Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"FEAR INC" Explore the $57 million network fueling Islamophobia in the United States

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Michele
    replied
    Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post
    I wouldn't call it outright fear. To me and others, it's a recognition of something dangerous and of something incompatible with a "peaceful" world that can't be ignored and should be dealt with.
    In fact I mostly used the term "worry". Talking about the views of the majority of the present-day world Muslim population in general.

    And that's because they aren't a majority or a significant minority over here.

    When it comes to loony guys armed with automatic weapons, or for that matter with sharp and long kitchen knives, well, if I knew they were after me, in that case I would certainly use the term "fear" as far as I'm concerned personally...

    Leave a comment:


  • Bwaha
    replied
    Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post
    The OP should have learned his lesson a long time ago. Come out with some sort of pro-islamist propaganda, fail to defend any points brought up, bring up anti-Jewish material as a the usual dodge to the subject, and then watch helplessly as the rest of us reveal how bad islam actually is.

    The OP's posts are counter-productive to his support of the islam. The more the OP posts about them it a favorable manner, the more we see how terrible it really is.

    Maybe that's his plan all along?

    Myself, I could care less about the motivation, JJ is a dork.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hida Akechi
    replied
    Originally posted by Michele View Post
    I'm afraid of violent criminals of any stripe, including of course terrorists, naturally.

    But I'm also, at least, quite worried about Islam at large.

    Now, is that "Islamophobia"? A "phobia" is a pathological fear, i.e., most often, an illogical and unreasonable fear. Is my worry about Islam pathological, illogical and unreasonable? If not, then it's not a phobia, but a fear of something that is objectively dangerous.

    So the point would be whether I have reason to be worried about Islam in general, or not.

    One of the several reasons why I am worried about Islam in general:

    Regardless of what is written in the holy book, of what Muhammad said, of what the Sharia says, a majority of present-day Muslims is in favor of curtailing my freedom of speech. Which I cherish. If I had to travel in a Muslim land, or settle down there, or if, worse, Muslims gained a majority in my democracy, or worse still, they gained power by non-democratic means, I would have my freedom of speech curtailed, temporarily or permanently.

    None of the hypotheses mentioned above is likely at all, but talking in point of principle, it is a fact. Note that what the Jews do has no bearing on this. What a French philosopher wrote about Persia three centuries ago has no bearing on this. The Turkish-French alliance of 1536 has no bearing on this. And, again, the theory (the Koran, the Hadiths, the Prophet's sayings and whatnot) has no bearing on this.

    The majority of the members of this religion want me to lose my freedom of speech. That's enough to make me worried about them, collectively. Regardless of the fact that those who would happily slit my throat if I insulted their prophet are only a few within that majority. The rest of them approve such murders, or, largely, would at least want censorship laws making me keep my mouth closed.

    That's it. Until this changes, I'll be worried about Islam in general, not just wacko members of it.

    And I do not believe that this worry is a phobia. Surely, the chances of me being the victim of these acts of violence or oppression are non-extant. But I have this quaint feeling of an attachment for those guys who are at risk; individual free-thinking members of that same religion such as the Saudi blogger; poor Christian Pakistanis who are every day at risk that one of their neighbors, for whatever reason, good or otherwise, accuse them of blasphemy; members of minority religions in Indonesia or Turkey, and so on.
    I feel that if I ignore their plight altogether, one day the religious police might come for me, or for those who will be here in Italy fifty years from now. Remember Niemöller and his "First they came for...".

    So that's it for the Muslims in general. Rightly and reasonably feared.

    And that's only one of the despicable attitudes. I could go on with others, but the point is the same; most of them are comfortable with employing violence or state force against me for exercising what I deem are my inalienable rights.

    A sub-topic would be, given the thread title, not what the Muslim majority in general thinks, but what the Muslims in the USA think. That would be an interesting poll. Do most Muslims in the USA want censorship laws curbing freedom of speech?

    If the answer is yes, then, specifically for the US Muslims, if I were a US citizen, I would be worried about them. And I wouldn't consider it a phobia.

    Sorry for the length.
    I wouldn't call it outright fear. To me and others, it's a recognition of something dangerous and of something incompatible with a "peaceful" world that can't be ignored and should be dealt with.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hida Akechi
    replied
    The OP should have learned his lesson a long time ago. Come out with some sort of pro-islamist propaganda, fail to defend any points brought up, bring up anti-Jewish material as a the usual dodge to the subject, and then watch helplessly as the rest of us reveal how bad islam actually is.

