Have you read Oriana Fallaci's comments on muslims?

thewelshconjurer

"off course Poo for the final!" SHAME ON YOU
Newbie
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
9,083
Location
"The fear of loss is a path to the dark side&
Here are some extracts....

Oriana Fallaci: Anti-Islamic Italian author in new legal fight

Long-running battle over post-9/11 books pits freedom of speech against respect for religious belief.

By Guardian Newspapers, 7/13/2005






One of Italy's best-known authors faces renewed legal action in a dispute that has raised fundamental questions about respect for religion and the right to free speech.

A radical Muslim leader, Adel Smith, told the Guardian he was bringing a civil action for damages against the writer and journalist Oriana Fallaci. He has already succeeded in getting Ms Fallaci committed for trial next year in criminal proceedings for blasphemy.

Last month a judge in the northern Italian city of Bergamo agreed that the 76-year-old Ms Fallaci should answer to claims of abusing Islam in her book The Strength of Reason. Since then, her cause has become a rallying point for mainly rightwing intellectuals and politicians in Italy and the US, where Ms Fallaci lives.

Mr Smith said he would be seeking damages for libel on the grounds that the author had claimed in a recent essay that he had issued death threats against her. Ms Fallaci, who is ill with cancer, could not be contacted for comment.

Mr Smith, who converted to Islam in 1987, said he had inherited his surname from a 19th century British ambassador to the Holy See. His association, the Muslim Union of Italy, claims about 5,000 members.

The venomous row with Ms Fallaci has its roots in the events of September 11 2001. Horrified by the attacks, the veteran foreign and war correspondent wrote a diatribe entitled La Rabbia e l'Orgoglio (published in English as The Rage and the Pride). Ostensibly directed at Islamist fundamentalists, it makes scant distinction between militant and moderate Muslims.

Ms Fallaci attacks "arrogant ... Albanians, Sudanese, Bengalis, Tunisians, Algerians, Pakistanis, Nigerians who with much fervour contribute to the commerce of drugs and prostitution".

She even rebukes the late Pope John Paul II for taking an interest in their welfare. "Your Holiness, why in the name of the only God, don't you take them into the Vatican?" she asks. "On the condition that they don't smear with shit the Sistine Chapel ... "

But her anti-Muslim views clearly found an echo in Italy, where The Rage and the Pride sold 700,000 copies in little over a month.

Mr Smith, who is best known for a failed attempt to get crucifixes removed from school classrooms, initially responded with a book of his own. Entitled Islam Punishes Oriana Fallaci - Letter to an Old Woman who has Never Grown Up, it was, he says, intended to put right misunderstandings about Islam in Ms Fallaci's book.

But it goes beyond that. In the passage interpreted as a death threat by Ms Fallaci, Mr Smith reminds his readers how many people die of alcohol, adding that non-Muslims have the opportunity either to give it up "or continue to die along with 'La Fallaci'".

Undeterred, Ms Fallaci produced a second book, published last year by Rizzoli under the title La Forza della Ragione (The Strength of Reason). It has so far run through 18 editions.

The author foresees a "clash of civilisations" such as that defined in Samuel P Huntington's 1998 work of that name. But, she adds, "it annoys me even to talk about two cultures, to put them on the same plane". Her main theme is that Muslims are engaged in a plot to conquer her native continent by immigration, transforming it into what she dubs "Eurabia".

"Europe becomes more and more a province of Islam, a colony of Islam," she writes. "In each of our cities lies a second city: a Muslim city, a city run by the Koran. A stage in the Islamic expansionism."

Mr Smith accuses her of "using the same techniques as were used in the Nazi era against the Jews". The judge in Bergamo to whom he took his complaints rejected a request for Ms Fallaci to be charged with inciting racial hatred, but agreed that there were 18 instances of blasphemy.

His decision outraged many, particularly on the right of Italian politics, who saw it as a frontal attack on freedom of expression and Ms Fallaci as Italy's equivalent of the murdered Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh.

