Stochastic Terrorism

Channel Zero

Today, Anders Behring Breivik the Norwegian far-right extremist, has been sentenced to at least 21 years in prison after a court declared he was sane throughout his murderous rampage last year that killed 77 people and wounded 242.
The Oslo district court declared its verdict that the 33-year-old was not psychotic while carrying out the twin attacks, including the shooting of dozens of teenagers attending a political camp.
The court's decision will have delighted Breivik, who had hoped to avoid what he called the humiliation of being dismissed as a madman.
The mass killer had desperately hoped the court would find him criminally culpable for the killings, claiming they were "cruel and necessary" to protect Norway from becoming overrun by Muslims.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/24/breivik-verdict-sane-21-years

Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to stir up random lone wolves to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable.

Here's the mechanism spelled out concisely:

The stochastic terrorist is the person who uses mass media to broadcast memes that incite unstable people to commit violent acts.
One or more unstable people responds to the incitement by becoming a lone wolf and committing a violent act. While their action may have been statistically predictable (e.g. "given the provocation, someone will probably do such-and-such"), the specific person and the specific act are not predictable (yet).
The stochastic terrorist then has plausible deniability: "Oh, it was just a lone nut, nobody could have predicted he would do that, and I'm not responsible for what people in my audience do."
The lone wolf who was the "missile" gets captured and sentenced to life in prison, while the stochastic terrorist keeps his prime time slot and goes on to incite more lone wolves.
Further, the stochastic terrorist may be acting either negligently or deliberately, or may be in complete denial of their impact, just like a drunk driver who runs over a pedestrian without even realizing it.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/01/10/934890/-Stochastic-Terrorism-160-Triggering-the-shooters

Thom Hartmann explains it here:

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

In the vid above he references a report from advocacy group People for the American Way entitled
The Right Wing Playbook on Anti-Muslim Extremism:

Under the guise of defending freedom and American values, right-wing anti-Muslim activists are campaigning to prevent Muslim-Americans from freely worshiping and practicing their religion, curtail their political rights, and even compel their deportation. A growing faction in the American Right claims that Muslim-Americans, who comprise just 1% of the population, are subverting the Constitution and taking over the country. These accusations have helped to foster anti-Muslim hostility, reflected in the rise of anti-Muslim prejudice and increased attacks on Muslim-Americans and houses of worship. Tied in with hatred of President Obama, fear of religious diversity and hostility toward immigrants and gays, anti-Muslim rhetoric and paranoia has become a mainstream if not ubiquitous part of the conservative movement and the Republican Party.

As Rep. Peter King (R-NY) holds a third round of polarizing hearings targeting American Muslims, expect the Right Wing to ratchet up its anti-Muslim rhetoric, misrepresenting the Muslim faith and denigrating the Muslim-American community. King and his allies claim that Muslim-Americans are using both peaceful and violent means to destroy America and curtail the nation’s freedoms, and argue that Americans must curtail Muslims’ liberties and freedoms in order to stop them.

Frame Muslim-Americans as dangerous to America

The anti-Muslim paranoia that has swept the conservative movement rests on the claim that Muslim-Americans represent a “fifth column” working to bring about America’s downfall. With sweeping and cutting rhetoric, anti-Muslim activists claim that all or nearly all Muslim-Americans support terrorism, violence, the abuse of women and the abrogation of American law and ideals. As in previous generations when minority religious, ethnic and political groups were demonized, the end goal of vilification is to sanction and encourage persecution – while scoring political points for those peddling irrational fears.

Anti-Muslim activists vigorously work to define Muslim-Americans as an internal threat that must be stopped in order to prevent America’s destruction. David Yerushalmi, one of the country’s leading anti-Muslim propagandists and general counsel of the far-right Center for Security Policy, claims, “Muslim civilization is at war with Judeo-Christian civilization…The Muslim peoples, those committed to Islam as we know it today, are our enemies.” According to Yerushalmi, the only way to defeat “our enemies” is to make it a crime to be Muslim. He proposes that:

- It shall be a felony punishable by 20 years in prison to knowingly act in furtherance of, or to support the, adherence to Islam.
- The Congress of the United States of America shall declare the US at war with the Muslim Nation or Umma.
- The President of the United States of America shall immediately declare that all non-US citizen Muslims are Alien Enemies under Chapter 3 of Title 50 of the US Code and shall be subject to immediate deportation.
- No Muslim shall be granted an entry visa into the United States of America.

Twist statistics and use fake research to “prove” the Muslim threat

Anti-Muslim activists try to give themselves credibility by bolstering their frenzied rhetoric with studies and investigations that purport to show the immense threat posed by Muslim-Americans. Sarah Posner of Religion Dispatches refers to the numerous activists, organizations and media personalities that either started or reenergized their careers by attacking Muslims as the “Sharia conspiracy theory industry” for its insidious, and lucrative, nature.

Invent the danger of “creeping Sharia”

One of the more absurd claims employed by anti-Muslim activists is that American judges are being compelled to follow Sharia law (or Islamic law) and that Muslims are advocating the creation of Sharia courts in America. Despite the lack of any evidence to back up these claims, anti-Sharia paranoia is spreading. Oklahoma passed an anti-Sharia law by popular referendum in 2010, and numerous other state legislatures are poised to pass similar legislation.

“Defend liberty” by taking freedoms away from Muslims

With unintentional irony, anti-Muslim activists demand the country strip Muslims of their freedoms in order to defend freedom for all. Criticizing U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for pledging “a return to robust civil rights enforcement and outreach in defending religious freedoms,” Gaffney argued that “radical Muslims have proved adept at using such rights to thwart legitimate surveillance and other countermeasures by law enforcement,” and therefore those rights should be dispensed with.

Rep. Gohmert wants to end birthright citizenship for all children born on U.S. soil, claiming that Muslim immigrants come to the U.S. to give birth so their children can have citizenship and return later to commit acts of terrorism. Republican Reps. Ed Royce and Gary Miller of California attended ACT! for America’s notorious anti-Muslim demonstration in Orange County, California, framed as a “pro-America rally,” where hecklers harassed, jeered, and yelled at Muslim families and children attending a charity dinner. ,

Geller of Stop Islamization of America claimed that if Muslims are allowed the same rights as all Americans, they will “impose Islam” on the country and take away everyone else’s rights through “Islamic supremacism.” “I am telling you, your basic freedoms are under attack,” Geller said.

