To Hijab or not to Hijab

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

No, that wasn't the point. The threat from muggers is limited, local, and opportunistic. The threat from Islamist terrorist/jihadis is basically unlimited in scope. Their attacks demand careful ideological analysis and planning on the part of the perpetrators.

To say that Charlie Hebdo invited attack by mocking radical Islam is not really any more meaningful than to say that the Jewish supermarket or museum invited attack.

---

But if they didn't invite attack, why were they attacked and why did they have police protection? At the very least they knew they were in dangerous waters. Which is not to say that I blame them or think they deserved what happened, but it was a consequence of their decisions to keep spreading the cartoons they wanted to spread despite obvious threads. Whether a thread is local or global is inconsequential as long as you can expose yourself to it or not. The 9/11 attack was different in that I don't think anyone inside knew they were a target. Both attacks are obviously wrong but CH made themselves a far more visible target, it's a bit like climbing a tree during a thunderstorm. You get no guarantee that you get struck by lightning but you aren't exactly making it less likely with our behavior. Although I do agree that people should have the right and that it is not inherently morally wrong to climb a tree during a thunderstorm.

Why would you butt ur head in a discussion without correcting me. Shoo shoo

"why did they have police protection?" From the time they were bomb-fired by Catholic Extremists for an offensive picture of the Pope.
"but it was a consequence of their decisions to keep spreading the cartoons they wanted to spread despite obvious threads." Nope, Even the murderers said it was to avenge the Prophet, not to shut-up them. So, even if they had decided to shut-up, they would have been killed.
So, if I understand well, freedom is not in the frame of the law, but in the frame of a target decided by murderers. It they kill you, it is your fault, you shouldn't have offended them.

Funny, it is all what the wife's abusers say in court: Your Honour, if she would do all what I want even without me saying, I wouldn't have hit her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"why did they have police protection?" From the time they were bomb-fired by Catholic Extremists for an offensive picture of the Pope.

---

Thanks, so basically they already knew that a lot of people don't like what they do. And they chose to do it anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"but it was a consequence of their decisions to keep spreading the cartoons they wanted to spread despite obvious threads." Nope, Even the murderers said it was to avenge the Prophet, not to shut-up them. So, even if they had decided to shut-up, they would have been killed.

---

So they were completely unaware that some muslims do not like Mohammed cartoons when they made their first one?
Now you just make them sound incredibly naive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

So, if I understand well, freedom is not in the frame of the law, but in the frame of a target decided by murderers. It they kill you, it is your fault, you shouldn't have offended them.

Funny, it is all what the wife's abusers say in court: Your Honour, if she would do all what I want even without me saying, I wouldn't have hit her.

---

You don't understand well because I said none of that.
What I said is that sometimes your actions have consequences in reality, that does not mean anyone is excused or anyone is blamed, it's just reality. They are dead in reality even though they shouldn't be. We could also ban ISIS tomorrow but that alone wouldn't make them disappear tomorrow, or would it? I think that is what Gilrandir's point boils down to as I have trouble seeing him as someone who thinks that it is morally right to avenge the prophet with blood and silence others to defend him, but he can correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HitWithThe5

No it doesn't go that far back.

---

It does. Mitochondrial DNA goes back 10000 years. This is common knowledge.

I fear I must admit my ignorance. I was unaware dna could survive such a long period of time after death.

So where can i trace mine back over 10000 years, i would like a test now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HitWithThe5

So where can i trace mine back over 10000 years, i would like a test now.

---

Here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HitWithThe5

No it doesn't go that far back.

---

We have Neanderthal DNA.

Quote:

---

There are just so many examples here that suggest they are older. The earliest sign of modern humans outside Africa was found in Jebel Faya, Arabian peninsula I believe. Um al Nar culture was a bronze age civilization, 2700-2000 BC. Desert dwellers and nomads were first across the region. It’s common sense actually. What do you think they did when the land was less arable? Move north obviously. That cycle has repeated itself throughout middle eastern history so there is no chance of homogeneity especially ancient civilization remnants. It's intermixed.

