Jon Stewart on Protecting Our Rights After a Tragedy

Friday, August 20th, 2010

Stewart was brilliant last night. Eloquent, earnest (in a good way), and funny. He even showed some humility, pointing out his own inconsistency, and admitting he was wrong about the NRA-Columbine controversy.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Extremist Makeover – Homeland Edition

Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Digg it |  reddit | |  Fark

142 Responses to “Jon Stewart on Protecting Our Rights After a Tragedy”

  1. #1 |  BSK | 

    And in case it wasn’t clear, PW, I’m actually agreeing with you hear. Huzzah!

  2. #2 |  Elemenope | 

    I doubt any of us are very far apart on this, to be honest. 9/11 was objectively horrific, nobody sane disputes. But it is tricky trying to situate the event in any rational context. Though I tend to dislike pomo, I can’t think of a better case for Baudrillard’s idea of hyperreality–coming to *totally consume and obliterate* all the meaning, emotion, context, and experienced reality of the actual event and its aftermath–than what happened in our culture after 9/11.

    This naturally leads people to a certain amount of nausea over it and when they attempt to counter it, they often swing the pendulum too far the other way.

    I may well be guilty of this. I think, however, even sober analysis of an event like 9/11 tends to oversell the practical effects due to the powerful cultural effects; it’s nearly unavoidable. I’d rather in any case slightly undersell a catastrophe than oversell it when the default mode is to dramatically oversell. It might offend some people’s sense of propriety, but I don’t like assuming that everyone is too sensitive to have a discussion about important topics that happen to involve personal emotional investment.

  3. #3 |  Valerie | 

    Jon Stewart has never been so hypocritical as he was when he compared the “Mosque at Ground Zero” issue to the Columbine NRA issue. First, the NRA cannot be compared with Islam, and second, and more importantly, the massacre at Columbine was not caused by radicals of a religion. Radical Islamists that threaten the viability of our country are not two mentally disturbed teenagers. And, Stewart admitting he was wrong about the NRA Columbine issue was self-serving. Building a Mosque at Ground Zero is not about religious freedom. Muslims have the freedom to worship as they please. (As do we call, but we don’t allow neo-Nazis to build a shrine to Hitler next to a church. Call it a zoning issue if you like, as it does not hamper the Muslims ability to worship as they please, just where.) It is, however, about a religion that intentionally chose a site adjacent to Ground Zero to place their place of worship. One has to question the wisdom and reason for Muslims wanting to put a Mosque that close to Ground Zero, and question their lack of respect for the American loss of life caused by Islam. If there were no Islam, there would not have been a 9/11. Americans do not understand the tenants of the Islamic religion, one that has zero tolerance for other religions. If you still think the mosque should be built at Ground Zero, I ask that you read “Infidel” by a Somali woman who was raised in Islam but rejected it. She is now on their hit list. And please don’t give me the argument that these Muslims are not like those Muslims. I’m not that naive. As for Stewart, the man who bowed to the Muslim religion when he would not show Mohammed on the back of Oliver’s T-Shirt (but Wyatt’s had Jesus on it), I can only say that he is a sell-out and takes great joy in manipulating his liberal viewers. He can be a very funny man, but his politics are dangerous and mis-guided.

  4. #4 |  Elemenope | 

    Valerie, it was an analogous situation, not an identical one. In every analogy there are discrepancies, but to focus on them is to miss the point.

    we don’t allow neo-Nazis to build a shrine to Hitler next to a church.

    Really? When was that prevented from happening? Where? I’m pretty sure if a neo-Nazi group met the zoning and ordinance requirements, they could. If they were prevented, they would have a solid case in court. And since you’re so fond of picking apart the minutiae of analogies, Nazism isn’t a religion either.

  5. #5 |  Elroy | 

    “#77 | matt | August 21st, 2010 at 11:06 am

    You’re right Elroy.. SO after we get done stripping Muslims of their civil rights that you should be the next target. After all I believe that you might someday be popular enough to strip me of my civil rights so it’s better I get yours before you get mine!!!”

    Okay then, I was wrong, I think we should encourage as many muslims to settle in the US as possible since it is quite obvious that this is the key to a libertarian utopia. Once we start welcoming them and encouraging mosques the ranks of libertarians will no doubt begin to swell with like minded libertarian muslims bent on protecting the rights of free speech, freedom of and from religion, and gender equality. If we lead by example I am sure everything will work out fine.

