12/23/24
March 01, 2011
Iran: London Olympics Logo is Racist: Iran is threatening to urge a Muslim boycott of the 2012 London Olympics on the grounds that the official logo spells the word "Zion." "There is no doubt that negligence of the issue from your side may affect the presence of some countries in the Games, especially Iran which abides by commitment to the values and principles," writes Bahram Afsharzadeh, the secretary general of Iran's National Olympic Committee.
No fair, yerfatma got to post a response before rcade even posted the message!!
posted by Demophon at 08:30 AM on March 01, 2011
The pot calling the kettle black!
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 09:05 AM on March 01, 2011
It sucks for Iranian athletes that Ahmadinejad is the president of Iran.
posted by bperk at 09:12 AM on March 01, 2011
No fair, yerfatma got to post a response before rcade even posted the message!!
The answer to how is in the picture.
It sucks for Iranian athletes that Ahmadinejad is the president of Iran.
Why be so specific?
posted by yerfatma at 09:18 AM on March 01, 2011
I think it spells "zinz".
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:39 AM on March 01, 2011
The pink polka-dotted rhinoceros that flew out of my oatmeal this morning has confirmed for me that this is indeed a Zionist conspiracy and that the entire conspiratorial world is simply taken aback by Ahmedenijad's uncanny ability to see through its ruse(s).
posted by tahoemoj at 10:59 AM on March 01, 2011
A shark!
posted by grum@work at 11:38 AM on March 01, 2011
It's always something with those guys. Looking for trouble where there ain't none.
Some years back, I was trying to figure out why Iran was so sure that the US was the Great Satan.
Then I found out that "dole" is the Farsi word for penis.
Some exchange student must have returned to Tehran and told everyone that they wouldn't believe how many people in America were on the dole.
And that the sinful heathen ethic had gotten to the point where a guy named Dole was running for president.
The Iranian leadership might as well raise as much international hell as they can while they can. They're only a few thousand social media page visits away from having a popular uprising on their hands.
posted by beaverboard at 12:08 PM on March 01, 2011
I feel like the fat kid in Mallrats
Little Girl: Wow. It's a schooner.
Willam Black: Ha ha ha ha. You dumb bastard. It's not a schooner... it's a Sailboat.
Little Boy: A schooner IS a sailboat stupid head!
Willam Black: [becoming enraged] You know what? There is NO Easter Bunny! Over there, that's just a guy in a suit!
posted by Debo270 at 12:22 PM on March 01, 2011
They'd garner more sympathy boycotting the Olympics on the grounds that the logo is bloody hideous.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 12:28 PM on March 01, 2011
the logo is bloody hideous
Punk rock cave man isn't your thing?
posted by tahoemoj at 01:06 PM on March 01, 2011
Honestly, now that it's been pointed out, I do see it about as well as I see 2012. I think this is more likely evidence of a shitty logo than of racism, but then again, to me Zion is something from The Matrix, so what do I know?
I imagine the meeting went something like this:
Iranian Factotum 1: Man, this 2012 London games logo is awful.
Iranian Factotum 2: Tell me about it, it's so bad it's almost actively offensive.
1: Wouldn't it be awesome if we could call them out on this?
2: Yeah, but no one gives a shit what we think, it's not like the two-thousand never Tehran games have a better logo.
1: You know what, it seems like the best tactic for getting attention is to make it about Islam vs. the West.
2: Word.
1: So, what does the Quran say about shitty logos?
2: Thou shalt not worship false idols?
1: Isn't that the bible? Whatever.
[Time passes]
2: Hey, if you look at it right, it's like that Fedex thing where there's an arrow, it totally says "zion"!
1: Great, who cares? You think this country is full of fluent English readers?
2: Yeah, but...
[Simultaneously] Ahmedinijad will fucking love this!
posted by feloniousmonk at 01:08 PM on March 01, 2011
And there I was thinking that it looked like Lisa Simpson doing something unmentionable.
posted by etagloh at 01:37 PM on March 01, 2011
A shark!
Yes! I see it too. But, now I'm confused...how does being a shark help you post a reply before the actual thread was posted?
That, and now my eyes hurt.
Oh, and Iran needs to worry more about making it through 2011 than they need to worry about a crappy logo for 2012.
posted by dviking at 01:54 PM on March 01, 2011
Honestly, now that it's been pointed out, I do see it about as well as I see 2012.
The hell. Where's the O? It clearly says "zinz".
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:16 PM on March 01, 2011
Read top-to-bottom, left-to-right. And obviously, you have to have a pretty generous interpretation, but that was part of my point, because I think that is equally true of its intended reading of 2012.
posted by feloniousmonk at 02:23 PM on March 01, 2011
I did read top to bottom, left to right. That's not an O, because Os do not have pointy bits sticking off them. It's a N.
(alternately, the whole mess is a bunch of hipsters in purple pants)
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:38 PM on March 01, 2011
I like the logo. But I fear Etagloh ruined it for me with the Lisa Simpson comment.
posted by rcade at 02:46 PM on March 01, 2011
The Iranian president said the logo is offensive to Islam. I was just wondering if there was anything that is not offensive to Islam. Pretty ironic considering his position on the United States, Europe, Israel, women, the Holocaust etc...
