In America

[Renton 22007]

Allowing Nazis - that is, enemies of Great Britain - to hold rallies in the UK during WWII would be ludicrous. I don't understand what relevance it has to this situation. We aren't in a war against Islam...are we? Or are you trying to say Muslims are enemies of Great Britain as well?

 

As far as what Renton is saying goes, nobody is getting "tortured or murdered" - that's laughable hyperbole. You've really got to tone down your generalisations. This isn't the first time. You constantly refer to Islam as though it were some sort of monolith. I remind you that in Sunni Islam there is no organised 'church' that makes policy decisions for Islam (there is such a thing in Shi'a Islam) and within Sunni Islam there are many divisions and that's even before getting into Shi'a and Ibadhis, etc.

 

Your reference to Mecca is really a reference to Saudi law, and I have never denied (in fact, have actively stated) that Saudi Arabia is among the most intolerant shitholes on earth. According to the Saudis, who proclaim themselves "keepers of the faith" and a load of other nonsense, Mecca is Muslim-only because of one ayat in the Qur'an which says that as "idolaters" are unclean, they should not be permitted to enter Mecca. "Idolaters" is a tough one to define and I'm sure mullahs could argue me in knots over that one, but I can conclusively say that there are dozens of quotes in the Qur'an that contradict the notion that Christians and Jews, at the absolute least, are idolaters. So keeping them out is really just a power play from the extremely radical Wahhabi-dominated Saudi government.

 

For myself, I think that non-Muslims should be allowed to enter the holy cities at any time except for the annual pilgrimage, during which time they're crowded and dangerous enough with only Muslims and adding more people to the mix would only exacerbate the problem.

 

I also disagree with the contention that Islam is somehow intrinsically more intolerant than the other Abrahamic religions. I remind you that the Muslim world was a bastion of religious freedom for centuries while Europe was crusading, slaughtering each other over sectarian divides, and running Inquisitions. As I have spoken exhaustively about in previous posts, there is definitely a trend of radicalisation and thus intolerance in the Muslim world, but it exists only over the last 100 years and it is reversible. What Happy Face says about the relative importance of Islam in Islamic society vs. religion in Western society is a very germane point. You can bet your bottom dollar that if we rewound a good hundred years, we'd see widespread protest if some Muslims decided to grab a stack of Bibles and burn them.

 

Is the Muslim world 100 years behind the Western world? Hardly, but as I have already told you all, we are extremely backward in many respects and that's something we have got to work on. Stunts like this are not going to make that happen. They will only provide fuel for the people you describe as 'cavemen' who are working to keep us in the 7th century A.D.

 

The 'tortured and murdered' bit was a bit naughty, I regretted it as soon as I saw you were going to post on here. Seriously though, you always provide an errudite, articulate, and balanced view point with regards to these discussions. There is a real need for more people like you (and less like me tbh) to represent the muslim faith and build bridges. But for whatever reason - whether those people are absent, censored, or won't engage - the reality we are presented with from the Middle East 'problem' is not like this. I don't have to appreciate the theology or history of Islam to know that today there is a real and specific problem with it and the way Islamic countries interact with the West. There is a problem with muslim immigrants integrating which just hasn't occurred with other ethnic groups. I get the impression HF is brushing over these problems as if they don't exist. Well in fact they do, and burying our heads in the sand isn't going to help matters.

[Park Life 71]

Primitives, a waste of resources on a planet that could be so much more.

 

Taught the Spanish the wonders of not shitting outside and taking baths.

[Happy Face 29]

Well no, not really. You've offered a hypothesis there without much evidence to back it up (epecially considering the growth of evangelism in the US). Another simpler hypothesis is that the Islamic faith is, in general, more extreme and less tolerant than the older Abrahamic faiths.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_...American_adults

 

Total christianity down 10% in the US in just 18 years.

 

People with no religion up almost 7%.

 

The growth in evangelism is just 0.6%

 

 

An obvious example would be that a muslim can freely walk into St Peters in Rome. I'd like to see what would happen to you if you tried to even enter the city of Mecca - you would be arrested on the spot, imprisoned, and very likely tortured or even murdered. That's got nothing to do with unhinged extremists of the muslim faith, has it?

 

Really? Genuinely never heard of any of that happening.

 

Clutching at straws here HF. If you don't believe me about Mecca then I suggest you book a holiday there and see how it turns out.

 

I appreciate that Saudis represent one of the more extreme sects (Wahhabism) but they have a central role in International Islam. Also, let's not forget how extreme the other branch of Islam - the Shiites - can be, as witnessed right now in the high profile Iranian case where a women may be stoned to death for the grevious sin of infedility.

 

Are you being devil's advocate here or can you genuinely not see a difference? And not that I need state it surely, but I am no defender of Christianity any way, shape, or form. It's definitely a more tolerant faith though, which is reflected in the cultural values of the countries it has been adopted in.

 

I wasn't saying I didn't believe you about . That's why I said 'genuinely'.

 

Perhaps there is an element of devils advocate, but I genuinely think it's a question of development isn't it? Catholicism is most prevalent in the developed world. The church has been forced to change to keep up with society which changed at a far faster rate, due to rapidly increasing wealth, improved social welfare programs and technological advances. Most of the power of the church has been taken away by the state, so when they do their evil, like collectively rape the shit out of thousands upon thousands of small children, they try to be a bit more discreet about it these days because they (supposedly) don't have the protection of the government.

