Machete of peace

[Bomb#20]

freedom fighters

Freedom fighter?
Was the glorious Somali shahid trying to liberate the Somali province of Belgium from the Belgians who are cruelly occupying it?

My guess is he was trying to liberate the Muslims of Belgium from the whore-monger Christians who are cruelly oppressing Muslims by barring them from slapping around their wives and murdering blasphemous cartoonists. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, but that doesn't stop your freedom to swing your fist right into my nose from counting as a freedom. We care about some freedoms; he cared about others. But that isn't the point -- feel free to go with "rebel" instead of "freedom fighter" if you prefer.

The point is, attacking military targets doesn't make you a terrorist. When people are sloppy on that point and for example call the guys who blew up the USS Cole "terrorists", they are only playing into the hands of the ideologies that are trying to sweep under the rug the distinction between attacking legitimate military targets and attacking civilians. When you call that glorious Somali shahid a "terrorist", you are supporting Hamas.

 

[Bomb#20]

Islam is still not a race.

I never said anything about Islam. I said that your racist assumptions were wrong. I am correct in that statement.

The thread that you referenced was all about Muslims, not about race. To call it "racist" is then implicitly a claim that Islam is a race.

No it isn't. The Jews aren't a race, but that doesn't mean they-who-must-not-be-named weren't racist against Jews. When she calls you racist she isn't saying Islam is a race. She's saying when you speak out against Muslim immigration, you're lying when you say it's because of Muslim beliefs and prevailing Muslim cultural practices. She's saying what you really object to is the Muslim people themselves, on account of their ethnicity.

 

[Derec]

No it isn't. The Jews aren't a race, but that doesn't mean they-who-must-not-be-named weren't racist against Jews.

They would be ethnicist, not racist. Most Jews are white, racially.

When she calls you racist she isn't saying Islam is a race. She's saying when you speak out against Muslim immigration, you're lying when you say it's because of Muslim beliefs and prevailing Muslim cultural practices. She's saying what you really object to is the Muslim people themselves, on account of their ethnicity.

And she would be wrong. Muslim people can be of any ethnicity.

And I do not object to all Muslim immigrants. But I do object to the current practice of Muslim mass migration, where many Muslims with worldviews incompatible with Western Culture are being allowed to migrate freely.
So it's not about ethnicity, but about the worldview these migrants bring, especially when you let in huge numbers in with no vetting or checks whatsoever.

 

[Derec]

When you call that glorious Somali shahid a "terrorist", you are supporting Hamas.

Ok, have it your way. The Somali attacker wasn't a terrorist, he was just an unlawful enemy combatant, since he attacked without a uniform. He is then also a traitor, given that he accepted Belgian citizenship.
The distinction between terrorist and a traitorous unlawful combatant is not that great, practically speaking. Neither one is engaging is legitimate use of force.

For the record, I think terrorist is still a good designation for him, as the soldiers he attacked were in domestic law enforcement role and the attack was done to spread fear in the population in the casuse of Islamism. So terrorist still applies. But, as I said, if it makes you feel better, you can call him a traitorous enemy combatant instead. What he certainly is not, is a "freedom fighter".

 

[Bomb#20]

They would be ethnicist, not racist. Most Jews are white, racially.

But they regarded the Jews as a race. Racism is in the minds of racists.

When she calls you racist she isn't saying Islam is a race. She's saying when you speak out against Muslim immigration, you're lying when you say it's because of Muslim beliefs and prevailing Muslim cultural practices. She's saying what you really object to is the Muslim people themselves, on account of their ethnicity.

And she would be wrong.

Of course. She calls people racists because her religion teaches her to.

When you call that glorious Somali shahid a "terrorist", you are supporting Hamas.

Ok, have it your way. The Somali attacker wasn't a terrorist, he was just an unlawful enemy combatant, since he attacked without a uniform. He is then also a traitor, given that he accepted Belgian citizenship.

Bingo.

What he certainly is not, is a "freedom fighter".

As some wag pointed out of the Contras, "Of course they're freedom fighters. Ever since they worked for Somoza they've been fighting freedom."

 

[RavenSky]

The thread that you referenced was all about Muslims, not about race. To call it "racist" is then implicitly a claim that Islam is a race...

You can play word games to deny that your Islamophobia is not racism, but given your very long history of being anti- black and brown people, your denials are feeble.

Moreover,

Because Muslims are not a race, people believe that any type of violence or oppression directed towards them cannot be racially motivated; that this form of hatred — known as Islamophobia — cannot be racism.

