Islamaphobia, bigotry, hate, and cruelty!

Augustus said:

Ignoring the fact that applying highly anachronistic terms like antisemitic to 7th C figures makes very little sense as nobody considered they has a 'semitic' identity then...

That's a bit like say Francophone Africans are a Latin people. Semitic is a linguistic marker only and has nothing to do with genetics which can clearly be demonstrated by modern science (Jews are similar to Levantines, Anatolians and Southern Europeans; Peninsular Arabs are not). We have moved past the genealogy of the Bible in this regard.

Anti-semite only applies to Jews anyway.

Click to expand...

PopeADope said:

I don't think I accused you of objections to my criticisms. If I did, my bad, but I don't recall doing so...

I asked you a question about Liberals. I have had liberal atheists defend this stuff elsewhere. Not so much on this thread. I don't get why Liberals would defend what is arguably the greatest threat against the virtues, rights, luxuries, and freedom that liberals claim to cherish. I wasn't saying you are liberal...I don't think I was...but you do seem to defend many of the values liberals are fighting for!

Click to expand...

PopeADope said:

Regarding my heartfelt words being a bit much. I understand! That mushy stuff can make a person uncomfortable. My bad! LOL!

Click to expand...

Epic Beard Man said:

SMH can't argue with brick walls

Click to expand...

Epic Beard Man said:

SMH can't argue with brick walls

Click to expand...

SomeRandom said:

What values are those? Like I said, to me the Liberals are the Liberal National Party, who are actually our version of conservatives.

Oh I meant I'm not real good and expressing to people through heartfelt emotional words. I was attempting to be supportive of you. I guess I'm worse at it than I thought lol

Click to expand...

Augustus said:

Well, you could attempt to have a rational discussion when people make basic and uncontroversial replies to your posts.

You do have a habit of saying something incorrect, then, instead of actually making any attempt to address what is a perfectly reasonable point, you simply state that other people are being so completely unreasonable to notice your error that a reply is beneath you.

Each to their own.

Click to expand...

Augustus said:

Well, you could attempt to have a rational discussion when people make basic and uncontroversial replies to your posts.

You do have a habit of saying something incorrect, then, instead of actually making any attempt to address what is a perfectly reasonable point, you simply state that other people are being so completely unreasonable to notice your error that a reply is beneath you.

Each to their own.

Click to expand...

PopeADope said:

I actually admire you for calling a spade a spade and recognizing the policies of Islamic Theocracies as fascism.

Click to expand...

Yes, there is far more hate, calls to violence, torture, dehumanizing opponents, and psychopathic writings in the Qur'an than Mussolini's "Doctrine of Fascism". Why don't you prove otherwise?

Click to expand...

Yet, it's perfectly acceptable to criticize Fascism. I have seen online or in real life, liberal atheists, Pagans, Christians, Hindus, Jews, and New-agers, speak highly of Muhammad and the Qua'ran, and come to their defense, when they are precisely the targets and victims of Muhammad and his hateful text, as well as the victims of Islamic Theocracies.

That is about as ridiculous as a Jew defending Nazism!

Click to expand...

In Saudi-Arabia, if a woman wears a bikini, that is such a TERRIBLE crime, but sexually assaulting her for doing so is acceptable, because the attitude there is "the unveiled whore was asking for it."

A man says the truth about Muhammad, the Qur'an, and the Fascist government on a blog, and he gets ten or more years in prison!

Yes, living in such a cesspool of tyranny, misogyny, double-standards, bigotry, bullying, and repulsive, ridiculous policies, would be a lifetime of torture for me.

I feel so sorry for the women and the lovers of freedom and rational thought who must abide by such dark-aged madness. It would be a total nightmare for me! Id not hesitate to take a quick death instead!

Click to expand...

PopeADope said:

Says the guy who pushes double-standards, hypocrisy, and tries to remove the timber from other's eyes while ignoring the plank in his own eye!

I also proved many of your statements and accusations to be falsehoods, and rather than admit a mistake and apologizing, you just give the silent treatment! Cat got your tongue?

