# Dylan Ratigan: A most excellent rant on 'War with Islam'



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 15, 2010)

I was referred to this on Twitter.  Glad I watched it.  Since it's an apparently unscripted rant by MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan, it runs a couple minutes too long, but the point is basic, clear, and true (IMHO).

http://gawker.com/5664744/the-single-truest-political-rant-ever-to-appear-on-morning-television


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 15, 2010)

I think what he said right after the four minute mark particularly rang true.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 15, 2010)

Ok, I'm uninformed on this...

What is the difference between a Wahabi (sp?) and a Muslim?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 15, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Ok, I'm uninformed on this...
> 
> What is the difference between a Wahabi (sp?) and a Muslim?



What's the difference between a Unitarian-Universalist and a Pentecostalist?

Seriously, Wahabists are Sunni Muslims.  They represent a extreme fringe of Islam.  It is mainstream in Saudi Arabia, but not in most Muslim countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi

Another militant branch of Sunni Islam is Salafist Jihadism.  There are also militant Shiite organizations.

Here's a good report from 2003:

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21695.pdf


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 15, 2010)

FYI, Wahhabis despise all 'mystical' groups within Islam.  They'd love to kill the Imam of the so-called 'Ground Zero' mosque, as he is a Sufi and the antithesis of just about everything they believe in.


----------



## Master Dan (Oct 15, 2010)

I understood that it was the Wahabi that by threat of force kept the royal family of Saudi Arabia in power only so long as they agreed to give them the money they want which was then used for terrorism? 

So while on the face of it Saudi Arabi acts like a ali it is thier money mainly ours from buying oil that has funded much of the terrorism in the past?

We need to go Nuclear and other power issues and let it all go back to the goats and camels I hate seeing our best and brightest dieing for oil and corporate profits. 

I we want the oil just take it what happend to Iraque reimbursing us for the cost of the war from Oil like Bush said in the begining? 

What did we make all those Nukes for? Rememer when we first started shock and Awe. Lybia started saying OH America Friend please come look we have no wepons of mass destruction.

In WWII we had to drop two bombs not just to save our boys lives fighting longer but it was the only way to change the mind of a country that philosophically believed they were better than us and we should be killed or enslaved? 

Stop spending Trillions killing our young guys just drop two Nukes don't give me the polution crap hell we exploded over 356 above ground just testing in our own back yard!!!

We may get a bunch of bad press for it so what! every country in history pays for its baking of dictators or facists governments its the price they pay for going along with it and indoctrinating thier children to hate us.
Hit one city the short guy in Iran will be out of office and all the other countries that are hosting or supporting terrorism put them on notice. The people will rise up and kill these fools or they face anilation.

No instead we spend billions on the most worthless airport security on the planet people so stupid theyd all be working for Mcdonalds or Walmart if it wasn't for out tax dollars and they wouldn't know a bomb from turd if they saw it? 

Some will say its what they want to start the end and bring some mesia?
You know what? that little **** has a deep bunker he is thinking some of my people will die not me? 

*Well when they bring me the ballot to vote that has two boxes*

*One convert to Islam:   Two Die :     I pick number three that has a big red button. *

*I know I should not have had that second Mocha?*


----------



## Big Don (Oct 15, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What's the difference between a Unitarian-Universalist and a Pentecostalist?


 Individuals may or may not self-identify as Christians or subscribe to Christian beliefs So, that is pretty different from *Protestantism* is one of the four major divisions within Christianity


> Seriously, Wahabists are Sunni Muslims.  They represent a extreme fringe of Islam.  It is mainstream in Saudi Arabia, but not in most Muslim countries.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi
> 
> ...


No matter how much people want to deny the 9-11 hijackers were Muslim, they were.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 15, 2010)

Master Dan said:


> I understood that it was the Wahabi that by threat of force kept the royal family of Saudi Arabia in power only so long as they agreed to give them the money they want which was then used for terrorism?
> 
> So while on the face of it Saudi Arabi acts like a ali it is thier money mainly ours from buying oil that has funded much of the terrorism in the past?
> 
> ...