First, let me be clear. It is true that Muslims are not a race...

If Muslims are not a race, than which group is?...

You see, there is no such thing as race or races, traditionally understood. Scientists long ago proved that race is not a biological reality but a myth, a socially constructed concept. Yet, despite the data, human beings have been programmed to associate specific things to certain “racial groups”; things like intelligence, work ethic, family values, and behavior. As such, we have been brainwashed to think that some groups are inherently better than others, and that the White race — to be frank — is better than all.

Race — as one of my favorite sociologists, the late (and great) Stuart Hall put it - is a “floating signifier,” meaning that it is a fluid concept which has specific connotations during certain moments in history. Races, in short, have never been exclusively biologically determined but rather politically constructed by powerful people, usually dominant groups in societies...

According to Hall, there is a new type of racism — “cultural racism,” which is my focus here. Racism is no longer about race (skin color) but culture. People are Othered and discriminated against not (simply) because of the color of their skin (or other phenotypes) but because of their beliefs and practices associated with some “imagined culture.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/muslims-are-not-a-race_b_8591660.html

 

[thebeave]

You can play word games to deny that your Islamophobia is not racism, but given your very long history of being anti- black and brown people, your denials are feeble.

Moreover,

Because Muslims are not a race, people believe that any type of violence or oppression directed towards them cannot be racially motivated; that this form of hatred — known as Islamophobia — cannot be racism.

First, let me be clear. It is true that Muslims are not a race...

If Muslims are not a race, than which group is?...

You see, there is no such thing as race or races, traditionally understood. Scientists long ago proved that race is not a biological reality but a myth, a socially constructed concept. Yet, despite the data, human beings have been programmed to associate specific things to certain “racial groups”; things like intelligence, work ethic, family values, and behavior. As such, we have been brainwashed to think that some groups are inherently better than others, and that the White race — to be frank — is better than all.

Race — as one of my favorite sociologists, the late (and great) Stuart Hall put it - is a “floating signifier,” meaning that it is a fluid concept which has specific connotations during certain moments in history. Races, in short, have never been exclusively biologically determined but rather politically constructed by powerful people, usually dominant groups in societies...

According to Hall, there is a new type of racism — “cultural racism,” which is my focus here. Racism is no longer about race (skin color) but culture. People are Othered and discriminated against not (simply) because of the color of their skin (or other phenotypes) but because of their beliefs and practices associated with some “imagined culture.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/muslims-are-not-a-race_b_8591660.html

Race is a social construct? :laughing-smiley-014 I'm sure the blacks who have sickle cell anemia would be rather amused to learn that their disease is a social construct, and not a real biological condition.

 

[TSwizzle]

You can play word games to deny that your Islamophobia is not racism, but given your very long history of being anti- black and brown people, your denials are feeble.

Moreover,

{snip navel gazing claptrap and straight to the lolz}

According to Hall, there is a new type of racism — “cultural racism,”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/muslims-are-not-a-race_b_8591660.html

:laughing-smiley-014 :laughing-smiley-014

Huffington Post :laughing-smiley-014

 

[bilby]

This persistent over reporting of terrorism (which remains rare) is directly assisting the cause of terrorists, and should cease (if we care about thwarting the ambitions of this small group of extremists).

Should we be fearful of nuclear power, terrorism, abduction of young children, mad cow disease, contaminated blood, or pesticides? When people use the availability heuristic, they assess the magnitude of risks by asking whether examples can readily come to mind. If people can easily think of such examples, they are far more likely to be frightened than if they cannot. The availability heuristic illuminates the operation of the Precautionary Principle, by showing why some hazards will be on-screen and why others will be neglected. The availability heuristic also tells us a great deal about differences in risk perceptions across groups, cultures, and even nations.

U Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 220; AEI-Brookings Joint Center Working Paper No. 04-22

 

[Derec]

You can play word games to deny that your Islamophobia is not racism,

Re so-called "Islamophobia", I refer you back to the Christopher Hitchens quote.

but given your very long history of being anti- black and brown people, your denials are feeble.

I am neither anti-black nor anti-brown. But I am against black nationalism (e.g. Black Panthers and derivatives such as #BLM) and Hispanic nationalism (such as campaigning in favor of unrestricted illegal migration from Mexico and Central America). The fact that non-white nationalism has been given the pass for decades means that people like you confuse being against x-nationalism with being against x.

