Similarly, I assume there are Iraqis who define American society by Abu Ghraib and the massacres committed by US troops in places like Al Ishaqi. Would you agree with them that their understanding is accurate? The Muslim world stretches from North Africa to Indonesia. Do you really think that what you describe represents the entirety -- or even the majority -- of that area? Do you consider those Kurds that you were assisting to be base and pervasively evil? They are Muslims too. Do you realize that leading up to Desert Storm, Saddam was secular and aligned with the US? You can hardly blame Islam for his actions. Read the human rights reports from that time and you will see that Saddam was accused of persecuting Muslims. You obviously harbor a great deal of hatred for Muslims. That hatred has clouded your thinking. To an extent -- assuming your stories are true -- that is understandable. But, it is still not acceptable. Like racism and anti-Semitism, Islamophobia is wrong and unacceptable. |
Explaining to you that not every Muslim believes in this and not every Muslim community behaves this way is not the same as endorsing this behavior. You have serious problems with logical thinking if you think that is what is happening in this thread. |
|
You won't get through to these folk. They will either call you a liar, or accuse you of something else. Jeff and his ilk speak of white American privilege but seems to feel it does not apply to them - it's something you accuse others of. |
I think participating in three wars might not universally be accepted as a "fight for their freedom and liberty". But, we'll leave that debate for another time. I would just like to point out that this is how you referred to Muslims: "base and pervasive evil." Those are your words. In fact, I am not aware of a single positive thing you have written about Muslims, though you have accused them of a number of atrocities (something for which you hold the entire religion responsible). So, forgive me if I don't find your alleged concern for them believable. |
At least the posters here own their hatred of Muslims. So I assume we can dispense with the charade that the "Draw Muhammad" contest was about freedom. |
So let's take your side and say it was about racism. The net result was exactly what Geller said it is - in other words, they proved her correct. I think that's what has the left so furious about Geller. Progressives so wanted this event to go off without an issue and instead, two Muslim sympathizers came out to kill. |
Of course, any decent person would want the event to go off without an issue. It is revealing that you consider it to be some sort of victory that there was violence. But, speaking for myself, the fact that there was violence does not change my view toward Geller. She was an Islamophobe before the event and remains one after it. You used to be more moderate when it came to Muslims, but have now gone completely Islamophobe. Even earlier in the thread you were trying to distinguish between "radical" Muslims and the rest. Now, you are hating on all of them. How do you explain that? |
The victory comes from watching the left freak out over Pam Geller because terrorists behaved like terrorists. And of course, I rejoice in the fact that one of those 'evil police officers' the left often speaks of, killed them dead. A hard shot by all accounts and yet? Well-done! I wouldn't call Geller an "Islamaphobe". I would call her a woman that speaks her truth. She has been QUITE clear in the interviews I've heard, that she is speaking of radical Muslims. I treat each person as an individual. That means the Muslim woman who runs our local store I frequent, I adore. We have great conversations. Ditto any other INDIVIDUAL I meet, regardless of race and/or religion. Where I draw the line, is with those individuals who form a group that goes on to support terror, such as ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah. There groups are exactly what Geller denounces. Your perception of me is not quite accurate. But have at it. |
Your own words contradict what you are saying here. When I asked posters to challenge a poster who wrote that "Islam kills gay men daily", you replied that this was true. You didn't correct the poster to say that only "radical Muslims" killed gays, but insisted that it was true that "Islam" kills gays. You have had plenty of chances in this thread correct any misperceptions that you were not referring to all Muslims or the entire religion. Yet, you have not done that but only doubled down. Go tell that woman who runs your local store that you believe Islam kills gays daily and subjugates women and see how that conversation goes. |
No. It only proves that you can incite terrorists to violence. It doesn't say much about Islam. This is a woman who tried to block the creation of an Arabic-English immersion school. Called it a Madrassa, even though it was not religious. That is flat out bigoted. |
Because these terrorists that were incited to violence were doing it in the name of...what....Walt Disney? Scientology? Jehovah's Witness? They themselves say they are doing it in the name of Islam. That says a lot about Islam. Research the school and why Geller was against it. You, of course, also know, it's having horrendous issues today with violence within, correct? |
You are (typically) splitting hairs, which is when I start ignoring you. When you start doing this, it's because you have no point. |
And I gotta tell you, that woman? She tells me the same thing. She hates the violence in her country, which is why she left. She hates the way women are treated and hates the way there is no tolerance of gays, Jews, etc. She would actually tell you that you are completely foolish. |
The difference between "all Muslims" and "some Muslims" is hardly a "hair". If you feel that I am misunderstanding you, there is nothing to prevent you from offering a clarification. How hard is it to say, "Oh, I didn't mean that 'Islam kills gays' but rather 'some Muslims kill gays'"? |