All Muslims are the Same

The truth has verily been revealed unto me

Published on February 5, 2006 By cactoblasta In Current Events

It wasn't until the recent flood of articles on Joeuser about the cartoon incident and its follow-up that I came to this revelation. But the words of brave advocates on this blog site have persuaded me - there is no difference between a Muslim who explodes a bomb and a Muslim who a)doesn't know it happened, b)is appalled or c)doesn't care.

They're all the same!

I don't know who exactly I have to thank for this revelation, but it really makes my life easier to be able to combine Laskar Jihad, Fatah, Muhammadiyah, Nahdatul Ulama, The Australian Council of Imams, PKK, PKB, and all those other *Muslims* into a single monolithic enemy.

Because the truth is, they're all the same. Nahdatul Ulama may have publicly condemned acts of terror, but that was obviously just a sneaky trick to fool us into thinking all Muslims aren't the same - they won't fool me any more! The world's largest Muslim countries have all publicly condemned terrorism - but their stands are also sneaky tricks. After all, who could be supplying terrorists with explosives like fertilizer and guns like Kalashnikovs if not these southeast asian giants of industry?

Those Muslims are so devious, they outwit those crazy kid liberals at every turn! And they have outwitted me for too long!

Today I stand by you, free world. We must fight the Muslim menace on the beaches, on the streets, on the carpet of their living rooms (be careful though - bloodstains will make a quick sale difficult!) - everywhere the menace can be found.

Because stupidity, mindless aggression and blatant racism are attributes only the great enemy could possibly possess!

Comments (Page 2)

cactoblasta

on Feb 05, 2006

I think what the west is today is good, but it could be better. I wasn't trying to compare the west to most Islamic states. I just think that the way we operate now can be improved upon. Why should we keep inflicting the same injustices on others over and over again? Sure, there are worse powers in this world - Iran is one, Cambodia was another, the drug belt of Latin America a swathe that's much alike. But that doesn't mean that smiting them with righteous fury and a few token aid efforts is going to make it any better there, and we're fooling no one save ourselves by saying so. it hasn't worked before; what makes us think it will this time?

bakerstreet

on Feb 05, 2006

What injustices? This isn't a population sitting peacefully while we charge in and steal their women. This is a segment of the world's population that believes by frightening and intimidating the rest that they can deny basic freedoms.

There have been mistakes. Even then we thought we were responding to threats, though the response was admittedly a mistake. The situation in Saudi Arabia is a good example. People call us hypocrites for allowing the injustices there, but in reality we don't mind letting people be unjust to themselves. If we were what we were portrayed as being we'd have invaded there too and imposed our culture.

Denmark is no threat to the Middle East. Neither is France, and France has been more of a "friend" to them in the past decade than any other European nation. This is about imposing their standards on other nations, and in a far more heavy handed manner than the West.

What other optopn is there? Meet their demands? Do you really feel good about the idea of telling the press what they can and can't print just so people won't burn embasies? Once they start taking hostages and beheading them over cartoons, what then?

Sit and watch the mayhem, or strike back, or what? Bribes? What do you think the high road is when people threaten violence unless you do their bidding?

cactoblasta

on Feb 06, 2006

I'm beginning to think I don't know who you're talking about. What is Islam to you? I think I can figure out where it is - the Middle East, particularly Israel, Iran, Iraq, presumably Saudi Arabia, possibly Afghanistan and maybe Pakistan as well. Is that all? Because if that's the Islam you believe is doing all the wrongs, then I've been talking about something a little broader. I wish you'd been more specific in your choice of descriptions; Muslim and Islamic is a very, very large section of the world's population. Islamic politics cover the whole spectrum from ultra-liberal to arch-conservative. I feel a little like a fool for taking it so broadly when you mean it so specifically, and I'm not sure I could have avoided it with my limited grasp of English.

Denmark is no threat to the Middle East. Neither is France, and France has been more of a "friend" to them in the past decade than any other European nation. This is about imposing their standards on other nations, and in a far more heavy handed manner than the West.