One good thing about his position is that if he could actually arrange a muslim boycott of the 2012 Olympics, the organizers could save a lot on security.
posted by Atheist at 03:07 PM on March 01, 2011
There's a simple way to handle being offended by the logo of the Olympics. Don't go.
posted by Joey Michaels at 03:15 PM on March 01, 2011
I like the logo. But I fear Etagloh ruined it for me with the Lisa Simpson comment.
Once you see it, it's impossible to unsee it.
posted by bperk at 04:34 PM on March 01, 2011
Here's another entry on the topic. At the bottom is another take on the possible pictorial interpretation of the logo.
I like Jon Stewart's musing, but prefer etagloh's interpretation.
posted by beaverboard at 04:54 PM on March 01, 2011
One good thing about his position is that if he could actually arrange a muslim boycott of the 2012 Olympics, the organizers could save a lot on security.
Um, wow.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:27 PM on March 01, 2011
I overlooked that. Don't be a tool, Atheist. There are 1.1 billion Muslims on the planet. Al Qaeda numbered a couple hundred people at its peak. Do the math.
posted by rcade at 09:38 PM on March 01, 2011
And there I was thinking that it looked like Lisa Simpson doing something unmentionable.
Do you mean Maggie Simpson? I totally see it if so.
posted by Ricardo at 06:39 AM on March 02, 2011
One good thing about his position is that if he could actually arrange a muslim boycott of the 2012 Olympics, the organizers could save a lot on security.
That's interesting, because the last terrorist attack at an Olympics was by a white, American male who attacked for political reasons. I guess for safety sake it would probably be best if the London Olympics could get those guys to boycott the games.
posted by grum@work at 07:53 AM on March 02, 2011
One good thing about his position is that if he could actually arrange a muslim boycott of the 2012 Olympics, the organizers could save a lot on security.
Don't mean to pile on (well, ok, maybe I do), but surely the absence of any muslim participants would in fact encourage a radicalised islamic extremist to attack the games, secure in the knowledge that he or she would be less likely to kill innocent muslim bystanders, no?
posted by JJ at 08:50 AM on March 02, 2011
Crazy white guy with backpack = Al Qaeda?
Must be the new math.
posted by wfrazerjr at 10:08 AM on March 02, 2011
Oh, come on, guys...like you didn't know that fraze is perpetually stuck in 1972?!
posted by The_Black_Hand at 11:51 AM on March 02, 2011
Crazy white guy with backpack = Al Qaeda?
Do you have to be a radical Muslim to be considered a terrorist?
posted by MeatSaber at 12:27 PM on March 02, 2011
I wish we were stuck in 1985 and a "radical Muslim" was something totally different.
posted by yerfatma at 12:40 PM on March 02, 2011
"less likely to kill innocent muslim bystanders"
Has that ever stopped them in the past?
"There are 1.1 billion Muslims on the planet. Al Qaeda numbered a couple hundred people at its peak."
Do your really believe there are only a couple of hundred members. I would say more than that have self detonated in suicide attacks. I am not sure where you get your numbers but if what you say is true, do you believe that the 1.1 billion muslims in the world are allowing a couple of hundred guys do this to their religion and it's reputation? I will believe how peaceful the religion is at heart when I see the evidence of it. Maybe 1.1 billion should stand up to a couple of hundred, or at least speak out against them and the overall viewpoint of many would change. It reminds me of something I once heard about Germany after WWII, regarding how difficult it was to find a Nazi in Germany. Did people really believe that millions of Germans were peace loving victims and a couple of hundred fanatical Nazi's almost destroyed the world? Do the apathetic masses get a free pass when they don't cull the violent fanatics from their ranks? I give every human being the benefit of the doubt and will continue to make all religions equally the target of satirical and sarcastic comments when ever possible as nothing deserves it more. So here is one more...
Except, I wouldn't want to receive the inevitable death threats that may follow if I express my opinion in a free country.
posted by Atheist at 12:50 PM on March 02, 2011
If people are so ignorant that they want to judge a religion by its most extreme members, then there is nothing that any good, observant member of the religion can do about it. Thankfully, few do that with other religions. Unfortunately for Muslims, they face the bulk of this type of crap.
posted by bperk at 02:15 PM on March 02, 2011
do you believe that the 1.1 billion muslims in the world are allowing a couple of hundred guys do this to their religion and it's reputation? I will believe how peaceful the religion is at heart when I see the evidence of it.
posted by yerfatma at 03:54 PM on March 02, 2011
Do the apathetic masses get a free pass when they don't cull the violent fanatics from their ranks? I give every human being the benefit of the doubt
Then take yourself to task as a member of the apathetic masses. I don't see you culling any "violent fanatics" from any of the many groups that you belong to.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:20 PM on March 02, 2011
What groups might that be?
I have equal dislike for all violent religious fanatics. If they are violent fanatics. The picture above is definitely of people I would consider fanatics but I am not so sure they have committed violence or murder, if so they should be locked up.
It appears we live in a world where people are threatened with death for even questioning Islam. The cartoon from the Danish newspaper was a political cartoon that summed up a very wide spread perception or sentiment that the quote few fanatics are fostering of Islam. I have know many muslims I like and respect, but questioning the notion that there are only a few radicals amongst 1.1 billion peaceful, tolerant, and law abiding muslims, does not seem to address the fact that we live now a world in which enormous efforts have been made to boost security against terrorism of which the majority of incidents have been by Islamic fanatics. Has the entire free world taken these steps because of two hundred fanatics? I don't think so. Obviously there is a lot of people that see this differently. I hope it is the Islamic community around the world that proves to be the answer to what these couple hundred terrorists are doing. I do believe if they really wanted it to end, it would have quickly as 1.1 billion people have a lot of power.
