Help! Evil Muslims are out to get meeeeeee! (For Valteron and Perciful)

[Gyrate]

So Valteron has started yet another "See how evil the Muslims are? They're so evil, they pretend to be moderate just to keep you from seeing how evil they are" threads here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=568434). This follows other similar threads such as this one (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=566263) in which he (I'm assuming maleness) asserts a number of things about the proposed cultural center being built in Manhattan near Ground Zero, virtually all of which turn out to be wrong.

But this doesn't matter really, because ultimately what's important is that you understand how eeeeeeeevil Muslims are. They're very evil, apparently. All of them everywhere believe exactly the same thing, and most of them want to convert you or kill you in your sleep (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12616440&postcount=15). It's a terrible problem, and only Valteron and a few others can see it. Everyone else is blinded by liberal guilt and has fallen to the wily ways of the Mussulmen.

Which brings me to Perciful, who makes Valteron seem positively rational by comparison (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12569986&postcount=286).It is simple. Islamics believe in Allah. Allah says to kill all infidels. Anyone who is not Muslim is an infidel and dead. We who are not Muslim are all dead unless we become Islamic and bow to Allah. There will be a mosque on every corner and 5 times a day we will pray to mecca or be shot. Freedom will be a memory.

Even if you are evil we have it way better then what is coming. That kind of evil is stone age evil. Do you want to be beheaded for freedom of speech? As a woman do you want your sex organs and your daughters sex organs mutilated?And that's not even getting into the irrational fear of Sharia banking. "Those Muslims are so evil, they don't want you to earn interest on your bank account! It's the first step on the slippery slope to genital mutilation!"

Anyhoo, most of the rebuttals to their positions have already been made in those other threads (not that it seems to be making a blind bit of difference to them) so I won't make them again. So here's what I really want to say:

You're cowards. Both of you, and anyone else pulling this "Muslims are planning to take over the US and/or kill everyone" crap. Chickenshit, lily-livered, pablum-puking cowards. Lying chickenshit, lily-livered, pablum-puking cowards who will believe anything that reinforces your hysteria, ignore anything that disproves it, and say anything to try to draw others into your bizarre world view. Seriously - you conjure up this boogeyman and try to convince the rest of us to be just as pulingly craven as you are. You revel in your irrational harassment of people who haven't actually done anything to you and may in fact be contributing a lot more to society than you are, considering the pride you've taken in your efforts to actively suppress and harass people with different religious beliefs.

Do you guys even know any Muslims? Do you live anywhere that is likely to be an actual terrorist target? Do you, in fact, have any basis for this nonsense you brandish other than your own spinelessness and the Internet ramblings of a few other equally hateful morons? Based on your posts, I'm guessing the answer to all three is "No". And if the answer to the first question is "Yes", I feel terribly sorry for those Muslims.

Let's not gloss over genuine problems here. Does radical Islam promote terrorism? Yes. Is terrorism a real threat? Yes. Does it therefore follow that we must fear and revile all Muslims everywhere and lock them away lest their vile Islamic cooties infect our children and womenfolk? Er, no.

Look - I live in London. In 1996 my bus route was bombed by the IRA, as was the building across the street from where I'm sitting right now. On July 7 2005 I had taken the Tube into work and had been lucky enough to come in early that morning so I was at my desk when the bombs went off. I work in one of the prinicipal terrorist targets in the country, and I travel on public transport every single day. In short, I'd bet good money that I'm at a much higher risk of dying in a terrorist attack than either of you are. And yet somehow I, and a few million other Londoners, and a few million New Yorkers and Washingtonians as well, manage to go about our daily business without feeling the need to run away in panic every time some guy with a deep tan and a beard glances in our direction. This doesn't mean we're exceptionally brave, nor does it mean that we're all in denial about the Swarthy Menace from the East. All it means is that you two, and everyone who thinks like you, are a bunch of fucking cowards.

Now go home and cry to your momma.

Pussies.

[MsWhatsit]

Righteous rant, well-said. A solid 9.8 from the Ukrainian judge.

[Latro]

What's a pablum?

[Giles]

What's a pablum?
It's just pablum, not "a pablum", and it's in the dictionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pablum).

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

**loud golf clap**

[jayjay]

What's a pablum?

Baby food, or anything processed to make it so it doesn't have to be chewed. "Pablum-puking", as a construct, is a Morton Downey, Jr., catchphrase, from back when he had his talk scream show on TV.

Incidentally, I agree 150% with the OP. The saddest thing about 9/11 is how many otherwise liberal people it turned into raging Islamophobes.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Baby food, or anything processed to make it so it doesn't have to be chewed. "Pablum-puking", as a construct, is a Morton Downey, Jr., catchphrase, from back when he had his talk scream show on TV.

Incidentally, I agree 150% with the OP. The saddest thing about 9/11 is how many otherwise liberal people it turned into raging Islamophobes.

And my, what an entertaining Conservative-fest that show was. And he smoked! On the set! In front of the TV cameras!

[jayjay]

The saddest thing about 9/11 is how many otherwise liberal people it turned into raging Islamophobes.

Let me rephrase this, because I just reread it and realized how utterly stupid it sounds.

The saddest thing about 9/11 was the horrendous loss of life. One of the sadder things about 9/11 was how many otherwise liberal people it turned into raging Islamophobes.

[jayjay]

And my, what an entertaining Conservative-fest that show was. And he smoked! On the set! In front of the TV cameras!

Heh...I never really thought Downey served to help conservatism with that show. It certainly made him and conservatism look really stupid to anyone to his left. It's hard to be Bill Buckley when your mouth is always wide open and screaming.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Had to be said. Well done, sir. And, if I might add, a special "up yours" to Perciful for repeating the "Obama is a secret Muslim who wants to make us all pray to Mecca" meme that even Glen Beck has given up on.

ETA: Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you...

[njtt]

May I also add my endorsement to the OP.

This was one of the worst things about the late Bush/Cheney regime. Not only did they react to 9/11 like craven cowards (albeit like cowards with machine guns up against assailants armed with sticks); for political advantage, they did their level best to infect the American people with their brand of cowardice. Some are still suffering from the infection.

[Kyla]

I cosign this OP.

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

The problem with Valteron is that he's noticed some real problems with the world today, which we are starting to experience in the Western world as well, but has interpreted them as signaling a unprecedented culture war. Yes, we are aware that in Iran and other countries including many majority Muslim countries, homosexuals are put to death. Yes, we know that people from these countries are immigrating to Western countries and may remain homophobic (sometimes violently so) for some time. (Valteron is gay and that largely colours his hatred for Islam, as well as for Catholicism.) And yes, I believe him when he says that he knew an "ex-Muslim" some 20 years ago who's now emphatically returned to his religion, quite possibly under the fear of retaliation. So we've got problems to address, that's true. But has this signaled a real change in the culture of our societies? Some people may be remaining on the outskirts of Western society, but that's where they are, the outskirts; they're not taking over the centre. We've had some tests of Western values in the recent years; in Canada, I can name the debate over Sharia binding arbitration in family law and over the extent in which to accommodate niqab wearers, and for the most part I think Western values have survived these tests.

Where Valteron largely errs is in believing that we're not aware of it, and that we'll let "them" bring our societies back into the Middle Ages for fear of being "un-PC". We're quite aware of the challenge, thank you very much, and for those who're afraid of "them" influencing our societies, the fact is we're influencing them more. For example, Valteron may hate Catholicism, but he's quite aware that even in some nominally Catholic societies -- his own, for example -- the vast majority of people are barely practicing and may only follow a few cultural practices, go to church once every year, and more-or-less believe in some god with fuzzy attributes. Catholicism has been influenced by modern Western society. Islam is being influenced as well. This is not an unprecedented culture war, it's in fact something that the world has seen many times in the past.

Perciful's problem is that she's old, not very bright and xenophobic.

[Smeghead]

Is there room on this bandwagon for me? I'll just squeeze in here in the vuvuzela section.

[Gyrate]

The problem with Valteron is that he's noticed some real problems with the world today, which we are starting to experience in the Western world as well, but has interpreted them as signaling a unprecedented culture war. Yes, we are aware that in Iran and other countries including many majority Muslim countries, homosexuals are put to death. Yes, we know that people from these countries are immigrating to Western countries and may remain homophobic (sometimes violently so) for some time. (Valteron is gay and that largely colours his hatred for Islam, as well as for Catholicism.) And yes, I believe him when he says that he knew an "ex-Muslim" some 20 years ago who's now emphatically returned to his religion, quite possibly under the fear of retaliation. So we've got problems to address, that's true. But has this signaled a real change in the culture of our societies? Some people may be remaining on the outskirts of Western society, but that's where they are, the outskirts; they're not taking over the centre. We've had some tests of Western values in the recent years; in Canada, I can name the debate over Sharia binding arbitration in family law and over the extent in which to accommodate niqab wearers, and for the most part I think Western values have survived these tests.

Where Valteron largely errs is in believing that we're not aware of it, and that we'll let "them" bring our societies back into the Middle Ages for fear of being "un-PC". We're quite aware of the challenge, thank you very much, and for those who're afraid of "them" influencing our societies, the fact is we're influencing them more. For example, Valteron may hate Catholicism, but he's quite aware that even in some nominally Catholic societies -- his own, for example -- the vast majority of people are barely practicing and may only follow a few cultural practices, go to church once every year, and more-or-less believe in some god with fuzzy attributes. Catholicism has been influenced by modern Western society. Islam is being influenced as well. This is not an unprecedented culture war, it's in fact something that the world has seen many times in the past.I can appreciate that there are many valid reasons to object, even strongly object, to the sorts of practices found in Islamic countries. Indeed, in other recent threads I've specifically mentioned the treatment of homosexuals in Iran and of women in Saudi Arabia. And I am certainly no fan of religious extremism of any ilk. But none of that is an excuse for the sort of things he's saying in the threads he's started.Perciful's problem is that she's old, not very bright and xenophobic.Are you saying that I've just verbally beaten up an old lady? I feel bad now.

[MOIDALIZE]

I went to high school with two muslim girls, and they had huge titties. I had always hoped they were out to get me.

[MOIDALIZE]

Also, 10 to 1 that somehow Israel gets brought up and this thread turns into a 10 page shitfest.

[Bosstone]

Also, 10 to 1 that somehow Israel gets brought up and this thread turns into a 10 page shitfest.I'll take "Self-Fulfilling Prophecies" for 1000, Alex.

[MOIDALIZE]

I should have spoilered the country, shouldn't I?

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

Are you saying that I've just verbally beaten up an old lady? I feel bad now.
I think she's relatively old, but I don't have any actual proof of this. I read the suggestion in a recent thread. She does have grown-up children.

Valteron is also early senior age (around 60).

And no, let's not bring Israel in this discussion (unless people want to discuss the influence of Muslim Israelis over Israeli culture, but a new thread would be a better place for this).

[AClockworkMelon]

Wait. Just wait a fucking minute.

The Muslims AREN'T trying to kill us?

[Marley23]

Are you saying that I've just verbally beaten up an old lady? I feel bad now.
Stupid is stupid. Some people get closed minded and stupid when they're old, but a lot of the time, these people are closed minded idiots before they get old. She could be one of those and she doesn't deserve a pass. To wit:

And that's not even getting into the irrational fear of Sharia banking. "Those Muslims are so evil, they don't want you to earn interest on your bank account! It's the first step on the slippery slope to genital mutilation!"
It's actually even worse. It's not about interest on bank accounts, it's about loans. Perciful thinks Islamic banks are evil because they don't charge interest on loans. She thinks this is morally wrong and out of whack with the Western way of life. And she thinks it's unconstitutional. Perciful thinks the U.S. Constitution requires banks to charge interest on loans, and that if a bank doesn't do that, it's violating the separation of church and state, behaving immorally, ignoring our way of life, and probably funneling money to terrorists.

[Boulter's Canary]

Had to be said. Well done, sir. And, if I might add, a special "up yours" to Perciful for repeating the "Obama is a secret Muslim who wants to make us all pray to Mecca" meme that even Glen Beck has given up on.

ETA: Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you...

Hear, hear - and, as a Brit can I add a special (British two-finger) "up yours" to Perciful for all the implications in the line: We don't want to end up like Britain.

Thank you

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Wait. Just wait a fucking minute.

The Muslims AREN'T trying to kill us?



I suspect that lots of people want to kill you. It only stands to reason that some of them would be muslims, just through random chance. *




Also, Kudos to the OP. Good rant, and dead on. Wish I'd said it, although I wouldn't have said it as well - not least because I'm living in the least likely terrorist target in North America.



[Since this is the pit, the black sucking hole of subtle and iron, I will add for the record that I'm joking, and that you, Clocky are one of my favorite posters, and that I'm sorry that I suggested you were Argent Towers in disguise, and....well, y'know....(digs toe of shoe in the sand, looking sheepish)]

[AClockworkMelon]

Since this is the pit, the black sucking hole of subtle and iron, I will add for the record that I'm joking, and that you, Clocky are one of my favorite posters, and that I'm sorry that I suggested you were Argent Towers in disguise, and....well, y'know....(digs toe of shoe in the sand, looking sheepish)Of course I am! Everyone should have a friend like me!

But who's Argent Towers and when did you suggest I was him in disguise?

[magellan01]

Help! Evil Muslims are out to get meeeeeee!

Actually, the evil ones are out to get me, an American. I believe this is the case because they have explicitly said that is what they want to do, and some of the evil ones have already killed so many Americans and continue to attempt to do so.

[jayjay]

Actually, the evil ones are out to get me, an American. I believe this is the case because they have explicitly said that is what they want to do, and some of the evil ones have already killed so many Americans and continue to attempt to do so.

Hey! Good to see ya! Could you perhaps turn around and go back to fetch that point that you completely missed? Thanks!

[Gyrate]

Hey! Good to see ya! Could you perhaps turn around and go back to fetch that point that you completely missed? Thanks!
He didn't miss it; he deliberately stepped over it as he passed.

[Kolga]

I heartily concur with the OP



Perciful's problem is that she's old, not very bright and xenophobic.

And I heartily concur with this one as well. Arguing with her is like arguing with one of my old high school classmates, the ones who have been brainwashed by fundamentalist evangelical preachers all their lives to the point where the possibility that there are multiple points of view is anathema.

[magellan01]

Hey! Good to see ya! Could you perhaps turn around and go back to fetch that point that you completely missed? Thanks!

