Islamophobia

[VonClausewitz]

Interesting thought I've had over many months of lurking around these forums, one that will probably annoy some of the more Liberal-tolerants amongst you, and probably give redstar2000 a reason to publish another article;

Why is a phobia of Islam a bad thing ?

It's a religion. Belief in interpretations of it's teachings drives people to kill others, results in all kinds of nastiness. People follow it to these extremes willingly, and with the utmost seriousness. Yet if one person says something against Islam, they're mean, an opressor of someone somwhere etc etc etc.

Christians, Zionists, Buddhists... They're all fare game though.

Am I missing the point here ? You're all anti-religion to some degree (some more than others), so I don't see why anyone would consider being afraid of the intentions of Islamic religious fanatics a bad thing ? (of course, blanket hating of Islam is a bad thing, because not all of them are bad).

I have nothing against Arabs or any PERSON OF ANY RACE who follows Islam, just some of the interpretations of it that seem to want to cause several large-scale wars. So don't be childish and cry racism, Islam ain't a race, in the same way that Christianity isn't, or Judaism isn't.

So explain, based on current fanatical images and these calls to behead and bomb people over a couple of cartoons, why 'Islamophobia' has become the biggest byword for mean nasty people since Karl Marx was woken long enough to finish 'The Manifesto of the Communist Party'. ?

[KC]

Interesting thought I've had over many months of lurking around these forums, one that will probably annoy some of the more Liberal-tolerants amongst you, and probably give redstar2000 a reason to publish another article;

Why is a phobia of Islam a bad thing ?

It's a religion. Belief in interpretations of it's teachings drives people to kill others, results in all kinds of nastiness. People follow it to these extremes willingly, and with the utmost seriousness. Yet if one person says something against Islam, they're mean, an opressor of someone somwhere etc etc etc.

Christians, Zionists, Buddhists... They're all fare game though.

Am I missing the point here ? You're all anti-religion to some degree (some more than others), so I don't see why anyone would consider being afraid of the intentions of Islamic religious fanatics a bad thing ? (of course, blanket hating of Islam is a bad thing, because not all of them are bad).

I have nothing against Arabs or any PERSON OF ANY RACE who follows Islam, just some of the interpretations of it that seem to want to cause several large-scale wars. So don't be childish and cry racism, Islam ain't a race, in the same way that Christianity isn't, or Judaism isn't.

So explain, based on current fanatical images and these calls to behead and bomb people over a couple of cartoons, why 'Islamophobia' has become the biggest byword for mean nasty people since Karl Marx was woken long enough to finish 'The Manifesto of the Communist Party'. ?

I think you'll find that a lot of people here agree with you in the fact that religion of any kind is bad (including islam). I don't know of any thread on this board where anyone admits to being anti-religious except against Islam. Whenever these threads come up where someone complains about racism, it is usually against someone making a blanket statement (which you have stated that you disagree with).

[Monty Cantsin]

I don’t think anyone whose anti-clerical would support or even excuses Islam. They only problem with criticizing Islam is that Muslims believe that the west is oppressing them because their Muslims. So by critiquing them you feed their misconceptions and anxieties, but I don’t think they should be given a free pass.

[commiecrusader]

I have nothing against the people that follow religions, whatever religion it may be. I do however hate the religions themselves. In a way, there's something to be envied that people can get so much comfort out of a work of fiction, and feel that everything is gonna be ok if they follow a really old text. However, I also feel kind of funny about so many people being, in my opinion, hoodwinked, by cappies and dictators from centuries past.

I have an equal dislike of all religions. Period. I have Religiphobia or whatever the stupid buzzword is going to be for this. As for why Islamic people take such offence, I believe it is to do with the society in many of the countries in the middle east. Most middle-eastern societies are still very Feudal in the way they think and are organised, and I think a similar reaction would have been experienced in England or America when they were feudal if perceived imperialists from abroad were making cartoons mocking the religion that governed everyone's lives.

All this stupid business shows how religions can so easily lead to conflicts.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by VonClausewitz+--> (VonClausewitz)Why is a phobia of Islam a bad thing?[/b]

Actually, you've put your finger directly on what is a very sore spot among western lefties these days.

To begin with, I do have some collections that are specifically critical of Islam...

Islamic Terrorism -- Myth and Reality (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1123172394&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Women in Islam (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1089328946&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Lifting the Veil; Communism vs. Islam (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083544363&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)


redstar2000 July 8 2004
Many "western" lefties feel "uncomfortable" when called upon to criticize "eastern" religions and cultures. The record of western imperialism is so enormously monstrous that it seems almost "unfair" to mention the atrocities of the "east".

In addition, one can be certain of the usual accusations: cultural insensitivity, Euro-centrism, and even "racism".

Heaped on top of this, especially in Europe, is the hostility shown towards Muslim immigrants from the "old colonies". While Americans have sort of gotten used to the idea that the southwestern part of this country is going to be predominately Hispanic, the Europeans remain appalled by the seeming inability of their culture to "win over" the North African and Middle Eastern immigrant population.

Opposition to the perceived "Islamo-ization" of Europe is condemned as "Islamo-phobia" by many people on the "left".

It's a real "can of worms". :o

As always, I'll try to be "systematic" about this. :lol:

1. We are living in a period of "great movements of people" and all attempts to limit immigration from poorer countries to wealthier countries will probably be futile in the long run.

2. What this means is a substantial and on-going increase in the population of the "old" capitalist countries of people with a "pre-capitalist" mind-set...arousing substantial mutual hostility.

3. The rational ruling class response would be measures to assimilate the new arrivals to modern capitalist thinking as quickly as possible.

4. But the ruling classes in the "old" capitalist countries are not as rational as they once were...and vacillate between assimilationist policies and multi-culturalism -- meaning policies that encourage immigrants to "stick to their old ways of thinking". This naturally "keeps the pot boiling".

5. In addition, this mixture of official policies reinforces traditional racism...the immigrant population have darker skins than the native population. What is often perceived as "an attack on Muslims" is frequently, I suspect, an attack on people of color and has nothing to do with religion at all.

The London police, for example, murdered in cold blood an unarmed man they "suspected" of being a "Muslim terrorist". The man was from Brazil and not a Muslim. It was the color of his skin that proved fatal!

So, in Europe, we have a new equation...

Person of Color = Muslim = Terrorist.

And some people on the "left" derive from this the following...

Islamo-phobia = color-phobia = racism.

That is, to condemn the medieval superstition of Islam is to"be racist".

Probably the outstanding example of this view is the U.K. RESPECT Party (yes, I believe they always spell it in all upper-case letters). They are "multi-culturalists" with a vengeance...in fact, they may well have been the first to coin the word "Islamo-phobia". In their view, any critical statement about Islam is the equivalent of signing on with British imperialism and enthusiastically volunteering for occupation duty in Basra or Kabul.

To be sure, RESPECT does not have a "high reputation" among most leftists -- "disgusting opportunists" would be a typical comment -- but traces of their viewpoint are found "all over the place" including on this board. :o

Those of us here who try to be "clear-headed" in this morass must make some "subtle" points that are not always readily grasped.

1. Islam, like all religions, is reactionary to the core. It's always correct for revolutionaries to attack it for what it is...a bloody medieval superstition without any socially progressive values whatsoever.

2. Violent attacks on people of color by right-wing thugs (police or civilian) are always racist without regard to religion and must always be condemned as racist!

3. Western imperialism is always bad no matter what the religion of the country is that it attacks. As revolutionaries in the "west", we always hope that "our" imperialism suffers ignominious defeat...because that will help us!

4. Those who cooperate with western imperialism in the occupied countries are always quislings and deserve any bad things that might happen to them as a consequence.

These are my "guidelines" for navigating these "uncharted waters"...but there are plenty of hazards ahead.

It's not at all unlikely that situations may arise in the reasonably near future where my "guidelines" would prove inadequate.

One can imagine "nightmarish" hypothetical scenarios in which my "guidelines" would disastrously conflict with each other. :o

I hope that won't happen...but it would be naive to think that it "couldn't".

We live in grim times.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Seong]

Islamophobia = bad. One of my good friends, is Muslim. I've spent alot of time amongst her family and respect some of the basic principles of Islam i.e. humility and stoicism. When it comes down to it, it's no different to any other religion.

