Another step towards Eurabia?

bonkey

Well, to quote your own good self:

Feel free to back up what you’ve said from said article, as I certainly don’t see it there.

Seriously. Explain how its a white-man's burden when there's a paragraph in there saying that all such generalisations are a load of toss, but we generally only tend to see that clearly when we ourselves are targetted.

Diogenes

The Corinthian wrote:

The film East is East - made in 1999 and set in the 1970’s, so it safely predates the War on Terror™ - is a good examination of Muslim culture in Britain (made by British Muslims, I might add).

I suggest you look at the link you published a bit closer. The film was directed by Damien O' Donnellnot a common Muslim name. But its common in south Dublin where he's from.

I'm aware that it's written by British Muslims. But its not made by British Muslims. There are plenty of of pieces of literature that predate the war on terror, that don't put Muslims in the best of light that, those people outraged by the furor over the Danish Cartoons, are forgetting the outrage over Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" in the 80s.

The_Scary_Man

The Corinthian wrote:

Feel free to back up what you’ve said from said article, as I certainly don’t see it there.

I’ve explained how it is one sided, if you disagree feel free to cite the article in question and refute what I’ve said. Otherwise you’re either reading a different article, have not read it properly or have a bizarre notion of balance.

I read the article and thats what I got from it. We've obviously come to read this article with different world views. There are assumptions that I held before I read it and you had your assumptions before you read it but to assume that I either 'haven't read it properly' or 'have a bizarre notion of balance' because my conclusions don't match with yours says a lot. Can you cite the parts of the article that back up your point? Because so far you've only given what I have given, opinions.

This thread is not about how ‘The Revolution is Coming’. If you want to do that feel free to start a thread on it.

I made the point to show that its not only Muslims who are becoming marginalised in todays society but people from all creeds and colours. Muslims are not the only ones who are being drawn towards extremism, fascism is becoming more prevalent in mainland europe than it has been in a long time. I also believe that the War On Terror is not the sole driver for this increase in terrorist activity among British born muslims. There is a general sense of disaffection among a lot of people these days young and old with the brand of homogenous, centrist politics we are being sold by our main political parties who seem more concerned with being in power than serving the people who got them there and those they are supposed to represent. This in my view is a major contributing factor to the polarisation we are witnessing. There is nothing of any substance left in the political mainstream, nothing to believe in and when that happens people look for alternatives wherever they may be. This among other things maintains a steady flow of impressionable young muslim men into the mosques of the extremist imams who do promote violence and terrorism. So rather than blame the religion of Islam as a whole l suggest we focus our attentions on the recruiters, they are well known to the Security forces, and shut down the gateways which transform a disaffected youth into a terrorist.

I'm not an apologist for Islam but the kind of generalisations that get thrown up in these discussions referring to Islam as an 'evil' religion don't do any good at all.

The Corinthian

Diogenes wrote:

I suggest you look at the link you published a bit closer. The film was directed by Damien O' Donnellnot a common Muslim name. But its common in south Dublin where he's from.

I never the film was made by British Muslims, I said the examination was - which it was.

I'm aware that it's written by British Muslims.

Yes, but you wanted to nit-pick anyway. Well done.

The_Scary_Man wrote:

I read the article and thats what I got from it. We've obviously come to read this article with different world views. There are assumptions that I held before I read it and you had your assumptions before you read it but to assume that I either 'haven't read it properly' or 'have a bizarre notion of balance' because my conclusions don't match with yours says a lot. Can you cite the parts of the article that back up your point? Because so far you've only given what I have given, opinions.

Yet, as pointed out by bonkey, in the entire article there is only one line that would support your view, without that, it would be another entirely biased ‘White man’s fault’ puff-piece.

Thus with the weight of argument within the article placing the culpability upon the West and only a single line saying it works both ways, where do you think the bias of the article and overall culpability rested?

I made the point to show that its not only Muslims who are becoming marginalised in todays society but people from all creeds and colours.

