(reply #58 rom thread linked above):
boffking: Everyone is afraid of Muslim terrorists, but stuff like this is a lot more common than jihadi attacks. (At least in the us).
Yeah, there have been more clinic attacks than jihadi attacks in the US, but the jihadi attacks include over 2000 dead on 9/11, and a nation transformed forever to cope with the immensely greater threat. And also consider the world-wide nature of the jihadi threat, as I documented in reply #10:
Per Wiki there have been about ten- that’s t-e-n TEN abortion clinic bombing fatalities worldwide since 1990.
Per Wiki there have been over 1,000 Islamic terrorist murders so far in 2015 alone, leaving out possibly 2,000 more who disappeared during a Boko Haram operation. That does not include any of the likely thousands who have been murdered under the most bestial circumstances in ISIS-controlled territory.
No, I was referring to your fear of being the victim of RW terror directed at medical facilities. But I agree if the perpetrator of such an outrage was politically motivated he is likely to be RW.
So we are going to be at war with the bastards for the rest of the lives of each one of us is what. On the other hand threat to abortion clinics is too small to be termed a “war”, and would best be considered a law enforcement matter.
This is a strange argument…the alleged perpetrator is being prosecuted, so the girl’s civil rights are seemingly intact. Looking at CAIR’s mission statement, I don’t see anything about commenting on every case where a Muslim is accused of a crime.
You’re just determined to ignore this original issue, the terrorist attack in Colorado Springs, aren’t you?
The original point of the thread was the attack at the clinic, not a historical review of body counts of terrorist attacks of various time frames. This isn’t about your fear of Islamic terrorism. It’s not about you.
You are using your own research that supports on of baffling’s statements as evidence that baffling has “no sense of proportion”? Boffking never said more people had died in clinic attacks; boffking did not start a thread about terrorist attacks worldwide. This isn’t about international Islamic terrorism; this isn’t about your primary concern; this isn’t about you.
Again, you call the danger of being the victim of a terrorist attack on a U.S. medical facility a red herring, but that is the main issue in the OP. Maybe you shouldn’t just “pass” on that; maybe you should read it; maybe you should consider discussing the issue that the thread was started to discuss, instead of what concerns you the most.
Because this thread was not started to discuss your fear of being “at war with the bastards”, or your dismissal of terrorist attacks at health facilities as too small a threat. I don’t understand why you are in the thread if you think the topic is so unimportant, why you cannot allow posters to discuss a topic of interest to them, without hijacking it into a topic of more interest to you.
The victim deserves their representation, and the case deserves more attention that it is getting. She was targeted for being a Muslim. If she had been hit and dragged from school by her hair by a non-Muslim for wearing hijab, rather than by a Muslim for not wearing it, CAIR would have been there to defend her civil rights, issue press releases, and make sure the case got lot’s of airtime. Her attacker should not be treated leniently, simply because he is a Muslim, or part of her family.
Again, read up on what CAIR does. Hint - it’s in the name, they’re concerned with relations between American Muslims and American non-Muslims.
Further, why does it need more attention? There’s no ongoing injustice or coverup; it’s a simple assault and it’s being prosecuted. That’s really the end of it.
No, she wasn’t. The alleged perpetrator was her relative, he didn’t choose a random Muslim to attack.
That would be a completely different matter, though. Attacking a Muslim for being a Muslim is a hate crime, and indicative of hatred toward the Muslim community as a whole. Beating up a relative for displeasing you is a terrible thing, and worthy of the full penalties of the law, but it’s not a hate crime and has no bearing on American-Islamic relations.
See, this is the problem with smugly thinking you’re the only smart guy in the room. You make assumptions, and we all know what that leads to.
Wilson, a a southern Democrat, is the president most closely associated with the Progressive era, and as you’ve already noted, he was a virulent racist. Teddy Roosevelt, a northern Republican, is the president second-most closely associated with the Progressive era … and he also was a racist, who thought blacks should be denied the vote. Taft, the other Progressive president, was scarcely better, and William McAdoo, the Klan’s endorsed candidate in that 1924 convention, was an impeccable progressive.
