Mohammed Descendents Sue

[Morgoth]

Wow, you guys are really going Muslims-hating crazy aren't you?

 

What happened to you Europe? You used to be cool.

Says someone who comes from a country where more cows than Muslims are living.

[Meshugger]

What's is this "muslim" race that you all are talking about? I am talking about a belief system and culture here.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Meshugger

[213374U]

I was referring to the modern positive discrimination and political correctness policies, which seem to have been incorporated in liberalism. I believe that this amorphous policy, full of double standards, is damaging to the clear and traditional nation based politics that Europe has had ever since the Peace of Westphalia. The nation state might not be without its faults, but I'm not liking the alternative very much.

Well I doubt you could have convinced John Stuart Mill that "positive" discrimination is useful or desirable. Mainstream western liberals today are about as genuine as "socialists". But other than that I agree.

 

 

Yeah, but you're forgetting that the muslim world is a very large political entity and that its "fringe" elements may not be as fringe as many people believe.

 

Obviously these attacks are in themselves insignificant, as is every terrorist action including 9/11. In the grand scheme of things its like taking a one screw out of a factory. But they have great symbolic value and failing to reply adequately makes EU and US seem weak and indecisive. It also encourages further such attempts.

Its mob rules, you can't remain on top unless you make a show of force from time to time. Discussion is for when someone is actually willing to talk.

That's why armed policemen enforce the dictates of our judges. That's all the show of force that's needed. Pick them up. Put them in jail until they feel like playing nice. Or insta-deport them. I'm not sure what's exactly what you'd do. What encourages further attacks is the law not being applied as it should, and people relenting because of fear.

 

 

I wouldn't compare it to random street brawls, hooligans at football games or drunken fights. This is more. It follows a philosophy, and that's what makes it more dangerous than any random brawler.

 

But they call it 'Peace'.

 

Besides, the location and topic has incredible importance as well. It was at one of Sweden's most finest universities and the topic was about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech lost to the tyranny of the mob that day.

1) If you've met the kind of scum that makes up ultra groups, then you know that these morons also follow a philosophy of violence. Get caught by them alone and wearing the wrong tee or scarf, and you're guaranteed to end up in a hospital. It's the perceived connection of these Muslim agitators to terrorism that gives people the impression that they are more dangerous and better organized than common criminals or violent hooligans.

 

2) I saw the video. The cops were all over him, douching him with pepper sprays in like a fraction of a second. What I didn't catch is, did he continue the lecture after the attack? He wasn't seriously injured, so he could have. He should have.

[Walsingham]

The people who killed Theo van Gogh are no more muslims than the LRA are actually christians. FFS, calling them muslims is actually complimenting them for no reason.

[Gfted1]

Muhammad cartoonist defiant after attack

 

May 12, 11:18 AM (ET)

 

By KARL RITTER

 

STOCKHOLM (AP) - A Swedish artist whose drawing of the Prophet Muhammad offended Muslims said Wednesday he hopes to get another chance to deliver a lecture on free speech that was interrupted by violent protests.

 

But officials at Uppsala University said they doubted they would invite Lars Vilks again after police used pepper spray and batons to help him escape a furious crowd Tuesday.

 

"It's nothing that we're discussing right now, but it's not very likely given how it turned out here," university spokeswoman Anneli Vaara said.

 

While Vilks escaped the incident with broken glasses and a bit of a shock, he said it raised concerns about the freedom of expression at Sweden's oldest and most prestigious institute of higher learning.

 

"What you get is a mob deciding what can be discussed at the university," Vilks told The Associated Press, adding he was ready to repeat the lecture if re-invited.

 

"I'm ready to go up again," he said. "This must be carried through. You cannot allow it to be stopped."

 

The 53-year-old artist has faced numerous threats over his 2007 sketch of Muhammad with a dog's body. Earlier this year U.S. investigators said he was the target of an alleged murder plot involving Colleen LaRose, an American woman who dubbed herself "Jihad Jane," and who now faces life in prison. She has pleaded not guilty.

 

Vilks' Web site appeared to have been exposed to a hacker attack on Wednesday. Instead of his regular blog there was a message saying the site had been hacked and with links to information about the Prophet Muhammad.