The point, friend, is that some Muslims DO want to kill us. (And you'd be closer to the front of that line than I.) In fact, of the group of people who can be defined as "wanting to kill Americans", Muslims make up a vast majority.Further refine that group as "those who want to kill us, have killed some of us, and continue to actively try to kill some of us", it's pretty much all Muslim. Now, that does not mean that all Muslims want to kill Americans, but until you have a fool-proof way cull the evil-trying-to-kill-us ones from the peaceful ones, it behooves us—or those of us who would like to not be killed or have those we cared for killed—to be wary of the whole lot.

Got it now, friend?

[jjimm]

Actually, the evil ones are out to get me, an American. I believe this is the case because they have explicitly said that is what they want to do, and some of the evil ones have already killed so many Americans and continue to attempt to do so.Know what, dude, they want to kill me (and Gyrate) too. Thankfully "the evil ones" are so vanishingly small in numbers that even though I live in a heavily Muslim area, I don't share the same soul-crushing fear that makes Valteron monomaniacal on the subject, and clearly worries Perciful to the point of sleeplessness - and apparently you too.

As I said in another thread, the biggest issue I have with my Muslim neighbours is that one of the teenagers has a huge subwoofer in his trunk, and it really pisses me off when he drives around with it cranked up on a Saturday morning.

[Bosstone]

Actually, the evil ones are out to get me, an American. I believe this is the case because they have explicitly said that is what they want to do, and some of the evil ones have already killed so many Americans and continue to attempt to do so.I bet Depends would send you some coupons if you asked them. It certainly sounds like you go through at least three pair a day.

[DanBlather]

At one time Christianity was the worst religion in the world with it's violent conversion of native people. land grabbing, and persecution of Jews. Not EVERY Christian in the world was bad, but Christianity as a whole was a nasty force. Today it's fundamentalist Islam. Not sure why people keep trying to defend system so much at odds with what I am sure your own more progressive views on the role of women, the rights of homosexuals, jurisprudence, and democracy.

Is it not OK to say that the Mormons view on homosexuals is wrong, or that the Catholic church was wrong to shelter pedophiles?

ETA: and those of you not concerned with Islamic terrorism are welcome to board your own separate planes that do not screen luggage.

[Gyrate]

The point, friend, is that some Muslims DO want to kill us. (And you'd be closer to the front of that line than I.) You're right, by golly. If only I'd said something like this in the OP:Let's not gloss over genuine problems here. Does radical Islam promote terrorism? Yes. Is terrorism a real threat? Yes. Still - too late to go back and add it now.

[Revenant Threshold]

The point, friend, is that some Muslims DO want to kill us. (And you'd be closer to the front of that line than I.) I don't understand that last part. Which line is he closer to the front of? Now, that does not mean that all Muslims want to kill Americans, but until you have a fool-proof way cull the evil-trying-to-kill-us ones from the peaceful ones, it behooves us—or those of us who would like to not be killed or have those we cared for killed—to be wary of the whole lot. The standard being foolproof seems rather a high degree of certainty to hold to. There are very few foolproof ways of doing anything, really. To say that, without a foolproof method of doing something, we cannot seperate two groups would lead us to pretty much suspect everyone. Hell, I rather imagine that the vast majority of crimes committed over there are Americans. There's no foolproof way of determining would-be American criminals from law-abiding folks. Logically speaking, you should hold Muslims, in general, to be much less suspicious than your average fellow citizen.

In fact, by your standards, to wager a guess the group we should most suspect as potentially causing personal or general harm to you would be white male Americans. I'll try not to let your potential of being a criminal harm my reactions to you. ;)

[Bosstone]

Is it not OK to say that the Mormons view on homosexuals is wrong, or that the Catholic church was wrong to shelter pedophiles?Christianity as a whole is not responsible for what the Catholic church or Fred Phelps or crazy militia people do, nor is Islam as a whole responsible for whatever sects Osama and other terrorists belong to.

[Charley]

Hear, hear - and, as a Brit can I add a special (British two-finger) "up yours" to Perciful for all the implications in the line: We don't want to end up like Britain.

Thank you

I will if you will. Condescending jingoistic fear-mongering arrogant ignorant nonsense.

[magellan01]

I don't understand that last part. Which line is he closer to the front of?

If I remember correctly, jayjay is gay. Now, if he is both gay and Jewish, he's way in front of the line.

The standard being foolproof seems rather a high degree of certainty to hold to. There are very few foolproof ways of doing anything, really. To say that, without a foolproof method of doing something, we cannot seperate two groups would lead us to pretty much suspect everyone. Hell, I rather imagine that the vast majority of crimes committed over there are Americans. There's no foolproof way of determining would-be American criminals from law-abiding folks. Logically speaking, you should hold Muslims, in general, to be much less suspicious than your average fellow citizen.

Of course there is no foolproof method. The point is that because there isn't, and given both the statements and actions of a subset of Muslims, a degree of wariness is not only warranted, but wise.

[Revenant Threshold]

Had to be said. Well done, sir. And, if I might add, a special "up yours" to Perciful for repeating the "Obama is a secret Muslim who wants to make us all pray to Mecca" meme that even Glen Beck has given up on. Out of interest, could you link to that one?

[Gyrate]

At one time Christianity was the worst religion in the world with it's violent conversion of native people. land grabbing, and persecution of Jews. Not EVERY Christian in the world was bad, but Christianity as a whole was a nasty force. Today it's fundamentalist Islam. Not sure why people keep trying to defend system so much at odds with what I am sure your own more progressive views on the role of women, the rights of homosexuals, jurisprudence, and democracy.At least you had the decency to specify fundamentalist Islam, which is still a generalization but one a few steps closer to reality. The people to whom I refer in the OP seem to fear any type of Islam at all - extremist, moderate, liberal, quasi-secular, etc. If it says "Islam" on the label, it's all bad to them.

Also, if you asked a hundred random Americans what group of people was best known for suppressing the rights of women and homosexuals, I doubt the survey would put "Muslim" as the top answer.

[yojimbo]

Muslims may want to kill you but Catholic priests want to fuck your children.

The feckers want to kill me as well, right? I'm white, western, an atheist, think gays should be allowed do anything they want to each other and believe women should be as free to express themselves in any way they see fit. I don't want to be left out. The chances of a white christian blowing me up has gone down considerably over the last decade or so so I need some new fear to keep me going.

[Gyrate]

If I remember correctly, jayjay is gay. Now, if he is both gay and Jewish, he's way in front of the line.You see how the Jews always get preferential treatment? It's just typical....

:D

[Revenant Threshold]

If I remember correctly, jayjay is gay. Now, if he is both gay and Jewish, he's way in front of the line. Thanks for the explanation.Of course there is no foolproof method. The point is that because there isn't, and given both the statements and actions of a subset of Muslims, a degree of wariness is not only warranted, but wise. Then you agree that it would be wise, as a whole, to consider Muslims much less worthy of a wary reaction than your average American?

[magellan01]

At least you had the decency to specify fundamentalist Islam, which is still a generalization but one a few steps closer to reality. The people to whom I refer in the OP seem to fear any type of Islam at all - extremist, moderate, liberal, quasi-secular, etc. If it says "Islam" on the label, it's all bad to them.

Also, if you asked a hundred random Americans what group of people was best known for suppressing the rights of women and homosexuals, I doubt the survey would put "Muslim" as the top answer.

I'm not sure what you think the answer would be, but what if you asked. "What group wants to kill homosexuals and subjugate women, to the point of stoning them to death for actions that males in her family are offended by?"

[magellan01]

You see how the Jews always get preferential treatment? It's just typical....

:D

Nicely done.

[Gyrate]

Thanks for the explanation. Then you agree that it would be wise, as a whole, to consider Muslims much less worthy of a wary reaction than your average American?Let's crunch some numbers. How many Americans have Muslims killed? Now, how many Muslims have Americans killed? So which group is more dangerous?

Overgeneralizations are fun, no?

I'm not sure what you think the answer would be, but what if you asked. "What group wants to kill homosexuals and subjugate women, to the point of stoning them to death [for actions that males in her family are offended by]?"Nice tailoring of the question, but frankly if you left off the last bit you still might not get "Muslim" as the top answer.

[DanBlather]

At least you had the decency to specify fundamentalist Islam, which is still a generalization but one a few steps closer to reality. The people to whom I refer in the OP seem to fear any type of Islam at all - extremist, moderate, liberal, quasi-secular, etc. If it says "Islam" on the label, it's all bad to them.

Also, if you asked a hundred random Americans what group of people was best known for suppressing the rights of women and homosexuals, I doubt the survey would put "Muslim" as the top answer.In America, Islam is not really a concern to me. Those coming here, or raised here, are probably more progressive than the average citizen. That doesn't mean that there isn't a very large, well funded, anti-western, anti-American group of Islamic thugs determined to kill Americans when they can.

[Angua]

The point, friend, is that some Muslims DO want to kill us. (And you'd be closer to the front of that line than I.) In fact, of the group of people who can be defined as "wanting to kill Americans", Muslims make up a vast majority.

Oh quit yer bitching. Guess what? They want to kill me too. And I'm a liberal Muslim woman. Fundamentalists of any stripe think that they're the only ones who are right, everyone else is wrong and their enemies must be destroyed somehow. Funny, I'm seeing it here too.

[DanBlather]

At least you had the decency to specify fundamentalist Islam, which is still a generalization but one a few steps closer to reality. The people to whom I refer in the OP seem to fear any type of Islam at all - extremist, moderate, liberal, quasi-secular, etc. If it says "Islam" on the label, it's all bad to them..That's just stupid and utterly unfair. You are doing the exact thing you accuse others of doing.

[jayjay]

Of course there is no foolproof method. The point is that because there isn't, and given both the statements and actions of a subset of Muslims, a degree of wariness is not only warranted, but wise.

So, how do we do that without putting the Constitution (and common decency) through a shredder? Are you suggesting that we treat Muslims differently than we do any other religion? Frankly, just in general walking-around terms, I'm more afraid of Southern Baptists than I am of Muslims. I'm much more likely to encounter a majority-Southern-Baptist population who wants to drag me behind their pickup truck than I am to encounter a majority-Muslim population who wants to hang me.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

As I said in another thread, the biggest issue I have with my Muslim neighbours is that one of the teenagers has a huge subwoofer in his trunk, and it really pisses me off when he drives around with it cranked up on a Saturday morning.

Ah, spreading the sub-bass message of Allah, how nefarious!

[jayjay]

That's just stupid and utterly unfair. You are doing the exact thing you accuse others of doing.

How is it unfair? Valteron is NOT making distinctions. In fact, he's trying to twist words and meanings of things the imam in the MODERATE Muslim congregation in question has said to make it look like he's some kind of Mullah Omar. Valteron and Perciful DO NOT MAKE DISTINCTIONS between Muslim sects in their screeds. ALL Muslims are suspect to them. And if a particular Muslim hasn't actually said something like "Death to Israel!" or "Die, American Satans!" then Valteron will try to make it look like they did.

[Gyrate]

That's just stupid and utterly unfair. You are doing the exact thing you accuse others of doing.
Am I? How so?

[magellan01]

Then you agree that it would be wise, as a whole, to consider Muslims much less worthy of a wary reaction than your average American?

Absolutely not. I see no reason to fear the average American. But if you define a subset, like Americans who do Meth, or routinely drink and drive, then I can begin to be more fearful of that group. But I'm more fearful of those in a group of which that group is associated with violence, like skin heads, for instance. I'd also be more fearful of going to a 50-Cent concert than a Pat Boone concert, even though the latter is likely to be more painful.

[aruvqan]

Wait. Just wait a fucking minute.

The Muslims AREN'T trying to kill us?

No, not all of them. A large number of them just want to be left the hell alone to get on with life. *Just* like us. The ones I knew back in college we just like us, but had funny accents and tended to eat with their right hand an no utensils on stuff like chicken and rice =)

[Gyrate]

Ah, spreading the sub-bass message of Allah, how nefarious!Muezzins sure have changed since I was young.

[Angua]

No, not all of them. A large number of them just want to be left the hell alone to get on with life. *Just* like us. The ones I knew back in college we just like us, but had funny accents and tended to eat with their right hand an no utensils on stuff like chicken and rice =)

And some of us even look (apart from our skin colour) like you, dress like you, eat (almost) the same things you do, don't have too funny accents, are educated, and really do just want peace and harmony between different cultures. Heck, most people don't know I'm Muslim until I tell them.

[Angua]

Muezzins sure have changed since I was young.

You've not seen the Call to Prayer Alarm Clock my grandfather had... Electronic Muezzins ahoy!

[Shot From Guns]

The point, friend, is that some Muslims DO want to kill us. (And you'd be closer to the front of that line than I.) In fact, of the group of people who can be defined as "wanting to kill Americans", Muslims make up a vast majority.Further refine that group as "those who want to kill us, have killed some of us, and continue to actively try to kill some of us", it's pretty much all Muslim. Now, that does not mean that all Muslims want to kill Americans, but until you have a fool-proof way cull the evil-trying-to-kill-us ones from the peaceful ones, it behooves us—or those of us who would like to not be killed or have those we cared for killed—to be wary of the whole lot.

Got it now, friend?

The point, friend, is that some white men DO want to kill us. (And you'd be closer to the front of that line than I.) In fact, of the group of people who can be defined as "wanting to kill Americans", white men make up a vast majority.Further refine that group as "those who want to kill us, have killed some of us, and continue to actively try to kill some of us", it's pretty much all white men. Now, that does not mean that all white men want to kill Americans, but until you have a fool-proof way cull the evil-trying-to-kill-us ones from the peaceful ones, it behooves us—or those of us who would like to not be killed or have those we cared for killed—to be wary of the whole lot.

Got it now, friend?

Psssssst: your racist is showing, you disgusting sack of shit.

[Revenant Threshold]

Absolutely not. I see no reason to fear the average American. But if you define a subset, like Americans who do Meth, or routinely drink and drive, then I can begin to be more fearful of that group. But I'm more fearful of those in a group of which that group is associated with violence, like skin heads, for instance. I'd also be more fearful of going to a 50-Cent concert than a Pat Boone concert, even though the latter is likely to be more painful. Hold on a moment. I thought that we couldn't define a subset - there's no foolproof way to know one from another, right?

[AClockworkMelon]

no, not all of them. A large number of them just want to be left the hell alone to get on with life. *just* like us.
woooooooooosh!

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Oh quit yer bitching. Guess what? They want to kill me too. And I'm a liberal Muslim woman. Fundamentalists of any stripe think that they're the only ones who are right, everyone else is wrong and their enemies must be destroyed somehow. Funny, I'm seeing it here too.

