They Caught The Times Square Bomber

[Skeptic]

Don't you see, Pardalis? If you declare it's illegal to say Muslim extremists exist, then they will magically disappear -- just like an ostrich is 100% correct to think that its enemies do not exist as long as it puts it head in the sand (yes, yes, I know ostriches don't really do that).

Repeat the words "so-called terrorist threat" enough, and it will magically become true that the so-called Al Queda never flew so-called jets into the so-called Twin Towers and the so-called pentagon, so-called Islamic terrorists never blew up Spain, Bali, etc., so-called Islamists never fired 10,000+ so-called rockets into Israel or killed 1000+ so- called victims in the so-called second Intifada, the so-called Janjaweed in Sudan never so-called genocided the Blacks in the south, the so-called Buddha statues were never blown up by the so-called Taliban...

...etc., etc., etc.

 

[Skeptic]

Because Teabagging Christianists want to use every incident of terrorism carried out by a Muslim as justification for racial profiling, and this is an undesirable thing?

Except that they don't.

But frankly, if they did, so?

If most terrorist attacks in the USA were carried out by extremist Jews, I, a Jew, certainly would think it's justifiable to answer a few more questions in an airline queue.

If Ugandans were behind most terrorist attacks in New York and Ugandan terrorist organizations openly declared war on the USA, I'd say Ugandans should be held up a bit more to make sure, too.

"Racial profiling" apparently is something you consider far worse than the terrorist attacks themselves, which is absurd.

 

[rwguinn]

Because Teabagging Christianists want to use every incident of terrorism carried out by a Muslim as justification for racial profiling, and this is an undesirable thing?

Or because it is additional evidence that is slowly but surely making their pre-prepared position, that 'fundie islamists are actually just nice people' but harshly judged by mean ol' conservatives to be violent, crumble at the foundations...

 

[Skeptic]

To paraphrase Flanders and Swann's A Song of Patriotic Prejudice (originally about "The English"):

Islamists are moral / Islamists are good /
and clever and modest and misunderstood.

Come to think of it, we've had "experts" explain to use how each one of these adjectives, especially the last one, really do apply to the likes of the Taliban & co.

 

[Pardalis]

Because Teabagging Christianists want to use every incident of terrorism carried out by a Muslim as justification for racial profiling, and this is an undesirable thing?

But what if in this case the incident was caused by a Muslim extremist... I mean a guy from a particular violent ideology from a particular part of the world that is particularly hostile to the US?

So it's the "Teabagging Christianists" that are to blame here? Even though it was a Muslim extremist who tried to kill innocent civilians in Time Square, in your mind it's the "Teabagging Christianists" who are the evil ones, the ones that should be blamed for doing something they haven't actually done yet, but might do in the future, which is to discriminate against Muslim extremists, something that in retrospect wouldn't be all that wrong to do, as it was Muslim extremists who committed the act in the first place ?

 

[Pardalis]

Repeat the words "so-called terrorist threat" enough, and it will magically become true that the so-called Al Queda never flew so-called jets into the so-called Twin Towers and the so-called pentagon, so-called Islamic terrorists never blew up Spain, Bali, etc., so-called Islamists never fired 10,000+ so-called rockets into Israel or killed 1000+ so- called victims in the so-called second Intifada, the so-called Janjaweed in Sudan never so-called genocided the Blacks in the south, the so-called Buddha statues were never blown up by the so-called Taliban...

...etc., etc., etc.

But those are real terrorist attacks, people on this board don't care about those, it's really the "Teabagging Christianists" and what they might do that they are worried about.

 

[Unabogie]

But what if in this case the incident was caused by a Muslim extremist... I mean a guy from a particular violent ideology from a particular part of the world that is particularly hostile to the US?

So it's the "Teabagging Christianists" that are to blame here? Even though it was a Muslim extremist who tried to kill innocent civilians in Time Square, in your mind it's the "Teabagging Christianists" who are the evil ones, the ones that should be blamed for doing something they haven't actually done yet, but might do in the future, which is to discriminate against Muslim extremists, something that in retrospect wouldn't be all that wrong to do, as it was Muslim extremists who committed the act in the first place ?

What ridiculous straw men. You surely know that I don't think Teabaggers are to blame. What I think, which should be noted is not necessarily what Brewer thinks, is that Teabaggers will take advantage of the situation to advance their rancid ideology. On those grounds, it's unfortunate that the perpetrator is who he is. It's also unfortunate for the non-violent Muslims who have to deal with the repercussions of the situation. None of that is to excuse him. I'm not pro-Islam. I'm an atheist, and I think all religions are dangerous when taken to extremes whether they are Muslim, Jews, or Christians, it's the true believers who end up shooting people or blowing things up. I think this guy should be put away forever. No need to make things up to make your argument stronger.

 

[Pardalis]

What ridiculous straw men.

That's exactly what you wrote. You're using a story about a Muslim extremist to criticize another group entirely that hasn't done anything.

is that Teabaggers will take advantage of the situation to advance their rancid ideology.

So what? Have they done that yet? Teabaggers are guilty for things they might do?

What about the guy who actually did the crime? Want to talk about him? Five pages of thread about the Time Square bomber, and the only thing being discussed are Tea Baggers, who have nothing to do with it. How insane is that?

