London Muslims to CELEBRATE 911
September 8, 2002 3:39 AM   Subscribe

London Muslims to CELEBRATE 911 Is it cool to be angry? Do I care? I'm VERY angry about this. Maybe someone will celebrate 911 by flying an aircraft into Finsbury Park Mosque. There must be a limit to the progressive tolerance of other cultures and religious nuts. I think Londoners might reach it very soon. We seem to have our own Taliban. The time might be right for a radical secularism. What do you think?
posted by terrymiles (146 comments total)

 
Mainstream Muslim leaders have criticised previous conferences held by Al-Muhajiroun and other extremist groups, saying their radical anti-American opinions do not represent the views of the majority of Britain's 1.5 million Muslims

I think you're overreacting terrymiles. What have muslims actually done in London to push Londoners to the limit?
posted by Summer at 3:55 AM on September 8, 2002


Not "London Muslims". Extremist Muslim groups who have been condemmed by the mainstream leaders. I don't see why there has to be a limit to the toleration of people who want to celebrate anything, however much I disagree. It's those who commit the actions in the first place (and they're a million miles away from these people) who you don't tolerate. By all means keep them off the TV and ignore them as much as possible, other than that any action only brings more attention to a situation that doesn't really warrant it.
posted by Lame_Dave at 3:58 AM on September 8, 2002


Yeah, terrymiles, you're not allowed to be angry until muslims actually kill thousands of your fellow citizens in a terrorist attack, and I don't mean fellow citizens as in we're all friendly neighbors on this cozy little planet, I mean it actually has to take place in your city. Since London hasn't been hit yet, why don't you go down to Finsbury Park next Wednesday and try to make some new friends. Maybe they will tell you why they hate you, and then you can apologize and ask them how you can live your life in a manner that will make them not want to kill you.
posted by David Dark at 4:03 AM on September 8, 2002


anger begets angry reactions begets more anger. Find out how this whole thing started and you might start to look at things more objectively terry.

You expect the US to do what it likes around the world without a reaction? If so, then you need to understand the human mind. The US stepped on too many toes, and tried to run things from an amoral oil/money point of view. They arm nations, then denounce them as evil, then fight them, occupy their country, arm them again....what kind of super-power is the US?
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:08 AM on September 8, 2002


"...their radical anti-American opinions do not represent the views of the majority of Britain's 1.5 million Muslims."
Before venting your anger i suggest you wait and see what kind of backing this celebration gets. I mean - in my country the birthday of Adolf Hitler (not that Osama Bin Laden bears anything more than a superficial comparison to him) is also celebrated. Letting Al-Muhajiroun have their celebration in the open and at the same time standing firm in the condemnation of their views is the only way to deal with those nuts.
posted by FidelDonson at 4:09 AM on September 8, 2002


David Dark, could you tell me why terrymiles is right to be angry with London Muslims because of the irresponsible actions of a small, extreme minority?

I have to say, when I hear statements like "Mohammed says the council will aim to implement Sharia law in Britain" my immediate reaction is laughter. Poor pathetic souls.
posted by Summer at 4:09 AM on September 8, 2002


The intelligence services are probably very happy to collect all the fools together in one place at Finsbury Park Mosque. At least they can keep tabs on them there, but I'm afraid for "mainstream muslims" if they can't put their house in order and sort these people out.

"Mainstream" British tolerance should not be taken for granted - or as a sign of weakness. There have been over 600 attacks on Muslims in London over the last year since 9/11. Maybe not surprising when they allow their lunatic fringe (if that is what it really is) to come out with stuff like this.
posted by terrymiles at 4:10 AM on September 8, 2002


Extremist Muslim groups who have been condemmed by the mainstream leaders

Well, if you have a link to the condemnation of extremist Muslims by "mainstream Muslim leaders", I'd dearly love to see it.

I think terry's (unbelievably obvious) point is that a celebration of terrorist attacks is not only morally reprehensible, but utterly unthinkable.

That *anyone* would participate in such an event makes obvious the extent to which supposedly 'fundamentalist' Islamic dogma has gone relatively unchallenged.
posted by hama7 at 4:13 AM on September 8, 2002


in my country the birthday of Adolf Hitler is also celebrated

In Denmark?
posted by Summer at 4:16 AM on September 8, 2002


Maybe not surprising when they allow their lunatic fringe (if that is what it really is) to come out with stuff like this.

I like the implication that this idiotic extremism is ok'd by the mainstream muslim community who are all murder lovers deep down anyway.
posted by robself at 4:18 AM on September 8, 2002


The US stepped on too many toes, and tried to run things from an amoral oil/money point of view.

Gosh. That sounds familiar. Would you like to support that with some facts, because I have a completely different point of view that is based in actual reality.

But things are different in space, I guess.
posted by hama7 at 4:21 AM on September 8, 2002


Mainstream Muslim leaders have criticised previous conferences held by Al-Muhajiroun and other extremist groups, saying their radical anti-American opinions do not represent the views of the majority of Britain's 1.5 million Muslims.

Since that;s in the same article it seems at least as reliable as the report hat the event is taking place in the first place. And I completely agree that such a celebration would be morally reprehensible. My only point was the best way to deal with it was to ignore it.

That *anyone* would participate in such an event makes obvious the extent to which supposedly 'fundamentalist' Islamic dogma has gone relatively unchallenged.

I'm not sure what your point is - I think since 9/11 fundamentalist Islamic dogma has gone challenged at every turn, the US and UK media have (rightly) taken great pains to point out that the beliefs and actions of Al-Qaida are nothing like traditional Islamic beliefs as practised by the vast, vast majority of the members of that faith.
posted by Lame_Dave at 4:25 AM on September 8, 2002


But what are the "vast, vast majority of the members of that faith" actually doing about them?
posted by terrymiles at 4:29 AM on September 8, 2002


what are the "vast, vast majority of the members of that faith" actually doing about them?

Why are they required to do anything?
posted by robself at 4:35 AM on September 8, 2002


Summer, as the article states, "Mohammed says he has secured a six-figure sum to fund the Islamic council, which will build a dozen Islamic centres, launch a website and hold classes for Muslims." Presumably, to teach hatred for the West and how to properly conduct jihad just like the perpetrators of 911, whom they will be celebrating. So laugh it up. I don't agree that terry needs to wait to get angry until after they actually do something in London. I say terry can go ahead and get angry right fucking now.

SpaceCadet, I'm sure it's all very simple from up there. Come back down here in the shit with the rest of us for a little while. Things on the surface actually have more than one dimension from this perspective.

Lame_Dave, the point is that the US and UK media have no pull with muslim society worldwide. "Relatively unchallenged" references the lack of outcry among "mainstream muslims" against fundamentalist muslim hatred for Western ideals.

Why are they required to do anything?

They're not. But shouldn't they, anyway?
posted by David Dark at 4:39 AM on September 8, 2002


Well, Lame, maybe you are right.

But the vast, vast, majority as it is, doesn't seem all that vast when one takes into account the relative minority whose vioce is heard in opposition to Islamic jihad and celebration of terrorist activities.

The sheer number of world Muslims: (22% of total population) speaks for itself.
posted by hama7 at 4:41 AM on September 8, 2002


I just hope none of them kinow where I live!
posted by terrymiles at 4:44 AM on September 8, 2002


shouldn't they, anyway?

Maybe. I probably should too. Then again, Al-Qaeda attacks are in the UK are almost inevitable.
posted by robself at 4:47 AM on September 8, 2002


But what are the "vast, vast majority of the members of that faith" actually doing about them?

They've made it clear that they don't support the minority. In all fairness, what else can they do? They have no more right to tell people what to think and how to behave than you or I do. And remember that however repulsive you find their ideas, the UK remains a democracy and they are entitled to express them if they wish. Listen to them, and if you don't like what you hear then don't listen any more. Simple.
posted by zygoticmynci at 4:48 AM on September 8, 2002


London Muslims to CELEBRATE 911
Taking one inflammatory article (as far as I can tell nothing it describes justifies the use of the word 'celebrate'), turning "Extremist muslim clerics" into "London Muslims", and 'celebrate' into CELEBRATE makes me feel that we need more tolerance, not less, given that people are so keen to distort the facts in order to generate this anger you seem to be so keen on.
posted by chrispy at 4:50 AM on September 8, 2002


Well, if you have a link to the condemnation of extremist Muslims by "mainstream Muslim leaders", I'd dearly love to see it.

OK

There have been over 600 attacks on Muslims in London over the last year since 9/11

??? You're using this as evidence that we should be harder on the Muslim community? You must see how silly this sounds.

Summer, as the article states, "Mohammed says he has secured a six-figure sum to fund the Islamic council, which will build a dozen Islamic centres, launch a website and hold classes for Muslims." Presumably, to teach hatred for the West and how to properly conduct jihad just like the perpetrators of 911, whom they will be celebrating. So laugh it up. I don't agree that terry needs to wait to get angry until after they actually do something in London. I say terry can go ahead and get angry right fucking now.

You've not answered my question. Why should terry be angry at London muslims because of the actions of a vocal minority?
posted by Summer at 4:51 AM on September 8, 2002


You seem to have missed the point. Yes, I am offended but I'm also very worried that the ordinary people I know that happen to be moslems, like, work with, shop with etc. will become the victims of a more ignorant, violent backlash unless they stand up against the lunatics now - and more loudly than ever. Or maybe it's too late already
posted by terrymiles at 4:54 AM on September 8, 2002


Here's a comment that pre-dates last 9/11.

I think its well worth considering.

FROM AN interview WITH HOWARD ZINN, EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF American HISTORY, BOSTON UNIVERSITY; FROM 'BAD SUBJECTS' MARCH 2001

"The Clinton era was good for big business, but it left so many people behind and alienated. In fact, disgusted with politics in general. In that kind of situation, people will turn to religious demagogues. Sometimes I make the mistake of turning on the television on a Sunday morning and I'll see thousands of people gathered listening to some real idiot spouting forth. These people - their lives are not satisfying them. So the radical interpretation - Marx's interpretation - is true. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed, the should of the soulless society, the opium of the people.

