The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread

[Simple Torture]

You must have to deal with some severely stupid kids at school.

The best part about the kids I teach, honestly, is that their ignorance is overshadowed by their apathy.

[BurtReynolds]

You must have to deal with some severely stupid kids at school.

The best part about the kids I teach, honestly, is that their ignorance is overshadowed by their apathy.

God bless America

[LoathedVermin72]

You must have to deal with some severely stupid kids at school.

The best part about the kids I teach, honestly, is that their ignorance is overshadowed by their apathy.

God bless America

[stip]

when this issue comes up it is almost always in the context of 'because these people are non-progressive/conservative/reactionary we should treat them like terrorist suspects. And that's what people push back against--treating the entire religion in that capacity. Speaking of straw men, how often do you see prominent liberal voices defending the values and ideology of islam on these issues (other than denying an innate connection between islam and violence)? As opposed to the quite prominent string of conservative voices who strongly imply or outright assert the above?

I don't know man, you're perspective seems severely skewed here. Based on comments like "oh god yes. Some of the more extreme ones. This country is full of reactionary lunatics", I doubt we'll find much common ground. You must have to deal with some severely stupid kids at school. What I am seeing is probably skewed in the opposite direction because of the people I'm surrounded with.

We should push back, but we shouldn't be willfully ignorant or silent out of fear of causing more harm or aiding one side or the other. We should seek truth. With many of your posts, you seem to be implying that we shouldn't talk about it because of Trump or whatever.

edited for clarity.

My comments have nothing to do with the kids I teach or the people I interact with. They are informed by the horrific things religious leaders say, registration elected and aspiring elected officials propose, and the support they are given by not insignificant swaths of the population. If I'm motivated later I'll find some links


And it would be helpful to me if you restated your position since you've accused me of attacking straw men. My larger point is that I am

A: denying a causal link between Islam and terrorism
B: denying that most Muslims are extremists insofar as their religion is likely to incite them to violence.
C: even if the above were true we should politically be circumspect about how public officials talk about these things because it gives terrorists legitimacy in their home regions they might not otherwise enjoy and makes the problems we ostensibly hope to solve without murdering everyone that much harder to solve.

This has nothing to do with political correctness, or defending regressive or reactionary elements of the religion/ideology. The charge of political correctness is misdirection all bullshit that absolves people of the responsibility of having to engage a position they don't like and is itself a straw man. Find me a major liberal opinion leader who defends any reactionary Islamic position and does more than reject the claim that there is something fundamental about the structure of Islam that makes it more likely to breed terrorism than any other fundamentalist ideology.

[bart]

So really what you're doing is:

D: All of the above

[stip]

Rightwingwatch.org seems like a useful compilation of some recent greatest hits. But I do believe that there is an unfortunately large subset of right wing America that it would not be hard to push into the same reactionary territory as some of the worst Mid East regimes.

Our attitudes about immigration and race are not irrelevant to this conversation. Lots of linkages between these groups and they all speak to a similar worldview.

[LoathedVermin72]

My larger point is that I am

A: denying a causal link between Islam and terrorism

reject the claim that there is something fundamental about the structure of Islam that makes it more likely to breed terrorism than any other fundamentalist ideology.

This is where we disagree. Like I said earlier, this seems a little delusional to me. I understand the impulse - to level the playing field politically and treat every side fairly. But I think this goes too far when we claim Islam is in no way culpable for the actions of Islamic terrorists. I mean, it's in the damn name! Again, I am certainly not denying there are lots of politics involved, but there is still a religious core at work here. There should be no doubt groups like ISIS absolutely believe they are fighting a holy war.

This has nothing to do with political correctness, or defending regressive or reactionary elements of the religion/ideology. The charge of political correctness is misdirection all bullshit that absolves people of the responsibility of having to engage a position they don't like and is itself a straw man.

