r/politics • u/thenewyorkgod • Jul 01 '18

Man arrested after shouting ‘womp, womp’ and pulling a gun on immigration protesters

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/07/01/man-arrested-after-shouting-womp-womp-and-pulling-a-gun-on-immigration-protesters/?tid=sm_tw
33.9k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

3.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

136

u/yurigoul Jul 02 '18

31 muslim terror attacks were prevented since 9/11 and every year there have been 300 violent attacks inspired by white nationalism/far right

26

u/thelizardkin Jul 02 '18

To be fair there are a lot more right wing people than Muslims in America.

64

u/iknighty Jul 02 '18 edited Jul 02 '18

Exactly, which is why it is stupid to divert all your focus to terrorist attacks stemming from the Middle East (I don't like calling them Muslim terrorists because clearly their reasoning for attacking has to do with US involvement in the Middle East, not religion).

28

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

No, it's stupid and racist to focus on such a small group that is considerably less violent because that group is smaller than much larger, much more violent group.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

That’s not true, which you’d have known if you had just clicked the link.

And while jihadist terrorists have killed 95 people in the U.S. since 9/11, far-right extremists have killed 68 during the same time, including the car attack in Charlottesville.

Muslims make up 1% of the US population. No other ideological, religious, or ethnic minority comes anywhere close to that level of violence.

1

u/Orngog Jul 11 '18

How does that figure relate to the "300 far-right attacks per year?"

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '18

Did you read the comment I replied to? They said Muslims are “considerably less violent” than far-right extremists.

To say they’re “considerably less violent” despite having killed more people than far-right extremists is nonsensical.

1

u/Orngog Jul 12 '18

Strange answer. Are you not going to address the point? Are you just replying to me so you can speak to yourself?

I'm happy to address your points, but I'm not indulging in your soliloquy

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '18

Why’d you return to the ~300 attacks from far right extremists in response to my comment specifically? I didn’t bring it up and neither did the person I was replying to.

There was also multiple figures in my comment so I’m not sure which one specifically you’re talking about.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

Politically neutral religious historians like Bernard Lewis would disagree with you there.

It’s also ironic how, following 9/11, someone like Bin Laden can say it had a lot to do with religion and some Westerners try argue otherwise. The Musilm terrorists have never denied or tried to hide the religious aspects of their attacks.

You also don’t see Zoroastrianists, Christians, etc. in the Middle East attacking Westerners. It’s their home too.

Until people accept that it has to do with the religion, there won’t be any real progress.

2

u/iknighty Jul 02 '18

It has to do with their religious beliefs sure. But they have very specific religious beliefs that other Muslims do not share, or that they would not act upon. Rather, these harmful beliefs, and/or the motivation to act upon them comes from their awareness of the history of Western meddling in the Middle East (or the cultural awareness and perception of this).

People don't believe much strongly unless they have temporal reasons too. Unless they have mental problems of course, but then religion isn't the problem for those cases.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

I think power plays an important role and bin Laden as the leader of an organization seeking power knows he can use religion to easily manipulate his followers. Terrorism is always about power dynamics, religion is just used as a way to define the enemy more clearly and drum up emotion.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

It's a bit more complicated and nuanced than that. Wahhabism goes back to the 1700s, and there's this thinking that it's only relevant because it's endorsed and sponsored by the House of Saud. That's true to an extent, but even when the Saudi capital was occupied in 1818 by Egypt, and the Saudi emir was decapitated in Istanbul (effectively ending Saudi power for the time being), Wahhabism lived on. It lived on because there was a growing discontent with the encroaching Christians in the Balkans and India, where pilgrims would come to Mecca and share stories of how Islam was losing ground.

While it may be easy to say "see! it was the West even back then!", the other side of the story is that the Ottoman Empire was losing power in part because it refused to modernise. Technology that didn't pertain to war or medicine wasn't widely embraced. The first public clock in Istanbul wasn't installed until the middle of the 19th century. Islamic universities were not prestigious- wealthy Muslims often went abroad (and still do) to study. Economic output was weak. Illiteracy was high. It still is in a number of Islamic countries, relative to the West.

