Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Mosques and Sikh Temples

The attack came early. Like any coward, the killer wasn't interested in a fair fight, and chances are he didn't even know whom he was killing. Having stalked his prey for reasons that even now aren't entirely clear, he struck when his victims were most vulnerable: as they prayed in their house of worship. Within minutes, a once-peaceful place became a war zone, blood-smeared floors littered with the lifeless bodies of worshipers. And for what?

But Sarah Palin didn't tweet about it. No major-league sporting events were interrupted with a moment of silence. Barack Obama didn't issue a statement expressing his sorrow. Mitt Romney didn't try to out-sorrow him. If anything, when reports of the carnage hit Washington, it only served as that famously overcompensating town's afternoon Cialis. No flags were at half-staff, but something else was.

That's because the victims of this particular massacre made the dubious decision to be born and raised in a suspicious land called Somewhere Else, a strange and often swarthy place where moral principles like "hey, try not to kill people, yeah?" need not apply to the natives.

Charles Davis in an editorial for Al Jazeera contrasting the treatment of worshipers in Pakistan with those in Wisconsin.


Chad said...

Palin didn't post anything about the Left Wing nut that shot the security guard this week, she didn't tweet about the two officers ambushed and killed in Louisiana yesterday - what is your point?

Tragedy yes, American day of mourning absolutely not.

Jon said...

Yes, police officers and security guards do put themselves in harms way and sometimes get injured/killed. That's understood. It's considered different when civilians in a place of worship are attacked. That's the difference between terrorism and non-terroristic violence.

But I tell you this. If the attackers in the incidents you mentioned were Muslim Sarah Palin would have tweeted about it. When non-Muslims attack it's usually considered an isolated incident. A loner. A weirdo. When a Muslim attacks he's assumed to be part of a huge conspiracy to take us all out.

When Andres Brevic attacked Bob Dutko literally said it wasn't terrorism because (according to Dutko) he didn't have some sort of ideology driving him. That was false. He did have an ideology, but it wasn't the ideology that matters to Bob when it comes to terrorism. You need to be a Muslim to be a terrorist in Bob's world. When white people do the exact same thing for Bob that's not terrorism. I called Bob and pointed this out, but I wasn't able to record it.


Chad said...

Don't you think that will always be true though? Right or wrong - terrorism has been linked to the Muslim community and in many cases rightfully so. The Ft. Hood shooting is being labeled as a violent work place act and not terrorism which is a flat out shame and far more inflamatory then this event. There was another example on the news as well - just can't put my finger on it where a radical muslim did something and that was tried in court as a civil case - think it was in Arkansas.

I am more concerned personally about the violence in Chicago - it gets very little press and it is a major issue. I heard that more people have been shot and killed in Chicago this year then died in a period of time (maybe the same period) in the war we are unfortunately participating in.

I don't recall hearing about another violent act (shooting/deaths) of any muslims in this country, but the first time it happens - your all over it like American should make this headline news - why because they are Muslims?

What is the scoreboard - Muslims killed at the hands of an American versus Amercians killed at the hand of Muslims here in the US?

Jon said...

Terrorism is rightly linked to many different groups, including Christian fundamentalism, white separatists, and French winemakers (seriously). Yeah, some Muslims combine their faith with violence, just like Hindus and Christians do.

Why should Ft Hood be regarded as terrorism? How do you define terrorism? This is where things get tricky because once you start trying to figure out what the word actually means you begin to realize that the "wrong" people look like terrorists. Think about what you mean with the word. Then think about Hiroshima, Native Americans, Cuba, Central America, and Israel. What exactly makes a person a terrorist?

At Ft Hood a guy attacked a military outpost that is part of an army that happens to have invaded various countries. If that's terrorism then every act of war is terrorism.

I've done some work trying to figure out the number of Muslims killed by our government and the number of Americans killed by Muslim people. Not limited to our country, but it gives you a sense. Check it out here.

BTW, Muslim and American are not mutually exclusive categories. Muslims can be American. In fact I know a lot of them. You should consider the effects of the underlying assumption you have there which erroneously tries to distinguish Muslims from Americans as if no American would be Muslim.

Chad said...

Here is a counter here. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/its-not-islamophobia-its-islamorealism-anti-islamic-ads-go-up-in-n-y-suburb/

When I say Americans (generalizing) it includes the Muslims in his country obeying laws and not here to commit violent crimes against her citizens.

Chad said...


Check out the scoreboard here - shocking.

Jon said...

Chad, explain something to me here. I checked your links. They're tallying Islamic attacks by saying any time someone in Iraq engages in violence that counts as one attack by Muslims. What about the attacks by the US military. Those aren't a part of the tally at all. They list the one Sikh temple attack, so apparently there was 1 attack by angry racists and 260 attacks by Muslims during Ramadan.

What about all of Obama's drone strikes during Ramadan? What about all the violent incidents occurring in Afghanistan in Iraq by the US military?

Is it seriously wrong to attempt to repel an invading army? That's how Pamela Geller comes up with the 19,250 figure in your first link. Yeah, the US military invaded and these people dared to attempt to repel them. How dare they? You're supposed to let the US military roll right over you and any resistance is an outrage. They are clearly backwards war mongering lunatics in that they attempted to resist our violence. What a backwards, violent religion. Is this how you see the world?

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan why didn't it work the same way? Why wasn't Pamela Geller listing the number of Muslim attacks on the Soviets and using it as evidence that Islam is a violent, backwards religion? The atheistic Soviets must be great. They haven't attacked at all (we just don't bother counting their violence). But look at how many times the Muslims reacted violently to this invasion. Does that make sense to you?

