nitro harley
Well-Known Member
London.
Have you seen a picture of bucky?If so you should under stand how funny that was.
Islam can dish it out, but can't take it
- Thread starter Doer
- Start date
Have you seen a picture of bucky?If so you should under stand how funny that was.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Do you sometimes masturbate to the picture ?
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
The word of the week is "cult"
Did you know we are in a cult?
That's what the "original" thinkers have come up with
londonfog
Well-Known Member
awesome...I guess we have to come up with a catchy cult name
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Jindal is making even more comments on Muslim no go zones
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Hey you missed out on MLK day to vent
cc2012
Well-Known Member
Martin Luther King, Jr. Was Pro-Israel, Said Anti-Israel is Anti-Semitic; Muslims Hijack His Name Like 9/11
By Debbie Schlussel
As you know, today is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. And, each year, this day serves as a reminder for those who know–and information for those who do not–that Martin Luther King was pro-Israel and said those who are anti-Israel are really just anti-Semites. He was right then. His words are right, now. Since nothing has changed–Martin Luther King, Jr.’s support for Israel is a fact and Muslims hijack his good name each year like it’s a plane and use his memory like it is their underwear bomb–I am reposting what I have posted for a few years now, below. Facts are stubborn things. And the facts are these: King was pro-Israel and a philo-Semite, and Jew-hating, anti-Israel Muslims (a redundant phrase) continue to ignore that because they make up “the facts” for propaganda purposes to foment their evil and hate. As I always say, their experience in hijacking wasn’t just confined to 9/11.
He Had a Dream: That One Day Israel Would Be Secure & Jew-Haters Would Stop Attacking Israel . . .
Attn, Muslim Hijackers:
Martin Luther King, Jr. Was Philo-Semite, Fan of Israel
Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality.
–Martin Luther King, Jr., March 25, 1968 speech.
By Debbie Schlussel
As you know, today is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. And, each year, this day serves as a reminder for those who know–and information for those who do not–that Martin Luther King was pro-Israel and said those who are anti-Israel are really just anti-Semites. He was right then. His words are right, now. Since nothing has changed–Martin Luther King, Jr.’s support for Israel is a fact and Muslims hijack his good name each year like it’s a plane and use his memory like it is their underwear bomb–I am reposting what I have posted for a few years now, below. Facts are stubborn things. And the facts are these: King was pro-Israel and a philo-Semite, and Jew-hating, anti-Israel Muslims (a redundant phrase) continue to ignore that because they make up “the facts” for propaganda purposes to foment their evil and hate. As I always say, their experience in hijacking wasn’t just confined to 9/11.
He Had a Dream: That One Day Israel Would Be Secure & Jew-Haters Would Stop Attacking Israel . . .
Attn, Muslim Hijackers:
Martin Luther King, Jr. Was Philo-Semite, Fan of Israel
Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality.
–Martin Luther King, Jr., March 25, 1968 speech.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Don't you have some racist shit to brigade on reddit?
cc2012
Well-Known Member
Is criticism of Islam racist?
No.
Now let me explain why it’s not that simple.
In any dispute among atheists (or non-atheists) about Islam, the chances are pretty good that someone will make some kind of off-side claim about what “Muslims” do or do not believe, or that we need to curb the civil liberties and human rights of Muslims to protect “Western society” from “Muslims”. In many of these cases, the rejoinder will come back that such policies or beliefs are racist.
In these moments, the accused will oftentimes develop (almost supernaturally) an encyclopaedic knowledge of what racism is and how it works, or at least ze will behave as though ze has that knowledge. “Muslims come from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds,” they say “so they’re not all the same race. Therefore it can’t be racist!” That brand of dismissal has become so commonplace that it is, more often than not, run through with a vein of long-suffering annoyance, not entirely dissimilar from the one heard immediately before the words “race card” or “political correctness police” are uttered. It is the reflexive, elusive, near-thoughtless evasion of the issue, so that one can stand behind the original criticism, regardless of its quality or accuracy.