Silvio Berlusconi's justice minister, Roberto Castelli, said he would try to get an amendment inserted in a bill that is currently before parliament to cancel the offence of which Ms Fallaci is accused. The author has said she does not intend to return to Italy for the trial if it goes ahead.

Mr Castelli, a member of the Northern League, which has campaigned against immigration, said: "No one could have imagined that, having left behind the bloody 1930s in which books were burnt, it would be necessary to take steps to avoid the burning of the books of a provocative but successful author."

Ad hoc groups supporting free speech and Ms Fallaci have been founded in several parts of the country, including her native Florence, and their cause has been backed even by some of the author's critics. Magdi Allam, who writes on Islamic affairs for the daily Corriere della Sera, is the author of an open letter to Ms Fallaci deploring her failure to distinguish between Islamism and Islam.

But he described Mr Smith as a "fanatic" and said he was "100% on the side of Fallaci" in the dispute. Mr Allam said: "The way to respond to her is in print and not in the courts".


Fallaci goes down fighting...
 

Sultan

Gentleness adorns everything
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
48,569
Location
Redcafe
Typical Islamaphobic trash, driven by right wing racists...Its only purpose seems to be division and planting seeds of hatred. What a waste of 5 minutes reading the article.
 

Sultan

Gentleness adorns everything
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
48,569
Location
Redcafe
Kevrockcity said:
one may disagree with fallaci but she should have the right to say what she wants to.
Responsible criticism is well and dandy, she is no different to the terrorist preachers we all hate, "inciting hatred" is something our goverment is looking at in the UK, and not before time.
 

Kevrockcity

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2003
Messages
4,442
Location
Los Angeles
Sultan said:
Responsible criticism is well and dandy, she is no different to the terrorist preachers we all hate, "inciting hatred" is something our goverment is looking at in the UK, and not before time.
inciting hatred? please. that's just another justification governments (and religious groups) use for censoring speech they don't like (or speech political expedient to ban).

have you read any of fallaci's books or essays? she's not some raving street corner lunatic.
 

AhmedDimwitson

The Expert
Joined
Feb 14, 2001
Messages
5,246
Location
fi
Sultan said:
Responsible criticism is well and dandy, she is no different to the terrorist preachers we all hate, "inciting hatred" is something our goverment is looking at in the UK, and not before time.
Agree with this. Was about to write earlier that Abu Hamza and these were allowed to preach freely in London and look what is happening now.

Didn't write it though because I generally belive in free speech but there clearly needs to be limits to it.
 

Kevrockcity

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2003
Messages
4,442
Location
Los Angeles
AhmedDimwitson said:
Agree with this. Was about to write earlier that Abu Hamza and these were allowed to preach freely in London and look what is happening now.

Didn't write it though because I generally belive in free speech but there clearly needs to be limits to it.
what has she said that you would call "hate speech" worthy of banning?
 

mathiaslg

Full Member
Joined
Aug 4, 1999
Messages
11,072
Location
DC, USA
Sultan said:
Typical Islamaphobic trash, driven by right wing racists...Its only purpose seems to be division and planting seeds of hatred. What a waste of 5 minutes reading the article.
If I recall correctly Sultan, she isn't a right-winger.
 

AhmedDimwitson

The Expert
Joined
Feb 14, 2001
Messages
5,246
Location
fi
Kevrockcity said:
what has she said that you would call "hate speech" worthy of banning?
Well, read through it quite rapidly as I couldn't care less what a Italian right winger thinks but you are right, she did urge anyone to do any killings / bombings etc
 

Sultan

Gentleness adorns everything
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
48,569
Location
Redcafe
thewelshconjurer said:
Ms Fallaci attacks "arrogant ... Albanians, Sudanese, Bengalis, Tunisians, Algerians, Pakistanis, Nigerians who with much fervour contribute to the commerce of drugs and prostitution".
Under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights she defames reputation of all the above countries people.


Freedom of speech
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A public demonstrationFreedom of speech is the liberty to freely say what one pleases, as well as the related liberty to hear what others have stated. Beginning in the last half of the twentieth century, it has been commonly understood as encompassing all types of expression, including art, movies, pictures, songs, dances, bodily movements and gestures, and all other forms of expressive communication.

