Hate-Speech Hypocrites

[Developereo]

hahaha the guy who is " Zionist are everywhere and have hold on america" now is predicting my mindset as being anti muslim . based on what? show me one instance I have ever said " Muslim terrorists run Pakistan govt".

The issue of the Israel Lobby's power in America is a legitimate subject. It is debated and researched at mainstream universities like Columbia, Chicago, etc. Just because you are unable or unwilling to broach the subject will not make it go away.

You on the other have kept your mouth shut while your ( is uspect similar thinkers) have spewed the exact attack you have done on me .

Why should I fight your battles for you? I don't get in the mud while you guys are slugging it out.

And he was arrested in Austria, because he denied the holocaust because of his RACISM.

Which brings up another can of worms. Many countries have laws against racial or religious vilification (I don't know about Austria specifically). Some countries have laws specifically against anti-Semitism and/or Holocaust denial. These laws span the whole spectrum which further complicates the debate on what constitutes free speech and what is hate speech.

 

[Developereo]

Let me tell you who he is . He is the guy who sits here ranting about Jews, Israel and Zionist, lumping them together only to cleverly separate his antisemitism when called on the mat.

I quote him " Zionist have a hold on all of america". That's revealing is it not? To him he has concluded that one set of a group he despises is running the country policies. When asked if Zionist have a hold on all of america how come we have not yet gone to war with Iran a decade ago? He has no answers. When asked If Zionist had a hold on all of america, how come not one single soldier from the US set foot on Israel grounds, hand in hand with Israelis during the 6 day war- he has no answer. When asked if Zionist have a hold on all america , how come Israeli PM dislikes Obama, he has no answer or the fact that Jews in the US vote democrats ( the most non ' let's go to war' party in the US)- he has no answer.

So watch him change like a chameleon on his answers but I wouldn't fall for it... This guy is a subtle hatemonger who loves his free speech in Australia, choose to leave his country to enjoy those freedoms , but rallies people back in Pakistan to fight the good fight- while he sips his Australian for beer " fosters" and covets with folks in the comfortable circumstances in Australia.

and oh - he is a" think tank" oh yeaaaahhh....

All your so-called questions have been answered. You deliberately conflate Judaism with Zionism so you can hide behind the lame anti-Semitism shield. Just because you are intellectually dishonest to accept answers which do not fit your prejudices will not change reality. As I mentioned, respectable universities like Columbia, Harvard and Chicago have researched this topic and it continues to be discussed at an intellectual level. A level clearly above your mudslinging capabilities.

We know your type of Hindutva fanatic You hide behind 'Israel' to take your potshots at Muslims but we know full well what motivates you. You hide being the American flag to indulge your racism against the Chinese and, again, we know full well what motivates you. You ain't fooling no one.

 

[JayAtl]

Correct on both counts.



So, when Western countries enact laws prohibiting certain topics which offend their sensibilities, but allow others under the rubric of 'free speech', then they are being hypocritical. When Muslim extremists spout crap against others, it is called 'hate speech' and censured, but when Islamophobes spout their nonsense, it is called 'free speech' and celebrated by mainstream media as intellectual discourse.

It is this fundamental double standard which is the issue here.

Now let's look at the highlighted part of your reply for a second. You put Muslim terrorists at the same par as Islamophobes. Which is very revealing.


Now we would say if a Muslim spouts hate speech, like anjun chowdary does in UK- nobody puts him behind bars or does anything = his free speech. But when a Muslim " terrorist" does it, of course we are concerned about him as a terrorist and hence already propensity to do terror acts that supersedes free speech.

You lump the rights of terrorists as same as a guy spewing just hate "speech" . I knew you are a closet terrorist sympathizer but never imagined you would state it so boldly.

 

[JayAtl]

All your so-called questions have been answered. Just because you are intellectually dishonest to accept answers which do not fit your prejudices will not change reality. As I mentioned, respectable universities like Columbia, Harvard and Chicago have researched this topic and it continues to be discussed at an intellectual level. A level clearly above your mudslinging capabilities.

We know your type of Hindutva fanatic You hide behind 'Israel' to take your potshots at Muslims but we know full well what motivates you. You hide being the American flag to indulge your racism against the Chinese and, again, we know full well what motivates you. You ain't fooling no one.

