Then we are at a stalemate.
Not really, we could open a debate whether ignoring it is really the lesser evil than addressing it in a fundamentally flawed way.
I realise that you think Muslims have no legitimate grievances but simply repeating the point over and over isn't convincing.
I'm not repeating it over and over, I'm explaining why the grievances you point out can not be considered legitimate.
Special pleading noted. Your persistent double standards seem to indicate a deeper issue with Muslims that I had not previously ascribed to you.
What special pleading? Judaism and Islam are two inherently different religions, and shouldn't be compared in a way where one will obviously be different than the other. Jews are a nation as well as co-religionists. Muslims are not. A Jewish national state will resonate with all Jews based on that in a way no single country should on all Muslims, or Christians or many other religions will. You can compare Judaism and Shinto in that way, but not Judaism and Islam.
I doubt anything would be legitimate in your eyes.
Not true. If Muslims were paid lower wages based on their faith alone, that would be legitimate grievance, and I would desire to see it end ASAP. It would be comparable to what blacks experienced in US not very long ago, and was dealt with without the massacres.
If there are no grievances that can be considered legitimate it's not because there are none I would consider legitimate but because none of their alleged grievances can reasonably be considered legitimate.
Given the murder rates I think you would need to question #2. What we don't do is call it African American Christian Terrorism because it lacks an underlying narrative.
It primarily lacks a political goal, which is a necessary feature of terrorism and what sets terrorism apart from, say, gang violence, which is profit-driven. We consider sources of violence distinct from one another and approach them differently, which is why driving a truck into a crowded Christmas market to defend headchoppers in Syria is terrorism, but a drive-by shooting over turf to sell dope on is not. You're free to disagree if you want, but that's the whole story about it.
I'm not sure of your point here. I can't parse any sense out of it. It's the fault of Muslims that they have been ghetto-ised in France?
Ghetto is not a word you should use. Traditionally it was a walled section of the city whose inhabitants could only leave with special permission, where they lived underprivileged lives. With Muslims, it is poorer districts where they are able to afford housing. You can't rightfully call it a ghetto.
That said, are the French at fault most Muslims aren't able to do better? If you think so please provide evidence for it.
What exactly are they supposed to correct? What power do they have to correct it? You seem to be blaming all Muslims for everything that has ever happened to them ever. That seems a completely unreasonable position.
Its like arguing that black Americans were to blame for segregation and had no legitimate grievance about it.
I explicitly mentioned black Americans as having a legitimate grievance about half a century ago. Please stop using straw men. Furthermore, I pointed out their grievances were several orders of magnitude worse than anything Muslims experienced in Europe in the past several centuries.
I explained several times over what they're supposed to correct and how they can correct it. I'll just use a mundane example, it would be great for everyone if European Muslims would stage truly massive demonstrations against ISIS and the like. The largest gatherings I've seen or heard about were dozens to low hundreds of people, but they could reasonably mount a few hundred thousand all over Europe,USA and elsewhere (Canada, Australia, ...) to show their disdain for the head choppers.
So why don't we need to act on the grievances of Muslims but we do need to act on the grievances of the deplorables and idiots?
I explained why, you even quoted it. Please explain what is wrong with it.
And aren't criticized for it, strangely enough. You're literately equating
voting with
mass murder. Show a little perspective and decency, please.
But they don't have the power, numbers or sway to achieve change through the polling stations. In fact the very opposite is happening. Minorities cannot achieve change through the ballot box and its silly to expect them to. Sillier still to claim their grievances aren't legitimate because the majority don't vote to agree with them.
No, I'm claiming their grievances aren't legitimate because they can't be fixed by anyone outside of their group and because they're so common worldwide with far smaller results than those with Muslims. Not having the numbers to vote something like that through has no bearing at all. I explained it to you several times over, please respond to what I write not what you would have me write.
And I didn't compare the methods.
True, you claimed we should treat Trumpists and Brexitards the same way we treat Islamist mass murderers. That's above and beyond comparing the methods.
I explicitly took the methods to one side and was talking about the grievances.
Not very much, because you were unable to even comprehend why their grievances can not be considered legitimate. Can you please respond to that already?
The problem is that a lot of the people who say Islam has problems are Islamophobes and reveal as much when you let them expound or catch them in unguarded moments.
A lot of people who say Islam has problems have very good reasons to say so. Do you agree with that, or is that
Islamophobic?
One element was acted upon and fixed. But women still have many legitimate grievances.
Maybe. I used it as an example to show how a legitimate grievance can be acted upon.
No it isn't. You are coming across as completely irrational and biased here. You don't get to just say 'X is a fait accompli so suck it up and move on'.
And I did not say that. I presented one option which would be acceptable to Israel, but entirely unacceptable to Muslims. Their grievance is not a non-existence of a yet another Muslim state, nor disfranchisement of a yet another Muslim groups, but rather existence of the state as such.
This is not and can not be a legitimate grievance.
Again you simply refuse to accept that there is another point of view and demand that your view of what is fair and just is imposed upon them.
Yes, claiming Israel has no right to exist because they say so is wrong. Some points of view simply are not valid. Just because they ascribe to it doesn't give it any inherent value, and some claims deserve to be dismissed outright.
If you think that weird consider this is precisely what they do with existence of Israel. The thing is these two opinions aren't symmetrical, because it is possible to make the case as to why Israel should exist using comparable states (e.g. Egypt), if they have the right to exist, so does Israel. It is not possible to make a case against Israel in that way. This is why one argument is immature and deserves to be dismissed outright, and the other does not.
I see from your posts a complete unwillingness to even consider their views.
No, I don't. I'm willing to consider their views. I reserve the right to dismiss them as unjustified and irrelevant if I can show them to be unjustified and irrelevant however. The fact they think something does not mean their opinions are valid.
McHrozni
