telling it the way it is

[forthhibby]

finally, someone does

http://dotsub.com/view/84f5c72d-b0ba-408c-ace3-8cc40995e011

[LiverpoolHibs]

What a stupid, unpleasant and (unfortunately for a 'comedian') monumentally unfunny man.

I'm still confused as to why I watched that all the way through.

[Tinyclothes]

I managed 2 minutes before I nearly threw my laptop out the window.

[ArabHibee]

I managed 2 minutes before I nearly threw my laptop out the window.

:agree: Same here tbh.

[Tinyclothes]

finally, someone does

http://dotsub.com/view/84f5c72d-b0ba-408c-ace3-8cc40995e011

Just out of interest, you are being sarcastic here aren't you?

[khib70]

What a stupid, unpleasant and (unfortunately for a 'comedian') monumentally unfunny man.

I'm still confused as to why I watched that all the way through.
What a strange reaction to what is basically a critique of the Islamic extremism you repeatedly disavow any sympathy for, and the Saudi regime you frequently disown:cool2:

Amazing and revealing knee-jerks from the liberal minded, in support of mediaevalist sectarianism:yawn:

[IndieHibby]

Without wanting to nail my colours to any particular mast, and purely in the interest of open debate, would LH and Tiny please expand on what you find so objectionable about what he says?

Btw, I am not saying I agree or disagree, I'm just interested in what you would object to (beyond the trite comments he made, like the egg-timer comment etc etc)

[Tinyclothes]

What a strange reaction to what is basically a critique of the Islamic extremism you repeatedly disavow any sympathy for, and the Saudi regime you frequently disown:cool2:

Amazing and revealing knee-jerks from the liberal minded, in support of mediaevalist sectarianism:yawn:

I didn't watch it all the way through as I thought it was crap and the guys middle class, non-specific home counties accent made me want to smack him. But from what I saw it was more of a pop at Islam in a kind of smarmy BNP incarnation than any thoughtful critique of religious fundamentalism. Imagine the kinds of people he hangs about with if they thought that was funny, or interesting, or in any way original and groundbreaking. He was basically regurgitating Daily Mail headlines and adding a very poor joke to them.

Don't really know what the you're banging on about with your mediaevalist sectarianism chat but it was more the fact that they guy was a smug, boring pr1ck that made me react the way I did.

[Twa Cairpets]

What a stupid, unpleasant and (unfortunately for a 'comedian') monumentally unfunny man.

I'm still confused as to why I watched that all the way through.

Pat Condell isnt a a comedian (although I think he was a few years ago). He is primarily a very militant aetheist video blogger. Have a look at his channel on youtube, and you will find his views are equally forthright on all religion, and, in this context, should not be seen as any kind of racist polemic.

[Tinyclothes]

Pat Condell isnt a a comedian (although I think he was a few years ago). He is primarily a very militant aetheist video blogger. Have a look at his channel on youtube, and you will find his views are equally forthright on all religion, and, in this context, should not be seen as any kind of racist polemic.


I don't know anything about the guy, but from what I could tell that wasn't an atheist rant it was an anti-islam rant. The kind of rant that rides a wave of already palpably negative popular opinion and does nothing to break new ground or distinguish between fundamentalism and right minded muslims.

Not for me, this one.

[khib70]

Pat Condell isnt a a comedian (although I think he was a few years ago). He is primarily a very militant aetheist video blogger. Have a look at his channel on youtube, and you will find his views are equally forthright on all religion, and, in this context, should not be seen as any kind of racist polemic.
:agree:That's right. However, the merest whiff of criticism of anything even vaguely Islamic sets off alarm bells on the computers of certain individuals, just as any hint of anti-Celtc posting brings Jack Regan storming on to the main forum.

And the guy makes the point at some length that Islamism insults the basic precepts by which most Muslims live, and generates predjudice against Islam in general.

And Islam isn't a race.

[GlesgaeHibby]

I don't know anything about the guy, but from what I could tell that wasn't an atheist rant it was an anti-islam rant. The kind of rant that rides a wave of already palpably negative popular opinion and does nothing to break new ground or distinguish between fundamentalism and right minded muslims.

Not for me, this one.

He is a prominent atheist speaker on youtube.


:agree:That's right. However, the merest whiff of criticism of anything even vaguely Islamic sets off alarm bells on the computers of certain individuals, just as any hint of anti-Celtc posting brings Jack Regan storming on to the main forum.

And the guy makes the point at some length that Islamism insults the basic precepts by which most Muslims live, and generates predjudice against Islam in general.

And Islam isn't a race.

:agree: Islam should be open to criticism as much as Christianity or any other religion, as well as atheism.

Too often anybody daring to criticise Islam is branded racist, and a BNP supporter etc

[Tinyclothes]

He is a prominent anti atheist speaker on youtube.



So? Is that all he ever talks about then? Evidently not.

[LiverpoolHibs]

What a strange reaction to what is basically a critique of the Islamic extremism you repeatedly disavow any sympathy for, and the Saudi regime you frequently disown:cool2:

Amazing and revealing knee-jerks from the liberal minded, in support of mediaevalist sectarianism:yawn:

Well, this certainly never gets tiresome.

It isn’t an attack on extremism is it - that's another example of one of those things you regularly say when I'm fairly sure you know it's utter bollocks, it's a constant homogenisation of 'Islam' and construction of it as inherently backward, inherently violent, inherently incompatible with 'Western values'. He might occasionally mention Saudi Arabia but, that apart, he makes no attempt to distinguish between anything at all.

And as I've said before, I object to being called liberal!


Pat Condell isnt a a comedian (although I think he was a few years ago). He is primarily a very militant aetheist video blogger. Have a look at his channel on youtube, and you will find his views are equally forthright on all religion, and, in this context, should not be seen as any kind of racist polemic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Condell

Everything there suggests he is a comedian - a terrible one, but one nonetheless.

And unfortunately for your argument (and I imagine it’s one he would use as well) he uses pretty much every lie and trope of the most vicious Islamophobic racist. That doesn’t make him a militant atheist, it makes him a bigoted fool. I wonder if his ’equally forthright’ views on other religions contain such a barely latent racial subtext.

I can barely tell you how surprised I was to find out that he's a popular figure on blogs such as this (http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2007/05/telling-it-way-it-is.html) or that he's the darling of Stormfront (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=413470) (discretion advised with the latter link).

What on earth could they like about him? Maybe it's lines like:

'It just shows how far we've allowed ourselves to be pushed in Europe'

...or maybe it's:

'I'd be happier if it was just called Arabia, and the medieval wackos who currently run it were back in the desert living in their tents with their livestock where they belong.'

...or:

'...unless they manage to exploit their other great natural resource and start exporting egg timers.' Hardy, ha-ha! It is all sandy out there aint it! The man is truly a prophet!

...or:

'If Muslims are really downtrodden...why are there currently plans for a Saudi-funded gigantic mosque to be built here in London..."

Or maybe it's just the whole bitter, supremacist rant.

He's an unfunny, racist ****bag (and true to type, also a sad, scared little man) attempting to profit off hatred. Nice man to attempt to defend, though!

[Twa Cairpets]

I re-read/listened to the podcast again, and whilst I don't agree with the petty digs at handling alcohol in supermarkets for example, as they are very small instances of personal stupidity rather than a cultural statement indicative of the whole religion, the attack on the extremist element of Islam is pretty hard to disagree with.

I would also say that Pat Condell genuinely isnt just anti-Islam. Have a listen on Youtube to one of the anti-Christian / anti-any-other-religion broadcasts and you will see that he is equally scathing towards them also.

Sometimes reading an article can have a different impact than listening, so I've copied the transcript below.


Well, it's a gloomy rainy old day to be here in London, but it could be worse. I could be in Saudi Arabia, where men are men and women are cattle. Can I say that?

The Saudi Arabian Human Rights Commission, now there's a collection of words to boggle the mind, but apparently this organisation does actually exist, and they intend to complainlater this month at an event in Copenhagen that Muslims living in Europe are denied human rights and are not allowed to freely practise their faith.

How about that? Being lectured in human rights by Saudi Arabia. What next, animal welfare from the Koreans? "Does it get any more surreal?" you ask.

Yes, apparently it does, because they also want us to stop linking Islam with terrorism,which is pretty rich coming from the guardians of Islam, and the guardians of terrorism.

In a sane society, the guy who actually stands up to make this speech would be bum-rushed out the door the moment he opened his mouth. Or, even better, run out of town on a rail and dumped in the river.

But this is Europe, so instead we'll probably listen to what he's got to say, take it all on board, and then change our way of doing things, as usual. Just this week in the UK we've been told that a leading supermarket chain is now allowing Muslim checkout staff not to handle alcohol if they don't want to,
so you can bet your life that they'll now be lining up around the block to not want to. We've had a pharmacist refusing to sell birth control because of religion, we've had a Muslim dentist who refused to treat a woman because she wasn't wearing a headscarf, and now we've been told that some Muslim doctors are refusing to treat certain people because of their precious faith.

Here in the UK we have a technical term for this kind of behaviour. We call it "taking the piss". And we don't like people taking the piss. It "gets up our nose", and it gives us "the right hump". It's a cultural thing.

If Muslims are really as downtrodden as the Saudis would like us to believe, why are there currently plans for a Saudi-funded gigantic mosque to be built right here in London, the largest mosque in Europe, no less.

Eat your heart out, Denmark. We know you'd love to have it, but we're getting it instead. And it's going to be built right next to the site for the 2012 Olympic Games, if they can get the planning permission. Even some local Muslims have been protesting about this plan. They say they'll be marginalised
because this mosque will be run by extremists for extremists, which means it's pretty much guaranteed to get the go ahead, and the London Olympics will doubtless be dominated by a mosque the size of a football stadium. I don't know if the marathon will be interrupted for prayers, or if female athletes will be required to compete wearing a tent, though I'm sure if the mad mullah of multiculturalism, Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, has anything to do with it, that won't be too far off the agenda. The fact that the Saudis feel they can get away with this cynical bull**** just shows how far we've already allowed ourselves to be pushed here in Europe.

Radical Islam has seen us for what we are, a soft touch. It sees that political correctness is like a drug that we just can't stop injecting, even though we know it's going to kill us. And they're taking full advantage of that, turning our sense of fairness against us, and making us despise ourselves for one of our best qualities.

And any concession made will be seen as a sign of weakness to be exploited further, because there is no dialogue with radical Islam. It doesn't want to be agreed with. It wants to be obeyed. It thinks it has the God-given right, aptly enough, to make the rules, not just for Muslims, but for everyone,
and some of us, frankly, thing that's a little bit too much to ask. And if you think that's unreasonable, all I can say is my freedom is more important than your faith. Much, much more important.

And besides, I just have this natural aversion to being bullied and pushed around by bigoted misogynistic ignoramuses. And I say that with all due respect.

And before somebody accuses me again of insulting Islam, please grow up. I don't need to insult Islam when there are already so many Muslims willing to do it for me every time they strap on a suicide belt or stone somebody to death for the crime of having a private life. These are the people who insult Islam, not people like me. Of course I realise Islamofascists take pretty much every criticism as an insult by default, but, to be fair to them, it would be difficult to think of a compliment, wouldn't it?

What do you say? "Nice jihad. Like the dogma. Way to go with the bigotry and the hate"?

There's not much scope, really, is there? But these are the people who are actually insulting Islam. And these are the true enemies of Muslims. And the biggest enemy of all is the royal family of Saudi Arabia, because it's thanks to their activities, funding and encouraging cold blooded murder in the name of religious dogma that have made Islam feared and resented all over the civilised world, not because of people like me.

And the Muslim population needs to take that fact on board and recognise it.
As for us in the west, well, our good friends the Saudis are waging war against us, and we're so fat and complacent we don't even know it, so maybe we deserve everything we get. People have said to me, "You're pronouncing that wrong. It's not "Sordi" it's "Sowdi". OK, fair enough, I'm happy to pronounce it "Sowdi". I'd be even happier if the country was just called Arabia, and the medieval wackos who currently run it were back in the desert living in their tents with their livestock, where they belong.

