This entry was posted
on Tuesday, August 17th, 2010 at 3:43 pm by Radley Balko
and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
129 Responses to “The American Muslim Success Story”
“I can’t actually debate your point, so I will make the most ridiculous strawman argument possible, conflating various arguments made on various different topics to demonize my opponents and belittle the very real issues that people care about. Instead of engaging in legitimate discourse, I’ll continue to resort to school yard tactics, turning everything into an us vs them or, really, me vs the world and just generalize my opponents or the targets of my hate into one nameless, faceless mob that lacks any nuance or individuality, because it is beyond my intellectual capacity to think in anything but the most absolute black-and-white terms.”
Except, BSK, it’s not a straw man because persons here (read: you) have used every single one of those arguments to excuse away Islamic nutcases.
They (again meaning you) have:
– abusively called others racist
– described muslims as “brown people” who are subject to “racism”
– described muslims as a “minority” group deserving of protected status
– asserted, without evidence, that America has a history of committing unnamed “wrongs” against muslims
– cited historical failures of the west from hundreds or even thousands of years ago to justify and draw an absurd moral equivalence between it and atrocities that are going on in the muslim world today.
Dispute this? Then answer the simple questions I posed to you the other day.
1. What specific “past wrongs” has the United States done to Islam?
2. In what sense, if any, are muslims “minorities”?
I won’t pretend to have a detailed knowledge of any passage of the Koran (or the Bible or Torah or any other religious text). So, for the sake of this argument, I will concede that the Koran has every bit of ugliness and self-damnation you ascribe to it.
That being said, to denounce the ugly realities of Islam does not mean we must denounce Muslims. All people are capable of ugliness and beauty. That may derive from their religion or from a variety of other sources or the interplay between different sources. So, some Muslim guy may be view woman as inferior because of what it says in the Koran. Or it may be because he had a douche for a dad. Or because he was just inclined to that and likely would have viewed them as inferior regardless of his religion. Regardless of why he did, it would wrong. But just because some Muslim men, and maybe a disproportionate amount, will view women in this way and as a direct result of their religious background does not mean ALL Muslim men will. Religion is but one of many influences on individuals and each person will be influenced very differently. I do think it is fair to look at larger patterns or tendencies that develop and, if these are objectionable, to object. But I do not think it is fair to denounce every follower of a religion or an ideology because of the weakest or most vile aspects of the ideology or the most perverse followers of it.
I also think it’s unfair to characterize those defending the cultural center of being Islamic apologists. Some certainly are, but not all, and it shifts the center of the conversation away from the issue at hand to a battle of personal ideologies. I, for instance, am incredibly bothered by Islam’s view of women and non-believers and the incredible repression that is carried out in its name. If we were debating that here, my tone would be very different. But we aren’t, as much as some people try to turn the conversation that way. The relative success of Muslims in America has little to nothing to do with the laws in Saudi Arabia. It has little to nothing to do with the more negative passages of the Koran. It has everything to do with how Muslim individuals function and carry themselves in American society today. The information that has thus far been provided, that looks at Muslims in the aggregate, shows them as being one of the better assimilated groups in recent American history. Who cares if the Koran tells them to stone women for talking to a man? If they reject that belief and accept American values, are they somehow less assimilated because of what their religious book says? If that is the case, the implication is that TRUE assimilation requires abandonment of one’s faith and adoption of the majority religion, a proposition I consider very troubling.
Because nothing will satisfy you. No matter what answer you are given, you dismiss it out of hand because it doesn’t fit your already-arrived-at conclusion.
A fellow poster gave you a list of atrocities committed by America in the Muslim world. You didn’t accept that because you wanted evidence of such atrocities happening in America, despite no one making the argument that such atrocities ever occurred in America.
I gave you an encyclopedic definition of minority and demonstrate how Muslims fit into that. You got all uppity insisting that the definition could also be twisted to fit plumbers and people with nose piercings and, therefore, it was useless.
You conflate various arguments made at various times about various things because you are incapable of tracking different ones.
