Free Speech in the UK

[Heathen Hammer]

The irony is that the girl on the left would end up punished or even executed in Islamic society for not covering her face. How dare those islamophobes prevent righteous execution of shariah law!

[mongrel]

I'm going to do a wild guess here (too)... If you could prove me wrong about "Islamophobia" you instantly would - but you haven't done that. Nope, instead you decided to resort to dumb insinuations (on my behalf) probably because you were not able to prove me wrong here. As in proving that the concept of Islamophobia, (or naziophobia, or communistophobia) are actually a real condition(s), and not a fake and manufactured one(s). By all means, go right ahead and prove me wrong if you can... Whenever ready...

- A

There is no reasoning with anyone indoctrinated by the counter-Islam industry. One one think Utoya provided sufficient proof of that doctrine, let alone Christchurch and many other lethal incidents. Pretending that the harrassment of Muslims does not exist sure makes it easier for some people to go on to harrass or even murder them.

So the harassment of brown women by fascists is amusing to you? Well I suppose if the killing of that lady in Charlottesville was...................

The irony is that the girl on the left would end up punished or even executed in Islamic society for not covering her face. How dare those islamophobes prevent righteous execution of shariah law!

She isn't in 'Islamic society. ' And most Muslim women live in countries where faces aren't covered. Yet Islamophobes love to harass Muslim women in much the way Iranian or Saudis do.Different cheeks, same arse.

[Heathen Hammer]

Yet for some reason majority of muslim-majority countries have crazy shariah laws. Also unlike someone, I am not the one defending terrorists, be it antifa or ISIS. Just pointing out the irony of book clearly ignoring abysmal human rights track record of countries where majority thinks that "allah" is real.

[mongrel]

As I said she doesn't live in one of those countries. The thread relates to the UK.

[Axalon]

There is no reasoning with anyone indoctrinated by the counter-Islam industry. One one think Utoya provided sufficient proof of that doctrine, let alone Christchurch and many other lethal incidents. Pretending that the harrassment of Muslims does not exist sure makes it easier for some people to go on to harrass or even murder them.

Again, the term and concept of “Islamophobia” is BS, it is a manufactured propaganda-tool and word for a supposed condition that does not exist. Its proponents would have us believe that it is possible for people to have irrational, uncontrollable and unbalanced fears, aversions and/or reactions to mere ideas. It is like claiming that people could technically have stuff like “Naziophobia” which is a ridiculous proposition altogether. Same thing applies to Islam. The entire premise is absurd, utterly regardless what the ideas as such are called, or somehow belongs to...

Furthermore, neither Breivik nor Tarrant would actually qualify for supposed “Islamophobia” - as the term is defined and explained (in two of the most established dictionaries around)… I quote…

“Islamophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Islam or people who practice Islam.”

(Oxford dictionary - Islamophobia, and Merriam-Webster dictionary - Islamophobia.)

Neither Breivik nor Tarrant fear Islam (or Muslims), nor are their views on Islam irrational or unfounded (as such) – they have foundation and supporting basis that their views are built and formed upon somehow. And furthermore there are even substance of sorts in some of their views as well. They are hardly irrational, in fact they are in contrast both rational and structured in their views – it’s only that their conclusions are drastic and extremely politically incorrect, unpopular and disliked by the establishment. That is the problem with these views, not the way they are formed or supported. Hence, both Breivik and Tarrant clearly fail to qualify to the concept and condition of supposed "Islamophobia", let alone support it...



