It is getting hard to justify... (1 Viewer)

[zahid]

It is getting hard to justify my position on muslims in our country, at the current time. I am not talking about the fact that a terrorist attack was done, but the fact that all I have heard from every single muslim I have talked to so far is that it must be a government conspiracy... that the people involved aren't "extremists" (yes, they didn't seem to like the word extremist being attached to these people).

I am aware that there is much more evidence yet to be put forward in this case, but the few people I talked to, I gave a scenario that I thought was fair. I said;

If these people, were planning on purposefully killing innocent people, are they extremists?

And not one time did I recieve the answer I wanted.

I don't believe it is entirely wrong to concieve that agroup of people, joined together by their religion, could be a serious issue for our country as a whole.

Chad, I never said it was a govt conspiracy

 

[erawamai]

what i think some people havent yet understood, is that these arrests WERENT simply because these men are muslim. Yes they are muslim, but they have been arrested because of "terrorism" - if it was an asian or caucasian or christian or jew, they would be arrested under these laws

The Victorians were arrested under the Federal Crimes Act not the new terrorism laws.

 

[hiphophooray123]

true, but the media is scanning for the words muslim and terror to put it in our face and muck up our picture further. i'm not entirely with either side, but it doesnt seem fair that a non-muslim terrorist would be on the tv for two days and a muslim terrorist would be on for a week. no one can deny that muslims attract more viewers on news, and that is what the greedy big guys want right?

well who do you think are the most feared terrorists right now, who do you think the public would percieve as a bigger threat because of what they have done in other countries???????

MosLimbs

 

[veterandoggy]

well who do you think are the most feared terrorists right now, who do you think the public would percieve as a bigger threat because of what they have done in other countries???????

MosLimbs

its muslims, youre sounding like a mocking american...

do you seriously believe all the hype created by the media? i guess you didnt hear that there was a boom in muslim converts post 9/11 and dont tell me that it was because people wanted to cash in on the opportunity to bomb that friend that ran away with their partner...
it's because people actually started to READ about islam, and remove their dependance on media.

 

[hiphophooray123]

i come to my own conclusions, not the medias conclusions.

I'm just saying its stupid to complain about the media focusing more on muslims. "it doesn't seem fair" of course its not, but what would you expect?

Say the media stops faking it. Do you think the public would automatically take their focus off muslims? i would think not because the magnitude of muslim-related terrorist attacks is far greater than any other. The fear would still be there with or without the media, in the majority of society.

Deviance amplification has got a point now where the effects are irreversible, so i don't know why everyone keeps complaining about the media? Unless they will recruit late-bloomers.

 

[veterandoggy]

you've concluded from what you think, not from what you've read. if you have read, then you havent read the right books, probably phony ones, but then again it isnt easy to distinguish, since all they have to do is remove a small line in arabic from the quran and the word would totally change. for instance, "habbah"(seed, i think) in arabic can become "hablah"(rope) with the addition of an easily overlooked line.

 

[fleepbasding]

It works with this analogy. If you see a man down the street pointing a gun at a woman's head, do you wait until he has shot her before you arrest her? Why should we wait for a terrorist attack before we act? Now, if these people are innocent, why did they have chemicals and weapons? Come on!

It only works with that analogy because your analogy is incredibly simplistic and stupid. A man with a gun to a womans head (you've been watching too many movies) is an immediate threat, and a danger to someones life. In this case, of course the authorities are justified to act. Possesion of 'chemicals and weapons' (I haven't heard much about 'weapons') is an entirely different thing. Did these suspects have their fingers on the trigger? No. The threat is not 'immediate' or 'imminent', despite the rhetoric, and we can't be completely sure that an attack would've occured if no action was taken by the authorities. We know so little about this, and yet people are so ready to jump to conclusions that fit within their racist outlooks. Let's wait for the evidence, and treat these suspects as innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Generator]

Racist outlooks? That's taking it a tad too far.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

We know so little about this, and yet people are so ready to jump to conclusions that fit within their racist outlooks. Let's wait for the evidence, and treat these suspects as innocent until proven guilty.

You're just saying that because they are muslims.

