Or rather, suspect them all and let the authorities sort them out.
No, I get it, I just don’t think that painting a religion practiced by a billion people as a religion that whips raped children to death is warranted and I think it displays more than a “healthy” level of self preservational fear/instinct.
They share more than that. Like I said, there have been plenty of terrorists from that part of the world that have minimal levels of religious conviction.
Fear is useless to us. Vigilance is useful but unless we are in a warzone, the sort of xenophobic paranoia you display isn’t going to do much besides get some brown people dragged behind a pickup truck some day.
You think I’m the one simplifying things? Wow.
And yes you are a racist and bigot. Perhaps there was a time when you were merely open to the ideas of bigotry and racism but now you have accepted them. Fear and paranoia drove you to it and perhaps when the fear goes away, your bigotry will too.
Then why the OP? Does whipping a raped girl to death really give us a “flavor” for Islam?
You have been talking about Islam not some small slice of people who have adopted radical Islam.
They haven’t always been this radical, what do you think might have radicalized them? Was it the inevitable evolution of Islam to produce suicide bombers?
I think you are confusing which side of this argument wants to spread our attention over an overly broad group. In case you haven’t been paying attention we’ve got a shooting war against those radical types.
Thats not true. Tell me which liberal groups thinks we should adopt a live and let live attitude with the Taliban?
Although probably not totally exhaustive reference, a quick perusal of information presented by the ones under the “Peace Orgnizations” section reveals a strong tendency to go along with that idea.
http://lakehillsliberals.org/resource/50LiberalOrganizations.htm
:dubious: You’re trying to extrapolate from the fundamental principles of peace organizations in particular—i.e., organizations whose whole raison d’etre is the promotion of non-violent solutions to conflict—to generalize about the views of “liberal groups” as a whole.
That isn’t a very persuasive argument.
The only thing I’m arguing with is people’s tendencies on this message board to characterize concepts like you raise such liberal’s positions on fighting the Taliban. In a sweeping generalization such as you presented, that idea could really not be further from the truth, as you explain yourself and I clearly cite. It fails to make your point or support your argument in a most fundamental way.
Now who’s generalizing?
Um… you?
This nonsense again? From you? Oh, you disappoint me greatly, tommy. Short answer: isolated incident by an angry murderous animal and his partner in crime. It is not tied to any other incident. He and his buddies did not act as part of a larger group. If you think otherwise, please cite the other incidents.
In other words, it’s just about the opposite situation of Muslim terrorists: Multiple acts. Multiple, discrete individuals. One unifying idea: radical Islam.
Where to start. Okay, three things. 1) I don’t hate all Muslims. Not in the least. Not all Muslims here, nor abroad. Many, most, of them are just trying to raise families and have a pleasant life. 2) While many radical Islamists are indeed quite open about there beliefs, do you really think that everyone of them who wishes to do us harm will be be speaking out from a soapbox. Do you think them all stupid? Do you not think that they have brains enough, if they’re planning a murderous event, to lay low. 3) Now up to your initial sentence: why start with Muslims, or Islam? Should be kinda obvious. In fact it is: radical Islam is a subset of Islam. Where do you think you’d be finding them, in synagogues and Quaker Meeting Houses?
Sure there is. Let’s assume that there are a good amount of stories, like the one in the OP, that can be attributed, at least in part, to poor, ignorant people still living in the stone age. Let’s even say (though I don’t believe this for a second) that the number of incidents is roughly correlates with the number of people in each group living like that. Well, then, I think you’d be right in saying that Islam plays no more a role in their barbarism than Christianity or whatever other religion. But we have more information. We have the FACT that such barbarism from Muslims is not relegated to isolated little villages with people living in mud huts. We have very educated Muslims, very wealthy Muslims inflicting the same barbarism on humanity, whether it be the evil infidels, apostates, innocent women in children in their own countries or members of their own families. They stoop to their barbarism in these little remote villages and even when they come live very comfortably elsewhere, including the U.S.
