It’s a convenient little loop: you relentlessly portray terrorists as muslims and vice versa, massively publicising and exaggerating the incidents when those two overlap, and ignoring or minimising the ones when they don’t – and then you suggest that the fact that your readers’ minds immediately jump to join the two proves that the link you’ve been training them to make is actually true.
Bolt:
When the deed sounds like the faith, the faith is a problem
You need no other information than the headline to guess the cause:
Thirteen terror suspects arrested
Your readers don’t, no. Congratulations, your work is complete.
Meanwhile, I wonder what readers of Pure Poison expect whenever they see a story about a polemicist running a cynical line to smear muslims. By now, I suspect you need little other information than the headline to guess the cause. And, applying our friend’s logic above, that therefore confirms everything we’ve ever written about him – right?
201 Comments
The other day, in a trademark Islam-bashing rant, Bolt claimed to have Muslim friends. I won’t ask him to name just ten — because that would be clearly silly. But I’d like any Muslim who regards Bolt as a friend to please step forward.
You could equally put up a photo of a bombed abortion clinic with the words “You need no other information than the headline to guess the cause: When the deed sounds like the faith, the faith is a problem.”
Did Bolt comment on Dr Tiller’s murder or the campaign of terror orchestrated against women’s health professionals and terminiation clinics? No. Did he pass judgement on the Stack Attack? No.
It’s like I say with people like Bolt: as soon as a muslim is implicated in something bad, like murder or terrorism they pop open the champagne and start singing from the rooftops. Is terrorism defined by the number of people it kills? Or the nationality of the perpetrators? Or the religion of the terrorists? Stupid polemicists who can’t see the wood for all the confetti they chuck around in celebration of muslim crimes.
If Bolt thinks the West should take a “tough” stance against Islam as a religion internationally, then you have to wonder how committed is he to winning his “war on terror”?. It comes down to whether or not you think it is a good idea to alienate about 1/4 of the planet’s population, to declare war on their religion while the west is currently engaged in several conflicts in nations with a majority Muslim population. They are finding it difficult enough to win in Afghanistan/Stabilize Iraq already, without managing to piss off the entire Islamic community. You need to get the population on side, not barge in and dictate to them how wrong their belief systems are, or do it insidiously from afar.
Not to mention the West’s Islamic allies in the Middle East, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, does Bolt have an interest in stirring up resentment against our own allies? And as for Iran, their is never going to be a favorable outcome for the West without the backing of the greater Islamic community as a whole.
Bolt’s next update concerning Islam will simply be:
“The horror, the horror. Exterminate all the brutes.”
“News item: Six arrested for poisoning wells.”
When the deed sounds like the faith, the faith is a problem
You need no other information than the headline to guess the cause;
“scientists are immediately subjected to a torrent of aggressive, abusive and, at times, threatening emails”
Rightards
I wonder if said typist would like to comment on this…..
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/03/2834788.htm?section=justin
But Dewgong, isn’t that the right wing approach to conflict? We are right, you are wrong, and we’ll bomb the bejesus out of you to prove it. No wonder the Middle East is in such a mess!
Tom kenneally said it nicely: “Blow the whistle, ref”.
Andrew could do as many of these as he wanted. Trawl the globe for any negative muslim-related story and just add a line like “Who’d have thought”, or “Here we go again” or something equally obvious. Rather than “point and giggle”, it’s “point and sneer”.
“Did Bolt comment on Dr Tiller’s murder or the campaign of terror orchestrated against women’s health professionals and terminiation clinics? No. Did he pass judgement on the Stack Attack? No.”
Lets say it straight: rousing xenophobic anger is what puts food on bolty’s table.
They’re not destined for hell, they’re there already, and they want the rest of us to join them.
That Pakistani cleric would probably be one of those friends he talks about. So in effect he has already commented on it. It’s not his fault if it’s too subtle for lefties.
So if a terrorist claims to be acting in the name of Allah you lot think that we should ignore that fact?
Ian
No that fact should be reported and it is fair to do so. But to link all who believe in a particular faith with what is done by some misguided individuals is wrong.
People of all faiths commit acts of random stupidity and that does not make people of all faiths guilty by association.
And a comment posted @11:53 not moderated @4:15 Way to generate a discussion Onya
No, Iain Hall, but you should stop the active campaign to demonise all Muslims on the basis of the acts of a few; similarly, blaming a climate scientist for the deaths of some unhinged people in South America would be equally ridiculous.
Monkeywrench
In the five years that I have been blogging about Islamic Terrorism I have never failed to distinguish between Jihadists and your more common Muslims. Only to find lefty after lefty insisting that to even mention the faith professed by these nihilists demonises all Muslims.
I think that many of you who do this are actually part of the problem and that for as long as you do this, the threat from the Jihadist nutters will never go away.
Iain, you make a good point; they are actually enablers.
As long as they keep it up, whether through self-righteous outrage or a sheer desire to simply stand by snipe at the Right, they are enabling the vicious hatred emanating from radical Islamic extremists to continue to brew, for they fail to condemn the much greater ethical transgressions of the perpetrators.
monkeywrench,
“blaming a climate scientist for the deaths of some unhinged people in South America would be equally ridiculous”
If a climate scientist found to be misleading or, worse, peddling outright untruths, deliberately helped contribute towards the same stressful situation that saw the victims lose their lives, then yes they must share the moral (and one day, hopefully, legal) burden. Shame on Jones.
Iain: who cares what you write on your blog? The post isn’t about you in case you hadn’t realised.
And the fact that you can’t provide any proof of ANY connection between Prof Jones and the Argentinian family, let alone be bothered to critically analyse the murder-suicide story in the first place shows you as the lame arsed idealogically driven partisan nonce your comments always betray you as. FAIL.
Are you speaking for Bolt?
Dudette: pathetic. You are treating the victims as if they are normal, stable humans pushed to the limits by evil manipulative forces. As far as can be gleaned from the paucity of evidence, there seems to have been a lot of other factors at play, not the least of which was the unstable mental state of the father. By your logic, we must examine every bipolar sufferer who commits a murder after hearing voices in their head, to see if we can identify whose voice it was and blame them for incitement.
Of course, you’re really just being self-consciously inflammatory for the (possibly sexual) frisson you get from making others angry. Go away.
dudette
As I have already pointed out, people commit suicide because they lack hope, the AGW side of science has never said there is no hope, just that if we do nothing there is no hope. Now who is proposing we do nothing? So who is to blame for this sad event? (All denialist please have a quick look in the mirror for the answer to that last one)
And the above is part of the problem with the hatred directed at Muslims, no one on the right ever stops to ask “Why are these people doing this? Am I part of the problem” no you would have us believe that one 1/4 of the worlds population are sociopaths and potential serial killers.
No wonder the world’s in such a mess
Confessions
I was merely making the point that lefties denouncing any criticism of the Jihadists as Jeremy has in this post is nothing new and as you and your ilk always seem to get shitty about unfounded assertions I was implying that the evidence is easy to find,
Good Lord … “self-righteous outrage or a sheer desire to simply stand by snipe at the Right.”
No one is denying that a sizable chunk of the world’s terrorists are Muslims. Nor should it ever be forgotten that there are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, often in third world countries. Nor should it ever be forgotten that they sometimes (if not often) have legitimate gripes.
But to bang on repeatedly about Islam being a violent religion, to call Arabs barbarians, to issue sanctimonious lectures (as Bolt and ilk do, instead of addressing core problems of the West’s responsibilities to the East) … that more than anything is what’s “enabling” or “brewing” the hatred of radical Islamic extremists.
Slightly off-topic, but incredible comments on Bolt’s latest post about asylum-seeker boat arrivals, calling for the detainees to be executed, boats to be sunk and passengers shot. Simply sickening. These are really horrible people.
Just as, 100 years ago, the Deep South had a ‘Negro problem’, and, in the 1930′s, MittelEurope had a ‘Jewish Problem’, so here does Bolt (among others) try to construct a ‘Muslim Problem’. One has to wonder at what his proposed final solution might be.
The reduction of matters to Islamic ‘faith’ is as nebulous as it is meaningless. Islam is practiced in a massive variety of ways even in Australia, much less the rest of the world. You might as well compare Torquemada with Jose Ramos-Horta, or Daniel Ortega with George Pell.
The fact remains that most terror of the past 100 or so years (including suicide attacks) had nothing to do with Islam. Bolt is demonising a minority in the best tradition of One Nation or the BNP, or some other partisans of even more offensive odour.
Here’s an interesting piece from Greenwald on the subject of ‘terrorism’ and the media.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/02/23/newsweek/index.html
On an obscure blog written by an idealogue troll who manages the extraordinary feat of taking 150 different positions in the same thread on the same issue? Don’t believe me? On this thread alone you’ve gone from implying that Jeremy wants to ignore religion:
to arguing that it is in fact people like Jeremy who always mention peoples religion:
to finally wind up saying that what Jeremy has in fact written is nothing new at all:
The thread is only 18 comments old and already you’ve managed to find 3 different ways to contradict yourself. You wouldn’t know evidence if you fell over it.
Maybe Iain just likes to hang around to demonstrate to us how intellectually starved the conservative side is.
the online equivalent of a ‘please kick me’ sign on his back…
He’s really on our side!
Damn! I must remember to never refer to the trollumnist by his other name, lest my posts get lost in moderation and lose relevance!!!
InanemptyHall -In the five years that I have been blogging about Islamic Terrorism you have so few sentients looking at it that you have to infest this, as you once did LP.
You are worse than a bore and the less oxygen you waste the better the climate,your other monomania.
While I might be a latecomer to this particular blog (which I think is fanstastic), I say find another target. The chief climatologist for the Hun is now too easy to hit. Opinion rules, and who cares if it is based on fact, as long as it stirs up the masses. Bolt supposedly has “millions” of followers (read people who can’t or won’t think for themselves) and pats himself on the back after getting the “millionth” blog comment. Would have had that number years ago if dissenting blog comments were actually posted on his site.
confessions #18
You don’t get any better Confessions because the thing about hyperbole is that it makes those that over use it, as you do here, look very petty and very silly. But the italicised line above was a response to the comments already on the thread in general rather than to Jeremy in particular, the words in bold above make that abundantly clear to anyone who has basic comprehension of the English language
Jeremy’s argument is actually that anyone , like Andrew Bolt who makes the legitimate connection between religious nutters and the faith they claim as justification for their evil is demonising all followers of that that faith.
Your comprehension skills seem to be sadly lacking for someone who claims to have written a “peer reviewed paper” what I am saying has nothing at all to do about Jeremy or any other lefty “mentioning religion” It is reinforcing my previous point that it is fallacious to deny that if Islam is cited by the Jihadists then we should take them at their word that Islam has something to do with their acts, as so many leftys repeatedly seem to want to do .
There is nothing new about this line of argument from Jeremy or from so many other lefties are you really trying to sugest that Jeremy has some new and unique insight into Jihadist terror and the way that it is discussed?
No Confessions it is you who has found three ways to prove that you lack simple comprehension skills when it comes to reading English prose. and the evidence is right there in the words that you write.
Previous comment refers to Confessions comment #27
Repent Amarillo.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/repent_amarillo.php
PZ nails it – “This is the future the Pat Robertsons, the James Dobsons, the Sarah Palins want for us — a kind of Saudi Arabia that differs only in the name we give our prophet.”
I was merely making the point that lefties denouncing any criticism of the Jihadists as Jeremy has in this post is nothing new
Jesus Iain – is that really what you think Lefty has done in this post?
Your takeaway, from Lefty’s denunciation of Bolt’s deliberate creation of a narrative loop around Muslim terrorism, is that he is denouncing any criticism of Jihadists. Wow. What a hysterically wild, and thoroughly inept, interpretation – you are demonstrably incapable of understanding even a basic argument.
