Infamous Islamophobe Geert Wilders funded by US Right-Wing

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

I bolded the world to point out that was the bogeyman you are trying to sell us. It's no different to the words Islamist or Jihadist being thrown around.

Islamist and Jihadist are both words that can be used appropriately in a sentence just like Zionist can be used appropriately in a sentence. Adelson, Chernick, Geller, Horrowitz and Spencer all self-identify as Zionists. Get over it.

King Mob wrote: »

And yes Anders Breivik is an example of one of the dishonest points you used.

More bollox. I've read his manifesto in full. Have you?

King Mob wrote: »

Even if I accept he was inspired entirely and exclusively by the "Zionist funded propaganda" you are refering to and we ignore the fact that he was mentally ill, it would still be a total non sequiter.

What does it matter if you accept it or not? It's documented (by Breivik) fact that Breivik's murdereous anti-Islamic ideology was inspired by anti-Islamic propaganda that is funded by Aubrey Chernick who also fund illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian land. Sinking in yet...?

I browsed it. It does not support what you claimed and is barely connected to the topic.
And of course this is ignoring what studiorat pointed out about it.[/QUOTE]

Seriously? You "browsed" it? FFS...you seem to have missed the part (essentially all of it) that supports my claim and as you have no intention of reading it despite feigning interest in evidence allow me to hold your hand...

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

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...amophobia.html

And a little more:

Fairbrook Foundation
The Fairbrook Foundation, an affiliate of the California Community Foundation, is
controlled by Aubrey and Joyce Chernick.50 Aubrey Chernick is a Los Angeles-based
software engineer whose net worth is estimated to be $750 million,51 due in large part
to selling his software company to IBM Corp. in 2004.52 In 200253 he founded the
security firm National Center for Crisis and Continuity Coordination.
Aubrey Chernick is president and chairman of the Fairbook Foundation board. Joyce
Chernick serves as vice chair. In 2009, the last year for which we have complete financial
information, the Fairbrook Foundation provided tens of thousands of dollars to
mainstream conservative foundations that are not Islamophobic, such as the Hudson
Institute and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.54

Between 2004 and 2009, the Fairbrook Foundation contributed $1,498,450 to
Islamophobic organizations profiled in this report. Among the recipients: ACT!
For America, receiving $125,000; the Center for Security Policy ($66,700);
the David Horowitz Freedom Center ($618,500); the Investigative Project on
Terrorism, ($25,000); Jihad Watch ($253,250); and the Middle East Forum
($410,000).55 Importantly, the foundation provided the majority of the $920,000
in support going from the David Horowitz Freedom Center to Robert Spencer’s
Jihad Watch, according to Politico.56

Separate from the Fairbrook Foundation, Aubrey Chernick is a trustee of the
Washington Institute for Near East Policy57 and helped provide the $3.5 million58
in initial capital to start the conservative blog Pajamas Media, which used

Now do yourself a favour and find out how many times Breivik uses Chernick funded groups as sources in his manifesto and then come back to me and tell me it is "dishonest" to claim that Breivik was inspired by this anti-Muslim propaganda.

studiorat

More bollox. I've read his manifesto in full. Have you?

Fair play to ya. I bet that was convalated

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Islamist and Jihadist are both words that can be used appropriately in a sentence just like Zionist can be used appropriately in a sentence. Adelson, Chernick, Geller, Horrowitz and Spencer all self-identify as Zionists. Get over it.

That's great, and I'm sure Wilders uses his scary words to correctly identify his shadowy menance as well.

Which was my point.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

More bollox. I've read his manifesto in full. Have you?

What does it matter if you accept it or not? It's documented (by Breivik) fact that Breivik's murdereous anti-Islamic ideology was inspired by anti-Islamic propaganda that is funded by Aubrey Chernick who also fund illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian land. Sinking in yet...?

