Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Infamous Islamophobe Geert Wilders funded by US Right-Wing

135

Comments

  • #62
    Jeboa Safari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I'm only going to say this one more time - I never said that a Muslim candidate can't be questioned on aspects of their faith. I said that Muslims, who have a constitutionally protected right, like every other American citizen of freedom of religion shouldn't be discriminated against because they are Muslims.
    So how is it discrimination? Gingrich has said he wouldn't support a candidate that espouses something he opposes, and would support a candidate who is a moderate. Surely thats his right in a democracy.
    studiorat wrote: »
    Some figures from the FBI's report on Hate crimes in 2010. Just to get a bit of perspective.



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



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



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

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

    Not only that, but the incidences of Islamic hate crime are down massively since 01-02 despite this massive plot he believes in.


  • #63
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,843 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    And if you wish to protest that you're not against all Jewish/Israeli people, then you have to realise that Wilders and his crowd make the same defense, they're not against Islam or Arabs, just the ones who are pushing radical Islam and jihadists.

    No KM Wilders is against Islam as a whole .... For him Islam is a Backward retarded Ideology

    And he receives plenty of funding from the states just to spread this gospel, they are trying everything possible to hide who is funding them. Recently a party member (Brinkman) left the party and he was in charge of finance and himself revealed where the Money was coming from, Problem with Wilders is the fact its not a democratically run party .. what he says goes, he got a lot of votes with his Islam phobia and at present is holding the current government in power with a support construction


  • #64
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    studiorat wrote: »
    None of the statistics support BB's claims and his use of Islamophobia for political point scoring is in itself racist because it attempts to "ghettoise" muslims for political gain.
    That's the most stupid thing I've heard in a long time.

    You do realise that your statistics reference reported hate crimes? Right?

    Did you even stop to consider that Muslims have no faith in the police because they are spied on, for being Muslim and racially profiled by the police and therefore don't report hate crimes against them?

    Police who are being brainwashed by anti-Islamic propaganda from our Neo-Zionist friends Adelson and Chernick of the Clarion Fund.
    A year later, police documents obtained under the state’s Freedom of Information Law reveal a different reality: “The Third Jihad,” which includes an interview with Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, was shown, according to internal police reports, “on a continuous loop” for between three months and one year of training.
    During that time, at least 1,489 police officers, from lieutenants to detectives to patrol officers, saw the film.

    ...
    The 72-minute film was financed by the Clarion Fund, a nonprofit group whose board includes a former Central Intelligence Agency official and a deputy defense secretary for President Ronald Reagan. Its previous documentary attacking Muslims’ “war on the West” attracted support from the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, a major supporter of Israel who has helped reshape the Republican presidential primary by pouring millions of dollars into a so-called super PAC that backs Newt Gingrich.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/nyregion/in-police-training-a-dark-film-on-us-muslims.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1
    Is it sinking in yet?

    This is from a 2009 EU study: http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/EU-MIDIS_MUSLIMS_EN.pdf
    1 in 10 of all Muslims surveyed said they were the victims of racially motivated crime at least once in the previous 12 months. Depending on their country of residence between 53% and up to 98% DID NOT report the crime. Of these, 43% said they did not report the crime because they were
    not confident the police would be able to do anything".


    40% of Muslims have been stopped by police in the last 12 months, on average 3 times.

    1 in 3 Muslims said they have been discriminated against in the last 12 months. 80% did not report the discrimination.


  • #65
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    And here are some more stats since you like them so much.
    Twenty-eight percent of voters do not believe Muslims should be eligible to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. Nearly one-third of the country thinks adherents of Islam should be barred from running for President — a slightly higher percentage than the 24% who mistakenly believe the current occupant of the Oval Office is himself a Muslim.

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2011799,00.html#ixzz1qsK1Qcvm
    • A quarter of Americans (26 percent) concede feelings of prejudice against Muslims, and
    just 37 percent express a favorable opinion of Islam overall – the fewest in ABC/Post
    polls dating to October 2001 (albeit by just 2 points). Forty-nine percent view the religion
    unfavorably – essentially the same as in the spring, but well up from its lows in 2002,
    when many were undecided.

