I don't think...so... I can't see any exemplary evidence of overwhelming evidence...speculative,...yes. ...Overwhelming NO...
Be honest with yourself here, Hayes. Have you once seen anyone on this forum say anything derogatory about Jews? All of the criticism has been thrown at the state of Israel and Zionism. That is not Anti-Semitism. On the other hand, I can think of atleast three posters off the top of my head who routinely berate Muslims. Not Hamas. Not Hezbollah. Not Al-Qaeda. Muslims - blatantly stating that the vices are inherent in the religion and its followers. That is Islamophobia. This is not a critique on a government insitution or a political ideology. It is an outright attack on the religion. Hey, I have no problem with that and it's fair game as I am all for free speech. But it should be identified as what it is - Islamophobia. I know you like to take the anti-Arab stance in political discourse, but be honest with yourself here, Hayes.
Yes. I've seen posters accused of Islamophobia who have said they don't have a problem with, for example, Muslims in the US - but rather a problem with Islam in the so-called Third World. Alternately I've seen them qualify their positions by stating their problem was with Islam 'as practiced.' I don't think that qualifies as Islamophobia (side note: should it be Islamaphobia?). Further, be honest with yourself. Are you really contending that everytime someone has been accused of being 'Islamophobic' it has been because they make an irrational accusation about Islam? I don't think so. I have no idea why a religion is protected from critique anymore than a government or ideology. Phobia implies literally an irrational fear, in this case of Islam. It is apparent to me, at least, that people are labeled Islamophobes dismissively and pejoratively when their arguments are far from irrational or illogical. No more than critiques of Catholicism is the product of Catholiophobes. You can even be wrong with a particular critique of Islam and not be an Islamophobe. I think you're fooling yourself if you think that the overwhelming response to a critique of Muslims is not, on this bbs, the labeling of someone as an Islamophobe in precisely the same manner a critique of Israel is labeled anti-semitic. The main difference is that it happens exponentially more often in reference to Islam. I have no idea what this means. Please explain. Are you accusing me of being an Arabophobe?
I think we know who's being disingenuous here, your post was directed at me, at least don't insult my intelligence, Hayes. Yes, I have seen some people do that, I don't usually agree with those tactics. Wrong analogy. 'Muslims' are a large, diverse religious group that can not be compared to Taiwan, which is more of a secular, political entity. It's much easier to make generalizations about Taiwan -- a defined political entity that has a defined government and people whom speak on its behalf -- than it's to make generalizations about a heterogeneous group of people from different cultural/ethnic backgrounds, speak different languages, have different experiences, practice Islam differently, and span the whole globe. Making general statements about Muslims or Islam is more akin to making general statements about Christianity or Christians at large. Now, if you're critical of policies of a given Muslim-majority nation -- not simply based on their racial or ethnic backgrounds -- then that's fair game. However, it's not 'fair game' to criticize 'Muslims' in general or profile them entirely based on their racial/ethnic backgrounds, it's no more 'right' than -- say -- calling all Jews 'baby-killers' or a 'threat'; that's 'anti-Semitic' and 'Islamophobic'.
so if a person doesn't have a problem with 6 million out of the over 1 billion adherents of islam...thats cool? and if you qualify that your islam as practiced argument...why does the geographic location statement matter?
If that was the case, then the Israelis did intentionally target the UN post...correct? The only difference is there would be an actual justification for it.
I would agree with this, tiger, although any thinking person should realize it. Just as we have a host of differing Christian sects, or branches of Christianity, here in the US, for instance, so are there a host of variations of the Muslim religion, both in the States, and around the world. Both religions have their extremists, and a majority that wishes to just, "get along," with everyone else, to be left alone to practice, or not practice, their faith, and are both moderate in nature, and influenced by the country and culture in which they reside. Then you have me. Keep D&D Civil.
Exactly. I mean, making general statements about Muslims is like making general statements about Deckard, you just can't fit that many personalities in a box...no way man!