Freedom of speech is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies, where it is understood to outlaw censorship. Free speech is nowadays also protected by international human rights law, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries.

The right to freedom of expression is not considered unlimited; governments may still punish (but not prohibit) certain damaging types of expressions. Under international law, restrictions on free speech are required to comport with a strict three part test: they must be provided by law; pursue an aim recognized as legitimate; and they must be necessary (i.e., proportionate) for the accomplishment of that aim. Amongst the aims considered legitimate are protection of the rights and reputations of others (prevention of defamation), and the protection of national security and public order, health and morals.
 

Sultan

Gentleness adorns everything
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
48,569
Location
Redcafe
mathiaslg said:
If I recall correctly Sultan, she isn't a right-winger.

Politically you may well be correct, racially motivated she certainly is.
 

Kevrockcity

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2003
Messages
4,442
Location
Los Angeles
Sultan said:
Under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights she defames reputation of all the above countries people.


Freedom of speech
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A public demonstrationFreedom of speech is the liberty to freely say what one pleases, as well as the related liberty to hear what others have stated. Beginning in the last half of the twentieth century, it has been commonly understood as encompassing all types of expression, including art, movies, pictures, songs, dances, bodily movements and gestures, and all other forms of expressive communication.

Freedom of speech is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies, where it is understood to outlaw censorship. Free speech is nowadays also protected by international human rights law, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries.

The right to freedom of expression is not considered unlimited; governments may still punish (but not prohibit) certain damaging types of expressions. Under international law, restrictions on free speech are required to comport with a strict three part test: they must be provided by law; pursue an aim recognized as legitimate; and they must be necessary (i.e., proportionate) for the accomplishment of that aim. Amongst the aims considered legitimate are protection of the rights and reputations of others (prevention of defamation), and the protection of national security and public order, health and morals.
she says these countries have problems with drug trafficking and prostitution/the sex trade. you're not allowed to say this?

the next time someone on here criticizes the united states, i'm going to turn them into to interpol for violating my human rights and defaming the reputation of americans!


;)
 

Im red2

Prophet of Doom
Joined
Aug 5, 2001
Messages
7,227
Location
In the begining(time), God created the Heavens(spa
Proof the Bible is the word of God http://www.matthewmcgee.org/prophesy.html

Proof Jesus fulfilled the prophecies concerning the Messiah

1. He would be born of a Virgin (Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:18).
2. He would be of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10 and Luke 3:23, 33).
3. He would be of King David's seed (Jeremiah 23:5 and Luke 3:23, 31).
4. He would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2 and Matthew 2:1).
5. He would be a prophet (Deuteronomy 18:18-19 and Matthew 21:11).
6. He would teach with parables (Psalms 78:2 and Matthew 13:34).
7. He would be preceded by a messenger (Isaiah 40:3, Malachi 3:1, and Matthew 3:1-2).
8. He would enter Jerusalem on a colt (Zechariah 9:9 and Luke 19:35-37).
9. He would be betrayed by a friend (Psalms 41:9 and Matthew 26:47-50).
10. He would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12 and Matthew 26:15).
11. He would be forsaken by His disciples (Zechariah 13:7 and Mark 14:50).
12. The money would be thrown in the temple and used to buy the potter's field (Zechariah 11:13 and Matthew 27:5-7).
13. He would be accused by false witnesses (Psalms 35:11 and Matthew 26:59-60).
14. He would be silent before His accusers (Isaiah 53:7 and Matthew 27:12-14).
15. He would be beaten by his enemies (Isaiah 50:6, 53:5, and Matthew 27:26).
16. He would be spit upon and beaten (Isaiah 50:6 and Matthew 27:30).
17. He would be struck in the head with a rod (Micah 5:1 and Matthew 27:30).
18. He would be mocked (Psalms 22:7-8 and Matthew 27:29, 31).
19. His hands and feet would be pierced (Psalms 22:16, Luke 23:33, and John 20:25).
Note that this was predicted hundreds of years before crucifixion was invented.
20. Men would gamble for His clothing (Psalms 22:18 and John 19:23-24).
21. He would intercede in prayer for His transgressors (Isaiah 53:12 and Luke 23:34).
22. He would suffer thirst (Psalms 22:15 and John 19:28).
23. He would be offered gall and water (Psalms 69:21 and Matthew 27:34).
24. He would cry, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me!" (Psalms 22:1 and Matthew 27:46).
25. He would be cut down in His prime (Psalms 89:45 and 102:23-24).
26. None of His bones would be broken (Exodus 12:46, Psalms 34:20, and John 19:32-33).
27. They would look upon Him whom they had pierced (Zechariah 12:10 and John 19:34).
28. He would be executed with thieves (Isaiah 53:12 and Matthew 27:38).
29. He would be buried in a rich man's tomb (Isaiah 53:9 and Matthew 27:57-60).
How much clearer does God have to be on this subject?????
the world is full of blondes :houllier:
God bless
 

