I don't know if direct stats are available on this, but the kind of stats that would really interst me, are not "terrorism" stats as such but something more along the lines of "Acts of aggression against feedom of speech, freedom of religion etc"
http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Global-Terrorism-Index-2015.pdf
Some of the things you are looking for are there, but as you point out yourself, most wouldn't be classified as terrorism. Charlie Hebdo, Salman Rushdie and the like are a mere footnote when compared to the systematic repression of free speech in many parts of the world.
The problem in what you are saying (which superficially looks fine btw) is your use of "many parts of the world". In Thailand, try saying anything aloud disrespectful of the King. You will have your right to free speech respected. That is THEIR custom.
So how is that different to Radical Muslim extremists? They also would not respect free speech to criticise Muhammad.
So what will the Thai people (or indeed any subset or groups within the Thai people) do to you in YOUR country if you criticise or parody their King? Now make the same argument for what radicalised Muslim extremists will do for criticising or parodying Muhammed. If you are struggling, start with Charlie Hebdo and go from there.
Suppression of free speech is far more widespread than that, and it goes far beyond the Charlie Hebdo attackers. A recent example is the spat between Germany and Turkey about what a German comedian can and cannot say. Another, also about Turkey, is the aftermath of the failed coup in July.
The Charlie Hebdo attack was far more visible, though, far more dramatic. It makes for better headlines and it's just so much easier to pimp your Facebook avatar to show your support. It's more tangible and more direct, but I would argue less harmful to free speech.
You're simply trying to score simple, and simplistic, points. No surprises there.
I do not have Facebook and no such pimping ever took place. So I do not see how that applies to me. Perhaps your point is redundant?
If a German comedian is forbidden from saying something in Turkey (Believe me this is the first I have heard of it and it is such a weak example, I am not going to look it up, I will simply concede that it was a terrible thing - just not newsworthy or noteworthy), then okay...and? Does that mean IF he says something in Turkey that goes against the Turkish government, he could get imprisoned? Same as I mentioned in Thailand, if you are in Thailand and you say something horrible about the royal family, you will be jailed.
Will that get you killed in your own country? Is there an actual threat of that? Is there equivalence in your example?
When Walkie talks about the threat of free speech and you seem to agree in principle and then talk about other places in the world, it waters down entirely what she is talking about and I think you do this deliberately. There is no direct equivalence in threat to free speech from the Thais nor the Russians nor any group within such countries that absolutely have recognisable inhibitions on free speech. Let's stick to where the problems ACTUALLY lay.
Where YOU think they are, right?
Yes. Thais and Russians and Turkish government. All of these places have incursions against free speech in their own country. But these are internal issues. In the Netherlands I could smoke pot in a cafe. In Australia I could get a court appearance and a fine if a carried personal usage amounts on me. In Thailand I would definitely be put in jail and for years. All of these are dependent on customs, laws, rules and regulations of a country. They apply only whilst you are in that country and is part of that country's fabric. What you can or cannot say whilst in that country is also governed by that country's laws and will be specific to that country. THAT is NOT a threat.
However, IF you say 'Our country has X law/custom/practice and it is specific to our country but we like this law so much that we feel we must force it to other places in the world that have not been inclined to introduce it, THAT is a threat.
It is not specific to radicalised Isalmic Extremist beliefs, I think IF America and other nations try forcing their will and ideas about what customs different cultures SHOULD implement and I think that is equally as wrong.
Threat is the moment it crosses borders.
Obviously, some Islamist terrorist attacks would equally come under that heading eg the attack on Charlie Hebdo
Blowing up that statue of Buddha would count
The fatwa against Salman Rushdie would count.
And bviously a lot of of acts by other religious groups would count too.
IMO, the Islamist terror attacks have been very different from the IRA terror attacks on England. The IRA message was "Withdraw your troops from Northern Ireland". There was actually a lot of sympathy for their cause amongst the English, if not for the methods. ( I know. I was there. I had Irish Catholic friends with IRA sympathies. A lot of people did. ) . It put the English on the horns of one hellova dilemma, but it was (arguably) a reasonable demand
I see where you're coming from but would argue that groups like Al Qaeda have similar messages (i.e. GTFO of the Middle East), and actually, so do ISIS, even though their idea seems to be to expand to a worldwide caliphate. The differences between them and IRA are in how they define and allow the use of political violence.
