text:
gijoel on Isolation, madness, death
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden on Only stupid hurtful memes about trans people are allowed
Lynna, OM on Discuss: Political Madness All the Time
lakitha tolbert on Oh, how I detest textbook publishers
Martin Wagner on Only stupid hurtful memes about trans people are allowed
dorght on Oh, how I detest textbook publishers
marcoli on Oh, how I detest textbook publishers
jrkrideau on Oh, how I detest textbook publishers
Botanical Wednesday: Starburst » « Tom Holland is censored
Let's not get confused
The television series by Tom Holland that was censored in the UK is a serious, respectful look at the history of Islam.
The movie that has provoked riots and murder in Egypt and Libya is a ghastly bit of hackwork associated with Terry Jones, the fanatical Christian pastor from Florida. Follow that link to see a clip: it's incredibly bad. It's got terrible acting, inconsistent and bad fake accents, white actors in blackface (poorly applied blackface, even), beards straight out of Monty Python, sloppy greenscreen work, and it goes out of its way to portray major figures in Islam as gloating gay parodies and pedophiles. It doesn't just criticize Islam (and when it does, it does so with painful ignorance); it criticizes ethnicities, sexual orientations, and nations wholesale. It is simply a calculated, ugly insult with no redeeming qualities at all.
It does not justify rioting or killing people. But let's not mistake what it is: the movie is the work of a group of incompetent fundamentalist Christian assholes pissing on entire cultures.
Oops, not just Christian assholes. As noted in the article:
the film was in fact directed and produced by "an Israeli-American California real-estate developer who called it a political effort to call attention to the hypocrisies of Islam."
It seems to have called attention to the hypocrisies and vileness of the Judeo-Christian Right.
Politics, History, and Law, Religion and Government
is a ghastly bit of hackwork associated with Terry Jones, the fanatical Christian pastor from Florida. the fundie xian, attention seeking, hater, and conman from Florida.
Keith Peterson says
This movie is so bad, I want to riot over it.
Shame his name is Terry Jones, as the famous Oxford historian and comedian would have done a much better job.
Olav says
Thank you, PZ, for the clarification.
It's sort of ironic that 4 Americans including our ambassador were killed by Libyans.
This is the country that we helped "liberate" from Quadaffi a year or two ago.
I guess Islam isn't real big on gratitude and has a short memory.
StevoR says
"Entire cultures" really or just the supposed "prophet" of one particularly extreme and nasty religion?
Let's not get confused indeed – we're seeing murders, arsons and riots because one group of people dislike video that criticises their religion and idol, is that not right?
ruteekatreya says
After years of supporting Gadaffi, we weren't treated with the proper worship for helping the Libyans get rid of him? Say it ain't so.
tomh says
This incident, and the killing of the ambassador, is just the sort of thing that can put a crimp in Obama's reelection. There is no good response, as the administration's response so far has shown, and it's easy for Romney to incite anti-Obama fervor over it. The quality of the film is irrelevant.
Raven, #5, liberate them, you say?
After first being friendly with him for years, and supportive of his oppression, you mean.
BTW it was just one year ago. And you accuse others of having a short memory? (rolleyes.gif)
Of course, its not just a critical film they seem to dislike – its a critical cartoon (Danish newspaper) a critical book (Salman Rushdie) a woman being uppity and telling truths (FTBs own Taslima Nasreen frex), naming a teddy bear after a child named after Mohammad, etc ..
Do Muslims get to dictate what people everywhere on the planet can say, write, draw and think at least when it comes to their religion?
Are we here really going to say Muslim fee-fee's getting offended means criticism – however bad, misguided etc .. – is or should be verboten?
Becca Stareyes says
StevoR, I think when a movie uses blackface, bad accents and portraying someone as gay as an intended insult, at this point it is making fun of entire cultures even if it is set it in FantasyLand and has no real people or mythological figures appearing. The fact that any resemblance to the actual facts and reasonable inferences (critical, respectful or anywhere in between) is probably a coincidence also doesn't help.
Just because it's a morally wrong response to racist xenophobes being insulting doesn't mean that there wasn't an insult.
truthspeaker says
It's not even clear the incident in Libya had anything to do with the film. Speculation on the BBC was that it was Gadaffi loyalists taking revenge.
ec091864 says
The film is ridiculous.
But, not quite as ridiculous as being mortally offended by it.
This :
http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2012/09/12/the-primacy-of-free-speech-over-religious-sensitivity/
By Mano Singham :
What we really need is a greater global sensitivity to the right of free speech. Muslims, like any other religious group, will have to come to terms with the fact that their religious beliefs cannot be allowed to put limits on the speech of others however deliberately offensive it may seem to them.
And the sooner they get and accept that the better.
eleutheria says
It's being used as a blood libel against the Copts in Egpyt.
I fully support and agree with what Mano Singham wrote in his blog post on this as linked @ #14.
its a critical cartoon (Danish newspaper)
Dude, you don't know anything about the situation immigrants face in denmark if you think that's all it was. Bombing wasn't the correct response, because it was fucking violent, and I don't condone of violence, but it was almost all racist jackassery from a right-wing rag that was being racist for its own sake. This isn't even secret dane-only knowledge, it's on the fucking wikipedia page last I checked.
Actually, yes, misguided, racist criticism should be shouted down for what it is. Not because it's criticism of islam, but because it's fucking racist. Stop pretending you live in a society that respects brown people when you say this shit, because you don't. Just because it criticizes muslims doesn't mean it's awesome, however badly you wish for us to agree with you.
rorschach says
But, but, Geert Wilders and Pat Condell!!!
holytape says
Is it that easy to piss off a culture, that a bunch of incompetent nobodies can cause a riot leaving a US ambassador dead, by making a movie that no one has seen and no one whats to? Hopefully, they'll never figure out how to google.
Ordovician Atheist
Question: Doesn't this film technically count as hate speech?
sparks says
While I am the first to agree that the media here in The States sucks ass, this is all they have been reporting, ie–The Egyptians are pissed about this nutjob fundie xian debacle.
This is just the sort of thing you must expect when everyone has access to a camera and a copy of Windows MovieMaker.
Extreme and hateful shit.
Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort says
@StevoR:
I thought your talking about Islam period was verboten.
Not because it's criticism of islam, but because it's fucking racist
And here we go again. Rutee is about to tell everyone how any criticism of Islam equals racism. In her head, anyway. Meanwhile, women's statements in Sharia courts in Birmingham or Manchester count half of that of any man. But don't say it, it's fucking racist after all.
@Rorshach:
Did you even read the part you quoted?
"Not because it's criticism of Islam but because it's fucking racist"
The two bolded parts are separated thoughts.
@11. Becca Stareyes :
Yes it was an insult to Muslims. And so .. what exactly?
I get insulted all the time and sure most others here do too.
Do we we therefore riot, burn shit down, issue death threats and actually carry them out?
Is doing that okay or a ridiculous, absurdly Over-The-Top, inexcusable and unacceptable reaction?
Cricticise this film as "racist" or "Islamobobic" or "Shit" or whatever verbally and in print? Sure, fair enough. Voice your opinion about its quality and the character or even parentage of those who made it, fine. Make a counter-film or counter arguments or boycott it and refuse to purchase / see it in cinemas okay.But that should be where a rational, reasonable proportionate response ends.
Violence? Death threats? Riots? Nup.
Its a film. That's all.
Just like it was just a novel or a cartoon or, well so many other things. No, you don't get to kill or even threaten to kill other people because you are offended by a book / film/ video / blog or anything like that.
The film makers clearly wanted to stir up a reaction. It seems to have worked. Probably beyond their wildest dreams. Guess these extremeist Muslims never heard of the Streisland effect either?
Improbable Joe says
Can we PLEASE stop using this simplistic and frankly incorrect formulation of "Muslims did X because of offensive thing Y"? It isn't any more true than if you were to try to say that Republicans became racist because Obama was elected. Nobody saw an offensive movie or cartoon and went from being a liberal pacifist to a violent extremist in under two hours. These are sometimes the excuse for violence, but they are not remotely the cause.
And here we go again. Rutee is about to tell everyone how any criticism of Islam equals racism.
Right, which is why I said the dude PZ supports as a good documentarian is racist.* What was that little phrase you tried to challenge me with? Oh yes.
Rorschach, do you ever ask yourself if what you write is true?
But don't say it, it's fucking racist after all.
Because devaluing the voice of women is totally a muslim practice. We didn't just have a thread that talked a lot about DV, and made it damn clear that meriken white people do it just as much. Yes, fundamentalist muslims are patriarchal asshats; so is every other fundamentalist. Phrasing it as only muslims is a problem.
*Technically, it's not impossible, but from how PZ presented it, it sounds just peachy, and while I will probably watch it later out of interest for the subject matter (I love history), I am not going to this second just to confirm/deny it being racist.
Fred Salvador - The Public Sucks; Fuck Hope says
Who said that? PZ certainly didn't. He's making sure we can all distinguish between a properly researched, objective programme produced by a noted academic intended to educate and provoke thought, and a piece of inflammatory garbage shat onto the internet by a group of bigots motivated solely by a desire to provoke a response. He wants to make sure that we all recognise the two are not equivalent, so we don't get confused when he calls bullshit on the former being yanked while simultaneously lambasting the latter.
The fact he has to post such an article is proof positive that a lot of folk aren't as smart as they think they are. Free speech is one thing; being a fuckhead simply because you're free to do so is entirely another.
Also it's not really the work of Christian fundamentalist assholes; the bloke who produced it self-identifies as an Israeli Jew, and several of the backers (who, by the way, apparently ponied up $5million – that's 5,000,000 US dollars – to fund this festering turd) were Jewish. No doubt SOME Christian fundamentalist assholes were involved, but it isn't wholly the work of frothing fundies. Although considering the vile and debased nature of the "film" it's perfectly natural to assume that Christian fundamentalists are responsible.
theophontes (坏蛋) says
@ Kitty
[re:StevoR] I thought your talking about Islam period was verboten.
If it is not yet the case, I would like to second that notion.
Keith Peterson wrote:
Which means nothing in the US since there are no hate speech laws. Perhaps in some other countries but not in the US.
palmd says
Listening to the BBC this morning, they uncritically noted that the anti-islamic video was made by american jews. Anyone hear anything about that? If not true, kinda pisses me off.
Phrasing it as only muslims is a problem.
In a thread about censorship of criticism of Islam? I would have thought it's pretty much on topic. Since we're currently talking about Islam.
Because devaluing the voice of women is totally a muslim practice.
Outside the USA with its crazy religious right and the politicians who pander to it, it pretty much is.
anteprepro says
Wow, two people plopping out asinine apologetics for blatantly bigoted "criticism" of Islam right out of the gate! Pay no attention to the fact that the entire point of this blog post was to show a distinction between the previous good and thoughtful criticism of Islam and the kind of right-wing, bigoted, libelous, and simplistic dreck that is NOT a good criticism of Islam. Nope. Doesn't matter. No distinction. According to the Defenders of Islamophobia, if you point out the obvious short-comings of the latter kind of criticism, you are just opposed to all criticism of Islam!
It's like fucking clockwork. Seriously.
@Theophontes:
I thought those were the conditions of his remaining not banned from Pharyngula. He can stay, he just can't talk about Islam.
Could be wrong, but I seem to recall it being stated by the Poopyhead.
naturalcynic says
It apppears to Juan Cole that the attack on the consulate in Libya and the embassy in Cairo were the work of small disgruntled jihadis – ultraconservatives who were unhappy that they were not getting the strict sharia states that they wanted in recent elections. The film was just an excuse to self-promote and embarrass the governments.
@22. Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
@StevoR: I thought your talking about Islam period was verboten.
Not as far as I'm aware. Its a hot button issue for me and one that I get worked up about sure. I've sometimes gotten carried away because its fills me with rage based on what they done and what they believe and politics and all. But far as I know I can discuss whatever I want here. At risk of my own blood pressure and mental health..
@23. rorschach : What you said. Yup.
Islam is an ideology -or series of sub-dividedand conflicting ideologies and sects – NOT a fucken "race"- "race" being a biologically meaningless term anyhow.
FWIW "Brown people" (stupid term but others use it) aren't Muslim exclusively or even mostly. More brown skinned peope are probaly Hindu or even catholic if we include the South and Latin Amercians than Muslism.
No it isn't "bigotry" or a "phobia" when you have group X actually threatening to unleash hell and bloodily murder everyone else based on group X's intolerant ideology and group Xs desire to force the whole planet to convert at swordpoint.
Yes not all Muslims are Jihadists and not all are evil murderous barbarians practicing the worst of Sharia law and having membership cards in Al Quaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc ..
The one's that aren't applicable here, who are really moderates and non-violent and okay, well this does NOT apply to them.
Yes, I could be wrong. No, they shouldn't be wiped off the face of the Earth as long as their not about towipe anybody else off it either.
Is there really any issue or unclarity with any o'this?
Does thinking this really somehow make me a bad person or sumthing? I don't think so natch.
Free speech is one thing; being a fuckhead simply because you're free to do so is entirely another.
No, it's not. Free speech includes the right to be a fuckhead for any reason whatsoever. The idea that writing or filming racist or misogynistic or anti-religion bullshit, or whatever you want to say, is not included in free speech is to completely misunderstand the concept of free speech.
broboxley OT says
in case no one else noticed, the riots and killing of our people were on Sept 11 a day that Americans have bad memories of. The movie was an excuse for an orchestrated act to celebrate 9/11. The Egyptians tossed a flag and graffitied the wall, that is marginally acceptable but these events were organized some time ago to act out on September 11th. No movie, there would be some other excuse
tomh:
Actually, there are laws in the United States that govern what is and what isn't free speech, and when it falls into hate speech ( such as defamation, incitement to violence, and fighting words).
One could almost certainly make a good case this is both defamation and fighting words.
In a thread about censorship of criticism of Islam?
Oh ho? I thought this thread was about not confusing every criticism of islam with a valid criticism of islam, because racism is real and a problem. The OP seems much more sympathetic to that interpretation than yours.
By the way, are you going to admit that you were wrong about how I say every criticism of islam is racism? Or are you just going to hope I let you slide with that?
Ah yes, I keep forgetting that Britain and Canada majority-muslim dominated countries that are fundamentalist- that's where a lot of the silencing talk regarding Assange came from, after all. And I'm sure it's only the USA where abusers get positive reinforcement from the rest of the community.
Seriously, you are not going to get very far with this racist shit by doubling down and denying sexist or homophobic shit exists. You can tell me that Europe is all enlightened or whatever, but the people who lead the charge against, for instance, Denmark's gay marriage law (a very important law for me, personally) were conservative Christians. The US has the strongest and most entrenched christian assholes, but it is not the only source of them.
Further, even non-fundamentalists maintain a lot of bigotted structures, because it's not just religious.
palmd:
This is mostly correct. The film was the work of an Egyptian Coptic-American, right-wing American Christians and right-wing Israeli-Americans. The immediate problems this will cause will be for the large number of Coptic Christians in Egypt who already have enough trouble.
No, they couldn't. You say that, but they can't. Fighting Words is pretty much restricted to impugning the chastity of someone's mother at this point, and defamation requires measurable losses to a specific person.
Well, it is a misunderstanding if you abide by the cult of free speech version, I guess.
ruteekatreya, does this movie not vilify Muslims? Or do I misunderstand what defamation is?
Could the intent of this movie be any more transparent. Armageddon isn't coming fast enough so these guys have to find a new enemy to whip the imbeciles into a frenzy. Now the president is going to be too soft on the murderous moooslims (being one hisself dontcha know) so we'll have to elect a god fearing mooslim hater and that dude with the magic undies into office so we can go turn the middle east into a parking lot for Jeebus. Money wasn't going to win the election for these people so now we need to double down on the hatred.
Hate speech is generally understood to be speech that is offensive to certain groups, religion especially, and it has nothing to do with defamation, incitement to violence, or fighting words. These are separate issues with free speech. There are no laws in the US forbidding hate speech.
holytape
Is it that easy to piss off a culture, that a bunch of incompetent nobodies can cause a riot leaving a US ambassador dead,
He was killed by a rocket strike, not a riot.
The latter, as a legal matter. In most of the USA, defamation actually requires measurable losses. IANAL, but the short version of it is that you can't actually defame the character of massive groups; such speech may be used in conjunction with a hate crime law as evidence of being motivated by such prejudice, but it isn't itself defamation of character. And with the body of legal work we have now, it never will be, here.
I mean, it kind of sucks, but that's how it is.
The embassy in Egypt was attacked. The ambassador in Libya was killed.
Ing: I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream So I Comment Instead says
Ah good. Another excuse to pretend human stupidity is muslim barbarism.
What is the cult of free speech version?
rutee
look at the fighting words portion
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/fightingwords/casesummaries.htm
The Court noted that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain "well-defined and narrowly limited" classes of speech that can be proscribed and regulated without constitutional problem. These include the "lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting words'." The Court defined fighting words as those words that "by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Fighting words are excluded, the Court reasoned, because any benefit derived from their utterance is outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. The Court determined that the statute was constitutional. Finding that the epithets uttered by Chaplinsky were likely to provoke the average person to retaliation and thereby cause a breach of the peace, the Court ruled that Mr. Chaplinsky's words were unprotectable fighting words.
The one that says we're supposed to pretend that hate speech should be permitted for any philosophical reasons of freedom, and that isn't it great that dissent is tolerated,a nd yay free speech. There is exactly one ethical reason to oppose hate speech legislation, in my book: Fear that it will then be used to protect the majority, not the minority. Not that I agree, but it's a concern that isn't putting abstract 'freedom' over actual people.
Well I wouldn't want to misunderstand free speech, so it's a good job I never said that.
My point is this; Muslims whining about a perfectly good, factually accurate documentary to the extent that it gets yanked from a screening for "security reasons" is not the same as Muslims being angered by an insulting film that was made with the express intent of angering Muslims. In the former case, the whining, entitled Muslims are completely in the wrong and have zero sympathy from me; in the latter case I entirely sympathise with Muslim anger, and will join them in denouncing the maker of this film as a fuckhead. Because that's what he is.
It still doesn't justify murder, but is anyone really naive enough to believe that these murders were entirely motivated by the existence of this movie?
I don't have a cite on hand because my books and notes are in another state, but the most recent opinion I recall seeing on the matter in fact used those exact words to delineate what *might* still count as 'fighting words' in the USA. We've been steadily limiting their use, frankly.
ruteekatreya, I'm reading the quick run down on US defamation laws on wikipedia, and no where does it say that actual harm per se has to come from it.
And yes, I know wikipedia isn't a valid source.
joed says
@12 truthspeaker
Yes, and it was anniversary of 911 too!
the "film" in question is probably meant to cause the problems we are seeing.
but then again blowback is always tragic.
The u s govt has set it self up for these type of tragedies.
People are the same everywhere!
The one that says we're supposed to pretend that hate speech should be permitted for any philosophical reasons of freedom, and that isn't it great that dissent is tolerated,a nd yay free speech.
Well, I guess I belong to that cult then. And I guess you belong to the cult that favors free speech unless you define it as "hate speech." Or does someone else get to define it? Just who does get to define hate speech in your cult, anyway?
nms says
Well, that clearly didn't work.
DLC says
I don't care how damn insulting the damn movie was, you don't get to commit multiple murders because you felt insulted.
Well, it is definitely possible I'm mistaken, as I'm operating off of memory from lectures a few years ago, I'll say that. But, we're talking about US law, so try to keep in mind that what the law says isn't nearly as important as how it's actually applied.
Well, I guess I belong to that cult then. And I guess you belong to the cult that favors free speech unless you define it as "hate speech."
If you'd like to pretend that people who are for hate speech laws are as vociferous, supported by culture, and utterly immune to the effects of their actions as those who cry for free speech no matter the actual cost, have at it.
Or does someone else get to define it? Just who does get to define hate speech in your cult, anyway?
The same flawed law makers who'd define a 'free speech' law, I imagine.
Look a muslim had explained the free speech issue to me as thus
"When you only hear of free speech as a defense against people bashing your minority what do you. Suppose said minority will think the idea means?"
jjgdenisrobert says
@nms: right on the money. It seems that people here read half a sentence, and go completely bonkers as soon as someone says that maybe, just maybe there are lines that shouldn't be crossed. Criticizing Islam because of its theology, the values it promotes (such as unquestioning obedience), or the oppression of minorities within muslim societies is one thing. Saying "Ha ha, Muhammad was gay, and so were all his companion!", or "Muhammad was a schizophrenic who calmed down by smelling pu**y" (no exaggeration; watch the thing) is not the same.
