The all new NEWSWORTHY thread

[Pista]

Old & busted: Steering wheels.
New hotness: Mole grips

[Pista]

Everybody who is not too drunk to travel please step forward.
Not so fast Leeds!

[Nikolas Vitus Lagartija]

A great example of Yorkshire humour :
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/mai ... -1-5896032
And I love the bit in this about the BBC "failing to spot" the offending item :
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 42180.html

[Pista]

[quote="Nikolas Vitus Lagartija"]A great example of Yorkshire humour :
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/mai ... -1-5896032

[lazarus corporation]

It's hardly newsworthy since it happens so often, but:

UKIP once again prove they're a racist party full of swivel eyed racist loons as one UKIP MEP moans about giving money to "bongo bongo land".

This is the same UKIP MEP who said that no business in their right mind should employ a woman of child-bearing age.

[Nikolas Vitus Lagartija]

Time for a "Sisters gegen UKIP" campaign ?

[NickW]

Time for a "Sisters gegen UKIP" campaign ?

[Bartek]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 54183.html

about a fuckin' time that someone said that. i'm atheist, but i feel/know that i passed that time when i had(need urge) to fight with believers/church/religion, and even that i understand the reason why Dawkins is doing what he's doing, i do not support measure.

[markfiend]

Strange isn't it. Not long ago Dawkins was atheism's big celebrity draw. Now he's rapidly becoming its big liability.

[nowayjose]

I stopped reading when I hit the word "Islamophobia", now even capitalized. Not that the text was particularly good up to that point.

I wonder if the guys hanging from cranes in Iran, the women buried to their shoulders in the ground in Afghanistan, the girls with their faces destroyed by acid, the people shred to pieces by bombs, smouldered to charcoal in burned-down churches, who got their throats slit and heads cut off, had their limbs amputated, got whipped to death or simply a knife stuck in their torso a dozen times were also "islamophobic".

Dawkins is loud but religious nutters are louder. And Dawkins doesn't call for killing his opponents.

[Bartek]

what i meant was not a core and reason for writing that article, but just and only a fact of approving to not let Dawkins be a face of atheists, spokesman, if you wish so. I am naive and i share that idea with author of said article: I want Britain (all Europe and Western countries (to which i include Poland, i know it's not true but i do that anyway) to be a genuinely secular nation, where religious belief is protected and defended as a private matter of conscience.
and what Dawkins, as a response to blindness of (some) believers and not taking facts and rational reasons, is saying, to be more precise his language, cannot be tolerate, because on mental level he is acting and looks the same and his opponents.

[nowayjose]

because on mental level he is acting and looks the same and his opponents.

Fine by me... he annoys them much more than he is annoying me.

[markfiend]

I wonder if the guys hanging from cranes in Iran, the women buried to their shoulders in the ground in Afghanistan, the girls with their faces destroyed by acid, the people shred to pieces by bombs, smouldered to charcoal in burned-down churches, who got their throats slit and heads cut off, had their limbs amputated, got whipped to death or simply a knife stuck in their torso a dozen times were also "islamophobic".

I wonder if the hundreds of thousands of dead in the Iraq war were all Islamic militants? I wonder if all the people killed in drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan (and who knows where else) were Jihadis?

This is what Islamophobia means. You're demonising something like a billion people because of the actions of a few nutters. And you know what? 99% of Muslims are as horrified by it as you are. Muslims are not "the other", they're people like you and me.

Replace the word "Muslim" in what Dawkins is saying with the word "Jew"... now see how comfortable you are with his statements.

Personally I'm more worried about a potential Christian theocracy in the USA than I am about Islamic ones in the Middle-East.

[sultan2075]

I wonder if the guys hanging from cranes in Iran, the women buried to their shoulders in the ground in Afghanistan, the girls with their faces destroyed by acid, the people shred to pieces by bombs, smouldered to charcoal in burned-down churches, who got their throats slit and heads cut off, had their limbs amputated, got whipped to death or simply a knife stuck in their torso a dozen times were also "islamophobic".

I wonder if the hundreds of thousands of dead in the Iraq war were all Islamic militants? I wonder if all the people killed in drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan (and who knows where else) were Jihadis?

That doesn't really seem to be relevant to the point nowayjose is making.

This is what Islamophobia means. You're demonising something like a billion people because of the actions of a few nutters. And you know what? 99% of Muslims are as horrified by it as you are. Muslims are not "the other", they're people like you and me.

