Originally Posted by Mazed

yes but if you take a look around at france, at london, at canada etc etc we hear many stories of masjids being raided, sisters being victimised, brothers being accused of terrorism, we even see cab drivers appear on the headlines of mainstream newspapers just for refusing to let a guide dog in. We are most certainly todays focus!

How is that different than what happens to the Jews? It's wrong, but it happens to many different people. I quess the main difference is I attack all discrimination. I care not if the victoms are Muslim, Jewish or WallaWallaBingBangs.

Though I am particulary concerned when agnostics are targeted.

Originally Posted by wilberhum

How is that different than what happens to the Jews? It's wrong, but it happens to many different people. I quess the main difference is I attack all discrimination. I care not if the victoms are Muslim, Jewish or WallaWallaBingBangs.

Though I am particulary concerned when agnostics are targeted.

have you compared the magnamity of the attacks at the jews/muslims and walawalabingbangs?
Clearly muslims are targetting the most furiously and the jews... i havent even really heard much on that so i cant say, as for the walawalabingbangs, lol man psychiatrist !!!

Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim

have you compared the magnamity of the attacks at the jews/muslims and walawalabingbangs?
Clearly muslims are targetting the most furiously and the jews... i havent even really heard much on that so i cant say, as for the walawalabingbangs, lol man psychiatrist !!!

The walawalabingbangs have received so much discrimination that almost no one knows anything about them.
On the serious side, discrimination must be attacked from all sides. Discrimination is a sickness within society.

I find it dormitory to attack discrimination of only one group.

Originally Posted by Keltoi

Which leads me to another issue I have a problem with. From posts like Woodrow's, and many others, it seems that when Al-Qaeda or terrorism is brought up many Muslims will automatically throw themselves in the same boat with them. Not by saying "I support them" obviously, but by this moral relativism. Woodrow mentions that to "some" the U.K. is seen as the #1 aggressor. What exactly does that mean in the context of this conversation? Is that supposed to be a defense for people who WANT to blow up women and children? I know Woodrow doesn't mean it in that way, but what other way can I look at a statement like that? Because the U.K. has trust issues with the Muslim community they are being aggressive? Again, a cause and effect in play there. I'm not trying to offend anyone, and I hopefully I was able to make my point in the right way.

Interesting. When I made that statement I had intended to to be a generality with no reference. I was trying to point out that opposing views will see the same thing differently.

I apologise for not having made it clearer.

I am not offended, I appreciate the input on the manner in which it could be seen.

I do agree with your term of cause and effect.


Much of what we see is "self fulfilling prophecy" if people believe Muslims are terrorists, some Muslims will try to prove them right and live up to the label, verifying what is believed. The opposite is also true if Muslims believe the government is singling them out the easy it will be so see rules/laws that do single them out and any protesting of the said rules/laws will verity the thought and lead to more restrictive rules/laws.

A share of communication is a good method of breaking the barriers of misinterpretation. Communication consist of three parts a message, a sender and a reciever. All too often the sender never knows what the reciever heard and then makes the error of assuming it was what he thought he sent.

Feed back from eachother is the best way for us all to know if what was heard matches what was said.

This is a prime time to blow something up in UK, I wouldn't surprised if someone did bomb things in the next 3 months as we all know AL-Qaeda or Muslims are going to be blamed for it.
Maybe the we will see the revival of the IRA behind the scenes

Originally Posted by WnbSlveOfAllah

This is a prime time to blow something up in UK, I wouldn't surprised if someone did bomb things in the next 3 months as we all know AL-Qaeda or Muslims are going to be blamed for it.
Maybe the we will see the revival of the IRA behind the scenes

You say "Al-Qaeda and Muslims" will be blamed for it. As if they aren't to blame for it and it is all some secret cover-up meant to make Muslims look bad. That is exactly the mentality that I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Iqram

Well to tell you the truth...I've seen many people....rather heard... Non-Muslims saying that they are interested in these terrorist groups and would like to become members and carry out attacks...as it makes them look 'good'...or in modern terms 'gansta'.