It's never right for anyone to attack another violently over speech. But to go from there to essentially asking people not to condemn a racist and homophobic movie is another. I will condemn both. Of course, one is worse than the other; it's far worse to kill than to offend. But I will call offensive offensive.
And for those who think, this is a strictly muslim thing, I will remind you of the death threats and the firebombing of a theater surrounding the release of "Last Temptation of Christ", or the very real death threats surrounding Andres Serrano received because of "Piss Christ". If this movie was about Jesus, and was shown in Kenya, who would want to bet that you would have 100 deaths within a few days?
Update on vague details re film
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/muhammad-film-consultant-sam-bacile-is-not-israeli-and-not-a-real-name/262290/
The 911 mosque is the ur example of this. It showed Muslims thazt just as they though free speech wasn't something that protected them, but a double standard that meant people like Terry Jones can say whatever they want while Muslims can't even mind their own buisness much less respond. Think of how that looks to Muslims when politicians start considering fucking over your rights because of your religion and then the very people doing that site free speech to defend their attempts to revoke Muslim rights. It feels like a fixed game to them and call me acomondationist if you will but using free speech to insult them intentionally in our attempts to demonstrate the concept to them isn't helping.
Also hey isn't there some religious repression in Russia from xians? Why are we pretending this is a muslim thing rather than a human thing. Dogmatic groups get power and do this shit…everywhere
Buzz Saw says
Well, this is quite different than ABC News was willing to say about it. Good to know. Still, as I said on Maryam's post on that unrelated documentary, I am disappointed about the media's hesitance to defend the free speech of these idiots. And if what you say is true, PZ, I am further disappointed that the news I got wouldn't even present an honest description of the movie.
AJ Milne says
Sweet FSM, but that film looks like incredibly amateurish crap.
Unfortunately (or fortunately… I haven't decided), that's all I can really say about it as yet, as I can't seem to get to the English language version (link I had now sez it's 'private'), and my Arabic really isn't up to following what I have found…
Awfully intriguing all this noise around who the actual authors were, too. They're Evangelicals? And… Wait… What? Israelis?
Oh shit.
Wait… No… That's wrong. Apparently, they're Copts?!…
Double shit. Either way, incredibly messy. And now I'm trying just not to let the wild-conjecture-generating part of my brain run riot with the combination of all these political high explosives suddenly showing up in the same room, and all right after the conventions and September 11, too…
So saying the only thing I can confidently say about this I can, then, so far all I've really got is:
Fuck, what a bloody mess.
But to go from there to essentially asking people not to condemn a racist and homophobic movie is another.
Who is asking people not to condemn such a movie? All I've seen is asking people not to kill over such a movie. Condemn away. Personally, I don't think there should be laws against making such a movie, though others obviously differ, but allowing such a movie to be made is not the same as "essentially asking people not to condemn" it.
There IS religious oppression in Russia, but if you want a more poignant example of Orthodox Christianity being wicked look no further than Serbia in the 1990s. On second thoughts, maybe look a little further than Serbia; look to Greece, or more specifically the Greek Volunteer Guard, a paramilitary unit staffed by Orthodox Christian Greeks who went to the Balkans to "aid their Orthodox brothers" in the "fight" against "militant Islam". And by "fight" I mean "massacre". And by "militant Islam" I mean "Bosniaks, who are Muslims in the same way most British people are Christian (i.e, not at all)".
And by "aid their Orthodox brothers", I of course mean, "aid their Orthodox brothers".
That's all by the by, though. The real question here is this; do Muslims have a right to get angry about a film specifically produced as an insult to Muslims? I'd say yes, yes they do. That's the whole point of the movie, right? TO make them angry? What, we support some douchebag's right to make a film designed to anger Muslims, but expect them to just shut up and take it lying down because they believe in a stupid religion we're not keen on?
The side track which some people seem intent on dragging us down is, do Muslims have a right to kill people because they're angry? The answer, of course, is "no they don't, please don't be intentionally dense, it is very annoying, and also if you think these killings were motivated purely by anger over the existence of this film then you are a clown".
U.S. ambassador to Libya killed in attack Chris Stevens and three staffers die amid violent protests over Muhammad film
Ignoring the free speech issues and who made the film, (Israelis, Copts, or ????, It's confusing right now), does fundie xian pastor Terry Jones ever count up how many people he has helped kill with his hate mongering.
1. IIRC, when he burned a Quran, there was violence in Afghanistan and "The last time Pastor Jones burned a Koran in 2011, more than 16 people died …".
2. Four are now dead in Libya.
Up to 20 here. I wouldn't want the blood of 20 strangers on my hands. Then again, I'm an ex-xian so it is understandable. Hate and murder are fundie religionist things.
Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't always mean you should do something. Especially if people then end up dead.
… If this movie was about Jesus, and was shown in Kenya, who would want to bet that you would have 100 deaths within a few days?
That. Yes, I think I'd probably take that bet.
My own also probably not-very-scientific take on this is: this is mostly a product of development, education, factors in that vein, not so much an intrinsic properly of any specific religion or theology. Islam isn't scary specifically because it's Islam, not due to some specific and unique feature of its theology (or at the very least: probably not mostly). Religions in general are scary where the congregants' lives and the communities in general are sufficiently dominated by that religion, and it so happens for a complex of historical reasons there more places in which Islam is still so dominant, so it's more often the one that makes the headlines of late. You can argue the converse (and people have) that Islam is intrinsically and essentially theocratic by nature, but over the longer history of Christianity, it's hardly self-evidently true that Christianity isn't. Just that it holds such unrivaled power to marshal a mob overtly fewer places today, and this could be for rather a lot of reasons, few or none of them having much to do with Christianity itself, so much as historical contingency.
I'd add also that I tend not to see Islam and Christianity and Judaism as particularly distinct, anyway. They're mostly sects, one of t'other, tho' granted large and now somewhat separately evolved ones. But you don't have to step that far back to note they're an awful lot the same, an awful lot of ways. Islam's current claim to infamy then is mostly that it happens to be the state Judaic-derived sect of a couple of the more prominent places where the development of strong secular governance (and secular education in particular) lags rather behind. How much anything in particular about Islam itself has to do with this, and how much has to do with the fact that many of these are relatively thin and undifferentiated resource-driven economies whose wealth is fairly recent and markedly poorly distributed is difficult to separate.
Synfandel says
Or being homicidally offended by it.
octopod says
Islam's current claim to infamy then is mostly that it happens to be the state Judaic-derived sect of a couple of the more prominent places where the development of strong secular governance (and secular education in particular) lags rather behind. How much anything in particular about Islam itself has to do with this, and how much has to do with the fact that many of these are relatively thin and undifferentiated resource-driven economies whose wealth is fairly recent and markedly poorly distributed is difficult to separate.
Yes. This. Well said.
Lynna, OM says
As comment #8 noted, Romney can use the incident to incite anti-Obama fervor. And Romney has done just that, but, as usual, Romney included a couple of falsehoods in his trumped up objections to Obama's handling of the incident.
… the Romney campaign let fly a crude political attack both blaming the Obama administration for the attacks and suggesting that the President actually sympathized with them. …
The statement read as follows …
"I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
… Romney's attack was not only ill-judged and ill-timed, it was actually based on what appears to be a demonstrable falsehood. Romney, or folks writing in his name at his campaign, claimed that the administration's first response to the attacks was to issue a press release condemning the anti-Islam film which had helped trigger the attack. This they picked wholesale from the right-wing blogosphere.
As I've noted before, neither Romney nor his campaign staff have a clue when it comes to vetting their sources. And this is a guy running for president?
In fact, according to all available press reports and the account of the State Department, the press release in question came from the US Embassy in Egypt and preceded the attacks. So to claim it was a response to the attacks was simply false. So while American diplomats were dying in the field, Romney pops up with an egregious attempt to politicize the deaths with a flat out lie.
Romney also said that President Obama issued the so-called apology. He did not. The US Embassy in Egypt issued the press release. Here's what the LA Times reported on the actual pre-riot press release the embassy issued:
The embassy, apparently referring to an anti-Islamic video reportedly made by an Israeli American, said the United States condemns "the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions."
Yeah, that's a bit wishy washy, but their lives were in danger and they were trying to avoid a confrontation, not responding to an attack. And Obama did not issue that statement, as Romney claimed.
Behind the curtains a more chaotic and rash picture emerges.
The statement from the Romney campaign was initially released by Romney press secretary Andrea Saul at 10:09 PM — but under an embargo until midnight on September 12th. In other words, it was embargoed until September 11th was over. Then a few minutes later at 10:24 PM the embargo was lifted and reporters were told they could use the statement immediately. There was no clear explanation of the change.
In other words, the Romney campaign knew fuck all about what they were doing or should do.
Bear in mind, this was all happening while attacks on US personnel abroad were ongoing….
The campaign also authorized Romney's top foreign policy advisor to give a blistering interview attacking the president while the attacks were continuing.
… rash and shameful. Not worthy of a president. Crass, undignified and troubling on many levels.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/09/when_you_learn_theyre_not_ready.php
Video of Romney and more commentary here:
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/12/13829269-romney-digs-deeper-after-libya-debacle
vaiyt says
Of course, we see that Christianity is still as corrupt as ever, but somewhat kept in check by progressive forces in society. The relative lack of such things in Islamic countries means they're objectively more evil.
I mean, it's not like Christian religious authorities had to be dragged into the light kicking and screaming over a period spanning almost two millenia. No, they suddenly decided to have a change of heart and, in their magnanimity, LET us poor peasants think freely for once!
I hate this hand-me-down theory of history. It's like all depends on the fucking kings and popes and whatever GIVING concessions to the lower classes and deviants out of goodness of their souls.
Salon weighs in on Mitt Romney's "disgraceful dishonesty."
As noted up-thread, Romney lied in his hasty opinion issued last night while the attack on the embassy was still in progress. In trying to do damage control this morning, Romney just dug a deeper hole for himself. He must still be reading only right-wing blogs for his source material. The damage-control speech was so bad that Democrats don't have to go after Romney for this latest gaffe, mainstream media is doing it for them, as are some of the pundits on the right.
"When our grounds are being attacked and being breached, the first response should be outrage," he told reporters. "Apology for America's values will never be the right course. We express immediately when we feel that the President and his administration have done something which is inconsistent with the principles of America." The incredulous traveling press corps pushed Romney on his dishonesty but he didn't back down….
Sarah Palin did agree with Romney.
A. R says
I'm going to go ahead and state that [Insert Religious demonym here] have a right to be offended, but they do not have the right to fucking kill people due to said offense.
PS: and not to mention some countries TODAY where our lovely Christians are as tyrannical and abhorrent as they wish to be. Just ask the LGBT people of Uganda.
According to the Associated Press, a small contingent of US Marines has been dispatched to beef up embassy security:
Some 50 U.S. Marines headed to Libya on Wednesday to reinforce security at U.S. diplomatic facilities in the aftermath of an attack in the eastern city of Benghazi that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, officials said….
A. R @76, Hillary Clinton agrees with you:
Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.
Hillary didn't say "fucking" but the sentiment is the same.
I'm not certain if my brain producing the same thought as the Hildebeast's is a good thing or a bad thing…
I found this article on the Iranian propaganda tv channel from, I think, Britain.
True or not it might as well be true.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/09/12/261184/cia-mossad-team-up-to-insult-islam/
"However, Jones has another following, one not so easy to detect. Jones moved to Germany in 1981 and established a religious cult in Cologne. Thus, his ties while there were with Israeli intelligence and the P2 Masonic lodge, better known as "Operation Gladio," the group responsible for the murder of Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro and terror bombings that went on into the 90s.
Jones real background is that of an intelligence asset. His personal weakness is narcissism. His strength is his ability to hide behind what appears to be backward and ignorant exterior while actively working as an intelligence agent for a combination of rogue CIA elements, extremists in the former Stasi German group now called the DVD who partner with Israel's Mossad.
Jones is a spy, CIA trained…"
Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says
Outside the USA with its crazy religious right and the politicians who pander to it, it pretty much is. – rorschach
Srsly? I know you tend towards stupidity whenever anything Islamic is the topic, but this is a doozy. Do you really think patriarchy is limited to the USA and Islam?
Do we we therefore riot, burn shit down, issue death threats and actually carry them out? – StevoR
I forget, do calls for genocide count as death threats?
ChasCPeterson says
the Hildebeast
It's a slippery slope from there to 'Twatson'.
President Obama pushes back against Romney's off-base comments.
…noting that Romney bungled basic facts in his Tuesday night statement.
"There's a broader lesson to be learned here: Gov. Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later and as president one of the things I've learned is you can't do that," Obama told CBS News Wednesday."It's important for you to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts and that you've thought through the ramifications before you make them."
Video here:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-on-romneys-libya-response-shoot-first-aim?ref=fpa
What we're lacking here is a really twisted, incoherent rape metaphor. Leave it to Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona (Republican), to come up with one:
It's like the judge telling the woman who got raped, "You asked for it because of the way you dressed." OK? That's the same thing. "Well America, you should be the ones to apologize, you should have known this would happen, you should have done — what I don't know — but it's your fault that it happened." You know, for a member of our State Department to put out a statement like that, it had to be cleared by somebody. They don't just do that in the spur of the moment.
The Romney campaign is now making its third effort in 17 hours to explain why it is so deep in Stupid, and why it insists on diving deeper.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/12/13833137-the-third-time-isnt-the-charm
* Does Romney realize that the embassy condemned anti-Muslim propaganda before protests turned violent? If so, why has Romney lied about it?
* Can Romney defend the charge that the "Obama administration's first response" was "to sympathize with those who waged the attacks"?
* Can Romney defend the charge that Obama administration officials "apologized for American values"? If, in Romney's mind, criticizing anti-Muslim propaganda is implicitly the same thing as "apologizing for American values," why did the Romney campaign echo the Obama administration's condemnation of the anti-Muslim propaganda in question?
* If Romney thinks White House officials right to distance themselves from tweets from the Cairo embassy, why does Romney also think White House officials were wrong?
From the comments below the article referenced at #85:
I have served in the US Navy for 22 years. The US Navy which often is the first responder to diplomatic failures. I would propose that Romney's reaction displays a scary lack of rational judgement. Without facts or consideration for any other ramifications he was under the impression that PRIOR to attacks we should incite violence outside an embassy. Perhaps one of Romney's Super PACs can buy him a dictionary so he can look up the definition of dilpomacy. It rarely starts with the proposition of violence or anger and is never based in a void of factual information. Romney's foreign policy would be a disaster for this country.
PZ Myers: Let's not get confused
(Which is the title of this thread.)
Sounds like Romney among others should take this advice.
Amphiox says
You must be very rich, rorschach, from selling all those ruby tinted glasses you have there.
Forgetting policy and politics for a moment here, but if this man can not even competently manage his own campaign on issues and basic but as vital as this, how in the hell can anyone expect him to manage being President?
Richard Austin says
As palmd said, the film may not even be real. There's a lot of mixed or contradictory information regarding it and its maker.
Mystery Man Behind The Anti-Muslim Film Blamed For Attacks
But his biography remains sketchy at best. He has claimed to be a real estate developer, but nobody with his name has a real-estate license or appears in corporation records in California. He has been described as Israeli, but Israeli officials have not confirmed or denied that he is a citizen. He has also claimed to have raised millions for his film, but the results, a low-budget, offensive mess, seem to speak for themselves.
In one report, the AP identified Bacile as an American citizen who spoke from a phone with a California number and with an "Egyptian accent." The AP reported that Bacile declined to answer when asked if he was of Egyptian origin, and added that Bacile said "the full film has not been shown yet … and he said he has declined distribution offers for now."
A second AP report, however, described Bacile as a 56-year-old "California real estate developer who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew.
I just saw the Tom Holland film, "Islam: The Untold Story." And the title is quite apt. He never tells anything. He opens the film saying "We don't know anything about early Islam." And, then he keeps saying it, and keeps saying it, and keeps saying it, in every way imaginable. You see him walking among library stacks, in Constantinople, in Jerusalem, in the desert with Bedouins, each time repeating how we have no real written sources for anything. Untold, indeed. It's a 71 minute snooze-fest. I would riot over this movie myself.
gregfromcos says
Have not read all the comments. But it seems most of what we think we know about this movie is likely wrong:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/09/12/161003427/what-we-know-about-sam-bacile-the-man-behind-the-muhammad-movie
According to Martin Wagner on The Atheist Experience here at FtB, there's probably no movie at all, other than the "trailer". He points out that the supposed budget of $5 million should produce something that at least looks like a professionally-produced movie.
$5 million for a documentary is a lot; for most movies, the major expenses are special effects, advertising, and name actors. Documentaries generally have none of the third and minimal amounts of the other two.
That being said, it's possible to blow through $5 mil and still come out with a pile of crap. But since the guy who posted the trailers may not even exist, the existence of the movie itself is questionable.
… If this all ends up being a Sacha Baron Cohen thing, I'm going to rip a phone book in half.
There are a lot of claims circulating that this movie might not exist except for the trailer and the moviemaker might not exist as he claims to be right now.
It's all opaque.
But it will all come out in the wash, as it usually does.
falstaff says
There is also talk/rumor, that it was a planned in advance attack, and that the protests were used as a smokescreen.
@62 jjgdenisrobert
Balstrome says
I wonder how many of the +100 commentators here have actually watched this movie and made their own decision about it. You know it's pretty easier to get a copy of it. This link is one way to do this. http://tinyurl.com/9k23fw8
garydargan says
It is not just the vileness of the Judeo-Christian right:
It also says a lot about the pro-Israel lobby.
laurentweppe says
@ falstaff
So if I understand correctly, Bacile is merely a pseudonym, but wingnuts involvement seems likely.
echidna says
The BBC is also reporting that the controversial anti-islam lines were not spoken by the actors, but dubbed in post production.
So that it is possible, even likely, that the actors spoke lines on a green screen, with no idea that the film was going to be anti-islamic propaganda, and that they might become targets.
Not sure how they could have spent $5m….
In the casting call for the movie, it says: "Compensation: no pay"
robro says
Sounds like Mittens has really biffed it this time. Isn't there a long standing tradition that candidates for President are very careful about jumping into diplomatic issues for a sitting president? A Guardian article suggested, without being very specific, that even some Republicans were backing away from this. That can't be a good sign for a candidate in a tight race.
Oooh…and the LA Times is reporting that Ryan is jumping into it now. That should make it all peachy.
This LA Times article says, "Republicans on Capitol Hill distanced themselves from the remarks of their presidential nominee, focusing instead on the tragedy and need for justice of those held accountable for the violence." But again, it doesn't really say much about who/what this is.
@ laurentweppe That seems to be the gist of it, as far as the movie goes.
Crissa says
It's pretty clear the attack in Benghazi had nothing to do with the movie: The terrorists have attacked the consul multiple times this year. And it's pretty clear these guys have nothing to do with the Libyan government, as it was the Libyan interim and others that came to the rescue and were also attacked.
flit says
This free speech defense of this movie is like emailing the names and addresses of abortion doctors to George Tiller, and then crying about how the right to send those names and addresses to George Tiller should be defended, or being surprised when a doctor on that list ends up dead.
We know that there are fundies who freak-out over this stuff. To explicitly make a poor movie to incite those fundies is dangerous. Should you be able to make that poor movie and incite those fundies? Sure! But it's on your conscience when this is the result of throwing rocks at hornet nests. (And from the reports i've seen, it's the sole responsibility of the producer, who tricked the actors and other workers on the film with a false film and then post-dubbed the movie to be offensive).
The killers should be brought to justice for killing (which I think, IIRC, is death penalty in Libya), but the assholes throwing rocks at the hornets nest are not innocent.
ww.quotationspage.com/quote/28750.html
Quotation #28750 from Classic Quotes:
In war, truth is the first casualty.
Aeschylus Greek tragic dramatist (525 BC – 456 BC).
Doesn't look like much has changed in 2500 years. I'm just going to wait and see what the real story is here.