Again you've most likely intentionally missed my point.
I said, even if he was inspired by Zionist funded propaganda (which you are welcome to back up, but you won't.) and we ignore that he is mentally ill, then it is still a dishonest nonsequiter.
This is because you would not accept an example of anti jewish/israeli violence as evidence that your nonsense is dangerous.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Seriously? You "browsed" it? FFS...you seem to have missed the part (essentially all of it) that supports my claim and as you have no intention of reading it despite feigning interest in evidence allow me to hold your hand...

And a little more:

Yet no where in the document you posted does it blame it on Zionism, or make any insinutations based on claimed Zionism. Nor does it mention anything about the subject you are posting about.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Now do yourself a favour and find out how many times Breivik uses Chernick funded groups as sources in his manifesto and then come back to me and tell me it is "dishonest" to claim that Breivik was inspired by this anti-Muslim propaganda.

I won't because it's not important. It's a dishonest plea to emotions, the exact same thing these horrible Zionists do when they show images of supposed Islamic violence be they true or not.
Yet it's only when they do it is it a bad thing :rolleyes:

Brown Bomber

wexie wrote: »

This is absolutely untrue and if you'd looked into it at any great depth you would know Wilders has (very publicly) stated he considers Islam a 'religion of hate' and wants to have the Koran banned on the grounds it incites hatred.

No. It's absolutely true. From the horses mouth, from about 1min:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faPCH-4uAEY

wexie wrote: »

Not true again, only one 'newspaper' in the Netherlands reported on this and this newspaper is the equivalent of the Sun in the Netherlands. Every respectable newspaper has quite thoroughly debunked this story. Even the Dutch intelligence services laughed at the suggestion (although I doubt you'd take that as evidence). Think about it, an Israeli spy in the Netherlands? Really? The link (if that's what you want to call it) was created due to his (very open) visits to the Israeli embassy. Conveniently left out was the fact that he used to be spokesperson for foreign affairs during which time he made some relationships with some Israelis. No doubt they have some very similar views. Nothing to see here, move along.

I'm open to correction if you can provide some links. My claim was based on the below BBC documentary that was on recently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peAer3Ul6cU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAfgHW0XdpY

wexie wrote: »

This might well be true, if it turns out to be so personally I'd applaud it. Sharia law has no place in Western society whatsoever and I'd dare say that anybody in any western society with even half a brain who has even basic knowledge of what Sharia law entails couldn't possibly argue against this.

It's not a question of Shariah Law it's a question of discrimation based on religion which goes against the first amendment of the US Constitution. How you can support discrimination I have no idea.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

That's great, and I'm sure Wilders uses his scary words to correctly identify his shadowy menance as well.

Which was my point.

... That Wilders describing Islamist-Jihadi Bin Laden as an Islamist or Jihadi is "point"? And I suppose describing Hitler as a Nazi or Lenin as a Bolshevik is also a "point"? Please. Please. Please. Stop wasting my time with these ridiculous arguments.

King Mob wrote: »

Again you've most likely intentionally missed my point.
I said, even if he was inspired by Zionist funded propaganda (which you are welcome to back up, but you won't.) and we ignore that he is mentally ill, then it is still a dishonest nonsequiter.

1- Expert opinion in Norway is divided over whether or not he is mentally ill.

King Mob wrote: »

This is because you would not accept an example of anti jewish/israeli violence as evidence that your nonsense is dangerous.

2-That is because your accusation against me is based on a false premise. Perhaps if you engaged openly with me we could avoid this. I freely accept that anti-Jewish propaganda can lead to violence against Jews. I am equally against that as anything else. I've already stated that dehumanisation of different groups has occured through history. A prime example would be Julius Streicher in Nazi Germany. My point is that these anti-Islam propagandists are the Streichers equivalent today.

King Mob wrote: »

Yet no where in the document you posted does it blame it on Zionism, or make any insinutations based on claimed Zionism. Nor does it mention anything about the subject you are posting about.

