Replies

The grouping of people in "communities" that excludes others is certainly odious when it is imposed on an unwilling group of people (Jim Crow laws in the South come to mind); but the islamic community in Jersey City (and face it, elsewhere in America) have self-imposed this isolation from the American public at large. That in itself is no crime; but it is not in the best interests of muslims or non-muslims and America in general, which has always benefited from assimilation, not isolation of its many ethnic and religious groups. There are some groups in America who choose to live their lives separate from mainstream America and this is their right, as long as they are peaceful and break no laws. The Bruderhoff, in my own community are a good example. But there have been way too many instances of islamic isolationism being used to plot, plan and cover up crimes (the WTC 93 bombing, 9/11)

When the news broke that two non-muslim men had been arrested in this case; the reported response in the islamic community in JC was (I paraphrase, its late and we all know the story without the links) "they were Americans, not muslims!" Who was doing the grouping in that instance, Gondring?

I am not claiming that I don't group islamics; part of the reason I do is that I hear so few speak up as individuals, except when trashing the US, its policies, or complaining about how muslims are depicted in some silly tv show, (too bad they aren't out there denouncing islamic terror attacks and letting non-muslim Americans know exactly where they stand on terror; with no "buts" "howevers" or up to date body counts on Iraqi civilians.)

The relatives of the Armanious victims have nothing to apologize for even if it is proven that these two lowbrows acted alone.

There were just too many factors in this case that led the family and others to believe that it was an islamic hate crime. The internet threats, the strong beliefs of Mr. Armanious, his open proselitizing on the islamic web site, his debates over the validity of islam itself.

Those on this thread who seek to brand us as bigots for suspecting an islamic tie-in are being disingenous by not acknowledging these factors lead to a strong case for that tie-in.

I find the gloating about the possible unexpected turn in the case disturbng. Four innocent people, two of them children, are still dead; and the fear and terror of their last hours still haunts me no matter who did the deed.

If I am wrong, and no muslim had anything to do with this, including hiring the blockheads, I will of course admit I was wrong about who did it.

But I will not apologize, because there was enough evidence, brought on by behavior on the internet and elsewhere, to believe this was an islamic hate c.rime.

" ...which has always benefited from assimilation, not isolation of its many ethnic and religious groups."

If they are truly assimilated, then they are not groups anymore.

"Who was doing the grouping in that instance, Gondring? "

One could surmise that it was those that forced them into the group by attacking them as a group, and the media, who decided which group leaders to take statements from.

"I find the gloating about the possible unexpected turn in the case disturbng."

I didn't notice gloating, simply some vindication that NOT jumping to conclusions was the correct course in this case.

"Those on this thread who seek to brand us as bigots for suspecting an islamic tie-in ...."

The label seems to fit those who did not merely suspect, but vocally accused, and others who did not care, but simply used the threads to repost attack messages.

"But I will not apologize, because there was enough evidence, brought on by behavior on the internet and elsewhere, to believe this was an islamic hate crime."

There was NO evidence, simply unsupported, and in many cases anonymous, statements by those who had an obvious bias in the case.
In many threads it appeared that a lynch-mob mentality had taken over, using terrorist style posters and slogans to excite the masses while abandoning reason.

[...] (I paraphrase, its late and we all know the story without the links) "they were Americans, not muslims!" Who was doing the grouping in that instance, Gondring?

Note that they didn't say "They were Catholics, not Muslims." I'm not a linguist, so I can't give you the proper terminology, but I do know enough about language to know that definitions can have exclusive and inclusive meanings. It seems to me that the statement is worded (and I know you paraphrased it, so I am just going by that) such that the criminals are placed into another grouping--but that doesn't mean the grouping excludes Muslims. That is, if some Euroweenie started shooting his mouth off about "Stupid Yankees" when describing some non-Northern folks from this country....I know many folks who might reply, "they weren't Yankees--they were Americans." Does that mean that Northerners are not Americans? No. It means that the grouping previously provided was false--and is replaced by one that is true.

How often was Mr. Armanious described as an 'Egyptian Christian'? Is there outcry at that? If this is not self-imposed isolationism, where are the people speaking up? Personally, I think that the finger-pointing at non-violent Muslims, and the further fracturing of our country by these groupings, are badly damaging. If Muslims were purely self-isolationists, they'd stand out like the other groups not assimilating, but when they are segregated by others, it's hard to pin it on them.

[...]I hear so few speak up as individuals[...]

How many cases will have to pop up where we hear people "crying 'Muslim'" before we hear anti-Muslim individuals speaking out against such knee-jerking?

I find the gloating about the possible unexpected turn in the case disturbng. Four innocent people, two of them children, are still dead; and the fear and terror of their last hours still haunts me no matter who did the deed.

Yes, this is horrifying. I wonder...if the news had been presented without the method of death, or the religion of the victims, etc... would we have seen posts saying, "See what drugs do? These guys got caught large amounts of drugs last time, and they owe a lot of money, and look how nasty they are when they kill!" like has been said about many drug killings--which are now being described as near sanitary affairs in the implication that this couldn't have possibly been anything but "those eevul Muzzies"...

I think jan in Colorado hit it right when she said there are lots of facts out there that are withheld by police for them to do their jobs. People jumped all over law enforcement, seeming more interested in hearing anti-Muslim information released than caring if they caught the true perps. It's still very possible that there's more to this case, but the point is that knee-jerk accusations that were made are not mere "speculation" that is was Muslims who committed the crime--or that all Muslims would support it.