Fool wrote this nonsense
Five questions non-Muslims would like answered
THE RIOTING IN France by primarily Muslim youths and the hotel bombings in Jordan are the latest events to prompt sincere questions that law-abiding Muslims need to answer for Islam's sake, as well as for the sake of worried non-Muslims.
...like he's embarrassed to think in public. Black folks got tired of mainstream folks...Abe Foxman in particular...running this particular line on us. Old heads will remember well..."I publically call on Black leaders to repudiate whoever pissed me off!"
It ain't gonna work in the Middle East either.
First question:
(1) Why are you so quiet?
Since the first Israelis were targeted for death by Muslim terrorists blowing themselves up in the name of your religion and Palestinian nationalism, I have been praying to see Muslim demonstrations against these atrocities. Last week's protests in Jordan against the bombings, while welcome, were a rarity. What I have seen more often is mainstream Muslim spokesmen implicitly defending this terror on the grounds that Israel occupies Palestinian lands. We see torture and murder in the name of Allah, but we see no anti-torture and anti-murder demonstrations in the name of Allah.
There are a billion Muslims in the world. How is it possible that essentially none have demonstrated against evils perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam? This is true even of the millions of Muslims living in free Western societies. What are non-Muslims of goodwill supposed to conclude?
Possibly because the Palestinians are at war? Possibly because their opponents have racked up a Palestinian non-combatant body count terrorists can only dream of matching?
Not to mention his claim is a lie.Check Muslims against Terrorism. Or the Free Muslim Coalition. Or Islam Denounces Terrorism. Or this vast collection of links compiled by the Study of Islam Section at the American Academy of Religion.
(2) Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?
If Israeli occupation is the reason for Muslim terror in Israel, why do no Christian Palestinians engage in terror? They are just as nationalistic and just as occupied as Muslim Palestinians.
Mr. Prager apparently has access to the decennial census records of terrorist organizations.
Pinhead.
(3) Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries a free country?
According to Freedom House, a Washington-based group that promotes democracy, of the world's 47 Muslim countries, only Mali is free. Sixty percent are not free, and 38% are partly free. Muslim-majority states account for a majority of the world's "not free" states. And of the 10 "worst of the worst," seven are Islamic states. Why is this?
What you see depends on where you look...and who is looking. For instance, Freedom House's definition of an electoral democracy:
To qualify as an electoral democracy, a state must have satisfied the following criteria:
1) A competitive, multiparty political system.
2) Universal adult suffrage for all citizens (with exceptions for restrictions that states may legitimately place on citizens as sanctions for criminal offenses).
3) Regularly contested elections conducted in conditions of ballot secrecy, reasonable ballot security, and in the absence of massive voter fraud that yields results that are unrepresentative of the public will.
4) Significant public access of major political parties to the electorate through the media and through generally open political campaigning.The electoral democracy designation reflects a judgment about the last major national election or elections. In the case of presidential/parliamentary systems, both elections must have been free and fair on the basis of the above criteria; in parliamentary systems, the last nationwide elections for the national legislature must have been free and fair. The presence of certain irregularities during the electoral process does not automatically disqualify a country from being designated an electoral democracy. A country cannot be listed as an electoral democracy if it reflects the ongoing and overwhelming dominance of a single party or movement over the course of numerous national elections; such states are considered to be dominant party states. Nor can a country be an electoral democracy if significant authority for national decisions resides in the hands of an unelected power, whether a monarch or a foreign international authority. A country is removed from the ranks of electoral democracies if its last national election failed to meet the criteria listed above, or if changes in law significantly eroded the public’s possibility for electoral choice.
...really does seem to exclude the United States. Think anyone noticed? Then there's the civil liberties rating:
CIVIL LIBERTIES
Rating of 1 – Countries and territories that receive a rating of 1 come closest to the ideals expressed in the civil liberties checklist, including freedom of expression, assembly, association, education, and religion. They are distinguished by an established and generally equitable system of rule of law. Countries and territories with this rating enjoy free economic activity and tend to strive for equality of opportunity.
Rating of 2 – States and territories with a rating of 2 have deficiencies in a few aspects of civil liberties, but are still relatively free.
Ratings of 3, 4, 5 – Countries and territories that have received a rating of 3, 4, or 5 range from those that are in at least partial compliance with virtually all checklist standards to those with a combination of high or medium scores for some questions and low or very low scores on other questions. The level of oppression increases at each successive rating level, including in the areas of censorship, political terror, and the prevention of free association. There are also many cases in which groups opposed to the state engage in political terror that undermines other freedoms. Therefore, a poor rating for a country is not necessarily a comment on the intentions of the government, but may reflect real restrictions on liberty caused by nongovernmental actors.
Rating of 6 – People in countries and territories with a rating of 6 experience severely restricted rights of expression and association, and there are almost always political prisoners and other manifestations of political terror. These countries may be characterized by a few partial rights, such as some religious and social freedoms, some highly restricted private business activity, and relatively free private discussion.
Rating of 7 – States and territories with a rating of 7 have virtually no freedom. An overwhelming and justified fear of repression characterizes these societies.
The USofA should get about a 4, but it's received a 1 from the beginning of the annual report.
I'm writing as a Black guy here. White folks' mileage may vary.
(4) Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam?
ahem
More Iraqis than Americans killed during war
Death toll higher than experts had initially expected
JIM KRANE
Associated PressThe number of Iraqis who have died violently since the U.S.-led invasion is many times greater than the U.S. military death toll of 2,000 in Iraq. In one sign of the enormity of the Iraqi loss, at least 3,870 civilians were killed in the past six months alone, according to an Associated Press count.
One U.S. military representative said it is possible the figure for the entire war could be 30,000 Iraqis, which many experts see as a credible estimate. Others suspect the number is far higher, since the chaos in Iraq leaves the potential for many killings to go unreported.
The losses are far larger than most analysts and Pentagon planners expected before the war and mean Iraqi civilians are bearing most of the suffering.
"We may never know the true number of the Iraqi public that has been killed or injured in this war," said the U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, Lt. Col. Steve Boylan. "The Iraqi public has taken the brunt of the casualties."
Finally
(5) Why do countries governed by religious Muslims persecute other religions?
Same reason we do.
ADL's Foxman warns of efforts to 'Christianize America'
By Shlomo Shamir, Haaretz CorrespondentNEW YORK - Institutionalized Christianity in the U.S. has grown so extremist that it poses a tangible danger to the principle of separation of church and state and threatens to undermine the religious tolerance that characterizes the country, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, warned in his address to the League's national commission, meeting in New York City over the weekend.
"Today we face a better financed, more sophisticated, coordinated, unified, energized and organized coalition of groups in opposition to our policy positions on church-state separation than ever before. Their goal is to implement their Christian worldview. To Christianize America. To save us!" he said.
Foxman proceeded to describe the process and to name names: "Major players include Focus On Family. Alliance Defense Fund, the American Family Association, Family Research Council and more. They and other groups have established new organizations and church-based networks, and built infrastructure throughout the country designed to promote traditional Christian values."
We love our religious extremists in the USofA. Yes, we do.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
I especially liked his
I especially liked his closing:
"We await your response."
As if he was speaking for the entire non-Muslim world. That's arrogance allright.
Leave any particular
Leave any particular challenger or stated challenge aside for the moment.
