SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Pakistani attorney and author Rafia Zakaria wrote an op-ed in Al Jazeera America about the Islamic extremists' war on fun, including sports, music, even dining in a fine restaurant. Zakaria points out that this apparent obsession predates the existence of ISIS by several decades (at least); he suspects this is a big reason why the attackers chose Paris, renowned worldwide for its brilliant culture and joie de vivre.
Terrorism’s targeting of the merry is universal and indiscriminate, a division of the world between those who wish to live and laugh and hope and those who kill and destroy. The latter are deadly and relentless, and they have already squeezed out the mirth from too many of the world’s cities, from Karachi, Kabul and Baghdad to Nairobi and Beirut.
Zakaria experienced this aspect of terror firsthand. A high school friend had just passed a big exam, and was out celebrating with his family at a restaurant in Karachi, Pakistan, when terrorists struck.
Al Jazeera America provides a separate analysis warning that military action alone cannot defeat ISIS (aka ISIL), which of course is not a "nation" in the traditional sense, but more of a guerilla outfit like Al Qaeda, that opportunistically seized a stronghold in chaotic regions of Syria and Iraq. The piece's author, political scientist Rami G. Khouri, recommends that both the West and Muslim nations of the Middle East spend more resources on addressing economic and political problems facing impoverished youths who are potentially attracted by the ISIS' recruiting pitch:
If the underlying threats to ordinary citizens’ lives in autocratic Arab-Islamic societies remain unaddressed — from jobs, water and health insurance, to free elections, a credible justice system and corruption — the flow of recruits to movements like ISIL or something even worse will persist and even accelerate.
(Score: 2) by moondrake on Wednesday November 18 2015, @09:42AM
Why do you feel the need to sprinkle your reply with personal attacks? Its not relevant to the discussion.
I talked about the US simply to show you that answering violence with violence is a thing that not only Muslims do. If you already knew this: great. But why write your post in such a way as if it is a think that only Muslims do? And I only brought up the bishop argument because it is one you *should* have used if you were trying to be logically correct. The issue at hand was a Muslim calling for the death of Muslims, not a Muslim calling for the death of people that attacked Muslims. You miss the point by calling it weak. Your argument simply did not make sense.
There are a lot of cultural differences in this world. Not everything you hear a Muslim say is because he is Muslim, but because he grew up in a society with its own particular values. Often, this will be a 3rd world society that we find very hard to understand. Sometimes, they do things much better than we in the "West". Sometimes, they do things much worse. But who are we really to judge? Take your child marriage example. In many societies, arranged marriages, even at a young age, were (and sometimes still are) seen as beneficial for both families and the children involved. If it happens in country where its forbidden, then I think it should be prosecuted. If it happens in a country were the majority of people think it should be allowed, I have no right to judge them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:04PM
Whereas the pope or an archbishop is far better analog to a grand imam. The religious leaders are supposed to set higher standards so their followers can hopefully get better. That many people want to answer violence with violence means little when they are not leaders of a major religion.
And this is not the grand imam getting caught in private saying what he really wants - this is his official public statement.