Anti Islam rhetoric - on the rise ...

Johro · 07-10-2010 02:29AM

Sharkey 10 wrote: »

And so they should, but there is a major problem with people differentiating between antisemitism and anti Zionism.
Btw is fora really the pluralization of forum?

Afraid so.. On both subjects. I feel a bit of a d!ck typing 'fora' but there are accuracy elfs around and it doesn't pay to annoy them:D

K-9 · 07-10-2010 02:52AM

Dudess wrote: »

Anti Semitism is inexcusable, as is hatred of Israelis, and I'm not denying there are anti Semitic members on Boards, but criticism of the Israeli government's/military's treatment of Palestinians is not anti Semitism - even if some use it to further their anti Semitic agenda. Most criticism of Israel though is just based on an objection to bullying of a less powerful people (like objection to the nazis' treatment of Jews) - the fact that Judeaism is the predominant religion in Israel is only brought into it by those who cry "anti Semitism".

Far too nuanced and dare I say it, dare, dare,

PC!

Sonnenblumen · 07-10-2010 03:02AM

deravarra wrote: »

Hi folks. Something I am very much aware of after reading comments in the Sky News website is the huge increase in anti - Islamic rhetoric. It's getting to a very nasty stage and I'm getting the feeling that it could go back to the 1930's and Germany.

Is it just the few, or do a lot of people have issues with normal, everyday muslims?

I cannot understand why the Muslims cannot understand.:mad:

Police Chief Wiggum · 07-10-2010 09:08AM

in reply to OP

did you miss the warning that there are plans afoot to start shooting and killing in london germany and other countries who have troops in the middle east

train blows up in madrid...spanish troops leave middle east
2 + 2 = 4

before 9/11 the intelligence gathering was too low key

everyone has a right to defend themselves

curlzy · 07-10-2010 09:18AM

Police Chief Wiggum wrote: »

in reply to OP

did you miss the warning that there are plans afoot to start shooting and killing in london germany and other countries who have troops in the middle east

train blows up in madrid...spanish troops leave middle east
2 + 2 = 4

before 9/11 the intelligence gathering was too low key

everyone has a right to defend themselves

Your post confuses me, do you mean Muslims have a right to blow things up or that the west has the right to invade them? explain please.

strobe · 07-10-2010 09:39AM

deravarra wrote: »

What I dont understand is people who dont understand the reaction of muslims to things like pictures of mohammed and the koran burning.

It's like punching someone, and then complaining when you've been hit back.

What is sacred to the muslims? God, his word (the Qur'an) and his messenger (Mohammed). So why piss people off by burning what is held sacred to the muslims? Why try to draw a nasty little picture of Mohammed? Freedom of speach? That's laughable. Freedom of speach does not give you the right to piss on what someone else holds sacred to them. Seriously, try and do something like that to Judaism in the middle of Jerusalem and see how peaceful Jews would be ... or the Hindus if you started digging into a cheeseburger

No, no it's not. It's not like that at all. Not even a little bit. It's more like calling someone a silly goose and them tracking you down and stabbing you in the heart for it. It is psychotic.

deravarra · 07-10-2010 09:39AM

scientific1982 wrote: »

Its a totalitarian ideology that discourages free speech. It promotes the subjugation of women, the notion that muslims are superior to non-muslims and mandates violent punishment for breaking Islamic law. If thats not fascist I dont know what is.

what do you mean by free speech?

what examples of "subjugation of women" can you show that solely exist in Islam, and with the endorsement of Islam?

"the notion that muslims are superior to non-muslims" care to read religius text from christianity and judaism? a fair bit of that going on there ... so can't say that's "islamic"

"madates violent punishment for breaking islamic law" - refer to previous point.

CiaranC · 07-10-2010 09:41AM

deravarra wrote: »

Freedom of speach? That's laughable. Freedom of speach does not give you the right to piss on what someone else holds sacred to them.

Yes it does.

strobe · 07-10-2010 09:55AM

deravarra wrote: »

what do you mean by free speech?

what examples of "subjugation of women" can you show that solely exist in Islam, and with the endorsement of Islam?

"the notion that muslims are superior to non-muslims" care to read religius text from christianity and judaism? a fair bit of that going on there ... so can't say that's "islamic"

"madates violent punishment for breaking islamic law" - refer to previous point.

Not to answer for Scientific but "they do it too sir!" isn't much of a defense.

deravarra · 07-10-2010 10:01AM

strobe wrote: »

Not to answer for Scientific but "they do it too sir!" isn't much of a defense.

wasnt meant as a defense. more like a "hey - why pick on me when there's other glaring examples of the same".

deravarra · 07-10-2010 10:03AM

CiaranC wrote: »

Yes it does.