Moreover,

Moreover, you are posting an article from HuffPo of all places. And one written by notorious islamophile Craig Considine, who once compared Mohammed (scuh) with George Washington and argued that Christians should accept Mohammed (scuh) as a prophet.

You see, there is no such thing as race or races, traditionally understood. Scientists long ago proved that race is not a biological reality but a myth, a socially constructed concept.

That may be true (and in fact is), but the fact remains that race is a question of biological ancestry and thus immutable. You cannot convert from one race to another. As a set of ideas, religion is very different than characteristics such as skin pigmentation or eye and nose shape.

According to Hall, there is a new type of racism — “cultural racism,” which is my focus here. Racism is no longer about race (skin color) but culture. People are Othered and discriminated against not (simply) because of the color of their skin (or other phenotypes) but because of their beliefs and practices associated with some “imagined culture.”

That is complete and utter bullshit. Culture is not a matter of immutable biological ancestry. It is a set of beliefs and practices, some benign (traditional foods or beverages for example - there is nothing wrong with falafel or Turkish coffee), others not so, such as FGM, niqabs/burqas, bans on alcohol, or propensity to terrorist violence. To equate sets of ideas with immutable biological markers is insanity.

Cultures matter. They are not all equivalent. And criticizing a culture or religion does not make one a bigot.

 

[Derec]

Race is a social construct? :laughing-smiley-014 I'm sure the blacks who have sickle cell anemia would be rather amused to learn that their disease is a social construct, and not a real biological condition.

There are certainly non-superficial physical characteristics that strongly correlate with populations, but these populations do not neatly correspond to races, which are mostly based on crude groupings by visible phenotype traits such as skin color or eye/nose shape.
This is for example the map of sickle cell mutation (HbS allele, two copies necessary for disease to develop).

As you can see, the mutation is concentrated mostly in western-central Africa, and even there unevenly. Note that black Americans mostly came from West Africa, which explains sickle cell prevalence in that population. The trait is also prevalent in other places, like Persian Gulf side of the Arabian Peninsula and parts India and there even some HbS in southeastern Europe. And even though we assign Sudanese, Ethiopians, Somalis and southern Africans to the same race as Nigerians and Congolese, the former do not have high sickle cell prevalence. They are in fact not that closely related (Africa has greatest genetic diversity of human population), much to chagrin of the "we wuz kangz" branch of black nationals (who think black Americans are descendants of Egyptian pharaohs)

 

[laughing dog]

If there is no combat, then soldiers are noncombatants.

Given that an enemy just hacked at a soldier with a machete, and given that the reason Brussels is being patrolled by soldiers in the first place is ISIL bombed an airport and a train station there last year, you may have a hair-splitting definition of "combat" in mind.

Your comment appeared as a general question, not specific to the Brussels situation. One would think that it obvious to even the most obtuse that whether soldiers are combatants depends on the situation (i.e. whether or not there was combat).

But let's go with that definition. So does this mean you figure whoever starts a war is automatically a terrorist? Were the Japanese Navy terrorists when they bombed Pearl Harbor? Was Stormin' Norman a terrorist because there was no combat in Kuwait when he started shooting at Iraqi soldiers?

I have no idea what prompted this hair-splitting silliness or what relevance it has to my remark.

It seems to me the whole point of making a distinction between terrorists on the one hand and rebels or insurgents or freedom fighters or whatever on the other is to express the principle that when to defeat your enemy you choose the path of violence, you're supposed to attack military targets.

Ok. So?

 

[4321lynx]

This persistent over reporting of terrorism (which remains rare) is directly assisting the cause of terrorists, and should cease (if we care about thwarting the ambitions of this small group of extremists).

Should we be fearful of nuclear power, terrorism, abduction of young children, mad cow disease, contaminated blood, or pesticides? When people use the availability heuristic, they assess the magnitude of risks by asking whether examples can readily come to mind. If people can easily think of such examples, they are far more likely to be frightened than if they cannot. The availability heuristic illuminates the operation of the Precautionary Principle, by showing why some hazards will be on-screen and why others will be neglected. The availability heuristic also tells us a great deal about differences in risk perceptions across groups, cultures, and even nations.

U Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 220; AEI-Brookings Joint Center Working Paper No. 04-22

Islamist attacks "rare"? One a year in the whole world would be too much.

Again: (and note these are attacks that have "received significant press coverage since ... 1979")

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

Judging from the Abstract of the article you quoted this is a very "academic" study.The dead in the attacks were real people, with real lives, not academic statistics.