Try not to confuse one or two isolated instances of home grown terrorism with the countless instances that have prompted the worldwide response of massive security strengthening efforts in direct retaliation of the tactics used by Islamic terrorists.
posted by Atheist at 05:29 PM on March 02, 2011
It appears we live in a world where people are threatened with death for even questioning Islam. The cartoon from the Danish newspaper . . .
Proof by example. As such: I hereby question Islam formally. If I don't check in tomorrow, you might be onto something. I guess the one thing I'd ask is: are the Muslims you know really violent?
posted by yerfatma at 05:37 PM on March 02, 2011
I have know many muslims I like and respect, but questioning the notion that there are only a few radicals amongst 1.1 billion peaceful, tolerant, and law abiding muslims, does not seem to address the fact that we live now a world in which enormous efforts have been made to boost security against terrorism of which the majority of incidents have been by Islamic fanatics.
You can't possibly believe that our overblown security theater is actual evidence that Muslims are dangerous.
posted by bperk at 05:44 PM on March 02, 2011
"I guess the one thing I'd ask is: are the Muslims you know really violent?"
The answer is no. That does not change the fact that Islamic nations that adhere to Sharia law tend to appear very violent and oppressive to me, and that I have seen very little evidence of the 1.1 billion or great majority standing up against or being vocal by denouncing the various terrorist groups. Quite the contrary those groups seem to be growing in strength, influence and numbers. I would question anybody like rcade who makes a statement that the violence is cause by only a few hundred radicals against the beliefs of 1.1 billion. Where is there any evidence that supports that statement?
posted by Atheist at 06:04 PM on March 02, 2011
You can't possibly believe that our overblown security theater is actual evidence that Muslims are dangerous.
On the other hand, Shabaz Bhatti, Benazir Bhutto, and Salman Taseer provide compelling evidence that some Muslims are, and that Atheist isn't completely off-base. He never once said that all Muslims are dangerous, but has repeatedly said that Muslim extremists are responsible for horrible acts of terrorism. I might not share the same level of disdain, and might refrain from making some of the comments he has, but to act like he's completely off-base doesn't seem fair to me.
posted by tahoemoj at 06:10 PM on March 02, 2011
My initial flippant remark was sarcastic and was made just to address the irony of the president of Iran threatening to urge muslims to boycott the Olympics as if that would cause distress among the western world which in fact, rightfully or wrongfully might welcome it, and real or just false perception, just might feel safer about it.
"You can't possibly believe that our overblown security theater is actual evidence that Muslims are dangerous. "
I never said that, I am saying that the security in airports and events around the world is not evidence that Muslims are dangerous, it is evidence that the world perceives the threats and actions of Islamic terrorism as something to be prevented even at tremendous cost and inconvenience. It is a direct response to the events since 9/11. Denying it is , well just denial. It is proof that the entire free world has the same perception based on actuial events. .
posted by Atheist at 06:41 PM on March 02, 2011
Give the Muslims a break, they're in the middle of a cultural civil war that we don't ever seem to recognize. We also lump them all together as if they call each other every day. It's retarded.
That, and I would think recent events would be encouraging.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:08 PM on March 02, 2011
I would question anybody like rcade who makes a statement that the violence is cause by only a few hundred radicals against the beliefs of 1.1 billion. Where is there any evidence that supports that statement?
The intel community estimated that the number of Al Qaeda operatives at the time of 9/11 numbered between 500 and 1,000.
Intel officials currently estimate Al Qaeda numbers fewer than 500 operatives.
So that's my evidence.
Where is your evidence for the collective guilt of 1.1 billion Muslims?
posted by rcade at 10:29 PM on March 02, 2011
Intel officials currently estimate Al Qaeda numbers fewer than 500 operatives.
That's not as many as I would expect. Do they know how many are estimated to be in Jaish-e-Mohammed, Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Taliban, Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin, Hezbollah, Turkish Hezbollah, Fatah al-Islam, Hamas, Islamic Jihad's Al Quds, Abu Sayyaf, Algerian Islamic Separatists, random cells throughout Europe and the Americas, unaccounted independent South Asian cells, and any other I couldn't look up with a 30 second google search?
Again, I think the joke that started all this was crass and in marginally bad taste. But I also think that demonizing the joke maker by acting as if Al Qaeda is the only group of Islamic extremists in the world is a fairly disingenuous way to address that impropriety.
Considering backing out of the room slowly, understanding that ship has sailed
posted by tahoemoj at 12:21 AM on March 03, 2011
So it's disingenuous to offer actual facts about the wildly exaggerated threat of Islamic extremism? Even 10,000 terrorists would be a minuscule fraction of the world's Muslims, who regularly and frequently condemn terrorism in the countries where they can speak freely.
Yet people like Atheist continue to trot out the tired canard that Muslims haven't done enough to deplore terrorism, so being collectively suspicious of them is OK. Anyone really think he's out there scouring the world's press to see what normal Muslims are saying? I have my doubts.
Three to six million Muslims live in the United States. They want the same things anybody else wants -- to practice their faith (or lack thereof), raise their families and live in peace and prosperity. They're not just at the Olympics, either. They attend ALL OF OUR MAJOR SPORTING EVENTS.
