Secularism, Muhammed Cartoons and The Sikh Temple Shooting

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I simply requested that you as a poster in the forum that you also moderate don't resort to mockery as it opens the floodgates for all to resort to mockery.

A+A is not, as you seem to think, a forum for people a herd-like mentality. On the contrary, just about everybody holds their own opinions on every conceivable topic, most of which which they're not afraid to voice if and when the occasion demands.

If people find your reasoning, evidence or debating style lacking -- and as I said above, it seems that most do -- then people will be quite happy to point it out themselves without needing any help from forum mods.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71672400&postcount=24

Is this a simple case of trolling? Or is there a point to your post?

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

So you are saying that the Koran is to blame for terrorist attacks? Do you regret defending it and Islam in previous posts?

Like I've said I don't consider myself as having defended the Koran nor Islam.

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

A+A is not, as you seem to think, a forum for people a herd-like mentality. On the contrary, just about everybody holds their own opinions on every conceivable topic, most of which which they're not afraid to voice if and when the occasion demands.

If people find your reasoning, evidence or debating style lacking -- and as I said above, it seems that most do -- then people will be quite happy to point it out themselves without needing any help from forum mods.

I have no issues with people pointing out if my "reasoning, evidence or debating style lacking ". What I am asking of you as a mod of the forum, which burdens you with extra responsibilities as a poster is to not to resort to cheapshots and mockery as it gives the impression that it is acceptable for everyone else.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have no issues with people pointing out if my "reasoning, evidence or debating style lacking ".

And one of the ways in which people do this is to post stuff like what's been posted above. Glad to see you've no issues with it after all.

Topic closed in public.

Sonics2k

Problem with Moderation. Take it to feedback or speak to a CMOD. There's little to no point in discussing it right here, it's not the thread for it.

Fact is. BB came in here with a nonsensical claiming, trying to put an aspect of blame on those who drew cartoons, and connecting them to the actions of a racist psychopath.
It's yet more CT style posting from him. Check his post history if you don't believe me.

@BB in response to an earlier post.
I believe many people here do/did believe you were Muslim. I only think this because all of your posts are in relation and defense of Islam, and your near frequent attacks on Judaism, Atheism and often Christianity.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Like I've said I don't consider myself as having defended the Koran nor Islam.

Yes you have.
http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=300048&sort=newest&date_to=&date_from=&query=Islam

You're lying to avoid the question. Another question you can try avoiding - does it not strike you as somewhat shoddy, using the unfortunate victims of that shooting to dig up the issue of the cartoon?

robindch

speaking wrote: »

[post on moderation deleted]

The feedback forum is here if you'd like to discuss the way in which this forum is moderated.

MagicMarker

speaking wrote: »

[further text on moderation deleted]

I have not read all of his posts but thise I have read he seems to be making good points (I will read all his posts over the next while and come back to you:) Promise.

Well I can't speak for everyone else, but I'll be right here, on the edge of my seat.

speaking

MagicMarker wrote: »

Well I can't speak for everyone else, but I'll be right here, on the edge of my seat.

I like you MagicMaker. Your funny use of sarcasm............................

speaking

robindch wrote: »

A+A is not, as you seem to think, a forum for people a herd-like mentality.

From the evidence I have seen to date I would have to disagree with what you say here.

There is a lot of evidence of herd like behaviour among atheists from what I can see.

Or more like Pack like behaviour. (someone else used this anaology earlier)

Disenting voices (usually non atheists are rounded on by the pack and devoured)

Its a shame because as an atheist I love hearing disenting voices, ideas that challange me, even though I may think they are completly off the wall.

joseph brand

speaking wrote: »

I like you MagicMaker. Your funny.

His funny what?

joseph brand

speaking wrote: »

From the evidence I have seen to date I would have to disagree with what you say here.

There is a lot of evidence of herd like behaviour among atheists from what I can see.

Or more like Pack like behaviour. (someone else used this anaology earlier)

Disenting voices (usually non atheists are rounded on by the pack and devoured)

Its a shame because as an atheist I love hearing disenting voices, ideas that challange me, even though I may think they are completly off the wall.

