But you never said they weren't.

^ Basically what you're saying there is that everyone who makes a comment on anything needs to start with a preamble dictating the full complexities of every view they have and that making comments that include one group or another are not necessarily their views on every single person within that group.

Erm... I am pretty sure he hasn't said this once in any post I have ever read. And that's usually the case for anyone accused of what you're saying. I'm not sure why language is often misinterpreted to such a degree where people pretty much get to the point of making things up regarding what somebody says.

Not directly in this particular discussion, no. But he does have a history of making very bigoted statements about Muslims, as much as you do seem to love the misunderstood realist narrative.

Don't be silly Goof. What I'm saying is that he's going around saying "**** Islam" but he has never on any occasion said "not all Muslims are terrorists", while his rhetoric suggests exactly the opposite. He's never accepted it, so while he may not actually SAY that all muslims are terrorists, he hasn't stated any contrary belief. If he wants us not to think that he thinks all muslims are terrorists (if he doesn't in fact think this, which I believe he does but won't admit to) then he needs to qualify his statements by saying "well look I know all muslims aren't terrorists, but ...."

He's connecting dots between terrorist attacks and the ascribed religion of those people who commit the attacks. Maybe not in the most polite or subtle way, but it's pretty clear that his issue is with the ideas within the religion itself, and those who use that ideology as a platform to commit the attacks.

Not that anyone who follows the religion is a potential terrorist, evil person or whatever.

He's quite consistently maintained that Islam only leads to negative situations and terrorism. Deny it all you like with the typical bases that bigots use to cover their asses, but that won't change anything.

Not really. But when you (not you specifically, but the sentiment in this thread) say 'people from the Middle East are barbarians' (not an exact quote, but an accurate paraphrase), it's a good indicator that you're not being fair-minded when examining the political, social, historical, and religious inputs for a region that oscillates between bastion of human civilization and cradle for its possible destruction. I also think it's important to be kind of exact when talking about a general belief that's shared by over a billion people. That's why I refer to Salafism or Wahhabism when speaking about terrorists instead of Islam. They are different things. Literally a bigger ideological gap than Protestantism and Catholicism. It's about as big as the gap between Mennonites and Rastafarians. Technically the same god but with very different expectations of his worshipers.


I'll admit to shortcutting OccultHawk's statements over the past 5 months or so I've resumed posting on this board. I can't recall a direct statement to the effect of 'every single Muslim is a terrorist', but the tone of the majority of his posts on the subject is that terrorist violence is intrinsic to Islam. I don't think it's falling into reductio ad absurdum to say that his thinking necessarily leads to 'all followers of the Islamic faith are more susceptible to becoming terrorists than any other group as a direct result of their faith, to the exclusion of other factors'. Again, myself, duga, elphenor, and others have mapped out alternative or complementary explanations for the phenomenon of terrorism, showing that the common thread has more to do with poverty than anything else. The response is 'oh yeah, Islam totally has never done anything bad, to think so would make me a bigot, right?' which is not close to what I have been saying. It side-steps the counter-argument in favor of playing the 'mean liberals are calling me a bigot instead of just accepting that Islam is evil' card.

I think at this point I can literally just quote what I've written before. I've covered the issue. I've covered the criticism of the issue. I've covered the hysterics in response to the criticism of the issue and the posts that came after that too.

I am bigoted against Islam and those who practice the faith. For the record, I have not and do not deny that. If that's your criteria for dismissing my views then we have no ground to stand on for debate. If you adhere to this belief system I think less of you. I do not think all Muslims are terrorists nor do I want my government to marginalize American Muslims. However, I'm going to openly say it's a bad religion.

:clap:

I don't have an agenda of bigotry. I dislike all religions because they're stupid. I dislike Islam the most because this **** happens all the time. I think Mormonism is ridiculous and to believe in it is clearly stupid. But they're not in the news every couple weeks blowing **** up. I don't want to hate Muslims. And I don't. I hate Islam. What makes me a bigot is I do think less of a person for being a Muslim. I still take people on an individual basis. There's a lot of things that make a bad first impression and being a Muslim is one of them. I know a few Muslims irl and none of them are unpleasant. But if you can't drop that piece of **** religion at this point there's got to be something wrong with your intellect.

