Muslim peace conference condems terrorism

[alexa]

charges of Racism and Islamophobia,

For those who have been out of media contact for the past 30 years an exert from a full description of the sort of behaviour which has come to be known as Islamophobia using examples from my own country, the UK.

The term “Islamophobia” is, admittedly, not ideal. It was coined by way of analogy to “xenophobia” and can be characterized by the belief that all or most Muslims are religious fanatics, have violent tendencies towards non-Muslims, and reject such concepts as equality, tolerance, and democracy. It is a new form of racism whereby Muslims, an ethno-religious group, not a race, are, nevertheless, constructed as a race. A set of negative assumptions are made of the entire group to the detriment of members of that group. During the 1990s many sociologists and cultural analysts observed a shift in racist ideas from ones based on skin color to ones based on notions of cultural superiority and otherness.

-snip-

Islamophobia is heightened by a number of contextual factors. One of these is the fact that a high proportion of refugees and people seeking asylum are Muslims. Demonization of refugees is therefore frequently a coded attack on Muslims, for the words “Muslim,” “asylum-seeker,” “refugee,” and “immigrant” become synonymous and interchangeable in the popular imagination. In this case, the common experiences of immigrant communities of unemployment, rejection, alienation and violence have combined with Islamophobia to make integration particularly difficult.
This has led Muslim communities to suffer higher levels of unemployment, poor housing, poor health and higher levels of racially motivated violence than other communities. For example, in 2003, when the Home Office produced a poster about alleged deceit and dishonesty amongst people seeking asylum, it chose to illustrate its concerns by focusing on someone with a Muslim name.3 An end-of-year article in the Sunday Times magazine on “Inhumanity to Man” focused in four of its five examples on actions by Muslims.4

I am only allowed to put in a small amount. For proper understanding and so that this ignorance can end read the full article. No excuses anymore.
Islamophobia: A New Word for an Old Fear

 

[mbig]

The term “Islamophobia” is, admittedly, not ideal. It was coined by way of analogy to “xenophobia” and can be characterized by the belief that all or most Muslims are religious fanatics,

Again we have the prejudicial but meaningless strawman .... "fanatics".
This is like using the other nebulous words "radical", "extremist" to set up said strawman.

One can be a religious Literalist/fundamentalist without being a "fanatic".
Indeed Literalism IS Mainstream in Islam.

have violent tendencies towards non-Muslims,

Inordinately they do.
Islam is at war with many of it's Non-Muslim neighbors and persecutes it's many of it's non-Muslim minorities worldwide.
http://www.conservativetruth.org/archives/tombarrett/12-16-01.shtml
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1102/etzioni.html

and reject such concepts as equality, tolerance, and democracy.

As far as equality and tolerance, they also have inordinately intolerant societies and views.
http://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&....,cf.osb&fp=55ec5d59dd72fa0b&biw=1489&bih=628
http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...zero-tolerance-homosexuality-0-fer-500-a.html

Democracy? we'll see. Hasn't been too hot. I'm rooting for full Spring.

It is a new form of racism whereby Muslims, an ethno-religious group, not a race, are, nevertheless, constructed as a race. A set of negative assumptions are made of the entire group to the detriment of members of that group. During the 1990s many sociologists and cultural analysts observed a shift in racist ideas from ones based on skin color to ones based on notions of cultural superiority and otherness.

Can't one culture be more advanced than another? Or at the very least preferable to those who are, ie, Western.

Islamophobia is heightened by a number of contextual factors. One of these is the fact that a high proportion of refugees and people seeking asylum are Muslims.

I think he should ask why that is.
Perhaps one reason is the Intolerant Islamic societies are more common than he thinks.

Demonization of refugees is therefore frequently a coded attack on Muslims,...

I agree with this.
But it's part of Western PC to not name the problem's origin so as to bend over backwards to avoid prejudicial remarks even if appropriate/informational.

This has led Muslim communities to suffer higher levels of unemployment, poor housing, poor health and higher levels of racially motivated violence than other communities. For example, in 2003, when the Home Office produced a poster about alleged deceit and dishonesty amongst people seeking asylum, it chose to illustrate its concerns by focusing on someone with a Muslim name.3 An end-of-year article in the Sunday Times magazine on “Inhumanity to Man” focused in four of its five examples on actions by Muslims.4

The Islamophobia Myth
Kenan Malik's essay 'The Islamophobia Myth'

Ten years ago no one had heard of Islamophobia. Now everyone from Muslim leaders to anti-racist activists to government ministers want to convince us that Britain is in the grip of an irrational hatred of Islam - a hatred that, they claim, leads to institutionalised harassment, physical attacks, social discrimination and political alienation. Former Home Office Minister John Denham has warned of the 'cancer of Islamophobia' infecting the nation....."

But does Islamophobia really exist? Or is the hatred and abuse of Muslims being exaggerated to suit politicians' needs and silence the critics of Islam?
The trouble with Islamophobia is that it is an irrational concept. It Confuses hatred of, and discrimination against, Muslims on the one hand with criticism of Islam on the other. The charge of 'Islamophobia' is all too often used not to highlight racism but to stifle criticism. And in reality discrimination against Muslims is not as great as is often perceived - but Criticism of Islam should be Greater.