Yes. In packs. Just like domestic cats.

speaking

joseph brand wrote: »

His funny what?

use of sarcasm of course.

Attabear

joseph brand wrote: »

Yes. In packs. Just like domestic cats.

A pack of cats is a glaring or a clowder.

Thank you Sheldon Cooper.

So dissenting voices are crowded out by a clowder of atheists.:)

Sounds more ominous.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Is this a simple case of trolling? Or is there a point to your post?

There is a point.

In your post that I quoted, you attributed things like MDMA trafficking, human trafficking, organ trafficking and pornography to "Jews". Not "some Jews", not "a small percentage of Jews", not even "some guys who happen to be Jewish but that's not relevant".

You're complaining that people drawing Muhammad with a turban and beard, or with a bomb is attributing these things to all Muslims. In your post I quoted, you did essentially the same thing.

As I've pointed out before (and as highlighted by the numerous people who presume you are Muslim), you only ever seem to defend Islam. We draw Muhammad, you complain. We draw God/Jesus/Buddha/Xenu etc, you're nowhere to be seen. The entire Funny Side of Religion thread is taking the piss out of religion, yet you only defend Islam. And likewise, many of your posts (like the one I quoted which is the main one which sticks in my mind), you attack Jewish people. Maybe not your intention, but it could be perceived that way.

But here's the crux of the issue: If someone killed a bunch of Jewish people, never would I think "I wonder if Brown Bomber regrets his comments about Jews". Never would I try to connect anything you might have said with what happened, and quite frankly it's a bunch o' bullsh*t that you come here and try to make us feel guilty for Draw Muhammad Day.

Draw Muhammad Day is an expression of freedom of speech and freedom from religion. That's it. I know you disagree, but that's the way it is. If someone uses that to entice people to hatred or worse, THAT'S THEIR PROBLEM. Someone watches The Matrix and it makes him kill his parents. Crazy people do crazy things. Someone uses Draw Muhammad Day to radicalise Muslims, they would look for anything to achieve their goals even without DMD. Crazy people do crazy things and hateful people do hateful things. They don't need an excuse, they just look for one.

You trying to connect DMD to the Sikh shooting is utterly ridiculous. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc: Correlation does not imply causation. Yet DMD and the Sikh shooting doesn't even correlate. There isn't even an assumed link, it's an assumption based on an assumption based on an assumption; that the killer thought the Sikhs were Muslim (assumed, not proven), based on DMD drawings showing Muhammad with a beard and turban like Sikhs wear (assumed that he ever saw such a picture) based on the assumption that he was looking for a reason to kill Muslims (assumed). He's a white supremacist, he hates everyone WHO ISN'T WHITE, and anyone willing to kill would still be willing to kill without feeling their rights are being impinged because they're not allowed to draw Muhammad.

Your whole point was flawed from the get-go, and what you're accusing us of, is something you're guilty of too, just aimed at a different set of people.

Dades

speaking wrote: »

Disenting voices (usually non atheists are rounded on by the pack and devoured)

If someone makes a point disagreed with by the majority of posters then the majority to posts are going to reflect that disagreement. Honestly - what do think should happen??

And there are plenty of threads where non-believers completely disagree with one another.

speaking

Penn wrote: »

There is a point.

In your post that I quoted, you attributed things like MDMA trafficking, human trafficking, organ trafficking and pornography to "Jews". Not "some Jews", not "a small percentage of Jews", not even "some guys who happen to be Jewish but that's not relevant".

You're complaining that people drawing Muhammad with a turban and beard, or with a bomb is attributing these things to all Muslims. In your post I quoted, you did essentially the same thing.

As I've pointed out before (and as highlighted by the numerous people who presume you are Muslim), you only ever seem to defend Islam. We draw Muhammad, you complain. We draw God/Jesus/Buddha/Xenu etc, you're nowhere to be seen. The entire Funny Side of Religion thread is taking the piss out of religion, yet you only defend Islam. And likewise, many of your posts (like the one I quoted which is the main one which sticks in my mind), you attack Jewish people. Maybe not your intention, but it could be perceived that way.

