Previous  1  2  3  Next

Tell that to everyone who's had to go play in the sandbox.

   

The US and Canada are countries. As for military, Iraq was totally self-inflicted, and so was most of Astan when it changed from destroying Al-Qeda to fruitlesss nation building. Could have saved a lot of American and Canadians lives if the countries of US and Canada had been smarter about what they got up to.

   

Semantics, it's effectively the same thing in this context.
I'm talking about the joke in the OP, not Maher specically (I actually like Maher in general) Which may make 3 and 4 moot. Besides what is the statistical correlation: do you have the numbers, i.e. what % are terrorist or terrorist supporters?

Not quite that cut and dry. For example, Al Qaeda is fighting Al Assad in Syria. Many who lived under Assad's brutality hate him more than they hate Al Qaeda (at least for now). This is especially true of Hezbollah supporters, who have more reason to hate Israel (and the US for supporting Israel) than Hezbollah. To paraphrase the boxer Mohammad Ali's comments on Vietnam, "No Hezbollah never called them a nigger".

So just like Maggie Thatcher gets a pass for crawling into bed with Pinochet because "she had to play hardball", many middle easterners, who play in the toughest hardball league in the world, have to pick and chose who they tolerate also. Can we expect the everyday non-terrorist citizens abroad to put the West's problems ahead of their own immediate needs, and risk their own safety doing so, when nobody else in world history has ever done so? Are Syrians supposed to side with Assad against Al Qaeda because that's in America's interest right now? Should Egyptians have supported the Mubarak regime's continued oppression to make life easier for Westerners leery of the Muslim Brotherhood?

EDIT: To reiterate, I'm not condoning terrorism or even the support of terrorism, but rather pointing out that not everything in this world is about evil muslims who hate us.

   

I have as much trouble referring to "muslim terrorists" as Muslim as I do referring to those Westboro goons as Christian. Just sayin'.

   

We're always stuck with this equivalency argument... "Others do it too, so there's no difference, no special worry."

Well there is a difference when terrorist acts (and support for terrorist acts) come predominantly from one root cause. When you ally that to demands that women be treated as chattels, that men have a right to dominate, that impugned honour confers the right to kill and maim, and all sorts of other things, is it any wonder that we in Western society are more suspicious of one particular group than any other?

   

I don't know the numbers. But I'm certain that they'd bear out the hypothesis that most terrorists are Muslims. But even if I'm wrong on that point, the Muslim record on a dozen other human rights issues besides terrorism makes Islam worthy of my ridicule and disdain.

   

Simply because you have trouble with it doesn't make it any less true. Religion is one of the most powerful motivators out there.

That being said not all religions have the same level of moral wealth. Christianity today isn't the same beast it was a few hundred years ago.
They just ignore the violent and disgusting parts of the book now.

The problem is Islam doesn't.

   

I'm certain that the numbers would bear out that most child molesters are men. Are we all worthy of disdain?

Re: human rights, look at any number of cultures outside of the western world and see how great they are there. China is no human rights leader. Neither is Rwanda, Russia, Cambodia, Sierra Leone, Liberia or most Latin American, the list goes on and on. The problem is the non-western world has not had its own age of enlightenment, something that is not too far in our own past, and cannot develop in absence of economic prosperity.

   

No, but as a rule men have to be more careful of what they say and do around women and children than women do, because suspicion (and false accusation too) falls more easily on them.

For example, as a male teacher I always felt that I had to protect myself more than the women on staff from situations where I might deal with individual students, particularly girls, in a one-to-one setting. Leaving the classroom door open, dealing where I could in a more open setting, things like that; it became second nature.

It's a matter of percentages, and the higher the percentages, the more attitudes are coloured by them.

Now if a higher percentage of terrorist acts are planned or carried out by people who belong to certain identifiable groups, it shouldn't be surprising that these groups attract more attention, wariness, suspicion, and yes intolerance than other groups.

   

Fair enough, I don't have any problem with what you've said here, to an extent (as I'm sure there is an extent to which you tolerate wariness of men). None of that makes the joke in the OP acceptable in my books.

Intolerance may be inevitable given the circumstances, but just because it's expected doesn't mean it shouldn't be accepted.

   

I see that joke as an over-reaction, born out of frustration that things often seem too one-sided.



As a general principle, I agree. When I deal with people face to face there is a point beyond which I feel uncomfortable when the stereotypes are too harsh. But I've learned that for me it's better to turn away than to argue. People seldom, if ever, change an ingrained attitude.

However I don't doubt that if I saw someone bullied by an intolerant attitude, I would speak out. Nobody deserves that, unless by their words or actions they first bring it upon themselves.

   

But by not saying something, you're tacitly approving those attitudes and the person saying those things assumes you agree with him. I don't start an argument with people in real life, but I'll usually say something to indicate that I don't agree.

   

I was being brief; trying to encapsulate. It all depends on the situation. Yes, I might say I don't agree and leave it at that.

Body language, or pointedly ignoring an invitation to agree, can be effective as well.

   

Nonsense. History has shown again and again, no matter the religion, if someone truly believes they are doing God's work, they can be capable of some of the most horrible acts of murder and/or brutality imaginable.
There have been more than a few moments of shame for Christianity over the last few decades.
Maybe not on the same scale of violence or level of barbarism as other religions, but still no less deplorable.

   

People are also willing to resort to these acts for other causes - patriotic nationalism for example. The Rwanda genocide for example wasn't religiously motivated. Also, look at the number of westerners willing to support (or at least tolerate) torture, simply because they want to see the enemy get his comeuppance.

   

Previous  1  2  3  Next