Stochastic Terrorism

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.

Brown Bomber

Fromthetrees wrote: »

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.

You can, irregardless of Sharia councils in Iran, Britain, Ireland or anywhere else for that matter.

This doesn't explain the "non abstract fear" you have over Muslims volunteering to settle civil matters in a British Sharia council.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

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.

I agree with you, but you don't seem to understand that the Sharia councils in Britain are only given what power they have, and only have power over those that volunteer to be part of the process. I assume you will never do so, so what left is there to "fear"?

It's worth pointing out that the issues that you have with Sharia equally apply to Halachic (Jewish) law, whose adherents are obliged to thank God every day that they weren't born women or Gentiles.

For example,

Why can't a woman testify in court?
[FONT=arial, helvetica] The halacha disqualifies various classes of people from being judges or witnesses, but these disqualifications are not all for the same reason. A person who is in a position to give testimony about a case is required to appear in court; thus if a woman's testimony were acceptable, she could be forced to appear in court. [Similarly, a king cannot serve as either a judge or a witness.] Thus women are restricted for a constructive reason: to avoid interfering with their more important responsibilities. These disqualifications apply only to matters that require appearance in court; a woman's testimony is perfectly acceptable in matters involving religious law (issur ve-heter). The source that disqualifies women from testifying in court is Deut.19:17, which refers to people who appear in court as "men". The fact that a woman's testimony is valid in religious matters that don't involve a court is derived from Lev. 15:28, which says that a woman can count unclean days for herself. [/FONT]

We here virtually nothing of this, when it is essentially the same. Why do you think that is?

Fromthetrees wrote: »

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.

As would any effort by any Muslim groups to act in a way contrary to the law of the land. The Sharia Councils in Britain are used primarily to serve Islamic divorces. The parties involved still have to get a seperate civil divorce. Why do you care if two Muslims you have never met get an Islamic divorce? How is any "fear" of this rational? Surely it's their own business, and doesn't effect you?

Fromthetrees wrote: »

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.

Okay, and would you attribute the rise in anti-Semitism in the Third Reich to the same factors?

Fromthetrees

I'd assume not all parties that partake in Sharia courts are there voluntarily, I think it would be naive to say that societal expectations in Muslim communities in the West wouldn't play a part, to assume that people aren't forced to attend them would be wrong imo. I find it hard to believe that all woman go to these out of their own free will. Would you accept that?
I just dont believe all Muslim woman want to be be treated as second class citizens.
I would be against Jewish courts happening also,I don't agree with parallel legal systems being in force in the one nation. I think it undermines a countries laws.
What's to stop new religions setting up and ruling on civil matters, it sets a bad precedent. Where's the line in the sand?
I said it's easier for Irish people to discuss this because there just aren't many Muslims here, as in, it makes no difference to my/our lives. It still doesn't change my opinion on thinking Sharia courts and banks for Muslims isn't the best way to foster social cohesion.

Brown Bomber

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I'd assume not all parties that partake in Sharia courts are there voluntarily,

Why?
And how is a "fear" based on an "assumption" not an "abstract fear"?

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I think

...based on an assumption...

Fromthetrees wrote: »

it would be naive to say that societal expectations in Muslim communities in the West wouldn't play a part, to assume that people aren't forced to attend them would be wrong imo. I find it hard to believe that all woman go to these out of their own free will. Would you accept that?

It's possible certainly, but I think you need to understand more about the Sharia Councils in the UK to get the bigger picture. Many Muslims marriages are not civil unions but Islamic marriages. Take the example of a Muslim husband and wife where the husband has run off with another woman, or is abusive. The Muslim wife is obliged by her religion to stand by her husband until she gets divorced. The wife can liberate herself by making an application of divorce to the Sharia Councils. I fail to see the issue with this at all, or how it generates "fear" in you.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I just dont believe all Muslim woman want to be be treated as second class citizens.
I would be against Jewish courts happening also,I don't agree with parallel legal systems being in force in the one nation. I think it undermines a countries laws.

As would I, but the point I am trying to get through to you is that they are not parallell legal systems.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

What's to stop new religions setting up and ruling on civil matters, it sets a bad precedent. Where's the line in the sand?

Constitutions, common sense and public opinion and...