But here's the crux of the issue: If someone killed a bunch of Jewish people, never would I think "I wonder if Brown Bomber regrets his comments about Jews". Never would I try to connect anything you might have said with what happened, and quite frankly it's a bunch o' bullsh*t that you come here and try to make us feel guilty for Draw Muhammad Day.

Draw Muhammad Day is an expression of freedom of speech and freedom from religion. That's it. I know you disagree, but that's the way it is. If someone uses that to entice people to hatred or worse, THAT'S THEIR PROBLEM. Someone watches The Matrix and it makes him kill his parents. Crazy people do crazy things. Someone uses Draw Muhammad Day to radicalise Muslims, they would look for anything to achieve their goals even without DMD. Crazy people do crazy things and hateful people do hateful things. They don't need an excuse, they just look for one.

You trying to connect DMD to the Sikh shooting is utterly ridiculous. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc: Correlation does not imply causation. Yet DMD and the Sikh shooting doesn't even correlate. There isn't even an assumed link, it's an assumption based on an assumption based on an assumption; that the killer thought the Sikhs were Muslim (assumed, not proven), based on DMD drawings showing Muhammad with a beard and turban like Sikhs wear (assumed that he ever saw such a picture) based on the assumption that he was looking for a reason to kill Muslims (assumed). He's a white supremacist, he hates everyone WHO ISN'T WHITE, and anyone willing to kill would still be willing to kill without feeling their rights are being impinged because they're not allowed to draw Muhammad.

Your whole point was flawed from the get-go, and what you're accusing us of, is something you're guilty of too, just aimed at a different set of people.

Ouch Brown bear, Ouchhhhhhhhhhh.

Excellent post there. Well done. Discussion over.

speaking

Dades wrote: »

If someone makes a point disagreed with by the majority of posters then the majority to posts are going to reflect that disagreement. Honestly - what do think should happen??

And there are plenty of threads where non-believers completely disagree with one another.

Obviously you are right in what you say here.

its just the manner of that disagreement, the cynicism, the use of in-jokes, cartoons, general piss taking or threatening posts from some posters when that does not work. The sicofantic (could spell that earlier) use of thanks.

The reverting to "your not using a rational argument" this better change or else kind of posts..................

And there are plenty of threads where non-believers completely disagree with one another

True, as is the case now, but I am talking about a general tone of debate, the rules of the game and how they are used to subtly silence or undermine.

Mark Hamill

speaking wrote: »

Obviously you are right in what you say here.

its just the manner of that disagreement, the cynicism, the use of in-jokes, cartoons, general piss taking or threatening posts from some posters when that does not work. The sicofantic (could spell that earlier) use of thanks.

The reverting to "your not using a rational argument" this better change or else kind of posts..................

Are you referring to mods in bold?

speaking

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Are you referring to mods in bold?

Absolutely not, only those whose who use those techniques (have you?). its nothing to do with moderation just the tactics some posters use (in my opinion)

Bloodwing

speaking wrote: »

Absolutely not, only those whose who use those techniques (have you?). its nothing to do with moderation just the tactics some posters use (in my opinion)

There's no tactics or pack mentality being used here. We've all come in here and posted our own opinion on BBs first post. It just so happens the vast majority of us think his point is utter rubbish.

The real problems start when people put up valid arguments against someones point and they are completely ignored or twisted to suit their argument. That is not how a discussion or debate works. When someone repeatedly acts in that manner others might begin to think they are posting purely to get their own agenda out there and as a result the quality of the replies will drop because people aren't going to invest time in decent replies just to have them ignored or twisted.

speaking

Neilos wrote: »

There's no tactics or pack mentality being used here. We've all come in here and posted our own opinion on BBs first post. It just so happens the vast majority of us think his point is utter rubbish.

The real problems start when people put up valid arguments against someones point and they are completely ignored or twisted to suit their argument. That is not how a discussion or debate works.

When someone repeatedly acts in that manner others might begin to think they are posting purely to get their own agenda out there and as a result the quality of the replies will drop because people aren't going to invest time in decent replies just to have them ignored or twisted.

In this case I am in agreement with you (after reading a lot of his posts). I am talking about the general tone.

Mark Hamill

speaking wrote: »

Absolutely not, only those whose who use those techniques (have you?).

