Top Menu

“Nuke Sweden”, “Shoot the Women”, Let Them Eat Bacon”!

What happens when Breitbart and the ex-Breitbart propagandist Milo Yiannopoulos hears about an attack in Sweden where a racist harasses Muslim women? They write about it and imply that the women are lying. What happens when their readers read the articles? The readers write that they want to: nuke Sweden, kill these women (and all Muslims), “shoot them, hang them, and throw bacon at the mosques, “Shoulda wrapped it around his fist and beat the shit out of them”, “shoot them with bacon greased bullets”. And of course as always: “hang the Jews”.

A racist went up to some Muslim women that were sitting on a train in Stockholm. He took out bacon and shoved it in their faces while he shouted that he hates “Muslims and negroes”. When they got up to move away from him, he followed them waving the bacon in their faces and screaming racial slurs.

Swedish media reports that the women told the police that they were afraid that the man would attack them. A witness told the police that he yelled that he hated “Muslims and negroes”:

“He went up to three women that carried a veil and shoved the bacon at their faces and their hands. He said: “what is it, am I not allowed to eat bacon?”

Two of the women were only visiting Sweden and did not understand Swedish. “I could hear the words “islam, islam” in what he said. His behavior was very aggressive and I was really scared that this man would attack us”, one of them told the Police,

Milo and Breitbart

A clear case of harassment?

Not so for Breitbart and the ex-Breitbart journalist Milo Yiannopoulos.

Breitbart obviously found the news so important that they wrote an article which reports how people in social media ridicule the Swedes and the harassed women.

Reaction to the incident on social media has been a mix of laughter and disbelief amongst English language users. Twitter user PeterSweden tweeted his disbelief at the charges saying: “What’s the next step, being racist for walking your dog?”

As usual the article is followed by a comment section filled with hatred against Swedes, Muslims and Jews. “Kill them, shoot them, force them to eat bacon, nuke Sweden”.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Milo Yiannopoulos implies that the women were lying and his followers on Facebook get furious.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The comment sections of Breitbart and the “ex-Breitbart” writer Milo are disgusting. But sometimes it is important to look at them. Don’t forget that Steve Bannon and Steve Gorka, two of the main security advisors of Trump, come from Breitbart. This is the articles Trump hears about and bases his security policy on. That is the kind of hatred they whip up, and the kind of supporters they have.

They claim that the Muslims are barbarians, while they themselves are the “crown of creation”… That is hardly the impression you get when reading the comment sections of Milo and Breitbart.

, , ,

  • Khizer

    Hah nice.

    Careful, some rival of iron man ugh come in his/her robo mech suit and might trash the place.

  • Bro, did you read my post? I’ve got no time for loons right now. 🙂

    Check out these sculptures. Looks like we’re on the set of Iron Man.

  • Khizer

    Hey Illisha, what do you think of this comment section,

    Also this ex-Muslim’s comment….just beautiful.

    “Ex-Muslim speaking here: I don’t see any convincing debunking on the statistics regarding the Muslims.

    It’s OK to acknowledge that Muslims around the globe, mostly in Muslim majority nations, are more sexist, reactionary, and totalitarian than average Westerner. We live under tyrannies. And recognizing the problem is the first step for a solution. We won’t be able to become less sexist or less authoritarian if western liberals decide that the answer to Islamophobia is “we must pretend that Muslims are perfect”.

    Muslims are, in the end, the dominant and privileged class in many societies. When fighting the extremists of your own societies, don’t make marginalized classes in Muslim societies collateral damage by ignoring their oppression.”



  • I’m awaiting my flight for a 15 hour journey, and will be off backpacking for a little over a week. So if you address a comment to me, my reply will probably be delayed. Just so you don’t think I’m ignoring you, or anyone else here. 🙂

  • I find it funny they complain about Muslim immigrants, but refuse to acknowledge Western imperialism is the root cause of much of the influx. They should strike at the root, not sit around whining about how they dislike Islam.

    Also, while they don’t want to be encroached upon, most of the muscular liberals absolutely love to force their ideology on others, even if it means invading and forcibly making over someone else’s country.