There are two principal issues I have with this evasive response:
1. Race and ethnicity are not synonyms
While it is true that Muslims come from all ethnic backgrounds, it does not follow that one therefore cannot be “racist” toward “Muslims”. Indeed, much of the anti-“Muslim” animus has been borne by Hindus, Sikhs, and other people who don’t have anything to do with Islam (and indeed, in many cases, have grudges with Islam that go a lot further back than yours).
There is an image of what “Muslims” look like, and that image doesn’t have white skin.
Race is, and always has been, a sociological construct. It is no less true to point out that “Muslims” come from a wide variety of backgrounds with distinct histories and cultures than it is to point out that “black people” have a comparable amount of diversity. We use race as a lazy shorthand marker during discussions. Sometimes it can be useful and constructive, but as we well know it has a great deal of destructive power.
To fail to recognize that broadside criticisms of what “Muslims” say/do/think (aside from, obviously, beliefs that are specifically grounded in the tenets of Islam) are inextricably and frustratingly intertwined with racist ideas about brown-skinned people is to fail to make criticisms that are grounded in social reality.
2. You don’t actually care about the semantic issue
Speaking as a person who participates in conversations about race on a regular basis, I’m pretty punchy about the way the words “race” and “racism” are used. There are a lot of misconceptions about what race is/isn’t, and how it works. I spend quite a bit of time and energy advocating for a better and more thoughtful understanding of racism, and it irks me whenever I hear the word “racist” misapplied.
You, on the other hand, probably don’t care.
Unless you are someone who regularly discusses racism, the “Muslims aren’t one race” line is a sudden discovery of the need for semantic accuracy whose timing is too convenient by half. It is an attempt to kick up enough dust around your statement that your original argument is obscured. And while there might be a convenient back door through that dictionary cum high school social studies textbook, you can’t squeeze the flaws in your argument through it. By instead attempting to derail the conversation onto the semantic issue, you’re failing to come to grips with the source of the criticism – that your argument is based on stereotypes and innuendo.
We know that racism is bad not just because we say so, but because we have seen the damage caused by those who allow stereotypical thinking overpower the parts of their brains that care about facts. Racism is the product of a number of psychological processes that we, as freethinkers, should be trying to get beyond. Whether the problem is racism qua racism or that you are applying racist-like thinking to a group that technically does not share a ‘race’, the argument is still problematic and should be addressed critically.
Indeed, when we look to our previous examples of arguments that cross the line from ‘mere criticism’ to irrational hatred, several elements are common. As a person who has faced racial stereotyping at various points throughout my life, I recognize the shadows of those three Islamophobic canards when they are applied to black people:
There is, of course, a caveat large enough to drive a freighter through here – race is non-voluntary, whereas belief is (at some level) a matter of choice. You are not born into your beliefs, and even if you are born a Muslim into a Muslim community you can choose a spectrum of beliefs, some of which are largely humanistic. If you choose a more violent form of religious belief, and allow your actions to be swayed by it, your behaviour should be condemned. This is complicated by the fact that those who are born into strict theocratic communities have less choice, and it is my personal belief that we tend to overestimate individual agency while downplaying environmental influences. Regardless, the relationship between racism and Islamophobia is not a perfect one, and that cannot be dismissed.
Another particularly tricky issue to parse happens when we try to recognize the tricky relationship between Muslims and “Muslims” – the former being the real people and the latter being the ‘scary brown foreigner’ stereotype. If our ideas about Islam are run through with racism, is all criticism of Islam racist as an unavoidable consequence? There are many who believe this to be so, but I am not among them. Insofar as our ideas of, say, black criminality are inextricably tied into racist ideas, we can still make evidence-based and thoughtful critiques of what it is that causes disproportionate incarceration rates among black men without completely exonerating every criminal with black skin. It is difficult, and it requires effort and sensitivity, but it is certainly possible.
