You have to realize that not every crime committed by someone who claims to profess Islam is committed in the name of Islam.
…
You could’nt be more wrong.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
The father has not been caught yet so has not given his testimony. Perhaps you are right, Lixy: this could be the first case or perhaps a rare case of a Muslim committing or atttempting to commit an “honor killing” that he in fact did not think was in accordance with his religion.
But we know for a fact that very, very many “honor killings” are done by Muslims saying it is in accordance with their religion as they understand it.
Whether this particular case is one, or we would need to point to another, is not of great importance to the general question of whether Muslims who kill others – “infidels” or insufficiently pious Muslims – out of belief that their religion teaches them to so kill and rewards it, is one of the major problems in the world today.
So, what you and the other folks on the comments of the article did, was infer the motive of the crime from the religion of the perpetrator (oftentimes, the name was enough for some morons to do the same on this very forum - I distinctly remember a similar case where the father turned out to be Christian much to the dismay of said morons).
You have to realize that not every crime committed by someone who claims to profess Islam is committed in the name of Islam.
Your so-called amusing quiz is nothing but transparent hatemongering propaganda. Sadly, it’s an attitude that is starting to make it into the mainstream. You (and whoever posted it) go as far as to present Bobby Kennedy’s assassin as a Muslim, because he looks like he might be one and his name sounds A-rab.
I am commenting on this thread because I am sincerely appalled. Appalled by the fact that even you, Bill Roberts, are dropping your guard when it comes to relaying falsehoods and shaky speculation. Despite our differences of opinion, I still think highly of your intellect (and I’m not the only one). And when even you fall for misinformation and start advocating government-sponsored ethnic discrimination in the world’s melting pot, I start to fear for my physical integrity.
This from a Muslim who couldn’t be more shamed about what is done in the name of his religion: I implore you. Don’t cave in and follow easy shortcuts or hasty generalizations. Don’t make us lose hope. And I respectfully apologize for turning a funny-bone-flexing thread into a debate.[/quote]
Lixy, you’re right on one thing: Sirhan Sirhan was not / is not Muslim. The author of that was ignorant. I didn’t notice it in the cut and paste.
Still, it’s a fact that the overwhelming majority of terrorism committed in the world today, and for the last several decades, is by Muslims who say they are doing it in accordance with their religion.
That’s not “hatemongering,” it’s a fact.
And it’s a fact that if people insist on being willfully blind to it, and oppose “profiling,” this will make prevention of terrorist attacks far harder. It’s an impossible burden to demand that no more attention should be given to Muslims than to, say, Catholics from Brazil.
And YES we have such people in the United States.
On your last point: Is it “hatemongering” to figure that the Muslim who just now ran over his daughter with his car, with reports being that it was because she was “Westernized,” did so believing that this was in accord with his religion?
Well you tell me. In Muslim countries where “honor killings” are done, do those doing it – as the general rule – do so because they think it is the religiously pious thing to do?
You tell us, Lixy.
If it looks like a horse, sounds like a horse, and runs like a horse, don’t call me a “hatemonger” for saying it is a horse on account of some theory of yours that it could be a zebra that somebody dyed the coat of.
Yeah maybe it could be a zebra with a dyed coat.
But ordinarily it’s gonna be a horse.
Lastly, again, you tell us. Don’t even use your knowledge of current news in the United States.
The recent terror attempts in the United States were by:
a) Christians
b) Atheists
c) Buddhists
d) Muslims
So, absolutely, whether “profiling” should be used in the United States with regard to terrorism is a very current issue, rather than being a dredging-up of stuff 8 years out of date. Neither the guy that originally posted that, or myself, was posting something irrelevant or without a lot of truth to it.
Yeah, you’re right that Sirhan Sirhan wasn’t a Muslim. (Though again, strictly speaking he wasn’t a terrorist either.) That is a good example that profiling should never be used to focus too narrowly: but no one ever said it should be.
This isn’t hatemongering, Lixy: it’s dealing honestly with a pretty awful fact caused by millions who interpret your religion differently than you do. And attacking those who speak plainly of the problems by calling them “hatemongers” does not help the situation, does it.
I don’t think moral fundamentalism is restricted to Christianity, or even to religion in general. Any kind of extremist, absolutist conviction that YOUR perspective is THE ONLY TRUE perspective is a huge red flag. Fanaticism paired with a fixed moral agenda can be used to justify the most extreme violence toward others, as history has proven many times.