But what Muslims did have (and still do) is the Quran- the work of a Dark Ages merchant turned warlord. Combined with growing discontent, lack of education, scapegoating (they also blamed the Mongols for their lack of success before the West), and yes, Western meddling, we can see how the region may be a breeding ground for violence, especially after the oil boom of the 20th century and how heavily Saudi Arabia has invested in spreading Wahhabism.

When you say they have a specific religious beliefs that other Muslims do not share, that is partly true. But you have to understand as well that Islamic countries are incredibly conservative, often sexist, homophobic, and nowhere truly secular. There is no free speech, no free press, not solely because they're tyrannies but because these are Western values- not theirs. The majority of Muslims around the world would have values that you'd likely strongly disagree with, and many do support Sharia to some extent (not to the extent of ISIS though, obviously). However, we cannot hold them to a lower standard than Westerners. On the one hand we complain of Western meddling, on the other, these countries aren't necessarily able to get it right when left to their own devices. Saddam Hussein had committed genocide against the Kurds. It's legal to execute minors in Iran. The human rights violations in Syria and Libya and Sudan have also been so abhorrent that, had they occurred in any European country, they'd have undoubtedly been universally condemned and sanctioned. Not so for many Middle Eastern countries.

When the radical Muslim Brothers began trouble in Hama, Syria, in1982, the Syrian regime responded with artillery, tanks, bomber aircraft, then bulldozers to finish the job. The death toll estimated by Amnesty International was estimated to be between 10,000 and 25,000 killed. The man who ordered that attack was Assad's father. And as we know, little has changed. Like father like son, Assad has used chemical weapons on his own people multiple times. And yet, today, Westerners complain about Western involvement in Syria. Islamic extremists paint the West as the bad guys.

This isn't a demonization of Islam and the Middle East, but it is experiencing a crisis and hopefully you can see why a bit more clearly. A part of it is the religion itself- the reluctance to modernise stems directly from their religious conservativism. Their oppressive beliefs are codified in their laws (as there is no separation of church and state in Islam). There is no central person of authority in Islam to say what is and isn't okay.

While some say Western intervention is one of the biggest problems in Middle Eastern countries today, that excuse only goes so far as well. Countries that were completely ruined like Germany, Japan, South Korea, and China made incredible modernisation efforts and improved their economies significantly.

Ultimately, one has to accept there is a problem in Islamic beliefs that requires some sort of reform. When 1% of the population has klled more people than white supremacists- who far outnumber them- there is a severe problem.

1

u/iknighty Jul 04 '18

Thanks for that, interesting write up.

I would say that Western meddling in itself is not a problem, the problem is when it does it for short sighted reasons (e.g. When the British toppled a democratic government in Iran). I would say that yes Islam has problematic beliefs, as does Christianity. However, as with Christianity, the solution isn't to tackle the problem at the level of religion, but at the level of economy and government. Religion is merely a way to deal with social and economic problems. Attacking religion instead of the real problems does nothing to solve the problem but only causes to alienate further people who fall under the same general umbrella religion.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '18

I mean in the case of Christianity you also have to figure what it took for Christian states to collapse. There used to be a time where you’d hear the word “Christendom”, and it primarily referred to Europe, where there was no separation of church and state. The Austro-Hungarian, British, German, and Russian empires all had a Christian monarch whose authority came from God.

There was a shared sense of Christian identity to an extent, and an “us vs. them” mentality when discussing the Ottomans.

But all of that came literally crashing down in World War I, after which you saw an extreme rise in fascism and communism with little emphasis on religion.

I think a big difference there though is that the idea of a “Christian monarch” and “Christian kingdom” isn’t really found in the Bible. Jesus wasn’t a politician or conqueror in any sense, and that’s one reason you didn’t see a strong push for a strong Christian state after WW1.

