Lessons Learned: Breivik's Manifesto (Wajahat Ali & Mollie Ziegler Hemingway)

[Bloggingheads]

[harkin]

Maj Hasan confers with an Iman who endorses violence and shouts "Allahu Akbar" as he guns down unarmed comrades:

The NYTimes writes seven articles on Hasan, only one mentions he is a muslim......a year after the attack.

Breivik goes on his murderous rampage to draw attention to his manifesto which contains one entry where he declares himself christian (and numerous entries where he condemns all religion):

The NYTimes article on the killings' lead sentence proclaims him a christian.

Tell me again about unbalanced depictions promoting hate.

[eeeeeeeli]

Originally Posted by harkin

Maj Hasan confers with an Iman who endorses violence and shouts "Allahu Akbar" as he guns down unarmed comrades:

The NYTimes writes seven articles on Hasan, only one mentions he is a muslim......a year after the attack.

Give me a break. This from an article written 2 days after the attack:

"The officials said a continuing search of Major Hasan’s computer indicates that he had logged on to Web sites that celebrated radical Islamic ideologies and that he had exchanged e-mail messages with like-minded people, some possibly overseas."

[opposable_crumbs]

I'm not sure Hassan counts under the traditional definition of a terrorist seeing as his target was military. Probably more akin to treason.

[whburgess]

Originally Posted by harkin

Maj Hasan confers with an Iman who endorses violence and shouts "Allahu Akbar" as he guns down unarmed comrades:

The NYTimes writes seven articles on Hasan, only one mentions he is a muslim......a year after the attack.

Breivik goes on his murderous rampage to draw attention to his manifesto which contains one entry where he declares himself christian (and numerous entries where he condemns all religion):

The NYTimes article on the killings' lead sentence proclaims him a christian.

Tell me again about unbalanced depictions promoting hate.

But wait--Christians are the dominant religious power in America--the 'progressive' thing to is to be biased against them so as to create a more level playing field for minority religions.

I really don't think the NYTimes can hurt Christians of course, so they are hardly 'victims' in the sense that any harm is done. But it does show that the folks over at the NYTimes don't even pretend they don't have an agenda anymore.

[JonIrenicus]

Originally Posted by whburgess

But wait--Christians are the dominant religious power in America--the 'progressive' thing to is to be biased against them so as to create a more level playing field for minority religions.

I really don't think the NYTimes can hurt Christians of course, so they are hardly 'victims' in the sense that any harm is done. But it does show that the folks over at the NYTimes don't even pretend they don't have an agenda anymore.

The differential bias against christians vs muslims seems to stem from some sort of leftist aversion to attacking the minority group, or attacking the weaker party, or the non western culture.


A cursory glance at a Michelle Goldberg diavlog is a masterclass at how easy it is for many liberals to ascribe all the darkness in the universe as sourced from conservative roots.

Switch the subject to muslims, and the model seems to shift to a beyond a reasonable doubt model as opposed to a preponderance of evidence one.

It would be one thing if the bending over backwards to assume innocence until nearly all doubt is removed was universal, but it's not. There is something in the psyche in these lefties that compels them to assume the best of any population that has a bad rap linked to something common in the group.

This impulse as far as I can tell is anti rational, but they don't seem to care, they seem to think this is the proper way to think about cases.

Wouldn't it be better to have your expectations and judgments be the same in all reference frames? Not colored by the fact that one group happens to get a bad rap for something and so forcing people to expect the opposite until they have no choice so as not to enhance that bad reputation?

It's anti empirical, but I guess it feels right.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by JonIrenicus

A cursory glance at a Michelle Goldberg diavlog is a masterclass at how easy it is for many liberals to ascribe all the darkness in the universe as sourced from conservative roots.

Yeah, of course, no conservatives ever make such attributions about liberals.


Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, by Jonah Goldberg

Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America, by Ann Coulter

et cetera, ad infinitum

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Yeah, of course, no conservatives ever make such attributions about liberals.


Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, by Jonah Goldberg

Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America, by Ann Coulter

et cetera, ad infinitum

Eh, Jon's definition of "lefties" seems, on the surface, like it's supposed to be relevant to people here or some major group or position being put forth. One might even assume that he intended it to fit into the usual back and forth here that roughly fits into Dems vs. Republicans.

But, as usual, his mythical "lefties" bear no resemblance to any views I (as a Dem and a liberal) hold nor any views I've heard from other Dems and liberals I know, despite living in a majority Dem city and area, etc. So, irritating as it is, I've decided that it's best just to recognize that whoever these "lefties" are, they aren't supposed to actually be the group of people I usually assume are being discussed when "lefties" come up, and particularly are not supposed to apply to the liberals actually involved in these discussions, like you and me.

Because it doesn't seem to me that you and I are slamming Christianity or defending Islamic extremist or any other such nonsense that people seem to want to attribute to labels that they sometimes also attribute to us. Shrug.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by stephanie

But, as usual, his mythical "lefties" bear no resemblance to any views I (as a Dem and a liberal) hold nor any views I've heard from other Dems and liberals I know, despite living in a majority Dem city and area, etc. So, irritating as it is, I've decided that it's best just to recognize that whoever these "lefties" are, they aren't supposed to actually be the group of people I usually assume are being discussed when "lefties" come up, and particularly are not supposed to apply to the liberals actually involved in these discussions, like you and me.

Markos Moulitsas doesn't share a familiar kind of politics with liberals you know? Or Dan Savage? Bill Maher?

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Markos Moulitsas doesn't share a familiar kind of politics with liberals you know? Or Dan Savage? Bill Maher?

The versions of those people described by Goldberg and Coulter don't. They also of course don't ressemble what I know of Messers Moulitsas, Savage, and Maher.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by miceelf

The versions of those people described by Goldberg and Coulter don't. They also of course don't ressemble what I know of Messers Moulitsas, Savage, and Maher.

Maher's views on, I dunno, Christians and fat people and meat eaters and mainstream medicine are somewhat different than most liberals I know. I'm not immediately figuring out what Sulla might be thinking of with Savage, but his views re monogamy aren't shared by mainstream liberalism. Kos's Taliban thing (too much like Goldberg's Liberal Fascist thing for my taste) certainly isn't.

But a good contrast is how the Dems were portrayed at the '04 convention as compared with Kerry's views. Major disconnect. But Jon seems to see that caricature as mainstream liberalism. It's annoying, in that he could actually talk to people here of other views. But I suppose it's easier to assert what "lefties" think so as to argue against it. So yippee, we supposedly hate Christians. Weird how no one at my church gets that about me.

[ohcomeon]

I don't know about the "right wing" terrorist attacks in Europe but in the US they attack government buidings with day care centers and kill innocents, they attack and kill judges, they kill "abortion doctors" and bomb Planned Parenthood clinics. Where I live I am much more worried about "right wing Christians" with guns than the very few Muslims that live here.

Ms. Hemingway these people are not laughing stocks in much of Texas. They have serious influence in our politics, churches and schools. Take a look at our state textbook committee. You must live in a very lovely utopia where everyone shuns extremisim.

[harkin]

Originally Posted by ohcomeon

Where I live I am much more worried about "right wing Christians" with guns than the very few Muslims that live here.

First, consider the amount of terrorism there is in countries with large muslim populations, intolerance to other religions, honor killings, beheadings, gay hangings, setting the wife on fire, insult to islam killings etc.

Then, add up the number of people killed in the US by 'Christian' terrorists (remember, T McVeigh was an athiest) and compare it to the number of those killed here by muslim terrorists. Then consider the reality if we had 250 million muslims in this country.

Then be thankful about the 'very few' part of your statement.

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by harkin

First, consider the amount of terrorism there is in countries with large muslim populations, intolerance to other religions, honor killings, beheadings, gay hangings, setting the wife on fire, insult to islam killings etc.

