Obit: More Muslim intolerance?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 06:03 PM

Okay, I've had just about enough of this... I mean, this is getting purdy danged rediculuos and nit pickin'...

As a Christian, I am not the least bit afraid of folks of Islamic faith. Hey, faith *is* faith...

What I am afriad of are folks who have *no* faith, say they *do*, and then hide behind their supposed faith while they do evil things...

There ain't no religions that instructs people to go out and do dumbass stuff...

None...

Now ya' all can get back to slingin' mud at one another...

Bobert

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 06:07 PM

Kevin McGrath of Harlow, apropos of your post of 05:22, I give you the Protestants and Catholics of Ulster.

You lost me there, Giok. My point was that the victim of this especially brutal murder was herself a Muslim, and that this was a reason not to use her murder as an occasion for denouncing the religion she chose to belong to. Her murder has in fact been widely denounced by Muslims as an offence against Islam.

There wasn't any implication that Christians don't all too often go killing each oither, ostensibly in the name of religion. Anyone who doesn't know that would have to have been living on another planet.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 07:16 PM

Carol, Carol, Carol. I'm starting to think you must be a bit thick.

(1) Praying for armageddon is a harmless thing to do. Killing people isn't. Again only a tiny minority of Christians would condone this anyway.

(2) Hindus are not Pagans, unless you are a Christian using that word to put them down. Religious riots and looting and the bloody communal hysteria which goes with them (I've seen them)are quite a different kettle of fish in both motive and method from cold-blooded martyrdoms, suicide bombings, assassinations, the favourite tools of Muslim extremists. It's true that Hinduism has become radicalised over the last few decades; the far-right Hindus cleverly use a well of hatred left from Muslim (Mughal) rule of India, and is strongest in Maharashtra where the Muslims attempted to put down Hindu rebellions with great cruelty.
To my knowledge none of the thousands of Hindus living in the West has ever killed anyone for religious motives; westerners have written books criticising the caste system and the apalling treatment of women in India without recieving any death threats, Fatwahs etc.
The treatment of Muslims in India is infinetely better than the treatment of religious minorities in neighbouring Muslim Pakistan; perhaps this is because India is a democracy whereas the number of Muslim democracies is extraordinarily small.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 08:33 PM

(1) Praying for armageddon is a harmless thing to do.

Unless one of those Christians happens to be "the leader of the free world" and has his finger on the buttons that control the largest stockpiles of WMD in the world, as appears to be the case with Mr. Geo. W. Bush.

Hindus are Pagans by this definition of the word "Pagan": a follower of a polytheistic religion. (And I am not a Christian.)

Religious riots and looting and the bloody communal hysteria which goes with them (I've seen them)are quite a different kettle of fish in both motive and method from cold-blooded martyrdoms, suicide bombings, assassinations, the favourite tools of Muslim extremists.

That's a dandy little bit of equivocation there, Ooh-Aah2. "Muslims kill people differently and for different reasons, so when they kill people, it's a lot worse than when other people do it." What a load of bigoted, hypocritical baloney.

It's true that Hinduism has become radicalised over the last few decades; the far-right Hindus cleverly use a well of hatred left from Muslim (Mughal) rule of India, and is strongest in Maharashtra where the Muslims attempted to put down Hindu rebellions with great cruelty.

There's always a reason, isn't there. And a lot of the extremist Islamicist behavior that we see causing problems today is a backlash against repression by people against Muslims. Iran is an excellent example of this. The fundamentalist Mullacracy that took power from the Shah was a backlash against the Shah's brutal dictatorship, a dictatorship that was a client state of the US and that was installed by the US after the US crushed Iran's fledgeling democracy. There's always a reason. But you are willing to accept the reasons of the people you consider legitimate and not the reasons of the people you don't consider to be legitimate. More bigotry.

To my knowledge none of the thousands of Hindus living in the West has ever killed anyone for religious motives; westerners have written books criticising the caste system and the apalling treatment of women in India without recieving any death threats, Fatwahs etc.

I don't know enough about this to address it right now, but I can tell you for a fact that in the US, human rights activists who advocate for human rights for Palestinians regularly receive death threats from radicals who are opposed to human rights for Palestinians. So once again, it's hardly just Muslims doing this sort of thing.

The treatment of Muslims in India is infinetely better than the treatment of religious minorities in neighbouring Muslim Pakistan; perhaps this is because India is a democracy whereas the number of Muslim democracies is extraordinarily small.

And the lack of democracies in Muslim countries is to a large degree because of interference by countries like the United States, who just can't bear to see people in Islamic countries having control of their own resources and political destiny, as I noted above in the case of Iran. Other examples of dictatorships in Muslim countries being propped up by the US include Saudi Arabia, and Iraq during the rise to power of the Ba'athist party (and also during much of Saddam's reign). In the case of Saudi Arabia, the interference in that country by the US was given as one of the reasons for the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the US. It doesn't serve the strategic interests of the US for Islamic countries to have true democracies.

