DVD Talk
The Dangers of Islamophobia [Archive] - Page 2 - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : The Dangers of Islamophobia


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

wendersfan
07-04-07, 04:16 PM
Well, it is spreading outside of SA. That's the problem. SA is reaching out to more civilized countries, and financing Wahhabi institutions.
If only people realized there are consequences to their actions.

http://www.artcelebs.com/images/Maher/billmaher_car_sharing_club.jpg

DVD Polizei
07-04-07, 04:22 PM
OBL. Ghosted since 2002. :D

TimJS
07-05-07, 08:24 PM
...how come I'm the only one in this thread that's posted specific quotes from and links to liberal Muslim individuals and organizations whose opinions I respect and endorse? Aren't I contradicting myself with that?

I'm weary enough of the poor quality of your arguements that Im not even going to bother to check to see if you're the 'only one in this thread' that's posted direct quotations. The whole of what I recall of your highly selective quotations is that you are perfectly willing to pass radical commentary off as representative of rank and file muslims. In other words, your willingness to quote springs not from how representative the statement is of Islam, but how much it can be used to radicalize the religion as a whole.

But really, your definition of "intolerant" speech has got me thinking. It's wrong to condemn a whole religion based on the misdeeds of a minority, you say---in the case of Islam it's "Islamophobia"?

This is a geopolitical/sociological arguement, not theology. Frankly, I have not studied enough Judaism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Taoism, Jainism, or Islam, (all others, I'm good to go) to offer up learned arguements which would compell any believer to put their theological house in order. I'll leave that for people qualified or with the hubris needed to do so.

There are two compelling reasons to follow a 'non-phobic' approach in dealing with the Islamic world. Firstly, there is a long history of ethnocentric cultural-imperialism in the western world. It generally is (shockingly) not appreciated by the purported beneficiaries of our so-called wisdom. which brings us to the second point, Strategic considerations. Normally, it is not considered desireable to swell the ranks of your declared enemies with either your friends or neutral non-combatants, its rather elementary. Instead of improving your mind with polemics on extraterrestrial questions, I would suggest you read something like Imperial Hubris or something by Jason Burke. You may find out that our enemies have in the past been the enemies of moderate and even conservative islam.

Feel free to post additional thoughts, as stated earlier, I'm past the point of wishing to discuss the matter further, Good Day.

TimJS
07-05-07, 08:32 PM
We agree about this. We disagree whether the majority of people you brand as "Islamophobes" or "misinformed posters" have made inappropriate generalizations about individuals or shown any bigotry... or have merely criticized a theology and various religious and political cultures, and held them appropriately responsible as major contributors to world terrorism and barbarism.


I agree with your statement; we disagree about whether the majority criticized (not branded) for using phobic arguements deserved it.

I'm sure on another day we could spend a bit of time devoted to the identity of the parties responsible as major contributors to world terrorism and barbarism, but that can wait.

Ky-Fi
07-05-07, 09:05 PM
As we approach the anniversary of the 7/7 bombings, here's another piece from Manji that I thought was quite good:

Sunday, Jul. 17, 2005

When Denial Can Kill

By Irshad Manji

I was surprised last week to learn how easily some Westerners believe terrorism can be explained. The realization unfolded as I looked into the sad face of a student at Oxford University. After giving a speech about Islam, I met this young magazine editor to talk about Islam's lost tradition of critical thinking and reasoned debate. But we never got to that topic. Instead, we got stuck on the July 7 bombings in London and what might have compelled four young, British-raised, observant Muslim men to blow themselves up while taking innocent others with them.

She emphasized their "relative economic deprivation." I answered that the lads had immigrant parents who had worked hard to make something of themselves. I reminded her that several of the 9/11 hijackers came from wealthy families, and it's not as if they left the boys out of the will. Finally, I told her about my conversation three years ago with the political leader of Islamic Jihad in Gaza. "What's the difference between suicide, which the Koran condemns, and martyrdom?" I asked. "Suicide," he replied, "is done out of despair. But remember: most of our martyrs today were very successful in their earthly lives." In short, there was a future to live for--and they detonated it anyway.

By this time, the Oxford student had grown somber. It was clear I had let her down. I had failed to appreciate that the London bombers were victims of British society. To be fair to her, she is right that marginalization, real or perceived, diminishes self-esteem. Which, in turn, can make young people vulnerable to those peddling a radical message of instant belonging. But suppose the messages being peddled are marinated in religious rhetoric. Then wouldn't you say religion plays some role in motivating these atrocities?

The student shifted uncomfortably. She just couldn't bring herself to examine my suggestion seriously. And I suppose I couldn't expect her to. Not when Muslim leaders themselves won't go there. Iqbal Sacranie, secretary-general for the Muslim Council of Britain, is an example. In the midst of a debate with me, he listed potential incentives to bomb, including "alienation" and "segregation." But Islam? God forbid that the possibility even be entertained.

That is the dangerous denial from which mainstream Muslims need to emerge. While our spokesmen assure us that Islam is an innocent bystander in today's terrorism, those who commit terrorist acts often tell us otherwise. Mohammed Atta, ringleader of the Sept. 11 hijackers, left behind a note asserting that "it is enough for us to know that the Koran's verses are the words of the Creator of the Earth and all the planets." Atta highlighted the Koran's description of heaven. In 2004 the executioners of Nick Berg, an American contractor in Iraq, alluded on tape to a different Koranic passage: "Whoever kills a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind." The spirit of that verse forbids aggressive warfare, but the clause beginning with except is readily deployed by militant Muslims as a loophole. If you want murder and villainy in the land, they say, look no further than U.S. bootprints in Arab soil.

For too long, we Muslims have been sticking fingers in our ears and chanting "Islam means peace" to drown out the negative noise from our holy book. Far better to own up to it. Not erase or revise, just recognize it and thereby join moderate Jews and Christians in confessing "sins of Scripture," as an American bishop says about the Bible. In doing so, Muslims would show a thoughtful side that builds trust with the wider communities of the West.

We could then cultivate the support to inspire cross-cultural understanding. For instance, schools throughout the West should teach how Islamic civilization helped give birth to the European Renaissance. Some of the first universities in recorded history sprang up in 3rd century Iran, 9th century Baghdad and 10th century Cairo. The Muslim world gave us mocha coffee, the guitar and even the Spanish expression olé! (which has its root in the Arabic word Allah). Muslim students would learn there is no shame in defending the values of pluralism. Non-Muslim students would learn that those values took great inspiration from Islamic culture. All would learn that Islam and the West are more interdependent than divided.

Still, as long as Muslims live in pretense, we will be affirming that we have something to hide. It's not enough for us to protest that radicals are exploiting Islam as a sword. Of course they are. Now, moderate Muslims must stop exploiting Islam as a shield--one that protects us from authentic introspection and our neighbors from genuine understanding.

DarkestPhoenix
07-06-07, 05:02 PM
Two main points:

One, the article is bs from the start. Most people in the world do not think of Abu Ghraib when they think of America, they'll still think Coca-Cola. That assumption is erroneous.

Two, this 'war of ideas' they posit is fantastic, but the problem with waging that one is that if the 'enemy', in this case, holds the ones you're trying to convince hostage through religion or an oppressive political system, guess what? Their message gets out, yours doesn't, and the problem increases.

Truth is, if we had taken care of this problem 20 years ago, or hell, in 1991, we'd be in much better shape today. If we would have waited another ten, we'd look a lot worse than we do today.

The true danger of Islamophobia is the fact that it's a term used to make people feel badly about suspecting a group of people who are very, very suspect and who have a lot to hide. I know people say don't blame Islam, but in truth, Muslims have not done enough to reign in their wild children.

Tracer Bullet
07-06-07, 05:15 PM
Yeah, this whole "Islam is peace" junk is nonsense. No Judeo-Christian religion is "peace". It just so happens that Islam hasn't been tempered by secularism yet.

DVD Polizei
07-06-07, 07:38 PM
The US and the UK, as well as other modern countries should start forcing Islamic countries, one by one, to admit that those who try to commit suicide attacks, are not going to paradise. Becasue what happens, is after a successful or unsuccessful attack, the Muslims go to their corner, and the Christians go to theirs. We need to start calling out Muslim nations and force them to give an official answer on suicide attacks, and even start a worldwide television campaign showing radicals killing themselves and then saying something to the effect of, "You do not go to paradise. You only further death and mayhem."

The radicals already have their television campaigns so why the fuck can't we have ours? We are so far behind in the publicity area, it's sickening because we have the better technology.

wishbone
07-06-07, 09:41 PM
Radicals vs. moderates: British Muslims at crossroads
POSTED: 4:37 p.m. EST, January 22, 2007

DUBLIN, Ireland (CNN) -- At a recent debate over the battle for Islamic ideals in England, a British-born Muslim stood before the crowd and said Prophet Mohammed's message to nonbelievers is: "I come to slaughter all of you."

"We are the Muslims," said Omar Brooks, an extremist also known as Abu Izzadeen. "We drink the blood of the enemy, and we can face them anywhere. That is Islam and that is jihad."

Anjem Choudary, the public face of Islamist extremism in Britain, added that Muslims have no choice but to take the fight to the West.

"What are Muslims supposed to do when they are being killed in the streets in Afghanistan and Baghdad and Palestine? Do they not have the same rights to defend themselves? In war, people die. People don't make love; they kill each other," he said. (Audio slide show: Preying on Britain's young Muslims)

But in the same debate, held on the prestigious grounds of Dublin's Trinity College in October, many people in the crowd objected.

"These people, ladies and gentleman, have a good look at them. They actually believe if you kill women and children, you will go to heaven," said one young Muslim who waved his finger at the radicals.

"This is not ideology. It's a mental illness."

'Foreign policy has a lot to do with it'

This war of words is part of a larger debate going on in Britain -- the war within the Muslim community for the hearts and minds of young people. The battle of ideas came to the fore again this week when the trial began for six men who are accused of an "extremist Muslim plot" to target London on July 21, 2005.

The Woolwich Crown Court was told the men plotted to carry out a series of "murderous suicide bombings" on London's public transport system, just 14 days after the carnage of the July 7 London bombings, which killed 52 commuters and four bombers.

While Islamic extremists are believed to be a tiny minority of Britain's 1.6 million Muslims, they have no problem having their criticism heard. They have disdain for democracy -- and, most of all, the Bush administration's war on terror policies.

A poll taken in June 2006 for the Times of London newspaper suggested that 13 percent of British Muslims believe the July 7 London bombers were martyrs.

"Foreign policy has a lot to do with it," said Hanif Qadir, a youth worker and a moderate voice for Islam in Walthamstow, one of London's biggest Muslim neighborhoods. "But it's the minority radical groups that use that to get to our young people."

In August, British police descended on Walthamstow, saying they had foiled a conspiracy to blow up a dozen U.S.-bound airliners with liquid explosives. That set off the biggest security alert since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Police arrested 24 people in connection with the alleged terror plot, although one man was released after it was determined he was an innocent bystander.

Britain's Scotland Yard and MI5 have also said they are aware of at least 30 terrorist cells and potential plots inside Britain.
'Blowing people up is quite cool'

Young Muslims are easy prey, Qadir told CNN, because they believe the British government crackdown has scapegoated them because of their religious beliefs. The youth also can empathize with those who castigate the Bush administration.

There are some who believe "blowing people up is quite cool," Qadir said.

Qadir asked them why that was justified.

"The answers that I got back is: When a bomb goes off in Baghdad or in Afghanistan and innocent women and children are killed over there, who cares for them? So if a bomb goes off in America or in London, what's wrong with that?" he said.

Qadir is trying to get mosque leaders, many still practicing the tribal traditions of Pakistan, to communicate with the younger generation. But he says it is an uphill battle when radicals like Choudary dominate the debate, getting their faces -- and their message -- out in the public.

"Our scholars ... are not coming out of their holes -- their mosques and their holes -- to engage with these people. They're frightened of that," Qadir said.

The message of extremism can also thrive among youth who see no way out of ethnic ghettos.

"They're into all kinds of vices -- street crime, gun crime, drugs, car theft, credit card fraud. But then now you've got another threat," Qadir said.

"The new threat is radicalism. It's a cause. Every young man wants a cause."
Activist calls for Islamic law

Choudary, whose group Al-Mahajiroun disbanded before the British government could outlaw it under its anti-terror laws, spoke to CNN and made clear he wants to see Islamic law for Britain.

"All of the world belongs to Allah, and we will live according to the Sharia wherever we are," said Choudary, a lawyer. "This is a fundamental belief of the Muslims." (Watch a call for Islamic law Video)

Asked if he believes in democracy, he said, "No, I don't at all."

"One day, the Sharia will be implemented in Britain. It's a matter of time."

Choudary cited the videotaped "will" of one of the London subway bombers, Mohammed Sidique Khan, who said, "Until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people, we will not stop this fight."

Choudary said he sides strongly with that statement -- "we have everything we need in those wills" -- and he cited passages from the Muslim holy book, the Quran, that he says justify jihad.

"I happen to be in an ideological and political war," Choudary said. "My brothers in al Qaeda and other Mujahedeen are involved in a military campaign."

While Choudary and other radicals continue to try to spread their beliefs, others say there is no justification for jihad in England. Imam Usama Hasan memorized the Quran by the time he was 11 and at 19, he briefly fought in Afghanistan against the Soviets.

"If you have the wrong intention, you can justify your criminal actions from any text -- whether it's the Quran or Bible or Shakespeare," Hasan said.

He said it makes him "furious" when radicals quote the Quran out of context to justify killing of innocents. It's a "very tiny" minority with such beliefs, he said, but "it only takes a handful, of course, to create devastation."

"Many people are terrified of Muslims. They are terrified of a brother walking down the road with his eastern dress and his hat and his beard, because they have seen these images associated with suicide bombers," he said.

"It is up to us to dispel that fear -- to smile at people to tell them that ... the message of Islam is not about bits of cloth. It is not about the beard or head scarf or the face veil or violence. It is about peace."I thought it was rather telling after the subway attacks in Britain a few years ago when some Muslims were quoted as saying, "How could they (Muslims) attack other Muslims?" Should not the moderate response have been, "How can they attack other people?"

DVD Polizei
07-06-07, 10:14 PM
Maybe. But it's up to Islamists to point this out and teach this very important point to their children. Unfortunately, I see the opposite. I see the teaching of Muslims as victims who have no choice but to fight back.

DVD Polizei
07-06-07, 11:22 PM
Are you sure the Arabs, after conquering a land, just didn't translate the land's fellow scientists and philosophers such as Hippocrates, Aristotle, Archimedes, and others into Arabic?

If anything, Islam is going backward. Take a look at Saudi Arabia, who refuses to use any documents after the first 300 years of Islam's reign. This took form fairly recently, in the 1700's.

I do agree though, there will be or should be, theoretically, a period of enlightenment, but what will be the catalyst for such change would have to be monumental.

Speaking of...

There might be one little glimmer of hope. Dubai is rapidly expanding for tourism and creating massive structures because they know oil is running out. Once the oil runs out, then you'll have more dedication for science and philoshophy from Arabs.

TimJS
07-07-07, 12:27 AM
There was this American Muslim and author on TV the other day who said radical Muslims get their ideology from people like Howard Zinn rather than the Koran. I think that is accurate.

rotfl

You've given this a great deal of thought, obviously! :fart:

wishbone
07-07-07, 06:50 AM
Islam was once the most advanced and tolerant civilization. I see no reason why it can't enjoy a rebirth like Christianity did.Are you sure the Arabs, after conquering a land, just didn't translate the land's fellow scientists and philosophers such as Hippocrates, Aristotle, Archimedes, and others into Arabic?

If anything, Islam is going backward. Take a look at Saudi Arabia, who refuses to use any documents after the first 300 years of Islam's reign. This took form fairly recently, in the 1700's.
Islam's Forsaken Renaissance
by Mahathir bin Mohamad
(Friday, May 25, 2007)

"...the Qur’an is not a talisman to be hung around our necks for protection against evil. Allah helps those who improve their minds."

Children often play a game where they sit in a circle and one whispers something to his neighbor, who then whispers that information to the next child, and so on, around to the beginning again. By the time the last child whispers the information to the first, it is often totally different from what was originally said.

Something like that seems to have happened within Islam. Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, brought one - and only one - religion. Yet today we have perhaps up to a thousand religions that all claim to be Islam.

Divided by their different interpretations, Muslims do not play the role they once did in the world; instead, they are weakened and victimized. The Shia/Sunni schism, for example, is so deep that each side condemns followers of the other as apostates, or kafir. The belief that another group’s religion is not Islam, and that its followers are not true Muslims, has historically fuelled internecine wars and conflicts in which millions have died - and continue to die.

Even among the Sunnis and Shias there are further divisions. The Sunnis have four imams and the Shias have twelve; their teachings all differ. Then there are other divisions, including the Druze, the Alawites, and the Wahabis.

We are also taught by our ulamas (religious instructors) that their teachings must not be questioned: Islam is a faith which must be believed without question and logic or reason plays no part in it. But what is it that we must believe when each branch of Islam thinks the other one is "wrong"? The Qur’an, after all, is one book -- not two or three, nor a thousand.

And according to the Qur’an, a Muslim is anyone who bears witness that "there is no God but Allah, and that Muhammad is his Rasul (messenger)." If no other qualification is added, then all those who subscribe to these precepts must be regarded as Muslims. But because we Muslims like to add qualifications that often derive from sources other than the Qur’an, our religion’s unity has been broken.

Perhaps, the greatest problem of all today is the progressive isolation of Islamic scholarship - and much of the rest of Islamic life - from the rest of the modern world. We live in an age of science in which people can see around corners, hear and see things happening in outer space, and clone animals. And all of these things seem to contradict our belief in the Qur’an.

But this is so only because those who interpret the Qur’an are learned only in religion, and in religious laws and practices; thus they are usually unable to understand today’s scientific miracles. The fatwas (legal opinions concerning Islamic law) that they issue appear unreasonable and cannot be accepted by those with even basic scientific knowledge.

One learned religious teacher, for example, refused to believe that a man had landed on the moon. Others assert that the world was created 2,000 years ago. The age of the universe, or measurements of the size of our own galaxy in light years, are ideas that ulamas (Islamic instructors) who are exclusively trained in religion cannot comprehend.

This failure is largely responsible for the sad plight of so many Muslims. Today’s oppression, the killings and the humiliations of Muslims, occurs because we are weak, unlike many Muslims of the past. We can feel victimized and criticize the oppressors, but to stop them we need to look at ourselves and must change for our own good. We cannot ask our detractors to change, so that Muslims benefit.

So, what do we need to do? In the past, Muslims were strong because they were learned. Muhammad’s injunction was to read, but the Qur’an does not say what to read. Indeed, there was no "Muslim scholarship" at the time, so to read meant to read whatever was available. Thus early Muslims read the works of the great Greek scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers; they also studied the works of the Persians, the Indians, and the Chinese.

The result was a great flowering of science and mathematics. Muslim scholars added significantly to the body of world knowledge and developed new disciplines, such as astronomy, geography, and new branches of mathematics. They introduced numerals, enabling simple and limitless calculations.

But around the fifteenth century, Muslim intellectuals began to curb scientific studies and to focus on religion alone, insisting that only those who study religion - particularly Islamic jurisprudence - would gain merit in the afterlife. The result was a widespread Muslim intellectual regression at the very moment when the rest of Europe began embracing scientific and mathematical knowledge.

And so, as Muslims were intellectually regressing, Europeans began their renaissance, developing improved ways of meeting their societal and economic needs -- including the manufacture of weapons that eventually allowed them to dominate the world. By contrast, Muslims became fatally weakened in their ability to defend themselves by neglecting, even rejecting, the study of allegedly "secular" sciences and mathematics.

This cultural myopia remains a fundamental source of the oppression suffered by Muslims today. Many Muslims still condemn the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kamal, because he tried to modernize his country. But would Turkey be Muslim today without Ataturk? Mustafa Kamal’s clear-sightedness saved Islam in Turkey and saved Turkey for Islam.

Failure to understand and interpret the true and fundamental message of the Qur’an has brought only misfortune to Muslims. By limiting our reading to religious works and neglecting modern science, we destroyed Islamic civilization and lost our way in the world.

The Qur’an says, "Allah will not change our unfortunate situation unless we make the effort to change it." Many Muslims continue to ignore this and instead merely pray to Allah to save us, to bring back our lost glory.

But the Qur’an is not a talisman to be hung around our necks for protection against evil. Allah helps those who improve their minds.http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/43693

wishbone
07-07-07, 06:56 AM
Here is an article I found online when I was looking up info on double entry accounting awhile ago:Prosperity and the rise and fall of Islam

At one time Muslim culture led the world in knowledge and prosperity. Now, in most respects, it lags far behind. What are the factors that led to its rise and subsequent fall? Are the factors due do Islam or in spite of it? Is the West to blame for the relative poverty of Islamic societies or does Islam itself contribute to this situation? To investigate these matters we need to look at historical developments, the nature of wealth generation and the role of Islam in it.

In its early years, Islam spread rapidly. Within a century, Islam had conquered Persia, Palestine, Egypt, and had swept across North Africa and into Spain. The reasons for this expansion were partly a matter of conquest, especially on the part of the Umayyad caliphs, who ruled from Damascus. The role of slavery in this military success cannot be discounted, as well as Islam’s ease of recruitment, and its promise of paradise. But Islam’s success may also have been due to its ability to transcend nations and races, its provision of a common language and its moral code which provided a great advance over tribal culture, assisting commercial relations, trade and trust between traders. In addition its monetary and accounting systems and legal code were useful in adjudicating financial contracts and disputes. This expansion in trade, as well as the open intellectual environment of early Islam, gave rise to the wealth of its civilization.

The Abbasid dynasty, which ruled from Baghdad from 750 to 1258, provided the peak of Islamic civilization. In the 9th century the collective sayings and interpretations of the early caliphs were recorded in the hadith. The Abbasid’s greatest achievements were in the area of philosophy, science and mathematics, in which they led the world. They studied, preserved and translated the Greek classics. The Muslim world is justifiably proud of its achievements in this regard. Muslim scholars provided major contributions to mathematics, algebra, trigonometry, chemistry, physics and medicine. This was a civilization that surpassed all others in its prosperity and achievement.

Much of the knowledge of the Greek philosophers was known to the Romans, including for example the teachings of Aristotle, who advocated reason and logic. While the Romans had a sophisticated financial sector, they showed little interest in mathematics. In 529 Christian Emperor Justinian closed down the Athenian schools of philosophy. What followed was the Dark Age in Europe, in which there was no progress for centuries and no practice of science or philosophy. The works of the ancient Greeks were lost to Europe. Meanwhile the teachings of the Greek philosophers were preserved in the East and were continued, enhanced and developed by Muslim philosophers.

A great advantage was provided by the introduction from India of Hindu-Arabic numerals, which provided a pivotal advance over the cumbersome Roman numerals. This development of a more convenient number system assisted progress in science accounting and bookkeeping. Key to this was the use of the number zero, a concept unknown to the Romans. These numerals were adopted by the Arabs, starting around 750. Around 820 the mathematician Al-Khwarizmi studied them and used them in calculations. Al Khwarizmi originated "algebra". He applied this knowledge to contracts, surveying and tax collection. The use of this number system spread throughout the Muslim world over the next two centuries, assisting the development of science. The system was first mentioned in Europe around 1200, but Christian adherence to the Roman system hindered its use and introduction. It was only fully accepted in Europe after it was adopted by the Italian traders in the Renaissance of the 16th century, who followed the practice of their Arab trading partners.

Another of the great Muslim philosophers was Ibn Rashd (known in the West as Averroes), who lived in Muslim Spain in the twelfth century. He continued the philosophy of Aristotle. He wrote of the harmony of religion and philosophy. He believed the Quran contained the highest truth while maintaining that its words should not be taken literally. He proposed a dual method of expounding theology, one for the intellectuals and another for the masses in general. He believed that to the masses, one must speak of religion, but to the enlightened few one may disclose scientific truth. He was saddened by the fate of women in society, stating that no scope was allowed for the development of their talents, and that they seemed to be destined exclusively to childbirth and servility to their husbands. His writings did not please religious zealots and he was removed from his post as judge and physician to the ruler in Cordoba.

Subsequently in the Muslim world the teachings of Averroes were considered to be too rationalistic, and the religious orthodoxy was not further challenged by philosophers. This came to be known as the closing of the "gate of ijtihad" (independent thought). However in Christian Europe, Averroes’ teachings aroused much interest. The philosophy of the ancient Greeks was rediscovered via the Muslim world. Many centuries were spent trying to reconcile this philosophy with Christian belief. As the universities slowly obtained greater independence from the church, the writings of Aristotle and Averroes’ interpretations of them became a subject of debate. This created turmoil in the minds of many medieval European intellectuals but helped sow the seeds of the Renaissance and stimulate interest in scientific investigation.

Muslim scholars argue that Quran urges quest for knowledge of nature by observation, and this inspired the development of scientific method by Muslims. However in the 12th century when Muslim philosophers began to suggest that truth itself may be revealed by empirical observation as well as from the Quran, there was a religious crackdown, the gate of ijtihad was closed and scientific research largely ceased in the Muslim world. It was eventually pursued in Europe, but not without resistance from religious authorities there. The start or the 13th century saw the beginning of the relative decline of Islamic civilization. This decline was not caused by outside forces. It was not caused by a lack of dedication to Islam. It was caused by Islam itself. This is because rejection of science and scientific method was rejection of what was to later become the main driving force in industrial prosperity.

Scientific research in the Muslim world declined and the intellectual environment became inhospitable to the open and honest exchange of ideas. The craft guilds, which also existed in Europe, may have been more successful under Islam in preserving their monopolies, excluding competition and product improvement. Craftsmen were granted higher status than merchants, and were able to restrict the idea of free competition. There was a feeling in the Muslim world that improvement was unnecessary, except perhaps in the technology of warfare. Gradually all the advancements known to the Muslim world passed to Europe, where the knowledge was eventually utilized to greater effect.

Another invention of the Muslims, arising from their advantage in numeracy, eventually also proved of great benefit to Europe. This was the accounting innovation of double entry book keeping. This was originally devised to reduce bookkeeping errors. Every transaction was entered both as a debit and a credit. The totals of each should balance. It was soon seen to have other advantages. It enabled managers to determine the net worth of their business at any time, and enabled the business as to be seen as an entity in itself, distinct from the owner. This assisted in another aspect of trade, that of the extending of credit to parties who are not well known to the lender, by providing and accepted basis for business valuation.

The bookkeeping system, and its numerical basis became known to Italian merchants through their contact with Arab traders, and later spread through Europe. The innovation of double entry bookkeeping led to other financial innovations. Bills of exchange, were used in the 13th century by traders. These were promissory notes which allowed merchants to transfer amounts they owed each other without the need to exchange coins or goods directly. Lesser merchants found that by depositing funds with prominent trading families, they could obtain drafts which were credible money in distant places. Others found that they were able to purchase at a discount, bills redeemable at a later date. This was an implicit interest rate that for the Europeans did not violate the prohibition on usury.

Such a prohibition has always been recognized in Islam, where any borrowing or lending of money for interest is considered usury. Certain measures have been developed to provide alternatives, or to circumvent the ban, but this type of economic sanction has traditionally been held as one reason the Islamic countries began to fall behind Europe after about the 13th century. The prohibition of interest in Islam prevented the development of financial markets and institutions that later became essential to the provision of private investment beneficial to the community.

An inevitable aspect of government finance is the collection of taxes. In ancient times the collection of taxes was often hash and inequitable. The task of collecting taxes was often contracted out to private agents or "tax farmers". These tax collectors often had the power to extort and intimidate, and confiscate property. They may have forced deficient taxpayers into agreements involving delayed payments with excessive interest penalties. These agents were often closely associated with the financiers and profiteers from public works, combining to give the industry a poor reputation. This is reflected in the views of the ancient philosophers regarding the morality of such activities. The ancient religions including Islam all adopted the belief in the immorality of interest payments. However in later Christian philosophy it was considered that if a person was to lend a sum of money, and forgo any claim on it until a certain future date, then that person was entitled to some monetary reward for that sacrifice. That reward, in relation to the sum, was interest. It was thus considered that only an excessive rate of interest, rather that all interest, could be considered usury. Such an interpretation is prohibited in Islam.

In the 13th century, European governments began to move away from arbitrary systems of taxation and towards more predictable collection. In England and later in Holland, this was performed by the merchant class, on behalf of the government. In the Muslim world tax collection remained in the hands of a centralized bureaucracy. The tax environment in Europe allowed capital assets such as ships and trading stations to be owned and operated without fear of arbitrary seizure by governments. Large scale private investments were then possible. This provided great advantage to European merchants over their counterparts in the Islamic world, as well as in India and China.

In 1258 Baghdad fell to the invading Mongols and the empire collapsed. Soon however, three separate Islamic empires rose to replace it. Isfahan became the centre of an Iranian empire, Delhi was the centre of the Mughal empire and Constantinople, renamed Istanbul, was the centre of the Ottoman empire. Islam retained its military prowess for many centuries but it never regained its technological or economic supremacy. Eventually it fell victim to Western imperialism and colonialism. This did not lead to any particular examination of Muslim society, or any real consideration of the reasons for its comparative decline. Rather, it led to a reaffirmation of Muslim values. While there was resentment of western influence, intensified due to the generally non-Islamic colonial elites imposed on them, there was little desire to emulate the European urge to explore and exploit. Unlike the Crusaders, the European imperialists were interested in trade rather that religious conquest. Local religions were tolerated. Muslims meanwhile, contented themselves with their Islamic sense of moral superiority.

The colonial administrators of Muslim countries often viewed Islamic culture as inimical to development and progress. It was suggested that Islam’s attitude to material values, to work, thrift, productive investment, honesty in commercial relations, experimentation and risk bearing, and to equality of opportunity were all unhelpful to growth and development. The choice for Muslim leaders was between "Mecca" and "mechanisation". On balance, it appears the argument has mostly been won by Mecca. The first printing press to serve Muslims was not established until nearly three centuries after its use began in Europe. It was suggested the education system, with emphasis on rote learning, inhibited the development of inquiring minds devoted to problem solving. But for too long, the real problem has been avoided and ignored. Islam is the problem. It does not provide knowledge but rather suppresses the quest for knowledge. In doing so, it does not encourage prosperity but discourages it. It does not benefit society but harms it. Muslims desperately need to break out of the strait-jacket that Islam imposes upon them.

Modern prosperity, with all its improvement in welfare, has been delivered to humanity by science and technology. In the last two centuries especially, science has delivered better lives for people, longer lives, and for larger populations. The key to unlocking the source of these benefits was scientific method, the relentless search for truth though observation, theorizing and testing. It has been the historical role of all religions to attempt to suppress this quest for truth. Such a quest threatens the basis of all religions – the unquestioned "truth" of the sacred book. Almost the first words of the Quran are "This book is not to be doubted". Why should God fear doubt? A prohibition of doubt is a virtual admission of untruth. All books should be doubted, especially if they attempt to suppress it. Doubt is the source of all knowledge. Only by the expression of doubt, and from that the the elimination of falsity, can truth be revealed. The Quran does not contain truth. It does not benefit Muslims to believe it. Neither does it define morality – it contradicts it.

In the 13th century the Muslim world, with its development of the culture of science, mathematics, physics, chemistry and medicine, led the world. This was despite Islam, not because of it. The Muslim world once possessed in its hands the keys to the future prosperity that technology could deliver. Not only that, but with the invention of double entry bookkeeping, it possessed in its hands the blueprint of the plans for the modern corporation. Because of Islam, because of the Quran, these keys were thrown away. Eventually, after several hundred years, Europe was able to absorb this knowledge and overthrow the dark constraint of its own religion to unlock the mysteries of science and discover the path to prosperity. If the Muslim world had been able to continue on this path itself, the cause of human progress would have been advanced by about five hundred years.

(C) Copyright 2003 John L Perkinshttp://home.alphalink.com.au/~jperkins/ProspIsl.htm

Ky-Fi
07-07-07, 08:36 AM
Islam was once the most advanced and tolerant civilization. I see no reason why it can't enjoy a rebirth like Christianity did.



Well, you could say it was the most advanced and tolerant at the time, compared to the Christian world, but IMO that's really more of a damning conclusion about the lack of tolerance in the Christian world rather than the enlightenment of the Islamic world. Islam has always considered 'people of the book' (Jews and Christians) to be of a higher level than pagans, and as such special rules have always been in place for their treatment under Islam---Christians and Jews would be allowed to practice their religion, as long as they paid a special tax, wore certain clothes, didn't proseletyze, etc---and they were not to have the same legal and civil status as Muslims were. They were allowed to live in peace, as a subjugated people. So, you've got a point, and yes, you could say that was tolerant compared to some of the conditions a Jew or Muslim would have faced in Christian countries at the time, but I don't think it stands up to any modern liberal definition of 'tolerant'.

Also, as wishbon3 wondered "why aren't Muslims angry that the terrorists have killed other PEOPLE, and not just other Muslims?" And that's another rather unique aspect about Islam. Most other world religions and philosophies--Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc., have the "Golden Rule"--do unto others as you would have done to you. In Islam, the rule is "do unto other MUSLIMS as you would have done to you." Does that mean most Muslims don't treat non-Muslims fairly or honestly? Of course not, but that distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims is a major part of the religion.

Now, I do hold out hope that Islam can be reformed enough to coexist peacefully with the modern world, and I certainly want to side with the true Muslim reformers who are working to do just that. But it's an uphill battle. I think many in the West just kind of assume that Islam has historically gone through the same liberalization that Christianity and Judaism has, and that now Muslim extremists are analogous to Christian and Jewish extremists, and from my understanding, that's just not accurate at all:

Theological Impediments to Reform

So why is there a growing discrepancy between the penalties justified in Islamic jurisprudence and the far more serious punishments applied? Traditional Muslims believe that the Qur'an is immutable. It is not just a sacred text like the Torah or the New Testament but a direct copy of God's word imprinted on the mind of Muhammad via recitation from the Archangel Gabriel. It cannot be rewritten. Indeed, a hadith attributes to Muhammad the saying, "Whosoever disputes a single verse of the Qur'an, strike off his head."[16]

This doctrine has become pernicious for all who attempt a modern understanding of the scripture. Whereas progressive Jewish and Christian scholars and clerics have devised forms of higher criticism that tackle issues of context and period, all efforts to do the same thing with the Qur'an have met with fierce resistance. Several Muslim reformers—notably Pakistani academic Fazlur Rahman (1911-88), Iranian cleric Muhammad Mujtahid-i Shabestari (b. 1936), Iranian philosopher ‘Abd al-Karim Soroush (b. 1945), and the Syrian Muhammad Shahrur (b. 1938)—have tried to develop ways to account for the social, linguistic, and religious environment at the time of the Qur'an's revelation when adjudicating and legislating on matters relevant to the modern world, such as women's rights. Their efforts have pushed the debate in a positive direction, but they are both better understood and better liked in the West than in the Muslim world.[17]

Muslim reactions to such reformist initiatives have been largely hostile and even violent. In the 1960s, a Pakistani religious court sentenced Fazlur Rahman to death.[18] Vigilantes have attacked Souroush on numerous occasions,[19] and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born ex-member of the Dutch parliament;[20] Canadian writer Irshad Manji;[21] and Los Angeles-based psychologist Wafa Sultan, [22] all outspoken critics of Islamic social practice, are in hiding or under guard.

The pressure to reject contextualization of the Qur'an is illustrated by two cases, occurring more than sixty years apart in Egypt. In 1930, a cleric named Muhammad Abu Zayd, published a book of Qur'an exegesis titled Al-Hidaya wa'l-'Irfan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an bi'l-Qur'an, in which he treated concepts such as paradise as metaphors. Other clerics at Cairo's Al-Azhar University, the central seat of religious learning and authority in Sunni Islam, condemned him. Rashid Rida' issued a more forceful condemnation, accused the author of being an apostate, and called for his forcible divorce. All copies of the tafsir were collected by the police and destroyed. Clerics who had read it were dismissed from their posts.[23]

In 1992, history repeated itself. Egyptian academic Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd presented research in application for a full professorship at Cairo University. His work argued that the Qur'an had been written in a human language so that men could understand it. Since it was in a specific language, he argued, it was legitimate to read it with reference to our knowledge of seventh-century Arabic and the human world to which it was directed. His arguments created an uproar. Al-Azhar University condemned him. Leaflets and the popular press accused him of heresy. The Egyptian government tried him before a secular court on charges of apostasy. He was declared a heretic (mulhid) and an apostate (murtadd) and became the object of death threats from radical Islamists throughout the country. An Egyptian court ordered that he and his wife be divorced on the grounds that a Muslim woman cannot be married to a non-Muslim, even as he denied ever abandoning his faith. He now teaches at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands.[24] That parallel situations would occur sixty years apart illustrates how stifled scholarly discourse is at Al-Azhar.

A particularly flagrant example of academic suppression in a modern Shi‘ite context may be seen in the case of ‘Abdulaziz Sachedina, a prominent Shi‘ite academic, professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia, and coauthor of Human Rights and the Conflict of Cultures: Western and Islamic Perspectives on Religious Liberty.[25] In August 1998, Sachedina, who had received complaints from his local Muslim community about his teaching and writing about Islam, held a meeting in Najaf, Iraq, with grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. In the course of this interview, as recorded in detail by Sachedina, Sistani demanded that he could no longer "express any opinions in matters dealing with Islam, its religion, and its teachings." Prominent among the many theological errors of which Sachedina was accused was his promotion of an irenic, pluralist approach to Judaism and Christianity, which he saw as equals of Islam.[26]

The net result of such incidents is discouragement of serious revisionist work on the Qur'an and the Hadith. Fear for one's life, the safety of one's family, or one's livelihood are powerful disincentives to saying or writing anything controversial. The only arena in which open debate on such matters takes place is in Western academe, but it is likely here that some Muslim academics living in the West and, indeed, some Western scholars of Islam have chosen safer areas in which to carry out research, knowing the risks they now run from a single accusation of defamation.

http://www.meforum.org/article/1000

And, the author's suggestions:

On a wider scale, a major debate needs to take place between advocates of Islamic or other relativist human rights agendas and supporters of the principle that such rights are, by their very nature, universal and applicable to all people at all times and in all places. Unfortunately, that debate cannot take place openly while there is a threat of violence from those who oppose the notion of human rights as a Western or Zionist evil.