Surely there will be 'Muslims' among them, but what I'm trying to say is, media portrays these Muslims and non Muslims to be one body...hence showing that the only people involved in these bombings/wrongful acts as to be Muslims, And ONLY muslims......

Think about it.....Chavs....All they want to do is create havoc....

Well, might be, but Muslim groups always identify their acts against 'unbelievers' and in the name of Allah, while non-muslim groups always have a political background. That is the main difference, plus, I can only hardly believe non-muslims join muslim extremist groups, just because they want to be a 'gangsta', means, I don't think, there are mixed groups out there !

Originally Posted by guyabano

Well, might be, but Muslim groups always identify their acts against 'unbelievers' and in the name of Allah, while non-muslim groups always have a political background. That is the main difference, plus, I can only hardly believe non-muslims join muslim extremist groups, just because they want to be a 'gangsta', means, I don't think, there are mixed groups out there !

Remember that according to islaam, if a person is following another religion besides the religion of Allaah, then their non muslim - because they havn't submitted themselves to Allah, and thats what islaam actually means. so what about the christians who fight in the name of religion? What about the hindus? the sikhs? etc.


What you said above is biased, because where some muslims use religion as their title, so do people from other faiths, and this is obvious when people keep mentioning the crusaders to christians. And other groups from other religions.


So it's not only islaam, but nearly every other religion.




Allaah Almighty knows best.




Peace.

Originally Posted by Woodrow

Labels only mean what the person using them desires them to mean.

Oh man! That was excellent... I'm going to add that to my collection of famous quotes: One-liners that say it all!

Ninth Scribe

Originally Posted by Keltoi

Since a person isn't "happy" with the U.S. and U.K and they don't like Condaleeza Rice that offsets whatever blame extremists have for blowing up people?

You know, it's that type of statement that probably causes all this confusion. With the exception of Al Qaeda, no one else took up arms (which is how they got labelled extremists) until after the U.S. invasions (they didn't believe the actions of Al Qaeda justified U.S. occupation of their lands), and even Al Qaeda argues the invasion of Palestine is where this all began. It's kind of like breaking up a fight between your kids. You ask each child what happened and together, they reply: Well... he started it!

The other problem I have, what upsets me about all the 'extremist' reporting is their tendency to lump all these different groups together. When New Orleans went into a state of chaos, everyone lost control. It wasn't just the thugs ripping off plasma TVs, the cops were doing it too! But western media knew there was a big difference between thugs and cops and they made major ratings for reporting the difference... Cops getting caught stealing was big news! But they don't distinguish between fighter groups in Iraq. That's one of the problems Zarqawi was trying to address in his last video. He identified them as:

The first kind is the one trying to attach themselves with the Mujahedeen, although they never lived the Mujahedeen life...

What he was talking about were groups who called themselves Mujahedeen (borrowed the cool name), but didn't behave like the Mujahedeen. In short, local thugs and other Mujahedeen wannabes who lacked moral fortitude and discipline. Their actions were diectly responsible for tarnishing the reputation of the Mujahedeen in the same way Private Green ruined the reputation of the U.S. soldiers by commiting acts of rape and murder.

Add to this, western media continuously attaches every horrific act onto the name of the Mujahedeen, even events that turned out to be caused by American operations and other militias, and voile... dangerous reporting! The pen becomes an effective weapon in the War on Terror. But this is a manipulation. I have to ask myself why I could land my butt in hot water for printing a few simple facts to shed some light on certain subjects, or creating more desirable image files? I can honestly say I don't particularly like my government pointing their weapons at me in order to try and control what I have to say. Did you know for instance, that everyone who opposes the War in Iraq are named in a DB of potential subversives? You can get paid good money for saying something for the Iraq War but you can go to jail for saying something against it... or... how did they put it? Promoting the cause of a known terrorist organization (only because their cause happens to be against the Iraq War)?

