All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 2, 2017 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
50:04
The Islamic State Defence Force
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I don't normally do this sort of ambulance chasing videos about terror attacks and catastrophes that a lot of people do.
And for some reason, people think that I do, and I really don't.
But I saw this video from TYT Politics, and I had to go through it because it hit every single regressive talking point about Islam, terrorism, and Muslims.
And I wanted to directly address them because the lady who is giving the video is, I'm sure, a very nice person, very well-intentioned, very well-meaning, but she's just totally wrong.
Which is why she has to start her video with a correction, but it doesn't get any better from there.
Hey guys, it's Emma Vigling with TYT Politics.
I hope everyone's having a good and safe day.
An update on yesterday's story.
I apologize.
Earlier I reported that there was gunshots from the terrorist yesterday, but and that's what NBC News and the Associated Press were reporting early on.
And I relayed that information to you.
I corrected myself in the new video that we put up.
Just wanted to give you that disclaimer that I thought they were reliable sources, should have waited a little bit longer.
I really apologize for relaying that information to you at first.
And that's why I don't do the sorts of political ambulance chasing that almost everyone does to try and get every single tragedy to fit their narrative.
It often leaves you with egg on your face.
But it's nice to know that Emma has the integrity to apologize and correct herself.
So the update is that the immigrant from Uzbekistan, it's hard to say.
He was an immigrant from Uzbekistan, was the perpetrator of killing eight people in New York City yesterday.
I live within a 10-block radius of what happened yesterday, so it was a little disconcerting and very scary.
Welcome to London, where there have been five terror attacks this year, and only one of them was a non-Muslim terror attack.
And it was in retaliation for Muslim terror attacks.
He crashed a truck from Home Depot through a crowded bike path.
I run on that bike path.
Don't worry, it's only a matter of time until your footpaths are beautified by the use of giant concrete bollards designed to stop cars and trucks.
Thanks, Islam.
Followed by plans from the Islamic State ISIS put on their website.
Yeah, apparently this guy was really deep down the radical Islamist rabbit hole.
He'd spent a year planning this rampage and he had intended to kill as many people as possible and felt good about the attack.
He intentionally chose Halloween because he believed there would be more people on the streets.
He had originally planned to target the Brooklyn Bridge as well and he wanted to display Islamic State flags on the truck but decided not to draw attention to himself.
But I've got to say it is really useful for Muslim terrorists to yell Allahu Akbar when they're committing their terror attacks because it really really prevents the progressives from trying to gain any narrative that isn't this is a lunatic Muslim and he's here to kill people.
So his name is Saifulo Saipov.
He was 29 and he immigrated to the United States from the Central Asian nation of Uzbekistan in 2010.
Let me guess, checkmate Donald Trump, your Muslim ban wouldn't even have prevented this Muslim from entering the country because it wasn't actually a Muslim ban it was a citizen ban from seven Islamic nations and Uzbekistan wasn't one of them.
The attack was the deadliest on New York City since September 11th 2001.
It was actually next to the 9-11 memorial.
Well that's coincidental.
I live streamed the event, or not the event, but the aftermath of the horrific carnage, and you can see the Freedom Tower, where the building built upon Ground Zero, right next to it.
So, after Trump was railing against ISIS on the campaign trail, saying that it was invading America, it appears to be...
Correct.
Is that something that he was right on?
Is it that the Islamic State literally are targeting Americans and America because they hate the infidel and want them all dead?
The first real ISIS truck attack in America as has been seen in Europe.
But it is important to remember that Governor Andrew Cuomo said yesterday that, quote, the best evidence we have is that he was a lone wolf model, meaning he wasn't an agent sent by ISIS.
Indeed, he seems to be one of those homegrown radicals that we've heard so much about that download Islamic State propaganda from the internet, decide, you know what, the infidels are all scum, and I will go to heaven if I kill a bunch of infidels.
I will in fact be doing the Lord's work.
And then they do.
To be honest with you, it's just something you're going to have to get used to.
It's all part and parcel of living in a big city.
The NYPD commissioner John Miller said this.
The gist of the note was that the Islamic State would endure forever.
He left a note, this perpetrator, this terrorist, and he appears to have followed almost exactly the instructions that ISIS has put out on social media channels to its followers.
This is completely correct.
Specifically from Ramaya, which is Arabic for Rome, an Islamic State magazine, issue 9, where they have a very glossy and well-produced page on how to commit a truck of peace attack.
And it's so simple, even a goat fucking jihadi can do it.
