Are you sure? Here are Mathloom's own words: "My confusion stems from why you think this rationale doesn't apply across other belief systems (is that not equivalency?). While recognizing that Deborah Paul has killed no one, you have to ask yourself if she has contributed to the radicalization of moderates or to pushing people from fringe to murderer. One could very well argue that individual members of the republican parties are more representative of their ideology than Muslims are of theirs. Reason being, Muslims think they can not alter the ideology, whereas Republicans are free to alter/adjust their ideology to address fringe members. In short, Republicans are the source/authors of republicanism, whereas in Islam they believe Allah is the source/author of Islam."
If you actually care, you would notice that I addressed this in my response to bigtexxx by clearly pointing out that I disagree with the woman and that she is NOT a murderer in contrast to terrorists. But had I not, it would still be silly for you to assume that I'm equating the two. When you compare two things, you are not necessarily equating degree of difference. To give you an example, if I were discussing transport, I could compare airplanes and bicycles despite the huge degree of difference in size or petrol consumption - obviously, as long as the discussion does not center around size or petrol consumption. In this case, there is no disagreement or discussion centered around number of casualties. Rather the discussion is centered around extremism and bigotry, and regardless of the degree of difference, the same principles should theoretically apply (i.e. the vehicle should take you from point A to point B). If that doesn't answer your question, then really nothing will. Thanks.
Thanks, I was starting to think this was not clear. I can't imagine having to qualify every statement I make enough to satisfy someone like ATW, especially when it seems he doesn't hold everyone to that same standard.
Very weak example. You did not only compare two things, but you were demanding an equivalent response to both of them. In doing so, you were equivocating them. Period. No, they should not. The degree of how terrible the offensive act is clearly matters to how badly the need to disassociate oneself is (the main other factor being how closely associated one is with the group that has the bad apples, which is why I say I don't see a need for all moderate Muslims to distance themselves all the time something bad is done by some extremist Muslim in the world, there are too many for that, and the farther away the bad apple, the less of a need - but if e.g. a representative/prominent figure of North American Muslims (like that TV station guy who decapitated his wife, http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/16/buffalo.beheading/index.html) does something bad, it would probably be a good idea for North American Muslim associations to speak up against that). If you did not understand my example with the group of Rockets fans, you will understand nothing. Though I suspect you did understand it and are now desperately trying to save face. You would have done better for yourself by just saying "I dun goofed up with that example", and that would have been no problem. But by still trying to be a smartass about it, you are just making yourself look more like a fool.
This is quite simply false, and I'm sure many others will come in and correct you. To summarize, a person's principles don't change according to each event. There may be a major shift in principle given exceptional circumstances, but you are meant to stick to your principles. So regardless of whether someone flies into the WTC, or someone else is condoning doing so despite not having done so, my principles don't change. My principle is that I am against terrorism in both those cases. My reaction is different, the casualties are different, maybe the level of education is different, maybe it's in a different geographical location far far away... but the principle doesn't change: anti-terrorism. Also, you should take this new obsession you have of claiming I'm embarassed and put it back in the closet. Seriously, I'm not buying it, and neither is anyone else, so you could save yourself many keyboard characters by just repeating it in your head. But I'm glad that you've come out and disagreed that principles don't change within a common category such as terrorism. It makes me happy that people around are now more aware that your actions and intentions are rock solid, but that your principles are flexible. Frankly, it appears to me that you actually very much agree with me but for some reason insist on disagreeing. A moderate speaking out or not speaking out doesn't compromise the principle: they may be anti-terrorism regardless of whether they choose to speak out or not. But, unlike you, I'll take your word for it and accept that you disagree with my view that your principles aren't a reaction to every situation and are very transferable within the same major topics. Thanks. Edit note: I just want to add that it's obvious that ATW is trying to shift the topic in order for the principle to no longer apply. This is something he commonly does, and wanted to point it out here because ultimately he will try to claim that the principle won't apply within the new scope that he is attempting to define.
Everything you posted here is complete nonsense, especially the bolded part. In your desperate attempts to lessen the embarrassment that your logical leaps caused you, you are just digging yourself a deeper hole. Everyone can see that I did not post anywhere that principles change, which you falsely claim.
