Administration: Kosher deli attack was random.

[hepcat]

I think I see where the disconnect is coming from. You're discussing parts of item 1 and item 2 on my list above while I assumed you were still simply on item 1.

I think you misinterpreted my response of

"I can go back and point out numerous examples of the same thing happening with every president who opened his mouth."

as meaning that I could point out presidents who had said something similar in content to what Obama said (or what some have interpreted the content to be). That is not what I meant. I was referring to the broader topic of presidents who had been taken to task over matters of semantics, or poor wording.

After that I believe things just snow balled.

So yes, we were talking about two different things more than once.

In short...my points:

1) Obama may have chose poor wording, but I don't believe that indicates in any way an attempt to downplay either antisemitism or the dangers of extremism.

2) Obama has chosen a side (Rip argued otherwise earlier) in this battle and he's clearly not sitting it out like some personification off Switzerland.

3) The choice not to tie all of Islam to extremists within their ranks by wording it as "Islamic Extremists" in public discourse is a calculated move on the administration's part that is intended to keep the larger Islamic world from falling victim to the belief that we are at war with all of Islam, a common recruiting tool used by extremists. It also helps in our dealing with our Muslim allies by making it clear we are making the distinction between Islam and extremists.

[Defiant]

I think I see where the disconnect is coming from. You're discussing parts of item 1 and item 2 on my list above while I assumed you were still simply on item 1.

I think you misinterpreted my response of

"I can go back and point out numerous examples of the same thing happening with every president who opened his mouth."

as meaning that I could point out presidents who had said something similar in content to what Obama said (or what some have interpreted the content to be). That is not what I meant. I was referring to the broader topic of presidents who had been taken to task over matters of semantics, or poor wording.

After that I believe things just snow balled.

So yes, we were talking about two different things more than once.

In short...my points:

1) Obama may have chose poor wording, but I don't believe that indicates in any way an attempt to downplay either antisemitism or the dangers of extremism.

2) Obama has chosen a side (Rip argued otherwise earlier) in this battle and he's clearly not sitting it out like some personification off Switzerland.

3) The choice not to tie all of Islam to extremists within their ranks by wording it as such is a calculated move.

I think you're still missing quite a lot.

A. There are those who read the initial quote by Obama who either thought it was either a callous disregard for the motivations of the attack or that reflected the politically correct nature of his response to this problem - effectively, your #1 and #2. That's where Rip is.

B. There are those who think the president probably misspoke, but that administration made a ludicrous mess of things in response. Rather than to acknowledge that he misspoke, administration officials consciously chose to defend the statement, that forced them to say downright stupid things like that the victims weren't all of one background and that they weren't targeted by their religion, that definitely does minimize the anti-Semitic nature of the attack. They did, however, walk things back afterwards. This was brought up in the first half of the first page.

C. And then there are those in this forum, who, after the administration had completely walked back from the comments, chose to rise up and defend the presidents initial misspoken description of the attack as random. That wasn't a misstatement, the attack WAS random, they claimed, and then tried to wade through bullshit while trying to prove it. Never mind that by doing so, they are dismissing the overwhelming evidence that the attack was anti-Semitic in nature, it targeted a Jewish target and that by the gunman's own words and actions that he was specifically targeting Jews because the attack was random.

I don't know whether they really believe the attack is random, or they're being fiercely partisan (More than even the administration is) or they're just trolling the thread - my guess is that they're being nothing but trolls.

And that is what Kurth and I are referring to.

[silverjon]

random = unpredictable

I'm not so much defending the statements themselves but I can see where the disconnect comes in.

There was no warning. Likewise, there's no compelling reason to avoid kosher delis out of fear that any and every deli is now open to be a target for terrorism, any more than you should avoid opening mail or riding a subway or traveling by air because the terrorists might getcha. It could happen but probably not.

The nature of the debate reminds me of a time when J and his friend were going to do some work on a vehicle. They popped the hood and there was a mouse on the engine which startled J. So his friend had to rib him and asked, "Are you afraid of mice or just that particular mouse?"

You don't have to be afraid of mice for "that particular mouse" to give you a scare.

[Zarathud]

Random and anti-Semetic are not mutually exclusive.

Frankly, discussing the semantic origins and use of a word is preferable to the he-said/i-read/i-meant and personal anger in the thread.

