Israeli-Arab Porn Enrages


#1

Anyone else see this?

Excerpted from:

channels.netscape.com/ns/news/st … TR&coview=

I guess there is nothing else for these people to be more concerned with.

:imp:

Sensitive moslems :unamused: How sensitive does a guy need to be in order to be able to savagely kill another human being, completely unrelated to himself, for having sex with someone else, also completely unrelated to himself?

Why does everything insult and enrage these folks?

Freedom? Who’s freedom? Oh, the freedom to kill those who offend our sense of morality. OK, carry on then :x

Lies! :unamused:

Of course, most would be too sensitive to watch such a film :unamused:

A very sensitive fellow, no doubt.

:smiley:


#2

I have always wondered how much sensitivity non-Muslims are supposed to have towards a religion which solves all its problems by ordering assassinations. Doesn’t appear to be a recent problem either, remember Monty Python’s Never be rude to an Arab song from 1970 ? Good advice for those who don’t want to end up in an early grave.


#3

Tigerman,

You’re on to something here. A clarification though so I don’t get ahead of myself. When you refer to “these people” do you mean all Arabs and Muslims or just the people perpetrating the assaults? That’s an important distinction:

Assuming you mean Arabs and Muslims as a group and not just a group of ignorant individuals you might find in any country then you should, as a public service, consider expanding this theme of ethnic and religious expose on the moral depravity of Arabs and Islam into a book-length expose. There would be a huge market for it since Arabs are a Semitic people and, though most people don’t consciously know that, they “know it”, if you know what I mean.

You could call it, “Protocols of the Elders of Islam” or something equally catchy like that. Just a suggestion though. You’ll probably come up with a better title of your own. I’ve taken the liberty of providing a “lynching template” for you to get started with. Just cut-and-paste “Arabs”, “porn actors” and “these people” in wherever appropriate:

LYNCHING
In the last decades of the nineteenth century, the lynching of Black people in the Southern and border states became an institutionalized method used by whites to terrorize Blacks and maintain white supremacy. In the South, during the period 1880 to 1940, there was deep-seated and all-pervading hatred and fear of the Negro which led white mobs to turn to


#4

[quote=“Gavin Januarus”]Tigerman,

You’re on to something here. A clarification though so I don’t get ahead of myself. When you refer to “these people” do you mean all Arabs and Muslims or just the people perpetrating the assaults? That’s an important distinction…[/quote]

Yes, it certainly is an important distinction. Of course I mean only the people carrying out the assaults. Why would you think that I mean other people who are not enraged to the point of carrying out assaults? If you make that assumption, my comments then would not make any sense.

Nope… don’t assume anything. I think if you re-read my post, carefully, you will notice that the quotes from the article generalize while I commented specifically on those folks who were committing the assaults.

Seems you went and “got ahead of yourself”, despite your request for a clarification first :?

P.S. Lynchings were a particularly horrendous crime, IMO. Fortunately, the US government stepped in when the State governments would not put an end to the practice and outlawed it and strictly enforced the prohibition. Thereafter, the incidence of lynching of blacks in the US virtually ceased.

So, what was your point?


#5

Gavin, your post reminded me of the kind of pretenious knee-jerk conversations I avoided at university. You have insulted Tigerman. He posted an interesting article - he wasn’t having a go at Muslims in general. As cowardly as the lynchings were what’s the connection? Anyone with tales of exploitation of Amazonian Indians buring the 19th century rubber boom? Have a drink. Relax.


#6

Sensitive moslems

Why does everything insult and enrage these folks?

Does definetely sound like he is addressing this at all people of Islamic faith.

But having lived in a Muslim country for a few years I can tell you they are as human as we are, with all the typical weaknesses - especially the men if you catch my drift …


#7

Just to add my two cents. While I realize we are all taught (Western values) not to judge a whole culture, we have to seriously look at the fact that while not all Muslims are terrorists, a great proportion of all terrorists are Muslim. Anyone who thinks that we are all just the same can wonder then why no Arab society is a democracy and any Western woman that believes we are all equal perhaps should take a much closer look at how Muslim women really live. Yes, I get the point about all humans being equal, but I do not think that we can say that for all cultures or socio-economic political systems. Is that a fair assessment?


#8

[quote=“Rascal”]Sensitive moslems

Why does everything insult and enrage these folks?

Does definetely sound like he is addressing this at all people of Islamic faith.[/quote]

Rascal,

If you read my comments in their entirety, I think it is clear that I was not referring to ALL moslems or Arabs. I stated:

[quote]How sensitive does a guy need to be in order to be able to savagely kill another human being, completely unrelated to himself, for having sex with someone else, also completely unrelated to himself?

