Dubstepforum.com

i'm as agnostic as they come and its taken me a long time to come to terms with this but i believe attacking other people's religious beliefs is wrong

Parson wrote:i'm as agnostic as they come and its taken me a long time to come to terms with this but i believe attacking other people's religious beliefs is wrong

I'm not talking about attacking them, I just don't believe they automatically command respect due to the belief in some all-powerful superstitious entity. I can totally understand why arabic people's would be pissed off with the west's collusion with dictatorly governments, I just don't believe the mumbo jumbo bit.

If we look at the worrying increase of religion in matters of education, science, morality, etc, I hope you'd agree that there's cause for concern.

yeah i definitely worry about the spread of fundamentalist ideals in all kinds of religions

i saw a trailer recently for a movie about these christian camps where they brainwash the kids into fundamentalism from an early age. scary stuff. especially because its spreading so quickly.

on an individual level though, you have to respect other people's beliefs

wed better go bomb the christians just to be sure eh?

bush administration has got us so scared of their homeland security tactics that we won't even make jokes like that anymore

feds will bust in here and take away my computer and my marijuana

forensix (mcr) wrote:

wed better go bomb the christians just to be sure eh?

It's an idea. Not the most tolerant bunch it has to be said. Although we never know who's watching so I'd have to say that no, we shouldn't.

I reckon Buddhist's would be a piece of piss though. Gotta love those pacifists

Parson wrote:bush administration has got us so scared of their homeland security tactics that we won't even make jokes like that anymore

feds will bust in here and take away my computer and my marijuana

I feel sorry for you dude, I can believe that , still... at least you've probably got better weed then us

in answer to the original question and thread title, no i'm alright ta boss. a permissive society's good enough for me, god or no god. i shall probably burn in eternal damnation, but fuck it - i enjoy wanking

Moderator wrote:

Shonky wrote:

metalboxproducts wrote:x2. Not really enough for a ticking off I think - didn't the Alqies bit give it away. Over-reaction, over-sensitive twaddle. Towel head isn't even a particularly accurate insult FFS.



Due to my hyper sesitivaty about these things. I have somehow missed the point here.

Sorry, was supporting Ramadanman's view on this. Your use was ironic, as this is the term that's generally used by reactionaries to describe arab peoples. I think the mods are over-reacting. The rest of the argument has some merit even if the word usage may not have been clear.

Quite why we have to respect people's religions is anyone's guess. I can understand why we shouldn't disrespect people due to race, gender or sexual preference, but religion's a hell of a lot vaguer than that. It's essentially just philosophy or politics but with some mystical quotient on top and as such doesn't really merit respect from my godless perspective. If people want to believe, that's fine, but it shouldn't mean that their beliefs aren't going to be held up to scrutiny by non-believers and I don't see why free thinkers shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinions about this. Essentially most or all religions are poly-atheist anyway, as only their belief is right.

As atheists, agnostics, brights, or whatever you want to call them don't believe in these religions, surely you're alienating more forum members by disallowing their viewpoint and their wish to challenge established beliefs. As these work in total opposition to religious views I don't quite understand the reaction. If you'd said that this was anti-arab or asian, I could understand the moderator's post.

Shonky,
This isn't a theology forum. We respect viewpoints but some religious/cultural issues are not up for debate at all. As long as people don't cross the line into a derogatory or stereotypical direction we'll allow it. If someone from a sikh background was on this forum, the term "towelhead " could be EXTREMELY offensive. Sikhism is a religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turban

We have to take this into consideration.

There are other forums where you can toe the line of religious innuendo all day long. This is not one of them.

Moderator

Erm...this is Offtopic isn't it? Plenty of places where we can debate films, books, funny names, etc and there's already been threads about religion here anyway. Personally speaking, I don't particularly want to cause offence to forum members of any disposition (well apart from some lowbrow bad taste humour) and I agree that the term "towelhead" might cause offense, but I'm sympathetic only to the extent that they're humans, not to the religion.

In this particular instance, the term refers to arab terrorists involved (or framed depending on your viewpoint) in 9/11, an act that was far more offensive to most than a bad choice of colloquialism. In this context I can't see any Sikh's that may be on the forum feeling that this might refer to them, although if it has, I'm sure they'll be able to comment on it and it can be sorted out in a civilised manner.

the reason it is offensive is because its associating a religion with terrorists and there is a large part of that religion that thinks what they do is wrong.

especially the muslim on muslim deaths

even if uninformed about the religious aspects of a turban, then its ignorant racism

a girl i dated once defended a white american airlines pilot because he refused to take off with this indian guy on board. he wasn't even muslim he was hindu

she said it was "understandable"

no, its not.

