The PEACEFUL MAJORITY are IRRELEVANT-Islam

[skombolis]

As someone who cautions against the dangers of stereotyping all Muslims, there is also an inherent danger of allowing that to minimize the threat posed by the minority. This video, under 5 minutes, is one I would strongly recommend people watch.

[YT]x4zis1E0p0M[/YT]

It talks about the atrocities that have been committed throughout history where the peaceful majority was irrelevant. And it raises a solid point about why there are not more Muslims from the peaceful majority speaking out against the extremists. And how political conversations can get hijacked by this agenda for political correctness.

I have always been outspoken against extremists (as anyone would be) but this video gave me a lot to think about when it comes to the peaceful majority. The college student asks a question that seems very reasonable on the surface and the answer did well to illustrate the bigger picture. I hope people check it out.

 

[Magx951]

Inb4 people try to turn this into a statistics war instead of the actual point of the thread. This is a woman that was used as a human shield I believe as well.

 

[Ruprecht]

Been posted already. More than once.

It's a shit argument.

 

[ripskater]

Inb4 people try to turn this into a statistics war instead of the actual point of the thread. This is a woman that was used as a human shield I believe as well.

Which woman? The one asking the question or the one on the panel?

 

[guassian]

Been posted already. More than once.

It's a shit argument.

Please do explain?

 

[ripskater]

So 15-25% of Muslims have extremist views. That's pretty dangerous. Cause you don't know who is what. And with a religion like Islam that preaches killing non Muslims, you don't know who will go extremist in the future. Also, I heard a statistic that the average muslim husband has like 22 kids. Guess what religion those kids are gonna be raised in? And at least 5/22 (maybe more) are gonna end up being radical extremists according to the stats.

 

[Mike Hagger]

15%-25% of muslims are radical according to all intelligence agencies.

Is that factual?

 

[ripskater]

15%-25% of muslims are radical according to all intelligence agencies.

Is that factual?

That's in line with other things I have heard. Especially the Muslims that come from certain countries.

 

[skombolis]

Been posted already. More than once.

It's a shit argument.

I've made like 4 threads total. I'm not the kind of person to search out gifs instead if just saying it was posted so maybe I don't have the routine down. What exactly should I have searched to see this was posted in the past, the name of the video? That wouldn't even occur to me to search a random YouTube video and the old thread has no mention of it in the title.

And not everyone sees past threads. Why do you have such a problem with it being discussed now and to the extent that you would find a gif, post the old thread, complain, and that make a statement with zero explanation? I'd expect someone who had been in past threads could elaborate a little better. Maybe it could still benefit from another discussion. Why is it a shit argument?

 

[danny23]

Inb4 people try to turn this into a statistics war instead of the actual point of the thread. This is a woman that was used as a human shield I believe as well.

Which one was used as a shield?

 

[Ruprecht]

Please do explain?

This is from the Heritage Foundation "Benghazi Panel" icon_lol. Sounds scripted to me.

She doesn't define "radical" as per the statistics, but conflates it with being "dedicated to the destruction of the United States". Clearly inaccurate.

Then she conflates Islamic terrorism with Communist China, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, as if Muslim Terrorists are the leaders of Muslims globally, and in control of their economic, military and political power. Clearly they aren't.

In fact they aren't even united in a comparably meaningful way.

Then she goes on to conflate the holocaust and the communist massacres etc, with 9/11. Completely different sorts of events. The numbers alone make it farcical. Terrorism is a tactic employed by the fundamentally impotent.

Also, by using the examples of Imperial Japan, Communism and Nazi Germany she's implicitly casting all muslims as America's military enemy by comparing them to it's historical ones. Dog whistle nonsense.

It's bluster aimed squarely at ignorant bigotry.

 

[ALAN PARTRIDGE]

I've made like 4 threads total. I'm not the kind of person to search out gifs instead if just saying it was posted so maybe I don't have the routine down. What exactly should I have searched to see this was posted in the past, the name of the video? That wouldn't even occur to me to search a random YouTube video and the old thread has no mention of it in the title.

And not everyone sees past threads. Why do you have such a problem with it being discussed now and to the extent that you would find a gif, post the old thread, complain, and that make a statement with zero explanation? I'd expect someone who had been in past threads could elaborate a little better. Maybe it could still benefit from another discussion. Why is it a shit argument?

we forgive u

 

[Ruprecht]

I've made like 4 threads total. I'm not the kind of person to search out gifs instead if just saying it was posted so maybe I don't have the routine down. What exactly should I have searched to see this was posted in the past, the name of the video? That wouldn't even occur to me to search a random YouTube video and the old thread has no mention of it in the title.

And not everyone sees past threads. Why do you have such a problem with it being discussed now and to the extent that you would find a gif, post the old thread, complain, and that make a statement with zero explanation? I'd expect someone who had been in past threads could elaborate a little better. Maybe it could still benefit from another discussion. Why is it a shit argument?

You make it sound like that was some sort of effort? It took me seconds.

You should have known that a right-wing, anti-muslim, chain mail video like this would have already been posted here at least once. Much like the "Eurabia" nonsense scare videos. The least you could do is put the YT tag in the search bar. The same footage has actually been posted again and again, it's over a year old.
It was posted twice just recently (by Imam Barlow I believe, which says it all really :icon_lol. Both threads were deleted (annoyingly, or I could have just cut and pasted my response).

