« BBC Shills for Global Warming Author | Main | I'm Really Sorry... »

July 13, 2005

'Sassy' Suicide Bombers

Today's Guardian gives space to Dilpazier Aslam, a "Guardian trainee journalist" who suggests that one shouldn't be shocked by Thursday's suicide bombings - such a reaction would be inappropriate because, among other reasons:

"Shocked would be to suggest that the bombings happened through no responsibility of our own."

Yes, ladies and gentlemen - we bear responsibility for the murderous actions of maniacal members of a religious cult. An apology is certainly called for - the queue forms to the right.

Needless to say, there are other reasons why shock is inappropriate. Mr. Aslam explains:

"Shocked would be to say that we don't understand how, in the green hills of Yorkshire, a group of men given all the liberties they could have wished for could do this."

Fortunately for those who still don't quite follow, Mr. Aslam provides an explanation immediately, in the very next paragraph - which reads, in its entirety:

"The Muslim community is no monolithic whole. Yet there are some common features. Second- and third-generation Muslims are without the don't-rock-the boat attitude that restricted our forefathers. We're much sassier with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks or not."

Suicide bombing .... sassy!

Mr. Aslam makes much of pointing out that he, like the terrorists, is "a Yorkshire lad, born and bred," and is careful to preempt accusations of support for terror by saying that indiscriminate killing is "sad," and "not the way to express your political anger."

Although the Guardian article unaccountably omits the fact (presumably for reasons of space), Mr. Aslam is on record as supporting a world-dominant Islamic state, notably in his writings for London based site khilafah.com ("Khilafa" translates as "Caliphate". The site's tagline expresses its aim: "then there will be khilafah rashida [a righteous Caliphate] on the method of Prophethood [i.e., sharia]"). As he puts it, in an article he co-authored there:

"... we will have to run an Islamic state which must lead the world, economically, militarily and politically"

As the establishment of the state that he hopes to help run seems unlikely without the implementation of violent measures such as those we've seen, and also considering the fact that the Caliphate that Mr. Aslam so keenly anticipates is the stated goal of many such terrorists, readers can't help but question the sincerity of his thinly-voiced disapproval of inappropriate "sass."

In fact, his stated fear of "being labelled a terrorist-lover" seems particularly justified, in light of another of his khilafah.com articles - in which he specifically calls for violence:

"The establishment of Khilafah is our only solution, to fight fire with fire, the state of Israel versus the Khilafah State"

Incidentally, it should be pointed out that there's no question whatever about this "Yorkshire lad's" loyalty to Britain. He has made it quite clear that:

"Muslims grant their loyalty and allegiance to their deen and the Ummah, not to a football team or nation state."

Neither should there be any questions concerning the Guardian's use of columnists who advocate "fighting fire with fire" to bring about the establishment of a sharia-based Caliphate. After all, it's not the first time they've done so.

UPDATE: See this post for more sassiness!

July 13, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2815218

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Sassy' Suicide Bombers:

» Dilpazier Aslam from Tim Worstall
· Dilpazier Aslam is a Guardian trainee [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 13, 2005 10:52:46 AM

» Understanding from An Englishman's Castle
The Daily Ablution brings us the latest in helping us to Understand the minds of the bombers: Today's Guardian gives space to Dilpazier Aslam, a "Guardian trainee journalist" who suggests that one shouldn't be shocked by Thursday's suicide bombings -... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 13, 2005 12:45:16 PM

» You've Just Entered The Sassy Zone from Ed Driscoll.com
Whenever I hear the word "sassy", I think of the sketches the late Phil Hartman used to perform in on Saturday Night Live, where'd he play the editor of "Sassy" magazine, having lots of fun letting word "sssaaaaassssy!" roll of... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 13, 2005 11:33:35 PM

» 'Sassy' Suicide Bombers from Solomonia
A new low for the Guardian, or already melting in the magma? It's OK to report on what "they" are thinking, but do "they" have to be put on the payroll?... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 13, 2005 11:56:09 PM

» Did Somebody Say Sassy? from Clarity & Resolve
Hey, kuffar, al-Guardian has hired Dilpazier Aslam, a former writer for British Islamosupremacist website, Kilahfah.com. He's a "Guardian trainee journalist," and he thinks that today's mass-murdering splodeydope British Muslims are sassy! We rock the ... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 14, 2005 9:12:12 AM

» Stick Out Your Buts. from Bloggledygook
Scott Burgess tracks down Aslam and links to some of the Yorkshire lad's more, uh, interesting articles. Follow them if you want to get an idea of how apologia gets structured. [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 14, 2005 2:33:41 PM

» Why is the Guardian employing an extremist Islamist? from Harry's Place
Yesterday, the Guardian published an article by "trainee journalist" Dilpazier Aslam who penned an article from the point of view of a muslim "Yorkshire lad"... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 14, 2005 4:15:27 PM

» Sassy Brit Bombers from morningsun.blog-city.com
It's Sassy to blow people up, Just ask the Guardian. London Expected it . They shouldn't be shocked. If I'm asked about 7/7, I - a Yorkshire lad, born and bred - will respond first by giving an out-clause to being labelled a terrorist lover. [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 14, 2005 5:00:04 PM

» Semtex and the City from I Am Chainsaw
"Don't-rock-the-boat"? "Sassier"? This sounds more like Samantha from Sex and the City making sexual innuendo over a Cosmopolitan than suicidal/homicidal fundamentalist terrorists. I look forward to more articles from him, such as "Talk to the hand '... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 14, 2005 5:46:42 PM

» Backlash in UK vs. BBC from Backspin
See commentary critical of BBC's coverage of the London terror attacks at The Telegraph, Biased BBC, USS Neverdock, and from Stephen Pollard. One particularly interesting item from The Telegraph: Within hours of the explosions, a memo was sent to senior [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 14, 2005 8:25:30 PM

» An Islamist at the Guardian from Myopic Thoughts
Scott Burgess explains. [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 15, 2005 4:30:00 AM

» Sassy Islamists from Spartac.us
There are a few points about the "sassy" Dilpazier Aslam Guardian article I haven't seen elsewhere. To catch up, read this Daily Ablution post, if you haven't already. This Harry's Place post is also ... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 15, 2005 9:21:50 AM

» Mr Burgess writes to the Guardian from Harry's Place
Mr. Milne: I maintain a blog called the Daily Ablution, which frequently takes an interest in matters raised by the Guardian. As you may be... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 15, 2005 3:00:01 PM

» That Guardian Trainee from Tim Worstall
You might recall Dilpazier Aslam? The Gu [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 16, 2005 8:51:23 AM

