Security think tank EastWest Institute has issued a report that according to the AP shows :
"Violent Muslim, Christian and Jewish extremists invoke the same rhetoric of "good" and "evil" and the best way to fight them is to tackle the problems that drive people to extremism,"
and
"extremists from each of the three faiths often have tangible grievances -- but they invoke religion to recruit followers and to justify breaking the law, including killing civilians and members of their own faith."
While this report shows many of us something we have already suspected for years - it helps shed light on the fact that Islam is not the only religion that can be radicalized, all religion can be radicalized in the wrong hands.
We should always be aware of extremism in our backyard, it doesn't matter if a person is willing to kill in the name of Jesus, Mohammad or Moses - if they are willing to kill and have their unruly conviction in God behind them, then they are in fact dangerous.
This post is not intended to be demeaning or condescending towards people of faith, it is intended to highlight the fact that all religion can be radicalized, Christianity and Judaism is not somehow immune and Islam is not the only religion that can be hijacked and used for violent and political purposes that are actually in contradiction with many of the core religious teachings.
We have to understand and identify extremist in our own mist to ensure our own people are not using faith and religion to guide our country into it's own form of extremism.
Side note : And yes, I know I am not telling many of you anything you don't already know... But now you have a think tank report to add to your evidence arsenal against the radical religious right.
Showing posts with label Muslim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muslim. Show all posts
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Spinning The "Islamist" Polls And Why It's Damaging
Remember the good old days when the Liberal Media was, well, Liberal?
Yesterday I commented that CNN's Heidi Collins reported on a poll that showed an overwhelming majority of Muslims living in the US as not only having strong work ethics, but also being opposed the suicide bombings.
78% believe that suicide bombings are NOT justified.
8% believed that suicide bombings ARE justified.
15% of young Muslims believe that suicide bombings are justified.
At any rate and any age suicide bombings are a massively unpopular idea amongst a very clear majority of Muslims living in America.
But CNN, perhaps sensing the wrath of the Patriotism Police has repeatedly spun this poll - which should make Muslims look better, into something which is making Muslims look worse.
This morning CNN's Kiran Chetry jumped on the poll spinning bandwagon.
Again, the majority of Muslims who did not approve of suicide bombings were ignored and the minority of Muslims who did approve of such attacks was highlighted.
Polls are taken to find out what a majority of people think, not what a minority of people think.
I bet there are at least 8% of whites who still think hanging African Americans is acceptable and wishes slavery was still permissible.
I bet 15% of young people think that school shootings are acceptable and justified.
The point is a minority of people are always going to be off balance, no matter what country you are from. I believe that about 30% of any given population is off balance in whatever way is unique to them.
That's why it's important to look at what the majority of people are saying, because there is always going to be crackpots that think that Timothy McVeigh was a hero or the Anarchist Cookbook is the best piece of "literature" ever.
The majority of Muslims in America are saying that suicide bombings are not justified. That majority is being insulted every time their numbers are ignored to focus on the 8% of nutcases who believe the bombings are justified.
It's just another example of biased and unfair reporting.
Why not report on the good and obvious news? 78% of Muslims in the US do not condone this type of violence. I believe this indicates the "martyr jihad-jihad" ideology is a regional and political problem in the middle east, and not a problem within the religion itself.
Because of the violence and extremism in Iraq and other scattered regions of the Middle East there is a perception that every single Muslim is an "Islamist". I think this is a mistake that not only isolates us from the moderate Muslims but also weakens the moderate Muslims and empowers the extremist.
So as long as were willing to lump all these people together regardless of what they believe or how they act, rail about all the negative while ignoring their positive accomplishments and the progression they do make, then how are we encouraging anyone to be more Democratic?
When you are in control and people are "good" you should reward them with praise and incentives, that way they are inclined to continue the "good" behavior.
But when you are in control and people are "good" and you instead start looking for something bad to highlight you are not giving the people any incentive to repeat the "good" behavior". It's really that simple.
Or, as Benjamin Franklin said :
"If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect."
