Secularism, Muhammed Cartoons and The Sikh Temple Shooting

fitz0

Maybe BB is a deep cover [A]Jew[\A] zionist whose sole job is to get us to dismiss the zionist conspiracy out of hand by posing silly internet comments.

/conspiracy Keanu

Brown Bomber

Sonics2k wrote: »

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?

You are in no position to talk of "logic" if you haven't even examined the evidence. Have you? Here it is again - “Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America.”

If it's a "Zionist conspiracy" theory. Prove it, debunk it. Use your "y'now logic".

Brown Bomber

joseph brand wrote: »

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.

Excellent rebuttal. You've addressed every single point I've raised, well done.

Yet it is me who is pulling the standard down of the forum apparently :rolleyes:

Brown Bomber

fitz0 wrote: »

Maybe BB is a deep cover [A]Jew[\A] zionist whose sole job is to get us to dismiss the zionist conspiracy out of hand by posing silly internet comments.

/conspiracy Keanu

Read this “Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America.” and explain to me how my position is irrational.

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

Uh, no. The clue's in bit I quoted: Breivik claims to have been "100 percent Christian".

I've read Breivik's manifesto and while I can't remember specifically that exact quote I am quite sure Breiviik was referring to being a 100% "Cultural Christian", his own neologism. Breivik harked back to the days of Christendom and the Knights Templar when Christians were killing Muslims. Breivik associated himself "100%" with this ideal, he seen himself as a modern day Crusader. His views on Christ however are conflicting and contradictory throughout.

Again, what's your point? How is any of this relevant to Breivik being a Zionist?

robindch wrote: »

You haven't. Not once.

Well I have, read back through the thread.

Brown Bomber

A Primal Nut wrote: »

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

Liberalism is "strongly linked with Jews" therefore it could be argued that if there is an attack on a Liberal therefore if there is an attack on a Liberal the critics of Liberals are responsible because they helped stir up hate.

You see how stupid that (above) sounds? You just said essentially the same thing.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Liberalism is "strongly linked with Jews" therefore it could be argued that if there is an attack on a Liberal therefore if there is an attack on a Liberal the critics of Liberals are responsible because they helped stir up hate.

You see how stupid that (above) sounds? You just said essentially the same thing.

....And that's essentially the same thing you are saying about DMD.

The only difference it applies to you because you actually are directly accusing Jews and Zionists of things

Brown Bomber

humphrys wrote: »

You don't have a clue what my opinions are. You never read me and you never quote me.

I do read you. Your site is a cardboard cut-out of all the other anti-Muslim conspiracy theory sites.

Here is a gem of a quote:

Robert Spencer is probably the most knowledgeable and intelligent writer on Islam in the world today.
markhumprys.com

“About Islam, I recommend essentially everything written by Robert Spencer,”
Anders Breivik

(Robert Spencer is part of the anti-Islamic propoganda network and is a large recipient of funding that drives it. This is from his profile at the SPLC where he is considered a part of the "Anti-Muslim Inner Circle")

SUMMARY Spencer is entirely self-taught in the study of modern Islam and the Koran. Critics have accused him of doggedly taking the Koran literally — Spencer considers it innately extremist and violent — while ignoring its nonviolent passages and the vast interpretive tradition that has modified Koranic teachings over the centuries. Spencer believes that moderate Muslims exist, but to prove it, they'd have to fully denounce the portions of the Koran he finds objectionable. Spencer has been known to fraternize with European racists and neo-fascists, though he says such contacts were merely incidental. Benazir Bhutto, the late prime minister of Pakistan, accused Spencer of "falsely constructing a divide between Islam and West" in her 2008 book, Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the West. Spencer, she wrote, presented a "skewed, one-sided, and inflammatory story that only helps to sow the seed of civilizational conflict."

humphrys wrote: »

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.

Sorry if I was unclear. I'll try to redress that now. Your views on Islam are indistinguisable from a cross-section of Neo-Nazi skinheads as far as I can see.

Feel free to correct me and point out where I am wrong.

humphrys wrote: »

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.

All of it.

humphrys wrote: »

Not convinced. You write like a right-wing Muslim conservative who is offended by blasphemy. What are you, if that is not you?

I'm flattered to be the subject of one of your anti-Islamic conspiracy theories. However, you are claiming that I think like a Muslim. Do you really not realise how bigoted that is?

humphrys wrote: »

Can you answer this: Do you want sharia law introduced to make drawings of the Prophet illegal?

:pac: Of course not. My turn - to you, what is the capital of Israel?

Brown Bomber

humphrys wrote: »

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.

