Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Muslim/West antipathy

In order to direct my bitchiness away from other bloggers, I have once more ventured out into the wonderful world of the news. And, via Snafu, I find the report of this delicious little survey.
Deep mutual suspicions exist between the Muslim world and the West, a survey of global opinion suggests.

Many Westerners see Muslims as fanatical, violent and intolerant, according to the study by the Pew Research Center in Washington.

Well, yes, many of them are.
Muslims, for their part, tend to view the West as selfish, immoral, and greedy - as well as fanatical and violent - the survey says.

Well, yes, many of them are. Although I would say that most Westerners are less fanatical than most Muslims. After all, I thought that many Muslims saw the West as decadent and soft.
Muslim people "have an aggrieved view of the West" and are "much more likely than Americans or Western Europeans to blame Western policies for their own lack of prosperity", the authors contend.

Well, last year's riots in France weren't about ice-creams melting too fast in the radiated heat from burning cars, were they now?
By contrast Western publics say Muslims are held back by "government corruption, lack of education and Islamic fundamentalism", they add.

Hmmm, given that many Muslim beliefs (such as believing that the "+" is blasphemy) do seem to hold back education, and that a recent police report concluded (albeit in a much more mealy-mouthed way) that Asian officers were more likely to be corrupt than white ones, that there might be some truth in these allegations.
Westerners, by large margins, do not regard Muslims as "respectful of women", while majorities in four of the five Muslim countries said the same about the West.

Yeah, well, we could argue that all day; I suspect that the problem is in terms of how you define "respectful". The Muslims would probably say that we are not respectful because we come on to women, sleep with them, etc. We say that they aren't respectful of women because they routinely deny them access to education and skimpy outfits.
Solid majorities in France, the US and Britain retain overall favourable opinions of Muslims, while positive views of Muslims have declined sharply in Spain (from 46% to 29%), the survey notes.

Aye, well, we Brits are reasonable people, generally. The Spanish on the other hand—with the hot, vengeful, Latin blood running in their veins—probably still aren't terribly happy about those bombs...
It says about eight in 10 people in both Spain and Germany associate Islam with fanaticism - a view that is less prevalent in France (50%), Britain (48%) and the US (43%).

Personally, I associate some Muslims with fanaticism. But, of course, Spain and Germany are stuffed to the gills with Turks (40% of whom said that honour killings were hunk-dory); Germany has been one of the main speakers against Turkey acceding to the EU.
Likewise, Muslim opinion is far from uniform, with Muslim minorities in Europe often attributing positive attributes to Westerners - including tolerance, generosity, and respect for women.

Good stuff.
On the other hand, in Muslim countries in the Middle East and Asia large majorities describe the West as "selfish", "arrogant", and "violent".

Whereas over at The Kitchen, one might label them "arrogant", "primitive", "ignorant", "barbarian" and "simply not the thing at all"...

However, interesting as all of this is, there is one absolutely striking finding.
In one of the survey's most striking findings, majorities in Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan said they did not believe Arabs carried out the attacks on the US on 11 September 2001.

The report says this attitude is not limited to Muslims in Muslim-dominated countries - 56% of British Muslims said the same.

For fuck's sake, guys; who do you think did do it? The fucking faeries? Or are you going to wheel out some tedious conspiracy theory? I do remember seeing banners at the G8, mainly carried by angry-looking hippies, saying things like, "9/11 was an inside job". To be honest, I have rather less time for these fucking tits than I do for radical Muslims.

Look, it wasn't an inside job, and 9/11 wasn't carried out by the faeries: they were, by and large, Saudis who were, last time that I looked, Arabs. We know this, OK? Why not just accept it and stop being so blinkered, eh?

Apart from anything else, who the hell do you think did do it?

31 comments:

Faerie Lady said...

We fear those things we don't understand. Besides, maybe the majority of Muslims don't believe that the hijackers were true Muslims as they planned and executed an attack on innocents.

My only criticism here is why you had to bring faeries into this - we're largely peaceful creatures you know.

