Hate-Speech Hypocrites

[Developereo]

Other whittling away of those columns includes 'questioning' the amount of gas shipped, witness counts, etc. So pretty much questioning specific claims, especially when you (not YOU) have a well known irrational bias (hatred) against your target group, pretty much mean you question the Holocaust as a historical event.

Again, you are positing racism as a motivation a priori to justify the ban on Holocaust revisionism. If we are dealing with motives, not the act itself, then we can say with equal certainty that people who spout Islamophobia tend to be xenophobes and/or racists before hand. Therefore, the motivation for anti-Islam speech (or any racial/religious vilification) is xenophobia, not intellectual debate, and such speech should be treated on par with Holocaust revisionism.

This is about the consequences. Laws are actually quite rational creatures. They are not enacted for no reasons.

Exactly: all hate speech has consequences, including Islamophobic speech.

Leaving aside people like Breivik, the less visible consequences involve discrimination against Muslims because of the ongoing demonization. This is not hypothetical; BBC and others have done studies in France, Britain, etc. that confirm bias against applicants with Muslim names. Granted, it does not equal mass murder, but it's the start of a trend of demonize and isolate a segment of society.

It is precisely for this reason that many countries, including in the West, have laws against racist/religious vilification but these laws often get superceded by free speech protections.

Their origins may be irrational, but the processes that created them are not. The argument to justify laws to persecute local Jews may be irrational, such as they allegedly 'control' the economy, cook and eat non-Jews babies, or perform bizarre rituals in the dark of night, gave rise to the rational process of creating those laws.

No one would dispute the justification for anti-Semitism (or, generally, anti-racism) laws; the issue here is to dispute the assumption equating Holocaust revision to anti-Semitism. Personally, I can see why someone might ask how the figure came to be six million, as opposed to four or eight. Asking for evidence backing the details is not anti-Semitism.

Jews have no problems defending the historical record of the Holocaust IN NON-VIOLENT WAYS

Again, it is politically incorrect to point out the truth, but the fact is that Holocaust revisionists have been physically attacked, even murdered (although I don't know if anyone claimed responsibility), and revisionist organizations have had their property and offices torched. Now, of course, you will say it's a matter of degree, but the point is that, when the law itself puts people behind bars and society at large censures such views, it does a good enough job of deterring violence.

muslims cannot defend their religion, which just like like every other religion that has no evidences let alone proofs

Correct; faith is, by definition, beyond proof and must be taken on its terms. That is why there are laws against religious vilification in many countries.

Facts, on the other hand, do NOT need to be buttressed by legal protections. They stand on their own merit.

Those laws are not to protect Jews but to prevent the resurgence of the mentality that kills them just for being Jews.

Correct, and our argument is that the laws should be written as to prevent vilification of all religions and races. It is true that the historical context in Europe is about Jews but, as you mentioned, the law is designed with consequences in mind, and the long term consequences of Islamophobia (or any racial/religious vilification) are also clear.

Defenders of science do not resort to violence, let alone genocidal means, against Flat Earthers and creationists. The Holocaust, as a historical event, is science. The mentality that gave the Jews the Holocaust is as irrational as that of the Flat Earthers and creationist.

See the flaw in your argument?

I still don't see it.

Flat Earth belief, like Holocaust denial, is an irrational belief that can be refuted easily enough using facts. There is no need for laws (unless you automatically equate it with anti-Semitism).

 

[vsdoc]

FIne, I am Indian first, then muslim.

I hope you do not feel beholden to saying that.

 

[mfreak]

Therefore, the motivation for anti-Islam speech (or any racial/religious vilification) is xenophobia, not intellectual debate, and such speech should be treated on par with Holocaust revisionism.

In a way I agree that it is indeed racism/xenophobia and it is indeed condemnable. My point earlier still stands though, that there are some very valid reasons behind Islamaphobia. There is no smoke without a fire. Unless as Muslims you can eradicate those extremist forces, and present a more benevolent image, you have very little credibility, unfortunately. This is the biggest problem. Unlike the Jews, who are considered victims, and they were, Muslims are considered the perpetrators. In many cases they are and in many other cases they aren't. But the cases where they cause the problems stand out because of the apalling violence and irrationality

the issue here is to dispute the assumption equating Holocaust revision to anti-Semitism. Personally, I can see why someone might ask how the figure came to be six million, as opposed to four or eight. Asking for evidence backing the details is not anti-Semitism.

Again, holocaust revisionism is an euphemism for holocaust denial. And holocaust denial is anti-semitism. Anti-semitism has caused the largest number of deaths in the 20th century, and therefore needs to be prevented at all costs. The Jewish organizations such as the ADL for example, also record and report about other forms of racism as well, if I am right.

When you say "questioning the holocaust", it should be relegated to researching about the historic event. Not making extraordinary CLAIMS that people didnt die, when they actually did. That is what revisionism does, and organizations that support revisionism, the BNP for instance, are all neo-nazi racists.

