Muslims Self-Criticism

demon said:
I must say I get a little more than the slightest twing of concern when I speak to Zionists who can`t even tell you how much land they think it`s ok to steal from the Palestinians and where the final boarders of Israel might be.
That`s scary, know what I mean Mycroft?
Ya know what Demon I am gonna start calling all black JREFers "spooks" and all Italian JREFers "Wops" and all British JREFers "Limeys" and then refer to them endlessly as "spooks", "Wops" and "Limeys". How does that sound?

For instance. I must say I get a little more than the slightest twing of concern when I speak to "spooks", "Wops" and "Limeys" who can`t even tell you how much land they think it`s ok to steal from the Palestinians and where the final boarders of Israel might be. That`s scary, know what I mean Mycroft you Zionist?
 
"Ya know what Demon I am gonna start calling all black JREFers "spooks" and all Italian JREFers "Wops" and all British JREFers "Limeys" and then refer to them endlessly as "spooks", "Wops" and "Limeys". How does that sound?"

Why does that not suprise me?

Still can`t answer the question that dareth not speaketh its nameth eh? How do you like the Biblical sounding words?...I did them just for you;)
 
zenith-nadir said:
Ya know what Demon I am gonna start calling all black JREFers "spooks" and all Italian JREFers "Wops" and all British JREFers "Limeys" and then refer to them endlessly as "spooks", "Wops" and "Limeys". How does that sound?

For instance. I must say I get a little more than the slightest twing of concern when I speak to "spooks", "Wops" and "Limeys" who can`t even tell you how much land they think it`s ok to steal from the Palestinians and where the final boarders of Israel might be. That`s scary, know what I mean Mycroft you Zionist?
Do you feel the term Zionist is offensive? Would you like to suggest another term?
 
The Fool said:
Do you feel the term Zionist is offensive? Would you like to suggest another term?
What's that Auzzie? Why should I find the term "zionist" offensive to describe all jews at JREF? That's silly. I was meerly making a statement Auzzie, just a qualification that I shall now refer all black JREFers as "spooks" and all Italian JREFers as"Wops" and all British JREFers as "Limeys". Hope you don't find that offensive.
 
zenith-nadir said:
What's that Auzzie? Why should I find the term "zionist" offensive to describe all jews at JREF? That's silly. I was meerly making a statement Auzzie, just a qualification that I shall now refer all black JREFers as "spooks" and all Italian JREFers as"Wops" and all British JREFers as "Limeys". Hope you don't find that offensive.

Who describes all jews as Zionist? Thats one of your list of lies you made about me but cannot support. So as well as not being able to support any of the lies you slink off and start repeating them??

Do you believe all Israelis are Jews? all are Zionists? I certainly don't and have never inferred or stated that....

Are you not comfortable with calling people who support the goals of the Zionist movement Zionists?
 
When did 'Zionist' become a racist term? Jews call Zionists, Zionists, and they don't mean it in a derogatory way, either. It's not even used in a mock-derogatory way such as the manner in which blacks call each other 'n****r'.

Waitaminute. I just remembered Z-N smokes crack. Nevermind.
 
ZN
"As expected you are too stupid to realize your error..."

As expected you are too disingenuous to address the question again. It`s imperative you dodge this one it isn`t it? It is the one question that if you had the balls to answer would give your little game away.

Genocide by deflection and sophistry and the power to carry it out. Just as well those evil Muslims haven`t figured out that`s the way to go yet or we would be in real trouble.
 
Mr Manifesto said:
Dodge noted.
Australia may be the only country in the world in which the term "Academic" is regularly used as a term of abuse. But I don't mean it in a derogatory way Auzzie not even in a mock-derogatory way.
 
zenith-nadir said:
Australia may be the only country in the world in which the term "Academic" is regularly used as a term of abuse.

You're thinking of the US. That is, if the opinions of some of our American posters are anything to go by.

But I don't mean it in a derogatory way Auzzie not even in a mock-derogatory way.

Dodge noted.
 
What, you mean like being black in Texas won't get you dragged to death behind a pickup truck (Byrd) or beaten to death (Tarron Dixon)? Or being 'gay' won't get you crucified in Wyoming, like Matthew Shepard?

