As a group, they are the most intolerant. Sure, the majority of the Muslim faith are peaceful people, but you gotta admit, the following facts are just too much to ignore
( Read more... )
I think you hit the nail on the head here with this disclaimer. (which a lot of your commenters ignored)
But often, stereotypes are grounded in a grain of truth. I think we should be wary, but remain open-minded.
For example: If a Muslim Iraqi Male gets on an airline, with thick heavy shoes, a large bag and nervous shifty body language, I think it's very fair to racially profile him and do a search. Even though people scream "ZOMG, NON-PC!" precedents show that the people who hijacked planes in the past and crashed them into buildings were NOT petite, white, pregnant females. I think it'd be fair to the safety of the airline to search the suspicious looking man (but do so in a polite, professional and nice manner!)
So in response to your statement, I'd be wary of most of the muslim population as a whole (especially the ones who are yelling anti-america slogans and waving guns at the camera), but not write muslims off as individuals til I got to know them better. ( i bet there are some nice muslims out there who do NOT want to bomb us!)
Too bad most of the furries don't practice what they preach when it comes to Christianity and Right-Wingers. Most of the liberal furry population instantly think "Christians and Republicans are all hateful bastards!"
And no, I don't think you're a bigot. I think that you (and I) have grown a bit cynical in our old age, having been around the block, and seeing a ton of crap go down.
I did not ignore it, but I was objecting to the rest of what he said in his post.
As for the 9/11 thing... I remind you of this: 17 of the 19 hijackers were from *Saudi Arabia*, not Iraq. And up until the invasion, I don't think most Iraqis would have reason to hate the US.
The ones I do write off as nutbars are the ones who chant slogans of hatred. This is regardless of religion or ethnicity. I thusly write off Osama Bin Ladin and Pat Robertson in the same breath.
I did not say I thought he was a bigot either. I merely disagreed with his statement. Not the same thing.
Caitlin writes: As for the 9/11 thing... I remind you of this: 17 of the 19 hijackers were from *Saudi Arabia*, not Iraq. And up until the invasion, I don't think most Iraqis would have reason to hate the US.
In that case, would you support an invasion of Saudi Arabia?
OK, so regardless of what kind of relationship Bush has with the Saudis, or how it compares with the kind of relationship every other president has had with them, the issue of the hijackers' country of origin is a red herring. You would not support the invasion of Iraq even if all 19 had been born in Baghdad.
What I mean is that there have been terrorist attacks before. Pan Am flight 103 comes to mind most of all.
Did the US invade Libya because of it? Even though we had PROOF that they were involved? No.
Were those responsible eventually brought to justice? Yes. And Qaddafi has seemingly turned over a new leaf.
Besides, even if they HAD been born in Baghdad, that is also a red herring, because if they had been taking orders from Osama bin Ladin - who hated Saddam Hussein because he was overly secular - then there would have been no point to over throw the government in Iraq, now would there.
9/11 was a red herring itself in the push to the invasion of Iraq. I heard a news story off the BBC where there is apparently a new document dated from early March 2003 where GWB was pushing for war and lied to Blair about it too.
And now I give the same response I gave Darrel a bit ago. I'm goign to back away from this because it is taking mroe energy than I have at the moment.
And up until the invasion, I don't think most Iraqis would have reason to hate the US.
Ummm.. what makes you think that most Iraqis hate the U.S.?
It's my strong opinion that most Iraqi's hated Saddam much more than they hate being a free people now... In fact, I think they are rather fond of the idea that we brought them freedom and wrested their country from a terrorist dictator and gave it back to them.
There are, however, many insurgent forces made up mostly of Non-Iraqis who are there making trouble in the name of radical Islam.
That's who we are fighting... and the Iraqi people are figthing alongside us, not against us. More and more of the work is being done by native forces, with the U.S. operating in advisory and support roles. As the Iraqi army and the local police forces continue to be more able to handle terrorist activity in their country, we will ever play a decreasing role there.
Troop withdrawal is happening now... not because ultra-liberals are calling for immediate pullout, but because militarily it is the right time for it. Our deployment in Iraq currently is at the lowest point since last August. Withdrawal will be gradual, and troop deployments may ebb-and-flow as needed, but there will be militarily sound reasons for that, not partisan ones.
No timetable as set by politicians... and no more troops than are needed to do the job at any given time.
Why would the Iraqis have welcomed the insurgency into their cities then?
Terrorist dictator? Where do you get THAT reference? Saddam was not involved in 9/11.
And if you are calling me an ultra-liberal, I am going to take severe offence to that.
If that is directed at John Murtha - who supported GWB at first - then you are no better than Jeanne Schmidt who called him a coward. Would you consider Viet Nam vets to be 'ultra-liberal'? I have heard from at least one DIRECTLY that we do not belong in Iraq. And Murtha has also said that.
"Since last August"... that is not saying much, Darrel. I want it back to the way it was before March 2003, when we had over 150,000 troops there.
I repeat: Forget TIME TABLES. Give me an EXIT STRATEGY. They are NOT the same thing.
And I am walking away from this for a while before I start becoming irrational. It's been a long week and I'm tired.