However, noting the kinds of broad sweeping generalizations you have been making on this thread, and knowing how full of shit they are, on the subject of how Muslims are treated in India as compared to how Hindus are treated in Pakistan, I think it's fairly safe to assume that in order to find out the truth in this case, I'm going to have to do some research of my own.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 03:44 AM

Ho- hum. There is a LONG way between being intensly critical of Muslim extremism and embracing Mr Hitler

The world depression that followed the economic crash, often symbolised by the Wall Street crash of 1929, was the real start of the rise of facism. In the early 1930s the German people were goaded into becoming 'intensly critical' of the Jewish religion. Not for any real threat they posed, like terrorism, but for supposed damage to the economy and well being of the Arryian race. By 1933 the had Elected Mr Hitler as chancellor. We all know what happened in 1939.

So if you mean 10 years by 'a LONG way between' then ,yes, I agree. Or are you saying that it could never happen again? That the people of the world, and those of Australia in particular in your case, are not as stupid or gullible as the Germans? I would take a very careful look at the rise of right wing poiticians if I were you. Particularly within the so called 'independants' in your own country. Was it Pauline Hanson who made the 'Swamped by Asians' speech not many years ago? And who's governament was it that turned away a ship load of displaced Afghan refugees in 2001? Just where is it that the extreme critisism ends and actions begin?

Ho-hum indeed...

DtG

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 05:40 PM

Do you know what happened to Pauline Hanson? She narrowly missed out on a prison term (damn) and was utterly crushed at the last federal election. I can't answer for America, which seems to be going down the right-wing tube with a vengeance, but it certainly won't happen in Australia or Britain. May I remind you just how atrocious the actions of the Nazis were? People who use windy hyperbole to compare modern right-wingers (I don't mean the extreme fringe) to the deaths of...   um ... what was it, around 40 million people I believe, are venturing in the absurd. To compare people like myself, a liberal defending liberal values against the intolerance of extreme Islam, is to be not only ridiculous but to miss the point entirely.

Carol, I'm sick to death of your absurd hysteria, particularly by your use of the word bigot, which has become a parrot-cry to replace your arguments, which are almost as repeditive. I am confident that a person who reads through this thread will see that I have addressed the main points of your latest howl not once but several times. A final bit of food for thought for you: on the news today I heard that there is a Sikh festival on today in Pakistan. One thousand two hundred police will be deployed to prevent the pilgrims from being physically attacked by mobs. Perhaps the Sikhs should try making a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia or some other Middle-Eastern country where they would no doubt be greeted with kind smiles!
I suppose you realise that as a woman you would not be allowed to have this kind of argument in a strict Islamic country? You don't just need to do some reasearch, you need to have the scales removed from your eyes.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 05:49 PM

And another thing... as for your point about religious riots.. bugger it I haven't the energy! I know from experience that spelling things out for you doesn't help you own brand of bigotry.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 07:45 PM

"...but it certainly won't happen in Australia or Britain."

Never say stuff like that. It sends a shiver down my spine. I'm sure that if at the start of the last century anyone had suggested that Germany could organise Death Camps for its Jews, everyone would have said "it certainly won't happen".

It does seem to me, Ooh Aah, that you seek to single out Muslims for particular criticism in a way that brushes aside the very close parallels which can be drawn with other religions and secular movements even within the last century.

It is a terrible thing to make use of religion or of ideology as a foundation for systematic repression and intolerance, but that is a pattern of behaviour that repeats itself in various forms across all our religions and all our ideologies. And in many cases we can find what are essentially the same religions and the same ideologies being made use of to fight intolerance and to resist repression.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 08:02 PM

I've noticed that often when men know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are losing a debate with a woman, they start throwing around the "hysteria" word, and they start using florid language like "parrot-cry" and "howl" to refer to how the woman makes her agruments. I'm not at all surprised to see you resorting to those kinds of tactics in the absence of a real argument, Ooh-Aah2. I'm sure it's the best you've got to work with, and you can hardly be blamed for that.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 08:47 PM

McGrath ..Iv been read ing the posts from Carol and Ooh aah with interest, And I too find the careless use of the word bigot offensive.

I normally support Carol ,but on this occasion I think Ooh Aah has put forward a better argument.

The viciousness of the Islamic fundamentalists can in part be ascribed to a desperate fight to preserve their beliefs and culture from the ever advancing tide of "westernisation", but whether we agree with their analysis of not the fundamentalists will be a great danger to us all.

In Glasgow ,a month ago, a group of Pakistani muslims abducted and horrifically murdered a 15 yr old white youth. This bodes ill for racial harmony in Glasgow..Ake

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 08:53 PM

I agree with you, akenaton, that fundamentalism is the problem. I disagree with you that Muslim fundamentalism is any more dangerous than other forms of fundamentalism. But it's perhaps understandable that you are not as afraid of the Christian fundamentalists who are running my country as I am, because you don't live here.

