It’s not that simple at all. It’s not about avoiding conflating terrorism and religion. It’s about protecting our radical Islamist allies from American ire. There is zero daylight in religious practice between Saudi Arabia and ISIS that any Westerner would perceive(perhaps an expert here could explain the differences between Wahabbism and whatever it is ISIS is practicing?).
The reality of the situation is that that “twisted” version of Islam is mainstream in that part of the world, and that a not insignificant number of people who practice that version of Islam are violent towards the West, as opposed to the gays, women, slaves, and local unbelievers they were taught to be violent towards. So what we’re trying to do is fight the radicals who want to hurt us, and ally ourselves with the radicals who don’t, at least not right now because they like our money and the palaces it buys them.
But that can’t be explained to Americans, because then Americans might hate the Saudis(as well as many other Arab governments who are supposedly allies), and that just won’t do.
Since 80% of the US population would prefer GMO labeling and there is no ban on GMO foods under the Vermont law, why not? Heavens knows we label for content and food value like crazy, especially if dairy or peanuts are included. What possible harm?
Interesting that the GOPers in Congress have been bribed enough by Monsanto to offer up a bill banning GMO state disclosure laws.
So if you see a bottle of water, say, labelled “No Gluten!” you just consider that good labeling? I mean, otherwise, obviously it would contain gluten, right? Because unless it has a label saying no gluten, people should be smart enough to realize it obviously does have gluten in it.
Well, so what if that is true? Let’s assume for a moment that Saudi Arabia is, if not quite as bad as ISIS, really quite bad. Well, so what? Is that in any meaningful way a secret? Would the world suddenly be better if, every time any American politician mentioned Saudi Arabia, they added a parenthetical comment about how terrible Saudi Arabia’s civil rights were? Would that push the Saudis towards a path which might eventually lead towards a more open society, or would it push them the other way? Even ignoring the whole oil issue, what are we going to do, invade them if they refuse to improve women’s rights?
No. Just trust Americans enough to explain the strategy to them, rather than try to bamboozle us with bullshit. It’s not like it’s working anyway. Most Americans probably can’t articulate the nuance of the nexus between Islam and terrorism, but I think they understand it pretty well.
As for what we can do, back the real moderates, even though they are weak. Supporting one radical faction over another radical faction just means the problem will always be with us. The Sauds will continue to fund their radical vision of Islam, it will continue to spread, and we’ll continue to have to fight it, with the Sauds only helping out where it threatens their own power.
But there’s a big difference between lying to the public and choosing what diplomatic language to use. Is the US government suppressing reporting that would reveal the truth or something? Is there some official CIA ranking of civil rights around the world that is being manipulated?
And that’s a reasonable discussion to have… but also a complicated one that is far outside the scope of a “stupid liberal idea of the day” thread.
It imposes a burden on anyone required to label and provides no benefit to public health, unlike labeling dairy or peanut content. That is dumb-ass. We had an entire thread recently that shredded all attempted arguments in favor of labeling, which you may want to read it you’re interested in education yourself about basic science.
What the heck does this sentence even mean? They can’t grasp the nuances, but they understand it pretty well? What, the knowledge progresses until they hit the first nuance, and then they shrug and give up?
I grew up in a far right-wing family, and we just ran right over those nuances. The more those pesky facts got in the way, the stronger we had to believe so we could get past them.
Based on what I’ve observed from my fundamentalist relatives, nuances and suchlike are snares set by Satan and/or libtards (not that there’s much difference) intended to tempt the righteous from the True Path. The only way to counter such snares is by redoubling one’s commitment to one’s beliefs; failing that, fingers-in-ears-and-“lalalalalalalalaIcan’thearyou” seems to be an acceptable alternative.
It means that Americans don’t believe that the Muslim family next door is dangerous, but that Islam in general, as of 2016, does actually preach violence against non-believers, and that this is not the fringe view our leaders insist it is. It takes more than a “fringe” group to practically eliminate whole religious groups. Ask the Coptics or the Yazidis how “fringe” violence against their communities is.
Trying to argue that Islam isn’t violent is like trying to argue that the US in 1862 wasn’t violent. There is a civil war going on in Islam right now and few countries have been spared the violence.
Example of lack of nuance, “Islam is a religion of peace, and those committing violent acts are practicing a twisted view of Islam.”
You know what Americans get from that? Attacking Westerners is “twisted Islam”, but beheading gays, stoning women who get raped, and persecuting religious minorities is “normal Islam”.
Not only that, but he’s making the same argument that was used to justify Japanese-American internment. “You may have lived peacefully side by side with your neighbor for decades, but these are the same people who sneak-attacked Pearl Harbor! The people you know may be nice and polite and good citizens but clearly they are the exceptions to the rule. We must ban them all from our communities for our own safety!”. And as before, the broad-brush approach harms the people who would be our greatest allies against the extremists.
But hey - it’s not like anyone we know is likely to be affected, right?
There apparently are about 3 million muslims residing in the United States. How many gay beheadings and rape-victim stonings occurred at their hands here in the last year? I forget.
Hey, I’ll even spot you that yo-yo in Orlando. Shooting, beheading, what’s the difference.
I guess if there weren’t more, it’s only because those things are against the law, right? Otherwise they’d all be out beheading and stoning to beat the band, right?
Ah, moral equivalence. Yet another stupid liberal idea. Aside from a few African countries which we’re not supposed to talk about because PC, what Christian nations impose the death penalty for being gay?