Yes, you came out with a ‘The Revolution is Coming’ argument - as I said, if you want to do that feel free to start a thread on the subject.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

Yet, as pointed out by bonkey, in the entire article there is only one line that would support your view, without that, it would be another entirely biased ‘White man’s fault’ puff-piece.

Why is more than one line needed, when that one line is saying "Its easy to see how wrong this type of reasoning is when you're the target, isn't it."?

Thus with the weight of argument within the article placing the culpability upon the West and only a single line saying it works both ways

The one line doesn't say "it works both ways".

The line, as I pointed out, says that such generalisations are rightly rejected by most people when they themselves are targetted by it.

It says that the basic underlying premise of holding a collective accountable for the actions of an unrepresentative and uncontrolled minority is false.

It says White Man's Burden is wrong, just as targetting Muslims is wrong. This is the only "works both ways" that comes from the line....and more correctly its an argument that it works neither way.

Sand

I guess the difference would be the British soldier was investigated, arrested, convicted and condemned without any qualification about the Iraqi prisoners having to avoid offending or insulting British soldiers, as it may lead to regrettable war crimes against them.

Nor would you find sizable minorities of white britions approving of war crimes/murders of Iraqi prisoners.

Yeah, other than that its a totally equivalent case. The Guardian might view the soldiers conviction as being some sort of counterpoint to Britains values - it anythings its an affirmation of them. Payne was wrong, and he was punished.

Muslims may feel annoyed by being asked constantly to re-affirm which camp theyre in. Perfectly understandable, but its up to them to challenge the idealogical/theological basis employed by jihadists - by definition they simply do not engage with infidels who quote human rights legislation at them. It needs to go a bit further than qualified condemnation.

Sgt. Sensible

The Corinthian wrote:

Yes, you came out with a ‘The Revolution is Coming’ argument - as I said, if you want to do that feel free to start a thread on the subject.

He did no such thing. Why the strawman? What he did was point out (repeatedly) that the far right are gaining ground by exploiting the failure of the main political parties to address social and economic problems in certain areas.

However what's the title of the thread and the OP about if it's not a hysterical rant about how European society is on the verge of collapse and should be saved post haste from the muslims?

toomevara wrote:

Is this type of craven self censorship, unheard of only five years ago, handing a tacit victory to the foam flecked mullahs and their fellow travellers? Is this the thin end of the wedge, presaging the death of western, secular democracy.??..At what point will we say 'enough', and stand up for our values, or should I just pop down the local mosque and convert now and get it over with?

Curiously, the language and extreme examples used to attack muslims by several posters here is identical to the standard propaganda that's put out by far right parties and media, and ironically, the far right's attitudes to democracy, feminism, capital punishment, freedom of speech etc have a lot more in common with extreme Islamic fundamentalism than they do with the values of the vast majority of Europeans. If there were no muslims to have a go at, rest assured they'd be back at their other favourite hobby of moaning about 'political correctness', ie, modern liberal values that were fought for and won over the last century or more.

As for artistic freedom in the west, there's been the Madonna crucifix nonsense which prompted some idiot priest to phone in a bomb threat to one of her concerts. There's Marilyn Manson, banned all over the place. There's Cathal Coughlan's self-sodomisation with a Virgin Mary statuette which caused a mini riot at a concert in Italy. And most memorably, there was Sinead O'Connor's Pope pic ripping up incident on Saturday Night Live which resulted in such a career destroying stink, it still hasn't been re-broadcast to this day.

Hobbes

Ooh lets use my Time machine.

Irish may feel annoyed by being asked constantly to re-affirm which camp theyre in. Perfectly understandable, but its up to them to challenge the idealogical/theological basis employed by republicans - by definition they simply do not engage with 'brits' who quote human rights legislation at them. It needs to go a bit further than qualified condemnation.

The Corinthian

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

He did no such thing. Why the strawman?

He did, why don’t you bother reading what he wrote?

