In a case which I have been following daily for the past week, a Federal judge in Sacramento has declared a mistrial in the “terror” case against a Pakistani American ice cream truck driver. His son’s (accused of attending a terrorist training camp) jury is still deliberating but may also end up hung (see previous posts for backstory 1, 2, 3). This is a huge defeat for the government. CNN reports:
Umer Hayat, 48, and his 23-year-old son were tried at the same time but given separate juries. The son’s jury was still deliberating Tuesday.
The announcement of a mistrial in the father’s case came one day after the jurors told U.S. District Court Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. they could not reach an unanimous decision after nearly two weeks of deliberations.
“The jury declared that it was hopelessly deadlocked this morning,” deputy court clerk Carol Davis said Tuesday. Burrell questioned each juror and then discharged them…“They couldn’t prove it because it didn’t happen,” Umer Hayat’s attorney, Johnny Griffin III, said outside court Tuesday. “He’s not a terrorist. There is no evidence to demonstrate he is a terrorist…” [Link]
<
p>What makes the government’s loss particularly embarrassing is that jurors were shown a taped confession but STILL didn’t find him guilty. I’ll bet you this case is used as a teaching tool in law schools for years to come. That’s what happens when you try to manipulate someone who doesn’t have mastery over the English language (see my previous post #3 linked above). The manipulation seems like it was evident to the jury but we will have to wait until they are interviewed in the coming days.
The Hayat case centered on videotaped confessions the men gave separately last June to FBI agents and a government informant who secretly recorded hundreds of hours of conversations but whose credibility was challenged by the defense.
Defense lawyers’ biggest hurdle was trying to persuade jurors to discount the men’s videotaped confessions. They argued that the confessions were made under duress, after the men had been questioned for hours in the middle of the night… .
The father and son eventually told the agents merely what they thought they wanted to hear, without realizing the legal consequences, their lawyers argued. [Link]
<
p>
The case against the son was considered stronger by the government but the fact that the jury has been out this long is a good sign for him as well.
Update: The jury convicts the son after all.
As opposed to the people in this thread who express sympathy for a virulent anti-Semite and anti-American like Sami Al Arian. Right… somehow I don’t think those deductive powers will qualify you for MENSA…
Vikram here are some things that Pearl Jam Fan has stated:
1) that a not-guilty plea in a court of law is a “defeat for all americans” 2) that a person who is being charged with a crime that Pearl Jam Fan has seen no evidence should be convicted. 3) that you can’t compare a Palestinian alleged supporter of political violence with an Irish group that is known to have engaged in political violence for decades.
Here are some things that MoorNam has stated:
1) that this case demonstrates that “all the fear-mongering about this administration subverting the Constitution is just hot gas.” 2) that a guilty verdict in a case he knows nothing about is cause for celebration.
Here are some things that you’ve stated:
1) that the U.S. governemnet doesn’t apply racism in its deportation/admissions policies. 2) that “these cases all begin to blur together.” for you.
Never once did any of you stop to consider that these two men might be innocent. It doesn’t seem like you stop to consider that all “terrorism”-related cases should be looked at individually. It doesn’t seem like you know much of the recent history of immigration policies or seem to disbelieve it despite overwhelming evidence that Muslims (and others) have been systematically targeted at various points and in vairous ways by the U.S. government over the past 5 years. It doesn’t seem like any of you even tried to consider seriously the arguments about the massive expansion in powers that the Bush Administration has sought (and largely been given) in the name of the “War on Terror” or what dangers that might pose to the world (even after Bush is out of office).
So most thinking people would probably see why I might worry more about people who are quick to condemn, are quick to judge without evidence, will blindly support the most powerful social institution in the history of the world even in some of its egregious errors, and decry anyone who objects as naive or stupid.
Now go have some ice cream.
Someone else, well in the son in Lodi was found guilty so I will have a some ice cream, if you ever in Vancouver let me know, I’m buying ice cream for everybody
Do you spend this much time and energy dissecting all cases of conviction you read about ? There are plenty of people convicted of murder and other capital offenses who are also potentially innocent as we have seen over the years. I haven’t seen too many people here shed their tears of sympathy for anyone but Muslims convicted on terrorism charges. Has anyone questioned the convictions of people convicted of terrorism linked with say Aryan Nation groups ? Isn’t it also possible some of them might also be innocent too ? Or is the notion of possible innocence only applicable when it is a Muslim who has been convicted ?
