March 09, 2006
Poll: More Americans Distrust Islam
From the Washington Post:
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
...a growing proportion of Americans are expressing unfavorable views of Islam, and a majority now say that Muslims are disproportionately prone to violence, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Posted by: Bluto at
12:13 AM
| Comments (75)
| Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.
1
gee, I wonder why.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 09, 2006 12:31 AM (8e/V4)
2
Bluto
An odd poll considering who's it from. I have an unfavorable view of islam (I don't deny it) - disproportionate violence ... hmmmm ... compared to who ? ... there are some pretty violent lil' cultures out there in the world ... and muslims are getting all the press at the moment due to the ongoing conflicts (Iraq/GWOT). Tough call - who is doing the rating and who are the contenders?
We have elections coming up this year - very important ones. Expect the MSM and war critics to play every possible (and often contradictory) angle on muslims from now till then to affect public opinion. Keep in mind - pumping up hatred of muslims also serves the anti-Iraq crowd, and assists the anti-GWOT crowd by pressing disengagement and an end to a robust proactive response as a viable option (ie - we go away and leave them alone, maybe they will leave us alone - I know - it sounds stupid and naive but many of them do believe it).
Posted by: hondo at March 09, 2006 01:03 AM (fyKFC)
3
hondo, it's not really odd because they're using it to highlight American "prejudice", and they're trying to blame the "prejudice" on the war in Iraq.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 09, 2006 01:26 AM (RHG+K)
4
hondo,
you are soooo last news cycle...."GWOT"....
Rumsfeld took Newt's focus group testing.
It is hereby known as The Long War
Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 09, 2006 01:38 AM (K5Ko+)
5
noise
It's easier to spell. Retro? An Orwellian reference - (and a pretty lame one at that)? Seems your the one who need the focus groups to come up with some new material.
Posted by: hondo at March 09, 2006 01:56 AM (fyKFC)
6
This report is bull from the first sentence:
--> "As the war in Iraq grinds into its fourth year.."
WTF? I don't see how this has anything to do with a Iraq. If anything, the MSM and their liberal friends could improve perceptions of Muslims, if they would only report GOOD news from the country.
Then there's this
---> The survey comes at a time of increasing tension; the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq show little sign of ending...
Huh? Again, I don't see how this is the CAUSE of negative perceptions.
Posted by: Asgerd at March 09, 2006 03:52 AM (Ya7Bt)
7
Muslims are more prone to violence....I think they go a bit beyond violence. A more accurate statement would be that Muslims are more prone to murdering anyone they disagree with ro just plain do not like.
Muslims are also more prone to rape, robbery, theft and other crimes...just check the stats in Denmark where Muslims commit more than half the crimes while being less than five percent of the population.
Posted by: Steve Sharon at March 09, 2006 03:57 AM (jxqyp)
8
Background Noise:
--> Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
It's nice to know that you've read "1984." That probably means you made it past 8th grade, but it doesn't offer any insight into the current conflict. Orwell was describing a *socialist* dystopia in 1984. Islamism is not socialism.
Posted by: Asgerd at March 09, 2006 04:16 AM (Ya7Bt)
9
Could someone fill me in on all those 'other' violent cultures out there???? I was under the illusion that Islam has no equal in the world for being destructive and intolerant on so many levels. Not to mention being the only militaristic, political, expansionist religion on the planet.
I must be islamophobic.
Posted by: tim at March 09, 2006 05:18 AM (gms8x)
10
Islam is not socialism, true, but the two ideologies twist together very well, because both are systems of subjugation of the individual within the collective, and both share the same methods of dealing with dissenters; terrorism. This is why the global liberal/socialist/communist movement is putting all its money on islam; socialism always fails to get a foothold in a society that isn't already subjugated by tyranny.
As an aside, I'd like to point out the beautiful irony of the noisy idiot's statement above; Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. Liberals often accidentally speak the truth, though they immediately repent of it when it becomes apparent, and thus is the case here. Islam has always been at war with the world is a more accurate modern rendering, and so the blind hog found an acorn, although he isn't smart enough to know it, nor honest enough to acknowledge it.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 09, 2006 06:00 AM (0yYS2)
11
Funny how folks are all so knowledgeable about a book that used to be considered fiction, but ignore its implication for Rumsfeld's adoption of a market tested phrase like "The Long War". I mean this was developed by the same folks who brought you "Conservative Opportunity Society", "Contract with America", and other catchy slogans. It fairly roles off the tongue...it's so....catchy. I thought you would be pleased.
But I understand why you jump on the messenger ... it is easier to hold on to the hate, because you know that if you ever let go of it you will have to deal with the pain and the fear. That's ok. It's a maturational thing.
