5 Muslim Soldiers Arrested at Fort Jackson, allegedly tried to poison food supply

[andak01]

I don't know what the hell you're talking about, but I find you list of profiling victims to be more about you tailoring your empathy towards your agenda, than reality. I've been profiled as much as any of the groups you've named.

I couldn't say, since I don't know you. I do have many Indian friends, both Muslim and Hindu and they get profiled the same. I never get searched myself and my wife says she gets a better reception when she's with me. I suppose people just assume that I'm Christian and that she'll succumb to my ministry of the word sooner or later.

I don't, let's be clear, have any empathy whatsoever for water poisoners.

[bararallu]

BTW, a "non alleged" AQ agent is caput. All over the NY papers. I guess we don't have to wait for the jury in this case eh Andak? I guarantee there will be 1/2 dozen more like him very soon. Since the Jihad recruiters never sleep.

[andak01]

BTW, a "non alleged" AQ agent is caput. All over the NY papers. I guess we don't have to wait for the jury in this case eh Andak? I guarantee there will be 1/2 dozen more like him very soon. Since the Jihad recruiters never sleep.

It's interesting that you bring this separate case up. It's touted as proof that the criminal justice system works just fine for trying terrorism cases. Jihad recruiters do not use examples of terrorists brought to trial and given a lawyer for recruiting purposes. They do use innocent Muslims who are tortured or Blackwater shooting sprees as proof that there is a Crusade against the Muslims. The worst thing that could possibly happen from the recruiters standpoint is that they can't get recruits because the candidates don't believe they offer something better. If all they perceive they are doing is trading one paranoid society with no freedoms for another paranoid society with no freedoms, they are going to choose the one closest to what they came from.

[bararallu]

Please, they use everything to do their drafting. Your distinction is fully arbitrary.

I bring up the example because it was timely and appropriate in response to your gist saying non Muslims equate Muslims with terrorists. A certain vociferous corner of the Ummah (and more so Ulema) are the main culprits in this conceptual paring. What happens on the US right wing press scene is an echo at best and and a response at worst. Not to say it aint ugly often, since it is.

[andak01]

Please, they use everything to do their drafting. Your distinction is fully arbitrary.

On the contrary, convincing someone to blow themselves and innocent people should be restricted to a very few arguments. First they have to believe that their enemies are not innocent, but want nothing more than to kill them whether or not they attack.

I bring up the example because it was timely and appropriate in response to your gist saying non Muslims equate Muslims with terrorists.

I'm not saying that, and if that's what came across, I'll correct it now. Saying all Muslims are terrorists is an extreme position and it is being espoused by people around the world that are far to the right. Those fascists want to rule by fear. To a lesser extent, media groups like Fox, CBN and the New York Post make that implication about 90% of the message with an occasional disclaimer. "Oh yeah, I realize that for the last hour and a half I said Muslims 150 times, this time I'll say "radical Muslims" because my contract says I have to."

A certain vociferous corner of the Ummah (and more so Ulema) are the main culprits in this conceptual paring. What happens on the US right wing press scene is an echo at best and and a response at worst. Not to say it aint ugly often, since it is.

Then sir, on these points we are in agreement. Defining the other is not the purview of Islamophobes (haha, that doesn't show up in the spell checker) and many Muslims are certainly guilty of it. I'll state clearly that I recognize that guilt here, though I'll have to continue to do so every other sentence when being told that I don't.

[Mediocrates]

Does this story have any more legs?

[bararallu]

On the contrary, convincing someone to blow themselves and innocent people should be restricted to a very few arguments. First they have to believe that their enemies are not innocent, but want nothing more than to kill them whether or not they attack.

Their argument is multifaceted, conflated with truth and falsehood, and premised on one basic idea: persecution of Muslims w/ defensive war arising from that persecution.

The whole idea behind Dar al Harb (war) generally and attacking a state like Israel specifically is founded in this toxic matrix of contrived victimology and theological justification for acting accordingly (=persecution, usurpation -> Jihad). So the ring leaders and drafters use *Everything* in their power to show Muslims are being prosecuted, persecuted or otherwise abused, or should I say "humiliated" since abuse as such is meaningless to these people, who care fundamentally about loosing face rather than abiding with any ethical structure.

I'm not saying that, and if that's what came across, I'll correct it now. Saying all Muslims are terrorists is an extreme position and it is being espoused by people around the world that are far to the right. Those fascists want to rule by fear. To a lesser extent, media groups like Fox, CBN and the New York Post make that implication about 90% of the message with an occasional disclaimer. "Oh yeah, I realize that for the last hour and a half I said Muslims 150 times, this time I'll say "radical Muslims" because my contract says I have to."

I agree with you that there is right wing agitation of this, and that it happens daily. Often in the wink wink kind of way that gets under sensors and good taste (And fairness certainly). They are however extremely reactive. The causal chain starts with the implementers of Jihad IMO.

Then sir, on these points we are in agreement. Defining the other is not the purview of Islamophobes (haha, that doesn't show up in the spell checker) and many Muslims are certainly guilty of it. I'll state clearly that I recognize that guilt here, though I'll have to continue to do so every other sentence when being told that I don't.

Unfortunately you do Andak, precisely because you've used up your arguing in good faith card a long time ago with lots of people on here. Still you are not a Jihadi, dont have many of the negative cultural trappings of Araby (extra religious), and are a Muslim, so people talk to you all the same.

[andak01]

Does this story have any more legs?

You wouldn't have thought it, but I heard it mentioned on Fox radio just this morning. The shock jock instead of correcting the caller to say that nobody is in custody and that the allegations have so far turned up nothing compared it to Fort Hood and let the caller have his rant.

http://themoderatevoice.com/63483/th...arently-wasnt/