Salafists attack U.S. Embassy in Libya/Egypt over anti Islam Film [Archive]

freepalestine

12th September 2012, 05:55

U.S. Cairo, Libya missions attacked, U.S. official reported dead

Egyptians angry at film scale U.S. embassy walls
Tue, Sep 11 2012
U.S. staff dies in Libya clash

By Tamim Elyan and Omar al-Mosmari
CAIRO/BENGHAZI, Libya | Wed Sep 12, 2012 5:25am BST
(Reuters) - Protesters in Egypt and Libya attacked U.S. diplomatic missions on Tuesday in a spasm of violence that led to the death of a State Department officer at the consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi after fierce clashes at the compound.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a statement late on Tuesday, confirmed the death of the U.S. diplomat, who was not identified, and condemned the attack on the Benghazi consulate, after a day of mayhem in two countries that raised fresh questions about Washington's relations with the Arab world.

The violence in Benghazi followed protests in neighbouring Egypt where protesters scaled the walls of the Cairo embassy and tore down the American flag and burned it during protests over what demonstrators said was a U.S. film that insulted the Prophet Mohammed.

On Tuesday, Egypt's prestigious Al-Azhar mosque and seat of Sunni learning condemned a symbolic "trial" of the Prophet organized by a U.S. group including Terry Jones, a Christian pastor who triggered riots in Afghanistan in 2010 by threatening to burn the Koran.

But it was not immediately clear whether it was the event sponsored by Jones, or another, possibly related, anti-Islam production, that prompted the melee at the U.S. Embassy in Egypt, and possibly the violence in Libya.

Whatever the cause, the events appeared to underscore how much the ground in the Middle East has shifted for Washington, which for decades had close ties with Arab dictators who could be counted on to muzzle dissent.

U.S. President Barack Obama's administration in recent weeks had appeared to overcome some of its initial caution following the election of an Islamist Egyptian president, Mohamed Mursi, offering his government desperately needed debt relief and backing for international loans.

In Libya, gunmen in Benghazi attacked the U.S. diplomatic compound on Tuesday evening, clashing with Libyan security forces, officials said.

Abdel-Monem Al-Hurr, spokesman for Libya's Supreme Security Committee, said, "There is a connection between this attack and the protests that have been happening in Cairo."

But a U.S. official in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity, said he had no reason to believe the two incidents were linked.

Jones, the Christian pastor in Florida, said that on Tuesday's anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, he had released a video promoting a film that portrayed the Prophet in a "satirical" manner. Many Muslims consider any depiction of the Prophet offensive.

U.S. media, including The Wall Street Journal, reported that the film at issue, entitled "Innocence of Muslims," was produced by an Israeli-American real estate developer, but had been promoted by Jones.

In Cairo, among about 2,000 protesters gathered in the Egyptian capital was Ismail Mahmoud, who, like others, did not name the film that angered him, but called on Mursi, Egypt's first civilian president, to take action.

"This movie must be banned immediately and an apology should be made," said the 19-year-old Mahmoud, a member of the "ultras" soccer supporters who played a big role in the uprising that brought down Hosni Mubarak last year.

Once the U.S. flag was hauled down in Cairo, some protesters tore it up and displayed bits to television cameras. Others burned the remnants outside the fortress-like embassy building in central Cairo. But some protesters objected to the flag burning.

BENGHAZI CLASHES

In Benghazi, Reuters reporters on the scene could see looters raiding the empty U.S. consulate's compound, walking off with desks, chairs and washing machines.

Unknown gunmen were shooting at the buildings, while others threw handmade bombs into the compound, setting off small explosions. Small fires were burning around the compound.

Passersby entered the unsecured compound to take pictures with their mobile phones and watch the looting.

No security forces could be seen around the consulate and a previous blockade of the road leading to it had been dismantled.

"The Libyan security forces came under heavy fire and we were not prepared for the intensity of the attack," Hurr said.

Libya's interim government has struggled to impose its authority on a myriad of armed groups that have refused to lay down their weapons and often take the law into their own hands.

A number of security violations have rocked Benghazi, Libya's second biggest city and the cradle of last year's revolt that toppled Muammar Gaddafi.

The breaching of the U.S. Embassy walls in Cairo comes at a delicate time in U.S.-Egyptian relations, and as the United States appeared to be trying an intensified engagement with Mursi's government.

Last week, U.S. officials said they were close to a deal with Egypt's government for $1 billion in debt relief. Washington had also signalled its backing for a badly needed $4.8 billion loan that Egypt is seeking from the International Monetary Fund.

"I would urge you not to draw too many conclusions because we've also had some very positive developments in our relationship with Egypt," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said.

"One of the things about the new Egypt is that protest is possible," she said. "Obviously we all want to see peaceful protest, which is not what happened outside the U.S. mission, so we're trying to restore calm now."

Washington has a large mission in Egypt, partly because of a huge aid program that followed Egypt's signing of a peace treaty with Israel in 1979. The United States gives $1.3 billion to Egypt's military each year and offers the nation other aid.

Following the protest, Egypt's Foreign Ministry said it was committed to giving all embassies the protection they needed.

(Additional reporting by Hadeel Al Shalchi in Tripoli, Sarah N. Lynch and Arshad Mohammed in Washington, and Reuters reporters in Cairo and Benghazi; Writing by Edmund Blair and Warren Strobel; Editing by Michael Roddy and Peter Cooney)

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/12/uk-egypt-usa-protest-idUKBRE88A12V20120912

US official dies in Libya consulate attack in Benghazi

12 September 2012 Last updated at 04:20
US official dies in Libya consulate attack in Benghazi

The US has condemned the attack on its consulate "in the strongest terms"

A US state department official was killed and at least one other American was wounded when militiamen stormed the US consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi.

It is believed the protest was held over a US-produced film that is said to be insulting to the Prophet Muhammad.

The building was set on fire after armed men raided the compound with grenades.

Protests have also been held at the US embassy in the Egyptian capital, Cairo.

In the attack in Benghazi, unidentified armed men stormed the grounds, shooting at buildings and throwing handmade bombs into the compound.

Security forces returned fire but Libyan officials say they were overwhelmed.

"One American official was killed and another injured in the hand. The other staff members were evacuated and are safe and sound," Libya's deputy interior minister Wanis al-Sharif told AFP.

The identity of the US official killed is not yet known. The consular worker was reported to have been shot.

Social media calls
In a statement, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed the death, saying: "We are heartbroken by this terrible loss".

"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet," she said in a statement.

"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."

No-one was said to have been in the building when it was set on fire
Reports say a militia known as the Ansar al-Sharia brigade was involved in the attack, but the group has denied the claim, the BBC's Rana Jawad in Tripoli says.

Our correspondent says many people are still armed following the conflict that overthrew Muammar Gaddafi last year.

The US state department earlier said it condemned the attack "in the strongest terms" and was working with Libyan security forces to secure the compound.

The film that sparked the demonstration is said to have been produced by a 52-year-old US citizen from California named Sam Bacile, and promoted by an expatriate Egyptian Copt.

The two men are described as having anti-Islamic views.

A trailer of the low-budget movie has appeared on YouTube translated into Arabic.

There were calls on social media networks for protests against US interests in the capital, Tripoli, but no disturbances have been confirmed, our correspondent says.

'Abuse freedom of speech'
The rally followed a demonstration in Cairo, in which protesters breached the US embassy and tore down the United States flag, which was flying at half mast to mark the 9/11 attacks, and replaced it with an Islamist banner.

Thousands of protesters had gathered outside the US embassy in the Egyptian capital.

In Cairo, the US flag was torn down and set alight by the demonstrators
Egyptian protesters condemned what they said was the humiliation of the Prophet of Islam under the pretext of freedom of speech.

"Both Muslims and Christians are participating in this protest against this offence to Islam," said one protester, according to Associated Press.

The US embassy earlier issued a statement condemning "the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims - as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions".

The statement added: "We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

US Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney criticised President Barack Obama for his response to the protests.

"It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathise with those who waged the attacks," he said in a statement.

Are you in Benghazi? Did you witness the incident? Please send us your comments using the form below.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19562692

The US flag at the Embassy in Cairo is replaced with al Qaida Flags.
8gBWz6CPGzs

khad

12th September 2012, 06:00

Funny how it didn't even take a decade for this latest generation of Salafists to turn on their paymasters.

Overall, though, it's a small price to pay for having a mercenary army that can fuck up any Middle Eastern nation at will with complete deniability.

Princess Luna

12th September 2012, 15:09

According to Al Jazeera the film was made by an Israeli (Sam Bacile) and gained notoriety after it was promoted by Morris Sadek, an ex-Muslim. Also 3 are confirmed dead in Bengazi including the US ambassador, who died of smoke inhalation.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/09/20129112108737726.html

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

12th September 2012, 15:15

Too bad they didn't jam a knife up his ass.

The Douche

12th September 2012, 15:25

Too bad they didn't jam a knife up his ass.

Chill with this kind of stuff, ok.

Art Vandelay

12th September 2012, 17:08

Too bad they didn't jam a knife up his ass.

Advocating some twisted form of rape I see? Qaddafi, as much of a scum as he was, didn't deserve that; no one does.

Keath

12th September 2012, 17:50

Qaddafi, as much of a scum as he was...

Are you sure he was scum? Isn't it possible that anti-Qaddafi information is merely Western propaganda? I have heard he was simply a man who decided to use Libyan oil wealth to enrich the people of Libya as opposed to enriching Western oil companies. I'm not convinced that the anti-Qaddafi propaganda is true.

barbelo

12th September 2012, 18:43

According to Al Jazeera the film was made by an Israeli (Sam Bacile) and gained notoriety after it was promoted by Morris Sadek, an ex-Muslim.[/URL]

But this movie was made in June.
Why they would be mad about it only now?

Seems clearly like an attempt to "blame the jews" only to cover another thing...

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

12th September 2012, 18:45

Chill with this kind of stuff, ok.

That was a sarcastic reference to what happened to Gaddafi at the hands of the same salafists, not an actual wish on my part.

Advocating some twisted form of rape I see? Qaddafi, as much of a scum as he was, didn't deserve that; no one does.

Shut up

Art Vandelay

12th September 2012, 18:55

That was a sarcastic reference to what happened to Gaddafi at the hands of the same salafists, not an actual wish on my part.

Shut up

No your right comments advocating rape by knife should go completely unchallenged :rolleyes:

Don't matter if you said afterwards that it was in jest, that is something which shouldn't be joked about like that.

Art Vandelay

12th September 2012, 18:56

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

12th September 2012, 19:18

It was challenged that's why I responded to him and clarified my statement.

Red Commissar

12th September 2012, 19:32

But this movie was made in June.
Why they would be mad about it only now?

Seems clearly like an attempt to "blame the jews" only to cover another thing...

The same way any rumor spreads- word of mouth and hearsay. These things take a while to pick up steam and often only become big well after it came around.

In Egypt's case, this was because sometime within the past weeks had translated the trailer to Arabic and it got coverage in several papers and a television show, which made a lot more people aware of it.

Os Cangaceiros

12th September 2012, 20:32

Man, Terry Jones is such a dick. I mean, a film is no excuse to go around capping fools, but still, use some goddamn self-restraint Terry. Human life isn't worth making your stupid bigoted point.

Red Commissar

12th September 2012, 20:57

Man, Terry Jones is such a dick. I mean, a film is no excuse to go around capping fools, but still, use some goddamn self-restraint Terry. Human life isn't worth making your stupid bigoted point.

It seems Terry Jones was supporting the movie and trying to get people to see it. The actual funding and production of movie was handled by other people, chiefly by a guy who goes by the name of "Sam Bacile".

Dunk

13th September 2012, 02:58

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/13/anti-islamic-film-us-nakoula?CMP=twt_gu

~Spectre

13th September 2012, 05:51

Keep in mind, that the actual film is probably just a pretense. The motive was more than likely to try and discredit the dominant factions in the Libyan government. I.e., if the government condems the Salafists, then they risk being accused of a sort of blasphemy by association. If they back the Salafists, then the gain is self-evident. Likewise, if the attack provokes retaliation by the United States, then the same dynamic plays out, only amplified.

Geiseric

13th September 2012, 07:10

The american public has such a short attention span that they forget the thousands of people the US government killed in Iraq, and just think about 9/11 since it's in the news! They seriously don't understand what invading a country means for the people living inside of it, and just think OH 911 HAPPENED SO INVADING IS FINE, AMERICA!!! they don't get that the US is the reason the Taliban exists, and is the reason Saddam Hussein was able to stay in power and fight with Iran through the 80's.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

13th September 2012, 17:09

Rottenfruit

13th September 2012, 22:05

Too bad they didn't jam a knife up his ass.

You do release the man who was killed was RAPED before he was killed? So yeah that comment you made is in really bad taste

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

13th September 2012, 22:17

No, and let me tell you, that is a truly shocking realization for me. Could I have one or perhaps two more people point it out for me? I feel like it hasn't been covered yet.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

13th September 2012, 22:32

Can you go into detail about why it was supposedly in poor taste?

brigadista

13th September 2012, 22:32

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/13/egypt-libya-hollywood-film?cat=commentisfree&type=article

Did an inflammatory anti-Muslim film trailer that appeared spontaneously on YouTube prompt the attack that left four US diplomats dead, including US ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens? American officials have suggested that the assault was pre-planned, allegedly by of one of the Jihadist groups that emerged since the Nato-led overthrow of Libya's Gaddafi regime. So even though the deadly scene in Benghazi may not have resulted directly from the angry reaction to the Islamophobic video, the violence has helped realize the apocalyptic visions of the film's backers.

Produced and promoted by a strange collection of rightwing Christian evangelicals and exiled Egyptian Copts, the trailer was created with the intention of both destabilizing post-Mubarak Egypt and roiling the US presidential election. As a consultant for the film named Steve Klein said: "We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen."

The Associated Press's initial report on the trailer – an amateurish, practically unwatchable production called The Innocence of Muslims – identified a mysterious character, "Sam Bacile", as its producer. Bacile told the Associated Press that he was a Jewish Israeli real estate developer living in California. He said that he raised $5m for the production of the film from "100 Jewish donors", an unusual claim echoing Protocols of the Elders of Zion-style fantasies. Unfortunately, the extensive history of Israeli and ultra-Zionist funding and promotion of Islamophobic propaganda in the United States provided Bacile's remarkable statement with the ring of truth.

Who was Bacile? The Israeli government could not confirm his citizenship, and for a full day, no journalist was able to determine whether he existed or not. After being duped by Bacile, AP traced his address to the home of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a militant Coptic separatist and felon convicted of check fraud. On September 13, US law enforcement officials confirmed that "Sam Bacile" was an alias Nakoula used to advance his various scams, which apparently included the production of The Innocence of Muslims.

According to an actor in the film, the all-volunteer cast was deceived into believing they were acting in a benign biblical epic about "how things were 2,000 years ago". The script was titled Desert Warrior, and its contents made no mention of Muhammad – his name was dubbed into the film during post-production. On the set, a gray-haired Egyptian man who identified himself only as "Sam" (Nakoula) chatted aimlessly in Arabic with a group of friends while posing as the director. A casting notice for Desert Warrior listed the film's real director as "Alan Roberts". This could likewise be a pseudonym, although there is a veteran Hollywood hand responsible for such masterpieces as The Happy Hooker Goes Hollywood and The Sexpert who goes by the same name.

Before Nakoula was unmasked, the only person to publicly claim any role in the film was Klein, an insurance salesman and Vietnam veteran from Hemet, California, who emerged from the same Islamophobic movement that produced the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik. Styling themselves as "counter-Jihadists", anti-Muslim crusaders like Klein took their cues from top propagandists like Pamela Geller, the blogger who once suggested that Barack Obama was the lovechild of Malcolm X, and Robert Spencer, a pseudo-academic expert on Muslim radicalization who claimed that Islam was no more than "a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers". Both Geller and Spencer were labeled hate group leaders by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Klein is an enthusiastic commenter on Geller's website, Atlas Shrugged, where he recently complained about Mitt Romney's "support for a Muslim state in Israel's heartland". In July 2011, Spencer's website, Jihad Watch, promoted a rally Klein organized to demand the firing of Los Angeles County sheriff Lee Baca, whom he painted as a dupe for the Muslim Brotherhood.

On his personal Facebook page, Altar or Abolish, Klein obsesses over the Muslim Brotherhood, describing the organization as "a global network of Muslims attacking to convert the world's 6 billion people to Islam or kill them". Klein urges a violent response to the perceived threat of Islam in the United States, posting an image to his website depicting a middle-American family with a mock tank turret strapped to the roof of their car. "Can you direct us to the nearest mosque?" read a caption Klein added to the photo.

In 2011, during his campaign to oust Sheriff Baca, Klein forged an alliance with Joseph Nasrallah, an extremist Coptic broadcaster who shared his fear and resentment of the Muslim Brotherhood. Nasrallah appeared from out of nowhere at a boisterous rally against the construction of an Islamic community center in downtown Manhattan on September 11, 2010, warning a few hundred riled-up Tea Party types that Muslims "came and conquered our country the same way they want to conquer America".

Organized by Geller and Spencer, the rally was carefully timed to coincide with the peak of the midterm congressional election campaign, in which many rightwing Republicans hoped to leverage rising anti-Muslim sentiment into resentment against the presidency of Obama.

Through his friendship with Nasrallah, Klein encountered another radical Coptic separatist named Morris Sadek. Sadek has been banned from returning to his Egypt, where he is widely hated for his outrageous anti-Muslim displays. On the day of the Ground Zero rally, for instance, Sadek was seen parading around the streets of Washington, DC, on September 11, 2010, with a crucifix in one hand and a Bible implanted with the American flag in the other. "Islam is evil!" he shouted. "Islam is a cult religion!"

With another US election approaching, and the Egyptian government suddenly under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood, Klein and Sadek joined Nakoula in preparing what would be their greatest propaganda stunt to date: the Innocence of Muslims. As soon as the film appeared on YouTube, Sadek promoted it on his website, transforming the obscure clip into a viral source of outrage in the Middle East. And like clockwork, on September 11, crowds of Muslim protesters stormed the walls of the US embassy in Cairo, demanding retribution for the insult to the prophet Muhammad. The demonstrations ricocheted into Libya, where the deadly attack that may have been only peripherally related to the film occurred.

For Sadek, the chaos was an encouraging development. He and his allies had been steadfastly opposed to the Egyptian revolution, fearing that it would usher in the Muslim Brotherhood as the country's new leaders. Now that their worst fears were realized, Coptic extremists and other pro-Mubarak dead-enders were resorting to subterfuge to undermine the ruling party, while pointing to the destabilizing impact of their efforts as proof of the government's bankruptcy. As Sadek said, "the violence that [the film] caused in Egypt is further evidence of how violent the religion and people".

For far-right Christian right activists like Klein, the attacks on American interests abroad seemed likely to advance their ambitions back in the US. With Americans confronted with shocking images of violent Muslims in Egypt and Libya on the evening news, their already negative attitudes toward their Muslim neighbors were likely to harden. In turn, the presidential candidates, Obama and Romney, would be forced to compete for who could take the hardest line against Islamic "terror".

A patrician moderate constantly on the defensive against his own right flank, Romney fell for the bait, baselessly accusing Obama of "sympathiz[ing] with those who waged the attacks" and of issuing "an apology for America's values". The clumsy broadside backfired in dramatic fashion, opening Romney to strident criticism from across the spectrum, including from embarrassed Republican members of Congress. Obama wasted no time in authorizing a round of drone strikes on targets across Libya, which are likely to deepen regional hostility to the US.

A group of fringe extremists had proven that with a little bit of money and an unbelievably cynical scam, they could shape history to fit their apocalyptic vision. But in the end, they were not immune to the violence they incited.

According to Copts Today, an Arabic news outlet focusing on Coptic affairs, Sadek was seen taking a leisurely stroll down Washington's M Street on September 11, soaking in the sun on a perfect autumn day. All of a sudden, he found himself surrounded by four angry Coptic women. Berating Sadek for fueling the flames of sectarian violence, the women took off their heels and began beating him over the head.

"If anything happens to a Christian in Egypt," one of them shouted at him, "you'll be the reason!"

Krano

13th September 2012, 22:44

You forgot Yemen.

n9QohgyRJ2Q

barbelo

13th September 2012, 22:50

The same way any rumor spreads- word of mouth and hearsay. These things take a while to pick up steam and often only become big well after it came around.

In Egypt's case, this was because sometime within the past weeks had translated the trailer to Arabic and it got coverage in several papers and a television show, which made a lot more people aware of it.

Still seems very strange, such a coordinated attack on such high level targets and many embassies, specially in middle east, are heavily protected... This doesn't look like a random riot or uprising.
Yet the justification was very dubious and vague. A movie made a person no one knows the name (it's a pseudonym) but everyone is certain is an israeli jew?

Solidarity

13th September 2012, 22:59

the attach doesn't really surprise anyone

Ocean Seal

13th September 2012, 23:00

Are you sure he was scum? Isn't it possible that anti-Qaddafi information is merely Western propaganda? I have heard he was simply a man who decided to use Libyan oil wealth to enrich the people of Libya as opposed to enriching Western oil companies. I'm not convinced that the anti-Qaddafi propaganda is true.
Dude
bourgeois leaders = bourgeois

Funny how it didn't even take a decade for this latest generation of Salafists to turn on their paymasters.

Overall, though, it's a small price to pay for having a mercenary army that can fuck up any Middle Eastern nation at will with complete deniability.
The US pays its mercs only while their useful, I guess like all fired employees they resent that.

khad

13th September 2012, 23:01

Still seems very strange, such a coordinated attack on such high level targets and many embassies, specially in middle east, are heavily protected... This doesn't look like a random riot or uprising.
Yet the justification was very dubious and vague. A movie made a person no one knows the name (it's a pseudonym) but everyone is certain is an israeli jew?
The man behind the mask is an Egyptian-American Coptic Christian in California. Obviously the coward claimed to be an Israeli because he feared a backlash towards his co-religionists in his homeland and sought to deflect blame.

Now, the Christians in Egypt are totally going to get it.

Red Commissar

13th September 2012, 23:48

One of the diplomats killed was a moderator on the debate and discussion forum of somethingawful. In my discussions with him the guy constantly revealed himself to be an incredible racist and warmonger, its strange how things work out.

Yeah, I remember reading about that (though I thought he was consulate staff, not a formal diplomat). Still, it's funny with the way media tries to say the "gaming community" mourns him. Never heard of his handle(s) online, but I guess that's because I played different games I guess.

This also begs the question- you paid the entrance fee to hang out at SA ? :p

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

13th September 2012, 23:57

Yeah, I remember reading about that (though I thought he was consulate staff, not a formal diplomat). Still, it's funny with the way media tries to say the "gaming community" mourns him. Never heard of his handle(s) online, but I guess that's because I played different games I guess.

This also begs the question- you paid the entrance fee to hang out at SA ? :p

Worse than that I paid it multiple times as a result of trolling this very guy. He had a tattoo that I was rather fond of, the article in Wired about him even links to a picture of it :tt1:

Positivist

14th September 2012, 00:04

This event is only indirectly related to the actual movie. Anti-american sentiment has been fostered across the middle east for several generations now, and this movie has merely served as an excuse to act out against the United States. Why this event as opposed to others has resulted in violence is because of timing.

Other transgressions against Islamic culture or civilization came before the populace had been sufficiently empowered to act or occurred while they remained tied to the US military, either as subjects or allies.

Peoples' War

14th September 2012, 00:52

I'm unsure if this is the appropriate spot, or if there is a thread discussing this already, but some questions are raised here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/0912/There-may-be-no-anti-Islamic-movie-at-all

I am so confused by this, anyone have any info?

khad

14th September 2012, 02:17

Sectarian clashes in Egypt? Why would the director wish that on Egypt.
No, he called himself a fucking Jew because he didn't want the film traced back to him.

The director of the film is an Egyptian Christian immigrant living in California. Now the Islamists in Egypt know. Take a moment to think about what that means.

Dunk

14th September 2012, 15:41

I shared this with the Sociological Cinema this morning.

"'One of the most important positive effects of the attacks on New York and Washington was that they revealed the truth about the struggle between the Crusaders and Muslims, and they revealed the immense hostility the Crusaders feel toward us. The attacks demonstrated that America was really a wolf in sheep's clothing and revealed the truth of its hideousness. The entire world awakened from its sleep, and Muslims awoke to the importance of the doctrine that God alone defined their friendships and enmities. Thus was the spirit of brotherhood amongst Muslims strengthened, which might be considered a huge step toward the unification of Muslims under the oneness of God and toward the establishment of the rightly guided caliphate, should God will it.' - Osama bin Laden

"Now, substitute the words 'capitalist,' 'worker,' 'class struggle,' and 'freedom,' for 'Crusader,' 'Muslim,' 'God,' and 'rightly guided caliphate,' respectively, and see what you get." - Gelvin, The Modern Middle East

What also is brought to my mind is Zizek's (Lacanian) analysis of ideology. The populist fetishist mode is on display here in the recent days of these violent protests in Libya, Egypt, and Yemen - which seem somewhat desperately manufactured and exploited (especially the illiterate or near-illiterate poor being exploited) by the increasingly marginalized hardliner Salafist groups. Populist fetishism falsely identifies both antagonism and enemy, where the Jews/Crusader Plot displaces exploitative class relations as the target of resistance.

http://www.lacan.com/essays/?page_id=261

I know quite a few people roll their eyes when Zizek is brought up, but I think his work on ideology is good stuff.

