Why is sympathy for Islam so common on the political left?

The real irony transcends race and religion.

The REAL irony is the fact that what we call Liberals today are borne out of what they claim the conservatives do.

That is, exploitation and monopolization under the guise of capitalism.

Much of mainstream media is pro-Liberal, and yet are funded by large large interest groups outside of the US constitutional agenda and Western morals.

For example: Fox news (Minor owned, but major controlled by a Saudi Islamist) and Twitter (majority owned by a Saudi Prince).

This is why they can create the rules of media market as they see fit. They can determine what is said and what isn't- Who profits and who doesn't. This has led to some strange things. For example Twitter banned milo yiannopoulos for his critique of the movie Ghost busters and making a joke about a black actress...

Banned for inciting hate and hate speech, etc...

All the while, ISIS twitter posts and calls for assassinations (i.e of Trump and others) go unnoticed.

WHEN you control the information, you control money flow.

 

This is really just a matter in how conservatives want use preferred language to demonize an entire religion. They use radical Islam or radical Islamist because it infers the entire religion. It fits very neatly into their whole battle of good and evil thing. They could just as easily use radical Muslim since a Muslim is a practitioner of Islam but they don't. It's very intentional and pretty obvious. It's a common conservative branding technique.

Furthermore, you will see conservatives posters on here flying off the handle because Obama doesn't use the term radical Islamist but offer no solutions to how the radical Islamist problem can be solved. Obama bombs terrorists with their kids and families, drones them to death in multiple countries on a regular basis, and has inserted hundreds of special forces on the ground to help Iraqis, Kurds, and Syrians combat ISIS. What is their solution? What is Obama not doing that they would do? Play grown up, provide a solution. Of course Trump will destroy ISIS and I mean FAST because all of our generals and troops don't have Trump's military and counter terrorism expertise. But in realityville, yeah, provide a solution.

 

I wonder how many of us are okay with the amount of civilians our country has killed within the last 15 years.

 

Typical moral equivalence sham from people like you and Mathloom. Very common from Muslims and the Left.

 

because Muslims are largely poor, non-white, and non/anti-American

that puts them at the top of the left's victim hierarchy

if a misogynist theocratic religion like Islam were practiced largely by rich white westerners, the left would despise it

 

Ok, I see where you get "rarely" from. From PEW itself.

And after looking at PEW myself, it is accurate that Politifact took the data as presented by PEW. Your believe that PEW intentionally mislead is not accurate. As you can see, it align with PEW own findings. You just don't agree with PEW (and thus also Politifact) conclusion.

From PEW:


With that said, I agree that any justification of suicide bombing is radical. I don't know why PEW decided to group "rarely" with "never". However, they always group the two together, so it might be just their standard or they may have very good reasons to do so. Until I understand that, I'm more incline to not reject their own conclusion. They know more about their own research than me.




Let's expand this and also look at Gallup and other polls. Gallup has different set of answers: Never justified, Sometime justified (they don't rarely).

Gallup:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157067/views-violence.aspx

Wikipedia also have a "Muslim attitudes towards terrorism". A collection of polls finding there:

Looking at all these polls, the data show no where close to the majority of Muslim are radicals. That claim is wrong.

I also bold and italic one of Gallup suggestion above. "A gallup poll published in 2011, "suggests that one's religious identity and level of devotion have little to do with one's views about targeting civilians."[25] The results of the survey suggested that "human development and governance - not piety or culture" were the strongest factors in explaining the public's view of violence toward civilians.[25]."

This suggest that we shouldn't be focusing on religion, but on human development and how they are govern - which is hopeful as that is much easier to change than religion.

 

I have sympathy for Muslims to practice their religion in a peaceful non-discriminatory way.

I don't have sympathy for Muslims to impose their religion upon others or using it to justify violent acts.

 

This.

 

I never said that Pew intentionally misleads. I said that Politifact does.

Then you shouldn't argue the way you do.

What is "human development" even supposed to mean? Did the well-educated and well-off 9/11 attackers scream "we want more human development" before they flew planes into the World Trade Center? No, they screamed "Allahu Akbar". We should absolutely focus on the root cause, which is the religious ideology.

No, let's not.

Esposito did the polls for Gallup and cooked the numbers as he is funded by extremist Saudis.

 

I agree there's nothing wrong with that.

OK, but not using a particular label in public speeches doesn't mean the problem has not been correctly identified. Do you think Obama and his team are somehow unaware of who or where the terrorists are specifically because they don't wish to use the term "Islamist terrorists" in public? What steps do you think they should be taking and aren't, as a result?

