talkFORUM Archive

Sad though this story is, it's interesting to note that muslims are 'muslims' when they are victims, but 'asians' when perpetrators.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 63766.html

tbf Roy, the victim on this occasion was clearly an Asian and a Mulsim, and it appears that this was a racist attack because he was an Asian. I don't think religion comes into this one. How would they know he was a Muslim? There are several different religions in Asia, not all Asians are Muslims.

Zambo wrote:tbf Roy, the victim on this occasion was clearly an Asian and a Mulsim, and it appears that this was a racist attack because he was an Asian. I don't think religion comes into this one. How would they know he was a Muslim? There are several different religions in Asia, not all Asians are Muslims.

That wasn't my point though - which was - the newspaper, like other media of its ilk, were only too happy to splash the actual word 'muslim' all over this article, - because I believe, it shows muslims as victims and therefore in a positive light, whereas whenever they are shown as evil perpetrators of crimes they are almost never described as muslims, only asians.

Just heard that the Independent is ceasing to be a printed newspaper, so some good news there, - let's hope its older nastier brother brother (the guardian) suffers the same fate.

Sorry misunderstood. However, I think they only mentioned Muslim as he was on his way to the mosque when he was attacked.

Re The Independent, all newspapers have their agendas, but I dislike the Guardian and Independent the most.

Zambo wrote:You obviously haven't bought a copy lately then Ralph.

Of the Beano or the Bible?

Full of debauchery and violence.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/f ... in-denmark

Women-led mosque opens in Denmark

Scandinavia’s first female-led mosque will also be open to men except for Friday prayers, but all imams will be female

...Similar projects by Muslim women exist in several other countries, including the US, Canada and Germany...

The Tick wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/f ... in-denmark

Women-led mosque opens in Denmark

Scandinavia’s first female-led mosque will also be open to men except for Friday prayers, but all imams will be female

...Similar projects by Muslim women exist in several other countries, including the US, Canada and Germany...

I think in Christianity as well as in Islam there shoulden't be churches nor mosques.

Even though I love the sight of churches in this country and lament at the decline of Christianity in the country ( hate the sight of mosques in this country though marvel at em in Turkey and the one in isfahaan, Iran looks gorgeous) there was community centre types or similar to Jehovahs witnesses - Kingdom Hall in Jesus time.

The same could be said about the "mosque" where Christians and Jews were all welcome as it was a community centre type.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -face.html

I can see Roy's point.

In consecutive bullet points

12 men of Pakistani origin abused girl in Keighley, West Yorkshire, when she was 13

But some members of the Muslim community feel 'she played her part'

The Tick wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/f ... in-denmark

Women-led mosque opens in Denmark

Scandinavia’s first female-led mosque will also be open to men except for Friday prayers, but all imams will be female

...Similar projects by Muslim women exist in several other countries, including the US, Canada and Germany...

Not sure what your point is on your latest link from that sleazy rag tick, - they (and assumedly you) seem to be approving of blatant sexual discrimination .

AlcoholBrazil wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -face.html

I can see Roy's point.

In consecutive bullet points

12 men of Pakistani origin abused girl in Keighley, West Yorkshire, when she was 13

But some members of the Muslim community feel 'she played her part'

That example would even suggest that there is actually some sort of instruction to journalists not to directly mentions muslims as perpetrators, but possibly OK to mention them when commenting upon the crimes.

Roy Twing wrote:

The Tick wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/f ... in-denmark

Women-led mosque opens in Denmark

Scandinavia’s first female-led mosque will also be open to men except for Friday prayers, but all imams will be female

...Similar projects by Muslim women exist in several other countries, including the US, Canada and Germany...

Not sure what your point is on your latest link from that sleazy rag tick, - they (and assumedly you) seem to be approving of blatant sexual discrimination .

It's a story about the empowerment of Muslim women, the previous lack of which being a main criticism from all quarters. As such it is a positive development in challenging the patriarchal attitudes that prevail in various Muslim communities.

But of course you are not interested in the welfare of women (Muslim or otherwise), you just want to find any convenient topic to help shoehorn in your hateful agenda against Muslims or anyone else considered alien to you.

Now THAT is sleazy.

The Tick wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

The Tick wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/f ... in-denmark

Women-led mosque opens in Denmark

Scandinavia’s first female-led mosque will also be open to men except for Friday prayers, but all imams will be female

...Similar projects by Muslim women exist in several other countries, including the US, Canada and Germany...

Not sure what your point is on your latest link from that sleazy rag tick, - they (and assumedly you) seem to be approving of blatant sexual discrimination .

