“THREE Muslim pilgrims were killed and 500 others suffered light injuries as they jostled to perform the ‘stoning of the devil’ ritual near Mecca, Saudi newspapers reported today.
The crush was triggered by the arrival of ‘a large number of African pilgrims carrying their personal belongings’ at the site of the stoning in Mina called the ‘jamarat’, the daily Okaz said.The paper quoted Saudi Health Minister Hamad bin Abdullah al-Mane as saying that a number of pilgrims also fell down as a result of the scramble to stone three concrete blocks symbolising the devil.
24Jan05 — 52
How profound, Damian. Keep up the good work.
God doesn’t exist, and he aint laughing. But Damian does exist and he is laughing – at other people’s death. Oh, they’re Muslims, that’s okay.
Two references to the Devil in the quote; no references to God—so the title is obviously about the Almighty.
No comment from me, except the suggestion that the mythical Boogeyman might be amused by believers dying in the course of denouncing him—so the post is obviously a joke at the expense of Muslims.
Despite your professed objections to the content, you seem to spend most of your life here, Anon, yet, since your arrival, you’ve failed to score a single hit on a ‘Blog that, it has to be said, is a pretty soft target. And now you can’t even turn it into one you’re capable of aiming at.
Do you think you might need some help?
God, Allah or the Devil don’t exist, and they aint laughing. But Damian does exist and he is laughing – making a joke about other people’s unfortunate deaths. Oh, but they’re Muslims, so that’s okay.
Would you make similar jokes about other people’s deaths Damian?
Hindus, Christians, Jews?
Or does your little comment just accidently coincide with present day particular fear/suspicion of Muslims?
You’re right. It’s a comedy staple around here.
I’ve looked at that original post and I still can’t see where Damian is either laughing or “making a joke”, but then again I’m more of a rationalist type of person, perhaps I am not party to the deeper hidden spiritualist meanings in words and prose.
I’d like to think Anon is reading too far into Damian’s words, he imagines things that are not there, rather like those who think about the Devil causing all the bad stuff in the world and then they try to stone him and cause deaths in the process.
Doubly ironic really.
No Anons on to something here. The subtext of Damien’s post amounted to “my how strange (backward?) these Muslims are!” Its the acceptable racism
of the age of Blunkett and Blair.
Hey Pootergeek, how come you don’t blog about the recurrent reports
of British torture and human rights abuses in Iraq?
How come you don’t blog about “New regime faces claims of abuse as bad as Saddam’s” as per
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1455417,00.html
Some how MI6’s Iraqi dicatator Mr Allawi just ain’t worth blogging about.
To accuse Pootergeek of racism on the basis of this post is utterly ridiculous.
I was not accusing “Pooter Geek” of “racism”, anyway.
But he was making light of the DEATH of Muslims though. Pathetic stuff. Making a joke of their religious customs in the context of personal tragedy. Quite in the mood of the times – pandering to prejudice. A fine New Labour tradition, and one of the reasons why the UK is becoming a less tolerant and less pleasant place to live.
Even fellow New Labour bloggers Harry’s Place would not stoop this low. It certainly says a lot about Damian Counsell.
Would Damian make a similar post about Jews?
I would be willing to bet my house he would not.
Where does it read Damian was “making light” of the deaths, again its an underlying subtext that does not exist, unless of course you take Sisyphus’ logic where unless Damian blogs on ever single news issue of the day then he must have an underlying motive.
I’d personally guess Damian is mocking religion as a whole rather than one specifically, as the “Devil” is largely a generic “Old Testament” concept that covers Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
I don’t think I have ever commented on this ‘Blog before; but this Pootergeek bashing is utterly absurd, as Ian and Damian have pointed out.
The commenters no doubt think they are doing the world a moral service by publicly taking offence like this.
In fact, just as Germaine Greer comparing Celebrity Big Brother to a fascist prison, feeble analogies and sloppy thinking only belittles the genuine problems they try to misguidedly reference.
I presume all the comments by Anon and Sisyphus are a joke aren’t they? I mean people can’t be complaining on the grounds that Damian is writing about what he, and not they, want him to write about.
The churchmen will tell you that there are sins of commission and others of omission. One has to take responsibility for the issues you raise, and the way you raise them, and those issues which somehow you allow to slide by without comment.
Racism takes many forms. Islamophobia has acquired a certain fashionable appeal in jokes and asides, and the original post was an example of this.