Personally, I think it will be amusing (in the way watching "Fear Factor" or "Jackass" are amusing) to watch the new slogan get embraced by the mindless supporters of this policy in search of a strategy. After all, who better to deliver it than the man who said the war would last five or six months? Why not follow a guy who said he KNEW where the WMD were... and then later dismissed it by saying "sometimes I overstate for emphasis"? I mean look at how long the Jews followed Moses.... and look how much press he gets today. Hell, he was played by none other than Charlton Heston!
We learn from history that we do not learn from history.
- Hegel
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 09, 2006 07:19 AM (K5Ko+)
12
Nice quote noise, but since you used it, maybe you could enlighten us about what we should be learning from history. Maybe we could learn from 1400 years of history that Islam never quits. Maybe we could learn from 1400 years of history that when Islam rubs shoulders with any other group, religious or not, that does not conform to its views, that long term chaos ensues. Maybe we could learn from recent history that burying our heads in the sand and nominating someone as a sacrificial Czechoslovakia nevers works. There IS a lot that can be learned from history.
Posted by: Graeme at March 09, 2006 07:41 AM (+1rtM)
13
Taking historical instruction from an idiot liberal is like taking financial advice from a bum living under a bridge, only worse.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 09, 2006 07:52 AM (0yYS2)
14
Graeme,
You raise an interesting point. There are very important lessons worth learning. One of them is that you need to draw your analogies carefully...otherwise you wind up scribbling outside the line and that's not particularly useful. The other lesson is you should learn from other people's mistakes...because you won't last long enough to make them all yourself.
Obviously, there are many lessons that can be applied to our present situation. You make it clear that "the clash of cultures" issue is high on your agenda. However, before we run down that path... let me make sure we are talking about the same war here. Are you referring to the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, or "The Long War" which is going to be global for the next two or three generations?
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 09, 2006 08:01 AM (K5Ko+)
15
Personally, I get sick of all the terminology and then all the arguments that whatever phrase doesn't quite embody the ideal.
Posted by: Oyster at March 09, 2006 08:32 AM (rf0W8)
16
Noise, I framed my comment around "the clash of the cultures" as you put it because, hang on, let me apply my keen observational skills here, the topic under discussion is the public's perception of Islam, as oppose to the navigational skills of Moses and his reluctance to ask for directions, those who chose to follow him for extended durations and those best suited to portray him in historical dramas.
Posted by: Graeme at March 09, 2006 08:41 AM (+1rtM)
17
Islam's proponents constantly tell you what their plans are- make the whole world Islamic. Now unless you want to wear a towel on your head and wrap all your women like a mummy and destroy artifacts and history of all the other religions of the world, you better damn well not defeat Islam but ERADICATE Islam.
Posted by: Steve Sharon at March 09, 2006 09:26 AM (3pbME)
18
noise,
that catchy phrase-- "the Cold War"-- didn't make that war any less real.
Nice to know you read Orwell in the 8th grade. Sad that young children should read such an important book-- they're left with such cartoonish impressions about it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 09, 2006 09:45 AM (8e/V4)
19
Well.... folks here ain't exactly famous for sticking to the topic... so its good to check.
However, since you want to talk about "perceptions" of Islam... I'm still going to ask you to tighten that up a bit. Here's why: Hamas and Cat Stevens. No question Hamas is a piratical organization led by zealots who mislead the people they claim to represent. As anyone who follows this knows, the corruption in the PA and their abrogation of civic responsibilities enabled Hamas to insert itself into the community and develop a very strong following by providing necessary services like health care. Much the same way the Wahhabi sects in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (following their own "faith based" model) picked up the slack when those governments abandoned the needs of its people.
The fact of the matter is they were given significant assistance by the Israeli government because they wanted to foster a viable alternative to Arafat and Fatah. I point this out because Cat Stevens, who is a well-known advocate for peace, also contributed significantly to helping Hamas run clinics.
Obviously this raises a question. Is Cat Stevens supporting terrorist suicide bombers by supporting the only game in town when it comes to providing basic health care?
I guess the take home message here is if you want to talk cartoon imagery .... there ain't much to discuss. If you want to discuss realities with an eye towards threat reduction and stability, I think there is a lot to talk about.
Let me know how you want to proceed.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 09, 2006 09:54 AM (K5Ko+)
20
Taking historical instruction from an idiot liberal is like taking financial advice from a bum living under a bridge, only worse.
Getting heckled by a guy who can't even translate his own name properly is like having a deaf person check your voice mail.
=
"Nullus curo pro stulti."
Sanjuro Kuwabatake/John Smith
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 09, 2006 10:04 AM (K5Ko+)
21
>>>providing basic health care
lmao! So you think muslims have a bad image in America (and the West) because they're overly zealous in their support of "basic health care." That's their greatest sin? Harmless little Hamas clinics? lol! Unbelievable.