If some group of people is proving dangerous, in that they're killing other people in significant quantities, the victim class will be motivated to get the killing stopped.
When the group which includes the killers is civilized, all goes well. They cooperate in indentifying the killing individuals, which are isolated from the potential to kill again.
When, for various reasons the group which includes the killers is unable or unwilling to provide any means to distinguish benign members from killers, the victim class will, quite logically, come to treat the entire group with suspicion. As killings persist, the suspicion of the entire group intensifies.
Somewhere along the way the group becomes challenged by the victim class to "cooperate or else". Early variants of that challenge tend to issued by individuals with no enforcment potential and random diplomatic skill.
Later versions gain teeth.
Do fundamentalist Christians
Do fundamentalist Christians have an obligation to "cooperate in identifying" dangerous anti-abortion protesters?
Do white people have an obligation to "cooperate in identifying" potentially deadly racists?
Do police officers have a similar obligation to "cooperate in identifying" other officers who have the potential to abuse arrestees?
What if people you identify as "members of the killing group" don't see the boundary lines between groups the same way you do? What if they see themselves as members of the "victim group" and not the "killing group"?
I think you're peddling a variation on the "you're either with us or against us" bromide.
If some group of people is
If some group of people is proving dangerous, in that they're killing other people in significant quantities, the victim class will be motivated to get the killing stopped.
Okay, but why should this seemingly reasonable desire place a responsibility on Muslims to account for or explain the anti-social behavior of other Muslims? By the way, it is disingenuous in the extreme for you to refer to the white French as the victim class. The French Minister of the Interior, who has a great deal of enforcement power and perhaps less diplomatic skill, was quick to come out of the gate with a "cooperate or else" edict.
Do fundamentalist Christians
Do fundamentalist Christians have an obligation to "cooperate in identifying" dangerous anti-abortion protesters?
Fuckin' A. The more anti-abortion, the more obligated.
And they do.
(this is a direct analog)
Do white people have an obligation to "cooperate in identifying" potentially deadly racists?
Do police officers have a similar obligation to "cooperate in identifying" other officers who have the potential to abuse arrestees?
Not the same..
What if people you identify as "members of the killing group" don't see the boundary lines between groups the same way you do?
What if they see themselves as members of the "victim group" and not the "killing group"?
It's not a matter of how they see themselves, it's a matter of how the victims see them, combined with the power of the victims to do anything about it. It's not something which can easily be misunderstood, either.
Further, it is ALWAYS within the power of the group to isolate and expose the murderers.
I think you're peddling a variation on the "you're either with us or against us" bromide.
Could be. Maybe there's an occasion for that.
Okay, but why should this
Okay, but why should this seemingly reasonable desire place a responsibility on Muslims to account for or explain the anti-social behavior of other Muslims?
They don't have to explain the behavior at all. They only have to explain how we can tell the dangerous ones from the benign ones.
By the way, it is disingenuous in the extreme for you to refer to the white French as the victim class.
I thought we were discussing murderers? For all the nonsense, the recent riots don't qualify as terrorism or murder that I know of. I was referring to things including 911, the murder of Theo Van Gough, the palestinian suicide bombers, the Jordainian thing...
Leave any particular
I admit that, disconnected from reality per your request, your position is logically coherant. You had your moment yet?
They don't have to explain
They don't have to explain the behavior at all. They only have to explain how we can tell the dangerous ones from the benign ones.
DW, let me tell you a little story. Many, many years ago I attended a professional cooking school run by a maritme union to learn how to cook on passenger ships and freighters. All of the cooking instructors were born and trained in Europe. One of the students in the school and I became pretty good friends. At least we were good enough friends for me to have brought him by my parents' home and introduced them to him. We saw each other a few times after we had shipped out and discovered that the seafaring life was not for us. Then as friends often do we sort of lost track of each other.
One day my friend called my parents' house looking for me but he didn't give my dad a number where I could reach him. About six weeks later my dad called me and asked if I had read the newspaper that morning. I reminded him that I was living in the mountains in Feather River Canyon and I didn't have access to a television or a newspaper and the nearest towns, Chico and Oroville, were about 25 miles away. My dad chuckled and said that I should get my hands on a paper (he meant the San Francisco Chronicle) as soon as I could because there was a story in it about my friend.
At this point I asked my father to stop pulling my chain and tell me what had happened. Here is what he told me: the night before my friend, who I knew as Joe Bentley, was coming out of his apartment, which was located near the Sunset District in San Francisco. As Joe was getting into his car a white van pulled up along side him and when the side door was opened one of the people inside the van cut loose at point blank range on Joe with a double-barrel shot gun. Joe was killed instantly.
Turns out my friend Joe Bentley's real name was Joe Barboza and he had been the chief enforcer for the Patriarca organized crime family in New England. Joe had turned state's evidence against his don, Raymond Patriarca and had been placed in the witness protection program by the FBI. Joe had also confessed to the FBI that he had personally killed 25 people. (He had actually cut out one victim's stomach with a knife.)
There is a lot more that I later learned about my friend that I won't go into right now because it isn't germane. My point, however, is that it is absurd for you or anyone to think that it is that easy to tell or distinguish dangerous people from people who are benign unless the ones who are dangerous are flashing that information to you.
Joe Bentley/Barboza was an extremely dangerous person but I didn't know that and there is no way I could have ever known that about him given how he conducted himself with me. I also don't have clue as to why somebody like him befriended a 20 year-old black guy who was not a criminal or a gangster. Maybe he liked the fact that I got along with folks and didn't give people crap and didn't take any crap. Who knows?
In any case, you can't tell jack about people in terms of their capacity or intention to commit violence unless they give you a sign. Stop trying to criminalize Muslims because they don't have ESP. They are not responsible for anything except their own behavior.
Great story.The difference
Great story.
The difference was, your friend was not obviously a member of a dangerous group.
There are two questions at hand after your story:
1. are there dangerous groups?
2. how do you know if a given person is a member of a dangerous group?
Let's start by agreeing that not all groups who are believed dangerous are in fact dangerous. There's probably far more cases of false accusation than cases of naive acceptance, but the latter occurs.
So the analysis I started with presumes that you KNOW who is a member of the group, and that you know the group is dangerous.
The difference was, your
The difference was, your friend was not obviously a member of a dangerous group.
Why, in your opinion, are Muslims ipso facto members of a dangerous group?
I should have mentioned this
I should have mentioned this fact:
While Joe Barboza was in the witness protection program he was suspected of committing several other murders that many people believe the FBI knew about and did nothing. It is hard for me to believe that I should worry about Muslims when my own government gives admitted murderers a bye and looks the other way when they kill more people.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/family_epics/providence_mob/3.html
Why, in your opinion, are
shelf, you're saying that
shelf, you're saying that the boundary lines laid down by the "victim class" are the only ones that are valid.
That doesn't make sense. People are defined by a whole bundle of characteristics, not just the one you consider relevant.
So maybe you see the characteristic "Muslim" as a defining characteristic. Why does that mean that a French-speaking, Canadian-born, college-educated, upper-middle class, Republican accountant (who is also Muslim) has to accept your definition of which "class" determines his obligations?
In other words, your way of classifying people may not be the same as the way they classify themselves. Folks who paid attention over the last 40 years know this.
The research done by Prof.
