Let's talk about Islamophobia

[84HuskerLaw]

Obviously this discussion is way out there in left field and my views would be far more "mainstream" among the great majority of Americans. How can one seriously try to make a case that violence against Muslims perpetrated by non Muslims (whether within the USA or even worldwide) is anywhere near comparable to the violence by Muslims vs non-Muslims and other Muslims? Muslims are committing mass murders by the tens or even hundreds of thousands worldwide against Christians and other non Muslims as well as against Muslims who are not the 'right' kind of Muslims.

 

Non-Muslim terrorism is virtually non-existent frankly, unless you want to add in criminal behavior in general. Of course, Muslim nations are full of run of the mill crimes such as rape, murder, torture, theft, etc. When one considers that the vast majority of Muslim countries treat women as dogs or worse.

 

Phobia is typically considered, in my understanding of the term, as an irrational fear of something. I see nothing irrational in the general level of fear and distrust of Muslims around the world by non Muslims. Actually, I would argue that there is an irrational "trust" and lack of appropriate fear of Muslims by far too many liberals in this country and from most reports I've seen across much of Europe. Literally thousands of random and savage terrorist attacks being perpetrated by Muslims against Jews, Christians, other Muslims and basically randomly selected citizens of almost every nation on the planet. The great majority of the victims are targeted for their defenseless status and not with any military or other strategic purpose or reason except to do as much violence and harm and cause as much pain and suffering by women, children, and the weakest amongst a given society. The most cowardly inexcusable and unjustified acts of violence imaginable. This is terrorism and it is the primary and almost exclusive method of 'warfare' being carried out by Muslims against the rest of the world.

 

It is not irrational to fear further attacks when the very perpetrators of these attacks (going on now for nearly half a century) proudly brag about their violence, promise more, portray vividly in living color by way of videos, their acts of violence and swear on their deity (Allah) to carry out more and more of the same against all those who refuse to accept their religious and governmental beliefs. Even those who voluntarily submit or unwillingly do so are at risk of future attack and death. It is not irrational to fear the suffering of future attacks by any number of the members of a 'community' or the large whole of the Muslims when basically Muslims themselves refuse to denounce terrorism, present themselves as pleased when attacks occur and do almost nothing to stop, prevent or deter future attacks. The rational person is left with but one reasonable conclusion: Most Muslims support or condone or appreciate postively violence of Muslims against Christians and Jews and other non Muslims. This is just not debatable after all these years.

 

As many leaders of the past have succintly put it: "You are either with us (being the western civilzed, peace loving world, or you are against us!" There is no other position reasonably taken. Most (nearly 95% in my opinion) are against us. They should be treated as a clear and present threat to America and the peace loving peoples of the world, until Muslims prove otherwise. Inaction is not sufficient. They must join us in the worldwide effort to stop terrorism. Period. End of discussion.

 

As I said, I presume few in this discussion will agree with this but being naive about the real dangers Muslims present to the safety, peace and security of the rest of the world is a major reason why the western nations are failing to react responsibly and effectively.

[Lil' Red]

Most Muslims support or condone or appreciate postively violence of Muslims against Christians and Jews and other non Muslims. This is just not debatable after all these years.

 

Most (nearly 95% in my opinion) are against us.

 

Really, 95% of Muslims? I guess the five Muslims I know fall in the 5%.

[Danny Bateman]

Zoogs is calling a spade a spade. What Cruz suggested was straight-up strongman demagoguery that actually has very little support from anyone insofar as keeping Americans safe. If it was supported and/or effective, you wouldn't have the NYPD Commissioner coming out and saying "Cruz doesn't know what the hell he's talking about," and Cruz retorting that somehow the NYPD commish is "one of [Mayor] De Blasio's Democratic political henchman."

Cruz is attempting to get out in front of a political issue by fear-mongering and out-Trumping Trump. Meanwhile, the Donald is back to suggesting we utilize torture and/or nukes to deal with Islamic terrorists.