What are the policy implications of this situation for Western countries, the U.N., and international human rights organizations? One is that they should give more genuine support to Muslim reformers, their conferences and publications, and, where appropriate, their teaching positions. Another is to pressure Islamic governments to make arrests when death threats and similar menaces are used instead of open argument. A recent Saudi doctoral thesis listed two hundred names of intellectuals who must be killed while, in May 2006, Osama bin Laden declared open season on all Muslim freethinkers. Neither the Saudi government nor the Islamic establishment elsewhere have moved to counter such provocations.[42]

Human rights issues must be linked more firmly to trade and other agreements. The multiculturalist notion that Muslims may not be criticized for the use of unjust and cruel punishments must be countered. The stigma of political incorrectness is counterproductive. Islamic countries and ordinary Muslims must be given incentives to observe human rights norms within their borders and disincentives to apply the Shari‘a in harsh and unjust ways.

The case of Egyptian democracy activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim is instructive and suggests that outside pressure can work. In 2000, following his criticism of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's anointing of son Gamal as his successor, an Egyptian court arrested Ibrahim on spurious charges involving finance of his nongovernmental organization, the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies. The Bush administration responded by withholding nearly $200 million in aid pending Ibrahim's release. The Egyptian government responded by setting him free.

The payoff from support given to positive reform is potentially enormous. If genuinely reformist thinkers are enabled to have an impact within Muslim societies, violence, unjust punishments, and abuse of human rights in the name of religion will decline. In the end, a space for dialogue can only be opened up when intellectual debate joins forces with a determined war on terror—not only terror against Western interests but also against all violence done to Muslims themselves in the name of religion.

Denis MacEoin holds a Ph.D. in Persian studies from the University of Cambridge. He taught Arabic and Islamic Studies at Newcastle University and was for many years an honorary fellow at Durham University. He is currently the Royal Literary Fund Fellow at Newcastle University.

DVD Polizei
07-07-07, 10:03 AM
So, what we can get from this, is Islam is more diverse than it ever has been. Christianity, is more unified. Yes, we have our different sects, but the message from all pastors, ministers, preachers, and more importantly, the members of these churches, are still on the same unified path.

wishbone
07-07-07, 10:31 AM
So, what we can get from this, is Islam is more diverse than it ever has been. Christianity, is more unified. Yes, we have our different sects, but the message from all pastors, ministers, preachers, and more importantly, the members of these churches, are still on the same unified path.And while Christianity has its own minority of extremists, rarely do you hear mainstream Christians state that the extremists have valid points even though it does not represent the religion.

TimJS
07-07-07, 10:53 AM
And while Christianity has its own minority of extremists, rarely do you hear mainstream Christians state that the extremists have valid points even though it does not represent the religion.

So long as you exclude The Moral Majority, 700 club, Focus on The Family from the definition of "mainstream", yeah. On the other hand, none of these folks is ever 'publicly renounced' the way some seem to feel is required of Islam. You may hear a bit of a flap over some of the more extreme pronouncements in the very short term on mainstream media, but the principals are still treated as legit religious leaders in virtually all forums.

wishbone
07-07-07, 11:10 AM
The Moral Majority, 700 club, Focus on The Family, et al are extreme in their beliefs but I do not see them taking action like Timothy McVeigh, the KKK, the White Power movement, etc. The Islamic extremists are extreme and do take action based upon their beliefs, be it jihad, imposing Sharia law, etc.

TimJS
07-07-07, 12:46 PM
The Moral Majority, 700 club, Focus on The Family, et al are extreme in their beliefs but I do not see them taking action like Timothy McVeigh, the KKK, the White Power movement, etc. The Islamic extremists are extreme and do take action based upon their beliefs, be it jihad, imposing Sharia law, etc.

When abortion doctors are targeted, harrassed are even killed, this is not "like Timothy McVeigh, the KKK, the White Power movement"? I realize that none of these groups has claimed credit, but they are def fellow travelers to coin a phrase.

There generally are religious overtones to McVeigh and some of the other extremist groups that openly advocate violence. Former Presidential candidate (seperation of Church and state? c'mon) has openly said that democratically elected officials in foriegn countries should be assassinated.

I don't believe that such arguements are all that appropriate, but it would seem to be in the same league as many of the accussations which hold all of islam responsible for extremist actions.

classicman2
07-07-07, 01:10 PM
Timothy McVeigh didn't belong to any group - extremist or not.

McVeigh envisioned himself as a 20th Century Revolutionary - period.

I would like someone to explain to me what the 'religious overtones' of McVeigh were.

Rockmjd23
07-07-07, 02:26 PM
Before he was executed he described himself as an agnostic. We must be wary of his kind. ;)

DVD Polizei
07-07-07, 02:46 PM
Timothy McVeigh didn't belong to any group - extremist or not.

McVeigh envisioned himself as a 20th Century Revolutionary - period.

I would like someone to explain to me what the 'religious overtones' of McVeigh were.

How do you know that. Just about every group which was known to have helped out McVeigh in one way or another, denied his affiliation. Which is much different than a Muslim Extremist group, because they are more than willing to stand up and say who was affiliated with them.

In the US, these domestic terrorist groups were denying any affiliation because they knew they would be the target of public outrage and their militia movements would come to a screaching hault (militias actually suffered a blow anyway just because the name was mentioned).

After all, McVeigh killed innocent white people and children, so no militia or hate group could really publicly justify the killings, even though they helped the idiot with supplies and ideology. Secretly they patted each other on the back, and this wouldn't surprise me, but publicly, there's no way in hell this would fly.

For one who was said to not be a Christian, he sure associated himself neck-deep with those who were. On the one hand he said he didn't associate with his mother and father's Catholic beliefs, but then when he's about to be taken out of this world for killing scores of people, he calls for a priest.

The McVeigh case is an interesting case. It's interesting that the US is unwilling to find a religious connection to McVeigh, which is just the opposite of Muslim countries who justify their actions when someone commits a suicide attack.

The US (A Christian nation) is more accustomed to denial. Muslim countries are more accustomed to ignorance.

This argument reminds me of a similar situation, where a known terrorist from a Muslim country associates himself with Muslim extremists, accepts their help, etc., but yet some people still argue the guy was not a Muslim or didn't affiliate with Muslim beliefs. Well, if the guy wasn't Muslim, why the fuck did he associate with Muslims.

True, because of a lack of historical accuracy or just a lack of documentation on McVeigh's movements, it is somewhat difficult to say he was a Christian, but it's not too hard to say he sure wasn't Muslim, and he did believe in some type of God. And if he believed in some type of God, that God would more than likely be Christian.

Rockmjd23
07-07-07, 03:00 PM
For one who was said to not be a Christian, he sure associated himself neck-deep with those who were.
Kind of hard not to in the US. McVeigh aligned himself with those who were anti-government, like himself. I doubt he cared whether they were christian, jewish, or xenuish.

DVD Polizei
07-07-07, 03:37 PM
How many Jewish people did McVeigh hang out with. I'd like to know.

DVD Polizei
07-07-07, 03:40 PM
He was not representative of any kind of meaningful social or cultural force - unlike radical Islam. He was a fluke.

I think I just posted why he wasn't "representative". In the US, we deny it. Your post sounds a lot like what I've been talking about. Muslims could say the same thing you are about their minority of "fluke" terrorists.

Rockmjd23
07-07-07, 03:42 PM
How many Jewish people did McVeigh hang out with. I'd like to know.
:lol:Probably not that many considering they are represented by less than 2% of the population.

DVD Polizei
07-07-07, 03:46 PM
Then why did you say McVeigh didn't care if they were Jewish or not. If he wasn't in an area where Jews were highly unlikely, you answered your own argument as well as mine as to the overwhelmingly Christian environment.

Which is my point.

Rockmjd23
07-07-07, 03:48 PM
Then why did you say McVeigh didn't care if they were Jewish or not. If he wasn't in an area where Jews were highly unlikely, you answered your own argument. Which is my point.
I said he didn't care what religion they are. His motivations were political. He hated the US government, so did the seperatists that he aligned himself with.

DVD Polizei
07-07-07, 03:50 PM
Deny what? There simply is not an institution of terrorism in the U.S.

Finally, we get to the root of what I've been talking about.

This can be in another thread if you want as we're getting off the Islamophobia thread and going somewhere else. But suffice it to say, I disagree with your interpretation of terrorism in the US.

classicman2
07-07-07, 04:15 PM
How do you know that. Just about every group which was known to have helped out McVeigh in one way or another, denied his affiliation. Which is much different than a Muslim Extremist group, because they are more than willing to stand up and say who was affiliated with them.

In the US, these domestic terrorist groups were denying any affiliation because they knew they would be the target of public outrage and their militia movements would come to a screaching hault (militias actually suffered a blow anyway just because the name was mentioned).

After all, McVeigh killed innocent white people and children, so no militia or hate group could really publicly justify the killings, even though they helped the idiot with supplies and ideology. Secretly they patted each other on the back, and this wouldn't surprise me, but publicly, there's no way in hell this would fly.

What groups was he affiliated with?

Consider that question a challenge.

Please don't say militia - it'll clearly demonstrate that you know nothing about the McVeigh case.

I never said he wasn't a Christian. I said he was not driven by his Christian (or not) beliefs.

classicman2
07-07-07, 04:25 PM
Correction: I guess DVD Polizei would consider a gun show to ge a group.

The only reason he attended those was to sell things.

Much was made out of his trip to Waco - Branch Davidians. The reason he went - he was a huster. He was peddling his merchandise.

Ky-Fi
07-07-07, 04:55 PM
Great article. :up:



Islam managed to spread and rule over diverse peoples, from China to Spain. That was the result of enlightened rule as much as military prowess. In Indonesia, it spread its influence not by the sword but by accommodating to local practice. In India it took over many features of popular Hindu worship. In the Balkans they were seen as a relief from oppressive and exacting Christian rule.

Erudition, and not only in theology, but astronomy, poetry, geometry and history, was often seen as an indispensable quality of a proper Muslim aristocrat. In the early days too, women enjoyed a degree of freedom seldom found in any society before the Renaissance.

There is no doubt Islam is going through a crisis today. But it is my belief it is fueled primarily by Left-wing ideology rather than the Koran. It is no coincidence Saddam headed a socialist party, and that in whatever elections there are in the middle east not a single Liberal party exists, whereas there is always a varied choice of socialist and leftwing parties to go along with the Islamists. If you listen to their rhetoric, it uncannily resembles that of Latin American populists.

A century ago nobody gave a cent for China. It was seen as superstitious, languid, listless, a people incapable of any initiative and industry who gave themselves to destiny. Pretty much like Islam today.

Islam will probably never develop the individualism and conscience of the West. But it has many other strengths which it can cultivate.

Yeah, I would say I agree with your fundamental point. I think there are elements of the Koran and it's historical exegesis which make it uniquely difficult to reform, but I certainly do think it's capable of becoming much more liberal and compatible with modernity than it is now.

DVD Polizei
07-07-07, 05:19 PM
What groups was he affiliated with?

Consider that question a challenge.

Please don't say militia - it'll clearly demonstrate that you know nothing about the McVeigh case.

I never said he wasn't a Christian. I said he was not driven by his Christian (or not) beliefs.

Ask me a question in one sentence then say I don't know anything in another. Yeah, I'm going down that road. No thanks. You have your idea of McVeigh. I have mine.

DVD Polizei
07-07-07, 05:26 PM
Yeah, I would say I agree with your fundamental point. I think there are elements of the Koran and it's historical exegesis which make it uniquely difficult to reform, but I certainly do think it's capable of becoming much more liberal and compatible with modernity than it is now.

The problem is the violence of the few, dictating the religious practices of the many. This is the heart of the problem. You have a small section of ultra-conservative religious fanatics who are willing to commit acts of mayhem and destruction, which is enough to keep a country from becoming modern. I've also argued this before.

Just recently, we had another bombing in Iraq, killing over 100 people. It was a truck bomb. If we had the same acts going on in the US, we would be just as chaotic and frazzled as Iraq is now. We would have no "modern" society as we now experience it because it would be subject to spontaneous destruction by only a few violent radicals.

Just imagine cell phone towers being detonated to interrupt communications. Power stations being bombed so your electricity would not be reliable. Car bombs during major holidays at wholesale shopping centers.

TimJS
07-07-07, 05:46 PM
Timothy McVeigh didn't belong to any group - extremist or not.
...

I would like someone to explain to me what the 'religious overtones' of McVeigh were.

I'm not writing McViegh's biography, just illustrating how using the same sort of criteria some are using against Islam could be turned on Christianity. Therefore McVeigh would not have to say I'm a loyal follower of the Church of X, in order to appear to be linked to it. For instance, there are ministers who are and were anti-government, one could postulate the existance of an anti-govmt al quaida-style "network" who receive moral guidance from the Turner Diaries and, say, the anti-government minister who rants on some religious station. All of McViegh's anti-religious declarations in this scenario would be disinformation.

Someone posted something to the effect that McViegh was an aberration. A link to the Southern Poverty Center's tracking of Hate groups has already been provided. Here is another which links McVeigh with what I hope is a transparently overt Religious organization, from the Anti-Defamation League (http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Christian_Identity.asp?xpicked=4&item=Christian_ID) :

Christian Identity's racist and apocalyptic qualities helped lead to several well-known incidents of domestic terrorism during the past quarter century. ...
In the 1990s, Identity criminal activity continued apace, including efforts by an Oklahoma Identity minister, Willie Ray Lampley, to commit a series of bombings in the summer of 1995 in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh. The following year, the Montana Freemen, whose leaders were Identity, made headlines for their "paper terrorism" tactics and their 81-day standoff with the federal government. In 1998, Eric Rudolph, who had been associated with Identity ministers such as Nord Davis and Dan Gayman, became a fugitive after allegedly bombing gay bars, the Atlanta Summer Olympics, and an abortion clinic. The following year, Buford Furrow, a former Aryan Nations security guard, went on a shooting spree at a Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles, wounding four children and an adult, and later killing a Filipino-American postal worker.

And another from the Council For Secular Humanism (http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/aah/radford_10_3.htm) :

Tim McVeigh, convicted in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, had links to Christian Identity movements and placed two calls to an Oklahoma Identity group just days before the bombing.

The reason I have brought Pat Robertson's politics up a number of times is that I have seen his 88 run for the WH used to show that US seperation of Church and State is a myth; that McCain's appearance with Falwell, other candidate's visits to Bob Jones U, mean that the Political system is hardwired into religion, and when Shock and Awe comes down on an Islamic country, it might as well have bombs wrapped in Crusader doublets. Bush's supposed faux paux about a 'Crusade' against terrorism did nothing to dissuade the islamic population of these notions.

TimJS
07-07-07, 05:54 PM
What groups was he affiliated with?

Consider that question a challenge.

Please don't say militia - it'll clearly demonstrate that you know nothing about the McVeigh case.

I never said he wasn't a Christian. I said he was not driven by his Christian (or not) beliefs.

It is relatively unimportant whether evidence proving McVeigh's association with extremists, religious or otherwise, has been vetted within the context of this thread. What really matters is perception. You want proof of that perception, Google McVeigh & Christian, and you will find stories like this:

But no! Americans learned with a mind-numbing shock that the enemy was within. "How can Americans do this to other innocent American men, women and children?" many wondered. Timothy McVeigh, the convicted bomber, soon became a household name. Yet McVeigh is but the most visible figure in a potent network of perhaps five to 12 million people.

And the saddest twist in this bizarre tale? Many armed extremists wed Christian-sounding terminology to age-old racism, class hatred and hostility to government. Aryan Nations, based in Hayden Lake, Idaho, is dedicated to "the ongoing work of Jesus the Christ regathering His people, calling His people to a state for their nation to bring in His Kingdom."


They are not difficult to find.

classicman2
07-07-07, 09:30 PM
And the saddest twist in this bizarre tale? Many armed extremists wed Christian-sounding terminology to age-old racism, class hatred and hostility to government. Aryan Nations, based in Hayden Lake, Idaho, is dedicated to "the ongoing work of Jesus the Christ regathering His people, calling His people to a state for their nation to bring in His Kingdom."

And that has absolutely nothing to do with McVeigh.

The Southern Poverty Center proclaimed over and over that McVeigh belonged to militia groups. There is no evidence that he ever belonged to a militia group.

Ask me a question in one sentence then say I don't know anything in another. Yeah, I'm going down that road. No thanks. You have your idea of McVeigh. I have mine.

The diferrence is my idea is based on the facts. Yours is simply another one of the silly conspiracies that you tend to come up with time & time again on this forum.

TimJS
07-07-07, 10:24 PM
And that has absolutely nothing to do with McVeigh.

The Southern Poverty Center proclaimed over and over that McVeigh belonged to militia groups. There is no evidence that he ever belonged to a militia group.

The diferrence is my idea is based on the facts. Yours is simply another one of the silly conspiracies that you tend to come up with time & time again on this forum.

Considering your ideas on the libby matter expressed in that thread, I'm not altogether sure you have all that great a grasp on 'facts' let alone what they mean. I will not be taking your word over the SPC or anyone else with some degree of competence. I will state this again so that maybe on the 2nd go around you may pick it up:

It is relatively unimportant whether evidence proving McVeigh's association with extremists, religious or otherwise, has been vetted within the context of this thread.

Now I will explain that to you. It doesn't matter whether I believe Classicman2's "facts" about McVeigh, it doesn't matter whether Classicman2 believes his "fact"s are true, all that matters in the context of this thread is that there is readily available documentation which says there are connections between McVeigh and Religious extremists. In the context of this thread all that matters is an Islamic person could point to McVeigh and his connections to Religious extremists and say: Christians condone violence. In the event this hypothetical Islamic person thinks as much of your opinion as you appear to, that the numerous documents saying that which gratifies his need to villify/Demonize the West are not true, this person could also point to Eric Rudolph or Christain Identity as examples of Christian depravity.

I know that the cited paragraphs were difficult for you to follow, so I will summarize so that you might be able to reconsider. OK City was bombed by Timothy McVeigh the most visible member of a 'potent network of perhaps five to 12 million people.' I realize your "facts" say this is not true, but other people, apparently, disagree. The writer then goes on to say that '(m)any armed extremists wed Christian-sounding terminology to ...(extremist dogma). If one takes 'many armed extremists' as at least part of the 'potent network' cited in the previous sentence, it shouldn't take a great deal of imagination to say that there is a connection. I'm fairly certain that people have been imprisoned by our side on flimsier evidence.

Thank You for the insult, but I think it is you that is missing the relevant portion of this specific point.

TimJS
07-07-07, 10:56 PM
There is a colossal difference between a "connection" and a movement or feature that is socially meaningful. That there might be a Hindu guy living in Minnessota does not mean Minessota is a Hindu state.

Thanks for stating the obvious.

We can sign you up as someone who is unwilling to accept stereotypes of islamic people due to the actions and beliefs of a tiny minority of those whom we agree are extremists?

Or are you advocating a double standard, one for the non-muslims, and a different one for the Islamic world?

TimJS
07-07-07, 11:35 PM
I'm probably preaching to the deaf here... but Islamic extremism doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is not the result of random individuals choosing a way of life, but the outcome of profound social forces. In that sense, even though only a handful of Muslims might find themselves with explosives strapped around their waists, a vast institutional edifice stands besides them holding their hands.

The opposite is closer to the truth in the case of McVeigh.

Au Contraire, 'tis I preaching to the deaf. You have a belief system which permits you to pass judgement on the whole of a people based upon the actions of a very few. You think because the Koran (EZ spell) says things that Vandelay_Inds no likee or that Sharia says things that Vandelay_Inds no likee can be combined with terrorism that Vandelay_Inds no likee. And you no thinkee IslamoVandelay_Inds no likee things the Bible says and IslamoVandelay_Inds no likee things that Christian terrorists do because a 'vast institutional edifice stands besides them holding their hands'.>see Eric Rudolph>see Christian Identity.

And that, again is only part of it; our politicians court the vast institutional edifice's approval and proceed to kill innocent Islamic peoples without a 2nd thought.

Its not (or shouldn't be) too hard to imagine that an Islamic person would say, is Jerry Falwell meeting with John McCain to express his displeasure over US foriegn policy regarding the Islamic world? And, based upon numerous reports and opinions expressed by Rev Falwell conclude that this is highly improbable, and that being the case the aggression carried out against the innocent is proceeding with the Christian World's tacit approval?

It is pointless for you to tell me about how McVeigh is an aberration; I am not a fan of Falwell et al., but I do not believe McVeigh/Rudolph is a typical Christian. You might be able to convince an adversarial muslim, but I would not be thinking he would be any more perceptive than some of his Western counterparts.

You might be thinking Islam is a not so attractive religion, and you would not get any arguement from me, but theological criticisms are generally pointless (in the public policy arena) unless they inform/influence our policy-in this case with significant and, I'm afraid, tragic consequences.

DVD Polizei
07-08-07, 12:11 AM
Vandelay_Inds,

What about abortion radicals who kill doctors. You certainly do have an internal nodding of the head across various religious practices in the US. I agree, it's not as "cancerous" as Islam and their societal embrace, but still, we do have it here on a minor level. And it is growing due to the gradual polarization of our society. We still have a separation of state and religion which prevents such problems as Middle Eastern countries have, but we still do have the problem. So, I agree with you, but at the same time, we need to recognize Americans who practice their religion, can also have something in common.

Ky-Fi
07-08-07, 09:03 AM
Although I realise it's virtually impossible for the multiculturalists to consider this, there's still a pretty basic fact. Christians look at Jesus as the ultimate example to emulate. Jesus was non-violent, wielded no secular or military power, did not establish detailed social or legal standards, and told his followers to "give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's, Give to God what is God's."

Muslims look at Muhammed as the ultimate example to emulate. Muhammed was a warrior, a military leader, a conqueror, and a secular ruler who wielded vast power, and established codified legal and social rules, which were declared inseperable from the religion.

So to pretend that this is a minor detail, and that there's no bigger hurdles for a Muslim to overcome in relation to making his religion compatible with the secular, liberal modernity that grew out of the Christian west is just an example of pulling down the ideological blinders, IMO.

And once again, I just dont understand why people think they're helping Islam or Muslims by deflecting all criticism against Islam. If you've got a friend who is a raging alcoholic, and other people call him a raging alcoholic, and you say "Shut up, you're just being hateful and mean---we all have a bit too much to drink now and then, and you just don't know him--he's really a great guy!" ---Is that really helping your friend? That's enabling. I'm a Christian, and when non-Christians criticize and bring to light the actions of the white-supremacist churches, that HELPS ME. The Christian abolitionists WELCOMED support from secular opponents of slavery in their effort to show other Christians that slavery was un-Christian. And guess what, when somebody would have said, in the mid-1700s, that Christianity supported slavery, they WOULD HAVE BEEN RIGHT, BECAUSE IT DID. It's through harsh, unpleasant criticism, debate and action, both from Christians and others, that allowed Christianity to reform so that now it doesn't support slavery.

And I think my views are shared by, once again, Muslim reformer Irshad Manji in her latest piece:

ISLAM'S PROBLEM

By IRSHAD MANJI


July 8, 2007 -- LAST week, two very different Brits had their say about the latest terrorist plots in their country. Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the nation that "we have got to separate those great moderate members of our community from a few extremists who wish to practice violence and inflict maximum loss of life in the interests of a perversion of their religion." By contrast, a former jihadist from Manchester wrote that the "real engine of our violence" is "Islamic theology."
Months ago, this young man informed me that as a militant he raised most of his war chest not from obscenely rich Saudis, but from middle-class Muslim dentists living in the United Kingdom. There's sobering lesson here for the new prime minister.

So far, those arrested in connection to the car bombs are, by and large, medical professionals. The seeming paradox of the privileged seeking to avenge grievance has many champions of compassion scratching their heads. Aren't Muslim martyrs supposed to be poor, disenfranchised, and resentful about both?

WE should have been stripped of that breezy simplification by now. The 9/11 hijackers came from means. Mohamed Atta, their ringleader, earned an engineering degree. He then moved to the West, pursuing his post-graduate studies in Germany. No servile goat-herder, that one.

In 2003, I interviewed Mohammad Al Hindi, the political leader of Islamic Jihad in Gaza. A physician himself, Dr. Al Hindi explained the difference between suicide and martyrdom. "Suicide is done out of despair," the good doctor diagnosed. "But most of our martyrs today were very successful in their earthly lives."

In short, it's not what the material world fails to deliver that drives suicide bombers. It's something else. And, time and again, the very people committing these acts have articulated what that something else is: their religion.

CONSIDER Mohammad Sidique Khan, the teaching assistant who master minded the July 7, 2005 transit bombings in London.

In a taped testimony, Khan railed against British foreign policy. But before bringing up Western imperialism, he emphasized that "Islam is our religion" and "the Prophet is our role model." Khan gave priority to God, not to Iraq.

Now take Mohammed Bouyeri, the Dutch-born Moroccan Muslim who murdered Amsterdam film director Theo van Gogh. Bouyeri pumped several bullets into van Gogh's body. Knowing that multiple shots would finish off his victim, why didn't Bouyeri stop there? Why did he pull out a blade to decapitate van Gogh?

Again, we must confront religious symbolism. The blade is an implement associated with 7th-century tribal conflict. Wielding it as a sword becomes a tribute to the founding moment of Islam. Even the note stabbed into van Gogh's corpse, although written in Dutch, had the unmistakable rhythms of Arabic poetry.

Let's credit Bouyeri with honesty: At his trial he proudly acknowledged acting from "religious conviction."

DESPITE integrating Muslims far more adroitly than most of Europe, North America isn't immune. Last year in Toronto, police nabbed 17 young Muslim men allegedly plotting to blow up Canada's parliament buildings and behead the prime minister. They called their campaign "Operation Badr," a reference to the Battle of Badr, the first decisive military triumph achieved by the Prophet Mohammed. Clearly, the Toronto 17 drew inspiration from religious history.

For people with big hearts and good will, this has to be uncomfortable to hear. But they can take solace that the law-and-order types have a hard time with it, too. After rounding up the Toronto suspects, police held a press conference and didn't once mention Islam or Muslims. At their second press conference, police boasted about avoiding those words.

If the guardians of public safety intended their silence to be a form of sensitivity, they instead accomplished a form of artistry, airbrushing the role that religion plays in the violence carried out under its banner.

THEY'RE in fine company: Moderate Muslims do the same.

While the vast majority of Muslims aren't extremists, a more important distinction must start being made - the distinction between moderate Muslims and reform-minded ones. Moderate Muslims denounce violence in the name of Islam - but deny that Islam has anything to do with it.

By their denial, moderates abandon the ground of theological interpretation to those with malignant intentions - effectively telling would-be terrorists that they can get away with abuses of power because mainstream Muslims won't challenge the fanatics with bold, competing interpretations.

To do so would be admit that religion is a factor. Moderate Muslims can't go there.

Reform-minded Muslims say it's time to admit that Islam's scripture and history are being exploited. They argue for re-interpretation precisely to put the would-be terrorists on notice that their monopoly is over. Re-interpreting doesn't mean re-writing. It means re-thinking words and practices that already exist - removing them from a seventh-century tribal time warp and introducing them to a twenty first-century pluralistic context.

Un-Islamic? God no. The Koran contains three times as many verses calling on Muslims to think, analyze, and reflect than passages that dictate what's absolutely right or wrong. In that sense, reform-minded Muslims are as authentic as moderates, and quite possibly more constructive.

Irshad Manji is a senior fellow with the European Foundation for Democracy, the creator of the PBS documentary "Faith Without Fear" and author of "The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith." From TNR.com, the Web site of The New Republic.

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/07082007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/islams_problem_opedcolumnists_irshad_manji.htm

bhk
07-09-07, 02:07 PM
Great piece. Courageous woman. People need to read the emails she receives(and posts on her site).

Oraphus
07-09-07, 02:47 PM
You've just made generalizations about *all* muslims based on the actions of *some* muslims.

Congratulations! You're a bigot!

Wow.. haven’t checked this thread in a few days.. it really got some legs under it.

I guess you missed the whole part about moderate Muslims standing up against extremism. That is called ignorance and selective reading deficiency. Although... there might still be hope for you.

I don’t agree with a general term of Islamaphobia.. no such thing no matter how much you preach about it.
But in the end you don’t see any Jews, Christians or Hindus blowing themselves up in crowds of innocent by standers... even the most extreme sects of each religion.
The main issue i see being is that moderates are too few and far in between and most of are located in US. While majority of Muslims living in the middle east are either sympathetic to the extremists cause or at the very least turn a blind eye to what’s happening. In fact, in my experience this is the case with a good percentage of Muslims here in US as well.
I have no problem at all with any of the moderate Muslims, but it's up to the extremists and moderates to work out a compromise or for the moderates to re-teach or even exterminate (yes, i said it) the extremists, rather then pretending there is no problem.

Until that happens don't expect me to roll out the red carpet for Islam as a whole to join the Western World. Look at France as a prime example of what could happen.

eXcentris
07-09-07, 04:24 PM
Look at France as a prime example of what could happen.

Could you expand on this?

(This should be fun) :)

bhk
07-09-07, 04:48 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/08/nterr308.xml


Islamic charity linked to car bomb suspect
By Adam Lusher and Jasper Copping, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:29am BST 08/07/2007

It is an innocent looking semi-detached property in the university city of Cambridge from where an Islamic charity, dedicated to peace and interfaith friendship, operates.

The leaders of the Islamic Academy are so moderate that they were recently invited to share a platform with Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Yet there are growing suspicions that this suburban house is where the origins of the suspected London and Glasgow bomb plots may lie, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

The links between Bilal Abdullah, Kafeel Ahmed and others arrested in connection with the alleged plot came as shock to the unsuspecting congregation who gathered to pray at the Islamic Academy on Friday.

Security sources have confirmed to this newspaper their interest in the activities of several of the terror plot suspects in Cambridge. Sheikh Abdul Mabud, the Academy's chief executive, refused to discuss whether he had been contacted by police.

The academy's unwitting connection to these events may have begun in May 2004, with Kafeel Ahmed, 27, who is under police guard in hospital suffering from 90 per cent burns sustained in the botched Glasgow attack.

Between May 2004 and August 2005, as a PhD Student at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, he rented a room above the academy's offices and prayer chamber.

In the room next door, it can be revealed, was another lodger: the Cambridge organiser for Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), the radical Islamist movement which has caused such alarm that David Cameron, the Conservative leader, called on Wednesday for it to be banned.

Kafeel Ahmed would occasionally be visited by his brother Safeel, 26, a junior doctor who was last week arrested in Liverpool.

It is claimed, however, that a more frequent visitor to the house was Bilal Abdullah, 27, who was yesterday remanded in custody after being charged with conspiring to cause explosions. Three years ago, he is believed to have been living above a takeaway close to the academy.

The friendship, and possible radicalisation, in the house was witnessed by Shiraz Maher, a former HT member who claims that he and the group's leader would often meet with Kafeel Ahmed and Abdullah to discuss politics on the floor of the deserted, book-lined prayer room.

"The HT guys and Bilal controlled, steered and directed the conversation," Mr Maher alleged. "Kafeel listened more than he talked. He became more religious as he progressed.

"Everyone there contributed to Kafeel's radicalisation and he listened to all of us, but he and Bilal were very close. By the time I left Cambridge in July 2005, Kafeel and Bilal were probably best friends."

Mr Maher added that, with Mr Mabud often working away from his office at the academy, there was no need to disguise the radical opinions of the lodgers or their friends.

On Friday, those attending prayers at the academy, more than half of them in their twenties and many highly educated, insisted they could not remember any of the suspects.

Mr Mabud said that he remembered Sabeel Ahmed coming to visit his brother once or twice a year but insisted that he did not recognise the Kafeel Ahmed he knew in the photographs of the burned man at Glasgow Airport.

"The Kafeel Ahmed who lived here was a fine man, busy with his PhD, very polite," he said. "I would be very surprised if it turns out to be the man who was at Glasgow Airport."

Mr Mabud said that he had never seen Abdullah and did not remember the alleged HT leader. Explaining that he was the only person who regularly used the academy's offices, he added: "What more can we do? As human beings, you can only do so much."

A spokesman for HT said: "Our methodology is one of intellectual and political work and not militancy, violence or armed struggle. None of the suspects arrested were members of Hizb ut-Tahrir or had any affiliation whatsoever with Hizb ut-Tahrir."

Sejad Mekic, the imam at the Cambridge mosque which Abdullah also attended, gave a sermon on Friday condemning all acts of terror.

However, he later said he had doubts that the incident at Glasgow airport was a terrorist attack, saying it could have been a car accident.

"I still haven't made my conclusion," he said.

When it was pointed out that containers of petrol were reportedly found in the car, he said: "Maybe they used to sell petrol."

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/TrapKit/baghdad_bob_1.jpg

"They were just selling gasoline."

Oraphus
07-09-07, 05:55 PM
Could you expand on this?



http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18631
http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/france-immigration.html

It's not hard to find info on the internet, these are just the first few that came up in the search

I was referring to the muslim riots in Paris and increasing violence against Jews and women.

eXcentris
07-09-07, 10:59 PM
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18631
http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/france-immigration.html

It's not hard to find info on the internet, these are just the first few that came up in the search

I was referring to the muslim riots in Paris and increasing violence against Jews and women.

Ahhh you mean the Arab riots in France. And pray tell, what did these riots have to do with spreading Islamic fundamentalism?

You said:


Until that happens don't expect me to roll out the red carpet for Islam as a whole to join the Western World. Look at France as a prime example of what could happen.


France's problems stem from their policies of strict integration of Arab populations. And despite having much larger Arab/Muslim populations than countries like the UK or the Netherlands, they have far less problems with Islamic fundamentalism than these countries. So as far as "rolling the red carpet for Islam" you're barking up the wrong tree.

DVD Polizei
07-09-07, 11:26 PM
I don't think the riots in France are exclusive to Arabs. If anything, it's just the opposite. The problem in France, is immigration from destitute countries like Morocco, and the surrounding areas who are Muslim, who are flooding the more wealthier country of France, and living off of it. I would guess few Arabs are involved with the French riots.

I suppose this has to do with spreading fundamentalism, because they want to impose Islam on the greater community of France. The problem is the younger generation, who are more conservative and extreme, versus their more intelligent and accepting parents.

DVD Polizei
07-10-07, 12:58 AM
Well, here's the problem. Even if you have a bunch of ignorant stupid North Africans jumping around like monkeys and burning cars because they are too lazy to work or just can't because the jobs just aren't there, but yet still associate themselves with Islam as they burn those cars and kill innocent French civilians...they are still associated with Islam.

Why aren't they associating themselves with Buddhists? Or Christians? Or Jews?

The kids routinely beat up Jews when they come out of their places of worship, beat them at any outside function they learn of, and do this because their Palestinian Brothers are being persecuted.

So, should we excuse Palestinians as well?

The kids in France may not practice Islam as much as their parents or elders do, but they associate themselves with it. They indentify with it.

So, someday we'll have terrorists from the ghettos of France blowing up mass transit centers in Paris, in the name of Islam. But now you're saying we shouldn't blame Islam. I'm not so sure.

I understand what you're saying, but at the same time, what you're eluding to or implying, is that all religion is pristine and pure. Because it's only the people who tarnish it and give it a bad name.

I say if you have enough people going around and killing others in the name of a religion, THAT religion is bad. Why? Because it doesn't matter what the religion actually stipulates. What matters is what people do. How they act. How they practice it.

eXcentris
07-10-07, 08:15 AM
I don't think the riots in France are exclusive to Arabs. If anything, it's just the opposite. The problem in France, is immigration from destitute countries like Morocco, and the surrounding areas who are Muslim, who are flooding the more wealthier country of France, and living off of it. I would guess few Arabs are involved with the French riots.

In France, people of Middle Eastern and of North African (Maghreb) origin are referred to as "Arabs".


I suppose this has to do with spreading fundamentalism, because they want to impose Islam on the greater community of France. The problem is the younger generation, who are more conservative and extreme, versus their more intelligent and accepting parents.

No, the French riots had little to nothing to do with any sort of Islamic fundamentalist agenda. People just jump to conclusions because if Arabs/Muslims riot, surely it must be because of Islamic fundamentalism... In this particular case, this thread title is quite appropriate.

wendersfan
07-10-07, 08:51 AM
People from the Maghrib <i>are</i> Arabic. It's not just the French who call them that.

VinVega
07-10-07, 08:58 AM
People from the Maghrib <i>are</i> Arabic. It's not just the French who call them that.
A lot of them are Berbers though. The official language of Morocco is Arabic.

DVD Polizei
07-10-07, 10:44 AM
In France, people of Middle Eastern and of North African (Maghreb) origin are referred to as "Arabs".

Yeah, well, they aren't Arabs. Most of them are North Africans. You're saying we should do what the French do, now? If you meant to say "Arabs" and by doing that you were implying this was the name the French use, then ok, I understand your sentence. But otherwise, these people are not Arabs.

No, the French riots had little to nothing to do with any sort of Islamic fundamentalist agenda. People just jump to conclusions because if Arabs/Muslims riot, surely it must be because of Islamic fundamentalism... In this particular case, this thread title is quite appropriate.

Actually, I think we need to bring in another term.

Researchophobia.

These youths don't have a massive conspiracy of fundamentalism per se, but they are using Islam to further their violence, especially violence against Jews and non-Muslims. They are in fact, forcing Islam on others, and they do want Jews destroyed. So, is this unlike a fundamentalist agenda?

Deny the anti-Jew violence and the agenda to remove the Jews from their neighborhoods, and you're really out of the ballpark regarding this subject. But feel free if you must.

eXcentris
07-10-07, 11:13 AM
Yeah, well, they aren't Arabs. Most of them are North Africans. You're saying we should do what the French do, now? If you meant to say "Arabs" and by doing that you were implying this was the name the French use, then ok, I understand your sentence. But otherwise, these people are not Arabs.


Wrong. The people of Morocco and Algeria are of Arabic descent, speak arabic and hence, are Arabs.


These youths don't have a massive conspiracy of fundamentalism per se, but they are using Islam to further their violence, especially violence against Jews and non-Muslims. They are in fact, forcing Islam on others, and they do want Jews destroyed. So, is this unlike a fundamentalist agenda?


Meh... All you're doing is using gross generalizations and jumping to conclusions. For the last time, and while you might find some issues with Islamic fundamentalism in France (but nowhere near the level of the UK or the Netherlands), the riots had nothing to do with promoting any sort of Islamic fundamentalist agenda. Try to find pictures or articles depicting rioters as religious fanatics shouting Allahu Akbar and calling for Jihad, you won't find any. These youth's "agenda" was to fight a strict integration policy of "become French or else" (i.e. the concept of "citizen") when, in reality, they are being neglected, discriminated against, stuck in ghettos, and denied opportunities to do so. Even the French government admitted as much, after the riots.


Deny the anti-Jew violence and the agenda to remove the Jews from their neighborhoods, and you're really out of the ballpark regarding this subject. But feel free if you must.

