|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:45 am Post subject: |
 |
|
It seems that islamophobia existed loooonnngg before 9/11.
W.Churchill:
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Winnie had it right, as usual! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| BJWD wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
How many? 10s? 100s? 1000s? Given several million Muslims in the US, even if 1% were willing to take their lives for Islam we'd have 20-30,000 potential terrorists in our midst. Do you think the government has been stopping them all?
|
That is the situation that the UK is in. |
What makes you say that? Besides 7/7, what terrorist attacks have there been on UK soil? Have any Muslims tried to blow up the Prime Minister? |
| Quote: |
The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity. |
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/02/19/ixportaltop.html
| Quote: |
| Although the threat has since been reduced again to severe, British officials continue to warn that religious extremists are aggressively plotting new attacks in Britain. In November, the head of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, said in an unusual public speech that the agency was monitoring 30 potential terrorist plots involving more than 200 radical groups and 1,600 suspects who were ``actively engaged in plotting or facilitating terrorist acts.'' |
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/16425187.htm
Terrorism isn't really my concern, other than to point out how disproportionately muslims are represented as terrorist murderers to you, huff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
Terrorism isn't really my concern, other than to point out how disproportionately muslims are represented as terrorist murderers to you, huff. |
Your concerns are still ambigious. A loss of freedom? That's because governments are clamping down on unwarranted Islamphobia. You're beef is with them, not the Muslims. What else are you concerned about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
| Winnie had it right, as usual! |
Ya gotta love the Winston.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030104/windows/above.htm
| Quote: |
He justified the exploitation of Blacks and Red Indians by White slave dealers: "I do not admit... that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia... by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race.. has come in and taken its place."
Although Churchill fought Adolf Hitler, he had a sneaky admiration for the dictator. Two years before England declared war on Nazi Germany, Churchill said: "One may dislike Hitler�s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations."
What seems unworthy of an educated, thinking man was Churchill�s naive and heavily biased view of world Jewry. In 1920 he wrote of Zionism in the following words: "This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
It seems that islamophobia existed loooonnngg before 9/11.
W.Churchill:
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome. |
Pardon me didn't this come from someone affiliated with the British Empire? I wasn't aware that the British Empire was a merciful, kind, benevolent empire. Churchill was great during World War II but troops under his direct command got slaughtered at Gallipoli when they faced the Turks. If you are saying prejudice against Muslims is not new that is true. Prejudice is not new in the world at any rate. So what is so Earth shattering about quoting Churchill's unscientific observations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
OTOH/Steve exchange:
| Quote: |
on the other hand:
Quote:
And yes, I hold Bush responsible for excessive debaathification and the disbanding of the Iraqi army. Who would you suggest I hold responsible?
I realize the leftist mindset always blames societal forces for everything wrong with the world but here's a big tip, buddy: how about blame the Baathists and former army commanders themselves? Ooh, now, wait a minute, we can't do that. Bush is our punching bag |
My original point in mentioning debaathification wasn't to exonerate Muslims who are commiting terrorist acts in Iraq, nor was it to demonize Bush. My only point was that the law enforcement situation in Iraq is probably not the usual one in Muslim countries. You would almost certainly see a significant rise in the murder rate if a Christian country had its law enforcement institutions purged in a similar fashion.
I think the USA probably has a higher rate of firearms deaths than does the UK. However, if someone tried to prove this with a comparison using stats from the years 1861-1865, I'd probably say that he should pick a less atypical time period for his sample.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Churchill wasn't an anti-Semite, but he had an abiding loathing of communism and socialism in all ot its forms. In the 1920's Churchill along with much of the world equated Jews to some degree with communism. Those he named as problems were Jews (I don't know about Bela Kun).
He moderated those views as the Jews were driven out of the communist movement and he could see the continued evil thereof in the years following. As he learned more of Hitler and his ways his antipathy for him grew. When Hitler attacked Russian Churchill said: If that man Hitler invaded He11, I would make common cause with the Devil."
Churchill became quite concerned with Roosevelt's soft spot for Uncle Joe Stalin and when he lost the election and the Bevan government turned on the Jews in Israel, Churchill fulminated in Parliament about it.
Was Churchill hard on the "Red Indians" and the Australian Aborignines" Yes! He was a man of his times and an aristocrat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Churchill wasn't an anti-Semite, but he had an abiding loathing of communism and socialism in all ot its forms. In the 1920's Churchill along with much of the world equated Jews to some degree with communism. Those he named as problems were Jews (I don't know about Bela Kun).
He moderated those views as the Jews were driven out of the communist movement and he could see the continued evil thereof in the years following. As he learned more of Hitler and his ways his antipathy for him grew. When Hitler attacked Russian Churchill said: If that man Hitler invaded He11, I would make common cause with the Devil."