"People need to turn to something when they are unhappy. And there are a lot of unhappy people in this country. I guess if you don't believe it then look at the amount of violence that's taking place. The turn to violence and the turn to religion are the twin consequences of profound alienation. Sometimes they overlap, but they involve the same people - the same people who go to church are the same people who use guns a lot."

I think this applies to much more than America. There are a lot of unhappy Muslims out there.
posted by donfactor at 4:55 AM on September 8, 2002


You seem to have missed the point. Yes, I am offended but I'm also very worried that the ordinary people I know that happen to be moslems, like, work with, shop with etc. will become the victims of a more ignorant, violent backlash unless they stand up against the lunatics now

That wasn't the point you made terry. Your point was being angry at London muslims.

Your muslim friends can't do anything about extremists any more than you can do anything about the BNP. And it's not solely their responsibility to stop ignorance on both sides.
posted by Summer at 4:59 AM on September 8, 2002


They have no more right to tell people what to think and how to behave than you or I do.

How much do you know about Islam? The Koran does all of the above, but I digress.

The point is: Neanderthals are actually celebrating terrorist attacks, and unless I have lost the plot entirely, that is a truly horrifying thing. Have the police been notified? I predict an overdue roundup of looneys. Come on crazies! The long arm of the law is reaching for you!
posted by hama7 at 5:03 AM on September 8, 2002


I give up. I'm going shopping
posted by terrymiles at 5:06 AM on September 8, 2002


donfactor: "Unhappy"? Marxism? Hilarious as your asertion may be, please let us stay within the bounds of reality.
posted by hama7 at 5:07 AM on September 8, 2002


as far as I can tell nothing it describes justifies the use of the word 'celebrate'

I don't think you read the same article we're talking about.

Let's start with this, since it may be the root of your confusion:

celebrate:
1. To observe (a day or event) with ceremonies of respect, festivity, or rejoicing.
2. To extol or praise.
3. To make widely known; display.

"the conference will argue the terror attacks were justified..." and "the conference will discuss the "positive outcomes" of September 11..." They are observing a day or event with respect, they are extolling and praising, they are making it widely known. Any questions?

terry, can you clarify for Summer and I... when you say "London Muslims" do you mean these fruitcakes that live in London that the article is referring to, or do you mean every single Muslim in London?

"the same people who go to church are the same people who use guns a lot." My, my, what a big paintbrush you have! Can you get any detail work done with that thing? Worthless.
posted by David Dark at 5:07 AM on September 8, 2002


Mohammed says he has secured a six-figure sum to fund the Islamic council

Wonder where this came from? Al-Qaeda? A lottery grant?
posted by etc at 5:12 AM on September 8, 2002


But what are the "vast, vast majority of the members of that faith" actually doing about them?

What is the vast majority of mainstream Christians doing about their "lunatic fringe"? Nothing. That's about all they can do.
posted by Orb at 5:23 AM on September 8, 2002


What is the vast majority of mainstream Christians doing about their "lunatic fringe"?

Is there a fringe Christian group whose goal is world domination via 'jihad'?

See you tomorrow.
posted by hama7 at 5:35 AM on September 8, 2002


How much do you know about Islam? The Koran does all of the above, but I digress.

Try just about every religion, hama.

Is there a fringe Christian group whose goal is world domination via 'jihad'?

Yes.

please let us stay within the bounds of reality.

But things are different in space, I guess.


Wow. Didn't know you had such a monopoly on truth. At least you have lots of sarcasm.
posted by adampsyche at 5:38 AM on September 8, 2002


Orb: exactly.
I was in an office full of fundamentalist Christians on the morning of September 11. Their initial reactions, once they got past jabbering about "endtimes," was sickening. It made a nightmarish morning much, much worse, and it ended up corrupting and coloring my own reaction to the attacks.
One day, people like David Dark and terrymiles will realize that fundamentalism itself, along with any number of complex socioeconomic, historic, geographical shadings--unspecific to ANY religion--is responsible for extremism. Demanding that the vast moderate majority of a religon's adherents "do something" to explain the extremists among their ranks is ignorant and hypocritical. But hey, it's all so much easier to grasp when you have an enemy, right?
posted by ghastlyfop at 5:40 AM on September 8, 2002


adam: So the Bush admininstration is a fundamentalist Christian version of Islamist Jihad? Hilarity ensues.

You are indeed a creative fellow. Be that as it may, we are still talking about a terrorist celebration in London, right?

Your attack might be more suitable in MetaTalk, or even better: e-mail. (see my profile).
posted by hama7 at 5:51 AM on September 8, 2002


Well, the KKK is allowed to demonstrate and have marches here so the hipocrosy we would face for shunning them is a little daunting.

BUT! I think a lot if not most of the peace mongers here who say anger only begets anger, and being angry won't solve anything, have probably never had one of their close relatives, and I mean close, not your cousin's uncle on his stepdad's side, but your father your brother your wife husband son or daughter killed by one of these terrorist attacks. People, sometimes anger is good for you so long as it doesn't get out of control. (read carefully - I said "anger" not hate)

My point Scenario: Picture the person (or even persons) you most love in all the world being taken away and then imagine yourself not being angry about it.
posted by filecrave at 5:52 AM on September 8, 2002


Demanding that the vast moderate majority of a religon's adherents "do something" to explain the extremists among their ranks is ignorant and hypocritical

Why and how is that "hypocritical"? Terrorist attacks in the name of religion are not that common, but rationalization of terrorist attacks has become an American psychosis.

I'm bored.
posted by hama7 at 6:02 AM on September 8, 2002


"Yeah, terrymiles, you're not allowed to be angry until muslims actually kill thousands of your fellow citizens in a terrorist attack..."

Actually, terry, according to the majority of MiFi-ers, even if you lose 2,800 of your citizens, you're ONLY allowed to be angry about it. You're NOT allowed to exact revenge, or more importantly, kill those who might do it again.

Kum bah yah, anyone? {sarcasm mode off}
posted by darren at 6:04 AM on September 8, 2002


There must be a limit to the progressive tolerance of other cultures and religious nuts.

There is. If these people break the law, they'll be arrested and dealt with accordingly. I'm sure the police are watching them very closely, looking for any excuse to lock them up. Their stated desire to replace British law with Shari'a is getting pretty close to sedition and will likely get them deported if they actually act upon it.
posted by MrBaliHai at 6:07 AM on September 8, 2002


and then imagine yourself not being angry about it.

Can't do it. Bravo, filecrave.
posted by hama7 at 6:07 AM on September 8, 2002


Terrorist attacks are morally wrong. Done. That said, the terrorists are not without reason for what they do, and for the Islamic terrorists, it's hatred for America over past US stances and policies. Simple.

Why and how is that "hypocritical"? Terrorist attacks in the name of religion are not that common, but rationalization of terrorist attacks has become an American psychosis.

Rationalization, n. b. Psychol. The justification of behaviour to make it appear rational or socially acceptable by (subconsciously) ignoring, concealing, or glossing its real motive; an act of making such a justification. (from OED online)

See, there's a difference between "rationalization." and "analysis." I'd venture to say that Americans (at least, the sane rational people that I know) do the latter and not the former. Really, how many people actually justify the attacks? Hmm.
posted by The Michael The at 6:17 AM on September 8, 2002


There is. If these people break the law, they'll be arrested and dealt with accordingly.

If they were in Germany, they would have been told off a long time ago. You have to love a country that disallows naming children Osama Bin Laden and Scientologists. Looks like at least one country learned something from the past...

Actually, terry, according to the majority of MiFi-ers, even if you lose 2,800 of your citizens, you're ONLY allowed to be angry about it. You're NOT allowed to exact revenge, or more importantly, kill those who might do it again.

Offtopic, I know, but the under-5 mortality rates in many nations, particularly Africa is between 100 and 300. I think that equals many more than 2800 people on a long enough timeline (though still a very short one... a few days perhaps?); millions die each year (this information available at UNICEF). This could be seen as murder as those with the resources to help these children do not provide them. Now back to our discussion...
posted by The Michael The at 6:29 AM on September 8, 2002


Why and how is that "hypocritical"? Terrorist attacks in the name of religion are not that common, but rationalization of terrorist attacks has become an American psychosis.

It's hypocritical because an extremist minority within a religion - one that has been disowned by the rational and tolerant majority - is not acting with the support or approval of the majority. Why expect them to be apologists and executioners for the bad apples? The real solution is to try and understand why the radical minority exists and what, if anything, needs to be changed or rectified in society to eliminate the seed of the radicals groups.
posted by zygoticmynci at 6:31 AM on September 8, 2002


Terrorist attacks are morally wrong. Done. That said, the terrorists are not without reason for what they do, and for the Islamic terrorists, it's hatred for America over past US stances and policies. Simple.

Agree. And I would slap a little have/have-not thingy on the end.
posted by poopy at 6:34 AM on September 8, 2002


Very astute The Michael. But this thread was initially about an anniversary celebration the terrorist attacks.

Which is wrong. (Acknowledgement of the attacks by way of anniversary status, or tribute is also morally wrong).

The only and best tribute is to live your life as if *nothing at all has happened*. To live in 'defiant normalcy' is the responsibility of all those who do not believe in forced terrorist legitimacy.

Screw them.
posted by hama7 at 6:43 AM on September 8, 2002


I agree with you hama7. Defiant normalcy has been my approach for the last year (and before towards the IRA for that matter) but it doesn't mean my head is in the sand or that I'm unprovokable. My name is not Jesus. I'm real
posted by terrymiles at 7:00 AM on September 8, 2002


You're NOT allowed to kill those who might do it again.