  6. #6 |  Elemenope | 

    Actually, Elroy, historically minority groups are much more willing to take civil rights and liberties seriously than the majority group, because they on balance are more likely to be in desperate need of their utility to protect their lives/livelihood. Their presence and the inevitable upheavals it creates as friction increases between them and the dominant paradigm, more contours of civil law are fleshed out through the courts, and more awareness of the necessity of those rights and liberties is generated over the long term (despite occasional short-term setbacks).

    So what you say with sarcasm I say with conviction, more minority religionists means in all probability strengthening our civil rights and liberties, unless of course terrified, whiny, (mostly) white, (mostly) Christian folk manage to destroy them first.

  7. #7 |  PW | 

    There are several complicating issues with treating muslims as a protected “minority” group, not the least among them being the fact that religion is an affiliation of choice.

    But more importantly, unlike most other groups that American society has designated as protected minorities, there isn’t really a comparable history of wrongs or grievances against muslims in America for the simple reason that American never really even had a sizable muslim community until the second half of the 20th century. To my knowledge, there have never been any laws that segregated muslims at restaurants or buses or water fountains, no law that impeded their right to worship, no “muslims need not apply” signs, no covenants against selling houses to muslims, no “separate but equal” school districts for muslims…practically none of the institutional discrimination that was historically applied to blacks and, to a lesser degree, hispanics in this country. Nor is there even a parallel to historical examples of wartime-related discrimination, such as the Japanese-Americans during WWII and German-Americans during WWI.

    If anything, I’ll go so far as to say that the United States has been extraordinarily welcoming to muslim immigrants in the short and recent period that we’ve become a popular immigration point. Even since 9/11 actual overt acts of discrimination against muslims are typically limited to an isolated group of idiots who did something stupid and rude in their own capacity and have been roundly condemned for it.

    Viewed in this light, to classify islam as if it is some sort of protected and perpetually victimized “minority” group despite the general absence of evidence that it has ever been explicitly targeted for discrimination in the United States is the height of absurd politically correct multiculturalist drivel run amok.

  8. #8 |  Valerie | 

    Elenemope — the analogy didn’t work. In my opinion it wasn’t even close, and it was unfair of Stewart to use it. I never said Nazism was a religion, I used a church as an example, in a role-reversed analogy to the mosque fiasco, and a church is a religious building, just like a mosque. Nazism is not analagous to ground zero, except for the fact that there would no doubt be problems similar to what is going on with the Mosque if neo-Nazis wanted to build a shrine to Hitler next to a church or synagogue. I don’t consider it focusing on minutiae, but, rather, it was my way of trying to explain why Stewart’s piece was an abomination of the facts, and said abomination was intended to manipulate his audience. I can’t respect him for doing that.

    I also find it interesting that you chose to pick apart my analogy rather than comment on the Muslim’s choice of a location. Why do people not want to criticize or address the Muslims for intentionally choosing a location so close to Ground Zero? Surely they could have built somewhere else, but they chose that site — a site that is not in a residential community. Is it just me that sees the disrespect they are showing by choosing that site?

  9. #9 |  Elemenope | 

    Why do people not want to criticize or address the Muslims for intentionally choosing a location so close to Ground Zero?

    Because IT’S IDIOTIC. There, I said it. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks…, etc. etc.. The mystery isn’t why I don’t care. The mystery is why you do. What, it’s hallowed ground, except Muslims can’t hallow it with their prayers? I’m getting quite disgusted with people concern trolling the hell out of Ground Zero.

    Here’s what really gets my goat. The analogy that people are trying to set up is this:

    Muslims:Ground Zero::Nazis:Synagogue

    -whereas the more accurate analogy to match their argument is-

    Muslims:Ground Zero::GERMANS:Synagogue…as they are intentionally eliding terrorists with all Muslims, which is directly correspondent with identifying all Germans as Nazis.

    -and the analogy closest to reality would be-

    TERRORISTS:Ground Zero::Nazis:Synagogue…since terrorists are actually the ones responsible for the attacks, not some nebulous collective Muslim guilt they’d like to assign.

    When Hamas or Hezbollah wants to set up an office next to Freedom tower, call me. That’s the moment your argument will begin to make sense.