Do you spend this much time and energy dissecting all cases of conviction you read about ? There are plenty of people convicted of murder and other capital offenses who are also potentially innocent as we have seen over the years. I haven’t seen too many people here shed their tears of sympathy for anyone but Muslims convicted on terrorism charges. Has anyone questioned the convictions of people convicted of terrorism linked with say Aryan Nation groups ? Isn’t it also possible some of them might also be innocent too ? Or is the notion of possible innocence only applicable when it is a Muslim who has been convicted ?
If you’re asking if I have faith in the criminal justice system overall, then the answer is no. And if your criticism is that people on this blog might spend more time worrying about “post 9-11” related investigations than a lot of other things, then I share that with you. But that doesn’t justify the fact that you convict these people in your mind and by your own admission lump all these cases together while giving every ounce of faith you have to a government that has lied to you repeatedly for five years.
I mean there’s really nothing I could say to you that would make you acknowledge that tens of thousands of people (if not more) have been persecuted by the U.S. government in various ways largely or as a result of their being Muslim or from a Muslim-country over the past five years, right? There’s no way you would acknowledge that basic fact of social context, right? And if you’re at that point, then what’s the point of your engaging in conversation on these topics? Just to indulge yourself? Spread misinformation?
I’m no fan of this current government in office. But I have more faith in them, then I do in my own government of canada. They made total mess of the Air India case.
After 9/11, Spain 3/11 and the London bombings how could care less about some people civil rights.
If the american goverment went undercover in every Muslim, Hindu and Sikh place of worship. I willing to take a safe guess that you would find alot of anti-american beliefs in the mosques. Yet you find very little in the hindu or sikh place of worship.
Here is quote from a criminologist’s thesis on serial killers:
Another reference:
Nobody shouts “racism” when this is the accepted model used for searching for a serial killer. Nor does this mean that every white male is a serial killer, but there a higher tendency than average for a serial killer to be a white male. Yes, there have been exceptions. But the most (in)famous serial killers in the US have been white and male. So, guess from where the most brutal terrorists who have attacked the US in the past 5 years have come from ? And what ideology/religion do they follow since that is their motivator for attacking the US ? Or is it only politically correct to accept the white male serial killer model and not the the terrorist model that is used to build cases ?
So, guess from where the most brutal terrorists who have attacked the US in the past 5 years have come from ? And what ideology/religion do they follow since that is their motivator for attacking the US ? Or is it only politically correct to accept the white male serial killer model and not the the terrorist model that is used to build cases ?
Well, your use of “last five years” would be arbitrary were it not specifically chosen for a reason. Their organizations/networks have followed an ideology of violent global Salafism, which is a subset of fundamentalist Islam which is istelf a subset of Islam (see: Understanding Terror Networks by Marc Sageman or just ask razib the atheist), and when the government starts profiling white men for being serial killers at the same level that it profiles Muslim men (and those from their communities and/or look like them) from Africa and Asia, then we can have this conversation. Until then, I’ll take your long, tortured, and nonresponsive answer as a “no, I won’t ever acknowledge even the basic fact that the U.S. government has persecuted tens of thousands–perhaps hundreds of thousands–of Muslims in the United States.”
No one has disputed that there were Muslims who were involved in political violence on U.S. soil. I think the question is why all Muslims therefore need to bear the brunt of your predudice.
I used the same “5 year” period that you referred to in post #54. No more or less arbitrary than your reason.
I see… I suppose there are huge concentration camps containing there “hundreds of thousands” of Muslims hidden away in remote areas ? I haven’t eactly seen too many SWAT teams pulling over Muslims living in my neighborhood or shutting down their businesses. Perhaps you have ?
You got the tense wrong in that statement…
This is fair. I apologize.
Silly Vikram, tricks are for kids! Go learn. And learn. And learn. And learn. Get back to us when you’ve read up.
Well, not if you want it to actually read accurately; lots of people dispute that, though whether they’re right or wrong is largely up to your predilections. I don’t have a hard time figuring out which side you come down on, since all these cases blend together for you.
By the way, I noticed you didn’t offer any commentary on the nuance I tried to your description of “Muslims.” Trust me, kid, you’re not going to be able to keep up with me on this one 😉
So someone else if you were president after 9/11. What would you do to protect america.