That's definitely news to me. The few times I've thrown the term around it has been in response to the paranoia by some of a united global Islamic Jihad movement which simply does not exist. How is it even a parallel? It doesn't matter whether it's justified. It's pure definition. Islamophobia is the hatred or phobia of Muslims and Islam. Anti-Semitism is the hatred of Jews. Zionism and Israel fits nowhere in this grid. I didn't mean that you have an agenda and I certainly didn't mean this with malice. I simply meant that from reading your posts, one can easily deduce that you hold an American-centric perspective on geopolitics, so your stance on this is not surprising. Nothing wrong with that.
Israel says UN can't be part of probe of deadly attack on post Haaretz 28 July 2006 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/743541.html Israel's ambassador to the United Nations ruled out Thursday major UN involvement in any potential international force in Lebanon, saying more professional and better-trained troops were needed for such a volatile situation. Dan Gillerman also said Israel would not allow the United Nations to join in an investigation of an Israeli air strike that demolished a post belonging to the current UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon. Four UN observers were killed in the Tuesday strike. "Israel has never agreed to a joint investigation, and I don't think that if anything happened in this country, or in Britain or in Italy or in France, the government of that country would agree to a joint investigation," Gillerman said. He apologized for the strike that killed the four UN observers, but said the conflict was a war and that accidents happen. "This is a war which is going on," he told reporters. "War is an ugly thing and during war, mistakes and tragedies do happen." Gillerman, who spoke at an event hosted by The Israel Project advocacy group and later inside the United Nations, gave a heated defense of Israel's two-week campaign against Hezbollah militants. He said some diplomats from the Middle East had told him that Israel was doing the right thing in going after Hezbollah. His refusal to conduct a joint investigation will be a slap to UN officials, who have specifically sought to partner with Israel to investigate the bombing. Gillerman was highly critical of the current UN peacekeeping force, deployed in a buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon since 1978, saying its facilities had sometimes been used for cover by Hezbollah militants and that it had not done its job. "It has never been able to prevent any shelling of Israel, any terrorist attack, any kidnappings," he said. "They either didn't see or didn't know or didn't want to see, but they have been hopeless." Gillerman even mocked the name of the force - the UN Interim Force in Lebanon. "Interim in UN jargon is 28 years," he said. The flaws with the UN force make it imperative that any UN force come from somewhere else, though it could have a mandate from the United Nations, he said. "So obviously it cannot be a United Nations force," Gillerman said. "It will have to be an international force, a professional one, with soldiers from countries who have the training and capabilities to be effective." Any such force must have two main objectives. It must disarm completely and make sure Hezbollah has lost all its capacity as a terror organization, he said, and it should monitor the border between Syria and Lebanon "to make sure that no additional shipments of arms, rockets, illegal weapons, enter Lebanon." Despite Israel's opposition to a UN force, Gillerman said Israel was not "excluding anybody," and that "the makeup, the composition and the countries which would supply the soldiers to that force still has to be decided." Gillerman said Israel would welcome any information from the UN as it conducts its investigation, and will consider any UN requests for information. UN Council expresses 'shock' over IAF attack on UN post The UN Security Council adopted a statement on Thursday expressing shock and distress at Israel's bombing of a UN outpost in Lebanon that killed four unarmed UN peacekeepers. China demanded Thursday morning that Israel apologize for the death of a Chinese UN observer in southern Lebanon on Tuesday. Three other observers - an Austrian, a Canadian, and a Finn - died in the air strike. The policy statement, which carries less weight than a resolution, was weaker than one proposed by China and other nations, after more than a day of negotiations and objections from the United States, which wanted to make sure Israel was not directly blamed for the attack. China, expressing frustration at the delay, earlier warned the United States that its opposition to the statement could could jeopardize UN negotiations on a resolution ordering Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment. One of the peacekeepers killed on Tuesday was Chinese. The other three came from Austria, Canada and Finland. The final draft adopted by the 15-member council eliminated wording "condemning any deliberate attack against UN personnel" as well as a call for a joint Israeli-UN investigation, which UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan had asked