Churchill became quite concerned with Roosevelt's soft spot for Uncle Joe Stalin and when he lost the election and the Bevan government turned on the Jews in Israel, Churchill fulminated in Parliament about it.
Was Churchill hard on the "Red Indians" and the Australian Aborignines" Yes! He was a man of his times and an aristocrat.
|
I think the point is that once you admit that Churchill was fallible, you can't really score points in a discussion simply by pointing out that he agreed with you.
| Quote: |
| Winnie had it right, as usual! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
on the other hand:
| Quote: |
| You would almost certainly see a significant rise in the murder rate if a Christian country had its law enforcement institutions purged in a similar fashion. |
Murder and terrorism are not necessarily the same thing; the latter is often more heinous, especially when the victims are completely innocent. Surely you can discern that.
And have you forgotten what the former Iraqi police and other henchmen did in the name of Saddam's arbitrary authority to keep the peace? Just ask the Shi'ites and Kurds. Shake out those cobwebs, bruddah. Iraqi would have a bigger police force if the new recruits weren't being blown up every other week.
The U.S. civil war and the Iraqi civil war are apples and oranges; the former was fought over a deep divide in state's rights and interpretation of the Constitution; the latter is ethnic hatred and resentment. Ours happened a long time ago between staged armies maneuvering on the battlefield; theirs more often than not involves civilians.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
Churchill wasn't an anti-Semite, but he had an abiding loathing of communism and socialism in all ot its forms. In the 1920's Churchill along with much of the world equated Jews to some degree with communism. Those he named as problems were Jews (I don't know about Bela Kun).
He moderated those views as the Jews were driven out of the communist movement and he could see the continued evil thereof in the years following. As he learned more of Hitler and his ways his antipathy for him grew. When Hitler attacked Russian Churchill said: If that man Hitler invaded He11, I would make common cause with the Devil."
Churchill became quite concerned with Roosevelt's soft spot for Uncle Joe Stalin and when he lost the election and the Bevan government turned on the Jews in Israel, Churchill fulminated in Parliament about it.
Was Churchill hard on the "Red Indians" and the Australian Aborignines" Yes! He was a man of his times and an aristocrat. |
If we want to find racist views of some British officials of the British Empire regarding the Arabs we can find that talked about in Dr. Edward Said's book "Orientalism". Yet, the British Empire, though I admire somethings about it, as a Commonwealth citizen it is known too many bigoted people ran the empire and even there was a lord who thoughts Canadians were more like cannon fodder to help the British stave off the German onslaught.
Your defense of Churchill against charges of being anti-Jewish hides behind the idea that many Jews were Bundists and Communists. Does that justify bigotry even if most were Bundists. Bundists were not communists and Jewry often embraced progressive Socialism because
a society where all people are equal would not discriminate against them. That was one reason. And we know many Jews were not of this caliber and were hard-working capitalists. It makes sense to quote Churchill in that sense because just as Churchill looked at Jews in a simple-minded way and some posters are looking at a whole civilization, culture with its history in a very reductionist way. Yes, Churchill was a man of his time but so was Ghandi, so was Mother Theresa, so was Eisenhower. Churchill was a very smart man and brilliant leader in many ways, but quoting him as if he is some authority figure on anthropology, how an ethnic group is to be dealt with does not make sense.
No one here is saying that the terrorism in Iraq is not barbaric. Iraq so far is a failed state. It was a state that fell apart. I mean what happened when Jugoslavia fell apart? Some people seem to have historical amnesia forget World War II happened, the Congo etc...
Some are sounding like the Nation of Islam people who call the white man the devil. We are educated people let us deal with this in an educated manner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The U.S. civil war and the Iraqi civil war are apples and oranges; the former was fought over a deep divide in state's rights and interpretation of the Constitution; the latter is ethnic hatred and resentment. Ours happened a long time ago between staged armies maneuvering on the battlefield; theirs more often than not involves civilians. |
I wasn't making a precise moral comparison between the US Civil War and Iraqi terrorism. The comparison was simply in terms of them both being atypical periods in their countries' history.
| Quote: |
Murder and terrorism are not necessarily the same thing; the latter is often more heinous, especially when the victims are completely innocent. Surely you can discern that.
|
If American state power were gutted in the same way as Iraqi state power was, I'm pretty sure you'd see a rise in all sorts of violent crime, including political terrorism against innocents. What, you think the people who consider it their moral duty to kill abortion doctors and bomb their clinics wouldn't jump at the opportunity? And with no effective state deterrence in operation, the abortion doctors would pretty much be forced to rely on vigilante gangs for their protection. And so on and so forth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The U.S. civil war and the Iraqi civil war are apples and oranges; the former was fought over a deep divide in state's rights and interpretation of the Constitution; the latter is ethnic hatred and resentment. Ours happened a long time ago between staged armies maneuvering on the battlefield; theirs more often than not involves civilians. |
I wasn't making a precise moral comparison between the US Civil War and Iraqi terrorism. The comparison was simply in terms of them both being atypical periods in their countries' history.
