I don’t want to be too heartless about this, but 200 deaths over eight years is pretty good innings isn’t it? Over 250 were kiled during the Falklands and that lasted months. Not that the two are that comparible, obviously.
I wonder what the mother of the 20,000th afghan to get killed has to say about all this. I’m sure both mothers just want the damned thing to stop. If only there was a way the west could buy all the poppy crops and thereby give Afgan farmers a choice other than being a $10 soldier and simultanously take way the reason to commit crime for drugs….
This war is futile. Both the Taleban and al Qaeda are symptoms of the same virus, which is Islam. Western man is too civilised, too self-conscious, to defeat such an elemental enemy. The virus grows steadily stronger here in Western Europe, our cultural immune system having been gravely weakened by sentimental liberals and leftists who despise the society that nurtured them.
Old Rome was brought down by an influx of barbarians and the rise of Christianity. The modern West will be brought down by third-world immigration and the rise of Islam. History is repeating itself.
Waiter, there’s a cliche ranting right-wing nutter in my soup!
Think you’ll find that the real ‘virus’ is poverty and if we were ‘too civilised’ then there would be no poverty. Rome over expanded and, ironically, battled Christian barbarians too. If anything Christianity is the mark that Rome never really fell, it just became catholicism. Y’know, like how the dinosaurs are now birds.
Most fighters in the mountains aren’t doing it for Islam, they are doing it to survive. If every day was a battle of survival then even you, Neander, would start planting bombs. Still, at least the Afghans are being taught how to skateboard. Imagine that, a monkey on a skateboard!
Tell me, Neander, how have Muslims badly affected your life or prevented you from doing what you please? Not a friend or family member, not a sweeping generalisation about your area or county, not some perceived activity you believe you wouldn’t be allowed to partake in, but some way in which you, personally, have actively been prevented from doing something or been forced to do something as a direct result of someone else being a Muslim.
“Both the Taleban and al Qaeda are symptoms of the same virus, which is Islam. Western man is too civilised, too self-conscious, to defeat such an elemental enemy.”
sooo, earth, wind, fire, water and, muslims?
i think there is something wrong with your copy of “the fifth element” dear, this is why you shouldn’t buy pirate dvds.
There was a documentary on the other day about cells that informed me that before science gave a better explanation learned people thought that lower creatures like mice and crocodiles were spontaneously created from rocks and whatnot. I imagine there’s a similar theory going around BNP meetings regarding Muslims.
Yeah, down with those people who like liberty.
“They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society” Margret Thatcher, Women’s Own Magazine 1987.
Thatcher took away society a bit after she snatched all the milk, yeah? Right-on! The system is fucked, fuck the system etc. Man, I’d love to live in black & white. I’d certainly look a lot cooler when I light a cigarette.
I don’t understand the banner heading on the front page. Is that Eggwina Curry?
…Fruitbat…Fifty years ago I could write an article in a newspaper saying that Mohammed’s career owed more to his epilepsy than to divine inspiration. I wonder how many editors today would allow me to write such an article. Will the editors of this site even allow this particular post to appear?
…Stevie H….“sentimental liberals and leftists who despise the society that nurtured them”. You want evidence that such guys exist? Then study most of the posts on this site!!!
…JSwindle…”Yeah, down with those people who like liberty.”
Well, that means most Muslims, who think that their religion should be protected from any serious criticism. A prohibition which is backed up with the threat of death when they become numerous enough within any society foolish enough to allow them in.
“Fifty years ago”
“I could have”
“I wonder”
“Will the editors”
I asked you for specifics and asked for no sweeping generalisations. You completely ignored me and have come out with claims based on nothing more than your own perceived view of the world with zero evidence or citation to back it up, so I’m going to have to assume that your claims are utterly groundless. Provide actual evidence – not an anecdote, not what you think might be true or a hypothetical question – but actual evidence. A link, a citation, whatever.
Neadertroll: St Paul was probably an epileptic, in Ireland it’s been known as St Paul’s disease which just goes to show you how accepted that idea is. I think his career owed more to epilepsy than meeting divinity and I will even go along with Mohammed’s revelations being of a similar origin too. Why would anyone want to write about either in a newspaper when its not news? http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/0/
Feel free to write an article on it if you want. If a newspaper buys it, it’s not a newspaper. Best save it for a book or magazine.
Interesting to read that you believe that Muslims (all of them, I guess) are liberals, though. Comprehension much?
Study the posts on this site? Have you? Have you really? You know it’s about the comic that is the Daily Mail, right? Not about politics, but the reporting of ‘news’ in the Daily Mail? Being left, centre, right of centre or extreme nutbag doesn’t come into it. It’s about distortion of facts as reported in a daily paper that has its own twisted agenda. The Mail and the Express are just the greatest examples. If anything the site is about free thought. How liberating.
