RAF's avatar

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 14, 2007 06:34 pm
In addition the word "overlord" is a touch antiquated don't you think? Come out of your mom's basement for a spell, the Dungeons & Dragons will still be there when you get back.

I promise.
I dislike your avatar.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 11:39 am

I dislike your avatar.
Did your "god-man" Avakian tell you to say that?

In any case, the feelings are mutual pal.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 14, 2007 06:41 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 14, 2007 06:41 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2007 11:39 am

I dislike your avatar.
Did your "god-man" Avakian tell you to say that?

In any case, the feelings are mutual pal. [/b]
Avakian is reactionary scum. Don't assume that just because I'm a maoist I idolize a coward hiding in France. In any case, what motivation do you have for putting such a cartoon as your avatar? Do you really think all Muslims are terrorists?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Do you really think all Communists are Chinese?

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 15, 2007 04:42 pm
Do you really think all Communists are Chinese?
No, where did you get an idea like that?

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+August 15, 2007 05:48 pm--> (PigmerikanMao @ August 15, 2007 05:48 pm)
Vinny [email protected] 15, 2007 04:42 pm
Do you really think all Communists are Chinese?
No, where did you get an idea like that? [/b]
Exactly his point, PM. Besides, why would that picture say that all Muslims are terrorists? Most Muslims don't wear rurbans and many Muslims don't have beards.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by Red_Anarchist+August 15, 2007 04:51 pm--> (Red_Anarchist @ August 15, 2007 04:51 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:48 pm

Vinny [email protected] 15, 2007 04:42 pm
Do you really think all Communists are Chinese?
No, where did you get an idea like that?
Exactly his point, PM. Besides, why would that picture say that all Muslims are terrorists? Most Muslims don't wear rurbans and many Muslims don't have beards. [/b]
The danish cartoon he's sporting is not any Muslim, but the prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, symbolizing the idea that all Muslims are terrorists through a popular generalization of turban and beard. My avatar is just a picture of Mao, there because I look up to him, not because I'm making a statement about those looking up to him.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:48 am

No, where did you get an idea like that?
From the silly cartoon you use as an Avatar.

[Sentinel]

I think it's pretty obvious why he has that avatar: to piss off islamic fundamentalists (and 'communists' who apologise for/support those, hoping to get a couple of more votes in bourgeois elections), as that picture -- like any depicting the 'prophet' Mohammed -- is 'blasphemous'. We don't have any guidelines against blasphemy here, however, and likely won't implement such anytime soon, I'm afraid.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:27 pm
I think it's pretty obvious why he has that avatar: to piss off islamic fundamentalists (and 'communists' who apologise for/support those, hoping to get a couple of more votes in bourgeois elections), as that picture -- like any depicting the 'prophet' Mohammed -- is 'blasphemous'. We don't have any guidelines against blasphemy here, however, and likely won't implement such anytime soon, I'm afraid.
And I would hope not.

The problem is that that cartoon is clearly bigotry; it conflates Islam with a common sterotype - the Muslim suicide bomber - that has been used in western media to frighten us and make enemies out of the arab people. One need only look at the U.S. response to the Israeli - Lebanese war last year to see the result; Hizb Allah was made out to be a group of low life Muslim psychos intent on killing Jews, and so the bombing of Lebanon was basicalyl apologised for, while in Israel the citizens were speakign otu agaisnt their government for having been so violent and brazen in their crusade to weaken Hizb Allah.

The cartoon was a direct attack against islam as a faith and muslims in general, and as much as Islam is false, so is the implication that it's justifiable to attack a people or their ideas in this way for the usage of their religion by others for violence.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 15, 2007 04:57 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 15, 2007 04:57 pm)
PigmerikanMao[email protected] 15, 2007 09:48 am

No, where did you get an idea like that?
From the silly cartoon you use as an Avatar. [/b]
I dislike how you put everything in italics.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Dean
The problem is that that cartoon is clearly bigotry

Since I am without a shadow of a doubt bigoted against Islam then it looks like it's a match made by 40 virgins in heaven.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 07:06 pm
The problem is that that cartoon is clearly bigotry;
The picture is clearly humorous, but I forgot that leftists are meant to leave their sense of humour at the door, especially when the target of ridicule is islam.


The cartoon was a direct attack against islam as a faith and muslims in general,

Damn right it is.


and as much as Islam is false, so is the implication that it's justifiable to attack a people or their ideas in this way for the usage of their religion by others for violence.

What "others" are using islam for violence, as far as I'm aware it's sections of the muslim community themselves who are doing this.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I am thinking about having a picture of a Jew swindling people out of their money. Lets hope no Jews or Jewish fundamentalist apologists take offense.

