Secularism, Muhammed Cartoons and The Sikh Temple Shooting

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 8:25pm

Corkfeen wrote: »

If we're really going to start blaming the cartoons which I don't think are responsible, i'd have assumed that it was the extremists of the religion who threaten people that draw Mohammed are the real issue.

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

MagicMarker · 14-08-2012 8:30pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

Errrr, that is quite obviously not what he is saying.

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 8:34pm

Penn wrote: »

In all seriousness, Brown Bomber, correlation does not imply causation. And in this case, there isn't even any tangible correlation.

People draw prophet Muslims worship as expression of freedom of speech and freedom from religion.

White supremacist kills Sikhs.

Now, maybe he thought they were Muslim. Okay. We don't know that, but let's accept the premise for now anyway. There is still no tangible correlation with Draw Muhammad Day, regardless of whether or not you agree with DMD.

Seriously, you're completely grasping at straws here.

Like I said I don't suggest a direct link. I don't blame secularism. In fact I believe secularism is the best hope for a peaceful future. Secularism in it's purest form that is. There is a lot of prejudice between religious and non-religious that goes both ways, though not in all cases obviously and secularism can become a shield or sometimes a vehicle for bigotry. As an example I'd give Sam Harris' recent claims that Muslims should be profiled in airports.

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 8:39pm

Neilos wrote: »

BB, surely the main reason that people draw the link between muhammad and terrorism is the fact that most if not all of these terrorists sit down in front of cameras before carrying out their attack and declare that it is part of a holy war and in the name of muhammed. The fact that that I might decide to draw a pic of a bloke with a bomb and a funny hat kinda pales into insignificance?

So in other words you claim that "most if not all" terrorist attacks are carried out by Muslims. What ever gave you that idea??? You are very much misinformed.

Could it be..."a pic of a bloke with a bomb and a funny hat"?

Nodin · 14-08-2012 8:43pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

From your OP

In light of the hate crime committed against the Sikhs in the US I wanted to ask of the secularists on boards if they regret their "draw a Muhammed day campaigns"?

You seem to want to selectively apply your own 'logic'.

Not that I believe for 2 seconds you give a rats ass about those Sikh people either.

Sycopat · 14-08-2012 8:47pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

:pac: News to me...

What your false assumption based on who knows what does do is highlight your prejudices however. Something that is probably clouding your senses to see the visual rhetoric for what it is.

Ah go on outta that now.

Wether the assumption is false or not, you have displayed a pretty catalogical knowledge of muslim culture and religion, and also a fairly irrational willingness to blame the actions of muslim extremists on the provocation of non-muslims drawing pictures. You also seem quite happy to blame the actions of white supremacist extremists on the freedom of non-muslims to draw pictures. You also seem to have an interest in defining all such picture drawing non-muslims as atheist, which is what has led me personally to believe you are not a muslim.

It's not necessarily a true assumption,but the assumption you are a muslim is likely the most flattering assumption being made about you by the people you are arguing with.

If you are not a muslim, the motivations for your line of inquiry become much more suspect, and you should declare them so that people willing to argue with you know that you do so with honest intentions.

Sarky · 14-08-2012 9:05pm

I think he's trying to impress someone.

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 9:08pm

dlofnep wrote: »

No, it cannot.

Oh, a photograph of two people holding a large piece of paper. That changes everything.

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 9:12pm

robindch wrote: »

Are you drunk?

I would appeal to you as a moderator of this forum to not resort to such low-level mockery as above as it gives a license for others to do likewise and it's hard enough in this forum at the best of times if your not part of the herd.

Nodin · 14-08-2012 9:13pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Oh, a photograph of two people holding a large piece of paper. That changes everything.

So, seeing as Islam was used as an excuse by Jihadis to commit various atrocities, do you regret defending that religion?

Gordon · 14-08-2012 9:19pm

When the religious sheeple that intend others to succumb to their views and forcefully push this view, blindly, unsolicitedly, will wake up and break free from their master's thought-shackles: maybe there will be a start to seeing less hate in the world. Hopefully that time will come soon.

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 9:24pm

Sycopat wrote: »

Ah go on outta that now.

Wether the assumption is false or not, you have displayed a pretty catalogical knowledge of muslim culture and religion, and also a fairly irrational willingness to blame the actions of muslim extremists on the provocation of non-muslims drawing pictures. You also seem quite happy to blame the actions of white supremacist extremists on the freedom of non-muslims to draw pictures. You also seem to have an interest in defining all such picture drawing non-muslims as atheist, which is what has led me personally to believe you are not a muslim.

It's not necessarily a true assumption,but the assumption you are a muslim is likely the most flattering assumption being made about you by the people you are arguing with.

If you are not a muslim, the motivations for your line of inquiry become much more suspect, and you should declare them so that people willing to argue with you know that you do so with honest intentions.