But our friend Ooh-Aah2, is not just indicting fundamentalists in his arguments. He's indicting all of Islam, and I'm sorry if you find the word "bigot" offensive in this instance, but bigotry it is.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 08:55 PM

CarolC will always call someone a bigot at her earliest convenience.

Through it all, I still no other group besides Islamic fundamentalists videotaping their executions of cutting off heads and shooting women in the head.

There's absolutely no defense for it.

And CarolC, what you accuse men of when they are losing an arguement is not nearly so blatent as women turning on the tears when they are losing one.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 09:04 PM

what you accuse men of when they are losing an arguement is not nearly so blatent as women turning on the tears when they are losing one.

I wouldn't know. It's not possible to use a tactic like that one on the internet, and I don't use that one off of the internet either. I'll just have to take your word for it.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 09:10 PM

Carol ..I may not live in the US ,but I do understand how your less able electors are being manipulated by use of the religious card.

Our own blessed Tony is a touch messianic at times.

However I feel Ooh Aah has made some very good points, and dont think he deserves being described as "bigot".
His point about Salmon Rushdie was well taken ,and did refer to Islamic teaching.

As you know Im a great admirer of your stance in favour of the Palitinians, and hope you dont take my remarks amiss...Ake

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 09:20 PM

My problem with his use of the Salmon Rushdie affair is his insistance that such behavior is unique to Muslims, or that such behavior is qualitatively more bad than bad behavior by extremists of other religions. It's very important to make sure the distinction is made between the extremists of any religion and the rest of the people who belong to that religion, and also to not fall into the trap of saying some kinds of killing or death threats are worse than others, depending only upon who is doing it.

To say that the Salmon Rushdie thing is any more reprehensible than Jewish extremists making death threats against human rights activists is bigotry, because he's indicting people for who they are and what group they belong to, and not for what they are doing.

But thank you for your kind words.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 12:53 PM

(Carol, you have not understood any of my points, I even can't tell from reading your post whether you have tried)

I'd still prefer to focus on Muslim fanatics in Europe. To hold all religions to the same esteem and not be prejudiced does not mean that you have to add something bad about people fromother religions when you want to complain about fanatics from one religion. It only means that you use the same standard to apply to all. If more people from one religion violate one particular human right than others from other religions it is no bigotry to point that out.

the victim of this especially brutal murder was herself a Muslim, and that this was a reason not to use her murder as an occasion for denouncing the religion she chose to belong to. (McGrath)

Sorry, but I consider this argument confusing at best. Her being a Muslim was a reason for not denouncing the religion? So if she would not have been Muslim it would have been alright denouncing the religion? If you do not think so (what I presume) then why mention she was Muslim at all since it does not matter in your eyes.

If I denounce people from the fundamentalist fringe of a religion for a brutality I do not care whether the victim was Muslim or not.

Germany's lost daughters

This is a two part English translation in a German (moderately left) magazine about the role of women in Muslim families in Germany and about their victimisation. It happens as well in other parts of the world, it has happened at other times in Germany as well. But here and now it is much more likely to happen in Muslim families. You may discuss other possible reasons but exclude that religion may be one contributing factor would not be helpful.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 01:02 PM

I'd still prefer to focus on Muslim fanatics in Europe. To hold all religions to the same esteem and not be prejudiced does not mean that you have to add something bad about people fromother religions when you want to complain about fanatics from one religion. It only means that you use the same standard to apply to all. If more people from one religion violate one particular human right than others from other religions it is no bigotry to point that out.

The problem is when only the bad things committed by one group are being regularly reported while the bad things committed by others are not being reported, or are seldom reported. The result of that sort of thing becomes exactly what we have today in the US and some other parts of the West. Muslims become perceived as being the worst offenders (or even the only offenders), when they are not. You may prefer to only focus on Muslim fanatics in Europe, Wolfgang, but as long as the reportage only points to the bad in Muslims, and seldom or never to the bad in other groups, I'll probably continue to point out the fact that Muslims are not inherently any more prone to bad behavior than members of any other group.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 01:04 PM

BTW, Carol, when I saw your name in the 'Mosque raided' thread I thought that's fine, now Carol will balance the information by telling us about instances when Muslims have raided churches, Christians have raided synagogues etc just to show us that it is not just one group doing the evil deeds. Carol is against double standards for different people for that's bigotry, she'll speak out now...

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 01:16 PM

I guess we must have crossposted, Wolfgang, because your last post doesn't reflect your having read what I put in my last post. It's about balance. There is plenty of coverage of the bad things done by Muslims in the news media, but very little coverage of bad things done to Muslims by other groups. There is no need for me to add my voice to the deluge of criticism of Muslims. There are plenty of other people taking care of that end of it. But someone needs to speak up for those who get scapegoated by the West, and that's why you see me speaking up for Muslims and Arabs, and not so much against them.