In fact, I'm looking forward to the day when we can finally wean ourselves off oil altogether, and pull out of the Middle East, and then "Sordi" and "Sowdi" Arabia can quietly revert back into the stone age, unless they manage to exploit their other great natural resource, and start exporting egg timers.

Now that might even be something worth praying for. Peace.

[Tinyclothes]

Well, this certainly never gets tiresome.

It isn’t an attack on extremism is it - that's another example of one of those things you regularly say when I'm fairly sure you know it's utter bollocks, it's a constant homogenisation of 'Islam' and construction of it as inherently backward, inherently violent, inherently incompatible with 'Western values'. He might occasionally mention Saudi Arabia but, that apart, he makes no attempt to distinguish between anything at all.

And as I've said before, I object to being called liberal!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Condell

Everything there suggests he is a comedian - a terrible one, but one nonetheless.

And unfortunately for your argument (and I imagine it’s one he would use as well) he uses pretty much every lie and trope of the most vicious Islamophobic racist. That doesn’t make him a militant atheist, it makes him a bigoted fool. I wonder if his ’equally forthright’ views on other religions contain such a barely latent racial subtext.

I can barely tell you how surprised I was to find out that he's a popular figure on blogs such as this (http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2007/05/telling-it-way-it-is.html) or that he's the darling of Stormfront (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=413470) (discretion advised with the latter link).

What on earth could they like about him? Maybe it's lines like:

'It just shows how far we've allowed ourselves to be pushed in Europe'

...or maybe it's:

'I'd be happier if it was just called Arabia, and the medieval wackos who currently run it were back in the desert living in their tents with their livestock where they belong.'

...or:

'...unless they manage to exploit their other great natural resource and start exporting egg timers.' Hardy, ha-ha! It is all sandy out there aint it! The man is truly a prophet!

...or:

'If Muslims are really downtrodden...why are there currently plans for a Saudi-funded gigantic mosque to be built here in London..."

Or maybe it's just the whole bitter, supremacist rant.

He's an unfunny, racist ****bag (and true to type, also a sad, scared little man) attempting to profit off hatred. Nice man to attempt to defend, though!

:top marks

[lapsedhibee]

He is a prominent anti atheist speaker on youtube.

Dinna think so. :wink:

[IndieHibby]

Well, this certainly never gets tiresome.

It isn’t an attack on extremism is it - that's another example of one of those things you regularly say when I'm fairly sure you know it's utter bollocks, it's a constant homogenisation of 'Islam' and construction of it as inherently backward, inherently violent, inherently incompatible with 'Western values'. He might occasionally mention Saudi Arabia but, that apart, he makes no attempt to distinguish between anything at all.

And as I've said before, I object to being called liberal!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Condell

Everything there suggests he is a comedian - a terrible one, but one nonetheless.

And unfortunately for your argument (and I imagine it’s one he would use as well) he uses pretty much every lie and trope of the most vicious Islamophobic racist. That doesn’t make him a militant atheist, it makes him a bigoted fool. I wonder if his ’equally forthright’ views on other religions contain such a barely latent racial subtext.

I can barely tell you how surprised I was to find out that he's a popular figure on blogs such as this (http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2007/05/telling-it-way-it-is.html) or that he's the darling of Stormfront (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=413470) (discretion advised with the latter link).

What on earth could they like about him? Maybe it's lines like:

'It just shows how far we've allowed ourselves to be pushed in Europe' Can't see what's wrong with that - there are countless examples of Islamic / Western culture clash which would seem to indicate that our tolerance of these historically alien (to our culture) practices and beliefs is beggining to reach tipping point: Choudray (Islam4UK), receiving 32,500 p.a. gross in benefits, then deliberately provoking the decent sensibilities of the traumatised community in Wooton Basset, 'honour killings', converting British nationals to an extremist ideology in the aim of killing British citizens, taking people to court in petty race-discrimination cases, debasing our tradition of tolerance and free speech by reacting with extreme violence and vocal outrage at the most innocuous of slights, etc.)

...or maybe it's:

'I'd be happier if it was just called Arabia, and the medieval wackos who currently run it were back in the desert living in their tents with their livestock where they belong.' Surely he is making the point that they are a minority extremist organisation ruling a large country in their own, narrow, world view, to the extreme detriment of their population - worthy of criticism, even riducule, no?

...or:

'...unless they manage to exploit their other great natural resource and start exporting egg timers.' Hardy, ha-ha! It is all sandy out there aint it! The man is truly a prophet! - It's a bad joke, but still a joke. There are other analogous jokes which wouldn't be deemed offensive.

...or:

'If Muslims are really downtrodden...why are there currently plans for a Saudi-funded gigantic mosque to be built here in London..." - Why are they building a huge mosque in London? Are all the others full? Are there not better things to spend the money on, in, say, Saudi Arabia?

Or maybe it's just the whole bitter, supremacist rant. - Honestly, I am not sure where he came across, or said, anything supremacist - CMIIAW (Correct Me If I Am Wrong) It's a new one I am trying to introduce - what do you think:wink:

He's an unfunny, racist ****bag (and true to type, also a sad, scared little man) attempting to profit off hatred. Nice man to attempt to defend, though! - Again, I can't see where he is being racist...

[Tinyclothes]

- Again, I can't see where he is being racist...

So you wouldn't agree that someone saying 'Go back to where you belong' isn't racist? So you'd be ok with that being said to an Indian? Or is it only not racist when said in the terms of Islam?

[lapsedhibee]

So you wouldn't agree that someone saying 'Go back to where you belong' isn't racist?

When a yam fud wanders on to this board, and ventures anything mildly controversial, he/she is quite often telt to go back to his/her "own" board, where he/she "belongs".

[khib70]

So you wouldn't agree that someone saying 'Go back to where you belong' isn't racist? So you'd be ok with that being said to an Indian? Or is it only not racist when said in the terms of Islam?
Apparently it is when anyone white says it to anyone Islamic, but not when Hamas says it to Jews in Israel. Hmmm...

It' s a crudely worded but appropriate response to those who fulminate about the evils of decadent Western society, but continue to extract all the benefits of living here. Or who take money from the UK Government to run schools in which children are "radicalised" into hatred of unbelevers. It's clearly not aimed at the majority of the Muslim population.

And once again, Islam is not a race.

[Twa Cairpets]

And unfortunately for your argument (and I imagine it’s one he would use as well) he uses pretty much every lie and trope of the most vicious Islamophobic racist. That doesn’t make him a militant atheist, it makes him a bigoted fool. I wonder if his ’equally forthright’ views on other religions contain such a barely latent racial subtext.

I can barely tell you how surprised I was to find out that he's a popular figure on blogs such as this (http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2007/05/telling-it-way-it-is.html) or that he's the darling of Stormfront (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=413470) (discretion advised with the latter link).


i think your argument of guilt by association in this case is hardly fair - it would be like linking the posts of a local vicar to the the utterly vile Westboro Baptists (www.godhatesfags.com) and saying "look - they all believe the same". If some BNP lowlife want to take it out of context, then that is their problem, surely?

I also dont think that what is said can be described as racist - it may be uncomfortable listening/reading, but it is anti-religion, not anti-race.

I think of myself as a fairly radical atheist, and I don't like the point-scoring element of his posts either against Islam or Christianity because I think there are better ways of illustrating the atheist viewpoint.

However, isn't the logical conclusion you have to reach is that anyone putting forward and anti-islam stance is automatically aligning themselves with the far-right?

[Green Mikey]

finally, someone does

http://dotsub.com/view/84f5c72d-b0ba-408c-ace3-8cc40995e011

An load of nonsense. He makes so many weeping generalisations and accusations against Muslims and Saudi Arabia that serve only to highlight his ignorance of the subject. It isn't a critique of Extremist Islam it is a rant against Islam.

It is strange how so many of the accusations against Saudi Arabia and Islam could easily be made against Christianity, but nobody feels the need to post about Christians.

Terrorism....Just think of NI and the troubles.
Birth Control...Christianity is anti-birth control and some Christian doctors have made a stance on this.
Building Mosques....How many churches are there!
Treatment of women....Male only priests

[Tinyclothes]

Apparently it is when anyone white says it to anyone Islamic, but not when Hamas says it to Jews in Israel. Hmmm...

It' s a crudely worded but appropriate response to those who fulminate about the evils of decadent Western society, but continue to extract all the benefits of living here. Or who take money from the UK Government to run schools in which children are "radicalised" into hatred of unbelevers. It's clearly not aimed at the majority of the Muslim population.

And once again, Islam is not a race.

So what term should be used? Anti semitic?

[Tinyclothes]

When a yam fud wanders on to this board, and ventures anything mildly controversial, he/she is quite often telt to go back to his/her "own" board, where he/she "belongs".

How can that be compared to what we're talking about? If you've got something to say I suggest you say it instead of meekly suggesting the above and hoping someone else says what you really mean. Pathetic. Like a bully sending his wee cousin to stir the s**t before wading in.

You're the wee cousin by the way.

[Twa Cairpets]

An load of nonsense. He makes so many weeping generalisations and accusations against Muslims and Saudi Arabia that serve only to highlight his ignorance of the subject. It isn't a critique of Extremist Islam it is a rant against Islam.

It is strange how so many of the accusations against Saudi Arabia and Islam could easily be made against Christianity, but nobody feels the need to post about Christians.

Terrorism....Just think of NI and the troubles.
Birth Control...Christianity is anti-birth control and some Christian doctors have made a stance on this.
Building Mosques....How many churches are there!
Treatment of women....Male only priests

Try this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STlYN5KCiWg&feature=related) if you want him to balance it up

[lapsedhibee]

How can that be compared to what we're talking about? If you've got something to say I suggest you say it instead of meekly suggesting the above and hoping someone else says what you really mean. Pathetic. Like a bully sending his wee cousin to stir the s**t before wading in.

You're the wee cousin by the way.

The point I was trying to make is that telling people to go back to where they belong is not in itself racist. No idea what your wee rant there is about.

[Tinyclothes]

The point I was trying to make is that telling people to go back to where they belong is not in itself racist. No idea what your wee rant there is about.


Aye alright.

[Green Mikey]

Try this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STlYN5KCiWg&feature=related) if you want him to balance it up

It isn't about him balancing it up, he obviously attacks all religion.

My point was aimed at the OP and others on this thread. People 'love telling it the way it is' however it seems in the main part that this only applies to Islam.

[Killiehibbie]

I hope all extremists **** right off, no matter if they be christian, muslim or whatever.

[Green Mikey]

The point I was trying to make is that telling people to go back to where they belong is not in itself racist. No idea what your wee rant there is about.

Rubbish. It's all about context, telling a Yam to go back to Kickback is complety different from telling an Indian to go back to India.

[Pretty Boy]

What an ill informed, unpleasant, unfunny and obnoxious little man.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Can't see what's wrong with that - there are countless examples of Islamic / Western culture clash which would seem to indicate that our tolerance of these historically alien (to our culture) practices and beliefs is beggining to reach tipping point: Choudray (Islam4UK), receiving 32,500 p.a. gross in benefits, then deliberately provoking the decent sensibilities of the traumatised community in Wooton Basset, 'honour killings', converting British nationals to an extremist ideology in the aim of killing British citizens, taking people to court in petty race-discrimination cases, debasing our tradition of tolerance and free speech by reacting with extreme violence and vocal outrage at the most innocuous of slights, etc.)