Why are you lying? Edit: What's funny is that we both say everyone can see what we've said, and I stick to that principle. But on so many occasions when hoards of people come along and tell you that you are an Islamophobe, a bigot, biased, etc, you say you don't care what people think. So really, you don't care what people read and think independently, unless they agree with you. Once again you're tip-toeing on the line, evading on trivial technicalities. It's like that time you said "WIDELY BELIEVE" or "WIDELY AGREE" or something like that, then when I said you said all or most or something, you threw a hissy-fit. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalways tip-toeing on the line of political correctness, bigotry, hatred, etc. But I can proudly say that since I started posting in the D&D, I am happy that people have gotten a better feel of you and that's what I decided a while ago is the best thing. That for someone who behaves the way you do, the right thing to do is to keep discussing things with them so that more and more people can see what you write. Now, even if you behave this way, it doesn't really bother me as long as I've gotten you to say things I would like others to know about you.
Everyone can see that I am not lying, but that you are trying to put words in my mouth that I did not say. Nowhere at all did I say that principles change, yet you lie and say I did. What I actually said is that it is illogical to demand the same reaction to events of different gravity (idiot protesters saying idiotic things on one side and actual violence/terrorism/murders on the other side). That amounts to equivocating the events, which is a way to relativize and downplay the degree of gravity of the worse event (Islamist terrorism) in the interest of your ideological leanings because you falsely felt that it would somehow bolster your wannabe smartass argument toward bigtexxx. I called you out on it, you are embarrassed, and now you try to gain the upper hand by making up lies about me supposedly having said that principles change. I did not. Everyone can see it. Of course the usual suspects will come out to try and help you out here anyway, but any objective observer can see what is going on here.
More reverse thinking. "They are objective because they agree." "They agree because it is what they usually do." Pathetic.
Some statistics/reports that speak to this question: 1) Study: Threat of Muslim-American terrorism in U.S. exaggerated: 2) Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database Percentage of Attacks from Different groups from 1980-2005: Latino: 42% Others: 16% Extreme Left Wing Groups: 24% Islamic Extremists: 6% Communists: 5% Jewish Extremists: 7% You'll find more details in the report cited above. 3) RAND Institute Report- Incidents of Jihadist Terrorist Radicalization in the United States Since September 11, 2001 Quotes: 4) See post Conclusion: I dont think anyone is suggesting that Radical Islam is not a threat, because it is. But there is sufficient evidence to suggest the following: a) It's exaggerated when compared to its statistical reality. More likely, proponents of the 'Radical Islam' is everywhere (think of the 'every Muslims doing taqiyyah', 'have to stop the spread of Shariah', etc. crowd) are simply suffering from a psychological phenomenon known as Availability Heuristic: Example: b) It's not religiously motivated as much as it is politically
I think you are confusing (unintentionally or otherwise) "associating" with "being associated with." Moderate Muslims do not generally associate with terrorists but are being associated with them by ignorant third parties. Why should a person have to go to great lengths to disassociate themselves from a group they never associated with in the first place? Disassociation here should consist of nothing more than "I'm not one of them and I don't endorse what they do" (which is exactly what bigtexxx had done in his post). If some ignorant third party isn't satisfied with that disassociation what should it matter (and what sort of denouncement could ever be sufficient for them anyway?)? Your Rocket fan example is off because the moderate Muslim isn't a fan "in the group" screaming or murdering, they are just in the arena. It's this monolithic assumption that you keep getting criticized for to think that every Rocket fan must sympathize with the Death to the Jazz sentiment just because they are in the same arena with the miscreants. Using your logic, I could take your German identity and your critical positions about Islam and associate you to the Nazis. Given that the Nazis have killed way more people than the Islamic extremists have yet managed to, I imagine you would have to go to astronomical lengths to disassociate yourself from them. You've told us before you're not a Nazi and I'm going to assume you would denounce the Holocaust, but given the gravity of the Nazis' crimes your logic would say that's not nearly enough. Is that really the path you want to go down?