If I were you I’d be a little embarassed about identifying myself as such a colossal idiot on such a regular basis.
Bravo mondo, well said.
Some times there’s just too much stupid.
Yawn at Iaian who once again is exposed as a bumbling fool and has nothing to offer except screeds of….nothing.
People may find this interesting (apologies for length of excerpt) -
Full post here -
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2010/03/its_not_about_i/
Iain, what’s your take on the IRA? Are Catholics all nutters too?
JCL – Don’t forget ETA in that group too.
Of course we are!
Johnny
Although The members of the IRA were almost exclusively Catholics I have never heard or read any utterances from any of their spokesmen or supporters who have cited scripture as a justification for their bombing or any of the other killings that they carried out during “the troubles”. On the Other hand Jihadists repeatedly cite passages from the Koran to justify their vile acts and the cry “Allah Akbar” that has often been heard as they detonate is quite a give away that their religion is the foundation of their acts.
That said I am thankful that the extremist vision of Islam is actually very much a minority position But the useful idiots of the left are unceasing in their delusion that if we say nothing about it then perhaps this problem of Jihadist nutters will go away.
It won’t.
Iain is right. It isn’t the Catholicism of the IRA that made them terrorists – they didn’t terrorise in the name of their religion.
They did, however, terrorise in the name of their Irish nationalism. So being Irish was obviously the foundation of their acts.
End Irish immigration to Australia now. They all carry the terrorist gene. Iain’s logic proves it.
Mondo
I defy you to find any instance where I have ever suggested that all Muslims are to blame for the actions of a few nutters.
Nor do I claim that there is such a thing as a terrorist gene.
Iain, I defy you to find any instance where I have ever suggested “that if we say nothing about it then perhaps this problem of Jihadist nutters will go away.”
I’ve suggested that useless tripe like Bolt’s “we must shun the muslim faith” post in question here is counterproductive and unfair, sure, but that’s not the same thing.
For those who struggle to put into words their feeling about Iain Hall’s posts…
http://plognark.com/?q=node/1129
I haven’t claimed that you have Iain, but to quote one of your ideological masters (and to remind you of the actual topic of this post):
“When the deed sounds like the faith, the faith is a problem”
So when the deed sounds like the nationality, the nationality must also be a problem, right? I mean, as you so cleverly point out above in your defence of Bolt, the fact that their nationality is the justification for their vile acts is “quite a giveaway” that is is also “the foundation of their acts”.
So being Irish is clearly the foundation of IRA terrorism – you’ve closed the loop dude.
Ban the Irish!!
Like I asked way back @ 2:
Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of who perpetrates it or in what circumstances. It isn’t the sole province of one religious group or one nationality, despite the efforts of the haters to convince people otherwise. Trying to sheet terrorisim as belonging to one population group only is not only naive, but counter productive.
What sort of Catholic would ever quote scripture? If a Catholic wants justification for acts of terrorism, especially against Jews, just check out some of the popes’ teachings! Some of those guys, even as recently as the early 20th century, would give the Nazis a run for their money.
Check out what the evangelicals are saying to Ugandans about gays.
Re-reading Jeremy’s opening gambit :
Leads me to ask if he can actually back up this claim with hard facts? because I sincerely doubt that Andrew has actually been doing this at all in any of the posts he has written on examples of Jihadist acts of terrorism.
Oh and it is usual to capitalize the word “Muslim” and failing to do so is considered a sign of disrespect to followers of Islam.
You might sincerely doubt it Iain, but nobody else does…
Well then quantize you lot will have no trouble proving it then will you?
proofs in the pudd Iain, you just have goggles on that prevent you from seeing it..
That’s all your ‘contrbutions’ ever amount to here. Lamely defending the indefensible.
Iain, what are your thoughts on wedge politics?
Quartsize
If what Jeremy is claiming in his opening gambit for this post actually existed in the utterances or the prose of Andrew Bolt then it should be easy for you or your fellows to produce instances of it. That you are unable to do so has nothing to do with me wearing blinkers (because I don’t wear them at all) but everything to do with you and Jeremy making assertions that are not backed up with any facts.
Johnny
Personally I prefer chips !
But seriously I think that it is a concept that is rather over cited at times and usually by those who want to dismiss legitimate concerns about some aspect of politics because they don’t want to face it.
Try this, Iain.
Your link is broken Jeremy
Fixed.
Jeremy
Just how does your link to a search of Andrew’s blog and instances of the word “Muslim” support your opening assertion in this post?
Are you suggesting that even mentioning any issue that involves Islam or its followers is innately prejudicial against Muslims?
For instance as a secularist do you think that the followers of any faith should have exclusive use of communal facilities at say a university? Because that is the topic of one of the links brought up by your Google search.
Your link does not make your case at all.
Iain, Bolt’s post referred to in this post is just one of many examples. I don’t feel the need to go and find more for you, because (a) it’s unnecessary – most people reading this site who’ve seen Bolt’s output over the last few years would be well aware of what he does; and (b) it’s a waste of time – I could spend an hour finding links for you and you still wouldn’t accept it.
The other questions that Iain is refusing to countenance are in my comment @ 2, but can be summarised in just one question: does he post on terrorism where muslims aren’t involved? And yes, those of us who have seen his output know what the answer to that question is.
Jeremy
You make an assertion with this post that is just not supported by the facts and when pressed you just suggest that it’s unnecessary – most people reading this site who’ve seen Bolt’s output over the last few years would be well aware of what he does; This is about the worst appeal to fallacious populism that I have seen for a long time. I expected better from you than this.
The post you cite here does not even do what you assert it does and frankly nor do any of the ones that appear in your Google search.
If Andrew Bolt was doing as you assert as often as you claim you would not need to spend even one hour seeking examples of it.
Find me the evidence and I will happily concede the point
Sure he does Confessions
So Iain, you don’t think the Coalition (and their cheer-squad in the media) plays the race card in order to win votes from people who would normally vote for the Labor Party?
Sure Iaian: one article about boat people. Thanks for just proving Jeremy’s point.
Confessions
It took me two minutes to fine one example of Andrew Bolt talking about non Muslims terrorism as you challenged and there are doubtless other examples as well.
“Jeremy’s point” remains an unproven assertion and as such without foundation.
Johnny
I think that it is the left who are far more guilty of “playing the race card” than any member of the coalition. Although I don’t think that racism is entirely absent from Australia I don’t think that the majority of ALP voters would change their vote on issues of race.
Iain: you find one article where bashing boat people is the objective (not terrorism as you seem to think) and trumpet this as an example of even handedness towrads muslims by your idealogical ‘father’. One article that is supposed to balance out the champagne flowing whenever muslims are involved in terrorist attacks. Furthermore you have the unmitigated gall to suggest that “Jeremy’s point remains unproven” on a thread where not only have countless egs been provided to you to substantiate his point, but where you are the only one who cannot even see the point of the original post.
Well done, you’ve given me yet another PP thread to bookmark which shows your abject stupidity and blinkered idealogical views.
Confessions
You truly are confused and prone to hyperbole.
Even the piece that Jeremy cites here was updated to praise an attempt by a Muslim cleric who is denouncing the terrorist acts done in the name of Allah, Frankly if you can’t see than as being “even handed” then you have more than a tiny mote in your eye.
Personally I lament every atrocity committed by the terrorists, not just for the causalities they cause but also for the fact that it besmirches the good name and reputation of the many millions of sincere and peaceful Muslims. And if you read what Andrew Bolt says on the matter you will see that this is his attitude as well. The useful idiots of the left like your own good self are however another matter as you seek to shut down any mention of the faith of the bombers or the way that they claim inspiration for their acts in the teachings of their faith.
You are not only wearing blinkers but you are willfully wearing a blindfold as well.
Iain
Can you give examples of where ‘the left’ have played the race card?
Here are two recent examples the Coalition playing the race card with the intent to influence the outcome of an election:
1. Children Overboard
2. Mohammed Haneef
*channels RobJ*
Since when has the ALP been ‘the left’?
*resumes normal identity*
Iain: when was the last time bolt has criticised the terrorism waged against abortion clinics and women’s health professionals by evangelical extremists? Where was his post condemning the Stack Attack? Yet *every* muslim infarction is leapt upon with glee by the idealogues who proceed to pass out the cigars in celebration that they’ve found yet another excuse to go muslim bashing. If they were even handed (even a tiny bit), they would denounce *all* terrorism, not just the crimes involving muslims.
The ‘evidence’ you want to believe to simply doesn’t exist Iain. And this will be my last say on the matter, trying to use fact and reasoned logic with you is like trying to have a rational debate with a 3 year old. Imfuckingpossible!
If you have any doubt as to the views of Iain Hall when it comes to Islam, then check out this extract from his long term bloggy friend KG, who Iain links to from his site and proudly calls a conservative like himself.
“Westerners welcome or tolerate the emigration of Muslims to our lands. In this manner, they engineer the destruction of their way of life…..
….But the fact is, most people do tolerate it at least, by being polite to muslims, by giving muslims jobs, by renting or selling them property and by buying from muslim-owned businesses.
And most of all by not holding our ‘representative”s feet to the fire on the subject of immigration.” KG
This kind of bigot is the kind Iain supports and that gives Bolt his dogs to whistle up.
But they’re still darkies, Iain. What does he have to say about that Dutch guy who puts the Koran on a par with Mein Kampf and wants veil-wearing Muslim women to be taxed?
Find me the evidence and I will happily concede the point
No you won’t. You’ll
a) dispute the evidence or
b) claim the evidence inconclusive and ask for more evidence
it’s what you do. Over and over again.
And if you read what Andrew Bolt says on the matter you will see that this is his attitude as well
No it’s not!
He only ever writes articles designed to whip up anti muslim sentiment. Prove me wrong here Iain
Iain, I just want to know who are you trying to convince?
You are trying to say that Bolt has no problem with Muslims. Is that right?
The headline:
When the deed sounds like the faith, the faith is a problem
Contradicts what you are saying.
Bolt takes very single opportunity he can to get stuck in to mulsims, but you are trying to say black is white when you are saying he doesn’t.
So if I’ve got your views wrong please tell me (In clear, non-obfuscatory terms)
Johnny
my understanding of what it means to “play the race card” means that the individuals who claim to see racism in the words or deeds of others are the ones who are doing the card playing.
So keeping that in mind I will cite the same examples as you do as my answer
To which you should add, if you’re really being honest: “even if it’s there.”
Iain, let’s to apply your logic to a generic example:
-Politician A plays the race card.
-Commentator B highlights the fact that Politician A has played the race card.
-Therefore Commentator B has played the race card, not Politician A.
Is this what you mean?
youngcraig: Iain’s friend KG also advocated for the assassination of Obama, presumably because you know, Obama is OMG a secret muslim!!!1!
Yeah, nice people Iain hangs out with.
72# confessions
What have I said about your propensity towards hyperbole?
You are trying the old and tired tactic of changing the direction of the discussion with a big dose of moral relativism.
I have a question for you. If we were to make a list of the last 100 individual terrorist acts how many of them would have been done by people claiming to be acting in the name of Allah?
I can’t quite work out what you mean in the emboldened sentence above.but is looks to me like you are conceding that there is no evidence of racism in the post cited by Jeremy or in any of the other writings of Andrew Bolt either.
Your little rant about my grasp of logic is hilarious coming from a woman who writes like you do.
#73 youngcraig
Just how is anything that Kieth may or may not say( where is this quote from?) or who I chose to link to at all relevant?
#74 Bloods05
I don’t care what colour skin any extremist has , I am more interested in the nature of their deeds when it comes to criticizing them
Do you have any idea how popular Mien Kampf is in Islamic countries Blood?
