As soon as you retract the factually incorrect statement that she has “has never suggested harm to anyone”.
Westboro Baptist Church burns Quran and American flag. I quite like their version of We Are The World - God hates the world and all the people
I don’t take her hyperbole seriously. I do take the fatwas against the minister who threatened to burn Korans seriously as I do the people who slaughtered others in the riots.
tomndebb,
In this thread you’ve taken your role as apologist and protector of Islam to new depths. To attempt to draw any equivalence between Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck, etc., with those who issue fatwas or call for the murder of innocents is ridiculous in the extreme.
But I’m glad you did, as it reveals better than usual what your sensibilities are and the contortions you are willing to put rational thought through.
Unbelievable.
So you are not taking back your factually inaccurate statement?
Only a moron would take her words literally. So no.
What is unbelievable–although not from you–is that you continue to accuse me of being an apologist for Islam whan I do not engage in that activity in either the formal or the casual meaning of the word.
Beyond that, the only “equivalence” I actually posted was the equivalent stupidity (although there is ample hatred being pushed by both sides).
You really do not pay much attention to what is actually said in thses discussion, do you?
But a lot of morons listen to her. Lots of them, some also insane morons.
Quote:
"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors. "
Yep…I feel intimidated.
While apologist may not be the right word, it isn’t wrong. Trying to draw a moral equivalence between a radio talk-show host and the leaer of a theocracy AND also between listeners and people living in the country is either a gargantuan exageration or a way to difuse the problem. One side no only constantly call for death, but it also actually kills with many innocects in the mix; the other doesn’t ask or demand killing.
BUT (and, sorry for the multipost) I came to post this:
Repent Amarillo’s leader, one David Grisham, tried to burn a Quran in a public park. WHile counterprotesters were arguing with him, David Isom, 23, weraring a shirt on which he’d written in magic marker “I’m with Repent Amarillo, no joke,” grabbed the lighter-fluid soaked Quran, shouted “Dude, you HAVE no Quran!” and ran off with it.
It was given to a local imam who was with the counterprotesters.
I hope Muslims hear about this and maybe realize we aren’t all hateful.
While actually killing people is a level of difference, I would actually argue that a religious leader and a political figure both share a similar bully pulpit. Especially when both are talking to an unquestioning, unknowledgeable audience or congregation.
I don’t think Coulter is necessarily taken as seriously as Beck or Limbaugh, but as far as whether the radio pundits, as a group, are taken seriously:
Rush Limbaugh made a baseless accusation that the Deepwater Horizons explosion was an act of eco-terrorism…and 10% of Americans believed it!
The truth may be out there…but the stupid, it hurts.
(OK…stopping with the multiposts…terrible about it…)
You have been quick to link overt religious violence (ex: the Bali bombings) with some other factor.
There is a great deal of violence in the world committed by people of varying faiths that are not linked specifically to their religion. However, there is a clear, distinct group of Muslims who kill specifically in the name of their religion. It’s not all Muslims or even a majority of Muslims but it’s also not a silly handful of people. It’s thousands and thousands of people and its a huge problem around the world. There is no argument that said people will go bat shit crazy over any criticism of their religion.
That most Muslims do not subscribe to the methodologies of their prophet is a testament to a general desire to live peacefully and not an example of his words and actions.
I did not draw a "moral equivalence’ only an equivalence of the frequency of stupidity.
False.
In response to a point I had made that in every region where Islam is currently tied to violence, there were underlying social phenomena, (corruption, persecution, post-colonial civil disruption, etc.), that provided Muslim extremists a foothold, you made the assertion that there were no such social situations in regard to the Bali bombings. When I pointed out that they were carried out by a Muslim group that had been persecuted in their home nation and forced to go into exile, you ignored that point and simply harped on a religious connection that I had never denied. Your need to see the whole of Islam as inherently evil causes you to ignore any other evidence while I am quite willing to acknowlewdge the evils of particular sects within Islam, simply preferring to look at actual evidence instead of tarring all Muslim adherents with the same broad brush.
Part straw man and part willfully ignoring any fact that does not confirm your bias.
There definitely are violent Muslims. Pretending that it is just their religion while ignoring the fact that the most violent adherents of that religion find their best converts in socially disrupted regions is easy because it requires no thought or study. It allows you to see “Islam” in any news story and decide that the religion is the problem rather than trying to understand the actual events on the ground–as you did with the youth riots in France.
To start with, the poll was taken around the time it occurred. The idea that terrorists (eco or otherwise) attacked the rig it is hardly a novel idea given the precedent for such things. The United States has been attacked repeatedly. Limbaugh was hardly out in left field throwing the idea out as a topic of conversation.
[quote=“tomndebb, post:834, topic:550891”]
Well, there are no extremist Muslims if there were no Muslims.
If a group is under pressure from outside, it is likely that they will fall back upon what makes them a ‘group’. So, they’d ask themselves what would Muhammad do and killing is his answer. He says specifically that if non-Muslims fights with you, then you kill them until they stop fighting you. So, what you are essentially saying with your evidence is when Muslims are under pressure they will do what their book says for them to do.
Now I’m not saying a group shouldn’t protect itself from outsiders, but when the default response is to fight and kill then no one should be surprised if that is the course taken rather than other solutions.
But in the case of Jemaah Islamiah weren’t they the ones being the instigators before they were cracked down upon?
Clearly the Bali bombing was the result of systemic religious intolerance that was preached in the Mosques. I cited this. The person you claimed the violence was aimed at had been dead for 4 years. You are bending over backwards to ignore this. Westerners were clearly targeted based on the hatred preached.
Again, you are painting with broad strokes when confronted with specific events. How many atacks have been brought up for discussion on this site? A handful. Are you suggesting the response to the book burning was not related?
You are the one falsely claiming that they were “aiming” at a dead man. My point had been that they became radicalized under persecution. I have never denied that they were religious extremists who relied upon their version of their religion to incite themselves to violence. As to the Western connection, Suharto was supported in his dictatorship by the West in one more misguided “anti-communist” action. Those who suffered under his pesecution see the West as sharing in his evils and as equally deserving targets. You are twisting the events. I acknowledge both the religious extremism and the social conditions. You want to pretend that the social conditions never happened or are irrelevant.
There was only one factor behind the choice of people killed and it was Islamic hatred of Westerners. There are people of different religions all over the world being persecuted by governments yet they don’t randomly blow up a room of people over it.
It’s ridiculous that you associate Rush Limbaugh and company with the visceral hatred that pours out of Islamic clerics all over the world. It’s no accident that people went crazy in places like Pakistan and Malaysia over the suggestion of burning korans. No amount of your political or social excuses explains this behavior.
And there are no bad people if there are no people. Kill all the humans!
And if America has been “under pressure from outside”, what has its default response been?