In making a film on 'Islamophobia for Channel 4' (link) what became clear is the gap between perception and reality. Islamophobia driven by what people want to believe is true, rather than what really is true. [...........] What all this suggests is a Huge gap between perception and reality. And it's a gap that's exploited by both Muslim leaders and mainstream politicians. For Muslim leaders, inflating the threat of helps consolidate their power base, both within their own communities and within wider society. British Muslims have long looked with envy at the political power wielded by the Jewish community, and by the status accorded to the British Board of Deputies. One of the reasons for setting up the Muslim Council of Britain was to try to emulate the political success of the Board of Deputies. Muslim leaders talk about using Islamophobia in the same way that they perceive Jewish leaders have exploited fears about anti-Semitism. Exaggerating anti-Muslim prejudice is also useful for mainstream politicians...

 

[Ben K.]

Radical Islam is at war with the West and they have said so on many occasions. In their minds, such as they are, killing the enemy (us) only makes sense. Killing young people at a holiday camp makes no tactical or political sense whatsoever. How is that going to effect either Muslims or radical Islam?

He has explained that. He attacked the political enablers of multi-culturalism and Muslim immigration, like how Muslims killed other Muslims or how Irish killed other Irish due to their politics of helping the other "tribe". Have you researched the guy at all?

You have missed the point. It seems that whenever some crazy person murders innocent people there will be those who will attach a motive to it in order to try and justify their political feelings or agenda. That was the case with Palin and that's the case here.

Except the talking points Breivik used were in line with the anti-Muslim rhetoric of seemingly sane people. How do the Tucson shooters belief correlate with Tea Partiers or Sarah Palin or American conservatism? Better yet, why are you trying to interject America into this discussion?

In fact there are probably psychiatric reports for both of them.

Have you, or do you need to, read them to justify a "diagnosis" of anti-Semitism?

It was not commonplace in the western world until Muslim immigration began in a serious way. Can you name the no-go areas in the UK prior to 1990, for example?

You seem to know nothing of British history or culture. Try watching "This is England" for starters. It demonstrates the inter-racial tensions that existed in England in the 80s, replete with no go areas for people of certain colours. Better keep out of Kilburn or Camden Town if you ain't Irish back in those halcyon days you seem to imagine. Areas of Glasgow or Liverpool depending on your religious or social status. Take your pick from Northern Ireland.

Do you believe that some aspects of 'Islamophobia'' might be justified?

I'll restate for the umpteenth time, there's a difference between rational criticism of Islam and Islamophobia. If there are "aspects" that are justified, those views are not Islamophobic.

 

[Grant]

For those who have been out of media contact for the past 30 years an exert from a full description of the sort of behaviour which has come to be known as Islamophobia using examples from my own country, the UK.

The UK doesn't hold near the amount of influence it once did.

Your definition was laughable. Here's the definition in North America.

The neologism "Islamophobia" did not simply emerge ex nihilo. It was invented, deliberately, by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, which is based in Northern Virginia. If that name dimly rings a bell, it should: I've mentioned it before, and it's particularly important because it was co-founded by Anwar Ibrahim--the hero of Moderate Islam who is now trotting around the globe comparing his plight to that of Aung San Suu Kyi.

Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former member of the IIIT who has renounced the group in disgust, was an eyewitness to the creation of the word. "This loathsome term," he writes,

is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.

In another article concerning the many moderate Muslims whose voices have been drowned out by Saudi-financed Muslim Brotherhood front groups, Muhammad describes the strategy behind the word's invention:

In an effort to silence critics of political Islam, advocates needed to come up with terminology that would enable them to portray themselves as victims. Muhammad said he was present when his then-allies, meeting at the offices of the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT) in Northern Virginia years ago, coined the term "Islamophobia."

Muhammad said the Islamists decided to emulate the homosexual activists who used the term "homophobia" to silence critics. He said the group meeting at IIIT saw "Islamophobia" as a way to "beat up their critics."

Islamic terrorists have murdered thousands of people and have threatened to kill millions more. The reason we have security at airports, and why the UK has cameras are everywhere, is largely because of Islamic terrorism. Does that make the UK, Israeli, Canadian, US , etc. governments are "Islamophobic" or does it just mean they are having to deal with the reality of the world today?

This is just one of the threats, and there are thousands more, Muslims have made. There are also a lot of dead people who had thought all Muslims were just regular folks.

Hate demo over cartoon | The Sun |News

 

[Grant]

He has explained that. He attacked the political enablers of multi-culturalism and Muslim immigration, like how Muslims killed other Muslims or how Irish killed other Irish due to their politics of helping the other "tribe". Have you researched the guy at all?

Yes. He didn't like left wing policies and what they were doing to Norway and Western Europe so murdered their children for revenge. He was clearly a Leftistophobiac.

Except the talking points Breivik used were in line with the anti-Muslim rhetoric of seemingly sane people. How do the Tucson shooters belief correlate with Tea Partiers or Sarah Palin or American conservatism? Better yet, why are you trying to interject America into this discussion?

Am I talking over your head? I've already explained that there are people who will take a human tragedy and use it to ascribe those similarities, dangers or motives to their political opponents or those who hold different opinions, just as many are doing in this Brevik case. I used the Tucson murders as one example, though there are many more. Thus your suggestion is that anyone who is against the Islamification of Europe is an "Islamophobe", evil, and a potential mass murderer of innocent children. Would that be the case?

Have you, or do you need to, read them to justify a "diagnosis" of anti-Semitism?

No, I actually don't. I can watch Al Jazeera or Palestinian TV to see plenty of that.

You seem to know nothing of British history or culture. Try watching "This is England" for starters. It demonstrates the inter-racial tensions that existed in England in the 80s, replete with no go areas for people of certain colours. Better keep out of Kilburn or Camden Town if you ain't Irish back in those halcyon days you seem to imagine. Areas of Glasgow or Liverpool depending on your religious or social status. Take your pick from Northern Ireland.