You tell me. Have I used threatening language in my posts?

speaking wrote: »

its nothing to do with moderation just the tactics some posters use (in my opinion)

Can you give some examples of anyone using threatening language then? I have seen posters here use cynicism, jokes, cartoons and the such, but I have never seen anyone post anything along the likes of "your not using a rational argument, this better change" (except for mods trying to get people to actually engage in the debate).

humphrys

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ireland's resident atheist Islamophobe Mark Humphrys
http://markhumphrys.com/islam.annoys.html#edmd

And professional anti-Islam extremists Pam Geller and Robert Spencer
http://spencerwatch.com/2010/05/21/draw-muhammad-day-predictably-descends-into-hate-fest/

The idea that some Jew-hating skinhead would open up my website every morning - which declares it is "pro-Israel" on every page - is a bit far-fetched. Neo-nazis hate me. They regard me as a Jew-loving race traitor. The neo-Nazis at irish-nationalism.net called me a "Judeophile gob****e", a "Hasidic Gentile dickhead" and "human chaff".

The idea that the hater and killer of Sikhs would be a fan of the pro-Sikh Pamela Geller is also far-fetched. I don't agree with Geller on everything, but I don't think the neo-Nazi could possibly follow a pro-Sikh, pro-Jew person like her. He would have contempt for her:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/08/sion-announces-sikhhindu-coalition.html

Your theories are ridiculous, you have a sinister nickname, and your denials of being a reactionary Muslim conservative are unconvincing since you are so angry about drawings of the Prophet, and so defensive of the Koran and Hadith.

You also miss the ironic point that I never actually displayed pictures of the Prophet. Why? Because of the threat of violence from your co-religionists. I admit that I restrain what I do and say, to try to avoid the ever-present threat of violence:

http://markhumphrys.com/islam.html#introduction
http://markhumphrys.com/religions.criticise.html#what.i.will.do

But you don't care about the Islamic threat of violence to critics, blasphemers and comedians. You don't care that poor Molly Norris has been driven into hiding because of Islamic threats:

http://markhumphrys.com/islam.annoys.html#molly

The fact is that Islam needs to grow up and learn to take criticism like Christianity does without resorting to violence in reply.

I'm an optimist, and I think this will actually happen - is actually happening - because of the unstoppable force of the Internet. Islam will look very different in 2050. Everyone will be able to slag it off like we slag off Christianity or Mormonism, and no one will care. Muslims will just shrug and ignore the critics (as is their right) but crucially they will not threaten violence. Christianity used to kill its critics. Now it doesn't. The same progress will happen with Islam someday.

legspin

speaking wrote: »

In this case I am in agreement with you (after reading a lot of his posts). I am talking about the general tone.

The general tone is just exasperation at those that continually try 'whataboutery' as a means of furthering an agenda that doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Not only that, when confronted on various points where their arguement is shown (with much patience I might add) to be invalid, obfuscation, denial and accusations of bullying are deployed to shift focus from the point discussed.

As regards the OP, the constant attempts to link the actions of fruit-loops as a symptom to cartoons of a 7th century illiterate madman are such a source of that exasperation.

No religion should be exempt from ridicule.
Everyone should be exempt from violence.

Dades

Neilos wrote: »

When someone repeatedly acts in that manner others might begin to think they are posting purely to get their own agenda out there and as a result the quality of the replies will drop because people aren't going to invest time in decent replies just to have them ignored or twisted.

speaking wrote: »

In this case I am in agreement with you (after reading a lot of his posts). I am talking about the general tone.

While I am not commenting on whether this thread falls into the above description, it is pretty much a rule that ANYONE posting here will be given a fair hearing. The continued quality of response will very much depend on what kind of engagement follows the opening post. If the thread degenerates into pics and jabs then it's invariably because the OP is seen as time-wasting, or someone with an underlying agenda that precludes them from being objective. We see a lot of that type of poster in here.

You should note that this thread has a historical context, so responses you see here (rightly or wrongly) are flavoured by the previous Draw Mohammed Day megathread.

speaking

legspin wrote: »

The general tone is just exasperation at those that continually try 'whataboutery' as a means of furthering an agenda that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

But can you seriously expect that from religious people?? For their beliefs to "hold up under scrutiny". Religious beliefs do not hold up under the scrutiny you and I understand.

