How 'Rational Atheists' spread anti Islam pro US military propaganda

we live in a country where a black guy got off the hook for stabbing a white woman in the throat so many times that her head was barely still attached, by having a lawyer point out that maybe one or two of the arresting cops were racist. (by the way i absolutely cannot imagine a world where white amerikkka would have all jumped up and down hooting and hollering if an obviously guilty white guy was found innocent for decapitating a black woman. it's an impossibility because it simply would not happen.)

in the same country, plenty of examples can be seen where people who disagreed with our current president (who was largely voted into office by white amerikkkans) have been and continue to be accused of being probable racists, based on nothing beyond the fact of their disagreement with him. it's absolutely childish and disgusting as all hell, but it's like an accepted tactic for many left wing (and scumbag lawyer) types.

if some of you want to act like the whole PC/race card thing hasn't ever been abused by those on your side of the ideological spectrum, excuse me if i see you as being blatantly dishonest. am i saying islamophobia doesn't exist? no, but when i see someone who has posted comments to the effect of catholics/christians being brainwashed by their religion with negative influence on their behavior in other threads, suggesting that anyone being critical of islam or supposing that it may promote more violence/unsavory behaviors like abuse against women, or even just participating in the discussion without taking the accepted PC stance are probable racists, i have to see it as an abuse of the race card. you want to be able to define what thoughts are acceptable, and set up lines around the topics you don't want discussed, where if those lines are crossed you have all these labels you can toss at those people.

 

maybe the rest of us have been brainwashed by the incessant anti-muslim propaganda that the currently democrat ran war machine (that's killing plenty of innocent muslim kids and calling them enemy combatants to cover it up) is.. apparently disseminating through fox news and conservative radio shows/blog websites. but who's brainwashing you? or.. where are you getting your 'totally unbiased' news/opinions?

the daily show?

Nice post E.

 

The new left (as evident by this thread) are just as fucked , if not more fucked, than the conservative right. Their ideology is just like a religion, in that it promotes paranoia and fear of the "elite," and self-dehumanization. They have absolutely lost their moral compass and as we move into the future and face certain enemies who go against the very foundations of our civil society, the new left will just lie down and surrender everything.

 

  Quote

 

Initially, Sharia law was applied discretely within the small Muslim enclaves of Europe. But after two generations of high birth rate and immigration into Europe, those enclaves have grown to where the Sharia law now challenges the Judeo-Christian foundations of their host European nations.

 

 

  Quote

 

Don Melvin wrote in 2004 that, excluding Russia, Europe's Muslim population will double by 2020. He also says that almost 85% of Europe's total population growth in 2005 was due to immigration in general.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe

 

 

As Quentin points out in that interview, for 20-30 years he has been repeating the same thing when it comes to racism and violence in his films. Yet they keep asking and they keep on suspecting he is secretly a racist (or likes real acts of violence because he enjoys fictional/fantasy violence... unlike the religious fanatics and their book from God...)

 

It has become clear to me that Django and Inglorious Basterds are trying to roll back the new left's pseudo-fascist self-destructive attitudes by bringing race/historical/cultural taboos right back into our collective conscious.

 

He's attempting to start a dialogue and discussion. Kind of like what Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins are doing.

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2013 by compson

white are so oppressed boohoohoo :'''''''''''''((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

  On 4/9/2013 at 9:00 PM, Iain C said:

Behead compson RT if agree, fav if disagree

That post is dumber than anything compson has ever written on here..

nice thread. carry on

  On 4/9/2013 at 10:50 PM, Friendly Foil said:

  On 4/9/2013 at 9:00 PM, Iain C said:

 

Behead compson RT if agree, fav if disagree

 

That post is dumber than anything compson has ever written on here..

 

That counts as an RT

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

  On 4/9/2013 at 7:12 PM, compson said:

 

  On 4/9/2013 at 6:23 PM, luke viia said:

Thanks for trying dude but I'm done getting any information about Islam from your posts.

 

I doubt you read much of the info I posted anyway.

 

Amazing, one "suspicious" or "conservative" post about this topic and it completely negates any of the other info I posted.