[An archist]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 15, 2007 07:11 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 15, 2007 07:11 pm)
Dean
The problem is that that cartoon is clearly bigotry

Since I am without a shadow of a doubt bigoted against Islam then it looks like it's a match made by 40 virgins in heaven. [/b]
touché

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 12:32 pm
I am thinking about having a picture of a Jew swindling people out of their money. Lets hope no Jews or Jewish fundamentalist apologists take offense.
Even though I hate the Judaic religion just as much as the Islamic one the key difference here is that people of the Jewish faith don't actually "swindle money out of you" as a religious trait whereas there are people of the Islamic faith that do strap bombs on themselves and blow up kids in the name of their religion.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 15, 2007 07:51 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 15, 2007 07:51 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 12:32 pm
I am thinking about having a picture of a Jew swindling people out of their money. Lets hope no Jews or Jewish fundamentalist apologists take offense.
Even though I hate the Judaic religion just as much as the Islamic one the key difference here is that people of the Jewish faith don't actually "swindle money out of you" as a religious trait whereas there are people of the Islamic faith that do strap bombs on themselves and blow up kids in the name of their religion. [/b]
How does someone saying it is a part of their religion change whether or not the stereotype is unfair? Plenty of Jews are rich, and I guarantee you that they have portions of their holy texts that they use to justify their riches. You can't say that suicide bombing is either a typically muslim thing or that it is indiciative of the behavior of Muslims in general. That's like saying Buddhism and Huinduism had a tendancy towards Maoism when the reality is that the region is prone to such ideologies. It's a result of desperation that people blow themselves up, and Capital that makes peopel think being rich is OK. Christianity is used in the U.S. to promote islamophobia and nationalism in general, but that doesn't mean christianity is inherantly prone to either one.

[luxemburg89]

and 'communists' who apologise for/support those, hoping to get a couple of more votes in bourgeois elections

I think its more a case of picking one off at a time. In the west, where christianity is dominant, it is far better to only upset one at a time - easier to beat a religion one after the other rather than [I]all religion together. At least that's how I see it - you could be right and they may just be going after votes, but I'd rather a little more trust in the left for now.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by dean
How does someone saying it is a part of their religion change whether or not the stereotype is unfair?

I don't really care if they think the stereotype is unfair. If you don't want to be stereotyped as a fanatic that straps bombs on himself and blows himself up along with 14 members of the junior marching band then don't do it.

Why you're worried about the fragile ego of a cat getting ready to blow himself up in an ice cream shop and not worried about the lives of the children he's about to murder is truly bizarre.


You can't say that suicide bombing is either a typically muslim thing or that it is indiciative of the behavior of Muslims in general

Suicide bombing is typically a Muslim thing.

Hmmm. Guess I could say it after all.


It's a result of desperation that people blow themselves up, and Capital that makes peopel think being rich is OK.

Not exactly.

Desperation is merely one of the reasons why these nuts blow themselves up.


Christianity is used in the U.S. to promote islamophobia

Who cares? Muslims are doing a much better job promoting "Islamaphobia" then Christianity ever will.

[Publius]

I am thinking about having a picture of a Jew swindling people out of their money. Lets hope no Jews or Jewish fundamentalist apologists take offense.

Do stereotypical "Jewish money-lenders" have, or claim, Religious warrant from the Tanach?

Do stereotypical "Muslim suicide-bombers" have, or claim, Religious warrant from the Quran?

That's the obvious difference here. If your picture were of a 'hooked nose' bearded 'Jew', it would clearly be offensive. But if it were a white guy who converted, it wouldn't be offensive at all, because the stereotype isn't religious, but ethnic.

Is the stereotype of Muslims as terrorists ethnic? To a degree. But not entirely. It's possible to imagine Muslim terrorists who are non-Arabic. In fact, quite a few of them ARE non-Arabic.

I guess the question then becomes does the cartoon make fun or critique the racial ethnic aspect, or the religious, fundamentalist aspect of terrorism? And it seems to be some mixture, but since the portrayal is of Muhammad (who was in fact Arabic), it clearly leans toward the religious side, and so it doesn't seem to be particularly racist to me. Maybe insensitive, maybe juvenile, but certainly to get tossed off over.

And tell me, why were 'Muslims' angry? Because they showed a stereotypical Muslim guy, or because they showed a revered religious figure?

That's what I thought.

So the comparison doesn't work. The critique or satire is religious in nature, while the hypothetical Jewish cartoon would be an obvious work of ethnic or tribal bias.

[Publius]

How does someone saying it is a part of their religion change whether or not the stereotype is unfair?




Plenty of Jews are rich, and I guarantee you that they have portions of their holy texts that they use to justify their riches.

I'd love to know which those are.

I think the reason that Jews in the Middle Ages often resorted to money lending was that it was a trade that was looked down upon, so social outcasts had to fill the role, and it was something most religions outlawed.

I don't think you can point to any cases of Jews opening up their Torah's and saying "I bet God wants me to put money out a 7.85% APR."

You can however point to Muslims who declare that certain verses in the Quran were their justification for becoming martyrs.

Now I think they very deeply misunderstand the text. But that is their inspiration.



You can't say that suicide bombing is either a typically muslim thing or that it is indiciative of the behavior of Muslims in general.

That's not what's being said. What's being said is that the justification for suicide bombing can be found in the Muslim religion and often is.

Not always.


That's like saying Buddhism and Huinduism had a tendancy towards Maoism when the reality is that the region is prone to such ideologies. It's a result of desperation that people blow themselves up, and Capital that makes peopel think being rich is OK.