You buy or rent a truck or take it from a kafir by force or deception or borrow it from a kafir or mutad and then find an ideal target like a large outdoor festival, pedestrian congested streets or outdoor markets or rallies or something like that and you drive the fucking truck into it.
Because that's literally what it's come down to.
These people are so desperate to kill us, they will use literally anything at hand.
They don't even need guns to do this.
But you know what?
I'm actually with the progressors on this.
Ban assault trucks now.
Again, appears to have taken instructions from ISIS on social media, but we do not know if ISIS is directly involved in the attack, although Governor Cuomo said that it appears to be a lone wolf situation at this particular moment.
So they have facts and they've been accurately recounted.
Now we get to equivocation.
So virtually all the deadly attacks since September 11th, 2001 have been carried out by homegrown extremists.
And that's only true if you take statistics from the day after September 11th, 2001, isn't it?
This is an exception to that pattern.
He legally entered the United States from Uzbekistan seven years ago.
And before you say, you know, well, you want gun control, but you don't want to do anything about trucks?
No, I don't.
Hmm.
Not banning trucks, even though they can be used to kill people.
It's pretty radical.
I don't know how I feel about this.
I think I want to combat how we view international terrorism.
I think it'd be more useful to combat the terrorism itself, to be honest.
I don't really want us to just have to come to peace with it.
We need to stop bombing innocent civilians, allowing for this rage to fester up and for murderous people to use this as an excuse to act out their sick, disgusting fantasies and channel their rage into murder, mass murder.
This is something that the progressives love to do whenever talking about the Islamic State.
They like to individualize the motives of the people involved.
The reason that they kill people is just because they're bad and evil people.
It can't possibly be ideological or religious.
Whereas in fact, it is entirely ideological and religious.
And we know this because the Islamic State will literally spell this out for us.
Specifically to left-wing journalists like Emma here.
In Dabik issue 15, they literally spell this out.
They have a section in this issue called Why We Hate You and Why We Fight You.
And you can see by the way it's laid out doesn't lend itself very well to screenshots.
So I'm just going to read a few choice quotes from this part.
Many Westerners are already aware that claiming the attacks of the Mujine to be senseless and questioning incessantly as to why we hate the West and why we fight them is nothing more than a political act and a propaganda tool.
The politicians will say it regardless of how much it stands in opposition to the facts and common sense just to garner as many votes as they can for the next election cycle.
The analysts and journalists will say it in order to keep themselves from becoming a target for saying something that the masses deem to be politically incorrect.
The apostate Imams in the West will adhere to the same tired cliché in order to avoid a backlash from the disbelieving societies in which they've chosen to reside.
The point is, people know that it's foolish, but they keep repeating it regardless because they're afraid of the consequences of deviating from the script.
There are exceptions among the disbelievers, no doubt.
People who will unabashedly declare that jihad and the laws of Sharia, as well as everything else deemed taboo by the Islam is a peaceful religion crowd, are in fact these are their words, by the way.
This is from this magazine that I'm reading verbatim, just so you know, Emma, right? Are in fact completely Islamic, but they tend to be people with far less credibility who are painted as a social fringe.
Hi there.
So their voices are dismissed and a large segment of the ignorant masses continues believing the false narrative.
As such, it becomes important for us to clarify to the West in unequivocal terms, yet again, why we hate you and why we fight you.
Number one, we hate you for, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers.
You reject the oneness of Allah, whether you realize it or not, by making partners for him in worship.
You blaspheme against him, claiming that he has a son.
You fabricate lies against his prophet and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices.
It is for this reason that we are commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you.
Furthermore, just as your disbelief is the primary reason we hate you, your disbelief is the primary reason we fight you, as we have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to the authority of Islam, either by becoming Muslims or paying jizya, for those afforded this option and living in humiliation under the rule of Muslims.
Thus, even if you were to stop fighting us, your best case scenario in a state of war would be that we would suspend our attacks against you, if we deemed it necessary, in order to focus on the closer and more immediate threats before eventually resuming our campaigns against you.
Apart from the option of a temporary truce, this is the only likely scenario that would bring you fleeting respite from our attacks.
So in the end, you cannot bring an indefinite halt to our war against you.
At most, you could only delay it temporarily, quote, and fight them until there are no fitna, paganism, and until the religion, all of it, is for Allah.
2.
We hate you because your secular liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited, while banning many of the things He has permitted, a matter that doesn't concern you because of your Christian belief and paganism separate between religion and state, thereby granting supreme authority to your whims and desires via the legislators you vote into power.