Why does everything insult and enrage these folks?[/quote]

I thought it obvious from the context that my reference to “these folks”, following immediately after my comment regarding violence committed by certain individuals, referred to the guys who are “able to savagely kill another human being”.

But I will be more careful in the future, and add an appropriate disclaimer or explanation when commenting.

Are you saying that ALL Moslems are as human as All of us? Are you saying that ALL moslem men have ALL the typical weaknesses that ALL of us have?

I would say instead that SOME moslems are as human as SOME of us, and that SOME moslems are as inhumane as SOME of us. :wink:


#9

American culture is awash in anti-Arab bigotry and religious intolerance right now. Public figures there regularly denounce Islam as an evil religion just as religious fanatics in the Muslim world are denouncing Christianity and Judaism as evil religions.

Normally, as a card-carrying Republican and vet, I wouldn’t care about a little bigotry and intolerance but it’s gotten so out of hand that I can’t even go to my favorite hangouts in SouthEast Asia anymore without fear of getting shot or blown up because everyone is so intent on stirring each other up.

Tigerman’s post seemed to be making some blanket implications about the moral inferiority of Arabs and Islam and adding to the problem. He also seemed to be pontificating about the evil propensity of “those people” for lynching other people for no good reason and I thought we Americans with our long and sorry history of lynchings are the last people who should be preaching to other people about a propensity for lynching.

Tigerman replied, I think, that he wasn’t implying that other cultures and religions are inherently inferior to ours, he was just commenting on a group of people in some village in Israel that he happened to notice in the news were doing something stupid and violent. I accept that and am happy to hear it. I’d like to suggest to Tigerman though that it’s not particular bright when the world is on the brink of chaos because of religious intolerance and bigotry to be giving the impression that he’s helping tip the balance a little more.


#10

“These folks” is easily understood as a generalization, in this case about all Moslems which you were referring to first (which you obmitted in the above quote).
Those who do the killing are not always those who oppose or which you label as “sensitive”.
The one’s who do the killing are probably not sensitive at all but most likely instructed by “the sensitive ones”.
In which case both are at fault and none would be better than the other though.

Yes, that’s exactly what I am saying. Of course there are those among “us” who do not have a certain weakness (whatever that may be) in the same way some Muslim (men) do not have it either.
I did not want to imply that all Muslim have weaknesses only but I guess it was not understood this way anyhow.

Agree with your last statement totally. :slight_smile:


#11

Beg to differ with the view that America is awash with anti-Muslim bigotry. Not a day goes by that some school is not staging some Koran reading or Muslim sensitivity class. Not a day without a major politician or public figure saying “Islam is a religion of peace.” The deafening silence meanwhile of Muslim leaders to condemn terrorist attacks is much more noticeable. I think in the US last year there were like 460 hate crimes against Muslims, including such awful offenses as “I hate you. Go back to your own country.” This counted because the person felt physically threatened. Meanwhile, 2800 die in the WTC attack. I think we in the West need to hear a lot more from the Muslim community rather than answering for them by assuming that “we are all equal. Islam is a religion of peace.” Let them assure us that this is the case. Until then, I lean toward the view that like the Germans used to be a problem, the Muslims are a problem today. No, not all Germans were bad, but they came up with some pretty bad systems. No?


#12

Who does that? Jerry Falwell?

This is something new?

As a card carrying Republican I do care about bigotry and it does bother me. But what is your definition of “bigotry”?

Again, I think it clear from the complete context of my post that I was not doing that.

Well, I was commenting about “those people” who have a propensity for violence for what I consider a less than good reason. You concluded, incorrectly, that I was referring to ALL moslems.

I think that is a weak argument. Do lynchings continue in the US? Why should we Americans not comment about what we believe to be an injustice in the world today?

No, you need to read more carefully, really. I replied that my remarks were directed at those people who carry out such violence for what I deem a no good reason.

In fact, I do consider many cultures inferior to my own. I have stated this clearly in another thread. However, I did not imply that sentiment here. I’m not certain how you are arriving at these conclusions.

Good.

I see nothing wrong with calling a spade a “spade”. I commented on the acts of certain individuals as reported in an article which I cited. And I don’t think the world is “on the brink of chaos” or that my remarks, which I stand by now, will result in any tipping of the balance toward a more dangerous condition.

Please note that my comments also included a remark regarding “freedom” and human dignity… and these are not ideas that are necessarily relevant only to moslem nations…

Hey, I’m dissappointed too that travel isn’t as safe as it might have been previously… I had to postpone a long-planned trip to Morrocco. But that isn’t a good reason, IMO, to gloss over such injustices.