Well, given what you’ve said there it doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that you can’t see what’s wrong with it. First off, I don’t (and can’t see why anyone else would) give much of a **** about supposed ‘incommensurable values’ which is a favourite phrase of liberal Islamophobes who bleat about ‘social cohesion’ (universal human rights are, y’know, slightly preferable). This construction of a homogenous, monolithic and malevolent Islam seems to also require people to make bizarre constructions of a uniform set of Western values – I don’t know about anyone else, but my values are utterly incompatible with a vast, vast number of people in this country; probably yourself included. Apparently it’s only something to get het-up about when it comes to Islam. I’ll repeat something I wrote on a previous thread about a similar subject:

People seem completely oblivious to the same old racist tropes, imagery and mantras being applied to the new group that we are all supposed to be fearful of as a 'threat to our way of life'.

Except now we're not supposed to be fearful of black people - it's shifted onto Muslim's and has become (along with hatred of Travellers and the Roma) the last acceptable form of racism. All the same language that was used against black immigrants and before that against European Jewish population have been transferred onto Muslims.

The parallels with the treatment of, and attitudes towards, Jews in the 18th/19th/20th is really amazingly striking. They're supposedly hell-bent on domination of the entire world and the complete subversion of Western liberal values through engaging in secretive and seditious acts, a value system that is supposedly diametrically opposed and incompatible with our own, refusal to integrate into an (extremely unwelcoming) populace.

Now then,

1. Choudray and his (laughably small and, no doubt, spook infested) gang are indicative of us reaching a ‘tipping point’ – what happens at this ‘tipping point’ incidentally? Will the rivers foam with blood? – in relations between Islam and the West? God knows how you’d react if something actually worth note occurred. The same will happen with this ‘event’ as with the vast majority of his others. He announces it, the media goes ****ing nuts for a bit giving him an enormous and undue level of exposure and then he or the police will cancel it. It’s his entire modus operandi and really shouldn’t be given the time of day.

2. Ah, no here’s an interesting case. Honour killings, despite occurring in the Sikh and Hindu communities (and even S. America) as well as the Muslim, are now synonymous with vicious Islam. Odd that.

3. I’d suggest there’s something a little more linked to us as a nation that might just be radicalising young British Muslims...

4.&5. – In both cases, such as?


Surely he is making the point that they are a minority extremist organisation ruling a large country in their own, narrow, world view, to the extreme detriment of their population - worthy of criticism, even riducule, no?

And he chose to illustrate that point using the language of your average Combat 18 footsoldier? How odd.


It's a bad joke, but still a joke. There are other analogous jokes which wouldn't be deemed offensive.

Perhaps if you took it out of the context of the rest of his splenetic drivel. Within it, however, it takes on a very different character.


Why are they building a huge mosque in London? Are all the others full? Are there not better things to spend the money on, in, say, Saudi Arabia?

I'm not sure what he's talking about there. I think it's quite an old video; which, incidentally, makes your comment about 'tipping points' slightly less macabre and more amusing.


Honestly, I am not sure where he came across, or said, anything supremacist - CMIIAW (Correct Me If I Am Wrong) It's a new one I am trying to introduce - what do you think

I'd leave it if I were you...


Apparently it is when anyone white says it to anyone Islamic, but not when Hamas says it to Jews in Israel. Hmmm...

I'm fairly sure you used to be a bit better than this. What happened?


i think your argument of guilt by association in this case is hardly fair - it would be like linking the posts of a local vicar to the the utterly vile Westboro Baptists (http://www.godhatesfags.com) and saying "look - they all believe the same". If some BNP lowlife want to take it out of context, then that is their problem, surely?

Well, no - I'd be a little worried (if I were a church-goer, that is) if there was enough of a cross-over between the beliefs of my local vicar and those of the Westboro Baptists that they would host his comments on there website.

What about the fact that his videos were hosted on the BNP's website, presumably with his consent as his material is copyrighted and they're not just a blogging site?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttb1VfxmZ8Y

Excuse the dreadful music...


I also dont think that what is said can be described as racist - it may be uncomfortable listening/reading, but it is anti-religion, not anti-race.

I think of myself as a fairly radical atheist, and I don't like the point-scoring element of his posts either against Islam or Christianity because I think there are better ways of illustrating the atheist viewpoint.

However, isn't the logical conclusion you have to reach is that anyone putting forward and anti-islam stance is automatically aligning themselves with the far-right?

No, not at all. As I'd assumed, his video you posted above contained none of the racial and supremacist currents that were in his post on Islam. You strike me as someone whose secularism cuts right across the board (even though I might sometimes disagree with you); he strikes me as someone using secularism as a cover for some genuinely unpleasant beliefs, both explicit and implicit.

[lapsedhibee]

Rubbish. It's all about context, telling a Yam to go back to Kickback is complety different from telling an Indian to go back to India.

I can see how telling people of Indian descent (for example, people who have been born in the UK to Indian parents) to go back to India is racist.

As I understand it, the UK government frequently puts people on to planes and sends them back to where they came from. Is this racist, in your view? :dunno:

[Tinyclothes]

I can see how telling people of Indian descent (for example, people who have been born in the UK to Indian parents) to go back to India is racist.

As I understand it, the UK government frequently puts people on to planes and sends them back to where they came from. Is this racist, in your view? :dunno:

Symantics.

Totally detached from the conversation that everyone else is having.

[Leicester Fan]

It is strange how so many of the accusations against Saudi Arabia and Islam could easily be made against Christianity, but nobody feels the need to post about Christians.

a)Terrorism....Just think of NI and the troubles.
b)Birth Control...Christianity is anti-birth control and some Christian doctors have made a stance on this.
c)Building Mosques....How many churches are there!
d)Treatment of women....Male only priests

a)Nobody said terroism was exclusively muslim.
b)You're talking about the catholics most protestant churches don't have a problem with it.
c)How many churches are there in Saudi Arabia?(answer none, they're banned)
d) Ridiculous comparison. Under sharia law a woman can be stoned to death for adultery even if she's been raped. Women in Saudi Arabia aren't even allowed to drive, but catholc women aren't allowed to be priest so obviously christianity is worse.

As for the guy in the video he is the worse kind of smug twat and does his cause no favours but at least he's equal in his criticism of all religions and not strangely quiet about certain religions because he's scared of being called racist.

[Twa Cairpets]

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]...Except now we're not supposed to be fearful of black people - it's shifted onto Muslim's and has become (along with hatred of Travellers and the Roma) the last acceptable form of racism. All the same language that was used against black immigrants and before that against European Jewish population have been transferred onto Muslims.

It has to be said though that the other groups didnt have extremely active, visible and demonstrably succesful terrorist campaigns within the UK and US.




What about the fact that his videos were hosted on the BNP's website, presumably with his consent as his material is copyrighted and they're not just a blogging site?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttb1VfxmZ8Y

I dont know - I would hope that given he has explicitly stated both on his youtube site (I cant remember which one) and in his website that he has no truck with the far right that he isnt being duplicitous with this. Kind of knackers everything for him if he is, which would be a shame.


No, not at all. As I'd assumed, his video you posted above contained none of the racial and supremacist currents that were in his post on Islam. You strike me as someone whose secularism cuts right across the board (even though I might sometimes disagree with you); he strikes me as someone using secularism as a cover for some genuinely unpleasant beliefs, both explicit and implicit.

This is a good point, Liverpool. I think we have different interpretations of the video, and I have to admit that I think his style does make me go "hmmm" a lot, but if nothing else it is thought provoking, eh?

[Tinyclothes]

a)Nobody said terroism was exclusively muslim.
b)You're talking about the catholics most protestant churches don't have a problem with it.
c)How many churches are there in Saudi Arabia?(answer none, they're banned)
d) Ridiculous comparison. Under sharia law a woman can be stoned to death for adultery even if she's been raped. Women in Saudi Arabia aren't even allowed to drive, but catholc women aren't allowed to be priest so obviously christianity is worse.

As for the guy in the video he is the worse kind of smug twat and does his cause no favours but at least he's equal in his criticism of all religions and not strangely quiet about certain religions because he's scared of being called racist.

This gets brought up time and time again. The way you talk about it it's as though the hypothetical woman is in court on charges of being raped. The reason for this type of thing happening is to do with the fact that a woman needs two men to be witnesses for anything to be admissable in court. Added to the fact that the prisoner starts guilty and needs to prove innocence rather than the way we do it over here. They aren't being stoned to death because they were raped.

Before any idiots try and make out that I somehow condone this type of barbarism let me make it clear that I don't but that I also hate to hear this kind of half truth trotted out time after time when it is clearly something you picked up from a story in the sun or Daily Mail and doesn't have any basis in clear and unobjective truth but is rather, a back up for an anti-islamic agenda RAMPANT throughout the media.

[Leicester Fan]

This gets brought up time and time again. The way you talk about it it's as though the hypothetical woman is in court on charges of being raped. The reason for this type of thing happening is to do with the fact that a woman needs two men to be witnesses for anything to be admissable in court. Added to the fact that the prisoner starts guilty and needs to prove innocence rather than the way we do it over here. They aren't being stoned to death because they were raped.


Are you saying that it's a totally hypothetical argument and this has never actually happened?

PS Are men ever stoned to death for adultery?

[Tinyclothes]

Are you saying that it's a totally hypothetical argument and this has never actually happened?

No. But I'm saying that this stoning of rape victims is the first thing to be wheeled out in an 'Islam is bad' debate. It has become a macabre trademark of Islam in the same way that bomb belts and Burkhas have. It's a big flashing red symbol that, IMO, is nothing but a trap to snare idiots in during the one sided propoganda war that began as soon as we invaded Iraq and then intensified when we went to Afghanistan.

P.S I've never heard it reported in the Sun. So I can safely say that it MUST not be the case.

My point isn't that it hasn't happened. My point is that it's one of the first things people will say about Islam as though it's a daily occurence. My quarrell is with the complete lack of balance and proportionality used whenever anyone brings this up.

[Twa Cairpets]

This gets brought up time and time again. The way you talk about it it's as though the hypothetical woman is in court on charges of being raped. The reason for this type of thing happening is to do with the fact that a woman needs two men to be witnesses for anything to be admissable in court. Added to the fact that the prisoner starts guilty and needs to prove innocence rather than the way we do it over here. They aren't being stoned to death because they were raped.

Before any idiots try and make out that I somehow condone this type of barbarism let me make it clear that I don't but that I also hate to hear this kind of half truth trotted out time after time when it is clearly something you picked up from a story in the sun or Daily Mail and doesn't have any basis in clear and unobjective truth but is rather, a back up for an anti-islamic agenda RAMPANT throughout the media.

Shaky ground Tiny, particularly in light of your rebuff above on the grounds of semantics. Whether or not a woman was raped, the penalty for adultery is death, and that this can be the case even if rape is committed. No matter how you look at it, it is repellent.

[khib70]

Apologies to LH - well, sort of. It's not Hamas but Hizbollah who want the Jews to "go back where they came from".

"The Jews who survive this war of liberation can go back to Germany or wherever they came from. " Hassan Ezzedin, Hizbollah spokesman ,2001.

[Leicester Fan]

No. But I'm saying that this stoning of rape victims is the first thing to be wheeled out in an 'Islam is bad' debate. It has become a macabre trademark of Islam in the same way that bomb belts and Burkhas have. It's a big flashing red symbol that, IMO, is nothing but a trap to snare idiots in during the one sided propoganda war that began as soon as we invaded Iraq and then intensified when we went to Afghanistan.

But you will admit that it does happen? And will you also admit that it doesn't happen in the west?

So in effect will you admit that on the argument that Islam treats women worse than the west the smug twat in the video was actually correct.

[Tinyclothes]

But you will admit that it does happen? And will you also admit that it doesn't happen in the west?

So in effect will you admit that on the argument that Islam treats women worse than the west the smug twat in the video was actually correct.

I've never seen proof of this. So I won't admit as I don't know for sure. All I know for sure is that I've heard alot of people who I wouldn't believe on a number of unrelated topics say it's true.

[Tinyclothes]

Shaky ground Tiny, particularly in light of your rebuff above on the grounds of semantics. Whether or not a woman was raped, the penalty for adultery is death, and that this can be the case even if rape is committed. No matter how you look at it, is is repellent.