Claim that Islam is not a religion

Anti-Muslim activists must somehow reconcile their claim that they are actually protecting freedom in America with their efforts to restrict religious freedom for Muslim-Americans. Their audacious solution: to claim that Islam is not a religion, but a deadly political ideology.

Rep. West alleges that Islam is “not a religion” but a “theo-political belief system and construct” that must be destroyed. Similarly, Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition defended the King hearings by insisting that “Islam is a geo-political military system wrapped in a cloak of religious belief.”

Maintain that Muslims have no First Amendment rights under the Constitution

Anti-Muslim activists argue that because Islam is not a religion, Muslim-Americans are not protected by the First Amendment’s religious liberty provisions. In the worldview of anti-Muslim activists, American Muslims intend to use, or abuse, America’s freedoms to empower their own “totalitarian” ideology. Gaffney writes: “Our enemies are using our tolerance of religion to create an infrastructure of mosques here that incubate the Islamic holy war called jihad” as part of a “stealthy ‘civilization jihad’ in this country.”

Full report here: http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/the-right-wing-playbook-anti-muslim-extremism

Brown Bomber

Take a bow son Easily the best thread I've seen on boards. It's modern-day McCarthyism. Don't expect everyone to "get it" though. The US economy is crocked, to preserve it status as the sole superpower the US needs war. To engage in war you need an enemy. Demonising Muslims gives the perception to the masses of an enemy.

Channel Zero

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Take a bow son Easily the best thread I've seen on boards.

Er thanks.:o. *cough* (Didn't write it all myself or anything. It's just copied directly from source.)

It's modern-day McCarthyism. Don't expect everyone to "get it" though. The US economy is crocked, to preserve it status as the sole superpower the US needs war. To engage in war you need an enemy. Demonising Muslims gives the perception to the masses of an enemy.

It all ties in with that; most definitely. And they're also operating in our neck of the woods of course.

The first worldwide counter-jihad initiative will begin August 4 with the First Annual Global Counter Jihad rally in Stockholm, Sweden. Representatives from Stop Islamization of Nations (SION), Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), Stop Islamisation of Europe (SIOE), the English Defence League (EDL), and allied groups will speak.
The Global Counter Jihad rally will feature the president of SION and executive director of SIOA, Pamela Geller, as well as SION Vice President and SIOA associate director Robert Spencer. Also speaking will be the EDL’s Tommy Robinson, SIOE’s Anders Gravers, and other worldwide leaders from official Stop Islamization and Defence League groups.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40469_Robert_Spencer_and_Pamela_Geller_to_Appear_Alongside_EDLs_Tommy_Robinson/comments/

Here's Hartmann again grilling Pam Geller:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z-Py-WkOMI

And just to add, this is in no way an attempt to exonerate Breivik or anything like that.

Channel Zero

Brown Bomber wrote: »

To engage in war you need an enemy. Demonising Muslims gives the perception to the masses of an enemy.

Oh do expand on that a bit if you have time. Your research on this is always impeccable.

It came up on another thread just the other day anyway. The war on of terror. The military-industrial complex. The surveillance industry. All are huge cash cows for the people concerned. And the oil of course.

There are so many facets to this. From the third-rate shills and bloggers like Geller, Horowitz and Harris to mentally retarded fearmongers like Beck and O'Reilly.
From the Koch brothers to the Murdoch media empire to so-called "respected authorities" like Niall Ferguson and his lovely wife Hirsi Ali.

There is a definite nexus between right wing/zionist/libertarian/free market fanboy/tea party/objectivists and anti-Islam/Islamophobia.

Torakx

I couldnt argue against this if i tried. I dont know how that woman did so well in that interview, she is very intelligent.
I dont agree with everythign Hartmann says but overall he makes alot of good points.

Im curious though if this is an attempt to distract things away from a "progressive" government like Norway.
What is progressive about them or what does progressive stand for?
Honest question there.I hear the word but cant attribute anything to it only that it means moving forward.
In what direction is what i would be concerned about mostly.

I can also see the lone wolf theory beign sound.
I myself on occasion have felt quite irritated at what some people are doing around the world.
I just happen to be smart enough to know my life is worth more to me than to waste it on one useless act of actual terrorism on innocents.
So i can see how this tactic could work.You just need mass media to reach the right mind and there are plenty of websites and forums im sure propegating terrorism supposedly in the name of freedom.

Great thread, took me a while to post because i wanted to spend time to actually watch that vid and think about it.

Interesting word stochastic.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stochastic
sto·chas·tic

   [stuh-kas-tik] Show IPA
adjective Statistics . of or pertaining to a process involving a randomly determined sequence of observations each of which is considered as a sample of one element from a probability distribution.

I first thought it was based off stoic lol

Brown Bomber

Channel Zero wrote: »

There is a definite nexus between right wing/zionist/libertarian/free market fanboy/tea party/objectivists and anti-Islam/Islamophobia.

Sure is. I've begun to make an attempt to map the network. This is literally just a single branch.

Brown Bomber

Torakx wrote: »

Im curious though if this is an attempt to distract things away from a "progressive" government like Norway.
What is progressive about them or what does progressive stand for?

Norway is tremendously wealthy due to it's oil (and other industries) and relatively low population. This wealth has enabled them to maintain their soveriegnity and independence by staying out of the EU / EURO and the tentacles of the banksters- their coastline is their own for fishing, they can have an independent foreign policy etc. The Scandavian countries have their millionaires, yacht owners etc but they don't have the same level of suffering at the other end of the scale that would be seen in the US for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

A Primal Nut

So, for example, if I complain about the treatment of women by extreme Muslims, I could be accused of Stochastic Terrorism when something like the murders in Norway takes place?

What about if people complain about the treatment of Palestinians by extreme Jews; could they be accused of Stochastic Terrorism when a suicide bomb goes off in Israel?

