Islamophobia in the US

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I realise that is your stock response to any of my posts, and it was barely amusing the first time; obviously you are significantly more stupid than I had originally thought as you seem incapable of engaging in a discussion. I had also thought that perhaps you were capable of some passable humour but obviously not judging by your lame repetitive efforts toward me. At least put in some decent crack rather than this tedious drivel.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Guest alex]

Just checking.

[Happy Face 29]

@ HF "Damned if i do and damned if i don't tbh. I try not to repeat it every post because it should be obvious, but then Leazes complains about me slagging off everyone but the terrorists....or even of supporting them."

 

Well at the risk of descending into ad hominem nonsense, I think Leazes is more intellectually honest than you. He wouldn't say - as you did - that on the one hand you hate everything about the Taliban, but then you take a quote by the spiritual leader of said group (about them being close to victory over NATO forces), and use it as evidence that my argument for intervention was wrong. If you took Mohammad Omar's word as verbatim then you have a long way to go before you're naive, if you were taking the piss then you are a very silly sausage.

 

"Do you feel it's still going down the right path?"

 

Huge progress has been made since 2001. The goal of building a stable government in Afghanistan I believe to be a noble one and I hope it succeeds.

 

 

"Are you saying the US brand of unlawful imprisonment, torture and murder is preferable to previous brutal regimes?"

 

Yes. You cite in relation to Iraq (would appreciate if you could stay on topic), as it happens I believe certain cases against the Iraq invasion have a lot of merit particularly in relation to the unrivaled negligence with regard to planning for the conflict. Regarding the legal systems the Ba'athist 'jails' were far worse than any the U.S. have been in charge of in Iraq.

 

Me stay on topic? I posted a link to a renowned historian arguing that Islamophobia follows a long tradition of American bigotry....very much on the topic, and as usual Leazes tried to spin that into me supporting terrorists. Then you jumped on it too, going back to another argument from a different thread about the political landscape in Afghanistan in 2001.

 

Where's the intellectual honesty in berating me for taking a tangent with a far more acute angle than the one either of you have taken?

 

It's ridiculous to suggest someone can't quote anyone they don't support. What he said was less important than the fact he's still talking. I didn't use it as evidence that intervention was wrong almost a decade ago. It was used as evidence that the taliban are, at the very least, still fighting the propaganda war and therefore claims that intervention has achieved it's aims would be "wide of the mark"...

 

I'd remind you the taliban and Osama are still going. Taliban leader Mullah Omar said on Wednesday victory is in sight.

 

If you had an ounce of intellectual honesty you'd have continued this debate in the thread it started in where I made several very reasonable concessions about my thoughts on the matter. Instead you've ignored that thread ever since while still seeming to want to drag up those arguments.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Oh sorry, wrong thread. My bad. I'll pick you up on your endorsement of the spiritual leader of the Taliban in the other thread, toodles!

[Happy Face 29]

Oh sorry, wrong thread. My bad. I'll pick you up on your endorsement of the spiritual leader of the Taliban in the other thread, toodles!

 

 

'Endorsement'!?

 

What you've made there is what I like to call a "Leazes leap".

[Park Life 71]

For decades, the United States and Saudi Arabia have been locked in a "harmony of interests." America counted on the Saudis for cheap oil, political stability in the Middle East, and lucrative business relationships for the United States, while providing a voracious market for the kingdom's vast oil reserves. With money and oil flowing freely between Washington and Riyadh, the United States has felt secure in its relationship with the Saudis and the ruling Al Sa'ud family. But the rot at the core of our "friendship" with the Saudis was dramatically revealed when it became apparent that fifteen of the nineteen September 11 hijackers proved to be Saudi citizens.

 

In Sleeping with the Devil, Baer documents with chilling clarity how our addiction to cheap oil and Saudi petrodollars caused us to turn a blind eye to the Al Sa'ud's culture of bribery, its abysmal human rights record, and its financial support of fundamentalist Islamic groups that have been directly linked to international acts of terror, including those...

