A Muslim Brit nails it again on the New Zealand attack

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No,I get grief for stating it.

Because of your reasons for stating it, which are pretty clear in the context of the discussion in which you state it.

Example 1:

Someone claims all muslims are terrorists. You state that they are not. You won't get grief for that from a rational person.

Example 2:

The discussion is about the global problem fundamentalist Islam poses,and that it needs to be reformed from within and from without by both rational people and by moderatemuslims. You reflexively blurt out, "not all muslims are terrorists!"

Rational people should give you grief for that red herring and for your efforts to shield an bronze age set of bad ideas from criticism.

As these examples show, one does not have to ask your for your motivations, in either case. They will rightfully and naturally be assumed.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

No,I get grief for stating it.

Because of your reasons for stating it, which are pretty clear in the context of the discussion in which you state it.

Example 1:

Someone claims all muslims are terrorists. You state that they are not. You won't get grief for that from a rational person.

Example 2:

The discussion is about the global problem fundamentalist Islam poses,and that it needs to be reformed from within and from without by both rational people and by moderatemuslims. You reflexively blurt out, "not all muslims are terrorists!"

Rational people should give you grief for that red herring and for your efforts to shield an bronze age set of bad ideas from criticism.

As these examples show, one does not have to ask your for your motivations, in either case. They will rightfully and naturally be assumed.

I dont think I have seen a discussion like example 2.

 

[RealDave]

I quote Maajid Nawaz regularly here. He is the liberal Muslim Brit who coined the term "Regressive Left", horrified by the way many on the Left make a bad situation worse by coddling the worst elements of Islam in the West. Mr. Nawaz can see both sides of this issue. I know being able to see both sides of an issue is not considered a good thing here.

He risks his life every day, pushing for reform of his beloved religion. He was assaulted, again, just the other day (I suspect he'll be attacked here, too - that's how they operate). Here's his take on the predictable madness that has followed the New Zealand attack.

The New Zealand Mosque Massacre Blame Game Is Out of Control

LONDON—The anti-Muslim terrorist attack at two mosques in New Zealand marked perhaps the lowest point for Muslim communities in the West since the Bosnia genocide. It has left no doubt that far-right extremism is on the march once more.

But the sheer human tragedy of this attack against my Muslim communities has not deterred extremists from those other two ends of our political spectrum, the far left and the theocratic Islamists, from seeking to exploit it for their own nefarious purposes.

So it is with no surprise that I noticed, a mere day after 50 of my fellow Muslims were so publicly and tragically killed, while the blood was still wet and the bodies remained unburied, that the ideologues had circled like vultures. Opportunistic Islamist and far-left extremists began calling for a purge of people whose politics they disagree with, and started publishing McCarthyite lists of personae non grata to target. Few have come under fiercer assault than my friend and collaborator in dialogue, Sam Harris. The following spectacle has been incredibly unedifying.

Of course, inflammatory anti-Muslim language must be condemned by us all, and many anti-Muslim provocateurs should take a hard look at themselves after New Zealand, just as we must condemn inflammatory Islamist and far-left language. That is different, though, from trying to silence an entire policy concern like Western foreign policy or opposing immigration and critiquing Islam respectively. Only the extremists wish to shut down debate. And so it is crucial that we do not respond to far-right extremism in such a way that we inadvertently empower extremists from other ends of the political spectrum. Terrorists prefer the bullet to the ballot. Let us not become pawns in their game.
.

Being able to see both sides doesn't mean you can't have an opinion.
I don't like seeing anyone attacking innocent Muslims....but I also cannot handle the whining Muslims who feel they were personally attacked when they live 8000 miles away from the attack, and try to use this typically Islamic martyrdom complex to claim the right to attack others.

9-11? So much anti_Muslimism stems from 9-11. Are these people whiners too?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I dont think I have seen a discussion like example 2.

Weird, since you are in one right now

 

[Olde Europe]

Rational people should give you grief for that red herring and for your efforts to shield an bronze age set of bad ideas from criticism.

As these examples show, one does not have to ask your for your motivations, in either case. They will rightfully and naturally be assumed.

Hey, Muslims! You are following "an [sic] bronze age set of bad ideas". Reform already, we'll tell you how!

We will "rightfully and naturally" assume you are just another White supremacist who doesn't know anything about anything, but still knows better.

 

[Mac1958]

 

[Tehon]

So you are not at all interested in having a dialogue. Only in casting aspersions that you feel no need to defend.

You feel that you are the sole arbiter of defining Western liberal values. You feel comfortable with it because you have heard others speak of them.

Yet, I am supposedly the trained monkey.

I am willing to have this debate. You and Dogmaphobe are the ones trying to silence the debate.

I will leave you with this quote from Nawaz, one more time. Maybe it will begin to sink in.

