socialism

[Pain Applicant1]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

and the british never attacked the spanish. who never attacked the french. who never attacked germania. who never attacked the russians. who never attacked the swedes.

oh and the brits never conquered the welsh. or decimated the scots. or never invaded, ruled, or forcibly starved the irish




Cortez band of men destroyed the Aztec empire by deception, superior firearms and disease. he made an alliance with the Tlaxcalans upon arrival in the new world, longstanding enemies of the Aztecs.

unintentionally, he spread smallpox that devastated the peoples of the Aztec empire, killing millions.

he kidnapped Moctezuma after Moctezuma invited Cortes to stay as a guest (1 year after Cortes' arrival in the new world) and essentially usurped power. that was the catalyst for breakup of the empire. his brother took over but died of smallpox.

the spaniards then sieged Tenochtitlan with his Tlaxcalans allies and that victory lead to the complete fall of the Aztec empire, as Moctezuma's sons were killed.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Your brain is like a washing machine of liberal talking points that you need to slobber out into each conversation.

My point is that everyone killed, enslaved, raped, conquered, pillaged, etc everyone. That was the nature of the world back then. Cortes primarily decimated the Aztecs because the Aztecs were doing just that to other Native groups, so they allied with Cortes.

You can't judge people in the past by current standards. It's like going deep into the Amazon jungle and meeting an uncontacted tribe and expecting them to adhere to Christian ethics.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

and im sorry....

where were white americans imprisoned?

history shows black americans were imprisoned and made slaves

history shows that native americans were imprisoned and forced to walk the trail of tears.

history shows that japanese americans and asian americans were imprisoned.


show me historical data where white americans were imprisoned by other peoples other than other white americans.


ill wait.

or not, because forever will take too long

Have you ever heard of Captain John Smith? Have you ever heard of the Ottomans? Have you read The Sovereignty and Goodness of God?

Obviously, Africans suffered the most from slavery. That's because the system was already set up and established for hundreds of years. Who set this system up? Muslims and Africans. When euros began sailing down the gold coast they purchased slaves from this already established system. That's why euros never had to step into the African area where the majority of African slaves came from.

So, euros didn't start slavery but do you know who ended this practice?

When did Islamic countries end slavery?
When did Asian countries end slavery?

 

[mille125]

Because MSNBC...truth only.
Mainstream media is leftist propaganda.
I watch equal parts CNN/Fox

I agree that all "news" has a slant but in general the slant on fox seems a little more at least for now.

You are wise to listen to both and realize that the "truth" lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

Pain Applicant said

When did the US emerge as the preeminent global superpower that it is? 1945
What percent of the US were whities back then? About 90%


This had very little to do with what you are mentioning.

1) Our domestic factories and industrial complex was completely undamaged. Europe and Asia industrial capacities were completely in ruins.

2) Our economy produced 1/2 of the worlds goods and held more than 1/2 of the worlds gold. Bretton Woods placed the US dollar at the center of the world's currency and this still exists today.

3) We were the only nation with nuclear weapons even though that only lasted for a few years.

4) We had very powerful alliances like NATO and were allowed to establish permanent bases around the world. We led international diplomacy thru the United Nations, founded in the US.

5) Long time, peer global powers like England, Germany, and France were financially ruined. Even the soon to be peer Soviet Union suffered the death of 25 million persons and bombing of some of its industrial sectors.

Irrelevant. Everything in this world is multifactorial. Bottom line, YTs did and will do just fine without immigration. They'll figure it out. China will too. Population shmapolation.

China has been around for thousands of years. They survived Mao, the Mongols, the Islamic conquest, the British Empire, starvation, etc. They'll do just fine because they'll figure it out.

 

[mille125]

Irrelevant. Everything in this world is multifactorial. Bottom line, YTs did and will do just fine without immigration. They'll figure it out. China will too. Population shmapolation.

China has been around for thousands of years. They survived Mao, the Mongols, the Islamic conquest, the British Empire, starvation, etc. They'll do just fine because they'll figure it out.

You have more confidence than the Chinese government does. They know it is a problem and most smart sociologists agree.

They are rapidly trying to fix their demographic problem but it is probably too late.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

Yes, and 62% of US Jews say the way Israel is fighting the war is acceptable (a military campaign that has killed tens of thousands of children). Both answers imply that the killing of civilians on the otherside is acceptable in certain circumstances (as per your hypothetical). People on both sides are very emotionally charged and deeply invested in the historical context of this war and see the other as the aggressor.

What conclusions do you draw about US Muslims and US Jews as a whole from this? If 21% leads you to condemn an entire group, what about 62%?

And more importantly how does this relate to 'sharia law' here in the US? Or are we moving the goalposts from sharia law to a litmus test for US Muslims on how they view foreign policy
?

Most Americans don't feel threatened by violent Jewish extremists as they don't see it as a threat. Some feel threatened by Jewish financial power or perceived Jewish financial power, which may be considered disproportionate, but not by Jewish violence.

It's the opposite for Muslims. In general, Americans aren't threatened by Saudi Arabian money but they are by violent Muslim extremists. Jewish terrorists may focus on muslims and those supporting them, so if you were to stay out of the way, it's not typically an issue. Islamic terrorism, otoh, tends to randomly target anyone in the way, so it poses more of a threat.

While the vast majority of muslims likely aren't terrorists, extremists taking control of muslim countries is not uncommon. Couple this with Islam being a proselytizing religion while Judaism is not and you see the difference. In fact, Jews, like Hindus, don't even want anyone to convert to their religion. Islam does, and most Muslims want to spread their religion to other people.

I'm not telling you this is right or wrong, but I am telling you some of the reasons for Islamophobic opinions.

Did you see the left-wing prime minister of Denmark has now turned on Islam, calling it a "big enemy starting to grow within"

That's the left now seeming to share the same opinions of Germany's AfD, which itself is gaining tremendous momentum mainly from anti-Islamic and anti-muslim immigration policies.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

Just to further clarify, jewish terrorists aren't even really against Muslims. They're really against Palestinians and not even Palestinians as a whole. They're against the Palestinians who live in what they consider their land. Outside of this, they probably don't care or want anything to do with Islam. I doubt there is any mosque in the US or anywhere else other than where Palestinians live that even thinks about a Jew coming in and stabbing or shooting them.

Unfortunately, this is not the case for the reverse. I bet that nearly all Jewish temples feel a threat of an Islamist shooting them up and this is a real threat indeed.

So in summary, only Palestinians need to worry about Jewish violence for the most part but all Jews need to worry about Islamic violence in the form of beatings, stabbings, shootings, etc.

I just wanted to further clarify the difference.

 

[mille125]

Most Americans don't feel threatened by violent Jewish extremists as they don't see it as a threat. Some feel threatened by Jewish financial power or perceived Jewish financial power, which may be considered disproportionate, but not by Jewish violence.

It's the opposite for Muslims. In general, Americans aren't threatened by Saudi Arabian money but they are by violent Muslim extremists. Jewish terrorists may focus on muslims and those supporting them, so if you were to stay out of the way, it's not typically an issue. Islamic terrorism, otoh, tends to randomly target anyone in the way, so it poses more of a threat.

While the vast majority of muslims likely aren't terrorists, extremists taking control of muslim countries is not uncommon. Couple this with Islam being a proselytizing religion while Judaism is not and you see the difference. In fact, Jews, like Hindus, don't even want anyone to convert to their religion. Islam does, and most Muslims want to spread their religion to other people.

I'm not telling you this is right or wrong, but I am telling you some of the reasons for Islamophobic opinions.

