Thank you for the link to Abdel Rahman al-Rashed at Al-Arabiya News. I have been looking for that reference.
To gum:
Like yourself, I am not pleased by the fact that someone in the Netherlands blew the door off an Islamic school. This is a remarkable act of rage in a country which prides itself (rightfully) as the most tolerant society in Europe for the last few hundred years. Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that the bomber(s) took pains to make sure the building was unoccupied. Islamic terrorists would have shown no such compunction.
To grienspace:
It was only recently that I read about the pro-terrorist French radio station, but I am having trouble finding the link. It was a reference to either France-Info or France-Inter (maybe both). One or the other (maybe both) routinely broadcasts anti-Semitic and anti-American propaganda for the benefit of the Islamic World.
Can anyone help me with this?
Again, I cannot thank gum and Rune enough for their reports from the scene.
“If we nitpick enough, we can absolve ourselves of the guilt we place on the Muslim-on-the-street when our terrorists retaliate against them for what theirs did to us.”
Nice.
This was an object lesson, whether intended that way or not. Just as gum can’t be blamed for the bombing of the mosque, the Muslim-on-the-street can’t be blamed for this murder or terrorism in general. Just as gum feels bad about the bombing of the mosque, the Muslim-on-the-street feels bad when things like this happen.
Even when Muslims cheer these things on, it’s never ALL Muslims or even MOST Muslims. Just as I’m sure there are people in the Netherlands cheering the bombing of the mosque, and I’m equally sure that it’s not ALL Dutch or even MOST Dutch.
Yet again you conflate Islamist and Islamic. I’m sure there are some Islamic terrorists who would have shown such compunction. And Islamists who would target children deliberately.
I could just as well say “Protestant terrorists would have shown no such compunction”, and I would be just as inaccurate.
Plant bomb and kill people. Plant 2nd bomb timed to go off when the emergency units have arrived.
How many kids where in the Oklahoma building again?
Stop making stupid fucking generalisations.
Criticise the bastards doing the actions not the cultural group they’re from. When people do it about Americans (which they do all the time) you lot are the first to roll your eyes so why the fuck is it OK to do it to Muslims. Some Muslims are murdering amoral cunts, no question about it but so are sections of every population in the world.
This may be important to you personally, understandable so - but this is not the central issue at stake here. Islamism attack on basic western values is, unfair discrimination of Muslims is not, though discussion of the former almost invariable end up debating the latter. However if you insist, then I do think Muslims are often unfairly singled out and vilified, I also think many Muslim suffer a perpetual persecution complex – which is more troubling is hard to say, and neither help resolve the problems.
Well, it’s absurd to say all of any group is pro anything, and I’m not in the least concerned that most Moslems are pro-terror. However what I have become, is more that a little worried that the number of Moslems that are supportive of terrorists is much higher that I would have liked and way beyond the “extremist minority whacko” group and well into the mainstream. Many examples have already been shown in this forum where common Moslems have spoken out in favour of van Gogh’s murder. I talked about Salman Rushdie who continue to live in fear of his life. I was living in London at that time. The demonstrations and common support in favour of the fatwa were massive. This is not limited to a little group of nut-jobs. This is what concerns me.
There are hundreds if not thousands of religions in Europe, but I do wonder why it is that Islam seems to be the only religion that has such massive problems re. democracy and criticism. And yojimbo we’ve already agreed the terror bombings in Ireland/England were not religiously motivated, the Oklahoma bomber was not European and as far as I know not overly religious motivated. Why do we have Islamic inspired threats and murders when one speak ill of Mohammed but not when one speak ill of Jesus or Buddah, Hara Khrisna etc.? Why doesn’t Monty Python live in daily fear of their life after having ridiculed Jesus in Life of Brian? Would a Life of Mohammed even be conceivable?
It isn’t. Christianity has a long history of it, for starters.
Have we? You can’t separated religion and politics in Northern Ireland no matter how much you try; the Catholic/Protestant division is as powerful as the Nationalist/Unionist one. Ian Paisley is not only party leader but a Reverend (of sorts) and extreme anti-Papist. Religions and politics, politics and religion; it’s all one big muddle.
Go into any bar in Texas and start insulting Jesus. See how pacificistic people take it.
Because “Life of Brian” doesn’t ridicule Christ at all. People, yes; Christ, no. Not even a little. A point which they made with great force when the film first came out.
I could demolish your entire previous post, but I think you are just beyond any hope for reality. Do you live in Texas ? Jesus H. Fucking Christ man, are you suggesting that if I take the Lord’s name in vulgaric vain in a Texas pub that I’m risking my life? Or limb?
You mean they don’t swear and use the Lord’s name in vain in Texas ?
Yes, and history being the crux of that sentence. Give me a European terrorists organisation that’ll murder me if I make a movie depicting naked women with bible citations on.
Yes I think we have. But I’ll wait for yojimboto to see what he has to say since he’s Irish.
