Pak MPs: Rushdie knighthood 'justifies suicide attacks'

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why are Muslim extremists so threatened by what one guy says? Is their faith so weak it can't handle someone criticizing it?

On balance that would be true of all religious extremists, not just the Islamic ones.

Acknowleded, I agree.

Hey, when was the last time somebody criticized a religion other than Islam that advocated suicide bombings of the country involved in the criticism?

That's not the same argument.

Hmm. It was a difficult question to phrase and I think I phrased it wrong. I'll try again.

When was the last time somebody criticized a religion other than Islam that resulted in that person's country being threatened with suicide bombings (or just regular bombings), or a prominant member of another countries government stating that such actions would be justified?

Its not the phrasing - its a different point. I was replying to a general question asking 'why muslim extremists feel threatened by the word of one guy'. As I said that isn't unique to muslim extremists. So my response to your question would be "I don't know, what's your point?". It doesn't invalidate what I said before...

BTW - to do justice to your point I would suggest that most fundamentalists would do violence to a person or property (if they could), if they felt their shared assumptions and world view were being attacked. They are divided only by their capacity to commit acts of aggression (and by that I mean not strictly those of a violent nature), which is to some extent defined by cultural-historical factors. They are however, just as delusional IMO.

[dalegg 143]

Its not the phrasing - its a different point. I was replying to a general question asking 'why muslim extremists feel threatened by the word of one guy'. As I said that isn't unique to muslim extremists. So my response to your question would be "I don't know, what's your point?". It doesn't invalidate what I said before...

It is NOT a different point! I think the context of rclouse's point is that why do they feel so threatened by the word of one guy that they feel suicide bombings are justified. I might be jumping to a false assumption there, but afterall, it is the title of this thread.

BTW - to do justice to your point I would suggest that most fundamentalists would do violence to a person or property (if they could), if they felt their shared assumptions and world view were being attacked.

Have you ever heard someone saying, "hey, that Da Vinci Code was a great book. I think the author should be up for a pulitzer" and then later movie theatres were bombed and then Catholic Priests were heard declaring that the makers of the movie and the guy who wrote that comment should be crucified?

I think hardly any fundamentalists -including Muslims- would do violence simply because their viewpoints are being attacked.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is NOT a different point! I think the context of rclouse's point is that why do they feel so threatened by the word of one guy that they feel suicide bombings are justified. I might be jumping to a false assumption there, but afterall, it is the title of this thread.

Well as I said in answer to your rhetorical question "I don't know, what's your point?"

Have you ever heard someone saying, "hey, that Da Vinci Code was a great book. I think the author should be up for a pulitzer" and then later movie theatres were bombed and then Catholic Priests were heard declaring that the makers of the movie and the guy who wrote that comment should be crucified?

I think hardly any fundamentalists -including Muslims- would do violence simply because their viewpoints are being attacked.

Not their viewpoint, their world view - in other words the foundation of their ideology. The general phenomenon of fundamentalism is the problem, regardless of the fact that one group of fundamentalists is more violent than another (for which there are numerous reasons). Just because Bible belt Christian fundies who want to impose religious teaching in secular science lessons and yes, who lobby for certain books and movies to be banned) aren't out there cutting off heads and blowing stuff up, is hardly reason to jump up and down and celebrate that 'ours' are better than 'theirs'. Fundamentalism is a shared delusion - we're not talking about the devoutly "religious" here, we're talking about "religiosity" - mindless ritualising.

[mawilson 2,133]

Just because Bible belt Christian fundies who want to impose religious teaching in secular science lessons and yes, who lobby for certain books and movies to be banned) aren't out there cutting off heads and blowing stuff up, is hardly reason to jump up and down and celebrate that 'ours' are better than 'theirs'.

Actually, that's a pretty darn good reason to celebrate the fact that they are better.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Cutting off peoples heads is baaaad, mmkay?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Just because Bible belt Christian fundies who want to impose religious teaching in secular science lessons and yes, who lobby for certain books and movies to be banned) aren't out there cutting off heads and blowing stuff up, is hardly reason to jump up and down and celebrate that 'ours' are better than 'theirs'.

Actually, that's a pretty darn good reason to celebrate the fact that they are better.

Doesn't make them any less deluded IMO.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Because they don't apologize to anybody else, and Lady Shami isn't asking them to apologize to everyone...just to the Muslims. I didn't hear a peep out of her when British Muslims took to the streets with signs saying things like "Behead those who insult the prophet." I think only one person was even prosecuted for that.

Well, I think if the police wrongfully accuse someone, Muslim or not, they should apologise.

British Muslims inciting violence with those signs should have been rounded up and arrested;

all of them, no exceptions.

There should also be a way to strip people of their citizenship if their loyalties lie with a foreign

(and hostile) power. At the very least, they should be prosecuted under the Treason Act 1351:

"if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King’s

enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere, and thereof

be probably attainted of open deed by the people of their condition"

I guess since Thatcher was Tory-internally-lynched from power, no Brit PM has any heart to do that.

(in Canada, it's even worse--two PM's actually committed treason openly:

• Trudeau, in 1982--by showing "bird" (literally) from Mt. Logan
  
• Mulroney, with Meech Lake (aka "Mooch Lake") Accord 1990
  

)

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

<fox news mode>

erekose, are you pro-decapitation of good christians?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Because they don't apologize to anybody else, and Lady Shami isn't asking them to apologize to everyone...just to the Muslims. I didn't hear a peep out of her when British Muslims took to the streets with signs saying things like "Behead those who insult the prophet." I think only one person was even prosecuted for that.