 

 

 

 

The real core of the danger and the flood of money is Wahabi Islam based in Saudi Arabia. But the U.S. barely mentions it, never mind acting on it. Strange.

[Guest alex]

Oh sorry, wrong thread. My bad. I'll pick you up on your endorsement of the spiritual leader of the Taliban in the other thread, toodles!

 

 

'Endorsement'!?

 

What you've made there is what I like to call a "Leazes leap".

[LeazesMag 0]

no, you're unbalanced. I just don't get your anti-west stance.

 

 

I love the west. I love our laws. I love our justice system. I love our freedoms. I'd love to see them expanded around the world.

 

Unfortunately....

 

30,000 Held in Iraq without Due Process; Evidence of Abuse.

 

Charles Menezes

 

Illegal Phone and Email tapping

 

The right to protest at parliament withdrawn

 

and back on topic....Freedom of religion potentially infringed

 

I don't get how you can defend the weakening of democracy both here and abroad and claim it's me that's anti-west. I want to defend our core values and you want to throw them away, to do exactly what the terrorists intend.

 

the very things you attack here, are part of the freedom you cherish and are being eroded by those you defend, who want to change our country into their homelands. There is no understanding of each other, tolerance, and back slapping with these fuckers man, they want you praying to Allah 5 times a day just like they do, and there is enough of them to see you dead if you don't conform to their ways to enable them to keep growing in numbers, and growing, and growing. ......

[Happy Face 29]

no, you're unbalanced. I just don't get your anti-west stance.

 

 

I love the west. I love our laws. I love our justice system. I love our freedoms. I'd love to see them expanded around the world.

 

Unfortunately....

 

30,000 Held in Iraq without Due Process; Evidence of Abuse.

 

Charles Menezes

 

Illegal Phone and Email tapping

 

The right to protest at parliament withdrawn

 

and back on topic....Freedom of religion potentially infringed

 

I don't get how you can defend the weakening of democracy both here and abroad and claim it's me that's anti-west. I want to defend our core values and you want to throw them away, to do exactly what the terrorists intend.

 

the very things you attack here, are part of the freedom you cherish and are being eroded by those you defend, who want to change our country into their homelands. There is no understanding of each other, tolerance, and back slapping with these fuckers man, they want you praying to Allah 5 times a day just like they do, and there is enough of them to see you dead if you don't conform to their ways to enable them to keep growing in numbers, and growing, and growing. ......

 

 

Just because something is on a BNP leaflet it doesn't mean it's a fact.....

 

Some of it's propaganda. For example....

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/more...ess/8190033.stm

[Rob W 0]

"the Al Sa'ud's culture of bribery, its abysmal human rights record, and its financial support of fundamentalist Islamic groups"

 

misses the piont - they keep pumping the oil don't they?

[LeazesMag 0]

no, you're unbalanced. I just don't get your anti-west stance.

 

 

I love the west. I love our laws. I love our justice system. I love our freedoms. I'd love to see them expanded around the world.

 

Unfortunately....

 

30,000 Held in Iraq without Due Process; Evidence of Abuse.

 

Charles Menezes

 

Illegal Phone and Email tapping

 

The right to protest at parliament withdrawn

 

and back on topic....Freedom of religion potentially infringed

 

I don't get how you can defend the weakening of democracy both here and abroad and claim it's me that's anti-west. I want to defend our core values and you want to throw them away, to do exactly what the terrorists intend.

 

the very things you attack here, are part of the freedom you cherish and are being eroded by those you defend, who want to change our country into their homelands. There is no understanding of each other, tolerance, and back slapping with these fuckers man, they want you praying to Allah 5 times a day just like they do, and there is enough of them to see you dead if you don't conform to their ways to enable them to keep growing in numbers, and growing, and growing. ......

 

 

Just because something is on a BNP leaflet it doesn't mean it's a fact.....

 

Some of it's propaganda. For example....

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/more...ess/8190033.stm

 

sorry like but I have never read a BNP leaflet.