In doing so, you desire to rob Allah of His right to be obeyed, and you wish to usurp that right for yourselves.
Your secular liberalism has led you to tolerate and even support quote gay rights to allow alcohol, drugs, fornication, gambling, and usury to become widespread, and to encourage the people to mock those who denounce these filthy sins and vices.
As such, we wage war against you to stop you from spreading your disbelief and debauchery, your secularism and nationalism, your perverted liberal values, your Christianity and atheism, and all the depravity and corruption they entail.
You've made it your mission to liberate Muslim societies, we've made it our mission to fight off your influence and protect mankind from your misguided concepts and your deviant way of life.
It is not because they are bloodthirsty lunatics that they fight us.
It is because they believe the things we think are good are bad, and the things they think are good are things we think are bad, and there is no compromise here.
They have been instructed in their minds by God to defeat us because we are sinners.
3.
In the case of the atheist fringe, we hate you and wage war against you because you disbelieve in the existence of your Lord and Creator.
They go on to explain with several quotes exactly why this is a bad thing, but I think you get the idea.
4.
We hate you for your crimes against Islam and wage war against you to punish you for your transgressions against our religion.
This is not the crimes against Muslims.
That's not very high on this list at all.
This is the crimes against Islam as an ideology.
As long as your subjects continue to mock our faith, insult the prophets of Allah, including Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, burn the Quran, and openly vilify the laws of Sharia, we will continue to retaliate, not with slogans and placards, but with bullets and knives.
5.
We hate you for your crimes against the Muslims.
Your drones and fighter jet bombs kill and maim our people around the world, and your puppets in the usurped lands of the Muslims oppress, torture, and wage war against anyone who calls to the truth.
As such, we fight you to stop you from killing our men, women, and children, to liberate those of them whom you imprison and torture, and to take revenge for the countless Muslims who've suffered as a result of your deeds.
And six, we hate you for invading our lands and fight to repel you and drive you out.
As long as there is an inch of territory left for us to reclaim, jihad will continue to be a personal obligation on every single Muslim.
That's the list.
And they finish with this.
What's important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary.
Hence, as an example of the perversion the West seeks to spread and the reason we've addressed it at the end of the above list, the fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you.
Because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam.
What you have said, because we bomb their countries, blah blah blah, is not even in their top three reasons as to why they are fighting us.
They have directly named your profession, Emma, as one of the class of liars regarding the motivations of the Islamic State.
And they have been explicit in refuting you when you say it's just because we're bombing them.
No, it's not.
Obviously, the Islamic State don't like us bombing Muslims and invading Muslim lands, but even if we stop doing that, they won't stop fighting us.
So stop telling people you know what their motivations are because you categorically do not.
Because, do you know this?
President Donald Trump has killed more innocent civilians in Iraq and Syria combating ISIS than President Obama did in his entire presidency.
And it was under Obama's rule that the Islamic State grew and thrived, presumably because Obama was weak.
And I am sorry that civilian casualties happen in war.
Unfortunately, that's something that happens in war.
It's very sad, but there is very little you can do about it.
I can't remember off the top of my head who said it, but the only good war is a swift one.
Bringing a close to hostilities is the only way to prevent civilian casualties.
Obama did not do this.
He let the Islamic State fester and grow and make everyone's lives a misery in that region.
Already, with drones.
So understand that these people are not insane as an entire group.
They're not even insane as individuals.
They just have a really different belief system than we do.
To the point where there is no overlap and there can be no compromise.
And that's not what I think.
That's what they think.
They are using their religion as an ideology to funnel their rage because they go to weddings and they see their cousins getting killed from drones in the sky.
Absolutely wrong.
It's because you don't believe in Allah and you permit all sorts of obscenities.
You permit things that Allah has forbidden and you forbid things that Allah has permitted.
It's because you are a progressive.
You are for gay marriage.
You are for secularism.
You are for atheism and therefore you have to die.
According to the Islamic State, they have explained themselves in explicit detail with a coherent line of reasoning if you believe that there is a God called Allah.
The difference between you and them is that presumably you do not.
That's what ISIS is.
It is an illogical, insane fringe group sprouted from real pain.
Absolutely not true.
It is completely within the logic of Islam to want to remove the harmful innovations from the Muslim lands.
This is why ISIS are not the only Muslim reform group who seek to do this.
That was the founding purpose of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia when they adopted Wahhabism.
The creed was to remove the Western innovations.
The same with the Diobandis in Pakistan.
But you don't know any of this and yet you're still propagating a false narrative.