I think two points are in order here:

1. Calling someone "Islamophobic" is like calling someone racist. Intentionally or not, it functions as an attempt to shut down the argument through an ad hominem attack. Describing his statement as "Islamophobia" is really just a more genteel version of the same.

2. Isn't this (99% figure) demonstrably untrue? Opinion polls routinely show that secular liberalism is a loser in the Muslim world, and on those rare occasions where free (-ish) and open (-ish) elections are held, it's the Islamist parties that win, not the secular liberal reformers (Turkey and Egypt?). The major forces of the Syrian rebellion as well are not secular liberals, but militant Islamists. They may be "people like you and me" but many of them reject the basic presuppositions of Western liberalism. Many of the atrocities that occur in the Islamic world are atrocities through the lens of late modern (decadent) Western liberalism, but not necessarily through the lens of the recent (30-50 years) Salafist Islamist resurgence. As Samuel Huntington famously put it, "Islam has bloody borders."

A few nutters? If only.

Replace the word "Muslim" in what Dawkins is saying with the word "Jew"... now see how comfortable you are with his statements.

What have the Jews done that would merit such statements?

Personally I'm more worried about a potential Christian theocracy in the USA than I am about Islamic ones in the Middle-East.

Honestly? What planet are you on where that's even a remote possibility? I like you, but it's hard to take you seriously when you say things like that.

[Bartek]

hard to disagree with sultan.
it's true that Islamist extremists are not majority, but they have way too much support in their community. I can't hear much and strong condemnations of action of those extremists.
of course history of middle east, Iran, Iraq and North Africa (Maghreb) made my colonial Britain and colonial France (mainly) has something with their hate towards Western countries, but in the same time this mellow, undecided and hesitant politic of (over)debate and liberal (in way that we are the same, while we are not because they don't want to let us (you) live like you wanna live) is working against us (you).
i'm far from vision of next 15 years where i have to convert to Islam or die, but it's not like you can deny a facts.

[markfiend]

OK I withdraw the "99%" claim. I was thinking "99% of Muslims in the UK" but I guess that's not really relevant.

secular liberalism is a loser in the Muslim world

That's not exactly true is it? Indonesia and Malaysia are both secular(ish) liberal(ish) democracies(ish). The problem is demonstrably not Islam itself.

But do we not have to ask why is it that some parts ofthe Islamic world are so fearful of western Liberalism? They see the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of a continuation of the Crusades, a perception not helped by Bush the Younger actually using the word. When you percieve your country as being under attack from an external aggressor, it's unlikely that you'd want to bring on board ideals claimed by that foregin power. "They hate us for our freedoms" is a self-serving lie. They hate us because we're bombing them.

As for a Christian theocracy in the USA, I don't think it's likely to happen, but you can't deny that there is a significant force trying to bring it about. Every time there's a court-case about prayer in schools, or whatever else 1st Amendment issue, mainstream commentary pipes up with the same old talking-points such as "this is a Christian country", etc. ad nauseam. They may never actually get there but they keep trying.

[sultan2075]

OK I withdraw the "99%" claim. I was thinking "99% of Muslims in the UK" but I guess that's not really relevant.

secular liberalism is a loser in the Muslim world

That's not exactly true is it? Indonesia and Malaysia are both secular(ish) liberal(ish) democracies(ish). The problem is demonstrably not Islam itself.

There are 50-some-odd Islamic nations in the world. So, of Islamic nations, you've cited 4% - a 4% which is under increasing internal pressure from the forces of Islamism. Actually, I've just checked: the OIC includes 56 nations. So we're looking at less than 4%. The problem may not be Islam itself, but there is insufficient evidence to claim that the problem is "demonstrably not Islam itself."

There is the further difficulty that is presented by the lack of a doctrinal authority in Islam. The Pope can condemn Lefebvrites or other Catholic schismatics, and such condemnation is authoritative. What authority is there to condemn an Ayman al Zawahiri when he claims that democracy is forbidden because it is a blasphemous shirk bi Allah, an erecting of partners with God? His ultimate view is that democracy is blasphemous because it gives man legislative powers that belong ultimately to God. Who will say he is wrong? Who has the authority to say so? The Muslim liberal? The Muslim liberal may get shot for it.

