|
Please smile while under the boot ...
|
View this Thread in Original format
| CaTcH21 |
The self-righteous arrogance with which the West feigns shock at Muslim reactions to humiliation reveals how deeply the colonial attitude runs in the Occident ...
Steve Biko, freedom fighter against Apartheid, killed while under police arrest said ... "Not only have the whites been guilty of being on the offensive, but by some skilful manoeuvres, they have managed to control the responses of the blacks to the provocation. Not only have they kicked the black, but they have also told him how to react to the kick... He is now beginning to show signs that it is his right and duty to respond to the kick in the way he sees fit."
The Western world -- commonly referred to in its own media as the "civilised world" (CW) -- has been shocked by the anti-Islamic cartoons debacle. Well, not exactly shocked by the cartoons, but by the Muslim world's reaction to them. The cartoons represent a simple exercise in free speech by the artists who created them, do they not? Not quite. Not so much a spontaneous expression of free speech as a command performance: the cartoons had been commissioned with what seems to be a deliberate intent to provoke.
Many opinion pieces ... "civilised" opinion pieces that is ... remind us by way of contrast of the open-mindedness with which Christians are willing to mock their own religious icons and do so freely. That is the proper and ... pardon the repetition ... "civilised" way to react. After all, can one be civilised and object to free speech? It is true that these symbols are a bit shop-worn and the aura of inviolability that used to surround them has thinned as new symbols worthy of worship and taboo protection have emerged, like the Holocaust dogma. Free speech clearly has its restrictions: there are several people at this very moment in the CW's prisons for questioning the literal dogma of the Holocaust ( want debate this topic ? )
Beyond the gratuitous, bigoted insult, the cartoons specifically equate Islam with terrorism (the Prophet shown wearing a bomb with a lit fuse as a turban) and also ascribe resistance to the occupation of Islamic nations to "Islamic fundamentalism" (toting the old "99 virgins" Zionist misrepresentation of the purpose of the Palestinian struggle). Nonetheless, these notions do not shock a Western audience that has been systematically exposed to anti-Arab and anti-Islamic bashing for decades; a campaign exacerbated after the little American holocaust, "9/11".
Demonisation of Islam and the "clash of civilisations" supposedly instigated by Islam are propaganda measures meant to choke off inquiry into the causes of Muslim anger. President Bush's commission on public diplomacy noted in 2003 that in nine Muslim and Arab nations only 12 per cent of respondents surveyed believed that "Americans respect Arab/Islamic values." It recommended spending a few million dollars on ... propaganda.
Occasional mealy-mouthed statements by President Bush ... he of the "crusade" gaffe ... that "turro'rists" misrepresent Islam are undercut by his highest honchos. General William Boykin, undersecretary at the Defense Department, infamously stated publicly that when faced with a Muslim "I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol" and that America's enemy was a "spiritual enemy ... called Satan". His boss, Donald Rumsfeld, refused to condemn Boykin's statements, claiming, "We're a free people."
They would have all cued up at the mike to condemn as "virulently anti-Semitic" a cartoon showing, say, Moses with a Dimona diadem, holding aloft Tables that read "Thou shall expel/imprison/kill them and Thou shalt grab every hilltop, every village."
The Western media continue to focus precisely on what the cartoons sought to provoke: Muslim anger. Why the riots, the violence, the damage to property? Martin Luther King Jr, who knew a thing or two about the topic, said that riots are the voice of the voiceless. There is no powerful Muslim lobby to flex its muscles, to choreograph an organised protest, to corral advertisers, to threaten any given newspaper with financial ruin, much less to use the levers of government to demand the world's vigilance against the grave danger of anti-Islamism (the phrase anti-Semitism cannot be used by other Semites, it is occupied lexical territory).
There is, however, another kind of Muslim reaction in the CW: the repeated walk to Canossa of "Muslim community leaders" who are expected to publicly repudiate every incident of "Muslim violence" on the planet. They are what might be called "Muslims on parole". They express regret, disavow "terrorism" (the freelance variety, not state terrorism, which is a civilised necessity leading to democracy) and actually attempt to explain Islam to the viewer. It is a debasing exercise that serves to enhance the Western audience's perception that religion is the root problem; almost never does it touch on the real causes of anger among the millions who happen to be Muslim: oppression, humiliation, demonisation, occupation, expropriation of land and resources, ethnic cleansing, colonialism.
The ignorant arrogance, bigotry and immorality of the Islam bashers should not be downplayed but the propaganda that sustains it from the top cannot dissimulate the fact that the Western world's clash is not truly with Islam alone. The CW will clash with any people who: (1) inhabit a land rich in vital natural resources, notably oil, or coveted by land grabbers, or deemed a suitable strategic bridge for world domination (2) reject so-called civilisers even when they bring the "democracy" gift.
Such people cannot avoid entering a collision course with the CW. They may be Catholic for all the good it does them. Ask Chavez of Venezuela. He also refuses to react properly when being kicked.
