Much of liberal America needs to accept the pervasiveness of radical Islam and stop denying reality and making false equivalencies.


When I listen to Democratic law makers and guests on shows like Bill Maher talk about Islam, it's absolutely mind blowing how out of touch with reality they seem. 1/4 of British Muslims think that the 7/7 bombings were justified and 2/3 want insulting Islam to be a criminal offense. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/

These aren't the results of one cherry picked study, these kind of results are widely replicable. Pew did a massive survey consisting of the views of Muslims from dozens of countries and the beliefs were equally alarming. No one is claiming all Muslims are evil or terrorists, I grew up in a major city and have close Muslim friends who I consider to be good people. But what can't be denied is that radicalism within the Muslim world extends to more than just a few bad apples, we are talking about substantial percentages of the population.

This isn't the equivalent of modern day Christians or right wing groups like the KKK. 25% of American Christians aren't pro KKK and want bombings of black churches. 2/3 of Christians don't want insulting Jesus to be punishable by jail time. I'm not a fan of Christianity at all but this false equivalency just makes the person making it look dumb.

I want the Democrats to win elections, I believe in their platform overall. But their stance on this issue is just so out of touch with reality in massively undermines their credibility. We also need to discuss the policy implications of this reality, and we can't discuss it rationally until we are honest with ourselves.


  • 2 years ago

    This feels like something out of the Sam Harris playbook. Harris had a discussion with Chris Hedges, source, that is pretty interesting.

    Most of these terror attacks are not executed because of religious fanaticism so the term "radical Islam" is pretty misleading.

    There was an amazing pattern. As you say, I interviewed probably just around 20 ISIS fighters, all in prison either in Iraq or in Kurdistan now. The one pattern I found over and over again was that these were—they were all young men, kind of with very bleak futures, either unemployed or underemployed, from working-class families, and not religious at all. None of these—according to them, they were not from religious families. They did not know the Qur’an very well. In a couple of cases, I knew the Qur’an better than they did. They were not recruited in mosques. They joined because their buddies joined, I mean, you know, because they saw stuff on social media. They’ve all—you know, everybody has mobile phones in that part of the world. And they’ve all—they had all seen the ISIS videos. And I think it was this kind of decision that young men make, that better to live large for a couple of years, and, you know, the power and the so-called glamour of—but the power that comes of carrying a gun, and then, you know, worry about what happens in the future two or three years down the road. So, I felt it was—certainly, in my experience, of these kind of foot soldiers, the grunts—they were primarily the ISIS members I’ve talked with—they had more akin to why somebody might join like an inner-city gang or why in Mexico they might join a narco gang. It’s this kind of despair at seeing any sort of future. But it’s not political, it’s not religious. It’s just this impulse to—you know, to have some sort of—I mean, it’s awful to say, in terms of ISIS, but adventure.

    Source

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      That's a fair point, even if religion was forgotten tomorrow there still might very well be a similar amount of terrorism becayse of socioeconomic and political factors. However, radicalism to me means more than just terrorism. Advocating for the death penalty for those that leave the religion is extremism, so is saying insulting the religion should be a criminal offense.

    • 2 years ago

      Advocating for the death penalty for those that leave the religion is extremism, so is saying insulting the religion should be a criminal offense.

      So if your accusations extend beyond terrorism, this charge must be leveled against everyone (not just liberal America). Saudi Arabia has been a close US ally in the Middle East and they are guilty of the crimes you have outlined. Republican and Democratic administrations have both closely aligned themselves with Saudi Arabia.

  • 2 years ago

    1/4 of British Muslims think that the 7/7 bombings were justified and 2/3 want insulting Islam to be a criminal offense.

    Your CMV is about Americans not British- and while there are similarities between both nations, it seems something of a fallacy to compare the two.

    Looking at social issues in America, Islam doesn't really stand out. You can argue that radical Islam is globally a problem, that doesn't change the numerical facts that 1% of U.S. citizens even identify as Muslim, which boils down to around 3,220,000 people. While it will likely increase, that doesn't change the fact that most religious extremists we're exposed to are Christian, specifically protestant. Muslims are no more extreme in the U.S. than many Evangelical Protestants, and there are significantly fewer Muslims.

    This isn't the equivalent of modern day Christians or right wing groups like the KKK. 25% of American Christians aren't pro KKK and want bombings of black churches. 2/3 of Christians don't want insulting Jesus to be punishable by jail time. I'm not a fan of Christianity at all but this false equivalency just makes the person making it look dumb.

    Do you have any reasoning to support that an American Muslim is equivalent to a Muslim in the United Kingdom? Or India? Or Nigeria? Or Indonesia? Or Russia? Do you have any numbers behind how the Christian majority actually felt/feels about the KKK? Because so far, we aren't even making a comparison between the two, we're just stating that one is better than the other, and applying global standards to Americans.

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      My view is about American's view of Muslims across the world. I'm not talking about American views of American Muslims, I guess I should have been more clear.

  • 2 years ago

    1/4 of British Muslims think that the 7/7 bombings were justified and 2/3 want insulting Islam to be a criminal offense. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/

    That's not quite what the article says. It says: "almost one in four British Muslims believe that last year's 7/7 attacks on London were justified because of British support for the U.S.-led war on terror." The way this is worded means that the question that was asked in this survey could have been something like, "How do you think the perpetrators of the 7/7 attacks justified their actions?" That's a totally different question, and the response would therefore have completely different implications.

    This happens with statistics all the time. It's easy to twist the numbers and make them appear to implicate certain conclusions. The article you posted doesn't link to the actual poll, and the NOP Research group that conducted the poll is a privately owned group that doesn't have its data available on its public website. So unlike Gallup or Pew, there's no way to verify its claims. There's no way to check and see how the questions were worded. Therefore, these are not statistics that anyone should be taking seriously.