There are 1.82 Billion Muslims on the planet. Doesn’t demonising them all for the actions of a fraction make you equal to the extreme Muslims who say the entire west is corrupt? You’re a bad mullah too. Oh the irony.
Thirty year sago you could go to a TV exec and say that you’d like to wear blackface and sing old nigger songs and they’d have fallen over themselves to get that show up and running. Oh lordy, how things have changed.
Perhaps you could let us know if you’ve read the Qur’an, or have any knowledge of the Islamic religion. Criticising it based on the opinions of the national media, who can’t even accurately translate words like “Jihad” and “Shariah”, and possibly some bloke you know down the pub, will not hold water.
I have no problem with the press or anyone else criticising Islam, or any other world religion. But I expect criticism to be accurate and academic, not a smokescreen for racist vitriol.
…Fruitbat…So, you want me to be more specific do you? 1. Salman Rushdie is only alive today because of massive police protection (his Japanest translator was not so well-protected) 2. Geert Wilders likewise 3. Theo van Gogh un-likewise. How many corpses or potential corpses do you need?
…Antigherkin…Yes I have read the Koran. A dreary farrago into which you can put anything you like, including violence and murder. Only academics should be allowed to criticise Islam? Ah well, that’s millions of people who have the misfortune to be religious minorities in Islamic countries (Christians and Hindus in Pakistan for example) forbidden from saying what they think about those who oppress and terrorise them. And don’t bother with the pathetic ‘this word should be spelt this way’ routine that Islam-defenders like to use. Each culture spells translated words according to its own convenience…for instance, ‘Mohammed’ is how most Westerners actually spell the word and pronounce it, they do not say ‘Muhammad’. And anyway, why do you lovers of Islam not add (Peace be upon him) when you write his name? If you respect Muslims so much then surely you ought to. Or at the very least (pbuh).
And it isn’t racist vitriol to point out that there is no Muslim country, not one, where you can stand up and publicly say a) that Mohammed was an impostor b) that the Koran is a product of the human mind, not the divine mind, AND hope to survive. Either by official or unofficial means you would be sealing your own fate. And as Muslims grow steadily stronger in our midst the same situation will occur, is already occurring, in Western society. And the sort of people who inhabit this site are content to let all of this happen.
Bringing up Rushdie when other books have been written since that are far more directly counter the prophet written by authors who are alive and don’t have police protection is just silly. The greatest way to actually incite hatred from Islamic nutters (the minority) is, well, you. I think you want a war, like what Charlie Manson did. Helter-Skelter! Teh white man is going down, but will rise again!
Carelessly I let slip my old pseudonym. daveyp. is a ghost though. Neander is the new me.
…Sim-O…well spotted. Your proofreading skills are better than mine. If I ever write a book I’ll offer you the job of proofreading it.
The varied responses to my original comments really bear out what I said to begin with, that the majority of contributors to this site, sentimental liberals and leftist malcontents, are aiding and abetting the onward march of Islam. Your motives for doing so are open to speculation. AND if you got together all those people in the world who are religious minorities in Muslim countries I am willing to bet that nearly all of them would agree with what I have been saying and not with those disagreeing with me.
I’ll presume daveyp and Neander are one and the same, since he seems to have answered charges levelled at another troll. That, or trolls on this site all belong to some kind of Borg-esque hive mind, which is also conceivable.
I did not say only academics can criticise Islam. I said criticism should be academic. Consult dictionary for different usage of word “academic”.
The Qur’an certainly has its share of violence, I acknowledge. Good thing you don’t get any of that in the other major world religions eh? At least, I presume that’s the case, since your criticism doesn’t seem to extend to them.
Who are these Islam-defenders who claim Arabic words should be spelt certain ways? Bollocks, there is not correct way to spell a translated Arabic word, it’s done phonetically. A linguistic purist might call you on the most accurate way to represent the sounds, but I really couldn’t give one I assure you. But if you’d prefer to anticipate my response so you can go off on a tangent against a strawman of your own creation, don’t mind me, please. You already seem to have branded me a “lover of Islam” in response to my claim that I welcome criticism of religion as long as it is accurate. I’m an atheist, all these fairy stories are as one to me, but I’m buggered if I’ll listen to shit-stirring lies whipped up against minorities.
>Think you’ll find that the real ‘virus’ is poverty and if we were ‘too civilised’ then there would be no poverty.
The Taliban aren’t fighting because they’re poor, they’re fighting because they believe very strongly in their fundamentalist version of Islam and they know that those they’re fighting (Afghan and Coalition both) want to prevent them realising it again. It’s not about economics, it’s about culture. Osama bin Laden is an extremely rich man but he’s chosen to live in caves and fight a holy war. Anyone trying to understand this whole thing through the prism of economics is missing the point – this isn’t about rational things.