Menyambal --- Sambal's Little Helper says
Balstrome, this post isn't about the video you linked to, the serious documentary. This thread is about the hacked-up, hatchet-job, deliberately-insulting "movie" that may not actually exist. You want the previous thread.
Flit, nobody is saying that the crazy guy who chucked-up the offensive trailer should be given a big bravo for his courageous exercise of his right to free speech. They are saying he's a slimeball. But they are also saying that running amok and killing folks because of him is a bit extreme.
If either of you want to condemn, you might try reading first.
lindamccann says
The protests were cover for a planned attack. Why was this film on youtube for 2 months before featuring on Egyptian television? 'Bacile' doesn't exist. (The fake name sounds like 'imbicile' or 'facile'. Reminds me of 'UN Owen', from the Agatha Christie book. A scapegoat-ghost.) It's telling that they said he was Jewish.
Did you see the evangelical Christian 'production team' member who said he had no blood splashes on his hands?
In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has called for nationwide protests outside mosques, after tomorrow's Friday prayers. (One Egyptian placard said their 'profit' had been insulted. You couldny make it up.)
Just came on to say that there's too much 'whitabootery' on this thread. Two wrongs don't make a right. We're not talking about domestic violence, or whether Christianity is more or less misogynistic than Islam. We're talking about something out of the 'Life of Brian'. There's a pile of rocks ready to fall on random heads whenever a rabble-rouser points and shouts, 'Insult!'
You can't libel or defame a character in a book. You must defame someone who actually exists. The law's kind of a stickler there. To Muslim fanatics, it is blasphemous even to depict Him. You can't win with extremists. They want a special, masterkey religious right that outranks all other rights.
Religious people have exactly the same rights as everyone else, but they want religion to be exempt from criticism, mockery or satire. That's the only time the slimes flow together! Anyway, how is it right to blame all Americans for the actions of one or more persons who happen to be American? It makes no sense and we cannot pander to it and hold up our heads as rational.
If these fanatics didn't like this film, they should have written a review. Next, authors will be suing their critics for bad-mouthing their characters.
Oh great. 3am, UK, and protests are spreading 'throughout the Muslim world'. That's going to include the US and Europe.
Having said all that, freedom of speech is not an absolute. No bomb jokes on a plane, no shouting 'fire' in a theatre. Incitement to violence (or rape!) is a serious crime. Maybe the film contained incitement against Muslims?
I can't help wondering if, for example, deliberately burning a Koran and posting it on line, could be considered reckless endangerment of the lieges?
Either way, nothing justifies a reaction of violence. Now they're saying Christians made the film and blamed it on a Jew? Nice. One religion attacks another, and blames it on a third. And religion gives us morality???
Oh, no, I get it. Just in several places today I've seen the "I should be able to say what I want" defense of assholery.
Killing is bad, mmmkay, but provoking killers is bad too, mmkay.
imthegenieicandoanything says
Is this thread going to be horseshit atheist in-fighting yet again?
NO ONE is suggesting, at all, that the violence in Lybia was in any way justified by perceived or imagined slights to Islam. And it isn't clear yet that this was the case, even, instead of a planned attack by Gaddafi dead-enders. If you do that, well, abuse your right to free speech as you will, but fuck off. You shame reasoning and reasonable atheists, and human beings generally, everywhere. AND SOME POSTS HERE ARE DOING THAT.
Pointing out that this shitty, racist film's existence is defensible only in the same way that Nazi marches are defensible is in no way justifying these planned murders of innocents. NO ONE YET IS SUGGESTING ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
I can get as riled up as anyone, but if pitchfork-and-torches come out and the people around me suddenly morph into a mob, I know I'm done with them, or even have to take a stand against them. And when the mob here starts looking for the impure within, as seems to be happening here and has happened before, I realize that we are, indeed, just another group of human beings – in Twain's sense. And I'm ashamed of us.
Think for yourself, after getting what information you can and taking some time to go over it. And remember always that, in some way – often an important way – you're wrong.
May the bullshit here stop!
gworroll says
The part that strikes me as horrifying(well, apart from the obvious overreaction by Muslims), is Mitt claiming that the embassy statement was apologizing for American values.
If Mitt thinks that a statement strongly supportive of religious tolerance is an "apology" for American values, rather than a statement of them… I really don't want to ever live in an America that even remotely resembles what he thinks we're all about. Before this all happened I just thought he'd be a horrible President, but he's got a deeply flawed view of what America is if he thinks that was an apology or anything shameful. Hell, religious tolerance was considered so crucial that it got a shout out in the original text of the Constitution in the ban on religious tests for public office. Free speech, jury trials, protection from self incrimination, none of that was so crucial as to be in the main text. Religious tolerance(albeit in a much weaker form than in the First Amendment) was.
If Mitt really cares about what the founders did, as he claims, then he should be one of the biggest fans of that statement.
I see that SteveoR the idiot is still talking about things he doesn't know anything about.
In several places today you've seen the "I should be able to say what I want" defense of assholery?
Fine, go there and talk to them.
Atticus Dogsbody says
Nakoula Basseley (Bacile) Nakoula is his name (or one of them).
TPM has the latest: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/sam_bacile_film_embassy_attacks.php?ref=fpa
@114. ibyea
Funny, I see that ibyea the moron is doing just that xeself and cannot even get my name right whilst doing it.
@ 82. Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
No, death threats are targeted at individuals not groups.
It isn't issuing a death threat for example to say that Al Quaida should be destroyed and prevented from ever threatening people again. Death threats also don't usually apply when aimed at enemy forces during wartime.
Plus I didn't call for genocide I called for self-defence and prevention of a genocide against well, the whole modern world really. especially the Western world and Israel. You, Nick Gotts are either badly confused and mistaken about what I actually said because of your own reading comprehension failure or are outright lying about me. Either is your fault not mine.
I have also repeatedly stated here that I oppose genocide and clarified a few comments I made when drunk and over-tired.
Plus I didn't call for genocide I called for self-defence and prevention of a genocide against well, the whole modern world really. especially the Western world and Israel.
How do you feel about the whole non-Modern world.(sic) especially the non-Western world and non-Israel defending themselves?
To elaborate further – saying a particularly appalling ideology, cult or religion should vanish from the Earth is NOT the same as making any sort of death threat.
Saying that ideological criminal, war waging Jihadist groups actively engaged in committing terrorist atrocities aimed at ending the modern world replacing it with a globe wide extreme Islamofascist theocracy and exterminating whole nations and groups and other beleif systems must be vigourously fought and destroyed is NOT the same as making any sort of death threat.
Even saying Islam as a religion should ideally vanish from our planet is NOT the same thing as saying all Muslims should be killed. Because – d'uh! – they are ways of removing *religion* that do not involve murdering all its followers but rather converting them and educating them instead. Islam itself for example mass converted and thus destroyed previous non-Muslim religions and cultures.
Get it now?
chigau (違わない) says
The Mars Colony won't have these issues.
Plus I didn't call for genocide I called for self-defence and prevention of a genocide against well, the whole modern world really.
Keep deluding yourself about what the things you advocate would really actually cause if they were actually implemented in the real world, StevoR.
Pretty much every single atrocity committed by humans in all of history was justified and enabled by the call to "self-defence".
they are ways of removing *religion* that do not involve murdering all its followers but rather converting them and educating them instead.
And if they resist education, or refuse to be converted, what then?
@StevoR
I like that doublespeak. Translation: death threats are death threats, except when they are not.
Also, genocide of the modern world? How over the top can you be? You give Al Qaeda way too much credit here. And no, it is not especially to the Western World, since most of their targets are other Muslims. And really, Christian fundies and free market hacks are way bigger threats to Western society.
@118. Atticus Dogsbody :
I feel that is a nonsense sentence.
The West isn't attacking the non-Western world – except to protect itself from Jihadist terror groups that declared war on it. The Western world and the Israelis specifically (among others) are quite happy to live and let live.
For example, Israel has repeatedly tried to make a reasonable peace with its enemies and (with the exception of a cold peace agreed back in the 1970's with Egypt's president Sadat – who was promptly assassinated by Jihadists for doing so.) the enemies of Israel have refused every peace offer and preferred to try and exterminate the world's only Jewish state instead.
The West isn't the side of this latest global war calling for genocide or demanding that everyone convert to their faith and accept what they demand.
Israel is quite happy to leave other Muslim nations be – in fact it has previously worked well with Turkey frex, and the Western world is quite happy letting other nations like Mongolia or Papua New Guinea or Madagascar follow their own paths and do as they please.
The Islamist Jihadists OTOH are not happy to let the rest of the globe alone. They want the whole planet to be ruled by a theocractic Caliph who imposes brutal Sharia law upon all of us. That this sick fantasy is impossible and futile and never going to happen in reality doesn't, alas, prevent them from trying to make it happen anyhow because, well, their religion.
@122. Amphiox :
"there are ways of removing *religion* that do not involve murdering all its followers but rather converting them and educating them instead." – StevoR
You keep trying to enlighten and persuade them maybe leading by example? Or leave them be – as long as they aren't trying to kill you. Which the Jihadists, well, are.
I wouldn't and am not saying we force them to convert from Islam at gunpoint as they convert others by the sword.
We do have the right to defend ourselves.
The West isn't attacking the non-Western world – except to protect itself from Jihadist terror groups that declared war on it.
Funny, that's exactly what Al Quaeda says that IT is doing, protecting itself from Crusader invaders that have declared war on the Islamic world.
May the FSM protect us all from those who claim to be "protecting" themselves.
PS. Mind you, I do think that an attempt to change the culture and mindset could have been made in Jihadist nations that have been occupied such as Afghanistan in much the same way that we changed the whole Japanese culture and beliefs post World War II.
Israel is part of the "Western" world?
Mars beckons.
Are you seriously saying you believe Al Quaida or think they have any sort of just cause there?!
Did George Zimmerman have the right to shoot Trayvon Martin?
@128. chigau (違わない) : Yes and yes.
No, I am saying that YOU, StevoR, sound exactly like them.
You keep trying to enlighten and persuade them maybe leading by example?
And the way to do that is to drop bombs on their children?
And yet that is exactly what would happen if the things you say you want to be done actually do get done in the real world.
@130. Amphiox :"Did George Zimmerman have the right to shoot Trayvon Martin?"
Non-sequiteur. Totally different situation there entirely – and I don't think so, no, because Zimmerman was the one doing the attacking and Trayvon was unarmed. This will of course be settled in the courts where it should be. I'm guessing Zimmerman will be found guilty of at least manslaughter and jailed for some years.
Yes, the west have been attacking/puppeteering the non western world. How do you think all of those dictators around the world have been kept around? And what is the US attack of Afghanistan and Iraq, while in the process causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, anything but that?
And Israel is not so innocent either. In fact, to say that Israel is happy to let other Muslim nations be is nonsense. Look at what its right wing gov is doing to Palestine. And right now, it, along with the US, is provoking a war with Iran despite the fact that they have no nukes, and have no plans in the near future to produce nukes.
Non-sequiteur. Totally different situation there entirely
The actual level of threat that the entire Islamic Jihadist movement, even if unified and organized (which it isn't, spending almost as much time fighting one another as plotting against the West) is almost exactly equivalent to the threat level that Trayvon Martin actually posed to George Zimmerman.
But George Zimmerman inflated that actual threat level, just like you do, and, just like you, decided to pre-emptively strike, with offensive, rather than defensive, weapons and tactics.
Not that different a situation at all.
StevoR
Israel would happily see you and your Western World as radioactive slag before giving up a square inch of "Israel".
Mars beckons robots. Not people.
(oh wait. I'm drunk)
Isn't it telling how StevoR hears the words "self-defence" and automatically thinks "just cause"?
As if the assumption of "self-defence" can justify absolutely anything and everything.
Completely missing the point that "self-defence" does NOT, actually, justify certain actions.
Practically Pavlovian.
ibeya:
…and have no plans in the near future to produce nukes.
Citation? (No, seriously, I'm legitimately interested)
@Amphiox 132-134 :
Now that's just silly Amphiox.
For one thing they usually speak in Arabic a language I don't know and not English and I'm sure my voice sounds quite different. For another I disagree with Al Quaida on pretty much everything. can't think of a single view we'd share actually.
When Jihadists fighting us hide behind their own families and civilians as human shields well that's the choice and consequence. Do we let them kill our children because we care more for theirs instead? It is a hard and horrible thing and Western militaries, incl. Israels, takes enormous care to avoid causing excessive collateral damage where-ever they can – as opposed to the Jihadists who always try to maximise collateral damage and kill innocents and propagandise any unintended casualties that do result.
Although I wasn't really referring to Jihadists there as much as I was meaning convincing the Moderates who are I think, more amenable to reason, less fanatical and more religious only in the "tick a box at census time" sense of the word.
No it isn't.
Maybe you just aren't understanding what I'm explaining here?
Did we convert Japan post WW-II by gunpoint? Not entirely or usually I'd say. We did shift its culture, rewrite its constitution to a much improved version ruling out further Japanese aggression and end the extremist Shinto Emperor cult though and that worked pretty well. Same sort of deal could've been done in Afghanistan and Iraq, maybe. We'll never know for sure because it wasn't tried.
And if they do, why exactly do they want nukes?
Because the US and Israel have them.
In other words, "self-defence".
Since StevoR insists that self-defence is a valid justification for all sorts of things, StevoR ought to, if he's not a hypocrite, be in full favor of the nation of Iran seeking nuclear weapons, if it so chooses, for "self-defence".
re:Japan
HAHAHAHHAHHAAHHHHAAAAAHHAHHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHHHHAAAAHHAH
Koshka says
When Jihadists fighting us hide behind their own families and civilians as human shields well that's the choice and consequence.
You are a fucking monster.
Do we let them kill our children because we care more for theirs instead?
And what the fuck are you referring to here?
Is this some kind of analogue to "We have to fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here" with children? If so, you are exactly the kind of monster the Air Force wants flying their drones.
@StevoR – Yes, the west have been attacking/puppeteering the non western world. How do you think all of those dictators around the world have been kept around? And what is the US attack of Afghanistan and Iraq, while in the process causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, anything but that?
Afghanistan was sheltering the Al Quaida and ruled by the Taliban. You know the actual Taliban Taliban. Seriously cruel and oppressive and violaters of human rights and, horrid regime.
Iraq was ruled by Saddam Hussein and his even worse sons who massacred tens (hundreds even?) of thousands of their own people. Including by using poison gas on the Kurds. I don't think we need to apologise for freeing such countries from such tyrants.
And Israel is not so innocent either. In fact, to say that Israel is happy to let other Muslim nations be is nonsense. Look at what its right wing gov is doing to Palestine.
Palestine isn't a nation. It is an political idea and old provincial name going back to a colonial period when hardly anybody lived there -and a whole separate issue again.
And right now, it, along with the US, is provoking a war with Iran despite the fact that they have no nukes, and have no plans in the near future to produce nukes.
Says you. I think the Israeli government and military juuust might know teh situation much more and better here than you do.
Iran has concealed nuclear reactors and facilities, it is claiming it wants nuclear power despite being rich in oil and a theocracy nominally lead by a Holocaust denying homophobic dictator with an apocalpytic mindset and extremist Ayatollahs. If they want alternative energy why aren't the Iranians investing solar and other renewable varieties? If their nuclear reactors are so innocent why build them underground and hide and lie about them? Why not invite inspectors in and be open and why not reassure the region by ending support for terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, demilitarising and signing non-aggression treaties and accepting that Israel exists and there to stay?Hmmm.. go figure.
Don't you think its possible that you have this all kind of backwards and that its actually Iran that is the one being provocative and menacing here? Don't you think that if it does come to war then Iran is at least equally at fault?
chigau,
Presumably all those Japanese children were bombed because the bad guys were hiding behind them. Collateral damage! What can you do!
Did we convert Japan post WW-II by gunpoint?
You want to slaughter millions of their soldiers, sink their entire navy, firebomb all their major cities with Napalm, NUKE two of their cities, and when, finally, they surrender UNCONDITIONALLY, you take over their entire government, appoint an UNELECTED military governor, occupy them militarily for 50 years, and, with dictatorial control over their education system, indoctrinate an entire new generation to your way of thinking.
For one thing they usually speak in Arabic a language I don't know and not English
Which means you haven't actually listened to any of all those speeches Osama bin Laden and various other Al Quaeda types have been giving, but have just been assuming what they've been saying?
For another I disagree with Al Quaida on pretty much everything. can't think of a single view we'd share actually.
And yet, take your posts here today, replace all references to "Islam" with "The West", and "Jihadist" with "Crusader", and they could have been cribbed straight from any number of bin Laden speeches, almost to the word.
Of course: its upper class is dompletely dominated by uncaring rich white guys of european descent: in many circles, it is seen as the condition sine qua non for being part of the Western World.
@AR
Hmm, recent news is coming out that Iran is doing computer models bringing them closer to nuclear capability, so my info may be out of date. Since from March is this article saying Iran had no plans: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/23/us-iran-usa-nuclear-idUSBRE82M0G020120323
Current news is: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1254712–un-agency-has-new-intelligence-iran-worked-on-nuclear-arms-diplomats-say
But going to war right now is ridiculous, since they are still years away from making one.
Koshka
My HAHAHA at StevoR was more about
…We did shift its culture, rewrite its constitution to a much improved version ruling out further Japanese aggression and end the extremist Shinto Emperor cult…
but incinerated children is a good point.
And exactly HOW are they "fighting" us while hiding behind their own families and civilians. Exactly what ICBM's or orbital space lasers do they actually have that they can target us and our families here in our own countries when they are hiding behind their own families and civilians back in their own countries?
Or does hearing their ranting on the internet traumatize you so much that it makes you bleed from the ears?
How about leaving them alone there, cowering behind their families and civilians, to rant in their impotent lunacy?
How about actually using DEFENCE tactics that prevent them from entering our countries or otherwise getting close enough to actually harm us (and incidentally, no longer hiding behind their families and civilians), rather than dropping bombs on their children in their own countries?
Hardly anybody lives in Palestine, eh? So who cares if Israel is starving the people in the Gaza Strip, or if they are demolishing Palestinian houses, killing people in the process, right?
And yes, it is a nation recognized by many other countries, and at least one agency in the UN.
Probably a shoddy attempt at channeling Golda Meir mixed with too much alcohol in the system.
Which does not stop them from electing and re-electing again and again a senile nationalist gigolo governor of their capital city, by the way.
ibyea: In my opinion, going to war would be ridiculous up until the point Iran points a ballistic missile at someone and threatens to shoot. Think about it, North Korea has had hypothetical nuclear capability since a few years ago (granted, range is extremely limited and yields are barely above fizzle), and they've only used it as a diplomatic bargaining chip. I see Iran doing the same thing.
Don't you think its possible that you have this all kind of backwards and that its actually Iran that is the one being provocative and menacing here?
Right. And being provocative and menacing AUTOMATICALLY JUSTIFIES war.
There's no other option, no other alternative. Either its buddy buddy allies forever open borders, or its war.
Like Trayvon Martin being provocative by turning around to confront Zimmerman, or maybe even knocking him down AUTOMATICALLY JUSTIFIED Zimmerman shooting him.
@144. Koshka :
I'm NOT the one doing this and I'm not supporting or advocating this tactic merely pointing out that that monstrous tactic is what the Jihadists do. That's the reality. Were you ignorant of this before I pointed it out? Blame them not me.
Jihadist terrorists murder children and delight in it. They try to kill as many as possible as often as possible and think it helps their cause.
Their enemies – such as Israeli Defence Forces – are out to stop them doing so. They try to kill as few as possible as infreqently as possible and know it hurts their cause.
Its a war situation and the Jihadists hide behind civilians. Sometimes that does lead to an awful choice between preventing terrorist attacks on Israeli or US or Western children (& men & women) by killing the Jihadists along with their families and civilians – who btw. are supporting and sheltering them by their own choice or otherwise – or allowing the Jihadists attacks to proceed and kill the Western /Israeli children and innocents whilst leaving the Jihadists and their families alive to, well, continue doing what they do, plan and conduct more terrorist attacks and shelter those who do this.
Which option would *you* choose and which option is more monstrous?
In StevoR's world, apparently, world history only began in 1945. (And only some of that, too, actually counts)
Also, do I have to remind you that those were the very regimes the US supported before the US turned its back on them because they weren't playing ball? And that two wrongs don't make a right? The US's reckless overthrow and occupation without any serious plan is responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqis death.