Fair enough. I think we were both doing a little projecting: you bringing up right-wing reactionaries who promote Christianity while demonizing Islam, me feeling like you were coming from a PC mentality. A lot of the arguments you presented are classic go-tos for PC misdirection artists, which I have encountered often and find completely insufferable, so I apologize for the insinuation. It seems like we just flat-out disagree on Islam and its implications, and neither of us are coming from a reactionary place.

[@SkitchP]

this shit never happened with punkdavid running this place





--@SkitchP

[BurtReynolds]

when this issue comes up it is almost always in the context of 'because these people are non-progressive/conservative/reactionary we should treat them like terrorist suspects. And that's what people push back against--treating the entire religion in that capacity. Speaking of straw men, how often do you see prominent liberal voices defending the values and ideology of islam on these issues (other than denying an innate connection between islam and violence)? As opposed to the quite prominent string of conservative voices who strongly imply or outright assert the above?

I don't know man, you're perspective seems severely skewed here. Based on comments like "oh god yes. Some of the more extreme ones. This country is full of reactionary lunatics", I doubt we'll find much common ground. You must have to deal with some severely stupid kids at school. What I am seeing is probably skewed in the opposite direction because of the people I'm surrounded with.

We should push back, but we shouldn't be willfully ignorant or silent out of fear of causing more harm or aiding one side or the other. We should seek truth. With many of your posts, you seem to be implying that we shouldn't talk about it because of Trump or whatever.

edited for clarity.

My comments have nothing to do with the kids I teach or the people I interact with. They are informed by the horrific things religious leaders say, registration elected and aspiring elected officials propose, and the support they are given by not insignificant swaths of the population. If I'm motivated later I'll find some links


And it would be helpful to me if you restated your position since you've accused me of attacking straw men. My larger point is that I am

A: denying a causal link between Islam and terrorism
B: denying that most Muslims are extremists insofar as their religion is likely to incite them to violence.
C: even if the above were true we should politically be circumspect about how public officials talk about these things because it gives terrorists legitimacy in their home regions they might not otherwise enjoy and makes the problems we ostensibly hope to solve without murdering everyone that much harder to solve.

This has nothing to do with political correctness, or defending regressive or reactionary elements of the religion/ideology. The charge of political correctness is misdirection all bullshit that absolves people of the responsibility of having to engage a position they don't like and is itself a straw man. Find me a major liberal opinion leader who defends any reactionary Islamic position and does more than reject the claim that there is something fundamental about the structure of Islam that makes it more likely to breed terrorism than any other fundamentalist ideology.

I don't think I ever accused you or anyone else defending reactionary Islamic positions or even being PC. I'd have to dig through this thread for examples, but like LV said, you seem to be projecting a lot on me, or you are arguing with someone else. I dont disagree with B or C, though I don't think I've said otherwise.

Most liberal leaders offer vague platitudes about "Religion of peace" and other ignorant nonsense, and those attitudes are immensely damaging IMO. Most conservative leaders are definitely assholes and hawks but its crazy to me to think the US's current attitudes about homosexuality, women, etc are in any way comparable to those in the Islamic World, in either severity or quantity. They are light years apart.

[stip]

My larger point is that I am

A: denying a causal link between Islam and terrorism

reject the claim that there is something fundamental about the structure of Islam that makes it more likely to breed terrorism than any other fundamentalist ideology.

This is where we disagree. Like I said earlier, this seems a little delusional to me. I understand the impulse - to level the playing field politically and treat every side fairly. But I think this goes too far when we claim Islam is in no way culpable for the actions of Islamic terrorists. I mean, it's in the damn name! Again, I am certainly not denying there are lots of politics involved, but there is still a religious core at work here. There should be no doubt groups like ISIS absolutely believe they are fighting a holy war.

This has nothing to do with political correctness, or defending regressive or reactionary elements of the religion/ideology. The charge of political correctness is misdirection all bullshit that absolves people of the responsibility of having to engage a position they don't like and is itself a straw man.