Or if someone criticises the Catholic Church for being homophobic, and someone bombs a Catholic Church, would that be an example?

Brown Bomber

Channel Zero wrote: »

Oh do expand on that a bit if you have time.

The US in in perpetual war. This is due in part to the US electoral system and the immense profits of the war industry who fund the campaigns of Senators/Congressmen who expect to be paid back. The US has indirectly or directly killed more innocent civilians each year of my life, including 2001, than Islamic extremism. The US as the sole global military superpower is devoid of legitimate enemies but at the same it time needs to justify it's insane military budgets to it's taxpayers so they need to create enemies. Before it had been the Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, and Communists, today it is Muslims, tomorrow who knows?

What is known is that the media, itself tied in financially with the military industries will be part of the demonising. What is also known is that the majority will gullibly accept the propoganda and lies as fact and give their tacit approval of the demonisation and dehumanisation of XYZ, and become armchair activists and useful idiots for the imperialists by partaking in racist propoganda campaigns like "draw XYZ day". Neologisms will be the order of the day - "creeping Africanism" racial profiling of African terrorists etc.

It's all based in ignorance anyway, few people know or care that Mossadeq was a democratically elected secularist leader of Iran who overthrown by British/US. This is what led to Sharia law in Iran. Much like western support of the Mujahadeen and jihad led to Al Qaeda or that NATO backed jihadis in Kosovo and even today in Libya and Syria.

Naturally the wars of aggression creates resistance and anger. Think about it...If a foriegn power was killing your countrymen and women from the skies on a regular basis, such as the drone attacks in Pakistan, wouldn't you be outraged...? I would.

It's when the media spins these kind of events to make it look like these outraged people are Islam-fueled lunatics and not legitimately angry that the dehumanisation plays it's part. We don't see people who are rightfully angry and protesting over say the targetting of a Pakistani school which killed innocent children, we see irrational, backward, Islamic crazies who are mad because we exist as infidels. And the next time we kill them, it won't be the same in the collective consciousness of killing a white, westerner. The dehumanisation plays on our own misplaced arrogance that we, in the west are culturally superior as the children of the enlightenment and we have a near obligation to enlighten the rest of the backward world.

Brown Bomber

A Primal Nut wrote: »

So, for example, if I complain about the treatment of women by extreme Muslims, I could be accused of Stochastic Terrorism when something like the murders in Norway takes place?

What about if people complain about the treatment of Palestinians by extreme Jews; could they be accused of Stochastic Terrorism when a suicide bomb goes off in Israel?

Or if someone criticises the Catholic Church for being homophobic, and someone bombs a Catholic Church, would that be an example?

You need to seperate legitimate criticism (above) and lies and propoganda targetting a specific group.

A Primal Nut

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You need to seperate legitimate criticism (above) and lies and propoganda targetting a specific group.

A bit like the obsessive targeting of Israelis and Zionists by Conspiracy Theorists? They seem to spend much more of their time thinking up ways to make Jews look bad than the western media do towards Muslims. It seems like every successful/famous Jew has been the target of baseless accusations of wanting to take over the world or something similar. Even the most extreme neocons and zionists haven't targeted muslims individually like conspiracy theorists target jews. Every jew with any slight link to the WTC has been accused of being a part of a conspiracy to kill thousands. I'm sure that has just as much chance of causing a chance of terrorist attack as does the anti-Islam hatred.

I'm not an Israeli supporter in the land dispute by the way, but I obviously don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories that every successful jew wants to take over the world either.

Brown Bomber

A Primal Nut wrote: »

A bit like the obsessive targeting of Israelis and Zionists by Conspiracy Theorists?

No. How is that anyway like what I'd said?

A Primal Nut wrote: »

They seem to spend much more of their time thinking up ways to make Jews look bad than the western media do towards Muslims.

Who does? And could be more specific? And "time spent" is only a part of the overall impact.

A Primal Nut wrote: »

It seems like every successful/famous Jew has been the target of baseless accusations of wanting to take over the world or something similar.

And?

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Even the most extreme neocons and zionists haven't targeted muslims individually like conspiracy theorists target jews.

Yes they have, you just haven't being paying attention. A recent example:

WASHINGTON -- Forty-two religious and secular organizations united on Thursday in condemning conservative lawmakers' allegations that Muslim-American individuals connected to the U.S. government may be trying to spread the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood.


They directed their criticisms at Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Thomas Rooney (R-Fla.) and Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.), who recently wrote to various government agencies and asked them to investigate the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood. In their letters, the lawmakers targeted top State Department official Huma Abedin and several advisers to the Department of Homeland Security.

They've even targetted Obama for being Muslim FFS.

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Every jew with any slight link to the WTC has been accused of being a part of a conspiracy to kill thousands. I'm sure that has just as much chance of causing a chance of terrorist attack as does the anti-Islam hatred.

Not likely, as the anti-Muslim message has the power of the mass-media behind it and elements of the political class. But what's your point??? That other groups of people are slandering some other groups?

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I'm not an Israeli supporter in the land dispute by the way, but I obviously don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories that every successful jew wants to take over the world either.

Me neither.

Torakx

I would imagine most if not all are judged on their actions and associations.
Wasnt Einstein jewish?
Although in saying that there is probably a Ct out there about him haha

I do think that there is a ampaign to tarnish the CT world and make it look like a hate fest.
There are racists and so on attaching themselves to it and i believe also psy ops(if thats the right word) are getting innvolved to muddy those waters too..Alex Jones et al.

So yes their are going to be people who just target jews and then there are people who appear to target jews when it just so happens alot of the big names involved are jewish.

Its like saying people are attacking Americas rep all the time...but they keep sticking their dirty fingers into everything....

From what ive seen over the years the majority if not all on this forum are not racist etc but just calling it as they see it.
I also use the word jew sometimes recently in posts as the perfect example of over the top modding and taboo hysteria.

Anyway great discussion, keep em coming.
Also BB that chart is awesome!

I like how just being cited by one nut is enough to tie someone into this network. Seems totally fair.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

I like how just being cited by one nut is enough to tie someone into this network. Seems totally fair.

Nut? Nah...sane, legally sane. You should watch the news.

