June 29, 2006

Crime Against Humanity?

The arrogance of some Muslims is galling, as they seek special protection for their false religion.

The incitement to hatred of Islam should be considered a crime against humanity, TurkeyÂ’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in a speech before the Council of Europe in Strasbourg yesterday.

“Just as anti-Semitism is a crime against humanity, so should Islamophobia be regarded,” Erdogan said. Erdogan warned against the growing phobia against Islam and foreigners in the world in which “we Muslims feel increasingly under siege.”

Excuse me! Muslims feel under siege? Seems to me it is the rest of us, who are being shot at, blown up, beheaded, or having planes crashed into our buildings who ought to be feeling under siege by Islam, not the other way around. And I will point out to you that anti-Semitism is not treated as a crime against humanity – indeed, if the Caliphate were ever re-established we would see mullahs declaring anti-Semitism to be the national sport, if the current level of active anti-Semitism among Muslims is any indication.

But beyond that we are back to the Mohammad Cartoon flap again.

Referring to the row over blasphemous cartoons that were originally printed in a Danish newspaper, he said freedom of expression should not be confused with the freedom to insult.

The row showed not only a “lack of respect for religious convictions,” but was also a sign of a “growing and dangerous polarization between the Western and Islamic world.” The Turkish prime minister called on Western countries to integrate the Muslims living among them to a much greater degree.

“With a (Muslim) population of between 10 and 25 percent in Europe’s largest cities, it is important to follow a policy of social integration to ensure a peaceful coexistence,” Erdogan said. This was a “great challenge” that could, however, be overcome “with the joint efforts of the host countries and Muslim communities.”

So what you are saying is that the presence of Muslims in Christian countries requires submission of those countries to dhimmi status. Not a chance. Indeed, the path of social integration that must be taken here in the West ought to be to mandate that Muslims in the West conform to Western values of liberty of speech, press, and religion – and that Muslims elsewhere recognize the human rights of the non-Muslims in their midst.

And the rights of religious minorities in Turkey (the most “liberal” and “secular” of Muslim countries) was a topic Prime Minister Erdogan sought to avoid at all costs.

Erdogan did not deal with questions from members of the European Parliament about the protection of human rights and religious minorities within Turkey. The parliamentary session of the Council of Europe was debating a decision on freedom of expression and religious tolerance in connection with ErdoganÂ’s visit.

Yeah, that would have meant admitting that “secular” Turkey still enforces many of the practices of dhimmitude against its non-Muslim minority.

Indeed, perhaps we need to deal with the issue of whether or not Islam, as it currently exists, is a crime against humanity.

Posted by: Greg at 09:30 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 3 kb.

1 You were being beheaded before you invaded Iraq were you asshole? You're no dhimmi or any sort of oppressed minority anywhere but imperialists bastards who invaded a country on a pack of lies. Fucking hypocrites.

Posted by: RightWingCryBaby at Thu Jun 29 23:51:32 2006 (1c+P2)

2 Interesting attempt at misdirection, LeftWingMoron.

You pull one word out of my post and use it to build a case that the US is in the wrong here.

You neatly ignore the WTC in 1993, the Khobar Towers attack, the USS Cole attack, 9/11 and every other act of Muslim terrorism perpetrated against Western targets over the last 40 years, all of which predate the war in Iraq.

Care to try again, or are you too intellectually bankrupt to come up with a reasonable effort.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 30 01:06:49 2006 (1zEfi)

3 I'll help "crybaby",-- as an America First Righty.
The WTC attack in 1993, the Khobar Towers attack, the Cole attack, and the 9/11 attack....
all FOLLOWED FIFTY YEARS OF US INTERVENTION, REPLETE WITH A MYRIAD BASES AND OVERTHROWING
DULY ELECTED GOVERNMENTS in the Moslem world

Now,if America were geopolitically situated in or near Russia's domain, the record would be
problematic enough, all things being equal. But America is located on the opposite side of the globe with founders who believed in the
Monroe Doctrine of staying in our hemisphere.

RHYMES WITH RIGHT'S Pavlovian disdain of "crybaby" comes from an a priori sense of
American entitlement to police the world and if any on the far side of the globe object to the manner we police it and give us a little
blowback, they're the baddies.

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Fri Jun 30 05:22:13 2006 (+6sav)

4 Overthrowing duly elected governments in the Muslim world? Good grief, Ken, other than Iran in the 1950s, you won't find an example of that

Hell, you also won't find many elected governments in the Muslim world during this time, most of them being either petty kingdoms ruled by absolute monarchs or dictators like Saddam and Assad. We generally even left those alone -- even going so far to protect Nasser from the Brits, French and Israelis when our best interests would have been served by supporting them.

And i'm shocked, Ken that you leave out your usual refrain "Blame it on the Jooooooooos!" You've lost your usual anti-Semitic touch, dude.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 30 06:06:03 2006 (J7UgM)

5 And Ken, I suggest you get a globe and examine it -- you'll find that Russia is not half a world away, but a matter of tens of miles.