On those grounds, it's unfortunate that the perpetrator is who he is.

Yes, very "unfortunate"...

Is that the only thing you got to say about the guy? It's "unfortunate" he is a Muslim?

 

[Pardalis]

"Unfortunate" for who, BTW?

On those grounds, it's unfortunate that the perpetrator is who he is.

"is who he is", why are you guys so scared to say those two words "Muslim extremist"?

 

[Unabogie]

"Unfortunate" for who, BTW?

Reading comprehension not your strong suit?

It's also unfortunate for the non-violent Muslims who have to deal with the repercussions of the situation.

What exactly is it you think I'm arguing? It's like you keep wanting to ascribe to me views I don't hold.

So what? Have they done that yet? Teabaggers are guilty for things they might do?

Might do? Michelle Malkin wrote a whole book called "in defense of internment" or some such bile where she argued that racial profiling was good thing. A desire for racial profiling among Teabaggers isn't exactly a secret.

"Does this look like a terrorist?" He then stands next to a big, darker guy and ads, "Or this"? Fanelli concludes that if someone who looked like him "was flying airplanes into the Twin Towers, I'd have no problem being pulled out of line at the airport."

So, in closing, what I am arguing is that it's unfortunate for society that Teabaggers will use this to advance their rancid ideology, as well as for Muslims specifically, who would bear the brunt of those policies if they were ever enacted. And I hope the guy gets put away forever and that I think religion is a detriment to society. I think you can safely stop making things up now, the folks in the peanut gallery can actually read.

 

[Pardalis]

You just can't say those words can't you? You can't bring yourself to say them.

But "Teabagger Christianists", that you have no problem saying, and you can talk against religion as a whole, that's more comfortable for you to argue, you won't risk to say the words. "Religion" is bad, that's an easy argument, you can criticize religion as a whole without offending anyone in particular, but to actually discuss the specific group that is at cause here, the you-know-who who almost killed hundreds of people in time Square last week, that is impossible for you to do.

 

[Cicero]

What ridiculous straw men. You surely know that I don't think Teabaggers are to blame. What I think, which should be noted is not necessarily what Brewer thinks, is that Teabaggers will take advantage of the situation to advance their rancid ideology. On those grounds, it's unfortunate that the perpetrator is who he is.

Why should an MSNBC news anchor be concerned with what the TPP does or says anymore than what Code Pink does or says? In other words, why woud an MSNBC news anchor unabashedly promote the same prejudices you promote?

Doesn't it make Brewer and you feel better that Aliou Niasse, the vendor who alerted NYPD to the Pathfinder, is a ........Muslim!

Why is "teabaggers" in the tags?

Because the "*Teabaggers" will be the people making the accusations tomorrow. Or so my prediction goes.

Why are "teabaggers" no longer in the tags? Your prescience is as foggy as your hindsight.

 

[Pardalis]

I think you can safely stop making things up now

I'm not making anything up. You think the bomber is wrong because religion as a whole is bad, but you think the Tea Baggers are even more wrong because they might use this for their own political gain.

 

[Skeptic]

Yes, very "unfortunate"...

Yesterday, a White man robbed a bank.

It's terribly unfortunate it wasn't a Black man. It makes it so much harder for me to blame the darkies for all those violent things I just know they're just about to do any day now!

 

[Skeptic]

To sum up:

White conservative bomber proves the white conservatives are evil.

Muslim bomber proves the white conservatives are surely going to kill all those Muslims any minute now, so it too proves only the white conservatives are evil.

 

[rwguinn]

To sum up:

White conservative bomber proves the white conservatives are evil.

Muslim bomber proves the white conservatives are surely going to kill all those Muslims any minute now, so it too proves only the white conservatives are evil.

Pretty much sums up the far-left philosophy, "As Seen on JREF"

 

[WildCat]

The "lone nut" theory is officially tossed in the trash:

More firmly and publicly than before, senior officials of the Obama administration on Sunday blamed the failed attempt to blow up a bomb in Times Square on the Pakistani Taliban, an accusation that should increase pressure on the Pakistan military to attack the organization in its bastions in the lawless tribal region of North Waziristan.

“We’ve now developed evidence that shows the Pakistani Taliban was behind the attack,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in an interview on ABC television’s news program “This Week.”

Later, appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he said the Taliban in Pakistan “directed this plot” and may have also financed it. The Pakistani Taliban, he said, was “intimately involved” in the attempt on May 1 by Faisal Shahzad, an American citizen of Pakistani descent, to blow up gasoline and propane tanks secreted inside a Nissan Pathfinder parked on West 45th Street just yards from the heart of Times Square.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/us/politics/10holder.html

 

[Skeptic]

OK, let us all now quake in fear and horror at the certain evil revenge by the horrific right-wing conservatives against innocent Muslims. That is what we should really be afraid of!

 

[Chaos]

Pretty much sums up the far-left philosophy, "As Seen on JREF"

No. Sums up the "far-left" philosophy as seen in the crazed delusion of the right, as seen on JREF.

 

[carlitos]

LOL

Might do? Michelle Malkin wrote a whole book ...

I, for one, quake in fear at the thought of conservative authors writing books.