 

Dude, really?  Do you honestly think exploding a couple of nukes would be beneficial to our goals in the long term?  I think you are right about that second Mocha


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 15, 2010)

Big Don said:


> No matter how much people want to deny the 9-11 hijackers were Muslim, they were.



And most importantly did what they did for religious purposes or under religious influence..the thing most "well Tim McVeigh was Xtian!" people conveniently ignore. First of all, its reported that he was agnostic, but most imortantly he did what he did for non-religious reasons. He was not participating in a Jihad nor was he trained or funded by a religious (or religiously backed) organization.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 15, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> And most importantly did what they did for religious purposes or under religious influence..the thing most "well Tim McVeigh was Xtian!" people conveniently ignore. First of all, its reported that he was agnostic, but most imortantly he did what he did for non-religious reasons. He was not participating in a Jihad nor was he trained or funded by a religious (or religiously backed) organization.


 

No, they did what they did for political reasons disguised as religious outrage.  Do you really think the guys that recruited and trained these men do what they do because of religion?  No, they don't.  They do it for power.  Religion is the vehicle for men who will abuse it to gain power.  It has happened in Christianity too.  To think we are at war with Islam and that a religion attacked us on 911 is narrow minded, short sighted and does nothing but feed the hate and hysteria.  But perhaps that is the goal.  Using the hate and outrage to gain political power...right out of the playbook of totalarism and terrorism.


----------



## Marginal (Oct 15, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> And most importantly did what they did for religious purposes or under religious influence..the thing most "well Tim McVeigh was Xtian!" people conveniently ignore. First of all, its reported that he was agnostic, but most imortantly he did what he did for non-religious reasons. He was not participating in a Jihad nor was he trained or funded by a religious (or religiously backed) organization.



It's a lot like poor David Koresh. He just wanted to fondle under aged girls, stockpile weapons, and pretend to be Jesus. The evil government had to go and say no tho...


----------



## Ken Morgan (Oct 15, 2010)

Insanity transcends all religious, racial and ethnic criteria.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 16, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> No, they did what they did for political reasons disguised as religious outrage. Do you really think the guys that recruited and trained these men do what they do because of religion? No, they don't. They do it for power. Religion is the vehicle for men who will abuse it to gain power. It has happened in Christianity too. To think we are at war with Islam and that a religion attacked us on 911 is narrow minded, short sighted and does nothing but feed the hate and hysteria. But perhaps that is the goal. Using the hate and outrage to gain political power...right out of the playbook of totalarism and terrorism.


 
It still doesn't change the fact that most of the whackos we are dealing with NOW are of the Muslim variety...when they start reciting the hail mary before blowing themselves up I will re-evaluate.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 16, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What's the difference between a Unitarian-Universalist and a Pentecostalist?
> 
> Seriously, Wahabists are Sunni Muslims.



Thanks.  Like I said, I genuinely didn't know, and to me the Video clip made it sound like Wahabists were not Muslim, so I was looking to re-evaluate if what O'Rilley said was incorrect.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2010)

Big Don said:


> No matter how much people want to deny the 9-11 hijackers were Muslim, they were.



Do you read anything in this thread that anyone is denying the hijackers were Muslim?  They were Muslim, Don.  Nobody disputes that.  What many people deny, myself included, is that they were representative of the majority of Muslims.  They represent a fringe extremist group of Muslims, just as the group that called itself "Christian Identity" didn't represent the views of mainstream Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity



> ...some of the Christian Identity movement's followers hold that non-Caucasian peoples have no souls, and can therefore never earn God's favor or be saved.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity#cite_note-0



Why is that so difficult to understand?  All Muslims are not terrorists.  All Christians are not terrorists.  The first rule of war is to know who you are fighting.  If we conflate 'All Muslims' with our true enemy, well, we'll lose.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> And most importantly did what they did for religious purposes or under religious influence..the thing most "well Tim McVeigh was Xtian!" people conveniently ignore. First of all, its reported that he was agnostic, but most imortantly he did what he did for non-religious reasons. He was not participating in a Jihad nor was he trained or funded by a religious (or religiously backed) organization.



