Repeating the same nonsense over and over again doesn’t suddenly make it true. Pick up a newspaper or a book sometime.
Comparing domestic terrorists to bees. How utterly disgusting.
there’s a fault in your comparison, and you actually mention it in your own words:
The dancing in the streets on 9/11 was not faked for TV drama. It was genuine, and involved HUGE numbers of Muslims (and virtually no other ethnic groups) who proudly and publically support terrorists.
Christian anti-abortion terrorists are, as you say, few in number and only supported by disgusting psychos.
Anytime you are tempted to compare Bin Laden to Timothy McVeigh because both are terrorists, ask yourself this: How many people danced in the streets after Oklahoma City? As you say,TV news looks for dramatic images---- and found them easily after Sept 11. So why did they not find dramatic images of mass rallies supporting McVeigh?
Ok, so other than the 20 or so Palestinians filmed celebrating 9/11, please show news articles/video showing Muslims dancing in the streets. Please subdivide these articles by location and size of gathering.
Hopefully after you fail to find anything you will realize that your xeno-anxiety has gotten the best of you.
This thread has gone a bit off the rails, but I want to thank everyone for their data and viewpoints.
I was hoping to gather some detail, and sadly it appears that there is a large polled minority that supports violent actions against western style diverse/inclusive democracy and individual freedoms. The underlying factors are complex and may be from fear and a protectionist concern to support the purity and ideals of Islam, but the perceived threat is not smoke and mirrors.
On the other hand the broad demonization brush is a dangerous implement and there is much to support the feeling that the majority of those who value Islam do not wish to impose it upon others and punish those who do not value it.
The problem with your task is that you’re fighting the 80/20 rule. While it may not be the same ratio there is a functioning part of a demographic group that is bat shit crazy. We invite the group as a whole into our country without reservation knowing there are wolves dressed in the peaceful lamb of the religion of Islam.
Saying something is nonsense doesn’t make it so. What is wrong, or nonsensical, with his statement?
Oh, please. :rolleyes: Like that information can be easily or reliably had. Why isn’t it enough to show the throngs celebrating? Do you deny this happened?
Honestly. I’ve already explained that there are secular movements in the Islamic world and that sometimes even though the language is religious, the movement is political since the violence stops or reduces when the political objective has been reached. Both of you have completely ignored those arguments. If you want to counter my thesis, you have to actually respond.
So, for example, I pointed out 3 Muslim movements that were secular in nature. Did either of you analyze those movements? Did either of you respond to that statement? Have you even heard of those movements? That’s what I mean by simply repeating something over and over.
I also gave you the example of the Anbar awakening. Did you analyze that argument? Did you respond to it in any way? Nope. You just keep repeating the same mantra over and over. This isn’t debating. This is the two of you refusing to even acknowledge facts or arguments that you don’t want to agree with.
I notice that when I offered to research so we could clear this up, Shodan refused to participate and you haven’t tried to clarify the definitions so that I can do the research. I see no point in continuing to engage people who refuse to even acknowledge counter-arguments.
No I do not deny that some Palestinians were video-taped celebrating 9/11. I would not even dispute that people in other countries where the population perceives themselves as our enemy may have celebrated 9/11. Neither of these statement have shit to do with Islam.
Its similar in nature to the large polled majority in the United States that supported attacks on civilians prior to the Iraq war. The average man on the street did not cause the Iraq war. Our leadership caused it and the same is true for those who seek to attack us. The average man on the street in is no threat to us. Enjoy your smoke and mirrors.
Also, I’m glad to see you got “data” on the side of the great Muslim threat and "feeling"s on the side of their being no threat.
I think if you read more closely you will see that you haven’t pointed out a fault, and there is no contradiction in my words such as you allude to.
Can you provide a cite for these “huge” numbers of people you refer to? All I recall from the incident was that the highly publicized TV shots were very isolated behaviour, which was immediately condemned by the relevant authorities.
You saw a few images reproduced over and over and over, and leaped to a conclusion like everyone else. You did not see more moderate behaviour because that doesn’t make for good news.
Just like you always see pyscopath clerics and their idiotic fatwas in the news, and not the moderates. Or (to stick to religion) just how you always see highly publicized studies claiming that intercessory prayer boosts healing. It’s nonsense, but do the studies confirming the status quo (that prayer does nothing) ever make it in the news? No, never, you have to look for such references in specialized media.
By the way, I do not understand the furore about the dancing incident. It was one instance of highly particular behaviour with limited involvement elicited by the sight of a nation perceived as oppressors experiencing what Palestinians see on a regular basis (attacked on their soil, buildings destroyed). Although deplorable, it is an understandable emotional reaction that was quickly and locally denounced.
And it has little to do with Islam or religion, and everything with politics.
