The Shotgun Blog
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Inhospitable Western Host Societies
From a bulletin distributed at Toronto's York University last June:
"Many of the world's leading scholars of Islam will speak at a York University conference on Muslim diasporas this weekend, focussing on the social, cultural and economic factors that encourage Muslims to form a collective religious identity when faced with inhospitable Western host societies."
This might be a bit old, since a friend of mine who goes to York U just showed it to me, but the time of the conference ain't matter much. I am putting this entry here because this phrase "inhospitable Western host societies" caught my attention. I just wonder if western societies such as Canada, Britain or US are inhospitable at all. I don't think so, but it is very surprising to see how Muslims think they're and would like to take action (i.e Jihad) against them.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Inhospitable Western Host Societies:
gee, and here i thought we in the west just had this silly worry that we may get ourselves blown up
Posted by: john a. | 2007-09-27 7:16:55 PM
"inhospitable Western host societies". Well, as guests in Canada, one should act as such...some one should tell them it is very rude to demand more and more from your "host". They must have taken a page from the Liberals since they are decrying how inhospitable we are yet we provide them with an open forum, free of persecution, to whine about how inhospitable we are...Maybe they should give a little back as a group before they cry about how Canadians are being inhospitable.
Posted by: Sean Whelan | 2007-09-27 7:17:57 PM
. . . as compared to what - Saudi hospitality? Ask Mr. Samson about that.
And Iranian hospitality? Ask that Canadian lady journalist who was raped and killed there last year. Oooops! She's dead. Can't ask her, now can we.
Posted by: obc | 2007-09-27 7:25:51 PM
But Shrillery is being very hospitable to Chinese immigrants to the point of accepting their illegal campaign contributions - and then claiming to have returned them. Naturally the "investigative" reporters at CNN, NBC, et al are not checking up to see if this is true, but when asked about this scandal (that the Lame Stream Media largely ignoring), Shrillery replied:
"I DID NOT HAVE FINANCIAL RELATIONS WITH THAT MAN, Mr. Hsue."
Posted by: obc | 2007-09-27 7:36:18 PM
Yes, Britains is trying to reverse this by ensuring byrglers are welcome everywhere:
"A man died breaking into my home and I was arrested"
The Times [London, UK], by Russell Jenkins
When Patrick Walsh disturbed a cat burglar in his fourth floor flat at dawn earlier this summer, his first instinct was to protect himself and his possessions. He could not have foreseen the consequences In haste to escape, the intruder, who was on bail at the time and awaiting trial on burglary-related charges, stepped off the window ledge and fell to his death on the pavement below. He was still in shock when a plainclothes detective told him that he was under arrest on suspicion of having pushed the 43-year old man, a habitual burglar, to his death.
FRANKLY, I hope he really did push the perp.
Posted by: obc | 2007-09-27 7:49:22 PM
could be worse, if he was living in bc they would hang him for abusing the poor criminal classes
Posted by: john a | 2007-09-27 8:09:35 PM
Lies are easy to fabricate, obviously.
If Muslims really thought Western countries were so 'inhospitable' they would flee to countries like Iran - a theocratic paradise where every Muslim is extremely happy.
Strangely, Muslims will line up to leave Muslim countries, but they won't leave Western countries even when no one stops them from going?
The word 'inhospitable' must have a different meaning among the stupid.
Posted by: philanthropist | 2007-09-28 12:25:10 AM
This sounds like an Islamist event seeking to promote jihad. It is one of their selling points to Muslims in the West. Who is sponsoring the event and who is financing it?
Posted by: Alain | 2007-09-28 12:56:58 AM
UPDATE ON RECENT ISRAELI RAID INTO SYRIA:
"Report: Defecting Iranian official gave info before alleged Syrian foray"
Iranian former deputy defense minister Ali Rheze Asgari supplied intelligence sources in the West with information regarding the sites that Israeli jets allegedly attacked on September 6, the Kuweiti Al Jareeda reported Friday.
Asgari defected from Iran several months ago and moved to an undisclosed location in the West.
Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 8:25:56 AM
Maybe, just maybe, these problems could be avoided if we all converted to Islam?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-09-28 8:58:37 AM
ARE YOU KIDDING??? If the whole world converted to Islam, the fighting would continue - between Sunni Muslims & Shiite Muslims. These people have no concept of living in peace - even among themselves.
Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 9:06:36 AM
I doubt whether anyone who had a recent visitor in their neighbourhood who was a pedophile,guilty of abuse against boys,women,cattle and Jews would be predisposed to rush out and bake them a welcome cake.
Do these people have any brains at all??
Posted by: atrci | 2007-09-28 9:11:09 AM
obc: of course I'm kidding! That's why I said "nah".
You are quite correct - which side do we take? Either way, the unending conflict between Sunni and Shiite would continue. And they call themselves the religion of peace.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-09-28 9:14:45 AM
I knew what you meant. My comment was tongue-in-cheek. :)
Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 9:19:05 AM
The West IS inhospitable - to babies:
"The world's tiniest baby - meet the 10oz bundle of defiance"
When she was born, 15 weeks premature and weighing ten and a half ounces, her father's confidence was about the only thing on Kimberly Mueller's side.
In the few snatched moments he was allowed before his daughter was whisked away by doctors, Andreas Mueller spoke from his heart.
"I whispered to her: 'Kimberly, you'll make it,'" he recalled.
THIS IS WHAT the West is aborting. Pictures included in the following full article:
Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 9:43:24 AM
Why are we so stupid and allow those activities on our soil, such as being called names?
Bruce Allen was right: if they don't like it here ("inhospitable"), they can go home -- as my former neighbour in Toronto would say: In a boat full of holes!
Posted by: Werner Patels | 2007-09-28 10:01:06 AM
Well gee, they go to Toronto! No wonder they are so upset over the way they're treated. Do they realize that Ontarians are such bitter, angry, racist, spoiled people that they treat everyone like that?
I shudder to think what these Muslims would consider to be receptive to them. Beheading infidels in the town square? Stoning? Burkhas? Crazy.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-09-28 11:01:12 AM
LONDON (AP) British Prime Minister Gordon Brown says he believes the loss of life in Myanmar has been "far greater" than is being reported.
Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 12:06:25 PM
Please pardon my inattention or bad memory. My recollection is that you are from Iran (now living in and presumably a citizen of Canada).
What I do not recall is whether you are also an adherent to Islam.
I've become convinced that Islam is entirely demonic and "must" ultimately be removed from the philosophical influences upon mankind, but my hope is that process can occur through discussion and debate and education, etc. i.e. peaceful means, such as what I hope will occur in a free and minority rights respecting Iraq, and then grow from that base throughout the Islamic world.
Given that (above) full disclosure, and hopefully with you being an adherent to Islam, it would seem that you MUST BE one of those hard to find "moderate Muslims."
Is that the case? Are you a Muslim?
If so, could you devote some time to postings which would help inform "us" (i.e. me and anyone else as profoundly ignorant of Islam as I am), about what allows one (i.e. you) to be "moderate" within the Islamic idiology? And doesn't being a "moderate" Muslim simply mean that one is not really a Muslim (in the same way that a guy like Teddy Kennedy, who is 100% pro-abortion is NOT in fact a Roman Catholic, he is merely just surrounded by craven false pathetic weakling polluted homosexual-feminist "Catholic" Bishops, who don't have the moral strength to formally Excommunicate him)?
If my memory was better, I'd probably "know" that you are (likely) a Christian or Zoarasterian (sp?) or something else which makes my inquiry moot.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-09-28 2:32:45 PM
I think that what they mean by inhospitable western society, is that we will not all-of-a-sudden, see them in the manner to which they see themselves, (drop down on our knees), and do so in total submission, as often as they say we ought to.
I don't care what they do--or how they worship--that is immaterial.
You see, many of them really see us as being immoral, and they feel their way is the ONLY righteous way--THE ONLY spiritual truth--THE ONLY way to be righteous--THE ONLY proper way to conduct yourself both publically and privately, and THE ONLY way the entire planet ought to be run.
They see themselves (even though nothing that they have would be there if it were not for the economies of the west) as having the only way of being and economy that is proper (and equate interest rates with a crime worse than rape).