#13

“These folks” is easily understood as a generalization, in this case about all Moslems which you were referring to first (which you obmitted in the above quote).[/quote]

I omitted “Sensitive moslems” because it was a reference to the statement in the article that I cited and because it was separated from the following comments by an emoticon. In making your conclusion, however, you omitted my statement which immediately preceded my reference to “these folks”.

Moreover, I thought it obvious that the term “sensitive” moslems clearly does NOT refer to all moslems, as it distinguishes them from “insensitive” moslems.

Do you see what I mean?


#14

I think the argument about semantics in this thread is boring. Mr T made a point, some misconstrued that point. (Perhaps the concise nature of language required to keep posts interesting was partly at fault.) Mr T. then quite rightly explained more clearly. Move on.

What is interesting to me is the contradiction between those Arabs buying the film and that vocal group who claim to represent “proper” values and morality and who have the means and influence to organise others to call for violent action to be taken against those involved in the movie.

Clearly, there is a clash between the values as upheld by those who are able to back up their views with violence and the values as upheld by the private individuals. If I was to caricature these views, I would suggest that the former are analogous to a conservative arab state structure and the latter are analogous to a more modern, radical individualist culture.

I favour the latter view as a way to create a stable environment capable of accommodating a wide range of disparate views. In this sense, therefore, the solution of many of the problems of the Middle East is to be found by embracing the values that support the manufacture and open distribution of porn movies.


#15

Tigerman, I see what you mean but hopefully you also see what I mean:
“Sensitive moslems” can easily be considered a generalization though of course generalizations do not exclude the fact that there are those who do not fall into that category (i.e. the “insensitive moslems”).

Furthermore I would question the sense of your initial post and the reference to Moslems / Arabs if it wouldn’t be about those in general? I mean if someone kills someone else it doesn’t really matter if he is Moslem, Christian, German, American, black, white, green, drinker, slim, fat etc. - it’s a crime and that’s it. And since there are hundreds of those and worst crimes committed everyday - what’s the relevance of your post?
You could easily pick up any newspaper report where any normal person would question the motives or reason - but why pick one about Muslim / Arabs instead?


#16

Not wanting to put words in Mr T’s mouth, but my reaction is:

[quote=“Rascal”]I would question the sense of your initial post and the reference to Moslems / Arabs if it wouldn’t be about those in general?[/quote] the story is quite clearly about different groups of Moslems and differing views between those groups. No argument about this.

[quote=“rascal”] [W]hat’s the relevance of your post?
You could easily pick up any newspaper report where any normal person would question the motives or reason - but why pick one about Muslim / Arabs instead?[/quote] I find it relevant and interesting because it hints that the Middle East and Arab nations appear to be an area where the values/morality of the state and the values/morality of private individuals are far more polarised than they are in many other areas of the world. Thus, I believe there is relevancy in the post on these grounds alone.

Finally, let’s ditch the semantics argument.


#17

[quote=“Rascal”]Tigerman, I see what you mean but hopefully you also see what I mean:
“Sensitive moslems” can easily be considered a generalization though of course generalizations do not exclude the fact that there are those who do not fall into that category (i.e. the “insensitive moslems”).[/quote]

Rascal, the article reported on certain moslems in Israel who were “sensitive” to the pornographic nature of the film. The article also reported that the objectionable film was selling well in the Arab-moslem population in Israel… thus, the distinction between “sensitive” moslems and “insensitive” moslems.

The article that I cited used in the title the term “Israeli-Arab” because the place and religion are important contexually in understanding the report.

You are missing the point. I am not concerned necessarily that the aggressors were moslem, but rather with the reason that they acted aggressively. Not all killings or other acts of aggression, IMO, are unjustified. But, IMO, the killing or aggressive acts for the reason reported in the article are unjustified.

[quote=“Rascal”]And since there are hundreds of those and worst crimes committed everyday - what’s the relevance of your post?
You could easily pick up any newspaper report where any normal person would question the motives or reason - but why pick one about Muslim / Arabs instead?[/quote]

Because the issue, to me at least, is why some intolerant individuals are willing to kill to protect or uphold their own sense of subjective morality. In this particular case, it was a few moslem men in Israel. If the news was about a gay person being killed in Wyoming for being gay, or a black man being killed in Texas for being black, or a Jew being killed in Germany (60 years ago) for being a Jew, then the report would be worthy of discussion, IMO.

Would you rather we not discuss current events here?


#18

Time for a reality check here. Has anyone modified their views at all after all the hard work we’ve been putting into this debate trying to convince one another?

I don’t see any hands. That’s disappointing. It’s a good thing we’re not doing this for a living.