It lists as source this article: http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0910/The_Park51_money_trail.html?showall

UPDATE: Here's a link to the 2008 990 filings for Chernick's charitable foundation, the Fairbrook Foundation, that shows donations to a wide range of groups, including the American Friends of Ateret Cohanim that funds Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem, The Investigative Project on Terrorism, MEMRI, The Center for Security Policy, over $900k to the Jewish Federation Council of Greater Los Angeles, $150k to American Jewish Congress, ADL, the Middle East Freedom Forum Fund, another David Horowitz group the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, the pro-Israel campus advocacy group Stand With Us; $80k to Gary Bauer's "American Values," the pro-Israel media monitoring group CAMERA, $150k to the "Council for Democracy and Tolerance" of Alta Loma, CA, which listed as a fellow and senior fellow Nir Boms, a former Vice President of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a former Israeli embassy official; the group is listed as promoting the "Obsession" video; the former president of the Council, Tashbih Sayyed, a Pakistani-American Shiite journalist who died in 2007, was also an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute and a member of the Jihad Watch board, both also supported by Chernick's foundation; the Council for Secular Humanism; $80k to a group called "Defend the West" whose address is a UPS box in Santa Monica, CA but whose website domain is registered to Nina Cunningham of Quidlibet research and the former chair of the Illinois regional branch of the Republican Jewish Coalition's National Women's Committee who is listed on tax forms as a director of the Clarion Fund which funded the distribution of 20 million copies of the "Obsession" DVD; $50k to the Heritage Foundation; $50k to the Hudson Institute; etc. etc.
Similar donations in 2007 and 2006, including $190k in 2007 to the Hudson Institute; $200k in 2006 to the Zionist Organization of America, and $250k to ZOA in 2005; $60k in 2005 to the Central Fund of Israel, a U.S. nonprofit that funds settler security and other programs in Israel, and on whose board (listed in 2008 as vice president) is Itamar Marcus, who heads Palestinian Media Watch; $25k in 2005 to fund projects by Tariq Ismail at the Council for Secular Humanism (the funding for Islamic secularism contrasting with the foundation's generous funding of Jewish religiosity, including Aish HaTorah of Los Angeles); $120k in 2005 to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, on whose board Chernick's wife Joyce Chernick served.

Sinking in yet...................?

King Mob wrote: »

I won't because it's not important. It's a dishonest plea to emotions, the exact same thing these horrible Zionists do when they show images of supposed Islamic violence be they true or not.
Yet it's only when they do it is it a bad thing :rolleyes:

You won't because your not interested in the truth of the matter. Besides, your whole excuse for an argument is one big fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html

Channel Zero

King Mob:

All you have to offer so far is ad hominem, obvuscation and flat out denial.

You've said things like "nonsense" and "hilarious", but you only find it hilarious because it’s something you’ve constructed for the purpose of laughing at it, ie your biased personal view of the OP that you have introduced into the thread in an attempt to discredit the OP and his contention.
You’re basically reducing the OP's opinions to a caricature of your own devising, and then laughing at your own caricature.
You also accuse the OP of selling something, but then using that logic you're also guilty of selling something yourself are you not?

Anyhoo back on topic..:rolleyes:

From where i'm standing, there are four main sources of Islamophobic hatred emanating from the U.S. and elsewhere:

Evangelical right wing Christian groups and individuals.
Zionist right wing Jewish groups and individuals.
Militant athiest writers and 'intellectuals'.
Extreme right wing Objectivists/Tea Partiers/Libertarians.

So it's quite a multi-denominational affair really.

wexie

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. It's absolutely true. From the horses mouth, from about 1min:

I stand corrected. Looks like he's regressed a bit so. Or maybe he feels more protected by the free speech in the US. Not the kind of statements he's (so far to my knowledge) been able to make in the Netherlands. Like I said, he hasn't been too shy condemning Islam as a religion of hate and did mention having the Koran banned on the grounds it incites hatred.

