Doctor Fate wrote:
Liberals think Western civilization is the problem, the cause. Islamists agree.

Liberals think wanting immigrants to acculturate is racist. Islamists agree.

Liberals think Islam is preferable to Christianity and Judaism. Islamists agree.

Liberals think Islamism must be protected. Islamists agree.

I don't see it. How about this instead:

Most Americans think Western civilization can be improved and work to make it better. Islamic terrorists are trying to tear it down.

Most Americans understand that diversity of people, ideas and beliefs is a strength. Islamic terrorists think any view different from their own is a threat (even from other Muslims!)

Most Americans think Islam is equal to Christianity and Judaism under the law. Islamic terrorists think their way is the only way and others must be stamped out.

Most Americans think Muslims must be treated like any other religious group under the law. Islamic terrorists attack and kill Muslims who don't agree with Islamic terrorists.

I think this is much more accurate.

fate

Where does one learn to hate the "patriarchy?"

This is the dogma of the Left. And, much of it conforms to the dogma of Islamism

So Islamists teach to hate the patriarchy?
You don't even think before your spew.

DF's comments are not accurate. None of those claims about liberals are true--they are patently ridiculous. Here is a chart about the difference that conservatives have as compared to liberals.

http://www.ethicsdefined.org/the-proble ... -liberals/

So basically liberals tend to be cognizant about being fair and we tend to be empathetic. So...we can emphasize at how unfair it would if you were Muslim and lumped into being a possible terrorist.

What conservatives seem to be sometimes are nationalists--our way or the highway. But while we need to look out for our national interests we can also be a positive force in the world. So we can admit if we make mistakes. We (liberals if may lump us all together) are worried about terrorism...but we are not going to mistreat people and undermine our values as a liberal country due to the beating of the security drum which--if we allow it to--can just about anything.

Obama exemplified what is best about America--a talented individual from a modest background and his case miniority background making all the way to the presidency. Trump is the opposite--a white guy who got money from his dad and who made a lot of money but clearly does not have knowledge and brainpower to be president and is a national embarrassment at this point. For the good of the country Pence needs to take over...and soon.

Not only is Trump unqualified but he is undermining democratic institutions by attacking the free press, the judiciary, and attacks on the foundations of news that people in a democratic society need to be able to rely on.

The bedrock principle in our country is equality and, really, that you get treated based on who you are as an individual not lumped into a group and stamped with the group's characteristics. "I have a dream that one day my four little children will grow up in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but the content of their character." Or judged by their burka. Or yarmulke.

Trump by discriminating against Mexicans and Muslims--in word and deed--is not exemplifying American values. He is doing the opposite. We cannot forfeit our values for the sake of security

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:
Liberals think Western civilization is the problem, the cause. Islamists agree.

Liberals think wanting immigrants to acculturate is racist. Islamists agree.

Liberals think Islam is preferable to Christianity and Judaism. Islamists agree.

Liberals think Islamism must be protected. Islamists agree.

I don't see it. How about this instead:

Most Americans think Western civilization can be improved and work to make it better. Islamic terrorists are trying to tear it down.

Most Americans understand that diversity of people, ideas and beliefs is a strength. Islamic terrorists think any view different from their own is a threat (even from other Muslims!)

Most Americans think Islam is equal to Christianity and Judaism under the law. Islamic terrorists think their way is the only way and others must be stamped out.

Most Americans think Muslims must be treated like any other religious group under the law. Islamic terrorists attack and kill Muslims who don't agree with Islamic terrorists.

I think this is much more accurate.

Of course you do. Let's go line by line.

Most Americans think Western civilization can be improved and work to make it better. Islamic terrorists are trying to tear it down.

Actually, many Americans are working to destroy it. That is the essence of the left right now. Sanctuary cities, "resist," etc. are all out to disrupt the government and prevent it from functioning. ?That's not "improvement;" it's destruction.

Most Americans understand that diversity of people, ideas and beliefs is a strength. Islamic terrorists think any view different from their own is a threat (even from other Muslims!)

Again, false. Diversity of culture, language, and fundamental beliefs about the nature of our country is not "strength." It is division and inherently weakens us. What used to be a "melting pot" is now a series of separate frying pans. Meanwhile, at nearly every university and college unity of belief and thought is DEMANDED. If you are not pure enough, you are a racist, sexist, etc. (see Evergreen College, among many).

Most Americans think Islam is equal to Christianity and Judaism under the law. Islamic terrorists think their way is the only way and others must be stamped out.

Oh, it is equal under the law. The problem isn't the law, but how the law is applied. Islam is shown favoritism over and over again.

Of course, what many non-Muslim people fail to realize is that Islam is, for most Muslims, not merely a religion. It is a religious and political system, which cannot be divided.

Most Americans think Muslims must be treated like any other religious group under the law. Islamic terrorists attack and kill Muslims who don't agree with Islamic terrorists.

Partly true. The problem is that Islamic terrorists do not target heretical Muslims in the US or in the West. They are targeted in majority Muslim countries.

rickyp wrote:fate

Where does one learn to hate the "patriarchy?"

