Gen. David Petraeus says the burning of Koran would ...

[Infohawk]

I feel like the major difference here is that the offended group is Muslims...the tone of this discussion would not be the way it is if we were talking about anything else.

You're right. If it was a bible-burning campaign I don't think most liberals would be quite as upset. And if many Muslims weren't so sensitive about it and threatening violence, and if artists hadn't been killed and threatened by Muslims for freedom of expression in the past I wouldn't find it as interesting.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like a lot of progressives feel like Muslims are being picked on unfairly. But I'm not going to defend them just because they're an underdog in America. It's still a barbaric religion that is just as unworthy as all other superstitions. And the fact that many of their followers tend to overreact with violence and threats and outrage makes them a bigger target for me right now than most other religions. Honestly it's hard to get upset about teaching creationism in school when violence is being threatened over a book-burning.

 

[Jaskalas]

But bashing Islam/Muslims out in the real world and creating a "Burn a Koran Day" actually has repercussions. Sending Muslims the message that Americans think we're fighting a crusade/jihad against them and believe their religion is evil actually jeopardizes the war effort against extremists and terrorists that we're fighting for their sake.

This is precisely what gripes me.

You speak of our military in Muslim lands killing Muslims, and you seem to think that's a REALLY good thing, but don't we DARE let a Church in Florida burn a book.

 

[Infohawk]

This is precisely what gripes me.

You speak of our military in Muslim lands killing Muslims, and you seem to think that's a REALLY good thing, but don't we DARE let a Church in Florida burn a book.

That confuses me about Throck too... Is he really a believer of our mission in Afghanistan? Or is he just trying to guilt people with the possibility of dead soldiers? If soldiers die it's because they're over there in the first place.

 

[Rainsford]

You're right. If it was a bible-burning campaign I don't think most liberals would be quite as upset. And if many Muslims weren't so sensitive about it and threatening violence, and if artists hadn't been killed and threatened by Muslims for freedom of expression in the past I wouldn't find it as interesting.

Well you know what they say, if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.

But nobody IS conducting a well publicized bible burning campaign on the heels of calling all Christians barbaric terrorists, are they? Nor is anybody suggesting that violent radicals in other countries represent Christians in this country or Christians who are peaceful. Analogous situations work better when they're actually analogous...

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like a lot of progressives feel like Muslims are being picked on unfairly. But I'm not going to defend them just because they're an underdog in America. It's still a barbaric religion that is just as unworthy as all other superstitions. And the fact that many of their followers tend to overreact with violence and threats and outrage makes them a bigger target for me right now than most other religions. Honestly it's hard to get upset about teaching creationism in school when violence is being threatened over a book-burning.

"They" don't all think or do one thing, and the fact that you've apparently chosen Osama bin Laden as the representative for all Muslims pretty much proves that they are being picked on unfairly in this country.

 

[Infohawk]

Well you know what they say, if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.

But nobody IS conducting a well publicized bible burning campaign on the heels of calling all Christians barbaric terrorists, are they? Nor is anybody suggesting that violent radicals in other countries represent Christians in this country or Christians who are peaceful. Analogous situations work better when they're actually analogous...


"They" don't all think or do one thing, and the fact that you've apparently chosen Osama bin Laden as the representative for all Muslims pretty much proves that they are being picked on unfairly in this country.

Maybe nobody is talking about Christian terrorists as much because they're aren't as many examples? Christians are far from perfect but in this time period they aren't really that violent these days.

I didn't say all Muslims are terrorists. I'm not sure why you keep going back to that argument. My point is that I'm not worried about offending superstitious people whether or not they're terrorists.

 

[cwjerome]

I haven't read through this long topic but General Patraeus is doing what pragmatic leaders of troops do: Look out for their safety. People like him aren't in a position to go down on principle. I would do the same in his shoes...

 

[Infohawk]

I haven't read through this long topic but General Patraeus is doing what pragmatic leaders of troops do: Look out for their safety. People like him aren't in a position to go down on principle. I would do the same in his shoes...

So you admit you're not principled. Fair enough.

 

[Rainsford]

Maybe nobody is talking about Christian terrorists as much because they're aren't as many examples? Christians are far from perfect but in this time period they aren't really that violent these days.

I don't see what that has to do with how we treat people who aren't terrorists, even if I granted your point that you can't find a lot of examples of violent Christian (or non-Muslim) groups in recent history.

I didn't say all Muslims are terrorists. I'm not sure why you keep going back to that argument. My point is that I'm not worried about offending superstitious people whether or not they're terrorists.

You're not outright saying it, and neither is anyone else really. What people ARE doing is using words like "they" and "them", meaning Muslims in general, when they talk about violence and terrorism. Which is close enough to the same thing, in my mind...

Edit: And read what you specifically said a bit more carefully. You said because SOME Muslims react to offense with threats and violence, you view ALL Muslims (or Islam in general) as more of a threat. If that's not lumping them all in together, I'm not sure what is.

