The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

This forum is for collecting records of the following types:

  1. Fake "Islamophobic" Crime Allegations, done in order to create hatred against those that oppose Islamic Fascism, and to boost sympathy for the Muslim cause.  For example, the Muswell Hill arson attack was committed by a Muslim in order to create hatred and anger against the EDL.  
  2. Fake allegations of crimes committed by Kuffar against Muslims, for example many of the cases quoted by Tell Mama, which, under investigation, are found to have no foundation.

The point is this: the readiness of the media/muslims to ASSUME that fires/attacks at mosques are CAUSED by non-muslims, is an example of their KUFFARPHOBIA.

For example, this fire in a mosque in Sweden was caused by a deep-fat fryer.

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artike...

What the media do in this case, is as if we assumed that every single rape in the west was done by muslims, and as soon as a woman/man was raped, the media instantly started to say that a muslim raped another person.

We need to keep the focus on the the new idea: automatically assuming that damage done to something valued by muslims was done intentionally and by non-muslims is kuffarphobia. 

Another example of this, is the media/muslims claiming that it was the fault of the (kuffar) police when those 3 schoolgirls from east London went off to be jihadis. Why doesn't the media say it was the fault of the holy holy spiritual leaders of the Muslim community?  Because of their latent Kuffarophobia, assuming that every bad event has to result from Kuffar actions and refusing to blame  Muslims for anything.

Tags: (FFO), Collusion, False, Flag, Media, Muslim, Ops, and

Views: 301

Replies to This Discussion

The first 15 entries to this forum were mistakenly posted here:

http://4freedoms.com/forum/topics/false-flag-islamophobic-crimes-an...;

Please read the entries at that location, then continuing posting new entries into this forum.

Kuffarophobia in the media: reporting of Jihadi brides:

http://4freedoms.com/group/theology/forum/topics/hizb-ut-tahir-s-co...

Airline staff take apart the claims of the Diet Coke Kuffarphobia incident

http://savvystews.com/2015/06/what-really-happened-on-that-united-f...

First of all, I know how touchy talking about religion and race can be. But, I assure you, what I’m about to discuss comes from a place of getting to the truth and not discrimination.

From the moment the news story broke, the claim brought forth by Tahera Ahmad, a Muslim American chaplain at Northwestern University, about a United Flight Attendant (who was actually a Shuttle America flight attendant working a United Express Flight) struck me as odd. Why wouldn’t a flight attendant give anyone a full can of soda? The excuse Ahmad claims she was handed by the flight attendant was that passengers “may use it as a weapon.” That’s something I’ve never heard a flight attendant say. In fact… what?!

Passengers can buy a drink in the airport terminal, post security, and are allowed to keep the unopened can or bottle and board the plane with it. If you buy a beer on board, you get the full can. There’s no way the flight attendant said those words. I also don’t believe that the passengers around her chimed in saying:

“You Muslim, you need to shut the … up,” and said that “You know you would use it as a weapon.”

What flight have you been on where this has happened? Wouldn’t a riot have broken out between passengers? This news story would have unfolded differently. Faced with the news and social media running with this one side of the story, United responded quickly saying “Flight attendant who denied unopened soda can to Muslim will no longer serve United customers” and apologized. But, can you read between the lines? No? What if I told you that the flight attendant “no longer serving” is actually, still employed? Would that lead you to believe the airline knows she did nothing wrong? Keep reading!

As you know there’s three sides to every story– and here’s the second and third. I did my research and spoke to persons close to the matter within the industry and quickly obtained more facts.

A member on FlyerTalk.com, an online community of frequently flyers, was on board this eventful flight. They weren’t involved in the situation but watched it unfold from across the aisle and posted his/her side of the story.

post

Click to Enlarge

Ahh, now the plot thickens. A completely different point of view on what’s happened and a view which sounds a bit more realistic.

Could this whole situation be one big misinterpretation and misunderstanding? 