Overcomplicating things. The majority of the Levant see themselves as Arabs. Different Arabs but Arabs. I don't where all this is coming from and it's a waste of time to entertain that thought when little to nobody in the region sees it the same way.

---

Modern human in the UAE 125,000 years ago does not mean all people in the ME are descended from Bedouin. Is not the camel a key part of Bedoiun culture? Also woven cloth? Camels were not domesticated in the Levant until the Iron Age AFAIK and woven cloth is something generally thought to have been invented by settled peoples rather than hunters (who habitually wore skins of the animals they killed.

Wikipedia have a bit on this re Camels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel#Domestication

If domestication of Camels begins in Mesopotamia and then spreads down into Arabia that suggests the people also spreads down - and it makes sense in so far as the first desert nomads are likely to be either settlers living on the fringes of civilisation who adapted to a more arid climate, or out and out exiles forced into the desert.

Just an example of how your argument is backwards.

Quote:

---

I think this is where your idea came from in the first place. It makes little sense.

---

People don't generally live in deserts if they can help it and hunter-gatherers cannot live in deserts at all, really, though they can live on the edge of them. Hunter gatherers live where food is plentiful, so near the sea, major rivers, forests etc. They don't tend to live in sand desert because, without relatively modern technology, it's too hard to live there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

it's a bit like climbing a tree during a thunderstorm.

---

But that's just what I'm pointing out.

Climbing a tree during a thunderstorm is like your example of walking at night, or even like walking at night in the worst part of town while looking lost and flashing jewelry.

The Charlie Hebdo situation was more like opening your curtains to light during a Blitz raid in London.

I said bedu and desert dwellers. They are synonymous, bedu is desert nomad in Arabic.

Quote:

---

People don't generally live in deserts if they can help it and hunter-gatherers cannot live in deserts at all, really, though they can live on the edge of them. Hunter gatherers live where food is plentiful, so near the sea, major rivers, forests etc. They don't tend to live in sand desert because, without relatively modern technology, it's too hard to live there.

---

Nomads, bedu, or whatever you want to call them lived in coastal regions in ancient times.

Where are the indications that people of the Levant are majority descended from the ancient civs you mentioned? Why do the whole lot of them identify as Arabs if what you say is true? This, to me, is an outsider view that has been invalidated by the natives. The idea that "Arab" means to be from the southern Arabian peninsula is false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Here.

---

Guess I'll have to find some other way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HitWithThe5

I said bedu and desert dwellers. They are synonymous, bedu is desert nomad in Arabic.

---

The Ancients didn't speak Arabic - the Caananite languages are similar, but then Latin is similar to French.

Quote:

---

Nomads, bedu, or whatever you want to call them lived in coastal regions in ancient times.

---

Then they're coastal nomads, not desert nomads.

Quote:

---

Where are the indications that people of the Levant are majority descended from the ancient civs you mentioned? Why do the whole lot of them identify as Arabs if what you say is true? This, to me, is an outsider view that has been invalidated by the natives. The idea that "Arab" means to be from the southern Arabian peninsula is false.

---

OK, this really is a silly question - the answer is demographics. The cities of the Alluvial Plain have always been populous, even during the Bronze Age they had tens of thousands of people each - same for the Nile Delta. By contrast the nomads in the desert were comparatively few and inner Arabia was empty during certain period because people lacked the technology to survive there.

Then along came a man, a man named Mohammed and he was like Attila who came before him, he unified a fractious and perpetually warlike people and he led them out of the desert and into better lands. Unlike Attila Mohammed also created/revealed a new religion to bind these people. Over the following centuries the subjects of this new ruling class gradually adopted the ways, language and finally religion of their masters.

