Posts by Che Tibby
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The regular armies, moving by sea and by land, united in Constantinople in the last days of 1096; and June 24, 1097, Nicaea was captured; but Antioch was not taken until June 3, 1098; and Jerusalem not until July 15, 1099. All the Jews in the city were burnt alive in the synagogue: all the infidels - some say seventy thousand - were massacred. Through the desolate streets the victors went in a procession to the Church of the Resurrection, singing their hymns, and wading in blood.
this is a description of the first crusade.
-
Unfortunately, as a few google searches and surfing of the web will show, examples of people like Ken Livingstone codling a crazed Islamic nutter cleric are a dime a dozen.
would you care to provide these quotes?
and, the 11 september bombers are not the tribal muslims neil is talking about.
-
I do agree that at present there are more Muslims that aspire to spread their religion violently but I believe that is caused by young men coming from conservative tribal backgrounds and feeling alienated by modernity. With a few lunatics like bin Laden thrown in.
i don't think i could agree with neil more.
james, basically you're trotting out a lot of very tired, very narrow neo-conservative talking points. all of which are baseless propaganda.
-
And those [norms] would, just by a happy coincidence, be yours?
they vary between nation-states. doesn't change the premise tho.
-
Well, in a sense it's no different from westerners expecting to have a beer with their BLTs and dress how they feel like in muslim countries.
exactly. and, multiculturalism works along a spectrum from "very broadly tolerant and willing to accept integration of minority norms" to "what? who the hell are you kidding? dress different, but stop slapping your kids".
-
needs to be a set of basic values and norms that all in society agree with and conform to
sure. but that is the fundamental premise of multiculturalism.
a multicultural policy tolerates diversity within limits. those limits are determined by the norms of the host nation, and migrants are expected to conform.
the result is that horrendous norms like genital mutilation or wife beating are not tolerated. but these are real people you're talking about, not abstract ideas. it takes time for the unnacceptability of norms to sink in.
but opponents of the policy grab and wave instances of unacceptable behaviour being brought to the media and scream abuse at the minority, usually based on their own prejudices or xenophobia.
consequently, they're attacking the means to the end they themselves argue they want.
-
it's also amazing how cherry picking a few dozen cases of abusive behaviour can tar a policy as "liberal and therefore bad".
multicultural policy resulted in the successful settlement of hundreds of thousands of individuals and families in places like new zealand, canada, the united states and australia throughout the 1970s, 80s and 90s.
but, miraculously, when a need is found to lambast muslims in western countries "THE MULTICULTURALISM" is dragged out as a stick with which to beat "the muslims liberal aliies".
that bow is a very long one, mr bremmer. i would suggest you're pulling it the wrong way.
-
an opinion, not a "FACT"
you mean, the way that the documented torturing of dozens of probably innocent iraqis was only conducted by a few hill-billies is an opinion?
-
doesn't that hrw article point out that the worst atrocities were after the gulf war? when they were encouraged by bush senior to rise up, but were then provided little to no material support?
it also points out that they were singled out as shia. which lends itself to the "sectarian violence was always bad, now it is worse" argument
-
juha, you got any more of those great ideas for web identification?
lemme see your del.icio.us account?