And, here’s a irony, despite Neander and others on the European/American far-right repeating the “Islam-taking-over-Europe” meme, the Taliban and Islamists in general claim the opposite – that Islamic civilisation is threatened by creeping Western values and that they have to fight it to prevent it taking over (look at what the Taliban did when they took power – one of the first things was banning anything that could receive broadcasts from the rest of the world; there was a deliberate attempt to seal Afghanistan off from “dangerous” foreign influences). For all the pretence that this is Islam-specific this is, in many ways, a classic example of ultra-conservative reaction.
Those Americans on the “Christian Right” who have spent the last few years pushing Creationism and other nonsenses, for example. They’re not doing it because they’re poor, are they? They’re doing what they do much for the same reasons the Taliban do, the only reason they’re not picking up guns and forming armies is because power in American is still largely realised through the ballot box.
Are all critics of The Dail Mail leftist liberal Ismalic apologists thingamyjogs, then? Because critisising the Daily Mail is all this site is about as far as I can tell and as the excellent deconstructions on the front page show – there’s plenty to critisise. Never knew I was signing up to the Tootin Popular Front by adding a few light comments.
Good to hear that Neander and DaveyP are the same because at least that means there is one less crazy-in-denial in the world.
Oddly, I thought (or even ‘believed’) black and white, good and evil, with me or against me was extraoplated from Zoroastrianism from the middle east. See, they are good for some things, though I’d rather go with the Hindus.
Matty: “The Taliban aren’t fighting because they’re poor”
I’m sure many are driven by strong beliefs, sure, but your average guy with an AK just wants to feed his family and doesn’t even understand the points and politics of either side which is where, surely, education and financial stability comes in rather than bombs and bullets and remote controlled drones. That was my point. Sorry, it’s been a worrisome week. Bloody recession.
“I’m sure many are driven by strong beliefs, sure, but your average guy with an AK just wants to feed his family and doesn’t even understand the points and politics of either side”
As I said, I don’t really buy this. It’s arguable that in, say, 1998 someone who was just concerned about money in their pocket and food on the table would join the Taliban – they were the government of the time after all. But after the 2001 invasion, the Taliban were kicked out and forced into the south of the country. Anyone who was interesting in “feeding their family” would have defected to the new government, nobody with such interests would have upped sticks and moved to the mountains on the Afghan-Pakistan border. To do that requires a great deal more commitment.
From what I can gather, if someone in Afghanistan is looking to feed their family and make a living then they’ll join the national police or army or (in the areas the government has little control over) become an opium farmer. The opium trade (which, of course, reaches our shores as heroin) *is* an issue of economics. The Taliban aren’t.
>which is where, surely, education and financial stability comes in rather than bombs and bullets and remote controlled drones.
Stability, financial and otherwise, is the key thing. Same with Iraq. Currently about half of Afghanistan isn’t even controlled by the government and the country’s longstanding civil war (which began thirty years ago!) rages on in the south. The opium issue is one of the big ones – its one of the few proper cash crops the country has but the West wants the crops destroyed even though it could, theoretically, utilise them for medical heroin. This issue has been kicked around, politically, for ages but the West and their Afghan allies don’t seem to have got much further in resolving the problem. I can only wonder what the problem is…
Matty: I only wrote what I wrote because I heard some villagers interviewed on Radio 4 who told some nice white reporter why they are fighting. I’m no expert on Afghanistan aside from what I learned from Rambo 3 and what I hear or see on TV and the radio and I appreciate that people ill say anything to a bloke with a mic. I do, however, think that soldiers/fighters (not all, obviously, my granddad joined up after witnessing cristalnacht) don’t generally fight for ideals but rather because it is what they are told to do or because they need to earn money somehow. Burning crops, for example, would take away many farmers funds and so make being a ‘$10 Taliban’ seen worthwhile. The idea that they are all driven by religious zeal or ideology seems rather silly to me. I’m also for legalising drugs, though. Personally I’d just buy the crops, offer farms protection against gangs and…. Damn, I’m boring myself now. If I ran the world it would fall apart very quickly. I just don’t like Afghans being regarded as orcs. Seems simplistic.
I’d fight against the invaders rather than for the police/army installed by foreign power if I was an illiterate and unemployed man in Afghanistan, also. The story just makes more sense. Foreigner = enemy. Can’t believe I’m even typing this because some nutrag tit turned up. I am Pavlov’s dog.
There was a news report on C4 the other day in which a British army bloke said ‘they are inherently lazy’ in regard to Afghan troops. Next it was reported how hot it was. Mad dogs and Englishmen, eh?
>I’d fight against the invaders rather than for the police/army installed by foreign power if I was an illiterate and unemployed man in Afghanistan, also. The story just makes more sense. Foreigner = enemy.