Let met guess you would not pay any extra attention to the muslim community.
Did anyone read this?
“An Indian graduate student at Purdue University, was arrested on Friday and charged with threatening to kill President George W. Bush, Laura Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld.” See it here http://www.hindu.com/2006/04/29/stories/2006042906551200.htm
So someone else if you were president after 9/11. What would you do to protect america.
Let met guess you would not pay any extra attention to the muslim community.
This is an interesting challenge, thought it’s not entirely fair that you try to deflect criticism I and other people have offered. I probably would have forced a serious national conversation about what the roots of the event were, and why it happened. Investigated planned political violence and used the goodwill that other countries had towards the U.S. to work with them in doing so, including Muslims inside and outside the United States (you think they’re enjoying this?). I would have ended the war on drugs, and redirected resources away from that and other silly things to work on active threats (domestic and foreign). I would have bolstered intelligence activities, repealed discriminatory measures like Don’t Ask Don’t Tell that kept skilled linguists and others from assisting, I would have made several strong human rights pledges; I would have bolstered port security; I would have worked on a reasonable solution to crossborder migration, both in the U.S. and elsewhere–including legalization of undocumented people and stricter background checks on visa applicants; I would have pushed autocratic regimse in the Middle East to open up space for dissent; I would have pushed European countries to treat their ethnic/noncitizen minorities better; I would have pushed free speech measures in the Middle East and abroad; I would have called for an end to torture of Muslim dissidents, including fundamentalists; I would have made statements recognizing that election results, even when I don’t like them, still mean something in places like Egypt and Venezuela; I would have tried to figure out what the most appropriate stance would have been to the Israel/Palestine situation; I probably would have tried to figure out a way to dismantle the Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, though I’m not sure what the most effective method would have been.
A lot of this stuff rests on a group of adults working together to figure out what the most appropriate things to do would be and listening to other people–including those with whom they have disagreements–to figure things out. I don’t think any of this would definitely stop the next terrorist attack on the United States (and its highly likely that there will be one, whether it’s a Puerto Rican independence movement person or Timothy McVeigh or a Salafi terrorist), and it’s just a set of starting point ideas.
But even with those caveats, I think I just did a better job in five minutes than the Bush Administration did in five years.
Okay, your turn, Pearl Jam Fan 😉
Ok… maybe you should spend more time reading and skip the inane ditties…The persecution cannot have been too extensive if these guys are still freely spreading their hate in NYC and elsewhere:
You are claiming Jose Padilla is just an innocent guy ? Heck, why not add this guy to your list ? I’m sure you think he’s innocent too. Perhaps you can come up a ballad or two for him.
Right. I can see you are a true legend in your own mind. Maybe you can also help O.J find the real killers, since he’s just another innocent guy being harassed…
The persecution cannot have been too extensive if these guys are still freely spreading their hate in NYC and elsewhere
So your argument is that only “extensive persecution”–with “extensive” presumably to be defined by you–is the only kind that matters? If you can’t see a concentration camp, there must be nothing wrong!
Trust me–as someone who lives in New York, I have a lot more to worry about from the dipshits who are failing to protect the Indian Point nuclear power plant than the guy who sells me Twix–even if he’s a nonviolent Islamic fundamentalist (which I have no reason to believe he is, .gov and .mil readers).
You are claiming Jose Padilla is just an innocent guy?
I have no idea whether Padilla is “innocent” of either the legal charges that are now, belatedly, finally pressed against him, nor did I ever make that argument. What I claimed was that his treatment was part of a five years pattern of persecution of Muslims engaged in by the Bush Administration. Here’s part of the wiki entry on Padilla:
On the other hand, U.S. citizens Timothy McVeigh and the Theodore Kaczynski–who most likely actually committed violent attacks on people in the U.S.–were actually investigated, indicted, and charged in a timely manner, given lawyers, etc.
There are other interpretations to the Padilla case than the one I’ve given here (which highlights the racial and religious aspect of it), but even if you hold those, the more tenable argument here is “He’s not part of the pattern,” not “there is no pattern of persecution.” Which would be clear, had you seriously considered the other evidence I gave you or did some open-minded research on your own.
And, as an aside, I do in fact believe that Moussaoui wasn’t treated fairly. He seems pretty unbalanced to me in addition to all the claims presented in the linked article.
