Seil Chat

Its the word 'these' that makes the statement offensive. Delete the word 'muslim' and insert 'pakistani' and see how it reads.

If their religion wants to be seen more tolerantly they should take more responsibility to eliminate the violent extremists.

I wonder what exactly the 'average' muslim can do to achive this from their village in Helmand or council flat in Wolverhampton.

Islam seems to be entering a dark age - but that is under the jurisdiction and absolute direction of its leaders, many of whom who rule with an autocratic and terrible power. Ordinary muslims - women in particular - dare not lift their veiled heads above the parapet. Most moslems are, I am certain, appalled at the atrocities being committed in the name of their god, but know they are powerless to do anything about it.

I agree with Eric - your comments are more inflammatory than illuminatory.

No Eric, the statement is neither racist nor islamophobic. Its a statement of fact. Musselmen come from many races and the statement does not express a fear of them.
The Pirate is spot on. Freedom of speech was restored to this site with the sacking of The Crimson Vicar. My good friend Herby is much more easy going (Sandy's racist anti-american attacks are being tolerated by Herby), and McAdmin even forgave me a yellow one recently. Lets keep it like that.
Golly, Eric, you're not whiter than white (with your history of racist anti-english statements on this forum). It would be a black day if we returned to censorship here.

Shanks33 (black sheep of the forum, by choice)

Let's have a bit of racism. If we show we are completely tolerant of anything and everything nothing will ever get any better. Let's show that we are unhappy, let's point our fingers at them and say, sort yourselves out with some of those ideas that it is OK to treat women the way they do, have religious leaders spreading racial hatred, inciting murder of innocent people, etc. We're not perfect either but by most standards we are a bit fairer on all elements of society.

Actually suicide bombing is not a tactic exclusive to Moslems as the Tamil Tigers have demonstrated in recent years

.............and the Tamil Tigers can do it without any ambition to take advantage of women, whether they be virgins or otherwise.

Lets get back to the original point was the decision correct
obviously this depends on the viewpoint of your correspondent and his reader.

there are still those who agree with enochs rivers of blood speech but
i wont say they are correct.I also have english born pakistani muslem and west
indian friends who agree with his sentiments
i wont say they are right either.

one of the main things about any racism is that publicly it is not acceptable
and whatever you think privately is your own choice

nobody is going to agree 100(%?)lets just scrap all this silliness
teddy

.

Let's have a bit of racism.

Let's not.

Let's have a bit of racism. If we show we are completely tolerant of anything and everything nothing will ever get any better. Let's show that we are unhappy, let's point our fingers at them and say, sort yourselves out with some of those ideas that it is OK to treat women the way they do, have religious leaders spreading racial hatred, inciting murder of innocent people, etc. We're not perfect either but by most standards we are a bit fairer on all elements of society.

Please don't include me with your 'we' - and by using the phrase 'at them' you're being islamophobic again and simply spreading hatred. What makes you so righteous Pentland.

Let's not pretend here - hate filled statements like that just add fuel to the fires - You don't have to look too far back in Europe to find out where all that hatred leads - Have you never heard of Srebrenica?

Eric the Viking wrote:by using the phrase 'at them' you're being islamophobic again and simply spreading hatred

Don't be so ridiculous !

Pathetic! You are scared to even whisper something in case you are branded rascist, all you Scots who want separation from the English! Can't you see that if you lower the definition of 'racism' to such silly levels where you cannot even mention some words for being branded a rascist those Scots who would wish separation from the English could even be deemed 'rascist' themselves!

Never have I suggested 'hatred' or that I hated Moslems or any other race. Did I make a hate filled statement? What's Islamophobic about saying they need to address the issues of the way women are treated, and THEIR religious leaders incite hatred and murder?

Back to Al Megrahi. THE SCOTS HAVE GONE SOFT (ooops....is that a racist slur?)

I'm not being ridiculous - look at the context.

Away and polish you jackboots don't you have BNP meeting to go to?

Well said again Pirate.

Pentlandpirate wrote:Scots who would wish separation from the English could even be deemed 'rascist' themselves!

I know many Scots whose desire for independence is driven purely by their hatred of the English. Eric and Sandy, who I don't know (...ish) have made anti-english posts on here in the past and both profess a strong desire for separation. I suspect that they may fall into that category.
My desire for independence, however, is not driven by racism but a mature and sober assessment of the enhanced prospects which separation will bring.
Eric; not very grown up to accuse me of being a nazi when I've been posting in favour of freedom of speech and against politiacally motivated interference with our language.
Away with you and torture some prawns.