 

But then, the west has developed as well as it has off the back of stealing the resources of the middle east hasn't it?

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I've never said any terrorism is justified. But people ignore the reasons for it.

 

Let's not forget the discrepancy here.

 

The US collectively has lost it's shit just because a muslim group would like to practice their religion. Protests have been strong and effective, in terms of elected officials supporting the protesters and slagging off the muslims insisting they put an end to their action.

 

Isn't burning the koran a bit more of an insult? More worthy of condemnation?

 

Your first three sentences are quite promising, but your reference to the GZM fiasco and the koran burning stunt leave me a little confused. Are you citing these incidents as incitement/reasons for terrorism? If not what's the relevance? I thought your references to the reasons for terrorism were to various administrations' actions in the Mid East region.

 

You answered my first query but I'd still be interested to hear what you felt would be an appropriate response to the threat of radical Islamism post 9/11?

[Park Life 71]

Islam is now the significant 'other', it is perhaps the last buffer in a duality that includes a sweeping and tediuos capitalism with no values and no roadmap, the whole world turned into disposable trinkets. Islam hasn't been as easy to shift as the weak and forlorn christian church and the demonic catholic church - both have played along and acquired massive wealth for the trouble of not standing up against war and famine and the huge gulf in wealth. That much is already written. Islam for all its warts and imperfections and all its inflexibility has thus far engaged with vaste swathes of the disenfranchised worldwide and for this it is now the 'official enemy'.

[Renton 22007]

Well no, not really. You've offered a hypothesis there without much evidence to back it up (epecially considering the growth of evangelism in the US). Another simpler hypothesis is that the Islamic faith is, in general, more extreme and less tolerant than the older Abrahamic faiths.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_...American_adults

 

Total christianity down 10% in the US in just 18 years.

 

People with no religion up almost 7%.

 

The growth in evangelism is just 0.6%

 

 

An obvious example would be that a muslim can freely walk into St Peters in Rome. I'd like to see what would happen to you if you tried to even enter the city of Mecca - you would be arrested on the spot, imprisoned, and very likely tortured or even murdered. That's got nothing to do with unhinged extremists of the muslim faith, has it?

 

Really? Genuinely never heard of any of that happening.

 

Clutching at straws here HF. If you don't believe me about Mecca then I suggest you book a holiday there and see how it turns out.

 

I appreciate that Saudis represent one of the more extreme sects (Wahhabism) but they have a central role in International Islam. Also, let's not forget how extreme the other branch of Islam - the Shiites - can be, as witnessed right now in the high profile Iranian case where a women may be stoned to death for the grevious sin of infedility.

 

Are you being devil's advocate here or can you genuinely not see a difference? And not that I need state it surely, but I am no defender of Christianity any way, shape, or form. It's definitely a more tolerant faith though, which is reflected in the cultural values of the countries it has been adopted in.

 

I wasn't saying I didn't believe you about . That's why I said 'genuinely'.

 

Perhaps there is an element of devils advocate, but I genuinely think it's a question of development isn't it? Catholicism is most prevalent in the developed world. The church has been forced to change to keep up with society which changed at a far faster rate, due to rapidly increasing wealth, improved social welfare programs and technological advances. Most of the power of the church has been taken away by the state, so when they do their evil, like collectively rape the shit out of thousands upon thousands of small children, they try to be a bit more discreet about it these days because they (supposedly) don't have the protection of the government.

 

But then, the west has developed as well as it has off the back of stealing the resources of the middle east hasn't it?

 

Ouch. You could upset a lot of people with those rape allegations.

 

The last point - have we? It cost me £57 to fill my car up yesterday and last time I looked Dubai had more sky scrapers than New York. If anyone has the right to complain about theft of resources, it's Africa, yet we never seem to have the same problems with them. Apart from the muslim ones.

[tooner 243]

Well no, not really. You've offered a hypothesis there without much evidence to back it up (epecially considering the growth of evangelism in the US). Another simpler hypothesis is that the Islamic faith is, in general, more extreme and less tolerant than the older Abrahamic faiths.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_...American_adults

 

Total christianity down 10% in the US in just 18 years.

 

People with no religion up almost 7%.

 

The growth in evangelism is just 0.6%

 

 

An obvious example would be that a muslim can freely walk into St Peters in Rome. I'd like to see what would happen to you if you tried to even enter the city of Mecca - you would be arrested on the spot, imprisoned, and very likely tortured or even murdered. That's got nothing to do with unhinged extremists of the muslim faith, has it?

 

Really? Genuinely never heard of any of that happening.

 

Clutching at straws here HF. If you don't believe me about Mecca then I suggest you book a holiday there and see how it turns out.

 

I appreciate that Saudis represent one of the more extreme sects (Wahhabism) but they have a central role in International Islam. Also, let's not forget how extreme the other branch of Islam - the Shiites - can be, as witnessed right now in the high profile Iranian case where a women may be stoned to death for the grevious sin of infedility.