#75 ShaunHC
I do not retreat from a high standard when it comes to proof but this is a moot point because thus far no one here has fronted up anything of substance at all.
If you lot did not so often rely upon your gut feelings and pathological hatred of anyone who is not a card carrying lefty then you might actually make more convincing arguments.
#76
Besides the fact that you are asking me to prove a negative here I have been asking you lot to prove that your contention is what Andrew Bolt is actually doing and this far all here have failed even though you all seem to take it as an article of faith even when you can’t actually prove it at all.
#78 Bloods05
Certainly it may be there sometimes, but from what I have seen when the card has been played it is more often used as a “shut up” gambit rather than as an exposition of racism.
#80 Johnny
Your example does not make sense to me at all
#81Confessions
Care to back that claim up with a link and a quote?
Iain, go to your mates site and you will find the quote in the first few posts, I am not going to provide a link to your sick friends.
Any reasonable person would not provide links, as you do, to extreme sites that promote violence and racist attitudes.
You allways make them welcome when they commment at your site and support their views.
Why don’t you just say that you think KG’s views, like those above, make you sick…..it’s easy to say if that is how you feel.
It was only a short time ago Iain was associating particular caffeinated drinks with Left leaning people. On that it seems reasonable to equate Iain with his sick mates website. You know the saying about lying down with dogs…
You guys just don’t get it, Iain knows/thinks he’s smarter than all of you. He is dumbfounded as to why you all don’t fall in behind his arguments, he’s so much smarter than you.
If he just talks long enough you will all see his wisdom, look at his blogs, all the answers are there. Succumb to his intelligence!
Only he know the truth! Where have we heard that before.
Oh fuck. He’s defending the prick. Iain, what about giving the defensible a run once in a while?
Craigy
KG has not posted a comment to may blog since July 2008 and nor have I posted any comments at his blog either. I link to lots of people, even Gasp! lefties, Islamic scholars, pro Abortion advocates, Cycling enthusiasts, fiction writers and lawyers . I am an inclusive sort of guy so get over it because when it comes down to it you exhibit hate that is orders of magnitude greater than any thing said by KG. and I was (and remain more than happy to entertain your utterances at my blog.
Blood
I actually think that all forms of extremism are objectionable but if the moderates are not prepared to speak up then the less moderate voices are going to hold the floor. Perhaps if lefties were less caught up with the “to criticize Islam or the acts of its adherents is to demonise all Muslims mindset” then the there would be less to inspire those of the extreme right who you seem to fear so much.
But with regard to the popularity of Mein Kampf do you think that it would be the aspirations of the Germanic people that makes it attractive to middle eastern readers or do you think it might be the anti-Semitism that strikes a chord?
Still waiting for any of you to prove the assertion in Jeremy’s opening gambit.
Are any of you going to actually try
Son of Mogh #84
Nah I don’t claim any of that I just like to argue about this sort of stuff for fun, Oh and I love the smell of a fuming lefty in the morning , and in the afternoon as well
Cheers
It’s already been proven Iain. It’s just that you continue to want to defend the indefensible and frankly I don’t see the point in wasting time with someone so willing to defend muslim bashing.
Confessions
Are you honestly trying to suggest that any criticism of Islam or those who kill in the name of Allah Is “Muslim Bashing” ? because that is what it sounds like to me.
Well it would to a crazy person…
and Iain, we laugh at you…not fume, that would give you the even crazier idea we should take anything you say seriously.
Or someone trying to shift the goalposts because he’s been shown to have no valid argument against the original post. LOL at iaiaian! Still peddling nonsense.
I do not retreat from a high standard when it comes to proof
Yeah, like I said. No matter what people came up with it wouldn’t be enough. You’d ask for more and more.
Well actually Iain I have a proof that every single person here can do. Just run the search in Bolt’s blog for the word Muslim. Then go through the list of articles.
So how many articles designed to inflame sentiment against do I have to come up with to give you proof? 10? 20? 100?
This is the internet age mate. Not hard to come up with such proof.
Now my guess? Iain will clam that these articles, with comments in them like:
WE didn’t need the Rudd Government to tell us this week that, ahem, our own Muslim community is now a growing terrorist threat.
Are not negative at all
Iain @ 78 said:
“my understanding of what it means to “play the race card” means that the individuals who claim to see racism in the words or deeds of others are the ones who are doing the card playing.”
—————————————————————————
JCL @ 80 said:
“Iain, let’s to apply your logic to a generic example:
-Politician A plays the race card.
-Commentator B highlights the fact that Politician A has played the race card.
-Therefore Commentator B has played the race card, not Politician A.
Is this what you mean?”
—————————————————————————
Iain @ 82 said:
“Your example does not make sense to me at all”
—————————————————————————-
Iain, if you don’t understand my post @ 80, can you please clarify your statement @ 78 then please?
ShaunHC
Oh I see You lot are all conspiracy theorists!!! where pray tell is your proof of this “design” the deliberate intention to “inflame sentiment“?
By your logic should I hold Jeremy responsible for all of the commentary that is posted to his writing here and at his own blogs? You know when he gets commentators who say that suicide bombing is justified then I should take that as his position and that was precisely what he wanted to be understood?
I’ll give you a little heads up Shaun most conspiracy theories are utter bunkum and the one espoused here is worse than bunkum it is nonsense as well.
Here was me thinking that the purpose of the pieces here were to critique the actual writing of Andrew or Tim when what you are really complaining about some of the more out there (and often intemperate) comments from their readers.
The worrying thing is that you think that Andrew or Tim or anyone actually has some sort of metaphysical ability to control commentators as if they have strings…..
Johnny
My problem with your logic is that you attempt to use the “play the race card” as if it is synonymous with expressing racism, it isn’t and if you amend your terminology to reflect this salient fact then you may find that we may not be at odds at all.
Iain @ 95 said:
“My problem with your logic is that you attempt to use the “play the race card” as if it is synonymous with expressing racism, it isn’t and if you amend your terminology to reflect this salient fact then you may find that we may not be at odds at all.”
——————————————————————————–
Iain, I am applying your logic, not mine. By the way, this is what ‘playing the race card’ means:
“[Playing the race card] refers to someone exploiting prejudice against another race for political or some other advantage.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_card
Yes yes it’s Wikipedia, but it’s also an accurate definition. Don’t you agree Iain?
Oh I see You lot are all conspiracy theorists!!! where pray tell is your proof of this “design” the deliberate intention to “inflame sentiment“?”
WTF? Have I just gone to a parallel universe or something where inflammatory rhetoric is not inflammatory rhetoric?
I was correct in my interpretation of things. No matter what is said, you will respond by defending him.
I’ll give you a little heads up Shaun most conspiracy theories are utter bunkum and the one espoused here is worse than bunkum it is nonsense as well.
Conspiracy theory my ass! I just have to read the articles and see that the only time the Muslim religion is mentioned, it’s in a negative context.
Here was me thinking that the purpose of the pieces here were to critique the actual writing of Andrew or Tim when what you are really complaining about some of the more out there (and often intemperate) comments from their readers.
Once again, I don’t need to even go down to the comments. This is your lame attempt to defend Andrew, saying – no, it’s not him, it’s the people who write comments.
Well it wasn’t in the comments section that this was written:
“Europe is pushing back:
Swiss voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on minarets on Sunday, barring construction of the iconic mosque towers in a surprise vote that put Switzerland at the forefront of a European backlash against a growing Muslim population…. “
or this:
And until we are sure that Islam, as interpreted today, no longer encourages believers to side like this against their new Australian home, it would be prudent to more strictly limit the arrival of yet more of its adherents. The racists we should fear are not outselves, but the terrorists and their supporters.
or this:
WE didn’t need the Rudd Government to tell us this week that, ahem, our own Muslim community is now a growing terrorist threat.
or this headline:
If we can’t share a toilet, can we share a country?
As I said.. plenty of evidence. Each time the theme is the same. stop Muslim immigration. Muslims are terrorists. Muslims are different to you and me and don’t fit in.
Your move.
My guess? Those comments aren’t particularly anti Muslim….
Well you believe what you want to believe.
I am constantly astounded as to what lengths some people will go to denying the bleeding obvious if reality doesn’t align with their belief system.
Shaun ,
being such a stickler for the truth I need to see the context for your citations so please provide the appropriate links for them if you don’t mind.
ShaunHC
There is a very real threat posed to the peace and tranquility of our world from militant Islam.
Can we at least agree on that?
But what I want to know is what precisely makes some thing by Andrew Bolt that mentions Islam or Muslims into “inflammatory rhetoric” ? You seem to think that this is self evident so you should be able to explain why you think that this is so with ease. I am asking you to define your terms.
How is this (in your own terms) “portraying Muslims in a negative light? It looks to me like a simple piece of reporting the facts about an action by the (non Muslim ) Swiss government. If anyone is being portrayed negatively here it is the Swiss government
I’ll ask you again in what way is your quote “inflammatory rhetoric”? And who would actually be “inflamed by this ?”
Now I’m going give you a quote and I would like you to give me your opinion about it :
Were you surprised to discover that the author of this quote is in fact both a Muslim and a woman?
I am willing o bet that when you read it your first thought was that this is more of your “inflammatory rhetoric” You see when I see lefties like you quaking in their metaphorical boots at the thought that anyone should criticise Islam I am just deeply saddened especially when I know that they are very often more savagely critical Christian fundamentalism (which I have no time for BTW) Surely you would not believe any criticism of fundamentalist Christians would reflect badly on all Christians now would you?
Simple question Shaun what is the religion claimed by all of the men who have been convicted of terrorism offences in Australia since 9/11???
That is not “evidence” Shaun that is you projecting your own timorous prejudice upon to the writing. but by the numbers
(1) Can’t say that I have ever seen this advocated by Andrew Bolt at all , what he has said is that we should be discerning. about the individuals that we accept with an emphasis on the skills that they have and appropriate checks that they should be of good character. and he has cited the social problems that we have had when we have been less discriminating.
(2) Now I have NEVER seen Andrew Bolt claim this or even imply it . You must be confused by the fact that the majority of terrorist acts done in the last decade have been done in the name of Allah and naturally when we have an atrocity like say the slaughter of women and children in Beslan, or the bombings in London or in Bali we want to understand why . So another question for you: If the perpetrators of these atrocities claim to be acting in the name of Allah should we just disbelieve those claims??
(3) I am mindful of your final quote when it comes to this point because on that occasion it was the Muslim students who have been lobbying for special treatment because they claim to be different Now I do recall that post and I think that Andrew was quite right to suggest that it is unnecessary to provide separate toilet for the exclusive use of Muslim students when just having a sink at a convenient foot washing height would solve the “problem”.
Over to you Shaun
Take your Meds Iain,
then you might be able to take a coherent position.
Yes, that is the sound of me laughing at you.
I am asking you to define your terms.
My terms are simple. If iread the works of Andrew bolt and only ever find the subject of Muslims mentioned in a negative way, then I consider that this person is writing inflammatory rhetoric.
(1) stop Muslim immigration.
(1) Can’t say that I have ever seen this advocated by Andrew Bolt at all , what he has said is that we should be discerning
Huh:
And until we are sure that Islam, as interpreted today, no longer encourages believers to side like this against their new Australian home, it would be prudent to more strictly limit the arrival of yet more of its adherents.
That says it right there. I knew you would say it doesn’t mean what it says. Other people are reading this too you know. You go to Iain world and live there all you want, but in the nean time other people are reading this and saying, “no matter what this guy is confronted with he won’t concede”.
(2)Muslims are terrorists.
(2) Now I have NEVER seen Andrew Bolt claim this or even imply it.
WTF again!