    Their ideology seems to attract the most obnoxious people on earth. Harry’s Place is full of thugs. I like to go over there now and then, for some rough and tumble debate. Just to sharpen my skills. Trying to reason with them is pointless.

    I have no sympathy for them. They are disgusting, and I really don’t want them here. Harry’s Place is their natural habitat. “Butter Balls” will no doubt love it over there.

  • Khizer

    It’s funny how many ‘muscular liberals’ I have seen fall into the alt-right camp. He even spouts their conspiracy theories.

    “To a degree you are correct that I fear that if the numbers of Muslims in my own country became large enough to become a majority, then Sharia law would become a reality. Muslims in the UK have integrated less well than all other religious groups and the children and grandchildren of original immigrants have become more religiously conservative, not less. For that reason alone I would reluctantly support restricting Muslim immigration to the West, although it goes against my beliefs about freedom of religion. However, too much is at stake to risk very hard won tolerant liberal values within Western countries being undermined by Islam and religious intolerance.”

    I find these type of secularists funny, they claim religion causes delusion, but fall head over heels for these non-sensical ‘shariah takeover conspiracies’.

  • I’m not obliged to spend hours arguing with you. If I want to take up the torch, I can and if not, I’m free to refuse. It doesn’t mean I’m not able to make an argument, nor that you automatically win.

    I assess whether or not a discussion is worth my time, sometimes up front but more often, partway through. Is there any point in talking to this person? Will it be a fruitful discussion between us, and even it not, will it possibly be of value to other readers? That is my calculus.

    With regard to you, the answers to these questions is no, no, and no.

    You are a person who is so thoroughly indoctrinated with a certain set of ideas that it blinds you utterly. To try make you see what your missing is like screaming at a color blind person, demanding they see the word “truth” spelled out in green. They can’t see it. It’s pointless.

    You have the myopic and tyrannical views of a “muscular liberal.” I find these people to be moral imbeciles. It’s foolish to argue with fools and tyrants. You would fit in really well with the thugs over at Harry’s Place, and I really recommend you go there and stop annoying people here:

    A lot of our rejects–people banned and shunned here–congregate there. You seem like a PERFECT match for that venue.

    If you wish to frame my refusal to engage you further as a loss by default, fine. Go ahead. It’s really difficult to sufficiently emphasize how little I care about what you think. Your opinions–regarding any matter–are 100% irrelevant to me given low my opinion of you.

    Taunting me about this, that and the other thing has zero impact. You have no leverage.

    Now, I have a flight to catch and a paradise to visit, so I’m done here.


  • Butter Balls

    Yes, you did, and what’s more you know it. Someone who is confident in their views, has all the facts and figures, doesn’t weary of an argument like you did, doesn’t ignore points made by the other side. They know they can answer everything and relish the fight. You ran away because that was all you could do. You weren’t bored or lazy originally. You answered at great length. It was only when things got too difficult that you ran away.

  • No, I didn’t run away, but I’m going to now. Partly out of fear you’ll bore me to death, and partly because I have other things to do.

    Bye “Butter Balls.” Have a lovely day.

  • Butter Balls

    No, I don’t think I won. I think you ran away.

  • My comments regarding your whining blather are observations I think are easily confirmed by anyone actually reading your comments.

    You feel you’ve won? Awesome. Shove off victorious then, and get on to your next venue, Dazzling Knight of the Keyboard. Your work here is done. 🙂

  • Butter Balls

    You show all the weakness of someone who knows they are losing an argument. You talk of my ‘whine’ and ‘blather’, you imply a lack of intelligence and call me insufferable. Those are all insults. You don’t deal with the substance of my points. I can only conclude you cannot. All you have to say about Islamic terrorism is that it is all the fault of Westerners and their foreign policies. Obviously Islam is not at fault in any way for any action undertaken in its name, using its texts and practices as justification. Everything else negative about Islam, and there is a huge amount, you ignore.

  • Oh, you’re so welcome. I didn’t say that because I think you need my permission, but rather in response to you whiny narrative about how people are stifling criticism of Islam. You seem oblivious to the concept of cause-and-effect.