PG, whoever or wherever he may be, cheerleaded for the Iraq War, and has had posts in the past where he wrung his hands about beheadings in Iraq by insurgents. It is telling that he just never gets around to blogging about the atrocities which are committed each day by the British and Americans and their quislings in Iraq is telling.
You are joking right?
I am astonished you are claiming the sin of ommission argument about a blog. I hope I am not offending PG when I point out that this is not a site puporting to give a balanced and nuanced analysis of all world events. It is a blog. It is Damian’s space for considered comment, opinion and gratuitous links to Nigella Lawson. And, quite frankly, my world is a better place for it.
At the risk of over emphasising the extremely-bloody-obvious, not being a news-house or a current affairs journal, PG has no responsibility to you or anyone else to comment on particular events and ignore others.
The sin of ommission argument is a nonsense in regarding blogs because, thank heavens, they are not the corpus of every opinion the author holds, but an entirely voluntary, additional outlet for thoughts and musing.
If, as you claim, you have to take responsibility for, “those issues you somehow allow to slide by without comment” then surely PG is equally responsible for not commenting on a range of significant issues such as domestic violence, homophobia, human rights abuses in South America, and the persistent underperformance of Bath City FC in the FA Cup qualifying rounds.
After all, over the last week I don’t remembering him vocally opposing these things. Therefore, he must be in favour of them all, otherwise he would mention them on his blog.
PG, whoever or wherever he may be, cheerleaded for the Iraq War
And because Sisyphus, was against it he is therefore quite within his rights to accuse people of racism by omission. Er, no. PG made a suggestion that a putative Devil figure would be amused that in the process of trying to hurt him, three people were killed. It is possible that you might find this offensive, in poor taste, or even even blasphemous, but that is purely a matter of opinion.
In no way can his post be considered a form of racism of any shape or form.
What a group of people throwing stones at some rocks has to do with the Iraq war, Saddam Hussain’s atrocities, or the cruelty meted out by a small minority of British Troops (who have brought shame on themnselves and their country and will be punished) is beyond me.
Oh and what Jake said.
No, its tacit message is a classic islamophobic stab — “hey look at these strange Muslims and their strange (backward) beliefs and customs”.
Yes, PG is not responsible for all the evils of the world. But he with Nik Cohen and Johann Hari and Julie Burchill and David Aaronovitch and all the other poseur “left” who are up the backside of New Labour, need to be as articulate in their denunciation of the evils of the occupation of Iraq (torture, extrajudicial murder, collective punishment, the destruction of a city) as they were so earnest in their support of Bush/Blair’s dream of bringing democracy via cluster bombs.
It is a bit strange that he finds something which Michael Howard said so horrible, but he doesn’t find the atrocities of the British and Americans worth comment.
“No, its tacit message is a classic islamophobic stab—”hey look at these strange Muslims and their strange (backward) beliefs and customs”.”
Again, you’ve seen straight through me. My title wasn’t a simple assessment of their their actions and the consequences by the standards of their own beliefs. No, instead it was a “tacit message”—a slur driven by my (subconscious?) fear of Islam, sorry, my hatred of their “race”. Luckily you can tell me what I really meant. From now on, in the pursuit of a truly enlightened multicultural consciousness, I should carry on being picky about Jews and Christians, but trampling other human beings to death to throw rocks at idols is all that niggers are good for.
“It is a bit strange that he finds something which Michael Howard said so horrible, but he doesn’t find the atrocities of the British and Americans worth comment.”
Those British and American war criminals, on the other hand, they should know better—being white and all. Those bastards have the benefit of all those Caucasian genes and they don’t know how to treat their new slaves properly. How long is their new oil empire going to last if they can’t handle the natives properly? Savages.
Jake’s right: you and your nameless sidekick (hi, Benjy!) really are so comically clichéd you’re like straw men made flesh. It’s hard to believe you aren’t a figment of someone’s imagination.
Thanks, Sisyphus. Keep rolling the balls.
Is statement A–
“It is a bit strange that he finds something which Michael Howard said so horrible, but he doesn’t find the atrocities of the British and Americans worth comment.”
–which addresses your hypocrisy in being outraged at Howards’s speech but not at New Labour’s actions and their consequences
equivalent to the rather odd paragraph about “they should know better—being white and all”?
For a scientist you seek to have a surprising problem keeping your logical apples and oranges in different piles
On the other hand it may be because you are a scientist that you don’t bother to read and think very deeply about the things you comment on in the real world. Unfortunately its not all innocent fun, and there are over 100,000 dead Iraqis to prove it
Boilerplate alert!