Bottom line:
When you don’t really know all the answers, be honest enough to admit it, and stop trying to compel others to see the world and live as you do.
P.S. Nobody really knows all the answers, including YOU.
[quote]Valor wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Keep the thread on track please, Christianity and its shortcomings can be discussed elsewhere.
It doesn’t pose the risk that Islam does to society as a whole.
Nor does it pose the risk of someone just walking around with out health insurance.
Can you believe people do that? It’s like getting behind the wheel of your car knowing that you are uninsured…
Man someone ought to do something about those people.
Actually if you’re in your car you have this thing called: Car insurance, that will cover you.[/quote]
That was a joke response to Maks want to keep the thread on track, based on Obamas pitch of the health insurance debacle when he tried to make an analogy of people without health insurance being as socialy irresponsible as people who drive without car insurance.
The following is based largely on the opening chapter of a book I have recently finished reading. PM me if you are interested in reading it.
A young man boards a bus as it leaves the station. He wears an overcoat. Beneath this overcoat, purchased from a store down the street, he is wearing a bomb. The pockets of this coat are filled with nails, ball bearings, and rat poison.
The bus he is on is crowded and heading for the city center. The young man takes a seat beside a middle aged couple, and decides to wait for the next stop. The couple appears to be shopping for a new refrigerator. The woman has decided on a model, but her husband is worried it may be too expensive.
The next stop comes into view. He points at another one indicated on the brochure in her lap. The doors swing open. The woman notes that the refrigerator her husband has selected may not fit inside the kitchen. The last seats are filled with passengers shuffling down the aisles. One or two people are even standing to make space for the elderly passengers.
Now the bus is full and the young man smiles.
With the single press of a button he destroys himself, the couple at his side, and twenty other people on the bus. The nails, ball bearing and rat poison ensure further casualties at the crowded bus station in the heart of the city and in the passing cars. All has gone according to plan.
The young mans parents soon learn of his fate. Although sadden by the loss of a son, they feel tremendous pride at what he has accomplished: they know he has gone to heaven and prepared the way for them to follow.
He has also, in a double victory, sent his victims to hell for all eternity. The neighbors of the parents find great cause for celebration and honor the young man parents by giving them gifts of food and money.
These are the facts. That is all you know for certain about the young man.
Is there anything else we can infer about him on the basis of this account? Was he popular in school? Intelligent? Rich? Poor? His actions leave no clue at all. Did he have a university degree? A bright future as a mechanical engineer? His behavior provides no answer on questions like this and hundred like them.
Why is it so easy then, so trivially easy, so you-could-bet-your-life-on-it easy to guess the young mans religion?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Still, it’s a fact that the overwhelming majority of terrorism committed in the world today, and for the last several decades, is by Muslims who say they are doing it in accordance with their religion.
That’s not “hatemongering,” it’s a fact. [/quote]
Read again.
"Posting a list of hijacks, assassinations and terrorist activities in relation to a story about some whacko who ran over his daughter because she had sex, would qualify the poster for an even cruder series of epitephs.
It qualifies as hatemongering in my eyes. You find it amusing because you don’t have to put up with the people calling you a terrorist without knowing anything more about you than your name. What seems like harmless fun to you is actually forwarding the agenda of some people you would abhor."
This is what I said qualifies as hatemongering and I stand by it. Your post is just about making me say what I didn’t say. OK?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Still, it’s a fact that the overwhelming majority of terrorism committed in the world today, and for the last several decades, is by Muslims who say they are doing it in accordance with their religion.
That’s not “hatemongering,” it’s a fact.
Read again.
"Posting a list of hijacks, assassinations and terrorist activities in relation to a story about some whacko who ran over his daughter because she had sex, would qualify the poster for an even cruder series of epitephs.
It qualifies as hatemongering in my eyes. You find it amusing because you don’t have to put up with the people calling you a terrorist without knowing anything more about you than your name. What seems like harmless fun to you is actually forwarding the agenda of some people you would abhor."
