Anti-Muslim Rhetoric Stemming from 9/11 Events

yeah many times they invoke "al-qaeda" in reference to any group that is islamic and involved in a confrontation with a western friendly government or policy.  And they never use the term "christian terrorists", "american invaders" or "jewish extremists" so why say "muslim hijackers."

it's all propaganda terms to make you think more about the racial group or nationality of the alleged enemy rather than the event itself and it's context.

Thanks for starting this thread Fidel.

I wish it were possible to discourage the use of all racist terms on babble (and sexist, homophobic, ableist, ageist, Islamophobic terms). And more.

Since I started babbling over five years ago I've been trying, in general, to educate folks about "common" "everyday" terms that are offensive in those ways. Sometimes it makes a difference, sometimes it doesn't.

I feel that the moderators are already doing this, and have been so for years, when we see it. And I would even discourage the use of scare quotes, and suggest that if such terms must be used, that they're prefaced by something like so-called, or as-the-MSM-describes, to indicate the writer's lack of engagement with the racism/oppression implied in the term. Better yet, use other terms that are not offensive.

However.

My experience has been that even the gentlest of polite educative nudging ("I'm not sure you're aware that xxx is a racist term") can invoke anger and defensiveness that then derails the thread. I guess what I'm saying is, don't challenge someone, however nicely, unless you're prepared to have a calm disagreement/fight with them. Especially if you initiate it.

I would also suggest that this should not only be a moderator responsibility. If there are generally accepted terms that are offensive, but since everyone doesn't know everything (the ableism of the word "lame" for example such as "The movie was so lame!") why don't we think of this exercise more as a knowledge-awareness-sharing agreement among all babblers who wish to do so?

I've noticed that when the military talks about the people they are fighting they tend to use "insurgency" more often than not .... probably because, as Fidel suggests, they (the spokesperson)  are trying not to insult the people they have to deal with up close and personal on a daily basis (now if they could just stop killing them, also on a daily basis, maybe they wouldn't even have a need to use that word.)

What Maysie and everyone says, I agree.

Fidel, I'm not clear how referring to al Qaeda is to be considered anti-Muslim, given that, according to a recent guest on CBC, dealing with this topic, 98% of the victims of Islamist extremism have been Muslims. Would you also have us avoid referring to the Muslim Brotherhood, Qutbism, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jammat-ul-Mujahideen, Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin, Ansar el Islam, Fata al Islam, the Armed Islamic Group in North Africa, al-Harakat al Islamiyya? All CIA concoctions perhaps? 

And 100% of the victims of American hegemony in Afghanistan have been Muslim ... if killing Muslims makes one so called Al Qaeda, then does that make Americans (and Canadians for that matter) so called Al Qaeda as well?

No Yards, the half a million Iraqi children who died of preventable diseases because of American war and sanctions prior to the most recent Iraq war were undoubtedly victims of American hegemony, as were most of the deaths that followed the American invasion. I'm not so sure that responsibility forAfghan victims of Taliban attacks can be laid at the American's feet. It seems to me that the Taliban's violence against women, gays and unbelievers would have (and may again) occurred with or without American (actually International) intervention. "Al Qaeda" and Osama bin Laden may in fact have been deeply influenced by America - I rather doubt it, but anything's possible. Time will tell. What is not in question in my mind is that there exists now, for whatever historical reasons  an Islamist (not "Islamic") extremist movement  - yes, spurred and goaded, but not entirely created by American hegemony whose  stated and demonstrated goal is the the subjugation of all humanity to their theocratic medieval agenda. In this sense, they have forfeited their right to exist. They must be eliminated from the table, as was Nazi ideology. Their ideology (as opposed to the individuals who support and comprise them). cannot be allowed to exist by the rest of humanity. It seems that a lot of people have difficulty understanding that as evil as America is, it is not the whole world, and that some of the forces fighting against American hegemony are in fact, far more evil. And I remind you, the most numerous victims of Islamist extremism have been Muslims.

What makes you say this? Can you quote any "Islamist" of consequence who has claimed this as a goal?

CIA and MI6 with help from US Military and British SAS and Pakistani ISI. They've dealt with all them at one time or another. To deny it would be to deny similalry that the Brits and CIA were strangers to Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. That would also not be the truth.