I did not equate Muslim with being brown, though obviously most Muslims are of African or Southwest Asian descent. I listed different groups that you seem to find objectionable, but you seem unable to understand how a comma functions and assumed I was lumping them into one description. I was not.
I talked about how your general world view seems colored by an obsession that any “beneficial” treatment bestowed upon groups you don’t like is a direct attack on you. I used the term “righting past wrongs” to demonstrate that not all of these actions are really beneficial as much as they are simply leveling an imbalanced playing field. I did not specifically say that Muslims were wronged and, thus, must be righted. Only that you perceive a situation in which they are receiving preferential treatment (something you have repeatedly refused to substantiate, despite repeated requests to), got your panties in a bunch, and flew off the handle into denouncing all Muslims, despite that being completely irrelevant to the point. You are so bothered by the idea that groups you despise are not universally despised that you go into attack mode whenever they are treated in a less-than-despicable way. It is clear, time and time again, that this is your worldview. You abandon principals you claim to hold valuable whenever those principals are used in defense of people you don’t like. And the people you tend to not like tend to include people of color and Muslims, two DISTINCT groups that overlap at times. Please try to not the use of the word “and” and how it delineates the two groups from one another.
My question to you is… will you find any counter-argument convincing? Will you ever acknowledge the way America has wronged Muslim people around the world? There is plenty of evidence (including the mounting death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan) that they have. This isn’t necessarily evidence of explicit hatred on display, but bodies are bodies and the blood is on American hands. This also does not mitigate the American lives killed at the hands of Muslims. But every time you are given a piece of evidence contrary to your perspective, you twist the conversation. You asked for evidence of American wrongs done to Muslims. I just gave you two examples: Iraq and Afghanistan, two majority Muslim nations that were invaded by America and, in the process, saw hundreds of thousands of citizens killed. Can you deny that that has happened? And you ask for how Muslims are minorities. How about this… they make up approximately 1% of the country. That makes them a mathematical minority group. Happy now? I doubt it, because each of these runs counter to your idea that YOU are the true victim and any acknowledgment of the struggles of others somehow takes attention away from YOU.
And please note that none of that was an attempt to excuse away the very real threat that true radical, extreme Islam is. It was simply done to debate your perception that ALL Muslims are a threat and that ALL Islam is radical and extreme. The tactic of dismissing your opponents of being in bed with the enemies and, therefore, is evil and should be ignored is one of most intellectually dishonest approaches to discussion you’ll find. You would have fit right in during the witch hunts…
“Radical” is often used synonymously with “extreme”, but is most accurately used to describe something as “basic”.
Basic Islam is an open, literal war against anything that isn’t Islam, or isn’t Islamic enough (i.e., the peaceful Muslims who aren’t waging war against the infidels are also considered infidels because they aren’t following the last commandments of the Koran).
As far as the US is concerned, radical, fundamentalist, basic Islam is an active movement to subvert the lawfully-established government at all levels – according to its own holy books. It is a treasonous organization by its own free admission.
This Islamic war does not always have to be fought in the traditional sense, especially in light of lies to infidels being moral under Islam as stated in the Koran.
Islam states itself to be based on violence, coersion, and deceit. My heart mourns for the many people trapped unwillingly in its clutches, due to political, social, or police pressure, or even family pressure in the USA.
I used to be a staunch defender of Islam in the USA, in particular because I thought of it as a religion, and assuming that to be true, once the bastards in D.C. stopped flexing their newfound legal power at Islam, it would turn on other religions in a blink. Since those years, I’ve learned much about the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration, and the viewpoints of the many Founders – D.C. is already operating criminally, and they generally don’t need excuses to behave as such.
The federal government may not have been a Christian nation as reflected by the Treaty of Tripoli, but the sovereign States sure were Christian nations. Many States, to include New Hampshire, had an officially-sanctioned State religion – all some flavor of Christianity – before, during, and after the Revolution. “Religion” meant “Christianity”, and for those that reject the newfangled theory of a “living constitution” in place of the amendment process, it should still mean the same today.