Run for your lives! Muslims in our midst! The NFL will be run under Shariah law! Raise the terror alert level back to pee-the-bed yellow!
posted by rcade at 07:47 AM on March 03, 2011
Even 10,000 terrorists would be a minuscule fraction of the world's Muslims, who regularly and frequently condemn terrorism in the countries where they can speak freely. Doesn't that statement in itself show these countries are repressed to where they could not condemn terrorists if they wanted to.
posted by gfinsf at 09:22 AM on March 03, 2011
Even 10,000 terrorists would be a minuscule fraction of the world's Muslims, who regularly and frequently condemn terrorism in the countries where they can speak freely.
Agreed. I do think the fear mongering and suspicion are grossly disproportionate to the reality. It just seemed to me that, to make a point in the thread, the reality was being represented as "virtually non-existent", rather than "substantially less than the American public's perception." But that could just be due to the fact that the interwebz are an imperfect communication medium.
posted by tahoemoj at 10:06 AM on March 03, 2011
Atheist:
What groups might that be?
Well, first and foremost, you're a human being, a race given to violent extremism. We are a species made up of individuals who will bash each other to death with peace signs. Beyond that, if you want to name your demographics, I'll show you the violent extremists whose connection with you is no more tenuous than the connection between Osama bin Laden and Abdulla al-Kidd.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:39 AM on March 03, 2011
gfinsf:
Doesn't that statement in itself show these countries are repressed to where they could not condemn terrorists if they wanted to.
Are you thinking perhaps of Egypt? Or Saudia Arabia? I mean, name a country, get specific.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:41 AM on March 03, 2011
I am not sure where anybody got the impression I felt all muslims were terrorists or supported terrorism. So let me try this. I accept that the radical terrorists factions of Islam make up a relatively small percentage of the worlds total Islamic population. Although I seriously questioned the number being in the hundreds or even thousands, or tens of thousands, which is still relatively a small percentage of the overall 1.1 billion. The fact remains that if this small percentage is causing the non muslim world to have the perception that they as a group are so dangerous, to the extent that we have built an entire security network devoted to stopping their acts of violence against innocents, then shouldn't the 1.1 billion peaceful and tolerant muslims be doing more to cull the fanatics, stop their popular support and recapture the peaceful nature of their religion? Instead of blaming the west for all of their problems.
Open your eyes and see what happens every day. I am not talking about the isolated acts of mentally deranged individuals such as the Arizona shooter. I am talking specifically of the acts by organized, financially and logistically supported Islamic organizations. To say there isn't a large support base from the Islamic population suggest some denial when there is a lot out there to suggest otherwise in my opinion.
I will accept responsibility for making a crass and off the cuff comment regarding the irony of the Iranian leaders threat. I also apologize if that comment derailed the sports aspect of the thread. Politics and religion really are taboo for rational and respectful discussion.
posted by Atheist at 12:23 PM on March 03, 2011
The fact remains that if this small percentage is causing the non muslim world to have the perception that they as a group are so dangerous, to the extent that we have built an entire security network devoted to stopping their acts of violence against innocents
I can't agree with this as fact. It may be your perception that "the non muslim world" believes this, but what is this based on? Really, where are you getting your perception of world opinion? Do you, for example, regularly read or follow a wide range of news media from around the globe? Have you lived in many different places? Americans have been manipulated and propagandized into an exaggerated threat perception, but is this true of the rest of the world -- or are you projecting that view and assuming others must share it?
then shouldn't the 1.1 billion peaceful and tolerant muslims be doing more to cull the fanatics, stop their popular support and recapture the peaceful nature of their religion?
This is like saying "Shouldn't the x million peaceful and tolerant white people be doing more to cull the white supremacist fanatics", or "shouldn't the x billion peaceful and tolerant men be doing more to cull the men who are violent towards women", or "Shouldn't the x million peaceful and tolerant Christians be doing more to cull the anti-Semitic fanatics". Do you believe those things? If so, how are you doing your part? If not, isn't that hypocritical, to hold Muslims to a standard that other populations are not held to?
Open your eyes and see what happens every day. I am not talking about the isolated acts of mentally deranged individuals such as the Arizona shooter.
Of course not, because he wasn't a Muslim and therefore doesn't support the agenda, does he?
I am talking specifically of the acts by organized, financially and logistically supported Islamic organizations. To say there isn't a large support base from the Islamic population suggest some denial when there is a lot out there to suggest otherwise in my opinion.
Talking specifically usually involves citing actual instances, rather than vague references to "acts", "the Islamic population", "a lot...to suggest", etc.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:40 PM on March 03, 2011
"This is like saying "Shouldn't the x million peaceful and tolerant white people be doing more to cull the white supremacist fanatics", or "shouldn't the x billion peaceful and tolerant men be doing more to cull the men who are violent towards women", or "Shouldn't the x million peaceful and tolerant Christians be doing more to cull the anti-Semitic fanatics". Do you believe those things? If so, how are you doing your part? If not, isn't that hypocritical, to hold Muslims to a standard that other populations are not held to?"