    You might as well shout at the wind. It would be just as intelligent and effective as what you’re doing now, and humans would be spared your insufferable blather.

  • Butter Balls

    Thank you for your kind permission for me to criticise an ideology I find distasteful. I will certainly take you up on your generous offer. However, I don’t think I shall shout at the wind.

    It is a pity you don’t have the moral courage to face up to the problems within your religion and the terrible things done in the name of Islam. Denial doesn’t make these problems disappear, nor will it solve anything.

    My original point remains. Any article which uses the term Islamophobia is hard to take seriously. Islam is an ideology and one cannot be a bigot to an ideology. That is mere disagreement. At most you can misrepresent it. So called Islamophobia is not bigotry to Muslims nor is it an irrational fear.

  • You go right on criticizing Islam “wherever it is to be found.” And Muslims will go on being Muslims, practicing Islam until the Last Day.

    That’s the reality you face. Now go shout at the wind.

  • Butter Balls

    Yes, I would love it if the UK followed America’s example and protected freedom of speech absolutely. At the moment we have someone in Scotland imprisoned for singing a anti-Catholic football song. That is frightening. In Ireland a preacher got into legal trouble for condemning Islam as Satanic. This an extremely dangerous move. In Canada they are moving toward making using transsexuals’ preferred pronouns a legal matter. It will only be a matter of time until the madness spreads to Europe. There are Burqa bans in France which are an intolerable restriction of freedom of expression. Now Merkel is making similar noises. I despise this.

    I am not blaming Muslims for hate speech laws, I lay that at the door of regressive ‘liberals’. I blame the burqa bans on white, Western conservatives, or those pandering to them.

    I find it puzzling that you deny drawing cartoons of Mo is suicidal, given what happened in Denmark or Paris. This is a slightly different issue than insulting Muslims. It is a matter of religious observance imposed on others, not random name calling. Once again you blame it all on foreign policy. However, there is no reason why French/European Muslims should concern themselves what is happening in other Muslim countries unrelated to them, except by religion. It is not an appropriate response.

    Western countries are not engaged in a new crusade. They are not targeting Muslim countries because they are Muslim. There is no reason why anyone other than an Syrian or Iraqi should care enough about what is happening in their countries to kill because of it. No Catholic in France is going to kill someone who draws a cartoon of the pope because Catholics are being killed in Africa, or Christians are being persecuted in Muslim countries.

    The problem is that Muslims are imposing their values on Western countries. When critics of Islam, when those who mock Mo are butchered that is a problem.

    You speak of people wanting Islam to play a role in society and government. That is truly frightening, as all theocracies are. Its only result will be illiberalism and intolerance, of sexual diversity, of religion, of thought and behaviour. That is why it is better to be homosexual in the West than in Muslim majority countries. To wish the (largely plagiarised) myths, fairy tales, superstitious practices and imaginary friends from primitive times to have an influence on modern countries is truly bizarre. That sort of madness should have been cured with the Enlightenment.

    To a degree you are correct that I fear that if the numbers of Muslims in my own country became large enough to become a majority, then Sharia law would become a reality. Muslims in the UK have integrated less well than all other religious groups and the children and grandchildren of original immigrants have become more religiously conservative, not less. For that reason alone I would reluctantly support restricting Muslim immigration to the West, although it goes against my beliefs about freedom of religion. However, too much is at stake to risk very hard won tolerant liberal values within Western countries being undermined by Islam and religious intolerance.

  • Butter Balls

    Islam is a very poor ideology, but so is Judaism. The difference between the two cultures is that Jews have distanced themselves to a much larger extent from their religion, and their culture is more diverse and more creative. Religious observance generally frustrates intellectual enquiry. That is very evident in Muslim countries. The lack of translations into Arabic, for instance, is astonishing.

    If you break down wealth in the UK by religion Jews come out on top, followed by Sikhs, then Hindus. All are ahead of Christians. Muslims come at the bottom. This is obviously not a racial issue, racism and anti-Semitism still exist in the UK and many British Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs share a similar skin colour. Nor is there any reason to suppose that the UK is particularly bigoted toward Muslims, when they are tolerant of other religions. Where there is growing intolerance that is of recent growth and due largely to recent Islamic terrorism. The real difference is one of culture between these various groups.

