Not meant for you, no. But let me share that what your're describing on the base of ethnicity and religion is something I get from the ideological perspective very often due to my idiosyncratic political views. And I don't even consider myself right wing, just I say I am to get rid of the "false friends" usually on the so called left that praise respect and tolerance while being prejudiced bigots. It doesn't depress me anymore, so assuming I'm older than you, you got that to look forward to: cynicism instead of depression.

On a more positive note, and this is the same advice I give on handling trolls, I'd recommend instead of defensiveness to address those common (to you) stereotypical reactions directly and openly. I can understand you get tired of saying something like "I don't support terrorism" every 5 min, but since you find yourself being asked that every 5 min (and some of the responsibility is on your behavior mate), do you really think avoiding to answer is any better? The way you get rid of that is through acceptance, or do you really think you can magically wish prejudice out of existence? At least leading from the front you'll find out who are the bigots in disguise and the person's that simply didn't know you but will respect you for being honest.

I dunno, saying "Your question belies a systemic bias that you need to break free of" would probably fly over their heads and would be just as tiring. I certainly cannot magically wish prejudice away, I generally choose to ignore it, and would be happy if it ignores me. You say to accept it, and you've previously talked about how "not tolerating intolerance is intolerant", but you already know my response to that. I'm certainly not going to "accept" it :D.

Because you are assuming intolerance due to taking it personally :) Sometimes a question is just a question. Are you a terrorist?

Of course not. So why do you want to attack the asker instead of answer them? Here you show yourself to be one of "you guys"... like telika you must feel really threatened to react like that instead of shrug it off... I was saying openness instead of defensiveness, instead you are more the confrontation type, just a bit lazy... yeah, that does ring a bell... righteous warrior for all that is pure and good, when it's convenient of course.

I mean I just don't get it, the victory I see if someone asks me if I'm a Nazi, a fascist, etc... is to honestly say of course not. At least give them a chance to learn the truth. Maybe they won't believe me, but I'm not going to lie just to spite them, or avoid answering and slowly become paranoid. Why should I stoop down to their level? It's not like this is a stranger on the streets, we're all colleagues of a sort here. Then again "you guys" rather assume instead of ask... oblivious to how that reveals your arrogance. At least when I ignore someone I don't pretend that's respect.

But then why ask in the first place? And specifically asking me? Has anyone asked you if you are a terrorist? I'd say a "win" is for them to get this silly idea that muslims must prove themselves innocent or be considered guilty out of their heads. Otherwise I'm just playing their game. To me, THAT would be stooping to their level, and validating their mindset.

We're using a silly example, I bet no one asked either of us if we're terrorists...

You only validate their mindset by saying yes. Refusing to engage neither validates nor invalidates anything. Saying no is what invalidates their mindset.

And validating a mindset is different from changing their mindset, which is what I think you want? My point being you need to invalidate their mindset (just say no baby) before you get a chance to change it. Try it sometime, you might be surprised, you won't win them all, but you should win more than now.

Actually, I have been asked that. Or just straight out been accused of being a terrorist or terrorist supporter. Regularly when such discussions pop up on the net. And no, even saying 'no' doesn't help. Bigots who want to think what they want to think will keep thinking it. Their next step is accusing me of being essentially deceptive due to my faith (reminiscent of accusations against jews due to kol nidre).
I hold no expectation of being able to change mindsets, and I very much doubt that someone asking me if I'm a terrorist, or if I support terrorism is going to change their mindset if I say "No".

Again, my way of dealing with bigotry (explicit, or systemic and unnoticed) is one you've pointed out you disagree with. I call attention to its absurdity, and show it off to everyone to be an outlier, and an extreme case, and not allow it the comfort of normality. You don't provide it "tolerance" and understanding, and sit it down and explain nicely that black people are people too, and aren't automatically going to steal your bike, but if they don't understand that, it's okay, their opinion is totally valid. That doesn't work.