You've never answered them . you have rather shown me a link to a tin foil theory that suits your meme. There is no intellectual absolutes through opinions. Doubling down on dumb statements does not give it anymore credence. There is plenty of studies that show climate change is a hoax. but that does not take the reality of climate change as true away. You keep citing me studies which I can count in one hand to challenge the realities of history and day to day politics of the US. There also plenty of so called studies on 911 and that 911 truth ers cite as an inside job. Does not make that true.

Me calling you as a tin foil hat conspiracist does not make me a hinduvata or Jew lover or a Muslim hater... It just makes you look as a trivial tin foil hat man. It makes you just another anti India, anti Isreal, Anti Nato, anti US, anti christian, anti Hindu ,anti every other religion- WHO lives off ironically- in the bosom's of Judea christian countries.

Zionist would have wanted us to save mubarak because he guaranteed safety of isreal over the muslim brotherhood

Zionist would have wanted to keep ghadafi because he was spilling the beans on terrorist and nuclear programs of Iran.

Zionist would have wanted us to attack Syria a long time ago..

Do you hear the black helicopters coming ?

 

[Developereo]

Now let's look at the highlighted part of your reply for a second. You put Muslim terrorists at the same par as Islamophobes. Which is very revealing.


Now we would say if a Muslim spouts hate speech, like anjun chowdary does in UK- nobody puts him behind bars or does anything = his free speech. But when a Muslim " terrorist" does it, of course we are concerned about him as a terrorist and hence already propensity to do terror acts that supersedes free speech.

You lump the rights of terrorists as same as a guy spewing just hate "speech" . I knew you are a closet terrorist sympathizer but never imagined you would sate it so boldly.

I love it when you get hoisted by your own petard.

Once again, you show your intellectual dishonesty by deliberately conflating words: in this case extremist with terrorist. We have already established that any incitement to violence is criminal. My comment, clearly stated, was about extremist speech, not terrorism.

There is no intellectual absolutes through opinions. Doubling down on dumb statements does not give it anymore credence. There is plenty of studies that show climate change is a hoax. but that does not take the reality of climate change as true away. You keep citing me studies which I can count in one hand to challenge the realities of history and day to day politics of the US.

Me calling you as a tin foil hat conspiracist does not make me a hinduvata or Jew lover or a Muslim hater... It just makes you look as a trivial tin foil hat man. It makes you just another anti India, anti Isreal, Anti Nato, anti US, anti christian, anti Hindu ,anti every other religion- WHO lives off ironically- in the bosom's of Judea christian countries.

Do you hear the black helicopters coming ?

Your concerns are all addressed by respected academic studies at mainstream universities; studies backed by reams of data. These studies far exceed your pitiful grasp of 'day to day politics in the US'. You seem to confuse dominance with absolute, unflinching control.

Since you have retreated into your usual mode of vitriolic tantrums devoid of actual facts, we can conclude you are getting ready to spout some more anti-China venom.

 

[Icecreamcart]

Is there really that much of a difference between a holocaust denier and someone who insults Mohammed? Both are purposely being disrespectful of another group of people. The end results are always the same when you incite hatred.

You may argue that one of the above actions will result in an even more violent reaction, but when compared purely on the basis of free speech, it doesn't matter.

 

[JayAtl]

I love it when you get hoisted by your own petard.

Once again, you show your intellectual dishonesty by deliberately conflating words: in this case extremist with terrorist. We have already established that any incitement to violence is criminal. My comment, clearly stated, was about extremist speech, not terrorism.

Your concerns are all addressed by respected academic studies at mainstream universities; studies backed by reams of data. These studies far exceed your pitiful grasp of 'day to day politics in the US'.

Since you have retreated into your usual mode of vitriolic tantrums devoid of actual facts, we can conclude you are getting ready to spout some more anti-China venom.

I have given plenty historical facts showing no pro Zionist moves US has made

here are some more

Zionist would have wanted us to save mubarak because he guaranteed safety of isreal over the muslim brotherhood

Zionist would have wanted to keep ghadafi because he was spilling the beans on terrorist and nuclear programs of Iran.

Zionist would have wanted us to attack Syria a long time ago..


but at every step you want us to take your silly absolutes of " Zionist control all of america" as the word of god . You know who talks like that in absolutes- men with tin foil hats


the only thing you have established is the ability to change color when brought to the mat and rant you hindu, you jew lover you- like the mad hatters here do when they run out corners to hide.