Ah good man!

so, i have the freedom of speech, and the first thing I do then is go and piss all over something held dear to one billion people, and think they should just shut up and take it?

along with every right comes responsibility. you cannot have the first without assuming the second.

thebigbiffo · 07-10-2010 10:23AM

deravarra wrote: »

Ah good man!

so, i have the freedom of speech, and the first thing I do then is go and piss all over something held dear to one billion people, and think they should just shut up and take it?

along with every right comes responsibility. you cannot have the first without assuming the second.

how is a drawing of mohammed 'pissing all over the religion'? its very common on our culture to satirize big issues - dont like it? suck it up, cos we've a thing here called freedom of speech. what you have been describing through this whole thread is selective freedom of speech, ie. only free to say or do what you believe. sorry my friend, you've got that alllllll wrong

Canis Lupus · 07-10-2010 10:30AM

In before The Aussie.

CiaranC · 07-10-2010 10:34AM

deravarra wrote: »

Ah good man!

so, i have the freedom of speech, and the first thing I do then is go and piss all over something held dear to one billion people, and think they should just shut up and take it?

along with every right comes responsibility. you cannot have the first without assuming the second.

You can do whatever you want, thats why its called "freedom". Shocking, I know.

Amhran Nua · 07-10-2010 10:34AM

deravarra wrote: »

so, i have the freedom of speech, and the first thing I do then is go and piss all over something held dear to one billion people, and think they should just shut up and take it?

Or they could laugh at the idiot pissing into the wind. Words can only affect you if you let them, which is why you can have all sorts of blasphemies about Jesus everywhere without the hierarchical, vastly wealthy and powerful Catholic church flying off the handle. Who cares what some yahoo thinks?

I mean really, who is the responsible and mature adult in this situation?

Terry · 07-10-2010 10:34AM

deravarra wrote: »

What I dont understand is people who dont understand the reaction of muslims to things like pictures of mohammed and the koran burning.

It's like punching someone, and then complaining when you've been hit back.

What is sacred to the muslims? God, his word (the Qur'an) and his messenger (Mohammed). So why piss people off by burning what is held sacred to the muslims?

Because it's ****ing funny.

Why try to draw a nasty little picture of Mohammed?

Is this nasty? Or this?

Freedom of speach? That's laughable.

Do you find freedon of speech laughable because it goes against Islamic teachings?

Freedom of speach does not give you the right to piss on what someone else holds sacred to them.

Actually it does. You might not like it, but it does indeed give you that right.

It also gives you the right to complain about it.
It does not give Muslims the right to go ape**** and start rioting and killing people.
Can you not see how ridiculous the reaction to those cartoons were? How disproportionate they were?

Think about it for a minute. A man drew a cartoon and thousands of people rioted. Can you not see how really ****ing stupid that reaction is?

Seriously, try and do something like that to Judaism in the middle of Jerusalem and see how peaceful Jews would be

What?
Publish a cartoon of Moses with a bomb on his head?
I really don't think the Jews would be too upset about that.

Social Disorder wrote: »

Oh lord

Yes because other religions are never belittled. There has never been a movie or cartoon. Where do you live? Under a rock by the looks of it.

I was in a Hindu country recently and they were throwing cheeseburgers at me, even had a nice MacDonalds. Hindus are known as hot heads though...this guy in particular was a real trouble maker: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi

Free cheeseburgers. Nice.

deravarra wrote: »

oh here we go ... a contribution from someone who knows nothing but feels a need to say something

the nine year old wife thing is well trodden and a piece of old tosh from an islamophobe.

Perhaps when you're finished reading the usual rubbish seen on certain websites, you could read something more enlightening and believable about Mohammed, such as the fact that he wasnt marrying 9 year olds

Believable, like he was a messenger for God?
Yeah. I believe that.

deravarra wrote: »

Did he? And why didnt they join up? Why no concentration camps in North Africa? Why only in Eastern Europe?

Because most of the Jews were in Europe.

Morkarleth wrote: »

Look, if you're going to try and provoke a group of people you really don't have any business acting surprised when they actually react.

Really?
So it's ok to riot and burn stuff just because of a cartoon?

I was going to post something sarcastic here, but there's really no point. The ridiculousness of a full scale riot over a cartoon speaks for itself.