All of this, of course, only persuades me to buy a TV card for my PC, that way I can post video in the future, I can't always rely on someone else having the video of something I want to post.
And it reminds me to remind everyone else who hasn't seen "Buying The War" yet to watch it soon.
UPDATE:
Thankfully not everyone is spinning the poll, but some people are getting hysterical over it. Let's compare and contrast some headlines.
From the corner where they are spinning so much they are dizzy and that must explain their incoherence :
'Troubling' views on suicide bombings - From the SF Chronicle which cited a hate group leader as expert in an article two days ago.
THIS TINY LUNATIC FRINGE ADDS UP TO A BIG THREAT - From the irrational and yellow stained New York Post, no elaboration needed.
Check out how the transparently biased Jerusalem Post has padded the numbers by 10% with the headline "25% of Muslim teens: Suicide bombs OK"
Now, let's look at some of the more rational reactions to the poll :
Survey: US Muslims Assimilated, Opposed to Extremism
Survey of US Muslims shows moderate views
Muslims content with lives in US
Muslim survey overall points to tranquil lives
Yesterday I commented that CNN's Heidi Collins reported on a poll that showed an overwhelming majority of Muslims living in the US as not only having strong work ethics, but also being opposed the suicide bombings.
78% believe that suicide bombings are NOT justified.
8% believed that suicide bombings ARE justified.
15% of young Muslims believe that suicide bombings are justified.
At any rate and any age suicide bombings are a massively unpopular idea amongst a very clear majority of Muslims living in America.
But CNN, perhaps sensing the wrath of the Patriotism Police has repeatedly spun this poll - which should make Muslims look better, into something which is making Muslims look worse.
This morning CNN's Kiran Chetry jumped on the poll spinning bandwagon.
Again, the majority of Muslims who did not approve of suicide bombings were ignored and the minority of Muslims who did approve of such attacks was highlighted.
Polls are taken to find out what a majority of people think, not what a minority of people think.
I bet there are at least 8% of whites who still think hanging African Americans is acceptable and wishes slavery was still permissible.
I bet 15% of young people think that school shootings are acceptable and justified.
The point is a minority of people are always going to be off balance, no matter what country you are from. I believe that about 30% of any given population is off balance in whatever way is unique to them.
That's why it's important to look at what the majority of people are saying, because there is always going to be crackpots that think that Timothy McVeigh was a hero or the Anarchist Cookbook is the best piece of "literature" ever.
The majority of Muslims in America are saying that suicide bombings are not justified. That majority is being insulted every time their numbers are ignored to focus on the 8% of nutcases who believe the bombings are justified.
It's just another example of biased and unfair reporting.
Why not report on the good and obvious news? 78% of Muslims in the US do not condone this type of violence. I believe this indicates the "martyr jihad-jihad" ideology is a regional and political problem in the middle east, and not a problem within the religion itself.
Because of the violence and extremism in Iraq and other scattered regions of the Middle East there is a perception that every single Muslim is an "Islamist". I think this is a mistake that not only isolates us from the moderate Muslims but also weakens the moderate Muslims and empowers the extremist.
So as long as were willing to lump all these people together regardless of what they believe or how they act, rail about all the negative while ignoring their positive accomplishments and the progression they do make, then how are we encouraging anyone to be more Democratic?
When you are in control and people are "good" you should reward them with praise and incentives, that way they are inclined to continue the "good" behavior.
But when you are in control and people are "good" and you instead start looking for something bad to highlight you are not giving the people any incentive to repeat the "good" behavior". It's really that simple.
Or, as Benjamin Franklin said :
"If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect."
All of this, of course, only persuades me to buy a TV card for my PC, that way I can post video in the future, I can't always rely on someone else having the video of something I want to post.
And it reminds me to remind everyone else who hasn't seen "Buying The War" yet to watch it soon.
UPDATE:
Thankfully not everyone is spinning the poll, but some people are getting hysterical over it. Let's compare and contrast some headlines.