Those are not terrorist acts but crimes, and considering the USA has more prisoners than the rest of the world combined, it's hardly in a position to preach.

We have proven to be far more radical and dangerous in our foreign policies, than anything the Muslim world has produced,

[harkin]

Give me a break. This from an article written 2 days after the attack:

You mean that note in the 10th freaking paragraph where they say he might have logged on to islamic websites???? LOL

Read the article again, they never say he is muslim. They do however before your snippet repeatedly manage to tell us how troubled he was, under tremendous pressure, suffering from emotional troubles and 'tensions'. The double standard when compared to the first sentence of the Breivik report is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

Those are not terrorist acts but crimes, and considering the USA has more prisoners than the rest of the world combined, it's hardly in a position to preach.

We have proven to be far more radical and dangerous in our foreign policies, than anything the Muslim world has produced,

Then you agree with Jorn Holm, the security chief of Norway that the USA is "human-rights-violation-country number one"?

I'm not sure Hassan counts under the traditional definition of a terrorist seeing as his target was military. Probably more akin to treason.

Appeasement is alive and well. I guess the odds are pretty high that the next incident at Ft Hood will be militant christians.

Good to see that the Times is maintaining their excellence....the word 'muslim' appears in paragraph nine. Oh yeah and they reference Maj Hasan but once again fail to note his religion.

And you better look up the definition of terrorist. If Hasan's actions weren't terrorism, nothing is.

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by harkin

And you better look up the definition of terrorist. If Hasan's actions weren't terrorism, nothing is.

You seem to have included domestic abuse as terrorism. Let's be clear, Hassan attacked the military, if doing that is terrorism, them we better hope that the US isn't trying to get any Taliban member to flip sides.

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

You seem to have included domestic abuse as terrorism.

It's the result of Islamic attitudes toward women. Did you know that in Islamic law, women count for half as much as men? So women get half as much inheritance as men, and when a women is raped, she needs four men or eight women to testify, or she's in big, big trouble.

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

Let's be clear, Hassan attacked the military,

So you think the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon was not terrorism?

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by apple

It's the result of Islamic attitudes toward women. Did you know that in Islamic law, women count for half as much as men? So women get half as much inheritance as men, and when a women is raped, she needs four men or eight women to testify, or she's in big, big trouble.



So you think the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon was not terrorism?

You are a rather sour apple.

I do wonder if the domestic abuse in America is due to Christianity or secularism, either way it still doesn't count as terrorism. And neither does Hassan's attack, unless you want to call out America for terrorism, as it attempts to use the same tactic in getting Taliban members to defect.

I see a pattern emerging, when a Muslim does something, anything it seems, it is classed as terrorism and because of their religion. When a non-muslim does it, it's excused.

Your knowledge of Islamic law, besides being faulty, is utterly irrelevant.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by apple

It's the result of Islamic attitudes toward women. Did you know that in Islamic law, women count for half as much as men? So women get half as much inheritance as men, and when a women is raped, she needs four men or eight women to testify, or she's in big, big trouble.



So you think the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon was not terrorism?

Didn't civilians die on that plane?

[rcocean]

Originally Posted by apple

It's the result of Islamic attitudes toward women. Did you know that in Islamic law, women count for half as much as men? So women get half as much inheritance as men, and when a women is raped, she needs four men or eight women to testify, or she's in big, big trouble.

Or maybe you're Pam Geller.

Now that's scary.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by ohcomeon

I don't know about the "right wing" terrorist attacks in Europe but in the US they attack government buidings with day care centers and kill innocents, they attack and kill judges, they kill "abortion doctors" and bomb Planned Parenthood clinics. Where I live I am much more worried about "right wing Christians" with guns than the very few Muslims that live here.