I realize that the UK, and Europe, has always been a home for racists, political fanatics and religious fanatics and many millions have died as a result of this ignorance. Their history, ancient and modern, reflects this. However these religious no go areas you mention, however many there were, have now seem to have been supplanted by Muslim no go areas. Is that true? Are there still Catholic or Protestant or Irish no go areas around, or are they largely Muslim now?

I'll restate for the umpteenth time, there's a difference between rational criticism of Islam and Islamophobia. If there are "aspects" that are justified, those views are not Islamophobic.

And you're just the one to decide what is valid criticism, what is not, what is "Islamophobia" and what is not. Is that your argument? Do you hold those same standards forJewophobiacs and Christianophobiacs?

 

[Ben K.]

Yes. He didn't like left wing policies and what they were doing to Norway and Western Europe so murdered their children for revenge. He was clearly a Leftistophobiac.

Is immigration all that defines "left-wing" politics? He stated his reasons, like it or lump it, that's what they were - he commited his acts because he feared islamisation of europe.

Am I talking over your head? I've already explained that there are people who will take a human tragedy and use it to ascribe those similarities, dangers or motives to their political opponents or those who hold different opinions, just as many are doing in this Brevik case.
I used the Tucson murders as one example, though there are many more.

Like 9/11 or 7/7? Are you seriously contending that anyone using those acts to justify a reaction against radical islam are being unreasonable?

Thus your suggestion is that anyone who is against the Islamification of Europe is an "Islamophobe", evil, and a potential mass murderer of innocent children. Would that be the case?

No, I've met plenty of affable racists in my time. There's a difference between Hitler and the elderly grandmother who doesn't trust "darkies".

No, I actually don't. I can watch Al Jazeera or Palestinian TV to see plenty of that.

You watch Al Jaz to form an opinion on Hitler? Sigh. So you admit there's no reason to await some psychiatric report to form an opinion on the motive of a guy who left plenty of evidence behind for what he believed in.

I realize that the UK, and Europe, has always been a home for racists, political fanatics and religious fanatics and many millions have died as a result of this ignorance. Their history, ancient and modern, reflects this. However these religious no go areas you mention, however many there were, have now seem to have been supplanted by Muslim no go areas. Is that true? Are there still Catholic or Protestant or Irish no go areas around, or are they largely Muslim now?

So in the wastes of your rambling you admit you were wrong. No go areas existed in Britain before the 90s. My Canadian buddies assure me there are no go areas after dark in Toronto, as they do in every other part of the world. Woohoo, we have lots in common.

And you're just the one to decide what is valid criticism, what is not, what is "Islamophobia" and what is not. Is that your argument? Do you hold those same standards forJewophobiacs and Christianophobiacs?

Jewophobic? You mean anti-semite, right? Obviously, I can't provide an objective measure for what I consider prejudice in any form, but I won't stand for denial.

I'm not really sure where you're going with these questions. It seems like you want me to admit some special devotion to Islam over other faiths. I've answered this question (and the many others you field whether they're relevant or not) already. Where do you seek to go with this?

 

[Grant]

Is immigration all that defines "left-wing" politics? He stated his reasons, like it or lump it, that's what they were - he commited his acts because he feared islamisation of europe.

Among other things, yes. Just where are you going with this Breivik thing? Why is it important to you?

Like 9/11 or 7/7? Are you seriously contending that anyone using those acts to justify a reaction against radical islam are being unreasonable?

Who has made that case? I certainly haven't. Is it your contention, since you brought it up, that the democracies should not react to radical Islam?

No, I've met plenty of affable racists in my time. There's a difference between Hitler and the elderly grandmother who doesn't trust "darkies".

No kidding?

You watch Al Jaz to form an opinion on Hitler? Sigh.

Huh?? What are you talking about here? If you are going to be deliberately stupid this should stop right now.

So you admit there's no reason to await some psychiatric report to form an opinion on the motive of a guy who left plenty of evidence behind for what he believed in.

If you read the report on him you'll see that he was pissed off about a number of things, as many people are, but they don't go murdering innocent people. I don't understand your fascination with Anders Brievik or Adolf Hitler but a psychiatric report could be amusing.

So in the wastes of your rambling you admit you were wrong. No go areas existed in Britain before the 90s. My Canadian buddies assure me there are no go areas after dark in Toronto, as they do in every other part of the world. Woohoo, we have lots in common.

This is completely dishonest. I said "It was not commonplace in the western world until Muslim immigration began in a serious way." Then my follow up was "Can you name the no-go areas in the UK prior to 1990, for example?" and you mentioned the 'troubles' that were going on for decades and which the Americans eventually resolved. Then I asked you if there were still these No go areas in the UK or whether the main problem now was Muslims. Can you answer that question?

Now why not answer my follow-up question? Who controls the no go areas in the UK today? And where are these No go areas in Toronto and who is responsible for them?

Jewophobic? You mean anti-semite, right?

No, I said Jewophobic and meant it. We can say Islamophobic and anti Islam or Jewophobia and anti Jew. Why not?

Obviously, I can't provide an objective measure for what I consider prejudice in any form, but I won't stand for denial.

Yet you don't know what it objectively is. You go on your feelings, right?

I'm not really sure where you're going with these questions. It seems like you want me to admit some special devotion to Islam over other faiths. I've answered this question (and the many others you field whether they're relevant or not) already. Where do you seek to go with this?

You're not sure, on a debate board, about my motives in asking you questions? Why not just honestly answer them?

 

[alexa]

The UK doesn't hold near the amount of influence it once did.