It's interesting how suicidal Leftwingers find all sorts of abilities to "understand" radical islamists and terrorists, yet they're so absolutely CLUELESS as to what makes their fellow Americans tick-- their own countrymen! I weep for the future of this country is you people are allowed to have your way. It's too late for Europe, but it's not too late for us.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 09, 2006 10:05 AM (8e/V4)
22
Noise, I'd prefer the debate around Hamas' primary activity - looking for Jew babies to kill.
Touting Hamas health care is like touting liquor companies' "don't drink and drive" campaigns or tobacco companies' quit smoking campaigns.
You need to learn to separate the PR from the product.
Hamas' product: brave jihadi babyhunters.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 09, 2006 10:12 AM (RHG+K)
23
I see the jabberwocky has landed and proceeded to pontificate on the subject at hand, which is more or less why Americans distrust Islam. As you said, Maxie, the blind hog found the acorn, but immediately proceeded to close his eyes again.
Mr. Noice says: "I guess the take home message here is if you want to talk cartoon imagery...there ain't much to discuss. If you want to discuss realities with an eye toward threat reduction....blah, blah, blah,...I think there is a lot to talk about."
Everyone, please let Mr. noice know how you want to proceed? The topic at hand, the blog itself, is subject to his pontifications. Mr. noice, you don't need to tell anyone here how to proceed. I wish you would proceed to leave this blog, and don't let the door hit you in the ass, so to speak. Frankly, I'm tired of you and your ilk. I see it every day in the NYT. Liberal educated idiot is the phrase that comes to mind.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 09, 2006 10:19 AM (rUyw4)
24
I'd prefer the debate around Hamas' primary activity - looking for Jew babies to kill.
Not much to debate there.... you want to defend it be my guest.
My position on that is pretty clear. In case you missed the nuance, let me spell it out so even Heckle and Jeckle from jesusland can follow it.... it's unacceptable. Period. Full Stop. EOF. 10-7
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 09, 2006 10:20 AM (7b75u)
25
>>>it's unacceptable. Period. Full Stop.
noise,
full stop? period? No "buts"? No, BUT the Israeli occupation, bwahaha!?? No, BUT the Israelis have it coming to them? I'm sure there's a "but" in there somewhere. Maybe your next post.
>>>"heckle and jeckle"
lol! funny.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 09, 2006 10:24 AM (8e/V4)
26
The noice says he doesn't want to discuss cartoon imagery and then brings up Heckle and Jeckle. Tsk, tsk, Mr. noice, one wonders what you will come up with next. I am on the edge of my seat waiting with anticipation, not!
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 09, 2006 10:33 AM (rUyw4)
27
But Noise, surely you can't expect Hamas to give up their raison d'être?
You're right, there's not much to debate. That's why Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization; or do you disagree with that classification?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 09, 2006 10:33 AM (RHG+K)
28
Everyone, be quiet! The noice is about to pontificate! Please...silence in this room...er, blog!
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 09, 2006 10:35 AM (rUyw4)
29
>>"Cat Stevens, who is a well-known advocate for peace, also contributed significantly to helping Hamas run clinics."
I don't suppose it matters to you that Hitler and Pol Pot also ran clinics. Stalin had free healthcare! Yippeee! Give Mr. Yusuf Islam a friggin medal.
Posted by: dcb at March 09, 2006 10:44 AM (8e/V4)
30
dcb:
Comparing Cat Stevens to Pol Pot... that's a perfect example of the sort of poorly drawn analogy that I was alluding to earlier. That level of "debate" is the kind of cartoonish doodling that might appeal to Heckle and Jeckle or "Big Nuisance", but if that is the best you have to offer, I'll pass.
Bluto:
Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization because it is one. I'm sure many people in Italy can point to the great things the Mafia has done to protect the country too. That doesn't make them any less criminal. BTW- I saw the other thread where people who obviously learned to draw analogies at the same paint by numbers school as dcb are trying to equate Hamas and Israel. Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall Hamas treating Islamic Jihad or Al Aqsa Martyrs the way Likud treated Kach or Kahane Chai.
While a government that seats Ehud Yatom may be a government worthy of Lansky and Scheinbein, that's not the same thing as a government that views that sort of behavior as an entry requirement.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 09, 2006 11:17 AM (SVPNF)
31
I hope dhimmi bitches like noisy fart take solace in their moral equivalency while they're getting used like women, and I hope their hatred of W. comforts them when the rope begins to bite.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 09, 2006 12:10 PM (0yYS2)
32
Comparing Cat Stevens to Pol Pot...
You're still hung up on the "Moonshadow" Cat Stevens, who no longer exists. You might want to look into the statements of Yusuf Islam, who has said Salman Rushdie deserves to die for writing a book.