Abortion clinic bombers and abortion doctor assassins have been avowed Christians, carrying out what they thought was God's law.  They are not representative of all Christians, but perhaps of their subset fringe sect.  Same for fringe Wahabists who support terrorists.  They are Muslims, but they don't represent all Islam.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 16, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Abortion clinic bombers and abortion doctor assassins have been avowed Christians, carrying out what they thought was God's law.  They are not representative of all Christians, but perhaps of their subset fringe sect.  Same for fringe Wahabists who support terrorists.  They are Muslims, but they don't represent all Islam.


The difference is, the standard commentary, "They don't represent all Islam" in it's many forms, is repeated ad naseum, to the point it has lost all meaning. While any time a Christian, commits a crime, that same idea that they aren't representative of all crap isn't part of the news


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> It still doesn't change the fact that most of the whackos we are dealing with NOW are of the Muslim variety...when they start reciting the hail mary before blowing themselves up I will re-evaluate.



That's poor logic.  You have yourself admitted on several occasions, as I recall, that not all Muslims are terrorists.  You would seem to be able to accept that being Muslims does not make one a terrorist.  BUT when it is convenient, you use the fact that the terrorists were Muslim to indict the entire religion.

They were also men.  Are all men terrorists?  They were also English-speakers.  Are all English-speakers terrorists?

The question has to be asked in terms of causation.  Did the terrorists do what they did based on the fact that they were men?  No.  Did they do it based on the fact that they spoke English?  No.  Did they do it based on the fact that they were Muslim?  Again, no.  Did they do it based on the fact that they belonged to an extremist sect of Islam, which taught the validity of violent jihad?  Yes.  So what is the cause?  I think it's pretty clear.  Conflating all Islam with a violent sub-sect is exactly the same as conflating all Christianity with a violent sub-sect or all Caucasions with a violent sub-sect, etc.  One questions the motives of a person who does this.

What you're saying - apparently intentionally - is that you choose to believe that all Muslims are terrorists on the basis of an causation you yourself know is false.  That's weak.  That's a bumper sticker philosophy.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2010)

Big Don said:


> The difference is, the standard commentary, "They don't represent all Islam" in it's many forms, is repeated ad naseum, to the point it has lost all meaning. While any time a Christian, commits a crime, that same idea that they aren't representative of all crap isn't part of the news



First, the _'standard commentary'_ that they don't represent all Islam may have been repeated _ad nauseum_, but if so, it is done to counter the continued claims *"but the terrorists were all Muslims!'* as if all of Islam was made up entirely of terrorists.  They represented a sect of Islam.  It's good to know about that sect.  Unless one ascribes to the theory that ignorance is good, and intentional ignorance is best.

Second, I don't agree that the media have gone out of their way to ascribe killings and bombings by people who were also Christians as representative of all Christianity.  It seems to me that in every case, the media has tried to find out what specific church or branch the lunatic in question belonged to.

I haven't read a single news report that says Reverend Fred Phelps is representative of all Christians, have you?  Nor about that fellow who wanted to burn the Koran down in Florida.  I never read anything that said he was a typical Christian.  So where are you getting that accusation?

And finally, your logic appears to be of the sort that says _"It's OK for me to make erroneous accusations about others, because look, the media does it to!"_  Even if your statements concerning Christians who commit heinous crimes was true, that's piss-poor logic.  If people rob banks, can you?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 16, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> It still doesn't change the fact that most of the whackos we are dealing with NOW are of the Muslim variety...when they start reciting the hail mary before blowing themselves up I will re-evaluate.


 
Ok, so what does that mean for us?  Kill all Muslims?  Change the law so that they're guilty until proven innocent?  Let profiling slide?

As Mr. Mattocks has pointed out, even if ALL terrorists are Muslim, all Muslims are not terrorists.  So what conclusion does constantly pointing out the terrorist's religious/ethnic background  lead us to, other than feeding hate towards them?


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 16, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Abortion clinic bombers and abortion doctor assassins have been avowed Christians, carrying out what they thought was God's law.  They are not representative of all Christians, but perhaps of their subset fringe sect.  Same for fringe Wahabists who support terrorists.  They are Muslims, but they don't represent all Islam.