What does this have to do with the riots? Furthermore, not all acts of anti-semitism are born out of Islamic fundamentalism. You're generalizing again.

wendersfan
07-10-07, 11:25 AM
Yeah, well, they aren't Arabs. Most of them are North Africans.Syria is in Asia, but it doesn't mean most Syrians aren't Arabs. Most of the countries of North Africa are Arabic. They are full members of the Arab League, their primary language is Arabic, and their people self-identify as Arabs.

DVD Polizei
07-10-07, 11:50 AM
I will agree they have Arab ethnic roots, but there is a lot of mixed ethnicity in that region. Which is why I don't call them Arabs per se. In that region, you have Berbers, Abyssinians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, and who knows what else.

I will compromise: North African Arabs. Because when you say Arabs, it is automatically implied you're talking about people from the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia.

Hahn is familiar with Saudi Arabia, and he might share what how common thought of using the word "Arab" in North Africa is dealt with.

DVD Polizei
07-10-07, 12:05 PM
Meh... All you're doing is using gross generalizations and jumping to conclusions. For the last time, and while you might find some issues with Islamic fundamentalism in France (but nowhere near the level of the UK or the Netherlands), the riots had nothing to do with promoting any sort of Islamic fundamentalist agenda. Try to find pictures or articles depicting rioters as religious fanatics shouting Allahu Akbar and calling for Jihad, you won't find any. These youth's "agenda" was to fight a strict integration policy of "become French or else" (i.e. the concept of "citizen") when, in reality, they are being neglected, discriminated against, stuck in ghettos, and denied opportunities to do so. Even the French government admitted as much, after the riots.

What does this have to do with the riots? Furthermore, not all acts of anti-semitism are born out of Islamic fundamentalism. You're generalizing again.

What does that have to do with the riots? Man, you really aren't paying attention to what these kids are doing, are you.

How many Islamic Fundamentalists embrace the Holocaust, and embrace The Jew as their brother. Hmmmm? I'd like to know. Give me some fundamentalist groups who think Jews should receive Dhimmi just like any other.

Islamic Fundamentalism today, is much more than just interpreting passages from the Koran literally, but let's just take a look at some literal passages, shall we?

Koran 4:144, 9:29, 9:73, 47:4, 5:33-34

Oh, you want specifics regarding Jews because those verses were "too vague"?

Here yah go:

Koran 5:51, 5:64, 9:29, 9:30

Islamic FundaMENTALism, baby! Praise Allah, or we cut your head off. :banana:

VinVega
07-10-07, 12:14 PM
This is an interesting discussion going on here. I think the quote below bolsters the point that Moroccans are Arabs, but I think it's an oversimplification to think that a Moroccan Arab is the same culturally as a Saudi.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Morocco)
Most Moroccans are Sunni Muslims of Arab, Berber, or mixed Arab-Berber stock. The Arabs conquered the territory that would become Morocco in the 7th and 11th centuries, at the time under the rule of various late Byzantine Roman princips and indigenous Beber and Romano-Berber principalities, laying the foundation for the emergence of an Arab-Berber culture. A portion of the population is identified as Haratin and Gnaoua, black or highly mixed "race" Moroccans. Morocco's Jewish minority has decreased significantly and numbers about 7,000 (See History of the Jews in Morocco). Most of the 100,000 foreign residents are French or Spanish, largely professionals working for European multinationals.

Recent studies make clear no significant genetic differences exist between Arabic and non-Arabic speaking populations, highlighting that in common with most of the Arab World, Arabization was mainly via acculturation of indigenous populations over time.[1]. However, and according to the European Journal of Human Genetics, North-Western Africans were genetically closer to Iberians and to other Europeans than to Sub-Saharan Africans. [2].
Ethnolinguistic Map of Morocco (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Morocco_ethno_1973.jpg) - Linkified since it's kind of a big picture.

On that same wiki link, it says almost 1/2 the population speaks Berber though.

eXcentris
07-10-07, 12:17 PM
What does that have to do with the riots? Man, you really aren't paying attention to what these kids are doing, are you.



Yeah, they were burning cars and being generally unpleasant, none of which had anything whatsoever to do with Islamic fundamentalism... Find me one iota of evidence to the contrary. Do you even know why/how these riots started? Here's a hint, it had nothing to do with Muslim clerics, sharia law, Jihad, destroying Israel, or anything even remotely religious based.

Altimus Prime
07-10-07, 12:21 PM
Without reading the current debate, I'll just say this thought that hit me... here is one case where the use of "phobia" is correct.

A common incorrect use is in something like "homophobia." I don't think many of the people who get that thrown at them are actually afraid of homosexuals.

As for Islamophobia... I can admit that is me. As I see it, a healthy dose of Islamophobia can help keep you alive, because there is something to fear.

eXcentris
07-10-07, 12:30 PM
As for Islamophobia... I can admit that is me. As I see it, a healthy dose of Islamophobia can help keep you alive, because there is something to fear.

It's fine to fear the attack on our values posed by Islamic fundamentalism but what I see a lot of people doing (and these Paris riots are a perfect example), is lumping all bad behavior by Muslims into the Islamic fundamentalism agenda. Why do people feel the need to manufacture examples when there are plenty to go around already?

VinVega
07-10-07, 12:34 PM
It's fine to fear the attack on our values posed by Islamic fundamentalism but what I see a lot of people doing (and these Paris riots are a perfect example), is lumping all bad behavior by Muslims into the Islamic fundamentalism agenda. Why do people feel the need to manufacture examples when there are plenty to go around already?
That's a good point eX. From what I've read the major factors in the French riots of 2005 were economic and social, not religious in nature. They were pissed off because they were poor and isolated by the native French society, not because they wanted to convert France to Islam.

eXcentris
07-10-07, 12:36 PM
American Muslims are by and large very different from their French counterparts. Part of that is selection: they're more educated. But a fundamental distinction lies in the context into which they're received. Here they're expected to become part of society, whereas in Europe they're cut-off from active contact with the native population by the welfare state, breeding in them a sense of separation, of otherness, which is then reinforced by the self-loathing culture of the European Left.



The French strict integration model is diametrically opposed to the UK or the Netherlands multiculturalist model. In France, immigrants are expected to become "French", it's just that the French won't let them. Once again, all you are doing is making generalizations about "Europe" to push your own obesssive loathing of the evils of "socialism"...

DVD Polizei
07-10-07, 12:39 PM
And you implied or even directly stated, Islamic Fundamentalism has nothing to do with The Jew. I demonstrated otherwise. The youths in France are committing routine violent acts against Jews by burning synagogues, etc.

France is desparate to save their secular culture. The secular society once known in France, is slowly eroding away with the younger generation becoming more fundamentalist, and less tolerant of others. Economics might be the reason, but nonetheless, they are still becoming less tolerant, and are intolerant of anyone that is non-Muslim, especially the non-Muslim French Government, and Jews.

Is that not fundamentalism? Are they not Muslim?

What is your idea of Islamic Fundamentalism? And what is your idea of those who practice it? Do they have to be adults? Is it exclusive to older men?

DVD Polizei
07-10-07, 12:41 PM
The French strict integration model is diametrically opposed to the UK or the Netherlands multiculturalist model. In France, immigrants are expected to become "French", it's just that the French won't let them. Once again, all you are doing is making generalizations about "Europe" to push your own obesssive loathing of the evils of "socialism"...

Immigrants are expected to obey the laws. The Muslim youths think they don't have to because they are not citizens of an Islamic Government.

Once again, we see Islamic Fundamentalism popping up, don't we.

wishbone
07-10-07, 12:42 PM
America's Muslim community shows few signs of the radicalism seen in Britain by D Bennet
Hearts and minds
Drawn to ballots not bombs, America's Muslim community shows few signs of the radicalism seen in Britain. But with anger over US policies at home and abroad, a younger generation may be up for grabs.
By Drake Bennett | NYT, August 20, 2006

AFTER 9/11, foreign policy scholars quickly took to describing terrorism as the dark underside of globalization. Al Qaeda was like a multinational corporation, the thinking went, and the money and men that had been used to such murderous effect were simply part of a larger tide of goods and capital streaming across national borders and overwhelming the governments within them.

In retrospect, there's something almost reassuring about that model. After last July's London subway bombings, in which 4 native Britons, acting largely on their own, killed 52 of their countrymen, the West started worrying in earnest not just about imported terrorism, but the homegrown kind.

The news a week and a half ago that British intelligence services had thwarted a plot to blow up 10 airliners over the Atlantic once again pricked those fears. All 23 suspects were native-born British Muslims. Only two months earlier, Canadian authorities had arrested 17 Canadian Muslims and charged them with plotting to attack various government buildings and behead the country's prime minister.

The United States has not been entirely immune to these trends: Intelligence and law enforcement agencies have broken up a handful of what they have called domestic terror cells. (Though there have been questions raised about the danger actually posed by some of these purported terrorists.)

Yet, as both terrorism experts and scholars who study the American Muslim community point out, the United States has proven notably unfavorable to the growth of domestic terrorism (at least of the radical Islamic variety: Timothy McVeigh's Oklahoma City bombing, of course,was the second most deadly terrorist act ever committed on American soil). American Muslims, by and large, are wealthier and better integrated into American society than their European counterparts, and feel freer to practice their religious faith than Muslims in the more avowedly secular nations of Western Europe. And the blend of different ethnicities and sects in the American Muslim community has lent its beliefs a more ecumenical and flexible cast than those of Europe's Muslim immigrants.

``The risk is much, much greater in Europe than it is here, on the order of 30 to one," says Mark Sageman, formerly a CIA case officer in Afghanistan and now a psychiatrist who studies the formation of terrorist networks. ``The US is a very, very different environment from Europe, anyone who's lived in both places immediately knows it."

But if America's Muslim community shows little evidence of the kind of radicalism that elsewhere has bred terrorism, there are other signs that attitudes within the community-so far as one can generalize-may be shifting. And while the sort of cultural and socioeconomic forces that have helped American Muslims assimilate into the mainstream haven't changed, the political landscape has. The years since 9/11 have bred in America's diverse Muslim community a greater sense of group identity, but also estrangement from the larger American culture, especially among the young.

``I don't see radicalization," says Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, a Muslim American advocacy group, ``but I do see a sense of frustration. It's not a mainstream problem in the community, but if it's not handled in a healthy and effective way it could lead to radicalization in the US."

Unlike in Europe, where France's Muslim population, for example, is overwhelmingly North African, England's Pakistani, and Germany's Turkish, no one sect or country of origin can claim a majority of America's 2 million to 3 million Muslims: There are significant numbers from the Middle East, South Asia, North Africa, and Iran, as well as native-born African-Americans, who have been estimated to make up nearly one-third of the country's Muslims.

This diversity makes generalizing about American Muslims a tricky endeavor. But more importantly, according to Peter Skerry, a Boston College political science professor working on a book about American Muslims, ``because there's so much fragmentation of Muslims...it's more difficult and less likely that any one group is going to come to dominate."

That is not to say that radical ideologies are unavailable to American Muslims-a recent study by Freedom House pointed to the ease with which radical Wahhabist literature can be found in many American mosques. But Skerry argues that these sorts of ideas hold less appeal here. Being Muslim in the United States, he says, demands a certain theological flexibility that undercuts absolutist theological strains.

``In other countries, mosques tend to be much more homogeneous," says Skerry, ``but here different groups come together in a given mosque and have to get along and accommodate each other and build a thriving institution, so differences get downplayed."

American Muslims as a whole also tend to be better off financially, not only than European Muslims but than the average American. Whereas Europe imported its Muslim population mostly as cheap labor for the 1960s building boom, American immigration policy favored educated, professional Muslim immigrants. According to research by John Logan, a Brown University sociologist, instead of living in the sort of ethnic ghettos one sees on the outskirts of Paris or London, American Muslims, like the rest of the professional class, tend to live in the suburbs (with the notable exception of African-American Muslims). In the United States, predominantly Arab Muslim cities and neighborhoods like Dearborn, Mich., and the Bay Ridge section of Brooklyn are rare.

Muslim Americans' mainstream sensibility is reflected in polling data. One of the more complete sources of information about American Muslim attitudes is a pair of surveys that Zogby International conducted for the Muslim Public Affairs Council. The first survey took place two months after 9/11, the second almost three years later, in August and September of 2004.

The portrait that emerges is of a deeply civic-minded and socially engaged community: In 2001 and 2004 American Muslims almost unanimously said they thought it was important to participate in the American political process, to donate to non-Muslim social service programs, and ``participate in interfaith activities." The most dramatic shift between the two polls was a mass migration into the Democratic Party (immigrant Muslim voters had actually favored Bush in the 2000 election) in response to the war in Iraq and what they saw as the civil liberties infringements of the war on terrorism at home-hardly a radical response.

A few scholars, though, do caution that integration doesn't necessarily translate into political and religious moderation. ``There's a hidden assumption," says Robert Leiken, director of immigration and national security programs at the Nixon Center, ``that assimilation is an antidote to radicalism." But, he points out, many of the men arrested in the most recent thwarted plot, as well as the alleged plotters in Toronto and the July 7th London bombers were considered ``very well assimilated, very well integrated people."

Leiken describes a phenomenon he calls ``adversarial assimilation," where an immigrant comes to identify not with a country's mainstream culture, but an adversarial subculture within it.

Peter Skerry makes a somewhat different point about the shortcomings of assimilation. He argues that it can sometimes work as a generational boomerang. ``I'm of the view that assimilation itself is what creates a lot of discontents among second- and third-generation immigrants, whether we're talking Latino or Muslim," he says. He calls it the ``born-again-at-Berkeley syndrome," where post-adolescent rebellion takes the form of a return to the more socially conservative culture of the old country.

If the Zogby polls are any indication, what Leiken and Skerry describe is not widespread: In both polls the most popular choice of political self-identification among American Muslims was ``moderate." But John Zogby, the eponymous polling firm's president and CEO, is quick to point out that his surveys wouldn't do a good job of finding radical views. To do so it's necessary to focus on 18- to 25-year-old men, and the MPAC studies weren't big enough to say much about that age group.

Zogby claims, though, that he has seen evidence of a sharpening of attitudes in some of his other work. He mentions in particular a set of focus groups he did for the US Army to help it figure out how to recruit more Arabic speakers. At first, he recalls, the young Muslim Americans he spoke to were guardedly receptive to the Army's pitch. Between the first and second focus group, however, the images of torture at Abu Ghraib were made public. For the second focus group, he says, ``It was `Forget it.' Forget about the patriotism, the sense of duty. The war to them was evil."

Of course, such views are hardly the inevitable prelude to terrorism. But some leaders in the American Muslim community have noted a sense of anger and disaffection among their constituents. Khaled Abou El Fadl, a professor of Islamic law at the University of California, Los Angeles, and an outspoken Muslim moderate, has noted ``a sense of increased alienation and sadness," among Muslim Americans he knows. The war in Iraq, the heightened scrutiny from domestic law enforcement and intelligence officials, most recently the Bush administration's staunch support for Israel during the fighting in Lebanon, all have put a strain on their sense that they can be both Muslims and patriotic Americans.

``I wouldn't call it radicalization," says El Fadl. ``I'm thinking of many cases of people who have thus become extremely depressed or withdrawn. I know a lot of individuals who have lived in the US for a very long time, and decided to go back to Egypt or Lebanon."

MPAC's Salam Al-Marayati found a similar tendency when he surveyed 200 young Muslims at a recent conference. Fifty percent, he says, responded that being American ``compromised" their Muslim identity.

For his part, El Fadl says he hears from imams and the directors of Islamic centers that young Muslim men, in small but significant numbers, have started meeting in secret outside of mosques (places the FBI and police departments have started paying closer attention to) to discuss religion and politics. It's a ``marginal trend," he says, but a real one nonetheless. A few groups, he says, even go to remote campsites to participate in military training regimens that they've devised.

To El Fadl, these young men are as pitiful as they are frightening. ``They just sit around and say, `How can we defeat this massive conspiracy against Islam?' and wait, basically, until a line is extended to them to get them from the stage of loose organization and radical daydreaming to action."http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=2558&paper=2709

eXcentris
07-10-07, 12:47 PM
I never said that there were no manifestations of Islamic fundamentalism in France. Just that the Paris riots of 2005 had absolutely nothing to do with any religious agenda. And yes, this alienation from disenfranchised youths plays right into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists. And when Sarkozy calls them "scum" and pledges a "war without mercy" against them, he's essentially giving power to the Islamist radicals who step in to take advantage of the way these youths feel.

eXcentris
07-10-07, 01:01 PM
I think it is more accurate to say that you're in denial and have made a taboo out of the single most important organizing principle of European society, without which nothing about its contemporary history can be understood.



Ah yes of course, yet another catch-all grand ideological statements from our self-proclaimed resident "intellectual". Socialism is evil and Europe is doomed, we get it... You've got yourself so boxed in into that ideology of yours that all you are capable of making (because you know so little about the topics at hand) are these silly generalizations...

Oraphus
07-10-07, 01:03 PM
Yeah, they were burning cars and being generally unpleasant, none of which had anything whatsoever to do with Islamic fundamentalism... Find me one iota of evidence to the contrary. Do you even know why/how these riots started? Here's a hint, it had nothing to do with Muslim clerics, sharia law, Jihad, destroying Israel, or anything even remotely religious based.

Good job! .. i like how you always put a positive spin on all terrorist acts.
Terrorist = freedom fighters
acts of terror = being generally unpleasant.
... it's great that you have such a positive outlook on life, or should i say death.

In the end it doesn’t matter if they are Arabs, north africans, Berbers or one eyed monkeys. They are terrorizing French neighborhood and are all Muslim. You can try to discount that fact all you want.. but nobody twisted their arm to come to France, they did it to better their life. But instead of working hard on the political level to integrate themselves in to the French society they are doing the opposite and why not, the Koran tells them to.
This isn't the middle ages, no matter how hard they have it there are plenty of non violent ways to further your goal if you truly WANT TO FIT IN which they do not.

But wait.. you'll find a way to put a positive spin on that as well.. they are not burning Synagogues - they are starting fires to keep the Jews warm.


It's the same thing in middle east, it's very hard to work out a peace with someone that feels you do not have the right to exist.

DVD Polizei
07-10-07, 01:03 PM
VI,

I was responding to eXcentris. I would imagine the posts got confusing. Sometimes I don't address the person if it's directly after their post.

eXcentris
07-10-07, 01:03 PM
And for your point about requiring strict integration in France, that might be an imaginary principle they believe they're operating under, but in reality nobody is going to assimilate when they're not required to work for a living.

Hey! Why look for a job when you have welfare! :lol:

They WANT to work but are being denied every opportunity to do so. Job applications with arab names are systematically denied, and that's just the beginning of it... See above about not knowing squat about issues.

DVD Polizei
07-10-07, 01:09 PM
eXcentris,

So, you're telling us all on this forum there is a job for every single Muslim immigrant in France, but the French are conspiring to keep them poor, violent, and riotous.

Damn, that sounds like a dumbass African-American I was talking to the other day about how he knew the Whites were keeping him down. Of course, we didn't discuss the fact he wasn't in school and needed to repeat the last two grades. Didn't discuss the fact he was a rebellious youth who was part of a carjacking incident. Didn't discuss the fact he couldn't read. Didn't discuss the fact his parents were actually trying to help him, but he consistently let them down.

Sound familiar with our Muslim immigrant kiddies en Francais?

eXcentris
07-10-07, 01:09 PM
Good job! .. i like how you always put a positive spin on all terrorist acts.
Terrorist = freedom fighters
acts of terror = being generally unpleasant.
... it's great that you have such a positive outlook on life, or should i say death.

In the end it doesn’t matter if they are Arabs, north africans, Berbers or one eyed monkeys. They are terrorizing French neighborhood and are all Muslim. You can try to discount that fact all you want.. but nobody twisted their arm to come to France, they did it to better their life. But instead of working hard on the political level to integrate themselves in to the French society they are doing the opposite and why not, the Koran tells them to.
This isn't the middle ages, no matter how hard they have it there are plenty of non violent ways to further your goal if you truly WANT TO FIT IN which they do not.

But wait.. you'll find a way to put a positive spin on that as well.. they are not burning Synagogues - they are starting fires to keep the Jews warm.


It's the same thing in middle east, it's very hard to work out a peace with someone that feels you do not have the right to exist.

Nice rant! And your proof that they rioted because of Islam the Koran and 72 virgins is? Google "Paris riots" and start reading...

eXcentris
07-10-07, 01:14 PM
Nonsense. Generalization.

And by the way, not to be immodest, but I know a lot more about Europe, history, economics, culture and society than you do. A lot.


That's clearly an assumption on your part.

Waits for name dropping of book titles and authors...


Yet I don't believe I've recurred once to spiteful comments when debating with you.

You are neither debating nor are you addressing issues. All you are doing is trying to steer any debate into an ideological argument about the virtues of "capitalism" vs the evils of "socialism". Frankly it's getting old...

DVD Polizei
07-10-07, 01:15 PM
I'm beginning to think you disagree with me and others. But I will say, this is the best debation I've had in several days.

wendersfan
07-10-07, 01:15 PM
And by the way, not to be immodest, but I know a lot more about Europe, history, economics, culture and society than you do. A lot. http://powerlineblog.com/archives/coyoteq.gif

Altimus Prime
07-10-07, 01:17 PM
It's fine to fear the attack on our values posed by Islamic fundamentalism but what I see a lot of people doing (and these Paris riots are a perfect example), is lumping all bad behavior by Muslims into the Islamic fundamentalism agenda. Why do people feel the need to manufacture examples when there are plenty to go around already?

An attack on your values is one thing. An attack on your neck is another.

eXcentris
07-10-07, 01:22 PM
eXcentris,

So, you're telling us all on this forum there is a job for every single Muslim immigrant in France, but the French are conspiring to keep them poor, violent, and riotous.



The history of discrimination towards Arabs in France is well documented. The French elites have systematically kept Arabs out of jobs, positions of power in politics, high profile jobs in the media, etc... Actually, this isn't unlike what French Canadians faced in Quebec 50 years ago...

Oraphus
07-10-07, 01:27 PM
Nice rant! And your proof that they rioted because of Islam the Koran and 72 virgins is? Google "Paris riots" and start reading...

wow.. your deductive logic is amazing.
My proof is that they rioted period.... and they are all Muslim and the reason was to support Palestinians in the Middle east and maybe because they feel they are being mistreated by France (which is very much debatable).
In the end if i cant find a job, i don’t go punch a Muslim person in the mouth. Maybe it's just me..
There are many shapes and forms of Islamic Fundamentalism, they don't all have to equate to strapping a bomb to yourself and running in to crowd.

eXcentris
07-10-07, 01:56 PM
Pretending to understand contemporary Europe without socialism is like attempting to study the middle ages sans Christianity. Or the middle east without mention of Islam.

And the issue is, what kind of society is Europe, and how will it respond and adapt to Islamic immigration. How can one address that without considering the nature of its economic and social institutions?

I don't have a problem with that. But even if you come up with a set of "European values", you have no choice except applying general principles if you totally ignore regional differences and differences between nations in terms of culture, history and institutions. And you do that constantly. France isn't the UK. It's history, culture, institutions and social democratic model is different from that of the UK or the Netherlands. How can I possibly have an intelligent debate with you on the integration of immigrants in France when you don't even seem to know they don't practice the same model of integration as other European nations, and because of that, your arguments are reduced to silly generalizations like "Europe = socialism = welfare = no incentive to work". I mean come on...

wendersfan
07-10-07, 02:01 PM
How can I possibly have an intelligent debate with you on the integration of immigrants in France when you don't even seem to know they don't practice the same model of integration as other European nations, and because of that, your arguments are reduced to silly generalizations like "Europe = socialism = welfare = no incentive to work". I mean come on...
But when you have a very limited understanding of something you have to resort to crude generalizations.

VinVega
07-10-07, 02:02 PM
eXcentris,

So, you're telling us all on this forum there is a job for every single Muslim immigrant in France, but the French are conspiring to keep them poor, violent, and riotous.

Damn, that sounds like a dumbass African-American I was talking to the other day about how he knew the Whites were keeping him down. Of course, we didn't discuss the fact he wasn't in school and needed to repeat the last two grades. Didn't discuss the fact he was a rebellious youth who was part of a carjacking incident. Didn't discuss the fact he couldn't read. Didn't discuss the fact his parents were actually trying to help him, but he consistently let them down.

Sound familiar with our Muslim immigrant kiddies en Francais?
I think that validates the argument that the riots were economic and social in nature, not religious. Ignorant poor people are just as capable of rioting for a moronic reason in France as they are in LA. See the Rodney King riots.

eXcentris
07-10-07, 02:06 PM
wow.. your deductive logic is amazing.
My proof is that they rioted period.... and they are all Muslim and the reason was to support Palestinians in the Middle east and maybe because they feel they are being mistreated by France (which is very much debatable).
In the end if i cant find a job, i don’t go punch a Muslim person in the mouth. Maybe it's just me..
There are many shapes and forms of Islamic Fundamentalism, they don't all have to equate to strapping a bomb to yourself and running in to crowd.

And your logic is: They are Muslims, the rioted, therefore they must be Islamic fundamentalists. Brilliant!

Jesus, I get flack for "defending France to the death" and when I criticize them, I get flack for not criticizing Muslims instead... It's like some of you guys have a "hate scale" you use to figure out who's at fault:

Person 1: "Muslims rioted in France!"
Person 2: "Well we hate the French, damn them!"
Person 1: "Hmmm... well... don't we hate the Muslims more?"
Person 2: "Errr... could be... let me check our scale... French: 8 hate points, Muslims: 10 hate points!"
Person 1: "That's what I thought! Damn Islamofascists!"
Person 2: "Yeah! Burn them! Burn them!"

... :lol: ...

wendersfan
07-10-07, 02:08 PM
I think that validates the argument that the riots were economic and social in nature, not religious. Ignorant poor people are just as capable of rioting for a moronic reason in France as they are in LA. See the Rodney King riots.
Especially if the group feels it has been marginalized and discriminated against for many years. The trick would be to try to identify a similar group in France (poor, with a history of underemployment, living in large homogeneous communities) and see how they have reacted under those circumstances, and compare their reactions to the Algerians, et al. Finding such a group would be, as I said, tricky.

wendersfan
07-10-07, 02:40 PM
Because all groups react the same way to analogue stimuli.No, all groups don't react the same way. That's the point. You try to isolate the reasons why they react differently when encountering similar conditions. It's called science; you might want to learn something about it.

wendersfan
07-10-07, 02:55 PM
I didn't realize that Israel was a former French colony. I also didn't realize that Jews lived in French ghettos in the 20th century. This is most illuminating.

VinVega
07-10-07, 02:56 PM
Oh you two. Play nice. :lol:

eXcentris
07-10-07, 03:26 PM
By that token you can't talk about "America" either because San Francisco and Texas are different. And you could pursue that road right down to atomism, refusing to consider anything but single individuals. The fact is, underlying the distinctions between European nations, there is a shared broad economic and social structure, as well as trends that are operating in roughly the same direction. One can certainly consider the variety of conditions and legacies within that broad framework, but doing so in no way invalidates or negates the necessity of establishing guiding principles. This in fact is what historians and sociologists strive to do, to find reason and structure beneath the loose variety of places and events -the opposite of what you do.

You can talk about "America" and "Europe" if the topic is general differences in principles and values. If the topic is gay rights or gun control in the US, then you better damn well focus on the differences between San Francisco and Texas if you want to come up with a coherent analysis of the different points of view. Otherwise an article will read: "Americans are generally against gun control, because they believe in individual freedoms and liberties and the right to bear arms is engraved in the Constitution". The End. How enlightening. Whoop dee doo. :)

So the point is, again, that we're not discussing Europe, we're discussing France. And while you can find "guiding principles" pertaining to the integration policies of immigrants in Europe, the specificities of the French history/culture/institutions are far more important when discussing the situation in France. What you are practicing is reductionism (and it's accompanying gross generalizations), and I know of no sociologist with his head screwed on right that would reach any conclusions whatsoever about the integration of immigrants in France, wihout addressing the specificities of the French model. Sociology isn't restricted to generic topics.

DVD Polizei
07-10-07, 04:47 PM
I think that validates the argument that the riots were economic and social in nature, not religious. Ignorant poor people are just as capable of rioting for a moronic reason in France as they are in LA. See the Rodney King riots.

But LA kids aren't shouting, "Viva La Allahu akbar!". They are more likely to shout Gang words and sport abnormal hand gestures in cartoon positions. Poor kids in the US aren't even associating themselves with religious hatred (at least most do not). It's gang hatred which is the problem in larger cities in the US. I would say it's also a mixture of ethnic hatred as well, but still, we don't have the religious overtones.

The kids in France are purposely beating up Jewish kids and burning synagogues because they are Jewish and because their Palestinian Brothers are being persecuted. And, they are doing it because they think Islam is That's not economics talkin'. Among other things, that's religious hatred of another group of people.

Also, do you think poverished children in the US are going to riot in the streets because The Pope was featured in a Sunday morning cartoon across the nation? For some strange reason, I think not.

It's an entirely different culture. A religiously-embedded culture of hate for not only another person's ethnicity, but their religious beliefs as well.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,383682,00.html

"The cops are petrified of us, everything must burn, starting Monday, the operation 'Midnight Sun' starts, tell everyone else, rendezvous for Momo and Abdul in Zone 4 ... jihad Islamia Allah Akhbar."

...and...

User "Samir's" message is just as threatening. "You don't really think that we're going to stop now? Are you stupid? It will continue, non-stop. We aren't going to let up. The French won't do anything and soon, we will be in the majority here."

Once again, my point is, the kids in France are associating and embedding religion with their violence. That's virtually the only difference between them and children in the US. In the US, religion is not as embedded in our culture.

wendersfan
07-10-07, 04:52 PM
Once again, my point is, the kids in France are associating and embedding religion with their violence. That's virtually the only difference between them and children in the US. In the US, religion is not as embedded in our culture.Black kids in LA are, if anything, Christian (or were at least brought up in Christian households) and are a religious majority. Muslim kids in France are part of a religious minority. People tend to identify themselves with what makes them different, i.e., their minority status, especially when they feel persecuted.

eXcentris
07-10-07, 05:46 PM
Contrary to what you see in the UK, the majority of Muslims in France consider themselves French first and Muslim second.


"The cops are petrified of us, everything must burn, starting Monday, the operation 'Midnight Sun' starts, tell everyone else, rendezvous for Momo and Abdul in Zone 4 ... jihad Islamia Allah Akhbar."


This is a perfect example of a minority of extremists recuperating an event to further their own goals. Much like a minority of nut cases and fringe groups infiltrate anti-globalization demonstrations.

For the last time, find me one article or analysis of these riots that came to the conclusion that these riots were based on any sort of fundamentalist religious agenda. You will find none.


Also, do you think poverished children in the US are going to riot in the streets because The Pope was featured in a Sunday morning cartoon across the nation? For some strange reason, I think not.


How many French Muslims did you see demonstrating their outrage in the streets after the Pope's comments or after the publication of the Muhammed cartoons?

As I mentionned before, are there not enough examples of Islamic fundamentalism out there that one shouldn't feel the need to manufacture them? And the irony is that people who are so quick to assign blame for any and all bad behavior by Muslims to Islamic fundamentalism (like most people venting on these blogs...) are playing right into the hands of extremists.

DVD Polizei
07-10-07, 05:53 PM
I've said before the older generation of Muslims in France aren't the problem. The problem is the shitbird brat children.

What is Islamic Fundamentalism to you? How do you define it? And where do you think it is being practiced? And how is it different from those young folk in France.

bhk
07-10-07, 07:04 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6279416.stm

Hundreds attend anti-terror rally
About 1,500 people have taken part in a rally against terrorism in Glasgow, organised by mosques and Islamic groups.
It comes a week after a car burst into flames after being driven into the terminal building at Glasgow airport.

Organisers said: "The eyes of the world will be on a Scotland sending out the message that all our communities are united against terrorism."

Police also said thousands took part in the city's County Grand Orange Parade.

Orange Lodge parades took place across the city, before marchers joined the main procession at Blythswood Square.

'Community cohesion'

Meanwhile, the "Scotland United Against Terror" event was held in George Square.

Organisers said the day was doubly significant as it was the second anniversary of the London Tube bombings and one week after the Glasgow attack.

Faith leaders, churches and trade unionists were among those at the event, and Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon spoke to the crowd.


Osama Saeed, one of the organisers, said: "We've been staggered by the messages of support we've been getting this week from the four corners of the globe.

"We thought on a local level we'd get together and do this to allow the grassroots to display their anger at the attacks, little realising nothing like this had ever been done before anywhere else before.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42476000/jpg/_42476144_saltireboy300.jpg

"The eyes of the world will be on a Scotland sending out the message that all our communities are united against terrorism.

"The Muslim community have called this event, but what's touching is how the rest of the country has responded to us."



Nice story but in their haste to be politically correct and drive their agenda, they only gave part of the story:

http://jamesstgeorge.proboards32.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=UKdomestic&thread=1183821312&page=1

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/oldpunkette/NotinourNameDemojuly2007019.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/oldpunkette/NotinourNameDemojuly2007008.jpg

Read about it here:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010317


Thank AlGore for the internet.

Ky-Fi
07-10-07, 07:11 PM
Contrary to what you see in the UK, the majority of Muslims in France consider themselves French first and Muslim second.



This is a perfect example of a minority of extremists recuperating an event to further their own goals. Much like a minority of nut cases and fringe groups infiltrate anti-globalization demonstrations.

For the last time, find me one article or analysis of these riots that came to the conclusion that these riots were based on any sort of fundamentalist religious agenda. You will find none.



How many French Muslims did you see demonstrating their outrage in the streets after the Pope's comments or after the publication of the Muhammed cartoons?

As I mentionned before, are there not enough examples of Islamic fundamentalism out there that one shouldn't feel the need to manufacture them? And the irony is that people who are so quick to assign blame for any and all bad behavior by Muslims to Islamic fundamentalism (like most people venting on these blogs...) are playing right into the hands of extremists.

I agree with the bulk of your points--I know France's policy has not been multiculturalism, I know France has been tougher on Islamic extremism than most other European countries, and I agree that the riots were not primarily motivated by religion. But I still think you've got the gigantic issue of demographics on the horizon. The native French population is aging and shrinking, the Muslim population is young and growing. And I think the real question is not so much whether the Muslim population becomes radical Islamists--chances are the majority will not. BUT, is the growing Muslim population actually going to prefer, support and become staunch defenders of French secular liberal values (which they might very well associate with the racism, discrimination, decadence and exclusion that they've been subjected and exposed to) or are they going to be more inclined to prefer an Islamic substitute for the traditional French values? And with Sharia law and associated cultural values, it's not just a vague notion, it's a very concrete alternative for them.

eXcentris
07-10-07, 07:28 PM
I agree with the bulk of your points--I know France's policy has not been multiculturalism, I know France has been tougher on Islamic extremism than most other European countries, and I agree that the riots were not primarily motivated by religion. But I still think you've got the gigantic issue of demographics on the horizon. The native French population is aging and shrinking, the Muslim population is young and growing. And I think the real question is not so much whether the Muslim population becomes radical Islamists--chances are the majority will not. BUT, is the growing Muslim population actually going to prefer, support and become staunch defenders of French secular liberal values (which they might very well associate with the racism, discrimination, decadence and exclusion that they've been subjected and exposed to) or are they going to be more inclined to prefer an Islamic substitute for the traditional French values? And with Sharia law and associated cultural values, it's not just a vague notion, it's a very concrete alternative for them.


This is definitely a concern. When youths are alienated, disenfranchised and see no hope in their future, this is when extremists step in to offer an alternative. It's up to the French to actually apply their policy of integration and show that they care about these youths, without constantly putting up road blocks in the process. All most of these youths are asking, is for the chance to get an education in decent schools and have the same opportunities of employment as other French people. I remember all the hoopla about the French banning head scarves in schools, and people (mostly non French) saying this was silly and that it would only cause problems. Well, a year after this came into effect, a report compiled a grand total of 2 incidents in all of France concerning the ban. Kids are much more interested in learning in a proper environment than in wearing head scarves...

Ky-Fi
07-10-07, 08:08 PM
This is definitely a concern. When youths are alienated, disenfranchised and see no hope in their future, this is when extremists step in to offer an alternative. It's up to the French to actually apply their policy of integration and show that they care about these youths, without constantly putting up road blocks in the process. All most of these youths are asking, is for the chance to get an education in decent schools and have the same opportunities of employment as other French people. I remember all the hoopla about the French banning head scarves in schools, and people (mostly non French) saying this was silly and that it would only cause problems. Well, a year after this came into effect, a report compiled a grand total of 2 incidents in all of France concerning the ban. Kids are much more interested in learning in a proper environment than in wearing head scarves...

I hope they can do it. It's just tough, because when the Muslims riot and become violent, then the natives are going to be even less likely to "open the door" to French society. Look at the problems the US has faced in integrating and being fair to its black population---and black and white Americans have lived together for hundreds of years, and speak the same language and have the same religion, and the demographics have been more or less static.

VinVega
07-10-07, 08:09 PM
This is definitely a concern. When youths are alienated, disenfranchised and see no hope in their future, this is when extremists step in to offer an alternative. It's up to the French to actually apply their policy of integration and show that they care about these youths, without constantly putting up road blocks in the process. All most of these youths are asking, is for the chance to get an education in decent schools and have the same opportunities of employment as other French people. I remember all the hoopla about the French banning head scarves in schools, and people (mostly non French) saying this was silly and that it would only cause problems. Well, a year after this came into effect, a report compiled a grand total of 2 incidents in all of France concerning the ban. Kids are much more interested in learning in a proper environment than in wearing head scarves...
Good post. :up:

I disagreed with the headscarf ban as well, but there wasn't any huge uproar about it after it was in effect for a while.

DVD Polizei
07-10-07, 09:01 PM
This is definitely a concern. When youths are alienated, disenfranchised and see no hope in their future, this is when extremists step in to offer an alternative. It's up to the French to actually apply their policy of integration and show that they care about these youths, without constantly putting up road blocks in the process. All most of these youths are asking, is for the chance to get an education in decent schools and have the same opportunities of employment as other French people. I remember all the hoopla about the French banning head scarves in schools, and people (mostly non French) saying this was silly and that it would only cause problems. Well, a year after this came into effect, a report compiled a grand total of 2 incidents in all of France concerning the ban. Kids are much more interested in learning in a proper environment than in wearing head scarves...

So, you're in favor of massive French Welfare. :lol:

Well, this guy below has my vote. He's Muslim. He's in France. But what's different? He got off his ass, stopped whining, and actually made a name for himself and is successful.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12802435/

MANTES-LA-JOLIE, France — Morocco-born Frenchman Aziz Senni is not waiting for help from the state.