Did you see the left-wing prime minister of Denmark has now turned on Islam, calling it a "big enemy starting to grow within"

That's the left now seeming to share the same opinions of Germany's AfD, which itself is gaining tremendous momentum mainly from anti-Islamic and anti-muslim immigration policies.

And it is talk like this that brainwashes the public.

I will ask you..... which group has carried out a higher volume of attacks and caused more deaths on US soil, right wing and anti government domestic groups or foreign Jihad networks?

 

[Pain Applicant1]

And it is talk like this that brainwashes the public.

I will ask you..... which group has carried out a higher volume of attacks and caused more deaths on US soil, right wing and anti government domestic groups or foreign Jihad networks?

I'll try to keep it short, so sorry if it's not, but a few things.

First, it's not about foreign Jihad networks. The correct comparison would be to compare the number of IDEOLOGICALLY based murders of right wing anti gov domestic white supremacist groups (we'll lump them together to increase the numbers and refer to them as WS) vs Islamic terrorists. Who cares if the group is foreign or domestic?

Second, I'm just being honest. I'm trying to articulate a certain US sentiment in response to his questions and comments. This isn't an easy thing to do, and it doesn't necessarily mean I agree or disagree with the sentiment. That said, I think I'm pretty accurate in my assessment.

Whether or not the threat is real or perceived also doesn't matter, as perception is typically reality for people.

Third, to answer your question, I would say that Islamic terror has caused far more deaths on US soil than WS groups. Despite the narrative that these groups are the nation's greatest threat, murders by WS based on ideological reasons have been exceedingly low over the past few decades. The last time I checked, one of the major WS killing sprees wasn't even by a YT but was perpetrated by a Hispanic male.

OTOH, considering that ~3000 Americans died at the hands of Islamic terror on 9/11 alone, I would say the answer is pretty clear that Islamic terror poses more of a threat. This doesn't even include the other fun ways to be killed by their methods, such as beheadings, rammings, stabbings, shootings, bombings, etc - all of which have occurred on US soil for Islamic-based ideological reasons. When you then consider that Muslims make up only 1% of the US population, I'm not sure how you can come to any other conclusion that they are not disproportionately responsible for terror-related ideological deaths.

As a caveat, whether or not muslims are disproportionately responsible for terror-related deaths, this in no way equates to every muslim being a terrorist. I've already stated that the vast majority are not, but you can imagine the concern that people may have if the population increases.

 

[SSdoc33]

I'll try to keep it short, so sorry if it's not, but a few things.

First, it's not about foreign Jihad networks. The correct comparison would be to compare the number of IDEOLOGICALLY based murders of right wing anti gov domestic white supremacist groups (we'll lump them together to increase the numbers and refer to them as WS) vs Islamic terrorists. Who cares if the group is foreign or domestic?

Second, I'm just being honest. I'm trying to articulate a certain US sentiment in response to his questions and comments. This isn't an easy thing to do, and it doesn't necessarily mean I agree or disagree with the sentiment. That said, I think I'm pretty accurate in my assessment.

Whether or not the threat is real or perceived also doesn't matter, as perception is typically reality for people.

Third, to answer your question, I would say that Islamic terror has caused far more deaths on US soil than WS groups. Despite the narrative that these groups are the nation's greatest threat, murders by WS based on ideological reasons have been exceedingly low over the past few decades. The last time I checked, one of the major WS killing sprees wasn't even by a YT but was perpetrated by a Hispanic male.

OTOH, considering that ~3000 Americans died at the hands of Islamic terror on 9/11 alone, I would say the answer is pretty clear that Islamic terror poses more of a threat. This doesn't even include the other fun ways to be killed by their methods, such as beheadings, rammings, stabbings, shootings, bombings, etc - all of which have occurred on US soil for Islamic-based ideological reasons. When you then consider that Muslims make up only 1% of the US population, I'm not sure how you can come to any other conclusion that they are not disproportionately responsible for terror-related ideological deaths.

As a caveat, whether or not muslims are disproportionately responsible for terror-related deaths, this in no way equates to every muslim being a terrorist. I've already stated that the vast majority are not, but you can imagine the concern that people may have if the population increases.

can you use real numbers, rather than suppositions?

this is pretty meaningless.

 

[buddababa]

I'll try to keep it short, so sorry if it's not, but a few things.

First, it's not about foreign Jihad networks. The correct comparison would be to compare the number of IDEOLOGICALLY based murders of right wing anti gov domestic white supremacist groups (we'll lump them together to increase the numbers and refer to them as WS) vs Islamic terrorists. Who cares if the group is foreign or domestic?

Second, I'm just being honest. I'm trying to articulate a certain US sentiment in response to his questions and comments. This isn't an easy thing to do, and it doesn't necessarily mean I agree or disagree with the sentiment. That said, I think I'm pretty accurate in my assessment.

Whether or not the threat is real or perceived also doesn't matter, as perception is typically reality for people.

Third, to answer your question, I would say that Islamic terror has caused far more deaths on US soil than WS groups. Despite the narrative that these groups are the nation's greatest threat, murders by WS based on ideological reasons have been exceedingly low over the past few decades. The last time I checked, one of the major WS killing sprees wasn't even by a YT but was perpetrated by a Hispanic male.

OTOH, considering that ~3000 Americans died at the hands of Islamic terror on 9/11 alone, I would say the answer is pretty clear that Islamic terror poses more of a threat. This doesn't even include the other fun ways to be killed by their methods, such as beheadings, rammings, stabbings, shootings, bombings, etc - all of which have occurred on US soil for Islamic-based ideological reasons. When you then consider that Muslims make up only 1% of the US population, I'm not sure how you can come to any other conclusion that they are not disproportionately responsible for terror-related ideological deaths.

As a caveat, whether or not muslims are disproportionately responsible for terror-related deaths, this in no way equates to every muslim being a terrorist. I've already stated that the vast majority are not, but you can imagine the concern that people may have if the population increases.

Wrong.

Outside of the September 11 attacks, right-wing and white supremacist extremists have caused more ideologically motivated deaths in the United States than Islamist-inspired extremists over recent decades. [1, 2][wiki]

Death Toll Comparisons

• • With 9/11 Included: Islamist-inspired terrorism has a higher total death toll on U.S. soil because approximately 3,000 people died on September 11, 2001.
  • Excluding 9/11: Cumulative data from research organizations and think tanks—such as the Center for Strategic and International Studies—shows that right-wing and far-right extremists have killed significantly more people in the U.S. over the last several decades than jihadist extremists. [1, 2]
  • Frequency of Attacks: Data tracked by the Anti-Defamation League indicates that domestic right-wing extremist attacks and murders occur much more frequently than Islamist extremist attacks inside the United States. [1]

 

[Ducttape]

if you look at Wikipedia with regards specifically to attacks on Jewish institutions since 2000 in the US, 4 attacks were by Islamic extremists and 10 were by white supremacists and/or antisemitism.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

Wrong.

Outside of the September 11 attacks, right-wing and white supremacist extremists have caused more ideologically motivated deaths in the United States than Islamist-inspired extremists over recent decades. [1, 2][wiki]

Death Toll Comparisons

• • With 9/11 Included: Islamist-inspired terrorism has a higher total death toll on U.S. soil because approximately 3,000 people died on September 11, 2001.
  • Excluding 9/11: Cumulative data from research organizations and think tanks—such as the Center for Strategic and International Studies—shows that right-wing and far-right extremists have killed significantly more people in the U.S. over the last several decades than jihadist extremists. [1, 2]
  • Frequency of Attacks: Data tracked by the Anti-Defamation League indicates that domestic right-wing extremist attacks and murders occur much more frequently than Islamist extremist attacks inside the United States. [1]

Sorry, but you're the one who is wrong. And you're spinning it because you're biased toward your own group. And why are you omitting 9/11? That was a pretty big event.