Individual criminals are a far cry from large organizations like Al Queda, Hezbollah or fundamentalist Islamic nations who have been conducting terror operations with a Muslim "flavor" since the 70's. Jihad..Fatwas..Paris riots...Slamon Rushdie...9/11...Beslan...Moscow Theater...Madrid..Paris Metro...London bombings...Lebanon....Mumbai. 

Compare those to an individual nut doing an abortion clinic bombing??

Please.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 16, 2010)

I know I'm probably not going to get a real answer to this, but what makes some people have such a strong urge to paint a large group of people in such a negative light?  What does it accomplish?  I can't really think of any personality trait that I would attribute to a social group of a billion plus people, but that seems to be what is happening.  That leads me to believe ther is a reason for it.  Surely it can't just be fear, can it?


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 16, 2010)

And pointing at people who say "Islam has a problem with terrorists" and accusing them of "painting ALL Muslims as terrorists", is an easy out. Of course not all Muslims are terrorists, but practitioners of that religion sure are cranking out a LOT of violence lately. Large scale, organized and funded violence. To say otherwise is willful ignorance.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Compare those to an individual nut doing an abortion clinic bombing??
> 
> Please.



Crusades?

But seriously, I'm NOT comparing them.  I'm pointing out that the acts of extremists are not the acts of the groups they claim membership in.  That's all.  The abortion clinic bomber isn't representative of all Christianity, and the suicide bomber isn't representative of all Islam.

I'm also agreeing with Dylan Ratigan.  He notes correctly that the 9/11 bombers were all Saudi Arabians, all members of a Wahhabi sect of Islam, and that trying to 'go to war with Islam' is both stupid and non-winnable.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> And pointing at people who say "Islam has a problem with terrorists" and accusing them of "painting ALL Muslims as terrorists", is an easy out. Of course not all Muslims are terrorists, but practitioners of that religion sure are cranking out a LOT of violence lately. Large scale, organized and funded violence. To say otherwise is willful ignorance.



Nobody is saying otherwise.  What is it that YOU are saying?  That's the part that we're unclear on.  Yes, the terrorists we're fighting are all Muslims.  There are a bunch of them.  And what is your point, please?


----------



## Big Don (Oct 16, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Nobody is saying otherwise.  What is it that YOU are saying?  That's the part that we're unclear on.  Yes, the terrorists we're fighting are all Muslims.  There are a bunch of them.  And what is your point, please?


How about this:
A guy wearing a red jacket, red pants and red shoes runs all over the state robbing stores, homes, and little old ladies. 
Rather than focus the dragnet on a guy wearing red shoes, pants and jacket, the police look for a man with no other description given or allowed and any attempt to point out that the robber wears red shoes, pants and jackets at all times is shouted down as biased, bigoted and possibly stupid, meanwhile the man in the red outfit continues to rob everyone he can.
You can not ignore part of your adversary's existence. 
How about an MA analogy. You have a sparring match coming up, but, you ignore the fact that your opponent is left handed and poo poo anyone who tries to tell you he is left handed, the right side of your face and body are going to be pretty bruised...

The terrorists we are fighting are Muslim, to ignore this simple fact, is foolish in the extreme.
Imagine if during WWII, the US and UK ignored the fact that the Nazis were German...


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 16, 2010)

Big Don said:


> How about this:
> A guy wearing a red jacket, red pants and red shoes runs all over the state robbing stores, homes, and little old ladies.
> Rather than focus the dragnet on a guy wearing red shoes, pants and jacket, the police look for a man with no other description given or allowed and any attempt to point out that the robber wears red shoes, pants and jackets at all times is shouted down as biased, bigoted and possibly stupid, meanwhile the man in the red outfit continues to rob everyone he can.
> You can not ignore part of your adversary's existence.
> ...


 
Sorry, no.  Your analogy is flawed.  If a guy wearing all red committed those crimes, then you are looking for an individual in red when most people would not dress like that.  What you are doing is looking for an indiviual dressed in red while 1.8 BILLION innocent people are also dressed in red.  In that case, perhaps it would be wise to focus on other descriptors of the criminal, don't you think?  ...and you want to call other people foolish.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2010)

Big Don said:


> How about this:
> A guy wearing a red jacket, red pants and red shoes runs all over the state robbing stores, homes, and little old ladies.
> Rather than focus the dragnet on a guy wearing red shoes, pants and jacket, the police look for a man with no other description given or allowed and any attempt to point out that the robber wears red shoes, pants and jackets at all times is shouted down as biased, bigoted and possibly stupid, meanwhile the man in the red outfit continues to rob everyone he can.
> You can not ignore part of your adversary's existence.
> ...