It is revolting and feckless, in my opinion. I think that it actually speaks to the ignorance of both of them on the matter.

[admo]

...

[admo]

From the story reported, there was murder. 3 young men killed. Dig deeper and you find out that 2 were muslim, 1 was Christian. It is sad this happened to say the least.

[QMany]

Non-Muslim terrorism is virtually non-existent frankly, unless you want to add in criminal behavior in general.

 

The Growing Right-Wing Terror Threat

 

Despite public anxiety about extremists inspired by Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, the number of violent plots by such individuals has remained very low. Since 9/11, an average of nine American Muslims per year have been involved in an average of six terrorism-related plots against targets in the United States. Most were disrupted, but the 20 plots that were carried out accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half years.

In contrast, right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities, according to a study by Arie Perliger, a professor at the United States Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center. The toll has increased since the study was released in 2012.

[darkhorse85]

Zoogs is calling a spade a spade. What Cruz suggested was straight-up strongman demagoguery that actually has very little support from anyone insofar as keeping Americans safe. If it was supported and/or effective, you wouldn't have the NYPD Commissioner coming out and saying "Cruz doesn't know what the hell he's talking about," and Cruz retorting that somehow the NYPD commish is "one of [Mayor] De Blasio's Democratic political henchman."

 

Cruz is attempting to get out in front of a political issue by fear-mongering and out-Trumping Trump. Meanwhile, the Donald is back to suggesting we utilize torture and/or nukes to deal with Islamic terrorists.

 

It is revolting and feckless, in my opinion. I think that it actually speaks to the ignorance of both of them on the matter.

 

Trump was asked "If you could substantially reduce the risk of harm to [American] ground troops, would you use a battlefield nuclear weapon to take out Isis?" The media told you that Trump said he'd use nuclear weapons. What he actually said is that he wouldn't want to use them. He refused to say he absolutely wouldn't use them because he always wants that threat to be there. What good does it do to have nuclear weapons if the world knows that you wouldn't use them? Now, I don't think they need to be used but it's nice to have them in the arsenal. Loaded question anyway.

[Danny Bateman]

 

Zoogs is calling a spade a spade. What Cruz suggested was straight-up strongman demagoguery that actually has very little support from anyone insofar as keeping Americans safe. If it was supported and/or effective, you wouldn't have the NYPD Commissioner coming out and saying "Cruz doesn't know what the hell he's talking about," and Cruz retorting that somehow the NYPD commish is "one of [Mayor] De Blasio's Democratic political henchman."

 

Cruz is attempting to get out in front of a political issue by fear-mongering and out-Trumping Trump. Meanwhile, the Donald is back to suggesting we utilize torture and/or nukes to deal with Islamic terrorists.

 

It is revolting and feckless, in my opinion. I think that it actually speaks to the ignorance of both of them on the matter.

 

Trump was asked "If you could substantially reduce the risk of harm to [American] ground troops, would you use a battlefield nuclear weapon to take out Isis?" The media told you that Trump said he'd use nuclear weapons. What he actually said is that he wouldn't want to use them. He refused to say he absolutely wouldn't use them because he always wants that threat to be there. What good does it do to have nuclear weapons if the world knows that you wouldn't use them? Now, I don't think they need to be used but it's nice to have them in the arsenal. Loaded question anyway.

 

 

I agree with the sentiment of wanting to have your whole arsenal on the table, but forgive me if I dismiss his opinion on nuclear weaponry. It's not too long ago that he was bungling a question about them that led me to believe he was ignorant on the subject.

 

Is there even anywhere in the Middle East that we can legitimately use nuclear weapons without massive civilian casualties? I honestly have no idea.

[darkhorse85]

 

 

Zoogs is calling a spade a spade. What Cruz suggested was straight-up strongman demagoguery that actually has very little support from anyone insofar as keeping Americans safe. If it was supported and/or effective, you wouldn't have the NYPD Commissioner coming out and saying "Cruz doesn't know what the hell he's talking about," and Cruz retorting that somehow the NYPD commish is "one of [Mayor] De Blasio's Democratic political henchman."