I wonder where Breivik got the impression that he was in the midst of a war...hmmm

Brown Bomber

Torakx wrote: »

s a ampaign to tarnish the CT world and make it look like a hate fest.
There are racists and so on attaching themselves to it and i believe also psy ops(if thats the right word) are getting innvolved to muddy those waters too..Alex Jones et al.

Your instincts are correct. A prime example is Nazi, anti-semetic, racist etc conspiracy theorist figure and radio host Hal Turner. Turns out Hal was working for the FBI all along. The turd in the punchbowl.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Turner#FBI_Informant

Torakx wrote: »

Also BB that chart is awesome!

Cheers . It's just the beginning of what I hope will be a much larger project. It goes much further, and the connections are a lot stronger. I'm trying to learn as I go along. On the original all the different arrows and people/groups linked to outside material but I could only publish the map as an image.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Nut? Nah...sane, legally sane. You should watch the news.

I wonder where Breivik got the impression that he was in the midst of a war...hmmm

That's great, but doesn't address my point.
Simply being cited by some crackpot is not enough to implicate someone in a supposed network.

It's as silly as implying that the Beatles were involved in an anti black network because they were cited by Charles Manson.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

That's great, but doesn't address my point.

Yes it does, in part. You said he was a "nut". A court has found him sane. Your amateur diagnosis is worthless. Do you agree?

King Mob wrote: »

Simply being cited by some crackpot is not enough to implicate someone in a supposed network.

:rolleyes: Changing "nut" to "crackpot" doesn't make you any less wrong.

King Mob wrote: »

It's as silly as implying that the Beatles were involved in an anti black network because they were cited by Charles Manson.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes it does, in part. You said he was a "nut". A court has found him sane. Your amateur diagnosis is worthless. Do you agree?

:rolleyes: Changing "nut" to "crackpot" doesn't make you any less wrong.

Again, not the thrust of my point. The guy is not indicative of how most people view the writings of the people he cites.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

I will for as long as you fail to address it.

Being cited by someone does not make a person involved in a network or conspiracy.
And if this is indicative of the poor criteria you are using, it calls into question just how strong the other links in this chain actually are.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Again, not the thrust of my point. The guy is not indicative of how most people view the writings of the people he cites.

Evidently, and not for the first time sadly you haven't the first idea of what you are talking about despite your shallow attempts at speaking with authority.

Bar actually carrying out the terrorist attack (the solution) his views on Islam are exactly the same of those he cited in his manifesto, and of those who frequent the same sites.

King Mob wrote: »

I will for as long as you fail to address it.

Being cited by someone does not make a person involved in a network or conspiracy.
And if this is indicative of the poor criteria you are using, it calls into question just how strong the other links in this chain actually are.

Do yourself a favour...notice how many people are included SOLELY due to citation by Breivik. IT'S TWO. And that is only because it is a work in progress. I didn't respond earlier because why should I if you are not prepared to apply due diligence to what we are discussing?

Channel Zero

Thanks for the great info so far BB! The chart is very good and helps to paint a clear picture. Though as you said it's only a small part of it and needs to be expanded to encompass the true scale of it.

Your post on perpetual war is spot on the money aswell; stuff that i was very much aware of and in agreement with anyway, but i couldn't have described it better. The two subjects are intertwined and have a symbiotic relationship to each other, so you were dead right to mention it straight away.

Torakx wrote: »

I couldnt argue against this if i tried. I dont know how that woman did so well in that interview, she is very intelligent.

She is indeed, but she got showed up nicely imo. Did you catch her veiled threat of litigation near the start hehe? She sort of lost the plot then for the rest of it and started rambling.

A Primal Nut wrote: »

A bit like the obsessive targeting of Israelis and Zionists by Conspiracy Theorists? They seem to spend much more of their time thinking up ways to make Jews look bad than the western media do towards Muslims.

You're right in that the topic need not be just about Breivik and Islamophobia.

But maybe you could be a bit more specific and not just imply (intentionally or not) that all so-called 'conspiracy theorists' are anti-semites or vice-versa.
Or that any discussion about Zionism or Israel puts you into this category by default.

Brown Bomber

From today's LA Times:

The Islamophobia that led Breivik to his ruinous binge, for example, came from his digestion of the writings of several anti-Muslim activists, including bloggers Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, who head the group Stop the Islamization of America. Breivik mentioned them in his 1,500-page manifesto, posted online. The pair has agitated some of the country's nastiest displays of prejudice. Their bus advertisements equating the Palestinian cause with jihad created a stir in New York and San Francisco, and they fanned the flames of the uproar over the Park51 Islamic Community Center in 2010.


Damningly, they see their mission as Breivik saw his: They call themselves "freedom fighters" on a valorous journey to save the world from Muslims. But when it was publicized that the Norway killer mentioned Spencer and Geller in his writings, they cried foul. "Clearly this individual is insane," Spencer wrote on his blog. After Breivik's initial psychological evaluation Geller expressed relief, writing, that Breivik was "declared certifiably insane, which was evident by his actions and his ten-years-in-the-making manifesto."


The magnitude of Breivik's butchery was apparently sufficient evidence of his psychosis. No normal person, in Geller and Spencer's view, would ever do such a thing. But only if that person is not a Muslim. When Muslims engage in violence, they are represented by Islamophobes as ordinary believers acting in a way that aligns with tenets of their faith, not fringe lunatics whose delusional religious interpretations lead them to a monstrous end. Though Spencer and Geller denounced Breivik's violence, they never rejected his anti-Muslim ideas. And that is a problem.
The Norwegian court's verdict, which means that Breivik will spend at least 21 years behind bars (and probably much more), underscores the need for society to address those who promote hatred and jabber about the evils of multiculturalism and the looming clash of civilizations. It proves that amplified racism, which carves society into fragments and pits them against one another, has real consequences and reaches the minds of rational thinkers who absorb such narratives and take them to their logical conclusions.


Trying to wish away intolerance and bigotry may be convenient but it is costly. During Breivik's trial, a right-wing extremist testified that he knew of nearly 100 other people who share the killer's views and supported his massacre.


