format_quote Originally Posted by
Zman
[i]
Because he and they were lying. Anyone with half a brain cell can tell that he was talking about Muslims and Islam.
He had said that his god was bigger than the Muslims God.
I dont think he was talking of Muslims, I think he was talking of the "enemy", and he did not say My God is bigger than a "Muslims God". He was speaking of the people he was fighting, who to him, did not appear to have a God, which obviously wouldnt be a Muslim since they worship God.
format_quote Originally Posted by
Zman
And that he was fighting Satan. The entire population of Somalia are Muslims. So they must be the satanic forces.
They must be? I dont think so, on one hand you will grip and complain "Just because of the actions of a few Muslims, it shouldnt reflect on all Muslims" then on the other you now will say that all Somalians are Muslim so they must be grouped with those that this man is talking about. Not true, this man was speaking specifically as he stated over and over again about the "enemy". What should we call them if this is too not acceptable, Islamic extremist, fundamentalist and terrorist are currently not acceptable, the general term "terrorist" has now been labeled unacceptable by many Muslims, because it gets tied with Muslims, are we now not allowed to call those who fight against us and bomb our embassies in a Muslim country the "enemy", please tell what would you like us to call the enemy.
format_quote Originally Posted by
Zman
What he said was definitely Islamophobic and racist. Any so-called statements he may have issued later attempting to absolve hismself is ludicrous.
But he did not reference Islam, the same was said by soldiers who fought against Nazis and Russians and Communists. It is you making it Islamophobic, you are putting words in the mans mouth.
format_quote Originally Posted by
Zman
Also, why are you harping about it? The entire article was included, and if I didn't include it, the link is there. I wasn't trying to hide or alter anything, since you like to fish in murky water.
If you werent "altering" why were you bolding certain sentences? I think that is altering, you made one section of the long article stand out, the average reader will pay attention to the bolded statement and perhaps skip the next few sentences, why not bold the sentence you bolded and then show that the man apologized and stated specifically he was NOT speaking of Muslims
format_quote Originally Posted by
Zman
Finally, if you are accepting his so-called deniaility, why do the Islamophobes never accept satements of deniability issued by Muslims?
Or is this another case of "do as we say, not as we do?"
Who doesnt accept them, if people didnt Muslims everywhere, in the US, Canada, Europe, etc would be declared war against. The statements are accepted, but when you have a man denying Islam had a part in something and another saying "God is Great" while cutting off another mans head in the name of Islam, it leaves people wondering how to deal with the conflict.
I guess to a bigot or racist it could certainly seem as though this man hated Islam. The thing is he never said he hated Muslims, he never said that Muslims were evil people, he spoke of the "enemy" which is a nondescript person who fought against him as he fought against them. Not everyone in Somalia fought against the US or this man, certain groups did, so what you are saying is an indication of your own paranoia and bigotry. It is caused by your "us and them" attitude, the label of Muslim and non Muslim, perhaps this man feels that the people that he was fighting were evil but that doesnt mean that they are evil because they are Muslim.