» Excuse et apologie, romantisme et culpabilit from Un swissroll
Le Monde d'aujourd'hui fait grand cas de "deux "commentaires" signs par deux musulmans qui clairent les raisons de la sourde colre qui monte dans les communauts musulmanes et favorise le recrutement des "djihadistes" prts passer ... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 16, 2005 10:42:13 AM

» Nihilism from Zacht Ei
Having done research for, and written a paper on the state of British investigative journalism in 2004 (it will be published in September at the VVOJ Global Conference), I am not exactly surprised by the notion that there are quite... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 16, 2005 3:33:11 PM

» Terrorist-In-Training At The Guardian Calls Islamic Extremist Just A Bit of Excessive "Sassiness!" from Ace of Spades HQ
At the UK Guardian, an Islamicist "trainee journalist" Dilpazier Aslam is allowed to expound on the London Bombings. His apologia: If I'm asked about 7/7, I - a Yorkshire lad, born and bred - will respond first by giving an... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 16, 2005 6:06:22 PM

» APOLOGISTS FOR TERROR: WE'RE "SASSY!" from Michelle Malkin
Don't eat or drink anything while you read this piece of tripe from Dilpazier Aslam, a Muslim Guardian "trainee journalist" attempting to explain away the 7/7 terrorist bombing attacks. "The Muslim community is no monolithic whole. Yet there are some... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 16, 2005 8:09:14 PM

» Pale and Male from Harry's Place
On Wednesday blogger Scott Burgess at the Daily Ablution wondered why a liberal newspaper would employ Dilpazier Aslam as a journalist. Aslam's publicly stated views... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 17, 2005 1:23:51 PM

» Podcast blames West for anticipated anti-Podcast backlash from Silent Running
In this week's edition of Shire Network News, the official podcast of Silent Running, the Guardian's "sassy" new trainee journalist, Dilpazier Aslam; the coming global Caliphate; blogger Scott Burgess weilds Google like a crusader sword; John Hawkins ... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 18, 2005 2:02:56 PM

» The Guardian: Newspaper of Terrorists from the crossfader
In an effort to show that it can one up the Jayson Blair fiasco, the Guardian, the UK’s premier left-leaning publication, employs Dilpazier Aslam, a member of the Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Hizb what? Hizb-ut-Tahrir is a militant islamic organization inten... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 18, 2005 8:33:38 PM

» The Guardian hires an Islamic Extremist from Ceteris Paribus
Perry de Havilland of Samizdata points out that the Guardian newspaper has hired as a trainee journalist Dilpazier Aslam, who among other things, is associated with Khilafa.com, a site dedicated to setting up a global Islamic Caliphate. [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 21, 2005 6:34:50 PM

» An appeal for new information from Ghost of a flea
The Metropolitan Police has issued an appeal for information regarding ongoing investigations into yesterday's attack on London. The four men pictured above are urgently wanted to assist the police in their enquiries. I wonder if wearing a top that... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 22, 2005 8:41:13 PM

» Sassygate: Brit blogs claim first MSM scalp from Martin Stabe
The British blogosphere has claimed its first MSM scalp. Eursoc has an excellent summary of the events that lead to this, but overstates the case somewhat. UK bloggers may have hit on a home-grown scandal as significant as last year’s... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 23, 2005 12:21:16 AM

» Leaving The Sassy Zone from Ed Driscoll.com
England's leftwing Guardian has sacked Dilpazier Aslam, their "sassy" moral equivocator, and, as Scott Burgess noted ten days ago on his Daily Ablution blog, a self-professed operative of the radical Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir.... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 23, 2005 8:37:33 PM

» GB: deux points pour la blogosphre from Un swissroll
A l'issue des lections britanniques, en mai dernier, j'avais not que, contrairement l'lection prsidentielle amricaine, les blogs ne paraissaient pas avoir jou un rle dcisif dans le droulement de la campagne; j'attribuais cela la... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 23, 2005 10:40:43 PM

» Albert Scardino from Florida Cracker
Well, what do you know? Albert Scardino, my favorite newspaper editor in the whole world, has resigned from The Guardian over Sassygate. Don't feel bad, Al. Publishing a call for the President's assassination and then hiring a member of a... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 29, 2005 6:01:43 PM

» Teacher! leave those kids alone from Make My Vote Count
The trouble with being a columnist, as everyone knows, is that when you get paid to write any old crap, it's all too easy to do just that. It doesn't matter if you get a bit confused along the way,... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 3, 2005 2:27:05 PM

» Anthony Browne and Harry's place, Burgess and the Guardian - layers of irony from perfect.co.uk
This is too amusing not to impart. The story starts on Monday, when ‘david t’ of Harry’s Place, who was one of the ringleaders during the recent Dilpazier Aslam affair, posted this: If you’ve just started reading Harry’s P... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 3, 2005 11:16:29 PM

» Sassy Brit Bombers from morningsun.blog-city.com
It's Sassy to blow people up, Just ask the Guardian. London Expected it . They shouldn't be shocked. If I'm asked about 7/7, I - a Yorkshire lad, born and bred - will respond first by giving an out-clause to being labelled a terrorist lover. [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 4, 2005 1:15:04 AM

» De Media en de Londense Aanslagen from The Brussels Journal
Morgen is het precies één maand geleden dat Londen getroffen werd door bloedige aanslagen die aan 56 mensen het leven kostten en meer dan 700 mensen verwondden. Tijd om terug te blikken op de verslaggeving in de Vlaamse en Britse media. Wat de VRT u nie [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 6, 2005 2:02:11 AM

» De Media en de Londense Aanslagen from The Brussels Journal
Morgen is het precies één maand geleden dat Londen getroffen werd door bloedige aanslagen die aan 56 mensen het leven kostten en meer dan 700 mensen verwondden. Tijd om terug te blikken op de verslaggeving in de Vlaamse en Britse media. Wat de VRT u nie [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 6, 2005 2:06:04 AM

» Teacher! leave those kids alone from Make My Vote Count
The trouble with being a columnist, as everyone knows, is that when you get paid to write any old crap, it's all too easy to do just that. It doesn't matter if you get a bit confused along the way,... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 7, 2005 4:13:23 PM

» The Islamic Republic of Haditha? from The Fourth Rail
Has Zarqawi established a new Fallujah-on-the-Euphrates in city of Haditha? The Guardian claims this is the case, after “a three-day visit by a reporter working for the Guardian last week.” The reporter is unnamed, and the article is single sourced....... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 24, 2005 6:41:06 AM

» The Islamic Republic of Haditha? from The Fourth Rail
Has Zarqawi established a new Fallujah-on-the-Euphrates in city of Haditha? The Guardian claims this is the case, after “a three-day visit by a reporter working for the Guardian last week.” The reporter is unnamed, and the article is single sourced....... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 24, 2005 7:43:06 AM

» Other Stuff No. 24 from Stuff and Nonsense
Of course, you must already know about Scott Burgess's Daily Ablution and its 'outing' of the Grauniad 'trainee reporter. 'The Aslam Affair' in Prospect Magazine explains why it matters so much, 'the Guardian allowed Aslam to espouse a wholesome vers... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 4, 2005 10:27:34 AM

Comments

Interesting also the BBC's ban on the word "terrorist", as it's judgemental.

