The extremist liberal left really concern me!!

[brahtw8]

To the coward who left me a negative feedback with "Totally unrealistic" as a message about my thesis on "Infidels" name-calling... Let me inform him/her that a commission was created by Congress, and here is the report from May of 2003. The US Commission on International eligious Freedom: "Independent studies conducted in recent months" indicated "that official government textbooks, published by the Saudi Ministry of Education, include offensive and discriminatory language, in some cases promote intolerance, hatred of other religious groups. Major findings: one, Islam - specifically the Wahhabi interpretation - is presented as the only true religion and all other religions are considered invalid and misguided. Christians and Jews repeatedly labeled as infidels, enemies of Islam who should not be befriended or emulated, and referred to in eight grade textbooks as `apes' and `pigs.' Jews are" regularly "referred to as `wicked nation,' characterized by bribery, deception, betrayal,' and those who abandon Islam for another religion deserve to be killed, or at least imprisoned."

Still think it's "Unreallistic" ? Welcome back to reality when reading these facts about the "infidels" calling:
#1
#2
#3

I am not really a fan of feedback myself, at least the anonymous kind. I know some people like it, but when they decided to bring it to prime I voiced my opposition. I think it does more harm than good, myself.

In any event, there are certainly many horrible things being taught in fundamentalist islamic schools throughout the world, including Saudi Arabia, and I for one have no reason to doubt your post on the subject; indeed, it is consistent with my own understanding.

You may find it to be outside the scope of this discussion, but since I have the floor and have shown no sign of getting off of my soapbox, let me just say this:

What are we going to do about Saudi Arabia? We were attacked by Bin Laden because of Saudi Arabia and our military and cultural presence there. The majority of the 9-11 attackers were Saudi, but we have done nothing. Saudi Arabia is a horribly repressive state in a lot of ways, and is divided between pro-business moderates and religious extremists.

Say what you want about the conclusions of Fahrenheit 911, the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US is something that this country needs to address. Our support of that regime and others like it is one of the reasons other countries question our moral integrity when we justify our actions on humanitarian grounds (to say nothing of what we have done in Africa, the contemplation of which utterly destroys any pretense of humanitarian motive).

 

[nsxtasy]

To the coward who left me a negative feedback with "Totally unrealistic" as a message about my thesis on "Infidels" name-calling... Let me inform him/her that a commission was created by Congress, and here is the report from May of 2003. The US Commission on International Religious Freedom: "Independent studies conducted in recent months" indicated "that official government textbooks, published by the Saudi Ministry of Education, include offensive and discriminatory language, in some cases promote intolerance, hatred of other religious groups. Major findings: one, Islam - specifically the Wahhabi interpretation - is presented as the only true religion and all other religions are considered invalid and misguided. Christians and Jews repeatedly labeled as infidels, enemies of Islam who should not be befriended or emulated, and referred to in eight grade textbooks as `apes' and `pigs.' Jews are" regularly "referred to as `wicked nation,' characterized by bribery, deception, betrayal,' and those who abandon Islam for another religion deserve to be killed, or at least imprisoned."

I don't know exactly which post earned you a "ding", but there are several things that you have said that I find offensive:

1. You have assumed that someone critical of the current administration is a Muslim, with no evidence to base that on (other than the use of the word "infidel", which is often used for effect in political discussions, by Muslims and non-Muslims alike). Therefore, you are injecting a religious component into the discussion where none existed.

2. You don't just refer to that person as a Muslim, but as an "idiot fanatic muslim". Insulting someone for their religion like this is abominable and abhorrent. You have very clearly never spent time in a country where your religion is a small minority. Perhaps you should. You would learn a lot.

3. You then claim that anyone Muslim should be reported to the government (for possible prosecution) for criticizing the government and its policies. Therefore, you are claiming that Muslims should be treated differently from those of other faiths, strictly because of their religion.

