BF2S Forums Racist?

Dezerteagal5 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Dezerteagal5 wrote:

Yes i do, and theres a lot more countries in the 'east' (from u.s.) meaning the whole side of the world
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3408/mymapmo9.jpg
The dark grey = cool with me
The medium grey = The ones i dont perticularly like (by default)
The light grey (up by UK, couldnt really tell you where the UK was in the glob of stuff) = Places im not sure of

"couldnt really tell you where the UK was in the glob of stuff" -

The 'east' is NOT everything to the east of the United States!

wikipedia wrote:

The term Western world or "the West" (also on rare occasions called the Occident) can have multiple meanings depending on its context (i.e. the time period and the used criteria). Even definitions of what constitutes the West today vary. In general however there is a consensus that the West includes at least Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.[1] In other definitions, Eastern Europe, Latin America, Turkey, and/or Israel are often included, as their cultures are closely linked. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong are often described as Western, especially in a political or economic context, because of their high living standards and their social, economical and political structure.

^{source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_World}

Oh, and btw, the UK is the larger of the two islands (and a bit of the smaller one) at the top of the grey box at the top of your image - you obliterated Scotland with your grey box...

Yes thats great. Thats why after i said 'east' i added (OF THE U.S.) because the world is round so east depends on wherever your position is,

Dezerteagal5 wrote:

Thats terrible. I don't neccesarily have a hatred for the Islamic, but maybe just the whole east...

Thats better right?
Maybe not U.K. they can be aright.

Scottland has the name of my pops in it.. they can stay

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

Perhaps it's because the Christians actually have a decent lifestyle, and decent standard of life? And the Muslims who don't have any standard of life feel a bit envious of those who do?

Perhaps, and the point being??

The point is it is the poor quality of life driving people to religious fundamentalism. When the quality of life is low, religious fundamentalism is rife, examples can be seen throughout history (from a Christian perspective, the Crusades and the various Inquisitions) and in more contemporary settings, such as Africa.

Being Muslim is nothing to do with it.

lowing wrote:

if you do not have a descent standard of life, you do something about it. YOu certainly do not try and kill those that are working to try and build you one.

It's all about perspective. From a Middle Eastern perspective the US is very easily painted as the bad guy, it is not hard for leaders to pass off their own shortcomings onto American (or to a lesser extent European) influences in the region. Immense US support for Israel who have acted deplorably towards all Arab states and most Middle Eastern ones, a long history of US interference in Middle Eastern governments, side switching, military action in the region leading to civilian casualties and other collateral damage are all factors that are extremely easy for radical anti-Western leaders to exploit and manipulate to their own advantage (Ahmadinejad is a prime example - blaming the US for ever rising Iranian inflation (which is in part due to UN sanctions - but not entirely)).

Stop giving these radical leaders so much ammunition.

zeidmaan wrote:

Countries with organized (domestic) Muslim LEGAL and STATE APPROVED communities don't have much problems with radical Islam and its growing influence.

Much like we see in Iran and Saudi Arabia?

Doesn't seem to work there. Although that could also be down to deliberate government incitement of hatred for the West and Western ideals.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-04-02 09:05:23)

Dezerteagal5 wrote:

Des.Kmal wrote:

im racist.

And thats your god damn american right. So don't forget it!

EVieira wrote:

Dezerteagal5 wrote:

Des.Kmal wrote:

im racist.

And thats your god damn american right. So don't forget it!

No it isn't. Its against the law to discriminate based on race.

EVieira wrote:

zeidmaan wrote:

keep it on topic please.

I was on the impression racism was relevant to the topic, since the title is "Racist?"

m3thod wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

This thread is turning me into a racist.

Not long to go eh?

usmarine2007 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

This thread is turning me into a racist.

Not long to go eh?

tr0ll

Last edited by m3thod (2007-04-02 14:16:18)

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

{B-T}<babacanosh> wrote:

It seems to me that bf2s forums are getting more populated with threads against Islam. Many of you are always basing us on what you see on T.V. and our Steryo ( excuse my spelling) types.

You don't see me making fun of jews or any other religion.

And i think it should stop.

I am sorry that happens. Don't respond to it and it usually dies on the vine. People liked that are trying to get noticed.
The people that mouth off and insult here are always timid pitiful, ineffectual, mice in reality.
This is there only safe venue.

Maybe Try and help educate them? Get in their head, learn their perspective. Small minded people are easy to sway when you know how and an empty head fills quicker. If you have the time... I don't.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Sorry Cam, there is good reason for the "bigotry" you say we all have. If this religion was hijacked by such a small percentage of radicals, why are the Muslim communities not policing their ranks? NOT unlike the moderate Christians stomping out the KKK or the skinheads at their own rallies, to such effect that these groups look more foolish than anything else. Moderate Christianity has stifled the radical elements of their religion in America. I expect and demand if the Muslims are to gain any favor from me, they step up, take charge and put their God damned dogs on a leash.

Timothy McViegh was not labeled the "Christian Bomber" for 1 reason, he didn't commit his crimes in the name of God, or Christianity.

Lowing - what is this radical islam wave of terrorism against the west you speak of? 7/7, Madrid and 9/11? I'm sorry but those acts were perpetrated by a maximum of about 200 people combined. Muslims have inhabited France and the UK for at least a hundred years. Acts of terrorism carried out on supposed religious grounds in each country? Zero (the 7/7 bombers stated that they carried out their act in protest at the decision by their government to go to war in Iraq - not a religion-based reason).

Muslims should police their own ranks? Well Lowing - that monster Saddam was effective at that and acts of radical Islamist terror are few and far between in most middle eastern countries - where governments do not allow such groups to operate (Egypt & Turkey are particularly tough on this). Power vacuums like Iraq are where the extremists can successfully breed. There's little or no 'policing' there. And who is to blame for creating that power vacuum? Lowing - you are one who usually espouses the values of self-determination and minimisation of governmental interference in your own affairs. I find it odd that you propose that just because you follow a particular creed you are duty-bound to police your neighbours who coincidentally follow said creed. Should I make a statement denouncing the criminal acts of a fellow atheist just simply because I'm an atheist? I don't think so somehow. 

When I was in London last month I was walking along the edge of Hyde Park to get to Paddington Station to catch a train to Heathrow. On my right was a procession of Muslims making their way to Marble Arch, celebrating the Ashouraa (sp?) festival. They drew a lot of attention from passers-by as they carried their flags with arabic writing, carried a miniature silver mosque, chanted and lightly/symbolically flagellated themselves. As I walked along I was inundated with young muslims handing out flyers, special newspapers and free DVDs explaining the ritual. The paper was fully of articles that were condemnatory of terror, articles about how non-muslims should have nothing to fear about muslims, articles about American soldiers helping Iraqi children. This is hardly what you would expect from those whose picture has been distorted and silenced in the media and on this forum.

lowing wrote:

When you consider the planning, the money, the logistics to carry out such attacks more than 200 people were involved in these attacks, I am sure. The guilty are not just the ones that killed themselves along with their victims.

MY self determination, personal responsibility and condemnation of big govt. has always revolved within the boundary of NOT hindering someone's pursuit of life liberty and happiness. Are we now going to say that the attacks, did not interfere the victims pursuit of these. For you to suggest that I am in conflict with these ideals by suggesting that the Muslims do something about their own radical elements is ridiculous.


As for your encounter at Heathrow....... I don't care.........Don't hand out flyers to me telling your position on these issues, all I care about is action........Tell me what you are doing about your so called brothers that are engaged in this bullshit. Then I will listen.