 

Witnesses said the violence Tuesday broke out a few minutes into Vilks' lecture about the limits of artistic freedom, when he showed a film by an Iranian artist about Islam and homosexuality. A young man leaped from his front-row seat and tried to attack Vilks, police and the artist said.

 

Vilks initially believed he was head-butted by the man, but said he later understood he had collided with plainclothes police officers who intercepted the attacker and then briskly evacuated Vilks from the room.

 

"This was the first time I've experienced a physical assault," Vilks said. "It was a bit of a shock."

 

A video of the incident showed agitated police officers clashing with protesters at the front of the lecture hall. A female police officer used pepper spray to subdue a young man, and another youngster was wrestled to the ground. Some protesters were shouting "God is great" in Arabic.

 

Uppsala police spokesman Jonas Eronen said two officers sustained minor injuries.

 

The attacker was detained on suspicion of attempted assault but was later released, he said. Two others - a man and a woman - were also released after questioning and could face charges of using violence against police. All suspects were in their late teens, Eronen said.

 

Vaara, the university spokeswoman, said the lecture had been open to the public and the suspects were not believed to be students, though she added she wasn't sure about that.

 

The incident was condemned by Swedish newspaper editorials calling it an attack on the freedom of speech, and in more moderate terms by the Scandinavian country's leading politician.

 

"It shows that there are tensions in this discussion, which I've had to follow for years," Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt told reporters in Stockholm. "I take it very seriously. There is a risk that tensions form between individuals and the Swedish society, which is something we don't want."

 

Helena Benauouda, the head of Sweden's Muslim Council, an umbrella group for Muslim organizations, declined comment, saying she didn't have enough information about the incident.

 

Vilks depicted Muhammad more than a year after 12 Danish newspaper cartoons of the prophet sparked furious protests in Muslim countries in 2006. Images of Muhammad, even favorable ones, are considered blasphemous by many Muslims.

 

A Swedish newspaper printed Vilks' drawing, leading to further protests, and revived a heated debate in the West and the Muslim world about religious sensitivities and the limits of free speech.

[RPGmasterBoo]

That's why armed policemen enforce the dictates of our judges. That's all the show of force that's needed. Pick them up. Put them in jail until they feel like playing nice. Or insta-deport them. I'm not sure what's exactly what you'd do. What encourages further attacks is the law not being applied as it should, and people relenting because of fear.

 

 

I wouldn't compare it to random street brawls, hooligans at football games or drunken fights. This is more. It follows a philosophy, and that's what makes it more dangerous than any random brawler.

 

But they call it 'Peace'.

 

Besides, the location and topic has incredible importance as well. It was at one of Sweden's most finest universities and the topic was about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech lost to the tyranny of the mob that day.

1) If you've met the kind of scum that makes up ultra groups, then you know that these morons also follow a philosophy of violence. Get caught by them alone and wearing the wrong tee or scarf, and you're guaranteed to end up in a hospital. It's the perceived connection of these Muslim agitators to terrorism that gives people the impression that they are more dangerous and better organized than common criminals or violent hooligans.

 

2) I saw the video. The cops were all over him, douching him with pepper sprays in like a fraction of a second. What I didn't catch is, did he continue the lecture after the attack? He wasn't seriously injured, so he could have. He should have.

 

I think your mistake is believing that there are two sorts of people: "violent extremists" and "folk with common sense" (muslim or otherwise) and neglecting that the truly assimilated part of muslim immigration is also a minority. Between these two minorities is the actual majority, a religious core that may live in european countries but will never accept european civilization. To them, the truth is what the imam says on his weekly prayer, and if he says that this or that character has offended Islam you can be sure that a handful will go to look for him. The characters on these videos are not really terrorists - they're regular angry believers, and that's worrying.

 

Meshugger is on the right track. I think you have to face the somewhat unsurprising fact that the Islamic religion is and will be for a long time - a more appealing and stronger identity than the secular one you're offering. History shows how long and arduous the battle for secularization was in Europe. It took a lot of will and effort to challenge the medieval christian identity. And it took time.