I am not confusing anything. I never stated that moderate Muslims actively associate with terrorists, so don't act like I did. As I did not say that, your statement about me confusing something is (unintentionally or otherwise) simply wrong. 1) Did I say it should consist of something else? 2) There is a difference, however, between the tea party protester idiots/regular Republicans on the one hand and Islamist terrorists/moderate Muslims on the other hand: The tea party protester idiots blindly attack a whole diverse group of people (all Muslims) without any apparent connection/ideological basis. They are basically just being uneducated and unfair idiots. They don't even claim to act in the name of any ideology. So, as you say, what else should a regular Republican or conservative like bigtexxx do, other than say what he said. The Islamist terrorists, on the other hand, murder people and claim that this is done in the name of their religion, that it is what their religion tells them to do, and justify it by citing passages from the holy book of their religion. By doing so, and the more cases of this occur, they create the impression for people who are not from the same religion that, at the very least, that religion might currently be more open to misinterpretation than other religions. Some people - like the tea party idiots - actually believe what the Islamists say and then judge the whole religion by it. Therefore, I would say, it is in the interest of moderate Muslims to do more than just shrug and say "they are not Muslims, I have nothing to do with it", if only to correct the wrong impression created by the Islamists. They cite the same prophet, the same Allah, the same holy book, but interpret it differently. What exposure to Islam and Muslims does someone from rural Iowa get? For many people, 9/11 might have been the first time they even thought of Islam or Muslims at all. Are you surprised they may have a perception of Islam and Muslims that might not be fair to moderate Muslims? Well, then it is in the moderate Muslims' own interest to educate everyone that what Islamists say and do does not represent the whole faith, or to at least simply state that this is not Islam and not representative of Muslims - and leave it at that. And that is exactly what people like s land balla, dmc89, sammy, BrownBeast99, shastarocket or the older and wiser Azadre and many others have done, I have learned from things they have explained, and I would not expect anything else from them. Why is my repetitive discussion of Islam still going on, nevertheless? Because some Muslims - like the self-professed former Muslim Mathloom (although his aggression is more subtle), adeelsiddiqui, Hydhypedplaya, trustme, NMS is the Best, etc. and some leftist wannabe do-gooders - react very aggressively if anything that is remotely connected to Islam is even questioned. The interesting part is: On the one hand, they claim that they have nothing in common with Islamists. On the other hand, they react very defensively when actions by Islamists are reported and criticized. Now what is it? Make up your mind: Either you have nothing in common with them, then you should not be offended when their bad actions are exposed. Or you have been lying and you do share the same ideology, after all, and that is why you are so offended. Why do they get angry at me when I post a thread about murders committed by Islamists or ridiculous blasphemy laws in Pakistan? I am indicting Islamists. Didn't they say they have nothing in common with Islamists? Then why are they so offended? My Rocket fan example is not off at all. A neutral observer would "just be in the arena" (if you apply it to the religion analogy, you could say that would be an agnostic). Or a Jazz fan (in the religious example e.g. a Mormon). But a Rocket fan is a Rocket fan, wears the same colors, and as such is a member of the same group (e.g. an "Allah fan" = Muslim). There would just exist two different sub-groups, violent Rocket fans (Islamists) and non-violent Rocket fans (regular Muslims). Is it the non-violent Rockets fans' fault if the other guys get violent without the moderates' prior knowledge or approval? No. But in my own interest, I would certainly try to make it clear that although I wear the same colors and support the same team (or God) I have nothing else in common with the idiots who get violent. No, please stop misrepresenting what I said: I never said that I think that every Rocket fan (Muslim) sympathizes with the Death to the Jazz (death to infidels) sentiment. What I said is that if someone who, to everyone else, appears similar to me from the outside, as they are wearing the same Rocket colors and supporting the same Rocket team (Allah/Prophet/Quran) and in fact saying that he is acting in the name of and on behalf of the Rockets and all of its fans, commits atrocities, it is in my self-interest to draw a clear line between these people and myself, and to make sure that every non-Rocket fan sees that that line is there. To try to illustrate it for you: If a Rocket fan runs on the court, stabs Okur with a knife (=Islamist), and then a neutral observer (AroundTheWorld) comes to the Clutchfans BBS and reports that a Rocket fan (the Islamist) stabbed Okur with a knife, and some Rocket fans (adeelsiddiqui, etc.) start making statements like "but Jazz fans have done bad things, too" (Crusades, abortion doctors, blablabla) and start attacking the neutral observer for reporting the act rather than condemning the Rocket fan (Islamist) who committed the act, then it looks like they are closer to the violent Rocket fan (Islamist) than they would like to admit. This impression is caused because rather than just saying "ok this guy is an idiot and I have nothing to do with him, he shouldn't even be wearing Rockets red" and leaving it at that, by relativizing what he did ("but Jazz fans have done bad things, too" (Crusades)) and by focusing their attacks on the messenger rather than on the perpetrator, they create the impression that they are in the same camp as the perpetrator, after all. Your example is off on so many levels. Let me explain it to you so that you can try to understand: 1) The Nazi atrocities were in the past. (I was not even born when the Nazis committed their atrocities, my father was a small child.) The Islamist atrocities are happening around the world as we speak. 