[hepcat]

I think I see where the disconnect is coming from. You're discussing parts of item 1 and item 2 on my list above while I assumed you were still simply on item 1.

I think you misinterpreted my response of

"I can go back and point out numerous examples of the same thing happening with every president who opened his mouth."

as meaning that I could point out presidents who had said something similar in content to what Obama said (or what some have interpreted the content to be). That is not what I meant. I was referring to the broader topic of presidents who had been taken to task over matters of semantics, or poor wording.

After that I believe things just snow balled.

So yes, we were talking about two different things more than once.

In short...my points:

1) Obama may have chose poor wording, but I don't believe that indicates in any way an attempt to downplay either antisemitism or the dangers of extremism.

2) Obama has chosen a side (Rip argued otherwise earlier) in this battle and he's clearly not sitting it out like some personification off Switzerland.

3) The choice not to tie all of Islam to extremists within their ranks by wording it as such is a calculated move.

I think you're still missing quite a lot.

A. There are those who read the initial quote by Obama who either thought it was either a callous disregard for the motivations of the attack or that reflected the politically correct nature of his response to this problem - effectively, your #1 and #2. That's where Rip is.

B. There are those who think the president probably misspoke, but that administration made a ludicrous mess of things in response. Rather than to acknowledge that he misspoke, administration officials consciously chose to defend the statement, that forced them to say downright stupid things like that the victims weren't all of one background and that they weren't targeted by their religion, that definitely does minimize the anti-Semitic nature of the attack. They did, however, walk things back afterwards. This was brought up in the first half of the first page.

C. And then there are those in this forum, who, after the administration had completely walked back from the comments, chose to rise up and defend the presidents initial misspoken description of the attack as random. That wasn't a misstatement, the attack WAS random, they claimed, and then tried to wade through bullshit while trying to prove it. Never mind that by doing so, they are dismissing the overwhelming evidence that the attack was anti-Semitic in nature, it targeted a Jewish target and that by the gunman's own words and actions that he was specifically targeting Jews because the attack was random.

I don't know whether they really believe the attack is random, or they're being fiercely partisan (More than even the administration is) or they're just trolling the thread - my guess is that they're being nothing but trolls.

And that is what Kurth and I are referring to.

No, I covered most of that with different wording that was just less verbose. If you feel something is missing, it's probably because it wasn't a part of what I was discussing in the first place.

As for those you believe are trolling people because of partisan politics, that is actually the same claim I'd make against some of your points. You see an attempt to "dismiss the overwhelming evidence that the attack was anti-Semitic in nature", where others simply see a poor choice of wording during an interview. One that was admittedly exacerbated by his press staff, but ultimately explained satisfactorily in my opinion.

As Silverjon notes: Random can sometimes just mean unpredictable. In my view, you're assuming intent and presenting it as fact.

It all comes down to which side of the fence you're on, I suppose. But just be aware that you're equally as guilty of trolling in the eyes of those you accuse.

Frankly, discussing the semantic origins and use of a word is preferable to the he-said/i-read/i-meant and personal anger in the thread.

I've read some of your replies in the Gamersgate thread in EBG, my man.

[Defiant]

As for those you believe are trolling people because of partisan politics, that is actually the same claim I'd make against some of your points. You see an attempt to "dismiss the overwhelming evidence that the attack was anti-Semitic in nature", where others simply see a poor choice of wording during an interview. One that was exacerbated by his press staff, but ultimately explained satisfactorily in my opinion.

Oh my god, no. I'm not even talking about the interview.

I see those in this thread want are saying that the people weren't targeted based on their background as those who are dismissing the overwhelming evidence that the attack was anti-Semitic.

[Defiant]

Random and anti-Semetic are not mutually exclusive.

While someone who is anti-Semitic may have random logic, a targeted attack and a random attack are mutually exclusive, and an anti-Semitic attack would have to be targeted to be anti-Semitic.

[hepcat]

It would be nice if he remembered that.

I can't be " vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris" and "Anti-Semitic attacks like the recent terrorist attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris" at the same time. An attack on a religious group is nearly the opposite of random.

If they blew up a synagogue would it be random if they didn't know the names of anyone inside?

