Hate Crimes Against Muslims Continue to Rise in 2016

[ThatRobGuy]

Are you saying you don't link them to Christianity?

I absolutely do...anyone someone is engaging in gay bashing, targeting abortion clinics, etc... and other Christians try to use the "they're not real Christians" routine, I'm one of the first to call them out for employing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Regardless of what anyone says, there's absolutely a link between doctrine and behavior.

 

[SummerMadness]

Religion is religion, it's all about what you bring to it. If you are violent, then your form of religion will be violent. However, that still is not on topic of hate crimes directed at Muslims. Given the desire of some people that go out of their way to bash Muslims on topics where that have nothing do with the actions of Muslims, it says a lot about your bias. Imagine if the topic were about Indian immigrants at universities and someone always insisted on bringing up the topic of rape culture in India. What does that have to do with the subject? Nothing.

If the thought of Muslims as victims of hate crimes only makes you think of Islamic terrorism, then I would implore you to get out more and actually befriend a few Muslims.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

However, what does this have to do with the rise of hate crimes against Muslims? Why is there a need to attack Islam? 1% of the American population is Muslim, yet there are many here that believe they are experts on Islam because they know a Muslim or claim expertise in the Quran. Attacking Islam does not justify hate crimes, and if you're starting your post off with, "Attacking someone for being Muslim is wrong, but..." then you're doing it wrong, you are attempting to justify those hate crimes even if you claim you're not.

I explained this in great detail in my first post in this thread (and again when I copied and pasted it when you didn't address it the first time)...we'll try this a third time I suppose. I'm very much trying to put this in perspective for you using examples that I think will hit home for you, but you keep zeroing in on the parts of my posts that keep your narrative in tact and seem to be ignoring the inconvenient parts.

We'll try this one more time...

Based on your signature, it's safe to assume that you, like myself, are annoyed with the "Blue Lives Matter" movement, correct?

Like I made reference to earlier, Muslim apologists are employing the identical techniques that the "Blue Lives Matter" law enforcement apologists are employing.
Which is...
1) Ignoring the fact that there's an ideological problem and pattern of concerning behavior
2) Attempting to sweep that pattern of behavior under the rug by avoiding discussing it, and instead, trying steer the conversation in the direction of focusing on "all of the good ones who aren't wronging anyone"
3) When forced to confront an issue, the response is the old "few bad apples" rebuttals.
4) When it's pointed out that by not doing anything about it, other people who are part of that institution are giving tacit approval to the actions and are partially responsible themselves, they're told "you can't blame all of them for the actions of a few nut jobs".
5) Blaming the negative stigmas on "media hype".
6) When all else fails, blame it on bias. (IE: "you just don't like XYZ because of negative stereotypes)


Like I discussed in my prior post as well (and you and I have been part of the threads where this happens), when someone does lash out about a problem that nobody else is addressing, it's being looked at in two different ways.

For example, when there were Ferguson police officers who got attacked (ones who weren't even involved with the incident), the explanation (and if you'll notice, I'm not using the word "justification", I'm using the word "explanation") was that grave injustices had been happening to young black men at the hands of law enforcement (which I would agree with that assessment btw, there's been some huge issues in that realm), and fellow police weren't addressing it, society was trying to rationalize it away using the methods enumerated above, other communities that weren't being impacted by it were turning a blind eye to it, and eventually as a result of that, a few young black men just go so frustrated and angry and didn't know what else to do, that they lashed out.

Now, groups on the far-left and BLM provided that explanation, they weren't saying it was justification nor were they glorying the actions of the young black men who attacked police officers (even though far right wingers were accusing them of that, falsely), they weren't condoning it, they merely said they understood why it was happening and enumerated the reasons why.

Given that, why can't people from those same groups use that same logic when looking at this issue? The two scenarios are nearly identical in terms of logistics, the only differences is the partisan politics allegiances.

What the far left and BLM were saying about why there were instances of young black men attacking police officers is the same thing I'm saying about people who are lashing out against Islam. I'm not condoning it nor am I justifying it, I'm just explaining it and and saying that I understand why it's happening.


I'm being very even handed and reasonable about this, but I'm getting the vibe that you want to dig in on the position that "anyone who is angry at Islam is a narrow minded bigot with a double standard". At this point, I'd have to ask, do you really want to engage in honest conversation about this?...or are you merely looking to "side with the underdog no matter what"?