European Fatwa Council Urges Muslims To Respect Laws
By Ali Al-Halawani, IOL Correspondent

http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2004-07/11/article06.shtml

LONDON, July 11 (IslamOnline.net) - The European
Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR) wrapped up its
13th session late Saturday, July 10, with a call to
Muslims living in the West to abide by the laws in
their respective countries and respects the rights of
non-Muslims.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I said it's easier for Irish people to discuss this because there just aren't many Muslims here, as in, it makes no difference to my/our lives.

And how would Jewish/Muslim tribunals effect your (non Jewish/Muslim) life if you lived in the UK?

Fromthetrees wrote: »

thIt still doesn't change my opinion on thinking Sharia courts and banks for Muslims isn't the best way to foster social cohesion.

Maybe not, but that is a huge departure from your earlier statements that they are something to fear.

(btw the way...they are not banks for Muslims but Islamic banks)

Fromthetrees

I assumed that all women don't go to Sharia Courts entirely of their own free will, it seems painfully obvious to me.
Did a quick google search there, found a site called One Law for All with testimonials from woman confirming my assumption, it's not an abstract fear or paranoia if it's real.
The real fear lies in the bigger picture though with divided communities, 'no go areas', the rise of far right groups, politicians in elected governments openly calling for deportations and so on.
You keep making the point that religious courts won't effect me, I know, I still have an opinion on the matter though and I'm entitled to it, especially as it could effect Ireland in the future for all the reasons I've alluded to above.
There are many examples in the UK of Sharia Courts interfering in criminal cases.
It's easy to say they're voluntary and only deal with civil law, that's simply not always the case and that's why there needs to be a line in the sand, to me, the line stops at everyone being treated equally.

The Bishop!

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I would like to think Irish people are lucky enough to come at this objectively.

:rolleyes:
What does that mean exactly?

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.

:rolleyes:

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.

Touche. To suggest that Islamophobia is not a conspiracy perpetuated by interested actors is to me also 'retarded'

I hate using these little ****ers unless necessary but here you go, just for you::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Fromthetrees

The Bishop! wrote: »

:rolleyes:
What does that mean exactly?



:rolleyes:


Touche. To suggest that Islamophobia is not a conspiracy perpetuated by interested actors is to me also 'retarded'

I hate using these little ****ers unless necessary but here you go, just for you::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

If you could try articulate what I said that you think is wrong I'd respond.
Putting in smilies doesn't really mean anything unfortunately.

The Bishop!

Fromthetrees wrote: »

If you could try articulate what I said that you think is wrong I'd respond.
Putting in smilies doesn't really mean anything unfortunately.

Ok point taken, you're right. Bad way to have a discussion and you're entitled to your opinions what ever they are.

The first sentence you wrote here was: "I would like to think Irish people are lucky enough to come at this objectively."

I was just asking you to explain what you meant exactly by that, because it seems to clearly imply that Ireland or the Irish, by virtue of the fact that there are not as many Muslims living there as in some other European countries, are therefore 'lucky' and are also somehow more qualified to approach the matter objectively compared to others.
You might be forgiven for assuming that the statement belies a stance that having a Muslim community as a part of a population is undesirable or 'unlucky'.
Whatever about you opinions on if Ireland is lucky, it's strikes me as absurd that any given Irish person is any more qualified to be objective on this basis, or that someone from Germany would be less objective. It infers that a German would be biased (negatively?) because his or her country has a greater amount of Muslims per head of population than Ireland.

The OP comes at the issue from an American perspective where immigration from Muslim countries has led to little visible change to society.

Well, yes. The OP does come from a Stateside perspective to an extent because that's where the the characters we're discussing are based. Gaffney, Pipes, Spencer, Geller, Yerushalmi etc. That's where they peddle this stuff and that's where their target audience is. It's contriving a threat where no threat exists.

On the other hand immigration from Muslim countries has had an effect on European countries.

I'm not sure what this effect is that you speak of to be honest. If it's voluntary Sharia courts and Muslim banks, then i don't understand how this can be seen as a threat in any way unless one is opposed to multiculturalism and views it as a dilution of a nations identity or some crap like that you'd hear from a member of political groups you listed.

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

Why is it 'retarded' to suggest that Islamophobia is a conspiracy perpetuated by the people people mentioned? Why is it so retarded at all when the evidence is clearly there for the existence of this network; when the evidence is there that certain parts of the U.S. media and elswhere clearly push this narrative and most importantly, when the evidence is not there that these threats exist.
You see Islamophobia is being perpetuated, and it is a conspiracy from what i can see.