Strangely, the BBC never hesitates to condemn people as RACISTS (any white), HOMOPHOBES (any non homosexual), HARDLINER (the new Pres of Iran - who is, but that's clearly taking sides with the opposition).

Posted by: 50 Cents at Jul 13, 2005 10:50:59 AM

It's a bit unfair to say that his goal of a caliphate is unlikely to be achieved without the use of violence. It is unlikely, period. So it doesn't follow that he is sympathetic to violence.
Also, advocating violence against Israel DOESN'T COUNT. It's perfectly OK for a Guardian columnist to violently hate Israel. He doesn't even have to be Muslim.

Posted by: at Jul 13, 2005 11:01:52 AM

Scott,

I might get a little "sassy" if I followed that link so it's probably best I didn't.

But thanks for confirming what I already knew anyway.

Posted by: Rob Read at Jul 13, 2005 11:34:41 AM

I guess in some respects Dilpazier Aslam makes the point he intends, just not in the way he intended.

He is right that we should not be shocked, and that we can understand why these people acted as they did.

We can understand that they are (something like) cretins high on the incoherent rhetoric of religous war, fed by a twisted interpretation of what's happening in Iraq, and we should not be suprised because we should know that the UK contains many such people. Dilpazier Aslam among them.

Posted by: Paddy Carter at Jul 13, 2005 11:35:20 AM

.....Shocked would be to say that we don't understand how, in the green hills of Yorkshire, a group of men given all the liberties they could have wished for could do this......

Then I take it he will not be shocked when we call for all terrorist supporters to be shipped off to lands where Human Rights law does not stop them being strung up.

The only way that a person can read the guardian (Apart from for Fisking opportunities) is that they have given up on human decency in their rabid hatred of the west.

We are being told that not all Muslims are to blame. This is something that we on the right, who believe in individual responsibility not group politics never thought anyway.

Meanwhile, however, Left wing media, line up any Moslem they can find who can write the like "its terrible but".

Its almost like they want to forment fighting in the streets, just to prove what knuckle dragging folk we all are.

Posted by: EU Serf at Jul 13, 2005 12:19:34 PM

I am going to write to Mr Aslam to enquire whether he was in a state of burning indignation during the Iran-Iraq war---2 muslim (Shia majority ) nations, over a million deaths, a war which it could be said that both sides lost. Did he vent his indignation at his local mosque when the Shah Abbas mosque in Isfahan---one of the most beautiful buildings in the world---received a direct hit from Iraqi forces? I'll bet he was very quiet at the time.

Posted by: Deirdre Toomey at Jul 13, 2005 12:20:18 PM

Scott,

Blech.

It is so sickening, really.

At once the "anti-war" voices are claiming knowledge, without explicitly saying so, that those responsible for the 7/7 massacre and mayhem, were in fact, radical Islamists.

At the same time these persons claim to speak with the understanding and authority as to why these deliberate and carefully planned mass murders took place (to punish the Britons for supporting Blair vis a vis Bush), but more importantly, these same voices do so with the firm stipulation that those who actually carried out the attacks, are not labeled as terrorists, or named for the cause for that which they purportedly fight.

Worse still, as you point out, is the trend for those who foment and perhaps even participate in these acts of planned violence, to blame the victims for the acts of violence done unto them!

This goes back to what I wrote earlier, those who commit premeditated heinous acts of mass murder and mayhem are not agents of their own behavior. Somehow, it is the victims or other third parties who hold agency.

In much of Europe (or Eurabia) the charge that is tirelessly referenced as the "root cause majeure" of "terrorism" (I'll stick with premeditated and deliberate acts of mass murder and mayhem) is Western Imperialism. The ghosts of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin are surely enjoying themselves.

Not so, Mohammed Bouyeri, who has admitted killing Theo Van Gogh. Bouyeri admittedly did so not to free the workers, but rather, to rebuild the Caliphate.

I guess he, like Dilpazier Aslam, didn't get the memo.

Posted by: MeTooThen at Jul 13, 2005 1:46:17 PM

Sorry, but I'm with Aslam on this one.

Hundreds of thousands of muslims slaughtered by Hussein, the Iranian mullahs, the Taliban, the Syrians, Janjaweed etc just doesn't rock my boat.

But I'm sassy enough to know that when muslim activists elect to blow up buses in London and Tel Aviv, night clubs and hotels in Bali and Africa, fly planes into office buildings - and you infidels DARE to overthrow our dictators - don't be shocked when we uhm, retaliate!

We don't need your stinkin' freedoms go home!

Posted by: Ron at Jul 13, 2005 2:30:38 PM

I've noticed over the previous six months or so that hating Israel has become a new career opportunity for the Left. I'd just like to say that I'm not an Israeli and I'm not Jewish, but I am full of admiration for Israel and the bravery and indominatability of the people. I am full of admiration for their armed services and for the Mossad. Would that they would send a few operatives over to Britain to help Tony Blair figure out that it was obvious that the terrorists who committed the London outrages would have been born in Britain.

Posted by: Verity at Jul 13, 2005 4:20:45 PM

TO: Scott
RE: What Goes Around....

Sounds like the British youth are getting 'sassy' too...

Islamophobia blamed for attack.

...comes around.

Maybe these kids read the article too?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at Jul 13, 2005 5:14:34 PM

"Maybe these kids read the article too?"

Somehow I doubt they're Guardian readers. Or readers of anything at all, for that matter.

Posted by: Scott at Jul 13, 2005 5:17:32 PM

Inasmuch as they contend that we have already done so, don't you think it is about time we really did begin to "question the patriotism" of the "dissenters."

To call them "disssenters," or even "appeasers," ignores the obvious truth. They do not seek to appease our enemies. What most of them seek is to provoke and inflame our enemies' anger toward us, and, more than that, to engender self-hatred among our own people.

No, they are not the appeasers. We are the appeasers when we tremble to name them what they are: the enemy.

Posted by: Bathus at Jul 13, 2005 5:17:45 PM

What is his obsession with Falluja ?