2) You do not choose what country/nationality you are born into. (At least once you are an adult) you do choose what religion/ideology you believe in and represent, and how you represent it. How can you denounce association with something that you had no choice in being a part of? You can, however, denounce someone doing something bad in the name of what you are a part of. E.g., if someone were to go to London/Dubai/wherever tomorrow and blow himself up and some organization would claim that this was done in the name of Germany, you bet that the German government and also, on a private level, I to the people I know would make sure to make clear that this fool was NOT acting in the name of Germany or Germans like me. 3) As to the "astronomical lengths" to disassociate oneself from the Nazis, I have posted extensively on that before, so I want to keep this relatively brief. I do think that Germany has a special historical responsibility to disassociate itself from Hitler and the Nazis and to show to the world that Nazi "values" are not and will never again be German values. I have also been in favor of Germany paying reparations, which we have been doing since the end of the war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations#World_War_II - until a year or so ago, in addition to paying billions for what Germany has done from 1933-1945, Germany has also still been paying for World War I (1914-1918) - http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,720156,00.html). Once again, you are misrepresenting my statements, however, when you talk about "astronomical lengths". I am fully aware that the spectrum of what you can do to denounce atrocities is limited, and the responsibility to do it at all is different if you are a representative body or an individual. However, since you brought up Germany - if you want to see an example of a powerful gesture to denounce and disassociate yourself from atrocities - by someone who was not personally guilty of any atrocities, on the contrary, was a victim himself - this is a good example: The incident took place during a visit to a monument to the Nazi-era Warsaw Ghetto Uprising on December 7, 1970, in what was then the communist People's Republic of Poland. After laying down a wreath, Brandt, very surprisingly, and to all appearances spontaneously, knelt. He remained silently in that position for a short time, surrounded by a large group of dignitaries and press photographers. Brandt had actively resisted the early Nazi regime, and had spent most of the time of Hitler's reign in exile. The occasion of Brandt's visit to Poland at the time was the signing of the Treaty of Warsaw between West Germany and the People's Republic of Poland, guaranteeing German acceptance of the new borders of Poland. The treaty was one of the Brandt-initiated policy steps (the 'Ostpolitik') to ease tensions between West and East during the Cold War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warschauer_Kniefall
Exactly, that is a good point. I had a conversation with a lady at the airport after I was put onto some sort of list after years of being a frequent flier, not to mention born and bred(patriotic as well) american. I guess someone with a similar name did something and so they red flagged me with association just simply of a title. Even after 9/11, I looked at those terrorist as enemies not just as an American, but as a Muslim. They stand for the opposite What I believe and cherish in Islam and I don't share any beliefs with them in my opinion. they are random strangers from a different part of the world that I don't identify with, and frankly would not hesitate to kill me in a second. So I just don't see outside that we use similar titles any association between us in actions, beliefs, background, so on. This whole time I had seen this very fine line between these violent extremist only to turn around and see another line behind me drawn by people like ATW and others who generalize that this ideology that they all study is the issue and has potential danger regardless of the background and other factors that are probably the true difference between them and us and its ashame. but like another post said, there have been some great post, but with him it doesn't matter. He is convinced in this and that is his view and who knows, we will continue to go back and forth and hopefully we can all find some middle ground and better understanding and acceptance if not agreement
showtang043, I fully understand where you are coming from and I also understand your frustration, and I am sorry that that unfairly happened to you (the fly list thing)). I am also not asking anything of you. If you are fair, you will recognize that I never accused you of anything and have always stated my respect for you as a poster. I must say I am a bit frustrated that you will continue to perceive my indictment of Islamism as a personal attack on you, and in turn badmouth me. As you have stated that you have nothing in common with Islamists (and I believe you), why would you be so offended when I report bad acts of Islamism? The only people who would need to be offended when I indict Islamism are those who feel like they are in one way or another part of the same group as the Islamists.
