Sept 11th

Ambiorix · Post by **Ambiorix** » Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:13 am

Re: I am sorry I haven't read this earlier...

Originally posted by C Elegans
I just read the article Littiz linked to. Not only do I find the article sentimental, exaggregated and throwing accusation everywhere, it is also heavily cultural racist.

I'm not sure if I know what "cultural racism" is.

Anyway, it seems you're a bit squeemish. You may not agree with the article, there's nothing there that should be censured or outlawed.
I wonder if you would be just as upset if someone posted some comments on the inherent evil of the western civilisation and its history of colonialism, imperialism, racism etc.
Let people have their opinions and state them. Excluding a debate about the relative merits of different religions and civilisations reeks of obscurantism (in it latest version, called "political correctness").

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:56 am

Re: Re: I am sorry I haven't read this earlier...

Originally posted by Ambiorix
I'm not sure if I know what "cultural racism" is.

Cultural racism is discrimination, ridiculing, looking down at or condemnation (the same as racism) at a certain culture instead of a certain biological race. The expression is commonly used today because modern genetics have made it doubtful whether biological races exist, so ethnical or cultural racism is more precise expression.

Anyway, it seems you're a bit squeemish. You may not agree with the article, there's nothing there that should be censured or outlawed.
I wonder if you would be just as upset if someone posted some comments on the inherent evil of the western civilisation and its history of colonialism, imperialism, racism etc.
Let people have their opinions and state them. Excluding a debate about the relative merits of different religions and civilisations reeks of obscurantism (in it latest version, called "political correctness").

Racism is against the rules of this forum, which is consistent with the laws of most democracies. There is a vast difference between debating racism and hostility towards other cultures as a topic, and to spread propaganda. If you wish to debate racism as a topic, feel free to start a new thread (it has been debated previously, but it was long ago), I will most likely participate in such a discussion.

If we had a discussion about the European history of colonisation etc, it would not be racism, just as a discussion about the moral errors with terrorism among religious fundamentalists of any group is not racism. However, stating that the western civilization is "inherent evil" would be cultural racism, as is Fallaci's statement above that the muslim culture cannot be put at the same level as the European/western culture.

This is an international forum with people from many different countries and cultures. Discriminative statements referring to nationality, skin colour, ethnic background, religion, sexual orientation etc are not allowed. Do you think this should be legal in your country too? If so, I understand your point of view, but I do absolutely not agree with you. Debate and propaganda are two different things, and this article is propaganda.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Mon Sep 02, 2002 6:04 am

So am I, i find it very offensive.

Originally posted by Ambiorix

I'm not sure if I know what "cultural racism" is.

Anyway, it seems you're a bit squeemish. You may not agree with the article, there's nothing there that should be censured or outlawed.
I wonder if you would be just as upset if someone posted some comments on the inherent evil of the western civilisation and its history of colonialism, imperialism, racism etc.
Let people have their opinions and state them. Excluding a debate about the relative merits of different religions and civilisations reeks of obscurantism (in it latest version, called "political correctness").

A short explanation of it can be found at http://gamebanshee.com/forums/showthrea ... adid=11068
I think there was a better one posted in one of the afghanistan threads, but i cant find it right now.

The point however is that the article didnt reason around the possible cons and pros of middle eastern, islamic or any other culture - It only displayed an very strong hatred for a one. (Islamic, middle eastern or other, im not sure, the article itself seems confused about it) Full of idiotic emotional statements and generalized personal experiences.

If anyone wants to debate about a certain culture im sure starting a thread about it would be okey, however, bringing it up in a extremely bigot manner in a thread about the 9/11 event is imo not.

CM · Post by CM » Mon Sep 02, 2002 6:28 am

Ok i have also read the article and it is inconsistant in many areas. If people feel it is racist and like it removed i would like the chance to show statements on pages 3 4 7 and as incorrect. Many of the assertions she makes are not factual rather based on opinion. As i told Littz i am pretty busy with work at the moment and i will reply later on tonight.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon Sep 02, 2002 6:36 am

I should also point out that Fallaci, like many of the European ultraright populists, claims that she is not racist bacause she "talks not of race, but religion". This is a common argument from cultural racisism, they seem to believe discrimination by ethnic and cultural background is in some way better than discrimination based on skin colour. From a legal perspective as well as a human rights perspective, there is of course no difference, this is just a propaganda trick they use to avoid being called racists - although this is what they are.

Littiz · Post by **Littiz** » Mon Sep 02, 2002 6:46 am

Hey, I've only quoted it, and explained even WHY.
I told that many things are not agreeable.
I've showed the reason of a part.
You can find similar reason on the other part.
If you think that such problems are not related to 11/9,
I think you are in a terrible mistake.
If you want to have it removed, no problem for me.
Besides, her books are freely distribuited and sold millions copies, she doesn't need my "propaganda". If ever it was.

