All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 8, 2015 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
24:14
This Week in Stupid (08⧸11⧸2015) - Jihadi Special!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 8th of November 2015.
As usual, if you find anything you'd like to see on this week in Stupid, please tweet it using the hashtag TWIS or post it on Reddit using the same tag and I will see it.
This week, get ready to be called racists, because we're going to be talking about ISIS and Islam.
I don't normally focus entirely on one subject for this week in Stupid, but so much has happened this last week regarding this subject that it really deserves a detailed look.
So we begin in the United Kingdom, talking about Theresa May's Snoopers Charter version 2.0.
After the Conservatives' previous attempts to legislate the ability to spy on everyone in the country was rebuffed, they are back with this new version, which apparently isn't as bad as it was.
So under the new investigatory powers bill that Theresa May is proposing, she will be able to, in urgent circumstances, issue a warrant without judicial authority.
If the judge then rules against approving the operation, it will cease.
So this is essentially saying that it's okay to spy on anyone until a judge tells you not to, instead of it's not okay to spy on anyone until a judge says that it is.
And call me cynical, but I have no doubt that urgent circumstances will be whatever Mrs. May or another Secretary of State would like them to be.
Theresa May wants to enable ministers to retain the power to sign off warrants for intrusive surveillance, force internet and communications companies to retain customer usage data for up to a year, which sounds like it would be massively impractical, and protect the ability of GCHQ and MI5 to bulk collect communications data and to hack into suspects' electronic devices.
So why is the government doing this?
The reason is, of course, to keep the British public safe.
But safe from who?
Well, those mean nasty jihadis, according to Tory MP Richard Graham, accused of quoting Joseph Goebbels in defence of this new surveillance bill.
He said, I welcome this statement, which will help make the entire country safer and will prevent local authorities from accessing communications data.
And the message today is very clear.
We should unite against extremism using all modern tools appropriately, and that if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear.
So the Conservatives want to prevent local councils from being able to access this data, which will, of course, entirely centralise the power behind this bill in the hands of MPs, who don't need judicial oversight in order to use it.
And if that wasn't bad enough, to justify it by saying, if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear, is to literally quote either 1984 or Joseph Goebbels.
Take your fucking pick.
By saying, if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear.
You are assuming that you have the right to look.
If there is no reason to be suspicious of the person's guilt, then you must, of course, presume their innocence.
But instead, what the Conservatives want to do is presume their guilt.
There are people out there who are guilty, and if we just treat everyone as if they are guilty, and look at everyone's records, then we will eventually find those guilty parties.
And while that is true, it is also incredibly dystopian, and a violation of the rights of privacy of all of the people who are innocent.
But hey, you don't want those Muslim extremists blowing you up, do you?
So, let's be honest with ourselves, it's a small price to pay for security.
Except the plans do not include any move to ban or restrict encryption, despite warnings that security services face being locked out of some parts of cyberspace because of advanced security measures.
And it's worth noting that ISIS, al-Qaeda and other jihadis are using encryption technology.
And they are using it to send messages that apparently the FBI cannot crack.
Because it turns out that Islamic jihadists have become surprisingly technologically savvy.
So what does this mean?
Well, it means that the government is centralising authority to spy on every person in Britain who isn't using an encrypted message.
You know, people who are not violent jihadi extremists, who are naturally going to encrypt their messages because they don't want to get fucking caught.
What I'm saying is that this is nothing but a Snooper's Charter.
So it's no wonder that the government officials have sought to distance it from the communications data bill, which was labelled a Snooper's Charter.
The only people this will catch are the violent jihadis who are too stupid to protect themselves and regular British citizens.
But it's okay.
Actually, British voters quite like spies and snoopers.
They like being spied on.
What are you worrying about?
We've got a poll.
A poll that was conducted by the Huffington Post.
Done on less than 700 people to be representative of a country of 65 million.
But hey, we have to protect the British public from Muslim extremists.
I mean, someone's got to do something, right?
I mean, what are you going to do?
Teach kids in school that the Prophet Muhammad had British values.
And so the only way to combat extremism is to teach more Islam in schools.
I mean, that'll do it, right?
If the last prophet of Islam, Muhammad, was to return to the earth today, what would he make of those who have misconstrued his teachings?
This could be the question that could begin deconstructing extremism and winning people back who have been tempted into violent interpretations of their faith.
Simply put, the way to combat Islamic extremism is to invest in teaching Islamic theology in British schools.
Teaching that proves the Prophet Muhammad would never have condoned their actions.
Well, I don't know about you, but I'm always up for indulging a no-true Muslim fallacy.
So let's carry on.
