[roberto]

'Islamophobia' Used to Crush Muslim Dissent, Panel Says
Nathan Burchfiel
Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) - Muslim extremists are branding opponents "Islamophobes" in an effort to paint themselves as the victim and silence dissent and opposition to their political and religious beliefs, according to a panel convened in Washington, D.C., Tuesday.

"'Islamophobia' has become ... the new battleground in this war" on terrorism, Anne Bayefsky, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute, said at the panel discussion.

She said the term "inverts victim and perpetrator" by portraying Islamic fanatics as the victim, thus allowing them to label dissent as a violation of human rights and, in effect, silence dissent.

The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) at the United Nations has been lobbying hard for bans against "Islamaphobia, which are "tantamount to blasphemy strictures that have been used to curtail freedoms of expression, press, and religion by some of the OIC's most repressive member states," noted the Hudson Institute in its preview to the panel discussion.

The term "Islamaphobia" will be a major focus of the 2009 U.N. World Conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa.

Bayefsky said the goal of conference organizers, including Libya, Cuba and Iran, is to "deflect attention from the human rights abuses" and "to circle the wagons, to invoke mass hysteria, to suggest to people that they are under threat, which is in fact imaginary."

She said that by labeling themselves victims of Islamophobia, leaders of Islamic regimes can justify harsh crackdowns on internal dissent and legitimize calls for similar crackdowns on outside criticism - such as calls for the punishment of cartoonists who depict the Muslim prophet Mohammed.

"If you can claim the other guy is the human rights violator," Bayefsky said, "if you become the victim of racism and Islamophobia, then you justify the so-called struggle against the enemy of human rights."

Some panelists, including Fahad Nazer, a resident fellow at the Institute for Gulf Affairs, said that Islamophobia does exist, pointing to Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), a long-shot Republican presidential hopeful, as an example.

Tancredo came under fire in July for suggesting in a radio interview that Mecca, a Muslim holy site, should be bombed if Muslim terrorists detonate a nuclear weapon in the United States.

"There is certainly something there," Nazer said of claims of Islamophobia being harmful to mainstream Muslims.

Bayefsky acknowledged that "insofar as it means discrimination against Muslims, there's nothing wrong with condemning Islamophobia."

"But the problem is that it has been manipulated as a term to mean something quite different, to suggest that there aren't particular cases of discrimination, but a kind of mass movement on the part of western governments and non-Muslims to denounce all of Islam, which is not the case," she added.

The panelists agreed that the United Nations was not a reliable vessel through which to address issues of human rights or discrimination against certain religions.

Nazer suggested that there is reason to believe the Islamic regimes themselves may be shifting their approach to dissent.

"They will reform, however they'll do it on their own terms and at their own pace," he said, specifically referring to Saudi Arabia. "The good news is that Saudi officials condemn terrorism routinely."

But, he said, "other developments ... are more ominous," such as reformers being asked to stop their political activism or being thrown in prison.

Nonetheless, Nazer said, "more than any [U.N.] declaration or conference, the Saudis are in a position to lead the Muslim nations by example and they can do so by lifting restrictions on speech, assembly and worship."


http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11558230/

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

'Islamophobia' Used to Crush Muslim Dissent, Panel Says
Nathan Burchfiel
Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) - Muslim extremists are branding opponents "Islamophobes" in an effort to paint themselves as the victim and silence dissent and opposition to their political and religious beliefs, according to a panel convened in Washington, D.C., Tuesday. .......

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11558230/

It's funny and ironic, how they denounce "Islamophobia" accusations supposedly being used to crush dissent, while turning a blind eye to "anti-semitism" accusations being used for the same purpose:

Charging Anti-Semitism To Silence Dissent
August 7, 2007
By Ida Audeh

The charge of anti-Semitism is used by supporters of Israel to silence and discredit voices that conflict with Zionist orthodoxy. Two recent examples illustrate this point: The publication of Jimmy Carter's book Palestine Peace not Apartheid triggered a well-orchestrated campaign of vilification and character assassination of a former president whose "crime" was to characterize Israeli policies in the occupied territories as apartheid. (South African anti-apartheid activists say it is much worse.) The March 2006 publication of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's essay "The Israel Lobby" in the London Review of Books was accompanied by the familiar charge of anti-Semitism directed at two university professors who simply analyzed the disproportionate power of the Israel lobby AIPAC in shaping US Middle East policy. To anyone who follows the US Middle East policy, their conclusions were not news, but the publication of their article unleashed a flood of abuse on two establishment academics.