    • Just 54 percent call it a peaceful religion, moreover, while a substantial minority, 31
    percent, thinks mainstream Islam encourages violence against non-Muslims. This view
    has held steady since 2003, after doubling from 2002.
    http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_cordoba_house_100908.pdf
    602-1.gif
    http://pewresearch.org/pubs/602/public-expresses-mixed-views-of-islam-mormonism
    Thirty-nine percent of respondents to the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll said they felt at least some prejudice against Muslims. The same percentage favored requiring Muslims, including U.S. citizens, to carry a special ID "as a means of preventing terrorist attacks in the United States." About one-third said U.S. Muslims were sympathetic to al-Qaeda, and 22% said they wouldn't want Muslims as neighbors.
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-08-09-muslim-american-cover_x.htm
    A plurality of Muslim students (43%) feel that Americans in general are respectful and tolerant towards them, yet a large majority (69%) also thinks that mainstream society is suspicious of them and nearly all of them (90%) feel that discrimination against Muslim Americans has increased since 9/11. It comes as no surprise then that 64% of the students think that a Muslim wearing Islamic attire would face discrimination in the workplace.

    With regard to actual experience, 36% of the students report having faced some form of discriminatory verbal incident at least once or twice (25%) or multiple times (11%) in the past 12 months. Private school students report dramatically more: half of the 83 students in the sample (55%) report being the object of an ethnic slur or being called a terrorist.
    Less common but no less upsetting is a host of other incidents experienced by either the students themselves or members of their families. For example, 28% of the students report being stopped by a law enforcement officer as a result of racial profiling; being turned down for a job (12%); having a possession damaged or destroyed (11%); and being physically assaulted (7%).
    http://www.tc.columbia.edu/i/media/6581_MUSNYCReport.pdf


  • #66
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Jeboa Safari wrote: »
    So how is it discrimination? Gingrich has said he wouldn't support a candidate that espouses something he opposes, and would support a candidate who is a moderate. Surely thats his right in a democracy.
    Oh for crying out loud. Why do you insist on asking the same stupid question over and over when I have already answered it numerous times. I said that it is discrimination to place extra conditions of Muslims because they are Muslims when their right to be Muslim is constitutionally protected.

    You seem to not have any clue you what you are talking about. You are confusing Hudud with Shariah. This article explains Shariah. Now that I have gone to the trouble of finding you a good link do us both a favour and read it.

    The anti-shariah campaign is run by David Yerushalmi - A "white supremacist"

    anti-Shariah...
    is the product of an orchestrated drive that began five years ago in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, in the office of a little-known lawyer, David Yerushalmi, a 56-year-old Hasidic Jew with a history of controversial statements about race, immigration and Islam. Despite his lack of formal training in Islamic law, Mr. Yerushalmi has come to exercise a striking influence over American public discourse about Shariah.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/us/31shariah.html?pagewanted=all

    Yerushalmi is also General Counsel for the anti-Islamic Center For Security Policy. Which is also funded by Neo-Zionist Aubrey Chernick.
    http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/staff.xml

    Any of this sinking in yet.......?

    If not take a look at it's Chief Operating Officer, Christine Brim who is a member of The Center For Vigilant Freedom, yet another anti-Islamic group whose have close links to the EDL.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    But that's not what I was asking for. That's just people you don't like doing something you don't like. (Assuming that this charge actually holds up.)
    I've explained the conspiracy. It's valid, and supported by evidence, get over it.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And then of course there the fact that not a single source you provide supports the idea that the people the accuse of Islamophobia are doing so people won't care about Muslims or support Israel or whatever.
    :rolleyes: Right, so it's just a coincidence that the paymasters of the organised Islamophobia industry are also pumping money into Zionist orgs that build illegal settlements on stolen Muslim land? It is a matter of some inconvenience to the Zionists that Muslims are living on the land that Zionists consider rightfully the property of the chosen and the only thing standing in their way of immediate forced expulsion from The Holy Land is international public opinion, specifically American and the same people behind expanding Greater Israel are also behind demonising the people who they want to illegally evict is coincidence.

    Why didn't I think of that...?

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

    Why bring up Zionism rather than the other factors?
    Zionist and right-wing is an appropriate description for ALL of the people that I have mentioned so far. I have used both interchangeably and appropriately. Get over it.

    This is like a bad joke but it very real. The right-wing Zionists (see how redundant that is) Pam Geller and Robert Spencer (both funded by Chernick) of Stop Islamisation of America(SIOA) joined forces with their European counterparts to form Stop Islamisation of Nations (SION)


    sion.jpg


    How amusing it must be for them to see British football hooligans attacking Muslims waving the flag of SION.


  • #68
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    1 in 10 of all Muslims surveyed said they were the victims of racially motivated crime at least once in the previous 12 months. Depending on their country of residence between 53% and up to 98% DID NOT report the crime. Of these, 43% said they did not report the crime because they did not trust the police.

    The report actually says "43% stated the main reason for this was that they were not confident the police would be able to do anything".