So, you’re wrong, there IS some “special feature”. There IS common denominator, some thread in Islam that makes Muslims more prone to acting like troglodytes then other groups. Sorry to shower you with reality.
See above. It would probably do you well to read it twice anyway.
magellan01, way back upthread, I asked you—allowing for the moment that your thesis is correct, that Islam is the common thread in all this sinister business—what your proposed solution would be, given that Muslim numbers are approaching 2 billion worldwide.
Presumably it’s something more constructive than whinging on a message board? Please elaborate.
Nope, sorry, you still don’t get it. That “common denominator” is the radical Islamist movement itself. Trying to generalize the common factor to Islam as a whole is just confusing the issue to no purpose.
Look at an analogous case. It’s indisputably true that nowadays Christians are more likely than Buddhists to be terrorists or engage in religious violence. Should we look for the explanation of that in comparative scriptural exegesis of Christianity and Buddhism, or start increasing surveillance on Christians as a group, or complain that Christianity is the “common factor” at the root of the problem?
No, that would be pointless and counterproductive. What we’d need to do instead is trace the particular violent radical movement(s) within Christianity that are leading to the higher levels of violence. Approaching the problem at the level of some hypothesized fundamental intrinsic difference between faiths is a waste of time.
You know, magellan01, I’m really starting to question my earlier acceptance of your assurance that you’re not bigoted against Muslims in general. You seem to be desperately clinging to the alleged necessity of criticizing and condemning Muslims in general or Islam as a whole, even when it’s repeatedly explained to you why that’s irrelevant or counterproductive in fighting radical-Islamist terrorism and religious violence.
I’ve never advocated using it “solely”. As far as “primarily”. if you mean "most important, I’d say no. If you mean “first step”, it’s useful. again, within which group are you most likely to find radical Muslims? Answer: Muslims!
Actually, your own cite disagrees with you and agrees with me:
I’ll also note that they put the American Muslim population at about 3 million, which makes my position stronger. The smaller the pool the more sense it makes to look at it.
According to your cite, acts of terrorism in the U.S. by Muslims last year numbered at 10, while the number of terrorist acts by non Muslims came in at 20. So Muslims committed only a third of the terrorist acts. But they make up just 1% of the population. So, we have:
10 acts / 3 million Muslims
versus
20 acts / 297 million non-Muslims
Let’s call this the Terrorist Propensity Quotient. Muslims have a TPQ for Muslims of 0.000003, and a TPQ for non-Muslims of 0.00000006734. Do the math and you discover that Muslims are 49 times more likely that non-Muslims to commit a terrorist act.
I appreciate that you’re trying to understand my pint of view, but you’re misstating my position. The only thing I’ve been advocating is that “Muslimness” is a sensible, hell, a tautological first step. Again, if you’re looking for radical Xs, doesn’t it make sense to start looking in the big bog of Xs?
But your analogy assumes that radical Islamists have separated themselves out from the general Muslim population in a way that is obvious. That is the case for some, like the Ft. Hood animal, but certainly not all. Not even a majority. Look at the 9/11 hijackers. Look at the wannabe Times Square bomber? They’re not raising their hands saying, “Oh, look at me over here. I’m who you should be keeping an eye on.”
My analogy is: if you know you’re looking for a needle hidden in a haystack,start by looking in haystacks.
You may want to read my last post to you and rethink your own position, since you were wrong about what your cite said. Will you?
As I’ve said in this thread any every other one about this subject. My strategy only makes sense if the group is relatively small. Looking at 1.6 billion people? Not so helpful. Focusing on 3 million instead of 3 million? Your tools just got 100 times more effective. Apply another filter for maleness and age, and you’re quickly down to about less than a million. Using Kimstu’s haystack analogy, would you rather be tasked with finding a needle in a haystack comprised of 300 million strands of hay or 1 million?
Okay, once you’ve whittled it down to a manageable number, what do you propose we do with them?
