specifically
: an armed uprising of Palestinians against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/university-of-pennsylvania-students-vandalize-school-property-call-for-intifada/
https://twitter.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1731341047832199191
https://cairoscene.com/BusinessAndPolitics/Muslim-Scholar-Says-It-s-OK-to-Rape-Non-Muslim-Women-to-Humiliate-Them
https://twitter.com/GadSaad/status/1731876822340571298
This post is slightly different than the usual aggregation of Hamas videos, this is a little more specific.
We're told that Muslims that hate Jews are a "minority" of Muslims, that "Muslim scholars" don't teach violence, and the Muslims just want to live in peace with the Jews. Yet, as the videos demonstrate, these viewpoints do exist.
As I pointed out earlier in this context, even 1% of Muslims is tens of millions of people, so even a minority of Muslims is a significant number.
My questions are.
If these viewpoints are really the minority of Muslim thought and belief, where are the large numbers of Muslims speaking out against these viewpoints? Why are statements like this met with virtual silence from this alleged majority of Muslims who don't agree? Hell, where are the American leftists who tell us that Islam is a "religion of peace" protesting these sorts of things.
Well, one place they are is the University of Pennsylvania, and there they are calling for an "armed uprising of Palestinians". That doesn't sound helpful, does it? Or could it be that these idiots have no idea what Intifada means and are just shouting in ignorance? Or that they've redefined it to mean hearts, flowers, and rainbow unicorns?
Every time an alleged "right wing" person does anything bad, we hear the APL asking why won't anyone denounce this outrage. Yet, a cursory search usually reveals plenty of "right wing" folks denouncing that specific outrage. Where then are these hundreds of millions of Muslims speaking loudly and proudly against this "minority" who are giving their "religion of peace" a bad name?
Is it possible that they're afraid of the "minority" placing a fatwa on them, and putting them in the crosshairs? If the Muslim majority is afraid of this alleged "minority", then isn't it reasonable that everyone else would be a little concerned?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpBXzsWN0ko
69 comments:
We're told that Muslims that hate Jews are a "minority" of Muslims, that "Muslim scholars" don't teach violence, and the Muslims just want to live in peace with the Jews. Yet, as the videos demonstrate, these viewpoints do exist.
You are told the FACT that not all Muslims hate Jews. I've seen no numbers indicating whether it's a minority or a majority, but I have also seen no data to suggest it's a minority and certainly not a tiny minority. Those are the facts.
You are told that SOME Muslim scholars don't teach violence and want to live in peace with others. And SOME Muslim scholars DO teach violence. Those are the facts.
Those viewpoints do exist? OF COURSE, they do. No one has said otherwise.
Strawmen arguments are more comforting, though, I get that.
If these viewpoints are really the minority of Muslim thought and belief, where are the large numbers of Muslims speaking out against these viewpoints? Why are statements like this met with virtual silence from this alleged majority of Muslims who don't agree?
So, Muslims who don't want to see Palestinians slaughtered are not responding in a way you'd like them to? Aw. That's too bad. Nonetheless, that they are not speaking out against things you'd like them to speak out against, well, hmmm... who could that be like? Conservative Christians who remain NOT ONLY steadfastly quiet in the face of thousands of deaths of innocent men, women, children, babies and their supporters by Israel's retaliation, but in fact, ACTIVELY vocally support it.
Why are you not willing to do what you're suggesting Muslims and their allies should be doing?
Indeed, why are you SUPPORTING and encouraging Israel to keep on killing innocent people in Palestine to get at the Hamas villains? Why are you criticizing Biden, UN and other efforts to stop actions that are harming innocents?
Are you not part of the problem moreso than any Muslims who simply aren't speaking up in a way that YOU, a conservative white man of privilege in the US, are not willing to do towards Israel?
Is it possible that they're afraid of the "minority" placing a fatwa on them, and putting them in the crosshairs?
Have you asked even ONE Muslim about this?
If the Muslim majority is afraid of this alleged "minority", then isn't it reasonable that everyone else would be a little concerned?
If you haven't asked them the first question, then maybe it's best that you don't make guesses/presumptions/begging the question as to their reasoning and use it as a tool to demonize Muslims the way that bigots tend to do, you think?
Do you recognize that this is the reasoning of bigots?
What at least one Muslim will tell you:
"Fast forward to the recent Hamas attack of October 7 and we're seeing a rerun. Muslims like me are once again being asked again and again to denounce Hamas's horrific massacre against Israeli civilians.
I get it, of course. The Palestinians are mostly Muslim and Hamas lives among them, which means it only makes sense to associate all Muslims with Hamas—certainly all Gazans, even though Hamas membership of roughly 20,000 to 25,000 people amounts to less than 1 percent of Gaza's 2.2 million Palestinians. And since Hamas is a designated terrorist group and responsible for the October 7 attack on Israel which resulted in nearly 1,400 Israelis dead, it stands to reason that all Muslims must be terrorists too.
You would never dream of holding all Jews responsible for Israel dropping 6,000 or more bombs in the last two weeks alone on a city roughly the size of Detroit or Seattle. And this even though Israel is the Jewish state.
So why are we asking random Muslims (and even Jews for that matter) to condemn something we all know deep down their faiths would never condone?
It's the very premise of this question that I personally find offensive, which all Muslims and Jews should too. If condemnation is something that must be sought out, consider posing the question to the leadership of Hamas."
https://www.newsweek.com/stop-asking-muslims-denounce-hamas-opinion-1838392
If you want to know what Muslims are saying, listen to what Muslims are saying. And not just the ones that make for easy villains. Reason and think like an adult, not a scared child/bully.
https://www.thejc.com/news/british-muslim-leaders-condemn-hamas-attacks-and-refuse-to-apportion-blame-for-gaza-hospital-blast-cz19gc31
https://www.wsj.com/articles/muslim-americans-against-hamas-anti-semitism-middle-east-israel-f4b02974
https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2023/03/13/senior-muslim-clerics-issue-fatwa-against-hamas/
And on and on...
As I pointed out earlier in this context, even 1% of Muslims is tens of millions of people, so even a minority of Muslims is a significant number.
How many conservative Christians (folks who identify as conservative and Christian and vote GOP) do you suspect are racists? White nationalists? Espouse violence of one sort or another? Do you think that's 1%, as well?
Because even 1% of Christians is a significant number, right?
I mean, how does one explain such huge support for Trump in conservative Christian circles, after all?
Coming in hot with the false equivalencies.
"How many conservative Christians (folks who identify as conservative and Christian and vote GOP) do you suspect are racists? White nationalists? Espouse violence of one sort or another? Do you think that's 1%, as well?"
What an irrelevant and ridiculous question. Given the fact that there aren't tens of millions of these alleged "conservative christians" (a vague and undefined term) actively engaging in terrorist actions, threats, rape, torture, kidnapping and killing.
"Because even 1% of Christians is a significant number, right?"
Again, irrelevant and intended to move the focus off of a real problem, and onto a fake problem.
"I mean, how does one explain such huge support for Trump in conservative Christian circles, after all?"
This is impressive, you've attempted to draw a false equivalence between "Trump supporters" as if all "Trump supporters" fit your definition of "conservative christian" and were actively involved in barbaric activities. How many "Trump supporters", were voting against Biden rather than for Trump?
We are told that 81 million people voted for Biden, and that Trump received fewer votes than that. Beyond that we have no way to know how many of them fit your definition of a "conservative christian". But more relevant would be how many of them are actively engaged in calling for, preparing for, supporting, or fundraising for a violent uprising designed at wiping another country out of existence.
Again, the "The other guys are worse" argument is a gutsy move.
"Have you asked even ONE Muslim about this?"
No, why? Is asking one Muslim the only possible way to learn anything about Islam? Am I required to ask someone before I ask a speculative question in a blog?
"If you haven't asked them the first question, then maybe it's best that you don't make guesses/presumptions/begging the question as to their reasoning and use it as a tool to demonize Muslims the way that bigots tend to do, you think?"
Wow, this is an impressive combination of not even attempting to answer the question asked, making up some bullshit, name calling, and answering a question with a question. The fact that I wasn't "demonizing Muslims" isn't going to stop you from this course of name calling a false hoods.
"Do you recognize that this is the reasoning of bigots?"
Do you realize that I asked a question that, based on reality, is a logical question" A question that you didn't answer. A question that, by definition, isn't "reasoning".
"What at least one Muslim will tell you:"
Wow Dan found one Muslim to support his hunches.
"So why are we asking random Muslims (and even Jews for that matter) to condemn something we all know deep down their faiths would never condone?"
1. Because the stated reason for Hamas engaging in barbarism is their Muslim faith.
2. Because the greater Muslim world allows groups like Hamas to fester and engage in terrorism.
3. There ARE people asking random Jews these same sorts of questions.
4. Because people like Dan, regularly ask random Christians to condemn things that we've already condemned.
I don't care that you can work up "offense" as an excuse to dodge a question, it's just one more in a long line of excuses for not answering questions.