 

Cruz is attempting to get out in front of a political issue by fear-mongering and out-Trumping Trump. Meanwhile, the Donald is back to suggesting we utilize torture and/or nukes to deal with Islamic terrorists.

 

It is revolting and feckless, in my opinion. I think that it actually speaks to the ignorance of both of them on the matter.

 

Trump was asked "If you could substantially reduce the risk of harm to [American] ground troops, would you use a battlefield nuclear weapon to take out Isis?" The media told you that Trump said he'd use nuclear weapons. What he actually said is that he wouldn't want to use them. He refused to say he absolutely wouldn't use them because he always wants that threat to be there. What good does it do to have nuclear weapons if the world knows that you wouldn't use them? Now, I don't think they need to be used but it's nice to have them in the arsenal. Loaded question anyway.

 

 

I agree with the sentiment of wanting to have your whole arsenal on the table, but forgive me if I dismiss his opinion on nuclear weaponry. It's not too long ago that he was bungling a question about them that led me to believe he was ignorant on the subject.

 

Is there even anywhere in the Middle East that we can legitimately use nuclear weapons without massive civilian casualties? I honestly have no idea.

 

 

I'm pretty sure they were talking about low yield, tactical nukes in this instance. Like a 5 kiloton payload and smaller. Actually in the 60's we created nuclear artillery shells. These are much, much weaker than large scale nukes we have at our disposal. The problem with these small nukes is that it would most definitely lead to an escalation of larger weapons being used.

 

So, with that being said, yeah, there probably are plenty of places these tactical nukes could be used without much in the way of civilian casualties. But there will always be collateral damage. That's war. I just hope we're never in a situation to use them. Drones are doing creating too many civilian casualties at the moment.

 

Here's a scary tool:

 

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

 

Type in a city or area you know well and see how the different warheads would effect that place. I put in a 5 kt bomb and it looks like it would do a decent amount of damage to Lincoln but it certainly wouldn't destroy the whole city, or even close to it. Still a very powerful weapon though.

[Moesker]

 

Most Muslims support or condone or appreciate postively violence of Muslims against Christians and Jews and other non Muslims. This is just not debatable after all these years.

 

Most (nearly 95% in my opinion) are against us.

 

Really, 95% of Muslims? I guess the five Muslims I know fall in the 5%.

 

Me too. I wonder how dangerous Ameer Abdullah is to 84?

[teachercd]

If you feel safe why don't you go to the middle east and live there?

[Lil' Red]

If you feel safe why don't you go to the middle east and live there?

 

Do you feel relatively safe around Christians? If so, why don't you move to a predominately Christian country in Africa?

[cm husker]

The very definition of irrational fear is to take the actions, even horrific actions, of an infinitesimal portion of a larger group of people as a basis for fearing the entire group.

 

We know there are corrupt and abusive cops. Should people fear and deplore all cops because of that subset's actions?

[BigRedBuster]

There is a Muslim family living in my home town. We should camp out a cop in front of their house and watch them. I'm sure they are plotting to kill us all.

[BigRedBuster]

This whole "phobia" thing is frustrating. It seems like one side is shaking their finger at the other side because they have a phobia of Muslims. The side shaking their finger acts like they are mightier than thou and never have an irrational thought.

 

Fact is, almost all groups of people have members of that group that have an irrational fear or dislike of some other type of group they don't belong to.

 

Many poor people have an irrational fear (or more of a dislike) for rich people .

Many rich people have an irrational fear or misunderstanding of poor people

Black people have an irrational fear of white people.

White people have an irrational fear of black people.

Many born and raised Americans have an irrational fear or dislike of Mexicans.

 

And the list goes on and on and on.

 

Yes....many trump and Cruz supporters have an irrational fear of Muslims. But, they are not alone in the whole "phobia" phenomena. Problem is when people in political power feed fuel to the issues to gain their own power over the group.