    This is nothing to do with feeling smug or superior. I am pointing out the weaknesses of the ideology you subscribe to, its dangers when taken to extremes and its dulling effect on intellectual enquiry. You never have any come back to that beyond name calling and prevarication.

    Do you honestly imagine that if someone published a similar book to Rushdie’s there wouldn’t be a similar result? These incidents occur when people are foolhardy enough to test tolerance of extremist Muslims. The most recent case was Charlie Hebdo. That was a couple of years ago.

    I don’t need to prove that Islam creates violent terrorists. The evidence of it is already there. Muslims commit violence in the name of their religion. This is not unique to Muslims of course, but your pretence that Islamic terrorism is not Islamic, but merely political, is ridiculous. It would be hard to claim that Boko Haram is the direct result of Western actions in the Middle East. If there is a link between Nigerians and Afghans or Iraqis based on Western military action it is only one of shared religion.

    If I can admit that Western foreign policy is not all it should be I find it interesting that you are so defensive of your religion that you cannot admit that it numbers violent extremists within its members. You appear to be in denial. I agree that almost everything the West does in the Middle East seems expressly designed to make matters worse. Bombing Assad, for instance, strengths the extremist opposition and undermines one of the most secular states in the area.

    My goal is to debate. Apparently you find that offensive. If you were less defensive and less emotional you might find it easier to counter my points. I am interested in exactly what you mean by Western ‘moral bankruptcy, social decay and rapid decline’. Are you speaking of sexual behaviour when you speak of morals? We have less sexual restrictions than in many Muslim countries certainly, but some see that as a positive. I do myself. I am interested in exactly what you mean, and whether you mean something other than sex. We are certainly more tolerant of homosexuality, as witness the legalisation of gay marriage, even in Catholic Ireland. Or are you talking about drink and drugs? The breakdown of the family? Is the ‘rapid decline’ you speak of economic?

    You keep talking of ‘gazing over the sea’. There are problems of Muslim extremism within the confines of my own country. However, as you like to criticise Western governments and criticise critics of Islam I see no reason why I shouldn’t criticise Islam wherever Islam is to be found. I criticise communism, feminism, and some aspects of conservatism as well. I fully support Muslim civil rights and freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Where those are violated I condemn. However, I don’t turn a blind eye to the crimes committed in the name of Islam simply because some Muslims are the victims of crimes themselves. Nor can I pretend that the ideology is a good one.

    If you want a ‘refuge’ then I suggest you do what feminist sites do, block and delete any dissenting voices. That has partially happened with someone ‘detecting’ one of my posts as spam. That way you can create an echo chamber of agreement. You won’t persuade anyone who doesn’t agree with you already but you can all commiserate with one another about the wickedness or unpleasantness of others.

  • What am I protesting too much? I think you just don’t know what to do when someone refuses to start dancing around like a trained monkey when you criticize Islam. People come here and thing they’re going to say Islam is bad because of x, and people here will fall all over themselves trying to appease them.

    “Oh no sir, superior Western master, let me explain to you how Islam really does conform to the Western values you set in your greatness as a standard for all of humanity!” I don’t play that game. I used to engage in a bit of that, until I realized it was pointless, and does nothing to challenge the lethal ignorance and arrogance that is prevalent in the West these days.

    You keep referring to a small number of crimes, some of them committed literally decades ago (Rushdie published Satanic Verses in 1988!), as if that’s an indictment of Islam as a whole, and its 1.6 billion adherents. You’re lucky what you’re saying isn’t true. The vast majority of Muslims simply ignore provocations, and that’s increasingly the case, as evidenced by some deliberate provocations that were meant by nothing but cricket chirps.

    Islam is a failed culture because more Jews win Nobel prizes? I think that’s a very weak talking point, but why argue about it? If you want to subscribe to Jewish supremacy, Western supremacy, or both, that’s fine. Puffed up Westerners who are full of themselves are just fine by me. I care what you *do*, not what you *think*. If you want to sit INSIDE YOUR OWN BORDERS feeling smug and superior, by all means, go right ahead.