Yes I agree it is exactly like saying those things, and yes all those groups should and do. Millions of white people gave their live to cull the Nazi white supremacist fanatics from Europe in the 30's and 40's. There are police forces and agencies of men who do fight to stop other men from behaving violently toward women, and there are a lot of Christians who speak out against anti semitism. Can more be done? Of course. Am I holding muslims to a higher standard, no. I am holding them to the same standard. Nobody is perfect and the wrongs of other groups do not justify the wrongs of another. Criticizing the muslim population does not mean I think all other religions are better or different. I am only saying I think the majority of muslims have not been vocal or active enough in condemning the actions of what you are saying is a minority that are ruining the non islamic world view of their beliefs.
While we are walking on egg shells trying to be politically correct and trying to be tolerant of the beliefs of Islam. Islam has not done much in my opinion to show tolerance toward the differences within Islam let alone tolerance of any other religion or set of values and beliefs.
posted by Atheist at 03:37 PM on March 03, 2011
Yes I agree it is exactly like saying those things, and yes all those groups should and do. Millions of white people gave their live to cull the Nazi white supremacist fanatics from Europe in the 30's and 40's. There are police forces and agencies of men who do fight to stop other men from behaving violently toward women, and there are a lot of Christians who speak out against anti semitism.
So now we have to get down to numbers, because apparently you feel that the decent Germans who said, "Hey, that's not right, killing those Jews! Let's fight the Nazis!", and the men who say (not as part of their job) "Hey, that's not right, men beating on women! Let's do something about it!", and the Christians who say, "Hey, that's terrible, that anti-semitism! Let's get to work and stop it!", are in much greater proportion than the Muslims who speak out against terrorism committed in the name of Islam. If, as you claim, you are not holding Muslims to a higher standard, then demonstrate the truth of this by producing numbers in support of what you say.
Nobody is perfect and the wrongs of other groups do not justify the wrongs of another.
Never said they did. But those in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones, and I think you're standing in a very fragile glass house.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:21 PM on March 03, 2011
While we are walking on egg shells trying to be politically correct and trying to be tolerant of the beliefs of Islam.
Being respectful of other people is not being politically correct. It's just being a decent human being.
Islam has not done much in my opinion to show tolerance toward the differences within Islam let alone tolerance of any other religion or set of values and beliefs.
Religions don't actually do anything. Their followers may do things. And, once again, I think your views of Muslims are clear, but the factual basis for those views are not evident. The Qur'an is available in English if you were genuinely curious. Another source for debunking some of these myths is CAIR.
posted by bperk at 04:56 PM on March 03, 2011
Crap, had too much work to do, and almost missed out on the fun of participating in a derailed non-sports related thread.
1) Atheist's comment was clearly a joke, and that so many of you got your Spiderman Undies all bunched up is amazing to me. I clearly saw the humor, and as a rational (my opinion to be sure) adult I knew that he didn't mean to say that all Muslims are bad people, or that only Muslims could be guilty of a terrorist attack. It is almost certainly a fact that if all Muslims stayed away from the Olympics, that they would save a ton on security. They'd save a ton if all Lutherans/Catholics/Buddists/whatever stayed away.
2) Al Qaeda numbers fewer than 500 operatives. That particular article is talking about Afghanistan, obviously, there are more worldwide. Beyond that, Al Qaeda ain't the Lion's Club or Rotarians...they don't keep a roster, and each "operative' might have numerous soldiers attached to them. many work totally independently in an attempt to avoid detection. Not to mention all the associated groups(see tahoemoj's statement)
3) Throughout time, including the last 100 years, many religious/political groups have been guilty of allowing a few fanatics rile the masses up to the point that they commit horrendous acts. Nazi Germany, Ireland, the KKK here in the US, Muslims, etc. In each of these cases the majority of the people would have never acted the way they did. It took a lot for people to rise up and resist the leaders. Sometimes that happened quickly, sometimes not. There are reasons for hope with the Muslim situation, but I don't think it's too far out of line to say that the average Muslim could/should do more.
Sorry I was late,
posted by dviking at 05:58 PM on March 03, 2011
That particular article is talking about Afghanistan, obviously, there are more worldwide.
Not really. Estimates always come in a lot lower than the Muslim-hating scaremongers want the world to think.
Here's another estimate as of June 2010:
Jake Tapper, ABC News: How many Al Qaeda, do you think, are in Afghanistan?... I don't think it's too far out of line to say that the average Muslim could/should do more.
CIA Director Leon Panetta: I think the estimate on the number of Al Qaeda is actually relatively small. I think at most, we're looking at 50 to 100, maybe less. It's in that vicinity.
Unless there's a reason to believe you're in tune with the activities of the average Muslim, I think that's a flimsy reason to continue putting the actions of a small fringe of extremists on them. Would you suggest that the average Christian could do more about Fred Phelps and people who kill abortion doctors?
posted by rcade at 06:26 PM on March 03, 2011
"Would you suggest that the average Christian could do more about Fred Phelps and people who kill abortion doctors?"
I would say it isn't necessary to do more as those fanatics are already being prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Now compare how we deal the fanatics as opposed to how say the Muslim community in Libya deals with say the Pan Am Bomber who was welcomed as a hero for killing innocents. Or how Osama Bin Laden is viewed by the Islamic world. I don't see muslims trying to bring these outlaw muslims to justice. I wish I did but have yet to see it. I mainly see aiding and abetting.
posted by Atheist at 06:48 PM on March 03, 2011
1) Atheist's comment was clearly a joke, and that so many of you got your Spiderman Undies all bunched up is amazing to me.