"One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." So said that great causer of such statistics, Joseph Stalin.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You can play word games to deny that your Islamophobia is not racism, but given your very long history of being anti- black and brown people, your denials are feeble.

Moreover,

Because Muslims are not a race, people believe that any type of violence or oppression directed towards them cannot be racially motivated; that this form of hatred — known as Islamophobia — cannot be racism.

First, let me be clear. It is true that Muslims are not a race...

If Muslims are not a race, than which group is?...

You see, there is no such thing as race or races, traditionally understood. Scientists long ago proved that race is not a biological reality but a myth, a socially constructed concept. Yet, despite the data, human beings have been programmed to associate specific things to certain “racial groups”; things like intelligence, work ethic, family values, and behavior. As such, we have been brainwashed to think that some groups are inherently better than others, and that the White race — to be frank — is better than all.

Race — as one of my favorite sociologists, the late (and great) Stuart Hall put it - is a “floating signifier,” meaning that it is a fluid concept which has specific connotations during certain moments in history. Races, in short, have never been exclusively biologically determined but rather politically constructed by powerful people, usually dominant groups in societies...

According to Hall, there is a new type of racism — “cultural racism,” which is my focus here. Racism is no longer about race (skin color) but culture. People are Othered and discriminated against not (simply) because of the color of their skin (or other phenotypes) but because of their beliefs and practices associated with some “imagined culture.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/muslims-are-not-a-race_b_8591660.html

In other words:

I don't like what you're doing so I'm going to spout a bunch of bullshit to justify the use of a derogatory label to your actions.

 

[bilby]

This persistent over reporting of terrorism (which remains rare) is directly assisting the cause of terrorists, and should cease (if we care about thwarting the ambitions of this small group of extremists).


U Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 220; AEI-Brookings Joint Center Working Paper No. 04-22

Islamist attacks "rare"? One a year in the whole world would be too much.

And would also qualify as 'vanishingly rare'. You appear to be confusing 'a big deal for those involved' with 'a big deal for all of humanity'.

If my child dies of leukaemia, that's a tragedy that changes my life forever; but it's not newsworthy, and doesn't justify an international day of mourning, no matter how profound its effect on my family and friends.

Of course it would be better if no child ever died of leukaemia. But that doesn't justify concentrating on paediatric leukaemia to the exclusion of all other medical research.

Sure, it would be great if there were no terrorist attacks; but that doesn't justify any and all security measures that might prevent them. And it certainly doesn't justify closing international borders to billions of Muslims, just in case one of them is a terrorist.

Again: (and note these are attacks that have "received significant press coverage since ... 1979")

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

Judging from the Abstract of the article you quoted this is a very "academic" study.The dead in the attacks were real people, with real lives, not academic statistics.

"One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." So said that great causer of such statistics, Joseph Stalin.

Translation - 'I have chosen to abandon reason, in favour of an emotional response; and I invite you to do the same'. Well, sorry, but I think I shall keep on thinking, thanks all the same.

Letting the rage and anger take over doesn't strike me as being a productive response in the long term, no matter how attractive it may be. But please feel free to enjoy letting the tabloid press manipulate your emotions; somebody ought to get something positive out of this shitty mess.

 

[Elixir]

Islamist attacks "rare"? One a year in the whole world would be too much.

And would also qualify as 'vanishingly rare'. You appear to be confusing 'a big deal for those involved' with 'a big deal for all of humanity'.

If my child dies of leukaemia, that's a tragedy that changes my life forever; but it's not newsworthy, and doesn't justify an international day of mourning, no matter how profound its effect on my family and friends.

Again: (and note these are attacks that have "received significant press coverage since ... 1979")

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

Judging from the Abstract of the article you quoted this is a very "academic" study.The dead in the attacks were real people, with real lives, not academic statistics.

"One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." So said that great causer of such statistics, Joseph Stalin.

Translation - 'I have chosen to abandon reason, in favour of an emotional response; and I invite you to do the same'. Well, sorry, but I think I shall keep on thinking, thanks all the same.

Letting the rage and anger take over doesn't strike me as being a productive response in the long term, no matter how attractive it may be. But please feel free to enjoy letting the tabloid press manipulate your emotions; somebody ought to get something positive out of this shorty mess.

If we let ourselves succumb to reason, we should all be freaking out about the 300 violent attacks per year being committed on American soil... by the far right wing.
But they're mostly very white, "very fine people" to borrow a phrase, so we must not devote one minute of news coverage to them, since we have billions of brownish Muslims to worry about.

