Islamophobia in the US

[Guest alex]

I already mentioned the president being in favour of it. Where have I said people shouldn't be allowed to express their views? By the same token surely I am allowed to find some of those views unpleasant. Your post's barely relevant to what I was saying anyway like so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

I just don't see why you're getting your knickers in such a twist over a relatively small protest. I'm assuming you are in favour of freedom of expression etc.

Already explained why tbh. Using a gesture of goodwill as something to stir up hatred and the more general use of Islamophobia as political capital. And your assumption's correct. ffs

 

There's nothing to suggest this 'Islamophobia' as you call it (I hate euphemisms) will be used successfully for political gain; as I say Gingrich is the most prevalent in trying it but he may not be taken seriously in an election. Palin undermined the GOP's campaign so badly as the VP pick that a black guy with a name similar to Osama became the President. Certainly her stupidity was a significant factor in the Republican loss.

What they perceive to be politcal gain then. If you want to be that pedantic. I don't see how it's a euphemism either. I mean, great if they fuck up the Republican Party by doing so but that doesn't mean it's pleasant if they actually further entrench the views of people who already have bigotted views. That's what I consider to be bigotted views by the way. And no, I'm not saying they can't hold those views, should conform to what I say or that Sarah Palin is worse than Pol Pot. Ok?

[Happy Face 29]

There was an excellent piece about all this on Jon Stewart's Daily show last week.

 

He reminded viewers about the furore following Collumbine when the NRA refused to cancel their meeting which followed just down the road. The hyprocrisy of some liberals in attacking the NRA while deffending this muslim church is one that he was right to highlight.

 

I would have been someone who thought the NRA should have been sensitive to the situation and given it a miss....which doesn't tally with my feelings on the mosque matter. The fact is Charlton Heston was right. Emotive national disasters should not be used to stop a group exercising their constitutional rights.

 

The NRA meeting went ahead. So should this.

[spongebob toonpants 3606]

Tbf, you obviously have strong feelings about it anyway Dan so don't play that 'if I was a New Yorker' card.

 

i have strong feelings about people who blow planes into buildings, yeah.

 

i think the reaction of the people in new york is easier to understand than the decision by the muslim community in manhattan to commission a mosque to be built so close to ground zero. you'd think they'd have a bit of common sense. why not build one a little further uptown instead?

 

At least Leazes has the intellectual honesty to say what he believes and defend it, this half arsed they should build it further away argument is even more offensive to me

 

i don't agree with leazes. he's tarnishing all muslims with the same brush. i'm not. there are plenty of moderate average joe muslims out there. i don't get why they couldn't see that this move would open a can of worms.

 

 

 

This Imam is a moderate who has long tried to reach out to other faiths

 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv...been-one/61761/

 

'Ground Zero' Imam: 'I Am a Jew, I Have Always Been One'

 

In 2003, Imam Rauf was invited to speak at a memorial service for Daniel Pearl, the journalist murdered by Islamist terrorists in Pakistan. The service was held at B'nai Jeshurun, a prominent synagogue in Manhattan, and in the audience was Judea Pearl, Daniel Pearl's father. In his remarks, Rauf identified absolutely with Pearl, and identified himself absolutely with the ethical tradition of Judaism. "I am a Jew," he said.

 

 

 

He wants to build this outreach centre to promote understanding and reconcilliation. People ar ealways asking for moderate Muslims to come forward - one has and look at the response

i have strong feelings about people who blow planes into buildings, yeah.

 

As I said at least Leazes is honest

 

i'm being honest too. the reference to sep 11 was an attempt to demonstrate that i have some compassion for the people in new york who are objecting to this. september 11 2001 isn't that long ago.

 

i have nothing against the people behind the new mosque and despite their intentions, which look good enough, they should have predicted that this would turn out the way it has. they should have known better.

 

america is a very conservative place by european standards. the reaction there has been overblown but very predictable.

 

The people who are objecting to this are, in the same way that you are, conflating the muslim religion with terrorism. Being outraged by the building of a muslim centre is to say that all muslims support terrorism. This view should be opposed

[Dr Gloom 19845]

There was an excellent piece about all this on Jon Stewart's Daily show last week.

 

He reminded viewers about the furore following Collumbine when the NRA refused to cancel their meeting which followed just down the road. The hyprocrisy of some liberals in attacking the NRA while deffending this muslim church is one that he was right to highlight.

