So, are you a Racist?

[Juan Albion]

Religions are inherently ridiculous - myths invented by men as a means of political control, conjured out of thin air, no evidence, permanently at war with each other. What on earth would God -- if he existed -- think about that?

That's inherently ridiculous.

 

[surrey jim]

Nope. I started reading it, got bored. :shrugs:

Seconded

 

[dougdeep]

Man created god. Got it?

 

[e77]

I just think eveyone needs their heads banging together. The cartoonist should stop upsetting the Muslims and the Muslims should stop threatening to kill everyone.

Tomorrow - My solution to world hunger.

 

[Juan Albion]

I just think eveyone needs their heads banging together. The cartoonist should stop upsetting the Muslims and the Muslims should stop threatening to kill everyone.

Tomorrow - My solution to world hunger.

You are quite right, matey, it is all about respect.

Mind you, you should stop going on about 'the Muslims' as if it is all of them. If it was, we would be in big trouble.

 

[London Irish]

Re: Re: Re: Re: So, are you a Racist?

Racist smear? See, there you go again! That 'exploding prophet' cartoon is ridiculing mad Islamic fundamentalism, not a race per se. Only a simpleton would infer that Mohammed (PBUH) was himself being depicted as a terrorist. The more subtle interpretation is that it was a warped interpretation of his ancient, pick'n'mix ramblings that was the proudly declared inspiration for all - yes, that's right, ALL - of the suicide bombers so far to have blown out of the woodwork. The exploding Jihadi is a peculiarly Islamic fixation.

Come on, LI. Admit it. When it comes to fundamentalism, Islam - oppressive, misogynist, homophobic, cruel and totalitarian when exercised by governments - stands in a league of its own.

Other cartoons - that so few people have actually seen for themselves - were more subtle, especially the one showing the prophet blindfolded by a woman's veil cut-out. Subtext: if Muslim men, with all those uncontrollable lusts, were blindfolded, then their women would have no need for veils.

For even more defamatory, anti-religious cartoons, why not take a look at those many Arab newspapers that regularly characterise all Jews as hook-nosed Shylock usurers...

For a reminder of what the fuss is about, plus some bonus Islamic images of Mohammed - again, try this. Ooh look, offensive cartoons

I'm afraid your smirking reaction to these cartoons is typical of the influence of how a kind of jokey postmodernism has taken hold on our culture and debased our language and ideas. For the simple-minded joker, offensive and provocative actions have no consequences. You see that in a tiny way on this website when some NSC goons say McGhee is a racist, it's funny innit, they're having a laugh, accusing someone of being a racist has no value or meaning to them so they can do it casually without a second's thought.

Your complacent reaction to the genuine offensiveness of these cartoons is another example of that mindset. You are not the slightest bit bothered about how these cartoons are received by people of the Muslim faith, you have lost the ability to empathise with their genuine hurt and bewilderment. You staggeringly say only "a simpleton" would infer that a picture of Mohammed as a terrorist is actually implying that he is a mass murderer. Even when that's the obvious literal interpretation of the cartoon!

I don't deny that some of the other cartoons were making more complex satirical points about Islam, but they weren't the ones that have created the firestorm of protest, so that's a red herring.

You change tack and try to confuse the issue more by saying the cartoons are not as bad as the anti-semitic cartoons in the Arab press. This is another utterly dishonest debating trick of yours. Since when does one lot of appalling behaviour justify another lot of appalling behaviour?

If anti-semitic cartoons were published in leading British and European newspapers, would the reaction be "ah, more brave satirical comment, thanks heavens for our newspapers and principles of free speech!"

Of course not - there would be huge protest across all parts of civilised society, and rightly so, and any editor that dared print an anti-semitic cartoon would be sacked on the spot.

But do we apply those standards to offending and defaming the most cherished symbols of the Islam faith? No. We demonise their religion and their prophet as a mass murderer and piously pontificate about free speech, and then someone like you comes along Gulliver and adds salt in the wounds of Muslims by smirkingly accusing them of not having a sense of humour. Yeah, well done.

Now, regarding your ongoing campaign to demonise Islam as the worst of all religions on the planet.

No Muslim fundamentalist in the Middle East has created more terror and more destruction than the Christian fundamentalist in the White House. His actions over the past few years have directly led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people thanks to his illegal wars of occupation. He doesn't need suicide bombers. He has the biggest military war machine in the world. His F15 airmen can say their prayers (most of the US bomber pilots are evangelist Christians) and drop their payloads from 10 thousand feet.

This isn't blamed on any religion of course, even though America remains a deeply Christian country and its commander-in-chief in the White House is an avowed born-again.