The research done by Prof. Robert A. Pape, the author of Dying to Win - The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism - shows that the leading practitioners of suicide terrorism are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a secular, Marxist-Leninist group drawn from Hindu families. BTW, are you caling the armed resistence in Iraq to the U.S. invasion terrorism? If this is true then what do you call the campaign of "Shock and Awe" waged by the American military in Iraq. More than 100,000 Iraqis died in that campaign.
If this is true then what do
spreading FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY!!!
iow - legitimate, moral, civilized, and modernist goddammit!!! {last one's the Cobbian bonus gratuitously thrown into the pot for black conservative flavor} (^;
Why does that mean that a
Why does that mean that a French-speaking, Canadian-born, college-educated, upper-middle class, Republican accountant (who is also Muslim) has to accept your definition of which "class" determines his obligations?
Because that person describes himself using the same summary description as do the terrorists.
Because that person
Because that person describes himself using the same summary description as do the terrorists.
In print and electronic media interviews about Muslims and/or religious beliefs and faith but I doubt that this person would apply for a job as an acountant and offer his being a Muslim as a qualification for the job.
shows that the leading
shows that the leading practitioners of suicide terrorism are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a secular, Marxist-Leninist group drawn from Hindu families.
Ok. Perhaps I should have qualified it a bit. Sri Lanka is the hottest of separatist terrorist movements, like the Basques.
They don't represent much of a threat to me or you, except as they might export terrorist technology.
BTW, are you caling the armed resistence in Iraq to the U.S. invasion terrorism?
Mostly, but not all.
The execution of journalists, aid workers, and diplomats is terrorism.
The bombing of local markets is terrorism.
The bombing of local police is terrorism.
The execution of lawyers is terrorism.
Attacks on the US Military are repugnant, but not terrorism.
I doubt that this person
I doubt that this person would apply for a job as an acountant and offer his being a Muslim as a qualification for the job.
In most Islamic countries he could be disqualified for not being a Muslim, and it would certainly make sense to offer reassuring behavior.
In the US/Canada, job hunting books make it clear that volunteering religious affiliation is simply a bad idea. It has little chance of making success more likely, but some chance of making success less likely.
Because that person
My redheaded newspaper carrier threw the morning news on the roof. Therefore, I demand that all redheads do something to get me my morning newspaper.
Because that person
No, you have decided that person must describe himself with that summary description because he shares one trait with some terrorists.
You have decided that one commonality trumps all differences.
You have decided that one
You have decided that one commonality trumps all differences.
The goal in these things is to find the smallest dangerous group.
But no smaller.
All terrorists are human. Humans are dangerous. Correct, but needs progress.
Progress: Most terrorists are Muslim. Muslims are dangerous. Correct, but needs progress.
Progress: Western Muslims aren't terrorists. Non western Muslims are dangerous.
Whoops: Theo Van Gough is murdered by a western Muslim. Lots of American Muslims willingly financed Al Qaida.
Reverse: Muslims are dangerous.
Progress: ?? I don't know, but I agree we need to get to a smaller group. That's why it is important for non-violent Muslims to distinguish themselves from the terrorists.
The research done by Prof.
What did Pape show the superset of suicide terrorists groups to be? What characteristic did they nearly all have in common? {the superset from which the largest subset happens to be a group of secular marxists of hindu extraction}
In most Islamic countries he
In most Islamic countries he could be disqualified for not being a Muslim, and it would certainly make sense to offer reassuring behavior.
The above is a classic example of a non sequitor.
That's why it is important
It's not the responsibility of any person to sort himself or herself into categories for the convenience of others.
Progress: Most terrorists
False premise. Faulty inference.
It's not the responsibility
It's not the responsibility of any person to sort himself or herself into categories for the convenience of others.
To avoid suspicion, a member of a dangerous group needs to participate in allowing the dangerous group to shrink to a smaller group not including the helper. Now why does a person need to do that? Not to fulfill any moral imperative, but to remove himself from suspicion.
Is a person responsible to remove himself from suspicion? Not really. But the consequences are that unless someone else includes him in a separate removal, he'll remain under suspicion.
What did Pape show the
What did Pape show the superset of suicide terrorists groups to be? What characteristic did they nearly all have in common?
If a reasonably small group could be found that included all of these, that would be very valuable for non-violent Muslims.
The execution of
The execution of journalists, aid workers, and diplomats is terrorism.
The bombing of local markets is terrorism.
The bombing of local police is terrorism.
The execution of lawyers is terrorism.
Attacks on the US Military are repugnant, but not terrorism.
I'll keep these definitions in mind if we're ever invaded by aliens who just want to bring the benefits of democracy to our land.
What did Pape show the
What did Pape show the superset of suicide terrorists groups to be? What characteristic did they nearly all have in common?
I'm not ignoring your question Nulan but I'm tied up with the troops. I'll get to back to you in the morning.
No problem PT..., I knew
No problem PT...,
I knew the answer before I asked, but I didn't want to discourage further instructive and completely unselfconscious sollipsism from certain quarters. I must say that over the past couple days our rear seat passenger has put on quite an amazing show of hysterical vorpal bunnyisms, snicker snack, snicker snack, all mimsy were the borogoves twas brillig and the slithy toves.., ROTFLMBAO!!!
The American Conservative did an interview with Pape in which he spelled it out;
The real terrorists have got
The real terrorists have got their sheer moral horror mojo in full muhfuggin effizzi....,
"The 'war on terrorism' is
"The 'war on terrorism' is terrorism,"
In past such cases you've
In past such cases you've claimed that a good relationship with Saudi Arabia constituted military occupation, such that 911 was a reaction to military occupation.
It's a small audience, CN. Roll as you see fit.
To avoid suspicion, a
To avoid suspicion, a member of a dangerous group needs to participate in allowing the dangerous group to shrink to a smaller group...
Not to fulfill any moral imperative, but to remove himself from suspicion.
That does it, DW. ALL White People Are Suspect. Properly assumed, pre-judged, Suspect Racists. They are all members of a historically and otherwise demonstrably Racist Group.
Racists are dangerous. Therefore All White People (Suspect Racists) are dangerous. ALL White People are, in effect, Guilty Until Proven Innocent. So, for distinctions sake, it is high time you Proved Yourself.
Dwshelf, Prove Yourself! ----->> Okay, I'm not convinced.
Prove Yourself! ----->> Still not convinced.
Prove Yourself! ----->> Ummm... (Pssst!!) 'Not convinced.' What have you done lately, personally, towards the Reduction Of Racism/Racists et al?
Note: Things you have posted before this point, I'm sure, have not amounted to an effective defense or anything self-distinguishing. Please report all of your Left-esque, Anti-Racist philosophies, thoughts and activities <<< Here >>>. Thank you, this will help us help you distinguish yourself from those dangerous, racist people.
That does it, DW.  ALL
Don't you just love these little trips through the looking glass? I know I do...
There was a time, in
There was a time, in America, when the group of all white people represented a somewhat terrorist threat toward black people. An era when white thugs killed black men. During that era, white people were indeed dangerous if you were black, or even if you were white but directly involved in the cause of racial equality.
During that era, it was quite correct to say "most lynchings are done by white men".
It would have been reasonable for a black man, in certain contexts, to assure himself that the white men he was about to accompany were "safe". It would have been expected from non-violent white men to offer reassurance, if they wanted to remove themselves from suspicion. If they didn't mind being under suspicion, they were free to just stand mute, but surely black people would be legitimately afraid of such a white man.
