or Europeans, or Christians, or more specifically by Americans. And ‘them’ is figured to include Muslims, or Arabs, or both? We hit a radio station of a white Christian, European, war lord who was bombing the shit outta Muslims. How the hell does that work out to be a crime against Islam or Muslims or Arabs, or whomever it is--is supposed to be ‘them’?
:)
Exactly. How does it? Makes you wonder about his reasoning on all of his other arguments, doesn't it?
It also makes you wonder about anyone else who is floating the argument that this fight is a clash between civilizations. Because obviously in the past we have tried to be of help to Muslims.
For some of us his argument is just a bit offensive. We were thinking we were doing the right thing, fighting injustice. I don't think I will be looking to shoot him, though. Nor would I support anyone who did.
"Exactly. How does it?"
Oh, good. I don't have to go back and finish reading that after all.
"Makes you wonder about his reasoning on all of his other arguments,
doesn't it?"
I can usually find a way to disagree with Chomsky, and this was no exception.
I saw poll results here in Sweden yesterday. Apparently 59% were in favour of publishing the Charlie cartoons (I guess after the attack on the cartoonists), 20% were against and the rest undecided.
"Apparently 59% were in favour of publishing the Charlie cartoons…"
I'm not sure what that means. And we're approaching territory where nuances might matter.
‘In favor of publishing’, you say… They've already been published. I presume the Swedes weren't wanting them published again in Sweden. So, what precisely was the question they were answering?
That's how I read Marcus' comment, Lee. I have read where people have suggested that the cartoons should be published by other publications to show solidarity with the cartoonists who were killed. I suppose we all have our way of showing support if that is our position.
Going to go see this movie today. I have heard similar things about it.
"…the cartoons should be published by other publications to show solidarity
with the cartoonists who were killed."
I suppose that's probably a bigger deal in Europe, where ‘hate speech’ can be made a criminal offense in and of itself.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Sources I've read suggest that ‘American Sniper’ is a very good movie, but not great, not Oscar quality except maybe in a bad year for movies, which this has not exactly been. Folks on both the left and the right are seemingly wanting to imbue it with mythical, cultural defining qualities it probably doesn't have.
What I've read (the ones I trust anyway) seem to agree that Clint Eastwood has made himself a pretty good, but not epic great, war movie here. One of the better ones made in many years, but still a genre movie.
Perhaps what has struck a chord with audiences about this movie is its ability to show the reality of a war for those who fought in it and those who waited for them at home. The theatre was the fullest I've ever seen it for a matinee on a Saturday afternoon. And they were running 8 shows.
What I found kind of surreal is that after reading about the war via the blogs, both our military and Iraqi, much of what was in the movie seemed familiar.
I think where it excelled was in the portrayal of the effect of the war on Chris Kyle as he went through tour after tour of duty in Iraq. He deployed four times. The stress of making life or death decisions every day, watching your friends injured and killed, and feeling responsible if you can't protect them seems to steal away little pieces of you. And in his case what was so very sad was that after he had finally found himself again he was killed by someone he was trying to help.
Having said that it felt like a long movie. Perhaps that had more to do with its subject matter rather than any thing else.
But I would recommend seeing it, because it does feel like an accurate portrayal of what Iraq was like for our military and their families.
Except for an interpreter the only Iraqis portrayed are those belonging to AQI and one family who passed some information to us. So you see little of the effects of the war on average Iraqi civilians.
"But I would recommend seeing it, because it does feel like an accurate
portrayal of what Iraq was like for our military and their families."
You do know that Kyle was successfully sued for what amounts to just making stuff up in his book? By Jesse Ventura no less.
For those insufficiently entertained by Romney 3.0, she's baaaaacccccckkk!!!
Lee: "They've already been published. I presume the Swedes weren't wanting them published again in Sweden. So, what precisely was the question they were answering?"
Good question. I just read the headlines and I guess I didn't really know precisely what question was asked. I checked it out and it was this (translation below):
---------------------------------
1.087 personer har svarat på frågan "Karikatyrteckningar av profeten Muhammed ses som kränkande av många troende muslimer. Bör dessa karikatyrer:"
Undvika att publiceras: 25 procent
Fortsätta att publiceras: 59 procent
Vet ej/vill inte svara: 16 procent
--------------------------------
Translation:
-----------------------------
1087 people have answered the question: "Cartoons of the prophet Muhammed are seen as derogatory by many believing muslims, should these cartoons:
Avoid being published - 25%
Keep being published - 59%
Don't know/do not wish to answer - 16%
--------------------------------
(I am aware it's kinda bad language but that's how it reads in swedish as well)
At first when I read about this poll I came to the same conclusion as Lynnette did. That people wanted them published in support of Charlie Hebdo. But the question didn't actually adress that at all. Still, I suppose that was how many people iterpreted it, since those events were so recent.
