Islamophiles / Regressive Left - Liberal non-Muslims who are desperate to protect the Religion of Peace

[Pointless Pedant]

"I'm a complete fucking idiot so not only do I somehow think that white supremacists, lunatics and Islamists have teamed up to whip everyone on the planet into a frenzy for laffs, but also I guess I'm in on it too since I claim to live in a world where right wing terrorism is just as dangerous and symbiotic with Islamic terrorism, and I just wrote a big dumb think piece about how bad and prevalent right wing terrorism is, perpetuating the exact situation I claim we need to be wary of."

If you've ever studied the Algerian war of independence, you'll see that the article isn't nearly as much of a reason to splutter in seething rage as you thought. It wasn't an Algerian who took shots at De Gaulle.

Paradox failed me when they nuked the Putin Mod off the Internet because it had current events in a virtual game about warfare.

This comes to me as no surprise.

I never heard about that. What happened? I got banned from the forums for posting a screenshot of HOI3 with a historical flag mod, since they don't like anyone even acknowledging that the Nazis did anything wrong. They're essentially enforcing the "clean Wehrmacht" myth on the forum, while simultaneously getting triggered by anything politically incorrect.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

Remember that billboard in Indiana that got Muslims riled up? Well, Snopes published an article claiming that it's all lies and falsehoods created to smear the name of the Prophet, PBUH. Snopes even claims that the billboard is "hate speech"... completely disregarding the fact that the billboard only talks about Muhammad, with no references to Muslims themselves at all.

I knew it. I fucking knew it. I kept telling people to stop looking at fucking Snopes as if it was the golden source of information. For the past year and a half people keep bringing up to me in conversation "Trump supposedly said this or Hillary supposedly did that, but you know what Snopes said about it?" Motherfucker you are the same people who for years has mocked the idea that Wikipedia was a reliable source any time I talked about something I read there, why the hell would you grant Snopes that concession? And now they got what they wanted, they got themselves to be viewed as a journalistic source when they clearly never were just the same as every fucking Salon and HuffPo and every other sanctimonious rag and they're using it for the same goddamn purpose, to spread lies and misinformation in the name of altering public perception to whatever their uneducated, myopic viewpoint is.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

I knew it. I fucking knew it. I kept telling people to stop looking at fucking Snopes as if it was the golden source of information. For the past year and a half people keep bringing up to me in conversation "Trump supposedly said this or Hillary supposedly did that, but you know what Snopes said about it?" Motherfucker you are the same people who for years has mocked the idea that Wikipedia was a reliable source any time I talked about something I read there, why the hell would you grant Snopes that concession? And now they got what they wanted, they got themselves to be viewed as a journalistic source when they clearly never were just the same as every fucking Salon and HuffPo and every other sanctimonious rag and they're using it for the same goddamn purpose, to spread lies and misinformation in the name of altering public perception to whatever their uneducated, myopic viewpoint is.

Wikipedia is actually relatively reliable on most things. There are some articles like Brianna Wu's and Gamergate which have been locked down by his sycophantic supporters, but those articles aren't the bulk of the site.

 

[Ineedahero]

If you've ever studied the Algerian war of independence, you'll see that the article isn't nearly as much of a reason to splutter in seething rage as you thought. It wasn't an Algerian who took shots at De Gaulle.

What are you talking about?

 

[Pointless Pedant]

What are you talking about?

In 1954 the FLN rebelled against French rule in Algeria, and the army deployed to suppress them. The war was politically unpopular in France, and President Charles de Gaulle eventually agreed to allow Algeria a referendum on independence. In an attempt to stop this, extremists within the army formed the OAS, who attempted a coup and tried to assassinate de Gaulle, failing when every shot fired into his car missed.

Extremist movements often, if not usually, inspire extremist movements to fight them. See the IRA and the UVF, the Years of Lead in Italy, and so on.

 

[Ineedahero]

In 1954 the FLN rebelled against French rule in Algeria, and the army deployed to suppress them. The war was politically unpopular in France, and President Charles de Gaulle eventually agreed to allow Algeria a referendum on independence. In an attempt to stop this, extremists within the army formed the OAS, who attempted a coup and tried to assassinate de Gaulle, failing when every shot fired into his car missed.

Extremist movements often, if not usually, inspire extremist movements to fight them. See the IRA and the UVF, the Years of Lead in Italy, and so on.

Oh I understand, this is that thing you do where you miss someone's point entirely and ramble snarkily about some unrelated factoid for unknown reasons. It's really annoying man, you should cut it out.

 

[ICametoLurk]

I never heard about that. What happened?

Some stuff in it made Paradox mad, some prominent examples would be trying to unite the Ummah under one Khilafah and revealing the Mahdi as ISIS after Turkey and Saudi Arabia betray you after getting rid of Assad and conquer them and can claim responsibility on terrorist attacks to lower national dissent.