_________

Stats and numbers can get people bogged down, and my post was already too long, but I guess we'll have to go there.

_________

WS commit murder for sure, as in general, these people are probably not the most upstanding of citizens. Sexual, physical, emotional abuse, neglect, etc likely rampant in their childhood so the risk for drug use, crime, incarceration, etc is likely already very high. So, it's important to distinguish the reason for them committing crime, including murder, as what we're considering to be important is murder based on ideological reason. IOW, if a WS kills his wife or another WS over a drug deal or a Black Guerrilla Family member in prison, it wouldn't be considered an ideological reason. Murders such as those don't really impact the rest of society, so they are less of a concern to us, as they pose less of a threat to us.

Even if we put the 3000 people who died on 9/11 aside, we can look at some interesting statistics directly from your sources.

So, taking from the ADL Murder and Extremism in the United States in 2021, which is what you're referencing, we find:

"One of the most striking features of white supremacist murders is the large proportion of non-ideological killings to ideological killings. Over the past 10 years, only 86 of the 244 white supremacist killings (35%) were ideological murders. The remainder were group-related but not ideological attacks, were related to traditional criminal activities, or were murders for which no clear motive could be determined."

"Domestic Islamist extremists have been responsible for 87 murders over the past 10 years"

So even during this time period:

Scoreboard:
Muslims: 87
YTs: 86

Muslims take the gold. Close game but muslims pull it off by one point in the final seconds.

Now keep in mind that muslims make up 1% of the US population and whities make up 60-70% so I'm not sure how anyone can claim that muslims aren't disproportionately responsible for ideology-based murder. That is, unless you're lying to bolster an argument that you have a vested interest in winning.

 

[buddababa]

Sorry, but you're the one who is wrong. And you're spinning it because you're biased toward your own group. And why are you omitting 9/11? That was a pretty big event.

_________

Stats and numbers can get people bogged down, and my post was already too long, but I guess we'll have to go there.

_________

WS commit murder for sure, as in general, these people are probably not the most upstanding of citizens. Sexual, physical, emotional abuse, neglect, etc likely rampant in their childhood so the risk for drug use, crime, incarceration, etc is likely already very high. So, it's important to distinguish the reason for them committing crime, including murder, as what we're considering to be important is murder based on ideological reason. IOW, if a WS kills his wife or another WS over a drug deal or a Black Guerrilla Family member in prison, it wouldn't be considered an ideological reason. Murders such as those don't really impact the rest of society, so they are less of a concern to us, as they pose less of a threat to us.

Even if we put the 3000 people who died on 9/11 aside, we can look at some interesting statistics directly from your sources.

So, taking from the ADL Murder and Extremism in the United States in 2021, which is what you're referencing, we find:

"One of the most striking features of white supremacist murders is the large proportion of non-ideological killings to ideological killings. Over the past 10 years, only 86 of the 244 white supremacist killings (35%) were ideological murders. The remainder were group-related but not ideological attacks, were related to traditional criminal activities, or were murders for which no clear motive could be determined."

"Domestic Islamist extremists have been responsible for 87 murders over the past 10 years"

So even during this time period:

Scoreboard:
Muslims: 87
YTs: 86

Muslims take the gold. Close game but muslims pull it off by one point in the final seconds.

Now keep in mind that muslims make up 1% of the US population and whities make up 60-70% so I'm not sure how anyone can claim that muslims aren't disproportionately responsible for ideology-based murder. That is, unless you're lying to bolster an argument that you have a vested interest in winning.

you need to watch more tucker carlson to find the truth
and "my group" is humanity not a religion.
Conversations like this really make people show their true colors on how they feel.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

you need to watch more tucker carlson to find the truth
and "my group" is humanity not a religion.
Conversations like this really make people show their true colors on how they feel.

Bruh, c'mon. That's a tired-ass argument. I'm not anti-anything, and I'm definitely not anti-muslim. I spent some time backpacking through muslim countries when I was a kid, but we can't hide the truth because you or someone else is offended and insulted. Those days are over. If there's a problem, it's important to be honest about it to try to fix it. But the first thing you have to do is admit that there's a problem. Besides, you're the one who asked questions. I honestly thought I was being helpful by shedding some light on your questions for you. It's not my issue if you don't like the answer.

And for the record, I don't watch any television. We don't even own one.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

if you look at Wikipedia with regards specifically to attacks on Jewish institutions since 2000 in the US, 4 attacks were by Islamic extremists and 10 were by white supremacists and/or antisemitism.

Thanks for proving my earlier point. Out of curiosity, how many Jewish extremists have attacked mosques in the US since 2000?

 

[buddababa]

Bruh, c'mon. That's a tired-ass argument. I'm not anti-anything, and I'm definitely not anti-muslim. I spent some time backpacking through muslim countries when I was a kid, but we can't hide the truth because you or someone else is offended and insulted. Those days are over. If there's a problem, it's important to be honest about it to try to fix it. But the first thing you have to do is admit that there's a problem. Besides, you're the one who asked questions. I honestly thought I was being helpful by shedding some light on your questions for you. It's not my issue if you don't like the answer.

And for the record, I don't watch any television. We don't even own one.

Fair enough, my apologies: I recant my words towards you

 

[mille125]

I'll try to keep it short, so sorry if it's not, but a few things.

First, it's not about foreign Jihad networks. The correct comparison would be to compare the number of IDEOLOGICALLY based murders of right wing anti gov domestic white supremacist groups (we'll lump them together to increase the numbers and refer to them as WS) vs Islamic terrorists. Who cares if the group is foreign or domestic?

Second, I'm just being honest. I'm trying to articulate a certain US sentiment in response to his questions and comments. This isn't an easy thing to do, and it doesn't necessarily mean I agree or disagree with the sentiment. That said, I think I'm pretty accurate in my assessment.

Whether or not the threat is real or perceived also doesn't matter, as perception is typically reality for people.

Third, to answer your question, I would say that Islamic terror has caused far more deaths on US soil than WS groups. Despite the narrative that these groups are the nation's greatest threat, murders by WS based on ideological reasons have been exceedingly low over the past few decades. The last time I checked, one of the major WS killing sprees wasn't even by a YT but was perpetrated by a Hispanic male.

OTOH, considering that ~3000 Americans died at the hands of Islamic terror on 9/11 alone, I would say the answer is pretty clear that Islamic terror poses more of a threat. This doesn't even include the other fun ways to be killed by their methods, such as beheadings, rammings, stabbings, shootings, bombings, etc - all of which have occurred on US soil for Islamic-based ideological reasons. When you then consider that Muslims make up only 1% of the US population, I'm not sure how you can come to any other conclusion that they are not disproportionately responsible for terror-related ideological deaths.

As a caveat, whether or not muslims are disproportionately responsible for terror-related deaths, this in no way equates to every muslim being a terrorist. I've already stated that the vast majority are not, but you can imagine the concern that people may have if the population increases.

You are really showing how to manipulate numbers. You say "who cares if the Islamic terrorists are foreign or domestic" and then you say "consider that Muslims make up only 1% of the population". To make that statement, you are implying that the Islamic terrorists are domestic (or why what you talk about them being 1 percent). You then mix foreign and domestics islamic attacks together. With respect man, that doesn't make sense. I think we can agree the foreign terrorist were responsible for 9/11. Why would a stat about 1% of the population being Muslim be relevant to that?

You later talk about Jewish violence. There is no denying that Jewish violence as well as Muslim violence is on the rise really since the increased tensions in the middle east. You fail to recognize that a lot of the violence towards synagogue as in fact white supremacist/right wing attacks.