Fair enough. I think we were both doing a little projecting: you bringing up right-wing reactionaries who promote Christianity while demonizing Islam, me feeling like you were coming from a PC mentality. A lot of the arguments you presented are classic go-tos for PC misdirection artists, which I have encountered often and find completely insufferable, so I apologize for the insinuation. It seems like we just flat-out disagree on Islam and its implications, and neither of us are coming from a reactionary place.

Fair enough

I agree there's a religious core to jihadist extremism (how could anyone deny that?) but that's not the same thing as saying that it is an inevitable, probable, or common outgrowth of the religion (which I find unappealing even by religious standards).

There are several recent stateside examples of acts of terror carried out by Christian extremists. But our society is dominated by Christians and so we'd never use that term. And it just so happens that our country is not dominated by these groups (remember that it's not like most of these middle eastern regimes are democracy), is prosperous enough to make it easier to bottle up our darker tendencies, and stable enough to deny those with more violent impulses the legitimacy they need to thrive. Transport the more reactionary elements of our population to the Mideast, keep conditions constant, and you'll see something similar - less perhaps the emphasis on suicide attacks.

Or just watch the rise of a new generation of fascists in Europe

[stip]

when this issue comes up it is almost always in the context of 'because these people are non-progressive/conservative/reactionary we should treat them like terrorist suspects. And that's what people push back against--treating the entire religion in that capacity. Speaking of straw men, how often do you see prominent liberal voices defending the values and ideology of islam on these issues (other than denying an innate connection between islam and violence)? As opposed to the quite prominent string of conservative voices who strongly imply or outright assert the above?

I don't know man, you're perspective seems severely skewed here. Based on comments like "oh god yes. Some of the more extreme ones. This country is full of reactionary lunatics", I doubt we'll find much common ground. You must have to deal with some severely stupid kids at school. What I am seeing is probably skewed in the opposite direction because of the people I'm surrounded with.

We should push back, but we shouldn't be willfully ignorant or silent out of fear of causing more harm or aiding one side or the other. We should seek truth. With many of your posts, you seem to be implying that we shouldn't talk about it because of Trump or whatever.

edited for clarity.

My comments have nothing to do with the kids I teach or the people I interact with. They are informed by the horrific things religious leaders say, registration elected and aspiring elected officials propose, and the support they are given by not insignificant swaths of the population. If I'm motivated later I'll find some links


And it would be helpful to me if you restated your position since you've accused me of attacking straw men. My larger point is that I am

A: denying a causal link between Islam and terrorism
B: denying that most Muslims are extremists insofar as their religion is likely to incite them to violence.
C: even if the above were true we should politically be circumspect about how public officials talk about these things because it gives terrorists legitimacy in their home regions they might not otherwise enjoy and makes the problems we ostensibly hope to solve without murdering everyone that much harder to solve.

This has nothing to do with political correctness, or defending regressive or reactionary elements of the religion/ideology. The charge of political correctness is misdirection all bullshit that absolves people of the responsibility of having to engage a position they don't like and is itself a straw man. Find me a major liberal opinion leader who defends any reactionary Islamic position and does more than reject the claim that there is something fundamental about the structure of Islam that makes it more likely to breed terrorism than any other fundamentalist ideology.

I don't think I ever accused you or anyone else defending reactionary Islamic positions or even being PC. I'd have to dig through this thread for examples, but like LV said, you seem to be projecting a lot on me, or you are arguing with someone else. I dont disagree with B or C, though I don't think I've said otherwise.

Most liberal leaders offer vague platitudes about "Religion of peace" and other ignorant nonsense, and those attitudes are immensely damaging IMO. Most conservative leaders are definitely assholes and hawks but its crazy to me to think the US's current attitudes about homosexuality, women, etc are in any way comparable to those in the Islamic World, in either severity or quantity. They are light years apart.

Those platitudes are essentially always in response to the equation of Islam with terrorism and violence (which you just implied in your post above), or offered by political leaders trying to be responsible as per point C (even GW bush said as much).

