Connections #324 Tuesday 30 April
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Those barbaric Muslims, again....
53 Answers
That's just a taste of some of the adjectives used to describe Muslims on this site, and, in truth often in the world at large.
Barbaric, backward, medieval are amongst the others, is this fair?
There's millions of Muslims in the world they're not all burkha clad screaming anti-western polemicists, we wouldn't be able to get away so easily calling Africans these names or west Indians for that matter, so whuy is it reasonable to speak of Muslims in such tones?
There's lots of radical English speakers, some elected, who voice opinions that I find absurd or even abhorrent, do they speak for the nation as a whole?
Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, internment, area bombing, shoot to kill, bombing neutral countries are all policies being carried out in the state sponsored (our state for that matter) "War On Terror" are these policies being carried out with the express approval of all (or even the majority) of the people?
No, of course they don't, the press has an agenda when it produces these stories, and when these stories pander to popular prejudices, the public laps it up.
Look at America's military history, My-Lai (all over Vietnam), the G.Is were notorious for their rapaciousness and theft in Italy, they did it again in Iraq, look at our "friends" abroad Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, Noriega, Nicaraguan Contras etc etc.
We in the west are so civilised it must be great, to be able judgement so glibly.
Barbaric, backward, medieval are amongst the others, is this fair?
There's millions of Muslims in the world they're not all burkha clad screaming anti-western polemicists, we wouldn't be able to get away so easily calling Africans these names or west Indians for that matter, so whuy is it reasonable to speak of Muslims in such tones?
There's lots of radical English speakers, some elected, who voice opinions that I find absurd or even abhorrent, do they speak for the nation as a whole?
Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, internment, area bombing, shoot to kill, bombing neutral countries are all policies being carried out in the state sponsored (our state for that matter) "War On Terror" are these policies being carried out with the express approval of all (or even the majority) of the people?
No, of course they don't, the press has an agenda when it produces these stories, and when these stories pander to popular prejudices, the public laps it up.
Look at America's military history, My-Lai (all over Vietnam), the G.Is were notorious for their rapaciousness and theft in Italy, they did it again in Iraq, look at our "friends" abroad Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, Noriega, Nicaraguan Contras etc etc.
We in the west are so civilised it must be great, to be able judgement so glibly.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 123everton. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Everton -
I'm afraid your answer to my question is – and I can't think of a more appropriate word – pathetic.
I ask you about your rights should Britain become an Islamic state and you answer - “I've never given it much thought Birdie... ”. Then you attempt to crowbar the Israeli / Palestinian situation into the discussion for no particular reason other than to divert the conversation. Sorry, but that just doesn't wash. I've asked you a very specific question which you have deliberately failed to answer. In fact, seeing as I've asked it twice already and seeing as you've failed to answer it, I'll ask it yet again. Maybe this time you'll provide me with an answer...
“Do you think that the freedoms you currently enjoy would be in any way curtailed if Britain became an Islamic state tomorrow?”
Then you you say, “... thanks for the rest of your answer, "dhimmi" without a hint of irony QED.” And what precisely am I (or anyone else) to make of that?
I can only assume that you believe that Muslims are somehow subjected to a form of dhimmitude in Western non-Islamic nations. If so, I'd love to hear the reasons why you think that, in Britain, Muslims have less legal rights than non-Muslims; why you think that Muslims pay more tax than non-Muslims; and why you think that Muslims are forced to wear culturally/religiously identifiable clothing.
Your nativity and hand-wringing apologist twaddle is approaching gargantuan proportions. If it gets any bigger it'll be visible from space.
I'm afraid your answer to my question is – and I can't think of a more appropriate word – pathetic.
I ask you about your rights should Britain become an Islamic state and you answer - “I've never given it much thought Birdie... ”. Then you attempt to crowbar the Israeli / Palestinian situation into the discussion for no particular reason other than to divert the conversation. Sorry, but that just doesn't wash. I've asked you a very specific question which you have deliberately failed to answer. In fact, seeing as I've asked it twice already and seeing as you've failed to answer it, I'll ask it yet again. Maybe this time you'll provide me with an answer...
“Do you think that the freedoms you currently enjoy would be in any way curtailed if Britain became an Islamic state tomorrow?”
Then you you say, “... thanks for the rest of your answer, "dhimmi" without a hint of irony QED.” And what precisely am I (or anyone else) to make of that?
I can only assume that you believe that Muslims are somehow subjected to a form of dhimmitude in Western non-Islamic nations. If so, I'd love to hear the reasons why you think that, in Britain, Muslims have less legal rights than non-Muslims; why you think that Muslims pay more tax than non-Muslims; and why you think that Muslims are forced to wear culturally/religiously identifiable clothing.
Your nativity and hand-wringing apologist twaddle is approaching gargantuan proportions. If it gets any bigger it'll be visible from space.