The commonality between both stories is the that the flight attendant did not provide Amhad with a can of Coke Zero. And there’s probably a valid reason for that. Speaking with flight attendants from Shuttle America, there are only 4 cans of Coke Zero per beverage cart on the flight in question. So, the flight attendant may not have been able to give Amhad a full, unopened can because one didn’t exist if the flight attendant had already used her supply. Now, Amhad may have perceived her not receiving the full can as some form of discrimination after seeing another passenger get a full can of beer, but may not have been fully aware of the facts behind why she wasn’t provided a full can of Coke Zero.

With that said, we also know that what the passenger posted regarding the can of Diet Coke being delivered to Amhad first holds some weight. This is further supported by the fact that United Airlines and Shuttle America initially characterized this situation as a “misunderstanding regarding a can of diet soda;” a statement that Ahmad and others pilloried on social media as trivializing. Were the trivializing it or just stating the truth? If she received a can of diet soda (unopened or not) but couldn’t get a can of Coke Zero, was the flight attendant actually discriminating against her or was she simply out of stock?

It’s no secret that airlines are quick to fire flight attendants over customer service situations. Bad press is something no airline wants, especially press that associates their brand with discrimination and bad customer service. But, let’s say for a second that Amhad’s story is true and other passengers on the plane substantiated what happened, the flight attendant would surely be terminated. That’s uncalled for, unprofessional and honestly sickening. But read the statement from United and the headlines closely: “Flight attendant who denied unopened soda can to Muslim will no longer serve United customers”, “Flight Attendant Who Refused Muslim Woman Soda Will ‘No Longer Serve”, “United says it will no longer use flight attendant who denied Muslim woman unopened soda can.” Nothing says the flight attendant was ‘fired’ it says, she won’t serve United customers.

Republic Airways Holdings operates  Shuttle America and Republic Airlines. Those two carriers operate shorter, regional flights for United, Delta, American and US Airways. Now wait a minute. Why would Shuttle America keep someone employed and reassign them to another one of their airline partners if they’re known to discriminate? Why didn’t United press for her termination? They’re very quick to do so usually, remember the 13 flight attendants they fired in one clean sweep? This doesn’t make sense. Unless.. they know Amhad’s story isn’t true.

Through the investigation into this matter airline officials have had to check the validity of the post on FlyerTalk, and can do so various ways (i.e. the passengers seat assignment) and maybe discovered that things didn’t unfold on board as first thought. But why haven’t we heard about it? Why hasn’t United or Shuttle America stepped up and said (a few days later, mind you): “Wait a minute! Our flight attendant may not be wholly at fault!” Because that would create a worse PR nightmare than what initially transpired. It would look disrespectful and unsympathetic.

So, without the public cleansing of her name (which thankfully was kept quiet unlikeEricka’s) this flight attendant gets to keep her job. She’s obviously been reassigned away from the United brand to appease those who were upset, but she’s still flying. However, a lot of Shuttle America’s crew bases are “airline brand” specific, so she must now commute to/from work because of a can of Coke Zero. But sources confirm that she is being provided with full-fare round trip flights from her home to her new base.

An awfully nice perk for some who allegedly discriminates against her passengers.

Read a leaked email from Shuttle America’s CEO Bryan Bedford about ...

Editors Update: 6/8/15 1:45am EST

Also, here’s another passenger comment about the situation (though this one hasn’t been confirmed by the article’s author) as supplied by a reader:

11148346_10153386753216797_421252997969942594_n

Thi

Thanks for posting, its a good find.  I too, found that original story somewhat bizarre and unbelievable.  What should happen in a sane world, of course, is that the Muslim fascist would be denied flights on that airline again.  But what's even more disturbing is the medias refusal to give us the truthful background to the story.

I also found this rather comic:

Tahera Ahmad, a Muslim American chaplain at Northwestern University

So would they say "Adolf Hitler, the senior chaplain of Germany's Fascist party"?  It's ridiculous to use words like "worshipper" and "chaplain" for an ideology that executes unbelievers and even its own members who leave or dissidents.

I have another type of false flag operation: when muslims go on a killing spree and leftards & the media go into a frenzy of false reporting.