Nothing to do with the UK's position of power in the world. Just organisations entrusted to creating integration in society and being watchful of where we may start to again dehumanise any section. The Runnymede Trust is an organisation which is core and central to what people believe is 'superior' within Western society, values of equal treatment of all, fairness, tolerance, democracy, acting in humanitarian ways. How ironic that those who have been infected with this new 'cultural supremacy' should reject organisations which protect the very values they claim make them superior.

Like it or not 'cultural racism' is noticed and accepted by all who have had an education apart from anti-Islam extremists. This is what people are talking about when they call someone an Islamophobe. The fact that you demand your right to be an Islamophobe is something completely different.

Here is the description again so that you understand specifically what people are talking about when they use the term.

The term “Islamophobia” is, admittedly, not ideal. It was coined by way of analogy to “xenophobia” and can be characterized by the belief that all or most Muslims are religious fanatics, have violent tendencies towards non-Muslims, and reject such concepts as equality, tolerance, and democracy. It is a new form of racism whereby Muslims, an ethno-religious group, not a race, are, nevertheless, constructed as a race. A set of negative assumptions are made of the entire group to the detriment of members of that group. During the 1990s many sociologists and cultural analysts observed a shift in racist ideas from ones based on skin color to ones based on notions of cultural superiority and otherness.

Your definition was laughable. Here's the definition in North America.

The Runnymede Trust is not a Muslim Think Tank. Irony that you far right anti Islam extremists claim your cultural supremacy while working to destroy the very values by which Western society could argue it was on a humanitarian and justice level advanced.

Runnymede Trust - Runnymede

Islamic terrorists have murdered thousands of people and have threatened to kill millions more. The reason we have security at airports, and why the UK has cameras are everywhere, is largely because of Islamic terrorism. Does that make the UK, Israeli, Canadian, US , etc. governments are "Islamophobic" or does it just mean they are having to deal with the reality of the world today?

You believe that Islamic terrorists are the only terrorists in the world? Are you aware that Tamal Tigers have committed more suicide bombings than Islamist terrorists? It is the responsibility of our governments to protect us from all terrorism. It is the responsibility of the anti-islam extremists to pretend that all extremism is created by Muslims. In this way they can conjure an image of Islam as a religion which itself creates terrorism rather than looking at the political causes of this - as is the situation with all other terrorism and in the case of what is called 'al qaeda' to look a the US's position in facilitating it's creation in the first instance.

Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims...Except the 99.6% that Aren't | loonwatch.com


As far as the Sun is concerned. Are you unaware of how in disrepute the Murdoch papers have become? It is of credit to the British people that the propaganda sent out by these comic papers affected so few - particularly as these papers are generally read by those with little education, hence those most likely to believe what is in the papers as true. Not to say it has not impressed some, particularly with the loss of community felt by the loss of the old Labour Party and Union support and education. But still, the vast majority of people in the UK have not bought the propaganda hook and line. It seems we have some resistance to this.

I think in a previous post Ben gave some of the reasons for this. We have been through all this before. We suffered terrorism and lost lives while the people of the United States looked into their pockets and provided the money to pay for the weapons which cost those lives. Terrorism is not new to the UK or the rest of Europe. This too shall pass.

From this we learnt that in order not to aggravate the situation we did not blame all people for the actions of the few.

With racist hate we have been through it all before. Whether it was the Jews suffering in the 1930's or the Irish suffering for a great deal longer to the racism of the National front in the '80's categorised so vividly in the film Ben recommended



We have seen it before many times.

 

[Jetboogieman]

The UK doesn't hold near the amount of influence it once did.

Your definition was laughable. Here's the definition in North America.




Islamic terrorists have murdered thousands of people and have threatened to kill millions more. The reason we have security at airports, and why the UK has cameras are everywhere, is largely because of Islamic terrorism. Does that make the UK, Israeli, Canadian, US , etc. governments are "Islamophobic" or does it just mean they are having to deal with the reality of the world today?

This is just one of the threats, and there are thousands more, Muslims have made. There are also a lot of dead people who had thought all Muslims were just regular folks.

Hate demo over cartoon | The Sun |News

But more natural born American citizens have killed Americans then muslims ever have...

 

[Ben K.]

Among other things, yes. Just where are you going with this Breivik thing? Why is it important to you?

Try to follow a string. I'm giving you an example of an islamophobe. You seem to be claiming he wasn't.

Who has made that case? I certainly haven't. Is it your contention, since you brought it up, that the democracies should not react to radical Islam?

This is the case you were making. You said that people try to use tragedies to make political points. While this may be true it's a vapid point. People are in no denial that Islamists committed 9/11 or that Brevik was an Islamophobe, there was serious doubt about the motivations of the Tucson shooter.

No kidding?

Admitting you were wrong again, nice.

Huh?? What are you talking about here? If you are going to be deliberately stupid this should stop right now.

Try to follow a string. You claimed you needed a psyche report to form an opinion on Breivik. I asked if you needed one for Hitler or Ahmadinijad. You responded that you'd watch Al Jaz to form an opinion. Even though you capitulated on the idiocy of needing a medical diagnosis to form an opinion on someone, I thought it was amusing that you would cite Al Jaz in the circumstances.

If you read the report on him you'll see that he was pissed off about a number of things, as many people are, but they don't go murdering innocent people. I don't understand your fascination with Anders Brievik or Adolf Hitler but a psychiatric report could be amusing.

Exceptionally dim-witted capitulations all around here Grant. People aren't defined by a single characteristic. Islamophobia is a single characteristic of Breivik, as anti-semitism was of Hitler. People who share that characteristic are not necessarily going to go around killing people, they can sure be useful idiots though.