While he might have a point insofar that it has (and no doubt still is) been used to incite hatred I'd dare say that if you got people with a similar but Christian mindset they'd have a good go at it with the Bible. I recall a few organisations doing this very thing.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm open to correction if you can provide some links. My claim was based on the below BBC documentary that was on recently.

None in English but some articles here
http://nos.nl/artikel/159060-pvver-weg-na-waarschuwing-aivd.html
http://vorige.nrc.nl/binnenland/article2549615.ece/AIVD_waarschuwde_voor_PVVer_Markuszower
Essentially what they say is that one of Wilders' party members allegedly was passing information to 'foreign bodies' (Mossad allegedly) and a letter was sent to Wilders informing him about this. At which stage the person in question stood down from the party. Reason that it was such a big deal was because of the guys standing he would likely have had a seat in parliament after the elections.

Wilders has quite openly spoken for his love of Israel and his many travels there. Maybe these two stories have led to a story of his being investigated. There have also been numerous stories of one of the ministers suggesting/demanding he be investigated around the time he was making his movie. Both to find out if anything could be done to stop him and for fear of reprisals of an outraged Muslim population.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's not a question of Shariah Law it's a question of discrimation based on religion which goes against the first amendment of the US Constitution. How you can support discrimination I have no idea.

I'm not too sure how to respond to that. I'm not sure where I see the discrimination to be honest.

The same Newt Gingrich who would only support a hypothethical American Muslim Presidential candidate if he publically denounced Shariah Law.

Surely it's his good right to decide who he supports or doesn't support? Personally I think he's right, while Sharia law seems to be widely open to interpretation and it definitely has a lot of parallels with Western morals and laws (dare I say Christian?) it also has a lot of horribly outdated (discriminating) tenets. Yes the same goes for the Bible but last I heard there aren't any Christians out there campaigning for our laws to be based on a direct translation of the Bible.

If there are I would have the same misgivings about them as I do about Muslims campaigning for Sharia law being implemented.

Maybe I've misunderstood your point but it seems there are a number of people financing organisations and politicians with some very outspoken views on Muslims / Islam and they're using their wealth to further their views.

Maybe I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that conversely there are plenty of Muslims and Muslim organisation doing the exact same thing from their point of view. I doubt you'll be able to find their accounts published online though.

If the problem you're trying to point out that this is an elected official getting funding from these organisations then yes I see that as an issue.
However being fairly intimately familiar with Dutch culture and politics I can assure you that if there was anything whatsoever iffy with Geert Wilders other than his views it would already have come out and he would no longer be anything to worry about.

I suspect he is walking a very tight rope but there will be no doubt that he is under very very close scrutiny in the Netherlands and if there was anything he could be pulled up upon it would have happened. He is probably using this funding for any of his pet projects.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... That Wilders describing Islamist-Jihadi Bin Laden as an Islamist or Jihadi is "point"? And I suppose describing Hitler as a Nazi or Lenin as a Bolshevik is also a "point"? Please. Please. Please. Stop wasting my time with these ridiculous arguments.

It is, because like Wilders and his words, you and Zionist is just an example of trying to dehumanise the "enemy".

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1- Expert opinion in Norway is divided over whether or not he is mentally ill.

But it was decided in court that he was. But then even if we are to move the goalposts to make it easier for you, he's still far far outside the norm of any of the supposed effects of this propaganda.

It would be exactly like me disingeniously pointing to skinheads as examples of the effects of your particular nonsense.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

2-That is because your accusation against me is based on a false premise. Perhaps if you engaged openly with me we could avoid this. I freely accept that anti-Jewish propaganda can lead to violence against Jews. I am equally against that as anything else. I've already stated that dehumanisation of different groups has occured through history. A prime example would be Julius Streicher in Nazi Germany. My point is that these anti-Islam propagandists are the Streichers equivalent today.

Accusing a group of people of trying to infiltrate government and society, alter and control people's opinion using dishonest and shady methods...