Sam_b

14th September 2012, 18:06

What we think of the protests.
http://internationalsocialist.org.uk/index.php/blog/racism-and-riots-why-the-protesters-are-right/

Another day, another racist provocation from the west directed at Muslims. And, of course, another opportunity for western politicos, journalists and assorted others to portray Muslims as irrational and intolerant when they choose to protest.
There is a long history of this vicious cycle – the most memorable example being the so called ‘Salman Rushdie affair’. The version most westerners get to hear goes like this: brave artist lampoons dangerous religion and is threatened by book burning fundamentalists. The real story is that Rushdie wrote a semi-literate anti-Muslim polemic, ‘The Satanic Verses’, which portrayed Muslim men as sexual predators and Muslim women as inviting of sexual violence.
Rushdie knew what he was doing of course; his accusations are established slanders against Muslims. Liberals were sent into a senseless frenzy by protests against the book. To be frank if I found a crowd of Jews burning copies of a book that perpetrates the blood libel I’d pass some matches, my attitude to the ‘Verses’ is much the same.
Our controversy is over a similarly disgusting work that portrays Muslims as infantile, sexually perverse, violent and insane. But this is not the full context for the rioting at embassies in Libya, Egypt and Yemen. These countries have long suffered under the heel of the United States – Libya is currently the subject of violent U.S intrusion, Egypt labours under a U.S backed military dictatorship and Yemen suffers near constant bombing.
Imagine, then, the reaction in the protesters minds to Hillary Clinton’s claim that the film is “no excuse for violence” (what excuses does she have?). And no wonder U.S officials are investigating whether the killing of a U.S ambassador in Benghazi is actually a more routine political assassination un-connected to the film.
Muslims around the world have ample reason to protest outside western embassies and this vile piece of hate cinema is just more fuel for the justified fire.

Princess Luna

14th September 2012, 22:10

Sam_b

14th September 2012, 23:57

I love how it merely refers to Muslims "protesting" The Satanic Versus, and mentions nothing about threats against Rushdie's life. The people protesting outside the embassies are little more then religious fanatics throwing a fit because their super-special religious figure got made fun of. They are no different then all the Catholics who went crazy because of this

This is such an basic view of the situation, and evidently you've glazed over the main argument that these demonstrations are a product of US imperialism creating a culture and society of violence and prejudice. These things are going to happen when you attempt to put an entire people under the thumb.

barbelo

15th September 2012, 01:16

another racist provocation from the west directed at Muslims

Hum... Islamism isn't a race but a religion? And why deprive people of their ability to criticize or expose things? If the movie was really made by an american-egyptian copt, it only portrays the persecution they suffer there. Such was (or maybe still is) the life of a dhimmi in muslim countries; being called dog, forbidden to enter many places and etc. Christians were shot in shia parts of Lebanon during civil war only for being christian, the genocide in darfur happened for the same reasons, it's no surprise many druze tribes choose to ally with Israel instead of arabs in the regional wars.

And, of course, another opportunity for western politicos, journalists and assorted others to portray Muslims as irrational and intolerant when they choose to protest.

All latin american countries had american or soviet backed dictatorships during cold war, often ending in bloodshed of civilians, and yet you don't see latin americans blowing towers or killing diplomats.

Not that I disagree that muslims are painted with very bad colors in western media and in the western collective unconscious, or that they are threatened daily by foreign imperialism, but the affirmations in the text are pure demagogy: You can't paint them as helpless and poor victims either, ignoring the very serious and dangerous militancy present in their religion, and the special treatment they often demand.

Os Cangaceiros

15th September 2012, 01:46

Sounds like embassies all over the mid-east were/are under attack today. Last I heard embassies in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Morocco and Lebanon were being demonstrated against. Maybe more countries than that, too, I just heard the tail end of a news report a couple hours ago. Also a couple Marines got killed in Afghanistan, that probably doesn't have much to do with the embassy situation though.

Rafiq

15th September 2012, 01:51

Hum... Islamism isn't a race but a religion? And why deprive people of their ability to criticize or expose things? If the movie was really made by an american-egyptian copt, it only portrays the persecution they suffer there. Such was (or maybe still is) the life of a dhimmi in muslim countries; being called dog, forbidden to enter many places and etc. Christians were shot in shia parts of Lebanon during civil war only for being christian, the genocide in darfur happened for the same reasons, it's no surprise many druze tribes choose to ally with Israel instead of arabs in the regional wars.

All latin american countries had american or soviet backed dictatorships during cold war, often ending in bloodshed of civilians, and yet you don't see latin americans blowing towers or killing diplomats.

Not that I disagree that muslims are painted with very bad colors in western media and in the western collective unconscious, or that they are threatened daily by foreign imperialism, but the affirmations in the text are pure demagogy: You can't paint them as helpless and poor victims either, ignoring the very serious and dangerous militancy present in their religion, and the special treatment they often demand.

the u.s. didn't fund and support religious fundamentalist groups in latinamerica during the cold war. the dogs of the u.s. there were and are still loyal.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Le Socialiste

15th September 2012, 01:55

Hum... Islamism isn't a race but a religion?

Islam is a religion, sure, but Muslims are still some of the primary targets and recipients of hate crimes. The man who shot and killed six sikhs because they "looked" and "dressed" like Muslims (whatever that's supposed to mean) was motivated by a hatred that was as racist as it was xenophobic. And look at how the media handled it! Hell, a newspaper in Chicago printed what they called a "Turban Primer", essentially broadcasting to other racists "Hey, you shot the wrong people at that temple - here's a visual so that you don't make the same mistake next time." SocialistWorker.org (http://socialistworker.org/2012/08/13/broadcasting-bigotry) had an article that laid this perspective out quite well:

The racist subtext couldn't be more clear: this is a guide to help readers distinguish "good" turban wearers, like Sikhs, from "bad" turban wearers, like Taliban members. The RedEye and its syndicated illustrators have next to nothing to say about the wide variation of cultural and religious practices spanning the Middle East and South Asia, and how headgear might play a part in these. Instead, the paper provides help for bigots to choose the targets of their bigotry more carefully.

I've seen, heard, and/or read people refer to Muslims as "darkies," "Islamofascists," "savages," etc. Hatred towards Muslims (or people who "look" like them) is guided by racism.

And why deprive people of their ability to criticize or expose things?

What was exposed, beyond the director's own personal prejudices?

Not that I disagree that muslims are painted with very bad colors in western media and in the western collective unconscious, or that they are threatened daily by foreign imperialism, but the affirmations in the text are pure demagogy: You can't paint them as helpless and poor victims either, ignoring the very serious and dangerous militancy present in their religion, and the special treatment they often demand.

Holy shit, you can't be serious. Special treatment? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

Red Commissar

15th September 2012, 02:19

Holy shit, you can't be serious. Special treatment? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

Eh, well I suspect our user here is one of those that fear the unwashed brown masses that haven't subscribed to lofty ideals of democracy and free speech that only the west has. His selective reading on the Lebanese Civil War, ethnic-religious relations in the Middle-East, mixing up Darfur with South Sudan, or that this Copt is necessarily representative of other Copts (who, for the most part, condemn him as a sectarian hack). Plus he did the classic Sam Harris and neocon move- other people are poor, why aren't they violent towards the west? Never mind applying the actions of Salafis to the entire damn region.

Plus the guy in his avatar was a Freikorps thug (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris) and a Nazi until he tried to whack Hitler... so yeah.

Rottenfruit

15th September 2012, 02:21

This is such an basic view of the situation, and evidently you've glazed over the main argument that these demonstrations are a product of US imperialism creating a culture and society of violence and prejudice. These things are going to happen when you attempt to put an entire people under the thumb.
Been drinking the anti imp cool aid i see, No this is the result of classic religious fundamentalism, has Usa caused relegious fundamentalism in Islam, Yes but that still means religious fundamentalism is the problem here not some 50 dollar movie made in someones backyard in Usa

Sam_b

15th September 2012, 03:01

Funny how most of this 'religious fundamentalism' ended up taking roots in areas of the Middle East where US imperialism entrenched itself, right?

Rottenfruit

15th September 2012, 03:18

Funny how most of this 'religious fundamentalism' ended up taking roots in areas of the Middle East where US imperialism entrenched itself, right?
Its the perfect conditions in many islamic nations to flame relegious fundamentalism, illiteracy, povetry and such. This is also the case in Africa and i dare to say even on a faster scale then the middle east due to groups like Boko Haram in Nigeria and fundamentalist christanity in Uganda

Uganda in Africa which is majority christian nation by the way almost succedd passing a bill into law that would have homosexaulity punishble by death and the only reason it has been delayed in the senate there is because of international pressure, extreme christian and islamic fundamentalism has been thriving in Africa in the last years.

Dunk

15th September 2012, 03:35

I think the notion that communists should have sympathy or solidarity with these populist fetishist outbursts is mistaken. I certainly don't blame the outbursts on them. I understand. But I don't sympathize and I don't have solidarity with them.

I think the idea needs to be put out there that there is potentially going to be a rise of reaction to the failed or incomplete revolutions across North Africa and the Middle East.

Sasha

15th September 2012, 06:54

What Was Really Behind the Benghazi Attack?

Posted by Hisham Matar (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/bios/hisham_matar/search?contributorName=Hisham%20Matar)

Were the attacks on the United States Consulate in Benghazi, which killed the American Ambassador and three other diplomats, motivated by the film that the assailants, and many news networks, claim was their motive? Was it really religious outrage that made a few young men lose their heads and commit murder? Have any of the men who attacked the consulate actually seen the film? I do not know one Libyan who has, despite being in close contact with friends and relatives in Benghazi. And the attack was not preceded by vocal outrage toward the film. Libyan Internet sites and Facebook pages were not suddenly busy with chatter about it.
The film is offensive. It appears that it was made, rather clumsily, with the deliberate intention to offend. And if what happened yesterday was not, as I suspect, motivated by popular outrage, that outrage has now, as it were, caught up with the event. So, some might say, the fact that the attack might have been motivated by different intentions than those stated no longer matters. I don’t think so. It is important to see the incident for what it most likely was.
No specific group claimed responsibility for the attack, which was well orchestrated and involved heavy weapons. It is thought to be the work of an extremist faction who, like the Salafis, are willing to use force to exact their will. These groups have perpetrated other similar assaults in Benghazi and elsewhere in Libya. They are utlra-religious, authoritarian groups who justify their actions through selective, corrupt, and ultimately self-serving interpretations of Islam. Under Qaddafi, they kept quiet. In the early days of the revolution some of them claimed that fighting Qaddafi was un-Islamic and conveniently issued a fatwa demanding full obedience to the ruler. This is Libya’s extreme right. And, while much is still uncertain, Tuesday’s attack appears to have been their attempt to escalate a strategy they have employed ever since the Libyan revolution overthrew Colonel Qaddafi’s dictatorship. They see in these days, in which the new Libya and its young institutions are still fragile, an opportunity to grab power. They want to exploit the impatient resentments of young people in particular in order to disrupt progress and the development of democratic institutions.
Even though they appear to be well funded from abroad and capable of ruthless acts of violence against Libyans and foreigners, these groups have so far failed to gain widespread support. In fact, the opposite: their actions have alienated most Libyans.
Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was a popular figure in Libya, and nowhere more than in Benghazi. Friends and relatives there tell me that the city is mournful. There have been spontaneous demonstrations denouncing the attack. Popular Libyan Web sites are full of condemnations of those who carried out the assault. And there was a general air of despondency in the city Wednesday night. The streets were not as crowded and bustling as usual. There is a deep and palpable sense that Benghazi, the proud birthplace of the revolution, has failed to protect a highly regarded guest. There is outrage that Tripoli is yet to send government officials to Benghazi to condemn the attacks, instigate the necessary investigations and visit the Libyan members of the consulate staff who were wounded in the attack. There is anger, too, toward the government’s failure to protect hospitals, courtrooms, and other embassies that have recently suffered similar attacks in Benghazi. The city seems to have been left at the mercy of fanatics. And many fear that it will now become isolated. In fact, several American and European delegates and N.G.O. personnel have cancelled trips they had planned to make to Benghazi.
And these far-right groups that feign religious and moral outrage are being very deliberate in their progress. They have turned a blind eye to what can be argued are conservative Libyans’ more traditional concerns. They have said nothing, for example, about the widespread consumption of drugs and alcohol among Libya’s youth, about the young men who fill Tripoli’s costal cafés late into the night, descending into hopeless states of intoxication before every weekend. This is not an oversight but intentional. Infringing on the freedoms and fun of young people would provoke too much anger and, more crucially, lose the extreme right the support of their main target audience: young men. Like Benito Mussolini’s Milan fascio in nineteen-twenties Italy, Libya’s far right knows that it cannot rule through violence and fear if it does not have the young and strong on its side.
So instead they have focussed on easy targets: architecture, women, and, now, America, or, more abstractly, the West. They demolished landmarks, claiming them to be unreligious; demanded that women be banned from cafés; and now, because of a film almost no one has seen, they have attacked symbols of the American state. But perhaps this latest assault is their most cunning. Not only because it involved the loss of four innocent lives but also because it is trying cynically to capitalize on legitimate grievances.
It is not unusual to see in city squares or outside shops in Benghazi the American flag along with that of France and Turkey and Qatar, countries that, albeit almost never without ulterior motives, helped Libya’s revolution. Yet notwithstanding that sincere gratitude, many Libyans continue to associate America, because of its actions in Iraq and Afghanistan and its defense of Israeli policy, with violent imperial pursuits and double standards.
So far, at least, it appears that the attack on the American consulate has backfired. But that might change. Following a demanding revolution and the exuberances of victory, Libya has entered a phase of fatigue and cynicism. The happiest people seem to be the old and the middle-aged, those whose lives had been most affected by Qaddafi’s repression and who are now basking in vindication. The young, however, who form the majority of the population and who are the intended audience for the far right and its violent acts, are impatient, angry, and resentful. Whether secular or religious, they are pissed off. Theirs is an almost existential grievance toward history. If they are not engaged, if their energies and grievances are not attended to, then the road ahead might prove very difficult indeed. And a Libyan version of Milan fascio might yet take hold.

source: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/09/what-was-really-behind-the-benghazi-attack.html#ixzz26Vzg2Pn0

barbelo

16th September 2012, 04:13

Eh, well I suspect our user here is one of those that fear the unwashed brown masses

I'll refrain from posting in this thread from now on, seeing how my words were distorted in an attempt to create an infantile and unproductive discussion.
Wilhelm Canaris, the man in the picture of my avatar, was never a national socialist, he was actually an opposition and I recommend you to read proper history sources instead of wikipedia articles.
I concur with the post of Dunk and he expressed what I failed to write clearly.

Juche

16th September 2012, 19:05

MustCrushCapitalism

16th September 2012, 19:11

I'm surprised this isn't being discussed much. My opinion on the whole matter is very mixed - if what I hear is correct, the film is absolutely in bad taste and produced by racist bigots who would probably claim that Europe is undergoing some type of 'Arab invasion'. On the other hand, the people protesting against it are mostly far-right Islamic fundamentalists. Being no fan of religious fundamentalism, I can't really say I support most of these protesters, nor the bigots whom they protest. It's relevant to say that religious fundamentalism in the Middle East wouldn't receive near the amount of support it does now were it not for American imperialism in the region - both as a reaction to American imperialism, and something bolstered by its funding.

Le Socialiste

18th September 2012, 04:31

Conscript

18th September 2012, 05:11

That'll do it. :rolleyes:

Nice islamophobia btw.

Lol...you think that's islamophobic? What a joke.

It's a very good reason to abolish religion. The impoverished masses of the middle east, like all others, embrace their culture as one of the few things of value they have. The religious authority use it against them, like nationalists, and agitate them to fight their struggles.

The international proletariat have no use for reactionary churches and the traditionalists they have a yoke on.

Capitalist Octopus

18th September 2012, 05:38

Ok, I'm making a comment on this, but want some insight.
It seems to me that the film was merely a spark which set off decades of anger built up at America and it's allies for their destructive policies in the Middle East.

This seems like a materialist explanation, as believing that all of the anger arose simply due to a movie seems to be idealistic.

Yet at the same time, when you examine the mood on the streets, the signs, the sentiment, it seems to focus just on the movie? Plus, the protests have spread outside the Middle East.

Ok yes, Muslims outside the ME can still be enraged about America's policies and likely have family members affected, but, idk...

I just want to make sure I don't sound like a naive western trying to impose my own ideology upon protests half way around the world? Thoughts?

Le Socialiste

18th September 2012, 06:30

Lol...you think that's islamophobic? What a joke.

It's a very good reason to abolish religion. The impoverished masses of the middle east, like all others, embrace their culture as one of the few things of value they have. The religious authority use it against them, like nationalists, and agitate them to fight their struggles.

The international proletariat have no use for reactionary churches and the traditionalists they have a yoke on.

You can't abolish religion, you can only fight for the conditions in which religion itself becomes unnecessary. Get off your fucking high horse for a minute, and think. None of this "revolutionary" posturing about abolishing religion. If you think that's part of our role then you're dead wrong. I'm no fan of religion either, but I still recognize that Muslims are discriminated against, subjected to acts of violence and intimidation, and reduced to their "impoverished" status because of capitalism - who's representatives often play up religious and/or spiritual divisions in order to weaken and divide the working-class. Your attitude surrounding religion is weak. Juche's comment reeks of the kind of biases I hear day in and day out from "cultured, well meaning" progressives who think they know more than the "savage, unwashed" masses. I still think he's a troll, but whatev.

Rugged Collectivist

18th September 2012, 06:34

Robocommie

18th September 2012, 07:12

I often doubt that the movie is behind all of this. It makes no sense that people would stage massive protests and storm embassies over a fucking movie. I think the media is putting too much attention on the movie to make Muslims look like stupid zealots.

And in fact it is this media perception which has so inundated our understanding of the Middle East that even leftists will subscribe to bullshit stereotypes, as you see here in this thread. There's genuine fanaticism in the Middle East, but it is far from unopposed domestically, and the extent to which it is appealing is the extent to which it promises Muslims who face economic privation, political repression and war a chance to escape that.

Jimmie Higgins

18th September 2012, 08:28

And in fact it is this media perception which has so inundated our understanding of the Middle East that even leftists will subscribe to bullshit stereotypes, as you see here in this thread. There's genuine fanaticism in the Middle East, but it is far from unopposed domestically, and the extent to which it is appealing is the extent to which it promises Muslims who face economic privation, political repression and war a chance to escape that.Yeah and this case is reported here in a contextual vacuum as if SCAF hadn't been using anti-Coptic sentiments, as if US policies and connections in the region had nothing to do with this and don't cause any sort of resentment among people.

Jimmie Higgins

18th September 2012, 09:03

Hum... Islamism isn't a race but a religion? And why deprive people of their ability to criticize or expose things? If the movie was really made by an American-egyptian copt, it only portrays the persecution they suffer there.No denying Coptic repression in Egypt, but this movie is not about that, in the filmmaker's own words it was an attack on a religion, not an expose of Coptic oppression. It was also financed by horrible racists in the US like Pam Geller.

All latin american countries had american or soviet backed dictatorships during cold war, often ending in bloodshed of civilians, and yet you don't see latin americans blowing towers or killing diplomats.Yes you did! In Latin America (where the US first declared a "war on terror" back in the 1980s) and in Europe and in Asia. Terrorist tactics were also primarily used by non-religious groups like secular Palestinian groups, the IRA, Pro-USSR Marxists, pro-US terrorists in cuba and so on.

Not that I disagree that muslims are painted with very bad colors in western media and in the western collective unconscious, or that they are threatened daily by foreign imperialism, but the affirmations in the text are pure demagogy: You can't paint them as helpless and poor victims either, ignoring the very serious and dangerous militancy present in their religion, and the special treatment they often demand.Religion is not the source of any of this any more than religion is the reason for past UK control of Ireland and resistance there.

Hit The North

18th September 2012, 11:07

I doubt 99% of the people angry about it even watched it.

If they had watched it they would be even angrier. The film (I've seen a 15 minute segment on YouTube) was made with the obvious intention of insulting Islam, depicting Mohammed as a womanizing and petty airhead and his followers as murderous paedophiles. It is also possibly the most badly made film I've ever seen.

Crux

18th September 2012, 11:28

Manic Impressive

18th September 2012, 11:45

If they had watched it they would be even angrier. The film (I've seen a 15 minute segment on YouTube) was made with the obvious intention of insulting Islam, depicting Mohammed as a womanizing and petty airhead and his followers as murderous paedophiles. It is also possibly the most badly made film I've ever seen.
How did people even hear about it though? The first I heard was of a protest in Egypt about some badly, cheaply made film by some complete unknown in America. It's not like this film would have even been seen or heard if it hadn't been for the protests and news coverage. Unless I have the wrong impression and it is either being shown on TV or in cinemas in the US.

It would be like Muslims holding protests because stormfront exists. It would only serve to bring more attention to it. Surely the best thing for everyone is if it were just ignored and consigned to the dustbin of history with all the other crap.

To me it seems this film is acting as a propaganda weapon for two reactionary sides.

Hit The North

18th September 2012, 11:51

How did people even hear about it though?

There's this thing called the internet... apparently, it's global.

Manic Impressive

18th September 2012, 12:00

So why aren't they protesting about stormfront or any other of the millions of reactionary crap that's on the internet?

Hit The North

18th September 2012, 12:08

I don't know, maybe you should write a letter and tip them off about it.

Manic Impressive

18th September 2012, 12:11

Why would anyone want to do that though? The only possible reason would be to actually draw attention to it, which invariably brings them more supporters. I don't think we should be happy about one set of fuck wits helping another bunch of fuck wits to promote reactionary propaganda.

Yazman

18th September 2012, 12:13

So why aren't they protesting about stormfront or any other of the millions of reactionary crap that's on the internet?

What the hell kind of statement is this? WHY would they be protesting about Stormfront? They're not revolutionary leftists. Our politics are even less common in the middle east & northern africa than any other region, why would they give a shit about reactionary right wingers or nazis?

Manic Impressive

18th September 2012, 12:24

Yazman

18th September 2012, 12:32

eh, coz stormfront is exactly the sort of place where this crap would be. Other people besides The Left wing oppose nazis. I don't really see your objection. But then again it was only an example, please substitute stormfront with any other offensive piece of vacuous crap you can find on the internet that is more to your liking.

edit

incidentally this is exactly the point I am making

They aren't protesting "vacuous crap on the internet" though. The internet and its contents isn't the issue here.

Also, I don't buy the line of "just forget about it and it will go away" - by that logic we shouldn't ever talk about racism or racial issues, or sexism & gender issues, because hey - the only true path to equality is to just never talk about it, never protest, and never draw attention to it!

Stifling discussion doesn't make problems go away, and it won't make racism against arabs go away, nor will it make prejudice against their culture go away, it won't stop people discriminating against muslims because of the "al qaeda bogeyman" and it won't make American & European imperialism in the middle east go away (which I think are obviously the real issues here, not some stupid fucking movie).

Manic Impressive

18th September 2012, 12:38

A problem has been made out of nothing. Barely anyone would have heard about it except for the protests. All the protests have done is further the propaganda.

(which I think are obviously the real issues here, not some stupid fucking movie).
read the title of the thread and the article. The movie and the protests about the movie is the issue being discussed in this thread

Manic Impressive

18th September 2012, 13:09

Yazman

18th September 2012, 13:21

A problem has been made out of nothing. Barely anyone would have heard about it except for the protests. All the protests have done is further the propaganda.

read the title of the thread and the article. The movie and the protests about the movie is the issue being discussed in this thread

Obviously, and that's what I'm TALKING about. I'm saying that the motivations behind the mass protests are clearly much more deep than some stupidass movie - there are international, social & cultural issues that run deeply and if you think the only reason they're all out there is because of a movie then you need to think more deeply & critically about the situation.

As far as worker deaths, I'm not sure what you're talking about but the majority of deaths at the protests are from guards & police shooting at largely peaceful protestors. The embassy attack in Libya was clearly politically motivated and as some reports have shown was planned beforehand anyway.

I think to portray this as simply "sectarian religious fundamentalism" reflects a naive view of the situation, no offense. It's evidently part of the reason but I don't think it's the primary motivation here at all, especially not when these sorts of protests have been happening with some regularity since well before this film ever existed. It's just a jumping off point/the straw that broke the camel's back. What you have here are people sick of european & american imperialists interfering in their countries' politics and outright invading when they decide they feel like it, not to mention those protestors in Australia for example who have been discriminated against in sometimes quite extreme ways, arab muslims who have had to deal with racism against them for being arabs, and discrimination against them for being muslims.

Also it seems pretty underhanded to simply try to paint everybody here as "anti-worker" for discussing these protests. Furthermore, many, if not most of the protestors are themselves workers - just being religious, even zealously so, does not mean somebody is not a worker. I am a committed atheist but it is naive to think that we will ever make any progress as revolutionary leftists if we expect everybody else to be atheists as well.