I thought you were a werewolf.

[magellan01]

So, how do we do that without putting the Constitution (and common decency) through a shredder? Are you suggesting that we treat Muslims differently than we do any other religion? Frankly, just in general walking-around terms, I'm more afraid of Southern Baptists than I am of Muslims. I'm much more likely to encounter a majority-Southern-Baptist population who wants to drag me behind their pickup truck than I am to encounter a majority-Muslim population who wants to hang me.

And you should want to keep it that way. (You're grandiloquent persecution complex aside.) Or would you really be happier if the Southern Baptist danger to you (fantastical as it is) remained the same but was relegated to Fear #2 status because there were more Muslim-majority populations for you to be persecuted by?

You're not thinking this through.

[Bosstone]

And you should want to keep it that way. (You're grandiloquent persecution complex aside.) Or would you really be happier if the Southern Baptist danger to you (fantastical as it is) remained the same but was relegated to Fear #2 status because there were more Muslim-majority populations for you to be persecuted by?

You're not thinking this through.Also: BEARS! Bears want to eat you! DAMN YOU, BEARS!

[magellan01]

Hold on a moment. I thought that we couldn't define a subset - there's no foolproof way to know one from another, right?

We define them as much as we can. Though I might be missing your point.

[Angua]

I thought you were a werewolf.

I'm a Muslim werewolf. Its part of the liberal-ness. Or maybe its the "Islam" bit that turns me into a rabid werewolf. Obsession with the Moon in both cases and all that. ;)

(Directed to no one in particular) Oh and please don't make the mistake of assuming that "Liberal" means non-practicing!

[magellan01]

Also: BEARS! Bears want to eat you! DAMN YOU, BEARS!

And if you are backpacking in Alaska, it would do you well to adopt that mindset. So, good point! (Unintended as it was.)

[Really Not All That Bright]

I'm a Muslim werewolf. Its part of the liberal-ness. Or maybe its the "Islam" bit that turns me into a rabid werewolf. Obsession with the Moon in both cases and all that.

(Directed to no one in particular) Oh and please don't make the mistake of assuming that "Liberal" means non-practicing!
Am I not mistaking you for a non-practicing lycanthrope, or for a non-practicing Muslim? It makes a difference, you know.

[Angua]

Am I not mistaking you for a non-practicing lycanthrope, or for a non-practicing Muslim? It makes a difference, you know.

Why? Because in one scenario I want to blow you up, and the other I just want to rip you jugular out with my claws?

[magellan01]

Psssssst: your racist is showing, you disgusting sack of shit.

Psssssst. Islam isn't a race, you dummy.

[Revenant Threshold]

We define them as much as we can. Though I might be missing your point. The point is this;

You seem to be saying that, on one hand, there are some Muslims who are dangerous and worthy of our concern. There are some who aren't. We have no foolproof way of determining which is which, so it is only wise to treat all Muslims with some level of suspicion, some level of wariness.

On the other hand, there are some Americans who are dangerous and worthy of our concern, and some who aren't. Again, we have no foolproof way of determining which is which - but in this instance, it is wise not to be suspicious of all American, but rather, as you say, "define them as much as we can".

My point is that your standards seem to be different. To differentiate Muslims, we need a foolproof standard - otherwise all Muslims are worthy of suspicion. But to differentiate Americans, we can accept an imperfect standard, and not be wary of your average American.

If we can only accept differentiation methods that are foolproof, then you should be more wary of your fellow citizens in general than Muslims in general. If we don't require perfection, if we can "define them as much as we can", then it follows that we should accept some standards of differentiating Muslims, and that we should not be wary or suspicious of "the whole lot".

[Really Not All That Bright]

Why? Because in one scenario I want to blow you up, and the other I just want to rip you jugular out with my claws?
Yes.

Well, that, and just in case I ever cook for you I needed to know if I have to pick up halal shredded man-flesh.

[Xan]

Why? Because in one scenario I want to blow you up, and the other I just want to rip you jugular out with my claws?

The second scenario is preferable. If you survive a werewolf attack you become one. Doesn't work that way with religion.

[Der Trihs]

I'm not sure what you think the answer would be, but what if you asked. "What group wants to kill homosexuals and subjugate women, to the point of stoning them to death for actions that males in her family are offended by?"Here in America? Fundie Christians, mostly.

[Angua]

Well, that, and just in case I ever cook for you I needed to know if I have to pick up halal shredded man-flesh.

That man-flesh better be halal... And raw!!


;)

[Gyrate]

And you should want to keep it that way. (You're grandiloquent persecution complex aside.) Or would you really be happier if the Southern Baptist danger to you (fantastical as it is) remained the same but was relegated to Fear #2 status because there were more Muslim-majority populations for you to be persecuted by?

You're not thinking this through.See, jayjay, if you were a proper breeder you could already be busily reproducing and popping out sprogs which would hold your worldview. DAMMIT PEOPLE, WE MUST WIN THIS RACE TO OUTPOPULATE THE FILTHY FOREIGNERS AND THUS PRESERVE OUR WAY OF LIFE!

[Really Not All That Bright]

The second scenario is preferable. If you survive a werewolf attack you become one. Doesn't work that way with religion.
Well, sometimes it does (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas).

[Bosstone]

If we can only accept differentiation methods that are foolproof, then you should be more wary of your fellow citizens in general than Muslims in general. If we don't require perfection, if we can "define them as much as we can", then it follows that we should accept some standards of differentiating Muslims, and that we should not be wary or suspicious of "the whole lot".There's a flaw in your reasoning.

Muslims are different from Us. They're Them. Therefore suspicion is the only prudent course of action.

[Der Trihs]

There's a flaw in your reasoning.

Muslims are different from Us. They're Them.Muslims are giant ants?! OK, now that's scary. Especially when the ants are also werewolves.

[Angua]

Muslims are giant ants?! OK, now that's scary. Especially when the ants are also werewolves.

Yeah, you don't want to mess with giant ant werewolf Muslims...

[AClockworkMelon]

Yeah, you don't want to mess with giant ant werewolf Muslims...You mean Shia Muslims?

/rimshot

[MOIDALIZE]

Islamic fundamentalist wereants? From New Jersey?!!!!!

:eek:

[Nametag]

Islamic fundamentalist wereants? From New Jersey?!!!!!

:eek:

Yup. Hazardous waste-mutated Islamic fundamentalist were-ants with popped collars and fake tans. Feel the fear.

[Shot From Guns]

Frankly, just in general walking-around terms, I'm more afraid of Southern Baptists than I am of Muslims. I'm much more likely to encounter a majority-Southern-Baptist population who wants to drag me behind their pickup truck than I am to encounter a majority-Muslim population who wants to hang me.

Yeah, but the Muslims are brown.

[Shot From Guns]

Psssssst. Islam isn't a race, you dummy.

Pssssst. Most Muslims aren't of European extraction, you loathsome excuse for humanity. You're treating them differently from the various classes of people you're comfortable with (i.e., by insisting on treating Muslims as one vast, united class, regardless of individual beliefs or intentions, because you personally can't tell them apart) because of their Otherness.

[Zeriel]

I'm not sure what you think the answer would be, but what if you asked. "What group wants to kill homosexuals and subjugate women, to the point of stoning them to death for actions that males in her family are offended by?"

Well, yes, I'm scared of insane idiots, too. Out here in rural America there are a LOT more of them with "Christian Dominionist" than "Muslim" on their metaphorical (at least in the latter case, scarily enough) dog tags.

Personally I prefer the "work to stop insane idiots" solution to the "let's pick on random Muslims on the off chance they're insane idiots" one, as it's not only more fair and more in keeping with my values as a patriotic American, but it's also got the advantage of no false positives.

I'll HAPPILY trade that for the 0.00001% chance some insane idiot might at some unspecified future point will blow my ass up. Whatever happened to not trading freedom for security? Whatever happened to "We hold these truths to be self-evident"?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. Unless they're Muslims, in which case they're scary motherfuckers and we should be wary of them all." Nice going there, Jefferson.

[Omegaman]

Yeah. Fuckin' pussies.

[ivan astikov]

The point, friend, is that some Muslims DO want to kill us. (And you'd be closer to the front of that line than I.) In fact, of the group of people who can be defined as "wanting to kill Americans", Muslims make up a vast majority.Further refine that group as "those who want to kill us, have killed some of us, and continue to actively try to kill some of us", it's pretty much all Muslim. Now, that does not mean that all Muslims want to kill Americans, but until you have a fool-proof way cull the evil-trying-to-kill-us ones from the peaceful ones, it behooves us—or those of us who would like to not be killed or have those we cared for killed—to be wary of the whole lot.

Got it now, friend?

Why can't the nasty ones wear some kind of distinguishing clothing? It'd be oh so much easier if it was Orthodox Jews causing all the trouble. Or better still, those brightly coloured Hari Krishnas. You'd even be able to see them in the dark.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Yes.

Well, that, and just in case I ever cook for you I needed to know if I have to pick up halal shredded man-flesh.

I can't decide if Halal shredded man-flesh is a better band name or board name.

[Angua]

I can't decide if Halal shredded man-flesh is a better band name or board name.

I'm just having issues getting my mind out of the gutter!

[Shot From Guns]

I can't decide if Halal shredded man-flesh is a better band name or board name.

Terrible band name. Would work as an album title or maybe a song title, though.

[sqweels]

If I remember correctly, jayjay is gay. Now, if he is both gay and Jewish, he's way in front of the line.
Is there any evidence that Muslims are targeting gays for violent attacks here in the US?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Guess you must have missed the part about halal shredded man-flesh.

[jayjay]

Guess you must have missed the part about halal shredded man-flesh.

Well, no...Angua's in the UK, so that's THEIR problem...

[Angua]

Well, no...Angua's in the UK, so that's THEIR problem...

No I'm not. Been living in the USA for over a year now. Stealin' your jobs and lurin' away your menfolk with my awful heathen ways!


;)

[Really Not All That Bright]

Stealin' your jobs and lurin' away your menfolk...
...for her lunch.

[Angua]

Hey, a girl needs entertainment from somewhere...

[Damuri Ajashi]

Let me rephrase this, because I just reread it and realized how utterly stupid it sounds.

The saddest thing about 9/11 was the horrendous loss of life. One of the sadder things about 9/11 was how many otherwise liberal people it turned into raging Islamophobes.

3000 people died on 9/11, and sadly, it was not the saddest thing about 9/11.

[jsgoddess]

Islamic fundamentalist wereants? From New Jersey?!!!!!

:eek:

That explains so much.

There was an interview on Fresh Air a week or so ago where a journalist talked about his imprisonment in Iran. His captor kept asking him questions about New Jersey. They were trying to figure out what we knew!

[jayjay]

No I'm not. Been living in the USA for over a year now. Stealin' your jobs and lurin' away your menfolk with my awful heathen ways!


;)

Whoops! I missed that.

*plants wolfsbane*

[Damuri Ajashi]

If I remember correctly, jayjay is gay. Now, if he is both gay and Jewish, he's way in front of the line.



Of course there is no foolproof method. The point is that because there isn't, and given both the statements and actions of a subset of Muslims, a degree of wariness is not only warranted, but wise.

So should we ahve special airport screening procedures for muslims?

[Angua]

Whoops! I missed that.

*plants wolfsbane*

Sigh. There's intolerance everywhere. :(







;)

[Damuri Ajashi]

Absolutely not. I see no reason to fear the average American. But if you define a subset, like Americans who do Meth, or routinely drink and drive, then I can begin to be more fearful of that group. But I'm more fearful of those in a group of which that group is associated with violence, like skin heads, for instance. I'd also be more fearful of going to a 50-Cent concert than a Pat Boone concert, even though the latter is likely to be more painful.

So you think that it is not appropriate to paint all Americans with a brush more appropriate to subgroups of Americans but you think it is OK to paint all muslims with the same brush?

BTW, it is obvious you have spent a lot of time listening to 50 Cent (I wish I could say the same anoput myself but I have a 15 year old nephew who is convinced he is a black gangster).

[Valgard]

You know who else was an Islamic mullah who blew up the WTC and wanted to build a mosque on ground zero and have an opening day hootenanny on 9/11 to celebrate the bombing of Pearl Harbor and also mutilated women's genitals and wanted school prayer and forced the IRA to wear burqas and made the banks stop charging interest and was actually born in Kenya but secretly transported to Hawaii in a Colombian drug-smuggling U-boat so that he'd grow up to STEAL THE PRESIDENCY 45 years later and forged his birth certificate and wants to make us all eat falafel and camel for Thanksgiving and was the first person to ever not celebrate Memorial Day and get those kids off my lawn and ohmigod my pants where are my pants?

That's right.
















Hitler.

And I am unanimous in that.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Pssssst. Most Muslims aren't of European extraction, you loathsome excuse for humanity. You're treating them differently from the various classes of people you're comfortable with (i.e., by insisting on treating Muslims as one vast, united class, regardless of individual beliefs or intentions, because you personally can't tell them apart) because of their Otherness.

[size="1"]Yeah, but that's bogotry, not racism. Irrational fear or hatred of gnomes is racism (well deserved but still), irrational fear or hatred of hunters is bigotry (once again, well deserved).

[Damuri Ajashi]

Why can't the nasty ones wear some kind of distinguishing clothing? It'd be oh so much easier if it was Orthodox Jews causing all the trouble. Or better still, those brightly coloured Hari Krishnas. You'd even be able to see them in the dark.

We could make them wear armbands with little crescents on them. Perhaps we can get them all to live in once place so we can keep a closer eye on them.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

So should we ahve special airport screening procedures for muslims?

Or is it werewolves. I'm so confused.

[AClockworkMelon]

We could make them wear armbands with little crescents on them. Perhaps we can get them all to live in once place so we can keep a closer eye on them.You can borrow an idea from one of my favorite places in all of history- make them carry papers around with them.

I love 21st century Arizona.

[Shot From Guns]

So should we ahve special airport screening procedures for muslims?

I seem to recall a thread a while back where someone recommended requiring that all passengers step on Koreans as they board.

Yeah, but that's bogotry, not racism. Irrational fear or hatred of gnomes is racism (well deserved but still), irrational fear or hatred of hunters is bigotry (once again, well deserved).

I'm saying he's specifically scared of this group because they're mostly brown people. As opposed to, say, freaking out about the IRA.

You can borrow an idea from one of my favorite places in all of history- make them carry papers around with them.

I love 21st century Arizona.