  10. #10 |  BSK | 


    Again, no one has stated that Muslims deserve “protected minority” status. We have simply acknowledged that they ARE a minority in this country, at least mathematically speaking and by most other definitions as well. As such, there is nothing inaccurate about describing them as a minority group. Elemnope argued that, historically, minority groups are more likely to favor the protection of basic rights because their groups are often the first ones to have them restricted and/or their group has a history of having them restricted. Whether this characterization does or will apply to minorities is to be seen. But I haven’t seen anyone here argue that minorities deserve protected status, outside of ensuring that they have the same basic rights as anyone else. To argue with a premise no one has stated here is a strawman.

  11. #11 |  BSK | 


    What I find interesting is that the Park51 site has actually been holding prayer services in the existing building since late 2009, which means for at least 6 months Muslims were praying very close to Ground Zero without anyone being offended or the “hallowedness” of the area being tainted. It’s only when folks decided to make an issue of the site that these “sensitivities” came to the surface. I agree with you that I struggle to see why so many care about a group of people praying quietly in a nearby building. And if it is the proposed building itself, I will say that it looks nothing like any Mosque that I’ve seen and if there wasn’t so much attention being thrown at it, most folks would probably walk by and not notice it, except (perhaps) for it’s garishness.

  12. #12 |  BSK | 

    In #110, that should be “will apply to *MUSLIMS* is to be seen” and “anyone here argue that *MUSLIMS* deserve protected status”.

  13. #13 |  Luke | 

    [FOX pundit]”All I’m saying, is that these muslims who’ve never harmed anyone need to be more respectful towards the feelings of Real Americans who think all muslims are terrorists.”[/FOX pundit]

  14. #14 |  PW | 

    Strange. When this subject first came up several days ago you were blathering on, BSK, about how muslims had been “marginalized” and subjected to “past wrongs” – both your wording – by American society. Now all of a sudden they are only “minorities” in the most general numerical sense, and to suggest that your use of the term meant anything more is a “strawman”?

    You’re being duplicitous again, BSK. But that is nothing new.

  15. #15 |  BSK | 


    Again, you struggle to follow conversations. And here I thought we had broken new ground. Not only did you not follow the previous conversation, but you’ve failed to follow THIS conversation. Elementhorpe began talking about minorities, never invoking the term or idea of “protected” minorities and you jumped to argue with the idea of “protected minorities”. When called on this, you referred to earlier comments I made on a completely different thread, in a different context, with a different intent. I am not Elementhorpe. When he spoke of minorities, there was no reason for you to rebut with a contest of the status of “protected minorities” being conferred upon American Muslims, since Elementhorpe made no argument in favor of that.

    PLEASE try to follow what is going on.

  16. #16 |  Elemenope | 

    I appreciate you getting my proverbial back, but-and you aren’t by any means the only person on the net that does this-why do people insert and rearrange letters in my nick, like, a lot?

    Elemenope, as in the onomatopoetic transliteration of LMNOP. :)

    Carry on.

  17. #17 |  BSK | 

    Ha! I think I just glanced at it and though it said something. Now that I know what it is, I will be sure to get it right. Well played, sir (or ma’am).

  18. #18 |  PW | 

    People don’t just start randomly designating groups as “minorities” without it being implicit that they are using this term in the political sense. In fact, you have used it in the political sense many times before hence your past descriptions of “marginalized” muslims who have been “wronged” by America, despite your apparent inability to specify precisely how so without going into the dubious territory of embracing anti-semitic conspiracy theories. That you deny this now in refusing the term “protected” is only evidence of your own duplicity, as you are already on record demonstrating that you believe something other than what you now claim.

  19. #19 |  BSK | 


    I’m not sure the record says what you think it says.

    Let’s stay on facts here. Elemenope used the term “minority”. He did not use the term “protected minority”. You rebutted with an argument about the use of the term “protected minority”. With evidence now demonstrating that that term was not used, you are insisting that Elemenope IMPLICITLY used the term “protected minority”. Good to know you can get in his head.

    I will not wage into the continued confusion you find over my previous comments. You can’t even understand the word “and”. Why would I try to explain anything more complex to you? I’m 99% sure a quick search will demonstrate that I never used the term “protected minority”, in this or any other conversation, except in response to your or someone else’s use of the term.

  20. #20 |  Elemenope | 

    Minority status is, in a democracy, literally having less people than the dominant group(s). When you are a minority, you may be oppressed at the moment, or you may not be. Balko had an article not too long ago about how Muslims by-and-large have integrated very effectively into the US society and culture and did not bear much burden of oppression.