Recidivism isn't that big in suicide attacks, is it? And not being allowed to kill people who might attack you seems a pretty sound idea to me.

On preview: I would like to clarify my 'real' status also. It's me, terrymiles and J-Lo thus far.
posted by robself at 7:05 AM on September 8, 2002


Outlawing political parties and political demonstration, no matter how sickening, is a step towards the sort of government underwhich most of us would not want to live. Sickening as is the thought of these people 'celebrating' the even is, I don't know what you can (in a democratic society) do about it other than set up your own counter-protest across the street and make your own views known.

So can you be angry? Of course you can. Can you form a posse and beat them up or something? Of course you can, and it might feel good, but it won't fix anything and isn't a democratic way of dealing with the situation. Can you blog it and chat it up with your friends? Sure you can. Does it help to do so? Maybe.

Here's the thing: US government policies are going to anger people (hell, they anger me fairly often, and I'm a citizen). Does that give the angered the right to blow up office buildings filled with people minding their own business? I don't think so. But does that anger mean we ought to throw free speech and free assembly (and other freedoms that make democracies good places to live) out the window? No. Is bitching about it on a message board easier than organizing a counter-demonstration? Yes (and I'm as guilty of that as anyone).

Did the fundamentalist Islamic tactic of blowing up the aformentioned office buildings have any positive effect (in pragmatic terms) for fundamentalist Islam in the world? Did it bring their concerns to light? Did it increase collective world sympaty for them, as a group? I don't think it did. They didn't just shoot themselves in the foot; they shot themselves in the head. Did they even think that it would help? Or did they just decide to take out their collective hatred on a few thousand innocent people?
posted by wheat at 7:09 AM on September 8, 2002


"Demanding that the vast moderate majority of a religon's adherents 'do something' to explain the extremists among their ranks is ignorant and hypocritical."

Dude, these people on a regular basis claim to speak on behalf of "all muslims" exhorting them to fulfil their "duties in jihad." For better or worse, this is all over the mainstream media as well. It's not some little obscure tribe off in Kyrgystan or somewhere in the pages of National Geographic. You'd think you'd hear a bit more from more moderate muslims. If you saw Pat Robertson all over the news saying Christians are obligated to slay all Saudis, wouldn't you expect other Christian leaders, say Billy Graham, to publically (and regularly) voice disagreement?

I would.
posted by shoos at 7:10 AM on September 8, 2002


hama7: (Acknowledgement of the attacks by way of anniversary status, or tribute is also morally wrong).

Why is that? It happened. Why not acknowledge it? And I'd say that an anniversary is a good a time as any.

And yes, I'm twisting your words...but I think that those whose viewpoints strike you as repugnant still have a right to hold those views. (ya know, Voltaire and all.)
posted by Vidiot at 7:14 AM on September 8, 2002


To live in 'defiant normalcy' is the responsibility of all those who do not believe in forced terrorist legitimacy.

How about looking inward to see what we might be doing wrong? Looking away is often what causes these situations in the first place. People resort to terrorism when they are not being listened to. I'm not saying it's right, and I certainly don't condone their actions, but doesn't it make sense to examine what has brought us to this sorry pass?

On preview: shoos, I think they realise that the vast majority of people are intelligent enough to tell the difference between the majority and the minority. Islamic leaders have publicly stated their opposition to the extremists, and as far as I'm concerned that's enough. On my part, I find it depressing that they needed to do even that.
posted by zygoticmynci at 7:19 AM on September 8, 2002


it doesn't mean my head is in the sand or that I'm unprovokable. My name is not Jesus

terry - is this really worthy of your anger? What does an action like this actually mean? Their point of view is so unrepresentative of the vast, vast majority of the people in this country as to mean nothing. They're shouting into a void. This is why they have to alert the press in order to get any kind of reaction at all. It's hardly the battle of Cable Street.
posted by Summer at 7:33 AM on September 8, 2002


Shoos--
Dude, do you get all your information from the mainstream media? You really consider it gospel? You're troubled that statments of condemnation from moslem leaders haven't spidered their way to reach you?
Here's a parallel. A few days ago, a Turkish guy and his American wife were detained in Germany for planning a terrorist attack. I'm half Turkish. After my requisite revulsion, I then thought, "Great...another ethnically specific enemy for people to pounce on." Yeah, I condemn this extremist. No, of course his ideas are not in line with mainstream Turkish culture. But if you're going to tell me, "You're not condemning him hard enough" I'll tell you to go away.
posted by ghastlyfop at 7:36 AM on September 8, 2002


David Dark: My main problem is with how terrymiles reworded the article in his post, but I also feel that the word celebrate was used cynically (note how in the article it's always in quotes) to provoke outrage at the contradiction between its connotations of "festivity or rejoicing" and the events of 9/11. I hope you'd agree that dictionary definitions only go so far in explaining the impact of words: I don't think on Wednesday CNN will be saying "9/11 a Celebration" despite the fact that it may be technically correct to use that term.
Articles like this seem designed to generate the sort of outraged, tangential and generalising responses seen in the original post - and if anything gets me angry, it's that.
posted by chrispy at 7:41 AM on September 8, 2002


I'm sure the police are watching them very closely, looking for any excuse to lock them up

They could always go eat at a Sonic drive-in or shop at a K-Mart in Houston, Texas...
posted by mrbill at 7:46 AM on September 8, 2002


For what it's worth, the Muslim Council of Britain has 116 pages of e mails received since 9/11. Makes interesting reading.
posted by Fat Buddha at 7:51 AM on September 8, 2002


BUT! I think a lot if not most of the peace mongers here who say anger only begets anger, and being angry won't solve anything, have probably never had one of their close relatives, and I mean close, not your cousin's uncle on his stepdad's side, but your father your brother your wife husband son or daughter killed by one of these terrorist attacks. People, sometimes anger is good for you so long as it doesn't get out of control. (read carefully - I said "anger" not hate)

This is a total nonsequitur and is simply meant to distract from the basic facts that we as nation refuse to behave responsibly. As one of those peace mongers (is this somehow negative) I can say that similar equations such as watching a relative die from an accident caused by a drunk driver have not put me on a mission to pursue the death penalty for DUI. It's the same as saying that you can't oppose abortion on moral grounds if you have a teenage daughter. Trying to transfer your reaction on others because you can't cope isn't even rational much less responsible thinking.
posted by shagoth at 8:07 AM on September 8, 2002


If I had lost a loved one during 9/11 I would be crazy with contempt for those who celebrate barbaric behavior. These fruticakes are taking advantage of democratic opennes to try to bring about closed deistic state that would resemble Saudi Arabia. That said, there is the good news: this "event" will be akin to a funeral serivce for a mafia chief and every one in attendance will be spotted, photographed, put in a data base....
posted by Postroad at 8:08 AM on September 8, 2002


The main point, in my eyes, of any acknowledgment of 11 September, is i) to remember the lost and ii) to motivate ourselves to never let it happen again.

The problem there is that to remove the reasons behind anyone ever wanting to do this again- to get rid of the selfish, superior attitude of immoral capitalist superpowers with no concern beyond their doorsteps - it's too deep rooted. As in any conflict, once it gets past the first couple of punches, there's no perspective. The world will always be like this, all we can do is try not to let our leaders fan the flames; and to decry those and retaliate fairly and proportionally. If we don't we make it worse. Time and time again the US Government takes stands of its own, leaving the majority of the world bewildered and rightly concerned.

Rather depressingly, my own mother said to me the other day that the day would come soon when there would be 'Muslim suicide bombers in Britain'. This is not an isolated view, thanks to the lack of inclination to refute it by the authorities who should know better, and to posters who generalise 'London Muslims' into one handy pot. There's enough inate distrust of people 'not like me' without this sort of blarney.

Also, implicating people who are not involved as if they should be ashamed via a lack of condemnation?!?!? I'm sorry, but the shouty wankers will always be heard more than the gentle humble general public - it doesn't make the majority bad. Many, many Muslim leaders (especially where I live, in Leicester, England, which has a highly diverse ethnic population) have come out and condemned 11 September's attacks in no uncertain terms. What more do you want? Blood? ...
posted by boneybaloney at 8:10 AM on September 8, 2002


And besides, in terms of mainstream media coverage, the noise and dust in the raised by the idiots who are celebrating the attacks will infinitely dilute any measured response or condemnation by a moderate majority. It's what sells. It's the nature of the media beast.
posted by ghastlyfop at 8:21 AM on September 8, 2002


ghastlyfop, for whatever reason, many people (possibly including myself) expected more from the american muslim population. Maybe this was due merely to cultural differences, or what was said just wasn't widely reported on. Or maybe it was just that some of us don't regularly access the boutique news outlets that you do. Anways, for many people there was a large gap between what was anticipated and what was delivered.

About the Germany story, has anybody hinted that this was due to the guy's being Turkish? I would like to hear about it if so.
posted by shoos at 8:23 AM on September 8, 2002


zygoticmynci, many americans (yes, even many intelligent ones) have no idea what muslims or islamic society is about, and i think a large proportion of muslims don't realize that this is the case.
posted by shoos at 8:33 AM on September 8, 2002


Hmm, once again the comments of hama7 eerily echo those of Real9.
posted by y2karl at 8:40 AM on September 8, 2002


Is it cool to be angry? Do I care? I'm VERY angry about this.

it makes me about as angry as "AIDS Cure Fags" signs.
posted by mcsweetie at 8:42 AM on September 8, 2002


zygoticmynci, many americans (yes, even many intelligent ones) have no idea what muslims or islamic society is about, and i think a large proportion of muslims don't realize that this is the case.