    Is this a purposeful lie that "they did not trust the police"? If it is it comes as no surprise considering the usual misleading and half truths we expect from your posts. I expect you will give us an explanation.

    For comparison, in Ireland only 25% of crimes are reported across the whole population! That means 75% DID NOT report! (Martina Devlin Irish Independent November 14 2001)

    The thing you don't understand Bomber espousing your fascist thought crime is what the statistics actually mean. You don't compare them to anything else, other minorities, the population as a whole for example.

    For example a similar sized gallup poll to the Time one tells us that 78% of black people in the US say racism is widespread. Another tells us 33% of Europeans hold anti-semitic beliefs.

    Discrimination is not the issue here, it exists across the board. But the double standards presented by Islamophobia "is cultural relativism and it implies an acceptance that men and women of Muslim culture are deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secularism in the name of the respect for certain cultures and traditions."


  • #69
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    studiorat wrote: »
    The report actually says "43% stated the main reason for this was that they were not confident the police would be able to do anything".

    Is this a purposeful lie that "they did not trust the police"? If it is it comes as no surprise considering the usual misleading and half truths we expect from your posts. I expect you will give us an explanation.
    It was a genuine mistake. I'll amend.
    studiorat wrote: »
    The thing you don't understand Bomberespousing your fascist thought crime is what the statistics actually mean. You don't compare them to anything else, other minorities, the population as a whole for example.

    For example a similar sized gallup poll to the Time one tells us that 78% of black people in the US say racism is widespread. Another tells us 33% of Europeans hold anti-semitic beliefs.

    Discrimination is not the issue here, it exists across the board. But the double standards presented by Islamophobia "is cultural relativism and it implies an acceptance that men and women of Muslim culture are deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secularism in the name of the respect for certain cultures and traditions."
    Why are you pretending that I deny anti-semtism, anti-black racism or any other form of bigotry. I don't.

    The topic is organised Islamophobia. You dodged the question I asked you earlier when I asked if you thought that Islamophobia was an actual phonemenon or a myth. I ask you again.


  • #70
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Brown Bomber wrote: »

    Why are you pretending that I deny anti-semtism, anti-black racism or any other form of bigotry. I don't.

    I'm not, I'm saying you are portraying this particular form of discrimination as something that's bigger than it is. It's a divisive argument, that's to say, intentionally or not it attempts to create divisions between people. It's an irrational concept, it purposefully confuses hatred and discrimination with criticism of Islam.

    If you look at the figures in the UK, Asians are stopped and searched roughly in proportion to their population once age structure is taken into account. All these figures are in the public domain and easily available. Yet not a single reputable journalist challenged the claim that Asians were being disproportionately stopped and searched. So pervasive is the acceptance of Islamophobia, that no-one even bothers to check if it is true.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    The topic is organised Islamophobia. You dodged the question I asked you earlier when I asked if you thought that Islamophobia was an actual phonemenon or a myth. I ask you again.

    It's portrayal of it is a myth, and it's organizers come from Wilders et al. as well as from people who are supposedly supporters of Muslims. Exaggerating anti-Muslim prejudice is useful to many people. The UK government that has faced a political battering over the war on Iraq and its anti-terror laws. Being sensitive to Islamophobia allows them to reclaim some of the moral high ground.

    For Muslim leaders, this threat consolidates their power in their own community and within wider society. Muslim leaders have openly talked about using Islamophobia in the same way that they perceive Jewish leaders have exploited fears about anti-Semitism.

    It's also identity politics and as such fractures the community, and therefore works against real opportunities for ending marginalization. The more that the threat of Islamophobia is exaggerated, the more that ordinary Muslims come to accept that theirs is a community under constant attack and so creates a this siege mentality.

    Finally take a look at someone like Polly Toynbee the Guardian reporter. And ask yourself is it fair for the Islamic Human Rights Commission to label her 'Islamophobe of the Year' along with Nick Griffin from the BNP. To me it just proves that the "thought crime" of Islamophobia is a convenient way for anyone with an interest in Muslim affairs, be they political or religious, to discredit their critics without entering into discussion.


  • #71
    Channel Zero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 333 ✭✭Channel Zero


    studiorat wrote: »
    For example a similar sized gallup poll to the Time one tells us that 78% of black people in the US say racism is widespread. Another tells us 33% of Europeans hold anti-semitic beliefs

    The obvious difference for me between Islamophobia and anti-black racism/ anti-semitism etc is this:
    Anti-black racism/anti-semitism or any form of racism, is not in any way culturally acceptable. It can rightly lead to prosecution and jail for proponents or publishers.