Well, not ALL your readers are stupid, Damian. You should realise that. Its quite clear what joke you were making about the DEATHS of Muslims. Very clear indeed, despite your desperate attempts to justify it. And would you make similar jokes when Jews die? No.
Geez, it’s getting a little tense around here. I think y’all need few icebreakers (supply your own rimshots…):
A Palestinian suspect was being grilled by Israeli police. “Honest, I’m not a suicide bomber,” he said. “I didn’t say I wanted to blow myself up so I could sleep with 72 virgins. All I said was I’m dying to get laid!”
What do you call a first-time offender in Saudi Arabia? Lefty!
What does the sign say above the nursery in a Palestinian maternity ward? “Live ammunition.”
“What we know about Osama bin Laden is this — he’s worth $300 million, he has five wives and 26 kids … and he hates Americans for their ‘excessive’ lifestyle.”
Did you hear about the Muslim strip club? It features full facial nudity!
The reason Arab armies always lose is that they tend to use Russian defense tactics:
1. Engage the enemy.
2. Draw him into your territory.
3. Wait until winter sets in.
Yeah I know, I’m an insensitive, racist bastard. You aren’t gonna hurt my feelings though, I feel no guilt where the jihadis are concerned.
Timbeaux
You are making jokes mainly about criminals and terrorists, although I note the anti-Muslim slant – Damian will approve.
But Damian was making a joke about folks accidently dying in a religious festival – Muslims peacefully practising their religion.
I really don’t know why Damien doesn’t simply admit to his Islamophobia.
In his Normblog profile
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2004/07/the_normblog_pr_1.html
he writes
“What do you consider to be the main threat to the future peace and security of the world? > Specifically: Islamism”
He’s already put his cards on the table– he does fear Islam. He will probably say that there is a gap between hating/fearing Muslims and hating/fearing “Islamism” (an ideology), but I’m afraid the two things leak into each other.
Sisyphus
Thanks. I should have known!
Oh Sisyphus! “100,000 dead Iraqis”
Thats one stone you fascists just keep on trying to push uphill, isn’t it. Shame it’s total rubbish, eh?
Anon! “Peacefully” practicing stoning? That’s another joke, right?
JSF needs to find out what the word “fascist” means before you bandy it about. I’m not the one here who is peddling racist anti-Islamic memes.
The basis of the 100,000 figure is the detailed epidemiological work published in the leading peer-reviewed medical journal in the United Kingdom — THE LANCET
article is
“Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey”
Les Roberts, Riyadh Lafta, Richard Garfield, Jamal Khudhairi, Gilbert Burnham
Lancet 2004; 364: 1857-64
There conclusion is “Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths”.
Their numbers, of course, do not include the impact of the destruction of Fallujah and all the other war crimes committed by
the United States and Britain in the last months of 2004.
Apologists for Anglo-American imperialism, of course, have tried to deprecate the value of this study. One laughable comment from some
statistically-illiterate spinmeister in Downing street was that 8,000 the bottom end of the 95% confidence band of the study was as likely as 100,000 (when in fact a number above 200,000 was as likely as one of 8,000 and both were significantly less likely than 100,000).
The Economist’s analyst offers a stern rebuke to those who seek to dismiss the significance of this research
p://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3352814
Was that was the same Lancet that published the “peer reviewed” study into MMR and autism ? It also happens to be the sole source of the figure, whereas numerous other sources have much lower figures.
As mentioned in your link, the figure is total deaths, those attributed to violence are 60% of that figure, and that includes insurgents that have been killed.
Your link recommends the study should not be dismissed but used as a basis for a wider study, it does not state the figures should be taken at face value and used in propaganda as fact.
To be accurate, the study actually takes the mean figure of 98,000 as the most probable amount, I’ll let others decide if the convienience of an extra 2,000 deaths makes better PR by resulting in a six figure sum.
Now what were we saying about “making light of Muslim deaths” …
Given that the Lancet study sought to use lower band correlations to set up their mean of 98,000, the odds tend significantly towards the number being way above 100,000.
60% are deaths which are the explicit result of violence. We may be certain that the other 40% of deaths (whatever their proximate cause (disease, dehydration, environmental poisons, loss of supporting) are ultimately the result of the violence.
The figure of 100,000 is an underestimate.
When the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defence offer their own statistics we shall see, but for the moment you may note that they hesitate to do so.
Would that be the dreaded “sin of hesitation” ?
No, its just another US-UK war crime.