“It is up to us,” he says, gazing levelly at his interviewer. “We must be the ones to change France — the society, the politics, everything.”

Raised in the grim Val Fourre neighborhood of the Paris suburb Mantes-la-Jolie, Senni has thrived where so many other young Muslims in France have struggled by establishing a lucrative business — and one based on a traditional North African model, no less.

Motivated by what he calls “social revenge,” Senni and his brother established Alliance Transport Accompagnement (company slogan: “cheaper than a taxi, faster than a bus”) in 2000.

“For me, making it has been through hard work. … But this kind of feeling of social revenge was also important. I felt a very strong need to achieve some kind of social mobility,” Senni, 30, said during an interview in his main office, located in this town 30 miles outside of Paris.


So, your French way of appeasing to violent Muslim youths, is not the right way. The right way is to tell them they have to work if they want to stay in France. Jobs are not handed to you on a shiny silver French platter.

Just like in the United States. You wanna stay here? You have to be here legally. You have to work. Those two factors determine your success in the US.

GreenMonkey
07-11-07, 08:47 AM
Nonsense. Generalization.

There. Argument won. :)

And by the way, not to be immodest, but I know a lot more about Europe, history, economics, culture and society than you do. A lot. Yet I don't believe I've recurred once to spiteful comments when debating with you. :shrug:

Bullshit. Your understanding of European history (from which its culture spring from) seems awfully weak to me. Or at least, viewed through goggles of such partisanship that you're only examining the parts of history that meet your agenda. I don't think I know a lot about it, I've only basically finished a Bachelor's in History, but I think I know more than you. HA!

Two observations:

What we're seeing in Europe is a clash between two worldviews that have failed to create the conditions whereby society can translate human energies into productive enterprise and culture, to the extent that whole pockets of people find themselves cut-off from their surroundings, disintegrating the sense of community, identity and a shared destiny.

Second, France's riots may not be theological disputes, but the context that gives rise to them is strictly determined by a well-defined outlook resulting from Islam as it is lived and practiced there, so while it is true they're not fighting over religion, it is still the case that faith, by creating the subjective framework through which life is experienced and value-judgements are made, is the ultimate source of that strife.

Translation:
1st point: Europe is teh doomed because Islam is the polar opposite of Christianity

2nd point: France's riots are all caused by Islam

You know, I know I'm wordy, but damn. You have a way of stretching simple ideas out into grandiose statements full of lengthy words that basically just boil down to a simplistic white vs black, good vs evil viewpoint of some sort.

If you're going to make a simple statement pinning a problem with a simple root cause, do so, instead of writing a whole paragraph to try and cover up the fact that it's a very simple and straightforward viewpoint.

GreenMonkey
07-11-07, 08:48 AM
This is definitely a concern. When youths are alienated, disenfranchised and see no hope in their future, this is when extremists step in to offer an alternative. It's up to the French to actually apply their policy of integration and show that they care about these youths, without constantly putting up road blocks in the process. All most of these youths are asking, is for the chance to get an education in decent schools and have the same opportunities of employment as other French people. I remember all the hoopla about the French banning head scarves in schools, and people (mostly non French) saying this was silly and that it would only cause problems. Well, a year after this came into effect, a report compiled a grand total of 2 incidents in all of France concerning the ban. Kids are much more interested in learning in a proper environment than in wearing head scarves...

:thumbsup:

Good post.

GreenMonkey
07-12-07, 08:42 AM
Anyway, your "translation" is not only mistaken and entirely missing the point, but stupid and downright philistine. I am dismayed at the vulgarity that our universities are producing these days. You lack any capacity of synthesis, are utterly ignorant of the current state of sociological debate, and are capable only of the most crass and ordinary common sense. See if they'll offer a refund for that bachelor's degree, junior. They ripped you off.

Oh, and the above applies to one or two other esteemed members of this forum.

Thanks, I'll call them for a refund and let them know that an internet forum intellectual told me I'm a dumbass.

bhk
07-12-07, 10:27 AM
Good luck getting your money back.

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD165007

July 11, 2007 No.1650

Arab Liberals on the 'Terrorist Doctors' Plot in the U.K.

The recent failed terror attacks in London and Glasgow provoked a great deal of commentary among liberals in the Middle East and North African media, in particular due to the alleged involvement of a number of doctors in the plot. Some writers dwelt on the paradox of those trained to save lives becoming terrorists; others pointed to the suspects' backgrounds in order to argue that poverty and ignorance are not the main cause of terrorism; and a number of writers addressed the issue of Muslim immigration in Europe and the U.S.

The following are excerpts:

'Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed: How Can One Explain the Fact That a Doctor Could Plan to Kill Innocent People?

In a July 5, 2007 article in the Al-Sharq Al-Awsat daily, Al-Arabiya TV director 'Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed wrote of his shock at learning that doctors were implicated in the attack plot:

"Not all doctors are angels, though theirs is the most respected and most needed of professions… But still, our expectations were not so low as [to think] that some of them would stoop to the level of murder and terrorism. This is a more violent shock than anything in the past.

"The shock was not [just] the news of planned bombings in Britain, since [all] corners of the world are filled with news of violence. The shock that jolted everyone was that the suspected criminals were doctors and [individuals] from the health sector…

"How can those who give justifications [for these actions] explain the fact that a doctor could plan to kill innocent people who [just] wanted to travel with their children, or passers-by in a crowded square?

"These people are sick, even if the walls of their clinics are decorated with medical diplomas.

"I can say, sadly, that they have done more harm to their people than any of the [other] groups that Al-Qaeda, and the countries that fund it, have chosen in order to carry out impure missions…

"[Al-Qaeda and its sponsors] have not left the Muslims any area where they can be free of them. They have succeeded in presenting Islam as an evil religion that even uses doctors to kill innocent people - despite the fact that they spent years studying and training in order to save people's lives, without regard to their religion, race, or gender.

"If someone were to try to defame the image of the Arabs and the meaning of Islam, they could not succeed as much as those who, year after year, specialized in presenting a bad example, [as though] to emphasize that this is not a problem of poverty or personal lack…" [1]


Mustapha Hammouche: Misery and Ignorance Are Not the Main Cause of Terrorism; Islamism is a Point of Moral Rupture

On July 4, 2007, Mustapha Hammouche wrote in his column in the liberal Algerian daily Liberte: "That the failed attacks in London and Glasgow were the act of doctors was unsettling, especially to those of the Hippocratic profession… as long as… politicians busy themselves with tracing the reassuring limits of the danger instead of considering the extent of the menace, terrorism will continue to progress and to surprise us.

"While we admitted that chemistry and electronics had rendered invaluable services to terrorism, we were surprised a few days ago to discover the 'terrorism of doctors.' We are thus doomed to shake the dust off such moral evidence as that which Rabelais taught us nearly five centuries ago: 'Science without conscience is nothing but the ruin of the soul.'

"If we hadn't forgotten that Al-Qaeda's second-in-command is a doctor, the news would not have surprised us to this degree…

"The illusion that knowledge should be a sufficient bulwark against terrorism corresponds to that other mistake that manifests itself from time to time: that of believing that misery is the primary catalyst for terrorism. Misfortune certainly does often furnish the cannon fodder required by this ideology, but Islamist terrorism has had no lack of operatives from educated or wealthy backgrounds.

"A few decoys, put in place by the fundamentalist scheme, seem to be difficult to get rid of. This is the case with the idea that ignorance and poverty - because they weaken individuals and communities - constitute the sole ferment for terrorism.

[b]"On the contrary: In Muslim countries, it is official education… that helps fanaticize the youth from among whom the sponsors of terrorism draw their ranks. They recruit among graduates in preaching, among engineers, and also among doctors…

"The persistent quest [to find] a non-violent Islamist lies at the origin of the invention of a 'moderate' Islamism. This attitude can be explained by the fearful refusal to confront Islamism, in its global and bellicose reality. The authorities always start out by fighting while in retreat, trying to disarm Islamism by promoting [its] purportedly 'moderate' spokesmen.

"Since the transition to an ideology of death is not always immediately accompanied by action, this tactic can deceive for a while. But the Islamist undertaking is, in reality, a point of moral rupture that has nothing to do with a simple political conversion…" [2]

Kurdish Journalist Tariq Hemo: The Western Countries Are Reaping the Harvest of Overly Liberal Immigration Policies

In a July 5 article on the liberal Elaph website, Tariq Hemo, a Kurdish journalist living in Germany, criticized Europe's immigration policies for being too liberal:

"…The Western countries are currently reaping, in these terrorists, what they sowed when they flung their doors open wide to every malevolent fundamentalist and failed in putting in place a mechanism for managing and controlling immigration in an appropriate manner…

"The West's generosity in allowing the organizations of political Islam to penetrate into Islamic societies [in Europe], spread among their youth, and enlist them in order to achieve their own ends and realize their agendas, was a mistake, and was the prelude that led to the appearance of these disastrous consequences now. He who sows the wind reaps the storm…

"The forces of political Islam that were chased out of the East… have control over a wide swath of Islamic societies in Europe. Things that are forbidden and are lines that cannot be crossed in Arab countries, and lead to the one who says them… being [kicked out] way beyond the sun, are permitted here in the West: fiery sermons and takfiri pamphlets, meetings that openly discuss overturning governments and hanging the rulers, the conditions of carrying out the death penalty against an apostate, and imposing the jizya [poll-tax] on the dhimmis…

"[Religious] reform and putting things right is a great and serious task, and the Arabs and Muslims cannot undertake this alone. It is necessary that help be given to all of the liberal reformist forces in the Arab and Islamic worlds in order for this project to succeed…" [3]


Khudayr Taher: Europe and America Should Deport All Muslims - Including Myself

Khudayr Taher, an Iraqi Shi'ite writer living in the U.S. and a regular contributor to the liberal Elaph website, had a quite illiberal suggestion - he asked why Europe and America shouldn't deport their Muslim populations. He wrote:

"Countries have the right to defend themselves and assure their citizens' safety from terrorism. Likewise, it is clear that the source of the terrorist crimes in Europe and America is the Muslims who live in these countries.

"The security services cannot know people's intentions and sort out who is the noble immigrant and who is a terrorist criminal. [But] wherever there are Muslims, their presence has produced crimes of terrorism and murder.

"Among those Muslims in Europe and America who do not practice terrorism, most of them do not have loyalty and sincere attachment to these countries that have offered them all of the means of life in dignity - housing, studies, work, and citizenship…

"The legitimate question is this: Since the security services cannot sort out the good immigrant from the bad terrorist… why don't these countries deport all Muslims, of all races, from Europe and America, and [thus] find rest from the danger of terrorism, and protect their peoples?

"I, as an Arab Muslim immigrant, sincerely call on the countries of Europe and America to deport all Muslims from their territories - including myself, despite my love and my sincere attachment to the U.S…" [4]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), July 5, 2007.

[2] Liberte (Algeria), July 4, 2007.

[3] www.elaph.com, July 5, 2007.

[4] www.elaph.com, July 4, 2007.


These pointy-headed moslems don't seem to realize that the real problem is people who use the word "Islamofascism". Why can't they get that trough their pointy little heads?

Red Dog
07-12-07, 10:49 AM
Why doesn't Khudayr Taher just voluntarily leave then?

bhk
07-12-07, 10:50 AM
Why doesn't Khudayr Taher just voluntarily leave then?

Good question. Email him.

bhk
07-21-07, 09:41 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072001808.html



Losing My Jihadism

By Mansour al-Nogaidan
Sunday, July 22, 2007; B01

BURAIDAH, Saudi Arabia Islam needs a Reformation. It needs someone with the courage of Martin Luther.

This is the belief I've arrived at after a long and painful spiritual journey. It's not a popular conviction -- it has attracted angry criticism, including death threats, from many sides. But it was reinforced by Sept. 11, 2001, and in the years since, I've only become more convinced that it is critical to Islam's future.

Muslims are too rigid in our adherence to old, literal interpretations of the Koran. It's time for many verses -- especially those having to do with relations between Islam and other religions -- to be reinterpreted in favor of a more modern Islam. It's time to accept that God loves the faithful of all religions. It's time for Muslims to question our leaders and their strict teachings, to reach our own understanding of the prophet's words and to call for a bold renewal of our faith as a faith of goodwill, of peace and of light.

I didn't always think this way. Once, I was one of the extremists who clung to literal interpretations of Islam and tried to force them on others. I was a jihadist.

I grew up in Saudi Arabia. When I was 16, I found myself assailed by doubts about the existence of God. I prayed to God to give me the strength to overcome them. I made a deal with Him: I would give up everything, devote myself to Him and live the way the prophet Muhammad and his companions had lived 1,400 years ago if He would rid me of my doubts.

I joined a hard-line Salafi group. I abandoned modern life and lived in a mud hut, apart from my family. Viewing modern education as corrupt and immoral, I joined a circle of scholars who taught the Islamic sciences in the classical way, just as they had been taught 1,200 years ago. My involvement with this group led me to violence, and landed me in prison. In 1991, I took part in firebombing video stores in Riyadh and a women's center in my home town of Buraidah, seeing them as symbols of sin in a society that was marching rapidly toward modernization.

Yet all the while, my doubts remained. Was the Koran really the word of God? Had it really been revealed to Muhammad, or did he create it himself? But I never shared these doubts with anyone, because doubting Islam or the prophet is not tolerated in the Muslim society of my country.

By the time I turned 26, much of the turmoil in me had abated, and I made my peace with God. At the same time, my eyes were opened to the hypocrisy of so many who held themselves out as Muslim role models. I saw Islamic judges ignoring the marks of torture borne by my prison comrades. I learned of Islamic teachers who molested their students. I heard devout Muslims who never missed the five daily prayers lying with ease to people who did not share their extremist beliefs.

In 1999, when I was working as an imam at a Riyadh mosque, I happened upon two books that had a profound influence on me. One, written by a Palestinian scholar, was about the struggle between those who deal pragmatically with the Koran and those who take it and the hadith literally. The other was a book by a Moroccan philosopher about the formation of the Arab Muslim way of thinking.

The books inspired me to write an article for a Saudi newspaper arguing that Muslims have the right to question and criticize our religious leaders and not to take everything they tell us for granted. We owe it to ourselves, I wrote, to think pragmatically if our religion is to survive and thrive.

That article landed me in the center of a storm. Some men in my mosque refused to greet me. Others would no longer pray behind me. Under this pressure, I left the mosque.

I moved to the southern city of Abha, where I took a job as a writer and editor with a newly established newspaper. I went back to leading prayers at the paper's small mosque and to writing about my evolving philosophy. After I wrote articles stressing our right as Muslims to question our Saudi clerics and their interpretations and to come up with our own, officials from the kingdom's powerful religious establishment complained, and I was banned from writing.

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, gave new life to what I had been saying. I went back to criticizing the rote manner in which we Muslims are fed our religion. I criticized al-Qaeda's school of thought, which considers everyone who isn't a Salafi Muslim the enemy. I pointed to examples from Islamic history that stressed the need to get along with other religions. I tried to give a new interpretation to the verses that call for enmity between Muslims and Christians and Jews. I wrote that they do not apply to us today and that Islam calls for friendship among all religions.

I lost a lot of friends after that. My old companions from the jihad felt obliged to declare themselves either with me or against me. Some preferred to cut their links to me silently, but others fought me publicly, issuing statements filled with curses and lies. Once again, the paper came under great pressure to ban my writing. And I became a favorite target on the Internet, where my writings were lambasted and labeled blasphemous.

Eventually I was fired. But by then, I had started to develop a different relationship with God. I felt that He was moving me toward another kind of belief, where all that matters is that we pray to God from the heart. I continued to pray, but I started to avoid the verses that contain violence or enmity and only used the ones that speak of God's mercy and grace and greatness. I remembered an incident when the prophet told a Bedouin who didn't know how to pray to let go of the verses and simply to think of God and get closer to Him by repeating, "God is good, God is great." Don't sweat the details, the prophet said.

I felt at peace, and no longer doubted the existence of God.

In December 2002, in a Web site interview, I criticized al-Qaeda and declared that some of the Friday sermons were loathsome because of their attacks against non-Muslims. Within days, a fatwa was posted online, calling me an infidel and saying that I should be killed. Once again, I felt despair at the ways of the Muslim world. Two years later, I told al-Arabiya television that I thought God loves all faithful people of different religions. That earned me a fatwa from the mufti of Saudi Arabia declaring my infidelity.

But one evening not long after that, I heard a radio broadcast of the verse of light. Even though I had memorized the Koran at 15, I felt as though I was hearing this verse for the first time. God is light, it says, the universe is illuminated by His light. I felt the verse was speaking directly to me, sending me a message. This God of light, I thought, how could He be against any human? The God of light would not be happy to see people suffer, even if they had sinned and made mistakes along the way.

I had found my Islam. And I believe that others can find it, too. But first we need a Reformation similar to the Protestant Reformation that Martin Luther led against the Roman Catholic Church.

In the late 14th century, Islam had its own sort of Martin Luther. Ibn Taymiyya was an Islamic scholar from a hard-line Salafi sect who went through a spiritual crisis and came to believe that in time, God would close the gates of hell and grant all humans, regardless of their religion, entry to his everlasting paradise. Unlike Luther, however, Ibn Taymiyya never openly declared this revolutionary belief; he shared it only with a small, trusted circle of students.

Nevertheless, I find myself inspired by Luther's courageous uprising. I see what Islam needs -- a strong, charismatic personality who will lead us toward reform, and scholars who can convince Islamic communities of the need for a bold new interpretation of Islamic texts, to reconcile us with the wider world.

Mansour al-Nogaidan writes

for the Bahraini newspaper Al-Waqt.


This goes along with the thought that people in the west who try to stifle criticism of Islam by calling it hatemongering or "racist" aren't helping Islam and the true moderates. Burying our heads to the problem is actually hurting reformers.

Ky-Fi
07-21-07, 11:57 AM
Good discussion here:


<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://youtube.com/watch?v/EODjAGD2yN0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EODjAGD2yN0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

bhk
07-21-07, 01:50 PM
<i>Mod note: unneccessary/trolling comment removed... calling people names like this does nothing for your "cause"/explaining your POV and goes against the rules we've established even if you didn't name any one individual.</i>

bhk
07-26-07, 01:04 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290727,00.html

Washington Cabbie Gets 15 Years in Prison for Aiding Terrorists
Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Associated Press

NEW YORK — A Washington cab driver who admitted he attended terrorism training camps in Pakistan in 2002 was sentenced Wednesday to 15 years in prison after he was portrayed as eager to serve a terrorist group even if it meant attacking the United States.

U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska said the sentence she imposed on Mahmud Faruq Brent Al Mutazzim, of Gwynn Oak, Md., "is on the low side" of sentences given to terrorism defendants across the country but was the maximum available under the charge to which he pleaded guilty.

His lawyer, Hassen Ibn Abdellah, had asked Preska to sentence the Akron, Ohio-born Brent to less than 15 years. The judge noted that without the limit, federal sentencing guidelines would actually call for Brent to receive a sentence of more than 30 years in prison.

Brent, who waved and smiled to family and friends in court, declined to speak before he was sentenced. Abdellah called him a hard working family man who might have been "naive, young, impressionable" when he went to the terror training camp.

He previously pleaded guilty to conspiring to help a terrorist organization, the Pakistani group Lashkar-e-Taiba.

"portrayed.." "naive.."

You gotta love the Ass Press.

DVD Polizei
07-26-07, 01:48 AM
Did the AP personally call him "naive" or are you just implying from the Fart News Channel article that they are.

But regardless, if you are caught attempting to attack The United States Of America, you should die. We are doing this man a favor keeping him alive, allowing him to spread his ideology wherever he goes.

Will the US ever learn. Currently, they are not.

bhk
07-26-07, 01:47 PM
Did the AP personally call him "naive" or are you just implying from the Fart News Channel article that they are.


The story was written by an Ass Press "journalist" and ran on the Fart News website. The "journalist" is taking defense council propaganda and trying to portray it as fact(and not succeeding).

bhk
08-05-07, 10:33 AM
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/mark-steyn-jihad-1797347-exposs-column



Mark Steyn: The vanishing jihad exposés
Mark Steyn column
MARK STEYN
Syndicated columnist

How will we lose the war against "radical Islam"?

Well, it won't be in a tank battle. Or in the Sunni Triangle or the caves of Bora Bora. It won't be because terrorists fly three jets into the Oval Office, Buckingham Palace and the Basilica of St Peter's on the same Tuesday morning.

The war will be lost incrementally because we are unable to reverse the ongoing radicalization of Muslim populations in South Asia, Indonesia, the Balkans, Western Europe and, yes, North America. And who's behind that radicalization? Who funds the mosques and Islamic centers that in the past 30 years have set up shop on just about every Main Street around the planet?

For the answer, let us turn to a fascinating book called "Alms for Jihad: Charity And Terrorism in the Islamic World," by J. Millard Burr, a former USAID relief coordinator, and the scholar Robert O Collins. Can't find it in your local Barnes & Noble? Never mind, let's go to Amazon. Everything's available there. And sure enough, you'll come through to the "Alms for Jihad" page and find a smattering of approving reviews from respectably torpid publications: "The most comprehensive look at the web of Islamic charities that have financed conflicts all around the world," according to Canada's Globe And Mail, which is like the New York Times but without the jokes.

Unfortunately, if you then try to buy "Alms for Jihad," you discover that the book is "Currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock." Hang on, it was only published last year. At Amazon, items are either shipped within 24 hours or, if a little more specialized, within four to six weeks, but not many books from 2006 are entirely unavailable with no restock in sight.

Well, let us cross the ocean, thousands of miles from the Amazon warehouse, to the High Court in London. Last week, the Cambridge University Press agreed to recall all unsold copies of "Alms for Jihad" and pulp them. In addition, it has asked hundreds of libraries around the world to remove the volume from their shelves. This highly unusual action was accompanied by a letter to Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, in care of his English lawyers, explaining their reasons:

"Throughout the book there are serious and defamatory allegations about yourself and your family, alleging support for terrorism through your businesses, family and charities, and directly.

"As a result of what we now know, we accept and acknowledge that all of those allegations about you and your family, businesses and charities are entirely and manifestly false."

Who is Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz? Well, he's a very wealthy and influential Saudi. Big deal, you say. Is there any other kind? Yes, but even by the standards of very wealthy and influential Saudis, this guy is plugged in: He was the personal banker to the Saudi royal family and head of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, until he sold it to the Saudi government. He has a swanky pad in London and an Irish passport and multiple U.S. business connections, including to Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission.

I'm not saying the 9/11 Commission is a Saudi shell operation, merely making the observation that, whenever you come across a big-shot Saudi, it's considerably less than six degrees of separation between him and the most respectable pillars of the American establishment.

As to whether allegations about support for terrorism by the sheikh and his "family, businesses and charities" are "entirely and manifestly false," the Cambridge University Press is going way further than the United States or most foreign governments would. Of his bank's funding of terrorism, Sheikh Mahfouz's lawyer has said: "Like upper management at any other major banking institution, Khalid Bin Mahfouz was not, of course, aware of every wire transfer moving through the bank. Had he known of any transfers that were going to fund al-Qaida or terrorism, he would not have permitted them." Sounds reasonable enough. Except that in this instance the Mahfouz bank was wiring money to the principal Mahfouz charity, the Muwafaq (or "Blessed Relief") Foundation, which in turn transferred them to Osama bin Laden.

In October 2001, the Treasury Department named Muwafaq as "an al-Qaida front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen" and its chairman as a "specially designated global terrorist." As the Treasury concluded, "Saudi businessmen have been transferring millions of dollars to bin Laden through Blessed Relief."

Indeed, this "charity" seems to have no other purpose than to fund jihad. It seeds Islamism wherever it operates. In Chechnya, it helped transform a reasonably conventional nationalist struggle into an outpost of the jihad. In the Balkans, it played a key role in replacing a traditionally moderate Islam with a form of Mitteleuropean Wahhabism. Pick a Muwafaq branch office almost anywhere on the planet and you get an interesting glimpse of the typical Saudi charity worker. The former head of its mission in Zagreb, Croatia, for example, is a guy called Ayadi Chafiq bin Muhammad. Well, he's called that most of the time. But he has at least four aliases and residences in at least three nations (Germany, Austria and Belgium). He was named as a bin Laden financier by the U.S. government and disappeared from the United Kingdom shortly after 9/11.

So why would the Cambridge University Press, one of the most respected publishers on the planet, absolve Khalid bin Mahfouz, his family, his businesses and his charities to a degree that neither (to pluck at random) the U.S., French, Albanian, Swiss and Pakistani governments would be prepared to do?

Because English libel law overwhelmingly favors the plaintiff. And like many other big-shot Saudis, Sheikh Mahfouz has become very adept at using foreign courts to silence American authors – in effect, using distant jurisdictions to nullify the First Amendment. He may be a wronged man, but his use of what the British call "libel chill" is designed not to vindicate his good name but to shut down the discussion, which is why Cambridge University Press made no serious attempt to mount a defense. He's one of the richest men on the planet, and they're an academic publisher with very small profit margins. But, even if you've got a bestseller, your pockets are unlikely to be deep enough: "House Of Saud, House Of Bush" did boffo biz with the anti-Bush crowd in America, but there's no British edition – because Sheikh Mahfouz had indicated he was prepared to spend what it takes to challenge it in court, and Random House decided it wasn't worth it.

We've gotten used to one-way multiculturalism: The world accepts that you can't open an Episcopal or Congregational church in Jeddah or Riyadh, but every week the Saudis can open radical mosques and madrassahs and pro-Saudi think-tanks in London and Toronto and Dearborn, Mich., and Falls Church, Va. And their global reach extends a little further day by day, inch by inch, in the lengthening shadows, as the lights go out one by one around the world.

Suppose you've got a manuscript about the Saudis. Where are you going to shop it? Think Cambridge University Press will be publishing anything anytime soon?

Scary that someone can suppress the truth in the west like this.

TimJS
08-05-07, 10:59 AM
Scary that someone can suppress the truth in the west like this.

What's more scary is anyone reading Steyn (& taking his opinions seriously) :

Steyn’s way: Write, twist, smear, and sneer. Repeat! Meet Mark Steyn, the most toxic right-wing pundit you’ve never heard of. (http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/dont_quote_me/multi-page/documents/03917099.asp)

bhk
08-06-07, 02:37 PM
What's more scary is anyone reading Steyn (& taking his opinions seriously) :

Steyn’s way: Write, twist, smear, and sneer. Repeat! Meet Mark Steyn, the most toxic right-wing pundit you’ve never heard of. (http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/dont_quote_me/multi-page/documents/03917099.asp)

I had the misfortune of trying to slog through that multi page "article" that's linked there. The author sounds bitter.

Any facts to show that Cambridge University Press didn't cave under pressure?

bhk
08-06-07, 02:44 PM
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=C047EE60-03FD-4A85-97AA-19F3CF14C516


Muslims Silence Critics
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/6/2007

After a police raid Friday at Your Black Muslim Bakery in Oakland, bakery employee Devaughndre Broussard admitted to murdering Chauncey Bailey, the editor of the Oakland Post. Bailey was writing a series of investigative articles about the Bakery – and that’s why, according to police, Broussard killed him.

Your Black Muslim Bakery is an outpost of the Nation of Islam, not of any orthodox Islamic sect, but in this murder Devaughndre Broussard has followed a pattern that some orthodox Muslims have also followed. Violent reprisal has long been an occupational hazard of those who dare to question or investigate Islamic groups or criticize Islamic practices. Filmmaker Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered in November 2004 by a Muslim who took exception to his criticism of the oppression of women in Islamic societies. In 1947, the Iranian lawyer Ahmad Kasravi was murdered in court by Islamic jihadists; Kasravi was there to defend himself against charges that he had attacked Islam.


Four years later, members of the same radical Muslim group, Fadayan-e Islam, assassinated Iranian Prime Minister Haji-Ali Razmara after a group of Muslim clerics issued a fatwa calling for his death. In 1992, the Egyptian writer Faraj Foda was murdered by Muslims enraged at his “apostasy” from Islam — another offense for which traditional Islamic law prescribes the death penalty. Foda’s countryman, the Nobel Prizewinning novelist Naguib Mahfouz, was stabbed in 1994 after accusations of blasphemy. And of course, there is the Iranian regime’s notorious death fatwa against Salman Rushdie.


Chauncey Bailey, moreover, is not the first person in the United States to have been murdered by a Muslim who didn’t like what he said. That distinction may belong to Rashad Khalifa, an unorthodox interpreter of the Qur’an who was murdered in Tucson, Arizona, in January 1990 – probably by a member of the jihadist group Jamaat al-Fuqra. But Bailey’s is still a singular case. Much more common has been the practice of trying to intimidate critics into silence through legal threats.


The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has had great success with this over the years, although lately the tactic appears to be faltering. CAIR was unsuccessful in bullying the Young America’s Foundation into canceling a talk by me last week: the address went on as scheduled on Thursday. In 2006, CAIR dropped a lawsuit against Andrew Whitehead of Anti-CAIR after Mr. Whitehead’s attorney asked a series of probing questions during the discovery process. But before that, CAIR successfully cowed National Review magazine, Fox’s 24, and others into muting in various ways their criticism of Islamic violence and extremism.


Nor is CAIR alone among Muslims in its efforts at legal intimidation. Billionaire Saudi financier Khalid bin Mahfouz has sued journalist Rachel Ehrenfeld and others for libel in the U.K., where the libel laws favor plaintiffs. Ehrenfeld’s offense? In her book Funding Evil, she wrote that bin Mahfouz was involved in funding Hamas and al Qaeda. Bin Mahfouz denied that he had knowingly given any money to either. And Cambridge University Press has, in response to another libel suit filed by bin Mahfouz, just removed from circulation and destroyed all unsold copies of Alms for Jihad by Robert Collins and J. Millard Burr, because the book made essentially the same allegations. But France’s foreign intelligence agency has recently revealed that as long ago as 1996 Mr. bin Mahfouz was known as one of the architects of a banking scheme constructed for the benefit of Osama bin Laden – and that both U.S. and British intelligence services knew this.

The most notorious attempt at legal intimidation of all may be the Flying Imams case, in which six imams are suing US Airways because they were removed from a flight for suspicious behavior. They also attempted to sue the passengers who reported them, although this attempt has apparently been stymied by the retroactive immunity of the Peter King amendment to the Homeland Security bill. If the suit against the passengers had succeeded, imagine the effect: no one would dare report suspicious behavior in an airport or airplane, for fear of being sued. And jihad terrorists would have a free hand.


The lawyer for the Flying Imams is Omar T. Mohammedi, who as of 2006 was president of CAIR’s New York chapter.


The murder of Chauncey Bailey should provide renewed impetus to call upon the American Muslim community to take genuine action against the deeply ingrained culture of violence that provides the context in which such things happen. And the pattern of legal intimidation has been followed so many times now that Americans are becoming increasingly aware of how it works and how it can and must be resisted. For if this intimidation – both violent and nonviolent – is not resisted, those who are doing the intimidating will eventually succeed in establishing a protected class in America, an ideology that cannot be questioned or rejected. And that, more than anything else, will be the end of any semblance of Constitutional government.

I'm sure some here will say this is Mark Steyn's or Ann Coulter's fault.

TimJS
08-06-07, 04:40 PM
I'm sure some here will say this is Mark Steyn's or Ann Coulter's fault.

:lol: Nope not Beltway Barbie or the Human Stain, I'll give you a hint whose fault it is, his initials are DH and he publishes a far right ezine called 'FrontPage'.

bhk
08-07-07, 11:12 AM
:lol: Nope not Beltway Barbie or the Human Stain, I'll give you a hint whose fault it is, his initials are DH and he publishes a far right ezine called 'FrontPage'.

:lol:
Thanks for proving me right. You think this is David Horowitz's fault rather than the people who actually killed the reporter investigating that bakery or the people that cowed the publisher into pulling that book from publication.

TimJS
08-07-07, 12:06 PM
:lol:
Thanks for proving me right. You think this is David Horowitz's fault rather than the people who actually killed the reporter investigating that bakery or the people that cowed the publisher into pulling that book from publication.

:clap: Wake Up! Its DH's fault that the report appeared rather than Coulter or Steyn as you originally suggested.

atlantamoi
08-08-07, 06:46 AM
Brutality by the Bay

Why did the Oakland police do so little about Your Black Muslim Bakery's thuggery?

By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Aug. 6, 2007, at 1:01 PM ET

Here is the situation regarding the enterprise known as Your Black Muslim Bakery, located on San Pablo Avenue in Oakland, Calif. Its founder, a man named Yusuf Bey, was arrested in 2002 and charged with forcing an underage girl to have sex. Subsequent investigation suggested that he had a long history of rape and abuse of his followers and had by this means fathered numerous children out of wedlock. Bey died in September 2003 before his case could come to trial. His son Yusuf Bey IV has since been arrested twice, first on suspicion of leading a gang that had trashed two Oakland liquor stores and intimidated their owners, and second (and perhaps less Islamically) for running over a San Francisco bouncer with his car. Nedir Bey, one of Yusuf Bey's "spiritually adopted" sons, is also alleged to have beaten a possible business rival with a flashlight, while another member of the gang tortured the victim with a heated knife.

These and several other crimes of violence were investigated by the East Bay Express, a local community weekly. Reporter Chris Thompson was subjected to threats and to aggressive stalking, and, for his own safety, worked in a different county for several months after his series about YBMB ran. The paper's editor, Stephen Buel, has been quoted as saying that his office and staff were deluged with threats and haunted by unpleasant characters and that the threats indicated that they originated with Your Black Muslim Bakery. "We have several threats left on voice mail that we obviously had a record of. One of the threats featured a taped quotation of a speech from Yusuf Bey the elder," said Buel. At a certain point, Buel admits, it became more trouble than it was worth to write about YBMB.

Oakland is a city fairly hardened to criminal violence, but beginning last December, there was what the papers like to call a "spree." In that month, a car was raked with bullets from several weapons. In May, two people were kidnapped and one was robbed and tortured. In July, two citizens were murdered by gunshots in the northern part of the city. The bullets all appear, according to the police, to come from the same source, which by now you may have guessed. The late Herb Caen, imperishable columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, used to refer humorously to "Baghdad by the Bay," but by that he meant Beach Blanket Babylon and not this gruesome horror show.

Now, I'm just asking, but: rape, polygamy, intimidation, torture, murder, all these actions emanating from one address and some of them performed in the name of a fanatical ideology. What does it take before the police decide to raid the premises? Should we wait until unveiled women are attacked on the street or until honor killings or female circumcision take hold? (There is no official connection between YBMB and Louis Farrakhan's racist and cultish Nation of Islam, though it seems that Yusuf Bey Sr. did convert to some form of Islam under that sinister organization's auspices.)

My question was answered last Friday, when the Oakland Police Department finally did storm the premises, along with three neighboring homes, and arrested seven people, including Yusuf Bey IV. This, however, was too late to save the life of Chauncey Bailey, the well-liked editor of the black-owned Oakland Post, who had decided to take up where the East Bay Express had left off and to investigate the finances of YBMB. He was shot dead last Thursday in broad daylight on an Oakland street. A young handyman from YBMB named Devaughndre Broussard has been charged in the Bailey case, and other members of the group are being investigated for involvement in the earlier crimes. The "bakery" itself owes more than $200,000 in back taxes and filed for bankruptcy protection last October.

Now, again, I am just asking, but what if this racket had been named the White Christian or Aryan Nations Cookie Parlor? (Motto and mission statement: "Don't F*** With Us.") I think that Oakland's mayor, Ron Dellums—who I was startled to find was still alive—would have joined a picket line around the store (as would I). The same would doubtless have been true of Rep. Barbara Lee, in whose district the YBMB was situated. But instead, in its role as a "community business," the YBMB enjoyed warm support and endorsement from both the mayor and the congresswoman. And the guns for past and future slayings were inside the store.

If this isn't softness on crime, then the term is meaningless. Residents have been complaining for a long time about the atmosphere of hatred and violence—and about what some have called the YBMB's attempt to "cleanse" the neighborhood, either of godless liquor stores on the model of jihadism or simply of business rivals and journalistic critics. What were the police doing all this time, and why did Chauncey Bailey have to be murdered before they could be moved to act? Perhaps they were doing what they do best: confiscating marijuana and rousting whores so as to painlessly improve the crime statistics. I called Bob Valladon, the extremely rude and graceless head of the Oakland police union, but I didn't even get to put my question before receiving a large flea in my ear. Other California law-enforcement officials were adamant in refusing to be quoted in any way. I can't say I blame them: Thousands of their voters and citizens are living in Third World conditions of fear, with a "no-snitch" policy openly enforced at gunpoint, and they cannot be troubled to do anything about it.

This official apathy—amounting to collusion—is undergirded by a culture that cringingly insists on "respect" for any organization, however depraved, that can masquerade as "faith-based." If I had stood outside that hideous bakery with a sign saying "Black Muslims Are Racists and Fanatics," I think the cops would have turned up in a flat second and taken me into custody. I might well have been charged with a hate crime. As I have written before and am sure I will write again: This has to stop, and it has to stop right now, before sharia baking comes to a place near you.

http://www.slate.com/id/2171745/nav/tap3/
_____

Sorry, no bolding... thought the whole article was worth reading. Love reading Hitchens.

Ky-Fi
08-12-07, 09:31 AM
Gotta make sure you silence the Islamophobes:


http://www.islamonline.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=25977

Brussels Bans “Islamized EU” Protest

Brussels banned a protest against the so-called "Islamization of Europe" on Sept. 11, the 6th anniversary of the attacks on the U.S.


BRUSSELS — Brussels mayor Freddy Thielemans has banned a planned protest against the so-called "Islamization of Europe" on September 11, the 6th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the United States.

"The danger to public order is too high," to allow the Brussels protest to go ahead, said the mayor's spokesman Nicolas Dassonville, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP).

The "Stop the Islamization of Europe" (SIOE) group announced plans for the demonstration in front of the European parliament building last month to protest what the group says "Islamization of Europe".

The group is also planning several protests to take place simultaneously around the world, notably in the United States, Canada and Australia.

The SIOE claims that Islam is "a tool for introducing Islamic imperialistic politics" in Europe.

It also alleges that Islam and democracy are incompatible because of the teachings of the Noble Qur'an.

SIOE is an alliance of people across Europe with the single aim of preventing Islam becoming a dominant political force in Europe.

Brussels mayor said that the planned September protest would alienate Muslims in the city.

"The sizeable foreign community living in the area could react to the action," his spokesman said.

But the SIOE hit back at the mayor's stance.

"The mayor in Brussels is not fully aware of his responsibility," it said on its website.