 

I would have been someone who thought the NRA should have been sensitive to the situation and given it a miss....which doesn't tally with my feelings on the mosque matter. The fact is Charlton Heston was right. Emotive national disasters should not be used to stop a group exercising their constitutional rights.

 

The NRA meeting went ahead. So should this.

 

sure, there's no legal argument to stop it. doesn't mean that the mosque commissioner is any less of a moron than charlton heston though does it? there's constitional rights then there's common sense.

[Dr Gloom 19845]

Tbf, you obviously have strong feelings about it anyway Dan so don't play that 'if I was a New Yorker' card.

 

i have strong feelings about people who blow planes into buildings, yeah.

 

i think the reaction of the people in new york is easier to understand than the decision by the muslim community in manhattan to commission a mosque to be built so close to ground zero. you'd think they'd have a bit of common sense. why not build one a little further uptown instead?

 

At least Leazes has the intellectual honesty to say what he believes and defend it, this half arsed they should build it further away argument is even more offensive to me

 

i don't agree with leazes. he's tarnishing all muslims with the same brush. i'm not. there are plenty of moderate average joe muslims out there. i don't get why they couldn't see that this move would open a can of worms.

 

 

 

This Imam is a moderate who has long tried to reach out to other faiths

 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv...been-one/61761/

 

'Ground Zero' Imam: 'I Am a Jew, I Have Always Been One'

 

In 2003, Imam Rauf was invited to speak at a memorial service for Daniel Pearl, the journalist murdered by Islamist terrorists in Pakistan. The service was held at B'nai Jeshurun, a prominent synagogue in Manhattan, and in the audience was Judea Pearl, Daniel Pearl's father. In his remarks, Rauf identified absolutely with Pearl, and identified himself absolutely with the ethical tradition of Judaism. "I am a Jew," he said.

 

 

 

He wants to build this outreach centre to promote understanding and reconcilliation. People ar ealways asking for moderate Muslims to come forward - one has and look at the response

i have strong feelings about people who blow planes into buildings, yeah.

 

As I said at least Leazes is honest

 

i'm being honest too. the reference to sep 11 was an attempt to demonstrate that i have some compassion for the people in new york who are objecting to this. september 11 2001 isn't that long ago.

 

i have nothing against the people behind the new mosque and despite their intentions, which look good enough, they should have predicted that this would turn out the way it has. they should have known better.

 

america is a very conservative place by european standards. the reaction there has been overblown but very predictable.

 

The people who are objecting to this are, in the same way that you are, conflating the muslim religion with terrorism. Being outraged by the building of a muslim centre is to say that all muslims support terrorism. This view should be opposed

 

i'm not saying the people behind the mosque are terrorists. but if the moderates want to restore the faith lost in them by many americans post- 9/11, they'd do their cause no harm by rethinking this move.

 

look, there's no law saying that what they're doing is wrong they're doing. it just strikes me as being more than a tad insensitive.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

What they perceive to be politcal gain then. If you want to be that pedantic. I don't see how it's a euphemism either. I mean, great if they fuck up the Republican Party by doing so but that doesn't mean it's pleasant if they actually further entrench the views of people who already have bigotted views. That's what I consider to be bigotted views by the way. And no, I'm not saying they can't hold those views, should conform to what I say or that Sarah Palin is worse than Pol Pot. Ok?

 

Perhaps I am being pedantic (there's only one 't' in bigoted), however I think it's important to sift through the namby pamby liberals who cry when people express views they don't happen to agree with. These are the same people who coin terms such as 'Islamophobia' and then throw it about whenever Islam is discussed. For instance, if someone is publicly critical of radical Islamists the term will be bandied about and stifles proper debate. An even worse and more serious example of this sort of behaviour is when a fatwa was issued by the Ayatollah upon Salman Rushdie for his book the Satanic Verses, some elements of the left (including figures in the Liberal Democrats at the time) were critical of Rushdie for writing this 'Islamophobic' novel and offending muslims, and that frankly is a fucking disgrace.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Cid_MCDP 0]

It's the damn media's fault. Running headlines about "the mosque at ground zero", when in reality it's a cultural center some blocks away. What'd they expect?

 

Oh yeah, ratings dollars.

 

Mission accomplished news conglomerates!

[spongebob toonpants 3606]

Tbf, you obviously have strong feelings about it anyway Dan so don't play that 'if I was a New Yorker' card.