Thus, due to the core meaning of religion, but primarily because of Islam’s fundamental goal of literal world domination through any means possible, Islam is not a religion as the Founders envisioned such.
Muslims need our help, especially those living in our country. Those who do not ask for help should of course be left alone to do as they wish. Those who continue to follow the fundamental, radical, basic Islamic commandments to wage war against the USA need to be recognized for what they are, and tried for treason and conspiracy in the most proper way possible.
Walid Shoebat and Mark A. Gabriel have written additional material which helps pierce the veil of deceit surrounding Islam.
“A fellow poster gave you a list of atrocities committed by America in the Muslim world.”
Yeah. And among those so-called “atrocities,” which were apparently posted by an anti-semitic bigot who you seemingly endorsed, was America’s simple tolerance for the fact that the Jewish state of Israel even exists. So I’ll ask again what specifically has the United States done that has “wronged” muslims?
Again, you fail to understand the word “and”. “Apples and oranges” does not equate apples TO oranges, but merely puts them together into a group, in this case, fruits. I put brown folks and Muslims together as two groups of people you don’t like. Why is that hard to understand? That is REALLY troubling if your reading comprehension is REALLY that poor. Maybe compound sentences are hard for you, thus the ambiguity with terms like “and”? Hm.
Also, you quickly lump me in with someone who I am not. All I said was that the poster in question (whose name now escapes me) listed many instances of America killing Muslim citizens around the globe. I don’t remember him specifically stating the existence of Israel as one of those, but if he did, I disagree with that wholeheartedly. I also gave two examples: the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. You conveniently glossed over them because they didn’t fit your narrative.
Talking to you is like playing a fucked up game of jeopardy…
PW: What is 2+2?
PW: BZZZZZZ! Wrong! You didn’t put your answer in the form of question. You’re also wrong because I was talking about a base-6 system. Lastly, golfers say “fore” and this isn’t golf, so 0-for-3!
Here is the list bobzbob offered:
“1) Overthrow of the government of Iran and the installation of a dictator in 1953
2) Continued support of that dictator as his regime became brutally repressive
3) Overthrow of the government of iraq and installation of a dictator in 1963.
4) Continued support of that dictator as his regime became brutally repressive, even supplying him with chemical weapons components and intelligence associated with their use against other muslims.
5) Support of the mass eviction and confiscation of palestinian owned in 1947
7)support of the israeli policy of confiscation of muslim owned lands in the west bank for settlements (these “settlements” are often defended with US made arms) financed from the US.
8) Support of the oppresive regime in Saudi Arabia”
He does not say the mere existence of Israel was an example. He did offer our support of West Bank settlements as a time where America wronged Muslims. Not sure I agree with him on that, but:
“support of the israeli policy of confiscation of muslim owned lands in the west bank for settlements (these “settlements” are often defended with US made arms) financed from the US…”
…does not equate to…
“Yeah. And among those so-called “atrocities,” which were apparently posted by an anti-semitic bigot who you seemingly endorsed, was America’s simple tolerance for the fact that the Jewish state of Israel even exists.”
So, your question has been asked and answered. Yet you refuse to answer the question put to you (please provide sources that Park51 was fast tracked AND that this fast tracking was directly due to their religion). I’m really starting to think you are some sort of deaf, dumb, blind robot that simply spews out nonsense based on a Yahoo! search of buzz words in other posts. Come to think of it, that’s actually pretty cool!
equate v. To make or regard as equivalent or similar, especially in order to compare or balance.
Were you not suggesting a similarity or comparison of treatment as applied to muslims AND brown people?
“Also, you quickly lump me in with someone who I am not.”
You endorsed him repeatedly on the last thread, and cited him approvingly in this one. That he is also an anti-semite, and that his list contained numerous anti-semitic insinuations, apparently did not phase you any. All I am suggesting is that it reflects poorly on your judgment of your associations.