Well, here, too, we have a difference: such crimes have been reported, and have caused great outrage and denounciations from all quarters, precisely because they are rare and committed by fringe groups.

Quite a difference from the Arab/Muslim world--where the massacre of millions of blacks in Sudan is going on as we speak, with great enthusiam, and where being gay is usually a capital offense, both "on the books" and in the ever-present danger of execution without trial, like the Palestinians are doing in the PA right now or the Ayatollah Khomeini did to homosexuals in Iran when he took power.

(It was, incidentally, the execution of most of his Iranian gay lovers by Muslim mobs who hanged them on the lampposts in Teheran, that made Michael Foucalt change his mind from being a supporter of the "anti-imperialist" Iranian revolution to an opponent of it.)

If you want to imagine the usual government of the Muslim world, say in Libya, Iran, or Sudan, imagine someone who's literally cross between Charley Mason, the grand dragon of the KKK, and Fred "God hates fags" Phelps being in charge. Obviously, there's quite a bit of reform to be had--but just as obviously, it isn't any wonder that it's dangerous to ask for reform.

There's always *someone* willing to kill over some perceived insult or infraction.

Yes, there is. But in the west, they are a tiny minority of powerless poeple; in the Muslim world, they are often a popular majority and hold the reins of power.

It's just too bad so many believe their 'omnipotent' gods are so impotent that they must take the moral law into their own hands.

But it isn't "so many" of them in the western world. It is so in the Muslim world--precisely why it needs reform, and why it is so dangerous.

To say there is no difference between religious violence in the US and religious violence in the Muslim world because in both cases it's people killing for God, is like saying that there's no difference between the Wright brother's first plane and a Jumbo jet because they are both aircraft.

Heck, just for saying torture done in the name of the U.S. is wrong on this web site, I had people telling me they would like to do violent things to me.

For some reason, though, you're still alive. And you have not been violently attacked. And you had it on your web site for months... not exactly a likely result if you were in, say, Libya, with a web site saying Quaddaffi is wrong to use torture, don't you think?

We have the religious right blaming 9/11 on atheists in America,

Yes, but unlike Iran (for instance), we also have millions laughing at their stupid @$$. So far as I know, nobody who did that was carried off in the middle of the night to prison for insulting the honor of a great religious leader. The very next day of Falwell's stupid statement, there was a cartoon in the local paper calling him "Osama bin Falwell". Can you see a cartoon satirizing, say, Rafsangani or Mubarak in the same way being printed after they said something equally outrageous?

and you don't believe someone in America would do violence in the name of Jesus against a heretic?

Of course I believe it. I also believe the Wright's brothers Flyer could, well, fly--but, not too often, and not too well. If you want ocean-crossing, mass-transit, 747-like, daily violence against heretics, you have to look elsewhere... in te Muslim world.

You don't think someone like Madalyn Murray O’Hair would have had her share of death threats?

Sure she did. But so far as I know, the death threats were issued by a few nuts, not by the president. And they were threats by nuts to the most vocal and famous atheist in America--the same sort of threats a prominent democrat or Republican will get; the average atheist hardly lives in fear of his life or gets death threats. Nor did an enraged mob burn down her house, or hang her on a steetlamp. Nor was she prosecuted and condemned to death for atheism. And so on and so forth.

Sure, she recieved some death threats... but an organized, state-supported, violent prosecution of atheists does not exist, and is in fact inconcievable, in the United States--while it is the bread and butter of the Muslim world.
 
Skeptic said:
Sure, she recieved some death threats... but an organized, state-supported, violent prosecution of atheists does not exist, and is in fact inconcievable, in the United States--while it is the bread and butter of the Muslim world.


There is something unsound with a thought process that allows one to draw some intellectual parallel between the US and an Islamic state and thinks that it has any meaning whatsoever.

I don't understand the self loathing that such a leap necessitates.
 
Ed said:
There is something unsound with a thought process that allows one to draw some intellectual parallel between the US and an Islamic state and thinks that it has any meaning whatsoever.

I don't understand the self loathing that such a leap necessitates.