The reason for those questions is neither your religion, nor your country nor anything else than your posts. When you started to draw the "racism-card" out of nowhere to denounce everyone who disagreed with you, I stopped taking you seriously for good.
If you really think anything else than your posts have led to those questions, than you are making things really easy for yourself and it just reveals a bloody lot of arrogance and prejudice which is the image you have created around yourself only by what you have written and have refused to answer.

Prejudice:
You'd be surprised how very different everyone would approach you, if you would actually start being open and direct instead of arrogant and evasive.
The fact that your religion is (from what I've read in the Quran) telling you, that you are superior to all non-muslims is most likely not making things easier here.

Hey K! Interesting you deign to address me directly now.
Do you mean "arrogant and evasive" like saying of someone to a third party in an open forum that "Typical, him and his brethren are dishonourable", before editing it away and asking "Where? Where?" when someone else mentions the racism in this thread. It is nice at least that you are self-aware enough to know what to hide :D.


See Brasas, for someone who claims that specific attitudes towards me have nothing to do with the perception of my religion, and then goes on to tell me I'm a bad person because of my religion, your way wouldn't work in a million years.

Firstly: Your quote is incorrect, I'd never use such words.
I edited my mention of the lack of honour in your behaviour away to stop giving you more fuel for such evasions like this one and I never said that I do not think Islam is a dishonourable movement, I made this very clear with lots of quotes from the Quran in this thread that you repeatedly chose to ignore, where did I say anything different and what the hell has any of this to do with racism?

Supporting terrorism is more insidious, because what does support actually mean? And that I wouldn't bet, because I saw in this thread itself, and like I said earlier you're partially responsible for inflaming that dialogue... takes two to tango and all that... if someone actually asked me if I'm a terrorist, I'd probably lol... well outside of border guards, but they do that to gauge reactions... like for US visa, I guess some terrorists are too honest and will answer yes in the visa application form :)

Anyway, getting sleepy. I know you kind of don't expect to change mindsets. And yet deep down you kind of do, likely. And feeling angry at not being able to change that unpleasant reality is perfectly normal. Just it closes doors, that anger, whereas I'm telling you open doors are more rewarding.

By the way, I was rushing to get home earlier so kind of forgot, the Socratic method is perfectly fine. Asking someone why they're asking is positive itself. The thing is, you did that to Walter, and he answered you. Turns out you weren't really asking, cos his answers didn't matter to you or you're the one assuming he is being deceptive. From where I'm standing you both are assuming too much, only he assumes too much logic, isn't considering your reactions are heavily due to experiences of prejudice, whereas you are assuming too much emotion, aren't considering that he's connecting the dots you gave him, not imagining them from thin air.

Good night

BTW for everyone who wasn't present, I meant those quotes:

"Sūra 2, Āya 190-193"
"Sūra 2, Āya 216-217"
"Sūra 2, Āya 223"
"Sūra 3, Āya 86-91"
"Sūra 4, Āya 34"
"Sūra 4, Āya 89"
"Sūra 5, Āya 38"
"Sūra 8, Āya 12"
"Sūra 8, Āya 17"
"Sūra 9, Āya 5"
"Sūra 9, Āya 14"
"Sūra 9, Āya 29"
"Sūra 9, Āya 111"
"Sūra 9, Āya 113"
"Sūra 16, Āya 10"
"Sūra 17, Āya 33"
"Sūra 24, Āya 2"
"Sūra 24, Āya 62"
"Sūra 33, Āya 61"
"Sūra 40, Āya 10"
"Sūra 41, Āya 24"
"Sūra 44, Āya 16"
"Sūra 47, Āya 4"
"Sūra 48, Āya 20"
"Sūra 48, Āya 29"
"Sūra 60, Āya 1"
"Sūra 61, Āya 4"
"Sūra 61, Āya 9"
"Sūra 98, Āya 6"

Getting to know if muslims actually agree with those statements is what I try to do and no muslim I ever encountered distanced himself from them, most likely because everything Mohammad said is holy and not to be questioned, but what do I know, I'm just some lowly infidel.
If Babark would have openly said, that those are bad instead of evading with the usual "Look at Christianity!" (which is rather bollocks considering the amount of atheists and agnostics around here), I'd automatically would have had a quite high opinion of him, because I know better than most how hard it is to break with traditions.