"If you want to know what Muslims are saying, listen to what Muslims are saying. And not just the ones that make for easy villains. Reason and think like an adult, not a scared child/bully."
The fact that you can find some random few Muslims who seem to agree with you or be saying the "right" things, is simply a dodge of my question. IF these terrorist groups really do represent 1% or less of Muslims, then why don't any of the 50+ Muslim majority nations stop the barbarity? Why isn't Egypt engaged in any way in stopping the barbarity on it's northern border? We see the protests of thousands calling for Intifada, but where are the similar protests calling for Israel to be allowed to live in peace?
"https://www.thejc.com/news/british-muslim-leaders-condemn-hamas-attacks-and-refuse-to-apportion-blame-for-gaza-hospital-blast-cz19gc31"
You mean the blast that did virtually zero damage to the hospital and that has been acknowledged by virtually everyone except Hamas to have been caused by Hamas?
Again, you choose to ignore my the point of my questions.
"You are told the FACT that not all Muslims hate Jews."
Well, then you've just "proven" a claim that I never made. Well done. Now, prove the actual claim. Hell, even address the actual claim. You made the claim that a majority of Muslims don't hate Jews, and engage persecution and civil rights violations, so prove it.
"I've seen no numbers indicating whether it's a minority or a majority, but I have also seen no data to suggest it's a minority and certainly not a tiny minority. Those are the facts."
Yet you repeatedly claim that the terrorists are only a minority, why would you make such a claim based in ignorance. Of course, this tactic of claiming that you haven't "seen" any "data" is just more bullshit. It suggests/claims that since you haven't "seen" this "data" that it doesn't exist, and the you seeing the data validates it.
"You are told that SOME Muslim scholars don't teach violence and want to live in peace with others. And SOME Muslim scholars DO teach violence. Those are the facts."
Wow, talk about saying absolutely nothing and acting like that pile of bullshit is some profound statement. I've never said "ALL" Muslims anything. I literally have never made a single claim about what "ALL" Muslims believe or do. I've literally talked about my Muslim friends, as well as about my African Christian friends who were persecuted for their faith by Muslims. But you pat yourself on the back for arguing against some bullshit you made up.
"Strawmen arguments are more comforting, though, I get that."
I know, you use them so often.
"So, Muslims who don't want to see Palestinians slaughtered are not responding in a way you'd like them to?"
No. Muslims who have been watching innocent Jews be killed for decades in the name of Islam, yet still remain silent. Muslims who watch as millions of Muslims are kept in refugee camps by Muslim nations, yet remain silent. Muslims who watch what's happening in Gaza and refuse to accept those who live in Gaza as immigrants. One of the 5 pillars of Islam is charity. How is it that billions of Muslims allowing millions of Muslims to live in squalor, in Muslim countries, an example of this "charity"? How is supplying Hamas with munitions, instead of the regular citizens of Gaza with food and medicine, an example of this "charity"? How is remaining silent while those who share your religion and share your ethnicity rape, murder, torture, and kidnap, all while shouting "Allahu Akbar" an example of anything good? The problem is that if Islam was interested in dealing with these terrorists/extremists/bad Muslims, they could have done so years ago. They don't.
"Why are you not willing to do what you're suggesting Muslims and their allies should be doing?"
Who says I'm not? But hey, as long as y'all support Israel NOt being allowed to root out threats to it's people and it's very existence, I see no reason to give your hunches on the topic a shred of credence. Hamas could have stopped this war weeks ago, they chose not to. Hamas could have stopped the war instead of insisting on the bullshit cease fire, they chose not to. Hamas chooses the cowardly tactic of sacrificing the "innocent" to protect themselves. Any one of the nearby Muslim countries could have stopped this years ago, but they didn't. But white "christian" American liberals like you choose to ignore that and keep the anti Jewish rhetoric coming. We watched three professors of prestigious universities dodge and avoid answering a simple yes or no question about hate speech yesterday. Y'all are the ones who claim "words are violence", until you decide that certain words (explicitly calling for violence) are protected under your bullshit speech codes.
"Indeed, why are you SUPPORTING and encouraging Israel to keep on killing innocent people in Palestine to get at the Hamas villains?"
Because I usually support the victim of an unprovoked, barbaric attack by a group dedicated to the destruction of the victims of that attack, in their attempts to protect themselves. Because I find it vile and barbaric that Hamas refuses to release the hostages. Because Israel has a responsibility to protect and rescue it's citizens being held hostage. Because raping children is a heinous and barbaric act, and if the "innocent civilians" of Gaza won't turn in the barbarians who perpetrated this horror and won't get out of the way of the IDF punishing this horror, then they reap the reward of their actions.
"Why are you criticizing Biden, UN and other efforts to stop actions that are harming innocents?"
Because Biden is allowing US hostages to suffer in captivity while he sits by and does very little to help them. It's interesting that the APL is constantly offering the opinion that the existence of the police force is a reason why no one should own guns to protect themselves, yet Biden sits idly by while American innocent American citizens suffer at the hands of barbarians.
"Are you not part of the problem moreso than any Muslims who simply aren't speaking up in a way that YOU, a conservative white man of privilege in the US, are not willing to do towards Israel?"
No. What an idiotic, absurd, stupid, ridiculous, question. But I realize that (much like straw men) the "Blame the other guy" argument is comforting. Especially when you find yourself defending all sorts of things you claim to oppose.
I know, you once or twice threw out some vague, blanket statement with a false equivalency attached so you think that protects you from condemning specific barbaric acts.
"Why are you not willing to do what you're suggesting Muslims and their allies should be doing?"
1. On the rare occasions when "christians" engage in actions that are criminal, and use the excuse of furthering their chirstian faith as justification for engaging in these criminal actions I condemn them specifically. Obviously not every single time, but regularly.
2. Because I would never dream that it was appropriate to support, hide, or indoctrinate my children into the warped "faith" of one of these people you allege are so prevalent.
3. Because if "christians" engaged in rape, murder, torture, kidnapping, and maiming innocent women and children while shouting "Jesus is Lord" I would be the actively supporting bringing these barbarians to justice even of doing so meant collateral damage to those who supported them.
But mostly because I don't need to make up false equivalencies and bogymen to remain consistent in my contention that the world should be rid of barbarians regardless of the reasons for their barbarity.
I'll simply note that none of Dan's comments address anything in the original post and the vast amount of Muslim "hate speech" that exists in the Muslim world. It boils down to straw men, ad hom attacks, and simply choosing not to answer questions about what exists.
Dan proves with every blog he writes and with every comment he posts elsewhere that he is a minion of Satan. He supports the murder of the unborn, he supports every sexual perversion, he supports the demonic religion/political system of Islam--if it is evil he supports and defends it all the while claiming to be a Christian. His support of Islam here is just par for his course.
Glenn,
I definitely think that Dan does not take into account the bond between Islam as a religion (which I suspect he puts in the realm of opinion), and political/government system. Islam was intended to be a theocracy, unlike Christianity, it's laws and commands are intended to be civil law in addition to religious law. Although there are a few "secular" Muslim majority countries, they are few and regularly are in discussion about moving toward Sharia and away from civil law.
While I wish I had time to shred Dan's stupidity, you've done a good job already. One of Dan's sources fails to mention that Hamas, while it's "membership" is a small percentage of all who live in Gaza, they are not only the only jihadist group in existence there, but carrying a membership care and wearing the Hamas decoder ring doesn't account for all who support them. How does one count that number or more importantly, identify all who live there who oppose the jihadists? It's the "innocent" label that Dan uses as a rhetorical weapon as opposed to a factual representation of any percentage of the population. Again, given how they teach their children that dying while murdering Jews is one of the best things they can do with their miserable lives, how many are actually "innocent" who are over 5 years old?
Even those like me, who believe those who live in Gaza are getting what they deserve, would still prefer the young are spared even if we can't know how indoctrinated they already are and what that will mean later for those who spared them. But our concern is for those who are victims of their hateful ideology first and foremost to the extent that their lives aren't nearly as important than those they victimize. They don't love their own children as much as they hate Jews. It's not my problem their children die in the righteous and necessary fight to preserve the lives of the children they hate. If Dan is so concerned about "innocent" gazastinians, he should focus on the hate-filled ideology which puts them in harm's way. But like all lefties, Dan won't risk a hair on his empty head to deal with the true cause of suffering. He's too concerned with posturing.
Feel free at your leisure. The other thing to keep in mind is that Gaza voted overwhelmingly for Hamas as their ruling party, and a significant % of those is Gaza still support Hamas.
As long as Hamas, as they've clearly said, plans to make their own "innocent" women, children, and elderly bleed and die so that Hamas can achieve it's goals (the destruction of Israel) it's impossible to say that those in Gaza are truly "innocent" in the leadership they support.