Really? Nondemocratic states outside the west have had sanctions imposed when they refuse to be democratic. That seems very heavy-handed. But Cuba aside, I largely agree. The response from a number of non-state actors has been extreme, although in keeping with their traditional approach to the west - ie hate-filled and based on ridiculous stereotypes. The actions of states like Syria also seem over-the-top, until you realise that Syria has reacted to aspects of the west in much the same way for decades. Insofar as a state can be prone to hissy fits, Syria is the one.

What other optopn is there? Meet their demands? Do you really feel good about the idea of telling the press what they can and can't print just so people won't burn embasies? Once they start taking hostages and beheading them over cartoons, what then?

Ignore them. Tell the newspapers they're bloody stupid for being so provocative, tell the foreigners to butt out of domestic issues, and move on. The cartoons aren't the harbinger of the apocalypse. Sure they got protested, sure some embassies got torched, but embassies don't seem to last long in the Middle East anyway. At least, there seems to be another one demolished every few weeks. Ignore the whole region would be my move, only paying them the slightest bit of attention when we need something. And tell them that there won't be any military aid for any purpose until they wake up to themselves. Drown them in educational and health aid though - it's the ultimate PR coup to have the entire medical and educational system of a nation have your logo on it, and makes claims the west doesn't care ring rather hollow.

Stephen Mayne wrote something interesting in today's Crikey which is pretty close to what I think:

As soon as an issue is framed as a test of press freedom, the temptation is to publish for no better reason than to assert that freedom. And in some circumstances, where the threat is real, that might be reason enough to publish. But in this country, and most others where newspapers have strutted a hairy chest on this issue, Muslims are a small minority of the population and we are free to offend their religious sensitivities if we want to.

The only question to consider is, why would we want to?

There are really important occasions to invoke "the precious right of freedom of speech." By choosing the wrong one, the Dominion Post has devalued the concept, given more ammunition to opponents of free speech for no reason, and made it a little bit harder for all other journalists to invoke it in the future.
(He was commenting specifically on the NZ press' decision to republish the cartoons as a sign of 'press solidarity')

bakerstreet

on Feb 06, 2006

No, I understand that Islam is bigger than the Middle East. It's in the Phillipines, it is in Indonesia, it is in Asia. It is in Somalia and Africa proper. If YOU are talking about Muslims in the West, then you are also talking about a very small slice of Islam. All of those places have succumbed more and more to radical Islam in the last decade or two.

As for injustice, what injustice has been brought upon those Muslims in the West so far? I agree that I think France has been pigheaded, but they have also been pigheaded about religion in general, which is also a matter of free expression in my opinion. I think France is wrong to villify personal religious expression in publicly owned buildings.

Other than that, what injustice have those mainstream muslims in other areas tolerated to create the kind of apathy you describe? Show me injustice to Muslims that I have been apathetic to, and I'll do my best to correct it. Palestine has suffered as much because of the hate of their Arab neighbors than they have from Israel.

Cuba, and Syria as well for that matter, aren't just paying for being different. They are paying for their involvment in the Cold War. Syria is paying for decades of being pro-terrorism and anti-Semitic. Trace the history of the Middle East back to WW2 and the Arab state's alignment with Nazism.

I think we will ignore this for the most part. I don't think we will start bombing countries because an embassy or two is burned. On the other hand it is one more sign that *mainstream* Islam values a few cartoons more than they do the lives of innocent people. Sitting idly by while people are beheaded isn't just apathy, it is neglect. They need to weed their religion, and refuse to.

I don't hold any grudge against any Islamic person that doesn't wish to impose their values or wink at terrorism. I don't consider it apathy, though, that this brings this kind of response worldwide, and terror doesn't.

bakerstreet

on Feb 06, 2006

I'll add that I think Muslims should be able to chant "Death to Israel" all they want. I don't think the Koran should be banned for excusing the killing of infidels any more than the Bible should be banned for saying "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"

But lets be honest. This standard would be far, far more of an imposition on Muslim expression than they would on Western expression. In terms of pure hate, can you really say that there is more stuff like these cartoons in the Western media than anti-semeitic rhetoric in the Arab media?

Let's just let EVERYONE say what they want, and realize opinions don't hurt anyone. If we burned embassies every time someone preached "Death to America" in Arab nations, well, you could make a fortune in the American embassy building business.