Sultan

Gentleness adorns everything
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
48,569
Location
Redcafe
Well, She could have said a small proportion of people of these countries. She could also have added many other countries to her list, besides Albania all the countries in her list have a darker skin tone, and majority have a Muslim population.

Racist undertones IMO.
 

scalisto

Full Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Messages
481
Location
River Plate
Oriana Fallaci has been a free thinker all her life. Twenty five years ago, right-wing governments all over the world were calling her a miltant left-winger. She's a brilliant journalist, biographer, interviewer and author. The word "appeasement" is not part of her vocabulary.

(She didn't have many kind words for us Argentines though. Her appraisal after a visit many years ago was that "every Argentine has a fascist dwarf dwelling inside" :eek: )
 

Kevrockcity

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2003
Messages
4,442
Location
Los Angeles
Sultan said:
Well, She could have said a small proportion of people of these countries. She could also have added many other countries to her list, besides Albania all the countries in her list have a darker skin tone, and majority have a Muslim population.

Racist undertones IMO.
maybe she brought up those countries in the context of the arabization of islam or whatever. who knows? are we not allowed to criticize countries or populations anymore for fear that it will "defame their reputations?" what's your position here? you don't seem to be arguing against the fact that the above mentioned nations do have problems with drug trafficking or sex trade (as fallaci claimed). then what's the problem? her speech should be banned because while making factual claims about muslim nations, she didn't also add more, what, christian countries? let's throw her books into the fire then!

just because you disagree with her editorial decisions (or relative even-handedness) does not make it hate speech. is it your opinion that every book that criticizes islam or muslims should be banned?
 

redfromcanada

Full Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Messages
827
I haven't been to London for four years now, but I'm wondering if the lunatics are still preaching at Hyde Park. I took an ex-boss of mine there when on business four years ago and he even commented that he thought that Speakers Corner was a cauldron of hate and would certainly incite negative acts. Low and behold, 911 occurred later that year.

Free speech unfortunately, has to have limits on it due to not everyone being clear and rationale in their thoughts. Otherwise, most crackpots would simply be walked away from with little audience. Fact is, it seems that crackpots and controversial opinionists always get the spotlight in this world of ours. Much of the time for excitement value but little else.
 

Kevrockcity

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2003
Messages
4,442
Location
Los Angeles
redfromcanada said:
I haven't been to London for four years now, but I'm wondering if the lunatics are still preaching at Hyde Park. I took an ex-boss of mine there when on business four years ago and he even commented that he thought that Speakers Corner was a cauldron of hate and would certainly incite negative acts. Low and behold, 911 occurred later that year.

Free speech unfortunately, has to have limits on it due to not everyone being clear and rationale in their thoughts. Otherwise, most crackpots would simply be walked away from with little audience. Fact is, it seems that crackpots and controversial opinionists always get the spotlight in this world of ours. Much of the time for excitement value but little else.
so if the police rounded up everyone at the speakers corner, 9/11 would not have happened?

i'm not sure i understand your connection.
 