The difference is that Islam is predominately the faith of countries that have been infiltrated comparitively less by globalisation - dare I say, 'underdeveloped.' Like Catholicism in the 1900's. All Muslims are not terrorists, just as all Christians are not members of the KKK. As in any religion there are some fundamentalist dickheads who think they are in direct contact with god. :rolleyes:

[Canavar]

I think serious critique of religions is a good thing. By that I mean critique even progressive muslims could level at Islam, or at least at certain archaic interpretations of the religion. Silly cartoons are not serious critique. The islamophobia sweeping Europe has little to do with honest critique of the problems of Islam, such as islamism. It is a fearmongering against muslims which more and more reminds me of antisemittism. The more "moderate" right-wing, populist parties are consciously playing on this fear, whilst the more "radical" right-wing parties still embrace antisemittism. One only has to look at the popularity of those "moderate" parties, to see how big a problem this really is. And whilst they attack legitimate critique of Israel as antisemittism, they themselves embrace an ideology that classifies 1.4 billion people into one fanatic, fundamentalist group.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Seong
I've spent a lot of time amongst her family and respect some of the basic principles of Islam, i.e., humility and stoicism.

Two modes of behavior universally despised by revolutionaries.

We should not be "humble" before our masters; we should gather our pride and drive them from their thrones!

We should not "stoically" endure the outrages perpetuated upon us; we should summon up our rage at those who rule us and destroy them!

A little "commie fundamentalism" for you. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Free Palestine]

So explain, based on current fanatical images and these calls to behead and bomb people over a couple of cartoons, why 'Islamophobia' has become the biggest byword for mean nasty people since Karl Marx was woken long enough to finish 'The Manifesto of the Communist Party'. ?

May I post a cartoon of Jesus then, standing with his pants down, smiling, raping a little boy? The caption above it reads "Got Catholicism?" It's OK since we're all opposed to religion right? Or maybe a cartoon of a Rabbi with blood dripping from his mouth after bludgeoning a small Palestinian boy with a knife shaped like the Star of David - the caption reads "The Devil's Chosen Ones." That would be acceptable since we're all opposed to religion? Correct? Oh.. Right, I forgot. Such a thought would be "anti-Semitic" and you would be banned, but racist, Islamophobic garbage is "OK" in RevLeft's book.

[VonClausewitz]

Free Palestine;

I really wouldn't care what you portrayed Jews or Christians as, most people here wouldn't care about Christians either, but Jews get a lot more sympathy from the world community, so some might be annoyed at that.

redstar2000 also explained a rather good reason why Islamophobia is such a buzzword at the moment, thanks.

[James]

May I post a cartoon of Jesus then, standing with his pants down, smiling, raping a little boy? The caption above it reads "Got Catholicism?" It's OK since we're all opposed to religion right?

Sure.
Think it is a bit different though. Muslims are forbidden to depict muhammed: christians are not forbidden to depict jesus.

An important point of course, is that it is MUSLIMS who are not allowed to depict muhammed. Why? Because it is in their religious teaching. You can't attack (as in threaten to/try to kill!) others for not following one of your beliefs. Or rather: if you do for this, then why not threaten to kill those who do not follow other muslim instruction?

Its like those christians who think their god wants them to kill doctors who do abortions.

Its all utter bullpoo.



Or maybe a cartoon of a Rabbi with blood dripping from his mouth after bludgeoning a small Palestinian boy with a knife shaped like the Star of David - the caption reads "The Devil's Chosen Ones."

Again that would be slightly different. As their are no instructions for jews not to depict rabbi's.
If you want to draw such things though, feel free. Indeed i'm sure people do.


That would be acceptable since we're all opposed to religion? Correct? Oh.. Right, I forgot.

Are you not anti religion?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Free Palestine+Feb 7 2006, 04:56 PM--> (Free Palestine @ Feb 7 2006, 04:56 PM) Oh.. Right, I forgot. Such a thought would be "anti-Semitic" and you would be banned, but racist, Islamophobic garbage is "OK" in RevLeft's book. [/b]

How would ridiculing Judaism be anti-Semitic? ....ridiculing people who are "blood Jews" because they are "blood Jews" would be anti-Semitic....say for instance by drawing a cartoon a cartoon of a Jew with a "big nose" with a caption reading something like "they've got a snout for money". That is anti-Semitism.

As is this....


Ireland On-Line
One of the AEL cartoons displayed an image of famed Dutch Holocaust victim Anne Frank in bed with Adolf Hitler, and another questioned whether the Holocaust actually occurred.

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?...3460&p=y8xx3534 (http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=18003460&p=y8xx3534)

What is weird is that that group of pious individuals responded to cartoons drawn by "White Christians" with attacks of Jewish Holocaust victims.

Martin Luther lives on. :angry:

[Free Palestine]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+--> (Armchair Socialism)What is weird is that that group of pious individuals responded to cartoons drawn by "White Christians" with attacks of Jewish Holocaust victims.[/b]

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?...3460&p=y8xx3534 (http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=18003460&p=y8xx3534)


Same article
The site carried a disclaimer saying the images were being shown as part of an exercise in free speech rather than to endorse their content – just as European newspapers have reprinted the Danish cartoons.

So it's not "free speech" when the illustration is anti-Jewish. It's only "free speech" when the vitriolic cartoons are racist against Arabs and Islamophobic.

[Seong]

Haha agreed. No bowing to the buffoons or bozos.


Two modes of behavior universally despised by revolutionaries.

But the principles in themselves (in an ideal communist society of course) are what I'd call admirable.

Commie fundamentalism hey? Which supreme being's voice do these fundamentalist commies believe they are hearing? :P

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Free Palestine+--> (Free Palestine)So it's not "free speech" when the illustration is anti-Jewish. It's only "free speech" when the vitriolic cartoons are racist against Arabs and Islamophobic.[/b]

Is that directed at me? ....because I don't believe I've made a comment on this subject bar this "witty" one here....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292013794 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45777&view=findpost&p=1292013794)

Anyway, arguments as to whether the cartoon of Mohammad was racist or not could be made.

The argument that it was racist would obviously revolve around it depiction of Mohammad as a suicide bomber (and as an extension all Muslims) and that the cartoons were published in a right wing newspaper. Which I think shows that the intent was to offend and make a racist statement.

However, one could also argue that parts of the Koran would support suicide bombing and therefore a cartoon of Mohammad as a suicide bombing would not be groundless. The same way a cartoon of God as a "gay basher" would not be groundless.

What is intriguing is that you have chosen to link being Arabic with being Muslim. Fortunately there are some Arabs who want to see an end to that Medieval Superstition and hopefully their numbers will grow.

As for this....


Ireland On-Line
The site carried a disclaimer saying the images were being shown as part of an exercise in free speech rather than to endorse their content – just as European newspapers have reprinted the Danish cartoons.

I think they're lying. "Civilised" people don't make jokes about or deny the Holocaust. Only racists do this.

[LSD]

So it's not "free speech" when the illustration is anti-Jewish. It's only "free speech" when the vitriolic cartoons are racist against Arabs and Islamophobic.

No, they're both free speech.

But there is a difference between the two.

For one thing, the antisemitic cartoons were referencing real people and real events. They didn't portray "Moses" or "Isaac" in unflattering lights, they showed Hitler.

The "islamophobic" cartoons, however, portrayed a, largely, mythical character "Mohammed" in a compromising/offensive position. That pissed off a lot of people, but it wasn't a denial of history.

And, more important than the cartoons themselves is the utterly fascinating point that this paper's response to "offensive" comments by Christians was to attack Jews!

That is, instead of skewering the "Sacred Cows" of Christianity, they chose to turn around and attack a party that had nothing to do with it.

I don't think that they should be "censored" or "arrested" for publishing what they did, but it certainly should be recognized for what it is: an obvious expression of the latent antisemitism present in much of the Islamic community.

Remember, an attack on the holocaust is not a religious attack, it's a racial one.

The victims of Hitler were not those who "believed", they were those who were "racially Jewish". Accordingly, mocking them or denying their suffering is a perpetuation of that racial paradigm and an inherently racist attack.