I also suspect that if the United States reversed itself and decided to apply its concept of regime change to the oppressive Saudi Arabian royal family, persons such as yourself and Bobzbob would be among those loudly screaming that it was a “racist” war against muslims and “brown people.”
And yes, Bobzbob expressed support for the belief that Jews should be kicked out of Israel when he was pressed on it, making a not so veiled suggestion that he believes them ALL to be occupying “muslim” land.
You are seriously straight up idiotic. I equated them with regards to your FEELINGS towards them. If I were to say, “PW loves pizza and cheeseburgers,” would I be equating pizza and cheeseburgers? Only with regards to your feelings on them. I would not be saying that they are the same food. I do not think that people of color and Muslims are one in the same. Is nuance that hard for you to understand?
bobzbob made ONE statement in that post that had ANYTHING to do with Israel. He did not mention Jews. He mentioned American support of Israeli settlements in the West Bank as something America did that harmed Muslims. He did not say that Israel had no right to exist. He didn’t even say that the settlements were wrong. But, the fact remains is that their existence IS harmful to Muslims, even if it’s justifiable. And America’s support of those settlements allows their continued existence, which is continually bad for Muslims. So, the fact remains, America has taken actions that have harmed Muslims. You can’t dispute that. And your continued attempts to demonstrate blatant insanity (though it seems that you MIGHT have moved on from that and simply to character assassination).
My challenge to you remains: substantiate your claims that Park51 is receiving beneficial treatment solely as a function of pandering to Islam.
So something he said several posts later that I do NOT agree with is inherently adhered to me because I agreed with an EARLIER post? Now you’re just being silly.
And let’s not speculate on what we MIGHT say in a situation that has NOT happened. Let’s deal with what has been said, namely your contention that Park51 has benefited from undue political support purely as a function of their religion.
1. Your juxtaposition of islam and the term “brown people” was intended to link the two by race. In denying it you are simply being duplicitous. But that is nothing new for you.
2. Bloomberg is a politician, is he not? And he has very publicly taken a political stance in favor of this mosque out of the belief that we should be multiculturally supportive of its islamic religious affiliation, has he not? And Bloomberg’s appointees greased the mosque through a multitude of bureaucracies and preservation boards that normally take several years, did they not? If so, then yes. The WTC mosque has indeed received widespread support for overtly political reasons.
“So something he said several posts later that I do NOT agree with is inherently adhered to me because I agreed with an EARLIER post?”
Except that (1) those later posts were his direct elaboration on that earlier post, and (2) you repeatedly endorsed that earlier post long AFTER you saw evidence of his anti-semitism and its connection to that post. To suggest otherwise, as you now do, is to engage in duplicity, which you also frequently do.
“1. Your juxtaposition of islam and the term “brown people” was intended to link the two by race. In denying it you are simply being duplicitous. But that is nothing new for you.”
Thanks for crawling inside my head and telling me what my intent was. I still think you don’t know how the word “and” works.
“2. Bloomberg is a politician, is he not? And he has very publicly taken a political stance in favor of this mosque out of the belief that we should be multiculturally supportive of its islamic religious affiliation, has he not?”
He has supported the creation of Park51. Perhaps he should not have waded into the debate, but he was asked about it and answered.
“And Bloomberg’s appointees greased the mosque through a multitude of bureaucracies and preservation boards that normally take several years, did they not? If so, then yes. The WTC mosque has indeed received widespread support for overtly political reasons.”
You still have provided no evidence that they “greased” Park51 through. Again, just because you say something doesn’t mean it’s true.
“(2) you repeatedly endorsed that earlier post long AFTER you saw evidence of his anti-semitism and its connection to that post. To suggest otherwise, as you now do, is to engage in duplicity, which you also frequently do.”
I didn’t follow the entire dialogue you had with bobzbob so I don’t know exactly how he elaborated on one example among the 8 he gave. But fine, let’s take that one out. There are still 7 instances of America directly harming Muslims. Are you still going to insist it never happened? Are you really that much of a denialist?
