Tree said:I noticed that a major error you made wasn't addressed. There's actually no significant rise in KKK membership. Membership will fluctuate, but the trend is clear. It's going down in the long term.
As usual, I didn't at any point claim that there is a 'significant rise in KKK membership' in terms of its entire history.
However, as the source I cited showed, there has been a recent rise in KKK membership, and you asserting otherwise does not change that.
Tree said:Have you considered that the backfire effect might apply to you too?
Of course I have. In reality, I am a very cautious person when it comes to making statements about reality - it comes from scientific training.
It's also why the majority of my interest with you has always been about how high your confidence bar is yet how infrequently you provide anything other than assertions.
When I say 'of course', I mean regarding cognitive bias, though. It can't be the backfire effect because you're not actually presenting any evidence to contradict my position. Also, in terms of discursive positions, mine is the null hypothesis - you are claiming there is a a link between 2 quantities, and I am rejecting that contention due to a lack of evidence and a monstrously poor rationale for the claim.
Tree said:Researchers also asked about how Muslim leaders approach their religion. The majority — 56 percent — said they believe in a flexible interpretation of the Quran and the Sunnah (the way the Islamic prophet Muhammad practiced the religion) that isn’t always literal and takes into account modern life.
This information is not coming from a reliable source as these surveys were released by:
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Islamic Society of North America
Islamic Circle of America
Because you decree so.
Of course, in reality they are a dramatically more reliable source than you. But hey. it's the backfire effect.
For them to be unreliable in this context, they'd have to be manipulating the data towards a desired end. Ergo, for your knee-jerk denial to have any logic, they'd need to intentionally be pretending that 56 percent of Muslim imams in the US believe in a flexible interpretation of the Quran in order to deceive us into thinking they are more progressive. Aside from this obviously requiring them to be motivated by this (a fact you couldn't hope to establish) it would also raise questions as to why they didn't fudge the numbers more and get rid of the large minority of conservative imams.
Of course, you won't feel the slightest need to address reality here as you will just make up a response regardless of it possessing any sense of logic, reason, or evidence.
Tree said:These are organizations with a vested interest in spreading Islamic apologist propaganda.
That Islamic propaganda being that there is a small majority of progressive Muslim imams? Are you listening to yourself?
Tree said:CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism funding case.
Which even if it were wholly correct would still amount to nothing more than well-poisoning on your part, a transparent attempt to protect your cognitive bias. Even were some elements of CAIR to be involved in funding terrorism (rather than supporting Hamas), this wouldn't then produce a link to why they would manipulate data to make a slight majority of imams in the US appear to be progressives. The logical gap here is a chasm.
This is very clear cognitive bias.
Tree said:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/30/fbi-cuts-ties-cair-following-terror-financing-trial.html
CAIR's founders Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad were previously involved with the Islamic Association of Palestine, a group exposed for being a Hamas front and lead by Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook, a senior Hamas member.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihad_Awad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Association_of_Palestine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mousa_Mohammed_Abu_Marzook
A Muslim Brotherhood member Mohamed Akram Adlouni claimed about both the IAP and ISNA organizations that they are "our organizations and the organizations of our friends".
https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/20-an-explanatory-memorandum-on-the-general.pdf
ISNA has given a platform to apologists like Linda Sarsour, a radical Muslim masquerading as a social justice activist, who mocked Ayaan Hirsi Ali's genital mutilation.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/12852/muslim-womens-march-organizer-attacks-female-hank-berrien
Lolzers at citing Fox after claiming that another source is unreliable.
And it appears you haven't even read the rest of your citations.
For example:
"I am in support of the Hamas movement more than the PLO... there are some [Hamas] radicals, we are not interested in those people.”[3][4] The statement was made before Hamas carried out its first suicide bombing and was designated a terrorist organization by the United States government.
But nevermind, sloppy well-poisoning is very much part of your typical response to any form of contradictory evidence, and I am sure others here can see the complete lack of connection between this and the point I made.
Tree said:The only question I guess that's left is what it would actually take for you to acknowledge an error on your part... any error, really, but one as egregious as your claim to know the minds of the actually not monolithic 1.7 billion people you pretend you can speak for.
I don't know their minds and my life is too short to discern that, all the information I have to go on is their public allegiance, what system of values they claim to hold, and sadly that doesn't make me trust them.
You literally just claimed to know their minds.