Peoples' War

18th September 2012, 13:35

When it comes down to it, it's quite obvious that this, as Yaz says, runs deeper than a film. To accept that it is just inherently because of religion, or "Islams violent nature" is to be completely ignorant to the entire situation.

I think it's time for some people to read Ernst Bloch's "Atheism in Christianity" and to watch this:

yH2T6a_2gBo

Note: If the video didn't imbed, can an admin imbed it for me?

**Moderator (Yazman) note: I fixed the embed for you. Embedding youtube vids here works weirdly: in the URL, see where it says "watch?v=" and after = comes a combination of letters and numbers? Well you embed a video, you copy that part, then put it between the youtube tags.**

James Connolly

18th September 2012, 14:03

I watched it. It was a very low quality movie that even college kids, on their free time, could have done.

Manic Impressive

18th September 2012, 14:29

Obviously, and that's what I'm TALKING about. I'm saying that the motivations behind the mass protests are clearly much more deep than some stupidass movie - there are international, social & cultural issues that run deeply and if you think the only reason they're all out there is because of a movie then you need to think more deeply & critically about the situation.

As far as worker deaths, I'm not sure what you're talking about but the majority of deaths at the protests are from guards & police shooting at largely peaceful protestors. The embassy attack in Libya was clearly politically motivated and as some reports have shown was planned beforehand anyway.

I think to portray this as simply "sectarian religious fundamentalism" reflects a naive view of the situation, no offense. It's evidently part of the reason but I don't think it's the primary motivation here at all, especially not when these sorts of protests have been happening with some regularity since well before this film ever existed. It's just a jumping off point/the straw that broke the camel's back. What you have here are people sick of european & american imperialists interfering in their countries' politics and outright invading when they decide they feel like it, not to mention those protestors in Australia for example who have been discriminated against in sometimes quite extreme ways, arab muslims who have had to deal with racism against them for being arabs, and discrimination against them for being muslims.
Well if you're going to turn this into an anti-imperialism issue then you're still wrong as all you're doing is taking one bourgeois side over another bourgeois side. As you admit yourself they have nothing to do with "our" politics. They are not protesting on class lines. They are protesting for their right to be exploited by people who look like them rather than people who don't. Whoopdeefuckingdo.

In either case the only correct position is to denounce both as being against the interests of the working class.

Paul Cockshott

18th September 2012, 15:17

I think to portray this as simply "sectarian religious fundamentalism" reflects a naive view of the situation, no offense. It's evidently part of the reason but I don't think it's the primary motivation here at all, especially not when these sorts of protests have been happening with some regularity since well before this film ever existed. It's just a jumping off point/the straw that broke the camel's back. What you have here are people sick of european & american imperialists interfering in their countries' politics and outright invading when they decide they feel like it, not to mention those protestors in Australia for example who have been discriminated against in sometimes quite extreme ways, arab muslims who have had to deal with racism against them for being arabs, and discrimination against them for being muslims.

That also seems a naive view on your part. These protests are organised by right wing political groups and the objective, to impose a religiously motivated censorship, is completely reactionary and pre-democratic.

Total

18th September 2012, 15:20

I'm affraid to help some of you out of a dream, this isn't the worst movie.. it's actually better then 'fitna' a 'movie' made by geert wilders, check it out and compare, topic is the same though..

To those wondering why this one took such a flight, again take a look at how things went with fitna. Before the actual release information about the movie 'leaked', for example, 'a page is ripped out of the koran at the end..' (this actually didn't happen, although you see a koran, the tekst after the blackout says the ripping sound is a phone book)

people in holland where worried about this movie comming out, but is was so terribely bad the movie is a joke, and so the news went away, everybody went on with their own buisness. Not the effect geert hoped for no doubt. (wilders actually took a wrong picture in his movie, instead of the killer of theo van gogh he took the picture of a rapper who looks similar)

and just a little speculation.. wilders is funded from the US, went there recently, releases books over there and prommised us all a sequal..

Yazman

18th September 2012, 15:30

That also seems a naive view on your part. These protests are organised by right wing political groups and the objective, to impose a religiously motivated censorship, is completely reactionary and pre-democratic.

Well yeah, I'm not taking the side of the religious, I'm more trying to clarify that I don't think it's about the film. Religious motivations may be reactionary however I think there is plenty about it that isn't necessarily reactionary - probably a lot of people turn up not because salafists told them to but because they are genuinely angered.

@Manic Depressive - essentially I agree, but I think it's important to understand why it's happening and not simply fall into a media trap of portraying them all as zealous idiots when I think in reality religion is only a part of it, and not the whole.

Keath

18th September 2012, 16:51

The protests were in response to the film. There are stuff that are worth protesting about and there are things worth protesting about no matter where you are in the world however they were not protesting over any of those things worth protesting about. They were protesting about a movie. You can make of that what you will but that is what it is.

Manic Impressive

18th September 2012, 17:12

Well yeah, I'm not taking the side of the religious, I'm more trying to clarify that I don't think it's about the film. Religious motivations may be reactionary however I think there is plenty about it that isn't necessarily reactionary - probably a lot of people turn up not because salafists told them to but because they are genuinely angered.
They are angered because they want to be exploited only by Arabic people?

@Manic Depressive - essentially I agree, but I think it's important to understand why it's happening and not simply fall into a media trap of portraying them all as zealous idiots when I think in reality religion is only a part of it, and not the whole.
Of course all unrest has economic reasons behind it. But same goes for the Nazis and far-right groups marching and protesting. That doesn't mean just because their reasons are the result of underlying economic conditions that we should not denounce them.

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

Hit The North

18th September 2012, 17:27

As Yas argues, pointing to the impact of imperialism and the resistance to that impact, is part of a materialist explanation, not an excuse to take sides. Political Islam is probably the best example of a reactionary response to Western imperialism, but the fact that it is reactionary does not negate the fact that it is a genuine response. Part of the Islamist response is a deep hostility to Western values and its cultural products which are deemed unIslamic, immoral, etc. This film which depicts Mohamed as a kind of blood-thirsty and promiscuous playboy plays straight to the gut of Islamist perceptions of the corrupt nature of Western values and their polluting effect.

Of course, understanding that doesn't mean we have to support the protests any more than it means we have to defend the arseholes who made the movie.

Krano

18th September 2012, 17:35

That'll do it. :rolleyes:

Nice islamophobia btw.
You can't keep throwing that word around for criticizing religion, this often happens when you try to criticize Israel you get called anti-semitic pretty much automatically for it.
Over 50 people have died so far because of one movie that nobody even soo, this should not be acceptable behavior for any religion.

Peoples' War

18th September 2012, 19:11

You can't keep throwing that word around for criticizing religion, this often happens when you try to criticize Israel you get called anti-semitic pretty much automatically for it.
Over 50 people have died so far because of one movie that nobody even soo, this should not be acceptable behavior for any religion.
Have you read anything anyone has been saying here?

Keath

18th September 2012, 22:37

Of course all unrest has economic reasons behind it. But same goes for the Nazis and far-right groups marching and protesting. That doesn't mean just because their reasons are the result of underlying economic conditions that we should not denounce them.

This basically sums it up. These protests in "the muslim world"(I don't like the idea of a religion having any claim on a particular territory) are right wing fascist protests.

maskerade

18th September 2012, 22:54

Yea...lets blame those pesky muslims who don't appreciate our western civilization! our civilization that systematically criminalizes an entire heterogeneous group that share a prophet while having different beliefs; our civilization that kills entire muslim families with unmanned drone attacks; our civilization that continuously presents arabs and other muslims as radical terrorists on a day to day basis in popular culture; our civilization that continuously abducts INNOCENT muslims, put them on rendition flights to a torture base in Cuba given to the Americans by a capitalist dictator in the fucking 50s; our civilization that continuously engages in dirty imperialist tactics in predominantly muslim countries and overthrows leaders for 'stability' while in practice destabilizing entire regions.

these people have been continuously demonized for decades, had their beliefs simplified and force-fit into some terrorist-savage discourse that further justifies their subordinate place in imperialist geopolitics.

fuck off.

maskerade

18th September 2012, 22:57

Red Commissar

18th September 2012, 23:26

Newsweek magazine had a weird episode

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2012/09/newsweek-muslim-rage.jpg

And yes, that is the islamophobe Ms. Ali with the headlining article. But the issue is more with, once again, saying that *all* Muslims are doing this, thinking of it as one homogenous mass. This has created an amusing instance at twitter, with users mocking newsweek by using their hashtag #muslimrage. (Newsweek even asked for comments under that, since it was the issue's title. Now they got all the sarcasm and jokes at their expense).

Crux

18th September 2012, 23:26

You can't keep throwing that word around for criticizing religion, this often happens when you try to criticize Israel you get called anti-semitic pretty much automatically for it.
Over 50 people have died so far because of one movie that nobody even soo, this should not be acceptable behavior for any religion.
I...
I mean, surely this is just extremely poor phrasing on your part and you were trying to say something different from what it looks like, right?

doesn't even make sense

18th September 2012, 23:34

I'm just kind of baffled by how clueless it is to say that the protestors are protesting "just because" of the movie. These kinds of protests in the Muslim world are periodic and grow out of a laundry list of grievances many Muslims have with "the West". I know that modern media encourage a very short term awareness but come on, the last time this happened was really not a long time ago.

Sasha

19th September 2012, 00:38

while i def think there are a bunch of bourgeois power players pulling strings (on all sides, MB, "salafists", al-qaida but also well funded neo-con anti-islam groups) i thought this analysis by an Seattle cab driver made a bunch of sense;

Why Are Arab and African Muslims So Upset About the Dumb Video?

Posted by Charles Mudede (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/charles-mudede/Author?oid=237) on Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 8:42 AM

I got this answer from a Coptic Eritrean who is a marine biologist by training but makes a living as a taxi driver:
Before coming to the America I lived in Saudi Arabia and other countries in North Africa. And what I can tell you is this: The people in these counties, and also countries in East Africa, cannot believe that people in America actually speak for themselves and not for the government. Why? Because what they have seen all their lives is only the government speaking. When something is on TV, it is the government speaking. When something is in the newspapers, it is the government speaking. You see what I mean? Something on the internet, it is the government speaking again. The government never allows anyone else to speak. So, they think it is the same in America. That video about their prophet doing very bad, very evil things? That has to be the government speaking. So they go to the American embassy and try to burn it to the ground. They just can't believe a person can actually speak for themselves and not be in trouble with the government. This is what is going on. His answer to why he is a taxi driver and not working in some capacity as a biologist: "Because it makes more money. I could go back home to Africa and get a nice job, but I would not make as much money as driving you and other people around Seattle."

cynicles

19th September 2012, 01:04

What are the numbers like at these protests? I know that there is a continual and growing number of labour strikes and student strike going on at this very same time that receive no attention and those people haven't felt the need to leave them to join these religious fanatics. I think this whole thing is being blown up by a minority of Saudi backed salafists seeking to push the Ikhwan out by being holier than thou and pushing the brotherhood further to the right. I don't think these people would have even come out is these organizations hadn't spread the word. So I don't think these protests are really representative of much of the so-called muslim world and they're nothing more then power plays by the salafists fighting to edge out the islamo-capitalist MB.

black magick hustla

19th September 2012, 01:18

can't feel much sympathy for some dumb politico looking for no. 1 getting slain in a shitstorm instigated by the Cause he claims to protect. This kind of stuff amounts to calling arabs sand niggers. However, I am not going to put myself behind the cliffites and their gross apologism for wahabism.

Robocommie

19th September 2012, 02:54

What a bunch of racist, imperialist shitbags the staff at Newsweek is.

Robocommie

19th September 2012, 03:05

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/09/17/161315765/muslim-rage-explodes-on-twitter-but-in-a-funny-way-yes-really

It's good to fight stupidity with humor though. Apparently a lot of Muslim folks have been mocking the hell out of Newsweek and Ayaan Hirsi Ali by using #muslimrage as a Twitter hashtag, making jokes. Some highlights from the article:

"#muslimrage (https://twitter.com/search/?src=hash&q=%23muslimrage) when you order halal chicken and find out the chef cooked it in alcohol!" — Hassan Sultan.

"When you realize that if you have a 5 o'clock shadow it can be deemed a security threat." — Taufiq Rahim.

"i dont feel any rage....does that mean i am not muslim?#someonegetmeadrink (https://twitter.com/search/?src=hash&q=%23someonegetmeadrink) #MuslimRage (https://twitter.com/search/?src=hash&q=%23MuslimRage) " — Ramah Kudaimi.

"You go to a football watch party and all these is to eat is pepperoni pizza and beer battered chicken wings #MuslimRage (https://twitter.com/search/?src=hash&q=%23MuslimRage)" — Waliya.

And my absolute favorite:

Lost your kid Jihad at the airport. Can't yell for him. #MuslimRage (https://twitter.com/search/?src=hash&q=%23MuslimRage) — Leila (retweeted 1000 times).

Keath

19th September 2012, 03:29

Robocommie

19th September 2012, 03:39

That also seems a naive view on your part. These protests are organised by right wing political groups and the objective, to impose a religiously motivated censorship, is completely reactionary and pre-democratic.

Are you actually trying to argue that this all really is about a film, and that it's not at all about imperialism, but in fact these folks just hate freedom? Because I think you're playing in really nicely to the jingoist's narrative on this one.

Robocommie

19th September 2012, 03:42

I don't respect religion, I don't respect superstition, I don't respect peoples belief in the tooth-fairy, I don't respect peoples belief in Santa Claus, and religion is the opiate of the masses whether it is in the first world or the third world. I don't think muslims are any worse than christians but they are just as bad and so I am not going to avoid criticizing irrational behavior even though that irrational behavior is being done by an oppressed people. I am against western oppression of muslims but I don't view muslim as a real identity. I would prefer to refer to them as just simply people. I am against people as identifying as having a religious identity because it divides us. There are no christians, jews, or muslims... there are just people and some people pretend to be christians, jews, and muslims but those aren't real identities... they are just beliefs in fairy tales.

Wow, that's really awesome how you think it's your place to define what is legitimate or not for other people's identities. I mean I guess it doesn't matter what you think divides us or not, because you're just one guy and what you're for or against doesn't matter jack shit to these people's lives. You should definitely keep preaching about rationality though, as if that's something that is actually real, and isn't just some cultural prejudice you've inherited from the Enlightenment.

RadioRaheem84

19th September 2012, 05:03

I remember flipping the channel to Wolf Blitzer on CNN and he was describing a scene of angry Pakistani protesters burning an American and Israeli flag as something that happens periodically, as if this was just a nonchalant way Muslims tend to do.

The idea that all of this is because of a single stupid movie is so ludicrous. The idiots on CNN and MSNBC kept interchanging clips of protests in one area supposedly about the movie with clips of protests happening in Egypt regarding the political climate. Apparently, any large gathering of angry Arabs is all the same to them?

What we are experiencing in the US is propaganda in PURE form these days.

Geiseric

19th September 2012, 09:05

Muslims aren't pissed about some stupid fucking movie. In fact the point of the movie was to make them direct their anger at jews instead of the west, which is why the original claim that it was made by a jewish director was widespread.

They are pissed that the U.S. and NATO regularly invade their homes and kill anybody they want, and that they are going to end up working as slaves, as Iraquis now do, if imperialism is triumphant.

Anyways assuming that this is about a movie is about as bourgeois as it gets, and it reveals an incredibly chauvinistic, white centric view about muslims with anybody who holds that view of the recent riots. The next logical step is full on white man's burden, civilizing the craaazzy brown people. I mean not many people here, myself included, will ever be as blindly angry as most Muslims are. It's due not to religeous and cultural bigotry towards muslims, but also huge apathy on the part of white people towards Muslims being killed by the white man's government. That's the way people see it.

Hit The North

19th September 2012, 09:59

Muslims aren't pissed about some stupid fucking movie.

But they obviously are pissed about this stupid movie. This doesn't mean that the scale of the protests are not linked to deeper issues, however.

Philosophos

19th September 2012, 13:22

James Connolly

19th September 2012, 15:41

Shouldn't we partially support these people? I know they're Reactionaries, but they're the only real threat to neo-Liberalism today.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

It would also benefit the Revolutionary movement if there was another oil embargo like in 1973.

Yea...lets blame those pesky muslims who don't appreciate our western civilization! our civilization that systematically criminalizes an entire heterogeneous group that share a prophet while having different beliefs; our civilization that kills entire muslim families with unmanned drone attacks; our civilization that continuously presents arabs and other muslims as radical terrorists on a day to day basis in popular culture; our civilization that continuously abducts INNOCENT muslims, put them on rendition flights to a torture base in Cuba given to the Americans by a capitalist dictator in the fucking 50s; our civilization that continuously engages in dirty imperialist tactics in predominantly muslim countries and overthrows leaders for 'stability' while in practice destabilizing entire regions.

these people have been continuously demonized for decades, had their beliefs simplified and force-fit into some terrorist-savage discourse that further justifies their subordinate place in imperialist geopolitics.

fuck off.
I agree with this gentlemen completely. We must realize that agitating Islamic people only leads to them gaining a consciousness that pulls them closer to their kin. Although I'd have thought that would have lead them to Baathism, or other pan-Arab ideologies, the current environment suggest pan-Islamism. You also won't find too many pro-Baathist Imams around anymore, although they were popular in the past.

Ocean Seal

19th September 2012, 15:43

I haven't even seen the movie. But I just have to say. This is just one more reason why religion should be abolished.

I doubt 99% of the people angry about it even watched it. They probably just took the word of someone that said it was anti-islamic and went with it and spread it around like that.
Maybe they took it as kicking them while their down, as the first world trying to demonize them while occupying them, and delegitimizing their struggles elsewhere. I don't know, maybe just maybe that drew a bit of contempt and the film just pushed them over the top.

Thirsty Crow

19th September 2012, 18:21

Shouldn't we partially support these people? I know they're Reactionaries, but they're the only real threat to neo-Liberalism today.
What does "partially support" here mean?
And why exactly you think that only a regionally (and religiously) defined group of people represent the only real threat to neoliberalism?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.Something worthwile to remember, the capitalist class is a global class, and no shabbby and ill conceived formulas like this can contribute to this basic understanding.
The enemy isn't solely "western imperialism".

It would also benefit the Revolutionary movement if there was another oil embargo like in 1973.How so?

#FF0000

19th September 2012, 18:35

I like how people are using "they" as if it isn't less than 1% of Muslims protesting the films in any capacity in the first place.

James Connolly

19th September 2012, 20:12

What does "partially support" here mean?
And why exactly you think that only a regionally (and religiously) defined group of people represent the only real threat to neoliberalism?

By that, I mean recognition of the movement, rather than lowering their standard and refusing to recognize them.
As noted enough to be inferred, they are the largest current threat to neoliberalism.

How so?The Proletariat will suffer a massive degradation in living standards, which will greatly agitate them out of the clout of the Labor Aristocracy.

#FF0000

19th September 2012, 20:22

The Proletariat will suffer a massive degradation in living standards, which will greatly agitate them out of the clout of the Labor Aristocracy.

1) things getting bad =/= 'class consciousness'
2) things are already bad
3) WE REMEMBER HOW WELL THAT WORKED IN 1973 RIGHT GUYS HEH

Ostrinski

19th September 2012, 20:47

The Proletariat will suffer a massive degradation in living standards, which will greatly agitate them out of the clout of the Labor Aristocracy.People still think this?

I'm afraid history is not on your side. A cursory glance at the history of social movements and political upheavals shows that there have been plenty of times where there has been massive and widespread suffering and affliction with no organic political outcome. All successful movements have been the result not of a certain ill, but of the ability of politically educated folks to be able to explain why these ills exist and provide a valid alternative. Take the French Revolution, for example. Sure you had many starving people and sure you even had riots and violence. But that's all it would have been without the bourgeois intellectuals who were able to spearhead the discontent.

All the same, before WWII, when people were living in the mire, capitalism was quite safe from harm, because the left was non-existent. Though during WWI, when the economy was quite prosperous and healthy, you had many people, both communist and bourgeois, marveling at the thought that capitalism might be living its last days, as a result of the strength of organized labor and socialist politics across America and Europe.

That is why it is important to have a system of political organization and education among the self-organized class conscious working class to make revolution possible and able to succeed.

If we have a policy of just throwing the workers out to the wolves of deteriorating living conditions, access to basic needs, etc., we might as well be opportunistic demagogues, for that kind of environment always provides a convenient platform for those types.

Os Cangaceiros

19th September 2012, 21:46

I would disagree with the claim of some here that the protests are portrayed in American media as only being about a film trailer on the internet. I've been following the news in the last few days and actually the only voice out there that is steadfast in denying any motive for these protests other than the film is the White House, and it's not hard to see why: because 1) if it's not just about a movie, then there must be some measure of blame placed upon US policy, and 2) they're trying to counter the idea that the US government had a hand in releasing this film, which is a suspicion being enflamed by opportunists in the middle east, where state-sponsored bigotry (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389677/) is nothing new.

Os Cangaceiros

19th September 2012, 21:56

There is also the issue of three workers and another guy being killed because of protests called by a right wing preacher who was reacting to another right wing preacher faking a movie.

But I suppose workers deaths caused by sectarian religious fundamentalism are of no consequence on Revleft.

If you're talking about the incident at the embassy in Libya, it's looking more and more like some death squad just rolled up and took those mofos out in a pre-planned hit. Probably didn't have anything to do with the Mohammed film.

Manic Impressive

19th September 2012, 22:23

If you're talking about the incident at the embassy in Libya, it's looking more and more like some death squad just rolled up and took those mofos out in a pre-planned hit. Probably didn't have anything to do with the Mohammed film.
Fair enough I was only going off the media reports I'd heard and hadn't really gone in depth on. A lot of the stuff I've read since seems to confirm what you're saying here.

Keath

19th September 2012, 22:42

These protests are being publicized by the media in order to convince the western public to support imperialistic policies because they are trying to convince people in the west that the people of the arab world are savages. The people of the arab world are not savages and these protests should not be publicized by the media to the extent that they are being publicized. However these protests are right wing demonstrations where the proletariat is being misled into supporting a right wing agenda that is not in their own interest. So it definitely is not out of bounds to criticize these protests however the western media is certainly exploiting these protests for its own imperialistic ends and so I can understand why people might want to try and stifle criticism of the protests for fear of spreading imperialistic ideologies. These protests are bad but they aren't any worse than the Tea Parties in the USA.

James Connolly

20th September 2012, 00:18

Ultraleftist trolls! When I'm purged, I will be chanting the name of Lenin as a solid resistance to the non-scientific foundations of Left Communism.

People still think this?

Yeah, and when did you learn about that theory that you'd so willingly wish it away as though it is completely redundant. Mao invested a considerable amount of time in this very theory, so I'd show some respect, although I myself regard Mao as a Revisionist and a self-styled Marxist.

maskerade

20th September 2012, 04:00

I'd just like to say that anyone that dismisses these protests simply because they are 'islamic'/'muslim' "in nature" is completely misunderstanding what is happening. being 'anti-religion' gives you absolutely no leftist credentials in a situation like this. religion is a simplistic category that escapes grounding in reality. this should be especially obvious for leftists; anyone who has a decent grasp of imperialism knows that the contemporary situation, as it is being played out in bourgeoisie media, favors foreign intervention into these 'pre-democratic' regions in order to institute forms of governance more conducive to Western capitalist interests. why is it that right now Western people are indirectly forced to defend an abhorrent film that in every conceivable leftist paradigm should be vehemently criticized?

Just because these protests have taken a form that we as leftists disagree with on an abstract level does not mean they should be violently criticized. the views of some posters in regards to what's happening are absolutely disgusting - a poster in this thread called these protests 'pre-democratic' (!), and if you think such a statement is anything but blatantly racist you should re-evaluate your ideological standing.

we cannot put ourselves in the shoes of someone else - it is impossible to escape our own conditioning, self-taught or otherwise. a lot of these islamophobic responses are extremely simplistic and simply create an 'othering' effect that separates the historical circumstances of these reactions from their contemporary manifestation.

ask yourself: if 'communism' was a more relevant social current, how would we react to a similar brutalization that would be continuously repeated day after day, for years on end? wouldn't we eventually reach a breaking point?

as leftists and revolutionaries we need to be much, much more reflexive in order to be taken seriously among the oppressed that we claim to represent.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

20th September 2012, 04:13

To play a little bit of devil's advocate, there is a strange double standard here in the seeming apologism for Salafi reactionaries. Similar media is made regarding all faiths and there is never any leftist outrage about that. On the contrary, normally degrading prophets and religious leaders is lauded as an anti-reactionary cause by many on the left. Is it really worse to depict Muhammad in such a manner than Jesus Christ, Moses, Joseph Smith, Buddha, Shiva and Krishna? A Wahabist might think that of course, but why would a secular leftist who sees spiritual issues as secondary to the material needs of the exploited masses? Out of respect I would not insult any of these figures because I respect people's sacred traditions but it seems to be taken as a less serious issue by many on the Left when these other traditions are assaulted. Isn't it strange that the film is a nono, but Spanish anarchists desecrating Catholic imagery is fine?