Chillingly, this month Czech police raided the apartment of and arrested one such apparent supporter. They discovered a bomb, automatic weapons, police uniforms, a detonator and 400 rounds of ammunition.
The discourse of hate must be stopped before it affects other extremists quietly waiting for an opportunity to be lauded as heroes.

Channel Zero

From Counterpunch yesterday:

"Islamophobia in America" by Fawzia Afzal-Khan.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/24/islamophobia-in-america/

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Evidently, and not for the first time sadly you haven't the first idea of what you are talking about despite your shallow attempts at speaking with authority.

Bar actually carrying out the terrorist attack (the solution) his views on Islam are exactly the same of those he cited in his manifesto, and of those who frequent the same sites.

But most people who do share his views do not commit violence.
There's many a racist who would share your view that the media is being controlled by people of a certain ethnic background and more than likely cite some of the same sources you do.
Does this lessen or invalidate your point?
Does this make it fair to lump you in with them?
Does that make you and them and your sources all part of the same network?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Do yourself a favour...notice how many people are included SOLELY due to citation by Breivik. IT'S TWO. And that is only because it is a work in progress. I didn't respond earlier because why should I if you are not prepared to apply due diligence to what we are discussing?

Read: that's the only connection you can find to tie those people into this "network".

And it calls into question what the point of having Breivik in this chart at all. Other than a clear attempt to smear people you don't like of course.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

But most people who do share his views do not commit violence.

sigh...see the point of this thread.

King Mob wrote: »

There's many a racist who would share your view that the media is being controlled by people of a certain ethnic background and more than likely cite some of the same sources you do.
Does this lessen or invalidate your point?
Does this make it fair to lump you in with them?
Does that make you and them and your sources all part of the same network?

hmmm.. ain't it funny that as soon as anyone starts talking about Muslims and Islamophobia you bring Jews into it?

1. Zionist is not an ethnic group?
2. If a racist said 2+2=4 and I independently also did we would both be right.

King Mob wrote: »

Read: that's the only connection you can find to tie those people into this "network".

And it calls into question what the point of having Breivik in this chart at all. Other than a clear attempt to smear people you don't like of course.

No it doesn't. Breivik was a huge admirer of most of the people in the chart. He suggested Hirshi Ali for the Nobel Peace Prize for example. He idolised Spencer. Travelled to England to hear Geert Wilders and held meetings with the EDL, held correspondences with Geller, had online conversations with Fjordman etc.

Though none of the above can be directly blamed it is hard to imagine Breivik, a man of sound mind carrying out his deadly attacks if his hatred hadn't been brought to boiling point.

Please, get back in your box. You have no idea what you are talking about, are focusing in on an incomplete list, are shifting the goalposts and all in all wasting my time.

Actually, what is your verdict on the cause of Breivik's hatred which led him to kill people?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

hmmm.. ain't it funny that as soon as anyone starts talking about Muslims and Islamophobia you bring Jews into it?

1. Zionist is not an ethnic group?
2. If a racist said 2+2=4 and I independently also did we would both be right.

I bring the Jews up because every single objection and accusation you bring up about this supposed network can be turned around against you.

You use the fact that Brevik agreed with these people to smear them. But the fact that other disreputable people agree with your opinions somehow isn't a bad thing.
You claim that writing about Islam taking over and dehumanising muslims leads to violence, while at the same time you write about Zionism taking over and "dehumanising" Jews and Israelis in the same way you accuse others of doing.

I bring it up because you are essentially arguing against yourself.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No it doesn't. Breivik was a huge admirer of most of the people in the chart. He suggested Hirshi Ali for the Nobel Peace Prize for example. He idolised Spencer. Travelled to England to hear Geert Wilders and held meetings with the EDL, held correspondences with Geller, had online conversations with Fjordman etc.

Though none of the above can be directly blame it is hard to imagine Breivik, a man of sound mind carrying out his deadly attacks if his hatred hadn't been brought to boiling point.

Please, get back in your box. You have no idea what you are talking about, are focusing in on an incomplete list, are shifting the goalposts and all in all wasting my time.

Great and I'm sure there's plenty of violent racists who agree with a ton of the writers and activists you support. But that does not connect them and you all together in the network does it? Nor is it fair to use such people to smear you and your "network".
It's a cheap dishonest tactic.

Maybe you should find more substantive evidence to link this supposed network together before publishing it. Otherwise it just make it look like you are grasping at straws.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Actually, what is your verdict on the cause of Breivik's hatred which led him to kill people?

Same thing that lead Charles Manson to think that the Beatles were predicting a race war. The same thing that leads people to believe the Jews are taking over the world.
Read stupid stuff and failed to think critically.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Great and I'm sure there's plenty of violent racists who agree with a ton of the writers and activists you support.

And which ones would they be?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And which ones would they be?

Go look on Stormfront etc under topics about Jewish conspiracies.
I'm sure there's plenty of posters there who post some of the same articles you post.

Does this invalidate what you post? Does this make you or the authors of the articles a part of a racist network?

Would you think it would be fair for someone to use the fact that racists buy into the same conspiracies theories you do to discredit you or the conspiracy?

And since the answers to these are "No", why do you think that it's ok for you to do all those things?

anniemcl

King Mob wrote: »

Go look on Stormfront etc under topics about Jewish conspiracies.
I'm sure there's plenty of posters there who post some of the same articles you post.

Unless you can provide examples, your questions are completely meaningless.

I went over to the StormFront website and can't find these Jewish conspiracies you're referring do..care to link them?

anniemcl

anniemcl wrote: »

Unless you can provide examples, your questions are completely meaningless.

I went over to the StormFront website and can't find these Jewish conspiracies you're referring do..care to link them?

From here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=73358877

Just do a quick search for ""It is one hundred percent certain that 9-11 was a Mossad operation -- period." - Dr. Sabrosky, US Army War College" And "Stormfront". It's the first result.
I'd feel dirty posting a link....

The same article is posted on both threads. BB liked the initial post then provided links to the same writer whom the racists at stormfront agree with.

So does being liked by racists lessen the point that writer had to make?
Does it reflect badly on him or on BB?
Does it make him or BB part of a racist network?