*Who suggested ignoring the fact that the terrorists we're fighting are Muslims?*  In fact, the suggestion is that we pay attention to the fact that they are a particular extremist subset of Islam, known as Wahhabi, so that we don't find ourselves chasing after the wrong guys!

_"All Muslims"_ is about *1.4 billion people*.  Anything we can use to legitimately narrow that down strikes me as a good thing.  But no, you want us to be tracking ALL Muslims because hey, the 9/11 terrorists were all Muslims.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 17, 2010)

Big Don said:


> The difference is, the standard commentary, "They don't represent all Islam" in it's many forms, is repeated ad naseum, to the point it has lost all meaning. While any time a Christian, commits a crime, that same idea that they aren't representative of all crap isn't part of the news



Of course it isn't. The reason is that most Americans are Christians or are at least familiar enough with Christianity to know that it isn't true and because they know that they themselves are not terrorists, so the 2 are not linked.

Otoh there seem to be plenty of Americans willing to make the immediate jump from Islam to terrorist because they don't know it, they don't feel any connection with it and thus it is foreign and easy to fall into the trap of jumping to conclusions.

And from what we've seen so far, the above really needs saying because there are still plenty of Americans who don't seem to understand.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 17, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> And from what we've seen so far, the above really needs saying because there are still plenty of Americans who *don't seem to understand.*



Or don't want to.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 17, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Crusades?



Dude the Crusades were what 700-800 years ago? People have to stop using that old meme, it has nothing to do with todays situation. My examples were from the 20th-21st century, not from the 13th.

May as well blame the Romans for something while we are at it. My grandparents generation rounded up the Japanese and put them in camps. We have come a long way since then. How much more so since the 1200's??


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 17, 2010)

It's funny people here are very quick to decry groups like the tea party as a whole, stating things like The Majority is responsible for the Racists because they do nothing about them at the rallies, or that Christians as a whole are idiots because a specific group of them believe there were no dinosaurs and that the earth is 6000 years old, but have nothing to say about the THOUSANDS of Muslims who stood in the streets celebrating, ululating, and cheering the fall of the towers we were presented images of on TV the day of 9-11.

THAT was clearly ok, for some reason.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 17, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> It's funny people here are very quick to decry groups like the tea party as a whole, stating things like The Majority is responsible for the Racists because they do nothing about them at the rallies, or that Christians as a whole are idiots because a specific group of them believe there were no dinosaurs and that the earth is 6000 years old, but have nothing to say about the THOUSANDS of Muslims who stood in the streets celebrating, ululating, and cheering the fall of the towers we were presented images of on TV the day of 9-11.
> 
> THAT was clearly ok, for some reason.


Clearly OK, and, not at all representative...


----------



## Big Don (Oct 17, 2010)

LANGUAGE WARNING:
Penn Jillette:
*Are there any groups you won&#8217;t go after?* And we  haven&#8217;t tacked Islam because we have families.
*Meaning, you won&#8217;t attack Islam because you&#8217;re afraid it&#8217;ll attack back &#8230;*  Right, and I think the worst thing you can say about a group in a free  society is that you&#8217;re afraid to talk about it&#8212;I can&#8217;t think of anything  more horrific.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 17, 2010)

Big Don said:


> LANGUAGE WARNING:
> Penn Jillette:
> *Are there any groups you wont go after?* And we havent tacked Islam because we have families.
> *Meaning, you wont attack Islam because youre afraid itll attack back * Right, and I think the worst thing you can say about a group in a free society is that youre afraid to talk about itI cant think of anything more horrific.


 

Let me get this straight...you are using Penn Jillette as source material to make your point?  ...  LOL


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 17, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Dude the Crusades were what 700-800 years ago? People have to stop using that old meme, it has nothing to do with todays situation. My examples were from the 20th-21st century, not from the 13th.
> 
> May as well blame the Romans for something while we are at it. My grandparents generation rounded up the Japanese and put them in camps. We have come a long way since then. How much more so since the 1200's??