Basically, you are looking at these people as if they are animals, as if they are incapable of reasoning, as if they are incapable of using their mental faculties.
And unfortunately, you're wrong.
They're not animals.
They're intelligent people.
They are often well educated.
They are often scholars of Islam.
And they will tell you precisely what the Quran says.
In many cases, they've got it goddamn well memorized.
And they have their hardline interpretation, their particularly strict autistic version of Islam, which thankfully does make them a fringe group.
But that doesn't mean it's illogical, irrational, or insane.
It's just really terrible.
And we have to combat that pain to stop the violence.
No, we have to eradicate the Islamic State from the face of the earth.
But what's worse is that there may be no getting rid of this.
The Islamic State may well become a meme.
And this is the problem with homegrown radicalized jihadis like Omar Mateen, who also pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State, despite not having any connection to it in reality.
It may well be that discontented Muslims living in the West who are not happy with the degeneracy of the West, its atheism, its secularism, and its support for forbidden practices, who one day realize that canonical Islamic texts actually say that they can get into heaven by killing the disbeliever, in fighting in the cause of Islam.
And if they look at their lives and think, you know what, I haven't been a particularly good Muslim.
I think there's a good chance that I'm not going to heaven, then we have a problem.
But the media doesn't agree with me.
The Islamic State doesn't agree with you.
Why?
Why does some of the media push for war when eight people die in a truck attack, but when 56 people get shot and killed, they just say, don't politicize.
I hear it endlessly on CNN.
Because a terror attack is by its very nature a politicized event.
They are killing you for political reasons.
However, a mass shooter such as the Mandalay Bay shooter, who doesn't have a political agenda, at least none that we can identify, can't really be politicized, can it?
How are you going to politicize someone who doesn't appear to have a political agenda and seems to be doing it because they have mental problems?
When Donald Trump said God 80 times when he went out after Las Vegas and said, praise God, God be with you.
He didn't say anything about gun control.
He didn't say anything about policy.
They all praised him wall to wall.
Every pundit on CNN, the liberal Clinton CNN praised him.
I imagine that's got something to do with the large number of evangelicals and highly religious people you have in the United States.
I mean, be real.
Do you think Donald Trump spends a lot of time in prayer?
Because he didn't say anything about actual legislation.
He just acted presidential.
To be fair, maybe we should give the man credit.
It's pretty difficult for Donald Trump to act presidential.
So if he actually pulls it off, then, I mean, that's good for Donald Trump, isn't it?
But no, because a person with no previous convictions can buy firearms, that's not a failure of the system.
It's just proof that we're not prescient.
So what is it?
Are we not supposed to politicize when any tragedy happens?
Nobody in any way suggested that.
You politicize a tragedy that is political.
If a tragedy is not political, what's the point in politicizing it?
Because Trump is politicizing right now, saying that we need to end this program and that program.
And the media is complicit saying we need to do a war on ISIS.
They're participating in that.
Why are you against war with ISIS?
ISIS is a terror state.
They oppress everyone they end up ruling over, like a gang of highly religious, right-wing thugs.
They oppress women.
They force them to wear the abaya.
They throw gays off of rooftops.
If a woman is raped, she is punished for adultery.
Do you even understand the depths of the, and I don't use this word lightly, evil that the Islamic State has been perpetrating in Iraq and Syria?
You're fucking right we should declare war on the Islamic State.
A, they've declared war on us, but B, we should wipe it off the face of the planet.
The world will be a better and safer place for Muslims and non-Muslims alike when the Islamic State no longer exists.
Why are you in defense of them?
Do you know what a war on ISIS means?
It means more American lives lost.
Yes, difficult things are accomplished with sacrifice.
But I don't know whether you've noticed you're reporting on American lives lost because of ISIS.
Thank the God I do not believe in that the Islamic State is being absolutely crushed in the Middle East right now.
Unfortunately, it means that outside of the Middle East, we're probably going to find we have more problems with ISIS as they become sort of a romantic myth, but as they recede into history, as Zakawi becomes a bit of a legend in Islamist circles.
But unfortunately, that's the best we can do.
It means invading more countries.
Yes, and the countries that are suffering under the burden of having to deal with ISIS will thank us for it.
But they are okay with politicizing that, just not the politicization of actually acting for gun control.
As I've already explained, it's because the Mandalay base shooter does not appear to have had a political motive.
So you aren't actually addressing the cause that the Mandalay base shooter was fighting for because he doesn't seem to have been fighting for a cause.