Regarding Utoya...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As for the Utoya-massacre…

As such, this event does not prove or support anything in terms of Islamophobia - its supposed condition or seriously relate to the premise of that term. In fact most youths that Breivik wasted there were not even Muslims, only a few were. Furthermore, it was not a separate attack - but a part of a larger scheme, including the bombing of the governmental heart of Norway, at Oslo – a target that in itself has no explicit ties Islam either (despite Breviks own rhetoric and claims). In Oslo, 8 people were randomly killed (none were Muslims, if memory serves), and a further 200+ people were randomly injured. At Utoya, another 69 people were randomly shoot and killed by Breivik, and another 100+ people were injured on top. All in all it was a devastating and extremely bloody assault on the establishment and the government, and it certainly delivered in terms of terror as well. Yet no mosque were attacked, bombed or even damaged by Breivik that day. And only a few Muslims had died. If Islamophobia or even mere anti-Islamic sentiments had been the driving cause for all this, the collateral damage of all non-Muslims killed and injured were beyond absurd levels - which would mean that both attacks were then massive failures in such regards, supposedly. It simply does not add up.

What would add up however is that Breivik conducted an attack on the leftist establishment (which he resented), the ruling leftist government (which he resented), its values, views and narratives (which he resented), its order and servants (which he resented), its foundations (which he wanted to destabilize - the chaos after the bomb, and the fake police uniform at Utoya) and its very future (the youths at Utoya whom he massacred, without any kind of selection - save two exceptions). In terms of actual results – Islam and Muslims clearly play merely a rhetorical role, as tools to supposedly deliver further “legitimacy” for it all, in his (Breiviks) mind.

However, Islam (and Muslims) was nowhere close to a defining and important factor if we look at the targets and the results of his attacks. After all, only a few Muslims were killed, and no mosques were attacked, damaged or destroyed, neither were any other prominent symbols of Islam of sorts, that day. Yet such targets would be the most obvious and natural sites for any anti-Islamic terrorist-agenda of any kind - and despite the attack was conducted on Friday - the ideal time to strike a mosque for maximum casualties of the local Muslim community - that chance were simply ignored or discarded. Furthermore, several witnesses at Utoya claims that Breivik repeately shouted "You are going to die today, Marxists! (Dere skal dø i dag, marxister!)". He did not shout something like "today you die you Muslim dogs" or even "die, you Muslim-loving scum" or things like that - something that would actually support the claimed anti-Islamic motive. Nope, it was "You are going to die today, Marxists!" which instead support the outlined anti-leftist, anti-establishment and anti-government-narrative. Thus, if we look at the actual results and events, it does not match (or properly support) the often claimed anti-Islamic narrative.

Regarding Christchurch...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As for the Christchurch-attacks…

That day Brenton Tarrant attacked two mosques and wasted 50+ Muslims in cold blood and injured another 50 on top – just to make a point (actually multiple points). It was not because he feared them, or because he had some totally unfounded prejudice or hysterical hatred for them. It was not about Muslims as such or even Islam as such. It was about specific circumstances attached to Muslims (their strong symbolic value as aliens in the western world, and their high birth-rates in general), and the history of Islam - especially in relation to Europe and the west (as he understood it). It was above all, about notions of a “white people”, “white culture”, ”white ethnicity” and “white lands” (Europe in particular) and the importance of preservation of these things. It was about mass-immigration as a major threat to all that, in his mind. It was things like that these attacks were really about. And Tarrant reveals as much in his manifesto, once we actually bother to examine it.

Once we apply Tarrants own views and perspective onto all this, most of it adds up rather effortlessly. The results, the targets and the reasoning behind it - it is not difficult to follow. Of course, his conclusions and ideas are still extremely politically incorrect, and unpopular and vexing for the establishment (at least). All the same, these attacks still fail to actually support/prove both the concept and condition of supposed "Islamophobia" as such, or provide actual basis for or correspond to the term as defined. Thus by definition, the Christchurch attacks has nothing to do with supposed “Islamophobia”. Those people were killed for other reasons.