This is completely dishonest. I said "It was not commonplace in the western world until Muslim immigration began in a serious way." Then my follow up was "Can you name the no-go areas in the UK prior to 1990, for example?" and you mentioned the 'troubles' that were going on for decades and which the Americans eventually resolved.

Actually, I mentioned various no go areas based on race, not just the Troubles. No go areas have been commonplace in Europe and North America prior to the 90s'. You tacitly capitulated and moved on to another question, which is such an irritating tactic.

Then I asked you if there were still these No go areas in the UK or whether the main problem now was Muslims. Can you answer that question?

I've been answering questions all day, you've been answering questions with questions. Yes there are Muslim no go areas in Europe. Some of the other no go areas have gone away, some have remained and some new ones have arisen. Tends to move with the socio-economic climate, as it always has, on each continent.

Now why not answer my follow-up question? Who controls the no go areas in the UK today? And where are these No go areas in Toronto and who is responsible for them?

That's not a follow-up, you asked that question already but you seem to have a short attention span. I'll take a Grant-like route and ask a question with a question, can you name the no go areas in the UK that exist at the moment? I feel you should share the burden of place naming.

No, I said Jewophobic and meant it. We can say Islamophobic and anti Islam or Jewophobia and anti Jew. Why not?

Who says anti-Islam?

Yet you don't know what it objectively is. You go on your feelings, right?

Sure do, that's why I said I couldn't judge a character objectively. When you accuse anti-Americanism, is it an objective judgment?

You're not sure, on a debate board, about my motives in asking you questions? Why not just honestly answer them?

No, I'm not sure why you ask the same questions again and again, or respond with more questions without acknowledging the previous answers. It's poor debating on your part, since you seem to be frustrated with the fact that I don't have separate rules for Islamophobes that I do for other anti-'s, -ist's or -phobes. I'm not here to confirm your a priory assumptions about me, so why don't you debate the content of my arguments rather than try to make me fit a comfortable European stereo-type you can throw your Mark Steyn talking points at.

 

[Medusa]

I'd like to throw my two cents in, without going too deep into the debate:

I live in Berlin, Germany, and I know quite a few people with immigration background from Muslim countries (see? I am even hesitant saying "Muslims", because according to my experience, most of them are not even religious Muslims). It's true there are some problems with this group of people. Especially young guys from Turkish families often don't know how to behave properly, they seem very macho, often display an authoritarian attitude, they have an awkward attitude towards women, they are overrepresented in the crime rate of that age group.

But according to my impression, this has nothing at all to do with Islam. On the contrary. Those who actually care about their Muslim religion are usually better integrated, they restrain from crime, they respect women better, they don't display this ugly "young male teen mob" mentality. But of course the really Muslim people among them are sometimes awkward too -- very conservative views on gender roles, homophobia and so on, much like hardcore Christians. But hey, we're a free country, so as long as you respect the law, you're free to believe what you want. Actual support of terrorism really is only a mere fringe phenomenon, even among those few immigrants who actually care about Islam.

If you ask me, the problems we're having with young 2nd generation Turkish immigrants have nothing to do with Islam, but mostly with social status and backwards *tradition* (as opposed to religion) -- and bad education. Their parents are usually from very backwards East Anatolian regions, sometimes almost illiterate, hardly any education. Accordingly, their style of education is very authoritarian on one side, but on the other side, they give their sons too much leeway (their daughters are usually the nicest people on this planet). Religion does not even play an important role within their families, but backwards gender roles, family "values" and antique ideas of honor (you sometimes find this among backwards Christians in south Italy too). Of course the sons growing up in these families experience a clash of culture when being confronted with lenient, anti-authoritarian and individualist values in kindergartens, schools and sports clubs mostly frequented by natives. Some manage to make this tightrope walk, but others do not and then are trapped between cultures, are prone to crime and awkward behavior.

Why do people believe this has anything to do with Islam? I really have no idea, because it is more than obvious that it does not.

The rampant aggressive islamophobia among natives, on the other side, really worries me. Maybe that's because I don't understand it. Most of their ideas could not hold any scrutiny at all, if the islamophobes took the effort talking with actual Muslims only once. Usually, it's people who have some obscure fear, they apparently feel horribly threatened by anything that's alien and not culturally and racially pure, and they paint all immigrants from Muslim countries alike with such a broad brush that the resulting caricature seems ridiculous. I feel pity for them, because they must have a really ****ed up, pathetic life, when they are so horrible scared all the time. But what scared them so much, what went wrong? Did a Turkish yob mock them in a subway? Did a Turkish Döner Kebap seller cheat them for change? Big deal, happened to me too. But why, for Christ's sake, can't they just relax a little about it? **** happens.

On top of this deep fear, there apparently is much rage and hate, which worries me. All I get from the islamophobes is that they hate immigrants from Muslim countries. Constructive ideas about what to do, how to proceed with them? Never. Just as vague and undefined as their fear is, so is their hate. They just somehow want these aliens to vanish -- their mere existence bothers them, much more than their behavior. No clear, rational definition, just vague fear and hate. That worries me, because I feel they might even support a "final solution to the Muslim question", if the right demagogue proposed it. But maybe that's a stretch, I don't know. At any rate, I have never heard anything constructive at all from islamophobes. Not even a single time.

At any rate, islamophobia is objectively a much bigger threat to a free open society, a much bigger threat to democracy and freedom, than radical islamism is: Islamophobic parties on a platform of fear, hate and ostracism make up to 20% in European elections. Muslim political parties which might be a threat? As far as I know, such a party does not even exist, nowhere in Western Europe. Now if an islamist party with the goal of establishing a califate (a demand, which I believe, not even 5% of the immigrants in Germany from Muslim countries would support) was formed, and won considerable political influence, I might agree that there was a problem. But such a party is decades away of even being formed. Why all this paranoid hysteria? What's wrong with people?

