wws: Any condemnation for the societies that not only justified wars of conquest but put entire cultures under the sword to do so?

Sure. I condemn all societies that do that, Christian, Muslim, or otherwise.

wws: No kind words for the Marshall plan and the way its employed to rebuild countries that the US defeats after going to war?

Sure, lots of kind words. But the subject of this piece is the mindset that drove, not the Marshall Plan, but the internment of Japanese Americans.

You do understand the difference, right?

wws: How about some realization about the culture of radical Islam that uses terror as a weapon and justifies and revels in it?

Unfortunately, it’s not just radical Islam that “uses terror as a weapon and justifies and revels in it.”

wws: For all of your examples, I note with some candor that Americans are ashamed of those portions of their history, they regret those things, even if they didn’t commit them or had nothing to do with them.

And yet certain Americans never seem to learn from these examples, as indicated by some of the recent rhetoric about Muslims.

wws: An enormous portion of Muslims consider terror attacks justified and even revel in them.

An enormous portion of Americans consider indiscriminate bombings, violence and torture justified and even revel in them.

wws: Which is worse to your eyes?

Neither. I consider hatefulness from Christian or Jewish Americans as revolting as hatefulness from Muslim Americans.

wws: You seem to be good at picking out the worst of the US while ignoring the best to show a perspective bent on highlighting the worst.

Well, the subject of my piece is the recent rhetoric I’ve seen about Muslims. You know, the old “NONE of them can be trusted,” “They’re ALL jihadis unless they prove otherwise!” etc. crap. And no, our history of targeting groups for scapegoating is not an especially flattering aspect of this country. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be pointed out, especially when it looks like some Americans seem intent on repeating history.

wws: Go look at crime statistics perpetrated against Muslims since 9/11–those numbers have gone down rather than up.

It’s nice that the numbers have gone down. It does not, however, make irresponsible and dehumanizing rhetoric about Muslims okay. If that level of rhetoric goes up we will likely see those crime numbers climb again.

WWS: Does that show blind intolerance to Muslims?

No. But saying “they’re all jihadis until they prove otherwise” and invoking the mass slaughter of Muslims as a possible future option definitely does.

WWs: How about Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter?

A man who no more represents all Muslims than Scott Roeder or Eric Rudolph represents all Christians.

WW: The more his background is dug into the more it appear PC kept him in the army when his actions appeared a violation of oath at best and seditious at worst. Yet, we have a wide portion that cant even bring themselves to consider that it may have been religiously motivated as a follower of radical Islam.

What “wide portion” are you talking about who “can’t even bring themselves to consider that it may have been religiously motivated?” Practically every discussion I’ve heard about it recently has included the role religious extremism apparently played.

wws: Exit question : how free or well received are Christians in Muslim countries?

That depends on the Muslim Country. In Egypt Christians live side by side with their Muslim neighbors and worship quite openly. In Iran, while Christians are legally given the right to worship, Christians have in fact faced persecution.

What’s your point? Are you saying we should take our cues about religious freedom from Iran?

wws: You are awfully good at twisting context, Ill give you that. You are playing pretty loose with moral equivalency and facts.

How so? What have I “twisted?”

PFT: What’s your point? Are you saying we should take our cues about religious freedom from Iran?”
wws: No, Im saying we are not as bad as you seem to want to portray us. Which is the point.

How does Iran’s treatment of Christians make us “not as bad as [I] seem to wan to portray us?”

wws: I am terribly interested in what sources you are using to arrive at the they are all jihadis and cannot be trusted since I see very little rhetoric of that kind being floated.

Actually, I described the rhetoric as claiming “They are all Jihadis unless the prove otherwise.” And the quotes I have in mind include:

“Do the Islamic masses, through their abject silence in response to such butchery, actually support terrorists in their hearts or simply fear them too much to speak out and condemn this?…the time is overdue for them to be forced to make a choice as to with whom they stand: civilization, or monsters. We have let them slide for far too long.”

“I’m also trying to not to have to annhiliate large numbers of Muslims in order to guarantee our safety by giving them the chance to point out the terrorist element among them, and to demonstrate that the most of them are not of that ilk.”

“Once 9/11 occurred, any right any Muslim had to the benefit of the doubt should have been gone (for a while, at least). And those who weren’t terrorists should have been willing to point out the radicals in their midst, the better not to get inadvertently caught up in such a blanket sweep. (A unfortunate but necessary step FORCED upon us by the evil a small group perpetrated that the larger group has never repudiated.)”

“I also believe the muslims, unless they can prove me wrong, are trying in any way possible to take over every country they can (check out France and soon England).”

I can offer you many more, if you’d like, but these are a closest to hand, since they were posted on this very website in the essay by David Karki and the comments that followed.

wws:The words troubled, mentally unstable, insane, etc etc pop up much more often than examining his religious beliefs as a focal point for why he did what he did.

That hardly qualifies as “a wide portion that cant even bring themselves to consider that it may have been religiously motivated as a follower of radical Islam.”