I have never said it wasn't. The point I've been trying to make, perhaps not as well as I could have, is that whether it's the case or not, all bringing this up does is create an invisible barrier based not on hard facts but on heresay and conjecture.

'I'd never talk to those guys, they stone rape victims to death for fun.'

It's along the lines of 'we don't negotiate with terrorists'. All bringing this up time and time again does, is reinforce an already widely held view that Muslims are evil inherently and that the only way to deal with them is expell and anhiallate. It's just not helpful.

[Leicester Fan]

I've never seen proof of this. So I won't admit as I don't know for sure. All I know for sure is that I've heard alot of people who I wouldn't believe on a number of unrelated topics say it's true.

You can trust me . I'm English:wink:

On the subject of Human rights in Saudi Arabia don't take my word on it, listen to those other right wing bigots, amnesty international.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/saudi-arabia

[LiverpoolHibs]

Apologies to LH - well, sort of. It's not Hamas but Hizbollah who want the Jews to "go back where they came from".

"The Jews who survive this war of liberation can go back to Germany or wherever they came from. " Hassan Ezzedin, Hizbollah spokesman ,2001.

My comment wasn't really meant to be doubting the veracity of what you said. A Hamas spokesman could well have said something that at some point in time. I'm sure you flagging that up really isn't revalatory for anyone.

I was merely commenting that I'm sure your level of debate used to be a fair bit higher than just counterpointing anything anyone says on any given subject with a comment about Hamas and/or Hezbollah. Whether it's pertinent or, more likely, not.

N.B. And you didn't complete his quote;

However, that the Jews who lived in Palestine before 1948 will be allowed to live as a minority and they will be cared for by the Muslim majority.

That's pretty standard Hamas/Hezbollah rhetoric.

[Green Mikey]

a)Nobody said terroism was exclusively muslim.
b)You're talking about the catholics most protestant churches don't have a problem with it.
c)How many churches are there in Saudi Arabia?(answer none, they're banned)
d) Ridiculous comparison. Under sharia law a woman can be stoned to death for adultery even if she's been raped. Women in Saudi Arabia aren't even allowed to drive, but catholc women aren't allowed to be priest so obviously christianity is worse.

You pick up my generalisations regarding Christainity but in the same post make a generalisation about Islam. I think you have proven my point.


As for the guy in the video he is the worse kind of smug twat and does his cause no favours but at least he's equal in his criticism of all religions and not strangely quiet about certain religions because he's scared of being called racist.

Is it really commendable that this guy attacks all religions in a misinformed ignorant manner? He's not scared of being called a racist because he is one! The links that LH posted earlier demonstrated the type of groups he is unvolved with.

[Tinyclothes]

You can trust me . I'm English:wink:

On the subject of Human rights in Saudi Arabia don't take my word on it, listen to those other right wing bigots, amnesty international.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/saudi-arabia

Very good.

I quickly scrolled through 5 pages of the link and couldn't find a mention of any women being stoned to death for having been raped.

I never once said that Saudi Arabia was a transparent democracy. I merely pointed out that the 'stoning rape victims' story is wheeled out without any knowledge, apart from second hand anecdotes, time after time. And it's almost always used to illustrate Islam as a whole rather than specific countries like Saudi. That point is still valid.

I didn't want to get bogged down in this too much so I'm up for moving on if you are.

[IndieHibby]

So you wouldn't agree that someone saying 'Go back to where you belong' isn't racist? So you'd be ok with that being said to an Indian? Or is it only not racist when said in the terms of Islam?

How do you know he wasn't referring to illegal immigrants? Exactly, you don't. However you were quick to slag him off about it thought.

Practise what you preach, eh?

[Tinyclothes]

How do you know he wasn't referring to illegal immigrants? Exactly, you don't. However you were quick to slag him off about it thought.

Practise what you preach, eh?

I don't follow you.

[Leicester Fan]

You pick up my generalisations regarding Christainity but in the same post make a generalisation about Islam. I think you have proven my point.

Er no, no I don't think I have.




Is it really commendable that this guy attacks all religions in a misinformed ignorant manner? He's not scared of being called a racist because he is one! The links that LH posted earlier demonstrated the type of groups he is unvolved with.

If somebody quoted you on stormfront would that prove that your a racist?
He strikes me as a bit of a pain in the arse leftie.

[Twa Cairpets]

Is it really commendable that this guy attacks all religions in a misinformed ignorant manner? He's not scared of being called a racist because he is one! The links that LH posted earlier demonstrated the type of groups he is unvolved with.

One link which is denied by Condell on his own site. I don't know - and I suspect you dont either - whether he is "involved" in these groups, but you seem to be assuming it is true on the basis of LH's post!

And on the former point, I'm guessing again you havent listened to any of his other blogs. He is vitriolic is in his condemnation of extremism in all religions and religion in general (not all of which I agree with, I hasten to add), but when you do take the time to listen and form your own view rather than the received opinion of others, I think "misinformed and ignorant" is not true - "opinionated and direct" I'll give you.

[hibsbollah]

I wish the guy in the video would just say 'i dont like Pakis much'.

It would save a lot of time and effort:yawn:

[LiverpoolHibs]

He strikes me as a bit of a pain in the arse leftie.

Shucks...

[IndieHibby]

I don't follow you.

You said that you wanted to punch him in the face because of his English/Home counties accent.

.................................................. ........?

[Twa Cairpets]

How do you know he wasn't referring to illegal immigrants? Exactly, you don't. However you were quick to slag him off about it thought.

Practise what you preach, eh?

I'd be even happier if the country was just called Arabia, and the medieval wackos who currently run it were back in the desert living in their tents with their livestock, where they belong.

Not telling anyone where to go, really, is it.

---------- Post added at 04:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:03 PM ----------


I wish the guy in the video would just say 'i dont like Pakis much'.

It would save a lot of time and effort:yawn:

Thanks for the contribution, oh wise one.

[Tinyclothes]

You said that you wanted to punch him in the face because of his English/Home counties accent.

.................................................. ........?

Yeah, that still doesn't really clear up what you were getting at with your last point.

Way to misquote me Stueyne. I said I wanted to 'smack' him. It's kind of different. i.e 'My dad smacked me last night for being cheeky' compared to 'my dad punched me in the face last night'. One means potential criminal charges, the other means a wry smile and a 'well you shouldnae be bein cheeky'.

And it wasn't because he had an English accent as you seem to think but rather his 'non-specific home counties accent'. What can I say. I just don't like the accent. In the same way I don't like that faux weedgie one you get in Troon.

[Killiehibbie]

Yeah, that still doesn't really clear up what you were getting at with your last point.

Way to misquote me Stueyne. I said I wanted to 'smack' him. It's kind of different. i.e 'My dad smacked me last night for being cheeky' compared to 'my dad punched me in the face last night'. One means potential criminal charges, the other means a wry smile and a 'well you shouldnae be bein cheeky'.

And it wasn't because he had an English accent as you seem to think but rather his 'non-specific home counties accent'. What can I say. I just don't like the accent. In the same way I don't like that faux weedgie one you get in Troon.
Sounds a bit iffy if you want to smack him in the way a dad would a naughty boy rather than cracking his jaw.
Some dodgy accents in Troon but weedgie not too common.

[Green Mikey]

Er no, no I don't think I have.

Your critique of my generalisations regarding Christianity included a generalisation of Islam. My point is that Islam is readily attacked in a general unfonded manner however this is rarely done to Christianity.



If somebody quoted you on stormfront would that prove that your a racist?
He strikes me as a bit of a pain in the arse leftie.

I haven't seen any evidence that shows he is a leftie but IMO there is evidence that points to him being a racist.

[Tinyclothes]

Sounds a bit iffy if you want to smack him in the way a dad would a naughty boy rather than cracking his jaw.
Some dodgy accents in Troon but weedgie not too common.


Merely highlighting the difference between the two terms. Nothing freudian about it.


Well the ones I've met have sounded weedgie to me. Dobber, pure magic man, they sounded like they were trying to be weedgies. Hence "faux weedgies".

[Killiehibbie]

Merely highlighting the difference between the two terms. Nothing freudian about it.


Well the ones I've met have sounded weedgie to me. Dobber, pure magic man, they sounded like they were trying to be weedgies. Hence "faux weedgies".

Sounds like you've met the deadbeats from Barassie.

[Leicester Fan]

Your critique of my generalisations regarding Christianity included a generalisation of Islam. My point is that Islam is readily attacked in a general unfonded manner however this is rarely done to Christianity.


What generalisation of Islam did I say?

As for Christianity rarely being attacked, come off it. Most christians (I'm agnostic myself) are regarded at best as wierdos and at worse as right wing creationist, fundameltalists.



I haven't seen any evidence that shows he is a leftie but IMO there is evidence that points to him being a racist.

He was right Saudi Arabia does have an appalling Human Rights record and a lot of terrorist funding does come from there. Pretending that that isn't so for the sake of political corectness is just silly.

[Tinyclothes]

Sounds like you've met the deadbeats from Barassie.

Deadbeats would be an accurate description.

[LiverpoolHibs]

He strikes me as a bit of a pain in the arse leftie.


Shucks...


I haven't seen any evidence that shows he is a leftie but IMO there is evidence that points to him being a racist.


He was right Saudi Arabia does have an appalling Human Rights record and a lot of terrorist funding does come from there. Pretending that that isn't so for the sake of political corectness is just silly.

Hold on, who was being called a 'pain in the arse leftie'?

[hibsbollah]

Hold on, who was being called a 'pain in the arse leftie'?

I think you're getting paranoid:greengrin

[Green Mikey]

What generalisation of Islam did I say?


Under sharia law a woman can be stoned to death for adultery even if she's been raped.

See above for your regurgitated from the Daily Mail example of shariah law.


As for Christianity rarely being attacked, come off it. Most christians (I'm agnostic myself) are regarded at best as wierdos and at worse as right wing creationist, fundameltalists.

What a ridiculous and idiotic statement. How can you claim that almost 1bn people are regarded as weirdos.
I was wrong, your generalisations and unfounded claims aren't confined only to Islam.



He was right Saudi Arabia does have an appalling Human Rights record and a lot of terrorist funding does come from there. Pretending that that isn't so for the sake of political corectness is just silly.

Political correctnesss....the idiots/racists/ignoramuses retort to any view contrary to their own.

[Green Mikey]

Hold on, who was being called a 'pain in the arse leftie'?

Pat Condell is the supposed 'pain in the arse leftie'.

Don't worry LH, you still have the monopoly on that title:greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

I think you're getting paranoid:greengrin

:paranoid:

:greengrin

---------- Post added at 04:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:56 PM ----------


Pat Condell is the supposed 'pain in the arse leftie'.

Don't worry LH, you still have the monopoly on that title:greengrin

Thank goodness for that!

[Leicester Fan]

See above for your regurgitated from the Daily Mail example of shariah law.

How is that a generalisation? It's a widely reported fact that nobody has ever denied.



What a ridiculous and idiotic statement. How can you claim that almost 1bn people are regarded as weirdos.
I was wrong, your generalisations and unfounded claims aren't confined only to Islam.

I never said that I made those claims onlythat they are widely made.I guess that if the arse in video had said something similar about christian fundamentalists you wouldn't of had a problem.



Political correctnesss....the idiots/racists/ignoramuses retort to any view contrary to their own.

So now not only sharia law doesn't exist but political correctness doesn't either?

[Betty Boop]

It isn't about him balancing it up, he obviously attacks all religion.

My point was aimed at the OP and others on this thread. People 'love telling it the way it is' however it seems in the main part that this only applies to Islam.

:top marks

[steakbake]

I'm glad the worst an atheist will do is to put a slightly ambivalent poster on a bus.

[McIntosh]

Crude sectarianism which fails to recognise that the Muslim world is diverse and exists within a multi-dimensional dialogue. The fear of it is based on a lack of understanding and is underpinned by the lowest form of prejudice.