In StevoR's world there are, of course, only these two options and never anything else in between.
Nope. It's either blow them away in their own countries, in their own beds, with their own children, or do nothing and let them leave home, buy weapons, plan, organize, recruit allies, travel to our countries, infiltrate our borders, walk right up to us in our beds and kill us and our children.
Nowhere in that whole interlinked chain, during which, for 90% of it, the so-called "jihadist" is completely NOT A THREAT TO US AT ALL, is there any possibility for intervention that might not require us to kill their children in their sleep.
Nope. It's either bombs away or twiddle our thumbs until they walk up to us and slit our throats.
(You know, its this exact same false dichotomy that the jihadists use to indoctrinate and recruit suicide bombers. See what I mean about StevoR sounding EXACTLY LIKE an Al Quaeda terrorist?)
StevoR: Here's some homework for you: Take your last comment, change every occurrence of the word "Jihadist" (and its derivative words) to "Westerner" or "Crusader." Then do the opposite to every reference to your "good guys." After that, fand an English translation of one of Bin Laden's speeches. Read that, then read your modified comment. Notice how similar they are.
The US also delights in killing children with drone strikes if it helps kill its targets who may or may not be a Jihaddist. Heck, they targeted innocent civilians in funerals.
laurentweppe
True. But the Japanese national government 'falls' every year or so, due to some scandal or other.
That's "improved".
StevoR,
The children being bombed are in Afghanistan. The "Jihadists" are living in Afghanistan with their families. The "Good Guys" are in Afghanistan out to bomb the "Jihadists" (or at least their bombs are when it matters).
How do you blame the "Jihadists" for hiding behind their children when they are getting bombed in their homes? Should they send them off to Greece for a holiday until it is all sorted out? Do you think that they know they are the bad guys and they made a conscious decision to be the bad guys?
And your option is a load of bullshit.
You are telling me that I must kill someone that I dont know, that I have no issue with or my child will die. I am not going out killing anybody without a shit load more evidence than that.
You must be a dream for advertisers the way you swallow up and regurgitate such nonsense.
The US's reckless overthrow and occupation without any serious plan is responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqis death.
No – not Iraqis – Jihadists. Who would have otherwise killed our children.
StevoR: Remember, most (something like 99%) of these people will never participate in an attack outside of the Middle East, or even their own country or province. The people who are legitimate threats are better removed with surgical strikes (you know, the kind where children don't usually get killed) than bombs anyway.
Translated transcript of bin Laden speech
http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2004/11/200849163336457223.html
excerpts from bin Laden:
Praise be to Allah who created the creation for his worship and commanded them to be just and permitted the wronged one to retaliate against the oppressor in kind.
I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security
No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation.
I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.
The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.
And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy.
Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind, objectionable terrorism?
Now, excerpts from StevoR:
When Jihadists fighting us hide behind their own families and civilians as human shields well that's the choice and consequence. Do we let them kill our children because we care more for theirs instead?
I called for self-defence and prevention of a genocide against well, the whole modern world really.
About the only clear difference I see is that bin Laden writes more eloquently.
Oh has StevoR put his jackboots back on again?
This is what I'm talking about when I say there's a huge streak of ugly racism in Atheism. Do you think StevoR would have lasted nearly this long if his genocidal bile was directed towards any other race?
Yes yes yes Islam is not a race, blow me.
@Amphiox
Oh wow.
.. you want to slaughter millions of their soldiers, sink their entire navy, firebomb all their major cities with Napalm, NUKE two of their cities, and when, finally, they surrender UNCONDITIONALLY, you take over their entire government, appoint an UNELECTED military governor, occupy them militarily for 50 years, and, with dictatorial control over their education system, indoctrinate an entire new generation to your way of thinking.
No, that's a total strawman of your creation. Pointing out one aspect a historical precedent doesn't mean that you want to recreate it exactly in every detail. Saying how post-war Japan was altered to make it a better place doesn't mean you want to create a war or have it unfold a certain way.
World War Two is a matter of history. You know what started the war in the Pacific – Pearl Harbour. Got much idea how the Japanese behave during that war and in China and more do you?
No, I can read and follow things in the media and get more insight from books and internet sources and so on. Pretty sure that's the same way you and others here get their understanding of this too. Duh!
take your posts here today, replace all references to "Islam" with "The West", and "Jihadist" with "Crusader", and they could have been cribbed straight from any number of bin Laden speeches, almost to the word.
That's totally wrong. Also ridiculous and offensive.
And exactly HOW are they "fighting" us while hiding behind their own families and civilians.
Well, gee these guys are terrorists so how do you think they might be fighting us? Could it be . oh Terrorism maybe? Ever heard of homicide-suicide bombers? Or the events of 9-11? Duh!
Yes, I support doing those too. Sometimes these measures aren't enough though or aren't possible or practical. Sometimes you have to do more and take more drastic actions.
@153. ibyea :
@StevoR – Hardly anybody lives in Palestine, eh?
Lived. Past tense at the time I was talking about there when the region was called Palestine and ruled by the Ottoman empire, then the British mandate.
Later Many Arabs flocked to the region from Syria and Egypt and elsewhere as the Jewish people started to make the deserts bloom and build cities. Up until about the early 1970's the term "Palestinian" was hardly ever used they just wanted an Arab state and no Jewish one there. Bet you didn't know that the infamous "Palestinian" leader Yasser Arafat was actually an Egyptian born in Cairo!
Funny the things you can learn when you actually read and research this properly isn't it, ibyea? Assuming your reading comprehension is up to the task something that is clearly causing you problems.
As for Palestine being recognised as a "nation" – that's by the Arab nations and Islamic lobby for political purposes. It isn't reality. Any more than the Arab nations and Muslims worlds refusal to recognise Israel's existence means it is NOT an actual existing nation. Comprendez?
@156. Amphiox
.. being provocative and menacing AUTOMATICALLY JUSTIFIES war.
NOT what I said or even anything like it. For fucks sake!
Epic Reading comprehension FAIL on your part there. I've already covered the Trayvon Martin-Zimmerman issue in # 135.
I don't want war with Iran, I'm just relaistic enough toknow it is very likely to happen if Iran keeps going onits current course.
Finally, Iran is NOT North Korea for obvious reasons and the two aren't that comparable. Different nations with different leaders, different ideologies behaving different ways and posing different threats. I think its a bad thing that North Korea has the Bomb, wish they didn't and it would also be an even worse thing if Iran gets it. I don't *want* wars and I want fewer nations having the
Bomb rather than more.
I don't want war with Iran
Liar. You won't shut up about it. Everyone is forced to assume you get a stiffy thinking about dead Persian kids.
For everyone watching at home StevoR is the asshole who upon learning that I had Arab friends, hounding me demanding to know how they treat me because he can't comprehend an Arab being an actual person.
And now you're just lying.
It was implicit in just about everything you've ever said on every thread you've ever participated in regarding this subject.
And here you are, pulling a texpip, trying to whitewash the things you've said on older threads, as if we might not remember.
You sicken me.
I am of Chinese descent. I had FAMILY (granted 2 generations or more back) who lived through that.
Don't you lecture me about what happened in WWII in the Pacific Theatre, you pretentious fucking asshole.
The Japanese were genocidal scumbags to the Chinese and Korean civilians, therefore the Japanese deserved to have their civilians burnt and boiled to death. Got it.
Also, it is not only Islamic countries that recognize Palestine, you dumbass. Even a wiki search could tell you as much (130 countries, in fact, more than half of the world, but hey, only Western nations count, right?): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine
Oh, and I can play the same game with the US. Up till the late 1700s, the name United States of America was not used. Heck, it was used to be inhabited by various Indian tribes. But then the British started flocking and form a colony even as the Indians were flourishing there. Bet you didn't know that almost all of the American presidents are European descendants herp a derp derp! History moves on idiot, deal with it.
Got much idea how the Japanese behave during that war and in China and more do you?
I'm sure we recorded much of their behavior when we had them in camps
Ichthyic says
You know what started the war in the Pacific – Pearl Harbour.
do you really think that's true? that the war started because of Pearl Harbor??
And like Amphiox, my grandparents lived through that too. My parents happened to inform me of it. And heck, Korean independence day is independence day from Japan. So I know what happened, you moron.
StevoR: OK, let's deal with you little Pearl Harbor reference with a quick history lesson: Pearl Harbor was the final straw in a series of escalating tit for tat actions by the US, Japan and associated powers. Do you seriously think Japan would start a war because they felt like it?
…it had nothing at all do do with Sino-Japanese conflicts prior, severe restrictions by western powers on imports exports… etc etc?
if you ammend your statement to "officially the war started after pearl harbor" that would be more accurate.
but pearl harbor did NOT start the war in the pacific; it had already been going on long before that.
Pearl Harbor™ started direct American involvement in WWII.
Your 'knowledge' of Japan seems to have been gleaned from American movies.
And guess how the Japanese justified Pearl Harbor?
Self defence.
Because they were "sure" that it was only a matter of time before the U.S. would declare war on them, and because the U.S. Navy was bigger than theirs and the U.S. manufacturing capacity was superior, it was paramount for their "self-defence" that they strike pre-emptively, to reduce U.S. capability. Because they couldn't afford to let the bigger U.S. Navy strike them first.
That was their justification.
They even used it in their own war crimes defence after the war.
The War in the Pacific started in 1937.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War
Heck, the Pacific theater started long before the official start of the war. Frankly, the official date is inadequate for WWII. Too Eurocentric.
Oops, Amphiox got there before me.
allenesterson says
Can we get this straight. The TV programme (not series) was not censored by Channel 4. A screening for a limited audience at their headquarters was cancelled for security reasons. The programme has already been broadcast, and remains scheduled to be repeated tonight (Thursday), and can be recorded for those for whom it is too late. (UK only, as usual.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/bush-explains-why-pearl-h_b_75378.html
How could the fact that someone* has ended their nuclear weapons program years ago be justification for attacking them because they might restart it? Can Bush really believe the things that he says?
And if he does believe this absurdity, then wasn't Japan justified in attacking us in Pearl Harbor?
They heard that we had a nuclear weapons program – and we did. And that we might be able to start it any time – which was relatively true. And that if we had nuclear weapons, we might use them against Japan one day – which obviously proved to be true. So, they launched a pre-emptive strike against the United States because we had a nuclear weapons program they feared we might use against them at a later time.
Under the Bush doctrine, isn't Pearl Harbor the perfect case for using a pre-emptive first strike? Japan was rightfully concerned about our weapons program and they rightfully struck us first.
Of course, the only problem with that theory is that there is an excellent chance we would have never used those nuclear weapons against Japan if they hadn't attacked us first. Gee, I wonder if this could be a decent argument against pre-emptive strikes.
Isn't it absurdly ironic that the country that suffered one of the most infamous pre-emptive strikes in history and called it "a day that will live in infamy" is now arguing for pre-emptive strikes across the world?
*of course this was in reference to the justification for the Iraq War, but the parody applies rather well to StevoR's sabre-rattling over Iran, doesn't it?
PatrickG says
@ StevoR: Wow.
@ Ing/ibyea/amphiox/others I have missed: Ship your internets where? Nothing else to say.
@ vaight (#74): Your first paragraph was enraging. I salute you for excellent use of snark, as well as continuing to use said snark to make an excellent point.
Er, @vaiyt (#74).
FlipC says
Out of interest does anyone thing this film would have been made if the makers couldn't predict the response?
If you have the case whereby discussion of certain aspects of a religion in a negative manner will result in violence perpetrated by a subsection of adherents to that religion and you're part of a group opposing that religion what better way to get coverage of how violent and 'wrong' this religion is?
Can anyone imagine TV or film studios thinking "Gosh we'd better not say anything nasty about Buddha/Confucius et al or we might end up with our offices fire-bombed"?
When a Christian fundamentalist group acts violently does the media condemn the entire religion; so why do they seem to do so for Islam?
Blame lies with both parties (and the media), but the film-makers still had the right to make that film; and others still have the right to point out how bigoted it is.
I see genocidal uber-bigot StevoR is at it again.
Here's what wikipedia has to say about the population of British mandate Palestine (i.e. the area now constituting Israel, the West Bank and Gaza):
In 1920, the majority of the approximately 750,000 people in this multi-ethnic region were Arabic-speaking Muslims, including a Bedouin population (estimated at 103,331 at the time of the 1922 census and concentrated in the Beersheba area and the region south and east of it), as well as Jews (who comprised some 11% of the total) and smaller groups of Druze, Syrians, Sudanese, Circassians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Hejazi Arabs.
1922, First British census of Palestine shows population of 757,182, with 78% Muslim, 11% Jewish and 9.6% Christian.
1931, Second British census of Palestine shows total population of 1,035,154 with 73.4% Muslim, 16.9% Jewish and 8.6% Christian.
A discrepancy between the two censuses and records of births, deaths and immigration, led the authors of the second census to postulate the illegal immigration of about 9,000 Jews and 4,000 Arabs during the intervening years.
There were no further censuses but statistics were maintained by counting births, deaths and migration. Some components such as illegal immigration could only be estimated approximately. The White Paper of 1939, which placed immigration restrictions on Jews, stated that the Jewish population "has risen to some 450,000" and was "approaching a third of the entire population of the country". In 1945, a demographic study showed that the population had grown to 1,764,520, comprising 1,061,270 Muslims, 553,600 Jews, 135,550 Christians and 14,100 people of other groups.
So how does StevoR reach the conclusion that "hardly anyone" was living there? Obviously he's either an ignorant shithead, or he doesn't regard Arabs as people.
Later Many Arabs flocked to the region from Syria and Egypt and elsewhere as the Jewish people started to make the deserts bloom and build cities. Up until about the early 1970′s the term "Palestinian" was hardly ever used they just wanted an Arab state and no Jewish one there. Bet you didn't know that the infamous "Palestinian" leader Yasser Arafat was actually an Egyptian born in Cairo!
From wikipedia again:
Arafat was born in Cairo to Palestinian parents.[7] His father, Abdel Raouf al-Qudwa al-Husseini, was a Palestinian from Gaza, whose mother, Yasser's paternal grandmother, was Egyptian. Arafat's father battled in the Egyptian courts for 25 years to claim family land in Eqypt as part of his inheritance but was unsuccessful. He worked as a textile merchant in Cairo's religiously mixed Sakakini District. Arafat was the second-youngest of seven children and was, along with his younger brother Fathi, the only offspring born in Cairo. His mother, Zahwa Abul Saud, was from a Jerusalem family. She died from a kidney ailment in 1933, when Arafat was four years of age.
So, born in Cairo, but parents both born in mandate Palestine, just one Egyptian grandparent.
Funny the things you can learn when you actually read and research this properly isn't it, ibyea?
Yes, why don't you try it sometime, you lying lackwit?
Whether a group of people constitutes a "nation" is a matter of whether they identify themselves as such, and that in turn is a matter of historical contingency – it changes over time. One of the most reliable ways of creating a sense of national identity is through persecution or oppression: whether the Palestinians were a nation before 1970 is of historical interest only; they most certainly are one now, and of course oppression, neglect and betrayal by various Arab regimes has contributed to this, alongside the oppression from Israel. Until 1948, of course, the Jews of mandate Palestine were in much the same position the Palestinians are now: they regarded themselves as a nation, but did not yet have a state. They also made copious use of terrorism – Begin and Sharon were both notorious terrorist leaders.
but the film-makers still had the right to make that film
However, incitement is not covered under the first amendment in the US.
makes me wonder if, since there are direct quotes from the producers of this "film" that they KNEW it would invoke violent responses, it could be considered incitement, and the makers charged under US law.
As for Palestine being recognised as a "nation" – that's by the Arab nations and Islamic lobby for political purposes. It isn't reality.
huh, seems to me that many Arab states make a very similar sounding argument about Israel.
Klein told the AP that he vowed to help make the movie but warned the filmmaker that "you're going to be the next Theo van Gogh." Van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker killed by a Muslim extremist in 2004 after making a film that was perceived as insulting to Islam.
"We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen," Klein said.
read who was involved with this "movie" (including the producer, who was convicted of banking fraud), and what they did, even overdubbing actors with incendiary lines after the scenes were filmed.
fucking disgusting.
sorry, it's a huffpo link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/nakoula-basseley-nakoula-anti-islam-film_n_1879195.html
More about the movie itself, and who made it. The identity of the director, "Sam Bacile", is in doubt, but the current leading candidate seems to be an American-Egyptian Copt, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. The violence so far has been in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Yemen – exactly the countries where regime change has taken place (so far) during the Arab Revolution. It could suit a lot of people from very different political viewpoints (ranging from Al Qaeda to the RNC) to damage relations between the USA and these new regimes – it's enough to make one suspect a conspiracy, perhaps with one or more groups manipulating others, particularly as the violence seems too organized to be entirely spontaneous.
Yes: this kind of movie exist to spread the message "We're not saying that every Muslims/Arabs/Blacks/Gays/Boogeymen-du-jour should be killed: we're just saying that if it happens they will have been having it coming" born from the mix of bloodlust and cravenness so often displayed by fascistic bullies.
That's actually why this kind of movie/trailer/sketch is despicable: not because the reaction they cause, but because of the intent they are made to justify.
StevoR regards the Arabs as Daleks: his words, not mine.
And this reminds me of a "discussion" with a über-pro-israeli fanboy (you know: the kind who lives confortably in the wealthy corners of Paris while pretending that he is some sort of brave vanguard warior fighting for the progress of civilization) which went approximately like this:
Him: No arabs ever lived in the Eternal Land of Israël
Me: Huh… You know, census data proves that a lot of Palestinians lived there before 1948
Him: They do not count: they were all Egyptians who emmigrated because the English paid them so they would not have to recognize that the Eternal Land of Israël (I'm not fucking with you: the guy was speaking in french and was throwing "La Terre Éternelle" left and right)
Me: Huh… Not only is it the first time I've ever heard of some perfidious briton plot to pay Egyptians to colonize the drier, poorer, smaller neighbouring country, the very same census data shows that demographic growth among Palestinians was consistent with a demographic transistion while the demographic growth of Jews during the same time period was three times faster: a rate which can only be reached through sustained immigration. So if the British empire was conspiring against Jews to stop them from building a state, why did it allow them to immigrate there in the first place
Him: It only proves that the superior virility [sic] and superior capacity for logistic of my people were sufficient to overwhelm the English plot.
And it kept going on like this, with WWII being apparently a war between the Anglo-Nazi coalition and the small badass army of jewish Spartans which won a crushing victory against a superiorly armed ennemy at Deir Yassin.
raymoscow says
This anti-Muhammed 'movie' is looking like a massive troll. http://news.yahoo.com/may-no-anti-islamic-movie-210300477.html
However, incitement is not covered under the first amendment in the US
But that's a post-fact determination. They had a right to make it, it's then up to the courts to determine if it was incitement. If they determine it was means they can't use the "free speech" defence. Otherwise you're looking at pre-censorship.
blf says
Indeed, there is something very odd about the maybe-"movie", Anti-islamic film search leads to coptic Christian in California:
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula claims role in the Innocence of Muslims saying it was intended as a provocative statement
The hunt for the maker of the anti-Islamic video that inflamed mayhem in Egypt and Libya and triggered a diplomatic crisis has led to a Californian Coptic Christian convicted of financial crimes.
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, who lives outside Los Angeles, confirmed on Wednesday he managed and provided logistics for The Innocence of Muslims.
Nakoula, who pleaded no contest to federal bank fraud charges in 2010, told AP in a brief interview outside his home that he considered Islam a cancer and that the film was intended to be a provocative political statement assailing the religion.
He denied being Sam Bacile, the pseudonym for the video's purportedly Israeli Jewish writer and director, but AP said the cellphone number it called for a telephone interview with Bacile on Tuesday matched Nakoula's address.
His outing solidified growing evidence that members of Egypt's Coptic diaspora, who complain of persecution by Egypt's Muslim majority, were behind the making and promotion of the video.
Morris Sadek, a conservative Coptic Christian in the US, promoted it on his website last week. Within days it was fuelling outrage in Arab countries horrified at the depiction of the prophet Muhammad as an illegitimate, murderous paedophile.
