A U.N. resolution seeks to criminalize opinions that differ with the Islamic faith.

Pakistan Minister Says Salman Rushdie's Knighthood Justifies Suicide Attacks

Pakistan on Monday condemned Britain's award of a knighthood to author Salman Rushdie as an affront to Muslim sentiments, and a Cabinet minister said the honor provided a justification for suicide attacks.

In the eastern city of Multan, hard-line Muslim students burned effigies of Queen Elizabeth II and Rushdie. About 100 students carrying banners condemning the author also chanted, "Kill him! Kill him!"

..."The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so unless the British government apologizes and withdraws the 'sir' title," ul-Haq [Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, religious affairs minister for Pakistan] said, also urging Muslim countries to break diplomatic ties with London.
 
Hey guys it passed.

Whoooo, go UN. Let's be run by the lowest common denominator, which happens to be poor, backwards, barbaric religious nuts.

:(
 
So do most Muslim countries. Just a couple are retarded that way. Besides, Muslim countries have enjoyed female presidents. If getting a black man was this hard in the US, Id hate to see how hard it will be for a woman.

Fact of the matter is that this resolution is to prevent what happened to the Jews in Europe.
 
spidergoat said:
Pakistan Minister Says Salman Rushdie's Knighthood Justifies Suicide Attacks

Pakistan on Monday condemned Britain's award of a knighthood to author Salman Rushdie as an affront to Muslim sentiments, and a Cabinet minister said the honor provided a justification for suicide attacks.

In the eastern city of Multan, hard-line Muslim students burned effigies of Queen Elizabeth II and Rushdie. About 100 students carrying banners condemning the author also chanted, "Kill him! Kill him!"

..."The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so unless the British government apologizes and withdraws the 'sir' title," ul-Haq [Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, religious affairs minister for Pakistan] said, also urging Muslim countries to break diplomatic ties with London.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should also post the article where he was forced to withdraw his comments :rolleyes:
 
Arsalan said:
Maybe you should also post the article where he was forced to withdraw his comments :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Couldn't find one except for this:

After his comments were reported on local news stations, Mr ul-Haq told MPs that his aim had been to look into the root causes of terrorism.​
 
spidergoat said:
Couldn't find one except for this:

After his comments were reported on local news stations, Mr ul-Haq told MPs that his aim had been to look into the root causes of terrorism.​
Click to expand...

Funny how his forced withdrawal and apology doesnt get reported in the West :)
 
Yep, which means that we dont stand for that kind of crap from someone like him. Calling for the killing of people in another country doesnt get overlooked.
 
In effect that means Christianity, etc should be criminalised because it differs from the Islamic faith, yes?

You know what's funny? Where I live, most of the Muslims are actually immigrants who came to our country in search for asylum, but now they're starting to recreate the same regime from which they ran away.
 
PsychoTropicPuppy said:
You know what's funny? Where I live, most of the Muslims are actually immigrants who came to our country in search for asylum, but now they're starting to recreate the same regime from which they ran away.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen that at all. I have seen them work hard and not really make a big deal about religion.
 
spidergoat said:
There is nothing wrong with civility, but civility enforced by law is a violation of individual rights of expression.
Click to expand...
But it must be acknowledged that civility is a cornerstone of civilization. The similarity is no coincidence, the words come from the same root. Life in a city-state is a contract to treat each other with a minimal level of courtesy, i.e., with civility. If you see someone collapse on the sidewalk you call an ambulance. If you see someone's child running out into the street while they're distracted, you call their attention to it or even grab the kid if you're close enough. You do this even for people you don't like, because you don't want to live in a place where dead bodies lie on the sidewalk getting stinky and attracting scavengers, or where car windshields are splattered with blood and gore.

You also do your best to keep your discourse civil because if people are constantly made angry by insults it affects their productivity and the surplus that makes civilization comfortable might vanish. You can come to SciForums, a place where everyone who enters agrees to put up with insults (and even we have a few rules), but out in the daily world you have to maintain a higher standard.
Should we make anti-semitism a crime too? We would have to lock up most of the Islamic world.
Click to expand...
It is a crime in Germany and other European countries and although I understand the motivation to atone for a thousand years of antisemitism culminating in the Holocaust, I think it goes too far. Civility mandates a proscription against walking down the street and yelling "God-damned Jews!" every time you pass someone with a yarmulke. But you can't legislate feelings and people have to have some outlet for expressing them in situations that won't be quite so hurtful. Also, as I have often said, "You need to keep the cockroaches on top of the linoleum where you can watch them." Or as Justice Brandeis said a little more urbanely, "The best disinfectant is sunshine." Outlawing antisemitism in Europe resulted in the neo-Nazis having their big Holocaust Denial Festival in Iran, where they never had to worry about tattooed Auschwitz survivors staring them down in their hotel lobby.
S.A.M. said:
Thats ironic, since much of the Islamic world there is semitic.
Click to expand...
* * * * NOTE FROM THE LINGUISTICS MODERATOR * * * *

Give it up Sam. You live in the West now and this is an English-language website. The definition of "antisemitism" is "discrimination, prejudice or hostility toward Jews." The word goes back to the 1880s.

We all know that the Semitic peoples include the Arabs, Palestinians, Lebanese, Phoenicians, Aramaeans, and a huge group of other surviving and extinct cultures throughout the Middle East and North Africa. But our language is not consistent and "antisemitism" is only about Jews. Get over it.

Please cease muddling the discussion by attempting to redefine words to suit yourself--no matter how precociously and logically. I have nailed you before for arguing disingenuously and this is a perfect example. Just stop it.
 
Give it up Sam. You live in the West now and this is an English-language website. The definition of "antisemitism" is "discrimination, prejudice or hostility toward Jews." The word goes back to the 1880s.

We all know that the Semitic peoples include the Arabs, Palestinians, Lebanese, Phoenicians, Aramaeans, and a huge group of other surviving and extinct cultures throughout the Middle East and North Africa. But our language is not consistent and "antisemitism" is only about Jews. Get over it.

Please cease muddling the discussion by attempting to redefine words to suit yourself--no matter how precociously and logically. I have nailed you before for arguing disingenuously and this is a perfect example. Just stop it.
Click to expand...

Redefine? An Arab is a semite. To call an Arab an antisemite is to deny him his semitism.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top