[Leicester Fan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1ZLXbKeL2U&feature=related

[da-robster]

How do you know he wasn't referring to illegal immigrants? Exactly, you don't. However you were quick to slag him off about it thought.

Practise what you preach, eh?

We know he wasn't referring to illegal immigrants because he says "I'd be even happier if the country was just called Arabia, and the medieval wackos who currently run it were back in the desert living in their tents with their livestock, where they belong."

That's quite clearly talking about the rulers of saudi arabia.Not anything to do with illegal immigrants.What he says is pure racist because he's saying saudi arabians belong raising livestock in the desert.

[Woody1985]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6981008.ece

Pathetic rules and religion.

All religion is pathetic IMO, stop clinging onto hope that there is something better out there, there's not. Be respectful to others and don't let your live be ruled by some fantasy books made up of chinese whispers and fake stories from 1600 years ago. Simple. :greengrin

Go to love this story put up by Milky earlier. Maybe the keeper believed in the wrong god :confused:

Goalmouth incident

A match in Bahia, Brazil, between Corinthians and Rio Preto got off to an electrifying start when Corinthians went a goal up in less than a minute.

With a keen eye for any opening, Roberto Rivelino received the ball from the kick-off, assessed his options in a split-second and decided to have a shot at goal. Although he was still on the half-way line, Rivelino gauged that he had a better than even chance of scoring providing he could find the net.

Although the Rio Preto outfield players were in conventional positions, Rivelino had spotted something unorthodox in the goalmouth, where the goalkeeper, Isadore Irandir, was on his knees, hands clasped, eyes closed, completing his pre-match prayers. Sadly for him these must have been overlooked on high, because the first thing he knew about the start of play was the sound of the ball hitting his own net from Riverlino's audacious left boot.

[Green Mikey]

What generalisation of Islam did I say?


How is that a generalisation? It's a widely reported fact that nobody has ever denied.

You used one fact in attempt to discredit an entire religion. The generalistion that you make is that this occurence is applicable to all of Islam. Every group, religion or race can be attacked if only selected incidents are used against them.


As for Christianity rarely being attacked, come off it. Most christians (I'm agnostic myself) are regarded at best as wierdos and at worse as right wing creationist, fundameltalists.


I never said that I made those claims only that they are widely made.I guess that if the arse in video had said something similar about christian fundamentalists you wouldn't of had a problem

You never made those claims...?

The guy in the video does little to attack fundamentalists mostly he makes negative statements about Saudi Arabia and Islam. The point I have been trying to make is that there is a distinction between Muslims fundamentalists and Muslims.


So now not only sharia law doesn't exist but political correctness doesn't either?

I never said either of those things.

[Twa Cairpets]

Crude sectarianism which fails to recognise that the Muslim world is diverse and exists within a multi-dimensional dialogue. The fear of it is based on a lack of understanding and is underpinned by the lowest form of prejudice.

Well, apart from the fact that the guy in the original post does go out of his way on several occsions to stress that the whole point of his post is against radical Islam and the nature of the Saudi Arabian legal system.

And also this line of yours: "...fails to recognise that the Muslim world is diverse and exists within a multi-dimensional dialogue" what does it actually mean?

There is obviously a huge amount of anti-Islamic feeling at the minute, the vast majority of it unjustified, ill-advised and founded on ignorance, in exactly the same way that the Islamic world has a, undoubtedly, a massive anti-Western/Christian prejudice, based on exactly the same basis.

Neither is better or worse than the other, neither is more defensible.

[Dashing Bob S]

This chap is about as funny as the onset of a chronic haemorroids attack at the start of a long church wedding service. He chillingly reminds me of the father-in-law, not just to look at, but with the banal, tedious and unbearably smug observations. I'm all for people getting ripped into any religion, but put a little bit of humour into those tiresome, self-serving rants.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Well, apart from the fact that the guy in the original post does go out of his way on several occsions to stress that the whole point of his post is against radical Islam and the nature of the Saudi Arabian legal system.

That isn't true at all. And even if it were, it clearly doesn't hold for all of his delightful videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1ZLXbKeL2U

Yeah, he's really sticking it to those Islamic extremists! Er...

[Leicester Fan]

You used one fact in attempt to discredit an entire religion. The generalistion that you make is that this occurence is applicable to all of Islam. Every group, religion or race can be attacked if only selected incidents are used against them.


So you now accept it was a fact and not a generalisation.

I never tried to discredit any religion, I'm a live and let type of person, I usually go out of my way to defend religion. I was merely showing that what the man said was not racist. If you can't understand that then I'm wasting my time with you, you're way below my intellectual level.I suggest you leave the debating alone until we have a discusion about the Tweenies.

.

[Woody1985]

So you now accept it was a fact and not a generalisation.

I never tried to discredit any religion, I'm a live and let type of person, I usually go out of my way to defend religion. I was mearly showing that what the man said was not racist. If you can't understand that then I'm wasting my time with you, you're way below my intellectual level.I suggest you leave the debating alone until we have a discusion about the Tweenies.

.

That made me :LOL:

[McIntosh]

Well, apart from the fact that the guy in the original post does go out of his way on several occsions to stress that the whole point of his post is against radical Islam and the nature of the Saudi Arabian legal system.

And also this line of yours: "...fails to recognise that the Muslim world is diverse and exists within a multi-dimensional dialogue" what does it actually mean?

There is obviously a huge amount of anti-Islamic feeling at the minute, the vast majority of it unjustified, ill-advised and founded on ignorance, in exactly the same way that the Islamic world has a, undoubtedly, a massive anti-Western/Christian prejudice, based on exactly the same basis.

Neither is better or worse than the other, neither is more defensible.

In respect to point one regardless of the caveats the undertones are still sectarianism of the worst order or to be more explicit neo-imperialist. The imperialism of the West over many decades has directly contributed to this so called radicalism. There is nothing radical about resistance or nationalism.

Secondly, the Islamic 'world' has had a dialogue with other faiths for 1500 years and has for the greater part of the period co-existed with other faiths and ideologies.


I do agree in general with your latter remarks.

[Twa Cairpets]

That isn't true at all. And even if it were, it clearly doesn't hold for all of his delightful videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1ZLXbKeL2U

Yeah, he's really sticking it to those Islamic extremists! Er...

Not getting your point Liverpool. What is racist about that video?

[(((Fergus)))]

I wish the guy in the video would just say 'i dont like Pakis much'.

It would save a lot of time and effort:yawn:

:agree: I wonder if he's had a vasectomy

[Twa Cairpets]

In respect to point one regardless of the caveats the undertones are still sectarianism of the worst order or to be more explicit neo-imperialist. The imperialism of the West over many decades has directly contributed to this so called radicalism. There is nothing radical about resistance or nationalism.

Secondly, the Islamic 'world' has had a dialogue with other faiths for 1500 years and has for the greater part of the period co-existed with other faiths and ideologies.

I do agree in general with your latter remarks.

The dialogue has been largely the same as that of the Christian world - conquer, oppress, enslave, subjugate, exploit in the name of their own particular deity.

There is a world of difference between co-existence and any kind of even-handed tolerance. The Ottoman Empire had to co-exist with their neighbours in Catholic Europe for 700 years or so but it in no way could be described as an all-embracing, fraternal love-fest.

Any and all religious nations have always been - to some degree at least - intolerant of anyone holding alternative beliefs, be they Islamic, Jewish, Sikh or any of dozens of varieties of Christianity. The same could be send of course of attempting to force political secularism on a society as per the USSR. Dissent against the prevailing view is not tolerated.

Whether or not you agree with the level of anti-religion expoused by Condell, dismissing all the points he raises as being racist/invalid because you dont like him as an individual is that old favourite the ad hominem logical fallacy. As I posted in reply to Liverpool, if any criticism of Islam (or Judaism or anything else) is to be immediately considered racist, then the door is shut before any truly meaningful dialogue can even begin

[Big Ed]

I re-read/listened to the podcast again, and whilst I don't agree with the petty digs at handling alcohol in supermarkets for example, as they are very small instances of personal stupidity rather than a cultural statement indicative of the whole religion, the attack on the extremist element of Islam is pretty hard to disagree with.

I would also say that Pat Condell genuinely isnt just anti-Islam. Have a listen on Youtube to one of the anti-Christian / anti-any-other-religion broadcasts and you will see that he is equally scathing towards them also.

Sometimes reading an article can have a different impact than listening, so I've copied the transcript below.


Well, it's a gloomy rainy old day to be here in London, but it could be worse. I could be in Saudi Arabia, where men are men and women are cattle. Can I say that?

The Saudi Arabian Human Rights Commission, now there's a collection of words to boggle the mind, but apparently this organisation does actually exist, and they intend to complainlater this month at an event in Copenhagen that Muslims living in Europe are denied human rights and are not allowed to freely practise their faith.

How about that? Being lectured in human rights by Saudi Arabia. What next, animal welfare from the Koreans? "Does it get any more surreal?" you ask.

Yes, apparently it does, because they also want us to stop linking Islam with terrorism,which is pretty rich coming from the guardians of Islam, and the guardians of terrorism.

In a sane society, the guy who actually stands up to make this speech would be bum-rushed out the door the moment he opened his mouth. Or, even better, run out of town on a rail and dumped in the river.

But this is Europe, so instead we'll probably listen to what he's got to say, take it all on board, and then change our way of doing things, as usual. Just this week in the UK we've been told that a leading supermarket chain is now allowing Muslim checkout staff not to handle alcohol if they don't want to,
so you can bet your life that they'll now be lining up around the block to not want to. We've had a pharmacist refusing to sell birth control because of religion, we've had a Muslim dentist who refused to treat a woman because she wasn't wearing a headscarf, and now we've been told that some Muslim doctors are refusing to treat certain people because of their precious faith.

Here in the UK we have a technical term for this kind of behaviour. We call it "taking the piss". And we don't like people taking the piss. It "gets up our nose", and it gives us "the right hump". It's a cultural thing.

If Muslims are really as downtrodden as the Saudis would like us to believe, why are there currently plans for a Saudi-funded gigantic mosque to be built right here in London, the largest mosque in Europe, no less.

Eat your heart out, Denmark. We know you'd love to have it, but we're getting it instead. And it's going to be built right next to the site for the 2012 Olympic Games, if they can get the planning permission. Even some local Muslims have been protesting about this plan. They say they'll be marginalised
because this mosque will be run by extremists for extremists, which means it's pretty much guaranteed to get the go ahead, and the London Olympics will doubtless be dominated by a mosque the size of a football stadium. I don't know if the marathon will be interrupted for prayers, or if female athletes will be required to compete wearing a tent, though I'm sure if the mad mullah of multiculturalism, Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, has anything to do with it, that won't be too far off the agenda. The fact that the Saudis feel they can get away with this cynical bull**** just shows how far we've already allowed ourselves to be pushed here in Europe.

Radical Islam has seen us for what we are, a soft touch. It sees that political correctness is like a drug that we just can't stop injecting, even though we know it's going to kill us. And they're taking full advantage of that, turning our sense of fairness against us, and making us despise ourselves for one of our best qualities.

And any concession made will be seen as a sign of weakness to be exploited further, because there is no dialogue with radical Islam. It doesn't want to be agreed with. It wants to be obeyed. It thinks it has the God-given right, aptly enough, to make the rules, not just for Muslims, but for everyone,
and some of us, frankly, thing that's a little bit too much to ask. And if you think that's unreasonable, all I can say is my freedom is more important than your faith. Much, much more important.

And besides, I just have this natural aversion to being bullied and pushed around by bigoted misogynistic ignoramuses. And I say that with all due respect.

And before somebody accuses me again of insulting Islam, please grow up. I don't need to insult Islam when there are already so many Muslims willing to do it for me every time they strap on a suicide belt or stone somebody to death for the crime of having a private life. These are the people who insult Islam, not people like me. Of course I realise Islamofascists take pretty much every criticism as an insult by default, but, to be fair to them, it would be difficult to think of a compliment, wouldn't it?