But do we not have to ask why is it that some parts ofthe Islamic world are so fearful of western Liberalism? They see the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of a continuation of the Crusades, a perception not helped by Bush the Younger actually using the word. When you percieve your country as being under attack from an external aggressor, it's unlikely that you'd want to bring on board ideals claimed by that foregin power. "They hate us for our freedoms" is a self-serving lie. They hate us because we're bombing them.

Then why has the US been called the "Great Satan" for years before Iraq/Afghanistan? Why specifically Satan? What does Satan do? He tempts.

Perhaps more importantly, why is it so difficult for Westerners (both neoconservatives and liberals) to recognize that some people might choose fidelity to religious faith over the freedom to have their daughters grow up to be public fornicators or pop-tarts like Britney Spears? It's not: "the West/US are imperialist meanies, so let's reject liberalism." The thoughtful criticism is that Western liberalism seems to lead to crude materialism, nihilism, and promiscuity. Just look at the way we (i.e., the West) talk about sexuality today: we treat it as the highest expression of individual freedom. We tell the world that freedom = sexual licentiousness. It's a far cry from the liberalism of a Locke or Jefferson, and it's certainly not going to be attractive to people who think there is more to life than bodily gratification. If liberalism is identical to libertinism, of course the Muslim world will reject it. Sayyid Qutb (intellectual godfather of the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda) visited American in 1949, and was outraged at what he perceived as Western sexual licentiousness even then.

As for a Christian theocracy in the USA, I don't think it's likely to happen, but you can't deny that there is a significant force trying to bring it about. Every time there's a court-case about prayer in schools, or whatever else 1st Amendment issue, mainstream commentary pipes up with the same old talking-points such as "this is a Christian country", etc. ad nauseam. They may never actually get there but they keep trying.

You remind me of a medieval peasant looking for witches in every shadow, except instead you're looking for Christians.

[nowayjose]

That's not exactly true is it? Indonesia and Malaysia are both secular(ish) liberal(ish) democracies(ish). The problem is demonstrably not Islam itself.

I think both Indonesia and Malaysia have quite a problem with extremist Islam themselves.

They hate us because we're bombing them.

Who them? Baathist Saddam?

[Bartek]

Huge mistake is to think that islam is everywhere the same and forgetting about everything else. Iranian version of islam, practicing by most of society in far from the same and in Taliban Afghanistan (was), Turkey version is commonly liberal however conservatives are growing. Fact that majority of society are muslims doesn't mean that they have common view on moral standards.
and yes, Jose is right, both Indonesia and Malaysia have growing problem with extremists. Just like he's right with Nigeria and Maghreb countries- Western states have nothing to do with these countries (apart from Nigerians oil).

[markfiend]

Discussions of global Islam aside, Dawkins' tweet about the number of Muslim Nobel laureates, while of course true*, is also at the very least staggeringly insensitive and at worst deliberately provocotive, coming as it did at Eid, and at a time when Muslims in the UK are already being targeted by firebombers.

Dawkins is an intelligent man. He can't fail to recognise that these sentiments will be seized upon by the British far-right.

Dawkins ahs also tweeted his praise for Geert Wilders' comparison of the Quran with Mein Kampf.

*Yes, Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College. But then again, Dawkins has precisely the same number of Nobel Prizes as does a piece of s**t. Of course the comparison between Dawkins and s**t isn't insulting, how can a fact be insulting? </snark>

[Pista]

GMail's privacy policy.
Yeah, about that...

[Pat]

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses- ... ns/168135/


Looks legit.Bloke is from the AP.

[markfiend]

Yeah I'm not surprised. It all seemed a little... convenient, blaming all the chemical weapons attacks on the Assad regime.

[Bartek]

so Saudi Arabia supplied al-Qaida linked rebel group with gas bombs (to that point it's more than plausible) and that even in Ghouta was just a tragic accident?

A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,� he said.

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,� ‘J’ said.

but even considering that it true, getting rid of Jihadists, so~called Muslim extremists- terrorists waving Q'ran it's still kinda positive.

this attack will happen and that one is sure.

on same topic hers is a Robert D. Kaplan's (author of i.e. "Balkan ghosts") comment about Syria and possible consequences pf attack.

[Being645]

There are other voices ...

Anyway, Congrats & Thanks to the British House of Common Sense !!! *... ...

* I had not dared to even dream of this decision.