From the corner where they are spinning so much they are dizzy and that must explain their incoherence :
'Troubling' views on suicide bombings - From the SF Chronicle which cited a hate group leader as expert in an article two days ago.
THIS TINY LUNATIC FRINGE ADDS UP TO A BIG THREAT - From the irrational and yellow stained New York Post, no elaboration needed.
Check out how the transparently biased Jerusalem Post has padded the numbers by 10% with the headline "25% of Muslim teens: Suicide bombs OK"
Now, let's look at some of the more rational reactions to the poll :
Survey: US Muslims Assimilated, Opposed to Extremism
Survey of US Muslims shows moderate views
Muslims content with lives in US
Muslim survey overall points to tranquil lives
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Spinning the Polls About The "Islamist"
OK, so I was just watching CNN, and Heidi Collins was reporting on a recent poll that asked Muslims in America how they felt about a number of things.
The majority of Muslims polled were born outside the US and believed in American work ethics.
When asked about suicide bombings a very clear majority - 78% said the bombings were not justified, just 8% believed that the bombings were justified. A graphic on the screen displayed the poll results.
But when Collins reported on the poll she only stated the number of the minority of Muslims who believed suicide bombings were justified and ignored the clear majority who believed the bombings were not justified.
Yet another example of manipulating or ignoring the facts.
I will update this post as soon as I can get a transcript and/or video.
The majority of Muslims polled were born outside the US and believed in American work ethics.
When asked about suicide bombings a very clear majority - 78% said the bombings were not justified, just 8% believed that the bombings were justified. A graphic on the screen displayed the poll results.
But when Collins reported on the poll she only stated the number of the minority of Muslims who believed suicide bombings were justified and ignored the clear majority who believed the bombings were not justified.
Yet another example of manipulating or ignoring the facts.
I will update this post as soon as I can get a transcript and/or video.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Dear Jihadist, I Will Not Wet My Bed When I Think About You At Night
Michelle Maglalang Malkin, as usual, is full of "Hot Air", or maybe she's just full of it.
"The John Doe Manifesto" is a creepy proclamation of civil vigilantism. It reads like the author was checking her "Cliffs Notes" on Stalin's Guide To Disseminating Propaganda as she was writing her "Manifesto" to make sure she got the mantra just right .
On the surface "The John Doe Manifesto" appears to be nothing more than the work of fearful and impotent people, trying to make a verbal stand against terrorist.
Closer inspection of the individual orders reveals that the "Manifesto" is asking you to do nothing short of becoming a junior spy to help to create a paranoid and "big brother" like environment in the United States of America.
The use of the term "John Doe" disturbs me in this case because it seems to strip strip the person of it's individuality and insert a rigid and paranoid doctrine of "I Will's" and "I Am's" in it's place.
Just note the frame of the "Manifesto" ;
I am
I am
I am
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I am
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I am
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I am
Now note individual phrases, the following lines smack of Soviet like propaganda.
"I will act when homeland security officials ask me to “report suspicious activity.”
I will embrace my local police department’s admonition: “If you see something, say something.”
I will support law enforcement initiatives to spy" ...
She forgot to write "And I will write with the intent of pleasing the 'propaganda ministry' because that is what a good and fearful American does."
Who need liberty when you have security? That's what Malkin is asking.
Of course, citizens need to be alert for their own security to a logical extent -- but this sickeningly pathetic "Manifesto" reads like it was coauthored by Kim Jong Ill's propaganda team to use on the North Koreans.
Furthermore, I am suspicious of anything with the word "Manifesto" stamped on it. I am sure there are many people on the Grassy Knoll handing out "Manifesto's". Ted Kaczynski had a "Manifesto".
In a sense Malkin's "Manifesto", like most her work, has played right into the terrorist agenda, to cause terror. One look at the "Manifesto" reveals truly how fearful some people in this country are.
The terrorist want Americans afraid, paranoid and spying on their neighbors, it feeds their frenzy, hence the word terror.
People like Michelle Malkin also want Americans afraid, paranoid and spying on their neighbors.
While their agenda's may be different I have to be wary of anyone who wants me to be afraid, paranoid and spying on my neighbors.