You have made many personal attacks and insulted others.

You flipped over someone posting fried chicken, then called another poster "unseasoned chicken, dumb stupid, likes bland music" and joked about Caucasians addicted to meth all in the same post.

And not once did you apologise for such double--standards, hypocrisy, and selective outrage.

Then you mouthed off to an administrator and called his correction "BS".

You think I could get away with that. Enjoy your priviledge!

Click to expand...

Epic Beard Man said:

You haven't really refuted nothing. I do my best to ignore you. You have issues and its too easy for me to dissect and destroy a lot of the pitiful things you say. Me discussing with you on those claims you've made is like Lebron James playing a serious game of one on one with a 10 year-old that is paraplegic.

Click to expand...

Epic Beard Man said:

Well I could, but after reading some of your writing and even having a discussion with you on a private level its hard to respect someone who has views like yours often masked as "balanced."

Click to expand...

Augustus said:

You mean the discussion when you got annoyed that I mentioned the elementary historical fact Muslims enslaved both 'white' Europeans and 'black' Africans in a post directed at someone who wasn't you?

The one where you sent me an unsolicited PM where you didn't attempt to respond to anything I said, and simply made personal attacks against my character based on assumptions and racial stereotypes (despite not knowing my race or anything about me other than I live in the 'Islamic World').

The one where I presented a range of sources, including a Congolese historian, to support my points where you engaged purely in ad hom then accused me of 'denying your experience' when I never even mentioned you because your 'experience' is irrelevant to the historical Arab slave trade as you weren't born then.

Posting this seemed to annoy you even though it is a verbatim quote by an African scholar:

If you would prefer an African perspective that links the OP and Arab slavery:


The African continent was bled of its human resources via all possible routes. Across the Sahara, through the Red Sea, from the Indian Ocean ports and across the Atlantic. At least ten centuries of slavery for the benefit of the Muslim countries (from the ninth to the nineteenth). Then more than four centuries (from the end of the fifteenth to the nineteenth) of a regular slave trade to build the Americas and the prosperity of the Christian states of Europe. The figures, even where hotly disputed, make your head spin. Four million slaves exported via the Red Sea, another four million through the Swahili ports of the Indian Ocean, perhaps as many as nine million along the trans-Saharan caravan route, and eleven to twenty million (depending on the author) across the Atlantic Ocean (1).

Of all these slave routes, the “slave trade” in its purest form, i.e. the European Atlantic trade, attracts most attention and gives rise to most debate. The Atlantic trade is the least poorly documented to date, but this is not the only reason. More significantly, it was directed at Africans only, whereas the Muslim countries enslaved both Blacks and Whites. And it was the form of slavery that indisputably contributed most to the present situation of Africa...

We need to take a fresh look at the origins of the Atlantic slave trade. They shed light on the enduring mechanisms that established and maintained the vicious spiral. It is not certain that the European slave trade originally derived from the Arab trade. For a long time the Arab slave trade appears to have been a supplement to a much more profitable commerce in Sudanese gold and the precious, rare or exotic products of the African countries. Whereas, despite some exports of gold, ivory and hardwoods, it was the trade in human beings that galvanised the energy of the Europeans along the coast of Africa. Again, the Arab slave trade was geared mainly to the satisfaction of domestic needs. In contrast, following the successful establishment of slave plantations on the islands off the coast of Africa (Sao Tomé, Principe, Cap Verde), the export of Africans to the New World supplied the workforce for the colonial plantations and mines whose produce (gold, silver and, above all, sugar, cocoa, cotton, tobacco and coffee) was the prime material of international trade.

The enslavement of Africans for production was tried in Iraq but proved a disaster. It provoked widespread revolts, the largest of which lasted from 869 to 883 and put paid to the mass exploitation of black labour in the Arab world (2). Not until the nineteenth century did slavery for production re-emerge in a Muslim country, when black slaves were used on the plantations of Zanzibar to produce goods such as cloves and coconuts that in any case were partly exported to Western markets (3). The two slavery systems nevertheless shared the same justification of the unjustifiable: a more or less explicit racism with a strong religious colouring. In both cases, we find the same fallacious interpretation of Genesis, according to which the Blacks of Africa, as the alleged descendants of Ham, are cursed and condemned to slavery.