Maybe we can just get all the illegals we round up condensed into a single area. We could call it a Condensation Park! And then since it's silly to have them just sitting there, we could probably come up with something for them to do. In fact, I hear these illegals are all lazy and just get welfare all the time, so maybe we could post some kind of motto to encourage them. Hrm, how about "Labor Releases You "? We could put it in big letters, right over the gate.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Maybe we can just get all the illegals we round up condensed into a single area. We could call it a Condensation Park! And then since it's silly to have them just sitting there, we could probably come up with something for them to do. In fact, I hear these illegals are all lazy and just get welfare all the time, so maybe we could post some kind of motto to encourage them. Hrm, how about "Labor Releases You "? We could put it in big letters, right over the gate.

You know who else had this idea?




Me.

[Freudian Slit]

I seem to recall a thread a while back where someone recommended requiring that all passengers step on Koreans as they board.

Only the Koreans whose backs need to be cracked.

[Smeghead]

Hitler.


What a BASTARD! :eek:

[AClockworkMelon]

Maybe we can just get all the illegals we round up condensed into a single area. We could call it a Condensation Park! And then since it's silly to have them just sitting there, we could probably come up with something for them to do. In fact, I hear these illegals are all lazy and just get welfare all the time, so maybe we could post some kind of motto to encourage them. Hrm, how about "Labor Releases You "? We could put it in big letters, right over the gate.You mean like Sheriff Joe's Tent City?

[Shot From Guns]

So I've been thinking, what was the worst part of 9/11? I made a poll. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=568546)

Me.

Cite?

[Valgard]

What a BASTARD! :eek:

And this just in, he also got ACORN defunded and spilled oil all over the Gulf Of Mexico, just like those infernal Muslims.

Honestly, it's like Satan's Swiss Army Knife - does everything evil.

[DMC]

So should we ahve special airport screening procedures for muslims?Yep, but he won't tell you how to identify them, other than pass out pictures of the 9/11 terrorists and tell the security agents "they look like these guys", all of whom look completely different from one another.

[Shot From Guns]

"Saddest thing about 9/11" poll thread re-created (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=568577). Original was a clusterfuck because I phrased the poll question as the opposite of the thread title, so people were responding inconsistently. Go ahead and vote again in the new one; sorry for not proofing that better the first time.

[Kobal2]

Maybe we can just get all the illegals we round up condensed into a single area. We could call it a Condensation Park! And then since it's silly to have them just sitting there, we could probably come up with something for them to do. In fact, I hear these illegals are all lazy and just get welfare all the time, so maybe we could post some kind of motto to encourage them. Hrm, how about "Labor Releases You "? We could put it in big letters, right over the gate.

I'd rather we call them Freedom Zones.

Yep, but he won't tell you how to identify them, other than pass out pictures of the 9/11 terrorists and tell the security agents "they look like these guys", all of whom look completely different from one another.

Actually, wasn't magellan01 the brain trust who came up with the idea of forcing everyone wishing to board a plane to step on a Koran, because Muslims would obviously refuse to do it ?

Failing that, we could always train Muslim sniffing dogs, I suppose.

[Miller]

Actually, wasn't magellan01 the brain trust who came up with the idea of forcing everyone wishing to board a plane to step on a Koran, because Muslims would obviously refuse to do it ?

No, that was the late but unlamented Silverstreak Wonder (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11970408&postcount=18).

[Princhester]

Absolutely not. I see no reason to fear the average American. But if you define a subset, like Americans who do Meth, or routinely drink and drive, then I can begin to be more fearful of that group. But I'm more fearful of those in a group of which that group is associated with violence, like skin heads, for instance. I'd also be more fearful of going to a 50-Cent concert than a Pat Boone concert, even though the latter is likely to be more painful.

Given that you are motivated by logic and not a base irrational fear of people who are not of your culture, I assume you go nowhere near your father and brothers without a bulletproof jacket and a bodyguard, seeing as how they are far and away the most likely subset of people likely to kill you.

Right? Right?

[BigT]

Given that you are motivated by logic and not a base irrational fear of people who are not of your culture, I assume you go nowhere near your father and brothers without a bulletproof jacket and a bodyguard, seeing as how they are far and away the most likely subset of people likely to kill you.

Right? Right?

What the hell? What makes you think his father and brothers are in the more violent subset of Americans? A violent individual is more likely to commit a violent act than non-violent relatives. The comparison only becomes valid when comparing all people, violent or not, to your relatives--then your relatives are more likely to commit violent acts towards you.

Most rational people are more afraid of violent individuals are more afraid of violent individuals than non-violent ones. If you aren't, what's wrong with you?

[AClockworkMelon]

What the hell? What makes you think his father and brothers are in the more violent subset of Americans? A violent individual is more likely to commit a violent act than non-violent relatives. The comparison only becomes valid when comparing all people, violent or not, to your relatives--then your relatives are more likely to commit violent acts towards you.

Most rational people are more afraid of violent individuals are more afraid of violent individuals than non-violent ones. If you aren't, what's wrong with you?Are you more likely to be killed by a Muslim or a family member?

Survey says!

Family member!

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

ETA: and those of you not concerned with Islamic terrorism are welcome to board your own separate planes that do not screen luggage.
Honestly, I'm not convinced the current security policies aboard airplanes even do much to deter terrorism. I've heard it described as "security theatre" and I think that's mostly correct.

[Miller]

What the hell? What makes you think his father and brothers are in the more violent subset of Americans?

Statistically speaking, the vast majority of murders are committed by a close family member. And men are statistically more likely to be murderers than women. So, statistically speaking, if you have any brothers or your father is still around, stay the fuck away from them, because out of all the people on the planet, they are far and away the most likely to take your ass out.

[Princhester]

What the hell? What makes you think his father and brothers are in the more violent subset of Americans? A violent individual is more likely to commit a violent act than non-violent relatives. The comparison only becomes valid when comparing all people, violent or not, to your relatives--then your relatives are more likely to commit violent acts towards you.

What the hell? What makes him think Muslims are in the more violent subset of people? A violent individual is more likely to commit a violent act than non-violent Muslims. The comparison only becomes valid when comparing all people, violent or not, to violent Muslims --then violent Muslims are more likely to commit violent acts towards him than all people.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Satan's Swiss Army Knife

Band name?

[AClockworkMelon]

Statistically speakingBand name!

[Angua]

What the hell? What makes you think his father and brothers are in the more violent subset of Americans?

Well what the hell makes him think that me and mine are in the more violent subset of Americans/American residents because of the religion we practice? Assumptions work both ways.

[jjimm]

Well what the hell makes him think that me and mine are in the more violent subset of Americans/American residents because of the religion we practice?Embarrassingly public cowardice and ignorance, it appears.

[Angua]

Embarrassingly public cowardice and ignorance, it appears.

Figures.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Failing that, we could always train Muslim sniffing dogs, I suppose.


Why again do we want Muslim dogs?

I've been trying to teach Attackdog the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold path, and I don't really think he's getting it. Although, to be fair, he's cool with the lack of possessions and the begging. Y'know that Zen story where the leper's thumb falls in the beggar's bowl? He'd have no problem. I doubt he'd do as well with Islam though, especially the dietary restrictions, since he'll fight like hell to eat a old piece of ham that he finds in the grass.

Anyway, we already have Angua, so assuming that she can sniff, we have our own Muslim sniffing werewolf!

[clairobscur]

Why? Because in one scenario I want to blow you up, and the other I just want to rip you jugular out with my claws?

That would be to drain the blood so that the flesh would be halal, I guess?



When I think of it, it must sucks to be an observant muslim or jewish vampire...

[Gorsnak]

When I think of it, it must sucks to be an observant muslim or jewish vampire...

That's nothing. Think of the poor Jehovah's Witness vampires.

[Rune]

I demand to be included in this rant!

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Of course I am! Everyone should have a friend like me!

But who's Argent Towers and when did you suggest I was him in disguise?

Argent Towers was a guy who knew a lot about armor and art, and I thought he was a solid poster. He dropped off the boards after a kerfluffle involving Hogg, a favourite book -or perhaps obsession - of his.

During the kerfluffle it became apparent that most people could not tell the difference between Argent Towers and Agent Foxtrot, so he changed his handle to Tours d'Argent, and soon stopped posting here. This would have been in February or March.

You started posting here soon afterwards, and, like AT, you seem to be a young guy, and a fairly prolific poster (although at 3602 since March, versus AT's 11,000 since '05, prolific may not be a sufficient descriptor). I made the suggestion in this thread, as a a throwaway line when the damned book was mentioned. You're not actually that much alike, but the stopped posting/started posting time was similar.

No offence was intended, it was meant as a jibe, but obviously you didn't see it.

[AClockworkMelon]

Wait, so was being compared to Towers supposed to be a compliment or an insult? If the latter, I'll release the hounds! You saw what happened last time someone tried to pit me!

*Evil laughter.*

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Neither.

Actually, I liked the guy, so it would have been a compliment if anything, but in fact it was merely that the f-ing book was mentioned, and I had already noted in my mind that you had arrived just as AT had left. A complete decryption would be:

Hogg.
Where is Argent Towers to blah blah about Hogg?
Argent Towers is gone.
No one will blah blah about Hogg.
Wait, isn't there a new guy who showed up just when AT left?
Wouldn't it be funny if he were really Argent Towers and he started talking about Hogg?
Hee Hee.
That is funny, I shall post it.



Can we consider this dead horse beaten?

[Kyla]

I demand to be included in this rant!

Danes are terrorists!

[Zeriel]

I demand to be included in this rant!

I mean this in the nicest way possible--you (and magellan01, in this thread already) are not NEARLY close to the heights of frothing insanity that Perciful and Valteron can hit.

[jayjay]

Danes are terrorists!

I'm pretty sure the 9th Century residents of Northumbria and East Anglia would agree.

[Rune]

I mean this in the nicest way possible--you (and magellan01, in this thread already) are not NEARLY close to the heights of frothing insanity that Perciful and Valteron can hit.Well that's not very nice at all. That's like saying we are lay slackers. If you aren't frothing, then your heart isn't in it.

[gonzomax]

Yes haters are correct. The Muslims have been in America with thousands of troops , blowing up our infrastructure, killing our people and bribing our warlords. They deserve to be hated. They keep trying to change our government into a Muslim friendly and horribly corruptible one. Yes. I see why we are mad at them.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Well that's not very nice at all. That's like saying we are lay slackers. If you aren't frothing, then your heart isn't in it.

Try toothpaste. The dog always thinks I have rabies when I get a good toothpaste froth going, and he's a dog, he should know.

[AClockworkMelon]

Neither.

Actually, I liked the guy, so it would have been a compliment if anything, but in fact it was merely that the f-ing book was mentioned, and I had already noted in my mind that you had arrived just as AT had left. A complete decryption would be:

Hogg.
Where is Argent Towers to blah blah about Hogg?
Argent Towers is gone.
No one will blah blah about Hogg.
Wait, isn't there a new guy who showed up just when AT left?
Wouldn't it be funny if he were really Argent Towers and he started talking about Hogg?
Hee Hee.
That is funny, I shall post it.

Can we consider this dead horse beaten?So what you're saying is that you compared me to another poster?

[Kobal2]

No, that was the late but unlamented Silverstreak Wonder (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11970408&postcount=18).

Ah, my mistake. Apologies. It's just that, while we don't have that many blithering xenophobes, the ones we do got are really crackerjack to a man - so I tend to lump them in a big ol' pile of generic contempt.

I've been trying to teach Attackdog the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold path, and I don't really think he's getting it. Although, to be fair, he's cool with the lack of possessions and the begging. Y'know that Zen story where the leper's thumb falls in the beggar's bowl? He'd have no problem. I doubt he'd do as well with Islam though, especially the dietary restrictions, since he'll fight like hell to eat a old piece of ham that he finds in the grass.

I am now totally picturing doggy burkas.

Anyway, we already have Angua, so assuming that she can sniff, we have our own Muslim sniffing werewolf! Well, yeah, but she can only sniff during That Time Of The Month. The rest of the time, she's just a girl. Nobody wants a random girl sniffing 'em up at the airport.

Nobody outside the Internet, I mean.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

So what you're saying is that you compared me to another poster?

No Melon, there's nobody like you. You are....incomparable. :D

[AClockworkMelon]

No Melon, there's nobody like you. You are....incomparable. :DNow what's all this about a horse?

[Shot From Guns]

Are you more likely to be killed by a Muslim or a family member?

Survey says!

Family member!

Muslims with families are just generally fucked, of course.

Band name?

Would not go see. Even if they were Japanese.

[Angua]

Well, yeah, but she can only sniff during That Time Of The Month. The rest of the time, she's just a girl. Nobody wants a random girl sniffing 'em up at the airport.

Nobody outside the Internet, I mean.


You don't? Damn. So that's what I've been doing wrong!

[Really Not All That Bright]

It should be noted that Kobal speaks for only a limited subset of men.

[jjimm]

Now what's all this about a horse?What's the best cheese in which to hide a horse?
Mascarpone.

[Gyrate]

I am now totally picturing doggy burkas."Barkas", surely?

[Kobal2]

"Barkas", surely?

Get out.

[tagos]

The point, friend, is that some Muslims DO want to kill us but until you have a fool-proof way cull the evil-trying-to-kill-us ones from the peaceful ones, it behooves us—or those of us who would like to not be killed or have those we cared for killed—to be wary of the whole lot.

Got it now, friend?

Got it. Adjusting my attitude to Christians right now.

Hey - Christians - sorry - some of you probably don't abuse children but you know - it's really, really hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[Monty]

Hey, magellan! You do know that there are some Christians who want to kill other Christians, don't you? What's your foolproof way to cull them out?

Here's my experience with Muslims: I served with Muslims in the United States Navy. The ones with whom I served love their country--that's the US--and all it stands for. They were no less brave than any of the other Sailors on our ship. And the supported the Constitution of the United States, something you evidently do not.

[Doughbag]

I got a text message yesterday, regarding the reasons why Muslim terrorists are so suicidal, so here are somelinks:

Link 1 (http://bastisays.info/2010/01/everyone-seems-to-be-wondering-why-muslim-terrorists-are-so-quick-to-commit-suicide/)
Link 2 (http://iranpoliticsclub.net/islam/anger-islam/index.htm)
Link 3 (http://www.solopassion.com/node/5653)

[Shot From Guns]

And the supported the Constitution of the United States, something you evidently do not.