One final question for you to ponder: Has the one sectarian group you identified or the combined total of all the sectarian groups you could possibly list which –Islamic Thinkers’ Society–killed, tortured, detained, deported, and otherwise mistreated more Christians or Shi’ite Muslims around the world–or has the Bush Administration killed, tortured, investigated without cause, detained, deported, and otherwise mistreated more Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and other locales?
The sad thing is that the ACLU will protect the Islamic Thinkers Society no matter how anti-american they are.
I hope the so-called moderate muslims in the united states will speak out against these idiots, otherwise they have no right to complain about the way they are treated in the united states.
Hmmm…so let me break this down. Unless Muslims who don’t spend their entire lives condemning the actions of extremists to a degree and level that satisfies you – they cannot complain if they are abused or ill treated in the United States? And what’s with the ‘so-called’ moderate Muslims? What is that codeword for? That there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim? Looks like you love to to bring collective guilt and point the finger at all Muslims. What about someone like Taz? Has she done enough to not fall in the scumbag Muslim category? Or other Muslim mutineers? Please let them know where they can monitor every intricacy of extremist activity done in the name of their religion and register their disgust so you can peruse and check that their moderate credentials are alright so they know they can be free from the taint of extremists in your eyes – for PearlJamFan is the chauvinist with the masterplan for these things.
I’m sorry if I offend anybody. But there alot of people of many backgrounds who have said things alot worse.
But these idiots at the Islamic Thinkers Society have said things that are not gonna help the image of muslims in the United States. I think these people should be spoken against.
So you can speak against them individually and as an organisation without making obnoxious comments implicating all Muslims can’t you?
Is this something you can appreciate how to say and reason with? It is a basic thing which shouldnt be difficult for you to grasp.
Try and think it over, and don’t hide behind that crap about how you are only telling the unalloyed PC truth and then when someone objects to your collectivising and imputation of collective guilt through ‘absence of sufficient condemnation 24/7’ they are in denial about the problem. That is a half-assed type of logic suitable for the hooligans at Little Green Footballs, not Sepia Mutiny.
Just think about the implications of what you say and if you are comfortable with it don’t apologise – be proud about your chauvinism against ordinary blameless Muslims and people like Taz. If not, reflect on your logic and rhetoric.
Black Belt Jones go ahead and take you anger out on me, if it makes you happy. But as bad as the things that I have said. There are millions of people in the modern world who have said things alot worse about Islam the last 5 years. Can you explain to me why those people are all saying things about islam?
Also I’m from a sikh background, and we had some problems with some sikh’s and the khalistan movement. Yet I have no problem speaking out against them cause they have given sikh’s a bad name in Western Canada.
PJF, it seems like you are the one who is angry, not me. It also seems like you cannot take my observations on board, and your reasoning is now moving into the realm of the idiotarian. In fact your whole postings are ad hoc nonsense. Because millions of people have said nasty things about Islam, it is alright for you to make your collective guilt drives against all Muslims? One has nothing to do with the other. Tell me, is Taz guilty and to be held accountable for what Muslim extremists do in the name of her religion?
Yes I know – you never stop mentioning this. But so what? Just because you castigate Sikh extremists and then carry on make assertions of collective guilt of individual Muslims doesnt mean anything. Your repeated assertions of collective culpability are obnoxious. It is perfectly possible to criticism individuals and organisations and even criticise extremist Muslims without falling into the moron rhetoric of Jihad Watch. It’s really quite a simple point to understand and I am surprised you are finding it so difficult to grasp.
The sikh community in the United States has taken a major backlash after 9/11. The main reason is being mistaken for muslims. I worry alot about my family who live in the States.
And these groups like the Islamic Thinkers Society are not maken it easier for people of brown skin. And in the long run it will be turbaned sikh’s like my uncles who are in the most danger.
That wasn’t the point I was trying to make. Before 9-11, people didn’t care that the IRA was using local resources because they never saw the IRA as a threat (even though they were cross training with several groups the US govt. had beef with including Palestinian groups for their terrorist attacks on Israelis). Such an attitude is not correct. Local resources should not be used (or allowed) to fund any sort of terrorist organization. Irish, Palestinian, Al-Qaida, whatever.
9-11 changed the landscape. Terrorist activites are seen as a threat. Although the US missed the boat on stopping the IRA’s funding activities at their peak, we do have the right to stop any other group from doing the same on our soil. Had the Irish conflict continue to rage along (with their money coming from here), I would’ve hoped that the govt would clamp down on them as hard, also. The law should be enforced on all, not selectively applied.