We can criticize Islam, and we should criticize Islam, but we should be aware of the constellation of stereotypes that inform our prior beliefs. We should investigate those beliefs using the same tools we use to investigate our beliefs about differences between racial groups. While criticism of Islam is not, to the letter of the law, ‘racist’, it is worth considering that it can be flawed and dangerous in the same ways that racist beliefs are, and we should act accordingly.
No.
Now let me explain why it’s not that simple.
In any dispute among atheists (or non-atheists) about Islam, the chances are pretty good that someone will make some kind of off-side claim about what “Muslims” do or do not believe, or that we need to curb the civil liberties and human rights of Muslims to protect “Western society” from “Muslims”. In many of these cases, the rejoinder will come back that such policies or beliefs are racist.
In these moments, the accused will oftentimes develop (almost supernaturally) an encyclopaedic knowledge of what racism is and how it works, or at least ze will behave as though ze has that knowledge. “Muslims come from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds,” they say “so they’re not all the same race. Therefore it can’t be racist!” That brand of dismissal has become so commonplace that it is, more often than not, run through with a vein of long-suffering annoyance, not entirely dissimilar from the one heard immediately before the words “race card” or “political correctness police” are uttered. It is the reflexive, elusive, near-thoughtless evasion of the issue, so that one can stand behind the original criticism, regardless of its quality or accuracy.
There are two principal issues I have with this evasive response:
1. Race and ethnicity are not synonyms
While it is true that Muslims come from all ethnic backgrounds, it does not follow that one therefore cannot be “racist” toward “Muslims”. Indeed, much of the anti-“Muslim” animus has been borne by Hindus, Sikhs, and other people who don’t have anything to do with Islam (and indeed, in many cases, have grudges with Islam that go a lot further back than yours).
There is an image of what “Muslims” look like, and that image doesn’t have white skin.
Race is, and always has been, a sociological construct. It is no less true to point out that “Muslims” come from a wide variety of backgrounds with distinct histories and cultures than it is to point out that “black people” have a comparable amount of diversity. We use race as a lazy shorthand marker during discussions. Sometimes it can be useful and constructive, but as we well know it has a great deal of destructive power.
To fail to recognize that broadside criticisms of what “Muslims” say/do/think (aside from, obviously, beliefs that are specifically grounded in the tenets of Islam) are inextricably and frustratingly intertwined with racist ideas about brown-skinned people is to fail to make criticisms that are grounded in social reality.
2. You don’t actually care about the semantic issue
Speaking as a person who participates in conversations about race on a regular basis, I’m pretty punchy about the way the words “race” and “racism” are used. There are a lot of misconceptions about what race is/isn’t, and how it works. I spend quite a bit of time and energy advocating for a better and more thoughtful understanding of racism, and it irks me whenever I hear the word “racist” misapplied.
You, on the other hand, probably don’t care.
Unless you are someone who regularly discusses racism, the “Muslims aren’t one race” line is a sudden discovery of the need for semantic accuracy whose timing is too convenient by half. It is an attempt to kick up enough dust around your statement that your original argument is obscured. And while there might be a convenient back door through that dictionary cum high school social studies textbook, you can’t squeeze the flaws in your argument through it. By instead attempting to derail the conversation onto the semantic issue, you’re failing to come to grips with the source of the criticism – that your argument is based on stereotypes and innuendo.
We know that racism is bad not just because we say so, but because we have seen the damage caused by those who allow stereotypical thinking overpower the parts of their brains that care about facts. Racism is the product of a number of psychological processes that we, as freethinkers, should be trying to get beyond. Whether the problem is racism qua racism or that you are applying racist-like thinking to a group that technically does not share a ‘race’, the argument is still problematic and should be addressed critically.
Indeed, when we look to our previous examples of arguments that cross the line from ‘mere criticism’ to irrational hatred, several elements are common. As a person who has faced racial stereotyping at various points throughout my life, I recognize the shadows of those three Islamophobic canards when they are applied to black people:
- Misattributing to race problems with their roots in things like poverty or poor access to education or systemic racism or… the list goes on.