Then you're insane. You just described a tiny handful of events over twenty years, of which ONE was a significant terrorist act. Major Hassan probably killed more people in one day than the militant pro-life movement has killed since 1990, if I had to ballpark it.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Then you're insane. You just described a tiny handful of events over twenty years, of which ONE was a significant terrorist act. Major Hassan probably killed more people in one day than the militant pro-life movement has killed since 1990, if I had to ballpark it.

But this is silly. You're saying that one really heinous act by one individual should count more than a wide variety of heinous acts by a variety of people who share a set of beliefs. That logic again makes it insane to worry about violence by Islamic extremists in Norway, because Breivik trumps them.

You're also pretending there wasn't a great deal of coordination among anti-abortion people, and that it wasn't part of a broader attempt to terrorize and intimidate.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

But this is silly. You're saying that one really heinous act by one individual should count more than a wide variety of heinous acts by a variety of people who share a set of beliefs.

One act? There have been HUNDREDS of acts by a variety of people who share a set of beliefs. I'm saying that ONE act by ONE of them already outweighs the "counter example" (Generous term).

That logic again makes it insane to worry about violence by Islamic extremists in Norway, because Breivik trumps them.

Breivik trumps 9/11? The English or Spanish subway bombings? The Bali bombings? Strange.

This event is so shocking because it is so UNLIKELY. It is uncommon. Even the most ardent leftist on this board probably assumed, when news started to trickle in about the attack, that it was a Jihadist action. Why? Because that is more common.

You're also pretending there wasn't a great deal of coordination among anti-abortion people, and that it wasn't part of a broader attempt to terrorize and intimidate.

Yes, I am "pretending" that. Who ordered the execution of George Tiller, Bill O'Reilly?

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Breivik trumps 9/11? The English or Spanish subway bombings? The Bali bombings? Strange.

No. He trumps anything Muslim extremists did in Norway.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Yes, I am "pretending" that. Who ordered the execution of George Tiller, Bill O'Reilly?

I didn't say anything about Bill O'Reilly.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

No. He trumps anything Muslim extremists did in Norway.

Alright, that's fair enough. But I suspect that its a matter of likelyhood. The Scandinavian Right has not been a source of any real trouble until this guy. And if he is a lone nut, it can hardly be a major law enforcement concern.

I didn't say anything about Bill O'Reilly.

To date there have been no charges of anti-abortion extremists acting in concert that I know of.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Alright, that's fair enough. But I suspect that its a matter of likelyhood. The Scandinavian Right has not been a source of any real trouble until this guy. And if he is a lone nut, it can hardly be a major law enforcement concern.

Ditto Hasan, as regards American Muslims.

As to coordination among anti-abortion extremists- you are kidding, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(USA)

Originally Posted by miceelf

Ditto Hasan, as regards American Muslims.

Sulla said: "The Scandinavian Right has not been a source of any real trouble until this guy."

Are you saying that Muslims in America have not been a source of any real trouble? Let me guess, you don't live in New York City.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by apple

Sulla said: "The Scandinavian Right has not been a source of any real trouble until this guy."

Are you saying that Muslims in America have not been a source of any real trouble? Let me guess, you don't live in New York City.

American Muslims.

Which of the 9/11 guys were American?

PS. The logic by which domestic violence, if done by muslims counts as terrorism for you, is truly a work of art. Bravo.

Originally Posted by miceelf

American Muslims.

Which of the 9/11 guys were American?

How many of them were Muslims? Also, your artificial category of "American Muslim" includes enough terrorists. It's definitely not exceptional to see an "American Muslim" (attempt to) commit terrorist attacks.

Originally Posted by miceelf

PS. The logic by which domestic violence, if done by muslims counts as terrorism for you, is truly a work of art. Bravo.

Where did I say that? I merely said that it's a result of Islamic attitudes toward women, like the fact that women count for only half as much as men.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by apple

How many of them were Muslims? Also, your artificial category of "American Muslim" includes enough terrorists. It's definitely not exceptional to see an "American Muslim" (attempt to) commit terrorist attacks.