Actually, my partner served in Iraq, and he said every single Iraqi he met (and he taught members of the Iraqi military and met many, many Iraqi civilians) were happy to have the Americans there. So I think it's fair to say that, based onhis first-hand experience, the common people are glad Saddam is gone.
I think you hit the nail on the head here with this disclaimer. (which a lot of your commenters ignored)
But often, stereotypes are grounded in a grain of truth. I think we should be wary, but remain open-minded.
For example: If a Muslim Iraqi Male gets on an airline, with thick heavy shoes, a large bag and nervous shifty body language, I think it's very fair to racially profile him and do a search. Even though people scream "ZOMG, NON-PC!" precedents show that the people who hijacked planes in the past and crashed them into buildings were NOT petite, white, pregnant females. I think it'd be fair to the safety of the airline to search the suspicious looking man (but do so in a polite, professional and nice manner!)
So in response to your statement, I'd be wary of most of the muslim population as a whole (especially the ones who are yelling anti-america slogans and waving guns at the camera), but not write muslims off as individuals til I got to know them better. ( i bet there are some nice muslims out there who do NOT want to bomb us!)
Too bad most of the furries don't practice what they preach when it comes to Christianity and Right-Wingers. Most of the liberal furry population instantly think "Christians and Republicans are all hateful bastards!"
And no, I don't think you're a bigot. I think that you (and I) have grown a bit cynical in our old age, having been around the block, and seeing a ton of crap go down.
Reply
As for the 9/11 thing... I remind you of this: 17 of the 19 hijackers were from *Saudi Arabia*, not Iraq. And up until the invasion, I don't think most Iraqis would have reason to hate the US.
The ones I do write off as nutbars are the ones who chant slogans of hatred. This is regardless of religion or ethnicity. I thusly write off Osama Bin Ladin and Pat Robertson in the same breath.
I did not say I thought he was a bigot either. I merely disagreed with his statement. Not the same thing.
C.
Reply
As for the 9/11 thing... I remind you of this: 17 of the 19 hijackers were from *Saudi Arabia*, not Iraq. And up until the invasion, I don't think most Iraqis would have reason to hate the US.
In that case, would you support an invasion of Saudi Arabia?
Reply
The prince came to visit...he held the guy's hand, and was VERY friendly with him.
Invasion is last resort.
And besides, to invade someone over political disagreements shows intolerance as well.
C.
Reply
Reply
Did the US invade Libya because of it? Even though we had PROOF that they were involved? No.
Were those responsible eventually brought to justice? Yes. And Qaddafi has seemingly turned over a new leaf.
Besides, even if they HAD been born in Baghdad, that is also a red herring, because if they had been taking orders from Osama bin Ladin - who hated Saddam Hussein because he was overly secular - then there would have been no point to over throw the government in Iraq, now would there.
9/11 was a red herring itself in the push to the invasion of Iraq. I heard a news story off the BBC where there is apparently a new document dated from early March 2003 where GWB was pushing for war and lied to Blair about it too.
And now I give the same response I gave Darrel a bit ago. I'm goign to back away from this because it is taking mroe energy than I have at the moment.
C.
Reply
Nope, but we DID bomb the shit outta them.
And note how nicey-nicey Libya's been since Iraq got invaded. Scarcely a peep outta them. :)
Reply
Ummm.. what makes you think that most Iraqis hate the U.S.?
It's my strong opinion that most Iraqi's hated Saddam much more than they hate being a free people now... In fact, I think they are rather fond of the idea that we brought them freedom and wrested their country from a terrorist dictator and gave it back to them.
There are, however, many insurgent forces made up mostly of Non-Iraqis who are there making trouble in the name of radical Islam.
That's who we are fighting... and the Iraqi people are figthing alongside us, not against us. More and more of the work is being done by native forces, with the U.S. operating in advisory and support roles. As the Iraqi army and the local police forces continue to be more able to handle terrorist activity in their country, we will ever play a decreasing role there.
Troop withdrawal is happening now... not because ultra-liberals are calling for immediate pullout, but because militarily it is the right time for it. Our deployment in Iraq currently is at the lowest point since last August. Withdrawal will be gradual, and troop deployments may ebb-and-flow as needed, but there will be militarily sound reasons for that, not partisan ones.
No timetable as set by politicians... and no more troops than are needed to do the job at any given time.
Reply
Terrorist dictator? Where do you get THAT reference? Saddam was not involved in 9/11.
And if you are calling me an ultra-liberal, I am going to take severe offence to that.
If that is directed at John Murtha - who supported GWB at first - then you are no better than Jeanne Schmidt who called him a coward. Would you consider Viet Nam vets to be 'ultra-liberal'? I have heard from at least one DIRECTLY that we do not belong in Iraq. And Murtha has also said that.
"Since last August"... that is not saying much, Darrel. I want it back to the way it was before March 2003, when we had over 150,000 troops there.
I repeat: Forget TIME TABLES. Give me an EXIT STRATEGY. They are NOT the same thing.
And I am walking away from this for a while before I start becoming irrational. It's been a long week and I'm tired.
C.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I find it mindboggling that so many people fail to read the actual *words* I type, and instead assume a whole boatload of other things in what I post.
Thank you, XJ, for being a strong voice of reason on my f-list. ;)
Reply
Leave a comment