Fake Al-Qaeda provoking Islamaphobia

Di0genes · 18-05-2010 11:22am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No it doesn't. It was a simple question that required a simple answer.

It's neither a simple questions or one that give a simple concise answer. For many Islam is a religion of peace. And for many it's not.

Do you think referring to Islam as a "religion of peace" in scae quotes is Islamaphobic or do you agree with the statement.

Two possible answers.

How exactly are they "scare" quotes.

I think you're just nitpicking now, it's a complex question requiring a complex answer, and anyone who says otherwise is just trying to oversimplify the debate.

Brown Bomber · 18-05-2010 11:30am

Di0genes wrote: »

It's neither a simple questions or one that give a simple concise answer. For many Islam is a religion of peace. And for many it's not.

How exactly are they "scare" quotes.

I think you're just nitpicking now, it's a complex question requiring a complex answer, and anyone who says otherwise is just trying to oversimplify the debate.

"The effect of using scare quotes is often similar to prepending a skeptical modifier such as so-called or alleged to label the quoted word or phrase, to indicate scorn, sarcasm, or irony.[7] Scare quotes may be used to express disagreement with the original speaker's intended meaning without actually establishing grounds for disagreement or disdain, or without even explicitly acknowledging it. In this type of usage, they are sometimes called "sneer quotes"."

It is a simple question
I'll answer simply. Yes. referring to the religion of Islam in scare quotes as a "peaceful religion" is clearly an Islamaphobic statement.

Di0genes · 18-05-2010 11:35am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'll answer simply. Yes. referring to the religion of Islam in scare quotes as a "peaceful religion" is clearly an Islamaphobic statement.

I imagine Salman Rushdie would beg to differ, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa on his life in 1989.

Mahatma coat · 18-05-2010 2:38pm

Anything

.............may be used to express disagreement with the original speaker's intended meaning without actually establishing grounds for disagreement or disdain, or without even explicitly acknowledging it. In this type of usage...............

by those So inclined.

Brown Bomber · 18-05-2010 8:30pm

Di0genes wrote: »

I imagine Salman Rushdie would beg to differ, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa on his life in 1989.

???????

To be fair I never asked for Salman Rushdie's opinion, I asked for yours.

fontanalis · 18-05-2010 9:02pm

Scare quotes??? and stop playing the islamophobic card.

Brown Bomber · 18-05-2010 11:12pm

fontanalis wrote: »

Scare quotes???

FFS, I've already given a definition but i am 'delighted' to do so again - take your pick
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=zBq&rls=org.mozilla%3Asv-SE%3Aofficial&channel=s&q=%22scare+quotes%22&aq=f&aqi=l1g6&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

fontanalis wrote: »

and stop playing the islamophobic card.

what is playing the "Islamaphobic card"? How have I played it? and how do I stop?

Di0genes · 19-05-2010 9:11am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

what is playing the "Islamaphobic card"? How have I played it? and how do I stop?

Considering your entire OP is about suggesting Jews pretend to be Muslim extremists your outrage about religious intolerance is a bit rich.

Brown Bomber · 19-05-2010 10:07am

Di0genes wrote: »

Considering your entire OP is about suggesting Jews pretend to be Muslim extremists your outrage about religious intolerance is a bit rich.

Well they do. The Lavon Affair is a perfect example. Do false-flag attacks suddenly just stop? Point out anything that I have said critical of Judaism then...
While you on the other hand refuse to denounce an Islamaphobic statement made against the whole of Islam. Totally dishonest to try and compare the two.

My views on Judaism and Islam are exactly the same - neutral.

Can you say the same?

Di0genes · 19-05-2010 10:42am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well they do. The Lavon Affair is a perfect example. Do false-flag attacks suddenly just stop?

Generally single events that lead to the resignation of Presidents don't necessarily mean that a country decides they're the way forward.

Point out anything that I have said critical of Judaism then...

You constantly bring up the ethicist and suggest that they're responsible with faking terrorist attacks.

While you on the other hand refuse to denounce an Islamaphobic statement made against the whole of Islam.

Yes because I need to leap out and denounce every critical statement about everything.

The remark has to be taken in context, something you dislike doing.

Totally dishonest to try and compare the two.

Your double standard is showing.

My views on Judaism and Islam are exactly the same - neutral.

Yeah and how many threads have you started where you publicaly claim Islamic fundamentalists are responsible for terrorism?
:rolleyes:

Can you say the same?

Can I claim anything I like? Yes. You can claim you're completely neutral but the posts you're written show something else entirely.

Yitzhak Rabin · 19-05-2010 11:51am

Di0genes wrote: »

You constantly bring up the ethicist and suggest that they're responsible with faking terrorist attacks.