"For as a mayor at EU's capital you cannot simply forbid ordinary European citizens to express their constitutional freedoms."

Brussels authorities receive between 500 and 600 requests to hold protests each year. In the last five years only six have been banned.

It is a paradox that Islamophobia has been on the rise, while more Europeans and westerns in general are embracing Islam since the September 11 attacks in 2001.

Last month, the private secretary of Pope Benedict XVI of the Vatican warned of the "Islamization of Europe" and urged defense of Europe's "Christian roots."

Pope Benedict himself drew international criticism last year after quoting a Byzantine emperor in his speech, who associated Islam with violence.

In June, Germany's top cardinal warned against "uncritical tolerance" which could lead to Islam enjoying equal standing with Christianity in the country.

Though Islam is the continent's second religion, Muslims across Europe are facing campaigns from far-right groups and some church leaders to have stately mosques.

Muslim leaders in Europe have always maintained that westerners are reverting to Islam out of their own volition without any simple form of proselytizing.


Source: IslamOnline

edit: petition against ban can be found here:

http://www.petitiononline.com/ulfkotte/petition.html

bhk
08-12-07, 10:52 AM
Exactly the sort of thing I would expect from the Dhimmis in Belgium.

bhk
08-14-07, 01:50 PM
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/16309


DOCTORS GIVE IN TO MUSLIMS



Doctors can no longer eat at their desks

Monday August 13,2007
By Tom Fullerton Have your say(2)
DOCTORS and health workers have been banned from eating lunch at their desks - in case it offends their Muslim colleagues.

Health chiefs believe the sight of food will upset Muslim workers when they are celebrating the religious festival Ramadan.

The lunch trolley is also to be wheeled out of bounds as the 30-day fast begins next month.

But staff and politicians branded the move political correctness gone mad and warned that it was a step too far.

Bill Aitken, the Scottish Conservative justice spokesman, said: “This advice, well-meaning as it may be, is total nonsense.

“It is the sort of thing that can stir up resentment rather than result in good relations.”

The new guidance comes in the wake of the failed terror attacks on Glasgow and the death of suspect Kafeel Ahmed, 27.

Health chiefs in Lothian and Glasgow will give all employees time off to pray and to celebrate Eid, which marks the end of Ramadan.

But Greater Glasgow and Clyde as well as Lothian NHS boards also issued the advice, warning workers not to take working lunches, and said all vending machines should be removed from areas where Muslims work.

One senior consultant said: “What next? Are we going to have advice on how to deal with Catholics during Lent?
“This kind of thing does more harm than good.”

The guidance, which was sent round many organisations, was produced by Glasgow consultancy Meem, which advises on Muslim issues and counts the Scottish Parliament among its clients.
Na’eem Raza, a senior consultant with the firm, said he was thrilled that the health boards had formally adopted the guidance.

He added: “The idea is to get faith in the workplace out in the open.

“In the current climate, people need to understand where communities are coming from and what people are feeling.

“After the Glasgow attack this is very important. This is about educating people and making them more aware and more confident when dealing with issues surrounding the Muslim community.

“People have stopped talking over the garden fence and we need to break down the barriers so that people can talk comfortably to each other.

“It would never stir up resentment. Faith is an important issue. Why not have guidance on all of the issues that affect us, including different faiths?”

Health chiefs defended their use of the guidance and said it was important to promote a positive and tolerant culture at work.

A NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde spokesman said: “As a large organisation we recognise that many of our staff, patients and visitors will be participating in Ramadan.

“We have therefore made information available to our staff to raise awareness of Ramadan and help to answer any questions they may have.”

NHS Lothian said: “We have recently agreed a quality and diversity strategy and as a responsible and pro-active employer we will continue to promote a positive culture which recognises and respects diversity both in our workforce and in the people we serve.”

The whole point of fasting is to steel yourself against temptation.

Do I hear anyone say "fish 'n' chips eating surrender monkeys"?

wendersfan
08-14-07, 02:00 PM
Do I hear anyone say "fish 'n' chips eating surrender monkeys"?Haggis eating surrender monkeys. But what can you expect from the Scots? They lost to the English, off all people. :lol:

wishbone
08-14-07, 02:12 PM
Wow, where is the edict that people cannot eat meat in front of Catholics on Fridays during Lent? -ohbfrank-

Ky-Fi
08-14-07, 02:18 PM
Do I hear anyone say "fish 'n' chips eating surrender monkeys"?

But the thing is, it's not the average European man-on-the-street who's going along with this, it's the dhimmi multiculturalist elite who are presently in the corridors of power. And I think the gap is growing between the two. For an idea, read the signatures of the petition that I posted earlier in regards to the protest against the Islamification of Europe being banned:

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?ulfkotte

bhk
08-15-07, 02:08 PM
But the thing is, it's not the average European man-on-the-street who's going along with this, it's the dhimmi multiculturalist elite who are presently in the corridors of power. And I think the gap is growing between the two.

I hope so. Remember, it's the average man on the street who elected the fools that are doing this because they promised cadle-to-grave largesse with other people's money.

Ky-Fi
08-15-07, 04:28 PM
I hope so. Remember, it's the average man on the street who elected the fools that are doing this because they promised cadle-to-grave largesse with other people's money.

Yep, you're right---they did freely elect these people. But I think many were not aware of the extent of the Socialist/Islamic cooperation in completely altering European culture to the extent that's happening. And as the native Europeans grow increasingly uncomfortable with the direction their countries are taking, the multiculturalists in power are going to do their best to surpress them, as we're seeing with this ban. And that's just going to get the pot really simmering. I know in recent interviews, Robert Spencer has said that he thinks civil war(s) are a more likely possibility than "Eurabia".

Ky-Fi
08-21-07, 05:28 PM
I think it's a HUGE mistake for the Mayor of Brussels to ban this demonstration. This is a huge issue, and to ban the debate from the political mainstream is laying the groundwork for violent extremists on both sides, IMO.

Here's the Mayor's logic:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2337

"I decided to forbid the September 11 demonstration “against the islamicisation of Europe.” […] Since 2001 I have allowed over 3,500 demonstrations. This is only the sixth one which I forbid. […] The right to demonstrate exists only inasmuch as it does not cause a disturbance of the public peace and order. […] First and foremost the organizers have chosen the symbolic date of 9/11. The intention is obviously to confound the terrorist activities of Muslim extremists on the one hand and Islam as a religion and all Muslims on the other hand. […] Such incitement to discrimination and hatred, which we usually call racism and xenophobia, is forbidden by a considerable number of international treaties and is punished by our penal laws and by the European legislation. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly pronounced judgements condemning this type of acts. […]

Our society has long fought to achieve that certain codes of behaviour connected with the Catholic religion are no longer enforced as civil law upon everyone. To my knowledge not a single rule specific to the Islamic religion is being enforced in similar fashion. And I see no indication that a large majority of our Muslim population is demanding any such thing.

Let us not forget that Brussels has always shown tolerance and openness towards everyone who lives here or seeks refuge here. Diversity, compromise, tolerance and rejection of extremes remain the foundation of the Brussels identity. […] With regard to the planned demonstration of September 11 “against the Islamicisation of Europe” my mind is made up. And my decision is final: it will not take place."

***
Now, people can agree with that---fine. But to completely demonize and ban any rational dissent to that opinion with the tired charges of "racism" and "xenophobia"?


This guy in this video is a hardcore atheist, and as such I'm not completely in his camp, but he's got some things to say :lol:


<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="370" wmode="transparent" data="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=33c_1187358686"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=33c_1187358686"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><param name="quality" value="high"></object>

Ky-Fi
08-31-07, 04:52 PM
Belgium's highest court has upheld the ban on the peaceful demonstration. September 11 in Brussels should be interesting:

It’s 9/11, Stupid! How Criminal Is the Belgian Judiciary?

By Paul Belien

In June 2002, the Arab-European League (AEL), an anti-Semitic Islamist organization of Belgian immigrants led by Lebanese-born Dyab Abu Jahjah, a notorious member of the Hezbollah, requested permission to hold a demonstration in Antwerp. Two months earlier, an AEL march had led to heavy riots in the city. Antwerp has Belgium’s largest concentration of Jews. The Antwerp mayor, fearing new violence, prohibited the demonstration.

The AEL appealed against the ban before the Council of State (CoS), Belgium’s highest administrative court. The CoS ruled that the mayor had violated the constitutional freedom to demonstrate and allowed the demonstration to go ahead. The demonstrators shouted pro-Hezbollah and pro-Hamas slogans, called George W. Bush a murderer, demanded a Belgian boycott of Israel and burned the effigy of a Hassidic Jew. The police kept a low profile and allowed the 600 demonstrators to do as they pleased. “Thanks to the independent Belgian judiciary we have been able to demonstrate,” a victorious AEL leader Dyab Abu Jahjah said, as the puppet representing the Jew burned behind him.

Many Antwerpians remember the event. It made it plain for all to see who is the boss in the city. The Jews remember it, too. They no longer feel safe in Antwerp. Many of them are leaving.

Last April a group of Danish and British citizens convened in Copenhagen for what they called a “counterjihad summit.” The attendants were concerned citizens, many of them bloggers, who had come to know each other through the internet. These people are decent, ordinary citizens who have nothing to do with the far right. For many of them the 9/11/2001 terror attacks in the U.S. and the Danish cartoon affair triggered an interest in the problem of Muslim immigration into Europe. It made them aware of the unwillingness of a substantial part of the latter to accept basic Western values.

Since a growing number of Europeans are concerned about this issue, the Copenhagen “summit” decided to organize an international demonstration in front of the European Parliament buildings, situated in Brussels, the capital of Belgium, on 9/11/2007. Initially the British organization Stop the Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) and the Danish group Stop Islamiseringen af Danmark (SIAD) acted as the demonstration’s organisers. Soon they were joined by the German group Pax Europa.

On 9 August, Freddy Thielemans, the mayor of Brussels banned the demonstration. He did so, he explained, primarily because the demonstrators were coming to Brussels on September 11: “First and foremost the organizers have chosen the symbolic date of 9/11. The intention is obviously to confound the terrorist activities of Muslim extremists on the one hand and Islam as a religion and all Muslims on the other hand. […] Such incitement to discrimination and hatred, which we usually call racism and xenophobia, is forbidden by a considerable number of international treaties and is punished by our penal laws and by the European legislation. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly pronounced judgments condemning this type of acts.”

According to the mayor the demonstrators are “racists,” “xenophobes,” hence criminals under Belgian and European law. “With regard to the planned demonstration of September 11 […] my mind is made up. And my decision is final: it will not take place,” he said. In The Wall Street Journal of 27 August Mr Thielemans added: “I won't have Brussels regarded as the capital of racism.”

The organizers appealed against the mayor’s ban before the CoS. They were confident that it would overrule the mayor’s decision. After all, the CoS had overruled the mayor of Antwerp’s ban of the AEL demonstration five years earlier.

Yesterday, however, the CoS upheld the mayor of Brussels’ ban. In its verdict the CoS stated that the organizers cannot prove that their interests are harmed by the mayor’s decision not to allow them to demonstrate on 9/11. The impropriety of the date of the planned demo was the crucial element in the argument made before the court by the mayor’s lawyer. Anyone who dares to suggest that the 9/11 terror attacks have anything to do with Islamism is a racist, a xenophobe, a criminal. That is what the mayor of Brussels says, and what the verdict of the CoS implicitly but undeniably reaffirms.

To make this point quite clear, the Brussels mayor is allowing an anti-American demonstration on 9 September by a group claiming that the 9/11/2001 terror attacks are the work of the American government, acting on behalf of the Jews. In Brussels, stating that the attacks on the WTC towers and on the Pentagon were committed by Muslims is a crime, although it is a fact. Stating that America and Israel were behind the attacks is not a crime, although it is a lie.

Perhaps the Belgian politicians and judiciary assume that if the people are no longer allowed to state the truth, the truth will cease to be the truth and become the lie. But it does not work that way. From now on people will simply keep their opinions to themselves, but they will become more strongly convinced of the things they know to be a fact and they will regard their politicians and their judges as the guardians of lies.

Since the court ruling in 2002 it is clear to everyone in Antwerp who really is the boss in the city. That is why the Jews are leaving and the indigenous citizens vote for the “Islamophobic” Vlaams Belang party. Since yesterday’s CoS ruling it is clear to everyone that the non-Islamic indigenous Europeans no longer are allowed to voice their opinion in the “capital of Europe.” Undoubtedly the Islamists have taken note of this as well. It will make them even more arrogant than they already are. They now know that they are allowed to say whatever they like, that they are allowed to demonstrate whenever they like, that they are allowed to burn effigies of Jews in the streets. But do not dare to say that Muslims committed the 9/11 atrocities, do not dare to demonstrate on 9/11, and never burn an effigy of a Muslim in the streets or the Brussels police will kick the hell out of you and the Belgian judiciary will condemn you as a criminal.

I have Muslim friends. They are decent, devout conservatives who live in Turkey and back the AKP. Last year, when I was being harassed by the Belgian government’s so-called “anti-racism” body for articles written on this website, these Turkish Muslim friends, upon hearing of my problems, told me that I would always be welcome in Turkey if Belgium’s secularist authorities should ever prosecute me as a “racist” or “Islamophobe.”

Last year I wrote here that “It is no coincidence, I think, that precisely the fanatic proponents of a complete secularisation of European society, such as Belgium’s leading politicians and intellectuals (including priests such as Father Leman) are harassing the so-called ‘islamophobes’ and ‘racists.’” That is why I agree with a devout Muslim such as Mustafa Akyol that the real threat to our freedoms are “secular fundamentalists,” not religious people.

Freddy Thielemans, the Brussels’ mayor, is a secular fundamentalist who hates religion. On the day of Pope John Paul’s death he ordered “Champagne for everyone.” Freddy backs the Islamists, not because they are religious people, but because he knows that they are intolerant totalitarians like himself. That is precisely the reason why his party, the Parti Socialiste, teams up with the Islamists, offering them good places on its candidates lists at election time and letting them become Belgian politicians.

If we are not allowed by secularist and Islamist extremists (and their allies in the Belgian judiciary) to state that Muslims committed the hideous carnage of 9/11/2001 we indicate that there are no such things as radical Islamists on the one hand and moderate Muslims on the other. Ordinary Europeans, who do not have Muslim friends but who know the truth about the 9/11 criminals, will come to see all Muslims as equally dangerous and evil. That is why I consider the CoS ruling as more than a mistake, a stupidity, a miscarriage of justice, it is a crime.

Meanwhile, the Belgian media say that European neo-Nazi groups, keen on wrecking havoc, are planning to come to Brussels on 9/11. As the demonstration has been declared illegal the organizers have been deprived of the means to control events and keep away the skinheads of the far right. Perhaps next 11 September will witness some nasty fighting in front of the European Union headquarters between organizations such as Blood & Honour and Abu Jahjah’s AEL, which has also rallied its members to demonstrate in Brussels. Perhaps Mayor Thielemans can invite both B&H and the AEL to the town hall of Brussels in an effort to reconcile them. They are, after all, all Socialists at heart as well as anti-Semites.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source URL:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2389

bhk
09-01-07, 10:31 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070831/ap_on_go_ot/explosives_arrest_terrorism_1


Fla. students face explosives indictment By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
Fri Aug 31, 1:10 PM ET



Two Egyptian students at the University of South Florida were indicted Friday for carrying explosive materials across states lines and one of them was charged with teaching the other how to use them for violent reasons.

Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed, 24, an engineering graduate student and teaching assistant at the Tampa-based university, faces terrorism charges for teaching and demonstrating how to use the explosives.

He and Youssef Samir Megahed, 21, an engineering student, were stopped for speeding in Goose Creek, S.C., on Aug. 4, where they have been held on state charges.


Hmmm....Youssef and Ahmed..... This means we'll have to keep a closer eye on those Scandinavian Lutherans.

cinten
09-01-07, 12:36 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070831/ap_on_go_ot/explosives_arrest_terrorism_1



Hmmm....Youssef and Ahmed..... This means we'll have to keep a closer eye on those Scandinavian Lutherans.


No it means we need to keep our eyes on all muslims, and anyone who could be a muslim. In fact we should just keep our eyes on anyone who isn't white, because white people aren't terrorists only muslims and arabs are.

Ky-Fi
09-01-07, 01:05 PM
No it means we need to keep our eyes on all muslims, and anyone who could be a muslim. In fact we should just keep our eyes on anyone who isn't white, because white people aren't terrorists only muslims and arabs are.

And what you're saying then, if I read you correctly, is that we should all immediately surrender to Osama Bin Laden, covert to Islam and replace the constitution with Sharia law. That's exactly what you believe and is what you're saying, isn't it? Because, using your logic, that's exactly what I've inferred from your posts.

Well sir (cue video of American flag waving, and God Bless America playing in background) You...make...me....SICK!

-ohbfrank-

And again, if you want to see the political application of cinten's logic onto a democratic society, just read the quotes from the Mayor of Brussels from my posts above.

crazyronin
09-01-07, 01:32 PM
No it means we need to keep our eyes on all muslims, and anyone who could be a muslim. In fact we should just keep our eyes on anyone who isn't white, because white people aren't terrorists only muslims and arabs are.

So you're saying that "white people" (i.e. Caucasians) can't be Muslim? You must know something these people don't.

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/8928/chechmuslimhv0.jpg
Chechen Muslims.

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/4686/bosmuslimdy8.jpg
Bosnian Muslims.

Trout
09-02-07, 09:34 AM
No it means we need to keep our eyes on all muslims, and anyone who could be a muslim. In fact we should just keep our eyes on anyone who isn't white, because white people aren't terrorists only muslims and arabs are.

Damn those muslim IRA terrorists...and Tim Mcveigh too.

cinten
09-02-07, 09:59 AM
Damn those muslim IRA terrorists...and Tim Mcveigh too.


I thought they were terrorists too, but BHK and others have claimed they don't count.

I figured people could understand simple sarcasm, but I guess not.

bhk
09-02-07, 10:31 AM
They go on to other better forms of humor when one gets further along in one's education.

When the story broke of the arrests a couple of weeks ago, our lamestream media was only to happy to regurgitate propaganda from some Moslem spokesman that these guys were on their way to a vacation and forgot they had firworks in the trunk of their car.

cinten
09-02-07, 10:52 AM
They go on to other better forms of humor when one gets further along in one's education.

oh snap!

I wonder what that says about your use of sarcasm....

When the story broke of the arrests a couple of weeks ago, our lamestream media was only to happy to regurgitate propaganda from some Moslem spokesman that these guys were on their way to a vacation and forgot they had firworks in the trunk of their car.


By lamestream I guess you mean anything that isn't Whitehouse propaganda.

bhk
09-04-07, 02:06 PM
I wonder what that says about your use of sarcasm....

Just trying to keep things at a level that facilitates people who are usually oppose my political views here understanding of them.



http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0410950220070904


Danish police arrest 8 Muslims in alleged bomb plot

By Kim McLaughlin

COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - Danish police arrested eight young Muslims in pre-dawn raids on Tuesday on suspicion of plotting a bomb attack and having links with al Qaeda.

Jakob Scharf, director of the Danish police's Security Intelligence Service, did not say what the alleged target was or in which country.

But he said it was the first such direct al Qaeda connection discovered in Denmark and that Danish intelligence had cooperated with unnamed foreign security services during an investigation that lasted several months.

"These are militant Islamists with connections to high-ranking members of al Qaeda," Scharf told a news conference. "We believe this was a serious situation."

Terror experts said Denmark was a target for extremists because of its military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and a crisis sparked last year after cartoons lampooning the Prophet Mohammad were published in a Danish newspaper.

"Denmark is on the extremists' radar screen for a number of different reasons -- the first one of course being the controversial Iraq engagement," Magnus Ranstorp, terrorism expert at the Swedish National Defense College, told Reuters.

Ranstorp said that a crackdown on asylum-seekers since 2001 and the Prophet cartoon crisis had further aggravated Denmark's exposure.

"For some, this could probably become a catalyst for wanting to exact a price for what they see as an onslaught on Islam."

IMPORTANT EVIDENCE

The Muslims arrested ranged from 19 to 29 years old. They came from Afghan, Pakistani, Somali and Turkish backgrounds and six were Danish citizens, Scharf said.

"Our investigation has shown that some of the suspects had acquired materials to make explosives," he said.

He did not say whether any explosives had been found but said important evidence had been discovered in the raids in central Copenhagen and its suburbs.

Scharf said the arrests underlined the intelligence service's belief that individuals and groups of people in Denmark had the will and capacity to launch attacks and that al Qaeda had recovered the strength to launch attacks in Europe.

Later on Tuesday, a Copenhagen court remanded two of the suspects -- the ones believed to be the main players -- in custody for 27 days. Suspects can be remanded in custody under preliminary charges for many months in Denmark, with the right to periodic hearings in court.

Scharf said the six others would most likely be released after questioning.

The arrests were the latest in a series of cases Danish authorities have pursued under anti-terrorism laws passed after the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.

A Copenhagen court sentenced a Danish Muslim youth to seven years in prison in February for planning an attack in Europe, but cleared three others. Prosecutors are seeking a retrial in one of the three acquittals.

Four other men are awaiting trial on charges of plotting a bomb attack in the Nordic country, which has about 450 troops in Afghanistan and recently scaled down its military presence in Iraq to a small contingent.

(Additional reporting by Martin Burlund and Gelu Sulugiuc in Copenhagen and Sarah Edmonds in Stockholm)

I have to hand it to the Danish press. Not only were they courageous enough to print the cartoons while our media cowered under their desks, they're not afraid of calling attention to the 800 lb gorrilla in the corner.

Nazgul
09-04-07, 02:14 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0410950220070904


Oops! I'm sure it's all just a big mistake and they were just studying how to build bombs.

bhk
09-05-07, 11:44 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=480021&in_page_id=1811

Police have smashed a suspected al Qaeda terror cell nursing a "profound hatred of US citizens" plotting to bomb civilian and military jets.

The force of the planned explosions would have been worse than the train bombings in Madrid and the Tube and bus attacks in London on 7 July, 2005, according to German security sources. Those attacks killed 191 and 52 people respectively.

Three men aged 22, 28 and 29 have been arrested in Germany days before they planned to strike, and bomb-making equipment and explosives have been seized.

The arrests come a day after Danish police conducted raids and took eight young Muslims into custody whom they suspect of plotting a bomb attack and having links with al Qaeda. No direct link has yet been established between the two plots.

Federal prosecutor Monika Harms said the three suspects had bought 700kg (1,500lbs) of hydrogen peroxide to make massive bombs. She said: "We have prevented what we believe would have been the worst terror attacks ever on German soil".

She declined to name specific targets but said the suspects had an eye on institutions and establishments frequented by Americans in Germany, including discos, pubs and airports.

Citing unnamed security sources in Berlin, the broadcaster Suedwestfunk said Frankfurt International Airport and US Ramstein Air Base were among targets.

Joerg Ziercke, the head of Germany's federal crime office, said the men had a "profound hatred of US citizens".


German security sources have reportedly said the men belonged to the Islamic Jihad, an Egyptain terrorist group that merged with al Qaeda in 2001.

Wolfgang Bosbach, an MP with Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats, said the plot may have been timed to coincide with the anniversary of the 2001 atrocities in the US.

Franz Josef Jung, the defence minister, said: "The attacks were planned for the near future. They presented a real threat to life."


The suspects are believed to have been planning simultaneous attacks on aircraft sitting on the ground. Security services had been watching them for six months until yesterday, when the investigators spontaneously made the arrests after the men were observed moving chemicals from one storage location to another.


As is customary in Germany, the suspects have only been identified by their first names and last initials. Daniel S comes from the Saarland, Fritz G from Ulm in Bavaria and Adem Y from Turkey, although there are reports that he holds a Pakistani passport. The two Germans are 22 and 28, while Adem Y is 29.

The men were arrested yesterday as two dozen raids took place across Germany. They are believed to have been detained in the Frankfurt area.


One of those held, Fritz G, put up a fight when police raided the men's house in the Frankfurt area. He escaped through a bathroom window and managed to reach an outer cordon of officers about 300 metres away before being aprehended. He was able to snatch a gun, which went off, from a policeman. No one was hurt.

A German network reported that shots had been fired when police raided a house in a town in the western state of North Rhine-Westphalia.


The Germans are converts to Islam. At least one of the men is reported to have received terrorist training overseas.
The German intelligence service is said to have learned of the plot through emails.


The suspects are reported to have confessed. Security services are trawling their contacts to make sure there are no back-up teams.


Ramstein serves as America's main logistical base to service the war in Iraq. Germany has ground troops in Afghanistan.

"There are clear indications that at a minimum Ramstein and the Frankfurt airport were possible targets and that they would not have waited long to strike," leading conservative politician Wolfgang Bosbach told German television station N24, adding the attacks could have been timed to coincide with the anniversary of September 11.



Police believe that the men wanted to experiment in the coming days and weeks with the chemicals and possibly start building a bomb. They were, however, far away from making a bomb that could be detonated.

A "bomb factory" is said to have been found in the village of Oberschledorn in the Sauerland. Locals said undercover police had been watching the house from a caravan.

Captain Jeff Gradeck, a spokesman for the US European Command (EUCOM) in Stuttgart, said: "We don't have any information yet that US facilities were targeted."

There was no comment from Frankfurt airport, one of Europe's busiest. The Ramstein base in the nearby state of Rhineland-Palatinate, 130 km (80 miles) southwest of the airport, is one of the most important US air bases overseas.

Germany, which has forces stationed in Afghanistan, has been on high alert for attacks. The country has feared a re-emergence of militant Islamic groups since 2001, when the northern city of Hamburg was used as a base for planning the September 11 attacks.

Earlier this year, federal prosecutors charged a Lebanese man held in detention over an unsuccessful attempt to detonate bombs on two trains in Germany in 2006.

He and another suspect were caught on surveillance cameras wheeling suitcases containing bombs aboard trains at Cologne's main railway station.

Both men left suitcases on the trains, which they planned to detonate later in the day with a timed explosive device. Despite being activated, the bombs failed to go off because of a technical error, the prosecutor's office said.

"No direct link has yet been established between the two plots. "

I'm sure the German police could think of one if they tried hard enough.

bhk
09-05-07, 11:46 PM
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_01/suspectLL_468x691.jpg

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_01/1TerrorSuspectG_468x402.jpg

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_01/BlueBarrelsAP_228x289.jpg

Pictures from the above article.

DVD Polizei
09-06-07, 12:19 AM
Why does it matter if Al Qaeda, Al Kinda, or Al Kudos is related to the terrorist attempt. We should be past the "It's AQ! Oh Noooozzz!" type of mentality. It doesn't get us anywhere and only lends more power to AQ. At this point in time, we can't even verify if a group is truly AQ or if they just say it because they know it means more publicity and power than what they currently have, and then go on a terrorist plan of action.

They are simply terrorists. They should be tried before a jury. And then executed if found guilty. NO fucking prison time. Just a complimentary double-tap, and an unmarked grave at a local waste recycling center.

bhk
09-06-07, 10:51 AM
But, this being Germany, they'll probably get less than 7 years in prison. No executions.

bhk
09-06-07, 03:33 PM
http://www.thelocal.se/8412/20070906/


Muslim ambassadors: 'Sweden needs to change its laws'
Published: 6th September 2007 17:19 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/8412/

Ambassadors from Muslim countries have indicated that they intend to present the Swedish prime minister with a list of demands when they meet for talks on Friday.

Fredrik Reinfeldt invited the ambassadors from 20 Muslim countries to government offices on Friday following a wave of protests from Muslim countries after the publication of a caricature of Muhammad in local newspaper Nerikes Allehanda.

Reinfeldt's press secretary Oscar Hållén was unable to say which countries had confirmed their attendance.

Egyptian ambassador Mohamed Sotouhi told news agency TT that he and a group of fellow ambassadors had agreed on a list of measures Sweden needed to take if it was to secure a long-term solution to the Muhammad cartoon controversy.

According to Sotouhi, "comprehensive measures" were required if Sweden was to prevent some "amateur artist" from reawakening tensions every other month.

"We want to see action, not just nice words. We have to push for a change in the law," he said.

"Muslims need legal protection against the desecration of the Prophet Muhammad, maybe something similar to the protection enjoyed by Jews and homosexuals."

While praising the "very constructive steps" taken by Fredrik Reinfeldt, the Egyptian ambassador said that Sweden had much work left to do.

"In the long term the school curriculum has to convince pupils that if they want to express their opinion they should do so in such a way that it doesn't cause offence or hurt. This should also be part of journalism training," said Sotouhi.

"A permanent parliamentary committee also needs to be established to tackle islamophobia," he added.

The ambassador urged Reinfeldt to strive towards "reaching a balance between freedom of speech and taking responsibility to avoid offending Muslims or other religious groups in this society".

"Everybody will compare his wisdom with the situation in Denmark, whose prime minister treated the problem with a sort of arrogance, or at least delayed taking action to prevent the problem from escalating," he said.

Sotouhi described Sweden as a sophisticated country containing talented and creative diplomats.

"They know that proactive measures are necessary and we are ready to cooperate with them," he said.

Algeria's ambassador to Sweden, Merzak Bedjaoui, said the meeting "was an excellent initiative taken in a spirit of appeasement."

"At our level, we are trying to work hand in hand with Swedish authorities to try to create a real bridge between our communities," he said.

"When we speak of a dialogue between civilisations, it can't just be a catchy slogan. I think that the publication of this kind of caricature doesn't help at all," he said.

Earlier in the day the Oscar Hållén said that the meeting would form "part of our dialogue with these countries."

"We want to emphasize the fact that Muslims and Christians live side by side in Sweden in a spirit of mutual respect," he said.

Hållén further added that the government intended to reiterate its earler defence of Swedish laws surrounding freedom of expression.

List of demands(not suggestions mind you) sounds like a threat.

Ky-Fi
09-06-07, 05:52 PM
This young woman is clearly another hateful, intolerant right-wing Islamophobe:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-inob20I_Y0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-inob20I_Y0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Ky-Fi
09-06-07, 06:02 PM
Algeria's ambassador to Sweden, Merzak Bedjaoui, said the meeting "was an excellent initiative taken in a spirit of appeasement."


Ain't that the truth. :lol:

bhk
09-06-07, 10:10 PM
This young woman is clearly another hateful, intolerant right-wing Islamophobe:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-inob20I_Y0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-inob20I_Y0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Let's hope she has a good life insurance policy. I didn't catch that appeasement quote before. :lol:

bhk
09-07-07, 09:49 AM
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com./Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=278243F2-B793-4E3B-B1FE-8456C7AE040B

CAIR's Dirty Tricks against Me
By Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com | 9/7/2007

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, North America’s foremost Islamist group, bills itself as a “civil rights organization,” suggesting it maintains high standards of decency and morality. But, as I personally can attest, it fails abysmally to do so. Its seven-year-long campaign against me has included misappropriation, misrepresentation, misquotation, defamation, and inaccuracy, prompting one writer recently to compare its propaganda with that of Nazi Germany.


Consider several dirty-trick episodes:


DanielPipes.com: On December 15, 2000, simultaneous with the debut of my website, www.DanielPipes.org, John Michael Janney registered the domain www.DanielPipes.com. Janney was both a member of CAIR and an employee at InfoCom Corporation in Richardson, Texas (a firm subsequently shuttered by the U.S. government and its owners found guilty of illegal transactions with Hamas, Libya, and Syria). Shortly thereafter, his rogue “com” website automatically redirected visitors to a page on CAIR’s site defaming me. After I threatened a lawsuit, Janney failed to renew www.DanielPipes.com and I took hold of it in early 2002.


Cybercast News Service article: A cub reporter from CNSNews.com attended a talk I gave on July 24, 2003, at the Young America Foundation conference in Washington. She mangled what I’d said in a report the next day, ascribing to me terms I never use (“militaristic Islam,” “Palestine”), sentiments I do not espouse (that Middle Easterners are reluctant to “go the Christian way”), and policy recommendations I vehemently reject (“We should be saying to the state of Israel to integrate [the Palestinian refugees] and let them become citizens”).


Worst of all, she stated that “Pipes added that he doesn’t perceive the Islamic people as divided into two groups: the radical terrorists and those who are not.” In fact, I said that I don’t perceive Islamists dividing into two groups but see them all as totalitarians. Using this faulty report, CAIR “action alert” number 390, dated July 27, trumpeted the headline “Daniel Pipes Compares ‘Islamic People’ to ‘Nazis’.”


I pointed out to the CNSNews.com editors the mistakes their reporter had made. They listened to a tape of my talk, acknowledged their journalist’s errors, and retracted her article, pulling it from the website and sending letters, both electronic and paper, to CAIR to inform it of this action. CAIR, however, refused to acknowledge the retraction, and its calumny against me remains on its website to this day.


Shi‘ite endorsement: On August 20, 2003, a group calling itself “American Muslims of the Shia tradition” sent me a letter endorsing President Bush’s nominating me to the U.S. Institute of Peace board, which I promptly posted. Leading the charge against my nomination, CAIR pressured the signatories to withdraw their endorsement, which some did. CAIR then accused me, in its “American Muslim News Briefs,” dated September 15, of having “misrepresented” their support.


In response, the Shi'ites favoring my nomination issued a second statement exposing CAIR’s methods: “On August 20, 2003, a group of Shia organizations endorsed Mr. Pipes. However, on September 13, 2003, few members of this group withdrew their endorsement stating that they had no knowledge of that endorsement. Also, they alleged that Mr. Pipes misrepresented the issue by listing their names as the endorsees. That was not so. He acted in good faith on the statement that was made available to him. We regret this action on their part.” In short, the Shi'ites accused CAIR, not me, of misrepresentation.


Edward Kennedy letter: In a letter to the Boston Herald on August 29, 2003, Sen. Edward Kennedy explained his opposition to my USIP nomination earlier that month. He also praised me, writing that “Pipes is a serious scholar, and I would support him for another post.” In its distribution of this letter (American Muslim News Briefs, August 30, 2003), CAIR reprinted Kennedy’s letter, omitting the above sentence.


Hijabs: Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s “national communications director,” stated in January 2007 that I think “that if a woman wants to wear a headscarf, it’s the beginning of the end of Western civilization.” It’s witty but it’s wrong; I oppose the wearing of niqabs and burqas but accept hijabs as a matter of self-expression.


Giuliani campaign: As PipeLineNews.org showed in its article, “CAIR Continues Its Campaign of Deceit against Daniel Pipes,” when the news came out in August 2007 of my connection to Rudy Giuliani’s campaign for the presidency, CAIR sent out an attack piece, “Muslim-Basher Joins Giuliani Campaign,” that thrice twisted my words. For example, CAIR quoted me telling the American Jewish Congress in late 2002:

I worry very much from the Jewish point of view that the presence, and increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims...will present true dangers to American Jews.

Ah, but as with the Kennedy letter, watch out for those slippery ellipses. Here is the full quote:

I worry very much, from the Jewish point of view, that the presence, and increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims, because they are so much led by an Islamist leadership, that this will present true dangers to American Jews.

“Because they are so much led by an Islamist leadership” - i.e., I worry about American Muslims because they are led by CAIR and other groups with an extremist agenda. Mysteriously, that phrase dropped out. My statement takes on a different meaning with it back in.


As PipeLineNews.org puts it, “CAIR has once again proven itself to be comprised of dissimulators, engaging in a well-established pattern of half truths and misrepresentations that would make any of the Third Reich’s propagandists proud.”

The tactics of one of the organizations who most frequently shout "Islamophobia.."

bhk
09-07-07, 08:58 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2409833.ece


From The TimesSeptember 8, 2007

Our followers ‘must live in peace until strong enough to wage jihad’
Andrew Norfolk
One of the world’s most respected Deobandi scholars believes that aggressive military jihad should be waged by Muslims “to establish the supremacy of Islam” worldwide.

Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani argues that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle.

His views explode the myth that the creed of offensive, expansionist jihad represents a distortion of traditional Islamic thinking.(Edit: Not to anyone who has been paying attention and who hasn't drank the kool-aid shoveled by the useful idiots in the media)

Mr Usmani, 64, sat for 20 years as a Sharia judge in Pakistan’s Supreme Court. He is an adviser to several global financial institutions and a regular visitor to Britain. Polite and softly spoken, he revealed to The Times a detailed knowledge of world events and his words, for the most part, were balanced and considered.

He agreed that it was wrong to suggest that the entire nonMuslim world was intent on destroying Islam. Yet this is a man who, in his published work, argues the case for Muslims to wage an expansionist war against nonMuslim lands.

Mr Usmani’s justification for aggressive military jihad as a means of establishing global Islamic supremacy is revealed at the climax of his book, Islam and Modernism. The work is a polemic against Islamic modernists who seek to convert the entire Koran into “a poetic and metaphorical book” because, he says, they have been bewitched by Western culture and ideology.

The final chapter delivers a rebuke to those who believe that only defensive jihad (fighting to defend a Muslim land that is under attack or occupation) is permissible in Islam. He refutes the suggestion that jihad is unlawful against a nonMuslim state that freely permits the preaching of Islam.

For Mr Usmani, “the question is whether aggressive battle is by itself commendable or not”. “If it is, why should the Muslims stop simply because territorial expansion in these days is regarded as bad? And if it is not commendable, but deplorable, why did Islam not stop it in the past?”

He answers his own question thus: “Even in those days . . . aggressive jihads were waged . . . because it was truly commendable for establishing the grandeur of the religion of Allah.”

These words are not the product of a radical extremist. They come from the pen of one of the most acclaimed scholars in the Deobandi tradition.

Mr Usmani told The Times that Islam and Modernism was an English translation of his original Urdu book, “which at times gives a connotation different from the original”.



The only part of the plan he doesn't discuss is the recruiting of useful idiots in the media in western countries: the only part that thus far that has been wildly successful.

DVD Polizei
09-07-07, 09:01 PM
How many members in the media have blown themselves up.

P.S. You could have just bolded the entire article. :)

eXcentris
09-10-07, 07:10 PM
Here's a concrete example of Islamophobia that's stirring up a storm here in Canada. A journalist wrote an article titled: Election Canada allows Muslim women to vote with their face covered (or something similar).

Mayhem ensues, outrage everywhere! People calling radio shows, writing letters to newspaper, "how is this possible!", "they will never integrate into our society!", "we can't let them trample all over our values and principles!" And all sorts of organizations chimed in: "women wearing niqab is subservience of woman!" and bla bla bla...

So where's the catch? Well the journalist in question simply phoned Elections Canada to ask if Muslim women can vote with their face covered. The answer was "under the current laws, yes". So, he wrote an article making a big stink about it and insisted that the law should be changed...