 

[SashatheMan]

It only works with that analogy because your analogy is incredibly simplistic and stupid. A man with a gun to a womans head (you've been watching too many movies) is an immediate threat, and a danger to someones life. In this case, of course the authorities are justified to act. Possesion of 'chemicals and weapons' (I haven't heard much about 'weapons') is an entirely different thing. Did these suspects have their fingers on the trigger? No. The threat is not 'immediate' or 'imminent', despite the rhetoric, and we can't be completely sure that an attack would've occured if no action was taken by the authorities. We know so little about this, and yet people are so ready to jump to conclusions that fit within their racist outlooks. Let's wait for the evidence, and treat these suspects as innocent until proven guilty.

yeh your right, let them free, lets only judge them when they detonate some of those explosives. its called preventive measures. its like homicide and attempted homicide. they person still is guildty even though he hasnt killed anyone

 

[Capitalist Pig]

It only works with that analogy because your analogy is incredibly simplistic and stupid. A man with a gun to a womans head (you've been watching too many movies) is an immediate threat, and a danger to someones life. In this case, of course the authorities are justified to act. Possesion of 'chemicals and weapons' (I haven't heard much about 'weapons') is an entirely different thing. Did these suspects have their fingers on the trigger? No. The threat is not 'immediate' or 'imminent', despite the rhetoric, and we can't be completely sure that an attack would've occured if no action was taken by the authorities. We know so little about this, and yet people are so ready to jump to conclusions that fit within their racist outlooks. Let's wait for the evidence, and treat these suspects as innocent until proven guilty.

You can't be sure the man would have the guts to pull the trigger either.

 

[fleepbasding]

You're just saying that because they are muslims.

No, I say the same for any suspect of any crime, I would be hoping that you have the same attitude. It's especially relevant in this case because the evidence so far seems a little scarce.

generator- yes, maybe a little exagurated. I'm not really referring to the posters in this thread (thus far), but the mathmite and tommy among others. I mean, if you want to hear crazy conspiracy theories, then they are your first port of call, not defensive muslims.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

No, I say the same for any suspect of any crime, I would be hoping that you have the same attitude. It's especially relevant in this case because the evidence so far seems a little scarce.

generator- yes, maybe a little exagurated. I'm not really referring to the posters in this thread (thus far), but the mathmite and tommy among others. I mean, if you want to hear crazy conspiracy theories about, then they are your first port of call, not defensive muslims.

We've already dismissed their unjustified p.o.v. many times in other threads, now it's your turn. And performing an ad hominem on the other extreme doesn't make your viewpoint any more justifiable.

 

[fleepbasding]

You can't be sure the man would have the guts to pull the trigger either.

that's my problem with 'conspiracy' charges altogether.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

This is why attempted murder (I believe) usually carries a lower sentence than murder itself, because the intent was there and they went 90% of the way. They should be punished for this.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

It has the same maximum penalty, but usually a lower sentence than the maximum is given.

 

[fleepbasding]

We've already dismissed their unjustified p.o.v. many times in other threads, now it's your turn. And performing an ad hominem on the other extreme doesn't make your viewpoint any more justifiable.

I was merely highlighting the other side of the conspiricy theories going around at the moment. Sometimes people need reminding that muslims aren't the only one's trying to make sense of the current situation with baseless conspiracy theories.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

But again, it fails to address the fact that both extremes need sorting out. It's shifting the focus from one faulty argument to another and providing no supporting evidence for your own.

The problem with freedom of speech in relation to terrorism, is that they feel it will incite violence. I've noticed artists and actors have jumped on the "fuck Howard" bandwagon by saying the terrorism laws will restrict artistic freedom of speech. Personally I see no need for "pro" terrorist art in this country.

I disagree. While I think such art is undesirable, it probably wouldn't sell too well anyway, and as such its circulation would be extremely limited.

 

[fleepbasding]

But again, it fails to address the fact that both extremes need sorting out. It's shifting the focus from one faulty argument to another and providing no supporting evidence for your own.

I disagree. While I think such art is undesirable, it probably wouldn't sell too well anyway, and as such its circulation would be extremely limited.

I don't feel the need to "adress that both extremes need sorting out", it is practically a given that islamic extremism is a problem, and one that at no point have I denied. Such an arguments have been presented many times on this forum and I don't particularly feel like recycling them.

I've already expressed that I cannot really provide much evidence for my position, in large part because not enough evidence concerning the current situation is in the public realm. My initial post was merely a refutation of 'katie tully's' analogy, because of it's fundamental falsity.

I've outlined my purpose to highlight that extremes, and extremely stupid theories exist on both ends of the scale. I believe I've fulfilled this purpose, and expressed that the alleged terrrorists should be given the same treatment as any other person, including the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise.

And frankly, you haven't presented an argument yourself, so you're in no position to be pointing out the percieved flaws in what I've said. I wouldn't mind if you argued against my views themselves, but so far you've only pointed out how I haven't properly evidenced my views (read 2nd paragraph to understand why), which is a rather pointless activity, don't you think?

 

[_dhj_]

Is terrorism really that much of a threat? I really don't feel that it's a significant threat in terms of the amount of people it kills - at least in the "western world" so to speak, maybe not in palistine or any of the real "hot spots". The success of terrorism is proportional to the amount of media attention it gets, to the level it is played up in accordance with the government's needs.