 

Truly remarkable how people in America and Europe, who call themselves socialists/liberals/pacifists/intellectuals can be defending fascism unknowingly. Western hatred and paranoid delusions of mass conspiracy rot the brains of the new left, to the point that they assume moral superiority to those who criticize Islam peacefully and reasonably.

 

I have never been more clear minded and politically comfortable in my life as I am right now. I am not a racist. I do not think all Muslims are dangerous. I think Muslim fanatics are dangerous. You know the guys who killed a few thousand innocent people on 9/11.

 

I can deal with being called a racist, as it does not bother me, despite it potentially harming my reputation. But do note slander, generalizations, and assumptions are only coming from one side on this issue. Which should be obvious. But unfortunately it isn't.

 

 

Uh, what? I've read the entire shitstorm you've posted in here. Truly remarkable how you can post information on a foreign religion from climate change deniers who are convinced of a homosexual agenda, and still expect me to take you seriously. That site was just the nail in the coffin for me dude. I can't believe you are seriously trying to lump me into whatever the fuck "the new left" means (fuck off with that, dude, seriously. You insinuated the same thing in the NK thread. I do not subscribe to partisan politics and I have plenty of problems with the "left.") and simultaneously saying that generalizations and assumptions are only coming from one side on this issue? You cannot be serious.

 

:facepalm:

Edited April 10, 2013 by luke viia

  On 4/10/2013 at 12:57 AM, luke viia said:

 

  On 4/9/2013 at 7:12 PM, compson said:

 

  On 4/9/2013 at 6:23 PM, luke viia said:

Thanks for trying dude but I'm done getting any information about Islam from your posts.

 

I doubt you read much of the info I posted anyway.

 

Amazing, one "suspicious" or "conservative" post about this topic and it completely negates any of the other info I posted.

 

Truly remarkable how people in America and Europe, who call themselves socialists/liberals/pacifists/intellectuals can be defending fascism unknowingly. Western hatred and paranoid delusions of mass conspiracy rot the brains of the new left, to the point that they assume moral superiority to those who criticize Islam peacefully and reasonably.

 

I have never been more clear minded and politically comfortable in my life as I am right now. I am not a racist. I do not think all Muslims are dangerous. I think Muslim fanatics are dangerous. You know the guys who killed a few thousand innocent people on 9/11.

 

I can deal with being called a racist, as it does not bother me, despite it potentially harming my reputation. But do note slander, generalizations, and assumptions are only coming from one side on this issue. Which should be obvious. But unfortunately it isn't.

 

 

Uh, what? I've read the entire shitstorm you've posted in here. Truly remarkable how you can post information on a foreign religion from climate change deniers who are convinced of a homosexual agenda, and still expect me to take you seriously. That site was just the nail in the coffin for me dude. I can't believe you are seriously trying to lump me into whatever the fuck "the new left" means (fuck off with that, dude, seriously. You insinuated the same thing in the NK thread. I do not subscribe to partisan politics and I have plenty of problems with the "left.") and simultaneously saying that generalizations and assumptions are only coming from one side on this issue? You cannot be serious.

 

:facepalm:

 

 

The information is also on wikipedia. Feel free to prove it wrong with a rational argument.

I don't know enough about the topic to "prove" it wrong; that's why I've opted out of getting information from a website that also spouts things I know to be false, like their article on "climate warmists." I hope you can understand why I'm not too keen on spending my afternoon debunking a website just to make a point to you.

 

And btw, if you'd like to use that tactic, what I am happy to do is to encourage other members of the board to give you a reading list on the geopolitical situation in predominantly Islamic countries, so that you can read the books and prove them wrong with your rational arguments about the new left's brainwashing techniques.

Edited April 10, 2013 by luke viia

  On 4/9/2013 at 7:12 PM, compson said:

 

  On 4/9/2013 at 6:23 PM, luke viia said:

Thanks for trying dude but I'm done getting any information about Islam from your posts.

 

I doubt you read much of the info I posted anyway.

 

Amazing, one "suspicious" or "conservative" post about this topic and it completely negates any of the other info I posted.

