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
-
I mean I'll try, I've nothing to hide. Ask me the question again but on the understanding that I don't consider myself to have defended Islam nor the Koran.No, you're trying to avoid the obvious parallel and thus dodge the question, Pathetically transparent intellectual dishonesty. Well done you.0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »I mean I'll try, I've nothing to hide. Ask me the question again but on the understanding that I don't consider myself to have defended Islam nor the Koran.
Seeing as Islam was used as an excuse by Jihadis to commit various atrocities, do you regret defending that religion?0 -
Channel Zero wrote: »Does Brown Bomber defend Islam or does he use his very good knowledge of it and put the effort in to correct other posters misconceptions and misrepresentations about Islam? (which, let's face it, are quite common occurrences)
There's a difference in my opinion.
I think the charge is that he spends the majority of his time propagating conspiracy theories about "Zionist" influence in the world while at the same time attacking anyone who criticises or is seen to criticise anything to do with Islam or Muslims.
It is viewing the world in a particular fashion, where secret behind the scenes Zionist forces have corrupted western culture to be anti-Islamic. And reason goes out the window. People and organisations are divided up into these black and white categories. The BBC and other news out lets are Zionist tool of mis-information. Our politicians are influenced by Zionists, peddling WWII guilt, into supporting Israel at the expense of Islamic countries.
Needless to say he is a little fuzzy on the details of how all this works, what exactly Zionist influence is. But again it is the same old conspiracy that has been doing the rounds for thousands of years. Just now instead of Zionists working behind the scenes to take down Christian society they are trying to take down Islamic society. The people who believe in this secret world wide movement have just learned it is better to say "Zionist" than "Jew", though I would imagine you would be hard pressed to get any of them to seriously consider that the Zionist movement is in fact made up of 95% Indonesian Muslims. It all wink wink we didn't say "Jew" but you know wink wink we know the common factor of most of these people wink wink ...
But that isn't really the point. The point is that Brown Bomber has the freedom of speech to spout this nonsense. If some nut goes and blows the head off the first Jewish person he encounters working at the BBC that doesn't mean he suddenly loses this right.0 -
Sigh, It's not a "conspiracy theory".This network of hate is not a new presence in the United States. Indeed, its ability to organize, coordinate, and disseminate its ideology through grassroots organizations increased dramatically over the past 10 years. Furthermore, its ability to influence politicians’ talking points and wedge issues for the upcoming 2012 elections has mainstreamed what was once considered fringe, extremist rhetoric.
And it all starts with the money flowing from a select group of foundations. A small group of foundations and wealthy donors are the lifeblood of the Islamophobia network in America, providing critical funding to a clutch of right-wing think tanks that peddle hate and fear of Muslims and Islam—in the form of books, reports, websites, blogs, and carefully crafted talking points that anti-Islam grassroots organizations and some right-wing religious groups use as propaganda for their constituency.
Some of these foundations and wealthy donors also provide direct funding to anti-Islam grassroots groups. According to our extensive analysis, here are the top seven contributors to promoting Islamophobia in our country:- Donors Capital Fund
- Richard Mellon Scaife foundations
- Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
- Newton D. & Rochelle F. Becker foundations and charitable trust
- Russell Berrie Foundation
- Anchorage Charitable Fund and William Rosenwald Family Fund
- Fairbrook Foundation
The Dirty Dozen
Who's who among America's leading Islamophobes FAIR,
Aubrey Chernick and the nexus of Islamophobia mondoweiss.net
Why is the Donors Capital Fund funding Islamophobia? Daily Kos
The Connection Between Zionism & Organized Islamophobia – The Facts Loonwatch
Fear, Inc. The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America Center For American Progress
Center for Security Policy right web
Moskowitz, Irving Right Web
The Moskowitz Gallery of Militant Extremists StopMoskowitz
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Right Wing Watch0 -
Can you explain exactly how drawing a picture constitutes a "collective" "attack" upon human beings?Brown Bomber wrote: »
And is a believer population of perhaps one billion really frightened by a few cartoons printed in a minor, regional newspaper with a circulation around the same as the population of Cork. Are the world's muslims really that frightened of a mouse?
