South Park and what the f*ck censorship?

[jbrettlip]

Look it up on wikipedia. It is against my religion to post a link to that and claim it as fact. But Indonesia wins. I think you are forgetting population density when looking at geography. It doesn't matter how big a place is, just how many people live there.

[Doc_Brown]

Just to add, Indonesia is fairly large. In terms of land area, it's a bit smaller than Saudi Arabia and a good bit larger than Iran. It just has a much higher population density.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population

[jimboston]

First of all your use of the word "racism" is erroneous. Muslims are no more a race than homosexuals and yet the word is bandied about by Liberals with regards to both. Islam is a religion and homosexuality is a sexual preference. There are people of all races in the Islamic religion and people of all races who are homosexual. Applying the term "racism" in these cases is ignorant at best and usually simply a dishonest bullshit form of propaganda.

Honibaz

Thank You.

It might be bigotry or discrimination (I think it is neither)... it is certainly not racist.

Liberals through that word around like a Nuke to win arguments.

Thanks

Honibaz

[Doc_Brown]

First of all your use of the word "racism" is erroneous. Muslims are no more a race than homosexuals and yet the word is bandied about by Liberals with regards to both. Islam is a religion and homosexuality is a sexual preference. There are people of all races in the Islamic religion and people of all races who are homosexual. Applying the term "racism" in these cases is ignorant at best and usually simply a dishonest bullshit form of propaganda.

Honibaz

Thank You.

It might be bigotry or discrimination (I think it is neither)... it is certainly not racist.

Liberals through that word around like a Nuke to win arguments.

Thanks

Honibaz

2 comments:
1) I think this is a fair statement, so I formally withdraw my original use of the term "racist" in this thread and replace it with "bigotry." I do think there is a sense in which it can be termed racism, but I agree that the word is far too overused, and for me to stretch the definition of it beyond its formal meaning probably only contributes to the problem. I'll go back and edit my original comment (though I'll note the edit as well).

2) I have to say that I'm chuckling at the mention of liberals in this thread since I'm the one that used the term "racism," and it would be a huge stretch to call me a liberal! You might get away with moderate simply because some of my views are well outside mainstream Republicanism, but even that would be something of a stretch. I'm something of a mix of a libertarian and a crunchy con.

[nietzsche]

PAKISTAN!

India was divided in 2 because of the religion.

[AndyDufresne]

PAKISTAN!

India was divided in 2 because of the religion*.

*Because of British Colonialism.


--Andy

[nietzsche]

PAKISTAN!

India was divided in 2 because of the religion*.

*Because of British Colonialism.


--Andy

ehm, you like red don't you

not sure about the story, but Pakistan has like 2,000,000 of muslims

[b.k. barunt]

2) I have to say that I'm chuckling at the mention of liberals in this thread since I'm the one that used the term "racism," and it would be a huge stretch to call me a liberal! You might get away with moderate simply because some of my views are well outside mainstream Republicanism, but even that would be something of a stretch. I'm something of a mix of a libertarian and a crunchy con.

Didn't mean to imply that you were a Liberal. Just saying that Liberals bandy the word around a lot. I know how you feel though, as i'm considered to be a Liberal by many Conservatives and a redneck Conservative by many Liberals. Go figure. I take things issue by issue and stay away from the bandwagons myself.


Honibaz

[muy_thaiguy]

2) I have to say that I'm chuckling at the mention of liberals in this thread since I'm the one that used the term "racism," and it would be a huge stretch to call me a liberal! You might get away with moderate simply because some of my views are well outside mainstream Republicanism, but even that would be something of a stretch. I'm something of a mix of a libertarian and a crunchy con.

Didn't mean to imply that you were a Liberal. Just saying that Liberals bandy the word around a lot. I know how you feel though, as i'm considered to be a Liberal by many Conservatives and a redneck Conservative by many Liberals. Go figure. I take things issue by issue and stay away from the bandwagons myself.


Honibaz

I consider you a somewhat senile hippie, if that is any consolation.

[b.k. barunt]

I can live with that.


Honibaz

[GabonX]

PAKISTAN!

India was divided in 2 because of the religion*.

*Because of British Colonialism.