Your claim that “Progressives - then or now - are usually not racist” is simply hokum. Most progressive politicians, writers, academics, etc of the early 20th century were deeply racist, and their racism was not in spite of their Progressivism, but part and parcel of it. You cannot seriously discuss the movement without understanding the deep influence of eugenics, which was widely considered to be sound science. Progressive thinkers from H.G. Wells to Oliver Wendell Holmes to Margaret Sanger to EA Ross to Thorstien Veblen and on and on embraced eugenics and advocated for “science-based” policy making. Hell, even black progressives like WEB DuBois embraced it, and looked for ways to ensure that “fit” blacks would outbreed the “unfit.” The opposition to eugenics was mostly from conservative religious types, especially Catholics, who rejected Darwinism. Which is not to say they were necessarily antiracist; pretty much everyone in the era was racist by today’s standards. But it wasn’t Catholic nuns passing laws requiring forcible sterilizations, and it wasn’t business interests campaigning to restrict immigration from places other than Northern Europe; it was the best and brightest minds of progressive science. The idea that progressives of any era “are usually not racist” is sheer fantasy – progressivism of the early 20th century was explicitly, consciously, and sometimes viciously racist.
The above is all wikipedia-level knowledge; the history of the Klan of the 10s and 20s is not maybe not quite as widely-known; oh, wait it is: Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia To summarize: it was not rural, poor, and southern, but urban, middle-class, and national. It was ardently in favor of Prohibition, the passage of which was the high-water mark of the Progressive movement. The Klan, as part of its anti-Catholic agenda, campaigned for compulsory public schooling and wanted the government actively involved in developing moral behaviors and attitudes, just as the Progressives did.
Does that make them a Progressive group per se? Of course not. But the Venn diagrams have significant overlap, and my original statement is accurate: the Klan at its peak was in at least as much alignment with the progressives of the era as the anti-progressives.
So, no, “son” you’re the one who is ignorant. I don’t want to hijack this thread anymore; if you want to open a thread to continue the discussion, feel free, but you’re going to have to demonstrate a lot more knowledge than you seem to possess.
I did respond to your rude, snarky response to my first post by referring to relative intelligence levels, but you deserved that.
Can we just talk without all the attitude please?
Again, you are massively confused by the huge difference between what the word progressive meant then and what it means now.
See, now this has gotten out of hand. Even if you want to debate whether progressive of that era were all racists, it’s irrelevant, because this conversation isn’t about progressives of that era. Never was.
Cool. But that’s not the topic.
Again, this doesn’t prove a damn thing about modern “progressives,” which is today just another synonym for liberals. So I’m glad you made your point, but it’s not the point. You
So now we go back to my original question to you, which was this:
LEFT-WING. Progressive of 1924 were not anything like modern left-wingers. You can’t even transplant today’s politics onto that period.
Nor can you claim that the Democrats were monolithic. They were split back then into a Northern and Southern wing, and the Southern one was hardly left-wing. I won’t lecture you on the history because you’re smart.
All I was doing is objecting to your attempt to make a tortorous connection from 1924 Progessives to modern liberal/progressive/left-wing/Democrats. Don’t do that.
She was attacked for being a Muslim girl who was resisting the pressure to wear hijab, and her attack is indicative of a desire to control women born into Muslim families, and a hatred of women and the freedoms granted to them in Western societies. The fact that she wasn’t chosen at random does not mean that it wasn’t a hate crime.
It’s kind of disgusting that you would conclude that there is “no ongoing injustice”, when the girl presumably has to continue to try to survive in the community which taught her relative such horrible things about women that he considered her choice not to wear hijab deserving of being hit and dragged from school by her hair, especially considering that the man who assaulted her got of jail for the price of a crappy used Hyundai.
If CAIR was actually concerned with the civil rights of Muslims, rather than being a public relations firm for political Islam, they would come to her defense.
Yes, and that simply not the same as being targeted or attacked “for being a Muslim”.
I’m sure that’s a problem in a non-zero number of Muslim families. Vigorous prosecution of the (criminal) offenders is a useful step toward thwarting the practice.
In the hate crime statutes, the requirement is that the criminal act was committed “because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of [the victim]”. There’s no wiggle room to argue that this incident qualifies.
Well, I’m talking about this case, not every bad thing done by a Muslim in this country, so when I say “there’s no ongoing injustice”, I mean the alleged perpetrator is, evidently, going to be prosecuted for the crime.
Anyone who assaults this girl or any other will face jail time.
I’m not opposed to the concept of bail for accused criminals that aren’t a flight risk, either, as you appear to be. Prison time should come after conviction, not before.
What defense does she need? It’s not like she’s on trial and needs money for a lawyer. I don’t even know what you want CAIR to be doing.