:pac::pac::pac:

Mark, don't dodge this question please: If your site is not intending to demonise Muslims then will you update your site as appropriate with information that presents Muslims in a less negative light - providing I provide well documented information?

humphrys wrote: »

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?

Because you like to paint yourself as the victim?

And another thing,

Have you read the reports that demonstrate that anti-Muslim propoganda of the kind your familiar with leads to anti_Muslim hate crimes up to and including death.

How does that make you feel?

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Sorry if I was unclear. I'll try to redress that now. Your views on Islam are indistinguisable from a cross-section of Neo-Nazi skinheads as far as I can see.

Lol, and I wonder what the opinion of those neo -Nazis would be regarding Jews and the Media :rolleyes:

Channel Zero

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, and I wonder what the opinion of those neo -Nazis would be regarding Jews and the Media :rolleyes:

Zionists aren't the same as Jews. Bit of a difference there as you well know. BB, you might have to address this again.

King Mob

Channel Zero wrote: »

Zionists aren't the same as Jews. Bit of a difference there as you well know. BB, you might have to address this again.

And there's a bit of difference between the Muslims who are opposed to freedom of speech and the vast majority who are not.
DMD is directed at one of them.
Brown Bomber is conflating the two for his own benefit.
Which is of course what he claims about anyone who points out his bigoted conspiracy theories.


Similarly, he is using the idea that since racist skin heads believe something, it is a point against that thing.
If this is so, then it follows that the same objection applies to his conspiracy theories about a Zionist controlled media, which a lot of racist skin heads no doubt believe as well. The only difference is they are a lot less coy about it.

So do you think that skin heads would agree or disagree with BB?
Does this have any baring on the issue?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

:pac::pac::pac:

Mark, don't dodge this question please: ..............?

Speaking of which-Seeing as Islam was used as an excuse by Jihadis to commit various atrocities, do you regret defending that religion?

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

In a later post, you made similar claims. But fine, if I misunderstood, I apologise.
...

Fair enough, I retract that comment. Apologies.

That's decent of you and much appreciated.

Penn wrote: »

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.

Penn, I'll try to explain by way of example:
Had I said "Men are overrepresented in Dublin's Taxi driver industry"" it would be factually correct and quite rightly wouldn't offend anyone. It's not a slight on all men. However, if I said what you advise the sentence wouldn't make any sense. Becoming: "Some men are overrepresented in Dublin's Taxi Driver industry".

Penn wrote: »

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.

We'll try to work this out with examples again in situations where we have interacted and you tell me if you think I am defending Islam or the truth/justice.

EXAMPLE 1: dlofnep posted an ten-year-old BBC article about a fire in Saudi Girls School that left 15 dead and added the mis/disinformation caveat that the girls died because of Islamic police's interventon. Your response was "I ****ing hate religion". My response, which was the rational response was "hang on!... The article doesn't actually say that!"

To me, that is clearly defending the truth.

EXAMPLE 2: On another occasion you posted a Daily Mail article detailing how a Muslim "beauty queen" was stoned to death in the Caucuses in a horrific example of Sharia punishhment. Here crime - entering a beauty contest.

I looked into the story, reviewing official and local sources and it turns out that the girl, wasn't Muslim and she was killed by a classmate who had learning difficulties and the act had absolutely nothing to do with Islam at all.

To me that is clearly defending the truth.

If I am walking down the street and there are two men ahead of me - one in suit, and the other a homeless man - and I witness the man in the suit break a shopfront window when suddenly the police arrive and apprehend the homeless man as the suited man walks away. If I then inform the policeman that the homeless man is innocent am I then defending the homeless or defending the truth/justice? If this incidence occurs 10, 1000 or 1000000 times how does it change anything?

I take no enjoyment from correcting mistruths, but I feel everyone has an obligation to do so. Why you will see me more in threads about Islam is that nobody else seems capable or interested to defend Islam from mis/disinformation.

Penn wrote: »

1. Draw cartoon of Muhammad with bomb
2. ?????
3. ?????
4. Hate crime

1. Draw cartoon of Muhammad with bomb
2. Reinforce negative stereotypes associating Muslims with terrorism.
3. This has been documented as increasing the likelyhood of anti-Muslim crimes.
4. Hate crime

Penn wrote: »

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.

That's not true. The Tamil Tigers, a secularist outfit, introduced the world to the suicide bombing.

Penn wrote: »

People willing to commit hate crimes don't need a drawing of Muhammad with a bomb to push them over the edge.