 

Truly remarkable how people in America and Europe, who call themselves socialists/liberals/pacifists/intellectuals can be defending fascism unknowingly. Western hatred and paranoid delusions of mass conspiracy rot the brains of the new left, to the point that they assume moral superiority to those who criticize Islam peacefully and reasonably.

 

I have never been more clear minded and politically comfortable in my life as I am right now. I am not a racist. I do not think all Muslims are dangerous. I think Muslim fanatics are dangerous. You know the guys who killed a few thousand innocent people on 9/11.

 

I can deal with being called a racist, as it does not bother me, despite it potentially harming my reputation. But do note slander, generalizations, and assumptions are only coming from one side on this issue. Which should be obvious. But unfortunately it isn't.

 

so basically the 'liberal media' a fake concept has 'rotted' liberals brains' Dude seriously, i don't know what media you've been absorbing recently but not only have you shifted more towards the generic tunnel vision of the right wing you're starting to sound like Sean Hannity, Limbaugh, Mark Levine and basically the Fox News belief system. Don't you at all find that embarrassing?

 

The mode of thinking in Greenwald's article is still a very marginalized and unpopular subject to bring up among most of the people on the left or the right. Besides Hitchens, all the people mentioned or alluded to in Greenwald's article are the mainstream of the left wing, and can be characterized as the 'new left'. Greenwald and myself are not 'the new left'. It's just painful to watch you make so many gross missteps in your arguments while deflecting people who disagree with you as fascism apologists, when again you misuse the word fascism continuously, much like a Fox News reporter does.

Edited April 10, 2013 by John Ehrlichman

since this thread has derailed so much I figure why not derail it more. I found something recently that's interested me a lot about the seeds being planted for Americans to hate muslims. The 'Palestinian celebration' on the day of 9/11. The footage was aired during a national emergency when many people in New York or around the United States weren't sure if their loved ones were alive or not, only 1.5 hours after the collapse of the 2nd tower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMOZvbYJMvU

does this come off as 'agitation propaganda' to anybody here? Is it rational or does it even make a remote amount of sense for the media to air something like this in the midst of a disaster situation? I could understand the news networks playing this perhaps later in the evening once things had died down and people weren't terrified for their lives anymore. but just think about the heightened emotional state we were all in when they (CNN, MSNBC and Fox News)

showed this to us at 11:58 in the morning on the day of 9/11.

I'm sure someone would like to derail this point as well and bring it around to something like 'well see that's proof right there they are more dangerous and mentally fucked than other religions' etc

but check this out, live media coverage on the day of 9/11 when people didn't have to be 'professional' and angry opinions were spoken openly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhPz8LlDRIo

scroll to 1:16:27

now tranpose this reaction onto hundreds of thousands of americans glued to their televisions that day... discuss

on the Greenwald tip (of his cock which i would like to suck)

he discusses Iran war run-up propaganda with 2 former George W Bush officials

(not that comment isn't from someone on watmm)

as far as I understand the idea that it was old footage (from 1991) was a hoax perpetrated by a Brazilian student. They (msnbc, fox, nbc, cnn) all got the footage from Reuters, and apparently (although I can't verify it) it was filmed on 9/11/01. The question I have is why would they all air that at the same time in the middle of a major catastrophe when most of americans watching TV were in a state of panic and terror? I don't think it's an easy enough explanation to say that the media is just sensationalist all the time and it's just another example of it.

Edited April 10, 2013 by John Ehrlichman

Propaganda? Whose propaganda? An anti-us mob in Iran, or North Korea for that matter, could be propaganda, but not necessarily us-media propaganda. When these clips were repeated in us-media -dont know to what extent, but ill play along and assume it was- there were obviously a lot of emotions involved. What surprises me is the ease with which assumed intentions can be reversed ( meaning to reverse the intention from expressing genuine emotions, to an intention where media makes a 'rational' decision to fire up the emotions ). And on the basis of what really?

 

I'd agree that especially the newsmedia have a responsibility to serve information without catering the emotions to the extent which seems nowadays commonplace. But calling it propaganda is taking it one step further.