Many reading this will find it difficult to stomach, but the Prophet Muhammad had what we would also call British values.
Those values of social responsibility, respect for the law, individual liberty, mutual respect, and tolerance of those of different faiths and beliefs that schools are now required to promote are not exclusively British and are inherently Islamic.
This is, of course, a golden opportunity to develop within our schools a curriculum based on the biography of Prophet Muhammad, which clearly demonstrates and embeds what are now also considered British values.
This is what will develop a strong sense of identity within our youth and dismantle the perverse understanding of Islam peddled by a few.
Now the astute among you may well have noticed that the term secularism isn't included there, but that's it's just a small thing, don't worry about it.
And yes, it did sound like she was directly advocating for British schools to indoctrinate children in order to give them a Muslim identity.
Because remember, the fight against extremism is one of the greatest struggles of our generation.
Extremism must be uprooted from our society, and Muslims are willing to work with the government, as long as the government is willing to indoctrinate children into becoming proper Muslims.
But I know what you're thinking.
Come on.
That's not what she's saying.
She's not saying that.
Even though it sounds like she's saying that, she's not saying that.
That's a misrepresentation.
And who is she anyway?
She's just writing in a respected national newspaper.
She's a nobody.
She's fringe.
You know, it's just the Independent.
Nobody reads The Independent.
So, you know, you've got this all wrong.
And you know what?
You're probably right.
It's not like there are Muslims in Britain.
Not all Muslims, I'm sure.
But some Muslims in Britain who wants to, I don't know, get control of the education of children in order to better indoctrinate into their idea of what real Islam is.
I mean, it's not like, I mean, well, there is the Trojan horse scandal that's currently going on at the moment.
It's an inquiry into an alleged plot by hardline Islamists to take over some Birmingham schools that was revealed by the Birmingham Mail in March 2014.
A leaked document claimed that dirty tricks were being used to oust non-Muslim staff in an operation called Trojan Horse.
Now, secret plots to infiltrate UK schools and teach an excessively Muslim curriculum is a far less effective way than simply going to the papers, writing an article and petitioning the government on the idea that maybe we should just have an Islamic curriculum.
Do it out in the open.
I mean, it makes you wonder why these Muslims, who are clearly interested in teaching Islam to kids, didn't just go to the Independent and write their article and show off their British values.
You know, really Puritan British values, like forcing boys to change in a store cupboard because they were, quote, showing thighs.
Or teachers allegedly refusing to shake hands with women for religious reasons.
Just classic British values.
I mean, it's just like Mr. Khan says.
Get your pupils to ask their imam or fathers to answer questions rather than their mothers.
He must have been hanging out with Laurie Penny.
I mean, he clearly thinks that women are second-class citizens, just like her.
These are, of course, classic British values.
This is what we do in Britain.
This is what we stand for.
Does it mean anything that when one of the teachers skips his disciplinary hearing to flee to Qatar?
No, of course not.
Qatar is full of traditional British values.
But what am I talking about?
The guy involved in a secret plot to Islamicise the course curriculum in Birmingham schools has fled to Qatar once he's been caught, but he's probably not a Muslim.
You know, not a real Muslim.
I mean, just like this suicide bomber who blows himself up and cuts himself in half while failing to actually blow up his target.
This guy, he's not a real Muslim.
He's just really, really misled.
Just like the Muslim militants with Birmingham and London accents who have been linked to the downing of a Russian passenger jetliner.
You know, the one that crashed in Sinai last week, killing 224 people on board.
But I am sure that these militants aren't Muslims.
These were jihadis, not Muslims.
I mean, just because jihadis in the Sinai area of Egypt could be heard celebrating, and a closer analysis of the material has identified London and Birmingham accents among those numerous voices, that doesn't make them Muslims.
Jihadis, what has jihad got to do with Islam?
Nothing.
You see, what you've got to remember is that not all Muslims are violent jihadis.
In fact, most of them aren't.
Most of them are completely normal, law-abiding people who have got no desire to go and blow themselves or anyone else up.
They've got absolutely no desire to take part in terrorism or indoctrinate children to make them hardline Islamicists or anything like that.
But the problem is, we just keep hearing from those ones who, I don't know, pledged to join ISIS during shocking rant on live radio.
I mean, why don't we have a listen to how not to express your British values?
Demonizing Islamic State.
Demonizing Islamic State.
I don't think I need to try that very hard to do that.
They do that themselves.
I know, but I mean, if you look at the situation that was created by America committing genocide on the people of Iraq with the Shiites against the Sunnis and they rose up from that, same as in Syria, the rebels, the Syrian army and al-Nusra rose up from atrocities committed by Assad.