The_Scary_Man wrote:

The moves of the major political parties to the centre have robbed us of the choice we once had between the balancing ideologies of the right and left so that anyone wishing to go against the grain and vote to change the status quo is forced to opt for a fringe option as they seem to be the only ones who aren't parroting the same lines of populist ****e. People of all colours and creeds are being pushed to the outer edges of the political spectrum and embracing ideas that would have seemed unthinkable in the mainstream ten years ago. When you become that disillusioned and alienated by your government then anarchy becomes a viable option.

This is simply a “consensus bourgeoisie politics is on the verge of collapse” diatribe.

What he did was point out (repeatedly) that the far right are gaining ground by exploiting the failure of the main political parties to address social and economic problems in certain areas.

The far right? WTF? He certainly was talking about the major political parties to the centre “robbing us of choice”, but nothing about the far right. Are you reading the same thread? Would you like to start a new one too?

However what's the title of the thread and the OP about if it's not a hysterical rant about how European society is on the verge of collapse and should be saved post haste from the muslims?

Indeed, arguably so. So then why don’t we leave the class war in it’s box on this one?

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

It says White Man's Burden is wrong, just as targetting Muslims is wrong. This is the only "works both ways" that comes from the line....and more correctly its an argument that it works neither way.

Except the entire article by your own admission is, with the exception of that line, simply another rehash of the White Man's Burden argument. Then nested within it we have a one-line disclaimer, after paragraph after paragraph that has being saying otherwise.

Doesn’t take a genius to figure out what opinion author was looking to push and it certainly was neither fair nor balanced.

Sgt. Sensible

The Corinthian wrote:

The far right? WTF? He certainly was talking about the major political parties to the centre “robbing us of choice”, but nothing about the far right. Are you reading the same thread? Would you like to start a new one too?

He might correct me but I think he was referring to this point in Gary Younge's article.

When it comes to poor whites lured by organised racism, Labour makes allowances.

'It is the poorest whites who feel the greatest anger because there is no way out for them," said Margaret Hodge about some of her constituents in Barking earlier this year. "The Labour party hasn't talked to these people. Part of the reason they switch to the BNP is they feel no one else is listening to them."

Here in Germany the far right NPD got 7.3% of votes in the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern state election, enough to earn seats in the regional parliament. (Report)

Sgt. Sensible

I do wish someone would put out Stewart Home's "Flesh Feast: My Life As A Raconteur, Loan Shark And Pimp, by The Prophet Mohammad." It's the follow up to his "Whips & Furs: My Life As A Bon-Vivant, Gambler And Love Rat, by Jesus H. Christ."

fly_agaric

The_Scary_Man wrote:

When you become that disillusioned and alienated by your government then anarchy becomes a viable option.

This is not a Muslim problem. This is a problem we all have to face and deal with and I would put it to you that our efforts would be better served were they applied to finding a solution rather than trying to uncover whose fault it is.

But the far right or their supporters haven't recruited any suicide bombers or even just plain old bombers for their campaign of "anarchy" yet have they?
That little detail has to count for something.

In fact the far right would be more likely to gain greater support if the UK govt. were to follow the ideas of people like you or the article's author who might feel all the negative security attention on muslims now is "opressing the brothas" and why don't the authorities in the UK go do a Belmarsh on a few of those neo-nazis instead!

The Corinthian

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

He might correct me but I think he was referring to this point in Gary Younge's article.[/URL]

Where the fsck did he draw that centerist politics is driving people to anarchy from the article? Seriously, what are people smoking?

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

Except the entire article by your own admission is, with the exception of that line, simply another rehash of the White Man's Burden argument. Then nested within it we have a one-line disclaimer, after paragraph after paragraph that has being saying otherwise.

Its not a disclaimer. Its a "see how you don't like it when you're teh victim" punchline.

Doesn’t take a genius to figure out what opinion author was looking to push and it certainly was neither fair nor balanced.

