The end of moral equivalency

[bk59]

Muslims are killing people because they are Muslims.

Well congratulations on proving that you are in fact prejudiced. Perhaps post #4 was a bit premature in defending you.

In a list enumerating terror attacks, if you can't define terrorism then your argument isn't worth anything. You want to denounce terrorism without knowing what it is, go ahead. You just won't be taken seriously. Good luck trying to stop something when you can't even say what that something is. That makes it a very practical question and not simply philosophy.

I am not attempting to claim that "this list is largely composed of murders committed by folks who are only Muslim in passing, and not by people who are killing because they are Muslim". I am claiming that this list is inaccurate and pointless. It does nothing but promote the type of racist sentiment that you endorsed above. It characterizes all Muslims as murderers - which is clearly untrue despite your statement - and is the exact same type of generalization that Muslim extremists level against the Western world.

[cybercoma]

Does that mean black people are killing people because they are black?

I mean, they have the highest incarceration numbers in the US based on their population.

Oh, I know... Ted Kaczynski and Terri Nichols killed people because they are white.

Wait, wait, wait... Israel fires rockets into civilian areas of Lebanon and Palestine because they're Jews!

There is moral equivalency because something that is immoral is so, regardless of who is doing it.

Is there a tally of the number of people the United States, UK and Canada have killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? I'm just wondering because for all the reasons you justify those murders, I'm sure the Muslims can find an equal number of reasons to justify theirs. But guess what, none of them have any justification.

Edited August 8, 2007 by cybercoma

[ScottSA]

Well congratulations on proving that you are in fact prejudiced. Perhaps post #4 was a bit premature in defending you.

In a list enumerating terror attacks, if you can't define terrorism then your argument isn't worth anything. You want to denounce terrorism without knowing what it is, go ahead. You just won't be taken seriously. Good luck trying to stop something when you can't even say what that something is. That makes it a very practical question and not simply philosophy.

I am not attempting to claim that "this list is largely composed of murders committed by folks who are only Muslim in passing, and not by people who are killing because they are Muslim". I am claiming that this list is inaccurate and pointless. It does nothing but promote the type of racist sentiment that you endorsed above. It characterizes all Muslims as murderers - which is clearly untrue despite your statement - and is the exact same type of generalization that Muslim extremists level against the Western world.

"Prejudiced?" How 80s of you. The list may promote "racism" somehow...another one of those utterly meaningless terms...but it does so only on the merits of the truth. You may find it "racist" to point out the facts, but that's a set of intellectual blinders that you choose to wear, not any flaw in my point.

As I said, call it anything you want, but the 'form' of the issue is that Muslims kill people all over the world because they are Muslim. Tens and sometimes hundreds a day, thousands a week, tens upon tens of thousands a year, year after year. That is a fact. It is neither "racist" nor "tolerant," it is simply a fact.

[ScottSA]

Here's another "racist" documentary. It's by the BBC, but don't let that stop you from labelling it "racist" or any number of epithets for daring to point out that a great many Muslims want to or actively DO kill people. Upwards of 15% of the Muslim population. Part 1 of 6

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8W0rGaLdcA4

[bk59]

"Prejudiced?" How 80s of you. The list may promote "racism" somehow...another one of those utterly meaningless terms...but it does so only on the merits of the truth. You may find it "racist" to point out the facts, but that's a set of intellectual blinders that you choose to wear, not any flaw in my point.

As I said, call it anything you want, but the 'form' of the issue is that Muslims kill people all over the world because they are Muslim. Tens and sometimes hundreds a day, thousands a week, tens upon tens of thousands a year, year after year. That is a fact. It is neither "racist" nor "tolerant," it is simply a fact.

The statement that Muslims kill because they are Muslim is completely false. All you need to prove that it is false is to find one Muslim who has not killed another person. I assure you that this is possible. Muslims do not kill because they are Muslim. Saying otherwise is racist - a term that is not meaningless. cybercoma has already pointed out why the statement is so obviously racist.

It is not racist to point out facts. But pointing out facts is not the same as creating a set of "facts" that amazingly just so happen to support your views. The list you provided is a mix of valid terror attacks and crimes that have no place on that list. Even if you take the list at face value, to say that "tens upon tens of thousands a year, year after year" are being killed is exaggeration. Your inability or unwillingness to even state what terrorism means just makes it seem like you are more interested in Muslim bashing than actually discussing extremism.

