I am far better at talking than I am writing
I was asked for an opinion concerning the time of the IRA bombings I felt that I should explain that my opinion could be coloured by the fact that the bombings had come a little to close. I also tried to show that although the issues of Ireland and Islam are different the problem of no middle ground on which to form a peace group is the main issue not just in the UK but worldwide.
I am surprised you did not pick up on the point I made about young Muslims protesting about the import of third world mosque leaders who have little of no English and no experience of living in a Weston culture on which to base advice to his followers
Could you please point out some examples of non-Christians wearing the cross.
Whereas I can point out lots of examples of non-muslims wearing headscarves, and even full face covers. You do realise there are Arab Christians, right?
I have seen none Jews wearing the star of David, Sikh bangles if people think it is pretty they will wear it
Maybe it’s a British thing. But isn’t the above also true of crescents, headscarves, and other Islamic accoutrements?
I have no problem with head scarves its face coverings that are a security risk and that includes m/cycle helmets, hoodies that are banned in some places it is not all about lets get Muslims it is about everyone else must conform but not Muslims and that is the problem, the pc brigade needs to stop worrying about offending Muslims and make one rule for all.
Conform to what? Is there a law against covering your face in Britain?
I agree. Christians will no longer be excused from obeying laws, just because it might be contrary to their religious beliefs.
So you’d abolish the right to the free exercise of religion, which is guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the First Amendment?
I would call whoosh, but that invisible sarcasm smilie is hard to see.
Indeed. Carry on, then.
Love your logic: American domestic terrorism because Islam because Irish bombing because Facebook.
I didn’t bring up Irish terrorism. But I’d like to thank the OP who did, because he raised some questions worth addressing.
Suppose young Marty McFly’s DeLorean (built in Belfast, by coincidence!) went haywire and he found himself in London in the year 1975. That was the height of “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland, and a peak year for IRA terrorism. Marty decides to seek help at the local police station, but just before he gets there, he sees a huge explosion. SOMEBODY just set off a bomb near Scotland Yard, killing several policemen, and a dozen passersby.
Start with this hypothetical, and let’s ask a few questions.
- Is there any chance the Lord Mayor of London would speculate to reporters that the bomber was probably a far-right English Tory who was protesting against socialized medicine? Of COURSE not! Everyone, the mayor included, would have assumed (correctly) that the bombers were Irish terrorists, and would have said so forthrightly.
By contrast, when a bomb plot was discovered in Times Square, what did the Big Apple’s clueless mayor say? That the terrorist were probably homegrown, white Tea Party types who were angry about Obamacare!
Of course, the guilty party WAS a Muslim. Nobody on Earth except Michael Bloomberg was surprised. 2) Suppose that, 48 hours later, ten men were arrested for carrying out the bombing: Aidan Finnegan, Seamus Moran, Ciaran O’Leary, Sean Fitzgerald, Desmond Callaghan, Padraig Maguire, Liam Ryan, Conor Shea, Brendan Reilly, and Colm Shaughnessy. All ten are unemployed, twenty-something Catholics from Belfast. Now… is there ANY chance the chief of Scotland Yard would tell reporters that the suspects are a highly diverse bunch? Would the Daily Express report that the suspects didn’t seem to have anything in common? Of COURSE not! But when the Mounties arrested 18 bearded South Asian guys named Mohammed, the Toronto Star wrote that "It is difficult to find a common denominator" among the accused. And the Mounties commissioner stated that the suspects represented “a broad strata” of Canadian society! I didn’t bring up Irish terrorism. But I’d like to thank the OP who did, because he raised some questions worth addressing.Suppose young Marty McFly’s DeLorean (built in Belfast, by coincidence!) went haywire and he found himself in London in the year 1975. That was the height of “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland, and a peak year for IRA terrorism. Marty decides to seek help at the local police station, but just before he gets there, he sees a huge explosion. SOMEBODY just set off a bomb near Scotland Yard, killing several policemen, and a dozen passersby.
Start with this hypothetical, and let’s ask a few questions.
- Is there any chance the Lord Mayor of London would speculate to reporters that the bomber was probably a far-right English Tory who was protesting against socialized medicine? Of COURSE not! Everyone, the mayor included, would have assumed (correctly) that the bombers were Irish terrorists, and would have said so forthrightly.
By contrast, when a bomb plot was discovered in Times Square, what did the Big Apple’s clueless mayor say? That the terrorist were probably homegrown, white Tea Party types who were angry about Obama care!