    However, being a minority means that the wind can shift against you very quickly, and if it does, you need a bulwark of rights and laws to protect you, so that when people in the majority go around, say, questioning the very legitimacy of you having buildings to practice your religion (as assholes are doing across this country right now, in locations that have jack to do with Ground Zero), it is important to have something like freedom of religion taken seriously. It is so that when something controversial is happening regarding Muslims in New York, the majority backlash doesn’t harm their religious expression in Connecticut, Wisconsin, California, and Tennessee, and also gives them a fighting chance in New York.

    So you’re both right in a sense, though BSK was closer to the functional sense of it. Minorities are simply minorities until something happens and then they are protected minorities who certainly care about their freedoms perhaps even more jealously than the majority, since they have tasted what it is like to nearly lose them.

  21. #21 |  BSK | 

    I think it’s also important to realize that not all marginalization or oppression that might exist is always at the hand of the government. However, the government is charged with protecting the rights of all its citizens and if it willfully fails in this duty, it is reasonable to hold it culpable in the matter. Whether or not this necessarily holds true for Muslims in this country is another matter. There definitely is evidence of a rise in anti-Muslim oppression within the population after 9/11, though even the best of polls would make it difficult to calculate the various levels of these feelings at any given time. How the government has responded has been all over the map, including everything from increased suspicion and surveillance of Muslims to claims of preferential treatment in the applications for Park51.

    What can’t be disputed is that Muslims are a numerical minority in this country and, like most (if not all) minority groups, that status carries a risk that is largely absent from majority groups, as Elemenope has outlined.

  22. #22 |  BSK | 

    And if we are REALLY going to talk about marginalization and oppression, we must also talk about the ying to its hang, namely privilege. However, I can guess how that conversation would go…

  23. #23 |  Elemenope | 

    Talking social dynamics with conservatives is approximately as painful as talking economics with liberals.

  24. #24 |  PW | 

    #120 –

    “Minority status is, in a democracy, literally having less people than the dominant group(s).”

    In other words, it could be literally anything depending on how you classify it. And that is why the term is a problem in itself, and almost always refers to minorities of the “protected” kind when it is enlisted in a political context (and this one presently is). The definition of “minority” is so vague and nebulous and overused that it takes away any real meaning and supplants it with a shallow buzz word that gets thrown into conversation so as to signal that a subject is taboo or beyond any legitimate scrutiny. Thus when BSK, who has a long history here of designating islam a “marginalized” and perpetually “wronged” group despite his failure to provide any evidence of either, uses the term “minority” there can be no mistaking that it is the politically protected kind to which he refers, and that his purpose in doing so is to throw the poison pill of identity politics into the discussion.

    Treat people as individuals and leave it at that. By dwelling on membership in some group, be it race, religion, or any social contrivance designated for “protection,” we only obscure that individuality.

  25. #25 |  PW | 

    “And if we are REALLY going to talk about marginalization and oppression, we must also talk about the ying to its hang, namely privilege.”

    And so BSK’s true colors slip into the discussion. Unsurprisingly, they have a distinct reddish hue.

  26. #26 |  PW | 

    “There definitely is evidence of a rise in anti-Muslim oppression within the population after 9/11”

    Specific examples please?

  27. #27 |  PW | 

    “What can’t be disputed is that Muslims Plumbers are a numerical minority in this country and, like most (if not all) minority groups, that status carries a risk that is largely absent from majority groups”

    It’s equally true, is it not?

  28. #28 |  BSK | 


    Please stop with the bullshit.

    1.) I have given evidence of American wrongs committed against Muslims, specifically citing the Iraq and Afghan wars.
    2.) Elemenope introduced the use of the term ‘minority’ to this thread, not I. Again, you either struggle to tell the difference between me and not me, think I am part of a vast conspiracy, or are so obsessed with me that when someone else uses a word you immediately think about when I use the word.
    3.) Do you REALLY want to argue that there wasn’t a rise in Anti-Muslim and Anti-Middle Eastern sentiment in the country following 9/11? Willful ignorance will get you no where.
    4.) You want to treat people as individuals and ignore membership in a group, ignoring the fact that that isn’t reality. Many folks enjoy privilege and endure oppression (sometimes simultaneously) as a result of their affiliation with a group. Just because you don’t want it to be true doesn’t wish it away. There are different issues that face people in different groups and there is nothing wrong with discussion that reality.
    5.) Yes, the term minority can become watered down, namely by folks like yourself who want to include plumbers for no other reason than to be difficult. And while you were attempting to be smarmy with that comment, I’m sure there are real issues that plumbers face (largely as a function of being a part of the labor/services industry). However, one’s affiliation in a group, for purposes of identifying that group’s status in society, is only relevant with regards to how that group is interacted with. If plumbers are treated the exact same way as non-plumbers, than there is no reason to make a distinction. If they are not, than the distinction should be made and examined.
    6.) Are you implying that I am somehow communist because I recognize that privilege works? Does that make it okay for me to call you a mind-fuckingly-stupid imbecile because you don’t? There is nothing communist about recognizing how race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, country of origin, class, ethnicity, etc, etc, etc, can confer unearned privilege upon some folks.