So again, what's the different between what you believe and what Wilders et al claim?

And I'm quite sure that Wilders, like yourself is very careful to mention how he's not accusing Arabs or all Muslims, just the ones pushing the views he's standing against.

So again, if I started to post examples of anti-Israeli and Anti-jewish violence, would you accept them like you're expecting us to take your example?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It lists as source this article: http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0910/The_Park51_money_trail.html?showall

Sinking in yet...................?

So which bit of the report you posted specifically mentions a Zionist network? Or blames all the propaganda on Zionism?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You won't because your not interested in the truth of the matter. Besides, your whole excuse for an argument is one big fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html

I'm not disbelieving your claims because they are like Wilders. I'm disbelieving them because they are based on the usual bias and misinformation you use.
I'm pointing out your hypocrisy because are accuing Wilders of the same stuff you do.

Jonny7

jackiebaron wrote: »

Are you for FÜCKING real?

More real than the phantom Zionist bogeyman apparently

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

More real than the phantom Zionist bogeyman apparently

I'm sick and tired of this "bogeyman", "phantom threat" etc bull**** that people are bringing up. It's a lame argument. I've named numerous individuals and organisations involved.

Brown Bomber

wexie,
thanks for the info and for the unique insight. From what I can make of it from google translate it appears you were correct . All your points are reasonable and considered but I strongly disagree on one point even if I don't fully agree on everything.. It is certainly discrimination to consider US born Muslims of supporting the implementation of Shariah Law by default. It is surely discrimination to place extra conditons on presidential candidates based solely on their religion, which the Constitution guarantees freedom of choice of.

wexie

Brown Bomber wrote: »

. It is certainly discrimination to consider US born Muslims of supporting the implementation of Shariah Law by default. It is surely discrimination to place extra conditons on presidential candidates based solely on their religion, which the Constitution guarantees freedom of choice of.

Potentially, I guess it would depend on the implementation. There are a number of countries (UK included) that have condoned the implementation of Sharia (and Halakha) courts to which people can voluntarily go to have their disputes sorted. It's like a legally binding mediation so to speak.

This I would have no problems with and to me falls under freedom of religion. If it falls within 'the laws of the land' and makes people happy as they can live their life by their religion without bothering anybody (which is really what most Muslims want I gather) it's a good thing surely?

However there have been numerous Muslim proponents none too shy about indicating they would want to see Sharia law imposed on all those in the jurisdiction. This I would see as an imposition on MY freedom of religion and will vehemently oppose.

So I guess it depends on the finer points on what exactly is being asked or what the extra conditions are. It surely is a fine line. But I guess it will always be with religion involved.

Best I can make of it is this :

Muslims: You're religion is being hijacked by extremists!!!
Christians : Pay attention as well

Brown Bomber

wexie wrote: »

Potentially, I guess it would depend on the implementation. There are a number of countries (UK included) that have condoned the implementation of Sharia (and Halakha) courts to which people can voluntarily go to have their disputes sorted. It's like a legally binding mediation so to speak.

This I would have no problems with and to me falls under freedom of religion. If it falls within 'the laws of the land' and makes people happy as they can live their life by their religion without bothering anybody (which is really what most Muslims want I gather) it's a good thing surely?

However there have been numerous Muslim proponents none too shy about indicating they would want to see Sharia law imposed on all those in the jurisdiction. This I would see as an imposition on MY freedom of religion and will vehemently oppose.

So I guess it depends on the finer points on what exactly is being asked or what the extra conditions are. It surely is a fine line. But I guess it will always be with religion involved.

Best I can make of it is this :

Muslims: You're religion is being hijacked by extremists!!!
Christians : Pay attention as well

Again I find it difficult to find fault with anything you say here. It's refreshing to see an intelligent counter-argurment. I still think it's inescapable that the notion that Muslims are inherently guilty, and uniquely so until they state otherwise is discrimination though. No observant Muslim can condemn Shariah by definition. It's crucial to understand that this is not the same as not condemning Islamic extremism and any modernist or moderate personal interpretation of Shariah is not unpatriotic, unconstitutional nor incompatible with public service. In short Shariah is not simply chopping off thiefs hands.