No one cares whether you trust 'them', so please stop employing egotistical red herrings. What I am clearly talking about is how you have, repeatedly, claimed to know that they are all motivated by the same single purpose which also happens to include a desire to violently subjugate non-Muslims.
I KNOW you don't know their minds. That's exactly my point.
Tree said:Now, assuming there's a genuine suspicion of seditious or terrorist activity in any given mosque, then such a sting operation might well be legally justified (having, of course, passed the requisite court procedure)
That's an interest case of special pleading.
No, it's really not. It's actually how the world works.
Tree said:If detectives were to find a written bank heist plan, they could pretty much charge you with conspiracy even if you never set foot in that bank since attempted robbery is also a crime even if unsuccessful. And you're telling me violent religious texts calling for sedition against non-Muslim governments don't even justify an investigation? Only if you're a PC activist judge. No wonder we can't rein in Islamic terrorism.
No, because in reality only deranged rabid fools like yourself think that the content of scripture makes adherents of that religion criminal, even while repeatedly failing to apply the same standards to other religions.
Of course, sane people know that it is actions which are potentially criminal, not the content of a book they have read.
Tree said:A warrant would not be needed anyway because there's no expectation of privacy in most mosques.
Yes, you are asserting counterfactual bullshit as reality.
Tree said:The door is left open for the public to enter and that includes on duty cops. It's true for most restaurants, hotel lobbies (not hotel rooms), malls and such. Permission to enter is implicit. They don't need a warrant to obtain information that is visible in plain view either.
Again, while I can understand your need to revise your nonsensical bullshit, we're not talking about a single mosque, but rather your notion about putting covert operatives into all mosques.
Tree said:https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-warrant-basics-29742.html
Your source offers no support for your claim, which is why you didn't cite any excerpt from your source.
Tree said:While I can understand you wanting to evade addressing the question, it obviously doesn't support the claim you made. You need to actually show that 9/11 was motivated by religion for it to be considered so.
You want an answer to the question "In what way was 9/11 a religiously motivated attack?" I already explained it to you.
You routinely fail to grasp this elementary notion. I have talked about it with you since you first arrived.
Your ability to syntactically order words into grammatically correct sentences does not lend that resulting sentence any validity whatsoever. For it to be a valid description of the world, you need to provide evidence. You haven't and you are not a legitimate authority whose word can be trusted as fact.
Tree said:Literally every single grievance, including the political ones are rooted in Islamic law. You say "I think it was political." Political and religious are not exclusive when it comes to Islam, so arguing a political motive somehow disproves the religious is nonsense.
Clearly, that's not the case. Clearly, every single grievance was political. And of course, as I answered the last time you tried this obfuscation, of course religion and politics aren't exclusive because they're both held by people who are always both.... however, that lazy attempt doesn't furnish a jot of evidence to support your contention. An action can be motivated by a, or by b, or by both, or by neither. You want to claim that 9/11 was religiously motivated, but you can't show it - only assert it even in the face of contradictory evidence. When shown that evidence, you immediately pull out conspiracy theory claptrap about how the international media is misleading me, thereby also inherently claiming that your assertions in the absence of evidence are a more valid source than, well, reality.
Of course, I am under no obligation to take your insistence as an indication of validity. Quite the contrary.
Tree said:That said, you have to be naive to take everything he says at face value. You think he was a terrorist but not a liar? War is deception to these people.
So I have to be naive to take what he says about his motivations at face value, but I am obliged to take what you say are his motivations at face value?
As I said - you have tried the exact same bullshit with me dozens of times. You keep confidently insisting that you know my motivations and positions better than I do, that I am lying because your rendition of my positions is more accurate than my own.
Given this first hand knowledge of how utterly delusional your confidence is, why am I now supposed to believe you got it right this time?
You've made your bed in this regard too many times. I will not accept as valid any assertion you make if you can't support it with real world evidence.
Tree said:And Al Qaeda operates in countries that aren't the US and never attacked Muslim countries.
Whereas, in reality al-Qaeda's prominence occurred through them attacking Shias in many Muslim nations.
Tree said:They can come up with any excuse they want to paint their cause as defensive, but it's more about offensive warfare.
Because Tree asserts it.
Tree said:They don't get along with any non-Muslims, not just Americans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#Activities
Yes, I know which is not much of a sequitur on your part, especially as you've just claimed they never attacked Muslim countries.