    Seriously, you are like talking to a wall sometimes. A wall that is borderline braindead.

  29. #29 |  BSK | 

    But Elemenope, don’t you realize that social dynamics are no longer an issue? I mean, we ended slavery! And 150 years later we have a black president! What more can we do??? We’re post-racial man and, if anyone is the victim, it’s the white man. Let’s talk about that! That is a social dynamic I’m sure conservatives have no issue talking about.

  30. #30 |  PW | 

    “1.) I have given evidence of American wrongs committed against Muslims, specifically citing the Iraq and Afghan wars.”

    That is evidence of US foreign policy stupidity, which is not much different from US foreign policy stupidity in non-muslim regions of the globe. But there is no evidence that the Iraq/Afghanistan wars are being intentionally perpetrated against muslims because of their religion. So I’ll ask again – what has the U.S. done that has specifically wronged muslims for being muslims, or the religion of Islam on account of it being Islam?

    “2.) Elemenope introduced the use of the term ‘minority’ to this thread, not I.”

    I don’t really care who introduced what. But I do know that you have embraced its use, and that in doing so you very much employ it through the framework of a “protected” minority as evidenced by repeated characterizations of muslims as such in deeming them “marginalized” and “wronged.”

    3) A list of unsourced and unspecific claims of an “anti-muslim backlash” from wikipedia falls far short of demonstrating your outlandish claim that there is a mass wave of “anti-muslim oppression” occurring in the wake of 9/11. And yes, I do want to go down this route seeing as you are unwilling to source your outlandish claims with anything credible, because it will likely reveal that you have nothing more than a handful of isolated incidents of individuals doing something idiotic but nothing more, and a couple dozen idiots simply does not equal the campaign of “oppression” that you claim exists.

    4) The fact that you view the world as a place of haves and have-nots and, evidently, perceive this allocation to occur heavily along racial and religious lines attests to the fact that you severely discount the individuality of human beings, leading me to conclude that…

    6) yes, you do indeed share a basic fundamental premise with communism in your way of thinking, namely that the majority of human dynamics are inherently group dynamics as defined by membership in a certain class, race, or other social construct.

    As to 5), the dilution of the meaning of the term “minority” has far more to do with its overuse by persons who are prone to crying wolf and injecting it into every conversation you enter whether it is relevant or not than anything I could ever do by simply pointing out and criticizing that overuse. And yes, you are culpable in its dilution yourself by way of your casual tendency to fling race into EVERYTHING and view the entire world through its lends, right up to and including your bizarre and completely unprovoked insinuation that it is “racist” to have anti-shoplifting at the fucking entrance to Costco after a white guy got gunned down there by a bunch of stupid trigger-happy cops.

  31. #31 |  PW | 

    129 –

    Your strawman caricatures aside, nobody has ever suggested that America is a post-racial society (though I will suggest that race-obsessed persons such as yourself, regardless of their color, are the biggest obstacle we have to ever attaining that goal). It’s silly to say “race doesn’t matter” in a society where race is so plainly politicized on a daily basis.

    But at the same time, it’s absurd to pretend that we are perpetually mired TODAY in the society of decades or even centuries past because of the racial wrongs committed then. And yes, slavery did end 150 years ago. Nobody American living today has ever been a legally owned slave. Nor have their parents. Nor even, but in the rarest exceptions of successively abnormal longevity, their grandparents.

    Put another way, it’s stupid to obsess about the specter of slavery in America today because it’s dead. It’s been dead for 150 years and therefore could not have possibly applied to you or anyone you know in any way. And it isn’t coming back from the dead. So get the fuck over it.

