lets try again with the anti islamophobia, shall we!

[karbonfootprint]

Well, I did start a thread about this recently, but it is full of discussion about terrorists, and events in other countries......

Just talking about this country, the UK, and Muslim and non Muslim British people, lets just look after each other, and stand up for each other against intolerance and racism, and be friends!

The point I made was that the families themselves are in the vast minority. And there are many, many Muslims who do make this point

Could you point me to one? The claim, even from Muslim organisations, appears to be that no such families exist, and therefore the outrages come from nowhere.

peanutcookie
I bet it feels marvellous to stride into a thread carrying the flame of self righteous indignation.

No one is asking for apologies from you or any Muslim people

People are simply asking why is thus occurring? Nine million Syrian people displaced. Why?

Is your argument that because North Korea exists we shouldn't question Islam?

What? I think you've misunderstood me. Are you saying Muslims are in denial about terrorism? I'm sure some of them are, but the volume of Muslims who have spoken out against it would indicate otherwise.

Just a very small sample (English language - there are a lot more in other languages):

www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
www.freemuslims.org/
www.m-a-t.org/
muslimsagainstterror.com/
theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslim_voices_against_extremism_and_terrorism_part_i_fatwas/0012209
kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/

Oh, and a couple of articles about supposed 'Muslim silence' that say it a lot better then ever I could: www.theage.com.au/comment/muslims-are-speaking-out-but-no-one-is-listening-20140930-10nktr.html, www.huffingtonpost.com/kamran-pasha/the-big-lie-about-muslim_b_188991.html

And you are quite right cookie. You shouldn't have to apologise for anyone who has committed atrocities in the name of your religion.

Hello fellow Muslims and fellow people trying to counter the hate. I wish I could do the same but it is exhausting getting involved on these threads.
No one has responded to my post about Guantanamo but I'll add that they are also responsible for the mass killing of Muslims across the world. No one cares about that. If you are happy to say that Muslims countries are evil then you need to look at America's record in the world and say exactly the same thing

Getting sick and tired of being told that religions have to be respected. No they don't any more than politics or books or music. It's just a view that some prople blindly follow. That's fine for them and their choice but if I want to say that I think all religions are a load of old bollocks then I can and do.

It's very stupid to equate religious criticism with racism. It's utterly ignorant as all religions are a life style choice where race is a fact.

All religions are mysogynistic, controlling and generally corrupt and sbusive as they involve power and control by a few over the many.

Of course all religions should be up for discussion piss take and critique.

Op I have no idea what islamaphobia is? If it involves racism then that's covered by law here in the UK.

If however you mean healthy discussion and criticism or piss take then that's fine by me.

I've posted dozens of links too but they are always ignored or minimised

And Ubik1, the situation in Syria is far more complex than religious division alone.

No county is evil! Ideologies are and people are. Not countries.

There are sick psychopaths in all races but some psychopaths choose to use religion as a cover for their perversions.

That's occurred with Christianity, Islam and Sikhism.

There's nothing new here.

Pipe down Lateswim. No one said anything about racism, respect or piss taking.

I didn't say that I thought Muslims were in denial about terrorism.

I said they were in denial about the triggers for individual terrorists.

Look at the Bethnal Green jihadis, and the credulous way in which Keith Vaz and others accepted the narrative that the girls were radicalised by the Internet while their parents knew nothing.

One child's parents were regular attenders at Anjem Choudary's flying circus, and took their daughter with them.

They were liars.

Their claims to have known nothing should have been scrutinised before they were given the platform of being chucked soft ones on live TV at a select committee. It defines belief that no-one else in "the community" knew what the parents did on a Saturday afternoon, and by keeping quiet, it contributes to the idea of support being wider than it (probably) is.

What do you think is the right course of action peanutcookie?

Defies, not defines.

Well of course the parents are going to deny that they knew anything

I'm not sure I understand how the wider community is supposed to know about what is going on in a radicalised teenager's head though?

I'm not sure I understand how the wider community is supposed to know about what is going on in a radicalised teenager's head though?