You do know that Kyle was successfully sued for what amounts to just making stuff up in his book? By Jesse Ventura no less.
Yes. There have also been other stories besides the Jesse Ventura incident relating to events outside of his service in Iraq that are questionable.
When I say the movie felt like an accurate portrayal I was not just referring to Chris Kyle's story. In the movie what you see are the tactics used by AQ and some of the insurgents and how we tried to deal with them. You see the toll this took on our men and women. You also see how the Iraqi civilians were truly caught between a rock and a hard place when it came to deciding what they should do. What we called "driller killers' were people they had to live with, and given the other sources I have read regarding them, I feel what was in the movie could very well have happened just as portrayed. Also, given the accounts from other sources I have read, the movie actually did not go as far as it could have. But it was Chris Kyle's own story about his personal experiences so that may be why. He simply did not run into some of that other stuff.
The desensitizing that Chris seems to experience as he goes through his tours was something others have written about. The idea that he didn't do enough to help his comrades also is something many others feel. So, yes, overall I feel it is a very realistic film.
Something that has been an unfortunate by product of the film's release is the effect it appears to have had on treatment of some Muslims in the US. There was an article this morning about that. It appears that people have taken the portrayal of those we fought over in Iraq to be the only types of people you found over there. That does a disservice to those who helped us and who wanted to live a normal life in peace.
For those insufficiently entertained by Romney 3.0, she's baaaaacccccckkk!!!
Probably has an idea for another book and wants to generate some attention to boost sales.
Marcus,
I know it's a tough choice to make, and I can see both sides. I certainly wouldn't choose to do something to deliberately offend or hurt someone, but I also understand that making the point that not everyone deifies what you do is important. That point is fundamental to encouraging a more open, accepting society for all.
"When I say the movie felt like an accurate portrayal I was not just referring
to Chris Kyle's story."
Moving right along then… The screenplay was actually written by a fella name of Jason Hall, who got an Oscar nomination out of the deal. The ‘real’ feel of the movie probably has more to do with the choices made by him and by Clint Eastwood as director than to the book itself.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Still, I suppose that was how many people iterpreted it, since those
events were so recent."
Perhaps. The question does leave room for other interpretations though. Hard to say for sure what they thought they were answering specifically, but I guess it does get a generalized attitude more or less nailed down.
The screenplay was actually written by a fella name of Jason Hall, who got an Oscar nomination out of the deal. The ‘real’ feel of the movie probably has more to do with the choices made by him and by Clint Eastwood as director than to the book itself.
Maybe. I'll let you know after I've read the book. Which means I'm going to have to put it at the top of my list. :)
"I'm going to have to put it at the top of my list. :)"
Not on my account. I'll wait for the verdict.
A brief review of Saudi personalities and policies might be in order.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
And it appears that Bobby Jindal's recent assertions regarding Muslim ‘no-go’ zones in Birmingham, England and Paris, France have been noticed by Muslims. In an amusing twist, the Muslim author responds with a casual bigotry to which I am sure he entirely blind. By this I mean that his inclusion of reference to Jindal's family's Hindu ancestry (I'm well aware of grinding between the Muslims and Hindi). There's also his objection to Reverend Graham's suggestions that the Muslims should convert to Christianity. I'm certain he'd not think to question the propriety of a Muslim cleric suggesting that Christians might convert to Islam.
Before you dismiss Shoebat as an irrelevant crackpot, note that in 2009, his group earned more than $500,000 in revenue from speaking engagements and video sales. People like Gabriel and Shoebat are backed by a multi-million dollar network of conservative and evangelical foundations. It takes a lot of money to spread hate.
Interesting comment there. What better way to drum up support, and money, for your organization, then to scare people? In the press if it bleeds it leads, and in print and video it's sex that sells. For some religious organizations it's fear of the other.
Considering how difficult it is to get any law passed it seems a little over the top to fear Sharia Law in the US. That's why they set up all the checks and balances, to prevent tilting too much toward one position or another. I could be wrong, but I'm thinking Jindal will not be the Republican nomination for President.
As for conversion between one religion or another, I don't believe in any proselytizing, be it Christian or Islamic. That's why I don't listen to the Mormons when they come knocking. ;) If I want to learn about religion, I'll do it on my own. As it happens I have books on Jesus and Mohammed in my pile to read.
The Saudi article is rather long, I'll have to finish it later. I got as far as his statement about our losing the Iraq war. That would depend on the criteria used. We removed Saddam and his regime, so in that sense it was a success. Unfortunately we couldn't stick around to try to make the deal stick, so Iraq ended up with basically more of the same in Maliki. And even then it's debatable whether we could have made a difference, since the Iraqis had their own ideas of what the end game should be.