Sultan

Gentleness adorns everything
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
48,569
Location
Redcafe
Kevrockcity said:
maybe she brought up those countries in the context of the arabization of islam or whatever. who knows? are we not allowed to criticize countries or populations anymore for fear that it will "defame their reputations?" what's your position here? you don't seem to be arguing against the fact that the above mentioned nations do have problems with drug trafficking or sex trade (as fallaci claimed). then what's the problem? her speech should be banned because while making factual claims about muslim nations, she didn't also add more, what, christian countries? let's throw her books into the fire then!

just because you disagree with her editorial decisions (or relative even-handedness) does not make it hate speech. is it your opinion that every book that criticizes islam or muslims should be banned?
Liberty and freedom of speech are values which we must cherished because they guarantee an environment suitable for debate and understanding. Its blatant redicule and hatred I am against.

But saying that In a healthy society there can be no place for intolerance or inflammatory language whether it is based on the colour of someone's skin,or their religious beliefs.

As I have said before would we then say these hate sermons spouted by the so called preachers or any racist organisation be qualified as freedom of speech, I think not.

As for criticising Islam, I for one would not blink an eye if all the ink in the World were to be used up in its criticism, I have complete confidence Islam can answer all criticism in a debate.

Were in a pickle on this issue me thinks.
 

Kevrockcity

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2003
Messages
4,442
Location
Los Angeles
Sultan said:
Liberty and freedom of speech are values which must be cherished because they guarantee an environment suitable for debate and understanding. Its blatant redicule and hatred I am against.

As I have said before would we then say these hate sermons spouted by the so called preachers be qualified as freedom of speech, if they are subtle in the choice of their words, I think not.

As for criticising Islam, I for one would not blink an eye if all the ink in the World were to be used up in its criticism, I have complete confidence Islam can answer all criticism in a debate.
not to be a broken record, but i'm still unclear on what your position is on this. from your posts in thread, i gather you believe fallaci is "inspiring hatred" and "defames the reputation" of those nations she criticized, and on this basis you believe her ability to publish her views should be limited (correct me if i've erred). but her criticisms are factual, a point you don't dispute. bypassing the issue of whether the extremely vague "defaming" someone's reputation or "inspiring hatred" are ligitimate grounds for suppressing political speech, i ask - why do you want to ban political speech that is not factual incorrect? because the speech in question is critical of muslims and islam, regardless of validity? couldn't any speech critical of muslims and islam be interpreted to "defame their reputation" or "inspire hatred?"

fallaci does not advocate that people commit crimes against muslims. she does not yell fire in a crowded movie theatre. so what is the problem?
 

Sultan

Gentleness adorns everything
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
48,569
Location
Redcafe
My feelings about freedoms of speech were general not related to Fallaci or her works, today was the first time I heard her name, I still maintain the article Welshy posted has undertones of racism, but so be it, its her right.

I dont think she should curtail her ability to write what she believes, even though I dont agree with her, I just think writers and political thinkers have a responsibilty to understand boundries of freedom of speech, they can very well put their opinions across without having to insult, I am not reffering to Fallaci, this is my general feeling.

Addressing the question of free speech. Should there be freedom of speech? Certainly. Freedom of speech without exception ? Certainly not. Why? I think offensive speech has bad consequences affecting individuals and society at large. It leads to the spread of hatred, animosity and its divisive. An example, how many of us would accept others accusing our mothers or sisters of being whores ? Should the society protect the freedom of speech of the accuser or the freedom from offensive speech of the accused ?, we have little to lose and so much to gain by avoiding outrageous speech.
 

sin65

Left wing radical
Joined
Jun 12, 2001
Messages
1,074
Location
Manchester
Ms Fallaci attacks "arrogant ... Albanians, Sudanese, Bengalis, Tunisians, Algerians, Pakistanis, Nigerians who with much fervour contribute to the commerce of drugs and prostitution".

