We already addressed this in the other thread. The image completely misses the mark, but go on, continue to be wrong if it suits you. Hint: those conflicts are political.
Not wrong, but I will go on. Spoken like someone who believes the concept "separation of church and state" applies here. Hint: Islam *is* political.
Inter group conflict doesn't mean neither side is part of the group. Irish Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland are still both Christians despite having a conflict with each other. Your argument is without merit.
Ah, but see, that's not my argument. I'm not claiming that the victims here weren't Moslem, nor that the terrorists weren't. In fact, I've made no claim about any of them. The consistent statement is that most Moslems are not terrorists. You are foolish to think otherwise. Indeed, it is likely accurate to say that most victims of terrorism are Moslems. So obviously, we should condemn these victims, right?
Your claim was that since this attack is (likely) Muslem on Muslem that it can't be religious in nature. You've been shown that reasoning is faulty. No one here is claiming that all Muslems are terrorists. No one is condemning the victims. Turn off your strawman production line. The salient fact is that the bulk of terrorism committed today against western countries or their allies is from radical Islamic groups and their adherents. It is indisputible that a significant portion of the Muslem population is radical or sympathetic to radicalism. It has been shown--repeatedly--that our government's ability to identify those with terrorist intentions is very poor, even when they receive information leading them to these individuals' doorsteps. Given that, it is reasonable to restrict the number of people in these populations admitted to this country until the government has the competence to vet them. This is in no way racist; if the Swedes had a disproportionate share of the people blowing up train stations, I'd apply the same restriction to Swedes.
Why the fuck not? If the Islamic nut terrorists consider the Islamic target a bunch of apostates why can't they target them? This attack is about Islam. The terrorists want their version of Islam to rule. Anyone, including other Islamic people, who does't follow that is a target to these terrorists.
The phrase Islamic terrorism shouldn't be put on the shelf - the vast majority of people committing terrorism are doing so in islam's name and it isn't even close. That's a problem. It's certainly political - there are Islamic governments that fund terrorism or you have Muslims trying to overthrow them so they can enact their own Islamic style of government on the people. Let's not pretend that if some Christians committed a terrorist act we wouldnt call it Christian terrorism. We already do that. There is something about religion that the crazies are able to latch on to. The whole thing is rather unfortunate because there are plenty of Muslims and Christians that just don't really give a shit and want to get on with their lives.
Is it really a punishment to be banned from the land of Wal-Mart and Applebees? It seems super-racist to hold the position that white people have created the best lifestyle for it's citizens or that the West is somehow superior a priori.
Well, I'm not saying they can't target them, so try again. What I'm saying is that you can't use Islam as an identifier, as they clearly act against Islam (among other things). If the goal is to identify terrorists, we need a better lens than that.
You lens can't even see a Muslim jihadist at 3 feet in a T-shirt that says "MUSLIM JIHADIST", so yes, a better lens is certainly needed.
(1) How is this more 'your country' than the country of any Muslim American? (2) What is a significant number? Hint: The proportion of rapists annually among the US population is roughly .0024%. Even if we take into account your possibly continuously ludicrous ideas about what terrorist acts to associate with Islam and assume as an upper boundary that ALL terrorist attacks in the world are perpetrated by Muslims (140k per year since 1970), that would still be less than .00006% of all Muslims, again annually. So clearly, you desperately have to get rid of all Americans "until they can be adequately cleared" long before you can worry about Muslims.
(1) Because we settled it, founded it, set up its laws, built its industries, culture, and infrastructure, and fought and died for its principles, whereas Muslims want to tear it all down because Allah's law must supersede man-made law because Allah is infinitely smarter than any human. Of course if your view wins then Muslims get a vast nuclear arsenal and will burn all of Europe in nuclear fire.
Don't be foolish, we only need to incarcerate all American men until we can figure this out. Of course, given prevalent attitudes toward women, a Saudi type solution is more practical.
That depends on how you're defining the word doesn't it though? In it's most general sense, yes, 'Terrorism' is not specific to believers in Islam obviously. The Red & Green Brigades, FALN, the IRA, etc, etc. That being said, the majority, not all, but the majority, of all terrorist incident's around the globe are in fact perpetrated by avowed Muslims whom at every opportunity vocally state that they are doing what they are doing in the name of Islam. Why so hard to take them at their word? Or the words of the regional Imam's who exhort them to act and praise their 'sacrifice'?
I agree. The inequality regards whether Moslems are generally terrorists. The preponderance of evidence is that they aren't. When I write Islam <> terrorism, I mean that terrorism is not a natural outgrowth of Islam. This is true whether or not actual terrorists consider the religion to be their motivation. I take them at their word, that's not the issue. How we handle the billion plus Moslems who are not terrorists is my concern.
We don't have to handle the billion plus Muslims who are not terrorists. We have to cope with the tens of thousands that are.
That's interesting, because when I stated the other day the much of what you guys regard as being Islamic acts (in the context of terrorism) were actually political acts, I was told I was talking shit. Funny how you lot change your tune when it suits you.
Because 1.9 billions other Muslims disagree. If we let anyone declare himself the paradigm of any group, we have to believe that the KKK defines the USA. They make up a far greater (still minuscule) proportion of its population.
Because, as I keep saying, and as people here seem unable to grasp intellectually, "Islam" is an idea. It has no single consciousness. It isn't an sentient entity directing Muslims on what to do. Those who commit terror acts in the name of Islam, or any religion for that matter, do it because that's how they choose to interpret that idea. Right now it's the Islamic world that has the greatest share of terrorism. But it's still a minority of Muslims. Conversely, despite the constant false narrative you see on here, other religions are not safe from terror acts carried out in their name. It is demonstrably false that every Muslim interprets Islam the same way. It is also demonstrably false that all Muslims believe in terrorist ideology as this and many other threads on here seek to imply (and in some cases some WForgers plainly come out and say). This is all that @gul is saying. For the most part it is all that any of us has said in respect of anti-Muslim rhetoric. When you start going down the road that terrorism proves that all Muslims are X and believe in Y you are creating a stereotype. The people pursuing that narrative are falling victim to bigotry. Ask any of them if they're a bigot and they'll defiantly say no and tell you that these events prove the truth of what the supposed singular monolith of Islam is and why all Muslims are a threat. But it's still bigotry because the notion that everyone interprets their religion the same is as ridiculous ad the falsehood that all Muslims are terrorists in waiting. @gul and folks like myself are well aware of the threat of terrorism from the Islamic world. But that doesn't mean we should use it to justify bigotry. That's why we tend not to go on rants here about how awful Islamic terrorists are. It's not because we are in denial of the problem. It's because we don't see the use in fueling the narrative that the terrorists represent all Muslims and all interpretations of Islam. It's clearly a falsehood, and to claim otherwise is to just keep on promoting a stereotype.
That was precisely my point up thread about them trying to have it both ways. Not surprisingly, they don't acknowledge the hypocrisy.