Where did I say that? I merely said that it's a result of Islamic attitudes toward women, like the fact that women count for only half as much as men.

When you have to resort to non-sequiturs and plain nonsense, you've lost the argument and should acknowledge that. Plainly the 9/11 attackers were not "American Muslims" by any definition that would satisfy an impartial observer.

Originally Posted by AemJeff

When you have to resort to non-sequiturs and plain nonsense, you've lost the argument and should acknowledge that. Plainly the 9/11 attackers were not "American Muslims" by any definition that would satisfy an impartial observer.

See my post. Even though I don't think that there's an important difference between "American Muslims" and "Muslims in America", I was talking about the latter group.

[opposable_crumbs]

This diavlog was interesting, but seemed a little unstructured and seemed to go round in circles a little.

I think Mollie underplays the influence people like Geller and Gaffney have, and I would have liked to see her address more how they have provided a climate for Hermain Cain to say the most silly things, and the push for anti-sharia bills. In addition we have similarly discredited figures, like Walid Shoebat, addressing law enforcement on terrorism, a very worrying and dangerous situation.

One of the drivers for the Geller's of this world is a fealty for Israel. And the sight of right wing fascist groups in Europe hoisting the Star of David is startling to see, especially given the anti-semitic history of their movement.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

This diavlog was interesting, but seemed a little unstructured and seemed to go round in circles a little.

I think Mollie underplays the influence people like Geller and Gaffney have, and I would have liked to see her address more how they have provided a climate for Hermain Cain to say the most silly things, and the push for anti-sharia bills. In addition we have similarly discredited figures, like Walid Shoebat, addressing law enforcement on terrorism, a very worrying and dangerous situation.

One of the drivers for the Geller's of this world is a fealty for Israel. And the sight of right wing fascist groups in Europe hoisting the Star of David is startling to see, especially given the anti-semitic history of their movement.

Mollie not only underplays the influence of Islamophobes, she wants more people like them in the general media. She doesn't think there's enough. The woman is out of her mind.

Originally Posted by Ocean

Mollie not only underplays the influence of Islamophobes, she wants more people like them in the general media. She doesn't think there's enough. The woman is out of her mind.

Mollie calls "Islamophobes" and "bigots", but because she thinks they should be talked to, Ocean says that Mollie is "out of her mind". Don't dare to disagree with Ocean, she'll call you primitive, out of your mind, and God knows whatever words predominate in Northeastern communities of pseudo-intellectuals.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by apple

Mollie calls "Islamophobes" and "bigots", but because she thinks they should be talked to, Ocean says that Mollie is "out of her mind". Don't dare to disagree with Ocean, she'll call you primitive, out of your mind, and God knows whatever words predominate in Northeastern communities of pseudo-intellectuals.

Apple, if you don't have anything substantive to say, refrain. I wasn't talking to you to start with.

Mollie indulges in double talk. She's trying to appear reasonable by conceding a couple of points but there's inconsistency since she's not willing to acknowledge that bigoted speech can only feed into more hatred. Whether that hatred leads to violence or not, it will depend on who takes it in. But the contribution is still there. That's all Wajahat is saying, but she can't admit that's the case. Perhaps it goes against party lines.

She (and you) may think that there hasn't been enough Islamophobic conversation, but there has been plenty. That's why I used the expression that she's out of her mind. What's wrong with that? Is that language too strong? How about you in passing making comments about me, what I say, and the pseudo-intellectuals?

All this hatred against Islam is a distraction from other more tangible problems that we're facing.

Apple, you and your likes love to come to this forum to insult, directly or indirectly other commenters. I'm not interested in playing that game.

Originally Posted by Ocean

Apple, if you don't have anything substantive to say, refrain. I wasn't talking to you to start with.