On the other hand, if you ever see someone scapegoating any other group, you will (and I dare say you have already) see me sticking up for them as well.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 01:17 PM

the bias that you have already admitted to having on this subject (Carol)

That's about the third time I read that rubbish from you Carol. It only shows your inability to comprehend what you read. When I did read that rubbish the first time I went back to what I had written to see whether I had actually written what you have read (well, I sometimes do write what I do not mean) only to find that that you misrepresent either from ignorance or from ill will what I had written. Go back and read what I have actually written to find that it is very different from how you recall it now.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 01:33 PM

Here's the whole paragraph from which you selectively provided your quote from me (conveniently selective, Wolfgang?)...

You continually accuse me of being one sided when it comes to criticism of Israel. What you seem incapable of understanding is that there is also a very one-sided propaganda campaign here in the US on the subject of Iraael/Palestine. I only introduce information about Israel/Palestine as a response when I see some of this one-sided propaganda being promoted here in the Mudcat. I never introduce anything on that subject that isn't in response to something someone else has posted. I have no intention of criticizing Israel in the absence of someone else's introduction of one-sided debate on that subject, nor have I ever done so. The fact that you don't notice the presence of whatever it is that I'm responding to shows the bias that you have already admitted to having on this subject.

You have indeed admitted quite openly that you have a bias on the subject of Israel/Palestine. I can find that statement posted by you, and put it and a link to the thread it's in here in this thread if you want.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Daisycutter
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 01:59 PM

CC:

The only knowledge I can gather from the drivel you have posted here is that you disagree with everybody and you don't like anything.

You must be a miserable person.


D

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 02:11 PM

Yes, we have crossposted and more than once.

Deep in my heart I have a pro Israel bias

is what I had written and what you have misrepresented at the next opportunity as

I also think that people who start numerous Palestinian/Arab/Muslim-bashing threads are probably promoting an agenda that is biased against Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims. And in the case of Wolfgang, he has even admitted that he has a bias in this respect.

as if from a positive bias towards one person/people/country necessarily follows a negative bias towards others. And why you consider my pro Israel bias as relevant in the context of this thread (the bias...that you...have on this subject) makes perhaps sense to you, but it doesn't to me.

I'd appreciate if from now on you would not infer about me that a pro Israel bias means that I must as a consequence have an anti-Muslim anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian bias. You're making assumptions, Carol, and sell them as truth.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 02:54 PM

Deep in my heart I have a pro Israel bias

is what I had written and what you have misrepresented at the next opportunity as

I also think that people who start numerous Palestinian/Arab/Muslim-bashing threads are probably promoting an agenda that is biased against Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims. And in the case of Wolfgang, he has even admitted that he has a bias in this respect.

as if from a positive bias towards one person/people/country necessarily follows a negative bias towards others. And why you consider my pro Israel bias as relevant in the context of this thread (the bias...that you...have on this subject) makes perhaps sense to you, but it doesn't to me.

Of course a positive bias in favor of one group means a negative bias against the other group in the equation. It's not possible to both have a bias and be neutral. And if you're not neutral, you have a bias against the group in the equation who are not the group you have a bias in favor of. To try to suggest otherwise is totally illogical.

However, I did not say on this thread that you have a bias against anybody. You are putting words in my mouth and you are telling me what my meaning is. What I said can just as easily be stated like this:

"The fact that you don't notice the presence of whatever it is that I'm responding to shows the bias in favor of Israel that you have already admitted to having on this subject."

I'd appreciate if from now on you would not infer about me that a pro Israel bias means that I must as a consequence have an anti-Muslim anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian bias. You're making assumptions, Carol, and sell them as truth.

And I would appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting the things I say, and making pronouncements about what I mean by what I say, and telling me what my opinions are, as you do quite frequently, and as you have done on this thread. I don't expect that to happen, ever, but you really need to try to abide by the same rules that you want others to abide by, Wolfgang.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 03:06 PM

I too am not convinced it will never happen. As long as people are using blanket terms like 'Muslin Intolerance' people will believe it to be true. I am by no means saying that anyone here would be guilty of such things (Even you, Martin ;-) ) but I have been in the pub when the Daily Sport readers start calling 'them f%^&ing pakis'. I have been in Patsons local mini mart when the local yobs have been in and left a train of devastation while yelling 'f&*( off back home rag heads'. This to people who were born in the next steet to them!

As long as we stereotype people as 'Muslim extemists' and as long as people are bandying stories of how bad the minority, yes tiny minority, of Moslems are the yobs will never look at the people themselves. They will never see the Patsons or Patels or Mistrys as people. They will only ever see the Fanatic Mullahs and their sick retinues.

Once enough people are doing that, and I am ashamed to say I know of many, then we are only a stones throw from murdering another 40 million. You can argue till you are blue in the face but the fact remains that it happened before. If anything can ever happen, be sure that it will. Stop spreading the stories. Ignore the idiots. Moslems are people just like you and me, Help the good ones to get rid of the trash themselves but please don't tar them all with the same brush.

Dave.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 03:07 PM

"...if from a positive bias towards one person/people/country necessarily follows a negative bias towards others."

