Those Maltese soldiers must have been Muslims, wouldn’t you say
Published:
January 14, 2015 at 11:47am
15 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Featured Posts
-
Paltry €50,000 fine for illegal Siggiewi zoo lifted in exchange for state school visits...more
-
Owner of illegal Siggiewi zoo parties with Environment Minister one day before Planning Authority sanctions it...more
-
World Economic Forum index/Malta: public trust in politicians plummets 17 places in one year...more
-
When freeloading Clyde Puli spent 16 days at the Olympic Games in China and made us pay for it...more
-
The leader of the Nationalist Party and Miss Rebecca Dimech...more
-
Well, the Kap tal-Kattolici u l-Latini certainly has a roving eye...more
I find this to be a very interesting debate. You say that religion has nothing to do with terrorism.
Don’t you think there are parallels to the issue of gun control?
Let me elaborate. Gun ownership proponents argue that guns don’t kill people, people kill people (using guns). Sounds logical enough.
But then you go look at the evidence and see that where gun ownership is strictly controlled, we see far less gun crime than where it is not so tightly regulated. The famous example of this is Australia, which after introducing stricter laws saw a rapid decline in gun crime and random shootings.
It is easy to argue that those random shootings were done by people with social problems. But it is also the access to guns that enabled them to do so much damage.
I see the same with religion (it is Islam now, has been Christianity in the past and still is in some parts of the world).
Religion can very powerfully entrap and override a vulnerable person’s world view and make them do things they wouldn’t otherwise do. Moreover, religion is dangerous in that there is no golden standard which says This Is The Truth. Pope Francis said that these acts of violence are caused by false interpretations of religion, but what is a True one?
I’m obviously not suggesting curbing anyone’s freedom to worship. I do think that it needs to be counteracted by secular education and reason however.
An aspect that had struck me in France already years ago is that whilst in the West that I grew up in there is the One Truth acknowledged or inherited from religion, the absolute life-long dogma aspect in France is viewed as almost farcical.
Rather it is the scientific approach that holds: a truth is upheld as dogma so and as long as it is not surpassed by a more correct theory or argument.
People are tempted to introduce the “à chacun sa vérité” argument, but this is one of the early fallacies treated in philosophy courses at the Lycée / sixth form level and that are obligatory for all those who are doing the “Bac” route:
http://www.maxicours.com/se/fiche/4/2/14742.html
Generally it is a question of putting all the information on the table and not just the parts one wishes to listen to. One should ideally also be prepared to seek out the bits of information or statistics that are missing.
Most arguments are due to incorrect information somewhere along the line.
Opinion is not fact.
Rarely do we see veracity scales applied to information at hand: between the extremes of reported opinion and hard fact there are approximately four other levels of information exchange.
Really rc, then go check again the statistics, but be mindful to check all statistics as simple logic tells you that strict gun control only deprive guns from the law abiding citizen. I can hardly imagine any criminal walking into a gun store and purchasing a gun over the counter.
As a matter of fact France has got strict gun laws as most of the European countries including Malta. Where citizens willing to purchase for sport undergo training and tests by their respective registered clubs and checks by both medical and police authorities before being handed a license. A procedure taking more than six months.
The law abiding citizen in Australia cannot own a semi automatic, be it a pistol, rifle or shotgun after the Port Arthur shooting. Though the criminals still do. I just wonder from where they get them.
The country you have mentioned and I also include the UK still had their crimes soar after the gun grab because there exists more than one way of killing a human being then just by the use of guns. In fact crimes involving knives soared straight after the gun grabbing bravado and you can only imagine what the stupid government of the day did.
Yes, they went after the knives and swords of collectors. I wonder what’s next? The kitchen forks maybe? Because as it stands it won’t be long that these people will be enjoying their lunches and dinners by using plastic knives and forks.