[Happy Face 29]

@ HF "Do you feel it's still going down the right path?"

 

Huge progress has been made since 2001. The goal of building a stable government in Afghanistan I believe to be a noble one and I hope it succeeds.

 

Not many share your optimism....

 

A new German Marshall Fund poll finds that Americans are amazingly (and perhaps unreasonably) optimistic about the possibility of ‘stabilizing’ Afghanistan compared to Europeans. About 51 percent of Americans still thinks it is possible to stabilize the country, whereas only 10 percent of Germans think that, and European averages are gloomier across the board.

 

http://www.outlookafghanistan.net/news_Pag...20news3.html#03

[Kid Dynamite 7034]

no, you're unbalanced. I just don't get your anti-west stance.

 

 

I love the west. I love our laws. I love our justice system. I love our freedoms. I'd love to see them expanded around the world.

 

Unfortunately....

 

30,000 Held in Iraq without Due Process; Evidence of Abuse.

 

Charles Menezes

 

Illegal Phone and Email tapping

 

The right to protest at parliament withdrawn

 

and back on topic....Freedom of religion potentially infringed

 

I don't get how you can defend the weakening of democracy both here and abroad and claim it's me that's anti-west. I want to defend our core values and you want to throw them away, to do exactly what the terrorists intend.

 

the very things you attack here, are part of the freedom you cherish and are being eroded by those you defend, who want to change our country into their homelands. There is no understanding of each other, tolerance, and back slapping with these fuckers man, they want you praying to Allah 5 times a day just like they do, and there is enough of them to see you dead if you don't conform to their ways to enable them to keep growing in numbers, and growing, and growing. ......

 

 

Just because something is on a BNP leaflet it doesn't mean it's a fact.....

 

Some of it's propaganda. For example....

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/more...ess/8190033.stm

 

Watched this last night, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914863/ . Basic premise is Michael Sheen has converted to Islam and has planted 3 Nukes in America. Samuel L Jackson is a specialist torturer whose job it is to find out where the nukes are.

 

The backdrop is the FBI, Army etc. are horrified that Samuel L Jackson is going against the Geneva Convention and chopped Sheens fingers off etc, with horrified screams of 'But he's a Human being!!!'

 

Maybe I'm messed up but I was all for it! 10million people were going to die cos of this bloke, he's only got himself to blame imo! People who break the law can't be expected to be protected by the law.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

8 out of 10 polled in the street think Head and Shoulders gives them more volume, couldn't give a fuck tbh. Is this another of your wind ups, opinion polls and Taliban sympathy? Reading about Imran Farooq's assassination now, that's interesting.

[acrossthepond 877]

Look how fast the Silleekunt has dropped his veneer of calm and collected dialogue and turned to raving in his latest posts. He can't answer actual points that involve evidence and quotes so he just turns to trying to call his opponents 'terrorist sympathisers.' Complete WUM as I said from the start and nuttier than a fruitcake as well.

[Park Life 71]

Is the Aghan 'Goverment' in control of anything outside Kabul?

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I was joking about Taliban sympathiser/endorser, although HF has a habit of ill advised quotations/sources to back up his points. I'd rather read into this matter with Farooq/Pakistan than talk pointlessly about opinion polls, or what you refer to as 'evidence' (Evidence of what exactly? Nothing relating to the actual strategic situation in Afghanistan, just the public's view of it). As I say, why not move on rather than continue with this unrelenting tedium?

 

Also ATP, lighten up for fuck's sake.

[acrossthepond 877]

Also classic WUM fare to withdraw right away on your ridiculous attacks when questioned on them. If it was a joke, it certainly wasn't an obvious one. I don't think HF thought you were joking.

 

You're such an expert on the 'actual strategic situation' in Afghanistan, are you? Been over there recently? Do you know something 'the public' doesn't?

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Also classic WUM fare to withdraw right away on your ridiculous attacks when questioned on them. If it was a joke, it certainly wasn't an obvious one. I don't think HF thought you were joking.