    The OP's posts are counter-productive to his support of the islam. The more the OP posts about them it a favorable manner, the more we see how terrible it really is.

    Maybe that's his plan all along?

    Leave a comment:


  • Taieb el-Okbi
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Out come the Jews by the second paragraph, again . You really got something against them don't you "Himmler"?

    " ... to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal." Is basically how Muhammad put it when leading his Muslim armies in conquest and conversion, how his Muslim followers put it in centuries that followed, and how current Jihadis put it.

    In addition to playing the "Secular" (a.k.a. Regressive~"socialist") game of Political Correct Speak, Brennan, like you, shows he failed to learn his Sun Tzu. Not surprising he was chosen for his position by a fellow Clueless in Chief, Pretender of the USA.

    Between you and him, it looks obvious this world is in for another 1400 years of "persuasion" from "the religion of peace".

    No Allah(Islam) = No Peace
    Know Allah - know peace.

    Perhaps you could go over to Tikrit and enlighten ISIS/ISIL how they have it all wrong and if they just lay down the weapons, stop the killings and beheadings, ole Barry will put the checks in the mail to them.
    I believe that to have the view that Jihad means to kill innocent Jews is inline with the view that Jews are followers of a religion that is intolerant. It is the religionofpeace site for example, which attempts to claim that Jihad means to kill innocent Jews. I agree with the director of the CIA when it comes to how we can defeat groups like Al Qaeda.


    BTW, do you think that John O Brennen is a Jihadist?

    Leave a comment:


  • Michele
    replied
    I'm afraid of violent criminals of any stripe, including of course terrorists, naturally.

    But I'm also, at least, quite worried about Islam at large.

    Now, is that "Islamophobia"? A "phobia" is a pathological fear, i.e., most often, an illogical and unreasonable fear. Is my worry about Islam pathological, illogical and unreasonable? If not, then it's not a phobia, but a fear of something that is objectively dangerous.

    So the point would be whether I have reason to be worried about Islam in general, or not.

    One of the several reasons why I am worried about Islam in general:

    Regardless of what is written in the holy book, of what Muhammad said, of what the Sharia says, a majority of present-day Muslims is in favor of curtailing my freedom of speech. Which I cherish. If I had to travel in a Muslim land, or settle down there, or if, worse, Muslims gained a majority in my democracy, or worse still, they gained power by non-democratic means, I would have my freedom of speech curtailed, temporarily or permanently.

    None of the hypotheses mentioned above is likely at all, but talking in point of principle, it is a fact. Note that what the Jews do has no bearing on this. What a French philosopher wrote about Persia three centuries ago has no bearing on this. The Turkish-French alliance of 1536 has no bearing on this. And, again, the theory (the Koran, the Hadiths, the Prophet's sayings and whatnot) has no bearing on this.

    The majority of the members of this religion want me to lose my freedom of speech. That's enough to make me worried about them, collectively. Regardless of the fact that those who would happily slit my throat if I insulted their prophet are only a few within that majority. The rest of them approve such murders, or, largely, would at least want censorship laws making me keep my mouth closed.

    That's it. Until this changes, I'll be worried about Islam in general, not just wacko members of it.

    And I do not believe that this worry is a phobia. Surely, the chances of me being the victim of these acts of violence or oppression are non-extant. But I have this quaint feeling of an attachment for those guys who are at risk; individual free-thinking members of that same religion such as the Saudi blogger; poor Christian Pakistanis who are every day at risk that one of their neighbors, for whatever reason, good or otherwise, accuse them of blasphemy; members of minority religions in Indonesia or Turkey, and so on.
    I feel that if I ignore their plight altogether, one day the religious police might come for me, or for those who will be here in Italy fifty years from now. Remember Niemöller and his "First they came for...".

    So that's it for the Muslims in general. Rightly and reasonably feared.

    And that's only one of the despicable attitudes. I could go on with others, but the point is the same; most of them are comfortable with employing violence or state force against me for exercising what I deem are my inalienable rights.

    A sub-topic would be, given the thread title, not what the Muslim majority in general thinks, but what the Muslims in the USA think. That would be an interesting poll. Do most Muslims in the USA want censorship laws curbing freedom of speech?

    If the answer is yes, then, specifically for the US Muslims, if I were a US citizen, I would be worried about them. And I wouldn't consider it a phobia.