Making fun of "Mohammed" is a religious insult, making fun of holocaust survivors is a racial one, and there is a serious difference between mocking a religion and mocking a race, whether "AEL" wants to admit it or not.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 07:06 PM
And, more important than the cartoons themselves is the utterly fascinating point that this paper's response to "offensive" comments by Christians was to attack Jews!

That's what I found "weird" as well.

Indeed I only pointed to those cartoons as an example of what anti-Semitism was and now I seem to have "derailed" the thread.

Oh well.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Very good point LSD; a good point made even better in conjuction with "free"Palestine's comments.

It's shocking how quickly Judaism is is brought up a point of refute; it conveys to me that the true war for those who support the efforts of the Palestinian fanatics.

The continued war against Judaism; that and little else.

I've noticed a tendency for "leftists" who support the terrorist actions of the Palestinian fundamentalists to "jump right in" and defend Islam as a whole.

It was not shocking to find out some of these people were from Islamic households; Islamic indoctrination within the family unit is no different from any other religion.

It may take several years for these kats to shed their superstitious beliefs, "leftists" or not.

Anyway, I would like to note that the word "phobia" relates to an irrational and exaggerated disdain of a certain subject.

As far as I am concerned, our "disdain" of Islam is not only perfectly rational but it's a behaviour that is absolutely necessary to any true revolutionary leftist.

To act otherwise would be socially irresponsible.

[James]

just on the subject of why target jews and not nordic christians:
- there is the idea floating around that the whole affair is a zionist plot: thus the jews are seen as responsible by some, in some way.
- jews are an easy target within the history of europe.
Off the top of my head I can't think of any thing more offensive in recent european history, that doesn't involve muslims (take kosovo for example).

[Free Palestine]

Originally posted by LSD
No, they're both free speech.

But there is a difference between the two.

They're both free speech.

They're both offensive and in poor taste.

The only difference is media outlets such as the BBC, Le Monde, or any media outlet in Copenhagen would NOT pick up these "anti-Jewish" cartoons.

On the other hand, they happily picked up the racist, anti-Arab, Islamophobic ones. Yeah, real ostensible defenders of "free speech." When that speech offends Arabs and Muslims, that is.

Exactly proving the organisation who posted anti-Jewish cartoons point of a disgusting double standard.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Free Palestine+--> (Free Palestine)The only difference is media outlets such as the BBC, Le Monde, or any media outlet in Copenhagen would NOT pick up these "anti-Jewish" cartoons.[/b]

Well as far as I know, so far the British press has refused to publish the Mohammad cartoons.

Anyway, as LSD pointed out, there is a difference between what the two cartoons depicted because Muslims are not a "race" where as Jews are.

One cartoon is mocking Religion, and whilst its motives are most certainly dubious and perhaps "racist", the cartoon is not.

Oh and by the way, in many European countries the Anne Frank cartoons would have been illegal.


Originally posted by Free [email protected]
On the other hand, they happily picked up the racist, anti-Arab, Islamophobic ones. Yeah, real ostensible defenders of "free speech." When that speech offends Arabs and Muslims, that is.

Why are you confusing being an Arab and being a Muslim? ....Arab is a race that can't be changed, Islam is a Religion that can be changed.

If Muslim meant Arab then there wouldn't have been the proposed Religious hatred bill in Britain, which all the leading Muslims supported.

Could you point to some statements by atheist Arabs who are offended by the depictions of Mohammad?


Free Palestine
Exactly proving the organisation who posted anti-Jewish cartoons point of a disgusting double standard.

They may have aimed at that point, but the fact remains that they posted cartoons that would (rightly) be considered an affront to humanity.

Also as I understand it many Muslim papers regularly print anti-Semitic cartoons which are similar to the Danish cartoons that were published.

[James]

freepalestine old boy, i would find it simply delightful if you could address my earlier post:


Sure.
Think it is a bit different though. Muslims are forbidden to depict muhammed: christians are not forbidden to depict jesus.

An important point of course, is that it is MUSLIMS who are not allowed to depict muhammed. Why? Because it is in their religious teaching. You can't attack (as in threaten to/try to kill!) others for not following one of your beliefs. Or rather: if you do for this, then why not threaten to kill those who do not follow other muslim instruction?

Its like those christians who think their god wants them to kill doctors who do abortions.

Its all utter bullpoo.
etc

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Anyway, as LSD pointed out, there is a difference between what the two cartoons depicted because Muslims are not a "race" where as Jews are.


I'm not quite sure if that's precisely how he meant it my friend, simply because we all know that Judaism is nothing more than a religion.

Prior to the downfall of Amenhotep IV, the same hebrew tribes that began the practise of Judaism still existed.

They did not "magically appear" 3000 or years ago.

I believe he was alluding to the fact that it was common Reich prpaganda to depict the Jews as a "race" and not simply a religious group; the cartoon at hand "fed into" that ideology.

The "intention" of the depiction was to again "proclaim" that the jews are a seperate "race".

[Free Palestine]

So you think the Western media would also publicly print, in the name of free speech, anti-Semitic discourse? The answer is never. But Islamophobic literature is "OK." That's the point of the anti-Jewish cartoon response, to illuminate this disgusting hypocrisy. Just as the Western media did in with Salmand Rushdi, they took turns publishing excerpts of the Satanic Verses to further agitate Muslims and offend their sensibilities in the name of "free speech." These people would never publish anti-Jewish literature. Only when it offends Islam is it "free speech."


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+--> (Armchair Socialism)One cartoon is mocking Religion, and whilst its motives are most certainly dubious and perhaps "racist", the cartoon is not.[/b]

Mocking 'religion'? It depicted an extremely mendacious, bigoted and stereotypical portrait of Arabs and Muslims in general. Excuse me, but that's bullshit. If you mock Islam from a secular POV, but don't also attack Judaism and Christianity (in fact, the paper rejected Jesus cartoons (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1703501,00.html)), then your secularism is not very credible.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+--> (Armchair Socialism)Also as I understand it many Muslim papers regularly print anti-Semitic cartoons which are similar to the Danish cartoons that were published.[/b]

That is the fault of the government of the given country, or the Saudi royal family which basically controls the media of the Arab world. Your average Muslim has no control over the official media. You can't deny deny someone the right to be pissed off because Saudi media has in the past published bigoted cartoons.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Anyway, as LSD pointed out, there is a difference between what the two cartoons depicted because Muslims are not a "race" where as Jews are.

First of all, Jews are certainly not a race. Not in the modern sense of 'race' they aren't. One must consider that Jews have for a great deal of their history been a scattered tribe with no real homeland. It's been hard for the Jews to stay distinct with having been broken apart, scattered, and migrated so much during their Diaspora.

Furthermore, a Jew could be someone who converted to Judaism. Proper and true converts to Judaism are accepted as full Jews. Thus, there are Jews who have been Black, Oriental, whatever. There are many Jews from many backgrounds and many races, and often they don't look at all like people expect Jews to look. This isn't to say there is no "Jewish identity", so to say, but to describe your ancestor's race as Jewish is about as logical as describing it as Christian. Jews and Christian alike adapt to various cultures, so it doesn't make much sense in the modern sense of the word 'race.' Stop calling them a race.


Armchair [email protected]
Oh and by the way, in many European countries the Anne Frank cartoons would have been illegal.

Real great "freedom of expression" credentials, huh?


Armchair Socialism
They may have aimed at that point, but the fact remains that they posted cartoons that would (rightly) be considered an affront to humanity.

Bigoted cartons about Muslims = "free speech"

Bigoted cartoons about Jews = "an affront to humanity"

Thanks for clearing up your position on this issue.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Comrade RAF+Feb 7 2006, 11:22 PM--> (Comrade RAF @ Feb 7 2006, 11:22 PM)
Armchair Socialism
Anyway, as LSD pointed out, there is a difference between what the two cartoons depicted because Muslims are not a "race" where as Jews are.


I'm not quite sure if that's precisely how he meant it my friend, simply because we all know that Judaism is nothing more than a religion.

Prior to the downfall of Amenhotep IV, the same hebrew tribes that began the practise of Judaism still existed.

They did not "magically appear" 3000 or years ago.

I believe he was alluding to the fact that it was common Reich prpaganda to depict the Jews as a "race" and not simply a religious group; the cartoon at hand "fed into" that ideology.