 

You're such an expert on the 'actual strategic situation' in Afghanistan, are you? Been over there recently? Do you know something 'the public' doesn't?

 

HF clearly didn't take it seriously, he laughed it off and called it a 'leazes leap' to call him a terrorist sympathiser. We'd already discussed the topic to death anyway beforehand. Why is it a serious attack anyway? This is a message board, not a court of law. Lighten up like I said.

 

A common complaint of the 'average joe' with regard to the Afghan conflict is 'they don't know why we went over in the first place'. I'd say I'm a little better up on it than them yeah. This is the thread about GZM in America anyway.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Have you actually got any points regarding the issue ATP or are you just determined in your quest to crucify me for a sentence? Seems you care more about that than any discussion tbh.

 

The latest round of elections will give a better idea of how the situation is in Afghanistan, read this on Al Jazeera today.

 

 

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/201...1342186339.html

 

"Taliban Abductions Spike Before Parliamentary Election

 

The Taliban has launched an aggressive scare campaign in advance of tomorrow's parliamentary election, kidnapping eight officials, ten campaign workers, and a candidate from the Eastern province of Laghman. On Thursday, the Taliban warned that anybody caught trying to vote would "get hurt," and announced plans to target polling centers and workers. The following day, the abductions began. Taliban spokesmen confirmed the candidate's abduction via a text message to an AFP reporter, stating "we have kidnapped Hayatullah Hayat." In addition to the violence, allegations of fraud and fake voting cards have also cast a pallor over the election. After news broke of the kidnappings, President Hamid Karzai issued a statement encouraging all Afghans to brave the threats and cast their ballots. "We hope that our people in every corner of our country, in every city of our country and every province will go to polling stations and vote for their favorite candidate and through the vote lead our country to further stability," Karzai said. While the threats may discourage voters, they haven't done much to deter candidates—there are currently 2,500 people vying for 249 parliamentary seats."

Edited September 17, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Happy Face 29]

Baroness Warsi says Muslim prejudice seen as normal

 

Prejudice against Muslims has "passed the dinner-table test" and become socially acceptable in the UK, a senior Conservative is to say.

 

Baroness Warsi, co-chairman of the Tory Party, will warn against dividing Muslims into moderates and extremists.

 

The baroness, the first Muslim woman to serve in the cabinet, will say such labels fuel misunderstanding.

 

She will use a speech at Leicester University to accuse the media of superficial discussion of Islam.

 

Baroness Warsi will say anti-Muslim prejudice is now seen by many Britons as normal and uncontroversial, and she will use her position to fight an "ongoing battle against bigotry".

 

In extracts of the speech, published in the Daily Telegraph, the peer blames "the patronising, superficial way faith is discussed in certain quarters, including the media", for making Britain a less tolerant place for believers.

 

She is expected to reveal that she raised the issue of Islamophobia with Pope Benedict XVI during his visit to Britain last year, urging him to "create a better understanding between Europe and its Muslim citizens".

 

'Social rejection'

 

The BBC's religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott said Baroness Warsi is to say publicly what many Muslims privately complain about - that prejudice against them does not attract the social stigma attached to prejudice against other religious and ethnic groups.

 

"Lady Warsi has broached the issue before," Robert Pigott says.

 

"She told the 2009 Conservative Party conference that anti-Muslim hatred had become Britain's last socially acceptable form of bigotry, and claimed in a magazine article last October that taking a pop at the Muslim community in the media sold papers and didn't really matter."

 

In her speech, she is expected to say the description of Muslims as either moderate or extremist encourages false assumptions.

 

"It's not a big leap of imagination to predict where the talk of 'moderate' Muslims leads; in the factory, where they've just hired a Muslim worker, the boss says to his employees: 'Not to worry, he's only fairly Muslim'," she will say.

 

"In the school, the kids say: 'The family next door are Muslim but they're not too bad'.

 

"And in the road, as a woman walks past wearing a burka, the passers-by think: 'That woman's either oppressed or is making a political statement'."