So these parties are the main villains and then they turn around and the people that rise up to fight against their crimes are branded as terrorists.
Well they are terrorists.
What would you call them?
Peace-loving people?
I would call them mujahideen, freedom fighters.
And same as the Taliban.
I mean Al-Qaeda was friends of the West in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet Union and then when the West decided that they had no more use for them they turned them into terrorists.
the rest so that who are they fighting for freedom they want who that I mean how does chucking gay people off a building how does that help them fight for freedom Using women as sex slaves, how does that help them fight for freedom?
I don't know, there's a lot of propaganda.
Oh, here we go.
Here we go.
So you believe them over people that have actually been there and seen them do it.
Easily done by the West.
Easily done by the West.
Just demonizes people and the people.
You don't believe the accounts of Yazidi women who've given graphic accounts of how they've been raped by ISIS fighters.
You don't believe those accounts.
Haven't you had a chance of the Sunni men that have been raped in Iraq?
Two wrongs don't make it, right?
No, no, two wrongs don't make it right.
But you seem to be defending everything that ISIS do.
You seem to be defending everything that ISIS do.
I'm not defending everything I do, but I'm saying the West is just as evil as ISIS.
Ever considered going out to fight with them?
Ever considered going out to fight for them?
Pardon?
Have you ever considered going out to fight for them?
Well, I get banded as a terrorist and get arrested probably at the end of the day.
So that's a yes.
Well, yeah, I hope they'll win the established Islamic state in Afghanistan and in Iraq, because they deserve this.
Do you have a family, Khan?
Do you have a family?
Do you have a family?
Millions of people in Iraq, you guys.
No, you've said that before.
Do you have a family?
And the Jews and the Israelis are a family.
This is not a one-way conversation.
Do you have a family, Khan?
Do you have a family?
Yes, I do have a family.
And you consider taking them out to this paradise that is ISIS?
I'd love to if you didn't ban us as terrorists and you've landed as terrorists, wouldn't it?
Why would you take your family?
Why would you want to take your family out to the caliphate?
If you want to go and fight Assad, then you turn it around and say if you want to fight the West.
You see, people like him do exist.
Unbelievable.
Well, I'm personally not surprised that he exists.
I mean, he's not a Muslim, of course.
He's a jihadi.
You know, going out to the Middle East to live in a caliphate is not a Muslim thing to do.
And it kind of makes you wonder why progressive British students are conflating the two together.
I mean, why would a student union ban an ex-student from talking about his experiences fighting against ISIS?
What would be the problem there?
They're not Muslims, they're jihadis.
They're not Muslims.
Just because one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, that's the worst reason to give.
Now, I'm as big a fan of the traditional British value of censoring other people's opinions as anyone else.
So I am, of course, in full support of Assad Khan's decision to block this guy from speaking on the university campus.
I mean, like he says, although I understand YPG are fighting against ISIS, the situation is far too complex to understand in black and white, as expected by the student.
Because his students are just too dumb to recognize nuance, to understand shades of grey.
It's all or nothing for the student.
Let's be honest with ourselves, it's probably going to be quite triggering to discuss.
I mean, ISIS have formed female suicide squads, and in doing so, they have culturally appropriated the Muslim niqab, so merely discussing this would be a violation of the university's safe space policy.
Really, we should be following the example set by Swedish progressives.
Like this Swedish news site editor, flood the country with ISIS so anti-immigrant Swedes are exiled.
Well, I mean, ISIS aren't Muslims, but it's a good start.
The thing is, this was done with completely good reason.
This guy would honestly fill the land with Islamic State soldiers if it meant the sort of people who vote for the Sweden Democrats would just disappear.
That makes perfect sense.
Just invite as many jihadists as you can into your country to eliminate the horrible, disgusting right wing, and then all of your problems are solved.
Just because he went on to list a number of items from Jewish working-class, I mean, Swedish working-class culture that he despises, you know, that doesn't mean he's wrong.
You know, just because he added that the sort of people who vote for the Sweden Democrats talk with disgusting dialects and dirty our country.
Just, I mean, look, these sort of Swedish untamensch should just be, I don't know, relocated somewhere.
Just, it's fine, just, they can be exiled, they can just be relocated.
We'll find a final solution for them.
But the thing is, we can't have Sweden doing anything about those culturally appropriating ISIS bastards in the Middle East.
They have the same problems as the Russians.
Their skin is just too damn white.
So when Putin is ready to launch a total war against the ISIS jihadis in the Middle East, we know that Putin is the one who's in the wrong.
I mean, get this.
Russia, a country full of white people, has jailed a brown person for going and fighting with the Islamic State.
This is, of course, de facto, sickeningly racist.