What you're doing is using it as a trophy for your own personal cause because you don't like guns.
Well, because that might ruffle some feathers in the establishment and might make them seem liberal.
Honestly, I'm trying to figure out how it is liberal to prevent people from owning weapons and taking part in their own personal self-defense.
I can't find a non-liberal argument for the restriction of firearms.
It would always have to be a pragmatic argument, as in too many people are dying.
We're just going to have to forgo our principles for personal independence here.
And unfortunately, you're going to have to give up your guns because it's just too dangerous.
That's the only argument I can think of.
There isn't a principled liberal argument for restricting people's freedoms.
Which they are so afraid of since the corporate media has been essentially bullied into believing that they're liberal when they just are not.
Yeah, but neither is the American left.
But I know how you're using the term liberal.
You're using it to mean progressive.
I know I'm just being a stickler.
But no, the corporate media is the corporate media.
They will parrot whatever ideology you want them to parrot.
Whatever it's most popular, whatever the cultural zeitgeist is, you'll find it's in the corporate media too, because they are hollow, empty shells who just want to get paid.
The My CNN constantly like Russia this, Russia that.
Because it's ratings.
Because it's ratings?
Our ratings are incredible right now.
That's what's...
I mean, I understand.
It's all ratings, right?
It's a business.
It's a business.
People are like, the media has like an ethical risk.
But I don't know.
All the nice creepsy little ethics that used to get talked about in journalism school, you're just like, that's adorable.
That's adorable.
Yeah, this is a business.
And by the way, this entire narrative is pushed by them by design because they are actually okay with more war.
They are crisis porn industry.
They're a crisis porn industry.
Yeah, you are completely correct about that.
What changed last night?
I think Donald Trump became president of the United States.
I think this was actually a big moment.
They essentially profit off of fear.
Their ratings go up and they're doing okay when that happens.
So I think we all have to remember that it is by design.
The media does, there have been studies, give considerably more coverage to terrorist attacks by Muslims, particularly if the perpetrator is foreign-born, than to attacks by anyone else, according to a new study by researchers at Georgia State University.
Muslims commit far fewer terrorist attacks than non-Muslims, the research found.
But when attacks by Muslims do happen, they have written about 4.5 times more than other attacks.
Not really a surprise given how only 1% of the United States population is Muslim.
And there is currently a global jihad in progress.
And actually, the National Bureau of Economic Research and the Cato Institute, the Conservative Think Tank, found that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than people born in the United States.
Yes, that is the Cato Institute.
You're damn right, I would expect legal immigrants to commit less crimes, because I would assume they've come to the United States or whatever country they've immigrated to to build a happy and successful and above all lawful life.
And can you imagine if it were the case that immigrants in general just happen to commit more crimes than the native population?
Could you think of a stronger anti-immigrant argument than that?
So Donald Trump's saying that we need to do merit-based immigration, merit-based, what's that mean?
It means accepting people with a demonstrable pattern of achievement under the assumption that they will contribute to the system rather than be a drain on it.
It just means you decide who you want to put into this country.
Yes.
The country decides who it's going to allow in and who it won't allow in.
That's the very essence of sovereignty.
If you don't have border controls, you don't have a country.
What's objectionable about that?
Means immigrants are not even committing more crimes, so there's no need to do that merit-based.
Do you not think that that's a bit of a non-sequitur?
We don't need merit-based immigration because most immigrants aren't going to commit a crime.
Well, that's not the merit that we're judging them on.
We're actually talking about ability and accomplishments, not their criminal record.
Although, I'm sure that does come into whether they're allowed into the United States or not as well.
But what I love about this is that you understand that for the lowest paying, most labor-intensive jobs, open borders, which is what you seem to be advocating for, is putting more people in direct competition with the poorest people in society, which depresses their wages.
So it's bad for the poor people in your own country.
And this affects everyone.
So the last immigrant who came in hurts the previous immigrant who came in in a tiny fractional way.
And if you let in, say, a million immigrants a year, which is what the United States does, imagine what that's doing to the wages of the people on the bottom of society.
I mean, do you not find it strange that the people objecting to mass immigration are the poor and working class, and the people who are for it are well-educated, well-to-do progressives who work at places like the Young Turks.
Yes, this man came to the United States illegally, but we cannot prevent every crazy person from coming into this country.
Okay, but we should probably try, shouldn't we?
And again, I know that they're going to use this as a way to scapegoat the entire religion, and fake liberals like Bill Maher will go on TV and say, it's because Muslims are inherently more violent.