Instead I was called out as a racist and still wonder where exactly the connection between all this is supposed to be.
Are religions some kind of races now?

Another non sequitur - the part of my post you're quoting is in response to jamyskis who (among other people) is under the impression that this thread is a "racist flamewar". Good luck in finding racist statements here, I haven't made any and can't recall anyone making any, either. Again, I refer to this thread so your conclusions about France have nothing to do with what I said in any way.
Looks like it's perfect time to post the following video by Pat Condell that seems to have been made -exactly- for moments like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz4PjxSmtoI

As for actual real racism, whether you like it or not I've experienced racism based on having browner skin than the local population and being of 50% foreign decent. Minor incidents but entirely real nonetheless. Sorry if that is inconvenient to you because it means you can't play the "you're mean because I'm brown" card - you have literally tried to do it in this thread already, here is the post I'm referring to.

Apologetics aren't necessarily a good thing. In this case, I meant it negatively because you entered the thread in full deflection mode and never absorbed anything, that's good for the bottom side of a space shuttle during reentry into Earth's atmosphere but not helping a discussion where legitimate concerns and criticism have been raised. On one hand it's understandable that due to personal feelings you want to defend your religion but keep in mind that during an open discussion, personal feelings are of little consequence. Sure, I and some others could have treated you more gently but that would be holding you to a lower standard which is what Pat Condell describes as racism of lower expectations in the video I linked above. I see no reason to hold you to a different standard, I treat you the exact same way I would treat anyone saying or not saying the things you did. Same goes for Islam and the community of its followers at large btw, I treat it the exact same way I would treat any other religion in its situation.


Here's why my example (Kouachi Brothers killing to avenge insults against Muhammad) is a good example, contrary to your claim that it is a bad example:
Under Section 295-C of Pakistan's penal code, the offence of insulting Muhammad is punishable with life imprisonment or death. The death sentence might not be carried out for this in Pakistan but you can still get the sentence. So basically, the Kouachi brothers in Paris simply carried out to full effect what official religion-based law in Pakistan says, just using your country as an example, there are other Islamic countries with even harsher blasphemy laws. In Saudi Arabia, you can expect a death sentence to be carried out for the same offense. These are religious laws we're talking about, regardless of the fact that they have no base in the Quran. Hadith is another story, but anyway there is no consistency among Islamic scholars about this in terms of interpretation. The fact that they can't manage to consistently agree on things doesn't change the fact that it is a religious problem. Whether sanctioned by religious law in an Islamist country or not, depicting Muhammad will get you death threats all over the world and in several cases, those threats were carried out.

The Charlie Hebdo incident was no isolated case, refer to this time line to see the related incidents:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11341599/Prophet-Muhammad-cartoons-controversy-timeline.html

Regarding George Bush, he said a lot of wacky crap but as to to quotes you're referring to, got any video evidence? If you're referring to the quotes I heard about, there is no reliable evidence, only second-hand reports from Palestinian officials. Maybe he said it, maybe not - even if you can bring forth reliable proof, Bush has nothing concrete to fall back on other than his wackiness. Unlike the Kouachi brothers who can fall back on Hadith interpretations by a large number of Islamist scholars and even official laws in some Islamist countries. Not quite the same framework. I would dare to conclude that my example most likely makes more sense than yours.


What was normal in the middle ages isn't normal anymore nowadays, looks like someone missed the memo.
Anyway, regarding the phenomenon of modern Islamic terror in its present form, this is a fairly recent thing but it didn't happen "suddenly", and I didn't say so. What I said was that nowadays the majority of religion based terrorism is of the Islamic persuasion.

