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

[Captain_Amazing]

@Der_Trihs

And he appears to have been involved with the Christian Identity movement, and his “Bible” The Turner Diaries is among other things antisemitic; a religious position.

McVeigh probably wasn’t involved with the Christian Identity movement. He identified himself at various times as a lapsed Catholic, as an agnostic, and as someone who believed in “a god” but not any particular religion, and there’s no evidence that religion played a large role in his belief system. The Turner Diaries (putting aside the question of to what extent McVeigh actually agreed with the antisemitism in the Turner Diaries, because people have reached different conclusions on that) are antisemitic, but it is racial antisemitism, not religious antisemitism. In other words, the antisemitism in the Turner Diaries isn’t that Jewish beliefs are wrong or evil, but that Jews are biologically an inferior race or subhuman.

It’s true of course that this racial antisemitism developed historically out of religious antisemitism; Jews were religiously persecuted in the Middle Ages and Renaissance for their beliefs, which led to the conception of the Jew as “other”, which after the growth of evolutionary theory and anthropology, led to antisemitic racial theories of Jews, but its come a long way since then, and the racial antisemites hate Jews whether said Jews stay Jewish, become atheists, convert to Christianity, or worship the great sun god Ra.

[jjimm]

A charismatic nutjob as a leader, a self-styled spiritual figurehead, based on an Abrahamic religion, but with its own fucked-up theology, and geopolitical strategic aims.

Child soldiers, rape, child rape, torture, pillage, villages and crops burned to the ground, thousands upon thousands dead, maimed, homeless. Utterly utterly appalling and inhumane.

That’s the Lord’s Resistance Army. Were I magellan01 I would be extremely wary of Christians.

[Girl_From_Mars]

@magellan01

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?

But in this scenario, you are looking for a suspect AFTER the incident, and are looking for someone who meets the eye-witness accounts of the perpetrator. Estimations can be made of the possible location of the suspect based on the max distance you can travel on the bike in the intervening time between the incident and the search time. All of this helps you narrow down who you are looking for.

You are proposing to look for this individual before they have done anything, and to treat all Muslims as possible suspects, although you have no idea what they have yet to do, or where this might be. This is where your example above fails to meet what you are actually proposing to do.

And let me echo the call - please explain how you will determine who is Muslim, and what steps you propose to take to be ‘wary’ of them. Does this amount to looking at them sidewards on public transport, denying them certain jobs, providing the police with additional powers, internment camps, or deportation? What does it mean specifically to you?

[Girl_From_Mars]

@magellan01

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.

How do you feel about 30 year old Swedes?

[Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension]

@Girl_From_Mars

How do you feel about 30 year old Swedes?

The guy is mixed race and wanted to be a Nazi? Did he not read the brochure at all?

[Girl_From_Mars]

@magellan01

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.

But Christians are capable of doing their own brand of unspeakable things (besides those listed by others already) how about the Bosnian War which pitted Christian Serbs against Bosnian Muslims:

@wikipedia

Although during Bosnian War many women were raped on all sides, Bosnian Muslim women were particularly targeted. Estimates of the numbers raped range from 20,000 to 50,000.

Ethnic cleansing was a common phenomenon in the war. This typically entailed intimidation, forced expulsion and/or killing of the undesired ethnic group as well as the destruction or removal of the physical vestiges of the ethnic group, such as places of worship, cemeteries and cultural and historical buildings. As well as the frequent use of torture, rape and ritualistic killing, most commonly throat slitting by the Serbs: …According to numerous ICTY verdicts and indictments, Serb and Croat forces performed ethnic cleansing of their territories planned by their political leadership to create ethnically pure states (Republika Srpska and Herzeg-Bosnia). Furthermore, Serb forces committed genocide in Srebrenica at the end of the war.

[Kyla]

@Der_Trihs

And he appears to have been involved with the Christian Identity movement, and his “Bible” The Turner Diaries is among other things antisemitic; a religious position.

I agree with this. In college, I took a class on Born Again Christianity in which we discussed the Christian identity movement at length, and its influence on McVeigh and Nichols in passing, and it certainly seems to have had a strong influence on their actions. (Much to the dismay of the two actual Born Again Christians in the class, who were deeply offended that the professor had chosen to link racist theology with their own beliefs.) On the surface, I think the comparison with radical Islamism is an apt comparison - both are religious movements driven by politics. The difference is that there is so much more room for Islamism to take root than Identity Christianity.