Yeah, he's comparable to Pol Pot. Not anywhere near the same scale, but that appears to be more from a lack of opportunity than a lack of desire.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at March 09, 2006 01:02 PM (1j9aH)
33
Comparing Cat Stevens to Pol Pot... that's a perfect example of the sort of poorly drawn analogy that I was alluding to earlier.
noise,
It wasn't an analogy. It was merely of way of shooting a hole (a huge one, I might add) in your "healthcare = Mother Teresa" reasoning. A pig wearing lipstick is still a pig.
Posted by: dcb at March 09, 2006 01:07 PM (8e/V4)
34
I point this out because Cat Stevens, who is a well-known advocate for peace, also contributed significantly to helping Hamas run clinics.
Advocate of peace, as long as you're not a Jew. He is as rabidly anti-semitic as any Hamas spokesperson, this coupled with the fact he donated money to Hamas, without caring if the money was used to purchase a babies crib, or ball-bearings for a satchel bomb.
I'd say he is no advocate for peace, just a useful tool to terrorists, he agree's with the words/deeds of known terrorists in respects to killing authors, and removing Israel -- this guy is exactly like Gerry Adams, the IRA spokes person (Sinn Fein) he might have not pulled the trigger himself, but he is very much apart of their deeds.
Yes, he was a good singer, that isn't a "get out of jail" card for providing material aid to terrorists.
Posted by: davec at March 09, 2006 01:09 PM (CcXvt)
35
I don't get what point you're trying to make with Cat Stevens. You've disseminated a lot of information here that many of us already know, but there doesn't seem to be a point to it. Is the point you're trying to make that because Hamas is a two headed creature, if one head is doing good things, the other is just part of the deal? Or what? I'm not sure. Or are you just being the peacock here?
The fact is Cat Stevens chose to work with Hamas. Not to start a peaceful group dedicated solely to helping Palestinians health wise or education wise or any otherwise, nor to support any fledgling group and garner support for them through his celebrity, nor did he opt for any other way. He chose Hamas. Surely he was smart enough to know the implications he would be forced to deal with in affiliating himself with that group in any way.
Posted by: Oyster at March 09, 2006 01:12 PM (rf0W8)
36
Who was the first world leader to run a government which first officially warned its populace of the dangers of cigarette smoking, the dangers of asbestos, and the dangers of radon?
Answer:
Adolf Hitler....
I guess he was just like Hamas. Just a misunderstood person who was really focused on his nation's healthcare. The Jew thing really was unimportant.
Posted by: Steve Sharon at March 09, 2006 03:06 PM (IGC5v)
37
Good deeds will not get you into heaven. That is a false religion called Islam that believes that.
I do not have enough ammo. I think I will buy more 6.5mm, and hit the gun range. I just love the smell of napalm, I mean gun power, in the morning.
Posted by: Leatherneck at March 09, 2006 03:41 PM (D2g/j)
38
When he was on Larry King, he was asked point blank if 9/11 didn't hurt Islam worldwide and he answered very clearly:
Taqiyya and kitman
How about his hate speech against Israel?
If he wanted to ensure his money wasn't used for terrorism wouldn't he have donated medical supplies only? instead of cash?
What about Salmon Rushdie?
If you're saying everyone picks on Cat Stevens because he's a famous muslim, why do people not say the same about Muhammed Ali who is a Sunni Muslim?
Posted by: dave at March 09, 2006 03:58 PM (CcXvt)
39
dave,
First on Muhammad Ali... you are joking right? The guy wasn't persecuted for his religious beliefs? What do you call it when you are stripped of your title as heavyweight champion, your career is ruined, you are convicted of being a draft dodger, sentenced to 5 years and fined $10,000? Accolades?
He fought that all the way to the Supreme Court and had the conviction overturned 4 years later. But by then he was financially ruined. You are obviously too young to remember what people called him during those times. Traitor, coward, un-American...those are just the nicer epithets we can print on this site...
What about Salman Rushdie? Read the question asked at Kingston University. Read the answer given. Tell me, how does that translate into supporting an illegal fatwa?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 09, 2006 04:25 PM (K5Ko+)
40
Noise, Ali was prosecuted for being a draft dodger, not for being a Muslim.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 09, 2006 04:28 PM (RHG+K)
41
Background, I am personally not comdemning Cat Stevens' actions per se. But Dave brings up a good point that can't be ignored. Money is fungible. And Hamas treats it as such. Many "charitable" organizations do as well. Every penny, even if earmarked for a specific charitable purpose frees up another penny not earmarked for not so charitable purposes. This practice is especially prevalent in an organization like Hamas.
So no, Cat Stevens made a conscious decision that wasn't so wise. He had a good thing going until then.
Posted by: Oyster at March 09, 2006 04:41 PM (rf0W8)
42
Bluto,
He refused induction because of his religious beliefs. That is a legitimate position. That is why the Supreme Court overturned the conviction. They did not reinstate his title, or make any ruling regarding compensation for loss of income. That is not in the SC purvue. But he was clearly being persecuted for acting on his religious beliefs.