You mean well but you are just propagating right wing talking points that terrorists are always
Muslim but never white.

Again, you mean well but you are propagating the false narratives that the Trump’s administration wants to amplify. This propaganda relies on certain ideals and myths, in this case, the myth of white innocence and white superiority. Thus, the Trump administration’s intentional amplification of both narratives amounts to propaganda.

We regularly witness the tendency to leap to the conclusion that Muslims were responsible for terror attacks. Take the U.S. media’s coverage of the massacre at a mosque in Quebec City in 2017, where the shooter killed six people and injured another nineteen. Early reports suggested that police were holding two men. Yet Fox News tweeted out that there was a single Moroccan suspect: In fact, the gunman was the white French Canadian and this Moroccan-born man was the one who had called the police when he heard shots. This is one example of many.

The other common narrative is that white Christian extremists who commit terrorist attacks are not terrorists. There are exceptions like the Oklahoma bombing by a white Christian although there, too, the attack was initially blamed on Islamic terrorist groups. For the most part, though, “terrorist” was not a word applied to the white Christian responsible for the Quebec City attack as far as I know. He is not alone as the term terrorist is not used for a long list of white christian/white supremacists who have attacked women's health clinics, police officers and even Jewish community centers. The white Christian extremist who slaughtered nine African Americans at a church in South Carolina in 2015 (after church members actually prayed with him) is widely recognized as a hate crime but not necessarily as terrorism.


This is what you are propagating in your speech.....

 

[lobelsteve]

You are really showing how to manipulate numbers. You say "who cares if the Islamic terrorists are foreign or domestic" and then you say "consider that Muslims make up only 1% of the population". To make that statement, you are implying that the Islamic terrorists are domestic (or why what you talk about them being 1 percent). You then mix foreign and domestics islamic attacks together. With respect man, that doesn't make sense. I think we can agree the foreign terrorist were responsible for 9/11. Why would a stat about 1% of the population being Muslim be relevant to that?

You later talk about Jewish violence. There is no denying that Jewish violence as well as Muslim violence is on the rise really since the increased tensions in the middle east. You fail to recognize that a lot of the violence towards synagogue as in fact white supremacist/right wing attacks.

You mean well but you are just propagating right wing talking points that terrorists are always
Muslim but never white.

Again, you mean well but you are propagating the false narratives that the Trump’s administration wants to amplify. This propaganda relies on certain ideals and myths, in this case, the myth of white innocence and white superiority. Thus, the Trump administration’s intentional amplification of both narratives amounts to propaganda.

We regularly witness the tendency to leap to the conclusion that Muslims were responsible for terror attacks. Take the U.S. media’s coverage of the massacre at a mosque in Quebec City in 2017, where the shooter killed six people and injured another nineteen. Early reports suggested that police were holding two men. Yet Fox News tweeted out that there was a single Moroccan suspect: In fact, the gunman was the white French Canadian and this Moroccan-born man was the one who had called the police when he heard shots. This is one example of many.

The other common narrative is that white Christian extremists who commit terrorist attacks are not terrorists. There are exceptions like the Oklahoma bombing by a white Christian although there, too, the attack was initially blamed on Islamic terrorist groups. For the most part, though, “terrorist” was not a word applied to the white Christian responsible for the Quebec City attack as far as I know. He is not alone as the term terrorist is not used for a long list of white christian/white supremacists who have attacked women's health clinics, police officers and even Jewish community centers. The white Christian extremist who slaughtered nine African Americans at a church in South Carolina in 2015 (after church members actually prayed with him) is widely recognized as a hate crime but not necessarily as terrorism.


This is what you are propagating in your speech.....

When 9/11 and 10/7 aren't enough.

Google "worst terror attacks"

Deadliest Terror Attacks in History

• • September 11 Attacks (2001, United States): ~2,977 to 2,996 deaths. Al-Qaeda hijackers crashed planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. [1, 2, 3]
  • Camp Speicher Massacre (2014, Iraq): 1,095–1,700 deaths. ISIL/ISIS murdered fleeing Iraqi Air Force cadets. [1]
  • Yazidi Communities Bombings (2007, Qahtaniya, Iraq): ~500 to 796 deaths. Coordinated suicide truck bombings targeted the Yazidi minority. [1, 2]
  • Mogadishu Truck Bombings (2017, Somalia): 587 deaths. A massive truck bombing at a busy intersection attributed to Al-Shabaab. [1]
  • Cinema Rex Arson (1978, Abadan, Iran): 377–470 deaths. Anti-Shah extremists set fire to an occupied movie theater during the Iranian Revolution. [1, 2]

Other Notable Major Attacks

• • October 7 Attacks (2023, Israel): ~1,195–1,207 deaths. Hamas-led militants launched a cross-border assault from Gaza. [1]
  • Beslan School Hostage Crisis (2004, Russia): 334–366 deaths. Chechen separatists seized a school, leading to a deadly raid and siege. [1, 2]
  • Air India Flight 182 (1985, Atlantic Ocean / Ireland): 329 deaths. A bomb planted by Babbar Khalsa Canadian Sikh militants exploded mid-air. [1, 2]

 

[Ducttape]

Thanks for proving my earlier point. Out of curiosity, how many Jewish extremists have attacked mosques in the US since 2000?

no, it counters your point that most attacks against jewish places of worship were by islamic extremists.

moving the goalposts much after moving them again and again?

in america, those who are jewish "rank higher" in terms of political power. there is little to no reason to attack mosques.

otoh, there have been several mosque attacks in the US.

since 2005 (from ACLU)

 

[Pain Applicant1]

You are really showing how to manipulate numbers. You say "who cares if the Islamic terrorists are foreign or domestic" and then you say "consider that Muslims make up only 1% of the population". To make that statement, you are implying that the Islamic terrorists are domestic (or why what you talk about them being 1 percent). You then mix foreign and domestics islamic attacks together. With respect man, that doesn't make sense. I think we can agree the foreign terrorist were responsible for 9/11. Why would a stat about 1% of the population being Muslim be relevant to that?

You later talk about Jewish violence. There is no denying that Jewish violence as well as Muslim violence is on the rise really since the increased tensions in the middle east. You fail to recognize that a lot of the violence towards synagogue as in fact white supremacist/right wing attacks.

You mean well but you are just propagating right wing talking points that terrorists are always
Muslim but never white.

Again, you mean well but you are propagating the false narratives that the Trump’s administration wants to amplify. This propaganda relies on certain ideals and myths, in this case, the myth of white innocence and white superiority. Thus, the Trump administration’s intentional amplification of both narratives amounts to propaganda.

We regularly witness the tendency to leap to the conclusion that Muslims were responsible for terror attacks. Take the U.S. media’s coverage of the massacre at a mosque in Quebec City in 2017, where the shooter killed six people and injured another nineteen. Early reports suggested that police were holding two men. Yet Fox News tweeted out that there was a single Moroccan suspect: In fact, the gunman was the white French Canadian and this Moroccan-born man was the one who had called the police when he heard shots. This is one example of many.

The other common narrative is that white Christian extremists who commit terrorist attacks are not terrorists. There are exceptions like the Oklahoma bombing by a white Christian although there, too, the attack was initially blamed on Islamic terrorist groups. For the most part, though, “terrorist” was not a word applied to the white Christian responsible for the Quebec City attack as far as I know. He is not alone as the term terrorist is not used for a long list of white christian/white supremacists who have attacked women's health clinics, police officers and even Jewish community centers. The white Christian extremist who slaughtered nine African Americans at a church in South Carolina in 2015 (after church members actually prayed with him) is widely recognized as a hate crime but not necessarily as terrorism.


