I'm liking your thought process more and more every day...

The second fallacy is usually the one I see the most...

"Yeah...Over a million people in a couple dozen countries have been killed by people from the Religion of Peace...But Hey!...How about that abortion clinic two years ago?...

It's called moral equivalence...THEE most destructive force in the world today...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Don't forget to add unconstitutional violation of American civil rights.


Such vagueries.
One might think you actually have a point, until one realizes you haven't really shown what you're really talking about.
1) "really haven't studied"
Quite frankly, I've been talking to people about two things. First, a threat to U.S. governmental system by VOTING CHANGES to it in a democratic way. I have yet to see any evidence of such a threat in the U.S., and am not sure how to "study" something that doesn't exist. I have researched statistics on Muslim population, and have shown those results.
Second, a threat to U.S. life by terroristic activities. And on that, I have no doubts that it's a reality.
But by the same token, the existence of such a terroristic threat does not mean we should automatically give up our rights.

You criticize "research", yet our government (in another thread) has recently ruled that we cannot bring a law-suit to prevent illegal and hidden wire-tapping if we cannot prove we are being wire-tapped. But of course, they get to continue hiding the details of their illegal activity.


I agree on this.
Quite frankly, one thing that bugs the hell out of me is that MANY deficiencies were shown in how our government does business to keep us safe after 9/11, and it seems NONE of them got fixed.
Mock bombs still get through airport security.
Our two main "intelligence" agencies still don't share enough real information to make progress.
The existing intel isn't used effectively.

But the solution to that seems to be to grant the government MORE power, instead of making them work properly with the power they already have???

Are you talking about recent discussions on this board? Or other discussions elsewhere?

Quite frankly, I have plenty objection to the totalitarian treatment you describe. But on the other hand, the solution to FIX that is NOT based on military action from the United States.
Time and time again, that only proves more detrimental to the U.S. in the long-haul as we give the terrorist extremist nut-jobs MORE propagandic ammo to recruit MORE terrorists and RAISE the terrorist threat.

The solution to fix that is with diplomacy, and I have heard some promising indications from the current administration to making PROGRESS in advancing more diplomatic solutions. Solutions which deal more with intelligence than invasion.
I found Bhkad's example of Algeria VOTING IN a theocracy by democratic action incredibly funny.
What good is there in "bringing democracy" to a people who will democratically subvert the rights of the people?
Why waste our time???


Again, not sure if you are talking in general or to specific issues on this board.
I have tried to be extremely explicit in that the real threat from terroristic violence is "won" by the Muslim extremist side. Hands down with no real debate.

There have been some extremely focused discussions recently on this board, claiming that there is a legitimate threat within the U.S. from Islam VOTING in "dhimmitude". (The fact that the people using the phrase "dhimmitude" don't really know what it means further belies their claim.)

And along THOSE SPECIFIC lines, I think the threat is clearly won by the Christian side. Speaking extremely specificly, there is MORE of a threat from religious LEGAL manipulation in the U.S. from Christians than from Muslims.
But such statements should NEVER be confused beyond the boundaries that the statement clearly denotes. LEGAL manipulation. IN the U.S.
Not war on terror.
Not to say that the Muslim crowd doesn't perform some pretty heinous "legal" manipulations in other countries.

I am all for doing what we must against the war on terror.
Unfortunately, as I believe you point out elsewhere, "what we must" is a phrase that is disputed.
Also disputed is what can be called "war on terror", as there have been misplaced attempts to label the Iraq invasion as part of that. Although, of course now that we have INTRODUCED NEW terrorist elements in Iraq which were unable to thrive there previously, I guess the U.S. has "made" it so...

But at the same time, when you say: "well, sure the large majority British Muslims want you in jail if you diss them, but just lookie what I found -- seven Jews in Hebron and 14 Christians in Little Rock who think the same thing about their religion/culture!"
It needs to be pointed out that these are BRITISH Muslims, and what is going on in the U.S. is a CHRISTIAN dominated phenomenon when it comes to legal manipulation and a pseudo-"dhimmi" attitude.

Among the flip side of the coin, there is also a pretense that pointing to Islam somehow means that their wrongdoings are mitigated. That isn't the case.
If the foreign Islam examples were happening more in THIS country, you would hear me complain more about them in THIS country.
But they aren't.


Quite frankly, this is applicable in a specific way.
It is also a fallacy in a specific way in which you note.

It is a fallacy to pretend (analogous to my previous mention) that such an observation somehow makes the Muslim action LESS of a tragedy.
It doesn't matter what Christians did 500 years ago. It is STILL WRONG of Muslims to perpetuate it today.

But the "applicable" portion comes in how some UNIVERSALLY CONDEMN the Muslim religion. It's a bit like the older brother making fun of his sibling for falling off the bike while learning to ride it. Failing to acknowledge that it was years ago that HE ALSO was doing the same thing.
There HAS BEEN PROGRESS in Islam towards doing the "right thing".
This progress should be ENCOURAGED.
To paint the entire religion with wide brush-strokes (as some people do) is doing the situation a disservice. We should encourage those who are making progress, instead of alienating them.


I guess over-all there are some on the liberal side who make me want to say "<bleeping> Berkeley". The reality of what you talk about does exist.
But at the same time, I think there are SOME times when the attempt to acknowledge the whole situation overlooks the areas where AGREEMENT DOES OCCUR.
And along those lines, I think we (and by "we" I mean myself and others on this board) agree that Islam clearly has the position of having the most dangerous extremists. The war on terror is real, and needs to be fought.
Invading Afghanistan was a GREAT thing, and we need to destroy al Qaeda in the best means possible.

Plenty beyond that to squabble about, but I think that as we argue about the "other" details, these items of agreement sometimes get lost.

Getting back to the issue of "fear-mongering"....

I think the following should be included.
http://aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

And no. I don't find it "beneficial". Deal with the ACTUAL issues.
Exaggerating them is when they clearly leave the realm of "beneficial" towards "prejudicial".

Laugh, but that's probably a good prediction of things to come. The hard line conservative would say the liberals will make it happen The Democrats will say it's a right wing conspiracy.
In reality, I think the Unibomber had a point though I don't approve of his misguided tactics.

__________________
Fox caught Obama Presidentin' while Black.

None on this particular board.