- Failure to make accurate comparisons by finding coded ways of demonizing the ‘black’ manifestation of problems that exist in other communities(e.g., the disproportionate attention paid to blacks on welfare, when the majority of welfare recipients are white – ditto for Stop & Frisk and marijuana-related incarcerations). Failure to find similar pathology or systemic blight in identical behaviours among white people.
- Using individual examples of behaviour in black people to typecast an entire group, usually in ways that suggest criminality.
There is, of course, a caveat large enough to drive a freighter through here – race is non-voluntary, whereas belief is (at some level) a matter of choice. You are not born into your beliefs, and even if you are born a Muslim into a Muslim community you can choose a spectrum of beliefs, some of which are largely humanistic. If you choose a more violent form of religious belief, and allow your actions to be swayed by it, your behaviour should be condemned. This is complicated by the fact that those who are born into strict theocratic communities have less choice, and it is my personal belief that we tend to overestimate individual agency while downplaying environmental influences. Regardless, the relationship between racism and Islamophobia is not a perfect one, and that cannot be dismissed.
Another particularly tricky issue to parse happens when we try to recognize the tricky relationship between Muslims and “Muslims” – the former being the real people and the latter being the ‘scary brown foreigner’ stereotype. If our ideas about Islam are run through with racism, is all criticism of Islam racist as an unavoidable consequence? There are many who believe this to be so, but I am not among them. Insofar as our ideas of, say, black criminality are inextricably tied into racist ideas, we can still make evidence-based and thoughtful critiques of what it is that causes disproportionate incarceration rates among black men without completely exonerating every criminal with black skin. It is difficult, and it requires effort and sensitivity, but it is certainly possible.
We can criticize Islam, and we should criticize Islam, but we should be aware of the constellation of stereotypes that inform our prior beliefs. We should investigate those beliefs using the same tools we use to investigate our beliefs about differences between racial groups. While criticism of Islam is not, to the letter of the law, ‘racist’, it is worth considering that it can be flawed and dangerous in the same ways that racist beliefs are, and we should act accordingly.
Last edited:
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
London.
How do you expect anybody to take you very serious. You seem to need to go back to super hero school and start over.
cc2012
Well-Known Member
British jihadist faces life in prison after faking his death in Syria so he could return home.
Paul Gallagher - Tuesday 20 January 2015
A British jihadist who faked his death in Syria so he could return home undetected faces life in prison having been convicted of major terrorism offences.
Imran Khawaja, 27, from Southall, London, spent six months in the war-torn country last year at a terrorist training camp after arriving via Kurdistan in January. He had also been photographed holding the severed head of a man.
While travelling back to the UK the terrorist group Rayat al-Tawheed falsely announced his death but counter-terrorism officers arrested Khawaja, who used the nom de guerre Abu Daigham al Baritani, along with his taxi driver cousin Tahir Bhatti in June last year when they reached Dover.
Khawaja had asked Bhatti, 45, to go cross country to Bulgaria to pick him up and drive him home, avoiding the familiar jihadist route to and from Syria via Turkey.
Prosecutor Mark Dawson told Westminster Magistrates Court at an earlier hearing that by 18 March last year, Bhatti, who was referred to in a coded message as ‘Butterbean’ , was well aware Khawaja was in Syria and that he was clearly training with a view to fighting in Syria. The pair used the instant messaging service Whatsapp to discuss their plans.
Mr Dawson said: “We say he is a senior member of that group because that group publishes media on things like Facebook and within that media are videos of members of that group in a training camp for example, driving in a convoy in military vehicles with anti-aircraft weapons and heavy machine-guns.
“There is one video demonstrating the finding of severed heads on the battlefield and decapitated heads. We say Mr Khawaja is Abu Daigham al-Britani and has appeared in many of those videos.”
The court was shown three photographs from Khawaja’s phone that allegedly reflected what Bhatti knew about his activities. The images showed Kawaja in combat gear sitting on a tank clutching a rifle, wearing clothing similar to other members of a known terrorist group and holding an assault rifle at a terrorist training camp.