While I don't deny that some Muslims are guilty of bias and/or crimes as you claim, the same thing can be said for followers of any other religion. But the idea of (a) claiming that someone belongs to a particular religion just for having an opinion that you disagree with, and (b) insulting that person just for having their (alleged) religion, and (c) claiming that the government should take action against them because of their (alleged) religion, strikes me as not only offensive, but clearly evidence of religious intolerance and bias, and therefore antithetical to traditional American values such as freedom to practice one's religion without persecution.

 

[Eric5273]

What are we going to do about Saudi Arabia? We were attacked by Bin Laden because of Saudi Arabia and our military and cultural presence there. The majority of the 9-11 attackers were Saudi, but we have done nothing. Saudi Arabia is a horribly repressive state in a lot of ways, and is divided between pro-business moderates and religious extremists.

Say what you want about the conclusions of Fahrenheit 911, the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US is something that this country needs to address. Our support of that regime and others like it is one of the reasons other countries question our moral integrity when we justify our actions on humanitarian grounds (to say nothing of what we have done in Africa, the contemplation of which utterly destroys any pretense of humanitarian motive).

This whole relationship between our government and Saudi Arabia is misunderstood by 90% of the American public and is often misstated by the American media. There are no ties between the government of Saudi Arabia and Al-Queda. In fact, they are extreme enemies. Osama bin Laden was expelled from Saudi Arabia in the early 1990s for speaking out against the Royal Family. In most of Saudi Arabia, Osama is very popular -- he is seen much like a cult hero/rebel, much the way Malcom X was viewed by American blacks in the 1960s. The Saudi Royal Family's decision to let the US set up military bases there during the first Gulf War was very unpopular among the Saudi public and this was the main reason for the rift between the government and bin Laden. At the time bin Laden said if the US was to set up bases that they would never leave -- a prediction that has so far turned out to be correct.

Saudi Arabia has one of the most repressive regimes in the world. Most of the country lives in extreme poverty and much of the population is homeless as well. The people do not have a dislike for our culture or freedom. Just the opposite. Whenever polls have been taken of public opinion, they find that the people love American culture and the desire freedom. They only hate our foreign policy where it relates to our military presense in the region and our unconditional support for Israel. But it is their desire for freedom which leads them to support Al-Queda -- the only popular movement that has openly spoken out against their repressive government.

While many people think our government kisses up to the Royal Family because of oil, the reality is much different. The Royal Family holds huge power over our economy. They hold controlling or significant shares of most of the major American oil companies. They contribute significant money to political campaigns, and have significant influence over our government's foreign policy decisions. This is quickly becoming a fascist country. Our government no longer makes policy decisions to help the American public. They make decisions which will allow them to stay in power -- i.e. apeasing the large corporations which put them there in the first place -- and unfortunately, the Saudi Royal Family weilds significant influence here.

 

[apapada]

Ken, I'm sorry to say that you completely misunderstood my post:

1. You have assumed that someone critical of the current administration is a Muslim, with no evidence to base that on (other than the use of the word "infidel", which is often used for effect in political discussions, by Muslims and non-Muslims alike). Therefore, you are injecting a religious component into the discussion where none existed.

you are correct that it is an assumption that the original poster is muslim. They odds of choosing this particular word "infidel" in this particular context (win of Bush, a self-proclaimed-borned-again-Christian) are overwelmingly point towards this deduction. We can argue that this assumption is wrong, but noone has ever provided me with any evidence of the opposite.

2. You don't just refer to that person as a Muslim, but as an "idiot fanatic muslim". Insulting someone for their religion like this is abominable and abhorrent. You have very clearly never spent time in a country where your religion is a small minority. Perhaps you should. You would learn a lot.

here is the biggest misunderstanding imho. I never insulted this person because of his/her religion. The meaning of my sentence is "this idiot fanatic" who happens to be muslim, rather than "this idiot fanatic" because he is muslim. I agree that insulting someone for their religion is abonimable and abhorrent, I would even add unethical and even immoral. FYI, I've spent my time in countries where (to name a few) Christinanity, Juddaism and Islamism (term used in its good sense) have coexisted very pacifically.

3. You then claim that anyone Muslim should be reported to the government (for possible prosecution) for criticizing the government and its policies. Therefore, you are claiming that Muslims should be treated differently from those of other faiths, strictly because of their religion.

