We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Islamophobia
| 429 | 37074 |
As you know things have been going for muslims for last decade.All the discrimination and hatred they have been facing.
Led to the rise of the term Islamophobia.
What r ur thoughts on it.
- 429 Replies
The country who ordered the strike.
then how can you complain about racism or any phobe that has something to do with religion or country?
that family who has nothing to do with the strike who lives in that country are still part of the country
The country?
Oh, so its the family who lives in the suburban neighbourhood. The fatehr who works at the local warehouse that distributes milk? The mother who works at the accountants office? The kids, one of whom delivers newspapers, another who dreams of being a vet or perhaps the child that sits building rocket ships out of Lego?
They are to blame because someone in government decides to launch a drone attack? Those busily getting on with paying taxes and bills, trying to give their children a good upbringing?
Taint all those with the same brush just because of an accident of birth. That same family could have been born in any country, any society. Do you really think they have a voice? Do they really have the say so to order a drone strike?
Taint all those with the same brush just because of an accident of birth. That same family could have been born in any country, any society. Do you really think they have a voice? Do they really have the say so to order a drone strike?
And yet, America maintains double standards by striking civilian areas? To get at the few possible insurgents by flushing them out from civilian areas?
you ELECTED the people who authorize drone attacks.
What about the people who actually didn't elect them? Bush didn't mention that he wanted to attack Iraq when the people elected him, in fact no one would even know that the Iraq War was going to ensue when he was voted in in 2000. People always use the ''You Elected Him'' argument but they forgot:
A) Not EVERYONE voted for said candidate.
B) Even those who voted for him wouldn't know what he was going to do. If they did, without a doubt, a majority of them would not vote for him. Look at his popularity ratings when he left office.
Hence you CAN'T blame the people for voting him in, the policies are determined by the government after all.
you ELECTED the people who authorize drone attacks.
I personally didn't, but I see your point. Unfortunately it isn't a very good one.
I don't know about the democracy in your country (presuming you live in a country wit democracy that is) but here we have a choice of 3 main parties. We either vote for one of them or waste our vote.
Once elected, we have very little say in the UK over what our politicians do and for example, the Iraq war led to mass protests throughout the UK and you know what... the politicians ignored all of them and went ahead without our agreement.
How are we, as a nation, supposed to know what our politicians will do with the power we give them? And what recourse do we have if we don't agree? We can't stop them doing anything despite our protests.
Sorry, but the population for the most part are the innocent party, and who do terrorists target? Not the politicians, but the innocent people. That makes a lot of sense doesn't it!?
I'm getting tired of nations being blamed. When BP had their accident that poisoned the coast of America, repeatedly American politicians emphasised on the word British as if we had anything to do with it. BP may well be short for British Petroleum, but it's a private company that the British have no control over. In fact, BP rip us off daily by making us pay extortionately at the pumps, but that's another discussion.
Is it congress or the military authorizing drone attacks? If its military it probably isn't even going all the way to the president and those who are under him weren't voted for. If its congress its the same answer as above.
Drone attacks ordered by the British go along a chain of command, but ultimately they are ordered by the Defence Secretary... an elected MP chosen for the role by the Prime Minister. The DS consults military advisors, consults the PM and if all agree, an attack is launched.
As a citizen, I get to find out in the newspapers a few days later. Nobody consults me or anyone else in the population to whether we agree with their crackpot ideas... and frankly all the political parties operate the same way. We have very little in the way of choice, despite living in a democracy.
Is it congress or the military authorizing drone attacks? If its military it probably isn't even going all the way to the president and those who are under him weren't voted for. If its congress its the same answer as above.
You still have to vote for the Senate and the House of Representatives who make up Congress, so why would that be different?
As a citizen, I get to find out in the newspapers a few days later. Nobody consults me or anyone else in the population to whether we agree with their crackpot ideas... and frankly all the political parties operate the same way. We have very little in the way of choice, despite living in a democracy.
Honestly speaking, direct or true democracy as what the ancients proposed is a ridiculous idea. You let a surgeon operate only after studying for years, you let a pilot fly only after he has gone through intense training, so why let politics be left up to the average run of the mill schmuck who hasn't studied it before, and probably has his political views formed generally because of his own experience?
You still have to vote for the Senate and the House of Representatives who make up Congress, so why would that be different?
I said congress would be the same as above, but if military is ordering drone attacks its different because we don't vote in the military.
Solution for?
I'm guessing he means "What can we do to stop Islamophobia?". All we can really do is inform people that the vast majority of Arabs are quite peaceful.
A) Not EVERYONE voted for said candidate.
The majority didn't. Stupid electorals. But the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars would've likely still happened no matter who was in office, due to public demand for anti-terrorist action. The patriot act passed with massive approval (455 yeas vs 67 nays overall in Congress), so that would still be in effect.
okay, I have hashed it over and have found something interesting. the punisher is no longer on this thread. it seems as if this has actually evolved beyond islamaphobia an is now prescisely aimed at terrorism and the goverments that bait them. fascinating.
in terms of the nation: this has already been said, but most of the time when a guy is placed into power, we don't know what he'll do with it. therefore the "your nation elected the guy" argument is a fallacy.
as I have said earlier in terms of islamaphobia: islam is a beautiful religion with a vast majority of peaceful individuals, it's only with the very tiny minority of religious fundamentalists and nutjobs who take everything literally do we have any problems. so I guess the only way to end religious intolerance is to teach those who are the cause to read between the lines of what they read, and draw their own conclusions, not the one the book says. if we can teach that, then there may be peace in the world yet.
of course, this will never happen (in my time, at least) so war will never end, and hatred will only continue.
-Blade
This is completely racist their are some Muslim terrorists but there are also Christian terrorists and Jewish terrorists we don't disriminate againgst Christians even though there are Christian terrorists as well.
we don't disriminate againgst Christians even though there are Christian terrorists as well.
It depends on the location. Since Europe and USA are mainly Christian nations, Christian terrorism is usually ignored because they are 'religiously similar', but in Arab nations Christian and Jewish terroists are singled out and reflect the entire religious community in the same way that Islam is looked down upon in the West. It's easy to discriminate a minority.
Good point but it is morally wrong to discriminate against one group and pay almost no attention to another.
You must be logged in to post a reply!