nfitz
Superstar
I thought he was talking about the Christian government that was in the US.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Cooool
- Start date
toraerach
Active Member
First of all, how are Canadian/British Muslims responsible for the actions of foreign governments half a world a way? Governments, no less, of countries they may never have set foot in.
You treat Islam as if it was this monolithic force in the world, apparently unaware of the fact that complex divisions exist within the Muslim community. As I understand it, Canada has a fairly large Ahmadiyya community, primarily originating in Pakistan. Now, you might say that Pakistan is fairly intolerant towards non-Muslims, and you would be right, but then you might go further (following in the logic you outlined in this post) and align those Ahmadiyya Muslims with the Pakistani government. You might say something like “if they’re not tolerant of non-Muslims in their country, why should we tolerate them here?†The problem would be that Ahmadiyya Muslims are harshly persecuted in Pakistan by leaders who have decided that they are not real Muslims. That’s not to say non-Ahmadiyya Pakistani Muslims living in Canada are responsible for the actions of the Pakistani government, but what I’m trying to illustrate the fact that this issue is much more complicated than you let on.
Additionally, within the many denominations of Islam, there are quite a few wherein terrorism has never (to the best of my knowledge) been embraced. In addition to Ahmadiyyas, we don’t see Ismaili or Sufi or Alevi terrorists. In fact, the Aga Khan, leader of the Nizari Ismailis, has never done anything but praise Canada for its tolerance. He is possibly one of the greatest philanthropists of our time, hardly one to support or tolerate terrorism.
Again, that’s not to say that we can judge all of those adhering to the denominations of Islam that have produced terrorists are somehow more responsible for terrorism. Consider this fact: in 2006, estimates pegged the Muslim community in Canada at almost 800,000. Yet, the only example you can cite of Islamic terrorism in Canada is the “plot to blow up the CBC building†– the now infamous Toronto 18. As far as I can tell, not one drop of blood has spilt on Canadian soil in the name of Islamic terrorism. Surely, if it was such a threat to us, we would have seen something more by now. Surely, we wouldn’t have seen those 799,982 other Muslims publicly denounce those 18 alleged terrorists.
That’s not to belittle the threat or the horrors committed by Islamic terrorists in other countries. The threat exists, and attacks do happen from time to time and generally fulfil their primary goal (to fill people with terror). But I would argue that for all the threats out there, Islamic terrorism is probably one of the most over-prioritized. For example, how many threads on UT eventually veer off into this same conversation about Muslims we’ve had over and over and over again? How often is the threat cited by the government or the media? Keeping in mind that not one successful act of Islamic terrorism has been carried out on Canadian soil, why is it that we discuss it so much when, for example, hundreds of Aboriginal women are currently missing or have been murdered in this country?
Why don’t we, instead talk about real cases of terrorism in Canada? There are plenty of other groups whose lunatic fringes have turned to violence: Sikhs (1985 Air India bombing kills 329 people), Armenians (a 1985 attack on the Turkish embassy kills a Canadian security guard), Québécois (the October Crisis), the Irish (the Fenian Raids, the assassination of Thomas D’Arcy McGee), Croatians (1965 bombing of the Yugoslavian consolate in Toronto, later bombings in Toronto and Ottawa), anarchists (the Squamish Five), Cubans (several attacks on Cuban government buildings in Ottawa and Montreal from the 1960s-80s), etc.
As for your argument that political correctness is somehow stifling discussion of crime rates in the African-American community, or the rates of HIV/AIDS in the gay community, I would really suggest looking into the continuously growing discourses surrounding both issues. People are talking about this everywhere, they’re just not making stupid statements like “it’s okay to profile people based on their race because Black people commit more crimes,†or “AIDS: Kills Fags Dead.†It is possible to talk about these issues while remaining respectful of all people – because that’s what this is all really about: people, people who may be different than you or I, but who are still people. How does political correctness (and I would urge you to look into the history of the phrase while your at it) in any way stifle respectful discussion?
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Why is it that whenever people try to list terrorism outside of Islam they have to go back to past centuries? In the 21st century, only radical Islam is attacking civilian targets throughout the world. The Toronto 18 amateur terror group weren't radicalized Anglicans. Adel Mohamed, wasn't an angry Buddhist when he sent letter bombs in Canada. The Khadr family weren't devoted to the Hare Krishna cause when they sent their sons abroad to kill infidels.
To equate the risk of Islam in the 21st century with the other religions in Canada, or to suggest that terrorism comes in all shapes and origins, is simply not realistic. I don't care what the Fenians did in the 1860 and 70s, but I do care that Islamic radicals are blowing up trains, planes and other civilian targets throughout the world.
