Seems like you haven’t read the thread because that is exactly what some in this thread are claiming.
So your reference to it 'the perfectly secular and non-Muslim reasons for any number of the Iranian factions not to be very friendly to the American government, these little matters of supporting coup d’etats and murderous torturing dictatorships with the thin veneer of the pseudo-secularity" was not an assertion that Iran had a legitimate grievance?
I thought you were trying to say that Iran was not chanting “Death to America” because they were an Islamofascist terrorist state, but because they had a legitimate grievance. Now I find you don’t think they have any legitimate grievance. So it must be because they are Islamofascist after all.
You are accurately restated the issue - even when Muslim terrorists say explicitly that their actions are in the name of their brand of Islam, we can’t believe them. For which there is no real logical basis.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - shove the “camel jockey” remark up your ass.
Not seeing a declarative statement of position from you in those posts. Here’s the exchange, and I’ve labelled each of your posts with the respective post number.
It sounds like you’re arguing that Turkish soccer fans chanting Allahu Akbar during a moment of silence for Paris means literally that they want more attacks just like those in Paris. Is that what you’re arguing? Claim your position, please. Make a simple argument without reference to conditionals or analogies or other posters’ remarks.
How do you interpret the chanting of those Turkish fans during the attempted moment of silence?
Wow, how very racist of you. Go fuck a camel.
It indicates that they regard those attacks positively.
Oh, are you already done with it? Is that why the camel seems so dissatisfied?
Why do you think it indicates support for the attacks?
I ask because the phrase they chanted has no direct relevance to terroristic acts, and the context in which the phrase was chanted only tells us about the relative sympathies felt by a crowd of Turkish sports fans about a Parisian massacre while they were waiting for the game they were attending to commence.
If they’d been chanting “Death to France! Death to Parisians!” it would be pretty clear. But they were chanting a commonplace cultural expression of faith (one that’s often used casually and dispassionately, almost reflexively), in defiance of the requested silent observance of sympathy. Says nothing directly about whether and how they support the aims of DAESH or jihadist terror in general.
And frankly, the booing is entirely in keeping with many (prickish) Turkish fans’ opinions of UEFA and (Western) European footy.
He’s just resting between humps.
OK, so I assume you’re now clear on what the discussion is about and have decided to address the issue itself.
As to that, you’re opening a new line of thought. ISTM that it was hitherto accepted in this thread and discussion that the gesture was intended as a sign of ostensible support for the attacks, and the question was whether this was meant literally or hyperbolically. andros said the latter, which is what I objected to. What you’re now saying is a new suggestion: that the gesture wasn’t really in support of the Paris attacks at all, even as a hyperbolic gesture. I looked around a bit and it seems that it’s not so clear. I’m not an expert on Turkish culture, so I can’t say. Perhaps you’re right about this.
What did camels ever do to you?
Regards,
Shodan
It occurs to me that I did not extend you the courtesy of stating my own position, after insisting on yours. I apologize. You are correct that I don’t entirely agree with either you or andros regarding specific support -ostensibly or hyperbolically- for the Paris attacks.
My position is that I cannot assume, regarding the Turkish chanters, direct support of the Paris attacks, but only general dissatisfaction with the idea of showing solidarity with Western Europe -at their sports entertainment venue and most likely in the general case. I think it’s a broad overreach to assume any feelings beyond this, and I think it betrays a hint of xenophobia to assume there could even be, in such an impromptu collection of sports fans, broad consensus of goals and opinions outside of the expected support of the respective teams. (Xenophobic because it’s an assumption about ideological homogeneity that’s unlikely to be made about a typical English or American football audience.)
Cheesus, did you see how they were dressed? Mrowr!
I agree with this.
Having now read the cite provided by FP, I’m doubtful I can assume the chanting was even in protest of the moment of silence. I can say such an action appears, to my Western preconceptions, to be defiance, but I think that’s my cultural perspective getting in the way, and I have to drop that assumption.
Man, they ugly! Seriously ugly, don’t drink much water because they have to sneak up on it! Walked past a blind man selling pencils, he gouged his ears out! Ugly!
Oh, come now! If you don’t let her use her ranty-shouty "Bigot Bigot BIGOT!!!" card she’s basically playing with a busted flush. Be sporting.
Poker lesson I learned the hard way, never try to bluff somebody who is too stupid to be afraid.
“Sporting” in this case is roughly similar to a participation ribbon in the Special Olympics, but I suppose you have a point.
Winning an argument with Ramira is like being heavyweight boxing champion of the Little Sisters of the Poor convent.
Regards,
Shodan
There’s more along those lines in other sources.
One thing I would note, though, is that the point made by several about there being similar reactions to a moment of silence for a bombing in Ankara has less to it than meets the eye. That bombing did not target random Turks but specifically targeted a rally of Kurds and other anti-ISIS people. So to the extent that there is support for ISIS in Turkey which might express itself in the form of support for bombings, it would follow that they might support that bombing too.
That said, it’s hard to figure out what gestures mean in other cultures, and if people more familiar are claiming that it was not support for the bombings it’s hard to argue with them.