for. Instead, it called on Israel "to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into this incident, taking into account any relevant material from United Nations authorities." It said the Security Council "is deeply shocked an distressed by the firing by the Israel Defense Forces on a United Nations Observer post in southern Lebanon on 25 July, 2006, which caused the death of four U.N. military observers." Israel has apologized and called the incident a mistake. UN officials said they asked Israel a dozen times to stop bombing near the post in the hours before it was destroyed. Jane Lute, an American and an assistant secretary-general for peacekeeping, briefed the Security Council that the outpost came under Israeli fire 21 times, including four direct hits. After the statement was adopted, China's UN Ambassador Wang Guangya said he was relieved action was taken even if the final draft was watered-down. He had previous said he was frustrated by the U.S. position. EU official: Israel misinterpreted our declaration at Rome summit Israel has drawn the wrong conclusions from statements made at the summit held in Rome this week on the Middle East crisis, a European Union official said Thursday. Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tumioja, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, said the Israeli government's interpretation of the summit's declaration as permission to continue its offensive is "their own and wrong interpretation." The summit's final statement called for a United Nations force to be deployed in southern Lebanon to aid the country in implementing UN decisions on disarming Hezbollah. The statement also called for increased humanitarian aid to Lebanon. The United States, which fiercely opposed the calls for an immediate cease-fire during the Rome conference Wednesday, has been working on its own proposal for solving the conflict in Lebanon. Its initiative calls for Israel's withdrawal from the Shaba Farms and a deployment of NATO forces to guarantee Hezbollah's disarmament. While the U.S. initiative calls for transferring control of Shaba Farms to Lebanon, it stipulates that the permanent international border will not be determined if Syria continues to refuse to agree on the boundaries of this area. The UN is to be in charge of handing Shaba Farms over to Lebanon. The American proposal also calls for a 20-kilometer-wide strip of southern Lebanon, starting at the Israeli border, which would be declared a no-go zone for Hezbollah. An international force headed by NATO commanders, with authority to use both deterrent and offensive force, would be deployed in this strip to monitor and stabilize the situation. Ninety days after being deployed, this force would become a part of the UN-sponsored force, with the option of incorporating the UNIFIL troops currently serving in southern Lebanon.
Anyone who degrades and belittles the mollah's is'nt, is'nt putting iran or the moslim religion down. the mollahs are a unelected regime and dont represent islam or iran whatsoever. Whilst the isrealie goverment is democratcly elected( unlike iran),it dosent mean anyone who critisises there actions ant-jewish or anti isreale.
Then we're in agreement. Not at all. Saying there is a threat from Muslims does not equate to saying all Muslims are a threat. That there is conflict involving Muslims of different experiences and geographies proves the point. As I indicated earlier, it may in the end be an incorrect argument (it may be they are involved in violence as a response, for example, rather than starting the violence), but it is not Islamophobia to make the statement. For it to be Islamophobic the assertion would have to be based on a sense of the 'other' - making the assertion because of a mistaken fear of a different race/religion. It is akin to claiming that the question 'is there a connection between Islam and violence' is Islamophobic. It isn't. Not at all. This is just hypothetical but for illustration purposes (ie I don't have any facts to base this on): Israel and the UN command exchange communications about the UN outpost. Israeli command is not targeting the UN outpost. Israeli soldiers are advancing and come under fire from Hezbollah entrenched near the UN outpost. They call in airstrikes from planes overhead and artillery in direct communication from the ground - "we're pinned down, being fired on from x" (as US troops would do when pinned down). This communication is not coming through command but straight from the ground. The air support and artillery in direct support of the troops on the ground comes in to hit the Hezbollah positions. Hezbollah has moved closer to the UN outpost in the early evening (when the strike took place) than they were in the morning.
Certainly. I'm not denying that someone's rhetoric can be Islamophobic. Justified? I'm not sure what you mean. The logical structure of the reposte is the same. One criticizes Israel and is accused of anti-semitism. One criticizes some action undertaken by some Muslims and is accused of Islamophobia. They are both spurious connections. There can be genuine criticism of Israeli action without it being anti-semitic. There can be genuine criticism of Muslim action without it emerging from Islamophobia.
