Secularism, Muhammed Cartoons and The Sikh Temple Shooting

MagicMarker

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Two anti-Muslim stereoptypes in one post. Brilliant.

Well unfortunately your username has enforced just such a stereotype, I hope you feel really really really bad about yourself now.

I think I may start a thread about it.

Brown Bomber

humphrys wrote: »

You are blaming peaceful democratic critics of jihad and sharia for violence they never called for, and do not support.

How does that make me feel? It makes me feel angry with you and your dishonest attempts to shut down criticism of jihad and sharia.

Do you even know what Sharia is? Hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world adhere to Sharia on a personal level everyday. If you are anti-Sharia then you are anti-the majority of Muslims.

Sharia is personal religious law and moral guidance for the vast majority of Muslims. Moreover, these core values are in harmony with the core values at the heart of America. Muslims consider an interpretation of Sharia to be valid so long as it protects and advocates for life, property, family, faith, and intellect.


Misleading reports authored by conservative pundits, without credentials in the study of Islam, characterize Sharia as totalitarian in nature and a threat to freedom. This deeply flawed conclusion would cast suspicion on all Muslims who practice any aspect of their faith, as the text is primarily concerned with correct religious practice. Adopting a flawed analysis and integrating it into policy would direct limited resources away from actual threats to the United States and bolster an anti-Muslim narrative that Islamist extremist groups find useful in recruiting.


The Center for American Progress brief dissects the misinformation which risks alienating our best allies in the effort against radicalization—our fellow Americans who are Muslim—and presents the following agreed upon facts about Sharia:

• Sharia is not static—its interpretations and applications have changed and continue to change over time.
• There is no one thing called Sharia—a variety of Muslim communities interpret Sharia in their own way as the ideal law of God aimed toward justice, fairness, and mercy.
• Sharia is overwhelmingly concerned with personal religious observance such as prayer and fasting, and not with national laws.

You've also dodged a question I was especially eager for you to answer. It's a yes/no question really.

If your site is not for disseminating anti-Islam bile would you update your site with established facts that don't present Islam in such a negative light? If not, why not?

humphrys

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Do you even know what Sharia is? Hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world adhere to Sharia on a personal level everyday. If you are anti-Sharia then you are anti-the majority of Muslims.

Hold on, first you said you weren't in favour of sharia law banning depictions of the Prophet. Now you're in favour of sharia.

Either way, you're definitely a right-wing Muslim conservative. No non-Muslim would ever defend sharia law.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You've also dodged a question I was especially eager for you to answer. It's a yes/no question really.

If your site is not for disseminating anti-Islam bile would you update your site with established facts that don't present Islam in such a negative light? If not, why not?

I have many positive Muslim stories and writers, such as the Muslims who support Israel and America and oppose jihad and sharia.

I won't be interested in your stories of heroic Muslims who hate the Zionists.

joseph brand

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Mark -don't lie. I never said your site was a neo-Nazi site. I know you are not a racist or racialist. What I said was that your opinions on Muslims are indistinguisable from a cross-section of Neo-Nazi group, The Hammerskins, of which Wade Page, the Sikh killer was a member.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes. They are, for example:

You write like a right-wing reactionary Muslim conservative who is offended by blasphemy.

Round and round we go.

speaking

But with Sharia and Jihad is it not dependent on how Muslims interpret both.

For example, some Muslims may interpret Jihad as a struggle against social injustice within own community; at a very simple level getting good hospital for their kids etc. Other Muslims with political agendas interpret Jihad in a more militaristic sense.

Also are Muslim scholars today now deep in debate about the nature of Sharia and is Sharia not constantly being reinterpreted in light of new evidence about the world?

I know a few Muslims who follow Sharia law in their personal lives and they seem good people and other Muslims who interpret Sharia law according to their societal norms which can be pretty nasty.

But then again I'm no expert

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Do you even know what Sharia is? Hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world adhere to Sharia on a personal level everyday. If you are anti-Sharia then you are anti-the majority of Muslims.



You've also dodged a question I was especially eager for you to answer. It's a yes/no question really.

If your site is not for disseminating anti-Islam bile would you update your site with established facts that don't present Islam in such a negative light? If not, why not?

