TYT response to hateful heritage foundation speech

Post Reply New Topic

This is one of the best smackdowns of Islamophobia i've watched.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa-FtC885dM[/youtube]

Cenk is the Jules Winnfield of rationality. He is one bada** MFer. The Heritage Foundation is a bunch of rabid a**clowns.

How can you tell who smacked who down with that Turkish blockhead Cenk Uygur (or Stink Yogurt or whatever the f*ck his name is) sounding off at the top of his lungs every minute?? Talk about hateful and intolerant......

I had no problem understanding anyone speaking in that video. Maybe you have a problem with English comprehension. Just go ahead and make your own interpretation for what was said. Fabricate your own responses too. You are good at that.

Thank you very much, I love you too. Have a wonderful evening.

/\ More like you let big dummy tell you what you heard and how to feel about it.
Besides, I thought you were done wasting "syllables" or whatever on me....

Islamophobia doesn't exist. Being fearful of Islam is not a mental illness; it's a completely rational reaction to the carnage and intolerance we see around the world every day, ably abetted by Islamic scripture, law and customs.

What the OP is doing is aiding and abetting the worst of the racist, homophobic, misogynistic extremists - like Hamas and others like them - and dismissing the opinions of genuinely liberal Muslims like, say, Maajid Nawaz (not a person I agree with politically!) or even Irshad Manji - people that don't hate the West, rather like living here, don't hate the kuffar and think that we should do more to tackle extremism more effectively.

I personally believe that the 'extremism' is inherent to Islam. If Islamic scripture is followed in a literalistic sense, you have problems. If you do as the book says, you will always have problems. 4:34 gives one of many examples. If, however, you take a much more relaxed attitude to Islamic scripture - perhaps enjoy a beer and an England football singalong (yes, we're shite!) with the lads - you end up with perfectly nice, balanced people.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s[/youtube]

She does wrap herself in the victim mentality a little bit at the start. Anyone who hates all Muslims has a major problem - there are lots of Muslims I've met, some I've liked. This "hating all Muslims" schtick is a deliberate lie spread by Islamists for the purpose of isolating and insulating other Muslims from outside sources and keeping them within the tent. Without their base, the Islamists are knackered. Muslims are, so I'm told, increasingly integrated into many communities in America, and mosque attendance is declining.

Brigitte is completely right. I would add another example - in the Troubles of Northern Ireland, the majority of the population were peaceful people. But a minority committed killings and massacres. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

I note that Brigitte Gabriel is a Lebanese Christian. That makes it even more understandable why she would dislike Islam.

Also, the Muslim woman was applauded at the end, so it's not all bad - on either side:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQxP_GULKiQ[/youtube]

What about the carnage and intolerance caused by hate groups like the EDL? Pretty sure they have an irrational fear of all things Islamic. It is one thing to oppose terrorism, and a completely different thing to fear all Muslims. Arguing that, because a minor threat is posed to us by fringe members of a group, hatred of that group does not exist is illogical.

Strawman. He actually promotes 'Muslim peace movements'. Dismissing the opinions of racist warmongering extremists of one ethnicity and religion is not promoting the opinions of racist warmongering extremists of another ethnicity.

If Christian scripture is followed literally, you have problems (do you think extremism is 'inherent' to Christianity?):
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html
No, extremism is not 'inherent' to Islam, and there are plenty of moderate, liberal Muslims (you mentioned some yourself). Your stereotyped idea of British working-class culture does not always produce balanced individuals (BNP voters are an example of this). You are also somewhat nationalistic (the idea that 'Britishness' always produces good people). There's a word for labeling one group as inherently extremist, terrorist and evil and holding that another group with different beliefs and customs will be nice people. That word is 'prejudice'.
Remember, extremism works both ways. There are radical, pro-terrorist Muslims in the Middle East and radical, pro-terrorist Christians (like the Heritage Foundation) in the West. The War on Terror has killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, destabilised the region, and led to totalitarian measures (torture, secret courts, mass surveillance) at home. Western military intervention is more of a threat to the Middle East than Islamist terrorism is to the West.