 

[LordKiran]

Race is a social construct? :laughing-smiley-014 I'm sure the blacks who have sickle cell anemia would be rather amused to learn that their disease is a social construct, and not a real biological condition.

There are certainly non-superficial physical characteristics that strongly correlate with populations, but these populations do not neatly correspond to races, which are mostly based on crude groupings by visible phenotype traits such as skin color or eye/nose shape.
This is for example the map of sickle cell mutation (HbS allele, two copies necessary for disease to develop).

As you can see, the mutation is concentrated mostly in western-central Africa, and even there unevenly. Note that black Americans mostly came from West Africa, which explains sickle cell prevalence in that population. The trait is also prevalent in other places, like Persian Gulf side of the Arabian Peninsula and parts India and there even some HbS in southeastern Europe. And even though we assign Sudanese, Ethiopians, Somalis and southern Africans to the same race as Nigerians and Congolese, the former do not have high sickle cell prevalence. They are in fact not that closely related (Africa has greatest genetic diversity of human population), much to chagrin of the "we wuz kangz" branch of black nationals (who think black Americans are descendants of Egyptian pharaohs)

Mali?
Songhai?
Kanem Bornu?

There are lots of African Kingdoms and empires of great renown that come from West Africa. Most well-known African kingdoms/empires come from west africa infact.

 

[RavenSky]

Race is a social construct? :laughing-smiley-014 I'm sure the blacks who have sickle cell anemia would be rather amused to learn that their disease is a social construct, and not a real biological condition.

There are certainly non-superficial physical characteristics that strongly correlate with populations, but these populations do not neatly correspond to races, which are mostly based on crude groupings by visible phenotype traits such as skin color or eye/nose shape.
This is for example the map of sickle cell mutation (HbS allele, two copies necessary for disease to develop).

As you can see, the mutation is concentrated mostly in western-central Africa, and even there unevenly. Note that black Americans mostly came from West Africa, which explains sickle cell prevalence in that population. The trait is also prevalent in other places, like Persian Gulf side of the Arabian Peninsula and parts India and there even some HbS in southeastern Europe. And even though we assign Sudanese, Ethiopians, Somalis and southern Africans to the same race as Nigerians and Congolese, the former do not have high sickle cell prevalence. They are in fact not that closely related (Africa has greatest genetic diversity of human population), much to chagrin of the "we wuz kangz" branch of black nationals (who think black Americans are descendants of Egyptian pharaohs)

I was actually pretty damned impressed with the rationality and intelligence displayed in this post until you had to fucking blow it with your last sentence.

You will never ever convince me that you aren't anti- black and brown people because of your frequent comments just like that.

 

[J842P]

There are certainly non-superficial physical characteristics that strongly correlate with populations, but these populations do not neatly correspond to races, which are mostly based on crude groupings by visible phenotype traits such as skin color or eye/nose shape.
This is for example the map of sickle cell mutation (HbS allele, two copies necessary for disease to develop).

As you can see, the mutation is concentrated mostly in western-central Africa, and even there unevenly. Note that black Americans mostly came from West Africa, which explains sickle cell prevalence in that population. The trait is also prevalent in other places, like Persian Gulf side of the Arabian Peninsula and parts India and there even some HbS in southeastern Europe. And even though we assign Sudanese, Ethiopians, Somalis and southern Africans to the same race as Nigerians and Congolese, the former do not have high sickle cell prevalence. They are in fact not that closely related (Africa has greatest genetic diversity of human population), much to chagrin of the "we wuz kangz" branch of black nationals (who think black Americans are descendants of Egyptian pharaohs)

I was actually pretty damned impressed with the rationality and intelligence displayed in this post until you had to fucking blow it with your last sentence.

You will never ever convince me that you aren't anti- black and brown people because of your frequent comments just like that.

Because he makes fun of the crazy black dudes on the street preaching literal black supremacy, and that black people are descendants of Egyptian Pharaohs? Why?

 

[LordKiran]

I was actually pretty damned impressed with the rationality and intelligence displayed in this post until you had to fucking blow it with your last sentence.

You will never ever convince me that you aren't anti- black and brown people because of your frequent comments just like that.

Because he makes fun of the crazy black dudes on the street preaching literal black supremacy, and that black people are descendants of Egyptian Pharaohs? Why?

People dont just say that to advance black supremacy. They say it to remind people that "Our 'race' is part of your history too." and not just in ways that are immediately obvious. (Slavery)