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
Again, you're saying that just because one religion's in an unlucky and totally random political state right now that they're evil? It doesn't matter if Islam's been a peaceful religion for the past 1000 years, the fact that there's Islamic extremism right now means that it automatically preaches hate. And you get to negate the countless other acts of terrorism by other groups just because they don't do anything today?
So, if you were magically teleported to the 1980s, would you suddenly be denouncing Sikhism as preaching hate, and the Irish as an unstable race?
So, if you were magically teleported to the 1980s, would you suddenly be denouncing Sikhism as preaching hate, and the Irish as an unstable race?
ganjavih
Senior Member
Radicalism among Sikhs is still a problem today. And let's not forget the recent activities of the Tamil Tigers.
Is fanaticism in the Muslim world particularly bad? I think so. Is it black and white (all Muslims bad, all non-Muslims good) the way Beez is trying to portray it? No.
Is fanaticism in the Muslim world particularly bad? I think so. Is it black and white (all Muslims bad, all non-Muslims good) the way Beez is trying to portray it? No.
cacruden
Senior Member
^ I have to say that I think this is a reasonable view.
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
I'll agree that that's a reasonable view too. But it still doesn't signify anything about Islam that makes it a hateful religion either. Just like you wouldn't call Sikhism a hateful religion, it's just found itself in a political situation with the rest of India that gives it's believers a higher population of radicals.
Fresh Start
Banned
Speaking of Britian and political correctness, Prime Minister Gordon Brown now has to do a mea culpa because he was caught on tape calling a woman, whose opposed to Eastern European immigration, a bigot:
[video=youtube;AwzTMZ88JCs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwzTMZ88JCs[/video]
The morale? We now live in a world where anyone can claim to be a victim of some sort of discrimination in order to excuse their bad behaviour.
[video=youtube;AwzTMZ88JCs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwzTMZ88JCs[/video]
The morale? We now live in a world where anyone can claim to be a victim of some sort of discrimination in order to excuse their bad behaviour.
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
How did they get that audio? For some reason, I doubt that sort of action is legal, and at the very least, I would call it quite unacceptable.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I'm not trying to portray all Muslims as being bad, not at all. You'll find crazies in all religions, pro-lifer "Christians" who kill doctors, wacky Tamil suicide bombers, violent Sikhs at a peaceful temple. Is fanatical Islam worse than Tamils or Sikhs, etc? Yes, in so much as "worse" means the greater international threat to innocent Western civilians. You don't see Tamils blowing up public transit in Spain, UK and elsewhere. You don't see Sikhs blowing up hotels in Bali that frequent western tourists. Yes, in the late 20th Century we saw Sikhs blow up an Air India plane, but even that was targeted at the Sikhs domestic grudge with India, and was not targeted at Canada or Western civilians - we were unfortunate collateral damage.
afransen
Senior Member
Mr. Brown forgot that he was wearing a microphone from a media appearance.
urbandreamer
recession proof
I would argue the American gov't is not dominated by Christians. Look behind the scenes for your answer....
It's interesting how one Nation's terrorists are another's soldiers.
That audio/video of GB officially proves Britain has become a pathetic PC nation. How sad.
It's interesting how one Nation's terrorists are another's soldiers.
That audio/video of GB officially proves Britain has become a pathetic PC nation. How sad.
Last edited:
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
Perhaps because Sikhism and Sri Lankan Tamils together are still accounting for far less than 1/50th of the people that adhere to Islam?
And again, you see it's all about politics. For the most part, the Muslim world's biggest beef is the West. The West started the Suez Crisis, destabilized Iran and several other countries, and funded militant groups. In the case of Sikhs, their biggest enemy is actually India. The West has barely done anything to them. So while Sikhs murder Hindus and Hindus murder Sikhs tucked away in India, the only people that the Arab world has to retaliate against is the Westerners who put these predominantly Muslim areas in such big turmoil.
And where's this double standard? Sikhs blowing up an aircraft and killing hundreds is dismissed as "collateral damage," but a Muslim group's attack on a hotel in their own country is an act of hate signifying that Islam is undeniably more dangerous than other religions? This is where incorrect logic blurs into straight out dismissing the information that's not convenient for you.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
And that's exactly why radical Islam is a much different and more credible threat to innocent western civilians internationally. If I was a radical Iman or leader of a radical Islamic country I'd be targeting Westerners throughout the globe too. In addition to the perceived slights you mention, it's also easy to divert my people away from their poverty and lack of freedoms by vilifying and blaming the West.
urbandreamer
recession proof
Lol, I think the only reason these radical clerics talk the talk is because they get media attention! It's the only way to raise money when you're boxed into a poverty zone.
Speaking of blaming the west, most poor people I know blame the "west" for all their problems!
Speaking of blaming the west, most poor people I know blame the "west" for all their problems!