More Americans died from Dog Bites, then from Terrorism-Rising anti-Muslim rhetoric?

Riz Khan - Rising anti-Muslim rhetoric?

Found this interesting seeing that it was all over CNN today. I know this might start a lively debate but I'm curious as to what people think.

It has just been posted today and looks like it will have a significant # of views judging by the speed with which it is taking off.

While you may think this dog thing is not an issue I tend to disagree.

I suggest we put all dogs that venture into public parks through a body scanner. If said dog refuses I suggest doing a full body pat down. If the dog is a Rottweiler, German shepherd or Pitbull it will be mandatory to give it a complete body shave to find and WMD's

This IS SERIOUS!

Originally posted by Kargun
While you may think this dog thing is not an issue I tend to disagree.

I suggest we put all dogs that venture into public parks through a body scanner. If said dog refuses I suggest doing a full body pat down. If the dog is a Rottweiler, German shepherd or Pitbull it will be mandatory to give it a complete body shave to find and WMD's

This IS SERIOUS!

Oh believe me, It is a HUGE issue! I just intended to start the thread without forcing my own opinion strongly at first. I believe it allows for people to feel comfortable about posting their own without a biased view at the start.

I was shocked at what I saw today BTW.

I agree OP , more people are killed by dogs, even bee's for that matter than terrorist's.Even of more concern is more people die every year from local law enforcement , that has got to get people thinking ! So how can you justify the loss of liberty .Have not watched the clip yet but I will now .From what I gather from other responses ,is that they are ramping up the Anti muslim sentiment to get our youth and uneducated fired up too die in the middle East .I think we all know it is comming , with recent events .Enough already .

And they say dogs are man's best friend.

Originally posted by 13th Zodiac
I agree OP , more people are killed by dogs, even bee's for that matter than terrorist's.Even of more concern is more people die every year from local law enforcement , that has got to get people thinking ! So how can you justify the loss of liberty .Have not watched the clip yet but I will now .From what I gather from other responses ,is that they are ramping up the Anti muslim sentiment to get our youth and uneducated fired up too die in the middle East .I think we all know it is comming , with recent events .Enough already .

edit on 10-3-2011 by 13th Zodiac because: (no reason given)

From what I seen on the news today and now this video, It makes me fearful for what is coming to our streets. I truly hope that people see the Hate Mongering being laid out by their own leaders and start to see where the real problems lie.

This WILL create more fear tho. And with that, "Please take away more of our liberties so we can feel safe!"

We can't be that stupid!

I posted this on another thread earlier.

It is like I can already hear Glen Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, and others calling for anger against the Muslim world. If more countries succeed in forming new governments after rebelling against Western propped up dictators what will happen? Most likely US controlled media will portray these revolutions as completely driven by a desire to create an Islamic world. American's will begin to feel they are threatened, and will support large scale wars.

Some people in the Middle East do desire an Islamic world. This long history is clear from the OP. I am arguing the majority of recent Islamic outrage is from decades of repression from foreign military and economic power. This anger often wears the garment of the Islamic faith, but without the underlying political and economic issues would not exist. As the revolutions against Western dominated economic and political systems grows so the movement will be moved into a more religious direction. Both in the West and the Muslim world radicals will guide the dialogues. As a result a clash of civilizations will occur.

The clash of civilizations has been discussed for a century at least.(Huntington: Clash of Civilizations)

In recent years since 2001 it has increasingly come to prominence again. The War on Terror is often portrayed as a clash of civilizations.


The War on Terror and the Clash of civilization.
Thus, ‘clash of civilizations’ rhetoric is intertwined with the very language of the
‘war on terror’. Rumsfeld – a leading advocate of US involvement in the ‘war on
terror’ – believed that there were just a small handful of (well-off, Western)
nations that could be trusted not to covet the commodities and “lives” of others.

In his speech to Congress on 19 September, 2001, for example, Bush outlined his
vision for the ‘war on terror’ stating, “[t]his is civilization’s fight.”18 Whilst the
US government may have seemingly sought to avoid the notion of a clash
between ‘Islam’ and ‘the West’, the rhetoric of ‘civilizations’ still crept into its
dialogue.

