For the most part these are secular dictatorships (as you point out, installed and propped up by the U.S.), not theocratic regimes. They are actually opposed to radical Islam and often punish "incitement" with imprisonment, torture, and death. Yet you imply it is the fault of a specific religion, although plenty of Latin American countries have abysmal records on human rights and freedom of speech for largely the same reason.
That's certainly true of many, maybe even most. But the record of those few theocratic regimes (Iran, Sudan, pre-9/11 Afghanistan) is just as bad (though Iran, certainly, is better than the US-backed but also very theocratic Saudi Arabia) .
Latin American countries had appalling records during the cold war - for the most part, they have improved massively since. There has been no concomitant improvement in the ME.
Where do the terrorists come from? Iran? No, they come from the nations with secular dictatorships. Those nations liquidated secular civil society with the blessing of the U.S. leaving religious leadership, which has become increasingly radical over the decades, as the only opposition to the state. They continue to crack down on secular radical dissent: Egypt is a prime example.
If you are truly interested in reducing the threat of terrorism, it seems ludicrous to support uninformed reactionary criticisms of the religion and increased repression of Muslim immigrants. Don't you see how this worsens the problem?
I am not against criticism of Islam or any other religion. I would prefer greater secularism in the Middle East. But when the "criticism" comes from lazy, uninformed deliberately offensive Western sources, it's totally ineffective: it fans the flames, and often that is the real desired effect. Theo van Gogh said he thought there should be a Muslim "Life of Brian." Fair enough, and I am inclined to agree with him, but this would have to come from Muslims to be effective -- he is not the person to do it. There are many many people calling for greater secularism, women's rights, etc. from within the Muslim world (and not neocon shills like Hirsi Ali), but for whatever reason they are not given much air time, they are not asked to draw cartoons.
Have you seen those Danish cartoons? The depiction of Muslims is so close to the depiction of Jews in anti-semitic cartoons (hirstute, hooked noses, salacious grins), it's shocking that you don't see the obvious racism (anti-semitism is racism is it not?). After reading the extensive Wikipedia article I linked above, I am more sympathetic to the Dutch "experiment"... well I am late for work, to be continued!
But people like Gavin want to shut down all criticism of Islam as racist.
This is exactly it. I'm being made to feel in this thread that, as a white atheist, the only people I'm 'allowed' to criticize are other white atheists, or of course white Christians (Westerners, in other words), and that for me to criticize anyone else is racist by definition - regardless of how of bonkers or barbaric the beliefs or deeds of those people may be. It's the old pseudo-liberal mantra: It's their culture, we have no right to criticize it; if you don't like something, it's because you're ignorant; we do stuff that's just as bad...
Well yes, but the original post that caused Zhao to blow his top was merely a link to the teddy bear story. It's not hard to sympathise with Mr Tea because it seems clear that Zhao was waiting to criticise him without even seeing what his stance was and forced him to defend himself from the off. Hardly conducive to any kind of debate."Of course you are allowed to criticise Mr Tea, but you have to criticise effectively to avoid being seen as merely prejudiced"
Well this is just splendid. The Brit is going to tell us what Islamic followers worldwide actually believe. Hey thanks for explaining it to us! The ultimate expression of the UK imperialist attitude yet again. Have you ever read documents from the 19th century British administration of India? You sound just like them.Right- but how many of these people (be they fundamentalist Islamic or Christian) have a functional understanding of their religion as we would conceive of it...? Most of them take it as an identity, constituted in terms which have little to do with religion, (or at least on obviously selective and politicised readings) and as such how useful is it to criticise on the basis of religion?
indeed the contents as such are so open to interpretation (as demonstrable in the range of Islams and Christianities in effect across the world
Oh fuck right off you great twat. When was the last time there were mass protests by Christians - even those mental right-wing American ones - calling for someone to be KILLED over something as trivial as this?
Vile propaganda, indeed. How is it 'propaganda' to draw attention to the horrifically unjust persecution of an innocent woman by religious fanatics? How is it you can blind yourself to the beliefs and actions of mediaeval-minded bigoted savages anywhere in the world, as long as it's not in the Big Bad West?
Or the 'Big Bad West's' friends...
Saudi Gang Rape Victim Gets 200 Lashes
Whaaaaaaat! The west arms and allies itself with some hideous bigots? But I thought we were perfect and I just know that'd what Tea thinks because he says so over and over again.
Thank God you turned up to put us straight.
Way to miss the point.
Go on then..... what is the point?