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      That's not the way it was worded. They said it was justified because of X, that's not even close to: "how would they justify their actions". I guarantee if we look at the original survey it wouldn't have asked the latter. You're doing what the Democrats do. Don't make excuses. If this were one cherry picked survey fine, but this is consistent with a hundred others.

      http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/ Among Muslims who want Sharia law, which in these regions is most (56-99% depending on the country): 76% of Muslims surveyed in South Asia and 56% in North Africa and the Middle East think those leaving Islam should be executed.

      Regardless of slight statistical inaccuracies or nit picking, the end result is very significant percentages of Muslims, hundreds of millions, who hold incredibly dangerous and backwards beliefs. There is not an equivalent for this among Christians.

    • 2 years ago

      Unfortunately, there's no way for us to verify either of our ideas, so your guess is really as good as mine. That's why we can't trust this information.

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      Actually it's not. We have a million other surveys that show I'm right. Show me surveys that show 40-70% of Christians want the death for leaving the religion.

      Either Pew and every other polling company is lying and inventing these polls, or I'm right. We can factor in a ton of methodological and polling error and I would still be right. Even if only 20% of Muslims want the death penalty for leaving the religion that's still appalling.

    • 2 years ago
    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      I understand that. You're not understanding that that isn't the case here. There are surveys asking: "Do you agree with the following statement: Apostasty should be punishable by death." And then 40-70% of Muslims in any given country will answer: "yes"

      And again, if it were one poll or one survey then you might be correct. But it's not possible that a hundred different polls all came to roughly the exact same answer unless they are all conspiring together.

    • 2 years ago

      What surveys are you referring to? Can you link to them?

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      38,000 in person interviews: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

      84% want Sharia law in South Asia 74% in the Middle East

      76% of those in South Asia who want Sharia law want those leaving the religion to be executed.

      56% say the same in the Middle East.

      At least 1/4 do not reject terrorism aimed at civilians.

      Only 57% have a negative view of al Qaeda in 2013: http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-concerns-about-extremist-groups/

      Only half have a negative view of the Taliban and less than half have a negative view of Hamas and Hezbollah.

      Suicide bombings against Americans viewed as justified by half of people in Pakistan and 70% in Jordan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_toward_terrorism#Polls

      http://www.people-press.org/2004/03/16/a-year-after-iraq-war/

      About half of the populations of various Middle Eastern countries had a positive view of Bin Laden.

      1/3 of British Muslims 16-24 want Sharia law. 36% think those that leave Islam should be executed.
      https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jan/29/thinktanks.religion

    • 2 years ago

      Suicide bombings against Americans viewed as justified by half of people in Pakistan and 70% in Jordan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_toward_terrorism#Polls

      Interesting, for some reason you reported the numbers from 2004, and neglected to mention the more recent numbers that were just a few paragraphs away in the same article:

      In a 2007 Pew Research poll in response to a question on whether suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified.

      43% of Muslims in Jordan believed it could never be justified

      69% of Muslims in Pakistan believed it could never be justified

      Yes, when the Iraq War started, many people in nearby countries had an initial response of fear and anger. Only 3 years later, the numbers are wildly different, meaning that most people didn't feel that way anymore.

      It's so easy to only pick out the numbers you want to see. In that same article, there's another great example of how numbers like these can be misleading:

      According to an ICM Research poll in 2006, 20% of British Muslims felt sympathy with the July 7 terrorist bombers' "feelings and motives"

      Sounds bad, right? 1/5 of British Muslims sympathize with the terrorist attack. That must mean they agree with it! Well, wait. That wasn't the whole sentence. Here's what the article actually says:

      According to an ICM Research poll in 2006, 20% of British Muslims felt sympathy with the July 7 terrorist bombers' "feelings and motives", although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the attack.

      What if all they'd asked was the first question, but not the second one? Or if a news article reporting on the poll decided to only report the 20% statistic but not the 99% one? This stuff happens all the time. That's why the NOP poll you referred to in your OP should be completely discarded. If all you have are secondary sources, you really have no idea what those numbers are saying.

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      Those 2007 numbers aren't good either.

      I don't know ICM but that 99% number is wildly inconsistent with all the other polls. It also doesn't change the fact that Pew, which is reputable, found in poll after poll that Muslims held incredibly extreme beliefs such as death for those who leave the religion and widespread support for al Qaeda. It doesn't change the fact that most of the deaths from terrorist attacks in the West are from Muslims even though they make up a small percentage of the population.

  • 2 years ago

    I want the Democrats to win elections, I believe in their platform overall. But their stance on this issue is just so out of touch with reality in massively undermines their credibility.

    Can you precisely outline what their stance should be as different from what it was when Obama, a Democrat, was in office?

    A Democrat authorized thousands of military strikes against ISIS targets.

    A Democrat mandated that refugees were interviewed and go through 9+ points of screening before they can get settled into communities in the United States.

    I don't follow what calling terrorists "Islamic extremists" serves other than muddying the waters. Daesh, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda are organizations with political goals. Cloaking them with the legitimacy of a faith belonging to 1.8 billion doesn't serve US goals of erradicating them without a large US presence in the Middle East. Our client states in the region are mostly Islamic.

    We also need to discuss the policy implications of this reality, and we can't discuss it rationally until we are honest with ourselves.

    What specific policy is compromised by Democrats not addressing policy problems from the simple premise that one particular flavor of sky-daddy worship is *the bad one? My concern is that simple people want to create a good/evil dichotomy instead of learning from our mistakes of 60+ years of neocons and westerners fucking around in conflicts in the Middle East.

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      You don't need to call them "Islamic extremists". I don't care what word or term is used. What needs to be acknowledged is it's a pervasive problem that extends to more than just a few thousand fighters for ISIS and other groups. The number of Muslims with extreme beliefs is at least one hundred million.