The mutual sentiment might be similar but the difference is in the argumentation, both in terms of form and content. My main gripe with you is -not- that I have a preconceived notion that you're some kind of terrorist fan or whatever, my gripe is that you aren't absorbing anything that is said to you that you don't like, regardless of how concise one tries to put it. You just throw back some completely non sequitur deflections, asking more questions than posed to you before even answering the ones directed at you and being generally obstinate. When confronted with this, you play the victim and complain about being treated badly. Throughout this thread, I've been addressing your points more diligently than you addressed mine.


(part 2 of post following)

Ah, finally a clear answer from you, for the very first time. Thank you! Perhaps there is a bit of hope left, after all. You couldn't resist having to wrap your answer in a whole lot of redundant attacks which I won't address because that hasn't worked with you in the past, no amount of repeating my argumentation diligently is being heard by you. But I'm very glad you finally condemned the Charlie Hebdo attacks as not justified. It was a simple question that only required a simple "yes" as an answer.
I didn't grill you over this for so long because you're a Muslim, I grilled you about this because Klumpen asked you the same question and you gave a very evasive answer that raised a serious red flag, for anyone from anywhere. Let me be clear: If a fair skinned atheist European Liberal would say that the Charlie Hebdo attacks were justified, that person would be an Islamist in my opinion. By the very definition of the term. If he had replied to Klumpen's question in the same way you initially did, I would have grilled the person the same way for the same amount of time had they been as obstinate as you and said the same stuff. You don't get any special silk glove treatment from me just because you're a Muslim, nor do I pick on you more for it.

To repeat: I'm -not- asking you for an official condemnation because you're a Muslim but because of the posts you made in this thread. Big difference. You don't seriously think I expect all 1.5 Billion Muslims to make an official condemnation each and every time, I would already be pleasantly surprised if I would hear drastically less excuses and counter-accusations and deflections etc, that's what I find more worrisome than a lack of condemnation.
I understand that due to ego and pride it is inconvenient having to make these condemnations all the time, plus it get tiresome even if ego and pride aren't part of the equation. But to go out of your way to come and excuse and defend your religion in obstinate ways, ignoring all legitimate criticism and concerns - that is what got you into this. Don't forget that you came to this thread by yourself, to reply to one of Klumpen's posts. No one asked you for a condemnation -before- you came here, making deflections.

My question was where do you draw the line, I'm actually wanting to hear your opinion. If you were to decide. In the real existing world of present day. I'm not interested in hypothetical Babarkland where everyone is happy and not poor, same as I'm not interested in hypothetical Awalterjland where everyone would be green-liberal and some kind of high level Taoist living in harmony with nature and people.
To make the question geographically unambiguous, what is your answer to the question for the following 3 countries:

a) Switzerland
b) Pakistan
c) France

The question was: Do you think that there should be a law that prohibits people from drawing Muhammad, e.g. in a cartoon where he's naked and gets sodomized by an elephant god or whoever?

I feel quite honored to be the inspiration for an April's Fools post, so I'll presently make a quick review of your efforts!


At first I wasn't quite sure if your contribution was meant as:

a) Parody
b) Revenge for my olive oil comment in post 198
c) April 1st just happened to come in handy as a convenient way to finally tell me all the things you've always wanted to say to my face but never dared to say on any day not protected by fool's license.


I think it' s a combination of all three, and formally definitely qualifies as parody. Your story has some funny parts, such as you and me spending the rest of our lives in my little village ranting on the internet. Not sure if that is meant as punishment for me or punishment for you. The latter would be funnier because it would mean you had to seek refuge in the place least imaginable and I would rub that fact in your face all day long (without olive oil).
It would have been funnier if you had written "defend our borders against Italy and the Romandie" instead of France. If you're going with the narrative you went with which is a caricature of a right-winger's mind aka what a leftist imagines a right-winger would think.
Overall, it's quite funny because the text reflects the mindset of the average leftist very accurately.