She was clearly attacked for her perceived religion, this is as plain as day. Hate crimes are still hate crimes when the victim is known to the perpetrator.
The ongoing injustice is that the girl has to still try to survive in the community that her attacker was just released to.
What kind of message do you think this sends to other Muslim girls in her community? This was a violent public humiliation, it will intimidate them and make it less likely that they will have the courage to stand up for themselves. The guy could do years of jail time and would still be facing less punishment for the assault than this girl received by being dragged by her hair from school in front of her peers. That is the kind of thing that scars a person for life, causes great fear and shame, and will damage her ability to have a normal relationship with the greater community. The assault is done, no one else needs to assault this girl or any other in her community. The message has been sent.
The amount that the bail is set at should be determined, at least in part, by the severity of the crime. That it was set at $4500 is an insult to the girl and sends a horrible message about the value that society places on her right to physical safety and bodily integrity at the hands of Muslims. There is no way in hell it would be set so low if she had been attacked by a non-Muslim for conforming to Islamic codes of conduct, instead of by a Muslim for refusing to follow those codes. The implicit message of this double standard is that society is more accepting of abuse of women if they are Muslim, as long as their attackers are also Muslim.
Mohammed the clock boy and the woman supposedly refused a can of Coke on an a flight were not on trial either, but CAIR quickly came to their defense. This is an immensely more serious situation that either of those were. This girl should, at the very least, be getting the nation’s support and invitations to the White House that the clock boy got after CAIR publicized his case. But that would be a result of actual concern about the civil rights of Muslims, rather than a desire to bolster CAIR’s narrative of Muslims in America merely being innocent victims of infidels.
She clearly was not. Remember how you had to append “[a] girl who was resisting the pressure to wear hijab” to “attacked for being a Muslim”? That’s because she wasn’t attacked for being a Muslim.
Any evidence that she faces harm from anyone else, as opposed to this guy being an outlier?
The message I see is that, in America, if you attack someone, even a relative, even over matters of personal conduct, you will be prosecuted. That there’s no need to fear killers or attackers getting away with it, as they are able to in other cultures.
Well, how much is typical for one one count of felony child abuse with no prior convictions?
What double standard? You’re using a non-existent case to argue that one exists! You’re using the bail amount as evidence, without citing the bail schedule or anything beyond your gut feeling that it’s too low!
Mohamed was suspended from school. The airline passenger was insulted. In both cases, redress wasn’t immediately forthcoming, so protest ensued. United apologized 3 days after the incident, the city and schools of Irving have declined to do so.
If a Muslim girl was attacked for wearing a hijab, rather than strictly for being a Muslim, would you make this distinction? No, of course you wouldn’t. That’s the double standard. She was attacked for refusing to obey a code of conduct that she is expected to follow as a Muslim female. Being physically attacked for a) fulfilling what you consider to be your religious obligations, or b) not living up to what other people consider your religious obligations, are equally discriminatory.
There is a lot of evidence that she is likely to be. Find someex-Muslim survivors and ask them what it is like to be a 14 year old girl in the communities where this type of treatment of girls is normalized.
You are ignoring the double standard. The message that is sent to Muslim-American girls is that the nation takes the case of a denied can of coke, or arrest and release with no charges over a movie-bomb looking science project, far more seriously than the case of a girl being dragged by her hair from her school, as long as the girl is one who is born into a Muslim community, and the aggressor is a Muslim.
This is not a typical case. This girl was targeted for her religion and attacked by a man enforcing the codes of conduct of hate groups.
I’m citing the entire national response, the silence of the self purported Muslim civil rights groups, the national media, the Oval Office, as well as the bail amount. This girl was the victim of a horrendous act of terrorism carried out in her school. She is far more deserving of White House visits and scholarship offers than the poor clock kid, the nation has failed her by not similarly embracing her in solidarity.
These were both incredibly minor issues, compared to what happened to the girl in Columbia. The physical assault was addressed, but the nation hasn’t addressed the discrimination and psychological and physical abuse that girls such as her constantly endure in these communities. I personally have thought that the clock boy was trolling from the beginning. But that doesn’t mean I have a problem with the president’s response. Considering the attitudes of some in Texas towards Muslims, it’s safe to say that Mohammed’s religion/ethnicity might have had something to do the school district’s response. I mean, the ‘clock’ was super sketchy, and I don’t know of any evidence that he was profiled. But still, considering the overall climate of suspicion that Muslims, and people who are assumed to be Muslims because of their appearance or name, have to deal with, I think it’s great that Obama stood up for the kid. But the relative silence on the attack in Columbia, considering the likely cultural context, is disappointing. Not directly because of one of these factors: the bail, the White Houses Twitter silence, CAIR’s non-response, the disparity in mainstream media coverage, but because of the message sent, by the totality of the American responses to these incidents, to Muslim-American youth about their place in our country, their worth, the expectations placed on them, and how their gender and the religion of their parent’s contributes to these expectations and values.