The point I made is the same, regardless of when it happened.  We do not hold all Christians responsible for the Crusades.  All Muslims are not responsible for the 9/11 attacks.  It really is that simple.  Why that is difficult to grasp, I fail to understand.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 17, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Let me get this straight...you are using Penn Jillette as source material to make your point?  ...  LOL


You can tell Christian jokes, Jew jokes, but, if you tell a Muslim joke, the feces WILL hit the oscillator...


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 17, 2010)

Christians as a group still seem to be "held to task" over the Crusades ("Well you Christians were responsible for the Crusades! So there! Neyh!")..that happened in the 12-13th Cent. While saying anything about the associations between Islam and RECENT religious violence gets you slapped with a "bigot" label ricky-tick.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 17, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Christians as a group still seem to be "held to task" over the Crusades ("Well you Christians were responsible for the Crusades! So there! Neyh!")..that happened in the 12-13th Cent. While saying anything about the associations between Islam and RECENT religious violence gets you slapped with a "bigot" label ricky-tick.


 

No, it just seeems many people want thier cake and to eat it too.  They don't want all Christians held to task for things such as the Crusades, the inquisition, abortion doctor killings, child abuse, etc. and you are right in that.  At the same time they want to paint 911 as an act supported by an entire religion.  It really isn't difficult to understand why the hypocritical nature of this is being called out.  It seems the only ones that don't understand this are people who have some interest in stoling the hatred.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 20, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm also agreeing with Dylan Ratigan. He notes correctly that the 9/11 bombers were all Saudi Arabians, all members of a Wahhabi sect of Islam, and that trying to 'go to war with Islam' is both stupid and non-winnable.


 
He also says that Whabbi Muslim extremists are the "only ones that have ever killed us."  

That's just not true.  Why should I believe the other stuff that he says. 



> The question has to be asked in terms of causation. Did the terrorists do what they did based on the fact that they were men? No. Did they do it based on the fact that they spoke English? No. Did they do it based on the fact that they were Muslim? Again, no. Did they do it based on the fact that they belonged to an extremist sect of Islam, which taught the validity of violent jihad? Yes.


 
This is just spin.  *These* people did it because of their Muslim faith.  Why you think they did it is irrelevent.  The only reason that you take it the one step further is because it suits what you believe.

The truer question is not what you pose, but do they represent the majority of the Islamic faith.  To me, that answer is the one that has yet to be satisfactorily given.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 20, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> No, it just seeems many people want thier cake and to eat it too. They don't want all Christians held to task for things such as the Crusades, the inquisition,


 
None of those people are alive today, so why should those Christians who are be "held to task".



> abortion doctor killings, child abuse, etc.


 
And for everyone of those events you will see several million Christians say that the person was wrong, what they did was evil, does not represent what they believe.

When I ask for examples of the same from Muslims, I hear... crickets.



> At the same time they want to paint 911 as an act supported by an entire religion.


 
See the differences listed above.

This is sometimes a question of simplicity and ignorance.  Not everyone has time to become an expert on the Koran, the Hadith, the hundreds of cultures and their various interpretations of Islam.  But perhaps, just maybe, if millions of Muslims would cry out and rage against the terrorism, then maybe it would be believed that this is something other then a religious act.



> It really isn't difficult to understand why the hypocritical nature of this is being called out.


 
Not really hypocritical when the situations are different, and don't relate.


----------



## Marginal (Oct 20, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> It's funny people here are very quick to decry groups like the tea party as a whole, stating things like The Majority is responsible for the Racists because they do nothing about them at the rallies, or that Christians as a whole are idiots because a specific group of them believe there were no dinosaurs and that the earth is 6000 years old, but have nothing to say about the THOUSANDS of Muslims who stood in the streets celebrating, ululating, and cheering the fall of the towers we were presented images of on TV the day of 9-11.
> 
> THAT was clearly ok, for some reason.


Tail wagging the dog.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 20, 2010)

Marginal said:


> Tail wagging the dog.



So Pithy and informative!  Thanks for that stunning and intelligent response, it genuinely addressed the relevant points at hand, like so many of your posts.  

I bow to your superiority.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 20, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> And for everyone of those events you will see several million Christians say that the person was wrong, what they did was evil, does not represent what they believe.
> 
> When I ask for examples of the same from Muslims, I hear... crickets.



That's a pathetic lie.  It's even been exposed as a lie on this very board again and again, yet it continues to be repeated.












These pictures were taken at rallies by Muslims against terrorism in Muslim and mixed Muslim countries.  If you haven't heard anything, it's because you are sticking your fingers in your ears.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 20, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


>


Three cheers for the subjugation of women! Oh, that wasn't your point? oops


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 20, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Three cheers for the subjugation of women! Oh, that wasn't your point? oops



Even more pathetic.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 20, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Even more pathetic.


Yeah, because the women probably don't deserve equal rights anyways...


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 20, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Yeah, because the women probably don't deserve equal rights anyways...



Yep, you nailed it right on the head.  And you aren't avoiding the issue even in the slightest!  Nor are you desperately attempting to justify your own bigotry by changing the topic!

Well done on not doing all of that.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 20, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> That's a pathetic lie. It's even been exposed as a lie on this very board again and again, yet it continues to be repeated.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
So am I a pathetic liar, or just ignorant.  You can't have it both ways.

What's funny, you condescending, arrogant, self-righteous troll, is that I spent an entire thread asking for the type of info you post now, and instead of posting such and more, you sit there and thank the person with whom I was debating, contributing nothing.

No, it's only I phrase a statement a certain way, and until you have the chance at name calling do you speak up.  You want to talk about pathetic.  Why don't you go sooth your ego somewhere else, and stop doing it at my expense.


----------



## Marginal (Oct 21, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> So Pithy and informative!  Thanks for that stunning and intelligent response, it genuinely addressed the relevant points at hand, like so many of your posts.
> 
> I bow to your superiority.



"They get to be pissy. We should get to be pissy too! At least we have valid reasons!" (Mainly their pissiness justifies it all apparently.) 

This is a deep argument I'm supposed to treat as a valid point of high minded discussion?


----------



## Ramirez (Oct 21, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Dude the Crusades were what 700-800 years ago? People have to stop using that old meme, it has nothing to do with todays situation. My examples were from the 20th-21st century, not from the 13th.
> 
> May as well blame the Romans for something while we are at it. My grandparents generation rounded up the Japanese and put them in camps. We have come a long way since then. How much more so since the 1200's??



  okay,  here is a more recent event committed by Christians....25,000 -30,000 Muslim men and boys massacred.


Srebrenic massacre


  So do we lay the blame for this on all Christians?

  I guess most of us can see that Christianity had nothing to do with it but ethnicity, politics and historical enmity did, so we can blame Serbs , not all Serbs and certainly not Christians.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 21, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> okay,  here is a more recent event committed by Christians....25,000 -30,000 Muslim men and boys massacred.
> 
> 
> Srebrenic massacre
> ...


Your comparison is not apt. They didn't claim to be doing God's work.


----------



## Ramirez (Oct 21, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Your comparison is not apt. They didn't claim to be doing God's work.



   what difference does that make?  They killed men and boys because they were Muslim,  the religious aspect is just a cover for a deeper historical conflict, the same way Wahabism is a response to historical colonialism in countries where Islam was the dominant religion by countries where Christianity was the dominant religion.

  Certainly I have to wonder where the Orthodox Catholic Church had to say while this was happening.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 21, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> what difference does that make?  They killed men and boys because they were Muslim,  the religious aspect is just a cover for a deeper historical conflict, the same way Wahabism is a response to historical colonialism in countries where Islam was the dominant religion by countries where Christianity was the dominant religion.
> 
> Certainly I have to wonder where the Orthodox Catholic Church had to say while this was happening.


The Whaabis clearly state their hatred for infidels...
You are comparing apples and wheel nuts


----------



## Ramirez (Oct 21, 2010)

Big Don said:


> The Whaabis clearly state their hatred for infidels...



  What, to murder 25,000-30,000 males, a good percentage of which were boys doesn't involve some hatred of Muslims?  I would like to know then what the motivation was.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 21, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> What's funny, you condescending, arrogant, self-righteous troll...



