Why They Hate Us...How Many Muslims Have US Killed In Last 30 Years?


JBeee
#1
by Stephen M. Walt

Tom Friedman had an especially fatuous column (external - login to view)in Sunday's New York Times, which is saying something given his well-established capacity for smug self-assurance.

According to Friedman, the big challenge we face in the Arab and Islamic world is "the Narrative" -- his patronizing term for Muslim views about America's supposedly negative role in the region. If Muslims weren't so irrational, he thinks, they would recognize that "U.S. foreign policy has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny." He concedes that we made a few mistakes here and there (such as at Abu Ghraib), but the real problem is all those anti-American fairy tales that Muslims tell each other to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions.

I heard a different take on this subject at a recent conference on U.S. relations with the Islamic world. In addition to hearing a diverse set of views from different Islamic countries, one of the other participants (a prominent English journalist) put it quite simply. "If the United States wants to improve its image in the Islamic world," he said, "it should stop killing Muslims."

Now I don't think the issue is quite that simple, but the comment got me thinking: How many Muslims has the United States killed in the past thirty years, and how many Americans have been killed by Muslims? Coming up with a precise answer to this question is probably impossible, but it is also not necessary, because the rough numbers are so clearly lopsided.

Here's my back-of-the-envelope analysis, based on estimates deliberately chosen to favor the United States. Specifically, I have taken the low estimates of Muslim fatalities, along with much more reliable figures for U.S. deaths.
To repeat: I have deliberately selected "low-end" estimates for Muslim fatalities, so these figures present the "best case" for the United States. Even so, the United States has killed nearly 30 Muslims for every American lost. The real ratio is probably much higher, and a reasonable upper bound for Muslim fatalities (based mostly on higher estimates of "excess deaths" in Iraq due to the sanctions regime and the post-2003 occupation) is well over one million, equivalent to over 100 Muslim fatalities for every American lost.

Figures like these should be used with caution, of course, and several obvious caveats apply. To begin with, the United States is not solely responsible for some of those fatalities, most notably in the case of the "excess deaths" attributable to the U.N. sanctions regime against Iraq. Saddam Hussein clearly deserves much of the blame for these "excess deaths," insofar as he could have complied with Security Council resolutions and gotten the sanctions lifted or used the "oil for food" problem properly. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the United States (and the other SC members) knew that keeping the sanctions in place would cause tens of thousands of innocent people to die and we went ahead anyway.

Similarly, the United States is not solely to blame for the sectarian violence that engulfed Iraq after the 2003 invasion. U.S. forces killed many Iraqis, to be sure, but plenty of Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis, and foreign infiltrators were pulling triggers and planting bombs too. Yet it is still the case that the United States invaded a country that had not attacked us, dismantled its regime, and took hardly any precautions to prevent the (predictable) outbreak of violence. Having uncapped the volcano, we are hardly blameless, and that goes for pundits like Friedman who enthusiastically endorsed the original invasion.

Third, the fact that people died as a result of certain U.S. actions does not by itself mean that those policy decisions were wrong. I'm a realist, and I accept the unfortunate fact that international politics is a rough business and sometimes innocent people die as a result of actions that may in fact be justifiable. For example, I don't think it was wrong to expel Iraq from Kuwait in 1991 or to topple the Taliban in 2001. Nor do I think it was wrong to try to catch Bin Laden -- even though people died in the attempt -- and I would support similar efforts to capture him today even if it placed more people at risk. In other words, a full assessment of U.S. policy would have to weigh these regrettable costs against the alleged benefits to the United States itself or the international community as a whole.

Yet if you really want to know "why they hate us," the numbers presented above cannot be ignored. Even if we view these figures with skepticism and discount the numbers a lot, the fact remains that the United States has killed a very large number of Arab or Muslim individuals over the past three decades. Even though we had just cause and the right intentions in some cases (as in the first Gulf War), our actions were indefensible (maybe even criminal) in others.

