Jump to content

Man of Peace: Let's murder authors


Doug69
This topic is 6643 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

It's hardly a surprise that so many of you think that Cat Stevens is a "man of peace" - even though he advocated the slaughter of Salman Rushdie for saying bad things about Islam.

 

Here's what FAR LEFT Arab Professor of Middle Eastern Studies Juan Cole (http://www.JuanCole) says about how sick you are for talking about this vile extremist as a "man of peace"

 

"But I have a hard time rushing to Yusuf Islam's defense because I never forgave him for advocating the execution of Salman Rushdie in 1989. He endorsed Khomeini's "fatwa" or death edict against Rushdie for the novel, Satanic Verses. He later explained this position away by saying that he did not endorse vigilante action against Rushdie, but would rather want the verdict to be carried out by a proper court. These are weasel words, since he was saying that if Khomeini had been able to field some Revolutionary Guards in London to kidnap Rushdie and take him to Tehran, it would have been just dandy if he were then taken out and shot for having written his novel. In my view, that entire episode of the Khomeini fatwa showed how sick some forms of Muslim activism had become, and served as a foretaste of al-Qaeda's own death warrant served on a lot of other innocent people.

 

And, the disavowal wasn't even consistent. AP reported on March 8, 1989, that "Cat Stevens Endorses Rushdie Death Sentence Again," writing:

 

 

'Former pop singer Cat Stevens reiterated his support for the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's death sentence against Salman Rushdie, saying the author's treatment of Islam was "as good as stabbing Moslems in the heart." . . . "It's got to be seen as a deterrent, so that other people should not commit the same mistake again," Stevens said in an interview with the television show "World Monitor," produced by The Christian Science Monitor . . Stevens, who said the novel's treatment of Islam was "as good as stabbing Moslems in the heart," suggested that Rushdie should repent writing the book. "If he manages to escape (the death sentence) he still has to face God on the day of judgment," he said. "So I would recommend to him to sincerely change his ways right now." '

 

At the time, Rushdie's life was in imminent danger, and Cat Stevens was skating pretty close to inciting to murder. (What else is the "deterrent" he is talking about?)

 

So, to steal from Bill Maher:

 

NEW RULES: If you advocate the execution of novelists for writing novels, you and John Ashcroft deserve one another."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Odd comments from someone who advocated criminal charges against the poster here who wrote that a plane attack on Washington might be less harmful than one on Maine (where, incidentally, the President spent the weekend).

 

Let's see, in 1989, was Allawi still a henchman for Saddam Hussein? Or had he changed sides by then? In any case, we didn't have any problems with letting him into the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my view, that entire episode of the Khomeini

>fatwa showed how sick some forms of Muslim activism had

>become, and served as a foretaste of al-Qaeda's own death

>warrant served on a lot of other innocent people.

 

And while we're talking about death warrants, how about George W. Bush's death warrant against many innocent Iraqi civilians who have been killed in his imperialist war for oil, ego and profit? Oh, I forgot, you don't consider Iraqi civilian's lives as being on a par with American lives. Now that clears things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Odd comments from someone who advocated criminal charges

>against the poster here who wrote that a plane attack on

>Washington might be less harmful than one on Maine (where,

>incidentally, the President spent the weekend).

>

>Let's see, in 1989, was Allawi still a henchman for Saddam

>Hussein? Or had he changed sides by then? In any case, we

>didn't have any problems with letting him into the country.

 

 

Touche, Ignoto! Always glad to see a hypocrite like Doug exposed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who is ALWAYS accused of not having reading comprehension skills, may I humbly point out that both you and Ignoto are incorrect in your assailments?

 

">Because, fair or not, he was on the "do not fly list", and

>they aren't going to let any of those people come even close

>to Washington, DC! Which would cause more damage, blowing up

>Portland, Maine or blowing up DC?

 

With Bush in office, letting the plane go on to DC would have done more good than bad."

 

The > comments were mine, and that is not what Doug69 was advocating as treasonous and seditious. It was the other quoted comments posted by SouthBeachBtm? that he was responding to in his post.

 

If the comments posted on the internet were sent via an email or written mail to the White House, then I have no doubts whatsoever, that anyone making such a statement would be subjected to intense investigation by the government. You can not send missives advocating death towards the President, without expecting such treatment, and once sent, will most likely be on a "list of subversives" for the rest of your life.

 

I know this happens because it happened to someone I know, way back during the Ford administration, when someone sent such a threatening missive to the White House, using that innocent person's name. That person was investigated and questioned, and though cleared, is to this day on the "watch" list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>As someone who is ALWAYS accused of not having reading

>comprehension skills, may I humbly point out that both you and

>Ignoto are incorrect in your assailments?