This is what you are propagating in your speech.....

Even with the omission of 9/11, Muslims are still disproportionately responsible for ideologically related murders. Here, I'll repost for you in case you missed it.

"...only 86 of the 244 white supremacist killings (35%) were ideological murders"

"Domestic Islamist extremists have been responsible for 87 murders over the past 10 years"

Keep in mind that this is taken from the very same reference that buddababa used. He also knows that my argument is correct and his wasn't, which is why he tried to pull the racism "true colors" card. Weaponization of words trick when losing an argument that is common with the left.

He then goes on and tells me to watch some social media guy who's likely paid off by the Qatari gov so I can find the truth. He says this after the other guy criticized someone else for doing just that with ben shapiro.

I don't care about words. Terrorist, extremists, anti gov, blah blah blah. I care about behavior. Call it whatever you want, it makes no difference to me. An ideological murderer is just that. Any other label is irrelevant and Muslims are disproportionately responsible for this. There is no denying it.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

no, it counters your point that most attacks against jewish places of worship were by islamic extremists.

moving the goalposts much after moving them again and again?

in america, those who are jewish "rank higher" in terms of political power. there is little to no reason to attack mosques.

otoh, there have been several mosque attacks in the US.

since 2005 (from ACLU)

View attachment 423807

I didn't say that or make that point. You're arguing against yourself.

I made two points:

1. Islamic terrorists and Jewish terrorists are not the same. This is evidenced by your statistic that Muslims attacked synagogues 4 times. They make up 1% of the country. Jews attacked mosques 0 times. They make up 2.5% of the country. If they were the same, Jews should have attacked Mosques 10 times.
2. Muslims are disproportionately responsible for ideological murders in the US. Synagogues and Jews do not represent the US, as 97.5% of the US is not Jewish. We need to look at attacks as a whole, not just isolated situations. Besides, even if we look at your statistic, Muslims are still disproportionately responsible, as they would roughly be 20-25 times higher per capita when considering the population sizes of whites and muslims in the US if I did my head math correctly.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

moving the goalposts much after moving them again and again?

You love repeating this term but I honestly have know idea what you're talking about

in america, those who are jewish "rank higher" in terms of political power. there is little to no reason to attack mosques.

Pretty estupido comment, doesn't really deserve a response especially when you followed with your mosque attacks comment. You're justifying awful behavior by alleviating personal responsibility, especially when it doesn't impact you, which is typical of the unhealthy left-wing mentality.

BUT... you constantly lament how much political and economic power white people have so they "rank high" to use your words. If highly ranked people have no reason to attack mosques, why have these highly ranked white people attacked mosques as noted in your comment below.

otoh, there have been several mosque attacks in the US.

since 2005 (from ACLU)

View attachment 423807

 

[Ducttape]

Even with the omission of 9/11, Muslims are still disproportionately responsible for ideologically related murders. Here, I'll repost for you in case you missed it.

"...only 86 of the 244 white supremacist killings (35%) were ideological murders"

"Domestic Islamist extremists have been responsible for 87 murders over the past 10 years"

Keep in mind that this is taken from the very same reference that buddababa used. He also knows that my argument is correct and his wasn't, which is why he tried to pull the racism "true colors" card. Weaponization of words trick when losing an argument that is common with the left.

He then goes on and tells me to watch some social media guy who's likely paid off by the Qatari gov so I can find the truth. He says this after the other guy criticized someone else for doing just that with ben shapiro.

I don't care about words. Terrorist, extremists, anti gov, blah blah blah. I care about behavior. Call it whatever you want, it makes no difference to me. An ideological murderer is just that. Any other label is irrelevant and Muslims are disproportionately responsible for this. There is no denying it.

so you say you care about behavior yet ignore that more events have been caused by white supremacists than islamic terrorists?

_________

WS commit murder for sure, as in general, these people are probably not the most upstanding of citizens. Sexual, physical, emotional abuse, neglect, etc likely rampant in their childhood so the risk for drug use, crime, incarceration, etc is likely already very high. So, it's important to distinguish the reason for them committing crime, including murder, as what we're considering to be important is murder based on ideological reason. IOW, if a WS kills his wife or another WS over a drug deal or a Black Guerrilla Family member in prison, it wouldn't be considered an ideological reason. Murders such as those don't really impact the rest of society, so they are less of a concern to us, as they pose less of a threat to us.

Even if we put the 3000 people who died on 9/11 aside, we can look at some interesting statistics directly from your sources.

So, taking from the ADL Murder and Extremism in the United States in 2021, which is what you're referencing, we find:

"One of the most striking features of white supremacist murders is the large proportion of non-ideological killings to ideological killings. Over the past 10 years, only 86 of the 244 white supremacist killings (35%) were ideological murders. The remainder were group-related but not ideological attacks, were related to traditional criminal activities, or were murders for which no clear motive could be determined."

"Domestic Islamist extremists have been responsible for 87 murders over the past 10 years"

So even during this time period:

Scoreboard:
Muslims: 87
YTs: 86

Muslims take the gold. Close game but muslims pull it off by one point in the final seconds.

1. so just ignore the fact that 244 murders were by white supremacists and focus on that the article dubs "ideological" and ignore the paragraphs before that document how difficult it is to classify them.

Finally, the motives behind many murders never become known (particularly if a perpetrator pleads guilty without a trial) or are never released by law enforcement.

All these types of murders are conservatively classified in this report as “non-ideological,” even though it is possible that extremism still played some sort of role in many.

244 murders by white supremacists >> 87 by muslims.

Over the past 10 years, the number of ideological-related killings and non-ideological (and unknown motive) killings by extremists has been close to equal (231 versus 212), with the majority of non-ideological killings coming from right-wing extremists, especially white supremacists.

You love repeating this term but I honestly have know idea what you're talking about



Pretty estupido comment, doesn't really deserve a response especially when you followed with your mosque attacks comment. You're justifying awful behavior by alleviating personal responsibility, especially when it doesn't impact you, which is typical of the unhealthy left-wing mentality.

BUT... you constantly lament how much political and economic power white people have so they "rank high" to use your words. If highly ranked people have no reason to attack mosques, why have these highly ranked white people attacked mosques as noted in your comment below.

1. fallacy to attack the comment, though you do give a response to why your reasoning.
2. you make assumptions that i am attempting to justify awful behavior when in fact i am just reporting facts that you have no refute.
3. you made an assumption that i believed that "highly ranked white people" were the ones attacking mosques. most likely it is the disenfranchised antiestablishment - such as white supremacists and/or racists - who are attacking mosques.

here is a timeline of some of the most outstanding attacks.

note that "anti islam" often goes hand in hand with "far right"/"white supremacist", but some are explicitly "white supremacist", and the large number of "unknown".

36-year timeline of attacks on American mosques

36-year timeline of attacks on American mosques

www.muslimnetwork.tv

there is never justification for murder.

not Oklahoma city.
not 9/11.
not Oct 7.
and not Gaza.



and yep, thats a liberal talking point

 

[bubaghanush]

This thread is a pretty good microcosm of what has become mainstream right-wing rhetoric to vilify Muslims:

- attack politicians like Abdul El Sayed and Mamdani because they are Muslim, since Socialist doesn't seem to stick as well
- fear-mongering over imaginary 'Sharia law' takeover in the US
- claims that Islam has an inherently violent history as compared to other religions
- loaded hypothetical questions to suggest Muslims are more violent than other religious groups
- selective stats on Muslim extremists to suggest the religion as a whole is more violent/destructive than white supremacists or foreign state violence (e.g. Gaza/West Bank)

Here's another one: 50% of Americans have never even met a Muslim, and likely 10% or less know one as more than a casual acquaintance

Many made up reasons were given to vilify Irish, Italians, women, Jews, Blacks, LGTBQ, etc. Muslims are a politically expedient scapegoat.