They worship a man who was a pedophile and claim they do not worship him at all (sure, not all Muslims worship like that)--and feel that when we express our thoughts in regards to their violence, that we are wrong and they are right--as if hanging gay men for being gay is not a crime against humanity; as if killing girls for not wanting to cow to shariah is not a crime against humanity and all the other acts of violence they justify with their crude and antiquated 1,400 year old set of values.
I could go on, but writing about criminals and their pathetic apologist conventions just pisses me off. And I have promised not to spend my time here, even though this place is probably one of the best forums in Canada, where freedom lovers can debate.
besides, if we were so inhospitable--as they claim we are--they would not have the freedom to come here and complain about us as they do. If we went to their countries and did the same, they would either kill us, or in the least, whip us until our backs were like hamburger! Truth is--it is they who are inhospitable! Look at what they do to our soldiers--the ones who are there to keep them free from the oppressors!
Posted by: Lady | 2007-09-28 2:54:40 PM
This place would not be the same without your thoughtful and deeply respected comments.
I do hope that you will continue to post and visit as time allows for you.
Your loyal reader,
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-09-28 3:33:04 PM
I doubt that Winston will bother to respond to your rude question about his religion so, I remember him saying that his philosophy is secular. That is, he is a 21st century man and probably thinks that devout Muslims are as goofy and primative as you are.
Posted by: Zog | 2007-09-28 5:42:06 PM
Conrad's question was deftly asked with courtesy - something Zog obviously lacks.
Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 6:00:49 PM
Oh. How does one ask a question that is NOHFB "deftly and with courtesy"?
Posted by: Zog | 2007-09-28 6:29:16 PM
Read it again & you'll find out. Winston can choose not to reply - but the question was not out of bounds.
Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 6:31:39 PM
My intention was to be courteous in asking Winston to address Islam.
I'm glad that obc kindly volunteered that he understood my intention from the words that I used.
It is sometimes a palm to the forehead moment right after I hit the "Post" key and realize what a hash I've made of my writing.
I think this is important to discuss our motivations and beliefs at the same time as we discuss or argue political issues. I believe there is something called Truth and that it is within our human nature to seek it.
All of the elements of Islam that I detest are also fully developed within Atheism, but much of the philosophy of Islam is focused on producing a satisfying and productive life for the natural human family-community.
It seems that you and I disagree on some things, but since we are both kicking around here, what do you propose that we do, other than discuss issues from our separate perspectives, and as clearly as we can?
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-09-28 7:54:04 PM
If it isn't inhospitiable it isn't Dar al-Harb.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-09-29 9:27:13 AM
As is this will last:
"UN: We have criticized Israel unfairly"
The United Nations Human Rights Council has not managed to deal fairly with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the council's president Doru-Romulus Costea told a Spanish newspaper on Saturday, according to Israel Radio.
Is the UN Human Rights Council going to change its approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Doru admitted that he was dissatisfied with the fact the council had overly focused on the degree of human rights violations by Israel.
"The body which I head must examine the actions of both sides equally, and we have not done that," said Costea. "Clearly, from now on things need to change."
SURE THEY NEED TO CHANGE - but they won't.
Posted by: obc | 2007-09-29 9:30:23 AM
My understanding of Arab (or Persian) culture is that hospitality is a big deal. (This is one of the many ways that the president of Columbia offered Achmedinnerjacket a PR coup. That he made and invitation and then treated his guest poorly makes his a disreputable figure.) Western culture, on the other hand, makes a big deal of fairness. These are cultural mores.
No doubt, the hospitality people meet in North American or European communities isn't as warm as Arabs would think is normal. The thing about violating another culture's mores is that it looks to the locals like a moral failing. Think about hos you view people who budge into lines.
If I were trying to generate grievance among Arab immigrants, complaining about hospitality would be a great tactic.
Posted by: pete e | 2007-09-30 12:17:20 AM
It sometimes takes me a long time to recognize a question that has been rolling around in the back of my head.
Who is the head of the family?
In your opinion and ideal, what is a family, and how is it structured?
Many posters on this blog are wrestling with the entire notion of Islam versus Western Civilization.