--Andy

I'd love to hear you explanation of this, because my understanding was that the Muslims in India broke off specifically to form an Islamic State..

[InkL0sed]

PAKISTAN!

India was divided in 2 because of the religion*.

*Because of British Colonialism.


--Andy

I'd love to hear you explanation of this, because my understanding was that the Muslims in India broke off specifically to form an Islamic State..

The British decided they should separate India into India and Pakistan, dividing the Hindus and Muslims. Gandhi did not like this idea, and it resulted in much death and chaos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

[InkL0sed]

Despite what Americans may or may not think, most Muslims are not Arabs.

Most Muslims may not be Arabs, but most Arabs are Muslims..

Just to be clear, we're talking in the hundreds of millions range.

I'm not sure what you're point was supposed to be, but my guess is that this is the counter to it..

My point is that saying Muslim = Arab is like saying rectangle = square. Yes, I understand that most Arabs are Muslim (not even all, but whatever), and squares are rectangles. That doesn't make the reverse true. What the guy before me said was just stupid.

[Simon Viavant]

Despite what Americans may or may not think, most Muslims are not Arabs.

Interesting. If not Arabs then what?


Honibaz

there is a large Muslim population in Africa.

Indonesian and Malaysian Muslims make up the largest portion of Muslims in the world if I am not mistaken. But for the most part, people associate Arab with Muslims, because of colonialism, neo-colonialism, the Arab-Israeli Wars of the 20th century, and expansion of Oil Diplomacy in the Gulf States, and of course popular culture representations (Lawrence of Arabia, The Sheik, etc).


--Andy

Waitaminute . . . if my memory (and knowledge of world geography based on conquerclub maps) serves me correctly, Indonesia and Malaysia are little bitty places, and yet you're going to try to convince me that these two mini-countries hold more Muslims than the entire Middle East along with Libya and Egypt??? Are you daft?


Honibaz

Indonesia is the 4th most populous country in the world.

[Army of GOD]

Indonesia is the 4th most populous country in the world.

Yeaaaaaaa...I was about to say that too.

Off by a little there barunt.

[GabonX]

PAKISTAN!

India was divided in 2 because of the religion*.

*Because of British Colonialism.


--Andy

I'd love to hear you explanation of this, because my understanding was that the Muslims in India broke off specifically to form an Islamic State..

The British decided they should separate India into India and Pakistan, dividing the Hindus and Muslims. Gandhi did not like this idea, and it resulted in much death and chaos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

Wow..

I think you need to read that article, because it explains quite clearly that it was the Muslim population that was pushing for the formation of an Islamic state..

Background

Late 19th and early 20th century

The All India Muslim League (AIML) was formed in Dhaka in 1906 by Muslims who were suspicious of the Hindu-majority Indian National Congress. They complained that Muslim members did not have the same rights as Hindu members. A number of different scenarios were proposed at various times. Among the first to make the demand for a separate state was the writer/philosopher Allama Iqbal, who, in his presidential address to the 1930 convention of the Muslim League said that a separate nation for Muslims was essential in an otherwise Hindu-dominated subcontinent.

The British Colonial Administration consisted of Secretary of State for India, the India Office, the Governor-General of India, and the Indian Civil Service. The British were in favour of keeping the area united. The 1946 Cabinet Mission was sent to try and reach a compromise between Congress and the Muslim League. A compromise proposing a decentralized state with much power given to local governments won initial acceptance, but Nehru was unwilling to accept such a decentralized state and Jinnah soon returned to demanding an independent Pakistan.

The Muslims in India were the ones pushing for an Islamic state and it's just plain stupid to suggest otherwise..

.. On top of that, according to your article the British wanted a unified Indian nation but despite this the Muslim population won out in the end.

My point is that saying Muslim = Arab is like saying rectangle = square. Yes, I understand that most Arabs are Muslim (not even all, but whatever), and squares are rectangles. That doesn't make the reverse true. What the guy before me said was just stupid.

My point is that nobody said anything like what you're saying they said, and that you should read and try to comprehend the things you comment on before you post.

[b.k. barunt]

Indonesia is the 4th most populous country in the world.

I stand corrected. I honestly had no idea. Never gave the place much thought.