Serf said...

maybe the majority of Muslims don't believe that the hijackers were true Muslims as they planned and executed an attack on innocents.

This is one of the twisted theories that keeps surfacing.

Now to any particular muslim, the killing of innocents may be abhorent, and they may categorise the people that do such things as not proper muslims. That is understandable and commendable. What they cannot do however is deny that such acts are done in the name of their religion. The refusal on the part of some to accept that is one of the biggest acts of mass stupidity out there. Needless to say, its a view point fed by stupid lefties.

Anonymous said...

DK, Re Trade Towers. look at the science, don't be a fuckwit. Who knows who did it but planes can't have done it on their own.

Honestly, use Newton's laws and the laws of thermodynamics.

Also, WTC7. Larry Silverstein's 'pull it' comment.

There's lots more, clearly you haven't cared to look into this, take you head out of your arse.

AntiCitizenOne said...

We have an idiot conspiracist. Have a shave with Occams razor, you COMPLETE FUCKING TOOL.

_______________________________________________

With regard to I-slam, the more I find out about the "religion" (I prefer the term "Death Cult"), the more I detest it and it's followers.

P.S. and I'm more aware of it than most.
P.P.S. I-slamic immigration has been an unmitigated disaster.

Jackart said...

Isn't Mossad the usual suspect?

Devil's Kitchen said...

Anonymous,

Since you are so very knowledgeable, perhaps you would care to point me in the right direction?

Oh, and would you like to point out which laws of thermodynamics prove that it was not simply the planes that brought them down?

And then maybe, since this is what you are implying, you'd like to tell us why the US would kill 3,000 people? Oh, and "because Bush wanted depserately to invade Iraq and make himself incredibly unpopular whilst psending trillions of dollars" just won't cut it, I'm afraid: a solid reason, please.

DK

Anonymous said...

OK, Briefly (and I'll have to ask a question as I'm in a rush and can't reference, will do when I get back tonight...)

How was the structure weakend in order that the towers would collapse in the manner that they did? Especially WTC7.

As for assuming I think the US government did it - I don't. I haven't a clue who did it as how a structure falls does not show who caused it to fall.

Anyway, I will provide links later.

Anonymous said...

Right, like I said there's lots of info on this. Admittedly you have to trawl through a lot of bollocks in some places, but to make my point...

Physics

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Video on collapse

http://www.911revisited.com/video.html

Hijackers

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

Let me know if you want more.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Anon,

Thank you, I shall read with interest.

DK

Anonymous said...

The three links provided by anon make no sense in relation to each other. Just. saying.

Martin said...

Anonymous

"I haven't a clue who did it as how a structure falls does not show who caused it to fall."

Even using the most unscientific analysis, the evidence of one's own eyes, one might be tempted to think that crashing a fuel-laden airliner into a largely class and steel building at 500 mph might cause it to sway just a little.

Dont't you think?

Anonymous said...

Karol - yes, they're quite dislocated, this is because I've gone through mountains for biased sites and I guess in my mind I suspect aspects of the government may be complicit. I really don't want to go down that route though as there's nothing explicit but there you have it, at least I'm being honest. I admit I may have been projecting there but the two points I raised I think are valid.

The official story may not be accurate

The structure should not have collapsed in the way it did

Now, Martin. Fair enough, your emotions lead you to believe the towers collapsed due to the planes hitting them. My emotions lead to be believe otherwise. All I would say to you though is that surely the planes would have had to hit the buildings in a centred or symmetrical fashion (perhaps directly downward?!?) to make the building collapse in such a controlled fashion.

Imagine if they were demolished on purpose, you couldn't hope for better!

Also there are factors like concrete being reduced to powder and the rubble being unexplainable hot for so long afterward. Now, I'm not a scientist and I can’t make claims to really understanding all the calculations behind these claims but the video footage of people like firemen who are experienced in things like this, for me, swayed the balance. I must stress though, my suspicions and emotions have nothing to do with the points I raised.