A bias means a built-in tendencyt to go one particular way. That means by definition a built-in tendency not to go the other way.

In any conflict situation a bias in favour of one side has to mean a bias against the other side. Perhaps you are taking bias as meaning something equivalent to "liking", or having sympathy for - and it would would indeed be quite consistent to like both sides, or to have sympathy for both sides, and to ber ipartial. But bias cannot be impartial by definition.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 03:54 PM

"...if from a positive bias towards one person/people/country necessarily follows a negative bias towards others."

A bias means a built-in tendency to go one particular way. That means by definition a built-in tendency not to go the other way.

In any conflict situation a bias in favour of one side has to mean a bias against the other side. Perhaps you are taking bias as meaning something equivalent to "liking", or having sympathy for - and it would would indeed be possible quite consistently to like both sides, or to have sympathy for both sides, and to be completely impartial. But if we have a bias, that is just another way of saying that we are not impartial.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 04:41 PM

"Sorry, but I consider this argument confusing at best. Her being a Muslim was a reason for not denouncing the religion? So if she would not have been Muslim it would have been alright denouncing the religion? If you do not think so (what I presume) then why mention she was Muslim at all since it does not matter in your eyes." (Wolfgang)

Perhaps it's my fault, but you completely fail to take the point I was making, and instead take a point I definitely was not making, Wolfgang.

The reason I felt it relevant to mention Margaret Hassan's religion was that it is a reminder that the humanitarian work for which she has rightly been adnired, and which is in such contrast to the actions of her murders, appears in her case to have been a reflection of her religious commitment as a Muslim convert.

There is a real sense in which any blanket denunciation of the religion she chose to adhere to is a kind of insult to her memory. It is a bit as if someone werr to use a killing of a charity worker in Northern Ireland by co-religionists as grounds for an attack on the religion which killer and killed shared.

And blanket denunciations are in fact very frequently heard. Some - by no means all - of the comments in this thread are perilously close to it. I share Dave the gnome's worries about how it could grow. I think it is not safe to assume that there is a general attitude of acceptance towards Muslims in general, which means that there is no need to try to place in context criticisms that are made of particular excesses carried out by some Muslims, or within some Muslim groups.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 04:45 PM

You're getting Sir jOhn syndrome, Kevin...

(Multiplepostitis)

:D

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 06:20 PM

And it's now passed on to me...

Llanfranc just posted a lovely soundbite on another thread.

Most Muslims are not terrorists but most terrorists are Muslims!

I am not sure if the second part is true. I have yet to see any stats to support it - But it's a grand statement that sums up what I have been saying!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 06:27 PM

but most terrorists are Muslims!

I am not sure if the second part is true.

If you don't know if it's true, do you think it's a good idea to be stating it as if it is true? Maybe finding out the truth would be a good thing before making such a statement. It is, after all, a very broad and sweeping generalization. The kind of sound byte upon which hate campaigns are built.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 06:38 PM

I didn't say it Carol - But agree with your sentiments. It was the first bit I was trying to play upon but unscrupulous people could certainly pick up on the latter!

Does anyone REALLY know how many of the worlds terrorists are Moslems? We have the IRA and UDA and all their derevations, of whom I guess very few are Moslems. What about the African and South American factions? The Chinese? Koreans? The Israelis?

Hmmmm - Now you come to mention it Moslems are probably in a minority!

Perhaps a better byte would be most moslems are not terrorists and most terrorists are not moslems? Can this be true? If so it bodes ill for the leaders of the western world!

D.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 08:24 PM

Don't know the answer to that one (I'll try to see what I can come up with when I have more time than I do right now), but there certainly are a lot of different kinds of terrorists. There are also terrorist groups in Mexico, and Central and South America, and also the Basque separatists, none of whom are Muslims as far as I know. The rebels in Sudan who are fighting agains the Sudanese government would probably be called terrorists if the US was on the side of the Sudanese government instead of on the side of the rebels. Many, if not most of them are Christians and Animists rather than Muslims. And of couurse the most spectacular of our own home grown terrorists here in the US are not Muslims, either.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 09:07 PM

"Most Christians are not Nazis, but most Nazis are (sort of) Christians" would have been true enough, at one point. But it wouldn't actualy have been too meaningful, as an analysis of what is is good or bad about Christianity.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 03:44 PM

Carol,

please follow sometimes your own advice and don't put words into my mouth. I have never told you what your opinions are for I cannot know them, I have only told you what my perception of your opinions is. You can correct that then if you want.

And because I do not know what your opinions are I quote you and do not rephrase you. I would appreciate if you could do the same in future, for your attempts to rephrase me are too often completely off the mark, like in the example in the first paragraph. Had you quoted me with my remark Deep in my heart I have a pro Israel bias in this thread, everybody could have seen how irrelevant that remark is to the theme of this thread. The rephrasing a bias on this subject gives, intentionally or not, the wrong impression. May I repeat my question why you did consider my remark as relevant in this thread here?