Well I’ve changed my opinion about something. I used to think imyourbiggestfan was an individual person but now I’m convinced he’s just MrT’s clone. Sort of a MiniT. Other than that though I stand pat. I’m just as convinced as ever that you guys are a bunch of war-mongering religious and nationalist fanatics posing as innocent victims of a “gutter religion” which is out to get you. You, of course, are just as convinced as ever that I’m an appeasing, unpatriotic fool with a penchant for unfairly insulting people.

I think we should just stop wasting our time trying to convince each other and look for compromise ground. I’m willing if you’re willing. I pledge to stop calling you war-mongering hypocrites if you pledge to find some way to not drag the rest of us into your holy war. Gather all your imams, preachers and rabbis and their legions of followers someplace discreet like, say, the Plains of Armageddon and rumble it out to your heart’s content. Smite or smote each other or whatever the hell it is you were taught to do to each other until there’s no one left standing but the ones whose side God really is on. I predict though you’ll be in for a bit of a surprise.


#19

In general all Moslem appear to be sensitive to pornographic material. This is not restricted to Israel or “certain moslems” mentioned in the article only. However I have no issue regarding the article itself, see down below.

You pointed out that distinction only later and as said before even you (we) generalize it doesn’t apply to everyone.
In fact I would consider both groups as sensitive due to their religious believe, calling them (the “good guys”) insensitive might actually be an insult.
Furthermore you should understand that the will to kill does have it roots in the Koran (Quran), which allows for capital punishment under the Sharia laws. So there is actually no need to question why, even though it’s wrong in our view and why people actually live by that might just be beyond our understanding, at least for me it’s difficult to comprehend.
There are many other things in this world we should question, and most can’t be answered; we can assume or speculate, but not always explain everything to our full satisfaction.
To understand this particular issue I think you would need to dive deep into the Muslim faith and teachings.

Then again those guys (the agressors) mentioned might just be plain nuts … :wink:

As said before this can easily apply to many other Moslem occupied areas and my concern is not the report itself but your initial post.

Like I said, hundreds of thousand cases were people act agressively - justified or not - whereas that might just depend on your point of view. Before replying to that please continue reading:

I totally agree based on my education and personal believes.

Who knows? Religious believes, being misslead or being used, brainwashed perhaps, just being stupid or agressive by nature, sick in the head - many reasons I could think of.

Different thing (bad comparision): earlier you talk about the agressors, now about the victims.
But it still won’t matter to me - killing and most other acts of agression cannot be justified.

Did I say or imply that? Just wanted to point out that this (your post) could easily be missunderstood as “Moslem-bashing” in the same way my former posts and comments about current events have been called “US-bashing”.


#20

What debate? Its mostly been about semantics, so far.

[quote=“Gavin Januarus”]I don’t see any hands. That’s disappointing. It’s a good thing we’re not doing this for a living.[/quote] Many of us are doing this for a living.

If you mean the same person, no. If you mean the same views. No, again. Though I will admit to a large overlap from what I have seen of his postings. We have disagreed on other threads (terrorism). But I like his logical, dispassionate, step-by-step approach to an argument. So, you flatter me. Whilst you and Mr T, and I hope myself, are to an extent confrontational - how else can you discuss - your approach to argument seems to be far more irrational and emotional. Not one that I care for.

I don’t remember where you were accused of this. I do not see any grounds in this thread for your accusation against us. I think you are engaging the age-old tactic of setting up a straw man. I think the thread raises interesting issues between private morailty and public morality in the Arab world, of religious intolerance, of the inflexibility and increasing irrelevance of religious laws in an increasingly wealthy world, and of the dangers of state powers (authorised use of violence) etc being in the hands of religious thinkers. Maybe I read too much into the story. You, on the other hand, read far too little into it.

[quote=“Gavin Januarus”]I think we should just stop wasting our time trying to convince each other and look for compromise ground. I’m willing if you’re willing.[/quote] to compromise on what, exactly? No one is preaching war here but trying to debate dispassionately some interesting issues. Join in or not. As you please.

Implying what exactly? You hint that you already know whose side God will take. So, I would be interested to hear whose side you think he will take in the case outlined by Mr T’s original linked article: the side of the actors and buyers of the porn, or those that seek to kill the actors on the grounds of public decency and freedom.

You see, your answer to this question has important implications. Or should I say that the answer to such a question given by the religious and political leaders in the Middle East has important implications for the kind of nations and laws that they will build and thus has implications for the stability and development of the region.

Now, if we can ditch the boring and unnecessary argument about semantics and if we can get past your pointless name-calling, we may find some interesting opinions.

But at the moment GJ, you are an obstacle to all this. So what is it to be?

Are you in or out?