Anonymous said...

Also Martin, let's not forget that the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 767

http://www.medserv.dk/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=896

Yes this article does not prove anything but my point is how did it collapse in such an ordered fashion?

Also

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm

"The buildings would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it,"

Yes, it goes on to say that the fire destroyed the building but there is sufficient credible evidence to suggest this is wrong. Two things being that…

A) Most of the fuel was burnt outside of the building
B) There are photos of people standing at the entry hole after the collision -how did they survive/get there if the heat was so intense?

Once again though, my point is how did it collapse in the manner that it did.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, last one before I call it a day..

AntiCitizenOne

'COMPLETE FUCKING TOOL', fair enough but please qualify

"Death Cult", I could not agree more. Just because I think that the evidence suggests it wasn't how it was reported, I am not an Islamic apologiser.

Islam is very dangerous.

AntiCitizenOne said...

Anonymous,
Do you not beleive Domino's fall over? The WTC is a vertical stack of concrete dominoes. How would you expect the building to fall?

It's daft to even think that explosives did the damage.

Why wouldn't the detonators make the building collapse fit your preconceptions better?

You've been too used to films, and seeing things like this for real gives you cognitive dissonance.

Anonymous said...

Do you not beleive (sic) Domino's fall over?

Yes, according to Newton’s Laws

The WTC is a vertical stack of concrete dominoes.

Really, can you reference this, I only ask as I fear you may be talking the highest grade of uninformed bollocks I’ve ever heard.

How would you expect the building to fall?

To the left, to the right? North, south, east west? Maybe any other way apart from vertically downward

It's daft to even think that explosives did the damage.

Really, like when buildings are pulled by demolition experts?

Why wouldn't the detonators make the building collapse fit your preconceptions better?

Maybe it’s late but that doesn’t read very well… I think detonation did bring the building down, not a fire at the top of the buildings.

You've been too used to films, and seeing things like this for real gives you cognitive dissonance.

OK, now you’re really are talking shit. Sorry but you should propose an explanation of how the towers fell before you start belittling people to make a point. If anyone has cognitive problems it is surely you.

I accept that my first post was perhaps a little aggressive, I though it was fitting to the blog. DK, I hope you can appreciate this, why else would I spend any time here unless I enjoyed it?

AntiCitizenOne, come up with something worth while. I know you have it in you.

Anonymous said...

Oh bollocks I tried to be clever at point out spelling mistakes, yes I'm the cunt...

Devil's Kitchen said...

Anon,

I appreciate your comments. One of the things that I most value about blogging is the -- sometimes unexpected -- things that one learns. I am sorry, but I haven't yet read the entirety of the links that you sent me.

"It's daft to even think that explosives did the damage."

Really, like when buildings are pulled by demolition experts?


I should point out that this is something of a syllogism; just because that is how buildings collapse when they are deliberately pulled down does not mean that they would not collapse in this way when subjected to any other pressure. But, as I have said, I have not read all the data yet.

If the US goverment detonated the buildings, then I am still searching for a motive. Although I am highly sensitive to the world of realpolitik, I still canot see a motivation and that, as anyone might tell you, is the real clincher in something like this.

As for your tone, Anon, that is absolutely fine; I am able to appreciate that people react... er... sometimes explosively to my pronouncements. This blog does not blog opinion and is, indeed, happy to promote debate. So, nae bothair, pal, and I am glad that you enjoy my rantings (believe me, the amount of traffic around The Kitchen is absolutely incredible to me).

My caveat would be that we are still very far from fully understanding the world of physics (or any other science) and that the conclusions of scientists should be treated as being as suspect as anyone else.

Let me look into this, and I shal publish something when I have had a chance.

Regards,

DK

Anonymous said...

FWIW, skyscrapers are /designed/ to collapse by imploding and falling vertically, should they ever collapse. The reasons behind this are a trifle obvious. Anyone who states otherwise can trivially be slated as an ignorant buffoon.

PDF

Anonymous said...