    However Islamophobia is held to a completely different standard; it is culturally acceptable.
    Getting away from the funding, it is propounded openly and publicly by 'respected' businessmen, politicians, religious leaders, athiest leaders and media leaders.
    You have reams of column inches and reports devoted in Western mainstream media like the Daily Mail, Fox news etc.
    It's big business; whether you're Geert Wilders trying to get elected by playing on peoples fears or Reverand Graham preaching hatred from his TV pulpit or Sean Hannity doing the same thing from his pulpit or the likes of Horowitz who is bought and paid for by his political friends (i have no proof of that whatsoever) or Sam Harris trying to flog his next book or fruitcakes like Pam Geller. The list is endless.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Channel Zero wrote: »
    The obvious difference for me between Islamophobia and anti-black racism/ anti-semitism etc is this:
    Anti-black racism/anti-semitism or any form of racism, is not in any way culturally acceptable. It can rightly lead to prosecution and jail for proponents or publishers.

    Islam is a religion, not an ethnicity.


  • #73
    Channel Zero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 333 ✭✭Channel Zero


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Islam is a religion, not an ethnicity.

    Both can be equally subject to bigotry and prejudice though.


  • #74
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,478 ✭✭✭wexie


    Channel Zero wrote: »
    However Islamophobia is held to a completely different standard; it is culturally acceptable.
    Getting away from the funding, it is propounded openly and publicly by 'respected' businessmen, politicians, religious leaders, athiest leaders and media leaders.

    While I completely agree with you that it's wrong, under the present circumstances it IS understandable. There have been numerous instances of high profile clerics more or less saying that the ultimate goal is to bring Islam to 'the masses' so to speak, whether or not they want it. Of course these are (hopefully) fringe lunatics, but they are getting lots of attention in the media.

    No doubt there are Jewish / Christian counterparts with similar (opposed) messages but they just get more good or less bad press. Probably because they have a message more palatable to our western media and more acceptable to the average Joe Public out there.
    If there were black/latino/gay/<insert favorite minority here> groups out there that were very vocal about their desire for 'world domination' you can bet that it wouldn't be long until it becomes quite socially acceptable to 'have a go' at these as well.

    The irony in all of this as I see it is that if the Muslim 'fanatics' were a bit more clever about bringing their message they'd probably be a lot more succesful. Seriously, we're talking about the culture where Big Mouth Billy Bass and Tamagotchi were world wide phenomonon's because of decent marketing.
    The problem with this is that they'd have to start selling a much more moderate version of Islam which is of course something that would entail less control/power/ego boosting whatever you want to call it.

    Have a look at some of the threads here on Boards, seems to me there are plenty of people quite ready to accept some of the concepts in Sharia law such as harsher punishment for repeat offenders. If only the packaging contained a bit less of the 'DEATH TO THE INFIDEL' and a little more of 'DEATH TO THE REPEAT OFFENDER SKANGERS' the message would go down quite smoothly.

    Makes you wonder if there's a group of Muslims out there cursing the like's of Al Zarqawi and his mates ruining their 'rep' and 'street cred'. I'd say a decent (sustained) advertising campaign would do a lot more for the message than any number of terrorist attacks. While these might bring out the loonies, the loonies aren't going to gain enough critical mass to bring this out of the shadows, into the mainstream and make it a self fuelling movement.

    So something to be thankful for really....? :confused:

    (have quite effectively managed to confuse the hell out of myself now, imagine arguing we should be glad that Muslim fanatics don't have marketing degrees and shares in Saatchi & Saatchi...better open another bottle of wine)


  • #75
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Channel Zero wrote: »
    However Islamophobia is held to a completely different standard; it is culturally acceptable.

    What's culturally acceptable is the practice allowing Muslims to be stereotyped by the term Islamophobia. The practice of lumping ordinary everyday people in with fanatics who deserve be criticised. To me it's like saying all Irish people are in the IRA or something.

    I'm quite happy to have Muslim neighbors and be part of a community with them. But I won't tolerate theocracy any more than I would monarchy. There's a world of difference between discussing Muslims in an immigration context like Wilders and discussing it in the context of political-islam. The problem is that the term "Islamophobia" is used to criticism in both contexts. Both Islamists and Racists are completely content with the current situation of blurring the lines, because it suits both agendas.
    Channel Zero wrote: »
    Both can be equally subject to bigotry and prejudice though.