Regarding harassment and discrimination…

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As for harassment and discrimination (of Muslims)…

First of all, due to the history of Islam (and its rule), no Muslim (regardless the kind) are in any position whatsoever to complain about harassment and discrimination anywhere. After all, Islam has long, long history of providing both harassment and discrimination to basically every other movement it has ever came in serious contact with. Especially so, in any area were it has managed to establish a kind of supremacy. Islam is not kind and tolerant to other movements, and usually it is rather keen to systematically harass and discriminate non-Muslims in various ways, and on multiple levels. That’s one bit…

Secondly, if people insist upon professing themselves to what many view as vile and repulsive ideas – they will have too pay the price for that act. As others are likely to disapprove of such an act, and it is quite possible that they will even discriminate against anyone who does it. Neo-Nazis for instance is a good example of all this - as most folk views them as virtual lepers, and wants nothing to do with them. Islam is not in any way excluded from such circumstances, it fully applies to Islam as well… That’s another bit…

Thirdly, a movement that big, that conspicuous, that inflexible, that vocal, that intrusive, that arrogant and that sensitive is bound for trouble anywhere it goes. It becomes even worse when it has expanded itself into explicitly alien territory. Then it is practically begging for trouble, and usually it gets it eventually. Of course there will be cultural clashes, discrimination and harassment – it would be strange otherwise! At least in any overtly alien territories like Europe (and the rest of the west) still are to Islam… That’s yet another bit…

Fourthly, does all of the above mean that we should somehow strive to harass and discriminate (supposed) Muslims? Of course not! Not anymore then we would usually do with any other who insist upon clearly vile and repulsive ideas, or make a point of dressing really weird and strange, and/or insists upon alien customs, traditions and special treatment that we should supposedly adapt too - despite they are the immigrants and foreigners here. Europe (and the west) is not Islamic territory and history has been rather crystal clear on that. Why in hell should we suddenly pretend otherwise? And none of that multi-culti-crap will ever provide a good enough excuse for it - even “mutti Merkel” herself reluctantly admitted that it didn't work, so that excuse is gone as well.

If supposed Muslims really don’t like harassment and discrimination (and I won't blame them) - they will have too fully assimilate and adapt - like the rest of us do. There are no exceptions for Muslims on this - as simple as that. That’s the final bit…

- A

[mongrel]

Again, the term and concept of “Islamophobia” is BS, it is a manufactured propaganda-tool and word for a supposed condition that does not exist. Its proponents would have us believe that it is possible for people to have irrational, uncontrollable and unbalanced fears, aversions and/or reactions to mere ideas. It is like claiming that people could technically have stuff like “Naziophobia” which is a ridiculous proposition altogether. Same thing applies to Islam. The entire premise is absurd, utterly regardless what the ideas as such are called, or somehow belongs to...

Furthermore, neither Breivik nor Tarrant would actually qualify for supposed “Islamophobia” - as the term is defined and explained (in two of the most established dictionaries around)… I quote…

“Islamophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Islam or people who practice Islam.”

(Oxford dictionary - Islamophobia, and Merriam-Webster dictionary - Islamophobia.)

Neither Breivik nor Tarrant fear Islam (or Muslims), nor are their views on Islam irrational or unfounded (as such) – they have foundation and supporting basis that their views are built and formed upon somehow. And furthermore there are even substance of sorts in some of their views as well. They are hardly irrational, in fact they are in contrast both rational and structured in their views – it’s only that their conclusions are drastic and extremely politically incorrect, unpopular and disliked by the establishment. That is the problem with these views, not the way they are formed or supported. Hence, both Breivik and Tarrant clearly fail to qualify to the concept and condition of supposed "Islamophobia", let alone support it...