Also.......a plane load of high-octane fuel that slams into a building is not a 'fire' but a huge fuel/air 'EXPLOSION', effectively a giant Napalm bomb.

Anonymous said...

It always amuses me when the conspiracy theorists get going. Conspiracies require a degree of competence no government has managed to demonstrate. They require a cloak of secrecy, yet all the "evidence" is out there on the web. If there was a genuine conspiracy, those spouting the "evidence" would quietly disappear or have unfortunate accidents. Why don't they (please)? Could it be that they pose no threat because there is no conspiracy?

The idea that 9/11 and 7/7 were black flag operations is, frankly, risible.

Sometimes, what you see is exactly what you get. In this case, a bunch of Islamic radicals hijacked some planes and flew them into the towers. Nothing more, nothing less.

Anonymous said...

Good morning, ok...

Good points about sky scrapers being designed to fall in their foot print and scientists talking shit.

Reasonable point about the explosion… but….

With regards to the conspiracy theory I only stated that I leant towards Americans being involved – simply because how else would you rig the towers with explosives?

Anyway, from most of the comments and how they focus on what I think happened (I don’t know) rather than discounting specific parts of the material I have referenced I’m guessing only DK has actually bothered to look into it.

So, I think we can put this to bed. Most posters here think I’m a yogurt weaving rainbow Nazi leftist (overweight and bespectacled) conspiracy goon but failed to really address the points I raised other than with unreferenced opinion.

Anonymous said...

"With regards to the conspiracy theory I only stated that I leant towards Americans being involved – simply because how else would you rig the towers with explosives?"

And how, exactly, would you:

a) plant all this explosive secretly, without any of the thousands of workers seeing it?

b) ensure the secrecy of the team doing the work - none of them talk, to anyone..?

c) co-ordinate with the hijackers without leaving a trace....or are you suggesting the explosives were planted in case of any event happening to the WTC?

Yes, I'm afraid conspiracy theories make great films, but lousy reality!

Anonymous said...

Juliam,

Yes, I agree it’s preposterous.

My reply though is to ask you to watch videos of the fire fighters on the day, you can find them very easily by looking at most of the usual suspects (prisonplanet etc etc).

There is so much footage of professionals talking about explosions it may make you think twice, I don’t know…

Also there is a great deal of news footage reporting explosions that never got played again.

Finally

http://www.prisonplanet.com/unexplained_911_explosion_at_wtc_complex.htm

Can’t find the video footage of it at present but there is a huge plume of smoke rising before either of the towers has collapsed.

Yes, this doesn’t prove that George Bush did it as he is part of a lizard/freemason conspiracy to enslave the planet etc but I would like a more comprehensive explanation than what the government is offering.

Anonymous said...

Well, I doubt I'd learn much from the tapes, as I'm neither a demolition expert, fireman or an engineer.

This chap, however, might help the discussion:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1230517.html

Read his editorial, and the report itself and ask yourself if that puts a more reality-based perspective on 9/11 conspiracy theories - after all, they are professionals themselves.

You see, there's a lot of mileage in pointing out that things look 'odd' or out of place to the layman (the message boards at Fortean Times are full of this sort of stuff!) but these guys are experts, and they have gone over the evidence, and it doesn't support the conclusions that some people have been suggesting.

Anonymous said...

Hi, Juliam. I read it when it was published. You may want to read this

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

I assume 'this chap' is Ben Chertoff, the chief editor of the piece. Did you know he is Michael Chertoff's cousin, Michael being the new Secretery of Homeland Security (an agency which owes its very existence to the establishment version of the 9/11 attack).

Yeah, probably nothing.

Anonymous said...

Sorry forgot to mention...

'I doubt I'd learn much from the tapes'

Perhaps you should watch them anyway, you know, just to be sure. I suspect that it is possible to learn something from firemen when they say things like…

NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were "bombs" and "secondary devices", which caused the explosions in the buildings

"On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building"

"It almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight"

"You could see the windows pop out just like in the picture, looked like a movie. I saw one floor of windows pop out, like poof, poof. I saw one and a half floors popout. It looked almost like an explosion"

No you’re right, what would they know. I mean they were there and they’re firemen… What are they like eh?!?!?!?!?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060519&articleId=2474

Anonymous said...

