I realize that, in the face of senseless incidents like the now two bombings in London, things are often said in the heat of the moment which we may later regret. We often say things we'd never be caught dead saying under normal circumstances.

Unfortunately, even though an incident may have happened that hurts, a lot, we suddenly CANNOT lose ourselves and start commenting on how [place x] or [region y] or [religion z] should be irradicated. The biggest majority of any of the above are honest, hard-working folks like yourselves, and harbor no hatred or ill-will towards anyone. The other 0.002% are extremists. The general populace of a country, region, or members of a religion, should NEVER be judged by this tiny minority.

That being said, I want to make a point to all site members. This is an official warning to all members of this site - no newbie, senior member, moderator, or administrator -is exempt from it's message.

THIS IS THE PREREQUISITE WARNING FOR ALL THIRTY THOUSAND USERS OF THIS SITE:

Under no circumstances will racist and/or derogatory comments towards a group of people, country, or religion be tolerated. From here onwards, anyone caught making such comments WILL face disciplinary action (be it temporary suspension or banning, depending on frequency and severity), be they new member, or longstanding citizen; brand new registrant, or even a moderator or administrator. Sitcoms Online will NOT be a website whose forums foster hatred for any group.

Thank you.

Thanks for posting that Seth.

Thank You, Seth

It is also asked, AGAIN, that if you see a problematic post, to PLEASE use the "Report Post" button, to send a dispatch to the board moderator and/or site administrators, so that the problem can be taken care of ASAP.

Will do. Definitely.

:thumbsup:

wooops :rolleyes:

Thank you

Thanks for the warning Seth.

Can do.

wooops :rolleyes:
this is far past "Wooops" :nonono:

well, I'm not giving what Peter said creedence, but cut the guy some slack. His beloved homeland keeps getting attacked.

How fast people forget 9-11, while Peter is a "bad guy" for saying something out of spite and anger, when 9-11 happened, a LOT of Americans said and felt exactly the same thing, but it was "okay" because it's us. I don't think Peter should be damned for feeling any less angry that terrorists keep attacking where he lives than how we felt when they blew up the WTC. Remember the anti-Arab backlash that happened immediately following the events of 9-11? why was THAT "okay", but it's not okay for British people to harbor those feelings also.

Remember the anti-Arab backlash that happened immediately following the events of 9-11?

Reading that, it sounds as if there isn't still anti-Arab feelings in the country, but alas....

Peter's comments were the final tipping point, yes. However, a strengthening of the site's policy regarding derogatory comments has been a LONG time in coming.

As for the "a LOT of Americans said and felt exactly the same thing", here's the thing: Things like that might have been said in conversation, but if they were said on internet message boards, Sitcoms Online included, they were most likely removed as being "racist/derogatory", or at least they SHOULD have been.

And, for the record, neither the Anti-Muslim backlash then, OR NOW, is "okay". BOTH were, and are, hateful ways of thinking of a group of people, in which practically ALL members of that group are decent people. Though I was in a position to have done so then, all inflammatory posts reported were dealt with, and if it happens now, I'll damn well make sure any inflammatory posts that are reported are dealt with.

I want to make something clear: I'm not trying to demonize ANY member of these forums. If it looks that way, well, I'm sorry to everyone. But at some point, a line HAS to be drawn saying that things cannot, and will not, be tolerated any longer.

but it was "okay" because it's us. .... why was THAT "okay", but it's not okay for British people to harbor those feelings also.
i do not know who you have talked to, but no one ever said that was "OK"

get your facts straight

i do not know who you have talked to, but no one ever said that was "OK"

get your facts straight

I see anti-terrorist comments to this day from American posters, and it's "okay" because we were attacked on 9-11-01. However, newsflash, the British are going through the same thing we did. I've seen a lot of people on the politics board say like "you can't convince me that these people (Islamic terrorists and extremists) can possibly be redeemed".

I can't speak for any posts made before today, but if you'll report the post, each post WILL be reviewed and a determination made.

I see anti-terrorist comments to this day from American posters, and it's "okay" because we were attacked on 9-11-01. However, newsflash, the British are going through the same thing we did. I've seen a lot of people on the politics board say like "you can't convince me that these people (Islamic terrorists and extremists) can possibly be redeemed".
being anti-terrorist is WAY different than being anti-black or anti-jew or anti-gay.