[bk59]

Here's another "racist" documentary. It's by the BBC, but don't let that stop you from labelling it "racist" or any number of epithets for daring to point out that a great many Muslims want to or actively DO kill people. Upwards of 15% of the Muslim population. Part 1 of 6

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8W0rGaLdcA4

This is a fun new attitude from you. Because I called you on your racist statement now apparently I am calling everything racist? Let's not confuse the issue here.

The documentary did not seem particularly racist to me. It brings up some legitimate concerns. I would still question some of the things said in the documentary (just as I did with that list). I would also question your statement that 15% (or more) of the British Muslim population "want to or actively do kill people."

Everyone can watch that first part for themselves, but here is some of what it says with respect to your "point". For the record I watched the first five parts, but couldn't find the sixth. This is just me writing down what is said in the first part with Haras Rafiq.

When discussing the British Muslim population:

% that agree with and support those who decide to blow themselves up: % varies (range of 5% to 9%)

% that sympathize (will not go operational): % could be in double digits

% that empathizes: % not given

Time to go from empathizing to operational "can be" as short as 1.5 weeks

Total % in the above three groups: could be 15%, could be more

These are people who could say "I don't agree with the fact that these guys are blowing themselves up, but I can actually understand why."

These numbers are a bit disturbing, no doubt about that. But again you have overstated things. 15% do not want to kill people. They are saying I can see why, but I wouldn't do it. Don't get me wrong; these numbers are not good. But saying "I understand how someone could kill a man who hurt a child" is different from "I want to, and will, kill that man." Plus I would very much like to see where those numbers come from. I too can post a video of a man writing on a flipchart up on YouTube. (Yes, I know this is BBC show & not a random video posting. My point is that there is no source for these numbers.)

I would also be curious to find out the percentage of US and/or Canadian citizens that support statements like "I think we should just go into Iraq and Afghanistan and kill all the Muslims." (I have heard this said before.) I wouldn't want the numbers so that I could somehow equate British Muslims with other populations and then judge which one is superior. I would like to know the numbers to find out what a "normal" number would be. In any population there will be those that actively argue for the destruction of those they perceive as their enemies. I'm curious to know if that 15% is high, low, or the same compared to other populations.

Extremists are dangerous and should be stopped. And yes, Britain certainly does have problems with its Muslim population. And those "could be" numbers may be accurate, I can't tell from this. But the whole reason I don't consider this video racist is because it does not make the claim that you are making - that Muslims are murderers simply because they are Muslim. The video itself clearly shows some Muslims trying to get along with the rest of British society.

You should also note that in one of these videos (part 2 maybe, I forget now) there is an important thing to think about. In Afghanistan against the Russians, and in Bosnia, the West encouraged the type of Muslim fighting that is now back in Afghanistan and Iraq. This does not make things like suicide bombing acceptable. But in all your lists of Islamic terror attacks over the years, how many were condoned or encouraged by Western governments? Next time you want to make blanket generalizations about an entire religion you may want to think about things like that. The problem is more complex than just "Muslims kill because they are Muslims."

[M.Dancer]

Think what you will. I've made my point.

Are you sure? Sounds like the point you are trying toi make is that numbers mean things, but you can't decide what they might mean so lets avoid them.

[M.Dancer]

So Scott's site is wrong (or has a typo) afterall.

Imagine my surprise.

That is still more than the twin tower death toll.

oh and btw - I am not a supporter of capital punishment.

You are very quick to come to an erroneous conclusion.

If the author is talking about the last 65 years, meaning from 2006 to 1941, then the final count is less 939, or in the last 65 years 2694 people have been executed, far less that murdered on 9.11.

[M.Dancer]

I stand corrected, assuming one picks the site with the higher number of executions to believe.

Please sit down. The mistake were mine becasue I assumed the backwards start date was 9.11

[M.Dancer]

Yeah I got to agree on some points by BK. Muslims are quite capable of committing crimes that aren't part of global Jihad or linked to terrorism.

