Letters to the Editor
-
Even so...
Given your history here, which would you consider more likely?
-- William Timberman
Even if he's telling the truth, who was talking about African Ex Pat French Communists? Has Glenn identified himself as such? Can I get a show of hands from any posters who fit that narrow group? RealName's trying, as always, to point out some hypocrisy in Glenn's argument, but where's the hypocrisy? Is it based on the dittohead classification of all Democrats and liberals (including Hillary Clinton - ha!) as communists? Thus, he can assume, without asking, that Glenn and the rest of us support his French Communist relatives' belief system? That's a pretty far reach, even for a troll.
Even if I'm misstating his point, the argument is still wholly irrelevant. So, French Communists are violent? What does that have to do with Michelle Malkin's intellectual dishonesty or the problems inherent in polls?
-
Apologists
The question was:
Overall, do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Al Qaeda?
The answers were:
1% very favorable
4% somewhat favorable
10% somewhat unfavorable
58% very unfavorable
27% don't know/refused
What does favorable mean? Does that mean you favor some of their goals, all of their goals, one of their goals (Like getting the US out of Iraq and the Middle East)? Or you favor a single act, statement, several statements, their eviction of the Soviets from Afghanistan, or all of their actions? I can easily see some Muslims answering in the positive because of agreement with that sentiment, which is shared by over half of Americans according to other polls. Does that make them terrorist supporters (well, at least according to rational arguments)? Does that make them likely to act on that favorable rating? I have answered polls where I was asked if I had a favorable opinion of a particular brand of gasoline. I did. Do I buy it all the time? No.
Golden Boy's particular fallacy is his repeated equation of every respondant with a favorable opinion of Al-Qaeda with a potential terrorist, and he then further expands on that fallacy into equating every non-respondant into that group. He has no logical basis for doing so. In the survey, in countries like England, which suffered from a "homegrown" Muslim terror attack, there was not only a higher base of Muslims as portion of the population, but also a higher level of favorable to al-Qaeda responses. Yet there has only been one attack in England, organized by a very small group. Does that mean that there are thousands and millions of potential Muslim terrorists in England about to blow themselves up, or that, even among those favorable to al-Qaeda, there is only a small fraction of a fraction of a percent who would take that favorable feeling and turn it into explosive action? Since we do not hear of daily bombings in England, I have to favor the latter.
Terrorism is just like any other threat. In addition to considering the potential damage, one also has to consider the chance of occurrence, and the cost/benefit of any preventative measures. Since the likelihood of homegrown Muslim terror is extremely low, why take actions (like claiming that 30% or so of all American Muslims are jihadists and clamping down on all Muslim civil liberties to greatly increase the chances of radicalizing them) that do not effectively reduce the risk.
In fraud prevention, I could stop all fraud, but then my company would have no sales. A police state could stop all crime, but at the cost of privacy, initiative, and corruption and abuse by the police (oops, sorry, so there would be crime). We have these things called rights that tell us and our government that we are free. The police can act if there is reasonable suspicion. Golden Boy's suppositions are not a reasonable suspicion. Similar ones have been made about almost every ethnic and religious group in American history, with as little proof and less evidence of validity that was exonerated over time, except for the very, very rare exceptions which never warranted any special special suppression of the entire group.
-
some parsing of "modern" terminology
I find this exercise (prompted by some golden posts) useful in maintaining one's sanity. Please contribute freely. Whenever the first work occurs, just substitute the second or third...
liberal : dangerous, someone who reads, someone willing to argue, target
GOP : corporatists, cult, TV watchers
rendition : kidnapping
interrogation : torture
violence : politics, argument
confession : torture
law : anachronism, quaint, slow, who cares
Christian : television
Islam : anti-Christian
Muslim : target
oil : money for GOP
war : eternal war, profit
eternal war : peace
peace : more war
reporting : reading the script
history : good excuse
passive : target
honest : target
poll : advertisement
media : lapdog
conservative : radical
populist : target, chicken
winning : killing
losing : leaving anyone alive
gasoline : war
God : my money
money : God
society : sewer
earth : sewer
science : tool
language : tool
plug this into an XML filter script, and you've got religion/tele-evangelicalism.
The use/abuse of language today makes one's head spin.
-
@ UsedtobeKristin
You're dead right, of course. I just thought that the red herring was less interesting -- although admittedly more relevant -- than the lie.
His lie's a little more polished than Golden Boy's thoroughly atheistic howler from yesterday, but too glib by half anyway. I hate it when they put on their tweed jackets with leather elbow patches before coming here to smash crockery, don't you? I know that they think that educated liberals have a dress code, but I've seen FBI agents at peace rallies who were less conspicuous.
-
Hume's Ghost
"Actually, the British did the bulk of bombing of German civilian areas in WWII. The American air support came later in the war and the US command was more strict about targeting military targets and avoiding civilian facilities."
--Hume's Ghost
I don't want to go on too much of a historical tangent, HG, but google American, bombing, and Dresden. Then tell me how "strict" we were about confining our German bombing to military targets.
-
Fraud Guy
Thanks for actually discussing the poll.
I have to correct one statement that you made: "Golden Boy's particular fallacy is his repeated equation of every respondant with a favorable opinion of Al-Qaeda with a potential terrorist, and he then further expands on that fallacy into equating every non-respondant into that group."
Actually, I don't say that every person who has a favorable opinion of al Qaeda (according to the poll, one out of every twenty Muslims in America, or about 115,000 Muslims) is a potential terrorist. I drew no conclusion from it at all, actually.
The non-respondents aren't stupid, in my opinion. Who would actually sign up their name and address against a statement that they favor al Qaeda (only the most 115,000 die-hard, I guess)? How can that many Muslims really never heard of al Qaeda, or have no opinion about it?
What the Pew poll reveals is what Muslims in America believe, as opposed to the relentless propaganda we are subjected to: That "extremist" views represent a hijacking (unfortunate word there) of the religion of peace by a small minority. It is demonstrable that neither the origins, doctrine, or practice of Islam is or was peaceful, and now we have some data on just how extreme the Muslim population in America really is.
The secondary point is how vigorously this conclusion is resisted by otherwise intelligent, progressive people. It is fascinating, albeit disheartening.