This is what I said qualifies as hatemongering and I stand by it. Your post is just about making me say what I didn’t say. OK?[/quote]
If people fear you, or harass you, because of your name, who is to blame? The people that fear you, or the people that are spreading fear and hate, in your name?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I agree with Bill Roberts, the very large majority of those who do these things belong to one group. This is also the reason why Bill Maher’s Politically Incorrect was canceled, because he pointed out the same thing Bill Roberts did. [/quote]
No, it was canceled because he said that the 9/11 hijackers were not cowards due to the nature of their attack, which I happen to agree with.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Still, it’s a fact that the overwhelming majority of terrorism committed in the world today, and for the last several decades, is by Muslims who say they are doing it in accordance with their religion.
That’s not “hatemongering,” it’s a fact.
Read again.
"Posting a list of hijacks, assassinations and terrorist activities in relation to a story about some whacko who ran over his daughter because she had sex, would qualify the poster for an even cruder series of epitephs.
It qualifies as hatemongering in my eyes. You find it amusing because you don’t have to put up with the people calling you a terrorist without knowing anything more about you than your name. What seems like harmless fun to you is actually forwarding the agenda of some people you would abhor."
This is what I said qualifies as hatemongering and I stand by it. Your post is just about making me say what I didn’t say. OK?[/quote]
You are extrapolating.
Nowhere was it said or implied that any individual is a terrorist because of having an Arabic or Muslim-sounding name.
Nowhere was it said or implied that any individual is likely to be a terrorist because of having an Arabic or Muslim-sounding name.
What was being said, both by the original author and myself, was that if counter-terrorism efforts are going to be effective, they had better put more focus on Muslim males aged 17-40 than on other groups.
That’s just how it is. It’s not racist, it’s not “hatemongering,” it’s an unfortunate fact that needs to be respected as being true, rather than denied with inevitable result of hampering counter-terrorism.
And there are people in this country that absolutely deny it and fight to stop such “profiling.” Unfortunately however it is necessary.
When the day comes that no vastly greater percentage of Muslim males aged 17-40 commit terrorism than is average for other groups, then such profiling will not be needed.
But presently, it’s not just an overwhelming majority of the terrorism, it’s virtually the sole source. That is where the problem lies: not in people pointing out the truth of it.
It is an interesting and unfortunate thing in human psychology that to many, the really wrong thing and what is intolerable or extremely objectionable to them is not the actual wrong thing that occurred or is occurring, but that a person SAYS that it occurred or is occurring. You seem clearly to fall into that camp. You put much more effort into decrying those that point out that almost all terrorism is committed by Muslims than you do into decrying their terrorism. Or their “honor killings” or other atrocities against women.
Oh, you have one or two sentences of the latter. Maybe even a few sentences grand total. But you have vastly more of the former.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
I agree with Bill Roberts, the very large majority of those who do these things belong to one group. This is also the reason why Bill Maher’s Politically Incorrect was canceled, because he pointed out the same thing Bill Roberts did.
No, it was canceled because he said that the 9/11 hijackers were not cowards due to the nature of their attack, which I happen to agree with. [/quote]
Have to agree too. Our Islamic enemies are far more fearless than we are. They love death the way we love life. If they had anything close to the military tech we have, they’d crush the West. They could lose every battle and still win the war.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
I agree with Bill Roberts, the very large majority of those who do these things belong to one group. This is also the reason why Bill Maher’s Politically Incorrect was canceled, because he pointed out the same thing Bill Roberts did.
No, it was canceled because he said that the 9/11 hijackers were not cowards due to the nature of their attack, which I happen to agree with.
Have to agree too. Our Islamic enemies are far more fearless than we are. They love death the way we love life. If they had anything close to the military tech we have, they’d crush the West. They could lose every battle and still win the war.[/quote]
Agreed… it’s truly bizarre. Few cultures have suicide attacks ingrained in their arsenal like the Muslims… I sure as fuck wouldn’t do it.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
I agree with Bill Roberts, the very large majority of those who do these things belong to one group. This is also the reason why Bill Maher’s Politically Incorrect was canceled, because he pointed out the same thing Bill Roberts did.
No, it was canceled because he said that the 9/11 hijackers were not cowards due to the nature of their attack, which I happen to agree with. [/quote]
They were not cowards?, to take over a aircraft full of mum and dads, children, barricaded themselves in the cockpit and then crash it into buildings, total yellow bellied cowards.
The heroes was those passengers who downed their flight when info was recieved that this scum was crashing into buildings.
Total scum.