What do you say? "Nice jihad. Like the dogma. Way to go with the bigotry and the hate"?

There's not much scope, really, is there? But these are the people who are actually insulting Islam. And these are the true enemies of Muslims. And the biggest enemy of all is the royal family of Saudi Arabia, because it's thanks to their activities, funding and encouraging cold blooded murder in the name of religious dogma that have made Islam feared and resented all over the civilised world, not because of people like me.

And the Muslim population needs to take that fact on board and recognise it.
As for us in the west, well, our good friends the Saudis are waging war against us, and we're so fat and complacent we don't even know it, so maybe we deserve everything we get. People have said to me, "You're pronouncing that wrong. It's not "Sordi" it's "Sowdi". OK, fair enough, I'm happy to pronounce it "Sowdi". I'd be even happier if the country was just called Arabia, and the medieval wackos who currently run it were back in the desert living in their tents with their livestock, where they belong.

In fact, I'm looking forward to the day when we can finally wean ourselves off oil altogether, and pull out of the Middle East, and then "Sordi" and "Sowdi" Arabia can quietly revert back into the stone age, unless they manage to exploit their other great natural resource, and start exporting egg timers.

Now that might even be something worth praying for. Peace.

I have watched the video and I have read the transcript and I have to say - you are right. His comments are not as repellent in print as they are on the video. How did that happen?
Anyway, the fact is that I did see the video first and it is the self congratulatory tone of a patronising ignoramus that makes me think that he is not trying to make a valid point; rather, he is suggesting that if you don’t agree with him, you are a naïve fool blindly acquiescing whilst the baddies take advantage of your gullibility.
That doesn’t come over in the text.
I think that I do get a bit touchy when it comes to hearing people criticise Islam. It is not because I am a follower (I’m not), but because it is the perception of many people in this country who, when they hear about aspects of the religion that are, perhaps accurately, viewed as repellent, nod sagely as if every one of the almost 1 Billion people who practice it are barbarians.
Some of the stuff that he goes on about (e.g. Supermarket staff refusing to sell alcohol etc. ) is merely snide bollocks but his criticism of the Saudi government and establishment and those who use Islam as an excuse for terrorism are points that, if better expressed, would have my full agreement.
Also the issue of women being second class citizens in countries where Islam is prevalent is not entirely mythical (sadly).
So, in summary, it is the tone of the message rather than the message that I find nauseating.

[Green Mikey]

So you now accept it was a fact and not a generalisation.

Facts and generalisations aren't mutually exclusive.

Your original comment had had nothing to do with proving that the man was not racist. See below.


Ridiculous comparison. Under sharia law a woman can be stoned to death for adultery even if she's been raped. Women in Saudi Arabia aren't even allowed to drive, but catholc women aren't allowed to be priest so obviously christianity is worse.


If you can't understand that then I'm wasting my time with you, you're way below my intellectual level.I suggest you leave the debating alone until we have a discusion about the Tweenies.

Below your intellectual level:greengrin I never knew that personal insults were the hallmark of quality debate.

[Ed De Gramo]

Pat Condell :top marks

About time someone got it right :agree:

We should take an example out of France's book.....they wanna come here, they respect our beliefs or **** Off....simples!

If a British or in fact any European person went over to the middle east, they'd be expected to respect (and maybe adopt?) the country's beliefs...

When you look back to the soldiers returning home, they were met with by a group of @rseholes hurling abuse at them....if that happened in Iraq or Afghanistan....arrested and possible sentence to death?...

[Pete]

It just sounds like the rantings of a stranger you would meet at a bar who has had a little too much to drink. They're right in a lot of what they say buy they take it a little too far and they end up becoming boring after a few minutes once you figure out they have a bit of an agenda.

[Betty Boop]

Pat Condell :top marks

About time someone got it right :agree:

We should take an example out of France's book.....they wanna come here, they respect our beliefs or **** Off....simples!

If a British or in fact any European person went over to the middle east, they'd be expected to respect (and maybe adopt?) the country's beliefs...

When you look back to the soldiers returning home, they were met with by a group of @rseholes hurling abuse at them....if that happened in Iraq or Afghanistan....arrested and possible sentence to death?...

What are these beliefs ?

[Removed]

What are these beliefs ?

:yawn: You know exactly what he means

[Betty Boop]

:yawn: You know exactly what he means

I don't think so, or else I wouldn't be asking! :yawn:

[Removed]

I don't think so, or else I wouldn't be asking! :yawn:


:blah: :blah: :blah:

[Tinyclothes]

Pat Condell :top marks

About time someone got it right :agree:

We should take an example out of France's book.....they wanna come here, they respect our beliefs or **** Off....simples!

If a British or in fact any European person went over to the middle east, they'd be expected to respect (and maybe adopt?) the country's beliefs...

When you look back to the soldiers returning home, they were met with by a group of @rseholes hurling abuse at them....if that happened in Iraq or Afghanistan....arrested and possible sentence to death?...

The beauty of living here is that we have a melting pot of all different beliefs and this is what makes Britain great. You mentioned that you have joined the football firms group on facebook, I think it shows the level you're playing at.

[hibsbollah]

I don't think so, or else I wouldn't be asking! :yawn:

He means traditional British values like shopping at B&Q, complaining about the weather, waiting patiently in queues. These radical Muslims just dont get it.

[Betty Boop]

:blah: :blah: :blah:

:clown:

[Big Ed]

Pat Condell :top marks

About time someone got it right :agree:

We should take an example out of France's book.....they wanna come here, they respect our beliefs or **** Off....simples!

If a British or in fact any European person went over to the middle east, they'd be expected to respect (and maybe adopt?) the country's beliefs...

When you look back to the soldiers returning home, they were met with by a group of @rseholes hurling abuse at them....if that happened in Iraq or Afghanistan....arrested and possible sentence to death?...

Constitutionally, France is a secular country in which there is a strict separation between state and church. This means that although you are free to worship whoever you like it is not a question of telling foreigners to **** off – the state gives the religion of most French people, Catholicism, the same status as other religions such as Islam, Buddhism, etc. – next to none.
If a European went to the Middle East they would be expected not to disrespect the local religion, but I doubt many would think it the done thing to adopt it.
With regard to your last point: why is it that you think that we as a society should parrot the unpalatable aspects of another country?
We have free speech in this country and the right to demonstrate is a part of that. I would like to think that British Soldiers understand that most people who do not support the conflict in Afghanistan bear no ill will to those serving there on behalf of the government.
If it is a question of a couple of dozen nutters being allowed to shout the odds or a complete ban on unpalatable demonstrations, I think I’d like the loonies to have their fifteen minutes of fame/notoriety.

[Ed De Gramo]

The beauty of living here is that we have a melting pot of all different beliefs and this is what makes Britain great. You mentioned that you have joined the football firms group on facebook, I think it shows the level you're playing at.

Football firms? WTF you talking about?

[Ed De Gramo]

Choudary has often praised Muslim terrorists. He referred to the 11 September terrorists as "magnificent martyrs", and in 2003 appeared to endorse terrorist attacks by British Muslims

You want **** like that living in Britain?

**** Free Speech!

[Woody1985]

Football firms? WTF you talking about?

You've not looked at what you signed up to, have you?! :LOL:

---------- Post added at 11:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:49 PM ----------


You want **** like that living in Britain?

**** Free Speech!

On this point, I agree in relation to what you have quoted.

I wouldn't mind if he was hit by a bus about to go up a hill, which then stalled, was knocked into neutral and rolled back. Unlikely, I know. :LOL:

[Ed De Gramo]

To be fair, i saw the titles are joined them haha...both wanting to stop the protests!

[hibiedude]

I managed 2 minutes before I nearly threw my laptop out the window.

I lasted 30 seconds :blah:

[Big Ed]

You want **** like that living in Britain?

**** Free Speech!

He is a spokesman for a miniscule number of nutters in this country. He doesn’t have millions of followers hanging on his every word. He is entitled to say what he wants and you and I are entitled to disagree with what he says and to think that he is an ********.
Regarding him living here; unfortunately he was born in the UK.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Not getting your point Liverpool. What is racist about that video?

Well, I think his entire schtick is racist but that's besides the point; you said he attacks Islamic extremism, I replied by saying I don't think that's true of the video in the O.P. and it definitely isn't true of the video I posted in which he vents his oversized spleen at women who wear the veil.

'If you're walking round in public with your face covered up like a giant pepper-pot, then I think there's something wrong with you.'

'...a wilfull symbol of a refusal to assimilate.'

'...a controlling device imposed by men.' (he doesn't really get irony does he?)

'...a political weapon to cause division in society.' (see above)

'...it all ends up in court because that's what they wanted all along.'

'...make this country the sort of place they want to come to from whatever repressive hell-hole they couldn't wait to get out of. We couldn't be less racist if we tried.'

For the second time, lovely chap you're defending.

---------- Post added at 11:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 AM ----------


Pat Condell :top marks

About time someone got it right :agree:

We should take an example out of France's book.....they wanna come here, they respect our beliefs or **** Off....simples!

If a British or in fact any European person went over to the middle east, they'd be expected to respect (and maybe adopt?) the country's beliefs...

When you look back to the soldiers returning home, they were met with by a group of @rseholes hurling abuse at them....if that happened in Iraq or Afghanistan....arrested and possible sentence to death?...

Jaysus....

[(((Fergus)))]

Well, I think his entire schtick is racist

Maybe simpler to define it as xenophobic? Whatever you call it the guy is consumed with fear and hate, not good for his own health never mind anything else.

[--------]

Maybe simpler to define it as xenophobic? Whatever you call it the guy is consumed with fear and hate, not good for his own health never mind anything else.


Xenophobic, racist, fascist, whatever - he's a thoroughly nasty and unpleasant piece of work.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Maybe simpler to define it as xenophobic?

I wouldn't say so, no. The constant assertions (from khib and others) that Islam isn't a race are trite and largely meaningless; firstly because they have little interest in the way that racism actually operates ideologically and secondly because accepting that 'races' actually exist in any meaningful - or scientific - sense puts you half way towards the argument of those who espouse racism.

Racism, therefore - and as odd as it sounds, isn't really anything to do with 'race'; it's more to do with an ideologically driven process of 'othering' used to deflect and explain away the apparently inexplicable (without a fundamental questioning of the status quo). I refer back to my comments on the fairly incredible parallels between European anti-Semitism in the latter half of the last millenium and anti-Muslim racism in the late twentieth and twenty-first centuries. It isn't just coincidence (the treatment of Catholics in the north of Ireland, until relatively recently, is another revealing example of it - it all operates in the same manner).

That's why the div in the video above can say that people accusing him of racism are devaluing the word through 'political correctness' - because he either doesn't understand racism or claims not to as a cover.

[Pretty Boy]

Pat Condell :top marks

About time someone got it right :agree:

We should take an example out of France's book.....they wanna come here, they respect our beliefs or **** Off....simples!

If a British or in fact any European person went over to the middle east, they'd be expected to respect (and maybe adopt?) the country's beliefs...

When you look back to the soldiers returning home, they were met with by a group of @rseholes hurling abuse at them....if that happened in Iraq or Afghanistan....arrested and possible sentence to death?...


Absolute nonsense IMHO have you ever witnessed 'westerners' drinking in dry countries such as Saudi Arabia or Dubai? I have, exceptions are made because they understand we like a drink.

The Dubai branches of Waitrose sell bacon and pork to accomadate Western tastes and culture. There are numerous Christian places of worship in so called 'Islamic' countries including Iran, Saudi Arabia etc etc.

I could go on but i get the feeling i'd be wasting my time. The simple fact is the vast majority of Muslims in this country follow our laws and culture whilst still observing their own faith and traditions, the exact same as most Europeans do abroad. Groups like Islam4UK are as unrepresentative of ordinary Muslims as the BNP or that stupid Wootton Bassett facebook group are of most British peoples views.