 

[skombolis]

This is from the Heritage Foundation "Benghazi Panel" icon_lol. Sounds scripted to me.

She doesn't define "radical" as per the statistics, but conflates it with being "dedicated to the destruction of the United States". Clearly inaccurate.

Then she conflates Islamic terrorism with Communist China, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, as if Muslim Terrorists are the leaders of Muslims globally, and in control of their economic, military and political power. Clearly they aren't.

In fact they aren't even united in a comparably meaningful way.

Then she goes on to conflate the holocaust and the communist massacres etc, with 9/11. Completely different sorts of events. The numbers alone make it farcical. Terrorism is a tactic employed by the fundamentally impotent.

Also, by using the examples of Imperial Japan, Communism and Nazi Germany she's implicitly casting all muslims as America's military enemy by comparing them to it's historical ones. Dog whistle nonsense.

It's bluster aimed squarely at ignorant bigotry.

You missed her point entirely. She compared them in the context of the peaceful majority failing to prevent horrible tragedy. The point was that despite the majority being peaceful that all it took was the minority and that is why the potential danger can't be ignored.

And the panel was about 4 Americans who has been killed and it was the student that asked the question and brought up the point about most Muslims being peaceful. She didn't conflate anything. She addressed the question directly and have other examples.

 

[skombolis]

we forgive u

Thanks

I guess I don't take my TS responsibilities as serious as I should.

 

[guassian]

This is from the Heritage Foundation "Benghazi Panel" icon_lol. Sounds scripted to me.

Definitely scripted. So what?

Then she conflates Islamic terrorism with Communist China, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, as if Muslim Terrorists are the leaders of Muslims globally, and in control of their economic, military and political power. Clearly they aren't.

In fact they aren't even united in a comparably meaningful way.

She didn't argue that they are united. Just that a few people can kill a lot of people.
But I get your point that terrorists are not in position to cause mass destruction on the scale of WWII (not yet).

Also, by using the examples of Imperial Japan, Communism and Nazi Germany she's implicitly casting all muslims as America's military enemy by comparing them to it's historical ones. Dog whistle nonsense.

It's bluster aimed squarely at ignorant bigotry.

Radical Islamists are no doubt America's military enemy. By pointing out a small number of Islamists, she's precluding "all muslims".

 

[Shokushu Goukan]

You missed her point entirely. She compared them in the context of the peaceful majority failing to prevent horrible tragedy. The point was that despite the majority being peaceful that all it took was the minority and that is why the potential danger can't be ignored.

And the panel was about 4 Americans who has been killed and it was the student that asked the question and brought up the point about most Muslims being peaceful. She didn't conflate anything. She addressed the question directly and have other examples.

Exactly. Ruprick doesn't really seem to know anything. She should have took it one step further and went into how every country run by muslims end up using sharia or at least part sharia which sharia is very bigoted against infidels and is very violent for any infraction against what muhammed taught---muhammed who calls for the slaughter and subjugation of all non muslims.

Islam is the enemy of all non muslims. I wish I could come here with some hippy love message but that would be a lie.

 

[Ruprecht]

You missed her point entirely. She compared them in the context of the peaceful majority failing to prevent horrible tragedy. The point was that despite the majority being peaceful that all it took was the minority and that is why the potential danger can't be ignored.

And the panel was about 4 Americans who has been killed and it was the student that asked the question and brought up the point about most Muslims being peaceful. She didn't conflate anything. She addressed the question directly and have other examples.

Ah... no. It's you that seems to not understand what actually made those examples dangerous, and how they were actually united.

What if instead of "Nazis" she had said "White people" or "Christians", or instead of Imperial Japanese, she'd said "Asians" or "Animists", would her statement hold any value?

No, because they aren't meaningfully united or coordinated in a way which allows them to wage war together or for collective blame to make any sense.

 

[skombolis]

You make it sound like that was some sort of effort? It took me seconds.

You should have known that a right-wing, anti-muslim, chain mail video like this would have already been posted here at least once. Much like the "Eurabia" nonsense scare videos. The least you could do is put the YT tag in the search bar. The same footage has actually been posted again and again, it's over a year old.
It was posted twice just recently (by Imam Barlow I believe, which says it all really :icon_lol. Both threads were deleted (annoyingly, or I could have just cut and pasted my response).

Barlow posted it? Well that's a little depressing!

But I didn't see it as anti-Muslim. I see it as being pragmatic. She wasn't denying that most Muslims are peaceful, she was making the point that it doesn't take a majority to cause major problems.

There are reasons society is forced sometimes to do things like profile. It may not be politically correct but unfortunately there are times the reality doesn't allow for taking everyone's feelings into account when a danger is prevalent enough.

We don't have the luxury of just dismissing it as a radical minority and most are peaceful. That radical minority can do a shitload of damage. You disagree with that or that perhaps the majority should be more concerned with publicly condemning the minority?

People definitely use the argument that most are peaceful to shit down discussion or label others as bigots (and some may be) when that may have nothing to do with it. A bigot would condemn everyone. A pragmatist would acknowledge the peaceful majority and the dangers the minority poses.

 

[Ruprecht]

Radical Islamists are no doubt America's military enemy. By pointing out a small number of Islamists, she's precluding "all muslims".

No she didn't, because she explicitly compared Muslims to Japanese in Imperial Japan and Germans in Nazi Germany.