 

[Infohawk]

I don't see what that has to do with how we treat people who aren't terrorists, even if I granted your point that you can't find a lot of examples of violent Christian (or non-Muslim) groups in recent history.


You're not outright saying it, and neither is anyone else really. What you ARE doing is using words like "they" and "them", meaning Muslims in general, when you talk about violence and terrorism. Which is close enough to the same thing, in my mind...

Again, you're suggesting dishonesty, but it's not that complicated. Not all Muslims are terrorists but all Muslims are irrational believers in superstition. I don't care if any of them, terrorist or not, feel insulted because someone doesn't respect their idiotic beliefs.

 

[Rainsford]

Again, you're suggesting dishonesty, but it's not that complicated. Not all Muslims are terrorists but all Muslims are irrational believers in superstition. I don't care if any of them, terrorist or not, feel insulted because someone doesn't respect their idiotic beliefs.

In my defense, I'm only suggesting that your protestations might be less than genuine because I'm actually reading what you're writing. If you remember, your very first post in this thread said the following...

Anyway, this story epitomizes the difference between Christians and Muslims. Christians do silly crap like this and like saying that Jesus walked with dinosaurs. Pretty lame but not as lame as hordes of Muslims protesting over this crap. And we'll see if they turn violent.

Clearly you're not just talking about not having respect for superstitious religious belief, it's about thinking of Muslims, all Muslims, as less than Christians...whether or not they are violent extremists or just people who wish people wouldn't burn their holy book. I'm suggesting you have a problem with Muslims specifically, extremist or otherwise, because that's what your posts suggest.

 

[mstersmith12]

I cant wait for this BBQ to get started! Time for us to burn a bit of that peacful culture.

 

[Infohawk]

In my defense, I'm only suggesting that your protestations might be less than genuine because I'm actually reading what you're writing. If you remember, your very first post in this thread said the following...



Clearly you're not just talking about not having respect for superstitious religious belief, it's about thinking of Muslims, all Muslims, as less than Christians...whether or not they are violent extremists or just people who wish people wouldn't burn their holy book. I'm suggesting you have a problem with Muslims specifically, extremist or otherwise, because that's what your posts suggest.

I'm sorry if I don't know the exact proportion of Muslims who burned flags over this compared to the total Muslim population. From what I've seen a LOT of Muslims have protested over this. Is this unfair for me to say? Is it unfair of me to ask if many of them will turn violent?

Before you answer that maybe you should read this doozy of yours:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=26710647&postcount=14

Naughty naughty Mr. Generalizer.

 

[Rainsford]

I'm sorry if I don't know the exact proportion of Muslims who burned flags over this compared to the total Muslim population. From what I've seen a LOT of Muslims have protested over this. Is this unfair for me to say? Is it unfair of me to ask if many of them will turn violent?

Before you answer that maybe you should read this doozy of yours:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=26710647&postcount=14

Naughty naughty Mr. Generalizer.

I don't know, I did at least call out the Christian right, rather than lumping all Christians together with gay bashers. Is that better or worse than the way you're generalizing Muslims? I don't know, but I'm not sure either is very good.

In any case, I can't help but notice how much more specific your complaints get now that we're talking about generalizing. But it sounds like a red herring to me, because whatever the percentage of Muslims reacting badly might be, I don't think it was very important to your point. Christians and Muslims is what you were talking about, and I think you meant all of 'em.

Edit: And to be fair, I'm not just playing the gotcha game with one post you happened to make. In many, many posts in this thread alone, you kept referring to "Muslims" and "Islam" as violent radicals, and if you didn't really mean you thought they were all Osama bin Laden, you didn't seem to think that was an important enough distinction to make. And I feel like that attitude is a problem for how this country deals with Muslims in American and elsewhere. And that attitude, and the absence of a similar attitude in this country directed at other religious groups, is a major reason anti-Muslim actions aren't thought of the same way by people like me.

 

[dainthomas]

Maybe nobody is talking about Christian terrorists as much because they're aren't as many examples? Christians are far from perfect but in this time period they aren't really that violent these days.

To be fair, Christians had a 700 year head start to work out all the nuttiness. In the 14th century, the Catholic church was burning/stoning/drowning/torturing witches/warlocks every time there was a drought/flood/hailstorm/passing cloud.

 

[Rainsford]

To be fair, Christians had a 700 year head start to work out all the nuttiness. In the 14th century, the Catholic church was burning/stoning/drowning/torturing witches/warlocks every time there was a drought/flood/hailstorm/passing cloud.

True, but that's not really the best point anyways, because the idea people are pushing that all (or most) modern terrorists are Muslim seems like a very selective interpretation of modern history.