And can you please explain why you are not outraged at (a) a group of Danish islamic religious preachers who toured the Middle East some months later specifically to foment religious hatred and the subsequent violence which left many dead; violence which was presumably identical in form and content to the "islamophobia" you excoriate above; and (b) the dishonesty of somebody's addition to the original Danish cartoons, of an extra image which was carefully selected, before going on tour, to cause the maximum amount of offense;(*) and (c) the immolation of various embassies, in direct violation of international convention.
Your outrage, as is your choice of victim, is curiously selective for somebody who claims, in the open defiance of your twitchy "attack" comments above, not to be "defending islam".
(*) See here.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's almost lost amongst the torrent of other dubious claims, but anyhow: Breivik claims to have been "100 percent Christian":Brown Bomber wrote: »[...] you as you share the same extremist Zionism as Anders Breivik.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik#Christianity0 -
It's almost lost amongst the torrent of other dubious claims, but anyhow: Breivik claims to have been "100 percent Christian":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik#Christianity
And what's your point? That he was a Christian Zionist?
What it does highlight is the falseness of Zombrex's risibile claim that Zionist = Jew.0 -
The point is that Brown Bomber has the freedom of speech to spout this nonsense.
Ok...
Let's leave out the innuendo for a sec about closet anti-semitism from the above. So we're agreed that Brown Bomber has the freedom of speech to discuss and speculate on the amount of influence a particular group, in this case Zionists (who as you know are a distinct sub-group and not an ethnic group in themselves) have on geo-politics and media organisations.
Some will no doubt say it's all nonsense and that they influence very little; some will say they control literally everything as per your strawman of BB's position above. And others will say the truth lies somewhere in between, as per BB's actual position.
The question is does speculation of this sort, whether it be regarding Zionists or the Catholic church hierarchy or Unionists or whoever; does this equate to something like the less savoury pictures drawn on DMD as far as possibly inciting friction, hatred and distrust is concerned?
Does this equate to something like advocating for an ethnic group to be profiled at U.S. airports on the basis of their religion/skin colour?
I don't think so personally.
But as you say, freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, and if Brown Bomber decided to start drawing hateful cartoons of something that was shockingly offensive to all Jews, i'm sure you and everyone here would be the first to emphasise his freedom to do that wouldn't you?0 -
I already have. Numerous times.Can you explain exactly how drawing a picture constitutes a "collective" "attack" upon human beings?
I'm not a Muslim so I don't know, but I don't believe that fear is the issue.And is a believer population of perhaps one billion really frightened by a few cartoons printed in a minor, regional newspaper with a circulation around the same as the population of Cork. Are the world's muslims really that frightened of a mouse?
I am outraged. These idiotic events place a wedge between two cultures which pushes people from the middle to the fringes benefitting extremists on both sides.And can you please explain why you are not outraged at (a) a group of Danish islamic religious preachers who toured the Middle East some months later specifically to foment religious hatred and the subsequent violence which left many dead; violence which was presumably identical in form and content to the "islamophobia" you excoriate above; and (b) the dishonesty of somebody's addition to the original Danish cartoons, of an extra image which was carefully selected, before going on tour, to cause the maximum amount of offense;(*) and (c) the immolation of various embassies, in direct violation of international convention.0 -
And the muslims who threaten free speech do not equal the vast majority of moderate muslims who do not.Brown Bomber wrote: »And what's your point? That he was a Christian Zionist?
What it does highlight is the falseness of Zombrex's risibile claim that Zionist = Jew.
You of course have no issue claiming that the people who took part in DMD of doing the same of what Zombrex is accusing you of (even though that's not quite what he was says and you actually are guilty of exactly that.)
I do like how BB went for his list that proves a zionist conspiracy at the drop of a hat, almost as if he was desperate to contradict himself.0 -
Advertisement
-
Brown Bomber wrote: »I already (............)extremists on both sides.