An anti-Islamic activist and self-described "consultant" on the film, Steve Klein, has worked closely with Coptic groups over the years, according to Jim Horn, a fellow activist. "He's been helping them to stand up for themselves against Islamic terror in Egypt. That's what he does," he told the Guardian.
Another evangelical connection was the Koran-burning Florida Pastor Terry Jones, who had no involvement in making the vide [sic] but has promoted it. …
Details of the film — supposedly a $5m production funded by Jewish donors — remained as murky as those of its makers. The one undisputed fact was that in July a video in English was posted on YouTube under the pseudonym "Sam Bacile".
The blasphemous, 13-minute video — purportedly a trailer for a full-length film — comprised clumsily overdubbed and haphazardly-edited scenes. "Among the overdubbed words is 'Mohammed', suggesting that the footage was taken from a film about something else entirely. The footage also suggests multiple video sources …" wrote Buzzfeed's Rosie Gray.
That analysis appeared to be bolstered when a statement in the name of cast and crew was issued, distancing them from the footage. "We are 100% not behind this film, and were grossly misled about its intent and purpose. We are shocked by the drastic re-writes of the script and lies that were told to all involved. …"
"Nobody knows who [the director] is," [Yigal] Palmor [a spokesman for the Israeli foreign ministry] told reporters in a telephoned statement… He added the filmmaker was "a complete loose cannon and an unspeakable idiot."
The full story has reports an interview with one of the actresses, who apparently "had no idea she was participating in an offensive spoof on the life of Muhammed when she answered an agency's casting call last summer."
@168. Ing: I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream So I Comment Instead
Oh has StevoR put his jackboots back on again? This is what I'm talking about when I say there's a huge streak of ugly racism in Atheism. Do you think StevoR would have lasted nearly this long if his genocidal bile was directed towards any other race?
That's another apology you owe me you disgusting, lying, cowardly bully.
Just because I disagree with you on a few things and see a few issues differently does NOT make me a Nazi. I'm not this strawmonster you seem to wrongly believe I am.
You once again lose by Godwin Ing. Fuck you.
If this were my blog I'd have banned you long ago. I reccomend that PZ does that now or at least automoderates you. It isn't acceptable to lie and call people who are NOT actual members of the Nazi party, nazis.
"I don't want war with Iran" – StevoR
Gendered, disgusting insults and lies? From Ing, what a non-surprise. A trifecta from you of bullshit and bullying I see Ing.
No, I do NOT want war with Iran – & me being me I'd actually know what I want y'know! Duh!
As I've stated before my preference is that Iran stops being a Terrorist sponsoring nation, stops trying to build the Bomb and makes peace with the rest of us becoming a good global citizen.
For everyone reading at home (or elsewhere), Ing is wrong to call me an asshole and to think I don't comprehend Arabs as actual people.
I asked xer – politely – about xer Muslim friends (Not Arab) because I was curious and xe raised the topic first. I was curious because Islam is so incompatible as an ideology with what most of us think. I found it unusual and wanted to understand. Didn't think that was a crime and don't think I behaved or asked in a bad way at all. Nor did I ever get a decent answer to my questions. But, hey, that's Ing for ya.
PS. I'll reply to some other comments aimed at me later.
StevoR, you're a loathsome person.
I have Muslim friends. Every time you put your filthy hands on your keyboard, ou're saying to me "I want your friends dead".
A lot of people in my country are of Arabic descent. Every time you post a screed to me, you're saying to them "I want your families back there dead".
I kindly invite you to choke and die.
Stop reading bad fantasy novels. Muslims are people, not orcs. There's no such thing as a monolythic army bent on destruction of all that's good.
Except maybe the American Evangelicals, your kindred spirits. Can't you notice how much you sound like them?
It doesn't matter if you're a racist warmonger in the name of god or in the name of your simplistic worldview, you're still wrong.
*My ex-girlfriend is an American PMD Evangelical, and the kindest person I've ever met. You can guess I don't take kindly to people who wish to just kill them all, as well.
AshPlant says
StevoR #201:
I was curious because Islam is so incompatible as an ideology with what most of us think.
And Islam, is, of course, literally the only thing that would or could inform how a person of Arabic descent or Muslim ideology – thinks, behaves and interacts.
The characterisation of your belief by vaiyt, the linking of how see you Islam with Tolkien's orcs: that really is exactly accurate, isn't it StevoR? You think TEH ISLAM is the controlling force of a hivemind that acts as one.
You don't think you're condemning people, individuals or a nuanced civilisation to death; you think you're swatting wasps, burning their hive.
stanton says
Not all people of Arabic descent, nor all Muslims have their thinking, behavior and interactions all dictated by Islam.
Not that you give a damn.
stanton,
Try reading for comprehension. AshPlant is attributing that view to StevoR, not espousing it.
Snark fail? Apologies.
An editorial in The Grauniad, Libya: grenades lobbed from afar, is perhaps the best summary I've (yet) seen of the (current) status. It also happens to contain some rather sensible advice, which I have emboldened:
The film was attributed by US media reports to a man whom no one can now find any trace of. Indeed the original film may not have existed at all. A clip, dubbed in Arabic, was promoted by a virulent Islamophobe, Morris Sadik, an Egyptian Copt based in California, who campaigns for Egypt to be divided into five states and whose views are disowned by Christian Copts at home. The final poison of this toxic brew was added by the Florida pastor Terry Jones, who has a track record in inciting violence by burning the Qur'an.
The whole episode may have been a grotesque provocation, of which all sides taking positions in this culture war should be wary.
If this were my blog I'd have banned you long ago. I reccomend that PZ does that now or at least automoderates you
To state the blending obvious it is not your blog you piece of shit.
Everyone at home can read your comments themselves and decide if you are an arsehole or otherwise. I will agree with Ing.
Not familiar with this but sounds like JAQing off to me.
Vaiyt,
Further to your comment, StevoR the crusader is also implying it will be our fault when some religious fanatic (inevitably) kills our children because we didn't wipe the fuckers out when we had a chance.
re #194;
That was, as a matter of fact, almost verbatim what any number of Islamic fundamentalists, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the President of Iran, have said about Israel.
If StevoR doesn't want to be treated as a straw monster, it should stop talking like one.
There's a reason why He Who Fights Monsters is a trope.
Except that in StevoR's case, as far as anyone knows, he DOESN'T fight at all, he just talks about fighting on the Internet.
Whereas you can tell the "good guys" because they write kill-and-tell books about how they raid and shoot unarmed people, make movies glorifying their military exploits, create a whole gaming industry featuring the endless deaths of faceless jihadis in 3d, and brag about how effective their drone-strikes are every time they double-tap a funeral and rack up a few first responders. I'm sure there are firemen and cops in NYC who could sympathise with how tough double-tapping can be on responders… But our heroes' uniforms are nicer, aren't they?
roland says
Right, an ambassador and three others murdered, scores of people threatened with physical violence, but the ones who made a lousy film, THOSE are the vile ones!
clastum3 says
The film seems to be reaping widespread criticism round here. The comparison is being made with shouting "fire" in a cinema.
Are there differences of substance or degree with the cracker incident, that makes the one reprehensible and the other not?
penguinninja says
De-lurking just to echo the brilliant and articulate posters here:
StevoR, you are a terrible, terrible person. Does not the fact that you sound like a more rabid Dick Cheney cause you to pause and reflect?
What a Maroon, el papa ateo says
Has anyone told the women of India (or China or sub-Saharan Africa or Latin America or Ireland…)?
Or, for that matter, atheist women?
re 215;
It's both.
The difference is content. One consisted of things that are true, the other is made up of misrepresentations, distortions, and lies.
The difference is intent. One was done in protest of another incident. The other seems solely done to inflame.
When both content AND intent are completely different, what similarities that appear to remain are largely imaginary.
roland the troll:
This is wrong and a lie.
It's also a false dichotomy.
Both the film makers and the violent ME mobs are fucked up.
It's entirely possible for both groups to be wrong and evil.
Rutee Katreya says
The cracker incident wasn't racist, nor calling for genocide.
Fucking asshole.
I don't give a fuck about his outlandish scenarios. It's the abortion hypothetical battle all over again.
Besides, our Muslim population is as peaceful as it gets. I doubt you could make them start a jihad at gunpoint.
If you look at a dozen of Romney's stump speeches in which he mentions foreign policy you will find him repeating the word "apology" (in reference to Obama) over and over again. Romney wrote a book called "No Apology" and he is riffing on the right-wing myth that Obama conducted an "Apology Tour."
None of this true. There was no "apology tour" but Romney and Co. seem to actually believe this shit.
Rumsfield endorsed Romney and has recently repeated another lie that ties neatly into the "apologist in chief" lie: Rumsfield says that Obama creates the perception that American is weak, thus precipitating attacks like the one in Benghazi. Rumsfield tweeted: "The attacks on our embassies & diplomats are a result of perceived American weakness. Mitt Romney is right to point that out."
As Steve Benen wrote for The Maddow Blog:
….That rascally Obama, after ordering the strike that killed bin Laden, decimating al Qaeda, and helping topple the Gadhafi regime, has signaled American "weakness" abroad, which in turn encourages anti-American protests at our diplomatic facilities. After all, the argument goes, people wouldn't dare protest if they perceived America as strong, right?
This line of attack has a certain child-like charm, which may appeal to those who don't think too much about the details and overlook Rumsfeld's tragic lack of credibility.
But there's another problem: "[T]here were twelve terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities abroad during George W. Bush's tenure — the most of any president in history — and eight of those occurred while Donald Rumsfeld was in office."
There were also seven attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities during the Reagan era.
In other words, by Rumsfeld's standards, American embassies and consulates were targeted in years past because, during Ronald Reagan's and George W. Bush's presidencies, foreigners "perceived American weakness."….
My take on this is that, although some campaign staffers may be lying knowingly, others, including Romney actually believe this distorted view.
I heard Fox News anchors repeating the "apology" stuff as true all day yesterday. Then they added the "it's Obama's fault we were attacked because he made America look weak" meme.
The "apology" and "weak" memes are not supported by the facts, but they add to the theme that Obama is somehow not an American, doesn't know how to be an American, etc. Sound the birther and the Muslim dog whistles. Romney's use of the word "sympathize" in his first statement was an Obama-is-a-Muslim dog whistle.
The fact that Romney doubled and then tripled down on his errors of judgement and fact shows that he really likes the far-right gobbledygook he has been fed. This makes him far scarier than your run of the mill venal politician.
We should not ignore the fact that as many as ten Libyans died fighting to protect the embassy.
the savage attack on the consulate in Benghazi that took the lives of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans, and as many as 10 Libyans fighting to protect the consulate.
As Hillary Clinton noted, it was Libyans that carried Ambassador Christopher Steven to the hospital.
md says
Recently liberated ungrateful Libyan Muslims kill an American ambassador, PZ blames a Christian Pastor.
Whereas you can tell the "good guys" because they write kill-and-tell books about how they raid and shoot unarmed people, make movies glorifying their military exploits, create a whole gaming industry featuring the endless deaths of faceless jihadis in 3d, and brag about how effective their drone-strikes are every time they double-tap a funeral and rack up a few first responders.
Bingo. We are the "good guys" only because people insist that we are, not because of the actual things we do. From the article:
More than 92,600 civilians were killed in armed violence in Iraq from 2003 to 2008, and U.S.-led coalition forces showed higher rates of indiscriminate killing of women and children than insurgents, a study has found….
For all types of weapons combined, and for small arms fire, coalition forces had a higher dirty war index rating than anti-coalition forces, the researchers said.
Madelyn Hsiao-Rei Hicks of the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London, who led the study, stressed that this did not mean coalition forces had killed more women and children, but that there was a high proportion of women and children among the civilians they killed.
Shhhh. Shut up, facts. WE'RE THE GOOD GUYS. I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
Apparently vileness is a zero sum game (?)
Did PZ Myers libel Catholics and justify violence against them when he defiled their magic cracker? Was he insulting ethnicities and nationalities? The answer is "no". Not for anyone who was actually watching Crackergate from a vantage point outside of the ever-expanding borders of Bizarro World.
Recently liberated ungrateful Libyan Muslims kill an American ambassador, PZ blames a Christian Pastor md lies about PZ's reaction.
FIFY.
Amphiox #219 –
the substantive content of the cracker thing was not truth or lies but an act: the desecration (in catholic eyes ) of something holy to them. So your differentiation is not valid.
Also on intent: this can't be objectively judged from the content of actions. In fact, the anti-islam thing can more easily be alleged to be protest, what's more, protest at ongoing persecutions and not at a single incident.
potty-mouth Rutee Katreya #221 –
is lampooning islam inherently racist and genocidal? Where's the call for genocide in the clip?
One of the best summaries I've read of the embassy announcement and tweets from Cairo, and of Romney's misinterpretation.
…"Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry."…
The embassy rejects the movie but defends free speech and condemns the invasion of its compound.
…Romney's description of the embassy's initial statement—"sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt, instead of condemning their actions"—was blatantly false. When the embassy issued its morning statement, no one had breached the wall. After the breach, when the embassy tweeted that its initial statement "still stands," it added in the same breath: "As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy."
At his press conference, Romney accused Obama of "having that embassy reiterate a statement effectively apologizing for the right of free speech." Romney claimed that the embassy had said, in his paraphrase, "We stand by our comments that suggest that there's something wrong with the right of free speech." This, too, was a Romney lie. The embassy had declared five times in writing that free speech was a universal right….
Full article in Slate here.
Not some, but all of the most offensive religious lines in the film were dubbed after the fact. This was done to hide the true nature of the film from the actors who participated.
Full story and video clip here.
…every reference to the religion of Islam in the trailer is dubbed over in post production.
If you watch closely, you can see that when the actors are reading parts of the script that do not contain Islam-specific language, the audio from the sound stage is used (the audio that was recorded as the actors were simultaneously being filmed). But anytime the actors are referring to something specific to the religion (the Prophet Muhammed, the Quran, etc.) the audio recorded during filming is replaced with a poorly executed post-production dub. And if you look EVEN closer, you can see that the actors' mouths are saying something other than what the dub is saying.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says
So your differentiation is not valid.
Only in your mind and OPINION.
Cindy Lee Garcia, an actress from Bakersfield, Calif., has a small role in the Muhammed movie as a woman whose young daughter is given to Muhammed to marry. But in a phone interview this afternoon, Garcia told us she had no idea she was participating in an offensive spoof on the life of Muhammed when she answered a casting call through an agency last summer and got the part.
The script she was given was titled simply Desert Warriors.
"It was going to be a film based on how things were 2,000 years ago," Garcia said. "It wasn't based on anything to do with religion, it was just on how things were run in Egypt. There wasn't anything about Muhammed or Muslims or anything."
In the script and during the shooting, nothing indicated the controversial nature of the final product, now called Muslim Innocence. Muhammed wasn't even called Muhammed; he was "Master George," Garcia said. The word "Muhammed" was dubbed over in post-production, as were essentially all other offensive references to Islam and Muhammed.
Excerpts above from this article.
The lies from Romney and his dunderheaded backers are working. Twice as many conservatives now believe President Obama is a Muslim as did in 2008. See! Faux News works.
It works on Romney. No wonder he put out a statement that Obama sympathized with the mob that attacked the embassy.
Pew Forum poll.
The new survey on religion and politics finds that nearly four years into his presidency the view that Barack Obama is Muslim persists. Currently, 17% of registered voters say that Obama is Muslim; 49% say he is Christian, while 31% say they do not know Obama's religion.
The percentage of voters identifying Obama's religion as Christian has increased since August 2010, from 38% to 49%, while there has been little change in the percentage saying he is Muslim (19% then, 17% today). Still, fewer say Obama is Christian – and more say he is Muslim – than did so in October 2008, near the end of the last presidential campaign. The increase since 2008 is particularly concentrated among conservative Republicans, about a third of whom (34%) describe the president as a Muslim….
Joan Walsh, writing for Salon, on the big lie about Obama being Muslim:
…It's impossible to ignore the way that Romney's accusation not-so-subtly plays into that pervasive GOP belief that the president shares a religion with our enemies. Obama is not merely weak in dealing with them, in the Romney narrative; he actively "sympathizes" with them and delivered "an apology for America's values" instead of a rebuke.
…I'm counting on more Americans being appalled by Romney's shamelessness than reassured by it, but it's always risky to bet against the effectiveness of GOP fear-mongering.
Romney has made clear that he's never going to pivot to the middle to win over independent voters; he obviously thinks his only path to victory is firing up the backward, racist and xenophobic elements of the GOP base. Now we know that strategy has succeeded in doubling the percent of conservatives who think the president shares a religion with people they see, one dimensionally, as the enemy. Well played, Mr. Romney. We'll see where it gets you in November.
Recently liberated ungrateful Libyan Muslims kill an American ambassador,
'ungrateful'? to the country that supported their dictator's regime for a decade? Say it isn't so.
is lampooning islam inherently racist and genocidal?
Inherently, no. In practice, yeah, it generally is. Don't pretend Fundies of any stripe have cause to pretend they're better than islamic fundies, also.
the substantive content of the cracker thing was not truth or lies but an act: the desecration (in catholic eyes ) of something holy to them.
And so? That's not the substantive content of the so-called film, so your assumed equivalence is false.
Also, the USA did not actually liberate the Libyan people. They provided support to the Libyans who liberated themselves. That's the right level of aid to give, yes. But it's the right level of aid to give because it undercuts the claim to 'liberate' a group that liberated itself, and keep from actually conquering them and installing a puppet regime. So can we go ahead and cut the shit out that the USA 'liberated' Libya?
But those are Muslim lives, so they don't count. We know they're all a bunch of wild-eyed fanatics who are just praying for martyrdom, after all….
Ben Stein desecrates Atheism, no one riots.
PZ desecrates a 'holy' cracker, no one riots.
Somebody desecrates Islam, people die and Pharyngulites reserve their harshest words for the moviemakers and moral equivalence for some unrelated Pastor. You people are really disgusting.
Oh md, keep confusing racist asshattery with 'desecration'. It makes you look so enlightened and rational. You win the most atheist award, clearly, for valuing desecration above everything else.
Don't worry, your disgust is mutual.
So can we go ahead and cut the shit out that the USA 'liberated' Libya?
Semantics, Rutee. Without the U.S. most the of residents of Benghazi would be in the graveyard right now. Europe couldnt do it. And yes, free(er) Libyans today should have some level of gratitude towards the U.S. for that. Not that I supported Obama's intervention, because I knew it would not forstall events like the other day.
Blessed Reagan had the good sense to pull us out of Lebanon, because he knew it wasnt' important. If only we had that level of realistic leadership in either party today and I just might go vote in Nov.
Amen to Rutee #240
md needs some mud to go with all that straw its gathering to build its edifice of lies and false equivalencies.
Pitiful.
why do I never hear anyone making fun of the Ganesh Milk miracle around here? Is that racist to do so Rutee? Genocidal perhaps…ha
Grow up kids.
Ben Stein bungled and lied about science. He didn't "desecrate" anything, let alone atheism.
The entertaining part about saying "no one riots" about Crackergate was that Crackergate was a response to a student being forced to return a magic cracker because of all of the Catholic outcries and death threats .
And, of course, no one is excusing the violence of Muslims while reserving the right to point out that lying bigots are lying bigots.
md, you are a fucking moron accusing moral people of being immoral for daring to care about more than one thing. In a perfect world, that is what would really be disgusting. In our less than perfect world, bleating ignorami will see your completely ill-informed righteous indignation, based on nothing but poor reading comprehension and outright straw-men, and nod in agreement, sputtering about how brave and insightful they believe your idiocy is.
Semantics, Rutee. Without the U.S. most the of residents of Benghazi would be in the graveyard right now.
Tanks are not unbeatable weapons, as the USA should have learned in Vietnam. There would almost certainly have been greater losses, but it does not mean that the USian support 'liberated' Libya. The LIbyans did. The USA chose to finally get on the right side at the very end, when it was clear the regime was doomed without mass support from the USA, which it would not and could not give.
You remind me of the Christians who were sure the HAitians signed a literal deal with the devil, as there was just no other way the black residents could have beaten their oppressors.
The most immature person here is you. You need to mature, not us. Why don't you show your maturity by either showing real evidence, or stopping with your immature OPINION.
why do I never hear anyone making fun of the Ganesh Milk miracle around here?
