On Multi-Culture, (buying:) the Charlie Hebdo Response, Extremist Attacks, Japan and the Burka Ban?

Hi! It’s been awhile. [Edit: I’m hoping that if I post this here, it will encourage me to convey the developing argument I was not-unfortunately- able to transcribe quickly enough. Starting to think I should carry a tape recorder around, speak and then write it out here! 11/03/15]

Caught a snippet on the recent-most update and new extremist attack on BBC ONE News, before I was Google searching about this ‘Charlie Hebdo’ magazine.

My response to the post (or specifically, a comment or three in response to it):

Yes, I understand and respect where Japan’s coming from. They are being very mature.
But I think this has become something where buying the magazine itself is symbolic now as a response to the terrorist (No; I change that word, to give a name such power, such dignity, fear-inspiring or otherwise, is remiss of me) extremist attacks sparked by the magazine(but starting in France- perhaps from the Burka Ban?). Meaning that tensions in these countries were rising-and had been possibly for years-, and this magazine was the final straw (for the Muslim extremist side). They’re angry, and that’s fine- they can go critic this -I’m sure there are plenty with either the umph in position of job or name amongst work or friends and family, or then resourceful (…or young, let’s be honest) enough to use social media to ‘boo’ it or give it a ‘ 😦 ‘-or make a genuine argument on how they’re being attacked.
BUT.
The idea is that yes it’s disrespectful, and rude maybe, and totally making fun of a specified faith…but in these countries? EVERYONE is made fun of, at one point or another, and anyone has the right to do this at anytime: if the author had gone on all sorts of channels (TV, radio, magazine, speeches, ect) with all sorts of DIFFERENT projects making fun of ONE target (so, specifically making fun and spending all his alloted time/business doing this only), THEN it would be a problem. But it wasn’t. It was just the one, magazine.

——————– I’m going to continue this later (points: free will, freedom of speech- BBC ONE News confirmed ;), personal a tad also- extremist situs in france, threat in gmany, built up for America and UK: multitude of reasons, mostly NOT because they’re specifically being hateful to Muslims ergo are racist or/religion-ist, but just offended that this…this…irresponsibility, this irrationality(cases looked for to find where a culminated co-ordinated effort to say they don’t like it, on the internet here: if any), this righteous-indignant-prideful anger, which is hurting so many. I understand this. But what do they hope to accomplish? It makes it harder for muslims NOT with that attitude (Mosques holding sermons ‘to bring communities together’ and I can’t help but wonder and think : all the community or just Muslims? Because just muslims could withraw them from society whose response so far as we know is NOT aggressive-antagonistic, but cutting off could spark anger? Shouldn’t you be trying both…depending how this situ swings, JUST muslims may cause a problem…otherwise its difficult for them to see it as anything other than an attack and ignore and like the WHOLE SITUATION has the potential to spark imbittered fighting and antagonise the seams of that part of society. Which is not cool: I have a point to make, here, if these people can’t control themselves? Why shouldn’t these threatned countries throw anyone out. They’re being endangered and so tolerant. But if it becomes too dangerous, it doubles and redoubles the chances of someone in power deciding lets do this. They don’t have to keep people who’ve got those attitudes. For the rest, I’m sorry, grit your teeth and whispher to family/friends if you know some to tell them to stop attacks, otherwise you’ll probably have to put up with it more..atleast. Atleast this response is not an act of violence. If there’s a ripple-effect of racist acts and words, speak up, but I doubt it.).

Also there’s the political aspect: countries have their fingers in the pies of oil, saudi arabia (with their corrupt/mostly corrupt guys -name- who deem law wherever they go- where this whipping is happening which could be another reason for this response and anger FOR this guy), most countries WEST stopped buying their oil (because the only reason they’re so rich in this case is because of oil that WEST wanted; stop for years, and it will no longer be rich or powerful via boycott); america’s foothold usage of S-A to attack EastAsia *I say america and mean the gov and politicians; if I say american PEOPLE I mean them. otherwise no.

Advertisements