I'm glad you two have met. Rarely have a couple deserved each other so much.

humphrys

Nodin wrote: »

I'm glad you two have met. Rarely have a couple deserved each other so much.

I don't think it will last.

I'm pretty bored with him by now. Have you got anyone better out there?

humphrys

speaking wrote: »

But with Sharia and Jihad is it not dependent on how Muslims interpret both.

For example, some Muslims may interpret Jihad as a struggle against social injustice within own community; at a very simple level getting good hospital for their kids etc. Other Muslims with political agendas interpret Jihad in a more militaristic sense.

Also are Muslim scholars today now deep in debate about the nature of Sharia and is Sharia not constantly being reinterpreted in light of new evidence about the world?

I know a few Muslims who follow Sharia law in their personal lives and they seem good people and other Muslims who interpret Sharia law according to their societal norms which can be pretty nasty.

But then again I'm no expert

If you re-define jihad as something personal and non-violent, and you re-define sharia as something voluntary and non-coercive, then yes, they sound pretty harmless.

What is the motivation for such re-definitions? A desire to avoid the brutal reality of actual jihad and sharia in the world today?

speaking

humphrys wrote: »

If you re-define jihad as something personal and non-violent, and you re-define sharia as something voluntary and non-coercive, then yes, they sound pretty harmless.

What is the motivation for such re-definitions? A desire to avoid the brutal reality of actual jihad and sharia in the world today?

its not redefining, its re-interpretation in light of new information changing circumstances.

joseph brand

Brown Bomber wrote: »

WTF???

From your link:




I misspoke. Evidently you have no interest in reading the report that establishes the existence of the Islamophobia network. Perhaps you may watch a short video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04fBZmjNQBY

I have to say I'm a fan of Max Blumenthal. And AFAIK he is himself Jewish. I wonder what Jews think of him?

His video on Hagee here is shocking, funny and scary. He exposes the Christian Zionist Movement.

I recommend his YouTube videos. He's a real 'thorn in the side' of American crazies and bullsh*t merchants.

Although, in relation to the topic of DMD, I don't think it's (DMD) responsible for attacks on muslims. And here's why.

The internet community, which values freedom extremely highly (think Sean Sherlock) doesn't like to be told what to do. When news broke of a newspaper being threatened with violence for printing a silly cartoon, everyone's ears pricked up. Most people couldn't give a rats about muslims, but the threat seemed so stupid, plus, it was also like a challenge. "Ha ha, I dare you to draw a cartoon of Muhammed and post it".

The drawings are an exercise in freedom of speech. "We will not be silenced".

Most people will have their own views on Islam, regardless of the cartoons. We get enough information from the news. An honest report on Islam will disgust ANY non-muslims. (women have zero rights)

Can I just share one of the most inspiring photos I've ever seen, speaking as an Atheist. (taken in Egypt in 2011, christians form a ring around the muslims so that they can pray during Cairo protests)

speaking

joseph brand wrote: »

, An honest report on Islam will disgust ANY non-muslims. (women have zero rights)

Not sure of that I know Muslim families and in those family the women wear the trousers firmly,

Yes in certain cases within the Muslim religion women are treated badly, but is that not the same in all religious to one degree or another?

In fact women globally are treated badly regardless of religious beliefs.

Sonics2k

joseph brand wrote: »

Most people will have their own views on Islam, regardless of the cartoons. We get enough information from the news. An honest report on Islam will disgust ANY non-muslims. (women have zero rights)

Sorry to but in here Joseph, I do agree with most of your post, but this bit jumped out at me.

There are aspects and sadly a large part of Islam that is quite sexist, but I wouldn't go so far as to say all forms of Islam are really bad in terms of womens rights. A lot of it has simply come down to cultural changes (compare the Iran of the 70's to know for example), and interpretation of the Koran.

The average Muslim I have met in my lifetime, whether in Ireland, Australia or the U.K. are much like any typical Christian, Jew or Atheist. A normal person, doing a day to day job and for the most part, treating people normally.

There can always be hard line versions of each religion, and they should be the ones the world looks at and calls out on their horrible ways.


@BB. You say you're not Muslim, and don't defend Islam. Well, I don't believe that, and neither does anyone else (except maybe for the being Muslim part). The fact of the matter though is that DMD is there to show the -extremist- within Islam that we are not afraid, will not follow their rules and yes, will make jokes about them, just like we do with Buddha, Jesus, Ganesh, Moses and so on.