I would have said it doesbn't take a gnius to figure out that those who don't read the piece properly will take the wrong meaning from it, and those who do read it properly will be under no illusions as to the point being made.

The author cannot be held responsible for you not only missing the comment first time round, but then challenging someone else to show you where it was because you couldn't spot it after you (presumably) re-examined the piece.

The_Scary_Man

fly_agaric wrote:

But the far right or their supporters haven't recruited any suicide bombers or even just plain old bombers for their campaign of "anarchy" yet have they?
That little detail has to count for something.

I'm talking about nipping it in the bud, catching young people before they become radicalised and therefore prevent them from carrying out any of these heinous acts.

In fact the far right would be more likely to gain greater support if the UK govt. were to follow the ideas of people like you or the article's author who might feel all the negative security attention on muslims now is "opressing the brothas" and why don't the authorities in the UK go do a Belmarsh on a few of those neo-nazis instead!

I don't know what 'the ideas of people like you' means. I'm not proposing that lads who join neo-nazi groups be rendered to Belmarsh because you're right this would only form a martyr mentality on their part too. Rather the other way round. If the British Gov't can be understanding about the circumstances that lead to a young white man being marginalised then why can't a greater level of understanding be offered to young muslims instead of taking Orwellian measures like asking their parents to spy on them?

Sgt. Sensible

The Corinthian wrote:

Where the fsck did he draw that centerist politics is driving people to anarchy from the article?

I don't think he meant anarchy in the literal political sense. Maybe he did but I'd be surprised if so.

The_Scary_Man

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

I don't think he meant anarchy in the literal political sense. Maybe he did but I'd be surprised if so.

No I didn't mean anarchy in the literal political sense. I meant a kind of raging against the machine, a complete rejection of what the government stands for and the acceptance of a new order where violence is part and parcel of the political ideal.

Sgt. Sensible

fly_agaric wrote:

But the far right or their supporters haven't recruited any suicide bombers or even just plain old bombers for their campaign of "anarchy" yet have they?
That little detail has to count for something.

They harass, threaten, attack and sometimes kill people here regularly. The government tried to ban them but failed. They cannot enter certain areas of the city as the locals will give them a hiding. But banning them or kicking them off the streets only contains the problem, it doesn't solve it.

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

I would have said it doesbn't take a gnius to figure out that those who don't read the piece properly will take the wrong meaning from it, and those who do read it properly will be under no illusions as to the point being made.

The author cannot be held responsible for you not only missing the comment first time round, but then challenging someone else to show you where it was because you couldn't spot it after you (presumably) re-examined the piece.

I read it properly and understood it. It was a biased article with a lip service argument put in to make it look balanced. It’s an old trick - give the reader both sides of the argument but heavily favour one side, thus giving the illusion of impracticality. Simply because you concur with his bias is no reason to accuse others of misreading it.

The_Scary_Man wrote:

No I didn't mean anarchy in the literal political sense. I meant a kind of raging against the machine, a complete rejection of what the government stands for and the acceptance of a new order where violence is part and parcel of the political ideal.

And as I said if you want to start a thread about the revolution feel free to do it elsewhere.

fly_agaric

The_Scary_Man wrote:

I don't know what 'the ideas of people like you' means.

Sorry about that. Careless of me. The author also only makes the comparison to try and show how the govt. is being too hard on muslims - not because he actually wants the Labour govt. to begin treating neo nazis in the same way as it has been treating muslim terrorist suspects.

The_Scary_Man wrote:

I'm not proposing that lads who join neo-nazi groups be rendered to Belmarsh because you're right this would only form a martyr mentality on their part too. Rather the other way round. If the British Gov't can be understanding about the circumstances that lead to a young white man being marginalised then why can't a greater level of understanding be offered to young muslims instead of taking Orwellian measures like asking their parents to spy on them?

But the "far right" has not gone as "far" as these muslim extremists yet. Until they do (in the UK), you can't really make these kinds of comparisons between how the govt. is treating Islamic extremists and its reactions to a growth in support for the BNP say.