FYI, equating all forms of Islam with Wahhabism makes it super easy to view you as a bigot.

I am a bigot.

There's only one doing it in the name of their faith on the regular. I know that's unpleasant but it's true.

I wonder, does the word "manipulation" mean anything to you? Or "exploitation"?

*repeats several already repeated points about how there are far more factors to terrorism than Islam*

There's one very common trait. Islam. Pretend otherwise all you want. We've all been taught that bigotry is wrong. What can I say? It puts us in a jam. Truth vs values.

This doesn't really disprove any of the confounding factors, but go ahead keep pretending that I'm pretending otherwise all you want.

What if it's a good thing. Like if I said boy the Chinese have great parties during the Chinese New Year. What a great culture! Is that also wrong?

What in the name of the great lord **** are you talking about??

Also, nice of you to conveniently ignore my question. I suppose we should no longer be surprised at your cherry-picking facts and things you want to see.

If it's so abhorrent to point out negative truths why do we easily acknowledge positive truths? Is one less true than the other based on how it makes you feel?

They're true on a case by case basis. For example: thinking Chinese New Year parties are nice is an opinion so it is neither true nor false...

Sigh...

Ok. Great. Filling 15 year old girls up with nails being bad is also just an opinion. I didn't realize we needed to establish this. Can we agree that this incident in Manchester was bad or is do you have a problem with that as a foundation for this discussion?

TH WTF is your goddamn question?

You've missed it twice. Excuse me for shouting, you must be deaf.

DOES THE WORD "MANIPULATION" MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU? OR "EXPLOITATION"?

Clear enough? Heard that?

Sure I think it's bad. Why are you equating terrorism and new years celebrations?

I still don't think that terrorism is inherent to Islam.

Yes. I know those words. I'll use them in a sentence.

Muslims are especially vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation.

Watch the news then. You'll find these attacks are usually carried out by Muslims.

On cold days I noticed that the sun rises in the morning, therefore the sun makes the day cold when it rises.

To act like this is merely correlation and not causal is appalling.

It's more like it's night until the sun comes up so therefore I conclude the sun is a light source.

On its own, it is most definitely not causal. When you factor in things like poverty, generally disillusioned youth in war torn regions, and political context, you're a little closer.

If you think I'm arguing that people aren't using Islam for terrible means then let me assure you that I'm not. I'm arguing that only pointing at the fact that someone is Muslim as the reasoning for terrorism is wildly inaccurate.

Hence my question, which he sort of answered but really just brushed over. If people are being used, manipulated and coerced by a religious dogma, does that make those people evil in themselves? Was every Crusader evil? Most were, granted, and greedy, but would you not accept that there were those who went because they thought they were doing God's will, and if so, does that make them inherently evil? Or just misguided? I wonder if I'll get an answer before I head to bed in about two hours.

Committing murder is evil, even if your god or government tells you to, but I think that's kind of beside the point.

Misguided.

Yeah possibly. Crusaders wasn't a great example, but I couldn't think of another off the cuff. You understand the point I'm trying to make though, yes? That not every muslim hates the West and wants to be a suicide bomber, but that there are multiple variables to factor in to why someone does that. You guys are better at arguing this stuff than I am, I admit it. I'll leave it to you.

It's not beside my point because I'm arguing the religion is bad. Misguiding people is bad. And allowing yourself to be misguided is a shortcoming. Not an evil but I'm going to say worthy of bigotry because I want to give the widest berth possible to the word bigot to make it clear what I'm defending, which is bigotry.

One can become evil even if they didn't start off that way.

No, I'm not. You'll not find a more aggressive antagonist against America than me. I'm full of self-loathing, hate for America, and will argue against my own culture with perhaps more vehemence than anyone here. But today, I'm focused on my disgust with Islam.

And bigotry does make people easy to manipulate. Trump is a byproduct of white supremacy by all means. So please don't accuse me of being an apologist for the west. I'm not. We're dispicable.