The Diplomad 2.0
Sunday, May 26, 2013
How Many Times do We have to Hear about the Peaceful 99% of Muslims?
I was--big mistake--reading CNN and BBC on this latest demonstration of Love of Peace,
President Hollande also responded cautiously while on a visit to Ethiopia, telling reporters: "I do not think at this point that there may be a link" [with the London attack]
French reports said police were hunting a bearded man of North African origin about 30 years of age. He was wearing a light-coloured robe called a djellaba.
"We still don't know the exact circumstances of the attack or the identity of the attacker, but we are exploring all options."
Oh yes, that description is undoubtedly of a Mormon missionary, or perhaps a Hasidic Jew or a slightly disheveled Amish tourist?
I also adore the breathless reporting (here and here, for example) re the alarming "rise" in anti-Muslim "attacks." Note the source for the reports and take a grain of salt, a spoonful would be better, then let me know how many Muslims have been beheaded on the streets of London in the middle of day. How about zero for a number? How many Muslim immigrants in the UK are packing up, turning in their assistance cards, and moving back to Nigeria, Pakistan, Morocco, Bangladesh, etc? I'll bet that zero number remains a pretty accurate estimate for that, too.
I enjoy reading the comments from readers around the world on the BBC and CNN stories. There, and elsewhere, we see another number, a rather tired one: the "statistic" that "99% of Muslims" are not terrorists. Is that true? I don't know. From where does that number come? I don't know. Let's, however, go along with the gag. Let's assume it is accurate, and come up with our own equally valid "99%" statistics. Some samples follow; I am sure you can turn this into a drinking game--but not around Muslims because drinking offends them (unless they are Saudi diplomats in Islamabad).
Did you know that,
-- 99% of the Japanese did not attack Pearl Harbor?
-- 99% of the Nazis did not kill Jews or Gypsies, or invade Poland?
-- 99% of the Communists did not engage in Stalin's or Mao's purges?
-- 99% of the Germans killed in Dresden had never bombed England?
-- 99% of the Italians did not invade Ethiopia?
-- 99% of the Iranians did not occupy the US embassy in Teheran?
-- 99% of the Al Qaeda membership did not fly airplanes into the World Trade Center or the Pentagon?
And so on, and on, and so what? What does that "99%" prove? Just one thing: There are consequences in the real world to belonging to organizations or following ideologies and leaders that commit atrocities. That's the way it works. If 99% of Muslims are not terrorists, and do not support terrorism (that's the big "if") where are they? Why can't they control the crazies and murderers and rioters in their midst? If they can't they will find that they might just pay the price, even if they did not pull the trigger, or drop the cyanide gas. The Germans and the Japanese discovered that during World War II.
We see Britain's foolish PM Cameron making the typical foolish Western politicianstatement after the murder of the young British soldier (and let's not forget he is just following in the path of nonsense about Islam blazed by our own President Bush),
"This was not just an attack on Britain and on the British way of life, it was also a betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so much to our country. There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act."
No, Mr. Prime Minister. Everything in Islam justifies this truly dreadful act and so many more. That is why the "99%" cannot condemn, isolate, or punish the murderers. That violence, that "extremism" is Islam; that is the real item. We need to deal with that hard and unpleasant fact. Islam has not gone through an enlightenment, and what "reformation" has taken place has moved it backwards, ever deeper into the thinking prevalent in the dark ages and places from whence it came.
Oh yes, that description is undoubtedly of a Mormon missionary, or perhaps a Hasidic Jew or a slightly disheveled Amish tourist?
Uhh, so if the guy is African and has a beard, he's Muslim?
I also adore the breathless reporting (
here and
here, for example) re the alarming "rise" in anti-Muslim "attacks." Note the source for the reports and take a grain of salt, a spoonful would be better, then let me know how many Muslims have been beheaded on the streets of London in the middle of day.
"" ooh, look, i'll put some quotation marks to make it look like they're not attacks and just, like, displays of peace and love!
Those attacks are very real, breaking windows and trying to set fire to a building is an attack. Or is it an attack only when a Muslim does it? If a non-Muslim does it, its an 'incident', if a Muslim does it, its a 'Jihadist attack'.
I don't know. Let's, however, go along with the gag. Let's assume it is accurate, and come up with our own equally valid "99%" statistics. Some samples follow; I am sure you can turn this into a drinking game--but not around Muslims because drinking offends them (unless they are Saudi diplomats in Islamabad).
Did you know that,
-- 99% of the Japanese did not attack Pearl Harbor?
-- 99% of the Nazis did not kill Jews or Gypsies, or invade Poland?
-- 99% of the Communists did not engage in Stalin's or Mao's purges?
-- 99% of the Germans killed in Dresden had never bombed England?
-- 99% of the Italians did not invade Ethiopia?
-- 99% of the Iranians did not occupy the US embassy in Teheran?
-- 99% of the Al Qaeda membership did not fly airplanes into the World Trade Center or the Pentagon?
99% of the Japanese did not attack Pearl Harbor?
