Canada’s smartest columnist misses the point.
From a practical standpoint, Williams’ concern is misplaced. The perpetrators of most high-profile terror attacks of the past decade were Muslims who weren’t in “Muslim garb,” who weren’t outwardly “identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims.” […] They went to strip joints and wore khakis rather than flowing robes and head scarves.
Or; “Khakis didn’t fly people into skyscrapers. Muslims did.”
The radicalization of Muslims leads to death of anyone who opposes them. Their enemies become cannon-fodder, even their own Muslim brothers and sisters but not of the “right sect”.
The radicalization of Christians leads to selflessness, healing, charity, and a peaceful society, which looks out for each other.
That is why Muslims do not fear walking onto a plane and looking around for a Christian, they will not be blowing up any plane, bus, subway car or bridge. Not going to happen.
Huh? What point did Gunter miss, Kate? I’ve read the column twice, and I can’t fathom what you’re getting at,
Very true. Suppression of the conversation IS one major issue we face regarding Islam, but it’s not the whole enchilada. Me thinks the commie style speech suppression is necessary for the Progressives to maintain their shaky and illogical political alliances. After all, we wouldn’t want gays or feminists speaking amongst themselves about the implications of Sharia. Would we?
And, it is true that most bombers likely change out of their religious garb before they commit attacks. In my view, the best way to protect airlines and their passengers is to somehow empower the passengers to maintain security while the plane is in the air. After all, to my knowledge, the foil to these attacks has typically been an alert bystander, not paid security. By simply sitting a cheeky-bugger beside each mooslim, most shenanigans and coordination could be eliminated. This could likely be accomplished by mandatory random seating plans and passenger education. Unfortunately, that wouldn’t generate any union dues.
We are forever being scolded that “not all Muslims do X”
Juan Williams duly played along, singling out “Muslims who wear Muslim garb” — NOT “all Muslims”
And he got fired anyway.
We have GOT to stop playing the “not all Muslims” game.
“The radicalization of Christians leads to selflessness, healing, charity, and a peaceful society, which looks out for each other.”
Like burning witches? Like the Crusades? Remember, most Muslim nations have primitive societies much like Christian nations were centuries ago.
‘Looking out for each other’ can quickly turn into ‘watching each other’…as in watching for anyone committing any ‘sins’.
Selflessness is a good thing is it? Would you not say that Islamic extremists are committing the ultimate act of selflessness by committing their life to the cause of Islam?
Blah blah not all Muslims blah blah blah, well I’m sorry but how am I suppose to know the difference between a Muslim suicide bomber on a plane and “Not all Muslims”?
Lorne spent much of his column detailing what Muslim terrorists wear.
Juan Williams wasn’t reacting to their “garb”. He was reacting to the fact that they were Muslim.
I keep hearing this theme across the mainstream media, both right and left. “The Muslims hijackers wore western clothes onto airplanes. Therefore, there is no reason to fear Muslims who wear Muslim clothes on airplanes.”
It’s illogical, it’s bizarre, and it misses the point. The hijackers were motivated by their religious beliefs, not their wardrobe. Juan instinctively noted the risk: Islam. The clothes are just the signal.
“Juan Williams wasn’t reacting to their “garb”. He was reacting to the fact that they were Muslim…Juan instinctively noted the risk: Islam. The clothes are just the signal. ”
So what’s your point? Clearly the clothes are not a very good signal, since one does not have to wear Muslim garb to be Muslim.
How does this make Juan’s comments any less illogical? It’s ridiculous to live your life in fear, based on surface judgments about people.
A couple of questions, BTW. When was the last time a ‘Christian’ burned a ‘witch’? Describe how this ‘Christian’s’ radicallity relates to a modern Christian’s radicallity, specifically, what articles of faith were used to justify the burning of ‘witches’ and how are those articles of faith interpreted today by the various mainstream sects of Christianity? Show me specifically how this compares to the Mohammedism of yesterday and today.
ps The Crusades were a defensive war against Muslim aggression, much like the GWAT (Great War Against Terror) today. I can only hope we are as successful as they were.
It’s ridiculous to live your life in fear, based on surface judgments about people.
Is it ridiculous to fear people who point east to pray to an area of the world intent on destruction of our way of life?
You said yourself they’re a backwards culture.
…most Muslim nations have primitive societies…
Doesn’t seem ridiculous to me to fear a primitive society capable of using modern technology.