He is obviously worked up into a fit over the fact that it was a major base of the ones in Iraq desperate to overthrow the elected government (elected governments obviously being far less worthy than a caliphate for any right-thinking (by his definition) muslim), and that the civilians were given 3 days warning to get out prior to the American troops coming in to clean out the "resistance".

Anyway, this guy is so stupid that he doesn't realise the current "strength" of younger generation muslims is due to the fact that they've largely been left alone to fester thanks to the don't rock the boat attitude of their parents. Making themselves obvious is going to bring their twisted propaganda under public scrutiny where those mouthing it off will be humiliated by very clear repudiation.

Posted by: at Jul 13, 2005 7:53:07 PM

Excellent post.

Who is this fool to claim to speak for the people of Iraq? And why do his editors at the Guardian allow him to speak on behalf of Muslims of Iraq?

Is he Iraqi? No, he' an impressionable kid from northern England. But to the urban sophisticate editors at the Guardian he is exciting and “exotic”. In a few years time he’ll have his own column. He’ll be the Gary Younge of young Muslim Britain.

The tragedy is that it’s all too easy to see why he can’t grasp the complexity of Iraq; why he can utter no word of anger for Saddam who killed a million-plus Muslims; why he has no word of solidarity for the 8.5 million mostly-Muslim Iraqis who elected their own government for the first time in their history and who are now being slaughtered every day by the same deranged mindset that bombed London.

He has nothing to say about this because he’s intellectually ill-equipped to know the arguments. It has become article of faith in Britain and on the left that the War on Terror is a war against Islam, because this is articulated every day on the BBC and in the left-mainstream media that most of us have grew up with, believed in and trusted.

If you read (or in his case work on) the Guardian, listen and watch the BBC every day, pick up the Independent on the tube, overhear a conversation in a café or on a bus, it has become statement of fact that Bush and Blair and Jews/Israel are the problem, and that there is an American war against Islam. There is simply no argument about it. It has become dull, mind numbing orthodoxy.

Of course, this means that the overwhelming majority of moderates in the Muslim world – those Iraqis and Afghans who recently voted in their millions for their own leaders for example – do not get a word in. The BBC and the op-ed pages of the Guardian, (and the news reporting in the Independent for that matter) ignore the voices and views of moderate Muslims in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan because they are not exotic.

After all, these moderate Muslims think much like us: they want to do boring things like vote for their own leaders and live without fear, terror, violence. They are of no interest to the 'progressive' liberal western mindset. This little Muslim twerp in the Guardian on the other hand - now he’s interesting! He becomes an exotic little project for the editors on the Guardian who amuse themselves and feel better about themselves by allowing him to spew forth this ignorant crap without question, guidance or argument.

I’ve just listened to a BBC interview on NPR in New York with four prominent British Muslims. At one point one of them – I think from the Muslim Council of Britain - says something along these lines: “We must tell angry British Muslims not to be drawn into terror because TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT.” The two wrongs he is referring to are Afghanistan and Iraq.

The BBC presenter (I can't recall who ir was) did not question this statement, did not say: “Well, hold on a moment here, did the war in Afghanistan not liberate Muslims? The war in Iraq, contentious as it was, did in the end overthrew a man who killed a million Muslims and ultimately led to 8.5 million Iraqis voting for their own leaders.”

The BBC interviewer did not say this because he does not believe it to be true either. He does not believe there is even an argument to be made! He is part of the mindless orthodoxy.

If you are an impressionable young Muslim in Britain I imagine it's very easy to get hold of extremist teachings on the Internet, to read the statements of radical clerics, even to go to radical mosques. These things will always be out there and as a young British Muslim you may quite likely begin to question them.

But then, when you turn on or watch the BBC and read the moderate left media that you have grown up with, you discover that the wider progressive voices around you also believe the same thing. The problem is Bush and Blair and Israel. Suddenly all doubt is removed!

These fools blow themselves up as much because of extremist teachings, as because the left-media in Britain that they trust and that should be providing us with knowledge, balance, and all the arguments of the complexities at play, no longer do so. They all believe Bush, America, Blair, Israel/Jews are the problem.

Did anyone read the racist, anti-American bile written by Decca Aitkenhead in Saturday’s Guardian - published a mere two days after the bomb? If I was an impressionable young British Muslim in Leeds reading that in such a (once) respected newspaper I might also begin to think: “It’s true, America really is the enemy!”

We are committing slow suicide here.

Posted by: douglas r at Jul 13, 2005 9:06:26 PM

This was "The Guardian" this article was printed in. It wasn't the "Volkischer Beobachter", then. Or is it getting difficult to tell the difference.

Posted by: Brian at Jul 13, 2005 10:56:04 PM

douglasr,

Sorry, but you're right.

An excellent book is the cogent and likely not-to-be read, A Matter of Principle-Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq

From the editor's (Thomas Cushman) introduction, here:

"A question that I ask of my colleagues on the left who opposed the war is, What would you say to the Iraqi person who asked you one year later why you stood against our liberation? I have not yet been able to get a meaningful answer to that question because all of the possible answers--pertaining, for example, to resisting American empire, obeying international law, preventing the death of civilians, taking moreal stands against war itself as a crime--would mean that the average Iraqi would still be subject to his terror, enslaved to tyranny, and denied the basic human rights that liberals purportedly cherish as central to their own existences."

I guess the Iraqi's haven't gotten the other memo.

Posted by: MeTooThen at Jul 13, 2005 10:59:09 PM

What fun it would be to get this journalist in a room and demand to know the specific responsibility for each and every person killed in London. If they are responisble, then surely he has the list of their crimes.

Wrong answers would be rewarded of course.

Posted by: Defense Guy at Jul 13, 2005 11:00:40 PM

TO: Scott
RE: Trés Amusant [please pardon my 'French']

"Somehow I doubt they're Guardian readers. Or readers of anything at all, for that matter." -- Scott

You are probably right. They had someone tell them about the article.

The point here being...all the 'kids' are getting 'sassy'. And that is, in the words of the original article, 'sad', if you're into euphemisms. Personally, considering by background, I am not. This tit-for-tat murder is on a par with the bombings. And I don't care to see civilzation dragged down to the Hobbesian level. As the Mimbari ambassador [Babylon 5] put it, "So...you'd have everyone blind and toothless?"

The 'adults' need to step in and do what is right. And neither appeasement nor burying one's head and hoping for the best is going to do the trick. As I commented a few doors down the hall, the government better be prepared to 'separate' the children. Otherwise, this sort of vigilanteism could well become the norm.