I am yet to meet a typical Muslim who is genuinely offended by it, in fact quite a few like to join in.

It's not Anti-Islam. It's Anti-Extremist.

joseph brand

speaking wrote: »

Not sure of that I know Muslim families and in those family the women wear the trousers firmly,

Yes in certain cases within the Muslim religion women are treated badly, but is that not the same in all religious to one degree or another?

In fact women globally are treated badly regardless of religious beliefs.

Case in point. In the US, the Republicans (conservative christians) want to repeal Obamacare which has a lot of privileges for women. Rush Limbaugh called a student a slut for wanting birth control.

As Hitchens pointed out, empowering women, and giving them control over their reproductive cycle was necessary for a nation to develop. You'll notice that in many poorer nation s women are in a cycle of perpetual pregnancy. Baby making machines.

Hitchens states here once again the very best means of eliminating poverty in the world is to give women reproductive control. Do you know how significant this is? He is saying that it is not the environment, it is not medicine, it is not politics, it is not the economy. He is saying give women reproductive control of their bodies and that will stop poverty. I would extend that to control of their bodies, reproduction is inclusive to that.

It boggles my mind, trying to understand how men in whatever country/ religion cannot respect women. We ALL have mothers. Perhaps some are worse than others, but that cannot be the reason for the unanimous view that they're second class. Beneath us men. It's regressive, stale and nonsensical.

joseph brand

Sonics2k wrote: »

Sorry to but in here Joseph, I do agree with most of your post, but this bit jumped out at me.

There are aspects and sadly a large part of Islam that is quite sexist, but I wouldn't go so far as to say all forms of Islam are really bad in terms of womens rights. A lot of it has simply come down to cultural changes (compare the Iran of the 70's to know for example), and interpretation of the Koran.

The average Muslim I have met in my lifetime, whether in Ireland, Australia or the U.K. are much like any typical Christian, Jew or Atheist. A normal person, doing a day to day job and for the most part, treating people normally.

There can always be hard line versions of each religion, and they should be the ones the world looks at and calls out on their horrible ways.


@BB. You say you're not Muslim, and don't defend Islam. Well, I don't believe that, and neither does anyone else (except maybe for the being Muslim part). The fact of the matter though is that DMD is there to show the -extremist- within Islam that we are not afraid, will not follow their rules and yes, will make jokes about them, just like we do with Buddha, Jesus, Ganesh, Moses and so on.

I am yet to meet a typical Muslim who is genuinely offended by it, in fact quite a few like to join in.

It's not Anti-Islam. It's Anti-Extremist.

I won't pretend to be an expert. But when we see images of Islamic countries, there's seems to be a distinct lack of females out in the streets. One would easily assume that they are all at home. It's a veritable beard-fest.

One point though, which is pertinent to todays events, is that Iran is more progressive than most Islamic nations.

Women make up more than 60 percent of Iranian university students with some fields in science and engineering having more than 70 percent of their alumni be women.[16] The opportunities for women education and their involvement in higher education has grown exponentially after the Iranian Revolution.[16] According to UNESCO world survey, Iran has the highest female to male ratio at primary level of enrollment in the world among sovereign nations, with a girl to boy ratio of 1.22 : 1.00.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Iran

It's a shame to see Israel threatening the most progressive Islamic nation. Why not Saudi Arabia with it's religious police? But that's another thread/ can of worms.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Breivik has some violent views which coincide with some violent Zionist views, but the Jerusalem Port article mentioned above makes it quite clear that he does not consider himself a Zionist. So it is quite false to claim that he is

WTF???

Your claim is that Breivik is a Zionist. I am pointing out that while he hold anti-islamic views which seem pretty Zionistic to me, he has still drawn a firm distinction -- twice in the one short article I quoted -- between himself and Zionists. As follows:

Breivik wrote:

Jews that support multi-culturalism today are as much of a threat to Israel and Zionism as they are to us [...] So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists

You're not doing much for your case when you seem unable to distinguish between, on the one hand, a Zionist and, on the other hand, somebody who shares some violent views with Zionists.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I misspoke. Evidently you have no interest in reading the report that establishes the existence of the Islamophobia network.