I've said it multiple times. Hamas could end this war instantly. Simply give back the hostages, and turn over those directly responsible for the barbarities of 10/7, and Israel would be done. For Israel to continue after it's stated aims were achieved would rob them of any legitimacy and be a huge propaganda win for Hamas. Instead Hamas is happy with fake baby, false claims of hospital bombings, and exaggerated casualty numbers as if those propaganda pieces are believed by anyone but those who'll believe anything Hamas says,
Craig...
Given the fact that there aren't tens of millions of these alleged "conservative christians" (a vague and undefined term) actively engaging in terrorist actions, threats, rape, torture, kidnapping and killing.
There are LITERALLY NOT "tens of millions" of Muslims engaging in any of that. You recognize that reality, do you not? There are probably not tens of thousands of Muslims engaged in those behaviors. Do you recognize that?
"Because even 1% of Christians is a significant number, right?"
Again, irrelevant and intended to move the focus off of a real problem, and onto a fake problem.
Tens of thousands of conservative Christians holding to racist, white supremacist ideologies IS NOT irrelevant if we're talking about bad behaviors by those from a given religion.
Do you think the thousands of racist, white supremacist conservatives are NOT a problem?
Why?
"I mean, how does one explain such huge support for Trump in conservative Christian circles, after all?"
This is impressive, you've attempted to draw a false equivalence between "Trump supporters" as if all "Trump supporters" fit your definition of "conservative christian" and were actively involved in barbaric activities. How many "Trump supporters", were voting against Biden rather than for Trump?
We don't know, do we? But the fact is that Trump would not have the support he has if it weren't for conservative Christians. Do you recognize that reality?
I'm just asking if you recognize reality or not.
Reality:
"Most White Americans who regularly attend worship services voted for Trump in 2020"
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/08/30/most-white-americans-who-regularly-attend-worship-services-voted-for-trump-in-2020/
Tens of millions of conservative Christians support and vote for Trump. Do you recognize that reality?
Does it concern you? Do you think conservative Christians should NOT be voting for your pervert king, the most overtly dishonest, corrupt, UN-Christian presidents in history?
Waiting for you to take a stand.
You made the claim that a majority of Muslims don't hate Jews, and engage persecution and civil rights violations, so prove it.
I have not. Do you recognize that reality?
I've said that we don't KNOW the percentage of Muslims who hate Jews and that there is no data to suggest that it's a majority. Do you recognize that reality?
"Have you asked even ONE Muslim about this?"
No, why? Is asking one Muslim the only possible way to learn anything about Islam? Am I required to ask someone before I ask a speculative question in a blog?
IF one is talking about what Muslims believe or don't believe, listening to what many Muslims actually have to say IS kind of an important point. Why would anyone suggest otherwise?
You had asked/"pondered..."
If the Muslim majority is afraid of this alleged "minority", then isn't it reasonable that everyone else would be a little concerned?
IF your premise (that the Muslim majority is "afraid" of a minority of Muslims) is irrational and not reality, then WHY would your question have any weight? WHY would everyone be "concerned" if your premise is nonsense? You're jumping the gun in asking the question. You're literally begging the question.
Do you recognize the rational problem with that?
Because I usually support the victim of an unprovoked, barbaric attack by a group dedicated to the destruction of the victims of that attack,
Agreed. Do you recognize that reality?
...in their attempts to protect themselves.
Agreed. Israel has a right and responsibility to defend itself against attacks on innocent bystanders. Of course. BUT, that defense can't also include attacks on Palestinians innocent bystanders. Of course. Because attacks against innocent bystanders is always wrong.
Do you agree with this reasonable position?
Because I find it vile and barbaric that Hamas refuses to release the hostages.
Agreed. Of course.
Because Israel has a responsibility to protect and rescue it's citizens being held hostage. Because raping children is a heinous and barbaric act
Agreed. Of course.
Because attacking innocent children is ALWAYS wrong, because of course it is. I'm consistent on that position. Are you?
It appears not, since you're willing to give Israel a pass on attacks that are known to kill thousands of innocent bystanders. You, Glenn, Marshal and Hamas are ALL agreed that sometimes, it's acceptable to kill innocent bystanders. I stand opposed to the killing of innocents.
Join me/us?
I can speculate on how Hamas achieved a majority vote. I wouldn't be surprised that no vote was cast without some thug looking over the voter's shoulder to guarantee the "proper" choice. Whether or not there's anything to that speculation is something for which I have no evidence one way or the other. Indeed, I haven't even seen a report of the margin of victory which put that scum in control. All I know is they "won" and we can take that with the same confidence intelligent people have regarding the "win" of Joe Biden.
Without such detail, we have no choice but to accept that the gazastinians...in some significant majority...supported putting vermin in charge over their lives. That would make things especially difficult for those who didn't, and I wonder how many of them are forced to remain where their deaths are most likely when a very fed up Israel responds to their savagery.
Yet Dan's source insists the percentage of gazastinians who are members of Hamas is tiny. But the percentage of support which put them in control is not. Is there some way they were convinced Hamas would not seek the annihilation of the Jewish people? It's far more likely that was a reason they were elected, though they might be so stupid as to believe their sad existence is only the result of Jewish treachery. No matter. Assholes rule Gaza and there is no shortage of celebratory support for their barbarism.
And if Dan's source thinks stating the size of card carrying Hamas-sholes is some kind of defense, then what's the deal with the vast majority doing nothing to force Hamas toward peace with Israel? It's a moronic attempt by Dan and his source to defend the Jew hatred of the gazastinians and the leftist morons in the West who are now joining in the absurd pro-pallie rallies. They should all be arrested for aiding and abetting known terrorists.
As to what you've said multiple times, that's like Congress voting for term limits. It doesn't serve the interests of the very leaders of Hamas that any should suggest they give themselves up to those they so virulently hate for the sake of peace. They don't want peace. They want Earth, and it begins with Israel.
And destroying Hamas isn't enough. As I stated...because it's true...they aren't the only Jew haters in town. And the Jew hating PLO and Fatah still rule the West Bank. Then there's Iran, but we're talking about Judea and Samaria which are now occupied by assholes. Only the leftists will have problems with Israeli legitimacy, but many don't regard them as a legitimate state in their ancestral homeland, anyway. As is true of all engaged in righteous endeavors, they must never pay heed to the unrighteous. The unrighteous have no say in how the righteous deal with the unrighteous. The unrighteous must deal with their own unrighteousness.
A couple of your questions, taken another way:
If these viewpoints are really the minority of Muslim thought and belief, where are the large numbers of Muslims speaking out against these viewpoints?
The same place that most conservative voices are when isolated nutjobs in their group make calls for violence: Silent.
Why are statements like this met with virtual silence from this alleged majority of Muslims who don't agree?
Following up on the previous answer, none of us go and seek out isolated nutjobs who align with our party or philosophy or traditions and then seek to denounce those nutjob statements. The problem is when the LEADERS of a group make outrageous claims and the group remains silent in the face of the outrageous claims.
Some say that one legitimate way to deal with the isolated outliers calling for violence is to ignore them. Let them die in their irrelevance and not give legitimacy to their violent calls by responding to it. We can do that when it's random outliers on the internet, but not when it's a major party leader.
So yes, some of us on the Left DO wonder and expect those on the Right to speak out when we have so many of their elected leaders making outrageous claims. IF it were elected leaders on our side making the outrageous claims, we'd speak out and we have.
I apparently don't have the time to seek out outliers behaving badly on twitter that you have.
Here's an example of a crazy, demonizing claim right here on your blog. Marshal...
Even those like me, who believe those who live in Gaza are getting what they deserve, would still prefer the young are spared even if we can't know how indoctrinated they already are and what that will mean later for those who spared them....
Again, given how they teach their children that dying while murdering Jews is one of the best things they can do with their miserable lives, how many are actually "innocent" who are over 5 years old?
Marshal is "graciously" allowing that MAYBE Palestinian children under five actually may be somewhat innocent. But Palestinians over the age of five are NOT innocent and deserving of the death being dealt to them by Israel...? He would "prefer" that they not be killed by Israelis, but is basically okay with it.
Why are you not speaking out on your own blog when someone makes such a deadly demonizing claim? Because you agree?
Marshal...
our concern is for those who are victims of their hateful ideology first and foremost to the extent that their lives aren't nearly as important than those they victimize.
And this is one place we're different. MY concern is first and foremost with innocent people, with children, with hospital staff and aid agencies and reporters and other innocent bystanders. THAT is where my concern remains (and I think the reasonable, moral world agrees with that, by and large). You three appear to think that IF there is a horrible attack on people you support, THEN the innocent on the other side are legitimate cannon fodder. You're okay with that "collateral damage," even when those bombing KNOW that it will kill innocents.
Would that more of the world would consistently stand with the innocent ones. Maybe walking a bit in Jesus' steps and taking his teachings seriously would help.