It’s a mistake to view Qutb’s Islamism as an actual religious movement. It is a religious movement only on the surface. It is a tool used for political action. Muslim terrorists are Muslims and they are terrorists, but they are not terrorists because they are Muslims, they’re terrorists because they have decided to engage in a political movement that is largely born out of a feeling of powerlessness. In order to attract adherents, the political movement has covered itself with a thin veneer of Islam, but anyone who isn’t the slightest bit ignorant of Islam knows that terrorism is not acceptable within any mainstream Muslim theology.

It’s horribly naive to think that there is one group of people more capable of evil deeds than all the others, and that they are somehow easily identified by their religion, race, or anything else. By focusing in on them, you ignore the possibilities that someone else could be a threat. Furthermore, by targeting Muslims, you’re introducing the possibility of backlash, which would only make the problem worse.

Finally, magellan01 has yet to describe any actual policies that the government could introduce to be “wary” of Muslims. How could we focus in on one group without violating the Constitution? Or are we supposed to just be wary on a person-by-person basis? I remain unclear on exactly what he is proposing.

[jayjay]

@Kyla

Finally, magellan01 has yet to describe any actual policies that the government could introduce to be “wary” of Muslims. How could we focus in on one group without violating the Constitution? Or are we supposed to just be wary on a person-by-person basis? I remain unclear on exactly what he is proposing.

So does he, apparently, since he steadfastly refuses to suggest exactly what is entailed by “be wary of”. He’s been sidestepping the question of whether or not he means differential treatment by government bodies like police, FBI, etc.

[Ludovic]

@Kyla

In order to attract adherents, the political movement has covered itself with a thin veneer of Islam, but anyone who isn’t the slightest bit ignorant of Islam knows that terrorism is not acceptable within any mainstream Muslim theology.

No one on this board would dispute that there are a lot of ignorant Christians in America.

And polls show that if your words are true, there are also an awful lot of ignorant Muslims in the world, too!

[Kyla]

@Ludovic

No one on this board would dispute that there are a lot of ignorant Christians in America.

And polls show that if your words are true, there are also an awful lot of ignorant Muslims in the world, too!

I do think that both of those statements are true, actually.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@magellan01

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.

This is accurate. But you have not been saying, “There are some bad Muslims, and some good ones, so we should be wary of them all - oh, until of course we learn more about them, and so are able to differentiate them better”. In fact, you specifically said that no means of differentiation was foolproof, and seemingly that you would only accept a foolproof means, though that’s an assumption.

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.

That seems a much more reasonable position. Just to be clear, you would say that, before applying your own personal knowledge of your family, you would of course have been more wary of them? Obviously it’s a bit of a theoretical one, since we don’t really seperate out that way, but speaking in principle, that would be correct?

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.

I agree with your point, but you haven’t been asserting this argument up until now. The question I suppose then is; what information should be taken into account, and what level of certainty in the differentiation ability of that information is acceptable? If, say, we’re looking at the relative suspiciousness of Muslims who wear blue t-shirts and Muslims who wear red t-shirts, how do we go about working out which is the less threatening, and how much less threatening must they be in order to avoid your wariness?

Anyway, let’s change the terms. As you live in America, you are far more likely to be the victim of some crime at the hands of a white person, that being the vast majority of the country as a whole. Logically speaking, you not knowing them all, you should be more wary of them than Muslims, who, relatively speaking, aren’t as likely to cause you that harm. Should you be more wary of white people?

[Valteron]

Hi, remember me? I am the guy mentioned in the OP a few hundred postings ago. I was interested to note that we have a real, live Muslima, Angua, on this thread. This interests me because I have noticed there are very few Muslims on SDMB.

One of my theories is that Islamic thought does not lend itself to anonymous debates. Ayaan Hirsi Ali points out in her recent book,* NOMAD*, which is even better than her previous book INFIDEL, that in western education, the student is primarily taught HOW to think, but in Islamic education you are taught WHAT to think.

This brave woman, who must live with bodyguards in America and Europe because she might be murdered for having rejected the Religion of Peace, finds the concept of “liberal” Islam to be a crock. BTW, how many authors/cartoonists do you know who are living in hiding or with protection for mocking Christianity?

Angua says she is a liberal but practising Muslim. Fascinating.

You see, the problem is that in order to be “liberal” in any way resembling our definition of it, and still be a Muslim, she would have to throw about half the Koran out the window.