This is the dogma of the Left. And, much of it conforms to the dogma of Islamism

So Islamists teach to hate the patriarchy?
You don't even think before your spew.

Hey moron, put it in context and then PROVE that I said what you said.

Oh yeah, forgot: you're either too dumb or too dishonest to do that. Once again, I have to do what you will not--be honest.

Doctor Fate wrote:Please, don't be confused! Look at Evergreen College. Look at virtually any college or university. Free speech is condemned. Only "safe," approved speech may be utilized. They aren't so much places of education, but places of indoctrination. One does not learn to think critically in American universities, one learns to regurgitate what one is told.

Where does one learn to hate the "patriarchy?"

Where does one learn the evils of cultural appropriation?

Where does one learn that Israel is an "occupier?"

Where does one learn that systematic racism is alive and well? Where does one learn that the only way to ensure fair opportunity is to ensure fair outcome?

This is the dogma of the Left. And, much of it conforms to the dogma of Islamism--at least enough of it to make them strange bedfellows.

I wrote "much of it" BECAUSE I KNEW ISLAMISM DOES NOT TEACH THAT!!!

Just stop being stupid.

freeman3 wrote:DF's comments are not accurate. None of those claims about liberals are true--they are patently ridiculous.

Nope, liberals bend over backward for Islam--over and over again.

Is it possible in an effort to be fair liberals will err too much on the side of fairness vs security. Sure. It's not because liberals love Islam--whose lack of separation of church and state, unequal treatment of women, over emphasis of religion in daily life, and lack of toleration are antithetical to liberalism--but because they want to be fair. And conservatives (at least some/most) have have this tendency to be xenophobic to a certain degree. There is no doubt that a person is constrained to a certain extent by the culture they grow up in. And for whatever reasons we are having to deal with a radical strain of Islam that sees the West as an enemy. But most Muslims are not interested in war with the West. So is it fair to treat all Muslims from certain countries as posing such a high threat of being a terrorist that we have to ban all from coming here? I don't think so.

And, just a reminder...the only large scale attack on the US--9-11--happened on a conservative's watch...the two liberal presidents avoided a big attack.

freeman3 wrote:Is it possible in an effort to be fair liberals will err too much on the side of fairness vs security. Sure. It's not because liberals love Islam--whose lack of separation of church and state, unequal treatment of women, over emphasis of religion in daily life, and lack of toleration are antithetical to liberalism--but because they want to be fair. And conservatives (at least some/most) have have this tendency to be xenophobic to a certain degree. There is no doubt that a person is constrained to a certain extent by the culture they grow up in. And for whatever reasons we are having to deal with a radical strain of Islam that sees the West as an enemy. But most Muslims are not interested in war with the West. So is it fair to treat all Muslims from certain countries as posing such a high threat of being a terrorist that we have to ban all from coming here? I don't think so.

Nope. It's liberalism. Sorry.

Been to Israel? Why do they have minarets breaking the silence at unbelievable hours? It's not a Muslim country.

Yes, but it's a liberal country. They can't have Muslims offended, so everyone else has to deal with it.

The first thing liberals do after a terror attack is worry about . . . Muslims! And yes, that includes GWB. Stop it!

No, not all Muslims are terrorists. The vast majority are not. However, the percentage of terrorists who are Muslim is very high.

When was the last time Methodists drove down the streets of a major European city, running over random men, women and children?

When was the last time the Jehovah Witnesses busted out AK-47's and started shooting random people?

Something about Islam makes that "okay." That is the problem.

And, just a reminder...the only large scale attack on the US--9-11--happened on a conservative's watch...the two liberal presidents avoided a big attack.

Bull. GWB was President, but had only been for less than 9 months. The planning occurred during Clinton's presidency. Oh, and btw, HE could have had OBL on a platter, but declined because he was afraid.

As for Obama, he had plenty of terror attacks in the US.

Gee...GW only had 9 months to stop 9-11. What could he have possibly done to stop 9-11? Maybe do something...anything when he got briefing that says Bin Laden determined to strike US.

Ok...most terrorists are Muslim...but only a small fraction of Muslims are terrorists. Taking care to properly vette people coming from a Muslim country is prudent and strikes a proper balance between security and individualized suspicion. An outright ban means lumping Muslims together as a group as bearing a terrorist risk and getting away from individualized suspicion...and is wrong in my opinion.

freeman3 wrote:Gee...GW only had 9 months to stop 9-11. What could he have possibly done to stop 9-11? Maybe do something...anything when he got briefing that says Bin Laden determined to strike US.

Or, Clinton could have had the guts to take custody of OBL.

MMQ is the easiest job in the world. Well done!

Ok...most terrorists are Muslim...but only a small fraction of Muslims are terrorists.

Yup. But, if that's 2%, that means 32 million. And, I doubt that only 2% support terrorism. Plus, how many are actively opposed to it? It is one thing to not be willing to kill for Allah, but it is another to be willing to rat the terrorists out.

Another attack in France today.