Before I scoot off to my Spring Break, I want to break down some of the weaker lines in the "Manifesto"...
"I will raise my voice against your subjugation of women and religious minorities."
While I subject Muslim woman in America to discrimination and show intolerance to religious minorities...
"I will challenge your attempts to indoctrinate my children in our schools."
What a flake! Talk about your conspiracy theories! Last time I checked the Muslims were not trying to indoctrinate our children in our schools. Now she's just making sh*t up to justify her call for a spying jihad against all brown skinned people and their acquaintances.
"I will not be censored in the name of tolerance."
Oh, jeez, she should give it a rest already! It sounds like she's fighting for the right to use the word "sand n*gger" when speaking of Arabs or something.
"I will put my country above multiculturalism."
Uhh, hello! Malkin lady, newsflash!
Multiculturalism is what allowed your Filipino immigrant parents to come to America on a work visa and have an "anchor" baby like you.
Multiculturalism is America, I know it's a concept the Reich Wing fails to grasp, but it's true.
If it were not for multiculturalism Malkin wouldn't even be in America, spewing her "Hot Air".
Malkin should get real, she's a minority in more than one way and should exercise some of the tolerance people gave to her and her foreign family to others. But she doesn't, leading me to believe she is a self hating b*tch and channels that self hatred on other minorities and immigrants.
"I will not submit to your will. I will not be intimidated."
You hear that, you stupid-wupid terrorist? She's not intimidated! Small woman, big stand, she hates terrorist, long time ...
You know what? Malkin's "Manifesto" sounds more like a self help book the more I read it. "I will not eat to much dessert, I will not be afraid of the dark."... Or like something written for victims of domestic abuse "I will not let a man undermine my worth, I will not let people tell me what to do." Blah, Blah, by f*cking BLAH!
Not only is the "Manifesto" creepy it is also pathetic, as the title of this post indicates.
The "Manifesto" really shows the terrorist how fearful they have made some Americans when they are willing to sign on to propaganda that was disseminated by fear-bot Michelle Malkin.
But do these silly little Stalinist spies really think their cute "Manifesto" is going to intimidate the terrorist, if they even see it? I don't think so.
Special thanks to Chris Kelly at Huffington Post for raising the issue to my attention in a blog.
Michelle Maglalang Malkin, as usual, is full of "Hot Air", or maybe she's just full of it.
"The John Doe Manifesto" is a creepy proclamation of civil vigilantism. It reads like the author was checking her "Cliffs Notes" on Stalin's Guide To Disseminating Propaganda as she was writing her "Manifesto" to make sure she got the mantra just right .
On the surface "The John Doe Manifesto" appears to be nothing more than the work of fearful and impotent people, trying to make a verbal stand against terrorist.
Closer inspection of the individual orders reveals that the "Manifesto" is asking you to do nothing short of becoming a junior spy to help to create a paranoid and "big brother" like environment in the United States of America.
The use of the term "John Doe" disturbs me in this case because it seems to strip strip the person of it's individuality and insert a rigid and paranoid doctrine of "I Will's" and "I Am's" in it's place.
Just note the frame of the "Manifesto" ;
I am
I am
I am
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I am
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I am
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I am
Now note individual phrases, the following lines smack of Soviet like propaganda.
"I will act when homeland security officials ask me to “report suspicious activity.”
I will embrace my local police department’s admonition: “If you see something, say something.”
I will support law enforcement initiatives to spy" ...
She forgot to write "And I will write with the intent of pleasing the 'propaganda ministry' because that is what a good and fearful American does."
Who need liberty when you have security? That's what Malkin is asking.
Of course, citizens need to be alert for their own security to a logical extent -- but this sickeningly pathetic "Manifesto" reads like it was coauthored by Kim Jong Ill's propaganda team to use on the North Koreans.
Furthermore, I am suspicious of anything with the word "Manifesto" stamped on it. I am sure there are many people on the Grassy Knoll handing out "Manifesto's". Ted Kaczynski had a "Manifesto".