The US attitudes as a whole are far from equivalent, but I certainly believe there are populations in the US that are not far off

[track11]

I can't keep up with this thread, so I am probably about 10 pages too late, but I don't relate at all the the Islam that is being represented here. The Islam I've seen in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iran...the Islam of the vast, VAST majority of these people honestly has very little of the tendencies that the West lays on it. I would argue that women are often treated with MORE respect that what I see in the USA. Sure, homosexuality is not embraced, but most of the world doesn't embrace it with open arms. Russia is a MUCH more dangerous place for openly gay men and women than Jordan, and definitely than Lebanon. That still isn't anywhere near perfect, but it certainly is in parallel with the other religions of the book.

What I believe is being represented most here is a branch of Islam that is abhorred by all except the rulers who impose it: Wahhabism. I know I am again pointing all blame to the house of Saud, but dammit if it ain't true. This is an abomination of Islam that is imposed by force, not chosen, and not followed by those who impose it (visit Beirut and see all the Saudi royalty in the clubs). This is the Islam that divides Shiites and Sunnis, that disallows women from driving, mandates burqas, that destroys historical sites, that treats any difference from the rule as justification for death. This is the Islam that ISIS adheres to (because, well, duh, they are supported by the Saudis). This is also an extraordinarily TINY branch of Islam...like 1% of the world's muslim population.

To read more (generically) about Wahhabism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

*obviously, when I am talking about Syria, I am talking about before Syria becoming the largest terrorist breeding ground EVER.

[Simple Torture]

I agree there's a religious core to jihadist extremism (how could anyone deny that?) but that's not the same thing as saying that it is an inevitable, probable, or common outgrowth of the religion (which I find unappealing even by religious standards).

There are several recent stateside examples of acts of terror carried out by Christian extremists. But our society is dominated by Christians and so we'd never use that term. And it just so happens that our country is not dominated by these groups (remember that it's not like most of these middle eastern regimes are democracy), is prosperous enough to make it easier to bottle up our darker tendencies, and stable enough to deny those with more violent impulses the legitimacy they need to thrive. Transport the more reactionary elements of our population to the Mideast, keep conditions constant, and you'll see something similar - less perhaps the emphasis on suicide attacks.

Or just watch the rise of a new generation of fascists in Europe

I think the second part of what stip's saying is important here: the rise of extremism in the Middle East these days is certainly the result of a complex web of causes--tribal social structure, economic inequality, climate, and what have you--and Islam being the dominant religion is certainly part of it, but perhaps not the first cause. I do think the conversation of how big a role Islam plays is important, but I dunno if I know enough about the other stuff to make a definitive guess.

[BurtReynolds]

when this issue comes up it is almost always in the context of 'because these people are non-progressive/conservative/reactionary we should treat them like terrorist suspects. And that's what people push back against--treating the entire religion in that capacity. Speaking of straw men, how often do you see prominent liberal voices defending the values and ideology of islam on these issues (other than denying an innate connection between islam and violence)? As opposed to the quite prominent string of conservative voices who strongly imply or outright assert the above?

I don't know man, you're perspective seems severely skewed here. Based on comments like "oh god yes. Some of the more extreme ones. This country is full of reactionary lunatics", I doubt we'll find much common ground. You must have to deal with some severely stupid kids at school. What I am seeing is probably skewed in the opposite direction because of the people I'm surrounded with.

We should push back, but we shouldn't be willfully ignorant or silent out of fear of causing more harm or aiding one side or the other. We should seek truth. With many of your posts, you seem to be implying that we shouldn't talk about it because of Trump or whatever.

edited for clarity.