What does this itself say:
“When the deed sounds like the faith, the faith is a problem
You need no other information than the headline to guess the cause:
Thirteen terror suspects arrested”
It says it in black and white! The *faith is a problem. * If you can’t see that is at the very least implying that Muslims are terrorists what is it implying then?
This is start to sound very John Howard like. “Yes well I know I said asian immigration is a threat to our way of life, but I didn’t actually mean that asian immigration was a threat to our way of life when I said that.
I can’t debate a person who when you put such plain statements to them simply denies that they mean what they mean or at least could be interpreted in a negative light.
It’s called willful political blindness…
night is day in Iain’s alternate universe..he’s been so seduced by this ludicrous Bolt gibberish that he’s utterly convinced there is some benign meaning in even the most flagrantly idiotic and intentionally provocative spin that Bolt vomits out….worse, he thinks this is ‘normal’ or ‘common sense’.
It’s not, you sound every bit an apologist for grubby fear mongering Iain.
Nobody except the lunkheads in Bolt’s comments buy that lunacy.
Again, stick to the pithy ‘latte left’ shtick, you only argue yourself into a corner where we are all left marveling at how willfully ignorant you remain in the sheer face of reason whilst you pathetically dissemble everything to mean something else. You’re winning no points, except making a complete dill of yourself.
It adds nothing to the debate, you’re on Bolt’s level, and sinking with it every time you engage here…
#102 Shaun
So what you are saying is that (hypothetically speaking) there is a bombing carried out by a group of Jihadists and their faith is mentioned by Andrew Bolt (or anyone else) then the correspondent is being inflammatory? Even if the bombers have posted martyrdom vids on the net and loudly proclaimed that they are killing for Allah???
But you are wrong to claim that Andrew only ever mentions Muslims negatively he has often praised those Muslims who advocate reforming the faith like he does here in the link that you should have provided earlier.
Being “prudent” and “more strictly limiting” immigration is not the same as “stopping “it.
Well if you knew that then perhaps you should have sought a better example. But when it comes to choosing who we are going to allow into this country is it not wise to try to chose those individuals who are prepared to fully commit to the nation and whoa re not going to take up arms against it?
OK Shaun I now realise that I was actually reading your Bolt paraphrase statement thus; (all) Muslims are terrorists. That was what you meant wasn’t it? Because that was what I was reading it as and as such Andrew Bolt never claims that all Muslims are terrorists. Sadly for your argument the fact is that most of the terrorists in the world to day are actually Muslims.
How much do you actually know about Islam Shaun? About the tenets of the faith itself? About what is said in its holy book? About the way that it has been spread by the sword?
Because it is a faith that is in need of a reformation (did you read the full piece I linked to in my last comment?) You seem to be suggesting that there are no problems at all with any aspect of the religion.
The piece that you allude to here was not even being overtly critical of Islam Shaun it was aimed at chiding the Lilly livered reporting that sought to ignore ( or downplay) the fact that the terror suspects were religiously motivated in the first place. He was attacking the same sort of willful blindness that you are exhibiting here when it comes to militant Islam.
Can we agree that Militant Islam is an ongoing social problem for the western world? And that it is profoundly antagonistic to the notions of secular democracy and religious freedom that we hold dear? Are you with me on that ? Because if you are then you have to realise that to defend our democratic and religious freedoms you have to be willing to criticize the groups and individuals who would destroy those freedoms. What you are trying to suggest is that everyone should just keep stoom about the worst aspects of Islam for fear of offending the people who probably do not even endorse the problematic zealotry in the first place.
#103 quantize
Actually my argument is that we should not call something a “single person excavation tool ” when it is a spade But I will ask you just who is being inflamed or provoked here? Where are the riots in the streets caused by discussing the treat of militant Islam? I see Muslims where I shop and they are not at all fearful and they seem to be happily part of the community to me.
You have bought into the rather trite notion that to criticize Islam is in some sense different to criticizing any other religion please explain why that faith deserves the special consideration that you would not give to say Catholicism, Mormons or even Scientology?
I “dissemble” nothing here what I have been doing is pointing out the fundamental flaws in the leftist argument that” to mention Islam or discuss the actions of any of its adherents is to demonise all Muslims” this is a quisling argument and one that will do a grave disservice to those Muslims who seek to reform their faith to make it fairer to women and more relevant to modernity.
Debate requires differing points of view, and what you lot have here is largely a leftard echo chamber where your erroneous assumptions are seldom challenged and when they are you don’t actually like it t all.
Iain’s last comment:
1. Ooh! He never said such a thing!
2. But he’s right when he does.
The following Quote is taken from The Washington Post “Between 1990 and 2009, there were about 120 attacks in the United States by far-right extremists that led to deaths, according to a study funded by the Department of Homeland Security and the University of Maryland’s National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. The number of incidents has hovered around three per year since 2002, down from an average of eight annually from 1990 to 2001 and a peak of 16 in 1999, according to the U.S. Extremist Crime Data Base.
About 45 percent of incidents were motivated by white supremacist, neo-Nazi, anti-immigrant or other racist ideologies, and 15 percent by extreme anti-government views”.
The whole article is available here, sorry I’m not good at the links.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/05/AR2010030504438_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010030501071
Bolt is quick to criticise Muslims for acts of terror, I have seldom if ever seen him praise anything Muslims do. Bolt constantly praises and bangs on and on how peaceful and generous the right are, how often is he critical of right wing terrorists, never. It’s not hard to draw your own conclusions. The squawking gulls flock to Bolt as a hot chip because he reinforces their own demented world view, logical argument will never sway them from that position.
Debate requires differing points of view, and what you lot have here is largely a leftard echo chamber where your erroneous assumptions are seldom challenged and when they are you don’t actually like it t all.
Utter rubbish.
Your nit picking, slicing and dicing appraoch to this debate is reaching ridiculous proportions here. Especially when you say stupid things like “Oh I thought your statement meant that Andrew Bolt said that ALL Muslims are terrorists”.
No he doesn’t do that. The theme of his argument though is exactly as I have described it. His articles link Islam to extremism, that it is the faith that is the problem. That as a result of this problem we should curtail Muslim immigration. He doesn’t say ALL Muslims are terrorists, he simply implies that ALL muslims are potential terrorists. It’s like the radical feminist refrain of “all men are potential rapists”
Can we agree that Militant Islam is an ongoing social problem for the western world?
Now this is where it gets surreal. No one has ever said that Militant Islam isn’t a problem. You appear to have injected this into the debate so that you can project a position of, “OMG, these lefties are so blind they deny that Muslims commit terrorist acts”. It is so not true, but putting it there you are attempting to imply that everyone else on this blog is just *soooo* unreasonable* as to not see this.
Well said SeanHC..
Iain, your ability to extrapolate meaning out of statements that say nothing of the kind is breathtakingly silly..
Exactly. And when asked to cough up evidence, sycophants like iain can only produce one article – and that was a bashing exercise against asylum seekers and the Rudd government.
Precisely. Simply contradict your early comments as you shift the goalposts to accommodate your ‘new’ position.
CNN recently published an article entitled Study: Threat of Muslim-American terrorism in U.S. exaggerated; according to a study released by Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “the terrorist threat posed by radicalized Muslim-Americans has been exaggerated.” Yet, Americans continue to live in mortal fear of radical Islam, a fear propagated and inflamed by right wing Islamophobes.
If one follows the cable news networks, it seems as if all terrorists are Muslims. It has even become axiomatic in some circles to chant: “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.” Muslims and their “leftist dhimmi allies” respond feebly, mentioning Waco as the one counter example, unwittingly affirming the belief that “nearly all terrorists are Muslims.” But perception is not reality. The data simply does not support such a hasty conclusion.
On the FBI’s official website, there exists a chronological list of all terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil from the year 1980 all the way to 2005.
According to this data, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%). These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion. These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company.
The Islamophobes claim that Islam is intrinsically a terroristy religion. The proof? Well, just about every terrorist attack is Islamic, they retort. Unfortunately for them, that’s not quite true. More like six percent. Using their defunct logic, these right wingers ought now to conclude that nearly all acts of terrorism are committed by Latinos or Jews. Let them dare say it…they couldn’t; it would be political and social suicide to say such a thing. Most Americans would shut down such talk as bigoted; yet, similar statements continue to be said of Islam, without any repercussions.
#106 fgt
We live in Australia FGT and no matter how bad the white supremacists or Neo-Nazis are they are hardly an issue here now are they? On the other hand we have people in our jails now who have been convicted of terrorist offences and what pray tell is their motivation? Remember that Bolt writes for an Australian audience so naturally his focus is much more on events that have an impact on this country .
#107 ShaunHC
You deny my interpretation of your argument as a claim that Andrew Bolt is suggesting that All Muslims are terrorists and then you present a paragraph that says almost precisely what you have just denied Talk about confused.
Well it seems to me that you are frightened to even admit that some acts of terror are commuted in the name of Allah and you are frightened to discuss what aspects of the Islamic faith inspires people to kill for their god . You have ignored or failed to answer every question that I have posed about Islam , you have failed to answer my questions about just who you think is inflamed to hate Muslims by Andrew’s writing about it as well.
Further If Andrew writes a piece about say FGM or domestic violence that mentions Islam do you consider that as Anti Muslim as well?
Or is it anti Muslim to denounce the objectionable rantings of Taj din Hillayli? You know where he compared young women to cats meat?
#108 quantize
When we consider that the premise of this post is that Andrew Bolt has a deep and sinister anti-Muslim purpose every time he writes about anything to do with Islam this comment is hilarious.
# 109 confessions
The first citation that I made here was to find non Muslim terrorism in Andrew’s writing I was looking for something in particular and I found it , Then some one here had the gall to suggest that the LTTE are “still Darkies” But as I have already pointed out the piece where he praises the cleric who is willing to stand up and denounce killing in the name of Allah Further he has often praised reformers like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or is that being anti Muslim according to your song book?
You are wrong I do not contradict myself at all, But then you know that already because you are working on the repeat something often enough and It will eventually be be believed principle .
You deny my interpretation of your argument as a claim that Andrew Bolt is suggesting that All Muslims are terrorists and then you present a paragraph that says almost precisely what you have just denied
I was going to give up, but no effing way! that one can’t slip through without a challenge.
Did you actually fail comprehension at school or something?
you say “almost precisely”. Yes except for one key word. Potential. You do actually realise that changes the meaning quite considerably, don’t you?
I stand by my interpretation of what Andrew Bolt writes.
He implies that all Muslims are potential, i repeat potential, terrorists.
Now you can interpret what he writes anyway you effing well want. (and you do) But I am interpreting it that way. And a heck of a lot of other people are too. And you know wehn so many people interpret it in such a way, well you know, he’s either a really bad communicator, or that is indeed what he is saying. So you can have a dissenting view of what he is saying all you want. it doesn’t change the message being received by a lot of people.
Well it seems to me that you are frightened to even admit that some acts of terror are commuted in the name of Allah
Er, no.
you have failed to answer my questions about just who you think is inflamed to hate Muslims by Andrew’s writing about it as well.
You yourself in this very thread claimed that the anti Muslim rhetoric comes from people who post on his blog. So I’m kinda guessing that answers it.
Wait for it.. Iain’s response.. “Oh no of course not. Those people already hated Muslims; they just use Bolt’s forum to voice their already formed opinion.”
Well opinions tend to be formed on information received (present company excepted of). So if the information received about Muslims is continually negative.. is there any point joining the dots here Iain?
Assuming you are correct (BIG assumption i know), that would make it ONE instance. Versus how many the other way? Keep going btw, your defense of the indefensible is vastly entertaining.
Whatev Iain, but the evidence is all over this thread – including via the comprehensive whacking you are getting from Shaun.