" I got as far as his statement about our losing the Iraq war. That
would depend on the criteria used."
Yes, I suppose it would indeed.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
By the way, Lynnette… Our network news programs haven't been on top of it here lately, being busy with gawd only knows what they think is more important, but the Russian build-up in the Ukraine has completed and a full-scale escalation is now under way.
I presume you've noticed, in spite of the lack of real coverage it's been getting?
Post Script:
"Unfortunately we couldn't stick around to try to make the deal stick…"
We stayed from early 2003 through the end of 2011, and nursed them through two national elections. How long are you thinkin’ it'd take to ‘make the deal stick’?
How long are you thinkin’ it'd take to ‘make the deal stick’?
From the looks of things now, far longer than I would have originally hoped. *sigh*
But back to your articles...
The rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran reminds me a great deal of that of the US and Russia, which bodes ill for the region.
Yes, I saw there was more activity in Ukraine recently. I don't think Putin will give in easily, despite the sanctions. But the Russians are facing a squeeze from two sides, between the sanctions and the decreasing price of oil.
Somehow it feels like a far more dangerous world now than when we were in the middle of the Iraq war.
"I don't think Putin will give in easily, despite the sanctions."
Putin has seen his popularity rise at every ‘successful’ foreign policy adventure from Chechnya through Georgia then the Ukraine. His people are hungry for successful foreign interventions; they want to project Russian power abroad. Makes them feel good.
As sanctions bite, as the decline in oil revenues bites even harder, the Russian people will become restless and perhaps critical of Putin's choices to date.
The antidote for that, the thing that's almost guaranteed to boost Putin's popularity, is to go screw with neighboring country. It's always worked so far when Putin's needed it to work.
So, what's the odds ya reckon that Putin will react to the sanctions and economic pressures with something other than more aggression?
Slim to none. One of the reasons the world feels more dangerous.
Did you happen to notice this?
Hmmm...I wonder how Jeffrey's doing? Assuming he's back from his Asia excursion.
I think I read that the brunt of the storm missed NYC, but Boston is getting hammered.
I'm thinking this headline is a little melodramatic. It appears that most understand that the Kurds are doing a service.
"I'm thinking this headline is a little melodramatic."
Maybe not. I'm given to understand that the Kurds were in negotiations with Baghdad early on, after Mosul fell to Daesh. (I'm thinkin’ I might just go with that one and avoid the ISIS/ISIL thing; we'll try it out and see how well it fits.) Nothing ever came of it, but I said at the the time that I couldn't see any point to the Kurds taking it away from Daesh, just to give it back to Baghdad. If the Kurds take it, the Kurds get to keep it, is my point of view. Or, we tell them in advance they can't keep it, and they probably won't bother to take it in the first place, and I don't think they should be expected to--no need to do the work, take the casualties, and then just hand it back to Baghdad.
"Did you happen to notice this?"
I hadn't seen the NYT article, but I was up to speed on the new enviromental regs. Alaskan pols are up in arms again (both parties).
That ANWAR thing has long ceased to be a fight about getting oil to the lower 48, and has become a fight the two sidea are having for the sake of winning the fight, bragging rights on ‘who won’.
The Keystone pipeline is in danger of becoming another one of those. The economic considerations supporting the pipeline are much diminished, but they just keep on keepin’ on ‘cause they're bound and determined to notch a ‘win’ on this one.
While it looks like the Kurds are nibbling around Mosul, they haven't actually entered the city. It sounds a bit like they expect more of the Sunni Arabs to step up and take back the city from...hmmm...ISIS/ISIL...Daesh? Whoever. I suspect that any taking of Mosul is a ways off yet, and may involve more than just the Kurds. They do appear to be trying to prepare the battle field though, with cutting off supply lines for ISIL. I guess I'll just go with Obama's acronym for now. It's shorter.
Btw, I see they have been doing some celebrating in Kobane. ISIL seems to have been uprooted from that city. Congratulations go to the Kurds who fought so hard to take back their city!
Kobanê has proved to be an interesting case. Strategically unimportant, but important to the local Kurds, to whom it was home, and to ISIS, who wanted to keep their string alive. I recall Erdogan telling us that they'd never hold out against ISIS without ground troops (and then doing what he could to make sure they didn't get any ground troops).
Well, fairly minimal back-up from Iraqi Kurdistan, a few heavy gun crews, and some air support, but not a steady thing, and they took their town back anyway.
Yeah, congrats to the Kurds.
And now, on a totally domestic front, The Department of HomeLand Security…
It's becoming increasingly likely that the Republicans will fail to get a plan and will actually let funding for the department expire. The Republican leadership was counting on having their right-wing crazies prove to be not quite that crazy, they thought the wingers would surely fold when it became apparent that they couldn't "defund" Obama's executive orders because there's no necessary funds there to "defund". It appears they may have been wrong.