  32. #32 |  Elemenope | 

    For a person who frequents a site that reports sharply on the myriad ways law enforcement screws people, you have to be willfully blind to miss the racial subtext (and sometimes text) of how cops preferentially fuck black people over.

    Conservative, meet social dynamics. It really is fucking painful to discuss with a person who can only see trees and vehemently denies the existence of forests.

  33. #33 |  PW | 

    I’ve said it many times and I’ve yet to see any evidence from this site or any other that supports a trend contradicting it. More often, it is thoroughly affirmed and validated:

    Cops only care about one color – blue.

  34. #34 |  PW | 

    I should also add that it’s pretty difficult to discuss cop abuse with a person who always and predictably claims to see an imaginary tree in the middle of an empty field.

    BSK’s episode with the “racist” Costco cameras comes to mind.

  35. #35 |  BSK | 


    You’re cheating again. You asked for evidence of Muslims wronged by America and, when I give you that, you change the question and say you meant Muslims specifically and explicitly wronged by America, then hold up my failure to answer that question (because it wasn’t asked) as a failure in my argument. Don’t you see how unfair that is? Oh, no, wait. You don’t. You can’t. Because you are the one suffering from myopia. That is all I need to know that this conversation can’t go forward with you, because you are so preoccupied with “winning” it (whatever that means), that you’ve long since abandoned any attempts at actual dialogue.

    You refuse to deal in reality, instead creating a little world where you are the victim. As you stated before, almost all of REAL racism that exists today is either perpetrated by fringe groups OR is committed in favor of “protected minorities”. That alone is enough to disregard you as either A) a complete and utter moron, B) one of those fringe, extreme racists or, the most likely answer, C) both of the above.

    If I talk about privilege, I’m a commie.
    If I answer the question you ask, I’m wrong because I didn’t answer the question you didn’t ask.
    If someone else uses a term, you infer what they meant by inferring what my opinion of the word is.
    If I provide the evidence of claims you ask for, it doesn’t count. And if it DID count, it’s not REALLY evidence because anything that counters your perspective is just a series of isolated incidents that have nothing to do with the topic at hand (funny how this situation reverses itself when you bring up the actions of Saudis in a discussion about how we should treat American Muslims, but I digress).
    That last point points directly the you falling (really, walking or, more likely, sprinting) into the trap of allowing members of dominant groups to succeed as groups and fail as individuals and members of subordinate groups to succeed as individuals and fail as groups WHICH puts you right on the bath to BIGOTRY!

    So, congratulations. You’re a fucking Isalmophobic, racist bigot. Which is fine. To each his own. But coupled with your intellectual dishonesty, there is little redeeming value in discoursing with you. For what I hope to be the last time, if I am able to muster the willpower to laugh at your empty-yet-hate-filled rhetoric and wait for others to rightly put you in your place, I am done with you.

    Since you apparently are primarily interested in police abuse and accuse me of being race obsessed AND you see no way in which police abuse is impacted by race, I’m sure we’ll NEVER cross paths again, right? Oh wait… you are conspicuously absent from conversations on cop abuse and jump right into the fray when an opportunity to bash minorities arises. Guess I’m stuck with you. Oh well. At least I have a happy life to return to off the interwebs. It’s pretty evident you don’t. I pity you, really, living so sad a life that you feel the need to target others to regain the sense of superiority you likely derive from your race and gender, which has been threatened by the evil that is the pursuit of equity.


  36. #36 |  PW | 

    You’ve offered evidence of people arguably wronged by American foreign policy who happen to be muslim. You’ve offered no evidence though that the wrong against them has anything to do with the fact they are muslim.

    See the difference, BSK? Probably not, because in your race-obsessed world muslim = minority = oppressed = brown people = wronged by whitey throughout history, and anything that happens that so much as harms a single muslim in any way simply must be an intentional and racist offense against all of islam.

    If I had asked for evidence of America wronging black people, a reasonable person would understand that request as something done to black people specifically because they were black and probably cite Jim Crow or something of the sort from the past. You, on the other hand, take it to an absurd level and would cite ANY wrong that simply occurred to a person who happened to be black regardless of whether it had anything to do with them being black. Or using your exact same absurd logic, a white murderer on death row becomes evidence that the United States is wronging “white people.”

    I suppose I should have been more explicit with you, knowing the pure inanity of the very same person who thought the security cameras at Costco were “racist” institutions designed to unfairly target black shoplifters. But such is the nature of dealing with you and your tendency to engage in duplicity.