Scapegoating a minority is easier to sell politically than actual policy dealing with affordability, foreign wars, healthcare, and the national debt. At some point the tide will turn, and politicians will tone down the rhetoric when it's not so politically convenient.

 

[clubdeac]

americans were fearful of the growth of the Gernabs in America.

americans were fearful of the growth of Irish in America.

americans were fearful of the growth of italians in America.

Americans were so fearful of the growth of Chinese in America, so much so they made a law.


seems to have worked out pretty well...



“Two years ago today, Hamas carried out a horrific war crime, killing more than 1,100 Israelis and kidnapping 250 more. I mourn these lives and pray for the safe return of every hostage still held and for every family whose lives were torn apart by these atrocities,” Mamdani said.

“I condemned Hamas on day one, right? I think they’re wrong. I think they committed war crimes. That’s not hard to say.” - El-Sayed.

"I grieve the Palestinian and Israeli lives lost yesterday, today, and every day," she wrote. "I am determined as ever to fight for a just future where everyone can live in peace, without fear and with true freedom, equal rights, and human dignity."

"I condemn the horrific acts we are seeing unfold today in Israel against children, women, the elderly, and the unarmed people who are being slaughtered and taken hostage by Hamas. Such senseless violence will only repeat the back and forth cycle we've seen, which we cannot allow to continue. We need to call for deescalation and ceasefire," Omar wrote. "I will keep advocating for peace and justice throughout the Middle East."



it helps to look outside the Foxosphere every now and then.

These quotes are nice and well cherry picked so good work . However they pale in comparison to the numerous statements these individuals have made excusing hamas and justifying radical terrorism. You are smooth

 

[Ducttape]

These quotes are nice and well cherry picked so good work . However they pale in comparison to the numerous statements these individuals have made excusing hamas and justifying radical terrorism. You are smooth

okay smooth one (not talking about cerebral cortexes).

please post "the numerous statements" made by american muslims who made excuses for hamas or justifying radical terrorism. (not statements that support palestinians because palestinians =/= hamas.) id like to review them and place them in their appropriate context.

 

[bubaghanush]

These quotes are nice and well cherry picked so good work . However they pale in comparison to the numerous statements these individuals have made excusing hamas and justifying radical terrorism. You are smooth

I couldn't find those individuals' quotes you're talking about, but here is Mamdani actively using government resources to impose sharia on children. What do you think?

 

[clubdeac]

I couldn't find those individuals' quotes you're talking about, but here is Mamdani actively using government resources to impose sharia on children. What do you think?

Absolute epitome of privilege right there 😂 that’s good stuff. Thanks for sharing

 

[Ducttape]

yup. he was there to do the ribbon cutting on 10 newly resurfaced courts in Crotona Park in the Bronx sponsored by NY Junior Tennis and Learning.

Zohran Mamdani played tennis with Bronx children in a suit, and viewers could not get over his commitment to formal dressing

Learn why Zohran Mamdani’s decision to play tennis with Bronx children in a suit and tie caught viewers’ attention.

creators.yahoo.com

formal attire is his preferred clothing, and the article notes he has worn similar attire at soccer matches and jumping in a swimming pool.

its his style.


only a true die hard MAGA would find something negative about that.

im sure if he didnt wear his suit, MAGA would voice other reasons to complain. maybe he wasnt treating the event seriously or was a wimp or what not.

 

[Ducttape]

heck Foxosphere had a hey day when a certain president wore a tan suit and it was considered grounds for impeachment.....

 

[hyperalgesia]

You guys realize the Chinese government feeds you these fringe right wing narratives to fire you up right?

Americans witnessed planes flying into the WTC, suicide bombers yelling "Allah hu akbar!", severe repression of human rights, and gleeful celebrations after Gaza's barbaric attack on Israel. That's why Americans are apprehensive about Islam. It has nothing to do with the Foxosphere.

 

[bubaghanush]

You guys realize the Chinese government feeds you these fringe right wing narratives to fire you up right?

Americans witnessed planes flying into the WTC, suicide bombers yelling "Allah hu akbar!", severe repression of human rights, and gleeful celebrations after Gaza's barbaric attack on Israel. That's why Americans are apprehensive about Islam. It has nothing to do with the Foxoshpere.

I don't think Greg Abbott is part of the Chinese government.

 

[mille125]

Even with the omission of 9/11, Muslims are still disproportionately responsible for ideologically related murders. Here, I'll repost for you in case you missed it.

"...only 86 of the 244 white supremacist killings (35%) were ideological murders"

"Domestic Islamist extremists have been responsible for 87 murders over the past 10 years"

Keep in mind that this is taken from the very same reference that buddababa used. He also knows that my argument is correct and his wasn't, which is why he tried to pull the racism "true colors" card. Weaponization of words trick when losing an argument that is common with the left.

He then goes on and tells me to watch some social media guy who's likely paid off by the Qatari gov so I can find the truth. He says this after the other guy criticized someone else for doing just that with ben shapiro.

I don't care about words. Terrorist, extremists, anti gov, blah blah blah. I care about behavior. Call it whatever you want, it makes no difference to me. An ideological murderer is just that. Any other label is irrelevant and Muslims are disproportionately responsible for this. There is no denying it.

I dont have to say more. You prove my point here.

You include foreign Jihadist in your numbers and then you keep saying the Muslims are only 1% of the population which doesn't make sense.

You then inflate the numbers. I spent time to check your numbers and they are way off. There have not been 86 attacks by islamic extremists. Its half that number.

Wikipedia says this which is accurate.

A 2017 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that out of the 85 deadly extremist incidents which had occurred since the September 11 attacks (9/11) in 2001, white supremacist groups were responsible for 73%, while radical Islamist extremists were responsible for 27%. The total number of deaths caused by each group was about the same. However, 41% of the deaths that were attributable to radical Islamists all occurred in a single event: the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting in which 49 people were killed. No deaths were attributed to left-wing groups.[14][15] The Department of Homeland Security reported in 2020 that white supremacists posed the top domestic terrorism threat, which FBI director Christopher Wray confirmed in 2021, noting that the bureau had elevated the threat to the same level as ISIS.[16][17][18]


Lastly, you keep talking about right wing terrorist as non-ideological in certain cases. By definition, acts of terrorism require an ideological, political, or religious motive, meaning that attacks conducted purely for non-ideological reasons are classified as criminal violence or organized crime rather than terrorism. You know this but yet you still say this multiple times.

So in a nutshell you are doing what society does.......drasticly minimize right wing/white supremacist terrorism and magnify terrorism by Jihadist. I have already said why this is done so there is no need to repeat.

 

[mille125]

This thread is a pretty good microcosm of what has become mainstream right-wing rhetoric to vilify Muslims:

- attack politicians like Abdul El Sayed and Mamdani because they are Muslim, since Socialist doesn't seem to stick as well
- fear-mongering over imaginary 'Sharia law' takeover in the US
- claims that Islam has an inherently violent history as compared to other religions
- loaded hypothetical questions to suggest Muslims are more violent than other religious groups
- selective stats on Muslim extremists to suggest the religion as a whole is more violent/destructive than white supremacists or foreign state violence (e.g. Gaza/West Bank)

Here's another one: 50% of Americans have never even met a Muslim, and likely 10% or less know one as more than a casual acquaintance

Many made up reasons were given to vilify Irish, Italians, women, Jews, Blacks, LGTBQ, etc. Muslims are a politically expedient scapegoat.