Can I claim anything I like? Yes. You can claim you're completely neutral but the posts you're written show something else entirely.

I am someone who is generally defensive of alot of Israels actions, and you can check my post history to verify it.

I also at first dismissed BB as another person motivated by antisemitism, but I now am pretty sure this is not the case. There is a huge difference in being critical of a nations actions, and an entire ethnicities actions. BB is often critical of Israels actions, but for the most part the fact that most Israeli's are jewish, I think is inconsequential.

He rarely mentions someones religion or ethnicity, they just happen to be Jewish. Only yesterday or the day before he mentioned 2 scholars who he admired who both happened to be Jewish, he didn't bring attention to their ethnicity in their case either.

As I said, I admire Israel as a state for the most part as being a strong, audacious state who upholds western values in a region where doing so is extremely difficult, but I think dismissal of arguments against them as anti-semitic is just a cheap brush-away. Sometimes peoples motivations can be antisemitic, but regardless, it should be the argument that should be attacked and not the motivations.

If I've misrepresented BB in any way then I apologise to him. But basically I'm saying anti-Israel's action =/= anti-semitic

Di0genes · 19-05-2010 11:53am

yekahs wrote: »

He rarely mentions someones religion or ethnicity, they just happen to be Jewish.

So to be clear he rarely mentions ethicist except all the times he's mentioned people's ethicist, at which point he finds Jews to blame for Islamic Extremists.

Brown Bomber · 19-05-2010 11:54am

Di0genes wrote: »

Generally single events that lead to the resignation of Presidents don't necessarily mean that a country decides they're the way forward.

Yeah because everyone knows corruption in the US ceased to exist after Watergate :pac::pac:.

The surviving bombers were honoured by the state of Israel in 2005, how would you explain that away? They were only sorry they were caught. In the King David Hotel bombing again it was Jews dressed as Arabs, that came before the Lavon affair, so no lesson learned obviously. Point being Jews have a proven history of impersonating Arabs and carrying out false-flags. Why is this such an uncomfortable truth for you?

Di0genes wrote: »

You constantly bring up the ethicist and suggest that they're responsible with faking terrorist attacks.

Perhaps you could summarise why you are so sure this isn't a cointelpro operation in the information war

Di0genes wrote: »

Yes because I need to leap out and denounce every critical statement about everything.

You can denounce whatever you like, also you are free to think whatever you like - I simply asked your opinion on an unambiguous statement which your constand ducking of giving a straight answer makes it clear you actual thoughts. I just have no idea why you are so afraid to admit it.

Di0genes wrote: »

The remark has to be taken in context, something you dislike doing.

I disagree entirely. Show me wrong - put it in context.

Di0genes wrote: »

Your double standard is showing.

Yeah and how many threads have you started where you publicaly claim Islamic fundamentalists are responsible for terrorism?

How many have you started? And how would starting a thread on Al-Qaeda carrying out 911 for example be suitable for a CT board?

Di0genes wrote: »

Can I claim anything I like? Yes. You can claim you're completely neutral but the posts you're written show something else entirely.

More doublespeak. :rolleyes:

Brown Bomber · 19-05-2010 11:56am

yekahs wrote: »

I am someone who is generally defensive of alot of Israels actions, and you can check my post history to verify it.

I also at first dismissed BB as another person motivated by antisemitism, but I now am pretty sure this is not the case. There is a huge difference in being critical of a nations actions, and an entire ethnicities actions. BB is often critical of Israels actions, but for the most part the fact that most Israeli's are jewish, I think is inconsequential.

He rarely mentions someones religion or ethnicity, they just happen to be Jewish. Only yesterday or the day before he mentioned 2 scholars who he admired who both happened to be Jewish, he didn't bring attention to their ethnicity in their case either.

As I said, I admire Israel as a state for the most part as being a strong, audacious state who upholds western values in a region where doing so is extremely difficult, but I think dismissal of arguments against them as anti-semitic is just a cheap brush-away. Sometimes peoples motivations can be antisemitic, but regardless, it should be the argument that should be attacked and not the motivations.

If I've misrepresented BB in any way then I apologise to him. But basically I'm saying anti-Israel's action =/= anti-semitic

I love you.

EDIT. in a non gay way, but seriously thanks

Yitzhak Rabin · 19-05-2010 12:00pm

Di0genes wrote: »

So to be clear he rarely mentions ethicist except all the times he's mentioned people's ethicist, at which point he finds Jews to blame for Islamic Extremists.

You talk about him taking quotes out of context!

My whole post was about how he is critical of Israel, who happen to be Jewish.

