Reasoned Debate from the Anti-War group

Went over to WBW, just to see what was up with the "anything but WAR" groupies. As expected, there was a lot of gnashing of teeth concerning the "most evil and bloodthirsty Warblogger Poll" currently being contested over at Bill Quick's.

While reading the comments generated by this post, I came across an entry by "Eric A. Blair" talking about how one of us "Pro-gun nuts was going to go around shooting little brown Muslims with a bushmaster" (a comment that has now disappeared. No doubt due to the insidious workings of Haloscan). The question I asked regarding this post was fairly simple: Why didn't the WBW crowd get as upset when a Muslim (John Allen Mohammed) went around killing Americans as they do at the simple thought of an American killing a "little brown" Muslim. What followed in that comments section seems to be a textbook version of what passes for reasoned debate on the left: call the other side names, and if that doesn't work, run away. You should go and read all of the comments, to be sure I am not leaving anything out or skewing the comments by selective quoting or taking things out of context.

The "annotated comments" follow:

Eric A Blair - the now missing "gun nuts killing little brown people with Bushmasters" comment.

--------------------------------------------------------
Neal:

So you comment about one of us nuts going postal and picking off brown people with a bushmaster. Were you just as upset when a black Muslim went around picking off non-Muslims (although he didn't discriminate racially) with a bushmaster?
Neal | Email | Homepage | 10.31.02 - 6:41 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From a WBW poster who doesn't leave an e-mail or website with comments section:

Hey Neal,
How in the fuck do you suppose the sniper knew what religion his victims were?
Here's an idea: he didn't! Dumbass.
wbwfan | 11.01.02 - 2:46 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My response to above:

Hey, WBWFan,

oooooooooh. Anonymous namecalling. And focusing on a small error without addressing the main point.

You are correct that many practicing Muslims don't wear any identifiable garb to distinguish their religious preferences. Therefore, other than the fact that Muslims are a huge minority in the US, there is no way that Mohammed could be 100% sure that he wasn't sniping a Muslim target. The far more important aspect of the story, however, is that it was in fact a Muslim running around murdering innocent civilians. Got anything to say about that?

The point I was trying to make is that EAB gets all wound up about the possibility of us "gun nuts" going postal and killing little brown Muslims with a Bushmaster, but the converse does not seem to be true. And somehow the EAB post that I was referring to seems to have disappeared.

What a brave little fucker you are, no e-mail, no website with comments, no nothing. Pretty typical behavior for you little numbnuts, though, so I'm not too surprised.
Neal | Email | Homepage | 11.01.02 - 5:55 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then Buck weighs in with more reasoned debate (although he never clarifies whether or not I am the actual fuckhead in question)

What about Clayton Lee Wagner, fuckhead? Should we wage war on Christianity too?

And Williams was Nation of Islam, a group that traditional Islam tries to distance itself from.

Buck | Email | Homepage | 11.01.02 - 6:26 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My response to Buck (who does at least seem to have a valid e-mail, and a blog that is a wee bit lacking in the content department)

Who you calling fuckhead? I realize that this is what passes for informed and reasoned discourse here at WBW, but a little more specificity in your random spewing would be helpful.

As far as Waggner goes, I have no use for religious fanatics of ANY kind. Should we wage war on Christianity? No, and we should not wage war on Islam either. At least not on the parts of both religions that just want to practice their faith and treat people with the courtesy and respect that they expect in return.

But the fanatical factions of any religion that kill innocent civilians in the name of their "God" must be stopped.

And when you say that "traditional" Islam tries to distance itself from the Nation of Islam - do you mean that the "traditional" Islamic fanatics that kill people by flying planes into office buildings while seeking martyrdom are repulsed by Nation of Islam fanatics that kill people by sniping seeking money? Or, are you saying that the fact the Mohammed is a Muslim should be regarded as nothing more than co-incidence, and has no significance whatsoever?

There was only 1 relevant point I was trying to make - that posters to this site whip themselves into a frenzy at the thought of innocent Muslims possibly being killed by Americans. But no such outrage is expressed when innocent Americans are killed by Muslims. I don't care if they are "traditional" or Nation of Islam - a murdering fanatic is still just a murdering fanatic.

Neal | Email | Homepage | 11.01.02 - 7:43 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Buck manages an e-mail with no "fuckhead" use

Do some research, kid. Nation of Islam isn't Islamic. I might shake your faith in the vast Muslum conspiracy theory, but it's the truth. Not too many real Muslum�s believe Allah appeared in the form of Wallace D. Fard.

Buck | Email | Homepage | 11.01.02 - 9:10 pm

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are several posts dealing with whether or not members of the Nation of Islam are really Muslim. These weren't directed formally at me, so you can read them at WBW if you want to. I certainly accept that Nation of Islam is a radical faction, but still question whether or not they consider themselves to be "Muslim". The basic premise of the arguments seems to be that even though John Allen Mohammed "converted" to Islam, he is not a "traditional" Muslim so his beliefs should have no bearing on the current question (which hasn't, you will notice, still not been directly addressed or answered). For the record, I don't think Mohammed's conversion to Islam has anything to do with his acts. I used him as the foil for this discussion purely because Blaire chose to have his mythical American kill the "poor brown people" with a bushmaster, the rifle used by Mohammed in his sniper attacks.

Back to the comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My response to the old "but he's not a REAL Muslim" ploy:

So you're saying that a guy who believes himself to be a Muslim, even of the Nation if Islam variety, isn't a Muslim because the "traditional" Muslims don't think he is Muslim enough?

Then that sort of shoots down the old "what about Waggner - don't we have to go after the Christians" argument, doesn't it? I mean, Waggner is no more a representative of mainstream Christianity than Elijah Mohammed (or John Allen Mohammed) is of Islam.

And for the record - I don't believe in a vast Muslim conspiracy. In fact, I think most Muslims just want to be left alone to practice their faith, make a living, raise a family, etc. But you have radical factions of Islam that are attacking on several fronts. What do we do, ignore them? That sure worked out well. I think the fact that John Allen Mohammed believes himself to be a Muslim is immaterial to the acts he committed. To me, his is just a money extorting murderer who may TRY and hide behind his religion now that he is caught, but I don't really think he perpetrated these acts because of ties to al-Qaeda, etc.

And again I ask the only question I really raised: why do you guys get so upset at the thought of Americans killing "little brown" Muslims, but not when the converse happens? All that really matters here is that JA Mohammed believes himself to be a Muslim, not really much else. I mean, if someone thinks they are a Muslim, and kills in the name of Islam, isn't that all that really matters?
Neal | Email | Homepage | 11.03.02 - 12:22 am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric A Blair reappears. Notice how he uses The pre-conversion Williams rather than the post conversion to ISLAM Mohammed. Even though I basically say in a previous post that JA Mohammed is a murdering psychopath rather than al-Qaeda, this is where Blair chooses to make his stand. His comment about this being "warblogger watch" rather than "serial killer watch" is particularly funny, since he is the one who broached the subject to begin with. But now that namecalling hasn't worked, we get the racism card. I do have 1 question: who is Hal Turner? Is that the Turner Diaries guy?

Let's get a few facts straight: Nation of Islam is not a "variety" of Islam. It has nothing to do with Islam. As Buck said, they don't even follow the five pillars and have about as much to do with Islam as British Israelites have to do with Judaism.

Of course I was upset about the killings, but Williams appears to be a serial killer, not Al-Qaeda. The CIA, FBI and police have stated that it does not look like he has any connections to any terrorist orgs. The investigation of his past shows that he has been kind of a nut his whole life. Even your hero Reynolds admits that Williams looks like a lone nut. This is Warblogger Watch, not Serial Killer Watch.

And for your "kills in the name of Islam" quip when there is zero proof that he was "killing for Islam" makes me wonder about you Neal. I think your racial "preferences" are beginning to show. Been tuning into the Hal Turner show too much lately?

Eric Blair | Email | Homepage | 11.03.02 - 12:56 am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a bit of WBW baiting which has nothing to do with the current theme, but was kind of funny. Primarily because of the response that follows:

Jim is right.

The whole framework of liberal democracy that you worthless parasites inhabit was built brick by bloody brick by the struggle of freedom loving people immeasurably superior, in their courage and character, to you worthless brats.

Every right you contemptuously take for granted was wrestled from the hands of priests and tyrants by people whose boots you frankly aren't fit to lick.

So please, continue sneer at your betters, unaware of what a revolting spectacle you are. They'll continue to serve and risk themselves so that you can sneer in safety, after all, they are, and always will be, better than you.

Amos | Email | Homepage | 11.03.02 - 12:28 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to above. Interestingly, accusing the opposition of catfucking seems to be a fairly common occurrence over at Warblogger Watch. Slobodan didn't need to correct Buck's misspelling of "Muslim" as "Muslum". I wonder if this makes him an illiterate, bile-gargling piece of shit as well?

So, what precisely have you done to build democracy and freedom recently, Amos? Oh, I forgot: you were busy fucking your cat.

And it's 'immeasurably', you illiterate, bile-gargling piece of shit.

slobodan cakemix | 11.03.02 - 9:15 am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My response to Blair's "I was upset that Americans were killed, but let's be sure we don't say it was by a Muslim" post above:

EAB

Do you have any reading or comprehension skills at all? The quote you refer to, while trotting out the "Neal must be a racist because he doesn't agree with me" attack is:

"I mean, if someone thinks they are a Muslim, and kills in the name of Islam, isn't that all that really matters?"

And from this you deduce I am racist. Note that this quote doesn't even relate specifically to JA Mohammed, but to the broader context of "if you think you are killing in the name of some god, then aren't you?"

Also note this bit, where I say that I don't believe JA Mohammed is al-Qaeda or anything other than a murdering psychopath looking for $$.

"And for the record - I don't believe in a vast Muslim conspiracy. In fact, I think most Muslims just want to be left alone to practice their faith, make a living, raise a family, etc. But you have radical factions of Islam that are attacking on several fronts. What do we do, ignore them? That sure worked out well. I think the fact that John Allen Mohammed believes himself to be a Muslim is immaterial to the acts he committed. To me, his is just a money extorting murderer who may TRY and hide behind his religion now that he is caught, but I don't really think he perpetrated these acts because of ties to al-Qaeda, etc."

Business as usual here at WBW - refuse to address the questions asked, and then call someone a racist or fascist or Nazi because they don't agree with you. All I wanted to know is why you don't show the same degree of angst when a Muslim kills Americans with a Bushmaster than vice versa. You guys have jumped around a lot, yelled and screamed that he's not a Muslim because he's Nation of Islam, and even tried to go back to using his "pre-conversion" name of Williams. All of that is immaterial to the core of my question. If JA Mohammed "converted to Islam" (which seems to be supported by the name change), then he would seem to consider himself a Muslim. Therefore, he would, in fact, appear to be a Muslim killing Americans with a Bushmaster.

So I guess the answer to my question must be - you're not upset about JA Mohammed killing Americans because you are able to rationalize that he's not a "real" Muslim, just a serial killer American killing Americans. I wonder what your reaction would be if a Warrior of Christ member had been sniping Muslims - quite a bit different, I guess.

Speaking of Nazis, has Mark Konrad shown up to offer his support to WBW lately?

Neal | Email | Homepage | 11.05.02 - 12:01 am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And Eric's final salvo:

I give up. You can't argue with a fanatic.

Eric Blair | Email | Homepage | 11.05.02 - 12:11 am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There you have it. I've always found it easier to actually engage in debate when both sides present actual arguments. Buck at least has something to say, it just has nothing to do with the question I asked. Rather than answer why they aren't upset that a self proclaimed Muslim killed Americans with a Bushmaster, a question asked in direct response to some inflammatory rhetoric posted by Blair, the WBW crowd instead puts all of their energy into proving that John Allen Mohammed isn't a "real" Muslim.

Posted by nukevet at November 04, 2002 01:33 PM | TrackBack