 

Are you being devil's advocate here or can you genuinely not see a difference? And not that I need state it surely, but I am no defender of Christianity any way, shape, or form. It's definitely a more tolerant faith though, which is reflected in the cultural values of the countries it has been adopted in.

 

I wasn't saying I didn't believe you about . That's why I said 'genuinely'.

 

Perhaps there is an element of devils advocate, but I genuinely think it's a question of development isn't it? Catholicism is most prevalent in the developed world. The church has been forced to change to keep up with society which changed at a far faster rate, due to rapidly increasing wealth, improved social welfare programs and technological advances. Most of the power of the church has been taken away by the state, so when they do their evil, like collectively rape the shit out of thousands upon thousands of small children, they try to be a bit more discreet about it these days because they (supposedly) don't have the protection of the government.

 

But then, the west has developed as well as it has off the back of stealing the resources of the middle east hasn't it?

 

Ouch. You could upset a lot of people with those rape allegations.

 

The last point - have we? It cost me £57 to fill my car up yesterday and last time I looked Dubai had more sky scrapers than New York. If anyone has the right to complain about theft of resources, it's Africa, yet we never seem to have the same problems with them. Apart from the muslim ones.

 

 

they have bigger problems, like entire generations growing up without parents due to the aids epidemic. also its hard to hit out at others while you're still fighting with yourselves.

[Happy Face 29]

I've never said any terrorism is justified. But people ignore the reasons for it.

 

Let's not forget the discrepancy here.

 

The US collectively has lost it's shit just because a muslim group would like to practice their religion. Protests have been strong and effective, in terms of elected officials supporting the protesters and slagging off the muslims insisting they put an end to their action.

 

Isn't burning the koran a bit more of an insult? More worthy of condemnation?

 

Your first three sentences are quite promising, but your reference to the GZM fiasco and the koran burning stunt leave me a little confused. Are you citing these incidents as incitement/reasons for terrorism? If not what's the relevance? I thought your references to the reasons for terrorism were to various administrations' actions in the Mid East region.

 

You answered my first query but I'd still be interested to hear what you felt would be an appropriate response to the threat of radical Islamism post 9/11?

 

The first sentence was a response to you. The rest was a more general point about what recently caused mass protests in the US compared to what caused todays protests in Afghanistan. People were claiming Muslims are far more keen to kick off, but I'd say less offence has been caused to christians from these two events.

 

Building a mosque 4 blocks from the WTC is not an incitement for terrorists....refusing permission and displaying religious discrimination is though. Burning korans is. Think I already posted this today...

 

Terry Jones, the Dove pastor, appears to want to prove Muslims are intolerant by provoking them to attack ‘Christians’ over the burning of their scripture. I.e., he thinks just like al-Qaeda, which wanted to provoke Christians to attack Muslims so as to demonstrate Christian imperialism.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Happy Face

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Seriously though, you always provide an errudite, articulate, and balanced view point with regards to these discussions. There is a real need for more people like you (and less like me tbh) to represent the muslim faith and build bridges. But for whatever reason - whether those people are absent, censored, or won't engage - the reality we are presented with from the Middle East 'problem' is not like this. I don't have to appreciate the theology or history of Islam to know that today there is a real and specific problem with it and the way Islamic countries interact with the West. There is a problem with muslim immigrants integrating which just hasn't occurred with other ethnic groups. I get the impression HF is brushing over these problems as if they don't exist. Well in fact they do, and burying our heads in the sand isn't going to help matters.

 

Voices like ATP do exist in the muslim communities in the West and I believe muslims will progress and integrate better into the west (it will simply be a necessity) with time, as you say it is in the Middle East region that the various insane despots spout their vile rhetoric. Though if you take the example of Iran, it is quite promising that there seems to be a large groundswell of opposition to the dictatorship, as seen with the last 'election' where Hadmadinnerjan was rejected and protests were bravely partaken in despite the threat and acts of violence against such action.

[acrossthepond 878]

The 'tortured and murdered' bit was a bit naughty, I regretted it as soon as I saw you were going to post on here. Seriously though, you always provide an errudite, articulate, and balanced view point with regards to these discussions. There is a real need for more people like you (and less like me tbh) to represent the muslim faith and build bridges. But for whatever reason - whether those people are absent, censored, or won't engage - the reality we are presented with from the Middle East 'problem' is not like this. I don't have to appreciate the theology or history of Islam to know that today there is a real and specific problem with it and the way Islamic countries interact with the West. There is a problem with muslim immigrants integrating which just hasn't occurred with other ethnic groups. I get the impression HF is brushing over these problems as if they don't exist. Well in fact they do, and burying our heads in the sand isn't going to help matters.

 

Just as you say that there is a problem with the way the Islamic world interacts with the West - certainly true - there's also a problem with how the West interacts with the Islamic world. All too often those interactions are of the violent variety. That's why it really kills me that people are kicking off over the 'mosque' - here are some American Muslims who I truly believe have good intentions and the future of Western-Islamic relations at heart, and they're getting turned away. Then meanwhile some idiot is burning books that we consider holy and people are saying "Oh, where's the harm?" There are certainly problems, and it's going to take work from both sides to fix them. And part of that work is definitely that Muslims must recognise that there are problems within the Muslim world.