For example, Surah 4:34 DEFINITELY says a man should beat his wife if he suspect “rebellion” from her. Now, I have not intention of getting into a whole new bullshit argument with Angua that the word really means “symbollically beat with a popsicle stick”. The text says “beat” and it says so in the context of punishment. If Allah meant “beat painlessly and symbollically with a tiny twig” why did he not say it to Mohammed, and save millions of Muslim women hundreds of years of beatings?

How does Angua get around verse after verse after verse that says that infidels (I am an atheist) will burn in Hell? In fact, it even says that once your skin is burnt off, Allah will give you are more sensitive new skin and start the barbecue all over again.

What does Angua consider the best method for dealing with homosexuals? The Prophet’s favourite way was to throw them off a cliff. The five Muslim states that decree the death penalty use hanging, decapitation, etc. Other Muslim states have long prison terms. Even states where homosexuality is not officially illegal, such as Jordan, usually consider that it is a personal family matter. This often means that the gay son or daughter are arrested for something, and while in prison a guard reports that they “chose” to kill themselves with their own belt (whether or not they had one when they went to jail).

How about it Angua? Do you feel it is right that your brother should get twice as much inheritance as you? Do you believe, as stated in Surah 4, that “Men are in charge of women”? Do you believe that your testimony in court should be worth a fraction of a man’s?

You, Angua, may be a moderate or liberal in your view. As Geert Wilders says, there are moderate Muslims. But liberal or moderate Islam is a myth. It is not like Reform Judaiism or liberal Christianity. A mosque is a mosque, and Islam is Islam.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Kyla

I agree with this. In college, I took a class on Born Again Christianity in which we discussed the Christian identity movement at length, and its influence on McVeigh and Nichols in passing, and it certainly seems to have had a strong influence on their actions. (Much to the dismay of the two actual Born Again Christians in the class, who were deeply offended that the professor had chosen to link racist theology with their own beliefs.) On the surface, I think the comparison with radical Islamism is an apt comparison - both are religious movements driven by politics. The difference is that there is so much more room for Islamism to take root than Identity Christianity.

It had strong influence on their actions how? I’ve never seen any evidence that either McVeigh or Nichols were Christian Identity, and all the arguments that I’ve seen suggesting he was relied on sort of guilt by association; that he exchanged views with Dennis Mahon, that he sometimes visited Elohim City.

It’s a mistake to view Qutb’s Islamism as an actual religious movement. It is a religious movement only on the surface. It is a tool used for political action. Muslim terrorists are Muslims and they are terrorists, but they are not terrorists because they are Muslims, they’re terrorists because they have decided to engage in a political movement that is largely born out of a feeling of powerlessness. In order to attract adherents, the political movement has covered itself with a thin veneer of Islam, but anyone who isn’t the slightest bit ignorant of Islam knows that terrorism is not acceptable within any mainstream Muslim theology.

I agree with you that Islamism isn’t a religious movement, and that it’s a political movement, but it’s a political movement with religious motivations and shaped by theological leanings. The Muslim Brotherhood isn’t a political and social movement that just happens to have religious members. The Brothers’ political and social views come out of of their religious beliefs about the world and the way society should be run. It’s like the Christian Coalition and old Moral Majority in the US were certainly political groups, but their political stances derived from their religious beliefs. Now, there were certainly Christians, and even a majority of Christians, that didn’t share those religious and political beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that the beliefs weren’t motivated by the group’s Christianity.

No one who is informed on the topic says that Muslim terrorists are terrorists because they are Muslims, or even because they’re Islamist. As I’m sure you know, most Islamist groups aren’t terrorist. There’s a whole set of factors that make any group adopt terrorism. But it’s a mistake to ignore that Al Qaeda’s, for instance, actions are unrelated to their religious beliefs.

[Kyla]

Hey, Angua, I have some unfortunate news for you. Your identity as a Muslim is no longer your own decision. Some nutjob in Toronto is now in charge of who’s a Muslim and who isn’t.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Valteron

…You, Angua, may be a moderate or liberal in your view. As Geert Wilders says, there are moderate Muslims. But liberal or moderate Islam is a myth. It is not like Reform Judaiism or liberal Christianity. A mosque is a mosque, and Islam is Islam.

And Valteron is still a monomaniac. His posts are my cite.

[Valteron]

@Kyla

Hey, Angua, I have some unfortunate news for you. Your identity as a Muslim is no longer your own decision. Some nutjob in Toronto is now in charge of who’s a Muslim and who isn’t.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Who is this person in Toronto? I have never heard of him.

