No Matter What Atrocities Islamists Commit, the BBC Responds With Blind Spasms of ‘Respect’

“Forced marriages: School holidays prompt warning,” says a current headline on BBC News. The article explains that annually, “more than 5,000 people from the U.K.” are reportedly being forced into arranged marriages:

Teachers, doctors and airport staff need to be alert to the problem of forced marriages over the school holidays, the government has warned. Ministers said there were concerns about teenagers being taken abroad thinking they were going on holiday but being forced into marriage instead. Figures suggest cases are particularly common during the summer break. The government’s Forced Marriage Unit received 400 reports between June and August last year.

The piece is remarkable mostly for what it doesn’t say. The words religion, Muslim, God, and Islam are all missing. Another feat is that the reporter more or less manages to sweep the misogynistic aspect of the arranged-marriage phenomenon under the rug, the BBC’s favorite phraseology for the victims being “teenagers” and the non-descript “people,” rather than “girls” and “young women” (those words aren’t anywhere in the article, either).

Unfortunately, it’s nothing new. Over the past decade, I’ve gradually lost a ton of respect for the British Broadcasting Corporation. Once the worldwide gold standard of impartial (radio) news, its feckless, feeble web reporting is so shot through with the desire not to give any possible offense to Muhammad fans that the old-time accolades have ceased to apply. Auntie Beeb will no more assign blame — or simply call a spade a spade — than any of Islam’s lily-livered Western apologists.

Want examples? When the riots and bloodshed resulting from the Danish cartoon controversy had finally subsided, and after the BBC had already apologized for “any offence” it caused by showing a few of the cartoons, the broadcaster marked the one-year anniversary of the cartoons’ publication by asking, verbatim,

The question everyone is asking is has Denmark learned its lesson?

Right. “The question everyone is asking.” It’s an interesting turn of phrase, abundantly clear in its implication that you were quite the oddball if you did not happen to wonder whether the Danes had been properly chastised by Islamist thugs.

Roughly around the same time, the BBC, in its specifically religious-news written sections, began appending the letters PBUH (peace be upon him) to the name of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. It’s one of the finest examples of dhimmitude I’ve ever encountered.

Or consider how the BBC covered the horrendous Islamist terror attacks that occurred in Mumbai in late 2008. Four days after the world got re-acquainted with what Islam’s extremist followers are capable of, the BBC pretended that the motives of the attackers were a complete mystery:

Perhaps we do not know enough about where the perpetrators are from, because they could have come from almost anywhere.

Really? Almost anywhere? Well, they most assuredly didn’t come from Japan’s Shinto community, or from Mormon circles in Canada, or from atheist groups in the Netherlands. Nor were they spawned by Quaker quilting bees in Pennsylvania, or by evangelical church gatherings in the Congo, or by coteries of Romanian Rosicrucians.

Where they did come from, spiritually, is the much-vaunted religion of peace.

The BBC article never mentioned this. In fact, neither the word “Islam” nor the word “Muslim” appeared anywhere in the piece, presumably so as not to tick anyone off.

Spot a pattern here?

With the addition of the latest whitewash, concerning the thousands of female U.K. residents as young as 11 who are married off against their will, I propose that the acronym BBC, at least where the website is concerned, should now be understood to mean “Blithering British Cowards.”

(Image via Shutterstock)

About Terry Firma

Terry Firma, though born and Journalism-school-educated in Europe, has lived in the U.S. for the past 20-odd years. Stateside, his feature articles have been published in the New York Times, Reason, Rolling Stone, Playboy, and Wired. Terry is the founder and Main Mischief Maker of Moral Compass, a site that pokes fun at the delusional claim by people of faith that a belief in God equips them with superior moral standards.

  • Mick

    It is that sort of understatement (and disregard of its citizens) that made Britain what she is today.