Scapegoating a minority is easier to sell politicaSlly than actual policy dealing with affordability, foreign wars, healthcare, and the national debt. At some point the tide will turn, and politicians will tone down the rhetoric when it's not so politically convenient.

So true..

 

[mille125]

okay smooth one (not talking about cerebral cortexes).

please post "the numerous statements" made by american muslims who made excuses for hamas or justifying radical terrorism. (not statements that support palestinians because palestinians =/= hamas.) id like to review them and place them in their appropriate context.

Dont hold your breath on that one....

 

[mille125]

You guys realize the Chinese government feeds you these fringe right wing narratives to fire you up right?

Americans witnessed planes flying into the WTC, suicide bombers yelling "Allah hu akbar!", severe repression of human rights, and gleeful celebrations after Gaza's barbaric attack on Israel. That's why Americans are apprehensive about Islam. It has nothing to do with the Foxosphere.

And black minorities in the south were terrorized by lynchings, massacres, and church bombings with a lot of them ironically being done in the name of God. Many perpetrators of racial terror in the American South explicitly invoked Christian symbolism, scripture, and the name of God to justify their actions. The KKK in general said that their mission was a holy one.

So using your logic this violence reflects on all Christians just like Jihadist violence reflects on all Muslims. If you took time to look at it you would see that the Bible does not condone the behavior that I describe above and neither does the Quran.

 

[clubdeac]

This thread is a pretty good microcosm of what has become mainstream right-wing rhetoric to vilify Muslims:

- attack politicians like Abdul El Sayed and Mamdani because they are Muslim, since Socialist doesn't seem to stick as well
- fear-mongering over imaginary 'Sharia law' takeover in the US
- claims that Islam has an inherently violent history as compared to other religions
- loaded hypothetical questions to suggest Muslims are more violent than other religious groups
- selective stats on Muslim extremists to suggest the religion as a whole is more violent/destructive than white supremacists or foreign state violence (e.g. Gaza/West Bank)

Here's another one: 50% of Americans have never even met a Muslim, and likely 10% or less know one as more than a casual acquaintance

Many made up reasons were given to vilify Irish, Italians, women, Jews, Blacks, LGTBQ, etc. Muslims are a politically expedient scapegoat.

Scapegoating a minority is easier to sell politically than actual policy dealing with affordability, foreign wars, healthcare, and the national debt. At some point the tide will turn, and politicians will tone down the rhetoric when it's not so politically convenient.

This just happened in Dearborn.

 

[bubaghanush]

This just happened in Dearborn.

Are you a Jake Lang supporter now? Or are you actually trying to spin this social media slop as Jake Lang being the victim?

Jake Lang:
- January 6th rioter pardoned by Donald Trump (assaulting police with a baseball bat)
- previous arrest for terroristic threat
- white supremacist/neo-nazi supporter
- long history of being an anti-Muslim, antisemitic, and anti-black agitator
- multiple visits to Dearborn to try to stir up a violent response he can post on his social media

Dearborn community speaks out after 22 arrested during protests tied to anti-Muslim activist

Dearborn leaders and residents respond after 22 arrests tied to anti-Muslim activist Jake Lang's visit to the city.

www.wxyz.com

He was looking for a fight and some guy punched him and got arrested.

I wonder what your social media feed would say if you had a guy name "Abdullah" coming to Alabama, bragged about his ties to Al Qaeda and ISIS and how much he hates white people, and tried to burn Bibles in front of a church.

 

[hyperalgesia]

Are you a Jake Lang supporter now? Or are you actually trying to spin this social media slop as Jake Lang being the victim?

Jake Lang:
- January 6th rioter pardoned by Donald Trump (assaulting police with a baseball bat)
- previous arrest for terroristic threat
- white supremacist/neo-nazi supporter
- long history of being an anti-Muslim, antisemitic, and anti-black agitator
- multiple visits to Dearborn to try to stir up a violent response he can post on his social media

Dearborn community speaks out after 22 arrested during protests tied to anti-Muslim activist

Dearborn leaders and residents respond after 22 arrests tied to anti-Muslim activist Jake Lang's visit to the city.

www.wxyz.com

He was looking for a fight and some guy punched him and got arrested.

I wonder what your social media feed would say if you had a guy name "Abdullah" coming to Alabama, bragged about his ties to Al Qaeda and ISIS and how much he hates white people, and tried to burn Bibles in front of a church.

I don't have the full context of this incident. But from my pov, he did 4 years in prison for jan 6. I think it's enough for that.

 

[clubdeac]

Are you a Jake Lang supporter now? Or are you actually trying to spin this social media slop as Jake Lang being the victim?

Jake Lang:
- January 6th rioter pardoned by Donald Trump (assaulting police with a baseball bat)
- previous arrest for terroristic threat
- white supremacist/neo-nazi supporter
- long history of being an anti-Muslim, antisemitic, and anti-black agitator
- multiple visits to Dearborn to try to stir up a violent response he can post on his social media

Dearborn community speaks out after 22 arrested during protests tied to anti-Muslim activist

Dearborn leaders and residents respond after 22 arrests tied to anti-Muslim activist Jake Lang's visit to the city.

www.wxyz.com

He was looking for a fight and some guy punched him and got arrested.

I wonder what your social media feed would say if you had a guy name "Abdullah" coming to Alabama, bragged about his ties to Al Qaeda and ISIS and how much he hates white people, and tried to burn Bibles in front of a church.

False equivalency but I’d expect nothing less

 

[SSdoc33]

I don't have the full context of this incident. But from my pov, he did 4 years in prison for jan 6. I think it's enough for that.

doesnt matter what you think. a court of law said something else -- but your orange tub of goo just taught everyone that it is ok to beat up cops.

 

[Ducttape]

this is the person you are idolizing:

(on Jan 6)

he also threatened law enforcement after his pardon:

Pardoned Capitol rioter who said Jan. 6 officer 'needs to be put down' is charged

Jake Lang confronted a Washington police officer at a Jan. 6 anniversary event, telling him, "Public execution is the only solution for animals like you," charging documents say.

www.nbcnews.com

Prosecutors say Lang approached Bagshaw and pointed at him, quoting Lang as saying, "Public execution is the only solution for animals like you," and that Bagshaw needed to be dragged "out by his ankles" and thrown "in the Potomac.”

Support the Blue, eh?

(March 2nd 2026.)



he is also barred from the State of Texas.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

so you say you care about behavior yet ignore that more events have been caused by white supremacists than islamic terrorists?


1. so just ignore the fact that 244 murders were by white supremacists and focus on that the article dubs "ideological" and ignore the paragraphs before that document how difficult it is to classify them.




244 murders by white supremacists >> 87 by muslims.



1. fallacy to attack the comment, though you do give a response to why your reasoning.
2. you make assumptions that i am attempting to justify awful behavior when in fact i am just reporting facts that you have no refute.
3. you made an assumption that i believed that "highly ranked white people" were the ones attacking mosques. most likely it is the disenfranchised antiestablishment - such as white supremacists and/or racists - who are attacking mosques.

here is a timeline of some of the most outstanding attacks.

note that "anti islam" often goes hand in hand with "far right"/"white supremacist", but some are explicitly "white supremacist", and the large number of "unknown".