Our choice hypocrisy means all this is blamed on "politics", where everything bad that happens in Arab countries is blamed not on politics but on Islam, as is the demonising fashion. Christian fudamentalists don't need to demonstrate much or burn embassies in the manner of Arab rioters when they possess the biggest killing machine on the planet, do they?

I noticed Gulliver you didn't address the point I made about the Sikh play. Didn't fit into your anti-Islamic rhetoric, does it?

Neither I guess do the actions of the abortion clinic bombers in America. Or Pat Robertson, one of the foremost leader of American evangelicals, who in recent months has called for the democratically elected Venezeulan president Hugo Chavez to be assassinated by the CIA, or claimed that Ariel Sharon has been struck down by his Christian God.

None of this fits into your Islam demonising Gullivers, so I guess none of it can be important?

 

[Mr Burns]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, are you a Racist?

I'm afraid your smirking reaction to these cartoons is typical of the influence of how a kind of jokey postmodernism has taken hold on our culture and debased our language and ideas. For the simple-minded joker, offensive and provocative actions have no consequences. You see that in a tiny way on this website when some NSC goons say McGhee is a racist, it's funny innit, they're having a laugh, accusing someone of being a racist has no value or meaning to them so they can do it casually without a second's thought.

Your complacent reaction to the genuine offensiveness of these cartoons is another example of that mindset. You are not the slightest bit bothered about how these cartoons are received by people of the Muslim faith, you have lost the ability to empathise with their genuine hurt and bewilderment. You staggeringly say only "a simpleton" would infer that a picture of Mohammed as a terrorist is actually implying that he is a mass murderer. Even when that's the obvious literal interpretation of the cartoon!

I don't deny that some of the other cartoons were making more complex satirical points about Islam, but they weren't the ones that have created the firestorm of protest, so that's a red herring.

You change tack and try to confuse the issue more by saying the cartoons are not as bad as the anti-semitic cartoons in the Arab press. This is another utterly dishonest debating trick of yours. Since when does one lot of appalling behaviour justify another lot of appalling behaviour?

If anti-semitic cartoons were published in leading British and European newspapers, would the reaction be "ah, more brave satirical comment, thanks heavens for our newspapers and principles of free speech!"

Of course not - there would be huge protest across all parts of civilised society, and rightly so, and any editor that dared print an anti-semitic cartoon would be sacked on the spot.

But do we apply those standards to offending and defaming the most cherished symbols of the Islam faith? No. We demonise their religion and their prophet as a mass murderer and piously pontificate about free speech, and then someone like you comes along Gulliver and adds salt in the wounds of Muslims by smirkingly accusing them of not having a sense of humour. Yeah, well done.

Now, regarding your ongoing campaign to demonise Islam as the worst of all religions on the planet.

No Muslim fundamentalist in the Middle East has created more terror and more destruction than the Christian fundamentalist in the White House. His actions over the past few years have directly led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people thanks to his illegal wars of occupation. He doesn't need suicide bombers. He has the biggest military war machine in the world. His F15 airmen can say their prayers (most of the US bomber pilots are evangelist Christians) and drop their payloads from 10 thousand feet.

This isn't blamed on any religion of course, even though America remains a deeply Christian country and its commander-in-chief in the White House is an avowed born-again.

Our choice hypocrisy means all this is blamed on "politics", where everything bad that happens in Arab countries is blamed not on politics but on Islam, as is the demonising fashion. Christian fudamentalists don't need to demonstrate much or burn embassies in the manner of Arab rioters when they possess the biggest killing machine on the planet, do they?

I noticed Gulliver you didn't address the point I made about the Sikh play. Didn't fit into your anti-Islamic rhetoric, does it?

Neither I guess to the actions of the abortion clinic bombers in America. Or Pat Robertson, one of the foremost leader of American evangelicals, who in recent months has called for the democratically elected Venezeulan president Hugo Chavez to be assassinated by the CIA, or claimed that Ariel Sharon has been struck down by his Christian God.

None of this fits into your Islam demonising Gullivers, so I guess none of it can be important?

f***ing hell, dont she go. What's your latest plan, bore us all to death. Do you have anything else in your life, other than posting your bullshit here. Try and get out a bit, and get some friends.

 

[Trigger]

 

[Mr Burns]

 

[enigma]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, are you a Racist?

f***ing hell, dont she go. What's your latest plan, bore us all to death. Do you have anything else in your life, other than posting your bullshit here. Try and get out a bit, and get some friends.

Wow, he really has upset you hasnt he.

 

[Franks Wild Years]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, are you a Racist?

I'm afraid your smirking reaction to these cartoons is typical of the influence of how a kind of jokey postmodernism has taken hold on our culture and debased our language and ideas. For the simple-minded joker, offensive and provocative actions have no consequences. You see that in a tiny way on this website when some NSC goons say McGhee is a racist, it's funny innit, they're having a laugh, accusing someone of being a racist has no value or meaning to them so they can do it casually without a second's thought.

