Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you know what Allahu Akhbar means? I know that we in the West associate it only with terrorists, but that is a skewed view of the phrase in everyday Arabic. Did you know that it is the first phrase that Muslim parents whisper into the ear of a baby when it is born? Or that it was the last thing some of the pro-Democracy protestors during the Arab Spring said before they were shot? It is akin to the "Praise be to the Lord" or "Thank you Jesus" proclamations devout Christians in the US use when they are trying to show their gratitude to God. The fact that most of us do not have much contact with Muslims in everyday life and only know the phrase from articles on terrorism is what makes it scary.
Language isn't some unblemished entity apart and separate from its use. Languages are living. Its the terrorists that have sullied the phrase and what is scary is that's its used as a divine justifier during heinous acts. You can get angry at these lunatics for doing that - but on behalf of peaceful Muslims and not at "the West." Plus, 4.5 Billion people in the world aren't Muslims. Why would you expect them to have more than a passing acquaintance with an ideology that is not relevant to them. How much do you know about Zoroastrians, or Jainism? What do you know about Sioux creation stories? Sure you might know, but so the heck what if you don't? There's thousands of ideologies out there.
What percentage of people on this thread actually read the Time article? 5%? Because at best it seems unclear if the fans were (a) booing the terrorists, (b) booing the moment of silence, or (c) chanting in support of the Paris attack victims. If it's (a) or (c) then it's a good thing, and if it's (b) it's rude and awful, but is not the same as if they were cheering ISIS. Let's at least get the facts straight. Jesus.
Language isn't some unblemished entity apart and separate from its use. Languages are living. Its the terrorists that have sullied the phrase and what is scary is that's its used as a divine justifier during heinous acts. You can get angry at these lunatics for doing that - but on behalf of peaceful Muslims and not at "the West." Plus, 4.5 Billion people in the world aren't Muslims. Why would you expect them to have more than a passing acquaintance with an ideology that is not relevant to them. How much do you know about Zoroastrians, or Jainism? What do you know about Sioux creation stories? Sure you might know, but so the heck what if you don't? There's thousands of ideologies out there.
Talk about upside down.
They were likely not speaking for your benefit nor my benefit. They had no obligation to consider the connotations of that phrase in our culture.
What percentage of people on this thread actually read the Time article? 5%? Because at best it seems unclear if the fans were (a) booing the terrorists, (b) booing the moment of silence, or (c) chanting in support of the Paris attack victims. If it's (a) or (c) then it's a good thing, and if it's (b) it's rude and awful, but is not the same as if they were cheering ISIS. Let's at least get the facts straight. Jesus.
It was supposed to be a "minute of silence" to honor the victims of terrorism. None of your choices A, B, or C is appropriate in this context.
Some people are just plain boorish. At the Green Bay Packers game on Sunday one guy yelled out "Muslims suck" during the moment of silence. The difference between that incident and the Turkish incident is a matter of scale. Let's not twist ourselves into knots trying to excuse either behavior.
Or maybe they just prefer their potato strips freedom (and not french) fried...
Not sure why you would bring that up. Muslims do have a particular hatred for gays but the Paris terrorists did not appear to have targeted gay establishments.
It was supposed to be a "minute of silence" to honor the victims of terrorism. None of your choices A, B, or C is appropriate in this context.
Some people are just plain boorish. At the Green Bay Packers game on Sunday one guy yelled out "Muslims suck" during the moment of silence. The difference between that incident and the Turkish incident is a matter of scale. Let's not twist ourselves into knots trying to excuse either behavior.
I don't excuse either behavior IF the Turkish fans were in fact making noise in support of ISIS. But if they were making noise in support of the victims and against ISIS, that is a very different story. Yes it was a breach of etiquette to make noise during a planned moment of silence, but there is a massive difference in the way I view the situation depending on whether that noise was for or against ISIS.
Same exact deal with the Packers game. He's a jerk for yelling "muslims suck." If he had yelled "you're in our prayers Paris" or "screw ISIS" it'd still be a breach of etiquette, but the message is one I'm sure most of us can agree with.
Btw I have been to Istanbul and at least as of 2010, it was a very secular city and most certainly not dominated by radical Islam. The country is changing and has changed, but my impression is that Istanbul remains the most secular and pro-western part of the country.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,161,809 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by bg7
Its potentially important but never really has been apart from a few incidences. The Obama administration would have done far better, and still can do far better, by degrading ties to Turkey and supporting the Kurds. You can't blame the adminstration, the US is pathologically opposed to giving up on Turkey - but its a bad equation. To proceed the Whitehouse would have to disregard its advisors. (Which as history shows is probably a good bet half the time anyway). You can't honestly support both Turkey and the Kurds because of silly Turkish nationalism about the Kurds, so its time to cut the cord.
The Kurds have been the only people who actually stand up to ISIS, on the ground, and beat their asses. They need far more support. Its time to stop trying to play both sides of the fence, Turkey's interests just do not sufficiently overlap with ours. Back the Kurds in Iraq and Syria, and back a strong Kurdish state in part of Iraq (and part of Syria). A Kurdish state will be a far better ally and a good swap for the ambivalent Turkish state. In addition, a strong Kurdish state could actually reduce Turkey's issues with the Kurds as one would expect a general efflux of Kurds from Turkey to the new motherland.
The Kurds are really not the knights in shining white armor come to rescue the middle east. They've been doing terrorism against the Turks for decades now, and some of them demand a fat, juicy slice of Turkey to be incorporated into their future homeland ..... I'm surprised the Turks even tolerate their existence within its borders.
Right now they're our friends as long as our interests are allied. Who knows what might happen a few years hence if their demands are met. Culturally they are pretty much the same as the other bloodthirsty, vengeful, fundamentalist tribal nations in the region.
It's sad because the Turks have usually been the most secular and moderate Muslims out there. Such a pity (if this were true).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