In a sense Malkin's "Manifesto", like most her work, has played right into the terrorist agenda, to cause terror. One look at the "Manifesto" reveals truly how fearful some people in this country are.
The terrorist want Americans afraid, paranoid and spying on their neighbors, it feeds their frenzy, hence the word terror.
People like Michelle Malkin also want Americans afraid, paranoid and spying on their neighbors.
While their agenda's may be different I have to be wary of anyone who wants me to be afraid, paranoid and spying on my neighbors.
Before I scoot off to my Spring Break, I want to break down some of the weaker lines in the "Manifesto"...
"I will raise my voice against your subjugation of women and religious minorities."
While I subject Muslim woman in America to discrimination and show intolerance to religious minorities...
"I will challenge your attempts to indoctrinate my children in our schools."
What a flake! Talk about your conspiracy theories! Last time I checked the Muslims were not trying to indoctrinate our children in our schools. Now she's just making sh*t up to justify her call for a spying jihad against all brown skinned people and their acquaintances.
"I will not be censored in the name of tolerance."
Oh, jeez, she should give it a rest already! It sounds like she's fighting for the right to use the word "sand n*gger" when speaking of Arabs or something.
"I will put my country above multiculturalism."
Uhh, hello! Malkin lady, newsflash!
Multiculturalism is what allowed your Filipino immigrant parents to come to America on a work visa and have an "anchor" baby like you.
Multiculturalism is America, I know it's a concept the Reich Wing fails to grasp, but it's true.
If it were not for multiculturalism Malkin wouldn't even be in America, spewing her "Hot Air".
Malkin should get real, she's a minority in more than one way and should exercise some of the tolerance people gave to her and her foreign family to others. But she doesn't, leading me to believe she is a self hating b*tch and channels that self hatred on other minorities and immigrants.
"I will not submit to your will. I will not be intimidated."
You hear that, you stupid-wupid terrorist? She's not intimidated! Small woman, big stand, she hates terrorist, long time ...
You know what? Malkin's "Manifesto" sounds more like a self help book the more I read it. "I will not eat to much dessert, I will not be afraid of the dark."... Or like something written for victims of domestic abuse "I will not let a man undermine my worth, I will not let people tell me what to do." Blah, Blah, by f*cking BLAH!
Not only is the "Manifesto" creepy it is also pathetic, as the title of this post indicates.
The "Manifesto" really shows the terrorist how fearful they have made some Americans when they are willing to sign on to propaganda that was disseminated by fear-bot Michelle Malkin.
But do these silly little Stalinist spies really think their cute "Manifesto" is going to intimidate the terrorist, if they even see it? I don't think so.
Special thanks to Chris Kelly at Huffington Post for raising the issue to my attention in a blog.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Don't Ask, Don't Tell Religion In Schools In England
You can be Muslim, you just can't look Muslim, or so seems with new government guidelines that were published on Tuesday that would leave it up "to individual head teachers to decide what pupils should and should not be allowed to wear in class, a DFES spokesman said." the AP reports.
Critics of the niqab claim that the scarf interferes with learning and causes security threats. Critics site the unique examples of Turkey and Tunisia in the Muslim world as having outlawed the niqab, although Turkey only loosely enforces the ban.
So does the niqab interfere with learning and does the niqab in itself cause security threats?
Before I answer that I was to elaborate that I view preventing Muslim woman from wearing religious clothing is a blatant violation of freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
I am not from England. My country rebelled from Britain, so I know little of the intricacies of British law.
What I do know is this : in America we have freedom of religion and freedom of expression and that is part of what makes it great.
I am obviously not a Muslim woman, I am a secular woman, but I will stand up for Muslims woman's right to wear a veil.
Why? Because, I believe to ask a Muslim woman to remove her veil is the same as asking a Christian to remove their cross or to ask a Jew to remove his locks or his Star of David, and I would stand up for their rights as well.
It is hypocritical to try to spread "tolerance" in the Muslim world but exhibit so little of it in the West. How can the West ask Muslim countries to treat it's Christian minorities with kindness and respect it the West cannot treat it's Muslim minorities with kindness and respect?