And yeah, we should do a better job to address the problems with immigrant yobs and deranged teenagers. If their families can't give them a proper education, maybe our society should find ways to address this deficit. It's not a good thing when too much of them run around pestering women with vulgar slogans, selling drugs or beating up each other. But I really don't see that Islam plays any significant role in this.

dear german boy

not all of them are turkısh,but an ımportant part of ımmıgrants form turkey are kurds

we also suffer form their vulgar antisocial and patriarchal culturel habits in turkey too.....

you had written about east anatolia

yees kurds usually live in east anatolia!!!

so if they are regarded as a nation by westerners

please dont smear turks!!!

call those vulgar people ' kurd' not turk

 

[Gardener]

please dont smear turks!!!

But how else do you folks wrestle if you don't get well smeared first?

 

[Grant]

Nothing to do with the UK's position of power in the world. Just organisations entrusted to creating integration in society and being watchful of where we may start to again dehumanise any section.

You have your definition from the UK, which might be fine for the UK if the citizens want to believe it, but it would be absolutely absurd in any other democracy.

The Runnymede Trust is an organisation which is core and central to what people believe is 'superior' within Western society, values of equal treatment of all, fairness, tolerance, democracy, acting in humanitarian ways.

Nah, it's the usual craziness we've come to expect from so many of these NGO's. I read enough of it to see that its the same tired one-sided issues where, if you disagree with their positions, you are against equality, 'fairness', 'tolerance', democracy, and acting in humanitarian ways. I doubt that Great Britain, the source of the Magna Carta and a country which has fought bravely against Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and any number of dictators, needs lectures from those whose countries of origin are still mired in intolerance and inhumanity.

How ironic that those who have been infected with this new 'cultural supremacy' should reject organisations which protect the very values they claim make them superior.

Who has claimed cultural supremacy? But now that you mention it, I beleive any culture that allows the public execution of Gays, the hanging of those of those of another faith, the stoning of female adulterers (including rape victims), the teaching of hatreds to young children, etc. is inferior. And not just a little bit. You argument that those who go out to murder innocent people because they have been "baited" also suggests a tendency towards an inferior culture.

Like it or not 'cultural racism' is noticed and accepted by all who have had an education apart from anti-Islam extremists. This is what people are talking about when they call someone an Islamophobe. The fact that you demand your right to be an Islamophobe is something completely different.

"Cultural racism"?? Is that, like "Islamophobia", one of those recently coined terms that can create more victimhood unless demands are met?

You believe that Islamic terrorists are the only terrorists in the world?

No, they are just the most numerous and are a problem almost everywhere. That's been well documented.

Are you aware that Tamal Tigers have committed more suicide bombings than Islamist terrorists?

Well you might have bragging rights there, if you feel that proves how humanitarian Islam is, but of course 'baited' Muslims murder innocent people by other means than just suicide bombings. Do you need examples?

It is the responsibility of our governments to protect us from all terrorism.

Certainly. That's why they keep a special eye on Muslims. Tamil Tigers as well.

It is the responsibility of the anti-islam extremists to pretend that all extremism is created by Muslims.

Really? And who gave them that responsibility? Do you have a link?

In this way they can conjure an image of Islam as a religion which itself creates terrorism rather than looking at the political causes of this - as is the situation with all other terrorism and in the case of what is called 'al qaeda' to look a the US's position in facilitating it's creation in the first instance.

There is no doubt that Islamists create terrorism all over the world. It would be a difficult fact to avoid. The US created Al Qaeda? What is this 'political cause' this Islamic group is fighting? The US created them, huh?

As far as the Sun is concerned. Are you unaware of how in disrepute the Murdoch papers have become?

Are you saying that the photograph in the newspaper is false? Are you claiming that Muslims have not threatened the British people, that some intend to take over GB, that many are trying to enforce or encourage Sharia Law there?

It is of credit to the British people that the propaganda sent out by these comic papers affected so few - particularly as these papers are generally read by those with little education, hence those most likely to believe what is in the papers as true.

Is this anything close to the truth?

One third of British Muslim students say it's acceptable to kill for Islam | Mail Online

I think in a previous post Ben gave some of the reasons for this. We have been through all this before. We suffered terrorism and lost lives while the people of the United States looked into their pockets and provided the money to pay for the weapons which cost those lives. Terrorism is not new to the UK or the rest of Europe. This too shall pass.

And you are speaking out against Islamic terrorism and condemning it where you find it? Were these guys intending to blow up airplanes again) being baited as well? Even the EDl wouldn't murder innocent people. Would acknowledge that?

From this we learnt that in order not to aggravate the situation we did not blame all people for the actions of the few.

Of course not. But everyone has to condemn the few, and not make excuses for them. That can also aggravate the situation.

With racist hate we have been through it all before. Whether it was the Jews suffering in the 1930's or the Irish suffering for a great deal longer to the racism of the National front in the '80's categorised so vividly in the film Ben recommended

You're familiar with Irish history then? And you would condemn any anti Jewish propaganda or any group who made alliances with the Nazis?

We have seen it before many times.

Yes, quite.

Islam: Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time

 

[Medusa]

But how else do you folks wrestle if you don't get well smeared first?

gardener if you have problem with turks please dont answer me ok

 

[Grant]

gardener if you have problem with turks please dont answer me ok

It's becoming more apparent that Turks have a problem with Turks.

 

[Gardener]

gardener if you have problem with turks please dont answer me ok

It was just a little joke. Nothing more.

