An example of "tolerance"

[TheUnwanted]

Only a seriously warped mind could take that to mean he's calling all muslims terrorists.

So in your opinion, if thats not what he's saying, what IS he saying?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

They're Islamic terrorists. Yet you people somehow think it's insane to be suspicious of muslims given the behavior of some of them.

Perhaps I should be suspicious of Christians, given the behaviour of some of them. Racists love this kind of thinking too: they like to argue that they are suspicious of, or prejudiced against, all people of X ethnicity because of the behaviour of some of them.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The reaction Williams talked about isn't an acedemic exercise of uninvolved folks pontificating in their living rooms. It happens to real people in real life, and it makes absolutely no difference whatever if you think it's rational or not.

So we've gone from 'it's rational' to 'it's makes no difference whether it's rational or not'. What a leap. We've made some progress.

 

[Bubbahotep]

stop pretending that substituting "nervous" for "trembling" somehow makes your argument for you.

Words have meaning. Use them right.

By the way, that ONE group of people who use aircraft for terrorism?

4 examples over 14 years. I can name 4 examples of Islamic terror in the skies in one day.

Do you think there will never be another plane targeted by a radical Muslim?

What's this "you people" crap?

"You people" being folks who have a problem admitting Islamic terror is a real threat and it's not irrational to acknowledge that.

 

[brindisi]

So we've gone from 'it's rational' to 'it's makes no difference whether it's rational or not'. What a leap. We've made some progress.

Oh, it very much makes a difference if it's rational or not. But it makes absolutely no difference whether YOU think it's rational or not. It may very well be rational - it is - and your having a different opinion doesn't change it. You can live in your own little bubble and have any opinion you want.

 

[Bubbahotep]

So in your opinion, if thats not what he's saying, what IS he saying?

He said he got nervous seeing muslims in muslim garb at an airport. Not much interpretation needed.

How exactly do you get "All muslims are terrorists" from what he said?

Perhaps I should be suspicious of Christians, given the behaviour of some of them. Racists love this kind of thinking too: they like to argue that they are suspicious of, or prejudiced against, all people of X ethnicity because of the behaviour of some of them.

Ya'll see to be having an intellectual disconnect here. Acknowledging the behavior of some in not condemnation of all. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

So we've gone from 'it's rational' to 'it's makes no difference whether I think it's rational or not'. What a leap. We've made some progress.

FIFY.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Perhaps I should be suspicious of Christians, given the behaviour of some of them. Racists love this kind of thinking too: they like to argue that they are suspicious of, or prejudiced against, all people of X ethnicity because of the behaviour of some of them.

I know I'd be suspicious of any group of people who gleefully await the end of the world and whose stated purpose in life is to get me to think like them.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Oh, it very much makes a difference if it's rational or not. But it makes absolutely no difference whether YOU think it's rational or not. It may very well be rational - it is - and your having a different opinion doesn't change it. You can live in your own little bubble and have any opinion you want.

If it is rational, then it is your failure to show why it is rational that concerns me.

 

[Bubbahotep]

I know I'd be suspicious of any group of people who gleefully await the end of the world and whose stated purpose in life is to get me to think like them.

AHA! You fear all muslims!!!

 

[brindisi]

If it is rational, then it is your failure to show why it is rational that concerns me.

If given you the information that's available to all of us. Our human reactions may not be to our liking, but they're rational. I see them as rational, Juan Williams sees them as rational, probably 95% of Americans 'see them as rational, and we see them as rational because we understand human nature. What is it that you're missing?

 

[TheUnwanted]

Words have meaning. Use them right.

My meaning was fine. Buy a thesaurus.

4 examples over 14 years. I can name 4 examples of Islamic terror in the skies in one day.

That was a small sampling of some of the more interesting ones. However, you are moving the goal posts again... a few posts back you were saying there is just ONE group that uses aircraft for terrorism, now your trying to argue about rate? You'll also note that yes, while you CAN point to 4 examples in one day, those are also the only examples to be drawn from the past 14 years as well. Doesn't that tell you anything?

i.e. an alarmist with an axe to grind claims a rate of Islamic hijackings at a rate of 4 per day in a given period, which is, technically, true. However, someone more interested in a factual understanding of what's going on will acknowledge its really a case of 4 hijackings over many, many years.