Indeed there is ABSOLUTELY an element of this and I know people like Benji and myself have absolutely been critical of the West and more specifically the US and its allies in starting wars and conflicts and trying to nation build and interfere with World Policing.
They have made a rod for their own backs.
But it is not hypocrisy nor being disingenuous that I can be critical of the interfering and world policing (and can even see how people from such regions may hate us collectively for said interfering) and yet condemn what they believe is adequate response when it comes to the treatment of radicalised Muslim extremists and their attacks at Westerners.
Huh? You lost yourself there, didn't you? Try again.
Certainly didn't. You simply did not keep up.
If for example Hillary without the support of the UN and whilst Qaddafi is brokering a peace deal, goes in and kills Qaddafi and topples the country, then this is wrong. Libyans can hate US and her allies. (please tell me you are with me so far) If Libyans act on that hatred and started blowing up US kindergartens, that would not be right either. Whilst you can understand why that particular person or group of people may be angry, it does not make such reactions morally defensible.
Did you keep up this time?
One does not make the other right.
This we agree on.
Even a broken watch is right twice a day.
ISIS is absolutely about setting up a new caliphate. They Absolutely want to spread Islamic rule. They are absolutely opposed to Western values and Western people. They are absolutely a danger and talk of their justifications or differences in culture or alluding to any efforts to stop them being bigoted as to it possibly impacting on decent Muslims is both stupid and disingenuous.
I agree regarding them being a danger, obviously, but if you fail to understand their reasoning, however wrong you think it is, you will fail to take appropriate action, not only against ISIS but when (or, in your case, IF) you attempt to help the millions of people who are running for their lives. You will fail to help and only replace the present disaster with something else.
But ISIS is infiltrated within those communities. It is not a maybe or up for discussion. If they weren't, it would be so simple wouldn't it. If these groups of fleeing refugees were guaranteed to be free of radicalised Islamic extremists OR if they were easily recognisable OR even if the refugee groups could separate themselves
So the reality of the situation is that there are streams of people pouring in from Africa and the Middle East as a result of conflicts that probably ought never have been started. These hordes of people are often unable to be vetted or identified and we know are infiltrated by people from some horrible groups that are a National security risk to the citizens of any country that may take the refugees on.
Only a moron would turn their eyes from the unidentified, unmeasurable risk and unquestioningly take on all the refugees knowing the danger in lurking within or call bigotry if this "all in" position was questioned. (which kind of brings us to you, I guess?)
It;s that demand makes the attacks so deeply threatening , not the number of people killed. We've been reminded ad nauseam that our chance of being killed in a terror attack is minute, compared to our chances of being killed crossing the road. and I alway think, so what? The cars and trucks are not threatening my freedom .
And neither are the Muslims, even though that is the message brought to you by the populist politicians and media.
Not that any of us ARE talking about Muslims and you are not too stupid to not compute this right.
You obviously have reading comprehension issues, but don't insult the others by using the collective "we" when you are the dimwit.
No, I have decent reading comprehension but you don't/ When Walkie says
The cars and trucks are not threatening my freedom .
Everyone knows she is saying that Radical Islamic extremists ARE threatening her freedoms. Fact. They are. Not up for discussion. Muslims aren't. Certainly not as a whole nor collectively. Radical Muslim extremists (Like ISIS) are.
So you say in reply
And neither are the Muslims, even though that is the message brought to you by the populist politicians and media.
"Our" gripe is ONLY (read that) for the radicalised Muslim extremists. So its cute and all that you steer away from these groups to constantly talk about Muslims as a whole and pretend that is what you were responding to. But you are not fooling us and you are not apply that point to what was saying specifically. (I'd give it up were I you because I am not even sure you believe it).
Bloody hell, are you really this stupid?
I do not think you are in a place to judge.
That's why so many people all over the world stood up and declared "I am Charlie" . We were all saying : we will not be intimidated into giving up any of our freedoms. And the freedom to mock a religion is every bit as important as the freedom to practice that religion.
And I fully agree. But where is their support when less visible but far more serious threats against these freedoms pop up in places like Poland, Hungary, France or (obviously) Russia?