There was a time, in
There was a time, in America, when the group of all white people represented a somewhat terrorist threat toward black people. An era when white thugs killed black men. During that era, white people were indeed dangerous if you were black, or even if you were white but directly involved in the cause of racial equality.
Yesterday, I was listening to Bob Edwards interview Stetson Kennedy who, among other things including working closely with Zora Neale Hurston in Florida in the 1930s, actually infiltrated the FBI and collected information that he attempted to turn over to the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, which, of course, refused to accept Kennedy's documents and findings. Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that one of more interesting anecdotes Kennedy recalled for Edwards is that during his undercover work he approached the FBI and reported his activities. Shortly thereafter, he was at a Klan meeting when that klavern's local head announced to the group that they had been infiltrated. Kennedy said that it was clear that the FBI had reported him to the Klan.
If they didn't mind being
The point here has little to do with "legitimate" fears. This whole removing oneself from suspicion thing as you presented here requires more than professions of "I'm not one of them" from Muslims or "Muslims look alikes"... (You do recall the Sikhs White Terrorists assaulted/killed post 9/11 don't you?)
You require ACTION from "suspect" Muslim "terrorists" - i.e. ALL Muslims in your book. Pro-Active and Preventative ACTION. Funny how in your "Once Upon A Time When Whites Were SOMEWHAT Terrorists" sweet little story, the only thing a White man was obliged to do is "offer reassurrance" that he was not one of them. You didn't put the onus on that so-called non-violent and even pro-equality White man to "stop the killing" or White-On-Black Domestic Terrorism. Hell, you're even squeamish about calling it that as you try to WhiteWash.
Fluctuating standards with varying degrees of onus, particularly when you grant your own White group much more latitude or don't have them to as strict a standard, shows how fraudulent your position is.
You cannot declare when the "Once Upon A Time" was for Black people in America with respect to White Terrorism. Defining what is and what isn't "terroristic" to Black people is not province of White people, for sure. So it matters not whether at some time passed that "most lynchings were perpetrated by Whites against Blacks." That's you inserting your own restrictive determination of what is "terror" to Black people. Terrorism that today, IMO, can even include the mere continuation or the unresolved legacy of past acts of said "terrorism."
With that said, you are still a Suspect Racist. PROVE YOURSELF!!
In past such cases you've
Neverending ill-logical hilarity from vorpal bunnyland...,
I'm quite certain that it was Osama bin Laden who made the above claim. The relationship of the Bush Elites with the House of Saud has little or no bearing on the relationship between American and Arabian peoples.., quite obviously, there are more than a few Arabian nationals/transnationals who hate modernist occupation, cultural contamination, and the dual hypocrisies of freedom and democracy.
and now, quite a few Iraqi's who feel exactly the same way and then some!!!
As for the once upon a time terrorism in America drivel..., one need look no further than the disproportionate, brutal, and disparate enforcement of drug laws against young black men to clearly identify the thread of continuing terroristic warfare being waged against black folks. No mainstream politician is decrying this obviously racist policy and praxis in order to redeem the interlocking modernist thugocracy that profits very handsomely from its continuing operations.
The point here has little to
The point here has little to do with "legitimate" fears.
It's 1922 NM. You're 17. Young black man. Walking along a road somewhere in Florida.
A touring car pulls up, with three white men. One of them gets out. You've never any of them before.
"You interested in some paid work?". No threat or hostility in the voice.
So you run it through your mind. Most white men are not killers. You haven't done anything offensive, let alone criminal. It's not that uncommon for white men want some cheap labor. Or to want someone willing to do some undesirable job. You'd like the dollar which usually compensates an odd job.
And yet, you're afraid.
Is your fear legitimate?
If so, on what basis?
It's 2005, in Leawood Kansas
It's 2005, in Leawood Kansas at 10:30pm and I'm on my way back home from a meeting out in Overland Park. I've been pulled over by the Leawood police for DWB..., episode number 47 in the neverending saga of DWB in the heartland.
To date, I've stared down the wrong end of a police shotgun, service revolver, or 9MM semi 6 times, and I've never been arrested for anything, ever. I've had my car(s) searched on at least a dozen of these occasions. Not once in 42 years have I ever had recourse to call the police to serve and protect me or my family in any manner form or fashion.
How has it come to pass that I've had this palestinian level of unsolicited contact with white American law enforcement agents in all munipalities, counties, and states in which I've lived, and have never once in all those years had recourse to call upon the protection or service of those same law enforcement officials?
So I run it through my mind. Most white cops are not killers. You haven't done anything offensive, let alone criminal. It's not that uncommon for white cops to profile and detain black men. Or to randomly screen someone vaguely fitting the description. I've done this dozens of times before
And yet, I'm afraid.
Is my fear legitimate?
If so, on what basis?
"It's 1922 NM. You're 17.
"It's 1922 NM. You're 17. Young black man. Walking along a road somewhere in Florida."
Florida had the highest per capita rate of lynching in the U.S. from 1900-1930. One of the most brutal public lynchings in American history took place in Marianna, Florida, near my mother's birthplace.
Umm... On your oft-topic
Umm... On your oft-topic hysterical (suppose to be hypothetical)... Ummm... "Because he/they are strangers" Ummm... "Because they may all be gay and looking for Black butt." Ummm... "Because, hell, there's three of them and they can do whatever job themselves." Ummm... "Because I actually had somewhere I was going to. Even a job that compensates."
The Moral: Find a better tactic to avoid questions and to try to make an off-the-point "point."
That's the question that's before you. Talk about White-On-Black Terrorism then is also beside the point. White-On-Black Terrorism being but one type or manifestation of American [WHITE] Racism which is on-going - past, present and apparently future, considering how you and others don't feel so obliged.
Note, again, assurances/reassurances that you are not "one of them" does precious little towards the very thing you charged as necessary.
PROVE YOURSELF!!!! Show how you and Whites, generally, are about the process of "stopping the racists/racism." Don't get sidetracked on comparative terrorism with your penchant for the Whitewash... (a la "somewhat"). Detail what Whites are doing to not only distinguish themselves from Racists but what you/they are doing to End Racism and all that flows from it. You can start with... you can start with what Cnulan presented. Start there and tell me (us):
What have you (Whites) done lately, personally, towards the Reduction Of Racism/Racists et al?
This is what white
This is what white terrorists did to Claude Neal. My mother was twelve years old when this happened.
"This is what white
What are you talking about? With DW as the witness (prosecutor and judge), that only "represented a somewhat terrorist threat toward black people."
And yet, I'm afraid.Are you
And yet, I'm afraid.
Are you afraid of being murdered?
A better question
A better question Dwshelf... Is are you afraid of my challenge? Are you afraid of applying the same standard or rather having the same standard of being SUSPECT apply to you? You know, being held to that standard and being Suspect and viewed as Racist Until Proven Anti-Racist? (Notice I didn't say non-racist. Look it up if you can't figure it out.)
I take your silence and evasions as a resounding YES!! Yes!! A Thousand Times, YES!
You seem rather reluctant to consider, let alone act as if you're motivated.
being held to that standard
being held to that standard and being Suspect and viewed as Racist Until Proven Anti-Racist?
There are a lot of things which might legitimately categorizes white people NM. Given a broad definition, all white people are racists. If you choose such a definition, and end seeing all white people as racists, there's not much I can do to help you reduce the size of your group.
