Quote from: BADecker on June 19, 2015, 04:03:03 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on June 19, 2015, 12:25:42 AM

Quote from: BADecker on June 18, 2015, 11:04:14 PM

Quote from: kuroman on June 18, 2015, 09:25:25 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on June 17, 2015, 12:05:01 AM

Quote from: kuroman on June 16, 2015, 09:23:22 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on June 16, 2015, 07:04:28 PM

Quote from: kuroman on June 16, 2015, 06:18:55 PM

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 14, 2015, 05:06:36 AM

Quote from: woodsandhillsplc on June 13, 2015, 11:10:18 PM

> Moroccan man in France brutally stabbed to death by neighbour in 'horrible Islamophobic attack'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2914616/Moroccan-man-France-brutally-stabbed-death-neighbour-horrible-Islamophobic-attack.html

Another false flag. We don't know about the true identity of the attacker. And from the slogans which he shouted before the attack, I believe that he is also from an Islamic background. And from the article, it is clear that the perpetrator suffered from acute schizophrenia. So it seems that the attack resulted from mental illness, rather than Islamophobia.

I'm sorry but what you are stating here is wrong, As a French and since this case was big, it was impossible to miss any information about it, it was clearly an islamophobic attack. Also According to officiel and several organisation (in France), Islamophobia cases has skyrocketed after the Terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo I can list some if you want (there was an increase in antisemite act last year as well but that's another story).

The other which I mentioned before is what you are exactly stating above ie Every attack done on a muslim is related to mental issues, but when it's a muslim doing them it's automatically terrorism which stupid. you don't believe that every cases done against any muslim is related to mental issue and excusable and statically it's impossible.

I can fix this problem for you.

Belief in Islam is a mental illness.

(LOL...)

if only the solution was as simple as that ....

Joking aside, though....

It should be of importance to look at cause and effect.

Let's parse it like this.

Muslims commit atrocities --> various people kill Muslims

No, wait. We can do better than that.

Someone/group draws cartoons of Mohammed
--> Muslim group commits atrocities
--> various people kill Muslims
--> in reaction to the absurdity of those killings, a lady decides to have a draw Mohammed cartoon contest
--> Muslim wanna be commandos try to kill her

Looks like one Muslim terrorist goal is to do things bad enough that they will engender a response, so that the cycles of violence will definitely continue.

Well, the history of use of those tactics pretty much defined Arafat's entire career. Create media events about "the evil Jews" but always leave out the historical chain of events and the atrocities that engendered the response.

So there's nothing new in this, and it's not limited to lone wolf terrorists.

Now, back to the subject of "Islamophobia." As post #1 used the phrase, it was a hijacked term used as an intimidating word, one to shut people up who said anything against Islam.

You wouldn't thing there actually might be some things to be said against islam, would you?

Of course there are some "Muslim" terrorist that want to use the situation to their advantage like you've mentioned, but that's only one side of the story, the other way around is true, there are people that initiate this kind of situation to their own advantages from politics to the weapon lobbies are just some random sect...

As for the Islamophobia term, no this is wrong, You can say whatever you want about Islam I think no muslim will mind you saying you disagree, just keep it civil because people will get offended if you insult and mock them especially when it comes to their strongest believes or things they like being it muslims or not.

I've provided example of Islamophic acts (recognised officially as such) being it on scale or just individual act. Of course this doesn't mean that there aren't people that uses as you mentioned to shut other people down but this in case of Islam is marginal especially when you consider the number of Muslim around the world ie Third of world population ( There are other groups that have better tools and organization that fall more in the definition you are portraying)

In America, you have young men graduating from high school. Some of these young guys join the military. They do it because they feel that they are supporting America by going out and fighting Middle East insurgents.

You also have lots of young graduates who believe that our interference in the Middle East is wrong. They think that it is our involvement over there that is causing much of the strife. They would almost never join the U.S. Military to go and fight in the Middle East.

Both of these groups are Americans. They recognize each other as Americans. They might call each other nasty names at times, because of their differences. They might even get into political fist fights once in a while. But they all recognize each other as Americans.

----------

In the Middle east and around the world you have Muslims. Some of the Muslims are militants for their beliefs, just like the young American soldiers. Others are totally against fighting. Some of them get into fights over their beliefs. Yet they are all Muslims, because they say so, just like Americans are Americans.

----------

Now, here is the distinction between the two groups.

Warrior Americans and peace loving Americans recognize each other as Americans.

Warrior Muslims recognize all Muslims as Muslims, but peace loving Muslims try to say that warrior Muslims are not really Muslims, but that they are simply terrorists using the Muslim name.

----------

I think that there are no peace loving Muslims. I think that they are all warrior Muslims. I think that the ones that talk peace to the extent that they would not recognize warrior Muslims as Muslim... I think those peaceful Muslims are really an advanced infiltration group of Muslims, slipping behind enemy lines, like spies, sent to soften unsuspecting nations up, so that at just the right time, they can call in the warrior Muslims to destroy the unsuspecting nations.

There aren't any peaceful Muslims. There are only warrior, conqueror Muslims. And the ones that say that they are peaceful are the biggest warriors of them all, because they are preparing the nations that they infiltrate for conquest through the peace lies that they spread.

This is not a bad analysis, but you are completely wrong. Let us say that for discussion we accept your premise (bolded above).

Propaganda efforts by their nature require large numbers of "propagators." These are willing, naive and gullible individuals, but they truly believe what they propagate.

This is very different than willful deceit and dishonesty.

Next we could consider NOT accepting your premise, and it's consequences for the take on the overall situation....

Then we could consider Kuroman's premises, which are <> that there are so many things going on continually in large and small amounts that no useful conclusions can be drawn whatsoever.

And then there's my point of view.

Exploding bombs aren't peaceful, even though if don't know anything about how they are being used.

Then you contradict yourself, because they who do such do not say they are peaceful.