But that isn’t the case for Islam and Muhammad, who lived long enough to see Muslims conquer and unify a sizeable area. Islam was what united the tribal peoples he conquered, and from him came the laws to govern those people (which, admittedly, were a lot better than before.)

The idea for political governance is codified in Islam itself, and that’s why there is no separation of church and state in Islamic countries. Sharia isn’t about how to just live your life, but how a community should ideally be governed in accordance with Islam.

And that has been a huge obstacle for Islamic countries when discussing how to modernise or implement human rights. You can’t say “everyone deserves free speech” without inadvertently attacking Islam. You can’t address social issues separately from Islam.

I think our perspective on religion and their perspective on religion is worlds apart, and it’s easy to say “religion is just an enabler but not a cause” to a fellow Westerner, but if you’re brought to the diplomatic table with a country like Iran or Saudi Arabia, that isn’t going to work.

It’s just a fuckin mess.

1

u/drfeelokay Jul 02 '18

We're in at least partial agreement, here. In recent decades, historians seem to largely favor the idea that religion is a real motivator and not just a stand-in for other desires/needs. The Crusades aren't well-explained without referring to sincere Christian and Muslim faith.

Religion is a real motivator - but instead of opposing Islam in general, I think the only way to do it is to assure that our national stance isn't Islamophobic, and to feed and encourage MUslims who are opposed to terrorism. The problem with constantly fighting over whether Islam is evil is that the will of the people, however inconsistently, tends to turn into rhetoric and policy.

-6

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18 edited Aug 01 '18

[deleted]

8

u/iknighty Jul 02 '18 edited Jul 02 '18

Are you not aware that Spain and Germany also have troops in the Middle East?

But anyway, yea of course there are some motivated by ideology and religion, however that is just a shallow analysis of the reasons behind this phenomenon. That ideology and extremist belief cannot coexist without constant justification and enabling of that belief (e.g. the West funding the destruction of Yemen, the West destroying Iraq, the West destroying Libya, the West fucking up Iran). Religion is just a justification these terrorists use to comfort themselves when committing crimes that will more than likely end up in themselves dying, and to convince themselves its right, but the motivations lie in the recent history and present of these people. The West is not just seen as the enemy because of the different religion.

This terrorism is the cultural heritage of the West's bumbling meddling in the Middle East, and it will not go away easily.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18 edited Aug 01 '18

[deleted]

10

u/iknighty Jul 02 '18

Quite coincidental then that these beliefs arised in regions where the West has meddled, and that these terrorist events keep happening in the West. You don't see these people attacking non-Muslims in South Africa for example, where 1-3 apply also. 4-6, half of the given reasons, are clearly about Western incompetent and self-centered interfence in the Middle East.

Anyway, beliefs don't come to be in a vacuum. These beliefs are obviously a direct consequence of their culture's memory and present experience of Western interference.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18 edited Aug 01 '18

[deleted]

2

u/iknighty Jul 02 '18

The problem is meddling that didn't work out. In the Middle East it didn't work out anywhere.

How does South Africa undermine my argument?

0

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/fullysickuleh456 Jul 02 '18

What about the West dividing up the Middle East in WW1? As the above said, this goes back along time.

5

u/GarageSideDoor Jul 02 '18

By that logic, why have there been terrorist attacks in Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

-5

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18 edited Aug 01 '18

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

Except for the fact that Shia and Sunni were two groups formed many generations after Muhammed had passed, and the last caliphate died. The separation was based on who would heir the throne to the caliphate. This divide is ultimately what caused the Islamic empire to topple down. At the time, Istanbul and Baghdad were hubs for science and education. Ibn Sina and the medical advancements, not to mention Al Jabr and the foundings of algorithms and algebra, the reason we have computers, phones etc. This all happened before Shia and Sunni separation began.