I see anti-terrorist comments to this day from American posters, and it's "okay" because we were attacked on 9-11-01. However, newsflash, the British are going through the same thing we did. I've seen a lot of people on the politics board say like "you can't convince me that these people (Islamic terrorists and extremists) can possibly be redeemed".
It's anti TERRORIST meaning against all terrrorists not all muslims. And even if people in America or anywhere did discriminate against an entire race for any reason does not make it ok and no one said it was.

well, I'm not giving what Peter said creedence, but cut the guy some slack. His beloved homeland keeps getting attacked.

How fast people forget 9-11, while Peter is a "bad guy" for saying something out of spite and anger, when 9-11 happened, a LOT of Americans said and felt exactly the same thing, but it was "okay" because it's us. I don't think Peter should be damned for feeling any less angry that terrorists keep attacking where he lives than how we felt when they blew up the WTC. Remember the anti-Arab backlash that happened immediately following the events of 9-11? why was THAT "okay", but it's not okay for British people to harbor those feelings also.I remember for months after 9/11, I was SEETHING with anger and hatred toward Arabs and Muslims, all the while telling myself, I used to not feel like this, I always believed myself to be hospitable toward people of other cultures and faiths. But I soon had to get over my being upset and realize it was a handful of people who did this to our country, and it was not indicative of every single Arab or Muslim. I felt a peace about it and moved on. It's so sad that there are so many people who nurse an ongoing grudge against other people in this world. I felt that so much murder and mayhem going on against Arabs and Muslims after 9/11 was like Nazi Germany's Kristalnacht, where angry Germans orchestrated their hatred of Jews by trashing Jewish-owned shops and businesses in November 1938, over the assassination of a Nazi official in Paris by a disenfranchised Jewish teen.

Is anyone either in America or Britain going to feel pretty silly and ashamed after all this blows over?

Is anyone either in America or Britain going to feel pretty silly and ashamed after all this blows over?

I would say so. Anger brings out the worst in people, on both sides of the conflict.

I would say so. Anger brings out the worst in people, on both sides of the conflict.


It sure does.
I was so proud of my husband. He worked along side a Muslim guy (from Iran), and our company was laying off people like crazy shortly after 9/11 - they handed the Muslim guy his papers. We approached the company and said we'd rather it be my husband to go than him because we knew that even if it wasn't spoken aloud at the time, there would be hard feelings against Muslims by some people so it would be easier for my husband to get a new job than him. Luckily they agreed and that's what we did. Thankfully he's still with the same company and is doing well. We didn't harbour anything against Muslims from day one - it would be like condeming all Germans and Austrians just because that was Hitler's background.

I see anti-terrorist comments to this day from American posters, and it's "okay" because we were attacked on 9-11-01. However, newsflash, the British are going through the same thing we did. I've seen a lot of people on the politics board say like "you can't convince me that these people (Islamic terrorists and extremists) can possibly be redeemed".
anti-terroists is a good thing... just like anti-murders, anti-rapist....

it's when you start getting anti-muslim, anti-[insert race here], like someone else said that your stepping over the lien

and once again, who EVER said it was OK?

It sure does.
I was so proud of my husband. He worked along side a Muslim guy (from Iran), and our company was laying off people like crazy shortly after 9/11 - they handed the Muslim guy his papers. We approached the company and said we'd rather it be my husband to go than him because we knew that even if it wasn't spoken aloud at the time, there would be hard feelings against Muslims by some people so it would be easier for my husband to get a new job than him. Luckily they agreed and that's what we did. Thankfully he's still with the same company and is doing well. We didn't harbour anything against Muslims from day one - it would be like condeming all Germans and Austrians just because that was Hitler's background.

Sounds like your husband is a man I would admire greatly. :clap

I remember for months after 9/11, I was SEETHING with anger and hatred toward Arabs and Muslims, all the while telling myself, I used to not feel like this, I always believed myself to be hospitable toward people of other cultures and faiths. But I soon had to get over my being upset and realize it was a handful of people who did this to our country, and it was not indicative of every single Arab or Muslim. I felt a peace about it and moved on. It's so sad that there are so many people who nurse an ongoing grudge against other people in this world. I felt that so much murder and mayhem going on against Arabs and Muslims after 9/11 was like Nazi Germany's Kristalnacht, where angry Germans orchestrated their hatred of Jews by trashing Jewish-owned shops and businesses in November 1938, over the assassination of a Nazi official in Paris by a disenfranchised Jewish teen.