You've downgraded your description to "a network" which is certainly closer to the truth, as described by that original article, than an "industry". With a few more days argument, we might reach something closer still, and eventually agree to describe five men perhaps as "a handful".

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If you are anti-Sharia then you are anti-the majority of Muslims.

And according to an earlier post, if somebody supports draw-mohammad day, then they're "idelogical (sic) bedfellows" with murderers. You're seem genuinely unable to understand that people are different from the ideas that they hold, or pretend to hold. And that's probably why you're debating so desperately poorly.

joseph brand

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If you are anti-Sharia then you are anti-the majority of Muslims.

I wonder if all muslims are pro-Sharia. Do they just go along with it, for fear of the repercussions? Apostasy = death. Religious police.

Not long ago, here, we used to dress in our good clothes and put Brylcreem in our hair because the priest was on his way to visit our home and look down his pious nose at us. All the while he was buggering children. / spits

Perhaps anti-sharia is, in a way, siding with those muslims who would like a life free of the slavery that comes with islam. They are muslims from morning to night, there's no avoiding it.

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

Your claim is that Breivik is a Zionist. I am pointing out that while he hold anti-islamic views which seem pretty Zionistic to me, he has still drawn a firm distinction -- twice in the one short article I quoted -- between himself and Zionists. As follows:You're not doing much for your case when you seem unable to distinguish between, on the one hand, a Zionist and, on the other hand, somebody who shares some violent views with Zionists.

Apparently you don't know what you are talking about. Do you even know what a Zionist is? This is from his manifesto, not Wikipedia.

Breivik calls for the ethnic cleansing of Muslims from the Gaza Strip and The West Bank.

The ideological platform advocates a strict anti-Jihad/Islamic
stance which indirectly establishes a default friendly stance
and support to Israel as an integral part of its fundament

Pro:
· Pro-Nationalism
· Pro-pan-nationalism (pro-Europeanism)
· Pro-national or pan-European crusaderism
· Pro-Christian identity
· Pro-cultural conservatism
· Pro-monoculturalism (pro cultural unity)
· Pro-patriarchy
· Pro-Israel

· Pro-Israel (pro-Zionism/Israeli nationalism, supports the deportation of Muslims from the
West Bank and the Gaza strip)

I assume that this should settle this issue?

robindch wrote: »

The You've downgraded your description to "a network" which is certainly closer to the truth, as described by that original article, than an "industry". With a few more days argument, we might reach something closer still, and eventually agree to describe five men perhaps as "a handful".And according to an earlier post, if somebody supports draw-mohammad day, then they're "idelogical (sic) bedfellows" with murderers. You're seem genuinely unable to understand that people are different from the ideas that they hold, or pretend to hold. And that's probably why you're debating so desperately poorly.

Could you please try to make an effort to be more accurate?

I didn't say that people who push drawing Mohammed are ideological bedfellows with murderers, I said they were ideological bedfellows with right wing extremists.

As for network/industry etc that is mere pedantry and irrelevant to the far more important point that multi-millionaires are pumping millions of dollars yearly to bankroll an industry that exists solely to demonise Muslims through lies and propoganda comparable to that which Julius Streicher was executed for.

joseph brand

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I didn't say that people who push drawing Mohammed are ideological bedfellows with murderers, I said they were ideological bedfellows with right wing extremists.

Push drawing Mohammed. Push drawing Mohammed. Push drawing Mohammed. What?

Oh no! Not the drawings.
Not to be flippant, but, 'The Funny Side of religion' is full of anti-christian drawings, quotes, pictures etc. We haven't heard the word christianophobia mentioned. At least I haven't. Perhaps I'm not in the loop. Drat!

I'm finding it hard, try as I might, to view young people, posting Muhammed cartoons in defiance of violent threats from muslims, as being right wing extremists.

It was Draw Muhammed DAY. DAY. It's gone. Get over it. It's so last season. Most of us have forgotten about it, until you brought it up. You undercover Islamophobe.

This thread reminds me of the 'other' thread which we shall not speak of again.

Note to self: Stay away from this thread lest you want a sore forehead from a wall.

Brown Bomber

joseph brand wrote: »

I wonder if all muslims are pro-Sharia. Do they just go along with it, for fear of the repercussions? Apostasy = death. Religious police.