    Count your Nobel prizes and pat yourselves on the back pretend everyone else is envious, if that makes you feel better. Fawning self congratulation is amusing, and since it doesn’t directly wreck other people’s countries, I don’t care enough to argue the point.

    Why do you continue to bring up apologists over and over? Refusing to engage is not a form of apologetics. I would argue it’s the opposite. It’s a refusal to engage in apologetics and appeasement. If you want to criticize someone else for being an apologist, that’s one thing, but *I* am not an apologist. What is this? The fourth or fifth time I’m reminding you? I don’t care what you think of Islam. Zero appeasement. I don’t know how to word that anymore clearly.

    I didn’t ask you what you think of Islam and I didn’t address your most of your points against it, except for the terrorism issue. You can *think* whatever makes you happy. I’m asking you to recognize it’s not in your self interest for your leaders to continue to try to dominate Muslim-majority lands. That is the single issue that actually concerns me. Your seal of approval with regard to Islam is not something I want or need.

    Even if you could prove that Islam creates violent insane radicals, how would it make sense for your leaders to keep poking that hornets nest while simultaneously gathering, arming and training whole swarms of said hornets? That would be foolish. Regardless of whether or not that is 100% of the reason the hornets are swarming toward YOU, it doesn’t make sense to keep poking their nest and empowering them to attack you. That is common sense.

    If you are so concerned about your liberal democracy, then safeguard it and quit gazing over the sea, as if you own the planet and need to ensure it’s managed properly. You aren’t smarter or better than anyone else, and your society is not going to escape the seasons of society anymore than any other.

    What is your goal here? Why are you even bothering us here? Do you genuinely believe that you’re going to eradicate Islam and make the world a better place? You’re not, and by trying, you will simply inspire a lot of Muslims to rally around Islam even more. That’s especially true as the moral bankruptcy, social decay and rapid decline of the West come increasingly into focus.

    This is not a site that’s devoted to “defending Islam,” but rather a site devoted to defending Muslim civil rights. Civil rights are non-negotiable, whether or not you or anyone else likes Islam. I don’t think most people come here because they enjoy comments regurgitating the same dull propaganda they see day in and day out.

    Why are you here? What do you want? Do you just enjoy annoying people in their places of refuge?

  • It’s very difficult to get “hate speech” laws passed in America, and that’s a good thing. If you live somewhere else, maybe your country need to follow the American example.

    It isn’t suicidal to draw a caricature of Muhammad. People insult and denigrate Muslims on a daily basis, and for the most part, nothing happens to them and rightly so. If you’re referring to the attacks on Charlie Hebdo, that was terrible, but the attackers even in that case cited a foreign policy motive. Also when you’re bombing and slaughtering people on a massive scale, they tend to feel a bit touchy. Relentlessly and needlessly humiliating people who are already constantly abused under your boot can be dangerous and is not advisable.

    If you continue this behavior, then you will face consequences because that’s how the world works. If you want to be left alone, leave other people alone. I can stress to you enough how important this basic point is. I feel like this is something an 8 year old child could easily grasp and yet for someone reason, it seems totally beyond comprehension to vast numbers of Westerners. Truly baffling.

    Anyway, there is no reason for Muslims in other countries to care what you think of them, their society, or their religion. You have a right to participate in and shape your society, not theirs. Many Muslims find your society (that is to say Western society generally) as abhorrent as you find theirs, but likewise, they don’t have the right to impose their values on you.

    You would no doubt reject them imposing their values on your at gunpoint, so it should be obvious to you why they reject your imposing your values on them. Mind your own affairs and leave other people alone.

    As far as immigrants, If you live in some Western country besides the US, then maybe you should point out to your leaders and countrymen that America does a better job of integrating minorities, including Muslims, than most European countries. Islam is the same, and yet the results are different, and maybe you should think about that and perhaps take the example America has set.

    If your leaders are imposing “hate speech” laws that are causing problems, then you need to address the to your leaders and stop blaming the Muslim minority for everything. Personally I don’t agree with hate speech laws, which I think are almost always counterproductive, even if well intentioned.