  • tim

    growing up in England, the BBC has been part of my life and I might at a stretch be prepared to argue that it is better than some of the alternatives. But your criticism is fair.
    Any licence payers reading this might like to complain to the BBC and/or OffCom.
    Still Dr Who is great

    • Mario Strada

      The BBC is still superior to most news services. I usually watch CNN, FOX, Al Jazeera and the BBC on my iPad and the BBC is usually the most balanced. Sadly, Al Jazeera is also very balanced while CNN and FOX seem to be having a contest on who is going to mangle the news more.

      • EvolutionKills

        Might I suggest you try watching The Young Turks on YouTube?

    • Capt Dingleberry

      Playing the devils advocate here but you do realise that most of them immigrants from islamic countries, that you wish to be named & shamed, have settled for decades in the UK and are license payers too?
      The BBC is the most balanced, neutral and informative news service and broadcaster out there (together with Al Jazeera as Mario below pointed out). So balanced in fact that their PC’ism can be at times infuriating, granted.

      Context may help though with this particular news item. Firstly, even without mentioning explicitly any religious, racial or cultural attributes it’ll be blatantly obvious to any UK resident which section of the populace this item refers too. Secondly, to try and stop this inhumane practice, the authorities may need a little help from within the community. Tarring them all with the same broad brush will only serve to antagonise those few that may otherwise be a bit more forward thinking. Just my 2p.

    • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

      BBC News is similarly soft-pedaling the problem with Russia’s anti-gay law and how it will affect visitors to the Winter Olympics never year.

  • DougI

    The press could be honest about the problems the fundies cause but it’s probably against some British law to do so because it would be considered “intolerant” of the fundy’s belief to murder and destroy.

    • Spuddie

      Their position does not apply to Israel. The BBC has no problem representing Israel as the “bad guy” in any interaction with Arab states or the Palestinians.

      • mywall

        It’s hard to make invasion look good. They’re British, they know this!

        • UWIR

          One might think that in a situation in which a country fires a bunch of rockets into another country, and the country that is subject to the rocket attacks invades the country that is launching the rocket attacks, Britain might have more sympathy for the invading country.

          • mywall

            I think you need to widen your scope a little when reading that. I was saying that Israel merely DOES invasions, I was saying that Israel IS an invasion. The country was founded by kicking hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes in order to steal their land, a process which is still ongoing.

            Short version: https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/578565_4052639829114_983565051_n.jpg

            • UWIR

              There’s legitimate criticism, and then there’s just mindless bigotry.

              • mywall

                I was referring to the nakba. Sorry for the slow reply.

          • baal

            These situations are hardly so cut and dry and you know it UWIR.

            • UWIR

              I never said that they are simple; I simply mentioned one particular aspect of the conflict that might resonate with Britons. And the expression is “cut and dried”.

  • eric

    Or consider how the BBC covered the horrendous Islamist terror attacks that occurred in Mumbai in late 2008. Four days after the world got re-acquainted with what Islam’s extremist followers are capable of, the BBC pretended that the motives of the attackers were a complete mystery:

    The icing on the cake here is that this is India we’re talking about. Britain’s preeminent news service wondering about the origins of sectarian violence in India would be like the New York Times wondering about why american indians are angry about land issues.

  • Without Malice

    All people are worthy of respect due to their humanity. But, there is no religion on the face of the earth that is worthy of even a tiny bit of respect.

  • freddieknows

    Hmmm…. I wonder what Pat Condell will say about this. LOL

  • Atheist for human rights

    this is a prime example of why Mehta is an islamaphobe. Other religions especially in Hinduism force their children to marry. And the UK has a large Hindu population.

    And I’ve always said New Atheists are the Neo Cons among Atheists. Mehta’s ignorant screed against the BBC is a prime example. It’s something I would expect from the American Enterprise Institute.

    • Atheist for human rights

      I know Mehta is not the author but he is the editor of this site and he did tweet it out.

      • WallofSleep

        “I know Mehta is not the author…”

        Do you?

        Mehta’s ignorant screed against the BBC…”

        • 3lemenope

          Assigning possession to the publisher is not, strictly speaking, incorrect. It does invite confusion, because it is these days taken as assumed that primary ownership (colloquially, not legally, speaking) is the author’s. But nonetheless, by putting it under his masthead, the contents reasonably also become Mehta’s as well as Firma’s and can be addressed that way.

