The AK-47 is completely acceptable, being both cool and libertarian by US standards. The other stuff has got to go, though.
Oh good. How about the Daisy Dukes and tank top I was wearing underneath?
What I’m saying that it doesn’t matter if violence is caused by the “real” tenets of a religion or not: if the performers of said acts think it is, then that’s enough to be caused by their religion. Who is better to judge someone’s religion, myself or the person espousing that religion? It’s not like you can point to some real-world referent from which the dicta of the religion sprang forward. If there were such a thing, I am not cynical enough to believe that most people on Earth would not convert to the revealed true religion.
So we’re left with having to trust people when they say what religion they are and which acts are religiously-motivated, since none of it is more reality-grounded than the rest of it.
Then look at the percentages. A fairly high number of professed muslims support terrorism (just like a fairly high number of Christians do not believe in any separation between church and state.)
If it can be shown that the average Muslim that comes over to North America comes from the same demographic as the average worldwide muslim, then I am sorry to say that we do have good reason to be wary of them (like we should beware of fundies). Fortunately, this isn’t the case, since the ones that hate North Americans aren’t likely to come over here in the first place. And the ones that grow up in a tolerant society tend to be tolerant themselves (surprise).
Now, if we did something bizarrely stupid and selfdestructive like literally transporting millions of muslims from countries with backward outlooks on freedom on barges to America, then we should have good cause to fear them. But as it stands we don’t need to fear Islam unless they approach a majority in population, at which point they will start to oppress Christians just like Christians started to oppress Roman pagans once they got the upper hand.
I am familiar with Ismaili Muslims because I worked with one for a number of years. I have also looked up your earlier thread where you say that “Ismailism is a very small sect, even by the standards of Shi`aism, but it is a very liberal one.”
Well good for you.
What I have not been able to find is your total population. What proportion of the 1.5 billion Muslims do you represent? I imagine it is a tiny fraction?
In addition, I have been told that Sunni Muslims, who are 90% of Islam, generally do not consider you “real” Muslims because of your liberal views.
If all Muslims, or even a substantial proportion, were like you, I imagine there would be no anti-jihad movement in the west because there would be no world-wide jihad.
Oh, sorry, I forgot, there IS no world-wide jihad. Just a whole bunch of Muslim warriors attacking on some 50 or 80 fronts, from New York to Madrid to the July 7 bombings in London, to Israel, to . . . . . . Oh, what the fuck is the use? If you don’t want there to be a world jihad, you will not see it. As Winston Churchill said, an appeaser is someone who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
So I suppose the others will now triumphantly delight in the fact that I have admitted that not 100% of Muslims are jihadists? Funny thing is, when we say that Japan attacked America at Pearl Harbour, we are not challenged to prove that every man, woman and baby in Japan were part of the attack, or even approved of it. But if I say that the west is under attack from Islam, I had better be ready to prove that that means 100% of Muslims. The existence of a single peaceful Musl;im invalidates all I say, apparently.
I’d say we’re talking NRA calendar. Can’t get mo’ 'Merican than that.
Well said. But concerning your last paragraph, are you aware of a 2007 MSNBC poll looking at American Muslims? It turns out that 26% of American Muslims aged 18-29 (with another 5% being unsure) believe that:
Here is an article that brings the findings into focus.
I remember that there’s been a poll cited here before that shows the percentages who believe similarly worldwide, but can’t seem to find it right now. And Search isn’t being particularly helpful.
There’s something of a difference between a religion in which there are self-admitted differences and a government. When you say Japan attacked America you’re saying the Japanese government, the Japanese armed forces and the state in general attacked, for which “Japan” is shorthand. Generally we accept the nation name as shorthand for the acts of its government (and football teams, for that matter!). But we tend not to for the acts of a group with no overall, agreed upon leadership or allegiance.
Simply put, “Japan” is generally accepted to mean more than just every person within that nation. “Islam” refers to the entirety of the religion, or the entirety of the believers in it. That’s pretty much it. I really don’t think your attempt and pointing out a double standard works.
Well done, by the way, for talking about 50 to 80 fronts, and then naming 4. Your point is well proved!
There are logical holes in that so big you could fly a 747 through them.
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was an official Japanese military attack, planned and authorized by the Japanese government. The 9/11 attacks had no actual state actors involved in them. Nor did they have any overall Muslim authority behind them…Islam doesn’t have a Pope.
The 9/11 attacks were authorized and carried out by one private politicoreligious organization, Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is, I’m pretty sure, even smaller than the Ismaili population.
And yet, the fact that more than one such peaceful Muslim exist (and believe me, I bet I know more Muslims than you do, Ismaili and non-Ismaili, and I can guarantee you that they’re non-violent), does not invalidate your stance against all Muslims, everywhere? You’re still allowed to believe and indeed treat us all like we’re war-like backwards terrorists?
There’s an old saying, “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t force him to drink”. I’m done forcing this horse to drink.
This poll gets brung up a lot, but in all honesty i’m afraid I don’t see how it is particular damning. I agree with it; I would say that, in rare circumstances, the use of suicide bombing against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified. I agree.
What seems very odd to me is that we seem to be taking it for granted that this number is much larger than for everyone else. I might well see that for suicide bombing, but for terrorism in general? I bet you could find higher numbers, from all groups, supporting “Shock and Awe”. Numbers don’t mean anything without context - let’s see some stats on how* everyone *reacts to terrorism on civilian targets.
No, but those of us who are not incredibly stupid and do not base most of our world views on unreasoning hatred recognize that Japan was an actual nation with a government and an emperor that actually dictated the actions in which the powers of that state would engage. This would be a significant difference between Japan and Islam, a large religious movement comprising at least three separate philosophical divisions, with no central authority even for those divisions, and no actual structure that would permit any single governing body to actually direct all Muslims, (or even a majority of Muslims), to behave in a particular way.