 

I doubt that a few people yakking on a NUFC internet message board is going to help much solve what is probably going to be one of the defining conflicts of the 21st century, but it can't hurt.

[Happy Face 29]

The horrible era of anti-Muslim bigotry in the United States yielded a one-day silly season on Thursday, covered wall-to-wall by the US cable news channels. The weird cultist Terry Jones, fired from his church in Cologne, Germany last year for abusing his congregants, preaching hate-filled sermons, and demanding absolute obedience, was favored by an unprecedented telephone call from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates asking him not to burn the Quran, the Muslim scripture, on Saturday. Jones, who can’t seem to get even 50 people to follow him in Gainesville and is a nobody with a nasty stunt, is nevertheless getting millions of dollars worth of free advertising for his lunacy courtesy Time Warner, Newscorp, etc. If there were any responsible adults left in the producers offices of the major television news shows, they would have long since pulled the plug on this non-story. Then Imam Mohammad Musri of central Florida came out and announced that he and Jones would be flying to New York to see Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf on Saturday. Jones seemed to be under the impression that he was in a position, by calling off the Quran-burning, to force Abdul Rauf to move his proposed inter-faith community center. Then Abdul Rauf came out and said he’d had no contact with Musri or Jones and though he was glad the book-burning had been called off, he wasn’t going to have the issue toyed with. Jones replied that he had been lied to and was only suspending the Quran burning and reserved the right to go ahead with it.

 

Abdul Rauf didn’t want to come out and say it, but I will. Terry Jones is deploying the tactics of terrorism without actually harming anyone, a sort of psy-ops terrorism. He is attempting to coerce people by threatening symbolic violence. And that is the answer to the mystery of why anyone is paying attention to him, including the Secretary of Defense. He has them over the barrel because he is prepared to shout “fire!” in a crowded theater. Everyone knows that his book-burning would have been filmed, and the video would have been played over and over again by Muslim radicals. Hate speech and incitement to violence on Jones’s web site led his internet service provided to yank his site on Thursday.

 

One nut case attracts another, so now a Topeka “pastor,” Fred Phelps, says he may take up Jones’s slack. Phelps’s group, which is lower than toilet sludge, has ruined military funerals for slain GIs by picketing them.

 

Then yet another egotistical exhibitionist, Donald Trump, announced he was willing to buy the Park 51 property where Abdul Rauf plans his community center, for the fair market price plus 25%. The developer was reported to have better offers, and Trump’s grandstanding appears to have changed nothing.

 

This hydra-headed story about, like 100 unbalanced people, was sliced and diced by the television gossip-pundits all afternoon and evening for millions of viewers. I mean, is this the last days of Rome and are these our bread and circuses?

 

Here are some stories of infinitely more consequence that cable news mostly did not cover much or even wholly ignored on Thursday:

 

1. “Twelve American soldiers face charges over a secret “kill team” that allegedly blew up and shot Afghan civilians at random and collected their fingers as trophies.” WTF? I think Afghans may be more upset about this than whatever happens in Gainesville, Fl.

 

2. A whistle-blower alleges that a significant proportion of civilian translators of languages like Pashtun provided to the US military by a private contractor don’t actually know the language very well and that their scores on exams were altered. In one instance, a local tribal elder wrote on a slip of paper that the Taliban were preparing an ambush near by, and passed it to the clueless “translator,” who didn’t understand it. US troops died in the ambush.

 

3. In keeping with their historical charge of ‘healing the world,’ many American Jewish communities commemorated the beginning of their high holy days (the ‘days of awe’) by condemning the rising tide of anti-Muslim bigotry in the US. Read, for instance, the words of Rabbi Ira Flax of Alabama. Rabbi Michael Lerner is leading a Quran reading on Saturday in the Bay Area. These many heroes are countering the actions of a handful of hateful, well-heeled neocons who have joined with Christian supremacists in promoting Islamophobia in apparent ignorance of the simple fact that no Western country that came after the Muslims has ever not also come after the Jews. LeShana Tova, friends.

 

4. UN envoy Angelina Jolie, on a trip to Pakistan, underlined the country’s enormous aid needs in the wake of the unprecedented deluge that put a fifth of the country under water. Another 40 villages have been drowned in Sindh in recent days, and only 1.5 million of the 8 million people made homeless by the deluge have received shelter. This is a massive ongoing tragedy to which no in the outside world seems to be paying attention except Jolie. Why hasn’t Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gone there personally and toured the camps and brought aid? Does Washington not understand what that would mean to Pakistanis? Such visible acts of American solidarity with the flood victims would help bury the minor news stories generated in Pakistan by American Islamophobes. (See my piece on the Pakistani floods in Tomdispatch.com).

 

I could go on with stories more important than the minor kook Terry Jones, because all of them are.

 

http://www.juancole.com/2010/09/top-storie...ng-nut-job.html

[LeazesMag 0]

Primitives, a waste of resources on a planet that could be so much more.

 

in a nutshell

[LeazesMag 0]

I don't think it's so much to do with Islam not absorbing criticism as well as Christianity, even though that could well be the case at this moment; instead I would point to the radical Islamists who promulgate a narrative of Islam - and a perversion of it - that says the West is the enemy and oppressor of all Muslims and actively encourage the destruction of free enlightened societies by violent means, the ultimate goal being the reestablishment of a Caliphate.