Just because ISIS militants claimed credit for the Metrojet crash, which killed those 224 people that we were talking about earlier, does not mean that Russia has a legitimate reason for attacking the Islamic State.
They are, of course, doing it because the Islamic State is mostly populated by brown people.
It's nothing to do with Russia being allied with Syria and wanting to make sure that their ally in the region doesn't collapse under the assault of the Islamic State.
No, it's nothing to do with that.
The 4,000 troops that Putin is sending over to the Middle East are going expressly for the sole purpose of oppressing ISIS.
And you've got to understand that Putin has a history of this.
His special forces have oppressed ISIS in the past after they foiled a terror attack planned for South Russia.
How dare they?
And I'm not saying that it's because a woman got jealous and decided to dob her husband in, but, well, it looks like the woman got jealous and decided to dob her husband in.
Russia has been oppressing ISIS for the better part of a month now, and with no end in sight.
They're not even remorseful.
In fact, they're proud of it.
On Thursday, Russia's Air Force said that it had carried out strikes near the ISIS-held ancient city of Palmyra for the second time this week, claiming that its targets were far from Syria's historic sites.
Thank goodness.
Russian bombers destroyed a large fortified location of Islamic State militants, including an air defense gun and a tank, the Ministry of Defense said.
Just, wow.
Wow, that is the most trans-misogynistic thing I've ever heard in my life.
So clearly we're going to have to find someone darker to deal with the Islamic State.
But who can we ask?
I mean who is even aware of the problem?
Well look no further than Somalia.
They're looking to sway militants from joining the Islamic State.
Wipe that look of disbelief off of your face you goddamn racist.
Just because Somalia has been in the middle of a six year long civil war being waged simultaneously by a number of armed rebel groups, some of which are also at war with each other, doesn't mean they can't handle the Islamic State.
Just because Somalia has its own uncontrollable internal terrorist group called Al-Shabaab that is apparently considering defecting to ISIS doesn't mean that they can't handle it.
And it's a good thing the West is dithering on teaming up with Russia to fight ISIS.
If British MPs could agree on anything, then maybe something would be done.
And it's self-evident that that something would probably be racism.
There is of course contention over the future of Bashar al-Assad, the president of Syria.
The Russians needless to say want to prop him up, and the British and the Americans would like to remove him.
Now I'm not actually sure if Assad is a real Muslim with British values, or whether he's a real Muslim with British values who has just had a lot of lies told about him, or whether he's not a real Muslim, but he is still brown, so interacting with him in any way is oppression, or whether he is actually a jihadi who has culturally appropriated Muslim culture.
So all of these are things that happened last week, but I'm still not satisfied.
I need to know if ISIS are anything to do with Islam, so I'm going to look back a few more weeks and see if I can find anything that helps me out.
There is this from Reza Aslan, a Muslim and scholar of religions, no matter what your actual opinion of the man himself, who thinks that radical Islam is still Islam.
And if that's the case, it would suddenly make sense of the National Union of Students' decision to reject a motion condemning ISIS because condemning ISIS is deemed as Islamophobic.
And for that to be the case, it would require ISIS to be Islamic.
You know, in the same way that a doctor who posted anti-ISIS material is considered to be an Islamophobe.
He must hate Muslims because he is opposed to ISIS.
We recognize that condemnation of ISIS appears to have become a justification for war and blatant Islamophobia.
Well, I for one am more than happy to let the NUS take the lead on this.
Since they've taken such a definitive stance on the fact that ISIS are Muslims, maybe they'd be able to explain to me why ISIS are expressing their traditional British values in a way that I am unable to reconcile with my own conscience.
So dear NUS, why are ISIS lying to women in order to draw them to their utopia in spite of the reports of rape and sex slavery?
And I only ask because dozens of ISIS sex slaves have killed themselves to escape rape and torture, apparently.
This is just according to a smuggler who's devoted her life to rescuing girls sold like animals by ISIS.
Why are ISIS trying to stop doctors from treating young girls and women who have been raped by ISIS jihadis?
Why does Islamic State propaganda tell their fighters that they can rape women to make them Muslim?
And of course, will women who have been raped by ISIS militants ever be able to get a legal abortion?
And I would also like the NUS to explain why they have failed to condemn ISIS's continued campaign of extermination against homosexuals.
Now, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to express their British values, but surely, my dear neoprogressives, it is not Islamophobic to condemn the enslavement of women and the murder of gays.
Surely.
I'm the target for three years nonstop of egregious online harassment in all levels.
I think it's important to recognize that harassment is, as someone had mentioned, it's not just what is legal and illegal, right?
▲
Export Selection