[LiverpoolHibs]

It has to be said though that the other groups didnt have extremely active, visible and demonstrably succesful terrorist campaigns within the UK and US.

I missed this at the time, but despite that sort of being true (though not particularly consequential), it doesn't really apply everywhere. Just think of the caricature of the Jewish anarchist or Bolshevik engaged in 'propaganda by the deed' to bring about the downfall of British/German/American/(particularly) Russian society in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nazi_Lithuanian_poster.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WhiteArmyPropagandaPosterOfTrotsky.jpg

(Obviously there's a religious and ideological distinction to be made, but I'm sure you get the broader point.)

[Twa Cairpets]

'If you're walking round in public with your face covered up like a giant pepper-pot, then I think there's something wrong with you.'

I tend to agree with this


'...a wilfull symbol of a refusal to assimilate.'

Arguably, yes, this is true as well


'...a controlling device imposed by men.' (he doesn't really get irony does he?)

I think this has some validity


'...a political weapon to cause division in society.' (see above)

It could be used/seen this way


'...it all ends up in court because that's what they wanted all along.'

Any truth in this statement, I agree, is completely undermined by the bit in bold, which is unsubstantiated rubbish.


'...make this country the sort of place they want to come to from whatever repressive hell-hole they couldn't wait to get out of. We couldn't be less racist if we tried.'

If "they" want to introduce, for example, Sharia law, then he has a point doesnt he? The danger is that it paints all muslims with the same brush, which undermines any real point.


For the second time, lovely chap you're defending.

I'm not defending him per se, I'm am suggesting the reaction to the the OP was too much down the road of "he is racist and all his points are wrong and vile." I certainly wouldnt want to have a pint with Pat Condell, but I do think some of what he says is, well, correct.

[Twa Cairpets]

I missed this at the time, but despite that sort of being true (though not particularly consequential), it doesn't really apply everywhere. Just think of the caricature of the Jewish anarchist or Bolshevik engaged in 'propaganda by the deed' to bring about the downfall of British/German/American/(particularly) Russian society in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nazi_Lithuanian_poster.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WhiteArmyPropagandaPosterOfTrotsky.jpg

(Obviously there's a religious and ideological distinction to be made, but I'm sure you get the broader point.)

No, it is true. The persecution of minorities would appear to be an inate part of all societies throughout history. To suggest that anti-Islamic feeling in the UK which certainly exists, is anything like the State driven persecution the Jews by the Nazis is more than unpleasant, it borders on offensive.

Even if you look on this board as a tiny microcosm of wider society, the revulsion for the behaviour, politics and overt racism of the likes of BNP by the vast majority of posters shows that there is a balancing societal sanity evident, which would not have been tolerated in any of the circumstances you have quoted.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I tend to agree with this

Arguably, yes, this is true as well

I think this has some validity

It could be used/seen this way

Any truth in this statement, I agree, is completely undermined by the bit in bold, which is unsubstantiated rubbish.

Oh God, this is going to turn into a debate on the veil, isn't it?

Salma Yaqoob (http://www.naar.org.uk/newspages/041022.asp) at a seminar discussing the proposed French ban.


No, it is true. The persecution of minorities would appear to be an inate part of all societies throughout history. To suggest that anti-Islamic feeling in the UK which certainly exists, is anything like the State driven persecution the Jews by the Nazis is more than unpleasant, it borders on offensive.

It might have been unpleasant and offensive if I had, in any way, suggested that. It's pretty unpleasant and offensive to intimate I did.

I was talking about the way in which racism works and how, necessarily, the same methods, metaphors, tropes etc. etc. are used over and over again. I'll have to remember not to try subtlety ever again.

[Killiehibbie]

Oh God, this is going to turn into a debate on the veil, isn't it?

Salma Yaqoob (http://www.naar.org.uk/newspages/041022.asp) at a seminar discussing the proposed French ban.



It might have been unpleasant and offensive if I had, in any way, suggested that. It's pretty unpleasant and offensive to intimate I did.

I was talking about the way in which racism works and how, necessarily, the same methods, metaphors, tropes etc. etc. are used over and over again. I'll have to remember not to try subtlety ever again.

What's racist about a cartoon showing the red army slaughtering people?

[LiverpoolHibs]

What's racist about a cartoon showing the red army slaughtering people?

The, rather prominent, Star of David around his neck?

[Killiehibbie]

The, rather prominent, Star of David around his neck?

Was he Jewish?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Was he Jewish?

Yes.

[(((Fergus)))]

The, rather prominent, Star of David around his neck?

That's a five-pointed rather than six-pointed star

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WhiteArmyPropagandaPosterOfTrotsky.jpg

[Killiehibbie]

Yes.

So commander of the red army, who was a jew, is depicted wearing a red star or maybe, without your glasses on, a star of david and that makes it racist?

[(((Fergus)))]

So commander of the red army, who was a jew, is depicted wearing a red star or maybe, without your glasses on, a star of david and that makes it racist?

You could argue that the face is an anti-semitic caricature.

Also that is a White Army poster. The Jews were (perceived as) the driving force behind Bolshevism, therefore anti-semitism could be used to attract susceptible Russians to the White Army banner.

[LiverpoolHibs]

That's a five-pointed rather than six-pointed star

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WhiteArmyPropagandaPosterOfTrotsky.jpg


So commander of the red army, who was a jew, is depicted wearing a red star or maybe, without your glasses on, a star of david and that makes it racist?

True, my mistake.

Although a fairly convincing argument could be made that the corruption of the Red Star into a pentagram is intended to make people recall the Star of David.

[(((Fergus)))]

True, my mistake.

Although a fairly convincing argument could be made that the corruption of the Red Star into a pentagram is intended to make people recall the Star of David.

Since Trotsky is portrayed here as the devil, I guess the pentagram is being used primarily to reveal how the Bolsheviks had chosen a satanic symbol. As you say, though, there will be an element of the population who see it as a six-pointed star.

[Twa Cairpets]

It might have been unpleasant and offensive if I had, in any way, suggested that. It's pretty unpleasant and offensive to intimate I did.

I was talking about the way in which racism works and how, necessarily, the same methods, metaphors, tropes etc. etc. are used over and over again. I'll have to remember not to try subtlety ever again.

Except now we're not supposed to be fearful of black people - it's shifted onto Muslim's and has become (along with hatred of Travellers and the Roma) the last acceptable form of racism. All the same language that was used against black immigrants and before that against European Jewish population have been transferred onto Muslims.

The parallels with the treatment of, and attitudes towards, Jews in the 18th/19th/20th is really amazingly striking. They're supposedly hell-bent on domination of the entire world and the complete subversion of Western liberal values through engaging in secretive and seditious acts, a value system that is supposedly diametrically opposed and incompatible with our own, refusal to integrate into an (extremely unwelcoming) populace.

Not hugely subtle, Liverpool.

There is also the continuing allegation of racism - this may seen be an ultra picky point, but its not racism because as I think TinyClothes has mentioned Islam is not a race.

The difference, surely, is a subtle one (and knowing you're a fan of subtlety :wink:), but an important one.

Blacks - We dont like you because you dont look like me is different to:
Islam - We dont like you because your belief system is diametrically opposed to mine.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Except now we're not supposed to be fearful of black people - it's shifted onto Muslim's and has become (along with hatred of Travellers and the Roma) the last acceptable form of racism. All the same language that was used against black immigrants and before that against European Jewish population have been transferred onto Muslims.

The parallels with the treatment of, and attitudes towards, Jews in the 18th/19th/20th is really amazingly striking. They're supposedly hell-bent on domination of the entire world and the complete subversion of Western liberal values through engaging in secretive and seditious acts, a value system that is supposedly diametrically opposed and incompatible with our own, refusal to integrate into an (extremely unwelcoming) populace.

Not hugely subtle, Liverpool.

Right, where in that have there even the slightest suggestion that Muslims in Europe now are treated as badly as Jews under the Nazis?

Again, it's a phenomenally offensive accusation to (continually) make.


There is also the continuing allegation of racism - this may seen be an ultra picky point, but its not racism because as I think TinyClothes has mentioned Islam is not a race.

The difference, surely, is a subtle one (and knowing you're a fan of subtlety :wink:), but an important one.

Blacks - We dont like you because you dont look like me is different to:
Islam - We dont like you because your belief system is diametrically opposed to mine.

And I've already explained why I think that's rubbish.

http://hibs.net/message/showpost.php?p=2302914&postcount=108

[IndieHibby]

We know he wasn't referring to illegal immigrants because he says "I'd be even happier if the country was just called Arabia, and the medieval wackos who currently run it were back in the desert living in their tents with their livestock, where they belong."

That's quite clearly talking about the rulers of saudi arabia.Not anything to do with illegal immigrants.What he says is pure racist because he's saying saudi arabians belong raising livestock in the desert.


You are correct in saying that he was talking about the rulers of Saudi Arabia - but you then go on to say he is racist because he is talking about all Saudi Arabians. What's it to be?

Just to clarify - he was saying that instead of maintaining a dictatorship, as they do and have done for several hundred years, using 'their' wealth (they basically keep the profits of oil to themselves) they should return to the nomadic tribal way of life that preceded their political dominantion of their country.

Which kind of blows your accusation of racism out of the water really.

Given how objectionable their promotion of Wahabbism/Salafism in their own country (never mind the consequences of this extremism abroad - 9/11?) coupled with the robbery of the every-day loyal Saudi Arabian 'citizen' - wouldn't you say that criticism if them is actually quite justified and fair?

If you do agree, then does it not follow that your allegation of racism was false?

If this is true, then what would you conclude was the reason that you got it so wrong?

Could it be that, in your mind, as is the case with many others, when you see someone (usually white) criticising anyone/anthing vaguely 'non-white'/muslim etc, then you assume that this means they are racist?

Or something else?

[(((Fergus)))]

You are correct in saying that he was talking about the rulers of Saudi Arabia - but you then go on to say he is racist because he is talking about all Saudi Arabians. What's it to be?

Just to clarify - he was saying that instead of maintaining a dictatorship, as they do and have done for several hundred years, using 'their' wealth (they basically keep the profits of oil to themselves) they should return to the nomadic tribal way of life that preceded their political dominantion of their country.

Which kind of blows your accusation of racism out of the water really.

Given how objectionable their promotion of Wahabbism/Salafism in their own country (never mind the consequences of this extremism abroad - 9/11?) coupled with the robbery of the every-day loyal Saudi Arabian 'citizen' - wouldn't you say that criticism if them is actually quite justified and fair?

If you do agree, then does it not follow that your allegation of racism was false?

If this is true, then what would you conclude was the reason that you got it so wrong?

Could it be that, in your mind, as is the case with many others, when you see someone (usually white) criticising anyone/anthing vaguely 'non-white'/muslim etc, then you assume that this means they are racist?

Or something else?

It's not the content of the criticism that is hateful (i.e. racist or whatever) - it may be perfectly accurate and legitimate criticism - it is the reason that criticism is made.

Why would you say this guy made his video? WHat is he hoping to achieve through it?

[Leicester Fan]

Could it be that, in your mind, as is the case with many others, when you see someone (usually white) criticising anyone/anthing vaguely 'non-white'/muslim etc, then you assume that this means they are racist?

Or something else?

Agreed. It's the default position of so many people who never usually even listen to what the person is saying.

[IndieHibby]

It's not the content of the criticism that is hateful (i.e. racist or whatever) - it may be perfectly accurate and legitimate criticism - it is the reason that criticism is made.

Why would you say this guy made his video? WHat is he hoping to achieve through it?

So because what he is saying isn't racist/hateful, then you presume to claim that it must be racist/hateful because there is no other 'reason' for why he would have said it?

Isn't that just slightly unfair?

[(((Fergus)))]

So because what he is saying isn't racist/hateful, then you presume to claim that it must be racist/hateful because there is no other 'reason' for why he would have said it?

Isn't that just slightly unfair?