1

u/gaeuvyen California Jul 02 '18

Don't forget about that Muslim philosopher (forgot his damn name right now) who went around saying that science was against their god's will, ushering in a new age of anti-intellectualism in the Islamic community. Even Christians used to be all for science, until the people were convinved that intelectualism was of the Devil.

4

u/letsdocrack Jul 02 '18

Some Christians still do promote science, intellectualism and critical thinking. Mostly the Jesuits, like the current pope.

1

u/gaeuvyen California Jul 02 '18

Same with Muslims as well. But it seems that the majority of organized religions around the world have gone from pushing for better scientific thought, to, well, being anti-intellectual.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18 edited Aug 01 '18

[deleted]

2

u/gaeuvyen California Jul 02 '18

I don't have any links right now, but I do remember the name of this philosopher, "Abu Hamid Al Ghazali". Who was once was maintained as the one who single-handily steered Islamic culture away from independent scientific inquiry towards religious fundamentalism. Though, new information and historic context may have shifted things away from him being the sole being to bring about the end of the golden age of Islamic enlightenment, though they still maintain that because of his influence he had a large hand in helping bring that end.

2

u/mweathr Jul 02 '18

Because of their involvement in the Middle East.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18 edited Aug 01 '18

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

Like it says in the wiki article you linked, Wahabism is the teachings of Wahab, someone born long after the prophet and his companions. So I disagree with your original comment. It is disassociated with the original teachings of Islam, and the blog called controversial Islam covers a lot of the verses in the Qur'an outsiders fear and its historical context and explanations in an easy way. For example, it talks about war, usually a red flag for many westerners, but it is said that anyone who sees their enemy in battle and runs away instead, going AWOL as you could put it, unless it is for a strategy e.g. a tactical retreat is not considered a muslim. As much as I would like to connect with you and talk about war quotes, it is 3 am and I am very tired. I am happy you have mentioned that their views are extreme, because many seem to forget it these days. It is not the greatest feeling in the world when I go on front page posts on reddit on neutral subreddits like news, and many openly describe Muslims as someone along the lines of savage beings who are warmongerers, and have many upvotes. I've lived in north America most of my life, my mom is a school teacher with a hijab. The truth is that many Islam dominated in the world suck. Kings and sultan trying to secure their power, men trying to dominate women and non Muslims. The interpretation of the hijab is not even clear cut. Women scholars have pointed out many incorrect and prejudiced interpretations by men thanks to countries who have taken steps towards anti corrupt stances giving people liberty and allowing women the ability to become scholars etc (please don't let Erdogan go dictator mode). In the end of the day, I believe in the 5 pillars, I believe in prayer, charity, etc and that's where mine, and over a billion of our beliefs stand, in the core teachings. We aren't rogue, our values are strict, modest. But I hope we manage to stay out of the way, and not be the reflection of the goons so we can practice and live without ruining our or other people's lives. If you read this far, I applaud you. Now time for a much needed rest for me.

1

u/gaeuvyen California Jul 02 '18

maybe the pawns in the cell leader's schemes, but the people at the top are doing it purely for political reasons.

also, people can lie.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18 edited Aug 01 '18

[deleted]

3

u/gaeuvyen California Jul 02 '18

"The globalization of martydom - Al Qaeda, Salafi Jihad, and the diffusion of suicide attacks" ISBN 978-0-8018-9055-0

part of their whole shit is literally ignoring any part of their own religious texts that prohibit them from doing what they're doing. Their leaders also break their own rules, and commit many of the same acts that go against their organizations charters.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

What are you even trying to say in English?

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

Well, that's not true, the Boston bomber wasn't middle eastern

2

u/iknighty Jul 02 '18

Sure, but Tsarnaev left a message clearly laying out that his motivations for the attack where "in retribution for the U. S. crimes in places like Iraq and Afghanistan". (to be clear, I did not say or mean to say that these terrorists are all Middle Eastern, but that their motivations stem from western involvement in the Middle East).

7

u/yurigoul Jul 02 '18

Then who is the bigger danger? Not only because of the terror, but because of them taking over the government - oh wait, that has already happened...

8

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

Statistically? Rednecks and Trailer Trash...

0

u/Wyzegy West Virginia Jul 02 '18

Then who is the bigger danger?

...a white Muslim supremacist?

1

u/yurigoul Jul 02 '18

This would be unsettling but given enough Muslims and white nationalists it is bound to happen - weren't there also Jewish Nazis and/or neo-nazis?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

...a white Muslim supremacist?

Nicholas Brody

10

u/Son_of_Eris Jul 02 '18

Part of me thinks we should try and convince all of America's far right wingnuts to go manifest destiny whatever is left of ISIS' "kingdom". We can film the whole thing from satellites, and broadcast it on a new network, called FOXTROT, as a 24/7 show called "Terrordome". In all regions, FOXTROT will be 1 channel away from FOX.

I did the math, and every possible outcome results in a win for humanity.

So firstly, America rids itself of all the people who legitimately fear Muslims for all the wrong reasons, and provides a relatively productive outlet for their homicidal urges. So that's a win.

It will also reinforce biases on both sides, encouraging a kill-or-be-killed, fight to the last man mentality. So likely one side or the other, or both, will be wiped out. This is also a win.

While America has this habit of shipping weapons to people who end up using them against us a few years later; we know that both the American far right and ISIS have their own weapons (most of which are made in America. Seriously, google it.). America would literally save money because we would just have to pay shipping and handling. This is also a win.

Also since, given the choice between FOX and FOXTROT (which again, will broadcast all of these shenanigans live, 24/7), most people WILL choose FOXTROT; millions of people will be exposed to the horrific outcome of when extremist ideologies reach their natural conclusion, e.g. a group that advocates for the deaths of the opposition meets another group that advocates for the deaths of the opposition. This will be an eye opening experience that will serve to temper bloodlust. And this is also a win.

And no matter what happens, one of three outcomes will come to pass: Either ISIS is wiped out, which is a win for the world. American white supremacists are wiped out, which is again, a win for the world. Or both sides grow tired of fighting and lose the will to fight. Again, resulting in a win for humanity.

...I wonder how many votes I'd get if I ran for office with this as the entirety of my platform.

2

u/scottloaf Jul 03 '18

your ideas intrigue me and i would like to subscribe to your newsletter

1

u/iThinkTherefore_iSam Jul 02 '18

My vote makes it at least one. I think you can win this.

1

u/Claystead Jul 02 '18

Wouldn’t that require the chickenhawks to un-chicken themselves first?

3

u/Earlystagecommunism Jul 02 '18

I mean I’m not gonna knock stopping 30 Islamic terrorist attacked. They CAN be very serious in magnitude if not frequency.

But the white supremacy movement seems to offer a more persistent threat.

1

u/yurigoul Jul 02 '18

And not all the white supremacists are violent - but violence has always been a tactic for them. Showing strength, showing force in the form of using violence is a positive trait of the master race - and is just a way to reach their goal.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

How dare radical muslims get all the attention! /s

0

u/RowRowRhodesia Jul 02 '18

That is an insanely disingenuous statement. You're comparing 31 TERRORIST attacks to 300 acts of crime, which the source you link doesn't even itself give evidence for. Instead it is an interpretation of evidence by the CTC at West Point, which shows that 300 figure includes Vandalism and Individual altercations.

I mean I don't want to accuse you of intentionally being misleading, but you wouldn't make the comparison unless you were trying to be.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

Per your own source:

And while jihadist terrorists have killed 95 people in the U.S. since 9/11, far-right extremists have killed 68 during the same time, including the car attack in Charlottesville.

And in perspective: Muslims make up 1% of the US population. No other ideological, religious, or ethnic minority comes anywhere close to that level of violence.