Well, I think if the police wrongfully accuse someone, Muslim or not, they should apologise.

British Muslims inciting violence with those signs should have been rounded up and arrested;

all of them, no exceptions.

There should also be a way to strip people of their citizenship if their loyalties lie with a foreign

(and hostile) power. At the very least, they should be prosecuted under the Treason Act 1351:

"if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King’s

enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere, and thereof

be probably attainted of open deed by the people of their condition"

I guess since Thatcher was Tory-internally-lynched from power, no Brit PM has any heart to do that.

(in Canada, it's even worse--two PM's actually committed treason openly:

• Trudeau, in 1982--by showing "bird" (literally) from Mt. Logan
  
• Mulroney, with Meech Lake (aka "Mooch Lake") Accord 1990
  

)

Unfortunately, UK politics is a bit of wet blanket - so to give the Tories their due, in ousting Thatcher (who by then was hardly loved, or even well-liked by the public) they did do what was necessary. Our loose constitution doesn't stipulate a limit to the amount of time that a PM can remain in office. If Labour had any guts, they would have given Blair the same treatment long ago.

<fox news mode>

erekose, are you pro-decapitation of good christians?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Unfortunately, UK politics is a bit of wet blanket - so to give the Tories their due, in ousting Thatcher (who by then was hardly loved, or even well-liked by the public) they did do what was necessary. Our loose constitution doesn't stipulate a limit to the amount of time that a PM can remain in office. If Labour had any guts, they would have given Blair the same treatment long ago.

Can't deny the Brit tories that credit.

Unlike Canuck Liberals (who did nothing at all about Trudeau until he resigned--and then gave him the extremely misplaced honour of naming an airport after him) and Tories (well, there were two who had some courage, Alex Kindy of Calgary and David Kilgour of Edmonton--both of whom were dropped like hot-potatoes after they told Mulroney they would not in good conscience support his railroading-through GST, which he did as "revenge for rejection of Mooch Lake").

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Unfortunately, UK politics is a bit of wet blanket - so to give the Tories their due, in ousting Thatcher (who by then was hardly loved, or even well-liked by the public) they did do what was necessary. Our loose constitution doesn't stipulate a limit to the amount of time that a PM can remain in office. If Labour had any guts, they would have given Blair the same treatment long ago.

Can't deny the Brit tories that credit.

Unlike Canuck Liberals (who did nothing at all about Trudeau until he resigned--and then gave him the extremely misplaced honour of naming an airport after him) and Tories (well, there were two who had some courage, Alex Kindy of Calgary and David Kilgour of Edmonton--both of whom were dropped like hot-potatoes after they told Mulroney they would not in good conscience support his railroading-through GST, which he did as "revenge for rejection of Mooch Lake").

Well the comment about Blair was probably wishful thinking. Thatcher was a lot more closet-despot than Blair, for all his faults. If Heseltine et al hadn't forced her out when they did, she'd have likely tried to stay on for another term. Inappropriate considering the $hit the economy was going through at the time.

[dalegg 143]

It is NOT a different point! I think the context of rclouse's point is that why do they feel so threatened by the word of one guy that they feel suicide bombings are justified. I might be jumping to a false assumption there, but afterall, it is the title of this thread.

Well as I said in answer to your rhetorical question "I don't know, what's your point?"

My point is it is not the same.

Just because Bible belt Christian fundies who want to impose religious teaching in secular science lessons and yes, who lobby for certain books and movies to be banned) aren't out there cutting off heads and blowing stuff up, is hardly reason to jump up and down and celebrate that 'ours' are better than 'theirs'.

Erokose. Yikes. I really cannot believe that you equate people going out and cutting off people's heads and blowing things up with people who lobby legally- and mostly unsuccessfully for movies and books to be banned.

Question- Are you as afraid when you board an airplane leaving Pakistan headed for Egypt that fundamentalist Christians might lobby to have the in flight movie changed as someone might be of having their plane headed from Israel to London hijacked and flown into Big Ben? Yes, of course. They are the same thing.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My point is it is not the same.

Isn't that what I said?

Erokose. Yikes. I really cannot believe that you equate people going out and cutting off people's heads and blowing things up with people who lobby legally- and mostly unsuccessfully for movies and books to be banned.

Question- Are you as afraid when you board an airplane leaving Pakistan headed for Egypt that fundamentalist Christians might lobby to have the in flight movie changed as someone might be of having their plane headed from Israel to London hijacked and flown into Big Ben? Yes, of course. They are the same thing.

I wasn't equating - just pointing out that fundamentalism is the same basic disease.

Edited June 19, 2007 by erekose

[Saddle Bronc 124]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6766569.stm

UK High Commisioner to Pakistan expressed concern about chopfrack Ejaz ul-Haq's comments.

Let's see:

• Rushdie is a UK citizen, formerly a citizen of India and never a citizen of Pakistan
  
• UK decided he can have peerage
  

Basically, the matter is entirely internal of UK, and no other nation really has any rightful input on this.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6766569.stm

UK High Commisioner to Pakistan expressed concern about chopfrack Ejaz ul-Haq's comments.

Let's see:

• Rushdie is a UK citizen, formerly a citizen of India and never a citizen of Pakistan
  
• UK decided he can have peerage
  

Basically, the matter is entirely internal of UK, and no other nation really has any rightful input on this.

Agreed. IMO this is just another example of political agitators seizing on something relatively innocuous to justify violent action. Like some of the recent protests against German opera's and Danish cartoons - I think this sort of reaction is essentially orchestrated, rather than a spontaneous expression of outrage by alleged "religious types" - rather like the people who orchestrate street-fighting under the pretext of a soccer match.