 

i have strong feelings about people who blow planes into buildings, yeah.

 

i think the reaction of the people in new york is easier to understand than the decision by the muslim community in manhattan to commission a mosque to be built so close to ground zero. you'd think they'd have a bit of common sense. why not build one a little further uptown instead?

 

At least Leazes has the intellectual honesty to say what he believes and defend it, this half arsed they should build it further away argument is even more offensive to me

 

i don't agree with leazes. he's tarnishing all muslims with the same brush. i'm not. there are plenty of moderate average joe muslims out there. i don't get why they couldn't see that this move would open a can of worms.

 

 

 

This Imam is a moderate who has long tried to reach out to other faiths

 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv...been-one/61761/

 

'Ground Zero' Imam: 'I Am a Jew, I Have Always Been One'

 

In 2003, Imam Rauf was invited to speak at a memorial service for Daniel Pearl, the journalist murdered by Islamist terrorists in Pakistan. The service was held at B'nai Jeshurun, a prominent synagogue in Manhattan, and in the audience was Judea Pearl, Daniel Pearl's father. In his remarks, Rauf identified absolutely with Pearl, and identified himself absolutely with the ethical tradition of Judaism. "I am a Jew," he said.

 

 

 

He wants to build this outreach centre to promote understanding and reconcilliation. People ar ealways asking for moderate Muslims to come forward - one has and look at the response

i have strong feelings about people who blow planes into buildings, yeah.

 

As I said at least Leazes is honest

 

i'm being honest too. the reference to sep 11 was an attempt to demonstrate that i have some compassion for the people in new york who are objecting to this. september 11 2001 isn't that long ago.

 

i have nothing against the people behind the new mosque and despite their intentions, which look good enough, they should have predicted that this would turn out the way it has. they should have known better.

 

america is a very conservative place by european standards. the reaction there has been overblown but very predictable.

 

The people who are objecting to this are, in the same way that you are, conflating the muslim religion with terrorism. Being outraged by the building of a muslim centre is to say that all muslims support terrorism. This view should be opposed

 

i'm not saying the people behind the mosque are terrorists. but if the moderates want to restore the faith lost in them by many americans post- 9/11, they'd do their cause no harm by rethinking this move.

 

look, there's no law saying that what they're doing is wrong they're doing. it just strikes me as being more than a tad insensitive.

 

Your argument that its insensitive to promote understanding between peace loving religions is nonsensical

[Dr Gloom 19845]

Tbf, you obviously have strong feelings about it anyway Dan so don't play that 'if I was a New Yorker' card.

 

i have strong feelings about people who blow planes into buildings, yeah.

 

i think the reaction of the people in new york is easier to understand than the decision by the muslim community in manhattan to commission a mosque to be built so close to ground zero. you'd think they'd have a bit of common sense. why not build one a little further uptown instead?

 

At least Leazes has the intellectual honesty to say what he believes and defend it, this half arsed they should build it further away argument is even more offensive to me

 

i don't agree with leazes. he's tarnishing all muslims with the same brush. i'm not. there are plenty of moderate average joe muslims out there. i don't get why they couldn't see that this move would open a can of worms.

 

 

 

This Imam is a moderate who has long tried to reach out to other faiths

 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv...been-one/61761/

 

'Ground Zero' Imam: 'I Am a Jew, I Have Always Been One'

 

In 2003, Imam Rauf was invited to speak at a memorial service for Daniel Pearl, the journalist murdered by Islamist terrorists in Pakistan. The service was held at B'nai Jeshurun, a prominent synagogue in Manhattan, and in the audience was Judea Pearl, Daniel Pearl's father. In his remarks, Rauf identified absolutely with Pearl, and identified himself absolutely with the ethical tradition of Judaism. "I am a Jew," he said.

 

 

 

He wants to build this outreach centre to promote understanding and reconcilliation. People ar ealways asking for moderate Muslims to come forward - one has and look at the response

i have strong feelings about people who blow planes into buildings, yeah.

 

As I said at least Leazes is honest

 

i'm being honest too. the reference to sep 11 was an attempt to demonstrate that i have some compassion for the people in new york who are objecting to this. september 11 2001 isn't that long ago.

 

i have nothing against the people behind the new mosque and despite their intentions, which look good enough, they should have predicted that this would turn out the way it has. they should have known better.

 

america is a very conservative place by european standards. the reaction there has been overblown but very predictable.