1. It is a false assumption. Are suggesting I am some kind of crypto-Muslim?
2. The M in Muslim in capitalised.
3. Could you speculate on my motivations for me as I have no idea what you are getting at?
4. "Freedom" is an ideograph and in any case, and perhaps I am not making myself clear, my point is not that any "freedom" of itself is the problem but abuse of that freedom which can intentionally or unintentionally lead to hate crimes by associating Islam with terrorism.

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 9:25pm

Nodin wrote: »

So, seeing as Islam was used as an excuse by Jihadis to commit various atrocities, do you regret defending that religion?

have I defended Islam?

SeanW · 14-08-2012 9:37pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

have I defended Islam?

As a Muslim I presume you believe that Islamic theology is defensible, yes.

Nodin · 14-08-2012 9:48pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

have I defended Islam?

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

Going to answer with another question now, or are you going to address the original issue I put to you?

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 9:49pm

SeanW wrote: »

Hey Brown Bomber, the Koran calls for the execution of homosexuals right?

No.

SeanW wrote: »

AFAIK it also calls for punishment of some sort for leaving the Islamic faith.

Yes, but in the Islamic version of the afterlife, something only a Muslim need bother about.

SeanW wrote: »

So next time a Muslim kills a homosexual or harms an apostate, you can surely agree that we can all blame the Koran, and by extension you for believing/promoting it? Right? (Just using your logic here).

No, that's definitely not my logic. Vigilantism is strictly prohibited within Islamic Law. If "a Muslim" was to kill a homosexual the Muslim who killed the Homosexual would be the greater criminal.

SeanW wrote: »

I'm agnostic btw but don't worry, you can make fun of my religious position all you like, pretty sure noone's going to try to kill you for it!

Nice to meet you agnostic. I'd never dream of making fun of your personal religious beliefs, whatever they may be,

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 9:53pm

Nodin wrote: »

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

Going to answer with another question now, or are you going to address the original issue I put to you?

Well I'd like you to define "defend" before I do. I have neutral feelings toward Islam. I possess no inclination towards the Islamic faith, I do have issues with racism, xenophobia and bigotry though.

I'm not pro-Islam but anti-bigotry.

King Mob · 14-08-2012 10:00pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

4. "Freedom" is an ideograph and in any case, and perhaps I am not making myself clear, my point is not that any "freedom" of itself is the problem but abuse of that freedom which can intentionally or unintentionally lead to hate crimes by associating Islam with terrorism.

So why is it permissible for you to rattle off conspiracy theories that accuse Jews and zionists of infiltrating and taking over the media among other things?
(In fact you believe that DMD and other "anti muslim" stuff are the direct result of a zionist program to dehumanise muslims.)

Is about equally silly and offensive as the strawmen you think took part in DMD.
Your theories are shared by members of white power groups.
They could in theory lead to someone stupid paranoid and more bigoted than you taking action against the zionist take over.

So why is it ok for you to say those things, but it's not acceptable to draw a picture of mohammad?

joseph brand · 14-08-2012 10:14pm

Originally Posted by SeanW
AFAIK it also calls for punishment of some sort for leaving the Islamic faith.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No.

Yes, but in the Islamic version of the afterlife, something only a Muslim need bother about.

Apostasy is punishable by death. Not to mention the stonings and honour killings, but that's for a different thread.

And we think the RCC is bad?

BB has to be trolling, drawing parallels between 'draw mohammad day' and a neo-nazi with a screw loose opening fire on a Sikh temple.

Is it too early to use my 'Hide n Sikh' jokes? :pac:

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 10:45pm

joseph brand wrote: »

Apostasy is punishable by death. Not to mention the stonings and honour killings, but that's for a different thread.

And we think the RCC is bad?

BB has to be trolling, drawing parallels between 'draw mohammad day' and a neo-nazi with a screw loose opening fire on a Sikh temple.

Is it too early to use my 'Hide n Sikh' jokes? :pac:

Joseph,

If you must make accusations of trolling the least you could do would be pay attention to what is going on. The "it" Sean and I were referring to and which you've actually quoted him on is the Koran. The Koran does not proscribe death for apostasy, unless you'd like to demonstrate otherwise. I won't hold my breath for an apology.

& King Mob, I tell you this for your own sake as I've seen your name pop up from time to time here: If you are responding to me I can't see your posts, you are on ignore.

Sarky · 14-08-2012 10:47pm

Oh he was just pointing out your hypocrisy, it's nothing you'd be concerned about anyway.

Sycopat · 14-08-2012 10:48pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1. It is a false assumption. Are suggesting I am some kind of crypto-Muslim?
2. The M in Muslim in capitalised.
3. Could you speculate on my motivations for me as I have no idea what you are getting at?
4. "Freedom" is an ideograph and in any case, and perhaps I am not making myself clear, my point is not that any "freedom" of itself is the problem but abuse of that freedom which can intentionally or unintentionally lead to hate crimes by associating Islam with terrorism.

1:I said I don't believe you are a muslim.

2:I don't care how you spell it, or even that it's a proper noun and technically should have one. I will spell it with a lower case m. Because I am allowed to. If you wish, spell 'sycopat' with a lower case s. It will not bother me, nor could I stop you if it did.