But only certain desperate people do it.

Africa is by far more desperate than the Middle East, but how many South African suicide bombers are there? Ghanain? Ivory Coastian? What about Asia? China and India have the two largest masses of despararely poor people, they should be hotbeds of suicidal extremism.

But they aren't. So clearly there's some other variable we're leaving it, and it just might be religion.

In fact suicide bombing was not invented by Muslims, it was invented by the secular terrorist group Tamil Tigers, but it's certainly been co-opted by a radical, fundamentalist sect of Muslims. And the reasons for this are, largely, religious.

If they look hard enough, they can find easy justification for martrydom.



Christianity is used in the U.S. to promote islamophobia and nationalism in general, but that doesn't mean christianity is inherantly prone to either one.

I'd beg to differ.

One, Christianity MUST be anti-Muslim because Christians suppose their God is the only God and that Jesus Christ is the only saviour. So Muslims must be going to hell according to Christian teaching. That's by the book.

And of course the Bible says to "render unto Caeser what is Caeser's", which essentially means "listen to the state whenever you're not listening to God."

I'd say those are Biblical warrants for Islamophobia and nationalism.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

A picture of an Arab with a bomb on his head isnt racist?

What about this piece?

http://www.subcin.com/eternaljew.jpg

[Comrade Rage]

Even if the stereotype of the Muslim suicide bomber has nothing to do with the offensive image of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban! Don't get me wrong I believe religion is a sham across the board, but both your avatar and the cartoon posted on your profile single out Muslims as the one violent religion is a joke.

What about Christian America risking nuclear war with Iran and Pakistan?

What about Israel's apartheid/imperialist practices? :(

[Publius]

What does it purport to mean, Purple bent-Katana Wielding Marxist Building Demolishers are bad?

Since I can't make sense of what it's supposed to be, I can't find it too offensive, though it might in fact be.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by bcs+--> (bcs) A picture of an Arab with a bomb on his head isnt racist?[/b]

Actually it's a picture of a Muslim with a bomb on his head -- the Elvis Presley of Muslims to be exact.

You're also a bit confused, you can't be "racist" against a religion.


crum
but both your avatar and the cartoon posted on your profile single out Muslims as the one violent religion is a joke.

No they don't.

They single out Islam as a violent religion, not "the" violent religion; and b]never[/b] was there truer a statement. ;)


What about Christian America risking nuclear war with Iran and Pakistan?

Neither Iran nor Pakistan have nuclear weapons. In any case, that's a different subject.


What about Israel's apartheid/imperialist practices?

Again, that's a different subject.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:49 pm
What does it purport to mean, Purple bent-Katana Wielding Marxist Building Demolishers are bad?

Since I can't make sense of what it's supposed to be, I can't find it too offensive, though it might in fact be.
Sorry, the writing at the bottom translates to "the eternal Jew".

It's meant ot be a Jew, its a Nazi propaghanda piece.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 15, 2007 11:49 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 15, 2007 11:49 pm)
bcs
A picture of an Arab with a bomb on his head isnt racist?

Actually it's a picture of a Muslim with a bomb on his head -- the Elvis Presley of Muslims to be exact.

You're also a bit confused, you can't be "racist" against a religion.
[/b]
What are you talking about?

That picture was created to stur up racial hatred against ARAB muslims. Arab muslims constitutes a race just like Jews constitute a race.

You are attacking all muslims and you are supporting right wing attacks on ethnic minorities in Europe and you are reinforcing the split in the working class.

You are a god damned racist fuck.

[Comrade Rage]

That piece looks like one of the many cartoons made by the Reich Chamber of Culture (Goebbels) in 1938, meant to draw a link between Jews and the Stalinist USSR. Anyone with two IQ points to rub together would dismiss it, but idiots believed in this 'link' and it was a central theme in Goebbels' speech which sparked Kristallnacht.

For the record, Stalin was anti-Semitic as well which makes the theory that Jews were working with the USSR crappity-crap-crap.

EDIT: THIS post is in response to the thread above the one above this one.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

So let me get this straight...

Hating people simply because of their skin colour is a bad thing, but hating people simply because of their religion is perfectly good and acceptable?

I was not aware that our motto had been changed to "Working people of all countries unite - unless you're a Muslim worker; then you can fuck off."

ANY idea that suggests different segments of the working class have different interests is reactionary, end of story. I don't care if the justification for splitting up the working class is race, religion, sexual orientation, or your favourite kind of cheese.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 16, 2007 12:22 am
So let me get this straight...

Hating people simply because of their skin colour is a bad thing, but hating people simply because of their religion is perfectly good and acceptable?

I was not aware that our motto had been changed to "Working people of all countries unite - unless you're a Muslim worker; then you can fuck off."

ANY idea that suggests different segments of the working class have different interests is reactionary, end of story. I don't care if the justification for splitting up the working class is race, religion, sexual orientation, or your favourite kind of cheese.
Well, actually, cheese IS a matter where the party can be justly split. I mean, we can't have those revisionist, colby loving, bastards coming to power now can we?!