Honour killings especially. They are murder plain and simple and the barbarity doesn't need any more epitaphs to bring home the point that it is a brutal aspect of a brutal anachronistic culture. But it is not Global Jihad nor is it plainly terrorism.

Chechnya is more complicated being that the Chechnya fighters have been politicised to be Jihadists, that their ranks have swelled by foreign recruits and that along with insurgent attacks against the government forces and apparatus, they also make terrorist strikes against civilians both in and outside of Chechnya.

[Black Dog]

Yeah I got to agree on some points by BK. Muslims are quite capable of committing crimes that aren't part of global Jihad or linked to terrorism.

Not according to ScottSA. Everything a Muslim does, they do because they are Muslim. It is their sole motivation.

This line of thinking, as bk has already shown, is plainly false. One need only look at Iraq where religious sectarian divides bleed into longstanding tribal grudges and rub up against nationalist sentiment.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Black Dog

[ScottSA]

Not according to ScottSA. Everything a Muslim does, they do because they are Muslim. It is their sole motivation.

This line of thinking, as bk has already shown, is plainly false. One need only look at Iraq where religious sectarian divides bleed into longstanding tribal grudges and rub up against nationalist sentiment.

I never said anything remorely like that. What I said, repeatedly, is that just because he may be able to pick a few killings out of that very very long and detailed list and can assign slightly different motivation to, it doesn't mean the vast majority are not killing precisely because they are Muslims. This kind of misrepresentation is either dishonest, if you're knowingly engaging in it, or it's indicative of advance and irredeemable stupidity. Which is it in your case?

[cybercoma]

You are attempting to claim that this list is largely composed of murders committed by folks who are only Muslim in passing, and not by people who are killing because they are Muslim.

Seems to me you're saying the people on the list are killing because they are Muslim. Which indicates being Muslim makes you a killer. I know several Muslim who've never killed anyone, making your idea completely false. Those people mustn't be killing because they are Muslim, since there are plenty of Muslims who don't kill.

Once again, this is like saying Terry Nichols (Oklahoma City bombing) and Ted Kaczynski (Unibomber) were terrorists and murderers because they are white christians.

In other words, you're wrong.... and obviously a bigot.

[ScottSA]

Seems to me you're saying the people on the list are killing because they are Muslim. Which indicates being Muslim makes you a killer. I know several Muslim who've never killed anyone, making your idea completely false. Those people mustn't be killing because they are Muslim, since there are plenty of Muslims who don't kill.

I'm sorry you have no brain, but it certainly explains why you have no comprehension. I'm sorry you don't see the utter inanity of pointing out that Muslims not on the list don't kill because they are Muslims...but it certainly explains why the list isn't 2 billion names long and growing daily. Good observation, even if it makes no sense, has no point, and issues from a squishy eggplant atop a neck.

Once again, this is like saying Terry Nichols (Oklahoma City bombing) and Ted Kaczynski (Unibomber) were terrorists and murderers because they are white christians.

Once again, this is like saying nothing of the sort. The list I supplied is not a list of every Muslim across the globe who killed someone and happened to Muslim, it is a list of people who are Muslim and killed someone in the name of Jihad. Neither the Oklahoma bombing nor the unibombings were done in the name of a God. The overwhelming majority of the names on the list I supplied DID kill in the name of a 6th century thug. I'm terribly sorry you don't seem able to grasp this obvious fact, but simply repeating dumb thing over and over doesn't change reality.

In other words, you're wrong.... and obviously a bigot.

I'm not wrong, but if you want to call me a bigot, feel free. I'd rather be a bigot than the village idiot.

[cybercoma]

I guess if you have nothing good to say, you may as well be insulting.

Hundreds of women were killed in the witch trials by people in the name of God. Abortion doctors are murdered in the name of God. We're dropping bombs on Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of God (God told George Bush to do it, remember).

All those people died because certain people were killing in the name of God.

You're right. Religion makes otherwise good people do terrible things, instead of being a moral authority like it bills itself.

Glad we could agree on something.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hundreds of women were killed in the witch trials by people in the name of God. Abortion doctors are murdered in the name of God. We're dropping bombs on Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of God (God told George Bush to do it, remember).

Nope, the Americans (not sure what you mean by "we're dropping bombs") were perfectly happy to drop bombs on Iraq or Afghanistan without direction from God. Ditto Serbia, unless Chretien took orders from God.