    So in the interest of clarity, let me say that in order for an act to be “oppressive” toward a group – an inherently conscious act by definition – would it not be requisite that it intentionally identify and target that group as a group to be wronged? Holding that to be the case, what evidence do you have of the United States ever wronging muslims on account of them being muslims?

  37. #37 |  BSK | 

    Cheating alert! Cheating alert!

    PW says: “Thus when BSK, who has a long history here of designating islam a “marginalized” and perpetually “wronged” group despite his failure to provide any evidence of either…”

    You asked for evidence of either Muslims being “marginalized” or “wronged”. I provided evidence of them being wronged (maybe YOU don’t consider hundreds of thousands dead “wrong”, but I sure do). You respond with, “You gave no evidence of oppression.”

    See why I think you are 1000000% disingenuous? Or are you confused again?

  38. #38 |  PW | 

    No, BSK. You’ve only shown U.S. foreign policy stupidity (in addition to your own proclivity towards duplicity). What you have NOT shown, however, is that it was directed specifically at Islam or that any of its victims were specifically targeted for being muslims.

    Afghanistan is no more a war against Islam than Vietnam was a war against Buddhism.

    So I’ll ask again: show me what the United States has ever done to “wrong” or “oppress” Islam itself. Simply repeated that we went to war against a country that happened to be predominantly muslim is not sufficient unless you can demonstrate that Islam was the reason for doing so.

  39. #39 |  BSK | 


    You fail to realize the intellectual dishonesty of your argument. I never claimed that America has oppressed Muslims, so to ask me for evidence of that is just ridiculous. I did say that Muslims have been wronged by America. You now want to use a different definition of “wronged” than I did and claim that I am failing to meet the criteria. That doesn’t fly. It’s bullshit and if you argue otherwise, you’re just lying to yourself.

    My claim was that there is evidence of Muslim people being wronged by actions taken by the US government, which includes the hundreds of thousands dead in the Iraq and Afghan wars. Unless you can dispute that happened, then I have met the burden of proof for my claim. If that claim doesn’t move you, so be it. But you can’t just twist words into different meanings.

    As to the issue of what drove the war, it is really hard to say with certainty what the true motivation was. Yea, we all know what the politicians said, but that is not always true. If you accept that, then the Civil War was fought over states rights and head nothing to do with slavery. I find it ironic that someone so skeptical of the government suddenly takes their explanations at face value. I can also play the same game you played earlier, holding up two situations (Park 51 and Orthodox Church), speaking of only ONE variable the differentiates the two, and insinuating that this variable and this variable alone is the reason for the difference in treatment. I can do the same! In the past ten years, we’ve engaged in wars against Muslim-majority countries and Muslim-majority countries only. Seeing as how we didn’t engage in a war against any NON-Muslim-majority countries, it is fair to say that the only reason we did so was because of anti-Muslim bias. See! I can play your little game, too!

  40. #40 |  BSK | 

    It’s also getting tiresome that you always divert the conversation into minutiae, attempting to create “gotcha!” moments where you attempt to catch your opponent contradicting himself, offering an unfavorable opinion, or otherwise go after the messenger instead of the message. The issue here is not statements I made days back. The issue here is… actually, I don’t even know what the issue here is, because you have so muddled the conversation with inanity as to make it unrecognizable. Congrats! You won! Happy now? You have so successfully evaded the issue and avoided the facts because there was no basis for your position as to render the conversation useless. I bet you feel big and smart now! Good for you! A+ for effort! Style wins over substance yet again! And, to think, it was the stylings of a legitimately mentally challenged person that achieved it. You should feel so proud.

  41. #41 |  PW | 

    “I never claimed that America has oppressed Muslims”

    Unless you were referring to the population of some other random unnamed country, your own record reveals this to be yet another lie.

    “There definitely is evidence of a rise in anti-Muslim oppression within the population after 9/11” – BSK


    And you wonder why I consider practically every word you say to be uttered in duplicity? And that’s no matter of “gotcha” either. It’s a matter of you stating one thing and then completely denying that you stated it just a few posts later. You either have severe troubles with your memory, BSK, or you are willfully lying and hoping that nobody notices even though past experience attests that they generally do.

  42. #42 |  Ground Zero mosque analogy - Page 2 - INGunOwners | 

    […] from Charleton Heston that really made the point about Columbine and the current situation in NYC. Jon Stewart on Protecting Our Rights After a Tragedy | The Agitator __________________ […]