Thursday, February 23, 2017

Stumped: Why We Are Confused

Just not enough data, so I guess... It's gotta be Trump's fault.
From over the transom:

I’m confused.
Are you confused?
Are they confused?
Is our Media confused?
Are our Politicians confused?


Let’s see… do I understand this thing correctly?

The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U.S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bafi Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theater Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Muslims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims

*** THINK OF IT: ***

Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
Hindus living with Jews = No Problem
Christians living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem
Confucians living with Baha’is = No Problem
Baha’is living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem
Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Baha’is = No Problem
Baha’is living with Christians = No Problem
Christians living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Hindus = No Problem


Muslims living with Hindus = Problem
Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem
Muslims living with Christians = Problem
Muslims living with Jews = Problem
Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
Muslims living with Baha’is = Problem
Muslims living with Shintos = Problem
Muslims living with Atheists = Problem


They’re not happy in Gaza
They’re not happy in Egypt
They’re not happy in Libya
They’re not happy in Morocco
They’re not happy in Iran
They’re not happy in Iraq
They’re not happy in Yemen
They’re not happy in Afghanistan
They’re not happy in Pakistan
They’re not happy in Syria
They’re not happy in Lebanon
They’re not happy in Nigeria
They’re not happy in Kenya
They’re not happy in Sudan


They’re happy in Australia
They’re happy in England
They’re happy in Belgium
They’re happy in France
They’re happy in Italy
They’re happy in Germany
They’re happy in Sweden
They’re happy in the USA & Canada
They’re happy in Norway & India

They’re happy in almost every country that is not Islamic!

And who do they blame? Not Islam. Not their leadership. Not themselves.



I’m completely stumped…
Any idea who might be causing the problem?
The protesters say it’s Trump.


ShadowWhoWalks said...

Yes terrorism is a problem. In the same way a leaky faucet in a burning building is a problem. The greatest source of senseless violence in the word is not Muslim extremists or their terrorist groups. It is state-sponsored violence commissioned and directed by government forces in the world over. When hundreds, thousands, millions of innocent people die at the hand of government powers that is considered by some to be normal geo-politics and state-craft; how the world is supposed to be.
Murdering over a million Vietnamese is not terrorism. Invading Iraq and killing about a million Iraqi is not terrorism. Burning alive Palestinians with state of the art weaponry banned by international law is not terrorism. Droning a population into submission is not terrorism. However, we are told the real danger and the real terrorism is coming from a pitiful disorganized bunch of dumb and pitiful criminals hiding in caves.
There are people fixating on the leaky faucet while the inferno is consuming the building and everything around them. They'll issue condemnation toward the faucet, and spend their live's work and institutions and programs to fix that leaky faucet. They'll froth from the mouth in anger at the leak of the faucet. But the house fire is not important; sometimes building burn down and we should not lose focus on the real problem; the drip-drip of the leaky faucet.

Your generalization doesn't seem fundamentally different from Osama bin Ladin's:

[i]"The American people should remember that they pay taxes to their government and that they voted for their president. Their government makes weapons and provides them to Israel, which they use to kill Palestinian Muslims. Given that the American Congress is a committee that represents the people, the fact that it agrees with the actions of the American government proves that America in its entirety is responsible for the atrocities that is is committing against Muslims. I demand the American people to take note of their government’s policy against Muslims. They described the government’s policy against Vietnam as wrong. They should now take the same stand that they did previously. The onus is on Americans to prevent Muslims from being killed at the hands of their government"[/i]

ShadowWhoWalks said...

For more informed historical narrative, you can look at the empirical evidence.

By your logic, why shouldn’t we blame liberalism for all the death and destruction caused by the West’s attempts to "spread freedom and democracy"? When we consider the history of war, occupation, and state-sponsored repression in the Muslim world over the past two centuries, a significant proportion of it was predicated on "spreading freedom and democracy".
It could be argued that American or European foreign policy is not really about spreading freedom and sunshine throughout the world. It could be argued that all the American and European politicians in favor of the 2003 War in Iraq (which extinguished over 500,000 innocent lives and disfigured hundreds of thousands of children) did not really have noble liberal or humanist intentions. It could be argued that when Obama renewed his commitment to drone operations in Afghanistan/Pakistan (a policy that has resulted in the death of hundreds of civilians to date with the support of puppet governments) he is not really concerned about making the Taliban more liberal or making sure little Aminah or Malala gets to go to school and learn how to read. It could be argued, rather, that the hawkish, war-mongering foreign policies of the US, UK, and others are driven, not by liberal ideology, but by a complex set of geopolitical and corporate interests.