Holy shit, Bill Maher is a fake liberal now.
I don't think he has said that every Muslim is naturally more violent, but are you honestly going to tell us that there isn't an interpretation of Islam that isn't the jihadist interpretation?
Honestly, I don't understand why liberals don't treat Islamists like they're members of the Westboro Baptist Church.
Anyone advocating for Sharia law should be mocked and ridiculed and laughed at, not embraced by the quote-unquote liberals.
And ignore entire systemic violence by the United States.
You know, I was watching a video by Atheism Unstoppable and he was talking about how they use the word systemic for everything, and they really do.
The United States is not in systemic control of foreign countries, so you can't really use the word systemic when you're talking about their military escapades.
Upon those countries, and why they are in why ISIS and extremist groups are a byproduct of our systemic violence.
What you've done here is just removed all of their agency.
You have said that these people are essentially animals.
They don't have a choice but to operate in the way that they operate.
And only the United States is a rational decision-making actor in the entire world.
When the United States took out Saddam Hussein, they did set the stage for the rise of ISIS.
There could have been more forethought and planning that went into removing a secular Middle Eastern dictator.
And as we saw with Gaddafi, you get an infestation of jihadis when you get rid of one of these guys, because these guys spend all of their time killing jihadis.
But this does not make them animals.
It does not mean they don't have a choice.
And it is not the fault of the United States that there are jihadis.
I'm saying it!
Sorry!
I forgive you, but I think you're wrong.
They'll ignore that entire reality and then just push this narrative.
Hate crimes against Muslims, by the way, up 560% last year in New York State alone, according to Afar Nasher, executive director of the Council of American Islamic Relations.
According to the same group, nationally, the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes in the United States rose 91% in the first year, half of the year, compared with the same period in 2016.
91%.
I couldn't find the statistics she was talking about, but I found the ones from 2016.
And the percentile is used because the actual number is 196 incidents in 20 states in 2016.
It's actually not the dramatic epidemic that the left wants to make it out to be, but I do want to stress do not randomly attack Muslims because of jihadis.
In the same way that you can't just attack Nazis because they're Nazis, it's immoral.
It's probably also inaccurate, as jihadis do come from a specific kind of radical sect of Islam that most Muslims do not adhere to.
What you are doing is punishing an innocent person for the crimes of someone else.
They rose nationally.
I wonder if Donald Trump, President Trump, has anything to do with that.
Islamic terrorist kills eight people and injures 12 in New York, but somehow it's Donald Trump that is causing hate crimes against Muslims.
You don't think that there are just people out there who are looking to strike back against this what they consider to be an existential threat that is actually killing people on your streets, and you think somehow it's fucking Trump who's causing people to hate Muslims.
The number of bias incidents in the first half of 2017 also rose by 24% compared with the first months of 2016, as CAIR said, Council on American Islamic Relations.
I don't mean to be snarky, but I'm not interested in what the Council on American Islamic Relations thinks about bias.
Additionally, the investigative fund at the Nation Institute examined terrorism in the United States from 2008 to 2016.
Far-right plots and attacks outnumber Islamic incidents almost two to one.
And yet, right-wingers outnumber Muslims in the United States by about 60 to 1.
So by your own statistics, Muslims are heavily overrepresented in terror plots, don't you think?
Huh.
Looking at both plots and attacks carried out, the group tracked 201 terrorist incidents on US soil from January 2008 to the end of 2016.
The database shows 115 cases of right-wing extremists, from white supremacists to militias to sovereign citizens, compared to 63 cases by Islamic extremists.
That is a fucking terrifying ratio for such an insignificant number of the population.
If they're accounting for a third of the attacks or plots, don't you think that's something that's worth discussing?
I mean, you know in Saudi Arabia, they have security cameras in all their mosques, right?
Just in case, and that's in Saudi Arabia, a Wahhabi stronghold, the font of Wahhabism in the world, actually have cameras in their own mosques just in case they're radicalizing people to become suicidal jihadis.
Just so you know.
Incidents from left-wing extremists, which include egoterrorists and animal rights militants, were comparatively rare with 19 incidents.
But apparently, right-wing extremists and left-wing extremists are the same, and Islamic extremists are the worst.
Per capita, by the figures you have given us, yes, they are the worst.
They are also the worst worldwide.
And while there is an interpretation of Islam that says you can martyr yourself to get into heaven, it's not going to stop.
Of them all, apparently, even though the numbers don't bear that out.
Yes, they do.
If you had an equal number of Muslims and right-wingers in your country, you would find there are a lot more Islamic terror attacks than right-wing attacks.