"We" don't drop bombs for God...we drop bombs because "we" want to.

[ScottSA]

Nope, the Americans (not sure what you mean by "we're dropping bombs") were perfectly happy to drop bombs on Iraq or Afghanistan without direction from God. Ditto Serbia, unless Chretien took orders from God.

"We" don't drop bombs for God...we drop bombs because "we" want to.

For some reason cyber seems incapable of understanding this basic distinction...and on top of that he's not even able to make out what I'm saying.

[guyser]

Nope, the Americans (not sure what you mean by "we're dropping bombs") were perfectly happy to drop bombs on Iraq or Afghanistan without direction from God. Ditto Serbia, unless Chretien took orders from God.

"We" don't drop bombs for God...we drop bombs because "we" want to.

Hmmmm.....

"President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals."

[bush_cheney2004]

Hmmmm.....

"President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals."

Hmmmm.....mucho bombs dropped for Gulf War I, Desert Fox, and Allied Force. Had nothing to do with "God".

[guyser]

Hmmmm.....mucho bombs dropped for Gulf War I, Desert Fox, and Allied Force. Had nothing to do with "God".

And that has nothing to do with what you said.

Dont move the goalposts. You said nothing about GW1, DF or Allied force, until now.

So GWB did say God told him to or not, because you said he didnt, and you are wrong. No more no less.

Edited August 9, 2007 by guyser

[Guest American Woman]

So GWB did say God told him to or not, because you said he didnt, and you are wrong. No more no less.

I have no love or use for GWB at all, but he did not say God told him to go to war.

[bk59]

Here is the result of a 5 second google search. Perhaps this is relevant:

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

But really, this doesn't matter (as far as I am concerned). Because the original point still stands. Claims were made that Muslims were killing because they are Muslim. But if this was true then all Muslims would kill. If there are Muslims in the world that do not kill, then the Muslims that do kill must have had other reasons than simply being Muslim. In some cases it is because of a particular interpretation of aspects of Islam. In other cases on the list, the crime really has nothing to do with Islam other than that the perpetrator happened to be Muslim (which is why I have objected to the accuracy of the list and by extension objected to these broad generalizations).

At the end of the day these attempts to demonize an entire religion will never solve any problems.

[jefferiah]

Hmmmm.....

"President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals."

Hmmmm, are you sure it reveals that? From what I understand all that is revealed is that Nabil Shaath says George Bush said this.

[jefferiah]

Seems to me you're saying the people on the list are killing because they are Muslim. Which indicates being Muslim makes you a killer. I know several Muslim who've never killed anyone, making your idea completely false. Those people mustn't be killing because they are Muslim, since there are plenty of Muslims who don't kill.

Once again, this is like saying Terry Nichols (Oklahoma City bombing) and Ted Kaczynski (Unibomber) were terrorists and murderers because they are white christians.

In other words, you're wrong.... and obviously a bigot.

Reading what Scott said, I did not see the same thing as you did, Cybercoma. He is saying that the amount of Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam is substantially high and in groups. It does not mean that all Muslims do this, but it is certainly a very prevalent problem in the Islamic world. He was trying to give examples of crimes and acts committed by Muslims with a specific Islamic purpose. Other posters said well lots of crimes are committed by lots of people, it does not necessarily have any link to their faith. If a white Christian commits a crime, as you say, it does not necessarily have to do with his Christianity. We all understand that, Cybercoma. We all understand that if Adbul Al Shabarif robs a store it could be because he wanted some cash. The fact is that there is a very real existence to Islamic violence, where crimes are committed en masse in the name of Islam, ie the violent outrage after the Danish cartoons. There is a substantive amount of this in the culture. A former PLO Terrorist Walid Shoebat has said that people are recruited in Mosques and that they do it in American Mosques. It does not mean that every Muslim is privy to what is going on, or that every Muslim is violent, but it is certainly prevalent.

The witch trials, the inquisition, etc were all horrible atrocities, Cybercoma. There is no doubt about it. That was then though. This is now. In modern Sudan alone, the genocide outweighs these examples.

Edited August 9, 2007 by jefferiah

[cybercoma]

Fair enough, which is one of the many reasons religion is the bane of humanity...