My comments have nothing to do with the kids I teach or the people I interact with. They are informed by the horrific things religious leaders say, registration elected and aspiring elected officials propose, and the support they are given by not insignificant swaths of the population. If I'm motivated later I'll find some links


And it would be helpful to me if you restated your position since you've accused me of attacking straw men. My larger point is that I am

A: denying a causal link between Islam and terrorism
B: denying that most Muslims are extremists insofar as their religion is likely to incite them to violence.
C: even if the above were true we should politically be circumspect about how public officials talk about these things because it gives terrorists legitimacy in their home regions they might not otherwise enjoy and makes the problems we ostensibly hope to solve without murdering everyone that much harder to solve.

This has nothing to do with political correctness, or defending regressive or reactionary elements of the religion/ideology. The charge of political correctness is misdirection all bullshit that absolves people of the responsibility of having to engage a position they don't like and is itself a straw man. Find me a major liberal opinion leader who defends any reactionary Islamic position and does more than reject the claim that there is something fundamental about the structure of Islam that makes it more likely to breed terrorism than any other fundamentalist ideology.

I don't think I ever accused you or anyone else defending reactionary Islamic positions or even being PC. I'd have to dig through this thread for examples, but like LV said, you seem to be projecting a lot on me, or you are arguing with someone else. I dont disagree with B or C, though I don't think I've said otherwise.

Most liberal leaders offer vague platitudes about "Religion of peace" and other ignorant nonsense, and those attitudes are immensely damaging IMO. Most conservative leaders are definitely assholes and hawks but its crazy to me to think the US's current attitudes about homosexuality, women, etc are in any way comparable to those in the Islamic World, in either severity or quantity. They are light years apart.

Those platitudes are essentially always in response to the equation of Islam with terrorism and violence (which you just implied in your post above), or offered by political leaders trying to be responsible as per point C (even GW bush said as much).

The US attitudes as a whole are far from equivalent, but I certainly believe there are populations in the US that are not far off

I do believe there is some connection with Islam and terrorism and violence (we obviously disagree). Politicians fanning the flames or offering platitudes in reaction doesn't change the validity of that belief. But none of this has anything to do with what anyone here has said. American political rhetoric seems to be some other issue brought up by you out of nowhere that no one seems to disagree with.

[LoathedVermin72]

I would argue that women are often treated with MORE respect that what I see in the USA.

Please give examples to back this up, because this sounds like the most laughable assertion I've ever heard.

[BurtReynolds]

I agree there's a religious core to jihadist extremism (how could anyone deny that?) but that's not the same thing as saying that it is an inevitable, probable, or common outgrowth of the religion (which I find unappealing even by religious standards).

There are several recent stateside examples of acts of terror carried out by Christian extremists. But our society is dominated by Christians and so we'd never use that term. And it just so happens that our country is not dominated by these groups (remember that it's not like most of these middle eastern regimes are democracy), is prosperous enough to make it easier to bottle up our darker tendencies, and stable enough to deny those with more violent impulses the legitimacy they need to thrive. Transport the more reactionary elements of our population to the Mideast, keep conditions constant, and you'll see something similar - less perhaps the emphasis on suicide attacks.

Or just watch the rise of a new generation of fascists in Europe

I think the second part of what stip's saying is important here: the rise of extremism in the Middle East these days is certainly the result of a complex web of causes--tribal social structure, economic inequality, climate, and what have you--and Islam being the dominant religion is certainly part of it, but perhaps not the first cause. I do think the conversation of how big a role Islam plays is important, but I dunno if I know enough about the other stuff to make a definitive guess.

agreed

[track11]

I would argue that women are often treated with MORE respect that what I see in the USA.

Please give examples to back this up, because this sounds like the most laughable assertion I've ever heard.

How am I supposed to prove a negative? The Koran lays an inordinate amount of respect to mothers. In the Hadiths, Mohammad is quoted as saying something to the likes of:

"Do good to serve your mother, then your mother, then your mother, then your father, then the near relatives and then those who come after them."

Ask any Muslim and they will smile at this line and recite it back before you get two words in. This is the first lesson taught to kids, that to respect your mother above all others.