    The problem is people are calling bigotry and prejudice when there is none. And the majority are simply too lazy or too afraid to point it out. I wonder how many times we're going to see people killed that could have been prevented but for someone's fear of being branded an Islamophobe.


  • #76
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    studiorat wrote: »
    What's culturally acceptable is the practice allowing Muslims to be stereotyped by the term Islamophobia.
    I'm taken aback by the sheer ridiculousness of this statement.

    Muslims are not stereotyped by the term Islamophobia they are stereotyped by Islamophobes.
    studiorat wrote: »
    The practice of lumping ordinary everyday people in with fanatics who deserve be criticised. To me it's like saying all Irish people are in the IRA or something.
    You are describing one of the fundamental aspects of Islamophobia.

    studiorat wrote: »
    I'm quite happy to have Muslim neighbors and be part of a community with them. But I won't tolerate theocracy any more than I would monarchy.
    What has having Muslim neighbours got to do with tolerating a theocracy?
    studiorat wrote: »
    There's a world of difference between discussing Muslims in an immigration context like Wilders and discussing it in the context of political-islam. The problem is that the term "Islamophobia" is used to criticism in both contexts. Both Islamists and Racists are completely content with the current situation of blurring the lines, because it suits both agendas.
    You haven't demonstrated that there is any "blurring of the lines".

    This is the best definition I can find of Islamophobia. It can be present whem discussing Muslims with regards to immigration and/or political Islam.
    Islamaphobia” may be defined as the unreasonable fear and heightened anxiety one experiences when in the company of a Muslim or someone from a middle-east nation. The fear or anxiety one experiences when near Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslims, arises in some people through a combination of psychological and social factors. Phobias of every type are thought to be the product of both inner conflicts that may have little or nothing to do with the actual precipitating stressor (also known as the phobic stimulus), and elements in the environment that the individual has associated with some type of risk (Barker, 2003)
    ...
    This phobia is another form of discrimination and correlated with the person’s experiences with the stimulus object. These experiences may be direct or, more often, are subliminal. That is the individual may have heard about, read about, dreamed about or otherwise learned about some risk that has been associated with the stimulus object. Then ones anxieties become transferred onto that object, which is then to be avoided.

    Many phobias develop and are sustained due to a type of “self-fulfilling prophecy.” If one comes to believe that some bad consequence will occur if confronted by a certain phobic stimulus
    ...
    In many people the effect intensifies until it emerges as a full-blown phobia. Thereafter the individual comes to expect negative consequences from encounters with the phobic stimulus and is more alert to anything that reaffirms that view. Thus, if an individual is told that many Muslims want to cause harm to non-Muslims, then the person might become more vigilant about Muslims
    http://www.academicjournals.org/ijpd...nd_illustrated


    studiorat wrote: »
    The problem is people are calling bigotry and prejudice when there is none. And the majority are simply too lazy or too afraid to point it out.
    If people are calling bigotry when there is none it is still irrelevant as to whether Islamophobia exists or not.
    studiorat wrote: »
    I wonder how many times we're going to see people killed that could have been prevented but for someone's fear of being branded an Islamophobe.
    And your thoughts on the Muslim mother of 5 that was brutally beaten to death in her home in San Diego with a note left "Terrorist. Go home". Was that Islamophobia?


  • #77
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    wexie wrote: »
    While I completely agree with you that it's wrong, under the present circumstances it IS understandable. There have been numerous instances of high profile clerics more or less saying that the ultimate goal is to bring Islam to 'the masses' so to speak, whether or not they want it. Of course these are (hopefully) fringe lunatics, but they are getting lots of attention in the media.

    No doubt there are Jewish / Christian counterparts with similar (opposed) messages but they just get more good or less bad press. Probably because they have a message more palatable to our western media and more acceptable to the average Joe Public out there.
    If there were black/latino/gay/<insert favorite minority here> groups out there that were very vocal about their desire for 'world domination' you can bet that it wouldn't be long until it becomes quite socially acceptable to 'have a go' at these as well.

    The irony in all of this as I see it is that if the Muslim 'fanatics' were a bit more clever about bringing their message they'd probably be a lot more succesful. Seriously, we're talking about the culture where Big Mouth Billy Bass and Tamagotchi were world wide phenomonon's because of decent marketing.
    The problem with this is that they'd have to start selling a much more moderate version of Islam which is of course something that would entail less control/power/ego boosting whatever you want to call it.

    Have a look at some of the threads here on Boards, seems to me there are plenty of people quite ready to accept some of the concepts in Sharia law such as harsher punishment for repeat offenders. If only the packaging contained a bit less of the 'DEATH TO THE INFIDEL' and a little more of 'DEATH TO THE REPEAT OFFENDER SKANGERS' the message would go down quite smoothly.

