reply to post by Mykahel
Originally posted by Mykahel
Yeah. You're right. I don't get how vandalizing an empty building is the same as blowing up a church and killing 20+ people as a result.
Oh, so you moved your goalposts back from "burning down mosques" (which I showed you examples of) to "physical harm on muslims" (which I again showed
you examples of), and now to "blowing up a mosque and killing 20+ people"? I could provide more links, but I get the feeling that you wouldn't read
them either. Seems odd I am doing so anyway, because YOU are the one who has been making unsubstantiated claims so far, and I am the one who has been
providing links to disprove them. How many recent examples can you find of muslims "blowing up a church and killing 20+ people as result"?
Originally posted by Mykahel
I guess it wasn't clear that I also condemn the vandalism and attacks against Muslims, so here, I'll say it clearly so you'll understand.
"It is wrong to vandalize ANYBODY'S property and is even worse to attack or kill ANYONE."
Of course it is. I wasn't seriously suggesting that you condone these attacks. I was just trying to explain a point:
Just because muslims don't spend every second breath condemning violent attacks so as to satisfy some bigoted assumption of complicity, doesn't
mean they condone them. They condemn them as well.
Again I say, perhaps you missed my second post in this thread where I linked to hundreds and hundreds of high profile muslim "leaders of the
community" and organisations that spoke out and condemned terrorism? I say again,
there is no majority that is condoning the violent actions of
extremists through silence. This is a myth.
Or at the very least, it is no different from any other group. Which brings this back to my original question: Why aren't they all held to the same
standard?
Originally posted by Mykahel
I doubt you read the first set, otherwise you wouldn't have linked to so many stories where the vandalism was condemned by the Christians and Jews,
nor would you have linked to a mosque burning down when there has been no conclusion as to what caused it and the Christian community reached out to
help so tremendously.
As far as Christian and Jews being the ones to instigate attacks and the Muslim community reaching out to help, they're the exception, not the
rule.
What, so it doesn't count if a christian burns down a mosque if another christian (in only one of the links, I don't know where you got the
"overwhelming" idea) helps to set it up again? What has the fact that others jumped in to help have to do with anything? All it shows is what I've
been trying to say all along.
There are all sorts of people, who do all sorts of good and bad things, regardless of what religion they are.
It is a fairly weird claim to make that I don't read the links I myself provide. Perhaps you are applying assumptions based on your MO on me? i.e.
that you go to anti-islam websites, copy their links and paste them here?
Originally posted by Mykahel
Also, you claim my website links are biased. Like any link provided by anyone isn't?
You ask about unbiased websites. If you notice, all my links were actual news articles from generally well respected news sources, not ONE website
with an obvious agenda, regular errors (erring to the side of more numbers) and bigotry flowing out of the pages.
The second link you provided is also an example of a biased and compromised source (the bigotry of the viewpoint that the only good muslim is a person
who isn't a muslim is another issue).
Familysecuritypolicy.org has had its share of controversies because of their bigoted and extreme views. It's contributing editors are associated with
the racist EDL party, they've had dozens of absurd articles (such as one which called for making Bush president for life and removing all arabs from
Iraq and replacing them with Americans), some of which had such a huge backlash that they had to be removed. It is a front for the Center for Security
Policy, which has funded several other racist and bigoted organisations, and with members in relatively high positions who have been linked to
instances of providing classified information to Israel, receiving payments from Israeli weapons manufacturers, bribery, and pedaling islamophobic
misinformation with the view towards miltaristic interventionism in the Middle East for the benefit of Israel. It was (along with several of its
fronts) referenced heavily as the inspiration for Anders Brevik's attack. This is a group so right-wing that other conservatives are tired of it for
constantly attacking it.
So yeah, biased.
Originally posted by Mykahel
Lastly, I find it kind of odd that you yourself haven't condemned any of the attacks I've mentioned against Christians. If you have, I sure haven't
noticed it. I guess its ok to blow them up though so long as they don't prevent random drunk kids from spraying graffiti on Muslim property.
From my general posting history, you can clearly see how I have always condemned such acts of violence (and from your posting history, I can clearly
see that you have always made excuses for Christian acts of violence. Congratulations on breaking the mould). HOWEVER, the difference here in this
thread is that I wasn't making excuses for them.
They do bad things, that is undeniable. So do other groups. WHY AREN'T THEY HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD?
edit on 16-3-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)