Keeping in mind the fact that:
Much like there's an issue with problematic behavior within the realm of law enforcement, that's being ignored by other members of that institution, and being rationalized by half of the country (the right wing), the same is true about Islam and a sizable portion of the left wing. If you understand (not rationalize/justify...but simply understand) why there's anger from the black community against the institution of law enforcement, then you should be able to understand why there's anger against the institution of Islam...the reasons are essentially the same.

 

[Wolfe]

Religion is religion, it's all about what you bring to it. If you are violent, then your form of religion will be violent. However, that still is not on topic of hate crimes directed at Muslims. Given the desire of some people that go out of their way to bash Muslims on topics where that have nothing do with the actions of Muslims, it says a lot about your bias. Imagine if the topic were about Indian immigrants at universities and someone always insisted on bringing up the topic of rape culture in India. What does that have to do with the subject? Nothing.

If the thought of Muslims as victims of hate crimes only makes you think of Islamic terrorism, then I would implore you to get out more and actually befriend a few Muslims.

The problem with that, there is no Indian book calling for the stoning of rape victims, and the beheading of unbelievers and gays.

We're not attacking the Muslim person here, we're attacking their idea.
Just as I said again and again, you would not be defending a nazi, or a klansmen, would you?
Equally disgusting ideology, so why not equal treatment?

If I told you I'm a nazi, which I'm not, you'd most definitely call me a bigoted, intolerant ass.

And also, why do I never see you talk about hate crimes committed by Muslims?
The hate that the Quran commands seems to go over your head, and I don't quite understand why.

It says to kill, murder, behead, relatively innocent people.
Why are you defending their faith? If anyone else, that follows a book commanding this, were to be attacked, I find it unlikely you'd defend them.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Religion is religion, it's all about what you bring to it. If you are violent, then your form of religion will be violent.

That is absolutely 100% false...
Unless you're making the racial/regional assumption that certain groups of people are more inherently violent than others from birth?

Keeping in mind that Jainism is so peaceful, that they'll wear screens over their mouths to make sure they don't accidentally inhale/ingest and kill any bugs (and that's directly a result of their doctrine). Are you saying that people born in that specific part of Asia are just inherently more peaceful than people born in the middle east? Or are you actually willing to admit that doctrine might just have a little bit to do with that.

 

[SummerMadness]

I explained this in great detail in my first post in this thread (and again when I copied and pasted it when you didn't address it the first time)...we'll try this a third time I suppose. I'm very much trying to put this in perspective for you using examples that I think will hit home for you, but you keep zeroing in on the parts of my posts that keep your narrative in tact and seem to be ignoring the inconvenient parts.

We'll try this one more time...

Based on your signature, it's safe to assume that you, like myself, are annoyed with the "Blue Lives Matter" movement, correct?

Like I made reference to earlier, Muslim apologists are employing the identical techniques that the "Blue Lives Matter" law enforcement apologists are employing.
Which is...
1) Ignoring the fact that there's an ideological problem and pattern of concerning behavior
2) Attempting to sweep that pattern of behavior under the rug by avoiding discussing it, and instead, trying steer the conversation in the direction of focusing on "all of the good ones who aren't wronging anyone"
3) When forced to confront an issue, the response is the old "few bad apples" rebuttals.
4) When it's pointed out that by not doing anything about it, other people who are part of that institution are giving tacit approval to the actions and are partially responsible themselves, they're told "you can't blame all of them for the actions of a few nut jobs".
5) Blaming the negative stigmas on "media hype".
6) When all else fails, blame it on bias. (IE: "you just don't like XYZ because of negative stereotypes)


Like I discussed in my prior post as well (and you and I have been part of the threads where this happens), when someone does lash out about a problem that nobody else is addressing, it's being looked at in two different ways.

For example, when there were Ferguson police officers who got attacked (ones who weren't even involved with the incident), the explanation (and if you'll notice, I'm not using the word "justification", I'm using the word "explanation") was that grave injustices had been happening to young black men at the hands of law enforcement (which I would agree with that assessment btw, there's been some huge issues in that realm), and fellow police weren't addressing it, society was trying to rationalize it away using the methods enumerated above, other communities that weren't being impacted by it were turning a blind eye to it, and eventually as a result of that, a few young black men just go so frustrated and angry and didn't know what else to do, that they lashed out.

Now, groups on the far-left and BLM provided that explanation, they weren't saying it was justification nor were they glorying the actions of the young black men who attacked police officers (even though far right wingers were accusing them of that, falsely), they weren't condoning it, they merely said they understood why it was happening and enumerated the reasons why.