We haven't actually discussed much actual history in our interactions as you have preferred personal insults to actually making rational arguments. I don't care about the insults, but it would be good if you could intersperse them with rational arguments now and again. I am more than capable of having an educated discussion on Islamic history supported with peer-reviewed scholarly sources if that will help convince you I'm not fanatically biased and irrational.

So, would you like to explain which of these points is so unreasonable it makes me unworthy of discussion? If you doubt the science, I can provide the evidence if you want.


1. Using antisemite to apply to a 7th C figure is anachronistic
2. Saying an Arab can't be 'antisemitic' because they are Semites makes no more sense than saying an Italian can't be prejudiced against a Francophone African because they are both 'Latin people'. They both belong to the same linguistic grouping after all.
3. There was no 'Semitic' identity to belong to
4. Modern genetics have conclusively demonstrated that considering Arabs and Jews as part of a common 'Semitic' ethnicity has no basis in fact.
5. Antisemite only applies to Jews because that's what the word was created to mean. It also makes no sense to apply anti-semite, to a broader group as that would only mean 'hostility to people who speak Semitic languages' which would be very silly indeed.

Click to expand...

Epic Beard Man said:

How about this... You create a thread if you wish to debate, tag me and I'll debate you on this tireless point.

Click to expand...

Augustus said:

You mean the discussion when you got annoyed that I mentioned the elementary historical fact Muslims enslaved both 'white' Europeans and 'black' Africans in a post directed at someone who wasn't you?

The one where you sent me an unsolicited PM where you didn't attempt to respond to anything I said, and simply made personal attacks against my character based on assumptions and racial stereotypes (despite not knowing my race or anything about me other than I live in the 'Islamic World').

The one where I presented a range of sources, including a Congolese historian, to support my points where you engaged purely in ad hom then accused me of 'denying your experience' when I never even mentioned you because your 'experience' is irrelevant to the historical Arab slave trade as you weren't born then.

Posting this seemed to annoy you even though it is a verbatim quote by an African scholar:

If you would prefer an African perspective that links the OP and Arab slavery:


The African continent was bled of its human resources via all possible routes. Across the Sahara, through the Red Sea, from the Indian Ocean ports and across the Atlantic. At least ten centuries of slavery for the benefit of the Muslim countries (from the ninth to the nineteenth). Then more than four centuries (from the end of the fifteenth to the nineteenth) of a regular slave trade to build the Americas and the prosperity of the Christian states of Europe. The figures, even where hotly disputed, make your head spin. Four million slaves exported via the Red Sea, another four million through the Swahili ports of the Indian Ocean, perhaps as many as nine million along the trans-Saharan caravan route, and eleven to twenty million (depending on the author) across the Atlantic Ocean (1).

Of all these slave routes, the “slave trade” in its purest form, i.e. the European Atlantic trade, attracts most attention and gives rise to most debate. The Atlantic trade is the least poorly documented to date, but this is not the only reason. More significantly, it was directed at Africans only, whereas the Muslim countries enslaved both Blacks and Whites. And it was the form of slavery that indisputably contributed most to the present situation of Africa...

We need to take a fresh look at the origins of the Atlantic slave trade. They shed light on the enduring mechanisms that established and maintained the vicious spiral. It is not certain that the European slave trade originally derived from the Arab trade. For a long time the Arab slave trade appears to have been a supplement to a much more profitable commerce in Sudanese gold and the precious, rare or exotic products of the African countries. Whereas, despite some exports of gold, ivory and hardwoods, it was the trade in human beings that galvanised the energy of the Europeans along the coast of Africa. Again, the Arab slave trade was geared mainly to the satisfaction of domestic needs. In contrast, following the successful establishment of slave plantations on the islands off the coast of Africa (Sao Tomé, Principe, Cap Verde), the export of Africans to the New World supplied the workforce for the colonial plantations and mines whose produce (gold, silver and, above all, sugar, cocoa, cotton, tobacco and coffee) was the prime material of international trade.

The enslavement of Africans for production was tried in Iraq but proved a disaster. It provoked widespread revolts, the largest of which lasted from 869 to 883 and put paid to the mass exploitation of black labour in the Arab world (2). Not until the nineteenth century did slavery for production re-emerge in a Muslim country, when black slaves were used on the plantations of Zanzibar to produce goods such as cloves and coconuts that in any case were partly exported to Western markets (3). The two slavery systems nevertheless shared the same justification of the unjustifiable: a more or less explicit racism with a strong religious colouring. In both cases, we find the same fallacious interpretation of Genesis, according to which the Blacks of Africa, as the alleged descendants of Ham, are cursed and condemned to slavery.



We haven't actually discussed much actual history in our interactions as you have preferred personal insults to actually making rational arguments. I don't care about the insults, but it would be good if you could intersperse them with rational arguments now and again. I am more than capable of having an educated discussion on Islamic history supported with peer-reviewed scholarly sources if that will help convince you I'm not fanatically biased and irrational.

So, would you like to explain which of these points is so unreasonable it makes me unworthy of discussion? If you doubt the science, I can provide the evidence if you want.


1. Using antisemite to apply to a 7th C figure is anachronistic
2. Saying an Arab can't be 'antisemitic' because they are Semites makes no more sense than saying an Italian can't be prejudiced against a Francophone African because they are both 'Latin people'. They both belong to the same linguistic grouping after all.
3. There was no 'Semitic' identity to belong to
4. Modern genetics have conclusively demonstrated that considering Arabs and Jews as part of a common 'Semitic' ethnicity has no basis in fact.
5. Antisemite only applies to Jews because that's what the word was created to mean. It also makes no sense to apply anti-semite, to a broader group as that would only mean 'hostility to people who speak Semitic languages' which would be very silly indeed.

Click to expand...

Sir Doom said:

More spin, eh? Did you ever consider propaganda was and continues to be a tool of fascism? Might want to think twice before setting your feet on a slope so slippery. Don't twist my words.



Because I don't care about disproving meaningless statistics. I have no doubt your numbers are accurate according to whatever standards you decided to use. How you chose to interpret those numbers, is an entirely different subject. You decided that well before you looked into it. Surprise, surprise you managed to find a statistic that supported your opinion and then exploited it to paint the poster. You know what that's called? Spin.



Ah, the old 'with us or against us' routine. Now, where have I heard that before? Doctrine of something or other...

I'm sorry, but disagreeing with you is not the same as defending Islam. You'll just have to get over yourself on that one.



Wow, you're so brave. *Yawn*

Hey, here's a completely sarcastic idea. Why don't we invade? Sure we'll end up killing a lot of the people we are supposed to be helping, but as you say death is better right? We'll really be doing them a favor! We may also get rich...

See how that works?

Click to expand...

PopeADope said:

I am condemning hatred, bigotry, homophobia, anti-Semitism, calls to violence, dark-aged tyranny, and policies that resemble Fascist Dictatorships, that are decreasing the quality of lives, of hundreds of millions of people!
Thoughts?

Click to expand...

PopeADope said:

Liberals often fight for pro-choice movements, women's equality, gay rights, secularism, and all kinds of freedoms, virtues ,and luxuries that Islamic Theocracies oppress, while at the same time they call people like me "Islamaphobe" for just presenting the facts.

Not all liberals are like that, but I've encountered many who are. Obama fit that category. He said we should not call terrorists, "radical Islamic terrorists" because they hijacked a "peaceful Religion" and aren't "Islamic". Really??

I can prove him wrong!

I'm a liberal in many ways though. I just don't throw out common sense like that and embrace total ignorance like Obama did on the issue. And so many took his word for it.

Way to defend tyranny, psychopathic torture, and Fascism! It's a stupid world!

Click to expand...