Not long ago, here, we used to dress in our good clothes and put Brylcreem in our hair because the priest was on his way to visit our home and look down his pious nose at us. All the while he was buggering children. / spits

Perhaps anti-sharia is, in a way, siding with those muslims who would like a life free of the slavery that comes with islam. They are muslims from morning to night, there's no avoiding it.

If you take Shariah away from Islam there is nothing left, and I don't mean Saudi-style crime & punishment.

Brown Bomber

joseph brand wrote: »

I'm finding it hard, try as I might, to view young people, posting Muhammed cartoons in defiance of violent threats from muslims, as being right wing extremists.

It was Draw Muhammed DAY. DAY. It's gone. Get over it. It's so last season. Most of us have forgotten about it, until you brought it up. You undercover Islamophobe.

Unfortunately it's not that simple, you cannot simply pack up your easel and crayons after drawing Mohammed as a pig and say "We saved freedom of speech lads, well done". The damage is already done. These are photographs from a Muslim's gravesite which were vandalised this week in an anti-Muslim hate crime which referenced Mohammed and threatened violence.





There was 7 attacks against Mosques in the US in 10 days around the Sikh attack, including a Mosque being burned to the ground.
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/14/eight_attacks_11_days/

Today in Germany anti-Muslim, right-wing extremists were placing cartoons of Mohammed outside Mosques as an act of protest.
http://www.thelocal.de/society/20120817-44415.html

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Unfortunately it's not that simple, you cannot simply pack up your easel and crayons after drawing Mohammed as a pig and say "We saved freedom of speech lads, well done". The damage is already done. These are photographs from a Muslim's gravesite which were vandalised this week in an anti-Muslim hate crime which referenced Mohammed and threatened violence.


............

More dubious linkage. However it does illustrate that as this thread goes on, your reasons for starting it become more obvious. And they've nothing to do with the Sikh temple.

Corkfeen

Didn't Breivik plagiarise a fairly large amount of his so called manifesto from rubbish that he found on google?

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

[...] you seem unable to distinguish between, on the one hand, a Zionist and, on the other hand, somebody who shares some violent views with Zionists.

Apparently you don't know what you are talking about. Do you even know what a Zionist is? [...] I assume that this should settle this issue?

It settles it alright, but again in my favour. As I pointed out above several times, Breivik holds some violent views that Zionists hold and that makes him, as he says, pro-zionist with respect to those views. However, as I've also pointed out several times, just because somebody agrees with somebody else on some topic, that doesn't mean that he agrees with him on all topics. Breivik is occasionally pro-Zionist. He is not Zionist, as he make clear himself.

If you can't understand the distinction between partial support and complete support then there isn't really much point in continuing this line of argument.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I didn't say that people who push drawing Mohammed are ideological bedfellows with murderers, I said they were ideological bedfellows with right wing extremists.

Ok, so we're "bedfellows" with right-wing extremists, but absolutely not the kind like Wade Michael Page who I gather all agree committed the Sikh Temple murders?

Well, while I'd prefer not to be associated with right-wing extremists at all -- even through completely rubbishy logic like you use here. But even if you do make an association, even one we dispute, I'm glad you agree that our bedfellows aren't the murdering type.

So, I thought that's something you'd be happy about. And that you'd be encouraging any kind of interaction between right-wing extremists and the rational community.

Or have you "misspoken" again?

joseph brand

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Unfortunately it's not that simple, you cannot simply pack up your easel and crayons after drawing Mohammed as a pig and say "We saved freedom of speech lads, well done". The damage is already done. These are photographs from a Muslim's gravesite which were vandalised this week in an anti-Muslim hate crime which referenced Mohammed and threatened violence.





There was 7 attacks against Mosques in the US in 10 days around the Sikh attack, including a Mosque being burned to the ground.
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/14/eight_attacks_11_days/

Today in Germany anti-Muslim, right-wing extremists were placing cartoons of Mohammed outside Mosques as an act of protest.
http://www.thelocal.de/society/20120817-44415.html

Check out the spelling. 'fagit' and 'whont'. I'm guessing he's not an internet user. He is most definitely a white chrsitian who hates ANYONE who's different. Be they black, hispanic, jewish, mexican, muslim or gay.