 

Baroness Warsi will say terror offences committed by a small number of Muslims should not be used to condemn all who follow Islam.

 

But she will also urge Muslim communities to be clearer about their rejection of those who resort to violent acts.

 

"Those who commit criminal acts of terrorism in our country need to be dealt with not just by the full force of the law," she will say.

 

"They also should face social rejection and alienation across society and their acts must not be used as an opportunity to tar all Muslims."

 

Asked about Baroness Warsi's speech, a No 10 spokesman said she was expressing the view that there needed to be a debate "about the issue of radicalisation in Great Britain and terrorism".

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12235237

 

The actions of some muslims should not tar all muslims....but those few can't be labelled extremists.

 

She wants the moon on a stick.

Edited January 20, 2011 by Happy Face

[sniffer 0]

I'd prefer to see some of those fucking muslims on the end of a stick.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

 

At least Baroness Cunt-Face didn't resort to the repugnant term 'Islamophobia', which is bandied about by these Islamic pressure-groups in an attempt to stifle free-speech and any criticism of said religion.

 

"It's not a big leap of imagination to predict where the talk of 'moderate' Muslims leads; in the factory, where they've just hired a Muslim worker, the boss says to his employees: 'Not to worry, he's only fairly Muslim'," she will say.

 

In my experience, most people in this country are suspicious of the hyper-religious, regardless of what particular scripture they are hostage to. What is wrong with people thinking these thoughts? Does she want to introduce thought-crimes, the silly cunt? It's great if people with faith aren't slaves to Bronze-age texts and are 'only fairly religious'. Think of the alternative, at best they'll be incredibly dull and irritating people to be around; at worst they'll be committing unspeakable acts in the name of the fairy man in the sky.

Of course people are going to be freaked out or offended by burkas, they're absolutely at odds with our society, where women have been emancipated and aren't slaves to these repressed donkey-shaggers who evidently have serious issues with their manhood. What is one supposed to think when you see a woman walking in the street wearing a burka? "Ooh, she looks nice, black is very slimming." I don't think so.

 

Just a quick reference to this bullshit thread btw: the inter-faith centre, Park51 as it is now called, has not been banned as of yet, although the construction will likely be delayed by lawsuits and other issues such as whether the building will get landmark status. Since HF loves statistics (I do not care for them when it comes to resolving moral arguments), why don't we take a look at the FBI tables to see the % of hate-crimes committed against Muslims in the US?

 

Religious bias

 

Law enforcement agencies reported 1,376 hate crimes motivated by religious bias. A breakdown of biases for these offenses showed:

 

* 70.1 percent were anti-Jewish. *

* 9.3 percent were anti-Islamic.

* 8.6 percent were anti-other religion.

* 4.4 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.

* 4.0 percent were anti-Catholic.

* 2.9 percent were anti-Protestant.

* 0.7 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc. Anti-Agnostic hate-crimes

 

* of this 70.1%, the vast majority were committed by Mel Gibson

 

In 2009, law enforcement agencies reported that 3,816 single-bias hate crime offenses were racially motivated. Of these offenses:

 

* 71.4 percent were motivated by anti-black bias.

* 17.1 percent resulted from anti-white bias.

* 5.5 percent occurred because of biases against groups of individuals consisting of more than one race (anti-multiple races, group).

* 3.9 percent resulted from anti-Asian/Pacific Islander bias.

* 2.2 percent were motivated by anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native bias

 

The way certain people go on, they conjure up an image that Muslims are being driven out of the West, or made to live insufferable lives, by a rage motivated from a deep-seated and irrational fear of Islamic culture, or as some people call it, 'Islamophobia'. I think that's a crock of shit.

Edited January 20, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[acrossthepond 877]

Baroness Warsi says Muslim prejudice seen as normal

 

Prejudice against Muslims has "passed the dinner-table test" and become socially acceptable in the UK, a senior Conservative is to say.

 

Baroness Warsi, co-chairman of the Tory Party, will warn against dividing Muslims into moderates and extremists.