The same happened in England when the Romano-British gradually adopted the language and culture of the incoming Saxons, likewise it happened in the Northern Balkans to the Romano-Illyrians.

Quote:

---

The Ancients didn't speak Arabic - the Caananite languages are similar, but then Latin is similar to French.

---

Of course they don't speak Arabic. Take a look at the artifacts and the travel habits, they are desert people. It's what they have in common. The desert is a key component of the gods they had chosen, the poetry they wrote, and the artifacts they left behind.

Quote:

---

Then they're coastal nomads, not desert nomads.

---

But they were in the coasts of what is known as Arabia, they were desert people. You need dates you find a palm tree, fish you go to the sea.

Quote:

---

Then along came a man, a man named Mohammed and he was like Attila who came before him, he unified a fractious and perpetually warlike people and he led them out of the desert and into better lands. Unlike Attila Mohammed also created/revealed a new religion to bind these people. Over the following centuries the subjects of this new ruling class gradually adopted the ways, language and finally religion of their masters.

---

Mecca was a center of trade between all types of cultures before Muhammad came along. It was not a homogenous society in the time of Muhammad. It is said that he is of Persian descent anyway. Even people at that time saw the dilemma, which is evident through the hadiths and pre-Islamic poetry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HitWithThe5

Of course they don't speak Arabic. Take a look at the artifacts and the travel habits, they are desert people. It's what they have in common. The desert is a key component of the gods they had chosen, the poetry they wrote, and the artifacts they left behind.

---

Oh pish, the Akkadians, the Babylonians, the Iranians, the Phoneticians, the Israelites... these people were settled farmers, they lived off bread and beer not meat and milk. Their Gods were the Gods of settled farmers, not marauding nomads.

Quote:

---

But they were in the coasts of what is known as Arabia, they were desert people. You need dates you find a palm tree, fish you go to the sea.

---

Because they were in the Arabian peninsula they were desert people? Disregarding the fact that not all of Arabia is desert even today and less of it was historically.

Quote:

---

Mecca was a center of trade between all types of cultures before Muhammad came along. It was not a homogenous society in the time of Muhammad. It is said that he is of Persian descent anyway. Even people at that time saw the dilemma, which is evident through the hadiths and pre-Islamic poetry.

---

Simply put, the desert tribes were not organised enough to be a problem until Mohammed came along, and then they unified and because every tribesman was a warrior they became a BIG problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

But that's just what I'm pointing out.

Climbing a tree during a thunderstorm is like your example of walking at night, or even like walking at night in the worst part of town while looking lost and flashing jewelry.

The Charlie Hebdo situation was more like opening your curtains to light during a Blitz raid in London.

---

Where is the difference? You're making yourself a more likely target in all of these situations, no? And in all of them you have a choice not to.
Which was the whole point. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Oh pish, the Akkadians, the Babylonians, the Iranians, the Phoneticians, the Israelites... these people were settled farmers, they lived off bread and beer not meat and milk. Their Gods were the Gods of settled farmers, not marauding nomads.

---

And then they once again became nomads, this is the fatalist atmosphere of middle easterners. From Karbala to Jordan to the Saaida of Egyptian Sinai, same community forced into the same desert dwelling situation.

Quote:

---

Because they were in the Arabian peninsula they were desert people? Disregarding the fact that not all of Arabia is desert even today and less of it was historically.

---

I thought by your logic that the Arabian penninsula = south of Jordan. If they lived in the Arabian peninsula than what makes them not Arab... South of Jordan meant you were in the desert with a few patches of green that were more common back then.

Quote:

---

Simply put, the desert tribes were not organised enough to be a problem until Mohammed came along, and then they unified and because every tribesman was a warrior they became a BIG problem.

---

They weren't all warriors. You need to brush up on the history because saying they were all warriors is like saying all samurai were great warriors. Aside from that many of them were merchants and drunkards with no combat experience that like to have orgies. Oversimplification as well in that you discard the fact that most of the followers of the Islam movement were slaves, non-Arabs discriminated upon, and those who didn't have a prestigious family name or people bought from the north to be sold in the Arabian peninsula trade center.