Similar tactics are used at the local level, too. For years I worked with a university committee to identify panelists to invite to an annual conference. Invariably, pro-Israel committee members casually smeared as an anti-Semite any nominee whose single crime was criticism of Israeli policies in the Palestinian occupied territories. In the name of protecting the student body from exposure to "anti-Semites," they could accuse honorable people of bigotry without paying a price for their slander. Needless to say, nominees so smeared were instantly rendered unconfirmable and dropped from consideration. When friends and I publish op-ed pieces or letters in our local or state newspaper, ad hominem responses are swift; more often then not, they casually incorporate sentiments that would be correctly identified as bigotry were they targeting Blacks or Jews.

Predictably, Israel's supporters level the anti-Semitism charge against Arabs, too, to explain away Arab outrage over Israel's racist and colonialist policies toward Palestinians, defined by land theft and control through ethnic cleansing, imprisoning walls, and the imprisonment and assassination of any Palestinian with leadership potential. As though these are insufficient reasons for hatred of Israel; as though Palestinians would tolerate the ongoing assault on their existence as a nation were non-Jewish oppressors responsible.

Claims that Muslim clerics and Hamas and Hizballah officials regularly endorse slaughtering Jews, supported by alleged quotes, ring false to anyone with familiarity with the region, with the language, and with religious and political rhetoric. In the United States, translations of Arabic and Farsi are frequently wrong; it has been demonstrated conclusively that Iranian president Ahmedinejad never vowed to wipe Israel off the map, for example, yet the lie is slyly and regularly repeated to drum up support for an attack on Iran. These "quotes" cannot be trusted because they cannot be verified, the context is questionable, and they come from sources (like memri.org) with an ax to grind.

But even if you assume that anti-Jewish quotes are in fact authentic: How is this relevant? This pretense that Israel is being persecuted by malevolent Arabs is easily debunked when the facts are considered: take for example kill rates (an average of 4 Palestinian civilians killed for every Israeli killed; about 8 Palestinian children for every Israeli child); house demolitions (thousands of Palestinian homes, 0 Israeli homes); checkpoints (more than 400 in the West Bank alone, 0 in Israel); prisoners (more than 9,000 Palestinian prisoners, including about 300 children; 1 Israeli soldier held prisoner, and no Israeli children). Israel's supporters must resort to a blizzard of lies, half-lies, and non-sequiturs because the facts about Israel cannot be justified by fair-minded people.

Read any newspaper or watch television (non)coverage of Middle Eastern events, and evaluate for yourself whether Blacks or Jews would be discussed with the same disdain, the same callous disregard for their loss of life, as are Arabs and Muslims generally and Palestinians specifically. Missing from discussions of self-righteous concern over Arab or Muslim "extremism" is any acknowledgement that the whole colonialist enterprise that engages Israelis is an extremist one, that just about every leader democratically elected by that bastion of democracy has been a military figure, and that Israel's Jewish population as a whole, with a few notable exceptions, are at best indifferent to the fate of the Palestinians their government has waged a relentless war against for almost 60 years now.

One never hears those who profess concern about anti-Semitism speak out against Israeli policies that discriminate against Semites like me -- US citizens of Palestinian ethnicity -- from going to the occupied territories to live with or even visit our families. Right now thousands of Palestinian families are faced with an impossible choice: the spouse of a Palestinian resident cannot obtain residency rights and so must either live with their families illegally and face deportation if caught; live elsewhere, even though that means splitting the family; or move the entire family to a foreign country where they must struggle to build a life for themselves. In the past 12 months, I tried 3 times to visit my elderly mother. Twice I was turned back from the border. It is a safe bet that I would not have been treated as an undesirable element had my surname been Jewish; a Semite of the Arab persuasion is a different matter altogether.

What do Israel's apologists propose as a resolution to the conflict that grips Mandate Palestine, where 5.4 million Semitic Jews rule over 5.2 million Semitic Muslim and Christian Arabs? In the not too distant future, Jews will be a minority. Will Israel's apologists continue to cry anti-Semitism when an Israeli Jewish minority dominates the non-Jewish majority, and will they denounce as anti-Semitism the inevitable and irrefutable description of Israel as an apartheid state?

Can Israel's supporters support a state in which Jews, Muslims, and Christians have equal rights as citizens? Surely the goal of equality among all Semites in Mandate Palestine is worth pursuing by those who claim to be appalled by anti-Semitism.