          That being said, the actual objection being discussed here is a bit silly. When criticizing a phenomena, a person is not obligated to note every context in which it occurs, only the context relevant to the expression that occasioned the critical moment.

        • duke_of_omnium

          DFTT

      • Mario Strada

        Nice save. But you still look like you didn’t read the article completely before you saw red and started sputtering.

      • RobMcCune

        I know Mehta is not the author…

        “I just can’t help blaming him for everything. It’s my obsession.”

        –Atheist for ‘human’ ‘rights’

      • TCC

        I’m fairly certain that Hemant has his Twitter account linked to the blog such that anything that is posted gets tweeted out automatically.

    • BobaFuct

      Maybe, but your comment would seem to indicate that you missed the entire point of the article.

    • Greg G.

      The article is about the BBC and its treatment of Islam, not so much about Islam itself.

      It sounds racist of you to blame him for something someone else posted. As I understand it, tweets are automatic when posts are uploaded to a blog.

      • Atheist for human rights

        Not his personal twitter account.

        And the point I’m making is this blog often times ( not all the time) singles out Islam on issues like this when other religions are guilty as well

        • Greg G.

          Sometimes Islam is singled out. Sometimes Christianity is singled out. Some articles are not about religion at all. He is one of the few authors who have singled out Jainism, the religion he grew up with.

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/07/03/the-problems-with-jainism/

          • Mario Strada

            And every time (except maybe for the Jain article) some busybody showed up to declare Hemant or whomever wrote or commented on the article a bigot focusing exclusively on that religion.

          • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

            This is the idiocy of our times. If you criticize Christians someone will say “why do you give Muslims a pass on this or that?” If you attack Islam you are a “racist” (not sure how Islam is a race but that’s the level of stupid we are dealing with) or Islamophobic or some such lunacy.

            One wrong does not justify another. The inability to point out every wrong on earth in the same breath does not excuse those that were left out or indicate and endorsement of those wrongs.

        • Mario Strada

          Call me crazy, but I have a feeling that if the problem of arranged marriages was exclusively a Hindu issue, the BBC would not have had many qualms naming them.

          Now, Hindus too can be violent and I am sure they take offense just as much as anyone else when they are singled out and criticized. However, at least in the west we are not usually treated to roaming bands if Hindus protesting their mistreatment, real or perceived.

          No Hindu I know of has vowed to kill writers, cartoonists and the like for depicting Kali with one arm more or less.

          Hindus, as far as I know, do not demand special accommodation for their laws, religion and culture the same way Muslims do. For some muslims anything less than the establishment of a British caliphate is unacceptable and they behave accordingly.

          Because the BBC is who they are, they likely decided that vagueness was the best policy so as not to ruffle any feathers. Again, hindus feathers can be ruffled, but when muslim feathers are ruffled people tend to die, hence the BBC treatment.

          I simply cannot respect a religion and a people that command such fear. And I especially do not respect those moderate muslims that do not protest the actions of their extremists. They should do so vigorously and vehemently. Instead all you hear is some wimpy excuse and fleeble justifications.

          Meanwhile, with each new article that treats muslim with kid gloves, with each new law or policy that makes criticizing islam more difficult, the majority of non crazy, hard working and honest Muslims will alienate more and more people that would otherwise be their natural allies in matters of freedom of religion, expression and human rights.

    • WallofSleep

      Other religions do the same shit that U.S. Christians do, and the antics of the U.S. Christian fundies make up the bulk of what this site focuses on when it comes to fundie malfeasance. Does that make Mehta a “Christaphobe” as well in your opinion?

      • Atheist for human rights

        This is false equivalency b.s. not all criticism is the same. New atheists bigots criticize all religions no doubt. And even with the same frequency. But their criticism of Muslims is entirely different in nature. Dawkins and Harris openly states Muslims are uniquely evil. They will say all religion is bad BUT Muslims are inferior to all others. And Mehta gleefully reposts their bigoted tirades on his blog.