Iain, your claim that Mr. Bolt writes with a mainly Australian focus is not backed up by evidence, Bolt regularly writes critical pieces about President Obama and events in the United States. It is impossible to argue that the Bolt Blog presents anything other than a extremely distorted view of terrorism. Whilst it is true there are Muslims involved in acts of terror, it is also true that many acts of terror are committed by white Christians, the examples are numerous, from Tim McVeigh to the Atlanta Olympics bomber, abortion clinics blown up and doctors murdered.
Mr. Bolt claims to abhor all forms of violence, as do I, and it is true there have been acts of terror committed by left wing organisations, however when has Bolt written articles critical of white supremacists, radical Christians or other right wing groups? The inference from his writing is clear, and many of the poisonous comments his Blog receives back this assertion. As a reasonable conservative Iain, surely you are alarmed at some of the comments posted at Bolt Blog, and some, not all of Andrew Bolts writing seems designed to attract or even fan that unpleasant element.
Iain, it is naive to believe that white supremacist are not a problem in Australia because they have not yet reached the viciousness seen in the U.S. Jewish and Muslim people have been the target of violence in Australia, there was a recent example of a Jewish man assaulted on his way to Synagogue by a group of footballers on a bus. Jewish people are often verbally abused, and not by Muslims, but by white Australians. The same is true of Muslims, crime statistics show a rise in attacks both verbal and physical against Muslims and Mosques rising from 11/9/2001.
My point, though long winded is thus. It is as silly to blame Muslims, the majority who wish to live in peace, for acts such as September 11, 2001, as it is to blame Jews for the Global Financial Crisis, or to say all Australians must be good at skiing because we won two Gold medals at the Winter Olympics. From my reading of Andrew Bolt, this seems to be his aim.
You seem to be suggesting that there are no problems at all with any aspect of the religion.
And:
Well it seems to me that you are frightened to even admit that some acts of terror are commuted in the name of Allah
I see. Anyone see the irony here? I have said no such things. Iain says what I am writing is implying something. However, by contrast, he says that Andrew Bolt’s work doesn’t imply what I claim it does, even though the implications are spelt out far more clearly than implied messages that are written by anyone on this thread that Iain is picking up.
How much do you actually know about Islam Shaun? About the tenets of the faith itself? About what is said in its holy book? About the way that it has been spread by the sword?
What? A religion where people quote selectively from it’s holy book to justify any stance or sort of behaviour they want?
Outrageous!
Christians would never do that.
Spread by the sword? Hmmmm. Crusades anyone?
Yes, Iain only accepts things which confirm his views, hence he won’t actually *read* what you’ve written. Iain is the only person I’ve encountered (albeit on the internt) who truly believes that coffee consumption is a valid indicator of political viewpoint. Astonishing that there are people out there who think in this way.
I admire your persistance, but honestly, there are some people who are so locked into their belief system that they are immune to rational thinking.
there are some people who are so locked into their belief system that they are immune to rational thinking.
It was a revelation when I realised that not only was Iain not accepting the premise of my argument, no matter how it was framed, he was also claiming I was inferring things that I simpy was not. It was clear then how ideologically blinkered Iain is.
That on the one hand someone would complain as he is defending a fellow ideologue that we were misinterpreting his message and on the other making such claims about what I was writing is a pretty clear indicator that this is one more person who believes what they want to believe, and not only filters out all evidence contrary to his beliefs but actually creates supporting evidence where it doesn’t even exist. Extraordinary to see.
Agreed. Even Shabadoo gave up the defence once it became untenable. But not Iain – just like with the death penalty, same sex marriage and global warming. Iain prefers instead to flip and flop and contradict himselfj as one by one his ‘arguments’ are exposed as hollow. Pathetic really.
ShaunHC #112
Good on you ! I appreciate someone who is willing to defend their position
even when they are wrong.
I actually have a degree in English.
you say “almost precisely”. Yes except for one key word. Potential. You do actually realise that changes the meaning quite considerably, don’t you?
The thing about seeing an implication like that is that the same words that you see as “implying that all Muslims are potential terrorists” can legitimately interpreted as seeing all religious fundamentalists as potential terrorists is the idea that those of a religious bent who want to impose their world view upon the world by the gun or the bomb something that you think should be denounced or are you wanting to just ignore such people until they blow up someone you care about?
Do you really think that there is only one true meaning that can be derived from someone’s writing and that meaning is under the control of the author? I asked you earlier what you actually know about the faith that you are so vociferously defending and you failed to answer so I can only assume that your knowledge is rather superficial. Perhaps you need to do a little more research, because if you do then you may find that there are lots of aspects of teh faith that are profoundly opposed to the secular freedoms that we take for granted, the attitude to homosexuals is a good example (the Koran advocates death for Gays) or the attitude towards women.
#113 ShaunHC
Glad to hear it can you explain why the many acts or terror committed or planned by extremist Muslims should not be explored and discussed in public forums? because your position seems to imply that they should not be discussed by Andrew Bolt or any other conservative fro that matter.
#114 ShaunHC
Most of the people who comment about Islam on Andrew’s blog are clearly concerned about the excesses of some Muslims but I doubt that your claim that there is a great deal of hatred for Muslims in general is backed up by any actual survey of the comments .
#115 confessions
It certainly is correct and there are many other instances where Andrew has written supporting Muslim reformers like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. And as I said in an earlier comment I cited the post where he praised the Imam who is denouncing the killings in the name of Allah. so that is more than the one that you so grudgingly acknowledge and i have not even looked that hard . Then there are his stories about the election in Iraq where he praised the courage of the Iraqi people who are defying the threat of death to vote. The contention that every story he writes about muslims is negative is just utter bollocks.
If this was true you would have more than your own empty assertion here
#116 fgt
Sure there are pieces about events in the USA and other parts of the world but any survey of his blog will show that there is a very distinct focus on Australia first and foremost. Just count the posts at his blog that are concerned with Austraion issues and compare that result with those focused on Obama or any stories from the USA and I am sure that you will find more Australian content. Even the lefties here would agree that Andrew Bolt writes more about events in this country than he does about the USA.
When was the last time that a white supremacist nutter set off a bomb? or committed some other act of terror? Personally I can’t recall any being in the news recently , likewise there has not been an attack upon an abortion clinic for years, so why would any blogger continue to comment on events that are long past? On the other hand there are an endless list of plots and atrocities committed by those who claim to act in the name of Allah that are entirely contemporary.
When such events are happening in the present I have no doubt that they will be the topic of discussion but while they are events in the past why should they be the topic of a blogger who writes about events in the here and now?
To be honest I seldom read the comments threads at Andrew’s blog but as a blogger myself I know that you can’t control how people react to your writing. That said have you read some of the nutters who post to Islamic focused forums? they make Bolt’s comments look very tame indeed by comparison.
I know nothing about the incident you describe here Do you have a citation for it?
Citation again Please
To be a generous as possible I am going to assume that you are suggesting that it “silly” to blame Muslims “en masse” for 9/11 , well no one is doing that but you just can’t credibly deny that Islam was claimed by the conspirators as the inspiration and the justification for that and so many other atrocities
blah blah blah, whatever you say Iain presumes so other cockamamie drivel out of it…its not an argument..it’s a pathetic attempt to wear out everyone..which clearly isn’t working…the proof is there for anyone who has the patience to read his pompous dug-in drivel.
You’re no poster boy for English graduates Iain.
is the idea that those of a religious bent who want to impose their world view upon the world by the gun or the bomb something that you think should be denounced or are you wanting to just ignore such people until they blow up someone you care about?
OK, so you’ve got a degree in English yet you are still short on comprehension then.
Er, the topic is Andrew Blot’s painting of Muslims in a light that is unfailingly negative. You are raising red herrings by claiming I am silent on the topic of other religious extremists. I am silent because that is not the topic of discussion. It appears that in addition to loving a good argument, you also love to argue using logical fallacies.
I asked you earlier what you actually know about the faith that you are so vociferously defending
Vociferously defending? Where?
Criticizing Andrew Bolt’s blog for it’s theme is not actually vociferously defending Islam. There is a difference. As it stands I have no interest in defending Islam whatsoever. I do however have an interest in pointing out when someone such as you is spouting utter rubbish and claiming they are valid points he is making.
Perhaps you need to do a little more research, because if you do then you may find that there are lots of aspects of teh faith that are profoundly opposed to the secular freedoms that we take for granted, the attitude to homosexuals is a good example (the Koran advocates death for Gays)”
Yeah, as does the bible, so what?:
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
As I said, I am not defending Islam, so I do not need to research it.
You are defending Blot. You are doing it basically because you agree with his anti muslim stance. What you have written supports my claim. You have written about a religion that implores followers to spread it my the sword.
I am going to assume that you are suggesting that it “silly” to blame Muslims “en masse” for 9/11 , well no one is doing that but you just can’t credibly deny that Islam was claimed by the conspirators as the inspiration and the justification for that and so many other atrocities
Er for the last effing time, noone is denying that. You are claiming people are denying it. FFS!
#116ShaunHC
If you can claim an implied meaning in Andrew’s words then is it unreasonable to look for the implications evident in your own argument? That seemsm reasonable to me
#118 ShaunHC
Show me the passages in the bible that instruct Christians to spread the faith by the sword …. No luck? Hmm that would be because there are no instructions to the Christian faithful to do this. Now do the same exercise with the Koran and what will you find? Hmm 164 instances where the faithful are told to make war upon unbelievers.…… Do you appreciate the difference here?
#119 confessions
My quips about Latte sippers is a joke that just keeps giving and I put no more stock in its accuracy as a political barometer than you do
# 120 ShaunHC
Perhaps you have learned the sad fact that none of us can actuality control that people will actually get from the words that we write. This also demonstrates that the contention that Andrew Bolt has some intentionally nasty subtext to his posts is utter bunkum and Isn’t the intentional subtext in Bolt’s writing the gist of your argument?
Everyone believes what they want to believe Shaun and most people set the bar very high when it comes to changing their core beliefs. what sort of world would we have were it very easy to chance people’s core values?
The thing is I just don’t think that the core argument from Jeremy confessions and yourself that there is something sinister in Andrew Bolt writing about Muslims and Islam in his blog is not sustained by the evidence.There are many news items from around the world that describe instances of Islamic militancy some of which even make the front pages of our papers do you honestly expect any writer on topical issues to just ignore them? Because that is what you are suggesting here.
# 121 confessions
Posted March 8, 2010 at 10:43 am | Permalink
Absence from the field of battle does not mean Shabadoo has surrendered to your position, it probably just means that he has more pressing things to do than argue the toss here.
On a bored Monday it’s so much fun to keep poking the town drunk with a stick.
More contortions and contradictions result.
ShaunHC
No Shaun I have already demonstrated the fact that Andrew does mention Muslims in a favourable light when there is reason to do so However when there is something in the news that concerns Muslims should it be off limits to commentary because discussing it could paint Muslims in a negative light? because it seems to me that is what you rre arguing for here.
Andrew’s blog is not monolithic in its focus and he certainly does often make some quite reasonable points and I will even concede that he is wrong on occasions what I am objecting to in yours and Jeremy’s argument is the suggestion that there is some deliberate and dark purpose to what he writes about Islam and its adherents.
By suggesting that Islam and its followers should be immune from scrutiny in blogs like Andrew’s you are defending Islam simply by trying to give its adherents licence that the followers of other faiths do not and should not enjoy.
My position on religion is simply that ALL of it is bunkum but as long as the adherents don’t try to impose those beliefs upon others they can believe in any thing they please. But the moment that people start to try to spread their faith by the gun the sword or the bomb then things change.
Confessions
I am sure that there is a twelve step program near you where you can go if the poking and prodding that you have been getting (metaphorically speaking) drives you back to the bottle
‘Because that is what you are suggesting here.’