Birdie, //Then you you say, “... thanks for the rest of your answer, "dhimmi" without a hint of irony QED.” And what precisely am I (or anyone else) to make of that? //
I can only assume he's trying to show us how smart he is with a bit of not-so-clever word play. As you say, pathetic.
And he hasn't answered your question because if he did he would have to concede that the freedoms he now enjoys would be restricted - and he knows it. He's a religious apologist who refuses to acknowledge reality.
I can only assume he's trying to show us how smart he is with a bit of not-so-clever word play. As you say, pathetic.
And he hasn't answered your question because if he did he would have to concede that the freedoms he now enjoys would be restricted - and he knows it. He's a religious apologist who refuses to acknowledge reality.
I don't support Sharia law, in Britain (not that long ago) rape victims were put into institutions with prostitutes (one woman served 80 years), in 1980 there was a documentry on the police in which a woman reported a rape the treatment she recieved was the watershed moment in rape investigation, the attitude of the police up to the late 80s was if a woman who complained of rape squirmed after being sat on a hard chair she was telling the truth.
We've had almost 1000 years without being successfully invaded to introduce equal rights for women, it's only in the last 20 or so that it's been achieved, I doubt even the oldest Islamic state would have been independent for more than 60 years (Turkey excluded), I would imagine that Iran would be the oldest independent Islamic state, and that's only 31, it had a brutal pro-western dictator prior to that, takes time to build a country especially after it's been oppressed for years.
Shouting names at them, won't achieve a thing.
Executions, we've executed lots of people from rival factions throughout time immemorial, and still do to this today, we have no right to claim a moral high ground. For instance the Americans executed Che Guevara, the epitome of a P.O.W.
As for my rights under an Islamic state, it's hard to answer because Sharia is interpreted differently throughout the world, you could even have a solution (as I understand it) like Malaysia were the two codes run parrallel, in which case the Sharia would not affect me or you.
We've had almost 1000 years without being successfully invaded to introduce equal rights for women, it's only in the last 20 or so that it's been achieved, I doubt even the oldest Islamic state would have been independent for more than 60 years (Turkey excluded), I would imagine that Iran would be the oldest independent Islamic state, and that's only 31, it had a brutal pro-western dictator prior to that, takes time to build a country especially after it's been oppressed for years.
Shouting names at them, won't achieve a thing.
Executions, we've executed lots of people from rival factions throughout time immemorial, and still do to this today, we have no right to claim a moral high ground. For instance the Americans executed Che Guevara, the epitome of a P.O.W.
As for my rights under an Islamic state, it's hard to answer because Sharia is interpreted differently throughout the world, you could even have a solution (as I understand it) like Malaysia were the two codes run parrallel, in which case the Sharia would not affect me or you.
Everton, oh, I see what you're saying. They're backward and have a long way to go before they finally move into the 21st century and learn to abandon their barbaric ways in favour of a more civilised way of life. Well, with their religion being what it is, I can't see it happening, but that's the most sensible thing you've said on this thread, Everton. Well done.
Close but no coconut.
These are new nations, many with artificial boundaries drawn up by foreign powers, the ideas of nation for many of these places (some Christian) only appeared in the late 19th century, to expect any country that's not even half a century old to accede to the social more's of ours (after almost 1000 years), social more's that really have only come into being in the last 40 years, is frankly ridiculous.
You ask for an explaination of why something happened, you get it, and say it's condoning it.
It is no wonder why, when you look at any wars in most any region you revert to the simplistic notions.
Muslims innit, religion innit, not quite that simple unfortunately, read your history and you'll see cause and effect of the great powers foreign policies.
You talk about brainwashing, why are you so unable to de-program yourself from many of the things we were taught in school?
The British empire aimed to civilise the world, at the point of a bayonet, we were trying to bomb Afghanistan into civilisation in 1929 (some things never change), French Indo-China was a very brutal place, Algiers too (and that was until the 1960s), the French killed environmentalists in the 1980s by blowing their ship up with a bomb (Rainbow Warrior), but of course that wasn't terrorism, how very civilised we in the west are.
Asquith struggled with the idea of votes for women, that was only 80 odd years ago.
Was I right or wrong about police attitudes towards rape victims up to the late 80s?
Do you remember in the late 80s how the media had a conversation about whether there was such a thing as rape in marriage?
That's only 20 odd years ago.
Were we barbaric and uncivilised then?
Were our parents and grandparents so very very backward?
These are new nations, many with artificial boundaries drawn up by foreign powers, the ideas of nation for many of these places (some Christian) only appeared in the late 19th century, to expect any country that's not even half a century old to accede to the social more's of ours (after almost 1000 years), social more's that really have only come into being in the last 40 years, is frankly ridiculous.
You ask for an explaination of why something happened, you get it, and say it's condoning it.