But it's so inconveeeeeeeeeeeeenieeeeeeeeeent. :(:(:(

[jayjay]

And the supported the Constitution of the United States, something you evidently do not.

Hey! Don't you know it's not a suicide pact?! :D

[magellan01]

Hey, magellan! You do know that there are some Christians who want to kill other Christians, don't you? What's your foolproof way to cull them out?


Foolproof? Why is this suddenly the metric for public policy? Should we not have gun laws because they will not be 100% effective? Should we not take measures to prevent speeding, drunk driving, tax fraud even though we know that whatever we put in place will not be "foolproof"? This is the same kind of odd thinking that prevents us from building a fence on our southern border...because a 30-foot fence can be breached by a 31-foot ladder.

Do you insist on foolproof measures in any of these instances? Or any instances involving public policy at all?

[tomndebb]

Foolproof? Why is this suddenly the metric for public policy? Should we not have gun laws because they will not be 100% effective? Should we not take measures to prevent speeding, drunk driving, tax fraud even though we know that whatever we put in place will not be "foolproof"? This is the same kind of odd thinking that prevents us from building a fence on our southern border...because a 30-foot fence can be breached by a 31-foot ladder.

Do you insist on foolproof measures in any of these instances? Or any instances involving public policy at all?You introduced the notion of needing foolproof way to identify "bad" Muslims from "good" Muslims with the only other option to be "wary" of all of them.

Now you are introducing the aspect of "public policy."

It is clear that if you do not have a similar public policy to propose for being wary of Christians, you are displaying blatant inconsistency on two separate issues.

[Kyla]

Foolproof? Why is this suddenly the metric for public policy? Should we not have gun laws because they will not be 100% effective? Should we not take measures to prevent speeding, drunk driving, tax fraud even though we know that whatever we put in place will not be "foolproof"? This is the same kind of odd thinking that prevents us from building a fence on our southern border...because a 30-foot fence can be breached by a 31-foot ladder.

Do you insist on foolproof measures in any of these instances? Or any instances involving public policy at all?

Ooooh, now we're talking about public policy! Excellent! As it so happens, I am wrapping up my masters degree in public policy at the moment (I have two classes left, dammit) so I like to think I know a little bit about public policy, although I will admit that I'm more knowledgeable about foreign policy and international development than US domestic policy. Having reviewed the thread, I remain a little unclear on what specific policies you're advocating for. Could you please specify what policies you'd like to see enacted? Maybe then we can have a constructive discussion about ways to decrease Islamist terrorism in the US and around the world.

[Princhester]

Foolproof? Why is this suddenly the metric for public policy?

Because you introduced it in your post under reply, is my guess.

[waterj2]

Because you introduced it in your post under reply, is my guess.Technically, magellan01 used the term "fool-proof" while Monty used the term "foolproof". Totally different.

[magellan01]

You introduced the notion of needing foolproof way to identify "bad" Muslims from "good" Muslims with the only other option to be "wary" of all of them.

Yep. Be wary of them all [in the U.S.], as I specifically said in a previous post.

Now you are introducing the aspect of "public policy."

I saw Monty as introducing the aspect of public policy, by insisting on "a foolproof method to cull them out", which, again, I opined in a previous post did not exist. At least, that's the way I took his post, as I don't know how an individual can cull out the bad of a group. Perhaps I should have asked him. He can clarify if he'd like. But I can't imagine he was referring to an individual's actions.


It is clear that if you do not have a similar public policy to propose for being wary of Christians, you are displaying blatant inconsistency on two separate issues.

The two issues are, as you say, are quite separate. For instance, if a small group of people are threat comes from a population that is in the vast majority, then scrutinizing them may not be helpful. But if they belong to a smaller group, where a larger percent of them would be of the dangerous variety, then that can be very helpful. The larger the percent of the group that is dangerous, the more sense it makes to scrutinize the group as a whole. The smaller the percentage, the less sense it makes.

A note to others: I'm not going to enter into another debate about the the sense of profiling a group. Anyone that interested in my thoughts on it can do a search. But the paragraph above is a good summation.

[Monty]

I saw Monty as introducing the aspect of public policy, by insisting on "a foolproof method to cull them out", which, again, I opined in a previous post did not exist. At least, that's the way I took his post, as I don't know how an individual can cull out the bad of a group. Perhaps I should have asked him. He can clarify if he'd like. But I can't imagine he was referring to an individual's actions.

Why don't you petition the mods to change your user name to outrageous weasel? This post of yours is so dishonest, it should be wearing a medal. You advocated treating all members of a group, Muslims, adversely based on what a few members of that group do and I reminded you that there are a few Christians doing evil things.

Here's a reminder for you of your own words:
but until you have a fool-proof way cull the evil-trying-to-kill-us ones from the peaceful ones, it behooves us—or those of us who would like to not be killed or have those we cared for killed—to be wary of the whole lot.

[magellan01]

Why don't you petition the mods to change your user name to weasel? This post of yours is so dishonest, it should be wearing a medal. You advocated treating all members of a group, Muslims, adversely based on what a few members of that group do and I reminded you that there are a few Christians doing evil things.

Did I take your post correctly or not?

For the record, here is my original statement:

The point, friend, is that some Muslims DO want to kill us. (And you'd be closer to the front of that line than I.) [alluding to jayjay's being gay] In fact, of the group of people who can be defined as "wanting to kill Americans", Muslims make up a vast majority.Further refine that group as "those who want to kill us, have killed some of us, and continue to actively try to kill some of us", it's pretty much all Muslim. Now, that does not mean that all Muslims want to kill Americans, but until you have a fool-proof way cull the evil-trying-to-kill-us ones from the peaceful ones, it behooves us—or those of us who would like to not be killed or have those we cared for killed—to be wary of the whole lot.

So, the whole time I've been saying that there is NOT a foolproof method, but you attempted to ascribe that metric to me.

[Isamu]

I should have spoilered the country, shouldn't I?

It wasn't you. Obama spoilered the country by letting all the Muslims in.

[Princhester]

The larger the percent of the group that is dangerous, the more sense it makes to scrutinize the group as a whole.

So just to keep me happy so that we have it on the record, and referring to my post earlier, you do advocate extreme wariness of one's brothers and father, don't you? They being far and away the most dangerous defined group in anyone's life.

So, the whole time I've been saying that there is NOT a foolproof method, but you attempted to ascribe that metric to me.

You have totally lost the thread of yourself. You said that there wasn't a foolproof method of weeding out the bad Muslims so we should be wary of them all. When someone said that on that basis, you should be wary of Christians, you then suggested foolproofness wasn't an appropriate metric. In short, you haven't become any less of a weasel since the last time I was silly enough to debate you.

[Properties of Iron]

Why don't you petition the mods to change your user name to outrageous weasel? This post of yours is so dishonest, it should be wearing a medal. You advocated treating all members of a group, Muslims, adversely based on what a few members of that group do and I reminded you that there are a few Christians doing evil things.

Here's a reminder for you of your own words:

Did you edit your post just to add outrageous? If so, I love you. If not, I only majorly like you for your work in this thread.

[Monty]

Properties of Iron: Yes. I had to change the suggested username as there already is a poster going by weasel. Thanks!

[Gyrate]

The two issues are, as you say, are quite separate. For instance, if a small group of people are threat comes from a population that is in the vast majority, then scrutinizing them may not be helpful. But if they belong to a smaller group, where a larger percent of them would be of the dangerous variety, then that can be very helpful. The larger the percent of the group that is dangerous, the more sense it makes to scrutinize the group as a whole. The smaller the percentage, the less sense it makes.Fair point. So all that remains is for you to show that the percentage of Muslims in the US that is "dangerous" is large enough to be even remotely significant.

I mean, if you're just speaking about some hypothetical group here and not about Muslims specifically, we can safely ignore your entire post as irrelevant twaddle. And if you are talking about Muslims, put up or shut up.

[Der Trihs]

The two issues are, as you say, are quite separate. For instance, if a small group of people are threat comes from a population that is in the vast majority, then scrutinizing them may not be helpful. But if they belong to a smaller group, where a larger percent of them would be of the dangerous variety, then that can be very helpful. Are...you under the impression that Muslims are some tiny fringe group?

One and a half billion people is not exactly a "smaller group".

[Gyrate]

Are...you under the impression that Muslims are some tiny fringe group?

One and a half billion people is not exactly a "smaller group".I think he meant specifically the ones in the US. The Wiki site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States#Demographics)sets that amount at somewhere between 1.3 million and 7 million depending on who's doing the counting.

I'm not sure how many of those have to have links to terrorism in order to be statistically significant enough to justify treating the entire population with suspicion. 200,000? 15,000? 1000? 43?

[Monty]

Gyrate: My suspicion is that it just needs to be one in magellan's rubric. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if the actual number required for him is zero.

[magellan01]

So just to keep me happy so that we have it on the record, and referring to my post earlier, you do advocate extreme wariness of one's brothers and father, don't you? They being far and away the most dangerous defined group in anyone's life.


Well, "extreme" is your word. Other than that BigT addressed this satisfactorily. You seem to think that you've found some oh-so-interesting-trap. You haven't. I don't even where you got this "statistic" from. Assuming it accurate, it might have a little something to do with proximity and the amount of time they spend together. Now, if someone is in a household where the father or brother drinks or has drug problems and can be violent, then it probably makes sense for that person to be more concerned about a family member killing him than a random Muslim. But the threat that I have from my brother and father is zero. So, given that, do I have your permission to assess threats from others? Both individuals and groups? Do I have you permission to view the dirtbags who inhabit the Tenderloin here in SF as possible threats? As more of a threat than those who live in Sausalito where I ride my bike through? Do I have your permission to view a gangs as more of a threat than the guys I hoop with at the health club?

You have totally lost the thread of yourself. You said that there wasn't a foolproof method of weeding out the bad Muslims so we should be wary of them all.


I do wish their was a foolproof method for determining the good from the hateful and murderous. But since their isn't, I'm forced to be wary of the whole lot.

When someone said that on that basis, you should be wary of Christians, you then suggested foolproofness wasn't an appropriate metric. In short, you haven't become any less of a weasel since the last time I was silly enough to debate you.

And you no less of an ass. That aside, I see no reason to be wary of Christians, especially not due to their Christianity. Even if more crimes are committed by them in the U.S. Now, if numerous Christians start making statements about how in the name of Christianity they think they need to eradicate a group of which I am a member from the face of the U.S., and then have some success by killing thousands at a time and killing others of said group indiscriminately with guns and bombs, then I may find the need to become wary of them. But as it is, no, there is no need.

Of course one thing you seem to not get is that in the world of threats, as they exist, we actually want threats that we can define to as small a group as possible. Those are the ones we can better protect ourselves against. It would be great if serial murderous were all albinos over 6'6", wouldn't it? As opposed to "that average non-descript guy walking down the street". Or if they all were Boy Scouts + asthmatic + left-handed + one blue and one green eye. But they're not, so there's not much we can do to protect ourselves from serial murderers. Or pedophiles. Or rapists. But we do pay attention to the pedophile or rapist after he's caught and served his time. I'm sure that the rate of recidivism is not 100%, yet we treat it like it is. The point is that threats fall along a spectrum. On one end you have highly identifiable threats, like pedophiles and members of Mara Salvatrucha. On the other you have a 5'11" white Christian who just might wind up raping or abusing a child or, as you point out, killing his son or brother. We can anticipate the danger lurking in the first group much better then the latter. So, it makes sense that we would be more wary of them.

In the U.S., Muslims fall somewhere in the middle. They might not reach your threshold for wariness, but after the murder of 3,000 people on 9/11, the scumbag shooter at Fort Hood, the other Muslim soldier that killed his comrades at the beginning of the Iraq War, the nitwit would-be murderer who tried to blow up Times Square, the scores of arrests of radical Islamists here in the U.S., not to mention the percent of Muslims in the Arab world who (to paraphrase the findings that have been cited on these boards numerous times) believe that violence and killing in the name of Islam is appropriate, my threshold for wariness has been reached. I think you're a fool to think Islam is as benign as Unitarianism, or Christianity. We know that there is a radical arm that has both the desire and the means to do us great harm. I want 9/11 to remain the worst attack to happen to the U.S. Not have it dwarfed by your Kumbaya pollyannish naivete.

I hope that helps.

[Kyla]

I want 9/11 to remain the worst attack to happen to the U.S. Not have it dwarfed by your Kumbaya pollyannish naivete.

I hope that helps.

What measures are you actually suggesting be enacted?

[Zeriel]

And you no less of an ass. That aside, I see no reason to be wary of Christians, especially not due to their Christianity. Even if more crimes are committed by them in the U.S. Now, if numerous Christians start making statements about how in the name of Christianity they think they need to eradicate a group of which I am a member from the face of the U.S., and then have some success by killing thousands at a time and killing others of said group indiscriminately with guns and bombs, then I may find the need to become wary of them. But as it is, no, there is no need.

So in other words, since I'm an abortion rights supporter, in your world I'm totally justified in being wary of all Christians.

Great job. I really appreciate it.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I want 9/11 to remain the worst attack to happen to the U.S. Not have it dwarfed by your Kumbaya pollyannish naivete.
Alright, Pinky, but how are we going to undo Pearl Harbor?

[magellan01]

Fair point. So all that remains is for you to show that the percentage of Muslims in the US that is "dangerous" is large enough to be even remotely significant.

I mean, if you're just speaking about some hypothetical group here and not about Muslims specifically, we can safely ignore your entire post as irrelevant twaddle. And if you are talking about Muslims, put up or shut up.

How about this...how about we look at just those instances that have actually happened, leaving The Cole and the embassies abroad out of it:

the 1993 WTC bombing—6 killed, 1,042 injured
9/11—2,976 killed, 6291+ injured (not to mention financial toll and the scar on the city and the nation)
the Fort Hood shooting—13 dead, 30 wounded
Sgt. Asan Akbar throws hand grenades into tent and opens fire—2 dead, 14 wounded
the Times Square bomber
the numerous arrests made in the U.S. of those planning similar attacks.

Now, as large as those numbers are, the important thing is that they were not unrelated acts. They all come from the same place: radical Islam and it's desire to see Americans dead.

It seems that you look at that and shrug your shoulders. If so, I ask: if there was another attack, would that change your view? Five more attacks? Ten? Fifty? Is their any number of attacks/attempts that would cause you to say, "What the fuck is it with Islam? Enough already!!!"? What's the number? Or is their no number for you. And you'll go on thinking Islam is as peaceful a religion ("is", not "can be") as Quakerism, or (shudder) Christianity until you happen to be in something they blow up?