Meanwhile, the London attack--one of the attackers was on a freaking TV show! What a joke! How does that happen? Because the liberal mindset is that until murder occurs, the jihadis must be coddled.

Yes, I know that's offensive language.

It's ridiculous to see the lengths liberals will go to excuse Islamism.

Taking care to properly vette people coming from a Muslim country is prudent and strikes a proper balance between security and individualized suspicion. An outright ban means lumping Muslims together as a group as bearing a terrorist risk and getting away from individualized suspicion...and is wrong in my opinion.

I'm not up for a ban either. However, a temporary ban makes sense. We are in a war, whether or not some in the Western world want to admit it.

Here's a question for you freeman,

Where are the so called "silent majority" of Muslims? You know, the majority out there who are peace loving individuals? Where is their outcry when attacks occur every 5 minutes? Where is their leadership? Where are their heroes who are unafraid to stand up to them? Sadiq Kahn? Is he the best we've got?

You can't name Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She left Islam. She doesn't count.

So where are they? Who are they? If they have organized, how many are actively taking steps to counter the battle for young Muslim minds?

Certainly any soldier who has been willing to fight against ISIS is a hero in my book. But they have taken up arms. I'm asking about the "silent majority."

I'm not convinced a silent majority exists.

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Here's a question for you freeman,

Where are the so called "silent majority" of Muslims? You know, the majority out there who are peace loving individuals? Where is their outcry when attacks occur every 5 minutes? Where is their leadership? Where are their heroes who are unafraid to stand up to them? Sadiq Kahn? Is he the best we've got?

You can't name Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She left Islam. She doesn't count.

So where are they? Who are they? If they have organized, how many are actively taking steps to counter the battle for young Muslim minds?

Certainly any soldier who has been willing to fight against ISIS is a hero in my book. But they have taken up arms. I'm asking about the "silent majority."

I'm not convinced a silent majority exists.

More than 130 British Imams are refusing to provide burial prayers for the terrorists. This is a huge step for religious figures. http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/05/europe/im ... on-burial/

(I do agree with you that even more needs to be done by the Islamic community.)

I thought this Pew poll had some interesting facts. ISIS is not popular among most Muslims and most Muslims do no support suicide bombing against civilians. So I think there is your silent majority. Why aren't they more loudly condemning terrorism? I don't know. But I think it will be interesting to see how western culture affects 2nd and 3rd generation Muslims. There are large Muslim populations in Western countries and I suspect that western culture will soften any extreme views. It already has. American Muslims have much different views than Muslims in other countries.

But we should stick to our values in how we treat Muslims, as hopefully the religion adapts a bit more to modernity. I think large numbers of Muslims living in western countries could help with that over time.A travel ban from seven countries where we have no fatal attacks in 15 years is not necessary and is not rational. Why do you need to change current procedures when they have worked fine for 15 years and decide you need to discriminate against an entire religion? It makes no sense.

We need to stick with blaming people who do bad things rather than using a huge net to make sure we get the few. That's antithetical to American values. At least I hope so.

Anyway, here's the Pew poll.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... the-world/

dag

Where are the so called "silent majority" of Muslims? You know, the majority out there who are peace loving individuals? Where is their outcry when attacks occur every 5 minutes? Where is their leadership? Where are their heroes who are unafraid to stand up to them? Sadiq Kahn? Is he the best we've got?

Does the western media do a good job of reporting on Muslims condemning terror?

https://muslimscondemn.com/

However, If you need evidence that the vast majority of Muslims both oppose and openly condemn terror...visit this web site... It contains 912 pages of Google links to condemnation by Muslims... You'll spend an awful lot of time trying to get through even part of it..

But here's an interesting thought. (from the young lady who started muslimscondemn...

Muslims, notes Hashmi, are “held to a different standard than other minorities: 1.6 billion people are expected to apologise and condemn [terrorism] on behalf of a couple of dozen lunatics. It makes no sense.” After all, Hashmi, says, “I don’t view the KKK or the Westboro Baptist church or the Lord’s Resistance Army as accurate representations of Christianity. I know that they’re on the fringe. So it gets very frustrating having to defend myself and having to apologise on behalf of some crazy people.”
You can see that double standard at play in the aftermath of the London attacks. Khalid Masood, the London attacker, was born Adrian Elms in Dartford, Kent and is believed to have converted to Islam in prison. Have we heard Kent natives – hello Nigel Farage! – condemn the actions of the people born in their county? (“I hope my Kentish brothers and sisters will reach out to fellow Britons in solidarity to demonstrate that such hatred will not defeat the inherent bonhomie of the home counties?”) No, we haven’t, because that would be ridiculous. And yet Muslims have often been expected to apologise for the actions of someone on the very fringes of their community, and have done so

.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/short ... rism-stats

freeman3 wrote:We need to stick with blaming people who do bad things rather than using a huge net to make sure we get the few. That's antithetical to American values. At least I hope so.

Does that exclude Western democracies doing anything other than responding to terrorism as if it is just another criminal enterprise? If not, what else is acceptable?