Can you elaborate on that? Are you really saying there is a threat from SOME Muslims? Cause if a quantifier involved people assume it's a generalization; no different than saying there is a threat from blacks, jews, french, etc. Also Israel is a country, so criticizing Israel is generally aimed at its govt and policy. However there are no countries called Islam or Muslim, so criticizing Muslims is taken to be discrimination. Similarly saying Jews are killing this and that would be discriminatory. More importantly, you always have to look at context.
Well, Israel is pretty much inextricably linked with Judaism is a way no other country is linked to a religion - that makes it funamentally different than other countries and certainly brings anti-semitism into the picture. That isn't to say all or even most criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, but it can't be ignored that some of the criticism is. If I said 'Catholics don't use birth control,' that is a generalization - but it is not Catholiophobic. It is not an generalization based on a sense of the 'other' or in any way dehumanizing. It may not be correct even, but it is not '-ist' in any way. Similarly, comment on race does not equate to racism. Blacks have darker skin than whites. That is a generalization but it is not racist. It is based on observation. It is not a statement that covers every possibility. No generalization is. My only argument is that on this bbs and in academia (this is just personal observation - I haven't conducted a study) there is a tendency to parallel the responses made by defenders of Israel who use the 'anti-semitism' card in response to critical comment on Islam, Muslims, Arabs, Persians, et al. Criticism is 'Islamophobic' just as it is 'anti-semitic.' That doesn't mean no comment is ever Islamophobic just as some criticism of Israel is anti-semitic.
If you're addressing a certain group of Muslims, or a Muslim state, then that's fine. But making a blanket statement inferring a belief/opinion that all Muslims are a threat is Islamophobic, not to mention an argument that can be easily countered. What point? That Muslims are everywhere? That Muslims are being oppressed everywhere in the world? Or that Muslims lash out in violence for no reason? I think that making general statements that indict a large, diverse group of people is more 'ignorant' than racist, but could be racist. However, generally speaking, 'Islamophobia' does not necessarily refer to a racial hatred of Muslims (indeed, it would be difficult to define Muslims as a 'race'), but rather an 'irrational' fear of Muslims and Islam in general. On the other hand, anti-Semitism refers more so to the hatred of Jews as a race of people. If someone says, "Islam is a danger to America", that's an Islamophobic statement. If someone says, "Iran/Iraq/Saudi policies are a threat to America", that's fine, it's within the realm of rational criticism. In other words, it's important to focus criticism on actions, not the racial/ethnic makeup of a specific group of people. But I have no problem whatsoever with anyone being critical of a Muslim state, Israel, the U.S., or any other nation in the world. I have certainly been a source of some of that criticism in the past.
No argument there, I agree for the most part... Again, I agree that there is that tendency, and we should be aware of that as well. Obviously, it's a sensitive topic and many people are sensitive to criticism of Israel for that very purpose, much like many Black Americans are sensitive to some criticism and might have a tendency consider it 'racist' in nature -- if the source is a non-Black American -- or a 'sell out Uncle Tom' -- if the criticism is from a Black American. It's understandable, but we have to be wary of those who throw it around whenever it's convenient (usually to stifle any debate regarding the topic).
I think your position is 'generally' (lol) anti-generalizations. However I think its silly to suggest I have to say 'Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, some in India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Chechnya, Somalia, some of Europe and possibly other places but not including all Muslims are a threat,' if I want to say there is a threat emerging from Muslims/Islam. It isn't Islamophobic to suggest a link between Islam and violence - there might be one, lol. It is Islamophobic to suggest someone is violent only because they are Islamic. Those are not the same things. The point is exactly that Muslims are not a nationality. The validity of such suggestions is not the point of contention we are addressing now, only whether or not one can make generalizations or general conclusion of a particular group. The problem with this is that ultimately you have to reference who is taking the action, and as we know the state is not the only actor out there.
That is a generalization of those countries as well. Not all Muslims in those places aer guilty either.