Ida Audeh is a Palestinian-American who lives in Boulder, Colorado. Her interviews with Palestinians who have lost land and their livelihoods to Israel's wall have been published on the Electronic Intifada (ei: The Electronic Intifada), an alternative source of information about "the question of Palestine, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the economic, political, legal, and human dimensions of Israel's 40-year occupation of Palestinian territories."

CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS: Charging Anti-Semitism To Silence Dissent

[roberto]

[quote=Kaminyu;31630]

It's funny and ironic, how they denounce "Islamophobia" accusations supposedly being used to crush dissent, while turning a blind eye to "anti-semitism" accusations being used for the same purpose:

Well you may find it funny and ironic to make assumptions as to their turning a blind eye to "anti-semitism" however I suppose you are desperate to move the discussion away from that which is critical of Islam , yes even the extreme versions




Charging Anti-Semitism To Silence Dissent
August 7, 2007
By Ida Audeh

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

Well you may find it funny and ironic to make assumptions as to their turning a blind eye to "anti-semitism"

I don't need to make assumptions about it, since it's self-evident.

however I suppose you are desperate to move the discussion away from that which is critical of Islam , yes even the extreme versions

There's that buzzword again; "desperate". It would be nice if, for all the times you've used it in the past, that it would actually be more than just a false description.

As far as me "moving the discussion away" is concerned, I just pointed out their own hypocrisy, with their stance on "Islamophobia".

They're against any form of censorship of speaking out against Islam and/or Muslims, but when it comes to Israel, Zionism and the Holocaust, they use "anti-semitism" as an excuse to censor dissent against any of these subjects.

It's blatant hypocrisy, and all the spin people may try to add, won't change that.

[roberto]

Originally Posted by Kaminyu

I don't need to make assumptions about it, since it's self-evident.



There's that buzzword again; "desperate". It would be nice if, for all the times you've used it in the past, that it would actually be more than just a false description.

As far as me "moving the discussion away" is concerned, I just pointed out their own hypocrisy, with their stance on "Islamophobia".

They're against any form of censorship of speaking out against Islam and/or Muslims, but when it comes to Israel, Zionism and the Holocaust, they use "anti-semitism" as an excuse to censor dissent against any of these subjects.

It's blatant hypocrisy, and all the spin people may try to add, won't change that.

Sorry old chap but "its self-evident." just won't do, you have to substantiate it.

Hem "desperate" well it's a pretty accurate description of your plight, out of casual interests how many times have I used it , your one hand counting ability should be sufficient

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

Sorry old chap but "its self-evident." just won't do, you have to substantiate it.

The fact that they haven't even addressed the problem, is evidence enough.

Hem "desperate" well it's a pretty accurate description of your plight,

Not really. It's just a buzzword you like to use against people, when you have nothing better to say. It doesn't describe my plight, but only reflects yours.

out of casual interests how many times have I used it , your one hand counting ability should be sufficient

It's always in your myopic descriptions, when you feel like talking about people instead of the subject itself.

[roberto]

[quote=Kaminyu;32485]

The fact that they haven't even addressed the problem, is evidence enough.

Don't be silly, now come on substanciate, or withfraw

Not really. It's just a buzzword you like to use against people, when you have nothing better to say. It doesn't describe my plight, but only reflects yours.

But it does, it's just that you are delusional

It's always in your myopic descriptions, when you feel like talking about people instead of the subject itself

Now come on how many time have I used the word

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

Don't be silly, now come on substanciate, or withfraw

I'm going to do neither, since it's impossible to prove a negative, and since you haven't made a counter-argument, I have no reason to "withdraw".

However, if you plan on making a counter-argument, i.e. that they have addressed the issue, then you would need to prove it.

But it does, it's just that you are delusional

Now it's your turn to "substantiate"

Now come on how many time have I used the word

More times than I care to remember or count.

[roberto]

[quote=Kaminyu;32654][

I'm going to do neither, since it's impossible to prove a negative, and since you haven't made a counter-argument, I have no reason to "withdraw



However, if you plan on making a counter-argument, i.e. that they have addressed the issue, then you would need to prove it.

Substantiating a claim is not the same as proving it. As to establishing a counter claim this is not required in order for the perfectly reasonable request for substantiation to be made.

Now stop being devious, just admit that you cannot substantiate your claim.

Now it's your turn to "substantiate"

What is it you want me to substanciate?

More times than I care to remember or count. :

Well if it was more than 5, yes I understand it would be most embarrassing for you

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

Substantiating a claim is not the same as proving it. As to establishing a counter claim this is not required in order for the perfectly reasonable request for substantiation to be made.