And this isn't ancient history either. Just a couple years ago Bob Feller said this when Ali was going to throw out the first pitch at the 2002 All Star game:
"I object very strongly to Muhammad Ali being here to throw out the first pitch, and you can print that. This is a man who changed his name and changed his religion so he wouldn't have to serve his country, and, to me, that's disgusting."
Nice to see the guy who was chosen to light the Olympic flame at Atlanta is no longer being reviled for a position of conscience he took almost 40 years ago.
Posted by: Background Noise at March 09, 2006 04:47 PM (K5Ko+)
43
Background: Is the NYTimes a reputable source for you?
[google cache in case you have no subscription]
Cat Stevens Article
Quotes:
"The musician known as Cat Stevens said in a British television program to be broadcast next week that rather than go to a demonstration to burn an effigy of the author Salman Rushdie, ''I would have hoped that it'd be the real thing.''
He also said that if Mr. Rushdie turned up at his doorstep looking for help, ''I might ring somebody who might do more damage to him than he would like.''
''I'd try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is,'' said Mr. Islam
I do not see CS suing them for libel.
He sounds like the "poster boy" for Islam the more you look at it.
Posted by: davec at March 09, 2006 04:49 PM (CcXvt)
44
Mohammad, the paedophile prophet says, Muslims go BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM
Posted by: Steve Sharon at March 09, 2006 04:57 PM (W9WJS)
45
Oyster,
I would agree with you IF he was contributing to Hamas... and ESPECIALLY if he was contributing to Hamas after the beginning of the first intifada. Remember, at that time in history Israel was actively supporting Hamas.
But the record is clear. He donated money to charities working in Gaza in 1988. He did not contribute to Hamas. The claim the money went to Hamas is based solely on the assertion of the Israeli government much later as their justification for barring him from Israel.
I understand your point about fungibility of assets. But it is a hell of a leap to go from:
"A government bans a well known person from entering based on an undocumented assertion that has never been demonstrated"
to
"He's guilty as sin."
When you actually look at the record of this claim, just like the Salman Rushdie claim (still waiting dave) or the claim he called Judaism "a so-called religion" ... it invariably falls apart, either because there is no evidence to support it or the facts available refute the claims.
It amazes me that people who constantly harp on the "biased media" the "propaganda on TV" the "lies in the MSM" are perfectly happy to accept stories that have less basis in fact than UFO sitings.
The point here is the broad stroke approach that Graeme et al seem to employ. The problem is this just serves as cover for the bigots like we see coming out of the woodwork here. I'm not denying there is a real problem with religious fanatics. What I am saying is they aren't all praying to Mecca.
That is not a "blame the victim" position. It is a "blame the culprit" position. If you really want to understand the politics of rage, then you have to consider more than just religion.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 09, 2006 05:09 PM (K5Ko+)
46
davec,
In the article you link to, there is a Muslim imam who said, and I quote, "Islam is not a pacifist religion".
Hmmm...so much for Mohammed Ali's claim that his religion prevented his going to war. Perhaps he meant he could only go to war against the infidel.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 09, 2006 05:09 PM (rUyw4)
47
When you actually look at the record of this claim, just like the Salman Rushdie claim (still waiting dave)
I already posted my response, using his own words. What someone says after the fact their words were "misinterpreted" and "here's what I really meant" I find it suspicious.
Perhaps I misinterpreted the fact he said he wished to see Salmon Rushdie be burnt, or would turn him in to be killed.
Posted by: davec at March 09, 2006 05:32 PM (CcXvt)
48
You are wrong Sackg0und. just because people do not see it your way, they are not bigots.
Let's see: 93 Trade Tower bombing, 2001 Trade Tower bombing, USS Cole, Kobar Towers, 1983 Marine bombing, Mr. Klinghoffer, Navy Seal shot in head on plane, African buildings, Jews around the world getting bombed, and stabed, little girls in south east asia getting their heads cut off, Bali Bombing, ETC..., and ALL IN THE NAME OF ALLAH THE MOON GOD!
Stupid!
Posted by: Leatherneck at March 09, 2006 05:52 PM (D2g/j)
49
davec,
You are not posting what started the whole thing. I specifically said post the Kingston question and his answer and show me how that gets to "He wants Rushdie killed" as was being reported.
What you are showing is his comments after he has been getting bombarded with hate mail for something he didn't say. So yeah... he is angry and he is lashing out and he says things that are mean. He's human...wow....
