1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Is there any chance at all that something good for the world might emerge from the ISIS nightmare?

Discussion in 'Personal' started by Eureka!, Nov 14, 2015.

  1. Eureka!

    Eureka! Lead commenter

    I don't know what the chances are, but Good Things that might emerge are
    1) Marginalisation of religion & nationalism
    2) Greater equality throughout the world
    3) Reduced materialism

    I think those outcomes are possible simply because ISIS et al have fed on their opposites.
     
  2. GLsghost

    GLsghost Star commenter

    I doubt it, sadly. There is always a promise of 'never again', but memories are too short.
     
    badger_girl, ScotSEN and sabrinakat like this.
  3. cuteinpuce

    cuteinpuce Star commenter

    And mainstreaming of intolerance.
     
    ScotSEN likes this.
  4. sabrinakat

    sabrinakat Star commenter

    and people playing into the extremists' hands, by preaching hatred and intolerance.....
     
  5. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    Yes, the world is slowly getting better

    My father ended up a POW in Germany in WW2 and his life was markedly different to the walk in the park that mine has been. Europe saw a lot worse in the last 100 years than in the last 50. It might not seem it, but it's true. Something to bear in mind at times like this.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]



    [​IMG]
     
    chelsea2, colpee, irs1054 and 2 others like this.
  6. xena-warrior

    xena-warrior Star commenter

    I don't think anything positive will come from it. My next-door neighbour had planned a Christmas shopping trip to London later this month. She's decided London is too risky.
     
  7. Sid_Pubes

    Sid_Pubes Senior commenter

    1) Marginalisation of religion & nationalism: I'm not sure that marginalisation would make much difference. The "religion" practised by those who see it as holy to kill in the name of their god is bogus, and rejected by most theists anyway. What we need is not marginalisation of religion, but legal sanctions to prevent religious organisations from taking power except by an authentically democratic process - which could never happen in the 21st century. People should be encouraged to practise their religion should they want to - but equally they should be forbidden from forcing their beliefs, or the social mores arising from them, on others. In other words, live and let live. [Fat chance].

    2) Greater equality throughout the world: an admirable but wholly preposterous aspiration. How are you going to create equality? by referendum or diktat? Either way, only the un-equal ever aspire to equality, and once they achieve it they start to think of ways to exchange equality for superiority.

    3) Reduced materialism: dear GOD. We are surrounded by politicians, social theorists and an increasingly powerful and sophisticated capitalist system of commerce which has created a materialistic hegemony all telling us that we are defined by our wealth, possessions and economic clout, which finds a ready response in all of us as we jostle for a place at the trough - and you think that terrorism can reduce materialism.

    I have never had you down as a sentimental clown, Eureka, but now I wonder.
     
    snowyhead likes this.
  8. harsh-but-fair

    harsh-but-fair Star commenter

    More money for Amazon then, xena!
     
    grumpydogwoman likes this.
  9. colpee

    colpee Star commenter

    Yes; hard as it may be in the aftermath of a terrorist atrocity, a sense of perspective is important.
    Terrorists cannot fly nightly over the country dropping thousands of tons of bombs on our cities, nor can they torpedo millions of tons of shipping or fight pitched battles involving dozens of divisions manoeuvring across the countryside; and yet European countries met and faced just such actions only a couple of generations ago.
    The attacks in Paris show the limits of Isis; a few people, some guns and a tiny amount of explosives, and quickly snuffed out by the authorities. Even if they had the resources to hit a dozen cities simultaneously, they could still be barely be a pinprick to a nation such as France.
     
  10. Lascarina

    Lascarina Star commenter

    I don't blame her.
     
  11. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter

    Today's news told us that an air strike wiped out the IS leader in Libya. I don't suppose he or his followers saw that coming, any more than the supporters of Bin Laden did, or even Bin Laden himself.

    We might ask why the situation has been allowed to continue as long as it has and I suspect the reason lies in the legal declaration of war. President Hollande said today that IS had declared war on France, but since IS isn't recognised as a state, this is a fatuous statement.

    So far as I'm aware, every nation state that is fighting IS is doing so under the legality of the war on terror, however I suspect there are questions to be asked about the legality of that.

    At the end of the day, the major powers have the military might and superior intelligence to quash IS when the need comes. They invariably catch terrorists these days and the only ones who go to trial are the plotters. The ones who actually commit the terrorist actions, always end up dead rather than being captured to face trial.

    The time will probably come when the new recruits work out work out for themselves how futile it all is. The time will come when all their leaders are killed off and the infrastructure collapses.
     
    colpee likes this.
  12. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    Maybe personalisation of religion would be a better way of looking at it. That believers come to see it as their personal relationship with the divine, the almighty, and not something that is to be imposed on others through social conventions and laws. A more secular world. [with all its flaws granted]
    Equality of opportunity or equality of material goods?And do you think ISIS is a manifestation of a feeling of inequality within the Iraqi/Syrian society? The marginalisation of Sunni concerns in the face of Shia/Alawite control of government.
    Not sure how the ISIS attacks can lead to that. Materialism is what our economy is built upon. We want stuff, we 'need' stuff.
     
  13. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    I like stuff.
     
    lanokia likes this.
  14. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    Then stuff you shall have! *



    *bank balancing permitting.
     
  15. cuteinpuce

    cuteinpuce Star commenter

    So the non-religious should feel free to work democratically towards having their views reflected in social conventions and laws but the religious should keep their views strictly private? :confused:
     
  16. teachingking123

    teachingking123 Established commenter

    ISIS depressingly might not ever stop. :crying(
     
  17. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    This is why I have a problem with religion... because you're defining people by their religion. It's akin to those people who mutter 'Muslims' instead of accepting people are very complex with a range of different factors influencing their decisions, from the economic, societal, ethical, cultural. But no, if a person is 'religious' that is all they are... people are more complex than the simple pigeon hole you want to shoe horn them into.
     
    monicabilongame likes this.
  18. cuteinpuce

    cuteinpuce Star commenter

    Hmm, it strikes me that you were doing a bit of shoe-horning when you imagined a time when: believers come to see it (religion) as their personal relationship with the divine, the almighty, and not something that is to be imposed on others through social conventions and laws.

    Believers come in all shapes and sizes and political drives.
     
  19. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    So you write the same thing right back at me but think you are saying something radically different?

    Now you've accepted 'believers' aren't some homogeneous grouping, which one of their beliefs should be imposed on others... which group of believers should be listened to?
     
  20. cuteinpuce

    cuteinpuce Star commenter

    I never thought they were. It was you who grouped them into a generalisation.

    The beliefs which make their way successfully through the democratic process.

    All believers. That's democracy.
     

Share This Page