Honibaz

[Woodruff]

PAKISTAN!

India was divided in 2 because of the religion*.

*Because of British Colonialism.


--Andy

I'd love to hear you explanation of this, because my understanding was that the Muslims in India broke off specifically to form an Islamic State..

The British decided they should separate India into India and Pakistan, dividing the Hindus and Muslims. Gandhi did not like this idea, and it resulted in much death and chaos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

That Gandhi guy was obviously a ruthless bastard.

[GabonX]

He was when he served in Africa...

[b.k. barunt]

Ghandi served in Africa? I'm learning all kinds of neat shit in this thread.


Newly Educated Honibaz

[Woodruff]

He was when he served in Africa...

The only time my admittedly-limited recollection dredges up about "Gandhi in Africa", it was in his NON-VIOLENT South African activities. Do you have something else in mind? Because I don't see those activities as being particularly "ruthless" in fashion.

[GabonX]

He was definitely a different person in his younger days than the Gandhi that most people know..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_K ... ontroversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_K ... ar_of_1906

[Woodruff]

He was definitely a different person in his younger days than the Gandhi that most people know..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_K ... ontroversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_K ... ar_of_1906

I've read your two links, and I'm definitely not seeing anything particularly "ruthless" there. In fact, a quote from that section you linked to, "He did however stipulate in a letter to the Viceroy's private secretary that he "personally will not kill or injure anybody, friend or foe." pretty much implies he was definitely not ruthless.

[GabonX]

In 1906, after the British introduced a new poll-tax, Zulus in South Africa killed two British officers. In response, the British declared a war against the Zulus. Gandhi actively encouraged the British to recruit Indians. He argued that Indians should support the war efforts in order to legitimize their claims to full citizenship. The British, however, refused to commission Indians as army officers. Nonetheless, they accepted Gandhi's offer to let a detachment of Indians volunteer as a stretcher bearer corps to treat wounded British soldiers. This corps was commanded by Gandhi. On 21 July 1906, Gandhi wrote in Indian Opinion: "The corps had been formed at the instance of the Natal Government by way of experiment, in connection with the operations against the Natives consists of twenty three Indians".[22] Gandhi urged the Indian population in South Africa to join the war through his columns in Indian Opinion: “If the Government only realized what reserve force is being wasted, they would make use of it and give Indians the opportunity of a thorough training for actual warfare.”[23]

Do you want a cookie? I'll buy you a cookie if you want..

Ruthless may be an overstatement, but the pro war/racist image we have of the young Gandhi stands in stark contrast to the image most people have of him.

It poses the question, did Gandhi use peaceful means to oppose the British because of ethics or because of pragmatism? ie, did he use the methods he did because he knew India could not win in a military confrontation...

[Woodruff]

In 1906, after the British introduced a new poll-tax, Zulus in South Africa killed two British officers. In response, the British declared a war against the Zulus. Gandhi actively encouraged the British to recruit Indians. He argued that Indians should support the war efforts in order to legitimize their claims to full citizenship. The British, however, refused to commission Indians as army officers. Nonetheless, they accepted Gandhi's offer to let a detachment of Indians volunteer as a stretcher bearer corps to treat wounded British soldiers. This corps was commanded by Gandhi. On 21 July 1906, Gandhi wrote in Indian Opinion: "The corps had been formed at the instance of the Natal Government by way of experiment, in connection with the operations against the Natives consists of twenty three Indians".[22] Gandhi urged the Indian population in South Africa to join the war through his columns in Indian Opinion: “If the Government only realized what reserve force is being wasted, they would make use of it and give Indians the opportunity of a thorough training for actual warfare.”[23]

Do you want a cookie? I'll buy you a cookie if you want..

Ruthless may be an overstatement, but the pro war/racist image we have of the young Gandhi stands in stark contrast to the image most people have of him.

It poses the question, did Gandhi use peaceful means to oppose the British because of ethics or because of pragmatism? ie, did he use the methods he did because he knew India could not win in a military confrontation...

I've always believed it was a combination of both. There was no way he was going to stand up to them on a militaristic scale, but I think that he had to also have had the ethical principles in order to find the will to use that method. Hard to fight that way if you don't at least fairly well believe in the rightness of it.