You tend to make up analogies that fail at every level. So sad.
Which, to clarify, means that I’m not going to give up educating people about Islam where I can. Its just that when faced with attitudes such as Valteron’s, even getting the horse to go anywhere near the water is a futile effort. You come in with your pre-conceived (and near-ignorant) attitudes about Muslims and the entire Muslim community, and when faced with evidence that your attitude might be wrong, you get defensive and annoyed. Its hard to have a dialogue when one party has their fingers in their ears and is screaming “I can’t hear you” at the top of their voice.
That is precisely what I’ve been saying. I have not stated, and am certainly not of the belief, that ALL Muslims were bad actors. I’ve been saying that we should have a general wariness of all Muslims, when that is all we can no about them. At least, that’s what I’ve been trying to say. I can’t think of anything that would contradict that. The one thing you mentioned was intended to mean at first glance. You see a list of Muslim Americans and there is no foolproof may to cull the good from the bad. Added information can help you. For instance, those who might belong to a more radicalized Mosque, but until you have that additional info, wariness of the larger group is merited.
I think you might be guilty here, which is unusual for you, to be reading what I’ve written in the worst light possible. And in doing so, ascribing beliefs to me that I have not stated and do not hold. That some of the other posters are doing this is something that I’ve come to expect, disappointing as it may be.
The family analogy doesn’t work well. You’re talking about known entities. The risk isn’t coming from an anonymous member of a larger group. Additionally, in the example you attempt to craft, you contort what it means to be a family to such a degree that I don’t think that any larger pattern could be expected to hold.
Quite the contrary. This is what I’ve been asserting all along. Maybe I hadn’t fleshed it out as fully, but nothing I’ve written contradicts with this.
Well, when we look at any additional information, we’d look to see if we can see a correlation between that new information and “good” or “bad” behavior. If we can’t, it is not helpful (by itself, any way). But to help the point, if we look at Mosque affiliation, and someone has been associated with what we know to be a more radicalized mosque, that person gets more scrutiny than the general pool. Conversely, if a person is affiliated with a mosque that is know to not welcome radical Islam, that person would get less scrutiny.
This is a good question, and I commented on it much earlier. Not all information is actionable. To push you example a bit further, most crimes are committed by people without tattoos on their face. But that pool is so large as to render it meaningless. And, I would point out, that it doesn’t mean that those with tattoos are less likely to commit crime.
You agree with the 5%. That leaves 26%. That’s not comforting. Especially when we’re talking about willfully and intentionally killing innocent people, including children. Now, you may want to equate that with military action, i.e., “shack and awe”, but we’ll have to agree to simply disagree on that point as I hold it as being absurd. More the nonsense that I see coming from Der Trihs than anything I have an interest in debating—again. Not to mention, that it’s bound to create more than a small hijack. So I will leave that for another thread. If you wish to start one, I will make a point of contributing.
Either that, or maybe you’re truly “really not all that bright”.
Yes, I am under the impression that reality is real. and that people like you and Der Trihs have this desperate, transparent need to try to make MacVeigh’s murders Christianity-based. Others have tried to disabuse you of your stupidity, but you, no doubt, will cling to it with renewed vigor. Please, cling away.
I’ll agree you have said nothing to contradict that point. What I think made me assume this of you was that when I first talked about this with you in regards to Muslims, you didn’t talk about being able to differentiate; you specifically said no method was foolproof. When we started talking about other groups, it’s with them that you then started to say that differentiation was possible and acceptable, even when not foolproof. I don’t think it was too unreasonable an assumption; but, having been corrected, I apologise for thinking it of you.
You’re right, it’s a bit of a tricky one.
Alright. This is obviously a difficult question, and I would not ascribe any poor motives to you for not answering or not feeling able to answer, but are there any other groups that you would feel comparable in the extent that you feel we should be wary of Muslims in general?
So when does a pool become too large to be meaningless? And, on the opposite end, at what point does a pool become small enough that it has a great effect? I mean, in the U.S., there are (I would guess) thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and at most millions of people with tattoos on their face. There are more than a billion Muslims. If the first group is so large as to render the information meaningless, why is not identification as Muslim?
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.
As fucked up as Uganda is, your wariness wouldn’t do you much good, as the vast majority of the population is Christian. And even something as simple as a reading your own link (:rolleyes:) would demonstrate that the army’s barbarism is not rooted in Christianity.
So, does this mean that you’re dropping your “But something bad (that I can’t ever bother to articulate) might happen down the road” opposition to calling same-sex unions marriages?
(Yeah, it’s a hijack, but it’s been pretty well established by now that magellan ain’t ever going to answer the “So what steps do you recommend we take to be wary of the Muslims?” questions.)
Just wanted to say that, having read the thread, if Gyrate is available, I’ll be on the next flight to UK. Excellent points all, well crafted and eloquently expressed. Who knew a Pit thread could be so… titillating–and on such a topic? 
Please tell me you look like Colin Firth and are landed gentry. If so, I’m a sure thing, baby!
Perhaps those who are so adamant about this supposed global jihad (and yet all the Muslim doctors I work with seem so polite, nice and gentle? Smart, too. Perhaps I need new glasses.) etc should go back to Kindergarten and read a book by Dr Seuss entitled, The Sneetches. But then again, perhaps all they’d take from it is that Muslims need stars on their bellies or some such. It’s hard to be concrete operational in adult life.
And I was going to make a joke about finding the [del]muscle[/del]Musselman sexually attractive, but realized I have an “L” in my user name so am disqualified from any participation in the thread. I shall away to my ghetto to await my well deserved fate. Truly I am not worthy.
Well, if you want [del]muscle[/del]Musselmen…