Again I don't see actual Levantine people putting effort in claiming this history, every one of them I know takes pride in their Arab heritage more than I can ever. What's done is done, and the consensus is post-ancient culture of unified Arabness. The center of the world was perceived to be Makkah for middle easterners in pre-Islamic times. If we go by your logic I may be a white Abyssinian. This is nonsense, and to act like these things aren't up for debate is delusional to be honest with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Where is the difference? You're making yourself a more likely target in all of these situations, no? And in all of them you have a choice not to.
Which was the whole point. :dizzy2:

---

So are you justifying rapes if the woman was wearing a short skirt?

Can we at least lay the blame for an attack on the attacker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So are you justifying rapes if the woman was wearing a short skirt?

Can we at least lay the blame for an attack on the attacker.

---

Can you at least read what I wrote?

Post 244 last paragraph before anyone complains that it was too far back and couldn't possibly be found.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Can you at least read what I wrote?

Post 244 last paragraph before anyone complains that it was too far back and couldn't possibly be found.

---

244: "So they were completely unaware that some muslims do not like Mohammed cartoons when they made their first one?
Now you just make them sound incredibly naive."

Naive or not, purposely proactive or not. The attacker is responsible for the act.

“Thanks, so basically they already knew that a lot of people don't like what they do. And they chose to do it anyway.” Yes. It is called freedom. You can’t please everybody. I personally don’t like a lot of things, from stupid adverts to Big Brother program and X-factor song shows.

“So they were completely unaware that some muslims do not like Mohammed cartoons when they made their first one?” And they were certainly not. What most of the anti CH prefer to ignore, is they were tree-hungers. Really nice pacifist persons, anti-militarists, head of the campaign to stop the killing of baby seals and whales; they were more Green Peace and Amnesty International completely opposite to the Front National, which was their first target therefore main opponent in Court. You can dislike their style (and I did, I never bought CH or its predecessor) but they were at the point of anti-racism movement, defending the homeless and the destitute. They were atheists as well. Naïve, certainly (see anti-militarism) but to present them as the pro-Muslim fanatics do is just a lie. They were anti-Islam, as they were anti-Catholic or any other Religions. They were against the Dai Lama as well, as they didn’t accept Religion based Leaders. Ghandi included. This is a political point that was worth to defend in a magazine. Or should be careful not to offend Buddhists as well?
And btw, to be against a religion or a political party platform is not to be against the followers of a faith or against militants of political parties.

“What I said is that sometimes your actions have consequences in reality that does not mean anyone is excused or anyone is blamed, it's just reality.” Agree, and Western acceptance of the rise of Religious extremism and fanatics is responsible for the murders. Under the pretext of a miss-understand of freedom of speech we allowed murderers to spread hate and lies, so some can see as an escape road to blame others or to at least succeed in doing something, even in killing others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So are you justifying rapes if the woman was wearing a short skirt?

---

He's just saying you are more likely to get raped, and that is simply true.

HitWithThe5, I think your history dates from the 1920's and I don't think it's worth any more of my effort to open your eyes.

Sufice it to say that the history of the Middle East is not one where people sat in the desert until they felt the desire to live easier lives growing crops, quite the opposite.

Arabs did not begin to spread to the levant with the birth of islam, thats a huge misconception. To say the people of the levant are not descended from Arabs is ludicrous, and that’s not responding to but I did anyway. This was the actual point you were trying to make, and what does it say about your point when 1) the general consensus of that same region of phoenicians see themselves as Arabs first and foremost and that it doesn't contradict the ancient roots like you say with confidence? 2) Your oversimplification of pre-islamic Arab lifestyle says it all.

You have a very arbitrary definition of what it meant to be Arab.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HitWithThe5

Arabs did not begin to spread to the levant with the birth of islam, thats a huge misconception.