It's a story about the empowerment of Muslim women, the previous lack of which being a main criticism from all quarters. As such it is a positive development in challenging the patriarchal attitudes that prevail in various Muslim communities.

But of course you are not interested in the welfare of women (Muslim or otherwise), you just want to find any convenient topic to help shoehorn in your hateful agenda against Muslims or anyone else considered alien to you.

Now THAT is sleazy.

I am only concerned about fairness and EQUALITY tick - to champion anything else is discriminatory.

Interesting that you support discrimination.

It is not discrimination. But your support of patriarchal values and the maligning of Muslims is discrimination.

The Tick wrote:It is not discrimination. But your support of patriarchal values and the maligning of Muslims is discrimination.

Any policy that favours one group over another is discrimination tick – except of course in your mindset, where you like to play top trumps.
Show me where I show any support of patriarchal values (that's a new word you've learned from the sleazy rag's article) or unjustly maligned muslims tick.
Put up or shut up, - there's a good apologist.

Roy Twing wrote:

The Tick wrote:It is not discrimination. But your support of patriarchal values and the maligning of Muslims is discrimination.

Show me where I show any support of patriarchal values (that's a new word you've learned from the sleazy rag's article) or unjustly maligned muslims tick.
Put up or shut up, - there's a good apologist.

A Mosque that caters to women in a community when the opposite is true, but does not even bar men from attending, is not discriminatory. Certainly no more so than leisure centres/gyms that have women only/men only time slots, or gyms that are only for women.

Your continual blaming of Muslims for a good deal of the country's social ills is malicious.

And you have stated that you have no interest in women's rights. That is a show of solidarity with patriarchal values.

All you are interested in is maligning people.

And your by your own admission have said

The Tick wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

The Tick wrote:It is not discrimination. But your support of patriarchal values and the maligning of Muslims is discrimination.

Show me where I show any support of patriarchal values (that's a new word you've learned from the sleazy rag's article) or unjustly maligned muslims tick.
Put up or shut up, - there's a good apologist.

Your continual blaming of Muslims for a good deal of the country's social ills is malicious.

And you have stated that you have no interest in women's rights. That is a show of solidarity with patriarchal values.

All you are interested in is maligning people.

And your by your own admission have said

Any blame I have made is based on facts and reports tick - unless you can show otherwise, you are a liar.

I have explained on innumerable occasions (as above) that I am only interested in fairness to everyone, NOT specific pressure groups, but you just carry on twisting things to suit your sleazy agenda.

You act on spurious figures, obfuscation and misinformation, and the guilt by association approach. All to shoehorn in your hateful agenda. An agenda that is far from being interested in fairness.

The Tick wrote:You act on spurious figures, obfuscation and misinformation, and the guilt by association approach. All to shoehorn in your hateful agenda. An agenda that is far from being interested in fairness.

Give us a few examples tick - otherwise I'd say it's you who is obfuscating.
Put up or shut up, - there's a good apologist.

Roy Twing wrote:

The Tick wrote:You act on spurious figures, obfuscation and misinformation, and the guilt by association approach. All to shoehorn in your hateful agenda. An agenda that is far from being interested in fairness.

Give us a few examples tick - otherwise I'd say it's you who is obfuscating.
Put up or shut up, - there's a good apologist.

Your numerous and spurious claims over 'propotionality' are a classic example of manipulation of figures and stories to support your agenda.

The Tick wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

The Tick wrote:You act on spurious figures, obfuscation and misinformation, and the guilt by association approach. All to shoehorn in your hateful agenda. An agenda that is far from being interested in fairness.

Give us a few examples tick - otherwise I'd say it's you who is obfuscating.
Put up or shut up, - there's a good apologist.

Your numerous and spurious claims over 'propotionality' are a classic example of manipulation of figures and stories to support your agenda.

Poor, even for you.
Have a nice day in blinkered world.

The only poor thing are your claims of proportionality.

I shall certainly have a nice day in the wonderful multi-cultural city that I live in.

The Tick wrote:The only poor thing are your claims of proportionality.

I shall certainly have a nice day in the wonderful multi-cultural city that I live in.

Can never agree with multicultural being wonderful though even myself finds Roy's tedious proportionality posts tedious and pathetic.

Robert Heenan wrote:

The Tick wrote:The only poor thing are your claims of proportionality.

I shall certainly have a nice day in the wonderful multi-cultural city that I live in.

Can never agree with multicultural being wonderful though even myself finds Roy's tedious proportionality posts tedious and pathetic.

I admire your honesty and determined efforts to think outside the box Robert. Roy struggles to break out of the tired old cycle of bitterness, paranoia and false propoganda.