        • WallofSleep

          Be careful moving those goal posts. We wouldn’t want you to get a hernia, now would we?

        • Sweetredtele
        • EvolutionKills

          Muslims are not uniquely evil, but their religious dogmas are dangerous. Jihad and martyrdom are a dangerous facet of Islamic fundamentalism. Dawkins and Harris are not a NeoCons for acknowledging this.

        • UWIR

          Cite?

        • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

          Neither Dawkins nor Harris has said any such thing. At the moment there are factions within Islam that pose great dangers in the world. That is undeniable. At some other points in history different religions posed different threats. That is stating the obvious.

    • blasphemous_kansan

      “And I’ve always said New Atheists are the Neo Cons among Atheists. ”

      The fact that you always say this has not caused it to start making sense.

    • Mario Strada

      “Islamophobic” is a term that has no meaning. When it can define a crazy right winger actively working to humiliate, marginalize and deport or exterminate an entire people and at the same time it defines someone expressing doubt that Mohammed flew to heaven on a horse, you need a new term to tell the two apart.

      When I read an article about the injustices visited upon some innocent muslim family by our local bigots, of course the first thing I want to do is to do what I can to help.

      Recently, however, I viewed a documentary about a white UK convert to Islam and his merry band of bigots roaming the streets of London not to win hearts and minds so that injustices like that will not happen again. Not to demand equality and fight discrimination, but to impose their version of justice upon everyone else with whatever means available.

      If Hindus did that, I would despise them just as much. When Christians do that I fight them every step of the way, but somehow, when Muslims do that, I have to let them be or criticize them very, very carefully, else I am an “islamophobe”?

      Guess what. I do have a phobia of Islam. Like all religions, Islam is false and fabricated. I particularly despise their primitive sense of justice and the way they treat each other and outsiders alike. I have a phobia of their bigotry toward everyone else just like I have the same phobia for their Christian counterpart.

      I also have a phobia of their extremely thin skin every time they are put on the spot.

      The difference is that I don’t actively advocate for their removal from western countries. I don’t advocate limiting their rights or impeding them from building their houses of worship. I certainly don’t advocate occupying their countries and wage war against them.

      But I don’t have to like their religion, I don’t have to approve of it and I reserve the right to let them know every chance I get and I would like to be able to do that without fear of being hunted down like a mad dog.

      • Atheist for human rights

        Clearly you have not read Harris on how he thinks Muslims citizens should be treated.

        • Artor

          Clearly you have not read the raft of shit they have taken from the broader atheist community for their ill-considered positions. Harris & Hitchens are not our prophets, as hard as that may be to understand. No atheist is compelled to agree with them, and on that issue, there are many who don’t. Try painting with a smaller brush; you won’t make such a mess.

        • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

          No, obviously you haven’t actually read what Harris has written.

      • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

        I oppose all violence. I would not tolerate abuse of Muslims. At the same time I do not believe in giving people a pass on human rights violations because they claim to believe this or that. I don’t give that pass to Christians, so giving it to Muslims is to imply that they are too ignorant or primitive to understand that certain practices are morally wrong. I apply the same standards to everyone. I can think of no more fair way to deal with these important issues that face humanity at this time.

    • Grotoff

      There’s a difference between hating Muslims for being other, and hating Islam for being batshit evil. You are confusing the two. Plenty of Christian bigots hate Muslims for looking different and having a different religion. That is something that I disagree with. I hate Islam, the doctrine, for being horrible and promoting evil. It is same reason why I hate Christianity, Judaism, Communism, and Fascism. Bad ideas that promote evil need to be hated.

      I don’t hate anyone for being Arab, or for feeling like a spiritual person. I hate dangerous evil doctrine.

    • the moother

      This “screed” isn’t even written by Hemant… If you can’t even be bothered to check who wrote the article I’m sure you’re one of those that can’t be bothered to check any facts at all.

      Also, “islamophobia” only exists in the brains of small minded people.