The "intention" of the depiction was to again "proclaim" that the jews are a seperate "race". [/b]

Well as far as I know most Jews consider themselves to be an individual race in a way that Muslims, Christians, Hindus, etc. don't.

So even though they are a diverse genetic group, that they are seen themselves and by a lot of other people as a race of people. Suggests that when looking at propaganda directed at Jews, we should consider it as we would consider propaganda against black people and not in the way we'd view propaganda against say Christians.

It's also often the case that anti-Judaism propaganda plays on the idea of "blood Jews" in a way that propaganda against Christians, Muslims, etc. doesn't.

It's not scientifically correct to view Jewish people as a race, but I think it's perhaps important to consider that that is the "general perception" when dealing with such issues.

[LSD]

The only difference is media outlets such as the BBC, Le Monde, or any media outlet in Copenhagen would NOT pick up these "anti-Jewish" cartoons.


No, the difference is that the initial cartoon attacked a dead, and largely mythical, character, while the "response" attacked a real historical event and real people.

Making fun of mohammed may be offensive to those who believe in him, but it is not a racist statement.

The fact is, Islam is inherently reactionary, just like every other religion.

The cartoon by the "AEL", however, was not an anti-Judaism piece, it was an anti-Semitic one. And in case you have difficulty differentiating between the two, insulting the Jewish religion is anti-Judaism, insulting the Jewish people is anti-semitic.

This cartoon was clearly of the latter category because, while it made no comment about Jewish doctrine or mythology, it made direct and mocking references to the greatest antisemitic massacre in history.

It made fun of the mass death of real Jewish people.

In "denying that the holocaust occured" and mocking holocaust survivors, this cartoon is perpertuating the stereotype of a "Jewish race" and is therefore a racist cartoon.

If the original "Islamo-phobic" cartoon had done the same thing, i.e., imply that all arabs are Muslims and believe in its superstitious nonsense, then it would be racist as well, but that is not what it did.

What it did was draw a long-dead "prophet" with a bomb on his head.

Look, making fun of Islam is not only acceptable, it's essential if the arab world is going to progress into the modern world.

It is actually deeply offensive to arabs to imply that they are "all Muslim" and that their race is synonymous to that barbaric antiquated load of bullshit called Islam.

There are many progressive and secular arabs who want nothing to do with the "holy Koran". It is to state otherwise that is racism!


I believe he was eluding to the fact that it was common Reich prpaganda to depict the Jews as a "race" and not simply a religious group; and the cartoon at hand "fed into" that ideology.

Precisely.

Clearly, there is no such thing as a "Jewish race", just like there is no such thing as any race.

But the point is that historical antisemitism in general, and this cartoon specifically, perpetuate a stereotype of "Jewish blood".

Again, making fun of the Jewish religion is excellent, making fun of the Holocaust is racist.


So you think the Western media would also publicly print, in the name of free speech, anti-Semitic discourse? The answer is never. But Islamophobic literature is "OK." That's the point of the anti-Jewish cartoon response, to illuminate this disgusting hypocrisy.

Again, though, you're missing the point.

There is a qualitative difference between making of a religious figure (e.g., Mohammed) and making fun of a genocide (e.g., the Holocaust).


If you mock Islam from a secular POV, but don't also attack Judaism and Christianity (in fact, the paper rejected Jesus cartoons), then your secularism is not very credible.

Well no one here suggested that this newspaper was "credibly secular" or that it should be adopted as a "hallmark" for secularism.

Rather, we just pointed out that the nature of the cartoons it published are significantly different from the nature of the antisemitic cartoons published by "AEL".

It's also, of course, worth noting that while the antismitic cartoons were deeply more offensive than the "Islamo-phobic" ones, no one is threatening to burn down the offices of the "AEL" and no one anywhere has attacked the Irish consulate because of them!

Yeah, those cartoons would not be published in major western newspapers, but if they were, the worst that would happen would be a peaceful protest and strongly worded letters.

I think the fact that so many people were so deeply "hurt" by a negative portrayal of a mythical figure shows us just how pervasive superstition still is in the middle east and just how much more work needs to be done before that part of the world can enter the modern era.

It's really quite sad. :(

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Free Palestine+--> (Free Palestine)So you think the Western media would also publicly print, in the name of free speech, anti-Semitic discourse?[/b]

Probably not, but they would and do publish anti-Christian discourse.


Originally posted by Free Palestine+--> (Free Palestine)That's the point of the anti-Jewish cartoon response, to illuminate this disgusting hypocrisy.[/b]

No the "point" of the anti-Jewish cartoons was to mock Jews. A group of people who had nothing to do with the original incident.

Remember, the Danish paper was a far-right paper and its writers probably dislike Jews just as much.


Originally posted by Free Palestine
These people would never publish anti-Jewish literature.

They spent fucking centuries publishing anti-Semitic literature which culminated in the gassing of 6 million Jews. An event which the anti-Semitic cartoons mocked.


Originally posted by Free Palestine
Mocking 'religion'?

Well yes, it mocks Mohammad and therefore mocks Islam.


Originally posted by Free Palestine
It depicted an extremely mendacious, bigoted and stereotypical portrait of Arabs and Muslims in general.

Which particular cartoon are you referring to here?

And will you please refrain from correlating being an Arab with being a Muslim. There are plenty of Arabs who've seen through that Medieval superstition and your statements on go on to reinforce another stereotype that "brown people are all Muslims".


Originally posted by Free Palestine
That is the fault of the government of the given country, or the Saudi royal family which basically controls the media of the Arab world. Your average Muslim has no control over the official media. You can't deny deny someone the right to be pissed off because Saudi media has in the past published bigoted cartoons.

Do you think the Danish public has any control over its media?

Anyway if Muslims are "allowed" to be "pissed off" and burn some Embassy's, can Israel start burning places in Palestine every time an offencive cartoon is published?


Originally posted by Free Palestine
First of all, Jews are certainly not a race....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292017022 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45975&view=findpost&p=1292017022)


Free [email protected]
Real great "freedom of expression" credentials, huh?

Who gives a shit about that? ....the Nazi's gassed 6 million Jews and now it is (rightly) not allowed that a German newspaper publish anti-Semitic cartoons. I have no problem with that.


Free Palestine
Thanks for clearing up your position on this issue.

Don't be an idiot.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Armchair
So even though they are a diverse genetic group, that they are seen themselves and by a lot of other people as a race of people.

It's amazing how little Adolf's answer to the "Jewish question" still haunts the minds of the modern masses.

Even Jewish people themselves were duped.

[Free Palestine]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+--> (Armchair Socialism)Probably not[/b]

And yet then, the paper has managed to prove its point.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+--> (Armchair Socialism)No the "point" of the anti-Jewish cartoons was to mock Jews. [/b]

I'll be blunt: No.


Originally posted by Ireland On-Line
The site carried a disclaimer saying the images were being shown as part of an exercise in free speech rather than to endorse their content – just as European newspapers have reprinted the Danish cartoons.

The publisher was very clear on this from the begining.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
They spent fucking centuries publishing anti-Semitic literature which culminated in the gassing of 6 million Jews. An event which the anti-Semitic cartoons mocked.

That's totally irrelevant to the issue at hand of whether they would publish anti-Semitic discourse.

By the way, just as anti-Semitic works have been used to justify and instigate violence against Jews historically, what makes you think Western anti-Muslim litearture has ever been seperate from wars against Muslims. People in the ME know how to connect the dots, this explains why the demonstrations turned into demonstrations against Israel and the US. And Denmark sent troops to Iraq


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
And will you please refrain from correlating being an Arab with being a Muslim. There are plenty of Arabs who've seen through that Medieval superstition and your statements on go on to reinforce another stereotype that "brown people are all Muslims".

Excuse me, I am not - but this is what the cartoons did. You even were inclined to agree earlier in your post about the intent of racism.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Do you think the Danish public has any control over its media?

Compared to the general citizenry of Saudi Arabia? Yes.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Anyway if Muslims are "allowed" to be "pissed off" and burn some Embassy's, can Israel start burning places in Palestine every time an offencive cartoon is published?