Yes I’m aware things are different in the US - and Asia and Africa. However for this discussion I had in mind to concentrate on Europe. And do you actually think a person making a movie like Theo van Gogh’s would be in any danger in the US?
Well ok then. But I think you’re deflecting and the case still stands. Do you think a movie ridiculing Moslems in the same manner would be possible without grave repercussions for the makers? And it’s not like there’re not plenty of other movies handling Jesus in a provocative manner. Jesus Christ Superstar, The Last Temptation of Christ, there’s an erotic movie in Denmark (which received public funding) about Jesus’s sex-life in Arbonne… And we’ve got crucifixes dipped in piss. And paintings of crucified women. Etc. etc. Some of it has been somewhat controversial, but have any of these artists been murdered over their art?
Let’s just clarify one thing here. I am NOT condoning van Gough’s murder. On the contrary, I think it was a reprehensible act – the man should not have had to live in fear of his life for what he did – as controversial and offensive as it was.
What I am objecting to is the complete demonification of an entire group based on the actions of a minority. Whenever these swine are labelled as “Muslim” terrorists, as opposed to say “Islamist” terrorists or Jihadists, then you do vilify the whole population of Muslims, most of whom wholeheartedly condemn these vile murderers.
How massive? A sizeable fraction of the UK Muslim population? I think not. Personally, I know many many communities who opposed this. Those communities not under the influence of the Ayatollah in Iran (which contrary to what you might think is a bloody lot of them) certainly opposed the Fatwa. Many people did not agree with what Rushdie had written, and they found it amazingly offensive, but they did not support the Fatwa. I speak from personal experience. I speak from the experience of witnessing the reaction in my community. I speak from the experience of witnessing the reaction within other, Shia and Sunni communities. As my uncle, who is one of the leaders of a sizable fraction of the Twelver community in Birmingham said, “the man was offensive, but to issue a death threat on him is the most un-Islamic thing to do.”
Really? Please go and find me said hundreds of millions. In the meantime, read this and this, where Muslims and Muslim leaders are actively condemning the likes of Abu Hamza et al.
Wow, and I thought this board was about fighting ignorance, yet you’ve been here 4 years and dismiss my allegation as false without even seeing any cite/evidence. You’ve apparently already made up your mind, since you mock my username. I suppose that would make you willfully ignorant no ?
Anyhow, I’ll dig up a few cites later on tonight, after I take care of some business.
And what about one who deliberately misrepresents facts?
Bear in mind that I am a Muslim, and I know a lot of Muslims, of all denominations, because of this. I can, hand on heart, say that none of the Muslims, and their families, and their communities, that I know, even the rather orthodox ones, condone bin Laden and his actions.
Yes, apparently there’s a disagreement over terms. “Muslim terrorists” is I think a clear enough phrase that, the same way “Christian extremist” clearly denotes a special kind of Christian which does not tar other Christians, clearly marks a special kind of Muslim that does not tar other Muslims, further “Muslim Terrorists” = Islamists almost by definition since only Islamists conduct terrorism. Apparently other think otherwise, so I’ve taken to use Islamists – still I’m not sure I understand why Moslem fanatics need a special term (Islamist) when no such is needed for Christian extremists or Hindu fundamentalist, etc.
Going on personal experience only, I find Iranian immigrants to be the most ardent and brave anti-fundamentalists – I’ve never met an Iranian I didn’t like. They all also seem to be very highly educated, though I’ll have to add that I’ve never met an Iranian that hadn’t renounce his faith either.
I was at a demonstration today in remembrance of the Kristallnacht (don’t know the English word) and was very pleased to find a group of young second generation immigrant women (from Somalia I think). Also there was an Iranian speaker, Farrokh Jafari, who thundered against the killers of Theo van Gogh and even more so the groups in the west who should have been the most fervent anti-fundamentalists – but who seemed entirely preoccupied with a quite risk-free and gratis anti-Americanism.
I don’t really understand why you found Rushdie’s book so offensive. It seemed quite innocent to me. I bought it when all the hola started, a book I wouldn’t have touched with a ten foot pole elsewise. I also just ordered “Prophet of Doom: Islam’s Terrorist Dogma in Muhammad’s Own Words”, when I learned there’s an organized effort going on to pressure publishers to stop printing it and booksellers to cease selling it – it however seem to be a lousy book. Still it’s the principle.
Personally, I didn’t, but then, I am very liberal.
Well, the author is probably one of the most anti-Islam people I’ve ever heard of, and doing a quick google search on him, will bring up website after website filled with well, hate.
Nothing wrong with being anti-Islam, a fair and perfectly defensible position, if you have a such. Though hate is of course unfortunate – at least sometimes. Anyway, the principle. Gotta show them the wrong of their ways. How better to do that than make sure their plan backfires?
It goes into my personal anti-censure library after The Satanic Verses and between Little Black Sambo and Mein Kampf – not entirely sure Rushdie relish the company.