I'm expecting the wider community to know that the parents were extremist supporters of Anjem Choudary, or to at least ask the question when the claim of "knowing nothing about extremism" is made.

I have friends in the SWP. They don't keep quiet about it. I find it extraordinary to believe that someone could be an extremist to the point of taking their children to demonstrations at which flags are burnt in central London, with no-one else knowing.

Well if they're burning flags etc. in public then wouldn't it be pretty clear to everyone, including the police who supervise these protests?

The footage turned up a few weeks later.

Contrary to popular belief, the police don't take the names of every attendee.

Of course religion is and should be open to criticism and ridicule lateswim. Religion dies not have to be respected. I'm not arguing that point. My point is that people should be respected.

Anyone who questions people attacking mains are accused of closing down debate. These are the same proponents of free speech. It's laughable.

The comments I have heard from edl members and ignorant people I have come across mirror those on this thread. Why is it galling to some to be compared to the edl if your arguments are ideologies are similar?

So the correct interpretation of the situation is:

-America/Britain is the real evil and therefore should not criticise any Islamic country until it attains some sort of undefined ideal.

• only a small minority of Muslim people are extremist and therefore these extremists are not an example of Islam

-the conflict in Syria, North Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan is primarily political and separate from religion.

Religion dies not have to be respected. I'm not arguing that point. My point is that people should be respected.

But should the fact that people feel personally affronted by criticism of their religion be used to stifle that criticism? Because that's the argument used to attempt to stifle, say, Salman Rushdie: that individuals are hurt by criticism of the whole group, so the individuals should be protected by banning discussion of the whole.

The Satanic Verses argument was that it wasn't even necessary to have read the novel: its mere existence was enough to offend Muslims to the point of demanding it be banned.

Gemauve made an excellent post earlier, suggesting that since extremist families are very much a minority, it surely shouldn't offend the majority to suggest that this problem be addressed

I posted elsewhere about the PM's recent suggestion that community members report suspected extremists, and referenced the outcry that met Eric Pickles's letter emphasizing the importance of the wider community joining in these efforts

As I said then, I wonder if anything will be different this time??

I'm sorry Gem, I think I'm missing your point again

I was once involved, at a distance, in the affairs of a factory in Belfast, in Gerry Adams' constituency.

The guy that ran the factory was a fascinating bloke: he affected bluff capitalist avarice, but his political analysis was pure Marxism. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he had spent some time in the SWP or similar.

He pointed out that although you could always tell the alignment of a working class district in Belfast from the flags and murals, you couldn't tell anything about the alignment of more affluent areas. And that while the working class communities of Belfast were blowing each other up, the middle classes were getting richer.

So the conflict in Syria, North Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan is primarily political and separate from religion. is not an unreasonable position. The foot soldiers are fighting a religious war. The bosses are getting richer.

I think I'm missing your point again

Puzzled has summarised it. If extremists are an unpopular minority, then the community more widely would not defend them, and would not see dealing with them as a problem.

*So the correct interpretation of the situation is:

-America/Britain is the real evil and therefore should not criticise any Islamic country until it attains some sort of undefined ideal.

• only a small minority of Muslim people are extremist and therefore these extremists are not an example of Islam

-the conflict in Syria, North Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan is primarily political and separate from religion.*

(1) No. Stop twisting posters' words. America/Britain has every right to criticise other countries, but is being hypocritical by doing so until they've got their own houses in order. (2) Yes (3) No. It is an incredibly complex conflict which involves both religion and politics, but many people in the west don't understand the politics bit so they tend to blame it all on the Shia/Sunni divide which is easier and convenient because it slots in nicely with the whole Muslims/terrorists thing.

And Puzzle I don't think Muslims are offended by the suggestion that the issue of terrorism be addressed because it clearly is a problem and by far the greatest number of victims of terrorism are from the Muslim community. But I think they are upset by the suggestion that most Muslims are extremists/complicit/somehow condoning terrorism.

So the conflict in Syria, North Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan is primarily political and separate from religion. is not an unreasonable position. The foot soldiers are fighting a religious war. The bosses are getting richer. Totally.