We have a local popular saying that roughly translates to “never confuse the reaction of the oppressed with the violence of the oppressor” that I think applies here. As I said, it is only an unambiguously fair reaction if they did not kill anybody, which the outlet doesn’t report on. In case innocent workers (“diplomats” hardly count) were harmed then we can bring out the criticism/support balance and figure the better position out more thoroughly.
Burning the Koran and the flag essentially has the same purpose, even if they are usually taken differently by Christians and Christian Atheists. They are both symbols of a people, and burning them represents hatred towards that people. Since a majority of Iraqis are Muslims, there is not much difference here but I pointed it out to make it less ambiguous to those who still tolerate veiled islamophobia for some faux atheist principle. And also to point out the hypocrisy of the outlet to only put “Koran” in the headline and not refer to the flag. They know what they’re doing.
The desecration of brick and mortar is about as material as the help that Sweden provides to Iraqi people. That is, it is only symbolic.
The main difference between Indian, Irish or even British people burning the British flag compared to Europeans burning the Iraqi one is that first is being done out of rejection of imperialist authority on their lands, while the latter is being done by explicitly imperialist powers after having invaded and ruined the country (or at least aided in it). The act in a vacuum isn’t evil because nothing social exists in a vacuum, the important part is to notice the explicit message of it. If I were to burn a flag of Portugal as a Brazilian it would have a different meaning from me burning those of Uruguay or Haiti, and the same thing applies to an European burning the flags of the countries their nations destroys.
Understandable, I agree with your points, and I’m not saying the reason for the act was bad. I realize that I worded myself poorly, but I was attempting to say that the attacking of the embassy seemed like a disproportionate escalation in the face of the offense. Especially when the embassy has nothing at all do with the situation and is manned by innocent workers, of which the actual diplomats are a tiny percentage of.
I agree the act was hateful and done of malice against a people, but I struggle to see how escalating to the burning of a diplomatic embassy accomplishes anything.
Also Christian Atheists is an extremely weird oxymoron. How can one be atheist if they are Christian?
Yeah, it is definitely an escalation, but I wouldn’t say it’s disproportionate within the context of Sweden also joining NATO. That means that Sweden is basically an enemy country to them, and also one that not only houses neo-nazis but authorizes burning of Iraqi symbols. From my understanding this a constant criticism from Muslim-majority countries opposed to NATO that they’ll house both neo-nazis and fundamentalist terrorist recruiters within their lands while constantly invading, destabilising or toppling MENA countries that actually try to curb those groups.
Reading further it seems like workers were safely evacuated the day before and nobody was hurt. Things like this happen a lot where armed groups burn empty buildings/busses and symbolically and embassy workers in enemy countries already expect events like that. It sends the message that Sweden is not welcome there and makes their meddling and interference harder to do, though it sometimes can also be a false flag operation to justify even more military intervention. I guess an important bit is that the embassy is Sweden’s government’s official representation in Iraq, so if Iraqi people have an issue with Sweden that’s the first place to go complain.
It is definitely not some great victory for Iraq though just a minor event, but it’ll make headlines in The West® and I still think it’s not really an unfair escalation. Now the ball is on the court of Sweden on if they’ll escalate further or back down.
Also Christian Atheists is an extremely weird oxymoron. How can one be atheist if they are Christian?
I haven’t found a better name for this phenomenon I see a lot, so that’s how I call them in my head. It’s that sort of atheist that assumes that just because they renounced the metaphysical beliefs of Christianity that they are suddenly devoid of all Christian cultural values and social beliefs, which leads them to assume they’re universal. They tend to side a lot with actual reactionary Christians on racist/xenophobic policies such as the clothing bans by refusing to understand the power dynamics and nuances of religions, cultures and their interactions, and also look down on different religious traditions such as Hanukkah without bothering to even learn about them beforehand. Lots of them don’t even know much about Christianity outside of Catholicism/Protestantism. TLDR: Culturally Catholic Reactionary Atheists.
I met a lot of people like that in my life, including one former friend that went on a huge tirade against Islam just because I commented that I was trying to learn how to pronounce Arabic script. Being atheist and an amateur theology/history nerd myself I am not fond of this behaviour.