Personally, I find the newsweek headline much more troubling than a D-rate low-production value POS which nobody would have ever watched had some Salafi news channel not exploited the situation for their own gain. Newsweek is actually a large paper, and is not just making nasty comments about a prophet who died 1400 years ago but actually going so far as to stereotype and judge all the current people who follow the word of that prophet. I think the stereotyping of modern Muslims is far more relevant to modern Imperialism than a dispute over the nature of an ancient prophet, especially when the voices attacking the prophet are so pathetic and amateurish.

That said, the video is pathetic and disgusting, and is obviously playing on nasty orientalist tropes. Pamela Geller and her ilk love trolling the Muslim community and their vile rhetoric should be countered insofar as it is used to marginalize Muslims.

Beeth

20th September 2012, 06:45

1) things getting bad =/= 'class consciousness'
2) things are already bad
3) WE REMEMBER HOW WELL THAT WORKED IN 1973 RIGHT GUYS HEH

I think james has a point. We can't be puritans and wait till a perfect revolutionary force takes birth. We work with what we have. If reactionary forces fight against imperialists, the result is that both of them could get weakened. And this is good as far as progressives are concerned.

ComradeAnthony

20th September 2012, 14:12

Funny how most of this 'religious fundamentalism' ended up taking roots in areas of the Middle East where US imperialism entrenched itself, right?

It's all America's fault!

Never mind that Saudis were Wahabist whilst America was still a colony, and that Ali as-Senussi introduced Salafism to North Africa in the early eighteen thirties. Or that the Muslim Brotherhood was already the dominant mass-based political power in Egypt when Nasser took over.

cynicles

21st September 2012, 00:11

Salafism has always been considered a religious extreme though, especially the wahabbi kind. And wahabbiism had to be forced on the people of Saudi Arabia through a bloody crusade led by Ibn Saud, and that was after the ascendancy of the US to a full nation.

Yazman

21st September 2012, 07:30

Moderator action:

I just realised we had two separate threads discussing this at the same time, so I've merged them.

bcbm

21st September 2012, 22:20

#FF0000

22nd September 2012, 00:55

I think james has a point. We can't be puritans and wait till a perfect revolutionary force takes birth. We work with what we have. If reactionary forces fight against imperialists, the result is that both of them could get weakened. And this is good as far as progressives are concerned.

Yeah I think that is generally true, but in the mean time the people who benefit most in any war are the parties that stay out of it. Meaning we ought not throw our lot behind one group of enemies over another. That's foolish, and like bcbm said, has never worked out in our favor.

First green then red though. It'll work this time.

Sasha

23rd September 2012, 15:55

some background on the making of this movie on the website of novelist neil gaiman;

A Letter from a Scared Actress. (http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2012/09/a-letter-from-scared-actress.html)

Posted by Neil at 7:43 AM
A few years ago, a message came in to this website on the FAQ line from a young actress from Georgia (the one from the former USSR, not the State with Atlanta in it) called Anna Gurji. She sent a link to her webpage (http://www.annagurji.com/) and to films she had made in Georgia, and told me she was a fan, and if she ever came to the US, she would want to be in something of mine.

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/[email protected]@._ V1._SX214_CR0,0,214,314_.jpg (http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/[email protected]@._ V1._SX214_CR0,0,214,314_.jpg)

She made it to the US, and although she has never been in something of mine, she read the female lead (with Wil Wheaton as the male lead) in the first read-through of Michael Reaves' film BLOOD KISS. I was not there as a writer. I was there because I will actually act in it, playing a Hollywood director with a dark secret. So I've acted with Anna and spent time with her. She's a good sort.

She wrote to me the other day, worried.

She said,

Something very bad happened. I desperately need everyone's help right now.

I don't know how to start writing this letter. It's crazy, the world is.. life.. I'm so shattered right now, I don't know.. I feel very dead inside.

Last summer I auditioned for an indie low budget feature movie and I landed a supporting role. The movie was about a comet falling into a desert and ancient tribes fighting over it for they thought that the comet had some magical powers.

A year later, the movie was dubbed (without the actors' permission), the lines were changed drastically and the movie was morphed into an Anti-Islam film. Even the names of the characters were changed. And the character I had scenes with GEORGE became MUHAMMAD.

I really need your advice right now? How can I have my voice shown to the world so that I can tell them the real story.

All these media people that keep calling me are using my real story and then chopping or manipulating the interview the way they want to.

I don't know what to do. It's very scary, Neil.

I told her to write her story for me, to say what she wanted, and I would put it up here for her, as she wrote it, to get her message to the world. The best weapon against lies is the truth, after all.

So here's what Anna knows about the truth:

Everyone who wishes to find out the truth about the movie now known as the Innocence of Muslims, please read the letter below. I, Anna Gurji, as one of the supporting actresses in the film will share with you what really happened.

A year ago, in the summer of 2011, I submitted my materials to various projects on the Explore Talent web-site. I received a call from the casting director of the movie “Desert Warrior”, and my audition date was scheduled. I auditioned for the role of Hilary. Several days later, I was informed that I got a callback. I did the callback. Several days later, I was informed that I landed the role of Hilary in the movie called “Desert Warrior”.

The filming of the movie was done in August of 2011. We were filming the movie in a studio warehouse with a green screen in Duarte, CA. The project was a low budget, independent feature movie.

The filming of the movie was beginning soon after the day I was told I got a role. The script was not sent to me. When I got to the set, I was merely provided with the scenes my character was in.

I did not consider this to be an unusual thing, seeing as I have had an experience with something like this before. I did a movie once where the script was written in a foreign language and only my parts were translated into English and accordingly, I was provided with my scenes only. Having experienced that, I thought the same thing was happening with “Desert Warrior”. Aware of the fact that the supposed producer and the script-writer of the movie (known as Sam Bassil) was a foreigner (thanks to his accent), I thought that the original script was written in his native tongue and that not all scenes were translated into English. Also, the filming dates of the movie had to be rescheduled last minute to fit my schedule (I had other films to do right after the “Desert Warrior” outside CA). Because of this rushed rearrangements, I thought that the production first forgot and then did not consider it necessary to send me the script, and again - I did not find this unusual, since I knew what role I had, I knew about my character and I knew about the story of the film.

My character Hilary was a young girl who is sold (against her own free will) by her parents to a tribe leader known as GEORGE. She is one of his (most likely, the youngest) brides in the movie.

The film was about a comet falling into a desert and different tribes in ancient Egypt fighting to acquire it for they deemed that the comet possessed some supernatural powers.

The movie that we were doing in Duarte was called “Desert Warrior” and it was a fictional adventure drama. The character GEORGE was a leader of one of those tribes fighting for the comet.

There was no mention EVER by anyone of MUHAMMAD and no mention of religion during the entire time I was on the set. I am hundred percent certain nobody in the cast and nobody in the US artistic side of the crew knew what was really planned for this “Desert Warrior”.

The atmosphere at the set was as friendly as possible. We all knew that we were doing an adventure drama for a very low budget financing. The director Alan Roberts even had plans that with this low budget product he would be able to get some more money to make a good quality version (by shooting it in the real desert and having better product in every category) of the “Desert Warrior”.

I had interactions with the man known as Sam Bassil on the set. He was very amiable, respectful, soft-spoken, always making sure that the filming was running smoothly and everyone was satisfied. He even told me the premiere of the movie was going to happen sometime soon and I would get a good amount of tickets to invite my friends and family.

I have never been informed about the premiere after that (if it ever happened) and have not seen the final product (if there is any, except for the short one that is uploaded online).

People ask what’s my reaction after seeing that.

Shock.

Two hours after I found out everything that had happened I gave Inside Edition an interview, the duration of which I could not stop crying.

I feel shattered.

People who were tricked into believing that we were making an adventure drama about a comet falling into a desert did nothing but take part in a low budget indie feature film called the “Desert Warrior” that WAS about a comet falling into a desert and tribes in ancient Egypt fighting to acquire it.

It’s painful to see how our faces were used to create something so atrocious without us knowing anything about it at all. It’s painful to see people being offended with the movie that used our faces to deliver lines (it’s obvious the movie was dubbed) that we were never informed of, it is painful to see people getting killed for this same movie, it is painful to hear people blame us when we did nothing but perform our art in the fictional adventure movie that was about a comet falling into a desert and tribes in ancient Egypt fighting to acquire it, it’s painful to be thought to be someone else when you are a completely different person.

Like I explained to Inside Edition, I feel awful.. I did not do anything but I feel awful.

I feel awful that a human being is capable of such evil. I feel awful about the lies, about the injustice, about the cruelty, about the violence, about the death of innocent people, about the pain of offended people, about the false accusations.

I don’t know what else to do but speak the truth. I will not go into hiding (since I have nothing to hide), because if we don’t speak the truth, there is no world worth living for.

I grew up in Georgia Republic (ex-Soviet Union), I have witnessed the strikes, protests, demonstrations, injustice, cruelty, violence in my life. I was there during the war between Russia and Georgia, sleeping in outdoor clothes and packed backpacks waiting to be bombed. And I left my country, knowing that there was no future for a film actress there (seeing as the film industry is still in the process of recovery after the collapse of the Soviet Union).

Why did I want to pursue acting? I had a role in a short film when I was thirteen. There was a scene in the movie, where my beggar character and my character’s blind father were thrown off the bridge by police officers. During the filming of the scene, I was attacked by a huge lump in my throat, witnessing what the police were doing to my blind father. I wanted to cry, but knowing that my blind father would worry about me if he heard me cry, I swallowed the lump and stayed strong and did my best to defend him against the injustice. Experiencing the magic of acting (losing yourself into the character) was what had me fall in love with the craft. After a long journey and fighting to somehow get to the States, I managed to come here with my mother.

It’s so difficult for an actor (especially the one from a foreign country) to begin a career. People think that once you are in the States, you have all the doors opened before you. It’s not so. It’s very difficult to join the union, to get an agent, to lose your accent and to land roles if you don’t have connections. For four years I have been struggling to slowly move ahead and not give up. A year ago, when I got the supporting role in this indie feature film “Desert Warrior”, I was so excited.

I don’t understand why was this happened to me, when all I wanted to do was pursue my acting career.

I have to admit I wanted to pursue my acting career because I loved the process of transformation into a different character – a selfish reason.

A few months ago, I just finished writing a script with my father about world peace, which helped me understand something – forgive and care for your enemy. Then, I understood that there is a bigger reason for acting. When we act, we help people see all different characters that exist. When people see about all these different characters, they start to understand them. When they understand all these different characters, they come close to accepting them. When they come close to accepting them, they come close to being united. And when they come close to being united, they come close to loving and helping each other.

I was thinking about something a week ago. We are like cells in the body of Earth. Why won’t we work together and support each other instead of killing and destroying each other. If cells kill each other, eventually the body will die. By always speaking the truth and supporting the world peace, I hope we will be able to save the Earth from dying.. someday.

Growing up in a family that was extremely open-minded and respectful to all the differences in the world (all the religions) and growing up peacefully with people with so many different religions around me, it is devastating for me to have my face put into something that is completely opposite of what I believe in.

I want to send my condolences to the families and friends of those who lost their lives. Everything happens for a reason, they say. I believe this is a trap of evil to separate us from our humanity. We must stay strong and not forget that violence has not been able to get us anywhere spiritually and has not been able to make the world a better place. Understanding and love will.

the muslims getting riled up over this are of course falling right into the intended trap but lets make it damn clear that the maker of this "movie" is the bigger asshole here.

barbelo

23rd September 2012, 18:24

#FF0000

23rd September 2012, 18:50

Muslims, the untouchables.
Who cares if Argentina and Brazil had Usa backed murderous dictatorships too?
Who cares if China occupy Tibet, if Russia occupy Georgia, if Syria occupy Lebanon?
Who cares about copts, zoroastrians, jews, samaritans, druzes?
They doesn't have oil, they doesn't scream and cry aloud near embassies, they try to live their lifes instead of sending their children to die like cattle in Sion or Tyre for the random milita of the decade.

ahahaha yeah dude no one around here ever says shit about the us backed regimes in south america or anything else. How about you directly respond to things that people actually say instead of pontificating next time thanks

rayznack

23rd September 2012, 20:24

Islam is a religion, sure, but Muslims are still some of the primary targets and recipients of hate crimes.

Nope, Jews are the primary targets of hate crimes.

The man who shot and killed six sikhs because they "looked" and "dressed" like Muslims

There's still no evidence Sikhs were targeted because they looked like Muslims.

I've seen, heard, and/or read people refer to Muslims as "darkies," "Islamofascists," "savages," etc. Hatred towards Muslims (or people who "look" like them) is guided by racism.

So you think the Coptic Egyptian-American filmmaker was motivated by his racism for "darkies"?

hatzel

24th September 2012, 16:37

Nope, Jews are the primary targets of hate crimes.

Let's not turn this into some kind of weird oppression Olympics where we're dishing out gold, silver and bronze medals for who gets the most shit, but I see three issues jumping straight out at me:

1. Matey said 'some of the primary targets,' which would be true even if you're only willing to give them the bronze rather than the gold.

2. Still it totally wouldn't make any difference to anything because I've already said this isn't a competition, and it's not true that there can only ever be one group who cops flack at any given time. Saying 'nah, these guys instead' doesn't actually mean anything, and it leads me to ask serious questions of why exactly you'd feel obliged to make such a leap. If anything it just strengthens some weird tendency where the Jew is stripped of pretty much anything authentic and just recast as the archetypal objects of oppression. Rumour has it the Bosnians were the Jews of the 90's, and the Armenians were Jews even before the Jews were Jews! That kind of talk, that's going on here, too. Seems the only way the Jew can ever be unseated from the pinnacle, winner of the Oscar for most-hated dudes or whatever you want to call it, is if we come to some consensus that the Muslims (or whoever else we decided are now the most-hated of all) are 'the new Jews,' but to be honest I'd quite like it if the Jew were worth something outside of their being hated on.

3. I'm not sure how you'd even begin to measure this and make this league table. Still, it seems that increasingly Jews are little more than collateral damage, an afterthought in the quest to have a go at Muslims and the like. Recent example: Missy Le Pen's "yeah, we should like totally ban all that headscarf stuff, can't have all that religious symbol stuff, blah blah blah down with Muslims blah lots of stuff" "would that include the Jewish kippah?" "...well I guess it would have to, yeah, for consistency." I've known more virulently antisemitic statements, to be honest, statements that may have actually had some intent. Another fun story is that some weirdo right-winger guy came to me once waxing lyrical about preserving Europe's (and I quote) 'Judeo-Christian culture,' apparently thinking I'd be in total agreement with that shit. Guy told me that it was very(!!!) important to prevent the spread of Islam by, like, banning headscarves and halal slaughter and faith schools and seemingly any action that wasn't performed with the express written permission of the Pope or whoever. Guy seemed honestly surprised when I told him that he was kind of sacrificing the Judeo- for the -Christian, ya dig? This was when I categorically decided that a whole load of antisemitism wasn't actually anything to do with Jews, it was directed elsewhere with Jews somehow getting tangled up, intentionally or otherwise. Here's a totally made-up but still perfectly accurate quote for you: "I fucking hate the Jews because they let the Arabs and Somalians and stuff migrate to my country and I fucking hate seeing Arabs and Somalians in my country." Thus spake pretty much every whitey antisemite around right now.

There's still no evidence Sikhs were targeted because they looked like Muslims.Budster shit like this doesn't really need evidence. But actually we could reword it: "there's still no evidence Muslims are targetted because they look like Sikhs." In fact both are pretty much the same, there's no difference what order you put it in. The Muslim is the archetype; the Sikh is rather similar. The Sikh is archetype; the Muslim is rather similar. Both statements are equally true (by which I mean false, but considered true by those who like this kind of stuff aka big ol' bigots), because what's significant here is that both are examples of some abstract 'Eastern' people, to whom are ascribed a whole bunch of not-exactly-complimentary adjectives. The exact details of the individual in question (like whether they're Tunisian or Indonesian, Muslim or Sikh, Arab or Berber, whatever else) isn't at all significant to such a worldview, as long as they can be subsumed under an overarching category, a category of which the Muslim is most often considered the prime example, simply because the engagement (by which I mean the hostile engagement) with this imagined 'Easterner' tends towards those considered simply 'Muslims.' But in a way you're right, the Sikh is not so much targetted through misidentification as a Muslim, rather the Muslim and the Sikh alike are targetted through misidentification as a third, imagined abstraction of 'Easterner,' more readily associated with Muslims but not exclusive of Sikhs or others. You following me?

rayznack

24th September 2012, 17:40

Let's not turn this into some kind of weird oppression Olympics where we're dishing out gold, silver and bronze medals for who gets the most shit, but I see three issues jumping straight out at me:

If it doesn't matter, then why did the poster claim Muslims were receiving the "gold" in hate crimes. Of course it matters, otherwise the poster wouldn't have stretched the truth claiming Muslims were one of the primary targets of hate crimes in the US. Actually, Jews are victims of hate crimes by seven fold. Leaving this fact out allows the poster to make a far less nuanced assessment of the United States than he otherwise made.

Budster shit like this doesn't really need evidence.

Claiming the Sikhs were targeted because the gunman thought they were Muslim needs evidence. Otherwise, it's simply disinformation. Made up claims are basically lies.

James Connolly

25th September 2012, 18:49

Yeah I think that is generally true, but in the mean time the people who benefit most in any war are the parties that stay out of it. Meaning we ought not throw our lot behind one group of enemies over another. That's foolish, and like bcbm said, has never worked out in our favor.

First green then red though. It'll work this time.
I wasn't suggesting the Proletariat arm themselves and fight side-by-side with these losers, rather for them to voice support against Imperialism. The Islamists are only gaining influence because they're the ones that generally protesting against Imperialism(not to say Socialists aren't either, but they aren't popular enough.)

Again, don't mistake me for a pro-Islamist. Lenin himself warned against it in his Theses on National and Colonial Questions.

The need [for Communist International] to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc

Now Lenin quite frankly noted that Islamists aren't to be trusted, not even in cases of anti-Imperialism. However our world is much different than his, and instead of poorly defended colonies, we have to deal with the very centralized global Bourgeoisie, who will cut down on worker's movements in a snap of the fingers.

The only way to break this grip is through unrest and destabilization of the exploited world.
It is not that I'm advocating the Islamization of the Middle East, rather I'm cheering for the destruction of Western Imperialism in the Middle East. Of course such a thing will only lead to a massive Imperialist war, but it will surely create consciousness among classes in the Imperial nations(most likely Nationalism I'm afraid, but such a thing would point directly at contradictions in Liberalism, and it will allow a grace period for Socialism to reemerge while such disillusionment occurs.)

This is all really a Naturalistic fallacy though...

#FF0000

26th September 2012, 00:07

There's still no evidence Sikhs were targeted because they looked like Muslims.

Yeah that's all well and good but it's a fact that Sikhs have been targets of violence since 9/11 in the US.

Os Cangaceiros

26th September 2012, 00:15

I remember some guy from CAIR was on TV giving an interview, and the host brought up the fact that there are more reported acts of anti-semitism than there are of Islamophobia, to which the guy said that it may be because Jews have more of an established community within the USA and are encouraged to report such acts, while the Muslim community may not feel as comfortable going to the authorities about it.

Could've been BS but it sounded persuasive at the time.

rayznack

28th September 2012, 23:02

Yeah that's all well and good but it's a fact that Sikhs have been targets of violence since 9/11 in the US.

That's like saying terrorists have carried out attacks over freedom of speech controversies, so therefore, I can say X terrorist attack was over a freedom of speech controversy when it isn't.

Making claims up doesn't fly with me.

Yazman

29th September 2012, 10:47

That's like saying terrorists have carried out attacks over freedom of speech controversies, so therefore, I can say X terrorist attack was over a freedom of speech controversy when it isn't.

Making claims up doesn't fly with me.

Attacks over freedom of speech controversies? What? When? Do you really believe the media narrative that easily without any deep thought? The embassy attack was planned before the film was even known about and was largely a political move by an armed militia as there is still fighting in Libya. If you're referring to 9/11 then you're also wrong as even Osama bin Laden himself claimed it was a response to American and American-backed Israeli attacks in the middle east.

None of the typical media "They hate your freedom" bullshit has ever been true.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

29th September 2012, 10:56

Attacks over freedom of speech controversies? What? When? Do you really believe the media narrative that easily without any deep thought?
Well, all he's posted on RevLeft so far are attacks on Islam and claims Jews are still the most persecuted group. He seems to have an agenda.

rayznack

29th September 2012, 13:57

Attacks over freedom of speech controversies?

I'll help you out: Rimshah Masih was/is an 11/14 year old girl with Down's Syndrome falsely accused of burning a book that contained Koran verses. After being accused, she, her mother and Christian neighbors were physically assaulted (attacked) and threatened with death. As a result, Rimshah and her family are now in hiding and the last I heard of her Christian neighbors were that they are living in a nearby forest:

ISLAMABAD: Having fled their homes in the latest spasm of Pakistani religious strife, a few hundred Christians have camped in a forest in the Pakistani capital, cut down trees and are using the branches to build a church.

Their ordeal began when a Christian girl in their poor Islamabad neighbourhood was accused by a neighbour of burning pages of the Quran — a blasphemy by Pakistani law that can mean life in prison.

[...]

But as word spread, hundreds of people gathered outside her house demanding action, and on Aug 20 police arrested the girl pending an investigation.

Most Christians in the neighbourhood fled — some 600 families according to one interfaith group. Some said their landlords evicted them. A few have returned....

Rimshah - keep in mind, an 11/14 year old girl with a learning disability - was even attacked along with her mother by an unruly mob:

Four months after the incident, police took Rimsha Masih into custody under pressure from Muslim extremists. Threatening to take justice in their own hands, a mob of hundreds enraged people attacked the girl's family, trying to lynch her and her mother. Police eventually took the girl away for her own safety, in prison.

I could post more and more stories of what basically amount to attacks over freedom of speech; the latest YouTube video has sparked attacks against churches in Niger and Pakistan if I recall correctly. There are even incidents from Yemen or Pakistan where a Muslim is a victim after a whisper campaign that claims he denigrated prophet Muhammad and has his house burnt down and is taken into custody.

So why am I to believe al-Qaeda religious fanatic militants wouldn't respond in similar ways as unruly mobs in various nations and carry out attacks purely based on freedom of speech issues? There have been actual bombings targeting Sweden and other Nordic nations in recent years (remember, OBL declared Sweden 'safe' in 2004 despite a small peace keeping role in Afghanistan).

So either al-Qaeda operatives and unruly mobs in far flung nations are more incensed over a small presence of peace keepers in Afghanistan than Osama bin Laden (who explicitly cited Australia's opposition to Indonesia's ethnic cleansing campaign in East Timor as the reason for the Bali bombings) or because suicide bombings of Danish embassies in Pakistan and hundreds killed in terror attacks following the publication of a novel in the late 80's really are about freedom of speech controversies.

If you're referring to 9/11 then you're also wrong as even Osama bin Laden himself claimed it was a response to American and American-backed Israeli attacks in the middle east.

If you actually read my post, I was actually saying the other poster making the claim up that Sikhs were attacked because the gunman thought they were Muslim and it doesn't matter if the alleged (fictitious) cause were true or not is similar to saying numerous terrorist attacks are over free speech issues. (There are attacks over free speech issues as I explain above but that's not my point here)

If you're into lying and making up causes for attacks, then claiming a false cause for one terrorist attack is just as bad as creating a fictionalized cause for another.

Is this so difficult to understand? Why is it 'ok' to lie about the Sikh temple shooting but not 9/11? Shouldn't posters who lie or misrepresent the causes for both attacks be corrected? Or is lying 'ok' if it furthers your agenda?

Just wondering.

rayznack

29th September 2012, 14:05

and claims Jews are still the most persecuted group.Actually I said there are more reported hate crimes against Jews than Muslims; that's simply a fact.

I never said they are the most persecuted group in the United States; that's simply another lie by a member here.

He seems to have an agenda.

Absolutely no one has an agenda on political forums. They're completely neutral; especially those who willingly lie and when caught, other completely neutral members without agendas cover for them.

LoL. The illogic here is too much.

RevLeft so far are attacks on IslamI have a short term memory, but which of my < 10 posts here have yet been an attack on Islam?

Does this mean the posters who claim non-Jews are the most persecuted group in the United States are pushing an anti-Jewish agenda somehow, someway?

Yazman

30th September 2012, 07:51

I don't see how "free speech" comes into the issue you described with Rimshah Masih. She was falsely accused of burning a book and consequently subjected to lynch mobs - clearly there are problems here but I don't see how "free speech" comes into it, considering she literally didn't do anything anyway, being that if she was falsely accused she didn't do it.

You mention "the latest youtube video" - do you really think the protests & actions were about a youtube video? That's crazy. Of course they weren't about a youtube video. I posted on this earlier in the thread. I think it's pretty clear that international political & social events & trends are what people are angry about here, not a youtube video.

If you actually read my post, I was actually saying the other poster making the claim up that Sikhs were attacked because the gunman thought they were Muslim and it doesn't matter if the alleged (fictitious) cause were true or not is similar to saying numerous terrorist attacks are over free speech issues.I just misread your post then.

If you're into lying and making up causes for attacks, then claiming a false cause for one terrorist attack is just as bad as creating a fictionalized cause for another.I'm not "into lying" so don't accuse me of that.