Khawaja last month admitted preparation of terrorist acts as well as attending a terrorism training camp. He also admitted receiving weapons training and possessing a firearm for terrorist use.
Father-of-seven Bhatti also faces jail having pleaded guilty yesterday/on Tuesday to assisting an offender. He was alleged to have helped Khawaja by agreeing to provide a replacement phone, funding the purchase of a Kalashnikov assault rifle, using coded messages and helping him avoid arrest by hiring a car to pick him up from Sofia.
A third suspect Asim Ali, 33, also admitted entering into a funding arrangement for the purposes of terrorism by giving £300 to Khawaja. One further charge of preparing acts of terrorism was left on the file after he entered the plea in December 2014.
All three will be sentenced next month.
A British jihadist who faked his death in Syria so he could return home undetected faces life in prison having been convicted of major terrorism offences.
Imran Khawaja, 27, from Southall, London, spent six months in the war-torn country last year at a terrorist training camp after arriving via Kurdistan in January. He had also been photographed holding the severed head of a man.
While travelling back to the UK the terrorist group Rayat al-Tawheed falsely announced his death but counter-terrorism officers arrested Khawaja, who used the nom de guerre Abu Daigham al Baritani, along with his taxi driver cousin Tahir Bhatti in June last year when they reached Dover.
Khawaja had asked Bhatti, 45, to go cross country to Bulgaria to pick him up and drive him home, avoiding the familiar jihadist route to and from Syria via Turkey.
Prosecutor Mark Dawson told Westminster Magistrates Court at an earlier hearing that by 18 March last year, Bhatti, who was referred to in a coded message as ‘Butterbean’ , was well aware Khawaja was in Syria and that he was clearly training with a view to fighting in Syria. The pair used the instant messaging service Whatsapp to discuss their plans.
Mr Dawson said: “We say he is a senior member of that group because that group publishes media on things like Facebook and within that media are videos of members of that group in a training camp for example, driving in a convoy in military vehicles with anti-aircraft weapons and heavy machine-guns.
“There is one video demonstrating the finding of severed heads on the battlefield and decapitated heads. We say Mr Khawaja is Abu Daigham al-Britani and has appeared in many of those videos.”
The court was shown three photographs from Khawaja’s phone that allegedly reflected what Bhatti knew about his activities. The images showed Kawaja in combat gear sitting on a tank clutching a rifle, wearing clothing similar to other members of a known terrorist group and holding an assault rifle at a terrorist training camp.
Khawaja last month admitted preparation of terrorist acts as well as attending a terrorism training camp. He also admitted receiving weapons training and possessing a firearm for terrorist use.
Father-of-seven Bhatti also faces jail having pleaded guilty yesterday/on Tuesday to assisting an offender. He was alleged to have helped Khawaja by agreeing to provide a replacement phone, funding the purchase of a Kalashnikov assault rifle, using coded messages and helping him avoid arrest by hiring a car to pick him up from Sofia.
A third suspect Asim Ali, 33, also admitted entering into a funding arrangement for the purposes of terrorism by giving £300 to Khawaja. One further charge of preparing acts of terrorism was left on the file after he entered the plea in December 2014.
All three will be sentenced next month.
Last edited:
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Is there a big difference between, one being taken serious and one being taken "very serious" ?
Hate to break the news. There is no such thing as super hero school. Someone lied to you.
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
Doer
Well-Known Member
He's gone full retard and doesn't deserve the Nam picture about it.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Maybe it's a cover up. Even the powerful Dems were saying things like The SoU Address sounded like it was written in Iran.
Doer
Well-Known Member
I went to super-hero school and here I am.
....a drop out.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Oh it has so many names already, we just say, you can't cure stupid.
So, I just call it the Idiots of Man. It is the oldest self identified cult there is.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
So you still repeating the falsehood of sharia no go zones in Europe?
Or have you moved onto even dumber pastures?