[magellan01]

So in other words, since I'm an abortion rights supporter, in your world I'm totally justified in being wary of all Christians.

Great job. I really appreciate it.

I'm Pro Choice myself. But if you think that the percent of Christians that wish to do you physical harm is proportionate to the percent of Muslims in the U.S. who wish to do you harm, then yes, you should be just as wary of Christians. But I do not think that to be near the case.

[magellan01]

So in other words, since I'm an abortion rights supporter, in your world I'm totally justified in being wary of all Christians.

Great job. I really appreciate it.

To be honest, I don't really know. and now that women have been involved, it gets harder. Possibly to the point that not much can be done. But I will say, that if I were in charge of National Security I'd do whatever I had to to know what is going on in particular Mosques.

But the only point I've been making in this thread is that I think that Muslims merit some degree of scrutiny or wariness. Eighty-year-old Norwegian ladies, not so much.

[magellan01]

Alright, Pinky, but how are we going to undo Pearl Harbor?

I was going to fix that, but a a radical Islamist blew up my time machine.

[Princhester]

Now, if someone is in a household where the father or brother drinks or has drug problems and can be violent, then it probably makes sense for that person to be more concerned about a family member killing him than a random Muslim.

So now we want to get into assessment of specific threats. Your interest in doing so seems to be very sporadically applied.

That aside, I see no reason to be wary of Christians, especially not due to their Christianity.

Until someone pointed out that the anti-abortion Christians have threatened violence against people like you and then you needed to think about it some more.

You just have the usual human inability to judge risk levels well, with the common underassessment of risks from the familiar and overassessment of risks from the unfamiliar.

[magellan01]

So now we want to get into assessment of specific threats. Your interest in doing so seems to be very sporadically applied.

You assess the specific ones when you can, like when you know the people, live with them. When you don't have the benefit of that, it's reasonable to see if the group they belong to offers a common denominator of sorts.

Until someone pointed out that the anti-abortion Christians have threatened violence against people like you and then you needed to think about it some more.

Huh?

You just have the usual human inability to judge risk levels well, with the common underassessment of risks from the familiar and overassessment of risks from the unfamiliar.

So you say... But you are entitled to your opinion, dangerous as it may be.

[wmfellows]

Y But you are entitled to your opinion, dangerous as it may be.

Coming from a place with no small nor limited experience in religiously tied terrorism that on for decades, it is your approach that is dangerous. Mistaking the threat as "Muslims" rather than "radicals" is precisely like the fools who saw the IRA threat as "Irish Catholics" rather than "IRA radicals and hangers on" and the more general the suspicion and prejudice against Irish Catholics, rather than targeted work, the more we generated sympathisers for those radicals.

You are, in short, a fool blind to history.

[Gyrate]

Now, as large as those numbers are, the important thing is that they were not unrelated acts. They all come from the same place: radical Islam and it's desire to see Americans dead.

It seems that you look at that and shrug your shoulders. If so, I ask: if there was another attack, would that change your view? Five more attacks? Ten? Fifty? Is their any number of attacks/attempts that would cause you to say, "What the fuck is it with Islam? Enough already!!!"? What's the number? Or is their no number for you. And you'll go on thinking Islam is as peaceful a religion ("is", not "can be") as Quakerism, or (shudder) Christianity until you happen to be in something they blow up?You continue to misread. I never said that no Muslims were a threat. There is a real threat from radical Islam. There's even a larger-than-average threat to me personally. I mentioned it in my OP. You ignored it, so I pointed it out to you again. It is not "shrugging my shoulders" to point out that the fact that a tiny minority (and it is indeed a tiny minority) of Muslims commit heinous acts does not justify the persecution and harassment of millions of innocent ones.

How many Catholic abuse cases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases) does it take to make you say "What the fuck is it with Catholicism? Enough already!!!" Is 5% of Catholic priests a big enough group to start locking them all up?

How (http://mojoey.blogspot.com/2010/06/youth-pastor-efrain-caban-arrested.html) many (http://www.ketv.com/news/22596266/detail.html) Protestant (http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Youth-pastor--92780884.html) youth (http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/49746512.html) minister (http://proudatheists.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/virginia-youth-pastor-sentenced-to-17-years-for-sexual-abuse/) abuse (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1N1-10219CA8A2D27688.html) cases (http://www.cephas-library.com/baptists_youth_pastor_illicit_sex.html) does (http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=12166) it (http://wjz.com/local/child.porn.baltimore.2.1233253.html) take (http://gazettextra.com/news/2008/aug/28/former-walworth-county-youth-pastor-denies-sexual-/) before (http://christianchildabuse.blogspot.com/2010/05/youth-pastor-charged-with-sex-assault.html) we (http://www.14wfie.com/global/story.asp?s=10962881) can (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/319662_pastor14.html) start (http://www.allbusiness.com/society-social/religion-spirituality-religion/14432161-1.html) tarring (http://www.pinewswire.net/2010/06/youth-pastor-accused-of-sexting-teen-boy/) them (http://vodpod.com/watch/3322512-mother-youth-pastor-raped-my-daughter) all (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/baker_city_youth_pastor_accuse.html) with (http://www.waaytv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9164923) the (http://www.fetidfruit.com/2010/03/methodist-pastor-sentenced-for-sexual.html) same (http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/4852/53/) brush (http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/1999/august9/9t9021.html)? Will you now object to the portrayal of Christianity as a loving, kind religion that cares for children? Should we shut down every church school and youth ministry?

Hell, let's act suspicious around all Irish guys (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/7864018/Real-IRA-commander-caught-in-MI5-arms-dealing-sting.html) - they keep blowing people up. I mean sure, it's only a few radicals and there are millions of others who live peaceful lives and even openly deplore the violence but hey - we can't really be sure which ones they are (those alcoholic white guys all look alike anyway) so we'd better declare the whole lot to be potential terrorists and act accordingly, just in case. (You remember the IRA, right - they're the terrorists Americans happily funded for decades.)

What you seem to be missing in this entire thread is that it's not about the Muslims at all. It's about you, and us, and how we react to these attacks. If you happen to think that the proper reaction is to start restricting freedoms then you and your ilk are far more dangerous to America than they are, because it takes a hell of a lot longer to kill 300 million people in terrorist attacks than it does for a few well-meaning pussies to tear up the Constitution.

But if you want to hide under your bed don't let me stop you. Don't forget to take your blankie with you.

[jjimm]

You are, in short, a fool blind to history.Beautifully put.

magellan01, you're also blind to the current experiences of all the people in this thread and on this board who actually do know Muslims - or indeed are Muslims - who realise that, hey, they may have rules to life that I don't approve of, but in the vast, vast majority, they're just people wanting to get by.

You're indulging in and encouraging the same prejudices that creates things like internment.

Radical Islam is a real problem, but it's minute compared to the risk you run of being killed by a white American. By your logic, therefore...

magellan01, you are a mouse, rotting within your ignorance, and displaying your cowardice for all to see.

[Gyrate]

Ewwwww....rotting mouse...

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Coming from a place with no small nor limited experience in religiously tied terrorism that on for decades, it is your approach that is dangerous. Mistaking the threat as "Muslims" rather than "radicals" is precisely like the fools who saw the IRA threat as "Irish Catholics" rather than "IRA radicals and hangers on" and the more general the suspicion and prejudice against Irish Catholics, rather than targeted work, the more we generated sympathisers for those radicals.

You are, in short, a fool blind to history.

Well said. Thank you for this post.

[Bridget Burke]

Ewwwww....rotting mouse...

Add in Valteron & Perciful (& the "blindness" cited in wmfellows' excellent post) and we've got Three Blind Rotting Mice!

(See how they run.)

[Kobal2]

Beautifully put.

magellan01, you're also blind to the current experiences of all the people in this thread and on this board who actually do know Muslims - or indeed are Muslims.

Well, can't trust those. Shifty Muslims dopers, terrorists all. Coaxing the open-eyed, vigilant defenders of Freedom into a false sense of security. We're up to their tricks.

[Doughbag]

...........and it's desire to see Americans dead.


You make this look like a bad thing..... :)

Don't the Americans love to be hated, because everyone else is just jealous about them being the so called "God blessed Country"?

[magellan01]

HA! You guys crack me up, the lot of you. Let's see....

Okay, let me ask you all, what is it—specifically—that I've proposed that we do that is so irrational? So awful?

[Monty]

Becoming bigots like you is rational? Who knew?

[magellan01]

Becoming bigots like you is rational? Who knew?

Okay, that's one non-answer. Anyone else?

[Der Trihs]

Now, as large as those numbers are, the important thing is that they were not unrelated acts. They all come from the same place: radical Islam and it's desire to see Americans dead.

It seems that you look at that and shrug your shoulders. If so, I ask: if there was another attack, would that change your view? Five more attacks? Ten? Fifty? Is their any number of attacks/attempts that would cause you to say, "What the fuck is it with Islam? Enough already!!!"? What's the number? Or is their no number for you. And you'll go on thinking Islam is as peaceful a religion ("is", not "can be") as Quakerism, or (shudder) Christianity until you happen to be in something they blow up?The difference here between fanatic Islam and fanatic Christianity is that the followers of Christianity have more powerful militaries, and when they want to attack an Islamic nation they send in the bombers and the missiles and the troops, and kill people by the tens or hundreds of thousands, instead of a thousand or so. Christianity and Islam are both barbaric by nature, and there's less to choose between the two of them than the proponents of either like to think.

Okay, let me ask you all, what is it—specifically—that I've proposed that we do that is so irrational? So awful?Your attempt to pretend that there's something especially evil about Islam compared to Christianity. And your attempt to pretend that narrowing your suspect pool for terrorism down to a billion and a half people is actually useful. And your assumption that even if you do focus on Islamic people, that Islamic terrorists won't just find or fake non-Islamic identities or proxies to do the dirty work, while dangerous non-Islamic people will waltz on through your religious filter. And the fact that the primary effect of your idea would be to harass Islamic people who aren't terrorists. And so on.

[yojimbo]

Okay, let me ask you all, what is it—specifically—that I've proposed that we do that is so irrational? So awful?

You have specifically proposed nothing in this thread. Just a general statement that you and others should be wary of Muslims. The point, friend, is that some Muslims DO want to kill us. (And you'd be closer to the front of that line than I.) In fact, of the group of people who can be defined as "wanting to kill Americans", Muslims make up a vast majority.Further refine that group as "those who want to kill us, have killed some of us, and continue to actively try to kill some of us", it's pretty much all Muslim. Now, that does not mean that all Muslims want to kill Americans, but until you have a fool-proof way cull the evil-trying-to-kill-us ones from the peaceful ones, it behooves us—or those of us who would like to not be killed or have those we cared for killed—to be wary of the whole lot.

Got it now, friend?

So let's get down to brass tacks. This origin of this thread is about the Mosque in NY and people having problems with it.

What's your stance on it?

[Gyrate]

You have specifically proposed nothing in this thread. Just a general statement that you and others should be wary of Muslims.Which is in itself irrational for reasons stated multiple times.

Christianity and Islam are both barbaric by nature, and there's less to choose between the two of them than the proponents of either like to think.People are barbaric by nature. What I'm objecting to here is people answering barbarity with more barbarity.

"Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear." - Bertrand Russell

[Leaffan]

Well, on the plus side Perciful (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/search.php?searchid=5455411) hasn't been back since.

I miss the entertainment.

[magellan01]

Christianity and Islam are both barbaric by nature, and there's less to choose between the two of them than the proponents of either like to think.

Nope. If you want to compare Islam today with Christianity five or six hundred years ago, you'd have more of a point. But as you state it, you have none.

Your attempt to pretend that there's something especially evil about Islam compared to Christianity.

Correction: something potentially evil. I'm not of the belief that adherents to the religion must necessarily act in a hateful barbaric manner. It does not necessitate you hate others. That you kill innocent people, including children. That you practice strains of sharia law that are barbaric on a scale going back a few thousand years. But many who call themselves Muslims choose a belief set that allows/requires that they do these things. That places the religion itself in the spotlight.

And your assumption that even if you do focus on Islamic people, that Islamic terrorists won't just find or fake non-Islamic identities or proxies to do the dirty work, while dangerous non-Islamic people will waltz on through your religious filter.

I've stated that even the use of women to carry out their mayhem makes things considerably harder. Using proxies does so, as well.

And the fact that the primary effect of your idea would be to harass Islamic people who aren't terrorists. And so on.

Specifics, please.

[Shot From Guns]

Okay, let me ask you all, what is it—specifically—that I've proposed that we do that is so irrational? So awful?

You're proposing that we treat an entire varied widely defined class of people as dangerous (potentially infringing on their rights as citizens and/or human beings--no one's sure, since you refuse to say what you actually want to do) because of the actions of a tiny percentage of that group. Actions that are, you know, actively and explicitly rejected by a lot of others within that group.

You are literally making me sick to my stomach. Not figuratively-literally. Actually sick. I sit here, and I read what you write, and my gorge rises and my vision starts getting blurry. That is how fucking disgusting you are.

I'm not of the belief that adherents to the religion must necessarily act in a hateful barbaric manner. It does not necessitate you hate others. That you kill innocent people, including children. That you practice strains of sharia law that are barbaric on a scale going back a few thousand years. But many who call themselves Muslims choose a belief set that allows/requires that they do these things. That places the religion itself in the spotlight.

Soooo... What's your point, exactly? Being a Christian doesn't require that you drag gay men to death behind your truck or refuse medical treatment to your dying child because Jesus will save her instead. But some Christians choose to do these things.

[magellan01]

You have specifically proposed nothing in this thread. Just a general statement that you and others should be wary of Muslims.

We have a winner! Thank you. See what happens, folks, when you read the words on the page and not listen to the voices in your head.

So let's get down to brass tacks. This origin of this thread is about the Mosque in NY and people having problems with it.

What's your stance on it?

I'm not sure. I struggle with this one. On the one hand, I see how it can be viewed as a slap in the face to the people who died there and their loved ones. On the other, I see how this mosque, due in part to the microscope it would be under, could be a great model for Islam in the U.S. And since Islam isn't going away anytime soon, that could be a very valuable thing. One of the things that has been working against Islam is that those who which to hijack and contort the religion have been allowed, in large part, to enjoy the protection of the more benign adherents to the religion. The thing that will help Islam the most, is an intolerance for radicalism from within.

I guess in the end I might come out on the side of not allowing it because it may be too hot an issue and may cause more of problem than a solution, more o a rift than a bridge. But having typed that, I lament missing out on the potential benefit oh having it built. Like I said, I'm torn.

