Wednesday, January 07, 2015

The Faces Of Evil #1,445,592

Well, let's observe for the billionth time that it's a bizarrely puny God that requires His followers to murder those who take up crayons against Him.

An omnipotent deity reigning in eternity with the power of life and death over all, who yet needs defending from, like, watercolours.

I'm actually aware that it's the multitude of ideas behind the Charlie Hebdo cartoons that enrage the headbangers, but that's no less idiotic.  And yet, this is the type of infantile nonsense that's caused much of the planet to collapse in flames, this past couple of decades.  It's this that prompts grown men to dress up in ludicrous action-movie space-ninja outfits and charge around murdering unarmed people.  It's outrageous and disgusting, and also strangely pathetic.

Anyway, you won't have to go far to find angry demands for every publication to reprint the cartoons on free speech grounds, or calls for us all to work together in times of crisis and so on.  You'll be hard-pushed to miss them, in fact.

A different issue was raised by a work colleague of mine today, and it's one that usually gets less attention at times like these - what do Al Qaeda want?*

The specific question was, "Don't Al Qaeda realise that killing people like this will increase hatred towards Muslims and lead inevitably to more violence against them?" 

To which the answer is, Of course they do.  That's exactly why they kill people like this in the first place.  

Maybe I'm reading the wrong papers and speaking to the wrong people, but it's incredible to me that we can be fourteen years into a supposed war on terrorism, and it still doesn't seem to be common knowledge that Al Qaeda et al desperately want us all to fear, hate and fight each other as much as possible.

They want us infidels to repress and attack Muslims, in the hope that this will convert as many as possible to Al Qaeda's dipshit philosophy.  They want their co-religionists to join them in blowing shit up and committing atrocities, in the hope that it'll create a death spiral of tit-for-tat lunacy that will somehow result in a new order built in their own idiotic image.

It's not like the various Jihadist groups have kept this quiet.  Al Qaeda in particular have been very, very vocal about wanting a huge war of Us vs Them, and the dirtier and more violent the better.  They're terrorists, after all - they thrive on fear and hate.

It's really very strange, that this isn't better known than it is.  It may be true that they hate us for our freedom, amongst a gaggle of other excuses that may be wackier or less so, but when it comes down to it, they just plain want us all to fight.

Anyway, I don't have a moral lesson here, nor any grand strategic suggestions.   What I will say is this.

Whose interests are better served if we all now have a massive pissfight over, say, cartoons depicting Mohammed?   A really nasty one, with papers and social media and workplaces filling with seething rage and bitterness and sweeping generalisations?

Does that help us, or does it help them? 


*"Al Qaeda", since these zoomers apparently identified themselves as the Yemeni variant thereof.  There's a remarkable homogeneity in the thinking of certain strains of glowering Islamist disapprover that allows us to play fast and loose with our definitions here, I think. 

7 comments:

Igor Belanov said...

After disgust, my next reaction to the attacks was 'well, why don't we just not offend them for a while and see what they do then'. Call their bluff, if you like. That would probably upset them the most.

In addition, we could finally breach relations with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. That's if money and oil are judged to be less important than freedom from barbaric lunacy. I'm not holding my breath.

andrew adams said...

I think at times like this we should remember what is really important. Which is to shame those whose response to events in Paris is insufficiently hawkish or vaguely equivocal or otherwise not meeting our exacting standards so we can demonstrate our own moral superiority.

flyingrodent said...

There's a lot of this floating around social media, certainly. It's pretty clear by now that to some folk, killing people is a lesser offence than than some daftie saying something stupid about it is.

The really noticeable thing here though is the widespread assumption that Islamic extremists will be upset if all the papers republish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

Quite why any observant human would think so, I have no idea. As the whole Innocence of Muslims film debacle proved, many of them are never happier than when us depraved westerners have desecrated this or that purported holiness - the fuckers will chase that bandwagon like the Keystone Kops for all they're worth, sucking every bit of outrage possible out of it and keeping it going as long as they can.

I suppose it's possible that it's never occurred to some folk that Islamic terrorists want to see more bitter, polarised arguments about free speech and religion, not fewer. Such moments make these fuckwits stronger, rather than weaker, which is why they're always on the lookout for more shit to get upset about.

This is all common knowledge though - even the wackiest counter-jihad type is well aware of it. So it's funny how so many magically forget about it, when there's political hay to be made.

Neil said...

"Why Freedom Of Speech means you must publish exactly what I tell you to, otherwise you're in bed with the enemy."

Anonymous said...

"The really noticeable thing here though is the widespread assumption that Islamic extremists will be upset if all the papers republish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Quite why any observant human would think so, I have no idea."

Let me explain, then. Most Sunni Muslims believe that visual depictions of the Prophet are deeply offensive and should be prohibited. For a brief summary of the history of figurative depictions in Islamic art, an examination of exactly what is prohibited in the Qur'an and hadith, and an exploration of the reasoning given for the special sensitivity to depictions of Muhammad, see for example http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/things/depictions-of-muhammad-in-islamic-art.htm.

Offence is not of course sufficient reason in itself for suppressing freedom of speech, and nothing can excuse the recent horrifying events in Paris, but we should not trivialise the issues involved.

flyingrodent said...

Let me explain, then...

Yes, I'm aware of this, and am suggesting that for those of a shit-stirring terroristic bent, this sensitivity is an opportunity to be exploited.

That is, that Islamist terrorists may care more about raising havoc and mayhem than they do about insults to Mohammed. They are, after all, extremely vocal about how much havoc and mayhem they'd like to stir up.

Don Francisco said...

I'm loving the reporting of this as well in the news.

A) send reporters to area with high population of Muslims.
B) Wait until some idiot doesn't run away from you
C) Attempt to extract apology from them for actions of others
D) Indignantly question why they should be offended by the Prophet Mohammed in a cartoon
E) Draw parallel between random stranger who takes offence at cartoon of Mohammed + lunatics who played gangsters in Paris.

Closely followed by my other favourite - govt stooge claims incident could be avoided if citizens surrender all remaining rights to privacy (without any facts to support this view). And of course allowing Nigel Farage to blame the whole thing on multiculturalism, without challenge.

With media like this...