Ah, I see....not an impartial expert at all, is what you are suggesting..?

And he rounded up some like-minded experts, and told them to disprove the theories, or threatened them with something, etc, etc....

Strange how you start out with the 'I'm just a man who has read some things' persona, implying that you don't believe in wild tales about conspiraces, you just believe there's more to it than has been told....and then whip out the 'Ah, but that's what you'd expect this guy to say!' line when challenged.

And I see a lot of 'It almost sounded like...' and 'It looked almost like..' in those extracts. They appear to me to be simple descriptive terms for internal collapse and chaos in the building - the same way that, if a car backfired outside my window, I might say 'It sounded almost like a gunshot'. That's a far cry from me claiming that someone is shooting at me.

Anonymous said...

Juliam,

I don't believe things one way or the other. Taking this to an ultimate level, I wasn't there and am not qualified to make the assessments myself. I doubt if anyone will ever be able to 100% prove things one way or the other.

All I'm saying is that things don't really add up in my opinion and I think there is sufficient doubt to not accept the official version of events.

As for the 'expect' observation, it really isn't the issue here. What I personally believe should be irrelevant and I imagine to many people here that would be a very polite way of phrasing what they think!

I am simply providing links, you can decide. Of course I come at it from an angle, that being I don't believe the official explanation so when someone states their case, which is contrary to mine, of course I will then provide an alternative explanation until I have nothing to counter their argument, at which point I will probably agree with them or at least agree that what I put forth is incorrect.

I thought the commentary on the PM piece made some good points. I also thought that the origin of it may have influenced the outcome. Most research has an angle whether it's to raise funds or to pursue a deluded agenda which is why it's crucial to read as much as possible from as many angles that are available.

All the points you have raised have been good ones and I enjoy replying to them. It just so happens that they haven't swayed my mind yet.

I mean it should be no surprise that if I think explosives were used then I could humour the notion that a hit piece was put together by PM.

The well referenced article by Prof Jones, admittedly to my limited knowledge of steel etc, put forth a convincing argument against an internal collapse, this with the firemen’s statements add weight to what I suggested. Did you see the clip of windows blowing out, starting at the bottom then working their way up the side of the building? This looks exactly the same as demolition videos I have seen. I admit I have not watch videos of buildings simply collapsing but with most things in life you need to make a judgement call.

I can see that you are set on the internal collapse explanation, fair enough. I'm not on a mission, I simply didn't think it would take that much convincing. Obviously that was not that case.

I would have liked a more scientific dissection of the points I raised as although I am coming from it at an angle I am attempting to not present my view in an unqualified or speculative manner…

Also I would have liked every point I raised to be addressed in order for someone to disagree with such resolution.

Anyway, this blog goes on and we are rapidly approaching the point where we will have to look in the archives to post comments. DK may take this up, if he does I’m sure it will be well informed and perhaps I will be on the end of a humiliating and comprehensive verbal dismantling.

This is my last post on this unless something humorous comes up. I certainly don’t think I’m trumped you but I really don’t think you’ve brought enough to the table to change my mind.

So long.

Anonymous said...

Anon, not everybody thinks you're a conspiracy nut, in fact you're not a theorist but a realist. I don't know what happended at the twin towers, but my father has over 20 years experience with plane crashes & is adament (as are his colleagues) that the Pentagon & Flight 93 stories are just that. Those plans did not crash in the manner told. Now if they would like about that - what else!

Anonymous said...

Obviously I meant "Those planes did not crash in the manner told" rather than plans, or did I, gosh who knows!

The very model of a modern scientific man

Your humble Devil was thoroughly amused by Neil Ferguson's fall from grace, and is very pleased to have found the time to outline Fergus...