Okay, here's what I think I would do. I'd try mightily to have it built, but only do so when I've convinced a majority of those families torn apart by 9/11.

[Bridget Burke]

HA! You guys crack me up, the lot of you. Let's see....

Okay, let me ask you all, what is it—specifically—that I've proposed that we do that is so irrational? So awful?

It's just your general attitude on this subject that most of us find hateful & small minded. This thread was started to berate Valteron & Perciful, who might be even more insane than you on this particular subject. (Although that's hard to believe.) However, you are more of an equal-opportunity bigot, less fixated on reliving the Crusades.

You are probably not proposing to do anything at all. You will just continue to sit at your little PC & continue to spew hatred.

[Der Trihs]

Nope. If you want to compare Islam today with Christianity five or six hundred years ago, you'd have more of a point. But as you state it, you have none.Of course I do; you just want to pretend that Christianity is admirable, while claiming that Islam is barbaric. Both are irrational, destructive forces like all religions; Islam just has more influence, more freedom to act. This country is full of tens of millions of Christians who would tyrannize and torture and enslave in the name of Christ if they could get away with it; or just torch the planet with nukes in order to bring on the Second Coming. The government of the US won't let such Christians have free reign in their own country, but that doesn't make them less barbaric than their Islamic counterparts who do have free reign.

So no, Islam is not worse than Christianity at all.

Specifics, please.:rolleyes: The vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists. Therefore - obviously - treating Muslims as a whole badly in the name of fighting terrorism means that you are overwhelmingly harming non-terrorists.

[magellan01]

It's just your general attitude on this subject that most of us find hateful & small minded. This thread was started to berate Valteron & Perciful, who might be even more insane than you on this particular subject. (Although that's hard to believe.) However, you are more of an equal-opportunity bigot, less fixated on reliving the Crusades.

You are probably not proposing to do anything at all. You will just continue to sit at your little PC & continue to spew hatred.

Ohhh, I'm guilty of a thought crime. Thanks. I knew it must be something.


And you may want to look up the word "hate". "Insane", too. It doesn't mean "does not agree with you". :rolleyes:

[magellan01]

Of course I do; you just want to pretend that Christianity is admirable, while claiming that Islam is barbaric. Both are irrational, destructive forces like all religions; Islam just has more influence, more freedom to act. This country is full of tens of millions of Christians who would tyrannize and torture and enslave in the name of Christ if they could get away with it; or just torch the planet with nukes in order to bring on the Second Coming. The government of the US won't let such Christians have free reign in their own country, but that doesn't make them less barbaric than their Islamic counterparts who do have free reign.

So no, Islam is not worse than Christianity at all.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Christianity is evil, blah, blah, blah. Do me a favor, take your Thorazine before posting, would ya. It's shit like this that makes people view you as not grounded in reality. And just so you know, I don't practice any religion.

:rolleyes: The vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists. Therefore - obviously - treating Muslims as a whole badly in the name of fighting terrorism means that you are overwhelmingly harming non-terrorists.

What is this supposed to mean: "treating Muslims as a whole badly"? I asked for specifics. I know you saw that, because you quoted my "Specifics, please.".

[Roland Orzabal]

So just to be clear, you're currently defending the point that you originally had no point at all, and what semblance of one you did have was deliberately vague enough to render it impossible to extract any specifics as to what the hell you were talking about, hence your confidence in others' inability to meet your own demands to tell you what that might've been.

Do I have that right?

[Smeghead]

Do I have that right?

Maybe...

[Gyrate]

We have a winner! Thank you. See what happens, folks, when you read the words on the page and not listen to the voices in your head. Says the man who continues to ignore the point of the thread. One of the things that has been working against Islam is that those who which to hijack and contort the religion have been allowed, in large part, to enjoy the protection of the more benign adherents to the religion. The thing that will help Islam the most, is an intolerance for radicalism from within. Strangely, this is the exact same thing many of us keep saying about the Republican Party.I guess in the end I might come out on the side of not allowing it because it may be too hot an issue and may cause more of problem than a solution, more o a rift than a bridge. But having typed that, I lament missing out on the potential benefit oh having it built. Like I said, I'm torn.You're reluctant to come out in favor of the mosque because there might be some vague undefined problem? Bold. Okay, here's what I think I would do. I'd try mightily to have it built, but only do so when I've convinced a majority of those families torn apart by 9/11.With all due respect to those families, what difference does it make to them? The people building the cultural center/mosque are different people of a different ideological ilk to those who committed the 9/11 attacks. The building is not on Ground Zero. They have not condoned the attacks. Please stop trying to suggest that they are somehow connected.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Christianity is evil, blah, blah, blah.Much as it makes me grit my teeth to agree with Der Trihs, one can certainly come up with many modern examples of people who do nasty things under the banner of Christianity (indeed, I already did above) and a substantial number more (although "tens of millions" is hopefully hyperbolic) who claim that they would, given the opportunity. It's hardly a controversial statement to point out that people do nasty shit in the name of religion all the time, especially when money and politics are also involved. You are too eager to show the worst of Islam while handwaving away the worst of other religions.

[magellan01]

So just to be clear, you're currently defending the point that you originally had no point at all, and what semblance of one you did have was deliberately vague enough to render it impossible to extract any specifics as to what the hell you were talking about, hence your confidence in others' inability to meet your own demands to tell you what that might've been.

Do I have that right?

Not quite. My point is that radical Islam poses a threat to us. And since we cannot simply point to those Muslims that are murderous barbarians, or support murderous barbarians, it behooves us to be wary of all Muslims. Pretty straightforward position.

I said I'm not sure how this mindset would manifest itself in any public policy. I would l=eave those specifics to those who are experts in their fields. But the general proposition that a 26-year-old Muslim male warrants a greater degree of scrutiny than an 80-year-old Norwegian Lutheran woman is unassailable. Now, if over the next few years radical Islamists are able to use 80-year-old Norwegian Lutheran women as proxies in their murderous barbarism, then thinking would have to change. But until then, I'll go with the Muslim guy being the greater threat.

[Angua]

Not quite. My point is that radical Islam poses a threat to us. And since we cannot simply point to those Muslims that are murderous barbarians, or support murderous barbarians, it behooves us to be wary of all Muslims. Pretty straightforward position.

I said I'm not sure how this mindset would manifest itself in any public policy. I would l=eave those specifics to those who are experts in their fields. But the general proposition that a 26-year-old Muslim male warrants a greater degree of scrutiny than an 80-year-old Norwegian Lutheran woman is unassailable. Now, if over the next few years radical Islamists are able to use 80-year-old Norwegian Lutheran women as proxies in their murderous barbarism, then thinking would have to change. But until then, I'll go with the Muslim guy being the greater threat.

Yes, but its not just the 20-something year old Muslim guy who gets it. Its all Muslims. And not just Muslims, but Sikhs, Hindus, and Christians from the Indian sub-continent. Basically if you look "brown" and don't speak Spanish or if you look remotely Middle Eastern, male or female, you get the prejudice, the bigoted looks, the automatic assumption that you're a threat, and yes, the racism. Explain to me how that is right. Explain to me why I should be treated that way.

Its not too dissimilar to the way black males get treated by people, and indeed, a very close friend of mine made this observation: "So at airports, you're the threat and not me for a change?". And the answer is "yes". Especially if I dress in any way that may indicate that I'm "covering" myself -- long skirt? You're being patted down, ma'am as you're obviously a threat. :rolleyes:

ETA: What you're advocating is State-sponsored and organized widespread racism. I thought we'd done away with that. Not every brown non-Spanish speaking male is Muslim, not every Muslim looks brown, not every man who is obviously Muslim is a threat and Muslim men who don't look "Muslim" are sometimes a threat. How do you propose to deal with that without State-sponsored racism?

[Gyrate]

What is this supposed to mean: "treating Muslims as a whole badly"? I asked for specifics. I know you saw that, because you quoted my "Specifics, please."Basically if you look "brown" and don't speak Spanish or if you look remotely Middle Eastern, male or female, you get the prejudice, the bigoted looks, the automatic assumption that you're a threat, and yes, the racism. Explain to me how that is right. Explain to me why I should be treated that way.Specific enough?

[magellan01]

Says the man who continues to ignore the point of the thread.

Oh, heavens! A thread where not every single point in every post was directly speaking to the OP. I think you should report this immediately!!! :rolleyes:

Strangely, this is the exact same thing many of us keep saying about the Republican Party.

Sorry, I can't entertain this point, as it is not directly related to the OP.

You're reluctant to come out in favor of the mosque because there might be some vague undefined problem? Bold.

Newsflash: just because a problem may be difficult to define doesn't mean that it is not real. And sometimes "bold" is the way to go, sometimes not. Now, my guess is that you agree with that statement, but you are just looking for ways to disparage me. Transparent, therefore weak.

With all due respect to those families, what difference does it make to them? The people building the cultural center/mosque are different people of a different ideological ilk to those who committed the 9/11 attacks. The building is not on Ground Zero. They have not condoned the attacks. Please stop trying to suggest that they are somehow connected.

I did not say that the building is on Ground Zero. Why? Because it's not. I have not claimed that the people wanting to build it have condoned the attack. In fact, they have done the opposite. Yet you attempt to saddle me with this nonsense. Why? Because you're desperate. You want my position to be irrational and rooted in ignorance, but when you can't find it in my actual words, you make them up. I do wish you'd try to debate in a more honest fashion.

Now, you want bold? Here's some bold: if you think that the building of this mosque and 9/11 are unrelated events, that they are not "somehow connected", you are a complete and utter imbecile. And not dealing in reality.

Much as it makes me grit my teeth to agree with Der Trihs, one can certainly come up with many modern examples of people who do nasty things under the banner of Christianity (indeed, I already did above) and a substantial number more (although "tens of millions" is hopefully hyperbolic) who claim that they would, given the opportunity. It's hardly a controversial statement to point out that people do nasty shit in the name of religion all the time, especially when money and politics are also involved. You are too eager to show the worst of Islam while handwaving away the worst of other religions.

Nope. Christians don't strap bombs onto themselves and blow up innocent people in a market. They don't fill a truck with explosives and drive it into a grammar school and kill innocent kids. They don't hijack planes and fly them into buildings, attempting to kill tens of thousands of innocent people. They don't bury women guilty of adultery up to their necks and stone them to death. They don't try to adhere to a set of barbaric laws that were barbaric even at their inception. So, no. Radical Islam is not close to "radical Christianity". That's not just wrongheaded, it's Der Trihs level insane.

[magellan01]

Specific enough?

Actually, no. I missed your cite of the things I said should be done. Here is what I asked for:

Okay, let me ask you all, what is it—specifically—that I've proposed that we do that is so irrational? So awful?

[Angua]

O
Nope. Christians don't strap bombs onto themselves and blow up innocent people in a market. They don't fill a truck with explosives and drive it into a grammar school and kill innocent kids. They don't hijack planes and fly them into buildings, attempting to kill tens of thousands of innocent people. They don't bury women guilty of adultery up to their necks and stone them to death. They don't try to adhere to a set of barbaric laws that were barbaric even at their inception. So, no. Radical Islam is not close to "radical Christianity". That's not just wrongheaded, it's Der Trihs level insane.

NEWSFLASH: Not all Muslims do that either. Not even all the fundamentalists.

[magellan01]

NEWSFLASH: Not all Muslims do that either. Not even all the fundamentalists.

:rolleyes: I didn't say they did, now did I? The said that Christians do NOT do those things.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Nope. Christians don't strap bombs onto themselves and blow up innocent people in a market. They don't fill a truck with explosives and drive it into a grammar school and kill innocent kids. They don't hijack planes and fly them into buildings, attempting to kill tens of thousands of innocent people. They don't bury women guilty of adultery up to their necks and stone them to death. They don't try to adhere to a set of barbaric laws that were barbaric even at their inception. So, no. Radical Islam is not close to "radical Christianity". That's not just wrongheaded, it's Der Trihs level insane.

Keeping in mind that I generally like the Christians I know, some of them are pretty fucking scary, so I don't trust any of them. Like:

The Irish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles)

Most abortion doctor murderers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Murders) are Christian. I note that James Kopp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Charles_Kopp) is a 'Lamb of Christ', and a white christian male.

And the very Christian state of Utah -unless you don't think Mormons get to be Christians - has some serious adherence to Barbaric laws (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/Death+convict+meets+firing+squad/3174546/story.html).

Can't trust 'em, can't tell 'em apart.

[Angua]

:rolleyes: I didn't say they did, now did I? The said that Christians do NOT do those things.

And by implication? :rolleyes:

Your suggestion that all Muslims are worthy of extra scrutiny because of an incredibly small minority is laughable. You can't tell just by looking at someone what their religion is, or that they're at the nutjob level of blowing stuff up. So how do you propose to give Muslims extra scrutiny? Go on their names? Their looks? The former is unreliable, the latter is racism.

[Revenant Threshold]

You assess the specific ones when you can, like when you know the people, live with them. When you don't have the benefit of that, it's reasonable to see if the group they belong to offers a common denominator of sorts. I think this is the issue that seemingly gives you a double standard. So far as I can tell, you don't appear to consider there is any ability to "assess the specific ones" when it comes to Muslims, or, that the ability to do so is not foolproof enough for you to be confident in it. Family members (if the point is accurate) are more likely to harm you in some way than Muslims, but you can seperate out issues that mean you don't have to be suspicious of all your family members. So far as I can tell, you seem to entertain no factors among Muslims that allow you to differentiate; as you say, you "cannot simply point to those Muslims that are murderous barbarians, or support murderous barbarians, it behooves us to be wary of all Muslims" (which seems wrong, since you know, I can point to Angua, for one, but anyway).

My question to you essentially is, why is it that you feel comfortable differentiating in some instances but not others? Why is that there is zero method of differentiating Muslims that you find acceptable, but apparently methods of differentiating other groups which are perfectly normal and rational?

[Doughbag]

Ah, kill'em all.... whack away..... drop the bomb..... whack-a-do-do-do

Let God and every other Almighty sort out the bad from the good ones..... bang bang

[Really Not All That Bright]

Christians don't strap bombs onto themselves and blow up innocent people in a market. They don't fill a truck with explosives and drive it into a grammar school and kill innocent kids.
No, just federal buildings with daycare centers in them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing).

[Zeriel]

Now, you want bold? Here's some bold: if you think that the building of this mosque and 9/11 are unrelated events, that they are not "somehow connected", you are a complete and utter imbecile. And not dealing in reality.