On the other hand, if you'll supply some tighter criterion, say "doesn't kill black people for political purposes", I'd be pleased to help you identify a smaller group than "all white people", a smaller group which doesn't include me.
only "represented a somewhat
only "represented a somewhat terrorist threat toward black people."
The word "somewhat" was to suggest that the analog is imperfect, rather than to minimize the magnitude of the offense.
The murder of Martin Luther King was terrorism in precisely the same way the murder of Theo Van Gough was.
The Birmingham church bombing was pure terrorism.
The lynching of a black man suspected of raping a white woman was plenty offensive, and terrorism like, but not exactly the same.
However, in the context of whether white men should be feared, the lynching ends up more broadly frightening than assasination or church bombing of political activists, because it could happen to a random, uninvolved person.
The murder of Martin Luther
The murder of Martin Luther King was terrorism in precisely the same way the murder of Theo Van Gough was...
No, it wasn't.
What do you see which was
What do you see which was different, PT?
 If you'll supply some
What part of this don't you understand? You have no say or sway in what is the criteria or definition. I said RACIST/RACISM. Not killing. Certainly for someone to be "racist" does not require them to kill someone of another race. In Slavery, there was little intent to "kill" Slaves but it was, as an institution, "racist" nonetheless. So too was Jim Crow. Yes there were lynchings, etc. But even when characterizing the racism of those eras, the physical violence present then is not and does not constitute the sum total of the racism then. The Civil Rights Movement was about more than the end of White Racist Violence against Blacks. So please say something that makes sense.
To the extent that you refuse to do anything about YOUR GROUP (not mine) and the racism/racists among Whites, you have, in effect, said that you are not willing to be held to the very standard of being SUSPECT that you want to put out there about some other "group" - i.e. a definition, a standard and criteria you created for them and thereby judge them SUSPECT without any such interventions from them for you to modify your "criterion" to something "they can do for you."
At no time have you granted Arab/Muslims that privilege of vetting your criterion. So there is no such White Privilege here for you to circumvent or circumscribe what is Racism and the standard to which you are held by others who have reason to view you as SUSPECT.
Obviously, you are not motivated. And so here lays your argument. Dead with no revival.
The word "somewhat" was to
WRONG ANSWER. Again, you don't get to define what is "terror" to someone else especially when you have not delineated what qualifies as "terror" or "terroristic."
Massacres, e.g., are massacres. It matters not whether the massacres are analogous or comparative in scope... and you have, again, not provided anything that showed how there is a noteable difference. Also, you are not that damn dumb not to understand the connotation of saying "somewhat" in that context. And... lol... your are all the more SUSPECT because of how long it took you to respond to it and come up with a clarification/justification for your poor choice of words.
Are you afraid of being
Of course..., and for a coherent set of reasons - inclusive of the empirical fact that two of those interdictions reached murderous threat levels because of the attitudes of the officers. The only thing that stopped them was the number of and vociferous objections of witnesses.
But to outline briefly;
1. The vast majority of young white cops I've encountered are
racially anxious or fearful
2. Much of the curricular material in police academies is shockingly
racist - setting the stage for bad attitudes and dangerous
outcomes as an institutional-ized norm
3. Imbalance of perceived power/status {I'm a default criminal or
suspected criminal - not a citizen deserving of the full protect
and serve motivation which is default for modern citizens}
4. The socio-economic strata from which most contemporary young law
enforcement officers are drawn tend toward having grown up in
segregated communities, and, no longer have the common melting
pot experiences that formerly universally militarily conscripted
individuals drawn into law enforcement were wont to have.
To the extent that you
To the extent that you refuse to do anything about YOUR GROUP (not mine) and the racism/racists among Whites, you have, in effect, said that you are not willing to be held to the very standard of being SUSPECT that you want to put out there about some other "group" - i.e. a definition, a standard and criteria you created for them and thereby judge them SUSPECT without any such interventions from them for you to modify your "criterion" to something "they can do for you."
As I tried to explain NM, for some definitions of racist, that's me, so I can't do much about it. Your suspicions are dead on.
If, however, you define racism in a way which includes a threat or an obstruction or some deliberate creation of pain, I'll be pleased to exclude myself from that group.
Note that with Muslims I simply request them to distinguish themselves from Muslims who are terroristic murderers.
If you're afraid of being
If you're afraid of being murdered CN, then you will of course be suspicious.
I would note that
3. Imbalance of perceived power/status {I'm a default criminal or
suspected criminal - not a citizen deserving of the full protect
and serve motivation which is default for modern citizens}
Describes nearly everyone's relationship with the police.
It's surely how I would describe most of my interactions, although I don't recall looking down any gun barrel. There was a time, during an era when it was perfectly legal, that I was asked by a highway patrolman to hand him a loaded .357 from the glove compartment.
I was a little concerned. I was afraid if I pointed the loaded gun toward him that he might shoot me. I was afraid that if I handed him a loaded gun pointed toward me, that I might be shot by accident. So I decided to unload the gun, which was a single action Ruger. One shell at a time could be removed through the loading door.
Pickup truck. The patrolman stood slightly behind my driver's window and watched over my shoulder as I unloaded six shells with the barrel pointed straight up, and then spun the cylinder around confirming the empty status. I'm sure he had his gun in his hand quite ready, but he did not display it. I handed him the Ruger, handle first, barrel pointed back toward me.
After finding the gun to not be stolen, which could be done even in those long-gone days, he returned it.
Now did he have the right to demand to see that gun? Probably not. But nothing was amiss, and it seemed that the easiest way to get on my way was to cooprate.
Note that with Muslims I
How would one do that, on a practical level? How could a random Arab American convince Mr. Prager he or she is no threat? What could he say, what could she do? Announce her political affiliation whenever she walks in a room where there's non-Muslims? Wear a badge?
What he demands is impossible because of the way a suspicious mind works.
How would one do that, on a
How would one do that, on a practical level?
It's already being done, but to a limited extent.
The most practical action one can take is to call the police when a member of one's group is showing some inclination to murder. If a sub-group leadership strongly encourages such police reports, the expectation become that that subgroup is no more likely than non-Muslims to be a terrorist murderer.
This is the general nature of fundamentalist Christian behavior in America with respect to abortion doctor murderers. Fundamentalist Christians in America, for all their nonsense, do not tolerate murderers in their midst.
So the first thing we do when we look to make a smaller group is to look at particular Muslim leaders. When we find leaders who, by their words, seem tolerant of murder, we maintain suspicion of their followers. When we find leaders who encourage calling the police, we feel more at ease.
==
In the extreme, some Muslims might have to disclaim the summary description. They might, for example, insert the word "Reform" into their description, to make it clear that they want no part of terrorism.
The most practical action
The most practical action one can take is to call the police when a member of one's group is showing some inclination to murder.
Murderers or people who are planning to commit a murder or murders don't usually announce their intentions. It's not like they'll leave a note on the counter next to the coffee pot for you to read when you get up the next morning. What you're really suggesting is that Muslims in western nations should spy on each other and report imagined suspicious activity to the police authorities. A sort of Homeguard for the Prophet Brigade.
The most practical action
How many Muslem terrorists have taken any action at all in the USof A? Call that A.
How many Muslems are there in the USofA? Call that B.
A/B = the odds any one of them knows a terrorist. And it's even better when you consider the worldwide numbers.
