I am not interested in the opinion of Americans regarding "anti-immigrant policies", because that's a topic clearly distinct from the buzz-word "Islamophobia".
Not in Europe it's not.
Ayaan Hirsi-Ali wasn't promoted by Hitchens or Dawkins for involving herself politically into an anti-immigrant policy in Holland, but for exposing the influence of Islam on the female part of the population ANYWHERE Islam is in power or has a strong influence on the public.
Quite different to Ann Coulter, an ugly personality of the "how do we make sure niggers understand we hate them, without using "the N-word" and while claiming we are the victims of reverse-racism"-crowd of Fox News and the likes.
Again, I don't actually believe Dawkins or Snitchens are racists, was just making a point that publicly supporting a Black woman doesn't automatically clear one from the charge of racism-- a point you seemed to have missed.
Jeez, the point about Jesse Jackson (really? do you know anything about him? LOL)?
Yes, I met him when he came to visit striking workers where I was at and deliver holiday food off the back of a truck. What an asshole.
Boy, you are one clueless cookie.
And you are one piece of shit pastry.
Neither MLK nor Jesse Jackson are the saints one paints them as
I never have. I'm quite familiar with the history of the Civil Rights struggle and the sanitized portraits of King that emerged from it. Also the differences between King and Jackson who was referred to by King once as "Uncle Tom Jesse"
and our Freemason friend Jesse Jackson has been involved in profiting from his "Blackness"
You're bringing up Freemasonry? Oh gawd, you're one of those.
even longer than the complete fraud and intellectual case of diarrhea, "Reverend Al Sharpton".
Sharpton is an even bigger snitch than Snitchens. I ain't defending him.
Just watch the Hitchens vs. Al Sharpton debate.
Don't tell me what to do motherfucker.
MLK? As long as the union leaders organized the marches and backed up the protests, it was all good. The moment the thing worked, all the southern churches, who before didn't want to "rock the boat" and piss off "The Massahs", all of a sudden joined the marches, as if they were there from the beginning. No, only white humanists (some of them white preachers from the East Coast) were there from the beginning, who were beat up by the police, just as much as the Black protesters.
This is total bullshit. King led the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 55 which was considered the start of the Civil Rights Movement, 2 years later he founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. And while some union leaders did participate (like Walter Reuther of the UAW), the labor movement at this time was in a fairly conservative period. Meany's AFL-CIO was hardly a solid friend to the Civil Rights Movement. I'm not saying King and the SCLC was the be-all and end-all of the movement, and I'll be the first to criticize some of their strategies, but they did play an early and central role.
Read some books or watch a documentary.
Sounds like you're the one in need of education on these matters.
It's completely obvious you don't have the slightest clue about politics,
Okay den
let alone about the people you criticize, otherwise you'd know, that Hitchens came from a middle-class environment and his parents hardly had money to send him to a good school.
Middle-class indeed. Do you even know what that term means? His father was a naval officer, hardly a working-class role, especially at that time when officers in the Royal Navy tended to come almost exclusively from the middle and upper classes.
"Coming from money"...........yeah, for a Bangladeshi street beggar maybe. lol
Or a Sheffield steel worker.
Sorry, but this paragraph is too dumb for me to even respond to in a serious manner and you Sir, demonstrated an immense talent for idiotic conclusions based on even dumber premises. (Just as a tip and to help you get out of your ignorant, passive-aggressive line of "reasoning".
Kiss my hairy Egyptian-American ass, fuckface. That un-passive-aggressive enough for ya, ya little shit?
Find some interviews of "lefty Hitchens" from the late 80s, where he argues that Saddam should be removed............then look up some of his interviews from around 2008-2010, where he claims that his only regret to the war in Iraq is, not having removed Saddam EARLIER (during the first Gulf War)) - that will be point number one, regarding "neo-colonialism" and Hitchens' positions of certain things". Read Hitchens' book about Henry Kissinger (the blanco check the Saudis gave to the US military in return for protection from Saddam should be of interest to you) and read some interesting things, like the involvement of France in building the biggest Uranium enrichment facility in the world, back in 80s Iraq and how Saddam promised Iran, that despite their problems and the war they finished a couple years earlier, the atomic bombs will be used to eradicate Israel only), etc...
Yes, I'm aware of ALL of this shit. My point was that one could construct an argument for Snitchens being objectively racist, not that the argument would be a good one, but it's certainly not beyond the realm of reason as you seemed to suggest. But once again you missed the fuckin point and decided instead to go off on some half-baked rant full of insults against me. Well fuck you too buddy.
Topic: Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)