We'll see. The big test will be (1) whether that council in England can pull off an anti-terrorism march thoroughout the land and (2) how many show up. Hundreds would be good. Hundreds of thousands (of Muslims) would be great.

Looking forward to see what happenes....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Euphemisms are the genteel way of talking about a mutilated corpse in the parlor.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at Jul 13, 2005 11:07:44 PM

Okay....

Who forgot to turn off the italics?

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at Jul 13, 2005 11:08:45 PM

That's better....

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at Jul 13, 2005 11:10:13 PM

Jayzuz…I hope the Brit’s have the scones to clean-out their swamp.

It’s definitely smelling.

Posted by: Eg at Jul 13, 2005 11:30:56 PM

It is interesting why a young man from Yorkshire who's family came from Pakistan or Bangladesh have such a concern about Palestine and Israel.
Even more interesting that some of his compatriots thought a solution could be promoted by murdering a polyglot cross section of Londons population.
I put it down to the fact that these young men are fascist racists.

Posted by: Peter at Jul 13, 2005 11:49:59 PM

I sent this email to the Guardian:

Dear editor,

I've read the Guardian for years, but am lately finding it more and more difficult to wade through your comments sections as the moonbat-ery quotient increases. First prize lately has to go to an article by your "trainee journalist" Dilpazier Aslam (how much training has he had, exactly?) who is given freedom to rant about how the London bombings seem to have something to do with second-generation Muslims being more "sassy" - a term I associate more with Samantha from "Sex and the City" than young men who for religious reasons blow themselves up in crowded trains and buses.

Dilpazier mentions Fallujah several times as if by explanation - does he have some special insight into the minds of the bombers that this was indeed the reason and only reason?

It's hardly surprising he has these opinions anyway - at this site he himself calls for an Islamic superstate to conquer Israel and lead the world militarily:

http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=1437&TagID;=2

"The establishment of Khilafah is our only solution, to fight fire with fire, the state of Israel versus the Khilafah State. The words of Rasool Allah (saw) ring in the ears, ‘Verily the Imaam is a shield, from behind which (the
Muslims) fight, and are protected by it.’

http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=7064&TagID;=24

"Islam demands that we are leaders in science; we will have to run an Islamic state which must lead the world, economically, militarily and politically.

(Presumably since Dilpazier is British, the "state" he refers to is Britain. Then again, since he makes much of his Yorkshireness, maybe he would be happy with merely an Islamic Republic of Yorkshire).

Yours in exasperation,

P.

Posted by: Paul Moloney at Jul 14, 2005 12:24:59 AM

Israel is such a red herring. If there was a Palestinian state tomorrow would the terrorism stop? Of course not. And the Arab political and monied classes don't want a Palestinian state anyway - it's too useful a distraction for their own screwed-over populations. More folks have died at the hands of Arabs in the last 12 months in Sudan than have died in the last 30 years in the occupied territories; but we don't hear much about that from the muslim world do we? Just more bleating about Israel while all the while the Palestinians are still blowing up kids.

Posted by: Greg at Jul 14, 2005 12:36:45 AM

"We rock the boat."

It's time we rocked back. Hard.

Posted by: Uncle Joe at Jul 14, 2005 12:55:08 AM

TO: Uncle Joe
RE: Blood Begets Blood...

"It's time we rocked back. Hard." -- Uncle Joe

...according to some Wag in an old Book I've read.

How much blood are you ready for? And whose?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[He who lives by the sword.....]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at Jul 14, 2005 1:04:13 AM

“It's important that we remember that Islam is a religion of peace, and we need to remember to avoid insensitive behavior and remarks that will cause these peaceful Moslems to go off on yet another bloody killing rampage.”

Posted by: at Jul 14, 2005 1:11:01 AM

Just a thought, but if the word "terrorist" is lacking in objectivity and to be avoided at all costs, how about the word "Muslim".

Apparently, this means "one who submits to God". This could be seen as offensive to members of other religions, by implying that they do not submit to God.

Wouldn't the old usage "Mohammedan" be better in these troubled times? And what are the chances of the BBC picking it up and running with it?

Posted by: Andrew Kinsman at Jul 14, 2005 1:31:59 AM

"We are committing slow suicide here."

Who? Last I checked, neither Bush nor Blair nor Putin nor Sharon was doing anything but fighting back as best as he could.

Posted by: Chaos at Jul 14, 2005 4:25:21 AM

hmmm... I used to have a dog named 'Sassy'. On another note, let's not confuse political anger with religious anger.

Posted by: x-dhimmi at Jul 14, 2005 4:27:40 AM

As it becomes clear who was responsible, I don't think I'm alone in believing the London bombings are not only an atrocity but also quite a bad own goal by the extremists. I can't see how much longer anyone who claims to be morally right will be able to support Mr. Aslan and others who justify the cold blooded murder of innocents.

It's not a religion that's to blame (and the murder of an innocent Pakistani is as wrong as the murder of an innocent West African cleaner on a London bus, or of an innocent child waiting for chocolate on the streets of Baghdad). Rather, it's a group of hateful, impressionable criminals with an exaggerated sense of that they have been wronged. This is partially because it's become fashionable for teachers, journalists, and others in influential positions to tell them they have a legitimate greivance and that they are somehow free of any moral responsibility for their actions.

I suppose I could be called a liberal: I did not support the decision to invade Iraq, I don't like the Bush Administration, and -- significantly -- all my adult life I have had a feeling that white, middle-class persons like myself owe a debt to The Oppressed, and that I should always give persons of other cultures and backgrounds the benefit of the doubt and try to understand their point of view.

Today, I belive not only the bombers themselves but also their supporters and apologists (including Mr. Aslan) are the enemy. They are Wrong - full stop. Just like those responsible for the intentional targeting of the group of children in Baghdad today. We don't have to understand them -- we have to stop them. No equivocation and no "buts . . ." If we don't, how long until our children become victims?

Any demonstrations against terror in London should make a long stop in front of the offices of the Guardian.

Posted by: Greg at Jul 14, 2005 4:32:08 AM

Deirdre Toomey wrote:

In much of Europe (or Eurabia) the charge that is tirelessly referenced as the "root cause majeure" of "terrorism" (I'll stick with premeditated and deliberate acts of mass murder and mayhem) is Western Imperialism. The ghosts of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin are surely enjoying themselves.

Entirely correct. Here is the next step in the exegesis:

When the Soviet Union fell, the folks who believed in the inevitability of the ascendancy of World Socialism over Western Imperialism were shaken to their boots. Who would now carry the course of history forward? (Certainly it was inconceivable to them that Western Imperialism would remain ascendant, that Capitalism might possibly be a better solution for the welfare of the masses than Socialism.)