It might be less amazing if you read the rest of the thread.
Far from "walking on eggshells" around Muslim sensibilities, I think that Muslims are clearly seen as an acceptable target of bigotry these days, particularly but not exclusively in the United States. The fact that they are held to be collectively responsible for the actions of the fanatics among them, when other groups are not, is proof of that.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:55 PM on March 03, 2011
I would say it isn't necessary to do more as those fanatics are already being prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
That's a disclaimer of responsibility that you would not allow Muslims. That's hypocritical.
Now compare how we deal the fanatics as opposed to how say the Muslim community in Libya deals with say the Pan Am Bomber who was welcomed as a hero for killing innocents
And how do "we" deal with the fanatics?
I don't see muslims trying to bring these outlaw muslims to justice.
Well, then you've got a vision problem, because you apparently don't see the Muslim servicemen and servicewomen who are doing just that. I can only conclude that you would rather hold onto your preconceptions than accept an inconvenient truth.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:05 PM on March 03, 2011
I would say it isn't necessary to do more as those fanatics are already being prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Cop out.
Now compare how we deal the fanatics as opposed to how say the Muslim community in Libya deals with say the Pan Am Bomber who was welcomed as a hero for killing innocents.
Libya is ruled by a dictator, at least as of this morning. You are blaming ordinary Libyans for actions they could have been ordered to do.
I don't see muslims trying to bring these outlaw muslims to justice. I wish I did but have yet to see it.
That's because you're not looking. There's clearly nothing I or anyone else can say that would shake you loose from your ignorance-fueled prejudice against Muslims.
posted by rcade at 08:00 PM on March 03, 2011
rcade, you really ought to read your article a bit closer, or perhaps not try to just glean the one sentence that backs your point. Right after the 100 in Afghanistan comment is this "There's no question that the main location of Al Qaeda is in the tribal areas of Pakistan."
Not really a debate about how many Al Qaeda are in any one country, they're a pretty fluid bunch.
As Americans we do quite a bit against Fred Phelps and his bunch. Are you accusing me of helping him? On a side note, I have confronted people in my community that were very racist. Turned in a guy down the block that I knew was writing derogatory messages on Hispanic people's cars. I am fully aware that our legal and law enforcement systems make it far easier for me to do so, than it is for the average Iranian to stand up to the radicals in their country, but I did not just stand back and watch.
It might be less amazing if you read the rest of the thread
Read it, twice, still amazed that so many didn't get that he was joking. If you don't like the humor, slam him for that, but don't start taking it all so literally.
That's a disclaimer of responsibility that you would not allow Muslims. That's hypocritical
Seriously, and I know that you and I often see things from different view points, but you are going to have to explain what you mean by that.
Fred Phelps, has had our legal system thrown at him. Do the Muslim fanatics have their legal system thrown at them? I don't think so, they're usually treated as heros. If all the governments in the Middle East were prosecuting (whether successful or not) all of the terrorists, that would be a different story. Instead, reality is that the terrorists simply slide back and forth between countries, with the governments doing nothing to stop them. Hence the misleading "there are only 50 to 100 in Afghanistan' comments.
an inconvenient truth.
Okay, now that made me laugh...quoting Al Gore. Nice. Are we up for a full on discussion of all of his lies. Let me know.
posted by dviking at 08:08 PM on March 03, 2011
Hence the misleading "there are only 50 to 100 in Afghanistan' comments.
The director of the CIA said there are 50 to 100 in Afghanistan. How is it misleading to pass this assessment along?
I've read a dozen stories on the worldwide size of Al Qaeda. They all have numbered the group in the hundreds, not thousands. If you want to dispute this, offer actual facts -- not vague sentiments about how "they're a pretty fluid bunch" or blatantly false statements like "the terrorists simply slide back and forth between countries, with the governments doing nothing to stop them."
The vague notion that terrorists are all over the place and Muslims are culpable for their actions is what sparked this discussion in the first place. You're adding nothing with more baseless assertions.
Okay, now that made me laugh...quoting Al Gore. Nice. Are we up for a full on discussion of all of his lies. Let me know.
Now you're just trolling. LBB's comment had nothing to do with Gore.
posted by rcade at 08:55 PM on March 03, 2011
How is it misleading to pass this assessment along?
Oh, come on, they simply move from one country to the other, without any interference from either government. Your first shot at the number of Al Qaeda was that there are only 500 in existence. When I pointed out that the article you were quoting was only talking about Afghanistan, you then mentioned a "newer' link that showed a smaller number. So what? The terrorists just moved a 100 miles. You're trying to discount the numbers of terrorists by only looking at one country, ignoring the known fact that they are free to move between countries. That is why passing that assessment along is misleading. If Dallas county cracks down on illegal immigrants, very quickly there will be fewer of them in Dallas county. Did they all go back to Mexico, or gain legal citizenship? No, they simply moved to a county that is aggressive toward them. But, I think you get that.
Terrorists are being arrested, and/or causing trouble all over the world, including right here in Texas, so yes, they are all over the place. Muslims do bear some culpability, just as any of us would if a group we belonged to harbored terrorists. That has already been discussed. We are responsible for those we associate with. Not all Muslims are terrorists, and many have stepped forward to speak out against the terrorists.
What baseless assertion did I add???