How many Jewish owned/frequented establishments are there in Paris? The fact that he picked that particular one is essentially random chance. I think that was the point. Not random chance for the shooter but random chance for the victims. He didn't know them personally, he didn't target them individually, and didn't care exactly who they were. That's a random shooting. He had a driving motivation but the specific target doesn't appear to be carefully chosen. Remember, he shot people, not the deli.

It wasn't a random chance for the victims - they didn't randomly decide to go into the kosher deli.

If you're saying that he wanted to shoot any and all Jews he could, but didn't care which specifically which ones he killed, sure.

But he definitely killed them for who they were. And it wasn't a random shooting. It was directed at a specific community.

In reading this reply, I find that I'm not the only one who has had trouble following along with your point at times. And that you've missed those of others in the process.

I think I've made clear my main points above. That's about all I can do.

[Defiant]

random = unpredictable

I'm not so much defending the statements themselves but I can see where the disconnect comes in.

There was no warning. Likewise, there's no compelling reason to avoid kosher delis out of fear that any and every deli is now open to be a target for terrorism, any more than you should avoid opening mail or riding a subway or traveling by air because the terrorists might getcha. It could happen but probably not.

Sure, it could happen and it could not - no one knows for sure what the future will bring. But we do know that some things are likelier to happen than others. Jewish targets tend to be considered at higher risk than an analogous non-Jewish target. So it's not entirely unpredictable. Hence why you often see more security at Jewish targets.

[silverjon]

Random and anti-Semetic are not mutually exclusive.

While someone who is anti-Semitic may have random logic, a targeted attack and a random attack are mutually exclusive, and an anti-Semitic attack would have to be targeted to be anti-Semitic.

It was targeted against Jews, but not those particular Jews. Any Jews would do. So the victims were those who had the misfortune of being in the establishment he chose (a kosher deli, not necessarily that particular deli, possibly just whatever was close to him?), at the time he chose to attack.

If someone decides to murder me, specifically, then nobody else will do. They have to plan how to carry out that particular crime. It's not random.

If someone decides to murder a woman, then whoever presents them with an opportunity will fit the bill nicely. That's randomness in victim selection. They want to kill a woman, but don't have any plan with regard to what particular woman they want to kill.

[Rip]

To be a little clearer on why I think the distinction of Islamic extremists over just extremists is important. You see it isn't just ISIS and the terrorists who engage in the extremism and it is time that the enablers and cheerleaders of this agenda be called out for their own contributions.











Those aren't ISIS or terrorists. They are what are sold as ordinary citizens but it isn't hard to see they take much joy in seeing people brutalized and oppressed if they oppose Islamic rule or Sharia law. In my view anyone who would think it is ok to kill someone for making a cartoon or doing something they think is insulting to Islam is the problem.

The sad thing is many of them act that way and then are bewildered when their children run off to join ISIS. ISIS didn't initiate those kids to that hate and beliefs. Their parents and communities did. ISIS just used it by giving them a way to live that belief instead of just talking about it.

[silverjon]

I don't see a lot of parental types holding signs there. I see a lot of angry young men.

[Rip]

I don't see a lot of parental types holding signs there. I see a lot of angry young men.

Of course you do. The women only go if they are told to.

You did notice there are some kids in those, right? Perhaps they were just rented.

[Defiant]

If someone decides to murder a woman, then whoever presents them with an opportunity will fit the bill nicely. That's randomness in victim selection. They want to kill a woman, but don't have any plan with regard to what particular woman they want to kill.

There's a random element in the victim selection, but the victim selection itself was not random because it was not chosen without method. There is a definite pattern to victim selection.


Now, which of these do you think a reasonable person would choose to describe that attack:

Option 1: A misogynistic attack

Option 2: A random attack

[hepcat]

To be a little clearer on why I think the distinction of Islamic extremists over just extremists is important. You see it isn't just ISIS and the terrorists who engage in the extremism and it is time that the enablers and cheerleaders of this agenda be called out for their own contributions.

We can't declare ourselves defenders of free speech and then condemn anyone who doesn't adhere to our definition of it. Under our very own laws, they have a right to condemn things through protests that they feel are insulting to their religion. When they make that step away from protesting in the streets to violence that is precisely why we have to wage war on an ideological front as well. And part of that ideological war is by trying to make sure the greater Islamic world does not feel they are being targeted for being followers of Islam. I don't think it's unreasonable to avoid giving religious legitimacy to extremists by refusing to acknowledge they are acting like followers of Islam.