With that in mind I would ask HappyFace what he thinks these swathes of Muslim protesters would think in regard to Islamic terrorism and if he is worried by that? He seems to hold the view that Islamic terrorism is somehow justified by legitimate grievances at the hands of past/current governments in the west, and that it is not a serious problem (or that perhaps it wasn't until the West incited terrorism through its actions). In the wake of 9/11, I wonder what course of action, if any, HappyFace deemed appropriate?

 

I've never said any terrorism is justified. But people ignore the reasons for it.

 

Let's not forget the discrepancy here.

 

The US collectively has lost it's shit just because a muslim group would like to practice their religion. Protests have been strong and effective, in terms of elected officials supporting the protesters and slagging off the muslims insisting they put an end to their action.

 

Isn't burning the koran a bit more of an insult? More worthy of condemnation?

 

sorry like, but what a load of anti west drivel. Do you seriously think burning a book [however important it is to them] is more "insulting" than flying aeroplanes into buildings ?

 

Difficult to believe what I'm reading here.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

The first sentence was a response to you. The rest was a more general point about what recently caused mass protests in the US compared to what caused todays protests in Afghanistan. People were claiming Muslims are far more keen to kick off, but I'd say less offence has been caused to christians from these two events.

 

Building a mosque 4 blocks from the WTC is not an incitement for terrorists....refusing permission and displaying religious discrimination is though. Burning korans is. Think I already posted this today...

 

Terry Jones, the Dove pastor, appears to want to prove Muslims are intolerant by provoking them to attack ‘Christians’ over the burning of their scripture. I.e., he thinks just like al-Qaeda, which wanted to provoke Christians to attack Muslims so as to demonstrate Christian imperialism. If what you want to do is spread hate and produce dead

 

As I stated in the first post you responded to, Christianity doesn't have an active sect whose aim and primary activity is to destroy western civilization. That's what separates Islam and those swathes of protesters from their Christian counterparts in the West.

 

As we covered in the Islamophobia thread I believe your citations of 'mass protests' regarding the debacle in New York is an exaggeration, but let's not get into that issue again, it was convoluted enough in that thread, we can agree to disagree.

 

In terms of comparing the levels of offence toward Christians/Muslims, I think this is getting a little into silly territory and is also irrelevant because we are ultimately dealing with the issue of Islamic terrorism, as Christianity does not have a radicalized element which is actively seeking to murder Western society. You cite Terry Jone's proposed stunt as a reason behind Islamic terrorism. I can't help but feel that Osama Bin Laden's recruiting and radicalizing of young men into his cult of death is more relevant to creating terrorists than an American pastor engaging in crass and offensive (but well publicized) behaviour.

 

Finally your referral to the 'GZM debate' leads us back to my unanswered query: what do you feel would have been an appropriate response to the threat of radical Islamism post 9/11?

Edited September 10, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Gemmill 46086]

I don't think it's so much to do with Islam not absorbing criticism as well as Christianity, even though that could well be the case at this moment; instead I would point to the radical Islamists who promulgate a narrative of Islam - and a perversion of it - that says the West is the enemy and oppressor of all Muslims and actively encourage the destruction of free enlightened societies by violent means, the ultimate goal being the reestablishment of a Caliphate.

With that in mind I would ask HappyFace what he thinks these swathes of Muslim protesters would think in regard to Islamic terrorism and if he is worried by that? He seems to hold the view that Islamic terrorism is somehow justified by legitimate grievances at the hands of past/current governments in the west, and that it is not a serious problem (or that perhaps it wasn't until the West incited terrorism through its actions). In the wake of 9/11, I wonder what course of action, if any, HappyFace deemed appropriate?

 

I've never said any terrorism is justified. But people ignore the reasons for it.

 

Let's not forget the discrepancy here.

 

The US collectively has lost it's shit just because a muslim group would like to practice their religion. Protests have been strong and effective, in terms of elected officials supporting the protesters and slagging off the muslims insisting they put an end to their action.

 

Isn't burning the koran a bit more of an insult? More worthy of condemnation?

 

sorry like, but what a load of anti west drivel. Do you seriously think burning a book [however important it is to them] is more "insulting" than flying aeroplanes into buildings ?

 

Difficult to believe what I'm reading here.

 

Fucking hell, that is very obviously not what he said.

[LeazesMag 0]

I don't think it's so much to do with Islam not absorbing criticism as well as Christianity, even though that could well be the case at this moment; instead I would point to the radical Islamists who promulgate a narrative of Islam - and a perversion of it - that says the West is the enemy and oppressor of all Muslims and actively encourage the destruction of free enlightened societies by violent means, the ultimate goal being the reestablishment of a Caliphate.

With that in mind I would ask HappyFace what he thinks these swathes of Muslim protesters would think in regard to Islamic terrorism and if he is worried by that? He seems to hold the view that Islamic terrorism is somehow justified by legitimate grievances at the hands of past/current governments in the west, and that it is not a serious problem (or that perhaps it wasn't until the West incited terrorism through its actions). In the wake of 9/11, I wonder what course of action, if any, HappyFace deemed appropriate?

