Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

shafique wrote:I think I'll stick to the Music section for a while longer, the stench is less gagging there than here.

That label is strictly reserved for Muslims, and is completely off-limits to U.S. soldiers and Americans (unless they happen to be American Muslims, in which case they are “homegrown terrorists”).

The New York Times reported–and other media outlets repeated this claim–that the soldier was “suffering from the stress of a fourth combat tour”. Another explanation given was that the soldier was simply drunk.

Faisal Shahzad House In Foreclosure: Times Square Bomb Suspect Defaulted On $200,000 Mortgage

In the past couple of years, though, his life seemed to unravel: He left a job at a global marketing firm he'd held for three years, lost his home to foreclosure and moved into an apartment in an impoverished neighborhood in Bridgeport. And last weekend, authorities say, he drove an SUV loaded with explosives into Times Square intent on blowing it up.

I think I'll stick to the Music section for a while longer, the stench is less gagging there than here.

All you can is report their arguments and hope anyone with actually rational minds can roll their eyes at this level of stupidity.

event horizon wrote:Will you keep us informed of what you had for breakfast or how many jelly rolls you had between early and middle breakfast?

event horizon wrote:That's a good point, because Anders Breivik and Tim McVeigh weren't / aren't labeled terrorists by the media.

As Europe's white population fled, the continent would become "reprimitivised". Author Kenan Malik – incorrectly claiming that Steyn also said that Muslims "were expanding like mosquitoes" – has pointed out that there are currently 13 million Muslims in Europe out of a population of 491 million. To outnumber the majority by 2020, Muslims would have to increase their numbers 20-fold in just over a decade. I suppose this is why every act against humanity is now attributed so quickly to Muslims. Yes, of course, Muslims – or those who claim to be Muslims (though this is at times a dodgy argument) – have committed individual crimes against humanity, the 11 September 2001 attacks being the most terrible example. But did that merit The Sun's headline after right-wing Norwegian killer and self-styled crusader against Islam Anders Behring Breivik – who drew on Steyn's work in his proto-Nazi "manifesto" – murdered 77 people in Oslo and a nearby island last year. It read: "Al-Qa'ida Massacre: Norway's 9/11."

Needless to say, the Islamophobes, after ritual condemnation of Breivik, largely avoided referring to him as a "terrorist" – a term reserved for Muslims – and called him "mad" instead. I notice that this is exactly how Israel deals with its own "terrorists" (by their own definition of the word). The mass murderer Baruch Goldstein, who slaughtered 29 Palestinians in the Hebron mosque massacre in 1994, was always referred to as "deranged" rather than a "terrorist". Thus his act, like Breivik's last year, was de-politicised, de-"terrorised".

Back in 2006, a Brussels schoolboy, Joe Van Holsbeeck, was murdered at the city's central station for his MP3 player. Paul Belien, a far-right Catholic conservative journalist (now an adviser to the Dutch politician Geert Wilders), published an op-ed article headlined "Give Us Weapons". Muslims, Belien wrote, are "predators that have learned from childhood... how to slaughter warm herd animals". Imams were asked to hand over the Muslim murderer. Then newspapers revealed that the killers were Poles. And then – worse still – Roma! Ian Buruma found the real perspective when he wrote that "aggressiveness is seen as a sign of genuineness and the showing of anger a proof of moral integrity".

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 47335.html

The thread title and the linked to article are fully justified by the replies from the anti-Muslims above.

Goldstein is indeed a hero of some, and revered as a saint by his fellow religious extremists. But no Muslim views him as a hero

As for spin about Brievik and McVeigh - we see yet another obsessive fascination with me by the anti-Muslims. Creepy that - not least because it is a fantastically imagined strawman.

(As the article in OP points out - if he was a Muslim and had killed Americans, these 'facts' would have been mentioned. Just look at Fort Hood - an American soldier goes on a shooting spree and his religion is mentioned and he is called a terrorist in the press.

As for names - can you tell me the names of the 16 victims, 9 of them children, massacred in cold blood by Sgt Robert Bales? Where are their pictures?

I'm reminded of Galloway's question about whether the Sky News presenter could name any of the victims of the family that was blown up on the Gaza beach:

Danios was spot on, denials from the resident troll doesn't change that.

So, no idea what the names of the 9 children killed were? How about their photos?

As for the long what-aboutery post - doesn't change the fact that the thread title is correct and we still haven't seen any reference to Bales being a terrorist.

I seem to recall that Rumsfeld met Saddam more times than Galloway, and didn't he sell him arms etc? - eg:

But more to the point, this major story wasn't one you chose to cover. Only anti-Muslim threads and posts.

herve wrote:why does al shafique start all his posts with "epic fail"