See, I think that’s my issue with what you’re saying, that this is just all very simple. From what I’ve read/seen about Afghanistan it’s not remotely simple and there are multiple reasons for what’s going on over there (and has been going on since 1979, all we’ve done is got involved). A large part of what fires Islamism is cultural and involves a huge amount of paranoia and fear of the new, hence the comparison I made to America’s “religious right”. The motivations (and the mentality) are very similar. Going back a little further, you also have the notorious pro-fascist “falange” movements of the 1930s. Islamism might seem like part of some religious continuity but it’s a recent movement and, despite its grounds in a very old religion, it has recent precedents.
The Taliban might well have a few poor Afghans whose reasons for fighting in their ranks are press-ganging or economic necessity but they’re not the ones who are going to cause problems for the Coalition and their Afghan allies – people who believe utterly in what they’re fighting for are some of the most persistent and dangerous soldiers there are.
Also, regarding “foreigners”, don’t forget that the Taliban aren’t a necessarily ethnic Afghan movement. Jihadis tend to cross borders to where the fighting is, I remember reading an account of the Balkan wars in the ’90s where a truck was discovered with dead Middle Eastern troops in it; they’d come to the Balkans to fight what they believed was a “holy war” (the Bosniacs probably didn’t even request their help). Also, the so-called “Northern Alliance” which was fighting the Taliban before we got involved *is* an Afghan movement.
I’d also be careful about believing the old line about how an ethnic group always rounds on foreigners incurring into their country. This sometimes happens (China in the ’30s for example) but usually only when both sides despise the invader more than each other. That certainly wasn’t the case in Afghanistan, the NA had been fighting a losing battle against the Taliban army for years, for them the Coalition arriving would have been like someone sending in the cavalry. And, given that the Afghan population in general despised Taliban rule, there was little chance of a popular uprising against the Coalition. If the Taliban had been defeated and no longer a threat, that situation might have changed, however.
>I’d fight against the invaders rather than for the police/army installed by foreign power if I was an illiterate and unemployed man in Afghanistan, also
Sorry to double-quote this but I’ve another point to make (I’ll try and be brief this time!). I think it’s fair to say that your statement would be true or false depending on circumstance. For example, a poor illiterate unemployed Afghan whose family were killed by Taliban would probably side with the government; a poor illiterate unemployed Afghan who relies on poppy farming for his income might side with the Taliban (although given the Taliban had a policy of destroying poppy crops when in power this is questionable); a poor illiterate unemployed Afghan who’d fought with the NA would side with the government and never side with the Taliban; a poor illiterate unemployed Afghan who is deeply religious might join either side depending on his personal interpretation of his religion, a poor illiterate unemployed Afghan who lost someone in a Coalition or NA attack might side with the Taliban out of grief and anger. Basically what I’m saying is that these things depend on complicated socio-political-cultural circumstance and can’t be judged based on whether someone is rich or poor, Afghan or non-Afghan.
I put a bit of faux html-code in that last post to show that I was doing a (lame) bit of humour but the post seems to have mistaken it for a real one and lost it. Tsk.
>I just don’t like Afghans being regarded as orcs.
I understand, but like I said you shouldn’t confuse “Afghans” and “Taliban”. Many Afghans *want* to fight the Taliban and were doing so (and would do so) if we weren’t here. It’s a very politically-divided nation and hasn’t had a proper government for decades. The Taliban regime and the current Western-backed government are the closest its come for a long time (and in both cases only control a portion of the country).
matty: I think it’s fair to say when I refer to Afghan fighters I’m referring to the ones shooting at our troops rather than with them and I don’t designate them as Taliban as I can’t know if they really are, and by ‘really are’ I mean that they follow the ideals of the Taliban and don’t just pull triggers because they want the money. Again, this is just based on a documentary. I’m clearly no expert on Afghanistan beyond what I learn from various media. I’m sure many Afghan soldiers and police have joined up for the money, and many have because of what they believe in. I also understand (thanks to R4) that many that are fighting with the Taliban are not doing it for political or religious reasons. The idea that everyone attacking our troops are fundamentalists is therefore unfounded. I’m sure many are, but I’m also sure many are not. I just won’t paint them all with the same brush.
I don’t want to be too heartless about this, but 200 deaths over eight years is pretty good innings isn’t it? Over 250 were kiled during the Falklands and that lasted months. Not that the two are that comparible, obviously.
I wonder what the mother of the 20,000th afghan to get killed has to say about all this. I’m sure both mothers just want the damned thing to stop. If only there was a way the west could buy all the poppy crops and thereby give Afgan farmers a choice other than being a $10 soldier and simultanously take way the reason to commit crime for drugs….
Did Madeley pay for his daughter’s new norks I wonder?
