Yep, no worries, I threw in an edit there myself to clarify and yes to your point, the missed economic and innovation potential you have to go through when you repress women or really any significant part of the population will become especially relevant when societies will have to compete on innovation and not just who can extract resources the fastest.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BREAKING?src=hash">#BREAKING</a>: Cologne police say number of New Year violence cases up to 379</p>— AFP news agency (@AFP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AFP/status/685862388399210496">January 9, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Philadelphia Mayor would say it has nothing to do with Islam (so do all politicians and journalists from the left in Germany). Same goes for Paris, of course.
And I'll stand by the notion that heads of state and executive leaders should keep on stating that. Their desire to engage and have solidarity with their respective Muslim populations outweighs the necessity of some white conservatives not to be butt hurt.
Yeah, you didn't make much sense in the other thread either. Bandwagoner easily deconstructed your "he is not a theologian" argument. I think your view is influenced by a sense of wanting to protect your innocent family and friends from backlash, which is totally understandable. But objectively, you are totally oversimplifying the issue by saying it's just about conservatives being butthurt.
Not one poster has stated a single negative consequence in regards to a head of state not being critical of Islam or explicitly mentioning 'Islamic terrorism' to the public. Name one. Please go ahead. Besides some right wingers being butt hurt, I dare you to name one negative outcome. And Bandwagoner didn't deconstruct ****. He had an issue with diction and I obliged to correct it but my point still stands. Oh Noes, instead of 'theologian' I meant 'not being critical of a religion' Please, do tell me explicitly how he 'deconstructed' it. If you can't state a negative consequence then it's exactly about right wingers being butt hurt. I've watched and heard enough rhetoric about Obama not explicitly mentioning 'Islamic terrorism' by right wing shills and they all live in the false paradigm where Western intelligence gathering agencies and standing militaries are so ****ing incompetent that the president not stating 'Islamic terrorism' in a speech somehow confuses them into not knowing who to investigate/fight and idiots like Bandwagoner eat that **** up.
No need to get angry. Don't replace a good argument with anger and aggression. I will tell you what the negative consequence is, from my perspective. For me, the negative consequence is the easy "out" it gives Muslims. Rather than facing the fact that their all-encompassing religious ideology, which controls their whole life, at least also has the potential to inspire hate, terror and violence (aside from everything they perceive as positive), most Muslims I know simply brush off these actions as "this was not a Muslim"/"a real Muslim would never do such a thing", often coupled with conspiracy theories that it was really the Mossad/the Jews behind it. That's an easy cop-out for them. I'm not saying they can police people they don't even know. But that way, they can continue to live in the illusion that "Islam is perfect"/"Islam is the religion of peace". Face the facts: It's far from that. They may be peaceful and moderate and may draw perceived positives from it, but the reality is that it at least also has a dark side. And in my opinion, as a whole, Muslims almost completely lack the ability to be self-critical when it comes to their religion. Mohammed is perfect, Islam is perfect, if something bad is done in the name of Islam, that doesn't make it any less perfect, the solution is easy: "Must have been a Jew, or at least not a Muslim, because Islam is perfect". That way, Islam will never ever be reformed. The first step towards self-improvement - both individually and when it comes to a religion - is to acknowledge that you are NOT perfect. And politicians constantly saying "this has nothing to do with Islam" even when the terrorists explicitly state that Islam is their motivation enables and supports avoidance of reform within Islam.
You just have an absolutely basic misunderstanding of human psychology. No group of humans irregardless of race, religion or nationality takes criticism from an outside source well. Yes, some take it marginally better but NONE take it well. Islam can only be reformed from inside sources. There is no 'ifs' 'ands' or 'buts' to it. If you honestly think western heads of states criticizing Islam is going to 'enlighten' Muslims, you are considerably more naive than I thought you were. Just apply your logic to other circumstances and let it play out in your head. Imagine if Obama posed light criticism of the Old Testament in a public speech about some parts of the Old Testament might be slightly morally questionable. How many Christians who need to hear reality(Southern Baptists) are going to say to themselves "Well, Obama might have a point..." You would have to be out of your mind naive to actually believe Westerners criticizing Islam is going to reform it.
So you are saying people like your mother don't give a damn about what the President says about Islam? And I am very, very sure that Muslims are not only "marginally" worse at self-criticism and at accepting outside criticism than others.
My mother isn't the problem. The ones that need to hear it are not going to hear it from a 'Western kuffar'.
Sigh. Stop grasping for the low hanging fruit. My context was that no group of humans take outside criticism WELL ENOUGH TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT. Yes, some take it so bad that they commit tangible violent acts, but none take it well enough to invoke self reflection.
They will only hear it from other Muslims. But some other Muslims WILL listen to what the US president says. And at least some Muslims will be ashamed by what some of their brothers in faith do - there is no better time for the more enlightened Muslims to hear a wake-up call than after one of their own committed yet another terrible terror attack. But hey, if even the US president mollycoddles me and tells me it has nothing to do with my religion (even though the terrorist explicitly said so), then, even as a more enlightened and moderate Muslim, why bother questioning myself and my religious ideology? It's perfect, it's a religion of peace, even the last two US presidents confirmed it. Must have been those damn Jews anyway, right?
It was a bit more than that. You wanted him only to comment on Islam if he was exonerating it. Muslims would have to be r****ds for your justification of the tweet to be valid. Such a dumb argument when a guy just attempted to kill a cop in cold blood because of his religion.
You know the heads of states don't have to lie either about Islam like the mayor did he could've just not said anything about Islam at all if he wanted to appease a certain crowd instead of straight up lying with "this has nothing to do with Islam"
Which would completely fit with fchowd's "he is not a theologian" I'm unsure why he won't admit the tweet was false and a bad idea.
You honestly believe even the most moderate of Muslims are going to question their entire faith because some outside non-Muslim head of state criticizes Islam. Dear lord, you are naive. Again, apply your hypothetical scenario with different variables such as other religions or races and other leaders and rationally draw those scenarios out in your head. No one likes outsiders criticizing their religion, race or nationality.
I'll agree with it being 'false' but explain to me explicitly why it was a 'bad idea'? Is the FBI and PPD confused on who to investigate now?
So you are saying even the most moderate Muslims are unable to accept any criticism of their religion from an infidel or even just the factual statement that a terror attack has to do with Islam where the terrorist explicitly states it was done in the name of Islam. Got it. I'll tell you what: If some German ******* burns down an asylum home, I am not going to pretend that the guy was not German. I personally have nothing to do with such assholes, but if someone tells me "Germany has a problem with violent neo-nazi criminals", I'll say "yes, that is correct, and our law enforcement needs to tackle it and our politicians need to condemn and contain such thinking and actions".
See here. This is EXACTLY what I'm referring to when I tell people to apply your rationality with different variables. Are you calling Christians r****ded when they many of them state that the actions of entities like the Westboro Baptisit Church has nothing to do with faith but them just being assholes? Many Muslims use the same rationality even if you or I believe they are wrong, many honestly believe it has nothing to do with their religion.