      • DavidMHart

        To be fair, ‘islamophobia’ when defined as irrational hatred of Muslims as people, is a real problem that we ought to have a word for, just like we have a word for irrational hatred of Jews as people. It’s just that the word is easily hijacked by those who want to deflect criticism of their beliefs by labeling it bigotry.

        • the moother

          Phobia means irrational FEAR, not hatred… get a dictionary.

          People have a real fear of muslims because if somebody blows him/herself up in a crowded public space you can be almost guaranteed that it’s a muslim.

          So, there is fear of muslims, who think their religion will take over the world so that they can make all women wear bags. And that fear is not irrational. Hence, no phobia.

          Jews, on the other hand, are feared… for what? why are jews feared? Really, can you explain that? Oh, I forgot, you don’t know what words mean.

          • DavidMHart

            There’s no need to be so snarky; I was only pointing out that it’s a bit more complicated than you suggested. I know that a dictionary definition will give you ‘irrational fear’, but we are already comfortable with ‘homophobia’ having come to mean bigotry against (as opposed to fear of) gay people, and most people are comfortable with the suffix taking on that meaning as far as I can see.

            The point is that
            a) justifiable fear of jihadi violence and
            b) irrational fear of and bigotry against all Muslims
            are both real phenomena, and given that ‘islamophobia’ already in practice covers b), it seems that the best thing to do is to come up with a catch term for a) and stay vigilant so that we don’t let the two terms get conflated.

    • UWIR

      Other people criticize Islam, yet you focus on Mehta. Are you a Mehtaphobe?

      • Bdole

        Metaphobe!

        Someone who’s afraid of fear itself!
        Sorrry. Please continue.

    • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

      So he has to mention every human rights abuse in the world in every post otherwise he’s biased? That’s an awfully long list. Just because he didn’t mention some specific rights violation this time doesn’t mean he is indifferent or even in agreement with that practice. And I think you know that.

    • Ian

      Hemant didn’t write this post. Make the argument if you want but at least get the facts straight.

  • ShoeUnited

    To be fair only for argument’s sake, I’m pretty sure that these arranged marriages have males as well. I don’t think only girls are being shipped off all the time. People and teenagers is fair.

    The rest as you like it.

    • BobaFuct

      Um, no. Most (many?) of the men on the receiving end of forced marriages are older, like 40s and 50s…some are widowers, some are getting a second (or third or fourth) wife and getting a young bride is a point of pride for them. I think it’s exceedingly rare for a girl to be married off to a boy of the same age. So males aren’t getting forced into these marriages, and even if they were, they don’t suffer under the same partriarchical, woman-hating oppression that the girls do. It’s perfectly appropriate and accurate for the story to highlight that the victims here are young girls.

      • baal

        “So males aren’t getting forced into these marriages” You’re absolutely right on all points except this one. I knew professional male muslims in their 30-40′s who didn’t want to marry a first time who were forced into marriages on their trips back home.

      • ShoeUnited

        Sometimes they are. As I said, the rest as a person sees fit, I’m just saying that it isn’t only females (and it isn’t).

  • King Dave

    Even liberal atheists shy away from Islam. They strongly oppose Christians who don’t supportgay marriage, but remain silent on arranged marriages. And this happens in America to children.

    When a female doesn’t have free will on marriage then it is sexual slavery.

    Period. And should be opposed everywhete on earth.

    Now of course sexual crimes against children permeates every culture and society, but Islam justifies it. And our lives may be in danger if we get in the way

    • Capt Dingleberry

      Well, and you don’t get to decide which battles ‘liberal atheists’ pick, King Dave.

      I can hit two churches with a stone throw but the next mosque is almost an hours drive away, so guess which moronic religion I strongly oppose? Correct, the most dominant one in my social & cultural environment which happens to be Christianity in it’s various flavours here in the UK.

      And let’s be frank, Christian Religions attitude towards women sucks balls on par with Islamic attitudes. The difference being, thanks to enlightenment, Christians for most parts can’t get away with it as easily anymore. Which leads me to suspect whenever Christians whinge about atheists only ‘picking’ on them and not Islam, that it’s not just butthurt of the 1st order (there’s an ointment for that anyway) but also an (un)healthy portion jealousy of what Muslims can do to women that they can not anymore.

    • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

      Strawman.

      I doubt you’ll find a single person here who isn’t disgusted by forced marriages, honor killings and other heinous acts. I don’t know who you think you’re addressing but it doesn’t sound like any atheist I ever met.

    • baal

      Having known more than a few muslims from other countries (grad school is like that), most were surprised married on a trip home. When the surprise spouses are adults, we don’t really complain much. The young boy older woman case essentially doesn’t happens. The older male younger female case, seems more than a little problematic.

      Do you see the various types of arranged marriage and potential foreseeable harms? (i.e. child rape).

      Gay marriage is between adults and with consent. When we see Muslim gay men getting married to young boys, come back and make your argument. Until then, your point is utterly bogus.

  • the moother

    1000 people were killed in Iraq last month due to senseless sectarian violence… Muslims are the world champion Muslim killers… The world doesn’t care when they slaughter each other but if a single Palestinian dies it’s front page news all over the world.

    • BobaFuct

      Oh come on…those crazy Sunnis don’t even believe in the 12th Imam! I can’t think of a more sensible justification for violence…

    • Octoberfurst

      “If a Palestinian dies it is front page news all over the world.” Really? In what reality is that true? Palestinian deaths are totally ignored by the US media. I would say that very few Americans have any idea about the thousands of innocent Palestinians have been killed by the IDF or the settlers over the years and that is tragic.

      • UWIR

        Are you aware that although more Palestinians have been killed than Israelis, when you look at girls, more Israelis have been killed? Why is it that the overwhelming majority of these “innocent Palestinians” are military-age males? Hmmm? Does the IDF have special bombs that kill only males between the ages of 16 and 25? Just how are you determining who is “innocent”, and whose deaths are attributable to the IDF?

        • Octoberfurst

          I have no idea what your point is. You say that more Israeli girls have been killed than boys and that proves—what exactly?
          And the majority of Palestnian deaths are not miltary aged males. The deaths run the gamut from the old to young, men and women.
          As for who to determine who is responsible I would say that if the IDF is bombing villages it is probably logical to assume that those innocent people who were killed were probably killed by the IDF. Who else would be to blame?

          • UWIR

            I have no idea what your point is.

            You need this spelled out for you?

            1. You implied that thousands of “innocent” Palestinians have been killed by the IDF, but have presented no reason for us to believe that.

            2. The demographics of Palestinian casualties looks suspiciously like one might expect for the demographics if the IDF were attacking military targets.

            3. Young females are the most likely to be “innocent”, and in that demographic, Israel is suffering more deaths than the Palestinians are.

            You say that more Israeli girls have been killed than boys

            No, that’s not what I said. Can’t you even bother to read my post before responding to it?

            And the majority of Palestnian deaths are not miltary aged males. The deaths run the gamut from the old to young, men and women.

            That’s flat-out false. 95% of Palestinian deaths are of males between 10 and 54. http://www.meforum.org/175/has-israel-used-indiscriminate-force Table 1. “In total, Palestinian women account for fewer than five percent of all Palestinians killed.” http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/mostly.html (It’s from 2003, but that’s better than nothing, which is what your evidence consists of). Looking at Graph 2.24 in that link, it appears that about 74% of male Palestinian casualties are between 15 and 29 years of age. You are quite clearly a very dishonest person.

            As for who to determine who is responsible I would say that if the IDF is bombing villages it is probably logical to assume that those innocent people who were killed were probably killed by the IDF. Who else would be to blame?

            I ask you for a general criterion for determining blame, and you respond with a highly specific scenario?

            • Octoberfurst

              I don’t have a lot of time to reply since I am about to go on vacation but I will say a few things. First of all I find it interesting that the site you reference is an anti-Muslim hate site. It would be like getting your “facts” about Black crime from an White supremacist website.