[silverjon]

You did notice there are some kids in those, right? Perhaps they were just rented.

I see them in the capacity of being younger brothers. I'm not saying that young men aren't being indoctrinated, only that young male rage is a phenomenon which can be channelled into different directions, and that's one of them.

[Rip]

To be a little clearer on why I think the distinction of Islamic extremists over just extremists is important. You see it isn't just ISIS and the terrorists who engage in the extremism and it is time that the enablers and cheerleaders of this agenda be called out for their own contributions.

We can't declare ourselves defenders of free speech and then condemn anyone who doesn't adhere to our definition of it. Under our very own laws, they have a right to condemn things through protests that they feel are insulting to their religion. When they make that step away from protesting in the streets to violence that is precisely why we have to wage war on an ideological front as well. And part of that ideological war is by trying to make sure the greater Islamic world does not feel they are being targeted for being followers of Islam.

Sure we can. A right to free speech doesn't mean you can't condemn/mock the speech people choose to make. We do it all the time.

[hepcat]

only that young male rage is a phenomenon which can be channelled into different directions, and that's one of them.

For me, the other was Dungeons and Dragons.

[silverjon]

If someone decides to murder a woman, then whoever presents them with an opportunity will fit the bill nicely. That's randomness in victim selection. They want to kill a woman, but don't have any plan with regard to what particular woman they want to kill.

There's a random element in the victim selection, but the victim selection itself was not random because it was not chosen without method. There is a definite pattern to victim selection.


Now, which of these do you think a reasonable person would choose to describe that attack:

Option 1: A misogynistic attack

Option 2: A random attack

Option 3: A misogynistically motivated attack against a random victim (within a larger subset of people who had the potential to also be random victims)

Do you see where I'm going with this? It's possible for something to contain elements of both.

[hepcat]

To be a little clearer on why I think the distinction of Islamic extremists over just extremists is important. You see it isn't just ISIS and the terrorists who engage in the extremism and it is time that the enablers and cheerleaders of this agenda be called out for their own contributions.

We can't declare ourselves defenders of free speech and then condemn anyone who doesn't adhere to our definition of it. Under our very own laws, they have a right to condemn things through protests that they feel are insulting to their religion. When they make that step away from protesting in the streets to violence that is precisely why we have to wage war on an ideological front as well. And part of that ideological war is by trying to make sure the greater Islamic world does not feel they are being targeted for being followers of Islam.

Sure we can. A right to free speech doesn't mean you can't condemn/mock the speech people choose to make. We do it all the time.

But when we condemn the Westboro nutjobs, we don't normally refer to them as simply "Christian extremists", do we? I can't imagine how offended the other denominations would be if that were the case. No, we make the distinction because it's the right thing to do and it reflects our knowledge that the majority of Christians in our society disagree with their message.

p.s. sorry if I was snarky last night in my replies to you. I was undergoing yet another round of insomnia and it was making me cranky.

[Isgrimnur]

No, it's fundamentalist or evangelical if you want to be more polite.

[Kurth]

Random and anti-Semetic are not mutually exclusive.

If you want to talk semantics, then sure. But in context, "random" and "anti-Semtic" are clearly mutually exclusive.

Any hate crime is the antithesis of "random" because the subject or subjects are chosen deliberately because of who they are. To the extent the perpetrator is agnostic about the particular identity of the victims within his chosen targeted group, there's certainly an element of randomness, but it pales in comparison to the calculated decision to target the group.

Remember how this all started. In response to a suggestion that America and the media overhypes the threat of terrorism, Obama said that Americans were justifiably concerned about violent, vicious zealots who “randomly shoot a bunch of folks at a deli in Paris.” His description emphasizes the random nature of the act, and it completely omits any mention of the fact that this wasn't just any deli, it was a Kosher deli, and the victims weren't just a "bunch of folks," they were (not surprisingly) Jewish folks. In context, and setting semantics aside, that description is fundamentally misleading.