It must take a lot of effort to so comprehensively miss the point, BTJ.
Gunter wrote, “Williams’ concern is misplaced…” as if Williams was saying that he was afraid of his fellow passengers’ *garb* and not the fact that they were Muslim. He wasn’t. He was saying that he felt trepidation when he realized that *Muslims* were on the plane. The “garb” is just an indicator that the passengers are Muslim.
Seriously. Don’t you ever leave the dorm?
“It’s ridiculous to live your life in fear, based on surface judgments about people.”
I am 100% in favour of ignoring the idiot troll BTJ, which I generally do, but this is such a common lefty talking-point that I want to say this in regards to it: b@llox, b*!!ox, bollo#.
Nothing to do with “living in fear”, but risk assessment is the only thing that keeps us alive at all. “Surface” markers are the only markers we ever get about the vast majority of people we come across. You do this all the time, so do I, so does my cat, so a does a microbe (probably).
Thought experiment, BTJ. I’m going to invent a person from rural Alberta named Steve. He drives a pick-up, he works in construction, he wears a baseball cap, he drinks Canadian beer, he hunts, he has six kids, he votes Tory but he’s sympathic to Western Seperatism. Do you like him? If not, why not?
“The radicalization of Muslims leads to death of anyone who opposes them.”
I believe you are being a bit verbose there glacierman eliminating a few words gives a truer meaning.
The radicalization of Muslims leads to death.
BTJ, you have no idea what the difference between the teachings of Mohammed and Christ.
Love is the motivator of one, the other fear.
You don’t seem to be able to tell the difference, therefore you see the two “religions” as merely a choice of the lesser’s of evil. No wonder you are so confused and unable to discern right from wrong.
Enkidu hits the mark! BTJ has only experienced life from a text book, a few steps out of the basement would do a world of good.
BTJ;
“Remember, most Muslim nations have primitive societies much like Christian nations were centuries ago.”
You’re right, but have you actually thought about that for more than a few seconds?
Williams is just another in a long line of victims of political correctness. Research would find tens of thousands of victims of PC in every walk of life,just a few make the headlines.
I’d feel nervous if traditional garbed Muslims got on my plane,and I’d be nervous if non-traditional garbed Muslims got on the plane if they were young with “attitude”. Most people would be, except those from the “eloi” school of philosophy.
One day burkha clad terrorists are going to strike in America with devastating results,as they already have in many places around the world, and then it won’t be so un-PC to feel nervous about them being on your plane.
PC is the worst affliction to infect mankind,ever. We can’t criticize or even discuss anything that is proscribed by the PC police.
I wonder how many people feel nervous when a drunk and belligerent Indian boards a city bus in North End Winnipeg,as happened many times when I lived there in the 1960’s?
And before you cry,”racist”, I’m part Indian.
Can the passengers admit to “feeling nervous”or is that taboo as well? How about when a crackhead under the influence boards the Skytrain in Vancouver and acts out his derangement,are we allowed to feel “nervous” only if said crackhead is NOT a member of a visible minority?
I challenge any progressive commenter to put himself in that situation first,then tell me afterward how “nervous” he did or didn’t feel.
Williams was unjustly fired,and anyone who can’t see that is truly blinded by PC.
Remember, that in Islam, takiyya, is a basic principle of behaviour, where you are supposed to deceive ‘the infidels’ in order to function as a Muslim.
So, wearing Muslim garb, as a sign that ‘I am Muslim and YOU are a bigot if you object to my doing so’ – is an acceptable tactic of challenging the fears and stopping the infidels who might wish to confront you and your possible Islamic fascist agenda.
Williams’s fears are reasonable and valid, based on the observed facts that it’s Islamic fascists who have openly declared war against the West and against all non-Muslims all over the world; that almost all the bombings and attacks have been carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam, that imam preaching is constant and open about the justification for anti-West terrorist attacks..and so on.