 

[mfreak]

Which brings up another can of worms. Many countries have laws against racial or religious vilification (I don't know about Austria specifically). Some countries have laws specifically against anti-Semitism and/or Holocaust denial. These laws span the whole spectrum which further complicates the debate on what constitutes free speech and what is hate speech.

Austria infact is one of the most anti-semitic nations in the world. Spain surpasses it, but if you read the ADL report you will see how anti-semitic Europe in general is. And yes, these laws should indeed span the whole spectrum when it comes to jews.

When it comes to Jews. They will demonize them, call them the cancer of the world. The very reason they deny the holocaust is because they are racists. Nothing else. Its not intellectual debate.

So, free speech is asking someone to provide proof for the holocaust. Any historic event can be investigated. Free speech is criticizing Islam, or any other religion.

Hate speech is racism against people. That is why holocaust denial falls in the "racism" category. As an Atheist myself, you will mostly see Atheists stand up for muslims. Recently on facebook, a group I had subscribed to called - Atheism Resources posted this photo:

I was heavily against it. Because this is a gross generalization and it fails to take into account WHY people in those muslim nations are not happy. Its war, mostly war brought on my Islamic terrorists themselves. Similarly I was also against the movie "Innocence of Muslims" because it did not deal with criticizing religion per se, it was meant to incite racism towards muslims. If the guy that made the movie made one like Theo Van Gough did then I would have stood by him. BTW as you know Theo Van Gough was himself murdered by a radical muslim. Again proof of why your definition of hate speech is too flimsy.

But this provocative movie, pales in comparison to the violence we have seen in response to it. And that is the problem. Do you see black people burning churches or attacking white people, because of racism in America? Do you see Jews going around attacking people if they deny the holocaust?

 

[JayAtl]

Is there really that much of a difference between a holocaust denier and someone who insults Mohammed? Both are purposely being disrespectful of another group of people. The end results are always the same when you incite hatred.

You may argue that one of the above actions will result in an even more violent reaction, but when compared purely on the basis of free speech, it doesn't matter.

Yes there is a difference. One is talking about an actual act of violence and other is making stupid statements about a "religion". Holocaust happened , all religion is just fantasy being held on to by people that follow it. Now that's my opinion. BUT BUT even if I'm wrong...

The more important point is - in america a holocaust denier is allowed same free speech rights like the dolt ( american)who made anti Islamic statements. So bringing in Holocaust issues in other countries is irrelevant because we are talking about AMERICAN FREE SPEECH! that right been given to an American. don't cloud what happens in other countries with the question asked, is free speech AMERICA claims is a right for the goose and gander. and the answer is YES!

 

[gambit]

I love it when you get hoisted by your own petard.

Once again, you show your intellectual dishonesty by deliberately conflating words: in this case extremist with terrorist. We have already established that any incitement to violence is criminal. My comment, clearly stated, was about extremist speech, not terrorism.

We can look at the relevant German Criminal Code...

http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htmv

(3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or renders harmless an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 220a subsection (1), in a manner capable of disturbing the public piece shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.

The German law does not singled out the 'Holocaust' with precise verbiage but rather focused on the origin of what is called the 'Holocaust', which was the Nazi Party. Basically, the Germans wants to criminalize any resurrection of the Nazi Party which they felt would inevitably lead to...

Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB)

Section 220a Genocide

(1) Whoever, with the intent of destroying as such, in whole or in part, a national, racial or religious group or one characterized by its folk customs by:

1. killing members of the group;

2. inflicting serious physical or emotional harm, especially of the type indicated in Section 226 on members of the group;

3. placing the group in living conditions capable of leading, in whole or in part, to their physical destruction;

4. imposing measures which are intended to prevent births within the group;

5. forcibly transferring children of the group into another group,

shall be punished with imprisonment for life.

(2) In less serious cases under subsection (1), numbers 2 to 5, the punishment shall be imprisonment for not less than five years.

This is about speech that is inevitably accompanied by a call (incitement) to violence and terrorism against a specific group, which for the Nazi Party had many groups other than the Jews deserving of genocidal methods.

