Soren wrote on Dec 31^st, 2008 at 6:02pm:


no they don't actually. and it's not racist to disagree with something or to condemn it. it's only racist if you're doing it simply because of the race/religion etc of the other person.

Quote:


the art of papier mache actually

Grendel wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2009 at 3:07am:


I understand the origin of the word perfectly dear boy.

do you understand how language evolves over time and even when words are misappropriated for a particular use they often become accepted for that use over time?

the most obvious example being 'gay' which has changed from meaning 'happy' to 'homosexual' and is now often used to refer to something that is weird or wrong- eg "that's so gay"

I don't see anyone jumping up and down about the original meaning when gay is used for any of these latter reasons however

Gaybriel wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2009 at 12:15pm:



Soooo....


If I take the piss out of Arab Jehova's witnesses - is that racist because they are Arabs or because they are JWs?
How about if I have some choice words for Irish (Celtic) Muslims on account of their pathetic leg-humping embrace of an alien religion for the purposes of gaining moral cudos?


It seems that language has now evolved to the degree that 'racism' means the attitude of people towards me who notice whateever chip I may have on my shoulder.

And anyone not caught up in this net can always be labelled as "you-monomania-phobe".

Islamophobia is in common use, and to a lesser extent Islamofascism.

Quote:


Actually islamofascism is a term used to inaccurately describe the totalitarian nature of Islam. So it's not quite synonymous with islamophobia.

I'd suggest the term which should be used here is xenophobia. It includes racism but also blind hatred based on religion, creed or any other arbitrary attribute of a collective people.

anti-Islamic sentiment is based purely on hatred and fear of an unknown other. Those who feel this hatred usually have very little real knowledge or experience or exposure to Islam or Muslims, other than through mainstream media and anti-Islamic websites. As one Jewish intellectual himself described it, it is exactly the same thing as the wave of anti-Jewish hatred that swept across Europe in the early 20th. century and which culminated in such disastrous  consequences. Sadly, some here don't seem to have learnt any lesson at all from that.

People are free to observe right here who is espousing blind hatred of others. I don't believe I've ever done any such thing here, nor has any other Muslim, yet anti-Islamists regularly make a habit of doing so. Cheering the deaths of Muslim civilians, calling for all Muslims to be deported, supporting military actions against Muslims etc.

ROTFLMAO Abu....
Condemned by those YOU SUPPORT ABU...
Islamists leave Israel no choice
Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor | March 08, 2008
Article from:  The Australian

THE attack yesterday in Jerusalem on a Jewish religious school in which eight civilians died disclosed important political trends.
It showed once more the depths of the divisions within the Palestinian leadership.

The Palestinian Authority, under its President Mahmoud Abbas, condemned the attack.

On the other hand, Hamas, the Palestinian leadership in the Gaza Strip, praised the attack and Gazan civilians danced in the streets with joy. And the Israeli public understood once more that there is no proximate chance of peace in their long-running dispute with the Palestinians.

George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice have their reasons for continuing to pretend that there might be a peace agreement this year, but if they really believe this, which is unlikely, they could do more harm than good to the region.

The Gazan reaction to the Jerusalem attack also illustrates why, probably later this year, it is almost inevitable that there will be a huge Israeli operation in Gaza. Many people will die. The suffering will be acute.

Yet it is almost as if this is exactly what Hamas wants. It is impossible otherwise to explain its actions.

Once more the Middle East is set to pivot this year. There are a range of churning dynamics, some of vast strategic consequence, others more tactical improvisations, all happening at once. For the moment, Gaza is their centre, or at least it is possible to understand much of what is happening by focusing on Gaza. In 2006, in relatively free elections, Hamas, which is a branch of the extremist Islamist movement the Muslim Brotherhood, won elections among the Palestinians. It did not secure a majority of the vote but it legitimately won.

Subsequently, in a ferocious, bloody and extremely cruel civil war among the Palestinians, Fatah, loyal to Abbas, consolidated itself in the West Bank while Hamas consolidated its rule in Gaza.

Hamas is less corrupt and more efficient than Fatah but it is a ferocious terrorist organisation. In recent months it has shown how willing it is to sacrifice its own people in order to pursue its war against Israel. However, it is wrong to imagine that Hamas is in any sense a mad group. Its strategy is rational. It is also difficult for the Western mind to grasp because of two elements: its genuinely religious foundation, and its willingness to inflict any suffering not only on its enemies, but on its own people.

Over recent months terrorists have fired mainly Qassam rockets from Gaza into Israel almost on a daily basis. It is true that they have killed few people. But they have terrorised the citizens of the small Israeli city of Sderot and the nearby kibbutzes and farms. Further, Hamas and other terrorist groups have smuggled weapons and people across the border from Egypt. When recently this border was smashed by Palestinian civilians and left open for several days, before the Egyptians closed it down again, much more such smuggling went on.

Gaza's terrorists have slowly been improving the range, explosive power and precision of their rockets. But now they also have a number of Grad rockets, and indeed some others, some of them apparently of Iranian manufacture, to fire at Israel.

Some of these have hit the Israeli city of Ashkelon, with more than 100,000 people.

This has necessitated an Israeli response. Israel tries to suppress the rocket fire by taking out Hamas and other terrorist leaders, and by destroying from the air Qassam factories and launching points. Although Israel tries not to hit civilians, inevitably some Gazan civilians are hit and killed in these actions.

Further, Israel has imposed a limited economic blockade on Gaza, for which it has been widely criticised. However, it is inconceivable that any nation would allow endless rocket attacks on its civilians without trying to stop them. If the Gaza terrorists could do this with impunity, it would inspire other terrorists to do the same. Hezbollah, intensely rebuilding its capacities in southern Lebanon, could begin launching rockets again from there. Similarly, Israeli security forces have found and destroyed some rocket-making ventures in the West Bank. While the rockets from Gaza have been a tactical rather than strategic threat to Israel, rockets fired simultaneously from Gaza, southern Lebanon and the West Bank would completely paralyse Israel. Therefore Israel ultimately cannot allow the rocket attacks to go on, especially as they increase in lethality and range. There is a marvellous irony in much of the international community demanding that the power station in Ashkelon supply electricity to the rocket factories in Gaza which are trying to destroy it.

Without the rocket firings there would be no economic blockade of Gaza and no Israeli air campaign. Life in Gaza would be infinitely better. Why doesn't Hamas embrace this much better life for its citizens, which would certainly not require it to give up its goal of running an independent Palestinian state?

pt 1