Are the actions of these characters solely responsible for Islamophobia? No, and i don't think anyone has said as much.
Perhaps i'm wrong, but what you seem to be getting at is that Islamophobia is a natural result of the spectre of Muslim immigration and/or the characteristics of the religion Islam. Irrational fears of outsiders will always exist to a certain extent. What's going on here in my view is the propagation or manipulation of those fears for other agenda's.

Fromthetrees

It's dangerous and naive to think anti Islamic sentiment in Europe is the sole construct of Zionist propagandists. Does that mean that Zionist propagandists don't push and peddle an anti Islamic agenda, of coarse not but that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the reasons behind it.
Many European countries have real issues with Islamic immigration, from what I understand the US doesn't, so to raise concerns in the US has less validity, but in Europe it's real.
Do you honestly think the Swiss or the Dutch populations are manipulated/brainwashed into voting for anti Islamic parties?
Do you think that Islamic terrorism in Europe hasn't had an effect on the psyche and voting patterns of the non Islamic voters? If your answer to this is conspiracy theories than I'm out of this because 7/7, 9/11 and Madrid isn't up for discussion in this thread.

Brown Bomber

Fromthetrees wrote: »

It's dangerous and naive to think anti Islamic sentiment in Europe is the sole construct of Zionist propagandists. Does that mean that Zionist propagandists don't push and peddle an anti Islamic agenda, of coarse not but that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the reasons behind it.
Many European countries have real issues with Islamic immigration, from what I understand the US doesn't, so to raise concerns in the US has less validity, but in Europe it's real.
Do you honestly think the Swiss or the Dutch populations are manipulated/brainwashed into voting for anti Islamic parties?
Do you think that Islamic terrorism in Europe hasn't had an effect on the psyche and voting patterns of the non Islamic voters? If your answer to this is conspiracy theories than I'm out of this because 7/7, 9/11 and Madrid isn't up for discussion in this thread.

If we take your logic as sound and if you are consistent then Julius Streicher should be posthumously acquitted on his conviction of crimes against humanity.

Julius Streicher was not a member of the military and did not take part in planning the Holocaust, or the invasion of other nations. Yet his pivotal role in inciting the extermination of Jews was significant enough, in the prosecutors' judgment, to include him in the indictment of Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal – which sat in Nuremberg, where Streicher had once been an unchallenged authority. In essence, the prosecutors took the line that Streicher's incendiary speeches and articles made him an accessory to murder, and therefore as culpable as those who actually ordered the mass extermination of Jews (such as Hans Frank and Ernst Kaltenbrunner).

Is this your position?
Do you believe the Nazi's anti-semtic propoganda machine was innefectual? (I don't)
That ultimately Jews brought anti-semitism onto themselves? (I don't)
If not, what is the difference?

Also, why is there no anti-Norwegian parties in Europe considering Breivik's terrorist attack? Why no anti-Christian Zionist parties? Why no moves to ban tradition Norwegian dress? By your logic it is warranted...

Brown Bomber

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I assumed that all women don't go to Sharia Courts entirely of their own free will, it seems painfully obvious to me.
Did a quick google search there, found a site called One Law for All with testimonials from woman confirming my assumption, it's not an abstract fear or paranoia if it's real.

A site with an agenda of it's own. It's run by a Communist agitator of the violent overthrow of the Islamic Iranian regime.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

The real fear lies in the bigger picture though with divided communities, 'no go areas', the rise of far right groups, politicians in elected governments openly calling for deportations and so on.

This "bigger picture" is merely a dystopian caricature painted by your own hand with rather broad brushstrokes.

Your fear comes from your own imagination.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

You keep making the point that religious courts won't effect me, I know, I still have an opinion on the matter though and I'm entitled to it, especially as it could effect Ireland in the future for all the reasons I've alluded to above.

In what way would a Sharia Council negatively effect Ireland? How would it effect Ireland anymore that the traditional traveller method of settling a beef where two traveller men meeting up and punch each other until someone quits?

That's a seperate culture that's within Ireland method of dispute resolution. Do you "fear" this?

Fromthetrees wrote: »

There are many examples in the UK of Sharia Courts interfering in criminal cases.
It's easy to say they're voluntary and only deal with civil law, that's simply not always the case and that's why there needs to be a line in the sand, to me, the line stops at everyone being treated equally.

I absolutely agree on the last point but I challenge you to present evidence of Sharia Councils in the UK ever affecting a UK criminal case in any way.