Yaawwwwn.
Try harder.
Your explanation for certain actions is this mindset about wanting everyone to be treated equally, a position you agree with, but ignoring the actual facts that you would say should affect that. To restate, is that the only explanation you think is plausible to explain this kind of action, or are there other explanations that you’ve discounted for one reason or another?
If you’re not sure of the percent, how do you know it’s near enough to 1% or 0.1% to make your point workable?
I have to admit that I had to very quickly skim that poll to read it, so very possibly I’ve missed something, but I didn’t see a question pertaining to how many Muslims are interested in killing me (or you).
Try answering the question you’re working so hard to avoid answering:
Step 1: Identify the Enemy…
Anyone not exactly like MEEEEEE!
My point is there exist Muslims who are trying to follow the example of the Semites and paranoid winguts like yourself aren’t helping matters.
Muslim acquaintance of Orlando killer reported him to the FBI.
Who was that mosqued man? I wanted to thank him! Anyway, sorry to interrupt with facts. You guys were saying?
Our actual material enemies – those who carry out attacks or materially support them – are a very small portion of Muslims. This very small group of Muslims are our enemy in terms of ISIS-inspired and related terrorism.
And fortunately, there are very, very few in America. In fact, we’ve done a magnificent job of assimilating Muslims in America – they’re significantly more open to homosexuality than evangelicals and Mormons, for example. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any shitty Muslims here – there certainly are, including Omar Mateen.
Considering that we’ll be far more likely to defeat the actual enemy with most Muslims on our side, then it seems reasonable to me to use nuance and specificity when discussing our real enemies. This doesn’t require holding back 911 calls – that seems pretty silly, and I’m glad they changed their minds.
I did argue about not giving him any press, and you clearly don’t agree. Or perhaps you agree, but you feel it’s far more important to paint a red target on 1.6 billion people because their wrathful god is different from your wrathful god.
Step 2: Use that identification to whip up sentiment against everyone who looks like and believes like that enemy.
Step 3: Once public opinion and fear is sufficiently heated, begin the Crusade.
That’s a regional-cultural thing, really. It is not practiced in all Islamic countries, it might well predate Islam where it is practiced, and the mullahs agree Mohammed neither commanded nor recommended it.
You can’t possibly believe there’s no connection between the two.
Well, what can we do about that? The Taliban has a heavy presence in Pakistan, and the House of Saud’s main domestic opposition is ultra-Wahhabists who think the royals are too secular and Westernized. We can’t risk destabilizing either country, or more radical-religious statelets might spring up, and their respective regions might even descend into regional war.
Step 1 begins with recognizing that the next guy you see on the street who looks Middle Eastern to you is really not, to any statistically significant degree, more likely to be a dangerous person than the next Euro-white person you see.
This kind of reminds me of the furor over Benghazi, where it’s really not quite clear if anyone knows what they’re mad about, but they’re mad about SOMETHING, by gum!!!
Everyone knows that the asshole had declared his allegiance to Islam. Everyone had reported that. It was not a secret. There was no coverup.
Is it reasonable to omit the precise words he used in the 911 conversation in order to attempt to prevent him from being used as a martyr, or attempt to prevent glorification of ISIS? And was that why that decision was made?
Beats me. But there was no downplaying, no keeping of secrets, no hush-hush-let’s-pretend, because everyone already knew, and everyone already knew that everyone already knew.
To the extent that it was a stupid decision, it was stupid mainly because it gave right wing idiots like the ones in this thread free ammunition, not because their claims actually have substance.
It would have been free ammunition no matter what was done. I’m sure there was a statement prepared for every possible situation.
Magellan, before I start on the invective, I remember you being, if not the most reasonable poster on the board, at least above this. This thread sounds more like something Clothahump would post. So let me ask you two questions.
-
Why, exactly, does censuring the man’s mention of ISIS turn the censures into the American propaganda arm of ISIS? They’re trying to reduce ISIS’s exposure, and I think it’d be pretty hard to argue that reducing ISIS’s exposure would help their recruitment effort. Everyone knows this guy was a Muslim, everyone knows he pledged allegiance to ISIS - that all made the news a week or so ago; it’s not being hidden from us. It’s common knowledge. So why does this act as propaganda for ISIS?
-
Who are our enemies, exactly? When you keep saying “step one”, do you honestly think there’s some confusion? ISIS is the enemy. Islamists are the enemy. But my friend Bilal who lives down the street is not the enemy, despite being a practicing Muslim. (By the way? He knows I’m bisexual and is perfectly fine with that.) Hell, Obama had a speech talking about exactly this issue not long ago. He’s actively trying to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, because if we can’t do that, there’s no way in hell we can win the war on terror - after all, there are more Muslims in the world than Americans. Why do you keep acting like Obama legitimately doesn’t “know who the enemy is”? He gets it. I kinda think you don’t.
I hope you’ll give these questions serious answers. It’s the pit, but I’d like to think you are above… Well, this.
Pages 15 and 55. Page 15 shows the percentage of the Muslim population that supports Shariah law, and page 55 shows the percentage of Shariah law supports that support the death penalty for apostasy. Turkey’s pretty good, in that only a few percent want to kill ex-Muslims, but it’s 60% in Egypt and Palestine, and 80% in Afghanistan.
I pit the American PR arm of ISIS and murderous Muslim Radicals.
PR arm of ISIS. The White House. You have got to be one of the dumber people that I will cross paths with today. Try not to stick your fingers in any electrical outlets.
No. Not giving him any press might be the best thing, but it’s just not possible in todays world. Or do you disagree? Do you think it is possible for an event like that to occur and the government work with media—ALL media—to not talk about it? I don’t.
And that’s not even what the government was trying to do. They, with this instance and others, do not want Islam to get a bad rap. They have this Kumbaya attitude, which is nice, but doesn’t work in a world where Muslim Extremists want to kill innocent people. We’re told to keep our eyes open and support suspicious activity or individuals, that that’s is the best thing we can do. Okay, well don’t you think that knowing what to keep an eye out for is helpful information. Every time the White House, a police department or news outlet tries to protect Islam (or minorities) but not giving us as much info about the perpetrator as possible, they make people less safe. If there was a serial rapist raping women in a city and there was information describing him as being black or Arab-looking, or Asian or having red hair, don’t you think that information is helpful to women?
This knee-jerk mistake made by The White House was just that: knee-jerk and a mistake.