This struggle has been called a clash of civilizations. In truth, it is a struggle for civilization.
George W. Bush 2006 State of the Union


The concept of clashing civilizations, then, is deeply ingrained in the thought
structures of Western diplomats, scholars, intelligence analysts, officials and
Presidents. Such language points to a dangerous state of affairs; it removes from
the equation the possibility that Islamic militancy may have its own political and
strategic aims beyond a desire to destroy our more modern, superior ‘Western
civilization,’ and implies the need for all-out warfare to combat this threat. But
this rhetoric cuts both ways. The implication that civilizations are at war also
plays into the hands of the al-Qaeda leadership, providing an ‘us versus them’
discourse which serves to boost recruitment and commitment to the cause.



What does this mean? We are heading toward a conflict on a global scale. It seems that the stage is set, and I am watching the actors get into place in slow motion. The emotion in the video is why I began with it. I am watching the pieces placed for a giant clash that in my opinion is avoidable.

I do not believe it to be a natural progression. I cannot prove this, and it is difficult to speculate on. The global catastrophes necessary for a one world government must be tremendous. People will have to suffer on a scale where we demand an institution to ensure it never happens again. I have heard many people discuss that the NWO will create a war with the Islamic World. Forces in both sides will foster the environment for it to happen. I think if the US limited the economic colonization, and the Muslim world gave the people more voice the Islamic revolution would fall from favor. The only thing that unites the disparate Muslims in an attempt to create a world Caliphate is the injustices persecuted against them. If you remove economic and political tyranny it would remove the backbone of anger necessary to fuel an Islamic caliphate.

reply to post by jude11


I love my Labrador.

Now I guess that DHS and Big Sis will put their "See Something Say Something in all the Dog Kennels across the nation!! Well, my dogs will never say anything, no matter what!!!

On Topic, The terrorist issue is way out of hand and has been for a while now. It's not about protecting us, it is all about CONTROLLING us!!!

Originally posted by stephinrazin
I posted this on another thread earlier.

It is like I can already hear Glen Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, and others calling for anger against the Muslim world. If more countries succeed in forming new governments after rebelling against Western propped up dictators what will happen? Most likely US controlled media will portray these revolutions as completely driven by a desire to create an Islamic world. American's will begin to feel they are threatened, and will support large scale wars.

Some people in the Middle East do desire an Islamic world. This long history is clear from the OP. I am arguing the majority of recent Islamic outrage is from decades of repression from foreign military and economic power. This anger often wears the garment of the Islamic faith, but without the underlying political and economic issues would not exist. As the revolutions against Western dominated economic and political systems grows so the movement will be moved into a more religious direction. Both in the West and the Muslim world radicals will guide the dialogues. As a result a clash of civilizations will occur.

The clash of civilizations has been discussed for a century at least.(Huntington: Clash of Civilizations)

In recent years since 2001 it has increasingly come to prominence again. The War on Terror is often portrayed as a clash of civilizations.


The War on Terror and the Clash of civilization.
Thus, ‘clash of civilizations’ rhetoric is intertwined with the very language of the
‘war on terror’. Rumsfeld – a leading advocate of US involvement in the ‘war on
terror’ – believed that there were just a small handful of (well-off, Western)
nations that could be trusted not to covet the commodities and “lives” of others.

In his speech to Congress on 19 September, 2001, for example, Bush outlined his
vision for the ‘war on terror’ stating, “[t]his is civilization’s fight.”18 Whilst the
US government may have seemingly sought to avoid the notion of a clash
between ‘Islam’ and ‘the West’, the rhetoric of ‘civilizations’ still crept into its
dialogue.

This struggle has been called a clash of civilizations. In truth, it is a struggle for civilization.
George W. Bush 2006 State of the Union


The concept of clashing civilizations, then, is deeply ingrained in the thought
structures of Western diplomats, scholars, intelligence analysts, officials and
Presidents. Such language points to a dangerous state of affairs; it removes from
the equation the possibility that Islamic militancy may have its own political and
strategic aims beyond a desire to destroy our more modern, superior ‘Western
civilization,’ and implies the need for all-out warfare to combat this threat. But
this rhetoric cuts both ways. The implication that civilizations are at war also
plays into the hands of the al-Qaeda leadership, providing an ‘us versus them’
discourse which serves to boost recruitment and commitment to the cause.