Given that, why can't people from those same groups use that same logic when looking at this issue? The two scenarios are nearly identical in terms of logistics, the only differences is the partisan politics allegiances.

What the far left and BLM were saying about why there were instances of young black men attacking police officers is the same thing I'm saying about people who are lashing out against Islam. I'm not condoning it nor am I justifying it, I'm just explaining it and and saying that I understand why it's happening.


I'm being very even handed and reasonable about this, but I'm getting the vibe that you want to dig in on the position that "anyone who is angry at Islam is a narrow minded bigot with a double standard". At this point, I'd have to ask, do you really want to engage in honest conversation about this?...or are you merely looking to "side with the underdog no matter what"?

Keeping in mind the fact that:
Much like there's an issue with problematic behavior within the realm of law enforcement, that's being ignored by other members of that institution, and being rationalized by half of the country (the right wing), the same is true about Islam and a sizable portion of the left wing. If you understand (not rationalize/justify...but simply understand) why there's anger from the black community against the institution of law enforcement, then you should be able to understand why there's anger against the institution of Islam...the reasons are essentially the same.

The problem with that, there is no Indian book calling for the stoning of rape victims, and the beheading of unbelievers and gays.

We're not attacking the Muslim person here, we're attacking their idea.
Just as I said again and again, you would not be defending a nazi, or a klansmen, would you?
Equally disgusting ideology, so why not equal treatment?

If I told you I'm a nazi, which I'm not, you'd most definitely call me a bigoted, intolerant ass.

And also, why do I never see you talk about hate crimes committed by Muslims?
The hate that the Quran commands seems to go over your head, and I don't quite understand why.

It says to kill, murder, behead, relatively innocent people.
Why are you defending their faith? If anyone else, that follows a book commanding this, were to be attacked, I find it unlikely you'd defend them.

Am I missing something? What does this have to do with hate crimes directed at Muslims? Hate crimes directed at Muslims... well the problem is obviously their religion! Wait... I thought the problem was the bigots attacking them?

As I said, if any topic involving Muslims makes you think of Muslim terrorism, then you have a problem.

 

[Wolfe]

Am I missing something? What does this have to do with hate crimes directed at Muslims? Hate crimes directed at Muslims... well the problem is obviously their religion! Wait... I thought the problem was the bigots attacking them?

As I said, if any topic involving Muslims makes you think of Muslim terrorism, then you have a problem.

I have no problem.

The Muslim faith commands terrorism, therefor must be associated with terrorism.
It's not that hard to understand [staff edit].

I don't support the physical attack of anyone, I believe things should be handled as peacefully as they can be, only using force when it is needed.
What I'm pointing out is your hypocrisy, you will raise up a cause for these people, with these disgusting ideas, yet ignore cop killing, crimes against white people, or Christians.

You seem to focus mainly on the oh so special groups, Muslims, gays, blacks, etc.
If I was in one of these groups, I most certainly would not want someone treating us differently than anyone else, I would expect my people to be held to the same scrutiny as everybody else.
Alas, this is not what we see in our culture today. We treat them as if they deserve to be treated better than everybody else, when in reality we should treat everybody with the same fairness, all around.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What does this have to do with hate crimes directed at Muslims?

I literally just explained that in detail for the 3rd time, and you casually just skimmed over it.

As I said, if any topic involving Muslims makes you think of Muslim terrorism, then you have a problem.

There you go again...

Are you actually going to address my post or keep going in circles?

What if I abbreviate my point by saying:
"A large segment of people are angry at the institution of Islam for the 100% identical reasons that a large segment of people are angry at the institution of law enforcement"

Does that make it any easier for you to address?...or are you just going to continue to imply that I'm an "Islamaphobe"?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Am I missing something? What does this have to do with hate crimes directed at Muslims? Hate crimes directed at Muslims... well the problem is obviously their religion! Wait... I thought the problem was the bigots attacking them?

Why do you suppose that bigots have focused on muslims? Why not some other group?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I literally just explained that in detail for the 3rd time, and you casually just skimmed over it.



There you go again...

Are you actually going to address my post or keep going in circles?

What if I abbreviate my point by saying:
"A large segment of people are angry at the institution of Islam for the 100% identical reasons that a large segment of people are angry at the institution of law enforcement"

Does that make it any easier for you to address?...or are you just going to continue to imply that I'm an "Islamaphobe"?