Let’s look a bit more at the rhetorical technique you are taking now…
1.) bobzbob offers a list of wrongs done to Muslims by the American government. Included in that list is a comment on American support of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
2.) I hold up his post as evidence of wrongs done unto Muslims by America, because you repeatedly insisted it never happened.
3.) You and bobzbob have a separate conversation wherein he apparently admits to anti-Zionism.
4.) You conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.
5.) I paid little attention to that conversation and have still only up to this point skimmed it over.
6.) Because I endorsed bobzbob’s initial statement, which lacked any anti-Zionism or anti-Semitism, and he potentially later revealed being anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic, I am responsible for everything that comes out of his mouth.
7.) Because you can’t debate the substance of my argument, you simply look for ways to assassinate my character with “gotcha” moments.
8.) You continue to provide absolutely no evidence for your claims, instead getting more ridiculous in your counter-claims as a way to draw attention away from the weakness of your own argument.
It is clear that you have no intentions of debating the merits of the situation, instead preferring to try to discredit your opponents and then insisting they should be regarded. Maybe bobzbob is a tyrannical anti-semite who hates all Jews. That doesn’t discount the fact that he gave you a list of true facts. It does not take away from that claim. Maybe I am the most race obsessed, leftist multiculturalist in the world. None of that discredits the question I ask (and you have still failed to answer) about the EVIDENCE substantiating the claim that political figures took deliberate action to facilitate the building of Park51 specifically because the builders were Muslim.
I have substantiated my claim. I have noted how the 1st Amendment makes clear that the government has no ability to restrict the rights of a religious group based upon their religion. I have also argued this from a property rights standpoint, noting that the group is working on private property. I have noted that any restrictions placed on private property that are not intended to prevent specific and direct harm to the property of others should be removed for all owners. To the argument that the mosque is insulting or insensitive because of its placement, I have noted the precise location of the mosque (2 1/2 blocks from Ground Zero; out of line of sight), the preponderance of other buildings that would be questionable for a holy sight but people see no issue with, and the problem of conflating 19 terrorists who were of the Muslim faith with all Muslims.
What, exactly, are you arguing? That bobzbob is an anti-semite and I am obsessed with race? Seriously, who the F cares? What the hell does that have to do with anything? Unless that leads us to conclusions on matters involving others that support us treating them in such a way that violates their rights, let us think what we want to think.
Still, I await direct evidence that Park51 received preferential treatment through actions from the government that was granted based on their faith…
I feel like I’m playing 20 questions, only the question is the same each time, and the answers are always to questions I did not ask…
1. There’s no need to crawl inside your head, BSK. Your propensity for a duplicitous if not outright dishonest use of language has been well documented here. Or shall we revisit the “racist” cameras at the Costco?
2. Whether Bloomberg should have weighed in or not is superseded by the fact that he did, thus proving my contention that political muscle has indeed been flexed on the part of this mosque.
3. Your “I didn’t follow the entire dialogue” excuse stretches credulity, as the topic of Bobzbob’s anti-semitism came up several times including in posts between us BEFORE you reposted and endorsed his list yesterday. Don’t lie about it, BSK. You got caught…again…and it’s best to simply drop the matter and move on.
4. Bobzbob’s attempt to distinguish between anti-zionism and anti-semitism is yet another example of duplicity. When pressed on the topic it was plainly apparent that he thinks ALL Jews should be expelled from Israel, which he considers “muslim land.” Thus anti-zionism to him equates not to the simple halting of Israeli expansion but to the elimination of “zion” itself.
5. Contrary to your claims, I answered the remainder of Bobzbob’s list the other day and it is lacking for similar reasons. First, there is not a single item on it that could be characterized as specifically “anti-muslim.” Rather, most were simple cold war posturing that happened to involve muslim countries and the rest were cases where the US actually sided WITH one muslim faction in a country, and it decided to war with others as muslim factions are very prone to do. Yet nowhere on his list is a single example of the US having an explicitly anti-islam policy, his conspiratorial babble about the Iraq war being a secret crusade on behalf of Israel notwithstanding.