    Liberalism in fact CANNOT compete against Islam in some contexts, including in many Muslim-majority countries, where the people want Islam to play a role in their government and society. I think deep down that is what a lot of Westerners truly fear–that their ideas can’t win a fair and square competition– and especially in countries where there are higher numbers and concentrations of Muslims. If they were not afraid of this, the traditional liberal framework would suffice and they would be comfortable with that.

  • Butter Balls

    There is a problem when those laws are cruel and brutal. Homosexuality is illegal in a many Muslim countries and floggings, stonings and even crucifixion take place in some Muslim countries, conducted in the name of Islam, as part of Islamic law and traditions. If Spain still suffered from the Inquisition, the English still burnt heretics at the stake and Americans executed ‘witches’ I would condemn that as well.

    I have no problem with freedom of religion, freedom of thought and speech and advocating for any ideology. Such things are indeed the cornerstone of liberal democracy. I will obviously argue against Islam because I dislike the ideology and practices of the religion.

    I don’t fear that liberalism can’t compete with Islam, my fear is that so called ‘hate speech’ laws will restrict freedom of speech as will attacks by Muslims fanatics on those that they find offensive. It is already suicidal for someone to publish a caricature of Mohammed. That is not a competition in the market place of ideas, that is suppression and intimidation.

  • Butter Balls

    You care to reply at length, even though you don’t answer my points. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

    Islamic terrorism is not simply the result of Western foreign policy. Theo van Gogh was not killed because of American actions in Iraq or Afghanistan, nor was Hitoshi Igarashi. Even if your simplistic notion was correct that is no excuse, or mitigation for murder committed in the name of Islam. Murderous Muslims are actors in their own right, not simply automatons who react to outside influence.

    The thuggery and intimidation I drew your attention to referred to those who called for the death of Salman Rushdie, the actors in the Danish cartoon crisis, the murderers of Theo van Gogh, Hitoshi Igarashi, the murderers of the staff of Charlie Hebdo and anyone else who kills or threatens to kill people who choose to exercise their freedom of speech and ‘offend’ fanatical Muslims. That has everything to do with Islam.

    Nobel prize winners win based on their culture. Jewish culture has historically been advanced and diverse of thought. Islamic culture since the golden age has been backward and parochial. This is plainly reflected in the results, astonishing when you compare Jewish population with the Muslim population.

    You are something of a monomaniac when it comes to Western foreign policy. No, being technologically advanced doesn’t excuse imperialism. I never suggested it did. Once again, I am not a supporter of imperialism or interventionism. I am perfectly prepared to criticise Western atrocities. If only you were prepared to criticise dubious aspects of Islam.

    I know I have upset you. You made that clear in your replies, in the tone and the language you use. I’m not quite sure what original thoughts you expect anyone to have when criticising religious ideology or condemning brutality and oppression. All one can ultimately say is that it is bad. Or one can do what you do and ignore it. Apologists for pernicious ideologies and brutality committed in the name of those ideologies are not hard to find either.

  • Muslims in liberal democracies are constrained by law, just like everyone else. If Muslims are breaking the law and not being punished like everyone else, then that’s a flaw in the legal system, not Islam.

    If Muslims are abiding by the law and they manage to influence Western democracy through proper means–by peacefully advancing their arguments in the marketplace of ideas–then why would that be a problem? Isn’t that the point of a liberal democracy?

    Are you afraid liberalism can’t compete successfully against Islam in a free and open marketplace of ideas?

  • I don’t care if you believe I know more about Islam than you do or not. You can take my statement or leave it. There’s a more important point you seem to be missing, which is that I don’t care what you think of Islam.

    What part of “I don’t care what you think of Islam” are you not getting? If I cared what you think, then maybe I would address your assertions about Islam, one by one. Or maybe I would launch into apologetics. I’ve done neither. I said you’re ignorant of Islam because you obviously are. I invited you to go frolic in your ignorance with equally ignorant Islam haters. My policy is ZERO APPEASEMENT, and that’s what you need to understand.