The Japanese Military attacked Pearl Harbor. The Japanese Military, acting under orders from the state. They weren't just some group of Japanese acting on their own, they were clearly supported by the country's government.
99% of the Nazis did not kill Jews or Gypsies, or invade Poland?
Oh really? Then were all those thousands of Nazi soldiers just Muslims wearing swastikas? The Nazi German Army did all those things, atleast 20% of Nazis did, infact, invade Poland and kill anyone they didn't like (Including Gypsies and Jews).
99% of the Communists did not engage in Stalin's or Mao's purges?
This might be true. But if you apply the same logic as you are applying for Muslims, why didn't the peasants and conscripts revolt? Why did they go along with it? Because they were all evil, of course. Everyone except the westerners is clearly evil (or secretly evil).
99% of the Germans killed in Dresden had never bombed England?
Their state did bomb England. The Germans were part of their state.
Look, Terrorists are not representative of Muslims. Not at all. Germany's Nazi rulers or China and the USSR's communist rulers were, to quite an extent, representatives of their state They were put in power by their state and people to rule them. (even though some of them cheated and lied and did a lot of shit to get in power, they were still leaders of the state)
Terrorists, however, are not representative or leaders of Muslims. They are just criminals and psychopaths who happen to be Muslims.
99% of the Al Qaeda membership did not fly airplanes into the World Trade Center or the Pentagon?
Really? SERIOUSLY?? Am I supposed to take this crap seriously? How is this even relevant, its a BS lie and its also irrelevant to the topic.
Majority of Al Qaeda members supported what Al Qaeda was doing. It was a TERRORIST ORGANISATION. They knew what they were signing up for.
The author just pulled all these statistics out of his *** and tried to use them to prove his extremely modern and tolerant point that either all Muslims are secretly terrorists or they should all "face the consequences" (die, basically) anyway.
And so on, and on, and so what? What does that "99%" prove? Just one thing: There are consequences in the real world to belonging to organizations or following ideologies and leaders that commit atrocities. That's the way it works. If 99% of Muslims are not terrorists, and do not support terrorism (that's the big "if") where are they? Why can't they control the crazies and murderers and rioters in their midst? If they can't they will find that they might just pay the price, even if they did not pull the trigger, or drop the cyanide gas. The Germans and the Japanese discovered that during World War II.
Why can't they control the crazies and murderers and rioters in their midst?
Oooh, really? Is Pakistan bombing terrorists and capturing IED factories in Waziristan not an attempt to control terrorism? Most of the Muslim Arab countries are helping in the fight against ISIS, what is that? What about all the Muslims fighting against ISIS
In rare alliance, Shi'ites join Sunnis to defend Iraqi towns| Reuters
They're all terrorist sympathisers who are secretly supporting terrorists, right?
There are consequences in the real world to belonging to organizations or following ideologies and leaders that commit atrocities
Majority of Muslims are not part of any organization that commits atrocities. Neither are they following any leaders that commit atrocities. Neither are they following any ideology that commits atrocities. (No, Islam does not support committing atrocities)
Muslims didn't put terrorists in power. Most of the times, America did. The Taliban? They formed out of the militias the US supported to fight the Soviets. ISIS? They are the same "moderate rebels" that Uncle Sam supported to overthrow Asad. Apparently they weren't so moderate, so they just formed and joined ISIS.
Christians commit a lot of atrocities too, don't they? Should all the Christians "face the consequences"? Should all Jews face consequences for the atrocities Israel commits? Should all American citizens face consequences for all the crimes and injustice the US has committed almost everywhere in the world?
Everything in Islam justifies this truly dreadful act and so many more. That is why the "99%" cannot condemn, isolate, or punish the murderers.
Oh really? Does charity (Zakat) justify this act? Do all the verses in the Quran that promote tolerance also justify this act?
(Example: "Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.", Quran 60:8)
I don't know what you dumbass "free thinkers" and modern geniuses think you'll achieve by convincing Muslims that their religion promotes terrorism. Seriously, what will you achieve? Do you realise that by writing this kind of stuff you're just making the situation worse?
Why do you work so hard to prove that Islam is violent, even when Muslims try so hard to convince you that its not? I have read the Quran, I know what it says and kill everyone who's non muslim is not included. I can post plenty of verses that say "Be nice to people, EVEN IF THEY'RE NON MUSLIM". I know my religion a lot better than people who hate Islam and get their information from propaganda websites that pick verses out of context and lie about their meaning.
Oh, and we can't condemn murderers? I'm a Muslim, I try to pray regularly, I fast, I believe in the Quran and Allah and all the foundations of Islam and here's what I say: f*ck ISIS, f*ck Al Qaeda, Death to all Muslims who kill innocents, they are a disgrace to Islam and they will all burn in hell. They will all be punished for what they've done, Inshaallah.
No, I don't sympathise with anyone who has deliberately killed innocents. Neither do 99% of Muslims.
We can and DO condemn them, a lot. There's plenty of Muslims protesting against terrorists.
All you pseudo-intellectuals should shut up and stop fooling yourselves but you probably won't.
Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