In fact, if we now bring in the last batch of white terrorists the British had to deal with (who were Irish, people of Irish descent in the UK) there was alot less of this handwringing about the feelings of the wider community compared to now.
I do wonder if it was because the British had a history of treating the Irish harshly so it came kind of natural or was it because they were not scared of us at all but they are very scared of their muslim population and what could happen if they píss them off too many of them too much?:)
Or maybe the British have just lost a bit of their stomach for such things?

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

They harass, threaten, attack and sometimes kill people here regularly. The government tried to ban them but failed. They cannot enter certain areas of the city as the locals will give them a hiding. But banning them or kicking them off the streets only contains the problem, it doesn't solve it.

This gets confusing because you are, I think, talking about Germany now while the country with terrorism problems from its muslim minority and the security reaction to that is the UK.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

I read it properly and understood it. It was a biased article with a lip service argument put in to make it look balanced.

And you knew this so well, you said that you certainly couldn't see it there when told about it.

So I'm expected to believe both your current claim that you saw it and your initial claim that you didn't see it????

Fair enough. You both did and didn't see it. No problem. Lets move on.

Simply because you concur with his bias is no reason to accuse others of misreading it.

I agree with his punchline - that people rightly get indignant when they themselves are the target of such tarring-with-the-one-brush tactics.

I agree with the notion that he couldn't actually prove this point better than By first making the reader indignant and then delivering this "see how you feel when you're the victim of this" punchline.

I agree with the notion that your continued indignation at the article only further helps support the author's point. Indeed, the more indignant you get, the more you prove his point.....so please....carry on saying what a piece of cr@p writing it is.

Win/win for the author's point, really. If you accept his point, so be it. If you continue being indignant and claiming that its just an unfair attack on the white man...you support his point anyway.

The only non-win will be the people who nisist the author was making a different point....but they're kinda needed to illustrate the point in the first place, so thats ok.

Acceptable losses.

Happens in war.

We'll miss you, but we'll carry on the good fight without you


jc

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

I agree with the notion that he couldn't actually prove this point better than By first making the reader indignant and then delivering this "see how you feel when you're the victim of this" punchline.

Except he doesn’t do that. His punch line is no more than a disclaimer made to look fair and balanced when he is not. Of course, if you come from the position whereby you agree with his biased position then you would agree with that.

Win/win for the author's point, really. If you accept his point, so be it. If you continue being indignant and claiming that its just an unfair attack on the white man...you support his point anyway.

Sure and you can continue pretending that he was not entirely biased because of his one line disclaimer.

Sgt. Sensible

fly_agaric wrote:

This gets confusing because you are, I think, talking about Germany now while the country with terrorism problems from its muslim minority and the security reaction to that is the UK.

Far right rhetoric about muslims is identical to the rubbish in the OP, no matter what part of Europe we're talking about. The Mozart opera was cancelled in Berlin remember, out of (imo unfounded) fears of a backlash. We're not talking solely about terrorism, but about how some believe that muslims are going to make us all obey sharia law. And then ban kites and gays and women as well probably.

Sgt. Sensible

The Corinthian wrote:

It was a biased article with a lip service argument put in to make it look balanced.

It's an Op-Ed, an opinion editorial. Of course he's going to be biased in his own opinion's favour. If people here just accused your posts of being biased instead of debating the points you're trying to make, you'd be justified in telling them to get knotted

fly_agaric

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Far right rhetoric about muslims is identical to the rubbish in the OP, no matter what part of Europe we're talking about.

The stuff about "converting to Islam" and the "death of western, secular democracy" is exaggerated [and could be reminiscent of stuff the far right (ala BNP etc) (and funnily enough, the Islamic extremists themselves for their own reasons) use to create fear], but what the OP said about "craven self-censorship" and how it hands a victory to "foam flecked mullahs" is right on the money IMO.