A bias means a built-in tendency to go one particular way. That means by definition a built-in tendency not to go the other way. (McGrath)

I disagree, except in a very very narrow sense. In a two-choice situation and a single bias I agree. But most times, life is much more complicated. Most people whether they admit it or not have much more biases than just one and in most situations there are many more than two choices.

In the very simple case, existence of Israel or not (a much two easy two-choice situation) my bias would lead me ceteris paribus (which is an overly artificial assumption) to opt for the existence of Israel. However, I usually have also an in-built bias for the underdog, a bias for peaceful fights, a bias for human rights, a bias for compromise instead of domination and so on. In any real life situation some biases weigh on one side and some on the other.

'Against Bush' does not mean I have to be pro terrorists. That's the thinking of 'Uncle Sam' and his ilk. You usually have not such a simplistic black and white thinking, McGrath.

To make an overly simple example and also to mock Carol's paraphrasing instead of quoting I could say here that Carol has stated openly her pro terrorist bias. Huh, you might say, for you do not recollect anything similar to that rephrasing. The 'inference' is simple: Carol has stated the opinion that it is the US government that is putting the lives of all my family members in danger (she has said the same about Israel's government by the way). Well, at least for me, if I see my life and that of my family in danger, I must admit to a certain bias against those I perceive as the origin of that danger. So she has an anti-Bush bias. That means, applying your thinking, in all conflicts with Bush involved she will have a pro-his enemy bias. The terrorists are his enemies (or that of the American government) and therefore she has a pro-terrorist bias. Silly simple thinking in black and white.

But to end this post with a more conciliatory move, McGrath, let me quote you approvingly:

And respondintg to a criticism of someone you admire by pointing off into the distance to someone you think the person who made the criticism might admire is never a valid way of arguing.

Once we have dealt with a criticism, by either disproving it, or accepting it, then talking about the faults of someone else is fair enough. But not until then

Very wise words.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Daisycutter
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 05:50 PM

And you have mentioned 'dutch culture and values'. First of all let me ask you, WHAT is your Dutch culture and values? Oh, you mean western culture? You mean the "culture" that promotes prostitutions

Scroll right and down.

D

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 07:37 PM

Wolfgang, you're the one who brought the subject of Israel into this thread. Follow your own advice and go back and reread some of your posts in this thread.

You must be desperate for someone to argue with, Wolfgang. I don't have time to argue with you today, but I'll see what I can come up with when I do have time.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 08:11 PM

So... here's your lesson in logical communication for today, Wolfgang...

I said this earlier in this thread:

It has nothing whatever to do with suggesting that two wrongs make a right, Wolfgang. There are people on this thread, and in the world generally, who are practicing bigotry towards a whole group of people because of the actions of some of that group, ignoring completely the good people of that group, and ignoring completely the wrongs committed by the groups to which they themselves belong.

When people only focus on the wrongs committed by one group of people, ignoring all of the good that group is responsible for, and they ignore all of the bad things done by other groups, including their own, focusing only on what they perceive to be the good those other groups have done, they are engaging in bigotry and scapegoating. Especially when a genetic factor is introduced into the equation.

Here's the first bit of logic for you. I said "there are people on this thread, and in the world generally". I did not say you were one of them. If you read it that way, you were putting words into my mouth. And then I proceeded to address what happens when the people I was talking about, do the thing I said they were doing.

Then quoted the beginning of the second paragraph I quoted above and you said this:

Huh? You seem to address me, Carol.

Yes, I was addressing you. I was "speaking" specifically to you, about other people. You decided that I was speaking about you and you responded to what you imagined I was doing, but I was not.

Then you said this:

You seem to grasp this difference very well when it comes to Jews and Israel. When you (or someone else) criticises a criminal act or a violation of human rights by the government of Israel or a part of the IDF and someone else, let's say MG, cries 'antisemitic' you (or someone else) point out quickly that criticising one particular action or one particular person does not mean that the whole group of that faith or nationality is slighted.

But when it comes to Arabs/Muslims and one group (fundamentalists) or one action is criticised you parrot MG (though I appreciate the very big differences in level of argumentation and language): 'Anti-Arab', 'Anti-Muslim'. To call into doubt the motives of those criticising one particular group is a very weak last resort argumentation.

You have been following me around the Mudcat, pointing out the instances when I criticize different groups of people. You have also said that you have a bias in favor if Israel. You also don't seem to notice that when I say just about anything at all about Israel, it is always in response to something someone else has posted. I put what I do about Israel out of a need I have to make sure that not only one side of that story gets told. You keep trying to make me out to be a hypocrite for not also criticizing Muslims or Arabs when they do bad things. I am trying to help you understand that that side of the story IS ALREADY BEING TOLD BY OTHER PEOPLE, so my voice is not needed.

I have been reminding you of your stated bias in favor of Israel, because that bias is the best reason I can come up with to understand why you are so unable to understand what I have been trying to tell you for more than two years.