Seriously, "an inconvenient truth" is classic Al Gore. I believe he called his little movie that. While I may be guilty of a bit of trolling, if you search for an inconvenient truth, all the links prominently list Al Gore's name.
posted by dviking at 09:42 PM on March 03, 2011
That has already been discussed. We are responsible for those we associate with.
We are not responsible for anyone who has the same religion we do. That's absolutely ridiculous. If someone in California uses the bible as a reason to beat his children, I am not at all culpable. And, that is true regardless of whether we share the same country or the same religion. But, making someone in Florida culpable for some terrorist in Pakistan because they have the same religion? Where's the nexus? Where's the association? Is every Catholic culpable for the pedophile priests? By this argument, they must be. The punishments for pedophile priests have been negligible, and yet people are still Catholics.
posted by bperk at 12:04 AM on March 04, 2011
Seriously, "an inconvenient truth" is classic Al Gore. I believe he called his little movie that.
The phrase "an inconvenient truth" has been used for centuries.
Muslims do bear some culpability, just as any of us would if a group we belonged to harbored terrorists.
The world's 1.1 billion Muslims are no more responsible for the tiny fringe of Islamic extremists than Americans are for the mass shooters who crop up every six months or so in our schools and workplaces.
You're trying to discount the numbers of terrorists by only looking at one country, ignoring the known fact that they are free to move between countries.
I've presented several different estimates, some for specific countries and some global. Here's another: "Taken together with the recent estimate by the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, that there are about 50 to 100 Qaeda operatives now in Afghanistan, American intelligence agencies believe that there are most likely fewer than 500 members of the group in a region where the United States has poured nearly 100,000 troops."
So there's "fewer than 500" in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which is a staggeringly small number considering the military power and money we've expended to deal with them.
The inconvenient truth is that the threat of Islamic terror is vastly overstated in the U.S., primarily by people who want to justify our continued wars in the Middle East and additional wars they'd like to start. It also helps the massive defense industry get even more billions of our tax dollars.
As the 30 mosques in 30 days project demonstrates, ordinary Muslims in the U.S. are no different than any other religious group in this country. They deplore violence and are not secretly plotting to impose Shariah law. They're building their communities and assimilating into the greater American one.
This derailed discussion began when Atheist suggested that all Muslims are a security risk at the London Olympics. There have been far more acts of terror by the Irish Republican Army in the UK than by Islamic extremists. Should the Irish be excluded?
posted by rcade at 08:21 AM on March 04, 2011
Is every Catholic culpable for the pedophile priests?
In the same fashion that every American is responsible for the actions of its government, yes, they are. I think there's pretty damning evidence the Pope knowingly hid child-molesting priests, and yet I don't see uprisings of Catholics calling for him to step down.
Or did I miss that?
posted by wfrazerjr at 08:34 AM on March 04, 2011
You did miss the uprising. People got up and left. I was raised Catholic, but like millions of others left the church. There aren't enough priests and nuns in the U.S. and practicing Catholics are in sharp decline. My Irish-Catholic grandmother raised seven kids Catholic. My wife's Irish-Catholic mother raised nine. None of the 17 belong to the church today.
Americans vote for their government, but the Catholic Church is not a democracy. Your only choice is to vote with your feet.
posted by rcade at 08:48 AM on March 04, 2011
I do not harbor prejudice toward muslims as individuals and never prejudge an individual based on their ethnicity or religion. Making that statement because I feel their numbers are so strong that they should be doing more to cull terrorism and violence from their ranks is just ridiculous. You do not know me. If 1.1 billion muslims want to allow the tiny few you refer to, to destroy the world view about Islam then so be it. My joke whether or not you feel it was in bad taste, was clearly regarding the irony of what the Iranian leader threatened. And yes, I do believe any Muslim that would follow the mandate or instructions to boycott the Olympics because this crack pot says so, is probably a security risk as this leader has made his hatred of the West very clear and I can only assume his followers feel the same.
Trying to claim there is not fairly wide spread support for violent groups like Hamas, Hezbola, Al Quaeda, PLO etc. is not consistent with what is actually happening. I have a lot of business in Europe and making a statement that Muslims just want to assimilate in not entirely accurate. Although I am sure many do , there are a large number that don't. This has become an issue in countries like England and France where muslim populations have large enough numbers to assert their customs rather than assimilate. Tolerance is a cornerstone of a free society, something not seen much in Islamic countries. There sure is a lot of violence in the muslim world due to intolerance between muslim factions let alone between muslims and other religions.
I again will reiterate, when home grown fanatics break the law, homegrown agencies do everything in their power to capture, prosecute and imprison those that commit the acts. Yes there are fanatical Christians, child molesting priests etc, and they are being dealt with by authorities and citizens. I just don't see the same efforts in the middle east where fanaticism is concerned. I have seen tens of thousands of muslims on TV in mob demonstrations holding up pictures of Osama Bin Laden, chanting death to the USA. Issuing death threats against people for exercising their free speech rights in countries where it is perfectly legal to make political cartoons. The reason people understand a cartoon of a guy in a turban holding a bomb is because that is a wide spread perception that resonates with a large number. Even if it is exaggerated, you would think the billion muslims in the world would be making a bigger effort to counter it.