The thing is you cannot equate Islamaphobia and Holocaust denial. The holocaust denial is categorically racist. No excuses there. People were victims when that event happened, they died in scores for no fault of theirs.

Islamaphobia is also quite irrational, although when you point out terrorism, then it suddenly becomes rational. This has been brought on muslims by muslims themselves and you guys should work to eradicate this image.

 

[vsdoc]

The problem with Muslims as a whole is that they (their lives and the perception of others of their community) are held hostage by the radicals within.

And they go along.

The internal churn of cleaning up, and then reviving, cannot start until a large enough head of steam builds up.

The "evil West" paradigm paraded by intellectually dishonest eucated muslims like Developer is the biggest impediment to communal self realisation.

They are believable and cloaked in the veil of rationale and Western intellectualism, so are way more dangerous than the more overt and easier to identify and ignore hyper-religious guys like Zarvan for instance.

Tackle the enemy within first.

The real demon showing you the manufactured "demons" without.

 

[Zarvan]

The problem with Muslims as a whole is that they (their lives and the perception of others of their community) are held hostage by the radicals within.

And they go along.

The internal churn of cleaning up, and then reviving, cannot start until a large enough head of steam builds up.

The "evil West" paradigm paraded by intellectually dishonest eucated muslims like Developer is the biggest impediment to communal self realisation.

Tackle the enemy within first.

Sir we know about the enemy inside and also enemy from outside who have always attacked Muslims and Islam weather its west or India

 

[vsdoc]

Sir we know about the enemy inside and also enemy from outside who have always attacked Muslims and Islam weather its west or India

Sir you may want to re-read my post. Slight revision with you in mind.

Both of you are red flags to the bull in me.

And where I see your IDs pop up I must go to investigate, and act.

 

[Zarvan]

Sir you may want to re-read my post. Slight revision with you in mind.

Both of you are red flags to the bull in me.

And where I see your IDs pop up I must go to investigate, and act.

Sir truth hurts Sir but face the truth you guys have always attacked Islam when ever you got the chance and when Muslims hit back you have the habit of crying

 

[mfreak]

Sir truth hurts Sir but face the truth you guys have always attacked Islam when ever you got the chance and when Muslims hit back you have the habit of crying

We have not attacked Islam. We have defended ourselves from the attacks Islamic fundamentalists have launched on us. BTW we dont cry. We whoop your ***

 

[Developereo]

In a way I agree that it is indeed racism/xenophobia and it is indeed condemnable. My point earlier still stands though, that there are some very valid reasons behind Islamaphobia. There is no smoke without a fire.

The issue is to separate the extremists from the mainstream religion. There are extremists in all religions and it is perfectly fine to criticize the extremist elements specifically.

Radical Islamism v/s Islam.
Zionism v/s Judaism.
Radical Hindutva v/s Hinduism.
Fundamentalist Christianity v/s Christianity.

In all these cases, the extremists further a hateful agenda espousing racial/religious superiority and they cause death of others.

Unless as Muslims you can eradicate those extremist forces, and present a more benevolent image, you have very little credibility, unfortunately.

There is no way to eradicate all extremism and, as mentioned above, all religions have their fanatics. If Muslim countries had strong armies, their extremists could indulge in their hatred under uniform and their kills would be classified as 'collateral damage' or 'rogue incidents' rather than 'terrorism'.

Again, holocaust revisionism is an euphemism for holocaust denial.

No, it isn't. I already explained why it is reasonable for someone to ask why the figure is six million, not four or eight. People should be able to debate the figures using evidence; the question itself should not be criminalized.

Islamaphobia is also quite irrational, although when you point out terrorism, then it suddenly becomes rational. This has been brought on muslims by muslims themselves and you guys should work to eradicate this image.

By analogy, you would claim that the Israel terrorism against Palestinians makes anti-Semitism 'rational'. I reject that logic.

It is proper to criticize Zionism, not Judaism, for the Israeli terrorism.
It is proper to criticize radical Islamists, not Islam, for the Islamist terrorism.

The only people who deliberately conflate the two concepts are people who use it as a cover for their pre-existing bigotry.

 

[Zarvan]

We have not attacked Islam. We have defended ourselves from the attacks Islamic fundamentalists have launched on us. BTW we dont cry. We whoop your ***

Yes that is why you got beaten up by Mahmood Ghaznavi and Gauri and Mughals for 1000 years

 

[mfreak]

In all these cases, the extremists further a hateful agenda espousing racial/religious superiority and they cause death of others.

Yes but none of them perpetrate the violence that Radical Islamists do

There is no way to eradicate all extremism and, as mentioned above, all religions have their fanatics.

True. Am talking about extremists groups that bomb buildings and kill people. The majority of the cases are by muslims. When Christians, Jews or Hindus do it, they are arrested and tried and sentenced. The people of the respective religions also condemn their acts. Radical muslims on the other hand celebrate such extremism as heroism and the benevolent ones choose to remain silent.