Can somebody please elucidate me on what a “Primitive Society” is in relation to a “Modern Society”? A society is a society. It is based on what people believe and what their individual relationship is toward the ‘greater’ whether said ‘greater’ is society as a whole or the Divine. Islam is not particularly ‘primitive’. Islam is just very bad theology perpetuated on the ignorant but it is not primitive in any objective sense. Nor is Western Society particularly advanced. Western society is basically a post Christian society which has made science, technology and wealth their gods. This modern western trinity is soon to collapse because it is an even worse societal construct than Islam. Islam at least has a degree of permanence whereas science, technology and wealth has the sustainability of liquefied quick sand. Out of necessity science,technology and wealth gives rise to the gibberish that is post modernism. Due to its greater permanence Islam will triumph over the western societies unless said western societies re-grasp and reinvigorate their even more permanent Christian heritage. And no I don’t mean the nutbar televangelists’ pet theories on amassing wealth but rather the understanding of the Divine which elevates humanity through humility. Which in every human, no matter the condition or state, a spark of the Divine is evident. Which holds that all life is precious but the human life which is in the image of the Divine is to be treasured and sustained no matter the cost. Millenia ago a wise man once challenged the people he led to choose, this day, the god whom you will serve. His challenge remains today.
“Describe how this ‘Christian’s’ radicallity relates to a modern Christian’s radicallity, specifically, what articles of faith were used to justify the burning of ‘witches’ and how are those articles of faith interpreted today by the various mainstream sects of Christianity? Show me specifically how this compares to the Mohammedism of yesterday and today.”
Well any religious radical thinking takes the same basic path. Choices based on faith, using religious doctrines as a guide. My point was not that historical Christian radicalism is equal to today’s Christian radicalism, but that the form of radicalism is more a product of the state of the society in which it exists.
“The Crusades were a defensive war against Muslim aggression”
Riiiight…just keep telling yourself that.
“Is it ridiculous to fear people who point east to pray to an area of the world intent on destruction of our way of life? ”
Yes, it is.
“Doesn’t seem ridiculous to me to fear a primitive society capable of using modern technology.”
I didn’t say that was ridiculous did I? I said it’s ridiculous to fear people because of assumptions based on superficial judgments.
“The “garb” is just an indicator that the passengers are Muslim.”
It is ridiculous to fear people who are muslim on a plane, it is a step further in ridiculousness to use clothing as the main indicator, as not all muslims wear muslim garb.
Unless of course you support living your life in fear of the unknown. If so, enjoy hell.
“Nothing to do with “living in fear”, but risk assessment is the only thing that keeps us alive at all.”
Hahahaha..risk assessment? Rational thinking is the only way to manage risk. Living in fear based on faith is insane(you have to use faith to come to the conclusion that the person dressed in muslim garb is a terrorist planning on killing you). What are you going to do? Turn around and cancel your flight when you see someone on the plane wearing muslim garb? Insanity.
“so does my cat”
No, humans are the only species who think like this. Your cat lives in the moment and does not think ‘what if’.
“I’m going to invent a person from rural Alberta named Steve. He drives a pick-up, he works in construction, he wears a baseball cap, he drinks Canadian beer, he hunts, he has six kids, he votes Tory but he’s sympathic to Western Seperatism. Do you like him? If not, why not?”
Clearly you are a simpleton. Do I like him? And you called this a ‘thought’ experiment? More like a no-thought experiment. An exercise in stupidity…possibly one of the dumbest replies I’ve ever received. I have absolutely no feelings, thoughts, or conclusions regarding ‘Steve’…except that he must find it tough raising 6 kids on a construction worker’s salary, unless of course his wife has a good paying job.
“BTJ has only experienced life from a text book, a few steps out of the basement would do a world of good.”
People love to judge, love to assume, love to come to conclusions. Keep judging, it only keeps you in a simple, yet tormented, state of mind.
“You’re right, but have you actually thought about that for more than a few seconds?”
Yes, and..?
“And before you cry,”racist”, I’m part Indian.”
You’re still a racist! This is the worst form of it too….’I’m not a racist because I identify myself with a race’…hmmmmm
After I returned from work yesterday I discovered a ‘religious’ pamphlet on my doorstep. Unlike the usual Jehovahs Witness pamphlet, this is from an Islamic organization. I live in a small town on the coast of Vancouver Island; there are no mosques here. When I checked out the three Web-sites printed on the paper, up popped a Canadian flag BEHIND another black and white flag, which is unfamiliar to me. “Invitation to Peace” with a dove and red maple leaf are on the pamphlet cover. The organization is amj Canada, headquarters in Maple, Ontario. Anyone else receive this? http://www.LoveForAll.ca http://www.alislam.org http://www.MTA.tv
Unbeknownst even to himself, Juanie was making an argument in favour of the rationality of ethnic profiling. How do you suppose he would react to that observation?