Implying bigotry is in fashion...so is claiming victimhood...try not to take it personally.

 

[SummerMadness]

I literally just explained that in detail for the 3rd time, and you casually just skimmed over it.



There you go again...

Are you actually going to address my post or keep going in circles?

What if I abbreviate my point by saying:
"A large segment of people are angry at the institution of Islam for the 100% identical reasons that a large segment of people are angry at the institution of law enforcement"

Does that make it any easier for you to address?...or are you just going to continue to imply that I'm an "Islamaphobe"?

You are simply repeating an irrelevant point. Your point would be valid if every topic on police officers always had someone screaming, "Police violence is hurting America!" Police officer getting an award for community service... "Police violence is hurting America!" What does that have to do with this police officer doing community service? Nothing. Every time I see a police officer, I do not think of police brutality; in contrast, every time I see a police officer doing wrong or abusing his authority, I do think of police brutality.

Muslims that become targets of hate crimes are not connected to Muslims that commit acts of religious violence (perhaps they are in the minds of their attackers). If all you can think of when you see Muslims is Islamic terrorists, then you have a problem. Trying to compare Islam with a regimented organization of law enforcement in the United States is also a stretch, but that's moot.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You are simply repeating an irrelevant point. Your point would be valid if every topic on police officers always had someone screaming, "Police violence is hurting America!" Every time I see a police officer, I do not think of police brutality;

99% of topics that show up is precisely about that.

When I search for the word 'police', here's what shows up:

Notice, 4 of the first 5 results are you, starting threads about police corruption and violence.



Now that we've gotten that out of the way, do you care to address my point?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I literally just explained that in detail for the 3rd time, and you casually just skimmed over it.



There you go again...

Are you actually going to address my post or keep going in circles?

What if I abbreviate my point by saying:
"A large segment of people are angry at the institution of Islam for the 100% identical reasons that a large segment of people are angry at the institution of law enforcement"

Does that make it any easier for you to address?...or are you just going to continue to imply that I'm an "Islamaphobe"?

I can totally see what .you're saying Rob...It's as if as a culture, half of us just flat out decided that you can't criticize someone else's religion/culture/etc.

If you ask me, it's heavily predicated on who is being criticized and who's doing the criticism. If you're white...no criticizing allowed. If you're not white...you shouldn't be criticized...at least not by whites. That's another topic though.

I for one...thought the refugee crisis was stupid. I still think the arguments against it are often stupid. If you're afraid a terrorist will sneak into the U.S. as a refugee...you're dumb. It's not that it's impossible...it's just unlikely.

If, however, you're wary about letting a large group of people from a different culture into your nation...because you aren't sure if your respective cultures share values...well then, you're just paying attention. Not everyone comes from a culture that shares our values. You only need to look at Germany and the stories about their public pools/baths/and other areas to realize they'll have problems for awhile...many of the other European nations as well. A lot of these refugees come from nations that brutally oppress women...and no one really minds/cares. You can argue it's connected to Islam (I can't say for certain it is, but many muslims argue it is)...You could say it's just cultural...but either way, it's not a good thing that you should import into your nation because you want to appear "tolerant".

 

[SummerMadness]

99% of topics that show up is precisely about that.

When I search for the word 'police', here's what shows up:
View attachment 196713

Notice, 4 of the first 5 results are you, starting threads about police corruption and violence.



Now that we've gotten that out of the way, do you care to address my point?

Those topics are on police violence or corruption. If someone wants to make a topic on religious violence from Muslims, all power to them. That's not the same as a topic about violence against Muslims and then someone attempting to make the discussion about religious violence committed by Muslims. You're trying to morph things to fit your argument, but it's not applicable. If the contention was people taking any thread about law enforcement and users always steering it to topics about police violence, you would have a point.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's not the same as a topic about violence against Muslims and then someone attempting to make the discussion about religious violence committed by Muslims. You're trying to morph things to fit your argument, but it's not applicable.

If you read my previous posts a little closer, I compared attacks against muslims to attacks against police... And when people make threads about an attack against police, people absolutely bring up the fact that there's a certain level of community outrage over failure to acknowledge certain problems within the institution as a driving factor.

And for the record, you did precisely that in the threads about the Dallas officers that were shot back in 2016. You took a thread that was about violence against police, and tried to make the discussion about police violence against others and how that was one of the driving factors behind the backlash against them:

Here's one of your posts...