Do you REALLY think that Jesus is okay with the notion, "Well, I know there are babies who will be killed in this attack against Hamas - dozens and hundreds of babies, children, aid workers and innocent adults - but you know, I'm okay with it. IF IT KILLS ONE Hamas soldier, I'm okay with 100 innocents being killed."
Do you think that Jesus thinks that way?
Listen to your Savior, "Blessed are the peacemakers."
"There are LITERALLY NOT "tens of millions" of Muslims engaging in any of that. You recognize that reality, do you not? There are probably not tens of thousands of Muslims engaged in those behaviors. Do you recognize that?"
1. That's quite a claim to be made with absolutely zero proof.
2. Iran has a population of about 85 million, it'd take a small fraction of Iran's population to get to tens of millions.
3. I recognize that you've just pulled this out of your ass and are acting like it's fact.
4. Just to humor you, let's say it's NOT the 1% figure you suggested. Well, isn't 9.9 million a significant number"? How about 2 million? All you're doing is making up smaller and smaller numbers to try to minimize the reality, despite your total lack of evidence.
"Tens of thousands of conservative Christians holding to racist, white supremacist ideologies IS NOT irrelevant if we're talking about bad behaviors by those from a given religion."
Again, your lack of proof is troubling. BUT, even if there were "tens of thousands" of people who hold a certain "ideology" (and even if they communicate their ideology publicly) as long as they don't engage in violent terrorist activities, who cares? Are your really suggesting that these people don't have the freedom to hold and express their ideologies?
"Do you think the thousands of racist, white supremacist conservatives are NOT a problem?"
No. Because we, in the US unlike Islamic countries, don't criminalize thought or belief. We allow freedom of speech even for ideologies we find distasteful. We further have laws in place designed to deal with those minute few who might move from thought and speech to action. Because we don't have an entire infrastructure in place (national or religious) that educates and supports this fringe group. Because we don't have mobs of thousands out rioting in the streets to support these fringe.
"We don't know, do we?"
Interesting. The fact that you admit that you don't know if your bullshit claims are True should invalidate them and anything that springs from them.
"But the fact is that Trump would not have the support he has if it weren't for conservative Christians. Do you recognize that reality?"
Way to state the obvious. Yes, if you subtracted the "conservative Christians" from the total number of Trump supporters, there would be less Trump supporters. What you ignore on the right, but embrace on the left, is the reality that in the US we have a choice between two candidates in a general election. Therefore some of what you claim is "Trump support", is really just an acknowledgement that the political ideology represented by Clinton/Biden is less desirable that that represented by Trump. You use this as your excuse for supporting Biden, Clinton and the like, but don't acknowledge that the same logic applies to both sides.
"Tens of millions of conservative Christians support and vote for Trump. Do you recognize that reality?"
Voted for does not equal support. It certainly doesn't equal total support.
"Does it concern you? Do you think conservative Christians should NOT be voting for your pervert king, the most overtly dishonest, corrupt, UN-Christian presidents in history?"
My views about what other people should do are of little value. I'd argue that from a policy standpoint (given that neither Trump or Biden are exemplars of moral strength), that as a conservative it is completely logical to vote for trump as the lesser of two evils.
FYI, the jury is still out on exactly how corrupt Biden has been throughout his entire political career. We know for a fact that he lied, and continues to lie regularly.
Excellent job of taking the focus of this thread off of the thousands of students chanting for "Intifada", and trying to place it on Trump. From here on out, I will NOT respond to any more of the "Christian extremist" or "It's all Trump's fault" idiotic bullshit. I'll post your comments so we can all see what you're doing, but I'm done wasting my time with it. It's off topic and stupid.
IF a huge group of "Christian" extremists had just engaged in an unprovoked attack on innocent people raping, torturing, maiming, killing, and kidnapping, you might have a point. If these people were regularly shooting unguided rockets at "innocents" you might have a point. If they ever actually gained total control of one state, let alone a country, you might have a point. But none of those things have happened. So enough with the bullshit false equivalencies.
"I have not. Do you recognize that reality?"
I realize that it doesn't matter. No matter what you say, you'll deny, modify, obfuscate, or redefine something to get yourself out of whatever trouble your words might get you in. If all that fails, you'll hide behind opinion or ignorance.
"I've said that we don't KNOW the percentage of Muslims who hate Jews and that there is no data to suggest that it's a majority. Do you recognize that reality?"
I recognize that this is your reality at the time you typed the above words.
"IF one is talking about what Muslims believe or don't believe, listening to what many Muslims actually have to say IS kind of an important point. Why would anyone suggest otherwise?"
I guess all of the loud and proud videos of actual Muslims being very clear about what they believe should all be ignored in favor of a few Muslim friends of Dan.
"IF your premise (that the Muslim majority is "afraid" of a minority of Muslims) is irrational and not reality, then WHY would your question have any weight?"
1. The word "If" in my question, makes it clear that I am asking a question based on a hypothetical possibility.
2. If you watched the ample video of what happened on 10/7, wouldn't any reasonable person be afraid that they would do those sorts of things to anyone that opposes them?
3. Since you haven't proven that my question is "irrational and not reality", then why would I take you idiocy seriously in the first place?
"WHY would everyone be "concerned" if your premise is nonsense? You're jumping the gun in asking the question. You're literally begging the question. Do you recognize the rational problem with that?"
Well, since your claim that my premise is nonsense, is un proven and nonsense it's self, then why would you ignore the rational problem with your question/statement/question?
"Agreed. Do you recognize that reality?"
No.
"Do you agree with this reasonable position?"
No. Not the least of which because the Geneva Conventions that you touted not so long ago don't support your bullshit. Or because Hamas is intentionally using these alleged "innocents" to hide behind. Oh yeah, and because these "innocents" overwhelmingly support/voted for Hamas to govern them.
"Because attacking innocent children is ALWAYS wrong, because of course it is. I'm consistent on that position. Are you?"
Again, I'm intelligent enough to understand that there is a difference between intentionally "attacking" innocent children (as Hamas does regularly), and attacking vile terrorists who hide behind little children. Because I, as do the Geneva Conventions, realize that there are instances where "innocents" will be harmed and that it is acceptable to do so. Because I realize that Egypt is not allowing these "innocents" to leave Gaza. But it's all Israel's fault.
By all means, propose a strategy that will get the hostages back, eliminate Hamas, and protect innocent Israeli citizens that is 100% guaranteed to do so with zero harm to the children Hamas hides behind.
"The same place that most conservative voices are when isolated nutjobs in their group make calls for violence: Silent."
What is the point of this idiocy? That it's OK for the alleged vast majority of Muslims to silently do nothing to stop the alleged minority of barbarian Muslims, or to silently ignore the suffering of their Muslim brothers and sisters by keeping them penned in Gaza or "refugee" camps?
"Following up on the previous answer, none of us go and seek out isolated nutjobs who align with our party or philosophy or traditions and then seek to denounce those nutjob statements. The problem is when the LEADERS of a group make outrageous claims and the group remains silent in the face of the outrageous claims.'
More excuses for silence in the face of extremists on one's own side. I guess that's why you remained silent when liberals were threatening the lives of SCOTUS justices.
"Some say that one legitimate way to deal with the isolated outliers calling for violence is to ignore them. Let them die in their irrelevance and not give legitimacy to their violent calls by responding to it. We can do that when it's random outliers on the internet, but not when it's a major party leader."
Well, that's working really well. Some say that if people are breaking the laws of your religion or country that the law abiding should probably enforce the laws and stop the law breakers. Or ignore them, they'll die eventually and they'll only take a few thousand innocent women and children with them.
"Here's an example of a crazy, demonizing claim right here on your blog. Marshal..."
This isn't Marshall's blog.
One of the teachings of Islam it to lie about your beliefs and intentions until you are in a position of power. Just remember that when Muslims are being friendly to you.
Glenn,
That is True. What I find interesting is how Muslims will adapt to life in a country like the US. As we've seen with Christians, US culture is pretty seductive and alluring. I suspect that the second and third generation children of Muslim immigrants will be well on their way to becoming secular or cultural Muslims (like many Jews) or who will abandon Islam entirely to becomes "nones". I fail to see how any religion based on performance and human effort to please their god, can compete with the US "me first" culture. I also suspect that a lot of US Muslims have already started to reform the unpleasant bits out of Islam, so that talking to a US Muslim is more "Muslim lite", than anything. Obviously, we currently have a relatively small group of hard core Jihadists (MPLS is/was a hotbed), but I think that number will shrink as US culture does it's thing.
I obviously could be wrong, but so much of Islam is not compatible with assimilating in the US that I think many will value the (relative) peace and prosperity here more than strictly adhering to the Quran.
I'm not minimizing your point, which is correct, just going a bit beyond it to suggest that there might be another option when speaking to a US Muslim.
It couldn't keep Ilhan Omar marrying her brother or buying the liberal political agenda.
Craig...
IF a huge group of "Christian" extremists had just engaged in an unprovoked attack on innocent people raping, torturing, maiming, killing, and kidnapping, you might have a point. If these people were regularly shooting unguided rockets at "innocents" you might have a point.