 

[Rough Rider]

I liked his post because of its intelligent insight. I created a thread about this subject, about how our War on Terror has been counter productive, which also happened to be the conclusion of the conservative Rand Corp (commissioned by the Pentagon) in the most detailed analysis of the War on Terror conducted to date.

There was a moment of truth during one of the recent GOP debates, either the third or seventeenth debate, I can't remember which. Anyway, there was a moment when Ron Paul dared to suggest that our foreign policy with regards to Israel was largely responsible for the 911 attacks; and that our reaction (Iraq) has been a primary recruiting tool for Islamic terrorists organizations.
The response from the "fair and balanced" candidate was as angry and jingoistic as it was preditable. Rick Santorum's shocked expression of revulsion and disgust was almost comical as he droned on with the usual empty justifications: "....we were not attacked because of our actions. We were attacked, as Newt talked about, because we have a civilization that is antithetical to the civilization of the Jihadists, and they want to kill us because of who we are and what we stand for. And we stand for American exceptionalism, we stand for freedom and opportunity for everybody around the world, and I am not afraid to do that."
Could there possibly be a sharper contrast between rhetoric and reality?

 

[Gardener]

Could there possibly be a sharper contrast between rhetoric and reality?

Are you referring here to the typical simple-mindedness of Paul or the typically simple-minded response of Santorum?

It's like watching two people arguing over whether or not something is a fish with one of them arguing "look, it has scales so it must be a fish", with the other arguing "No, it swims, therefore it is a fish", each oblivious to the fact they are both correct and each oblivious to the fact that neither determinant is enough to establish that it is, indeed, a fish.

We are hated for who we are. Only idiots deny that. We are hated for what we do. Only idiots deny that as well. All a person has to do is read Bin Laden's letters to America where he spells out the typical laundry list of hackneyed grievances, which include attacks against both who we are and against what we do. Just because some narrow minded ideologue tries to ignore one or the other because he is too dogmatic to look at all the reasons, and trying to make political hay out of he ones he does select, that does not mean the other reasons are invalid.

 

[Ben K.]

Gardener gets it. Sayyid Qutb, probably the most influential of the Islamist thinkers to the likes of Bin Laden, only forumulated his philosophies upon visiting America and being disgusted by the materialism, open sexuality and secularism he saw there. Innocuous things like Americans mowing their lawns rather than their foreign policy in the Middle East inspired his Islamist and anti-Western philosophy.

 

[alexa]

Gardener gets it. Sayyid Qutb, probably the most influential of the Islamist thinkers to the likes of Bin Laden, only forumulated his philosophies upon visiting America and being disgusted by the materialism, open sexuality and secularism he saw there. Innocuous things like Americans mowing their lawns rather than their foreign policy in the Middle East inspired his Islamist and anti-Western philosophy.

I don't believe he initially took to the idea of violence. Just as at the same time as those who would become the neo con's in the US, he believed this way of living had estranged people from themselves, what is right and real.

If I remember correctly he developed a hatred for the US after he had received torture in jail. Torture delivered by people who had been trained by the CIA. It should also be remembered that his ideas on violence were not accepted by the Muslim Brotherhood, though they were by those who went on to develop the radical and horrible concepts of those we speak of as Al Qaeda. It should even more be remembered that this is not the way of thinking of most Muslims. When let loose from Afghanistan they hoped to be having a ball turning countries over to their way of thinking – a way of thinking which had become so perverted that a Muslim who even believed in democracy had clearly fallen so far down they should be murdered.

So, that is that. At around the same time for similar reasons the neo con's, who I understand in Canada and the US are now the best funded academics began to have similar ideas to Qutb. As the best funded, these ideas are the ideas which have been coming out and polluting the consciousness of ordinary people, often in subtle ways that they do not notice. Apart from the fact that they in general were not religious themselves, their way is not so different. They too saw the role that religion could have in keeping the people under control. Hence they managed to encourage the religious right in the US to give up their previous position of staying out of politics.

As I guess you know these were the followers of Leo Strauss and this is the way they supposedly thought

all these Strauss-inspired writers believe that the new found freedoms of the sixties are the root of all evil, because freedom invites licentiousness, and licentiousness is a harbinger of social decay - divorce, delinquency, crime, and creature comforts. And there is a sense in which they are right - freedom is a treasure that is quickly lost if it is not wisely used. The trouble is that neoconservatives have zero tolerance for human vices or follies, and as a result, they are unwilling to give liberty a chance.

The solution they find to the problems facing America in the 60's, round the time Qubt was doing the same, is interesting

So, what is to be done? How can America be saved from her dangerous fascination with liberty? Irving Kristol came up with the solution that has become the cornerstone of neoconservative policies: use democracy to defeat liberty. Turn the people against their own liberty. Convince them that liberty is licentiousness - that liberty undermines piety, leads to crime, drugs, rampant homosexuality, children out of wedlock, and family breakdown. And worse of all, liberalism is soft on communism or terrorism - whatever happens to be the enemy of the moment. And if you can convince the people that liberty undermines their security, then, you will not have to take away their liberty; they will gladly renounce it.