 

Imo, the loss of distinction between fact and opinion is the real crime in todays media, in general. Whether that is propaganda is an entirely different discussion which would be about intentions, i'm guessing. But I'm afraid the loss of this distinction - in general! - hasn't got much to do with the intention to brainwash people.

 

And in general, in this case, has a broader meaning than just the us media. I mean, not every discussion has to be us centric, right? ( or us/british centric)

  On 4/10/2013 at 6:11 AM, goDel said:

Propaganda? Whose propaganda? An anti-us mob in Iran, or North Korea for that matter, could be propaganda, but not necessarily us-media propaganda. When these clips were repeated in us-media -dont know to what extent, but ill play along and assume it was- there were obviously a lot of emotions involved. What surprises me is the ease with which assumed intentions can be reversed ( meaning to reverse the intention from expressing genuine emotions, to an intention where media makes a 'rational' decision to fire up the emotions ). And on the basis of what really?

 

I'd agree that especially the newsmedia have a responsibility to serve information without catering the emotions to the extent which seems nowadays commonplace. But calling it propaganda is taking it one step further.

 

Imo, the loss of distinction between fact and opinion is the real crime in todays media, in general. Whether that is propaganda is an entirely different discussion which would be about intentions, i'm guessing. But I'm afraid the loss of this distinction - in general! - hasn't got much to do with the intention to brainwash people.

 

And in general, in this case, has a broader meaning than just the us media. I mean, not every discussion has to be us centric, right? ( or us/british centric)

 

I can tell you that that celebration footage pretty much single-handedly convinced my father that everyone in the Middle East was a savage.

And that was right after the events took place, right? Things can kinda look that way in a certain emotional state. That doesn't necessarily make showing those clips propaganda, right? I mean, the media can't control what everyone thinks and feel. Influence at best. Control would imply some zombi state of mind from the viewer. (I'm taking this to extremes, just to see where this takes the argument, btw)

  On 4/10/2013 at 6:54 AM, goDel said:

And that was right after the events took place, right? Things can kinda look that way in a certain emotional state. That doesn't necessarily make showing those clips propaganda, right? I mean, the media can't control what everyone thinks and feel. Influence at best. Control would imply some zombi state of mind from the viewer. (I'm taking this to extremes, just to see where this takes the argument, btw)

 

The problem with this is the problem with media in general IMO.

 

 

The reason my father thinks that people in the middle east are savages is because these celebration clips were all over the media at the time of the attacks. The problem with showing these clips is--even if the clips happen to be 100% authentic--they are a cropped picture of the world. For instance, they didn't show footage of the millions of Muslims that weren't celebrating. So if you're Joe Sixpack and you just got home from your construction job and cracked a Bud Light and turned on CNN or Fox News on 9/11 or 9/12 and the only information you're given regarding Muslims is clips of them celebrating 9/11 then of course that will affect how you regard Muslims.

 

Some people get very skeptical when you start espousing the evils of mainstream media. But the harm that the media causes is not done through any sort of active malevolence like lying or exaggerating, but rather by filtering and framing (as in how one 'frames' an issue).

 

So for instance if you were to get all of your information about Occupy Wall Street from Fox News you would hear about

people getting arrested for assault, people breaking laws, people disrupting traffic and going to the bathroom in public parks, etc. That's all true, of course, but that's a severely cropped view. And if that's the only information you were getting about Occupy Wall Street then it'd be quite easy to think--as many people seem to--that they're a group of disgusting, violent hooligans.

Edited April 10, 2013 by LimpyLoo

  On 4/10/2013 at 1:36 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

  On 4/9/2013 at 7:12 PM, compson said:

 

  On 4/9/2013 at 6:23 PM, luke viia said:

Thanks for trying dude but I'm done getting any information about Islam from your posts.

 

I doubt you read much of the info I posted anyway.

 

Amazing, one "suspicious" or "conservative" post about this topic and it completely negates any of the other info I posted.