Why is this of any importance, other than being the usual attempt to make one form of terrorism look “better” than the other, and one population look righteous and one evil?
Regardless, it is not difficult to find admirers and supports of McVeigh. Even more common are lengthy treatises on the motivation and background of this particular terrorist. Attempts to understand him and his philosophies are extremely common.
When it’s non-Americans of another religion, however, it is fine to demonize entire ethnic or religious groups for the exact same crime, simply because the people committing them are outsiders. That’s indeed a form of xenophobia. Plenty of examples in the current thread.
If you’re trying to suggest that Muslims in the Middle East don’t see the area as distinctly Islamic then you are being intellectually dishonest.
From Wiki site entitled Muslim World:
**
The term Muslim world (or Islamic world) has several meanings. In a cultural sense, it refers to the worldwide community of Muslims, adherents of Islam. This community numbers about 1.3-1.5 billion people, roughly one-fifth of the world population. This community is spread across many different nations and ethnic groups connected by religion and a shared sense of humanity. In a historical or geopolitical sense, the term usually refers collectively to Muslim majority countries or countries in which Islam dominates politically.**
I am not saying McVeigh was a “Christian terrorist”, however your definition is simplistically convenient in the extreme. So misleading is the tag “religious” in front of “terrorism” that many experts today refer to terrorism as a primarily political phenomenon, not religious.
Almost everything you would generally classify as religious terrorism is in fact political in nature.
And you suppose there is some sharp divide between politics and religion?
Yes. As already explained previously, Islamism is a **political **movement. Pretty clearly so.
Wikipedia defines Islamism this way:
Do you think Wikipedia is dead wrong?
No, it is perfectly correct as far as I can see, and I explained those mechanics in a previous post.
This works fine for Islamic terrorism with its lack of distinction between the political and religious. It does not work the other way - all political terrorism (like McVeigh’s) is not religious. Therefore bringing him up was a red herring, and BrightNShiny’s attempt to compare Islamic and “Christian” terrorism by using McVeigh as an example is invalid.
So is the attempt to draw distinctions between secular and religious terrorism within Islamic terrorism.
What is being claimed is a distinction without a difference. Islamic terrorism, whether political or religious, is Islamic terrorism, because Islamism does not recognize a distinction between the religious and the political.
I am perfectly willing to include Christian terrorism that seeks political changes, like killing abortionists, as terrorism. If BrightNShiny (or anyone else) would like to compile a list of that kind of terrorism to compare with the list of Islamic terrorist attacks in the US since 1990, we can discuss that and see which is the more serious issue.
Regards,
Shodan
I see McVeigh as an example of domestic terrorism, not “Christian” in any specific manner even though he was a Christian. The point is that almost all terrorism is political in nature (including both examples such as McVeigh as well as almost all terrorism committed by Muslims that is collectively called “Islamic terrorism”). The exertion of violent coercive power in the pursuit of political goals is a (very unfortunate) form of political expression.
And yet Islamism is a political force, not a religious one. Or to be more accurate, it is a set of political forces, since there are many different flavours of Islamism.
Let me refer you to a piece by Karen Armstrong that explains the problems evident in this thread:
But why? And what will the results mean? Again it seems like the old game of “my terrorist is better than yours”.
We already know there is a problem, and in the US that problem blossomed right around 1990. Look at any other period of American history and the picture will be quite different.
But the real task here is dissociating the peaceful majority of Muslims from the minority who engage in and support terrorism. The whole concept of Islamic terrorism is disingenuous when religion is *at best *a cover and incentive for political motives. For a much deeper discussion on this I recommend Robert Pape’s landmark analysis Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism of which a convenient summary is available on Wikipedia.
It might make for a convenient tag, but repeating the words “Islam” and “terrorism” together over and over while deliberately avoiding more complex discourse and distinctions simply results in people who automatically associate one with the other. That leads to lack of knowledge and fear. We’ve seen it in this very thread and on these boards many times, specifically the whole “dancing in the streets” misconception.
You know, people can actually read this thread and see what I’ve actually stated, rather than what you want to pretend I stated. ETA: And again, I wasn’t the one who brought up McVeigh in the first place. If you have a problem with bringing him up, go take it up with argent towers.
Repeating the same mantra without analyzing my arguments.
Please. I already offered to break out domestic terrorism into Christian and non-Christian terrorism. Again, you ignored that and are trying to pretend something else. And again, I never claimed that either is a “more serious” issue, despite your repeated attempts to pretend I did. I certainly didn’t go around comparing the WTC bombings to bee stings like some people tried to do with the Oklahoma City bombings.
ETA2: I’m not going to debate with someone who is debating with stuff he wants to pretend I said and who refuses to analyze my arguments. So, I’ll concede. Your right. Killing people and stockpiling WMDs is exactly the same as bee stings.