“US General Tommy Franks is widely quoted as saying “we don’t do body counts”.14 The Geneva Conventions have clear guidance about the responsibilities of occupying armies to the civilian population they control. The fact that more than half the deaths reportedly caused by the occupying forces were women and children is cause for concern. In particular, Convention IV, Article 27 states that protected persons “. . . shall be at all times humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against acts of violence . . .”. It seems difficult to understand how a military force could monitor the extent to which civilians are protected against violence without systematically doing body counts or at least looking at the kinds of casualties they induce.”
I don’t care if it was published by the Lancet, the Economist, Bugs Bunny or God Almighty his baaad self.
It’s rubbish.
Compare WW2 civilian deaths:
UK 60,595
Italy c. 70,000 to 95,000
Japan c. 300,000
100,000 is “big war” scale; and Iraq was and is not.
The Italian theatre involved not only large scale heavy bombing but a sutained and bitter ground campaign of entire armies on each side, involving lots of armor and artillery, and associated destruction and dislocation. The intensity of warfare involved dwarfs anything seen in Iraq. And still only 95,000.
The figure of 100,000 is nonsense.
Civilian deaths due to war in the WW2 are significantly higher than the numbers you use here. NB: neither Britain nor Japan were invaded — one won and the other capitulated, and neither of these conducted a successful armed resistance to occupiers, and suffered recurrent airstrikes. In any event you number for Japan is wrong: the correct number is almost 700,000 civilian deaths.
Go to
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/frame5.htm
and look at the figures for Poland, the USSR, Germany, Yugoslavia, Romania — those are better comparators for what has gone on and is going on in Iraq
and bear in mind that bombs which have been dropped on Iraq since March 19, 2003 massively exceed — in combined explosive force — those dropped during the ENTIRE Second World War, and on a much smaller population and area. They have been used against centres of civilian population with a deliberate violence and ruthlessness which did not characterize the Italian War.
It is you JSF who are propagandizing and spinning for war criminals.
I’m aware there was no ground fighting in UK or Japan, Sis old lad.
That’s why I used Italy.
Looks like my figures and those from the WW2 database are likely using different definitions. OK, I’ll assume the WW2 databse ones are better. (My figures are old, written down in a notebook, and I’ve lost the reference. My Bad.)
But are REALLY suggesting that the levels of conflict in Iraq are even remotely close to those to those of the Eastern Front? That is plain nuts.
Bombs “have been used against centres of civilian population with a deliberate violence and ruthlessness which did not characterize the Italian War.”
Huh? Italian cities were very severely struck by bombing, particularly during USAAF Operation STRANGLE.
The gross explosive power of the bombs dropped signifies nothing, in itself, given the far greater intesity of use of guided munitions against military point and area targets.
The comparison would only be valid had the US engaged in area strikes at urban transport and industrial concentrations using whole groups of B-52’s and free-fall bombs.
In such a scenario Baghdad would look like Berlin 1945, and 100,000 deaths would be credible.
It doesn’t and they’re not.
“…a successful armed resistance to occupiers”
Sucessful beheadings. Sucessful murders of election officials and trade unionists. (“Now look what you made me do…”)
Maybe you’re not a fascist. But some of those you support surely fit the bill.
Oh, Jesus H.! I can’t believe y’all are seriously debating the merits of that snow-job the Lancet published. It’s an extrapolation thats not even based on documented facts. It was a survey study, and the un-backed results had a 95% confidence range over a quarter million people wide. It had no intrinsic value beyond the headlines it produced; but of course that was the only return it ever hoped for.
You talk about fascists, but when I look around the world today for an equivalent to Germany in the 1930s— a militaristic state committed to world domination, and exhibiting a callous disregard for human rights, civil liberties, and civilian casualties — I know where I see it (and good old Britain’s playing the role of key appeaser once again)
Damien, the self-confessed Islamophobe (lest this gets lost under the pile of comments):
Damien in his Normblog profile
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2004/07/the_normblog_pr_1.html
writes
“What do you consider to be the main threat to the future peace and security of the world? > Specifically: Islamism”
Why on this thread doesnt he just admit what hes already said explicitly elsewhere: he does fear Islam. He will probably say that there is a gap between hating/fearing Muslims and hating/fearing “Islamism” (an ideology), but I’m afraid the two things leak into each other
For heavens sake I know Muslims who fear salafists and backwards Islamists. Is my Calvin Klein Hijab wearing single working professional female friend an Islamophobe?