Yes, this moron loved muslims until that pesky DMD came along.

Do you have proof that this individual saw the cartoons?

magicbastarder

joseph brand wrote: »

Check out the spelling. 'fagit' and 'whont'. I'm guessing he's not an internet user.

indeed; thankfully bad spelling was stamped out among internet users in about 2005.

robindch

joseph brand wrote: »

Check out the spelling. 'fagit' and 'whont'.

When I saw it first, I thought it said "Fuck Uruguay"

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

Didn't Breivik plagiarise a fairly large amount of his so called manifesto from rubbish that he found on google?

Yeah, he did, even from the unabomber. However, he also cited much of his work - heavily citing many of the professional anti-Islam network on numerous occasions.

Newser) – An American right-wing extremist is cited some 64 times in the crazed manifesto written by Norwegian mass killer Anders Behring Breivik in a bid to justify his terror attack. Robert Spencer, co-founder of the Jihad Watch and Stop Islamization of America (recently hacked) blogs denied any responsibility for the attack, calling his writings a "defense of human rights." If "somebody gets from that that they should kill, well then he's nuts," he told NBC News. But some observers believe heated hate speech can trigger such actions. “When you push the demonization of populations, you often end up with violence,” warned the research director for the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The manifesto also frequently cites the blog Atlas Shrugs by Muslim-basher Pamela Gellar, who insisted that if anyone incited Breivik to violence "it was Islamic supremacists." One expert called the Norwegian tragedy a "wake up call" for US security. A 2009 Department of Homeland Security report warned of a growing threat from home-grown right-wing extremists and hate groups. “We could have a similar attack here, and that’s my greatest fear,” said former federal terror analyst Daryl Johnson. It wouldn't be fair to blame the American bloggers who influenced Breivik, a former CIA analyst tells the New York Times. Still, he adds: "This rhetoric is not cost-free."
http://www.newser.com/story/124296/massacre-manifesto-linked-to-us-muslim-bashers.html

Sarky

You ARE trying to impress someone, aren't you?

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

It settles it alright, but again in my favour.

Again? like when you linked to the Jerusalem Post article, as your evidence which said ", Breivik lays out his worldview, which includes an extreme, bizarre and rambling screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism"

robindch wrote: »

As I pointed out above several times, Breivik holds some violent views that Zionists hold and that makes him
as he says, pro-zionist with respect to those views.

So what makes Zionist then? If not a a supporter of a Jewish homeland in the Holyland?

Zionism:

The national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel. Has come to include the development of the State of Israel and the protection of the Jewish nation in Israel.
Zionism avocated, from inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions - left and right, religious and secular - joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained.
The term “Zionism” was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum.

robindch wrote: »

However, as I've also pointed out several times, just because somebody agrees with somebody else on some topic, that doesn't mean that he agrees with him on all topics. Breivik is occasionally pro-Zionist. He is not Zionist, as he make clear himself.

Right, then you should be able to point out the topics that Breivik doesn't agree on with a Zionist then, or more accurately the topics that Breivik believes in that excludes him from being a Zionist.

And I would point out that you not having read the manifesto seems to be the source of your confusion. It needs to be understood that Breivik is writing (in his own head at least) as a leader of a pan-European resistance movement to an audience of fellow Europeans, the manifesto's is entitled 2083 A European Declaration Of Independence. That is why he is making the distincintion. Even then, when he says "our Zionist brothers in Israel" that is clearly including himself with his ideological Zionist family in Israel.

A final point is that the original statement was that Mark Humphrys was an "extremist Zionist" like Breivik.

In Humphrys own words he was "like me".

The killer was right-wing and anti-jihad, yes, but he was not a neo-Nazi (he was pro-Israel) or a white supremacist (he opposed the BNP because they are racist). He was Christian, but not a fanatic (he was pro-gay).

In fact he was apparently like me — liberal right. He was anti-racist, pro-gay and pro-Israel. So how on earth did someone like that become a terrorist against the West?
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.se/2011/07/norway-attacks-2011-view-from-ireland.html

Brown Bomber

Sarky wrote: »

You ARE trying to impress someone, aren't you?

Nah, if I was going to do that I would be trolling making hilarious one-liners every so often to show everyone how witty I was .