---

Can you back this up with some sources?

People of the Levant decent from the Mesaponians, so do the Assyrians

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

244: "So they were completely unaware that some muslims do not like Mohammed cartoons when they made their first one?
Now you just make them sound incredibly naive."

Naive or not, purposely proactive or not. The attacker is responsible for the act.

---

That's not the last paragraph. :inquisitive:

I've made it clear that I do not blame them, it's just that their decision to make mohammed cartoons led to the attack unless someone wants to show me that they had been attacked in the same way if they had never published any mohammed cartoons. I've even said in a previous post that blaming them is ludicrous, and yet two people claim that I were blaming them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Ukrainians should know better than to provoke Russia by seeking closer relations with the West.

---

Ukrainians provoke Russia by anything they do unless it is prescribed by Russia itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Please do, I don't care, I am still the guy that shelters and feeds a Somali refugee anyway, are you doing the same

No you aren't are you, I do that though. But I don't have room for two or three more

I can, so I do. Not because anyone demands me to.

---

Do you know aught of conditions I live in or the income I get and the family I support to flaunt your laudable behavior before my face? Do you know what charitable activities I participate in to look down upon me? I have a strong conviction that charity is the thing you do not to boast of it in every other thread on a forum where no one can check whether it is true. In fact, I think that when one starts mentioning it to strangers as often as one can it stops being charity and turns into PR which you use to justify whatever unsavory things you may say, like "what if I post bigotry, I harbor a refugee which is a justification of whatever I might say".

As for tolerance, we were discussing tolerance (not)exhibited by CH, not by YOU. Frankly, seeing your attitude to Muslims I think you support CH not because you like them, but because they were attacked by those you hate. Like "CH are sons of a b***, but they are our Sons of a b***"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

And I as well demand not to be obliged to follow/obey their religious demands/requests/habits/clothing under the flimsy pretext they are offended by it if I don't.

---

However flimsy you may consider the pretext, offended they WERE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

What I said is that sometimes your actions have consequences in reality, that does not mean anyone is excused or anyone is blamed, it's just reality. They are dead in reality even though they shouldn't be. We could also ban ISIS tomorrow but that alone wouldn't make them disappear tomorrow, or would it? I think that is what Gilrandir's point boils down to as I have trouble seeing him as someone who thinks that it is morally right to avenge the prophet with blood and silence others to defend him, but he can correct me if I'm wrong.

---

You are doing perfectly well. Carry on. :coffeenews: Now it is your turn to wonder how people can fail to comprehend such simple things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

They don't tend to live in sand desert because, without relatively modern technology, it's too hard to live there.

---

Proved by Tatooin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

You can dislike their style (and I did, I never bought CH or its predecessor) but they were at the point of anti-racism movement, defending the homeless and the destitute. They were atheists as well. Naïve, certainly (see anti-militarism) but to present them as the pro-Muslim fanatics do is just a lie. They were anti-Islam, as they were anti-Catholic or any other Religions. They were against the Dai Lama as well, as they didn’t accept Religion based Leaders. Ghandi included. This is a political point that was worth to defend in a magazine. Or should be careful not to offend Buddhists as well?

---

Would it be OK if they made constant jokes about how vulnerable blacks feel if their mother "is mentioned"? Or about gays' womanish ways and behavior? Or about Jews being wealthy greedy bankers? Would you scream bloody murder and accuse them of racism/homophobia/nazism?

Quote:

---

Ukrainians provoke Russia by anything they do unless it is prescribed by Russia itself.

---

Now it is my turn to wonder how people can fail to comprehend such simple things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Now it is my turn to wonder how people can fail to comprehend such simple things.

---

Following your logics, Ukraine must do everything Russia says and all the world will leave in peace? Perhaps for a while it will. Until Russia decides to act likewise in Kazakhstan, Estonia or anywhere it can reach.