It's not SELF loathing. It's loathing all those other people--you know, Republicans and stuff--one has to live with. The more you demonize them, the more awful you claim their abuse of you is, even if it is wholly confined to getting a nasty e-mail from some loon once in while, the more of a saint and a hero you are in your own eyes.

If evildave can pull it off, and convince us religious prosecution in the US is equivalent to that in the Muslim world, he can see himself as equivalent to, say, Rushdi or whomever the Muslim world prosecutess. He can be a "martyr lite": all the self-satisfaction and feeling of superiority, witout any of the jailtime, torture, or executions.

Unfortunately for him (although fortunately for the US in general) his thesis is fall-down-laughing silly, almost as silly as his brilliant idea to give Al Quaeda & co. their own radio station as a "solution" to terrorism.
 
The Fool said:
Can you name one?

You want me to provide reasons for Islamic terror other than Islam?

Well, okay, but it seems to me that's like talking about baking bread while avoiding any mention of flour. Sure, bread has other ingredients, water, yeast, salt, and sugar, but you still can't make it without flour.

Here, I'll even start another thread for it.
 
Think of how many people Gang Bangers in the U.S. kill. If all of these deaths were re-labeled 'terrorist'

Some prosecutors are charging gangs under the Patriot Act.
 
Jay GW said:
Some prosecutors are charging gangs under the Patriot Act.

http://www.georgewbush.com/HomelandSecurity/read.aspx?ID=2457
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
Thirdly, to give you an example of what we're talking about, there's something called delayed notification warrants. Those are very important. I see some people, first responders nodding their heads about what they mean. These are a common tool used to catch mobsters. In other words, it allows people to collect data before everybody is aware of what's going on. It requires a court order. It requires protection under the law. We couldn't use these against terrorists, but we could use against gangs.


What he didn’t say:
The President’s statement is almost completely backward. Before the USA PATRIOT Act, secret search and seizure orders (as well as wiretaps) could be issued under FISA for foreign intelligence and terrorism investigations – and this was done routinely.

In fact, when the PATRIOT Act was passed, the special FISA court that grants these orders had never turned down a request for such a warrant. In contrast, prior to the act there was no federal statutory authority for “sneak and peak” warrants for ordinary crimes. Giving notice to targets of ordinary search warrants (even if the police simply knock and announce their intentions) enables the person whose property is to be searched to assert his or her Fourth Amendment rights. Secret warrants, in contrast, give the person no ability to challenge the accuracy or propriety of the search or seizure before the fact.

Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act establishes new secret warrants for any federal crime – not just terrorism – despite the threat to fundamental rights. The government need only show that notice could “jeopardize an investigation” or “unduly delay a trial” –very vague criteria – and may seek to extend the secrecy indefinitely.
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=15525&c=206

The Truth:

Delayed-notification - or so-called sneak-and-peek search warrants - were never limited to gangs. The circuit courts that had authorized them in limited circumstances prior to the Patriot Act did not limit the warrants to the investigation of gangs. In fact, terrorism or espionage investigators did not necessarily have to go through the criminal courts for a covert search - they could do so with even fewer safeguards against abuse by going to a top secret foreign intelligence court in Washington.

For criminal sneak-and-peek warrants, the Patriot Act added a catch-all argument for prosecutors - if notice would delay prosecution or jeopardize an investigation - which makes these secret search warrants much easier to obtain.

The president’s sneak-and-peek misstatement clearly demonstrates that the Patriot Act is not limited to terrorism. In fact, many of the law’s expanded authorities can clearly be used outside the war on terrorism.
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=15210&print=yes&units=all
 
Mycroft said:
I could go on, but the point is we can talk about all these other religions. We can be critical, we can point out their faults with relative freedom. Yet somehow, when it comes to Islam, we can't. It's taboo. We get the PC police on us calling us bigoted and racist for doing it. I don't agree with that.

I think a person should be sensitive when talking about someone else's religion. If it's criticism, I think care should be taken not to step over the line into bigotry. At the same time, I don't think we should let the fear of being called bigoted keep us from addressing real issues that need to be addressed.[/URL]

Very well said.
 

Back
Top Bottom