Actually violence in afghanistan has increased drastically since the war.  One of the reasons the people in afghanistan tolerated the taliban was that under the previous rulers there was more violence.  And sadly, they do exist and will probably continue in some form.  "Exterminating" them with military force is a terrible option, and pretty much what led them into power in the first place (russian invasion american proxy war).  Same is happening now.  In an effort to find someone to replace the taliban, nato is encouraging other warlords etc to take over, which will lead to more instability in the country for years to come.

To me the only viable option is to build up friendly ties with the other countries in the region, hope they form ties with afghanistan and that they become more stable and democratic as time goes on.  The other thing is of course, what right does nato have to invade any of these countries?  Aside from being illegal they further destabilize the region, making violence more likely.  

And while it's true that these groups kill more muslims than anyone else, we have to keep in mind the major destabilizing influence by the west: supporting the worst regimes, arming them, controlling resources, overthrowing governments, sanctions, arming and funding extremist groups in the region, helping introduce nuclear weapons into the region etc.

I have come across this; the group put it to their own website and Canadian Dimension but not here and not on any posters in Winnipeg

but I am putting this up. Too late for me to plan for but maybe not someone else. Not sure why they did not put up paper posters anywhere.

October 14th | Winnipeg

The Winnipeg New Socialist group will be hosting a panel entitled, "Anti-Muslim and Anti-Migrant Racism: What They Are-and How to Fight Them" on October 14. The event will feature three presentations followed by an open discussion. Panelists include Bilan Arte on Quebec's Bill 94, Zac Saltis presenting a socialist analysis of how anti-migrant and anti-Muslim racism relates to the current economic crisis, and Lisa Stepnuk on the politically-motivated panic about Tamil migrants in B.C.

The panel will begin at 7:00 pm at the Magnus Eliason Recreation Centre in Winnipeg.

For more details, visit their website [12] or email:

winnipeg [at] newsocialist [dot] org

Damn he's good. I would add that any legitimate peace talks have to involve the Taliban, of course, but also leaders of those surrounding countries. Those countries are all involved  to varying degrees by the violence spilling over the borders into their countries, the drug trafficking and running guns etc. There is the SCO group of countries, and they are the ones who should be guaranteeing Afghanistan's sovereignty. Pakistan's elites need to guarantee Afghanistan's sovereignty and quit trying to control it by proxy. And there are ethnic and religious minorities in Afghanistan who if harmed would probably ignite a conflagration of civil war with tens of thousands of proxy fighters likely to pour in over the borders from those surrounding countries like 1992 to 1995-6 or so. It could turn really ugly like before, and NATO would likely turn their backs on the ensuing carnage just like before.

The reason that the west supported the ruthless fundamentalists and drug barons they did in the 1980s and 90s was specifically because those people like Hekmatyar and Dostum etc had no popular support base in Afghanistan. IOW's their futures depended on support from the CIA and Saudis and ISI. Without the billions of dollars in aid and weapons, those vicious warlords and war crims were nothing to Afghans and so could more easily be controlled from Lahore and Islamabad and Washington and Langley. But aspiring leaders like Ahmed Shah Massood would have to be cut off his annual half billion dollar USDN aid money by 1992 when he declared war on the Taliban. Massood enjoyed popular support throughout Afghanistan as well as surrounding stani nations and was generally favoured by the SCO group of nations.

Here is Jesse Ventura commenting on ground zero/ islamic center/ telling the interviewer to study 911 

Jessie Ventura on Who's Behind 9/11 - Fox Business Video - FoxBusiness.com

cheers

US RIght Wing BLoggers Call for Boycott of Campbell's Canadian Soup

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/us-right-wing-blogg...

"A Canadian line of Campbell's soups has activists stewing over Islamic connection..."

"Pamela Geller, who runs a widely read anti-Muslim site called Atlas Shrugs, is calling for a boycott of some 15 soups made by the Canadian subsidiary of New Jersey-based Campbell Soup Co.."

I hadn't heard of this cornball until a few days ago.  Now it seems she's everywhere.

Uh no unfortunately she has been key behind this whole 'no mosque at Ground Zero' and she has been on CNN and Fox News relentessly. Useful liberal Joy Behar has had her as a quest frequently on her HLN evening show. Another example of a Jewish-American spouting a level of bigotry that Pat Buchanan can only dream he could get away with.