In all fairness, when Trump was elected, protests erupted because enough people see through him. In all fairness, it's why some Jews now say they will register as Muslims if Trump goes ahead with the Muslim database.
More serious threats? Fail.
When Trump was elected, people had been whipped up into a frenzy that they believed that he was a threat and so when they had the double whammy of Hillary not winning like they were promised and him being a leader like they had all been taught to fear through the fearmongering media, they protested in fear.
It was NOT that they were basing this on anything more than zealous ideology. "He is Literally Hitler. He is going to go from home to home with immigration deportations squads and set up deportation detention centres and even send Black Africans "back" to Africa." Yes this is not hyperbole. People ACTUALLY believe that and not from what Trump said, but what they were told by the Press, the DNC tasking heads, community leaders and Academic institutions.
Let's have a look at what he actually said:
Latinos:
Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
And
It's coming from more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America, and it's coming probably -- probably -- from the Middle East.
The ban on *all* Muslims entering the US (the first 20 seconds will do):
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/dec/08/donald-trump-calls-for-complete-ban-on-muslims-entering-the-us-video
The list goes on. Do a Google search on "what did Trump actually say on ..." and see for yourself. Then try to explain it away. This is not Hillary making up anything, this is Trump stating his opinions. I don't blame people for being scared of what this lunatic will do.
Pretending that:
protests erupted because enough people see through him
is just disingenuous, and believing it is idiotic.
As for registers...and? Some Jews believe what exactly about registers or databases recording Muslims from these areas? Do you know why it is that Muslims coming from Iraq are NOW able to be vetted but Muslims from Libya or Syria aren't? What is the one reason? Intel. What kind of intel? Registers of all the Iraqi based Muslims are now thorough enough to account for enough of the threats as to be marginal.
See that is the problem. People see the word "register and suddenly let their imaginations run in conspiratorial directions because they feel a negative undercurrent which makes them fearful that the person using said register will do so to do harm.
The negative undercurrent being that some citizens would have to register while others wouldn't. I'm pretty sure that wasn't what the founding fathers had in mind, but I'm not an American, so...
What if said register is simply not a sword but a shield. It is just recording who is who so that the nastier elements are able to be identified and contained? what if identifying the bad elements means that the decent Muslims who are NOT radical extremists are NOT restricted from access to America and not otherwise inhibited? Wouldn't that be swell?
Ah. The "if you have nothing to hide..." defence. This is the kind of argument brought forward by DDR officials, actually, and I have to say, you'd make a fine STASI officer. A shame it's too late for that particular career option.
Great ad hom, Odeon. By great I mean stupid.
I am not saying anything about nothing to hide. I am saying that the reason for him wanting to make a register is because there are no databases because there is no infrastructure.
I am really struggling on how I can break this down for you.
Lots of people wanting to come to a country. Refugees. Some people in that group very bad. Cannot identify who any of those people are.
Solution A: Walk them all in without finding out who they are even though some are bad and will seek to do the country they move to, harm.
Solution B: List them all. Build your own database and find out who they are before letting them in, so none of them do your country harm.
That is your solutions. I say Solution B sounds a little more reasoned.
I have explained his poor speech about Mexicans a number of times but what the heck:
Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
Who are "they"? How can them not being their best and yet being good people?
It was simply a word salad.
Who were the they? The Cartels. The Cartels operate just south of the border in the no man's land of the non-walled off border running drugs and warring on each others (graves and dismemberment of rival gangs is commonplace. As are rapes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972Rape trees festoon the landscapes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_treeSo what he said was accurate but clumsy. What he was pointing to was a really bad problem. No not all illegal immigrants are bad and he did not say that which is why he said and some are good people. Sure, the prey are probably all decent people but those preying on them sure as Hell aren't.
There is nothing wrong with any of that. It was not PC, it was clumsy but so what?
So while everyone is being so offended he did not disclaim x or clarify Y or dot what i, the sum opf what he said was unquestionably true and a real problem. Rapists are raping at the border in horrific numbers because the borders are open. Terrible cartel members kill wantonly and cross on whim. Drugs are trafficked and murders commonplace. Yet you and everyone is offended how he said it?
Get real.