You have an unfortunate habit of putting words into other people's mouths. I did not say Muslims are "allowed to burn Embassy's." Can you show me where I said that? I said that it is patently illogical to deny someone the right to protest because Saudi media has in the past published bigoted cartoons. That is the fault of the government of that country, or the Saudi royal family.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism

Free [email protected]
First of all, Jews are certainly not a race...
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292017022 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45975&view=findpost&p=1292017022)

I would be glad to respond accordingly, but you haven't managed to prove much of anything. You have merely said that the common Jewish "perception" is that they are a race, and this somehow entitles them to the status of "race," in the modern sense of the word "race" that is.


Amchair Socialism
Who gives a shit about that? ....the Nazi's gassed 6 million Jews and now it is (rightly) not allowed that a German newspaper publish anti-Semitic cartoons. I have no problem with that.

You might as well be the one marching a swastika down main street then.

[redstar2000]

Who would have imagined that some cartoons could have stirred up such a "big fuss"?

That Danish right-wingers sought to portray Muhammad and Muslims in general as "terrorists"...is anyone (over the age of 10) shocked by that?

What else would you expect them to do?

That a small minority of Muslims raised a big stink about it...so what's new about that?

That accusations of "racism" are hurled...well, we've seen plenty of that sort of thing, haven't we?

Sometimes it's justified; sometimes it's not. But the word is used as if it were "magic"...like a +10 sword in Dungeons & Dragons. Pin the "racist" label on your adversary and he sinks like a stone.

I have no doubt at all that the Danish right-wingers are racists. It isn't really Islam that bothers them...it's all those people of color in their midst that really disturb their blond blue-eyed repose.

It is in their interests to portray all "Arabs" and even non-Arab Muslims as "terrorists" -- people who "deserve" to be expelled from the Danish "Volkreich".

Their motives were racist...no question about it (at least in my mind).

In the eyes of Islam, however, the cartoons were blasphemous...which is a different kind of criticism. Muslims in the "west" may use the word "racism" because it's a "plus 10 sword". But the people who are actually doing the protesting in Muslim countries are doing so because they are protesting sin!

That is a backward motive in the eyes of rational people. In fact, it's even more backward than racism.

European racism probably didn't exist before 1400CE or thereabouts...and didn't really "catch on" until the rise of the slave trade. On the other hand, "blasphemy" is a "major sin" in every religion in recorded history. It's an ancient "felony" and is always, in principle, punishable by execution.

As revolutionaries, we can freely attack racism wherever we find it.

But blasphemy???

Why the hell should we care?

If all the really seriously religious people in the world killed each other off in one grand murderous orgy of salvation and damnation, would the world have lost anything of value?

Only the lives of the spectators who were standing too close to the carnage.

To be sure, any of us could unexpectedly find ourselves with a complimentary "front row seat" these days. :o

A sobering perspective.

In the meantime, all we can do is attack all forms of superstition as medieval monstrosities that need to be banished from a civilized world.

And hope we're lucky. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[LSD]

And yet then, the paper has managed to prove its point.

Which was ...what?

That cartoons making fun of people are "bad"? :o

Sorry, but there are much easier ways to point out this rather obvious fact than Holocaust denial.

Besides, I don't think that any civilized people supported the far-right using its newspapers to "poke fun" at Islam. Indeed, civilized individuals shouldn't support the far-right in anything they do.

No one was "outraged" that Muslims didn't like the cartoons in question.

What the non-Muslim world really objected to was the Muslim worlds' freaking out as they did over a bunch of fucking pictures.

And, by the way, the "AEL's" "brilliant" rhetorical "response" only further hurt their cause. The fact is, no matter how much people may have been, rightfully, offended by the antisemitic cartoons they published, no one burnt anything down!

If their point was to show that the "Sacred Cows" of the "west" are as "holy" as those of Islam, they failed spectacularly!

Yeah, Jews don't like to be made fun of and yeah, it galls people when organizations such as the "AEL" flatter hitler and deny the Holocaust, but even in reaction to such despicable imagery, the worst that happened was that people complained.

Indeed, this "AEL" incident only goes to show that the anger and destruction emerging from the Muslim world in response to these cartoons is not about percieved racism. The "AEL" pictures were racist ...and no one attacked any consulates in response.

The Danish cartoons may have been racist as well, but "worse", they were "blasphemous".

They Muslim world sees these pictures as an affront to their "faith". As such, they are responding out of a "devine duty" to "smite the infidels".

All that the "AEL" did by printing it's racist images was confirm this sad fact.

So ...what was that "point" again?


You might as well be the one marching a swastika down main street then.

Well, before the SA rally begins, I would appreciate a response to my post (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45975&view=findpost&p=1292017025). ;)

[Amusing Scrotum]

I just noticed this....


Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)....the Europeans remain appalled by the seeming inability of their culture to "win over" the North African and Middle Eastern immigrant population.[/b]

I actually saw quite an interesting thing on the news a while back. The French Government is planning to re-create its boarding school system for "poor" and "troublesome" children (no doubt this means the children of poor immigrants).

Anyway, this system was used in the past for the children of French Peasants. It took them in and basically "proletarianised" them.

So while these schools will probably be horrible (not that a life of abject poverty in the French "ghettos" is any better) they could have an interesting effect on the integration of immigrant communities into "French society".


Originally posted by Comrade RAF+--> (Comrade RAF)It's amazing how little Adolf's answer to the "Jewish question" still haunts the minds of the modern masses.[/b]

I prefer "little Karl&#39;s answer myself. <_<

I think it would be interesting to find out when the idea of a "Jewish race" really took hold. I&#39;d guess it was when both "Christian society" and "Jewish society" were separated by Feudal law.

Or maybe it was (much) earlier?


Originally posted by Free Palestine
And yet then, the paper has managed to prove its point.

Which was what? ....that European papers won&#39;t publish anti-Semitic cartoons? ....a quick glance over most of Europe&#39;s law books would make it clear that such a thing is illegal.


Originally posted by Free Palestine
The publisher was very clear on this from the begining.

Right, so some Islamic nutball who publishes anti-Semitic cartoons is to be believed, whilst some right wing hack who publishes anti-Muslim cartoon is a liar???


Originally posted by Free Palestine
That&#39;s totally irrelevant to the issue at hand of whether they would publish anti-Semitic discourse.

No it&#39;s not.

If the Nazi&#39;s hadn&#39;t butchered 6 million Jews then I suspect Martin Luther&#39;s views would most likely still have more appeal.

Indeed if you think a cartoon of Mohammad is offencive and a sign of the Western Medias racism, then have a look at what was being published in German newspapers in 1930.

It would have made the "Saudi&#39;s" blush&#33;


Originally posted by Free Palestine
By the way, just as anti-Semitic works have been used to justify and instigate violence against Jews historically, what makes you think Western anti-Muslim literature has ever been seperate from wars against Muslims.

Either you are completely unaware of what anti-Semitic work was like, or you are being dishonest. Because nothing in those cartoons, or the European press for the last few decades about Muslims even comes close to what the anti-Semitic work was like.


Originally posted by Free Palestine
People in the ME know how to connect the dots, this explains why the demonstrations turned into demonstrations against Israel and the US.

They know how to "connect the dots" to what? ....your statement implies they are connecting the dots to Jewish conspiracy theories and that you agree with this "connection". Think carefully before you reply.

Plus, if I&#39;m not wrong, the American Government condemned the cartoons.


Originally posted by Free Palestine
Excuse me, I am not - but this is what the cartoons did.

The cartoons mocked Muslims, not Arabs. You have chosen to intertwine the two, not me and not the right wing hacks at the Danish newspaper.

Remember their particular gripe is with Muslim immigrants and not all of these are Arab.


Originally posted by Free Palestine
You even were inclined to agree earlier in your post about the intent of racism.

Well it&#39;s obvious the intent was to offend Muslims, as it&#39;s obvious the attempt of the anti-Semitic cartoons was to offend Jews.

I think LSD has explained pretty well how whilst both can be considered offencive, only the content of one can be considered racist. Indeed the only way one could consider the anti-Muslim cartoon racist, is to imply that there are "blood Muslims", something which you have "hinted at".


Originally posted by Free Palestine
Compared to the general citizenry of Saudi Arabia? Yes.

Yes &#39;cause everyone knows that the Danish public regularly edits the Danish press. :lol:

In Denmark, as in "Saudi" Arabia, the public has no control over its press.