Would you claim someone who is critical of USA as Anti-christianity?
Or someone like myself who is critical of Iran as an Islamaphobe?

Yitzhak Rabin · 19-05-2010 12:02pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I love you.

No hassle, you can drop that score you paid me for saying that over later!

Di0genes · 19-05-2010 12:09pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah because everyone knows corruption in the US ceased to exist after Watergate :pac::pac:.

So because Nixon bugged and taped his opponents, Obama is guiltly of the same automatically?
:P:pac::cool::P:confused::eek::(:D:rolleyes:

The surviving bombers were honoured by the state of Israel in 2005, how would you explain that away?

And the French were very nice to the guys who blew up the rainbow warrior. It's not a perfect world that doesn't mean your conspiracy is fancy dressed up racism.

They were only sorry they were caught. In the King David Hotel bombing again it was Jews dressed as Arabs, that came before the Lavon affair, so no lesson learned obviously. Point being Jews have a proven history of impersonating Arabs and carrying out false-flags. Why is this such an uncomfortable truth for you?

Because it's not proof that the other events you claim they did are true.

Perhaps you could summarise why you are so sure this isn't a cointelpro operation in the information war

The onus is on the claimant to prove the claim. Not to me to disprove it.

You can denounce whatever you like, also you are free to think whatever you like - I simply asked your opinion on an unambiguous statement which your constand ducking of giving a straight answer makes it clear you actual thoughts. I just have no idea why you are so afraid to admit it.

I'm not afraid of it, you just seem overly excited to shove words in my mouth.

I disagree entirely. Show me wrong - put it in context.

The context was in the juxtaposition with the photos.

How many have you started?

It's not about me.

And how would starting a thread on Al-Qaeda carrying out 911 for example be suitable for a CT board?

So you think Al-Qaeda carried out 9-11?

Yes or No Answer if you please.:D

More doublespeak. :rolleyes:

It's pretty simple single speak. You claim "Hey I'm not "anti semitic" but your posting history says a different story.

Brown Bomber · 19-05-2010 12:20pm

Di0genes wrote: »

So to be clear he rarely mentions ethicist except all the times he's mentioned people's ethicist, at which point he finds Jews to blame for Islamic Extremists.

To clarify my position on this. It is not as you put it "blaming Jews". I presented two Jewish converts to Islam. Nothing suspicious in this alone, but what you have is one indoctrinated, US born, Yeshiva (MOSSAD) educated, illegal settler on Palestinian lands i.e. a Jewish supremacist, extremist who becomes a radical Islamic fundamentalist overnight. Who returns to the US and becomes the caricature of a blood-thirsty, Jew-hating, American hating Islamic fundamentalist and gets highly publicised on US mainstream media, especially FOX News. The message: be afraid of Muslims in your neighbourhood - they hate you and want to harm you.

Gadahn is something similar. Converts to Islam whilst living with his ADL grandfather. Again not just a simple faith based convert, he somehow manages to overcome his background to rise to the upper echelons of Al-Qaeda and becomes an official spokesperson.

The only reason their respective faiths are mentioned is because extremist Jews and extremist Muslims are the enemies of each other and to have such a conversion TWICE is highly unlikely IMO, not impossible though. Added to this their collective actions only serve the neocon and zionist agendas. I sense an intelligence operation that has nothing to do with actual religion.

studiorat · 19-05-2010 12:27pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

To clarify my position on this. It is not as you put it "blaming Jews". I presented two Jewish converts to Islam. Nothing suspicious in this alone, but what you have is one indoctrinated, US born, Yeshiva (MOSSAD) educated, illegal settler on Palestinian lands i.e. a Jewish supremacist, extremist who becomes a radical Islamic fundamentalist overnight. Who returns to the US and becomes the caricature of a blood-thirsty, Jew-hating, American hating Islamic fundamentalist and gets highly publicised on US mainstream media, especially FOX News. The message: be afraid of Muslims in your neighbourhood - they hate you and want to harm you.

Gadahn is something similar....

What this says to me is "once a nutter, always a nutter" no matter which religion they choose to follow. If they became Hari Krishnas they'd still be head bangers. I don't think it's reason to think there's actually any other pattern behind it.

Yitzhak Rabin · 19-05-2010 12:32pm

studiorat wrote: »

What this says to me is "once a nutter, always a nutter" no matter which religion they choose to follow. If they became Hari Krishnas they'd still be head bangers. I don't think it's reason to think there's actually any other pattern behind it.

Have to agree with this too. I personally know someone, who in the last 15 years has gone from devout catholic, to born again christian, to Hari Krishna, to now being some form of spiritual guru because he went to India.