      The Democrats don't adequately address our seemingly unconditional support for Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. They don't adequately respond to Trump's proposed Muslim ban. Calling it racist and saying we shouldn't ban all Muslims for the actions and beliefs of a few is disingenuous. They don't adequately address the concerns of American voters who see them as more concerned with political correctness than the lives of Americans.

    • 2 years ago

      Let me try to break apart what you are saying to understand better.

      The Democrats don't adequately address our seemingly unconditional support for Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

      Our support isn't unconditional. Saudi Arabia/Pakistan were vehemently opposed to Obama's Iran deal because it was an attempt to extricate us from their regional Sunni/Shite proxy wars. Obama sent forces into Pakistan to kill bin Laden despite the Pakistan's government wishes.

      They don't adequately respond to Trump's proposed Muslim ban. Calling it racist and saying we shouldn't ban all Muslims for the actions and beliefs of a few is disingenuous.

      His ban is stupid, racist, ineffective, and preying on stereotypes of refugees. The humanitarian crisis in Syria/Iraq is the culmination of decades of Neocons selling American weaponry to one side of a conflict or the other. It is irresponsible to ignore the humanitarian crisis and will breed another generation of radicalized Muslims if we don't take steps to asylum to the innocents fleeing war.

      They don't adequately address the concerns of American voters who see them as more concerned with political correctness than the lives of Americans.

      About 100 people were killed by what could be described as a Muslim extremist attempting to carry out a terror attack in the 8 years of Obama's presidency. I'm even including people like the Orlando shooter who pledged alleigiance to Hezzbollah, Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc. even though those groups are at odds with each other.

      Now not to try and run actuarial tables but in the time since you have posted this CMV 200-300 people have died in traffic accidents, 10-12 people have shot themselves accidentally with a gun, 2-3 veterans have committd suicide, etc. The violent homicide for this year will likely be around 15,000 deaths commited by Christians, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists, atheists, pagans, etc. You have a greater chance of being killed by a falling TV or bookcase than a Muslim.

      Democrats have spent hundreds of billions curtailling our privacy, glassing wide swaths of the Middle East, and you think they aren't doing enough? Please describe what could possibly make you feel more safe?

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      Almost everything you wrote is just a straw man or wildly off point. The post was never about me needing to feel more safe and I specifically stated in another comment I don't worry about dying in a terrorist attack and I'm far more concerned about dying in a car accident.

      Our support isn't literally unconditional but it's continued despite their spreading and tolerating extremism.

      It's not a stereotype or racist that Muslims disproportionately hold backwards beliefs incompatible with our values and they are disproportionately likely to be terrorists. The question is if it's worth the negatives.

    • 2 years ago

      It's not a stereotype or racist that Muslims disproportionately hold backwards beliefs incompatible with our values and they are disproportionately likely to be terrorists. The question is if it's worth the negatives.

      Ok I'm really struggling on what exactly your CMV is trying to say. Help me understand so I can come to your point of view. Let me lay out how I look at it.

      What is incompatible with "our values" when a Muslim community raising 100k to repair damage done to a Jewish cemetery?

      and

      What part of 9000 missile attacks on Muslim terrorist cells seems like political correctness? Are we providing a safe space for Muslim radicals by incinerating their homes and families?

      Knowing that Saudi Arabia and the average Muslim man on the street won't instantly moderate the day after Democrats pubically call their belief/values backwards, inferior and incompatible with ours. Please explain to me what stance you want Democrats to differently take that would be productive and improve things?

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      Believing that leaving the religion should be punishable by death, and criticizing the religion should be a crime is incompatible with Western values.

    • 2 years ago

      Where have you ever heard a Democrat that has publically advocated or defended death for apotatsy in Islam?

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      Democrats haven't defended that belief. They deny that Muslims hold extreme beliefs at a rate higher than that of Christians. If I pointed out the high number of Muslims who advocate for the death penalty for leaving the religion, a typical response from the left would be: well Christians believe crazy stuff to.

      The problem is, it's a false equivalency. Christians believe in crazy and extreme stuff, but not as many of them do and it's usually not as extreme.

    • 2 years ago

      Democrats haven't defended that belief.

      Ok good. We got past that strawman.

      They deny that Muslims hold extreme beliefs at a rate higher than that of Christians.

      That's because it's impossible to know, we can't read people's minds. Chriistians have higher rates of violent crime per capita than Muslims in the United States.

      How do you quantify or define the extreme beliefs of a Muslim that believes in the literal interpretation of their book by bronze-age goat farmers over the Christian who believes in the literal interpretation of their book by bronze-age goat farmers?

      So again.

      Knowing that Saudi Arabia and the average Muslim man on the street won't instantly moderate the day after Democrats pubiically call their belief/values backwards, inferior and incompatible with ours. Please explain to me what stance you want Democrats to differently take that would be productive and improve things?

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      Show me a poll or survey showing anything equivalent to half of Christians supporting Al Qaeda or wanting the death penalty for those who leave he religion. Please go ahead. Prove me wrong. Give me one shred of evidence Christians hold beliefs that are equally extreme.

      Show me a poll where half of Christians support the KKK or the guy who went into the black church and shot people.

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      I didn't post a straw man. You asked what belief do Muslims hold that is incompatible with our values. I answered it. You then later added a qualifier.

      It's not impossible to know. You can evaluate what different groups think about various topics by asking them. Muslims are less likely to support free speech, less likely to support freedom of religion, and more likely to hold beliefs oppressive towards women.

      50-99 percent of Muslims in the Middle East and South Asia want Sharia law, the number varies by country. Of those that want Sharia law, most want death for leaving the religion.

      Christians aren't on average that backwards. It's not arguable. Look at any poll or survey or look at how Christians govern their countries vs how Muslims govern their countries. Look at what laws and cultural norms are in place.

      In America, I can largely believe in what I want, do what I want as long as it doesn't harm others, and I can say what I want. In the Islamic world I would be put in jail or executed for my beliefs.