Dudess wrote: »

Anti Semitism is inexcusable, as is hatred of Israelis, and I'm not denying there are anti Semitic members on Boards, but criticism of the Israeli government's/military's treatment of Palestinians is not anti Semitism - even if some use it to further their anti Semitic agenda. Most criticism of Israel though is just based on an objection to bullying of a less powerful people (like objection to the nazis' treatment of Jews) - the fact that Judeaism is the predominant religion in Israel is only brought into it by those who cry "anti Semitism".

****ing anti-semite. /Walter Sobchak.

Sharkey 10 wrote: »

And so they should, but there is a major problem with people differentiating between antisemitism and anti Zionism.
Btw is fora really the pluralization of forum?

No. Someone just made that word up.

Here's the deal. Muslims are not doing themselves any favours by throwing hissy fits when someone does something anti-Islamic.
If you call yourself the religion of peace, then blowing stuff up every time someone draws a cartoon of your prophet pisses all over your own ideals.

It's my opinion that by not allowing Mohammed to be drawn in case he is deified has actually led to the deification of Mohammed. Even the hint of a picture of him has led to death threats.

Now you can put all of this mad behaviour down to radical Islamists, but are the tens of thousands who rioted all radicals?

I'm not saying they are, but if they are, then that's quite worrying.

deravarra · 07-10-2010 10:36AM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

how is a drawing of mohammed 'pissing all over the religion'? its very common on our culture to satirize big issues - dont like it? suck it up, cos we've a thing here called freedom of speech. what you have been describing through this whole thread is selective freedom of speech, ie. only free to say or do what you believe. sorry my friend, you've got that alllllll wrong

It may not be offensive to non muslims, but it's a no-no in Islam.
Satirizing "big issues" - fine ... politicians, current religious leaders, etc - no problems there.

HOWEVER ... and this is the point you seem to miss ... freedom of speech is not all about "saying what i want, when i want and how i want" - if the very outcome of what you say, when you say it and how you say it is going to be offensive, and you knowing it, will still do it regardless - because you can.

It's like the point people cannot understand about criticism. People think that if muslims react to demonizing, belittling, stereotyping, that they cant handle criticism.

Freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to insult anyone else.

Patricide · 07-10-2010 10:36AM

Just to add my two cents here.

Move to germany about 6 months back. I must say that the situation is getting a bit touchy here in relation to muslims. There are so many people from muslim countries (in particular from turkey) immigrating here that the germans are starting to feel fed up.

The thing is that they feel like that these people are just coming over in droves and not even attempting to integrate into german society, and that they expect the germans to fit to them. A lot of them also dont work here and are unemployed. This is a very uneducated generalization here though, just saying what iv heard.

The general attitude of the german people at the moment seems to be; "why would these people come here when they dont want to work, they dont want to learn our language and they dont want to work. To be honest I can kinda see there point. When I was doing my first language course here there was a muslim woman who was here for 20 years and her husband was only "allowing" her to learn the language now. I mean maybe these things make sense to some people but for me its a bit nuts.

Canis Lupus · 07-10-2010 10:37AM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

how is a drawing of mohammed 'pissing all over the religion'?

To muslims it is.

deravarra · 07-10-2010 10:39AM

Terry wrote: »

Because it's ****ing funny.

Is this nasty? Or this?

Do you find freedon of speech laughable because it goes against Islamic teachings?

Actually it does. You might not like it, but it does indeed give you that right.

It also gives you the right to complain about it.
It does not give Muslims the right to go ape**** and start rioting and killing people.
Can you not see how ridiculous the reaction to those cartoons were? How disproportionate they were?

Think about it for a minute. A man drew a cartoon and thousands of people rioted. Can you not see how really ****ing stupid that reaction is?

What?
Publish a cartoon of Moses with a bomb on his head?
I really don't think the Jews would be too upset about that.

Free cheeseburgers. Nice.

Believable, like he was a messenger for God?
Yeah. I believe that.

Because most of the Jews were in Europe.

Really?
So it's ok to riot and burn stuff just because of a cartoon?

I was going to post something sarcastic here, but there's really no point. The ridiculousness of a full scale riot over a cartoon speaks for itself.

****ing anti-semite. /Walter Sobchak.

No. Someone just made that word up.

Here's the deal. Muslims are not doing themselves any favours by throwing hissy fits when someone does something anti-Islamic.
If you call yourself the religion of peace, then blowing stuff up every time someone draws a cartoon of your prophet pisses all over your own ideals.

It's my opinion that by not allowing Mohammed to be drawn in case he is deified has actually led to the deification of Mohammed. Even the hint of a picture of him has led to death threats.