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

We're not talking solely about terrorism, but about how some believe that muslims are going to make us all obey sharia law. And then ban kites and gays and women as well probably.

Apart from the above opinion, any posts I made were about some tangential issues rather than what actually began the thread in the first place.
German neo-nazis do not have much to do with a comparison between how the UK govt. deals with the situation of "muslims" who may potentially be terrorists (Belmarsh, police raids, telling the wider community to root out the bad eggs + help the govt.) and how it deals with "whites" who may potentially be neo-nazis/BNPers (understanding comments).
If the neo-nazis start bombing the tube I'd expect some harsher words and actions.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

Except he doesn’t do that.

I'm taking what he wrote at face value and you are assuming he has ulterior motives. Its pointless having a punch-and-judy over our differing interpretations.

If only there was an alternative...hmmmm....I have an idea.....

Sure and you can continue pretending that he was not entirely biased because of his one line disclaimer.

I don't suppose you'd like to rederence the author's other works that led you to this conclusion? There's a chunk of them linked off the page of the article posted here, so its not like they're hard to find.

I've looked through a chunk of them and can't find a stance consistent with what you're alleging....unless I decide to interpret all of his writings in teh manner of "he's guilty, and we'll bear that in mind when deciding what it is he's really saying".

Given that you did challenge me to provide you with the quote from the original article that supported the notion that he meant just what he wrote, I'd ask you to do likewise and show me which articles support your assertion that the guy is clearly one-sided. There's no shortage of material, so its not like it'll be tough.

jc

Sand

Ooh lets use my Time machine.


Quote:
Irish may feel annoyed by being asked constantly to re-affirm which camp theyre in. Perfectly understandable, but its up to them to challenge the idealogical/theological basis employed by republicans - by definition they simply do not engage with 'brits' who quote human rights legislation at them. It needs to go a bit further than qualified condemnation.

Hobbes, given I am Irish and I do challenge the idealogical/theological basis employed by republicans (In fact, I think my position on the Provos is fairly clear by this stage), then the effort at irony slumps. Your time machine took you to...present day.

The whole right/left thing [and no neo nazis are not right wing...theyre nationalist socialists. Nationalism is not a right wing preserve] has very little to do with jihadists or even peaceful islamic fundamentalism. Do jihadists have some sort of policy document on tax cuts or increased social welfare?

Introducing it just demonstrates that people tend to have a certain world view and interpret everything else in some manner that relates to or validates their worldview. The Guardian columnist views the problem as being a racist, xenophobic Britain and that a more politically correct, leftist approach will solve the issue - which conveniently sits with his own views no doubt. Its not important to understand or examine the thinking of the Jihadists, nor to question how Jihadism can spring up in UKs muslim population - simply relegate them to "provoked victims of cruel imperialist Britain" and move on to the next issue which can happily be understood and solved by politically correct center left views.

Sgt. Sensible

Sand wrote:

.
neo nazis are not right wing.

Oh lordy mama. Made up rubbish time. I can assure you that the nazis here would kick your head in if you suggested to their faces that they were lefties of any kind. It's off topic so start a new thread on that please. I wouldn't mind a good laugh.

people tend to have a certain world view and interpret everything else in some manner that relates to or validates their worldview.

Quite.

politically correct

Right on cue.

toomevara

Just to get things back on track, hot off the presses, the lastest act of what I'm now terming islamo-infamy; A columnist for French newspaper Le Figaro has gone into hiding because, once again I think you're probably ahead of me here, he's received death threats for having the barefaced cheek to call the prophet Muhammed a desert warlord, which incontrovertibly, in the later Medinan phase of his life, he was!!!

So now the islamo-fascists are turning their baleful attentions to the (nominally free) national press of France, so from now on only adulatory, congratulatory prose re: old Muhammed and his doings or else, guess what? You've got a date with a fatwa me old mate!....Another incremental strangulation of free speech, another outrage against the core values of western democracy.