 

I've never said any terrorism is justified. But people ignore the reasons for it.

 

Let's not forget the discrepancy here.

 

The US collectively has lost it's shit just because a muslim group would like to practice their religion. Protests have been strong and effective, in terms of elected officials supporting the protesters and slagging off the muslims insisting they put an end to their action.

 

Isn't burning the koran a bit more of an insult? More worthy of condemnation?

 

sorry like, but what a load of anti west drivel. Do you seriously think burning a book [however important it is to them] is more "insulting" than flying aeroplanes into buildings ?

 

Difficult to believe what I'm reading here.

 

Fucking hell, that is very obviously not what he said.

 

yes he is, he's attempting to justify Islamic Terrorism in any way he can. Fuck knows why. Quite amazing.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

"Terry Jones is deploying the tactics of terrorism without actually harming anyone"

 

It is telling that you hasten to decry this man before you will condemn a murderous group of religious extremists funded by Islamic states who engage in the slaughter of as many civilians as is possible.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Happy Face 29]

The first sentence was a response to you. The rest was a more general point about what recently caused mass protests in the US compared to what caused todays protests in Afghanistan. People were claiming Muslims are far more keen to kick off, but I'd say less offence has been caused to christians from these two events.

 

Building a mosque 4 blocks from the WTC is not an incitement for terrorists....refusing permission and displaying religious discrimination is though. Burning korans is. Think I already posted this today...

 

Terry Jones, the Dove pastor, appears to want to prove Muslims are intolerant by provoking them to attack ‘Christians’ over the burning of their scripture. I.e., he thinks just like al-Qaeda, which wanted to provoke Christians to attack Muslims so as to demonstrate Christian imperialism. If what you want to do is spread hate and produce dead

 

As I stated in the first post you responded to, Christianity doesn't have an active sect whose aim and primary activity is to destroy western civilization. That's what separates Islam and those swathes of protesters from their Christian counterparts in the West.

 

As we covered in the Islamophobia thread I believe your citations of 'mass protests' regarding the debacle in New York is an exaggeration, but let's not get into that issue again, it was convoluted enough in that thread, we can agree to disagree.

 

In terms of comparing the levels of offence toward Christians/Muslims, I think this is getting a little into silly territory and is also irrelevant because we are ultimately dealing with the issue of Islamic terrorism, as Christianity does not have a radicalized element which is actively seeking to murder Western society. You cite Terry Jone's proposed stunt as a reason behind Islamic terrorism. I can't help but feel that Osama Bin Laden's recruiting and radicalizing of young men into his cult of death is more relevant to creating terrorists than an American pastor engaging in crass and offensive (but well publicized) behaviour.

 

Finally your referral to the 'GZM debate' leads us back to my unanswered query: what do you feel would have been an appropriate response to the threat of radical Islamism post 9/11?

 

 

You're making the same point I made with my 2 posts in the other thread. I've been very consistent about saying this pastor bell-end is a nobody whose stunt itself has no potency whatsoever, the coverage of this incident both increases his profile and ignore's the blame which should be placed with those with actual power. The media that should go after people with actual power this strongly are subservient to the White House and would never question their actions so strongly. As a fuckwit no-one gives a shit about, they can go after this dude without any worry of pissing anyone off or losing their job.

 

I would not have mounted a military invasion and occupation of 2 countries after 9/11. It would have been an intelligence led manhunt of al qaeda operatives, at the same time using the worldwide sympathy to put huge pressure on the middle eastern players to get talks to work.....and I would not have got a second term

[Happy Face 29]

I don't think it's so much to do with Islam not absorbing criticism as well as Christianity, even though that could well be the case at this moment; instead I would point to the radical Islamists who promulgate a narrative of Islam - and a perversion of it - that says the West is the enemy and oppressor of all Muslims and actively encourage the destruction of free enlightened societies by violent means, the ultimate goal being the reestablishment of a Caliphate.

With that in mind I would ask HappyFace what he thinks these swathes of Muslim protesters would think in regard to Islamic terrorism and if he is worried by that? He seems to hold the view that Islamic terrorism is somehow justified by legitimate grievances at the hands of past/current governments in the west, and that it is not a serious problem (or that perhaps it wasn't until the West incited terrorism through its actions). In the wake of 9/11, I wonder what course of action, if any, HappyFace deemed appropriate?

 

I've never said any terrorism is justified. But people ignore the reasons for it.

 

Let's not forget the discrepancy here.

 

The US collectively has lost it's shit just because a muslim group would like to practice their religion. Protests have been strong and effective, in terms of elected officials supporting the protesters and slagging off the muslims insisting they put an end to their action.

 

Isn't burning the koran a bit more of an insult? More worthy of condemnation?

 

sorry like, but what a load of anti west drivel. Do you seriously think burning a book [however important it is to them] is more "insulting" than flying aeroplanes into buildings ?

 

Difficult to believe what I'm reading here.

 

Fucking hell, that is very obviously not what he said.

 

yes he is, he's attempting to justify Islamic Terrorism in any way he can. Fuck knows why. Quite amazing.

 

Which act of terrorism? I've pointedly said there's no justification of 9/11.