Actually, substantiating is basically the same thing as proving. You're asking me to establish with proof ("substantiate") that something isn't there, which is ridiculous.

Saying something isn't there, is based on observation, not tangible "evidence". Since I haven't observed them ever addressing the issue of anti-semitism being used to "silence dissent", then as far as I'm concerned, they haven't. If they haven't, then they've obviously turned a blind eye to it.

If you claim that they have, or have evidence of it, then stop asking people to prove negatives (or establish it with proof) and show it, as the burden of proof would be on you.

But, I doubt you have anything to share with us. You just want to argue about nothing again, for the sake of arguing, as usual. You're such a troll.

Now stop being devious, just admit that you cannot substantiate your claim.

If you were to claim that you've never killed someone, would you be able to substantiate that claim? And, more importantly, should you be expected to?

What is it you want me to substanciate?

You just made a claim about me, so substantiate it.

Well if it was more than 5, yes I understand it would be most embarrassing for you

Not really, since the number of times you've made it (without proof), only works against its credibility and yours.

If you were just using it as a buzzword in an attempt to undermine me (along with all your other snide remarks), that would actually be more understandable, than if you intended it to be taken seriously.

[roberto]

[quote=Kaminyu;32878]

Actually, substantiating is basically the same thing as proving. You're asking me to establish with proof ("substantiate") that something isn't there, which is ridiculous
Saying something isn't there, is based on observation, not tangible "evidence". Since I haven't observed them ever addressing the issue of anti-semitism being used to "silence dissent", then as far as I'm concerned, they haven't. If they haven't, then they've obviously turned a blind eye to it.

The fact that you are not aware of something is not in itself justification to claim it doesn’t exist. You went beyond claiming that you were not aware of such writings , you foolishly as ever claimed that such writings did not exists (It's funny and ironic, how they denounce "Islamophobia" accusations supposedly being used to crush dissent, while turning a blind eye to "anti-semitism" accusations being used for the same purpose) now as usual you are trying to shift your ground rather than admit that you were wrong to make such a claim, nothing new there

If you claim that they have, or have evidence of it, then stop asking people to prove negatives (or establish it with proof) and show it, as the burden of proof would be on you.

Unlike you I do not make claims I cannot substanciate

But, I doubt you have anything to share with us. You just want to argue about nothing again, for the sake of arguing, as usual

You're such a troll.

Well if you call making false statements nothing, then I ask who's the trol

If you were to claim that you've never killed someone, would you be able to substantiate that claim? And, more importantly, should you be expected to?

Do you not understand the difference in making a claim about others and ones self

You just made a claim about me, so substantiate it.

What claim?

Not really, since the number of times you've made it (without proof), only works against its credibility and yours.

Oh dear once again I have to explain the obvious, there a difference in making a claim and expressing an opinion

If you were just using it as a buzzword in an attempt to undermine me (along with all your other snide remarks), that would actually be more understandable, than if you intended it to be taken seriously

Hem, you seem to take it very seriously

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

The fact that you are not aware of something is not in itself justification to claim it doesn’t exist. You went beyond claiming that you were not aware of such writings , you foolishly as ever claimed that such writings did not exists (It's funny and ironic, how they denounce "Islamophobia" accusations supposedly being used to crush dissent, while turning a blind eye to "anti-semitism" accusations being used for the same purpose) now as usual you are trying to shift your ground rather than admit that you were wrong to make such a claim, nothing new there

As I said before, you cannot prove a negative. I was not wrong to make such a claim, because it's the correct one. It's the same as if I were to say "fairies/unicorns don't exist", or "Fox News never reported on such and such". Since these are negative claims, proving them is not required for them to be valid. Only with proof against them, do they become invalid. Proof only applies to positive claims.

Unlike you I do not make claims I cannot substanciate

On the contrary, you do quite frequently, and I'll say it again, you cannot prove a negative. Tangible evidence can only be substantiated against the claim I made, not in favor of it.

Well if you call making false statements nothing, then I ask who's the trol

Yeah, except you need to prove that it's false first, before you claim it is, and it's really easy to do: Find something where they address the issue.

Do you not understand the difference in making a claim about others and ones self

Do you understand that it doesn't matter in either case, since it's still a negative.

What claim?

Look back and figure it out.

Oh dear once again I have to explain the obvious, there a difference in making a claim and expressing an opinion

Then you need to express your opinion as an opinion, instead of stating it as a matter of fact.

Hem, you seem to take it very seriously

Well, I'm not.