Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Secularism, Muhammed Cartoons and The Sikh Temple Shooting
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Evidently you'veThere is a point.
In your post that I quoted, you attributed things like MDMA trafficking, human trafficking, organ trafficking and pornography to "Jews". Not "some Jews", not "a small percentage of Jews", not even "some guys who happen to be Jewish but that's not relevant".
You're complaining that people drawing Muhammad with a turban and beard, or with a bomb is attributing these things to all Muslims. In your post I quoted, you did essentially the same thing.
A - Not read properly what I wrote or
B - Not understood what I wrote. By way of assistance I'll present the defintion of "overrepresented":
Or C - Intentionally misrepresenting what I wrote.o·ver·rep·re·sent·ed (
v
r-r
pr
-zn
td)adj. Represented in excessive or disproportionately large numbers: "Some groups, and most notably some races, may be overrepresented and others may be underrepresented" (Scientific American).
You have not "done essentially the same thing" you have done something entirely different. When I made that statement I assumed that others aren't ignorant of the claims and can understand that they are factual.
If you are interested the best source of learning on the subject is Red Mafiya by Robert Friedman, a Jewish reporter.
As I've pointed out numerous times I am not defending Islam. I'll say it again in I AM NOT DEFENDING ISLAM. I am neutral towards Islam. Also, could you please be more accurate with your claims. I did not complain when you (plural) drew Muhammed. I complained ONLY when a poster posted a graphic image of the Prophet engaged in beastiality. Please understand this, that is not a defense of Islam, it is an objection to the dehumanisation of an ethnic minority in our country.As I've pointed out before (and as highlighted by the numerous people who presume you are Muslim), you only ever seem to defend Islam. We draw Muhammad, you complain. We draw God/Jesus/Buddha/Xenu etc, you're nowhere to be seen.
That is an outrageous lie.The entire Funny Side of Religion thread is taking the piss out of religion, yet you only defend Islam. And likewise, many of your posts (like the one I quoted which is the main one which sticks in my mind), you attack Jewish people. Maybe not your intention, but it could be perceived that way.
That's your opinion and your entitled to it.But here's the crux of the issue: If someone killed a bunch of Jewish people, never would I think "I wonder if Brown Bomber regrets his comments about Jews". Never would I try to connect anything you might have said with what happened, and quite frankly it's a bunch o' bullsh*t that you come here and try to make us feel guilty for Draw Muhammad Day.Draw Muhammad Day is an expression of freedom of speech and freedom from religion. That's it.
That's not it. It's also an opportunity to attack Muslims collectively. To finally expose their latent Islamophobia under the guise of "freedom" and the shield of secularism.
From this site:
If I said that the anti-Semitic propoganda cartoons in Der Sturmer were "an expression of freedom of speech and that's it" You would think I was an idiot. Likewise, if I said that Dr Seuss's WWII anti-Japanese, racist cartoons were "an expression of freedom of speech". When the intention of both was to dehumanise an enemy.I'm that poster, i'll explain it. I done it for a laugh, because i found the image funny - i still do. The fact that i "believed" it to be mohammed made it funnier to me. I understand that muslims may be offended, hence i didn't post it in the muslim forum. If for one of those religoius "mysterious ways" we hear so much about, a whole pile of devout muslims came in here and clicked on a thread to find something to be offended about, then i'm glad to be of service.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...646025&page=27I'm that poster, i'll explain it. I done it for a laugh, because i found the image funny - i still do. The fact that i "believed" it to be mohammed made it funnier to me. I understand that muslims may be offended, hence i didn't post it in the muslim forum. If for one of those religoius "mysterious ways" we hear so much about, a whole pile of devout muslims came in here and clicked on a thread to find something to be offended about, then i'm glad to be of service.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...646025&page=27
You are missing the point which is not that it radicalised Muslims but that it engenders Islamophobia.Someone uses Draw Muhammad Day to radicalise Muslims, they would look for anything to achieve their goals even without DMD. Crazy people do crazy things and hateful people do hateful things. They don't need an excuse, they just look for one.
Are you aware that the first person to die in an anti-Muslim hate attack in the US post-911 was a Sikh who was mistaken for a Muslim? There are numerous other examples since. This is why Mark Potok, an expert in these matters considers it likely that it was an anti-Islam hate crime committed in error against Sikhs.You trying to connect DMD to the Sikh shooting is utterly ridiculous. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc: Correlation does not imply causation. Yet DMD and the Sikh shooting doesn't even correlate. There isn't even an assumed link, it's an assumption based on an assumption based on an assumption; that the killer thought the Sikhs were Muslim (assumed, not proven), based on DMD drawings showing Muhammad with a beard and turban like Sikhs wear (assumed that he ever saw such a picture) based on the assumption that he was looking for a reason to kill Muslims (assumed). He's a white supremacist, he hates everyone WHO ISN'T WHITE, and anyone willing to kill would still be willing to kill without feeling their rights are being impinged because they're not allowed to draw Muhammad.
Again you are missing the point which is that publicity stunts such as the cartoon day which conflate Western Muslims with terrorism reinforces Islamophobia, which Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and a burning fuse undoubtedly does do. Which can lead to ant-Muslim hate crimes.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
What is relevant to the thread is how your view on Muslims parallels theirs.The idea that some Jew-hating skinhead would open up my website every morning - which declares it is "pro-Israel" on every page - is a bit far-fetched. Neo-nazis hate me. They regard me as a Jew-loving race traitor. The neo-Nazis at irish-nationalism.net called me a "Judeophile gob****e", a "Hasidic Gentile dickhead" and "human chaff".
Do me a favour Mark, this is from the Hammerskins forum where Page was a member and the topic is Islam, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vyYJPHnhFpoJ:www.crew38.com/forum38/archive/index.php/t-7252.html+&cd=7&hl=sv&ct=clnk&gl=se&client=firefox-a which commments do you disagree with?you have a sinister nickname,
Joe Louis just turned in his grave
You are accusing me of Al Taqiyya? :pac: You're a funny man Mark. If you knew anything about Islam (y'know, the subject you've been writing about for the last however many years) you'd know that if I was a Muslim it would be forbidden to deny my faith unless my life was in danger.and your denials of being a reactionary Muslim conservative are unconvincing since you are so angry about drawings of the Prophet, and so defensive of the Koran and Hadith.
2050? Breivik put it an 2083... I don't know if you've realised but you have a whole site dedicated to demonising Muslims. How would your site be any different or more extreme in 2050?You also miss the ironic point that I never actually displayed pictures of the Prophet. Why? Because of the threat of violence from your co-religionists. I admit that I restrain what I do and say, to try to avoid the ever-present threat of violence:
http://markhumphrys.com/islam.html#introduction
http://markhumphrys.com/religions.criticise.html#what.i.will.do
But you don't care about the Islamic threat of violence to critics, blasphemers and comedians. You don't care that poor Molly Norris has been driven into hiding because of Islamic threats:
http://markhumphrys.com/islam.annoys.html#molly
The fact is that Islam needs to grow up and learn to take criticism like Christianity does without resorting to violence in reply.
I'm an optimist, and I think this will actually happen - is actually happening - because of the unstoppable force of the Internet. Islam will look very different in 2050. Everyone will be able to slag it off like we slag off Christianity or Mormonism, and no one will care. Muslims will just shrug and ignore the critics (as is their right) but crucially they will not threaten violence. Christianity used to kill its critics. Now it doesn't. The same progress will happen with Islam someday.
And if you feel under threat from Muslims due to their ideology then surely Muslims and defenselss Norwegian children should feel under threat from you as you share the same extremist Zionism as Anders Breivik.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement