Haven't had a chance to read the full article yet, but the first couple of pages are pretty messed up. :?
FBI Teaches Agents: ‘Mainstream’ Muslims Are ‘Violent, Radical’ | Danger Room | Wired.com
Haven't had a chance to read the full article yet, but the first couple of pages are pretty messed up. :?
FBI Teaches Agents: ‘Mainstream’ Muslims Are ‘Violent, Radical’ | Danger Room | Wired.com
I take it you have never lived in a muslim majority area then. I dont see anything untrue in the article.
I found something untrue before they even finished the first paragraph. Muslim terrorists are being funded by the heroin market, not american muslim mosques.
On the whole the article is well written, especially the ways it points out how dangerous this kind of prejudiced thinking is for our country. Like they said, the FBIs playing right in Al-Qaeda's hands.
Religion is inherently absurd and so will often lead to stuff like this. There probably are passages in the Koran promoting violence, just as there are passages in the Bible. Naturally the FBI will see things through a skewed lens and not see the contradiction, ignoring the fact that they too are either 'not Christians' insofar as a Christian is somebody who takes everything in the Bible literally (which is basically everybody), or else they are just as morally warped as the caricature that they demonise.
But of course, the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, regardless of their performing some silly doublethink. I'm really quite concerned about modern the attitude towards Muslims. It's funny how virtually everybody is so quick to point out the absurdities and the evils of the propaganda and mass paranoia that allowed the holocaust to occur, yet so many of them have exactly the same attitude towards Muslims. If economic circumstances become really dire, I wouldn't be surprised at all if this suspicion became full fledged hatred, with some horrible consequences.
Mob psychology is an extremely potent force. That's why we always have to try our utmost to be totally objective, rational, sceptical, and principled.
Not at all, but I have - and have had - plenty of Muslim friends, who definitely do not fit the description. Also, what if I had? By that logic, living in a majority black neighborhood - and having problems with the more violent ones - would be justification for the FBI to demonize blacks, in general. There are countless Muslims who do not accept the Qu'ran as a literal call to arms (just like there are many who don't take the Bible's more savage passages - and there are plenty - literally). So, to spit polarizing rhetoric about how Muslims, in general, are violent and radical, based on the texts of their religion, is both inaccurate and hypocritical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
Agreed. All it does is take an already-widening chasm of misunderstanding, from one culture to another, and widen it even further. It's simultaneously festering distrust and prejudice toward Muslims and giving the potential radicals even more incentive to switch over to the 'dark side,' so to speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
[Edit]
Xei, it's been a long time, since I've agreed with one of your posts, so completely. :chuckle:
fixedQuote:
Originally Posted by Xei
yeah the Koran is on the internet, you can read it yourself
Not my cup of tea but it's definitely a very potent book. It doesn't call muslims to arms but it basically states anyone who isn't practicing the koran is practicing a corrupt and twisted version of god's word.
Overall though it reminds me of Hinduism. If you read hindu scripture, there's nothing about a caste system, there's not really anything about patriarchy either but many rural hindu wives still throw themselves on their man's funeral pyre in hopes it'll increase their chances of being reborn as a man. The caste system developed through the misuse of philosophical study for the purpose of control. This is not the core purpose of religion, this is just the point where religion and state meet. This is why separation of church and state is so key for the protection of religion, not just to stop religious laws from becoming state laws but to stop state laws from becoming religious laws (such as the whole concept of patriarchy).
Oh yes I think I've read that part- No wait it was just a quote from the bible I saw posted in the RS board.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Perhaps it's because it was released later and it learned this was a good technique, but the Koran stresses the issue a little more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scatterbrain
Christians and Muslims have a lot in common, in that both of their holy books have disgusting and violent passages in them. Though if Christians are able to ignore the "word of god" when it is convenient, I am sure Muslims can also ignore the world of god when it is convenient.
Yes but the bible was written by "holy" figures and everyone knows that, muslims must believe that the Quran is the literal word of God and will never be wrong, no matter what.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
My Muslim friends are just like my Mormon friends... absolutely nothing like mainstream society says they are... they are really nice, fun, great company, and not at all "looney" as people seem to believe. I also have a friend who is a Jehovah's Witness... but his family was never a "door-to-door" type, they simply believe what they believe and are perfectly normal (and extremely intelligent) people. He is starting medical school early.
I feel like I live in opposite world here... the people who are the most aggravating out here are the non-religious, because often they like to make a point about how much "better" they are than the rest of us. It's really quite strange, but maybe I live in Sesame Street, where everyone is welcome, regardless of religion!
The Jews didn't have groups who committed atrocities against "infidels", as far as I recall, and do peaceful Muslims also all force their women to cover up and be escorted everywhere? I'm not condoning violence against Muslims, or claiming that all Muslims are terrorists, I just think that the criticisms of their culture are justified and not untouchable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Of course. Also I think we should do something about the Christian culture that led to the crimes of Anders Breivik. And we should give credence to the criticisms of atheist culture that led to the Gulag.
There is a group of Jews who have committed atrocities against "infidels", its called Israel. Even though they are the worst terrorist country in the middle east, the US still generally supports them though. People don't blame all Jews for the radicals in Israel, and we shouldn't blame all Muslims for the radicals in a few of the bad Muslims countries.
Yes, I agree. I never implied that we shouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Sarcasm. Christians had nothing to do with Anders Brevik and atheists are not responsible for the Gulag.
It could be argued that people like Hitler and Stalin hijacked the already hyper-religious cultures they ruled over to enhance their own cultish powers over the populace. So, far from atheism being the cause of these atrocities, it seems like religiosity was the cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
As for muslims, they're fine in isolation. The "one muslim friend" isn't ever a problem. But a group of muslims is another story entirely. Islam is just as dangerous as Christianity was before the enlightenment.
Apparently the graph below was really, actually, sincerely used during recent FBI training.
FBI Islam graph
As a commentator on another site noted, this graphic could have easily come from www.theonion.com and it would have made far more sense...
Yeah that's kind of sad. I think this is a better explanation of muslim violence
Sam Richards: A radical experiment in empathy | Video on TED.com
Is that what qualifies you for being smart within sociological circles? That wasn't a 'radical experiment', that was just obvious. First TED talk I've seen with zero novel content.
good video thoQuote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Can you go there? Can you do that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Go where and do what? Go to a conference and explain why people who get bombed and pillaged might feel righteously pissed off about it? Yes, I hope that wouldn't be beyond my intellectual capacities.
And how do you feel about that?
Loved to see stupidity in the FBI. I especially don't understand that they think all muslims are middle eastern. Last time I checked, the majority of muslims are black. Indonesia and Africa is almost entirely muslim, and much larger than the middle east. And I loved that they think "Allah" is a bad word. Jesus of Nazareth spoke Aramaic, the Aramaic word for god is also Allah. Jesus addressed the lord as Allah, take that factoid and shove it up your ass Bill O'Reilly.
And as <fill in later> said, terrorists are funded by opium, American mosques fund soup kitchens and homeless shelters.
And let the backlash begin. :chuckle:
FBI’s Key Muslim Ally: Bigoted Briefings ‘Make My Job Harder’ | Danger Room | Wired.com
I expect a massive backlash. The head of the FBI should loose their job.
At a time when the Commander in Chief is saying "there is no short road to peace. Therefore we will halt the peace process trololo"..? Nah.
Err yes on the Indonesia, but my fact senses are going off at that Africa statement. Here's a mapQuote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...frica_crop.png
Let me stop you right there. Are the majority of muslims in North America black? This is a rhetorical question.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
It's hard to really target the "majority" of Muslims, because there are millions of Middle Easterners, Pacific Islanders, Africans, Indians, etc. who are Muslims. It's one of the most diverse religious groups.
South Asian, actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
But it's split pretty evenly into four quarters between black, arabic, asian and other.
In North America? I find that doubtful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
That's why they do these statistics, so we dont have to rely on your opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Well, wiki says that American muslims (still not exactly what I said) are 26% arab, 25% black. So technically I was right, there are more arab muslims than black muslims in the US at least. Canada is even more shifted towards arabs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
26% Arabic, 24% Black, 26% South Asian, 24% Other.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
The margin leans in favor of South Asian according an article I read, as well.
I never said anything about South Asian. All I said was there were more arab muslims than black muslims in North America. End of statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Good to know you weren't trying to imply some gross majority of Arab Muslims :)
Worldwide 1 out of every 5 muslims is Arab. I don't know if that's counting Egyptians or other Africans that look Arab though.
Yes and no. That's not what I meant, but it is also true. The majority of people in Africa (600 million out of 1 billion) and the majority of people in Indonesia (300 million) are muslim, they are also mostly black. Actually, only 15% of all muslims, are middle eastern.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Now as for blacks and muslims in the USA: This is the breakdown of muslims in the USA according to the census
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Americans.png
So yes, the majority of muslims in the USA are also black (South Asia is Indonesia, which is black) So south asian + african american = 59% of muslims in the USA. Did you think South asian meant Korea or Vietnam perhaps? Because I could certainly understand the confusion, but that is mainland Asia. This is a picture of a south asian man
http://www.fao.org/sd/PPdirect/rurald/img/photo1.jpg
Dude, Indo's are not black they're Asian, although some can appear very dark in appearance it's from their Arab lineage because Indo's are mixed. the Pribumi's which includes the Javanese making up over 95% of Indo's are basically multi-racial, Indo + White, Indo + Arab and Chinese since the era of colonial Batavia (Jakarta) but the pure indo's are of mongoloid origins with traceable ancestry originating in Taiwan and transmigration in Brunei Darussalam, Peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra and the Philippines. They're roots of origin do not bare traces in Africa no matter how dark they appear. Indo's comes in various shades and colors just like and African Americans and Hispanics.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
http://img1.photographersdirect.com/.../pd3038404.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_P6bgLo1z_a...Indon+kids.jpghttp://www.abc.net.au/btn/v3/yournew...ritaanak/1.jpg
Besides if this guy is black so are all ArabsQuote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
What does the the place of origin have to do with being black? Black isn't a race, its a skin colour, it has to do with how much melanin is in their skin. People of asian decent can be black to, with enough cross breeding and natural selection. Just because african american and black are synonymous in the US doesn't make it so.
So we can conclude then that... most muslim are not white.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Black is most certainly an ethnicity. It means your ancestors came from Africa sometime between its migration period and its colonial period. That is how society sets the parameters. If you were trying to say most muslims are black but not arabic then you're drawing arbitrary lines in the sand by claiming asians are black but arabs are not.
No, I'm just talking about their current location and demographic. Most people associate Islam with the middle east and arabs, but that just isn't the case.
And what do you consider aborigines? They aren't from Africa, but they aren't asian either (I know, they must have originally, but the massive amount of time they were separated have created their own traits.) Indonesians, seem to be a mix between the two. To me, aborigines, are black, which isn't the same as african.
You should never judge a book by it's cover, but since this seems to be entirely about racially profiling by the FBI, skin colour is important in this discussion.
aborigines:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...orig.600.1.jpg
aborigines are not muslims, just to clear that up, just demonstrating that some Indonesians are many many generations away from mainland asians, probably just as far as native americans are (also of asian descent,) and the Indonesians cross bread with the aborigines from Australian and it's surrounding islands.
This I can agree with completely. But I wonder, Indonesia has a global reputation for being very peaceful. Violence in Indonesia is limited to the drug cartels and gangs. Unlike the Taliban, the gangs do not mix with the mosques in Indonesia. But would this be the case if they had oil? Perhaps the Arabic Muslims would be as peaceful... nah actually they've probably been pissed since the crusades.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Arabic muslims are mostly peaceful, just ask anyone who just got back from the war. I think the reason that the terrorists had some control over the mosques is because they had a lot of money from heroine production and oil, so they ran the government too, most of the muslims hated the powers in charge. Most arab muslims are very peaceful.
You answered the question within this question.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
So let me ask you something. If you saw an Aborigine in the U.S. would you refer to that person as black knowing where they are from? Do you think they would refer to themselves as black in the U.S.?Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Also what about the artist Prince? What is he?
http://files.fluctuat.net/images/cms...7388/45740.jpg
and what about her? What is she exactly?
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q...ikxx/shot2.jpg
Of course an Aborigine in the US would be considered black, because they are black, their ancestry has nothing to do with whether or not they are black.
This is why people tend to ignore you when you debate, when you know you are wrong, you try to hijack the thread and twist it to make yourself right. You are talking about technicalities about genetics in a thread about racial profiling by the FBI. Racial profiling is based on APPEARANCE, that's it.
Really well that's funny because African Americans ancestry has everything to do with why they are called black. So logically, Aboriginal Australians would be considered Aboriginal Australians or "OTHER" and not black because when you call them black in the U.S. it gives them a false identity, one that doesn't belong to them. Blacks in the U.S. has partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa and are the direct descendants of enslaved Africans within the boundaries of the present United States. This identity doesn't belong to Aboriginal Australians and the way you classify people is just retarded. Basically you're saying an Aboriginal Australian has the exact same culture identity as an African American just because they happen to have similar skin tones.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
As far as I know no one here as ever ignored me. In fact I'm pretty much well in demand when it comes to debates especially in R/S, the proof is in the threads. Most threads I participate in become far more active vs those that I do not participate in. Now, I'm having a straight up conversation with you about the way you label people and nothing more. I asked you a question about the two photos I've submitted why haven't you answered them?Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
I think the question here is: Does black refer to your skin tone or your cultural background? Ninja says skin tone, Ne-yo says cultural background.
Yup bingo!
I feel if we identify all dark tone individuals as black then it takes away a lot of true identity from them also it just lumps people up in one category and give them identities that does not truly associate with one another, in other words they'll be mislabeled.
Here is one more Ninja. What is she?
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q113/qwikxx/She.jpg
Exactly Omnis Dei.
I'm asking Ne-yo why he think black is a culture and not a skin colour. African American is a culture, Jamaican is a culture, Aborigines are a culture, British Carribean is a culture, they are all black, but their cultures (and genealogy) are EXTREMELY different. Black applies to many many many diverse cultures and ethnicities. Saying that all blacks are one culture is making him come off extremely racist, surely you agree.
This is your original post before your edit.
Wrong. 1 out of the 3 photos has one black parent and one white parent directly linked to them. Also it's very clear in the last photo the girl is Asian how can you not see that??Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Because it is, Google "black culture" see what comes up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninja
First of all I didn't make this statement, you did. You started off by saying that Indonesians are black, This is stupid because all Indonesians do not display dark skin tones all of the time. Hence...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninja
Why would you call this girl black?
Your last sentence displays everything wrong in society. A person makes a single statement that he believes is true about African culture and he is called instinctively.........wait for it........a racist, pic relatedQuote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Google Images
I forgot, prejudging people based on skin colour is okay again.
Forget about fundamentalism, greed, authoritarianism... taking issue with prejudice is the TRUE root of all problems in society.
That would only apply if you have a prejudice issue to take an issue against in the first place.
im trying to help you out here manQuote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Thanks but I think it's pretty clear that I'm in no way racist toward anyone of dark or light skin tone. Ninja has age old beef with me for unrelated stuff that he can't seem to let go of.
Whatever the case I agree with Ne-yo, and I decided I agree with him because of this
This sounds off to me. It reduces Black to a term only usable by law-enforcement in order to find suspects, essentially. It makes it sound like I should be using a different word besides black but that's a qualifying term for a black guy. Besides, Jamaicans, British Carribean and African American all came from africa after the first migration. Their ancestors lived in africa during the period of human variation between races. Aborginals did not but they're also not black. Though a cop would disagree, but they also can't tell the difference between arabs and mexicans.Quote:
African American is a culture, Jamaican is a culture, Aborigines are a culture, British Carribean is a culture, they are all black, but their cultures (and genealogy) are EXTREMELY different.
Yea it should sound very off, especially when someone makes an ignorant statement like "Jamaican is culture and everyone who is Jamaican is black". First of all Jamaican is a nationality. There is of course a culture that presents itself among Jamaican people just like any other country but "Jamaican" in the general sense of the word is a national heritage and everyone who is Jamaican does not posses dark skin, which leaves one to wonder if this dude has ever visited Jamaica. Because if he had, then he would see that there are Chinese Jamaicans that are direct descendants of the Hakka Chinese. Also that stuff he said about Aborigines and Indonesians is just nothing but sheer facepalm. I guess he realizes how ridiculously stupid he appeared which is why he hasn't returned. Instead of admitting that he was wrong and man up to the ignorance and embrace some knew knowledge, he just would rather run. I tell ya, pride is a mother!
tbh this whole tangent seems pretty pointless and semantic. If people communicated properly I doubt anyone here would find they have any genuine discrepancies in views about race.
It's not pointless. It's only pointless to you because I'm the guy arguing with your little buddy. If it were anyone else you wouldn't have anything to say at all.
> Say that nobody has any real disagreements
> BAWWW UR SO BIASED
Grow the fuck up Ne-Yo.
Dude whoa! what? You wanna piece of me? If you feeling froggy then leap...lol.
This is an important issue, Xei. I mean... maybe not like math but its a good question to figure out where racial boundaries lie. Obviously race is not a clear classification as people exist on a grade and are all diverse in some way. But we use the term Black to encompass a whole group of culturally different people, and many with genetic difference. A light skinned black person isn't even assumed biracial or anything, they're simply called light. An aboriginal is off the main trend of Blacks from Africa, they're black in skin tone only and are genealogically a completely different race. But different blacks from Africa are more like different whites from Europe, just with a greater degree of variation. Everyone whose ancestors came from europe (generally speaking, obviously migrations happens constantly) is white. They get a little darker when you get into Southern Europe, just as Africans grow lighter in Northern Africa. Everyone from Asia is Asian except Indians, which we generally give their own race because they're so different. We also often give Somoans, Filipinos and other exceptionally unique types of people their own names.
A Jamaican, A Descendent of an American Slave, a British Carribean and an African can all look the same, sound the same and act the same once they've adapted to whatever culture they find themselves in. There's no way to tell other than cultural expression which can be misleading for the children of immigrants. And Aboriginals look completely different, they're just also very dark.