I understand many under repressive regimes, but recent encouraging events in some of these places may offer hope. I does underscore the power of the masses. Once they obtain freedom it will be very interesting to see what they choose to do with it.
posted by Atheist at 10:03 AM on March 04, 2011
dviking:
Fred Phelps, has had our legal system thrown at him. Do the Muslim fanatics have their legal system thrown at them? I don't think so, they're usually treated as heros.
Do you really think you can counter specific examples with vague generalities and call it a valid argument?
Christians have not and are not bringing Fred Phelps to heel. That's the analogous situation to what you want of the world's Muslims, and it isn't happening.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:52 AM on March 04, 2011
The fact that you can find examples of Christian fanaticism is irrelevant as I don't believe anybody implied the were not other religions that have their fanatics. The photo yerfatma showed of Christian fanatics holding signs condemning homosexuals doesn't even have relevance to this discussion. Sure they are fanatics and are expressing their right to free speech, which is legal and non violent. On the other hand in some Islamic countries muslims feel perfectly justified in publicly and legally executing homosexuals and adulterers by stoning them to death. Every religion has their zealots and fanatics, but you can't convince me that Islam at this time in history doesn't have a higher instance of violent extremism than most. Not that it excuses the atrocities committed by the others. Again it appears the level of violence and intolerance where muslims are concerned is much more wide spread. Of course I am entitled to my opinion as you are to yours. I do believe most people can watch the news and come to their own conclusions.
posted by Atheist at 01:04 PM on March 04, 2011
The phrase "an inconvenient truth" has been used for centuries.
Oh, come on, the phrase belongs to Al Gore, and while I clearly referred to it in a joking manner (even you should have got that, as I clearly said "now that made me laugh") any attempt to try and pass that statement off as anything but classic Al Gore will be ignored by me as I don't have the time nor the energy to debate silliness.
Yes, yes, the Muslims are responsible for speaking out, or taking some action against, the factions within their religion that are radical. Just as you spoke with your feet to leave your church, some of the Muslims need to take action. One can not, IMHO, stand idly by as others in their church commit crimes against humanity. Just like we (white people, I'm white, insert your race here if different) can not stand idly by and watch others denigrate another race. We either speak up, or become part of the problem. lbb, I didn't start the Fred Phelps discussion, it was being used by others to show that we're just like the Muslims in that no one stands up to Phelps. As others pointed out, I agree that the analogy is flawed as it's one guy, however, the law has addressed him.
Lastly, rcade, you're missing the point on the discussion about numbers of Al Qaeda, yes, there are not millions of them. The only point I made is that one article you sited was dealing with one country, while your post inferred that it was in total. The second site you listed, clearly pointed out that they moved back into Pakistan, but you left off the line in your quote. Keeping in mind that any figure on terrorist is often a best guess as these types rarely punch in for work.
While you may disagree with the basis for the comment, Atheist is 100% correct in that the Olympic organizers would save a ton of money if the Muslims stay home. funny how many of you got, and still have it appears, your underwear all bundled up over that accurate statement. (again, in case you missed this earlier, if any large group of people stay home, the need for security drops, if that group just happens to be high on a list of potential threats all the better)
posted by dviking at 03:27 PM on March 04, 2011
Oh, come on, the phrase belongs to Al Gore ... any attempt to try and pass that statement off as anything but classic Al Gore will be ignored by me as I don't have the time nor the energy to debate silliness.
So because you were unaware of the phrase's meaning, the rest of us share your state of ignorance? God I hope not.
posted by rcade at 04:39 PM on March 04, 2011
oh hush already... now you're just making yourself look foolish...clearly I'm aware of what the phrase means. such silliness.
posted by dviking at 07:21 PM on March 04, 2011
Clearly.
posted by tron7 at 08:42 PM on March 04, 2011
On the other hand in some Islamic countries muslims feel perfectly justified in publicly and legally executing homosexuals and adulterers by stoning them to death.
Just a heads up, but the country in the news that is currently trying to make homosexuality a capital crime is a VERY Christian nation (84%).
posted by grum@work at 10:01 PM on March 04, 2011
Just a heads up, but the country in the news that is currently trying to make homosexuality a capital crime is a VERY Christian nation (84%).
...and it's being supported and encouraged by a VERY Christian individual from the USA.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:38 PM on March 05, 2011
...and it's already being done by VERY Muslim countries. What's your point?
Non Muslim countries are overwhelmingly more accommodating of homosexuals.
posted by tselson at 11:08 PM on March 05, 2011
Also, to clarify the proposed law in Uganda:
The legislation strengthens the criminalization of homosexuality in Uganda by introducing the death penalty for people who are considered serial offenders, are suspected of "aggravated homosexuality" and are HIV-positive, or who engage in sexual acts with those under 18 years of age.[
Uganda has taken the aids epidemic in it's country very seriously and with success.
My hunch is that this legislation is more of a continuation of the prevention of the unnecessary spread of this STD than one bred of hatred alone.
posted by tselson at 12:07 AM on March 06, 2011
Are you honestly trying to suggest Uganda is a shining example of How Things Should Be?
posted by yerfatma at 07:20 AM on March 06, 2011
My hunch is that this legislation is more of a continuation of the prevention of the unnecessary spread of this STD than one bred of hatred alone.
Since you're going on hunches, you're probably unaware that HIV transmission in Africa has overwhelmingly been by heterosexual contact. But, given the stubborn resistance in this thread to allow biases to be modified by facts, I doubt that information will make a difference.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:21 PM on March 06, 2011
I totally see it!