| Quote: |
Murder and terrorism are not necessarily the same thing; the latter is often more heinous, especially when the victims are completely innocent. Surely you can discern that.
|
If American state power were gutted in the same way as Iraqi state power was, I'm pretty sure you'd see a rise in all sorts of violent crime, including political terrorism against innocents. What, you think the people who consider it their moral duty to kill abortion doctors and bomb their clinics wouldn't jump at the opportunity? And with no effective state deterrence in operation, the abortion doctors would pretty much be forced to rely on vigilante gangs for their protection. And so on and so forth. |
I agree with that OTOH. But I also don't regard American culture are particularly peaceful. I'm not saying that islam is the only violent idea, but a violent idea. It is a violent idea.
Why is that so hard for people to admit? You are all in Korea. The PC police don't exist there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
BigBird:
First, I would be remiss if I didn't remind you that "two wrongs don't make a right." |
When did I ever say two wrongs made a right? Please give me an example of where I have done this. I've always been of the opinion that two wrongs make two wrongs. That was my opinion when thousands of innocent Afghani civillians died partly in retalliation for a horrific attrocity (in which no Afghan was involved) perpetrated on America.
| Quote: |
| Second, Israel invaded Lebanon to clear out Hezbollah from the border since it was making repeated rocket attacks. You do recall that, don't you? Oh, wait, no I forgot Israel should just accept these relentless attacks on its territory. |
And that was worth killing hundreds of children for? Worth maiming thousands of children for? It is my understanding that prior to this war, Hizbollah attacks on Israeli forces had only killed one Israeli civillian in the last decade, and that was the consequence of an anti-aircraft device (aimed at an IDF plane deliberately violating the ceasefire conditions) landing on a civillian (known as collateral damage when we do such a thing.)
You also fail to mention that the vast majority of border violations (2000 - June 2006) between Hizbollah and the IDF were in fact committed by the Israelis.
| Quote: |
| Third, Israeli soldiers did not invade Lebanon with the expressed purpose of slaughtering innocent people, unlike your dear friends, the Muslim extremists. To equate them is ridiculous. |
Now that is debatable. Many analysts (among them Israelis) believe that that was in fact the case. Collective punishment it is called, and it was put to good effect during the Israeli assault on Lebanon in the 1980s. For example, the IDF would deliberately target residential areas around waste grounds from which the PLO were firing, resulting in horrific death and injury for Lebanese civillians. This helped make the local populations hostile to the Palestinians. This time, however, it backfired. The general population (even many Christians) laid the blame for the high civillian death toll squarely at the feel of Israel, and not Hizbollah.
| Quote: |
| Fourth, most of the events you described happened some time ago. We're talking about the here and now. |
Oh I see. The first intifada, the suicide bombings in Israel, the Munich Olympics (1972?) are all the here and now.
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
BigBird:
Guess you don't remember the hijackings, the Munich Olympics, the first intifada, the suicide bombings in Israel. Stick to something you know: Sesame Street.
|
Perhaps for someone stuck in re-runs of the 70s show Hawaii 5-0, the Munich Olympics are an example of the here and now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
on the other hand:
| Quote: |
| If American state power were gutted in the same way as Iraqi state power was |
Are you suffering from selective reading comprehension again? The point, Pedro, is that this civil war was inevitable. These animosities predate the Saddam regime. Moreover, Saddam's henchmen only served to deepen the ethnic divide, and he undoubtedly encouraged them to form an insurgency if the regime collapsed. Simply put: there was no legitimate Iraqi state authority before the war.
BigBird:
I misjudged you: I thought you were a liberal but after reading your most recent post I see that you have swung much further to the Left. Are you a former staffer for Dennis Kucinich?
Just what would you have us do after 9-11? Should we have just shrugged our shoulders? Waited until the military technology and forces existed to wage the perfect war (in which collateral damage doesn't occur)? And doesn't the Taliban take the ultimate responsibility for inviting these al-Qaeda thugs into their midst? Your indignation is misplaced and I really do wonder if you can conceive of a viable alternative in waging the war on terrorism. The war in Afghanistan was not an act of retaliation against the citizenry at large. If you believe it was, we have no basis on which to debate reasonably.
Now if you want to take the spiritual high-road, I suppose you could claim that NO war is worth the killing of a single child. But we don't live in an ideal world where everyone plays by the same rules. Today we find out that those Iraqi schoolgirls were actually targeted as a reprisal, but I don't hear you crying about that? Face it: militant Islam is the scourge of civilization in the contemporary era and no amount of apologetics is going to obscure that reality. You really are living on Cloud 9. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