Regarding Utoya...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As for the Utoya-massacre…

As such, this event does not prove or support anything in terms of Islamophobia - its supposed condition or seriously relate to the premise of that term. In fact most youths that Breivik wasted there were not even Muslims, only a few were. Furthermore, it was not a separate attack - but a part of a larger scheme, including the bombing of the governmental heart of Norway, at Oslo – a target that in itself has no explicit ties Islam either (despite Breviks own rhetoric and claims). In Oslo, 8 people were randomly killed (none were Muslims, if memory serves), and a further 200+ people were randomly injured. At Utoya, another 69 people were randomly shoot and killed by Breivik, and another 100+ people were injured on top. All in all it was a devastating and extremely bloody assault on the establishment and the government, and it certainly delivered in terms of terror as well. Yet no mosque were attacked, bombed or even damaged by Breivik that day. And only a few Muslims had died. If Islamophobia or even mere anti-Islamic sentiments had been the driving cause for all this, the collateral damage of all non-Muslims killed and injured were beyond absurd levels - which would mean that both attacks were then massive failures in such regards, supposedly. It simply does not add up.

What would add up however is that Breivik conducted an attack on the leftist establishment (which he resented), the ruling leftist government (which he resented), its values, views and narratives (which he resented), its order and servants (which he resented), its foundations (which he wanted to destabilize - the chaos after the bomb, and the fake police uniform at Utoya) and its very future (the youths at Utoya whom he massacred, without any kind of selection - save two exceptions). In terms of actual results – Islam and Muslims clearly play merely a rhetorical role, as tools to supposedly deliver further “legitimacy” for it all, in his (Breiviks) mind.

However, Islam (and Muslims) was nowhere close to a defining and important factor if we look at the targets and the results of his attacks. After all, only a few Muslims were killed, and no mosques were attacked, damaged or destroyed, neither were any other prominent symbols of Islam of sorts, that day. Yet such targets would be the most obvious and natural sites for any anti-Islamic terrorist-agenda of any kind - and despite the attack was conducted on Friday - the ideal time to strike a mosque for maximum casualties of the local Muslim community - that chance were simply ignored or discarded. Furthermore, several witnesses at Utoya claims that Breivik repeately shouted "You are going to die today, Marxists! (Dere skal dø i dag, marxister!)". He did not shout something like "today you die you Muslim dogs" or even "die, you Muslim-loving scum" or things like that - something that would actually support the claimed anti-Islamic motive. Nope, it was "You are going to die today, Marxists!" which instead support the outlined anti-leftist, anti-establishment and anti-government-narrative. Thus, if we look at the actual results and events, it does not match (or properly support) the often claimed anti-Islamic narrative.

Regarding Christchurch...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As for the Christchurch-attacks…

That day Brenton Tarrant attacked two mosques and wasted 50+ Muslims in cold blood and injured another 50 on top – just to make a point (actually multiple points). It was not because he feared them, or because he had some totally unfounded prejudice or hysterical hatred for them. Nope, he had reasons for doing what he did. It was not about Muslims as such or even Islam as such. It was about specific circumstances attached to Muslims (their strong symbolic value as aliens in the western world, and their high birth-rates in general), and the history of Islam - especially in relation to Europe and the west (as he understood it). It was above all, about notions of a “white people”, “white culture”, ”white ethnicity” and “white lands” (Europe in particular) and the importance of preservation of these things. It was about mass-immigration as a major threat to all that, in his mind. It was things like that these attacks were really about. And Tarrant reveals as much in his manifesto, once we actually bother to examine it.

Once we apply Tarrants own views and perspective onto all this, most of it adds up rather effortlessly. The results, the targets and the reasoning behind it - it is not difficult to follow. Of course, his conclusions and ideas are still extremely politically incorrect, and unpopular and vexing for the establishment (at least). All the same, these attacks still fail to actually support/prove both the concept and condition of supposed "Islamophobia" as such, or provide actual basis for or correspond to the term as defined. Thus by definition, the Christchurch attacks has nothing to do with supposed “Islamophobia”. Those people were killed for other reasons.