First of all, what I said was substantive, and the fact that you felt compelled to respond to it substantively demonstrates it. Secondly, I know you weren't talking to me (like opposable_crumbs wasn't talking to you), but I read something that I thought was incorrect, which I had to correct. Inconvenient perhaps, but I don't think you have the right to be outraged that I had the gall to respond to one of your posts.

Originally Posted by Ocean

She (and you) may think that there hasn't been enough Islamophobic conversation, but there has been plenty.

By your standards. Not by my standards. Even Herman Cain retreated on his promise not to appoint Muslims to his cabinet. By any standard, Mollie is on your side. She blasts critics of Islam as "Islamophobes" and bigots, she supports the Ground Zero Mosque. Her one heresy is the fact that she thinks that *some* of the "bigots" have legitimate concerns, so she does not join the apologists for Islam in vilifying and demonizing the "bigots". She actually thinks that the "bigots" should be talked to, not stigmatized. Apparently, that was too much.

Originally Posted by Ocean

That's why I used the expression that she's out of her mind. What's wrong with that? Is that language too strong? How about you in passing making comments about me, what I say, and the pseudo-intellectuals?

That was rather mild, especially compared with you basically calling her crazy. You didn't like it when I called you crazy for better reasons.

Originally Posted by Ocean

All this hatred against Islam is a distraction from other more tangible problems that we're facing.

No, Islam is actually a very tangible problem.

Originally Posted by Ocean

Apple, you and your likes love to come to this forum to insult, directly or indirectly other commenters. I'm not interested in playing that game.

No, actually, *this* is an insult, and what you said about Mollie is an insult. But go ahead, you can insult me all you like, I really don't care. You are under no obligation to like me.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by apple

No, Islam is actually a very tangible problem.

WAY overbroad.

Originally Posted by sugarkang

WAY overbroad.

I disagree.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by apple

First of all, what I said was substantive, and the fact that you felt compelled to respond to it substantively demonstrates it. Secondly, I know you weren't talking to me (like opposable_crumbs wasn't talking to you), but I read something that I thought was incorrect, which I had to correct. Inconvenient perhaps, but I don't think you have the right to be outraged that I had the gall to respond to one of your posts.

Your last sentence is unnecessary. You're using a pitiful tactic.

By your standards. Not by my standards. Even Herman Cain retreated on his promise not to appoint Muslims to his cabinet. By any standard, Mollie is on your side. She blasts critics of Islam as "Islamophobes" and bigots, she supports the Ground Zero Mosque. Her one heresy is the fact that she thinks that *some* of the "bigots" have legitimate concerns, so she does not join the apologists for Islam in vilifying and demonizing the "bigots". She actually thinks that the "bigots" should be talked to, not stigmatized. Apparently, that was too much.

I can assure that Mollie's position isn't mine. Her way of framing the problem is very different. Her assumption is that there isn't enough Islamophobic talk. My position is that there's too much. She states that Islamophobia hasn't been discussed in the open. I've seen Islamophobia (anti-Muslim ideas) all over the media and the political spectrum. For god's sake, states are passing anti-sharia legislation as if Islam is hiding behind every rock and will take over this country any moment. Enough hysteria already!

Your repeated mistake is to call "apologist for Islam" anyone who condemns Islamophobia. I gather that you weren't around when we were discussing topics related to burqas and the treatment of women under fundamentalist Islam. Otherwise, you would know that it's possible to condemn anti-Muslim bigotry and the barbaric practices of fundamentalist Islam.

That was rather mild, especially compared with you basically calling her crazy. You didn't like it when I called you crazy for better reasons.

So "out of one's mind" is out of bounds to qualify a crazy idea that a diavlogger presents?

Of course, I don't like when others call me crazy. But I don't get fainting spells because of it. I just corrected you and told you I wasn't crazy. What would you suggest someone else to do when they're called crazy?

No, Islam is actually a very tangible problem.

Religious fundamentalism, including fundamentalist Islam is a problem. However, it is the obsession with the problem and the inability to see the difference between the acts of terrorists, the practices of radical fundamentalists and the vast majority of Muslims, that bothers many of us.