Now you can put all of this mad behaviour down to radical Islamists, but are the tens of thousands who rioted all radicals?

I'm not saying they are, but if they are, then that's quite worrying.

Lovely ... you post links to pictures of mohammed ... knowing that I, as a muslim dont like that. Lovely bit of respect you're showing towards me there.

as for blowing up, etc ... I would not condone any such behaviour. in fact, i would condemn it.

CiaranC · 07-10-2010 10:40AM

deravarra wrote: »

Freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to insult anyone else.

YES IT DOES

deravarra · 07-10-2010 10:43AM

CiaranC wrote: »

YES IT DOES

lovely

keep believing that ... in fact, off you go and insult lots of people and see how much freedom you have.

Amhran Nua · 07-10-2010 10:46AM

deravarra wrote: »

Lovely ... you post links to pictures of mohammed ... knowing that I, as a muslim dont like that.

But you're taking the higher ground by not overreacting and maintaining a mature adult composure. In fact it wouldn't be out of order to have a good laugh at Terry. If only that was the reaction of the vocal majority of Islam.

pablomakaveli · 07-10-2010 10:48AM

One thing i don't understand is that if Muslims view Allah as their main deity, is Mohammed not being put on a near equal footing with Allah if he is considered too important to draw or insult which would be sort of a contradiction with the belief that Allah is the most important figure to islam.

Terry · 07-10-2010 10:48AM

deravarra wrote: »

Lovely ... you post links to pictures of mohammed ... knowing that I, as a muslim dont like that. Lovely bit of respect you're showing towards me there.

as for blowing up, etc ... I would not condone any such behaviour. in fact, i would condemn it.

If you looked at the pictures, you would see that they are not the Jyllands Posten ones.
One depicts Mohammed with Aisha, and the other is from an old episode of South Park.

Neither depict Mohammed in a negative light.

Aldebaran · 07-10-2010 10:48AM

What is so special about Islam that makes it immune from ridicule and satire?

As far as I'm concerned, when a religion makes such large claims for itself, such as claiming that it's holy book holds the total of all human knowledge, the followers of that religion should be open to satire, and cannot be allowed some special right to be offended.

deravarra · 07-10-2010 10:49AM

Amhran Nua wrote: »

But you're taking the higher ground by not overreacting and maintaining a mature adult composure. In fact it wouldn't be out of order to have a good laugh at Terry. If only that was the reaction of the vocal majority of Islam.

lol ... was reading something else into that before taking a second look ...

Thank you!

Patricide · 07-10-2010 10:49AM

deravarra wrote: »

lovely keep believing that ... in fact, off you go and insult lots of people and see how much freedom you have.

Hes right you know. He has the freedom to insult whoever he wants. He might get his head kicked in now or then but that isnt stopping him from saying it. Therefore he has freedom of speach...

raah! · 07-10-2010 10:50AM

There appear to be some inconsistencies here. People say "oooh, anti-semitism is sooo bad, this is one of the reasons muslim's are bad". At the same time, drawing pictures of mohammed with a bomb on his head is great.

What if people were to start drawing pictures of covetous jews running america? etc.

It's clear people would see this as a bad thing, so would jewish people. They would perhaps deal with it in a different way, with lawyers or somethign (and this is itself a general statement about jews, and apparently all general statements are racism). But if you do this to people who do not have access to things like lawyers etc. , like a bunch of regular and possibly hot headed (it's very hot in the middle easy) people, they will react in their own way.

The idea that coercing someone through argument is somehow ineherently less bad than coercing them through physics force isn't something which has ever really defended. It's just assumed to be better. Why are we so free to speak, but not free to act? You can be hurt through speach just as much as through actions, just one is less visible than the other.

Where do these moral standards with which you relativists judge these religions? Their inconsistency with relativism? Why is it acceptable to disrespect someone if you disagree with their political/religious views?

I think perhaps the uneducated notion that your opinion is the right one, even though this may contradict previous relativism, is what leads people to think acting like this is acceptable.

deravarra · 07-10-2010 10:51AM

Terry wrote: »

If you looked at the pictures, you would see that they are not the Jyllands Posten ones.
One depicts Mohammed with Aisha, and the other is from an old episode of South Park.

Neither depict Mohammed in a negative light.

any depiction, whether meant as ridicule or not, is frowned upon if not forbidden in Islam. If Christianity or Judaism, or any religion forbade its adherents to depict a prophet or religious leader, I would have respect enough to leave it alone.

Anti Islam rhetoric - on the rise ...

Comments