See, it’s delusional…he IMAGINES people say something they simply aren’t saying…I think its a deliberate and not-so-clever attempt to obfuscate.
Ian Hall obviously hasn’t read the Old Testament recently. There you will find many, many examples of God exhorting the Israelites to rape, pillage, put to the sword and take into slavery other peoples. He even condones prostitution of enemy women and child abuse and the wholesale genocide of conquered peoples. Just read Leviticus and Judges (“Slaughter them hip and thigh”. The Book of Revelation isn’t much better. There the blood is running as high as the horses bridles due to the wholesale slaughter of God’s enemies. You and Bolt sound increasingly like the hateful Robert Spencer.
As Karen Armstrong says of Spencer… “When discussing Muhammad’s war with Mecca, Spencer never cites the Koran’s condemnation of all warfare as an ”awesome evil”, its prohibition of aggression or its insistence that only self-defence justifies armed conflict. He ignores the Koranic emphasis on the primacy of forgiveness and peaceful negotiation: the second the enemy asks for peace, Muslims must lay down their arms and accept any terms offered, however disadvantageous. There is no mention of Muhammad’s non-violent campaign that ended the conflict.”
“People would be offended by an account of Judaism that dwelled exclusively on Joshua’s massacres and never mentioned Rabbi Hillel’s Golden Rule, or a description of Christianity based on the bellicose Book of Revelation that failed to cite the Sermon on the Mount. But the widespread ignorance about Islam in the West makes many vulnerable to Spencer’s polemic; he is telling them what they are predisposed to hear. His book is a gift to extremists who can use it to ”prove” to those Muslims who have been alienated by events in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq that the west is incurably hostile to their faith.”
Hall, just stop it, you’re being pwned by everyone, it’s embarrassing.
If you can claim an implied meaning in Andrew’s words then is it unreasonable to look for the implications evident in your own argument? That seemsm reasonable to me
Yeah quite reasonable. Now point out those evident implications. Point out where I have implied there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism. You have been called. Now hang me with my own words like I have already done to you.
Perhaps you have learned the sad fact that none of us can actuality control that people will actually get from the words that we write.
Well, er yes we can. It’s called a communication feedback loop. It works like this:
I say:
Andrew Bolt’s work implies that all Muslims are potential terrorists
You respond:
It seems to me that me saying that Andrew Bolt makes such implications you are vociferously defending Islam.
You have given me feedback that the communication I made was interpreted in a particular way, so I respond to correct you:
No I do not consider saying Andrew Bolt’s work implies that all Muslims are potential terrorists is synonymous with vociferously defending Islam.
And that is how a communication feedback loop works.
In the Bolt blog case for example, Bolt could comment on some of the posts he receive to clarify his meaning. By not doing so he is allowing the intepretation of his work as hostile to Muslims to stand.
Unfortunately in some cases, the communication feedback loop does not appear to work Iain. Usually this happens when someone just plain refuses to read what you write and instead creates inferred meaning from their own beliefs about your position an issue.
You, Iain believe all lefties think a certain way in relation to Islam. You believe I am a lefty, therefore you believe I think these things. You are colouring your belief of what I am saying not on what is written here, but on your own preconceptions of what I believe.
I have attempted to clarify that this is not the case, yet you persist. However it is quite clear to everyone else following this debate that something is wrong with your ability to form an argument.
Like commenting elsewhere, which I note he has done in the days since my comment to him here. Pathetic response iaian.
Yep, and wait, he will return to rebut your comment, only contradicting himself in the process.
I am prepared to concede that if Iain is an English graduate, then what right wingers are saying about our declining educational standards is indeed correct.
# 128 quantize
Well I say that you lot are imagining some dark purpose in all of Andrew Bolt’s pieces about Islam
#129 Angra
Yep haven’t read it recently, But so what? I don’t think that it is a valid counter to criticisms of Islam to point out the shortcomings of the bible. In any case the stories in the old testament are not actually telling believers to kill to earn a place in heaven. And when you move to the new testament Jesus condemns all killing
I have never read Spencer But I like this quote from Wiki
If there were not many people out there who were so willing to kill in the name of Allah then the vast majority of peaceful Muslims would not have to defend their faith when its part as the inspiration for some rather hateful killers is considered.
# 130 Johnny Come Lately
Since when did you become a moderator here?
#131 ShaunHC
Thanks for that
Surely that is implicit in your suggestion that “every time that Andrew Bolt mentions Muslims it is in a negative light” because this would only be bad if there was no reasonable justification and you can only suggest that if you don’t accept that it has been Muslims who have carried out any of the more recent atrocities. But to be fair I thing that you just want to down play the religious aspect of theses sort of events from the best of intentions ( for social peace and cohesion)
Gee I don’t think that it works the way that you think it does. I really think that you are reading too much into the non response of the blog author and you have a bizarre idea that the author of a blog post has the ability or the desire to shape the overall meaning that may be created from the gestalt of the piece and its comments. such a feedback loop
I think that you can not assume that this sort of feed back loop is at all universal in a blog Like Andrew’s . In the first instance he does not personally moderate it the way most bloggers do (he has a team of moderators ) secondly apart from a very occasional response he does not participate in the comment threads enough for his partipation to be called any kind of debate.
But what you are recognising here is the often difficult dichotomy between what an author may wish to communicate and what is read into the words The trouble for you is that the language is actually not perfect when it comes to communicating ideas.
I am well aware that some lefties actually think differently about Islam than the sort of stuff that I have seen here in this thread For instance I have a great deal of respect for Nick Cohen when it comes to the way that the left has responded to the threat of militant Islam and his book on the subject is well worth the time it takes to read. What irks me is the lefties who are normally crash hot on personal liberty and free speech.Until someone says that Islam is antithetical to those very values then they cave in like a back of cards claiming that to criticise Islam or adherents is” negative or hateful” Perhaps the rreason that they deserve criticism is just because they are wrong?
I take what you say at face value Shaun and I don’t care what others may think about my debating skills, its not like those people are dispassionate judges now is it?
OK, now for everyone to have a laugh at Iain’s expense.
He is arguing against a man (me) whose personal viewpoint is that there are indeed elements of the Muslim community who come to western countries, and rather than accepting that we live our life a particular way in these countries, say we are decadent and should change our way of life now that they are there/here.
However this is consistent with my opposition to others such as Christian fundamentalists looking at my way of life and saying, “No, you should live like I do and believe what I believe”.
Strange thing is that right wingers (I won’t say Iain, because I don’t know his view on this) see a problem when Muslims oppose our way of life, but not when Christian fundamentalists do the same thing.
I guess it boils down to a false dichotomy, our side/their side kind of thing, rather than looking at the principles and actions involved and seeing they are the same.
Check out this site for the latest exposes of the scandalous lies from Islamophobic right wing wackos. (mainly in the US). It’s really pretty scary.
http://www.loonwatch.com/
I think Bolt, Alan Jones et al deserve an entry or two here. Anyone game to post?
Talking about loonwatch.com, one of the scariest stories there is of an innocent picture of a Palestinian multiple wedding showing the bridegrooms standing with their flower-girls (a traditonal practice) which was immediately jumped on by the wackos as evidence of Muslim peodophilia. This was comprehensively shot down by the journalist involved, but did any of the wacko websites post retractions? Nah. Sound familiar?
It’s a wonder Bolt didn’t publish this.
I think Iain provides an interesting insight into the psychology of a right wing ideologue..anyone who has read this far will note his almost pathological extrapolation of assumptions from statements that mean nothing of the kind ie ‘because you say X, it MUST mean Y’. It’s a basic FAIL of logic.
Surely that is implicit in your suggestion that “every time that Andrew Bolt mentions Muslims it is in a negative light” because this would only be bad if there was no reasonable justification and you can only suggest that if you don’t accept that it has been Muslims who have carried out any of the more recent atrocities.
Er, no. Fail.
I say it because I only ever see Andrew mention Muslims in a negative light.
Your reasoning is faulty if you say that it follows from this I disagree that Muslims commit terrorist acts. It is not implicit in that statement at all.
I take what you say at face value Shaun
Er, no you don’t. WTF? (for about the tenth time on this thread). You actually imbue my words with meaning that isn’t there because of your own preconceptions. I’ve already pointed this out on this thread over and over again, so to say now you are taking what I say at face value, when I have just pointed out above your completely fallacious reasoning is utter rubbish.
Until someone says that Islam is antithetical to those very values then they cave in like a back of cards claiming that to criticise Islam or adherents is” negative or hateful”
Once again, Rubbish. You drag numerous irrelevancies into the argument. You do sao because your core argument is poor. I have pointed examples from Andrew’s own writing that support my position. You deny the intepretation of these things but since you have nothing to support your arguments you claim instead that we are pillorying people for daring to raise any critisicm of Islam.
I’m not tearing you apart because of your views on Islam. I’m tearing you apart because of your incapacity to stick to the subject in question, and your propensity to use logical fallacies, irrelevancies and coloring the words of other with your own preconceptions. In short you are crap at debating and that shits me.
# ShaunHC
The thing is Shaun this is the first time that you have enunciated this point of view here up until now what you have argued about Andrew’s writing is actually clearly at odds with the quote above. So If you hold thsi viewpoint why do you so objectto the writings of we conservatives when we make the same essential argument that you do here?
I would support you in this as well
As i have said earlier I believe all religions are Bunkum and worthy of equal disdain,
Not for me it doesn’t I believe in and support the notion of a secular society where all religion is fair game
# 136 Angra
You wouldn’t be a Muslin by any chance would you? because you seem very intent to prove that any critisism of Islam is wrong in principle
# 137 quantize
Nah I just look at the words that you lot write and try to argue on precisely what you are claiming.
Iain Hall – on religion promising a place in heaven for killing God’s enemies – just go back and read the Bible (try Psalms and Joshua). Many Popes promised forgiveness and an honourable place in heaven to Crusaders who killed Muslims.
On using violence from the Old Testament as a comparison – yes this is very relevant considering most of the Islamophobes are openly or covertly saying “we are better for we are Christians!”
Personally I believe all major religions have dark and evil stories and myths in their past. But religion over many years evolves into a more balanced and humane world-view in line with advances in human ethics. The best of mainstream Islam and Judaism and Christianity and Hunduism etc. respects human dignity, the love of peace, and teaches tolerance to other peoples.
There will always be fundamentalist wackos in all belief systems. They are a small minority, so don’t tar everyone with the same brush, and don’t spread misrepresentations, innuendos and lies like Bolt and Jones!. Unless you follow Richard Dawkins, you won’t condemn all of Christianity because of the bombing of some abortion clinics, or all of Judaism because one fundamentalist carried out a mass shooting in Hebron, or all Muslims because some heretical fanatics want to wage a war against western interests in their poor, exploited countries.
By the way, “Jihad” means struggle and usually applies to the internal personal struggle all believers face when coming to terms with God. You’ll find it described in the works of CS Lewis as well as some of the greatest Islamic teachers.
Insha’Allah, Read some Hafez of Shiraz and get you soul into balance and learn to love your enemies!
And yes I am a Christian.
There appeared in the Herald Sun today (08.03.’10) a double page spread by a man called Alan Howe. It would seem this man has been employed by the Israeli Lobby. He makes Andrew Bolt seem enlightened and open hearted. Anyone wishing to read this vile anti-Palestinian, and Muslims in general is advised to have a bath ready to clean themselves after reading it.
It is a Fascist and racist diatribe. Especially the part headed ‘No hope for kids born into hate’. The articles are literally the most racist ones I have ever encountered and exceed Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf; which I have actually ploughed my way through it.