This war is futile. Both the Taleban and al Qaeda are symptoms of the same virus, which is Islam. Western man is too civilised, too self-conscious, to defeat such an elemental enemy. The virus grows steadily stronger here in Western Europe, our cultural immune system having been gravely weakened by sentimental liberals and leftists who despise the society that nurtured them.
Old Rome was brought down by an influx of barbarians and the rise of Christianity. The modern West will be brought down by third-world immigration and the rise of Islam. History is repeating itself.
@Neander
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA… Oh wait, you’re serious.
…
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Waiter, there’s a cliche ranting right-wing nutter in my soup!
Think you’ll find that the real ‘virus’ is poverty and if we were ‘too civilised’ then there would be no poverty. Rome over expanded and, ironically, battled Christian barbarians too. If anything Christianity is the mark that Rome never really fell, it just became catholicism. Y’know, like how the dinosaurs are now birds.
Most fighters in the mountains aren’t doing it for Islam, they are doing it to survive. If every day was a battle of survival then even you, Neander, would start planting bombs. Still, at least the Afghans are being taught how to skateboard. Imagine that, a monkey on a skateboard!
Tell me, Neander, how have Muslims badly affected your life or prevented you from doing what you please? Not a friend or family member, not a sweeping generalisation about your area or county, not some perceived activity you believe you wouldn’t be allowed to partake in, but some way in which you, personally, have actively been prevented from doing something or been forced to do something as a direct result of someone else being a Muslim.
Seriously. There’s no rush; I’ll wait.
Does getting bummed in a Turkish jail count?
“Both the Taleban and al Qaeda are symptoms of the same virus, which is Islam. Western man is too civilised, too self-conscious, to defeat such an elemental enemy.”
sooo, earth, wind, fire, water and, muslims?
i think there is something wrong with your copy of “the fifth element” dear, this is why you shouldn’t buy pirate dvds.
There was a documentary on the other day about cells that informed me that before science gave a better explanation learned people thought that lower creatures like mice and crocodiles were spontaneously created from rocks and whatnot. I imagine there’s a similar theory going around BNP meetings regarding Muslims.
“sentimental liberals and leftists who despise the society that nurtured them”
Wow – these guys sound interesting. Is there any evidence that they exist?
Yeah, down with those people who like liberty.
“They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society” Margret Thatcher, Women’s Own Magazine 1987.
Thatcher took away society a bit after she snatched all the milk, yeah? Right-on! The system is fucked, fuck the system etc. Man, I’d love to live in black & white. I’d certainly look a lot cooler when I light a cigarette.
I don’t understand the banner heading on the front page. Is that Eggwina Curry?
…Fruitbat…Fifty years ago I could write an article in a newspaper saying that Mohammed’s career owed more to his epilepsy than to divine inspiration. I wonder how many editors today would allow me to write such an article. Will the editors of this site even allow this particular post to appear?
…Stevie H….“sentimental liberals and leftists who despise the society that nurtured them”. You want evidence that such guys exist? Then study most of the posts on this site!!!
…JSwindle…”Yeah, down with those people who like liberty.”
Well, that means most Muslims, who think that their religion should be protected from any serious criticism. A prohibition which is backed up with the threat of death when they become numerous enough within any society foolish enough to allow them in.
“Fifty years ago”
“I could have”
“I wonder”
“Will the editors”
I asked you for specifics and asked for no sweeping generalisations. You completely ignored me and have come out with claims based on nothing more than your own perceived view of the world with zero evidence or citation to back it up, so I’m going to have to assume that your claims are utterly groundless. Provide actual evidence – not an anecdote, not what you think might be true or a hypothetical question – but actual evidence. A link, a citation, whatever.
‘Will the editors of this site even allow this particular post to appear’
Yep…
On the bright side free premier league dvd’s………Hope Phil Brown’s singing is on one.
Neadertroll: St Paul was probably an epileptic, in Ireland it’s been known as St Paul’s disease which just goes to show you how accepted that idea is. I think his career owed more to epilepsy than meeting divinity and I will even go along with Mohammed’s revelations being of a similar origin too. Why would anyone want to write about either in a newspaper when its not news?
http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/0/
Feel free to write an article on it if you want. If a newspaper buys it, it’s not a newspaper. Best save it for a book or magazine.
Interesting to read that you believe that Muslims (all of them, I guess) are liberals, though. Comprehension much?
Study the posts on this site? Have you? Have you really? You know it’s about the comic that is the Daily Mail, right? Not about politics, but the reporting of ‘news’ in the Daily Mail? Being left, centre, right of centre or extreme nutbag doesn’t come into it. It’s about distortion of facts as reported in a daily paper that has its own twisted agenda. The Mail and the Express are just the greatest examples. If anything the site is about free thought. How liberating.