As Italians in America never,with any amount of fervour, contribute to the commerce of drugs and prostitution and have in no way brought any amount of Terror into the lives of innocent people she has a justifiable right to generalise (oh sorry) complain about people who do.
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
88,869
Location
Centreback
Criminal charges of blasphemy? Surelynsuch archaic laws don't still exist in Europe.
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
61,623
Sultan said:
Responsible criticism is well and dandy, she is no different to the terrorist preachers we all hate, "inciting hatred" is something our goverment is looking at in the UK, and not before time.
the only difference between them and the Islamic fundamentalists is that they dont place bombs on buses and kill hundreds of innocents + there are no RR countries in the world and they were the Westerners had done their best to destroy such parties. Cannot say the same about the Muslims who wouldnt even dream to oppose countries like Saudi Arabia were whoever is caught carrying more than 2 bibles can risk to be sentenced to death.


But thats a small difference am I right?
 

Sultan

Gentleness adorns everything
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
48,569
Location
Redcafe
devilish said:
the only difference between them and the Islamic fundamentalists is that they dont place bombs on buses and kill hundreds of innocents + there are no RR countries in the world and they were the Westerners had done their best to destroy such parties. Cannot say the same about the Muslims who wouldnt even dream to oppose countries like Saudi Arabia were whoever is caught carrying more than 2 bibles can risk to be sentenced to death.


But thats a small difference am I right?
Everything we do is justified, at least that's what the war hawks with their sophisticated spin plus hiding behind the electorate on all matters have us believe. The opponent can't have justification OR explanation.

Get your blinkers off, we seem to believe its a "humane" war we in the West are fighting using high-tech, laser-guided "smart" bombs, night-vision goggles, cluster bombs, napalm, agent orange, and God only know what else.

Oops I forget were the nice guys we don't target innocents, that's collateral damage, carpet bombing whole areas to weed out a few terrorist, please criminality comes in all forms and sizes, not just in the name of religion.

As for your Saudi remark, please write to the White House, the ruling elite seem to be a protected species in the USA.

Lets get of our moral high horses and admit we together have made this World a piss poor place for our future generations.
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
61,623
Sultan said:
Everything we do is justified, at least that's what the war hawks with their sophisticated spin plus hiding behind the electorate on all matters have us believe. The opponent can't have justification OR explanation.

Get your blinkers off, we seem to believe its a "humane" war we in the West are fighting using high-tech, laser-guided "smart" bombs, night-vision goggles, cluster bombs, napalm, agent orange, and God only know what else.

Oops I forget were the nice guys we don't target innocents, that's collateral damage, carpet bombing whole areas to weed out a few terrorist, please criminality comes in all forms and sizes, not just in the name of religion.

As for your Saudi remark, please write to the White House, the ruling elite seem to be a protected species in the USA.

Lets get of our moral high horses and admit we together have made this World a piss poor place for our future generations.

Wait a minute, as long as I know wasnt we doing a favor to the Afghani people for helping them getting rid of The talebans? Or the Muslims were happy of having such a terrorist group in their own land? And havent we done a favor to the Muslim people by getting rid of Saddam Hussein? I mean, ok I dont believe that the US should have invaded Iraq on a lie, but its also true that as long as we know Saddam was a dictator and a tyrant who killed people for fun.

Whenever a terroristic attack happens we also hear the same BS. The average Muslim has nothing to do with this bla bla bla. Yet then the average Muslim do hear the hatred preaches said in the mosques and say nothing about them. The average Muslim usually know who are the fundamentalists and yet, he stays quiet, and the average Muslim do try to justify what is happening in Iraq and why so many Muslim states have such radical groups in their mist.believe me Al Qaeda, Hamas are much worse than BNP or any other group in Europe, I mean BNP have never killed anyone am I right?

Its not the US that we should look to to solve our problems but its the Muslims. Its your problem and you have put us in it. Now solve this problem. We are sick of having you being supportive, we want you to be proactive.
 

Sultan

Gentleness adorns everything
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
48,569
Location
Redcafe
devilish said:
Wait a minute, as long as I know wasnt we doing a favor to the Afghani people for helping them getting rid of The talebans? Or the Muslims were happy of having such a terrorist group in their own land? And havent we done a favor to the Muslim people by getting rid of Saddam Hussein? I mean, ok I dont believe that the US should have invaded Iraq on a lie, but its also true that as long as we know Saddam was a dictator and a tyrant who killed people for fun.