1.) You keep harping on the Costco post, despite my explanation that my intent was other than what was implied and I chose my words sloppily. But as is your MO, one strike and I’m out! I continue to urge you to look up the definition of the word “and” in the dictionary.
2.) Commenting is different than taking action. While words carry power and weight, if there is no evidence that action was taken to “grease” Park51 through the process, than your claims hold no water that it actually received preferential treatment, as opposed to simply having been looked favorably upon.
3.) Why is it so hard to believe that I followed OUR dialogue and not the in’s-and-out’s of the one between you and bobzbob? I didn’t read all his posts. I simply used the list of wrongs committed by Muslims against America to demonstrate to you that there is evidence for such a claim.
4.) I don’t care what anti-Zionism means to bobzbob. I am not bobzbob. I do not equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. I am neither an anti-Zionist nor an anti-semite.
5.) This is now getting repetitive, but… does something have to be explicitly anti-Muslim to be a wrong done unto Muslims? If I walked out into the street and started shooting indiscriminately at no one in particular, could I claim I didn’t really harm anyone I hit because I wasn’t specifically and explicitly targeting them? No. No one claimed that America is explicitly out to get Muslims or anti-Muslim. What I am arguing is that America has taken actions that have done vast harm to many Muslims. There are hundreds of thousands of dead civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, almost all of them Muslim. Their blood is on America’s hands because of a war that we voluntarily waged. I don’t know about you, but I would say those folks and there families and the countless other casualties have been pretty wronged. Naturally, there are Americans who have been wronged at the hands of Muslims and pretty much every group has the blood of every other group somewhere on its hands, though obviously not in equal distribution. But for you to claim that no Muslim has ever been harmed by policy or action taken by the US government is willfully ignorant.
Still waiting on EVIDENCE to substantiate your claim. A couple quotes by Bloomberg are meaningless. Especially when confronted with the evidence (as you were previously) that the reason Park51 did not face more hurdles was because of specific legislation that prevented zoning regulations and other bureaucratic policies from preventing the building of religious structures. This is probably where you’ll point to the church that has been held up, but that has largely been the result of the Port Authority’s pisspoor handling of the situation, not because of any zoning regulations. I don’t know all the in’s and out’s of that deal, but it’s clear that the church should have been built long ago and that whatever is holding it up is wrong. However, comparing St. Nicholas’s and Park51 is comparing apples and oranges and looking ONLY at the timeline ignores all the other ways in which the projects are different and does NOT qualify as evidence that Park51 has been “greased” through.
So let’s see… you don’t know what the word “and” means, you twist any singular comment someone has ever made into a characterization of them as a person, you think that saying something is the same as doing something, you seem to fail to understand the difference between me and another poster (though maybe we are part of the same conspiracy bogey monster you’re so scared of!), and you don’t seem to think that hundreds of thousands of innocent folks killed by our military qualify as a group of peopled “wronged”. Oh, and you pull shit out of your ass that you can’t justify and change the topic every time you are asked to.
“You keep harping on the Costco post, despite my explanation that my intent was other than what was implied and I chose my words sloppily”
That’s the point, BSK. You have a bad habit of choosing your words “sloppily,” and then coming back after the fact to assert that they didn’t really mean what they meant once they’ve bitten you in the ass. It also happens frequently enough with you that there is reason to conclude it is less a product of slop than it is of willful duplicity.
PW… are you even paying attention? Once I acknowledged being sloppy with my word choice. That is hardly a pattern. Other times I was quite deliberate in my word choice… you just got confused.
I offered you examples of Muslims wronged by America… Iraq and Afghanistan. Are the words in those paragraphs too hard for you as well, like the word “and” appears to be? Let’s try again… America has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraq and Afghan citizens in two wars we voluntarily engaged in. That is a lot of people, almost of all them Muslim, quite intensely wronged by America. I believe this is now the 4th or 5th time I’ve said this. Maybe by now it will sink in.