36-year timeline of attacks on American mosques

36-year timeline of attacks on American mosques

www.muslimnetwork.tv

there is never justification for murder.

not Oklahoma city.
not 9/11.
not Oct 7.
and not Gaza.



and yep, thats a liberal talking point

People murder. So what? WS extremists are likely not very good people. They're likely involved in lots of crime but what's concerning to me is the threat it poses to me, not prison murders, not gang murders, no domestic violence, etc. Beside, we're specifically discussing ideologically based ones but either way, here's why your argument is elementary

1. You using conjecture to make your argument. At least from a legal perspective this holds no weight. Typically, when ideologues murder, they're doing it for a reason that they want people to know about it. They publicize it, leave a manifesto, etc.
2. Even if we assume all 244 murders were ideological, muslims would still commit over 20 x the murder rate on a per capita basis than WS considering they make up only 1 percent of the country. This is a head calc but should be somewhere in the vicinity.

It's so funny how every other post of yours accuses someone of the overused dull and boring platitude of moving the goalposts but you are the one who always does this.

First you make the claim that muslims are shooting up places of worship and jews aren't because jews have political power and muslims don't. Then you make a statement that whites are shooting up mosques yet you constantly mention the degree of pol power than whites have. Then when I point out your hypocrisy you move the goalpost to say it's not race but the disenfranchised who are shooting up places of worship. So, are you saying there are no Jews who are disenfranchised.

Very difficult to have a conversation with you. It's like trying to talk with a weeble wobble.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

I dont have to say more. You prove my point here.

You include foreign Jihadist in your numbers and then you keep saying the Muslims are only 1% of the population which doesn't make sense.

You then inflate the numbers. I spent time to check your numbers and they are way off. There have not been 86 attacks by islamic extremists. Its half that number.

Wikipedia says this which is accurate.

A 2017 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that out of the 85 deadly extremist incidents which had occurred since the September 11 attacks (9/11) in 2001, white supremacist groups were responsible for 73%, while radical Islamist extremists were responsible for 27%. The total number of deaths caused by each group was about the same. However, 41% of the deaths that were attributable to radical Islamists all occurred in a single event: the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting in which 49 people were killed. No deaths were attributed to left-wing groups.[14][15] The Department of Homeland Security reported in 2020 that white supremacists posed the top domestic terrorism threat, which FBI director Christopher Wray confirmed in 2021, noting that the bureau had elevated the threat to the same level as ISIS.[16][17][18]


Lastly, you keep talking about right wing terrorist as non-ideological in certain cases. By definition, acts of terrorism require an ideological, political, or religious motive, meaning that attacks conducted purely for non-ideological reasons are classified as criminal violence or organized crime rather than terrorism. You know this but yet you still say this multiple times.

So in a nutshell you are doing what society does.......drasticly minimize right wing/white supremacist terrorism and magnify terrorism by Jihadist. I have already said why this is done so there is no need to repeat.

I am using the exact same reference that the other guy used to make his argument. Go back and review.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

This thread is a pretty good microcosm of what has become mainstream right-wing rhetoric to vilify Muslims:

- attack politicians like Abdul El Sayed and Mamdani because they are Muslim, since Socialist doesn't seem to stick as well
- fear-mongering over imaginary 'Sharia law' takeover in the US
- claims that Islam has an inherently violent history as compared to other religions
- loaded hypothetical questions to suggest Muslims are more violent than other religious groups
- selective stats on Muslim extremists to suggest the religion as a whole is more violent/destructive than white supremacists or foreign state violence (e.g. Gaza/West Bank)

Here's another one: 50% of Americans have never even met a Muslim, and likely 10% or less know one as more than a casual acquaintance

Many made up reasons were given to vilify Irish, Italians, women, Jews, Blacks, LGTBQ, etc. Muslims are a politically expedient scapegoat.

Scapegoating a minority is easier to sell politically than actual policy dealing with affordability, foreign wars, healthcare, and the national debt. At some point the tide will turn, and politicians will tone down the rhetoric when it's not so politically convenient.

I'm not anti muslim. Doesn't make me pro muslim but I'm definitely not against the people or religion. There are good and bad things to it just like all people and things.

 

[clubdeac]

Good analogy of socialism

 

[Ducttape]

People murder. So what? WS extremists are likely not very good people. They're likely involved in lots of crime but what's concerning to me is the threat it poses to me, not prison murders, not gang murders, no domestic violence, etc. Beside, we're specifically discussing ideologically based ones but either way, here's why your argument is elementary

1. You using conjecture to make your argument. At least from a legal perspective this holds no weight. Typically, when ideologues murder, they're doing it for a reason that they want people to know about it. They publicize it, leave a manifesto, etc.
2. Even if we assume all 244 murders were ideological, muslims would still commit over 20 x the murder rate on a per capita basis than WS considering they make up only 1 percent of the country. This is a head calc but should be somewhere in the vicinity.

It's so funny how every other post of yours accuses someone of the overused dull and boring platitude of moving the goalposts but you are the one who always does this.

First you make the claim that muslims are shooting up places of worship and jews aren't because jews have political power and muslims don't. Then you make a statement that whites are shooting up mosques yet you constantly mention the degree of pol power than whites have. Then when I point out your hypocrisy you move the goalpost to say it's not race but the disenfranchised who are shooting up places of worship. So, are you saying there are no Jews who are disenfranchised.

Very difficult to have a conversation with you. It's like trying to talk with a weeble wobble.

your second argument is way out there.

using crime based on a percentage of population?

that matters not to innocents who are 3 times more likely to be hurt by a white supremacist than a muslim.

the whites that are "shooting up" mosques are the white supremacists who feel they have little political power, and they represent a minority of the white population. its called a "subsegment" of the population. and guess what - they are also "shooting up" temples and churches.



i do admit that there is a problem with the goalposts in this and many other discussions on this forum. i have not insisted on maintaining the goalposts because that leads invariably to tone silence from the other side; instead, i do respond and post statistics that show that even with the changed goalposts, that side has no data to back their contentions. this is the case with your posts. im guessing it must be frustrating to be proven wrong, change goalposts, and be proven wrong even with changed goalposts.


you do have my empathy, as it clearly must be troubling for you or anyone else for that matter.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

your second argument is way out there.

using crime based on a percentage of population?

that matters not to innocents who are 3 times more likely to be hurt by a white supremacist than a muslim.

the whites that are "shooting up" mosques are the white supremacists who feel they have little political power, and they represent a minority of the white population. its called a "subsegment" of the population. and guess what - they are also "shooting up" temples and churches.



i do admit that there is a problem with the goalposts in this and many other discussions on this forum. i have not insisted on maintaining the goalposts because that leads invariably to tone silence from the other side; instead, i do respond and post statistics that show that even with the changed goalposts, that side has no data to back their contentions. this is the case with your posts. im guessing it must be frustrating to be proven wrong, change goalposts, and be proven wrong even with changed goalposts.


you do have my empathy, as it clearly must be troubling for you or anyone else for that matter.

Quit being silly and knock it off with your nonsense. You're not witty nor clever.

This conversation started because the other guy wanted to know why white christians had concerns about the increase in the muslim population and respective power, so I responded to him. He asked an honest question and I assumed he wanted an honest answer. Now, however, I think he played a trick on all of us. He really just wanted to defend his argument.

If 1% of the population is already responsible for the majority of ideologically motivated murders, what happens as that population increases? Do ideological murders increase proportionally? I don't know if it will or will not but that's one of the concerns that people have.

The data supports exactly what I'm saying. Again, not only is the data that I used, but it's the data that he himself posted. He just took the same road that you often do, he foolishly googled something and posted it without reading it beforehand.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

It's interesting what's going on in Europe. Now, Austria is trying to ban political Islam from the country. What do you all make of this?

Austria Considers Ban on 'Political Islam' | TodoAlicante

Chancellor Christian Stocker Initiates Debate on Veil Ban in Schools

www.todoalicante.es