You can say you immediately connect Islam and terrorism and few would bismirch [sic] your character. Your critical thinking skills, yes, but character is distinct from that. I think that Karl Rove has excellent critical thinking abilities, but dreadful character.
Your point seems to be that those who don’t immediately associate Islam with terrorism are lying. You say this why? Because you’ve drawn such a tight emotional connection between them that it’s impossible to believe that other’s haven’t? Was it just as irrational for some people to associate crime with blight and poverty instead of race? That seems to rely on an extraordinarily parochial view of geopolitical events.
Here’s a fun thing to try. Multiply 1,300,000,000 by 0.001. On the one hand, that’s a very small percent of the overall Islamic population. On the other hand, that represents abut 1,300,000 people. Do you think there are that many active terrorists in the world? Even if they were acting in such numbers, you think it’s rational to ascribe their actions to the greater whole? You think it’s dishonest for someone not to?
But that’s not my main point. The seed of all this was someone’s incredulity that other’s don’t make the Islam/crime connection and suggesting that they’re being duplicitous. I understand why someone would make the connection–just as I understand why someone would make the black/crime connection in 1950. But neither connection is particularly valid. It’s entirely possible to hear of violence and not immediately pair it with Islam, just as it is easy to hear of a crime and assume the perpetrator was black.
OK , I get what you mean and it does make sense, and I did respond to the wrong poster.
Why do those things come* before* Islam? When even the terrorists themselves place their faith much higher on their motivational list. Do you conceded that it is possible for an ideology to be a driving force behind destructive actions? If so why is Islam exempt?
I think you are poisoning the well here. “black” is not an ideology nor a religion. Whether you like it or not, Islam is closely linked to terrorism. You do yourself no favour by trying to imply anyone pointing this out is the equivalent of an unthinking racist.
In that it is an admonishment of pack behavior over individual thought yes. As per the inability to suppress a first thought then no. And facts are just facts. People cannot overcome the brains biology and I’m not sure they should as it has been evolved such for a reason. Just think is all I would suggest. Try to avoid group-think. I often throw things out without consideration of feelings just to get at the root of something though so if I have insulted someone I do apologize. I’m human too.
This is an english language forum. In most english speaking countries that sort of violence is in the news daily. 1 + 1. It’s unavoidable. It’s not the fault of anyone that it may be their first thought in such a circumstance. It IS out fault for not acknowledging that. I will forevermore believe that it is best to point out the king has no clothes on. The mere mention of this observation has brought knowledge to the fore, afterall. Alas I have family obligations. I will come back to read replies and others thoughts later.
Maybe it’s an age thing, someone’s first impression of something is often their strongest, and before 9/11, the more exotic aspects of Islam would be remembered. I’m not saying Islamic terrorism didn’t or doesn’t exist, but it wasn’t something the average American thought about 'til recently.
Yes, and a few posts later, the threadstarter states his own slightly embrassing opinion
[troll]It’s spelt TOWELhead[/troll]
I don’t think Islamic ‘art’ is beautiful per se, but it certainly is fascinatincg a culture’s art evolves in response to a restriction
The head iman of Al Azhar University, probably the closest the Muslims have to a pope, said that clitorectomy is unislamic.
Islam should be criticised for many things, but do not blame it for acts it prohibits.
Yes, and a few posts later, the threadstarter states his own slightly embrassing opinion
[troll]It’s spelt TOWELhead[/troll]
I said" sponge head" because I was getting the impression that the poster was soaking up everything he heard and read about Islam, and assuming that questioning people (who could think outside of the massive doses of hate mongering toward Islam ) were being dishonest in their comments.
I think it’s important to point out that it’s possible for “terrorism” to be something that springs to mind when someone says “Islam” just because the two ARE frequently linked, not because they SHOULD be frequently linked. An important (if not THE most important) issue facing Islam in the world today is its connection with terrorism, and that’s true even if that connection is, in fact, extremely tenuous… because the PERCEPTION of that connection is, itself, an extremely important issue when it comes to how people deal with Islamic people on a day to day basis.
Which is not to say that anyone who says that the first thing that pops into their head is the flower of culture under Suleiman the magnificent is lying… but at the same time, anyone who saw this thread title and didn’t immediately think “hmmm, I wonder how many people will say terrorism? Or how many will go out of their way NOT to say terrorism? or how many will berate people for doing either of the above” either lives in a bubble somewhere or at least has never actually read an SDMB thread before now.
Well - I’ll be honest, the very first word that came to mind was “war.”
But right on the heels of that (I spent years in my youth living in a Muslim-centric country) was hospitality, call to prayer, mosque, mosaics, Turkish bath, and other positive associations.
Knee-jerk, first-response word was “war” though. Being as how there hasn’t been a conflict on this planet in the last few decades that hasn’t involved Islam one way or the other.
I don’t think anyone doubts that a wide swath of Americans (and other countries) make the immediate Islam-terrorism link. Again, plenty of people earn their living (some earning massive livings) reinforcing and promoting that connection. Ascribing the statements and actions of a fraction of a fraction of people to the whole makes sense in some people’s mind.
It seems, though, that some can’t understand why there are people that don’t take the Pamela Geller track or can’t understand that the connection is largely manufactured–hence they’re expressing disbelief that it’s possible to not have make the internal connection between violence and Islam.
Well, I begin to see something, but I don’t think it’s what you’re expecting me to see or hoping to portray.
Didn’t I read this in a !!!Cheap @dd3r@ll!!! email once?