2) Suppose that, 48 hours later, ten men were arrested for carrying out the bombing: Aidan Finnegan, Seamus Moran, Ciaran O’Leary, Sean Fitzgerald, Desmond Callaghan, Padraig Maguire, Liam Ryan, Conor Shea, Brendan Reilly, and Colm Shaughnessy. All ten are unemployed, twenty-something Catholics from Belfast. Now… is there ANY chance the chief of Scotland Yard would tell reporters that the suspects are a highly diverse bunch? Would the Daily Express report that the suspects didn’t seem to have anything in common? Of COURSE not! But remember the 2006 bombing plot in Toronto? The Mounties arrested 18 bearded South Asian guys named Mohammed. Afterward, the Toronto Star wrote that "It is difficult to find a common denominator" among the accused. And the Mounties commissioner stated that the suspects represented “a broad strata” of Canadian society! 3) Suppose that, immediately after the arrests, Prime Minister Harold Wilson felt compelled to deliver an address on terrorism. Would he preface his remarks by saying, “Before we get on our high horses about what the IRA has done, let us remember all the evil things we Protestant English have done?” Would most of his speech consist of warnings not to unfairly tarnish the reputations of all the nice, non-violent Irish in the UK? Would Wilson have insisted that we mustn’t condemn the evil acts of Irish terrorists, because that might offend peace-loving Irishmen and drive them into the IRA? Would Wilson suggest that, while a few dead policemen are regrettable, the “true” danger lay in a possible backlash against honest Irishmen?Of COURSE not! But that is essentially what President Obama and like-minded SDMB liberals have been saying for years. “Most Muslims are COMPLETELY peaceful, and would NEVER do anything violent… but we must all be EXTREMELY nice to them, because those peaceful Muslims all WILL join ISIS if we offend them.”
4) Finally, suppose numerous eyewitnesses saw the suspects detonating the bomb while shouting “Erin go bragh” and singing Irish patriotic songs. Would anybody, anywhere, hear that and then scratch his head and say that it’s impossible to imagine what motivated the terrorists?
Of COURSE not! But where latter day Islamic terror is concerned, Orwell’s words come to mind: “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” Nidal Hasan was not shy about telling the world why he killed his comrades at Fort Hood. When a killer yells “Allahu akbar” while shooting at people, he’s revealing his motives pretty clearly. And yet, after the Fort Hood massacre, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews told us somberly, “We may never know if religion was a factor at Fort Hood.”
Irish terrorists were just as evil and destructive as Islamic terrorists. The big difference is, nobody was afraid to hurt the feelings of innocent Irish like myself. Nobody was afraid of being called a “Hiberniphobe” for speaking simple truths.
- Suppose that, immediately after the arrests, Prime Minister Harold Wilson felt compelled to deliver an address on terrorism. Would he preface his remarks by saying, “Before we get on our high horses about what the IRA has done, let us remember all the evil things we Protestant English have done?” Would most of his speech consist of warnings not to unfairly tarnish the reputations of all the nice, non-violent Irish in the UK? Would Wilson have insisted that we mustn’t condemn the evil acts of Irish terrorists, because that might offend peace-loving Irishmen and drive them into the IRA? Would Wilson suggest that, while a few dead policemen are regrettable, the “true” danger lay in a possible backlash against honest Irishmen?
Of COURSE not! But that is essentially what President Obama and like-minded SDMB liberals have been saying for years. “Most Muslims are COMPLETELY peaceful, and would NEVER do anything violent… but we must all be EXTREMELY nice to them, because those peaceful Muslims all WILL join ISIS if we offend them.”
4) Finally, suppose numerous eyewitnesses saw the suspects detonating the bomb while shouting “Erin go bragh” and singing Irish patriotic songs. Would anybody, anywhere, hear that and then scratch his head and say that it’s impossible to imagine what motivated the terrorists?
Of COURSE not! But where latter day Islamic terror is concerned, Orwell’s words come to mind: “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” Nidal Hasan was not shy about telling the world why he killed his comrades at Fort Hood. When a killer yells “Allahu akbar” while shooting at people, he’s revealing his motives pretty clearly. And yet, after the Fort Hood massacre, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews told us somberly, “We may never know if religion was a factor at Fort Hood.”
Irish terrorists were just as evil and destructive as Islamic terrorists. The big difference is, nobody was afraid to hurt the feelings of innocent Irish like myself. Nobody was afraid of being called a “Hiberniphobe” for speaking simple truths.
It would have been stupid to downplay the IRA’s crimes, just because most Irish weren’t terrorists. It’s equally stupid to downplay the crimes and the motivations of modern Islamic terrorists.
Perhaps, in the U.K, you’re lucky enough to only have one type of terrorist running around. In the US, we are not so lucky; right-wing terrorists are a serious problem, and they kill more people than Muslim terrorists do.
Um, based on this article and this, the plotters did have diverse backgrounds, jobs, and lives. They were from different countries (including Canada), different education levels. One was in the military, two had been in prison before, some were married, and so forth. They weren’t all unemployed, twenty-something Muslims from City X.
No, that is not at all what Obama or the local non-bigots at the SDMB are saying, but rather a comical strawman.
Please, explain why you think Hasan did what he did, based on what he’s said on the matter.
What people are objecting to are not “simple truths”, but rather lies. So, there’s that.
No one is downplaying any crimes. That you think stopping to say “The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, regular folks, please don’t hurt or him them because of what other Muslims have done” is minimizing crimes is incomprehensible. Maybe the Irish of Birmingham who had petrol bombs thrown in their buildings because of what the IRA did could understand the value of blaming people, not broad groups, for the actions of individuals.