He says “There are Australian Muslims who define themselves by their hatred for OUR CHRISTIAN VALUES-which are central to us notwithstanding our secular government-”.
Clearly his support at the next Federal election will be for Tony Abbott, Christopher Pyne, Kevin Andrews and Barnaby Joyce. If this lot win the election: God help Australia.
‘.anyone who has read this far will note his almost pathological extrapolation of assumptions from statements that mean nothing of the kind ie ‘because you say X, it MUST mean Y’. It’s a basic FAIL of logic.’
Iain : ‘Nah I just look at the words that you lot write and try to argue on precisely what you are claiming.’
and yet again…
‘You wouldn’t be a Muslin by any chance would you? because you seem very intent to prove that any critisism of Islam is wrong in principle ‘
HEL-LO!…how could ANY kind of English graduate FAIL primary school comprehension
so thoroughly?! Iain, try to type less and think more.
The thing is Shaun this is the first time that you have enunciated this point of view here up until now what you have argued about Andrew’s writing is actually clearly at odds with the quote above. So If you hold thsi viewpoint why do you so objectto the writings of we conservatives when we make the same essential argument that you do here?
Because it is not the same argument. Only you are saying it is. I say Some. This is clearly completely different from the position that Andrew Bolt implies that all Muslims are potential terrorists. I know this is what he is implying because he has written the same stuff you have about spreading Islam with the sword, and Islam being incompatible with western values.
You hae repeatedly misunderstood and misinterpreted throughout this thread, so it is a bit lame to say now, oh is that what you believe? when I have corrected your misinterpretations over and over again. And here you are doing it again. How could you make the same mistake yet again?
A few posts ago it was claimed that because I criticised Andrew Bolt’s anti Mulsim leaning I must be a vociferous defender of Islam. There was no such connection, yet you still made it. As someone else pointed out, it was a basic fail of logic.
Nah I just look at the words that you lot write and try to argue on precisely what you are claiming.
No you don’t. You make up meaning where none exists. You claim two sentences with a key word that changes the meaning of the sentence completely mean the same thing. I, and others, have pointed this out over and over.
If I was getting such a shellacking, I would start to concede points to my opponent, like “Gee you got me there Shaun, I look back and see that you haven’t actually said anythign defending Islam” and so on.
I wouldn’t say “I take things said on face value”, when I’ve just pulled a meaning from them out of my arse. I just makes you look more and more stupid the longer you carry on. Sometimes agreeing that you made a mistake on the interpretation of someone else’s comments makes you look better than just taking the bluff and bluster shovel and digging an even deeper hole for yourself.
I would be so embarrassed at a showing like this on a blog that could be read by anyone in the world that I would avoid posting anywhere for a while.
LOL quantize! What did I say @ 132 about contradicting himself?
Dontcha just love Iain’s false modesty?.. that he’s just ‘arguing precisely what you claim’…
(this is the ‘dying throes’ cop out)
…compared with his earlier dopey smug throwaway excuse that he just enjoys baiting ‘latte lefties’ – presumably – for sport.
(this is the ‘parachuting out’ version)
ShaunHC
Oh come off it Shaun, now you are hiding behind a semantic point! By conceding that some Muslims are terrorists how is that substantively different to what you think Andrew is implying? Even if I take what you claim at face value an “implication” is by definition a weaker statement than you saying that some Muslims ARE terrorists.
You really need to read some history about the spread of Islam and the problems that followers of Islam have with modern attitudes to women , sexuality and even just our notions of free speech (dare I mention the Danish cartoons?) The problems that the faith has on these issues are not an invention of conservative commentators they are real and the way that the left try to deny this is an indictment upon their moral consistency (you really should read Nick Cohen’s book)
No Shaun I have read what you have written and tried to work out your meanings and where it has been vague or unclear then perhaps you should try to be more clear.
Don’t get hung up on my use of particular adjectives like “vociferous” I sometimes use particular words because I liken the sound of them
That said I made that claim simply because your attack on Andrew’s writing was entirely undiscerning. You have been claiming that any piece he writes about Islam “paints Muslims in a negative light” As I have shown previously in this thread there are examples where Andrew does have good things to say about individual Muslims. Your position has been to just denounce all of his writing as “anti- Muslim” so it is an easy and reasonable step to assume that you are very much Pro-Muslim. Your latest comment does seem to be at odds with this so while you may feel that you have a consistent position I see a contradiction.
This is an argument about semantics and as such it is endlessly debatable You suggest that the word “potential” entirely changes the meaning but so to does the word “implication” Essentially you are not arguing about what Andrew Bolt has actually said on the topic but what you think he means which is an altogether less sure thing . He may mean what you think he means but there is no solid evidence beyond your “gut feelings”
I make no claim that you are getting any kind of a shellacking ( another great word) I just think that your argument is wrong. I will give you credit for arguing the question rather than retreating to personal attacks as Confessions does though.
Well I think that your admission in the earlier comment that SOME Muslims certainly do commit acts of terror is a good move on your part and I did praise you for it. I play hard and offer no quarter because I know that this is a very hostile environment where there is virtually no generosity from my interlocutors should I concede even the smallest point. In any case I don’t expect that I will change many minds here even if my argument was perfect and beyond any rebuttal
Shaun I do this stuff for fun and overall I reckon I do OK because for me it is the journey rather than the destination that matters .
“it is the journey rather than the destination that matters”:
zen and the art of rightwing ideological maintenance.
Iain
You’re looking at things from an Anglo-centric point of view whereby you only ‘see’ Islamic terrorists. It can be easily argued that the US is a terrorist state (see definition below), however it is not portrayed in this light by the western media. This gives the uninformed a distorted view on the issue (eg Muslims are more likely to be terrorists than non-Muslims).
Terrorism: “The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/terrorism
Remove the filters Iain.
Johnny
I am an Englishman by birth so naturally I do see the world from an “Anglocentric” point of view but that does not preclude me from seeing that western culture has its flaws , However when you do the study I think that western culture comes out ahead on all of the measures of virtue that matter.
Iain, you just admitted your bias. EPIC FAIL.
Grasshoper: journey now on the path to the virtues that matter, find the Mad Monk, bond with him, but do not speak of our Islamic brethren (or homosexuality) for that will cause much discomfort.
shorter iaian: I’m not anglocentric, I just have an anglocentric view of the world.
Priceless!
A good saying I once heard was “I am not racist, I hate all races equally”
Just a minor point and not strictly on-topic, but the use of the Crusades as an example of Christian aggression towards Muslims isn’t entirely accurate — the first Crusade was launched in response to the conquering of Jerusalem and the massacre of Christians living there by the Turks, the subsequent expeditions after that were an extension of that first campaign in which some European Christian states attempted to expel Islam, (and other religions), from other territories (mostly traditional Christian ones).
Of course the Crusaders were equally happy to massacre Muslims when they had the upper hand as the Muslims were to massacre Christians — I believe it was pretty much normal practice everywhere in those times when a territory was conquered.
Gavin
Good point
Dam buster
I have an equal disdain for all sorts of god bothering no matter what brand it happens to be . However when I meet the followers of any faith I treat them with equal civility and respect.
Confessions
Where precisely have I said anything like “I’m not anglocentric,” You can’t help lying can you?
Johnny
Every one is biased and those who claim otherwise are just telling lies. If you think otherwise it is you of Fails here not I
Oh come off it Shaun, now you are hiding behind a semantic point! By conceding that some Muslims are terrorists how is that substantively different to what you think Andrew is implying? Even if I take what you claim at face value an “implication” is by definition a weaker statement than you saying that some Muslims ARE terrorists.
Rubbish followed by more rubbish.
I mean, f*ck me, it is not a semantic point.
It is self evident by reports of terrorist attacks that some Muslims are terrorists.
However, what Andrew’s theme and yours is, is that there is something particular to this religion that makes its followers more likely to become terrorists. It’s not the same thing.
So don’t try and say I am quibbling over semantics when it is you who are attempting to distort everything I say and colour it with you
No Shaun I have read what you have written and tried to work out your meanings and where it has been vague or unclear then perhaps you should try to be more clear.
Hmmmmm, shall we have a quick poll people? Am I communicating my meaning clearly or not?
I play hard and offer no quarter because I know that this is a very hostile environment where there is virtually no generosity from my interlocutors should I concede even the smallest point.
When you’re wrong you’re wrong. You offer no quarter because you’ve been wrong all throughout this post every single time you have responded. If you conceded on points, you wouldn’t look like such a fool.
You can have a belief that you are being attacked because you are a right winger and this is a left leaning blog if you want. If that makes you happy.Or you can look at your arguments and say to yourself, “yeah, i have been writing a load of crap, and if I stuck to the topic, my posts would ahve been more coherent”.
How about this for a new plan of a attack?:
1) Don’t use logical fallacies
2) Don’t imbue other people’s words with meanings that aren’t there.
3) Don’t claim things that don’t mean the same thing do mean the same.
4) Don’t bring in irrelevancies to the argument
I mean the big problem is you are trying to defend the indefensible. Making a claim against something that is clearly self evident to most people, that Andrew Bolt’s blog is antagonistic to Muslims, I guess you have to argue in such a manner.
It is why you started to make such ridiculous claims as “You people are trying to deny that Muslims commit terrorist acts”. What? Why would anyone even attempt to make such a claim. It’s a matter of record. I wouldn’t even try to argue against a proposition such as that because you simply can’t mount an argument against it.
On the subject of the Crusades, Gavin, I think that was a time in the world’s history where most religions were spread by the sword.
Hello Shaun,
Yes, and not only religion.
Iain, I reject what you’re saying. Rational thinkers who are self-aware and base their opinions and beliefs on reason and evidence are not biased.
You however, concede that you are biased and expect others to take your opinion seriously. This is what you are effectively arguing:
-Person X admits that he is biased towards Culture Y over Culture Z.
-Person X believes that Culture Y is superior to Culture Z.
-Person X doesn’t understand why others reject and ridicule his position on the issue.
ie how can you make fair and reasonable comment on an issue where you favour one side of an argument over the other? How is that possible?
Iain: you want people to think you are tolerant towards others and not prejudiced against muslims, yet by your own admission your views are anglocentric, and filtered through an anglocentric view of the world. You do understand what this means, don’t you, because your indignation suggests you don’t
“Regard the Franj! Behold with what obstinacy they fight for their religion, while we, the Muslims, show no enthusiasm for waging holy war.-Salah Al-Din.
From: Maalouf, Amin. The Crusades Through Arab Eyes. Translated by Jon Rothschild, 1984. Al Saqi Books, 26 Wetbourne Grove, London W2.
http://crusades.org/
The level of patience on display here, particularly SeanHC’s, is really something to
marvel at.
…Iain continues to skewer himself..we keep pleading ‘put the knife down Iain!’.
# 156ShaunHC
Now let me get this absolutely correct you concede that there are acts of terror carried out by Muslims but you deny that their faith has anything to do with those acts is that a fair summation of your position? I don’t want you to claim that I am misrepresenting you.
This sentence does not make sense.
What would that prove?
I concede on points when they warrant it your concession that there are Muslim terrorist suggests that I am not actually wrong about everything now doesn’t it?
But I have stuck very close to the topic Namely I have been refuting the contention that “there is a deep and dark purpose to any thing that Andrew Bolt writes about Islam or about Muslims” and as a response we have had the rather dull moral relativism stuff about nutters of other faiths, your cavort about what you think is implicit in the writing, the personal attacks.
I don’t do 1, 2 is hilarious when you consider that it is precisely what you are doing about the writing of Andrew bolt, 3 makes no sense at all , 4 what have I raised that is irrelevent?
What precisely do you think the limits of criticising a religion or those who follow it should be? Where would you draw the line and why would you draw it at that point? because that is the real bone of contention here isn’t it?