I would also think that there can be an extention of Stockholm syndrome, whereby people who come from one extreme side of the fence, begin to identify with the people they 'opress' on the other.

Di0genes · 19-05-2010 12:38pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

To clarify my position on this. It is not as you put it "blaming Jews". I presented two Jewish converts to Islam. Nothing suspicious in this alone, but what you have is one indoctrinated, US born, Yeshiva (MOSSAD) educated, illegal settler on Palestinian lands i.e. a Jewish supremacist, extremist who becomes a radical Islamic fundamentalist overnight. Who returns to the US and becomes the caricature of a blood-thirsty, Jew-hating, American hating Islamic fundamentalist and gets highly publicised on US mainstream media, especially FOX News. The message: be afraid of Muslims in your neighbourhood - they hate you and want to harm you.

Gadahn is something similar. Converts to Islam whilst living with his ADL grandfather. Again not just a simple faith based convert, he somehow manages to overcome his background to rise to the upper echelons of Al-Qaeda and becomes an official spokesperson.

The only reason their respective faiths are mentioned is because extremist Jews and extremist Muslims are the enemies of each other and to have such a conversion TWICE is highly unlikely IMO, not impossible though. Added to this their collective actions only serve the neocon and zionist agendas. I sense an intelligence operation that has nothing to do with actual religion.

I notice you didn't bother to answer my yes or no question

Brown Bomber do you think Al Qaeda carried out 9-11? Yes or No.

And as someone pointed out there's nothing suspicious here. Living with extremists can often lead to a child rebellion in the opposite direction. Children of Alcoholics becoming teetotallers. Or Dan Burros, a jew who joined one of the most violent sects of the Klu Klux Klan.

The fact that you think there is a need for Jews to paint some Muslims as extremists is baffling, when you consider how many terrorist acts have been carried out by Muslim Extremists for the sake of their believes.

Brown Bomber · 19-05-2010 8:14pm

studiorat wrote: »

What this says to me is "once a nutter, always a nutter" no matter which religion they choose to follow. If they became Hari Krishnas they'd still be head bangers. I don't think it's reason to think there's actually any other pattern behind it.

Thats a fair point, and I have no argument against it. Like I said previously I can't say for certain that they are frauds what I've being trying to argue that it is very possible they are paid agitators/Sayanim.

I mean take the example of Eli Cohen/Kamel Amin Thaabe -

Cohen was a Jewish MOSSAD agent who was given a fake Syrian identity of Kamel Amin Thaabe.

Cohen amazingly became Chief adviser to the Syrian Minister of Defence and 3rd in line for the Syrian Presidency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Cohen

Brown Bomber · 19-05-2010 8:31pm

Di0genes wrote: »

I notice you didn't bother to answer my yes or no question

Brown Bomber do you think Al Qaeda carried out 9-11? Yes or No.[/QUOTE] No

Di0genes wrote: »

And as someone pointed out there's nothing suspicious here. Living with extremists can often lead to a child rebellion in the opposite direction. Children of Alcoholics becoming teetotallers. Or Dan Burros, a jew who joined one of the most violent sects of the Klu Klux Klan.

The alcoholic-teetotaller comparison in nonsense. I looked up Burros though that is actually a good comparison. A difference being that he was crazy from childhood. Pearlman and el-Khattab were not crazy according to any accounts and lived regular obscure lives before they suddenly became fanatical Muslims.

Di0genes wrote: »

The fact that you think there is a need for Jews to paint some Muslims as extremists is baffling, when you consider how many terrorist acts have been carried out by Muslim Extremists for the sake of their believes.

The fact that you cannot accept that there would be legitimate strategic reasons to carry out such a hoax baffles me.

meglome · 20-05-2010 6:20am

You don't believe that Al-Qaeda carried out 9-11 which I do find odd as they themselves are very happy to say they did it. I appreciate that you can't always believe what people say but they do seem quite adamant they did it.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The fact that you cannot accept that there would be legitimate strategic reasons to carry out such a hoax baffles me.

There are lots of reasons lot of things could happen but personally I would look at what's more likely. Islamic extremists have a well documented track record of terrorist attacks, an on-going record of attacks. So why would you need to fake any of this when there seems to be a queue of Muslims signing up for these attacks anyway?

Mahatma coat · 20-05-2010 9:09am

meglome wrote: »

You don't believe that Al-Qaeda carried out 9-11 which I do find odd as they themselves are very happy to say they did it. I appreciate that you can't always believe what people say but they do seem quite adamant they did it.

Yes but did they do it off their own bat, organised from a cave in Afghanistan, or was material support provided by other vested interests????