No wonder when there were riots in London last year, the sport shops ran out of baseball and cricket bats as they were the only means of defense the shop owners and citizens could resort to for protection. Not to mention the fact that self defense issues in the UK after the Tony Martin case reached to a point where amendments to the law had to be carried out.
But you know, the hypocrisy lies in the fact that the politicians all go around with armed security guards or else they are just a little phone call away (probably on speed dial) and have their residences under security watch 24/7. It seems their lives matter more than the ordinary Joe on the streets.
So let us leave the gun control issue and the law abiding citizen on the side as these psychopath criminals surely never intended to purchase their guns for neither sport nor collection.
Oh and by the way Switzerland has got the forth highest percentage of gun ownership per capita in the world and as yet one of the lowest gun homicide rates of 0.5 per 100,000 people as per 2011 UN statistics.
“The Swiss are very serious not only about their right to own weapons but also to carry them around in public. Because of this general acceptance and even pride in gun ownership, nobody bats an eye at the sight of a civilian riding a bus, bike or motorcycle to the shooting range, with a rifle slung across the shoulder”. Helena Bachmann/Geneva Time.
So is it truly the guns or how we mould our society?
Simple logic is often deceiving when applied to complex issues.
And anyway this is a debate for another time. I didn’t think it would need explaining, but the gun control question was an analogy.
Countering religious sentiment with secular education and reason has been the project of Modernity.
It has dragged us through colonialism, rotten ideologies and horrible wars.
The belief that religious adherence clouds judgement and sensibility is utter tosh.
And you are comparing this failed project with what exactly? To a time when everyone believed in one religion and there were no wars? We must have skipped this era in school.
And which horrible wars exactly are due to secular education?
Was an inquiry held? Were there any legal proceedings?
Dear Daphne,
Seems like Hayat Boumeddiene’s childhood (if you can consider the Daily Mail as a reliable source) validates one of your arguments mentioned recently on your blog.
I think most people, including myself, do not realise how complex the issue of terrorism is, and seek to compartmentalise it into easier, more stereotypical perceived facts.
Certainly food for thought for policymakers, government etc. regards childhood as greatly setting an individual’s course of life and achievement.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2908777/Inside-bizarre-marriage-deli-killer-jihadi-wife-AK-47-laundry-basket-fights-desire-second-bride.html
[Daphne – Details of Hayat Boumeddiene’s childhood have been widely reported in the French press, so yes, this description fits with all that. She is one of seven children, whose mother died when she was six. Their father struggled to keep the household going and the family together while working round the clock as a delivery man, but things got out of hand and fell apart. When he remarried because he couldn’t cope alone, Hayat’s behaviour became worse and she was taken into state care. I haven’t read anything yet about the fate of her siblings.]
I wonder what faith was professed by those who laid into the Curia a mere few years ago? They must have been Muslims. No wait! They were aristocrats.
Who was the minister responsible then? Was any disciplinary action taken against the culprits?
Was this incident a one off, or normal practice?
I love the way ‘soldiers in riot gear who had turned up…’ is used. As with most other things in Malta, things happen but no one actually gives the orders or instructions. No one even exposes whose call it was to make.
The Maltese must have an indigenous allergy to accountability and an implied order/agreement for the said allergy not to be cured.
Plus the fact that our so-called mainstream journalists don’t even question such “givens.”
There are so many “obviously superior,” vainglorious petty journalists and columnists that any attempt to refresh the local press stock should get rid of those first, so as to allow some inspiration to get through to the population where it doesn’t.
Since that isn’t going to happen, since the press is four-fifths dead on its knees, Malta will just plod along backwards, as intended.
Quite honestly, I cannot see the relevance between the title given to this item in the blog and the report in Times of Malta.
Has any sane person claimed that if there is questionable treatment of one person towards another, the perpetrator must be a Muslim, or of any other denomination, be it national, racial of religious?
Let us not reduce serious issues to such inanities.
There is a real need for a symbol for sarcasm to become widely recognized and used.
Terrorists are not born. They are bred.