There is no such effort in the Islamic world. Indeed its major centers are pushing in the opposite direction - for a stronger religious identity, and hopefully one that is definitely above any and all national identities.

 

So the real battle is not on the streets, its a battle of ideas and the western world is losing. You know fully well how much effort it took to mobilize for the war in Iraq. How much convincing do you think most Islamic states and their populations would need to wage war on any western country, if only they were in a position to do so?

What I'm trying to say is that these people have a collective vision, a basic consensus, while the western world is hopelessly polarized right down to the lecture halls of universities. There is no immediate threat here (because the west is still economically and militarily superior) but logic shows that this state of affairs, present more or less since the end of the cold war, is not a good one.

 

I assume you live in the US. The problems that the EU faces in regard to this aren't nearly as present in the US because the US is not a primary target for Islamic immigration. Indeed I don't see this as being a US problem at any time in the future, apart from possible and ineffectual terrorist attacks.

[Walsingham]

That might be true, Boo, if the immigrants really did stay unassimilated. In reality we're fething awesome at 'corrupting' them. It's happening in every British town as young muslims drift away from their parents values.*

 

For comparison, twenty years ago a lot of radical Republicans in Northern Ireland said that all they had to was wait and breed and catholics would 'win' unification by default. But in fact what has happened is that as they ceased to be and be treated as a minority they absorbed mainstream values and stopped giving a **** about politics.

 

When you talk about Muslim unity you make it sound like you think there's this monolithic Muslim menace lurking just over the horizon. Now, I'm saying that in a more friendly way than I would to some, because you seem like basically a decent chap. So just think about what I'm saying.

 

1. There's no such thing as 'muslim culture' in the geopolitical sense.

2. The appearance of unity has more to do with a shared frustration with US hegemony, and the relative inadequacy of the economies of 'muslim' states

3. Geopolitical reality almost always trumps Islam. Viz Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Malaysia. Just as it does Christianity. Viz France, the US, Sweden, Ukraine

4. Approach Islam as a monolith and you play directly into the hands of Al Qaeda and chums who want to base their leadership on some spurious notion of Ummah

5. The prospect of a war of annihilation based on religion is horrifying beyond imagination

 

 

 

*And become truly British over-entitled wankers, but that's not the point.

[Volourn]

"As if whites in America are suddenly the victimised underclass."

 

You completely miss the point.

[213374U]

words

I still don't understand what exactly is it you want. If westerners aren't as eager for violence against the Muslim world as you claim the opposite to be true (don't buy that btw)... is this a bad thing? We built our democracies based on a set of principles aimed to prevent anyone from abusing power to oppress others. There are self-protection mechanisms in place to deal with those that would pervert those principles and misuse them. The battle for secularizaton was long and bloody because religious structures were often one and the same as power structures, something which doesn't always apply elsewhere today, and by no means can be taken to imply that religion is innately more appealing to people than reason.

 

I contend that there is no need for special measures, as these attacks aren't a significant structural risk. The law however, needs to be applied for this to be true. They need to be treated as the criminals they are -- there is no political statement and if there is, it's rendered invalid by the means used to forward it. By listening to their rants, giving extensive media coverage of their antics and overreacting to their hissy fits, we are making them greater than the pathetic misfits they are.

 

I'm under no illusion that immigrants in general intend to integrate seamlessly into the society that takes them in. I don't have a problem with this, either. But I draw the line when they try to change our customs and uses. So don't make the mistake of believing I'm a multiculturalist -- I'm not. However, I refuse to let their actions plant a seed of fear that has the potential to undo and corrupt what took centuries and millions of lives to establish... and replace it with something much darker. Keep saying that we're losing this battle of ideas and eventually enough people may believe it. At that point and not before, we will have lost.

 

Btw, I live in Spain, one of the countries in the whole EU with most immigration, a large portion of which is Muslim (Maghrebi).

[Walsingham]

"As if whites in America are suddenly the victimised underclass."

 

You completely miss the point.

 

And you have no conception of how ugly real racism is.

[Volourn]

You just proved your ignorance since you know very little about me or what I perceive as 'real racism'. LMAO

 

What does that even mean? All racism is real. btw, You can be racist and not be violent. Afterall, there are plenty of racist white people who have never physically or verbally attacked a black person. Doesn't make them any less racist than the KKK member who burns the black perosn's house done. It just makes them less violent.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Volourn

[Oblarg]

You just proved your ignorance since you know very little about me or what I perceive as 'real racism'. LMAO

 

What does that even mean? All racism is real. btw, You can be racist and not be violent. Afterall, there are plenty of racist white people who have never physically or verbally attacked a black person. Doesn't make them any less racist than the KKK member who burns the black perosn's house done. It just makes them less violent.

 

You're taking the term "real" too literally. You know what he means.

[Volourn]

Yeah, and what he means doesn't make sense. There is no such thing as 'real' racism vs 'fake' racism. Racism is racism. However, some situations with racism end up in harsher and more deadly situations.

 

Holocaust = Case of exteme violence done in name of racism = real racism

 

Japanese person calling black eprson the n word = not extreme violence = real racism

 

whites holding black slaves because they be,lieve blacks are innately inferior = serious case of abuse = real racism

 

black gang beating up white person because of skin = violent = real racism

 

 

 

Some of the above cases are more extreme in terms of violences or results but ALL are real racism. It's ludicrous to argue otherwise.

 

 

 

Also, guys, which is innately worse?

 

White person who refuses to hire black person based on skin colour OR

 

Black person who refuses to hire white person baed on skin colour (and don't try to argue this never happens)

 

 

If you answer one or the other, you are a real racist. They are both equally wrong, and both are the actions of a real racist. Period.

[RPGmasterBoo]

That might be true, Boo, if the immigrants really did stay unassimilated. In reality we're fething awesome at 'corrupting' them. It's happening in every British town as young muslims drift away from their parents values.*

 

For comparison, twenty years ago a lot of radical Republicans in Northern Ireland said that all they had to was wait and breed and catholics would 'win' unification by default. But in fact what has happened is that as they ceased to be and be treated as a minority they absorbed mainstream values and stopped giving a **** about politics.

 

When you talk about Muslim unity you make it sound like you think there's this monolithic Muslim menace lurking just over the horizon. Now, I'm saying that in a more friendly way than I would to some, because you seem like basically a decent chap. So just think about what I'm saying.

 

1. There's no such thing as 'muslim culture' in the geopolitical sense.

2. The appearance of unity has more to do with a shared frustration with US hegemony, and the relative inadequacy of the economies of 'muslim' states

3. Geopolitical reality almost always trumps Islam. Viz Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Malaysia. Just as it does Christianity. Viz France, the US, Sweden, Ukraine

4. Approach Islam as a monolith and you play directly into the hands of Al Qaeda and chums who want to base their leadership on some spurious notion of Ummah

5. The prospect of a war of annihilation based on religion is horrifying beyond imagination

 

1. True, but it is in the process of being built. It is the goal of dedicated muslim religious leaders. A perfectly legitimate one, unfortunately.

2. Also true, but those reasons are a unifying factor of sorts.

3. For the moment yes.

4. I don't believe its a monolith, but I wouldn't ignore existing attempts to create one.

5. Dunno what to say about that except that its unlikely to happen. If it does, it certainly will be a one sided affair unless Pakistan and Iran (with nukes) participate.

 

I still don't understand what exactly is it you want.

 

I'm under no illusion that immigrants in general intend to integrate seamlessly into the society that takes them in. I don't have a problem with this, either. But I draw the line when they try to change our customs and uses. So don't make the mistake of believing I'm a multiculturalist -- I'm not. However, I refuse to let their actions plant a seed of fear that has the potential to undo and corrupt what took centuries and millions of lives to establish... and replace it with something much darker. Keep saying that we're losing this battle of ideas and eventually enough people may believe it. At that point and not before, we will have lost.

 

Btw, I live in Spain, one of the countries in the whole EU with most immigration, a large portion of which is Muslim (Maghrebi).

 

Personally I want more European unity in general and a more aggressive and coordinated stance on the matter. Eg: when the Swiss, for perfectly natural reasons and within democratic procedure outlaw minarets they should not come under fire from self righteous european liberals. It should be made very clear what any minority can and cannot do in a country. That is not clear at the moment. And if possible a cessation of support for muslims in the Balkans which was misplaced from the start. Making an enemy out of a natural ally and an ally out of your enemy is not master politics.

