Tea Party Suicide Bomber?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry--my reply ended up embedded in previous:

There were no calls for special screenings of Muslims;there were calls for special screenings of Muslims calling for jihad. And Janet Napolitano asked for extra screening of returned military a la Timothy McVeigh militant white male so that ground has actually been covered. This whole thread is frustrating. Equating this terrorist with ALL Tea party members is EXACTLY the same as equating suicide bombers with ALL Muslims or McVeigh with ALL white ex-military. Disgusting. Sorry

I deleted your previous post since it was impossible to tell what text was yours and what was written by others. This post is remarkable because it may well contain the most inaccuracies per word of any post I've ever seen:

1) "No calls for special screenings of Muslims". You really have to be kidding me. Is Fox News really this bad? Here are a few examples of such calls:

Retired Colonel calls for special screening of Muslims
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-27/why-we-should-screen-muslim-soldiers/

Just so there is no confusion, he says "If it seems as if I am singling out Muslims—especially those in uniform—for unusual attention, the answer is yes."

Sarah Palin "all for" profiling Muslims
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/palin-on-muslim-profiling-im-all-for-it.php

Senator James Inhofe: "I'm, for one – I know it's not politically correct to say it – I believe in racial and ethnic profiling."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122883

The idiot who wrote this article says there is evidence that Nichols and McVeigh were involved with Islamic terrorists!

2) "Janet Napolitano asked for extra screening of returned military" Not quite. In fact, not even not quite. The truth is that DHS issues two reports about extremists -- one about left wingers and one about right wingers. The right winger report is here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

You can read the report and see there are no calls for extra screening. The report lists possible threats. One threat is that rightwing groups may try to recruit returning soldiers as happened in earlier cases. There is a note that the current environment has many factors that echo the 1990s, including returning soldiers. While Napolitano head DHS, she did not write the report and certainly did not issue any "calls" related to the report. To the contrary, Napolitano was forced to backtrack from the report.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0409/Napolitano_regrets_politicization_of_report_.html

Finally, I would like for you to point out where I have equated "this terrorist with ALL Tea party members"? I did not do so. I did not even do anything close. To the contrary, I said it my very first post that I was not blaming the Tea Party for what happened. I subsequently said that not all Tea Party members are violent. But, it is undeniable that there is a strong tendency toward violence that runs through large parts of the Tea Party movement. Whether it is protesters showing up at Obama appearances with guns, or threats to hang or burn Democratic officials, or the constant use of violent rhetoric, the threat of violence seems always close to the surface. Where are the those who will condemn this?

[Anonymous]

Yes, you did equate it. "Tea Party Suicide Bomber?" = equate.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, you did equate it. "Tea Party Suicide Bomber?" = equate.

Fine, then "Muslim Terrorist" means every Muslim is a terrorist. We'll play by your rules.

[Anonymous]

who says Muslim terrorist as a label? I have heard "Muslim extremist" or "fanatic" as a stand-in for terrorists inspired by their 'translation' (ie torturing) of the faith. I would be fine with "Tea Party Extremist Suicide Bomber?" Except, has this Stack person called himself a member of the Tea Party? Then that would be valid. People who hole up on ranches in Montana might have views that are on the extreme edge of the Tea Party--but that doesn't make them a part of the Party if they don't declare it. And even if they did, it would, like Muslim extremists, be their warped interpretation. Just like there is not one Islam, the Tea Party does not exactly seem uniform--more organic and loosely coalesced. I think it is interesting and valid to compare terrorists, I would call both this guy and Nidal terrorists, and when we get to the bottom of what inspired them (fanaticism?) it is valid to call them on the belief system from which they found a (warped) inspiration.

[Anonymous]

And if this Stack guy called himself a Tea-Partier then yes other Tea Partiers should roundly condemn him just as other Muslims should condemn terrorists who wrap themselves in the mantle of Islam.

[Anonymous]

It's not surprising that when terrorist acts are perpetrated by people who resemble us, we call them extremists, fringe, mentally unbalanced. They distort religion or philosophy or their group affiliation in a way not approved by others. We do not want to be associated with them.

When on the other hand, when the perpetrator is someone not like us (Muslim), we attribute reason, devotion to their faith, and intentional evil. We make them out to belong to the Muslim Community.

[Anonymous]

Fine. Muslim Terrorist. And call him a Tea Party Terrorist if he actually claimed membership in the Tea Party. Did he?

[Anonymous]

I'm loathe to jump into this fray. But:

"It seems quite evident to me that, certainly on a worldwide basis, mainstream Christian theology and mainstream Islamic theology take quite different views on the justification for violence."

If that is "evident" to you, then you need to expand your horizons a bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fine. Muslim Terrorist. And call him a Tea Party Terrorist if he actually claimed membership in the Tea Party. Did he?

Don't know. But does that make Eric Rudolph a Catholic Terrorist? He did say "I was born a Catholic, and with forgiveness I hope to die one." Are you sure you want this kind of a rule?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm loathe to jump into this fray. But:

"It seems quite evident to me that, certainly on a worldwide basis, mainstream Christian theology and mainstream Islamic theology take quite different views on the justification for violence."

If that is "evident" to you, then you need to expand your horizons a bit.

I'll be charitable and assume that the lack of evidence for this claim is just because you don't have time to respond in detail. But surely you don't expect to convince anyone with this statement? I'd be interested in hearing any support you have for this view. Just a few thoughts, (1) the fatwa on Salman Rushdie for, essentially, blasphemy is, AFAIK, endorsed by some significant Islamic scholars. You don't hear much about Pope Benedict or the Archbishop of Canterbury putting hits out on people for similar offenses to Christ. (2) Sharia law, according to many Islamic authorities, provides for the death penalty for conversion. (3) The concept of jihad is one of the pillars of Islam, and this is often (not always) interpreted as justifying violence.