If you'd be as good as to respond with an answer....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80258201&postcount=1530 -
I think the charge is that he spends the majority of his time propagating conspiracy theories about "Zionist" influence in the world while at the same time attacking anyone who criticises or is seen to criticise anything to do with Islam or Muslims.
It is viewing the world in a particular fashion, where secret behind the scenes Zionist forces have corrupted western culture to be anti-Islamic. And reason goes out the window. People and organisations are divided up into these black and white categories. The BBC and other news out lets are Zionist tool of mis-information. Our politicians are influenced by Zionists, peddling WWII guilt, into supporting Israel at the expense of Islamic countries.
Needless to say he is a little fuzzy on the details of how all this works, what exactly Zionist influence is. But again it is the same old conspiracy that has been doing the rounds for thousands of years. Just now instead of Zionists working behind the scenes to take down Christian society they are trying to take down Islamic society. The people who believe in this secret world wide movement have just learned it is better to say "Zionist" than "Jew", though I would imagine you would be hard pressed to get any of them to seriously consider that the Zionist movement is in fact made up of 95% Indonesian Muslims. It all wink wink we didn't say "Jew" but you know wink wink we know the common factor of most of these people wink wink ...
But that isn't really the point. The point is that Brown Bomber has the freedom of speech to spout this nonsense. If some nut goes and blows the head off the first Jewish person he encounters working at the BBC that doesn't mean he suddenly loses this right.
Yeah, it's all a conspiracy. AIPAC don't exist. Fanatical Zionist and a financier of the professional Islamophobia industry Sheldon Adelson isn't pushing Romney to release Israeli spy Pollard. Oh wait, he is . The media isn't really anti-Muslim and this doesn't lead to hate crimes, hang on! It does :eek:LONDON // An alarming picture of the physical violence, intimidation and discrimination faced by many of Britain's two million Muslims on a daily basis, was portrayed yesterday in new academic research.
The 224-page report from the European Muslim Research Centre, based at the University of Exeter, said that the bulk of incidents went unreported by communities who had lost faith in the authorities to do anything about them.
Released at a conference yesterday at the London Muslim Centre, the report called for "urgent" government action to tackle the problem after years of neglect.
Part of a 10-year study into Islamophobia throughout Europe, the report represented "an insight into the grim reality of a lived experience that is insufficiently acknowledged and understood outside of the communities where it occurs".
Authors of the report, Jonathan Githens-Mazer and Robert Lambert, the co-directors of the research centre, said in their introduction: "We argue in this report that much anti-Muslim violence in the UK is predicated on the rhetoric and practice of the 'war on terror' that George Bush and Tony Blair launched against 'an evil ideology' in the aftermath of 9/11."
Mr Lambert added: "Because the war on terror is viewed as a security risk, Muslims do not have the support that is now widely accepted in other areas of hate crime. Muslims are not requesting special treatment, just equal rights with their fellow citizens."
The report, "Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Hate Crime: UK Case Studies", was based on teams of researchers interviewing members of the Muslim community throughout the UK.
Although the researchers found well-documented acts of violence perpetrated by followers of right-wing groups such as the British National Party and English Defence League, they said that the majority of attacks were carried out by "individuals who have become convinced and angry by negative portrayals of Muslims in the media".
http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/uk-study-highlights-anti-muslim-hate-crimesThe facts are in. Over the last two decades, British media coverage of Islam and Muslims has been overwhelmingly negative, stereotypical, inaccurate – and racist. And a range of journalists and editors from across print and broadcasting media in the UK concur that the problem is bad enough that the Leveson Inquiry should urgently investigate how to hold the media to account for this shocking lapse in journalistic standards.
These are the findings of my comprehensive report on the issue, Race and Reform: Islam and Muslims in the British Media, recently submitted to the Leveson Inquiry by Unitas Communications – a cross-cultural communications agency specialising in Islam-West relations.
My report draws on interviews with a range of media professionals who have worked at the Daily Mail, the Daily Star, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent on Sunday, the Guardian, The Times, Channel 4/ITN and BBC World TV. But it also looks at specialist studies of media coverage on Islam and Muslims over the last two decades.