Then the responsibility is on those quarters of the American public to drag themselves to a reasonable level of social awareness, not for the Muslim community to deliver grovelling apologies to people too lazy to properly inform themselves about issues they are all too happy to scream and shout about.
posted by zygoticmynci at 8:42 AM on September 8, 2002


Getting to this one a little late...

mcsweetie - great comparison. That's exactly what I was thinking about - is it the Christian majority's job to publicly denounce Rev. Fred (the guy who leads anti-gay protests at funerals of prominent gay people)? Not really. Some of them do it, and I'm glad to see it, but we shouldn't expect them all to be required to make public statements saying they disagree with this nutjob.

That said, I remember a large number of Muslims standing up to condemn the attacks when they happened. Some I saw/read about in the news, and some were in my hometown. What more do you want? Weekly loyalty oaths?
posted by UKnowForKids at 9:06 AM on September 8, 2002


closed deistic state that would resemble Saudi Arabia

Yeah, we've really gotta do something about those scary deists.
posted by ramakrishna at 9:13 AM on September 8, 2002


That said, I remember a large number of Muslims standing up to condemn the attacks when they happened.

Did I oversleep that day, or is my hometown (Los Angeles) just not representative?
posted by shoos at 9:20 AM on September 8, 2002


"what are the "vast, vast majority of the members of that faith" actually doing about them?

Why are they required to do anything?" -robself

Because, when a good man stands by and lets evil happen, and does nothing to stop it, then he is responsible in some ways for that evil.

As long as there are those in Islam who want to kill, hurt, maim or destroy the innocent to reach their goals, and as long as the mainstream of Muslim culture makes excuses for the extremists ("oh, you know, America really brought this on themselves...") or are silent, as long as the majority of Islam is stuck back in the 12th century, in trying to spread their religion by force and violence, as long as they don't recognize that a secular society is the only way that people of different religions can get along without the threat of violence or coercion, then there will be trouble.

Besides, anyone who "celebrates" the violent and horrible death of 3000 people is a complete ass.

Tolerance for intolerance can only go so far. Sure, people can believe what they want, but as soon as someone comes to my house and tells me that I have to start worshipping their god and following their rules, then I'll get out my gun.

Don't tread on me, and all that....
posted by geekhorde at 9:26 AM on September 8, 2002


as long as the majority of Islam is stuck back in the 12th century, in trying to spread their religion by force and violence

Justify that, please. Give me one example of members of the mainstream Islamic community behaving like that.

What do you think about Christians that seek to 'educate' gay people to allow them to live without sin? I think, certainly hope, the vast majority of people that would call themselves Christian do not hold that opinion. Similarly, the vast, vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving and firmly against violence and terrorism - something Muslim community leaders have stated categorically on numerous occasions. Don't make sweeping generalisations, especially those that are completely unburdened by any respect for the fact or truth of the matter.

Tolerance for intolerance can only go so far. Sure, people can believe what they want, but as soon as someone comes to my house and tells me that I have to start worshipping their god and following their rules, then I'll get out my gun.

Oh please.
posted by zygoticmynci at 9:39 AM on September 8, 2002


Okay, so I'm going to celebrate the attacks.

Does this mean y'all are going to get a mad hate-on for everyone with blue eyes? Everyone who's atheist? Everyone who's Canadian? Everyone who's male?

Some of you need to pull your heads out of your asses. Just because some extreme religionist fucknuggets have trolled the media with their message of hate doesn't mean that you should condemn everyone of that religion.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:51 AM on September 8, 2002


Okay, so I'm going to celebrate the attacks.

Does this mean y'all are going to get a mad hate-on for everyone with blue eyes? Everyone who's atheist? Everyone who's Canadian? Everyone who's male?


The difference here is that it is plainly clear there's not a significant correlation between being blue-eyed, atheist, male (and perhaps Canadian) and holding extreme and fucknugget religious views. I'd bet there is a significant correlation between being muslim and holding extreme and perhaps fucknugget religious views.

By the way, that Jose Padilla guy is latino. He's got tons of news coverage, but anyone hear of any instances of islamolatinophobia? I bet not.
posted by shoos at 10:09 AM on September 8, 2002


Have people even read the article - "I personally regret the loss of life", "will discuss the 'positive outcomes' of September 11", "it becomes more clear now why they did it". None of the quotes seem to suggest a 'celebration' as such.

The whole 'majority condemning the minority' thing may seem reasonable, but it doesn't get practised much (I've never seen much US condemnation for the IRA, despite NORAID fund-raising being tax deductible)
posted by daveg at 10:33 AM on September 8, 2002


I'd bet there is a significant correlation between being muslim and holding extreme and perhaps fucknugget religious views.

Similarly, there's a significant correlation between hurling racist accusations at other people's religions and being, yourself, a fucknugget of the first degree. Funny that.

By the way, that Jose Padilla guy is latino. He's got tons of news coverage, but anyone hear of any instances of islamolatinophobia? I bet not.

No, because he doesn't represent a view held generally through the Latino population. Neither does Osama Bin Laden represent a view held generally throughout Islam. Do you understand now, or do I need to explain it again using big, colourful diagrams?
posted by zygoticmynci at 10:34 AM on September 8, 2002


shoos: what are you on? "I'd bet there is a significant correlation between being muslim and holding extreme and perhaps fucknugget religious views." Are you just a mainstream brainless bigot, or was ther some point that you were trying to make?
posted by daveg at 10:35 AM on September 8, 2002


This thread is, in all likelihood, proof that there's a significant correlation between being a "Christian" and being a fucknugget.

Christian hatred, intolerance, and mud-slinging: ain't nuttin' like it.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:48 AM on September 8, 2002


"Christian hatred, intolerance, and mud-slinging: ain't nuttin' like it."

Unless it's the inevitable counterpart: anti-Christian hatred, intolerance, and mud-slinging.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:06 PM on September 8, 2002


Lots of issues here, lots of things to think about...

1. I am not a christian. I don't believe in a God of any variety - even Eric Clapton - except when someone almost knocks me off my motorcycle...

2. I was wrong to give the impression that it was all London muslims. I should have written "some London muslims..."

3. My worry remains that these particular London muslims get all the others a bad name and expose them to reactionary violence of the kind a little piece of me is almost provoked to (and a lot of young men and women around here will be only too happy to inflict).

4. I know some other muslims have said things and condemned but is saying things enough?

5. I put CELEBRATE in uppercase to draw your attention to it. This seems to have worked...

6. The original article might be inflammatory. The truth is like that sometimes.

7. Being outraged about some dangerous clerics in London does not mean I don't think the USA needs to look inward at the way it has behaved in the past.

8. I have no idea whether killing Saddam will make things better or worse. Maybe it's too late already and in a few weeks we'll all be having to choose sides and there will be no room for the finer sensibilities in no-mans land. I really hope not.

9. And, mcsweetie, how dare you assume I'm a heterosexual!?!?!?!?!?!

and finally, for now...

10. I thought Metafilter had a policy against foul language and personal insults. Fucknugget??? Oh Please indeed!
posted by terrymiles at 12:24 PM on September 8, 2002


This thread is, in all likelihood, proof that there's a significant correlation between being a "Christian" and being a fucknugget.

I will be the first to cast my vote for 'fucknugget'. Mmmmm........fucknuggets.........
posted by poopy at 12:34 PM on September 8, 2002


Some of you need to pull your heads out of your asses. Just because some extreme religionist fucknuggets have trolled the media with their message of hate doesn't mean that you should condemn everyone of that religion.

And not just the media - the links have been spread via the 'anti-idiotorian' sites like that littlegreenfootballs piece of ideological bullshit, and a lot of the rest of the blogging world.

I'm sorry, but people like us don't know even a tiny percentage of the different arguments and to make up judgements based on internet postings is ridiculous. Its all just biased conjecture.

The internet has changed the way we see stuff like this, and I don't like it. There's nothing shown in a neutral light anymore, and the net makes it far too easy for people to argue about things they know nothing about.

I know this whole post is completely hypocritical, but can't we just go back to sending around lists about ST:TNG and porn pics of Pamela Anderson? Let's save discussion about real world issues for the real world, and the internet would be far more fun.
posted by tapeguy at 12:36 PM on September 8, 2002


Wow, this one got a bit tangentified didn't it (my word). A couple of points I feel obligated to make:

- It's illogical and unfair to blame 1.2 BILLION members of a religion for the transgressions of the fuckwit few. Blame fuckwits, not Muslims. Unless you directly influence them, you are not responsible in any way for the actions of someone who happens to share your faith. Period.

- If someone makes the assumption that Muslims share the beliefs and morals of certain terrorists, it is not the responsiblity of Muslims to re-educate them. The government of the US did their best to point out that this is not the case.

A useful link.
posted by Lame_Dave at 12:41 PM on September 8, 2002


By shagoth:
1)This is a total nonsequitur and is simply meant to distract from the basic facts that we as nation refuse to behave responsibly.

filecrave: Soooo.... I'm guessing 9/11 was our fault?

2) As one of those peace mongers (is this somehow negative)

filecrave: mongers is just a term to try and describe people who strongly try to project their opinions on to others. In which case we're all some type of monger here it seems.


3) I can say that similar equations such as watching a relative die from an accident caused by a drunk driver have not put me on a mission to pursue the death penalty for DUI.

filecrave: But were you angry or did you immediately feel like hugging the drunk driver?

4) Trying to transfer your reaction on others because you can't cope isn't even rational much less responsible thinking.

filecrave: Not sure what you mean by that, but if your saying that a person being angry at their loved one's killer is not responsible thinking, well that's just funny. And if you're saying that I personally am transferring my viewpoint onto others, well just call me a monger :)

All that whole hoopla I wrote was simply to say that being angry is OK sometimes.
posted by filecrave at 12:44 PM on September 8, 2002


I will be the first to cast my vote for 'fucknugget'. Mmmmm........fucknuggets.........