 

Truly remarkable how people in America and Europe, who call themselves socialists/liberals/pacifists/intellectuals can be defending fascism unknowingly. Western hatred and paranoid delusions of mass conspiracy rot the brains of the new left, to the point that they assume moral superiority to those who criticize Islam peacefully and reasonably.

 

I have never been more clear minded and politically comfortable in my life as I am right now. I am not a racist. I do not think all Muslims are dangerous. I think Muslim fanatics are dangerous. You know the guys who killed a few thousand innocent people on 9/11.

 

I can deal with being called a racist, as it does not bother me, despite it potentially harming my reputation. But do note slander, generalizations, and assumptions are only coming from one side on this issue. Which should be obvious. But unfortunately it isn't.

 

so basically the 'liberal media' a fake concept has 'rotted' liberals brains' Dude seriously, i don't know what media you've been absorbing recently but not only have you shifted more towards the generic tunnel vision of the right wing you're starting to sound like Sean Hannity, Limbaugh, Mark Levine and basically the Fox News belief system. Don't you at all find that embarrassing?

 

The mode of thinking in Greenwald's article is still a very marginalized and unpopular subject to bring up among most of the people on the left or the right. Besides Hitchens, all the people mentioned or alluded to in Greenwald's article are the mainstream of the left wing, and can be characterized as the 'new left'. Greenwald and myself are not 'the new left'. It's just painful to watch you make so many gross missteps in your arguments while deflecting people who disagree with you as fascism apologists, when again you misuse the word fascism continuously, much like a Fox News reporter does.

 

 

I said nothing about a media conspiracy and I don't think thats the case either. I think its generally just an example of liberal attitudes trying to appeal to voters. As well as the Mutz Paradox.

 

Political correctness is just a reaction to our recent history and ratings.

 

Though I concede I could be wrong about historical stuff, not exactly scholarly journalism or anything. And not exactly easy to wrap your head around history involving a 1,400 year old book. But even still, Islam seems to be on rise compared to most religions and that prospect is troubling imo.

 

edit: Greenwald definitely appeals to the new left. He's practically always negative towards American policy. Same goes for Noam Chomsky.

Edited April 10, 2013 by compson

this thread is fucking hilarious.

  On 4/10/2013 at 7:49 AM, chenGOD said:

this thread is fucking hilarious.

 

hilariously scary

  Quote

 

Islamic fundamentalism's push for sharia and an Islamic State has come into conflict with conceptions of the secular, democratic state, such as the internationally supported Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Anthony J. Dennis notes that "Western and Islamic visions of the state, the individual and society are not only divergent, they are often totally at odds."^[30] Among human rights^[31] disputed by fundamentalist Muslims are:

• Freedom from religious police
• Equality issues between men and women^[32]
• Separation of religion and state^[33]
• Freedom of speech^[34]
• Freedom of religion.^{[35][36][37][38][39][40][41]}

 

Edited April 10, 2013 by compson

  On 4/10/2013 at 7:35 AM, LimpyLoo said:

. ...

No, I think it's a bit more subtle. Lets say the media showed those celebration clips AND other clips from other places where people (muslims) riot against muslim extremism, in the arab world. The question would be what people would focus on, even though the media would create a perfectly balanced story. Of course, there would still be people who'd only have an eye for the savage riots and most likely see confirmed what they were expecting beforehand. The next question would be to what extent that would be, on average. Lets call it the human nature percentage of bigotery. If you'd research this stuff, this would be your control group, right?

 

So, to get back to the practice; here, on this side of the great lake, the following was broadcasted: like in the us there were clips of riots, but in the talk-over there was mention that those were taking place in only a couple of isolated places and that governments and other instances showed their respect and rejected the actions behind the tragedy. ( Fyi: here in the netherlands there were actually a couple of places where people with a certain religious background went on the street to celebrate as well .... talking about bigotery) So, without the talk over we're looking at tasty imagery of rioting people, but the story provided all the nuance. Could this be labelled as propaganda? How many people would focus on the imagery and kinda ignore the nuanced story? Are the media responsible for this behavior? Are the media responsible for the way people filter what they take in? The answer would probably be they're responsible to take into account the "average percentage of human nature bigotery", or something of that nature, right?