Mr. Prager has set a standard Muslems will not have the opportunity to meet.
What do you see which was
What do you see which was different, PT?
DW, since you are the one making this assertion I believe it is incumbent on you to offer reasons why you believe there is some connection between Dr. King's murder and the murder of Theo Van Gogh. I see a closer connection between Mr. Van Gogh's killing and the murder of that young Brazlian electrician, Charles de Menezes, on the London subway or the murder of that 13 year-old Palestinian schoolgirl who was shot 20 times at a checkpoint by Israeli soldiers because they believed that she was carrying a bomb or, as some other soldiers claimed, they thought that she was signaling a terrorist.
The Israeli officer who fired a few more bullets into this child after she had been shot 20 times and was lying prone on the ground was cleared yesterday by a court martial because of alleged discrepancies in the testimony of the soldiers at the checkpoint. The officer didn't deny having shot the girl but there was some confusion as to whether she was still moving or not. If she was still twitching, I guess, then it was okay to pump a few more rounds into her body.
Just so you don't get too confused: the murder of Mr. Van Gogh was a horrible and dastardly deed. The person who did it should be locked away for the rest of his life with no chance for parole. But you still need to provide some arguments or persuasive facts to support your claim.
If, however, you define
No. This is not about assurances and reassurances. As I've said, you simply declaring you are not "one of them" will not suffice. Besides, Cnulan laid out something you have never bothered to distinguish yourself from. Nor have you provided the means by which we can tell, beyond Lip Service, that you are a "benign" one with respect to things that matter. Again, you don't get to set the criterion by which you are judged. There is no such White Privilege. You have not granted that privilege or license to Arab/Muslims... don't assume it or request it here.
Hmm... Notice you don't want to apply that reasoning to [White] Racism, even the systematic Racism that Cnulan highlighted with respect to the unequal sentencing laws that, arguably, [some/most] Whites clamour for in their overstated, even if implicit, and largely unfounded fear of Black crime -- crimes, generally, being overwhelmingly intra-racial as they are.
You want to be able to distinguish yourself from Racists, apparently, by making mere professions instead of the type of actions your required Muslims take in order to avoid SUSPICION. You are henceforth SUSPECT on all counts.
You have not done anything in an effort to "stop the racism." You have not even bothered to distinguish yourself and PROVE YOURSELF worthy of not being SUSPECT with respect to the unequal sentencing note here which poses a clear and present threat and is a deliberate "creation of undue pain" and suffering imposed (unequally) upon the Black Community.
From your continued silence on the question at hand you prefer to remain SUSPECT than to do what's necessary for you to do to distinguish yourself from the Racists and the Racism that continues:
You have not pointed out the racists and the racisms among you and those in your group. Whatever distinctions you declare then are passive, not active. And, I'd venture to say you rarely do anything to provide any meaningful Means Of Distinction.
And you further expose yourself with that SOMEWHAT stuff. White Blindness it seems, as you grant deference and allowance for Whites that you don't grant otherwise. Yes, you were quick to say "somewhat" as a highlight to how the terrorism experienced by Africans/African-Americans is not exactly analogous to so-called Islamic Terrorism. Hmmm... But funny, even with info. that indicated what characterizes "Islamic" extremists/terrorists (reactions to occupation, e.g.), you saw no need to highlight the distinctive character of White Racist Terrorism which is hardly analogous to "Islamic" terrorism.
To the extent that the objective of terrorism is to make some type of political statement, we know that White Racist Domestic Terrorism is a very different statement from Islamic Terrorism. And it has nothing to do with whatever difference that can be attributed to domestic vs. international character of the terrorisms.
See? You were willing to accept (or rather promote) how "once upon a time" there were (arguably) White Terrorists, you never sought to highlight how different those White Terrorists were/are from Islamic Terrorists. That's a curious and very SUSPECT oversight considering how you were so compelled to say the acts of "terror" against Africans/African-Americans in the U.S. as perpetrated by "White Thugs" weren't/aren't exactly analogous to Islamic Terror in terms of what the victims experienced. Apparently, examining and highlighting the clear differences in that White Terrorism and Islamic Terrorism is too much of a task for you. Which makes you all the more SUSPECT. Your views that is via your difficulty with articulating profound distinctions that focus on the WHITE.
So it's no wonder why you can't or won't answer this clear distinction setting question:
Fundamentalist Christians in
Once Upon A Time with respect to this Your Looking Glass here, that was a bold-faced lie. Today, maybe it's just a White Lie. Be that as it may, [WHITE] Fundamentalist Christians and Whites generally, it seems, tolerate the hell out of "RACISTS" and RACISM in their midst.
Hell, [WHITE] CONservatives, for one, are prime to say inane things like "You can't legislate morality" and such - especially with respect to "racism"/racial attitudes. I'm pretty sure plenty of them are devout. Now, I can't imagine an "American" like you being satisfied with an "Islamic" nation "harboring" terrorists that has a flippant comeback like, "you can't govern or pass laws to stop terrorists."
The Moral again is that you know that we know that you're not willing to be subjected to being seen as SUSPECT in ways that someone else decides that you are SUSPECT. And you, in no wise, would feel obliged to honor their suspicions by doing the necessary things to distinguish yourself on the basis of their (not your) Criteria For Suspicion. And it's proven yours (for Muslims) is the most ridiculous and arbitrary.
The very "suspicion" you have of Muslims and your the requirement you place on them is a product of this very thing you don't want to address. Your suspicions of them are a product of and example of one of those definitions you yourself have said, "That's Me."
No one has to placate to those ridiculous sensibilities.
"Fundamentalist Christians
"Fundamentalist Christians in America, for all their nonsense, do not tolerate murderers in their midst."
Rabbit tracks.
Nor have you provided the
Nor have you provided the means by which we can tell, beyond Lip Service, that you are a "benign" one with respect to things that matter. Again, you don't get to set the criterion by which you are judged.
NM, I get where you're coming from, and I try to relate.
The fact is, I'm no killer, nor would I tolerate supporting killers. That's very much a part of who I am. So I don't buy the analog.
You're no killer either. If you and I were together in person, I'd be quite safe. Ask me how I know.
DW, since you are the one
DW, since you are the one making this assertion I believe it is incumbent on you to offer reasons why you believe there is some connection between Dr. King's murder and the murder of Theo Van Gogh.
Both were murdered because someone didn't like the effect they were having on the eveolution of broadly shared morality.
How many Muslem terrorists
How many Muslem terrorists have taken any action at all in the USof A? Call that A.
How many Muslems are there in the USofA? Call that B.
A/B = the odds any one of them knows a terrorist. And it's even better when you consider the worldwide numbers.
I bought this for a while.
Right here in California a would-be terrorist cell was broken up. Did we see the proof? No. Does that leave a chance they were simply persecuted? Sure. Do I belive that "uncle Tom" Muslims cooperated with the FBI in creating a bogus terrorist threat?
No.
Now let's look at the equation again:
How many Muslem terrorists have taken any action at all in the USof A? Call that A.
How many Muslems are there in the USofA? Call that B.
A/B = the odds any one of them knows a terrorist. And it's even better when you consider the worldwide numbers.
How many non-Muslims have taken murderous anti-American action lately?
0.
How many Americans have died due to Muslim terrorism during the past 5 years?
3000 odd.
Do Muslims represent a threat?