In an essay entitled "Populism Not to Worry," Irving Kristol argued that Americans should embrace populism, or the rule of the majority, despite the reservations of the Founding Fathers. The latter feared the tyranny of the majority, and institutionalised safeguards to protect the liberty of individuals and minorities. But Kristol and the neoconservatives want to dismantle these very safeguards against majority rule. Kristol tells us not to worry. Why not? Apparently because the neoconservatives believe that America has been ruled by an unwise liberal elite for over two hundred years, and they are willing to gamble that the people will be wiser, which is to say, more likely to endorse conservative policies. Inspired by the same ideology, the Alliance party in Canada is willing to take the same gamble. But, luckily for Canada, it is sagging badly in the polls.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...ence-condems-terrorism-32.html#post1059860075

Basically they wanted to unite the US. They saw Liberalism as dangerous. They believed they could do this by bringing them together with Nationalism, Religion, and economics. Their believe in us the masses is that we are very much beneath them. They are superior and noble and in danger from us. If we ever find out about them, they believe that they will be in danger. Because of this, they need to tell 'noble lies' The invented lies for instance pretending that the USSR were up to things it most certainly were not and even got Regan to believe this. They believed that the US needed a common enemy to bring the people together and keep liberalism and the dangers of the 60's at bay. They invented another lie that of WMD's to justify the invasion of Iraq. They wanted the people of the US were to be united in pride in their Nation which was always going after justice against the evil other – first the USSR and now Muslims.


And sure. We can see this is the situation which has been created. With 9/11 the al qaeda side should have ended because the Muslim world were disgusted at this action against civilians. Although 9/11 was financed by Bin Laden, he did not organise it. You can however bet, that just as in numerous killings that 'al qaeda' had previously tried in Muslim countries, they had the belief that this would get Muslim's to see the truth at last and join them on jihad and their ghastly inhumane way of living. We can imagine that in part they believed that because they knew that other Muslims, not al qaeda muslims, the ordinary kind they had been killing themselves for quite some time by now, would see their point in that the US's policy was harming the middle East and would at last rise up and join them.

Thing is, apart from a few Palestinians, they did not. They wanted justice and for this kind of behaviour to end. In that us ordinary people of the world were United. It was only the killing of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq which got ordinary Muslim's onboard believing as Bush so stupidly put it that the US was on a crusade against Muslims.

We have been hearing a great deal of neo con's thinking. The people of the US I think were not 'patriotic' if they did not follow this line of thinking. So many lines of thought seem to have been shut down in the past 10 years. Depending on your age Ben, you will know that we used to discuss things in a very different way in the UK.

9/11 did not happen just because people like Qutb did not like America. The neocon's thought was not too different from the thinking you describe. Qutb grew out of the ideas of the Muslim Brotherhood. When did the Muslim Brotherhood begin to get any acceptance? Find that and you will begin to find the root of the problem.

So easy nowadays to stop the talk.

Rough Rider thank you for attempting another 'moment of truth' in a world where many non neo-com ideas seem taboo.

 

[Rough Rider]

Are you referring here to the typical simple-mindedness of Paul or the typically simple-minded response of Santorum?

It's like watching two people arguing over whether or not something is a fish with one of them arguing "look, it has scales so it must be a fish", with the other arguing "No, it swims, therefore it is a fish", each oblivious to the fact they are both correct and each oblivious to the fact that neither determinant is enough to establish that it is, indeed, a fish.

We are hated for who we are. Only idiots deny that. We are hated for what we do. Only idiots deny that as well. All a person has to do is read Bin Laden's letters to America where he spells out the typical laundry list of hackneyed grievances, which include attacks against both who we are and against what we do. Just because some narrow minded ideologue tries to ignore one or the other because he is too dogmatic to look at all the reasons, and trying to make political hay out of he ones he does select, that does not mean the other reasons are invalid.

Because of who we are? What does that even mean? I wonder how "idiots" separate who we are from what we do?

 

[Gardener]

Because of who we are? What does that even mean? I wonder how "idiots" separate who we are from what we do?

Read Bin Laden's words for yourself.

I'm not going to do it for you.

 

[Ben K.]

I don't believe he initially took to the idea of violence. Just as at the same time as those who would become the neo con's in the US, he believed this way of living had estranged people from themselves, what is right and real.

If I remember correctly he developed a hatred for the US after he had received torture in jail. Torture delivered by people who had been trained by the CIA. It should also be remembered that his ideas on violence were not accepted by the Muslim Brotherhood, though they were by those who went on to develop the radical and horrible concepts of those we speak of as Al Qaeda. It should even more be remembered that this is not the way of thinking of most Muslims. When let loose from Afghanistan they hoped to be having a ball turning countries over to their way of thinking – a way of thinking which had become so perverted that a Muslim who even believed in democracy had clearly fallen so far down they should be murdered.

No, his views on the West were formed, if by any foreign policy at all, by that of the British in Egypt. He certainly was displeased by America's backing of an Israeli state but prior to visiting he viewed them as the best example of what the West had to offer. As a rather sexually repressed (and certainly confused) guy, and viewing himself as a philosophical genius that no one else realised, he was frustrated by what he perceived to be a shallow and liberal American culture. He returned to a Muslim Brotherhood that was already carrying out terrorist activities so he certainly had no problem with violence by the time he was tortured.

 

[Gardener]

No, his views on the West were formed, if by any foreign policy at all, by that of the British in Egypt. He certainly was displeased by America's backing of an Israeli state but prior to visiting he viewed them as the best example of what the West had to offer. As a rather sexually repressed (and certainly confused) guy, and viewing himself as a philosophical genius that no one else realised, he was frustrated by what he perceived to be a shallow and liberal American culture. He returned to a Muslim Brotherhood that was already carrying out terrorist activities so he certainly had no problem with violence by the time he was tortured.

He was also quite an overt racist who referred to American Blacks as primitives incapable of controlling themselves.

 

[Ben K.]

He was also quite an overt racist who referred to American Blacks as primitives incapable of controlling themselves.

Sexual inadequacy and racism - always a happy couple.