True or false. People who complain about "hate crimes" being a thing probably want Muslim "bad guys" to suffer more

[Elok]

Well, I'm opposed to hate crime laws, and I poked fun at Sloww's 9/11 thread (I think of "never forget" as an empty civic piety, up there with American flag lapel pins and that crappy Proud to be an American song). I find Islam as a belief system repugnant, but I don't believe Muslims as a class are significantly more violent than the general population. In much the same way I find atheism unpleasant, but don't suspect Lori or Loin of closeted nihilism.

If four thousand people were killed in one set of attacks for some non-religious motive, I am reasonably confident that we would have gone to war with/killed the hell out of whoever was responsible anyway. If 9/11 is to be held up as an example of a hate crime (as it was in the last argument I had on the subject), then the opposite of the OP's thesis would be true; people who believe in hate crime would want extra punishment for Muslims, not less, compared to those who don't.

[Thoth]

If four thousand people were killed in one set of attacks for some non-religious motive, I am reasonably confident that we would have gone to war with/killed the hell out of whoever was responsible anyway.

Why?

When a bunch of Saudi Arabian terrorists blew up a couple of your buildings you did nothing to retaliate against Saudi Arabia. So why would it be any different if the motive was something other than getting your troops out of their "Holy" lands?

[loinburger]

The Oklahoma City bombing resulted in zero aftermath other than the execution of McVeigh and imprisonment of Nichols and Fortier, because who else was there to go after? There was a bit of "those darned anti-government militias" rhetoric, but the militias didn't assist in the attack and weren't breaking any laws so who cares?

[Elok]

Why?

When a bunch of Saudi Arabian terrorists blew up a couple of your buildings you did nothing to retaliate against Saudi Arabia. So why would it be any different if the motive was something other than getting your troops out of their "Holy" lands?

Which specific incident are you referring to, and how many people did it kill?

[loinburger]

I think he's talking about 9/11 - most of the hijackers were Saudi Arabian

[Aeson]

I don't think hate crimes should be a thing and I don't want "Muslim bad guys" (or even actual bad boys) to suffer more.

(I'm not arguing against the basic premise of the thread, which I think holds true more often than not.)

[Thoth]

Which specific incident are you referring to, and how many people did it kill?

I think he's talking about 9/11 - most of the hijackers were Saudi Arabian

[Elok]

You said blew up. They flew planes into them, no explosives involved. It sounded like you were referring to some incident from the nineties, like the USS Cole thing.

[Sava]

jet fuel.... explodes... exploded

never forget:

[Sava]

also, maybe you should get your eyes checked

[Sava]

and your brain

[Elok]

As to the substance of it, Loin's reply re: OKC mostly covers it. Sure, Saudi Arabia believes in and promotes an insane, hateful version of Islam little different from that of our enemies. Sure, they're a breeding ground for terrorist extremism. Officially, though, they disown any connection to terrorist groups. Hell, most of the groups are gunning for the Sauds just as much as they are for us.

[Sava]

Saudi Arabia is a country. Countries can't believe things... only people can.

[Elok]

I posted in this thread to see if I could turn your dumb troll into an intelligent discussion. I'm not actually interested in where I fit in your weird crypto-atheist Manichaean-progressive worldview. In any case, after so many dozens of posts that's already abundantly clear.

[Sava]

I posted in this thread

[...]

intelligent discussion.

mutually exclusive