Is this so difficult to understand? Why is it 'ok' to lie about the Sikh temple shooting but not 9/11? Shouldn't posters who lie or misrepresent the causes for both attacks be corrected? Or is lying 'ok' if it furthers your agenda?I don't know shit about the Sikh temple shooting, never posted about it, and never commented on it. I didn't say lying about it was ok or not.

I do agree though that lies or misrepresentations, or misunderstandings too, should be corrected.

I think you need to be corrected as far as what I perceive to be a naive view regarding the current protests, though if you think they are about a movie.

Let me quote my earlier post from this thread as you may not have seen it.

This post was made in response to Manic Impressive's post:

A problem has been made out of nothing. Barely anyone would have heard about it except for the protests. All the protests have done is further the propaganda.

read the title of the thread and the article. The movie and the protests about the movie is the issue being discussed in this thread
Obviously, and that's what I'm TALKING about. I'm saying that the motivations behind the mass protests are clearly much more deep than some stupidass movie - there are international, social & cultural issues that run deeply and if you think the only reason they're all out there is because of a movie then you need to think more deeply & critically about the situation.

As far as worker deaths, I'm not sure what you're talking about but the majority of deaths at the protests are from guards & police shooting at largely peaceful protestors. The embassy attack in Libya was clearly politically motivated and as some reports have shown was planned beforehand anyway.

I think to portray this as simply "sectarian religious fundamentalism" reflects a naive view of the situation, no offense. It's evidently part of the reason but I don't think it's the primary motivation here at all, especially not when these sorts of protests have been happening with some regularity since well before this film ever existed. It's just a jumping off point/the straw that broke the camel's back. What you have here are people sick of european & american imperialists interfering in their countries' politics and outright invading when they decide they feel like it, not to mention those protestors in Australia for example who have been discriminated against in sometimes quite extreme ways, arab muslims who have had to deal with racism against them for being arabs, and discrimination against them for being muslims.

Flying Purple People Eater

30th September 2012, 09:21

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Yeah, that logic really, really works. Just ask the folks involved in the Iranian revolution! Allying with religious fundamentals got them very far, didn't it?

In all seriousness, could we stop shortening political stances and perspectives into slogans? They're ridiculously ascientific and detached compared to, say, an actual analysis of why we should support salafists over neoliberals (or either at all).

Speaking of which, why should we support Salafists over Neoliberals? Because they, like every single reactionary movement out there, pander to 'populist' sympathies?

rayznack

30th September 2012, 14:36

Yazman

30th September 2012, 16:07

You say you don't see how book burning is a free speech issue then say Rimshah was only falsely accused of book burning so her arrest and the people threatening her life (and hundreds of her neighbors fleeing to a forest for protection) says nothing about free speech issues.

Attacking someone over a rumor of book burning is a free speech controversy; if the person accused is later revealed to be innocent is irrelevant. I did not say "book burning is not a free speech issue". I said that I don't see how this individual case is a free speech issue, given that it's not a book burning case - nobody burned books. How can it be a book burning case when no books were burned? You make it seem like she's some sort of "free speech crusader" by burning books, when the fact is she didn't do anything and was attacked over a rumour. I don't see how free speech comes into this. Attacking somebody over the possibility something happened is not cool but it seems to me that the case with Rimshah Masih is not a "free speech issue" but a case of the government failing to do its job to protect its citizens properly.

"You" is a plural you; but the point is a poster made up the reasons for a terrorist attack. If you've corrected me over the reasons for a terrorist attack then I see nothing wrong doing the same with another poster; except this other poster had his defenders who said it didn't matter if the terrorist attacker's motives were accurately described.

That seems likes blatant hypocrisy to me; and, as I said to another member, certainly proves that certain members have agendas.Well, I already agreed with you on this point if you recall I said this:

I don't know shit about the Sikh temple shooting, never posted about it, and never commented on it. I didn't say lying about it was ok or not.

I do agree though that lies or misrepresentations, or misunderstandings too, should be corrected.

As far as the recent protests & violence in the middle east goes, I think you are very, very naive (no offense) to think that this whole thing happened over a youtube video. There are very clear, and very obvious social & geo-political issues at stake here. It is certainly not over a film. Furthermore the vast majority of activity has been peaceful protesting and nearly all of the related deaths have been protestors shot by police.

I'm not the one projecting phantom motives for the YouTube video rioters.

You are projecting a phantom portrayal of reality, though, by ignoring socio-political & cultural issues that are deeply rooted in discrimination & international conflict.

rayznack

30th September 2012, 19:45

I did not say "book burning is not a free speech issue". I said that I don't see how this individual case is a free speech issue, given that it's not a book burning case - nobody burned books.A Muslim cleric actually threw burnt copies of a book containing Koran verses in the ash of some items Rimshah had burnt, so technically, 'nobody burned books' is incorrect - a Muslim cleric did actually burn a book and framed Rimshah.

But that's not the point; the whole incident was/is over the belief Rimshah was believed to have burned a book containing verses from the Koran and therefore committed a crime of blasphemy.

Blasphemy is not a crime in societies with free speech. Therefore, Rimshah's entire ordeal was related to a free speech controversy.

I don't know how to make that any clearer or more obvious.

How can it be a book burning case when no books were burned?How is attacking an 11 year girl over charges of blasphemy not a free speech controversy? That's the real question.

Attacking somebody over the possibility something happened is not cool but it seems to me that the case with Rimshah Masih is not a "free speech issue" but a case of the government failing to do its job to protect its citizens properly. The question is why was Rimshah attacked in the first place.

The answer was that it was a free speech issue with the mob and government. The mob attacked the girl, her family and community over perceived free speech issue.

Your classification that the attack "was not cool" doesn't convince me what the rage was actually over. I'm arguing being enraged over a charge of blasphemy is a free speech controversy; you'd say it's "not cool". Ok.

We have a clear example of a girl, family and community under assault over allegations the girl burned a book that contained verses from the Koran. This goes back to your previous claim that a YouTube video couldn't possibly provoke violent mobs yet your analysis ignores an 11 year old girl with Downs Syndrome in Pakistan can.

You are projecting a phantom portrayal of reality, though, by ignoring socio-political & cultural issues that are deeply rooted in discrimination & international conflict.As I said, simple thought experiments can test this belief. I'll stick with the protesters around the world were violently protesting/calling for violence because they were deeply offended by a silly YouTube video. It's hard to believe; then again, I'd have trouble believing extremists could firebomb a hotel in Turkey and kill dozens or assassinate a publisher over the Satanic Verses novel.

Offense against a religion and oppression doesn't mean a religious group will violently protest; otherwise, the several hundred Pakistani Christians living in a forest in Pakistan would have violently protested and called for violence after an Egyptian cleric recently burned a copy of the New Testament to the applause of thousands of Egyptian protesters.

cynicles

2nd October 2012, 00:49

Yes yes, we get it already, there are muslim religious obscurantists and you wan't people on Revleft to know about it. No one in the mainstream media ever talk about them so I can see the need to highlight this issue here.

On a seperate note, how about that German commitmant to freedom of expression?

http://angryarab.blogspot.ca/2012/10/a-lebanese-student-rejected-from-german.html

Or maybe the French and Italian one.

http://angryarab.blogspot.ca/2012/10/the-west-is-absolute-and-unconditional.html

It's nice to know that everyone is treated equally in the west.

rayznack

2nd October 2012, 15:36

On a seperate note, how about that German commitmant to freedom of expression?I'm slightly confused by your off topic comment. What does an entrepreneurial competition for a foreign student have to do with the German government's 'commitment to free speech'? Who even said the German government is committed to free speech?

Or maybe the French and Italian one.Seems more complicated than a YouTube video. No doubt you can find the advertisement online or even on YouTube if someone wanted to upload the picture. But how is this an actual comparison to a Muhammad movie posted on YouTube? Was there a public advertisement on posters depicting Muhammad as female that hasn't been ordered taken down?

It's nice to know that everyone is treated equally in the west.Absolutely. Desecrating your own copy of the Koran in your home will get you arrested and sent to jail in Britain but desecrating the Bible will be funded by the taxpayer and put in a museum exhibit:

Spot the difference.

On the left is a copy of the Bible, desecrated (at the taxpayer's expense) by Glasgow's Gallery of Modern Art. On the right is a copy of the Qur'an, allegedly burned in the garage of BNP member Sion Owens (at his own expense).

Contrast the response of the police over this man's decision to burn a copy of the Qur'an with their complete indifference to the desecration of the Bible. The response to that 'exhibit' was measured, but the offence to many Christians was no less palpable. But Sion Owens has been arrested under the Public Order Act.

Since when has it been possible to commit a public order offence in the privacy of one's own garage?

The Home Office is reported to have ‘absolutely condemned’ the book-burning incident. A statement said: ‘It is fundamentally offensive to the values of our pluralist and tolerant society.’So why's destroying a privately owned Koran on your own property illegal but desecrating the Bible legal and funded by the taxpayer?

Everyone is being treated equal, right?

Robocommie

2nd October 2012, 22:30

There is no way this rayznack motherfucker is not some kind of right wing troll all up in arms about "Eurabia" and Sharia law.

I bet he has strong opinions on demographics as well.

rayznack

2nd October 2012, 23:02

What does immigration have to do with the state funding Bible desecration and punishing Koran burners?

'Cynicles' claimed there are double standards. Apparently it's 'ok'* to claim double standards in favor of Christianity over Islam but I've shown exactly the opposite (and you've failed to respond to this example). It's not my fault reality contradicts your claims. If you were more honest and open with your analysis you wouldn't be refuted so easily.

*Just as it's 'ok' to lie about the motives of terrorist attacks if they fit your personal bias

Robocommie

3rd October 2012, 08:31

What does immigration have to do with the state funding Bible desecration and punishing Koran burners?

They're going to enact Sharia law in Europe bro, haven't you heard?

'Cynicles' claimed there are double standards. Apparently it's 'ok'* to claim double standards in favor of Christianity over Islam but I've shown exactly the opposite (and you've failed to respond to this example). It's not my fault reality contradicts your claims. If you were more honest and open with your analysis you wouldn't be refuted so easily.

*Just as it's 'ok' to lie about the motives of terrorist attacks if they fit your personal bias

Yeaaaah. Cynicles could well be wrong but you're still probably a tool.

rayznack

3rd October 2012, 17:14

They're going to enact Sharia law in Europe bro, haven't you heard?

The only reason you're going off topic now is because any arguments you think you could have made have already been addressed.

It was rather easy to refute the arguments of several posters in this thread. You should worry about your beliefs than anyone else if you want to be taken seriously.

Btw, a tool is a fan-boi of the Antisemitic wormfood in your avatar.

Robocommie

3rd October 2012, 18:58

The only reason you're going off topic now is because any arguments you think you could have made have already been addressed.

It was rather easy to refute the arguments of several posters in this thread. You should worry about your beliefs than anyone else if you want to be taken seriously.

I've barely read the thread, I just think it's interesting how you've been here barely less than a month and already you've gone on a bender about Islam, and ONLY Islam. You have a posting history, it's not hard to read it. It says "troll."

Btw, a tool is a fan-boi of the Antisemitic wormfood in your avatar.

:lol:

Boy, you must hate Arabs. Are you some kind of psycho Anti-German or just some dipshit rightist?

#FF0000

3rd October 2012, 20:58

rayznack

3rd October 2012, 20:59

I've barely read the thread, I just think it's interesting how you've been here barely less than a month and already you've gone on a bender about IslamYou're the second poster to make this claim; it's so far never been supported.

Boy, you must hate Arabs. Are you some kind of psycho Anti-German or just some dipshit rightist?

So disliking Antisemites means I dislike Arabs? How did you come to that conclusion?

I'm happy to show the pond scum in your avatar is an Antisemite. I just find it odd an Antisemitic reactionary is openly supported by a so-called 'leftist'.

#FF0000

3rd October 2012, 21:01

I'm happy to show the pond scum in your avatar is an Antisemite. I just find it odd an Antisemitic reactionary is openly supported by a so-called 'leftist'.

That would be fantastic since you are literally the only person I have ever heard make that claim, aside from some people who think that criticism of israel = antisemitism.

rayznack

3rd October 2012, 21:04

That's like saying terrorists have carried out attacks over freedom of speech controversies, so therefore, I can say X terrorist attack was over a freedom of speech controversy when it isn't.

No, it isn't like saying that. It is a simple fact. Sikhs have been the targets of racist violence especially since 9/11. Same with Hindus. Same with any Middle-Eastern/South Asian group.

It is exactly saying that. A previous poster lied and claimed a specific terrorist attack was carried out over a fictitious reason. You came along and said it doesn't matter because past hate crimes have been carried out for a certain reason.

That is exactly like saying a terrorist attack carried out by religious extremists was carried out over a free speech controversy and justifying my completely unsupported claim by saying some past terrorist attacks have been carried for that reason.

How are the two examples different? I'm curious why you say there's a difference but fail to address that it's also a fact terrorists have carried out attacks over free speech controversies. It's really a simple line of logic.

#FF0000

3rd October 2012, 21:09

words

Look at this guy assumin' things.

I was just saying that it happened, and happened often. By extension, I'd say it's more than reasonable to assume that was the reason for the attack on the Sikh temple, considering how rare it is for Sikhs to be attacked in the United States for being Sikhs.

rayznack

3rd October 2012, 21:09

That would be fantastic since you are literally the only person I have ever heard make that claim, aside from some people who think that criticism of israel = antisemitism.

You shouldn't make (more) assumptions on subjects you have no knowledge on.

Is praising an author and book and writing a foreword in the book that claims Jewish children are taught a ritual curse against gentiles criticism of Israel?

Just tell me if the statement thatJewish children are taught to curse gentiles is antisemitic; then you can discuss if someone praising a book where this libel is found (along with other Antisemitic tropes) and the author and writing a foreword for the book makes one an Antisemite.

rayznack

3rd October 2012, 21:11

Look at this guy assumin' things.

I was just saying that it happened, and happened often. By extension, I'd say it's more than reasonable to assume that was the reason for the attack on the Sikh temple, considering how rare it is for Sikhs to be attacked in the United States for being Sikhs.

So religious extremist terrorists are hateful because of free speech controversies? Got it.

#FF0000

3rd October 2012, 21:13

Is praising an author and book and writing a foreword in the book that claims Jewish children are taught a ritual curse against gentiles criticism of Israel?

Just tell me if the statement thatJewish children are taught to curse gentiles is antisemitic; then you can discuss if someone praising a book where this libel is found (along with other Antisemitic tropes) and the author and writing a foreword for the book makes one an Antisemite.

Only if saying Muslims are taught to kill infidels all day every day in the Quran is Islamophobic!

Anyway, quotes and sources, dogg.

So religious extremist terrorists are hateful because of free speech controversies? Got it.

http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/Stretch-Armstrong-image-3.jpg

rayznack

3rd October 2012, 21:22

Only if saying Muslims are taught to kill infidels all day every day in the Quran is Islamophobic!So you have to engage in a whataboutery. I should have figured. You must have so little faith in the Edward Said that you can't even answer whether claiming Jewish children being taught to curse gentiles is Antisemitic.

I'll throw more on the fire:

Is claiming Jews frequently kill those they disagree with Antisemitic?

Or that Jews act within their religion when they kill Palestinians?

Wonder why it's so difficult for you to give me a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

Such as: Yes, it's Antisemitic to claim Jews frequently kill those they disagree with.

I think I'm done with you. If anyone wants to take up the challenge of answering such a simple question then I'll be happy to discuss more with them.

#FF0000

3rd October 2012, 21:23

So you have to engage in a whataboutery. I should have figured. You must have so little faith in the Edward Said that you can't even answer whether claiming Jewish children being taught to curse gentiles is Antisemitic.

I'll throw more on the fire:

Is claiming Jews frequently kill those they disagree with Antisemitic?

Or that Jews act within their religion when they kill Palestinians?

Wonder why it's so difficult for you to give me a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

Such as: Yes, it's Antisemitic to claim Jews frequently kill those they disagree with.

I think I'm done with you. If anyone wants to take up the challenge of answering such a simple question then I'll be happy to discuss more with them.

No go on those quotes and sources huh?

rayznack

3rd October 2012, 21:25

So religious extremist terrorists are hateful because of free speech controversies? Got it.

Of course you can't explain the difference between the two.

It's ok to lie about the motives for some terrorist attacks but not others.

That's an amazing line of illogic if I've ever heard one.

rayznack

3rd October 2012, 21:28

No go on those quotes and sources huh?

Why would I waste time with you? You had your opportunity to answer whether the previous 'hypothetical' statements were antisemitic.

I'm guessing you're saying they're not?

I thought this was a forum for "leftists".

#FF0000

3rd October 2012, 21:41

Of course you can't explain the difference between the two.

It's ok to lie about the motives for some terrorist attacks but not others.

That's an amazing line of illogic if I've ever heard one.

Nah, the poor logic is on your side. What we're talking about isn't at all analogous. Terrorist attacks are usually committed by groups who state goals and intentions and reasons. A dude carrying out a spree-killing doesn't leave much in the way of explanations, so all one can do is speculate.

And that's what anyone ascribing a purpose to that particular shooter is doing: speculating. But their speculation is based on some simple facts. South Asian and Middle Eastern people of all religions are attacked by racists who assume they are Muslims. White Nationalists in particular habor ill-will towards Muslims and Middle-Eastern/South Asian people. White nationalists also tend to be dumb as hell and ignorant of cultural and religious nuance. And it isn't especially common for people to attack Sikhs because they are Sikh. Sikhs are commonly confused for Muslims in general.

So, yeah. It's impossible to know for certain why the shooter carried out his attack. It's possible that he is one of the very rare few who really hate Sikhs in particular. Maybe he thought the people he shot were Muslims. Or maybe it didn't matter to him, and he believed they were "all the same anyway". It's all assumption regardless, but not unfair assumption.

#FF0000

3rd October 2012, 21:42

Why would I waste time with you? You had your opportunity to answer whether the previous 'hypothetical' statements were antisemitic.

I don't care about hypotheticals

I'm guessing you're saying they're not?

Neat assumption.

rayznack

3rd October 2012, 22:02

Nah, the poor logic is on your side. What we're talking about isn't at all analogous. Terrorist attacks are usually committed by groups who state goals and intentions and reasons. A dude carrying out a spree-killing doesn't leave much in the way of explanations, so all one can do is speculate.

And that's what anyone ascribing a purpose to that particular shooter is doing: speculating. But their speculation is based on some simple facts. South Asian and Middle Eastern people of all religions are attacked by racists who assume they are Muslims. White Nationalists in particular habor ill-will towards Muslims and Middle-Eastern/South Asian people. White nationalists also tend to be dumb as hell and ignorant of cultural and religious nuance. And it isn't especially common for people to attack Sikhs because they are Sikh. Sikhs are commonly confused for Muslims in general.

So, yeah. It's impossible to know for certain why the shooter carried out his attack. It's possible that he is one of the very rare few who really hate Sikhs in particular. Maybe he thought the people he shot were Muslims. Or maybe it didn't matter to him, and he believed they were "all the same anyway". It's all assumption regardless, but not unfair assumption.

So an assumption become fact. Got it.

#FF0000

3rd October 2012, 22:06

So an assumption become fact. Got it.

No, that isn't what I said. Give it another read over, I don't think you quite understood what I was saying.

rayznack

3rd October 2012, 23:36

I don't care about hypotheticals.

Eh?

Here's another claim from the greatest scholar ever known by Edward Said:

both before and after a meal, a pious Jew ritually washes his hands, uttering a special blessing. On one of these two occasions he is worshiping God, by promoting the divine union of Son and Daughter; but on the other he is worshiping Satan, who likes Jewish prayers and ritual acts so much that when he is offered a few of them it keeps him busy for a while and he forgets to pester the divine Daughter.

No hypothetical; just pure fiction claiming Jews worship Satan in a book with a foreword from Edward Said praising the author and the book's diatribe against Judaism and Jews.

Robocommie

4th October 2012, 00:04

Yeah, I figured you were referring to Israel Shahak's book. Israel Shahak, the Polish Holocaust survivor who had been sent to two Nazi concentration camps, including Bergen-Belsen, was from a traditionally religious pro-Zionist family, and later in life served in the IDF?

Give me a fucking break. The guy was not David Duke. And your charge that Edward Said is anti-Semitic overall is bullshit, considering that he's been one of the greatest champions of the Palestinian cause against Israel. And frankly, if you're going to side with Israel against Palestine, YOU are the reactionary. Not us. That's open and shut.

Edward Said never denied the very real legacy of anti-Semitism in Europe, nor has he ever denied the horrific reality of the Holocaust. Instead he has attacked the state of Israel for it's very real crimes in the Middle East and has made efforts to defend the Islamic world at a time when it suits the interests of western imperialism (western, NOT Jewish) to defame both Muslims at large and the Middle East.

You are clearly a bigot who is intent on singling out Muslims as being extraordinarily violent and reactionary and furthermore, for cultural reasons rather than economic or political.

You started posting here on the 23rd of September. Since then, every single post of yours has been about Islam, Islamic terrorism, Al Qaeda, the Crusades, etc. Every single post as of this posting. You jumped straight out of the gate by quoting Sam Harris and stating you've never seen a refutation. That's extraordinarily aggressive for a first time poster.

I mean shit, what's the point in stating you've never seen a refutation of a quote on your first fucking post on a forum? Who the fuck are you really? Judging by your love of Sam Harris, (and who the FUCK are you to call me a reactionary for liking Edward Said when you tout that imperialist shitbag Sam Harris?) your constant whining about how right you are and that nobody can ever show any evidence that you're not right, and your ridiculous positivist dedication to anti-theism with a special focus on Islam, I'd almost wonder if you were NGNM85, but that couldn't possibly be, because that jackass got sent to the gulag last year!

Anyway, fuck you. You're way too obvious, whether you're a sockpuppet or a whole new troll of your own, so deny it all you want. I'll leave you to my good friend #FF0000, whose masochism obviously extends to arguing with poorly veiled bigots and western supremacists.

cynicles

4th October 2012, 00:08

I'm slightly confused by your off topic comment. What does an entrepreneurial competition for a foreign student have to do with the German government's 'commitment to free speech'? Who even said the German government is committed to free speech?
Censuring students who express their hatred of a 'democratic country' is little different then censoring as far as I'm concerned. It's not acceptable, and revealing of the inherent hypocrisy of the west and it's double-standards.

Seems more complicated than a YouTube video. No doubt you can find the advertisement online or even on YouTube if someone wanted to upload the picture. But how is this an actual comparison to a Muhammad movie posted on YouTube? Was there a public advertisement on posters depicting Muhammad as female that hasn't been ordered taken down?

Seems more complicated than a youtube video? I'm posting these to point out double standards, I don't give a fuck what some religious obscurantist in Egypt thinks. This is a section of the Arab community who looks at Israel and get's upset because of Jerusalem and not because of any principled opposition to the injustices agains thte Palestinian people. This is about a part of the world that goes on and on about free speech and doesn't deliver, taking down pictures of Muhammed only further proves my point. The and it's governments should keep it's mouth shut about freedom of expression.

Absolutely. Desecrating your own copy of the Koran in your home will get you arrested and sent to jail in Britain but desecrating the Bible will be funded by the taxpayer and put in a museum exhibit:

So why's destroying a privately owned Koran on your own property illegal but desecrating the Bible legal and funded by the taxpayer?

Everyone is being treated equal, right?

I don't even understand this part. What is the point of saying this? Yes it's bad that this happens what does this have to do with my post? I have no idea why it's illegal, I didn't even know it was illegal but frankly it just proves my point even more, the west has no principled position to stand on when it comes to freedom of epression.

rayznack

4th October 2012, 00:27

Censuring students who express their hatred of a 'democratic country' is little different then censoring as far as I'm concerned. It's not acceptable, and revealing of the inherent hypocrisy of the west and it's double-standards.

A double standard of what? Have you actually shown any double standard by the German state regarding pro-Jewish bias over Islam?

I actually took the trouble to finding a clear example of double standards occurring in Britain and your only claim is to ignore the fact that a university program in Germany is rejecting the application of a non-German citizen. That's hardly a case of double standardism going on in either Germany or the entire Western world as you're now extrapolating from one incident.

On top of that, the distinction between universities and workplaces having codes and rules separate and apart from the government of either Germany or the United States and other Western nations hasn't dawned on you: Universities and workplaces create their own speech rules; unless you think you have the freedom to tell your co-workers off from fear of your employer firing you, it's simply a ludicrous comparison.

I don't even understand this part. What is the point of saying this? Yes it's bad that this happens what does this have to do with my post?

You're joking, right? You don't understand how my example of the State arresting a man for destroying a Koran he personally owns while funding a museum exhibit where the Bible is desecrated is a countervailing fact to your previous point?

You use double standard but it almost seems you don't know what it means.

I'll simply ask: How is arresting a man for partially burning his own Koran on his private property and rewarding another man for desecrating a Bible *not* a double standard; at least, the fly in the ointment double standard you would rather not acknowledge?

#FF0000

4th October 2012, 00:28

Eh?

Here's another claim from the greatest scholar ever known by Edward Said:

No hypothetical; just pure fiction claiming Jews worship Satan in a book with a foreword from Edward Said praising the author and the book's diatribe against Judaism and Jews.