[freakazoid]

Well, actually, cheese IS a matter where the party can be justly split. I mean, we can't have those revisionist, colby loving, bastards coming to power now can we?!

:lol:


I'd beg to differ.

One, Christianity MUST be anti-Muslim because Christians suppose their God is the only God and that Jesus Christ is the only saviour. So Muslims must be going to hell according to Christian teaching. That's by the book.

And of course the Bible says to "render unto Caeser what is Caeser's", which essentially means "listen to the state whenever you're not listening to God."

I'd say those are Biblical warrants for Islamophobia and nationalism.

Taken out of context.


If you don't want to be stereotyped as a fanatic that straps bombs on himself and blows himself up along with 14 members of the junior marching band then don't do it.

People get stereotyped because of what other people do. It wouldn't matter if you did it or not, you would still be stereotyped. :angry:


Why you're worried about the fragile ego of a cat getting ready to blow himself up in an ice cream shop and not worried about the lives of the children he's about to murder is truly bizarre.

It's not about the person who is blowing himself up, it is about the people who do not do this and who are being stereotyped because of it!

[RHIZOMES]

Neither Iran nor Pakistan have nuclear weapons

Pakistan is a nuclear power.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Though I have no problem with looking at religion critically, it indeed is a racist image.

Mohammed's physical appearance has never been historically documented, and it indeed is condemned in the Koran as ostensibly close to idol worship to show pictorial representations of him. So, to portray him as an Arab; with a long black-beard, darkened complexion, and with a bomb on his head which clearly relates with the bigoted notion that individuals with those features described are terrorists, is obviously racist. It would be an insult to intelligence to say otherwise.

Not to mention, the publication that released the image is Jyllands-Posten - a broadsheet newspaper that is obviously fascist. In it's history, it has attacked working people; it endorsed Benito Mussolini, demanded that they "follow Germany's example" saying that "...democratic rule by the people, as we know it, is a luxury which can be afforded in good times when the economy is favorable. But restoring the economy after many years of lavish spending requires a firm hand", has been purported by many right-wing political thinktanks and parties, and finds financial support from donations offered by several business interests from certain branches of industry. As so, we can only equate the cartoon as an attack on the working class as a whole. It is reactionary, case closed.

[Hiero]

What's the point of this thread? It is clear Vinny Rafarino is a reactionary, he should just leave refleft and go join a forum where the constantly whinge about how sharia law is going to take away their right to party or some other imagin bullshit shit.


I was not aware that our motto had been changed to "Working people of all countries unite - unless you're a Muslim worker; then you can fuck off."

Come on, that is all wrong. It is more like "We are the all knowing autonomist atheist league, you fucking idiot, change to our way of life".

These anti-marxist atheist idiots actually give hand to the imperialist by demonising an oppressed people. Part of the job of being a communist is exposing the crimes of the imperialist, to show the impact on the working people, such as in Iraq. Then you get pigs like Vinny Rafarino who come along and try to destroy the humanity of these working people in the mid east based on their criticism of religion. People aren't going to want to stop the occupation in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine if they don't give a shit about the people there.

Vinny Rafarino works against what we are trying to do, and that is build international links. With international proleteriat organisations and building fratenity between parties we destroy the reactionary nationalism we see in the mid east. Imagine the impact Vinny Rafarino and other chauvinist make on other muslims, seriously if people like Vinny Rafarino are meant to be the progressive socialists, what incentive is there for muslims to come over to the socialist camp? When they see the trash that comes out of European nations, like the cartoons from Denmark, or the riots in Australia it only reinforces the Islamic fundamentalists mentality, that they are surrounded by vicious 1st world thugs who want kill them because they are muslim. We need to always promote solidarity with oppressed groups, based on class and always promote that reason.

Why does Vinny Rafarino do these things? Well he was original called Comrade Raf, some sort of psuedo Stalinist or some crap. Then he dissapeared for awhile and came back as an anarchist. From that point on he started to be a prick to people and promote this reactionary line against oppressed nations. Clearly he never became an anarchist, or maybe he did, either way he now promotes a right wing line, people should just ignore him, he is an agiator pig and do not ever not believe he could be working for a white nationalist group. Keep personal info safe.

[peaccenicked]

For what its worth. The avaatar is infantile, peurile, unfunny , racist, reactionary, and insult to islam,showing Stalinist disrespect to religious belief.



Has the politics of the ignorant punks that used to wear swastikas. Shocking-No!
Sad really.

It is nowhere near as funny as this.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/001derkaoui-abdellah-Morroc.jpg

[Hiero]

What is that building on the wall?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:51 am
What is that building on the wall?
Auschwitz.

[ComradeR]

Suicide bombing is typically a Muslim thing.

Hmmm. Guess I could say it after all.
Actually not all suicide bombers are Muslim, although thats what western media portrays. The Tamil Tigers for instance have been using suicide bombers for decades, or like the Japanese kamikaze in WW2. And the tactic of using bomb attacks on civilian areas have been used extensively by non-Muslims in the past.