[quote]aussie486 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
I agree with Bill Roberts, the very large majority of those who do these things belong to one group. This is also the reason why Bill Maher’s Politically Incorrect was canceled, because he pointed out the same thing Bill Roberts did.
No, it was canceled because he said that the 9/11 hijackers were not cowards due to the nature of their attack, which I happen to agree with.
They were not cowards?, to take over a aircraft full of mum and dads, children, barricaded themselves in the cockpit and then crash it into buildings, total yellow bellied cowards.
The heroes was those passengers who downed their flight when info was recieved that this scum was crashing into buildings.
Total scum.
[/quote]
Yes. They were so frozen with fear they failed to act upon their plan.
Come on, evil doesn’t have to be cowardly.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
I agree with Bill Roberts, the very large majority of those who do these things belong to one group. This is also the reason why Bill Maher’s Politically Incorrect was canceled, because he pointed out the same thing Bill Roberts did.
No, it was canceled because he said that the 9/11 hijackers were not cowards due to the nature of their attack, which I happen to agree with.
Have to agree too. Our Islamic enemies are far more fearless than we are. They love death the way we love life. If they had anything close to the military tech we have, they’d crush the West. They could lose every battle and still win the war.[/quote]
Disagree totally, it what happens when you fight like a good guy, give it a bit of time and the West will be pushed into a corner due to dirty nu8kes or biological weapons and then we will see who gets crushed.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
aussie486 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
I agree with Bill Roberts, the very large majority of those who do these things belong to one group. This is also the reason why Bill Maher’s Politically Incorrect was canceled, because he pointed out the same thing Bill Roberts did.
No, it was canceled because he said that the 9/11 hijackers were not cowards due to the nature of their attack, which I happen to agree with.
They were not cowards?, to take over a aircraft full of mum and dads, children, barricaded themselves in the cockpit and then crash it into buildings, total yellow bellied cowards.
The heroes was those passengers who downed their flight when info was recieved that this scum was crashing into buildings.
Total scum.
Yes. They were so frozen with fear they failed to act upon their plan.
Come on, evil doesn’t have to be cowardly.[/quote]
Sorry, i don’t find anything brave about this scum’s actions but the again i don’t find suicide bombers brave either.
[quote]aussie486 wrote:
Disagree totally, it what happens when you fight like a good guy, give it a bit of time and the West will be pushed into a corner due to dirty nu8kes or biological weapons and then we will see who gets crushed.
[/quote]
Well, if they don’t have the capability for nuclear strikes on us after we retaliated, sure. We could nuke our way to victory. Otherwise, I don’t see it happening. Not coventionally. A few more generations, and not a chance.
[quote]aussie486 wrote:
They were not cowards?, to take over a aircraft full of mum and dads, children, barricaded themselves in the cockpit and then crash it into buildings, total yellow bellied cowards.
The heroes was those passengers who downed their flight when info was recieved that this scum was crashing into buildings.
Total scum.
[/quote]
Say what you want, these people were the worst kind of scum. It’s a pity there is no hell for them to burn in, but they were no cowards.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
aussie486 wrote:
They were not cowards?, to take over a aircraft full of mum and dads, children, barricaded themselves in the cockpit and then crash it into buildings, total yellow bellied cowards.
The heroes was those passengers who downed their flight when info was recieved that this scum was crashing into buildings.
Total scum.
Say what you want, these people were the worst kind of scum. It’s a pity there is no hell for them to burn in, but they were no cowards.[/quote]
Again i disagree, I don’t find spree killers or serial killers brave, they prey on the weak, these scum and those hijackers are cowards, nothing more nothing less.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
aussie486 wrote:
Disagree totally, it what happens when you fight like a good guy, give it a bit of time and the West will be pushed into a corner due to dirty nu8kes or biological weapons and then we will see who gets crushed.
Well, if they don’t have the capability for nuclear strikes on us after we retaliated, sure. We could nuke our way to victory. Otherwise, I don’t see it happening. Not coventionally. A few more generations, and not a chance.[/quote]
It will take less than a few generations, the dice has been cast in my view.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
They love death the way we love life. If they had anything close to the military tech we have, they’d crush the West. They could lose every battle and still win the war.[/quote]
This is directly related to their beliefs about the world and universe at large. Without Islam, you’d have people who loved life as well.