    Makes you wonder if there's a group of Muslims out there cursing the like's of Al Zarqawi and his mates ruining their 'rep' and 'street cred'. I'd say a decent (sustained) advertising campaign would do a lot more for the message than any number of terrorist attacks. While these might bring out the loonies, the loonies aren't going to gain enough critical mass to bring this out of the shadows, into the mainstream and make it a self fuelling movement.

    So something to be thankful for really....? :confused:

    (have quite effectively managed to confuse the hell out of myself now, imagine arguing we should be glad that Muslim fanatics don't have marketing degrees and shares in Saatchi & Saatchi...better open another bottle of wine)
    I believe you are conflating moderate Islam with extremist Islam. I'd agree with everything you've said if you were purely talking about extremists, the overwhelming minority. If you were to conflate all Americans with David Duke or the KKK you could equally put forward the same charges against all Americans, but it wouldn't be fair or accurate.

    And I don't think you can take any notice of the supposed controversial Muslim leaders that the media presents. The likes of Revolution Muslim and Anjeem Choudary's Islam4theUK have absolutely no grassroots support from the Muslim community.

    Richard Peppiat, who resigned from The Daily Star over it's intentional Islamophobia exposed this in his resignation letter.
    Not that my involvement in stirring up a bit of light-hearted Islamaphobia stopped there. Many a morning I've hit my speed dial button to Muslim rent-a-rant Anjem Choudary to see if he fancied pulling together a few lines about whipping drunks or stoning homosexuals.

    Our caustic "us and them" narrative needs nailing home every day or two, and when asked to wield the hammer I was too scared for my career, and my bank account, to refuse.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/04/daily-star-reporter-letter-full


  • #78
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    studiorat wrote: »
    ....take a look at someone like Polly Toynbee the Guardian reporter. And ask yourself is it fair for the Islamic Human Rights Commission to label her 'Islamophobe of the Year' along with Nick Griffin from the BNP. To me it just proves that the "thought crime" of Islamophobia is a convenient way for anyone with an interest in Muslim affairs, be they political or religious, to discredit their critics without entering into discussion.

    Bomber maybe you'd like to answer a question this time....


  • #79
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    studiorat wrote: »
    Bomber maybe you'd like to answer a question this time....
    I don't know what you mean by "is it fair?" but I think it is innapropriate and self-defeating as it cheapens the charge of Islamophobia.

    Your turn...
    And your thoughts on the Muslim mother of 5 that was brutally beaten to death in her home in San Diego with a note left "Terrorist. Go home". Was that Islamophobia?


  • #80
    Channel Zero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 333 ✭✭Channel Zero


    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/196918.html


  • #81
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


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

    And yes Anders Breivik is an example of one of the dishonest points you used.
    Even if I accept he was inspired entirely and exclusively by the "Zionist funded propaganda" you are refering to and we ignore the fact that he was mentally ill, it would still be a total non sequiter. And you know it, since you realise that you would not accept me posting examples of bigoted crimes against Jews and Israelis as evidence that your claims are harmful.


    I browsed it. It does not support what you claimed and is barely connected to the topic.
    And of course this is ignoring what studiorat pointed out about it.
    Breivik sane apparently.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17663958


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Breivik sane apparently.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17663958

    And apparently still missing the point I actually made.


  • #83
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,843 ✭✭✭weisses


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

    Just to point out that the PVV is acting illegal ... gifts to political party's above 4500 do need to be made public ..however the fine of 25000 euro is not stopping them to keep the gifts secret


  • #84
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    And apparently still missing the point I actually made.
    I've already tried to explain to you that you don't have a "point". You have ad-homs and an irrelevant, unsupported (wrong) opinion which even if it were true is still fallacious.


  • #85
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I've already tried to explain to you that you don't have a "point". You have ad-homs and an irrelevant, unsupported (wrong) opinion which even if it were true is still fallacious.
    Again you still miss the point even though you quoted the post:
    And yes Anders Breivik is an example of one of the dishonest points you used.
    Even if I accept he was inspired entirely and exclusively by the "Zionist funded propaganda" you are refering to and we ignore the fact that he was mentally ill, it would still be a total non sequiter. And you know it, since you realise that you would not accept me posting examples of bigoted crimes against Jews and Israelis as evidence that your claims are harmful.
    Great, so the guy isn't mentally ill. You using him as an example is still dishonest and manipulative. Just as it would be if I used victims of anti Jewish/Israeli violence to "prove" your nonsense is dangerous. And it is exactly the same as Wilders and his people pointing to real or overblown and false instances of Muslim or Arab violence to "prove" that Islam is evil.