Now here's the really important bit, so pay attention. You said this:

But when it comes to Arabs/Muslims and one group (fundamentalists) or one action is criticised you parrot MG (though I appreciate the very big differences in level of argumentation and language): 'Anti-Arab', 'Anti-Muslim'. To call into doubt the motives of those criticising one particular group is a very weak last resort argumentation.

This is bullshit. I don't criticize everyone who criticizes the actions of some Arabs, or some Muslims. If I were to do that, I would have to make hundreds more posts daily than I currently do. I do however, and I have certainly done on this thread, call people who do not make the distinction between Muslims and some Muslims. And also the distinction between Arabs and some Arabs. And also the distinction between Islam and Islamic extremists.

Once again, I fear these distinctions will be too subtle for you, but I have put them out there for you just in case you manage just one fleeting moment of lucidity and hopefully, if that happens, you will find a way to understand what I am saying.

Now stop being an ass and leave me alone please. I have a holiday to contend with.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 09:02 PM

I don't think you can use "bias" in quite that way, Wolfgang. The term "bias" comes from bowls, where a weight will be placed in a bowling ball which means it will veer off in a particular direction. That is the bias. It would be possible to place additional weights which would modify this effect, and the outcome would be a different bias. But it would still be a bias, and it would mean that the ball would always veer off the straight course.

Similarly we might have sympathies for different parties in a disoute which would pull us in different directions, and we might also have a committment to trying to be impartial. Only if all these things coming together balanced each other out, would we be entitled to say that we were not biased. (And even then, it might vary from occasion to occasion.)

But "sympathy" is not the same as "bias", any more than being tempted to steal is the same as stealing. "Bias" on any occasion means that we have veered off the straight and impartial path. It's a stronger word than "partial" - it can be right to be partial, to take one side in a dispute. But "bias" is a step too far.

I think that you could well have mis-stated your position when you said that you that you were biased, but I don't think it is fair to complain that Carol took you at your word. And I think that you may fail to appreciate the depth and virility of real bias and prejudice against Palestinians, Arabs in general and indeed Muslims which is present in many parts of the world.

Sometimes criticism of things which deserve to be criticised can be a cloak for other things. This has always been one of the ways in which anti-semitism and racism has operated. It is not unreasonable to ask for proof that it not operating in this context.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 10:20 PM

And not only do you frequently put words in my mouth and mischaracterize what I say, and make pronouncements about what I mean by what I say, and tell me what my opinions are, in the case of the following post from you, Wolfgang, you actually LIED about what I said (or didn't say)...

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat: Terrorize your enemy.
From: Wolfgang - PM
Date: 17 May 04 - 08:31 AM

Whenever something bad is said about Arafat, for the sake of balance within two hours something bad has to be added about either Sharon or Bush. McGrath and Carol are in charge of that (look at the Arafat's 300 million thread to see how elegantly Carol has introduced Bush in a thread about Arafat taking international monies for himself). Jack the sailor may stand in for Carol.

There is no equivalent rule when something bad is said about Sharon (see 'Sharon is a crook thread' or 'Sharon says, no I'm not in the mood' thread).

In this post, you use, to provide an example of my failure to ever come to Sharon's defence, a post in which I actually came to Sharon's defense.

Here's what I actually said in the Sharon is a crook thread:

Subject: RE: BS: Sharon is a crook (allegedly)
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 11:34 AM

Here's a current article about this:

Sharon (link no longer works)

I must say, I find myself wondering if the timing of this announcement has anything to do with Sharon talking about plans to remove some settlements in Gaza and the West Bank...

"The developments plunged Sharon deeper into trouble two weeks before a visit to Washington, where he hopes to win President Bush's backing for his plan unilaterally to evacuate Jewish settlements in Gaza and some in the West Bank."

For whatever bizarre reasons you have, Wolfgang, for almost as long as I've been a member of the Mudcat, you have been following me around making mischaracterizations of my posts and my points, and even lying about what I've said when it suits your purposes. You are one sick, twisted little man, Wolfgang.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 12:04 PM

Carol,

using les mots gros makes no impression on me. But if you feel better this way it's fine with me.

I won't go on here for you just rant with your misinterpretations and putting words in my mouth. The ability to read is fine but not much use when it is not accompanied by the ability to understand.

Just one last word here: Checking the facts is really easy with a computer with a search function.

Wolfgang, you're the one who brought the subject of Israel into this thread. Follow your own advice and go back and reread some of your posts in this thread. (Carol)

Ariel Sharon has been threatened with assasination by many people in Israel as a result of his work toward removing Israeli settlements in Gaza. was actually the first post in this thread mentioning Israel. Who do you guess did write it? You, Carol.

Beam and mote I'd say.



McGrath,

I trust you that that word once has been used in bowling, though my dictionary of etymology says the word is older and just meant slanted (in a geometrical sense) originally. But that doesn't matter here. Words have developed in their meanings since then and also in several subgroups of the population they may be used differently. I know 'bias' originally from statistics and this words is used quite freely in psychology without all those implications you seem to hear. If 'prejudice' is much too strong and 'sympathy' is too weak, I use 'bias'. But I can see how what I said can be misinterpreted. I hope it is clear enough now after my long post to you before this.