    Sorry for the length.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
    Another reason why its a disgusting culture;

    11 Year Old Child Bride Speaks Out Before Being Killed

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4gNBf2n3o

    The murderers are allied with the people who now control Yemen.
    Not to "spam", but just posted elsewhere here ...

    ISLAM - the nutshell, bottom line ...
    39 "pages", 572 "posts", for those whom may have read all, or at least most, we've tried to apply "Sun Tzu" to a nearly 1400 year old 'Primary Source of Global Conflict' and put such in context to late 20th ~ transit ~ 21st Centuary Conditions.

    Distilled, the reader should realize ...

    Islam - Ideology/Theology/Dogma/Scripture = Application:

    1) ONLY (The Correct Version) Muslim Males have Value before Allah - The Creator (of ALL)!

    2) Non-Muslim Males are 'Second-Class' (or lower), - if allowed to live.

    3) Female Humans are PROPERTY of Muslim Males.

    4) The Whole World/Planet must become Islamic/Muslim*, ideally before the "Final Judgement Day" occurs (or best effort at least)
    * = Any and all means, moral and ethics aside, allowed.

    That's it folks. Everything else is trivial window dressing. As 'someone' said; "Satanic Verses" ... Designed to provide for an "Everlasting War" on the "Dosadi Experiment" known as Earth.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Another reason why its a disgusting culture;

    11 Year Old Child Bride Speaks Out Before Being Killed

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4gNBf2n3o

    The murderers are allied with the people who now control Yemen.
    Last edited by The Exorcist; 15 May 15, 00:26.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by Taieb el-Okbi View Post
    John O. Brennan, the current Director of the CIA, has talked about how "jihad" means "to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal.

    Just as some folks refer to Jews as followers of an intolerant religion, some folks think that Jihad means to kill innocent Jews, but Jihad does not mean to kill innocent Jews, and its also incorrect that Jews are followers of an intolerant religion,

    John Brennan, the so-called White House counterterrorism czar, gave a broad overview of the Obama administration's strategy for combating what he said is a persistent extremist threat, and explaining a shift from the "Global War On Terror" to a strategy heavy on both a muscular offense and deep engagement with the Muslim world.

    ...

    On the offensive side, Brennan said the U.S. military, working with allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, has been "confronting al Qaeda directly, inflicting significant losses to the Taliban and al Qaeda." He argued that the president himself has been willing if eager to be "even more aggressive, even more proactive, and even more innovative, to seek out new ways and new opportunities for taking down these terrorists before they can kill more innocent men, women, and children."
    ''


    .....

    In addition, this White House sees the enemy as "extremists," not "jihadists," an important distinction he said given that "jihad" means "to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal." Using that term "risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve. Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself," Brennan said.

    "Obama is committed to using every element of our national power to address the underlying causes and conditions that fuel so many national security threats, including violent extremism," he said.


    more,

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/pol...terror_st.html
    Out come the Jews by the second paragraph, again . You really got something against them don't you "Himmler"?

    " ... to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal." Is basically how Muhammad put it when leading his Muslim armies in conquest and conversion, how his Muslim followers put it in centuries that followed, and how current Jihadis put it.

    In addition to playing the "Secular" (a.k.a. Regressive~"socialist") game of Political Correct Speak, Brennan, like you, shows he failed to learn his Sun Tzu. Not surprising he was chosen for his position by a fellow Clueless in Chief, Pretender of the USA.

    Between you and him, it looks obvious this world is in for another 1400 years of "persuasion" from "the religion of peace".

    No Allah(Islam) = No Peace
    Know Allah - know peace.

    Perhaps you could go over to Tikrit and enlighten ISIS/ISIL how they have it all wrong and if they just lay down the weapons, stop the killings and beheadings, ole Barry will put the checks in the mail to them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Taieb el-Okbi
    replied
    Brennan Outlines Terror Strategy, Rebutting Critics

    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Taieb a.k.a. Jihad John doesn't or won't get it, but for sake of others reading here, it's "ISLAM", the Scripture and Dogma, that most of us have issue with.

    Yes there are Muslims whom don't follow every rule and rote of Sharia, the Koran, the Haddith, etc., thank 'Odin'. They unfortunately are the "radicals" and apostates whom the fundamentalists of ISIS/ISIL, Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc. seek to slaughter, along with we infidels/Kafir.

    Most of us are far aware that not all Muslims are Jihadis. We are also aware that many "muslims" would quickly leave Islam, for another religion or no religion, if they were in places and circumstances where they could exercise that Free Will choice without fatal repercussions.