>

You never do anything here "humbly", so stop the pretense. Furthermore, I'd say your reading comprehension skills are still in need of remediation.

 

I'm talking about the inconsistency of Dougie's positions and his ongoing bigotry. I have no interest whatsoever in your armchair legal musings about who said what about where the plane landed, nor do I care where the plane landed. Of course, it is amusing that you always feel the need to "interpret" Dougie for everyone whenever he gets challenged, since you and he are ideological soulmates. Very amusing indeed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>You never do anything here "humbly", so stop the pretense.

>Furthermore, I'd say your reading comprehension skills are

>still in need of remediation.

 

I don't feel I'm pretentious in anyway, but if you feel that way, then so be it, as I'm not going to argue against a brick wall attitude.

 

One of my favorite childhood memories comes from my 4th grade teacher. She said that there is no point in arguing with some one who is in the wrong, has been proven to be in the wrong, but refuses to admit that he/she is in the wrong.

>

>I'm talking about the inconsistency of Dougie's positions and

>his ongoing bigotry. I have no interest whatsoever in your

>armchair legal musings about who said what about where the

>plane landed, nor do I care where the plane landed. Of course,

>it is amusing that you always feel the need to "interpret"

>Dougie for everyone whenever he gets challenged, since you and

>he are ideological soulmates. Very amusing indeed!

 

I personally don't feel Dougie is inconsistent, nor have I seen any evidence that he is bigoted. I could be wrong, and I admit that I have been in the past, and will likely be so in the future, but I believe Doug69 has consistently stated that he is not voting for Bush, just like me. That position, however, does not mean that one has to parrot party lies, whether that party is Republican or Democrat. It is totally impossible that one could be a Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and not spout party platitudes and have an open mind to the issues?

 

I'm not interpreting anyone, just stating my beliefs and opinions, and if they coincide with what Doug69 states, thats just the way it is. I don't presume to speak for Doug69 and vice versa.

 

What I find amusing, is that anyone who disagrees with your beliefs is always branded as uneducated white trash, trailer park dwelling, racist rednecks. The very fact that you need to engage in such name calling, while chastising others for doing the same or indeed less, detracts from the validity of any of your statements on any issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Here's what FAR LEFT Arab Professor of Middle Eastern Studies

>Juan Cole (http://www.JuanCole) says about how sick you are for

>talking about this vile extremist as a "man of peace"

 

Maybe you can explain where, if it was not from the usual right-wing sites that quote and misquote for the convenient "information" of the rabid right, you came up with the description "Arab Professor".

 

That is not his title at the University of Michigan nor is it a description of his family background (from his site at http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/jcpers.htm )

 

"The Coles were originally the Kohls, from the County of Hessen-Darmstadt, and had a connection to the lumber business there. For more on the Cole genealogy click here. They emigrated to the U.S. around 1830, settling in Pennsylvania as dairy farmers. A branch moved south to Winchester, Virginia, late in the nineteenth century, and so Cole's roots are in the Shenandoah Valley, though he did not spend much time there. Rather, he grew up in a peripatetic military family that happened to be in Albuquerque, N.M., when he was born, and had two long tours in France (a total of seven years) and one 18-month stay at Kagnew Station, in Asmara, Eritrea (then Ethiopia), and which lived all over the U.S. After going to Northwestern and becoming interested in Islamics and the Middle East, he went on to live six years in the Arab world, and another two and a half in South Asia (India and Pakistan, mainly Delhi, Lucknow and Lahore). He writes primarily about three broad areas: the social and cultural history of modern Egypt; the religious and cultural history of modern Iran; and religion in South Asia."

 

Yusuf Islam has admitted that he had been given teachings in the past that were not in accordance with the Koran and that his exploration of the religion was ongoing. Indeed this is part of the religion. An example of this was his self-imposed hiatus in singing which he admits was due to just such an incorrect reading. With all due respect to Professor Cole, he is probably unaware of the charitable work that Islam had performed both in Britain and elsewhere or of his more recent activities.

 

Perhaps before you get holier than thou you should remember the Martin Scorsese film "The Last Temptation of Christ" which raised an outcry in the US Bible Belt similar to the Muslim protests at "The Satanic Verses" Not only was Scorsese threatened but also movie distributers were phoned to be told their children should 'go to heaven and be reborn to Christian parents' and movie theatres bombed.

 

Yusuf Islam also made it clear that he supported a death penalty if Rushdie were in a country where Sharia law applied, unlike England where at the time there was a law that protected Christianity only from "blashpemous libel", a law under which the "Gay News" editorial team were convicted. Are you saying that a country or state where judicial executions are allowed should not have that penalty? If so, you are at odds with you current President whose state is a by-word for the execution of the mentally incapable and innocent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...