Secularism, Muhammed Cartoons and The Sikh Temple Shooting

Brown Bomber

SeanW wrote: »

Given that if applied properly, the term racism applies to discrimination based on RACE (i.e. physical ethnicity) I suspect that any number of thought processes that involve thinking poorly of other races may lead to it.

So is what you are saying is that racism is a form of mental illness? And that external factors play no part?

SeanW wrote: »

My understanding of the EDL is that they are not racists, the welcome natives, jews, black people, heck even one of their chief strategists is a mixed race practicising Sikh. Oh and their leader is Irish (Steven Lennon). You could probably join if you watned to! They have also videotaped themselves burning a Nazi flag, a clear statement of opposition to National Socialism.

Again, this is just my understanding but they formed in response to something Anjem Choudhury and his band of morons did at some sort of rememberence ceremony for British war veterans, and that they are primarily opposed to Islamist violence, terrorism, hate preaching, refusal to integrate etc.

They are hated by the BNP (who actually are racists), Anders Breivhik etc and the feeling is mutual.

So yes, to that extent I am sympathetic and I don't think that the Wisconsin guman and the EDL are "on the same page" so to speak, in that this evil SOB was a white supremicist, I should imagine that he hates Jews and all non-white races with more or less equal vitriol. The EDL is multi-ethnic and multi-cultural.

Thanks for that - it takes a certain amount of backbone to speak well of the EDL in public, even anonymously. While I may not share your positive view of the EDL, I do accept that they are not the same as Neo-Nazi groups of the kind Page was involved in. Page would have despised Jews, the EDL has a Jewish division for example and carries the Star of David at their protests. While there are differences there are also similarities, both are essentially street armies who are involved in violence, both consider themselves highly patriotic and at the very least share the same views about Muslims in their lands. Which is why I was hoping you would answer who an EDL-inspired member would ideally attack Sikhs or Muslims, because I believe it would be the same answer for a US based Neo Nazi outfit.

Corkfeen

The EDL are equally as bad the BNP, they encourage violence in their protests and seem to believe the delusion that the UK and Europe are being islamified and Sharia Law is an eventuality. Their crazy opinions bare a lot in common with Nazis to be honest.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So you would point the finger of blame at Muslims in general for being responsible for hate crimes committed against Muslims due to them broadly sharing a faith with extremists?

Please don't misrepresent me. The people responsible are extremist elements on both sides, they provoke each other and innocent people die as a result. People who are xenophobic, islamaphobic or racist don't really need a Draw Mohammed Day to justify their actions. Some may borrow from Mein Kampf or Stormfront as a reason to legitimise them but this also occurs on the side of the religious extremist who uses passages from their holy book to justify their opinion or actions. Both sides are equally fecked up to be perfectly honest. The person who is drawing a picture or simply practising their religion(dependent on extent anyway) bares none of the responsibility.

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

And, as a moderator of this forum, I suggest that if you'd like to avoid the kind of comments that you've received from just about every poster to date, that you substantially improve your standards of debate and of reasoning -- a good standard of both will produce honest, thoughtful responses and a respectable debate. The unhelpful tone you've adopted so far invites, in a manner not unlike what's going on over in FTB, exactly the opposite.

You are free to moderate the forum however you see fit. 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.

Bloodwing

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So is what you are saying is that racism is a form of mental illness? And that external factors play no part?

"Racism isn't born, folks, it's taught. I have a two-year-old son. You know what he hates? Naps! End of list."

Denis Leary

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

Please don't misrepresent me. The people responsible are extremist elements on both sides, they provoke each other and innocent people die as a result. People who are xenophobic, islamaphobic or racist don't really need a Draw Mohammed Day to justify their actions. Some may borrow from Mein Kampf or Stormfront as a reason to legitimise them but this also occurs on the side of the religious extremist who uses passages from their holy book to justify their opinion or actions. Both sides are equally fecked up to be perfectly honest. The person who is drawing a picture or simply practising their religion bares none of the responsibility.

I genuinely didn't mean to. It was a genuine question I asked, seeking clarification. That was my original understanding, but I wasn't sure.

SeanW

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So is what you are saying is that racism is a form of mental illness? And that external factors play no part?

No, racism is the conclusion that some races are better than others and that discrimination based on ethnicity is ok.

I don't know how someone would reach those conclusions. I cannot really speculate on the cause.

Which is why I was hoping you would answer who an EDL-inspired member would ideally attack Sikhs or Muslims, because I believe it would be the same answer for a US based Neo Nazi outfit.

I don't believe so - this evil SOB could just as well have attacked a Jewish synagogue or a group of African-Americans, Hindus, Hispanics, a gay bar, the list goes on and on.

It's possible my understanding of the EDL is way off, but I genuinely do not believe that they and the white supremicists are on the same wavelength at all. So I don't really think comparing a hypothetical violent EDL head to these White Nationalist bastards is going to yield useful information.

Brown Bomber

Neilos wrote: »

I'm not sure why your showing me a video discussing the reasons for suicide bombers carrying out their attacks. The point I made and I'll make it again in a clearer manner.

You are claiming that someone drawing muhammed leads to an increase in attacks on muslims (or people mistaken for muslims) because it promotes the link between terrorism and muslims. What i am saying is that the biggest reason for this connection is that when some muslim terrorists commit any sort of attack be that suicide bombing, regular old bombing, roadside IEDs or mass murder of any kind and then publicly states that this attack was part of a holy war or done in the name of allah or muhammed, surely this is the reason for the misguided belief that all muslims are terrorists?

Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that when someone does draw pictures of muhammed thousands of muslims come out to the streets calling for this persons head?

Or perhaps it has something to do with the fact that when joseph aloisius ratzinger made a negative comment about islam a huge amount of muslims decided an appropriate response was to issue death threats to the "west" and vandalize property by setting it alight?

On the grand scale of things bomber i think the drawing of a few pictures doesn't really factor into the reasons for people holding the belief. Do you honestly think that an extremist is sitting at home seeing all of the above going on in the world and it's only when he sees a picture of muhammed with a bomb drawn by some random person that he suddenly decides "you know what I'm a gonna kill me some muslims"?

The video would have shown you that based on Pape's extensive studies, which included watching every marthyr video he could get his hands on the terrorist attackers generally weren't motivated by religion but by nationalism and occupations and other injustices.

In any case while you've made a lot of sense you've presented a false dichotomy. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Crazy, Islamist, Fascists doing crazy, Islamist Fascist things like suicide bombings, stoning women and chopping off hands etc obviously play a huge role in shaping peoples views towards Islam. My point is that associating Islam uniquely with terrorism via cartoons or any of form of rhetoric reinforces the same stereotypes, one would feed off the other.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

Stop acting the maggot. When people say that Islam encourages violence, you defend it. Now - seeing as Islam was used as an excuse by Jihadis to commit various atrocities, do you regret defending that religion?

That's not defending Islam per se that is defending the truth as far as I am concerned. I have no personal or emotional ties to Islam at all. I have no reason to defend Islam from attacks that are legitimate.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That's not defending Islam per se that is defending the truth as far as I am concerned. I have no personal or emotional ties to Islam at all. I have no reason to defend Islam from attacks that are legitimate.

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

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My point is that associating Islam uniquely with terrorism via cartoons or any of form of rhetoric reinforces the same stereotypes, one would feed off the other.

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

Brown Bomber wrote:

Next you'll tell me Jews aren't over represented in porn, human trafficking, MDMA trafficking and organ trafficking.

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?