I get it kate, the author is on a tangent, I was simply saying that he’s correct about that one tangential fact. I was trying to say that by simply being alert, as Juan obviously is, many of these “in progress” attacks can be thwarted(they already have), regardless of what the attacker is wearing. After all, Jack Bauer hasn’t made an appearance yet during one of these attacks. It’s always some dude, whose a little “scared” who makes the difference.
I… just hope that it’s not BTJ sitting next to the attacker when I’m on the plane.
Political correctness got soldiers killed in Fort Hood.
Lorne is never wrong…ever. Obviously, you have misunderstand his logic.
To be serious, I don’t feel fear when I encounter people dressed in traditional Muslim garb. I do find the face covering of women disturbing in the same creepy way as Goths with their date in a dog collar and leash.
The sense of fear is purely a calculation of odds in any particular situation. In Saskatoon (always near the top in violent crime rates), your odds of being a victim are more likely to happen in a run-in with a different demographic. Similarly, after 9-11,the underwear bomber, etc., Muslims are the #1 source of man-made disasters so being nervous about the intentions of Muslims on a plane is natural. LG is factually correct, to date anyway, that the terrorists are dressed in western not Muslim garb and the fear of clothing is misplaces.
I am more alarmed with the increasing rate of accommodation to Islam. Islam’s success in convincing public institutions and private business to conform to Muslim’s religious beliefs (courtroom veiling and self-censored reporting, for instance) is disgraceful and needs to stop.
Muslims at the controls of airliners blew up buildings by flying said airliners into said buildings, many people died. Muslims do not make me nervous. Aircraft do not make me nervous. Muslims boarding aircraft un-calms me.
Self observation. Fire me.
BTJ, all of your statements seem to smack of cowardice, and that is what is so repugnant!
Homez, you could identify BTJ on an airplane, just look for the wet spot when the action starts. He would be frozen in fear, eyes blinking like prairie stop light.
Rather than, as usual, simply take Kate’s word as gospel, I actually read the piece, making EBD proud!
First, some sympathy for Gunter dealing with an issue on Oct 24, upon which everything that needed to be said has already been said by all the big stars of conservative punditry. But he’s got a tree to fell, a deadline and a word quota to fill.
It’s not really, as Kate suggests ,that he misses the point. He doesn’t. He does make the point, belabour the point, add extraneous verbiage on other points, condescends, descends into confusion. But heh, ‘I filled two 8.5 x 11 pages and on time and Me No Dhimmi has actually printed them out and redlined parts, making EBD proud’.
I count 19 paragraphs.
At paragraph 2 he’s nervous, stuck.
THEN, voila!, ‘I know, let’s do 5 paragraphs (3-7) on the non-use of “muslim garb” by Muslim terrorists — 9/11, 7/7, Christmas genital bomber, and let’s throw in the obligatory stip joints.
Then WOW, an amazinglgy dumb paragraph by “Canada’s smartest columnist”.
In paragraph 9, we are told that Williams’ reaction is NATURAL but, um, it’s wrong. He’s “wrong to fear garbed muslims”. So emotions can always be trumped by reason, eh Lorne.
Now, starting at papagraph 10 with the wind at his back and the finish line in sight, he begins his condescending lecture on censorship and political correctness. It’s all correct of course, but from a close reading we infer that Williams’s pathology needs to be dealt with through a much wiser approach. “The best way to deal with Williams’ views is to air them and discuss them” while conceding that “millions” share these “views”.
Keyriest, Lorne, not “millions”. Billions. Everybody. Every sentient being on earth including Muslims.
Solution; a big knife in a scabbard on the back of every seat on an airliner. Who’s going to start something when everyone is armed?
An armed society is a polite society.
once muslims in traditional garb are given a pass, the terrorist switch to plan “B”
“And before you cry,”racist”, I’m part Indian.”
You’re still a racist! This is the worst form of it too….’I’m not a racist because I identify myself with a race’…hmmmmm”
As usual,b-t-j,you miss the point. In the modern “progressive” world, it’s okay to make the most incredibly bigotted remarks if you’re a member of a visible minority,you can call black people “niggers”, Indians “drunken Indians”, gays,”faggots”,etc., as long as you ARE one of those “victims”.
I was merely using the progressives own tools of intimidation to deflect criticism of my comment.
Call me a sneaky bastard if you like, but don’t call me a sneaky Indian bastard,unless you are one of “us” too.
I may adopt homosexuality as a lifestyle later this month just to make my opinions more PC,more unassailable.