Leauki

on Feb 06, 2006

The Northern Alliance were butchers and thieves when they were in power, and there's no good reason to assume they've changed since then.

When were they in power and why do you call them butchers?

They ARE in power now. And I haven't heard any really bad news about Karzai's government.

cactoblasta

on Feb 06, 2006

They were in power before the Taliban. After the fall of the Russian attempt in Afghanistan the Northern Alliance's key figures took power. After murdering, raping and drug-dealing their way into ignomy the Taliban got together the popular support to take over. The Northern Alliance were forced to flee to the north -hence the name. They're not entirely back yet, as the US has managed to mostly keep them in check. Karzai is president in name only; according to the rumours, he might have control over his own palace after nightfall, but even that's not certain.

Afghanistan is pretty dismal, but it's always been that way.

cactoblasta

on Feb 06, 2006

Let's just let EVERYONE say what they want, and realize opinions don't hurt anyone.

Well not directly, no, save in the psychological sense. But we're not dealing with 6-yr-olds here so presumably the psychological damage won't be longlasting.

It's the longterm effects that concern me. A poorly stated opinion does affect the opinions of others towards you. Do we really want to be thought arrogant pricks by the rest of the world? What purpose could it possibly serve? I've always liked the approach proposed by one of your dead presidents - speak softly and carry a big stick.

Or to put it in South Park terms - and I wish I could do this with every issue - there doesn't seem to be much point in saying "You don't own me bitch - I do what I want!" at every opportunity. Sure, we should be able to do it. But what does it serve to do it about a few particularly unfunny cartoons? Okay, 11 unfunny cartoons and one that's kind of clever - the one with Muhammad saying, "stop! we've run out of virgins!" to all the suicide bombers.

But no one has the power to stop us from doing it at this point and there are no plans to stop it from occuring as far as I am aware, so whether we say muslims are incompetents and dangerous or not isn't exactly bolstering free speech. It's basically being said for shits and giggles. Personally I'm against insulting others purely for that reason, but I suppose that comes with an excessively Catholic upbringing. Maybe had I had a more conventionally conservative background I'd understand why it's so important to be rude for no good reason, purely because I can. But at the moment it's a little unclear.

I would however, think less of anyone who just sat still and took it if I was abusing them. The only thing worse than an arsehole is a spineless little wimp.

If we burned embassies every time someone preached "Death to America" in Arab nations, well, you could make a fortune in the American embassy building business.

True. If I was a really good stereotyped liberal I suppose I'd be saying the US CIA global conspiracy arranged the cartoons so that US megacorps could get building contracts, and that the whole antagonism between Middle Eastern states and the west was designed solely for that purpose by secret US thinktanks.

cactoblasta

on Feb 06, 2006

So I take it you publically condemn every comedian, cartoonist, or satirist that engages in insults for humor's sake? You plan to be the comedy censor of the world now, cacto?

No. Because they expect their audience to laugh. The Danish cartoons were published to make the point that the Danish press should have the freedom of speech to publish regardless of the sensibilities of their targets. If it didn't have such a big political build-up prior to the printing I wouldn't give a second thought. But from what I've managed to find out the cartoons were designed not so much to be funny but to be provocative.

Good satirists and comedians understand the need to be funny first and provocative second, at least if they want a broad audience they do. I have no intention or desire to police it, but I do wish they'd try harder to be funny if they're going to insult other people. Tell me honestly - how many of those Danish cartoons did you laugh at? For me it was a smile at 2 or 3, but only one got a laugh. The rest were so unfunny they may have been children's artwork.

cactoblasta

on Feb 06, 2006

I've decided to close this and have a think about my own position on the vast swathe of issues I seem to have meandered over in answering your replies, and then I'll post a hopefully more rational and less illogical statement tomorrow. Until then I'm locking this one. Thanks to all though for the points you've made and the insights you've brought to my attention. I like having a place like this where I can be guaranteed hardly anyone is going to agree with me; it makes sure that if I decide to take a stupid position on something I do it for the right reasons.

bakerstreet

on Feb 06, 2006

Didn't seem to lock, just lettin ya know.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!