I hear they're very tasty with ketchup on. *licks lips*
posted by zygoticmynci at 12:59 PM on September 8, 2002


I hear they're very tasty with ketchup on.

Mmmmm.....fucknuggets with ketchup on them.......
posted by poopy at 1:12 PM on September 8, 2002


I hate to say this, but ...



Wouldn't mayo, or even a nice cream sauce, be more appropriate for fucknuggets?


I'm sorry.
posted by daveg at 1:35 PM on September 8, 2002


Damn. Someone has already registered fucknugget.com.
posted by chrid at 1:39 PM on September 8, 2002


terrymiles: I was wrong to give the impression that it was all London muslims. I should have written "some London muslims..."

Damn sure. You should have kept the original wording and used "radical" or "extremist."

My worry remains that these particular London muslims get all the others a bad name and expose them to reactionary violence of the kind a little piece of me is almost provoked to...inflict.

wow. I hope you limit this to just the radicals and not the old muslim lady crossing the street.

geekhorde: Tolerance for intolerance can only go so far. Sure, people can believe what they want, but as soon as someone comes to my house and tells me that I have to start worshipping their god and following their rules, then I'll get out my gun.

I hope people don't take this guys advice too seriously. The poor Jehovah's Witnesses.
posted by matrix77 at 1:54 PM on September 8, 2002


Writing, as terrymiles did, "London Muslims to celebrate 911" is a true statement. After reading the article, I knew what terrymiles meant. He was referring to a specific group of London Muslims. The hairsplitters among us need to chill. Isn't discussion more lucrative if we concentrate more on the substance of the article and less on the substance of the FPP?
posted by David Dark at 1:56 PM on September 8, 2002


Is "fucknugget" unacceptable language? If so, I'll not use it again.

please explain, terry, how my general comment came to become a personal insult.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:59 PM on September 8, 2002


I don't know about terry but this whole 'fucknugget' talk is gettin' me all hungry.

"Hello, waiter, yeah, we'll have another round of fucknuggets"

"What kind o' dipping sauce you want with those fucknuggets?"

"Ummm....how about that spicy salsa you got back there! Mmmmm"
posted by poopy at 2:12 PM on September 8, 2002


Globalized Macfucknuggets are only a few weeks away!
posted by terrymiles at 2:30 PM on September 8, 2002


I'm bored.

I would be too, if I were smarter than everyone else here.
posted by adampsyche at 4:35 PM on September 8, 2002


Sorry, David Dark, but words are important. Particularly in this case - I seriously doubt we'd even be talking about this if a journalist hadn't decided to spice up their copy by inserting the word "celebrate". Interestingly, they've replaced it (sorry, link probably won't be permanent) - perhaps they're reading metafilter!
As for the substance of the article, I really don't think there's much to say - a small group of extremists will be holding a conference to discuss the "positive outcomes of 9/11" (that should take them 5 minutes) and disappointingly, from the 'mad crazed terrorists in our midst' angle, the spokesman "personally regret[s] the loss of life". All around the world there will be small groups of crackpots doing the same thing. I'm much happier that they do this in the public eye.
Once again the big issue for me is that this media scaremongering might: a) have people focus in the wrong direction, b) scare the majority into accepting such ominous concepts as the FPP's proposed "radical secularism".
Now, I'm hungry, who's got the fucknuggets?
posted by chrispy at 4:42 PM on September 8, 2002


imagine your life was that shite you had to celebrate 911.

oh by the way, the posters for the event are extremely celebratory........'a towering day in history'

radical muslims should just get honest with themselves and go get that drink and shagging frenzy they've really been craving all along.

extremists are just addicts in denial.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:13 PM on September 8, 2002


UKnowForKids said: I remember a large number of Muslims standing up to condemn the attacks when they happened.
shoos replied: Did I oversleep that day, or is my hometown (Los Angeles) just not representative?

This is just from a cursory search with Google, but it's a good start:
Muslims Against Terrorism Organization
How American Muslims Really Responded to September 11
Los Angeles Muslim-American family mourns loss of loved one (see last few paragraphs)
[Los Angeles] Muslims Adapt U.S. Tradition for 9/11 Tribute

Perhaps a Muslim person from your city has not gone door-to-door personally apologizing for 9/11 yet (sarcasm!), but it just doesn't seem possible that you have yet to see one single indication that there are millions of nice, normal Muslims who were as shocked and appalled by the attacks as everyone else.
posted by jess at 6:22 PM on September 8, 2002


"as long as the majority of Islam is stuck back in the 12th century, in trying to spread their religion by force and violence

Justify that, please. Give me one example of members of the mainstream Islamic community behaving like that."

Well, look at it this way. Not one Muslim country is a democracy. Not one. Not one has a tradition of secularism and pluralism. In most of the most influential ones, like Saudi Arabia, for instance, religious freedom is non-existant. That is coercion. That is rule by the threat of violence to maintain a theocracy. And the vast majority of Muslims in the Middle-East not only don't condemn the hijackers, they make excuses for them.

My concern is this: Yes, there are good Muslims. But, I see two problems. There is a powerful but elusive faction within the Muslim world that seems hell-bent on reestablishing their conception of what the world should be like, like the establishing of rule by sharia everywhere, the eventual return of the Caliphate, etc. Also, the "moderate" majority of Muslims in the Muslim world are silent in opposition to these "fucknuts." You do hear some people claiming that they abhor those acts. But, in the same breath, they say that the United States brought it on themselves.

This is not as simple a scenario as there being a few nuts. No. These men who did these acts were not insane. Not in any accepted sense of the word. They were calculated to have the effect they have had. A reaction by the those in the West who see the dangers or assymetrical warfare, against the West.

Look at the history of Islam. It spread by force. The lands in the Middle-East that are now all Muslim were originally Christian or pagan. They were conquered. Christianity, in its early incarnations, did not spread by force. Quite the opposite. Sure, Christianity still is paying for the excesses of the Inquisition. But secular power has been separate from religious authority in the West for quite a long time. Basically, the violent history of Christianity is something that the religion seems to have outgrown. There are no more conquistadores. Yes, there are missionaries, but for the most part they are nice people and they help feed and clothe a lot of people. Has Islam outgrown its violent past? I'm not so sure. As long as you have people like Bin Laden and the Abu Sayyaf, and as long as they are seen as cultural-folk heroes by so many, I'm really not so sure.

And no, I'm not a Christian. If the Muslim world would accept the inevitability and necessity of pluralistic and secular society, then I wouldn't give a damn what they believe. Believe a giant hairy purple hippo is going to save you, for all I care. But the Muslim world is nowhere near accepting the necessity of a secular society. Try passing out Bibles, or the Bhagavad Gita for that matter, in Riyadh, and see what happens to you. Yes, there are people in the West who don't have a sense of history, and don't realize that the reason our societies are so strong is because of our traditions of secularism and pluralism. There are people in America that object to our tradition of separation of Church and State. But at least we HAVE a tradition of Church and State.

It's an alien concept in Muslim history and theology. What Islam could really use is a reformation. But I don't see that happening, do you? Plenty of Muslims can come and try to convert people in "Christian" countries. The opposite is simply not true.

And yes, Christians who hate gay people aren't very good Christians, I agree.
posted by geekhorde at 6:35 PM on September 8, 2002


I know what the supposedly peace-loving Muslim majority is supposed to do. Write letters to the editor voicing their anger over the events of 911, not just complaining that they are victics of discrimination. Maybe they can condemn the Egyptian government for gross human rights abuses. Maybe they can march against the Muslims kidnapping people in the Phillipines. Etc. etc. I have seen absolutely no Muslim leadership take any action to condemn the attacks.

The muslim community has utterly failed to stand and denounce any of their fellow Muslim's attacks. Then the muslims complain that they are being victimized. It's no wonder they have little support in the greater western communities.
posted by Kaslo at 7:04 PM on September 8, 2002


The muslim community has utterly failed to stand and denounce any of their fellow Muslim's attacks.

Well sir, that's because many intellectually challenged Muslims don't believe that fellow Muslims were responsible for the attacks. Guess who they say was?
posted by hama7 at 7:39 PM on September 8, 2002


"But what are the "vast, vast majority of the members of that faith" actually doing about them?

What is the vast majority of mainstream Christians doing about their "lunatic fringe"? Nothing. That's about all they can do.
posted by Orb at 5:23 AM PST on September 8 "

Um, actually...
posted by geekhorde at 8:18 PM on September 8, 2002


Sorry, this is the link I meant to share.
posted by geekhorde at 8:19 PM on September 8, 2002


I just got back from a memorial service at my mosque for the 9/11 victims, which drew hundreds and featured relatives of those killed 9/11. It's the first of at least a dozen in the Bay Area alone. We also just raised tens of thousands of dollars for "God Bless America - Muslims Condemn Terrorism" ads for the San Jose Mercury News and SF Chronicle (look for them on Wednesday). The last thing I need to see is these stupid remarks on this post. I am SO tired of hearing this refrain about Muslims not condemning terrorism. I'm hungry and I want to go to bed but I can't let this pass.

I suppose you didn't watch the C-SPAN coverage of the ISNA convention (ISNA is the largest American Muslim organization) which was basically turned into a four-day memorial service. I wish I had the time to post all the links, since you're obviously not going to believe what I say, but over 1,700 mosques in the US put out statements condemning terrorism. Nearly every major metropolitan area had local Muslim leaders joining vigils and memorial services. 700 newspapers featured Muslim condemnations. Friends of mine organized fundraisers where we raised tens of thousands of dollars for the FDNY to replace firetrucks that were destroyed. Prominent Muslim scholars from all over the world condemned the attacks - far more than the pathetic losers in London or backwaters in Muslim countries.