And if the 2016 election Hillary wins then there is chance of a nuclear civil war breaking out.

And doing stuff with the Migrant Crisis.

Paradox had enough and banned the mod maker (who was previously involved with the failed production of East vs West) and went out and nuked all the downloading places that had it.

You can pretty much only find links to it by asking anons in /gsg/ threads for it. The mod maker said that anyone would be free to do work on it as he stopped it because of how immature everyone was all because it was current and not something that happened way back in the past and couldn't do anymore work on Paradox games because of how they can suddenly shut everything down, so there might be a revival.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

Oh I understand, this is that thing you do where you miss someone's point entirely and ramble snarkily about some unrelated factoid for unknown reasons. It's really annoying man, you should cut it out.

The point of that article seemed to be that anti-Islamic extremists would emerge in response to Islamic ones, which has clearly happened already, based on the Norway massacre of 2011, Chapel Hill in 2015, and Quebec City and Finsbury Park this year. You were suggesting that that was complete bollocks, when it isn't. Extremists usually create counter extremists.

Some stuff in it made Paradox mad, some prominent examples would be trying to unite the Ummah under one Khilafah and revealing the Mahdi as ISIS after Turkey and Saudi Arabia betray you after getting rid of Assad and conquer them and can claim responsibility on terrorist attacks to lower national dissent.

And if the 2016 election goes down to between Trump and Hillary and Hillary wins then there is chance of a nuclear civil war breaking out.

And doing stuff with the Migrant Crisis.

Paradox had enough and banned the mod maker (who was previously involved with the failed production of East vs West) and went out and nuked all the downloading places that had it.

You can pretty much only find links to it by asking anons in /gsg/ threads for it. The mod maker said that anyone would be free to do work on it as he stopped it because of how immature everyone was all because it was current and not something that happened way back in the past and couldn't do anymore work on Paradox games because of how they can suddenly shut everything down, so there might be a revival.

After the disaster of East versus West, I don't think any of those developers can accuse anyone else of being immature. The mod would have been rubbish anyway.

 

[Ruin]

I knew it. I fucking knew it. I kept telling people to stop looking at fucking Snopes as if it was the golden source of information. For the past year and a half people keep bringing up to me in conversation "Trump supposedly said this or Hillary supposedly did that, but you know what Snopes said about it?" Motherfucker you are the same people who for years has mocked the idea that Wikipedia was a reliable source any time I talked about something I read there, why the hell would you grant Snopes that concession? And now they got what they wanted, they got themselves to be viewed as a journalistic source when they clearly never were just the same as every fucking Salon and HuffPo and every other sanctimonious rag and they're using it for the same goddamn purpose, to spread lies and misinformation in the name of altering public perception to whatever their uneducated, myopic viewpoint is.

Yea it's been annoying me for a while that people suck Snope's cock and revere them as an oasis of truth when in fact they're extremely dishonest propagandists.

 

[Lackadaisy]

Oh I understand, this is that thing you do where you miss someone's point entirely and ramble snarkily about some unrelated factoid for unknown reasons. It's really annoying man, you should cut it out.

Shush, that's his thing. How else am I supposed to learn random factoids alongside my daily dose of shitposting?

 

[Ineedahero]

The point of that article seemed to be that anti-Islamic extremists would emerge in response to Islamic ones, which has clearly happened already, based on the Norway massacre of 2011 if nothing else. You were suggesting that that was complete bollocks, when it isn't.

No, I was suggesting that the article is retarded because it reams off non-Islamic terror attacks (and thwarted attacks, because they count) as if they were all done by the far right and equivalent to Islamist terror. I also think it is idiotic because it plays directly into the exact problem it talks about by feeding into fear of 'the other side', which is why I pulled that quote.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

No, I was suggesting that the article is exceptional because it reams off non-Islamic terror attacks (and thwarted attacks, because they count) as if they were all done by the far right and equivalent to Islamist terror. I also think it is idiotic because it plays directly into the exact problem it talks about by feeding into fear of 'the other side', which is why I pulled that quote.

Obviously the attacks aren't of the same frequency and magnitude, but all the attacks listed were motivated by white nationalist extremism. The article didn't mention attacks with unrelated motives like the 2016 attacks on police in Dallas and Baton Rouge.

 

[sbm1990]

@Ntwadumela would be a pimp if he were to run into a gang of these types.

 

[Ineedahero]

Obviously the attacks aren't of the same frequency and magnitude, but all the attacks listed were motivated by white nationalist extremism. The article didn't mention attacks with unrelated motives like the 2016 attacks on police in Dallas and Baton Rouge.