China was unreliable, with its newfound emphasis on profit. Cuba was too small and weak to make any significant difference. Where to turn?

Then radical Islam turned its guns on the West. The true believers in World Socialism rejoiced: here was a cataclysm that would break the foundations of the West and leave it exhausted and weak.

And one of the phenomena the true believers are relying on is curtailment of civil liberties. Ironically, as they believe society should be run from the top down with an iron fist, they will cite security measures as evidence that Western societies are not truly democratic and are thus underserving of loyalty. Our societies cannot afford to fall into this trap, being afraid to take harsh measures simply because they might look bad. Harsh measures will be necessary, and our leaders should state plainly that this is a temporary but unavoidable consequence of terror -- and should explicitly remind people that any other form of government would be far more Draconian in similar circumstances.

Posted by: Stuart Creque at Jul 14, 2005 4:55:14 AM

Stuart,

As individuals lose their status of being autonomous, when they are no longer the agents of their own behavior, the charismatics, seducers, and soothers rapidly step in to take control of these individuals.

Those who agitate for "understanding", "root-causes", and the like, whether the issue is drug addiction, homelessness, or violent crime, in parallel act to remove any responsibility of the individual for the consequences of the individual's maladaptive behavior.

Thus arises identity politics, identity health care, and identity victimhood. These miserable and maladaptive behaviors only serve to reinforce the loss of the locus of control. Rather than soothing the individual, identity victimhood further disenfranchises the individual.

Lying in wait, they are.

"Don't just stand there, soothe me! Fix me! Love me!"

"It's not my fault!"


Posted by: MeTooThen at Jul 14, 2005 6:38:54 AM

No doubt Dilpazier Aslam is familiar with this book. Perhaps the Guardian might serialise it. Good digging Scott.

Posted by: Eric at Jul 14, 2005 8:05:57 AM

Dilpazier Aslam is a substitute for the equally odious Faisal Bodi (not to be confused with Faisal Islam, a straightforward financial journalist), who had a few pieces calling for the destruction of Israel in the Guardian Comment pages, edited by my moronic countryman Seamus Milne. Bodi has been denounced on the web by a couple of young muslim women for his very unislamic sexually crude behaviour towards them when they worked on 'Q' magazine. They also indicated that he was something of a liar. Some day Harry Potter lookalike Alan Rusbridger will wake up and see what has happened to the paper.

Posted by: Deirdre at Jul 14, 2005 12:11:27 PM

Something tells me that Rusbridger is well aware of what has happened to his paper. In a way, it's forced upon him, given that the market he's fighting the Independent for is the Da Vinci Code conspiracy-theory brigade, and there's only so many of those to go around.

Posted by: James Hamilton at Jul 14, 2005 2:45:42 PM

Dear Scott
I was not in London on thursday as I was packing for a flight to the States. I was very shocked when I arrived in New Jersey for a connecting light to Fort Lauderdale where I am working. May I use you pages to thank all the American people I have met for their sympathy and support.

Posted by: John Lambshead at Jul 14, 2005 3:43:19 PM

At least as culpable of the Islamofascist bombers are Tony Blair and his cabinet for their cowardly Quisling equivocating. Anything can be explained. All can be excused. This bombing is our fault in some way. We must ask ourselves what we have done to make these little Yorkshire fuckwits angry enough to murder 52 people and disable for life hundreds of others.

Posted by: Verity at Jul 14, 2005 4:51:43 PM

Is it my imagination, or was another Guardian Trainee Journalist killed in the terrorist outrage? And this is part of how the Guardian responds?

Posted by: Andrew Paterson at Jul 14, 2005 4:52:28 PM

Scott, I think that you have taken at least two and possibly all three of those excerpts out of context.

The "we will have to run an Islamic state which must lead the world" quote is in an article which is mainly about rejecting the beating of children and women, forced marriages and other traditional practices of the Third World as non-Islamic. The passage you quote is an argument against Muslims who regard modern technology as sinful. Your spin that "we must lead the world" implicitly means conquering the West by force is extremely debatable; China wants to be "a world leader" in all these spheres for example.

The passage "Muslims grant their loyalty and allegiance to their deen and the Ummah" is in the context of an article about football hooliganism, suggesting that Muslim's shouldn't do it. Again it's not about being a fifth column within the UK; it's boilerplate "there are no nations under God" stuff of the kind you can hear in any CoE pulpit of a weekend.

The second excerpt above is nearest the knuckle and does look like an endorsement of violence but it is in the context of an article about the Israeli operation to take al-Aqsa in 2001 (four years ago, before 9/11, when the author was a teenager). It's again not at all obvious that "Khilafah" in this context means the medieval caliphate.

Posted by: dsquared at Jul 14, 2005 5:00:24 PM

Deirdre & James Hamilton -
nothing has happened to the Guardian. It's always been like that.
In the 30s Malcolm Muggeridge (if anyone remembers him) had to resign after an article revealing that 5 million Ukrainians had been starved to death. Daring to criticise the arch-liberal Stalin.

Posted by: 50 Cents at Jul 14, 2005 5:40:53 PM

that's right dsquared, nothing to see here, just move along...

Posted by: at Jul 14, 2005 5:46:49 PM

That's not a remotely fair summary of what I said.

Posted by: dsquared at Jul 14, 2005 5:50:29 PM

"out of context"

Er, well of course they're "out of context," dsquared! The proper way to put them in full context would be to reproduce the entire "Caliphate" website (tagline: "then there will be khilafah on the method of Prophethood")

You see, dsquared, those underlined blue phrases are called 'links'. They allow any interested reader to see the entire context, simply by clicking on the phrase, should they so desire. Cool, huh?

""we will have to run an Islamic state which must lead the world" quote is in an article which is mainly about rejecting the beating of children and women, forced marriages and other traditional practices of the Third World as non-Islamic. The passage you quote is an argument against Muslims who regard modern technology as sinful."

Of course, you forgot to repeat the part about " economically, militarily and politically." Let me repeat it for you:

" we will have to run an Islamic state which must lead the world, economically, militarily and politically"

Is that clear enough? What more do you need to hear, as far as the author's wishes are concerned?

Oh, I know - it's 'taken out of context'. The context being, of course, a website named "caliphate" whose tagline specifically calls for the establishment of a Sharia-based world-dominant government.

"Muslims grant their loyalty and allegiance to their deen and the Ummah"

Again, you forgot to repeat the rest of the sentence. It doesn't matter if the context is an article about football hooliganism - the fact is that he specifically says that a Muslim's loyalty is not to his country, but to the Ummah. That's all I said about this quote - and it's clearly reflective of the guy's belief.