Whenever a terroristic attack happens we also hear the same BS. The average Muslim has nothing to do with this bla bla bla. Yet then the average Muslim do hear the hatred preaches said in the mosques and say nothing about them. The average Muslim usually know who are the fundamentalists and yet, he stays quiet, and the average Muslim do try to justify what is happening in Iraq and why so many Muslim states have such radical groups in their mist.believe me Al Qaeda, Hamas are much worse than BNP or any other group in Europe, I mean BNP have never killed anyone am I right?

Its not the US that we should look to to solve our problems but its the Muslims. Its your problem and you have put us in it. Now solve this problem. We are sick of having you being supportive, we want you to be proactive.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1526509,00.html

The Gleneagles summit's grand stage might well have shown up George Bush's hypocrisy in proclaiming an "ideology of compassion" over African poverty and global warming. Instead, the London bombings allowed the president and Tony Blair to strut as anti-terror champions again, when in fact their policies continue to produce thousands of new terrorists.
One hardly expected British and US officials to admit the Iraq-terror link. Blair and Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, denied this linkage by recalling that the 1998 east Africa US embassy bombings and the 9/11 attacks took place before the 2003 Iraq war. But not one interviewer or reporter pointed out that both those attacks were preceded by another war against Iraq, following its 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Indeed it was that war and the accompanying UN sanctions, plus the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia, that ushered in our age of global terror with the attempt to blow up the World Trade Centre in 1993.


Article continues

Bush and Blair were also back in full throttle over the terrorists' barbarity in contrast to the west's superior culture and values. Terrorists were motivated by hatred for the western way of life, they insisted.
You would think the pair of them had never hurt a soul. There appeared to be no memory of the half a million Iraqi children killed by sanctions ruthlessly maintained by the US and UK. Indeed, this slaughter was defended as necessary to advance US interests by Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state. It was "worth it", she told CBS in 1996.

While repeatedly reporting comments asserting the other side's inhumanity in recent days, western TV networks have not even hinted at the images they possess of more recent of crimes against humanity committed in Falluja, Najaf, Qaim, the mountain villages of Afghanistan, Jenin. Yes, the terrorists are barbaric - but who is more so?

Bush, Blair and all the countries threatened with terror nevertheless have the world's support in taking all lawful steps necessary to protect their citizens. Muslims in particular want to see an end to terrorist carnage: after all, the principal victims of terror and the US-British aggressions disguised as a response to it are Muslim countries. For every westerner killed by Muslim terrorists since the end of the cold war, at least a hundred Muslims have died in wars and occupations perpetrated by the west.

Action against terrorism is imperative, but will only succeed if accompanied by steps to address intense Muslim grievances, including curbing wars of aggression and occupation, which are among the central causes of the exponential growth in terror. But no one dares to put these items on the international agenda because of US power - and the support given to the US by Britain. Without that British support, the US would be comprehensively isolated and forced to reconsider its policies.

The greatest blow Bush and Blair could strike against terror would be to terminate the occupation of Iraq within a fixed time. This would profoundly affect the outcome of the coming elections, and forge peace through power-sharing with Iraqi insurgents. But there is little pressure for Bush to do so since two senior Democratic senators, John Kerry and Joseph Biden, urged him to send more US troops a fortnight ago. These Democratic leaders seem to have bought into the strategic goals for which the Bush administration launched the war: control of oil in an oil-thirsty world, with its economic rival China the thirstiest of all; the establishment of military bases in support of the American project to redraw the political landscape of the region; and weakening Iraq so it could never again pose a threat to Israel.

Since 9/11 there has been a profound transformation of the US, from the world's most powerful advocate of human rights, democratisation and the rule of law, to a country that is pursuing outlawed practices - such as the indiscriminate use of force in densely populated areas - as well as using torture and working closely with brutal regimes, mostly Muslim, known to practise it.