And to take the Monroe Doctrine and apply it to the post-WWII world is absurd. But then again, maybe your position is that we should not have interfered withHitler following the german declaration of war after pearl harbor, there wouldn't be any problem -- and you, Ken could happily live in a world without any Jooooooooos!

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 30 06:12:17 2006 (J7UgM)

6 Guess we didn't overthrow Saddam....it was like
the dream sequence on "Dallas."

And one of those "monarchies" was the Shah whom
we replaced the democratically elected Mossadeh with.

But then you don't always need to overthrow when the CIA finances puppets under the table.

Finally, you're no student of National Socialist Germany, but then join the American crowd who
believes everything the mainstream media says about it. The historical record shows, Nazi
dignitaries made methodical attempts throughout the 1930s to deport their Jews-not exactly
a strategy for killing them . And as JEWISH Professor of History (Princeton) Arno Mayer argues in "Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?", the bulk of Jews perished at the end of the war due to the collapse of the regime the Nazis never expected (and owing to FDRs unconditional surrender demands). A collapse resulting in widespread starvation,dysentery,typhus,etc.for the entire population, whether detained, (like our Japanese) or free.

Yes, a Monroe Doctrine application as advocated for example by Charles Lindbergh and many GOP
politicians form the Midwest, would have saved Jewish lives. Hitler's alliance made it difficult,as did the FDR-goaded Japanese attack, which cryptographers had broken the code and warned about (see "Day of Deceit"/Stinnett.)

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Fri Jun 30 07:14:15 2006 (+6sav)

7 I'm not going to let off your poor, misunderstood hero Adolf and fellow-travellers like Lindbergh nearly as easily as you want us to.

That the result of WWII was something other than your perfect world -- National Socialists controlling Europe and International Socialists controlling Asia -- is the only reason you have to put up with that group you so hate, those infernal Joooooooooos!

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 30 07:36:38 2006 (J7UgM)

8 And by the way, Ken, could you tell me the last conflict in which you believed the US was right and its enemies wrong? It is prety clear that you support every US enemy since 1941 -- how much earlier in history must we reach for you to concede that America was in the right.

Or has it ever been?

And if it has, do you believe it was due to the lack of a critical mass of evil Jooooooooooooooooos undermining American principles?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 30 07:40:04 2006 (J7UgM)

9 By tossing around terms like "hate" and exagerrated caraicatures via distorted spellings,you only reveal your inability to argue effectively-- and manipulation by alien lobbies who,for example, counselled similar tactics to bring traditional American values into disrepute.
I prove Hitler did NOT militate for genocide by citing fact-- and you throw the word "hate" out, a fine German like Jung might posit YOUR hatred for truth in this sequence. Nevertheless, my internet postings contain several degrees less vitriol than is found in the anti-Islamic and Arabophobic ragings that are normative in the morally bankrupt neocon Right sites.

Pat Buchanan's book covering the war period makes the case that sans US participation Germany and Russia would have exhausted themseelves in a stand-still and relaxed their systems as a result-( although critics had a much larger berth in critiquing Hitler and the regime in the 1930s than is generally believed.)

German dominance of Europe would have been about as "harsh" as England's centuries-long dominance, which I find no criticism thereof from you.

Teddy Roosevelt was the last president to rise above the mediocre but we are currently losing the second stage of the last just Mexican-American war,and we deserve to, if we insist on Empire.

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Fri Jun 30 10:06:41 2006 (+6sav)

10 I just don't buy your historical revisionism from the Holocaust denial perspective.

I guess you consider yourself to be a part of the Master Race, mein Herr.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 30 11:28:24 2006 (HttEp)

11 Isn't it telling (and the Iranian Prez has "told it") that in Europe it's legal to assert the Crucifixion story is a hoax but jailworthy to
say, for example,5 million instead of 6 million died in the "Holocaust?"
Pray tell what are the European powers-that-be afraid of, in banning any discussion of what they seek to enshrine as a religious doctrine?

Prof. Arno Mayer is a functionalist rather than an exterminationist--but I suppose even that is heretical revisionism to the uninformed.

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Sat Jul 1 05:58:41 2006 (j1Lns)

12 Sorry you can't go to Europe to lie about the evil Joooooooooos, Ken. Guess you'll just have to stay in the US to do so.

And functionalist is just another word for Holocaust denier.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jul 1 07:58:22 2006 (UDwbB)

13 Keep your political version of Linus' security blanket lest you mega-paradigm tumbles down.

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Sat Jul 1 09:05:35 2006 (j1Lns)

14 I prove Hitler did NOT militate for genocide by citing fact...


Oh. My. God.


Greg, this a**hole isn't worth the time AT ALL, m'man. Six million dead isn't proof enough for him ... he's way too far gone.

repost by site owner -- original inadvertantly lost in despamming due to my error

Posted by: Hube at Sun Jul 2 03:20:37 2006 (U2Dlj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
17kb generated in CPU 0.0061, elapsed 0.0168 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0125 seconds, 43 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]