Okay, so in your world, a church that has been in a location in some form or another, since (IIRC) 1983 decides to buy a nearby building, and it's CLEARLY related to something that happened in 2001? Who's the imbecile here?

[Leaffan]

No, just federal buildings with daycare centers in them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing).

Perhaps he's never heard of the IRA either. Not that the British Army didn't also have their moments of stupidity in Northern Ireland.

[Zeriel]

No, just federal buildings with daycare centers in them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing).

Or crowded downtown districts. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing) Ironically, given manhattan's comment, detonated on Market Street.

Perhaps he's never heard of the IRA either. Not that the British Army didn't also have their moments of stupidity in Northern Ireland.

You say "moments of stupidity", I say state-sponsored anti-Catholic terrorism just as bad as the anti-Protestant terrorism from the IRA etc.

[Leaffan]

....You say "moments of stupidity", I say state-sponsored anti-Catholic terrorism just as bad as the anti-Protestant terrorism from the IRA etc.

Agreed.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Y'know, my mother-in-law is White, Catholic, Irish, and a close relative of mine. Based on the logic in this thread, statistically I'm probably already dead.

[Bridget Burke]

Ohhh, I'm guilty of a thought crime. Thanks. I knew it must be something.


And you may want to look up the word "hate". "Insane", too. It doesn't mean "does not agree with you". :rolleyes:

No, you're guilty of being unpleasant. Your crap is boring & obvious. You keep repeating it over & over, in hopes that it will make sense. It does not.

Perciful is a more obvious loon--read any of her stuff. Valteron may have had a fine mind at one time, but he's succumbed to monomania. You might merely be stupid. Not being a professional in the mental health field, I cannot provide more precise diagnoses.

Your posts "do not agree with me" in the same way that a pile of steaming dog poo offends me. Many of the other folks who post opinions that do not match mine manage not to nauseate me.

[Zeriel]

Y'know, my mother-in-law is White, Catholic, Irish, and a close relative of mine. Based on the logic in this thread, statistically I'm probably already dead.

Yeah, that's about the size of it. Sorry.

I'll send flowers.

[Kobal2]

Not quite. My point is that radical Islam poses a threat to us. And since we cannot simply point to those Muslims that are murderous barbarians, or support murderous barbarians, it behooves us to be wary of all Muslims. Pretty straightforward position.

And by that you of course mean nothing in specific. Just general behooving. Vague wariness not transcribing into any viewpoint or measure whatsoever. You wouldn't even dare implying anything of the sort, and you're rightfully offended anyone could ascribe such hateful thoughts to you !

Nope, you just leave the definition and specifics of your ascribed wariness to people who, you know, are professional wariers. Those guys know what they're doing and... well, when all is said and done, they can take the flak one gets for actually warying.

God, even your arguing style is cowardly.

[Shot From Guns]

Still waiting to hear how you're going to identify these scary, scary Muslims you need to be so careful of. I mean, are you going to count on self-identification? Because the ones who're trying to kill you probably won't be too overt about it.

[Angua]

Still waiting to hear how you're going to identify these scary, scary Muslims you need to be so careful of. I mean, are you going to count on self-identification? Because the ones who're trying to kill you probably won't be too overt about it.

Its easy. They just have to look Muslim.

[Tom Scud]

Still waiting to hear how you're going to identify these scary, scary Muslims you need to be so careful of. I mean, are you going to count on self-identification? Because the ones who're trying to kill you probably won't be too overt about it.

Don't ask him to worry his beautiful mind with such details. If a security expert says that they need to be rounded up into camps and exterminated, he'll be just fine with that, as he has indicated above.

[Shot From Guns]

Its easy. They just have to look Muslim.

Shit, the last time he was here, my boyfriend and I went to one of the Indian places down the block from my apartment, and I think he ordered something with goat, which is noted in the menu as being halal. That's probably enough that I should dump him in case he's a crypto-Muslim.

[Angua]

Shit, the last time he was here, my boyfriend and I went to one of the Indian places down the block from my apartment, and I think he ordered something with goat, which is noted in the menu as being halal. That's probably enough that I should dump him in case he's a crypto-Muslim.

Oh definitely. He's obviously a crypto-Muslim, or he's in denial. Dump his ass before he declares jihad on you and your blatantly immoral ways and kills you.

[Shot From Guns]

Right now, I'm really wishing we smoked pot so I'd have a good opening for a joke about getting stoned this weekend.

[Kobal2]

Oh definitely. He's obviously a crypto-Muslim, or he's in denial. Dump his ass before he declares jihad on you and your blatantly immoral ways and kills you.

After sewing your crotch up. Muslims do that, dontchernow.

[Angua]

After sewing your crotch up. Muslims do that, dontchernow.

Oh but first he'll force her into a burqa and niqab.

[Kobal2]

Oh but first he'll force her into a burqa and niqab.

Order in all things : first, the stoning while buried up to your neck. Then the genital sewing. Then and only then, the burqa. If you mix up the steps, it's just anarchy.

[Kobal2]

My neighbour taught me that, by the way. He's seen Muslims on TV once, so he knows what he's talking about.

[Angua]

Oh of course, we have to get things absolutely right and to the letter. Anything else is not only anarchy but makes you a filthy infidel that will BURRRRRRRRN in the fires of hell.

[Gyrate]

Oh, heavens! A thread where not every single point in every post was directly speaking to the OP. I think you should report this immediately!!! :rolleyes:As long as you're aware that your posts are irrelevant, I'm okay with that.Sorry, I can't entertain this point, as it is not directly related to the OP.Hasn't stopped you yet.Newsflash: just because a problem may be difficult to define doesn't mean that it is not real. And sometimes "bold" is the way to go, sometimes not. Now, my guess is that you agree with that statement, but you are just looking for ways to disparage me. Transparent, therefore weak.Disingenuous twaddle. You saidI guess in the end I might come out on the side of not allowing it because it may be too hot an issue and may cause more of problem than a solution, more o a rift than a bridge."I guess"? "Might come out on the side of"? "May be"? There are times to express things in a cautious fashion but apart from adding a few iterations of "like" and "kind of" that is the most tentatively expressed position ever. You didn't set out an opinion there; you dropped it hurriedly and ran away from it. If you're afraid of your own words, it's no wonder people with funny foreign beliefs frighten you.I did not say that the building is on Ground Zero. Why? Because it's not. I have not claimed that the people wanting to build it have condoned the attack. In fact, they have done the opposite. Yet you attempt to saddle me with this nonsense. Why?Because you suggested that the families of the 9/11 victims should specifically have some sort of veto power in the matter. Silly me, I assumed you had said that because the issue had some particular relevance to them. But who knows how your mind works. Because you're desperate. You want my position to be irrational and rooted in ignoranceWow. it's so rare that I get what I want in life. but when you can't find it in my actual words, you make them up. Don't have to. It's all there, under the weasel words.I do wish you'd try to debate in a more honest fashion.

Now, you want bold? Here's some bold: if you think that the building of this mosque and 9/11 are unrelated events, that they are not "somehow connected", you are a complete and utter imbecile. And not dealing in reality.So now you're saying what you supposedly didn't say before and told me was "nonsense"? Or is your next argument going to be that technically you didn't say that the people involved condoned the attacks and that the mosque was built on Ground Zero therefore TECHNICALLY you're correct, and that by "connected" you of course mean as some sort of healing gesture and what was I thinking in assuming that you meant it in a negative way? And that's why I'm the dishonest debater here.

[Gyrate]

Actually, no. I missed your cite of the things I said should be done. Here is what I asked for:
Okay, let me ask you all, what is it—specifically—that I've proposed that we do that is so irrational? So awful?My point is that radical Islam poses a threat to us. And since we cannot simply point to those Muslims that are murderous barbarians, or support murderous barbarians, it behooves us to be wary of all Muslims. Pretty straightforward position.

"Welcome to the Glenn Beck School of Equivocation. Mr Magellan, would you care to read your sentence to the class?"

"Yes sir. 'I'm not saying that all Muslims are terrorists or that they should all be treated as though they might be potential terrorists in all situations until they demonstrate otherwise or that they should be discriminated against in any way; I'm just saying that we need to be wary of all of them.'"

"Well done! Top marks."

[Doughbag]

My neighbour taught me that, by the way. He's seen Muslims on TV once, so he knows what he's talking about.


.... did anyone forget my sideorder of fries?..... Ketchup too, please..... before the new creature feature movie "Invasion of the Muslims" starts.......

..... do I need some Holy Water?.... make it 2 liters..... that just kills the bastards

[magellan01]

And by implication? :rolleyes:

Your suggestion that all Muslims are worthy of extra scrutiny because of an incredibly small minority is laughable. You can't tell just by looking at someone what their religion is, or that they're at the nutjob level of blowing stuff up. So how do you propose to give Muslims extra scrutiny? Go on their names? Their looks? The former is unreliable, the latter is racism.

On a board devoted to fighting ignorance, just how many times need it be pointed out that Muslim isn't a race. Unbelievable.

But that aside, just because race may be used doesn't mean it's "RACISM!!!".

Let's say there was an assault on the North side of the Golden Gate Bridge. A man is robbed and stabbed. witnesses describe the assailant as being black, and that he took off on the bridge heading to SF on a bike. should the cops stop and question every single person? Or should they use the assailants blackness and an important piece of information to make their law enforcement efforts more effective?

How about of the guy was described as being white? should blacks and hispanics get stopped? How about if he was described as being a white guy with red hair? Is that "RACISM!!!", too?

[Angua]

On a board devoted to fighting ignorance, just how many times need it be pointed out that Muslim isn't a race. Unbelievable.

So tell me, in clear and simple terms how you would determine who the hell is Muslim and who isn't, just by looking at them. Asking them won't work -- people lie. Going on names won't work -- too much ambiguity. So go on. Tell me how you propose to do this.

[jayjay]

Let's say there was an assault on the North side of the Golden Gate Bridge. A man is robbed and stabbed. witnesses describe the assailant as being black, and that he took off on the bridge heading to SF on a bike. should the cops stop and question every single person?

No, but neither should they stop and question every black person in California. They should stop and question black men on bikes, within, say, 3 or 4 miles of the SF side of the GGB. What you're suggesting, this "wariness" of ALL Muslims is equivalent to the SFPD putting out an APB on black men west of the Sierras.

[magellan01]

I think this is the issue that seemingly gives you a double standard. So far as I can tell, you don't appear to consider there is any ability to "assess the specific ones" when it comes to Muslims, or, that the ability to do so is not foolproof enough for you to be confident in it.

No. I'm saying that before you have the opportunity to look at the particulars of an individual, you can look to common denominators and assess a level of threat. It's not nearly as effective, but, it can be valuable. Would you agree that, generally, members of a gang pose a greater threat of violence than those not in a gang? In one's home, one has data allowing one to assess what threat might be posed by a brother or father. The claim mentioned earlier is saying that a person is a greater risk from his particular brother or father, not brothers and fathers in general.

Family members (if the point is accurate) are more likely to harm you in some way than Muslims, but you can seperate out issues that mean you don't have to be suspicious of all your family members. So far as I can tell, you seem to entertain no factors among Muslims that allow you to differentiate; as you say, you "cannot simply point to those Muslims that are murderous barbarians, or support murderous barbarians, it behooves us to be wary of all Muslims" (which seems wrong, since you know, I can point to Angua, for one, but anyway).

Yes, wary of all Muslims. But that doesn't mean that you don't assess individual Muslims on their own particulars as you have the benefit of that added, specific information.

My question to you essentially is, why is it that you feel comfortable differentiating in some instances but not others? Why is that there is zero method of differentiating Muslims that you find acceptable, but apparently methods of differentiating other groups which are perfectly normal and rational?

Specific information on individuals is superior. But if you do not have it, you're not simply rendered unable to assess a general risk. Here are two groups: Group A is 50 people who belong to a Bridge Club. Group B is a Group os skinheads. You know no one from either group. Are you telling me that you are unable to make a reasonable assessment as to which group poses the greater threat of violence? I hope not.

[jayjay]

Specific information on individuals is superior. But if you do not have it, you're not simply rendered unable to assess a general risk. Here are two groups: Group A is 50 people who belong to a Bridge Club. Group B is a Group os skinheads. You know no one from either group. Are you telling me that you are unable to make a reasonable assessment as to which group poses the greater threat of violence? I hope not.

What about when it's revealed that the Bridge Club members are all KKK members and the "skinheads" are a cancer-treatment support group? Those "reasonable assessments" aren't very reasonable sometimes and can be dead wrong.

Not all Arabs are Muslims. Not all Muslims are Arabs. What are your criteria for identifying Muslims to be wary of?

[magellan01]

No, but neither should they stop and question every black person in California. They should stop and question black men on bikes, within, say, 3 or 4 miles of the SF side of the GGB. What you're suggesting, this "wariness" of ALL Muslims is equivalent to the SFPD putting out an APB on black men west of the Sierras.

This is good. So you do agree that race, or some other profile characteristic, not only can be used in some instances, but should. I agree. And I agree that putting an APB on black men west of the Sierras, or even in SF generally, would not be helpful. The question is: is it wrong to do so because it is not helpful? Or is it wrong because it's racial profiling? If the latter, what makes the profiling okay within five miles of the bridge, but not fifty, twenty miles? My reasoning would be that the interest of public safety overrides our desire to not look to race—assuming—that the law enforcement efforts have a reasonable expectation of being fruitful.

Agree?

[magellan01]

What about when it's revealed that the Bridge Club members are all KKK members and the "skinheads" are a cancer-treatment support group? Those "reasonable assessments" aren't very reasonable sometimes and can be dead wrong.

Another good exchange. All additional information should be taken into account. This new, more specific information is usually of better quality (partially just because it's more specific), so it will likely cause one to rethink his previous conclusions. More information, as in your example, is always better. My point is only that you may, even based on very little information, make reasonable assumptions. So barring any additional information about the Bridge club and the skin heads, is it not reasonable to assume that the skinheads are more apt to commit violence. If not, why not?

Not all Arabs are Muslims. Not all Muslims are Arabs. What are your criteria for identifying Muslims to be wary of?

Them being Muslim. Being Arab is a good indicator of being Muslim, but it is not certain. But to give you an idea of my thinking, I would be more wary of a 23-year-old American (white or black) who converted to Islam in the past year than I would be of a 23-year-old Arab Muslim whose been living in the U.S. for ten year or more.