Which is why the Islamic world is absolutely plagued with Muslim terror.
The investigative fund's findings reflect those of previous studies of domestic terrorism.
The New America Foundation, for instance, which has been tracking deadly terror incidents on US soil since the September 11th attacks, also finds an almost two-to-one ratio of attacks by far-right extremists to Islamic extremists.
Yes, but there's not a two-to-one ratio of right-wingers and Muslims.
This is the point.
They are so massively disproportionately represented in your own statistics, and you're just covering this up like it's nothing.
Like, this is just not a problem.
Hey, right-wingers, your rhetoric has consequences.
And so does the left-wing rhetoric of equivocating between a tiny percentage of right-wingers and a much larger percentage of Muslims.
But do you know what I find funny?
Is that when Dylan Roof goes and shoots up a church or something similar, nobody on the right is in defense of Dylan Roof or anything he believed?
They condemn him, they condemn his belief system, and then they condemn his actions.
And when you say it's an entire group of people...
It is an entire group of people.
They're not all terrorists, but they're all permissive of Islamic terrorism.
And we usually call these people Salafists.
It justifies and allows and gives a green light to the hawks on the right and the left to go and bomb people in other countries behind a computer screen with little to no consequences for them and sending your sons and your daughters overseas to bleed for their hatred which is perpetuated in the media.
Yeah, but once again you're complaining that they're bombing jihadis.
There is nothing wrong with the United States defending itself from an enemy that is attacking it.
No, I do not want a belligerent carpet bombing campaign of the Middle East.
But we do have to do something about the terrorism.
4.5 times more likely, They report on it 4.5 times as much if it's a Muslim person.
Well, at least we can agree that the terrorists are actually Muslim.
That's a bold step forward for the left.
This is by design.
It's an othering of people.
When the person doesn't look like us, we can say, well, we're not really them, right?
That's an other group.
But they literally are another group.
They're a group that fundamentally rejects everything you personally believe, and they want to kill you because of it.
We're not talking about Muslims, we're talking specifically about Salafist jihadis.
They're more insidious than us.
They're worse than us because they read a different book, a different, insane, magical book.
Are you about to start defending the Quran?
If you have systemic violence pushed upon you, if you are in countries where there is a huge wealth disparity, you are going to find an excuse to act out with violence, and that is what ISIS is.
This is a completely false narrative.
Most domestic jihadists are well-educated and well-off, and most ISIS recruits are actually well-educated as well and rather well-to-do.
It is not poor people joining ISIS on average.
I used to believe that that would be the case as well, but the facts contradict that narrative.
It's not true.
It is a desperate, disgusting attempt to make themselves more relevant because they feel powerless.
And pushing our violence upon them is going to do nothing more than exacerbate that.
And the media continues to push for it.
It strikes me that what she's saying here is basically a modern day version of the noble savage myth.
The idea that these people, oh, well, they would just be good people if we would just leave them alone, if we wouldn't try to suppress their religious beliefs or something like that.
No, these jihadis know exactly what they're doing, and they know why they're doing it.
And they're doing it because they hate the West.
They hate what we stand for, and they like what the most pure version of Islam is.
And they think that because they are religious fundamentalists, and they literally think that's what God said.
And I really do think it's by design.
I think that they don't mind the war because they can profit off of it.
Conspiracy theorists, all I want, you know, there's a reason that they have a certain brand of liberal and a certain brand of conservative on there all the time.
It's groupthink.
Again, it may not be, hey, you know, we want to push for more war, but the executives like the CBS guy who said, hey, Trump's been good for business.
Hey, war's kind of good for business.
Yes, war is a business.
And like I said, I'm sure you are coming from a place of good intentions here.
You genuinely seem to be legitimately upset that this is the state of the world that we find ourselves in.
And I'm not a particularly huge fan of that either.
But unfortunately, some things force our hand.
And at least we think it's a bad thing that that's the case.
There are some people from differing ideologies who believe it's a good thing that the world would be that way.
So bear that in mind before you condemn the West too harshly.
While Trump goes on Twitter spouting that we need to do something about Muslims in June, the Trump administration reportedly dropped funding for a non-profit Life After Hate, which is a group that helps people leave the white supremacist movement.
So even though that is a larger problem in the country, right-wing terrorism by a two-to-one ratio, we're going to drop funding from groups that combat that.
While I don't agree with defunding that either, that's not going to have any effect on Muslim terrorism, is it?
One, it's Trump likes white supremacy.
