otto:
your post no. 28 is circular.
it is pretty clear that the trajectory into it (your post) began with "radical islam" and a loose definition of it---and *then* passed through a phase of assembling (otherwise arbitrary) information to support it.
not the other way around.
this is the premise:
Quote:
|
Radical Islam is on our doorstep, in your hometown, they are patient, and there’s a good chance we’ll be hearing from them soon in our schools, shopping centers, subways, and hospitals
|
you put it about 3/4 of the way into the post.
so far as i am concerned, the conversation ended there.
that premise is simply an elaborated paranoia. there might be some therapeutic function to be had by allowing paranoia to unspool across a political category (an ideological meme is more accurate a characterisation)
but frankly you seem only to outline the effects of the phrase "radical islam"
when you decide that "radical islam" is one thing, you make it one thing. when you decide that "radical islam" is everywhere and nowhere, you find it everywhere and nowhere.
this is all the post does--it is a demonstration of this procedure.
so such data as you reference or use is unnecessary. your post is about the effects of the category, and that's about it.
in other words, your post argues from projection.
and you choose to adopt the posture of some Prophet, at least rhetorically.
so you basically tell us--those who who read your post---that you advance non-falsifiable claims.
you tell us that your there is no point in debate because there is no debate to be had so far as you are concerned.
and you tell us that we are benighted if we dont agree with you.
so i am having trouble finding motivation to engage.
maybe reconsider your approach.