What world are you living in? Now, of course, the conservative extremists here in the US are not AS violent or large as this Oct 7th attack by Hamas, but they are persistent, widespread and deadly. You're not going to give a pass to our domestic terrorists because they're not AS violent as this Oct 7th attack, are you?
In the news:
"At least 1,200 people were killed in Israel on October 7 when more than 1,500 Hamas fighters attacked Israel."
There were ~1500 Hamas terrorists involved in that evil attack. Clearly, there are hundreds and even thousands of Muslims willing to kill innocent people. This is awful and I clearly denounce those who'd engage in such attacks.
In the US, according to the ADL, FBI and others, white supremacists engaging in violent rhetoric and actual hate crimes increased from 2021 to 2022. According to the ADL:
"Our data shows a 38 percent increase in incidents from the previous year, with a total of 6,751 cases reported in 2022, compared to 4,876 in 2021."
https://www.adl.org/resources/report/white-supremacist-propaganda-soars-all-time-high-2022
According to the FBI:
"Increase in Hate Crimes: The data reveals that hate crime incidents increased by 794 in 2022. There were 11,634 cases, compared to 10,840 in 2021."
https://www.justice.gov/crs/highlights/2022-hate-crime-statistics
According to the Justice Department (reported on this SPLC page):
"Though deeply disturbing, we know from U.S. Department of Justice surveys that these statistics are just the tip of the iceberg. A 2021 U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics study, conducted independently of the FBI reports, estimates that almost 250,000 hate crimes occurred each year between 2005 and 2019."
https://www.splcenter.org/news/2023/10/24/new-fbi-hate-crime-report-sparks-concern-prompts-action
A list of examples of the assaults, murders, attacks and other hate crimes that are happening in the thousands, in large part due to people who identify as conservatives and white nationalists.
These examples include:
"A Utah man was sentenced to 20 years in prison for attacking three men with a metal pole he believed to be Mexican. On November 27, 2018, the man entered a tire store and shouted at employees there that he wanted to “kill Mexicans.”"
"On October 27, 2018, the assailant entered the Tree of Life Synagogue during worship with multiple firearms and stated his desire to “kill Jews.” He shot and killed 11 congregants..."
"Proffitt intentionally set fire to the Cape Girardeau Islamic Center on April 24, 2020, which was the first morning of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, because of the building’s religious character..."
"the defendant noticed the victims surveying land near a public roadway. When the defendant came upon the victims, who were on the public roadway, he shouted racial slurs and expletives at them, including “[racial slur] get out of these woods,” before driving a pickup truck directly at the group, nearly striking one of them. At trial, one witness testified that the defendant admitted that he “came at those [expletives],” and that he “would have [expletive]d up all those Black [expletive]. Video evidence showed that after he was arrested, the defendant complained that he was “getting treated like this [expletive] over a [expletive] [racial slur].”"
...and on and on and on it goes. Just the ones that were listed and recognized as hate crimes. Thousands of incidents each year, and largely by conservatives and white supremacists which, as the FBI and ADL will tell you are feeling emboldened and acting out more.
https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crimes-case-examples
cont'd...
Craig, again...
IF a huge group of "Christian" extremists had just engaged in an unprovoked attack on innocent people
IF? We have thousands and thousands of such attacks every year motivated by racial, religious and anti-LGBTQ bigotry. How many attacks, murders, arsons, beatings and mass shootings will be enough for you to say, "Maybe I should speak out JUST LIKE I think Muslims should speak out against this sort of violent rhetoric by people identifying as conservatives and conservative Christians, even..."?
It couldn't keep Ilhan Omar marrying her brother or buying the liberal political agenda.
He said, as he passed on a conspiracy theory he read, no doubt, in the conservative political agenda arena.
Lies about political opponents are still lies. Slander is slander. Gossip is gossip.
Stop acting like a child. Apologize for rumor-mongering.
Glenn...
"One of the teachings of Islam it to lie about your beliefs and intentions until you are in a position of power. "
"Taqiyya is a practice whereby an individual may be less than fully truthful, when such an individual is reasonably afraid that the consequences of being fully truthful may place him or her into serious jeopardy by an oppressor. In other words, if telling the truth is going to place your life or wellbeing at risk, you can say what you need to survive and stay safe."
https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/12/05/are-muslims-commanded-to-deceive-why-melanie-phillips-should-know-better-pub-80521
The irony here is that Glenn is willing to make a deliberately, stupidly false claim (one that Craig agrees to) WHILE condemning Islam of being okay with lying.
Children, first remove the log from your own eyes! Y'all are not experts on Islam.
Dan
"What world are you living in? Now, of course, the conservative extremists here in the US are not AS violent or large as this Oct 7th attack by Hamas, but they are persistent, widespread and deadly. You're not going to give a pass to our domestic terrorists because they're not AS violent as this Oct 7th attack, are you?"
As I noted, this is off topic and pointless. I'll address this one paragraph because it demonstrates that you chose to either not read what I wrote, or read it and intentionally ignore it. In either case, given your idiotic premise based on the above ignoring/misrepresenting I see no reason to do anything other than laugh at the idiocy.
"There were ~1500 Hamas terrorists involved in that evil attack. Clearly, there are hundreds and even thousands of Muslims willing to kill innocent people. This is awful and I clearly denounce those who'd engage in such attacks."
Which, or course, ignores the hundreds/thousands of rockets lobbed at innocent Israeli's and the rest of the violence and human rights abuses across the Islamic world.
"Our data shows a 38 percent increase in incidents from the previous year, with a total of 6,751 cases reported in 2022, compared to 4,876 in 2021."
It's off topic, but this "data" doesn't tell us how many actual people were involved, nor does it tell us how many of the "reported" incidents represented actual crimes.
I get it, the urge to play "The other guys do it too" game is strong.
"IF? We have thousands and thousands of such attacks every year motivated by racial, religious and anti-LGBTQ bigotry. How many attacks, murders, arsons, beatings and mass shootings will be enough for you to say, "Maybe I should speak out JUST LIKE I think Muslims should speak out against this sort of violent rhetoric by people identifying as conservatives and conservative Christians, even..."?"
Again, if you aren't going to read and respond to what I wrote, why bother responding. I do like how act as if your assumptions about the number of people and the race/ethnicity/religion of these people are facts.
"He said, as he passed on a conspiracy theory he read, no doubt, in the conservative political agenda arena."
Nope, local news.
"Lies about political opponents are still lies. Slander is slander. Gossip is gossip."
You should know given how often you trade in these things.
"Stop acting like a child. Apologize for rumor-mongering."
When oen guy acting like a child tries this, it can't help but provoke laughter.
What in interesting difference between Christianity and Islam. In Christian history we see a litany of people (starting with Jesus and His disciples) who chose death, imprisonment, or physical harm out of a firm commitment to The Truth. In Islam, we see that it's perfectly OK to lie if you think you might be in danger.
It seems like there might be a fundamental difference that these two approaches demonstrate.
But Glenn, remember that Dan's interpretations of the teachings of Islam are infinitely more valid that yours. As you know he's read bits and pieces of the Quran, talked to a few Muslims, and Google searched until he found sources that agree with him.
What in interesting difference between Christianity and Islam. In Christian history we see a litany of people (starting with Jesus and His disciples) who chose death, imprisonment, or physical harm out of a firm commitment to The Truth. In Islam, we see that it's perfectly OK to lie if you think you might be in danger.
In reality, in Christianity, there is NO rule against lying to save you or your loved ones' lives. Because, of course, there isn't. It's a faith based on grace, not soul-killing legalism of the pharisees and their modern counterparts.
SOME Christians, in our history, have taken the option of people who choose death and chose not to make a false claim to save their lives. Other Christians have. Same in Islam. Other Christians have not. No problem, there's no rule against it.
What we DO have, in the teachings of Jesus, are ENDLESS warnings against the sort of deadly legalism that the Pharisees engaged in and, instead, a faith and philosophy based upon grace, as opposed to deadly legalism.
Do you recognize that reality about Jesus' teachings? Or are you on the side of the legalists?
But that isn't the false claim that Glenn is making. He (and other conservative bigots) are saying that Islam teaches Muslims to lie IN ORDER to abuse others ("until you are in a position of power.") It's another damned lie of the bigoted and graceless.
And it's 100% NOT about what Dan thinks and is, instead, about what actual Muslims are saying. Because, when it comes to what Islam does and doesn't teach, I don't give a damn what bigots who hate Muslims and Islam tell us what Islam "teaches." I'd rather listen to first hand accounts are saying about what THEY actually believe, not what the bigots TELL us (in ignorance and malice) what THOSE PEOPLE believe.
Bigots don't have a bit of credibility.
Do you disagree?
In Islam, we see that it's perfectly OK to lie if you think you might be in danger.