Jeboa Safari

Brown Bomber wrote: »

wexie,
thanks for the info and for the unique insight. From what I can make of it from google translate it appears you were correct . All your points are reasonable and considered but I strongly disagree on one point even if I don't fully agree on everything.. It is certainly discrimination to consider US born Muslims of supporting the implementation of Shariah Law by default. It is surely discrimination to place extra conditons on presidential candidates based solely on their religion, which the Constitution guarantees freedom of choice of.

What exactly is wrong with Gingrich giving his opinion on a question that is asked of him, and what is wrong with him opposing someone who would seek to impose Sharia law in the US?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

It is, because like Wilders and his words, you and Zionist is just an example of trying to dehumanise the "enemy".

Change the record and come back if you can come up with a counter-argument.

Brown Bomber

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

What exactly is wrong with Gingrich giving his opinion on a question that is asked of him, and what is wrong with him opposing someone who would seek to impose Sharia law in the US?

I never said that there was anything wrong with either of these two things you bring up. I said that it is wrong that Muslims should be discriminated against based on their faith. Please pay attention.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Change the record and come back if you can come up with a counter-argument.

I gave you several, you as usual ignored the ones you can't honestly address.

Your claims of Zionists taking over are exactly the same as claims that Islamists are taking over.
You are as guilty of everything you're accusing these propagandists of doing, using the same tactics, though you are less well funded. And every single argument or justification for your scaremongering you can use applies to Wilders and his ilk.
Simply because you think that your conspiracy is supported by evidence, doesn't excuse all of that because i've no doubt that Wilders fully believes his bull**** too.

Jeboa Safari

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I never said that there was anything wrong with either of these two things you bring up. I said that it is wrong that Muslims should be discriminated against based on their faith. Please pay attention.

Whats wrong with asking if someone who may support sharia, which he sees as a threat, if they do? Was it wrong for people to question John F. Kennedy about his allegiance to the pope?

Brown Bomber

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Whats wrong with asking if someone who may support sharia, which he sees as a threat, if they do? Was it wrong for people to question John F. Kennedy about his allegiance to the pope?

Listen, your just highlighting your own ignorance with this "may support Shariah" claim. As I've already stated any observant Muslim by definition "supports" Shariah; but overwhelmingly in the US not the fundamentalists/extremists interpretation. Fearmongering fools like Gingrich either don't know this or pretend not to.

jackiebaron

King Mob wrote: »

I gave you several, you as usual ignored the ones you can't honestly address.

Your claims of Zionists taking over are exactly the same as claims that Islamists are taking over.
You are as guilty of everything you're accusing these propagandists of doing, using the same tactics, though you are less well funded. And every single argument or justification for your scaremongering you can use applies to Wilders and his ilk.
Simply because you think that your conspiracy is supported by evidence, doesn't excuse all of that because i've no doubt that Wilders fully believes his bull**** too.

But nobody is funding those who question Wilders and his ilk. There is no lobby to advertise against him nor to discredit him.

If one were to complain that some local thug is receiving money from the town council to continue his operation and / or campaign of lies and somone speaks out about it, are you going to accuse that person of spreading the same propaganda that they purport to attempt in exposing? Because that's how weak and ludicrous your stance is.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

I gave you several, you as usual ignored the ones you can't honestly address.

Your claims of Zionists taking over are exactly the same as claims that Islamists are taking over.
You are as guilty of everything you're accusing these propagandists of doing, using the same tactics, though you are less well funded. And every single argument or justification for your scaremongering you can use applies to Wilders and his ilk.
Simply because you think that your conspiracy is supported by evidence, doesn't excuse all of that because i've no doubt that Wilders fully believes his bull**** too.