Muslim women, by large, are not objectified to the likes that we see in the USA. In most Muslim families, the father does carry the traditional role of the bread winner, but the mother is the boss of the house. Again, I believe you are thinking of the Gulf, which is Wahhabism, and is as far apart from the Islam of Syria and Lebanon as Buddhism is from Catholicism.

Of course, I am speaking in broad generalizations, but so are you.

[stip]

when this issue comes up it is almost always in the context of 'because these people are non-progressive/conservative/reactionary we should treat them like terrorist suspects. And that's what people push back against--treating the entire religion in that capacity. Speaking of straw men, how often do you see prominent liberal voices defending the values and ideology of islam on these issues (other than denying an innate connection between islam and violence)? As opposed to the quite prominent string of conservative voices who strongly imply or outright assert the above?

I don't know man, you're perspective seems severely skewed here. Based on comments like "oh god yes. Some of the more extreme ones. This country is full of reactionary lunatics", I doubt we'll find much common ground. You must have to deal with some severely stupid kids at school. What I am seeing is probably skewed in the opposite direction because of the people I'm surrounded with.

We should push back, but we shouldn't be willfully ignorant or silent out of fear of causing more harm or aiding one side or the other. We should seek truth. With many of your posts, you seem to be implying that we shouldn't talk about it because of Trump or whatever.

edited for clarity.

My comments have nothing to do with the kids I teach or the people I interact with. They are informed by the horrific things religious leaders say, registration elected and aspiring elected officials propose, and the support they are given by not insignificant swaths of the population. If I'm motivated later I'll find some links


And it would be helpful to me if you restated your position since you've accused me of attacking straw men. My larger point is that I am

A: denying a causal link between Islam and terrorism
B: denying that most Muslims are extremists insofar as their religion is likely to incite them to violence.
C: even if the above were true we should politically be circumspect about how public officials talk about these things because it gives terrorists legitimacy in their home regions they might not otherwise enjoy and makes the problems we ostensibly hope to solve without murdering everyone that much harder to solve.

This has nothing to do with political correctness, or defending regressive or reactionary elements of the religion/ideology. The charge of political correctness is misdirection all bullshit that absolves people of the responsibility of having to engage a position they don't like and is itself a straw man. Find me a major liberal opinion leader who defends any reactionary Islamic position and does more than reject the claim that there is something fundamental about the structure of Islam that makes it more likely to breed terrorism than any other fundamentalist ideology.

I don't think I ever accused you or anyone else defending reactionary Islamic positions or even being PC. I'd have to dig through this thread for examples, but like LV said, you seem to be projecting a lot on me, or you are arguing with someone else. I dont disagree with B or C, though I don't think I've said otherwise.

Most liberal leaders offer vague platitudes about "Religion of peace" and other ignorant nonsense, and those attitudes are immensely damaging IMO. Most conservative leaders are definitely assholes and hawks but its crazy to me to think the US's current attitudes about homosexuality, women, etc are in any way comparable to those in the Islamic World, in either severity or quantity. They are light years apart.

Those platitudes are essentially always in response to the equation of Islam with terrorism and violence (which you just implied in your post above), or offered by political leaders trying to be responsible as per point C (even GW bush said as much).

The US attitudes as a whole are far from equivalent, but I certainly believe there are populations in the US that are not far off

I do believe there is some connection with Islam and terrorism and violence (we obviously disagree). Politicians fanning the flames or offering platitudes in reaction doesn't change the validity of that belief. But none of this has anything to do with what anyone here has said. American political rhetoric seems to be some other issue brought up by you out of nowhere that no one seems to disagree with.

are you suspicious of American muslims, and if not, why not?

[BurtReynolds]

I would argue that women are often treated with MORE respect that what I see in the USA.

Please give examples to back this up, because this sounds like the most laughable assertion I've ever heard.

How am I supposed to prove a negative? The Koran lays an inordinate amount of respect to mothers. In the Hadiths, Mohammad is quoted as saying something to the likes of:

"Do good to serve your mother, then your mother, then your mother, then your father, then the near relatives and then those who come after them."