Ninth Scribe

Originally Posted by Keltoi

You say "Al-Qaeda and Muslims" will be blamed for it.

I said Al-Qaeda OR Muslims

Originally Posted by Keltoi

As if they aren't to blame for it .

As if they aren't to blame for what? What are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Keltoi

That is exactly the mentality that I'm talking about.

Ye your right, it's Al-qaeda and Muslims which is in the way of world peace. I apologise for suggesting that some one else can take advantage of the fact that Al-qaeda or Muslims are in the spotlight so they can perpatrate acts of terrorisms knowing the spotlight won't be on them, How silly of me to suggest this when we all know muslims are always to blame for these things.

Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe

You know, it's that type of statement that probably causes all this confusion. With the exception of Al Qaeda, no one else took up arms (which is how they got labelled extremists) until after the U.S. invasions (they didn't believe the actions of Al Qaeda justified U.S. occupation of their lands), and even Al Qaeda argues the invasion of Palestine is where this all began. It's kind of like breaking up a fight between your kids. You ask each child what happened and together, they reply: Well... he started it!

The other problem I have, what upsets me about all the 'extremist' reporting is their tendency to lump all these different groups together. When New Orleans went into a state of chaos, everyone lost control. It wasn't just the thugs ripping off plasma TVs, the cops were doing it too! But western media knew there was a big difference between thugs and cops and they made major ratings for reporting the difference... Cops getting caught stealing was big news! But they don't distinguish between fighter groups in Iraq. That's one of the problems Zarqawi was trying to address in his last video. He identified them as:

The first kind is the one trying to attach themselves with the Mujahedeen, although they never lived the Mujahedeen life...

What he was talking about were groups who called themselves Mujahedeen (borrowed the cool name), but didn't behave like the Mujahedeen. In short, local thugs and other Mujahedeen wannabes who lacked moral fortitude and discipline. Their actions were diectly responsible for tarnishing the reputation of the Mujahedeen in the same way Private Green ruined the reputation of the U.S. soldiers by commiting acts of rape and murder.

Add to this, western media continuously attaches every horrific act onto the name of the Mujahedeen, even events that turned out to be caused by American operations and other militias, and voile... dangerous reporting! The pen becomes an effective weapon in the War on Terror. But this is a manipulation. I have to ask myself why I could land my butt in hot water for printing a few simple facts to shed some light on certain subjects, or creating more desirable image files? I can honestly say I don't particularly like my government pointing their weapons at me in order to try and control what I have to say. Did you know for instance, that everyone who opposes the War in Iraq are named in a DB of potential subversives? You can get paid good money for saying something for the Iraq War but you can go to jail for saying something against it... or... how did they put it? Promoting the cause of a known terrorist organization (only because their cause happens to be against the Iraq War)?

Ninth Scribe

You're right, we should all look to Zarqawi for enlightenment. Since those against the war get thrown in jail, shouldn't you be in there right now?

Originally Posted by WnbSlveOfAllah

I said Al-Qaeda OR Muslims


As if they aren't to blame for what? What are you talking about?



Ye your right, it's Al-qaeda and Muslims which is in the way of world peace. I apologise for suggesting that some one else can take advantage of the fact that Al-qaeda or Muslims are in the spotlight so they can perpatrate acts of terrorisms knowing the spotlight won't be on them, How silly of me to suggest this when we all know muslims are always to blame for these things.

The "spotlight" is going to be on anyone who commits an act of terrorism against the West, whether it be Muslims, Gypsies, or followers of Michael Jackson. However, we all know it isn't Gypsies or angry Radio Shack employees doing the damage now.

*raises one eyebrow* It isn't muslims worldwide either.

aswrwb

pray to Allaah, inshaAllaah, that the image of Islam is never low.