I'm afraid you again did not read correctly, as this is not at all what I claimed. I claimed anyone who is making threats should be reported to the adequate agency as it is illegal. This case happens to be an "idiot fanatic" who happens to be muslim. Now again, we can argue that it was not a threat to start with, but I still believe we are not proficient to decide this and should let it to the experts to agree or dismiss it altogether.

While I don't deny that some Muslims are guilty of bias and/or crimes as you claim, the same thing can be said for followers of any other religion. But the idea of (a) claiming that someone belongs to a particular religion just for having an opinion that you disagree with, and (b) insulting that person just for having their (alleged) religion, and (c) claiming that the government should take action against them because of their (alleged) religion, ...

I completely agree with the above paragraph. However nothing in it reflects the points I tried to make nor applies to what I wrote if you read me correctly.

 

[nsxtasy]

Ken, I'm sorry to say that you completely misunderstood my post

I stand by my interpretation, and would think that anyone with an ounce of sensitivity towards religious freedom would reach the same conclusions that I have. Furthermore, your response confirms that you were indeed making the very assumptions that I find so objectionable.

 

[apapada]

Ken, let's take a deep breath and without emotions please answer my following questions:

I stand by my interpretation, and would think that anyone with an ounce of sensitivity towards religious freedom would reach the same conclusions that I have.

I honestly do not see what are you refering to. In what way did any of my posts infriges religious freedom ?

Furthermore, your response confirms that you were indeed making the very assumptions that I find so objectionable.

Why do you find objectionable ?
#1- someone using the particular word "Infidel" in this context is a fanatic muslim ?
#2- let the expert adequate agencies decide if a statement such as "The Infidels will get what they deserve." is a threat or not ?

 

[nsxtasy]

I honestly do not see what are you refering to. In what way did any of my posts infriges religious freedom ?

1. You have assumed that someone critical of the current administration is a Muslim, with no evidence to base that on (other than the use of the word "infidel", which is often used for effect in political discussions, by Muslims and non-Muslims alike). Therefore, you are injecting a religious component into the discussion where none existed. This discussion was not about religion, until you made it about religion.

Thanks to the news media, statements made by Muslim terrorists and despots are disseminated around the world. They are then picked up by others in everyday speech. Words and phrases like "infidels", "jihad", "the mother of all..." are a part of our everyday life. Does that mean that I must be a Muslim because I say this? (Note: I am not a Muslim. But I don't think one needs to be a Muslim to recognize religious persecution.)

Your injection of religion into this discussion shows that you have an extremist attitude about religion, to see it where it does not exist.

2. You don't just refer to that person as a Muslim, but as an "idiot fanatic muslim". Sorry, but your feeble attempts to weasel out of this - "an idiot fanatic who happens to be Muslim" rather than "someone who is an idiot fanatic because he is Muslim" just don't fly. This was your first mention of religion - again, with no evidence to back it up other than your knee-jerk assumption that it was made by a Muslim - and you don't simply say, "This person must be Muslim". The first words you uttered were "idiot fanatic muslim". Your words. Bigoted, offensive words.

3. You then claim that anyone Muslim should be reported to the government (for possible prosecution) for criticizing the government and its policies - not for any actions or specific threat of actions, but simply because (a) they are Muslim (you clearly say that they should be reported because they are Muslim) and (b) they speak unfavorably about the government. You are advocating that the government take action against them solely because of their religion and their opinions.

I'll state it again:

The idea of (a) claiming that someone belongs to a particular religion just for having an opinion that you disagree with, and (b) insulting that person just for having their (alleged) religion, and (c) claiming that the government should take action against them because of their (alleged) religion, strikes me as not only offensive, but clearly evidence of religious intolerance and bias, and therefore antithetical to traditional American values such as freedom to practice one's religion without persecution.

The fact that you can't understand how offensive your statements are - that you "just don't get it" - shows just how deep your bigotry lies.

