Asking to be raped?

duckman said:
I know this attitude is not new, as something like this has been said before. But this time being compared to a piece of meat is a little sexist.
Click to expand...
Apparently the aforementioned Sheik has already apologized for comparing women with chunks of meat and men with hungry cats.
He said that it was an absurd comparison and that it made no sense whatsoever. He said that women who dressed scantily should not be called 'chunks of meat', but rather 'sluts' or 'whores' or 'filthy fucking nymphos' and so on. He said that if a woman dared to walk the streets in nothing but a bra, a miniskirt, high heels and black silk stockings, she needn't be surprised when drunken muslim men get horny and attempt to force their talliwhackers into her orifices.
'In fact,' he added, 'said woman should not be surprised if I rape her myself. 'Cause I've had it up to here with all those friggin' whores, goddamnit! They need to be eradicated, and we, the overzealous muslim men, have the weapons to do so. We'll use our goddamn muslim talliwhackers as cleavers, and as medieval butchers we will scrape the sinful meat from their sinful bones!'
A female BBC reporter then asked the Sheik if he realized that what he said was extremely disturbing. 'In Europe and America, you can be put in jail for saying things like that,' she added.
The Sheik went completely berserk. 'Not only am I truly offended by the fact that you aren't wearing a headscarf, heathen, I am also offended that you dare to show yourself to me in such an ugly and extremely slutty outfit,' he yelled and brutally attacked the woman.
The BBC reporter was wearing a grey skirt, black highheeled boots and a red T-shirt that said: IF YOU THINK I'M A SLUT, YOU SHOULD SEE MY MOTHER.
It took more than 50 policemen to pull the Sheik and his bodyguards away from their victim. Fortunately they were just in time to prevent them from cutting the woman's head off with a pocket comb and sacrificing it to Allah, god of all things evil.
The BBC reporter was rushed to a hospital were she was examined. Doctors said they found copious amounts of sperm in her various orifices, belonging to at least 29 different men. Further research revealed that most of that sperm seemed to belong to the policemen who had come to 'rescue' her.
Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, said that he regretted the incident. 'This kind of behaviour was totally uncalled for,' he added. 'The BBC reporter should have been wise enough to respect the beliefs and opinions of another culture which, I might add, is as diverse, rich and tolerant as our own. I sincerely hope that this incident will not further complicate the already problematic relationship we seem to have with muslim countries.'
The BBC reporter is looking at a serious fine for criticizing the Sheik's religious beliefs and could even be sentenced to jail for a couple of years.
'It could be a useful punishment in this case,' Kofi Annan stated. 'We might even consider putting her in a muslim jail,' he added. 'That way she might learn to appreciate the richness and deepness of the muslim culture and become more tolerant and social and less discriminating.'
 
duckman said:
I know this attitude is not new, as something like this has been said before. But this time being compared to a piece of meat is a little sexist.
Click to expand...

Also not new
 
Aaargh, the whole discussion is bullshit from the beginning. The definition of rape excludes voluntariness. If somebody is "asking to be raped", it isn't rape.
Besides this: Some people seem to never use their brain. At all.
 
donotwant.jpg
 
This is my favourite and largely unreported quote from the Sheik's uncovered meat speech:

Those atheists, people of the book (Christians and Jews), where will they end up? In Surfers Paradise? On the Gold Coast? Where will they end up? In hell. And not part-time. For eternity. *They are the worst in God's creation.*
Click to expand...

Does this guy sound like a Nazi? I guess we need new laws to stop idiots inciting religious hatred now.
 
Yeah, seriously- don't demean Nazis by comparing them to this guy. They worked too hard to have their name tarnished by having every Jack Asshole called a "Nazi".

Use the term "Bigot", "Asshole", or "Cock-Wrangling Hate-o-phile"... They all have a smaller probability of making you look like a pee-brained dumbass.
 
Dangerface said:
Yeah, seriously- don't demean Nazis by comparing them to this guy. They worked too hard to have their name tarnished by having every Jack Asshole called a "Nazi".
Click to expand...

That's not the point. "Nazi" refers to an ideology and even to a specific political party, one that has little to nothing to do with religions and couldn't care less about sending "infidels" to "hell". Shit, as far as I always figured, they hated Jews as a race, not as a religion.

Calling this guy a nazi is almost as stupid as the term "islamofascist." Almost.
 
Islamofascism is a fairly accurate term Kharn. Modern political Islamism is a hybridization of native National Socialist (read: Fascist, not Nazi) Arab ideology with reactionary Islamic elements. That seems pretty similar to Fascism: a marrige between Socialist economics, reactionary and populist aesthetics and extreme nationalism. The primary diffirence I see is a lack of rejection for "traditional" morality that is found among all Totalitarian movements, but at the same time considering that they can rationalize mass killings of civilians and hanging 17 year old homosexual boys then I'd say this is not really that much of an issue: they "traditional" morality by going back to 9th Century Abbasid morality, and fusing this with modern hatred and violence.

Personally I would define it as Islamo-Totalitarianism, but that is a little hard to say. Radical Islamism is simply not based on the nation like Fascism, the race like Nazism, or the working class like Leninism, so I think it deserves its own little sub-category of Totalitarian ideology.
 