There are 1.82 Billion Muslims on the planet. Doesn’t demonising them all for the actions of a fraction make you equal to the extreme Muslims who say the entire west is corrupt? You’re a bad mullah too. Oh the irony.
Thirty year sago you could go to a TV exec and say that you’d like to wear blackface and sing old nigger songs and they’d have fallen over themselves to get that show up and running. Oh lordy, how things have changed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K21e7po1Sro
It’s political correctness gone mad.
Perhaps you could let us know if you’ve read the Qur’an, or have any knowledge of the Islamic religion. Criticising it based on the opinions of the national media, who can’t even accurately translate words like “Jihad” and “Shariah”, and possibly some bloke you know down the pub, will not hold water.
I have no problem with the press or anyone else criticising Islam, or any other world religion. But I expect criticism to be accurate and academic, not a smokescreen for racist vitriol.
God, the Mail do love self hating women.
Look behind you Neander, there’s a Muslim in your garbage!
…Fruitbat…So, you want me to be more specific do you? 1. Salman Rushdie is only alive today because of massive police protection (his Japanest translator was not so well-protected) 2. Geert Wilders likewise 3. Theo van Gogh un-likewise. How many corpses or potential corpses do you need?
…Antigherkin…Yes I have read the Koran. A dreary farrago into which you can put anything you like, including violence and murder. Only academics should be allowed to criticise Islam? Ah well, that’s millions of people who have the misfortune to be religious minorities in Islamic countries (Christians and Hindus in Pakistan for example) forbidden from saying what they think about those who oppress and terrorise them. And don’t bother with the pathetic ‘this word should be spelt this way’ routine that Islam-defenders like to use. Each culture spells translated words according to its own convenience…for instance, ‘Mohammed’ is how most Westerners actually spell the word and pronounce it, they do not say ‘Muhammad’. And anyway, why do you lovers of Islam not add (Peace be upon him) when you write his name? If you respect Muslims so much then surely you ought to. Or at the very least (pbuh).
And it isn’t racist vitriol to point out that there is no Muslim country, not one, where you can stand up and publicly say a) that Mohammed was an impostor b) that the Koran is a product of the human mind, not the divine mind, AND hope to survive. Either by official or unofficial means you would be sealing your own fate. And as Muslims grow steadily stronger in our midst the same situation will occur, is already occurring, in Western society. And the sort of people who inhabit this site are content to let all of this happen.
“…JSwindle…”Yeah, down with those people who like liberty.”
Well, that means most Muslims,”
er, you sure you meant to say that?
Isn’t your beef with Muslims the supposition that they *don’t* like liberty?
Oh look daveyp rolled back in to support the latest outbreak of sectarian nonsense.
Stand back in amazement.
Bringing up Rushdie when other books have been written since that are far more directly counter the prophet written by authors who are alive and don’t have police protection is just silly. The greatest way to actually incite hatred from Islamic nutters (the minority) is, well, you. I think you want a war, like what Charlie Manson did. Helter-Skelter! Teh white man is going down, but will rise again!
Carelessly I let slip my old pseudonym. daveyp. is a ghost though. Neander is the new me.
…Sim-O…well spotted. Your proofreading skills are better than mine. If I ever write a book I’ll offer you the job of proofreading it.
The varied responses to my original comments really bear out what I said to begin with, that the majority of contributors to this site, sentimental liberals and leftist malcontents, are aiding and abetting the onward march of Islam. Your motives for doing so are open to speculation. AND if you got together all those people in the world who are religious minorities in Muslim countries I am willing to bet that nearly all of them would agree with what I have been saying and not with those disagreeing with me.
I’ll presume daveyp and Neander are one and the same, since he seems to have answered charges levelled at another troll. That, or trolls on this site all belong to some kind of Borg-esque hive mind, which is also conceivable.
I did not say only academics can criticise Islam. I said criticism should be academic. Consult dictionary for different usage of word “academic”.
The Qur’an certainly has its share of violence, I acknowledge. Good thing you don’t get any of that in the other major world religions eh? At least, I presume that’s the case, since your criticism doesn’t seem to extend to them.
Who are these Islam-defenders who claim Arabic words should be spelt certain ways? Bollocks, there is not correct way to spell a translated Arabic word, it’s done phonetically. A linguistic purist might call you on the most accurate way to represent the sounds, but I really couldn’t give one I assure you. But if you’d prefer to anticipate my response so you can go off on a tangent against a strawman of your own creation, don’t mind me, please. You already seem to have branded me a “lover of Islam” in response to my claim that I welcome criticism of religion as long as it is accurate. I’m an atheist, all these fairy stories are as one to me, but I’m buggered if I’ll listen to shit-stirring lies whipped up against minorities.
>Think you’ll find that the real ‘virus’ is poverty and if we were ‘too civilised’ then there would be no poverty.