There’s no way around it. There are clearly some people, including President Obama and a lot of SDMB regulars, who are either
- Utterly incapable of acknowledging the existence of Islamic terrorism, or
- Incapable of discussing Islamic terrorism without saying, in effect, “Yeah, well, Christians do it too!”
This phenomenon is so obvious and so old that it has a name.
Manning’s Corollary to Godwin’s Law: In any online conversation about an incident of violence perpetrated by adherents of Islamic fundamentalism, the conversation will inevitably devolve into claims that Christians commit the same type and degree of violent acts, regardless of how demonstrably false that is; further, the claim will be made that past historical violence involving Christians means that present-day Christians are morally incapable of denouncing current violence involving Muslims
If someone makes a simple, uncontroversial statement like “Osama Bin Laden was evil,” many SDMB regulars are unable to simply nod and say, “Yeah.” They HAVE to add “But what about Fred Phelps? What about Timothy McVeigh? Huh? Gotcha!!!”
You forgot
Terrorism is not a uniquely Muslim phenomena or tactic. So while “Islamic terrorism” may be an accurate description of a particular sub-type of terrorism we view it as unimportant in any context outside of the fact it is more descriptive.
Your argument an attribution error and you are trying to claim some type of moral failing due to the fact that the terrorist happens to be Muslim. Without some serious cites which have failed to be provided to demonstrate that Islam is the root cause of their terrorism acts we can fully dismiss your claim as Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
The fact that you will not concede this or provide valid cites is the primary issue in this thread. You lost the point a long time ago you have just failed to acknowledge that fact.
Really? Those are the only options?
Is it even remotely possible that a lot of people are wary of demonizing Muslims, or Islam in general? That they believe doing so is not only factually but morally wrong? That they believe that Islamic terrorism is evil but is not representative of Islam as a whole? That they feel it’s important to remember that a human propensity for evil transcends religion or culture, even when it is informed by them?
Sure, maybe they’re wrong. But your false dichotomy isn’t particularly helpful when it comes to understanding where the people with whom you disagree are coming from.
I get your frustration. Honestly, I do. But this is exaggerated to the point of nonsense.
Then there should be a corollary to the corollary about people who only believe that terrorists are Muslims:
Not all Muslims are terrorists. But why all terrorists are Muslim?
Incidentally, I volunteered at a clinic that did abortions. Two evangelical Christians murdered there on two separate occasions.*** One of those Christians was also a co-worker of mine.
So don’t even try to tell me that only Muslims are terrorists.
And don’t expect me to agree with you that in discussing Islamic terrorism that no other type of terrorism in the United States can be brought up. I say that as someone who voluntarily puts myself on the line in doing things that would make me a target of both Islamic terrorists and Christian terrorists.
That’s not the case, in my experience. Instead, what I observe is people, including a fair number of SDMB regulars, who are incapable of discussing Islamic terrorism without attributing the cause of it to Islam itself. Comparisons to Christianity are in service of disputing that point: if there are vast numbers of Muslims who want nothing to do with violence, and plenty of Christians who do, then the problem of Islamic violence isn’t solely, if at all, attributable to some fundamental defect in the Islamic religion, as opposed to material and political factors (which, as noted above, the terrorists themselves will tell you. That’s why I asked you about Hasan, who did what he did in opposition to the Iraq War, not because his Muslimness gave him no choice).
For some reason, the resident Islam-bashers have zero interest in discussing those material or political factors, or the various divisions within Islam, or anything but the wickedness of Islam and how the rest of us are clearly pro-murder and mayhem.
That’s nonsense, sorry. No one’s claiming that people who are Christians are, right now, responsible for more terrorism (though more violence, full stop, is a trickier question, given the Iraq War and all) than people who are Muslim. The existence of Christian terrorism does put the lie to the idea, once again, that Islam is some sinister, mind-corrupting thing instead of just another Abrahamic religion.
I have never in my 30 years heard or read someone claim that anyone is incapable of denouncing current violence involving Muslims.
Er, that’s not an uncontroversial statement. There’s no such thing as evil, nor an evil person.
…which is, of course, an entirely different discussion about the nature of evil. And one that I imagine would provide a lengthy GD thread without ever coming near any strawliberal justifying or minimizing OBL’s actions using Phelps or McVeigh, unless it were to make the indisputable assertion that evil actions know no ethnic, racial, or religious borders.
Which, astorian, I urge you to remember.
It should also be noted that the term “terrorism” is a purely rhetorical term. It is loaded with moral implications that would not stand up to any serious structured debate.
I am betting you consider the bombing of the USS Cole as an act of terrorism but do you also classify the Gaspée Affair as an act of terror?
Would you call it terrorism when the Sons of Liberty burned the court records and looted the home of the English chief justice Thomas Hutchinson?
Or in your opinion does it only rise to the level of terrorism when a group that you do not relate with does it?
Do you see why some people may not accept your claims based purely on terms of art that is intended to purely dehumanize a particular group of actors?