Not exactly.

Desperation is merely one of the reasons why these nuts blow themselves up.
This is true, though it has been used for political reasons as much as religious.

And yes that avatar does perpetuate the idea that all Arabs are terrorists/suicide bombers. It's all part of the war propaganda used to demonize a group of people in order to justify the imperialists actions. I'm rather surprised that some leftists fail to see that.

[Hiero]

It's all part of the war propaganda used to demonize a group of people in order to justify the imperialists actions. I'm rather surprised that some leftists fail to see that.

Excactly. It is is quite annoying, after everything we have seen about war and imperialism.


Suicide bombing is typically a Muslim thing.

Hmmm. Guess I could say it after all.

If someone said that "crime is typically a Black thing in the USA" we would call them a racist. Then they would say no look at the statstics, which shows the higher incarceration rate. However as Marxist we say, look at the material conditions that produce crime, look how the racist system police black people. We generally act as materialist. So it is really irrelevent for use to stop black crime, or to even complain about it, because it doesn't concern us. Rather we attack the material side and use worker power to increase living standards and improve culture and in affect liberates oppressed people which reduces the need and culture of crime.

Now that is really common amongst any ant-racists and standard among marxists. What I fail to understand is why people can't apply this to other people. It seems for some reason that people take the idealist route. This people are "muslims", and so they disregard any class or national analysis, so from this logic seem to blame action on ideas.

Let's say suicide bombing is a muslim thing. Then burning wagons is native american thing. Cutting heads off is a Pacific Islander thing. Spearing is a Australian Aboriginal thing, blowing up cafe's is a Algerian thing , so on and on.

So let's drop all these labels, lets act like materialist. If you colonise a nation, don't expect the natives to be "civilised" and don't complain when they start fighting back.

[Dimentio]

Muhammed (PBUH) did not have a beard.

For me, the only religious message that counts is "To Wally".

[Publius]

Taken out of context.

Then supply the context and show me how it proves me incorrect.

[Publius]

Tell me, is this cartoon offensive: http://www.jesusandmo.net/ ?

I'd just like to know if I can have the freedom of reading it in the future.

[Phalanx]

You guys are way too sensitive.

If he had an avatar of Jesus giving smallpox to Native Americans, you'd probably think it was creative. His avatar is an attack on religion, not ethnicity. And I always thought you guys were all for that.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:02 pm

What are you talking about?

That picture was created to stur up racial hatred against ARAB muslims.



I don't give a rat's ass why, how or by whom the picture was created.


Arab muslims constitutes a race just like Jews constitute a race.

There's no such thing as a "Jewish race", Heinrich.


You are attacking all muslims

Agreed! :)


and you are supporting right wing attacks on ethnic minorities in Europe and you are reinforcing the split in the working class.

Right.

Keep fishing pal.


You are a god damned racist fuck.

And you're a poopy-drawers. :lol:

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 16, 2007 05:40 pm
I don't give a rat's ass why, how or by whom the picture was created.
If that's true, you're even more stupid than I had imagined so far.

It's a great cartoon piece. It's craftmanship. Which just makes what was done with it even more repulsive.

It was published and used in a way, for a reason, in a context, which has poisoned it. It could have been published for any number of good reasons (and later was), but it was first created and published for bad ones. That made its meaning different from what it could have been, or what it could appear to be when taken out of that sanctimonous, hypocritical context it occured in.

It was published by fundamentalist christians as part of an attempt to highlight "islamic" hostility to freedom of speech. Christians who themselves are vigourous supporters of blasphemy laws protecting their own religion.

The hypocrisy of this act was what originally offended scandinavians of all ethnicities, ideologies and religions, and sparked debate in all the nordic countries. Then later, a bunch of islamic arseclowns threw gasoline on the flames by deliberately distorting the context, and even adding material with false context to make it look much worse, and sent it off to some of the mediterranean dictatorships. Which, of course, went completely ape.

However, if your intention is to to show everyone how you agree with the fundies who commissoned the piece, it's just the thing.

[Phalanx]

That picture was created to stur up racial hatred against ARAB muslims. Arab muslims constitutes a race just like Jews constitute a race.

No it wasn't, and you've got no basis to say so. The image is of Mohammed, who happened to be Arab. It was an attack on the prophet of Islam. It was an attack on the religion of Islam. And I'll say it again, if a Danish cartoon lambasted Jesus, not one of you would care.

Oh, the hypocrisy of the left.

[Edelweiss]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 06:27 pm
I think it's pretty obvious why he has that avatar: to piss off islamic fundamentalists (and 'communists' who apologise for/support those
Which he successfully did as it seems, which I would like to congratulate him on.

The cartoon isn't really that well done, and still pretty tasteless though IMO. Nevertheless it's rather blaspheming than racist, something which communists really shouldn't care about.

All those who start whining when the prophet is insulted, and who support political Islam in the name of "anti-imperialism" and "national self-determination" I would like to urge to read the following piece:

The "Iraqi Resistance" and Worker-Communists (http://auto_sol.tao.ca/node/view/678)

Hiero and all the other fools, read and learn!