No, but it certainly doesn't help anything when there is already a climate of Islamophobia to reinforce these same stereotypes when it has been shown that these same stereotypes lead to hate crimes.

Brown Bomber

Channel Zero wrote: »

Zionists aren't the same as Jews. Bit of a difference there as you well know. BB, you might have to address this again.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. He is lying and he knows it well enough himself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0kWAqZxJVE

Former Israeli Minister Shulamit Aloni
"Anti-semitic", "its a trick we always use it"

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. He is lying and he knows it well enough himself.
................

Speaking of which - Seeing as Islam was used as an excuse by Jihadis to commit various atrocities, do you regret defending that religion?

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

Speaking of which - Seeing as Islam was used as an excuse by Jihadis to commit various atrocities, do you regret defending that religion?

I've told you numerous times that I don't consider myself to have defended Islam and therefore am not in a position to answer a question based on the premise that I have defended Islam.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've told you numerous times that I don't consider myself to have defended Islam and therefore am not in a position to answer a question based on the premise that I have defended Islam.

You've been "defending the truth" as regards the Koran and Islam - Seeing as the Koran/Islam was used as an excuse by Jihadis to commit various atrocities, do you regret doing so?

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

You've been "defending the truth" as regards the Koran and Islam - Seeing as the Koran/Islam was used as an excuse by Jihadis to commit various atrocities, do you regret doing so?

Nope, defending the truth as regards all things. To the best of my limited abilities at least.

Christ the Redeemer

It's funny that the DMD is being treated as a serious protest when in reality it is a bunch of /b/tards out trying to offend as many people as possible. They are the same kids who forced mountain dew to shut its website down because they voted "Hitler done no wrong" to the top of their drink naming competition.

Supporting these so called protests that do nothing but offend moderate muslims and give ammunition to the far right extremists and is not doing anybody any favours.

Christ the Redeemer

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. He is lying and he knows it well enough himself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0kWAqZxJVE

Former Israeli Minister Shulamit Aloni
"Anti-semitic", "its a trick we always use it"

I **** you not, I was a called an antisemite for posting this on another forum!

joseph brand

Relevant.

Christ the Redeemer

The same kind of rhetoric that justified the near total genocide of the American Indians and pretty much the entire history of British empire expansion. They called us savages.

joseph brand

If anyone thought that DMD was a bad idea, then they'll absolutely freak at Sh*t on Mohammad Day, SMD.

http://actforamerica.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/mo_****.gif?w=300&h=269

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Nope, defending the truth as regards all things. To the best of my limited abilities at least.

Very limited. Certainly your kind of "help" taints any cause it touches.

Bloodwing

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

It's funny that the DMD is being treated as a serious protest when in reality it is a bunch of /b/tards out trying to offend as many people as possible. They are the same kids who forced mountain dew to shut its website down because they voted "Hitler done no wrong" to the top of their drink naming competition.

Supporting these so called protests that do nothing but offend moderate muslims and give ammunition to the far right extremists and is not doing anybody any favours.

What does that make you then? What about all the christians you have offended by coming in here and identifying yourself as christ the redeemer? I suppose it's not really that offensive though seen as it's just a user name, much like how pictures of muhammad are just pictures.

Channel Zero

King Mob wrote: »

And there's a bit of difference between the Muslims who are opposed to freedom of speech and the vast majority who are not.
DMD is directed at one of them.

If i may say so, it has proven to be a very crude and offensive way to make a point. Its original cause has lost all meaning in my view and seems to have been subverted as a tool for those with a specific agenda that has very little to do with freedom of speech.

So do you think that skin heads would agree or disagree with BB?
Does this have any baring on the issue?

Just to point out firstly, i don't think there is any link between this Sikh shooting and DMD. I really don't want to get involved in the discussion too much tbh; but will answer your questions anyway.

Do i think that skin heads would agree or disagree with Brown Bomber. The answer is i think that the skinheads such as the one's you allude to would disagree with BB, because they're violent racist neo-Nazis who believe themselves to be the master race etc etc. And BB is not last time i checked.

Listen, i can see what you're trying to get at. You've been plugging away there repeatedly, but the comparison doesn't stand up to scrutiny and is totally dependent on your subjective negative view of the matter and BB. I haven't made that leap myself as there is no evidence to suggest it. I'm not prepared to discuss making a direct comparison any further at all, so i guess we'll have to agree to disagree on it and leave it at that. That's the politest way i can put it.