Fuck it, now I'm pissed. What have YOU done to fight terrorism? Who brought down Al-Qaida and the Taliban? Muslims did all the dirty work on the ground, sacrificing far more of their lives than US soldiers did. And here in the US? The FBI would be helpless if it weren't for the hundreds of Arabs and Muslims who responded to a call by FBI Director Robert Mueller for translators, so much so that according to him the "lines were clogged".

And all you can do is self-righteously take a few assholes in London as representative of all of us? Or point to dictatorships and such in the Muslim world - as if Muslims WANT it that way? Or talk about how violent Islam has been in its history (EVERY Christian country in South America, Asia, and Africa is that way because of military force and colonization. Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country in the world, never had a Muslim soldier set foot on its shores).

FUCK YOU. You are demonizing innocent people and doing NOTHING to fight terrorism.
posted by laz-e-boy at 8:53 PM on September 8, 2002


What Islam could really use is a reformation.

Where the hell have you been? I'll see your Spong (who can hardly be said to represent the mainstream of Christianity in the United States, btw) and raise you Muhammad Sa'id al-'Ashmawy. Discussions about reforming Islam have been around for a long time, geekhorde; just because you've apparently never taken the time to look for them doesn't mean they don't exist. Now can we move beyond ignorant generalizations and start posting some facts, please?

The muslim community has utterly failed to stand and denounce any of their fellow Muslim's attacks.

Are you trying to be deliberately ignorant or does it come to you naturally?

You also posted that comment 40 minutes *after* jess's collection of links to Muslims who oppose terrorism. hama7 chimed in almost 40 minutes after that. What the fuck are you two doing? I know! Let's completely ignore the discussion that's gone before us and continue to post bigoted overgeneralizations without any backup whatsoever! Yeah! And then we can complain about how MeFi is unfair to conservatives! Woo hoo!!

FWIW, the Muslims I've met in my community are extremely kind and polite people who went out of their way to denounce the attacks repeatedly in our conversations. That American Muslims generally tend to be quiet in mainstream political discussions was evident long before 9/11. This obvious tentativeness in public discussion (perhaps attributable to the relatively recent arrival of many of them in the U.S.) explains a lot more than any violent terrorist sympathies they're secretly harboring.

Those terrorists you're seeing under your bed are just the toys you forgot to put away.
posted by mediareport at 9:05 PM on September 8, 2002


I like reading Kaslo's bullshit after geekhorde's faaaaaaaar more sensible comment. Just when I was about to slither out of my leftist dugout to admit I learned something from the (lack of a better word) conservatives of metafilter, Kaslo comes out with a big ugly SUV of a comment and scares me right back in.

Thanks for that comment, geekhorde. I don't agree with it completely, but it definitely didn't destroy my faith in people like the rest of this thread. Thanks.)a
posted by Slimemonster at 9:10 PM on September 8, 2002


Islam has over a billion followers -- 21% of the world's population. It is the second-largest religion in the world.

Surely even the dimmest of you must recognize that the actions of a few extremist lunatics in London does not even remotely reflect the beliefs of one-fifth of the world!

In our other similarly-themed thread, I continue...
posted by five fresh fish at 9:52 PM on September 8, 2002


...opps. Nope, in this thread.

Someone's whinging on about how the mid-East Islamic countries aren't secular.

Well, hello! There's a damn good reason for that: secularism is the death of religion.

Christianity is a dying religion in the West. Faith in the Christian religion in Europe is a measely 10-15% on the whole. The number of self-identifying Christians in the USA, strong-hold of the faith, has dropped by 10% over the past decade, and church attendance has dropped by over 15%. In effect, about 60% of the American population is areligious or non-practicing.

Secularism kills religion.

It doesn't take much mental activity to understand why the mid-East rejects outright the Western ideals of secularism and commercialism.

If you're a Christian, you should be bloody upset that the America is secular. People are fleeing your faith in droves, all because a bunch of dumbasses in the late 1700s chose to keep religion and government separate. The founding fathers set in motion the destruction of Christianity.

Oh - and, just to mention it, Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the USA, and if current trends continue it will overtake Christianity as the predominant religion before the middle of the century.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:12 PM on September 8, 2002


geekhorde's...more sensible comment

Sensible? Really? Let's take another look. geekhorde's comment is filled with incorrect assumptions and illogical leaps. It takes for granted that "the Muslim world" is monolithic -- Sufis, anyone? -- and claims to know the mind of "the 'moderate' majority of Muslims" in that single world without offering a shred of supporting evidence.

But, in the same breath, they say that the United States brought it on themselves.

Oh, do they? All of them? You've spoken to them, have you? It's amazing, this inability of some conservatives to acknowledge the reality of U.S. policies that anger some Muslims without the need to leap to "we deserved it!" Apparently, declining to stick your head in the sand is now the same thing as, er, "making excuses for the extremists." Where does this bizarre inability -- by far the single most pathetic failing in the right-wing response to 9/11 -- come from? Here's my guess: It's the *conservatives* who are secretly wondering to themselves if "we deserved it." That thought terrifies them so much they have to project it on anyone who dares to question the United States, shouting them down in high dudgeon.

Yeah, that's real sensible.

geekhorde also presents an incomplete (at best) picture of Islamic history, which includes violent conquest, yes, but also long periods of high culture and a tolerance for multiple religions that puts Christian history to shame. Paul Marshall of the conservative Claremont Institute said it best while criticizing modern Islamic societies for religious persecution: "Islam has in its history often shown far greater tolerance than its Christian counterparts..."

And yet here's geekhorde insisting that a pluralistic society is "an alien concept in Muslim history and theology." What a crock. And somehow, all this becomes "sensible" to you, Slimemonster? Can I have whatever you're on, please?
posted by mediareport at 10:22 PM on September 8, 2002


geekhorde:
Well, look at it this way. Not one Muslim country is a democracy. Not one. Not one has a tradition of secularism

uh, Turkey? Go there on Ataturk Day and attack secularism. See how far that gets you. The country's so secular in fact that the army steps in whenever they think the country's getting TOO Islamist; they view themselves as the guardians of secularist Turkey.

Iraq sure ain't a democracy, but it's pretty secular.
Saddam's Baath Party even seized power with a secularist agenda, and he now just pays lip service to Islam.

Alas, democracy (while not wholly unknown) is in short supply in Muslim countries. But think about that for a second. Is that exactly a characteristic of Islam?

What about all the non-Muslim non-democracies? There are tons.

What about the people who live in non-democratic Muslim countries? Do you really think they don't WANT democracy? People generally want to be free. It's a basic human right and one that is denied to far too many.

This is a failing of the power-hungry brutes that run countries and don't trust their people; it isn't a failing of the people themselves.

Christianity, in its early incarnations, did not spread by force. Quite the opposite. Sure, Christianity still is paying for the excesses of the Inquisition.

uh, and the Crusades...but I digress.
posted by Vidiot at 10:48 PM on September 8, 2002


This thread is, in all likelihood, proof that there's a significant correlation between being a "Christian" and being a fucknugget.

Where did that come from? I haven't heard anyone here (at least on this thread) claim they were Christian. Or anyone disagreeing with you is "in all likelihood" Christian?

And all you can do is self-righteously take a few assholes in London as representative of all of us? Or point to dictatorships and such in the Muslim world - as if Muslims WANT it that way?

That's more like it. By far most of the posts from people claiming to be Muslims I've read over the past year (all over the net - not on Metafilter, new here) have been either of the "die american bastards" or "that's too bad and all but you really had it coming" ilk. Not too much of the quilt type stuff.
posted by shoos at 10:54 PM on September 8, 2002


terrymiles ignores the fact that "London Muslims" have bourne the brunt, along with Muslims in many other places, of a series of very nasty racist attacks, especially in the aftermath of 9/11. As for the rest of the thread... well, even posting on MeFi is doing little to fight terrorism - although if we can help stop posters flying planes into Mosques, then that's only a good thing.
posted by larkin at 11:35 PM on September 8, 2002


Don't click on this link unless you want a real sizzler from everyone's fave: Ann Coulter. (This one singed off some of my eyebrows.)
posted by hama7 at 11:54 PM on September 8, 2002


Vidiot's Law: As a MetaFilter thread grows longer, the probability that Ann Coulter will be mentioned or cited approaches one.

(with thanks and apologies to Mike Godwin.)
posted by Vidiot at 12:05 AM on September 9, 2002


Christianity, in its early incarnations, did not spread by force.

Oh, really? Let's look at the Conversion of the Russians to start. Prince Vlad became Christian in 988 so he could marry the sister of the emperor in Constantinople. The political allegiance was apparently helped along by a splendid service and a bit of priestly sleight-of-hand. The fun began when he got home:

His men hurled down the pagan idols in the city and caste them into the Dnieper. At his order, the entire population of the city marched to the river to receive baptism from the priests who had come from the Crimea. Couriers rode off to the other cities of the realm to order similar measures...

Are we in the realm of forced conversion yet, geekhorde?

Christian churches rose up all over Russia at Vladimir's command, the prince insisting that they should occupy the sites where pagan idols earlier had stood...The church opened schools to which Vladimir ordered members of the upper classes to send their children. The schools, as a matter of course, were church schools whose chief purpose was to train recruits for the clergy.

How about now? Yeesh. This "Christianity wasn't spread by force" thing really needs to be examined a bit more closely. To speed along Hungary's "nonviolent" conversion to Christianity, I believe the rule was that no one could set up a market in a town that didn't have a Christian church. Think that one wasn't enforced by the king via the sword? Ignorance sucks. Spreading it in the guise of wisdom is laughable.
posted by mediareport at 12:10 AM on September 9, 2002


Actually, I hate to point this out. But the Crusades were pretty much a reaction to a two-pronged invasion by Islam into Europe. Sure, there were other reasons, as there always are in conflicts between cultures. But the forces of Islam invaded Europe first, not the other way around.

Sure, ok, maybe Islam has had reformers. I have been duly chided. But how effective have they been?