You say this as if you think it's a bad thing to protect yourself and your loved ones from bigots and killers. Thank God, you're not Jesus nor citing a teaching from Jesus on this point.
Thank God for grace.
To hell with legalism and demonization of The Other. As Jesus taught.
Craig...
Which, or course, ignores the hundreds/thousands of rockets lobbed at innocent Israeli's and the rest of the violence and human rights abuses across the Islamic world.
NO. Of course, in reality, in the real world, it doesn't. I acknowledge that there are hundreds and thousands (tens of thousands?) of Muslim extremists who are okay with deadly violence against innocent people. This violence is a great wrong, evil. Because, OF COURSE, violence against innocent people is ALWAYS wrong. I've been clear on this point and you have, too. You AGREE with the Muslim extremists that deliberately killing innocent civilians is not always wrong.
The reality is: YOU and Muslim extremists think it's okay sometimes to kill innocent people. I and rational adults (including many Muslims and Jews) stand righteously and reasonably opposed to killing innocent people.
That's just the reality of it all. You can disagree with reality, but it doesn't change one damned thing.
And I don't give one single damn about what you and other bigots falsely claim with no support that Ilhan Oman has married her brother. A stupidly false and unsupported claim (and you literally give NO support for your petty little girlish gossip - with apologies to girls who are so much better than you) is nothing. It's a fart in the wind. It's diarrhea in your underwear. It's NOTHING.
Bigots say all kinds of stupid shit.
But Jesus and the Bible tell us clearly and without equivocation NOT to bear false witness and NOT to gossip and not only that, but that those who engage in this graceless, death-dealing gossip are NOT part of the realm of God.
Literally, to hell with that nonsense.
Craig, be a better human.
Glenn, remember that Dan's interpretations of the teachings of Islam are infinitely more valid that yours. As you know he's read bits and pieces of the Quran
Remember, Dan is citing actual Muslims, not bigots who are looking for reasons to attack Muslims.
But then, that's just plain common sense.
Too bad today's modern "conservatives" are not operating on common sense, decency and reason.
"In reality, in Christianity, there is NO rule against lying to save you or your loved ones' lives. Because, of course, there isn't. It's a faith based on grace, not soul-killing legalism of the pharisees and their modern counterparts."
Again, with you arguing against something that you've made up and pretended that I've said. I guess it'd be pointless to mention the plethora of statements throughout scripture which align Truth with YHWH as one of His innate qualities.
"SOME Christians, in our history, have taken the option of people who choose death and chose not to make a false claim to save their lives. Other Christians have. Same in Islam. Other Christians have not. No problem, there's no rule against it."
If you say so.
"What we DO have, in the teachings of Jesus, are ENDLESS warnings against the sort of deadly legalism that the Pharisees engaged in and, instead, a faith and philosophy based upon grace, as opposed to deadly legalism."
You mean like, "I AM The Truth". But since that's just your hunch, it really has no value beyond yourself.
"Do you recognize that reality about Jesus' teachings? Or are you on the side of the legalists?"
I recognize obfuscation, goal post moving, and straw man arguments.
"But that isn't the false claim that Glenn is making. He (and other conservative bigots) are saying that Islam teaches Muslims to lie IN ORDER to abuse others ("until you are in a position of power.") It's another damned lie of the bigoted and graceless."
Again, you're the expert.
"And it's 100% NOT about what Dan thinks and is, instead, about what actual Muslims are saying. Because, when it comes to what Islam does and doesn't teach, I don't give a damn what bigots who hate Muslims and Islam tell us what Islam "teaches." I'd rather listen to first hand accounts are saying about what THEY actually believe, not what the bigots TELL us (in ignorance and malice) what THOSE PEOPLE believe."
Because you're the expert on what "actual Muslims" are saying. It's pointless to quote or post video of alleged Muslims saying anything other than what you've declared that "actual Muslims" say. I get it, "Because I say so." strikes again.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes, I disagree with your virtually every time you make these sort of 100% objective declarations of fact, without having the courage to acknowledge what you're doing.
"You say this as if you think it's a bad thing to protect yourself and your loved ones from bigots and killers. Thank God, you're not Jesus nor citing a teaching from Jesus on this point."
Well, except the pesky fact that Jesus didn't lie to protect Himself from harm. Jesus taught that no one has "greater love" than to lay down their life. Jesus repeatedly taught that following Him comes with the high likelihood of harm. Not to mention the whole Truth thing.
But hey, if you want to argue that Christians should regard Truth as optional, you go right ahead.
"NO. Of course, in reality, in the real world, it doesn't. I acknowledge that there are hundreds and thousands (tens of thousands?) of Muslim extremists who are okay with deadly violence against innocent people. This violence is a great wrong, evil. Because, OF COURSE, violence against innocent people is ALWAYS wrong. I've been clear on this point and you have, too. You AGREE with the Muslim extremists that deliberately killing innocent civilians is not always wrong."
By all means, understate the problem if Muslim violence. The difference is that I'm not the one minimizing it, creating false equivalencies to excuse it, making "The other guy..." excuses for it, and certainly not trying to impede the punishment of those guilty of perpetrating and supporting the almost continuous violence Hamas has been engaging in against Israel in their quest to eliminate Israel from existence.
"The reality is: YOU and Muslim extremists think it's okay sometimes to kill innocent people. I and rational adults (including many Muslims and Jews) stand righteously and reasonably opposed to killing innocent people."
Another false equivalence. I guess you now think it's OK to lie to protect yourself from dealing with what I really said.
"That's just the reality of it all. You can disagree with reality, but it doesn't change one damned thing."
And once again, Dan decides that he gets to define reality to suit his hunches.
"Remember, Dan is citing actual Muslims, not bigots who are looking for reasons to attack Muslims."
I guess all the Muslims I've posted or linked to videos of just aren't "actual Muslims" in Dan's expert opinion. Or maybe posting and linking to videos of actual Muslims actually saying the things that Dan claims "actual Muslims" don't say, isn't as effective as "citing" a few.
Oh goodie, the Ad Hominem attacks are coming out to play too.
I've got to point something out. A while back Dan claimed/suggested/guessed that only 1% of Muslims were the kind who were anti-Israel/antisemitic/terrorists/oppressors/whatever. From here on out we'll just say bad. So, I took his guess and applied math to it, and shockingly came out with a number of bad Muslims that offended his sensibilities. Clearly, based on his anecdotal evidence, there couldn't be this many bad Muslims in the world. So, he's chosen to arbitrarily cut that number down to a number that's more agreeable to his hunches about what "actual Muslims" really believe and do.
So, let's do a little research and some more math. Let's start with Muslim countries that are identified as state sponsors of terrorism. We have...
Iran 85,000,000
Syria 23,000,000
Lybia 7,000,000
South Yemen 2,200,000
Now we know that Saudi Arabia has a significant population of people in the more extreme sects so let's take the 3 million Shia and up to 17,000,000 Wahhabi.
Then let's add in the Taliban 400,000
ISIS 100,000 = or -
So, we're now up to 242,000,000 Muslims who could reasonably be considered to have a positive view of bad Islam at a minimum. But, because I'd rather be conservative, let's cut that number in half. (probably excessive because I didn't dig to deep into other Muslim numbers) Which leaves us with 121,000,000 potential followers of bad Islam.
NOTE: "bad Islam" is only a catchall term for followers of Islam who engage in or support things that Dan might consider to be naughty, it's not a value judgement or character judgement on anyone, it's merely shorthand.
Now 1% of 1.8 billion is a crap load of people, as is 121,000,000. BUT, let's cut that last number in half one more time just to be charitable, and we're left with 60,500,000.
Suffice it to say that Dan's numbers of less than 100,000 bad Muslims are woefully low. I suspect it's because he sees Muslims as an oppressed minority, and doesn't quite realize how many Muslims there actually are. Nor do I think he realizes that while there are 49 solidly Muslim countries (with 50 coming soon), there is 1 Jewish country in the world. I don't think he understands that in '48, '67' and '73.
Egypt
Lebanon
Syria
Jordan
Iraq
Yemen
Along with volunteers from other countries attacked Israel with no provocation and had a massive advantage in numbers of soldiers, and arms.
The current population of Israel is almost 10,000,000. Contrast that with the populations of the Arab countries that have attacked Israel, plus the number of terrorists in Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO and other groups.
I really think that people like Dan don't understand how much of an underdog Israel was in '48, '67, and '73, and how much of an underdog Israel remains.
I said and asked...
Bigots don't have a bit of credibility.
Do you disagree?
You responded...
Yes, I disagree with your virtually every time you make these sort of 100% objective declarations of fact
So, okay. You want to side with bigots and say that they at least sometimes have credibility. I disagree. And that explains a lot.
Done.
"So, okay. You want to side with bigots and say that they at least sometimes have credibility. I disagree. And that explains a lot."
Again, you simply make up some bullshit to suit your narrative, then pretend it represents anything I've said. The reality is that I was referring to the bigotry your demonstrate on a regular basis.