I can’t imagine someone being attacked for wearing a hijab, and it not being an attack based on being a Muslim. Were that to happen, it wouldn’t be a hate crime.
Anecdotes aren’t data. I’m asking about this girl’s community.
Well, I don’t see any double standard that actually exists.
Rasheed Wickliffe of Nelson County, Kentucky was murdered on Tuesday. The message that you’re sending to young black man Kentuckians is that the nation takes the case of a girl getting beaten far more seriously than the murder of a young man.
In other words, news stories about crimes aren’t necessarily ranked by seriousness of the crime, and it’s absurd to suggest that the nation takes probable discrimination against a Muslim teen more seriously than a young girl being beaten, considering that in the former case there were no consequences for anyone, and in the latter the accused faces four years in prison.
You know that there are bail schedules, right? For all you know, $4,500 was the maximum. Again, your gut feelings are not evidence.
Rasheed Wickliffe was murdered, and you didn’t even know about it. Our nation doesn’t care about murder, clearly.
This girl was the victim of felony child abuse, like many other children, sadly. You want to make political hay out of it, that’s the only difference.
The cumulative message of all three cases is this: Muslims should be treated like everybody else. That means no discrimination, and prosecuting crimes, even those that are tolerated in other cultures. You want the message to be something else: that there’s a problem with violence and social pressure in Muslim communities in America. And that’s fine, but it doesn’t reflect any double standard.
Yes, it does. The clock boy got an invitation to the White House, scholarship offers, and the nation’s sympathy, because he was suspected of being a victim of discrimination. The girl in Columbia was violently attacked and dragged from her school by her hair, in front of her teachers and fellow students, and got none of these things. She is a victim of terrorism carried out by a person enforcing the codes of conduct of a hate group, on the grounds of her school. The nation as a whole is under-reacting.
Rasheed Wickliffe was murdered, and neither he nor his family got any of that. Different things are treated differently, which is rather the opposite of a double standard. The only thing the clock incident and the Missouri incident have in common is that Muslims were involved. Furthermore, as already noted, the severity of the crime isn’t what determines news coverage. Other factors include the willingness of the victim and accused perpetrator to make media appearances, the intervention or commentary of third parties (like all the tech moguls that came out in support of Ahmed Mohamed because of his interest in STEM), eye-grabbing images or sound bites (like the picture of Mohamed in handcuffs in his NASA shirt), the degree to which the story generates controversy (that is, people arguing both sides; check out the Pit thread on Mohamed, now imagine one about the Missouri case - who’ll be arguing that Omar was right to beat his relative?), and on and on. Different things are different, in other words.
What the clock boy story shows is how quick the nation is to come to the defense of a Muslim who is perceived to be a victim due to his religion or ethnicity, and the story in Missouri shows that there is an exception to this outpouring of support when the perpetrator is a fellow Muslim, even when the attack is an act of violence carried out at the child’s school in front of her teachers and fellow students.
It is true that part of the reason for the disparity of coverage is likely due to the difference in willingness of the victims to speak out publicly. The thing is though, that this difference, where a kid supposedly a victim of discrimination by his school and the police is more willing and more able to speak than a girl who is a victim of a member of her own family and community, hints very strongly at where the real bulk of the harm and danger to 14yo Muslim-Americans comes from.
I don’t think anyone believes that the worst thing that can happen to a Muslim American, or anyone else, is being suspended from school or denied a beverage. We’re going in circles here, so I’ll leave it at that. We can certainly agree that the media doesn’t cover stories in proportion to their seriousness, which lowers the level of public discourse.
I don’t think we have much to talk about. If you’re going to claim that early 20th century progressives were not left-wing, or that modern-day progressivism sprang fully-formed from the brow of the 1960s and is not part of readily-identifiable and well-documentedintellectual tradition going back at least to the 1800s, then you’re either woefully ignorant or dishonest. Either way, I don’t think there’s much in it for me.