That sounds more like someone being wrong about religious traditions and rituals. A weird thing to say, definitely, and something that'd give me pause -- and so I googled the quote.

First I wanna make it clear that it's not an Edward Said quote -- in case anyone got that misunderstood. Secondly I want to quote some other passages from this book, according to wikiquote:

I strongly believe that antisemitism and Jewish chauvinism can only be fought simultaneously.

Modern racism (of which antisemitism is part) although caused by specific social conditions, becomes, when it gains strength, a force that in my opinion can only be described as demonic.

I don't often see antisemites raging against antisemitism, guy.

I also found the full page, and in context it seems to make a little more sense. Apparently Israel Shahak isn't saying Jews "worship the devil" but offer him prayers to trick him. Which is still a weird fucking thing to say and I doubt it's remotely true, but, yeah, I don't think it's antisemitic at all unless one wanted to twist that and say "THEY LITERALLY WORSHIP THE DEVIL JEWS ARE DEMONIC"

rayznack

4th October 2012, 00:51

Give me a fucking break. The guy was not David Duke.

So what's your argument, exactly? Neither is Sam Harris.

As long as someone doesn't have the pedigree of David Duke they can spread libel against Jews and Judaism?

And your charge that Edward Said is anti-Semitic overall is bullshit

What would you call praising a book and author in a book that is purely antisemitic, exactly?

considering that he's been one of the greatest champions of the Palestinian cause against Israel

Unfortunately, that doesn't make Said any less of an Antisemite for his praise of an Antisemitic rag.

And frankly, if you're going to side with Israel against Palestine, YOU are the reactionary. Not us. That's open and shut.

You mean condemning spurious Antisemitic lies that Jews pray to Satan is supporting Israel? Only people cut from the same cloth as Antisemites would make such a ridiculous argument. Pray tell, you have a better defense than this.

Instead he has attacked the state of Israel for it's very real crimes in the Middle East and has made efforts to defend the Islamic world at a time when it suits the interests of western imperialism (western, NOT Jewish) to defame both Muslims at large and the Middle East.

You apparently have not read any of Shahak's book Said has praised and written a foreword in. Israel is actually acting out Jewish teachings, dontchya know?

You are clearly a bigot who is intent on singling out Muslims as being extraordinarily violent and reactionary and furthermore, for cultural reasons rather than economic or political.

I've mentioned a Muslim cleric in Pakistan who framed a Christian girl on a charge of blasphemy. If that means I'm singling out Islam and therefore a bigot, then what is Shahak, who has written a book length Antisemitic screed, exactly?

Since then, every single post of yours has been about Islam, Islamic terrorism, Al Qaeda, the Crusades, etc.

The spin is overwhelming here: I've never mentioned "Islamic terrorism", my only mention of the crusades was one post where I mention the interaction between the Byzantine empire and Italian leaders of the First Crusade, I don't believe I've mentioned al Qaeda and I most probably have not mentioned Islam. In short, nothing but pure lies.

You jumped straight out of the gate by quoting Sam Harris and stating you've never seen a refutation. That's extraordinarily aggressive for a first time poster.

It's a quote I think should be shared. I notice you and everyone else has lived up to expectation by failing to refute what was actually written. But since you pay attention to whom I quote, I have noticed you've uncharacteristically decided to ignore the one quote of mine in this thread:

both before and after a meal, a pious Jew ritually washes his hands, uttering a special blessing. On one of these two occasions he is worshiping God, by promoting the divine union of Son and Daughter; but on the other he is worshiping Satan, who likes Jewish prayers and ritual acts so much that when he is offered a few of them it keeps him busy for a while and he forgets to pester the divine Daughter.

So do Jews worship Satan in a prayer? Did the greatest scholar Edward Said has ever known (a chemist by profession) accurately report such a controversial claim?

Are Jewish children taught to curse gentiles? Has the 'imperialist' Sam Harris ever spread libel against Muslims telling non-Muslims Muslim children are taught to curse unbelievers?

Perhaps we have a Jewish member who can fill us in at what age s/he learned to curse gentiles?

I mean shit, what's the point in stating you've never seen a refutation of a quote on your first fucking post on a forum?

Why don't you start a thread. You've actually found one quote of mine that you haven't alleged is even anti-Muslim you're hung up about. I think your head would explode if I quoted someone claiming Muslim schoolchildren are taught to curse unbelievers (don't worry, this claim is only said about Jewish children and known by Edward Said).

Judging by your love of Sam Harris

Attacking the strawman - and so soon! I'd expect you to attack him if he actually said Muslims have a tendency to kill those they disagree with or pray to Satan. Don't worry, that's just an Antisemitic libel.

(and who the FUCK are you to call me a reactionary for liking Edward Said when you tout that imperialist shitbag Sam Harris?)

Let's see: Edward Said has written a glowing foreword in a book that contains Antisemitic trope after another. I'd think that would pretty much justify criticizing Edward Said.

I'd almost wonder if you were NGNM85, but that couldn't possibly be, because that jackass got sent to the gulag last year!

Nope, never heard of NGNM85. You really have to do better than accusing me of being other/past members.

Robocommie

4th October 2012, 01:01

Nope, never heard of NGNM85. You really have to do better than accusing me of being other/past members.

No, I really don't, because like I said, you are very very obvious.

Why post here, anyhow? There's places all over the internet that would love to talk about how awful Muslims are, and you'd probably make a lot more friends there.

rayznack

4th October 2012, 01:06

Which is still a weird fucking thing to say and I doubt it's remotely trueNotice the conundrum you're putting poor old Edward Said in.

In case it hasn't sunk in with you, Edward Said has praised Israel Shahak's scholarship on Judaism.

An author, a chemist by profession, is spreading the equivalent of "Orientalist myths" about Judaism is being praised by a man who made a career on writing of so-called Christian myths regarding Islamic history and law.

Do you get the paradox yet?

At best you're saying Israel Shahak is a "third tier" historian and, at worst, an Antisemite for spreading laughably false claims regarding Judaism...this would hardly be so interesting apart from the fact his work gets the ringing endorsement of Edward Said.

Which is it: Edward Said praises someone whose claims on Judaism are borne out of ignorance or malice?

Either way, we have an entire book Edward Said endorses full of common Antisemitic tropes. I challenge you to quote passages from the book and change Jews and Judaism to Muslims and Islam and pretend Sam Harris has written the foreword to the book praising the author as a supreme scholar of Islam.

#FF0000

4th October 2012, 01:10

Either way, we have an entire book Edward Said endorses full of common Antisemitic tropes. I challenge you to quote passages from the book and change Jews and Judaism to Muslims and Islam and pretend Sam Harris has written the foreword to the book praising the author as a supreme scholar of Islam.

Can you quote some of these passages, then? Have you read the book?

Regardless, we've gone from EDWARD SAID IS AN ANTISEMITE to EDWARD SAID WROTE THE FOREWORD TO A BOOK BY A SHITTY WRITER WHO HE THINKS IS GOOD.

Robocommie

4th October 2012, 01:30

The spin is overwhelming here: I've never mentioned "Islamic terrorism", my only mention of the crusades was one post where I mention the interaction between the Byzantine empire and Italian leaders of the First Crusade, I don't believe I've mentioned al Qaeda and I most probably have not mentioned Islam. In short, nothing but pure lies.

Never mentioned Islamic terrorism?

From "Why much apology for Islam in the Left?"
September 23rd:

Not only do Christians experience the same "social upheavals" 'caused by the West' as their Muslim neighbors, but face additional persecution for being minorities in a region that has long discriminated them. So, if terrorism is caused by oppression, then where are those Christian martyrdom bombers in the name of Christ? Why isn't the Middle East churning out Bahai's who are victimized by both colonialism and the regional governments?

Logically, Christians, Bahais and Jews should be *more* likely to become suicide terrorists than Muslims in the region.

Lastly, extremism is not localized to any particular region in the Muslim world. There are extremists, including converts, in Britain who've gone to Kashmir or waged Jihad in Syria and bombed London; Sweden saw its first suicide bombing in its nations history two years ago when a man attempted to blow up Christmas shoppers; and protesters in France have called for the killing of Jews.The implication should be obvious, Muslims are terrorists in ways that other religions aren't, and they're terrorists even in areas where Muslims aren't all that repressed! (according to you)

And didn't you mention Al Qaeda?

Same thread, September 25th:
http://www.revleft.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2514113&postcount=86

That's one belief; the other is that America and Britain didn't give al-Qaeda anything and that the United States supported what would become the Northern Alliance.
And, to be fair, Buddhists doing 'bad' things in various locales, completely disconnected from one another, ideologically or directly, is exactly why al-Qaeda is qualitatively different from what you've mentioned.So not only were you participating in discussions about Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism, you were making the argument that Al Qaeda was a spontaneous movement which sprung up without external aid, and that it furthermore is something of a demonstration of the extraordinary nature of the terrorism which takes place in Islam. You rather plainly have an agenda to push.

I mean this claim that you haven't mentioned Islam? What the fuck were we talking about? (Other than your insistence of anti-Semitism, which you've decided to lock on to recently) And are you really going to suggest that posting about the Crusades has nothing at all to do with Islam?

Why are you so silly?

Maybe you should talk to the moderators. If you really don't remember participating in these arguments, then somebody must have hacked your account. That's a big deal, because somebody out there is making you look like a real asshole.

rayznack

4th October 2012, 01:30

Can you quote some of these passages, then? Have you read the book?

Regardless, we've gone from EDWARD SAID IS AN ANTISEMITE to EDWARD SAID WROTE THE FOREWORD TO A BOOK BY A SHITTY WRITER WHO HE THINKS IS GOOD.

Uh, no. Currently the discussion is at Edward Said is supportive of an Antisemitic book.

A simple thought experiment should tell us about Edward Said: What would it say of Sam Harris if he praised, endorsed and contributed to a book that claimed Muslim children are taught to curse disbelievers, Muslims pray to the Devil, the Bosnian genocide was a progressive uprising or Muslim terrorists are faithfully following the tenets of their religion?

#FF0000

4th October 2012, 01:33

Uh, no. Currently the discussion is at Edward Said is supportive of an Antisemitic book.

But the only person saying it's antisemitic is you, and you've only provided a single out of context quote.

A simple thought experiment should tell us about Edward Said: What would it say of Sam Harris if he praised, endorsed and contributed to a book that claimed Muslim children are taught to curse disbelievers, Muslims pray to the Devil, the Bosnian genocide was a progressive uprising or Muslim terrorists are faithfully following the tenets of their religion?

I'd pay more attention to what Sam Harris has said himself. Noam Chomsky's wrote an introduction/foreword in a holocaust denial book, yet he is not an antisemite or a holocaust denier.

rayznack

4th October 2012, 01:41

Never mentioned Islamic terrorism?Certainly not in the quote you provided.

The implication should be obvious, Muslims are terrorists in ways that other religions aren't, and they're terrorists even in areas where Muslims aren't all that repressed! (according to you)Of course there are. I'd also add there are terrorists in many countries where they're not oppressed. I'd hardly claim most terrorists in the United States - Muslims or non-Muslim - are oppressed. What a ridiculous notion. The rest of what I actually said is also pretty straight-forward: Non-Muslims are *more* oppressed in most Muslim majority nations but are not becoming suicide terrorists where they face constant discrimination. Is this factoid "Islamophobic"? Care to address what Harris merely points out (it could be anyone, really)?

And didn't you mention Al Qaeda?Oh, fair enough. I said I didn't believe I mentioned al-Qaeda and you found a post of mine saying the United States funded would become the Northern Alliance and not al-Qaeda.

So I mentioned 'al-Qaeda' but not Islamic terrorism.

So not only were you participating in discussions about Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism, you were making the argument that Al Qaeda was a spontaneous movement which sprung up without external aidActually, from the only post you're quoting, I'm saying al-Qaeda was not aided by the United States; but feel free to highlight where I actually said what you claimed I wrote.

and that it furthermore is something of a demonstration of the extraordinary nature of the terrorism which takes place in Islam.Really, I said this? ...where?

Here's the actual post:

And, to be fair, Buddhists doing 'bad' things in various locales, completely disconnected from one another, ideologically or directly, is exactly why al-Qaeda is qualitatively different from what you've mentioned. So there is a qualitative difference between al-Qaeda from anything Buddhists are doing. But please correct me by pointing out the international Buddhist theocratic terrorist organizations currently operating. Perhaps you'll find incidents of Buddhists from California or Britain flocking to fight in some holy war somewhere.

Robocommie

4th October 2012, 01:49

Certainly not in the quote you provided.

You are so completely full of crap. You are constantly referring to Islamic terrorism in that quote by consistently using Islamic terrorism as a point of comparison for all these other groups. I am not going to explain to you any further how the obvious is true.

You're full of shit, and you know it. You make assertions of things which are facts, simply because Sam Harris said them, and then demand I refute them, but your "factoids" are based on a simplistic and context-less examination of things from an extremely pointed agenda. I mean hey, white nationalists love to cite about how blacks and Latinos make up such a disproportionate section of the prison population, and talk all about how often blacks attack innocent whites on the streets, and then insist people refuse to face those simple, irrefutable "facts."

You're a silly muppet, you've been called out for your shit, and no amount of your dancing about semantics or citing bigoted authors will change that - nor will it change the fact that Edward Said has been called an anti-Semite mostly by the exact same pro-Israel partisans that have called Noam Chomsky of all people a Neo-Nazi and a "self-hating Jew."

rayznack

4th October 2012, 02:03

We have seen above, and will show in greater detail in the next chapter how far removed from this are the precepts with which the Jewish religion in its classical and talmudic form is poisoning minds and hearts.Now if only claiming Islam/Hinduism/[insert other religion] poisons minds and hearts were bigoted. Oh wait, it is...

By the way, the logic is absurd here: I'm a racist/bigot/tool for not mentioning "Islamic terrorism" - merely accused of implying terrorism carried out by Muslims - and Israel Shahak is so far not an Antisemite for his absurd and patently Antisemitic tropes.

Robocommie

4th October 2012, 02:39

Now if only claiming Islam/Hinduism/[insert other religion] poisons minds and hearts were bigoted. Oh wait, it is...

By the way, the logic is absurd here: I'm a racist/bigot/tool for not mentioning "Islamic terrorism" - merely accused of implying terrorism carried out by Muslims - and Israel Shahak is so far not an Antisemite for his absurd and patently Antisemitic tropes.

You mean the Jewish guy who survived the concentration camps and then later served in the IDF?

No, he's not an anti-Semite.

rayznack

4th October 2012, 03:02

You mean the Jewish guy who survived the concentration camps and then later served in the IDF?

No, he's not an anti-Semite.

Really, what is claiming Jews pray to Satan? I seem to recall a writer advancing the Allah-is-a-moon-god theory branded an "Islamophobe". Don't you hate it when facts get in the way of an argument you can't make?

The "Allah is the Moon-God" Nonsense Could be the Stupidest Anti-Muslim Conspiracy Theory blah blah blah...http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/the-allah-is-the-moon-god-nonsense-could-be-the-stupidest-anti-muslim-conspiracy-theory-yet-page-ii/

Now why is simply holding a theory that cuts across consensus - perhaps deliberately so - 'Anti-Muslim' but outright lying that Jews pray to Satan not Anti-Jewish?

Do you want to make an attempt at explaining the clear contradiction here? In case you're confused: Holding "Orientalist" myths about Islam: Anti-Muslim; holding "Quaint" myths about Judaism: ???

And why would surviving a concentration camp mean Israel Shahak couldn't possibly be Antisemitic? Did Nazi racial policies exclude children like Israel Shahak because they would later go on to dish out "Orientalist" lies on Judaism and Antisemitic tropes?

As for serving in Israel's military, I seem to recall Israelis are conscripted. Israel Shahak didn't voluntarily serve and even so, was decades ago.

(And yes, I am referring to the guy who claims Judaism poisons the minds of believers. But that's not Antisemitic, just don't say anything about al-Qaeda and that will be anti-Muslim)

#FF0000

4th October 2012, 03:38

So there is a qualitative difference between al-Qaeda from anything Buddhists are doing. But please correct me by pointing out the international Buddhist theocratic terrorist organizations currently operating. Perhaps you'll find incidents of Buddhists from California or Britain flocking to fight in some holy war somewhere.

Yo but again, international Islamic terrorism is an extremely recent phenomenon. Buddhist extremists have slaughtered people on a pretty large scale since before Al Qaeda was a thing.

#FF0000

4th October 2012, 03:46

Really, what is claiming Jews pray to Satan? I seem to recall a writer advancing the Allah-is-a-moon-god theory branded an "Islamophobe". Don't you hate it when facts get in the way of an argument you can't make?

But that isn't what he said. I even pointed this out to you. What I got out of it was that "cabbalists" offer prayer to the devil to trick him. He doesn't say "jews are literally demon worshippers".

I don't know how you maintain this confidence when you are so wrong so consistently.

Robocommie

4th October 2012, 04:23

Really, what is claiming Jews pray to Satan? I seem to recall a writer advancing the Allah-is-a-moon-god theory branded an "Islamophobe". Don't you hate it when facts get in the way of an argument you can't make?

Yeah, putting the word Islamophobe in dick quotes sure doesn't make you look like someone with an agenda against Islam, does it? It's not like any of us have put anti-Semitism in dick quotes.

I want to clue you in on something; in a lot of currents of Judaism, ha-Satan is not the embodiment of all earthly evil, intent on destroying souls to spite God. He is in fact on God's side. He is God's prosecuting attorney. He tempts the faithful to betray their covenant with God and then condemns them from on high for having done so. I mean, you know that Judaism isn't just Christianity minus Jesus, right?

You know what though, I really don't know anything about the dinner prayer that Shahak talks about. I've been trying to find out more about it online in order to give it an honest look but I'm finding almost nothing but the report that he said it. I used to own a copy of the book but I no longer do, otherwise I would look to see if Shahak had cited any sources.

Here's the real point though; Shahak's book is not written with the intention of talking about how awful Jews are in general and how right anti-Semites are. In fact to the contrary! He explicitly states that he opposes anti-Semitism but that he feels that anti-Semitism cannot be addressed without simultaneously addressing Jewish racism and chauvinism.

I mean do you believe that Jews are incapable of chauvinism, racism or bigotry of their own? Just because they have been repeatedly victimized throughout history does not mean they are not capable of their own prejudices. This is PARTICULARLY the case when Jewish chauvinism is backed up by the power of a national state, like that of Israel. In Israel, acts of Jewish racism are very much a real thing. This is what Israel Shahak condemns, this is what Edward Said supported.

It is very possible to concede that some things in a given book are completely full of crap without rejecting the overall greater message of a book. That's a good thing too, because no author is so omniscient, so flawless in his method, to write a book devoid of prejudice or error.

Neither Edward Said or Israel Shahak are gods, and they are not incapable of mistakes. Furthermore, being a leftist is NOT about choosing sides and being pro-Muslim and anti-Jewish, or being pro-Jewish and anti-Islam. That said, I'm really comfortable with saying that both of their criticisms of Israel and oppression of non-Jewish groups is far more accurate than the Western chauvinism stupidly evinced by Sam Harris.

Do you want to make an attempt at explaining the clear contradiction here? In case you're confused: Holding "Orientalist" myths about Islam: Anti-Muslim; holding "Quaint" myths about Judaism: ???

Orientalism is fucked up, anti-Semitism is fucked up. It should be called out where it is. I have no problem with saying that there's dodgy things in Jewish History, Jewish Religion. That doesn't change the overall purpose of the book, nor does it make Israel Shahak an anti-Semite. Quite frankly, a man is allowed to be critical of a culture group which he himself is a member of, and while that does not make his critiques beyond reproach or infallible, it most certainly does not make him a racist for doing so.

And why would surviving a concentration camp mean Israel Shahak couldn't possibly be Antisemitic? Did Nazi racial policies exclude children like Israel Shahak because they would later go on to dish out "Orientalist" lies on Judaism and Antisemitic tropes?

What exactly about undergoing the ordeal of the Warsaw Ghetto and the horrors of Bergen-Belsen, including the death of close family members, makes you think he would be so eager to hate the race which he himself is a member of? I'll roundly condemn German anti-Semitism, from the time of Martin Luther all the way up to the Nazis. I will acknowledge that this has made up a very negative legacy within historic German culture. Does that make me a self-hating German?

#FF0000

4th October 2012, 04:24

i want to clue you in on something; in a lot of currents of judaism, ha-satan is not the embodiment of all earthly evil, intent on destroying souls to spite god. He is in fact on god's side. He is god's prosecuting attorney. He tempts the faithful to betray their covenant with god and then condemns them from on high for having done so. I mean, you know that judaism isn't just christianity minus jesus, right?

and suddenly everything from comparative religion 101 comes back to me

Robocommie

4th October 2012, 04:27

Yo but again, international Islamic terrorism is an extremely recent phenomenon. Buddhist extremists have slaughtered people on a pretty large scale since before Al Qaeda was a thing.

There was an article Michael Parenti wrote about Buddhist monks in Korea beating the snot out of each other over temple donations. I'm generally pro-religion and even I know that.

#FF0000

4th October 2012, 04:52

There was an article Michael Parenti wrote about Buddhist monks in Korea beating the snot out of each other over temple donations. I'm generally pro-religion and even I know that.

Yeah, that was a bizarre episode. There's also the violence against Christians and Muslims being carried out right now in Burma/Myanmar. And that's usually the form religious violence on the part of Buddhists take -- virtual genocide of religious minorities.

Robocommie

4th October 2012, 05:19

Yeah, that was a bizarre episode. There's also the violence against Christians and Muslims being carried out right now in Burma/Myanmar. And that's usually the form religious violence on the part of Buddhists take -- virtual genocide of religious minorities.

Unfortunately true. Likewise there's a lot of violence in India from extremist groups like Hindutva against Muslims. That's actually an interesting situation, because it seems that Hindutva has grown out of a rather hardline Indian nationalism which views Islam as an inherently foreign religion, since it was brought into the country by the Mughals several centuries ago. They see the campaign to drive out Islam as a natural extension of India's independence from Britain. The problem is, Islam has been such a part of India for so long now, and has such an enormous Muslim population, that it's become just as legitimate a part of the national landscape as say, Europeans or African-Americans in the US.

Robocommie

4th October 2012, 05:49

israel shahak on the racism of zionism and the state of israel (1975): “it is my considered opinion that the state of israel is a racist state in the full meaning of this term: In this state people are discriminated against, in the most permanent and legal way and in the most important areas of life, only because of their origin. This racist discrimination began in zionism and is carried out today mainly in cooperation with the institutions of the zionist movement. I will prove this view by quoting facts, laws and regulations which have force in israel (and which are known really to anybody) and are enforced by the government. I will therefore ignore the racism of the individuals in this article and also the declared or undeclared explanations by which this racism is sometimes "justified"). In the state of israel, one who is not a jew is discriminated against, only because he is not a jew, in these areas of life: … in almost every area of life in the state of israel there exists a similar racist separation between "jews" and "non-jews," a separation that necessarily causes discrimination. I am quite prepared to bring further examples if other opportunities will be given me. Here i want to finish with two chief conclusions:

A) i do not wish to debate any justifications for that racist policy. The most important fact is that it exists. Therefore the first step consists in admitting the truth: The state of israel is a racist state, and its racism is a necessary consequence of the racism of the zionist movement. Facts are facts. After this we can debate, if we wish to do so, why such a racism is "forbidden" against the jews and becomes a good deed when it is carried out by the jews.

B) i do know the fact that the state of israel is not the only racist state, and similarly the zionist organization is not the only racist organization. I know for example that the paragraph six of the 1968 palestinian covenant can be considered also as a racist declaration and i have said so many times to palestinian-arab audiences in neutral countries. Usually i encounter a great deal of sympathetic understanding. But justice begins at home. The primary duty of all citizens of israel, and also of all those jews in the diaspora who define themselves as the "supporters of israel" is to struggle against the racism and the discrimination which zionism has established in the state of israel, and which is directed against all the non-jews who live in it." [1]. [1]. Israel shahak, “ the racist nature of zionism and of the zionist state of israel”, first published in hebrew in pi-ha'aton, (weekly paper of the students in the hebrew university of jerusalem), 1975:

#FF0000

4th October 2012, 08:03

Unfortunately true. Likewise there's a lot of violence in India from extremist groups like Hindutva against Muslims. That's actually an interesting situation, because it seems that Hindutva has grown out of a rather hardline Indian nationalism which views Islam as an inherently foreign religion, since it was brought into the country by the Mughals several centuries ago. They see the campaign to drive out Islam as a natural extension of India's independence from Britain. The problem is, Islam has been such a part of India for so long now, and has such an enormous Muslim population, that it's become just as legitimate a part of the national landscape as say, Europeans or African-Americans in the US.

Indian Nationalists are against a thing because the Mughals brought it and the Mughals were 'foreign'.

That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my entire life.

Robocommie

4th October 2012, 08:05

Indian Nationalists are against a thing because the Mughals brought it and the Mughals were 'foreign'.

That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my entire life.