But he isn't talking about going out and hunting down Rushdie, he's saying "I wish it were real", "If he showed up at my door I would..." etc. He is clearly pissed off. He is saying things that are not nice. But you are showing him after he has been harrassed for saying he thought Rushdie should be killed. Which is not what he said. And he is venting after he had stated repeatedly what he was responding to, but the only place it ran was a local paper.
Gee... how unusual. The media has a sensational story or a relatively boring factual story...hmmm which to run which to run?
I'm not going to defend his venting like that... but that doesn't put him in the same league as Pol Pot and it doesn't make him a terrorist.
I am saying proportionality is called for. I've lost count of the ways IM has threatened to kill me on this site. He is a lot more vivid in his imagery and the personal level of involvement he would like to have in the slaughter. But I am not rushing out to get an FBI warrant so Howie and company can turn over their records and we can trace the guy for making terroristic threats.
If you are going to put this interview with Stevens in the same league as Hamas calling for the extermination of Jews, you clearly have lost any sense of proportion. If that interview is going to be used to show how Islam is a violent hateful religion...what do we do with Robertson calling for Chavez's assassination or the nuking of the State Department? What do we do with Falwell's claim that feminists, and gays are responsible for drawing al Qaeda to our shores?
Broad strokes.... not good.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 09, 2006 06:17 PM (K5Ko+)
50
Background:
It was said on a Television program, in the same year.
Please do not try and attempt to twist the argument that he is "venting" he said he wanted to see Salmon Rushdie burnt, and that he would turn him over to be killed.
I'm not going to defend his venting like that... but that doesn't put him in the same league as Pol Pot and it doesn't make him a terrorist.
comparison invalid, I never claimed such, I compared him to Gerry Adams, the spokesperson for the IRA. While he might not do violence himself, by agreeing with the people that do he is tarred with that "brush" you keep talking about.
This is right on the edge of a Liberal agenda on your part, "Cat Stevens might agree with terrorism, but he made some of the best albums and says he is a messenger of peace" or "Tookie "Sawnoff-Shotgun" Williams might be a convicted spree killer who murdered people in cold blood, but he did write those children's books to keep kids out of the gang he helped create"
Posted by: davec at March 09, 2006 06:35 PM (CcXvt)
51
noise
Since the original topic concerned a WP poll reference distrust of muslims and islam, can I safely assume that you agree with the poll and share its results? If that's your position - be proud of it and state it - instead of dancing all over the map.
Posted by: hondo at March 09, 2006 07:03 PM (fyKFC)
52
Bob Feller may be correct Ali (at that time Cassius Clay) found Allah after his number came up in the draft. And are Muslims COs in the Quaker mode? That seems a little hard to believe.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 09, 2006 07:06 PM (RHG+K)
53
davec,
noise has lost the arguement, but he will never admit it, even though the rest of us here see it plain as day. You know he has lost when he says, "broad strokes...not good." That is his surrender statement and is about all you will get out of him when it comes to any humility. Fairly typical liberal trait.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 09, 2006 07:44 PM (rUyw4)
54
Bluto:
to answer your points. He converted before the number came up. and no Muslims are not Quakers.
However, there is a pacifist, non-violent tradition in Islam. Those were the people who pushed the British out of the Hindu Kush. Obviously they are not Salafists. A religion that has so many followers is bound to be very diverse. Which is the point I am arguing here...
hondo:
I am not disputing the poll is an accurate reflection of current public opinion. I am suggesting that the notion that Muslims are "disproportionately prone to violence" is a crass oversimplification. I am not ignoring there are Islamic religious fanatics. I am also not ignoring the fact that many fanatics will use religion because it works. If they could get legitimacy by wrapping themselves in a flag or another ideology they would do that. Fanatics tend to be opportunists. My point is condemning a whole religion or stereotyping Billions of people does not accurately reflect the problem at hand.
Just because you have people blowing up abortion clinics in the name of God, and other people giving that a pass are we supposed to say Christians are "disproportionately prone to violence" too? Hopefully not.
Claiming that "infidels" are behind whatever is not going to help a single Saudi or Kuwaiti. Religion is a part of this and a particularly volatile part. Look at the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. If all we were talking about was real estate and natural resources, this would be solved. You can compromise on land use. You can't compromise on religion. Throw that log on the fire and you can't put out the flames. Which is why it should be considered appropriately.
davec:
Stevens did not say he misspoke. He was misquoted. His answer to a question was misrepresented. He tried to set the record straight. The media inflamed it because that was a better story. The interview you are citing is an example of him being pissed off as an individual. Nowhere in that interview is he saying "Rushdie should die because he is an infidel".... he is talking about all the things he wishes would befall the guy because he is pissed. And he has apologized for saying it! He recognized it was intemperate and inappropriate. That is why I am willing to put that in the "he was pissed off" category. I don't think Robertson ever apologized for suggesting someone kill Chavez. I don't think Dobson has ever apologized for supporting Operation Rescue.