Congress passed a resolution earlier this week pushing Trump to put his signature on something expressly singling out white supremacy's condemnation.
The White House said in response to the resolution's passage that Trump would absolutely signed it and looked forward to the opportunity.
The resolution condemned the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia last month and white nationalists, white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis and other hate groups.
Well, if he does like them, he has a funny way of showing it.
I think the confusion is that they like him and that's because he is anti-immigration.
Two, it's also that they think that the only way to stop any kind of violence is from just beating people down with our force.
When it comes to jihadis, I don't really see any other option.
It's very difficult to get ISIS to come to the table and negotiate if they think that you have no right to exist.
And you know what?
That doesn't work.
Yeah, it does.
I love how I saw Mike Pence tweet out, war on terror.
We're combating, we're remark, commemorating that it started 30 years ago.
And I replied, yeah, you've been super successful since then.
Well, yes, but that's due to the incompetence and lack of understanding of the people at the top.
So you should be celebrating it.
That's because you can't end a movement in this region that is sparked up, that has existed in direct response to essentially American imperial power.
Well, you can.
You can kill the people who are part of that movement, and that movement will end.
But this is something that is part of Islam.
You are right.
And it's not American imperial power that started it.
It's Western imperial power.
Just Western, and even then, not necessarily even Western imperialism.
Islam at least understands imperialism.
Islam is a remarkably imperialist ideology.
What they don't like are the cultural effects of Western imperialism.
They're not so much bothered by the fact that we're invading and killing Muslims, which is why that was points five and six on the list.
They're more bothered by our rejection of Allah, our degenerate ways, and our atheism.
I know that sounds like a completely backwards set of priorities, but they have a totally different worldview to you.
Violence begets violence, and if we continue to essentially try to stomp them out, more people are just going to sprout up.
So what are you saying?
We should treat the Islamic State as if it is an actual nation-state, as if the territory that they have conquered with rape and murder should be just given to them.
No, this is your legitimate conquest.
You know, you used force to get this.
That's legitimate.
We're going to allow you to exist.
We're actually going to start having international relations with ISIS.
Isn't that what you're suggesting?
We have to respond to this in a different way.
And I don't know how someone like Mike Pence can see that 30-year mark and say, let's continue more of what we've been doing.
Let's double down on the drone strikes, on the violence.
And Democrats are guilty of this as well.
It's nice to be in agreement with you.
I also disagree with the war on terror.
I disagree with wars on abstract concepts.
I don't think they work.
I don't think there's an end goal.
And really, there is no enemy to actually defeat.
What we should be doing is choosing specific terror groups and work to defeat them directly, using whatever force is necessary in my opinion.
But I'm just a guy who makes videos on the internet.
There may well be people who have better solutions, and one would hope they would be able to advise the president of the United States.
It's an open question.
I don't think anyone actually has a good answer here.
while this entire swath of the Republican Party, these bigots that support Donald Trump.
Hey, since talking about bigotry, let me tell you about how white people are the problem.
Oh, men are a problem as well.
By the way, Christians, don't even get me started.
I know, we're not talking about the general election.
We're talking about right now, the people that are yay MAGA.
And those fake liberals like Bill Maher and Sam Harris who say that Muslims, because of their book, are inherently more violent.
We have to stand up and say, no.
Or what?
You're looking at an epidemic of Muslim violence.
It comes from a very specific sect within Islam.
This is what Sam Harris and Bill Maher have been talking about for years now, and you're still not listening.
Be a little bit smarter and be a little bit more critical of your government.
I'm all for holding power to account, but almost everything you've said here is either factually inaccurate or a misrepresentation of statistics or you projecting what you think would be the right intentions on people who will literally tell you openly what their intentions are and you haven't got it right.
So, I mean, what exactly do you think we can do?
Which has been an active participant in creating this violence.
And someone in the media needs to be a voice that says that.
Look, saying someone is an active participant in creating something they didn't intend to create means that it was accidental.
The United States government didn't want ISIS to exist, presumably.
I'm going to take off my Tinfoil hat and say that.
And now we have a problem that our security services, especially in Europe, are desperately trying to keep a lid on.
And every day it becomes more difficult.
Because the corporate media is not saying it.
Alright, guys, have a good day.
Take it easy, Emma.
And if you ever actually do end up watching this, I just want you to know, I really don't think you're a badly intentioned person.
I know I keep saying this, but like, I have to refute what you're saying because what you're saying is simply not accurate.
If what you were saying was accurate, then I wouldn't have made this video.
▲
Export Selection