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

AP Stylebook revises 'Islamist' use

 

  Quote

The Associated Press made waves earlier this week when it announced that it was dropping the term "illegal immigrant" from its Stylebook. But another significant change made yesterday seems to have flown under the radar.

 

On Thursday, after much prodding from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the AP moved to disassociate the term "Islamist" from its negative connotations with "Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals, who may or may not be Islamists.

 

CAIR commended the AP's decision in a statement released on Friday: "We believe this revision is a step in the right direction and will result in fewer negative generalizations in coverage of issues related to Islam and Muslims," Ibrahim Hooper, the National Communications Director for the civil liberties group said. "The key issue with the term 'Islamist' is not its continued use; the issue is its use almost exclusively as an ill-defined pejorative."

 

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/04/ap-stylebook-revises-islamist-use-160943.html

 

 

 

Maikel Nabil: Yes, I’m a Blasphemer - Get Over I

 

  Quote

On October 7, 2012, the office of the Egyptian General Prosecutor decided to start an official investigation accusing me of “blasphemy”—or, as they call it, “insulting Islam.” My crime was expressing my atheist beliefs on my Twitter account.

 

The Egyptian authorities also arrested my friend Alber Saber on similar charges. He remains in jail to this day.

Egypt has signed many international treaties that ensure freedom of expression, but the Egyptian penal code still has approximately 20 laws that make certain opinions a crime.

 

The specified offenses include criticizing the president, the parliament, the military, or the judiciary. Criticizing a foreign president, such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Bashar Al-Assad, is also a crime, punishable with a three-year term in prison.

 

When I learned of the charges against me and Saber, I remembered my friend Kareem Amer, a famous Egyptian blogger who was sentenced to four years in prison in 2007 for insulting both Islam and then-President Mubarak. Kareem suffered a great deal in prison. He was tortured several times, and spent a long time in solitary confinement under horrible conditions.

 

 

 

http://advancinghumanrights.org/news/maikel_nabil_yes_im_a_blasphemer_get_over_it

 

a timeline of agitation propaganda created by the media and the US government from 9/11 until today or 'How we all became boiled frogs' Edited April 18, 2013 by John Ehrlichman

I like how you slipped a song in there.

 

oh, I thought it was excerpts and you added a song, but it is like a podcast type thing.

Edited April 18, 2013 by AdieuErsatzEnnui

I have to say I found the Wikipedia lists of terrorist incidents brought up earlier in this thread quite surprising:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_January%E2%80%93June_2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_July%E2%80%93December_2012

etc.

 

They are far more frequent than I expected. And it is quite shocking that > 90% of the attacks in recent years are connected to some radical islamic groups -- which was seemingly different a decade ago (and even back then, most of the terror attacks connected to islamist groups were part of the Israel-Palestine conflict). Islamic terror also seems to be a surprisingly global phenomenon, as the lists made me aware of areas of conflict that I was not even remotely aware of. For example, there was a recent terrorist attack in Thailand, and the linked news article states that "More than 5,000 people have been killed in Thailand's three southernmost provinces since an Islamist insurgency erupted in 2004.".

you're surprised that there are frequent "terrorist" attacks in nations/regions where governance has been disrupted by external forces?

lol

  On 4/20/2013 at 6:22 AM, chenGOD said:

you're surprised that there are frequent "terrorist" attacks in nations/regions where governance has been disrupted by external forces?

 

This is hardly the case in Thailand, India, Nigeria, Kenya, Yemen, Egypt, Russia, Libya, Somalia, most areas of Pakistan, China, France, Belgium, Spain etc.

 

And yes, even in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan that have been disrupted by external forces, it is noteworthy that that most of the terrorist attacks are not targeting these external forces, but are rather driven by an Islamist agenda (or sectarian violence in the case of Iraq).

lol really? Pakistan is fighting the influence of the US (US and Pakistan are allies lol)and the Pakistan - Afghanistan border is porous as fuck. Libya, Somalia, have seen significant external interference, most of the African incidences I'd wager are cross-border (on phone and drinking, not gonna post anything to substantiate that claim) China is probably in regions that have been claimed by the Han Chinese (im using this label for convenience rather than accuracy) as their own, such as the Uighers, and the ones in Europe are rare by comparison.

 

oh and the taliban are only tolerated in Afghanistan because the actual government (heavily reliant on the US) is totally incompetent.

add to the fact that the Taliban would never have been there in the first place had the Soviets and US not completely fucked with the completely legitimate and democratic government of Afghanistan prior.

