Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Big_Bird]

Incitement to violence

The political and media onslaught on Muslims is already fuelling physical attacks on the streets

Daud Abdullah
Tuesday October 17, 2006
The Guardian


Where is this political opportunism taking us? Into the dark tunnel of national strife. The corrosive effect of the political and media onslaught against British Muslims is having its impact on all sections of society. What is claimed to be an assertion of free speech and democratic rights is rapidly becoming the demonisation of a community. Once they are dehumanised, who cares for their democratic, civil or human rights?

Since John Reid demanded that Muslim "bullies" must be faced down and Jack Straw declared the veil a "statement of separation", ministers have fallen over themselves to make increasingly unbridled attacks on Muslims. The shadow home secretary, David Davis, has accused our communities of creating a "voluntary apartheid" and colleges have taken action against veiled teachers and students. The tabloid press has declared open season on Muslims with one hostile front-page story after another.

In practice this has amounted to incitement to violence. In recent weeks verbal and physical attacks on Muslims have surged alarmingly. Women have had their scarves ripped off. Mosques and Islamic centres in Preston and Falkirk have been attacked by mobs and firebombed.

To read full article click here

[Junior]

I think its a bit exxagerated. Written by a muslim cleric. 2 arson attacks on two separate mosques (that they could have done on purpose to make themselves appear victimised)- hardly represents a dramatic increase in violence.

[Moldy Rutabaga]

"Our leaders threaten to kill them all and a few of us blow up a few buildings, and lately the locals have been all huffy with us! Sheesh, what is it with these people?"

Ken:>

[Junior]

After all the aid British folks donated to Pakistan for their earthquake, it must have been a shock to find that the funds were being diverted to fund extremists and that the Pakistani govt wasn't actually doing anything to help its own people.

[Beej]

Why do you assume that its the media creating these acts and not some sort of retaliation for the bombings and beheadings perpetrated by Muslims?

[Adventurer]

Some say the continent is betraying its ideals by trying to appease fundamentalists.
By Jeffrey Fleishman
Times Staff Writer
October 16, 2006

BERLIN � In Europe's cafes, the newspapers are as wrinkled as always, the conversations still veer toward the abstract, but tempers these days are riled.

Artists and influential leftists are warning that the rise of radical Islam is threatening the tradition of European liberalism. Theater directors, cartoonists and writers say the continent is betraying its identity by practicing self-censorship aimed at appeasing a fundamentalist Islam they believe is determined to impose its will on free speech and creativity.

The German Opera in Berlin recently canceled its revival of a production of Mozart's "Idomeneo," fearing that a scene showing the severed head of the prophet Muhammad � as well as those of Jesus, Buddha and Poseidon � would anger Islamists.

The decisions are part of what liberals regard as a timidity that emerged after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the U.S. and intensified during this year's Muslim protests against a Danish newspaper's cartoon caricatures of Muhammad.

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fuj/latimes97.htm

[I see there is good and bad in all humanity. I prefer democracy rather than dictatorships, and people do not want to mirror the social, political structure of the Middle East; that is understandable.]

[ddeubel]

I found that this editorial in the IHT, brought up several incitful points regarding the issue of "inflaming Muslim's anger".

I am sure after reading it, many will cry "See, they hate us! Let's fight!!!!" rather than look at the CAUSE and ways to shift the debate back into what is right and not just retaliatory.

[Adventurer]

Ddeubel, that article is interesting. I want to touch on something - Bush's use of the word Crusade. America's leaders were more secular in tone than George Bush. Such a word would have been considered unthinkable by a president of the United States. It might be an indication that he is biased by a provincial, religious way of looking at the world as the Muslim cleric stated. Yet, even if that is true, many of the Muslims who oppose him would be the other side of the same coin, so to speak.

The War in Iraq was launched despite the opposition of most countries, and it was launched without the approval of the United Nations. So it was viewed as a war where the United States was exerting hegemony over the region. That hegemony was viewed as being anti-Islamic. Its very pro-Israeli stance, without a significant pretense in balance, for a long time helped reinforce those views among those in the Near East. He sought to have a more balanced image regarding the Palestinian issue, but it was kind of late in the game. The damage was done.

No matter what George Bush or Tony Blair have done, it does not excuse some of the virulent pro-Al qaeda thoughts, attacks on innocent Western civilians etc.... Of course, we also must ask what concern has been really given to the deaths of civilians down there. If we did, maybe we wouldn't have so many problems.

[ddeubel]

Adventurer,

[Beej]

[ddeubel]

[Junior]

If you were wise you'd sell the schitt as manure, milk the cows for all they were worth, before killing and eating them