Because it's irrelevant, I imagine.
Is that racist to do so Rutee? Genocidal perhaps…ha
It can be racist. Whether it is or isn't depends on execution, unsurprisingly.
If the US "liberated" Libya by helping them, then France "liberated" America in 1776.
The French actually have a much stronger claim to doing just that, seeing as they lent considerable military aid and opened up numerous fronts with the British. They didn't just ship guns or shell the occasional emplacement (much closer to very limited air strikes) The number of soldiers they committed to the conflict was much higher than the nascent US's, although they didn't have as many in North America, obv.
I don't think I'd say they did, but it's a hell of a lot better a claim. What'd really be the best comparison I can draw would be if *Poland* claimed to liberate the USA.
No Rutee, it is you and your fellow travelers who miss the point. People were killed in a religion inspired Islamic mob, and PZ and the rests ONLY post about it is to change the topic to heap scorn on the moviemakers. That is the point.
PZ is often not the guilty party here, though. Ive read him criticize Islam a few times. I remember him reprinting some of the Danish cartoons. Its usually the commenters here who change the topic from some Islamist's latest atrocity to the evil and murderous Christianity and the inquisition and the Pope and abortion rights fanatics within 3 comments.
By all means, criticise Xians. Criticise this movie, it was stupid, but not nearly as stupid, not in the same ballpark, not in the same universe, as killing someone over it. Maybe just make it the second post on the topic, as it is less important.
BTW, you get no quarrel from me saying France helped the U.S. in its revolution. And I am grateful. I got no problem with the historical record. Ergo I have no problem with people saying Mohammed was a pedophile.
'change the topic'? He set it in the first place, and at any rate, plenty of people are going to condemn the rioters. It is generally understood that killing is bad. What isn't generally understood is that racism is bad; at least, not in a substantive way.
BTW, you get no quarrel from me saying France helped the U.S. in its revolution.
So when white people actually bleed in the thousands for other white people, it's 'help', but a few bombs dropped on former allies' armor for brown people it's 'liberation'?
Atheism isn't a religion, so there's nothing to "desecrate".
They rioted before, against the boy that inspired PZ to desecrate the cracker.
Somebody desecrates makes a ignorant and racist movie about Islam,
This is not about the offense it caused to Muslims, and I suspect you know it. We're supposed to nod in agreement to this kind of vacuous bullshit just because it happens to offend the religious? Aren't we supposed to be the rational ones?
You people are really disgusting.
The feeling is mutual.
md:
Its usually the commenters here who change the topic from some Islamist's latest atrocity to the evil and murderous Christianity and the inquisition and the Pope and abortion rights fanatics within 3 comments.
That's usually only happens when people try to give context after the blatant Islamophobes blather on and on about how Islam is obviously the worst and most evil religion EVAR. Not like you care. Facts that don't support you are facts to be ignored.
Blockquotes, how do they work?
You know why that happens? Because, every time some discussion on Islam starts, we are visited by some jackass racist who wants to use the latest Muslim-related headline to blather about how Islam is objectively more eviler than other religions and that means we should just nuke the Middle East before they kill us.
—That's usually only happens when people try to give context after the blatant Islamophobes blather on and on about how Islam is obviously the worst and most evil religion EVAR
Dunno what is the most evil religion EVAR, but Islam is worse than Christianity today. Don't be afraid to judge.
My borked blockquotes are usually traced to misspellings, usually transposed "ot". At work, if I take the time, I have text file with the tags, and use copypasta to insert the text, and respond after the end tag. The copypasta to the comment box.
If you use Firefox, some handy addons like TextFormattingToolbar are available and work well.
Don't be afraid to judge.
It is only a bigot that makes such a judgement call, singling out one for special treatment. It does say something about you and your morals.
blatant Islamophobes blather on and on about how Islam is obviously the worst and most evil religion EVAR
Which is virtually every time a coded message for "these evil brown people should be taught their place with bombs and marines pissing on their corpses"
And, in the peace talks afterwards, the Americans and British conspired to screw France over completely. There's gratitude for you.
The France that helped America, incidentally, was the France of Louis XVI. The war cost them dearly and when they failed to get any of the concessions they wanted at the peace conference, it helped wreck their economy, and contributed to the revolution that destroyed their regime and cost King Louis his life.
The difference between Islam and Christianity today is the difference between between a leashed Tiger and a free one. And the leash is secularism.
The difference is in the circumstance of having a leash. Inherently, there is no difference.
Just a note, the producer of the film and distributor on youtube is an Egyptian not an American. So lets get that out there.
As far as all the Muslim hating going on, I have studied the Koran, when I see "quotes" that sound outrageous on the net I will often ask for clarification from the Mullah who is attributed. All such requests over the years were courteously replied to even Muqtada al-Sadr (although I dont bother with many of the whackjob mullahs of the NW frontier, they barely understand the Koran at all.). After clarification I still disagreed but was able to understand the internal logic of the fatwa.
The person who is responsible for this movie is Egyptian. He is creating what is best translated as "Mischief" The arab world should acknowledge that fact honestly. Any attempts to link this film to create attacks against US interests or citizens is also "Mischief" and haram.
Lets see if true Muslims will speak out on this matter
It is beginning to seem more and more unlikely that the people who burned the embassy in Benghazi, and who killed both Americans and Libyans there, were just a mob of Muslims insulted by a poorly produced and dishonestly dubbed movie.
Another group, one who showed up with rocket-propelled grenades, took advantage of the situation and/or planned it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#49012565
Oh, to show how you ignore facts:
[1.] BTW, you get no quarrel from me saying France helped the U.S. in its revolution. And I am grateful. I got no problem with the historical record. [2.] Ergo I have no problem with people saying Mohammed was a pedophile.
1. You said "liberate". The person you were responding to said "liberate". The entire point of argument was saying that the U.S. "liberated" Libya when they really only aided their revolution. Would you say that the French, not only "helped, but "liberated" the U.S.? If yes, then you are consistent. If no, then you are not. As it is: You are intentionally avoiding their point.
2. Mohammed was a pedophile if we are judging by 21st century standards, where attraction and sexual relationships with pre-teens is considered abnormal. The problem? The fact that such relationships apparently weren't considered abnormal in Mohammed's time and place. It is ironic to say you have "no problem with the historical record" while judging Mohammed for apparently violating an obviously ahistorical standard, completely ignorant of nuance and context. Women were generally married before age 14 in Ancient Greece, the Ashkenazi Jews of Middle Ages Europe could arrange marriages for their daughters of age 3 to 12, English law of the Middle Ages allowed for child marriage for girls age 7 to 12, present day South Africa allows for marriages at age 12, and 18% of girls in modern day India are married before age 15. So, seriously, cut out this "pedophilia" shit. It is completely ignorant of historical context.
And, no, Christianity is not obviously better than Islam. I've already cited the evidence. The majority Christian coalition in Iraq was guilty of having a greater proportion of women/children among their kills than those evil, amoral Muslims. The Christians were doing more indiscriminate killing than the Muslims. So what, exactly, is it that makes Muslims worse than Christians?
Well, it took awhile, but the right has found a narrative it likes to provide cover for Romney's ineptitude. They are blaming the media.
The Wall Street Journal opines "Romney Offends the Pundits Doesn't he know he's not supposed to debate foreign policy?"
Ari Fleischer "And I don't remember any of this media double standard saying to Senator Obama, isn't it inappropriate for you to criticize the foreign policy of the person you're running against on the day when people died? It's a double standard, Anderson. [from transcript of CNN interview]
Erick Erickson "The American Media Beclowned Themselves Yesterday"
John Podhoretz "The media lash out, Bashing Mitt's Mideast comments"
Rich Lowry "Romney is right: Libya debacle belongs in debate" Story on politico.com
Philip Klein "How the media turned Obama's foreign policy bungle into a Romney gaffe"
Yes indeed. The actual protest itself in Libya started out relatively peacefully.
But of course, when it is Muslims gathering to protest, it is automatically a "violent mob".
Pro American Libyan rally:
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/13/moving_pictures_of_pro_american_libyan_rally/
You mean the whole thing was reported to racist standards when it was actually not a violent mob to begin with?
Well. I was wholly ignorant, my bad for supporting that shit.
@Lynna: Yeah, there's been a bunch of rallies in support the USA, that much I did know about.
More on the anti-Muslim movie propaganda maker: seems the due was a meth cook.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/13/mohammed-movie-s-mystery-director.html
More on the obviouse douchebags associated with the film:
… the film's consultant, Steve Klein, told another news organization that "Bacile" was a pseudonym and that he was not Jewish or Israeli. Klein, an insurance agent in Hemet, Calif., said the money used to finance the low-budget flop came from a mixed bag of donors, including Middle Easterners, Jewish people, Christians, and former Muslims.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which wrote about Klein and his affiliation with a California extremist evangelical group called Church at Kaweah that is said to have roots in the militia movement, noted Klein once bragged about leading a "hunter killer" team as a marine in Vietnam.
According to the Law Center article, which appeared in the Intelligence Report in the spring of 2012, Klein stated that California is riddled with Muslim Brotherhood sleeper cells "who are awaiting the trigger date and will begin randomly killing as many of us as they can."
The article quoted Klein, who sued the California city of San Clemente for stopping him from placing fliers on cars opposing illegal immigration, as saying: "I know I'm getting prepared to shoot back." Klein, who calls Islam a "penis-driven religion," according to the article, became the leader of the California-based Concerned Citizens for the First Amendment in 2011. The organization led a campaign directed toward students and passed out fliers that portrayed the Prophet Muhammed as a deviant pedophile.
Klein is also linked to the Minuteman movement, the Christian Guardians, and the Utah-based Anti-Muslim group called Courageous Christians United. According to its website, the group exists to boldly and respectfully defend traditional Christianity against cults and other "false" religions and philosophies on all sorts of levels, and to equip the Body of Christ in facing these challenges. A recent posting on their message board states: "CCU involvement in the making of the 'The Innocence of Muslims' will soon become public. Your hateful ways will be exposed to the world."…
Romney is described by Mother Jones as going the full D'Souza:
…Romney's statement isn't coming out of nowhere: It comes out of a very well-developed narrative, popular on the fever swamps of the right where questions about Obama's citizenship or faith linger. The idea that Obama is driven chiefly by hatred of America and the West and harbors a desire to make America pay for its transgressions is the thesis of Dinesh D'Souza's recently released film, 2016: Obama's America. The film is a "documentary" version of various articles D'Souza has written over the past few years alleging that Obama can only be understood through the lens of "Kenyan anti-colonialism," an ideology bestowed on Obama by the father he hardly knew.
D'Souza's film, which has been successful at the box office, is meant to provide a scholarly sounding argument that reaches the same conclusions about Obama's nature implied by the right-wing conspiracy theories that have dogged the president since 2008: That he is a secret Muslim who wasn't born in the United States and is therefore hostile to America and its ideals….
I didn't like the sound of D'Souza's film when I first heard about it. I liked it even less when I heard about the huge pre-sale of tickets. Sigh.
I hope they have caught at some of the people responsible for killing Ambassador Stevens and others.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Libyan security forces have arrested four people and that a larger group is under surveillance.
The country [Libya] has organized a multiagency task force, made up of intelligence, defense, and interior officials to hunt down the suspected Islamic militants who carried out the attack. Meanwhile, officials have announced that a former Navy SEAL was among the four Americans killed during the attack. 42-year-old Glen Doherty was part of the security team protecting the ambassador.
The Fox News version of events — here is their Fox Nation headline for today:
Obama Calls Libyan President to Thank Him After US Ambassador Murdered
No need to link to that. You can pretty much guess the content.
Mohammed was a pedophile if we are judging by 21st century standards […] such relationships apparently weren't considered abnormal in Mohammed's time and place
That is irrelevant. Much more relevant is that the main source about Muhammad supposed pedophilia was the grandson of one of Muhammad's cousins who was suffering from senile dementia. With such a credible source, we can reasonnably say that
1. We don't know and may never know beyond reasonnable doubt whether Islam's founder was really a child molester.
Buuuuuut
2. We can, and should judge those who use Muhammad supposed pedophilia as an excuse for their agenda, whether they are clerics trying to justify child molesting today or racist trying to pass their intent to opress Muslims as high-minded principles.
sc_a5d5b3a48ba402d40e1725cbb3ce1375 says
raymoscow, some hours back:
This anti-Muhammed 'movie' is looking like a massive troll.
I was going to say the same thing with more words. But what really concerns me is the troll's feeders (the news media) and vocal supporters (the Terry Jones crowd).
I'm somewhat puzzled by how the media and others are discussing this as if it's a matter of "Some nut made a bigoted film and angry riots have occured in response." Yes, this "Sam Bacile" person is a fraudulent asshole; but it's not like the Muslim world has a crystal ball to track every time someone insults the Prophet. (Not to mention that, as others have pointed out, the film is just one of many contributing factors to something that's been planned for a while.)
"Innocence of Muslims" was funded and promoted by extreme Christian groups. They quite likely wanted all this to happen. Romney's response, though it may ensure his loss in November, is a kind of icing on the cake for certain fundies, because now an Actual Candidate has made motions in the direction of "Obama is a Manichurian Secret Muslim".
I won't say these groups have any blood on their hands, but that's besides the point – they still deserve condemnation regardless, even if no embassy attack occurred whatsoever. Yes, "in spite of" people committing murder, the original film is racist and not an informative critique. Surely that's not too complex for people to understand? (Oh, me of little faith.)
For the record, I doubt a single person posting here has any "sympathy", to use Romney's word, for the murderers. We can all agree that they are horrible people. Actually saying as much feels redundant — in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky scandal, how many people clarified their opposition to raping children, versus the number of people who chose to argue (for and against) Joe Paterno' and Penn State's culpability? People discuss the discussable. Those who say "Why aren't you saying anything negative about the attackers?" show themselves to be on the same wavelength as the Obama-lurves-terrorist-moozlims camp, in their apparent belief that perhaps liberals think this sort of thing is okay.
The rightosphere's take on this is one of the more reality-deficient things I've seen from them in a while. What the hell is Obama supposed to do to not look weak and apologetic… burn a Koran? Sheesh.
Lyanna, OM:
Sweet fucking flying spaghetti Jesus. I don't want to Google that and find out you didn't make that up.
For the record, the Libyan president is one of the good guys here, as far as I know. Naturally, that's incoherent to the neocons. The phenomenon satirized by this old Onion headline has become more and more prevalent with every passing year.
Okay, I couldn't help myself. I read the comments. There are sane heads, and there are gems like "If we cut off aid we will get their attention. Perhaps then they will be more interested in America's interests." Huh, I don't recall anyone saying Congress should cut all funding to Colorodo after the Aurora shooting. Yet this is becoming the new party line: Libya and Obama are responsible for "allowing" the attacks to happen, and in both cases it's because they secretly wanted the attacks to happen. Christ.
But that's a post-fact determination.
nope. The makers are quoted as noting they intended for and KNEW this film would cause an uproar.
by their own admission, the purpose of the film was nothing other than incitement.
Recently liberated ungrateful Libyan Muslims
I knew this was inevitable.
morons like the person that wrote that really do think that somehow the world is boiled down to the "oppressed" and the "heroes" that liberate them.
stop reading comic books, and learn something about the way people are in reality, fool.
@md 241
"Without the U.S. most the of residents of Benghazi would be in the graveyard right now. Europe couldnt do it.
Presumably Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Spain and the UK aren't in Europe? I mean given how it was the French Air Force that helped protected Benghazi against the army
another Islamic mob, another riot, another torching. this time, a KFC in Tripoli over a Papal visit to Lebanon.
http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=285118
Perhaps Libyans would prefer a Chic-fil-a.
md,
You're evidently too fucking ignorant to distinguish between Tripoli, Libya and Tripoli, Lebanon. I think that gives a measure of how seriously we should take you.
Criticise this movie, it was stupid, but not nearly as stupid, not in the same ballpark, not in the same universe, as killing someone over it. Maybe just make it the second post on the topic, as it is less important. – md
Maybe get used to the fact that this is not your blog, you ignorant lying shitbag.
#287 one was a city in the ME that was incredibly awesome until it was taken over by sectarian dirtbags, the other was a city in Africa that was incredibly awesome until it was taken over by sectarian dirtbags
Nick Gotts,
Your deformed morality takes shape. I criticize the Islamic mob. I wonder aloud why its so easy to whip a Muslim mob into a property destroying and life taking frenzy. I wonder why Pharyngulite commenters are always so quick to change the subject to Christians whenever some Islamic fanatic pops a vein. You call me ignorant and a shitbag for doing so. Ive got the measure of you just right.
@283. Ichthyic :
So I suppose you think the USA and Western world did nothing to help protect and liberate Libya from Gaddafi's dictatorship? Wrong.
@278. laurentweppe
Mohammed was a pedophile if we are judging by 21st century
From wikipedia – & prove me wrong if you disagree :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha#Age_at_marriage
Aisha stayed in her parents' home for several years until she joined Muhammad and the marriage was consummated when she was nine.[6][8][9][11][12][13] However, al-Tabari records that she was ten.[8] The sources do not offer much more information about Aisha's childhood years, but mention that after the wedding, she continued to play with her toys, and that Muhammad entered into the spirit of these games.[14]
The issue of Aisha's age at the time she was married to Muhammad has been of interest since the earliest days of Islam, and references to her age by early historians are frequent. Early Muslims regarded Aisha's youth as demonstrating her virginity and therefore her suitability as a bride of Muhammad. According to Spellberg, historians who supported Aisha's position in the debate of the succession to Muhammad against Shi'a claims considered her youth, and therefore her purity, to be of paramount importance. They thus specifically emphasized it, implying that as Muhammad's only virgin wife, Aisha was divinely intended for him, and therefore the most credible in the debate.
So seems Aisha was a child of nine or perhaps ten years old when Mohammad -then in his fifties – raped her.
Are you really sure you want to defend / excuse / be an apologist for such shit?
Yeesh, for an atheist blog there sure are a lot of commenters sympatheising with and excusing extremist Islam here.
strange gods before me ॐ says
So I suppose you think the USA and Western world did nothing to help protect and liberate Libya from Gaddafi's dictatorship?
You drunk, StevoR?
@205. vaiyt
Wrong. That may be your opinion but that is wrong.
I do NOT want your friends dead.
Again bullshit.
Maybe you should try rereading for comprehension this time?
Invitation for that declined.
Stop reading bad fantasy novels. Muslims are people, not orcs. There's no such thing as a monolythic army bent on destruction of all that's good. Except maybe the American Evangelicals, your kindred spirits. Can't you notice how much you sound like them?
So, when was the last time that a anti-Christian evangelical stunt literally ended in murder and arson?
Yes, Chruastians get offended and pissed off at shit. They tend not to throw tanty's on quite the Muzzie scale tho' eh?
Am I?
I'm neither racist nor a warmonger.
Islam is an ideology – a religion – NOT a race.
Couldn't give a shit about skin colour personally and "race" is biologically meaningless bullshit.
As for war mongering well, I'm not calling for any wars. Wish they weren't happening.
But y'know, we are kinda at war in a few places now whether I or you want to accept that reality or not.
What do you suggest we do when confronted with Jihadist violence and Jihadist grups such as Al Quaeda, Hamas & the Taliban Surrender? Convert? Die? Or fight?
Take your pick.
Got another option? Go ahead, explain it – but will the Jihadists be so generous?
@293. trange gods before me ॐ :
Continued : @293. strange gods before me ॐ :
BTW. What's your answer to that and how do you suggest we deal with extremist Jihadist groups?
There's no point in your commenting, then. You should stop.
@ 297. strange gods before me ॐ :
Yeah, you're probably right. Anyhow qually for MotoGP is on. Cheers. Catch y'all later.
Ichthyic,
Don't forget raven.
Same failure of thought — monolithic "Islam" lacks gratitude and has short memory.
Yep. In StevoR's world its either wholesale slaughter and the bombing of babies, or total surrender.
Absolutely nothing in between. Not police action, not containment, nothing.
How pathetic.
And yet it says the exact same things as racists and warmongers do, and sounds exactly like Osama bin Laden.
It is not apparent that this attack was a deliberately planned one by a militant group that only used the relatively peaceful demonstration as an opportunity for cover, and has pretty much NOTHING to do with that movie. There are even some eyewitness accounts that indicate there was NO demonstration at all.