Well the problem is, this has never been an issue ever. Muslims never asked for anything. And whether it's a Muslim woman wearing a niqab or some injured guy with bandages all around his head, yes they can vote. There are several rules and regulations that apply to voting. So you can vote if:

1. You produce an ID card with a photo.
2. If you don't have an id card with a photo, you need 2 ID cards without photos.
3. If you don't have an ID card at all, you have to swear under oath and be accompanied by a person that can identify you.
4. And hey, you can even vote by anticipation by mail!

Moreover, there were a number of instances where Muslim women wearing niqab were asked to show their face (even if the law doesn't require it) before voting. No problem if it's a woman who does the checking. So a female election official took the Muslim woman aside, in private, and verified
that her face matched her ID. Were there any complaints by Muslim women or organizations about this "treatment"? Nope. None, niet, zero, nada.

So, much ado about nothing... Yes we must deal with Muslim demands and not accept them when they go against our values and principles but damn, let's not go overboard and invent problems that never existed in the first place.

bhk
09-11-07, 12:47 PM
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,504837,00.html

How the CIA Helped Germany Foil Terror Plot
By Simone Kaiser, Marcel Rosenbach and Holger Stark

With the help of the CIA, German investigators foiled what would likely have been the most devastating terror attack of its kind in the country's history. The plans of a fanatical group of Islamists trained in Pakistan reveal just how great a risk Europe faces.


DPA
Daniel S. is one of the three terror suspects arrested last week. *
It was early June at the G-8 summit in the German seaside resort of Heiligendamm, and climate protection and hedge funds were the key issues on the agenda. But then there came the moment when the news of a potential terrorist plot reached Chancellor Angela Merkel. Not a word of it was mentioned in the summit's official communiqués. Merkel and US President George W. Bush met alone to discuss what he called "the Pakistan matter." America felt threatened, and the threat, US intelligence agents told their president, was coming from Germany -- once again, just as it had on Sept. 11, 2001.

Bush, who was well briefed about the plot, even knew the names of the suspects. He made it clear to Merkel that he was taking the matter very seriously. Her officials at the Chancellery were all too familiar with what the US president was talking about. "Operation Alberich," as the intelligence agencies called the case, had top priority.

For months the operation was discussed almost every Tuesday at a weekly meeting conducted by Merkel's chief of staff, Thomas de Maizière. What began with vague information soon turned into the biggest police operation since the so-called "German Autumn" of 1977 -- a political thriller rarely seen in postwar Germany.


Operation Alberich began last October, when the US National Security Agency, the NSA, began intercepting suspicious emails between Germany and Pakistan. It ended last week in the central German Sauerland region, with the arrests of two German converts to Islam, Fritz Gelowicz, 28, the son of a southern German doctor, and 22-year-old Daniel S., who had learned how to handle weapons during his military service in the western German city of Saarlouis. His neighbors in nearby Saarbrücken had noticed that he prayed to Allah "often and very loudly." The third man arrested in the sting was Adem Y., a 28-year-old Turkish national. The trio was caught in the act of mixing chemical ingredients to make explosives at a vacation house in the mountainous Sauerland region....

It's a long and interesting article. Gosh I hope the NSA didn't listen to their phone conversations.

How many members in the media have blown themselves up.
They got enough true believers to blow themselves up. They need useful idiots in the media to not mention the elephant hiding in the corner. They've been very successful at that.

cinten
09-11-07, 01:05 PM
They need useful idiots in the media to not mention the elephant hiding in the corner. They've been very successful at that.


rotfl

Blaming the media once again.....

Ky-Fi
09-12-07, 09:10 AM
Well, as the socialist mayor of Brussels legally banned the peaceful demonstration against the Islamization of Europe (as I posted details of earlier), few people showed up. The multiculturalist authorities claimed the demonstration was going to draw "neo-nazis", which it did not, but here's what happened to the protestors that did show up:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xR-J8cXYVIo"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xR-J8cXYVIo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>



People still don't want to take the "Eurabia" charges too seriously, but in Europe today you have a demographic shift and population replacement that's unprecedented in European history, it's the result of a specific ideology and policy, and people aren't allowed to question it.

cinten
09-12-07, 01:00 PM
You're exactly right Ky-Fi. Our time is the equivalent of the fifth century, and as then Europeans are unwilling to defend their civilization against the invading barbarians.


I am pretty sure the Nazi's felt the same way, that they were being invaded and they were defended their civilization...

Ky-Fi
09-12-07, 01:09 PM
I am pretty sure the Nazi's felt the same way, that they were being invaded and they were defended their civilization...

And there you have the socialist/multiculturalist strategy of the European leftist elite in a nutshell. Everyone who questions their policy is, by definition, a Nazi, and as such their views must be supressed.

And this is what is directly going to lead to civil wars and horrible ethnic violence. Because when the legitimate debate is banned and removed from the political mainstream, then it will be carried on by extremists, and you WILL see the return of racist far-right parties to power in Europe.

cinten
09-12-07, 01:20 PM
And there you have the socialist/multiculturalist strategy of the European leftist elite in a nutshell. Everyone who questions their policy is, by definition, a Nazi, and as such their views must be supressed.

Yeah your right, how could I possibly compare groups who are talking about ridding Europe of Muslims to Germans who wanted to rid Europe of Jews.

VinVega
09-12-07, 01:34 PM
You're exactly right Ky-Fi. Our time is the equivalent of the fifth century, and as then Europeans are unwilling to defend their civilization against the invading barbarians.
You vastly oversimplify the events of the 5th century.

Ky-Fi
09-12-07, 02:02 PM
Yeah your right, how could I possibly compare groups who are talking about ridding Europe of Muslims to Germans who wanted to rid Europe of Jews.

Well, IMO the hyperbolic fantasy of your description of everyone today who is concerned about Muslim immigration as "people who want to rid Europe of Muslims" is going to be rudely shattered a few years down the road, when we see the rise of groups that REALLY want to rid Europe of Muslims, and it becomes clear that the window of opportunity to deal with this issue within the peaceful, legal framework of a liberal democracy is long gone.

bhk
09-12-07, 03:14 PM
rotfl

Blaming the media once again.....

....for not doing their job, of trying to whitewash in the name of political correctness. If Al Quida had it's own network, I suspect we would see the same type of reports with the same biases that we do now on some of the useful idiot networks.

Well, IMO the hyperbolic fantasy of your description of everyone today who is concerned about Muslim immigration as "people who want to rid Europe of Muslims" is going to be rudely shattered a few years down the road, when we see the rise of groups that REALLY want to rid Europe of Muslims, and it becomes clear that the window of opportunity to deal with this issue within the peaceful, legal framework of a liberal democracy is long gone.

Some of that is happening already. But the problem is still there: how do you stop radicalization? How do you deal with the ones already radicalized?
The answer isn't some hippy "arms are for hugging" crap. Infiltration, surveillance, and deportation, along with shutting down of mosques that radicalize has to be in the picture.

eXcentris
09-12-07, 03:26 PM
Woah, talk about a "Europessimistic" bunch. I think these apocalyptic scenarios about the demise of Europe are vastly premature.

cinten
09-12-07, 03:28 PM
....for not doing their job, of trying to whitewash in the name of political correctness.

:rolleyes:


If Al Quida had it's own network, I suspect we would see the same type of reports with the same biases that we do now on some of the useful idiot networks.




BTW I am sorry I posted that picture claiming that some republicans had an unhealthy paranoia about the media.

bhk
09-12-07, 03:29 PM
Woah, talk about a "Europessimistic" bunch. I think these apocalyptic scenarios about the demise of Europe are vastly premature.

Some can see the writing on the wall or the dog that didn't bark(not allowing the demonstration) better than others.

bhk
09-12-07, 03:31 PM
BTW I am sorry I posted that picture claiming that some republicans had an unhealthy paranoia about the media.

Your apology is accepted. Thanks for doing the right thing.

wendersfan
09-12-07, 03:32 PM
Woah, talk about a "Europessimistic" bunch. I think these apocalyptic scenarios about the demise of Europe are vastly premature.The irony, of course, is that the same people who were supposed to have taken to democracy like fish to water in Iraq, if only given the chance, are hell-bent on destroying democracy in the West, if only given the chance.

bhk
09-12-07, 03:34 PM
The irony, of course, is that the same people who were supposed to have taken to democracy like fish to water in Iraq, if only given the chance, are hell-bent on destroying democracy in the West, if only given the chance.

The difference is that the people in the west haven't been oppressed. They are already free to jihad.

eXcentris
09-12-07, 03:42 PM
The irony, of course, is that the same people who were supposed to have taken to democracy like fish to water in Iraq, if only given the chance, are hell-bent on destroying democracy in the West, if only given the chance.

The other irony is that some of those who accused the "liberals" of wanting Bush and the war in Iraq to fail strictly for political/ideological reasons, are adopting the same mindset with regards to Europe.

bhk
09-12-07, 03:52 PM
The other irony is that some of those who accused the "liberals" of wanting Bush and the war in Iraq to fail strictly for political/ideological reasons, are adopting the same mindset with regards to Europe.

No, just trying to get people's heads out of the sand(or down from up their backsides).

Ky-Fi
09-12-07, 04:40 PM
Woah, talk about a "Europessimistic" bunch. I think these apocalyptic scenarios about the demise of Europe are vastly premature.

I'd be more optimistic if the multiculturalists were willing to engage in the debate, and were intellectually willing to try to make a case for the positive aspects of Muslim immigration---citing statistics of low crime rates among the immigrants, high civic participation in Western institutions, high economic and educational achievement, etc. But they're not doing that at all---instead they're intent on shutting down the debate completely, branding anyone who wants to engage in these discussions as a Nazi/Islamophobe/racist, as this Brussels demonstration most clearly illustrates. The pot is simmering, and you can shut down freedom of speech to keep the lid on for a little while, but that won't work indefinitely.

And as Belgium shows--if Flemings and Waloons, who ostensibly share a pretty similar European racial/religious/cultural background don't want to live together, then what's going to happen with regards to the Muslim populations, especially when they reach 25, 30, 40 percent of the population, as they almost certainly will?

I would further say that I hope I'm completely wrong, but I don't see the evidence of it. In 1929, virtually nobody could see what was going to happen to Europe in 10 years. Lots of people can see this one coming--there's already a ton of books and hard statistics.

Ky-Fi
09-12-07, 04:42 PM
The irony, of course, is that the same people who were supposed to have taken to democracy like fish to water in Iraq, if only given the chance, are hell-bent on destroying democracy in the West, if only given the chance.


I think you're exactly right. Those two scenarios, IMO, are mutually exclusive. One of them was wrong.

GreenMonkey
09-12-07, 04:52 PM
I'd be more optimistic if the multiculturalists were willing to engage in the debate, and were intellectually willing to try to make a case for the positive aspects of Muslim immigration---citing statistics of low crime rates among the immigrants, high civic participation in Western institutions, high economic and educational achievement, etc. But they're not doing that at all---instead they're intent on shutting down the debate completely, branding anyone who wants to engage in these discussions as a Nazi/Islamophobe/racist, as this Brussels demonstration most clearly illustrates. The pot is simmering, and you can shut down freedom of speech to keep the lid on for a little while, but that won't work indefinitely.

And as Belgium shows--if Flemings and Waloons, who ostensibly share a pretty similar European racial/religious/cultural background don't want to live together, then what's going to happen with regards to the Muslim populations, especially when they reach 25, 30, 40 percent of the population, as they almost certainly will?

I would further say that I hope I'm completely wrong, but I don't see the evidence of it. In 1929, virtually nobody could see what was going to happen to Europe in 10 years. Lots of people can see this one coming--there's already a ton of books and hard statistics.


Maybe some of us aren't particularly concerned about there being a bunch of people running around with a different religious, cultural and ethnic backgrounds running around.

As long as no one is electing/passing laws to restrict rights and crime isn't a problem, I'm not concerned with their cultural differences. It's really kind of a non-issue with me. Evangelical christian political activist types worry me a tiny bit for the same reason that perhaps Muslims worry you, but I'm not actually SERIOUSLY concerned that they are going to take power. Yet.

Ky-Fi
09-12-07, 05:08 PM
As long as no one is electing/passing laws to restrict rights and crime isn't a problem, I'm not concerned with their cultural differences.

As long as your definition of "crime" includes threats of, or actual violence against people for excercising their rights, then I agree with you completely.

Ky-Fi
09-13-07, 08:55 AM
I don't think it is a foregone conclusion. Arabs once had the most flourishing civilization on Earth (as the west). They're undergoing a dark age (as the west). And they too can enjoy a rebirth (as the west).

I agree, but any rebirth, like in the west, is going to have to develop internally, and can't be imposed from outside by force, IMO.

bhk
09-13-07, 02:19 PM
The other irony is that some of those who accused the "liberals" of wanting Bush and the war in Iraq to fail strictly for political/ideological reasons, are adopting the same mindset with regards to Europe.

I missed this the first time. I don't think anyone here or anywhere else is cheerleading the ongoing Dhimmization of Europe, well except for the Islamofascists. The general tone of the opinions and articles posted are to beat those that are kneeling in front of the alter of political correctness over the head to maybe get them to stop worshipping for a second and realize how serious a problem it is.

No one here takes joy in people's freedom(to march--for example) taken away in the name of not offending one particular group.

wendersfan
09-14-07, 10:31 AM
<b><a href = "http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070914/wl_nm/un_racism_dc_1;_ylt=Ar7qtOGbkr7Iqc29SExHEftkM3wV">Islamaphobia [sic] on rise, especially in Europe: U.N. envoy</a></b>

By Stephanie Nebehay 54 minutes ago

GENEVA (Reuters) - The United Nations investigator on racism on Friday condemned a rising trend of Islamaphobia, especially in Europe, where he said it was being exploited by some right-wing political parties.

Doudou Diene, U.N. special rapporteur on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, also accused Switzerland's most popular party, the right-wing Swiss People's Party (SVP/UDC), of inciting hatred.

He urged the withdrawal of the party's controversial campaign poster calling for expulsion of foreigners who commit serous crimes, depicting three white sheep booting out a black sheep under the headline "For the Security of All."

"In the current context, Islamaphobia constitutes the most serious form of religious defamation," Diene said in a speech and report to the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose 47 member states were holding a debate on religious defamation.

More and more political leaders and influential media and intellectuals were "equating Islam with violence and terrorism," and some were seeking to "silence religious practices by banning the construction of mosques," Diene said.

Pakistan, speaking for the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), called the rise of Islamaphobia "alarming."

"Recent acts of defamation in the shape of blasphemous sketches in Sweden and posters in Switzerland reinforce this conclusion. Such blasphemy should not be encouraged in the name of freedom of expression," Pakistan's envoy Masood Khan said.

He said the 57-nation OIC, which represents 1.3 billion Muslims, condemned terrorism in all its forms.

"The international media continues to use the misguided actions of a small extremist minority as an excuse to malign the entire Muslim world, as well as the religion of Islam," he said.

"SCAPEGOATING"

Diene, a Senegalese lawyer, said in his 21-page report to the Council that Islamaphobia had grown since the Sept 11 2001 attacks on the United States.

Worldwide, an increasing number of traditional democratic parties were "resorting to the language of fear and exclusion, scapegoating and targeting ethnic or religious minorities in general, and immigrants and refugees in particular," he said.

In Europe, Muslims faced growing difficulties to establish places of worship and carry out their religious practices such as dietary regimens and burials, according to the U.N. envoy.

"Political parties with open anti-Islamic platforms have joined governmental coalitions in several countries and started to put in place their political agendas. In sum, Islamophobia is in the process of permeating all facets of social life."

The Swiss SVP/UDC has launched a referendum to ban construction of minarets in the Alpine country, home to 350,000 Muslims. A similar move is underway in Cologne, Germany.

Switzerland's delegation defended its system of direct democracy, where multiple issues are put to referendum each year, saying it showed great political transparency although "sometimes with exaggerated, regrettable views being expressed."

"The Swiss government has repeatedly stated its commitment to fight racism and the Swiss government will continue to take a clear stance against all forms of discrimination and xenophobia," Swiss ambassador Blaise Godet said.I'm glad I live in a country where people are free to worship.

Goldblum
09-15-07, 09:38 AM
Al Qaeda Offers Bounty for Murder of Swedish Cartoonist (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296899,00.html)

Saturday , September 15, 2007

CAIRO, Egypt —

The leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq offered money for the murder of a Swedish cartoonist and his editor who recently produced images deemed insulting to Islam, according to a statement carried by Islamist Web sites Saturday.

In a half hour audio file entitled "They plotted yet God too was plotting," Abu Omar al-Baghdadi also named the other insurgent groups in Iraq that Al Qaeda was fighting and promised new attacks, particularly against the minority Yazidi sect.

"We are calling for the assassination of cartoonist Lars Vilks who dared insult our Prophet, peace be upon him, and we announce a reward during this generous month of Ramadan of $100,000 for the one who kills this criminal," the transcript on the Web site said.

The Al Qaeda leader upped the reward for Vilks' death to $150,000 if he was "slaughtered like a lamb" and offered $50,000 for the killing of the editor of Nerikes Allehanda, the Swedish paper that printed Vilks' cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad with a dog's body on Aug. 19.

Vilks said from Sweden he believed the matter of his cartoons had been blown out of proportion.

"We have a real problem here," Vilks told The Associated Press by telephone. "We can only hope that Muslims in Europe and in the Western world choose to distance themselves from this and support the idea of freedom of expression."

Ulf Johansson, editor in chief of Nerikes Allehanda, said he took the bounty "more seriously" than other threats he had received. "This is more explicit. It's not every day somebody puts a price on your head."

Johansson said he had contacted the police and that they had already started work on the threat.

Aside from a few scattered protests and condemnations by Muslim countries, the reaction to the cartoon has been muted, in contrast to last year's fiery protests that erupted in several Muslim countries after a Danish newspaper published 12 cartoons of Muhammad that were reprinted in a range of Western media.

In an attempt to defuse the tensions caused by the cartoon in both Sweden and abroad, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt last week invited 22 Sweden-based ambassadors from Muslim countries to talk about the sketch.

Reinfeldt expressed regret at the hurt it may have caused, but said that according to Swedish law it is not up to politicians to punish the free press.

Al-Baghdadi added in his message that if the "crusader state of Sweden" didn't apologize, his organization would also attack major companies.

"We know how to force you to retreat and apologize and if you don't, wait for us to strike the economy of your giant companies including Ericsson, Scania, Volvo, Ikea, and Electrolux," he said.

No photo has ever appeared of al-Baghdadi, whom the U.S. describes as a fictitious character used to give an Iraqi face to an organization dominated by foreigners.

The U.S. has said that under interrogation, a top Al-Qaeda member revealed that al-Baghdadi's speeches are read by an actor.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq in the past has carried out operations in Jordan and may have links to militant groups in Lebanon, but is not known to have any kind of presence in Europe.

I figured this would be more appropriate here than the Iraq thread.

DVD Polizei
09-15-07, 10:50 AM
In an attempt to defuse the tensions caused by the cartoon in both Sweden and abroad, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt last week invited 22 Sweden-based ambassadors from Muslim countries to talk about the sketch.

Yeah, I'm sure that'll help.

"We have a real problem here," Vilks told The Associated Press by telephone. "We can only hope that Muslims in Europe and in the Western world choose to distance themselves from this and support the idea of freedom of expression."

One problem, Vilks, baby. They don't. What did you expect. Dumbass.

eXcentris
09-15-07, 05:55 PM
Ahem...

Aside from a few scattered protests and condemnations by Muslim countries, the reaction to the cartoon has been muted, in contrast to last year's fiery protests that erupted in several Muslim countries after a Danish newspaper published 12 cartoons of Muhammad that were reprinted in a range of Western media.

Ky-Fi
09-22-07, 01:21 PM
Islamaphobia [sic] on rise, especially in Europe: U.N. envoy

By Stephanie Nebehay 54 minutes ago

GENEVA (Reuters) - The United Nations investigator on racism on Friday condemned a rising trend of Islamaphobia, especially in Europe, where he said it was being exploited by some right-wing political parties.

Doudou Diene, U.N. special rapporteur on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, also accused Switzerland's most popular party, the right-wing Swiss People's Party (SVP/UDC), of inciting hatred.

He urged the withdrawal of the party's controversial campaign poster calling for expulsion of foreigners who commit serous crimes, depicting three white sheep booting out a black sheep under the headline "For the Security of All."

"In the current context, Islamaphobia constitutes the most serious form of religious defamation," Diene said in a speech and report to the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose 47 member states were holding a debate on religious defamation.......


And here's a response (which was not allowed to be delivered to the UN council) from the International Humanist and Ethical Union:

NGOs gagged again at UN Human Rights Council
By admin

Created 16 Sep 2007 - 08:01

IHEU [0] was prevented from speaking this week following the Special Rapporteur on Racism, Doudou Diene's report on "Islamophobia". Only four NGO [0]s were able to speak in the total of 10 minutes allotted to NGOs. NGO participation at the HRC is becoming more myth than reality. IHEU's representative will be writing formally to the president of the Council asking for, as a minimum, the right to submit written statements when denied the chance to speak.

The statement that IHEU would have made, if it had been given the chance, follows. It was on behalf of IHEU and three other NGOs. It refers to two major omissions from the Special Rapporteur on Racism, Doudou Diene's analysis of "Islamophobia".



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Humanist and Ethical Union [0]
Joint statement with Association for World Education, Association of World Citizens and World Union of Progressive Judaism

Human Rights Council [0], Sixth Session 10 – 28 September 2007
Agenda Item 9 – report on Islamophobia by the Special Rapporteur on Racism
Statement by IHEU main representative, Roy W. Brown, 14 September 2007

Islamophobia



Mr President.

The report on Islamophobia by the Special Rapporteur on Racism [A/HRC/6/6] is deeply flawed in two important respects:

First, he fails to distinguish between, on the one hand, Islamophobia, which he defines as “baseless hostility and fear vis-à-vis Islam”, and on the other hand, genuine concerns regarding the rise of Islamic extremism. Secondly, he fails to recognise that there are important differences between the Islamic and other worldviews that contribute significantly to the problem.

Rather than dismissing Europe’s defence of its identity which he describes as ‘based on intangible “values”’ (which he puts in scare quotes) he should recognise that these values are neither intangible nor exclusively “European”, but universal. They include, inter alia, the dignity and autonomy of the individual, equality of the sexes, democracy, and human rights [0] - surely the very rights that this Council should be seeking to defend. That these differences do exist and are far from intangible is evidenced, for example, by the OIC’s promotion of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam as an alternative to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Yet rather than recognising the existence of such differences, the Special Rapporteur condemns as Islamophobic those who portray Islamic values as “fundamentally opposed to those of Western civilisation”. Why does he ignore the fact that there are an increasing number of Islamic leaders who present Islam in precisely this way? It is not “Islamophobia” to oppose such views. It is rather a necessary and legitimate expression of concern.

In common with the OIC and its repeated calls to combat defamation of religion, the Special Rapporteur also fails to distinguish between opposition to Islamic extremism and hostility towards Muslims. Opposition to Islamic extremism is both necessary and legitimate. Hostility towards Muslims is neither. To imply they are the same thing is to obscure an important step in understanding the problem.

What little hostility towards Islam that does exist among indigenous Europeans has not arisen in a vacuum, but is largely a reaction to Islamic extremism. More and more European mosques are promoting hardline Islamic ideology , including demonisation of Jews, infidels and homosexuals, and contempt for Western culture and civilisation.

Mr President, in his report the Special Rapporteur fails to address in any meaningful way the problem of Islamic extremism and its contribution towards the rise of religious hatred. In our view, he has rendered a disservice to the Council and to the cause of tolerance which he espouses.

Thank you sir.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source URL:

http://www.iheu.org/node/2806

Copyright © 1952-2007 International Humanist and Ethical Union

bhk
09-27-07, 09:37 AM
http://www.thestate.com/news/story/184974.html

Posted on Thu, Sep. 27, 2007
Court documents point to terror plot

S.C. link: Men were stopped in Goose Creek
In car: Explosives materials, court documents say
By ADAM BEAM and LEE HIGGINS
abeam@thestate.com lhiggins@thestate.com

In a 12-minute video posted on YouTube, an Egyptian man wearing a white shirt, khaki pants and rubber gloves explains in Arabic how to turn a toy boat into a bomb.

His name is Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed, and last month he was arrested in Goose Creek after authorities found four PVC pipes containing a mixture of potassium nitrate, kitty litter and sugar in his car’s trunk.

Mohamed told FBI agents he made the video to teach “those persons in Arabic countries to defend themselves against the infidels invading their countries,” according to federal court documents released late Tuesday.

Specifically, he told the FBI “the technology which he demonstrated in the tape was to be used against those who fought for the United States.”

What started as a traffic stop for speeding in South Carolina has led to a two-count federal indictment on terrorism-related charges and a multistate mystery investigators still are working to unravel.

SLED Chief Robert Stewart, the state’s homeland security director, said his agency was notified “almost immediately” after the traffic stop.

“This one got very public very fast because of the nature of the incident and the fact that streets were blocked off,” Stewart said. “There’s nothing currently in South Carolina that citizens need to be alarmed about.”

Stewart said he could not comment further on the investigation. Efforts to reach the U.S. attorney’s office in Tampa; Mohamed’s attorney, Lionel Lofton; and Adam Allen, the attorney for Mohamed’s co-defendant, Youssef Samir Megahed; were unsuccessful Wednesday.

Mohamed and Megahed, a 21-year-old University of South Florida engineering student, were stopped for speeding Aug. 4on S.C. 176 in Goose Creek.

They told deputies they were traveling to North Carolina for a vacation.Berkeley County sheriff’s deputies saw one of the men disconnect some wires from a laptop computer and became suspicious.

In the back of the patrol car on the way to jail on charges of possession of an explosive device, the two whispered in their native Arabic while a hidden recorder taped their conversation, according to court documents:

“Did you tell them there is something in them?” Mohamed asked, an apparent reference to the PVC pipes.

“Water,” Megahed said.

“Water! Right? The black water is in the Pepsi.”

A few seconds pass in silence. Mohamed speaks again.

“Did you tell them about the benzene (gasoline)?”

“I have nothing to do with it. I do the fireworks and so... so... so... that is it.”

But the pipes weren’t fireworks.

An examination by the FBI’s explosives unit found the materials in the PVC pipes fit the legal definition of an “explosive.”

After examining Mohamed’s laptop computer, which was in the 2000 Toyota Camry that was stopped in Goose Creek, agents found an electronic folder titled “Bomb Shock.” The folder contained several computer files about explosives, including TNT and C-4, a military-grade plastic explosive.

They also found the 12-minute video on the laptop. Someone had uploaded the video onto YouTube, a video-sharing Web site. It could be found on YouTube by entering a complicated 14-word search term, which included the words “martyrdooms” and “suiciders.”

Two days after the traffic stop, FBI agents found a remote-controlled toy boat, still in its box, and a partially dismantled digital watch in Megahed’s Tampa, Fla., home, where he lived with his parents. Authorities said in court documents they believe the two items were the beginnings of a homemade bomb.

On Aug. 29, Mohamed and Megahed were indicted by a federal grand jury in Tampa on charges of transporting explosive materials. Mohamed also was charged with teaching and demonstrating the making and use of an explosive and destructive device. About a week later, the state charges against them in South Carolina were dropped.

The charge against Mohamed, involving teaching others how to make and use an explosive device, has been interpreted as a violation of federal law that prohibits giving support to terrorist organizations.

However, prosecutors have filed no documents in federal court that connect either man with any terrorist group.

Mohamed is in jail. He asked a judge to delay a hearing that could have set a bail amount, a typical tactic by defense attorneys who represent clients in high-publicity cases.

Megahed’s plight is more complex. He tried to hire a private attorney but couldn’t afford one, and is now represented by a federal public defender.

Megahed had his day in court Sept. 14. The government told a judge Megahed was a danger to the community because he was a passenger in a car that contained a small amount of explosives.

Prosecutors also argued that if released, Megahed could flee to his native Egypt. They said he had lived in the United States for 10 years and his application to become a naturalized citizen was denied because he had traveled out of the country too many times.

Megahed has two Egyptian passports, one of which is under a different last name. Prosecutors said it would be difficult to bring Megahed back from Egypt if he were to go there because his family has “substantial assets.”

Megahed’s lawyers told the judge he traveled out of the country with his parents when he was younger than 15. They said his two passports were because one, with the additional last name, had expired.

The name was a family name the family was no longer using, according to court documents filed by Adam Allen, Megahed’s attorney.

“The government was forced to concede that, other than speculation they were unwilling to offer, the government had no evidence that the ‘low grade’ explosive materials were possessed in connection with some other unlawful purpose,” Allen wrote in court documents.

The judge agreed with Megahed. He ordered that Megahed be released on $200,000 bail and that Megahed and his family surrender their passports. Megahed also was to be on house arrest with GPS monitoring. He remains in jail in Tampa while federal prosecutors appeal that ruling.

“The history and circumstances of the defendant,” prosecutors wrote in their appeal, “... clearly demonstrate that the defendant... represents both a danger to others and to the community as well as a significant risk of not appearing before this court as directed.”

U.S. District Judge Steven D. Merryday has not ruled on the government’s appeal.

Reach Beam at (803) 771-8405. Reach Higgins at (803) 771-8570.

An update on these engineering students oppressed by Islamophobia.

bhk
09-29-07, 09:00 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/30/nhizb130.xml

An extremist Islamist group, which remains legal despite Government promises to ban it, has urged Muslim students at British universities to fight Allied troops in Iraq.
Hizb ut Tahrir, which wants to overthrow democracy and establish a worldwide Islamic theocracy, distributed leaflets to young Muslims inciting them to resist the occupation of Islamic lands, according to a TV documentary by a former group member.

One leaflet read: "Your forefathers destroyed the first crusader campaigns. Should you not proceed like them and destroy the new crusaders?

"Let the armies move to help the Muslims in Iraq, for they seek your help." Another leaflet, handed out last August, pours scorn on the UN and tells followers to embark on a Jihad, or "holy war".

Former Hizb ut Tahrir member Shiraz Maher presents his account of the group's activities in an edition of Panorama on BBC1 tomorrow night.

advertisement

Tony Blair promised to ban the organisation after the July 7 London bombings but Labour has since claimed there is not enough evidence to demonstrate Hizb ut Tahrir is violent.

The Panorama documentary contains the first testimony indicating it has advocated the use of force. The group has been accused of fuelling terrorism in the past, but has always denied involvement in any form of violent activity.

Omar Shariff, the first UK suicide bomber, who blew himself up in a Tel Aviv bar in 2003, is alleged to have been radicalised by Hizb ut Tahrir.

The organisation denies this and says no relationship has ever been established by the police or the security services.

Omar Khayam, who was jailed last year for dressing as a suicide bomber during the Danish cartoon protests, is also alleged to have been an supporter in Bedford, which the group also denies.

David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: "Hizb ut Tahrir is part of a global organisation whose affiliates, members and supporters are anti-semitic, anti-democracy and support violence.

"Due to its clear links to terrorism, the Government pledg-ed to ban it two years ago but has failed to take action."

Panorama has also uncovered a speech made in August last year by Ata Abu-Rishta, the global leader of Hizb ut Tahrir, when he called for the "destruction" of Hindus living in Kashmir, Russians in Chechnya and Jews in Israel.

"The Caliphate (global Islamic government) will liberate the countries and the people from the influence of the Kafer (non-believer) and its allies and the tyranny of its men and followers," he said.

Rishta also spoke recently at its annual conference in Jakarta, Indonesia, where, as video footage in the Panorama exposé shows, he whipped the 100,000-strong crowd into a frenzy by calling for a war on Jews. Saleem Atchia, a senior member of Hizb ut Tahrir UK, later made a firebrand speech from the same platform.

Maher, a former friend of the bombers who tried to blow up Glasgow Airport in June and the organisation's north-east 'director' until he left in 2005, claims its aims are the same the world over.

He says its British disciples believe they will eventually fight on these shores.

"Hizb ut Tahrir despises democracy and believes Shariah law must be imposed over the whole world, by force if necessary," he said.

"I think unless we challenge this we are sleepwalking into a very dangerous future."

Parmjit Dhanda, a minister at the Department for Communities and Local Government and Labour MP for Gloucester, says the organisation has escaped a ban because the Government is frightened of a successful legal challenge.

He said: "What a propaganda coup it would be if we tried banning them but lost in the courts."

A spokesman for Hizb ut Tahrir said the programme was "based on no more than hearsay and innuendo" and said it was not anti-semitic.

He said: "Hizb ut Tahrir remains firmly committed in undertaking its political struggle against the tyrants of the Muslim world in order to establish the Caliphate in the Muslim world and end the brutal era of colonialism."

Last year, the Government warned more than 20 universities that extremists were targeting students.

Just like Hitler in the 1930's these people plainly say what they are going to do but people who take them at their word are the ones who are overreacting and suffering from Islamophobia.

DVD Polizei
09-29-07, 09:46 PM
Why even go back 70 years into the past. We have a group of people out of a larger ethnic group, who clearly want to take over parts of the US because they feel it's their "heritage" as well. Simply go to California, Arizona, or Texas. And they say people like me who try to inform others, suffer from Hispanophobia.

We have many groups who are interested in reclaiming or taking parts or the entire US and making it like their own homeland.

Baron Of Hell
09-30-07, 05:52 PM
Maybe white Americans don't want to live in places where they are the minority. Yeah I'm sure some crazy people might be trying to claim a state or two as a one race mini nation but that isn't why there are large numbers of say Hispanics in CA. In general Hispanics are more into family and want to live near each other. Then they have more kids so more hispanics. I don't think it has anything to do with reclaiming anything.

bhk
10-01-07, 02:03 PM
http://breakingnews.nypost.com/dynamic/stories/A/AUSTRIA_US_EMBASSY_EXPLOSIVES?SITE=NYNYP&SECTION=HOME

Oct 1, 11:51 AM EDT


Attack at US Embassy in Vienna Thwarted

By WILLIAM J. KOLE
Associated Press Writer

Latest News
Attack at US Embassy in Vienna Thwarted
FBI Head, Austria Assess Soccer Security

Austrian Arrested in Station Attack
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- A Bosnian who tried to enter the U.S. Embassy in Vienna with a backpack filled with explosives, nails and Islamic literature was arrested Monday after the bag set off a metal detector and the man fled on foot, authorities said.

Police sealed off the neighborhood as a precaution and shut down or rerouted nearby bus and tram lines. Officers patrolled the area with bomb-sniffing dogs.

The suspect was described only as a 42-year-old native of Bosnia-Herzegovina who now lives in the province of Lower Austria, which encircles most of the capital. Police said they made the arrest a short distance from the embassy building in a neighborhood where security is tight.

Vienna police spokeswoman Michaela Raz said explosives experts were examining the contents of the backpack.

"There were a lot of nails in that bag. Had it exploded, it would have had an enormous shrapnel effect," said Doris Edelbacher, of Austria's federal counterterrorism office.

The explosives resembled hand grenades, she told reporters, but that munitions experts were still working to determine whether the device had been properly rigged to explode.

The suspect spoke broken German and appeared to ramble during an initial interrogation, Edelbacher said.

It was unclear how far he made it into the embassy. Public broadcaster ORF, citing unidentified officials, reported that a metal detector sounded an alarm as the man was passing through security checks and that he fled immediately.

The nature of the Islamic material he allegedly was carrying also was unclear.

Embassy officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

Last month, authorities arrested three people - all Austrian citizens of Arab origin in their 20s - in connection with a video posted online in March that had threatened Austria and Germany with attacks if they did not withdraw their military personnel from Afghanistan.

One of the suspects was released several days later for lack of evidence.

On Friday, the Interior Ministry said it found a list of politicians circulating online as potential targets for attacks. The individuals were notified, but authorities said there were no indications that any of them were ever in danger.

Didn't we bomb the former country known as Yugoslavia to protect these people?

DVD Polizei
10-01-07, 07:58 PM
Maybe white Americans don't want to live in places where they are the minority. Yeah I'm sure some crazy people might be trying to claim a state or two as a one race mini nation but that isn't why there are large numbers of say Hispanics in CA. In general Hispanics are more into family and want to live near each other. Then they have more kids so more hispanics. I don't think it has anything to do with reclaiming anything.

This has been said many times. The "majority of the group is not responsible for the minority of the group".

If only 1% of a particular ethnic group or religious group are extremists, but the 99% remaining are passive and just let it happen, then what can you take from that situation? I put them in the extremist group category because if they didn't want it to happen, they would be showing up and protesting.

How many Hispanics protested AGAINST their own people who put the Mexican flag above the US, and how many protested against the statements of radical Hispanic groups were making speeches in CA regarding taking back the land.

Virtually none. They were passive and quiet, just like most Muslims are when a terrorist attack happens.

DVD Polizei
10-01-07, 08:00 PM
http://breakingnews.nypost.com/dynamic/stories/A/AUSTRIA_US_EMBASSY_EXPLOSIVES?SITE=NYNYP&SECTION=HOME


Didn't we bomb the former country known as Yugoslavia to protect these people?

Yes, we did. Should've taken him to a bunker and then detonated his dumb ass. Send pics back to his group and state in a letter he was indeed successful in blowing himself up...but failed at killing anyone else.

Ky-Fi
10-03-07, 06:00 PM
Robert Spencer's plan for ending Islamophobia:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OFuJz0hA5rc"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OFuJz0hA5rc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

bhk
10-03-07, 07:17 PM
good post. Kind of funny that these people are implying that misunderstanding is the cause of Islamophobia rather than the 9000 terrorist atacks in the name of Islam throughout the world since 9/11.

bhk
10-14-07, 11:58 AM
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/war-long-telegram-1889718-ideology-years


Friday, October 12, 2007
Time for the U.S. to get comfortable with ideology
Mark Steyn online-only column
By MARK STEYN Syndicated columnist

Peter Robinson, a Reagan speechwriter in the last years of the Cold War, posed an interesting question the other day. He noted that on Feb. 22, 1946, a mere six months after the end of World War II, George Kennan, a U.S. diplomat in Moscow, sent his famous 5,000-word telegram that laid out the stakes of the Cold War and the nature of the enemy, and that that "Long Telegram" in essence shaped the way America thought about the conflict all the way up to the fall of the Berlin Wall four decades later. And what Mr. Robinson wondered was this:

"Here we are today, more than six years after 9/11. Does anyone believe a new 'Long Telegram' has yet been written? And accepted throughout the senior levels of the government?"

Answer: No.

Because, if it had, you'd hear it echoed in public – just as the Long Telegram provided the underpinning of the Truman Doctrine a year later. Kennan himself had differences with Truman and successive presidents over what he regarded as their misinterpretation, but, granted all that, most of what turned up over the next 40 years – the Cuban missile crisis, the Vietnam war, Soviet subversion in Africa and Europe, Grenada and Afghanistan – is consistent with the conflict as laid out by one relatively minor State Department functionary decades earlier.