I am not demonizing all Muslims. All Muslims are not bad. And my head is not in any metaphorical sand. There are plenty of skeletons in America's closet. We're not without our faults. However, for what it's worth, the political situation in the middle East has a lot to do with the history of colonialism. A history that Europe, specifically England and France, had a lot more to do with than America.
So sure, there may be grievances with the West.

That doesn't mean that 3000 civilians had to die, though.

And as for secularism being the death of religion... feh.
Whatever. I know plenty of people who are quite spiritual and/or religious, but have no problem fitting into a secular society. In fact, that is really the only hope I see for mankind. We have too many large weapons to play around with now. Everywhere you look in human history, where two religions come together there is inevitably conflict UNLESS they can agree to get along. And that usually means leaving religion out of the sphere of politics. Otherwise you get pogroms and genocide.

And as for the history of Muslim tolerance, sure during the middle Ages they "tolerated" the "peoples of the book," i.e. Christians and Jews. But they had to pay a tax to practice their religions. That's unarguably oppression. That's still a far sight better than the Christian nations at the time, though. But the Christian nations got better. The Muslim nations arguably got more intolerant.

I think most people in the West and most people in the Muslim world don't really see what the goals of al Qaeda are, or could be. Whether out of blindness, or whether out of ignorance, I'm not sure. I just have a bad, sinking feeling about all of it. I think that when the classic jurists of Islam divided the world into dar al-Islam (the domain of peace, lands under Muslim rule) and dar al-harb (the domain of war, lands not under Muslim rule), they foresaw that the two worlds would not overlap, but that the dar al-Islam would eventually supplant the dar al-harb. Well, it hasn't happened. Hence the conflict.

I don't really like my government that much. I'm sure an awful lot of evil gets perpetuated in the name of "democracy." But that doesn't mean that there aren't evil sons of bitches out there who want me dead just because I was born in this country.

I'm not attacking Muslims. I'm critiquing their response to the attack upon us. And the lack of self-critique. Sure, I saw the Imams at the memorial services. But I've also seen how the reaction in the Muslim world has been rather ambivalent.

I'm also convinced that the radical wingnuts in Islam are doing a pretty good job of demonizing America. And probably want us to go to war, to gain even more support against us with Muslims at large.

I guess I stand corrected, though. We need to see real numbers. How many of the Muslims of the world give tacit approval or at least don't disapprove of the tactics of al Qaeda, etc? I'm not sure. But I'm concerned that the number might be quite large. How many Muslims disagree with their actions but think that, in some way, America, and hence, Americans somehow deserved what happened? What I'm afraid of is that the majority of "moderate" Muslims could be manipulated by the more radical fringe, especially if there are prejudices against the US based upon our policies.

I think a lot of the criticism of the United States in the Muslim world comes from our support of Israel. And I hate to say it, I think we're kind of on the wrong side of the fence on that one. The Palestinians have pretty much been shafted by everyone, especially the Israelis. With US support.

And yeah, I guess I was wrong about Turkey. Pretty secular.

Oh, and I'm not a conservative. I'm pretty liberal, except when it comes to national security.
posted by geekhorde at 12:20 AM on September 9, 2002


I'm critiquing their response to the attack upon us. And the lack of self-critique.

We've provided you plenty of examples in this thread of the "self-critique" you're looking for, geekhorde, and yet you continue to post as if they're not right there above us. What on earth are you thinking?
posted by mediareport at 12:23 AM on September 9, 2002


"'Christianity, in its early incarnations, did not spread by force.'

Oh, really? Let's look at the Conversion of the Russians to start. Prince Vlad became Christian in 988 so he could marry the sister of the emperor in Constantinople. The political allegiance was apparently helped along by a splendid service and a bit of priestly sleight-of-hand. The fun began when he got home"

Sorry, 988 hardly counts as the early history of Christianity. By that time it was almost 1000 years old.

But that's quibling, and your point is valid. Many religions, besides just Islam, spread by violence. I concede the point.
posted by geekhorde at 12:25 AM on September 9, 2002


I don't know much about this whole issue to be honest. All I should have said was geekhorde's comparatively more sensible comment didn't make me cringe like kaslo's. I disagree with both of them (yes without knowing all that much about an issue), but at least geekhorde isn't an ass about it.

e
posted by Slimemonster at 12:30 AM on September 9, 2002


"What on earth are you thinking?"

What am I thinking?

I'm thinking that I'm glad I live in America and not Saudi Arabia. That's what. I'm glad I have the freedom to say anything I'd like, and worship however I would like.

I just don't want to die because someone else thinks that that is sufficient cause for me to die.

There was an interview after 9-11 with a group of women from Egypt. Middle-class. Educated. They all seemed very nice. They all thought it was a horrible thing, what happened. But they all came very close to saying that maybe we deserved it. A little too close for comfort for me. I've seen or heard quite a few examples that are similar. How many people celebrated when those towers came down? How many people were saddened, but thought we deserved it in some ways? I think the number is probably larger than you think.

Off topic- By the way, speaking of Slavic history (your Russian history comment made me think of this) did you know that Vlad Dracul was a descendant of Genghis Khan? Interesting.
posted by geekhorde at 12:35 AM on September 9, 2002


Hey, I'm prepared to admit maybe I'm wrong. I hope so. Hopefully the vast majority of Muslims hate what was done to America, no matter the reasons. Maybe there is self-critique going on. I'm not sure. It's been years since I've taken arabic, so I don't read the arab newspapers except where they're translated into English on the web.

Maybe I'm wrong about the level of tacit approval amongst the mainstream of Islam for al Qaeda. I'm prepared to admit that.

And there should be more self-critique going on in America. Not that we deserved what happened, but maybe there's a possiblity that George Washington was right, and we should keep out of other peoples' affairs.
posted by geekhorde at 12:41 AM on September 9, 2002


Some thoughtful, gracious posts there, geekhorde. Even though I don't always agree with you. Welcome to MeFi.
posted by Vidiot at 12:45 AM on September 9, 2002


Thanks. I may be opinionated at times, but I try to be polite.

Despite the tendency for voices to be raised whenever religion is discussed, I think it's possible to have differences of opinion and to have a civil discussion as well.

I'm starting to think maybe I was wrong about the level of condemnation by Muslims of the attacks. At least by Muslims in America.
posted by geekhorde at 12:55 AM on September 9, 2002


I'm thinking that I'm glad I live in America and not Saudi Arabia. That's what.

Well, me too. But that's not really an excuse for the kind of overgeneralized statements about Islam and Muslims you've made in this thread. You still haven't acknowledged any valid distinction between different kinds of Muslims and their varied reactions to terrorism, and you're still using phrases like "the Muslim world" as if it's one thing. Does the phrase "the Christian world" make sense at all to you? It sure doesn't to me, and there are a helluva lot fewer Christians than Muslims on this planet.

With one breath you state, "I am not demonizing all Muslims," but with the next it's, "I'm not attacking Muslims. I'm critiquing their response to the attack upon us." That's a blatant contradiction. "Their" response? You're still demonizing like mad with horribly overgeneralized statements about a wide range of different kinds of people. I call that bigotry.
posted by mediareport at 1:14 AM on September 9, 2002


You still haven't acknowledged any valid distinction between different kinds of Muslims and their varied reactions to terrorism, and you're still using phrases like "the Muslim world" as if it's one thing.

Upon preview, I stand corrected. And ditto on your rather amazing display of graciousness. I could have used more of it myself. Thanks for the example.
posted by mediareport at 1:17 AM on September 9, 2002


"they all came very close to saying that maybe we deserved it"

This seems to be the same accusation hurled at various groups (the 'european left' for example), as soon as someone suggests that the reason that 9/11 happened is because of a reaction to the US's perceived role in the Middle East. This is NOT the same (not ballpark, not even same continent) as saying that the US 'deserved' 9/11. I'm fed up with any discussion or analysis of the causes of 9/11 being attacked as 'anti-US'.
posted by daveg at 3:16 AM on September 9, 2002


Regarding Islam: divid[ing] the world into dar al-Islam (the domain of peace, lands under Muslim rule) and dar al-harb (the domain of war, lands not under Muslim rule)

....Muslim jurists, reflecting their historical circumstances and context, tended to divide the world into three conceptual categories: the abode of Islam, the abode of war and the abode of peace or non-belligerence.

From Khalid Abou El-Fadl, UCLA Professor of Law

Also:

....However, in Islamic scholarship,
there exists a third category of dar al sulh which is used to 'designate states which, though not themselves subscribing to the faith, had entered into treaty relations with the Muslim world.'13 This is an example of one of the possibilities, internal to Islamic thinking, that allows for peaceful relations between Muslim and non-Muslim polities.

From Mr Toh Ee Loong, Assistant Editor, POINTER Magazine, Singapore.

Regarding Geekhorde and other's statements about the inevitability of secularism:

....He [Muhammad Khatami, President of Iran] attached great importance to dialogue as a way to avoid destructive conflict. In this vein, all humans were invited to join their efforts in ta'awon, that is, solidarity to do good. However, dialogue is 'not a passive policy of accommodation, it is a competitive strategy for strengthening and transforming Islamic civilisation [absorbing] the good qualities of the West while rejecting its negative aspects'22 ­ leading one to draw possible parallels with Meiji Japan's formula of 'Western technology, Japanese spirit.'

Also from Mr Loong's article above, bold emphasis mine.
posted by BinGregory at 6:55 AM on September 9, 2002


Ive said it before and I will say it again..Groups like this USE the hair-brained media to make their point because things like this sell papers and they know it...dont be a dufus THINK!!!!
posted by hoopyfrood at 8:18 AM on September 9, 2002


I'm thinking that I'm glad I live in America and not Saudi Arabia. That's what. I'm glad I have the freedom to say anything I'd like, and worship however I would like.