What he is saying may or may not be racist, I'l leave others to argue that point. What interests me is why he is choosing to make these statements in the way that he is. Personally, I don't immediately get the impression he is trying to make the world a better place.

[IndieHibby]

What he is saying may or may not be racist, I'l leave others to argue that point. What interests me is why he is choosing to make these statements in the way that he is. Personally, I don't immediately get the impression he is trying to make the world a better place.


Doesn't this just avoid the question?

I would disagree with the point in bold however. Taking the example of the veil (contentious I know - if there are other better examples feel free to turn it round to them).

If he feels that the world would be a better place if Muslim women didn't have to wear the veil - i.e. were free to be Muslim without wearing it, then does it not follow that by trying to change this he is, in fact, trying to make the world a better place for veil-wearing Muslim women?

You could substitute the veil example with any other of the objectionable practice (you'll note I am including all objectionable practices, religous or otherwise)

Whether he is right or not doesn't matter - as you said, it is the motivation for the opinion that we are discussing here.

[Twa Cairpets]

Right, where in that have there even the slightest suggestion that Muslims in Europe now are treated as badly as Jews under the Nazis?

Again, it's a phenomenally offensive accusation to (continually) make.


I'm not for a minute suggesting you believe this Liverpool - I've read enough of your posts to know that its a long way from where you admirably sit - but it is a fair inference to make from this line in your post.

The parallels with the treatment of, and attitudes towards, Jews in the 18th/19th/20th is really amazingly striking.

[hibsbollah]

Could it be that, in your mind, as is the case with many others, when you see someone (usually white) criticising anyone/anthing vaguely 'non-white'/muslim etc, then you assume that this means they are racist?



It doesnt mean that they are necessarily prejudiced (lets leave the racist word alone, as its meaning has been distorted to render it meaningless). However, bigots and prejudiced people aren't 'allowed' to be overtly prejudiced against groups in public life anymore, so they dress up their prejudice in more subtle terms.

For example, if someones stated major policy concern is 'immigration', it is possible that they have a genuine concern about the impact on the welfare state, the tax burden or something similar, and have no problem with multiculturalism. It is more likely, in my opinion and based on experience, that they just dont like pakis or Poles but, due to the political/social climate, they dont want to admit it. The wooton bassett facebook group is a great example of how this covert racism expresses itself.

A lot more honesty in the debate would be a good thing. 'What kind of society do you want to live in?' is a much more interesting question than 'are you a racist', and is much more likely to get an answer that means something.

[Twa Cairpets]

It doesnt mean that they are necessarily prejudiced (lets leave the racist word alone, as its meaning has been distorted to render it meaningless). However, bigots and prejudiced people aren't 'allowed' to be overtly prejudiced against groups in public life anymore, so they dress up their prejudice in more subtle terms.

For example, if someones stated major policy concern is 'immigration', it is possible that they have a genuine concern about the impact on the welfare state, the tax burden or something similar, and have no problem with multiculturalism. It is more likely, in my opinion and based on experience, that they just dont like pakis or Poles but, due to the political/social climate, they dont want to admit it. The wooton bassett facebook group is a great example of how this covert racism expresses itself.

A lot more honesty in the debate would be a good thing. 'What kind of society do you want to live in?' is a much more interesting question than 'are you a racist', and is much more likely to get an answer that means something.

Thats a damn'd fine post, Hibsbollah

[LiverpoolHibs]

I'm not for a minute suggesting you believe this Liverpool - I've read enough of your posts to know that its a long way from where you admirably sit - but it is a fair inference to make from this line in your post.

The parallels with the treatment of, and attitudes towards, Jews in the 18th/19th/20th is really amazingly striking.

I guess it hinges on the word 'parallel', I used it there (and would use it as this more generally) to mean something like 'tending towards similarity' - which I stand by.

It wasn't meant in terms of actual concrete terms of 'experiences' but the ideological tropes that are mobilised, which I think was clear from the rest of the post.

[da-robster]

You are correct in saying that he was talking about the rulers of Saudi Arabia - but you then go on to say he is racist because he is talking about all Saudi Arabians. What's it to be?

Just to clarify - he was saying that instead of maintaining a dictatorship, as they do and have done for several hundred years, using 'their' wealth (they basically keep the profits of oil to themselves) they should return to the nomadic tribal way of life that preceded their political dominantion of their country.
He did not say that. He said they "belong" as nomads.That's like saying that people in europe belong as hunter gatherer's, which is undeniably racist.
Which kind of blows your accusation of racism out of the water really.
As I've pointed out it doesn't.
Given how objectionable their promotion of Wahabbism/Salafism in their own country (never mind the consequences of this extremism abroad - 9/11?) coupled with the robbery of the every-day loyal Saudi Arabian 'citizen' - wouldn't you say that criticism if them is actually quite justified and fair?
No because it's not a criticism of the regime which is an evil regime,but a basic act of racism saying that saudi arabians belong as nomads.

If you do agree, then does it not follow that your allegation of racism was false?
I do agree but Pat condell isn't being critical of the regime,he's just being racist
If this is true, then what would you conclude was the reason that you got it so wrong?

Could it be that, in your mind, as is the case with many others, when you see someone (usually white) criticising anyone/anthing vaguely 'non-white'/muslim etc, then you assume that this means they are racist?
No I'm all for the reasonable criticism of anything white or not white.But that wasn't a criticism of Saudi Arabia if he had said "Saudi Arabian leaders are robbing the Saudi Arabian people" then fair enough but he said that they "belong" as nomads,thats racist.
Or something else?

.

[IndieHibby]

.

This is the quote in question, taken directly from the transcript provided by TC:

"I'd be even happier if the country was just called Arabia, and the medieval wackos who currently run it were back in the desert living in their tents with their livestock, where they belong."

This is not racist. It says that he feels that the House of Saud should return to their way of life which preceded their current obnoxious rule of the country.

Agreed?

[lapsedhibee]

This is the quote in question, taken directly from the transcript provided by TC:

"I'd be even happier if the country was just called Arabia, and the medieval wackos who currently run it were back in the desert living in their tents with their livestock, where they belong."

This is not racist. It says that he feels that the House of Saud should return to their way of life which preceded their current obnoxious rule of the country.

Agreed?

Think you'll find that on this board, talk of people 'going back' from one geographical location to another is defined as 'racist' talk.

[LiverpoolHibs]

You are correct in saying that he was talking about the rulers of Saudi Arabia - but you then go on to say he is racist because he is talking about all Saudi Arabians. What's it to be?

Just to clarify - he was saying that instead of maintaining a dictatorship, as they do and have done for several hundred years, using 'their' wealth (they basically keep the profits of oil to themselves) they should return to the nomadic tribal way of life that preceded their political dominantion of their country.


This is the quote in question, taken directly from the transcript provided by TC:

"I'd be even happier if the country was just called Arabia, and the medieval wackos who currently run it were back in the desert living in their tents with their livestock, where they belong."

This is not racist. It says that he feels that the House of Saud should return to their way of life which preceded their current obnoxious rule of the country.

Agreed?

Why have you decided that members of the House of Saud lived as nomads prior to the creation of modern Saudi Arabia?

[IndieHibby]

It doesnt mean that they are necessarily prejudiced (lets leave the racist word alone, as its meaning has been distorted to render it meaningless). However, bigots and prejudiced people aren't 'allowed' to be overtly prejudiced against groups in public life anymore, so they dress up their prejudice in more subtle terms.

For example, if someones stated major policy concern is 'immigration', it is possible that they have a genuine concern about the impact on the welfare state, the tax burden or something similar, and have no problem with multiculturalism. It is more likely, in my opinion and based on experience, that they just dont like pakis or Poles but, due to the political/social climate, they dont want to admit it. The wooton bassett facebook group is a great example of how this covert racism expresses itself.

A lot more honesty in the debate would be a good thing. 'What kind of society do you want to live in?' is a much more interesting question than 'are you a racist', and is much more likely to get an answer that means something.

I am all for dropping the use of the word racist. I agree it would lead to better debate if we did. However, I am, at present, trying to defend (*** knows why) someone who, I feel, is being wrongly accused of this....'thing' (struggling to find another word for it!)

You say that in your experience most people who express concern about immigration are actually motivated by dislike of foreigners, as opposed to worried about public services etc. Of course, this is probably true, as only you can accurately recount your experiences :wink:

But it does not then justify assuming that because someone is expressing concern about immigration, they must be motivated by hatred. (I know that you are not saying this, but this thread centres around those who are).

Surely, and here is the main point I am trying to defend, you should respond to what people are actually saying, not the manner in which they say or indeed, the assumptions about their motivations that the recipient may be making?

I suppose your point boils down to a choice between trying to flush out prejudiced people from everyone who just appears prejudiced, or engaging with people on what they actually say.

I think you've probably worked out that I support the latter strategy. Hence my distaste at the reactions to the OP from some poster who basically jumped to the conclusion that he was a 'prejudiced'.

That may be true, but I can't see it.

[da-robster]

This is the quote in question, taken directly from the transcript provided by TC:

"I'd be even happier if the country was just called Arabia, and the medieval wackos who currently run it were back in the desert living in their tents with their livestock, where they belong."

This is not racist. It says that he feels that the House of Saud should return to their way of life which preceded their current obnoxious rule of the country.

Agreed?

If I told the Queen to go back to Germany "Where she belongs",that would be racist.

Just because the Saudi Leaders are a bunch of cruel and evil people that doesn't mean that racism can be used like Pat Condell did against them. Like I said before he could have made a valid attack on their regime,but all he did was use racism.

[Tinyclothes]

This is the quote in question, taken directly from the transcript provided by TC:

"I'd be even happier if the country was just called Arabia, and the medieval wackos who currently run it were back in the desert living in their tents with their livestock, where they belong."

This is not racist. It says that he feels that the House of Saud should return to their way of life which preceded their current obnoxious rule of the country.

Agreed?

I can't believe anyone would not see this as a racist comment.

[hibsbollah]

I am all for dropping the use of the word racist. I agree it would lead to better debate if we did. However, I am, at present, trying to defend (*** knows why) someone who, I feel, is being wrongly accused of this....'thing' (struggling to find another word for it!)

You say that in your experience most people who express concern about immigration are actually motivated by dislike of foreigners, as opposed to worried about public services etc. Of course, this is probably true, as only you can accurately recount your experiences :wink:

But it does not then justify assuming that because someone is expressing concern about immigration, they must be motivated by hatred. (I know that you are not saying this, but this thread centres around those who are).

Surely, and here is the main point I am trying to defend, you should respond to what people are actually saying, not the manner in which they say or indeed, the assumptions about their motivations that the recipient may be making?

I suppose your point boils down to a choice between trying to flush out prejudiced people from everyone who just appears prejudiced, or engaging with people on what they actually say.

I think you've probably worked out that I support the latter strategy. Hence my distaste at the reactions to the OP from some poster who basically jumped to the conclusion that he was a 'prejudiced'.

That may be true, but I can't see it.

Going back to the OP, and the video that the 'erse' (in lieu of finding a better word than 'racist') appeared in, there was so much misinformation, generalisation and stereotyping going on that my natural inclination was to assume that he just has an active dislike of all Saudis (and very likely, the religion or racial group). The most obvious clue was that at no point did he acknowledge that not all members of a group are the same. So, while I agree with what youve said in bold above, I made the assumption that he was an 'erse' based on what he didnt say, as much as what he did say.

[Tinyclothes]

Going back to the OP, and the video that the 'erse' (in lieu of finding a better word than 'racist') appeared in, there was so much misinformation, generalisation and stereotyping going on that my natural inclination was to assume that he just has an active dislike of all Saudis (and very likely, the religion or racial group). The most obvious clue was that at no point did he acknowledge that not all members of a group are the same. So, while I agree with what youve said in bold above, I made the assumption that he was an 'erse' based on what he didnt say, as much as what he did say.

And I agree with you for what it's worth.