Why can't we do that today?

Well, one reason is we're not really comfortable with ideology, either ours or anybody else's. Insofar as we have an ideology it's a belief in the virtues of "multiculturalism," "tolerance," "celebrate diversity" – a bumper-sticker ideology that is, in effect, an anti-ideology which explicitly rejects the very idea of drawing distinctions between your beliefs and anybody else's.

Less sentimental chaps may (at least privately) regard the above as bunk, and prefer to place their faith in economics and technology. In Britain in the 1960s, the political class declared that the country "needed" mass immigration. When the less-enlightened lower orders in northern England fretted that they would lose their towns to the "Pakis", they were dismissed as paranoid racists. The experts were right in a narrow, economic sense: The immigrants became mill workers and bus drivers. But the paranoid racists were right, too: The mills closed anyway, and mosques sprouted in their place; and Oldham and Dewesbury adopted the arranged cousin-marriage traditions of Mirpur in Pakistan; and Yorkshire can now boast among its native sons the July 7th London Tube bombers. The experts thought economics trumped all; the knuckle-dragging masses had a more basic unease, convinced that it's culture that's determinative.

To take another example, on CNN the other night Anderson Cooper was worrying about the homicide rate in Philadelphia. The City of Brotherly Love is the murder capital of the nation, and CNN had dispatched a reporter to interview the grieving mother of a young black boy killed while riding his bicycle in the street. Apparently, a couple of cars had got backed up behind him, and an impatient passenger in one of them pulled out a gun and shot the kid. Anderson Cooper then went to commercials and, when he returned, introduced a report on how easy it is to buy guns in Philadelphia and how local politicians are reluctant to do anything about it. This is, again, an argument only the expert class could make. In the 1990s, the number of guns in America went up by 40 million, but the murder rate fell dramatically. If firearms availability were the determining factor, Vermont and Switzerland would have high murder rates. Yet in Montpelier or Geneva the solution to a boy carelessly bicycling in front of you down a city street when you're in a hurry is not to grab your gun and blow him away. It's the culture, not the technology.

Very few members of the transnational jet set want to hear this. They're convinced that economic and technological factors shape the world all but exclusively, and that the sexy buzz words – "globalization", "networking" – cure all ills. You may recall the famous Golden Arches thesis promulgated by The New York Times' Thomas Friedman – that countries with McDonald's franchises don't go to war with each other. Tell it to the Serbs. When the Iron Curtain fell, Yugoslavia was, economically, the best-positioned of the recovering Communist states. But, given the choice between expanding the already booming vacation resorts of the Dalmatian coast for their eager Anglo-German tourist clientele or reducing Croatia and Bosnia and Kosovo to rubble over ethno-linguistic differences no outsider can even discern ("Serbo-Croat"?), Yugoslavia opted for the latter.

As I wrote in my book, the most successful example of globalization is not Starbucks or McDonald's but Wahhabism, an obscure backwater variant of Islam practiced by a few Bedouin deadbeats that Saudi oil wealth has now exported to every corner of the Earth – to Waziristan, Indonesia, the Caucasus, the Balkans, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Toronto, Portland, Dearborn and Falls Church. You can live on the other side of the planet and, when Starbucks opens up in town, you might acquire a taste for a decaf latte, but that's it. Otherwise, life goes on. By contrast, when the Saudi-funded preachers hung out their shingles on every Main Street in the West, they radicalized a significant chunk of young European Muslims. They transformed not just their beverage habits, but the way they look at the societies in which they live.

So many of the administration's present problems derive from squeamishness about ideological confrontation that any effective Long Telegram would have to address. When President Bush declared a "war on terror," cynics understood that he had no particular interest in the IRA or the Tamil Tigers, but that he was constrained from identifying the real enemy in any meaningful sense: In the fall of 2001, a war on Islamic this or Islamic that would have caused too many problems with Gen. Musharraf and the House of Saud and other chaps he wanted to keep on side. But it's one reason, for example, why the Democrats, as soon as it suited them, had no difficulty detaching the Iraq front from the broader war. If it's a "war on terror" against terrorist organizations, well, Saddam is a head of state and Iraq is a sovereign nation: the 1946 Long Telegram was long enough to embrace events in Ethiopia and Grenada 30 years later, but the "war on terror" template doesn't comfortably extend to Iraq. Nor to the remorseless Wahhabist subversion of Europe. Nor to the Palestinian Authority, where Condi Rice is currently presiding over the latest reprise of the usual "peace process" clichés designed to persuade Israel to make concessions to a populace, which largely believes everything the al-Qaida guys do. The state-funded (which means European- and U.S.-taxpayer funded) Palestinian newspaper published a cartoon this September celebrating 9/11 as a great victory.

Perhaps we need more investment in jobs. Or maybe guns are too easily available in Gaza. Or, if guns aren't, self-detonating school kids certainly are. This is the ultimate asymmetric warfare: we're trying to beat back ideology with complacent Western assumptions. Not a good bet.

Unfortunately, the US has become so emasculated that pols are in perpetual fear of offending someone and are afraid to name the enemy for what it is.

Dr Mabuse
10-14-07, 01:09 PM
Political Correctness is the Incubator of Islamism
Thursday, 15 February 2007
by Amil Imani - Iranian-born Muslim now a US resident and democracy activist

Time and again we are told by the politically correct “experts” not to worry about Islam posing a threat to our way of life. We are repeatedly lectured that only a very small minority of Muslims are troublemakers who are giving the peaceful masses of Muslims a bad name. We are also informed that the terrorists, who happened to be Muslims, are the disaffected and the young. And not to worry, since as the fire of youth turns to ashes of old age the rebellious will mellow, as they always have.

With heavy assurances like this, coming from so many know-it-all authoritative figures, we can sleep soundly without the aid of sleeping pills. After all, people reason that these pundits are “experts” whose job is to know and tell it like it is. Those who voice contrary views must be a bunch of racist, alarmist hate mongers. Who is right?

Wouldn’t it be more prudent to let the facts settle the matter, rather than blindly accepting either position? Of course it would, except for one huge problem. In the face of threats, people tend to go to the mind’s medicine cabinet and take a few denial and rationalization pills, in the same way that it is the aspirin bottle they turn to when a headache strikes. Why not? We are the Easy Species. We love effortless, quick and simple solutions. And that’s not invariably bad. It has given us all kinds of labor and time saving devices.

Yet, the Islam problem is very real and deadly. Neither the pronouncements of the experts, nor the tranquilizing pills of the mind can make it go away. It is here and it shows every sign of imposing itself on us. Let us look at some of the facts.

* Not every Muslim wears an explosive vest ready to detonate in the midst of a crowd of innocent civilians, yet there are more volunteers for the mission than there are explosive vests. The Islamic Republic of Iran, for instance, hasn’t even officially joined this form of jihad. Yet, by its own admission, it has over 10,000 volunteers trained ready to be deployed, and thousands more queuing to join in. This time around, the jihadists heading for Allah’s heaven might come fitted with nice little suitcases of dirty bombs instead of the bulky explosive vests. Recall that it took only 19 of these killers to launch the aerial mass murder of 9/11 that killed 3,000 people, shattered our open trusting way of life, and cost us billions of dollars.

* The jihadists are not confined to a minority of disaffected Muslim youth. How young are Bin Laden, his deputy doctor of death Al Zawahiri, mullah Omar of the Taliban, Khamenei and Refsanjani of Iran, just to name a few? How disaffected are they? Muhammad Ata, leader of the 19 airborne thugs and the decapitator of Wall Street Journal reporter Pearl were somewhat younger, yet well-healed and Western educated.

* Just coin some terms such as the “Melting Pot,” or “Multiculturalism” and you have the problem solved? Roll out the red carpet for the immigrant Muslims, treat them as you would your own citizens, give them stipends, medical care, and free education and they will integrate seamlessly into the society? No such thing at all. The idea of Melting Pot may work with people who come from different lands to make the new country their home. The Islamists, on the other hand, come with the belief that they already own the place and want to make it part of the Ummeh. Some forty percent of second and third generation Muslim Britons reject British democracy, express their allegiance to Islam and want to live under Sharia. So much for the Melting Pot comfort pill.

* The new Islamist arrivals take advantage of the provisions of the most benign system known to humanity, democracy, to implode it from within. Muslims, by sheer numbers, will soon be in a position to vote out democracy in many countries. They are already doing that in bits and pieces. They are imposing many of their values, in a number of societies, even while they are in the minority. Politicians, hungry for votes and devoted to the practice of political correctness bend backward to accede to Islamists’ demands.

* As for Multiculturalism, it is even more of a delusion than the Melting Pot myth. It is a second generation Comfort Pill. Since the Melting Pot proved to be worse than a placebo, the politically correct gave us the new pill. A glance at Europe shows how Multiculturalism in fact has served as the incubator of Islamism in no time at all. Europe’s Multiculturalism is rapidly birthing a Uniculturalism, if the Islamists’ medieval way of life can be dignified as a culture.

* Respect for diversity, separation of religion and state, freedom of belief and expression, are pillars of democracy, yet anathema to Islam. In no Islamic land do you find an ecumenical organization. It is only in non-Islamic countries that the shameless duplicitous Muslim, be he an imam, a mullah, or a regular run-of-the- mill faithful of Allah, meekly participates in ecumenical feel-good gatherings.

* To Muslims, no other religion is deemed worthy of recognition, much less accommodation. There is not a single church or synagogue or a Buddhist temple in all of Saudi Arabia. They are barred. The Islamic Republic of Iran’s raft of genocidal pogroms includes the heinous practice of bulldozing even the cemeteries of its Baha’i religious minority. The Islamic tyranny of the mullahs imprisons Christian Iranians for celebrating Christmas. Egypt denies its own citizens identity cards for refusing to lie and fake their religious belief or disbelief. The ID cards are required for education, securing work, receiving medical care and just about every right of citizenship. Without it, a citizen is literally subjected to slow death.

* In Islam only Muslim men, and, to a lesser extent, Muslim women, are entitled to certain rights. All non-Muslims, including the so-called people of the book, namely Christians and Jews, are at best second-class subject, subjects who must pay the back-breaking Jezyyeh, poll tax, for their “sin” of not converting to Islam. So, as Islam makes its inroads in new lands, as its membership swells through explosive birth and conversion, secular democracies will be inevitably replaced by Islamism with its stone-age Sharia laws. The best offer that Islam will make is to spare the non-Muslim’s life if he puts on the heavy yoke of Jezyyeh for the rest of his living days.

* Not to worry about the horrific things that are happening on the other side of the world? If Muslims act heinously toward non-Muslims, it is just the way things are in those countries and it is hardly any of our business? This is the same attitude that set Islamization of Europe on a seemingly irreversible track. One European country after another is rapidly buckling under the weight of Islamism.

* Most importantly, not to worry about Islamization of our country? After all, Muslims are about 6-7 million minority in a population of nearly 300 million, you reason? That even a smaller number of these Muslims are hothead radicals, while the majority is just like everyone else? But small minorities can overwhelm the majority by use of coercion and deadly force. Islamists are notorious for their dedication to the use of force for achieving their aims. The Taliban were a very small minority in Afghanistan, the Islamists were a tiny faction in the 1979 Islamic Revolution of Iran. Both overwhelmed the masses and imposed their reign of terror. The terrorist Hamas is also a “minority” in number, yet it rules the Palestinian Territory. Hizbollah of Lebanon is a minority, yet it has taken the country to the verge of destruction.

* Islamists are Islam’s locomotive that takes the wrecking-ball Islamic train on its demolition course. Islam and democracy are incompatible. As democracies practice their magnificent accommodating belief, they knowingly or unknowingly lay the track for the advancing wrecking train of Islam. We, in the United States of America must resist Islamism while it is still gathering momentum, unless we wish to end up in the same fix as the Europeans.

* We, in the United States, further need to embark on a comprehensive legal, educational, and social campaign to eradicate the deadly plague of Islam. By effective action, we even save those peaceful Muslims from their own affliction. I am not hatemongering. I would love to see all Muslims become ex-Muslims and full-fledged members of a diverse tolerant democratic society. It is a statement of fact about what Islam is. Islam is a highly communicable pandemic violent disease that demands urgent and serious containment.

Europe is already badly infected with Islamism. It is the coal-miners’ canary. It is telling us that the next stop is America. We must act and act now. We must not sacrifice our cherished way of life and the lives of our children at the altar of political correctness: the incubator of Islamofascism.

thought this might be an interesting addition to the discussion...

wabio
10-14-07, 01:22 PM
To Muslims, no other religion is deemed worthy of recognition, much less accommodation. There is not a single church or synagogue or a Buddhist temple in all of Saudi Arabia. They are barred. The Islamic Republic of Iran’s raft of genocidal pogroms includes the heinous practice of bulldozing even the cemeteries of its Baha’i religious minority. The Islamic tyranny of the mullahs imprisons Christian Iranians for celebrating Christmas.

Intolerance. The primary reason I won't support the Islamic movement. It's not something you can rationalize with or adjust to....the ideology is entrenched in their religion and culture. It's not difficult to understand why conflict arises in all corners of the world where Muslims coincide with other religions. The American Muslims who have adapted change and becomed accustomed to western culture are the exception, not the rule. Even then, the exception only goes so far.

bhk
10-31-07, 02:31 PM
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200710/CUL20071031b.html

'Islamophobia' Used to Crush Muslim Dissent, Panel Says
By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 31, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Muslim extremists are branding opponents "Islamophobes" in an effort to paint themselves as the victim and silence dissent and opposition to their political and religious beliefs, according to a panel convened in Washington, D.C., Tuesday.

"'Islamophobia' has become ... the new battleground in this war" on terrorism, Anne Bayefsky, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute, said at the panel discussion.

She said the term "inverts victim and perpetrator" by portraying Islamic fanatics as the victim, thus allowing them to label dissent as a violation of human rights and, in effect, silence dissent.
The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) at the United Nations has been lobbying hard for bans against "Islamaphobia, which are "tantamount to blasphemy strictures that have been used to curtail freedoms of expression, press, and religion by some of the OIC's most repressive member states," noted the Hudson Institute in its preview to the panel discussion.

The term "Islamaphobia" will be a major focus of the 2009 U.N. World Conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa.

Bayefsky said the goal of conference organizers, including Libya, Cuba and Iran, is to "deflect attention from the human rights abuses" and "to circle the wagons, to invoke mass hysteria, to suggest to people that they are under threat, which is in fact imaginary."

She said that by labeling themselves victims of Islamophobia, leaders of Islamic regimes can justify harsh crackdowns on internal dissent and legitimize calls for similar crackdowns on outside criticism - such as calls for the punishment of cartoonists who depict the Muslim prophet Mohammed.

"If you can claim the other guy is the human rights violator," Bayefsky said, "if you become the victim of racism and Islamophobia, then you justify the so-called struggle against the enemy of human rights."

Some panelists, including Fahad Nazer, a resident fellow at the Institute for Gulf Affairs, said that Islamophobia does exist, pointing to Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), a long-shot Republican presidential hopeful, as an example.

Tancredo came under fire in July for suggesting in a radio interview that Mecca, a Muslim holy site, should be bombed if Muslim terrorists detonate a nuclear weapon in the United States.

"There is certainly something there," Nazer said of claims of Islamophobia being harmful to mainstream Muslims.

Bayefsky acknowledged that "insofar as it means discrimination against Muslims, there's nothing wrong with condemning Islamophobia."

"But the problem is that it has been manipulated as a term to mean something quite different, to suggest that there aren't particular cases of discrimination, but a kind of mass movement on the part of western governments and non-Muslims to denounce all of Islam, which is not the case," she added.

The panelists agreed that the United Nations was not a reliable vessel through which to address issues of human rights or discrimination against certain religions.

Nazer suggested that there is reason to believe the Islamic regimes themselves may be shifting their approach to dissent.

"They will reform, however they'll do it on their own terms and at their own pace," he said, specifically referring to Saudi Arabia. "The good news is that Saudi officials condemn terrorism routinely."

But, he said, "other developments ... are more ominous," such as reformers being asked to stop their political activism or being thrown in prison.

Nonetheless, Nazer said, "more than any [U.N.] declaration or conference, the Saudis are in a position to lead the Muslim nations by example and they can do so by lifting restrictions on speech, assembly and worship."

Gee, calling someone Islamophobic to stifle criticism of terrorists, where have I seen that recently?

cinten
10-31-07, 04:20 PM
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200710/CUL20071031b.html


Gee, calling someone Islamophobic to stifle criticism of terrorists, where have I seen that recently?



How am I not surprised that an article like that was posted on an extreme right news website owned by those on the extreme right. It's so funny how you cry about the liberal media then cite such obvious right wing websites.

bhk
10-31-07, 04:27 PM
How am I not surprised that an article like that was posted on an extreme right news website owned by those on the extreme right. It's so funny how you cry about the liberal media then cite such obvious right wing websites.

How about showing facts that support your position instead of just attacking the messenger.
There's no doubt that organizations like CAIR label anyone who dares investigate their ties to terrorism by calling them Islamophobic or that they hate all Moslems. A tactic that's been used by a poster on this board to try to derail threads discussing and updating Islamofascists committing terrorism. Perhaps you happen to know who that poster is.

Ky-Fi
10-31-07, 04:54 PM
From the Sydney Morning Herald, I thought this was an astute piece on the rifts and mutating traditional positions of western ideologies in response to Islam:

Liberals getting left out of the debate on Islam
James Button
October 22, 2007

Sitting in his office in Antwerp, Filip Dewinter says he wants to keep religion out of public life, protect free speech, promote democracy and ensure the equality of men and women.

He talks like a progressive. But as head of the Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest) party, which gets 20 per cent of the votes in the Flemish half of Belgium, he is one of the most far-right politicians in Europe. His adviser hands me a leaflet showing a minaret with a red line through it. "Stop Islamising," the slogan demands. "No mosques in our neighbourhood."

Six years since September 11, 2001, the rise of Vlaams Belang and the equally xenophobic Swiss People's Party - which was on track to top the vote in yesterday's general election - are signs of how Islam has transformed Europe's political and intellectual landscape.

Immigration, national identity, religion versus atheism, alarm about the threat to civil liberties in a time of terrorism, the future of multiculturalism and the place of women - few debates are unaffected by the presence in Europe of 15 to 20 million Muslims.

Islam is the greatest challenge to old politics since the fall of communism. It has scrambled categories of right and left. The right steals the left's language to allege that Muslims do not fit in because they do not respect Western values of pluralism, women's rights and even gay rights.

Some of this is an expedient platform on which to oppose Muslims, but not all. It is a conservative government in the Netherlands that makes would-be immigrants watch a film on Dutch culture showing a topless woman sunbathing and a male couple kissing.

The populist Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn was often labelled right-wing but said, fairly or unfairly, that he was hostile to Islam because he did not want to "have to go through the emancipation of women and homosexuals all over again". He entered politics partly out of rage at young Muslim men smashing the windows of his gay bar.

Left liberals, meanwhile, are thrown into confusion, or worse. In 2004, the left-wing Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, hosted a visit by Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Muslim cleric whose fatwas endorse wife-beating and the murder of homosexuals. A British parliamentary report on anti-Semitism last year found a troubling complacency on university campuses about a rise in harassment of Jewish students.

The left rightly points out that most Muslims are not extremist. Yet it is so afraid of appearing racist or asserting Western cultural superiority that it seems unable to acknowledge any problems associated with the Muslim faith at all.

Take the case of Newsround, a BBC news program for children. Explaining the September 11, 2001, attacks, it said: "Al-Qaeda is unhappy with America and other countries getting involved in places like the Middle East. People linked to al-Qaeda have used violence to make this point in the USA, and in other countries."

They also "believe they are fighting a holy war [jihad] against enemies of their religion. Al-Qaeda hopes its attacks will make Western countries treat Muslims differently in areas like the Middle East, the Balkans and Chechnya."

In this script, al-Qaeda sounds like a group of freedom fighters. There is no mention of its hatred of homosexuals, Jews, unbelievers and democracy. The Financial Times columnist Philip Stephens calls it a "pseudo-liberalism that says we must be tolerant of the intolerant". It also implies moral equivalence between America's involvement in the Middle East, whatever faults lie there, and the slaughter of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001.

Not all liberals are as blind to al-Qaeda's underlying fascism. But the idea of tolerating intolerance defines the liberal left's difficulty in other areas, too. Championing cultural diversity can clash with other progressive values, such as women's rights.

British multiculturalism has been built largely around the idea of leaving migrant communities alone. Ethnic organisations are given funds and essentially left to get on with it. The risk with this approach is that you can get communities policed by patriarchs.

In his 2006 book Identity and Violence, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen argued that the defence of ethnic rights was often leading not to true multiculturalism but to "plural monoculturalism" - people living side by side but apart.

If, Sen wrote, a girl from a conservative immigrant family wanted to go out with an English boy, that was a multicultural initiative. Her parents stopping her - "a common enough occurrence" - was not, because it sought to keep cultures separate. Yet, Sen argued, "alleged multiculturalists" were most vocal in supporting the rights of traditional cultures, "as if the cultural freedom of the young woman were of no relevance".

A friend of mine who does volunteer teaching on a housing estate in the French city of Nantes tells a story. A Tunisian man on the estate had a son who failed to get into university. The father then banned his three daughters from university, saying that if his son could not go, nor could they. The tragedy, my friend says, is that the girls are smart, the youngest brilliant.

If denial of girls' right to learn is not a left-wing issue, it is hard to think what is. Responding to both radical and fundamentalist forms of Islam gives the democratic left a chance to rediscover its core beliefs. It should not cede ownership of Western values to the right, values that the left fought for centuries to create.

James Button is the Herald's Europe correspondent.


This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/10/21/1192940899288.html

bhk
10-31-07, 05:34 PM
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1592.htm


Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: Islam's "Conquest of Rome" Will Save Europe from Its Subjugation to Materialism and Promiscuity

Following are excerpts from a program with Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi, which aired on Qatar TV on July 28, 2007.

Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: "Some friends quoted a hadith that says Islam would conquer Rome. Does this mean that we will vanquish the Europeans once again?"

[...]

Al-Qaradhawi: The conquest of Rome – the conquest of Italy, and Europe – means that Islam will return to Europe once again. Must this conquest necessarily be though war? No. There is such a thing as peaceful conquest.

[...]

Al-Qaradhawi: The peaceful conquest has foundations in this religion, and therefore, I expect that Islam will conquer Europe without resorting to the sword or fighting. It will do so by means of da'wa and ideology. Europe is miserable with materialism, with the philosophy of promiscuity, and with the immoral considerations that rule the world – considerations of self-interest and self-indulgence. It is high time Europe woke up and found a way out from this. Europe will find no life saver or life boat other than Islam. Islam will save Europe from the raging materialism from which it suffers. The promiscuity, which permits men to marry men and women to marry women, is horrifying. All religions condemn this. [Islam] is capable of granting Europe and the entire West the world to come, without denying them this world. It can grant them faith without denying them science. It can grant them truth, without denying them power. It can connect them to the heavens, without tearing them away from the earth. It can grant them spirit, without denying them matter. The message of Islam is a message of global balance, and therefore, I believe the next conquest will be conducted through da'wa. But, of course, the Muslims must start acting in order to conquer this world.

This guy is considered a moderate.

cinten
10-31-07, 09:42 PM
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1592.htm


This guy is considered a moderate.

That is one guy, and instead of looking at that guy as one dumb person, certain posters will look at his views and apply them to all muslims. It's just another case of judging an entire religion based on a select few.

DVD Polizei
10-31-07, 10:43 PM
True, it is one guy. But that one guy's views were apparently broadcasted on television for more than just one person to view. Somebody else apparently approved the broadcast. And a bunch of somebody's apparently thought it was ok, because we haven't heard much protest about the broadcast from those somebodies, have we.

For example, suppose CNN let a KKK leader talk about their ideology in a two-hour special called "Down With Teh Broze". It was not a debate, but was merely a two-hour special where this leader said his beliefs. It was just one person, but how many does it take to let such a person get on the air, and the next step, if no one calls in and complains or you see no complaints whatsoever, this would tell you the viewership more than likely agrees with the speaker.

Ky-Fi
11-01-07, 08:21 AM
That is one guy, and instead of looking at that guy as one dumb person, certain posters will look at his views and apply them to all muslims. It's just another case of judging an entire religion based on a select few.

So you don't respect Islam enough to consider that millions of Muslims might actually prefer traditional Islamic values to modern liberal secular western values?

The Bus
11-01-07, 09:30 AM
True, it is one guy. But that one guy's views were apparently broadcasted on television for more than just one person to view. Somebody else apparently approved the broadcast.

Well, by that standard, should I judge you by the contents of what's shown on The 700 Club?

So you believe gays called 9/11?

bhk
11-01-07, 09:38 AM
Well, by that standard, should I judge you by the contents of what's shown on The 700 Club?

So you believe gays called 9/11?

What do they call it?

Seriously, looking at the broadcasts on Memritv . org this guy is a moderate as he doesn't call for outright beheading of Jews and Zionists because most of them do.

Ky-Fi
11-01-07, 09:50 AM
Well, by that standard, should I judge you by the contents of what's shown on The 700 Club?


If you see statement on The 700 Club, and you wonder whether its fair to conclude that it represents Christianity, then there's a logical process you would take.

* You would examine the credibility and standing within Christianity of the person making the statement

* You would examine the specific verses of the holy texts he's using to support his statement, and see if he's quoting them correctly

* You would look at the historical teachings of the various Christian churches, scholars and clerics to see if this is how those verses had been interpreted in the past

*You would look at all the current schools of Christian jurisprudence to see if they endorsed that interpretation, or if it was at least endorsed by a large minority within Christianity.

If you find that a statement made on the 700 Club stands up to all that scrutiny, then it would indeed be fair to say that statement represents mainstream Christianity. And we should use a similar process to analyze statements from Muslims, IMO.

Ky-Fi
11-20-07, 05:45 PM
At least this artist is honest:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article2896431.ece


From The TimesNovember 19, 2007

Artists too frightened to tackle radical Islam


Ben Hoyle, Arts Reporter

Britain’s contemporary artists are fêted around the world for their willingness to shock but fear is preventing them from tackling Islamic fundamentalism. Grayson Perry, the cross-dressing potter, Turner Prize winner and former Times columnist, said that he had consciously avoided commenting on radical Islam in his otherwise highly provocative body of work because of the threat of reprisals.

Perry also believes that many of his fellow visual artists have also ducked the issue, and one leading British gallery director told The Times that few major venues would be prepared to show potentially inflammatory works.

“I’ve censored myself,” Perry said at a discussion on art and politics organised by the Art Fund. “The reason I haven’t gone all out attacking Islamism in my art is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.”

Perry’s highly decorated pots can sell for more than £50,000 and often feature sex, violence and childhood motifs. One work depicted a teddy bear being born from a penis as the Virgin Mary. “I’m interested in religion and I’ve made a lot of pieces about it,” he said. “With other targets you’ve got a better idea of who they are but Islamism is very amorphous. You don’t know what the threshold is. Even what seems an innocuous image might trigger off a really violent reaction so I just play safe all the time.”

The fate of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film-maker who was murdered by a Muslim extremist in 2004 after he made a film portraying violence against women in Islamic societies, is the most chilling example of what can happen to an artist who is perceived to have offended Islam. Perry said that he had also been scared by the reaction across the Islamic world to Danish cartoons deemed anti-Muslim in 2006 and by the protests against Salman Rushdie’s knighthood this year.

Across Europe there is growing evidence that freedom of expression has been curtailed by fear of religious fundamentalism. Robert Redeker, a French philosophy teacher, is in hiding after calling the Koran a “book of extraordinary violence” in Le Figaro in 2006; Spanish villages near Valencia have abandoned a centuries-old tradition of burning effigies of Muhammad to mark the reconquest of Spain, against the Moors; and an opera house in Berlin banned a production of Mozart’s Idomeneo because it depicted the beheading of Muhammad (as well as Jesus and other spiritual leaders).

In Britain the most high-profile examples have also been seen in the theatre, with the campaign by Christian fundamentalists against Jerry Springer: the Opera and the protests in Birmingham that forced the closure of Bezhti, a play about rape and murder in a Sikh temple.

Tim Marlow, director of exhibitions at White Cube, the London gallery, welcomed Perry’s admission. “It’s something that’s there but very few people have explicitly admitted. Institutions, museums and galleries are probably doing most of the censorship. I would be lying if I said of course we would show something like the Danish cartoons. I think there are genuine reasons for concern. Fundamentalism is a really complex issue and one of the things artists can do is to help us through that complexity. Whether or not it’s their responsibility to do that I’m not sure though.”
_____________________________________


....and, I thought this guy's post in the "comments" section was spot-on:

"All my life the Left has clamored for confrontation with fundamentalism but now, when actually faced with a potent fundamentalist force that threatens all they espouse, they curl up and crawl away. The problem is that they always pictured themselves directing their steely eyed glares in support of freedom at some harmless overweight middle aged white guy. Like Pat Robertson. You know, someone whom they could be sure would, at most, scold them. Not some bearded, beturbaned loon with a knife between his teeth. Hey, that guy might actually hurt them!

Best take a pass and tell each other how brave they are to oppose Bush - yet another middle aged white guy from whom they have nothing to fear. Very impressive."

Hucklebuck, Montserrat, BWI,

Ky-Fi
12-01-07, 08:56 AM
Excellent interview here with Indian author Moorthy Muthuswamy, author of "The Art of War on Terror". He gives a really astute analysis of the conflict with Islam, IMO. I won't post the whole thing, but here are some of the myths he tackles:

* Democracy is the solution to radical Islam. (No, in order for functional democracies to take root, political Islam must first be neutralized.);


* A widely practiced religion must have a strong moderate component. (No again, free wealth can create conditions for complete domination of extremism.);


* The fight within Islam is between moderates and extremists. (No, the fight is between different extremist groups or schools of thought.);


* We must use moderates in Islam to fight extremists. (We must use a fundamentally different approach: using science-based arguments to help liberate educated Muslims so that they are empowered to neutralize political Islamic movement from within.);


* Ideology is the strong suit of Muslim radicals. (No, seen through common sense, derived from science, it is political Islam’s weak link.);


* We can rely on moderate leaders in nations such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. (The de facto power in these nations are political Islamic movements, this makes these leaders ineffective in stopping these nations from being fountainheads of terror.);


* Grievances drive Muslim populations into anger and towards terror. (No, most grievances are manufactured to channel Muslim energies towards jihad.).


Anyways, the whole interview is here:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=33ADCAA3-1E36-4665-881D-8E6C4F6C8D7B

bhk
12-01-07, 11:41 AM
Excellent. Thanks for the link.
Most important points:
* The fight within Islam is between moderates and extremists. (No, the fight is between different extremist groups or schools of thought.);


FP: Illuminate for us the ongoing jihad in India.


Muthuswamy: The answer to the question of what will likely happen to Europe and other nations as their resident Muslim populations rise faster than unbelievers becomes apparent by studying the ongoing jihad in India’s vicinity and in India itself.

During the last sixty years, from every Muslim majority area of South Asia – without exception – be it Pakistan, Bangladesh or from India’s own Kashmir valley, non-Muslims have been massively driven out to India. This occurred when the Muslim population there achieved political power through majority status. Also, laws and conditions have been put in place to deliberately marginalize non-Muslims. In almost all of these cases, mosques and the clerics played a major role in facilitating this “conquest”. In India the Muslim population percentage has increased from about 10 percent in 1951 to about 15 percent now. Even within 85 percent non-Muslim India, in some Muslim majority towns this phenomenon is getting repeated. These South Asian populations share language, food habits and culture but differ in religion. Clearly, these Muslim populations are influenced by political Islam.


Written orders were issued by Pakistan’s military high command to kill Hindus in the then East Pakistan in 1971. The largest religion-based genocide of the past fifty years was conducted as a result. Most of these expulsions and genocides occurred before 1972 – well before the large-scale infusion of petrodollars and Wahhabism.


Those who claim that oil money, Muslim “grievance” or “freedom fighting” are responsible for terror should think again. As noted earlier, political Islam’s fundamental emphasis on conquest is traced to the scripture level.


This data of non-Muslim expulsions from every Muslim majority area of South Asia implies that Muslims of this region do not believe in coexistence. This also points to intolerance among Indian Muslims (also substantiated in other ways). But due to their minority status they have not been able to completely impose their will on non-Muslim Indians. Still, Indian Muslim leaders have managed to lay siege to Indian democracy and have started to marginalize majority (to be discussed later) Hence, a fast-growing Muslim population within India can be seen as a looming genocidal threat to non-Muslim Indians.

And with most of Europe and the US population with their heads buried in the sand while kneeling at the alter of political correctness, Islamofascists will be able to succeed.

DVD Polizei
12-01-07, 03:43 PM
Those are very good points Ky-Fi posted. And I agree with bhk. At least today, anyway.

hahn
12-01-07, 09:25 PM
Excellent. Thanks for the link.
Most important points:




And with most of Europe and the US population with their heads buried in the sand while kneeling at the alter of political correctness, Islamofascists will be able to succeed.
Let's say for the sake of argument, that you're correct in your paranoia that Islamofascists will "succeed" (no idea how you've defined that, but whatever). Here are some questions for you:
1) Do you think Bush and his team are going about solving the "problem" in the correct way?

2) Why is this a problem for Americans? After all, there are many many problems in the world. Some even greater than how you've described "Islamofascists". Why should we stick our noses in this particular business, use up lots of money and soldier's lives doing it?

3) Do you think there MIGHT be other solutions to this "problem" than killing Muslims? After all, how do you distinguish between someone who is merely a Muslim and someone who is an "Islamofascist"? I mean, what if some of this "Islamofascists" have half a brain and don't publicly announce that they wish to kill all non-Muslims? Or are the deaths of innocent Muslims a justifiable loss in your eyes?

4) How many of these Islamofascists do you think there are? Do think they are the majority of Muslims? Give us some numbers.

My questions are asked in all earnestness. I of course don't agree with you, but I'd like to know that you at least have some idea of answers to these questions. Otherwise, one might think you have a hatred for Muslims for purely personal and prejudiced reasons. And after all, you are proposing to do to Muslims (oh yeah, I forgot you have Islamofascist radar) what you allege that they would like to do to the rest of the world. How does that make you different from the people we are supposed to hate? Because you love freedom and they....hate it? You don't seem to see that we are now fighting not in our defense, but for control. These are 2 very different things and is the BIG difference this war and the others (except Vietnam). Fighting for defense is winnable. Fighting for control is not. You seem to live in some violent delusion that the people should be controlled through superiority of military strength rather than the superiority of ideas.

Boiling it down, the point is this: if what you're saying is a problem, actually IS a problem (of the magnitude you claim it is), then killing people will not solve it. You are Hindu, correct? Or at least of Indian ethnicity? What is your opinion of Ghandi? Wise man, or a fool?

Ky-Fi
12-02-07, 08:47 AM
After all, how do you distinguish between someone who is merely a Muslim and someone who is an "Islamofascist"?

I can articulate how I differentiate between a Muslim and an Islamofascist. This is by M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy:

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/terrorism.php?id=1384836

Those standards could be articulated as follows:



1. The rejection of Islamism as a political ideology – Simply being “anti-terror” does not make a Muslim necessarily moderate in the American context. It simply gives him a seat at the table of humanity. Political moderation within the Muslim community is manifested most significantly in a rejection of political Islam (anti-Islamism).


2. A rejection of the concept of the “Islamic state” – Islamist Muslims may endorse democracies, elections, citizenship, and the rule of law, but they are driven by an overriding vision of a Muslim majority society led by theologians (imams and clerics) who run government through their interpretation and enactment of Islamic law (sharia). Our government should engage anti-Islamist Muslims predominantly and at the minimum, non-Islamist Muslims. The ideology of Islamism – or the desire to put into place an “Islamic state” – is a clear and present danger to free people everywhere and directly conflicts with the interests of the United States. Muslim moderates are those who embrace both Americanism and a spiritual Islam while wholly rejecting Islamism as a movement for the body politic and government of every nation, and not just the one they happen to live in as a minority. Moderate Muslims unequivocally advocate for American Constitutional government above all other forms of governance whether Muslims are a minority or a majority.


3. Identification of radical Islamist organizations by name as enemies of the United States – Moderate Muslims are able to both condemn terrorism as an act, as well as the individuals and organizations – by name – that utilize terrorism as a tactic for political change. Thus, a moderate Muslim should be able to identify radical Islamist organizations by name such as al Qaeda, HAMAS, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad as ideological enemies of America. Similarly, moderate Muslims should condemn by name global Islamist organizations which seek to put into place Islamic states such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb ut-Tahrir, or Tabligh Jamaat. While these organizations may at times "condemn terrorism," they often offer apologies (if not justifications) for terrorism and seek the establishment of both individual Islamic states and a global or regional caliphate of them. Anti-Islamism is central to being moderate in the American context.


4. The acceptance that the root cause of terrorism is political Islam. Terror is only a means to the ends of the Islamic state. While many Islamists may say they are against "terror," moderate, liberty-loving Muslims accept the fact that the root cause of terrorism is the ideology of Islamism and its intoxicating dreams of the Islamic state poised against the ascendancy of Western secular democracies. To blame American foreign policy and other conspiracy theories for terrorism is to live in denial.


5. To articulate the toxic role that Wahhabism (a radical Saudi Arabian interpretation of Islam) has had upon the radicalization of some members of the Muslim community. We must acknowledge the reality that 15 of the 19 terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks were indoctrinated in the Wahhabiist ideology of Jihad and its global goals.


6. To unequivocally recognize the state of Israel and its right to exist. Moderate Muslims accept the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian situation is not a religious conflict but rather a local Middle Eastern national conflict.


7. Separate faith (spirituality) and nationalism. Moderate Muslims in the West reject the mixture of their membership in the Muslim community with their citizenship or membership in their nation's military. Moderate Muslims understand that the personal practice of Islam, like all the world religions, is threatened when a government is driven by the interpretation of any one faith and not simply by overriding universal human principles “under God.”


8. To advocate for individual freedom and liberty. Moderate Muslims stand firmly for gender equality, free speech and against Islamist laws concerning blasphemy and apostasy both within the Muslim community and outside the Muslim community.


9. To articulate the same ideas in English and Arabic and both within and outside the Muslim community.


10. To advocate for the rights of dissidents and liberty-minded Muslims in Muslim majority nations against the dictatorships and monarchies which oppress them: Moderate Muslims should not fear naming the leaders of Arab and Muslim dictatorships by name (i.e. Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, or Iran to name a few) as despots and oppressors. Similarly, they should not fear standing firmly and publicly for the need of wholesale cultural and political reform in those nations along with the liberation of their peoples.