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:43 pm
No it wasn't, and you've got no basis to say so.
I don't know about him having any basis for saying so, but I do. I know the scandinavian fundamentalist right wing first hand. Trust me on this one.

See, this is what happens when you think in essentials rather than intentions and contexts. Malte, you're doing it too. To elaborate: to people who are not terminally stupid, that cartoon can't appear racist. That doesn't mean the religious numbnuts who commissioned it aren't racists, and that the intended message wasn't racist. These scumbags are just trying to pass off their racism as anything people won't spit at them in the street for.

Since we've already drawn on the nazis, I'll use them as a reductio ad absurdum: Are we to consider the ugly little poster uptread to be not racist, just because *we* know there's no such thing as a jewish race trying to take over the world?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by idola
Trust me on this one.

No thanks son.

There's nothing more the pseudo-left can teach me about bullshit that Lenin already didn't.

[peaccenicked]

:wub: http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...raqi+resistance (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42439&hl=Iraqi+resistance) :wub:

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 16, 2007 09:49 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 16, 2007 09:49 pm)
idola
Trust me on this one.

No thanks son.

There's nothing more the pseudo-left can teach me about bullshit that Lenin already didn't. [/b]
I see. I suppose that means you think I lied to you just now. How very interesting. I'd post some samples of these clown's opinions for you, but I guess I'd have to translate, and somehow I'm getting the impression that the work would be wasted anyway.

Since you didn't adress anything else I wrote, and you're quoting the graphic statement they commissioned and published, am I to assume that you do in fact agree with the political opinions of the scandinavian religious conservatives? (Just to list some of their main issues: they're conservative lutheran christian, capitalist, germanic-patriarchal, constitutional-monarchist, nationalist and most definitely racist.)

[Hiero]

Idola Mentis give up. He said "I don't give a rat's ass why, how or by whom the picture was created.". This cracker would probably distibute propaganda for the CIA.

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 01:37 pm
Idola Mentis give up. He said "I don't give a rat's ass why, how or by whom the picture was created.". This cracker would probably distibute propaganda for the CIA.
Ah, but only if he can convince himself that it's *him* doing the distributing, CIA propaganda is magically transformed into communist propaganda. :)

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Hiero+--> (Hiero) Idola Mentis give up.[/b]

And

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/DoNotFeedTroll.svg/150px-DoNotFeedTroll.svg.png


Malte

The cartoon isn't really that well done, and still pretty tasteless though IMO. Nevertheless it's rather blaspheming than racist, something which communists really shouldn't care about.

Funny the picture has a turban which is not used by Arabs rather by South Asians both Muslims and Non Muslims. If I am not mistaken they make up siginificant immigration in European countries. It is irony not to see the "Gentle racism" ion that image. Pure wishfull thinking.

Yeah those fucking Muslims who are hell bent to destroy everything that is civilised west.

Workingmen of all lands except Religious ones unite!!!


It is really funny that I see che's image when I am typing this !!!!

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by hiero
This cracker would probably distibute propaganda for the CIA.



I prefer "cracker assed cracker", "not the brother man but the other man", or "mighty, mighty afro-whitey" thank you very much.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 16, 2007 12:22 am
Hating people simply because of their skin colour is a bad thing, but hating people simply because of their religion is perfectly good and acceptable?

Well. Thats a logical phallacy. Skin colour is not a free choice, people have no say over what 'race' they are. Whereas being religious, like choosing to be a Fascist or Policeman, is a free choice, and so you can be held personally responsable for your beliefs and actions.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 12:20 pm

Suicide bombing is typically a Muslim thing.

Hmmm. Guess I could say it after all.

Ever heard of the Tamil Tigers? The Japanese Kamikaze pilots?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 09:49 am

[Ever heard of] the Japanese Kamikaze pilots?

Sure. Last week I saw one of those dudes at the 7-11 buying beef jerky and Red Bull for his trip back into time. :blink:


Ever heard of the Tamil Tigers?

Since you were confused the first time I said it I will reiterate for you:

Suicide bombing is typically a Muslim thing.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 17, 2007 06:50 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 17, 2007 06:50 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 09:49 am

[Ever heard of] the Japanese Kamikaze pilots?

Sure. Last week I saw one of those dudes at the 7-11 buying beef jerky and Red Bull for his trip back into time. :blink:


Ever heard of the Tamil Tigers?

Since you were confused the first time I said it I will reiterate for you:

Suicide bombing is typically a Muslim thing. [/b]
No, its not. It is a typically Islamic fundamentalist thing. The vast majority of Muslims are not suicide bombers and are very much opposed to it.

[Vinny Rafarino]

No, its not. It is a typically Islamic fundamentalist thing.

Oh dear!

All this time I thought Islamic Fundamentalists were Muslims! :o


Get it yet?

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 17, 2007 07:04 pm

No, its not. It is a typically Islamic fundamentalist thing.

Oh dear!

All this time I thought Islamic Fundamentalists were Muslims! :o


Get it yet?
They represent a tiny minority of Muslims, is my point. I bet they aren't more than 5% of the total Muslim population.