It is no wonder why, when you look at any wars in most any region you revert to the simplistic notions.
Muslims innit, religion innit, not quite that simple unfortunately, read your history and you'll see cause and effect of the great powers foreign policies.
You talk about brainwashing, why are you so unable to de-program yourself from many of the things we were taught in school?
The British empire aimed to civilise the world, at the point of a bayonet, we were trying to bomb Afghanistan into civilisation in 1929 (some things never change), French Indo-China was a very brutal place, Algiers too (and that was until the 1960s), the French killed environmentalists in the 1980s by blowing their ship up with a bomb (Rainbow Warrior), but of course that wasn't terrorism, how very civilised we in the west are.
Asquith struggled with the idea of votes for women, that was only 80 odd years ago.
Was I right or wrong about police attitudes towards rape victims up to the late 80s?
Do you remember in the late 80s how the media had a conversation about whether there was such a thing as rape in marriage?
That's only 20 odd years ago.
Were we barbaric and uncivilised then?
Were our parents and grandparents so very very backward?
We've been on a journey,they're starting their journey,screaming and shouting insults won't achieve results,the economics of education will, the bolstering of state schools will,accepting that there are different social codes,different inter relationships is part and parcel of it.
That's what sovreignty is all about, many of the examples you give are of corrupt and dictatorial regimes many of which are kept in power by us, Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran (both secular goverments funnily enough), the Saudi royal family, the Kuwaiti royal family, how civilised is that?
P.S.
The woman was 70 odd years locked up, not 80, my mistake, working straight off memory.
That's what sovreignty is all about, many of the examples you give are of corrupt and dictatorial regimes many of which are kept in power by us, Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran (both secular goverments funnily enough), the Saudi royal family, the Kuwaiti royal family, how civilised is that?
P.S.
The woman was 70 odd years locked up, not 80, my mistake, working straight off memory.
Everton, the only one here screaming and shouting is you. You deliberately go all around the houses confusing politics and history with religion - or maybe it’s not deliberate - maybe you really are that confused - and you’re still making any excuse you can come up with in order to vindicate barbaric practices. Well, in a civilised world nothing excuses beheadings or stoning people to death because like it or not, they are the acts of barbarians. Having said that you see nothing wrong in denying a child a life saving blood transfusion, so your attitude speaks for itself. It’s clear that in defence of religion you will support any atrocity, so there’s really no more to be said on the subject.
123everton – Your last post was a real filibuster wasn't it? I have no problem with long winded answers (as I am prone to them myself) but what I don't do and which you have clearly just done, is deliberately indulge in obfuscation. It is not a good debating technique but it is an excellent tool for someone who has nothing intelligent to say and nothing to add to a debate. In short, your post demonstrably displays your lack of coherence and an inability to argue a cogent point on this matter.
Naomi is absolutely right when she says that, “... You deliberately go all around the houses confusing politics and history with religion...”
I've read many of your posts Everton and the vast majority of them are measured and well thought out. Your above posts are not in that category. They're just semi-coherent rants.
Naomi is absolutely right when she says that, “... You deliberately go all around the houses confusing politics and history with religion...”
I've read many of your posts Everton and the vast majority of them are measured and well thought out. Your above posts are not in that category. They're just semi-coherent rants.
Ha ha, you tickle me sometimes you really do.
Semi-coherent rants?
I've demonstrated (tried) to show examples of how poorly we've behaved in recent history, never mind further back.
Confusing history and religion?
The events in the Balkans and the middle east owe far more to history than religion, but your own prejudices work against this fact.
when we can acknowledge our role in the injustices that have gone on, then we can call ourselves civilised.
We've supported brutal regimes throughout the world, and still do (Burma springs to mind), I agree it is wrong to behead people, I agree stoning to death is wrong, so were the rubber tyre necklaces the A.N.C used to put on their enemies.
People who have been brutalised can behave brutally, just like the rubber necklaces have now gone so too will these practices, in time, the best way to do it is with education and economic links, rewarding good governmental practice, democracy (of a type they're comfortable with) and more than anything the removal of graft.
Semi-coherent rants?
I've demonstrated (tried) to show examples of how poorly we've behaved in recent history, never mind further back.
Confusing history and religion?
The events in the Balkans and the middle east owe far more to history than religion, but your own prejudices work against this fact.
when we can acknowledge our role in the injustices that have gone on, then we can call ourselves civilised.
We've supported brutal regimes throughout the world, and still do (Burma springs to mind), I agree it is wrong to behead people, I agree stoning to death is wrong, so were the rubber tyre necklaces the A.N.C used to put on their enemies.
People who have been brutalised can behave brutally, just like the rubber necklaces have now gone so too will these practices, in time, the best way to do it is with education and economic links, rewarding good governmental practice, democracy (of a type they're comfortable with) and more than anything the removal of graft.