It is also striking to observe that virtually all of the Muslim deaths were the direct or indirect consequence of official U.S. government policy. By contrast, most of the Americans killed by Muslims were the victims of non-state terrorist groups such as al Qaeda or the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Americans should also bear in mind that the figures reported above omit the Arabs and Muslims killed by Israel in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank. Given our generous and unconditional support for Israel's policy towards the Arab world in general and the Palestinians in particular, Muslims rightly hold us partly responsible for those victims too.

Contrary to what Friedman thinks, our real problem isn't a fictitious Muslim "narrative" about America's role in the region; it is mostly the actual things we have been doing in recent years. To say that in no way justifies anti-American terrorism or absolves other societies of responsibility for their own mistakes or misdeeds. But the self-righteousness on display in Friedman's op-ed isn't just simplistic; it is actively harmful. Why? Because whitewashing our own misconduct makes it harder for Americans to figure out why their country is so unpopular and makes us less likely to consider different (and more effective) approaches.

Some degree of anti-Americanism may reflect ideology, distorted history, or a foreign government's attempt to shift blame onto others (a practice that all governments indulge in), but a lot of it is the inevitable result of policies that the American people have supported in the past. When you kill tens of thousands of people in other countries -- and sometimes for no good reason -- you shouldn't be surprised when people in those countries are enraged by this behavior and interested in revenge. After all, how did we react after September 11?
 
shadowshiv
Free Thinker
#2
Sweeeeet! Another copy and paste article.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#3
This is of course, completely idiotic, as usual.

The First Gulf war was fought in defense of Muslim Kuwait and Muslim Saudi Arabia, by a coalition that included a number of Muslim states........

The vast majority of post-war deaths in Iraq were Sunni on Shia......the USA had little to do with it, except to try and stop it.

The stuff you post simply has little or no connection with reality.

Sanctions were a UN construct.

Somalia was also a UN construct, the Americans went in there to help a starving nation in the grip of warlords using food as a weapon.....like Darfur......
 
JBeee
#4
Hi sweety!! Glad to see you pull your nose outta the mod`s asses long enough to chime in on this particular subject.

Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshivView Post

Sweeeeet! Another copy and paste article.

 
JBeee
#5
"the Americans went in there to help a starving nation"....

"The First Gulf war was fought in defense of Muslim Kuwait and Muslim Saudi Arabia, by a coalition that included a number of Muslim states........"

"The vast majority of post-war deaths in Iraq were Sunni on Shia......the USA had little to do with it, except to try and stop it."......

Untill 9/11. lol


.....cowardly puppet states that were afraid the Mid East`s wealth might get shared fairly amongst their neighbours.

Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

This is of course, completely idiotic, as usual.

The First Gulf war was fought in defense of Muslim Kuwait and Muslim Saudi Arabia, by a coalition that included a number of Muslim states........

The vast majority of post-war deaths in Iraq were Sunni on Shia......the USA had little to do with it, except to try and stop it.

The stuff you post simply has little or no connection with reality.

Sanctions were a UN construct.

Somalia was also a UN construct, the Americans went in there to help a starving nation in the grip of warlords using food as a weapon.....like Darfur......

Last edited by JBeee; Dec 1st, 2009 at 06:35 PM..
 
gerryh
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

This is of course, completely idiotic, as usual.

The First Gulf war was fought in defense of Muslim Kuwait and Muslim Saudi Arabia, by a coalition that included a number of Muslim states........

The vast majority of post-war deaths in Iraq were Sunni on Shia......the USA had little to do with it, except to try and stop it.

The stuff you post simply has little or no connection with reality.

Sanctions were a UN construct.

Somalia was also a UN construct, the Americans went in there to help a starving nation in the grip of warlords using food as a weapon.....like Darfur......


well of course..... the americans hold no responsibility at all..... they're pure as the driven snow...... driven only by idealistic motives.

now excuse me while I go barf.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

well of course..... the americans hold no responsibility at all..... they're pure as the driven snow...... driven only by idealistic motives.

now excuse me while I go barf.

Common Gerry, I expect better from you......

I never said the USA was blameless.........

How about a coherent argument???
 
shadowshiv
Free Thinker
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by JBeeeView Post

Hi sweety!! Glad to see you pull your nose outta the mod`s asses long enough to chime in on this particular subject.