So you understand why it is important not to make generalisations? You should be able to confine your criticisms to those outfits and not impugn individuals who have nothing to do with it – just think about what you are saying when you make those criticisms.
On the contrary, almost any high profile case you can think of has had government foul ups:
So are you now going to review the Zapruder film and find the fabled second shooter to prove Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent ? Why is your fixation only directed at these cases in the past five years ? If you have so little faith in the government then what is your yard stick for accepting any case presented by federal prosecutors ? Or as I said before is your measure of accepting the government’s cases of prosecution only extend to those where the defendants are non-Muslim ? You quite readily accept McVeigh’s guilt, even though there are quite a few inconsistencies in that case too.
Cry me a river… Yeah, all this sympathy for a terrorist sympathizer and collaborator… Yes, I’m sure he’s unbalanced considering what he believes in. So what would you suggest be done ? That he be given a free ticket back to France and couseling with a therapist?
And how far back in history do you want to take this idea of “totaling”? India’s own bloody history under Muslim rule would show you some genocidal totals. The Bush administration would have to be working around the clock for a couple of hundred years to come anywhere close to that number. Or do Hindu deaths not really count in your equation of “totals”. You need to read your history a bit more before you venture down this path…
The linked text
And how far back in history do you want to take this idea of “totaling”? India’s own bloody history under Muslim rule would show you some genocidal totals. The Bush administration would have to be working around the clock for a couple of hundred years to come anywhere close to that number. Or do Hindu deaths not really count in your equation of “totals”.
Thats a poor analogy.
United States government is a sovereign entity. The sovereign entity (United States government) which allegedly committed the atrocities still exists and in fact is still controlled and led by the same people.
The ‘Muslim’ kings/rulers who committed the atrocities do not exist anymore at any level in India. So I am not sure whom will you attribute the blame to.
Disclaimer: Not asserting that the US Government did in fact commit any atrocities.
Huh ? Do you use that same analogy to absolve Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot of the atrocities they committed as they are no longer around today ? I suppose there should be no Holocaust compensations either, as the guilty parties are long gone.
Vikram,
As you know the United States government is a sovereign entity. If the United States government committed atrocities (lets say they did for the sake of this argument) in conducting the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States government can be held accountable because the United States government today (in 2006) is the same sovereign entity that allegedly perpetrated the atrocities in Afghanistan (2002) and Iraq (2003-)
Extrapolating from that and inferring that the current Muslims in India should be held accountable for the sins of Ghazni (born in Afghanistan and buried in Lahore) or Aurangzeb makes no sense. If the Mughals were still in power, then your analogy would hold some merit.
Nobody is absolving Hitler and Stalin of their crimes. As we all know, both Germany and Japan have paid repatriations to the Jews and South East Asian ‘comfort women’ respectively. The United States government itself paid repatriations to the Japanese Americans for their interment during WW2. When soveriegn entities survive, they can sometimes develop a conscience and redress some past crimes.
The sovereign entity which perpetrated the crimes against Hindus in the 12th or the 16th century does not exist anymore, so attributing the blame to some random Muslim dude living in India is quite silly.
“Is Religion Killing Us? “
Violence in the Bible and the Quran. by Jack Nelson Pallmeyer.
Add to your reading list..
Al Mujahid for debauchery:
Just wanna say thank you for your words of wisdom, my friend, its so nice to see informed, politically aware debate on important issues. You’ve even inspired me to type all proper and not say ‘cos instead of because. Wow.
I am really sick of people using the ‘we’re all flawed’ argument to justify unjust situations.
Vikram, your argument tactic could even be extended to say that because black people fought and killed each other when they were in traditional African tribes, their experience of slavery is less tragic and unjust because they weren’t perfect anyway.
And of course people always bring it up when looking at South Asians too. Does our own bloody history, our caste system and internal discrimination make the experiences of those who suffer racial discrimination in western countries less valid?
Ask anyone who has been stared at,questioned, verbally abused, searched, detained or unjustly held in an airport/elsewhere because they’re brown and they will tell you that no, you cannot make up a scale of discrimination and pit one type of cruel behaviour against another.
Why is your fixation only directed at these cases in the past five years?