And yet StevoR still spouts this nonsense.
Utterly pathetic.
Wars which StevoR's "side" started. They had other options to deal with terrorist attacks and threats, but they chose war. One of them against a regime, though odious, was not involved with the terrorists at all, and which attracted terrorist activity into that nation.
Who are the warmongers again?
Yes, Chruastians get offended and pissed off at shit. They tend not to throw tanty's on quite the Muzzie scale tho' eh? – StevoR
Does the name Anders Behring Breivik ring any bells, lackwit? He spewed exactly the sort of racist garbage you do, then went out and committed mass murder. Since you have called for genocide on this very blog, it wouldn't surprise me to find that you are planning some of the same. I certainly think the Australian security services should be keeping an eye on you.
Very few racists or warmongers describe themselves as such. Racism means actions that reinforce existing inequalities and oppressions based on ethnicity – which your obsessive hating on Muslims most certainly does. So yes, you are a racist, even if you prefer not to admit it to yourself. You are also most certainly a warmonger, cheering on the Israeli politicians who – against the wishes of senior military figures in the same country – have been ramping up the rhetoric of an attack on Iran.
That seems to be pretty much your default state. It appears to bring out the worst in you, and a pretty disgusting worst it is. Perhaps you should seek some sort of help. But you won't get it here, where you are almost universally loathed.
You can keep asserting that, does not make it true either.
Except you do, asshole. You think preemptive strikes against them are justified. You think every Muslim is just a baby-stabber waiting to happen. You want to try and roll over my friends' countries and punish them for being Sauron's minions. You don't seem to care how many civilians and innocent died, and still do, in American attacks.
Or maybe you should try not to be an obvious raving bigot. The fact you can't even comprehend how Muslims can talk about normal people concerns highlights how absurdly distant your views are from reality.
Abortion clinics. Post 9/11 Sikh murders. Uganda.
You were saying?
Thanks for demonstrating exactly what you were trying to deny for the rest of your post, idiot.
You keep telling yourself that Islam is The Religion of Evil(tm) and looking for Jihadists under your bed, while ignoring the angry elephant already in the room.
You don't call for any wars, except when you do. Eh, maybe in your head you call them "baby-stabbing prevention measures", but it's still war.
I'm not afraid of Jihadists in my neck of the woods. The chance of an Al-Qaeda terrorist attack here is, as far as I know, in the vicinity of zero. Our Muslims are probably the most peaceful religious community around, except for maybe the Buddhists.
You know what I'm afraid of? Christians. Around one fifth of my country is Evangelical. Their churches are being pumped with American money and influence. They're making a cross-party bloc of voters in congress that's blocking abortion rights and trying to halt stem-cell research. Creationism is making some timid inroads.
Religious violence is unheard of in my town… except for guess who? The Christians who keep harassing the followers of African religions. They're also big spreaders of the "If my son is gay, I'd kill him" meme.
Should we object so such infiltration and start rounding up Americans?
This is a tentative thing, and I can't confidently say "yes! it's obviously true!", but it's being reported that the attack in Benghazi was not really a response to the film, but rather a response to the drone assassination of Abu Yahya al-Libi.
stevensullivan says
It seems now that
1) the film maker was a Coptic Christian and his only confirmed backers are Coptic Christians and evangelicals. No Jews or Israelis cited so far.
2)the Libyan attack may well have been a military action, using the anti-film protests as cover
So perhaps some amendments to PZ's original post are in order?
Brownian says
Oh, FFS.
Why is it that every time there's a protracted argument about how Muslims are clearly more evil than everyone else, there seems to be a goddamn Australian at the centre of it all?
Goddamn genocidal racist motherfuckers.
stevensullivan,
Yes, I agree that another update to the OP looks necessary! Although we may well not have got to the bottom of who made the thing yet. Currently, the police are questioning Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, suspected to be behind the alias "Sam Bacile" and the movie, on suspicion of violating the probation conditions imposed when he was released for a sentence for bank fraud: that he not use either the internet or any aliases without prior permission.
I like that vaiyt's response to StevoR is almost word for word my first reaction to him. People would be forgiven for thinking we're sock puppets, but it is indeed a completely independent convergence of thought.
Oh and since it just pisses him off I think I'll repeat my point, demonstrated SO well above, that StevoR sounds just like Nazi or Al Queda propaganda because he is of the same ilk.
He just sounds typical of his fucked up culture. Start at this Wikipedia page and do some reading.
It's like it's in their DNA or something. You can argue all you want with SteveoR, but I wonder if he can even help being who he is. In his country's history, I don't think they've ever met a group of non-whites they didn't want to exterminate or expel, from Aboriginals to Asians. It's like they're working their way through the alphabet.
While I would not claim we're perfect, citing our own residential schools, internment of the Japanese, etc. (and Crommunist can undoubtedly go into even more depth), I will note that there's no corresponding "Racism in Canada" Wikipedia page.
Why do you think that is?
Tell me, how many of you can honestly say that when you meet an Australian, you're not just a little on edge until you know whether or not they're one of the non-bigoted minority?
I was just talking to a kid whose family is from there last night. He told me about bringing German chocolate to a family gathering, and having to hear his grandmother go off on them, all the while holding the chocolate at arm's length like it was poison.
Brownian,
Are you being serious? I'm not going to condemn Australians in general for StevoR's racism, any more than Libyans in general because some of them attacked an embassy.
I mean, seriously read the above and tell me this man isn't just champing at the bit at the thought of more killing. He just can't get enough of the very idea.
Again, I'm sure StevoR is very nice in person and thinks of himself as a paragon of colourblind, but it's hard not to get the sense that his people think anything short of gunning down children practically makes them U.N. representatives.
That's rich, coming from an Australian. The last massacre of indigenous Australians happened in 1928. In retaliation for a single white man's death, they killed between 60 and 110 Warlpiri adults and children.
Here, read a few more examples of his rich, vibrant, tolerant society.
And he wants to claim he's not blood-thirsty?
I'm not condemning them for StevoR's racism, I'm condemning them for their racism.
But that's all in the past, says former PM John Howard.
Is that what you think too, StevoR? It's all in the past? You're the good guys now?
Anyhow qually for MotoGP is on. Cheers. Catch y'all later.
That's a pretty relaxed attitude for someone who's at war.
@ SteveoR (comment 292)
Congratulation for sucking so much at reading that you missed the obvious fact that I was quoting someone else. Perhaps if you spent a little less time jerking off to you genocidal fantasies instead of actually reading what people write, you would be less often the target of such near universal contempt. Or maybe you're playing dumb on purpose in order to hide how despicable you really are. Which leads me to
@ Nick Gotts:
Racism means actions that reinforce existing inequalities and oppressions based on ethnicity
One of the most commonly made mistake about racists is that they actually believe the bullshit they use to justify their intent to oppress. This is what I call the "Village Idiot defense": if someone says "I want to rig the competition so that brown people never have a chance of becoming more succesfull than I am", they will immeditely be seen as bastards, as cheaters, as cold blooded sociopaths willing to deliberately hurt large swaths of mankind to ensure their own prosperity, therefore ensuring that virtually everyone treat them as a threat. If on the other hand, someone says "Yaaaaaaaaaaaaarg, Evil Mooooosleeem want to killrapeeat all our babies, their Quran says so", you may see such a person as a village idiot going through some ignorance induced nervous breakdown, and therefore not perceive them as much as a threat as if they'd been honest with their intent.
@KG
I believe Brownian is engaging in irony. Since StevoR is so judgmental of everyone else's culture to condemn them as mindless Daleks it only seems fair to return.
Isn't if funny how StevoR's stock defence against the accusation of racism is "Islam isn't a race".
It's basically "I'm not a racist. I'm just a bigot."
As if that were any better.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/at-least-74-killed-hundreds-hurt-in-egyptian-soccer-riot-1.762492
Will StevoR now call for preemptive military action against soccer fans? It's even a bonus that this occurred Egypt, so he'll get to sate his kill them arabs bloodlust.
I believe Brownian is engaging in irony.
I'm not being ironic at all. It is incontrovertible that Australians have a legacy of inhuman brutality, savagery, thuggery, and lust for blood. When they weren't destroying their environment, they were shooting dark-skinned children for fun.
Just Google "Australia" and "racism" or "genocide". You can spend days reading about how gleefully they put bullets in the backs of Aborigines. The Myall Creek massacre is particularly cute in that it shows real Australian pioneer bravery: they tied thirty Aborigines together, mostly old men, women, and children, all unarmed, and chopped them up with swords.
If StevoR wants to claim that he's against these things, well, his people are among the worst offenders.
Of course, since he's a drunk little coward too afraid to admit this to himself, he'll keep making the same old claims, never realising that nearly every one of them indicts his people as well, save one:
It's a different story when white people do it, apparently.
Couldn't give a shit about skin colour personally
Fucking liar.
Somehow missed that one…
Who are you calling "we", pale-face? My country didn't agree with your stupid ass war. You're buying into the silly notion that Team America's blundering over the Middle East is some sort of Last Alliance of Western Civilization against the dark forces of Muhammorgoth.
Stop reading bad fantasy novels.
I'm not disputing the prevalence of Australian racism, past or present. I'm doubting whether it's significantly worse than that in – to pick an obvious comparison group – other majority-white English-speaking countries. Both Britain and the USA have long and unpleasant records in this regard, and even Canada is somewhat less than perfect.
laurentweppe:
Congratulation for sucking so much at reading that you missed the obvious fact that I was quoting someone else.
Bonus points: He responded to you using my quote when it was pretty clear that both of us were already aware of the shit that he thought would work as a "response" . And that you thought it was irrelevant because of the reliability of the relevant documents, and that I thought it was irrelevant because "age of consent" hasn't been constant throughout all time, across all places.
Drunk or not, that is the kind of incompetence we've come to expect from good ol' stevo. I think it has been thoroughly established by now. It should probably be made official:
StevoR : Islam :: Ray Comfort : Evolution
jimbobboy says
In yet another example of unexpected connections, I note that Seyyed[1] Hossein Nasr, interviewed by Tom Holland for the documentary, also has some thoughts on biology:
http://cyclewalabanda.blogspot.com/2007/08/professor-seyyid-hossein-nasr-on.html
I don't yet know what to make of this. If, as it appears, Nasr is simultaneously "one of the greatest modern scholars of Islam" and a creationist yoyo, does this undercut Tom Holland's appeal to Nasr's authority on the historical origins of Islam? Maybe not — partitions and all that, don't y'know.
[1] Elsewhere spelled "Seyyid"
lets let The Onion have the last word:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/
lets let The Onion have the last word
Said last word:
You have arrived at your 30-day allowance of 5 free premium pages from America's Finest News Source. If you enjoy our probing and analytical journalism and want full access, we ask that you support our hardworking reporters by purchasing a subscription for as low as $2.95/ month or $29.95/ year.
I'm doubting whether it's significantly worse than that in – to pick an obvious comparison group – other majority-white English-speaking countries. Both Britain and the USA have long and unpleasant records in this regard, and even Canada is somewhat less than perfect.
I'd like to hear StevoR argue these points in light of his claims about the values he attributes to Muslims.
Walton says
I think it's very clear that Islamophobia is a real form of bigotry, and that it is often a convenient rhetorical proxy for racism and anti-immigration sentiment (Geert Wilders and Pat Condell being, indeed, good examples of this). That doesn't mean that all criticism of Islam is bigotry, but it does mean that we need to avoid stereotyping and painting with a broad brush, and avoid attacks that play into the hands of the racist far right. And it's particularly important that those of us who are speaking from a position of privilege as white Westerners remember to check our privilege, and avoid contributing to the oppression and marginalization of Muslim communities.
False dichotomy.
I suggest that we shouldn't invade foreign countries, bomb cities and massacre civilians, or assassinate our supposed "enemies" in drone strikes. I suggest that we shouldn't allow our governments to kidnap people (including innocent people who happen to have the same names as terrorists), detain them for years without charge or trial, and torture them. We don't "need" to do any of these things to "fight terrorism", and doing them makes us no better than the terrorists themselves.
And I suggest that you wouldn't be so eager to support these measures if you actually lived in Afghanistan or Somalia or Yemen, instead of far away in safe comfortable Australia. (Not that Australia is safe or comfortable for everyone – if you're an asylum-seeker arriving in Australia from a war-torn country, fleeing for your life, you can look forward to being imprisoned in a hellhole detention camp and treated as though you were a criminal.) Your posts on this subject are laden with white Western privilege.
Rutee, upthread,
Not that Australia is safe or comfortable for everyone – if you're an asylum-seeker arriving in Australia from a war-torn country, fleeing for your life, you can look forward to being imprisoned in a hellhole detention camp and treated as though you were a criminal.
Oh, it's not that bad for all immigrants. The white ones seem to have had a grand ol' time. It's the ones who came 60,000-40,000 BP who had the shit kicked out of them by StevoR's brutal, savage, disgusting people.
@330 Walton. Yes it's bigotry, so can people stop referring to Islamaphobia as racist.
Unless the person in question follows up complaining about the Arabs or the Middle-East, as opposed to say Georgian Muslims, call them a bigot and deny them the semantic argument I've seen cropping up here.
As an aside UK racism was briefly mentioned and I think this ties in with anti-immigration etc. I don't think we in the UK are racist per se we're more xenophobic. Have the wrong UK accent in certain areas and you'll be treated by these people as if you were black/foreign/Muslim.
@333. Brownian
Oh, it's not that bad for all immigrants. The white ones seem to have had a grand ol' time.
You anti-white people are you?
It's the ones who came 60,000-40,000 BP who had the shit kicked out of them by StevoR's brutal, savage, disgusting people.
Actually from what I understand of history the Australian Aboriginals mostly died from diseases they had no immunity too like most indigneous groups in North and South America.
Now okay some white folks did some bad things -whilst many others approached things in a human and kind way buy the understanding of the time which is quite different to how we view things in this era.
Ancient history that happened long before you or I were born in any case. We can't change the past and people now aren't the same peopel -generations and values ~wise that we once were. Our society and culture has evolved.
Islamic society and culture OTOH, clearly hasn't – at leats not enough -hampered as it is by an inflexible, intolerant extreme dark age dogma.
Heading out for tea, may respond more here later.
@330. Walton :
I think it's very clear that Islamophobia is a real form of bigotry,
Well, that's *your* (erroneous) opinion and I think that's very, very clearly ridiculously wrong.
Because a "phobia" is defined as an irrational fear.
When Islamist groups such as Al Quaeda, Hamas, Jemaah Islamiyya, etc .. are seriously trying to kill and convert the rest if the world being afraid or concerned about and opposed to them is entirely rational, logical and reasonable.
How much research have you done on terrorism and especially the Jihadists and what they want to do to and impose on everyone else?
I can assure you I treat everybody equally and fairly and compassionately in Real Life therefore your offensive accusation of bigotry is also totally wrong. I deserve an apology from you but doubt you are rational and fair enough to give it. Be nice if you proved me wrong on that though!
flipc
Yes it's bigotry, so can people stop referring to Islamaphobia as racist.
Nope. Because "racist" doesn't mean what you think it does. A racist action or viewpoint is one that reinforces existing inequalities between ethnic groups. Since this is undoubtedly true of Islamophobia, it is racist.
As an aside UK racism was briefly mentioned and I think this ties in with anti-immigration etc. I don't think we in the UK are racist per se
Then you're an idiot – even using your definition of racism. There is abundant evidence that black and brown people suffer from unfair discrimination in education and employment, and worse treatment by the police, to name just the most obvious areas.
StevoR the genocidal lying scumbag,
It is quite possible to have an irrational, obsessive fear of something that does actually pose some danger, as you do of Islam. It is also simply a lie to claim that "phobia" always refers to fear: homophobia does not mean fear of homosexuals or homosexuality.
Well, racism and xenophobia are interrelated phenomena and are difficult to separate. (In the UK I've seen an upsurge in bigotry against white Eastern Europeans, for instance, but that hasn't reduced the amount of racist bigotry against African and Asian immigrants.)
The UK is a racist country, in many ways. If you don't believe me, try visiting an immigration detention centre like Yarl's Wood, or an immigration tribunal, and look at the people who are imprisoned there and facing removal from the country. Overwhelmingly, they're people of colour from the developing world – and we have a system of immigration law which is deeply racist and classist, and getting more so.
Or you could look at the fact that people of colour are still <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/31/race-bias-drug-arrests-claim"six times more likely to be arrested for drug offences, and eleven times more likely to be imprisoned, despite being no more likely to use drugs. Or the growth of far-right angry mobs like the so-called "English Defence League". Or the continued racial disparities in income. There are many more examples of racism, which, sadly, is alive and well in this country.
As for the way that Islamophobia ties in with racism – look at the rhetoric of far-right groups like the BNP and EDL. Their agenda is an anti-immigrant and anti-ethnic-minority one, but they've latched on to hatred and fear of Islam as a convenient pretext for their agenda. The same is true of their European counterparts like Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen.
@337 Nick Gotts –
A racist action or viewpoint is one that reinforces existing inequalities between ethnic groups.
Racist contains the bit it's about in the name – "race". You're conflating race with ethnicity; there is a difference.
There is abundant evidence that black and brown people suffer from unfair discrimination in education and employment, and worse treatment by the police, to name just the most obvious areas.
I didn't say there wasn't. What I was saying was that the root cause isn't necessarily racism, but a different form of bigotry.
Apparently my HTML-fu is dead. I intended to link this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/31/race-bias-drug-arrests-claim
I have no reason to doubt that you "treat everybody equally and fairly and compassionately in Real Life" – and please note that I did not say "StevoR is a bigot". However, I think that many of your statements on this issue have been entirely wrongheaded, and I will not apologize for saying so.
I did say that Islamophobia is a real form of bigotry, and I stand by that statement, for the reasons I have given at considerable length. Geert Wilders, for instance, is an Islamophobe. Pat Condell is an Islamophobe. Pam Gellar is an Islamophobe. These people do not make reasonable or proportionate criticisms of Islam – they are, instead, motivated by bigotry against Muslims. And the effect of their proposed policies is to increase the marginalization and oppression of Muslim communities.
It would be nice if you'd have a sense of proportion about this. Statistically, I'm enormously more likely to die in, say, a road accident than I am to be killed by any kind of terrorist, Islamist or otherwise. And the measures that Western countries have taken to "fight terrorism" – including starting a number of undeclared wars in which hundreds of thousands of people have died – have caused far more destruction than the terrorist groups could ever have achieved on their own.
Racist contains the bit it's about in the name – "race". You're conflating race with ethnicity; there is a difference. – FlipC
If you substitute "race" for "ethnicity" in my statement, it still means much the same, and is still quite different from your naive idea of what the term "racist" means.
What I was saying was that the root cause isn't necessarily racism, but a different form of bigotry.
And I repeat, if you really believe that, you're an idiot. Let's play your stupid etymological game for a moment. You claim it is "xenophobia" and not racism that is responsible. That means, literally, fear of foreigners. Most of the targets of the injustices I alluded to are not foreigners, so clearly, their treatment cannot be a result of xenophobia.
There's a reason why in a free association test the word "Muslim" will usually be associated with the word "terrorist".
Do you know who is to blame for that?
Muslims themselves.
They killed a lot of good innocent people on September 11th 2001, many more on the day of the Bali bombings and the Madrid bombings and the London bombings and so many more.
Maybe you don't know any of the good innocent people Muslims murdered.
But many others do.
And won't forget.
And that's why there's no such fucking thing as fucking "Islamophobia."
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus says
Which is just a fraction of the number of good innocent people who were killed in two wars in Afghanistan and Irak for the sole virtue of being Muslim or living in a predominantly Muslim country.
Unless they don't count as people by virtue od being brown and muslim.
And you know who doesn't forget? Other Muslims who right now feel that the west and the USA especially are willing to kill all the mean brown muslims with exception of Turkey 'cause it looks bad if you attack a Nato-member.
Stop shedding crocodile tears for dead people when all you do is to use their deaths to advocate the murder of more people.
You really are utter scum, StevoR. Muslims were among those who died on 9/11. Do you ever think about how their families feel when they see shits like you spew your hatred for them?
slowdjinn says
FlipC – Having accepted that Islamophobia is bigotry, why is it so important to you to determine precisely what species of bigotry it is? Are some kinds of bigotry acceptable?