I am a Mod. Do pay attention.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by JBeeeView Post

"the Americans went in there to help a starving nation"....

"The First Gulf war was fought in defense of Muslim Kuwait and Muslim Saudi Arabia, by a coalition that included a number of Muslim states........"

"The vast majority of post-war deaths in Iraq were Sunni on Shia......the USA had little to do with it, except to try and stop it."......

Untill 9/11. lol


.....cowardly puppet states that were afraid the Mid East`s wealth might get shared fairly amongst their neighbours.

Stop.

Put out the joint.

Try to focus and write a coherent paragraph.....this one makes no sense at all, to anybody.
 
TenPenny
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshivView Post

I am a Mod. Do pay attention.

So you're nose is in your own ***? Man, you must be flexible!
 
JBeee
#11
Holy ****, am I in trouble....I havn`t even sparked one up yet!!

So what...I ****ed up on the dam quoting bs....but come clean Colpy, you got my drift.

Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Stop.

Put out the joint.

Try to focus and write a coherent paragraph.....this one makes no sense at all, to anybody.

 
Colpy
Conservative
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by JBeeeView Post

Holy ****, am I in trouble....I havn`t even sparked one up yet!!

So what...I ****ed up on the dam quoting bs....but come clean Colpy, you got my drift.

No, my problem was not with quoting......let me explain...

Somalia was a UN mission in a starving nation.....the USA went in at the request of the UN.....and tried to solve the underlying problem, which was the Warlords and militias......
Explain, please, how you see the Somalian debacle as some evil revelation of American malfeasance.......
You can't. They had nothing to gain. They went in on purely humanitarian grounds...you laugh at that....so....please explain where I have gone wrong by revealing to me the wickedness of US motives.

After the Second Gulf War Sunni and Shia started murdering each other en masse.......you laugh and say "until 9-11", which is, of course, nonsense, as the USA didn't invade Iraq until 2003.

Then you come up with this gem........"cowardly puppet states that were afraid the Mid East`s wealth might get shared fairly amongst their neighbours."

Now I assume you are speaking of the Muslim members of the coaltion in the Second Gulf War.......you will excuse my ignorance, but I was unaware that Syria (for one) was a puppet of the USA......nor did I realize that Iraq, rich in its own oil reserves, had a right to Kuwaiti oil....and eventually to Saudi Arabian oil......because that was Saddam's dream, a united Arab Peninsula, under his rule.

I think you need to look up the word "shared" in the dictionary....I don't think it means what you think it means...

Is that a concise enough criticism for you???
 
shadowshiv
Free Thinker
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

So you're nose is in your own ***? Man, you must be flexible!

The ladies seem to enjoy it.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshivView Post

The ladies seem to enjoy it.

And you can lick your eye brows? (hopefully not while you nose is in your butt.)
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#15
JBeee

How many Muslims have been murdered and tortured by their own govt - More than the US I would say. But that would go against your religion of Hatred now wouldn't it?
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by JBeeeView Post

"the Americans went in there to help a starving nation"....

"The First Gulf war was fought in defense of Muslim Kuwait and Muslim Saudi Arabia, by a coalition that included a number of Muslim states........"

"The vast majority of post-war deaths in Iraq were Sunni on Shia......the USA had little to do with it, except to try and stop it."......

Untill 9/11. lol


.....cowardly puppet states that were afraid the Mid East`s wealth might get shared fairly amongst their neighbours.

JBeee
With that logic you would steal from a weel to do neighbor - well a Thief is a thief - Now we have a little better understanding of what you stand for - Thievery -
 
JBeee
#17
"you would steal from a weel to do neighbor"........am I THat transparent??


Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

JBeee
With that logic you would steal from a weel to do neighbor - well a Thief is a thief - Now we have a little better understanding of what you stand for - Thievery -

 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#18
It may surprise some here, but I can see where JBeee is coming from. Not about Americans killing Muslims, of course. But USA is terrible at foreign policy, many times their policy ends up hurting those who they are supposedly out to help.

Consider Afghanistan. Taliban is really a product of America’s making. When USSR occupied Afghanistan, USA actively supported and trained the Mujaheedin, some of whom later morphed into the Taliban.