Sorry my post wasn't very clear. I highlighted this part of his speech when I made the Nazi comment:

They are the worst in God's creation
Click to expand...

Like the Nazi's the Sheik is dehumanizing his opponents so his followers won't feel like they're committing a crime when they bash, rape, or murder their victims.

If you remember the Nazi propaganda films, you'll see comparisons between the Jews and swarming masses of rats (subhuman). The dehumanizing of the Jews was one of the first steps towards the final solution.
 
That is another point of Totalitarian ideology: dehumanization of fictionally hostile minorities, like the Burzhui for the Leninists and the Jews for the Nazis. Just so happens that in the case of Totalitarian Islam that it is mixed with revanchism.
 
John Uskglass said:
That seems pretty similar to Fascism: a marrige between Socialist economics, reactionary and populist aesthetics and extreme nationalism.
Click to expand...

I hate repeating myself, but I just realised I posted about this on another forum earlier, not here. A dictionary definition of fascism, highlighted where it rubs wrong with islamism:

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

1. Islamism is not a governmental system.
2. Islamism doesn't believe in dictators as such. "Spiritual leaders", yes, but usually plural.
3. Islamism doesn't believe in regimenting all industry and commerce. Though this is a tough point. Many, including Qutb at some points, advocated anarchy under Sharia law. Another system advocated often is that of redisistributive economics by the Ancient Egypt model, which communist, not fascist.
4. Islamism is *definitely* not nationalists, since all nations are equal as long as they are good muslims (read: islamists).
5. No racism, only anti-religion, which is not based on race.
 
I hate repeating myself as well.

pretty similar
Click to expand...
Pretty similar is not equal to "the same as".

Personally I would define it as Islamo-Totalitarianism, but that is a little hard to say. Radical Islamism is simply not based on the nation like Fascism, the race like Nazism, or the working class like Leninism, so I think it deserves its own little sub-category of Totalitarian ideology.
Click to expand...
 
John Uskglass said:
Pretty similar is not equal to "the same as".
Click to expand...

Then don't use or defend the term. Fascism is a historically loaded term and the implications of the term Islamofascism, no matter how you tend to use it, are idiotic at best.
 
Well, Totalitarianism with a Bearded Face has some similarities with Fascism. Kind of hard to not face that. As far as its relationship with other Totalitarian ideologies, it probably has the most in common with Fascism, but as I said it is really its own subcategory.
 
Just to be clear in my above post I was not arguing that Hilali is fascist. I was pointing out he uses the same dehumanising techniques the Nazi's used against the Jews.

On to the Islamo-Fascist point:

I read a comment on this a month back where the writer was arguing that Islamo-Fascists is an accurate term:

The definition of Fascism he used was more historical in that it went beyond the 20th century Musolini/Hitler definition.
As I (vaguely) remember his definition went along the lines of using force of arms to build expansionist empires and forcing your belief system on others. I wish I still had that article because I found it very convincing and I could give you an accurate description.

Then don't use or defend the term. Fascism is a historically loaded term and the implications of the term Islamofascism, no matter how you tend to use it, are idiotic at best.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. For anyone to credibly argue the point, they would have to research the common roots of al-Qaeda and Hilali (Qutbism) and the definition of Fascism as it has been defined over the last 500 years. You'll also need to do more than cut and paste a dictionary definition. ;)
 
Davaris said:
Absolutely. For anyone to credibly argue the point, they would have to research the common roots of al-Qaeda and Hilali (Qutbism) and the definition of Fascism as it has been defined over the last 500 years. You'll also need to more than cut and paste a dictionary definition. ;)
Click to expand...

No, I don't, because my point was about the commonday demagogic use of the term Islamofascism and the impact it has on the "common mind", which is a result (naturally) of the way the term is loaded, rather than the historical meaning of the term.

Also, your historian was making a big historic mistake in being very anachronistic, the term "fascism" was actually invented to describe the political regime of Mussolini from 1922 to 1943. Fascism has been adapted and expanded in meaning since then, but that doesn't make it right to apply it to pre-'22 times, that's just a silly anachronistic approach.
 
John Uskglass said:
Surely there are some small exceptions Kharn? The Black Hundreds?
Click to expand...

Black Hundred, man, not Hundreds.

And no. I don't care how similar they are, it's anachronistic simply because it's applying a modern-day term to something from before the time the term was ever thought up, which is something any decent historian never ever does. It's like calling Ancient Egypt communist, or, I dunno, Ghengis Khan a terrorist.

This is why, odd as it may sounds, the Pamyat are fascists, but the Black Hundred were not.
 
Hmm. Well I suppose I am thinking in more scientific terms then historical terms. I would recognize that the Black Hundred (thanks, I really thought it was Hundreds) had a lot in common with the Fascist movement in Italy, and I would say that if they had a political genius like Lenin or Mousilini they could have become the first real "Fascist" organization. Thus I do not have much of a problem calling them "fascist".

Though there is obviously a time when this becomes anachronistic: calling Cesar a Fascist would be silly, for example, even if he has the occasional similarity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top