Do I think the niqab interferes with learning? No. But I believe asking a pious young woman to remove the veil because it is "bothering you" would interfere with her learning and her ability to be at comfort with her surroundings and her religion.
For a conservative Muslim woman wearing the niqab is the moral thing to do, thus asking her to remove it is asking her to be immoral in her own eyes and what she views as the eyes of God.
Why the controversy over being modest? Why does it offend a Western person more to see a modest woman in a veil than it does to see a 15 year old wearing cleavage and thigh baring clothing?
That is part of what is so absurd about this whole situation. In the West your free to show your skin, but apparently your not free to cover your skin. Who would've thought "daisy dukes" are more acceptable than veils??
Currently, Muslims are in the spotlight. Because of 9/11, because of the mess in Iraq and our relationship with the government of Iran, many in the West have allowed themselves to become discriminatory towards all Muslims people, and feel completely justified in doing so.
But I ask, is this really the kind of reality and history we want to make?
Do you want our ancestors to look back and call us discriminatory and see us as overreacting and contributing to these problem rather than solving them? Or see us as bunch of hypocrites who try to instill tolerance on other nations while failing to exercise it at home?
Or do we want our ancestors to be able to look back and see that we exercised tolerance, restraint, and above all logic in a time of hardships and clashes between our worlds?
You can be Muslim, you just can't look Muslim, or so seems with new government guidelines that were published on Tuesday that would leave it up "to individual head teachers to decide what pupils should and should not be allowed to wear in class, a DFES spokesman said." the AP reports.
Critics of the niqab claim that the scarf interferes with learning and causes security threats. Critics site the unique examples of Turkey and Tunisia in the Muslim world as having outlawed the niqab, although Turkey only loosely enforces the ban.
So does the niqab interfere with learning and does the niqab in itself cause security threats?
Before I answer that I was to elaborate that I view preventing Muslim woman from wearing religious clothing is a blatant violation of freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
I am not from England. My country rebelled from Britain, so I know little of the intricacies of British law.
What I do know is this : in America we have freedom of religion and freedom of expression and that is part of what makes it great.
I am obviously not a Muslim woman, I am a secular woman, but I will stand up for Muslims woman's right to wear a veil.
Why? Because, I believe to ask a Muslim woman to remove her veil is the same as asking a Christian to remove their cross or to ask a Jew to remove his locks or his Star of David, and I would stand up for their rights as well.
It is hypocritical to try to spread "tolerance" in the Muslim world but exhibit so little of it in the West. How can the West ask Muslim countries to treat it's Christian minorities with kindness and respect it the West cannot treat it's Muslim minorities with kindness and respect?
Do I think the niqab interferes with learning? No. But I believe asking a pious young woman to remove the veil because it is "bothering you" would interfere with her learning and her ability to be at comfort with her surroundings and her religion.
For a conservative Muslim woman wearing the niqab is the moral thing to do, thus asking her to remove it is asking her to be immoral in her own eyes and what she views as the eyes of God.
Why the controversy over being modest? Why does it offend a Western person more to see a modest woman in a veil than it does to see a 15 year old wearing cleavage and thigh baring clothing?
That is part of what is so absurd about this whole situation. In the West your free to show your skin, but apparently your not free to cover your skin. Who would've thought "daisy dukes" are more acceptable than veils??
Currently, Muslims are in the spotlight. Because of 9/11, because of the mess in Iraq and our relationship with the government of Iran, many in the West have allowed themselves to become discriminatory towards all Muslims people, and feel completely justified in doing so.
But I ask, is this really the kind of reality and history we want to make?
Do you want our ancestors to look back and call us discriminatory and see us as overreacting and contributing to these problem rather than solving them? Or see us as bunch of hypocrites who try to instill tolerance on other nations while failing to exercise it at home?
Or do we want our ancestors to be able to look back and see that we exercised tolerance, restraint, and above all logic in a time of hardships and clashes between our worlds?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