Shanks66 (freethinker by choice)

.
Can I just remind everyone that racist posts and personal abuse are both prohibited on the forum?

Some of you are treading close to the edge here; please try and keep the discussion on an even keel.

Quite right Herby.
What a can of worms that last post spawned.
I was merely trying to point out that all the suicide bombers seem to have been indoctrinated by Islam and by a few militant mullahs who seem to be beyond the control of whatever governing body presides over their affairs.
It has since been pointed out to me that Tamil Tigers have also indulged in this activity to draw attention to their cause, but in this case it is a terretorial claim, and not a desire to see the rest of humanity subjected to Sharia Law, as interpreted by the Taliban and these aforementioned Mullahs.

Quite right Herby.
What a can of worms that last post spawned.
I was merely trying to point out that all the suicide bombers seem to have been indoctrinated by Islam and by a few militant mullahs who seem to be beyond the control of whatever governing body presides over their affairs.
It has since been pointed out to me that Tamil Tigers have also indulged in this activity to draw attention to their cause, but in this case it is a terretorial claim, and not a desire to see the rest of humanity subjected to Sharia Law, as interpreted by the Taliban and these aforementioned Mullahs.

OK, racism is banned on this site. But what is 'racism'? I looked for a definition which was commonly given as

Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Surely by that definition you can only be guilty of racism IF YOU BELIEVE that some factor about a race makes that race inferior.

Are Moslems a race?

Have we said that suicide bombing tactics make them inferior? (In military terms they are superior as they give a fantastic result for the loss of 'one of your own side)'

Do those who make the sort of statements being debated actually BELIEVE the subjects are inferior? Is it possible for someone who BELIEVES all men are born equal to make a racist statement?

Admin wrote:.
Can I just remind everyone that racist posts and personal abuse are both prohibited on the forum

I appreciate where you're coming from Mr Admin, sir, but I can't see that anything that has been posted on this thread has been racist.
If, however, you think there have been some racist posts please could you quote some of them so we can see where we stand?

I agree with you that some members have disgraced themselves by indulging in personal abuse, for example:

Eric the Viking wrote:polish you jackboots

and

longshanks wrote:torture some prawns.

.
Personal abuse is not good and any young man doing it should stop. I certainly will after this close call and I implore Eric to do the same because we all know where it leads.

Short-sighted Shanks (going to specsavers by choice).

I think racism is being confused with religious discrimination. While you are not saying "they" are inferior, you are implying that that their religion is incorrect and has led to the creation of suicide bombers. This is religious discrimination.

While Islam seems to be the only religion that supports suicide bombings of innocents to further it's beliefs, this is actually just one interpretation of a book that was written over a period of hundreds of years by different people and can be interpreted in many different ways (another common theme throughout religious texts).

While Jihad is defined as "A struggle in the name of Allah", it can merely be manipulated to justify killing of whoever the Mullahs decide. So all you need is one racist or racially intolerant Mullah and suddenly Jihad means "Kill Westerners", "Kill Israelis" or "Kill Shias Muslims for not believing in the same prophet as Sunni Muslims".

You can't blame a religion itself for suicide bombings, religion is just a vehicle for the odd nut-case with religious authority to have other people do their bidding.

.
Yes Longshanks and Clint, you are of course correct. Anti-islamic sentiment is not racist, any more than anti-Christian sentiment would be.

However, you know what I mean - let's conduct our discourse in a civilised manner. Sweeping generalisations about a religious group are likely to be offensive to many and should be avoided if possible.

I see that Admin has been taken for me in this thread, as he stepped in before I did. Suffice to say if he hadn't I would have. This thread has come perilously close to the line between rational debate and hate-mongering, but has not yet crossed it, I think, let's keep it this way.

jimcee wrote:

I was merely trying to point out that all the suicide bombers seem to have been indoctrinated by Islam and by a few militant mullahs who seem to be beyond the control of whatever governing body presides over their affairs

This a common misconception and the root of some of the attitudes we have seen here and in many other places. There is no "governing body" presiding over Islam, each Mosque, each Mullah, is essentially independent. It is more like perhaps the Baptist church than the Roman Catholic in that respect. There is no Pope, no ArchB of C, not even a Moderator of the General Assembly, to bring the nutters into line.

It is completely wrong to blame Islam for the actions of these nutters, even if they do claim to be acting in the name of Islam. When the IRA were blowing people up in the name of a united Ireland, would we have been right to brand all Irishmen as terrorist sympathisers? No, because we recognised that their claim to be acting in the name of the Irish people was specious. Similarly the claim of the nutters to be acting in the name of Islam is false.