It becomes particularly problematic when you start to think about how one of the most enduring icons of India, the Taj Mahal, was built by a Mughal emperor. I mean, that's just one example. Then there's the fact that whole religions have arisen in India from Islam's presence - Sikhism itself is of course a merger between Islamic theology and Hindu rites and philosophy. It's clearly a part of the country now.

#FF0000

4th October 2012, 08:12

Nevermind all that and consider the fact that the Mughals were the first thing the Indian subcontinent had that even remotely resembled a unifying thing for any stretch of time. And then the influence on culture (you mentioned the Taj Mahal of course) in general. It's almost like American nationalists rejecting the first pilgrims as foreigners.

You literally can't talk about Indian history without the Mughals being a huge part of it.

how do people even think these dumb things jesus christ

rayznack

4th October 2012, 16:51

What exactly about undergoing the ordeal of the Warsaw Ghetto and the horrors of Bergen-Belsen, including the death of close family members, makes you think he would be so eager to hate the race which he himself is a member of?

Tell that to Paul Rassinier, a socialist and *survivor* of the concentration camps , who became the father of Holocaust denialism.

Once again, your 'logic' hits a road block.

I'll roundly condemn German anti-Semitism ... Does that make me a self-hating German?

By condemning German anti-Semitism, does that include claiming German culture is poisonous, falsifying religious beliefs of Protestantism/Catholicism (as if claiming Catholics are Pope worshipers is combatting Antisemitism) and fabricating stories or embellishing details to show how awful Germans are?

Orientalism is fucked up

An interesting point. I thought Orientalists were just 'criticizing' 'backward' practices and beliefs? What's wrong with that? What's wrong when Muslims such as Asra Nomani or Tarek Fatah also are critical of practices or belief systemss that they are branded 'self hating Muslims'?

Pray tell, what is a characteristic of 'Orientalism' that I couldn't find in Shahak's book?

This is what Israel Shahak condemns, this is what Edward Said supported.

Actually, having been reading the book, Shahak is much more concerned with the depravations (invented stories included) of the rabbis and Jewish religion; hence the book is about 3,000 years of Jewish history.

Shahak's book is not written with the intention of talking about how awful Jews are in general and how right anti-Semites are.

Actually, he has said in the book Jewish culture was one of the most barbaric in history (at least in Europe). Maybe I can find the quote again. How is that not claiming Jews are awful especially when he explicitly or implicitly states Jews are a cause of Antisemitism?

He explicitly states that he opposes anti-Semitism but that he feels that anti-Semitism cannot be addressed without simultaneously addressing Jewish racism and chauvinism.

Great, he's a salesman. David Duke also says he's not racist.

I used to own a copy of the book but I no longer do

According to what I've read, many publishers of his book just happen to be Neo-Nazis. Why would Neo-Nazis publish and endorse this book?

I certainly hope you didn't buy the book from a Nazi publisher.

ha-Satan is not the embodiment of all earthly evil

Neither is a 'moon-god' but claiming Allah etymologically/anthropologically derives from a pagan moon-god is apparently 'anti-Muslim'. Is there a huge fundamental difference here or are you just splitting hairs?

#FF0000

4th October 2012, 22:13

Neither is a 'moon-god' but claiming Allah etymologically/anthropologically derives from a pagan moon-god is apparently 'anti-Muslim'. Is there a huge fundamental difference here or are you just splitting hairs?

Yeah I'd say there's a big difference between saying "this god is false" and "the jewish 'satan' isn't the same as the christian 'satan'"

rayznack

4th October 2012, 23:49

Yeah I'd say there's a big difference between saying "this god is false" and "the jewish 'satan' isn't the same as the christian 'satan'"

Israel Shahak didn't say Satan is different in Christianity and Judaism; he said Jews worship Satan by claiming they say a prayer to Satan. The claim appears to be completely false and alleges Jews are not monotheistic, which is as offensive to Jews as claiming Muslims worship a polytheistic deity is to Muslims, I'd imagine.

Is this really the best you can respond with?

Back to Israel Shahak:

It should be recalled that Judaism, especially in its classical form, is totalitarian in nature. The behavior of supporters of other totalitarian ideologies of our times was not different from that of the organized American Jews.

[...]

The apparent enthusiasm displayed by American rabbis or by the Jewish organizations in the USA during the 1950s and the 1960s in support of the Blacks in the South, was motivated only by considerations of Jewish self-interest, just as was the communist support for the same Blacks. Its purpose in both cases was to try to capture the Black community politically, in the Jewish case to an unthinking support of Israeli policies in the Middle East. http://ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/shahak.html

In other words, American Jews were performing a type of Taqiyya, dontchya know? Israel Shahak knows that Jewish rabbis can't possibly be motivated by good intentions and only support non-Jews to win them over for Israel.

I'll let someone tell me if portraying an entire religion as monolithic is bigotry. I seem to recall claiming Islam is inherently violent being "Islamophobic".

But to be honest, I'm not so sure. Is claiming that Islam is violent by nature bigoted? What about Judaism? Any takers?

Robocommie

5th October 2012, 00:48

I'm sick of your shit, Rayznack. This whole line of conversation started because I pointed out that you've been here less than a month and that all you do is talk shit about Islam. You never post about Marxism, about class warfare, about socialism or revolution. You have only ever gotten yourself involved in topics about Islam - and of those, it's really just been two threads, this one and the other one about leftist "apologies" for Islam. I keep saying it's obvious what you are, and you are fooling nobody.

I don't really give a fuck about Israel Shahak. I never cared for his works, and I found and still found Jewish History, Jewish Religion to be a problematic work, largely because a lot of these things you've been pointing out.

Yeah, that's right asshole. I'm not blind. I recognize that this shit is problematic.

However, I am not going to associate Israel Shahak with the broader work of anti-Semitism, even if his work is co-opted by Neo-Nazis and other racists to push their own agenda. Why? Because Israel Shahak was a liberal Israeli activist writing from within Israel to condemn Jewish racism and Jewish fundamentalism. He took a decidedly anti-religious tack to do so. Shahak was an atheist. He had no respect for religion. His work was never meant as a polemic against Jews as an ethic group but against Judaism as a religious culture. I doubt he had any high praise at all for Islam as a religion either. However, he didn't write about Islam, as far as I'm aware, because his concern was Israel's actions and Israeli racism. This is why Edward Said appreciated his work to the extent that he did.

One of the most common, if not THE most common methods of pro-Zionist politicians and authors is to insist that anyone who says anything bad about Israeli groups or accuses Israeli Jews of violence in Palestine is that that person is an anti-Semite. It evokes and abuses the legitimate legacy of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust in order to silence all criticism of the ethnocentric Israeli state. It is absolutely contemptible. Israel Shahak was no more a "self-hating Jew" than Norman Finkelstein or Noam Chomsky.

Oh, and btw, your comparison to Paul Rassinier is completely specious, because A) Rassinier wasn't Jewish, he was French and B) Israel Shahak has never denied the Holocaust.

I'm just not going to bother with this thread anymore. As I said, it's been ridiculously transparent that this guy has an agenda, and so the only way to win this game is to just not play.

rayznack

5th October 2012, 01:06

all you do is talk shit about Islam.

Such as?

He had no respect for religion.

He also claimed American Rabbis only operated with a malicious agenda even when their actions seemed positive. To me, that was the most Antisemitic quote I've read in the past ... day.

I'll take note of your silence and whether claiming Muslims who condemn terrorism only because of fallout if they don't is patently anti-Muslim or 'Islamophobic'.

To me, it is. I can and do condemn both.

This is why Edward Said appreciated his work to the extent that he did.

This is what Edward Said is praising in his 8 page foreword for the book:

It should be recalled that Judaism, especially in its classical form, is totalitarian in nature. The behavior of supporters of other totalitarian ideologies of our times was not different from that of the organized American Jews.

[...]

The apparent enthusiasm displayed by American rabbis or by the Jewish organizations in the USA during the 1950s and the 1960s in support of the Blacks in the South, was motivated only by considerations of Jewish self-interest, just as was the communist support for the same Blacks. Its purpose in both cases was to try to capture the Black community politically, in the Jewish case to an unthinking support of Israeli policies in the Middle East.

Pure Antisemitism. Just because the author is a former Jew doesn't make the statement anything other than what it actually is.

Oh, and btw, your comparison to Paul Rassinier is completely specious, because A) Rassinier wasn't Jewish, he was French and B) Israel Shahak has never denied the Holocaust.

No, it wasn't a perfect analogy but the point was that someone who suffered the Holocaust actually denied there was a Holocaust!

This is somewhat analogous to you claiming suffering the Holocaust for being Jewish means you couldn't possibly be Antisemitic.

The comparison is close enough.

#FF0000

5th October 2012, 01:14

Israel Shahak didn't say Satan is different in Christianity and Judaism; he said Jews worship Satan by claiming they say a prayer to Satan. The claim appears to be completely false and alleges Jews are not monotheistic, which is as offensive to Jews as claiming Muslims worship a polytheistic deity is to Muslims, I'd imagine.

But that's your interpretation of an out-of-context quote, dummy. Looking at the entire page, the quote looks a little better but no less bizarre until you look at what "Satan" is in Judaism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan#Judaism)

Which you don't even need to do since Robocommie already pointed this out, that Satan is an agent of God in Judaism.

You're literally ignoring our points and just making things up now. (Keep saying 'logic' like you own it though)

Back to Israel Shahak:I thought we were talking about Edward Said.

It should be recalled that Judaism, especially in its classical form, is totalitarian in nature. People say this about all religions, though. I'd say that this is just incorrect.

In other words, American Jews were performing a type of Taqiyya, dontchya know? Israel Shahak knows that Jewish rabbis can't possibly be motivated by good intentions and only support non-Jews to win them over for Israel.Yo it's pretty clear the dude's talking about zionists specifically.

And further, I don't think you can call this guy antisemitic at all unless you can call me an anti-Catholic bigot. This is a guy who is Jewish, who was raised in this culture, and is criticizing Judaism and Israel. It is analogous to every other Irish Catholic kid who grew up and started hating on the Church and Christianity as they got older. This is someone criticizing their own culture and society, not attacking some other. That is an extremely, extremely important distinction and I don't think it's at all fair to criticize him for antisemites taking his criticisms and running with them as an excuse for their own bigotry.

cynicles

5th October 2012, 01:27

A double standard of what? Have you actually shown any double standard by the German state regarding pro-Jewish bias over Islam?

I actually took the trouble to finding a clear example of double standards occurring in Britain and your only claim is to ignore the fact that a university program in Germany is rejecting the application of a non-German citizen. That's hardly a case of double standardism going on in either Germany or the entire Western world as you're now extrapolating from one incident.

On top of that, the distinction between universities and workplaces having codes and rules separate and apart from the government of either Germany or the United States and other Western nations hasn't dawned on you: Universities and workplaces create their own speech rules; unless you think you have the freedom to tell your co-workers off from fear of your employer firing you, it's simply a ludicrous comparison.

The west always goes on about freedom of speech being a cornerstone value and disparaging the muslim world as barbarians. Politicians, intellectuals, pundits and every institution. So yes, I am extrapolating from this incident as one of many.

What does pro-jewish bias have to do with this discussion, the man in question burned an Israeli flag when he was 17. This is a political bias where German university is denying entry for something unrelated to the university. The idea of punishing someone for exercising personal views, in this case burning a flag on their own time, which not only had nothing to do with the competition that was about population explosion is ludicrous. This isn't a work place, it's a completely unrelated competition.

You're joking, right? You don't understand how my example of the State arresting a man for destroying a Koran he personally owns while funding a museum exhibit where the Bible is desecrated is a countervailing fact to your previous point?

You use double standard but it almost seems you don't know what it means.

I'll simply ask: How is arresting a man for partially burning his own Koran on his private property and rewarding another man for desecrating a Bible *not* a double standard; at least, the fly in the ointment double standard you would rather not acknowledge?

Is this a serious reply or are you just trolling now? I just said in my previous point that this example you provided proves my point about the west having double standards about freedom of expression. It's all talk and no delivery. I'm honestly convinced you're just being antagonistic for the sake of antagonism.

rayznack

5th October 2012, 01:35

But that's your interpretation of an out-of-context quote, dummy. Looking at the entire page, the quote looks a little better but no less bizarre until you look at what "Satan" is in Judaism (http://www.anonym.to/?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan#Judaism) Sorry, this addresses a false claim regarding Jews that would conclude Jews are not monotheists, how?

Which you don't even need to do since Robocommie already pointed this out, that Satan is an agent of God in Judaism.Is this supposed to be more or less offensive than claiming Muslims worship a benign deity worshiped and revered by others (who happen to be pagan)?

People say this about all religions, though. I'd say that this is just incorrect.Indeed. And anyone who would say Islam is inherently violent are 'anti-Muslim' or Islamophobes.

Do you agree someone claiming Islam is inherently violent is an Islamophobe?

Yes or no.

Yo it's pretty clear the dude's talking about zionists specifically.Here's the quote again:

The apparent enthusiasm displayed by American rabbis or by the Jewish organizations in the USA during the 1950s and the 1960s in support of the Blacks in the South, was motivated only by considerations of Jewish self-interest, just as was the communist support for the same Blacks. Its purpose in both cases was to try to capture the Black community politically, in the Jewish case to an unthinking support of Israeli policies in the Middle East. That's quite the impressive mental gymnastics you've just performed. You're right in the sense that Israel Shahak is talking about 'zionists' in the sense that American rabbis were only interested in civil rights to get the Black community to support Israel. This stems from his previous (numerous) statements that Jews only help Gentiles if it can help Jews in return. Shahak also compared the Jewish community in 17th century Poland to Israel today.

That is an extremely, extremely important distinction. So Israel Shahak is a 'native-informant' or 'self-hating Jew', as Tarek Fatah, Asra Nomani, Irshad Manji and Mona Eltahawy are:

The real reason that Arab women recoil after reading Eltahawy’s article is that, while she tries to connect to them based on their gender, she attacks other aspects of their core identity: their race, nationality, religion, and culture. In fact, her racist (and somewhat babbling) screed is nothing short of a vicious attack on their entire civilization.

[...]

As other pundits have noted, Mona Eltahawy is–along with Irshad Manji, Asra Nomani, Tarek Fatah, Zuhdi Jasser, etc.–acting in the role of the “native informant.” Monica L. Marks writes on the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/monica-l-marks/do-arabs-really-hate-wome_b_1453147.html):http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/04/why-do-they-hate-us-they-dont/

So basically, Muslims who merely criticize some things Muslims do are "self-hating Muslims", "racists", and "native-informants" even after being careful to distinguish Islam from the actions of Muslims.

But a former Jew (that must mean converts from Judaism to another religion could never become bitter about their former religion by your logic) who claims his former religion is a monolith and inherently nasty to boot and alleges sinister motives to rabbis who do good deeds isn't possibly anything like what the racist Mona Eltahawy is, right?

Anyway, just change the sentence from Jews, Judaism and rabbis to Muslims, Islam and cleric/imam:

condemnation of terrorism in the United States by American Muslim leaders, was motivated only by considerations of Muslim self-interestSo are Muslims who condemn discrimination in the West only doing so for ulterior motives? Should we suspect Muslims the same way Israel Shahak suspects American Jews who condemned racism in the 50's?

rayznack

5th October 2012, 01:47

The west always goes on about freedom of speech being a cornerstone value and disparaging the muslim world as barbarians. Politicians, intellectuals, pundits and every institution.

I haven't heard the current leaders of any Western nation disparage Islam or Muslims as barbarians. I'm also more likely to hear offensive comments by 'intellectuals' against Christianity or Christians than I am any other religion or religious groups. So, I see no 'double standard' here.

This is a political bias where German university is denying entry for something unrelated to the university.

Yes, workplaces and places of learning (which are basically corporations) have their own codes of conduct. Apparently, most workplaces frown upon sexist/racist/homophobic speech that is completely allowed by the government of the United States. Double standards and all.

The idea of punishing someone for exercising personal views, in this case burning a flag on their own time, which not only had nothing to do with the competition that was about population explosion is ludicrous.

Except for the part the student wasn't a German citizen, resident and the program had its own right to choose whom they wanted.

I just said in my previous point that this example you provided proves my point about the west having double standards about freedom of expression.

The case for double standards you were trying to make was about Islam being bashed. I've shown that Islam can't be bashed in Britain the same way Christianity can. So, you're absolutely right about double standards, just wrong about the players.

#FF0000

5th October 2012, 02:23

Sorry, this addresses a false claim regarding Jews that would conclude Jews are not monotheists, how?

The same way pointing out that Catholics pray to saints doesn't mean that one is calling them polytheistic, stupid.

And I dunno about it being a "false" claim, either. My bet is that he's bringing up some old obscure religious factoid that doesn't have any bearing on modern judaism whatsoever.

Indeed. And anyone who would say Islam is inherently violent are 'anti-Muslim' or Islamophobes.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I think people are allowed to be wildly ignorant without being bigots. There are, after all, people who would say that all religions, including judaism and islam, are patriarchal, tyrannical, totalitarian, and violent. Are these people antisemitic and islamophobic? Nope.

People who think, though, that Muslims are especially violent or dangerous or too foreign, or something, would certainly be Islamophobes.

I'd say Islamophobia and antisemitism has more to do with what people think of Muslims and Jews as opposed to what they think of their belief system.

You're right in the sense that Israel Shahak is talking about 'zionists' in the sense that American rabbis were only interested in civil rights to get the Black community to support Israel. This stems from his previous (numerous) statements that Jews only help Gentiles if it can help Jews in return. Shahak also compared the Jewish community in 17th century Poland to Israel today.

Aight, I'm not about to read this entire thing or take your word for anything here. I'm not saying there is no way this dude hasn't said some problematic stuff (like Robocommie said). At the same time I think it's dumb, based on what you've presented, to say "HE IS AN ANTISEMITE"

So Israel Shahak is a 'native-informant' or 'self-hating Jew', as Tarek Fatah, Asra Nomani, Irshad Manji and Mona Eltahawy are:

No, I don't buy the "self-hating" thing, generally. There are definitely people who take racist nonsense to heart, internalize it, and believe it, but it's too often used as a cudgel against people who criticize a thing.

So basically, Muslims who merely criticize somethings what Muslims do are "self-hating Muslims", "racists", and "native-informants" even after being careful to distinguish Islam from the actions of Muslims.

Nobody ever said that, and I certainly don't believe that. I can think of quite a few muslims I know who are critical of the conservative strains of Islam that I like.

But a former Jew (that must mean converts from Judaism to another religion could never become bitter about their former religion, btw) who claims his former religion is a monolith and inherently nasty to boot and alleges sinister motives to rabbis who do good deeds isn't possibly anything like what the racist Mona Eltahawy is, right?

I like Mona Eltahawy, though. And no, he isn't anything like Mona Eltahawy. She is still a Muslim. If anything, the dude's like me, a guy who grew up Catholic, became an atheist, and started hating on the church and Christianity all day every day.

So are Muslims who condemn discrimination in the West only doing so for ulterior motives? Should we suspect Muslims the same way Israel Shahak suspects American Jews who condemned racism in the 50's?

Damn, you're stupid, dude. If you had any brain whatsoever you'd replace "Blacks in the south" with "Palestinians in Israel" and jews with "Arab leaders". Then you would have made a decent analogy.

e.g. "condemnation of the treatment of Palestinians in Israel by arab leaders, was motivated only by self interest"

And nah, that wouldn't be racist or anything. That would be true.

But I don't know anything about the veracity of what Israel Shahak is saying. Regardless, he did go about saying it in a dumb way that would make it pretty easy for dumb bigots to take this and run with it.

but we're talking about edward said, so uh.

#FF0000

5th October 2012, 02:29

I haven't heard the current leaders of any Western nation disparage Islam or Muslims as barbarians.

Geert Wilders and Col. Alan West as quick examples. You can find a lot of political folks in the West who talk shit on Muslims all day every day. Did you forget the BNP was a thing?

I'm also more likely to hear offensive comments by 'intellectuals' against Christianity or Christians than I am any other religion or religious groups. So, I see no 'double standard' here.

The difference is that Christians aren't a "foreign" minority in these countries and Christianity, at least in the united states, have a whole lot of sway in public policy.

The case for double standards you were trying to make was about Islam being bashed. I've shown that Islam can't be bashed in Britain the same way Christianity can. So, you're absolutely right about double standards, just wrong about the players.

Nah, people are just quick to point out that the folks bashing Islam and immigrants are outright racists. Christians aren't persecuted in England, dogg, unless you want to remind me which group it was that wanted to close the borders and deport all Christians.

rayznack

5th October 2012, 03:04

I haven't heard the current leaders of any Western nation disparage Islam or Muslims as barbarians.

Geert Wilders and Col. Alan West as quick examples.

Yes, because Geert Wilders and Col. West are current leaders of any Western nation.

Yeah, you're not dumb.

Christians aren't persecuted in England, dogg,Neither are Muslims or any other religion. Great point. However, the state actually has funded an exhibit that desecrated the Bible; unlike the Koran where a man was arrested for partially burning his own copy on his property.

rayznack

5th October 2012, 03:28

The same way pointing out that Catholics pray to saints doesn't mean that one is calling them polytheistic, stupid.

Stupid, your previous attempt at a point was claiming a qualitative difference between the moon-good Allah theory and a false claim that Jews 'worship' Satan in a prayer. If one is 'anti-Muslim' then the other is 'anti-Jewish'.

You're not too bright, but put another way, if claiming Allah is a moon god is anti-Muslim then numerous theories put forward regarding the origins of Christianity being pagan Sun cults would be anti-Christian. Do you need this drawn in crayon to understand basic analogy?

And I dunno about it being a "false" claim, either. My bet...

Your bet would be wrong.

I don't think that's necessarily true... Are these people... islamophobic? Nope.

You would be wrong. Claiming Islam is a violent monolith fits the definition of 'Islamophobia':

1) Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.

3) Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
4) Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a 'clash of civilisations'.

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-a-definition/

I'm not saying there is no way this dude hasn't said some problematic stuff (like Robocommie said). At the same time I think it's dumb, based on what you've presented, to say "HE IS AN ANTISEMITE"

Thanks for your views. I think claiming American rabbis opposed segregation just to get Blacks to support Jewish interests in the 50's is pure Antisemitism.

Nobody ever said that

Apparently you didn't read the article or quote I presented where Mona Eltahawy was called a racist and native informant:

The real reason that Arab women recoil after reading Eltahawy’s article is that, while she tries to connect to them based on their gender, she attacks other aspects of their core identity: their race, nationality, religion, and culture. In fact, her racist (and somewhat babbling) screed is nothing short of a vicious attack on their entire civilization.

[...]

As other pundits have noted, Mona Eltahawy is–along with Irshad Manji, Asra Nomani, Tarek Fatah, Zuhdi Jasser, etc.–acting in the role of the “native informant.” Monica L. Marks writes on the Huffington Post (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/monica-l-marks/do-arabs-really-hate-wome_b_1453147.html):

Mona's criticism of sexism in Arab countries was called a racist attack and she was branded a 'native informant'.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/04/why-do-they-hate-us-they-dont/

Damn, you're stupid, dude. If you had any brain whatsoever you'd replace "Blacks in the south" with "Palestinians in Israel" and jews with "Arab leaders".

If by Arab leaders do you mean American Arab leaders? Because the quote was speaking of American Jewish organizations and rabbis who opposed discrimination against Black Americans in America.

So, a better analogy would be Arab/Muslim organizations and Muslim clerics/imams who oppose discrimination against other minorities in the United States as a ruse to marshal support for Muslim/Arab causes/governments.

e.g. "condemnation of the treatment of Palestinians in Israel by arab leaders, was motivated only by self interest"

No, stupid, it would be: "condemnation of the treatment of American minorities (blacks/hispanics, etc) by American imams and Arab organizations was motivated only by Muslim/Arab self interest."

And nah, that wouldn't be racist or anything. That would be true.

So can I have you on record saying Muslim spokespersons and religious leaders in the United States opposing discrimination do it to get people on their side?

Here's the quote again since you seem to have reading difficulties:

The apparent enthusiasm displayed by American rabbis or by the Jewish organizations in the USA during the 1950s and the 1960s in support of the Blacks in the South, was motivated only by considerations of Jewish self-interest, just as was the communist support for the same Blacks. Its purpose in both cases was to try to capture the Black community politically, in the Jewish case to an unthinking support of Israeli policies in the Middle East.

Robocommie

5th October 2012, 03:29

You moron, Geert Wilders is the leader of the fourth largest party in the Dutch parliament, and Allen West is a Congressman from Florida. Then there's former Congressman Tom Tancredo, who actually suggested the US should bomb Mecca before he was elected to Congress.

Oh, who else? There was Nazi scumbag Jorg Haider, who other than looking like a racist James Bond, was also Governor of Carinthia and leader of the Austrian Freedom Party.

Pim Fortuyn was quite against Islam as well. He's dead now, but only a couple of years ago he had quite a bit of influence.

Then there's Jean-Marie le Pen, who ran for President of France, and was also the leader of the French National Front, etc etc.

These people were all western political leaders who wielded a significant amount of power at one time or another. And please - don't bother splitting hairs over whether they're all currently in power or not, because all of them were in office recently, none of them have renounced what they said, and frankly if any one of them were to say anything like it about Christianity or Judaism you'd be crapping yourself right now in rage.