David Irving is hardly a scholar in the mold of someone who wants to investigate and record, does it with impartiality, and publish his findings for all to critique. He does his joke of 'research' from his hatred of Jews and his true intent is to incite violence against Jews and to effect another 'Final Solution'.

So...If you want to criminalize speech whose intent is to incite violence against a specific group, read 'nation', then you might want to examine your own group.

 

[Developereo]

I have given plenty historical facts showing no pro Zionist moves US has made

here are some more

Zionist would have wanted us to save mubarak because he guaranteed safety of isreal over the muslim brotherhood

Zionist would have wanted to keep ghadafi because he was spilling the beans on terrorist and nuclear programs of Iran.

Zionist would have wanted us to attack Syria a long time ago..


but at every step you want us to take your silly absolutes of " Zionist control all of america" as the word of god . You know who talks like that in absolutes- men with tin foil hats

Once again, it's sad to continually expose your ignorance of facts. As I mentioned, you confuse dominance with absolute, unflinching control.

So, let's look at your examples:
Mubarak -- US paid $2 billion/year bounty to the thug to keep his people in check for decades. This despite the fact that 95% of Egyptians oppose Israel. Eventually, the people rebelled -- not about Israel but domestic issues -- and the thug had to go.

Gaddafi -- he outlived his usefulness and it was time to find new puppets.

Syria -- there are claims that the rebels are being supplied by foreign sponsors, so the conflict is very much in play.

Iran -- the US is leading the way on the anti-Iran sanctions even though Iranian nukes are not a threat to the US.

the only thing you have established is the ability to change color when brought to the mat and rant you hindu, you jew lover you- like the mad hatters here do when they run out corners to hide.

Don't insult moderate Hindus and Jews. You represent neither.

 

[mfreak]

You deliberately conflate Judaism with Zionism

And you are conflating Zionism with racism. Zionism is establishment of a separate Jewish state. Thats all it is.

 

[Zarvan]

Once again, it's sad to continually expose your ignorance of facts. As I mentioned, you confuse dominance with absolute, unflinching control.

So, let's look at your examples:
Mubarak -- US paid $2 billion/year bounty to the thug to keep his people in check for decades. This despite the fact that 95% of Egyptians oppose Israel. Eventually, the people rebelled -- not about Israel but domestic issues -- and the thug had to go.

Gaddafi -- he outlived his usefulness and it was time to find new puppets.

Syria -- there are claims that the rebels are being supplied by foreign sponsors, so the conflict is very much in play.

Iran -- the US is leading the way on the anti-Iran sanctions even though Iranian nukes are not a threat to the US.



Don't insult moderate Hindus and Jews. You represent neither.

Their is no absolute freedom of speech in any part of the world and in fact is most laws of the world if you incite someone and he or she murders you than that person can't be given the capital punishment for that

 

[Icecreamcart]

Yes there is a difference. One is talking about an actual act of violence and other is making stupid statements about a "religion". Holocaust happened , all religion is just fantasy being held on to by people that follow it. Now that's my opinion. BUT BUT even if I wrong...

The more important point is - in america a holocaust denier is allowed same free speech rights like the dolt ( american)who made anti Islamic statements. So bringing in Holocaust issues in other countries is irrelevant because we are talking about AMERICAN FREE SPEECH! that right been given to an American. don't cloud what happens in other countries with the question asked, is free speech AMERICA claims is a right for the goose and gander. and the answer is YES!

In the end, both statements are simply words. Isolated, they are functionally identical. Only when you take it into a wider context do you see a disproportionate reaction to the statements.

I'll argue that the content of the statements should not matter as much as the intent. This should be the most important criteria.

Someone who makes a statement with the intent to incite violence or hatred is much worse than someone who makes the statement out of ignorance or incorrect evidence. It plays down to the fundamental human understanding of empathy.

You'll sympathize more with a woman who is afraid of a minority out of ignorance rather than someone who hates the minority due to an inherent sense of racial superiority.

 

[Developereo]

So, once again, we see a convenient a priori rationalization that any unauthorized viewpoint on the Holocaust is motivated by racism and, therefore, falls under racist speech.

The issue should be proved on a case by case basis that a specific individual is motivated by racism, the way we do with hate crimes, rather than enacting blanket laws outlawing all 'objectionable' speech on the subject.