      You are doing a perfect job proving my point. People will go so far out of their way to deny the obvious it's insane.

  • 2 years ago

    I think it's also important to remember that Muslims are mostly originate from a particular region of the world. With their own history and politics.

    You point out that terrorist groups are supported by Muslims in other countries but this is nothing new, many Irish in the United States supported the IRA when they were doing their thing. Do you consider catholics or Irish to be dangerous? Do you think something has fundamentally changed in the past 30 years that makes the Irish safe?

    It's all politics always has been always will be

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      Half of Catholics and Irish don't currently favor killing civilians for political motives and the death penalty for leaving the religion. Im not sure what your point is since they have nothing to do with my view anyway. Catholics could be infinitely more dangerous and it wouldn't change my view.

    • 2 years ago

      You say that Muslims support bombings, the Irish did too.

      You seem to dismiss politics. many of these Muslims are from these countries and grew up in a era of foreign intervention and rising dictatorships. That will absolutely radicalise people to blame religion over that is silly.

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      Did, not do.

      And I'm not dismissing anything or blaming anyone. Show me where in my view I did that it said anything about it.

      I made a statement about the way things are, not its causes.

  • 2 years ago

    Every time I see this argument I'm just stumped -- there's always a call for "rational discussion" about the issue of radical islam, and I can neither see the benefits of such a discussion, nor any reasonable policy goals.

    1. If there's a problem with radical islam, as you say, what can we do about it on top of what we're already doing? There's a billion muslims in the world. We already mass surveil metadata on social networks etc to find out who's a potential danger. We already use our intelligence resources to track the movements and recruiting of known radical islamic groups. Nothing is 100% certain of course -- one of the 9/11 hijackers lived with his girlfriend in Germany and drank beers with friends all the time, neither of which are particularly conservative behaviors. So what does having a "rational discussion" add, beyond alienating billions of people? I see nothing rational about lumping a billion adherents of any religion in with an insane death cult.

    2. If muslims actually believed all these terrible things in such vast proportions, why aren't there more beheadings? The US uses state violence to kill far, far more people than Indonesia, a comparatively sized muslim nation. We killed five times as many people under the death penalty in 2016 as Indonesia, and I'm certain that US police killed lots more people than Indonesia's. Not sure what the numbers are of course, but I'm trying to demonstrate that Islamic nations have no monopoly on state violence or cruelty.

    3. If we talk about extreme muslim radicalization, should we also talk about extreme white person radicalization? As I'm sure you know, white american men have committed far more acts of terrorism on american soil than muslims. Can we also have a rational conversation about how young american white men are lured by misogynist, racist, violent ideologies and then go shoot up a school? Is anybody who's read The Game a suspect? What about members of r/theredpill? In short -- why should we focus on muslim radicalization in particular when there are other kinds of more dangerous radicalization domestically? Unless you're willing to make that part of the democrats' campaign platform too -- because, again, white men kill more americans than muslims -- then this isn't a rational conversation at all, it's a biased one.

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago
      1. I stated what it would accomplish in he original post and other comments. I'm also not lumping together a billion Muslims. I'm lumping the amount together that should be lumped together. I didn't over generalize. Every assertion I made is based on the data.

      2. Your argument more broadly is if they hold extreme beliefs we should see evidence of his. Women are oppressed on a daily basis in the Middle East. They are treated as inferior to men as a matter of law. I also see hundreds of suicide bombings so I'm not sure what your point is.

      3. Whites make up the majority of the population and Muslims only make up one percent. Yet, if we look at deaths from terrorism in the last 20 years, even if we leave out 9/11, most of the deaths are attributable to Muslims. White extremism isn't as common. Half of whites in America don't want to criminalize insulting Jesus. The KKK has nothing on Al Qaeda and Isis. The KKK doesn't have widespread support in America. There aren't daily or weekly suicide bombings by Christians in America.

    • 2 years ago

      Clearly, this a contentious topic. You yourself have been called racist more than a few times in this thread for trying to talk about it. At the national level, this sort of conversation would be (and, as you know, already is) contentious. Some people are freaked out about calling the muslims evil, some people are freaked out that they're getting called racist. The terms of this debate -- even in this thread here! -- hurt discourse. Everyone is either trying to prove that muslim belief in violence is widespread, or that the people saying that are racist. What we should be doing is spending time on how to prevent violence rather than arguing about Islam. What does arguing about islam get you? A lot of people trying to prove that islam isn't violent. This conversation demonstrably makes people angry, wounded, afraid, entrenched.

      You and I can agree on plenty of ways to prevent violence from islamic extremist groups without having this conversation. People already are doing that. For instance, Obama blocked an arms sale to Saudi. We're conducting a drone war to hunt down and bomb terrorist ringleaders worldwide. We're sending arms and financial support to Kurdish freedom fighters in Syria to fight ISIS on our behalf. We're mass surveilling metadata from calls and texts worldwide to find patterns and see if we can trace any calls back to islamic groups. I looked up and down the thread and you admit to being less knowledgeable about what specific policy goals might be. We can argue about the merits of each of those tactics, it won't freak anyone out and nobody's feelings will get hurt, and, best of all, it has actionable outcomes. We have something we can do or not do at the end of the conversation. If we're just trying to prevent violence, and if we can talk about those specific policy goals already and it's not contentious, why is it worth having a conversation which we know to be polarizing?

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      If you need a perfect example of what I'm talking about look at the the guy below who commented. If a discussion of reality leads to people being called racist it hurts discourse. Let's say there is a debate in the senate about defunding foreign aid to Pakistan because they are spreading extremism. One group says well there are only a few bad apples, there aren't many people for them to convert so we don't have to worry about it. The other side can't respond without being called racist.

