Sometimes we're surprised. Usually this doesn't happen, but on rare occassions, there are consequences even for Muslims. Of course, the Muslim in question is supposed to be a "diplomat", so to be caught uttering what he uttered, well, there just HAS to be consequences, as in this case, to let it go would be worse than to punish the very special Muslim for doing stuff other very-special Muslims almost always get away with.
I believe that it's a specially-exceptional case where it's better to do what they otherwise wouldn't, because, in this case, to do nothing would bring about worse potential consequences.
Of course, when Muslims get in trouble, it's either with other Muslims, or when there's no letting them go, such as when they murder someone and admit to it.
But it does seem that they get into trouble a lot less frequently than others do. Or perhaps the Big Media is covering up a whole lot of stories about Muslims getting into trouble? Which is more plausible, the excusing of Muslim misconduct, or the covering up of their getting into trouble for misconduct?
Many observers of current events rightly see Muslims getting away with stuff that non-Muslims rarely get away with. This suggests, well, "dhimmitude" on the part of the state apparatus. One isn't an "Islamophobe" to simply point out apparent patterns of "positive" discrimination on the part of the state apparatus vis-a-vis Muslims compared to non-Muslims.
Are you saying that Muslims don't get into nearly as much trouble with Chistians as Christians get into with Muslims? In which case I'd have to agree (I think).
7 comments:
I am surprised that the Muslim ended up getting in trouble. I didn't think Muslims could get in trouble.
Gee, Teresa. You were wrong.
Sometimes we're surprised. Usually this doesn't happen, but on rare occassions, there are consequences even for Muslims. Of course, the Muslim in question is supposed to be a "diplomat", so to be caught uttering what he uttered, well, there just HAS to be consequences, as in this case, to let it go would be worse than to punish the very special Muslim for doing stuff other very-special Muslims almost always get away with.
I believe that it's a specially-exceptional case where it's better to do what they otherwise wouldn't, because, in this case, to do nothing would bring about worse potential consequences.
In my view Teresa was making a rhetorical statement. She probably knows that Muslims often get in trouble.
Of course, when Muslims get in trouble, it's either with other Muslims, or when there's no letting them go, such as when they murder someone and admit to it.
But it does seem that they get into trouble a lot less frequently than others do. Or perhaps the Big Media is covering up a whole lot of stories about Muslims getting into trouble? Which is more plausible, the excusing of Muslim misconduct, or the covering up of their getting into trouble for misconduct?
Many observers of current events rightly see Muslims getting away with stuff that non-Muslims rarely get away with. This suggests, well, "dhimmitude" on the part of the state apparatus. One isn't an "Islamophobe" to simply point out apparent patterns of "positive" discrimination on the part of the state apparatus vis-a-vis Muslims compared to non-Muslims.
Are you saying that Muslims don't get into nearly as much trouble with Chistians as Christians get into with Muslims? In which case I'd have to agree (I think).
I was talking about folks getting into trouble with the state apparatus.
Post a Comment