That’s fine. But, that’s not fair when it comes to Muslims, you do not focus on geopolitical or economic factors that could decidedly explain that group’s politics. Well, if that is fair game, why shouldn’t all the slaughter and destruction due to the continued occupation and attack on Muslim countries be attributed to Liberalism? If a Muslim acts in a behavior that earns the disapproval of Muslims at large is "in the name of Islam," why can we not say that Western nations have unleashed all manner of carnage and death in the name of freedom, democracy, liberalism, etc.? Why shouldn’t believers of the Liberal humanist tradition issue statements and open letters denouncing the brutality committed in their name?

Perhaps putting sanctions on a nation that results in the deaths of 500,000 of children, or leveling an entire country with “shock and awe” bombing tactics, or propping up puppet dictators, etc., is of no significance?

Sam said...

"Muslims living with Hindus = Problem"

Ever heard of India?


Steven Satak said...

You mean the place where the Muslim terrorists have met their match in Hindu terrorists? Sure.

Steven Satak said...

Good post, Stan. Disregard that shadow behind the curtain. He's an apologist for the peace-loving Muslims.

Stan said...

A fundamental flaw: Muslims in general are not under any attack, except from other Muslims.

It is true that the wars in the Middle East frequently involve the USA and Allies, as well as the UN.

The USA was the dominant factor in the WWII coalition which fought two simultaneous wars against fascism. That world-wide war left the USA as the dominant power on Earth. That power came with conflicting responsibilities.

First the USA reconstructed devastated countries under the Marshall Plan.

Second, the countries were not kept as spoils of war – they were returned to the people as republics, where the people have control through elections of representatives.

Third, occasionally the elected representatives would ask for help with aggression which they were unable to control by themselves.

Fourth the United Nations apportioned regions to dominant cultures: Iraq to Sunnis, Iran to Shia, Israel to Jews and Palestinians, etc.

Some of these countries could not resist, and succumbed to revolution and coups, etc. Iran comes immediately to mind.

Fifth, is the downside of world power: the need to restrain the influence of the USSR, which did keep all the countryside which it got to first during the war. This necessitated that the western coalition maintain its influence worldwide, to keep western influence dominant over USSR influence. That influence has been imperfectly asserted, yet much of the world is still free, and the USSR collapsed.

Then the nuclear proliferation problem arose. And the aggressive countries with atomic capabilities has also proliferated. The USA cannot relinquish its influence in a world with WMD capabilities, and the UN agrees.

Sadam Hussein did in fact have WMDs; and he used them on the Kurds. Old stashes of toxic gas have been found and destroyed. And ISIS found some and used them on civilians. We know that the rest were trucked across the border into Syria. And Assad has used them.

What is the USA and the western coalition to do, then? Watch idly as civilians are mass murdered, and allow it without anything more than threatening tweets? To watch impotently as Russia dominates Syria, Iraq, and cozies with Iran which is going nuclear?

And what is your point referring to, Sunni Islam? Or Shia Islam? ISIS Islam? Boko Haram Islam? Taliban Islam? The Islam of Assad? Of the various Saudi princes, or the Sudanese military?

Which genocide is the western coalition directly responsible for? How did the west cause the Iran/Iraq war? How did the west create the Muslim Brotherhood although we probably did encourage its growth by supporting its enemies.

More to the point, you seem to feel that the USA should have retreated into its own borders and stayed there, possibly even before WWII, but certainly afterward. All the internecine Islamic battles would have been contained in the middle east, as they do what they can to slaughter each other and all non-Islamics as well. That is, until the USSR came in to assert itself – it would own Afganistan now, if the USA hadn’t armed the rebels… who became the Taliban and Al Queda and ISIS.

I see this whole situation as an inevitable progression. The USA could not abandon the victims of oppression, yet the west as a whole did not comprehend the underlying nature of Qur’anic Islam. Even if the west did understand that, what would have changed? Should the west have merely allowed the carnage to rage on, with no attempt to abate it?

The issue of puppet dictators is an interesting one. Pick one and let's discuss it.

Stan said...

Remember the pride of the voters with the purple finger to prove they had voted? Is it our fault that their nations contain factions which want each other dead? And constantly try to accomplish that? Which works best in these stone age cultures, democratic republics? Or dictatorships which kill off complete factions of dissent?

Democratic Republics are turbulent with allowed dissent; dictatorships are peaceful, except for periodic slaughter of dissidents.