Originally posted by Free Palestine
You have an unfortunate habit of putting words into other people&#39;s mouths. I did not say Muslims are "allowed to burn Embassy&#39;s." Can you show me where I said that? I said that it is patently illogical to deny someone the right to protest because Saudi media has in the past published bigoted cartoons. That is the fault of the government of that country, or the Saudi royal family.

You supported their right to protest right? ....their protest took the form of burning Embassy&#39;s did it not?

Therefore I asked you a simple question whether you would support Israel "right to protest" and burn places in Palestine every time an anti-Semitic or anti-Judaism cartoon was published in the Muslim press. Do you?


Free [email protected]
I would be glad to respond accordingly, but you haven&#39;t managed to prove much of anything. You have merely said that the common Jewish "perception" is that they are a race, and this somehow entitles them to the status of "race," in the modern sense of the word "race" that is.

Well I have "proven" something. Jews, unlike every other faith, think of themselves, as others do, as a race.

Now this isn&#39;t scientifically proven, but as an ideological concept that dominates, it means that attacks on Jews often take the form of implying (or stating) that there are "blood Jews" and that these are inferior people.

Which means that while an anti-Christian or anti-Muslim piece will generally not be racist, an anti-Judaism piece often goes on to become anti-Semitic as well.


Free Palestine
You might as well be the one marching a swastika down main street then.

Well you may like the idea of Holocaust deniers having "free speech", but I don&#39;t. Indeed, in my opinion, that does not go far enough.

However, that you&#39;ve spent this thread pissing and moaning about the cartoon in Danish newspapers, suggests that you too have your "limits" with regards "free speech".

Perhaps the two of us should start marching? :lol:

[LSD]

Discussion on the History of Antisemitism split to History (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46030)

[Free Palestine]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+--> (Armchair Socialism)Well I have "proven" something. Jews, unlike every other faith, think of themselves, as others do, as a race.[/b]

argumentum ad populum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority)


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+--> (Armchair Socialism)Which was what? ....that European papers won&#39;t publish anti-Semitic cartoons?[/b]

If you take "freedom of expression" as a criterion (which is what they claimed), the point is obvious. European media did not defend the anti-Jewish cartoons, and did not republish the cartoons in question in the name of solidarity and "free speech." If this was a matter of freedom of speech, they would print them regardless.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Either you are completely unaware of what anti-Semitic work was like, or you are being dishonest. Because nothing in those cartoons, or the European press for the last few decades about Muslims even comes close to what the anti-Semitic work was like...

...They know how to "connect the dots" to what? ....your statement implies they are connecting the dots to Jewish conspiracy theories and that you agree with this "connection".

These cartoons are part of a deliberate and calculated campaign to demonize Arabs and Muslims that should be seen in the context of flushing the Qur&#39;an in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the torture of Arabs and Muslims in both places as well as in Afghanistan, the unprovoked attacks and occupations of Arab and Muslim countries, etc. This cartoon episode was gasoline poured over an already raging fire.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Yes &#39;cause everyone knows that the Danish public regularly edits the Danish press. laugh.gif

In Denmark, as in "Saudi" Arabia, the public has no control over its press.

Agreed, but there is no contest that the general citizenry of Denmark are far more privileged in this regard than the public of Saudi Arabia.


Armchair [email protected]
You supported their right to protest right? ....their protest took the form of burning Embassy&#39;s did it not?

Actually, I did not specify my position on this subject. I did, however, say that "you can&#39;t deny deny someone the right to be pissed off because Saudi media has in the past published bigoted cartoons." Which is the statement you seem to have infered where I lent my apparent support. Can you show me where in this statement I offer my support for embassy burnings?


Armchair Socialism
However, that you&#39;ve spent this thread pissing and moaning about the cartoon in Danish newspapers, suggests that you too have your "limits" with regards "free speech".

Correction: I have limits with regards to the West&#39;s repugnant double standard regarding "free speech."

[LSD]

If you take "freedom of expression" as a criterion (which is what they claimed), the point is obvious. European media did not defend the anti-Jewish cartoons, and did not republish the cartoons in question in the name of solidarity and "free speech."

Because, in this case, no one is challanging free speech&#33;

No Jewish groups have stormed the offices of the "AEL", no Israeli mobs have attacked the Irish consulate.

People have been pissed off, yes, but no one has attempted to violently suppress the freedom of the "AEL" to be as mindlessly racist as it chooses.

You cannot say the same for the Muslim mobs "protesting" the Danish cartoons&#33;

"Western" newspapers republished the cartoons because they refused to be intimidated by barbaric mobs of screaming fanatics. They have no need to republish the antisemitic ones because no one is threatening anyone about them.


These cartoons are part of a deliberate and calculated campaign to demonize Arabs and Muslims that should be seen in the context of flushing the Qur&#39;an in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the torture of Arabs and Muslims in both places as well as in Afghanistan, the unprovoked attacks and occupations of Arab and Muslim countries, etc.

Oh come on&#33;

These cartoons were nothing more than the Danish far-right being far-right.

The real story is not that rightists are bigotted (which kind of goes with saying), but rather that the Muslim world is so trapped in reactionary nonsense that it reacts to "blasphemy" and "descration" in such an absurd manner.

The whole thing actually reflects much worse on the Muslim world than it does on Denmark.

And your "AEL" has not helped matters one bit. Again, instead of showing that the "west" has "Sacred Cows" akin to those of Islam, all it did was demonstrate, again, that the "west" may have it&#39;s soft-spots but it&#39;s not about to burn down embassies because of them.

And, oh yes, in the process it denied the Holocaust and published racism. Surely there was a less antisemitic way for "AEL" to fail to prove its point?

Why is it, do you suppose, that whenever fundamentalist Muslims feel threatened, they bring "the Jews" into it?

Could it be ...antisemitism???


Correction: I have limits with regards to the West&#39;s repugnant double standard regarding "free speech."

And what "double standard" would that be?

The hypocrisy would be if the "west&#39;s" reaction to the antisemitic cartoons mirrored the Muslim world&#39;s reaction to the anti-Muslim ones.

But that didn&#39;t happen did it?

As I said before, both sets of cartoons are covered under free speech, but that does not make them morally parallel, nor does it excuse the "AEL" printing Holocaust denial and antisemitism.

The original Danish paper had no reason to publish the cartoons that it did, but that does not mean that it makes antisemitism acceptable.

Do you honestly not see the insanity of, when feeling attacked by racist comments, racially victimizing an entirely uninvolved party?

Seriously, does that make any sense&#33;?

If "AEL" wanted to "expose double standards", there were inumerable methods of accomplishing that aim.

They decided to go with an antisemitic one.

I wonder why... <_<

[James]

i believe today a french mag published the cartoons again along with other cartoons taking the mick out of all major religions (according to radio 2 news anyway).

[red team]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 7 2006, 04:56 PM

So explain, based on current fanatical images and these calls to behead and bomb people over a couple of cartoons, why &#39;Islamophobia&#39; has become the biggest byword for mean nasty people since Karl Marx was woken long enough to finish &#39;The Manifesto of the Communist Party&#39;. ?

May I post a cartoon of Jesus then, standing with his pants down, smiling, raping a little boy? The caption above it reads "Got Catholicism?" It&#39;s OK since we&#39;re all opposed to religion right? Or maybe a cartoon of a Rabbi with blood dripping from his mouth after bludgeoning a small Palestinian boy with a knife shaped like the Star of David - the caption reads "The Devil&#39;s Chosen Ones." That would be acceptable since we&#39;re all opposed to religion? Correct? Oh.. Right, I forgot. Such a thought would be "anti-Semitic" and you would be banned, but racist, Islamophobic garbage is "OK" in RevLeft&#39;s book.
Actually that would be very funny&#33; :lol:

Mockery is actually a better weapon against religion than serious hostility. Mockery makes your intended target irrelevant. Irrelevancy is feared more than active hostility by these fundamentalist chowder heads because martyrdom itself becomes irrelevant. If nobody gives a damn about your self imposed suffering for your favored superstition, but pokes fun at you instead, martyrdom becomes unappealing.

ALL religions should be made a mockery of.