 

[apapada]

Ken, I thought you were completely misreading me and I also thought this discussion could have led somewhere. Now I'm convinced it is not, even after having explained my points to you to the best of my ability.
I do believe my arguments are clear, you just don't understand them how they were written. I do not see the need to justify me as I know what I said, how I said it and what I really meant (not what you say I meant). I'm left to conclude you are reading a completely different post than the one I wrote.

with regards to:
1. My opinion stands, that signature was religiously motivated. I provided proofs on who nowadays call other religions "Infidels". You seem to either be rejecting the facts, or not agreeing with them. But facts are just that, Facts, and not agreeing with them wont change a thing.

2. short reply: "BS". Long one: I don't know why you can't read it the way it was written, even after I exactly and specifically explained it to you. You're instead trying to justify my explanation by seeing it as "attempts to weasel out of this", instead of giving the benefit of the doubt you might have read it wrong. I'm sorry to bring the news to you buddy, but you did read me wrong. Or maybe again that's a tactic you use and project it onto others.

3. you are making a false claim that I said that "anyone Muslim should be reported to the government". Again, that's BS and my posts above prove it. Making such false claims (what's the motivation btw?) is close to "difamation" and "slander" in my books. But maybe that's how you believe arguments are won...

Bottom line, believe what you want. But to me at least, you have appeared under a different light I used to think of you, and you seem to have an even more extremist attitude than you alledging I have. Here, have the last word... I'm done.

 

[huckster]

Apapada, Hola.

MY perception of what Ken is saying is this: Your comments were based upon an initial 'assumption'. That assumption was founded upon a specific word usage. Your over-reaction and initial assumption pretty much defines prejudice/bigotry. I'm not flaming here, and would point out that we all are susceptible to 'prejudices' of one sort or another. You might want to go back and rework how you are looking at all of this.

peace...

 

[apapada]

On the following news from Reuters, I find particularly interesting the 5th paragraph (on London's bombings):

One group calling itself the Organization of al Qaeda - Jihad in the Arabian Peninsula described Rome as "the capital of infidels" in a menacing message on Friday.


link here

"bigotry" anyone ?

------------------------------------------------
Europeans ask who's next after London blasts By Phil Stewart
Fri Jul 8, 4:09 PM ET



ROME (Reuters) - After deadly rush-hour bombings in Spain and Britain just over a year apart, Italians and other U.S. allies in Europe are asking themselves: who's next?

ADVERTISEMENT




Spain blames al Qaeda for last year's Madrid train bombs and London's police chief has said Thursday's London attacks bore all the hallmarks of the loose Islamist network.

A vocal European proponent of U.S. foreign policy, Italy is a repeated target of Islamic militant threats.

Two different groups claiming affiliation to al Qaeda have warned of attacks on Italy within the past 24 hours alone.

One group calling itself the Organization of al Qaeda - Jihad in the Arabian Peninsula described Rome as "the capital of infidels" in a menacing message on Friday.

"These threats need to be taken seriously," said Vittorfranco Pisano, a retired American army colonel and Rome-based terrorism consultant.

"Italy is the closest ally of the United States in continental Europe and has become far more active in international affairs."

Italy dispatched extra plain-clothes police to guard public transport, heightened security at airports and said more than 13,000 "sensitive sites" were under special guard. But for many Rome residents, an attack seems inevitable.

"It will happen. Rome is an important city, it's home to the Vatican. Maybe not today, or tomorrow, but eventually," said Rita Pesce, waiting for a bus.

BUSH, BLAIR, BERLUSCONI

After the United States and Britain, Italy is the third largest Western member of coalition forces in Iraq, and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi acknowledged that Italy's role in Iraq left it "exposed" to attack.

"Even intelligence (reports) from other countries show the three Bs, Bush, Berlusconi and Blair, are considered the most exposed to this type of risk," he said, referring also to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush.

Denmark has also sent troops to Iraq and found itself threatened along with Italy by the previously unknown "Secret Group of al Qaeda's Jihad in Europe," which also claimed credit for the London blasts.

Denmark's Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller said terrorists would inevitably "slip through the net" and warned all European nations were ultimately vulnerable.

Poland, which has about 1,700 troops in Iraq and commands a multinational division, played down the threats.