Chad said...

I saw that and was hoping you might have some stats to balance.

What I struggle with is this - attacks against our military or any invading military OK that is one thing. When you purposely blow up innocent people - that is entirely another.

These drone stikes you speak of - minus collateral damage aren't those directed toward our sworn enemies? Another words - again subtracting a wayword missle - these are generally strategic strikes against folks who would and will kill anyone not in their faith?

I hate war - hate it, but there is a difference between a military killing a group of people who's strategy is to kill innocent people.

And I am also struggling with your views to protect this faith which advocates violence. When not advocating violence it has laws and beliefs that demean women, it has laws against being gay, it has laws against any alternative lifestyle.

It is very very odd - do you wish to support this faith only until it becomes accepted then you plan to scream at the moon to change those things you do not like - similar to how you attack capitalism or protect the poor?

Mind Boggling.

Jon said...

What our government does is they get a tip that there's a target in a coffee shop. So they just blow the whole place up. Sometimes it turns out the target wasn't there. Whoops. Well, we didn't do it to kill civilians. We express regret and then go do the same thing tomorrow. Maybe the next coffee shop has the target inside, maybe not. Who cares?

So I'm just trying to understand what you're saying here. We blow up coffee shops and kill scores of civilians. I'm guessing we kill a lot more than they do, but I'd have to dig into that a bit. They probably kill fewer civilians, but they are actually targeting them, whereas when we do it we treat them like ants on the sidewalk. You walk down the sidewalk and if you stop to think about it for a second you know ants are dying, but you don't care. We blow up apartment buildings and schools. We should probably assume civilians are dying but we don't think about it too much. Is it really so much better that we do it without regard and they do it with intent? When you're dead I don't think it matters.

You write:

And I am also struggling with your views to protect this faith which advocates violence. When not advocating violence it has laws and beliefs that demean women, it has laws against being gay, it has laws against any alternative lifestyle.

Do you understand how well what you just described applies to Christianity?

I don't really buy it when people try to blame religion for so much violence, whether Christian or Islam. I blogged a while back about a Lebanese Christian suicide bomber. A woman in fact. She probably takes her faith and in her mind it justifies her violence. She attacked Israeli soldiers. Why? Because of Christianity? No. Israel had invaded Lebanon and was occupying it. When you invade a country people attempt to repel you. If they are Christian they will try and repel you. If they are atheist they will try and repel you (check the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka). And yeah, if they are Muslim they will try and repel you, and they'll use terrorism if they are very weak relative to your strong military. This just doesn't have anything to do with religion.

So it's not that I want to defend Islam. It's that I want people to face the real causes. Do you know why OBL attacked us? He stated his reasons repeatedly, but amazingly most Americans don't know. They just hear Bush say "They hate our freedom" and they just accept that blindly. It's sad. Our military was present in his part of the world and he took offense just as we would be offended if China set up military bases in our country and installed our political leaders. He falls back on his faith to embolden himself in his resistance, but to blame his faith and ignore the root cause is foolish.

Chad said...

I think there are major differences in religions, but I do understand your point.

Examinator said...

Is full of half truths/ misinterpretations and selective INTERPRETATIONS. What it is NOT is accurate.

I have a rule of thumb ...any comment that is 'prefaced by Politically incorrect etc' is generally an excuse to proffer Urban Myths that justify prejudice'
This site is certainly one of them.
Take Cair for example it has only 50k members and it was started by Muslim Brotherhood. So? Do you belong to your local branch of the Dems a church? I'm not, how does that define me? A republican/ Muslim perhaps?
A rudimentary knowledge of Islam history etc places it in the same context as the other two major monotheistic religions.... and so are its followers. What the media loves to portray are the extremes (minorities. Are all Christians fundies practice the Bible verbatim,
not even close. If they did Chad would be in deep Biblical do do. It is the same for Muslims.

Examinator said...

Ponder on this.
Jews were originally a hill tribe sect of Caananites after the fall of that empire and shares many links/ practices/ beliefs
Christians were originally a Jewish sect after the sack of Jerusalem by the Romans.And shares many links/practices/ beliefs
Islam came from Judaism (Jews)and shares many links/practices/beliefs it came about during a time when most of the (Arab)Middle east was in chaos it was originally a unifying force against endless tribal wars. at the time of the split between the Orthodox (Christians) of which there are a number and the Roman Catholic pope.
Also not that there were many many other versions of Christianity all competing with each other at the time. Each with their own 'bibles' that emphasised their particular bent.
The Bible as we know it was decided on by the Catholic Pope it is only significant by the books of the apostles that were left out...because they didn't agree with the powers in the RC church of the time.
FYI There are something like 9 different 'denominations' of Jews;
15 clear different denominations and many sub sets of Muslims; Christianity has substantially more,
The idea that they can be seen in three amorphous groups that agree with themselves is either utter naivety and or Nonsense. i.e. The Adventist churches despise the Catholics and don't belong to the ecumenical council.
Likewise the Hasidic Jews look down on not 'orthodox' Jews. they don't recognise Jesus.
Sunni despise the Shi'ite and so goes but they both recognise Jesus as a prophet of note.
Underneath that they all trace their ancestry to the first Jews.

Examinator said...

Oh yes I forgot to mention THE SIKHS AREN'T MUSLIM as I understand it they are nearer Hindu