So in the end every discussion with a religious person ends up with "Exasperation" on behalf of some fellow atheists.

Don't expect religious people to follow the same kind of rules you and I do when it comes to arguing about God. If they did they would be atheists.

Now you either try to find some middle ground, some way of agreeing to disagree, a way to understand each others language and move forward or blindly dismiss those with religious belief as stupid misguided and irrational, you cant have it both ways.
(im tempted by the latter position and really hate the hypocracy of those atheists who want to have it both ways)

A bit of a polemic there maybe...........

speaking

Dades wrote: »

While I am not commenting on whether this thread falls into the above description, it is pretty much a rule that ANYONE posting here will be given a fair hearing.

From you maybe yes.................

Dades

speaking wrote: »

Don't expect religious people to follow the same kind of rules you and I do when it comes to arguing about God. If they did they would be atheists.

You're confusing the genuine religious that come in here and argue themselves into a corner while at least trying to do justice to a debate, with the (religious and non-religious) wags that come in here to have a bit of rant and a poke at the forum. There's all sorts here.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

If someone makes a point disagreed with by the majority of posters then the majority to posts are going to reflect that disagreement. Honestly - what do think should happen??

Perhaps we should round of them akin to the way Klingons would attack James T. Kirk in the old Star Trek series; one at a time despite there being no real need to do so?

Dades

^^ To the sound of dramatic music, I hope.

robindch

speaking wrote: »

[...] threatening posts from some posters [...]

speaking wrote: »

[...] just the tactics some posters use [...]

speaking wrote: »

From you maybe yes.................

speaking -- that's the third anonymous insinuation you've made in the last 90 minutes or so. Can you please either stop making unhelpful insinuations, or else or else name names. If the latter, I'm sure you're receive a hearty public response from the accused.

speaking

Dades wrote: »

You're confusing the genuine religious that come in here and argue themselves into a corner while at least trying to do justice to a debate,

True, but why then the continued exasperation?

Attabear

Galvasean wrote: »

Perhaps we should round of them akin to the way Klingons would attack James T. Kirk in the old Star Trek series; one at a time despite there being no real need to do so?

Or Bruce Lee movies.

"Oi, single file now interchangeable baddies in white karate suits!"

"Ok, stop, he's ripping his shirt off, give him a minute."

"Hey, did you move your lips in exact sync with what you're saying? You're out of here buddy!"

speaking

robindch wrote: »

speaking -- that's the third anonymous insinuation you've made in the last 90 minutes or so. Can you please either stop making unhelpful insinuations, or else or else name names. If the latter, I'm sure you're receive a hearty public response from the accused.

Too true, its unfair of me to use tactic such as the one you think your seeing and accusing others of doing the same. I am being serious there.

Dades

speaking wrote: »

True, but why then the continued exasperation?

I'm not I sure I understand. Who's continued exasperation with what?

SeanW

One last point - Draw Mohammed Day only exists because of the violent behaviour of SOME Muslims in reaction to previous drawings.

Note that there is no "Draw the Sikh prophet day" or "Draw Yaweh" day, DMD is all that is being discussed.

If the response to such blasphemies did not entail a worldide orgy of murder and destruction at the slightest non-provocation, DMD would not exist. Sure someone might draw Mohammed from time to time but there would be no reason to, nor for it to be a big deal.

legspin

Dades wrote: »

I'm not I sure I understand. Who's continued exasperation with what?

Our continued exasperation with the OP and the drum he just won't stop banging, I think.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

There is a point.

In your post that I quoted, you attributed things like MDMA trafficking, human trafficking, organ trafficking and pornography to "Jews". Not "some Jews", not "a small percentage of Jews", not even "some guys who happen to be Jewish but that's not relevant".

You're complaining that people drawing Muhammad with a turban and beard, or with a bomb is attributing these things to all Muslims. In your post I quoted, you did essentially the same thing.