 

The baroness, the first Muslim woman to serve in the cabinet, will say such labels fuel misunderstanding.

 

She will use a speech at Leicester University to accuse the media of superficial discussion of Islam.

 

Baroness Warsi will say anti-Muslim prejudice is now seen by many Britons as normal and uncontroversial, and she will use her position to fight an "ongoing battle against bigotry".

 

In extracts of the speech, published in the Daily Telegraph, the peer blames "the patronising, superficial way faith is discussed in certain quarters, including the media", for making Britain a less tolerant place for believers.

 

She is expected to reveal that she raised the issue of Islamophobia with Pope Benedict XVI during his visit to Britain last year, urging him to "create a better understanding between Europe and its Muslim citizens".

 

'Social rejection'

 

The BBC's religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott said Baroness Warsi is to say publicly what many Muslims privately complain about - that prejudice against them does not attract the social stigma attached to prejudice against other religious and ethnic groups.

 

"Lady Warsi has broached the issue before," Robert Pigott says.

 

"She told the 2009 Conservative Party conference that anti-Muslim hatred had become Britain's last socially acceptable form of bigotry, and claimed in a magazine article last October that taking a pop at the Muslim community in the media sold papers and didn't really matter."

 

In her speech, she is expected to say the description of Muslims as either moderate or extremist encourages false assumptions.

 

"It's not a big leap of imagination to predict where the talk of 'moderate' Muslims leads; in the factory, where they've just hired a Muslim worker, the boss says to his employees: 'Not to worry, he's only fairly Muslim'," she will say.

 

"In the school, the kids say: 'The family next door are Muslim but they're not too bad'.

 

"And in the road, as a woman walks past wearing a burka, the passers-by think: 'That woman's either oppressed or is making a political statement'."

 

Baroness Warsi will say terror offences committed by a small number of Muslims should not be used to condemn all who follow Islam.

 

But she will also urge Muslim communities to be clearer about their rejection of those who resort to violent acts.

 

"Those who commit criminal acts of terrorism in our country need to be dealt with not just by the full force of the law," she will say.

 

"They also should face social rejection and alienation across society and their acts must not be used as an opportunity to tar all Muslims."

 

Asked about Baroness Warsi's speech, a No 10 spokesman said she was expressing the view that there needed to be a debate "about the issue of radicalisation in Great Britain and terrorism".

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12235237

 

The actions of some muslims should not tar all muslims....but those few can't be labelled extremists.

 

She wants the moon on a stick.

 

I know I shouldn't, but I will anyway.

 

The way she's using 'moderates' and 'extremists' is wrong and is obscuring her real point. In what's quoted above, she's referring to the, how do I put this, religiosity of people by talking about moderates and extremists. She's trying to say that there's an incorrect tendency to associate peaceful and law-abiding Muslims with Muslims who aren't particularly devoted to their religion, and that sharia advocates, terrorists, etc (those we would label as 'extremists') are those who show high devotion to the religion; therefore, the obvious correlation is that Islam is in fact an inherently radical religion, since those who don't adhere very strongly to it don't have problems integrating into society, while those who do show strong devotion to Islam end up marching in the streets in Bradford.

 

Obviously this is an incorrect correlation, which is what she's trying to make clear, but doing a bad job of. You will find plenty of political moderates and people who have integrated just fine into Western society while still keeping strict adherence to Islam.

 

The main point, which is that anti-Muslim bias is mostly given a hand-wave in the UK is one that I don't think I'm qualified to talk on. I haven't spent great lengths of time in England for a long time now, and when I do go back, I associate with people, mostly family members, who obviously don't have any problems with Muslims. But I will say that in my experience on this board, and I'm not talking about Leazes or sniffer or any of the other obviously problematic individuals who have axes to grind (in the former case) or don't have a fucking clue (in the latter case), derogatory comments about Muslims seem both more commonplace and more acceptable then comments about other races or religions.

[Happy Face 29]

Extremists are the least religious. Killing people and that isn't devout.