There certainly have been occasions when a minority have been wise to the truth of a situation where a majority have not. On the other hand, there have been far more occasions when a minority have incorrectly predicted some catastrophic event - they’re merely not as famous because, well, the event didn’t happen. Countless people throughout history have characterized themselves as “sounding the alarm” against a threat which did not happen (or, at least, did not happen in the way they thought it would, or had so strong an effect). You can certainly place yourself in hypothetical good company - if you’re correct. If not, well, you would find yourself alongside Moon Landing Hoaxers, Birthers, believers in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, etc., all of whom sounded the alarm at a threat only they knew they had the smarts to recognise.
Also worth noting that Kimstu was suggesting you were merely inadvertently aiding the shit-stirrers, rather than that you were on their books. I don’t know that that’s necessarily a nicer thing to say, but either way your interpretation really wasn’t what he said.
Well, getting paid for it would at least be clever. Unscrupulous and deeply immoral, of course, but it could be argued that demanding a quid pro quo was a canny thing to do. You, on the other hand, are carrying water for the radical Islamists for free and haven’t even noticed it.
:rolleyes: What, exactly, do you imagine you are warning us about with regard to the radical Muslim fundamentalist extremist agenda that the radical Muslim fundamentalist extremists themselves haven’t made perfectly clear?
The Nazi Germany analogy is crap. The actions of a powerful national entity in the propaganda-heavy, communication-poor mid-20th century, one that was deliberately trying to hide the extent of its anti-Semitic atrocities, are not remotely comparable to the well-publicized activities in the internet age of a politically scattered band of terrorists and fundamentalist mobs.
In short, Valteron, you aren’t telling us jack-shit about violent repressive theocratic Islamist-fundamentalist thugs and their batshit agenda that we don’t already know.
Your only “contribution” is to imagine and proclaim that Muslims in general should be regarded as violent repressive theocratic Islamist-fundamentalist thugs, thereby increasing mutual resentment and violence and thus advancing that very batshit agenda that you’re so concerned about.
You then hinted darkly that we don’t know how many Muslims hold that belief.
That sort of silly claim is easily refuted by that fact that they have never made the attempt in over 500 years. (And, as I have noted, the same remains true of Southeast Europe, and, as I had not bothered to mention, it also remains true of signficant regions in Northern India as well as several other regions in Southeast Asia.)
And while it is probably true that some nutcases are pining away for the return of the Caliphate, that simply means that Islam harbors nutcases along the lines of the Jewish zealots who dream of a return to an empire over which no historic Solomon ever presided while the Christian zealots are hoping for something similar, believing that they will then be able to trigger the events that they erroneously believe are predicted in the Revelation of John. (Heck, Christians are way ahead of Jews and Muslims, with a few Christians trying to geneticallyengineer the “perfect” red bull calf that they believe will be necessary for Jews to sacrifice to re-dedicate the Temple once they have destroyed the Dome of the Rock. The zealot Muslims are simply mutering about the good old days.)
But there is what you might call a sizable constituency in the Muslim world for this sentiment–specifically that the makers of this video should be killed or severely punished and absent that, the United States should be condemned.
I’d like to see some poll numbers to that effect, because if it’s significant, you’d think spokesmen would emerge.
As for genuine radical extremists, just minutes ago I saw a clip from some militant camp where a guy was saying something like, “we don’t insult other religions, but these Christians have insulted ours, so we call for jihad against America”.
So they do have an argument that they want to get across that they’re somehow the reasonable ones, etc. It’s just that you apparently can’t get anyone of the sort into a position where anyone can argue back.
You can stop this sort of disingenuous rhetoric at any time.
The post to which you referred made a general observation. A simple request for quantifiable evidence is legitimate. A “request” that the number be backed up followed immediately by a dismissal based on a statement that was already included in the post is nothing more than a snide comment that serves no purpose other than to make it clear that you are taking the discussion to a personal level.
Wow. I was by no means saying what you thought I was.
I should have made myself more clear.
I was saying that he himself noted, in his second paragraph, that he was only speculating, and that this means I’m no longer asking forspecific numbers. I was posting as if I were reading and responding as i went (which is what I was doing, actually).
This is not Twitter. We not only encourage, but expect, our posters to take the time to read an entire post before they respond. That will preclude any similar misunderstndings in the future.
It’s just that I get the impression this past week that a significant number of Muslims are angry over the supposed insult to their religion, and what’s more, they are acting as spokespersons for Islam as a whole. The protests are so widespread that it’s seemingly disingenuous to dismiss them as the actions of just a few people and that there’s Nothing To See Here. (And it’s worth noting that all Americans are being blamed for the video in question.)
I think there are 2 debates to be had here: One with mainstream Muslims who maintain that the stone-throwing Islamists are in no way representative of the group as a whole (even though they say there are), and the other with the stone-throwing Islamists themselves.
But what aggravating me this week is that fact that a tremendous debate is taking place here in the US specifically about Muslims, but with scant participation from Muslims themselves.
Toooo-Nite! Steel-Cage Death-Match! Fundimentalist Muslim vs. Fundimentalist Christian! Who will win? Mano-a-mano, to the DEATH! It’s Thunderdome!! Two men enter, one man leaves*****!
While the propriety of violent protest may be a minority position, what about the general prohibition of depictions of Mohammed and the assumption that the West allows this sort of thing because they want to attack Islam?
In other words, just because they don’t want to kill us for it doesn’t mean they don’t think we’re horrible for allowing it. What are the actual beliefs?
Because I’ve always understood that they take even benevolent depictions of Mohammed to be insulting.
PS: My use of they is in no way meant to prevent actual Muslims from responding. I’m more interested in Muslims in Muslim majority countries, however.