Evidently you've
A - Not read properly what I wrote or
B - Not understood what I wrote. By way of assistance I'll present the defintion of "overrepresented":

o·ver·rep·re·sent·ed (vr-rpr-zntd)adj. Represented in excessive or disproportionately large numbers: "Some groups, and most notably some races, may be overrepresented and others may be underrepresented" (Scientific American).

Or C - Intentionally misrepresenting what I wrote.

You have not "done essentially the same thing" you have done something entirely different. When I made that statement I assumed that others aren't ignorant of the claims and can understand that they are factual.

If you are interested the best source of learning on the subject is Red Mafiya by Robert Friedman, a Jewish reporter.

Penn wrote: »

As I've pointed out before (and as highlighted by the numerous people who presume you are Muslim), you only ever seem to defend Islam. We draw Muhammad, you complain. We draw God/Jesus/Buddha/Xenu etc, you're nowhere to be seen.

As I've pointed out numerous times I am not defending Islam. I'll say it again in I AM NOT DEFENDING ISLAM. I am neutral towards Islam. Also, could you please be more accurate with your claims. I did not complain when you (plural) drew Muhammed. I complained ONLY when a poster posted a graphic image of the Prophet engaged in beastiality. Please understand this, that is not a defense of Islam, it is an objection to the dehumanisation of an ethnic minority in our country.

Penn wrote: »

The entire Funny Side of Religion thread is taking the piss out of religion, yet you only defend Islam. And likewise, many of your posts (like the one I quoted which is the main one which sticks in my mind), you attack Jewish people. Maybe not your intention, but it could be perceived that way.

That is an outrageous lie.

Penn wrote: »

But here's the crux of the issue: If someone killed a bunch of Jewish people, never would I think "I wonder if Brown Bomber regrets his comments about Jews". Never would I try to connect anything you might have said with what happened, and quite frankly it's a bunch o' bullsh*t that you come here and try to make us feel guilty for Draw Muhammad Day.

That's your opinion and your entitled to it.

Penn wrote: »

Draw Muhammad Day is an expression of freedom of speech and freedom from religion. That's it.

That's not it. It's also an opportunity to attack Muslims collectively. To finally expose their latent Islamophobia under the guise of "freedom" and the shield of secularism.

From this site:

I'm that poster, i'll explain it. I done it for a laugh, because i found the image funny - i still do. The fact that i "believed" it to be mohammed made it funnier to me. I understand that muslims may be offended, hence i didn't post it in the muslim forum. If for one of those religoius "mysterious ways" we hear so much about, a whole pile of devout muslims came in here and clicked on a thread to find something to be offended about, then i'm glad to be of service.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...646025&page=27

If I said that the anti-Semitic propoganda cartoons in Der Sturmer were "an expression of freedom of speech and that's it" You would think I was an idiot. Likewise, if I said that Dr Seuss's WWII anti-Japanese, racist cartoons were "an expression of freedom of speech". When the intention of both was to dehumanise an enemy.

I'm that poster, i'll explain it. I done it for a laugh, because i found the image funny - i still do. The fact that i "believed" it to be mohammed made it funnier to me. I understand that muslims may be offended, hence i didn't post it in the muslim forum. If for one of those religoius "mysterious ways" we hear so much about, a whole pile of devout muslims came in here and clicked on a thread to find something to be offended about, then i'm glad to be of service.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...646025&page=27

Penn wrote: »

Someone uses Draw Muhammad Day to radicalise Muslims, they would look for anything to achieve their goals even without DMD. Crazy people do crazy things and hateful people do hateful things. They don't need an excuse, they just look for one.

You are missing the point which is not that it radicalised Muslims but that it engenders Islamophobia.

Penn wrote: »

You trying to connect DMD to the Sikh shooting is utterly ridiculous. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc: Correlation does not imply causation. Yet DMD and the Sikh shooting doesn't even correlate. There isn't even an assumed link, it's an assumption based on an assumption based on an assumption; that the killer thought the Sikhs were Muslim (assumed, not proven), based on DMD drawings showing Muhammad with a beard and turban like Sikhs wear (assumed that he ever saw such a picture) based on the assumption that he was looking for a reason to kill Muslims (assumed). He's a white supremacist, he hates everyone WHO ISN'T WHITE, and anyone willing to kill would still be willing to kill without feeling their rights are being impinged because they're not allowed to draw Muhammad.