The findings are deeply disturbing, but they don’t just demonstrate an overwhelming trend of negative and inaccurate reporting. They also show that this trend is correlated with a steady rise in Islamophobic sentiments over the last decade, and that this in turn has contributed to an escalation of racist attacks on British Muslims.
All our interviewees agreed that anti-Muslim reporting was a significant problem in some sections of the British media. Jason Beattie, political editor of the Daily Mirror, said: “In general, though not exclusively, the portrayal of Muslims in the mainstream media has been unsatisfactory… [including] sloppy and sometimes stereotypical reporting.” Brian Cathcart, former deputy editor at The Independent on Sunday, similar notes that “where Muslims are concerned, some of the country’s top-selling newspapers have too often failed… damaging stereotypes have been adopted and repeated by some newspapers… Since these papers enjoy such wide circulation, this cannot fail to disadvantage Muslims in British society.”
The problem is that particularly vocal sections of the media – mainly the tabloid press – put out inaccurate reports which, due to their wide circulation, often frame the news agenda for the rest of the media. Combined with lack of robust regulation, and a dearth in positive news stories, the result is a “general predominance of anti-Muslim narratives.”
But what is really shocking about our findings concerns the social impacts of biased reporting. In 2001, 32 per cent of British non-Muslims said they felt threatened by Islam. At the end of the decade, this figure had grown – a whopping 75 per cent of non-Muslims now believe Islam is negative for Britain, and 63 per cent don’t disagree that “Muslims are terrorists.”
In this same period, anti-Muslim hate crimes have been rising rapidly, and are now at record levels with police data from only two regions confirming 1,200 religiously-aggravated recorded offences against Muslims from 2009 to 2011. According to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the number of religiously-aggravated offences referred to the CPS has risen by 45 per cent – yet Muslims account for more than 54 per cent of these offences overall through most of the decade.
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/07/20/a-new-age-of-racism-why-the-leveson-inquiry-must-investigate-anti-muslim-bigotry/0 -
You are taking the piss now.If you'd be as good as to respond with an answer....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80258201&postcount=1530 -
So a quick review of the facts:
- There is a professional anti-Islam industry
- Two seperate reports , one for London and the other for the UK have shown the media to be disgracefully biased against Muslims and reinforcing negative Muslim stereotypes.
- Draw Muhammed Day also reinforces these same negative stereotypes.
- These negative stereotypes lead to hate-crimes against Muslims.
- There is a long history of Sikhs being targetted for hate-crimes due to their physical similarities to the stereotypical image of a Muslim.
- The hate crime of mass-murder is committed against Sikhs by an assailant with a 9/11 tatoo.
0 -
I don't know what thread you got those facts from, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't this one.0
-
-
A fact that is based on a conspiracy theory about a zionist controlled media, which is an accusation as bad as what you think DMD did.Brown Bomber wrote: »[*]There is a professional anti-Islam industry
Neither of which cover the areas the shooting take place and likely not covering the media that a racist skinhead would rely on since there's a good chance that he believes a more extreme, crazier version of your conspiracy theory.Brown Bomber wrote: »[*]Two seperate reports , one for London and the other for the UK have shown the media to be disgracefully biased against Muslims and reinforcing negative Muslim stereotypes.
Not a fact. it's your opinion which is not supported or agreed upon.Brown Bomber wrote: »[*]Draw Muhammed Day also reinforces these same negative stereotypes.
Not a fact as you'll have to prove that those hate-crimes where directly caused by the negative stereotypes you think came from DMD, otherwise your point is irrelevant.Brown Bomber wrote: »[*]These negative stereotypes lead to hate-crimes against Muslims.
Not a relevant fact because it's not been established that what happened.Brown Bomber wrote: »[*]There is a long history of Sikhs being targetted for hate-crimes due to their physical similarities to the stereotypical image of a Muslim.
This is the only fact you've listed, but since none of the other things you've listed are, you've got no connection to DMD, and therefore no point.Brown Bomber wrote: »[*]The hate crime of mass-murder is committed against Sikhs by an assailant with a 9/11 tatoo.