First of all, thanks for your informative post. I appreciate that you made the effort to compile these (did you make that effort or did you copy that from somewhere? I am asking because in at least one case, what you cited is nowhere on the page you link to as the source). I did make the effort to look through them and read them. I read the article. Strangely, while the headline says "exaggerated", it doesn't state by whom and compared to what? This selection of stats seems very random and calculating percentages based on that is flawed. In it, 9/11 with thousands of people dead is "worth" as much as vandalism on 3/3/2003 in Chico, CA by the "Animal Liberation Front", whatever the heck that is. So, if I look at these two incidents, 50 % of attacks are from "others" (I guess). Plus, the percentages you quoted above are nowhere on the page you linked to, and nowhere on any page linked to from that page. Where are they from? Can you please provide a link to the actual source of these percentages? I read the whole paper. Good read. I largely agree with it. However, allow me to point out one thing: The RAND authors' definition of joining jihad is to actually already have committed a terrorist act (gone through with it) or to have been arrested for it. First of all, that is a narrow definition. They say they excluded foiled terror plots without arrests, foreign terrorists attacking the USA like the shoe bomber, etc. But anyway, just looking at the numbers: Yes, 1 out of 30,000 becoming a terrorist who actually goes through with it and attempts to murder many people or having gotten so far with his plans that he got arrested for it seems like a small number. It also shows that the vast, vast majority of American Muslims is non-violent, which was obvious to begin with. However: There are about 300 million people in the USA. If the same quota of overall citizens had been to become terrorists who have already gone through with it and committed a terrorist act or have gone so far that they got arrested for it, this would mean that you would have 10,000 people running around in the USA who have already gone through with it and committed a terrorist act or have gotten so far that they have been arrested for it. That is obviously not the case. While tiny compared to the overall Muslim population, the percentage of domestic terrorists vs. overall population of the religion followed (or non-religion) - purely statistically speaking, and based on the article you yourself provided - is significantly higher among Muslims than among the rest of the population, unfortunately. Another thing from the study that I found worrisome: While, again, this sounds great at first sight (large majority for the good guys), I find it worrisome that 5-7 % would openly state that they have a positive view of Al Qaeda, and overall a third (approximately) would not state that they have an unfavorable view of them. Agreed. I disagree (not with the "every Muslim doing taqiyyah" statement, whoever would think that is unnecessarily paranoid). As I have shown, some of the statistics are indeed worrisome, and some of the statistics you provided trying to paint a brighter picture are seriously methodologically flawed (including completely obscure acts without casualties like "vandalism" by some "Animal Liberation Front" on the same level as the 9/11 attack with thousands of casualties, and then counting them equally when determining a percentage of terror attacks committed). Here is an actual list of significant terror attacks with casualties on US soil or against Americans. Paints a totally different picture than some obscure list with "vandalism" by the "Animal Liberation Front" being weighted equally to 9/11. Looking at the list, please re-do the percentages. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html#ixzz1GuRhHeYU What makes you draw that conclusion? Look at 9/11: I guess one could say it is a mix, but the message the terrorists left was clear: They said they did it in the name of Islam. They all believed in the same religion (whatever perverted version of it). I guess you would categorize that attack as politically motivated and not at all religiously motivated? Again, thanks for providing data that can be discussed. I hope you recognize that I did examine the data you provided thoroughly, although the things that stood out to me and the conclusions I draw from it might not be the same as yours.
Honestly I figured considering the context that I had just called out it was obvious. But to clarify just so there is no misunderstanding. People accuse Muslims of not condemning terrorists enough and therefore being sympathizers or worse. In fact, you have done that yourself in previous posts. So now, how is it that the same standard isn't being applied to the Tea Party in this (and other) instances? By the logic applied to Muslims, Tea Parties must all be sympathetic to hate groups.
I know some of the posts are long, but did you read the thread at all? You might not agree, but your question was addressed.