This shooting does not take away from the fact that reforms in the police force are needed. Anyone that wants to use this shooting as excuse to ignore the need for reform was already against the idea of reform in the first place.

...and then people made the accusation against you that you've been making against me in this entire thread, and as a response, you told them that these kinds of things were bound to happen because a large segment of society was ignoring a very real problem of systematic racism and how ignoring problems like that just leads to more hostility.

So, that was another attempt to dodge averted,
(for the 4th time)...are you going to acknowledge my points? Or are you just going to stay in your "Everyone's racist, anyone who disagrees with my theories are racist, anyone who tries to explain why things are happening with any answer other than 'racism', is a racist" bubble?

We keep going in circles here...I keep bringing up the same valid points (and have shown where you've employed the same kind of thought process with regards to a very similar topic), and you keep brushing it aside by either cherry picking which part of my post you want to quote & reply to, or claiming that my points aren't relevant.

Again, if you, as an activist for ending ending police brutality against blacks (which you are, you seem pretty blatantly open about that), understand why, sometimes, members of the black community will lash out against the police when they feel that nobody is taking the problem seriously....then you already understand the type of thought process behind why some people lash out at Muslims when they feel that there's a serious problem that nobody is taking seriously.

Much like a disenfranchised young black man might lash out against the institution as a whole (even if most officers aren't directly involved in the wrongdoing) based on frustration and anger about the fact that people are acting is if there is no problem, some people on the right wing (and a growing number on the left wing like Bill Maher and Sam Harris) have equal levels of frustration about the fact that there is a serious problem pertaining to Islam, and there's a sizable portion of the population that's acting as if "there is no problem".

 

[SummerMadness]

If you read my previous posts a little closer, I compared attacks against muslims to attacks against police... And when people make threads about an attack against police, people absolutely bring up the fact that there's a certain level of community outrage over failure to acknowledge certain problems within the institution as a driving factor.

And for the record, you did precisely that in the threads about the Dallas officers that were shot back in 2016. You took a thread that was about violence against police, and tried to make the discussion about police violence against others and how that was one of the driving factors behind the backlash against them:

Here's one of your posts...


...and then people made the accusation against you that you've been making against me in this entire thread, and as a response, you told them that these kinds of things were bound to happen because a large segment of society was ignoring a very real problem of systematic racism and how ignoring problems like that just leads to more hostility.

So, that was another attempt to dodge averted,
(for the 4th time)...are you going to acknowledge my points? Or are you just going to stay in your "Everyone's racist, anyone who disagrees with my theories are racist, anyone who tries to explain why things are happening with any answer other than 'racism', is a racist" bubble?

We keep going in circles here...I keep bringing up the same valid points (and have shown where you've employed the same kind of thought process with regards to a very similar topic), and you keep brushing it aside by either cherry picking which part of my post you want to quote & reply to, or claiming that my points aren't relevant.

Again, if you, as an activist for ending ending police brutality against blacks (which you are, you seem pretty blatantly open about that), understand why, sometimes, members of the black community will lash out against the police when they feel that nobody is taking the problem seriously....then you already understand the type of thought process behind why some people lash out at Muslims when they feel that there's a serious problem that nobody is taking seriously.

Much like a disenfranchised young black man might lash out against the institution as a whole (even if most officers aren't directly involved in the wrongdoing) based on frustration and anger about the fact that people are acting is if there is no problem, some people on the right wing (and a growing number on the left wing like Bill Maher and Sam Harris) have equal levels of frustration about the fact that there is a serious problem pertaining to Islam, and there's a sizable portion of the population that's acting as if "there is no problem".

Yay for selective quoting, my post was in response to someone attacking BLM for the police shooting, I didn't bring up BLM out of the blue. So again, this is nothing more than an attempt to force a topic to fit your argument.

We have people attacking Islamic extremism as some kind of justification for hate crimes directed at Muslims. Someone pointing out the inaccuracy of saying BLM is responsible for police shootings is not comparable.

 

[rambot]

Jumping in super late:
It seems...ironic to me that there is a lot of "We have to keep Americans safe from terrorist, sleeper cells disguised as refugees" while at the same time, Americans are coming under attack from fellow Americans in hate crimes. And what do we get from that? A defensive conversation; a "yes but...."

Our of curiousity, when will the concerns of Muslim American citizens be considered for what they are?