Prior to 9/11, you didn't find many people making the suggestion, because it would have sounded silly. Separatists in Spain, the IRA in Ireland, many different communist eastern European groups, militia idiots in the US, the list of non-Muslim terrorist type activity that's been around in our lifetimes goes on and on. Look at popular culture before 9/11, and you'll see a wide range of hypothetical terrorist bad guys, because at that point hardly anybody treated terrorism as a strictly Islamic thing.

Really, terrorism = Muslim is an idea that almost entirely rests on the events of 9/11 and the events around the follow-on invasion of two almost entirely Muslim countries. The insurgents/terrorists we found there, were people expecting Quakers?

 

[ModestGamer]

Is there anyway we can turn this into a religous crusade where the people from the bible belt go and fight the muslims in some shithole like east africa ?I am sure we can get both side plenty of ammo. Let the 2 biggest problems the world has take care of itself.

 

[Rainsford]

Is there anyway we can turn this into a religous crusade where the people from the bible belt go and fight the muslims in some shithole like east africa ?I am sure we can get both side plenty of ammo. Let the 2 biggest problems the world has take care of itself.

The religious right may not be your cup of tea, but they're not comparable to violent extremists either. The Koran burning pastor is an asshole who probably should read his bible a little more closely, but he's not in the same league as Osama bin Laden.

 

[Infohawk]

I don't know, I did at least call out the Christian right, rather than lumping all Christians together with gay bashers. Is that better or worse than the way you're generalizing Muslims? I don't know, but I'm not sure either is very good.

In any case, I can't help but notice how much more specific your complaints get now that we're talking about generalizing. But it sounds like a red herring to me, because whatever the percentage of Muslims reacting badly might be, I don't think it was very important to your point. Christians and Muslims is what you were talking about, and I think you meant all of 'em.

Edit: And to be fair, I'm not just playing the gotcha game with one post you happened to make. In many, many posts in this thread alone, you kept referring to "Muslims" and "Islam" as violent radicals, and if you didn't really mean you thought they were all Osama bin Laden, you didn't seem to think that was an important enough distinction to make. And I feel like that attitude is a problem for how this country deals with Muslims in American and elsewhere. And that attitude, and the absence of a similar attitude in this country directed at other religious groups, is a major reason anti-Muslim actions aren't thought of the same way by people like me.

Why don't you just accept that people, including you, generalize in P&N because it would become burdensome and absurd to qualify every statement? Suffice it to say, I don't think every single Muslim is a rabid terrorist. I think deep down you know that. At the same time, I do think Islam is a more dangerous superstition at this time than Christianity. If that's generalizing, so be it. Obviously there are some Christians that are more violent than most Muslims, but at the day the patterns do not reflect on Islam as a whole very well.

You're right I don't want to make it clear every time that there are nice peaceful Muslims out there that don't chop off people's heads. Not only is that obvious but ultimately they choose to be part of a community. They can't take all the good and none of the bad. For example, as an American I'm proud of the moon landing but I accept that atrocities have been committed by Americans. I don't ask people to tip-toe around me and constantly say that not all Americans were Indian-killers.

 

[Infohawk]

To be fair, Christians had a 700 year head start to work out all the nuttiness. In the 14th century, the Catholic church was burning/stoning/drowning/torturing witches/warlocks every time there was a drought/flood/hailstorm/passing cloud.

I would be really worried if I lived in 15th century Spain.

 

[ModestGamer]

The religious right may not be your cup of tea, but they're not comparable to violent extremists either. The Koran burning pastor is an asshole who probably should read his bible a little more closely, but he's not in the same league as Osama bin Laden.

I say, let them have cake.

 

[Throckmorton]

This is precisely what gripes me.

You speak of our military in Muslim lands killing Muslims, and you seem to think that's a REALLY good thing, but don't we DARE let a Church in Florida burn a book.

Killing Muslims in Muslim lands is a good thing when they're the Muslims who attacked us and want to impose Islamic fascism on other Muslims

 

[Infohawk]

Killing Muslims in Muslim lands is a good thing when they're the Muslims who attacked us and want to impose Islamic fascism on other Muslims

Did you think killing Vietnamese in Vietnam was a good thing when they were the Vietnamese that caused the gulf of Tonkin Incident and wanted to impose communism on other Vietnamese?

 

[Throckmorton]

Did you think killing Vietnamese in Vietnam was a good thing when they were the Vietnamese that caused the gulf of Tonkin Incident and wanted to impose communism on other Vietnamese?

I was born in 1984

 

[cwjerome]

So you admit you're not principled. Fair enough.

No, I admitted I would sacrifice some principles in his shoes. There is a time and place for everything. If you would be stubborn enough sacrifice men's lives because of your personal ideals on this issue then not only would you be a terrible general, you'd be an asshole... no matter how much integrity you displayed for your precious, lofty idealism.

It's easy to be high and mighty sitting behind a computer. Context means a lot.

 

[Budmantom]

I guess the flag burning left is against this?