Are you aware that the first person to die in an anti-Muslim hate attack in the US post-911 was a Sikh who was mistaken for a Muslim? There are numerous other examples since. This is why Mark Potok, an expert in these matters considers it likely that it was an anti-Islam hate crime committed in error against Sikhs.

Again you are missing the point which is that publicity stunts such as the cartoon day which conflate Western Muslims with terrorism reinforces Islamophobia, which Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and a burning fuse undoubtedly does do. Which can lead to ant-Muslim hate crimes.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

..........

As I've pointed out numerous times I am not defending Islam. I'll say it again in I AM NOT DEFENDING ISLAM.
...........

Ye can say it a dozen times and you'd still be lying. You've defended Islam numerous times in different threads as a cursory search of your posts clearly reveals.
http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=300048&sort=newest&date_to=&date_from=&query=Islam

You're denying it because you don't want to answer the obvious question that raises re you regretting doing so in light of Jihadi activity - a question that arises solely from your own "logic" as laid out in the OP.

And again - do you not think using the deaths of those people to once more resurrect the mohammed cartoon issue is a bit cheap and shoddy?

Brown Bomber

SeanW wrote: »

One last point - Draw Mohammed Day only exists because of the violent behaviour of SOME Muslims in reaction to previous drawings.

That doesn't make any sense. The "reaction" by defintion came after.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

Ye can say it a dozen times and you'd still be lying. You've defended Islam numerous times in different threads as a cursory search of your posts clearly reveals.
http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=300048&sort=newest&date_to=&date_from=&query=Islam

If that's the way it works here is you defending Catholicism.
http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?query=Catholic+&forum=&user=176680&date_from=&date_to=

Rev Hellfire

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That doesn't make any sense. The "reaction" by defintion came after.

Indeed you are correct. The reaction came after the threats of violence carried out by (some) practitioners if Islam.

dlofnep

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That doesn't make any sense. The "reaction" by defintion came after.

No, it didn't. The reaction came because of a comic posted by a Danish paper. Extremist Muslims then decided that comics of Muhammad were a bit too much, so they decided to maim innocent people around the world. It was only then, that Draw Muhammad Day came about.

Brown Bomber

humphrys wrote: »

The idea that some Jew-hating skinhead would open up my website every morning - which declares it is "pro-Israel" on every page - is a bit far-fetched. Neo-nazis hate me. They regard me as a Jew-loving race traitor. The neo-Nazis at irish-nationalism.net called me a "Judeophile gob****e", a "Hasidic Gentile dickhead" and "human chaff".

What is relevant to the thread is how your view on Muslims parallels theirs.

Do me a favour Mark, this is from the Hammerskins forum where Page was a member and the topic is Islam, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vyYJPHnhFpoJ:www.crew38.com/forum38/archive/index.php/t-7252.html+&cd=7&hl=sv&ct=clnk&gl=se&client=firefox-a which commments do you disagree with?

humphrys wrote: »

you have a sinister nickname,

Joe Louis just turned in his grave

humphrys wrote: »

and your denials of being a reactionary Muslim conservative are unconvincing since you are so angry about drawings of the Prophet, and so defensive of the Koran and Hadith.

You are accusing me of Al Taqiyya? :pac: You're a funny man Mark. If you knew anything about Islam (y'know, the subject you've been writing about for the last however many years) you'd know that if I was a Muslim it would be forbidden to deny my faith unless my life was in danger.

humphrys wrote: »

You also miss the ironic point that I never actually displayed pictures of the Prophet. Why? Because of the threat of violence from your co-religionists. I admit that I restrain what I do and say, to try to avoid the ever-present threat of violence:

http://markhumphrys.com/islam.html#introduction
http://markhumphrys.com/religions.criticise.html#what.i.will.do

But you don't care about the Islamic threat of violence to critics, blasphemers and comedians. You don't care that poor Molly Norris has been driven into hiding because of Islamic threats:

http://markhumphrys.com/islam.annoys.html#molly

The fact is that Islam needs to grow up and learn to take criticism like Christianity does without resorting to violence in reply.