[Kyla]

@Captain_Amazing

It had strong influence on their actions how? I’ve never seen any evidence that either McVeigh or Nichols were Christian Identity, and all the arguments that I’ve seen suggesting he was relied on sort of guilt by association; that he exchanged views with Dennis Mahon, that he sometimes visited Elohim City.

Ack, now you’re asking me to go back and remember stuff from the classroom a really long time ago. I can’t do that off the top of my head. I’ll try to get back to this later. To be frank, I am not an expert on McVeigh or the plot to blow up the Murrah Building so I could be wrong/misremembering. It’s happened before.

I agree with you that Islamism isn’t a religious movement, and that it’s a political movement, but it’s a political movement with religious motivations and shaped by theological leanings. … snip
No one who is informed on the topic says that Muslim terrorists are terrorists because they are Muslims, or even because they’re Islamist. As I’m sure you know, most Islamist groups aren’t terrorist. There’s a whole set of factors that make any group adopt terrorism. But it’s a mistake to ignore that Al Qaeda’s, for instance, actions are unrelated to their religious beliefs.

Okay, I don’t disagree with you. I don’t think we’re contradicting each other, I was just focusing on a different aspect of Islamic fundamentalism. It certainly has an appeal because it is a Muslim organization and because it purports to advance the cause of Islam. So thank you for clarifying.

[jayjay]

@Valteron

You see, the problem is that in order to be “liberal” in any way resembling our definition of it, and still be a Muslim, she would have to throw about half the Koran out the window.

For example, Surah 4:34 DEFINITELY says a man should beat his wife if he suspect “rebellion” from her. Now, I have not intention of getting into a whole new bullshit argument with Angua that the word really means “symbollically beat with a popsicle stick”. The text says “beat” and it says so in the context of punishment. If Allah meant “beat painlessly and symbollically with a tiny twig” why did he not say it to Mohammed, and save millions of Muslim women hundreds of years of beatings?

How does Angua get around verse after verse after verse that says that infidels (I am an atheist) will burn in Hell? In fact, it even says that once your skin is burnt off, Allah will give you are more sensitive new skin and start the barbecue all over again.

What does Angua consider the best method for dealing with homosexuals? The Prophet’s favourite way was to throw them off a cliff. The five Muslim states that decree the death penalty use hanging, decapitation, etc. Other Muslim states have long prison terms. Even states where homosexuality is not officially illegal, such as Jordan, usually consider that it is a personal family matter. This often means that the gay son or daughter are arrested for something, and while in prison a guard reports that they “chose” to kill themselves with their own belt (whether or not they had one when they went to jail).

How about it Angua? Do you feel it is right that your brother should get twice as much inheritance as you? Do you believe, as stated in Surah 4, that “Men are in charge of women”? Do you believe that your testimony in court should be worth a fraction of a man’s?

Well, there goes the Bible, too! Start rounding up the Christians, boys!

[Angua]

This is to ValteronGo look up Ismailism. Heck, here, read these: Isma'ilism - Wikipedia http://www.theismaili.org/cms/16/The-Ismaili-Community That is the branch of Islam I belong to. We believe in a Living Imam, the Interpreter of the Koran for the current time and age. That the Koran as revealed 1400 years ago, was right for that time, and that it is not always correct for now and has to be appropriately interpreted for the age in which we live. I’m not a “moderate” Muslim, I, and the branch of Islam I belong to are liberal. We believe in equality of men and women, contrary to what was the normal social norm 1400 years ago, the value and role of the intellect in every day life. In Ismailism, homosexuality is not condemned, its treated as a fact of who you are. Hell is not a physical space, it is a state of not being in the light of God, it is a spiritual hell, not a physical one. Heaven is having one’s soul being one with God. Our basic philosophy on life is that those of us who are priveleged to have had the advantages of a good education, of wealth, be it of time, money or knowledge, should use that wealth to better the lives of our own communities, the communities in which we live, and of the world in general. We do not set ourselves apart from the communities we live in, heck, we actively promote integration, education and engagement with the communities that we live in. Most people have no idea that we’re Muslim until they ask. If you’re truly interested, and not just out to get at me, I started a thread on this some years ago, where I expanded on the beliefs etc of the branch of Islam I follow.

[Angua]

@Kyla

Hey, Angua, I have some unfortunate news for you. Your identity as a Muslim is no longer your own decision. Some nutjob in Toronto is now in charge of who’s a Muslim and who isn’t.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Damnit! Does that mean I have to give back the burqa, niqab and my AK-47??