USA should have been astute enough to realize that Taliban would be much more nasty, vicious and destructive enemy than USSR, but it wasn’t. If USA had pursued a policy of benign neglect at that time, denouncing USSR in the UN, in NATO, wherever they could without actually helping the Fundamentalist Muslims, today Taliban would be non existent and Afghanistan would probably be a free country. It may still be fought over by the warlords, and may still have been poor, but at least it wouldn’t have been a haven for terrorists.

Or look at Iraq. Again, Saddam was a product of America’s making. For a long time USA supported Saddam as a counterweight against Fundamentalist Iran. What was the result? Death of half a million Muslims (Iraqis) and more than 4000 Americans.

So I wouldn’t’ say to USA, stop killing Muslims. USA does not set out to kill Muslims, as the 9/11 terrorists deliberately set out to kill innocent men, women and children. But I would say to USA, have sensible foreign policy, know who your enemies are, and don’t encourage your enemies (like you encouraged Taliban and Saddam Hussein).
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#19
The biggest problem with US foreign policy is that it is so linked to the companies that the rulers of the day hold shares in. If Obama had shares in any company that had an interest in Venezuela the US army would already be in there removing communists.
Somewhere a while back I saw a chart that showed more or less how many muslims were killed by our side, including Israel defending its self and how many were killed by other muslims. Muslims killed by muslims out numbered those killed by us by better than 3 to 1.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

It may surprise some here, but I can see where JBeee is coming from. Not about Americans killing Muslims, of course. But USA is terrible at foreign policy, many times their policy ends up hurting those who they are supposedly out to help.
Consider Afghanistan. Taliban is really a product of America’s making. When USSR occupied Afghanistan, USA actively supported and trained the Mujaheedin, some of whom later morphed into the Taliban.
USA should have been astute enough to realize that Taliban would be much more nasty, vicious and destructive enemy than USSR, but it wasn’t. If USA had pursued a policy of benign neglect at that time, denouncing USSR in the UN, in NATO, wherever they could without actually helping the Fundamentalist Muslims, today Taliban would be non existent and Afghanistan would probably be a free country. It may still be fought over by the warlords, and may still have been poor, but at least it wouldn’t have been a haven for terrorists.
Or look at Iraq. Again, Saddam was a product of America’s making. For a long time USA supported Saddam as a counterweight against Fundamentalist Iran. What was the result? Death of half a million Muslims (Iraqis) and more than 4000 Americans.
So I wouldn’t’ say to USA, stop killing Muslims. USA does not set out to kill Muslims, as the 9/11 terrorists deliberately set out to kill innocent men, women and children. But I would say to USA, have sensible foreign...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Damn this guy irritates me sooooo much, and I don't know why.

First of all, the fact that the Islamic rebels fighting the USSR showed little gratitude to their American saviours is hardly the fault of the USA.

Secondly, the idea that the Taliban is "much more nasty, vicious and destructive enemy than USSR," is so idiotic as to leave one breathless!!!!!

Thirdly, the Islamic rebels in Afghanistan could not have won without American help....the idea that if the USA had stayed uninvolved "Afghanistan would probably be a free country" is a concept that can be processed only by minds more agile than mine!

Fourth...The USA did not "make" Saddam.....they did not even support him until it looked as if Iran was going to conquer the entire western end of the Persian Gulf.....and then their support was hesitant, relatively minor, and measured...

Fifth.....I don't believe half a million died in Iraq....although that is the ONLY point of fact in which he MIGHT be correct......

Drives me nuts.
Last edited by Colpy; Dec 2nd, 2009 at 12:10 AM..
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Damn this guy irritates me sooooo much, and I don't know why.

Drives me nuts.

Take a deep breath and a Valium and call me in the morning.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Take a deep breath and a Valium and call me in the morning.

Good advice.

Good Night.

 
Avro
No Party Affiliation
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

This is of course, completely idiotic, as usual.

The First Gulf war was fought in defense of Muslim Kuwait and Muslim Saudi Arabia, by a coalition that included a number of Muslim states........