  On 4/20/2013 at 7:18 AM, chenGOD said:

lol really? Pakistan is fighting the influence of the US (US and Pakistan are allies lol)and the Pakistan - Afghanistan border is porous as fuck. Libya, Somalia, have seen significant external interference, most of the African incidences I'd wager are cross-border (on phone and drinking, not gonna post anything to substantiate that claim) China is probably in regions that have been claimed by the Han Chinese (im using this label for convenience rather than accuracy) as their own, such as the Uighers, and the ones in Europe are rare by comparison.

 

oh and the taliban are only tolerated in Afghanistan because the actual government (heavily reliant on the US) is totally incompetent.

 

First off, it is quite problematic that there is some kind of automatism through which 'outside disturbance' leads to the kind of terrorism we observe. If that would be the case, we is the terrorism only by islamic groups in that country that happen to have an islamic agenda? Why are not other groups making use of terrorism as well? You also ignore that the destabilizing influencecs of radical islam and terrorism lead to these 'outside disturbances' to begin with (9/11 and Bin Laden are the most obvious examples). You also igore the fact that you could find 'outside disturbances' in many other countries (in your very broad definition), without resorting to terror and blowing up random citizens.

 

Finally, you failed to give any explanation for Thailand, India, Nigeria, Kenya, Yemen, Egypt, Russia, and various European countries. Of course, the total death toll of islamist terror in Europe is lower, since there are fewer islamist activists, and security measuers are tighter, and several attempts at terrorist attacks have been thwarted. Factoring this in, it seems like you are downplaying incidents such as the 2004 Madrid train bombings (191 people dead, 1800 wounded) or the Toulouse shootings (some news articles hypothesized that they were a causative factor of the increased migration of French Jews to Israel, but the evidence for this association is very vague).

 

> oh and the taliban are only tolerated in Afghanistan because the actual government (heavily reliant on the US) is totally incompetent.

 

Well, without the last Afghan war that government had probably long been replaced by a totalitarian Taliban regime (which might still happen, delayed by a decade). It's not like the Taliban would be willing to leave dissenters another choice. The phrase that the people choose to 'tolerate' the Taliban sounds quite sugarcoated.

  On 4/20/2013 at 6:15 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

add to the fact that the Taliban would never have been there in the first place had the Soviets and US not completely fucked with the completely legitimate and democratic government of Afghanistan prior.

 

That is quite possible. But this does not have any impact on our judgement of radical Islam per se, does it? In fact, the observation that in so many cases where a country with a large Muslim population is undergoing a period of instability, radical islamists are taking the opportunity to seize power and push their fundamentalist and totalitarian agenda --- that seems to strengthen the hypothesis that radical Islam is to be taken very serious, and that it should receive special attention among other contemporary religious movements and ideologies.

 

All of the revolutions that seemed to happen in countries such as Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Mali were started by political activists that were not driven by Islamic ideology. In seemingly all of these cases, the resulting instability was taken as an opportunity by the islamists to work towards fundamentalist/totalitarian regimes. So far, they seem to have a good chance of succeeding in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. They would probably also have succeeded in Mali without the French supporting the government.

 

If you would not care about the topic, you would not be that active (and seemingly emotionally involved) in this discussion.

i am watmm, and i pass my judgement swiftly and mercilessly.

 

 

or alcofribulationary is.

a good friend of mine is a muslim, pretty cool dude, loves fried chicken and once hilariously slipped over in mud running away in terror from a pig a barn rave.

Edited April 20, 2013 by messiaen

  On 4/20/2013 at 7:18 PM, cqueberel said:

 

  On 4/20/2013 at 6:15 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

add to the fact that the Taliban would never have been there in the first place had the Soviets and US not completely fucked with the completely legitimate and democratic government of Afghanistan prior.

 

That is quite possible. But this does not have any impact on our judgement of radical Islam per se, does it? In fact, the observation that in so many cases where a country with a large Muslim population is undergoing a period of instability, radical islamists are taking the opportunity to seize power and push their fundamentalist and totalitarian agenda --- that seems to strengthen the hypothesis that radical Islam is to be taken very serious, and that it should receive special attention among other contemporary religious movements and ideologies.

 

All of the revolutions that seemed to happen in countries such as Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Mali were started by political activists that were not driven by Islamic ideology. In seemingly all of these cases, the resulting instability was taken as an opportunity by the islamists to work towards fundamentalist/totalitarian regimes. So far, they seem to have a good chance of succeeding in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. They would probably also have succeeded in Mali without the French supporting the government.

 

 

again, this all goes back to the points I brought up 20+ pages ago. You can't adequately say that "radical religion x" is the MOST violent. Does it deserve attention? Without a doubt, and you'd be hard pressed to find people glossing it over; after all, this very thread is predicated on people not "paying enough attention" to Islamic extremism.