Notice in this whole discussion, I have never made any effort to defend Khomeini or Hamas. If you don't see the difference between Yusef Islam on the one hand and Hamas and Khomeini on the other... then I don't see how this discussion is going to move forward.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 09, 2006 07:57 PM (K5Ko+)
55
I am glad to see so many individuals wanting to find good in people. I also wish there were more people who wanted to raise their families, and plant fruit trees. But hopeing for it in this world is not going to make it so.
Most of us writing here appear to want to be left in peace. The problem is the monster is growing in this country now too. It is called Islam. if you can not see it, then I hope you are in a place where it can not reach you, because you will be no help to those of us who are ready to go head to head with it.
Posted by: Leatherneck at March 09, 2006 08:16 PM (D2g/j)
56
Leatherneck:
If the "monster" is Islam... and Islam is a religion ... and a religion is a group of beliefs held by people.... I'm assuming you are going to "head to head" with the people who belong to a religion.
If that is true, do you go after all members of the religion? How do you discriminate "good" from "bad" ?
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 09, 2006 08:32 PM (K5Ko+)
57
There will be no place that Islam will not find you, Leatherneck, so you had better be prepared to take whatever action you deem appropriate. There will be a time coming soon that will force everyone to pick a side, no fence-sitting permitted, as you will be a target there also.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 09, 2006 08:40 PM (rUyw4)
58
Noise, you may be right about Ali's conversion and number timing.
However, you can't blame his draft board for questioning his commitment to pacifism as he was making his living beating people to a pulp.
Not that I have anything against the sweet science, I just can't seem to recall any famous Quaker boxers.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 09, 2006 08:51 PM (RHG+K)
59
Interesting Background, from your own quote:
Islam courted the world's ire in 1988 when he endorsed calls for the death of author Salman Rushdie following what were said to be blasphemous passages in his book The Satanic Verses. Islam has since recanted and apologized for that position.
He apologized for being "misquoted" ? I don't think so.
You're correct however, I do not see any difference between a person that endorses a death threat issued by Khomein, or a person that shares the opinion of Hamas that Israel should be removed, that is because there is none.
Posted by: davec at March 09, 2006 09:11 PM (CcXvt)
60
bluto:
Not that I have anything against the sweet science, I just can't seem to recall any famous Quaker boxers.
Now that's funny.
I doubt this Quaker boxer will ever be famous. But check it out and decide for yourself.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 09, 2006 09:16 PM (K5Ko+)
61
davec:
I am hoping this is the last time I am going to have to clarify this.
Stevens apologized for what he said in the interview. He was not missquoted there. He said what he said. They gave him a chance to review the tape. He stood by what he said in the interview. They ran the interview. He later apologized for the interview.
However, he never said what was attributed to him at Kingston. The question he was asked ("What does the Koran say about blasphemers"), and the question he answered ("this is what the Koran says") were not related to what the tabloid Today ran under the headline "Cat says kill Rushdie"
The difference is this: Anyone can quote the Koran, but even if they are a muslim that does not give them any special authority to issue or even interpret a fatwa.
It takes more than just having a long beard to issue a fatwa, or even interpret the legitimacy of one. Fatwas can only be issued with the approval of an ulema. An ulema is a body of Islamic scholars trained in Islamic law. Those scholars are called mullahs.
If I recall correctly, Khomeini had no authority to issue that fatwa anyway. He assumed the authority and people accepted it. That was part of the "revolution" he led. Bin Laden and Zarqawi do the same thing. They have no authority to issue a fatwa. But they do it and fanatics follow them. That is an example of fanatics wrapping themselves in religion to further an agenda. I have rejected that several times in this thread.
Maybe it will help if I put Mel Gibson in a comparable situation to what happened to Stevens at Kingston. Let's say Mel Gibson is giving a talk somewhere about Christianity. Someone in the audience asks "What is the Biblical penalty for bestiality?" Mel answers, "According to Exodus 22:19 the penalty is death." The next morning in the New York Sun you read a headline:
"Mel says kill Neal Horsley!"
I hope that clears it up.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 09, 2006 09:48 PM (K5Ko+)
62
The ones with the bombs, guns, or yelling death to America. Something like that.
What would you look for?
Posted by: Leatherneck at March 09, 2006 09:58 PM (D2g/j)
63
I never mentioned the Kingston University interview, you are the only person to mention it. I quoted him from the NYT.
I do not care what he said at Kingston. He said a lot more than that, including the one where he said he wished he could be present at the burning of Salmon Rushdie.
He supported the death fatwa issued, and as such is just as culpable as Khomein who issued it.
I'm sure you can turn a blind eye to some hippies transgressions because he made some some 'rocking' six-tracks back in the day, I however have a completely different view of someone who is against freedom of speech, and supports the murder of someone because of it.