A Primal Nut

Channel Zero wrote: »

But maybe you could be a bit more specific and not just imply (intentionally or not) that all so-called 'conspiracy theorists' are anti-semites or vice-versa.
Or that any discussion about Zionism or Israel puts you into this category by default.

I'm not saying all conspiracy theorists are anti-semite. Some of them are and it certainly is prevalent in the CT community.

Here is an example:

http://www.iamthewitness.com/listeners/Jews.did.9-11--now.you.can.be.sure.htm

Any Jew with even a slight link to either the World Trade Centre or US government is accused of being part of the 9/11 conspiracy to kill thousands of people. No evidence for most of them. The fact they are jewish and linked to either the WTC or US government is enough evidence for many in the CT community.

The point is that could be accused of stirring up hate in the same way as those right-wing commentators do towards Muslims, and if they are guilty for influencing Breivik, then I would say certain CT Groups (particularly the 9/11 truth movement) could be accused of influencing attacks on Jews.

Also I found it interesting that BB quoted the LA Times criticising Islamophobia, in a thread where he claims that the mass media are behind the Islamophobic agenda. There are plenty of articles defending Islam against Islamophobic hysteria, much more than the number of articles promoting Islamophobia. If anything the media would be too afraid to appear Islamophobic.

Channel Zero

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I'm not saying all conspiracy theorists are anti-semite. Some of them are and it certainly is prevalent in the CT community.

Well first off just to say, like yourself apparently, i am also not a member of this famous 'CT community' you speak of that is constantly referred in here by some.

I had a quick look at your link; as in i read the headline of the first article. That was enough to get the picture. The author whoever they are would seem to be a contender for inclusion in this topic alright judging by the four words i did read, as it's anti-semitic.
If you're trying to somehow link that sort of thing by the 'CT community' (whoever they are) with discussions about zionism, Israel etc that occur here, then that's something i'm not really interested in discussing on this thread. I've been there on another forum recently. It bores me.
But if you have an theory on how criticising Israel's current administration and saying Jews want to take over the world are somehow one and the same, i'm all ears.

The terms CT community and conspiracy theorist are pejorative terms at this stage, often over-used here and elsewhere in a very transparent way to insult someones opinion, dismiss an argument or derail a discussion. It's a lazy meme at the end of the day.

The point is that could be accused of stirring up hate in the same way as those right-wing commentators do towards Muslims, and if they are guilty for influencing Breivik, then I would say certain CT Groups (particularly the 9/11 truth movement) could be accused of influencing attacks on Jews.

Have the 9/11 truth movement released a collective statement saying that they think Jews are responsible for the attacks? If they have done, maybe you might have a point. Otherwise you're grasping at straws a bit.

They seem to be a broad collection of people with differing opinions from what i've read here:

Adherents of the 9/11 Truth Movement claim that this accepted mainstream explanation of the 9/11 events contains significant inconsistencies which suggest, at the least, a cover-up, and at worst, complicity by insiders.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_movement

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

I bring the Jews up because every single objection and accusation you bring up about this supposed network can be turned around against you.

May I (RE!) introduce you to the "You Too Fallacy".

Also Known as: "You Too Fallacy" Description of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque


This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

<LI data-iceapw="5">Person A makes claim X. <LI data-iceapw="17">Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
1. Therefore X is false.

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

Now that we have established that your argument is a fallacy we can discuss an otherwise interesting topic?

If you want to discuss me PM me.

King Mob wrote: »

Maybe you should find more substantive evidence to link this supposed network together before publishing it. Otherwise it just make it look like you are grasping at straws.

Maybe you should educate yourself on a subject before you try to "debunk" it and be a real skeptic. There are other connections through the AEI and The Clarion Fund. Two organisations that you doubtlessly have no idea about. I told you that chart wasn't finished. Take it or leave it, but it's idiotic and redundant to criticise information for being incomplete when it is put forward as being incomplete.

Brown Bomber

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Also I found it interesting that BB quoted the LA Times criticising Islamophobia, in a thread where he claims that the mass media are behind the Islamophobic agenda. There are plenty of articles defending Islam against Islamophobic hysteria, much more than the number of articles promoting Islamophobia. If anything the media would be too afraid to appear Islamophobic.

And one swallow doesn't make a summer. If you haven't noticed the trend of anti-islam reporting you are not paying attention.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

May I (RE!) introduce you to the "You Too Fallacy".

Except that's not the argument I am making, nor does anything I've said fit that definition.
I am simply pointing out that you disagree with yourself and are accusing people of exactly what you are doing.
I'm not even arguing that either of your arguments are false, just hypocritical.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Maybe you should educate yourself on a subject before you try to "debunk" it and be a real skeptic. There are other connections through the AEI and The Clarion Fund. Two organisations that you doubtlessly have no idea about. I told you that chart wasn't finished. Take it or leave it, but it's idiotic and redundant to criticise information for being incomplete when it is put forward as being incomplete.

And again, you probably should have completed it before making scurrilous accusations.

Nor does it address whether or not Brevik's presence on the chart has any purpose other than to smear and make negative comparisons.
Your comments seem to indicate that it is the only reason and you realise that him citing people does not make them part of the "network".

Brown Bomber

"You Too Fallacy"

King Mob wrote: »

Except that's not the argument I am making, nor does anything I've said fit that definition.
I am simply pointing out that you disagree with yourself and are accusing people of exactly what you are doing.

:rolleyes:

Please, I am asking you nicely, don't spoil the thread, discuss the topic or not at all.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

"You Too Fallacy"

And In the thrid line of the post you quoted, which you left out, I explain that I am not using that argument to show that your claim is false.

I'm not arguing that you are wrong with that point, I'm showing how you are hypocritical.

I'm arguing that you are wrong because you are using tenuous and dishonest connections to tie people you don't like together.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Please, I am asking you nicely, don't spoil the thread, discuss the topic or not at all.

Ok then, choose from my other points which are all on topic but you don't seem to want to discuss.