Luckily though you do have an excuse to drag up an old tired point and post more articles from your file of zionist evil.0 -
-
Brown Bomber wrote: »Yeah, it's all a conspiracy. AIPAC don't exist. Fanatical Zionist and a financier of the professional Islamophobia industry Sheldon Adelson isn't pushing Romney to release Israeli spy Pollard. Oh wait, he is . The media isn't really anti-Muslim and this doesn't lead to hate crimes, hang on! It does :eek:
You appreciate when you say "professional Islamophobia industry" you sound like a conspiracy theory nut, right?0 -
Uh, no. The clue's in bit I quoted: Breivik claims to have been "100 percent Christian".Brown Bomber wrote: »
You haven't. Not once.Brown Bomber wrote: »0 -
Advertisement
-
The assumption seems to be that since there's a professional offense-taking industry amongst islamics -- for example, the guys who toured the Middle East stirring up hatred and violence with their updated collection of cartoons -- it stands to a certain kind of lousy reasoning that a professional offense-giving industry must exist too.You appreciate when you say "professional Islamophobia industry" you sound like a conspiracy theory nut, right?
For if there were no professional offense-giving industry, then that would suggest that the islamics who continually take offense are simply frightfully oversensitive, if not fully paranoid.0 -
The irony is that BB is always talking about Zionists trying to take over the world on the Conspiracy Theory forum. Zionists are strongly linked with Jews therefore it could be argued that if there is an attack on Jews that BB and his conspiracy theory friends are responsible because they helped stir up hate; certainly a lot more so than Draw Muhammed day which is more about defending free speech than stirring up hate.
But of course for many people its ok to offend Jews or Christians because they are mostly white; but offending Muslims or making fun of the extremist elements within it is reprehensible because they are mostly aren't white.0 -
-
Brown Bomber wrote: »What is relevant to the thread is how your view on Muslims parallels theirs.
You don't have a clue what my opinions are. You never read me and you never quote me.Brown Bomber wrote: »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?
What a sleazy, dishonest way of arguing. You are incapable of addressing what I say, so you point me to some "Hammerskins" site and demand that I address its content. You imply that I have something in common with the "Hammerskins" and demand I prove otherwise.
Well, two can play that game. Your opinions about Jews and Zionists sound very similar to Al Qaeda. So I demand you look at Al Qaeda's "Inspire" magazine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspire_%28magazine%29 and tell me which parts (if any) you disagree with.Brown Bomber wrote: »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.
Not convinced. You write like a right-wing Muslim conservative who is offended by blasphemy. What are you, if that is not you?
Can you answer this: Do you want sharia law introduced to make drawings of the Prophet illegal?0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »I don't know if you've realised but you have a whole site dedicated to demonising Muslims.
Nonsense. I am opposed to Islamic terror (jihad) and oppression (sharia). All liberal Muslims should agree with me.
You don't. But that is because you are a reactionary right-wing Muslim, not a liberal Muslim.Brown Bomber wrote: »How would your site be any different or more extreme in 2050?
I would be able to tell you what I think of Muhammed.
Right now, I say on my site what I think of Moses (a tyrant, murderer, child killer and rapist) but I do not say anywhere on my site what I think of Muhammed. Why not?Brown Bomber wrote: »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.
Another pathetic smear. I am a liberal parliamentary democrat. Breivik is a totalitarian and unelected terrorist, and is also legally insane.
Again, you are incapable of addressing what I say, so you prefer to rabbit on about irrelevant people like the Hammerskins and Breivik instead.0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »So a quick review of the facts:
- There is a professional anti-Islam industry
- Two seperate reports , one for London and the other for the UK have shown the media to be disgracefully biased against Muslims and reinforcing negative Muslim stereotypes.
- Draw Muhammed Day also reinforces these same negative stereotypes.
- These negative stereotypes lead to hate-crimes against Muslims.
- There is a long history of Sikhs being targetted for hate-crimes due to their physical similarities to the stereotypical image of a Muslim.