 

I agree that the most effective way to end terrorism is to ignore it completely. If the media could be forced to do so, it would end the problem in a day, so to speak.

 

I'm not a fanatic believer in democracy. I've lived in an authoritarian state and in a democratic state, and been to various european countries. The difference is not as great for the average person as the various ideologies would make you believe, especially when the authoritarianism isn't ideologically motivated. Both have their specific "rules of the game" and not following them ends with predictable results. Basically I believe in what works at the required moment. If you're old enough you've seen both the last days of Franco's rule and the beginning of the democratic government. I doubt there was a huge difference but I may be wrong.

 

Now since you're so keen to listen let me tell you my beef with the Jihad (at the moment):

 

1. Bosnia. Bosnia is not, and never will be a unified and functional country. Its two separate (three actually, but the Croatian one is tiny and unimportant) religion based entities held together with the chewing gum of the Dayton peace accords. The muslim entity is pushing for unity and the dissolution of Republika Srpska (the serbian entity). Then a united Bosnia is to be ruled from (muslim) Sarajevo. In this they are wholeheartedly supported bu the US and the EU. Much has been done to diminish the powers granted to R.S. by the Dayton peace accords, and since Serbia can't give much support this campaign has been successful.

I do not know why the west is pushing this issue so adamantly. R.S. cannot and will not allow itself to be ruled by the Sarajevo government out of quite realistic fears of what such rule would entail. It is pushing Bosnia dangerously close to another civil war, without any need to do so.

The muslim entity is a bus stop for terrorists on its way to europe. The government there is granting asylum and passports to every Taliban criminal that comes knocking. It is also allowing the fundementalist vehabbis imported from Saudi Arabia free reign and a place to teach their beliefs. Frankly, they're not doing this out of EU hate, they're doing it because countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran give a lot of money for this to be done. In short, its becoming a breeding ground for terrorism - something it never was. It is also attempting to control and incite the generally peaceful muslims that live in Serbia and has caused us a lot of trouble.

The serbian entity has two real aspirations. One is to join the EU, the other to be a part of Serbia. It is almost 100% Serbian and completely uninterested in the proposed Bosnian unity and bosnian state. After all, it shares a border with Serbia which is the motherland of its people, why should it care about Bosnia? Take into account that this isn't some small province, its half of Bosnia.

 

A perfectly peaceful solution would be to split Bosnia along existing borders, give Croatia and Serbia their respective populations and an independent state for the muslims. Yet the west insists on keeping a failed state like Bosnia alive for no reason other than to show an apparent "consistency" in its politics. It is perfectly possible that another slaughter will erupt over this, as both sides are quite eager to settle old scores.

Its also doing itself a disservice by allowing terrorists a safe haven right next to EU.

 

That is an example of the short sighted and amorphous policy I was referring to earlier.

 

I'll get to the latter two (Sandzak and Kosovo) tomorrow, too tired to continue now.

[Humodour]

Wow, you guys are really going Muslims-hating crazy aren't you?

 

What happened to you Europe? You used to be cool.

Says someone who comes from a country where more cows than Muslims are living.

 

There are 340,392 Muslims in Australia.

 

There are 351,818 Muslims in Austria.

 

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

[Humodour]

"As if whites in America are suddenly the victimised underclass."

 

You completely miss the point.

 

And you have no conception of how ugly real racism is.

 

Well said.

[Morgoth]

Wow, you guys are really going Muslims-hating crazy aren't you?

 

What happened to you Europe? You used to be cool.

Says someone who comes from a country where more cows than Muslims are living.

 

There are 340,392 Muslims in Australia.

 

There are 351,818 Muslims in Austria.

 

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Wrong. There are 520,000 Muslims after a 2009 census. Out of 8 millions.

[Kissamies]

 

Sweden, you used to be the 3rd richest and most socially progressive country in the world with lax views on sex and life in general. What the hell happened to you?