What does this mean? We are heading toward a conflict on a global scale. It seems that the stage is set, and I am watching the actors get into place in slow motion. The emotion in the video is why I began with it. I am watching the pieces placed for a giant clash that in my opinion is avoidable.

I do not believe it to be a natural progression. I cannot prove this, and it is difficult to speculate on. The global catastrophes necessary for a one world government must be tremendous. People will have to suffer on a scale where we demand an institution to ensure it never happens again. I have heard many people discuss that the NWO will create a war with the Islamic World. Forces in both sides will foster the environment for it to happen. I think if the US limited the economic colonization, and the Muslim world gave the people more voice the Islamic revolution would fall from favor. The only thing that unites the disparate Muslims in an attempt to create a world Caliphate is the injustices persecuted against them. If you remove economic and political tyranny it would remove the backbone of anger necessary to fuel an Islamic caliphate.

Thank you for a very insightful post.

Today, in my opinion, was the day that a line was drawn in the sand. It has become quite clear that TPTB are willing to ignite a World War in order to attain the end result of the NWO.

As to your point of SOME people in the Mid East desiring an Islamic World, it is also clear that the other end of the spectrum that SOME people in the West want their ideals on a global scale as well.

It has never worked in history that varying cultures, creeds, races, religions etc can co-exist for an extended period of time. It eventually comes to a boil but this time, it's being implanted for gain and not just intolerance. That's the difference..

Originally posted by Pinkgomo653
reply to post by jude11

 

I love my Labrador.

That's allowed...as long as it's not a Labradoodle! Sorry, I'm just intolerant that way.

reply to post by jude11


Haha no. He's a pure pain in the ass, loveable Labrador.

How about in Iraq or Afghanistan? Did more people die of dog bites or bee stings than radical islam?

IRM

Originally posted by Pinkgomo653
reply to post by jude11

 

Haha no. He's a pure pain in the ass, loveable Labrador.

Ok then, I will allow you to enter my land,

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
How about in Iraq or Afghanistan? Did more people die of dog bites or bee stings than radical islam?

IRM

The video does have a reference to that but it's the content that's important.

reply to post by jude11


I don't fear terrorists anymore than I do getting stung by a bee. Some may say that would be considered an ignorant remark, but it's true.

Originally posted by Pinkgomo653
reply to post by jude11

 

I don't fear terrorists anymore than I do getting stung by a bee. Some may say that would be considered an ignorant remark, but it's true.

Not ignorant at all. I'm allergic to bees.

I agree that the United States and other nations in the western world have been supporting repressive regimes in the middle east for decades under the argument of "supporting stability in the region". Having done this for so long and, finally, no longer supporting those same regimes, has contributed greatly in the current unrest in the region. Worse, for us at least, is the fact that the oil speculation caused by the unrest has driven up prices of fuel to the point that it's now threatening to cause major economic disruption. In addition, our further military involvement in the region over the past decade has caused even more anti american and anti-west sentiment in the region, giving terrorist organizations the grist for the mill that they need.

What does this have to do with how many people get bitten by dogs each year?

Nothing. Unless dogs suddenly gain the ability to form a religion that will dominate a region with a vast supply of a resource that the western world cannot function without. Then, I'm sure that congress will be holding hearings on the radicalization of poodles. As it is, congress is doing something that, though offensive to a certain percentage of the pubic, is actually important to national defense. I would support hearings on the issues of radicalization if the subject were Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, Sikhs or Wiccans. If people start making statements that all Muslims are radical or if preparations begin to have all Muslims moved to concentration camps, I will stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone opposing it. Until that happens, I will hope that the people elected by the people of the US will have some common sense and look into the actual threat and steer away from stereotypes and prejudices.

Thank god dogs can't fly planes, genitally mutate young females, make bombs, indoctrinate venerable youths, force young teens to marry old men, spout hate speech, honor kill daughters, and the like or we would all be fooked!

MABY THE MUSLIM RADICALS PUT THE DOGS UP TO IT.....