Dan,
Ya know, if you would really study Islam instead finding a link from someone who doesn't give the whole story, you wouldn't be so stupidly, abjectly ignorant.
Yes, they lie to deceive their true motives and can claim "fear" of being discovered for their real intentions until they are in a position of power so they no longer have the fear. But go ahead and deny the truth--just like you do with every othe topic.
But that isn't the false claim that Glenn is making. He (and other conservative bigots) are saying that Islam teaches Muslims to lie IN ORDER to abuse others ("until you are in a position of power.")
Please show where even hinted at "in order to abuse others." What I said was they lie as to their real beliefs/intentions until they are in a position of power--you know, where they can take over!!
There is no such thing as Muslim "extremists," rather what people called that are truly fundamentalists following the Qur'an and Hadith teachings. The term "Muslim extremists" was invented to claim that only some Muslims are violent terrorists when the actual fact is that the vast majority of them are! Read history, laddie.
It isn't bigotry to tell the truth and to warn people about the truth of Muslims and Islam.
"The reality is: YOU and Muslim extremists think it's okay sometimes to kill innocent people. I and rational adults (including many Muslims and Jews) stand righteously and reasonably opposed to killing innocent people."
This is an incredibly vile misrepresentation of our views.
It is slanderous to even dare group Craig (and by extension, Glenn and myself as well) with muslim extremists.
It is an absolutely intentional lie to say we've (Craig, Glenn and/or myself) expressed anything any honest person of even minimal intelligence could mistake as any of us stating we believe it's "okay" to kill innocent people.
It's a lie for Dan to suggest he understands what "rational" means or that he can rightly be regarded as a rational person (based on years of incredibly unreasonable, irrational and blatantly false statements).
It's a most heinous lie for Dan to pretend he stands opposed to killing innocent people when he proudly defends the right of women (and the men who pressure some of them) to murder their unborn innocent people in a most barbaric manner.
And then this asshat dares to condescend when we make the rational statement that the lives of pallie civilians are not worth the lives of Israeli citizens who have not engaged in any terrorist acts common to jihadies who put their own people in harm's way, nor the lives of the IDF soldiers acting to exact justice upon those who purposely target Israeli citizens routinely as they have since at least 1948, if not the early 600s.
Dan is quite free to sacrifice his own loved ones if he can't bring himself to fire upon savages who fire upon him and his from behind women and children. What an ashole!!
Dan again chooses to malign people with legitimate concerns about muslims in general. Those concerns do not indicate a belief that no "good" muslims exist...that is, muslims who reject those teachings of islam which blatantly and unequivocally instruct followers to target Jews and other non-musims for either conversion/extortion or death, subjugation and abuse of women, lying to non-muslims as acceptable and other negative actions and behaviors. I mean...what the heck!...Dan rejects so many unequivocal teachings of Scripture that it's statistically probable that there exists some percentage of the estimated 1.8 billion muslims likely reject portions of their "religion".
But our concerns are based on those teachings that so many have not rejected, particularly the more militant of them, but their supporters as well. But those concerns do not indicate bigotry, as Dan consciously chooses to believe so as to stifle discussions of those legitimate concerns. It's harder for Dan to support the ongoing murder of Israelis if he has to accept the truth about islam. It's harder for Dan to support much of what he supports about any number of subjects if he has to accept the truth of any of it. Thus, Dan...like modern progressives and the politicians and political parties they support...ignores truth to make easier his posturing as a caring individual. More to the point, he ignores the truth to make easier his willful bearing of false witness against those for whom truth, facts and evidence informs them more completely.
As to "bigots don't have a shred of credibility", that would depend upon the bigot and the issue about which the bigot speaks. Dan's totally bigoted against true Christians devoted to the Word of God and the teachings of Christ. He has absolute and an abhorrent bigotry against the conceived by not yet born...choosing without any valid basis whatsoever to question their humanity and worth. But the bigots Dan truly hates are really those with a prejudice against sinful behaviors and those who promote, defend, support and celebrate them...such as Dan. So, in his efforts to indict them, he seeks to group them in with people like Klansmen and the like.
What this all clearly indicates is just what a liar Dan is as well as what a hypocrite he is...and what a Christian he most certainly is not.
https://www.aei.org/articles/politics-rhetoric-and-the-planned-parenthood-killings/
The above references pro-lifer opposition to the killing of baby murderers and by extension, as will be seen in some of the other links with which Dan will dishonestly dismiss without study, all other criminal acts, such as vandalisms, bombings and anti-baby murder militancy.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/12/leftist-straw-man-pro-lifers-condone-vigilante-violence/
The link above also debunks the moronic charge of the modern progressive regarding public expressions of opposition to abortion isn't responsible for inciting those who choose to murder baby murderers. It also contains links (which I haven't yet read) which appear to further rebuke this modern progressive fantasy.
But more importantly, the NR link points out how the pro-life movement always stands opposed to those who choose to take it upon themselves to murder baby murderers Dan defends.
Meanwhile, there are examples of just the opposite of what Dan pretends to believe or is too stupid to research beyond his leftist media enemies of the people. Indeed, the following speaks on media malfeasance on this issue of who's zoomin' who:
https://www.liveaction.org/news/media-pro-life-movement-violent-pro-abortion-terrorists/
This next link from National Review is, like the previous, also from 2015. But what it shows is just how long the fiction has been perpetrated by the modern progressives, so loyal and supportive are they to the baby murder industry:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/12/anti-abortion-violence-is-not-surging/
When you think about it, the left is responsible for so many hoaxes and fear mongering. That they would do so on the issue of violence against abortion mills or clinics who provide real care and services for expectant mothers which don't include Hamas-level butchery of their unborn is not a stretch in the least.
Dan's more than happy to join in the fun.
I have more which debunks Dan's lamentations about evil Christians who are actually incredibly few and far between compared to those Dan defends. Where he laughingly attempts to draw a comparison between the number of violent muslims and their true-blue supporters versus Christians and/or whites who are racist, the disparity is a universe of separation...if I may indulge in a bit of hyperbole. When trying to find numbers for white supremacists...that is ALL of them who are members of one group or another...it's an incredibly small number compared to Jew hating muslims, who are legion. The number of violent incidents is also tiny, with few murders which require many years in order to present a significant number...numbers which are still overwhelmed by the number of dead in Israel on Oct 7.
Dan will again look at these facts to presume it means I'm good with gazastinians or pro-aborts dying. But what he won't do, is accept the reality of who is doing the dying and how those like myself regard them.
Pro-aborts murder innocent people...those about whom Dan falsely pretends to care. While I oppose defenders of the innocent taking the law into their own hands, I'm devoid of pity or sympathy for those who choose to make their living ripping apart the bodies of the most innocent, vulnerable and defenseless of our kind. Dan's totally good with it.
While I'm not keen on civilians dying needlessly, those in Gaza die because of their own murderous character. Those who flee the carnage of righteous Israeli retribution can only be said to be those who don't want to be martyrs for the cause, until some jackass like Dan puts his own ass on the line to determine without fail which of them have no problem with living side by side with Jews. No one seems to want to take that risk and as such, I've far less pity for the children of Gaza than I do for those of Israel, despite the true innocence of the youngest among them. If asshats like Dan wish for any gazastinians to be spared, they must focus all their attention on the Jew hating of the muslim population.
Art,
I also posted some links to data which indicate that Dan's hunches about abortion related violence are outdated, to say the least. Dan appears to have chosen to pretend like nothing has happened vis-a-vis abortion violence for more than 20 years and that the pro-life movement hasn't abandoned violent tactics. Much like his views on conservative Christians, he's repeatedly claimed that he read a lot of books ( which he can't name), listened to a lot of sermons (which he can't provide), 30-40 years ago and that he now knows everything he needs to know to pass judgement on all manner of conservative positions.
He'll likely ignore any data that doesn't agree with his narrative anyway.
Again, the facts... the actual data...
"At the moment, the FBI is seeking information related to 10 instances of arson and vandalism at anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers around the country. As a point of comparison, in 2021 alone, abortion providers reported 123 incidents of vandalism, 123 incidents of assault or battery, 28 stalking incidents, 16 invasions, 13 burglaries and 9 bomb threats, according to statistics kept by the National Abortion Federation. (To take a longer view, there have been 11 murders, 42 bombings, 196 arsons, 491 assaults in facilities that provide abortion care since 1977, per the group’s tally.)"
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/janes-revenge-biden-prosecution-abortion-1234669486/
Can you gentlemen acknowledge that the reality is STILL that anti-abortion right wingers are STILL more prominent when it comes to violence about abortion issues?
So far as I can find, only a few apparently left-leaning individuals have been indicted for violence (mostly threats and spray painted vandalism) against "pro-life" types and I don't know if ANY leftwing types have been convicted, while there is a long and ongoing violence against abortion defenders by right-wing types.