To clear this all up with facts:
Jews are not a race, but people who are believers of the Jewish religion.
Palestinians are a nation with their own language and customs which can be exclusive of the Jewish religion or Muslim religion or Christian religion or any other religion.
Palestine is the geographic area of the Palestinian nation.
Israel is an apartheid state set up to favor the Jewish religion and therefore Jews who are believers of the Jewish religion.

[commiecrusader]

Jews are not a race, but people who are believers of the Jewish religion.
Wrong. Jews can be either followers of Judaism or a racial group. There is racial jews. Where do you think the stereotype of black hair and a &#39;jewish&#39; nose comes from? They are descendants of the Ancient Israelites.
See here for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 05:01 AM

Jews are not a race, but people who are believers of the Jewish religion.
Wrong. Jews can be either followers of Judaism or a racial group. There is racial jews. Where do you think the stereotype of black hair and a &#39;jewish&#39; nose comes from? They are descendants of the Ancient Israelites.
See here for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew
:lol:

You don&#39;t even realise what you&#39;re saying do you?

"Black hair and Jewish Noses"?

If I remember correctly, they seem to have a strange word for them.....something like Arabs in the modern world.

Prior to that they were simply "hebrew tribes".

[Amusing Scrotum]

Someone just posted a pretty interesting piece in Events and Propaganda....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46059

[boosh logic]

As commie crusader pointed out, the Jewish people are a race as well as religious group. A person does not have to be one to be the other. The Jewish religion began in the ancient Israelite civilisation, from which all Jews originate. With migration and expulsion, they ended up spread all across the world, with other ethnicities converting to Judaism.

The Jewish people largely lived in secular groups (much as can be seen with Muslim communities in the UK), but there was a large movement to integrate with the society they lived in, meaning that those of Jewish religion were in some cases abandoning their religion to join the rest of society, whilst maintaining their Jewish culture by doing things such as learning Hebrew and the history of Jews (yes even if you don&#39;t see them as a race, there is a Jewish culture). This meant that increasingly Jews did not follow the religion, whilst still aligning themselves with the culture. It is by this that the Jewish people maintain themselves as a race, and while it may not be in the technical sense, most Jews see themselves as such, and are persecuted as such in anti-semetic attacks, just as black people are in anti-black attacks.

Perhaps the reason that Christians are not seen as a race is that the fundamentals of all modern-day white culture (that is not of other religions) are the basis of what we have arrived at today, so in effect North American, European and Australian culture is Christian culture, wether or not the people identify themselves as a race.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Boosh Logic
As commie crusader pointed out, the Jewish people are a race as well as religious group.

And as several of us have already pointed out, Jewish people are most definitely not a "race" of people.

It seems so odd to see 19th century racialist nonsense being displayed as "fact" on a leftist forum.

What the fuck is this world coming to.

[boosh logic]

As I said later, while it may not be in the technical sense, surely if a people unify themselves as a race, then they are a race in at least one sense?

Either way, does it really matter? Anti-semitism is still anti-Jew wether or not they are a race, so it does not change that or who they are, or who any other group are.

[Free Palestine]

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/2994/cartoon9vj.gif

[LSD]

Are you going to actually respond to arguments or just post pretty pictures?

Not that I wouldn&#39;t understand if you chose the latter, of course. You did put yourself in a pretty ridiculous position by supporting antisemitism and Holocaust denial.

[commiecrusader]

Comerade RAF do you want to give a source for your assertion that Jews are not a race? I have given mine for that they are, Wikipedia&#39;s entry on jews, in which they are described as an &#39;ethno-religious&#39; group i.e. there is a racial and belief based aspect to the Jewish race, you can be a race jew or a religion jew. It also goes on to explain how they are descended from the ancient Israelites. Further, Hitler wasn&#39;t against Jews because of the religion, but because of their ethnicity, their blood. Until you have a source to back up your claim it remains just that, a claim, provide some evidence please.

[boosh logic]

Free Palestine, I just noticed a post earlier stating that no anti-semetic cartoons were published, but anti-islam were. I&#39;m not sure about other papers, but last week The Independant (a British newspaper) placed a cartoon on the front page about Iran&#39;s quest for nuclear arms that was one of the anti-semite cartoons, but did not place any of the Muhammed cartoons, instead publishing an article stating that they refused to as it would be purposely provoking insult and anger for little reason.

Sorry but I couldn&#39;t find a link to the picture on the internet.

(P.S. - I&#39;m not getting at you in this post, I just thought you may be interested in it)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Free Palestine before I answer your last post, I would appreciate it if you answered this....


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Feb 8 2006, 02:21 AM--> (Armchair Socialism &#064; Feb 8 2006, 02:21 AM)They know how to "connect the dots" to what? ....your statement implies they are connecting the dots to Jewish conspiracy theories and that you agree with this "connection". Think carefully before you reply.[/b]

And this....


Armchair [email protected] 8 2006, 02:21 AM
Therefore I asked you a simple question whether you would support Israel "right to protest" and burn places in Palestine every time an anti-Semitic or anti-Judaism cartoon was published in the Muslim press. Do you?

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292017121 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45975&view=findpost&p=1292017121)

Okay?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 05:56 AM
Comerade RAF do you want to give a source for your assertion that Jews are not a race?
Yeah, try reality.

Look son, you have a wealth of information sitting right at your fingertips; use it.

You should be ashamed of yourself for continuing to propegate a 19th century refuted racist ideology.

Do youself a favour, start digging into the internet on the subject before your "innocent foolishness" is mistaken for blatent antisemitism.

You would be surprised how much ass a group of Brooklyn hasidics can kick when confronted with such nonsense.

You won&#39;t get a second chance with them.

[boosh logic]

I&#39;ve been thinking about this and have changed my mind based on a discussion in the philosophy thread. Race is entirely a social matter, as a way of unifying a people who have some common ground. Therefore there are no races scientifically, but it is the people of these races who identify themselves with each other, despite the fact they could easily come across another member of the race and have nothing else in common.

Race is probably created when a people are persecuted for a common reason - wether for being black, oriental, etc. Therefore they find solidarity in joining with others like them persecuted for these reasons, either for safety or just comfort. In a hateless world, there would still be these difference, but no need to unify for these reasons. Therefore while Jews not be a race in the same sense as black or Asian terms, they have unified in the same way as these races as a result of constant persecution. Events such as Hitlers prosecution of those even just related to Jews and previous similar events is probably what lead to those non-religious Jews of that same descent considering themselves as part of the same race.

By this reckoning, I predict that Muslims will soon consider themselves as a race as a result of increasing tensions and "Islamophobia", to unite for the same reasons mentioned before.

[redstar2000]

And then there&#39;s this...


Originally posted by BBC
Dutch MP backs Muhammad cartoons

The Somali-born Dutch MP who describes herself as a "dissident of Islam" has backed the Danish newspaper that first printed the Prophet Muhammad cartoons.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali said it was "correct to publish the cartoons" in Jyllands Posten and "right to republish them".

Her film-maker colleague Theo van Gogh was murdered by a Muslim extremist in a case that shocked the Netherlands.

Ms Hirsi Ali, speaking in Berlin, said that "today the open society is challenged by Islamism".

She added: "Within Islam exists a hardline Islamist movement that rejects democratic freedoms and wants to destroy them."

Ms Hirsi Ali criticised European leaders for not standing by Denmark and urged politicians to stop appeasing fundamentalists.

She also said that although the Prophet Muhammad did a lot of good things, his decree that homosexuals and apostates should be killed was incompatible with democracy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/europe/4698528.stm

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 9 2006, 10:48 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Feb 9 2006, 10:48 PM)
BBC
She also said that although the Prophet Muhammad did a lot of good things, his decree that homosexuals and apostates should be killed was incompatible with democracy. [/b]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That made my day.

[commiecrusader]

Look son, you have a wealth of information sitting right at your fingertips; use it.

Is there really any need to start trying to demean me? Anyone who disagrees with the mighty intellect that is yours instantly becomes fodder for you to peddle you&#39;re &#39;witty&#39; remarks against.