You also asked does this have any bearing on the issue. I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but will take a guess that you are attempting to point out that if BB criticizes a particular non-ethnic group; that it could be misconstrued by an extremist to mean something other than it is and that there is a similarity with the topic of the thread.
Well, there is a very very tenuous similarity there. By that reasoning though, criticizing any political or ethnic sub-group is out or cause for blame if some nutter decides to misconstrue it to include whatever greater ethnic group it belongs to.

It's just not the same thing. It would imply for instance that talking negatively about a white power skinhead is possibly partly to blame if someone shoots a caucasian. It's not or it wouldn't be obviously.
However, it would be a different matter if, say, someone was talking negatively about and demonising all caucasians as violent terrorists. There's the difference you see. And crucially, DMD fails to make this distinction.

Hope that made sense.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

[...] professional Islamophobia industry [...]

The five men who are "primarily responsible for the dissemination of false facts" constitute an "industry"? Seriously? An "industry"?

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/08/26/new-report-details-funding-sources-behind-anti-muslim-fearmongers/

Brown Bomber wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Brown Bomber wrote: »

[...] you as you share the same extremist Zionism as Anders Breivik.

Breivik claims to be "100 percent Christian"

How is any of this relevant to Breivik being a Zionist?

Let me say it again. Breivik is a christian. He said it himself. He is not a "Zionist" as you constantly appear to claim.

Although, frankly, it's pretty hard to extract any specific meaning from the greater part of your confused, wandering prose. And in the few places where your prose admits a single interpretation, the claims are generally trivially false -- your patently silly belief that you're not "defending islam" (while fighting off what you claim are a series of "attacks"). Or that drawing a picture of an unenlightened seventh-century warlord constitutes "an attack" upon a billion or so people. Or that five men are "an industry". And so on.

King Mob

Channel Zero wrote: »

If i may say so, it has proven to be a very crude and offensive way to make a point. Its original cause has lost all meaning in my view and seems to have been subverted as a tool for those with a specific agenda that has very little to do with freedom of speech.

But what you and BB are forgetting, or trying to forget is that DMD was also about the silliness of certain people and companies in the west who were stifling free speech because of an irrational fear of muslim attacks.
For instance at the time of the first one youtube was banning videos that were critical of Islam. Not offensive ones, just ones that where criticising the religion and some of it's adherents.
And for a more famous example, An episode of south park being edited and threaten with being pulled off the air, just for having an image of Mohammed.

Channel Zero wrote: »

Do i think that skin heads would agree or disagree with Brown Bomber. The answer is i think that the skinheads such as the one's you allude to would disagree with BB, because they're violent racist neo-Nazis who believe themselves to be the master race etc etc. And BB is not last time i checked.

I was asking whether or not racist skinheads would believe in the conspiracy theory that jews and zionists where controlling the media.
I think the answer is obvious.

And since BB tried to use this idea to counter a point, it makes him hypocritical when the same applies to him.

Channel Zero wrote: »

You also asked does this have any bearing on the issue. I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but will take a guess that you are attempting to point out that if BB criticizes a particular non-ethnic group; that it could be misconstrued by an extremist to mean something other than it is and that there is a similarity with the topic of the thread.
Well, there is a very very tenuous similarity there. By that reasoning though, criticizing any political or ethnic sub-group is out or cause for blame if some nutter decides to misconstrue it to include whatever greater ethnic group it belongs to.

It's just not the same thing. It would imply for instance that talking negatively about a white power skinhead is possibly partly to blame if someone shoots a caucasian. It's not or it wouldn't be obviously.
However, it would be a different matter if, say, someone was talking negatively about and demonising all caucasians as violent terrorists. There's the difference you see. And crucially, DMD fails to make this distinction.

But if I had a mind to, I could conflate jews and zionists to make it seem like BB is attacking jews as a whole. (of course whether he is or not is a different matter)
This is exactly what he is doing with DMD.

So if drawing pictures of Mohammed is somehow making negative stereotyping all muslims, accusing zionists of controlling the media certainly does the same for jews.

So if we are to follow BB's "logic" then he is doing the exact same thing he is accusing those who participated in DMD off, creating negative stereotypes that could possibly lead to violence.

So yes BB's logic means that you couldn't criticise any group which is silly. And he knows as much as he has no issue with doing so with his favourite boogeymen.
Nor do I have any issues with him doing so as most people realise his crap for what it is and call him out for it.
Just as I'm calling him out for his hypocrisy and false concern in digging up this old issue.

Christ the Redeemer

Neilos wrote: »

What does that make you then? What about all the christians you have offended by coming in here and identifying yourself as christ the redeemer? I suppose it's not really that offensive though seen as it's just a user name, much like how pictures of muhammad are just pictures.

That's my real name.