Yes, that need not be the intention. But it often is, as we know most of his critics who are adamant that he needs to use such a label are also promoting the idea that Islam itself is the cause. Also, how the public interprets it, especially based on how such words are used, repeated, emphasized, and twisted in the media, could lead them to that conclusion.

Sure, you could be right that him using such a label wouldn't change perception in that direction. But I don't think its unreasonable that the administration reached a different conclusion.

 

Of course not! She only said, "white people" need to do a better job of listening to the victims of the Orlando massacre. I mean, if only "white people" had listened then the massacre would never have occurred. amirite?

 

She got her liberal talking points mixed up; it was a clear slip-up. I assume she doesn't actually think the Orlando shooting was because white people aren't listening enough to LGBT issues. You really think that's what she intended?

 

This is like the Black Lives Matter thing. Being sympathetic to one thing doesn't mean you are not sympathetic to everything or anything else. Being sympathetic to the plight of muslims into "other people" doesn't mean someone is NOT sympathetic to - for example - the victims of terrorists who shout allahu akbar and kill innocents for $100k.

People on the left are more sympathetic because they tend to be less religious. They don't believe people are inherently good or bad. There is no reason to believe anyone is born evil or good, there is no such thing, this is a mythical fantasy. No one is evil, everyone does what they think is best for the world as best they can. They are more sympathetic to everything in general but conservatives like to carve out the idea that they are sympathizers of one particular thing. Tyrants and autocrats love to do this, take it from someone who has seen it. The crazy mullahs in Iran call activists western sympathizers. Then the mullahs minions ramble on about how those activists WANT the west to rape the country. Bla bla bla, rinse repeat. I've seen it too much to not recognize it in another place in another language.

The right is only sympathetic to god and money, and the line between those things is getting blurred. Conservatives aren't doing that more often, it's just that the definition of conservative now describes a group of people further to the right than before. The people changed. The old conservatives are now democrats (see Hillary). The CURRENT alleged left (basically democrats) is also sympathetic to money, but the right doesn't acknowledge it cause it's normal to them.

 

I've taught hundreds of Muslim college students in the last three years, and as for that group: they are more inclined to go "drifting" in their Mustangs and other American muscle cars than they are to seek violent confrontation.

Lots of Muslims have more money than we do. They want to enjoy it, not blow themselves up.

"But those are the rich ones!" you say? Yeah, well, being Muslim is not the key to going psycho. Being a poor angry stupid-ass is the key. Paging Trump supporters!

 

..,90% of mass murder crimes committed by non Muslim/Christians , do you think we should be paranoid from atheists!

So he was financed by the Saudi but could not get access to conduct his survey to the same exact country!

You don't have to be intelligent to ask your self this question , but not dump enough to believe Robert Spencer,the guy you linked his statement as an ultimate undisputed source of truth .

Robert Spencer an islamphobic author who is very close to NeoNazi school of thinking or lack of it in this case ,published 12 book with the same contents recycling the same garbage to readers like you, and getting paid by David Horowitz ,known for making lies and promoting propagandas to the point he and his wife were and still banned from entering the UK, good luck with that

 

And you are wrong about Politifact intentionally misleads. I already pointed out that they are using the same data in the same manner as PEW. Do you want to take back that statement?

I already stated my opinion - absent more understanding of why PEW group "rarely" and "never" together, I'm incline to believe the pollster here over my own beliefs.

Data show that the violence problem is much more complex than just religious ideology. In fact it show very little correlation to religion. I take that data over your stated opinion.

So, you choose to pick some portion of a some poll and ignore others? That's cherry picking data.

Here you go --> What is Human Development

 

Targeting civilians is never justified and should be considered a crime against humanity. Doesn't matter if it's a suicide bomber or dropping a bomb on a non-military target as a display of power.

The idea that the left excuses this stuff is a bit ridiculous to me, because I have never heard anyone defend these polls.

I do think it's wrong to incriminate all Muslims for the acts of extremists and the beliefs of a faction.

Does Islam have problems - absolutely. But this idea of attacking Islam instead of those who have backwards beliefs is what I find disturbing.

We should condemn the beliefs and those who agree with it, and support those who see Islam differently. Otherwise there will never be change.

 

This is absolutely correct.

 

So how many Trump supporters have blown themselves up yet, killing scores of innocent civilians? And how many Muslims have?

 

You're right, blah blah blah.

Its fine to be sympathetic towards a group who are abused. The flaw in your argument is die hard elitist liberals are anti-Christian and are quick to pin all kinds of labels on Christians. They love to mock their god and ridicule them for ignorantly believing in a god.

So why is it the arrogant left love to belittle peaceful Christians in this nation but feel sympathy for Muslims who are much more intolerant of other peoples beliefs?