    • 2 years ago

      If you want more information about this kind of polarizing discussion tactics I encourage you to read this post in detail. It is about why people in power try to stoke these conversations. Basically, it is easier to gain power through ethnic nationalism rather than convincing people to vote for you through rational argument. So here's the basic political strategy. You kill someone and then tell all his relatives it was because he was jewish/black/muslim/whatever. His relatives open themselves up to the idea that your people are against them, and then retaliate in kind. This encourages your own people to retaliate in kind. As the post says, "The dividends of the strategy aren’t the attacks, though; they’re the wave of fascistic, xenophobic politics that’s sweeping Europe and that very nearly missed taking over the Netherlands last week." You can increase your voter base, and make them devoted to you, by fomenting extremist violence.

      So, the democrats might win elections better if they talked about "global islamic terrorism," but it has a good chance of increasing violence across the world. Is that worth it to you?

  • 2 years ago

    Radical Islam, Islam in general isn't pervasive in America so I'm not sure they're denying reality.

    http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/muslim/

    Just under 1% of the population is Muslim, and of them most aren't immigrants from Islamic countries where radicalism is prevalent. The American Muslim world is simply a different one than Britain. You talk about British Muslims specifically, and of course Britain is in a wholly different situation due to vicinity and presumably some differences in immigration policy.

    I also don't think that many Democrats are particular pro-Islam in any problematic sense.

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/29/the-political-divide-on-views-toward-muslims-and-islam/

    http://www.people-press.org/2014/09/10/growing-concern-about-rise-of-islamic-extremism-at-home-and-abroad/

    It seems among democrats they're still among the least cared for religious demographics and that a majority of democrats(just barely, but still) are "very concerned" about radical Islam.

    Keep in mind shows like Bill Maher are very left leaning and tend to be sensationalized as well.

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      The American Muslim world does seem to be very different based on my personal experiences, but Democrats do seem to deny the problem globally.

      And the fact that Muslims rank higher than atheists on that feeling thermometer is appalling. Most terrorism today as measured by fatalities isn't being done by at I don't think atheists hold equivalently despicable views on average. I don't think 25% of atheists want to bomb people who disagree with them and I don't think half of atheists want the death penalty for leaving atheism and becoming theistic. If there were a terrorist attack in Europe tomorrow, and we had to guess the religion of the attacker, atheist would be a really bad bet.

    • 2 years ago

      Democrats do seem to deny the problem globally.

      At least 51% of them don't, and keep in mind that's "very concerned" so presumably even more consider it a problem even if they're not as worried about it in particular.

      I don't see much denial of the issue from democrats, apart from very liberal sub-cultures which I don't think have much political clout outside of certain universities at the moment. They don't seem to represent the democratic party - at least not yet - and many are anti-two party system, green party or independent or just "it's all bad" sorts rather than democrats.

      the fact that Muslims rank higher than atheists on that feeling thermometer is appalling.

      It's only a 1% difference on each side and republicans like atheists and Muslims alike less but Christianity way more. What stands out is how much more strongly republicans feel in general about particular demographics relative to democrats who are more in the middle range. 64-44 range(dem) vs. 71-33(rep).

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      In the title I said "much of" as my view because I didn't really want to get into a semantic game of identifying exactly how many people on the left hold this view. Also, the statistic isn't exactly targeting what I'm talking about. I wouldn't say I'm very concerned about terrorism specifically in the United States. I'm infinitely more likely to die in a car crash or probably even slipping in the shower.

      The issue isn't that people aren't concerned enough about dying in a terrorist attack. The issue is that the left is either lying or ignorant about the pervasiveness of these backwards beliefs in the Islamic world. The rhetoric hinders a discussion about policy and makes them look really bad come election time.

  • 2 years ago

    What do you want? Like, what policy would you like the democrats to support?

    It sounds like you just want the democrats to reassure you that your fear of Muslims is rational and not prejudiced, and honestly, that doesn't seem like their job.

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      What fear of Muslims do I have that is prejudiced and not rational? What exactly is my level of fear?

      My entire position is based on the data. Where do you see any unjustified fear or prejudice. I stated what they believe and said I'm not sure what the answer is.

      In term of what policy I support, I'm not sure. But to figure that out, there has to be honest public discourse without calling anyone who cites statistics prejudiced.

    • 2 years ago

      You haven't given me any reason to believe that you don't just want what I posited.

      So, again, just answer it directly: Is the main thing you want just to be acknowledged as reasonable and objective and not racist? Do you think it's justified to punish a political party that refuses to do this? Because your self-esteem as a reasonable person seems very far from something that should be my political priority.

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      I have given you reasons, they were right in the original post.

      1. I want Democrats to win elections and denying reality makes them look like idiots or people who are more concerned about political correctness than the lives of Americans.

      2. It's a serious issue that needs to be addressed. The only way to fix a problem is to talk and think about it honestly.

    • 2 years ago

      This all gets to my first question: What specific policies do you want the democrats to support?

      You spend so much time NOT talking about policy, it really sounds like all you want is for Democrats to go "OK, you're right, Muslims are dangerous!" and then that would satisfy you.

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      I don't discuss policy because as I said, I don't know the answer. Part of the reason I don't even feel like I can even offer an opinion on the subject is because there is never any honest discourse on the issue. I know I'm not an expert in Constitutional law but there is a lot of discourse about the subject so I have some idea what I'm talking about. With this issue, you have Trump on one side and overly politically correct people on the other side. There is no discussion of good ideas.

      You keep saying that but you have no evidence for your position. You had a preconceived idea and even when I tell you explicitly why I want them to say it you just ignore it. You say it sounds like I want the Democrats to just say it to satisfy me but what is your basis for that assertion? Why do you doubt I want Democrats to win elections? Democrats got crushed during the Bush years on the issue of terrorism. Trump won in part because of his willingness to address issues bluntly. Trump's over the top positions like an out eighth ban on Muslim immigration would look worse if he Democrats had a reasonable counter argument and position. But if their response to Trump is "your racist and don't let the actions of a few bad Muslims color your opinions of them" then Trump's position looks more reasonable by comparison.