There are lots of reasons lot of things could happen but personally I would look at what's more likely. Islamic extremists have a well documented track record of terrorist attacks, an on-going record of attacks. So why would you need to fake any of this when there seems to be a queue of Muslims signing up for these attacks anyway?

because sometimes the targets that the extremists select are not as condusive to the levels of Public outrage required, as such False Flag operations are more useful as it removes the unstable element of the operation.

Di0genes · 20-05-2010 9:47am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Brown Bomber do you think Al Qaeda carried out 9-11? Yes or No.

No

Despite admitting that they did. Okay lets get another answer, do you accept that at least some terrorist attacks are carried out by muslim extremists.

Yes or No.

The alcoholic-teetotaller comparison in nonsense. I looked up Burros though that is actually a good comparison. A difference being that he was crazy from childhood. Pearlman and el-Khattab were not crazy according to any accounts and lived regular obscure lives before they suddenly became fanatical Muslims.

As did Burros. And you mentioned these people went to live with highly strict Zionists, they may have looked to Islam as a form of rebellion.

The fact that you cannot accept that there would be legitimate strategic reasons to carry out such a hoax baffles me.

And the fact that you can't see that there real Islamic terrorists baffles me more

Di0genes · 20-05-2010 9:49am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Yes but did they do it off their own bat, organised from a cave in Afghanistan, or was material support provided by other vested interests????

Jesus Mahatma we've covered this enough times. These were not cave dwelling idiots. They were highly educated and motivated people.

because sometimes the targets that the extremists select are not as condusive to the levels of Public outrage required, as such False Flag operations are more useful as it removes the unstable element of the operation.

That sentence makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Brown Bomber · 20-05-2010 11:49am

I'm not saying that there are no genuine Islamic terrorists. I think there are variations.

At the top there is the former Mujahadeen leaders and the former Mujahadeen fighters who were recruited by the CIA and Saudi Arabia and the CIA and radicalised and trained by the Americans in CIA established Madrasas and training camps fund by the CIA to fight the ISI/CIA war against the Communists in Afghanistan. I doubt if many knew they were actually fighting for the CIA but certainly the Mujahadeen leaders would have known, including bin Laden.

Among these would be fighters who were in the dark about the real purpose of Jihad and have since split from the main organisations for political or ideological differences and formed their own groups. These are real threats provided they have no been infiltrated.

A younger generation was then drawn to Islamic fundamentalism by the warmongering of the US after Sept 11th against Muslim states. These would be far removed from the CIA but inspired by the CIA backed Mujahadeen fighters and join their groups, with the CIA still pulling the string from a distance.

Among these would be individuals or small groups who have no actual links to al-Qaeda but are inspired by their actions and therefore have no connection to the CIA. These are real threats.

Thirdly there is Islamic terrorists under the direct control of the CIA, such as Jundullah who attack Iranian interests.

And finally there are criminal groups who are labelled terrorists but are just criminal gangs who are Muslim, involved in drug running mostly.

I'll try to explain with an example, actually I haven't got time - will later.

Di0genes · 20-05-2010 12:03pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm not saying that there are no genuine Islamic terrorists. I think there are variations.

At the top there is the former Mujahadeen leaders and the former Mujahadeen fighters who were recruited by the CIA and Saudi Arabia and the CIA and radicalised and trained by the Americans in CIA established Madrasas and training camps fund by the CIA to fight the ISI/CIA war against the Communists in Afghanistan. I doubt if many knew they were actually fighting for the CIA but certainly the Mujahadeen leaders would have known, including bin Laden.

You're just exposed your profound ignorance and woeful lack of the basic facts of the Russian/Afghan war.

For starts the CIA would have provided some of the funding, via the ISI, but had next to no control over the camps themselves.

Secondly Bin Laden's role in the Afghan war was at best preferable, he originally went over to give money (inherited from his family) to fund fighters. He barely saw company and certainly was not a Mujahadeen leader.

Why we should bother listening to you pontificate about Muslim extremism whe your understanding of the subject is woefully inadequate? :rolleyes:

Yitzhak Rabin · 20-05-2010 12:21pm

Di0genes wrote: »

For starts the CIA would have provided some of the funding, via the ISI, but had next to no control over the camps themselves.

So why was the US national security advisor visiting the mujahadeen leaders on the Pakistani/Afghan border, telling them to redouble their efforts and God was on their side.

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

Why we should bother listening to you pontificate about Muslim extremism whe your understanding of the subject is woefully inadequate? :rolleyes:

Whats the story with your antagonism? What makes you so sure that your arguments are completely accurate and not woefully inadaquate?

Fake Al-Qaeda provoking Islamaphobia

Comments