Is anyone either in America or Britain going to feel pretty silly and ashamed after all this blows over?

I agree. The moment that set me off after 9-11 was when they cut to a bunch of kids in Afghanistan LAUGHING and cheering when they heard the news. I won't lie that my first reaction after seeing that was "nuke those bastards" (much like Peter May's belief), but then I came to my senses and realized those kids aren't evil, they've just been taught to hate. Killing and hating those people isn't doing anybody a world of good, you're sinking to their level.

I would say so. Anger brings out the worst in people, on both sides of the conflict.You've got a valid point. After 9/11 I was only angry at the hijackers and not Muslims. Judging a whole group of people based on the actions of a few is very wrong and can be dangerous.

being anti-terrorist is WAY different than being anti-black or anti-jew or anti-gay.


of course it isnt, bening gay and being black arent bad things, how can you even compare that to being a terroist?

of course it isnt, bening gay and being black arent bad things, how can you even compare that to being a terroist?Because in these past few incidents of terrorism beginning with 9/11, it was easy to pick on Muslims or people of Arab descent as "terrorists". It would even go on to people such as Iranians or Sikhs. "That person wears a headdress/has olive complexion/talks in a funny language, they must be a terrorist!" You do know that one of the worst acts of terrorism on American soil was committed by a white American?

ohno:

How do we relly know what a terrorist looks like?

How do we relly know what a terrorist looks like?[/QUOTE]


we dont and never will, i just meant they are more of the problematical race, not my opinion but it IS a fact, just look at todays evidence and big surprise :rolleyes: they were all muslim

we dont and never will, i just meant they are more of the problematical race, not my opinion but it IS a fact, just look at todays evidence and big surprise :rolleyes: they were all muslim

Uhh, yeah, that's why it's racism.

Anyways, more people have been killed in this world by white men than any other race.

Uhh, yeah, that's why it's racism.

Anyways, more people have been killed in this world by white men than any other race.


im not talking about world crimes Im talking about suicide bombers/terroists - how many white suicide bombers have you heard of?? - anyway Im done discussing this scum

im not talking about world crimes Im talking about suicide bombers/terroists - how many white suicide bombers have you heard of?? - anyway Im done discussing this scum

None, but I couldn't tell you the names of any Middle Eastern suicide bombers either.

Hitler killed millions of people, does that mean all white people should get the blame?? Of course not.

I would just like to know if this "No derogatory comments towards a group of people, country or religion will be tolerated", applies to the United States. There has been lots of Christian bashing and anti-American sentiment going on.

I would just like to know if this "No derogatory comments towards a group of people, country or religion will be tolerated", applies to the United States. There has been lots of Christian bashing and anti-American sentiment going on.

Most of the "Christian bashing" I've seen are complaints about Christian Fundamentalists. They constitute a small portion of the Christian population.

Anti-American sentiment is aparently an extremely broad catagory. You could be Anti-American for doing anything from burning the flag, to being against the war, to being against the president's decisions, to buying French products, to spelling America with a lower case 'a'.

I would just like to know if this "No derogatory comments towards a group of people, country or religion will be tolerated", applies to the United States. There has been lots of Christian bashing and anti-American sentiment going on.

Each country, each religion, each...well....everything. will be evaluated on the same case-by-case basis.

Most of the "Christian bashing" I've seen are complaints about Christian Fundamentalists. They constitute a small portion of the Christian population.

Anti-American sentiment is aparently an extremely broad catagory. You could be Anti-American for doing anything from burning the flag, to being against the war, to being against the president's decisions, to buying French products, to spelling America with a lower case 'a'.

I agree about both. It's not like the "Christian fundamentalists" who people bash don't bash gays, Democrats (I just love the stand about "Democrat is the immoral party", "Republican is the moral party". Keep "morals" out of politics!) or whatever first. People need to realize there's a difference between 95% of the Christians and the 5% that are like Falwell, Robertson, Kirk Cameron and the sort, those are the fundies that people bash, not your average everyday normal person who is Christian. They throw stones first and then get upset and cry when they get hurled right back at them. I think most SANE people realize when people trash Christian fundies, they're talking about the extremists, not just the average person who believes in God.