We have a local popular saying that roughly translates to “never confuse the reaction of the oppressed with the violence of the oppressor” that I think applies here. As I said, it is only an unambiguously fair reaction if they did not kill anybody, which the outlet doesn’t report on. In case innocent workers (“diplomats” hardly count) were harmed then we can bring out the criticism/support balance and figure the better position out more thoroughly.
Burning the Koran and the flag essentially has the same purpose, even if they are usually taken differently by Christians and Christian Atheists. They are both symbols of a people, and burning them represents hatred towards that people. Since a majority of Iraqis are Muslims, there is not much difference here but I pointed it out to make it less ambiguous to those who still tolerate veiled islamophobia for some faux atheist principle. And also to point out the hypocrisy of the outlet to only put “Koran” in the headline and not refer to the flag. They know what they’re doing.
The desecration of brick and mortar is about as material as the help that Sweden provides to Iraqi people. That is, it is only symbolic.
The main difference between Indian, Irish or even British people burning the British flag compared to Europeans burning the Iraqi one is that first is being done out of rejection of imperialist authority on their lands, while the latter is being done by explicitly imperialist powers after having invaded and ruined the country (or at least aided in it). The act in a vacuum isn’t evil because nothing social exists in a vacuum, the important part is to notice the explicit message of it. If I were to burn a flag of Portugal as a Brazilian it would have a different meaning from me burning those of Uruguay or Haiti, and the same thing applies to an European burning the flags of the countries their nations destroys.
Understandable, I agree with your points, and I’m not saying the reason for the act was bad. I realize that I worded myself poorly, but I was attempting to say that the attacking of the embassy seemed like a disproportionate escalation in the face of the offense. Especially when the embassy has nothing at all do with the situation and is manned by innocent workers, of which the actual diplomats are a tiny percentage of.
I agree the act was hateful and done of malice against a people, but I struggle to see how escalating to the burning of a diplomatic embassy accomplishes anything.
Also Christian Atheists is an extremely weird oxymoron. How can one be atheist if they are Christian?
Yeah, it is definitely an escalation, but I wouldn’t say it’s disproportionate within the context of Sweden also joining NATO. That means that Sweden is basically an enemy country to them, and also one that not only houses neo-nazis but authorizes burning of Iraqi symbols. From my understanding this a constant criticism from Muslim-majority countries opposed to NATO that they’ll house both neo-nazis and fundamentalist terrorist recruiters within their lands while constantly invading, destabilising or toppling MENA countries that actually try to curb those groups.
Reading further it seems like workers were safely evacuated the day before and nobody was hurt. Things like this happen a lot where armed groups burn empty buildings/busses and symbolically and embassy workers in enemy countries already expect events like that. It sends the message that Sweden is not welcome there and makes their meddling and interference harder to do, though it sometimes can also be a false flag operation to justify even more military intervention. I guess an important bit is that the embassy is Sweden’s government’s official representation in Iraq, so if Iraqi people have an issue with Sweden that’s the first place to go complain.
It is definitely not some great victory for Iraq though just a minor event, but it’ll make headlines in The West® and I still think it’s not really an unfair escalation. Now the ball is on the court of Sweden on if they’ll escalate further or back down.
I haven’t found a better name for this phenomenon I see a lot, so that’s how I call them in my head. It’s that sort of atheist that assumes that just because they renounced the metaphysical beliefs of Christianity that they are suddenly devoid of all Christian cultural values and social beliefs, which leads them to assume they’re universal. They tend to side a lot with actual reactionary Christians on racist/xenophobic policies such as the clothing bans by refusing to understand the power dynamics and nuances of religions, cultures and their interactions, and also look down on different religious traditions such as Hanukkah without bothering to even learn about them beforehand. Lots of them don’t even know much about Christianity outside of Catholicism/Protestantism. TLDR: Culturally Catholic Reactionary Atheists.
I met a lot of people like that in my life, including one former friend that went on a huge tirade against Islam just because I commented that I was trying to learn how to pronounce Arabic script. Being atheist and an amateur theology/history nerd myself I am not fond of this behaviour.