I see more of the opposite to side on the air of caution much more often

I am terribly interested in what sources you are using to arrive at the they are all jihadis and cannot be trusted since I see very little rhetoric of that kind being floated. I see more of the opposite to side on the air of caution much more often.

The words troubled, mentally unstable, insane, etc etc pop up much more often than examining his religious beliefs as a focal point for why he did what he did.

wwws: so Muslims get a pass on opinion towards whats wrong with their religion when Christianity gets gone over with a microscope every time anything religiously motivated occurs?

No.

It’s quite simple. Muslims as a group should no more get labeled as dangerous radicals unless they can prove otherwise in the wake of Fort Hood any more than Christians as a group should get labeled as dangerous radicals unless they can prove otherwise in the wake of Scott Roeder’s murder of Dr. Tiller.

Even though we’ve had years of clinic bombings, murders, and assaults by radical Christians against abortion providers, I’ve yet to encounter many (or in fact, any) blogposts or comments by liberals declaring that all Christians should be assumed to be violent extremists until they prove their loyalty by turning in any fellow Christian they think might be a right wing extremist. I’ve certainly not read or heard anyone implying that, if Christians don’t do this, they’re going to face mass annihilation.

Is there anything unclear about this?

wws: Muslims should condemn terrorism, not because of a condition of their status as a citizen but because its the right thing to do.

They have, just as Christians have condemned the actions of Scott Roeder.

wws: Establishment of Sharia law is a goal in England and France in any area heavily populated by Muslims, abrogating the laws of the country in which they reside, that is defacto take over even if you cant recognize it. Hes correct.

“Sharia law” does not always mean the puritanical and violent versions we’ve seen in some Muslim states. The authors of the book WHO SPEAKS FOR ISLAM point this out:

“Gallup data shows that majorities in most countries, with the exception of a handful of nations, want Sharia as at least ‘a’ source of legislation. And at the same time, a majority also supports freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly. The majority of those surveyed also support a woman’s right to vote, drive and work outside the home. Majorities in every nation surveyed, save for Saudi Arabia and Egypt, also believe it appropriate for women to serve at the highest levels of government in their nation’s Cabinet and National Council (and even in Saudi Arabia, 40% of all adults subscribe to this view).”

wws: Id also like to point out that a number of polls have shown that even moderate Muslims support the use of terror as a means to an end; hes right there as well. Hes just using blunt language you don’t like.

Which polls were these?

And it’s certainly true that I don’t like essays implying that the complete annihilation of a people is a viable future option. I’m funny that way.

wws: Also, Karki makes up a majority?

No. Where did I say he did?

wws: Grow out of your strawman

Given that much of your argument has consisted of ascribing things to me I did not say, I don’t think you’re in any position to invoke “strawmen.”

wws: Problem is I do not see a ton of presentation of the kind Karki is presenting but he does make some salient points. If you want to rebut him maybe you ought to do so on his post eh?

I did.

wws: PTSD is discussed as the most likely or probable cause in almost all the news outlets I have seen, Fox being as is usual, the exception. ABC is doing some very solid follow up on Hasan’s background leading up to the shootings, kudos to them. WaPo, Newsweek, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, Time, not so much, but the story seems to be slowly shifting that way as more of Hasan’s life comes under scrutiny and it seems more and more plausible that his religion was a focus or at least partial reason for what he did.

In other words, some news outlets are doing precisely what they’re supposed to do — waiting until all the evidence and information becomes available before drawing conclusions.

wws: do you think his religion had nothing to do with it and he just snapped?

It sounds as though his religion had a lot to do with it.

wws: Let me know when the Christian suicide bombings start.

So now you’re saying that the salient difference is the existence of suicide bombers? Did the kamikazes during WWII vindicate the internment of Japanese Americans?

wws: There is something wrong with a religion when radicals of that religion suicide bomb civilians and the rest of those practicing that religion don’t condemn them loudly and vocally.

What makes you think other Muslims have not condemned them “loudly and vocally?”

wws: Liberal rhetoric?

Does not generally include calls for killing conservatives.

ww: DHS memo ringing any bells?

You mean the one about a possible rise in domestic terrorism which, given the recent run on guns and the rhetoric about secession and armed uprising, was right on the money? Did it include calls for nuking conservative cities or conducting a mass slaughter of right wingers?

wws HuffPo and Daily Kos mean anything as liberal voices?

Specifically what quotes from Huffpo and Daily Kos essays do you have in mind?

It’s really great post. I would like to appreciate your work and would like to tell to my friends. Thanks for sharing!!

Wow! Thank you! I continually needed to write on my blog something like that. Can I take a part of your post to my website?
free live wallpaper

I actually certainly need to think even more in that direction and see a few things i can do regarding this.

I just want to mention I am all new to blogs and certainly savored this web-site. Almost certainly I’m planning to bookmark your blog . You actually come with tremendous articles. Appreciate it for sharing with us your webpage.

Sweet web site , super style and design , rattling clean and apply friendly .