And, on another matter of some local interest… It appears the infamous Koch brothers may be leaning towards supporting Marco Rubio in the Republican Prez running.
It seems that social media is trying to create a flap over Michelle Obama's lack of a headscarf in their recent visit to Saudi Arabia.
*sigh* The Saudi's never complained, why should the twitteratee? And, apparently, there were others who were also lacking.
“In other words, it’s not the end of the world if we get to that time because the national security functions will not stop — whether it’s border security or a lot of other issues,” Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) said, though he stressed that Congress shouldn’t ignore that deadline. “Having said so, I think we should always aspire to try to get it done.”
Those people who are looking for a paycheck to pay necessary bills may disagree with Mr. Diaz-Balart. What an idiot!
"… "a flap over Michelle Obama's lack of a headscarf…"
I'm glad she didn't bow to their customs and wear one. A sizable portion of the Saudi dignitaries refused to shake her hand (although their new king did not diss her thus). They want to follow their own customs, I'm willing to allow for that…but then it's damn well time they figure out and accept that we get to follow ours.
I agree. If they have a right to wear a headscarf, others have a right not to.
I believe there was a bit of a flap as well when she hugged the Queen. :)
Their customs are backwards, barbaric and frankly insane and their leaders/royalty are some of the very worst hypocrites imaginable, given their excesses when they are out of sight from "their people".
Not only do they flog bloggers for expressing themselves at home while their prince in chief walks for "freedom of expression" abroad, they also come up with insane shit like this:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/01/ioc-dismisses-saudi-bahrain-joint-olympics-bid-hopes-150127160124278.html
Thankfully the IOC shot that idea down right quick.
"cultural constraints'
Indeed. I would hope that any Olympic athlete would have boycotted such an event if it had actually been held. The whole point of the Olympics was to show unity via sporting events. Segregating the competitors by gender doesn't quite follow that spirit. :(
"…they flog bloggers for expressing themselves at home while their prince
in chief walks for ‘freedom of expression’ abroad…"
While I do not discount the possibility of a shameless hypocrisy on the part of the Saudi, it may also be that there is some disagreement among the royal family as to whether or not, or even how long, they can continue on their present course before the revolution. They may not all be on the same page.
I see the Senate passed a bill compelling the President to order the approval of the Keystone pipeline. And, it'll get vetoed--damn near any law passed to compel the President to do something, anything, is going to get vetoed, and Obama already said he'd veto this one in particular. Ain't like there ain't enough real stuff to try to work out, and yet they gotta go spinning their wheels on this.
Spinning their wheels is what they do best.
I see the Jordanians have bowed to pressure and are looking at making a deal with ISIL. Last I heard they were still awaiting a life sign for their pilot.
We made prisoner swaps with the Confederacy during our Civil War, in fact, during the earlier years of that war prisoner swaps were considered the norm--they just didn't build military prisons for the POW, neither side did, at least not for the first couple of years (which eventually led to atrocities like Andersonville--infamous among others) . And considering the number of irregular, ‘volunteer’, units fighting for the South, (Quantrill's Raiders comes first to mind, along with later General Nathan Bedford Forrest, but the list is long) the Confederacy could have been considered every bit as much a ‘terrorist’ organization as Hezbolla, or even ISIS.
The line between what's an enemy military unit and what's a terrorist cell has never been quite as solid and bright as some people would now like to make it out for domestic political purposes.
News out is that Romney's decided not to run for President again. Jeb Bush's chances at the nomination just improved markedly. He can now hope that the right-wing crazies split their votes among the many right-wing crazies who'll be running, and that he sneaks past the goal line as a plurality choice backed by the Republican ‘establishment’.
I think in both the Revolutionary War & the Civil War there were things that anyone today would consider to be atrocities. It's just that the mists of time have blurred not only the memories but the emotions from that time period.
It is really for each individual nation to decide how they want to deal with ISIL on the issue of prisoner swaps. I think the main concern is that if proven effective the trading of prisoners will encourage hostage taking.
I forgot to mention that the reason the prisoner swaps broke down in the Civil War was that the Union began using black soldiers, and the South wasn't going to let them live, not even to swap for their own soldiers. The North couldn't keep on making swaps but only for white soldiers; that just wasn't gonna fly politically, even if Lincoln had been so inclined, which I don't think he was.
Back to the subject at hand…
Jordan traded for one of their pilots, best described as prisoner of war, not a hostage.
If that distinction is observed maybe ISIS will be less likely to kill their POWs. They need no encouragement to take surrendering fighters as captives except to the extent that they'd just as soon kill ‘em on the spot.
Post a Comment