 

The people who are objecting to this are, in the same way that you are, conflating the muslim religion with terrorism. Being outraged by the building of a muslim centre is to say that all muslims support terrorism. This view should be opposed

 

i'm not saying the people behind the mosque are terrorists. but if the moderates want to restore the faith lost in them by many americans post- 9/11, they'd do their cause no harm by rethinking this move.

 

look, there's no law saying that what they're doing is wrong they're doing. it just strikes me as being more than a tad insensitive.

 

Your argument that its insensitive to promote understanding between peace loving religions is nonsensical

 

that's all very well in theory but in reality, all they're doing is drawing attention to an atrocity that new yorkers are still sensitive about.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

'peace loving' religions. Constantine would get a laugh out of that one.

[ChezGiven 0]

You have to deifferentiate between "supporting Islam" and supporting people rights to be Muslims - I feel the same way about Christianity, Judaism and the rest - they're all fucking idiots for believing it, but they should have the right to do so.

 

I don't see how that makes me some kind of terrorist sympathiser.

 

You have to differentiate between people expressing views and governments oppressing a religion. I may not agree with what they have to say... you know Voltaire and all that shit. Cya l8er my taxis beeping outside I'm going maccy Ds

 

A nice hat was right then.

[spongebob toonpants 3606]

Tbf, you obviously have strong feelings about it anyway Dan so don't play that 'if I was a New Yorker' card.

 

i have strong feelings about people who blow planes into buildings, yeah.

 

i think the reaction of the people in new york is easier to understand than the decision by the muslim community in manhattan to commission a mosque to be built so close to ground zero. you'd think they'd have a bit of common sense. why not build one a little further uptown instead?

 

At least Leazes has the intellectual honesty to say what he believes and defend it, this half arsed they should build it further away argument is even more offensive to me

 

i don't agree with leazes. he's tarnishing all muslims with the same brush. i'm not. there are plenty of moderate average joe muslims out there. i don't get why they couldn't see that this move would open a can of worms.

 

 

 

This Imam is a moderate who has long tried to reach out to other faiths

 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv...been-one/61761/

 

'Ground Zero' Imam: 'I Am a Jew, I Have Always Been One'

 

In 2003, Imam Rauf was invited to speak at a memorial service for Daniel Pearl, the journalist murdered by Islamist terrorists in Pakistan. The service was held at B'nai Jeshurun, a prominent synagogue in Manhattan, and in the audience was Judea Pearl, Daniel Pearl's father. In his remarks, Rauf identified absolutely with Pearl, and identified himself absolutely with the ethical tradition of Judaism. "I am a Jew," he said.

 

 

 

He wants to build this outreach centre to promote understanding and reconcilliation. People ar ealways asking for moderate Muslims to come forward - one has and look at the response

i have strong feelings about people who blow planes into buildings, yeah.

 

As I said at least Leazes is honest

 

i'm being honest too. the reference to sep 11 was an attempt to demonstrate that i have some compassion for the people in new york who are objecting to this. september 11 2001 isn't that long ago.

 

i have nothing against the people behind the new mosque and despite their intentions, which look good enough, they should have predicted that this would turn out the way it has. they should have known better.

 

america is a very conservative place by european standards. the reaction there has been overblown but very predictable.

 

The people who are objecting to this are, in the same way that you are, conflating the muslim religion with terrorism. Being outraged by the building of a muslim centre is to say that all muslims support terrorism. This view should be opposed

 

i'm not saying the people behind the mosque are terrorists. but if the moderates want to restore the faith lost in them by many americans post- 9/11, they'd do their cause no harm by rethinking this move.

 

look, there's no law saying that what they're doing is wrong they're doing. it just strikes me as being more than a tad insensitive.

 

Your argument that its insensitive to promote understanding between peace loving religions is nonsensical

 

that's all very well in theory but in reality, all they're doing is drawing attention to an atrocity that new yorkers are still sensitive about.

 

No in reality bigots and the politically opportunistic are whipping up anti islamic feeling and idiots are getting taken in by it

[Park Life 70]

It's the damn media's fault. Running headlines about "the mosque at ground zero", when in reality it's a cultural center some blocks away. What'd they expect?

 

Oh yeah, ratings dollars.

 

Mission accomplished news conglomerates!

 

It's been pretty clear for a long time they do this stuff on purpose, if they're not in the pocket of media barrons, they're in the pocket of advertisers, especially in the states.