Your complacent reaction to the genuine offensiveness of these cartoons is another example of that mindset. You are not the slightest bit bothered about how these cartoons are received by people of the Muslim faith, you have lost the ability to empathise with their genuine hurt and bewilderment. You staggeringly say only "a simpleton" would infer that a picture of Mohammed as a terrorist is actually implying that he is a mass murderer. Even when that's the obvious literal interpretation of the cartoon!

I don't deny that some of the other cartoons were making more complex satirical points about Islam, but they weren't the ones that have created the firestorm of protest, so that's a red herring.

You change tack and try to confuse the issue more by saying the cartoons are not as bad as the anti-semitic cartoons in the Arab press. This is another utterly dishonest debating trick of yours. Since when does one lot of appalling behaviour justify another lot of appalling behaviour?

If anti-semitic cartoons were published in leading British and European newspapers, would the reaction be "ah, more brave satirical comment, thanks heavens for our newspapers and principles of free speech!"

Of course not - there would be huge protest across all parts of civilised society, and rightly so, and any editor that dared print an anti-semitic cartoon would be sacked on the spot.

But do we apply those standards to offending and defaming the most cherished symbols of the Islam faith? No. We demonise their religion and their prophet as a mass murderer and piously pontificate about free speech, and then someone like you comes along Gulliver and adds salt in the wounds of Muslims by smirkingly accusing them of not having a sense of humour. Yeah, well done.

Now, regarding your ongoing campaign to demonise Islam as the worst of all religions on the planet.

No Muslim fundamentalist in the Middle East has created more terror and more destruction than the Christian fundamentalist in the White House. His actions over the past few years have directly led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people thanks to his illegal wars of occupation. He doesn't need suicide bombers. He has the biggest military war machine in the world. His F15 airmen can say their prayers (most of the US bomber pilots are evangelist Christians) and drop their payloads from 10 thousand feet.

This isn't blamed on any religion of course, even though America remains a deeply Christian country and its commander-in-chief in the White House is an avowed born-again.

Our choice hypocrisy means all this is blamed on "politics", where everything bad that happens in Arab countries is blamed not on politics but on Islam, as is the demonising fashion. Christian fudamentalists don't need to demonstrate much or burn embassies in the manner of Arab rioters when they possess the biggest killing machine on the planet, do they?

I noticed Gulliver you didn't address the point I made about the Sikh play. Didn't fit into your anti-Islamic rhetoric, does it?

Neither I guess to the actions of the abortion clinic bombers in America. Or Pat Robertson, one of the foremost leader of American evangelicals, who in recent months has called for the democratically elected Venezeulan president Hugo Chavez to be assassinated by the CIA, or claimed that Ariel Sharon has been struck down by his Christian God.

None of this fits into your Islam demonising Gullivers, so I guess none of it can be important?

Well said that man. Proper debate's not dead.

 

[London Irish]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, are you a Racist?

f***ing hell, dont she go. What's your latest plan, bore us all to death. Do you have anything else in your life, other than posting your bullshit here. Try and get out a bit, and get some friends.

I've actually done that entirely on work time, so I've been paid a very nice salary to bore you.

I'll grant you one thing, when you claim that the holocaust of 6 million Jews is proof that races can't live together, you don't bore. You outrage and offend with your vile racist views.

 

[Mr Burns]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, are you a Racist?

Wow, he really has upset you hasnt he.

Well at least it wasn't full off his normal name calling shit. As I said yesterday, people like you and LI do more harm to your cause than good. Always trying to belittle anyone who doesn't agree with you, makes you look stupid to the casual viewer. I know I look stupid to you, but then the feelings mutual. Although in all credit to LI, he seems to have managed a bit better lately. Give him a pat on the head.

 

[Mr Burns]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, are you a Racist?

I've actually done that entirely on work time, so I've been paid a very nice salary to bore you.

I'll grant you one thing, when you claim that the holocaust of 6 million Jews is proof that races can't live together, you don't bore. You outrage and offend with your vile racist views.

You dont have to explain yourself to me LI, unlesss you feel you need to.

How many times do I have to say you mislead and misquote. As i say, your favourite trick is to ignore what's someone been trying to say, take a quote, and accuse them of being Hitler. You do your cause more harm than good. Try and discuss. Not dictate.

 

[Gerbil]

I'm a fully paid up member of the BNP.
































I must be,I don't agree with Oirish

 

[Commander]

And I'm marrying a Malaysian

We should have our own club

WHY HAVE I NOT BEEN INFORMED OF THIS, TIMOTHY? When is the wedding? I'll get working on my best man's speech right away.

 

[enigma]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, are you a Racist?