    • 2 years ago

      Trump won in part because of his willingness to address issues bluntly. Trump's over the top positions like an out eighth ban on Muslim immigration would look worse if he Democrats had a reasonable counter argument and position. But if their response to Trump is "your racist and don't let the actions of a few bad Muslims color your opinions of them" then Trump's position looks more reasonable by comparison.

      What is a reasonable response to this? Why isn't it reasonable to make the response that you say, here?

      What do you want Democrats to DO, other than say out loud "Yes, Muslims are scary?"

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      You keep asking what I want them to do and I keep answering I'm not sure what you want. I want them to start discussing the issue honestly and start to think about the implications of Islamic radicalism. They should consider our support for Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for instance. Should we make our support more conditional on them addressing radicalism? Should we stop selling them weapons? Should we sell them more weapons? If we come at these issues with the position of it's only a few bad apples, then we shouldn't care about Saudi Arabia spreading extremism because it's a small issue. If it's a pervasive problem then it's different.

      And I also said I don't know what they should do. I'm wildly uneducated and uninformed on the topic of what we should do in large part because there isn't a lot of reasonable public discourse on the topic. On the one side you have Trump and on the other side you have the apologists on the left.

      You keep saying what they should do, I don't know truthfully because it's never discussed. That's why it needs to be discussed. Im not sure what you don't understand.

      I have an opinion on an issue like the constitutionality of gay marriage because there are smart people on both sides who make good arguments. That doesn't exist here.

    • 2 years ago

      You keep asking what I want them to do and I keep answering I'm not sure what you want.

      But this is what your OP is about. If it's important to you that liberals "accept the pervasiveness of radical Islam" but not important that specific policy agendas get set, then can you see why I jump to the interpretation that all you want is a vocal acknowledgement?

      They should consider our support for Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for instance. Should we make our support more conditional on them addressing radicalism? Should we stop selling them weapons? If we come at these issues with the position it's o lay a few bad apples, then we shouldn't care about Saudi Arabia spreading extremism because it's a small issue. If it's a pervasive problem then it's different.

      You don't think Islamic extremism plays a major role in the Democrats' middle east foreign policy initiatives already??

  • 2 years ago

    This isn't the equivalent of modern day Christians or right wing groups like the KKK. 25% of American Christians aren't pro KKK and want bombings of black churches. 2/3 of Christians don't want insulting Jesus to be punishable by jail time. I'm not a fan of Christianity at all but this false equivalency just makes the person making it look dumb.

    Could you expand on why you think a comparison between the Christian right and Muslims within Western society is a false equivalency?

    Note issues like education, evolution, sex ed, reproductive rights, taxes, the Middle East, social programs for the poor, and many more where the Christian right has intimately influenced the rights of millions of Americans. Also consider that the polls you refer to hold considerably less weight than the above simply because Muslims in Western society are a minority without the power to put any of the supported proposals into place.

    Even if it would be more problematic to have Sharia law in place than it would be to have women's access to abortion significantly restricted, we rightly worry about the latter more than the former because the Christian right does have the power and influence to make that a reality while Muslims who support Britain adopting Sharia law do not.

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      It's a false equivalency in terms of the pervasiveness and extremism of the dangerous beliefs. Half of Muslims in countries pew surveyed want the death penalty for leaving the religion. Half of Christians in America don't hold views that extreme.

      You are right though that Christians are in theory a greater potential threat because they hold disproportionate power. But, as it stands now, their beliefs aren't equally abhorrent.

    • 2 years ago

      You are right though that Christians are in theory a greater potential threat because they hold disproportionate power.

      You note in the title the "pervasiveness" of radical Islam. Isn't the above point related to the relatively small degree of pervasiveness of radical Islam when compared to the Christian right?

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      I meant the pervasiveness of the beliefs within the Islamic world. Also, worldwide there are 1.6 billion Muslims and 2.2 billion Christians. I was talking about Muslims worldwide, not just American Muslims.

    • 2 years ago

      Okay, thanks for clarifying.

      Back to my original point: So, it's your view that even though there is more potential danger from the Christian right because they hold disproportionate power, one should not compare that to Muslims holding the views you outlined, correct? Because the views -in a vacuum- are not equally abhorrent?

      However, it's not a false equivalency to make this comparison because I would guess that most people making this comparison are rightly considering the context. It's perfectly reasonable when presented with Bad Policy A (1% chance of implementation) to point to Bad Policy B (99% chance of implementation) as a more serious analog, thereby diminishing the importance of focusing on Bad Policy A. Even if Bad Policy A is objectively worse, an individual's focus on B wouldn't be a false equivalency given the context.

      If you disagree, I think it would be helpful for you to point to specific instances of "liberal America" actually downplaying the above.

  • 2 years ago

    I sit on the left and try to take a long-view on history.

    There's always another enemy. Before ISIS, it was Al-Queda. Before AQ, it was Saddam and other secular dictators. Before Saddam, it was various African states and warlords. Before Africa it was communists in South America. Before that it was the Vietnamese, the Chinese, the Koreans. Before that it was the USSR. Before that it was Germany. Before that it was European communists. Before that it was Germany again. Before that it was the Natives. Before that it was Canada, England, whoever.

    At some point you gotta stop and ask yourself the question: why are we always at war? Why is there always another enemy? Do you seriously think there is something special about Islamic terror, that makes this one worse than all the others? Go watch American anti-soviet propaganda from the 60s. Back then, it was the end of the world too, we were on the edge of being whiped out, just like today. But the world didn't end.

    There really is only two answers to the question.

    Answer one: We are just perpetually surrounded by people that just inexplicably hate us for being us, despite the fact that their location, values, resources, connection to us is constantly changing. Sure, English colonials in 1812, communists in 1970 Nicaragua, and ISIS suicide bombers have absolutely nothing in common, but they all inexplicably hate us for some reason.