I've been so immersed in religious fanatics as of late, studying one group in particular, I am sour on all three of these Abrahamic religions, Islam, Christianity and Judaism. All of them are impossible and are in dire need of modernization. All of them promote fighting and war, wishing bad things happen to others as proof of God and rejoicing when they do. Just sickening. Phooey on religion!

All decent people around the world should pray this hideous spell be broken and people abandon these outmoded, disastrous, destructive modes of thinking once and for all.

If all these fanatics around the world are like this group, which I suspect they all share common threads, you will never get anywhere with any of them. It is fruitless and pointless. Hostility and conflict is imminent. Any rational person will discover this if they spend any time at all studying any religious zealot.

Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 21 Jun 2014, 9:53 am, edited 2 times in total.

So did Adam Lanza render your lawfulness irrelevant?

I have to wonder what that has to do with any of this o O

Studying fanatics causes me to have even more magnificent respect for the lone sages and mystics who go about religion earnestly and quietly. For they are truly who these religions laud, not any of these attention seeking fanatics who do nothing but cause trouble and discord. It's true the lone sage is the saint not any of these stupid zealots who go on and on stupidly proclaiming how they think everyone should be.
I would say to them all become silent and reflective.

Remember these prophets and scribes all existed at a time the vast majority of humans were uneducated and enslaved. Many were not capable of thinking for themselves and were subjugated to strict authoritarian overlords who would torture and kill them for thinking for themselves. These prophets wrote for people like these.

Due to democracy and public education, many people have been liberated from such conditions, so why do we feel these particular prophets speak to us? They don't.

The way some of these zealots and fanatics practice their religion resembles black magic more than it does anything else.

Bingo. He spent so much time framing what was about to be said that I was thinking "Jeez, can't you get to the clip already?"

I'm not staying in all day to read and respond to this. It's too nice outside. However, I will answer one point.

"Carnage"? You're having a laugh, ain't you?

Their opponents - the bigots of the UAF - cause most of the trouble and are also far more likely to be the ones arrested, not the EDL.

The EDL are a comex and diverse group in their membership. Some people are pissed off with the government's kowtowing to Islamic sensibilities (especially minorities like women and gay people), some are anti-Islam in perhaps the Condell, Hirsi Ali or Wilders mould, some of them are yobs and football hooligans, others are admittedly neo-Nazis and racists. The problem with having a group opposed to Islamic extremism like the EDL was and not having a membership system is that anyone can be EDL.

For a 'far-right' group, the EDL were surprisingly broad minded - their manifesto is a surprisingly liberal and tolerant document (it contains a commitment to equality and human rights) - although they absolutely have had and even more so now - continue to have problems with nasties and it's why Robinson chose to leave them. Tommy Robinson left the EDL because he didn't like the kinds of people that were on its marches.

At worst, you might say that the EDL are a bunch of drunken, probably racist yobbos (though that wouldn't be true of all of them). They have never killed anyone. They have never caused carnage. They have never slaughtered a Muslim for being Muslim. They aren't about to burn down Brick Lane, or shoot random Muslims in the street.

They are basically a marginalised bunch that still aren't really being listened to. I'm not sure I would ever go on an EDL march, but I respect their right to free expression - as I do for HNH.

That said, I find groupings like Britain First a bit more sinister. I can't see them being a real threat to peace, but I do think they behave like massive a***holes. They're incompetent and not really threatening, but they are a nuisance, certainly.

This is a close minded, bigotted point of view. You need to grow up and learn a thing or two about the world.

Islamophobia certainly does exist, and it is a daily reality for Muslims in the west. Even if you yourself do not hate all Muslims (I seriously hope you are telling the truth), you are an apologist for those who do when you say that Islamophobia does not exist, you allow that sort of hate to continue by denying that it is real, and your rhetoric is very similar to that of the bigots. As an exercise, please try applying your statement to black people.

I suggest you set aside your prejudice, and start arguing "most Muslims are good people, but elements of Islam..." rather than "Muslims are evil, but some are OK if they support England and go down the pub". It will stop you coming across as a hate-filled, one-eyed fool.

The more I see and hear him the more I think of him as the left's version of Rush Limbagh, but louder and more vulgar.
Actually, I don't make it a habbit to listen to either.