The Taliban aren’t fighting because they’re poor, they’re fighting because they believe very strongly in their fundamentalist version of Islam and they know that those they’re fighting (Afghan and Coalition both) want to prevent them realising it again. It’s not about economics, it’s about culture. Osama bin Laden is an extremely rich man but he’s chosen to live in caves and fight a holy war. Anyone trying to understand this whole thing through the prism of economics is missing the point – this isn’t about rational things.
And, here’s a irony, despite Neander and others on the European/American far-right repeating the “Islam-taking-over-Europe” meme, the Taliban and Islamists in general claim the opposite – that Islamic civilisation is threatened by creeping Western values and that they have to fight it to prevent it taking over (look at what the Taliban did when they took power – one of the first things was banning anything that could receive broadcasts from the rest of the world; there was a deliberate attempt to seal Afghanistan off from “dangerous” foreign influences). For all the pretence that this is Islam-specific this is, in many ways, a classic example of ultra-conservative reaction.
Those Americans on the “Christian Right” who have spent the last few years pushing Creationism and other nonsenses, for example. They’re not doing it because they’re poor, are they? They’re doing what they do much for the same reasons the Taliban do, the only reason they’re not picking up guns and forming armies is because power in American is still largely realised through the ballot box.
Are all critics of The Dail Mail leftist liberal Ismalic apologists thingamyjogs, then? Because critisising the Daily Mail is all this site is about as far as I can tell and as the excellent deconstructions on the front page show – there’s plenty to critisise. Never knew I was signing up to the Tootin Popular Front by adding a few light comments.
Good to hear that Neander and DaveyP are the same because at least that means there is one less crazy-in-denial in the world.
Oddly, I thought (or even ‘believed’) black and white, good and evil, with me or against me was extraoplated from Zoroastrianism from the middle east. See, they are good for some things, though I’d rather go with the Hindus.
Oh, and this. Sorry.
Matty: “The Taliban aren’t fighting because they’re poor”
I’m sure many are driven by strong beliefs, sure, but your average guy with an AK just wants to feed his family and doesn’t even understand the points and politics of either side which is where, surely, education and financial stability comes in rather than bombs and bullets and remote controlled drones. That was my point. Sorry, it’s been a worrisome week. Bloody recession.
“I’m sure many are driven by strong beliefs, sure, but your average guy with an AK just wants to feed his family and doesn’t even understand the points and politics of either side”
As I said, I don’t really buy this. It’s arguable that in, say, 1998 someone who was just concerned about money in their pocket and food on the table would join the Taliban – they were the government of the time after all. But after the 2001 invasion, the Taliban were kicked out and forced into the south of the country. Anyone who was interesting in “feeding their family” would have defected to the new government, nobody with such interests would have upped sticks and moved to the mountains on the Afghan-Pakistan border. To do that requires a great deal more commitment.
From what I can gather, if someone in Afghanistan is looking to feed their family and make a living then they’ll join the national police or army or (in the areas the government has little control over) become an opium farmer. The opium trade (which, of course, reaches our shores as heroin) *is* an issue of economics. The Taliban aren’t.
>which is where, surely, education and financial stability comes in rather than bombs and bullets and remote controlled drones.
Stability, financial and otherwise, is the key thing. Same with Iraq. Currently about half of Afghanistan isn’t even controlled by the government and the country’s longstanding civil war (which began thirty years ago!) rages on in the south. The opium issue is one of the big ones – its one of the few proper cash crops the country has but the West wants the crops destroyed even though it could, theoretically, utilise them for medical heroin. This issue has been kicked around, politically, for ages but the West and their Afghan allies don’t seem to have got much further in resolving the problem. I can only wonder what the problem is…
Matty: I only wrote what I wrote because I heard some villagers interviewed on Radio 4 who told some nice white reporter why they are fighting. I’m no expert on Afghanistan aside from what I learned from Rambo 3 and what I hear or see on TV and the radio and I appreciate that people ill say anything to a bloke with a mic. I do, however, think that soldiers/fighters (not all, obviously, my granddad joined up after witnessing cristalnacht) don’t generally fight for ideals but rather because it is what they are told to do or because they need to earn money somehow. Burning crops, for example, would take away many farmers funds and so make being a ‘$10 Taliban’ seen worthwhile. The idea that they are all driven by religious zeal or ideology seems rather silly to me. I’m also for legalising drugs, though. Personally I’d just buy the crops, offer farms protection against gangs and…. Damn, I’m boring myself now. If I ran the world it would fall apart very quickly. I just don’t like Afghans being regarded as orcs. Seems simplistic.
I’d fight against the invaders rather than for the police/army installed by foreign power if I was an illiterate and unemployed man in Afghanistan, also. The story just makes more sense. Foreigner = enemy. Can’t believe I’m even typing this because some nutrag tit turned up. I am Pavlov’s dog.