I already explained why it is reasonable for someone to ask why the figure is six million,

That is "questioning" a historic event. Holocaust revisionism presents a theory, that the holocaust NEVER happened, or some other variation of it. Not acceptable.

By analogy, you would claim that the Israel terrorism against Palestinians makes anti-Semitism 'rational'.

Israel does not practice terrorism against the Palestinians. Thats a red herring. Israel only defends itself and it has every right in the world to defend.

It is proper to criticize Zionism, not Judaism, for the Israeli terrorism.

Zionism is just nationalism. It is not terrorism.

Yes that is why you got beaten up by Mahmood Ghaznavi and Gauri and Mughals for 1000 years

Yes, stay in that 2000 yr old desert dwelling nomad mentality of yours. Its definitely gonna help you in the future.

 

[Developereo]

Yes but none of them perpetrate the violence that Radical Islamists do

Depends whom you ask. Palestinians might disagree.
People who are targeted don't care about relative statistics.

True. Am talking about extremists groups that bomb buildings and kill people. The majority of the cases are by muslims. When Christians, Jews or Hindus do it, they are arrested and tried and sentenced. The people of the respective religions also condemn their acts. Radical muslims on the other hand celebrate such extremism as heroism and the benevolent ones choose to remain silent.

Ah, we're back to the 'Muslims are not condemning' charade, are we?

As for your other point, one word: drones.

The study by NYU/Stanford claims 49 civilians for every terrorist killed. And another study claims 70% of Americans approve of drones. Most Israelis approve of the IDF despite it killing hundreds of Palestinian civilians.

That is "questioning" a historic event. Holocaust revisionism presents a theory, that the holocaust NEVER happened, or some other variation of it. Not acceptable.

You are just avoiding the question and parroting your earlier claim than any question equates to denial.

Once again, should it be acceptable to debate the evidence for six million v/s four or eight?

Israel does not practice terrorism against the Palestinians. Thats a red herring. Israel only defends itself and it has every right in the world to defend.



Zionism is just nationalism. It is not terrorism.



Yes, stay in that 2000 yr old desert dwelling nomad mentality of yours. Its definitely gonna help you in the future.

Uh huh.

As expected, when confronted with uncomfortable facts, you cover your ears and retreat with a shrill bout of personal insults.

 

[mfreak]

Depends whom you ask. I am pretty sure more Afghan, Iraqi and Pakistani civilians have died than Americans died in 9/11.

Sure, but the muslims started it. Again they brought it on themselves (This does not mean I support the war on terror though. I believe the war on terror actually causes a lot more terrorism, and that Islamic terrorism actually kills a lot more muslims).

Ah, we're back to the 'Muslims are not condemning' charade, are we?

Yes we are. Thats the primary reason why Islamaphobia is not kept in check, because you ruin it for yourselves.

As for your other point, one word: drones.

The study by NYU/Stanford claims 49 civilians for every terrorist killed. And another study claims 70% of Americans approve of drones. Most Israelis approve of the IDF despite it killing hundreds of Palestinian civilians.

Most Americans approve of the drone strikes, because that means their citizens dont have to die or be put in danger. Most Israelis approve of the IDF because if the IDF puts down its weapons the barbarians such as the Hamas, will slaugher them.

You are just avoiding the question and parroting your earlier claim than any question equates to denial.

Once again, should it be acceptable to debate the evidence for six million v/s four or eight?

Yes you can debate. As I said, presenting researching a historic event is not anti-semitism. But all of those debates are done, its proven wrong.

Revisionism however, DENIES, the holocaust. That is antisemitic and racist. What is so difficult for you to understand the difference between denial and researching something? Lemme tell you. The objective of researching something like the holocaust is to educate yourself, and finally ACCEPT that it happened. Not to become racist and deny it.

As expected, when confronted with uncomfortable facts, you cover your ears and retreat with a shrill bout of personal insults

.

Actually he was factually incorrect as well. India is a recent country. There was no concept of India as such 1000 years ago just a bunch of princely states. Seconldy comparing an event that occured 1000 years earlier and something that is ongoing is idiotic to say the least. Is that the best come back one can come up with, after having his face rubbed in the mud? Lastly, I have no respect for an extremist moron like Zarvan.

 

[vsdoc]

Sir truth hurts Sir but face the truth you guys have always attacked Islam when ever you got the chance and when Muslims hit back you have the habit of crying

Sir muslims started hitting when no one knew who muslims were.

No one is still hitting.

At least not in a concerted community targeted manner.

 

[T-Rex]

there are books written about it and not a single person was killed over it. That's the point. Albeit an educated point that is above your pay grade. You see in the whole equation, nobody has singly handily harmed, denigrated Islam more than so called Muslims like you.

Since when did indians like you ever have any principle? Only human beings fight for principle, die for principle, animals can't imagine that.

You can have 1000 idiotic REX's that won't make others jump, as easy as one or two movie makers that makes 100,000 REX's jump. although as history shows not brave enough to gain it's own independence, on it's own. Typical though...

Of course you don't have what it takes to jump, but your reply is the evidence of your burning sensations.