What relevance does Brevik have other than as a smear?
What makes the claims against muslims Stochastic terrorism, but what you do with stories about your boogeymen is not?

enno99

Need to think a little more about this

Is this government/abc agencies initiating the search for lonewolves and steering them through the process and using a couple of handlers when the time is right to carry out the attack

Or is just flat out racists stirring the sh!t and hoping for the best

A Primal Nut

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And one swallow doesn't make a summer. If you haven't noticed the trend of anti-islam reporting you are not paying attention.

The few right-wing media outlets you mentioned in post 6 and post 15 does not represent the mainstream media or the media most people read every day. There is none of them that I'd come across on any kind of regular basis.

Torakx

A Primal Nut wrote: »

The few right-wing media outlets you mentioned in post 6 and post 15 does not represent the mainstream media or the media most people read every day. There is none of them that I'd come across on any kind of regular basis.

Pulled this off a bus last thursday.
Its a free newspaper in dublin and quite popular.

They (the Taliban) enforce the same strict interpretation of Islamic law that was imposed on all of Afghanistan during Taliban rule from 1996-2001.

Whats strange is there is not much to the story.
What you see on the front page is the story.I looked through it and the rest of the paper is full of local news,tv rubbish about popstars and celebrities etc.Some other Syria story about rebels..But the main headline...nada.

Just those two paragraphs on the middle right of the front page.

Make of it what you will.
some might say coincedance we just happen to be talign about it and i find a newpaper showing exactly said issue.
I am guessing this is a common thing.Because this is the only newspaper i picked up in about a year or so.
Maybe i just got lucky....

I might add too, when i saw the paper on the bus seat it was showing the sports page at the back facing up, which i have no interest in.
I was just curious about the latest propoganda lol

enno99

Stochastic terrorism



Had a think about this and here is what I think

That governments outlaw anything they cant control or twist it to fit their own adgenda
So this is nothing new to them and im sure they are using it for their own ends until its time to clamp down and bring everyone under the wider terrorist net

If we buy into the Stochastic terrorism rhetoric we are just helping them to put everyone in boxes that also have a terrorist stamp on them

Have no doubt that there are Islamaphobes/Anti-semites /Homophobes/ White supremacist's and all classes of hate mongers and they have a label should we be so quick to give them another one of terrorists

Although their message is abhorrant to everyone out side of their mindset but if it stays whitin the bounds of existing laws it is freedom of speech and the government dont have a war on freedom of speech (as much as they would like to ) but they do have a war on terror

The Hannity's /Beck's O'Reilly's while being despicable human beings are only mouthpieces for the system and spout what they are told when they are told. So they are not leaders and cant be likend to Bin Laden( therefore they are only part of this Stochastic terrorist network) but their masters on the other hand might fit the bill

If a scenario comes about that a bus full of Isreali children are murdered by a (lone Wolf) terrorist attack and the person responsible for the attack has been on the internet talking to you and others in a chat room critizing Isreal and Zionism and exchanging links to blogs /articles/ books by respected authors and journalists and so on

Will the ADL say it was just a lone wolf attack or will they scream it was an anti-semetic Stochastic terrorist network plot which includes you and the respected journalists/authors when in fact you are just an outspoken critic if Isreal/Zionism you can now be called a terrorist and there is a war on terror

I saw a Ron Paul video the other day where one of his top campaign people said something to the effect of
He was talking about a top Prosecutor who said show me 8 or10 lines of something you wrote and I will get you locked up in jail
(Il try find the link)
So have no doubt your words and meanings will be twisted to suit

I guess what Im trying to say should we be so quick to dish out a terrorist lable with whatever prefix or suffix



Could you be making a rod for your own back so to speak

Does that make any sense ?

Torakx

That makes ALOT of sense.
I always think something is fishy when the media is agreeing with me, this could be why in this case.

Fromthetrees

I would like to think Irish people are lucky enough to come at this objectively.
The OP comes at the issue from an American perspective where immigration from Muslim countries has led to little visible change to society. On the other hand immigration from Muslim countries has had an effect on European countries.
In France there's the banlieue défavoris which are considered outside the republic by the 'native' French and has helped give rise to the National Front, in the Netherlands there's Geert Wildeers party that actually was a part of the ruling government, in the UK you have over one hundred active Sharia courts which are opposed by UKIP,BNP,EDL and others, in Austria you have the Freedom Party of Austria who have a big percentage of seats in their main legislator who oppose Muslim immigration, the Swiss People's Party is opposed to the Islamisation of Switzerland and have 54 seats out of 200, ect.
To suggest that Islamaphobia is a conspiracy perpetuated by the US media and the global elite is retarded.

enno99

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I would like to think Irish people are lucky enough to come at this objectively.
The OP comes at the issue from an American perspective where immigration from Muslim countries has led to little visible change to society. On the other hand immigration from Muslim countries has had an effect on European countries.
In France there's the banlieue défavoris which are considered outside the republic by the 'native' French and has helped give rise to the National Front, in the Netherlands there's Geert Wildeers party that actually was a part of the ruling government, in the UK you have over one hundred active Sharia courts which are opposed by UKIP,BNP,EDL and others, in Austria you have the Freedom Party of Austria who have a big percentage of seats in their main legislator who oppose Muslim immigration, the Swiss People's Party is opposed to the Islamisation of Switzerland and have 54 seats out of 200, ect.
To suggest that Islamaphobia is a conspiracy perpetuated by the US media and the global elite is retarded.

So they would be OK with christians /jews and others coming from these countries

Brown Bomber

enno99 wrote: »

So they would be OK with christians /jews and others coming from these countries

• In France , National Front, Pro-Israel
• in the Netherlands there's Geert Wildeers party Pro-Israel
• in the UK UKIP, Don't know
  
• BNP, Not pro-Israel
  
• EDL Pro-Israel
• in Austria you have the Freedom Party of Austria Pro-Israel
• the Swiss People's Party Don't know
  

Brown Bomber

This:

Fromthetrees wrote: »

In France there's the banlieue défavoris which are considered outside the republic by the 'native' French and has helped give rise to the National Front, in the Netherlands there's Geert Wildeers party that actually was a part of the ruling government, in the UK you have over one hundred active Sharia courts which are opposed by UKIP,BNP,EDL and others, in Austria you have the Freedom Party of Austria who have a big percentage of seats in their main legislator who oppose Muslim immigration, the Swiss People's Party is opposed to the Islamisation of Switzerland and have 54 seats out of 200, ect.