3:I will not speculate on your motivations. I do not feel they are clear enough for informed speculation.

4:You have not been making that clear whatsoever. I doubt there are many here who see the stereotyping of muslims as terrorists as anything other than discrimination. That does not seem to have been the point you were trying to make at all actually.

Bloodwing · 14-08-2012 10:48pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Neilos wrote: »

BB, surely the main reason that people draw the link between muhammad and terrorism is the fact that most if not all of these terrorists sit down in front of cameras before carrying out their attack and declare that it is part of a holy war and in the name of muhammed. The fact that that I might decide to draw a pic of a bloke with a bomb and a funny hat kinda pales into insignificance?

So in other words you claim that "most if not all" terrorist attacks are carried out by Muslims. What ever gave you that idea??? You are very much misinformed.

Could it be..."a pic of a bloke with a bomb and a funny hat"?

We're talking about people attacking Muslim (or people they believe to be Muslim). I'm talking about most if not all Muslims that carry out these attacks sit down and publicly declare they are doing it in the name of their religion. I certainly don't think that the IRA are Muslim or that ETA are Muslim. Your great at ignoring the points people make just to suit yourself.

robindch · 14-08-2012 10:49pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Hate crimes are common against Sikh's in the US because they resemble the Muslim stereotype -- beard & turban -- a stereotype that is perpetuated by "draw Muhammed day".

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have no doubt a number of "useful idiots" did it in good faith out of gullibility though surely it's time to think twice if you become idelogical bedfellows with extremists?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I would appeal to you as a moderator of this forum to not resort to such low-level mockery [...]

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

Carl Sagan wrote:

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 10:53pm

SeanW wrote: »

Oh and that the nutcase in Wisconsin believed that the Sikhs were Muslims is wild speculation.

This evil SOB may have been bat**** crazy, but he probably wasn't THAT stupid.

He murdered those people because he's a racist. Beginning, Middle, End of story.

It's ironic that you bring up wild speculation when you yourself somehow convinced yourself that I was a Muslim. Nevertheless, I've asked this a number of times: how does someone become racist?

Also, I have agreed it is speculation but Mark Potok, someone who has been studying these kind of hate groups for years considers it likely that the Sikhs were mistaken for Muslims. I agree with him.

I'd actually like to ask you something if it's okay? Forgive me if I have you mixed up with someone else but my understanding is that you are at least receptive to some of the policies of the EDL? The EDL are also a group of right-wing extremists, now let's say an EDL member reaches boiling point and decides to give his own life to take with him as many of the "enemy" as possible. Who is he more likely to attack Muslims or Sikhs? I would put it at 99% to 1%, Muslim:Sikh. How about you?

Nodin · 14-08-2012 11:06pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well I'd like you to define "defend" before I do.........

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

King Mob · 14-08-2012 11:09pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

& King Mob, I tell you this for your own sake as I've seen your name pop up from time to time here: If you are responding to me I can't see your posts, you are on ignore.

Probably for the best. I probably wouldn't want to acknowledge gross and barefaced hypocrisy if I was as guilty of it as you were.

And you'd probably just ignore the questions if you could see them anyway.

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 11:11pm

Neilos wrote: »

We're talking about people attacking Muslim (or people they believe to be Muslim). I'm talking about most if not all Muslims that carry out these attacks sit down and publicly declare they are doing it in the name of their religion. I certainly don't think that the IRA are Muslim or that ETA are Muslim. Your great at ignoring the points people make just to suit yourself.

I've re-read your post again and I apologise, I've misinterpreted you first time around.

On your original point I'd like to suggest to the work of Robert Pape. This would be a good intro if you are interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tEsWRXV_BM

SeanW · 14-08-2012 11:18pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's ironic that you bring up wild speculation when you yourself somehow convinced yourself that I was a Muslim. Nevertheless, I've asked this a number of times: how does someone become racist?

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

Also, I have agreed it is speculation but Mark Potok, someone who has been studying these kind of hate groups for years considers it likely that the Sikhs were mistaken for Muslims. I agree with him.

It's certainly possible, but it is still ultimately speculation.

I'd actually like to ask you something if it's okay? Forgive me if I have you mixed up with someone else but my understanding is that you are at least receptive to some of the policies of the EDL? The EDL are also a group of right-wing extremists, now let's say an EDL member reaches boiling point and decides to give his own life to take with him as many of the "enemy" as possible. Who is he more likely to attack Muslims or Sikhs? I would put it at 99% to 1%, Muslim:Sikh. How about you?

I'll do my best to answer.

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

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

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

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

Bloodwing · 14-08-2012 11:56pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've re-read your post again and I apologise, I've misinterpreted you first time around.

On your original point I'd like to suggest to the work of Robert Pape. This would be a good intro if you are interested.

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

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

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

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

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

Secularism, Muhammed Cartoons and The Sikh Temple Shooting

Comments