I'm hardly a flamer, David. I do note that you seldom or ever directly reply to legitimate questions, though, and when pressed for answers, you change subject. Clever.
Back on topic. Where did you get your "quarter of 1%" figure?
I'm hardly a flamer, David. I do note that you seldom or ever directly reply to legitimate questions, though, and when pressed for answers, you change subject. Clever.
Back on topic. Where did you get your "quarter of 1%" figure?
I'm sure you do.
I'll explain it so you understand it.
I responded to your assertion that .25% of Muslims "have issues with socialization and sanity." (your full post w/my reply)
The numbers I cited referred to Muslims who support acts of terror. I am including those people within your group of Muslims who, "have issues with socialization and sanity."
"1 person's terrorist is another persons freedom fighter." Support for 'terrorism' =/= being a civilian killing fanatic. How many of those 'supporters' live in an occupied country? Have had friends and relatives killed? Have been personally screwed over? Subtract this and focus only on the actual, unjustified (logically at least) terrorists and my claim makes far more since then your absurd number.
Lol - this is exactly what AK_ID was talking about. You changed the subject.
1) Where did you get the .25% figure from?
2) Freedom fighters don't fly airplanes into the WTC to kill civilians. They don't kill tourists. They don't cut Jewish reporters' heads off on film. etc etc. What you are trying to do is create a moral equivalence where none exists. Objectively those who engage in terrorism are readily distinguishable from honorable soldiers. People in the US Army who are caught doing crap like that get court martialed and thrown into prison. Terrorists get medals.
3) How many of those supporters... feel free to read any of the articles I linked where the data that answers your question is readily available. In fact the data, iirc, is broken down by rates for each state and as to specific acts of terrorism.
4) I think relying on those who agree that suicide bombing is acceptable get to count as hav(ing) issues with socialization and sanity whether they fit your newly refined position or not. You're now parsing motive to justify their acts and the support given by others. Do you think that if some one is an Iraqi, has a killed relative or has been "screwed over" that it is perfectly sane to support suicide bombing? Because that's what you are arguing. Does that seem either sane or logical to you? It sure doesn't seem either to me.
5) "Your absurd number" isn't my number. I cited to the sources from which I reported the numbers. Feel free to check them out.
6) What's your source for your .25% claim?
Edit: I just can't get over this... How many of those 'supporters' live in an occupied country? Have had friends and relatives killed? Have been personally screwed over? Subtract this and focus only on the actual, unjustified (logically at least) terrorists
You're position:
those motivated by
A) having their state occupied,
B) have had a relative killed (no clarity on who did the killing or why but I suppose that doesn't much matter huh?), or
C) were "screwed over" (another nebulous criteria)
must be regarded as logical and rational supporters of terrorism and thus eliminated from tallying Muslim support for terror.
That is, their support is justified. You amplify that notion that their support for terror is justified when you said, "focus only on the actual, unjustified (logically at least) terrorists" What what what? Slicing Daniel Pearl's head off was justified if the slicer came from an occupied country, had a relative killed or was "screwed over."?
Next, we are to only count those who have not had their state occupied, had a relative killed or been screwed over as supporters of terrorism that we should count.
Think about that. What you are arguing is that those who support terror attacks based on traumatic and negative personal experience don't count. Those who have had no traumatic and negative personal experience do count.
Why?
Why are such evil acts like 9/11, Khobar, USS Cole, African Embassies, Suicide Bombings, London, Madrid, fatwas against Rushdie, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the 200 dead from rioting over cartoons justified?
Do you really mean that or did you say something you didn't mean?
Last edited:
Some people say it is too soon to build a mosque so close to ground zone. What sort of time line to people propose...15 years, 25 years? Personally it does not bother me but I can understand why it bothers others. In a perfect world they would build it, and it would be embraced by Americans to show the rest of the world that we are not at war with Islam, only the terrorists. No matter what peoples opinions are the US Constitution is very clear that they have the right, just like Christians have a right to build a church. The Constitution is NOT just for what suites our emotions at a particular time.
You presume that Muslims would regard embracing the mosque as a sign of strength and peace whereas it is much more likely to be viewed as weak and accomodating.
Freedom of religion has never been at issue and its getting pretty tedious to have to keep pointing out that NO ONE of sane mind has asserted that they cannot build their mosque.
But thank for repeating the same immaterial point everyone else and their dog feels necessary to raise to show how tolerant they are.
Freedom of religion has never been at issue and its getting pretty tedious to have to keep pointing out that NO ONE of sane mind has asserted that they cannot build their mosque.
But thank for repeating the same immaterial point everyone else and their dog feels necessary to raise to show how tolerant they are.
obtuseobserver, lavivi, et al,
Yes, obtuseobserver is (IMO) correct. While there are several issues in play, Constitutional Freedoms is not one of them. No one is challenging that.
(COMMENT)
Part of the problem with the Muslim Community is the inability to grasp a few simple concepts:
"Just because you have the RIGHT to do it, it doesn't make it RIGHT to do it."
It is a distance cousin to what is known as the "argumentum ad populum."
It is not a one sided argument. Just as many non-Muslims fall prey to it as do Muslims. And we have paid dearly (in some cases) for it.
Most Respectfully,
R
Yes, obtuseobserver is (IMO) correct. While there are several issues in play, Constitutional Freedoms is not one of them. No one is challenging that.
(COMMENT)
Part of the problem with the Muslim Community is the inability to grasp a few simple concepts:
"Just because you have the RIGHT to do it, it doesn't make it RIGHT to do it."
It is a distance cousin to what is known as the "argumentum ad populum."
It is not a one sided argument. Just as many non-Muslims fall prey to it as do Muslims. And we have paid dearly (in some cases) for it.
Most Respectfully,
R
well, yes RoccoR
Your first point is exactly the point I keep trying to drive home... just because one may doesn't mean one should.
Point two, appeals to the people aren't necessarily bankrupt. However, if one relies on, "won't you please think of the children" without more, then it certainly is.
Your first point is exactly the point I keep trying to drive home... just because one may doesn't mean one should.
Point two, appeals to the people aren't necessarily bankrupt. However, if one relies on, "won't you please think of the children" without more, then it certainly is.
Many big name RR types have said as much and it still hasn't sunk in. And even if it was a mosque and it was at GZ, I don't see anyone complaining about the mosque at the Pentagon.
This 'debate' consists of logical people vs. hypocrites.
Similar threads