 

My point is essentially this; the religious doctrine or extremism, while certainly a motivator, is not the sole cause of violent action, and by equating "radical Islam" as an umbrella term for these movements is naive and dangerous. No one in their right mind would have called the KKK a Christian terrorist group, even if they were burning crosses in black's backyards. Yes, they supposedly have Christian theology or radicalized forms of that doctrine to supposedly reinforce their righteousness in carrying out violence, but do call them this is to ignore the socioeconomic and political factors at play behind the scenes. Religion is a convenient excuse for these groups to "excuse" their violence, and help recruit new members who, again might be ideologically, ethnically, or politically predisposed to see this as a divinely excused right to "fight back".

 

What about the Lord's Army in Central Africa? Even though they operate under an extremist form of Christianity, you would be crazy to simply call them a Christian extremist group. They are fighting for political and ethnic supremacy, under a thinly veiled guise of religious authority.

 

The 9/11 attacks, if we are to believe the narrative, were NOT solely or even primarily because of "Islamic extremism". It was because of U.S. involvement and military support of Israel, and expansion of U.S. air bases in the Arabian Peninsula. These are politically motivated at their very roots, and the supposed religious prophecies/zealotry is used as a supposedly moral pretext to excuse their actions. You will certainly find a few "true believers" in every organization, but I guarantee you those at the top know they are using religion as a casus belli to seize power over a culture or government for themselves.

 

So ok, so what? They still use religion as a pretext to do something. Thus they are still "Islamic extremists". That's when we proceed to the cultural imperialism shown in compson's rants. We are more Westernized, atheistic, tolerant, etc. Thus, we are in a moral position to "act" against Islamic extremism. Well, how do you propose to do this? This is ultimately the conundrum where people who think in terms of being proactive in ending "Islamic extremism" ultimately guarantee to continue the circle of violence by blindly supporting Western military invasions and wars regardless of the ulterior motives to doing so. This, once again, is why Greenwald's article brings up interesting points, and why it shouldn't be ignored. It irrevocably turns into a never-ending "culture war".

  On 4/20/2013 at 7:30 PM, Alcofribas said:

 

 

that's clearly photoshopped

The discussion between Brian Levin and Bill Maher at the last episode of Maher's show was basically a copycat of this thread. Well, at least imo.

 

Go WATMM!

going to watch that now, should I take on guess on which side Bill Maher is on?

  On 4/21/2013 at 8:06 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

going to watch that now, should I take on guess on which side Bill Maher is on?

 

Lol

 

You know where he is. Salman Rushdie is on the guest list as well, btw

 

I thought it was an interesting discussion, even though Maher made sure it couldn't come to an actual discussion. Somewhere along the line Brian was able to remain civilized and make some of his points.

 

In the end it was about outing Maher as an anti-religionist with a strong islamaphobic gene.

Edited April 21, 2013 by goDel

Stop saying mean things about Islam pls :,(

Edited April 21, 2013 by Friendly Foil

big read, lots of interesting points...

 

maybe tomorow i'll have the courage to write a toughtful response but i'l just throw some general thoughts now:

 

1- could we all please stop with the "the West" "Western...' etc..., while there is undoubtedly cultural and historical common ground, diplomaticaly speaking it's a nonsense. (just look at how votes are going in the U.N.)

2- For you Americans, remember that your country/state is quite a unique exemple in the long history of the devellopment of nations in the world, so generalizing concepts like "freedom"(what is it?) and "democracy" may not be the be all end all of geo-political peace.

3- I really think all this talk about religion/culture is meaningless to the VAST majority of the people in the countries you all are reffering to (arabic, middle east, whatever)

remember that the Arab Spring was started on ECONOMIC ground, not moral/religious/cultural ground...

RE the western world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

In 2002: "On November 9, demonstrations were held against the war at the end of the first European Social Forum in Florence, Italy. According to the organizers, 1,000,000 people were in attendance. Local authorities put attendance at 500,000"

Some nations (I'm looking at you United Kingdom lol) choose to side diplomaticately (maybe wrong spelling?) with the U.S.A. after WW2 but it doesn't make a whole, cohesive, block

good points. It's not a cohesive block of countries in agreement. However i think polls I've seen about the way Europeans in general feel about America shed some light on at least some agreement across the board. Not to throw another facet into the discussion intentionally but polls taken among european countries showed Bush to be extremely unfavorable VS Obama's more favorable ratings. There were record protests in the Unite states as well against the IRaq war. I think in the context of the discussion it's most useful to look at the way the media has portrayed things like the Iraq war vs the general public.

yeah it was strange when i went to Spain 5-6 years ago

 

people (especially on trains) seemed eager to talk to me and my friends about Bush's foreign policy

 

and sometimes there was even a subtle subtext of 'you're responsible'

Edited April 22, 2013 by LimpyLoo