Lax immigration policies is what happened. That and the childlike belief that everyone would be willing to integrate to their society. I've heard, not from that reliable sources, mind you, that 22% of their budget goes to paying this multiculturalism. Places like Roseng

[Walsingham]

@Volo:

 

Your response makes no sense. On the one hand you highlight slavery, holocaust etc, and then go on to ask if a positive discrimination is terrible? The answer is no. No it fething well isn't. I don't agree with it, because I believe it demeans the beneficiaries. But is it properly serious? No.

 

I'm pissed off with you because I'm sick of white people getting into a shrieking flap at the first hint of what we've been throwing out like an amok catherine wheel for the past 500 years. I'm not saying it's OK to have it come back, it's completely wrong, but we have a responsibility to be slightly more gokking thick skinned. Because unless we are we may simply push back and direct conflict will erupt. Direct conflict of a sort I've actually seen, having been confronted with murderous racist mobs on two occasions. It doesn't look anything like a rally of people celebrating their homeland. Nor does it look like a tiny handful of social rejects indulging fascist power fantasies.

 

"Ooooh. We have it so bad here. I'm a third class citizen in my own country." I've actually seen a third class citizen living in his own country. He was clothed in rags. He ate scraps from a municipal tip and slept under a hand cart. He faced every kind of casual cruelty and injustice, but he couldn't approach the police because the best he could expect was bored dismissal and the worst was a savage beating.

 

I've been to America for many years. I have family there. I've also seen formal racism under apartheid, encultured racism in the Far East, and casual racism in the Army. I've experienced it myself. It's insane and it's terrifying AND IT IS NOT HAPPENING TO WHITE PEOPLE IN AMERICA.

 

@Boo.

 

I'll respond to you when I calm down.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Don't give yourself a heart attack in the meanwhile.

 

Btw I don't understand this "white man's responsibility to the world he's oppressed". I'm not a Victorian lord drawing borders on blank map of Africa, or a SS-Totenkopfverb

[Meshugger]

2) I saw the video. The cops were all over him, douching him with pepper sprays in like a fraction of a second. What I didn't catch is, did he continue the lecture after the attack? He wasn't seriously injured, so he could have. He should have.

 

No, he was sent to the doctor. As the article points out, several of the people in lecture hall and later on facebook celibrated that "they had stopped him". According to the same article as well, it seems like swedish media doesn't want to stand by his side either, since they think that he was a provocateur and had to face the consequences. Even the head of the swedish publicist-beauro agrees that it is not a threat to free press or speech.

 

Another article also points out that during the skinhead-phase of the 90's, everyone including politicians, journalists and swedes in general joined together on to denounce racism. Everyone knew who the victim(s) were. However in this case, the "victim(s)" are the wrongdoers themselves.

[Kissamies]

My sources say he got head-butted and broke his glasses.

[Volourn]

"if a positive discrimination is terrible? The answer is no. No it fething well isn't. I don't agree with it, because I believe it demeans the beneficiaries. But is it properly serious? No."

 

There is no such thing as 'positive descrimination'. Racism is racism.

 

 

 

"I'm pissed off with you because I'm sick of white people"

 

Racist. Or self hating white person. You decide.

 

"YOU WHITE PEOPLE"

 

'Nough said.

 

 

"Ooooh. We have it so bad here. I'm a third class citizen in my own country."

 

Never claimed that, Mr. Extreme.

 

 

"I've been to America for many years. I have family there. I've also seen formal racism under apartheid, encultured racism in the Far East, and casual racism in the Army. I've experienced it myself. It's insane and it's terrifying AND IT IS NOT HAPPENING TO WHITE PEOPLE IN AMERICA."

 

I'm not even Amerikan so what you gibbering about?

 

 

NEWSFLASH; I am not going to apologize for what OTHER white people did. What OTHER men did. What OTHER Frenchies did. I take responsibility for my actions only, and I have done nothing racist or acted racist in any way.

 

DOUBLE NEWSFLASH: Racism is NOT a white disease. It's a disease that poisons people of all cultures. There are white racisr. There are black racists. These are facts. And, they're both real racists.

[Meshugger]

The Poet vs. Prophet.

[Wrath of Dagon]

But when asked by radio host Hugh Hewitt whether he would insult Muhammad the way he