Okay, I'm all ears. You haven't presented any argument beyond the ridiculous "it's wrong because you said it". You haven't even stated your position FFS.

If you have an argument relative to the OP then spell it out without ad-homs and I'll be happy to entertain it.

If not, then please stop posting and taking the thread off-topic.

Jeboa Safari

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Listen, your just highlighting your own ignorance with this "may support Shariah" claim. As I've already stated any observant Muslim by definition "supports" Shariah; but overwhelmingly in the US not the fundamentalists/extremists interpretation. Fearmongering fools like Gingrich either don't know this or pretend not to.

And you could say the same about Catholics. And again, was it not in the public interest that JFK was questioned about his allegiance to the pope? In the same clip, Gingrich says moderate Muslims are not a threat.

Brown Bomber

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

And you could say the same about Catholics. And again, was it not in the public interest that JFK was questioned about his allegiance to the pope?

What are you talking about? Please learn what Shariah is. This is a link to the Islam forum http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=571 I'm sure they'll be kind enough to inform you as long as you don't ask them to publically denounce their faith first.

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

In the same clip, Gingrich says moderate Muslims are not a threat.

No he does NOT, he says "people who are truly modern...uhm...uhm...uhm....I have a friend in the navy..."

Jeboa Safari

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What are you talking about? Please learn what Shariah is. This is a link to the Islam forum http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=571 I'm sure they'll be kind enough to inform you as long as you don't ask them to publically denounce their faith first.


No he does NOT, he says "people who are truly modern...uhm...uhm...uhm....I have a friend in the navy..."

In the full clip he does, surprised you don't have it all up what with your recent context obsession. Why can't a Muslim candidate be questioned on where they stand on aspects of their faith, while a Catholic can?

Brown Bomber

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

In the full clip he does, surprised you don't have it all up what with your recent context obsession. Why can't a Muslim candidate be questioned on where they stand on aspects of their faith, while a Catholic can?

I'm only going to say this one more time - I never said that a Muslim candidate can't be questioned on aspects of their faith. I said that Muslims, who have a constitutionally protected right, like every other American citizen of freedom of religion shouldn't be discriminated against because they are Muslims.

Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,

That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right
(...)
That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own
(...)
Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom

No Religious Test Clause
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

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

jackiebaron

jackiebaron wrote: »

But nobody is funding those who question Wilders and his ilk. There is no lobby to advertise against him nor to discredit him.

If one were to complain that some local thug is receiving money from the town council to continue his operation and / or campaign of lies and somone speaks out about it, are you going to accuse that person of spreading the same propaganda that they purport to attempt in exposing? Because that's how weak and ludicrous your stance is.

And what if the idea that the thug is receiving money isn't quite true, or the whole truth or a distortion based on someone's bias?
And what if the person exposing this supposed conspiracy is doing so using the exact same tactics, logic and manipulation as the thug is to do the crimes he is commiting?

Cause, you don't seem to understand my stance.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Okay, I'm all ears. You haven't presented any argument beyond the ridiculous "it's wrong because you said it". You haven't even stated your position FFS.

Well amoung others, you've yet to actually explain what the conspiracy is, beyond people you don't like doing stuff you don't like.
Assuming all of your charges are true, nothing you've pointed to is illegal or hidden.

None of the sources support the idea that this is a Zionist plot either, that's just your assertion based on the usual bias you have that all Zionists/prominent Israelis are all working together.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If you have an argument relative to the OP then spell it out without ad-homs and I'll be happy to entertain it.

If not, then please stop posting and taking the thread off-topic.

It's wonderful how you're worried about staying on topic now that the comparisons are becoming a little too uncomfortable....

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Well amoung others, you've yet to actually explain what the conspiracy is, beyond people you don't like doing stuff you don't like.

Nonsense, I outlined the conspiracy in post 4.

King Mob wrote: »

Assuming all of your charges are true, nothing you've pointed to is illegal or hidden.