In the hours and days after the Paris attacks in Nov 2015, the media would not mention the words "islam" or "muslim" about those who were doing the killing. However, they  were very quick to get out the idea that it was a muslim security guard at Stad du France who stopped the suicide bomber there.

The story seems to have started with a Wall Street Journal reporter (a muslim, quelle surprise). It was then taken up all over Facebook and Twitter

One tweet was retweeted over 45,000 times, while a Facebook post was shared by more than 9,500 people. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-attacks-the-tr...

The lie was even incorporated into a joint statement by muslim organisations in Britain (see point 3 below)

The above was an advert in The Telegraph (presumably MCB thinks that is the most influential magazine amongst islamophobes).  The advert appeared on 18th Nov.  The lie about the muslim security guard was not disclosed until after the advert had run.  

So journos hold back on the (likely) perps being muslims; but they don't hold back on the (unlikely) story of a musim hero.

There's also a veritable tsunami of screenshots of tweets by "individual muslims" decrying the attacks (see this Telegraph piece http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11996902/i-...).  

Yet here is the significant comparison.

In 2012 3,500 muslims protested outside of Google's London HQ, over the video Innocence of Muslims being available on YouTube.  

Yet no such protest by muslims in the UK has been seen over the brutal murders (and torturing) in Paris.

So, it is clear, that to muslims as a whole: a video about Mohammed is blasphemy, but murtering and torturing kafirs in the name of islam is not blasphemy.  The total inaction of muslims as a community (where such public action would be counter-protested by other muslims) shows the lie of these "statements" by "individual muslims" and by "muslim organisations".

The WSJ muslim Ahmed Al Omran has somehow managed to get this twitter name:

https://twitter.com/ahmed

Considering there must be 200,000 Ahmeds in the world, that's quite amazing.  He's the WSJ Saudi correspondent.  So, I would say this man must be very media savvy, have great contacts, be considered a good journalist. So, how come he makes this "mistake" about this muslim security guard, and it's not corrected for almost 7 days?

It is staggering that this lie could have gone around the world so fast, and have taken 7 days to debunk. 

Was he even in Paris? According to his website, he works in Riyadh, as one might expect from the WSJ Saudi correspondent.

If he was in Paris at that exact evening, why?

If not, why did anyone believe him? 

Even I assumed it must be true. From now on, I have to make it my default assumption, that anything I hear that reprsents a single musim in a good light must be a considered a lie until proven otherwise.  I feel I've reached another depth, one that I should have attained years ago.

Let me guess: the idea is, discourage the police/public from questioning any muslim, no matter how suspicious they look. Hence, what happened in San Bernardino.

After all, the dirty kuffar have no right questioning the superior race. Islam Uber Alles, and all that.

Daily Mail succumbs to sanitizing the Islam out of terror stories?

Yesterday we posted one of many Daily Mail stories, this one about a man who was stopped on a train because he had an umbrella that had a handle that looked like a Samurai sword.

The article is here and the main photo from the article is below:

An astute reader of this website, KrayThaTruth, had read the story when it was first published and made a comment about the photo, which he screen grabbed. His comment   was not published. But he noticed that when he went back to the story later, they had zoomed in on the photo to crop out the top.

To see the photo as it was before it was changed, click the read more tab please.

Quite a surprise. If it had been any other media outlet but the Daily Mail this would be par for the course. But for the Daily Mail to indulge in Islam scrubbing, well I guess the pressure on media must be higher than we thought.

Bearded fundamentalist muslim, being charged with arson on his own mosque in Houston.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/12/30/houston-muslim-c...

Why not, it's Sunnah? Mohammed burned down the Mosque of Opposition, with muslims inside it.

{This is probably logged as another of Tell Mama's fake statistics}

'Insane' Ward End mosque attacker detained indefinitely

  • 5 February 2014
Mohamoud Elmi is being treated at a secure hospital

A man who stabbed a policeman and worshippers at a mosque in Birmingham must remain in a secure hospital indefinitely, a judge has ruled.

Mohamoud Elmi was deemed insane by a jury at Birmingham Crown Court.

