The Anti-Muslim predjudice on A2K is wrong.

Setanta wrote:

I suppose that i ought to defer to your opinion, as you are a past master at writing "rot."

The entire attempt to frame the question in your specific terms while ignoring the portion of E_brown's post which refers to circumstances of conflict which both involve Muslims without a religious component, and those which do not involve Muslims is disingenuous and tendentious, and that is how i dare call a spade a spade when i see one.

Keep your nasty tone and indignation for those who slam you without reason--i've got good reason as i've demonstrated again and again.

If you can read meaning into a post which is not present in the words it contains, then the idea of debate is meaningless.

0 Replies

I agree, littlek.

0 Replies

I guess that's why the outrage was fired at Lash for her usage of the term towelhead and not as strongly at those who used redneck or bible-thumper. Although, at this stage of US politics, the religious issue is certainly hot.

0 Replies

I have not said that i read any meaning into your tendentious question. I have said it was disingenuous and tendentious because it ignores crucial aspects of this thread and subject discussed therein, and i have pointed out, as did E_brown at the outset, that this line of contention is used as a justification for anti-Muslim prejudice. I've not accused you of that either, i've been careful to point out that such a contention leads to the "slippery slope" at the bottom of which is ethnic hatred and prejudice.

But your phoney indignation doesn't impress me either, and i'm not surprised that you don't wish to continue to debate a topic which can only lead to you being obliged to defend what is essentially a position of religious prejudice.

You continue to fail to address the horrendous murder of Muslims and Catholics in the former Yugoslavia by the Serbs.

0 Replies

I think it's not just the word itself but also the context in which it was used -- if, talking about the Oklahoma City bombing, people were talking in general about how rednecks are IMPOTENT and they're living in the stone age and the Christian god has taken a dump on them and they deserve it and sexual slavery and on and on... then there might be some major denunciation going on, with "redneck" as the target but not the only cause.

0 Replies

Sozobe - absolutely.

0 Replies

I have twice recently challenged people who used the term redneck, and i challenged another member who used n*gger. Aparently, however, Lash only reads criticisms of what she's written, and ignores such instances.

I'm not simon pure, and don't claim to be. However, i do try to live up to my own ethical standards, and can take some comfort in succeeding, mostly. The post of Lash which is quoted above is disgusting, and an example of the worst sort of racist hatred which one can find in these fora.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I have not said that i read any meaning into your tendentious question. I have said it was disingenuous and tendentious because it ignores crucial aspects of this thread and subject discussed therein, and i have pointed out, as did E_brown at the outset, that this line of contention is used as a justification for anti-Muslim prejudice. I've not accused you of that either, i've been careful to point out that such a contention leads to the "slippery slope" at the bottom of which is ethnic hatred and prejudice.

But your phoney indignation doesn't impress me either, and i'm not surprised that you don't wish to continue to debate a topic which can only lead to you being obliged to defend what is essentially a position of religious prejudice.

You continue to fail to address the horrendous murder of Muslims and Catholics in the former Yugoslavia by the Serbs.

Probably because I have not addressed any issues of any kind here. I gave a few criteria to define religious violence and then asked Brown to re-count. Your projection of all this stuff on a post that doesn't say it is illogical. All you could reasonably do would be to object to something that I actually say in the post. To object to things I don't say, and don't allude to, and don't in any way discuss is not correct debate.

0 Replies

Apart from you holding no brief to define debate, the point is that you have done exactly what E_brown described in the portion of his post to which you claim to respond. I pointed out that such a position lends itself to religious prejudice and hatred, and was careful to note that i did not accuse you of that, but only pointed out that such an attitude is a precursor to the hatred. You have displayed an awfully thin-skin on the subject, you continue to fail to respond to specific criticisms, the most telling of which are the incidents in Rwanda and of the murderous Serbs, and to deny what is self-evident--that your question attempts to do exactly what E-brown described. That is to frame this in terms of Islam being a murderous religion. What is the point of such a contention if not to tar all Muslims with the same brush?

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

Lash wrote:
It is dishonest for anyone to pretend they are unaware that my comments were focused directly at terrorists. Since I hold them in contempt, I am not concerned in the least about how I refer to them.

It is quite clear that I don't put all Muslims in one category, but pretending as though I did makes it easier for people so inclined to distract from their idiocy that terrorism is George Bush's fault.

Being called a racist didn't bother me after I'd made sure I explained I was referring to murderers alone.

it wasn't at all clear when you wrote,

Quote:
He's IMPOTENT like the rest of the ME Arabs. They are living in a stone age--and they hate that their society has stagnated and ALLAH hasn't made them more successful. Allah has taken an omniscient dump on them, and nobody deserves it more than they do.