[Kid Dynamite 5941]

On a similar note

 

Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, has launched a scathing attack on the forthcoming video game Medal Of Honor, over reports that it allows players to kill British troops as Taliban soldiers. Fox has branded the new shooter from Electronic Arts "un-British" and has called on video games retailers to refuse to sell it.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, Fox said: "it's shocking that someone would think it acceptable to recreate the acts of the Taliban.

 

 

"At the hands of the Taliban, children have lost fathers and wives have lost husbands. I am disgusted and angry. It's hard to believe any citizen of our country would wish to buy such a thoroughly un-British game. I would urge retailers to show their support for our armed forces and ban this tasteless product."

Medal Of Honor, the latest instalment in EA's military first-person shooter, is set in present day Afghanistan and the single player campaign is centred around the efforts of US troops to defeat the Taliban. The publisher has reponded to the criticism from Fox by citing the game's authenticity. It also went on to point out that the reports stating that the game allows players to kill British troops for points are wholly inaccurate.

“Medal of Honor is an 18-rated highly authentic depiction of the soldier's experience in Afghanistan – matching US forces against the Taliban in today's war," an EA spokesman said.

"Multi-player combat is a long-standing, common and popular feature of videogames. In multi-player, teams assume the identities of combatants on both sides of the conflict. Many popular videogames allow players to assume the identity of enemies including Nazis and terrorists. In the multi-player levels of Medal of Honor, teams will assume the identity of both US forces and the Taliban."

"The Sunday Times and other media stories on Medal of Honor contain inaccuracies," he added. "For one, Medal of Honor does not allow players to kill British soldiers. British troops do not feature in the game.”

Video games site Eurogamer.net has reported that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has distanced itself from Fox's remarks, describing his comments as a "personal view".

r finan

Now perhaps its my anti armed forces stance or just me being devils advocate, but statements like these always remind me of the collateral damage we have caused in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands of innocent men, women and children killed by our troops and air strikes, either accidentally or on purpose. Innocent people who never asked for their country to be occupied by a foreign force? The same goes for ''the worst atrocity of our time'' , 2000 dead, 9/11 stuff that get's spouted every year in America, 60 years after they melted the faces off a quarter million Japanese folks in 1945.

 

The hippies had it right with all that 'Love not war' shit. There are 7million species on Earth, and humans are the only ones that kill for the sake of killing. The quicker the planet gets rid of us the better tbh.

[Park Life 70]

At the end of the day our matinee softened liberal european stance to these kinds of things doesn't really address the real issue and that is that balanced media in the states is really notihing more than a pipedream. It's dog eat dog and a poulace proud of killing hundreds of thousands of innocents areound the world with barely a cinammom waffle dropped.

[Renton 17845]

There are 7million species on Earth, and humans are the only ones that kill for the sake of killing.

 

Clearly never owned a cat.

[Kid Dynamite 5941]

You know what I mean. Cats have no concept of life and death man. They chase mice the same way they chase leafs. Cos they move around and are fun to chase. Cats dont blow up a church cos there might be a bloke in their who might be a terrorist, or not.

[Happy Face 29]

Ron Paul is a favourite within the tea party. I've always liked the bloke a lot too. There's 2 types of tea partier, those that like Sarah Palin's idiotic brand of opportunistic, constitution shredding, patriotism first, common sense last horseshit and those with a bit more about them who prefer Ron Paul's consistently idealogical and reasoned belief in small government and the inherent good of the constitution to protect the freedoms of all.

 

To his his credit, Paul has risked alienating a lot of the people that would have otherwise supported a presidential bid from him by releasing this statement....

 

In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

 

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. . . Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam -- the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. . . .

 

The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. . . . . This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

 

It is indeed "about hate and Islamaphobia," and that is the driving, enabling force behind so many of America's most controversial and destructive policies.

 

He's a republican I could be happy to see in the White House. Hopefully he's won more support than he's lost with this statement.....despite what the mosque opinion polls say.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Happy Face

[LeazesMag 0]

You know what I mean. Cats have no concept of life and death man. They chase mice the same way they chase leafs. Cos they move around and are fun to chase. Cats dont blow up a church cos there might be a bloke in their who might be a terrorist, or not.

 

they might

[Monkeys Fist 38875]

You know what I mean. Cats have no concept of life and death man. They chase mice the same way they chase leafs. Cos they move around and are fun to chase. Cats dont blow up a church cos there might be a bloke in their who might be a terrorist, or not.