I'm not claiming that any of these views are universally accepted in Islam, mind you -- my point is just that they are live/debated issues in mainstream Islamic theology worldwide and that there is no similar strain of mainstream Christian doctrine that is analogous when it comes to use of violence. Do you seriously dispute that? If so, please feel free to expand my horizons, but I'm afraid that I will need more than your say-so to be convinced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm loathe to jump into this fray. But:

"It seems quite evident to me that, certainly on a worldwide basis, mainstream Christian theology and mainstream Islamic theology take quite different views on the justification for violence."

If that is "evident" to you, then you need to expand your horizons a bit.

I'll be charitable and assume that the lack of evidence for this claim is just because you don't have time to respond in detail. But surely you don't expect to convince anyone with this statement? I'd be interested in hearing any support you have for this view. Just a few thoughts, (1) the fatwa on Salman Rushdie for, essentially, blasphemy is, AFAIK, endorsed by some significant Islamic scholars. You don't hear much about Pope Benedict or the Archbishop of Canterbury putting hits out on people for similar offenses to Christ. (2) Sharia law, according to many Islamic authorities, provides for the death penalty for conversion. (3) The concept of jihad is one of the pillars of Islam, and this is often (not always) interpreted as justifying violence.

I'm not claiming that any of these views are universally accepted in Islam, mind you -- my point is just that they are live/debated issues in mainstream Islamic theology worldwide and that there is no similar strain of mainstream Christian doctrine that is analogous when it comes to use of violence. Do you seriously dispute that? If so, please feel free to expand my horizons, but I'm afraid that I will need more than your say-so to be convinced.

To quote Ronald Reagan, "There you go again".

You just slipped in the word "mainstream". There is not a big debate going on in the average mosque about whether terrorism is justifiable in the Koran. It is just not true. If you knew any muslims other than the faces you see plastered on TV during the world news roundup, you would understand. But you don't. This is about as bad as saying that Mormons live in polygamist communes because you only know about Jeffords.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[

To quote Ronald Reagan, "There you go again".

You just slipped in the word "mainstream". There is not a big debate going on in the average mosque about whether terrorism is justifiable in the Koran. It is just not true. If you knew any muslims other than the faces you see plastered on TV during the world news roundup, you would understand. But you don't. This is about as bad as saying that Mormons live in polygamist communes because you only know about Jeffords.

Why do you assume I don't know any muslims? I do, both from my days in college and through work connections. And, yes, the ones that I know are not in favor of violence -- they are actually really good guys. I would imagine that very, very few American Muslims are in favor of violence. But the U.S. has about 2 million Muslims, out of more than a billion worldwide, which is a very small fraction -- why do you generalize worldwide based on this relatively non-representative population?

Again, I note you offer no evidence for your claims, while I've noted a number of specific events and doctrines that you choose to ignore.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Why do you assume I don't know any muslims? I do, both from my days in college and through work connections. And, yes, the ones that I know are not in favor of violence -- they are actually really good guys. I would imagine that very, very few American Muslims are in favor of violence. But the U.S. has about 2 million Muslims, out of more than a billion worldwide, which is a very small fraction -- why do you generalize worldwide based on this relatively non-representative population?

Again, I note you offer no evidence for your claims, while I've noted a number of specific events and doctrines that you choose to ignore.

I thought the "some of my best friends are Jews" defense had been discredited. But, I guess it's just been transformed. You are the one generalizing based on a few violence-prone Muslims who get a disproportionate amount of media exposure. I assume that you consider Christianity to be largely violent based on the fact that some Ugandan Christian clergy (inspired by American Christians) want to kill gays? I know a few Christians, and they don't want to kill gays. But, I don't want to generalize so I going to have to assume most Christians want to kill gays. That's correct isn't it?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
I thought the "some of my best friends are Jews" defense had been discredited. But, I guess it's just been transformed. You are the one generalizing based on a few violence-prone Muslims who get a disproportionate amount of media exposure. I assume that you consider Christianity to be largely violent based on the fact that some Ugandan Christian clergy (inspired by American Christians) want to kill gays? I know a few Christians, and they don't want to kill gays. But, I don't want to generalize so I going to have to assume most Christians want to kill gays. That's correct isn't it?

This is a bit rich coming from the person who was bagging on commenters for poor reading comprehension upthread because they made similar arguments about your points on the Tea Partiers.

I cited to two specific points of Islamic doctrine relevant to the use of violence -- jihad and the death penalty for apostasy (i.e. conversion). That is not "generalizing based on a few violence-prone Muslims that get a disproportionate amount of media exposure", it is discussing what actual Islamic doctrine is. Perhaps I am interpreting these doctrines incorrectly, or am wrong about how those doctrines are interpreted by Muslims in places like Saudi Arabia or Indonesia -- I'm certainly not infallible and have been mistaken before -- but if you think I'm wrong about that, show proof and let's have a discussion, don't imply I'm some sort of gay-bashing Nazi.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine. Muslim Terrorist. And call him a Tea Party Terrorist if he actually claimed membership in the Tea Party. Did he?

Don't know. But does that make Eric Rudolph a Catholic Terrorist? He did say "I was born a Catholic, and with forgiveness I hope to die one." Are you sure you want this kind of a rule?

Yes, he's a Catholic Terrorist. I'm a Catholic. I condemn him. I'm glad so few of my fellow Catholics interpret the faith in such an extreme and vile way. It is a beautiful faith. Again, I condemn him. But his interpretation of Catholicism is, sadly, what motivated him.