Parson wrote:the reason it is offensive is because its associating a religion with terrorists and there is a large part of that religion that thinks what they do is wrong.

especially the muslim on muslim deaths

I think MBP's original post meant those involved not Islam as a whole, that was the gist that I got from it. I think that muslim extremists are to most muslims what the Inquisition was to most Christians - not representative.

Parson wrote:even if uninformed about the religious aspects of a turban, then its ignorant racism

a girl i dated once defended a white american airlines pilot because he refused to take off with this indian guy on board. he wasn't even muslim he was hindu

she said it was "understandable"

no, its not.

Again this wasn't referring to Sikhs, but I do agree the word was not chosen wisely. And I agree that the suspicion of anyone of a different skin colour due to these attacks is unacceptable. Before 9/11, the biggest terrorist attack in the states was carried out by Timothy McVeigh, although I can't remember the same level of paranoia about twitchy, white supremacists - it's very clear how this has descended into racist propaganda very quickly and is causing problems to a large group of people who are blameless in this.

As evidence of this, the British National Party (our right wing racist political party for our foreign members) doubled it's vote in the last election in many constituencies in the UK with large muslim populations, which wasn't seen as the cause for alarm in the media here that it should have been.

In my life, I can remember a big surge of racism in the late 70's (openly racist "comedy" on TV), a subsequent move against it in the 80's, what seemed to be an acceptance of multiculturalism in the 90's, and worryingly since 9/11, a reversion to the old persecutions.

Unfortunately, due to the nature of the media, 4 people strapping themselves with explosives and blowing up trains is seen as far more newsworthy than the majority of muslims bringing up their families and helping their community positively.

One of the main problems I see though is that many of the values of the muslim community seem to be in opposition to those of secular society as a whole, so it seems that ghettoes evolve where integration isn't encouraged or avoided. This has made it far easier for paranoid racism to creep in on both sides of the fence.

Parson wrote:even if uninformed about the religious aspects of a turban, then its ignorant racism

a girl i dated once defended a white american airlines pilot because he refused to take off with this indian guy on board. he wasn't even muslim he was hindu

she said it was "understandable"

no, its not.

It's quite easy to understand the point of view of a morron.They're just wrong.

mushug wrote:

obIwan wrote:You lot might think i'm a paronoid fantasist, and I am. But if you look at all the facts in the big picture I think people are missing all of the hidden signals in the events of the last six years.

Yep.
I don't totally say that it was an inside job, but i don't exclude that option either (Operation Northwoods anyone?), there's a lot of stuff that doesn't make sense...

- the missing plane.
- the way american authority left 3 planes flying under illegal area.
- the quick disappearing of a report proving that the impact of the planes couldn't be the cause of the fall of the towers.
- the explosions before the colapse.
...

We as occidental people - like the "islamic fanatics" - are targets of lots of brainwashing.
Lots of games in the backstage, we are far from the whole truth, we only know one version. Hope it all comes out to the surface some day...

Shame that were innocents dying, in and after the 9 11.

Utter utter bollocks. You're looking for answers to questions that don't exist.

Joseph-J wrote:

mushug wrote:

obIwan wrote:You lot might think i'm a paronoid fantasist, and I am. But if you look at all the facts in the big picture I think people are missing all of the hidden signals in the events of the last six years.

Yep.
I don't totally say that it was an inside job, but i don't exclude that option either (Operation Northwoods anyone?), there's a lot of stuff that doesn't make sense...

- the missing plane.
- the way american authority left 3 planes flying under illegal area.
- the quick disappearing of a report proving that the impact of the planes couldn't be the cause of the fall of the towers.
- the explosions before the colapse.
...

We as occidental people - like the "islamic fanatics" - are targets of lots of brainwashing.
Lots of games in the backstage, we are far from the whole truth, we only know one version. Hope it all comes out to the surface some day...

Shame that were innocents dying, in and after the 9 11.

Utter utter bollocks. You're looking for answers to questions that don't exist.

So do you think we were told the whole truth? Does everything add up to you?

Its possible to question what actually happened without believing in a conspiracy.

Superisk wrote:

Joseph-J wrote:

mushug wrote:

obIwan wrote:You lot might think i'm a paronoid fantasist, and I am. But if you look at all the facts in the big picture I think people are missing all of the hidden signals in the events of the last six years.

Yep.
I don't totally say that it was an inside job, but i don't exclude that option either (Operation Northwoods anyone?), there's a lot of stuff that doesn't make sense...