They must be just like their schizophrenic government--maybe all that beating themselves in the head has caved their useless towelheads in--they know they better publicly condemn Western TV, society, womens' rights and basic decency--but in private, they are the greediest, perverted consumers of prostitution, and children kidnapped around the world and sold into sexual slavery.

you wrote nothing about terrorists or murderers; instead, you referred to "the rest of the ME Arabs" and their government.

You are correct. I attempted to start a thread so we could test my statements against fact, but kicky decided to continue insults on that thread and the thread was locked. I had wanted to show where I got my information.

I have read a good deal about the Middle East recently, and my comments while not arranged in a pretty package, are based on fact. Not what I wish to be fact, but fact.

If you disagree with one of those statements, I'll be happy to show you how I arrived at those statements.

I called terrorists towelheads.

The statement about "caving their useless towelheads in" was my most reckless. Some of the Arabs beating themselves in the head aren't terrorists. It was only terrorists I was thinking of--but I can see how that comment could easily be misconstrued.

I do stand by the comment that the society is schizophrenic like the Saudi government. There have been a few uses of the word schizophrenia by scholars in describing Saudi Arabia. I said that type of comparisons extend to the Arabs I'm speaking of.

Impotent has also been a word used by scholars of Arab society to describe the feelings that drive them to hate the US and foment terrorism.

I have educated myelf a bit about Islam, Arab history and Saudi Arabian history because I want to know WTF is going on in the world.

Have you read reports about Saudi Arabia's consumerism of children and women sex slaves? Sounds like a National Inquirer headline, but it is a fact.

If you want to challenge any of the comments I made, I'd be glad to share information with you.

Aside--I walked in on the end of a 60 Minutes segment about Islam and the Netherlands, Theo and the Koran. Did anyone see it?

Sozobe--- I have seen posts that say such about Southerners and Christians here. And I was talking about TERRORISTS.

0 Replies

Well Christanity is a religion that calls on its adherants to avoid injury to others, to turn the other cheek, and to be meek. Despite this Christian nations have fought many wars, some quite unprovoked and even unjust. I don't think anyone would infer from this that all Christians are meek and inclined always to turn the other cheek.

Islam on the contrary was initially spread by force of arms and the Prophet himself participated in the first campaigns. Moreover Islam calls for a continued "struggle" with non-believers as an article of faith. I don't think anyoue would infer from this that all Moslems are violent and murderous.

Despite this there ARE indeed differences in the two faiths in this regard. Taking note of this fact does not constitute prejudice, and, more to the point, it does not constitute hatred for any particular group of people.

0 Replies

Georgeob1. I give you the Inquisition (first 12 centuries):
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm

And more recently, the Spanish Inquisition (didn't expect that....)(mid-1400s to around 1834):
http://biblia.com/christianity/spanish.htm

0 Replies

Those dang Catholics!

0 Replies

I thought it was well documented that southerners and christians were terrorists, I know I read that somewhere, I don't remember exactly where but I know I read it somewhere or maybe I heard someone say it or something like it. I also heard or read that one million illegal mexican aliens cross the border into the US of A every month. "facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan.

0 Replies

littlek wrote:

Georgeob1. I give you the Inquisition:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm

Well, thank yiu very much. You might also include Elizabeth I's purge of the Catholic clergy in England - the body count from this one was as great as from the Inquisition in Spain.

What is your point, and what possible connection does this have with my post?

0 Replies

Lash, and the central park crew (as an illustrative concept anyway) were RAPISTS.

You can hate 'em, but that doesn't mean you can't expect flack for using certain words against 'em.

That said, good to see you acknowledge recklessness.

Wanting to understand Islam is certainly commendable. That's the same impulse I described in taking the class post-Rushdie. I still have the textbooks, refer to them now and again.

I won't speak for ebrown, but I imagine a sober-minded, rational, slur-free investigation into Islam, terrorism, etc. would work here -- it flows naturally from what Piffka has already said, for example.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Those dang Catholics!

The "body count" following the Protestant Reformation (killing each other) far surpasses the inquisition. The protestants took a lesson from the Holy Roman Church and improved it immensely.

0 Replies

Lash, I was born catholic. I didn't leave the church with bagage, in my opinion. I hadn't had time to develop any - I was 5. My parents don't have any hatred toward the church. It's not my intent to bad-mouth christianity, it's my intent to try to counterweight some of the arguments here.

The Anti-Muslim predjudice on A2K is wrong.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know