And I also agree about "anti-American". Some people say "I don't like Bush" is "anti-American", to me that is completely different than "your country is immoral". I've seen people attacked for being anti-American if they merely accept that America isn't the only nation that matters. I have never seen a poster here openly say "America sucks". I've seen it on other boards, but not here on SO. Some people just get so offended by anything. I remember on AOL, reading people attacking 9-11 and saying how America "deserved" it and that we "overhyped" it... THAT is anti-American.... "I don't care for Bush's economic plan" is not.

being anti-terrorist is WAY different than being anti-black or anti-jew or anti-gay.

It's anti TERRORIST meaning against all terrrorists not all muslims. And even if people in America or anywhere did discriminate against an entire race for any reason does not make it ok and no one said it was.

anti-terroists is a good thing... just like anti-murders, anti-rapist....

it's when you start getting anti-muslim, anti-[insert race here], like someone else said that your stepping over the lien

and once again, who EVER said it was OK?


see, that's the point... ANTI-TERRORIST. I highly doubt that Peter May truly hates ALL Arab people.... where he came from yesterday was a place of hatred and anger.... a place that many Americans were in when 9-11 happened. I doubt he harbors hatred for the average Islamic person, but sometimes when you're in a place of hatred it can feel easier to hate instead of understand. When saying "let's nuke Iraq", he probably was thinking "let's get rid of all the terrorists and suicide bombers" first and foremost instead of "let's also kill all the women, children and non-extremist males".

When saying "let's nuke Iraq", he probably was thinking "let's get rid of all the terrorists and suicide bombers" first and foremost instead of "let's also kill all the women, children and non-extremist males".


Then he should have said so in the first place instead of being as broad as he was.

How do we relly know what a terrorist looks like?


we dont and never will, i just meant they are more of the problematical race, not my opinion but it IS a fact, just look at todays evidence and big surprise :rolleyes: they were all muslim[/QUOTE]

The label of Catholic terror was never used about the IRA

Fundamentalism is often a form of nationalism in religious disguise

Karen Armstrong

07/11/05 "The Guardian" -- Last year I attended a conference in the US about security and intelligence in the so-called war on terror and was astonished to hear one of the more belligerent participants, who as far as I could tell had nothing but contempt for religion, strongly argue that as a purely practical expedient, politicians and the media must stop referring to "Muslim terrorism". It was obvious, he said, that the atrocities had nothing to do with Islam, and to suggest otherwise was not merely inaccurate but dangerously counterproductive.

Rhetoric is a powerful weapon in any conflict. We cannot hope to convert Osama bin Laden from his vicious ideology; our priority must be to stem the flow of young people into organisations such as al-Qaida, instead of alienating them by routinely coupling their religion with immoral violence. Incorrect statements about Islam have convinced too many in the Muslim world that the west is an implacable enemy. Yet, as we found at the conference, it is not easy to find an alternative for referring to this terrorism; however, the attempt can be a salutary exercise that reveals the complexity of what we are up against.
We need a phrase that is more exact than "Islamic terror". These acts may be committed by people who call themselves Muslims, but they violate essential Islamic principles. The Qur'an prohibits aggressive warfare, permits war only in self-defence and insists that the true Islamic values are peace, reconciliation and forgiveness. It also states firmly that there must be no coercion in religious matters, and for centuries Islam had a much better record of religious tolerance than Christianity.

Like the Bible, the Qur'an has its share of aggressive texts, but like all the great religions, its main thrust is towards kindliness and compassion. Islamic law outlaws war against any country in which Muslims are allowed to practice their religion freely, and forbids the use of fire, the destruction of buildings and the killing of innocent civilians in a military campaign. So although Muslims, like Christians or Jews, have all too often failed to live up to their ideals, it is not because of the religion per se.

We rarely, if ever, called the IRA bombings "Catholic" terrorism because we knew enough to realise that this was not essentially a religious campaign. Indeed, like the Irish republican movement, many fundamentalist movements worldwide are simply new forms of nationalism in a highly unorthodox religious guise. This is obviously the case with Zionist fundamentalism in Israel and the fervently patriotic Christian right in the US.