The vast majority of post-war deaths in Iraq were Sunni on Shia......the USA had little to do with it, except to try and stop it.

The stuff you post simply has little or no connection with reality.

Sanctions were a UN construct.

Somalia was also a UN construct, the Americans went in there to help a starving nation in the grip of warlords using food as a weapon.....like Darfur......

Really? So foreign policy by the West had nothing to do with why the West gets attacked....nothing?

Have you ever even spoken to a person from the area?

You are so wrong here it's laughable.

You left out some things about what really went down in the Gulf War....here's a hint....April Glaspie.

Sunni and Shia fought in a situation where no one had control because of......what?

The security council is controlled by the west.

Somalia, again Western invasion....don't look at it from your cozy chair Colpy...look at it from their perspective.

After the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan the lines for terrorist recruitment went way up....what else is a poor bugger to do when his family gets wiped out by a "stray" bomb? Get revenge on the ****ers that did it.

The U.S. and the West have spent decades propping up dictatorial regimes and taking sides and they are suddenly shocked that some are bloody well fed up of it?

What a joke.

It's this sort of "we did nothing wrong" attitude that is part of the problem. As well as thinking you can force democracy on people.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

Really? So foreign policy by the West had nothing to do with why the West gets attacked....nothing?

Have you ever even spoken to a person from the area?

You are so wrong here it's laughable.

You left out some things about what really went down in the Gulf War....here's a hint....April Glaspie.

Sunni and Shia fought in a situation where no one had control because of......what?

The security council is controlled by the west.

Somalia, again Western invasion....don't look at it from your cozy chair Colpy...look at it from their perspective.

After the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan the lines for terrorist recruitment went way up....what else is a poor bugger to do when his family gets wiped out by a "stray" bomb? Get revenge on the ****ers that did it.

The U.S. and the West have spent decades propping up dictatorial regimes and taking sides and they are suddenly shocked that some are bloody well fed up of it?

What a joke.

It's this sort of "we did nothing wrong" attitude that is part of the problem. As well as thinking you can force democracy on people.

Foreign policy has a lot to do with why the west is attacked.

Islamist fanatics don't like it that we support a liberal western democracy in their midst.......that would be Israel, and is the biggest reason for the hatred of Islamic fundamentalists against us. And that hatred will never end as long as Israel exists....sooooo....

What have we done wrong? Oh, tons of things.....like supporting a Saudi royal family that has encouraged extremely radical Islamist sects.....a policy that backfired on them.....and us.

Not gone on to Baghdad in 1991. And when the US did finally finish the First Gulf War in 2003, failing to be prepared for the chaos that happened.

Supported the Shah of Iran for decades....in fact, put him in power.

And on and on and on.......but we have also done very good things for the Islamic world.....

But most of the bad stuff is in the past.......can't do anything about it now......so we have to carry on....and I certainly would not allow our foreign policy to be dictated by our enemies
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#25
On topic, Foreign policy should focus on helping people to exist on their own. Throwing money at a problem only creates dependency ... and that will come back to bite *** every time.

Moderator's Edit: Removed section involving a post that was removed.
Last edited by shadowshiv; Dec 2nd, 2009 at 01:48 PM..
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

Really? So foreign policy by the West had nothing to do with why the West gets attacked....nothing?

Sunni and Shia fought in a situation where no one had control because of......what?
.

There was no fighting between Shia and Sunni when Saddam was in power (I suppose he alone was doing enough killing for both). The infighting between Shia and Sunni started after Bush invaded Iraq.

So nobody is accusing Bush for killing half a million Iraqis (as I said before, USA does not set out to kill Muslims). However, USA does bear indirect responsibility for all the violence occurring in Iraq after the Iraq invasion.

Besides, Colpy may disagree, but I think Fundamentalist Islam is a bigger threat that USSR ever was. There was a balance of power (or balance of terror) between USA and USSR. Both were armed to the hilt, but nether dare attack the other, because they knew that whoever embarked upon the first nuclear strike will be paid back ten fold.

But here is the important difference between USSR and Taliban or Al Qaeda. USSR did not want their country devastated by nuclear war, so they did not attack USA. There was peace between the two for decades.