Bares no relation to this:

Fromthetrees wrote: »

To suggest that Islamaphobia is a conspiracy perpetuated by the US media and the global elite is retarded.

What are you trying to get at?

Fromthetrees

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This:
Bares no relation to this:

What are you trying to get at?

I've copied and pasted some of what was said in the OP.
"Muslims are advocating the creation of Sharia courts in America despite the lack of any evidence to back up these claims, anti-Sharia paranoia is spreading."
To suggest it's simply paranoia that people fear Sharia courts is idiotic, there are over one hundred in the UK the last time I read about it. Point is, Sharia courts in the West are real, they are here, this fear maybe irrational but that's not the point, the OP is wrong.
"...the abuse of women"
To be a 'true' Muslim you have to abuse woman by western standards, woman are not equal to men and to say Muslims abuse woman is factual as opposed to scaremongering.
"Under the guise of defending freedom and American values, right-wing anti-Muslim activists are campaigning to prevent Muslim-Americans from freely worshiping and practicing their religion, curtail their political rights, and even compel their deportation."
This is what many of the anti Muslim elected representatives want in Europe.

Brown Bomber

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I've copied and pasted some of what was said in the OP.
"Muslims are advocating the creation of Sharia courts in America despite the lack of any evidence to back up these claims, anti-Sharia paranoia is spreading."
To suggest it's simply paranoia that people fear Sharia courts is idiotic, there are over one hundred in the UK the last time I read about it. Point is, Sharia courts in the West are real, they are here, this fear maybe irrational but that's not the point, the OP is wrong.

It is the point.

What is the issue with Muslims as a society solving civil matters on their own terms by choice?

Is there an issue with the FA handing out punishment to professional footballers/coaches/officials who are part of the society of the FA? If not, what is the difference?

Is there ever even the hint of the slightest noise being made about Halachic (Jewish) courts -something I personally have no problem with - that are currently operating freely in Europe and the US? What's the difference.

"...the abuse of women"
To be a 'true' Muslim you have to abuse woman by western standards, woman are not equal to men and to say Muslims abuse woman is factual as opposed to scaremongering.

Are you qualified to distinguish between a "true Muslim" and a non-true one?

Fromthetrees wrote: »

"Under the guise of defending freedom and American values, right-wing anti-Muslim activists are campaigning to prevent Muslim-Americans from freely worshiping and practicing their religion, curtail their political rights, and even compel their deportation."
This is what many of the anti Muslim elected representatives want in Europe.

And it is also what many of the anti-semitic elected representatives wanted in the third reich, and we all know what happened there...

Fromthetrees

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It is the point.

What is the issue with Muslims as a society solving civil matters on their own terms by choice?

Is there an issue with the FA handing out punishment to professional footballers/coaches/officials who are part of the society of the FA? If not, what is the difference?

Is there ever even the hint of the slightest noise being made about Halachic (Jewish) courts -something I personally have no problem with - that are currently operating freely in Europe and the US? What's the difference.


Are you qualified to distinguish between a "true Muslim" and a non-true one?


And it is also what many of the anti-semitic elected representatives wanted in the third reich, and we all know what happened there...

The OP said,
"Muslims are advocating the creation of Sharia courts in America despite the lack of any evidence to back up these claims, anti-Sharia paranoia is spreading."
It's not paranoia, it's happening in the UK, it's not some abstract fear of something that's not possible, it's real, that's the point.
I think we all should live under one legal system which treats everyone equally but that's a separate point.
The FA is an organisation, not a society, that's a big difference. We all live in society in this state. If the FA had an inherently sexest ruling system in place I would guess some people would have a problem with them too.
I would guess a true Muslim is anyone who describes themselves as one for a start.
Why do you think there has been a rise in anti Muslim parties in Europe? Do you think there's a conspiracy behind it?
To me the reasons are self evident.

Brown Bomber

Fromthetrees wrote: »

The OP said,
"Muslims are advocating the creation of Sharia courts in America despite the lack of any evidence to back up these claims, anti-Sharia paranoia is spreading."
It's not paranoia, it's happening in the UK, it's not some abstract fear of something that's not possible, it's real, that's the point.

And I have previously suggested that it is an abstract fear. To be "fearful" implies actual danger. To be fearful without actual danger is paranoia. So what I am asking you again is:

What is the issue with Muslims as a society solving civil matters on their own terms by choice?

Fromthetrees wrote: »

The FA is an organisation, not a society, that's a big difference. We all live in society in this state. If the FA had an inherently sexest ruling system in place I would guess some people would have a problem with them too.

The FA is a society.

SOCIETY. A society is a number of persons united together by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose.

Again, do you have any issue with top brass of the FA handing out punishments to it's members, who have decided to opt-in to this society for breaches of FA rules?

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Why do you think there has been a rise in anti Muslim parties in Europe? Do you think there's a conspiracy behind it?
To me the reasons are self evident.

Xenophobia, bigotry, fear of the "other", ignorance of Islam, and an effective and well-funded disinformation campaign.

More to the point: "Why do you think there has been a rise in anti Muslim parties in Europe?"

You seem to trying to frame Islamophobia as the fault of Muslims, for making people hate them due to their own actions. Is this the case? If so, is it also the case with anti-semitism? i.e. the Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves.

Fromthetrees

What is the issue with Muslims as a society solving civil matters on their own terms by choice?

Equality. Equality before the law is vitally important to a country/state. It means that I am treated the same way as you and the same as a Polish person and the same as a black person and the same as a woman. If I go into a bank I should be able to get the exact same loan as a Muslim.
The fact that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man's is at odds with the laws of this land. You can't have parallel legal systems that contradict one another, the same law should be applied to everyone equally.
We're talking about the law of the land, not a group or sect. If the FA try to impose a punishment that is at odds with any law of this country than they would be stopped, simple as that.
The rise in anti Muslim parties in Europe would be down to racsism, failure to integrate, different customs and traditions and different religion, Islamic terrorism, wanting to preserve culture to name but a few.