Get a grip.
Sissy:
“…when I look around … for an equivalent to Germany in the 1930s … I know where I see it.”
You do? Well paint me green and call me a gherkin!
But come now, you can’t leave in suspense like that. Impart to us your wisdom. I’m quite sure we’ll all be bowled over by its profundity and perceptiveness, if not, perhaps, it’s originality.
My ESP hints that the words “oil” and “full spectrum dominance” and “neo-cons” and “imperialismracismcolonialismcapitalism” may put in an appearance somewhere.
Just guessing.
Keep on rolling that ball.
I’d like to hear PG himself finesse his views on the difference between fear of “Islamism” (whateer this monster may be) and his feelings towards Moslems. But, let’s see, what have we in sequential posts but a little humourous aside from him about the strange goings on during the Haj, one of the central rituals of Islam, followed by an earnest flagging of articles on Normblog re: the comments of one Moslem body re: Holocaust memory? Hmm, have we a pattern here?
It is rather odd that in this month of January 2005, that PG found nothing worth blogging about revelations about British torture, about Saddam’s old rape and torture rooms being now under the management of the Allawi regime (with CIA guys overseeing natch), about the lawless violence of US forces in Afghanistan etc. reports of torture from released Guanatanamo detainees? Somehow the tragic deaths of three pilgrims to Mecca is more worthy of comment than any of these things.
Not to me it ain’t.
“Islamism” is not “Islam”, the former term applies to the specific Islamic fundementalist orientation which is a political idealism as much as a religious one, admittedly it can be applied to “Islam”, but I doubt very much we can confuse the context.
Fearing “Islamism” is like fearing any other political ideology, be it capitalism, liberalism, conservativism, socialism, facism, communism, etc, not those necessarily who practise Islam as a religion, i.e. “Muslims”. It is a viable argument to oppose or fear “Islamism” from a political standpoint without insulting those adherents, in fact there are probably many Muslims who fear “Islamism” too, just as there are many Christians who fear their own fundementalist (with a small “f”) versions.
To state that the two are not exclusive is facile, and in fact degenerates those who practise Islam in the way PG is being accused of doing.
Maybe PG might care to finesse his own definition, without the help of his acolytes?
I don’t think he does seeing as it is so bloody obvious what he means.
If you think PG defines “Islamism” using a very specific political definition, why did he make a joke about MUSLIMS dying in the original post? PG has let the cat out of the bag, and exposed his prejudices.
For fucks sake, he was saying the Devil might be amused, if he existed, that people trying to stone him ended up being killed. He was not saying that it was funny they died, but that the Devil would have laughed. PG may be a cheeky little devil, but he is not the Devil.
Sisyphus is well-named; he’s getting nowhere rolling this argument up the hill.
Benjy, you really are a very small tool. Perhaps you should ask the editorial staff of News Ltd, who actually published the story in the first place, why they felt the need to say that the pilgrims were Muslim.
Anti, I think I can answer that for you. ONLY PROVEN MUSLIMS ARE ALLOWED IN MECCA. Stuff that in your guilt-mongering peace pipe, Anon. The hosts and participants of the jamarat represent one of the most racist and discriminating groups on the planet, and dissent could well earn you a death sentence. Bah, I shouldn’t bother. You should never try to reason someone out of something they were never reasoned into to begin with.
anti-Anon
The news report that Damian linked to was perfectly straight forward, I have no issue with that.
However Damian was making light of these Muslim deaths. That is plain.
And I state again I doubt Damian would have made similar jokes about other religious groups. Certainly not Jews
anti-Anon
The news report that Damian linked to was perfectly straight forward, I have no issue with that.
However Damian was making light of these Muslim deaths. That is plain.
And I state again I doubt Damian would have made similar jokes about other religious groups. Certainly not Jews.
Timbeaux
“The hosts and participants of the jamarat represent one of the most racist and discriminating groups on the planet”.
Ah yes, keep it coming. On such sweeping generalisations are prejudices built on, such as yours and Damians – and these prejudices are often expressed in jokes.
The jamarat is part of the Hajj, attended by many Muslims from around the world, of differing persuasions and outlooks, the vast majority living perfectly peaceful and proper existences in their countries.
But of course, these three dead Muslims, of whom you and Damian know nothing, are made a butt of a joke because they are Muslims.
That’s the ONLY possible reason Damian made the joke – it’s in the first three words of his post. “Three MUSLIM pilgrims”
MUSLIM. Not Islamist, chaps. MUSLIM.