"Let us continue to debate all the hot issues in defiance. But in doing so there is one principle I would ask that we all remember: just as no idea should be above scrutiny, no person should be beneath dignity. If this line between critiquing ideas and seeking to humiliate people is not drawn clearly, any one of us could become the next Chelsea Clinton."

Well, there are some nice straw men. You sure do complain about me a lot. As for me, I'm happy to defend your right to say anything you want.

My interest is in behaviors and motivations. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything on this topic.

And on this topic, I'm fascinated to find out why supposed "liberals" have chosen to align themselves with the most illiberal, authoritarian religion on the planet.

I'd love to talk about that, if you'd be willing to offer some ideas.
.

To align means to be in agreement with. You have previously defined this agreement in terms of foreign policy. Is that what you mean?

Or do you mean it in terms of religious doctrine? Something else?

Thats a great question. I would also add that I would like to see some examples of this alignment.

Don't hold your breath.

This thread isn't a discussion. We're all here to prove how smart the OP is and nothing is going to hamper that.

I get a lot of grief on here for stating that not all Muslims are terrorists. Does stating a fact make me "aligned" ?

Maybe it is just a matter of context.
Stating it as fact doesn't generally make you aligned. But if you do it in the context of challenging an islamaphobe, then you are guilty.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Well, there are some nice straw men. You sure do complain about me a lot. As for me, I'm happy to defend your right to say anything you want.

My interest is in behaviors and motivations. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything on this topic.

And on this topic, I'm fascinated to find out why supposed "liberals" have chosen to align themselves with the most illiberal, authoritarian religion on the planet.

I'd love to talk about that, if you'd be willing to offer some ideas.
.

To align means to be in agreement with. You have previously defined this agreement in terms of foreign policy. Is that what you mean?

Or do you mean it in terms of religious doctrine? Something else?

Thats a great question. I would also add that I would like to see some examples of this alignment.

Don't hold your breath.

This thread isn't a discussion. We're all here to prove how smart the OP is and nothing is going to hamper that.

I get a lot of grief on here for stating that not all Muslims are terrorists. Does stating a fact make me "aligned" ?

Maybe it is just a matter of context.
Stating it as fact doesn't generally make you aligned. But if you do it in the context of challenging an islamaphobe, then you are guilty.

To be fair the majority of them are out and out racist trash. I would be upset if they werent upset.There doesnt seem to be a possibility of a debate on here when the agenda is set by the underclass.

 

[Mac1958]

Two of my favorite thinkers, Maajid Nawaz and Sam Harris (my third would be Christopher Hitchens, rest in peace Hitch, you're missed): A Muslim and an Atheist who are actually trying to improve things instead of enabling hatred:
.
The End of Tolerance

The essential dialogue that Nawaz and Harris invite us to have is about more than the first part of the film title suggests. It is about the principles of pluralist liberal democracy, the ability to have a friendly and cooperative disagreement, and the courage to speak — out loud — about highly charged topics of all kinds—across cultures, across ideologies, and across other divides.

Okay Regressives, start insulting them. Again. It's who you are.
.

 

[Tehon]

Two of my favorite thinkers, Maajid Nawaz and Sam Harris (my third would be Christopher Hitchens, rest in peace Hitch, you're missed): A Muslim and an Atheist who are actually trying to improve things instead of enabling hatred:
.
The End of Tolerance

The essential dialogue that Nawaz and Harris invite us to have is about more than the first part of the film title suggests. It is about the principles of pluralist liberal democracy, the ability to have a friendly and cooperative disagreement, and the courage to speak — out loud — about highly charged topics of all kinds—across cultures, across ideologies, and across other divides.

Okay Regressives, start insulting them. Again.
.

Without them, who would do your thinking?

 

[Mac1958]

Two of my favorite thinkers, Maajid Nawaz and Sam Harris (my third would be Christopher Hitchens, rest in peace Hitch, you're missed): A Muslim and an Atheist who are actually trying to improve things instead of enabling hatred:
.
The End of Tolerance

The essential dialogue that Nawaz and Harris invite us to have is about more than the first part of the film title suggests. It is about the principles of pluralist liberal democracy, the ability to have a friendly and cooperative disagreement, and the courage to speak — out loud — about highly charged topics of all kinds—across cultures, across ideologies, and across other divides.

Okay Regressives, start insulting them. Again.
.

Without them, who would do your thinking?

Right on cue, thanks.
.

 

[Tehon]

Two of my favorite thinkers, Maajid Nawaz and Sam Harris (my third would be Christopher Hitchens, rest in peace Hitch, you're missed): A Muslim and an Atheist who are actually trying to improve things instead of enabling hatred:
.
The End of Tolerance

The essential dialogue that Nawaz and Harris invite us to have is about more than the first part of the film title suggests. It is about the principles of pluralist liberal democracy, the ability to have a friendly and cooperative disagreement, and the courage to speak — out loud — about highly charged topics of all kinds—across cultures, across ideologies, and across other divides.