And I’m STILL waiting for you to offer evidence of your claim.
So far, I’ve offered evidence of mine (directly above, in case you are confused again) and you’ve offered nothing but speculation. I’m more intellectually challenged by the young children I work with on a daily basis than I am by you. And much less frustrated, to boot.
“Once I acknowledged being sloppy with my word choice.”
And as I recall, even that minor concession took days of denial on your part spread across several threads despite being repeatedly confronted with evidence that you said what you very explicitly denied saying only moments later.
The point is, BSK, you have a long track record of playing word games, of professing your “ignorance” of plainly obvious motives and meanings, and of feigning naivety to provide cover for a weak position of your own. There is a markedly duplicitous strain that runs through your style of argumentation, and it matters not whether you personally concede it for others to point out that it is there.
You accused me of calling folks involved in the situation “racist”, which I denied because I never called anyone racist. When you showed me the post, I realized I did use the term “racist” but did not aim it towards the folks in the situation in question. That is why I denied… because my memory told me I made a joke about Avatar, so I didn’t know where you were coming from. When I finally looked it over, I explained what I meant and acknowledged the error. Yet, you want to use that to essentially discredit anything I ever said. Since you can’t argue with the facts you will attempt to argue with who I am.
“But don’t you remember the time you were wrong?!?!?! Clearly you are ALWAYS wrong because THAT time you were wrong!” Give me a break.
Let’s get back to the matter at hand… this time, I was very specific in my wording. I have maintained a consistent explanation of my comment, once you struggle with because, again, the word “and” seems to trouble you.
What is weak about my position? If it is so weak, why can’t you dispute it? You sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling, “I can’t hear you!” is not a defense. You asked for evidence of Muslims being wronged (several times) and I have given you that (several times) and now you just ignore that. I’ve asked you for evidence of your claim (several times) and you have given me innuendo (a few times) and otherwise ignore the question.
Man up and debate the facts in question or just go away. You can think whatever you want of me. And if villifying me allows you to ignore reality, good for you. But take your nonsense elsewhere. You end up in fights with just about anyone who engages you long enough because you refuse to play fair. You change the topic, engage in straw mans, change what you say, attempt to use guilt by association, make baseless claims, use ad hominem attacks, and otherwise refuse to address the issue in question. Are you just REALLY bad at playing devil’s advocate? Or are you so desperate for attention that you take the “If I yell loudest, that means I win” approach?
So, I am STILL waiting for evidence that Park51 received preferential treatment. I am also waiting for you response to the evidence I provided regarding how Muslims have been harmed by America. If you can’t give it to me soon, I’m just going to assume that we both realize you are full of crap and making stuff up and you are just too stubborn and/or self-conscious to acknowledge it. At least I can own up when I make a mistake… the same can’t be said for your pathetic self.
The subject of your tendency to make duplicitous statements and backtrack upon them? No, BSK. I’ve been calling you out on that consistently for quite some time. And judging by the length and venom of the rants it provokes from you, I seem to have touched a nerve. And will therefore continue to call you out.
Give evidence of one example where I’ve backtracked besides the Costco situation? And as I’ve said, my intention was not duplicity, not stupidity, if anything. But, that doesn’t matter. Because YOU know what goes on inside my said.
I didn’t realize I was the topic of conversation. But I guess that’s how you work. Change it from a conversation on the issue to a conversation about the participants in the conversation. Classic tactic of someone who knows he is on a sinking ship. I will take that as your official surrender into ignorance. Well played!
Give evidence of one example where I’ve backtracked besides the Costco situation? And as I’ve said, my intention was not duplicity, but stupidity, if anything. I made a bad joke that completely missed the mark. But, that doesn’t matter. Because YOU know what goes on inside my head.
I didn’t realize I was the topic of conversation. But I guess that’s how you work. Change it from a conversation on the issue to a conversation about the participants in the conversation. Classic tactic of someone who knows he is on a sinking ship. I will take that as your official surrender into ignorance. Well played!