It’s possible that some brains are hardwired to create associations between things that appear in conjunction with other things regardless of the reality of that connection. Other brains are hardwired to analyze information presented to them and discard associations they consider invalid. The former is easier but the latter is more fun. YMMV, of course.
A small percent, and yes. (Or rather, sidelocks (payot), to be more specific, is the first thing *I *think of when you say “Jews”.)
Really? Quite a few people said “terrorism” or “terrorists” or “oppression of women” or other very negative things were their first thought. None of them received a “besmirching of character” as a result.
The only besmirching of character going on is from you and a few others, who call posters who don’t immediately think negative thoughts liars. You’re the besmircher here, not the besmirched.
Nope. I said I thought of how many there would be. Go back and see. I stand by it that there was a fair amount of fudging going on and I wasn’t the only one to say that either. You might want to go back and read everything over again as your prejudice is showing.
I’ll say something else you won’t like. When I say Christian conservatives what is the first thing you think? I think of an intolerant mindset. Did you think of people praying for cancer victims? They do that every Sunday you know. Now tell me what a besmircher I am because I don’t think you did. I’m one awful realist aren’t I? At the very least I am not disingenuous. I see several who may be though.
I apreciate those honest enough to admit their first thought and even more the second thoughts of peaceful muslims they have known but YOU read things into what is said according to your own prejudice and because it is the prevailing vogue never know you are doing it.
One last thing. It is not a conspiracy to report on violence in the middle east. If anyone wants to delve into why there isn’t more reporting of the efforts to save ancient manuscripts there then fine but to blame the press for reporting terrorism is nuts and obviously so.
I agree 100% with this post.
I can definitely believe that some people honestly, sincerely didn’t think of 9/11 or the media bombardment about news about violence in the Middle East. I do find it hard to believe that SO MANY people thought of everything but that, however, when it’s something we all read about every day in the news.
I would liken it to the kind of silly exaggeration that we always see on threads polling people about their IQ or penis size.
Is it possible that any given individual has an IQ of 160 or a 12 inch penis? Sure. It’s just that it looks silly, and it’s pretty obvious that people are being less than honest, if a disproportionate number of responses are in that direction.
I definitely do think that the replies in this thread were skewed with people trying to look “open minded” or something by not mentioning terrorism. Or people that didn’t want to look racist and get yelled at for mentioning it.
Having grown up near Dearborn I knew a lot of perfectly normal people who were Muslims. I don’t actually think that Muslims are all terrorists. But I do think that the way they’re portrayed in the media, it wouldn’t be surprising if someone thinks of the Middle East’s problems when they think of Muslims.
How smarmy and ineffectualy accusitory of you. Really? That’s all you got?
No. Simply not true. Our first reaction is instinctual based on the major survival input. We analyze later. It’s why we jump when we see a snake. Most snakes are not poisonous. We know this but it is not our FIRST reaction. Only a very close contact with snakes on a daily basis or no knowledge of them changes that. Muslims are in no way equivical to snakes but most westerners have more news knowledge than daily personal contact so it is natural they have a fleeting image of terror or intolerance. It doesn’t mean they don’t then remember the laugh they shared with a Muslim in the next instant or how honest they were treated by the Muslim car dealer or things of that nature.
You know what? I give. Go ahead and put me in your box if that’s what makes you comfortable. Hell, just accuse me dismissively of putting EVERYONE here in one rather than noting how few said terror and with the knowledge of pack backlash hanging over them some may not have been completely honest.
Boy howdy, you sure get all bent out of shape when your assertions are challenged, don’t you? It’s almost as if a lesser member of the pack were challenging your supremacy.
You might indeed be ruled by your instincts and leap into action at the first sight of a terrifying [del] Muslim [/del] snake, but you shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking that other people aren’t able to identify and adapt to circumstances more efficiently than you.
Then what do you think of?
Personally, the first thing that I think of when I hear “violence” is “the Middle East”. And isn’t the majority of the Middle East predominately Muslim?
IMHO they’re kind of ‘hand in hand’, thinking of one induces thoughts of the other.
Isn’t that kind of specious? Putting aside for the moment that the OP asked about Islam, not a geographic region, what are the main epicentres of violence in the Middle East?
Palestine? Though intrinsically connected, it’s horribly simplistic to consider it an Arab/Islamic dispute. People are fighting over territory and self-rule. The subtleties are legion, but it’s not a conflict primarily focused on religion. Yes, the two different sides are from two different religious backgrounds. Stopping there displays an inordinately shallow understanding of the conflict.
Iraq? Dictatorships do not depend on any particular religion (or any religion at all), and there is/was a hostile army occupying the country. Among the chaos are two tribes competing for power. Religion colours everything but is far from the driving force.
Afghanistan? Similar to Iraq, there is a strong undercurrent of religion yet the actors in the conflict are foreign troops and a system of nurtured warlords vying for power.
Arab spring? Dictators struggling to hold on to power. Some religious factions are participating.
Pakistan? Their internal strife is religious how? Whether they should be influenced by the west or harbour western ‘enemies’ are two of many questions in addition to religion that dictate goings-on much more strongly than religion.
Are there forces bent on conversion or killing anyone who doesn’t believe them? Of course. Are they the defining characteristic of Islam or the Middle East? Only if you buy a threadbare narrative and close your eyes to broader understanding.
Of course it’s easy to reject the notion that ISLAM IS TERROR if you have a mildly simple understanding of context and events. Claiming that people are being disingenuous for lacking the mind-numbingly base connection between Islam and violence lacks any semblance of awareness. No. Simply, no.