Yes, but only those who fail to distance themselves from terrorism.
NM, I get where you're
Obviously, you don't. I didn't express anything relating to whether you were a "killer."
Since you claim to "get where I'm coming from" answer that question. After going through all of this, it's damn sure not rhetorical. And, no, you can't merely profess your way to distinction. You are still SUSPECT. You look like one of them. No Lip Service allowed.
And please... Compatible analogues are not your cup of tea. So save it.
Again, I expressed not one thing relating to whether you were a "killer." That was not what I drew a parallel to. You are and remain SUSPECT. And you have proven that you have no desire to distinguish yourself. You look like one of them. PROVE YOURSELF!
...Well, in actuality, in ways you've already conceded, you have. You have prove the very fraudulent basis of your issue with Muslims. Your perception that anyone ostensibly Muslim is a threat. After all, they all look alike, huh?
Why have you failed to distance yourself?
How many non-Muslims have
Hey, when all they have to do to qualify is to "Look Like One Of Them", of course they "represent a threat." You are and remain SUSPECT. You not only "Look Like One Of Them" but you haven't even begun to distinguish yourself, let alone distance yourself - "that's me." Nor have you played the "Uncle Tom" with respect to what you are SUSPECT for. See, you just keep weave the web that tangles you.
I recalled you saying...
Which you've now made a simple LIE. "Cooperate or Else" is not a simple request for reassurance. It is an active, even a proactive, preventative measure you don't want to be subjected to (or rather won't subject yourself to) even though you too, by virtue of not even providing assurance (to the contrary, you've said "that's me"), have not distinguished yourself. And you still "Look Like One Of Them." YOU ARE SUSPECT. Cooperate....
And, really? What mutual benefit will American Muslims derive from this process? What? Not being subject to your "American"... "You Look Like One Of Them" standards?
How many Americans have died
How many Americans have died due to Muslim terrorism during the past 5 years?
How many Iraqi civilians have died due to American terrorism since the first Gulf War?
How many Iraqis were killed in the British aerial bombing campaign of 1933?
With that said... I'm
With that said... I'm interested in how Dwshelf feels White Racist Terrorists are comparable to Islamic Terrorists. It's historically clear that the impetus and even the objectively observed objective(s) of the two are very different. Yet he has entertained the analogue between the two without one peep about them being incomparable. Must be that Blindness.
Part one of two:
Part one of two:
Do white people represent a threat? Yes, but "only" those fail to distance themselves from racism. See below.
Theodore Kaczynski
More to the point, though...
Seattle man accused of plotting attack on federal building
By Justin Rood
jrood@govexec.com
A Washington state man who claimed to be a former member of U.S. Special Forces is facing charges stemming from alleged threats he made to blow up a Department of Veterans Affairs office.
Oklahoma man held before boarding plane with bomb
An Oklahoma man was taken into custody after he tried to carry a bomb on board an airplane on Wednesday in Oklahoma City, an FBI spokesman said.
Charles Alfred Dreyling Jr., 24, was detained on Wednesday morning after a security screener using an X-ray machine saw the device in his luggage as he tried to board a flight to Philadelphia at Will Rogers Airport in Oklahoma City.
Ohio Gunman Drops Insanity Plea
COLUMBUS, Ohio, Aug. 8, 2005(CBS/AP) The defendant in a series of highway shootings that terrorized central Ohio and left a woman dead has agreed to drop his insanity defense and plead guilty, a judge said Monday.
Ex - Klansman Gets 14 Years in Pipe Bomb Sting
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:02 a.m. ET
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (AP) -- A federal judge sentenced a former Ku Klux Klansman to 14 years in prison Friday for making pipe bombs and selling them to an undercover informant who said they would be used to kill illegal immigrants.
Daniel Schertz, 27, apologized to his family before the judge gave him the maximum possible penalty in a plea agreement.
''The court is not going to take into account at all your involvement with the Ku Klux Klan. That is your right,'' federal Judge Curtis L. Collier told him. ''We do punish for behavior.''
Texas Tall Tales, Or Terror Plot?
HOUSTON, Texas, May 27, 2005(AP) Authorities say a man accused of trying to sell a bomb to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist group also wanted to help the terrorist group set off explosive devices in Washington, D.C., New York and at a Super Bowl.
Ronald Allen Grecula, 68, of Bangor, Pa., was arrested in Houston last week during a meeting with undercover federal agents and local officers. According to authorities, Grecula believed he was meeting with members of the Russian mafia who had al Qaeda ties.
At a court hearing in Houston Thursday, FBI agent Shauna Dunlap testified that Grecula said he wanted to build and sell an explosive device with a force similar to a nuclear weapon to al Qaeda for use against Americans.
Authorities say Grecula was angry at the government over losing custody of his children, whom he had kidnapped in November 2000. He spent about a year in prison on the kidnapping charge. His wife and children now live in a Houston suburb.
According to Dunlap, he also told an undercover FBI agent the device should be used in Washington because it could "take out whole city blocks."
The US Terrorism Plot That the Media Ignores
In May 2003, white supremacists in Texas were caught with a sodium cyanide bomb, other bombs, illegal weapons, hate literature, fake I.D., and chemicals, including hydrochloric acid and nitric acid. In mid-November, three people pleaded guilty to related charges, while seized documents indicate that there are other co-conspirators at large. The feds have served "hundreds of subpoenas across the country," and the plot has been included in the President's daily intelligence briefings.
But most of us have never heard about it. The only media that saw fit to report about this terrorist plot within the US were a few newspapers and TV stations in Texas. The Web-based news outlet WorldNetDaily ran a story about it, but Google News shows that there hasn't been a word in the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, or any other big media outlet. Why have the media decided that this is a non-story? It's hard to say, but we can say with certainty that if Muslims had been caught with these weapons of mass destruction, fake I.D., gas masks, and books on making explosives, it would've been front-page news for days.
New Arrest in Washington White Supremacist Weapons Case
Posted: October 24, 2005
A man accused of manufacturing and supplying weapons to a Seattle neo-Nazi was arrested in southern California on October 18, 2005.
Ghassan Haddad, a gunsmith, allegedly manufactured illegal machine guns and helped supply automatic weapons to former Aryan Nations member Keith Gilbert, according to federal agents. Haddad has been charged in U.S. District Court in Seattle with dealing in firearms without a license, manufacture of an unregistered firearm and possession of an unregistered firearm.
Need more?
I got more...
I bought this for a while.
Sadly for you, I didn't buy your line for a second. Now, let's look at YOUR equations again.
Your "equation" describes how your personal fear developed. Mine describes why Muslims cannot address it. Two wholly different issues being addressed...so even if your point was valid...which it is not...mine would still stand.
mmm..., sniff, sniff...,
mmm...,
sniff, sniff...,
P6, is that what I think it is?
better turn down the fire, smells like it's done..,
"better turn down the fire,
"better turn down the fire, smells like it's done..."
ROTFLMBAO
Too bad I'm a vegetarian.
Need more? I got more...
Need more?
I got more...
All but one of those cases were plots, not murders.
Even if carried out, none were terroristic. Freeway shooters and DC snipers are an occasional threat alright, but they're not terrorists. The use of the word "terrorist" by a publication with "Socialist" in its name notwithstanding.
Mine describes why Muslims
Mine describes why Muslims cannot address it.
Did you consider my suggestions?