It's as if someone described the killing of James Byrd by saying that some violent, vicious zealots "randomly beat some guy and dragged him to death." Was there some element of randomness in Byrd being the victim? Sure. But omitting the fact that Byrd was black and that his killers were White Supremacists completely changes the narrative.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Also, just to be clear, I don't think Obama is an anti-Semite or that he intended to mislead. I think he was attempting to justify the widespread (and arguably over-hyped) fear of terrorism in the U.S., and, in doing so, he was trying to make the terrorist acts in question relevant to all Americans. I just think he went too far, as I believe his prior comments on the attack and the subsequent statements from the administration make clear.

[Defiant]

If you want to talk semantics, then sure. But in context, "random" and "anti-Semtic" are clearly mutually exclusive.

Any hate crime is the antithesis of "random" because the subject or subjects are chosen deliberately because of who they are. To the extent the perpetrator is agnostic about the particular identity of the victims within his chosen targeted group, there's certainly an element of randomness, but it pales in comparison to the calculated decision to target the group.

Remember how this all started. In response to a suggestion that America and the media overhypes the threat of terrorism, Obama said that Americans were justifiably concerned about violent, vicious zealots who “randomly shoot a bunch of folks at a deli in Paris.” His description emphasizes the random nature of the act, and it completely omits any mention of the fact that this wasn't just any deli, it was a Kosher deli, and the victims weren't just a "bunch of folks," they were (not surprisingly) Jewish folks. In context, and setting semantics aside, that description is fundamentally misleading.

It's as if someone described the killing of James Byrd by saying that some violent, vicious zealots "randomly beat some guy and dragged him to death." Was there some element of randomness in Byrd being the victim? Sure. But omitting the fact that Byrd was black and that his killers were White Supremacists completely changes the narrative.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Also, just to be clear, I don't think Obama is an anti-Semite or that he intended to mislead. I think he was attempting to justify the widespread (and arguably over-hyped) fear of terrorism in the U.S., and, in doing so, he was trying to make the terrorist acts in question relevant to all Americans. I just think he went too far, as I believe his prior comments on the attack and the subsequent statements from the administration make clear.

This.

[Rip]

To be a little clearer on why I think the distinction of Islamic extremists over just extremists is important. You see it isn't just ISIS and the terrorists who engage in the extremism and it is time that the enablers and cheerleaders of this agenda be called out for their own contributions.

We can't declare ourselves defenders of free speech and then condemn anyone who doesn't adhere to our definition of it. Under our very own laws, they have a right to condemn things through protests that they feel are insulting to their religion. When they make that step away from protesting in the streets to violence that is precisely why we have to wage war on an ideological front as well. And part of that ideological war is by trying to make sure the greater Islamic world does not feel they are being targeted for being followers of Islam.

Sure we can. A right to free speech doesn't mean you can't condemn/mock the speech people choose to make. We do it all the time.

But when we condemn the Westboro nutjobs, we don't normally refer to them as Christian extremists, do we? I can't imagine how offended the other denominations would be if that were the case.

I do.

When abortion clinics get torched we don't seem to have any problem calling it religious extremism.

When some Palestinians get killed we don't have any problem calling the attackers Jewish extremists.

When religious hatred is a motivating factor I have no problem noting that is the case. Even if the victim isn't religious at all. As in the Bangladesh attack on Avijit Roy. I have little doubt this was an attack by Muslim extremists.

[hepcat]

To be a little clearer on why I think the distinction of Islamic extremists over just extremists is important. You see it isn't just ISIS and the terrorists who engage in the extremism and it is time that the enablers and cheerleaders of this agenda be called out for their own contributions.

We can't declare ourselves defenders of free speech and then condemn anyone who doesn't adhere to our definition of it. Under our very own laws, they have a right to condemn things through protests that they feel are insulting to their religion. When they make that step away from protesting in the streets to violence that is precisely why we have to wage war on an ideological front as well. And part of that ideological war is by trying to make sure the greater Islamic world does not feel they are being targeted for being followers of Islam.

Sure we can. A right to free speech doesn't mean you can't condemn/mock the speech people choose to make. We do it all the time.

But when we condemn the Westboro nutjobs, we don't normally refer to them as Christian extremists, do we? I can't imagine how offended the other denominations would be if that were the case.

I do.

When abortion clinics get torched we don't seem to have any problem calling it religious extremism.