    Answer two: We keep making enemies

    Which do you think is more likely?

    At some point, you gotta look at the data and draw a conclusion. We're told this is a death struggle, that if the Islamicists are stopped, civilization as we know it will be crushed. But that gets told over and over and over, through time, across enemies. Did some need to be stopped? Sure (Nazis obvs). Do they all represent an end-of-civilization threat? Really?

    The only common thread across these wars is us. They say that if you meet one asshole a day, they're an asshole. But if you go through your day and everyone you meet is an asshole? Then you're probably the asshole. Well, we're constantly at war, what does that make us?

    • 2 years ago

      Personally I think you're generalizing a problem from a very few corrupt and backwards Muslims towards the entire Muslim world. When we see Christian evangelicals in Uganda pass a law that has homosexuals given the death penalty, do we assume all Christians are like that?

      It just seems weird to me that you're willing to hold all of Islam accountable for extremism espoused by a bunch of crazy, desperate terrorists from splinter sects, but not willing to hold of Christianity accountable for their own fucked up things. A complete double standard. Most Muslims are just not terribly interested in blowing up westerners or killing gay people or oppressing women, there are just a small minority that took power in some offshoot sects that really do want to do it. Suggesting that all of Islam is a threat because a few crazy Takfiri imam wants to stone adulterers, kill westerners, and run a theocracy is roughly analogous to suggesting that all of Christianity is a threat because a few pastors want to execute homosexuals.

      Personally I'm actually fine if you want to ban Muslims from entering the States, as long as you do the same with Christians. Logically consistent.

      • 🎤Author
        2 years ago

        I literally can't be generalizing. I am giving the percentage that hold each extreme belief. I'm doing the opposite of generalizing. I'm saying about 1/3 of Muslims believe in X when about 1/3 believe in X.

        I'm willing to hold Christianity responsible. But the scope of the problem isn't the same. Half of Christians don't want the death penalty for leaving the religion. Their views, on average, aren't as extreme. I don't like the political views of far right Christians at all. But their beliefs aren't nearly as abhorrent on average. In an America run by Ted Cruz I can openly be an atheist and insult whatever religion I want. In a lot of Islamic countries, I would be put to death.

        You are making my argument. People make false equivalence between the two.

        You said most Muslims aren't in favor of blowing up westerners, that is true. But 1/4 British Muslims think it's ok to do so.

    • 2 years ago

      That PEW study did show the Muslim populations of many countries have disturbing tendencies.

      But if you read it again, it doesn't mention most Western Countries.

      In fact under the section asking about their support of Sharia Law and similar policies they don't mention any.

      They mention Asia, Africa, South-Eastern Europe, but no Germany, no France, no UK or Canada, no USA.

      The only time they mention the USA is when asking things like whether American Muslims have non-muslim friends.

      http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/27/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

      The false equivalency does work.

      Because while American Christians aren't radical, other Christians are.

      Uganda actively oppressed women and gays in a manner similar to to Muslim Nations.

      Joseph Kony and the LRA have kidnapped children and waged war for decades.

      The NLFT is a terrorist group seeking secession of Tripura in India to create a Christian State.

      So we can conclude Western Christians and Muslims tend to be moderate. Non-Western Christians and Muslims tend not to be moderate.

      • 2 years ago

        Question; do you consider this to be justified?

        • 🎤Author
          2 years ago

          Are strikes against military targets that result in civilian deaths justified, it depends. I don't know enough about this incident to say.

          It's not really relevant because it's a false equivalency. If the enemy hides among civilians and civilians die because of it, that's not the same as blowing up a passenger train of civilians.

        • 2 years ago

          So, is it your argument that because it would be costly or inconvenient to strike only at purely military targets, it is acceptable to kill civilians?

        • 🎤Author
          2 years ago

          Depends on how you define costly or inconvenient. If the cost is 1,000 U.S soldiers dying to save 1 civilian then that is too high of a cost. If the cost is 100,000 dollars to save two thousand civilians then it's not acceptable to kill the civilians.

        • 2 years ago

          That's rather odd arithmetic. How many civilian lives are a soldier's life worth? Consider soldiers have volunteered to have their lives spent, where as civilians haven't. (In fact, that is rather the definition of the word soldier.)

        • 🎤Author
          2 years ago

          It's odd arithmetic that 1,000 Americans should die to save the life of one civilian whose life was endangered because scum used them as human shields?

        • 2 years ago

          Well, that is what they volunteered for. Those civilians did not.

          But if not one thousand, how many? Are civilian lives, to you, even worth a single soldier's?

      • 2 years ago

        Almost all terrorist attacks on american soil are not done by Muslims.

        Radical Islam as we know it happens in Islamic countries in order to change the way things are run. The goal for radical islamists isn't to eliminate all who stand against them. Their goal is to build a new world of their own, away from oppressive leaders. However, their means of achieving that goal embrace openly the idea of killing all who oppose them.

        Radical islamists aren't pervasive, to us at least. The whole ordeal is a massive civil war that the global superpowers only got involved in because of the actions of about 20 people. If 9/11 hadn't happened, we wouldn't be on terrorist watch. We would accept it as a civil war in the middle east and leave it at that. But, because of Muslim paranoia, we see false aggressions against us that don't exist. Isis isn't after world domination as most think. They are just using lethal force against any thing alive that even bothers them.

        I'm not an Isis supporter, but we have to see, objectively, that all they want is a better future for themselves. Its the same as the US and the confederacy, but if the confederacy decided to use deadly force ALWAYS, and ALWAYS being aggressive instead of ever negotiating, and being a bit more passive. The confederacy wanted to LEAVE, so it made little sense to attack the union for no reason if the union were to allow the confederacy to exist. The difference is the method of gaining this future.