    You know this, but you'll never admit it as it would not be conducive for you to use this forum as your soapbox.


  • #86
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again you still miss the point even though you quoted the post:

    Great, so the guy isn't mentally ill. You using him as an example is still dishonest and manipulative. Just as it would be if I used victims of anti Jewish/Israeli violence to "prove" your nonsense is dangerous. And it is exactly the same as Wilders and his people pointing to real or overblown and false instances of Muslim or Arab violence to "prove" that Islam is evil.

    You know this, but you'll never admit it as it would not be conducive for you to use this forum as your soapbox.
    What are you talking about? Breivik, in his own words, in his own name, in his own manifesto repeatedly lists those from the organised Islamophobia industry who inspired him.

    He is calling anti-Islamic Norwegian blogger "Fjordman" from Gates of Vienna as a witness in his trial to supposedly put forward the rationality of his attack.

    Fjordman, who wrote "Why Israel's struggle Is Our Strugge Too"

    Fjordman is interconnected in this same organised in this same anti-Islamic network. From Gatesofvienna:
    The Baron has been in Copenhagen for the last few days. Today he is attending the UK and Scandinavia Counterjihad Summit, organized by the Center for Vigilant Freedom and hosted by SIAD, Exile, Steen, and other members of the Danish blogosphere
    (...)
    • Danish bloggers and anti-jihad operatives;
    • leaders of the UK chapter of the Center for Vigilant Freedom;
    • members of a Swedish political group;
    • several Norwegians (including our own stalwart Fjordman);
    • Paul Belien* of Brussels Journal; and
    • the Baron and one other American representing CVF.
    The Center for Vigilant Freedom are linked to the EDL as I've already pointed out in this thread.
    The "Swedish political group" are the Swedish Democrats who are a racist, anti-Islam political party in Sweden.

    Ted Ekeroth represents the Swedish Democrats in these anti-Islamic hatefests that Fjordam involves himself in.

    The World Zionist Organisation honoured Ted Ekeroth with the Herzl Award in 2006
    http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Home/Jewish+Agency+Resources/JAFI+WZO+Related+Sites/WZO/HERZL/Herzl+Award+Recipients.htm

    Breivik e-mailed a copy of his manifesto to Isak Nyberg, formerly of the Swedish Democrats BEFORE he carried out his attacks.

    Nyberg was in a Kibbutz in Israel at the time    , as Wilders had been before him.

    Breivik had this to say:
    “So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists.”
    http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=230762

    Any of this sinking in yet?


  • #87
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    What are you talking about? Breivik, in his own words, in his own name, in his own manifesto repeatedly lists those from the organised Islamophobia industry who inspired him.
    And I've explained it several times to you. And at the risk you giving you an excuse to post links from your big bucket of evil Zionists I'll try one last time.
    Even if I accept he was inspired entirely and exclusively by the "Zionist funded propaganda" you are refering to and we ignore the fact that he was mentally ill, it would still be a total non sequiter. And you know it, since you realise that you would not accept me posting examples of bigoted crimes against Jews and Israelis as evidence that your claims are harmful.

    If I posted examples of anti Israeli and anti Jewish crimes, would you accept that as evidence that your claims are harmful? Yes or no?
    And what about the claims made about Islamic and Arabic crimes, do you think that pointing to examples of these are evidence of a supposed Islamic take over or that Islam is evil or whatever else Wilders and his friends claim?

    And since the answer to both of these is obviously no, then you're welcome to explain what makes your claims different.

    But you won't, becuase you realise they aren't and you are unwilling to give up a stick to beat your particular boogeyman with, regardless of the fact it's dishonest and you'd give out about others using it.


  • #88
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Your turn...
    And your thoughts on the Muslim mother of 5 that was brutally beaten to death in her home in San Diego with a note left "Terrorist. Go home". Was that Islamophobia?

    I haven't seen it proved either way yet. I'd be surprised if it wasn't an anti-muslim crime, but we shouldn't jump to conclusions unless there is significant proof. And even so all this doesn't prove that Islamophobia isn't a political ploy and it isn't exaggerated to suit the needs of certain interest groups.

    The level of moral outrage the crime has generated does not correlate to an increase in anti-muslim attacks.

    Just for arguments sake would it be islamophobic to speculate that perhaps Shaima Alawadi's murder was staged to look like an anti-muslim attack? A black-flag operation if you will.