Ask any Muslim and they will smile at this line and recite it back before you get two words in. This is the first lesson taught to kids, that to respect your mother above all others.

Muslim women, by large, are not objectified to the likes that we see in the USA. In most Muslim families, the father does carry the traditional role of the bread winner, but the mother is the boss of the house. Again, I believe you are thinking of the Gulf, which is Wahhabism, and is as far apart from the Islam of Syria and Lebanon as Buddhism is from Catholicism.

Of course, I am speaking in broad generalizations, but so are you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Jordan

[stip]

when this issue comes up it is almost always in the context of 'because these people are non-progressive/conservative/reactionary we should treat them like terrorist suspects. And that's what people push back against--treating the entire religion in that capacity. Speaking of straw men, how often do you see prominent liberal voices defending the values and ideology of islam on these issues (other than denying an innate connection between islam and violence)? As opposed to the quite prominent string of conservative voices who strongly imply or outright assert the above?

I don't know man, you're perspective seems severely skewed here. Based on comments like "oh god yes. Some of the more extreme ones. This country is full of reactionary lunatics", I doubt we'll find much common ground. You must have to deal with some severely stupid kids at school. What I am seeing is probably skewed in the opposite direction because of the people I'm surrounded with.

We should push back, but we shouldn't be willfully ignorant or silent out of fear of causing more harm or aiding one side or the other. We should seek truth. With many of your posts, you seem to be implying that we shouldn't talk about it because of Trump or whatever.

edited for clarity.

My comments have nothing to do with the kids I teach or the people I interact with. They are informed by the horrific things religious leaders say, registration elected and aspiring elected officials propose, and the support they are given by not insignificant swaths of the population. If I'm motivated later I'll find some links


And it would be helpful to me if you restated your position since you've accused me of attacking straw men. My larger point is that I am

A: denying a causal link between Islam and terrorism
B: denying that most Muslims are extremists insofar as their religion is likely to incite them to violence.
C: even if the above were true we should politically be circumspect about how public officials talk about these things because it gives terrorists legitimacy in their home regions they might not otherwise enjoy and makes the problems we ostensibly hope to solve without murdering everyone that much harder to solve.

This has nothing to do with political correctness, or defending regressive or reactionary elements of the religion/ideology. The charge of political correctness is misdirection all bullshit that absolves people of the responsibility of having to engage a position they don't like and is itself a straw man. Find me a major liberal opinion leader who defends any reactionary Islamic position and does more than reject the claim that there is something fundamental about the structure of Islam that makes it more likely to breed terrorism than any other fundamentalist ideology.

I don't think I ever accused you or anyone else defending reactionary Islamic positions or even being PC. I'd have to dig through this thread for examples, but like LV said, you seem to be projecting a lot on me, or you are arguing with someone else. I dont disagree with B or C, though I don't think I've said otherwise.

Most liberal leaders offer vague platitudes about "Religion of peace" and other ignorant nonsense, and those attitudes are immensely damaging IMO. Most conservative leaders are definitely assholes and hawks but its crazy to me to think the US's current attitudes about homosexuality, women, etc are in any way comparable to those in the Islamic World, in either severity or quantity. They are light years apart.

Those platitudes are essentially always in response to the equation of Islam with terrorism and violence (which you just implied in your post above), or offered by political leaders trying to be responsible as per point C (even GW bush said as much).

The US attitudes as a whole are far from equivalent, but I certainly believe there are populations in the US that are not far off

I do believe there is some connection with Islam and terrorism and violence (we obviously disagree). Politicians fanning the flames or offering platitudes in reaction doesn't change the validity of that belief. But none of this has anything to do with what anyone here has said. American political rhetoric seems to be some other issue brought up by you out of nowhere that no one seems to disagree with.

you just disagreed with it like one post ago!

Most liberal leaders offer vague platitudes about "Religion of peace" and other ignorant nonsense, and those attitudes are immensely damaging IMO.