PC Adam Koch and two worshippers at the Madrassa Qasim Ul Uloom centre, Ward End, suffered "near fatal" knife wounds.

Elmi, 32, who suffers from schizophrenia, was cleared of attempted murder by reason of insanity.

He is currently being treated at a secure hospital.

'Not a punishment'

In returning the "special" verdicts, jurors ruled that Elmi had carried out acts which amounted to attempted murder and wounding.

Jurors heard how Elmi calmly walked away from his initial "frenzied" attack on two fellow worshippers at the mosque to pay a visit to a washroom.

Media captionVictim PC Adam Koch survived along with two men who were repeatedly stabbed

Elmi, of Ward End Hall Grove, Washwood Heath, then returned to a prayer area before repeatedly stabbing PC Adam Koch, who attempted to subdue him with a Taser.

Passing sentence, Mrs Justice Carr said the victims had been subjected to a "terrifying and unprovoked" ordeal.

Addressing Elmi, the judge told him his condition at the time of the stabbing, which occurred after he was discharged into the community following treatment, meant "neither your actions nor your thoughts were in your control."

Image captionBoth PC Koch and two other worshippers survived their injuries

The judge added the sentence was "not a punishment, but necessary for the protection of the public".

"Having heard and considered all of the expert evidence I am satisfied that, because of the nature of your offences and having regard to your mental illness and to the risk that you will commit further offences if you are not detained, a restriction order is necessary to protect the public from serious harm."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-26051635

This story is now being removed from websites which posted it when, in their KuffarPhobia, they assumed the arson was by a kuffar.

Salon deleted an article on its website Wednesday about an arson attack on a Houston mosque, after news broke the alleged attacker was Muslim.

Authorities charged Gary Moore early Wednesday with setting fire to the Islamic Center of Houston on Christmas Day, shortly after Friday prayers. It’s not clear why Moore allegedly targeted the mosque, but authorities say there’s no evidence of a hate crime, according to the Associated Press. Rather, Moore himself is a Muslim who worshiped regularly at the center.

Salon published an article about Moore’s arrest Wednesday morning, along with many other media outlets. Writer Ben Norton prematurely suggested in the piece the attack was Islamophobic.

Norton’s article was apparently taken down later Wednesday, apparently after it became apparent the alleged attacker is Muslim. 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/30/salon-deletes-article-on-mosque-a...

After Salon was reported to do this, they put the article back up, removing the claim that the arson was "islamophobic".


Joe said:

Bearded fundamentalist muslim, being charged with arson on his own mosque in Houston.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/12/30/houston-muslim-c...

Why not, it's Sunnah? Mohammed burned down the Mosque of Opposition, with muslims inside it.

I read recently from 4F a statement about this tactic which put it very nicely (can't find it now).  It pointed out a similar fake or lying event from the US, followed by the discovery of the truth.  But then, the incident is thrown into a black hole of silence by the media.  The net result is that the public just remembers the initial lie, and, as some of us have found, when you try repudiate the lie with facts, you are greeted with bafflement and bare faced denial, because they've never been given that news.  It may have been related to this incident:
Black student could get 20 years for racist post hoax https://www.rt.com/usa/322620-black-student-fake-threats/

This is still happening with the "Hands up, don't shoot" meme, which I think the police should respond with chants of "Hands up, don't lie".

Maybe this wasn't intended to be a False Flag Op, but the media here did the Muslims job for them, and reported it as such.  Note the later correction, but no apology.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3520777/Muslim-woman-mown-g...

“Police later announced that they had arrested two men, believed to have been the car's driver and passenger, who have been named as Redouane B. and Mohamed B - both of whom are thought to be residents of Molenbeek.”

The men in the car were local muslims.

RSS

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom of Movement
The government can import new voters - except where that changes the political demographics (i.e. electoral fraud by means of immigration)
4. SP Freedom from Over-spending
People should not be charged for government systems which they reject, and which give them no benefit. For example, the government cannot pass a debt burden across generations (25 years).
An additional Freedom from Religion is be deducible by equal application of law: "Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight - except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2017   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service