If you substitute "race" for "ethnicity" in my statement, it still means much the same
No it isn't. Racism is about what people 'are', ethnicity is about what people do. If you hated Muslims and I were a Muslim would you still hate me if I converted to Christianity?
That means, literally, fear of foreigners.
If you'd bothered to read my original comment it was in response to the 'Hey not liking Islam isn't racism because Islam isn't a race' pedantry used by bigots. However as you bring it up xenophobia means either fear or hatred of strangers as used by the Greeks themselves.
@345 Slowdjinn –
Are some kinds of bigotry acceptable?
No, but it's difficult to successfully attack something if you don't know exactly what it is you're attacking. If you, say, treat British bigotry as simple racism there's a chance you'll miss the same hatred that's being aimed elsewhere such as the more subtle BBC old informal policy of not hiring accented presenters.
Certainly not the same scale as that aimed at black minorities etc., but as I said perhaps stemming from the same root. You don't remove weeds by cutting off their leaves.
curdle says
Steveo R,
I'm another Aussie, so I feel compelled to weigh in here, although I'm not sure I have caught up with the scroll. ( you all message so fast!) just one pont-
You really shouldnt try and sweep the whole Aboriginal issue under the carpet. Yes, the bloodiest crimes were committed before either of us existed, but all Australians today benefitted by the near genocide of the Kooris, and we are still reaping the advantages today. Took us over 100 years to start to acknowlege it, and longer than that to make an official apology. And yes, it did get written out of the textbooks, but theres plenty of information out there if you actually want to find it.
I know it bites when you feel youre under attack on an internet forum, but there really isnt a leg to stand on on this one.
Hmm and I havent even got started on the whole Islamophobia doesnt exist idea..
@338 Walton – Sorry I skipped your post to deal with those calling me an idiot.
I've seen an upsurge in bigotry against white Eastern Europeans, for instance, but that hasn't reduced the amount of racist bigotry against African and Asian immigrants.
And that was my point. Pointing to the racism aimed at the white Eastern Europeans and and the African and Asians and saying they're different. The people attacking the former are the same as those attacking the latter; and they're the same ones attacking Islam. Hence the racism is a part of a larger bigotry that needs to be addressed and not dealt with piecemeal.
look at the rhetoric of far-right groups like the BNP and EDL.
Yet the EDL contains non-white members they've also supported Sikhs in confrontation with Muslims. How does that equate to the broad brush of racism they're tarred with?
Terry Pratchett wrote in Nightwatch about one of Ankh-Morpork's gangs recruiting their first troll.
"But aren't they the ones that go around beating up trolls?"
"Yeah but Calcite likes doing that too"
Racism is about what people 'are', ethnicity is about what people do. If you hated Muslims and I were a Muslim would you still hate me if I converted to Christianity?
Complete nonsense: changing your religion does not change your ethnicity. I did not change ethnicity when I became an atheist, having been a Christian, nor would I change it if I became a Muslim.
However as you bring it up xenophobia means either fear or hatred of strangers as used by the Greeks themselves.
Which would still mean discrimination of the kinds I mentioned can't be xenophobia, since they involve treating some strangers less favourably than others, because of the colour of their skin.
@349 Nick Gotts
changing your religion does not change your ethnicity
OED: "the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition." you're no longer part of the social group Christian and are now part of the social group Atheist; you have therefore changed your ethnicity (and I'd like to add – for the better).
since they involve treating some strangers less favourably than others, because of the colour of their skin
If you treat anyone with differently coloured skin to your own less favourably you're a racist. If you treat any strangers less favourably you're xenophobic. What if you only treated differently coloured strangers less favourably. Are you still just racist or xenophobic; or are you a xenophobic racist?
What I'm trying to get at is that we shouldn't necessarily treat Islamaphobes as being automatically racist. It would be like having a white anti-pet group hating a black pet-owners group (and vice-versa) and someone coming in and telling them not to pick on the group because they're white/black; then raising money and awareness to stem this white/black racism. Not saying there might not be some underlying racism involved, but to focus entirely on that would be to miss the point and is unlikely to solve the problem.
I'm anti-savages. Like your people.
You're a sub-human piece of shit, StevoR.
You didn't read any of the links did you, you fucking coward?
You really are filth.
That's all you have to say about the genocide your people committed before harranging the Muslims?
There are no words for how repulsive a human being you are. None at all.
"the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition." you're no longer part of the social group Christian and are now part of the social group Atheist
Look, idiot, there is no "social group Christian" or "social group Atheist", let alone ethnicities with those labels. My ethnicity has remained English throughout my life: the English have a common national and cultural tradition that includes Christianity, and the fact that I am no longer a Christian does not sever my connections with that tradition.
What I'm trying to get at is that we shouldn't necessarily treat Islamaphobes as being automatically racist.
What I'm trying to get at is that you're an oblivious idiot. British society is racist, because people of some races are systematically treated less favourably than others. Islamophobia is racist because it reinforces those injustices. Whether individual Islamophobes specifically hate black people is neither here nor there: they are, in regard to their Islamophobia, being racist.
@352 Nick Gotts – You're saying that Christianity isn't a social grouping… you do know what a social group is don't you?
the English have a common national and cultural tradition that includes Christianity, and the fact that I am no longer a Christian does not sever my connections with that tradition.
and given that the definition of "English" as an ethnicity does not depend solely on one's religion I agree. However if I were brought up with the standard English traditions, but was also brought up with, say, the standard Indian ones which ethnicity am I?
Whether individual Islamophobes specifically hate black people is neither here nor there: they are, in regard to their Islamophobia, being racist.
so they're racists despite the fact they're not targeting a race. Oh that makes sense so:
Don't like men – racist.
Don't like young people – racist.
Don't like pet owners – racist
I'm not saying there aren't some who aren't racist, but (again) I'm asking what do you call someone who hates Muslims regardless of their race; because if you say racist then all my above examples are also valid.
Racism is about what people 'are', ethnicity is about what people do.
Horseshit.
World English Dictionary
ethnic or ethnical (ˈɛθnɪk)
— adj
1. relating to or characteristic of a human group having racial, religious, linguistic, and certain other traits in common
2. relating to the classification of mankind into groups, esp on the basis of racial characteristics
To Godwin it, the Nazis did not give a fuck if you were practicing or not, if you were of Jewish heritage (you know, ethnicity) you were shit.
Jesus wept, you're an ignorant twerp. Parading a handful of fools from ethnic minorities who happen to hate Muslims does not mean the EDL's not racist – even the BNP has done the same at times. The EDL leadership is stuffed with long-time neo-Nazis such as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon aka Tommy Robinson, and Kevin Carroll. It has recently teamed up with the self-styled "British Freedom Party", formed by a faction of the BNP that lost an internal power-struggle. I suppose you'll be telling us next that the BNP is not racist.
Ok look shit head, do you approve of bigotry towards Muslims/Arabs/MEsterners?
Yes or no. If no then stop fucking derailing playing semantic patty cake. You're being a fucking asshole.
I have to add the hyphens because it's so intersected together! Muslims "look" a certain way so hatred of them boils over and hurts Sikhs, Copts, Lebanese, Persians, Indians, etc. Claiming that there's no racism involved when we see quite often non-muslims get hit by Muslim bigotry because they match what the common man sees as a Muslim look (and oddly it seems to have to do with darker skin and accents!) is bullshit. Look at Sam HaveIMentionedWeShouldKillTheSandPeople Harris's defense of RACIAL profiling for anyone who LOOKS Muslim.
I'd like to meet one. The world view that forms Islamophobia is one of a war between civilizations. Us vs Them. Our Side There Side Our Side Their Side if I may put it in Stark terms. They are an Other, people will and have generated a mental view of what the other looks like and will judge people who match that as a heuristic. You may notice these assholes are not living in fucking paranoia that Romney is a secret Muslim…even though a Muslim CAN look like anyone. It's only the darker skinned people who MIGHT be Muslims shown by explicit action even if verbally they confirm that Muslim is not about race.
You're looking at a board game and arguing about how the rules SHOULD be played rather than what they actually are. You're in an ivory tower
FlipC,
However if I were brought up with the standard English traditions, but was also brought up with, say, the standard Indian ones which ethnicity am I?
Are you really stupid enough to think that people can all be neatly assigned to an unambiguous ethnic classification? I guess you probably are. You're also probably ignorant enough to think there is such a thing as "standard Indian traditions".
so they're racists despite the fact they're not targeting a race
They are acting in racist ways, you dolt, as I've already explained several times, because racist actions are those that reinforce the existing racial inequalities in a society.
I'm asking what do you call someone who hates Muslims regardless of their race
An Islamophobe, you lackwit. And Islamophobes in Europe, the Americas and Australasia are invariably acting in racist ways, because racist actions are those that reinforce the existing racial inequalities in a society, which Islamophobia in those societies invariably does.
@354 Ing- Oh I'm sorry that the Oxford English Dictionary isn't authoritative enough for you.
@356 Ing-
No I don't I thought I made that clear. What I've been saying is that by using the racist label you're giving them the chance to argue that they're not racist and diverting the argument as evidenced by this continued discussion. Don't call them racists just call them bigots; watch them try to argue their way out of that.
Parading a handful of fools from ethnic minorities who happen to hate Muslims does not mean the EDL's not racist
I'm saying it shows they're more xenophobic than racist and that's where they need to be attacked.
Seriously I'm trying to point out how to shut down a lot of the arguments these bigots use by calling them what they actually are and I'm the one being attacked?
lolwut? No, ethnicity is broader than race. Part of what defines an ethnic group IS race. It includes culture, but it also includes heritage. It is not something that can change based on your actions. It is not just "about what people do". Seriously, I have no idea where you pulled this bogus distinction from.
StevoR: You're still an idiot. You've been told before that your fear and hatred of Islam because terrorism completely ignores that terrorism isn't all that common, that terrorism isn't exclusively Muslim, and even if it was it would probably only be because of double standards that make Muslim violence automatically labeled terrorism and make Christian violence avoid that label.
Idiots like you whose knees jerk whenever they hear "Muslim"? Probably.
That doesn't logically follow. Not that I would expect that from StevoR when talking about Islam, but I thought that I would have the courtesy to inform you that you are gibbering like an idiot.
Seriously I'm trying to point out how to shut down a lot of the arguments these bigots use by calling them what they actually are and I'm the one being attacked? – FlipC
You're being attacked because you're an ignorant idiot, chuntering on about issues you clearly know nothing about.
StevoR's argument is basically that because it is undeniable that the Ultra Orthodox are patriarchal supremacist assholes that Antisemitism doesn't exist and Old Rolf was just doing the logical thing to protect the country.
Will you shut the fuck up if we say "yes yes yes go along then" and pat you on the head?
Yes, because you seem to think that your idiosyncratic definitions trump. Or, more specifically, that the one definition of the words that support your point of view are the best definitions and the ones that don't, aren't. When it comes down to it, due to the fact that ethnicity is actually heavily rooted in race (contrary to your Argument from Dictionary), it is fair game to treat bigotry against an ethnic group as basically the same as bigotry against a racial group (racism). Xenophobia isn't a perfect alternative. Unless you want to invent the word "ethnicityism" for us, then you're just going to have to accept that "racism" is accurate enough. Or continue whining about how you have a better word choice while not quite understanding why we make the word choices that we do. Whatever floats your boat.
@360 anteprepo
Part of what defines an ethnic group IS race. It includes culture, but it also includes heritage.
I understand what you're saying; however if you include race as a requisite technically someone born and raised in England born of Jamaican parents can't be ethnically English as defined by Nick Gotts @352. Yet having been raised here they share the majority of the cultural traits that would define them as "English" and I'm sure they'd think of themselves that way too albeit possibly with a Jamaican twist. It's a fusion, but not the whole. It's all sets and subsets and I think we're packing so much into the term "racist" it's diluting its meaning which is why I think we should either be using the specific terms or the overarching term "bigot".
FlipC is English your first language!?
FFS no one gives a shit.
I actually have used bigot in the past, you know what happens!? They act as if I said racist.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/2012/09/18/on-atheist-smugness-and-geopolitics/
I understand what you're saying; however if you include race as a requisite technically someone born and raised in England born of Jamaican parents can't be ethnically English as defined by Nick Gotts @352. Yet having been raised here they share the majority of the cultural traits that would define them as "English" and I'm sure they'd think of themselves that way too albeit possibly with a Jamaican twist.
Which is why the standard ethnicity categories in Britain include "Black or Black British" and "Asian or Asian British" as well as "White British".
I don't really understand where you're going with this. You seem intent on insisting that people cleave to your particular narrow, idiosyncratic definitions of the words "ethnicity", "race" and "racism". I don't think this exercise in semantics actually aids our understanding of the phenomena we're discussing.
The world view that forms Islamophobia is one of a war between civilizations. Us vs Them. Our Side There Side Our Side Their Side if I may put it in Stark terms. They are an Other, people will and have generated a mental view of what the other looks like and will judge people who match that as a heuristic. You may notice these assholes are not living in fucking paranoia that Romney is a secret Muslim…even though a Muslim CAN look like anyone. It's only the darker skinned people who MIGHT be Muslims shown by explicit action even if verbally they confirm that Muslim is not about race.
1. Nick Gotts didn't define ethnicity, he was using your definition.
2. Yes, ethnicity is complicated. So is race. So what?
As this has been spread out over several comments I'll condense it here so you can pick it apart more easily
A bigot is someone who is intolerant of a creed, belief or opinion.
Islam is a belief
An Islamaphobe is a bigot.
Islam may be considered an ethnicity
An ethnicity is a set of cultural and social premises that can be, but not exclusively, tied to race.
It is possible to be intolerant towards these premises without considering race.
An Islamaphobe is not, by default, racist.
I think we're packing so much into the term "racist" – FlipC
While everyone that I'm aware of involved in any serious anti-racist work or action disagrees with you. It's generally racists who spend a lot of time and energy insisting on their own idiosyncratic definitions of "racism", "race", "ethnicity", etc., and being terribly concerned that "racism" is over-used – although I accept that in your case, it's probably just the Dunning-Kruger effect in operation.
Right. And making this semantic distinction is just SO important in the real-world fight against both of them.
A turd by any other name smells just as foul.
Says the pathetic piece of refuse who started that mindless rant with this:
And who continues to talk about Islam in the exact same manner that Osama bin Laden used to talk about the United States. Except that bin Laden spoke with greater eloquence and intelligence, and used phrasing that was slightly less hateful.
Brownian, you were too generous to call StevoR a piece of shit. Shit is at least sometimes useful. One can use it as fertilizer and grow a pretty flower or two.
Not so much StevoR, the useless waste of oxygen.
@373 Amphiox – Thank you for responding to my @371. I think it does. In the same way you wouldn't use a screwdriver to remove a nail the arguments that can be brought to bear regarding a bigot are different to those regarding a racist.
If in the course of such they state something that is actually racist then it's possible to call them out directly on that remark rather than making the assumption that because they're A they must be B and starting off in that direction.
I think it does.
You can think whatever you want. Usage will not change because of what you think. So your whole argument is a moot point.
Common usage is racist = bigot. In a precise pedantic sense, or to bigots/racists, they aren't equivalent. And since race as scientific concept has been refuted, racist shouldn't exist. But it doesn't change common usage and connotations, as that is only done via time.
I think it does. In the same way you wouldn't use a screwdriver to remove a nail the arguments that can be brought to bear regarding a bigot are different to those regarding a racist.
In the case of the screwdriver we can empirically demonstrate that a screwdriver is a less efficient tool for the removal of nails that other alternatives.
The onus is therefore on you, making the claim, that provide the empirical evidence that there is some advantage to be gained by strictly separating the semantic usage of the terms "bigot" and "racist".
Do you have a citation we could review?
But it doesn't change common usage and connotations, as that is only done via time.
Which won't happen if no-one challenges the equivalence being held.
Usage will not change because of what you think
Why not? If I make a valid point and it is accepted here, and used here, and spreads outwards then it can't be called moot.
And since, even by your own definition, a racist is a type of bigot, the arguments that can be brought to bear against a bigot will, by definition, also apply to the racist, since every racist must, by your own definitions, also be a bigot.
If I make a valid point
If.
If I make a valid point and it is accepted here,
It isn't a valid point in my mind, mere pedantry from someone without seeing the bigger picture, there is no reason to accept it. Moot point. Common usage made the decision, not you.
@379 –
the arguments that can be brought to bear against a bigot will, by definition, also apply to the racist
But not necessarily the other way around; that is arguments brought against a racist won't necessarily work against a bigot.
that provide the empirical evidence that there is some advantage to be gained by strictly separating the semantic usage of the terms "bigot" and "racist".
You mean other than depriving those accused of Islamaphobia from the "I'm not a racist because Islam isn't a race" defence? No problem in everything regarding hate being hit with the "racist" label to the point where if some black/white person mugs a white/black person it's presumed to be a racially motivated hate crime until shown otherwise?
@380 – Yes "if" that's why I laid out my arguments for them to be disputed.
Common usage made the decision, not you
Oh well if it's common usage obviously there's no point in even discussing it. Common usage is by definition always right and ever more shall be so; even when it changes.
Oh well if it's common usage obviously there's no point in even discussing it. Yep, now you get it. Not worth talking about.
You don't have the authority to change word usage unilaterally. So, why are you here rather than at a site where they pendantically discuss minutia?
No, have you been fucking listening? Race is part of ethnicity. It isn't just somewhat "tied to race". You can't just hand-wave that away. Ethnicity is not exclusively culture, and is especially not just "cultural premises". The thing that makes ethnicity an actual term is that it is the combination of racial heritage and cultural heritage. Ethnicity is not race. It is not culture. It is both. And hatred of an ethnicity is indistinguishable from racism. Saying "it's just their culture that I hate" is the most paper-thin excuse and I can't believe that you buy it. And going on and on and on about how ethnicity isn't "exclusively" about race just pegs you as someone who is incapable of actually fucking paying attention.
You mean other than depriving those accused of Islamaphobia from the "I'm not a racist because Islam isn't a race" defence?
Speaking of not paying fucking attention: Have you noticed that Islamophobes also deny that Islamophobia is an actual thing? That happened in this very thread. Have you also noticed that they will deny being bigoted? Should we just not make any arguments that Islamophobes will reflexively disagree with, because it is just easier on us that way? Or is there only a certain level of quibbling that we should accept, and just happens to be the level of quibbling that you approve of?
FlipC do you even listen to your own arguments? Do you not even notice that it is your insistence that "bigotry" and "racism" are separate and different things that gives the Islamophobes the "I'm not a racist because Islam is not a race" defence, and that if we accept that racism and bigotry are part of the same phenomenon then this defense is no longer tenable?
So thanks for proving my point.
Also, I asked for a citation. All your arguments so far haven't even made it to the formalized hypothesis stage. So where is your real world empirical support?
Citation please.
Common usage evolves organically, by implicit (not explicit) consensus. No individual has the power to change it unilaterally. Certainly no individual has the right or authority to declare by fiat that it should change.
@384 anteprepro –
Race is part of ethnicity. It isn't just somewhat "tied to race".
Except by that logic there is no requirement to say "Arab Muslim" or "Georgian Muslim" in the same way you don't need to say "PIN number". You can't argue that ethnicity is a part of race and then need a race qualifier to distinguish between groups.
Should we just not make any arguments that Islamophobes will reflexively disagree with, because it is just easier on us that way?
No I'm saying we shouldn't be making a reflex judgement that they themselves can attempt to refute.
@386 Amphiox
if we accept that racism and bigotry are part of the same phenomenon then this defense is no longer tenable?
That defence is no longer tenable to you and you're stating that by common usage everyone else will agree with you. To me that's like the "Tomato Ketchup" is a vegetable equation – it's not true; just makes life easier for a specific group.
No individual has the power to change it unilaterally
and where have I stated that I thought I had the power to do that? Accepting the "common usage" statement without argument is like stating that the US official who used the word "niggardly" was right to be fired because common usage determined it was a racial epithet.
What I'm saying is that "racist" seems to be becoming a catch-all term for all hatred. In the same way a theist might only be able to understand that an atheist has to "hate god" as that's the only thing that fits within their world view why the insistence that race has to be the root cause?