[Happy Face 29]

It is telling that you hasten to decry this man before you will condemn a murderous group of religious extremists funded by Islamic states who engage in the slaughter of as many civilians as is possible.

 

You can assume every one of my posts comes with the understanding that Al Qaeda are a bunch of murdering fucks who's actions I abhor and oppose with every fibre of my being.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

1. You can assume every one of my posts comes with the understanding that Al Qaeda are a bunch of murdering fucks who's actions I abhor and oppose with every fibre of my being.

 

 

2. I would not have mounted a military invasion and occupation of 2 countries after 9/11. It would have been an intelligence led manhunt of al qaeda operatives, at the same time using the worldwide sympathy to put huge pressure on the middle eastern players to get talks to work.....and I would not have got a second term

 

1. Very good.

 

2. Right. We're in agreement then that some form of action against al quaeda/Islamic terrorism was a necessity post 9/11. Getting certain Islamic countries that harbour/export terrorism to cooperate via talks I believe would be a very unrealistic proposition for various reasons. For one thing the worldwide sympathy you talk of doesn't exist as China and Russia do not view this issue in the same light as the U.S. and Britain. Secondly the talks didn't work with Middle Eastern players (Iraq) and still don't (Iran). You joke that you wouldn't get a second term but that is a point worth taking up as anyone who adopted these policies wouldn't gain a second term. It's just not a realistic proposal unless we live in an alternate universe.

 

With the Taliban occupying significant territory and harbouring Al Quaeda operatives in Afghanistan I don't see how the NATO mission in Afghanistan could have been realistically avoided. I'll assume you are ignorant of the situation in Afghanistan prior to 2001, because if you have knowledge of it and advocated leaving it in that state then you are guilty not only of moral cowardice but gross stupidity also. Any 'manhunt' of Al Quaeda would have lead there anyway, and with the hopelessly fragile and corrupt government in place and in the midst of a civil war, any diplomacy would have been an exercise in futility; the UF needed military support urgently. I would like to hear your arguments that non-intervention in Afghanistan would be a good strategy for the region/world. Given your statement 1. quoted there, your opposition to intervention in Afghanistan seems illogical at best.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[PaddockLad 17687]

1. You can assume every one of my posts comes with the understanding that Al Qaeda are a bunch of murdering fucks who's actions I abhor and oppose with every fibre of my being.

 

 

2. I would not have mounted a military invasion and occupation of 2 countries after 9/11. It would have been an intelligence led manhunt of al qaeda operatives, at the same time using the worldwide sympathy to put huge pressure on the middle eastern players to get talks to work.....and I would not have got a second term

 

1. Very good.

 

2. Right. We're in agreement then that some form of action against al quaeda/Islamic terrorism was a necessity post 9/11. Getting certain Islamic countries that harbour/export terrorism to cooperate via talks I believe would be a very unrealistic proposition for various reasons. For one thing the worldwide sympathy you talk of doesn't exist as China and Russia do not view this issue in the same light as the U.S. and Britain. Secondly the talks didn't work with Middle Eastern players (Iraq) and still don't (Iran). You joke that you wouldn't get a second term but that is a point worth taking up as anyone who adopted these policies wouldn't gain a second term. It's just not a realistic proposal unless we live in an alternate universe.

 

With the Taliban occupying significant territory and harbouring Al Quaeda operatives in Afghanistan I don't see how the NATO mission in Afghanistan could have been realistically avoided. I'll assume you are ignorant of the situation in Afghanistan prior to 2001, because if you have knowledge of it and advocated leaving it in that state then you are guilty not only of moral cowardice but gross stupidity also. Any 'manhunt' of Al Quaeda would have lead there anyway, and with the hopelessly fragile and corrupt government in place and in the midst of a civil war, any diplomacy would have been an exercise in futility; the UF needed military support urgently. I would like to hear your arguments that non-intervention in Afghanistan would be a good strategy for the region/world. Given your statement 1. quoted there, your opposition to intervention in Afghanistan seems illogical at best.

 

 

So we were going in before the planes hit the towers were we?

 

Tell me why we didnt invade Saudi Arabia again?

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

It would have been wise to intervene earlier probably. I was referring to the conflict between the Taliban (Bin Laden was heavily involved) and the UF 5 years or so leading up to 2001 when NATO intervened after 9/11. If you can justify leaving the country in that state with the Taliban having control of a large proportion of the country and harbouring Al Quaeda operatives within it then I'd like to hear it.

 

"After several raids by the Taliban to northern Afghanistan, the Alliance was extremely weak and on its way to extinction. On September 9 2001, 2 individuals disguised as reporters exploded a bomb hidden in a camera that killed the Northern Alliance commander Ahmad Shah Masood. This marked the death of the Northern Alliance as a Force in Afghanistan until October when the United States revived the Alliance to be used as a Ground Force from the North for their fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. With the Power vacuum in Kabul after the US bombings, the Northern Alliance quickly seized control of Kabul and the Major government offices."

 

http://www.afghanland.com/history/northernalliance.html

 

Some good articles on that site if you have time to browse.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Happy Face 29]

1. You can assume every one of my posts comes with the understanding that Al Qaeda are a bunch of murdering fucks who's actions I abhor and oppose with every fibre of my being.