I have no problem accepting complains about MY people.
We are not perfect. I myself admitted that.
But let me tell you a thing in our defense.
We are tolerant.
If you come here, you'll find Moschee right beside our Churches.
I hardly imagine the opposite could ever happen, as Fallaci says.
Here nobody is sentenced to death for proselitism.
And I was here when they defecated in our Basilica.
Nobody killed them, or arrested them for that.
If I did such a thing in their holy places, I wouldn't live a minute
to tell it.
These are not racist opinions, this is TRUTH.
So, some of her statements are evidently out of the lines, some else hold some degree of truth.

I cannot accept to be marked as "racist".
Racist is someone that believes that other people are inferior.
This is not my "credo".
I do believe that there are reasons of contrast between our cultures,
so strong that they led to 11/9.
And this WORRIES ME.
I can't do nothing about it, and you should feel the same.

Ambiorix · Post by **Ambiorix** » Mon Sep 02, 2002 6:54 am

Re: Re: Re: I am sorry I haven't read this earlier...

Originally posted by C Elegans
However, stating that the western civilization is "inherent evil" would be cultural racism, as is Fallaci's statement above that the muslim culture cannot be put at the same level as the European/western culture.

I disagree.
I think she (and I) should e.g. be allowed to say that a civilisation where women are equal, can go out and work and even become university-professors is better than a civilisation where they are subservient to men and under many restrictions.
I think a civilisation which separates church and state is better than one where there is no such separation.
I think a civilisation which attaches great importance to individual rights and human rights is better than one which does not.

I would hope you agree with me.

Originally posted by C Elegans

This is an international forum with people from many different countries and cultures. Discriminative statements referring to nationality, skin colour, ethnic background, religion, sexual orientation etc are not allowed. Do you think this should be legal in your country too? If so, I understand your point of view, but I do absolutely not agree with you. Debate and propaganda are two different things, and this article is propaganda.

There is a member on this board called "Antichrist". I don't mind that and take it all in good fun. I wonder though what would happen if a member chose "anti-Muhammed" or "anti-Allah" as a nick.
If we can joke about and criticise christianity, we should be allowed to do the same about Islam. That's not discrimination, that's Voltaire.

Littiz · Post by **Littiz** » Mon Sep 02, 2002 7:02 am

And, anyway, you should even soften your considerations about Oriana Fallaci.
That article was written in ANGER.
I explained that I tend to react in the same way, when angered.

Surely you won't ever find in her work appreciation for Moslim culture.
But I read something else, and a few stories about her MOSLIM FRIENDS who were killed or arrested are truly, truly moving.
(One was arrested for having helped her, and she didn't forgive herself for that)
Or the women she saw executed.
This is what caused in her such a bias.

CM · Post by CM » Mon Sep 02, 2002 7:03 am

CE thank you, but i think they should be allowed to say what they wish. The problem is that people who agree with the link are following facts that do not hold up in most cases. Rather they use incomplete facts and in many cases they are limited cases. I personally as a muslim rather prove them wrong and show them what is correct than just delete the stuff.

Edit: Link is racist and as per rules not admissable.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon Sep 02, 2002 7:09 am

I think the easiest way to solve this current discussion is to move it away from the 9/11 debate and to another topic header, this discussion now has little to do with September the eleventh and is now more concerned with the writing by Oriana Fallaci. If you want to start a discussion relating to her and the apprent racism then go ahead but i see little reason in continuing that here.

Littiz · Post by **Littiz** » Mon Sep 02, 2002 7:23 am

oh, you have preceeded me, Mr Sleep, I was going to remove the link just now.

It's not easy to be understood, at times.
Or maybe it's just me.

CM · Post by CM » Mon Sep 02, 2002 7:37 am

Ok now i am a bit confused.
Where do i reply?
I want to discuss Littz and Ambs views which are in one way or another similar to those of Fallaci...but those are interlinked with Sept 11th.
So sleepy what say you?

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Mon Sep 02, 2002 2:54 pm

@CM

Truth is merely a state of mind.

What you take for as truth, I might perceive as a dog-faced lie.

CM · Post by CM » Mon Sep 02, 2002 3:07 pm

Grunt I have mainly quoted 3 sources BBC, The Dawn (A pakistani newspaper) and either Time or some other western newspaper. I have rarely used a muslim or Islamic site as a link here, as it will obviously raise objections and questions. You wouldnt call these western sources as lies.

Just a question: What have i posted that you consider a dog faced lie?

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Mon Sep 02, 2002 11:35 pm

Originally posted by Gruntboy
Truth is merely a state of mind.

IMO, this holds doubly true with the Press, with its tendency to put a "spin" on stories instead of just reporting what happened.