Nevermind illegal or hidden it is self-evidently wrong to dehumanise a group of people so that when your drone strike their wedding party and kill them nobody really cares or when you bulldoze their home and evict them from their land and replace them with illegal settlers nobody cares.

King Mob wrote: »

None of the sources support the idea that this is a Zionist plot either, that's just your assertion based on the usual bias you have that all Zionists/prominent Israelis are all working together.

Not a zionist plot but a plot by Zionists. Neo-Zionists to be precise.

King Mob wrote: »

It's wonderful how you're worried about staying on topic now that the comparisons are becoming a little too uncomfortable....

Actually I've been asking that you cut out the ad-homs and stay on-topic since post 14.

Like I've said if you have a valid argument free from ad-homs please present it.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Nonsense, I outlined the conspiracy in post 4.

But that's not what I was asking for. That's just people you don't like doing something you don't like. (Assuming that this charge actually holds up.)

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Nevermind illegal or hidden it is self-evidently wrong to dehumanise a group of people so that when your drone strike their wedding party and kill them nobody really cares or when you bulldoze their home and evict them from their land and replace them with illegal settlers nobody cares.

But then you should be just as harsh on yourself since you are doing exactly the same thing just with a different target.
And if you wish to protest that you're not against all Jewish/Israeli people, then you have to realise that Wilders and his crowd make the same defense, they're not against Islam or Arabs, just the ones who are pushing radical Islam and jihadists.

And then of course there the fact that not a single source you provide supports the idea that the people the accuse of Islamophobia are doing so people won't care about Muslims or support Israel or whatever. That's just your supposition based on the dehumanising bias you have agains tthe people you are accusing.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not a zionist plot but a plot by Zionists. Neo-Zionists to be precise.

Then it's also a plot by white people, or by capitalists or by the right wing. And these factors are more common to those accused in the sources you provide.
But you are focusing on the portion that are Zionist.

Why bring up Zionism rather than the other factors?

studiorat

Some figures from the FBI's report on Hate crimes in 2010. Just to get a bit of perspective.

Analysis of data for victims of single-bias hate crime incidents showed that:

• 48.2 percent were victims of an offender’s bias against a race.
• 18.9 percent were victims of an offender’s bias against a religion.
• 18.6 percent were victims of an offender’s bias against a particular sexual orientation.
• 13.7 percent were victims of an offender’s bias against an ethnicity/national origin.
• 0.6 percent were victims of an offender’s bias against a disability.

Above we can see that victims of the offenders bias against religion is roughly the same as victims of an offender who's bias is against their sexual orientation.

We can further break down the figures of anti-religious hate crime and we see that over half the crimes were perprated against Jewish people.

Of the 1,552 victims of an anti-religion hate crime:

• 67.0 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
• 12.7 percent were victims of an anti-Islamic bias.
• 4.2 percent were victims of an anti-Catholic bias.
• 3.0 percent were victims of an anti-Protestant bias.
• 0.5 percent were victims of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias. 
• 9.1 percent were victims of a bias against other religions (anti-other religion).
• 3.5 percent were victims of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).

Of the 8,208 victims of a hate crime, 58.8 percent were victims of crimes against persons, and 41.1 percent were victims of crimes against property. 

In 2010, 4,824 victims of hate crimes were victims of crimes against persons.  Of these victims:

• 7 persons were murdered, and 4 were forcibly raped.
• 46.2 percent of the victims were intimidated.
• 34.8 percent were victims of simple assault.
• 18.4 percent were victims of aggravated assault.

Basically, if the number of victims of sexuality motivated hate crime is similar to religiously motivated hate crime, and furthermore Islamophobia comprises only 12.7% of that, the reality is that the incidences of actual crime do not correspond to the reportage.

None of the statistics support BB's claims and his use of Islamophobia for political point scoring is in itself racist because it attempts to "ghettoise" muslims for political gain.