When some Palestinians get killed we don't have any problem calling the attackers Jewish extremists.

When religious hatred is a motivating factor I have no problem noting that is the case. Even if the victim isn't religious at all. As in the Bangladesh attack on Avijit Roy. I have little doubt this was an attack by Muslim extremists.

So now you'd be okay with him using the term "religious extremists"?

I'm okay with that.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Also, just to be clear, I don't think Obama is an anti-Semite or that he intended to mislead. I think he was attempting to justify the widespread (and arguably over-hyped) fear of terrorism in the U.S., and, in doing so, he was trying to make the terrorist acts in question relevant to all Americans. I just think he went too far, as I believe his prior comments on the attack and the subsequent statements from the administration make clear.

I think it's because there has been a hard partisan push to do exactly that based on one word. At least the first part of your closing statement. What are the prior comments you refer to that make you believe he's gone too far?

[silverjon]

<snip>

This.

Thank you for an eloquent post, Kurth.

I'm very detached from fear of terrorism and the messaging thereof.

[Rip]

To be a little clearer on why I think the distinction of Islamic extremists over just extremists is important. You see it isn't just ISIS and the terrorists who engage in the extremism and it is time that the enablers and cheerleaders of this agenda be called out for their own contributions.

We can't declare ourselves defenders of free speech and then condemn anyone who doesn't adhere to our definition of it. Under our very own laws, they have a right to condemn things through protests that they feel are insulting to their religion. When they make that step away from protesting in the streets to violence that is precisely why we have to wage war on an ideological front as well. And part of that ideological war is by trying to make sure the greater Islamic world does not feel they are being targeted for being followers of Islam.

Sure we can. A right to free speech doesn't mean you can't condemn/mock the speech people choose to make. We do it all the time.

But when we condemn the Westboro nutjobs, we don't normally refer to them as Christian extremists, do we? I can't imagine how offended the other denominations would be if that were the case.

I do.

When abortion clinics get torched we don't seem to have any problem calling it religious extremism.

When some Palestinians get killed we don't have any problem calling the attackers Jewish extremists.

When religious hatred is a motivating factor I have no problem noting that is the case. Even if the victim isn't religious at all. As in the Bangladesh attack on Avijit Roy. I have little doubt this was an attack by Muslim extremists.

So now you'd be okay with him using the term "religious extremists"?

I'm okay with that.

Sure when the extremism is sourced in religion why not. If the specific religion/religious belief involved is known then it should be noted as well.

[Defiant]

To be a little clearer on why I think the distinction of Islamic extremists over just extremists is important. You see it isn't just ISIS and the terrorists who engage in the extremism and it is time that the enablers and cheerleaders of this agenda be called out for their own contributions.

We can't declare ourselves defenders of free speech and then condemn anyone who doesn't adhere to our definition of it. Under our very own laws, they have a right to condemn things through protests that they feel are insulting to their religion.

(I think you meant condemn anyone who does adhere to our definition of it). I don't think Rip is condemning the freedom given to them to protest (as shown in those pictures), but rather condemning the message they are delivering (which we have a right to do by our very own laws, as well).

[hepcat]

To be a little clearer on why I think the distinction of Islamic extremists over just extremists is important. You see it isn't just ISIS and the terrorists who engage in the extremism and it is time that the enablers and cheerleaders of this agenda be called out for their own contributions.

We can't declare ourselves defenders of free speech and then condemn anyone who doesn't adhere to our definition of it. Under our very own laws, they have a right to condemn things through protests that they feel are insulting to their religion.

(I think you meant condemn anyone who does adhere to our definition of it). I don't think Rip is condemning the freedom given to them to protest (as shown in those pictures), but rather condemning the message they are delivering (which we have a right to do by our very own laws, as well).

His definition of condemn is not your definition of condemn though.

[hepcat]

To be a little clearer on why I think the distinction of Islamic extremists over just extremists is important. You see it isn't just ISIS and the terrorists who engage in the extremism and it is time that the enablers and cheerleaders of this agenda be called out for their own contributions.

We can't declare ourselves defenders of free speech and then condemn anyone who doesn't adhere to our definition of it. Under our very own laws, they have a right to condemn things through protests that they feel are insulting to their religion. When they make that step away from protesting in the streets to violence that is precisely why we have to wage war on an ideological front as well. And part of that ideological war is by trying to make sure the greater Islamic world does not feel they are being targeted for being followers of Islam.