Posted by: davec at March 09, 2006 10:11 PM (CcXvt)
64
Now I can see why the old "Peace Train" rocker was on the no-fly list of the US Government, and was caught in-flight causing the plane to have to divert to Maine and return Yusuf(that name is familiar from the Muslim occupation of Spain) to London. How quaint!
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 09, 2006 10:31 PM (rUyw4)
65
noise
I said/implied the same damn thing about oversimplification - but you can't seem to clearly enunciate it without drifting off with strained self-serving analogies - which in turn - triggers responses to those analogies! If you paid some professor/college big bucks to learn how to make an argument - demand a refund.
I do know what you were originally trying to say - but you took yourself down the sideroads. And no - I don't agree with the poll and believe it was slanted to get the negative attitude responses in order to use it as another tool in the WPs (and friends) bag of tricks to push for disengagement/retreat.
Posted by: hondo at March 09, 2006 11:20 PM (fyKFC)
66
hondo
gee... tell me how you really feel....
I did see your points earlier and didn't feel like pursuing it.. but since you raised it again. Here's a simple question. It's not a trick question.
How does a poll showing increase animosity towards Muslims provide fodder for disengagement?
I ask because that sounds counterintuitive.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 10, 2006 01:24 AM (K5Ko+)
67
"How does a poll showing increase[d] animosity towards Muslims provide fodder for disengagement?"
Because it can easily lead a certain faction of our population to believe that the evil GOP has finally tainted a significant number of people to become "brown people haters" and cements their opinion that we need to "get out now" before we become a nation of racists?
It could be interpreted any number of ways by different people depending on preconceived notions and a proclivity for depending on polls to influence their own opinions.
And please don't come up with another 500 word essay citing some obscure reference to contest any point you see made here. It really gets tiring.
There's little to be gained from arguing with you. You're always right.
Posted by: Oyster at March 10, 2006 07:09 AM (YudAC)
68
Oyster,
I understand what hondo wrote. It doesn't make sense to me. It seems to make sense to you, so let me ask you (or anyone else who cares to comment)
Do you have any examples of a time when the US either:
a) withdrew from an area of political engagement because Americans were becoming more hostile to some affected group? or
b) changed its foreign policy because of a concern that Americans were becoming more prejudiced?
Every example I can think of shows exactly the opposite. That is why I said I thought his argument was counterintuitive.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 10, 2006 08:27 AM (K5Ko+)
69
How to discriminate good muslims from bad? That's easy; the good ones have huge, gaping exit wounds.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 10, 2006 08:29 AM (0yYS2)
70
Background, you may understand what Hondo wrote, (I would have to go back and reread all this again which, I'm not inclined to do at this point) but you don't understand what I wrote last. I wasn't implying that public opinion has ever changed foreign policy or ever caused the US to pull out of any engagement. My point is that certain information is often used to create dissent and polarization. It causes us to fight amongst ourselves and serves to undermine and vilify the military and influence voters. It's really quite simple.
Posted by: Oyster at March 10, 2006 10:34 AM (rf0W8)
71
Oyster,
I agree with your comment. I would even go further and say information is often intentionally used to sow discord and turn people against each other. This is especially true when the people fighting have more in common than differences. I think that is a lot of the so-called "culture war" that gets pimped on cable TV.
I would not go so far as to say this particular piece of info is intended to inflame people against the military. Even someone like me, who has been very vocal in criticizing military policy and the actions of military contractors, is not vilifying military personnel.
There is no doubt that in a country as big as ours you can find people who will say outrageous things and you can always find someone who is badmouthing military personnel. But I think they are a fringe element that gets noticed only because they make for good copy. The only examples I have of people acting like that would be loons like Fred Phelps. He's the political equivalent of Paris Hilton. They may get coverage but I don't think they are trend setters.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 10, 2006 10:58 AM (K5Ko+)
72
Fred Phelps has no peers. And I'm glad I was able to clarify that.
Posted by: Oyster at March 10, 2006 11:01 AM (rf0W8)
73
Cat Stevens and Cassius Clay ( Mohammed Ali ) are both brain-dead. Cat Stevens failed to use ear-plugs and Cassius Clay suffered too many blows to the head!
Posted by: Beavislam at March 10, 2006 11:12 AM (Y2ILH)
74
Blame it on the infedels in the NYT and on the mainstream left-wing news media
Posted by: sandpiper at March 10, 2006 03:50 PM (U/q87)
75
I'm one ahead of Bluto on # of comemts on one thead, Oh crap I just evened it oh the agony the agony.
Posted by: Howie at March 13, 2006 07:30 PM (D3+20)
70kb generated in CPU 0.8387, elapsed 0.8093 seconds.
118 queries taking 0.7864 seconds, 313 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
118 queries taking 0.7864 seconds, 313 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