 

I'm afraid this is a bit of a longwinded story, but my first question when I hear about a propaganda claim, is how would you prove a thing like that? Also, the claim in itself is a crude generalisation of itself as well, right?

Edited April 10, 2013 by goDel

  Quote

 

that should cover the rest of compson's posts in this thread. lock it, nuke it from orbit.

I've only dipped in and out of the thread but I don't mind your or misterE's points, compson. Sure, your perspective may lack subtlety - and mine certainly. But I like the plainspoken approach. We all operate on prejudices, based on a combination of anecdotal stuff that crops up in our day-to-day lives, and a rather random collection of bits of info gleaned from the news, books, and web.

 

For my part, I've met some cool Muslims - some cab drivers in Germany, some folks who work for my studio in Indonesia. But I also think the stats you posted about Muslim intolerance (in aggregate) are chilling. Extremism in any form is troubling, whether it's a gay kid being beaten to death in the US, or some girl's clitoris being cut off in northern Africa, a bride getting her face melted by acid in India, or some lady getting stoned to death in Pakistan.

HOWEVER...even when all is said and done, in an effort to be as fair as possible, there is still something about Islam I find troubling. I take business trips to Indo, and when I interact with the women with their head scarves there's just...something missing. A blankness to the stare, a hardness to the facial features in the older ones. I'm not exaggerating. I think this is the main problem with Islam (as it is practiced almost everywhere). Not the extremism that leads to 9-11, but the extremism that fucks up so many women's lives, curtails their opportunities, intimidates them, makes them fear for their lives. It's frankly disgusting.

 

So yeah...I like falafels and shawarmas as much as the next guy. Love Muslim architecture a ton, tres IDM. But the oppression of women ain't cool, yo.

  On 4/10/2013 at 8:23 AM, lumpenprol said:

lumpenprol, on 09 Apr 2013 - 11:23 PM, said:

 

I've only dipped in and out of the thread but I don't mind your or misterE's points, compson. Sure, your perspective may lack subtlety - and mine certainly. But I like the plainspoken approach. We all operate on prejudices, based on a combination of anecdotal stuff that crops up in our day-to-day lives, and a rather random collection of bits of info gleaned from the news, books, and web.

 

For my part, I've met some cool Muslims - some cab drivers in Germany, some folks who work for my studio in Indonesia. But I also think the stats you posted about Muslim intolerance (in aggregate) are chilling. Extremism in any form is troubling, whether it's a gay kid being beaten to death in the US, or some girl's clitoris being cut off in northern Africa, a bride getting her face melted by acid in India, or some lady getting stoned to death in Pakistan.

HOWEVER...even when all is said and done, in an effort to be as fair as possible, there is still something about Islam I find troubling. I take business trips to Indo, and when I interact with the women with their head scarves there's just...something missing. A blankness to the stare, a hardness to the facial features in the older ones. I'm not exaggerating. I think this is the main problem with Islam (as it is practiced almost everywhere). Not the extremism that leads to 9-11, but the extremism that fucks up so many women's lives, curtails their opportunities, intimidates them, makes them fear for their lives. It's frankly disgusting.

 

So yeah...I like falafels and shawarmas as much as the next guy. Love Muslim architecture a ton, tres IDM. But the oppression of women ain't cool, yo.

Also something to note is that there are very few vocal in the Muslim community who stand up against the intolerance (in Europe and America). At least that I know of.

 

This is one of the weirder aspects of the religion to me. Especially as so many Muslims migrate into Europe, demanding their way of life remains as is.

 

And none can deny what totalitarian ideologies lead to. I mean, it seems pretty self-evident that Islam should be looked at more closely by media/journalism. The issue is fairly absent in the press, especially after the death and threats to journalists who do "go there."

 

edit: a bit drunk , typing is shit and computer is all glitchy

 

Basically to answer John/Awe's point earlier. Yes mainstream liberal news tries to paint terror with terrorist, but Islam is rarely mentioned in a larger context. It seems weird that those polls for instance, get little / if any / mainstream news coverage.

Edited April 10, 2013 by compson