Sure we can. A right to free speech doesn't mean you can't condemn/mock the speech people choose to make. We do it all the time.

But when we condemn the Westboro nutjobs, we don't normally refer to them as Christian extremists, do we? I can't imagine how offended the other denominations would be if that were the case.

I do.

When abortion clinics get torched we don't seem to have any problem calling it religious extremism.

When some Palestinians get killed we don't have any problem calling the attackers Jewish extremists.

When religious hatred is a motivating factor I have no problem noting that is the case. Even if the victim isn't religious at all. As in the Bangladesh attack on Avijit Roy. I have little doubt this was an attack by Muslim extremists.

So now you'd be okay with him using the term "religious extremists"?

I'm okay with that.

Sure when the extremism is sourced in religion why not. If the specific religion/religious belief involved is known then it should be noted as well.

I was being a bit facetious, but I do truly believe that there's far greater harm to be found in this type of conflict in lumping everyone together, even when our intention is good. I still see no reasonable argument for how it would help, but I've read more than one that points out how it could hurt.

We are at war, but we are at war both physically and ideologically. We can't ignore the latter as I truly think it's going to be the most important front on which we fight.

[Rip]

To be a little clearer on why I think the distinction of Islamic extremists over just extremists is important. You see it isn't just ISIS and the terrorists who engage in the extremism and it is time that the enablers and cheerleaders of this agenda be called out for their own contributions.

We can't declare ourselves defenders of free speech and then condemn anyone who doesn't adhere to our definition of it. Under our very own laws, they have a right to condemn things through protests that they feel are insulting to their religion. When they make that step away from protesting in the streets to violence that is precisely why we have to wage war on an ideological front as well. And part of that ideological war is by trying to make sure the greater Islamic world does not feel they are being targeted for being followers of Islam.

Sure we can. A right to free speech doesn't mean you can't condemn/mock the speech people choose to make. We do it all the time.

But when we condemn the Westboro nutjobs, we don't normally refer to them as Christian extremists, do we? I can't imagine how offended the other denominations would be if that were the case.

I do.

When abortion clinics get torched we don't seem to have any problem calling it religious extremism.

When some Palestinians get killed we don't have any problem calling the attackers Jewish extremists.

When religious hatred is a motivating factor I have no problem noting that is the case. Even if the victim isn't religious at all. As in the Bangladesh attack on Avijit Roy. I have little doubt this was an attack by Muslim extremists.

So now you'd be okay with him using the term "religious extremists"?

I'm okay with that.

Sure when the extremism is sourced in religion why not. If the specific religion/religious belief involved is known then it should be noted as well.

I was being a bit facetious, but I do truly believe that there's far greater harm to be found in this type of conflict in lumping everyone together, even when our intention is good. I still see no reasonable argument for how it would help, but I've read more than one that points out how it could hurt.

We are at war, but we are at war both physically and ideologically. We can't ignore the latter as I truly think it's going to be the most important front on which we fight.

But a majority of the people we are at war with ideologically we refuse to condemn their ideology.

[hepcat]

Yes, we have. Repeatedly. Through words and actions. The administration just refuses to use the exact words you (and those who share your opinion) feel are important. The reasons for doing so have been cited numerous times in this thread.

[Rip]

Yes, we have. Repeatedly. Through words and actions. The administration just refuses to use the exact words you (and those who share your opinion) feel are important. The reasons for doing so have been cited numerous times in this thread.

Strange I seldom hear us condemning these nations for the Apostasy laws.

Afghanistan
Algeria
Bahrain
Brunei
Egypt
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Kuwait
Lebanon
Libya
Mauritania
Morocco
Oman
Pakistan
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Sudan
Syria
Tunisia
United Arab Emirates
Yemen

[hepcat]

But a majority of the people we are at war with ideologically we refuse to condemn their ideology.

We do condemn the ideology of people who commit atrocities repeatedly.

Strange I seldom hear us condemning these nations for the Apostasy laws.

But if you want to now discuss nations with laws against Apostasy, when it results in atrocities, we do. Repeatedly. But we usually condemn acts, not nations. That's just Diplomacy 101.