Well at least it wasn't full off his normal name calling shit. As I said yesterday, people like you and LI do more harm to your cause than good. Always trying to belittle anyone who doesn't agree with you, makes you look stupid to the casual viewer. I know I look stupid to you, but then the feelings mutual. Although in all credit to LI, he seems to have managed a bit better lately. Give him a pat on the head.

Oh dear Burns.

If you have noticed, I dont belittle everybody. Only people that cant express themselves without using stupid terms and with extreme views, such as Looney and Watford O. Funnily enough, I dont agree with everything LI says.

Why do you keep moaning about LI belittling you, when you respond in an even more childish manner? And name calling shit? Was it not you that called me a sad vile little shit yesterday? Hold your mouth.

I dont think you are particularly stupid, more misguided. Anyone that cant admit they're racist when they said the things that you did comes across as a bit deluded. It makes a mockery of you, and if you cant see that.....

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, are you a Racist?

Well said that man.

Seconded.

 

[Commander]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, are you a Racist?

I'm afraid your smirking reaction to these cartoons is typical of the influence of how a kind of jokey postmodernism has taken hold on our culture and debased our language and ideas. For the simple-minded joker, offensive and provocative actions have no consequences. You see that in a tiny way on this website when some NSC goons say McGhee is a racist, it's funny innit, they're having a laugh, accusing someone of being a racist has no value or meaning to them so they can do it casually without a second's thought.

Your complacent reaction to the genuine offensiveness of these cartoons is another example of that mindset. You are not the slightest bit bothered about how these cartoons are received by people of the Muslim faith, you have lost the ability to empathise with their genuine hurt and bewilderment. You staggeringly say only "a simpleton" would infer that a picture of Mohammed as a terrorist is actually implying that he is a mass murderer. Even when that's the obvious literal interpretation of the cartoon!

I don't deny that some of the other cartoons were making more complex satirical points about Islam, but they weren't the ones that have created the firestorm of protest, so that's a red herring.

You change tack and try to confuse the issue more by saying the cartoons are not as bad as the anti-semitic cartoons in the Arab press. This is another utterly dishonest debating trick of yours. Since when does one lot of appalling behaviour justify another lot of appalling behaviour?

If anti-semitic cartoons were published in leading British and European newspapers, would the reaction be "ah, more brave satirical comment, thanks heavens for our newspapers and principles of free speech!"

Of course not - there would be huge protest across all parts of civilised society, and rightly so, and any editor that dared print an anti-semitic cartoon would be sacked on the spot.

But do we apply those standards to offending and defaming the most cherished symbols of the Islam faith? No. We demonise their religion and their prophet as a mass murderer and piously pontificate about free speech, and then someone like you comes along Gulliver and adds salt in the wounds of Muslims by smirkingly accusing them of not having a sense of humour. Yeah, well done.

Now, regarding your ongoing campaign to demonise Islam as the worst of all religions on the planet.

No Muslim fundamentalist in the Middle East has created more terror and more destruction than the Christian fundamentalist in the White House. His actions over the past few years have directly led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people thanks to his illegal wars of occupation. He doesn't need suicide bombers. He has the biggest military war machine in the world. His F15 airmen can say their prayers (most of the US bomber pilots are evangelist Christians) and drop their payloads from 10 thousand feet.

This isn't blamed on any religion of course, even though America remains a deeply Christian country and its commander-in-chief in the White House is an avowed born-again.

Our choice hypocrisy means all this is blamed on "politics", where everything bad that happens in Arab countries is blamed not on politics but on Islam, as is the demonising fashion. Christian fudamentalists don't need to demonstrate much or burn embassies in the manner of Arab rioters when they possess the biggest killing machine on the planet, do they?

I noticed Gulliver you didn't address the point I made about the Sikh play. Didn't fit into your anti-Islamic rhetoric, does it?

Neither I guess do the actions of the abortion clinic bombers in America. Or Pat Robertson, one of the foremost leader of American evangelicals, who in recent months has called for the democratically elected Venezeulan president Hugo Chavez to be assassinated by the CIA, or claimed that Ariel Sharon has been struck down by his Christian God.

None of this fits into your Islam demonising Gullivers, so I guess none of it can be important?

I so nearly read all of your post, LI. I think that may be the closest I've ever come. Got bored about 2/3 of the way down though. Time for bed, keep trying mate.

 

[Mr Burns]

Personally to be honest, I admit I am more right wing than left wing, but nowhere near as far right as London Irish or Enimga would love you to believe. I dont agree with Asylum, I dont agree with immargration in there present forms.

But I do know one thing. If I was ever to go further right, and it'll need to be a long why right to get to where those two idioits think i am at now, then it'll be people like them who push me there with there attitudes , rather than some dickhead like Nick Griffin pulling me there with his policies.