Me? Nothing. But I assume that those tasked with protecting us would then apply filters that would reveal their degree of radicalness. Mosque affiliation, travel, etc.. Whatever filters they deem helpful.
There’s more if you feel like playing “follow the Wiki links”.
In other words, it’s just about the same situation as Muslim terrorists*: Multiple acts. Multiple, connected individuals. One unifying idea: Christian Identity.
*Not that I accept the notion that you can connect every act of “Muslim terrorism”, at least not without an “Official Glenn Beck Conspiracy Blackboard”.
CMC fnord!
There is an inverse relationship between the time it takes to construct a post and the degree to which it contributes to a discussion. ~ Hentor the Barbarian’sRule of Posting Composition
Though in some cases this has nothing to do with the content of the post in question.
OK so leaving aside your OP where you imply that whipping 14 year old rape victims to death is emblematic of Islam. (which BTW is why people are calling you a bigot)
Leaving aside your argument that somehow the Q’uran is driving all this Islamic violence, despite the lack of a historical concentration of violence comeing from islam versus other folks. (which jsut addsd to the impression that you are a bigot)
You are now focusing on the fact that it is a lot easier to focus our attention on 4 million muslim men in America than it would be to focus on 300 million Americans. Is that about right? (now you’re trying to portray a harsh realist)
Are you under the impression that we keep tabs on random members of the population to make sure they don’t set off a car bomb?
Here’s what we do, we keep track of anyone who has travelled to certain countries, or have corresponded with radical groups (whether they be radical imams or Timothy McVeigh). We don’t keep track of all Muslim males, there’s just too many to keep track of on more than a cursory basis unless we want to round them up and put them all in a ghetto.
There was a time when Puerto Ricans were FAR more likely to commit terrorist attacks on Americans than the rest of the world combined. We kept tabs on the radical ones but some people at the time implied that there was something wrong with Puerto Ricans that drove them to terrorism, that we should keep track of ALL Puerto Ricans.
Presumably you feel this isn’t being done now?
crowmanyclouds,
If you wanted to stop bank robberies, it look like The Aryan Republican Army might be a good place to start. And I see no evidence that it would make sense to look at Muslims.
On the other hand, if you want to stop terrorism within the U.S., Islam is a good starting place. They are not responsible for a majority of the terrorism in the U.S., but as Kimstu’s link showed a good chunk of them, a third, are perpetrated by Muslims. If another third can be traced to another group of similar size, that wold be another group to look at, as well.
But if you know that the radical Xs are most likely to be within a particular little bag INSIDE the big bag of Xs, then why would you waste your time sifting through the WHOLE bag of Xs?? Focus your scrutiny on that little bag instead.
This insistence on focusing on the “big bag” as an object of scrutiny, even though we have already identified the salient characteristics of the “little bag” where the problem is actually located, is the part of your argument that seems totally, persistently irrational.
Since we have a very clear picture of the particular types of radical extremist Islam where this religious violence is actually located, why are you still so insistent about the need to scrutinize or mistrust Islam as a whole?
If somebody’s looking for, say, a beautiful female model to be his true love, would it make sense for him to say “well, a female model is a woman so I’ll start by looking among groups of women in general”?
Should he try to scope out all the places where women are more likely to be found than men, from mall shoe stores to knitting clubs to roller derby leagues to Tupperware parties, and look for beautiful models among them? Would that be “a sensible, hell, a tautological first step” in his search, as you suggest?
Of course not. If our hypothetical model-hunter has any sense, he’ll concentrate his search on the places where he’s likely to find female models RATHER than other types of women. He’ll check out modeling agencies, fashion shoots, hell I don’t know, where else do models hang out? The point is that he’ll use the specific characteristics of the type he’s looking for to narrow his search right away. He won’t start his search with her most general characteristics and then try to screen out the vast majority who don’t meet his specific criteria.
That type of ridiculously over-broad and diffused search strategy is exactly what you’re advocating in the case of hunting radical-Islamist terrorists. Do you see why your argument is coming across as so inexplicably bizarre and irrational?