I'm wondering if someone could explain to me the difference between "terrorism" and "hate crimes". Is terrorism meant to not necessarily target one group but an entire population but, in all other circumstances, be similar to a hate crime?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Jumping in super late:
It seems...ironic to me that there is a lot of "We have to keep Americans safe from terrorist, sleeper cells disguised as refugees" while at the same time, Americans are coming under attack from fellow Americans in hate crimes. And what do we get from that? A defensive conversation; a "yes but...."

Our of curiousity, when will the concerns of Muslim American citizens be considered for what they are?



I'm wondering if someone could explain to me the difference between "terrorism" and "hate crimes". Is terrorism meant to not necessarily target one group but an entire population but, in all other circumstances, be similar to a hate crime?

Terrorism...typically gets defined under it's political agenda (if I'm not mistaken...ie "death to the U.S.) whereas hate crimes get defined by the bigoted attitudes towards the victims the perpetrator holds (ie "i hate blacks/gays/whites/men/women/etc...so I started attacking them).

Obviously there's some crossover.

 

[rambot]

While I agree that Muslims shouldn't be targeted for abuse (physical or otherwise). I do have some issues with the way "hate crime" legislation is structured and enforced.

First off, the laws say one thing, but people enforcing them say another:
The FBI's hate crimes statistics for 1993, which similarly reported 20% of all hate crimes to be committed against white people, prompted Jill Tregor, assistant regional FBI director, to decry it as "an abuse of what the hate crime laws were intended to cover", stating that the white victims of these crimes were employing hate crime laws as a means to further penalize minorities.

Based on that statement, it's pretty clear that the whole purpose of the creation of hate crimes were to over-penalize whites when they commit crimes against minority groups. Basically what Jill is saying is, when white people abuse others, it's because white people are bad and should be punished more...when others abuse white people, white people are bad for wanting the same kinds of laws applied consistently.

I can see your point however, I do think you fully take it to an illogical level when you say "the whole purpose of the creation of hate crimes....". Quoting a single Dwight Shrute type of "Assistant TO the regional manager of the FBI", could not possibly lead to what you say. You need to have some significant reasonable, rational argument that an entire subsection of the law is meant to be "x" because one person (who has very little authority and did not create, work on, or pass any such law) vaguely alluded to it is really not evidence. I could see a bigot (I AM NOT REFERRING TO YOU!!!... to be clear) initially dreaming up this rational and putting it on line and then it thoughtlessly being quoted as being sufficient evidence to prove the point. With that said, the lady is entitled to her opinion but again: Look at her job title. Not necessarily a TONNES of power involved there.

What I would argue is that, initially, white people were seen as the main perpetrators of those crimes. And, let's not be ridiculous, they most definitely were. So who can say, what IF that was in fact exactly what they were intended to cover? Luckily, the law makers were smart enough to not limit victimhood or perpetrators to certain races; so now, we all benefit, don't we?

 

[rambot]

If the FBI views the two as being closely related, then why can't one be brought up when discussing the other?

...but if that avenue of discussion doesn't tickle your fancy, then we'll just skip that portion for now and focus on the 2nd part of my post, would you care to address that? (i'll paste it below)

**************************************
Again, to clarify, I'm not advocating (nor excusing) any sort of hateful acts against Muslims (even though I'll most likely be accused of that in the posts to follow)...however, once again (like I do in all of these threads), I ask...can we please be adults and just acknowledge that we know why people are a bit extra agitated about Islam (in comparison to other groups) instead of being intentionally naive and saying "gee, I just can't figure out why people are more critical of Islam than other groups...other groups do bad stuff too...hmmm...must be Islamaphobia"...we all know the answer to that question, let's not play dumb.

What people don't realize is that failure to at least acknowledge a problem just creates a more hostile environment where certain, less rational people are going to feel emboldened with the idea that "well, if nobody is going to do anything, I will!"
*

Okay but here's hte issue with that. In the US, there IS NO significant reason to be scared of Muslims. There REALLY isn't. If you were to be living in the Middle EAst, you would be a nutter to NOT be scared.

But allow me this: Why is it that we have to acknowledge other people's unwillingness to step back and consider data that suggests real areas of concern?

Show me proof that domestic terrorism in the name of Islam SHOULD be a signficant concern to people over, say, leaving an unlocked gun in a bedside table; or being trampled by cows; or slipping in a bathtub.


I can see the news makes international Muslims look terrible; but I wouldn't say it's bas bad domestically.