“I was merely using the progressives own tools of intimidation to deflect criticism of my comment.”
Ahhh, so you’re innocent then? Why were you using progressives tools on a Conservative blog? I would expect one to deny such strategies if one truly disagrees with them.
Bjt,
You are obviously ignorant in very important ways.
It’s sad to read. I hope you find some actual facts one day. The ‘facts’ you seem to rely on have the shade of revisionism in colour and sense.
Good luck with the propaganda jihad… The fact crusade will be rolling over your facade soon.
I like having BTJ around. It keeps things from getting too boring. Without BTJ, the only interesting conversations are atheists arguing with Christians and social conservatives PO’d at libertarians.
BTJ, a reincarnation of ‘T’?
I’ll help you get your point across BTJ.
See, if you’re a Muslim who says that Kaffirs are unclean and the Koran commands you to decieve them and treat them as subhuman then you’re exercising your right to free speech and religious freedom. But if you say Muslims scare you then you should be fired. And if you have a problem with this you’re a racist.
Hope that helps.
LCBennett – but the problem with BTJ is that he doesn’t provide any arguments. None.
It’s all opinions, almost all of which are superficial and shallow. He’s unable to substantiate them with any facts or logic; he just zips off first year undergrad bits and pieces, lax dictionary and Wiki bits..and that’s it…preaching all of them ‘as if’ he knows what he’s talking about.
Criticize him, and his reaction is the Obama-slither, where he states that he didn’t ‘really say’ that; that you misunderstood him…and so on or, he moves off into red herring diversions where he picks on trivial words or issues. Or, he attacks and claims that you don’t know what you are talking about – but- his attack is, like his opinions, empty. He has no valid grounds for anything he says. Then you find out that he really has no knowledge of the issues…but he has lots of opinions.
He doesn’t know the difference between ‘knowledge’ and ‘opinion’ and so – can’t argue an issue.
“You are obviously ignorant in very important ways.”
How so? Please, educate me.
“The ‘facts’ you seem to rely on have the shade of revisionism in colour and sense. ”
Such as?
“See, if you’re a Muslim who says that Kaffirs are unclean and the Koran commands you to decieve them and treat them as subhuman then you’re exercising your right to free speech and religious freedom. But if you say Muslims scare you then you should be fired. And if you have a problem with this you’re a racist.”
Huh? How do you come to that conclusion from my words? Where did I say anything even remotely close to that?
Racism = judging any person, including oneself, based on non-values (ie. colour of skin, country of origin, cultural affiliation, etc)
BTJ – by your own definition of racism – you are racist against Christians.
I am guessing you will love this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxsCxtzJEdM&feature=player_embedded#!
Yes, you’re right, ET but that is not a bad thing.
BTJ’s arguments provide great practice for debating with progressives in places like Macleans, G&M or the real world. BTJ’s debating skill is typical of their style of argument.
or think of it this way.
Question – How do you argue with a progressive?
Answer – “I think of a [conservative], and I take away reason and accountability.”
(from the movie “As Good as it Gets”)
Sure, Jack Nicholson’s character was talking about women but progressives have all the same negative traits: senseless nattering, endless nagging, emotional, unthinking conformity, shameless gossips…
I don’t think BTJ’s arguments (sic) help advance our debating skills at all. I think they seriously stink up a thread. He is not interested in debate, merely being maliciously contrary. If it’s white, for BTJ it’ll be black, and vice versa. He is profoundly unserious.
ET, you really do respond too much to this malicious troll. If you must debate him, put it all in one moderate length post and leave it. But better to not respond at all in my view.
I have never, not once, responded to this asshole, and am not now. I’m talking only to my sda friends who get suckered over and over again.
BTJ is talking. Ignore him.
I traveled to the US after the September 11th attacks. Seeing armed soldiers made me worry. These men wandered the airport so armed because plain-clothes Muslims killed innocent people. Is that not a justifiable worry? They wouldn’t have to be there had nineteen monsters not killed ordinary people.
There was a time when the only worry one had was getting to the plane on time. Now, one takes one’s own life into one’s hands. Let people worry and then let them deal with what worries them- terrorists.
me no dhimmi – yes, you are quite right.
But it always astonishes me, both how specious and empty BTJ’s opinions are – and then, to watch him follow a set approach as he tries to defend them.
You’ll make a comment, and he’ll move in with his comment, which is never an argument, but a set of opinions contrary to yours.