In your opinion is it OK to write about the details of that faiths holy book?
Or is it OK to write about the life of a religions prophet,
What about the words or deeds of its clergy?
I would argue that Andrew bolt is not antagonistic to Muslims but he is towards the Islamists who are among the Muslims. Surely you don’t abject to that ?
Well by objecting to any criticism of any aspect of Islam you are implicitly doing precisely that.
# 160 Johnny Come Lately
You are delusional if you think that anyone can be truly free of bias, I acknowledge that I am English and my heritage and education colours what I think and what I value. That is not some straight jacket but it is a starting point . I am willing to bet that your heritage and your education was just as influential in the way that you think and act. That is bias
Yes I do because I am a realist about the way that what we have experienced in our lives shapes the person that we become. You on the other hand are deluded enough to think that you are free from bias.
It is both possible and likely when you are aware of your own inherent bias and you know that you are not a slave to those pre conceptions. On the other hand someone (not unlike your self ) who thinks they are without bias is unable to control what they are unaware they actually have.
#161Confessions
For a start I make a point of always appropriately capitalise words like “Islam” or “Muslim” because it is a sign of respect, something that you consistently fail to do,If you really cared about the feelings of Muslims you would make more of an effort on that.
‘you deny that their faith has anything to do with those acts is that a fair summation of your position?
Wow Iain, sorry but you are hella crazy…you’ve been told over and over again to refrain from wacky assumptions, but you’re apparently far too gone.
Depressing.
I see. Nothing to address the substance of people’s criticism of your inconsistent
talking pointsarguments on this issue, just a pedro-like inanity about capitalisation?This is good news because now we know that any comment you make about people who aren’t anglos can simply be dismissed because your own prejudice has rendered your view worthless and unbiased. It only took 160-odd comments to get there, but sanity prevails in the end.
Unbiased = biased.
quantize
Talk about the evils of “selective quoting
I am asking Shaun a question and you quote part of that question as if it is a statement
Confessions
There is a distinct difference between admitting that I am no different to anyone else in that I am the product of my hermitage and education and your claim that it makes me incapable of reasonable debate.
Its not like you are a entirely unbiased yourself now is it?
The only way that any of us can compensate for our inevitable bias is to acknowledge it and be mindful of the way that it colours our opinions.
My “claim” is that your contradictions, goal-post shifting and flip-flopping show you are incapable of reasoned debate. Your implied admission that you are biased against muslims simply proves your views on this matter should be dismissed out of hand.
Confessions
Funny just a few minutes ago your claim was that I am too “Anglocentric” make up your mind and try for a consistent argument.
WTF is an “implied admission”?
The only group of people that I am “biased” against are the nutters who want to strap explosives to their bodies and detonate them among women and children oh yes and those who make excuses for them or claim that such acts of bastardy can be justified ether by a political ideology or by a religious one.
Iain: my position on your comments is very consistent – if you read back you’ll see I have maintained all along you are a flipper and a flopper, and you are now proving it by shifting the goalposts yet again.
Yes, you keep saying that iain, but your continued defence of the indefensible gives the lie to that statement.
Confessions
What indefeasible thing do you claim that I am defending?
Start here Iain, and work forward.
Now let me get this absolutely correct you concede that there are acts of terror carried out by Muslims but you deny that their faith has anything to do with those acts is that a fair summation of your position?
Er for the hundredth time on this thread You get it completely wrong. No that is not a fair summation of my position at all. Let me type slowly so that hopefully you will get it this time.
1) The people who commit these atrocities believe they are doing it in the name of their religion. So their faith in their eyes has something to do with it.
2) This is no different to Christian extremists in the US who bomb abortion clinics. They do so because they believe their faith tells them to.
3) In neither of these cases should the actions of a few reflect on the majority of the adherents to these religions.
Did you get it that time?
I don’t do 1, 2 is hilarious when you consider that it is precisely what you are doing about the writing of Andrew bolt, 3 makes no sense at all , 4 what have I raised that is irrelevent?
OK, 1 by 1.
1) Don’t use logical fallacies
If you claim when I say Andrew Bolt’s work is slanted against Muslims that this means I am mounting a defence of Islam, that a logically fallacious statement.
2) Don’t imbue other people’s words with meanings that aren’t there.
If you claim that in what I write I am denying that Muslims commit terrorist acts (you have written this) when I have said no such thing you are putting meaning to my words that is simply not there.
3) Don’t claim things that don’t mean the same thing do mean the same.
When you say that the stamements “All Muslims are terrorists” and “all Muslims are potential terrorists” mean almost precisely the same thing, that is what you are doing.
4) Don’t bring in irrelevancies to the argument.
We are discussing whether or not Andrew Bolt’s articles are slanted against Muslims. . Either his work is or it isn’t. So since you claimed his work isn’t, issues about the nature of Islam are irrelevant.
What you tried to get away with was saying, “No Andrew Bolt isn’t anti Muslim, but even if he was he is justified because Islam is….”
Ah we are back to you being unable to prove that which you claim is self evident I see.
That is right up there with you “implied admission” crap
Iain’s more concerned about having the last word…pretty typical right whinge move.
He’s lost any ability to argue anything coherently after a long thread of deliberate obfuscation and dogged assumption.
I say let him have it…he’s done for..his spell checker even stopped working.
Ian Hall last week:
Iain Hall at the weekend:
Iain Hall today:
The laughs just keep coming. We should start a tab and take bets on what ridiculous contradictory nonsense Iaian will come back with next.
Do you understand what a rhetorical question is Confessions?
I don’t think that you do
Or are you trying to suggest that opposing terrorism and those who seek to practice it is indefensible?
Or are you trying to suggest that opposing terrorism and those who seek to practice it is indefensible?
My estimation or your capacities for comprehension falls every time you get it wrong. It’s way into negative numbers right now.
In case you hadn’t noticed, the thread has never actually been about terrorism. It has been about Andrew Bolt’s anti Muslim bias. It is you who have attempted to shift the goal posts, because you can’t mount a credible argument against assertion.
What you are doing is the Stephen Conroy school of debate:
Me: “I’m opposed to having my internet filtered”
Conroy: “A ha! That means you are in favour of child porn!”
Hall, I stand by what I said. By the way, can you just clarify your position on Muslim immigration for me, just to remove any doubt?
‘Or are you trying to suggest that opposing terrorism and those who seek to practice it is indefensible?’
wow.
Do you understand what comments you post from one day to the next Iain? I don’t think you do.
Or are you trying to suggest that I’m incapable of searching back through this thread in order to re-post the many varied positions you’ve taken in respect to Jeremy’s original post?
Iain, here is the link to the story about the Jewish man attacked by footballers, his name is Menachem Vorchheimer.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/race-hate-attack/story-e6frf7kx-1111112371334
It’s not hard Iain to find news about white supremacists plotting and committing crimes, I know they don’t get much mention in the ‘left’ leaning Australian media. Here are several examples.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-03-08-UK-terrorism_N.htm
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/02/18/joseph-stack-and-right-wing-terror-isolated-incidents-or-worrying-trend.aspx
There is plenty more evidence around to back up by assertion.
Of course I meant it would be silly to blame Muslims ‘en masse’ for acts of terror, Iain. Extremism and radicalism is the real enemy, and it comes in many forms, I am yet to see Andrew Bolt critic any other form than Islamic extremism. He consistently portrays Muslims in a negative light.
That there are obscure Islamic internet forums with offensive comments on them doesn’t excuse Bolt Blog, which claims 1+ million hits a month. That the comments Bolt allows are ‘tame’ in comparison is no excuse for allowing some of the material published. I’m sure Bolt Blog is tame compared to white supremacist, neo-nazi forums.
Andrew Bolt’s analysis of most issues is not insightful, or helpful to debate in general. His high output allows him to skim across many issues quickly and he plays to the prejudices’ of his audience.
Shaun
And all of my comments have been addressing that very question despite the crap peddled by Confessions. While it is clear to me that Andrew does talk about Islam , Islamists,and the various plots and actual acts of terror the premise of the post has not been proven. namely is the writing anti-Muslim per se? I really do need you to answer the questions that I asked you earlier because they go to the heart of the issue:
What precisely do you think the limits of criticising a religion or those who follow it should be?
Where would you draw the line and why would you draw it at that point?
In your opinion is it OK to write about the details of that faiths holy book?
Or is it OK to write about the life of a religions prophet,
What about the words or deeds of its clergy?
I would argue that Andrew bolt is not antagonistic to Muslims in general but he is towards the Islamists who are among the Muslims. Surely you don’t object to that ?
It would be interesting too if confessions and Johnny et all would answer as well
Iain, I’m going to leave it at that. It hasn’t gone un-noticed by the moderators what you do. Funnily enough on another thread Tobias has written pretty much the same description of how you debate:
“…So whatever examples anyone tosses out there, you’ll explain how they don’t meet your standards. And if anyone meets your standards, those goalposts are going to shift..”
…You’re a master of creating zombie threads, Iain – once you get to a thread, it refuses to die and it eats people’s brains…
…Around here, you’re invited to keep your comments on topic, coherent, non-circular, and of a reasonable length…
I predicted as I provided evidence early on in this thread that you would demand more and I was right. Tobias has noticed this. You can’t win against incoherent, circular arguments, and since the moderators are getting sick of it too, I’ll stop. I’ll just point out one thing before I go:
While it is clear to me that Andrew does talk about Islam , Islamists,and the various plots and actual acts of terror the premise of the post has not been proven.
The evidence of this WAS provided by me, probably 150 posts ago. And as Tobias says, you just say.. “oh no, that doesn’t meet the standard of evidence I require”. You’ll play that game for ever, so best to disengage.
I await Iain’s next claim.. that Tony Abbott isn’t anti gay.
hall @ 168:
“I am the product of my hermitage…”.
iain hall’s first comment on this thread:
Keep going Iain, this is actually fun.
Can’t you answer my pertinent questions (in bold in comment #186) then Shaun?
Can You answer them confessions?
Iain Hall’s third comment on this thread.
Nearly 200 comments later and Iaian is still flipping and flopping his way through befuddlement.
Keep going Iain, this is fun.
answer my questions then Confessions
They are simple enough and pertinent to the topic
ShaunHC:
Iain Hall flipping and flopping:
iain Hall on having his inconsistency and flip-flop pointed out to him (my bold):
Flip, flop, flip, flop, flip, flop flap!
Iain, your questions have been answered repeatedly…anyone reading back through this thread can plainly see your ‘questions’ are nothing but a pathetic desperate ploy to appear to be some kind of ‘calm conservative voice’. You’re nothing of the kind…smoke and mirrors..
Oh now I get it, keep asking questions ’till you get the answers you want…?
wont work.
quantize
My questions have not been answered,
If you think that they have then please cite the comments where they have been answered.
Confessions
still avoiding I see.
C’mon Iain, i just KNOW your little red engine can get us up to 200.
You’re the only one avoiding here Iain, you’ve been answered repeatedly. Let the readers decide, we’re not here to satisfy your bizzare idea of ‘proof’.
These questions have NOT been answered quantize
Care to have a go at them rather than pretend that they ahve been answerd?
What precisely do you think the limits of criticising a religion or those who follow it should be?
Where would you draw the line and why would you draw it at that point?
In your opinion is it OK to write about the details of that faiths holy book?
Or is it OK to write about the life of a religions prophet,
What about the words or deeds of its clergy?
I would argue that Andrew bolt is not antagonistic to Muslims in general but he is towards the Islamists who are among the Muslims. Surely you don’t object to that ?
After all answering these question go to the heart of the matter.
Which is why you lot are all avoiding them
It’s pretty obvious that this thread is going nowhere, I’m closing comments.