I'm an optimist, and I think this will actually happen - is actually happening - because of the unstoppable force of the Internet. Islam will look very different in 2050. Everyone will be able to slag it off like we slag off Christianity or Mormonism, and no one will care. Muslims will just shrug and ignore the critics (as is their right) but crucially they will not threaten violence. Christianity used to kill its critics. Now it doesn't. The same progress will happen with Islam someday.

2050? Breivik put it an 2083... I don't know if you've realised but you have a whole site dedicated to demonising Muslims. How would your site be any different or more extreme in 2050?

And if you feel under threat from Muslims due to their ideology then surely Muslims and defenselss Norwegian children should feel under threat from you as you share the same extremist Zionism as Anders Breivik.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If that's the way it works here is you defending Catholicism.
http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?query=Catholic+&forum=&user=176680&date_from=&date_to=

Brilliant.


Now answer the questions put to you.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

Brilliant.


Now answer the questions put to you.

Nodin, I am genuinely not trying to be awkward. I don't consider myself to have defended Islam therefore I can't answer your question as it's based on a false premise.

Channel Zero

Penn wrote: »

As I've pointed out before (and as highlighted by the numerous people who presume you are Muslim), you only ever seem to defend Islam. We draw Muhammad, you complain. We draw God/Jesus/Buddha/Xenu etc, you're nowhere to be seen. The entire Funny Side of Religion thread is taking the piss out of religion, yet you only defend Islam.

Does Brown Bomber defend Islam or does he use his very good knowledge of it and put the effort in to correct other posters misconceptions and misrepresentations about Islam? (which, let's face it, are quite common occurrences)
There's a difference in my opinion.

Also, i don't see how your observation that BB doesn't generally enter into threads that criticize and ridicule other religions is really relevant. We're all of us interested in some topics or threads and not others. We all know more about some things than others.

And likewise, many of your posts (like the one I quoted which is the main one which sticks in my mind), you attack Jewish people. Maybe not your intention, but it could be perceived that way.

Beside's the small matter that that's untrue in the first place, it could definitely be perceived that way if you yourself take a random post and use it as 'evidence' of a serious accusation. I'm sure i could do that myself easily enough with a couple of other posters and put my own twist on it; throwing out accusations of racism and bigotry purely on the basis that someone's post history contains specific topics that the person has an interest in.
If that's the benchmark for accusations, then sure plenty of people are bigoted against something or other. Americans, Russians, Catholics, Muslims, whoever.
I've been labelled anti-rich myself because i sometimes contribute to threads criticizing speculators or tax havens. Also anti-U.S. before.
Perhaps it could be perceived that way as you say, but for my money it's usually just a case of the someone noticing i hang out in those type of threads more than others, and deciding i have a hatred of all rich people or all Americans because it suits their argument.

It's all too easy to stick labels on people when the opportunity arises. And they're usually flung out quickest by those who have an axe to grind or a bee in their bonnet from previous discussions. That's not referring to you by the way; just a general observation.

But here's the crux of the issue: If someone killed a bunch of Jewish people, never would I think "I wonder if Brown Bomber regrets his comments about Jews". Never would I try to connect anything you might have said with what happened, and quite frankly it's a bunch o' bullsh*t that you come here and try to make us feel guilty for Draw Muhammad Day.

I don't personally think he is trying to make anyone feel guilty. It seems to me to be an area worth discussing if peace ever breaks out on the thread.
Whether blatant and offensive negative stereotyping of minorities like DMD is part of the solution or potentially part of the problem.

legspin wrote: »

The general tone is just exasperation at those that continually try 'whataboutery' as a means of furthering an agenda that doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Not only that, when confronted on various points where their arguement is shown (with much patience I might add) to be invalid, obfuscation, denial and accusations...are deployed to shift focus from the point discussed.

If you were talking about BB's general tone, i couldn't agree more legspin!

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Nodin, I am genuinely not trying to be awkward. ......

No, you're trying to avoid the obvious parallel and thus dodge the question, Pathetically transparent intellectual dishonesty. Well done you.