Very well put. :goodjob2: It's a shame however, that so many people are blinded by their own hate and cannot see their own faults. Xei referencing semantics doesn't play any part in this argument whatsoever. Saying that Jamaicans are all black isn't semantics that's just plain ignorant and wrong. Why defend ignorance?
So wait, you said you disagree with me, but last sentence is literally my exact point, how is that possible? You meant to say you agree with me? This thread is about how cops group people together when racially profile, not genetics or ancestral lineage. You'll get no argument from me than african descended people are very different genetically from aboriginal people, but their skin colours are both black, blacks a skin colour, its not indicative of genetics. Also, I'm quite sure cops can tell the difference between arabs and mexicans, they look pretty different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
I called my friend in Indonesia, turns out I was wrong. There is a massive variety there, in the north they look like the people that Ne-yo posted, ie asian, further south, they look like the people I posted, ie aboriginal. Seems to be split about 40/60, with the majority looking asian. okay, so 40% indonesians would be considered black, if the US south asian group has a similar ratio, people of black skin are still the majority of muslims.
And ne-yo, why did you bring up that old stuff? I got over it, why can't you? Evolution is real, spontaneous genesis happened, every biologist will tell you that, get over it. You just want to argue with me because I've made you look dumb before. Oh no, I omitted the word "mostly" when I said jamaicans are black because it's implied, I must be racist. Grow up kid.
Demographics of Jamaica: black 91.2%, mixed 6.2%, other or unknown 2.6%
I can respect that. Good man. :goodjob2:Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Dude what are you harping on? Of course Evolution is real. I don't subscribe to abiogenesis for obvious reasons. I wasn't intentionally trying to argue with you. I saw on several instances that you made inaccurate statements and I corrected you, that's it. Now I'm done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninja
Ninja my point is that the most accurate way to profile people it based on geneological heritage. So black represents jamaican black, american black, british black but does not include dark skinned people geneologically outside of that trend.
Yeah, but the point of THIS thread is about FBI (cops.) Cop's don't perform DNA tests to determine how to profile someone, they look at how dark they are. My point is that melanin is the only factor relevant to police profiling. Genealogy is irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
I understand the difference between scientific data and "observed" data, I have tons and tons of scientific education. If you want to make a thread about the difference between african and aboriginal and other very dark people, i a SCIENTIFIC sense, I'd completely agree with you, but that's a completely different set of circumstances. You are ignoring context here. I agree that they are different scientifically, but not in the context of police profiling.
But the cops should be able to pick up on other racial markers, such as facial features. They should at least be able to differentiate african-americans from others with a darker skin tone.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
That's basically what I'm trying to say. It's very misleading to use the word black to mean someone whose ancestors are not from africa post-migration. Imagine if the cops were given a red alert to find a latino, they find an arab and let him go because he didn't fit the description... cops need to learn how to be precise. The reason I say aboriginals are not black is because they look unique to that specification and different from the standard black characterization.
No, cops shouldn't racially profile at all. The 4th and 14th amendments both ban it. Not that cops don't do that, which is the point of the OP article.Quote:
Originally Posted by khh
Well, when looking for an INDIVIDUAL, they need to look at markers, but if the cop is too stupid to not be able to tell the difference between two different black people, he shouldn't not be a cop. If a cop is going to arrest someone, they better be sure they are arresting the right person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
OMG, it's Jackie Chan!
http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile...3887_640_n.jpg
I'm not following you. I'm talking about a situation where a suspect description comes over radio and because the cop issuing the description is following some reductionist racial profiling, he ends up describing the wrong ethnicity and the suspect escapes.
Oh... why are you talking about that? This thread is about grouping people together without any reason other than they look similar and assuming certain groups of people are dangerous. Read the title of the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
I was responding to your posts which were off-topic of the thread. You made a claim about how people should be profiled, I refuted it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
No, I made a claim about how people ARE profile. No one SHOULD be profiled, it's illegal.
Okay so next time a man robs a bank the cops should just pull everyone in from the whole neighborhood rather than narrow their search down to people that actually match the description. Genius.
That is not profiling, that's matching a description to someone who has already committed a crime. They don't describe them as black, colour will be part of the description, but there is also height, approximate weight, identifying marks. Profiling is saying all mainstream muslims are violent radicals, then treating them all as such.
I was never talking about that kind of profiling. It's not even relevant to the argument we were having. You were saying all dark people are black. I'm saying that's not true and if the cops used that as a means to catch people they'd fuck up a lot more than they already do.
No, of course not. (Though I do not agree with the reasons you listed :cheeky:). But that was hardly my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578