No, actually, *this* is an insult, and what you said about Mollie is an insult. But go ahead, you can insult me all you like, I really don't care. You are under no obligation to like me.

When diavloggers come here to present their ideas it is to be expected that some people will disagree and will express that disagreement is whatever ways they see fit.

I'm not making general statements about Mollie's character, life or sympathies. I'm not directing at her any negative qualifications except to point out that one of the ideas she presented seemed off. At other times I have been more critical of commenters, and I may do the same in the future. It just so happens that this time, my observation was rather mild.

I actually have more of a problem when people like you start to hound other commenters. That's why I said that I wasn't talking to you. My comment was generic and intended to the general ideas that were being communicated in the diavlog.

Originally Posted by Ocean

Your last sentence is unnecessary. You're using a pitiful tactic.

Pitiful? Is that all you've got? You used to call me regressive and primitive.

Originally Posted by Ocean

I can assure that Mollie's position isn't mine. Her way of framing the problem is very different. Her assumption is that there isn't enough Islamophobic talk. My position is that there's too much.

And here's what you do not (want to) understand: Mollie dislikes Islamo-realists like me as much as you do. The only difference is tactical. You may think that there's too much Islamo-realism, but you can't legally shut us up. Very sad. So what do you propose be done? According to Mollie, the best way to combat Islamo-realists is as follows: take us seriously, take our concerns seriously, have a serious debate, so that we get the feeling that we're being taken seriously. According to Mollie, not doing that will make us even more resentful, and open more people among Islamo-realists to actions like Breivik's.

Originally Posted by Ocean

She states that Islamophobia hasn't been discussed in the open. I've seen Islamophobia (anti-Muslim ideas) all over the media and the political spectrum. For god's sake, states are passing anti-sharia legislation as if Islam is hiding behind every rock and will take over this country any moment. Enough hysteria already!

Actually, the only hysteria is coming from the Muslims and their apologists. If you criticize Islam, it means that you're worse than Hitler. You're stupid, ignorant, primitive. Leftists will call you every name in the book, in an attempt to shut you up.

Originally Posted by Ocean

Your repeated mistake is to call "apologist for Islam" anyone who condemns Islamophobia. I gather that you weren't around when we were discussing topics related to burqas and the treatment of women under fundamentalist Islam. Otherwise, you would know that it's possible to condemn anti-Muslim bigotry and the barbaric practices of fundamentalist Islam.

Why? Why is condemning the "barbaric practices" of fundamentalist Islam not anti-Muslim bigotry? Can you define "anti-Muslim bigotry" and give several examples?

Originally Posted by Ocean

So "out of one's mind" is out of bounds to qualify a crazy idea that a diavlogger presents?

Actually, you were not talking about any idea of hers, you said that *she* is out of her mind.

Originally Posted by Ocean

Of course, I don't like when others call me crazy. But I don't get fainting spells because of it. I just corrected you and told you I wasn't crazy. What would you suggest someone else to do when they're called crazy?

How about doing what I do: just laugh.

Originally Posted by Ocean

Religious fundamentalism, including fundamentalist Islam is a problem.

Why?

Originally Posted by Ocean

However, it is the obsession with the problem and the inability to see the difference between the acts of terrorists, the practices of radical fundamentalists and the vast majority of Muslims, that bothers many of us.

The vast majority of Muslims:

Originally Posted by Ocean

I actually have more of a problem when people like you start to hound other commenters. That's why I said that I wasn't talking to you. My comment was generic and intended to the general ideas that were being communicated in the diavlog.

Is there some sort of rule of "speak only if spoken to", Duchess Ocean? I do not hound anyone. I respond to ridiculous comments, regardless of whether they are yours, or anybody else's. You're the only one who takes offense at that. *No one* else says: "I wasn't talking to you". It's weird, and makes you sound extremely uptight, like you've never had any fun in your entire life.