You're a funny guy.

I guess if that's still not enough for you though, we could also mention the legislation against building minarets in Switzerland. Maybe you wouldn't consider that discrimination though, since after all, Jews and Christians can't build minarets either now. Bans on veils, etc.

I mean dude, really, every western European society with any kind of an Islamic population has politicians and political movements that bash Islam or Muslims in connection to immigration issues. Do you really think Anders Breivik popped out of nowhere?

I mean, that's probably a bad example to use. I realize that since you keep talking about Christians as victims and keep saying (in a way you seem to think is cleverly subtle) that Muslims are unusually violent terrorists, you must be a big fan of Anders Breivik's outlook. Still, I hope you get my point.

#FF0000

5th October 2012, 03:32

Yes, because Geert Wilders and Col. West are current leaders of any Western nation.

Yeah, you're not dumb.

Of course only the executive of a government matters gubgubgubgu

Neither are Muslims or any other religion.

TxdTEVzzr_s

Not to mention the BNP becoming a thing for a good spell of time.

But hey, if you're strictly talking about state repression, then there's England's new spying program targeted at Muslims, which is like a little baby version of America's exhaustive spying program on Muslims which actually includes singling out certain people, feeding them Islamist nonsense, offering to sell them bombs, and then arresting them and saying "WE CAUGHT A TERRORIST".

Great point. However, the state actually has funded an exhibit that desecrated the Bible; unlike the Koran where a man was arrested for partially burning his own copy on his property.

Sounds like a silly thing, that latter case -- of course I'd love to see a source rather than your twisted retelling of events, since you're not exactly a reliable narrator, dogg.

But even so, desecrating a Bible in a western country is very different than someone desecrating the scripture of a minority group. Likewise, people pulling that stuff in, say, Pakistan, isn't okay at all.

Context, dummy. It matters.

#FF0000

5th October 2012, 03:52

Stupid, your previous attempt at a point was claiming a qualitative difference between the moon-good Allah theory and a false claim that Jews 'worship' Satan in a prayer. If one is 'anti-Muslim' then the other is 'anti-Jewish'.

But the difference is that this guy isn't saying they worship Satan in the Christian sense, though. He isn't calling them devil worshippers and to imply he is would be hella disingeuous on your part.

You're not too bright, but put another way, if claiming Allah is a moon god is anti-Muslim then numerous theories put forward regarding the origins of Christianity being pagan Sun cults would be anti-Christian. Do you need this drawn in crayon to understand basic analogy?

Oof, you are a fan of ad-hominem attacks, aren't you?

But, no, if the whole "Allah is based on a moon god" thing is based in any kind of fact, then I don't think it's necessarily Islamophobic. It might even be true for all I know -- Abrahamic religions are very derivative, after all. And I don't think there's anything bigoted about pointing this out.

But it is bigoted to use the Allah-as-moon-god thing to drive a wedge between christians and muslims -- which is what fundamentalists christians use that particular line for.

Your bet would be wrong.

neat evidence!

You would be wrong. Claiming Islam is a violent monolith fits the definition of 'Islamophobia':

No, what I said is that there are people who treat all religions like that, and even when they do, they don't necessarily group all believers up like that.

So, yeah, be mindful of what I'm actually saying, silly.

Apparently you didn't read the article or quote I presented where Mona Eltahawy was called a racist and native informant:

Apparently I don't care about that article because it has nothing to do with what anyone in this discussion is saying. Yes, I'm sure there are people who call her a "native informant" or whatever, but none of us are doing that, and I don't agree with that.

Engage with what I'm saying and not what you think I'm saying or the beliefs you want to ascribe to me, please.

words

Oh boy you're really upset over dumb analogies for some reason.

But yeah, I took a look at Israel Shahak and found he's got a pretty interesting list of friends and colleagues here. Christopher Hitchens was a fan of his... Allan C. Brownfeld from the American Council for Judaism... Alexander Cockburn... A lot of rather mainstream people in journalism and academia. Are all of these guys antisemitic as well?

rayznack

5th October 2012, 04:12

#FF0000

5th October 2012, 04:13

breaking news: la pen hates jews and muslims at the same time

rayznack

5th October 2012, 04:31

Not to mention the BNP becoming a thing for a good spell of time.So EDL existing means Muslims are persecuted by the state, huh?

Or you do you not know the meaning of persecution?

Apparently, by your logic, Jews are persecuted because a gunman killed three Jewish school children and rabbi in France, right?

Sounds like a silly thing, that latter case -- of course I'd love to see a source rather than your twisted retelling of events, since you're not exactly a reliable narrator, dogg.You should try this thing called reading since I already posted the story on this thread.

But even so, desecrating a Bible in a western country is very different than someone desecrating the scripture of a minority group.No, I'm sorry but a government is neutral in matters pertaining to religion in the United States and even Britain. It's not a different thing for a government to arrest someone for burning a Koran but not a Bible or the government subsidizing Bible desecration.

Context, dummy. It matters.

No, it doesn't, idiot; otherwise government would be funding Mosques and Temples in the United States because they're a minority and it wouldn't be that big of a deal.

There aren't degrees of right or wrong on matters of principle.

But the difference is that this guy isn't saying they worship Satan in the Christian sense, though. He isn't calling them devil worshippers and to imply he is would be hella disingeuous on your part.You're too dumb for more explanations.

Oof, you are a fan of ad-hominem attacks, aren't you?The following wasn't an ad hominem attack, moron:

You're not too bright, but put another way, if claiming Allah is a moon god is anti-Muslim then numerous theories put forward regarding the origins of Christianity being pagan Sun cults would be anti-Christian. Do you need this drawn in crayon to understand basic analogy?

But it is bigoted to use the Allah-as-moon-god thing to drive a wedge between christians and muslims -- which is what fundamentalists christians use that particular line for. Really? And you're the psychic of knowing what an individual's agenda is when they propose or make an argument? Saying the exact same thing but having a certain 'attitude' in saying it makes all the difference....right.

No, what I said is that there are people who treat all religions like that, and even when they do, they don't necessarily group all believers up like that.Idiot, *you* changed subject and went off on all religions when I was talking about Israel Shahak's statement on *one* religion, Judaism.

Change Shahak's quote on Judaism to Islam and we have ourselves an Islamophobic statement based on the definition I provided.

Engage with what I'm saying and not what you think I'm saying or the beliefs you want to ascribe to me, please.Can't...stop...laughing... :lol:

If only you and others would follow your own advice.

A lot of rather mainstream people in journalism and academia. Are all of these guys antisemitic as well? No, just those agreeing with Shahak's work and his previous comments about individuals with certain motives.

But going back to what you said about Arab leaders:

Damn, you're stupid, dude. If you had any brain whatsoever you'd replace "Blacks in the south" with "Palestinians in Israel" and jews with "Arab leaders".

[...]

e.g. "condemnation of the treatment of Palestinians in Israel by arab leaders, was motivated only by self interest" You mean like Edward Said? :)

Great point!

Alexander CockburnActually, yes.

rayznack

5th October 2012, 04:36

breaking news: la pen hates jews and muslims at the same time

Breaking news: the previous poster said:

Then there's Jean-Marie le Pen, who ran for President of France, and was also the leader of the French National Front, etc etc.

These people were all western political leaders who wielded a significant amount of power at one time or another. And please - don't bother splitting hairs over whether they're all currently in power or not, because all of them were in office recently, none of them have renounced what they said, and frankly if any one of them were to say anything like it about ... Judaism you'd be crapping yourself right now in rage.Do I need to explain this to you now?

Of course I do.

Jean Marie le Pen did say something like that about Jews.

So the previous poster just committed foot-in-mouth ownage and you've demonstrated (yet again) your reading comprehension issues.

Robocommie

5th October 2012, 04:46

Breaking news: the previous poster said:

Do I need to explain this to you now?

Of course I do.

Jean Marie le Pen did say something like that about Jews.

So the previous poster just committed foot-in-mouth ownage and you've demonstrated (yet again) your reading comprehension issues.

In other words, I predicted you'd be crapping yourself in rage, and here you are, crapping yourself over it?

You know, don't worry about the fact that you were still caught saying something full of shit - that Muslims aren't persecuted or that western leaders don't talk shit on Muslims. Instead, focus on a trivial comment that was literally only written to make fun of you and your incredibly obvious bias.

Robocommie

5th October 2012, 04:52

Apparently, by your logic, Jews are persecuted because a gunman killed three Jewish school children and rabbi in France, right?

...Fuck yes! What kind of an asshole would think this wasn't a case of Jewish persecution?

#FF0000

5th October 2012, 05:14

So EDL existing means Muslims are persecuted by the state, huh?

I literally addressed that in the very next line. And no, it means that anti-muslim sentiment is prevalent.

No, I'm sorry but a government is neutral in matters pertaining to religion in the United States and even Britain.

So the large-scale spying that goes on in American muslim communities just doesn't happen?

No, it doesn't, idiot; otherwise government would be funding Mosques and Temples in the United States because they're a minority and it wouldn't be that big of a deal.

hahahahah what are you even talking about?

There aren't degrees of right or wrong on matters of principle

Who said anything about degrees of right and wrong? I'm saying there's a qualitative difference between someone attacking their own society and culture and someone attacking the culture or society of a minority group.

You're too dumb for more explanations.

angry angry mad as heck at the internet how embarrassing.

The following wasn't an ad hominem attack, moron:

"Moron".

Really? And you're the psychic of knowing what an individual's agenda is when they propose or make an argument? Saying the exact same thing but having a certain 'attitude' in saying it makes all the difference....right.

Oh, no that's actually based on actually seeing folks trot out the allah-is-a-moon-god thing. Fundamentalists bring it up to assert that Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God.

No, just those agreeing with Shahak's work and his previous comments about individuals with certain motives.

Okay so.

1. Israel Shahak is an anti-semite
2. Edward Said is an antisemite by association.
3. None of those other people are, though.

Why?

You mean like Edward Said?

Great point!

No I mean like actual Pan-Arab political leaders in the Middle East who would often talk a big game about the plight of the Palestinians but did fuck all to help them or the refugees.

Actually, yes.

hahaha

Yazman

5th October 2012, 06:25

The case for double standards you were trying to make was about Islam being bashed. I've shown that Islam can't be bashed in Britain the same way Christianity can. So, you're absolutely right about double standards, just wrong about the players.Why should it be discussed in the same way? Christianity is the majority religion in the UK, held by more than 70% of the population according to census data. Islam, however, does not even reach 3%. I think it is definitely worth paying attention to the fact that when we're talking about Islam in the UK we're talking about a tiny minority that is often discriminated against for their religious views, not to mention when they are immigrants they are victims of ethnic discrimination fomented by racists as well as organisations like the BNP. Islam does not have a pervasive, omnipresent socio-political influence like Christianity does in the UK, and it isn't integrated into the political system (via the monarchy) the way Christianity is.

To compare Islam in the UK to Christianity in the UK is not only naive, but it's plain ignorant, to quite an extreme degree. Islam shouldn't be discussed in the UK in the same way as Christianity is discussed because of a wide range of factors. Christianity is vastly more influential culturally and socially, as well as vastly more powerful as a religion in the UK. Anybody discussing any religion in the same way they discuss Christianity in the UK is incredibly ignorant.

Also:

Make sure to keep discussion on track guys. Let's not have any more name-calling or flames in this thread. It's not allowed and it's not appropriate. If you're getting pissed off or frustrated, just take a break for a while and come back to it. I don't want to have to get moderator action taken in here because there's some good, constructive discussion going on here, but warnings & infractions will be handed out if the flames keep going on.

#FF0000

5th October 2012, 06:55

I don't want to have to get moderator action taken in here because there's some good, constructive discussion going on here

where

Robocommie

5th October 2012, 07:20

Yeah, Yaz, I don't see the constructive discussion going on here, and frankly if you're going to get moderator action in here I wish you would just do it. As I keep saying, it's pretty obvious what this guy is here for. What's more, this thread is not going to get any better, only stupider, as it has been for some time.

Yazman

5th October 2012, 10:20

I appreciate the comments Robocommie, but this thread has a topic - stick to it. If you have a complaint about the thread or think something needs to be done, tell a moderator via PM, but this isn't the place to make posts like that. No more off-topic posts, please.

#FF0000 - we've already been through this: you should know by now not to make one word posts. Under the circumstances I'm going to let it go for now, but don't do it again please, or you will get infracted.

rayznack

5th October 2012, 12:31

...Fuck yes! What kind of an asshole would think this wasn't a case of Jewish persecution?Those concerned with the definition and meaning of words. A hate crime against an ethnic or religious group does not fit the meaning of persecution.

The other poster has already said Christians in Britain aren't persecuted but Muslims are; so he either means there are government laws that discriminate Muslims (and not Christians) or he's using your quaint definition of the word and claiming Muslims experience hate crimes but not Christians (which is completely untrue as Christians experience hate crimes). Regardless, since he and you are wrong in the use of the term 'persecution', the existence of the BNP and EDL are not examples of Muslim persecution in Britain (that would therefore mean Catholics in the United States are persecuted because the Ku Klux Klan, an organization with anti-Catholic views, exists).

Fundamentalists bring it up to assert that Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God.And I've seen Muslim fundamentalists quote the secular Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman. So that must mean Bart Ehrman's work is full of hate because it's used to club a religion by religious fundamentalists relying on his work.

Okay so.

1. Israel Shahak is an anti-semite
2. Edward Said is an antisemite by association.
3. None of those other people are, though.

Why?I think Israel Shahak's quotes on Jews and Judaism are clearly anti-Jewish and 'Judeophobic'. Just quote his comments and change Jews and Judaism to Muslims and Islam for them to instantaneously become anti-Muslim and Islamophobic.

No I mean like actual Pan-Arab political leaders in the Middle East who would often talk a big game about the plight of the Palestinians but did fuck all to help them or the refugees. So in your brilliant analogy above you forgot to realize the difference between American rabbis and Arab dictators?

Why don't you compare Muslim religious leaders in the United States to fascist European dictators while you're at it?

rayznack

5th October 2012, 12:39

Why should it be discussed in the same way?Because we're talking about the government. :)

The government should not make any distinction between any religion no matter how popular, large or even integrated into society (or absence of these qualities). It's not the government's role to decide which religions are integrated or large enough before ending any special treatment for that group.

I don't care how many or few members of religion X there are before I'll complain if the government is funding houses of worship for religion X.

There isn't some threshold until providing special treatment for one religion becomes wrong. This is a matter of principle where government taking sides for any religion is inherently wrong no matter the circumstance. It's like free speech, either you support free speech or you don't. There aren't shades of grey between.

#FF0000

5th October 2012, 15:27

Those concerned with the definition and meaning of words. A hate crime against an ethnic or religious group does not fit the meaning of persecution.

No, but a spate of it as well as general, open, bigoted sentiment does. And even so, as I pointed out, muslims are targeted by the state in the UK and US.

The other poster has already said Christians in Britain aren't persecuted but Muslims are; so he either means there are government laws that discriminate Muslims (and not Christians) or he's using your quaint definition of the word and claiming Muslims experience hate crimes but not Christians (which is completely untrue as Christians experience hate crimes). Regardless, since he and you are wrong in the use of the term 'persecution', the existence of the BNP and EDL are not examples of Muslim persecution in Britain (that would therefore mean Catholics in the United States are persecuted because the Ku Klux Klan, an organization with anti-Catholic views, exists).

Christians can and are sometimes the victims of hate crimes, but they are still a powerful majority in the UK and US. Christians, as a group, are not persecuted and indeed can't be, considering just about everyone in an elected office is Christian.

And again, the state does target Muslims in both the US and UK.

Further, the KKK has been inactive for years now, whereas the EDL was harassing and terrorizing middle eastern and south asian people only two years ago.

And I've seen Muslim fundamentalists quote the secular Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman. So that must mean Bart Ehrman's work is full of hate because it's used to club a religion by religious fundamentalists relying on his work.

The funny thing is that this is exactly what you're doing with Israel Shahak.

But no, the Allah-as-moon-god thing actually comes from Christian fundementalist circles, based loosely on a 19th century hypothesis suggesting that the contemporary concept of "Allah" had some root in one of the moon-gods of polytheistic pre-Islamic arabia. But there's no serious scholarship to back that up and most scholars rebuff the claim.

I think Israel Shahak's quotes on Jews and Judaism are clearly anti-Jewish and 'Judeophobic'. Just quote his comments and change Jews and Judaism to Muslims and Islam for them to instantaneously become anti-Muslim and Islamophobic.

So are Muslims or former Muslims who criticize Islamic culture and religion islamophobic? No, not necessarily. There is a world of difference between criticizing a former religion and "self-hatred". From what little I've read of Shahak, and what I've read from others about his work, it sounds like the guy is criticizing Israel and Judaism as a religion. If he's an antisemite for that, then am I an anti-irish racist or anti-catholic bigot because I criticize Irish-American culture and the Church all day every day?

So in your brilliant analogy above you forgot to realize the difference between American rabbis and Arab dictators?

Why don't you compare Muslim religious leaders in the United States to fascist European dictators while you're at it?

Oh boy you are still mad about dumb analogies.

But fine to put this to bed: No, it's not necessarily Islamophobic. I wouldn't say it's a stretch by any means to say that people representing any religious group do things for the interests of that religious group. Am I an anti-catholic bigot for saying the church by me is just in it for the tithe or how other christian groups use slick imagery and a level of deceit to get vulnerable teenagers to go to their dumb cultish get-togethers?

I wouldn't say so at all. I would agree that it's wrong and overly cynical to say ALL members of a faith are doing this, but I don't think that's what he is saying.

#FF0000

5th October 2012, 15:30

I don't care how many or few members of religion X there are before I'll complain if the government is funding houses of worship for religion X.

Protecting a group from bigotry isn't the same as subsidizing or giving money to their churches. Plus I don't think anyone here particularly cares about or expects much from the state anyway in terms of protecting the most vulnerable in society.

rayznack

5th October 2012, 16:14

No, but a spate of it as well as general, open, bigoted sentiment does. And even so, as I pointed out, muslims are targeted by the state in the UK and US.

Thank you for your opinion, but I don't believe Muslims are targeted by the state for persecution/discrimination in either the UK or US.

Entrapment is frequently used by the FBI against 'right wingers' and anarchists. I actually could match the same sort of examples where this was done to 'right wing' anti-government activists just as I could individuals supposedly affiliated with extremist al-Qaeda oriented ideology.

But this hardly means the government is persecuting the broader group of people it entraps who were selected after fitting the government's own profile for who 'right wing' extremists are to be targeted.

Christians, as a group, are not persecuted and indeed can't be, considering just about everyone in an elected office is Christian.

Persecution is when the government implicitly allows or explicitly carries out discrimination and/or violence against certain groups of people. Claiming a group can't be violently attacked by another group (persecuted in your mind) means Christains in Nigeria who may be a majority of the population and whose president is Christian can't suffer the type of attacks or worse than Muslims in Britain or the United States. A majority, even one holding power, can suffer an ogranized campaign of violence and even be persecuted in the correct sense of the word. In any event, Muslims are not being persecuted (the government does not allow or carry out violence/discrimination) in either the UK or US. Your arguments are weak and falling apart.

Further, the KKK has been inactive for years now, whereas the EDL was harassing and terrorizing middle eastern and south asian people only two years ago.

Against the laws of the country the operate in. So, no perseuction.

Otherwise, by your logic, Shia are persecuted in Germany because a Mosque was fire bombed and imam killed from an attack by a Sunni Muslim convert. The government of Germany does not endorse attacks against Shia or tacitly allow attacks against the Shia community.

Boko Haram is also targeting Christians in Nigeria (for being Christian). Being a possible majority and holding the presidency doesn't mean Christians are being attacked there. So why is your criteria important? Christians are being attacked *more* in Nigeria than Muslims in Britain yet they're Nigerian Christians aren't really being persecuted based on your hair splitting (they aren't, but because the government actively opposes Boko Haram).

The funny thing is that this is exactly what you're doing with Israel Shahak.

By pointing out his Antisemitic statements means I'm attacking another religion using his book. Brilliant reasoning skills...

But no, the Allah-as-moon-god thing actually comes from Christian fundementalist circles

A theory isn't any less a theory based on whom it comes from. You should try learning logical fallacies so you can avoid them.

If tomorrow the moon-god theory suddenly held stock for most Western secular scholars and was dropped by 'religious fundamentalists', would that change the validity of the theory? Obviously not. You should probably put more thought into your arguments as they are so easily cut down.

So are Muslims or former Muslims who criticize Islamic culture and religion islamophobic? No, not necessarily.

I've just given you an example where Mona Eltahawy became a racist and 'native informant' for what she wrote and can find other Muslims branded 'self-hating' Muslims for their writings far tamer than Israel Shahak's.

If he's an antisemite for that, then am I an anti-irish racist or anti-catholic bigot because I criticize Irish-American culture and the Church all day every day?

Do you claim Irish culture is poisonous, inherently violent and ascribe malicious intentions to what the Irish do if they do something good?

The question is, how is someone not a racist or bigot if they do the above?

Am I an anti-catholic bigot for saying the church by me is just in it for the tithe or how other christian groups use slick imagery and a level of deceit to get vulnerable teenagers to go to their dumb cultish get-togethers?

Are Muslim leaders in the United States promoting civil rights to gain sympathy for Islam and Muslim states so to deflect criticism of human rights abuses in foreign Muslim majority nations?

Yes or no.

Protecting a group from bigotry isn't the same as subsidizing or giving money to their churches. Plus I don't think anyone here particularly cares about or expects much from the state anyway in terms of protecting the most vulnerable in society.

You can put away your strawman since my example of the state subsidizing an exhibit where the Bible is desecrated isn't protecting a religious group from bigotry. I mentioned the arrest of the man who burned his Koran as a double standard at play.

#FF0000

5th October 2012, 16:53

Thank you for your opinion, but I don't believe Muslims are targeted by the state for persecution/discrimination in either the UK or US.

That is literally not an opinion, though.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/16/anti-terrorism-strategy-spies-innocents

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/nypd-spying-new-brunswick-muslim-surveillance-new-jersey_n_1701340.html

There's also the racial profiling of people who look south asian or middle eastern.

And keep in mind I'm by no means married to the word "persecution", here. Muslims are certainly subject to discrimination in America and the UK, though, by the government and moreso by rank-and-file racists.

Entrapment is frequently used by the FBI against 'right wingers' and anarchists. I actually could match the same sort of examples where this was done to 'right wing' anti-government activists just as I could individuals supposedly affiliated with extremist al-Qaeda oriented ideology.Yes, and what does that have to do with the fact that the FBI is doing it to Muslims now, goading them into fundamentalism and then offering to arm them?

Claiming a group can't be violently attacked by another group (persecuted in your mind) means Christains in Nigeria who may be a majority of the population and whose president is Christian can't suffer the type of attacks or worse than Muslims in Britain or the United States. No, that's not what it means. On an individual basis, of course Christians can be the victims of hate crimes. But not Christians as a group.

By pointing out his Antisemitic statements means I'm attacking another religion using his book.No, I said you're doing the same thing by blaming him for nazis and antisemites using his text for their agenda. I know you are really, really eager to grind that axe but like I said, please pay attention to what I'm actually saying.

A theory isn't any less a theory based on whom it comes from. You should try learning logical fallacies so you can avoid them.I never said it was false because it came from fundamentalist christians. It's false because it has no actual basis.

If tomorrow the moon-god theory suddenly held stock for most Western secular scholars and was dropped by 'religious fundamentalists', would that change the validity of the theory? Obviously not.You should probably put more thought into your arguments as they are so easily cut down.You should probably dispute the things I've actually said, because I never said any of that. I wouldn't at all be surprised if there were some veracity to the claim, considering how derivative Abrahamic religions are (Cue that picture comparing the story of Jesus to a dozen other gods in the middle east).

But the thing is that it is not a fact, and it has no credible basis. It's only used to insist Muslims are an "other".

There is a difference between stating a fact, and twisting a fact to drive a wedge between people.

I've just given you an example where Mona Eltahawy became a racist and 'native informant' for what she wrote and can find other Muslims branded 'self-hating' Muslims for their writings far tamer than Israel Shahak's. That's well and good, but what someone else says about Mona Eltahawy or muslims who criticize patriarchal tendencies in the middle east or in islamic culture, has nothing to do with me or anything I'm saying.

Do you claim Irish culture is poisonous, inherently violent and ascribe malicious intentions to what the Irish do if they do something good?Nope. I've said that about Catholics, though!

Are Muslim leaders in the United States promoting civil rights to gain sympathy for Islam and Muslim states so to deflect criticism of human rights abuses in foreign Muslim majority nations?

Yes or no.I'm sure there are some. I don't know of any, though. I know for sure there are Muslim leaders in the Middle East that do that.

Because everybody who commits human rights abuses or who side with people who do does that.

You can put away your strawman since my example of the state subsidizing an exhibit where the Bible is desecrated isn't protecting a religious group from bigotry. I mentioned the arrest of the man who burned his Koran as a double standard at play.I literally quoted you saying "funding houses of worship".

Plus, there is a difference between an art exhibit and just some dummy going out and burning a koran. Further, I don't think anyone even said it was a good idea to arrest that guy in the first place, so I don't know why you're having a conniption over it in the first place.