Most Americans, whose media provide them with extremely limited information about the brutality of US actions in the Muslim world, continue to believe that theirs is good country trying to fix the world and rid it of US- hating terrorists. It's hardly surprising that there is little public pressure to terminate the Iraqi occupation. And the major western states are incapable of exerting serious pressure on the US, even when it is destabilising their world.

Is it possible that the British public and legislators will put pressure on Blair to break with Bush on Iraq as a result of the current atrocity, as Spain did? Or will they rally around Blair? The British media will help determine the answer.

Devilish; Its not just the Muslims who think there is a link with Iraq, 60% of the British public thinks so too, there were plenty of analysts said so before the Invasion, terrorism affects us Muslims more than yourself, we are very actively looking for solutions...We need help, not condemnation.
 

spinoza

Paz's ion
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
24,080
Location
Walking in a whisky wonderland.
Kevrockcity said:
have you read any of fallaci's books or essays? she's not some raving street corner lunatic.
Bull.

She is.

Just because she dresses it up with nice words and the occasional pseudo-Catholic homily doesn't mean it's any less vicious.
 

kkcbl

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 8, 2002
Messages
7,839
Location
Singapore
spinoza said:
Bull.

She is.

Just because she dresses it up with nice words and the occasional pseudo-Catholic homily doesn't mean it's any less vicious.
Not disagreeing with your opinion, but didn't someone say she's a free-thinker?
 

kkcbl

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 8, 2002
Messages
7,839
Location
Singapore
sin65 said:
Ms Fallaci attacks "arrogant ... Albanians, Sudanese, Bengalis, Tunisians, Algerians, Pakistanis, Nigerians who with much fervour contribute to the commerce of drugs and prostitution".

As Italians in America never,with any amount of fervour, contribute to the commerce of drugs and prostitution and have in no way brought any amount of Terror into the lives of innocent people she has a justifiable right to generalise (oh sorry) complain about people who do.
True.
 

kkcbl

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 8, 2002
Messages
7,839
Location
Singapore
devilish said:
Wait a minute, as long as I know wasnt we doing a favor to the Afghani people for helping them getting rid of The talebans? Or the Muslims were happy of having such a terrorist group in their own land? And havent we done a favor to the Muslim people by getting rid of Saddam Hussein? I mean, ok I dont believe that the US should have invaded Iraq on a lie, but its also true that as long as we know Saddam was a dictator and a tyrant who killed people for fun.
But that's not the reasons Afghanistan & Iraq were invaded, i.e. to do favours for the peoples of those two countries, were they?


If that's the case, there are plenty more places for them to invade, so why stop at two, going by your argument?

Whenever a terroristic attack happens we also hear the same BS. The average Muslim has nothing to do with this bla bla bla.
Are you saying the average Muslim has?:eek:

average Muslim do try to justify what is happening in Iraq and why so many Muslim states have such radical groups in their mist
Er, I think even western think-tanks & politicians suggest that as one of the reasons.

believe me Al Qaeda, .... are much worse than BNP or any other group in Europe, I mean BNP have never killed anyone am I right?
Agree about them being more destructive - they should never have been supported & financed by the west in the first place - a frankenstein monster was created. ( don't know whether you should be so bold as to say right-wing groups never incited, attacked or killed anyone - lots of individuals have been murdered by racially motivated atacks )
 

mathiaslg

Full Member
Joined
Aug 4, 1999
Messages
11,072
Location
DC, USA
kkcbl said:
Were we, and all of our ancestors for that matter, to have to be perfectly virtuous in order to be "allowed" to criticize the faults of others, then the entire world would be deafeningly silent.
 

Sultan

Gentleness adorns everything
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
48,569
Location
Redcafe
mathiaslg said:
Were we, and all of our ancestors for that matter, to have to be perfectly virtuous in order to be "allowed" to criticize the faults of others, then the entire world would be deafeningly silent.
"Be perfectly virtuous in criticism of others, yet criticise yourself with a passion", that would solve your fear of silence, ;)