There are people who are glad they don't live in a secular society. Glad that unbridled commercialism isn't the driving force for their society. Glad that their form of worship permeates the entirety of the society. Who reject democracy as irrelevent to daily life.

That'd be the Amish, by the way. Not so different from the Saudis, you know...
posted by five fresh fish at 9:02 AM on September 9, 2002


Here's the BBC version - less inflamatory?
posted by terrymiles at 2:21 PM on September 9, 2002


Thanks terry

In August, Sheikh Abu Hamza and Sheikh Omar Bakhri Mohammed addressed a rally in London's Trafalgar Square but only a few dozen supporters turned up.

Ha ha ha ha ha. Nothing more laughable than a hate mongerer with no supporters.
posted by Summer at 2:41 PM on September 9, 2002


That'd be the Amish, by the way. Not so different from the Saudis, you know...

When I recover from my fit of laughter, I'll link to the fifteen of nineteen hijackers who were Saudi or linked to the Saudi regime. How many Amish terrorists can you link to?
posted by David Dark at 7:32 PM on September 9, 2002


Sorry, David Dark, but words are important.

Sorry, chrispy, I take it all back. The discussion is that much more interesting due to chastising terrymiles for his exclusion of the word "Some." Even though it seems obvious to me that terrymiles wasn't condemning Every Muslim Worldwide or even Every Muslim in London but only the Muslims referenced in the article who happen to live in London, I guess people need to be taken by the hand.

Oops, make that "Some" people.
posted by David Dark at 7:41 PM on September 9, 2002


Dipshit, Dark. The post had S.F.A. to do with terrorism. I'm sure you're well aware of that.

But if you're in need of an American sect that rejects secularism, commercialism, and democracy, and also used terrorism to achieve its ends, a splinter group of the Doukhobor will do nicely.

Indeed, the Doukhobor make an excellent parallel: it was actually the Sons of Freedom sub-sect that engaged in terrorism. And just as the SoF aren't representative of all Doukhobors (who are staunch pacifists), it's absurd to claim that the Muslim Extremists are representative of all the Islamic faithful.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:16 PM on September 9, 2002


It's absurd to claim that the Muslim Extremists are representative of all the Islamic faithful.

Nobody is suggesting that.

The question is rather how representative the extremists are.

Not at all? No.
Completely? No.
A bit too much? Possibly.
posted by shoos at 8:48 PM on September 9, 2002


it's absurd to claim that the Muslim Extremists are representative of all the Islamic faithful.

and no one did, fish. Dipshit, fish. Moreover, the post had S.F.A. to do with the Amish or Saudis. You brought it up.
posted by David Dark at 9:07 PM on September 9, 2002


The question is rather how representative the extremists are.

Not at all? No.
Completely? No.
A bit too much? Possibly.


Did you miss the passage from the news story Terry posted that I quoted above? I'll quote again:

In August, Sheikh Abu Hamza and Sheikh Omar Bakhri Mohammed addressed a rally in London's Trafalgar Square but only a few dozen supporters turned up.
posted by Summer at 3:52 AM on September 10, 2002


No, I didn't miss it, in fact.

Given that so many, even in the UK, would like to personally disembowel such people, it's not any surprise that attendance at these rallies is sparse. Showing up at one of these things is akin to shouting 'hi, here i am, please hunt me down and kill me.' The fact that a 'few dozen' did show up is not encouraging.
posted by shoos at 4:59 AM on September 10, 2002


OK shoos, so we've presented evidence of mainstream muslims condemning the extremists and evidence that this group has very little support (google under Al-Muhajiroun and read the news stories - most of them end with a pargraph like 'the meeting was poorly attended'). What more do you want? Without any supporting evidence your hunch that mainstream muslims do in fact support this group is totally worthless.
posted by Summer at 10:25 AM on September 10, 2002


...your hunch that mainstream muslims do in fact support this group...

I'm not sure who you're referring to by "mainstream" muslims. If you mean by that "the ones who aren't extreme" then you're begging the question.
posted by shoos at 12:00 PM on September 10, 2002


shoos: I think that the point that's being made is that the number of muslims who support this group is incredibly small. Of all the muslims who I work with, live next door to, socialise with, etc. none of them support this group. In fact, in discussion none of the muslims I have spoken to know anyone who supports the group. Given that I live in London and have a reasonably broad range of friends, does this give you any comfort?
posted by daveg at 12:52 PM on September 10, 2002


If you mean by that "the ones who aren't extreme" then you're begging the question.

You're clearly starting from an assumption that "mainstream Muslims" tacitly support terrorist attacks that kill innocent civilians. Please share with me your reasons for this assumption, shoos. I'm all ears.
posted by mediareport at 6:19 PM on September 10, 2002


Is the only example of an Islamic democracy that all of the metageeks can come up with is...Turkey ?? That's a shining bastion of democracy. Hmmm, let's see. Oh !! Tunisia. Nah. Bosnia ? No.

Truth is, there are no Islamic democracies. That really says it all. One just needs to look at a map of the world. The Islamic nations are culturally, politically and economically stagnant and always will be until their leaderships and religious instititutions are reformed. Until then, I guess we all get to see more violence carried out on behalf of this peaceful religion.
posted by Kaslo at 6:19 PM on September 10, 2002


Kaslo: please address the following comments that were posted in this thread two days ago but still have yet to be addressed by anyone who's attacking Islam here:

What about all the non-Muslim non-democracies? There are tons.

What about the people who live in non-democratic Muslim countries? Do you really think they don't WANT democracy?...This is a failing of the power-hungry brutes that run countries and don't trust their people; it isn't a failing of the people [read: Muslims --ed] themselves.


Thanks in advance for your thoughtful reply.
posted by mediareport at 6:32 PM on September 10, 2002


Here's your response. Yes, there are many non--Muslim non-democracies. Yet NONE of the Islamic nations are democratic.

Yes, I am willing to consider that the citizens of Muslim nations want democracy. Yet it is ultimately these citizens who are going to have to replace their governments. That was my original point before I was shouted down - that is, there would be far more understanding towards the Muslim communities if they did something - anything - to show support for democratic values. March in a peace protest. Write letters to the editor. Denounce the deplorable human rights situation in every Muslim nation. With a very few exceptions I have not seen this occur. Of course most people here seem to disagree with me but 'it's only metafilter' - a message board dominated by adenoidal left-leaning academics. I have no problem with this but all I am saying is there is a lot of preaching to the converted here and anyone with a conservative view point is always outnumbered on metafilter. That's fine, but it is rarely reflective of the majority viewpoint in North America.
posted by Kaslo at 8:37 PM on September 10, 2002


Thanks for the quote, mediareport. Glad to see that someone's reading. *grin*.

Kaslo: Is the only example of an Islamic democracy that all of the metageeks can come up with is...Turkey ?? That's a shining bastion of democracy.

What do you mean? Let me go out on a limb here and sya that Turkey's democracy is about as healthy as the US's...by which I mean well-entrenched but flawed. The members of the legislative branch are elected by the people. (and since it's a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister answers ultimately to the people.) Political parties are encouraged. Suffrage is for anyone over 18. The constitution recognizes equality before the law.

I do have some quibbles with their Anti-Terrorism Law, particularly Article 8 (which states "[criminal is whatever] damages the unity of the state"). However, that's not far off from the kind of things that Ashcroft, Bush & Co. have been saying lately. It's by no means perfect...yet I fail to understand your dismissal of Turkish democracy. We're not talking about Iraq, Saudi Arabia or even Singapore here.

Kaslo -- why don't you broaden your call for denunciations, protests, et cetera to not just "every Muslim nation" but to every totalitarian or authoritarian nation? Why aren't you calling for North Koreans or Zimbabweans to denouce their deplorable human rights situations? Why are you singling Muslims out?

oh, and since when were you "shouted down"? In this forum, your microphone is just as loud as mine.
posted by Vidiot at 9:03 PM on September 10, 2002


daveg, no, I am not at all surprised you know many good and decent Muslim people in London. I know a few myself in LA. The problem that I suspect might exist is apparently a little more subtle than what mediareport, summer and friends portray me as claiming. I started out by attempting to say that my impression after 9-11 was that the expressions of condemnation of the attacks were weaker and fewer in number than I anticipated.

I never meant to say that the majority, or even a moderate percentage, of the muslims in the west "support" these extremists. That's obvious. (It is clear however that in the Middle East, the extremists do enjoy quite a bit of popular support). To quickly restate/clarify my point: even a very small degree of identification (no, not outright support!) with the islamists on the part of Muslims living in the US is way too much, and I genuinely hope that what I perceive(d) to be less-than-expected denunciations of the attacks were not a product of any sort of fellow-feeling with the islamists.

It's that slippery slope thing, I guess.

You're clearly starting from an assumption that "mainstream Muslims" tacitly support terrorist attacks that kill innocent civilians. Lay off the Nyquil, would you?
posted by shoos at 9:04 PM on September 10, 2002


What were you expecting in the form of denunciations? Registered letter post addressed personally to you? Radio announcements paid for by "Muslims Against Terrorist Attacks"? Television interviews on Entertainment Tonight? Headlines across the NYTimes: "Kaleem J. Blow, London Commoner, Horrified by Atrocity!"

Truth is, a lot of Muslims have spoken out against terrorism for the past year and more. You just haven't been listening.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:26 PM on September 10, 2002


With a very few exceptions I have not seen this occur.

Where have you looked? And what five fresh fish said.
posted by mediareport at 11:50 PM on September 10, 2002


For the record, Bangladesh and Indonesia (which collectively house around 1/4 of the worlds Muslim population) have fairly vibrant democracies.
posted by laz-e-boy at 11:15 AM on September 14, 2002


« Older White House: Bush misstated report on Iraq...  |  "Thank goodness they got those... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments