Summary of responses to BNP lies/half truths

[David Johnson]

Hi
You stated in your post
"Mohammed and his followers have killed more innocent people from the paedophile's day to the present day than anybody else in history.Forget about Stalin,Hitler,Pollpot,Mao, Mohammed has out butchered them all".

Does a list copied from a website covering the last 3 months support your statement above? I don't think so. unless you are arguing that the Prophet Mohammed was born this year or that history began in 2009.

CHeers
David

[David Johnson]

You argued
"Oh by the way could you explain to me how being anti-islam is racist.ISLAM IS NOT A RACE"

Ah yes, that argument! As if monumental religious bigotry is somehow acceptable whilst slagging off people because of their skin colour is just not the done thing!

I suspect the answer to your question is not as simplistic as you suggest in your comment above.

Religion and its adherents involve a complex mix of belief, culture and ethnicity.

I suspect if you asked the vast majority of people as to what a Muslim is they would end up describing a person of Arab origin rather than a believer in one of the great religions, Islam.

When the BNP talk about the horrors of the Islamic religion they are not targetting Fred Smith, a white postie in Weybridge who has converted to Islam, they are aiming it at the Asian Muslims in Burnley and Oldham that are separated from the white population of those towns by their colour, religious beliefs and culture.

Your argument is the basis of the BNP's chant "We are not racist". Ask that question to the Asian Muslims in various British towns which have allegedly witnessed an increase in attacks as a result of the BNP getting active in their areas.

Personally I dont believe it racist or religious bigotry to criticise the stoning to death of a woman for adultery or the shooting of an abortion clinic worker in the States by a Christian fundamentalist. I would view it as a criticism of the interpretation of those respective religions which is more a question of culture.

What I do consider as implicitly racist is the BNP's weasel words to try and avoid the racist card.

We can have a sterile argument about whether something is racist or not, but the bottom line as far as I am concerned is that religious bigotry i.e. the condemning of an entire religion and racism are both deeply ignorant views.

Cheers
David

[Sam Slater]

I have to disagree with some of your views here, DJ. Firstly, I agree with you about racists using the bad aspects of Islam, or Islamic culture to really have a pop at people with brown skin. It does make it easier for them to cloak their bigoted views but I think given a little scrutiny they're always found out (like the BNP for instance). Racists just can't help themselves because they nearly always slip up and say something we all recognise as ignorant or bigoted.

Where I disagree is the criticism of a culture, or faith, as being likened to racism. It's just not the same and if racists want to use it to cloak their prejudices then I'm afraid we just have to lump it and deal with each criticism as objectively and intelligently as we can. Censoring people because of a minority, be it legally (like the recent blasphemy laws in Ireland and laws Islamic councils are pressuring the UN to pass) or via emotional blackmail (criticise us and you're obviously racist and to be ostracised from polite society) always hurts the majority that have real, warranted views and fears.

As I alluded to in reply to Keith on another thread, religion and culture are just sets of ideas and rules. It's all about opinion and belief and we attack and criticise other peoples' opinions and beliefs all the time without batting an eyelid. Prefer the Beatles over The Who?; Tories over Labour?; punishment for criminals or rehabilitation and encouragement?; legalisation of illegal substances or crack down harder on them? You get my point I'm sure.

For the record: any African or Chinese citizen who wants to criticize our oil-guzzling, binge drinking, MacDonalds eating , XFactor obsessed culture then I don't think them a racist for doing so. If I think they're wrong I'll argue against them best I can and they may learn something; if they're right then I'll agree and I may have learnt something from them.

[David Johnson]

Nope, I dont think Mr Green has TOO much time on his hands as you suggest, though maybe I do.

He just found this site and copied the list from the bottom of the following page.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

I did check for all the innocent Muslims killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by soldiers that put Christianity down as their religion, that they could have maybe put in a separate list but I couldnt find it!

Have you scrolled up on that same page that you copied the list from to read some of the other stuff, Tom?

Here's an example:

"Muslim immigration into the UK has left a trail of rape victims, but
as long as the political elite place a higher value on multiculturalism,
Britain's women will just have to keep taking one for the team! "

So we are not talking about the white British converts to Islam here, are we ? Hey, I just had a look at all the photos on that page and none of them are white. They are all Arab looking guys. Why is that?

Here's another quote
"In 2007 Islam and Judaism's holiest holidays overlapped for 10 days.
Muslims racked up 397 dead bodies in 94 terror attacks across 10
countries during this time... while Jews worked on their 159th Nobel Prize".

Forgive me, but don't you think there is an element of bias working here?

Now there are some of us that might think that this site represents the worst of racist/religious bigotry, but I couldn't possibly comment.


CHeers
David

[arseneltic]

Obviously Hitler,Stalin ,Pollpot Mao etc.did not personally kill the millions of people that they are attributed to them but the killings were done on their orders or behalf.Just like the list I provided can be attributed to mohammed and his teachings and yes copy and paste is great.

[David Johnson]

Let me remind you again what you said in your earlier post.

"Mohammed and his followers have killed more innocent people from the paedophile's day to the present day than anybody else in history.Forget about Stalin,Hitler,Pollpot,Mao, Mohammed has out butchered them all"

The estimate of people killed in the Second World War alone is between 50 and 70 million. Now whatever you might say about Stalin, Hitler, Churchill etc and their religious beliefs, they clearly weren't Muslims. I am not including the Vietnam War, the Iraq war, the Cultural Revolution in China, Pol Pot's actions in Cambodia etc. etc, etc etc.

You copy a list for a few months from a website which covers some terrorist attacks that number less or more than 50-70 million people?

So you haven't proved your statement above, have you? If you had put together a list which showed that more than 50-70 million people had been killed by Muslims in a similar timespan to the Second World War than your view might have a bit more credibility.

Cheers
David

[David Johnson]

"No reason why he should. Whatever views Nick Griffin has he is entitled to them.

I believe in Voltair's...I disagree with everything you say but will fight to the death for your right to say it.

Question Time audience listen and learn!"

Sorry, dont understand the above at all.

Nick Griffin has his views. I and the majority of the QT audience happen to disagree with those views. What my post does is try to highlight the lies that are commonly spewed out by Griffin and his supporters as to whether they are racist, holocaust deniers or not etc. etc.

That has little to do with his right to hold those views or not.

For the QT audience to disagree with Griffin's views does not imply that they believed he should not be able to spout those views.

QT provided far more opportunity for Griffin to outline his views than the BNP do for their opponents, banning those opponents from attending their meetings.

Cheers
David