How Muslim of him!:D |
|
|
| skot_e |
| quote: | Originally posted by CaTcH21
Beyond the gratuitous, bigoted insult, the cartoons specifically equate Islam with terrorism (the Prophet shown wearing a bomb with a lit fuse as a turban) |
What is it about this pic that indicates it is the Prophet Mohamed, rather than just some random bloke with a beard?
i saw an interview with someone who was raised as a muslim, and he indicated that one of Mohamed wives was 13. If that is indeed true, then that makes him a pedophile. How righteous. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by skot_e
What is it about this pic that indicates it is the Prophet Mohamed, rather than just some random bloke with a beard?
i saw an interview with someone who was raised as a muslim, and he indicated that one of Mohamed wives was 13. If that is indeed true, then that makes him a pedophile. How righteous. |
lol is that a suprise or something? |
|
|
| tathi |
| quote: | Originally posted by skot_e
i saw an interview with someone who was raised as a muslim, and he indicated that one of Mohamed wives was 13. If that is indeed true, then that makes him a pedophile. How righteous. |
That's a pretty ignorant comment, and it makes me wonder if you've ever travelled outside your little city of Adelaide? Tell me how much you know about the life, culture, and customs of ancient Arabia in 600AD? He was a product of his times, living in a very harsh land far different than your own and his values and the traditions of his culture reflect that.
Did you know the Bedouin tribes of the Arabian desert would have to practice infanticide to feed their family in times when food was so scarce they would all die of starvation otherwise? I can hear you saying "Barbarians! What unwholesome heathens!" but know that if you ever got over your indignant ignorance behind the comfort of your computer (they didn't have computers in those days) you would do the exact same thing in that situation.
To my knowledge Muhammads scripture made life far better for women and slaves, in a time when the ill treatment of slaves and women was considered normal (even amonst the majority of Christians) From memory his youngest wife was the daughter of his closest friend (not 100% on this?) and she and her father loved Muammad dearly and he loved her back.
I'm not trying to condone pedophilia, i find it repulsive in our society, but i'm not going to preach indignant bull to the thousands of remote tribes and cultures untouched by the reaches of "civilisation" who do not consider marriage to boys or girls under 18 taboo, and have not for thousands of years. Because i'm not the soi-disant authority on righteousness, and neither is the Bible. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
i'm still trying to figure out how to tie in the tragic irony of the thread title with the ritual killing of Theo Van Gogh.
i mean it's right there at my fingertips. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i'm still trying to figure out how to tie in the tragic irony of the thread title with the ritual killing of Theo Van Gogh. |
Maybe the real author of the piece would be able to answer that. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| There is some distance between anger and violence. It's called "choice" - and that tells us much more than any voice ever has or ever will. Like it or not, the strongest message that those who would abase themselves just to ensure that they are heard send is that they have neither the maturity or integrity to be worth listening to. |
|
|
| skot_e |
| quote: | Originally posted by tathi
That's a pretty ignorant comment, and it makes me wonder if you've ever travelled outside your little city of Adelaide? Tell me how much you know about the life, culture, and customs of ancient Arabia in 600AD? He was a product of his times, living in a very harsh land far different than your own and his values and the traditions of his culture reflect that.
Did you know the Bedouin tribes of the Arabian desert would have to practice infanticide to feed their family in times when food was so scarce they would all die of starvation otherwise? I can hear you saying "Barbarians! What unwholesome heathens!" but know that if you ever got over your indignant ignorance behind the comfort of your computer (they didn't have computers in those days) you would do the exact same thing in that situation.
To my knowledge Muhammads scripture made life far better for women and slaves, in a time when the ill treatment of slaves and women was considered normal (even amonst the majority of Christians) From memory his youngest wife was the daughter of his closest friend (not 100% on this?) and she and her father loved Muammad dearly and he loved her back.
I'm not trying to condone pedophilia, i find it repulsive in our society, but i'm not going to preach indignant bull to the thousands of remote tribes and cultures untouched by the reaches of "civilisation" who do not consider marriage to boys or girls under 18 taboo, and have not for thousands of years. Because i'm not the soi-disant authority on righteousness, and neither is the Bible. |
Criticism accepted, although I will point out that this view was expressed by man who either is, or was, a muslim on John Safrans lates series run on SBS last year. I perhaps didn't convey that too well, that it is not my words.
i know very little of ancient arabia, it does not hold my interest.
As for ever travelling outside Adelaide, what's that even got to do with this? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Maybe the real author of the piece would be able to answer that. |
i'd like to hold my breath on that. however, when i read the paragragh containing "Holocaust Dogma" i knew this crybaby was full of . |
|
|
| tathi |
| quote: | Originally posted by skot_e
Criticism accepted, although I will point out that this view was expressed by man who either is, or was, a muslim on John Safrans lates series run on SBS last year. I perhaps didn't convey that too well, that it is not my words.
i know very little of ancient arabia, it does not hold my interest. |
safrans show is brilliant!
| quote: | As for ever travelling outside Adelaide, what's that even got to do
with this? |
i had the s that day, so ignore that comment :p |
|
|
|
|