Regarding harassment and discrimination…

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As for harassment and discrimination (of Muslims)…

First of all, due to the history of Islam (and its rule), no Muslim (regardless the kind) are in any position whatsoever to complain about harassment and discrimination anywhere. After all, Islam has long, long history of providing both harassment and discrimination to basically every other movement it has ever came in serious contact with. Especially so, in any area were it has managed to establish a kind of supremacy. Islam is not kind and tolerant to other movements, and usually it is rather keen to systematically harass and discriminate non-Muslims in various ways, and on multiple levels. That’s one bit…

Secondly, if people insist upon professing themselves to what many view as vile and repulsive ideas – they will have too pay the price for that act. As others are likely to disapprove of such an act, and it is quite possible that they will even discriminate against anyone who does it. Neo-Nazis for instance is a good example of all this - as most folk views them as virtual lepers, and wants nothing to do with them. Islam is not in any way excluded from such circumstances, it fully applies to Islam as well… That’s another bit…

Thirdly, a movement that big, that conspicuous, that inflexible, that vocal, that intrusive, that arrogant and that sensitive is bound for trouble anywhere it goes. It becomes even worse when it has expanded itself into explicitly alien territory. Then it is practically begging for trouble, and usually it gets it eventually. Of course there will be cultural clashes, discrimination and harassment – it would be strange otherwise! At least in any overtly alien territories like Europe (and the rest of the west) still are to Islam… That’s yet another bit…

Fourthly, does all of the above mean that we should somehow strive to harass and discriminate (supposed) Muslims? Of course not! Not anymore then we would usually do with any other who insist upon clearly vile and repulsive ideas, or make a point of dressing really weird and strange, and/or insists upon alien customs, traditions and special treatment that we should supposedly adapt too - despite they are the immigrants and foreigners here. Europe (and the west) is not Islamic territory and history has been rather crystal clear on that. Why in hell should we suddenly pretend otherwise? And none of that multi-culti-crap will ever provide a good enough excuse for it - even “mutti Merkel” herself reluctantly admitted that it didn't work, so that excuse is gone as well.

If supposed Muslims really don’t like harassment and discrimination (and I won't blame them) - they will have too fully assimilate and adapt - like the rest of us do. There are no exceptions for Muslims on this - as simple as that. That’s the final bit…

- A

There is no reasoning with anyone indoctrinated by the counter-Islam industry. .

You may have proven my point.

It would appear that on this public forum you have .

a) justified the murder of what you call 'leftist children' and Muslims.

b)Putting aside the rest of the inflammatory language you appear to be justifying the harassment of Muslims by calling them morons and suggesting they need to 'pay a price' for doing no more than having a belief, belief being expressly protected by the laws of every European state.


This is indeed a disgraceful post .

[Aexodus]

Axalon does hatred or prejudice against Muslims not exist?

[mongrel]

Axalon does hatred or prejudice against Muslims not exist?

His post is your answer.

[Axalon]

Axalon does hatred or prejudice against Muslims not exist?

Of course it does... Just like it does for say Christians, Hindus, Nazis, Communists and many other movements. Muslims are not excluded from any of that...

- A

[Aexodus]

What’s wrong with calling that Islamophobia?

[Heathen Hammer]

As I said she doesn't live in one of those countries. The thread relates to the UK.

Which is ironic, because she is protesting against EDL, a civil rights movement aimed at preventing people like her from being abused by religious fanatics.

[mongrel]

Which is ironic, because she is protesting against EDL, a civil rights movement aimed at preventing people like her from being abused by religious fanatics.

The EDL was a collective of drunks and football hooligans brainwashed by foreign Islamophobic websites. One of them, one Anders Breivik went on to murder 77 children. I'm curious HH in your mind, is killing kids necessary for your so-called civil rights movement?

[Heathen Hammer]

The EDL was a collective of drunks and football hooligans brainwashed by foreign Islamophobic websites. One of them, one Anders Breivik went on to murder 77 children. I'm curious HH in your mind, is killing kids necessary for your so-called civil rights movement?