There was a news report on C4 the other day in which a British army bloke said ‘they are inherently lazy’ in regard to Afghan troops. Next it was reported how hot it was. Mad dogs and Englishmen, eh?
>I’d fight against the invaders rather than for the police/army installed by foreign power if I was an illiterate and unemployed man in Afghanistan, also. The story just makes more sense. Foreigner = enemy.
See, I think that’s my issue with what you’re saying, that this is just all very simple. From what I’ve read/seen about Afghanistan it’s not remotely simple and there are multiple reasons for what’s going on over there (and has been going on since 1979, all we’ve done is got involved). A large part of what fires Islamism is cultural and involves a huge amount of paranoia and fear of the new, hence the comparison I made to America’s “religious right”. The motivations (and the mentality) are very similar. Going back a little further, you also have the notorious pro-fascist “falange” movements of the 1930s. Islamism might seem like part of some religious continuity but it’s a recent movement and, despite its grounds in a very old religion, it has recent precedents.
The Taliban might well have a few poor Afghans whose reasons for fighting in their ranks are press-ganging or economic necessity but they’re not the ones who are going to cause problems for the Coalition and their Afghan allies – people who believe utterly in what they’re fighting for are some of the most persistent and dangerous soldiers there are.
Also, regarding “foreigners”, don’t forget that the Taliban aren’t a necessarily ethnic Afghan movement. Jihadis tend to cross borders to where the fighting is, I remember reading an account of the Balkan wars in the ’90s where a truck was discovered with dead Middle Eastern troops in it; they’d come to the Balkans to fight what they believed was a “holy war” (the Bosniacs probably didn’t even request their help). Also, the so-called “Northern Alliance” which was fighting the Taliban before we got involved *is* an Afghan movement.
I’d also be careful about believing the old line about how an ethnic group always rounds on foreigners incurring into their country. This sometimes happens (China in the ’30s for example) but usually only when both sides despise the invader more than each other. That certainly wasn’t the case in Afghanistan, the NA had been fighting a losing battle against the Taliban army for years, for them the Coalition arriving would have been like someone sending in the cavalry. And, given that the Afghan population in general despised Taliban rule, there was little chance of a popular uprising against the Coalition. If the Taliban had been defeated and no longer a threat, that situation might have changed, however.
>I’d fight against the invaders rather than for the police/army installed by foreign power if I was an illiterate and unemployed man in Afghanistan, also
Sorry to double-quote this but I’ve another point to make (I’ll try and be brief this time!). I think it’s fair to say that your statement would be true or false depending on circumstance. For example, a poor illiterate unemployed Afghan whose family were killed by Taliban would probably side with the government; a poor illiterate unemployed Afghan who relies on poppy farming for his income might side with the Taliban (although given the Taliban had a policy of destroying poppy crops when in power this is questionable); a poor illiterate unemployed Afghan who’d fought with the NA would side with the government and never side with the Taliban; a poor illiterate unemployed Afghan who is deeply religious might join either side depending on his personal interpretation of his religion, a poor illiterate unemployed Afghan who lost someone in a Coalition or NA attack might side with the Taliban out of grief and anger. Basically what I’m saying is that these things depend on complicated socio-political-cultural circumstance and can’t be judged based on whether someone is rich or poor, Afghan or non-Afghan.
>There was a news report on C4 the other day in which a British army bloke said ‘they are inherently lazy’ in regard to Afghan troops.
Well, they have been fighting a war now for 30-odd years. They probably just want a break
I put a bit of faux html-code in that last post to show that I was doing a (lame) bit of humour but the post seems to have mistaken it for a real one and lost it. Tsk.
>I just don’t like Afghans being regarded as orcs.
I understand, but like I said you shouldn’t confuse “Afghans” and “Taliban”. Many Afghans *want* to fight the Taliban and were doing so (and would do so) if we weren’t here. It’s a very politically-divided nation and hasn’t had a proper government for decades. The Taliban regime and the current Western-backed government are the closest its come for a long time (and in both cases only control a portion of the country).
matty: I think it’s fair to say when I refer to Afghan fighters I’m referring to the ones shooting at our troops rather than with them and I don’t designate them as Taliban as I can’t know if they really are, and by ‘really are’ I mean that they follow the ideals of the Taliban and don’t just pull triggers because they want the money. Again, this is just based on a documentary. I’m clearly no expert on Afghanistan beyond what I learn from various media. I’m sure many Afghan soldiers and police have joined up for the money, and many have because of what they believe in. I also understand (thanks to R4) that many that are fighting with the Taliban are not doing it for political or religious reasons. The idea that everyone attacking our troops are fundamentalists is therefore unfounded. I’m sure many are, but I’m also sure many are not. I just won’t paint them all with the same brush.