If you have so little faith in the government then what is your yard stick for accepting any case presented by federal prosecutors?
If I’m presented with all the evidence in the case or am reading the writings of people who have been but are good journalists (like Seymore Hersh). To the extent that I’m not exposed to those things, to that extent I severely doubt the credibility of the government. I also have particular doubts here because the government and this administration in particular has established a patterns like: abuse; cover up; and deception (e.g. Abu Ghraib).
Or as I said before is your measure of accepting the government’s cases of prosecution only extend to those where the defendants are non-Muslim ? You quite readily accept McVeigh’s guilt, even though there are quite a few inconsistencies in that case too.
Go read what I actually said: who most likely actually committed violent attacks on people in the U.S.. Notice the qualifications.
In any case, I had forgotten about the issues that you raised about McVeigh’s guilt and I’m glad that you raised them. Now the government has slightly less credibility in criminal prosecutions of ideological extremists in my eyes (at least as applied to this case and to “terrorism” cases as a whole). Yet for some reason, you find this as an argument for supporting the government?
On the contrary, almost any high profile case you can think of has had government foul ups
Locking someone up, denying them the right to a trial or a lawyer, not charging them wtih anything for years, and saying that neither the laws of the U.S. Constitution nor the Geneva convention apply to them are not “foul ups.” They’re deliberate choices by the Bush Administration that tie into larger patterns. To understate that is inappropriate.
And how far back in history do you want to take this idea of “totaling”? India’s own bloody history under Muslim rule would show you some genocidal totals. The Bush administration would have to be working around the clock for a couple of hundred years to come anywhere close to that number. Or do Hindu deaths not really count in your equation of “totals”. You need to read your history a bit more before you venture down this path…
Well, I thought we had agreed we were talking about the last five years and it seemed pretty clear that we were talking about U.S. Government / Muslim civilian relations (And others who are not Muslims who were caught up in it, including Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and others–though largely to lesser degrees). But this was a nice effort on your part to distract from that conversation 😉
Cry me a river… Yeah, all this sympathy for a terrorist sympathizer and collaborator… Yes, I’m sure he’s unbalanced considering what he believes in. So what would you suggest be done ? That he be given a free ticket back to France and couseling with a therapist?
That he be evaluated for how much of a danger he poses to other people; that if he poses a danger to other people, he be removed from society; that he be allowed to live with his rights restricted as little as possible (though enough to protect other people); and that he be given access to adequate health care(as we all should be), including, but not limited to mental health treatment. Anything less would be, well, inhuman. But I recognize that reasonable people can disagree about the severity of punshment/rehabilitation someone like Moussaoui ought to receive if corresponding to the extent that he’s done anything wrong. And then there are the unreasonable people that think this person getting killed would accomplish anything except making a few people feel better about the fact that someone’s getting killed.
Disclaimer: Not asserting that the US Government did in fact commit any atrocities.
Oh come on now, Al Mujahid. I expect better from you. Unless you were just trying to separate your argument about the logic from the argument about content.
Care to be a little less cryptic ? What exactly is it you know so well ? Do you work in the area of defending the people discussed in this thread ?
Perhaps your “meticulous research” into the oppression of Muslims somehow missed this little ongoing situation:
To repeat your question from post #64:
Do you want me to answer that question now ? Or is the Darfur situation somehow “different” in your eyes because it is a case of “Muslims killing Muslims” and since Bush and Co. are not involved, it doesn’t count ? Or do you think this question is “distracting” from your question ? 😉
I assume you will be spending the rest of this weekend packing for Darfur to now defend the vast numbers of oppressed Muslims there ? You might be still able to get some good ticket deals…
Here are some of the problems with how you have argued for the past week or so, Vikram:
1) You ignored most points or didn’t engage them directly. 2) You repeatedly brought in examples that attempt to be inflammatory and are completely irrelevant to the point you are allegedly trying to refute. 3) You couldn’t admit when you’re wrong. 4) When someone repeatedly answered your questions, you made no acknowledgement of the same. 5) When someone refuted your arguments, you made no acknowledgement. 6) You were biased against Muslims. 7) You were biased against people who are not biased against Muslims, attributing the worst sorts of beliefs to them without any logical basis for doing so.
I will leave it to someone else to try to help you understand why being biased against Muslims is A Bad Thing. Congratulations, you win–you get the last word! Enjoy!