I don't think it is fair to complain that Carol took you at your word (McGrath)
You're missing my main point. I'm not complaining that Carol took me by my word, I'm complaining that she didn't. I wish she would have quoted me and not used a paraphrase. Just imagine if she had quoted me instead of giving my words a slant fitting her purpose. I wouldn't have complained.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 01:35 PM

This is getting a bit silly, and also needlessly ill-tempered.

It seemed to me that Carol's paraphrase was a fair enough one. Wolfganf said he had a bias in favour of Israel, and Carol took that as an indication that he had a bias against the Palestinians and those who supported their cause. That seemed a reasonable way of understanding his words, and I do it think it was fair to accuse her of twisting them. If there was a misunderstaning, it was a reasonable misunderstanding.

I don't think sneering and ridiculing and insulting the people we are in disagreement with is a sensible or helpful way to proceed. There are too many people on the Mudcat who appear not to know any other way of indicating disagreement, but neither Wolfgang nor Carol normally fall into that category.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 01:59 PM

This is getting a bit silly, and also needlessly ill-tempered.

It seemed to me that Carol's paraphrase was a fair enough one. Wolfganf said he had a bias in favour of Israel, and Carol took that as an indication that he had a bias against the Palestinians and those who supported their cause. That seemed a reasonable way of understanding his words, and I do not think it was fair to accuse her of twisting them. If there was a misunderstanding, it was a reasonable misunderstanding.

I don't think sneering and ridiculing and insulting the people we are in disagreement with is a sensible or helpful way to proceed. There are too many people on the Mudcat who appear not to know any other way of indicating disagreement, but neither Wolfgang nor Carol normally fall into that category.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 02:05 PM

Beam and mote I'd say.

In light of this post from you, Wolfgang, I'd say you're right on the money with the beam and mote analogy.

I'd appreciate if from now on you would not infer about me that a pro Israel bias means that I must as a consequence have an anti-Muslim anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian bias. You're making assumptions, Carol, and sell them as truth.

Especially considering the fact that the whole paragraph is an assumption on your part.

A fairly significant percentage of the posts you make to the BS section of the Mudcat seem to be for the purpose of criticizing other people's behavior; behavior that you are far more guilty of than those you are criticizing. Perhaps the day will come when the beam is removed from your eye, Wolfgang, and perhaps then a discussion with you that has some actual substance can take place. I'm not holding my breath, however. After more than four years of your bullshit, I've had enough. You are, without a doubt, the one Mudcatter I hope I never have to meet.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 02:16 PM

Actually, McGrath, I don't recall ever using that quote from Wolfgang to indicate that he has a bias against Palestinians. My use of it in this thread had nothing whatever to do with a bias against anybody. That was an assumption (did you see that word, Wolfgang? assumption) on Wolfgang's part. My use of it in this thread was of the sacred cow sort. If he has a bias "on this subject" (no mention of the word against), that could explain why he is so unable to see the posts that preceed mine and to which I am responding when make posts about Israel. It is an example of a blind spot caused by one's bias in favor of one particular group. And that was my only reason for bringing up that quote from Wolfgang in this thread. Any other meaning Wolfgang chose to get from it was his own bullshit that he was projecting onto me.

Or as he would put it (and as he so often does), Wolfgang is making assumptions and selling them as truth.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 02:25 PM

Easy to see how wars start init..?

:D

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 05:12 AM

Nuke 'em and get it over with.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 03:09 AM

I don't know if there's an internet equivalent of verbal diahorrea, but if there is Carol C has got it bad! The rest of us give up not because we are convinced by her arguments, which are wishful-thinking and blinkered in the extreme, but because we don't wish to spend the rest of our lives staring into a screen. (Stand by for a lengthy missive full of cut and pastes 'proving' that I did/didn't say this that or the other, and using the word 'bigot' at least twice).

Now I'll make my bigoted way off to a meeting of the Australia-Tibet council, being sure to insult any Muslims I see on the way. Whoops! I support a universal franchise, women's rights, religious freedom, free speech, free dress, sexual choice and gay liberation, so I guess I've already pissed off most of them! What a funny old bigot I am!

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Dec 04 - 06:42 AM

Fighting the Preachers of Hate (an article from a moderately left German magazine in English translation)

"We must take advantage of democracy to further our cause."...
People were too worried that criticism of Islamists could be misinterpreted as xenophobia....
useless infidels whose armpits stink because they don't shave...
How far should tolerance of such hate preachers go?...
"cowboy discussion in which everyone is shooting from the hip"

That article gives you a good overview about the discussion in Germany and how it has been affected by the murder of van Gogh by a Muslim extremist.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Dec 04 - 12:10 PM

I was wrong. What you are, Ooh-Aah2, is a troll posing as a bigot.