  • #89
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,843 ✭✭✭weisses


    The only reason Wilders got 20% of the votes in the Netherlands is because of Islamophobia, and he is a master in playing the evil Islam card,

    Problem is the dodgy funding by foreign people (jewish lobby) with a certain Agenda .. Manipulating dutch and european politics this way.


  • #90
    Channel Zero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 333 ✭✭Channel Zero


    Hope it's ok to post this.
    Just expanding on the effects of militant athiesm and its part in Islamophobia.

    Excerpt from "The Weaponisation of Athiesm" by Jeff Sparrow :

    [SIZE=-1]The late Christopher Hitchens provides the most obvious example, a celebrity atheist as famous for boosting wars as for baiting clerics.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]Liberal admirers often mentally separated the atheistic Hitchens from the political Hitchens but in reality the two personas were inseparable. When, notoriously, he lauded Bush’s cluster bombs, he did so – typically – by combining his two passions. ‘Those steel pellets will go straight through somebody,’ he chuckled, ‘and out the other side and through somebody else. So they won’t be able to say, “Ah, I was bearing a Koran over my heart and guess what, the missile stopped halfway through.” No way, ’cause it’ll go straight through that as well. They’ll be dead, in other words.’[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]
    [/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]Because Hitchens was so rhetorically intemperate (recall his attack on the Dixie Chicks as ‘sluts’, his description of the war widow Cindy Sheehan as a ‘sob sister’ and so on); because, as Corey Robin says, he often evinced ‘a cruelty and bloodlust, a thrill for violence and apocalyptic confrontation, an almost sociopathic indifference to the victims of that violence and confrontation’ (witness, for instance, his reaction to the Fallujah offensive, his cry ‘the death toll is not nearly high enough … too many [jihadists] have escaped’); he was treated indulgently, even by liberals, as New Atheism’s mad uncle, whose uglier outbursts could excused on the grounds of his very eccentricity.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]
    [/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]But his weaponised atheism was no anomaly.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]Attendees at the convention can, after all, hear much the same thing from Sam Harris, another of the so-called ‘Four Horsemen’. Harris, like Hitchens, thinks that atheists have a special insight into the war on terror, which should, he says, understood as a conflict against ‘a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise’. Most liberals, he continues, fail to understand ‘how dangerous and depraved our enemies in the Muslim world are’. Indeed, ‘the people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.’[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]
    [/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]Harris calls himself a liberal but his positions on Islam are to the Right of any Australian parliamentarians, with the possible exception of Cory Bernardi, a notorious conservative crank.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]Ayaan Hirsi Ali, another conference speaker, carves out similar territory.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]‘We are at war with Islam,’ she says bluntly. ‘And there’s no middle ground in wars.’[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]Elsewhere, Hirsi Ali, a fellow at the neonconservative American Enterprise Institute, explained the home front consequences of that total war.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]‘All Muslim schools. Close them down. Yeah, that sounds absolutist. I think 10 years ago things were different, but now the jihadi genie is out of the bottle.’[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]Again, it’s the sort of stuff you’d expect to hear from Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer or other sinister representatives of the so-called ‘counter-jihad’ movement.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]Such is weaponised atheism: arguments for war and state repression, tricked out as scepticism.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]Obviously, not all speakers at the Global Atheist Convention are Hitchensian warmongers. Many denounced the invasion of Iraq. Some oppose the worst excesses of Islamophobia and have the grace to find the polemical excesses of Harris et al somewhat embarrassing.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]Nonetheless, the fact remains: leading representatives of the movement express ideas that otherwise we’d associate with the hard Right – and are celebrated for doing so. This is a phenomenon that requires some explanation.[/SIZE]
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/09/the-weaponization-of-atheism/


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    And I've explained it several times to you. And at the risk you giving you an excuse to post links from your big bucket of evil Zionists I'll try one last time.

    If I posted examples of anti Israeli and anti Jewish crimes, would you accept that as evidence that your claims are harmful? Yes or no?
    And what about the claims made about Islamic and Arabic crimes, do you think that pointing to examples of these are evidence of a supposed Islamic take over or that Islam is evil or whatever else Wilders and his friends claim?

    And since the answer to both of these is obviously no, then you're welcome to explain what makes your claims different.

    But you won't, becuase you realise they aren't and you are unwilling to give up a stick to beat your particular boogeyman with, regardless of the fact it's dishonest and you'd give out about others using it.
    Again, what are you talking about!? You are desperately trying to compare something that is real and demonstratable with something that is straight from your imagination. Your in no position to bring up dishonesty.


Advertisement
Advertisement