"You people" being folks who have a problem admitting Islamic terror is a real threat and it's not irrational to acknowledge that.

Never said it wasn't a "real threat" just trying to work out why you seem so hell bent on insisting that its more of a threat than it is, or why you only seem to care about this particular threat while dismissing equally serious ones as inconsequential. What... you LIKE being scared of Muslims or something?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Our human reactions may not be to our liking, but they're rational. I see them as rational, Juan Williams sees them as rational, probably 95% of Americans 'see them as rational, and we see them as rational because we understand human nature. What is it that you're missing?

No, our human reactions may not be to our liking, but they're not all rational, they're also instinctual. In this particular case, the fear reaction is of a primitive kind, not a rational deliberative kind. Saying 'our reactions are all rational' does not do it justice because certainty not all reactions are rationally based and justifiable.

 

[Bubbahotep]

Never said it wasn't a "real threat" just trying to work out why you seem so hell bent on insisting that its more of a threat than it is, or why you only seem to care about this particular threat while dismissing equally serious ones as inconsequential. What... you LIKE being scared of Muslims or something?

Who's ignoring other threats? I wouldn't support just letting white Christian get on planes with box blades. No double standards, no ignoring.

And yes, a concerted, financed, international effort on part of radical Islamic jihadists to kill as many people they don't like as possible is a pretty significant threat. Larger and more frequent than any other form of terrorism I'm aware of.

That was a small sampling of some of the more interesting ones. However, you are moving the goal posts again... a few posts back you were saying there is just ONE group that uses aircraft for terrorism, now your trying to argue about rate? You'll also note that yes, while you CAN point to 4 examples in one day, those are also the only examples to be drawn from the past 14 years as well. Doesn't that tell you anything?

Don't take what I said to mean that no other group commits these acts. I said no other group is more well known for targeting air traffic than Islamic terrorists.

Read what I say, not what you read into what I say.

 

[TheUnwanted]

Who's ignoring other threats? I wouldn't support just letting white Christian get on planes with box blades. No double standards, no ignoring.

And yes, a concerted, financed, international effort on part of radical Islamic jihadists to kill as many people they don't like as possible is a pretty significant threat. Larger and more frequent than any other form of terrorism I'm aware of.

Right there. THATS the problem I have. The blunt refusal to entertain for a brief moment that one's conceptions about Islamic terrorism are wrong. As evidenced by the claims about only ONE group using aircraft for terrorism. Because the actual fact of the matter is, if one cares to do a touch of research, rather than only listening to the illinformed, or the willfully misleading, is that there are MANY forms of terrorism, and that in the Developed West, the threat posed by radical Islam is actually smaller than the threat posed by other groups.

Don't take what I said to mean that no other group commits these acts. I said no other group is more well known for targeting air traffic than Islamic terrorists.

And if thats a misrepresentation of reality, why do you seem to take it as a personal assault when someone tries to correct your misperceptions?
edit to add... no, what you actually said was

There is one group of people who have made it known that they like to target air traffic. And everyone knows this.

which looks to me like you are saying one group and one group only made it known they like to target airtraffic. Now, I accept I could misunderstand you, because of the ambiguous way one could be used, (there is one single group that has/there is one group of many that has)

 

[Bubbahotep]

As evidenced by the claims about only ONE group using aircraft for terrorism.

I've already addressed this once. I never said only one group uses aircraft for terrorism.

Because the actual fact of the matter is, if one cares to do a touch of research, rather than only listening to the illinformed, or the willfully misleading, is that there are MANY forms of terrorism, and that in the Developed West, the threat posed by radical Islam is actually smaller than the threat posed by other groups.