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 17, 2007 07:04 pm
Oh dear!
All this time I thought Islamic Fundamentalists were Muslims! :o
Get it yet?
Certainly. You're denser than a barrel of lead.

Ever heard of "gross and deliberately misleading generalization"? It's a method of interpretation which, when applied to people based on the category of "race", we call "racism" for short. When done on the basis of any other arbitrary category, we call it "baseless prejudice", or simply "stupidity".

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Idola [email protected] 17, 2007 11:08 am

Certainly. You're denser than a barrel of lead.

Ever heard of "gross and deliberately misleading generalization"? It's a method of interpretation which, when applied to people based on the category of "race", we call "racism" for short. When done on the basis of any other arbitrary category, we call it "baseless prejudice", or simply "stupidity".
I hate to break this to you but you aren't the first kid to pretend to be the smartest cat on the board. :lol:

Besides being incredibly transparent, you're also incredibly obtuse.

Get that thesaurus ready dude!

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Idola Mentis

Vinny is a white chauvinist and racist. It's not worth arguing with him, just like its not worth debating any Nazi.

[jasmine]

Racism is lurking behind an anti religious posture. Just how stupid do you have to be not to see it? I hate muslims but not arabs. Oh yeah, really ... so this scummy anti-arab poster can continue because you are too stupid to identitfy a racist scumbag. We'll definitely follow you come the revolution.

[spartan]

racism! there is a big difference between what race you are and what religion you are. religion is the enemy of the working man destroy it!

[midnight marauder]

Admittedly, at my first glance of Vinny Raf's trollish attitude I was just going to suggest this turn into another round of the Dinosaur Game, but there's clearly a lot more at stake here.

Perhaps "race" and "racist" aren't the best words to describe this type of prejudice, but operatively they function to describe the same sort of behavior RAF is displaying.

Because while Muslims may not be a "race" in the popular sense of the term, they constitute a very clear ethno-religious identity in today's tumultuous political climate.

Not surprising, considering the entire concept of this socio-political identity was campaigned all across government propaganda and the media to justify and encourage support of current Western imperialist wars of aggression.

But it's not like this is the only time it's been done:

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/images/derewigejude.jpg

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/4/4a/180px-Propaganda_jap2.jpg

http://neveryetmelted.com/wp-images/ProphetMohammed.jpg

Notice a theme here?

This type of otherization serves one purpose and one purpose only, which is to garner support for imperialism, and, by a popular extension today (one not lost on Bush himself, might I add), a pro-Western and pro-Christian worldview.

Even if you do oppose the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, Palestine, etc., the bottom line is that this type of shit is still perpetuating the same stereotypes that these wars rely on to gain mass support. Racism is racism whether it's done by a "comrade" in the name of anti-religion or not.

That Vinny Rafarino hasn't argued the arguments made in this thread and has opted instead to say, "Fuck you, I have the right to be racist if I want to be!" and procede to characterize progressives with the undeniably racist 1970s black exploitation stereotype of a "blame whitey" mindstate does nothing more than to highlight this point.

You sure you weren't looking for the conservative forums instead?

[spartan]

forget about race and religion they were invented by the bourgeoisie. in the real world you are either proletariat or bourgeoisie. i know which one i am but which one are you.

[midnight marauder]

Just because race isn't based in biology doesn't mean it exists any less as a social construct.

I know which side I'm on, and it isn't the one dividing the working class along racial, ethnic, cultural, and religious stereotypes.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 09:13 pm
forget about race and religion they were invented by the bourgeoisie. in the real world you are either proletariat or bourgeoisie. i know which one i am but which one are you.
To be honest with you, thats a very black and white view in what is a very greay world.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by midnight [email protected] 17, 2007 09:48 pm
Just because race isn't based in biology doesn't mean it exists any less as a social construct.
Thats very true. It harms ethnic minorities when we on the revolutionary left dismiss any notion of race, because the social concept of race is still very much in existence.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Don't you kids remember that you already tried this "racism" crap last year?

It was a silly argument then and it's a silly argument now.


That Vinny Rafarino hasn't argued the arguments made in this thread and has opted instead to say, "Fuck you, I have the right to be racist if I want to be!" and procede to characterize progressives with the undeniably racist 1970s black exploitation stereotype of a "blame whitey" mindstate does nothing more than to highlight this point.

Actually you should have probably said "blame honkey" if you want to lay down some righteous uptown jive.

You catchin the angle of the dangle jack?

[RHIZOMES]

I know which side I'm on, and it isn't the one dividing the working class along racial, ethnic, cultural, and religious stereotypes.

QFT

[spartan]

well lets destroy social constructs then!

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by article linked by Malte
We are facing a terrorist conflict between two international poles of terror that have taken Iraq as a battle ground to settle their reactionary accounts.

This is kind of ridiculous.
The article would have us believe that fundamentalist Islamic militias are comparable to the United States government. I won't deny that these backwards autocratic and dictatorial Islamic organizations disputing power are reactionary. Equating them to US imperialism is simply inaccurate, though.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Urban Spirit+August 18, 2007 03:41 am--> (Urban Spirit @ August 18, 2007 03:41 am)
Edric [email protected] 16, 2007 12:22 am
Hating people simply because of their skin colour is a bad thing, but hating people simply because of their religion is perfectly good and acceptable?