              Your statement that only 5% of those who have died were civilians is nonsense. If you want some unbiased facts I have two articles: one from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and from the Israeli peace group B’tselem

              http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/Casualties.asp

              http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/b-tselem-more-than-50-of-palestinians-killed-in-israel-s-last-gaza-operation-were-civilians.premium-1.522652

              Oh and here’s another one:

              http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html

              So you’re wrong. But I don’t expect this to change your mind. Bigots rarely do. I’m sure you will come up with some reason to dismiss these articles even though they are from Israeli Jewish sources.

              • UWIR

                First of all I find it interesting that the site you reference is an anti-Muslim hate site. It would be like getting your “facts” about Black crime from an White supremacist website.

                I find it interesting that you’re resorting to ad hominem attacks, and unsubstantiated ones at that.

                Your statement that only 5% of those who have died were civilians is nonsense.

                I never said that, liar.

                If you want some unbiased facts I have two articles: one from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and from the Israeli peace group B’tselem

                Do any of those support your claim that Palestinian casualties have the same age and sex distributions as the general Palestinian population?

                So you’re wrong.

                About what, exactly?

                But I don’t expect this to change your mind. Bigots rarely do.

                And now you’ve resorted to calling me a bigot simply because I dared point out that you lied? Clearly, you’re the bigot.

                • Octoberfurst

                  The site you got the article from IS an anti-Muslim hate site. This was not an “ad hominen” attack. I was not attacking you I was simply pointing out that the site is bigoted.
                  You stated that 95% of the deaths are of males between the ages of 10 and 54. You were proved wrong. How am I lying about that?

                  So now you are flaying around trying to make some points–and not succeeding I might add. And yes you are a bigot because you go to bigoted web sites. (It’s kind of a no-brainer.)

                • UWIR

                  The site you got the article from IS an anti-Muslim hate site.

                  Apparently, you are incapable of engaging in anything but argument by assertion.

                  This was not an “ad hominen” attack. I was not attacking you I was simply pointing out that the site is bigoted.

                  “An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.” http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

                  The website presented a claim. You attacked the website. That is an ad hominem attack.

                  You also called me a bigot, so you can’t claim that you didn’t attack me.

                  You stated that 95% of the deaths are of males between the ages of 10 and 54.

                  More precisely, I presented ICT’s claim that this is so.

                  You were proved wrong.

                  No, I wasn’t, liar. You have presented absolutely no evidence showing that claim to be false. And no, just posting a bunch of links, without any explanation of what you think they prove, and how, is not evidence. If you have evidence, post the evidence, not just a link to the evidence.

                  How am I lying about that?

                  I didn’t say you were lying about that. I said that you were lying about me saying that “only 5% of those who have died were civilians”. So that’s yet another lie on your part.

                  So now you are flaying around trying to make some points–and not succeeding I might add.

                  I’ve presented specific claims, websites to support those claims, and told you exactly where to find those claims within those websites. You’ve just presented a link dump and declared victory. I’ve been quite thorough in my arguments, and you’ve been incredibly lazy. And then been grossly offensive by calling me a bigot.

                  And yes you are a bigot because you go to bigoted web sites. (It’s kind of a no-brainer.)

                  The only no-brainer here is you. I’ve allegedly gone to a bigoted web site, therefore I’m a bigot? I Googled some search terms, I followed the links that Google gave me, and that makes me a bigot? That’s just moronic.

        • baal

          So UWIR, would you like to go ferret out if more Israeli or Palestianian women die in child birth? Please follow up with the life expectancy for both groups as well.

      • the moother

        As many Iraqis killed in 2013 THUS far as palestinians killed in the entire 5.5 years of the second intifada!!! Are you insane or stupid or are you just proving my point that you also don’t care about all these Iraqis being killed but would rather cry about palestinian for, probably, anti-semitic reasons?

        Just for the record, here in the EU the papers jump all over palestinian deaths and lead with them for days or weeks but Iraq statistics get a brief mention then time to move on.

        Pat Condell is talking about you!
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeGYAfh9A1k

        • Octoberfurst

          I do care about the dead Iraqi’s. In fact I protested the war before it began and after it started. I hate what our government has done to Iraq but yet you claim that I don’t based on nothing except your own projections of what you “think” I am like.