Then, when you try to argue your point-of-view, with facts and logic, he’ll simply add more, unsubstantiated opinions, again, contrary to yours.
Then, you criticize his unsubstantiated opinions. And he moves into the Obama-Slither, where he hides by declaring that you misunderstood him. Then, he diverts by the tactic of misinformation, byfocusing on trivial words and examples…and using the Obama-Attack, where he accuses you of bigotry or ignorance or..
He claims he is knowledgeable about various issues; but when you press him, you find his knowledge of authors and issues is extremely shallow and superficial.
It’s quite something to watch his evasive dance – what is interesting is how similar his tactics are to the obfuscation, misinformation and manipulation well-honed by the Master of Illusionary and Shallow Opinions – Obama.
btj is as dumb as a bag of hammers, it astonishes me that anyone would put an ounce of interest in responding to him. I just scroll past his ever expanding bandwidth so I can read what the adults are saying.
BTJ provides harmless fun and, unlike most trolls, BTJ is not rude or abusive. It would be more fun if there was a progressive commentator that had the ability to make better arguments, but you take what you can get. Besides, a poster like BTJ it makes the rest of you look good – kind like how Taber and Mallick makes the rest the staff at G&M and Star look like J-school geniuses by comparison.
BTJ is the classic example of circular thinking and argument (Hegelian dialectic) and having him / it / whatever here is a great lesson on what to watch out for when dealing with these spinmeisters.
They are unable to stay on topic and just throw crap out and watch us spin around their hooks. They love the chase because they are usually control freaks. It is good for us, as I have learned a lot from the posters who give some very insightful and useful information. The ilk here are full of knowledge and wisdom, that is what I really like to watch.
Keep up the good work SDA badgers. We will convert this Philistine, just watch and see!
“BTJ – by your own definition of racism – you are racist against Christians.”
How so? Quote me using the “Christians”…I’ve commented on organized religions..such as Christianity. I’ve never said that ‘so and so’ is ‘insert judgment’ because he’s a Christian.
“Is that not a justifiable worry? ”
Of course having armed soldiers patrolling the airport should worry you! What shouldn’t is the face value judgments you make about people.
“But it always astonishes me, both how specious and empty BTJ’s opinions are – and then, to watch him follow a set approach as he tries to defend them.”
Your efforts in the debate over religion were going downhill fast my friend.
“Then, when you try to argue your point-of-view, with facts and logic, he’ll simply add more, unsubstantiated opinions, again, contrary to yours.”
So providing quote from the dictionary, explaining words when you say ‘I don’t know what you mean’, quoting you carrying out the exact thing that in the same post you call me out for, quoting you line for line and responding to each point..that’s all ‘unsubstantiated opinions’? I think you need to check your premises.
“where he hides by declaring that you misunderstood him”
Better than declaring yourself as the new dictionary…easy to argue when you decide the meaning of key words.
“you find his knowledge of authors and issues is extremely shallow and superficial.”
What, because I don’t know Plato and Aristotle line for line? Ha…all you do is philosophize, come down to reality and off your high horse, you may impress most people on this blog but I see right through it.
“so I can read what the adults are saying.”
You mean the collective echo of the mediocre. Let’s not ignore reality…the majority of people are of mediocre intelligence, average common sense, and limited knowledge. FOX news? FOX is for the mediocre, the collective masses, the simple minded. Don’t try and fool yourself into believing that what most people say is anything near reality…most people hardly know their head from their a$$.
“BTJ is the classic example of circular thinking and argument (Hegelian dialectic) and having him / it / whatever here is a great lesson on what to watch out for when dealing with these spinmeisters.”
Please, take me through your logic. Prove my use of circular thinking..’Hegelian dialectic’. It shouldn’t be too hard for someone with such a seemingly deep understanding of such a logical fallacy..a few quotes and some logic. Great use of words by the way…Hegelian dialect…wow…you’re smart.
The real story here was not that we fear boarding an aircraft with Muslim passengers, hijabed or not. The real story is that NPR, a partially taxpayer funded radio station FIRED someone for expressing that opinion. Even though it is shared by millions. The vitriolic denouncement of Williams by that station’s CEO, calling into question William’s sanity and inferring that it was a publicity stunt, show the far left bias of NPR, its leadership and its so called reporting. Kinda like the CBC. Proving that taxpayer funded programming on radio or TV is nothing but taxpayer funded propaganda. A bad idea.