Well. Thats a logical phallacy. Skin colour is not a free choice, people have no say over what 'race' they are. Whereas being religious, like choosing to be a Fascist or Policeman, is a free choice, and so you can be held personally responsable for your beliefs and actions. [/b]
What is "free choice"? This so called "free choice" is it similar to "you have the free choice to be a criminal, to become a millionaire, to have a shitty job, to feed your family or to starve". "Free choice" is a bourgeois lie. We see choice being determined by material conditions, this is Marxism. We understand that the petty criminal, the working class drug addict, the prostitute dying from aids and the poor worker deprived of culture, leisure and politics who has adobted a religion from the world, in their life did not actually "choose" a path to take. The bourgeois like us to actually think people have freedom of choice and that problems in society are the problems of the individual. However problems of the individual are caused by society, choice is determined by society.

Religion is used by the bourgeois to pacify the masses, being a religious worker is being oppressed, being religious is being a victim of poverty. It is not choosing to give a hand to oppression. The poor majority become religious so they can handle life, so they can see the light at the end of the tunnel. The religous authority talks about a struggle that God sets out for them, the religious then understand poverty as a test to determine if they are faithfull. As communist we show that this struggle is really class struggle. We say that when struggle is no longer present, the reason for religion is destroyed, so we allways fight to destroy the material basis. This means working with people we can not convince yet. We are not colonist, our policy is not "convert or die" it is "workers of the world unite!"

The religious are the victims, The bourgeois are the criminals, The capitalist system is the problem.

Here is the quote from Marx "religion is the opium of the people". It is an abstract from wikipedia, so please do correct if wrong.


Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

As I see it, you can't just say to someone drop religion. That is idealist. Two things need to happen. They need to understand struggle in Marxist terms, so as to understand who they are as a class. Second we need real happines to completly destroy religion. In the middle east there is alot of despair, so there is going to be a strong religious conviction for a long time.

Remember religion is a product of society, just like unemployment, hunger, crime drug addiction, rape and many other pathologies. There is no free choice under capitalism.

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by midnight [email protected] 17, 2007 09:08 pm
Perhaps "race" and "racist" aren't the best words to describe this type of prejudice, but operatively they function to describe the same sort of behavior RAF is displaying.
Got me thinking. This kind of thing always confuses me. Talking about it helps me sort it out, even if Whiny Vinny here made it more like picking at a scab.

The thing with scandinavian racism, which is the context of these images, is that it's become less and less overt. There are very few people who will admit to being racist; there's no unified racist label to gather under, and those scattered groups who do try it are the kind of poisonous cultist scum no causual everyday racist would want anything to do with.

But it's quite common for people to still speak, think and act in the vocabulary of racism, and without pulling any punches. It's just that the standard set of prejudices are now excused by imperialist propaganda and vague references to "culture" rather than the old biology of race. The racism behind these pictures is to all practical purposes the same, though the rationalization has changed, and become more easy to accept for the general public.

So when calling something racism, should we judge by the theory or the praxis of it?

[freakazoid]

What is "free choice"? This so called "free choice" is it similar to "you have the free choice to be a criminal...."Free choice" is a bourgeois lie.

So Dennis Rader was a product of society? He didn't have the choice to not do what he did?

[Vinny Rafarino]

So when calling something racism, should we judge by the theory or the praxis of it?

In the modern world we use the word "practise". If the ascot fits... :lol:

I think a good place to start would be for you to learn exactly what the word racism means. Once you have that down we can work on how the term applies in "praxis" my good man.

Cheerio!

[Idola Mentis]

You know, using spelling flames on foreigners is pretty weak, even as empty comebacks go. I advise you to use actual arguments in stead. Maybe even with some substance.

However, judging by what has been said so far, teaching you what racism is would take more patience than I or anyone else here have. I hope your private definition of this hotbutton issue doesn't get you into more trouble than you can handle. Good luck.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 17, 2007 05:27 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 17, 2007 05:27 pm)
hiero
This cracker would probably distibute propaganda for the CIA.



I prefer "cracker assed cracker", "not the brother man but the other man", or "mighty, mighty afro-whitey" thank you very much. [/b]
I think i just pissed myself a little.


Thats a logical phallacy.

I think I just pissed myself a little more.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Idola [email protected] 20, 2007 10:17 am
You know, using spelling flames on foreigners is pretty weak, even as empty comebacks go. I advise you to use actual arguments in stead. Maybe even with some substance.

However, judging by what has been said so far, teaching you what racism is would take more patience than I or anyone else here have. Good luck.
You're confused.

Praxis is a word by itself; its an ancient word normally used by kids on the internet trying to sound like they are smart.

Care to quantify the societal ramifications of this? :lol:


I hope your private definition of this hotbutton issue doesn't get you into more trouble than you can handle.

Don't worry, I can handle anything you can muster and will still be here long after you are gone.