"The second excerpt above is nearest the knuckle and does look like an endorsement of violence "

Er ... yeah. That's because it is an endorsement of violence.

but it is in the context of an article about the Israeli operation to take al-Aqsa in 2001 (four years ago, before 9/11, when the author was a teenager).

How have you determined the author's age, BTW?

"It's again not at all obvious that "Khilafah" in this context means the medieval caliphate."

You're right - it doesn't mean the "medieval caliphate," it means something much more powerful; namely, "an Islamic state which must lead the world, economically, militarily and politically," which Mr. Aslam self-avowedly hopes to help run.

Oh, BTW, dsquared, why didn't you comment on the 'sassy' quote?

Posted by: Scott at Jul 14, 2005 6:18:06 PM

Is this surprising anyone? (Not to me.)

LEEDS -- The transformation of four young British men into terrorists appears to have taken place at a government-funded storefront youth centre in Leeds that, according to youth workers, was a hub of radical Islamist activity.

The centre was sealed off and searched by police yesterday after three of its workers said in an interview on the street outside that at least two of the suicide bombers had been "very regular" visitors at all hours to the Hamara Youth Access Point, and a third had been seen there occasionally.

"It had become so radical and so hateful that I asked if I could stop working there," said one of the workers, who along with two others described the storefront drop-in centre as a hub of radical Muslim politics and a hotbed of Islamic organizing, routinely hosting mysterious figures to speak about extremist politics.

. . . .

It appears that this modest youth centre is the point where these three young men converged with the fourth bomber and a leading figure who was being sought by police last night.

. . . .

The centre receives funding from the British government and the European Union, as well as charitable funds, and as such is officially secular and non-political. But in practice, it was neither. On its walls were posters from the Respect Party, an extremist pro-Islamic party founded by MP George Galloway, that showed Israeli soldiers pointing rifles at Palestinian children.


Posted by: Bathus at Jul 14, 2005 6:31:02 PM

Verity,
Did you puzzle your brains as to why well-known 'little fuckwit' Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980? Against the advice of his ministers, who said No! No! And then to tidy things up after a wholly disastrous war and more than a million dead,invaded Kuwait. Was it all 'our' fault? The main arms supplier to Iraq in the Iran Iraq war was the former Soviet Union, which got rid of many sub-standard tanks at a profit that way. Or was that Tony Blair's fault too? Along with the establishment of the Baatist regime, perhaps? You could extend the line of responsibility a long way if you tried, while removing those actually responsible from the picture.

Posted by: Deirdre Toomey at Jul 14, 2005 6:45:08 PM

What more do you need to hear, as far as the author's wishes are concerned?

What timescale he hopes this will be achieved under and whether he hopes to achieve it by building a successful state in the existing Islamic world or by terrorist violence. You've made your assumption but it's not in the text.

the fact is that he specifically says that a Muslim's loyalty is not to his country, but to the Ummah

The context does matter, because the context makes it clear that this is actually boilerplace "no nations in God's sight" stuff rather than a call to act as a fifth column.

How have you determined the author's age, BTW?

He's a trainee at the Graun, which means a graduate within the last two years so even if he had a year out, he'd most likely have been under 20 in 2001.

Oh, BTW, dsquared, why didn't you comment on the 'sassy' quote?

Because it didn't appear to be supporting an argument, just you saying "oh yeah sassy suicide bombers".

Posted by: dsquared at Jul 14, 2005 7:21:36 PM

TO: Bathus
RE: Interesting Report...

...about the youth center cum terrorist recruiting program. And funded by the government too.

How niiiice.....

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at Jul 14, 2005 8:14:56 PM

I just read the texts in question. The one about the 'world dominant islamic state' is indeed about retrograde traditions like forced marriege, tribalism, etc, and how they are not truly islamic. The Koran is quted extensively to support these arguments There is not much to object in this article (except for the absence of any denuncication of terrorism as retrograde).

The one about Israel details how the peace process (then unraveling) was supposedly a sham to 'steal Al Aqsa'. It ends with a more or less overt call for a islamic state to figth (and I suppose destroy) Israel.

In short, I think this guy is an imbecile. He does support violence (against Israel), and makes excuses for it (agains the West). His views were misrepresented in the particular instances pointed out by d^2, but the general portrayal from the blog still stands. The sassy quote is so orwellian I won't bother to comment.

Posted by: Bmota at Jul 14, 2005 8:17:09 PM

"... we will have to run an Islamic state which must lead the world, economically, militarily and politically"

Perhaps we should duck and let this attempt to be made. With any luck, 'Islamia' will have the inevitible global war with China, with the same professed aims. Then, if we're not glowing from the isotopes that were flung around in the process, we can perhaps have some peace and quiet.

Posted by: Marcus Cicero at Jul 14, 2005 9:40:49 PM

TO: Marcus Cicero
RE: As a Matter of 'Fact'...

"...if we're not glowing from the isotopes that were flung around in the process, we can perhaps have some peace and quiet." -- Marcus Cicero

There's an old Book that talks about exactly that sort of thing. Including, as I understand it, the Chinese and the Middle East. Takes place at some local called Armageddon and in that sort of fashion...a 'plague of light' which causes mens' eyes to melt in their sockets while they still stand. Or something like that.

Regards.

Chuck(le)

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at Jul 14, 2005 10:22:46 PM

I don't think they're rocking the boat, I think they're blowing up the bus and train.

Posted by: Ribbity Frog at Jul 15, 2005 5:15:56 AM

ok, Scott, I hope you've been put on notice. If the islamic state that rules the world militarily is achieved through non violent means, that's just fine! (and of course if one wants to nitpick to support one's fatuous arguments - and one apparently does)it also mitigates the whold new caliphate situation if we know the timeline for the project

Posted by: at Jul 15, 2005 11:00:47 AM

Well spotted.

Posted by: paul d s at Jul 17, 2005 10:07:46 AM

Well what do you know ?

Search for previous articles by the guy.

He was the author of an "Exclusive" interview with Shabina Begum.

You remember her, the ordinary little Luton schoolgirl, making a brave stand for her right to wear what she wanted to school and taking on the might of the British legal system.

Except it was variously reported that she was being advised, supported, funded by Hizb ut Tahrir, whose membership included one Shuweb Rahman, her brother and legal guardian.

In light of this revalation about this "journalists" other hobbies, the fawning interview takes on a whole new shine.

Especially, since nowhere does it mention Hizb ut Tahrir or her brother by name.

Interesting, very interesting.

Look at it here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1429170,00.html

Wonder how he got the "Exclusive", hey ?!

