Islamophobia

PJ_Soul

Byrnzie wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I don't think that the KKK and Islamic extremists can be compared at all.

Why not? Are you suggesting the KKK hasn't been responsible for murder and terrorism?

From this year: http://www.salon.com/2013/02/07/klan_le ... s_partner/

How about the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in 1963 which killed four black girls? This was an act of terrorism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Stree ... ch_bombing

No, that is not what I said at all. Not sure why or how you read what I said to mean that the KKK somehow isn't as awful in its own way. All I said was that weren't comparable. Imeant (as clarified in a later post), because everything about the two are completely different. I didn't say anything about degrees of guilt.

PJ_Soul

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Oh, of course. Self-interest wasn't the difference in intent and motivation that I was thinking of. I was more thinking of the fact that, assuming we're talking about the US's military actions here, the US military doesn't go out of its way to murder innocent civilians in order to make a statement and instill fear in a population in the hopes that that will destabilize the government or inspire retaliation that will in turn make others turn against them. Terrorists do. Yes, of course innocent civilians have died from US attacks, and people in the area have been scared, but that wasn't the actual intent of or motivation behind the attacks (however misguided their actual motivation behind them are). That's the difference. Another difference is that there isn't a stable and established government and identifiable leaders directly behind terrorism. When you're talking about actions of war undertaken by a nation's military, there is.

whether the US government, or any government, acts with intent to kill civilians or is simply indifferent to it, I see no difference.

The nazis had a stable and established government. was what they were doing not terrorism? how can simply having a functioning government excuse them from being terrorists?

I didn't say anything about anyone being justified. Didn't even hint at that.

Byrnzie

PJ_Soul wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I don't think that the KKK and Islamic extremists can be compared at all.

Why not? Are you suggesting the KKK hasn't been responsible for murder and terrorism?

From this year: http://www.salon.com/2013/02/07/klan_le ... s_partner/

How about the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in 1963 which killed four black girls? This was an act of terrorism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Stree ... ch_bombing

No, that is not what I said at all. Not sure why or how you read what I said to mean that the KKK somehow isn't as awful in its own way. All I said was that weren't comparable. Imeant (as clarified in a later post), because everything about the two are completely different. I didn't say anything about degrees of guilt.

How are the two 'completey different'? They're both extremist elements that routinely use violence as a means to an end, and they're both propelled by Ideology, one religious, one secular.

PJ_Soul

Byrnzie wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Why not? Are you suggesting the KKK hasn't been responsible for murder and terrorism?

From this year: http://www.salon.com/2013/02/07/klan_le ... s_partner/

How about the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in 1963 which killed four black girls? This was an act of terrorism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Stree ... ch_bombing

No, that is not what I said at all. Not sure why or how you read what I said to mean that the KKK somehow isn't as awful in its own way. All I said was that weren't comparable. Imeant (as clarified in a later post), because everything about the two are completely different. I didn't say anything about degrees of guilt.

How are the two 'completey different'? They're both extremist elements that routinely use violence as a means to an end, and they're both propelled by Ideology, one religious, one secular.

Well I'm not repeating myself. I already posted the answer to that.

Byrnzie

PJ_Soul wrote:

I didn't say anything about anyone being justified. Didn't even hint at that.

Yes, you did:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Yes, of course innocent civilians have died from US attacks, and people in the area have been scared, but that wasn't the actual intent of or motivation behind the attacks (however misguided their actual motivation behind them are). That's the difference.

Anyway, I already answered your post here on this very page: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=208751&p=5068326#p5068236

PJ_Soul

No, I didn't. That does not say at all that what they do is justified. I don't understand how or why, but You're just reading into it what you want, apparently. :? I was just stating the differences between intent. Not making a statement about right or wrong. Just because their intent isn't to terrorize civians doesn't mean they are justified in what they do intend to do or how they do it. You dreamed up that meaning youself because that is what extremists do.... I think it might be neat if you attempted thinking objectively for once, if only to understand my posts as they actually read instead of as they read after your subjectivity gets ahold of them.

Byrnzie

PJ_Soul wrote:

Just because their intent isn't to terrorize civians doesn't mean they are justified in what they do intend to do or how they do it.

No, their proclaimed intent is irrelevant in light of the actual consequences of their actions. If you drop 500Ib bombs, and cluster munitions, on civilian areas, then the result will be terrorizing the population.

Byrnzie

Great article this. Well worth reading the whole thing. Here's a snippet:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -australia


Should Woolwich really influence politics on another continent?

Fatalities from terrorism remain thankfully rare. But the Woolwich murder is already used by Australian politicians to further their agenda


Jeff Sparrow
guardian.co.uk, Friday 31 May 2013


'...Though it’s impolite to say so, fatalities from terrorism remain vanishingly rare, at least in wealthy nations. You have four times the chance of being struck by lightning as you do from being killed by a terror attack. You are nine times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit; you are eight times more likely to die at the hands of a police officer than a terrorist. You are also something like a thousand times more likely to lose your life in a car crash than from a terror plot. Traffic accidents constitute a genuine threat; we all know someone who has died on the roads. Yet no-one would consider giving traffic officers anything like the powers accorded to security agencies, even though a far more intrusive policing of drunk driving would, without question, save hundreds of lives.