          As for calling me anti-semitic I just roll my eyes. It is such a tired old carnard that is used to shut up any criticism of Israel. It’s just as foolish as saying I am anti-American for opposing our wars.

          So please tone down the shrillness. I care about ALL innocent deaths in combat. It is a shame that you don’t.

      • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

        I’m against killing. Period. If you want to make this a contest as to which group is worse about the killing, that’s a sick game and I’ll have no part in it. I condemn all violence and all terrorism, including some committed by my own government.

        • Octoberfurst

          I agree with you 100%. I have no idea why you think I am making this a pissing contest about who has killed more people. All I was simply responding to was Moother’s comment about how if a Palestinian dies it is front page news but if a Muslim kills a Muslim nobody cares. I thought his comment was absurd. That’s all there was to it.

    • Atheist for human rights

      You are so dense. Why is there sectarian violence in Iraq? Because new atheist neocons (I.e. Harris and hitchens) supported an invasion of Iraq for no good reason. But clearly they are the violent ones, right?

      And people get outraged at Israel because Israel claims to be a democracy yet commits war crimes on a regular basis and administers an apartheid regime in the West Bank. Countries like Saudi Arabia don’t expect to be treated like a democracy.

      • BobaFuct

        You think Sunnis and Shia kill each other in Iraq because of the American invasion? Maybe take a history class….

      • EvolutionKills

        I remember Hitchens being in favor of the Iraq war, but I don’t remember anything about Harris outside of the hypothetical ‘what if’ question in ‘The End of Faith’. I know that his words in that part of the book have been blown way out of context by his detractors.

        Still, if you happened to have a link handy, I’d be happy to look into it.

      • UWIR

        So, the responsibility for the violence lies in those who removed the brutal dictator, and not those who need a brutal dictator to keep them from killing each other? And whether there was sufficient reason can be debated, but no reasonable person can claim that there was no reason.

        Also, I suspect you are unclear on the difference between “i.e.” and “e.g.”

      • the moother

        Yes, I’m so stupid. I suppose, then, you can school me on why there is no sectarian violence (or history of sectarian violence) in places like Egypt, Bosnia, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Nigeria, Bahrain, Indonesia… In fact, wherever there is a substantial muslim population ANYWHERE in the world, the chance of blood flowing freely and unnecessarily is potently high.

        I mean, it’s not like I could use something like google to search for something like “muslim sectarian violence” because I’m obviously either very stupid or I love jews too much… /snark

        Once again, you prove my point admirably…, too busy hating jews to worry about REAL people dying by REAL stupidity in SO MANY other places in the world…

        When people like you come out to play, I think of this:

  • UWIR

    Another feat is that the reporter more or less manages to sweep the misogynistic aspect of the arranged-marriage phenomenon under the rug, the BBC’s favorite phraseology for the victims being “teenagers” and the non-descript “people,” rather than “girls” and “young women” (those words aren’t anywhere in the article, either).

    But should the main nomenclature focus be on using the term “forced marriage” instead of a more accurate descriptor, such as “formal continual rape arrangement”? “Forced marriage” is a oxymoron. Elizabeth Smart wasn’t “married” to her kidnapper, whatever delusions he may have had.

  • axelbeingcivil

    The lack of religious focus might be because a lot of arranged marriages also go on in other communities, both religious and non-religious. India, predominantly Hindu, has long traditions of arranged marriage, as do many parts of Africa and even parts of East Asia. The latter is significantly rarer.

    While Muslim communities certainly do have an arranged marriage problem in places, that does not mean it’s exclusive to them, so why single them out? Given that religion itself plays no actual direct role in this but merely is the common factor of one of the communities that practice it, why mention it?

  • anon101

    There was a study done in Germany on forced marriage. 3000 people of which more than 90 % women seek help concerning forced marriage every year. Of which nearly 1000 already had been married against their will. Of the once where the religion was recorded 80 % were Muslims and 10 % were Yazidis.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X