11. To acknowledge that much of current Islamic jurisprudence (sharia) is in dire need of ijtihad (reform) and being brought into the 21st century and modernity with a focus on liberty. Just as Chrisitianity and other faiths underwent reformation, so too is much of the current legal doctrine of Islam in need of a similar modernization to be in full synergy with the principles of individual freedom, limited constitutional government, and the separation of religion and state.

12. Moderate Muslims refuse to accept victimization as the focus of Muslim activism in the U.S. They accept the fact that Muslims should be leading counterterrorism against militant Islamists in the U.S. and around the world.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor M. Zuhdi Jasser is the founder and Chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy based in Phoenix Arizona. He is a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander, a physician in private practice, and a community activist.
_____________________________________________________________


There are certainly truly moderate Muslim groups out there, like the one founded by the gentleman above. But if you do any more-than-cursory examination of many of the big Muslim groups like CAIR, Muslim Council of Britain, etc.---they aren't in any way moderate by the above criteria.

Another REAL moderate Muslim, who's right on the ball about condemning the teddy bear incident:



http://www.irshadmanji.com/

bhk
12-02-07, 10:33 AM
1) Do you think Bush and his team are going about solving the "problem" in the correct way?

Yes. You have to kill the ones that are already radicalized and in the process of committing terrorism. The Bush admin doesn't however have a plant in every prominent Mosques. Perhaps they can ask Hillary how to do that.
2) Why is this a problem for Americans? After all, there are many many problems in the world. Some even greater than how you've described "Islamofascists". Why should we stick our noses in this particular business, use up lots of money and soldier's lives doing it?
It is much easier to nip problems in the bud than to let them flower, or rather explode as would be the case in the war against Islamofascism. This has a potential to kill and enslave(remember, Islam means surrender) more people than anything else in the past.

3) Do you think there MIGHT be other solutions to this "problem" than killing Muslims?
I'm not advocating killing muslims. But, you cannot sit and wring your hands blaming the victim of terrorism while terrorists are inten on killing. The ones that are radicalized and in the process of carrying out attacks have to be killed. To that end, the work done by Petraeus in Iraq is significant. What has happened there is that the local Sunnis have teamed up with the US military to fight Al Quida, which is a Sunni group. Think about that for a minute.

After all, how do you distinguish between someone who is merely a Muslim and someone who is an "Islamofascist"?
Depends on what they say and do in private(or when they think there's no non-Moslem around). Very difficult to do from outward appearances(if not impossible). Remember that the latest arrests in the UK were of physicians who were in the act of committing terrorism? The specific word "moderates" was used by their acquiantences to describe them. That is the magnitude of the problem and that is where undercover plants at large mosques could help.
I mean, what if some of this "Islamofascists" have half a brain and don't publicly announce that they wish to kill all non-Muslims?
That's the thing. They do though when they think they are speaking to similarly minded other Moslems. In fact the one group of people that are living in fear of these Islamofascists are the moderate Moslems who don't follow the Koran to the letter when it commands to kill or convert non-believers. They are the ones who are living in fear throughout the world.
Or are the deaths of innocent Muslims a justifiable loss in your eyes?
What a trollish question.

classicman2
12-02-07, 10:39 AM
I don't see where it's trollish.

If you want to see some trollish questions, look at some of your posts. :lol:

bhk
12-02-07, 10:51 AM
I don't see where it's trollish.

OK. You answer it then.

If you want to see some trollish questions, look at some of your posts. :lol:

I see you've posted your usual evidence to prove your assertions as well.

classicman2
12-02-07, 11:15 AM
What assertion? That many of your posts are trolls?

I invite members to simply look at many of your posts. Especially your fondness for the use of catch words - Islamofacist for one.

They can decide for themselves.

classicman2
12-02-07, 11:19 AM
:notrolls:

wishbone
12-02-07, 11:24 AM
:notrolls:What assertion? That many of your posts are trolls?

I invite members to simply look at many of your posts. Especially your fondness for the use of catch words - Islamofacist for one.

They can decide for themselves.If Al Gore wins the Nobel Prize next week - I'm going to make certain to frequent this thread more often. ;)

If that does happen, we will expect the author of this thread to humbly apologize for all the bad things he's said about Al.So good of you to be above such things... :rolleyes:

classicman2
12-02-07, 11:55 AM
I didn't say I was.

I wasn't the one that called hahn a troll.

Your running-mate is the one that did.

hahn
12-03-07, 01:54 AM
Yes. You have to kill the ones that are already radicalized. The Bush admin doesn't however have a plant in every prominent Mosques. Perhaps they can ask Hillary how to do that.

It is much easier to nip problems in the bud than to let them flower, or rather explode as would be the case in the war against Islamofascism. This has a potential to kill and enslave(remember, Islam means surrender) more people than anything else in the past.


I'm not advocating killing muslims. But, you cannot sit and wring your hands blaming the victim of terrorism while terrorists are inten on killing. The ones that are radicalized and in the process of carrying out attacks have to be killed. To that end, the work done by Petraeus in Iraq is significant. What has happened there is that the local Sunnis have teamed up with the US military to fight Al Quida, which is a Sunni group. Think about that for a minute.


Depends on what they say and do in private(or when they think there's no non-Moslem around). Very difficult to do from outward appearances(if not impossible). Remember that the latest arrests in the UK were of physicians who were in the act of committing terrorism? The specific word "moderates" was used by their acquiantences to describe them. That is the magnitude of the problem and that is where undercover plants at large mosques could help.

That's the thing. They do though when they think they are speaking to similarly minded other Moslems. In fact the one group of people that are living in fear of these Islamofascists are the moderate Moslems who don't follow the Koran to the letter when it commands to kill or convert non-believers. They are the ones who are living in fear throughout the world.

What a trollish question.

Let me simplify what I'm getting at.

Point 1. You ARE proposing killing people based on their opinions, rather than their actions. That is, if someone an extremist in their views or opinions, that person should be killed.

Point 2. Given that it is impossible to accurately distinguish between an extremist (you admitted this), the ONLY way to really make sure that all Muslim extremists are dead, is to kill any Muslims that MIGHT be an extremist. Even the ones that don't appear to be so (like highly educated doctors).

Feel free to point out any inaccuracies in my assessment of your stance. Given that it is accurate, just how different do you think your views are from a Muslim extremist? (It's a rhetorical question, because I think it's quite obvious to most forum readers by now.)

BTW, why is it a trollish question to ask you if you value innocent Muslim lives? The answer is because you know that no one here (including reasonable conservatives) would like your answer. What? You don't like questions that get to the heart of who you really are and what you really represent? Shocking.

bhk
12-03-07, 03:23 PM
Point 1. You ARE proposing killing people based on their opinions, rather than their actions. That is, if someone an extremist in their views or opinions, that person should be killed.
Show me the post where I said we should kill people based on opinions. You cannot do the "enlightened" action of sitting there wringing your hands and blaming the victim while terrorists are trying to kill. Those that are have to be dealt with. Yes, I would prefer death for those caught in the act of terrorism rather than 3 hot meals and a cot.
To quote myself(which apparantly you quoted without reading or reading it without understanding:
"I'm not advocating killing muslims. But, you cannot sit and wring your hands blaming the victim of terrorism while terrorists are inten on killing. The ones that are radicalized and in the process of carrying out attacks have to be killed."
Point 2. Given that it is impossible to accurately distinguish between an extremist (you admitted this), the ONLY way to really make sure that all Muslim extremists are dead, is to kill any Muslims that MIGHT be an extremist. Even the ones that don't appear to be so (like highly educated doctors).

More reading without understanding on your part:
quoting myself:
"Depends on what they say and do in private(or when they think there's no non-Moslem around). Very difficult to do from outward appearances(if not impossible). Remember that the latest arrests in the UK were of physicians who were in the act of committing terrorism? The specific word "moderates" was used by their acquiantences to describe them. That is the magnitude of the problem and that is where undercover plants at large mosques could help."

So it is very difficult to distinguish hidden Islamofascists from moderate moslems based on their public statements. What distinguishes them are their private statements(as in the case of the Islamic physicians who were caught trying to committ terrorist acts) and (public) actions.

Feel free to point out any inaccuracies
I'm not an academic who sits in their office complaining about how much "work" I do while my underlings actually do the work. I don't have time to refute all of your inaccuracies. But on the above points I just did if you care to read them and understand them rather than pressing ahead with your agenda.*
(It's a rhetorical question, because I think it's quite obvious to most forum readers by now.)
So because I advocate killing terrorists I am the same as them. :lol:
Pardon me, your moral relativism is showing.

BTW, why is it a trollish question to ask you if you value innocent Muslim lives? The answer is because you know that no one here (including reasonable conservatives) would like your answer. What? You don't like questions that get to the heart of who you really are and what you really represent? Shocking.
How silly. As if any civilized person thinks it would be OK to knowingly kill innocents(well, except unborn babies that is). I am not some Islamofascist. So I don't believe innocent moslems who haven't committed terrorism and don't follow the letter of the commands in the Koran should die.



* stifling debate and preventing people from discussing this issue because it offends people's sense of political correctness.

bhk
12-03-07, 03:29 PM
http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Hague-museum-pulls-offensive-Muslim-art/2007/12/03/1196530582874.html


Hague museum pulls offensive art that could offend Muslims

December 3, 2007 - 10:59PM

The city museum of The Hague has decided not to include in an exhibition a work of art that may offend Muslims, it was reported on Monday.

The picture, made by Iranian artist Sooreh Hera, is entitled Adam and Ewald and shows two gay men wearing masks of the Muslim prophet Mohammed and his son-in-law Ali.

It is part of a photoseries the Gemeentemuseum has included in the 7up exhibition due to open on December 15.

The Gemeentemuseum's director Wim van Krimpen told reporters the museum is interested in purchasing Hera's complete series, which he called "high quality works of art".

However, he added he will not exhibit Adam and Ewald in the next few years because "certain people in our society might perceive it as offensive".

Hera responded she was "disappointed" and added "apparently a Muslim minority decides what will be on display in the museum".

Liberal-rightist Freedom Party (PVV) leader Geert Wilders, condemned the museum's decision, adding it was "based on fear".

Wilders has requested a reaction on the matter from Education and Culture minister Ronald Plasterk.

Meanwhile Siebe Weide, director of the Museum Association, told reporters "all Dutch museums are free to choose what they exhibit and what not".

Intimidation by acts of riot?

wendersfan
12-03-07, 03:32 PM
That's too bad.

bhk
12-03-07, 03:38 PM
Funny how so many people say "but if we take away our civil liberties to fight terrorism we are letting the terrorists win" but they don't really need the gov't to take their rights away, they willingly cave(as in the case of the city of The Hague museum).

hahn
12-04-07, 11:37 AM
bhk,

Your (edit) logic doesn't make sense to me - I don't even know how to respond anymore. However, I DO have an idea now of how you can continue to support Bush in spite of the things he says during his public conferences. But by all means, continue avoiding addressing the issue of your cultural background and its influence on your personal prejudices, and hope that nobody here notices it.

Recall that I lived in the most conservatively of Muslim countries for 10 years and my parents for 30 years. None of us became Muslims, to say nothing of being radicalized Muslims. So your constant warnings of Muslims taking over the world are empty and hollow. And no, none of us support things like blaming the gang-raped girl for the rape. But unlike you, I don't figure that pointing a gun at them will change them, nor make the world a better place. If Ghandi had supported the use of violence to fight against oppression, India would be a very different country right now. Do you think it'd be a better place?

wendersfan
12-04-07, 11:46 AM
bhk,

Your sense of "logic" is so bizarre and erratic,<i>Mod note: You know better than this. Please refrain from these sorts of comments or administrative action will be necessary.</i>

Red Dog
12-04-07, 12:31 PM
I wasn't aware that there is a civil liberty that guarantees the right to hang one's artwork in a city museum.

hahn
12-04-07, 01:08 PM
I wasn't aware that there is a civil liberty that guarantees the right to hang one's artwork in a city museum.
On the one hand, I can see how it's disappointing, since I don't find it offensive. But that's on a personal level. On the other hand, I don't see how this supports bhk's stance that Islam is threatening to take over our society. If a museum in the U.S. refuses to put up artwork that shows black slavery in a favorable light, does that mean we're caving to the black ethnic minority group and that they are threatening our way of life? Or could it be that, sometimes under certain political times and atmospheres, it's good to not be offensive simply for the sake of pushing boundaries?

bhk
12-04-07, 01:20 PM
So your constant warnings of Muslims taking over the world are empty and hollow. And no, none of us support things like blaming the gang-raped girl for the rape. But unlike you, I don't figure that pointing a gun at them will change them, nor make the world a better place. If Ghandi had supported the use of violence to fight against oppression, India would be a very different country right now. Do you think it'd be a better place?

It was only because at the time the British were relatively civilized and were outnumbered around 500 to one in India. Plus the world's attention was on them. Gandhi's tactics would have been an abject failure against the Nazi's or if Islamofascists had ruled India.

One more thing you don't understand. I'm not warning that the Islamofascists are taking over, I'm showing you the evidence. The art museum behaved exactly as Dhimmis would when responding to their Islamic masters in countries with Sharia law.
Recall that I lived in the most conservatively Muslim countries for 10 years and my parents for 30 years. None of us became Muslims, to say nothing of being radicalized Muslims.

And did you live in a compound reserved for foreigners or did you live among the people so to speak? Because among the people, you would have had to attend mosques on Friday. The religious police make sure of that.

I wasn't aware that there is a civil liberty that guarantees the right to hang one's artwork in a city museum.

I guess they don't want the museum staff beheaded.

bhk
12-04-07, 01:42 PM
<i>Mod note: You know better than this. Please refrain from these sorts of comments or administrative action will be necessary.</i>

eh... didn't sound that bad at all.

Ky-Fi
12-04-07, 04:28 PM
Or could it be that, sometimes under certain political times and atmospheres, it's good to not be offensive simply for the sake of pushing boundaries?

Well, you'll certainly avoid conflict and violence if you avoid being offensive towards a group. And if avoiding conflict is one's highest moral value, then this is the approach to take. It's just a matter of adjusting your definition of "offensive" to match the definition of that word as understood in countries with a majority Muslim population, particularly in regards to religious and political freedom, the rights of expression of artists and intellectuals, womens' rights, gay rights, etc.

hahn
12-04-07, 09:52 PM
Well, you'll certainly avoid conflict and violence if you avoid being offensive towards a group. And if avoiding conflict is one's highest moral value, then this is the approach to take. Conflicts like invasions and terrorist attacks? I don't see why you would consider that to be a moral value. It's simply a matter of decency. If a particular group would take offense at certain acts or speech, why on earth would one want to purposely do it anyhow, just to do so? Particularly if there is nothing to be gained by it, except offending the other group. I agree that P.C. can be taken too far sometimes, but sometimes, it is the prudent and sensible thing to do. By your argument, we should go back to calling blacks, "******s" and gays "faggots" because otherwise we're bowing to their demands.

It's just a matter of adjusting your definition of "offensive" to match the definition of that word as understood in countries with a majority Muslim population, particularly in regards to religious and political freedom, the rights of expression of artists and intellectuals, womens' rights, gay rights, etc.How about by not portraying their holy prophet Mohammed and his son-in-law Ali as gay lovers? In what way does that threaten you? Let me put it from a different perspective. If an artist had created a picture in which Jesus Christ was shown French kissing the Pope, but a museum refuses to display it because they don't want to offend Catholics, would you still be so up in arms about it? Would you claim that as evidence that Catholics are threatening our free speech or way of life?

You and bhk seem to be under the impression that if something demeaning to Muslim people isn't allowed, that somehow your freedoms have been oppressed. Freedom of speech/expression does not give one the right to offend people just because you can. If one can't be responsible with that freedom, one doesn't deserve to have it. People take this freedom of speech/expression way too literally and seem to think it gives one free reign to act like moronic assholes and then act righteously indignant when there are consequences. Can you yell "bomb" in a crowded theater? Sure, just be prepared to be hauled off to jail. Are you allowed to call a black person "******" to his face? Sure, just don't whine about it when you get the shit beaten out of you. This isn't an legal issue. It's an issue of wisdom. Some of you still have yet to grasp this difference.

Ky-Fi
12-05-07, 06:17 AM
If an artist had created a picture in which Jesus Christ was shown French kissing the Pope, but a museum refuses to display it because they don't want to offend Catholics, would you still be so up in arms about it? Would you claim that as evidence that Catholics are threatening our free speech or way of life?

You and bhk seem to be under the impression that if something demeaning to Muslim people isn't allowed, that somehow your freedoms have been oppressed. Freedom of speech/expression does not give one the right to offend people just because you can. If one can't be responsible with that freedom, one doesn't deserve to have it.

Freedom of speech most certainly does give one the right to offend people just because you can. Period.

And the essence of free speech is that it allows lots of disparate views to contribute to the whole truth of an issue, which benefits society as a whole.

And, I don't think it's too crazy to wonder if the Hague museum is refusing to show the prints NOT because they believe art shouldn't offend religious sensibilities, but rather becasue they're intimidated by Muslim violence.

As for 'blasphemous art', I believe my religion is true, and I feel the truth can hold its own in the free marketplace of ideas. I'm with Sister Wendy on this one:

Piss Christ is a controversial photograph by American photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition,[1] which is sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects.

The piece caused a scandal when it was exhibited in 1989, with detractors accusing Serrano of blasphemy and others raising this as a major issue of artistic freedom. On the floor of the United States Senate, Senators Al D'Amato and Jesse Helms expressed outrage that the piece was supported by the National Endowment for the Arts, since it is a federal taxpayer-financed institution.

Sister Wendy Beckett, an art critic, consecrated virgin and Catholic nun, voiced her approval of Piss Christ. She explained in a television interview with Bill Moyers that she regarded the work as a statement on "what we have done to Christ" - that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ and the values he represents.[2]


wikipedia

Red Dog
12-05-07, 08:30 AM
Again, this is not a freedom of speech issue. As I said before, there is no right to display art in a city-owned museum.

If the city were to confiscate the piece or arrest someone for creating and displaying such a piece in a private museum, then you would have a freedom of speech issue.

bhk
12-05-07, 02:28 PM
Again, this is not a freedom of speech issue. As I said before, there is no right to display art in a city-owned museum.


You are correct. It isn't a freedom of speech issue. It's the Europeans knowing who their masters are issue.

hahn
12-06-07, 02:38 PM
You are correct. It isn't a freedom of speech issue. It's the Europeans knowing who their masters are issue.
Yeah, so if I refrain from calling you a "towel-head" out of respect to your culture and people, I'm your bitch. :rolleyes:

hahn
12-06-07, 02:40 PM
Again, this is not a freedom of speech issue. As I said before, there is no right to display art in a city-owned museum.

If the city were to confiscate the piece or arrest someone for creating and displaying such a piece in a private museum, then you would have a freedom of speech issue.
Correct. I shouldn't have used the word "right". As I said though - it's not a legal issue. It's an issue of common sense as well as common decency. It appears from this forum, that neither are all that common.

CharlieK
12-06-07, 07:29 PM
Personal attacks are forbidden on this forum. Ya'll are such bitches for posting here all civil like.

crazyronin
12-06-07, 07:30 PM
This should be amusing...-popcorn-

bhk
12-07-07, 12:24 PM
Yeah, so if I refrain from calling you a "towel-head" out of respect to your culture and people, I'm your bitch. :rolleyes:

The so-called art that was going to be displayed and then pulled had nothing to do with that kind of discrimination or language.
How about by not portraying their holy prophet Mohammed and his son-in-law Ali as gay lovers? In what way does that threaten you? Let me put it from a different perspective. If an artist had created a picture in which Jesus Christ was shown French kissing the Pope, but a museum refuses to display it because they don't want to offend Catholics, would you still be so up in arms about it? Would you claim that as evidence that Catholics are threatening our free speech or way of life?

Do you realize how funny that sounds. I suspect that the probablity of humans being contacted by aliens in our lifetime is higher than an art gallery pulling something proactively(that is self-censoring) that they think would be offensive to Catholics.
You and bhk seem to be under the impression that if something demeaning to Muslim people isn't allowed, that somehow your freedoms have been oppressed.
Allowed by whom? The gallery didn't display it because they feared that the followers of the religion of peace would riot, as they have done so many times before.
If one can't be responsible with that freedom, one doesn't deserve to have it.

Practitioners of the Religion of Peace are working on this. Give them some time. Things can't happen overnight.
Seriously, who decides that someone is being irresponsible with freedom of speech?

People take this freedom of speech/expression way too literally and seem to think it gives one free reign to act like moronic assholes and then act righteously indignant when there are consequences.Can you yell "bomb" in a crowded theater? Sure, just be prepared to be hauled off to jail. Are you allowed to call a black person "******" to his face? Sure, just don't whine about it when you get the shit beaten out of you. This isn't an legal issue. It's an issue of wisdom. Some of you still have yet to grasp this difference.
Do you realize the difference between a criminal act(yelling "fire" in a theater) and the display of a piece of art that someone has an option not to go and see?
Oh, and I agree with you that it is an issue of wisdom. The museum is wise enough to know that they don't want their employees stabbed(like VanGoh was) or beheaded by the rioters for peace.

bhk
12-10-07, 02:38 PM
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7609

'Radical Islam' is Islam

1 Tevet 5768, 10 December 07 10:27by Steven Zak(IsraelNN.com)
Pick up the morning paper any day or log on to your computer and you'll be treated to reports of savagery by followers of Islam. No one could blame you if you drew the inference that Islam worldwide is a malevolent force. Yet, many would have you believe that the problem isn't Islam, but "Radical Islam."

In other words, somewhere there's a good Islam, distinct from the bad one that assaults civilized sensibilities every day. This postulate has two variants:

Good Islam "exists" even if only in the past.
"There have been occasions of Muslim moderation and tolerance, such as those in long-ago Sicily and Spain," argues scholar Daniel Pipes, who adds that Islam may well "be something different in the future."


I'd defer to Dr. Pipes on the facts; Islam may change (it may get worse). But that is no reason to characterize a once-upon-a-time or hypothetical future Islam as more authentic than the one here and now. Islam is what Islam is now, not what we hope it could be. Lead is lead before it turns to gold.


Dr. Pipes argues, though, that we need to maintain the construct that Islam differs from Radical Islam, because "if one sees Islam as irredeemably evil, what comes next?" Such a view "leaves one with zero policy options."


This argument conflates descriptive and prescriptive issues. "What is Islam?" is one question. "What should we do about it?" is another. It is one thing to hold that we ought not reveal our true thoughts to the enemy, quite another to create fictions that we come to believe. I'm concerned with the descriptive question - What is Islam? - and suggest that, if truth matters, we shouldn't skew our answer out of fear.


Good Islam and Bad Islam exist simultaneously.
While Dr. Pipes concedes that in the present "it is hard to recall the positive side" of Islam, the prevailing wisdom is that good Islam and Radical Islam exist simultaneously, the latter as a small subset of the former. The problem is that the evidence shows that the "subset" isn't so small.


As Michael Freund has documented, poll after poll demonstrates the non-trivial numbers of anti-civilization adherents of Islam. An Al-Jazeera survey on September 11, 2006, for instance,found that half the respondents support Osama Bin-Laden. Virtually all voters in "Palestine" back terrorists. In Britain, 25% of Muslims approve of the London subway bombings of July 7, 2005. That's 25% who admit they approve.


Even so, some might argue, since less than 100% of Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, we still have an obligation to distinguish Islam from Radical Islam. But it is never the case that 100% of any population shares or acts in accordance with the collective ideology of that population.


In World War II, not all Germans supported the Nazis. In the last German election before the war, Nazis failed to get even half the vote and scholars still debate whether the majority of Germans ever supported the regime. Some, of course, were victims of the regime. Yet, we were at war with Germany, not Radical Germany.


Not even all Nazis were bad - Oskar Schindler, a hero in Israel, was a party member. Yet, in that war, we didn't split such hairs. We drew no distinctions between Nazis and Radical Nazis so as to humbly assure that we meant the good ones no harm. To support the notion that Nazism was a malevolent force did not require showing that 100% of individual Nazis acted consistently with its character, but only that Nazism was incompatible with civilization and a threat of sufficient magnitude that it could not be ignored.


By that standard, Islam today is unquestionably a malevolent force. We should be unafraid - and unapologetic - to say as much.


Khalim Massoud, the president of Muslims Against Sharia (whose members, according to the group's own poll, 20% of Muslims want to behead) agrees. "Islam in its present form is incompatible with modern society," he says, and adds that we should "stop worrying about offending Muslims and start calling things what they are."


Amen to that. You can't fight an enemy you're afraid to offend.


Exhibit A is the case of the British school teacher recently imprisoned in Sudan for allowing her seven-year-old students to name a teddy bear "Muhammad." The response of British Foreign Secretary David Miliband - echoed by the hapless school teacher - was to offer assurances that he "fully respects" Islam, a groveling signal of cowardice and fear.


Even in small ways, we cower before Islam. Take Hollywood's reluctance to turn out films that show Muslims behaving badly. Compare the Hollywood of the Second World War, which helped rally the nation against a brutal foe. We had no fear then of giving offense by making films featuring villainous Germans or Japanese. Today, we don't know whether to condemn our enemies or invite them for Ramadan dinner.


And so, we degrade ourselves with such spectacles as the Annapolis "peace" conference, where, along with representatives of terror-masters like Saudi Arabia and Syria, we indulged the ever-demanding leader of Fatah and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade. Another reminder that diplomacy, without a healthy dose of "calling things what they are," brings no honor.


Postscript
In recent news, a suicide bomber in Afghanistan killed13 on a bus, while attackers in Thailand beheaded two fish sellers and shot, stabbed and crucified a third victim. No word yet on whether the perpetrators were acting in the name of Radical Islam or just the regular kind.

Khalim Massoud, the president of Muslims Against Sharia (whose members, according to the group's own poll, 20% of Muslims want to behead) agrees. "Islam in its present form is incompatible with modern society," he says, and adds that we should "stop worrying about offending Muslims and start calling things what they are."
Hard to do that Khalim, when one is genuflecting at the alter of political correctness while simultaneously burying one's head in the sand about the problem.

Ky-Fi
12-10-07, 07:09 PM
"Khalim Massoud, the president of Muslims Against Sharia (whose members, according to the group's own poll, 20% of Muslims want to behead)"

And that's the type of stat that most in the west simply cannot wrap their heads around. And because it's so disconcerting, it leads many i(otherwise liberal) individuals in the west to either abandon, marginalize or simply ignore groups like Muslims Against Sharia---because to actively support these groups would neccesitate dealing with the reality that these groups are an ostracized minority within Islam---and that doesn't fit into the politically correct Western view that the vast majority of Islam is moderate.

Ky-Fi
12-18-07, 04:45 PM
And the strategy of Islamists in the west that is proving a lot more effective than violence: legal intimidation:


CANADA'S THOUGHT POLICE

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12162007/postopinion/editorials/canadas_thought_police_72483.htm

December 16, 2007 -- Celebrated author Mark Steyn has been summoned to appear before two Canadian judicial panels on charges linked to his book “America Alone."

The book, a No. 1 bestseller in Canada, argues that Western nations are succumbing to an Islamist imperialist threat. The fact that charges based on it are proceeding apace proves his point.

Steyn, who won the 2006 Eric Breindel Journalism Award (co-sponsored by The Post and its parent, News Corp), writes for dozens of publications on several continents. After the Canadian general-interest magazine Maclean's reprinted a chapter from the book, five Muslim law-school students, acting through the auspices of the Canadian Islamic Congress, demanded that the magazine be punished for spreading “hatred and contempt" for Muslims.

The plaintiffs allege that Maclean's advocated, among other things, the notion that Islamic culture is incompatible with Canada's liberalized, Western civilization. They insist such a notion is untrue and, in effect, want opinions like that banned from publication.

Two separate panels, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, have agreed to hear the case. These bodies are empowered to hear and rule on cases of purported “hate speech."

Of course, a ban on opinions - even disagreeable ones - is the very antithesis of the Western tradition of free speech and freedom of the press.

Indeed, this whole process of dragging Steyn and the magazine before two separate human-rights bodies for the “crime" of expressing an opinion is a good illustration of precisely what he was talking about.

If Maclean's, Canada's top-selling magazine, is found “guilty," it could face financial or other penalties. And the affair could have a devastating impact on opinion journalism in Canada generally.

As it happens, Canadian human-rights commissions have already come down hard on those whose writings they dislike, like critics of gay rights.

Nor should Americans dismiss this campaign against Steyn and Maclean's as merely another Canadian eccentricity. Speech cops in America, too, are forever attempting similar efforts - most visibly, on college campuses.

In fact, New York City itself has a human-rights panel that tries to stamp out anything deemed too politically incorrect.

Since 9/11, Americans have been alert to the threat of terror from radical Islamists. But there's been all too little concern for a creeping accommodation of radical Islamist tenets, like curbs on critical opinions.

That needs to change.

*****************************************

And here's a link to the scandalous hate-speech of the original article that inspired the charges:

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20061023_134898_134898&source

bhk
12-19-07, 02:08 PM
Well, as Canada is already on its knees worshipping at the alter of Political Correctness, I suspect that they will somehow punish Steyn or Macleans magazine. In fact when they do it, look for them to announce that they cherish free speech in the same announcement.

Red Dog
12-21-07, 08:09 AM
I didn't know where to post this, but since we have -phobia in the title, this fits pretty well here. Here is a flyer that the Chicago PD Bereau of Strategic Deployment has been distributing around the city. Yes, it's phobia gone insane.

Take note of the first bullet point.

http://www.bakelblog.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/12/19/see_something.jpg

So by all means, whenever you see someone with a camera taking pictures of Chicago sites, scribbling something down on paper or their PDA, or gasp, looking at a map, call 911. I'm sure that such calls won't interfere with emergencies like fires, reports of actual crimes, serious injuries, etc.

bhk
12-21-07, 10:07 AM
Take note of the first bullet point.
Besides that, I don't see anything phobic about it. And, of course since civilians will be the one doing the ethnic/racial profiling when they call it in, no one can sue.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-belgium-terrorism,0,4854918,print.story

Belgium Arrests 14 in Terror Probe
By Associated Press

7:30 AM EST, December 21, 2007

BRUSSELS, Belgium

Fourteen Muslim extremists were detained Friday on allegations they sought to free an al-Qaida sympathizer imprisoned for planning a terrorist attack on U.S. air base personnel, Belgian authorities said.

Security was heightened across the capital, at airports and subway stations out of precaution, officials said.

"Other acts of violence are not to be excluded," Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt said. He said authorities had "elements of information which point to the preparation of an attack."

Lieve Pellens, spokeswoman of the federal prosecutor's office, said security also was being stepped up at Christmas markets.

"Since it could not be excluded that the group had other plans and because of the heightened terror threat this time of year, it was decided no risk should be taken," Pellens said.

The suspects sought to free Nizar Trabelsi, a 37-year-old Tunisian who played soccer for several German teams and who was sentenced to the maximum 10 years in prison four years ago, authorities said.

He had admitted planning to drive a car bomb into the canteen at Kleine Brogel, a Belgian air base where about 100 American military personnel are stationed and where U.S. nuclear weapons are believed to be stored.

Trabelsi testified that he intended kill American soldiers.

The federal prosecutor's office said the 14 were planning to free the Trabelsi with force.

"Trabelsi would be helped by a group of people, driven by an extremist vision of Islam," said a statement from the prosecutor's office.

Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

tsk...tsk... Even in a country that is deeply bent on their knees to political correctness, they can't behave.

wendersfan
12-21-07, 10:16 AM
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-belgium-terrorism,0,4854918,print.story

tsk...tsk... Even in a country that is deeply bent on their knees to political correctness, they can't behave.It appears you don't know a whole lot about Belgium.

Red Dog
12-21-07, 10:23 AM
Besides that, I don't see anything phobic about it. And, of course since civilians will be the one doing the ethnic/racial profiling when they call it in, no one can sue.



Mapping out routes is pretty phobic one too.

The other bullet points are almost certainly to be already addressed in the specific industries/businesses/government agencies in training and SOPs that the general public has nothing to do with. This kind of flyer hardly seems necessary, and does nothing but scare-monger.

bhk
12-21-07, 10:26 AM
It appears you don't know a whole lot about Belgium.
I know enough about it to know that a significant portion of their pols do bend over and grab their ankles wrt. political correctness about Islam and Moslems. The ones that don't of course as everywhere else, are denounced as racists.

-inob20I_Y0

wendersfan
12-21-07, 10:27 AM
I know enough about it to know that a significant portion of their pols do bend over and grab their ankles wrt. political correctness about Islam and Moslems.I guess that's why the anti-immigrant, anti-multiculturalism parties do so well there... :rolleyes:

bhk
12-21-07, 10:48 AM
I guess that's why the anti-immigrant, anti-multiculturalism parties do so well there... :rolleyes:

The anti-immigration parties do so well because even though the liberal elite pols have already surrendered, the regular people aren't ready to do so yet and seeing what is going on has created a backlash. It won't help in the long run because the Moslem population of the European countries is going to keep increasing while the non-moslem population is decreasing.

It isn't just in Belgium, it is a pan european problem.

maHSOB2RFm4

"When we say innocent people, we mean Muslims. As far as non-Muslims are concerned, they have not accepted Islam, as far as we're concerned that is a crime against God."

Hard to spin that but I'm sure the political correct worshipping will somehow try.

The problem for the rest of the world is that the above sentiment is a scriptural belief, a fundamental belief in Islam. That those that do not accept Islam are committing a crime against God.

wendersfan
12-21-07, 12:08 PM
The anti-immigration parties do so well because even though the liberal elite pols have already surrendered, the regular people aren't ready to do so yet and seeing what is going on has created a backlash.The combined vote percentage for Vlaams Belang/Vlaams Blok and Front National hasn't changed much this decade, and they lost seats after the 2007 election, which seems to indicate your "backlash" theory is false. When you look at data from the World Values Survey, you see that Belgians have a much less accommodating attitude towards immigrants and a stronger desire to see immigrants from other cultures assimilate rather than maintain their own values, when compared to other western European countries like France, Holland, Denmark, and Sweden, although Danes are about as unaccommodating towards immigrants as Belgians.

When you consider than Belgium is in the process of being torn apart over the issues of ethnic and linguistic identification issues <i>within European ethnoliguistic groups</i>, the idea that they would be especially welcoming of even more "alien" groups like Muslims from SW Asia is a little farfetched. And while many countries in Europe are struggling with problems related to Muslim immigrants, the attitudes and policies of the individual countries are not as consistent as you would have us think.

Ky-Fi
12-21-07, 06:17 PM
I think bhk's exactly right. This is one of the most dramatic population replacements and cultural shifts in the history of Europe---how can one not expect there to be a counter-reaction? Here's a good NPR piece on the right-wing backlash throughout Europe:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6516490


Here's the bit on Belgium:

Popular Belgian Party Rejects Multicultural Society

by Sylvia Poggioli

Morning Edition, November 21, 2006 · Anti-immigrant sentiment is spreading across Europe, boosting support for populist, right-wing parties. One of the most successful is in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium. Backers of the party, known as Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest Party) criticize Muslim immigrants for failing to assimilate.

In the Vlaams Belang's stronghold of Hoboken, on the outskirts of Antwerp, the party soared in local elections last month. It won 41 percent of the vote, far ahead of all other parties.

Sitting at the bar of a smoky cafe, school bus driver Eric Delawer says this working-class town used to vote socialist. But in recent years, with the influx of large numbers of Muslim immigrants, he says the people of Hoboken have turned to Vlaams Belang.

"The immigrants don't integrate," he says. "They separate themselves from us. They want to stay among themselves. I say, if they don't adapt to our customs, the only option is to send them back to their home countries."

In the nearby marketplace, an elderly woman, Therese Muns, says problems with immigrants and law and order are closely linked.

"We are scared," she says. "...we are afraid to go out at night. You have to watch your purse and money... When you walk down the street, they don't step aside, they don't have respect for older people, it is not like it used to be."

It's not just the indigenous Flemish population that's feeling scared.

At Koninjlik High School, where most girls wear headscarves, the student body is nearly 100 percent from immigrant backgrounds.

"I don't go anywhere," says Said Boumazoughe, 19. "I just stay here in the neighborhood..."

The student was born here of Moroccan parents. He wants to continue his studies and become a teacher, but he feels uncertain about his future.

"The reaction of the people who vote for Vlams Belang, that makes me scared because I cannot trust them," Boumazoughe says.

His social studies teacher, Sarah Van Leuvenhaege, says this school is officially called a "concentration" school. She calls Hoboken's other high school a "white" school. It has only ethnic Flemish students.

"I don't mind teaching kids from Morocco or Turkey," she says. "But I do mind that my class is not representative... of Belgian society. That is a problem. They are only hearing stories and things from their own societies."

Growing mutual suspicion and the gulf between the Flemish and immigrants' parallel societies are the pillars of Vlaams Belang's propaganda.

"We are not in favor of the famous multicultural society," says Filip Dewinter, the party's leader.

"We do not have a problem with legal immigrants if they are willing to assimilate to our culture, our way of life, our values...." he says. "But we can't allow that they come to our country, that they come to Europe, and they keep their own culture, their own religion -- Islamic religion -- which is not always compatible with our way of life, our culture."

When Dewinter speaks of culture, he means Flemish -- not Belgian. In fact, the party's other big issue is a demand for separation from the poorer, less-productive French-speaking part of Belgium, which is seen as more laissez-faire toward the influx of Muslim immigrants.

Stefaan Walgrave, a professor of political science at the University of Antwerp, says that the party's base used to be working-class, but it has now become mainstream.

Vlams Belang is also the biggest political force in Flanders. But it's stigmatized by all the other parties which have formed an unlikely coalition whose only common cause is keeping the far right out of power.

Tuur Van Wallendael, of the ruling Socialist Party, acknowledges that the establishment boycott does not prevent the pariah's message from getting through.

"We made immigration law more strict..." he says. "There are no new immigrants coming into this country legally… we simply say no."

The government has also stiffened its anti-crime policy, making it harder to get early prison release. Prisons are full, and three-quarters of inmates are of immigrant backgrounds.

The ruling coalition is also introducing measures to ensure immigrants' integration -- such as required language and civic culture courses.

This new emphasis on assimilation to Flemish society and culture infuriates Muslim activists.

Lebanese-born Dyab Abou Jahjah founded the Arab European League to defend Muslims' traditions and religious rights. He justifies Muslim immigrants resorting to violent protest when they feel oppressed.

"When you don't give them that full citizenship, then they flip as a citizen should, and they throw Molotov cocktails and they throw stones...."