    To use the WWII example, not all in Germany between 1933 and 1945 were Nazis. And it wasn't a "German" thing happening there as much as it was an ideology (bordering on a religion) fostering National Socialism (NDAP) and providing it's reason and rationale for it's barbarous actions. In like (and interestingly similar vein and content) manner it is the tenants of Islam and the example of Muhammad's life and military leadership which provides the reason and justification for the Jihadis~"terrorists"~ISIL/ISIS~mujahedin.

    Seems a few here fail to grasps the basic nuances.

    Keep your sig Exorcist, I among many appreciate the reminder to a source of Truth!


    John O. Brennan, the current Director of the CIA, has talked about how "jihad" means "to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal.

    Just as some folks refer to Jews as followers of an intolerant religion, some folks think that Jihad means to kill innocent Jews, but Jihad does not mean to kill innocent Jews, and its also incorrect that Jews are followers of an intolerant religion,

    John Brennan, the so-called White House counterterrorism czar, gave a broad overview of the Obama administration's strategy for combating what he said is a persistent extremist threat, and explaining a shift from the "Global War On Terror" to a strategy heavy on both a muscular offense and deep engagement with the Muslim world.

    ...

    On the offensive side, Brennan said the U.S. military, working with allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, has been "confronting al Qaeda directly, inflicting significant losses to the Taliban and al Qaeda." He argued that the president himself has been willing if eager to be "even more aggressive, even more proactive, and even more innovative, to seek out new ways and new opportunities for taking down these terrorists before they can kill more innocent men, women, and children."
    ''


    .....

    In addition, this White House sees the enemy as "extremists," not "jihadists," an important distinction he said given that "jihad" means "to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal." Using that term "risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve. Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself," Brennan said.

    "Obama is committed to using every element of our national power to address the underlying causes and conditions that fuel so many national security threats, including violent extremism," he said.


    more,

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/pol...terror_st.html

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Originally posted by sebfrench76 View Post
    Nobody showed support here when Charlie was treated.We needed 17 deaths to put millions of people in the streets.
    And it has nothing to do with Reps or Dems .
    You are talking about previous attacks on Charlie?
    We didn't know, I saw nothing about those previous run-ins in the Media or here.

    Now, there may be a few little stories here and there, it may even be in a thread here, but it wasn't made out to be a big deal over here. Glossing over terrorist reports can be a bad thing, and so you see my Sig now.

    Did what happened in Texas with Pam Gellar get reported over there?
    Did they blame her for it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sergio
    replied
    Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
    Same old argument. You defend one group by pointing out perceived actions by another. Nothing new.



    Exactly, it's all about context. If we were simply discussing abuse carried out by allies, you would be correct. But we aren't. You counter muslim actions with US actions. You are attempting, quite poorly, to equate the US with radical islam. That is your defense of radical islam. Whenever we discuss Palestinian atrocities, you counter with Israeli actions. Same argument, different thread.


    Here's your quote, just in case you didn't read it yourself.
    When it comes to Israel Palestine I discuss both and criticise all sides, seeing it as part of a wider ongoing conflict. That context bit again. Obviously if you are rabidly pro-one side that is taken as defending Islamists or terrorists. Try reading the last bit of the post you quoted in which I said that Taieb or whomever he is is little more than the other side of the coin of many posters here. That, and the perception of different groups, were the main points it was not saying A did this so it is ok if B does that. It also criticised the picture Taieb was painting. It is not rocket science to grasp that point. Then again.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gixxer86g
    replied
    Originally posted by Sergio View Post
    So in other words you cannot find anywhere where I actually defend any of these groups but still conclude that I do.

    Same old argument. You defend one group by pointing out perceived actions by another. Nothing new.



    Discussing the widespread murders of Japanese soldiers trying to surrender in the Pacific does not mean endorsing or excusing Imperial Japan's atrocities. Discussing abuse carried out by the Allies (not just Soviets) does not mean comparing the Allies to Germany or excusing the Nazis of the Holocaust. It all depends on intention and context, to suggest otherwise is asinine.
    Exactly, it's all about context. If we were simply discussing abuse carried out by allies, you would be correct. But we aren't. You counter muslim actions with US actions. You are attempting, quite poorly, to equate the US with radical islam. That is your defense of radical islam. Whenever we discuss Palestinian atrocities, you counter with Israeli actions. Same argument, different thread.


    Here's your quote, just in case you didn't read it yourself.