Fox versus chicken?

Animal carnage.

[LeazesMag 0]

Tbf, you obviously have strong feelings about it anyway Dan so don't play that 'if I was a New Yorker' card.

 

i have strong feelings about people who blow planes into buildings, yeah.

 

i think the reaction of the people in new york is easier to understand than the decision by the muslim community in manhattan to commission a mosque to be built so close to ground zero. you'd think they'd have a bit of common sense. why not build one a little further uptown instead?

 

At least Leazes has the intellectual honesty to say what he believes and defend it, this half arsed they should build it further away argument is even more offensive to me

 

i don't agree with leazes. he's tarnishing all muslims with the same brush. i'm not. there are plenty of moderate average joe muslims out there. i don't get why they couldn't see that this move would open a can of worms.

 

 

 

This Imam is a moderate who has long tried to reach out to other faiths

 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv...been-one/61761/

 

'Ground Zero' Imam: 'I Am a Jew, I Have Always Been One'

 

In 2003, Imam Rauf was invited to speak at a memorial service for Daniel Pearl, the journalist murdered by Islamist terrorists in Pakistan. The service was held at B'nai Jeshurun, a prominent synagogue in Manhattan, and in the audience was Judea Pearl, Daniel Pearl's father. In his remarks, Rauf identified absolutely with Pearl, and identified himself absolutely with the ethical tradition of Judaism. "I am a Jew," he said.

 

 

 

He wants to build this outreach centre to promote understanding and reconcilliation. People ar ealways asking for moderate Muslims to come forward - one has and look at the response

i have strong feelings about people who blow planes into buildings, yeah.

 

As I said at least Leazes is honest

 

i'm being honest too. the reference to sep 11 was an attempt to demonstrate that i have some compassion for the people in new york who are objecting to this. september 11 2001 isn't that long ago.

 

i have nothing against the people behind the new mosque and despite their intentions, which look good enough, they should have predicted that this would turn out the way it has. they should have known better.

 

america is a very conservative place by european standards. the reaction there has been overblown but very predictable.

 

The people who are objecting to this are, in the same way that you are, conflating the muslim religion with terrorism. Being outraged by the building of a muslim centre is to say that all muslims support terrorism. This view should be opposed

 

i'm not saying the people behind the mosque are terrorists. but if the moderates want to restore the faith lost in them by many americans post- 9/11, they'd do their cause no harm by rethinking this move.

 

look, there's no law saying that what they're doing is wrong they're doing. it just strikes me as being more than a tad insensitive.

 

Your argument that its insensitive to promote understanding between peace loving religions is nonsensical

 

that's all very well in theory but in reality, all they're doing is drawing attention to an atrocity that new yorkers are still sensitive about.

 

No in reality bigots and the politically opportunistic are whipping up anti islamic feeling and idiots are getting taken in by it

 

would accept you had even a fair point if none of the atrocities they have been responsible for had ever happened.

[Guest alex]

What they perceive to be politcal gain then. If you want to be that pedantic. I don't see how it's a euphemism either. I mean, great if they fuck up the Republican Party by doing so but that doesn't mean it's pleasant if they actually further entrench the views of people who already have bigotted views. That's what I consider to be bigotted views by the way. And no, I'm not saying they can't hold those views, should conform to what I say or that Sarah Palin is worse than Pol Pot. Ok?

 

Perhaps I am being pedantic (there's only one 't' in bigoted), however I think it's important to sift through the namby pamby liberals who cry when people express views they don't happen to agree with. These are the same people who coin terms such as 'Islamophobia' and then throw it about whenever Islam is discussed. For instance, if someone is publicly critical of radical Islamists the term will be bandied about and stifles proper debate. An even worse and more serious example of this sort of behaviour is when a fatwa was issued by the Ayatollah upon Salman Rushdie for his book the Satanic Verses, some elements of the left (including figures in the Liberal Democrats at the time) were critical of Rushdie for writing this 'Islamophobic' novel and offending muslims, and that frankly is a fucking disgrace.

That's got literally nothing to do with the points I was making.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

What's your point?

[Guest alex]

You just sending yourself up now btw? ATP had you sussed from the off tbh.

Edited August 23, 2010 by alex

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

You just sending yourself up now btw? ATP had you sussed from the off tbh.

 

I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand, obviously you're trying to employ some array of confusing tactics to evade the debate.