I'm not the one acting the bigot, after my bigoted remarks are disproved again and again and again.  If you want the ability to make moral judgments, it helps to act in a moral manner first.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 21, 2010)

I truly am in awe of how time and again holes are poked in arguements based upon broad generalizations, stereotypes, and just plain old bigotry, yet the response is that our examples and reasoning aren't as valid as thiers.  It boggles the mind.

It also amazes me to see how often conservatives are taking the victim role, then I notice how often they post with attacks on progressives.  How many threads have you seen started in the last three months by progrssives attacking the right compared to the other way around?  its telling.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 21, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> I'm not the one acting the bigot, after my bigoted remarks are disproved again and again and again. If you want the ability to make moral judgments, it helps to act in a moral manner first.


 
You're making the assumption that your "arguments" disprove other positions. Sorry to bruise your ego, but sometimes they don't. That does not give you the right to condescend to people who still disagree with you . Not only that, but when you do posit your argumenjt, you do so in a prissy, holier-then-thou attitude which is completely unnecessary.

BTW, posting pictures and saying where they come from rather then giving the actual source is scant, weak evidence. Those pictures could mean several different things given an open ended context, for which you suggest we all just take your word. I don't think so.

What does this picture mean:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Bellamy_salute_1.jpg 

If I were to simply post this pick and say that these kids were being indoctrinated into Nazism, without any context, could you realistically refute me?  Or would it help if I also gave you this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute

And, I am not a bigot:



> a person who is utterly intolerant of *any* differing creed, belief, or opinion.
> Websters


 
There are many creeds, beliefs and opinions for which I am tolerant. Quite the contrary, you seem to be the one who is bigoted against opinions which differ from yours, as evidenced by your attitude.

What I also don't understand is how asking questions, and stating the information I have available to me is somehow bigoted.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 21, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Not only that, but when you do posit your argumenjt, you do so in a prissy, holier-then-thou attitude which is completely unnecessary.



Bigots deserve contempt.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> BTW, posting pictures and saying where they come from rather then giving the actual source is scant, weak evidence.



This is part of what makes you a bigot.  The very first search I tried in Google, "muslims against terrorism", returned many hits, including those pictures.  Yet you decided that the Muslim world was silent in the face of terrorism _without even bothering to do a simple search first!_ 

How could I not hold someone in contempt who won't do even the _bare minimum_ of looking before holding 1.3 billion people complicit?  How can such a person be anything but willfully ignorant if they won't even _bother _to confirm their prejudices first?



5-0 Kenpo said:


> And, I am not a bigot:



Now you've gone from the realm of bigotry to out and out stupidity.  So you must be intolerant of *all *differing creeds to be a bigot?  So if I only hate Catholics, I'm not a bigot?  If I only hate Jews, I'm not a bigot?  If I only hate blacks, I'm not a bigot?  

You honestly think I _shouldn't _be condescending in the face of such pathetic arguments?



5-0 Kenpo said:


> Quite the contrary, you seem to be the one who is bigoted against opinions which differ from yours, as evidenced by your attitude.



Oh, yes, the usual defense.  It's not the person judging all Muslims in the world as complicit and silent in the face of terrorism without even bothering to check who is intolerant; it's the person holding them to account who is the _real _intolerant bigot.  What a shameful claim to make.  If you actually believed this nonsense, then you would have to claim that those who hold Nazis in contempt are the truly intolerant.  That those who hold racists and thugs in contempt are the truly intolerant.  Somehow I doubt your attitude extends so far.  It's only those who question _your _actions and motives who are the "real bigots."



5-0 Kenpo said:


> What I also don't understand is how asking questions, and stating the information I have available to me is somehow bigoted.


'
Because you have made no effort to find out the real information before making your conclusions that impugn the character of 1.3 billion people.  That information is very easy to find, and to boot has been presented in this forum many times.  Yet you chose to ignore all that information, not bother to do any checking on your own, and decided that the Muslim world is silent in the face of terror.

When you make negative conclusions about a group of people against all evidence and reason, without even trying to find out if your conclusions are true, _that makes you a bigot!_


----------