In the Muslim world, too, where the European nationalist ideology has always seemed an alien import, fundamentalisms are often more about a search for social identity and national self-definition than religion. They represent a widespread desire to return to the roots of the culture, before it was invaded and weakened by the colonial powers.

Because it is increasingly recognised that the terrorists in no way represent mainstream Islam, some prefer to call them jihadists, but this is not very satisfactory. Extremists and unscrupulous politicians have purloined the word for their own purposes, but the real meaning of jihad is not "holy war" but "struggle" or "effort." Muslims are commanded to make a massive attempt on all fronts - social, economic, intellectual, ethical and spiritual - to put the will of God into practice.

Sometimes a military effort may be a regrettable necessity in order to defend decent values, but an oft-quoted tradition has the Prophet Muhammad saying after a military victory: "We are coming back from the Lesser Jihad [ie the battle] and returning to the Greater Jihad" - the far more important, difficult and momentous struggle to reform our own society and our own hearts.

Jihad is thus a cherished spiritual value that, for most Muslims, has no connection with violence. Last year, at the University of Kentucky, I met a delightful young man called Jihad; his parents had given him that name in the hope that he would become not a holy warrior, but a truly spiritual man who would make the world a better place. The term jihadi terrorism is likely to be offensive, therefore, and will win no hearts or minds.

At our conference in Washington, many people favoured "Wahhabi terrorism". They pointed out that most of the hijackers on September 11 came from Saudi Arabia, where a peculiarly intolerant form of Islam known as Wahhabism was the state religion. They argued that this description would be popular with those many Muslims who tended to be hostile to the Saudis. I was not happy, however, because even though the narrow, sometimes bigoted vision of Wahhabism makes it a fruitful ground for extremism, the vast majority of Wahhabis do not commit acts of terror.

Bin Laden was not inspired by Wahhabism but by the writings of the Egyptian ideologue Sayyid Qutb, who was executed by President Nasser in 1966. Almost every fundamentalist movement in Sunni Islam has been strongly influenced by Qutb, so there is a good case for calling the violence that some of his followers commit "Qutbian terrorism." Qutb urged his followers to withdraw from the moral and spiritual barbarism of modern society and fight it to the death.

Western people should learn more about such thinkers as Qutb, and become aware of the many dramatically different shades of opinion in the Muslim world. There are too many lazy, unexamined assumptions about Islam, which tends to be regarded as an amorphous, monolithic entity. Remarks such as "They hate our freedom" may give some a righteous glow, but they are not useful, because they are rarely accompanied by a rigorous analysis of who exactly "they" are.

The story of Qutb is also instructive as a reminder that militant religiosity is often the product of social, economic and political factors. Qutb was imprisoned for 15 years in one of Nasser's vile concentration camps, where he and thousands of other members of the Muslim Brotherhood were subjected to physical and mental torture. He entered the camp as a moderate, but the prison made him a fundamentalist. Modern secularism, as he had experienced it under Nasser, seemed a great evil and a lethal assault on faith.

Precise intelligence is essential in any conflict. It is important to know who our enemies are, but equally crucial to know who they are not. It is even more vital to avoid turning potential friends into foes. By making the disciplined effort to name our enemies correctly, we will learn more about them, and come one step nearer, perhaps, to solving the seemingly intractable and increasingly perilous problems of our divided world.

· Karen Armstrong is author of Islam: a Short History - karmstronginfo@btopenworld.com

well this post took a very "political board" turn

Thank you for taking control of this board, Seth. I also would like a rule regarding the use of
derogatory comments toward people in certain areas of the U.S., such as the South. An
example would be a comment like "stupid people come from Texas or North Carolina".

Thank you for taking control of this board, Seth. I also would like a rule regarding the use of
derogatory comments toward people in certain areas of the U.S., such as the South. An
example would be a comment like "stupid people come from Texas or North Carolina".


Seth has stated repeatedly that each case will be decided on its own. If that offends some people, I'm sure it will be taken under consideration.

We do have to keep in mind when people are joking - but that should be made obvious. I don't mind jokes about Canadians myself, as long as they're not cruel or meant in malice. People might sometimes joke about "southern rednecks", but that in now way implies that all southerners or even most of them are "redneck".