It does mention Jeremy Christian, the guy who stabbed two people on public transport after yelling at some Muslims. He was a flip flopping Sanders/Trump supporting lunatic who killed white people, not a white nationalist.

And besides which, even if they were all done by right wing radicals, as you say they obviously weren't of the same frequency or severity, which means the article is based on a blatant false equivalency. As soon as right wingers fly planes into skyscrapers, or bomb a marathon or concert I will take this article seriously - until then, it's ridiculous.

If your point was simply that Islamic terrorism increases the chances of retaliatory terrorism (I can't say by the right, because Islamists are already right wing, another problem with this confusing paradigm leftists have set up) then I agree, it's obvious - tit for tat is one of the most basic and fundamental rules of societal success. But that article goes a lot further than that in its claims.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

It does mention Jeremy Christian, the guy who stabbed two people on public transport after yelling at some Muslims. He was a flip flopping Sanders/Trump supporting lunatic who killed white people, not a white nationalist.

And besides which, even if they were all done by right wing radicals, as you say they obviously weren't of the same frequency or severity, which means the article is based on a blatant false equivalency. As soon as right wingers fly planes into skyscrapers, or bomb a marathon or concert I will take this article seriously - until then, it's ridiculous.

If your point was simply that Islamic terrorism increases the chances of retaliatory terrorism (I can't say by the right, because Islamists are already right wing, another problem with this confusing paradigm leftists have set up) then I agree, it's obvious - tit for tat is one of the most basic and fundamental rules of societal success. But that article goes a lot further than that in its claims.

They bombed a station and killed 80 people, though it was a while ago, and unrelated to Islam, being part of the "Years of Lead" conflict between communists and fascists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_massacre

The Norway massacre in 2011 also killed 77 people, and, while the motive was a perception the US government was tyrannical, the Oklahoma City bomber carried an envelope containing pages from white supremacist tract The Turner Diaries when he blew up the Murrah Federal Building and killed 168 people. The attack wasn't primarily motivated by white nationalism, but I'm sure you'd quickly connect any terrorist carrying pages from the Quran with Islamism. There have been a few major incidents already, and we can't ignore them any more than the Islamophiles should ignore the plain evidence that the religion of peace isn't.

 

[GabeRegan]

I got banned from the forums for posting a screenshot of HOI3 with a historical flag mod, since they don't like anyone even acknowledging that the Nazis did anything wrong. They're essentially enforcing the "clean Wehrmacht" myth on the forum, while simultaneously getting triggered by anything politically incorrect.

Paradox most likely has to do that because depending on where their forum is hosted it might be illegal to post a historically accurate German flag from WWII. I remember watching a German HOI IV who spent a good ten minutes explaining how badly Paradox has to censure the german release of the game. Not only do the flags have be altered but practically no one in the Nazi government can have their portraits shown in-game.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

Paradox most likely has to do that because depending on where their forum is hosted it might be illegal to post a historically accurate German flag from WWII. I remember watching a German HOI IV who spent a good ten minutes explaining how badly Paradox has to censure the german release of the game. Not only do the flags have be altered but practically no one in the Nazi government can have their portraits shown in-game.

I assumed it was hosted in Sweden, where their office is. They actually sold a DLC with the Nazi portraits outside Germany, and historical flag mods are easily available on the Steam workshop, but they're completely banned from the forums. I think they're just desperate to avoid bad publicity.

 

[Ineedahero]

They bombed a station and killed 80 people, though it was a while ago, and unrelated to Islam, being part of the "Years of Lead" conflict between communists and fascists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_massacre

The Norway massacre in 2011 also killed 77 people, and, while the motive was a perception the US government was tyrannical, the Oklahoma City bomber carried an envelope containing pages from white supremacist tract The Turner Diaries when he blew up the Murrah Federal Building and killed 168 people. The attack wasn't primarily motivated by white nationalism, but I'm sure you'd quickly connect any terrorist carrying pages from the Quran with Islamism. There have been a few major incidents already, and we can't ignore them any more than the Islamophiles should ignore the plain evidence that the religion of peace isn't.

3 incidents over 30 years, with approximately 350 killed. Why, to match that toll with Islamist terrorism in the west we would have to go back almost three years. Certainly no false equivalence there. I guess you are right, we do need to be just as vigilant about right wing terrorism as we are about Islamic terrorism.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

Getting the thread back on topic, apparently thinking ISIS atrocities are bad means you have trouble with cultural relativism.

https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivi...asons_isis_families_in_camp_north_of/djeapdp/

I think it would be more appropriate to say cultural relativism has trouble with this.

 

[Somsnosa]

Cultural relativism should be somethin like women not covering their breasts or eating rice with hands or mummification. You know, things we don't do in our culture but harm no one.
Thinkin 'terrorism is just a culture thing' is nuts