Kaczynsky. Overlooked
Kaczynsky. Overlooked him.
We have had non-Muslim terrorists of course. The last one was Mc Veigh.
A bit of reflection shows Kaczynsky to have been a terrorist too. He did have a political adenda, it was just so weird no one took it seriously.
I'm interested in how
I'm interested in how Dwshelf feels White Racist Terrorists are comparable to Islamic Terrorists. It's historically clear that the impetus and even the objectively observed objective(s) of the two are very different.
Sure.
The technique is the same. Kill random people, and assasinate people involved in the political process, so that those alive will be scared into doing what you want.
All but one of those cases
So are all the "Muslim plots" of your imagination.
They are if you're Black.
Yes. Did you read my response?
Yes. Did you read my
Yes. Did you read my response?
Here it is:
A/B = the odds any one of them knows a terrorist.
(where A is American Muslim terrorists and B is all American Muslims)
So why would we believe that a terrorist only knows one person? Am I misunderstanding here?
If you look at how fundamentalist Christians handle abortion doctor murderers, you find a model which works. A lot of members of that group have the thought to kill an abortion doctor. The group makes it very clear that the group does not want that and does not want anyone who did such a thing in their midst.
Just curious here, DW. Does
Just curious here, DW.
Does your premise--the one about Muslims needing to distance themselves from terrorism--apply to all Muslims? Or just Arabic Muslims? Does it apply to Arabic non-Muslims?
I'm trying to get a handle on where you--and by extension, Mr. Praeger--establish the categories of people who constitute a threat.
Yes. Did you read my
I don't remember that statement being made in response to a suggestion of yours. The suggestion I remember was "How many non-Muslims have taken murderous anti-American action lately?" And all those plots were murderous anti-American activities.
What was the suggestion you made that you feel I was responding to with my little equation?
I'm trying to get a handle
I'm trying to get a handle on why others must respond to his assumed threats but neither he nor Mr. Prager have to respond to the threat they represent to others.
NM, here's how I get your
NM, here's how I get your point: you imply that my fear of Muslims is the equivalent of your arbitrarily stated fear of me.
You're implying that my stated fear is as arbitrary, and as ungrounded as yours.
My response had, and has, to do with murder. We can all relate to a fear of being murdered. The basic defense which most of us erect is to avoid situations which involve someone with the means wanting to murder you. We avoid the drug trade, for example.
And while domestic disputes represent the majority threat beyond that, we believe we have that under control.
What's left is a class of murders for which one really has no defense. If some random guy really wanted to murder me, he could. If someone who doesn't like my opinions wanted to murder me, he could. This is the realm of terror.
Since we don't have any immediate defense, we seek to manage the threat. We manage it in terms of groups who utilize terror as a technique, by isolating ourselves from such groups. At first glance, that's often impractical, because we lack enough information to identify a small enough group. I fully agree, the group of all Muslims is too large to be useful.
But if that's where we are, and we need more information, it is perfectly fair to ask Muslims to help us to identify some smaller group. Help us understand which Muslims are a threat and which are not.
DW, when are you going to
DW, when are you going to take a breath and provide us with your reasoning regarding the alleged connections between the murder of Dr. King and Mr. van Gogh?
Help us understand which
Help us understand which Muslims are a threat and which are not.
In other words, spy on their mosque members and report anyone who expresses anger at the United States.
Help us understand which
My understanding is, those Muslims that were not fucked over by US foreign policy are no threat.
How do we determine which white people aren't a threat, when we KNOW how y'all talk when you don't know we hear you? That has a lot more to do with the national interest than an irrational fear of something less common than being struck by lightning.
DW, I have not stated
DW, I have not stated anything relative to fear. That's you angle. I've talked about how you're SUSPECT in the same arbitrary manner you make Muslims suspect because, for one, "They All Look Alike."
So, I have not suggested what fear is or isn't grounded. Again, I have talked about the basis you laid out that, more or less, said why a person, Muslims in your case, are held as SUSPECT. In your case, Muslim are suspect ostensibly on the basis that they, "Look Like Them [Terrorists]." You, likewise, "Look Like Them Racists" and you have not distinguished yourself from them and actually refuse to do so along the terms that I judge Racists.
Racism is not benign. You not distinguishing yourself from Racists shows you are not benign. Whether I'm "safe" around you is not even in the question. The question is whether you are Racists and what you are doing to "stop Racism." You know, whether you will COOPERATE OR ELSE...
Here's an idea. Maybe we
Here's an idea.
Maybe we could have the "good" Muslims wear a symbol on their clothes. Y'know, maybe a star-and-crescent patch so all the citizens of the homeland would feel, you know, safe.
Voluntarily, of course.
NM, here's how I get your
Your expressed fear of Muslims has been shown to be groundless. Though as Pape has demonstrated, you may in fact have a conceptually plausible though statistically miniscule basis for fearing folks whose homeland is presently occupied by U.S. military forces, the Muslim inquisition is not simply arbitrary, it's demonstrably specious. For all the world, this Praegerism looks like nothing so much as just another instance of neocon rabble rousers attempting to demonize a large group of people in order to justify escalating violations of that peoples' human and civil rights.
OTOH, my fear of lethal threat from white law enforcement officers embodying a mandate from the electorate to wage a disparate war on black men can be shown to be anecdotally, statistically, and pervasively valid. In comparative terms, my fear of a clear and present danger from authorized terroristic elements of the white American governance establishment seems entirely reasonable.
What deeply puzzles me is why the methamphetamine epidemic has not spawned a comparable war on the predominantly white producers and users of the drug that crack cocaine spawned...., we know beyond any doubt that violent crime and property crime has gone buckwild in the wake of meth abuse, yet no corresponding legislative policy has been implemented to ensure that a right proper war is waged against the purveyors of this scourge.
The question is whether you
The question is whether you are Racists and what you are doing to "stop Racism." You know, whether you will COOPERATE OR ELSE...
OR ELSE what?
If you're not afraid of me (even in an abstract space for arguments sake), why, even as empathetic (in an abstract space for argument's sake) to your feelings, should I feel compelled to action?
For your analog to actually work, you have to be fearful of me.
The "or else what" as applied to Muslims is answered "or else non-Muslims will remain fearful of you".
"or else non-Muslims will
"...and anyone who we decide looks like you. Or thinks like you. Or has a name that sounds to our ear like yours. Or that expresses too much sympathy for your complaints about what we do to you. Or votes in some way we disagree with..."
EB got nothin on this
EB got nothin on this incorrigible pranksta up in here!!!!
"...and anyone who we decide
"...and anyone who we decide looks like you.
Most valid concerns have invalid lookalikes.
So DW, why do Muslims have
So DW, why do Muslims have to respond to your concerns while you don't have to respond to Black people's concerns?
You can switch every occurance of "Muslims" for "Black people" if you like.
Most valid concerns have
Buh...buh...but don't those "invalid" lookalikes have the same obligation to separate themselves from the threat you have so inconveniently allied them with?
If not, how are we supposed to tell the difference? I mean, they all look alike...oops! Cat's outta the bag now.
OK, minus the snark: Most
OK, minus the snark:
No, the "invalid lookalikes" are errors in your scheme. These false positives mean your way of judging threats is invalid.
So DW, why do Muslims have
So DW, why do Muslims have to respond to your concerns while you don't have to respond to Black people's concerns?
They don't have to, unless they don't want me to