...Amazingly, between 1968 and 1973, terrorist incidents involving the seizure of commercial jets took place at a rate of nearly one a week, a sequence of skyjackings now almost totally forgotten. The attacks were taken seriously, of course – but no-one suggested they posed an existential threat, nor claimed the world had somehow changed forever.

Now, ask yourself this: what would be the reaction today to a similar spate of terror attacks? If two men wielding a machete on an entirely different continent spurs calls for increased surveillance of your emails, how would Greg Sheridan and his ilk react to five years of weekly skyjackings? What kind of security state would they demand in response?

The comparison between the political culture then and now helps explain the rise of the theological response to terror. In the politicised climate of the late 1960s, skyjackings were understood in a particular context. Even those with no sympathy for the militants’ aims accepted that the perpetrators possessed a motivation for their crimes, that they were not simply driven by a fathomless evil...'

Godfather.

Cosmo wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

because I'm bull headed and pissed off about all the terrorest acts honor killing's etc. being done by muslim people and now I don't trust any of them...yeah yeah I know it's not politicaly correct but neither is a muslim terrorest or a muslim father/husband that kills out of some misguided honer .
I not asking anybody to follow my opinion or even agree with me,right now this is how I feel about the whole mess.


Godfather.

...
That's cool. You are admitting to being prejudice. My take is, there is nothing wrong with being prejudiced towards an entire group of people as long as you are up front and take ownership of it.
Just don't pretend to be a good person or tell us what a good Christian you are or about your virtuous nature towards people. You are in the same class as the Rev. Phelps Westboro Church clan with the only difference being, they hate Fags, you hate Muslims. To me, I really don't care who you hate... just own up to your hatred.

I never said "hate" as I have said before hate in my opinion is a very strong word, yes I am pissed off and yes I disaprove of the actions by muslim people and yes I do not trust them due to their beliefs and violance that has been welll documented....and yes I want them out of my country,I know it sounds a little extream but this shit is just getting too friggin old and my opionon on the muslim has nothing to do with my Christan beliefs..although my reasons not to hate may be because of my Christan beliefs.

Godfather.

Godfather.

you guys have a habbit of twisting the words of others around a little, you assume I hate because I say I don't want muslims in my country when I have never used the word hate towards anybody.

Godfather.

catefrances

Godfather. wrote:

you guys have a habbit of twisting the words of others around a little, you assume I hate because I say I don't want muslims in my country when I have never used the word hate towards anybody.

Godfather.

so then whats the reason you don't want muslims in your country?

polaris_x

Godfather. wrote:

you guys have a habbit of twisting the words of others around a little, you assume I hate because I say I don't want muslims in my country when I have never used the word hate towards anybody.

Godfather.

would you prefer willfully ignorant or intolerant then?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Godfather. wrote:

you guys have a habbit of twisting the words of others around a little, you assume I hate because I say I don't want muslims in my country when I have never used the word hate towards anybody.

Godfather.

no one twisted any words. you have been more than clear on your position of eradicating the muslim population from your country.

Godfather.

catefrances wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

you guys have a habbit of twisting the words of others around a little, you assume I hate because I say I don't want muslims in my country when I have never used the word hate towards anybody.

Godfather.

so then whats the reason you don't want muslims in your country?

re-read my last few post's.

Godfather.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Godfather. wrote:

re-read my last few post's.

Godfather.

I'll try to summarize:

Christians are awesome and Muslims suck.

Isn't this what you have said?

Godfather.

polaris_x wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

you guys have a habbit of twisting the words of others around a little, you assume I hate because I say I don't want muslims in my country when I have never used the word hate towards anybody.

Godfather.

would you prefer willfully ignorant or intolerant then?

are those the same words you use to discribe muslim terrorest ?

Godfather.

Godfather.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

re-read my last few post's.

Godfather.

I'll try to summarize:

Christians are awesome and Muslims suck.

Isn't this what you have said?

:fp: what exactly are you looking for ? btw thank for proving my point.(word twisting) :roll:

Godfather.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Godfather. wrote:

are those the same words you use to discribe muslim terrorest ?

Godfather.

Maybe we got this all wrong: are you talking about a Muslim forest or a Muslim terrorist?

Godfather.

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

you guys have a habbit of twisting the words of others around a little, you assume I hate because I say I don't want muslims in my country when I have never used the word hate towards anybody.

Godfather.

no one twisted any words. you have been more than clear on your position of eradicating the muslim population from your country.

from thirtybills;

I'll try to summarize:

Christians are awesome and Muslims suck.

Isn't this what you have said?


Godfather.

Godfather.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

are those the same words you use to discribe muslim terrorest ?

Godfather.

Maybe we got this all wrong: are you talking about a Muslim forest or a Muslim terrorist?

:corn: do you have anything original to post ?

Godfather.