Everton, you are clearly incapable of understanding that no one here, except you, has defended any of the perpetrators of the atrocities you‘re talking about, and you are the only one claiming that atrocities committed by regimes throughout history somehow negate any act of cruelty committed by Muslims. They don’t. Whatever creed or culture, or religion, or political affiliation a man may advocate, barbarism is barbarism., and in a civilised world nothing excuses it.
Question - and a simple yes or no, without the ’ifs’ and ’buts’ will do: Is the act of chopping a head off or stoning someone to death barbaric?
People who commit atrocities against another human being are barbaric - and although it’s clearly difficult for you to comprehend or to accept, that applies whether the culprit happens to be British, American, Chinese, Christian, Wiccan, Muslim, or Martian.
Despite your best efforts to defend them, Muslims aren’t exempt from the decent human moral code that civilisation hopefully espouses - and nor should they be. If they behave in a barbaric manner, then the world has every right to say they behave in a barbaric manner - just as you‘ve said in your many examples that the world and his wife (except the Muslims of course) have behaved in a barbaric manner. You speak of prejudices, Everton, but I fear you’re looking in the wrong direction. Get that plank out of your eye and maybe then you’ll see things a little more rationally.
Question - and a simple yes or no, without the ’ifs’ and ’buts’ will do: Is the act of chopping a head off or stoning someone to death barbaric?
People who commit atrocities against another human being are barbaric - and although it’s clearly difficult for you to comprehend or to accept, that applies whether the culprit happens to be British, American, Chinese, Christian, Wiccan, Muslim, or Martian.
Despite your best efforts to defend them, Muslims aren’t exempt from the decent human moral code that civilisation hopefully espouses - and nor should they be. If they behave in a barbaric manner, then the world has every right to say they behave in a barbaric manner - just as you‘ve said in your many examples that the world and his wife (except the Muslims of course) have behaved in a barbaric manner. You speak of prejudices, Everton, but I fear you’re looking in the wrong direction. Get that plank out of your eye and maybe then you’ll see things a little more rationally.
So where are the posts decrying British barbarism, we're no better, geddit?
If you wish to preach civilisation then behave in a civilised manner, the british empire strived (alledgedly) to civilise the world, it clearly failed.
You cannot, however much it may suit you, ignore history when talking about the present.
You cannot solve a problem without trying to understand why it happened and why it happened to a certain group or individual, as soon as you recieve an answer you shout apologist, you'll achieve little with such reactionary statements.
The attitudes we possess towards women and homosexuals are brand new, it's daft to expect the rest of the world to just suddenly follow suit.
Especially when for decades we were in charge and invoking the same laws.
Imperial governments were brutal, this is the only example of governance these countries have had, introduce cold war foreign policy and proxy wars, ad you begin to see the poisonous effects of our own policies and why things are the way they are, and why they feel the way they feel about us.
Remove the plank from your own eye, you'll understand more.
Last word's all yours.
If you wish to preach civilisation then behave in a civilised manner, the british empire strived (alledgedly) to civilise the world, it clearly failed.
You cannot, however much it may suit you, ignore history when talking about the present.
You cannot solve a problem without trying to understand why it happened and why it happened to a certain group or individual, as soon as you recieve an answer you shout apologist, you'll achieve little with such reactionary statements.
The attitudes we possess towards women and homosexuals are brand new, it's daft to expect the rest of the world to just suddenly follow suit.
Especially when for decades we were in charge and invoking the same laws.
Imperial governments were brutal, this is the only example of governance these countries have had, introduce cold war foreign policy and proxy wars, ad you begin to see the poisonous effects of our own policies and why things are the way they are, and why they feel the way they feel about us.
Remove the plank from your own eye, you'll understand more.
Last word's all yours.
Everton, No answer to my simple question then, but that’s no surprise. That one’s clearly too difficult!
//we're no better, geddit?//
Ah, at last you agree that they are barbarians. Although you continually confuse religion with politics and history and produce as Birdie rightly says, semi-coherent rants, at least in this instance you’ve finally faced facts. Well done.
Oh, and my statement isn’t reactionary at all. I speak as I find, and you have proven beyond doubt that you are a religious apologist - and you are the only person here shouting.
//we're no better, geddit?//
Ah, at last you agree that they are barbarians. Although you continually confuse religion with politics and history and produce as Birdie rightly says, semi-coherent rants, at least in this instance you’ve finally faced facts. Well done.
Oh, and my statement isn’t reactionary at all. I speak as I find, and you have proven beyond doubt that you are a religious apologist - and you are the only person here shouting.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
ChatterBank16 mins ago
Sunday Express Skeleton 28Th April
Crosswords17 mins ago
An Unexpected Journey For Puss
ChatterBank25 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.