Al Qaeda or Taliban does not care if there is a hundred fold retaliation, they do not care if 100 million Muslims die as a result of US retaliation. If they can get their hands on a nuclear weapon, they will hit USA, hit it hard, and damn the consequences.

Possibility of nuclear warfare is greatly increased with Taliban or Al Qaeda, and in that respect, Taliban is a much more dangerous enemy that USSR (though perhaps not as powerful).

In World War 2, USA was shrewd enough to realize that Nazi Germany was a much more dangerous enemy than USSR. Unfortunately, they got things wrong in Afghanistan, they decided to support the wrong side (Taliban).
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post


The U.S. and the West have spent decades propping up dictatorial regimes and taking sides and they are suddenly shocked that some are bloody well fed up of it?

What a joke.

It's this sort of "we did nothing wrong" attitude that is part of the problem. As well as thinking you can force democracy on people.


Indeed. This attitude is prevalent in USA (‘we did nothing wrong’). If USA does not learn from its mistakes with Taliban and with Saddam, it is destined to repeat them.

I think JBeee (or whoever wrote the article, if it is copy and paste) makes a very good point, why do the moderates in the Islamic world have such an enmity towards USA? One can understand Osama Ben laden, Mullah Mohammed Omar etc, and dismiss them out of hand. But why the ill feeling on the part of moderates?

I think the answer is that USA means well, they set out to do the right thing, then screw everything up and end up hurting those they wanted to help.

I think USA has to do some soul searching. Obviously whatever they are doing in the Middle East is not working. They have to ask themselves, what can we do differently and how?

If they go on with the same arrogant, swaggering attitude that we didn’t do anything wrong, they are destined to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.
 
shadowshiv
Free Thinker
#28
Enough! What is the point of having people on Ignore if you are going to bring it up ad nauseum?

It shouldn't matter if a person's post is seen via a person's quote. If you see that person's name, just scroll past that post as well. Not a perfect system, but it works well enough. If you have a person on Ignore, then Ignore that person. If you want to respond to a post from that person, just take them off Ignore! The whole "well, I have you on Ignore, but I saw your post in a quote, so I am going to respond" spiel is getting tired.

I don't dislike you, far from it actually, but sometimes you can frustrate me to no end. I am saying this as a fellow poster, NOT as a Mod.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshivView Post

Enough! What is the point of having people on Ignore if you are going to bring it up ad nauseum?

It shouldn't matter if a person's post is seen via a person's quote. If you see that person's name, just scroll past that post as well. Not a perfect system, but it works well enough. If you have a person on Ignore, then Ignore that person. If you want to respond to a post from that person, just take them off Ignore! The whole "well, I have you on Ignore, but I saw your post in a quote, so I am going to respond" spiel is getting tired.

I don't dislike you, far from it actually, but sometimes you can frustrate me to no end. I am saying this as a fellow poster, NOT as a Mod.

Point taken, I will keep that in mind. And you may say that as a fellow poster, but it is hardly possible to keep the two separate. Anyway, I will keep that in mind for future. There is no need to mention that somebody is on 'ignore' again.

However, I do reserve the right to respond to a particular post from somebody who I have on ignore.
 
shadowshiv
Free Thinker
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Point taken, I will keep that in mind. And you may say that as a fellow poster, but it is hardly possible to keep the two separate. Anyway, I will keep that in mind for future.

Sure it can be kept separate, and I did in this instance. I am not threatening punishment at all. I am saying it as a regular reader who has noticed it cropping up lately, that's all.

And thank you for keeping it in mind.

ETA: Since you edited your post while I was creating this post...

That is fine, you can do that but don't make mention of it all the time. If you want to respond to a post, respond to the post. Any mentioning of Ignoring is not needed with said post.
 

Similar Threads

2
Why Neocons Hate Muslims
by JBeee | Feb 25th, 2010
20
Hate Crimes Against Muslims in America
by Researcher87 | Nov 3rd, 2006
0
Hate Crimes toward Non -Muslims
by northstar | Nov 3rd, 2006
no new posts