You should be ashamed of yourself for continuing to propegate a 19th century refuted racist ideology.
Look, Donrade RAF, I refuse to be ashamed of myself ever. I will alter my opinion about the Jewish people when you provide me with some evidence to suggest my current opinion is invalid. Please provide me with some links to where you are getting the aforesaid information from, I will be only too happy to read them and give my opinion. You may even make a difference to it :D


Do youself a favour, start digging into the internet on the subject before your "innocent foolishness" is mistaken for blatent antisemitism.
I am in no way &#39;antisemitic&#39;. Even if I&#39;m mistaken that there is a jewish &#39;race&#39;, then that still would not make the views I&#39;ve been expressing antisemitic. Stop being such a drama queen.


You would be surprised how much ass a group of Brooklyn hasidics can kick when confronted with such nonsense.
This I will admit I don&#39;t know. What is a &#39;hasidic&#39;?. I assume it&#39;s a jew, but I don&#39;t know?

You know what Donrade, much as you get on my tits, I have missed these exchanges :)

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by CC
Look, Donrade RAF, I refuse to be ashamed of myself ever. I will alter my opinion about the Jewish people when you provide me with some evidence to suggest my current opinion is invalid. Please provide me with some links to where you are getting the aforesaid information from, I will be only too happy to read them and give my opinion. You may even make a difference to it biggrin.gif

I know I come across bad most of the time CC but I just don&#39;t have much of an interest in explaining something you should already know.

Contrary to popular belief on this forum, I really ain&#39;t much of a "teacher". :lol:

If you really want to learn the truth, try plugging "the myth of the Jewish race" into Google, that should give you more than enough theory to digest.

If you would like to to learn more about the origin of racial anti semitism, LSD and I have a decent thread going in the history forum.


You know what Donrade, much as you get on my tits, I have missed these exchanges smile.gif

Try not to get them so twisted, I fully admit that I&#39;m a bastard.

At least I&#39;m an equal opportunity bastard however. ;)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Feb 9 2006, 05:01 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Feb 9 2006, 05:01 PM) Free Palestine before I answer your last post, I would appreciate it if you answered this....


Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 8 2006, 02:21 AM
They know how to "connect the dots" to what? ....your statement implies they are connecting the dots to Jewish conspiracy theories and that you agree with this "connection". Think carefully before you reply.

And this....


Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 8 2006, 02:21 AM
Therefore I asked you a simple question whether you would support Israel "right to protest" and burn places in Palestine every time an anti-Semitic or anti-Judaism cartoon was published in the Muslim press. Do you?

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292017121 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45975&view=findpost&p=1292017121)

Okay? [/b]

Are you going to explain this comment....


Free [email protected] 8 2006, 12:31 AM
People in the ME know how to connect the dots, this explains why the demonstrations turned into demonstrations against Israel and the US.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292017057 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45975&view=findpost&p=1292017057)

....and answer my questions???

[Free Palestine]

I have already answered your first question, and your second question is too absurd to merit comment. Secondly, I reserve the right to only reply to what I see as relevant, as discussion with you has proven to be rather abortive.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Free Palestine+Feb 15 2006, 07:19 PM--> (Free Palestine @ Feb 15 2006, 07:19 PM) I have already answered your first question.... [/b]

Where?


Free Palestine
Secondly, I reserve the right to only reply to what I see as relevant, as discussion with you has proven to be rather abortive.

Answer the first question explaining your original comment and we can "abort" the discussion.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 9 2006, 10:50 PM--> (redstar2000 &#064; Feb 9 2006, 10:50 PM) And then there&#39;s this...


BBC
Dutch MP backs Muhammad cartoons

The Somali-born Dutch MP who describes herself as a "dissident of Islam" has backed the Danish newspaper that first printed the Prophet Muhammad cartoons.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali said it was "correct to publish the cartoons" in Jyllands Posten and "right to republish them".

Her film-maker colleague Theo van Gogh was murdered by a Muslim extremist in a case that shocked the Netherlands.

Ms Hirsi Ali, speaking in Berlin, said that "today the open society is challenged by Islamism".

She added: "Within Islam exists a hardline Islamist movement that rejects democratic freedoms and wants to destroy them."

Ms Hirsi Ali criticised European leaders for not standing by Denmark and urged politicians to stop appeasing fundamentalists.

She also said that although the Prophet Muhammad did a lot of good things, his decree that homosexuals and apostates should be killed was incompatible with democracy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/europe/4698528.stm

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
Ayaan hirsi ali, the somalian born dutch mp, has done nothing in her political career but discriminating against muslims, without arguments. That woman has shit for brains, does not know what she is talking about (she misquoted Muhammad 3 times out of 4), and that Theo van Gogh was a nutcase; he was anti-semite as well as islamophobic

There is nothing wrong with being critical of Islam, there is nothing wrong with pointing out the blatant fallacies of any religion, its is however wrong to discriminate against the people who practice religions; religion is nothing more than an attempt at explaining things and give meaning to things in a world full of opression and exploitation; its no wonder many feel attracted to it. Besides this, many muslims, christians etc are proletarian; if you discriminate against them, if you print cartoons such as these (which was no less than the continuation of the hate-campaign against muslims) you will just alienate that substantial amount of the proletariate.

This does not mean you should not criticise those religions; by all means you should...but if you want to build instead of destroy you are going to have to be respectful, understanding and willing to read up on those religions and not say "Muhammad was a pedophile and a woman abuser" because muslims will just stop listening, they will just stop communicating when you say that and you will have accomplished the further desintegration of the world&#39;s proletariat.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by NKOS
Ayaan hirsi ali, the somalian born dutch mp, has done nothing in her political career but discriminating against muslims, without arguments.

And to her I say: keep up the good work&#33;


its is however wrong to discriminate against the people who practice religions; religion is nothing more than an attempt at explaining things and give meaning to things in a world full of opression and exploitation;

Without discriminating against the people who practise religion there is no actual real life revolt against superstition; without the people, religion is non existant.

As history has proven, religion is far more than just an "attempt at explaining things and give meaning to things in a world full of opression and exploitation"; it is a real life form of social oppression that has been responsible for countless murders, severe social and economic oppression of the masses and bad taste in clothing.


you will just alienate that substantial amount of the proletariate.

Good&#33; That&#39;s exactly what we want to do; force the masses to examine their superstitions in relation to the social consditions in which they exist.


they will just stop communicating when you say that and you will have accomplished the further desintegration of the world&#39;s proletariat.

The only thing capable of "disintegrating the world&#39;s proletariat" is a complete abandonment of class society; that can only be done by attacking the tools used by the bourgeoisie to perpetuate that society.

You fail to realise that superstition is not merely a product of class society, it&#39;s one of its founding tenets.

[Free Palestine]

Good&#33; That&#39;s exactly what we want to do; force the masses to examine their superstitions in relation to the social consditions in which they exist.

Good luck with your revolution. :D

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 15 2006, 03:16 PM

Good&#33; That&#39;s exactly what we want to do; force the masses to examine their superstitions in relation to the social consditions in which they exist.

Good luck with your revolution. :D
Considering the sheer idocy in the actions of these Islamic morons, I think they will eventually do "the hard part" for us; leaving the ramaining revolution in the hands of future generations.

Lucky?

You bet&#33;

[Free Palestine]

Originally posted by Bill Shatner+Feb 15 2006, 11:31 PM--> (Bill Shatner &#064; Feb 15 2006, 11:31 PM)
Free [email protected] 15 2006, 03:16 PM

Good&#33; That&#39;s exactly what we want to do; force the masses to examine their superstitions in relation to the social consditions in which they exist.

Good luck with your revolution. :D
Considering the sheer idocy in the actions of these Islamic morons, I think they will eventually do "the hard part" for us; leaving the ramaining revolution in the hands of future generations.

Lucky?

You bet&#33;[/b]

They are SO getting prank called once you pry your cheeto-filled gut out of your chair and lose the 400 lbs required to climb out of your parent&#39;s basement. You&#39;re really gonna show them man&#33;

[LSD]

Free Palestine, you do indeed have "the right to only reply to what you see as relevant", but you do not have the right to flame and derail threads.

This thread is going nowhere, so I&#39;m closing it, and for the moment, I&#39;m not giving you a warning poing either. But lay of the attitude and straighten up or I&#39;ll change my mind on that one.

For my part, I "reserve my right" to keep this forum civil and you are making that job particularly trying today.