    I already addressed terrorism, which is the result of Western foreign policy, not Islam. If you want terrorism to stop, then the Western imperial powers will have to give up their own grand scale terrorism. There is no other option. If you stubbornly refuse to place accountability where it properly belongs, you will continue to suffer terrorist attacks. Your choice–or more accurately, the choice of your ultra-rich elite, who frankly care only about themselves, not you and your fellow countrymen.

    Where is the “thuggery and intimidation” and what has it got to do with Islam?

    Nobel prize winners? Are you really saying the winners win because of their religion? If you’d lived 1000 years ago, it would have looked like Islam was going to rule the world. Islam has a very rich intellectual heritage, which has contributed mightily to Western thought. There is no need to prove anything with regard to what’s possible for Muslims to achieve, which far exceeded the crass materialism we see in much of the modern West. We’re living in a particular season of history, and your myopic view of things just puts your overall ignorance on display once again. Religion, anthropology, and history are not your strong suits, if your comments here are an accurate reflection of your knowledge.

    In any case, what has any of this got to do with anything? If you’re rich, technologically advanced, and win Nobel prizes, you get to bomb other countries? What sort of logic is that? If the West is so vastly superior and wonderfully civilized, why are Western countries bombing, poisoning, droning, starving, occupying and plundering other people’s lands? Who is a Westerner to lecture anyone on anything? You’re all about freedom and yet the West “liberates” MILLIONS of people from their homes and lives through extreme, relentless violence and plunder. The notion you’re peering down an Muslims from some intellectual or moral high ground is laughable.

    Finally, what gives you the impression you have the power to upset me? You seem quite puffed up with self importance. I’ve dealt with people just like you for half a decade now. You’re a dime a dozen and as I said, you haven’t said a single original thing.

    Why would I be upset? You sound like a bleating sheep. “Baaa! baaa! baaa!” doesn’t upset me in the least. It’s just typical background noise.

  • Butter Balls

    Again you state you know more about Islam than I do. Self advertisement is not a very sound basis for judgement. You display no knowledge, merely a confirmation bias.

    Criticising the use of the term ‘Islamophobia’ is not quibbling over terminology, it is a drawing a vital distinction between criticism of an ideology and bigotry to followers of that ideology. Islam is a terrible ideology and should be critiqued, as all ideologies should. Any ideology which is based on faith rather than reason is to be feared. It is even more to be feared when critiques of that ideology meet with suppression and violence.

    I am not an interventionist, but your call for me not to worry about other people in Muslim countries sounds dangerously close to ‘ignore the fate of those oppressed by Islam’ in the name of cultural relativism. I don’t choose to play that game. If I see something worth condemning I will condemn it, regardless of where it takes place.

    You are an apologist for Islam and seem determined to ignore the cruelties carried out in the name of Islam, whereas I do not shrink from condemning Western atrocities and idiocies. You criticise my mentioning honour killings and beheadings. Do you deny such things exist?

    I do not need to look abroad to find problems with Islam. I can look on my doorstep. The terrorist attacks in Europe and censorship by thuggery and intimidation is enough to worry anyone. Again you do not address this issue. You claim you can, but you don’t.

    If Western democracies are in decline that doesn’t augur well for freedom of thought. Western societies tend to be the most free from religious oppression and the most advanced in technology (obviously some Asian countries are highly advanced as well). Islam as a culture produces little advanced technology and little of intellectual value. One only needs to compare the number of Jewish Nobel prize winners with the number of Muslim Nobel prize winners to understand the intellectual poverty of Islam. All religions by their very nature tend to suppress independent thought, but Christians and Jews have succeeded in greater numbers in distancing themselves from those restrictions. This is in a large part due to the secular nature of Western countries and the distance between church and state.

    I don’t claim to be a kitten, but my points are rational and I don’t get easily upset by a contrary view. I notice one of my posts is ‘detected as spam’. Presumably that is a form of censorship.

  • Butter Balls

    Many religions are a problem for liberal democracy. The Enlightenment was essentially a secular movement and generally the more religious a country, particular where that influences institutions, the more backward and repressive. Islam as generally practised has not proven to be friendly toward women, religious minorities, homosexuals, apostates. etc. That is a problem for any liberal democracy.

Powered by Loon Watchers