Okay Regressives, start insulting them. Again.
.

Without them, who would do your thinking?

Right on cue, thanks.
.

I didn't insult them.

 

[Mac1958]

Two of my favorite thinkers, Maajid Nawaz and Sam Harris (my third would be Christopher Hitchens, rest in peace Hitch, you're missed): A Muslim and an Atheist who are actually trying to improve things instead of enabling hatred:
.
The End of Tolerance

The essential dialogue that Nawaz and Harris invite us to have is about more than the first part of the film title suggests. It is about the principles of pluralist liberal democracy, the ability to have a friendly and cooperative disagreement, and the courage to speak — out loud — about highly charged topics of all kinds—across cultures, across ideologies, and across other divides.

Okay Regressives, start insulting them. Again.
.

Without them, who would do your thinking?

Right on cue, thanks.
.

I didn't insult them.

I know. You insulted me, and I appreciate it.

I never have to name names. You folks jump right in and self-identify for me.

So, again, thanks.
.

 

[Mac1958]

I guess this should be my USMB motto!

 

[Tehon]

Two of my favorite thinkers, Maajid Nawaz and Sam Harris (my third would be Christopher Hitchens, rest in peace Hitch, you're missed): A Muslim and an Atheist who are actually trying to improve things instead of enabling hatred:
.
The End of Tolerance

The essential dialogue that Nawaz and Harris invite us to have is about more than the first part of the film title suggests. It is about the principles of pluralist liberal democracy, the ability to have a friendly and cooperative disagreement, and the courage to speak — out loud — about highly charged topics of all kinds—across cultures, across ideologies, and across other divides.

Okay Regressives, start insulting them. Again.
.

Without them, who would do your thinking?

Right on cue, thanks.
.

I didn't insult them.

I know. You insulted me, and I appreciate it.

I never have to name names. You folks jump right in and self-identify for me.

So, again, thanks.
.

You should take their advice.

 

[Mac1958]

Two of my favorite thinkers, Maajid Nawaz and Sam Harris (my third would be Christopher Hitchens, rest in peace Hitch, you're missed): A Muslim and an Atheist who are actually trying to improve things instead of enabling hatred:
.
The End of Tolerance

The essential dialogue that Nawaz and Harris invite us to have is about more than the first part of the film title suggests. It is about the principles of pluralist liberal democracy, the ability to have a friendly and cooperative disagreement, and the courage to speak — out loud — about highly charged topics of all kinds—across cultures, across ideologies, and across other divides.

Okay Regressives, start insulting them. Again.
.

Without them, who would do your thinking?

Right on cue, thanks.
.

I didn't insult them.

I know. You insulted me, and I appreciate it.

I never have to name names. You folks jump right in and self-identify for me.

So, again, thanks.
.

You should take their advice.

Whatever you say. I'm sure you're right.

By the way, have you answered the questions I posed in post 581? It's the point of the thread, as desperate as you are to change the subject and make it about me.

Here you go:

Maajid Nawaz is trying to bring reform and liberalization to his beloved religion.

Do you agree with his efforts, or do you disagree with them?

He believes there are people who claim to be liberal who are making it much tougher for him by, in effect, aligning themselves with Islamic fundamentalists against this effort.

Do you agree with that opinion, or do you disagree with it?
.

 

[Tehon]

I guess this should be my USMB motto!

You are an annoyance. You lack the intellect to be an enemy.

 

[Mac1958]

I guess this should be my USMB motto!

You are an annoyance. You lack the intellect to be an enemy.

I'm sure you're right.

You keep posting to me, you keep complaining, after all.
.

 

[Mac1958]

"Gee Mac, I don't care about your posts, but I keep posting about them"

 

[Tehon]

Without them, who would do your thinking?

Right on cue, thanks.
.

I didn't insult them.

I know. You insulted me, and I appreciate it.

I never have to name names. You folks jump right in and self-identify for me.

So, again, thanks.
.

You should take their advice.

Whatever you say. I'm sure you're right.

By the way, have you answered the questions I posed in post 581? It's the point of the thread, as desperate as you are to change the subject and make it about me.

Here you go:

Maajid Nawaz is trying to bring reform and liberalization to his beloved religion.

Do you agree with his efforts, or do you disagree with them?

He believes there are people who claim to be liberal who are making it much tougher for him by, in effect, aligning themselves with Islamic fundamentalists against this effort.

Do you agree with that opinion, or do you disagree with it?
.

Maajid Nawaz is trying to bring reform and liberalization to his beloved religion.

Do you agree with his efforts, or do you disagree with them?

More power to him.

He believes there are people who claim to be liberal who are making it much tougher for him by, in effect, aligning themselves with Islamic fundamentalists against this effort.

Do you agree with that opinion, or do you disagree with it?

I disagree with that opinion.