Posted by: Worried Man at Jul 18, 2005 10:26:37 AM

Wake up Brits! You should demand that Blair have this swine locked up for sedition and for abetting terrorism. Don't you remember that Churchill had Oswald Mosely arrested for much less in 1940?

Posted by: Jim Longo at Jul 19, 2005 1:13:23 AM

What are you doing? Are you thinking clearly? What you are doing is offensive. Are you telling me that you honestly think any reasonable interpretation of the article is that the author means that the terrorist attacks are "opinions."

You guys really ruin public discourse when you do these dirty and dishonest things. An "opinion" may figuratively "rock the boat" but, by definition, it does not destroy or kill. By definition an opinion is not a physical act.
opinion n.
* A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion (Elizabeth Drew).
* A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
* A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.
* The prevailing view: public opinion.
It is disgusting that you play such games about life and death issues. The author did not say that the bombers were sassy. The author referred to opinions shared by many Muslims, the term "sassy" CLEARLY referred to those opinions, not the bombings. You are a fool or a liar if you think otherwize.

Posted by: Tom Murphy at Jul 19, 2005 12:04:50 PM


I am quite surprised as to what all of this hype is about? Hizb ut Tahrir is an Islamic Political Party who engages in a peaceful struggle to work to re-establish the Islamic State (Khilafah).

The people who need to need to be exposed as hardline radicals are Journalists such as Daniel Pipes who constantly slur Islam in the name of tasteful and honest journalism.

Surely this is greater crime.

Dilpazier who is a member of Hizb ut Tahrir should not be criticised or labelled. He is someone who believes that Islam is an ideology capable of solving the affairs of all humans.

Does this make him a fundamentalist or a thinker? I would find him to be of the latter!

Posted by: Faisal at Jul 20, 2005 1:11:06 AM

not up to ideological challenge, eh?
_violent_ challenge is the only opposition that westerners are able to conceive of, apparently, because countering it requires less time and thought. Read the literature of Hizb ut Tahrir, and you'll find a strong ideological commitment to activism without violence (except in the case of defense from invasion), and to societal change via words and ideas. All that you have to fear from HT is that you may be convinced after being unable to hold your own ideological ground. If you really think its goals and method are flawed on a logical basis, start writing refutations that are intellectual, not inflammatory or entirely composed of meaningless labels (extremist, radical, fundamentalist). Challenging it on an ideological basis would have the most conclusive impact, because most HTers are willing to engage in intellectual debate. Can't you?

Posted by: asma at Jul 20, 2005 5:35:12 AM

Faisal makes a good point! I often see this happening in chat rooms. We are the ones talking about Freedom of Speech and Freedom of expression, yet we go nuts when someone "freely" expresses opposition to our way of life. I have listened to Muslims and they make an interesting case. They talk about the problems of the world and try to give solutions based on thier religion. When the poke thier holes through our arguments we often resort to nasty labeling and villianization. It would be interesting to see if we could debate these people without the inflammatory remarks. The truth is that most of the people cannot handle intellectual discussions when thier very truths are being challenged. So now we resort to taking away the very freedoms that we supposedly believe are the source of liberation. Go Figure!

Posted by: Michael at Jul 23, 2005 4:34:06 PM

Asma:

"_violent_ challenge is the only opposition that westerners are able to conceive of"

Wow, good thing that Muslims can't conceive of "violent challenge" - then we'd *really* be in trouble!

dsquared:

"... the Israeli operation to take al-Aqsa in 2001 ..."

There never was any such operation. The fact is that Israel has protected the rights of all religions in Jerusalem, including Muslims. This is in stunning contrast to the treatment accorded Jews when the city was occupied by Muslims from 1948-67. Jews were completely barred from the old city of Jerusalem, and their holy places were used as garbage dumps and toilets.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at Jul 26, 2005 5:59:06 AM

Worried man: so Shabina Begum was making a 'brave' and of course totally independent stand eh? If you believe that she was acting autonomously then you have a good deal to be worried about. The best comment on such behaviour by schoolgirls in the UK and in France was made by a tough Algerian feminist who described these young girls as carrying out a circus act choreographed by the most conservative elements in their community.
All that is required in Islam is that BOTH men and women dress modestly. No stipulation that you walk around in a sack, actually.

Posted by: Deirdre at Jul 26, 2005 4:02:05 PM

"They talk about the problems of the world and try to give solutions based on thier religion. When the poke thier holes through our arguments we often resort to nasty labeling and villianization. It would be interesting to see if we could debate these people without the inflammatory remarks. The truth is that most of the people cannot handle intellectual discussions when thier very truths are being challenged"

The response to the criticism of Theo Van Goh I'm sure you would never label as "nasty" or "villainization". It was a logical response to an attack on Islam you would say. There is no discourse with Fascists. I know you are offended at that term so here is another.

Islam is just another word for Misogeny

Posted by: Lime at Jul 29, 2005 4:53:50 PM

It makes me sick that these saudi arabians go around cheering at suicide bombing, These royalsit scum cehher when an incubator breaks down, and when somebody is whipped in a dungeon, and when iraqis are killed, they cheer at stampedes, and bom,bs bl;woming up,l and ata iraqis being murdered whether by britoish shells trying to hit a suicide bombver base, or at sunnis, the sauids created this as bin alden is from thwere, no other land ever had this, this is evil, he supported the saudi royals demon family to 1996, and is a nazi, he is just following the satanic saudi policy of encouraging islamic states in aghfgan algeria and sudan, in 1993, 1992, and 1983,

Posted by: sdfsdfg at Sep 4, 2005 4:39:37 PM

Tom, an organization is no longer peaceful when it calls for the extermination of a people of another religion. Now, can you guess what religion those people have?

Posted by: Eik Corell at Dec 3, 2005 1:26:35 PM

Get a life scott, stop being so bitter and twisted...

Posted by: whatdafck at Dec 5, 2005 4:09:46 PM

Who supported saddam...the US. Who provided him with weapons in his war in the 90's...the US. Now tell me the US war on terrorism isnt just a load of rubbish. Bush should get rid of his nuclear weapons as should every other country in the world and we should all live as peace loving hippies who save the world from destroying itself.

Posted by: at Dec 5, 2005 4:13:37 PM

dierdre...do you know how to spell? how many times do you guys have to hear this. Those people who are violent in the name of religion are not following their religion at all and it is right they should be condemned. But dont condemn the religion and its followers as a whole, most of whom are peace-loving people. As far as I'm aware, the religion is based on equality and peace.those who abuse that law should rightfully be regarded as fanatics, who dont know the meaning of their own faith
@--)--

Posted by: Faith at Dec 5, 2005 4:19:32 PM

Post a comment