Just above, pete e brings up the essential recognition of differences between Tradtional societies and Modern societies (even the physical closeness or "space" desired by people across this divide is a hurdle, which must be understood in order to avoid huge affront-insult).
But in our Western Civilization, and among us "conservatives" (Lady of course realizes that I think of her as a total Liberal big-government type, but I don't bring that up too much because I figure that she is pretty).
I would guess that Lady might have a hard time answering questions about the structure of the family. I think therein lies the "trouble" that Western Civilization will have with Islam. We actually have a female population which rejects family and our men are finding this undermines all of life's exceptancies, and replaces the women-wives-mothers of the past with the unpaid whores of the present.
I fear that the feminists (Liberals like Lady) don't believe in the natural human family. I avoided the additional modifier "traditional" because if we ever get to explore this idea with Lady, I think she will realize that she does not believe in the natural human family as a constant structure, but that she will not open her eyes to realize that is the reason why Lady has made it disappear (so that Epsilon can think she is happy about something).
The homosexual-feminism (spawned by the Communists as they infiltrated and corrupted the Roman Catholic Church clergy) is a far deadlier enemy of Western Civilization and individual liberty than Islam.
Islam is a crazy religion which kills those who protest or attempt to leave it, whereas homosexual-feminism destroys the natural human family by denying human nature roles of men versus women (who then have Abortion Rights rather than children).
Who is the head of the family?
The man if it prospers in Judeo-Christian culture; the woman if it dies in Atheist sewage.
Islam provides a tyrannical structure to enslave women who could not accept their equality (the eternal Soul, neither woman nor man, servant or free) preserved and protected and defended for 2,000 years by those "dirty old white men" who thought they were devoted husbands and fathers.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-09-30 7:36:33 AM
Conrad-USA wrote:"homosexual-feminism destroys the natural human family by denying human nature roles of men versus women (who then have Abortion Rights rather than children)."
In my opinion the head of the family should be on top of their necks, not their genitals.
That said, I laughed when I read "homosexual-feminism" and "atheist sewage". You really have a way of cramming unrelated concepts together. Variation in sexuality isn't an ideology, it's a natural reality. It was here long before Judaism and will long outlast Christianity.
For the sake of common decency, you have to live with. Muslims have some tough pills to swallow and so do Christians.
And let's be honest here: follow the precepts of any religion too closely, the result is going to be crazy. That's what happens when fallible people claim the confidence of the omnipotent. It is inevitable in the order of nature.
Posted by: Timothy Zak | 2007-09-30 10:16:25 AM
Timothy Zak -
Your comment: "Variation in sexuality isn't an ideology, it's a natural reality. It was here long before Judaism and will long outlast Christianity." helped me to focus more precisely.
I used a term: "homosexual-feminism" which evidently sparked your interest and response.
Actually I think it is quite fair to say that "homosexual-feminism" is precisely an ideology.
It is the ideology of creating "Rights" (and related duties) as the result of the perceived "injustice" of merely recognizing differences among people (e.g. male vs female; normal sexuality vs homosexual mental illness).
That ideology was advanced successfully by falsely identifying exclusionary descrimination associated with gender when none existed (Cleopatra ruled Egypt and Madame Curie was a scientist way before we removed the "Glass ceiling"). Big men forever got all the policeman jobs without any complaint of "illegal descrimination" rather it was obviously good common sense. Whereas now, smaller weaker less physically commanding policewomen are a thousand times more likely to dischare their weapons in routine police stops than are their big "brothers."
The hitchhiker riding along in this discussion is the male homosexual, who is limited in many aspects of interaction in normal human society by his profound burden of mental illness. To pretend and deliberately confuse (normal sesible)descrimination based on sex, and broadly splash over onto sexuality, is the mechanism by which the homosexual-feminist ideology was created (i.e. by the Communists, who intend to destroy the key element of human civilization and society, which is the natural human family).
It was all so easy because all men have mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters whom they have dedicated their lives to benefitting in every conceivable manner for all of Judeo-Christian civilized history.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-09-30 11:14:02 AM
I am sorry but you make too much sense for me. :)
Posted by: obc | 2007-09-30 11:59:08 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.