- the missing plane.
- the way american authority left 3 planes flying under illegal area.
- the quick disappearing of a report proving that the impact of the planes couldn't be the cause of the fall of the towers.
- the explosions before the colapse.
...

We as occidental people - like the "islamic fanatics" - are targets of lots of brainwashing.
Lots of games in the backstage, we are far from the whole truth, we only know one version. Hope it all comes out to the surface some day...

Shame that were innocents dying, in and after the 9 11.

Utter utter bollocks. You're looking for answers to questions that don't exist.

So do you think we were told the whole truth? Does everything add up to you?

Its possible to question what actually happened without believing in a conspiracy.

I believe that pre 9/11 reports about a planned attack were not taken seriously, for whatever reason. There is not reason to believe in it any other way.

There's more questions than Destiny's Child hit 'single independent' woman mate. Arab passports were found pretty much straight away, In a disaster situation???. Tell me how many stupid American films portray Arab terrorists being defeated by American heroes in the 10 or so years leading up to the attacks. Norad was switched off that day. Bin Laden was a CIA agent and had contact with the CIA only months before the attacks.
Bush making a ridiculous connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the leaders of each were sworn enemies, because he was desperate to finish off the oil war that his father started. Why was the religious fundamentalist leader of the hijackers often in strip clubs, and doing things even moderate Muslims would shun? Why were Mossad agents observing the hijackers leading up to the event? How come the insurance policy on the WTC was coming to the end and was not going to be renewed? Why attack Afghanistan when most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia? Why attack Iraq when it poses no threat has killed no Americans but has massive reserves of oil? Why were the black boxes on the planes never recovered?
How did they find a passport that just "happens" to belong to one of the hijackers in the WTC rubble and they can't locate even ONE flight recorder? Why did the Saudi bin-Laden-group have a website with a PRE-SET expiration date of Sept. 11, 2001? How come the section of the pentagon that was hit was being renovated and was only partly occupied?Chilean leader Salvador Allende was killed in an American backed coup on September 11th 1973, why that particular date? How did Arab terrorists know that 9/11 is how Americans say the date and is also the phone number of their emergency services?

obIwan wrote:There's more questions than Destiny's Child hit 'single independent' woman mate. Arab passports were found pretty much straight away, In a disaster situation???. Tell me how many stupid American films portray Arab terrorists being defeated by American heroes in the 10 or so years leading up to the attacks. Norad was switched off that day. Bin Laden was a CIA agent and had contact with the CIA only months before the attacks.
Bush making a ridiculous connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the leaders of each were sworn enemies, because he was desperate to finish off the oil war that his father started. Why was the religious fundamentalist leader of the hijackers often in strip clubs, and doing things even moderate Muslims would shun? Why were Mossad agents observing the hijackers leading up to the event? How come the insurance policy on the WTC was coming to the end and was not going to be renewed? Why attack Afghanistan when most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia? Why attack Iraq when it poses no threat has killed no Americans but has massive reserves of oil? Why were the black boxes on the planes never recovered?
How did they find a passport that just "happens" to belong to one of the hijackers in the WTC rubble and they can't locate even ONE flight recorder? Why did the Saudi bin-Laden-group have a website with a PRE-SET expiration date of Sept. 11, 2001? How come the section of the pentagon that was hit was being renovated and was only partly occupied?Chilean leader Salvador Allende was killed in an American backed coup on September 11th 1973, why that particular date? How did Arab terrorists know that 9/11 is how Americans say the date and is also the phone number of their emergency services?

Not havin a go at all mate but i'd say the things you mention above come down to corrupt/opportunist politics [depending on your standpoint] and sheer conicidence, particularly the number bit at the bottom. I'm sure you know that war drives a nations economy and a common enemy [in this case Muslims/Arabs] unites a nation, the need for oil makes Iraq a valid acquistion in certain circles. The fact those that lead the call for war on iraq will reap the finacial reward from rebuilding it if the conflict ever stops makes it even more profitable.

The oil war wasn't started by George Bush Senior, its been going on in various forms since the west developed a need for it at least a hundred years ago. Before oil no doubt it was something else the west craved. Global politics is an ugly buisness admittedly, and its justifactions are pathetic in humaniterian aspects but acceptable in terms of economics.

Speculating on numbers/internet gossip/the obvious is not going to change things in my opinion. peace.

Thats all speculation. I'm sorry I'm not getting all fighty, but I'm pre-programmed not to believe a single thing I read on the internet.

You can't just say stuff like "Osama was a CIA agent".

Proof please.

(Oh and they did find some of the black boxes by the way - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11)