    Slavery, the slaughter and dispossession of an indigenous people, a system that rivaled apartheid for its brutality and racism that ended a few decades ago, the Cold War, death squads, backing dictators around the globe, helping fuel an Islamist uprising that went on to spread around the planet, chemical warfare, torture, detention without trial, backing and facilitating terrorist or insurgent groups, launching wars based on completely made up reasons, drones and targeting anyone within an area based on age. That is just a brief outline of your country's approach to things. Let me know when that radical moment arrives when you guys learn to play nicely with other people.

    'Taieb' or whomever the hell he is paints a ridiculous picture in which he denies or downplays anything horrific that Muslims do and lies about the contents of the religion. Many of you on here do the same - and pretend that somehow your nation is so much cleaner than everyone else. The same can and should be said about mine and many others.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sergio
    replied
    Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
    Feel free to start your own thread extoling the horrors that the US has inflicted upon the world. BTW, the only thing you aren't doing in your own, passive way is promoting.



    More of the same from you. Group A did it too, what's the problem with Group B?You defend by attacking someone else for similar circumstances. Yet you think you retain distance. You don't.

    We see this in the WW2 forums occasionally. You know the folks that attempt to downplay the atrocities of the Axis by pointing out events perpetrated by the Allies. I doesn't fly over there, and it doesn't fly here.

    So like I said, if you want to slag the US for past events, start your own thread, it's off topic here.

    Concerning your method of defending these groups, we've had this circular argument a few times before. I'm not wasting any more bandwidth on it.
    So in other words you cannot find anywhere where I actually defend any of these groups but still conclude that I do. Also please show specifically from any post I made in this thread where I said if group A does something it is mitigated by group B doing something. Perhaps reading what it is actually said apart from what you misread would be helpful. It was a comment aimed at perception. That is not condoning or defending anything, it really is not that difficult to understand.

    Oh and your Second World War example - it depends. Some might do so, others might want to educate themselves about something or discuss another aspect of something. Discussing the widespread murders of Japanese soldiers trying to surrender in the Pacific does not mean endorsing or excusing Imperial Japan's atrocities. Discussing abuse carried out by the Allies (not just Soviets) does not mean comparing the Allies to Germany or excusing the Nazis of the Holocaust. It all depends on intention and context, to suggest otherwise is asinine.

    By the way I would not be extolling the horrors the US has inflicted on the world as you said. Extolling means praising and lauding, kind of the opposite given the context of what I was saying. Like I said a little more attention to the posts might be useful.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by Taieb el-Okbi View Post
    The attacks happen, but it is infact Muslims and Christians whom are on the other side of ISIL. Either you dont know this, or worse, you are simply ignoring it.

    There is no war on Islam/Muslims as the religion of peace contributors like to try and point out , and thats the massive issue I have with folks whom harbor anti Muslim viewpoints.


    Your link, religionofpeace.com, takes a shot at Muslims in general. Your link is not beneficial to the war against ISIL, your link is like a group of men who are living in not even the 7th century(would be an insult to those who lived during those times).

    I feel the same looking at a religionofpeace.com signature as a I would looking at an ACG members sig that had a link to jewatch.com or Mein Kamph.
    Taieb a.k.a. Jihad John doesn't or won't get it, but for sake of others reading here, it's "ISLAM", the Scripture and Dogma, that most of us have issue with.

    Yes there are Muslims whom don't follow every rule and rote of Sharia, the Koran, the Haddith, etc., thank 'Odin'. They unfortunately are the "radicals" and apostates whom the fundamentalists of ISIS/ISIL, Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc. seek to slaughter, along with we infidels/Kafir.

    Most of us are far aware that not all Muslims are Jihadis. We are also aware that many "muslims" would quickly leave Islam, for another religion or no religion, if they were in places and circumstances where they could exercise that Free Will choice without fatal repercussions.

    To use the WWII example, not all in Germany between 1933 and 1945 were Nazis. And it wasn't a "German" thing happening there as much as it was an ideology (bordering on a religion) fostering National Socialism (NDAP) and providing it's reason and rationale for it's barbarous actions. In like (and interestingly similar vein and content) manner it is the tenants of Islam and the example of Muhammad's life and military leadership which provides the reason and justification for the Jihadis~"terrorists"~ISIL/ISIS~mujahedin.

    Seems a few here fail to grasps the basic nuances.

    Keep your sig Exorcist, I among many appreciate the reminder to a source of Truth!

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X