 

 

2. I would not have mounted a military invasion and occupation of 2 countries after 9/11. It would have been an intelligence led manhunt of al qaeda operatives, at the same time using the worldwide sympathy to put huge pressure on the middle eastern players to get talks to work.....and I would not have got a second term

 

1. Very good.

 

2. Right. We're in agreement then that some form of action against al quaeda/Islamic terrorism was a necessity post 9/11. Getting certain Islamic countries that harbour/export terrorism to cooperate via talks I believe would be a very unrealistic proposition for various reasons. For one thing the worldwide sympathy you talk of doesn't exist as China and Russia do not view this issue in the same light as the U.S. and Britain. Secondly the talks didn't work with Middle Eastern players (Iraq) and still don't (Iran). You joke that you wouldn't get a second term but that is a point worth taking up as anyone who adopted these policies wouldn't gain a second term. It's just not a realistic proposal unless we live in an alternate universe.

 

With the Taliban occupying significant territory and harbouring Al Quaeda operatives in Afghanistan I don't see how the NATO mission in Afghanistan could have been realistically avoided. I'll assume you are ignorant of the situation in Afghanistan prior to 2001, because if you have knowledge of it and advocated leaving it in that state then you are guilty not only of moral cowardice but gross stupidity also. Any 'manhunt' of Al Quaeda would have lead there anyway, and with the hopelessly fragile and corrupt government in place and in the midst of a civil war, any diplomacy would have been an exercise in futility; the UF needed military support urgently. I would like to hear your arguments that non-intervention in Afghanistan would be a good strategy for the region/world. Given your statement 1. quoted there, your opposition to intervention in Afghanistan seems illogical at best.

 

I'd make the Point Paddock Lad already has and add that there's currently a policy in place of hunting and killing suspects (even US citizens) in any country, whether diplomatic ties exist or not.

 

The people on this "hit list" are likely to be killed while at home, sleeping in their bed, driving in a car with friends or family, or engaged in a whole array of other activities. More critically still, the Obama administration -- like the Bush administration before it -- defines the "battlefield" as the entire world. So the President claims the power to order U.S. citizens killed anywhere in the world, while engaged even in the most benign activities carried out far away from any actual battlefield, based solely on his say-so and with no judicial oversight or other checks.

 

I'd also say you're a bit of a condescending bell-end but you must know that already.

[LeazesMag 0]

The first sentence was a response to you. The rest was a more general point about what recently caused mass protests in the US compared to what caused todays protests in Afghanistan. People were claiming Muslims are far more keen to kick off, but I'd say less offence has been caused to christians from these two events.

 

Building a mosque 4 blocks from the WTC is not an incitement for terrorists....refusing permission and displaying religious discrimination is though. Burning korans is. Think I already posted this today...

 

Terry Jones, the Dove pastor, appears to want to prove Muslims are intolerant by provoking them to attack ‘Christians’ over the burning of their scripture. I.e., he thinks just like al-Qaeda, which wanted to provoke Christians to attack Muslims so as to demonstrate Christian imperialism. If what you want to do is spread hate and produce dead

 

As I stated in the first post you responded to, Christianity doesn't have an active sect whose aim and primary activity is to destroy western civilization. That's what separates Islam and those swathes of protesters from their Christian counterparts in the West.

 

As we covered in the Islamophobia thread I believe your citations of 'mass protests' regarding the debacle in New York is an exaggeration, but let's not get into that issue again, it was convoluted enough in that thread, we can agree to disagree.

 

In terms of comparing the levels of offence toward Christians/Muslims, I think this is getting a little into silly territory and is also irrelevant because we are ultimately dealing with the issue of Islamic terrorism, as Christianity does not have a radicalized element which is actively seeking to murder Western society. You cite Terry Jone's proposed stunt as a reason behind Islamic terrorism. I can't help but feel that Osama Bin Laden's recruiting and radicalizing of young men into his cult of death is more relevant to creating terrorists than an American pastor engaging in crass and offensive (but well publicized) behaviour.

 

Finally your referral to the 'GZM debate' leads us back to my unanswered query: what do you feel would have been an appropriate response to the threat of radical Islamism post 9/11?

 

 

You're making the same point I made with my 2 posts in the other thread. I've been very consistent about saying this pastor bell-end is a nobody whose stunt itself has no potency whatsoever, the coverage of this incident both increases his profile and ignore's the blame which should be placed with those with actual power. The media that should go after people with actual power this strongly are subservient to the White House and would never question their actions so strongly. As a fuckwit no-one gives a shit about, they can go after this dude without any worry of pissing anyone off or losing their job.

 

I would not have mounted a military invasion and occupation of 2 countries after 9/11. It would have been an intelligence led manhunt of al qaeda operatives, at the same time using the worldwide sympathy to put huge pressure on the middle eastern players to get talks to work.....and I would not have got a second term

 

see HF, when I see you and others stating things like this, you will then be the first person to squeal about their "rights" and "innocent until proved guilty" etc etc......fact is if you set up intelligence of individuals like this , it invariably "abuses their rights" as you would call it.

 

You can't seperate the two, they come hand in hand. You either accept it or reject it.