        • 🎤Author
          2 years ago

          That's an incredibly intellectually dishonest statistic. First of all number of attacks isn't important if we aren't going to weight severity. You also have to adjust for percentage of the population. They are also responsible for most of the casualties in European terrorist attacks so it's not like 9/11 is just an outlier.

          And how is Islamic extremism not pervasive? There are over 200,000,000 Muslims who favor the death penalty for leaving the religion. 25 percent of British Muslims say the 7/7 bombings were justified.

        • 2 years ago

          Recently (since 2015) the amount of terrorists that have been muslims has increased. But in the history of all terror attacks since 1990, the overwhelming majority of terrorists (on American soil) have not been Muslim.

          As for Europe, they have an entirely different set of politics and reasons as to why they are involved in this civil war, which impacts these radical islamists more than the US has affected them (before our recent missile launch that is), meaning the radical islamists have more of a reason to attack those European countries. So, it IS a completely accurate statistic.

        • 🎤Author
          2 years ago

          It's accurate but it's a dumb statistic that doesn't tell you anything. Obviously one percent of the population doesn't commit more terrorist acts than the other 99 percent. That doesn't mean the one percent isn't more extreme. It's insane that one percent of the population is however responsible for 99 percent of fatalities.

        • 2 years ago

          2 things;

          1: if you call a TRUE and FACTUAL statistic "dumb" because it contrasts with your beliefs, your whole post is invalid on this sub. You accepted the validity of the fact, but ignore it because you don't like it. Facts are facts mate.

          2: all the attacks, by natives of a country or by a Islamic terrorist, are all in the same realm of insanity and lethality. The Columbine shooting was pretty bad... Same goes for every mass shooting and slaughtering and bombing by non Muslims. They were devastating.

        • 🎤Author
          2 years ago

          I did t call it dumb because it contrasts with my view. Jesus Christ.... I stated exactly why it's dumb in plain English. It's meaningless to say they don't commit most of the terrorist attacks if they are only one percent of the population. That's not evidence they are not more extreme. If one percent of the population commits 1/4 of the terrorist attacks, that helps my argument, not your argument.

          It's a dumb statistic because it proves nothing and is completely irrelevant. I'm not sure how you don't grasp that.

          Albany is the capital of New York therefore Muslim extremism is pervasive. That's the logic you are using. Saying a statistic is true doesn't make it relevant.

          All attacks are not of the same lethality. Almost 3,000 people died on 9/11. Over 120 died in Paris. 24 died in Columbine. Those aren't equivalent. It's also highly debatable if school shooters are even terrorists given their lack of political motive.

        • 2 years ago

          But it it is completely relevant. You are right that among all terrorist attacks, muslim terrorists have caused the most casualties, even though they are the least frequent. BUT, have you stopped to realize that one terrorist attack created almost ALL of those casualties? Here's the numbers.

          "According to a September 2016 study by Alex Nowrasteh at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, some 3,024 Americans died from 1975 through 2015 due to foreign-born terrorism. That number includes the 9/11 terrorist attacks (2,983 people) and averages nearly 74 Americans per year."

          So there you have it. Amongst the 3024 casualties by terrorists, 2983 of them were caused by two people, who were Muslim. That is a skewed statistic if I've ever seen one. If I didnt know those numbers, I would assume you were right about this.

          You can't call the statistic meaningless when you reason for it being meaningless comes from a HORRIBLY skewed statistic. Two people can't represent an entire nation or religion. You can't blame radical Islam for two people's actions. In statistics, you often ignore massive outliers (like this one). It's how we analyze them more accurately. That means that 41 of the terrorists casualties in 40 years were by NON Muslims.

          Link to the article which contains a link to the study I cited here: https://amp.businessinsider.com/death-risk-statistics-terrorism-disease-accidents-2017-1

        • 🎤Author
          2 years ago

          I don't know how to make this any more simple for you.

          Muslims only make up one percent of the population in America. Saying they don't commit more terrorist attacks than the other 99 percent combined isn't evidence they aren't extreme.

          You don't adjust for the fact that they are a tiny percentage of the population. Do you honestly not get this?

          Let's say Muslims committed somewhere between ten and thirty percent of terrorist attacks in America over the last twenty years, that would be evidence that they are disproportionately more likely to be extremists and commit acts of terrorism. Any number higher than one percent proves my point.

          What part of this do you not understand???

        • 2 years ago

          But they DONT commit that many! They commit LESS than 1% of terror attacks in America! That means they are less likely than white people to commit a terrorist act PER CAPITA.

          You are inflating the amount of terror that Muslims cause by an incredible amount. If terrorists are 1% of the population, but cause LESS than 1% of terrorist attacks in america, they cannot come close to being blamed for the attacks.

          If it was 1& to 1%, the they would be equal to white people. But, numbers show that they are less likely to be terrorists in their 1% minority than whites.

        • 🎤Author
          2 years ago

          Let's see your source for this.

      • 2 years ago

        Pew did a massive survey consisting of the views of Muslims from dozens of countries and the beliefs were equally alarming.

        The poll had many flaws.

        http://i.imgur.com/wY6mlRJ.png

        http://i.imgur.com/8pCHY7m.png

        Apparently 49% of Albanian Muslims had occasional access to the internet, but 87% of them had social media accounts. The numbers get even more outrageous when you look at Afghanistan, where only 2% of people had occasional access to the internet, but 84% of them have a social media account.

        Does any of that make sense to you?

        • 2 years ago

          It doesn't seem like you really want your view to be changed, you want it to be reinforced.

          • 🎤Author
            2 years ago

            I don't want it to be changed. I also don't want it to not be changed. I want to believe in what is correct. If someone makes a good argument I'll listen. Why should I have changed my view based on what has been said so far? Which argument was compelling?

            No one has refuted the fact that a significant percentage of Muslims hold extreme beliefs.

            No one has refuted that the denial to acknowledge this has bad policy implications and hurts the Democrats come election time.

            Why should I have changed my view?