Great. What other type of terrorist group out there is more common, widespread, and dangerous than radical muslims?

which looks to me like you are saying one group and one group only made it known they like to target airtraffic. Now, I accept I could misunderstand you, because of the ambiguous way one could be used, (there is one single group that has/there is one group of many that has)

If there is another group out there that is known to target aircraft, I admit my ignorance. But what I said can't be construed to be saying that only one group has even hijacked a plane, or blown one up.

 

[TheUnwanted]

I've already addressed this once. I never said only one group uses aircraft for terrorism.

I already quoted what you actually said. But whatever.

Great. What other type of terrorist group out there is more common, widespread, and dangerous than radical muslims?

More common? Drug gangs and eco terrorists. Wide spread? Irish nationalists. Dangerous? Well, the Irish again, and the Basques, and the Identity Christians, and the Lord's Army types in West Africa are quite possibly the most dangerous of all. But if you just want in the developed West? State sponsored terrorism is still probably your biggest worry, followed closely by organised crime, then pro-nationalist groups. Muslims come all the way after that.

If there is another group out there that is known to target aircraft, I admit my ignorance. But what I said can't be construed to be saying that only one group has even hijacked a plane, or blown one up.

Thats what it looked like to me. Anyway, I submitted a link to noteable hijackings which was very detailed, if you looked, you'd see that Muslims account for less thn half of them.

 

[Bubbahotep]

Drug gangs

Not terrorists.

and eco terrorists.

Generally not dangerous to people, and not nearly as common.

Wide spread? Irish nationalists. Dangerous? Well, the Irish again,

The IRA was relatively local. Also, the troubles are over. IRA isn't exactly making headlines anymore.

and the Basques, and the Identity Christians, and the Lord's Army types in West Africa are quite possibly the most dangerous of all.

Certainly dangerous, but I wouldn't say they're as widespread and international as Islamic terrorist groups.

But if you just want in the developed West? State sponsored terrorism is still probably your biggest worry,

Wanna define that?

followed closely by organised crime,

Not terrorism.

then pro-nationalist groups.

Like who? KKK? In the 20's, 30's, and 40's, sure. Today, not really.

 

[BoltNut]

Sorry I was gone for the past couple of days. Wow, things seem to have gone off in all directions here.

It seems that the main point of disagreement is whether being "nervous" while boarding a plane with people in "Muslim garb" is a 'rational fear'. When does it go from concern to 'phobia'? Is even being 'concerned' rational? Then how does this all play into the situation with Juan Williams and his being fired from NPR?

A lot of references to Timothy McVey and a couple of other non-Muslim terrorists. While these people are just as much "terrorists" as the extremist Muslims, they are minute in number compared to the latter. Extremist Muslims continue to cause terror all over the world. It didn't end on 9/11, it also didn't start on 9/11. Islamic radicals have been blowing up things, flying planes into buildings and otherwise inflicting their brand of terror for decades. 9/11 only served to "bring it home" to us here in our own country. There are almost daily acts of terror inflicted by these zealots. It hasn't stopped or even slowed down. Granted, not all Muslims are terrorists. Even Juan Williams pointed this out in the same interview as his infamous quotes that resulted in his being firing. Everyone seems to leave this inconvenient truth out of the discussion and only point out the "nervous" comments. Hardly fair when taken out of context to label Mr Williams as a bigot. Surely we can agree on that especially in light of Mr Williams' history as a political commentator.

To many people, it isn't "rational" to fear Muslims while boarding a plane. Okay, I know we all want to remain open-minded and avoid stereotyping people wherever possible. But to say that Mr. Williams is bigoted for thinking such a thing is, in itself, a knee jerk response. Williams and many others feel similarly. Based on how many acts of terrorism are carried out by Islamic zealots every year, I fail to see this as "irrational" concern. That he actually said it, to me anyway, only shows that Williams is human. He doesn't like the fact that he felt the way he did and he quickly pointed out that we should not fear all Muslims. The issue here is not Mr. Williams and his 'fears', it's about the freedom he has to say things such as this to make a point. NPR feels that he compromised his objectivity. I would disagree with NPR on this and I also question that this was truly the reason they let Williams go.