Breivik was also a freemason and a zionist. His views were more similar to someone like Mitt Romney or John McCain.
Also EDL is full of brown people and former Muslims. It seems like you just have a problem with anyone critical of Islam.

[mongrel]

Breivik was also a freemason and a zionist. His views were more similar to someone like Mitt Romney or John McCain.
Also EDL is full of brown people and former Muslims. It seems like you just have a problem with anyone critical of Islam.

Neither Mitt Romney or John McCain. are rabid raving islamophobic loons.Killing 77 kids is not 'critical of Islam'.
By full of you mean one Sikh who was excommunicated by his people and a mentally ill Pakistani. Anything to excuse a white supremacist mass murderer.

I say again, I'm curious HH in your mind, is killing kids necessary for your so-called civil rights movement?

[Heathen Hammer]

Neither Mitt Romney or John McCain. are rabid raving islamophobic loons.Killing 77 kids is not 'critical of Islam'.

They backed wars that killed waaaay more people then all mass shooters altogether.

By full of you mean one Sikh who was excommunicated by his people and a mentally ill Pakistani. Anything to excuse a white supremacist mass murderer.

I say again, I'm curious HH in your mind, is killing kids necessary for your so-called civil rights movement?

So what you are saying is that terrorism is justified as long as it is aimed at people that you think are "racist" (which is anyone to the right of center left)? At least that's the message that we've been getting from your posts on this forum. it seems you are projecting your approval of terrorism on others.

[mongrel]

They backed wars that killed waaaay more people then all mass shooters altogether.

So what you are saying is that terrorism is justified as long as it is aimed at people that you think are "racist" (which is anyone to the right of center left)? At least that's the message that we've been getting from your posts on this forum. it seems you are projecting your approval of terrorism on others.

Mitt Romney or John McCain. are still not rabid raving islamophobic loons.

This post is not connected to anything said on this thread or indeed anywhere. Where is this mythical terror campaign against racists you speak of?

Anything to dodge the question 'is killing kids necessary for your so-called civil rights movement?, ' Why so hard to answer what should be a yes or no response? Your regular person would have said, 'no , of course not', by now.

[Heathen Hammer]

Mitt Romney or John McCain. are still not rabid raving islamophobic loons.

So mass-murder is okay as long as it is not "islamophobic"? Sounds like something out of ISIS social media account.
In any case, EDL is just a group against religious extremism (fair to point out that Breivik has more ties to rhinos like McCain or Bush then to them). The only reason you have a problem with them is that they oppose religious extremism, which you seem to support.
Funny how you dodge the original question of why do you support terrorism.

[mongrel]

So mass-murder is okay as long as it is not "islamophobic"? Sounds like something out of ISIS social media account.
In any case, EDL is just a group against religious extremism (fair to point out that Breivik has more ties to rhinos like McCain or Bush then to them). The only reason you have a problem with them is that they oppose religious extremism, which you seem to support.
Funny how you dodge the original question of why do you support terrorism.

Again irrelevant drivel dodging the point. EDL members were involved in terrorism, including the mass murder of 77 kids, who did not belong to an obvious religious group let alone an extreme one. I am right ,you are not.

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

You may have proven my point.

It would appear that on this public forum you have .

a) justified the murder of what you call 'leftist children' and Muslims.

b)Putting aside the rest of the inflammatory language you appear to be justifying the harassment of Muslims by calling them morons and suggesting they need to 'pay a price' for doing no more than having a belief, belief being expressly protected by the laws of every European state.


This is indeed a disgraceful post .

Remember also they're already paying a price, the price of being gullible enough to believe in fairy stories.

[mongrel]

Remember also they're already paying a price, the price of being gullible enough to believe in fairy stories.

I'm pretty sure Mohammed existed, are there any historians that deny this? He was hardly unique in promoting monotheism either, Jews and Christians got there first, let alone Pharoah Akhenaten. All in all a bit of a failure, as bigoted comments often are.