"I wouldn't succumb to emotions because some group, known or unknown, has mentioned us on the Internet," President Aleksander Kwasniewski told public radio.

Ordinary Spaniards still have painful memories of the March 2004 train bombings in Madrid, which killed 191 people. An Islamic militant group claimed the attack, saying it was punishment for Spain's then involvement in the Iraq war.

Three days later, Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero was elected. He withdrew troops from Iraq.

Even France, which won support in the Muslim world for opposing the Iraq war, is warning that it too could be a target.

French security experts say the risk is high because it shares intelligence with Washington and London, and has helped leaders in its North African ex-colonies fight Islamic radicals.

Michel Gaudin, head of France's national police force, said the main threat to France came from the radical Algerian Islamist group GSPC and a network recruiting young French nationals to fight in Iraq.

"We are very vigilant, very watchful, notably over recent positions take by the GSPC Algerian group. We know that the threat of a chemical weapons attack is not unrealistic," Gaudin said on Europe 1 radio.

(Additional reporting by Jon Boyle in Paris, Daniel Espino in Warsaw, Kim McLaughlin in Copenhagen and Sandor Peto in Budapest and Crispian Balmer in Gleneagles, Scotland)

 

[nkb]

On the following news from Reuters, I find particularly interesting the 5th paragraph (on London's bombings):

One group calling itself the Organization of al Qaeda - Jihad in the Arabian Peninsula described Rome as "the capital of infidels" in a menacing message on Friday.


link here

"bigotry" anyone ?

I'm not sure what your point is with this post. Which incidence of "bigotry" are you referring to?

 

[nsxtasy]

I'm not sure what the point is in reviving this topic after eight months. It seems like you're pointing out someone else's bigotry. As far as what that has to do with the rest of the discussion...

EDIT: nkb beat me to it while I was typing my reply!

 

[NSXLNT]

It seems to me that these terrorists are not leftists at all, but rather, they are extremely right wing fundamentalists. Fundamentalists of any persuasion are a dangerous lot.

 

[apapada]

I'm not sure what your point is with this post. Which incidence of "bigotry" are you referring to?

If one reads at the very beginning of this thread NsXMas said:

"2) I am a moderator on another forum, where we have some nut-cases, I mean users, who are extremely political. This technical forum has nothing to do with politics, but invariably people start fighting over politics and I have to impose order. One user who was extremely hateful of the Republicans put this in his signature after the election: "F**k you America! You will get what you deserve!"

I didn't think it was appropriate and sent the user this message: "I noticed your signature. I know you're passionate about politics, but can you please change your signature? Know that there were 49 % of Americans who didn't vote for Bush, so it is wrong to have such a mean signature. Kindly tone it down."

The user never replied to my request, but changed his signature to the following: "The Infidels will get what they deserve."

I then went on on saying that I was considering this signature a threat and should be reported, especially coming from an individual I labelled as a "idiot fanatic muslim". Some folks disagreed that the "infidels" calling had anything to do with religion. I begged to differ, stated my case and several posts where the word "infidel" as been used wrongfully by this group of people (fanatic muslims). But then, the name calling was then directed to me...

Some folks here went as far as calling me a "bigoted liar" and even an "extremist". Who ? me who have lived on 3 continents, 8 countries and have had friends from many different backgrounds and faiths. Why ? just because they're too egotistical to open their eyes and accept the facts. After the terrible London events, another proof of what I was referring to came up, so this is the reason I posted this link and revived this thread.

My point is and has been that facts have repeatedly shown that people who have been using (wrongly) the word "infidels" as a reference to members from other religions than their own nowadays are related to fanatic idiots calling themselves "muslims".

I'm not sure what the point is in reviving this topic after eight months. It seems like you're pointing out someone else's bigotry. As far as what that has to do with the rest of the discussion...

EDIT: nkb beat me to it while I was typing my reply!

IMHO nkb is not siding with you on this one. I'm reading the reply as from someone who does not see what bigotry I am referring to. BTW, nkb is right to ask as there wasn't any to begin with. But nkb may want to clarify for sure ...