Pressure from CAIR was heaped upon NPR after Williams said these things. There is also the fact that George Soros contributed 1.8 million to NPR recently along with a similar large donation to Media Matters. This group has been monitoring Fox News for quite a while looking for "problems" with their reporting. It's Williams' relationship with Fox News that seems to be the biggest problem. NPR didn't like what Williams said because of the response from CAIR. CAIR's reaction to what Williams said seems to be greatly exaggerated. Especially when taken in context. This is all a political correctness issue. I just can't see it for anything else based on what is happening and what is being said. The federal government has no business supporting NPR or any other media outlet. Especially where freedom of opinion or speech is so blatantly stifled. Since most of those who support NPR and their actions regarding Juan Williams keep telling us that taxpayer money makes up only a small fraction of their operating budget, they should not mind that it goes away. Let those who want to control what is said on NPR support them. It's obvious that NPR doesn't represent the average taxpayer. Maybe then they will go the same direction as Air America.

 

[brindisi]

No, our human reactions may not be to our liking, but they're not all rational, they're also instinctual. In this particular case, the fear reaction is of a primitive kind, not a rational deliberative kind.

Wrong! Those reactions are based on experience, and are very rational.

Please let me know why you're better able to judge rationality than an M.D, Psychiatry. Im sure you'll have a reason.

A RATIONAL FEAR OF ISLAM May 19, 2007
Dr. Sanity, female, M.D. Psychiatry and Aerospace Medicine

“In fact, being afraid of "the religion of peace" after the innumerable acts of violence, terror and depravity committed in the name of Allah is not exaggerated; not inexplicable; and most certainly not illogical.”

“Islamophobia? Anyone who by now has not realized that Islam has given carte blanche to the fanatics in its midst is either completely out of touch with reality, or living on another planet.”

“So, let me say for the record that I reject being labeled as "Islamophobic" utterly. Rather, I have a healthy, rational fear of a religion that aggressively seeks my submission or death. For most of my life, it seemed reasonable to ignore Islam.”

“After September 11th, I could continue to live in a state of denial and ignorance about the fact that Islam had come to represent all the values that are incompatible with human life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or, I could face reality and recognize Islam as a serious threat to all I hold dear and value in the world.”

”No; a rational, healthy fear of Islam's barbaric medievalism and its desire to subjugate the entire human race under the yoke of its god is perfectly appropriate and continually justified by the fanatical behavior of millions of Muslims everywhere on the planet.”

”This is not Islamophobia; this is common sense.”

 

[Belk]

Wrong! Those reactions are based on experience, and are very rational.

Please let me know why you're better able to judge rationality than an M.D, Psychiatry. Im sure you'll have a reason.

A RATIONAL FEAR OF ISLAM May 19, 2007
Dr. Sanity, female, M.D. Psychiatry and Aerospace Medicine

“In fact, being afraid of "the religion of peace" after the innumerable acts of violence, terror and depravity committed in the name of Allah is not exaggerated; not inexplicable; and most certainly not illogical.”

“Islamophobia? Anyone who by now has not realized that Islam has given carte blanche to the fanatics in its midst is either completely out of touch with reality, or living on another planet.”

“So, let me say for the record that I reject being labeled as "Islamophobic" utterly. Rather, I have a healthy, rational fear of a religion that aggressively seeks my submission or death. For most of my life, it seemed reasonable to ignore Islam.”

“After September 11th, I could continue to live in a state of denial and ignorance about the fact that Islam had come to represent all the values that are incompatible with human life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or, I could face reality and recognize Islam as a serious threat to all I hold dear and value in the world.”

”No; a rational, healthy fear of Islam's barbaric medievalism and its desire to subjugate the entire human race under the yoke of its god is perfectly appropriate and continually justified by the fanatical behavior of millions of Muslims everywhere on the planet.”

”This is not Islamophobia; this is common sense.”

Dr Sanity? OK. It would seem Dr. Sanity here likes to broad brush a bit. Apparently the entire religion of Islam is out to get her.