Clearly, to the degree that there may be handfuls of liberals engaging in threats and arson and vandalism, they're wrong. But to the degree that you focus on that splinter while ignoring the log of right-wing violence, threats and harassment, you expose your hypocrisy.
Dan
Data matters.
"He'll likely ignore any data that doesn't agree with his narrative anyway..."
The irony.
Dan: the data shows that there appear to be some violent liberal actors who promote/engage in violent threats and vandalism. They're wrong.
The data shows even more right wingers promoting and acting out violently, including actual murder. They're wrong, too.
Who's ignoring the data, fellas?
Dan
In lieu of addressing the DOJ data I provided and the plethora of data Art provided, Dan offers a Rolling Stone article. Remember Rolling Stone, that paragon of journalistic ethics, how many instances have we seen of Rolling Stone "reporting" on stories that have been proven completely false?
"Can you gentlemen acknowledge that the reality is STILL that anti-abortion right wingers are STILL more prominent when it comes to violence about abortion issues?"
No, because you haven't proven this to actually be "reality". To do so, you would need to disprove the data we've provided, or provide unequivocal proof of your contention that the recent stats prove your claim.
"So far as I can find, only a few apparently left-leaning individuals have been indicted for violence (mostly threats and spray painted vandalism) against "pro-life" types and I don't know if ANY leftwing types have been convicted, while there is a long and ongoing violence against abortion defenders by right-wing types."
Ahhhhhhh, Dan has changed his standard. His original "data" contained multiple instances where no actual facts were known which he decided were worthy data to prove his point, but NOW he demands "indicted" as has standard. I guess he'll be scrubbing his data of the non indicted to balance things out. Besides, the only data that counts, is the data that Dan finds and approves of.
"Clearly, to the degree that there may be handfuls of liberals engaging in threats and arson and vandalism, they're wrong. But to the degree that you focus on that splinter while ignoring the log of right-wing violence, threats and harassment, you expose your hypocrisy."
And the false equivalencies and minimizing the actions of liberals continues.
"The irony."
Yes, it is ironic that you ignore any data that doesn't support your narrative.
"Dan: the data shows that there appear to be some violent liberal actors who promote/engage in violent threats and vandalism. They're wrong."
Except this isn't exactly what Dan has said.
"The data shows even more right wingers promoting and acting out violently, including actual murder. They're wrong, too."
The data Dan provided shows that "right wingers" attacks on abortion providers are heavily skewed towards the past, while DOJ data shows that the left wing attacks skew towards the more recent.
"Who's ignoring the data, fellas?"
Well, given that you haven't even addressed the data we've offered (other than to dismiss it), I guess that's self evident.
Dan continues to side step two important points which indicts him as a liar, hypocrite and thug...as well as stupid as all get-out:
1. Regardless of how the statistics play out, we oppose the violence of both sides, while he berates defenders of life.
2. Dan can't make his point that our side is the more violent without first denying the humanity of the millions who've been murdered by his kind. Here, of course, I'm only referring to those millions murdered in utero. Once again, they were most definitely anti-abortion just as every born murder victim is anti-murder. Even in the earliest stage of development, one will flee danger...seek to avoid one's own destruction. Worse than the Klan, the nazis, Hamas, Dan will insist there's no way we can be certain that these people in utero are even actually people. He clings to that obvious lie without which there's no way anyone could dare suggest there are more violent people opposing abortion than there are those who assault pro-lifers.
Art,
1. I so obvious that Dan's pretending like there is widespread support for pro life people who go to these extremes, is not reality. But it is necessary for him to believe that so as to support the narrative he cherishes.
2. I'd agree that it's not unreasonable to add those deaths to the left wing side of the ledger, but it's almost a separate conversation. In some ways it's like the folks who attack white people for slavery in the US, while ignoring the hundreds of thousands of white people who were killed, injured, or suffered during the Civil War in order to get rid of slavery.
In addition to point 1, a number of my links were clear in the widespread opposition of pro-life organizations to any anti-abortion violence.
As to your response to point 2, they're very similar on the basis of your citation of those racist attacks. I was trying to focus on the anti-abortion sentiment of those being aborted added to the number of pro-lifers who also oppose the anti-abortion violence. With regard to Dan's suggestion that anti-abortion violence is greater in frequency or carnage, it proves his argument stupid and false.
Craig...
1. I so obvious that Dan's pretending like there is widespread support for pro life people who go to these extremes, is not reality. But it is necessary for him to believe that so as to support the narrative he cherishes.
1. I've never said that. Period. Reality disagrees with your comments and false charges.
2. I don't believe that there is widespread support for deadly conservatives engaging in deadly and harmful acts in conservative circles, so, once again, reality disagrees with your irrational and stupidly false false claims.
Read for understanding, fellows.
Seriously, when you continually reach such ridiculous false conclusions IN SPITE of the reality that I've never once said anything like that, you'd think that intellectual honesty and integrity would cause you to pause and be a bit more humble in your proclamations.
1. I never claimed that you "said" that, yet it is still very obvious what the narrative you are committed to is. The very fact that you only looked at abortion related violence from one direction, and that your data included instances that could not be proven or where motive was not established as if those proved your claim tells me plenty.
2. If you say so.
"Read for understanding, fellows."
You don't, yet you demand others do what you won't. Excellent job of dealing with the data provided that counters your hunch in such an effective and forceful manner.
Seriously, when you continually reach such ridiculous false conclusions IN SPITE of the reality that I've never once said anything like that, you'd think that intellectual honesty and integrity would cause you to pause and be a bit more humble in your proclamations.
Art,
What Dan has done with is claim about anti abortion violence is to make a claim based on evidence which doesn't prove what he says it does (not all of the cited events can be tied to anti abortion folks). He compounds that problem by utterly failing to provide an actual comparison. X pro abortion violent acts v. Y anti abortion violent acts. Finally, as the DOJ data shows, the pro abortion violence is increasing, while the anti is mostly in the long past. It's a stunning example of looking at a single source for data on 1/2 of the problem than pronouncing that his hunch is correct. It's not surprising, nor is it surprising that he hasn't even attempted to disprove the data that doesn't support his hunch. It's just Dan throwing down pronouncements without knowing if they are True or not.
His response tactic, is to attack our understanding, not deal with the data.
The very fact that you only looked at abortion related violence from one direction
1. I've never said that. Period. Reality disagrees with your comments and false charges.
2. I in fact TRIED to find significant leads about violence towards "pro-life" types and there just wasn't much information/data I could find. There have been a rise in mostly vandalism type activities by an unknown group called "Jane's Revenge," but there is a lack of hard data about who these people are.
The very fact that you read my words and reach false conclusions and then repeat your false conclusions is just another indication for your need to improve your reading for comprehension. Comment after comment, you make false accusations/reach incorrect conclusions.
Be better.
1. Well, the reality is that you provided absolutely zero data about the pro abortion violence when you made your claim. You then offered a Rolling Stone piece despite Rolling Stone's well know bias and repeated publishing of false stories.
2. That's strange. It took me all of 5 minutes to find a DOJ report that covered the topic quite extensively. But hey, you just failed to mention all of the hard work you put into trying to show all the data.
"The very fact that you read my words and reach false conclusions and then repeat your false conclusions is just another indication for your need to improve your reading for comprehension. Comment after comment, you make false accusations/reach incorrect conclusions."
The very fact that you ignore the data that you claim you couldn't find, doesn't help your case. Instead you obsess over crap like this.
Dan continues to claim he isn't responsible for the conclusions his own words compel. Rather than whining about not having said what his words compel us to conclude, he might want to demonstrate what I would understand "embracing grace" should mean. That is, he should be gracious in his rebuttal, provide more clarity to explain his meaning or have the honesty to admit he's incapable of expressing himself clearly, precisely, and without equivocation. The problem is, he's too morally corrupt to admit when he's been exposed as such. And it wouldn't hurt if he would take more time to ensure before hitting the publish button that his comments will truly convey his intended meaning. Then, if his point is shown to be in any way in error, that vaunted "embracing of grace" should necessitate being a man and owning up to being had.
Dan is very quick to "correct" his words when I reach the logical conclusions that his words lead to. He's quite good at saying things like "Well I obviously didn't mean X." or more likely "You just don't understand.". Which I believe really means that we just don't understand what he was thinking or all of the possible ways he can explain away his words. It's almost like he is incapable of believing that the problem lies with what he actually says, not with others conclusions. I agree that he's too quick on the trigger when he comments.
Perhaps, if he took that little extra time to post under his account, (not as anonymous) it would end any questions about which comments were his. As I look at his history, he does seem to be lazy about certain things, so I'm not surprised he's too lazy to sign in.
This has been a problem for all the time these blogs have existed. Dan says X, then people confront him with the problems X implies, and he tap dances away from it. I don't know. I can't see that I'd do that with an obvious criticism of a position I put forth. I'll defend it, but I don't know that I've ever altered it to make it work in the face of legit criticism. Please feel free to point out when I do.
Post a Comment