We condemn human rights violations in China, but we still do business with them. Same goes for any number of countries we deal with on a daily basis. The world isn't as simple as you'd like it to be, I'm sorry to say.

[Jaymann]

To be a little clearer on why I think the distinction of Islamic extremists over just extremists is important. You see it isn't just ISIS and the terrorists who engage in the extremism and it is time that the enablers and cheerleaders of this agenda be called out for their own contributions.


What is 3/11?

Freedom can go to Hell? I thought they would support Mel Gibson.

[hepcat]

This is still my favorite sign from a similar protest.

[RuperT]

<snip>

This.

Thank you for an eloquent post, Kurth.

I'm very detached from fear of terrorism and the messaging thereof.

Silverjon is on point, and is also being typically gracious. According to ancient Jewish scholars, though, OO is not a Get Out of Jail Free card, and I might ask Defiant and Kurth to likewise be more aware of the different values (or lack thereof) to be found here. For me personally, an American agnostic, the specific religion of foreign terror victims has little value towards how I evaluate the risks of terrorism to myself or my own community, accurate or not. My value can be different from yours whether I understand your perspective or not... and that's ostensibly supposed to be okay, as long as that value doesn't harm another. I don't mind your wishing I had your values, or your sharing them with me, but it's rude and often counterproductive to scold me for not having them already.
Defiant, this thread really did seem to be framed as a semantic puzzle from the start. "Could he really have meant it?" The de rigeur political pandering does not kick away the Rubix cube you placed in front of us. If you think the pressing issue here is anti-semitic risk, or that the White House press is ridiculous, or frustrations with the mutability of language, why not go ahead and say that in the first place? You buried the lede.

[Defiant]

According to ancient Jewish scholars, though, OO is not a Get Out of Jail Free card, and I might ask Defiant and Kurth to likewise be more aware of the different values (or lack thereof) to be found here. For me personally, an American agnostic, the specific religion of foreign terror victims has little value towards how I evaluate the risks of terrorism to myself or my own community, accurate or not. My value can be different from yours whether I understand your perspective or not... and that's ostensibly supposed to be okay, as long as that value doesn't harm another. I don't mind your wishing I had your values, or your sharing them with me, but it's rude and often counterproductive to scold me for not having them already.

My bringing this issue up did not have to do with the risks of terrorism to you or to me. It had to do with the administration re-framing an anti-Semitic attack as a random attack that was not targeted based on peoples backgrounds, despite ample evidence to the contrary. You don't need to have some super secret Jew values to comprehend that - this would be similar to a homophobic or a racist or a misogynistic attack being similarly described as sans any such motive - all you need is empathy.

If you think the pressing issue here is [..] that the White House press is ridiculous [..] why not go ahead and say that in the first place?

You mean in my first post, where I pointed out how the press secretaries statements were absurd and false (not to mention offensive)

[RuperT]

It was a good start, but you soon conflate the various speakers as just "the administration", discarding a seemingly credible narrative that the press secretary is the pea under the mattress here, so to speak. The bat in the belfry. The putz.
As to empathy, it is a challenge to think as if I had a supernatural bond to these killed Parisians, and that their particular deaths threaten my cultural heritage or community. I try, though, even as a nonbeliever of indiscernible cultural heritage. Empathy is an action, not an attribute, and I actively try to view things from all angles (often getting me accused of contrarianism). Empathy does not change you directly, instead letting you see things through others' eyes, maybe to get a sense of their struggle, or a glimpse of their pain. I can empathize, while still not agreeing with your valuation of religious identity as it concerns my President's duties, or that referring to something as its functional superset is 'reframing' in any significant dimension.
This discussion has in fact caused me to really think about the dynamics of overlapping community values on a global scale and in relation to myself. Thanks for that.

[Defiant]

Since this appears to be descending into more pedantic semantic trolling , I'll give it all the care, thoughtfulness and deliberation it deserves.

ad·min·is·tra·tion
ədˌminəˈstrāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: administration; noun: admin.; plural noun: administrations

2.
the officials in the executive branch of government under a particular chief executive.
"the Kennedy administration sought to use the conference to repair US prestige"

em·pa·thy
ˈempəTHē/
noun
noun: empathy

the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

Random crime ⊅ Hate crime