- The hate crime of mass-murder is committed against Sikhs by an assailant with a 9/11 tatoo.
Ahahahahaha.
Here's another fact:
We didn't land on the moon. The Hollywood Jews faked it.
Also, my wife is annoying me today, so I'm inclined to side with BB's defence of the oppression of women (Islam). 50% of muslims have no rights. Thank Allah they're only women. :rolleyes:
DMD is gone. You'd swear it was longer than Ramadan, the way BB keeps harping on about it.0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »Evidently you've
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.
In a later post, you made similar claims. But fine, if I misunderstood, I apologise.Brown Bomber wrote: »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.
And again, it's the use of the term "Jews". Not "some Jewish people" etc. By using the term "Jews", it's implying that it's something common among Jewish people. Maybe bad phrasing on your part, but that's the way I, and several people, interpret some of your posts.Brown Bomber wrote: »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.
Again, you rarely ever seem to post in threads here about Christianity, Judaism, Scientology etc, yet more often than not you post in ones about Islam, challenging sources & facts and generally taking the opposite view of most people here. How is that not defending Islam? As for the Muhammad pictures, you initially complained about the beastiality one, but there was also a long discussion afterwards where you complained about all pictures of Muhammad, and Draw Muhammad Day itself. Just like this thread, you've mentioned pictures of Muhammad with a bomb. That's not the beastiality one.Brown Bomber wrote: »That is an outrageous lie.
Fair enough, I retract that comment. Apologies.Brown Bomber wrote: »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.
Maybe that's true for some people, and I'd find their actions just as reprehensible as you. But that's not true for everybody, nor is it true for the initial set up of DMD.Brown Bomber wrote: »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.
Agreed. But is the intention of every cartoon to dehumanise an enemy? Again, how many pictures of God/Jesus/Xenu etc are posted worldwide? All to dehumanise an enemy?Brown Bomber wrote: »You are missing the point which is not that it radicalised Muslims but that it engenders Islamophobia.
Your theory or fact?Brown Bomber wrote: »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.
I wasn't aware of that. Doesn't change my point though. He may very well think it's likely the killer thought they were Muslims, but it's not yet proven. And even then, there is still no link to Draw Muhammad Day, more so ignorance of people unable to recognise people of different faiths based on their attire.Brown Bomber wrote: »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.
Olympic Gold Medal for that huge leap.
1. Draw cartoon of Muhammad with bomb
2. ?????
3. ?????
4. Hate crime
Why do you think someone might draw Muhammad with a bomb? Pretty random, isn't it? Or, it could be because of the suicide bombings which take place in Muslim countries, generally by some Muslim people, which generally doesn't happen elsewhere. People willing to commit hate crimes don't need a drawing of Muhammad with a bomb to push them over the edge.0 -
I appreciate it could to someone who is ignorant of the facts, yes.You appreciate when you say "professional Islamophobia industry" you sound like a conspiracy theory nut, right?
But now you no longer have an excuse.The rising tide of Islamophobia in the United States is not a natural or spontaneous outgrowth of popular fear of Muslim fundamentalist terrorism, nor is it the product of a vast right-wing conspiracy. Rather, it is the design of “a small, tightly networked group of misinformation experts guiding an effort that reaches millions of Americans through effective advocates, media partners, and grassroots organizing,” according to a powerful investigative report released today by the progressive think tank Center for American Progress (CAP).
See above.The assumption seems to be that since there's a professional offense-taking industry amongst islamics -- for example, the guys who toured the Middle East stirring up hatred and violence with their updated collection of cartoons -- it stands to a certain kind of lousy reasoning that a professional offense-giving industry must exist too.
For if there were no professional offense-giving industry, then that would suggest that the islamics who continually take offense are simply frightfully oversensitive, if not fully paranoid.0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »I appreciate it could to someone who is ignorant of the facts, yes.
But now you no longer have an excuse.
I'd say it's got a lot to do with the 9/11 attacks. But that could just be down to y'know, logic.
Oh that's right, it was probably a Zionist conspiracy, right?0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement