U.S. Anti-Muslim

[quote]pat wrote:

Point being, whether or not we define the current conflicts as a Holy War is irrelevant, they already have hence we’re in one whether we want to be or not. You don’t have to be religious to be in a Holy War, only a religion gets to decide that and they already have.
I am for calling a spade a spade, but the lies of PC forbid us from speaking truth as it is lest you be a bigot.
We have people openly calling for the end of free speech for crying out loud, do you think they want to face the truth?
[/quote]

You make a good point, Pat. It’s also like the aholes who have criticised the Trump al qaeda video. With Trump or without him al-qaeda’s gonna make videos. They’ve been doing it for 16 years. At least Trump calls it like it is.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

I am also against the christian equivalent of radical muslim
[/quote]

There is no modern day “Christian equivalent of radical Muslim”.[/quote]

You are right. The most radical christians are the ones who want to criminalize abortion and teach creationism in schools on the same level as evolution. It is beyond comparison with radical islamist but I am still against that.

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

I am also against the christian equivalent of radical muslim
[/quote]

There is no modern day “Christian equivalent of radical Muslim”.[/quote]
Too bad that there aren’t. Maybe then we could start calling it what it is~ A holy war, and begin to fight it as such. This dancing through the raindrops is bullshit.[/quote]

You nailed it.
[/quote]

March down the “Holy War” path and tell me where that ends?

Let’s also not forget that during the Dark Ages, the Catholic Church was generally running shit and Western Civilization was pretty barbaric at the time. The Muslims generally kept civilization as we know it moving forward until the Renaissance.

Sadly, the illiterati tend to reduce the subject to the nearly the broadest demographic possible, i.e. by religion, and won’t take the time or put in the effort to study the details where a real solution, if it exists, would be found.
[/quote]

You missed the point. The point isn’t truly a desire for a genuine Christian/Muslim holy war but rather some kind of catalyst to taking the conflict seriously and flushing the Diversity Reigns Supreme Therefore We Must Handle Islam With Kid Gloves strategy/bullshit.

C’mon man, I know you’re smart enough to figure this out without me having to spell it out. Have another cup of coffee or something if that’s what it takes to sharpen up your game.[/quote]

I understand where you’re coming from, but framing it in terms of a holy war isn’t exactly going to get you any support from the “Diversity Reigns Supreme Therefore We Must Handle Islam With Kid Gloves strategy/bullshit” crowd.

You’re only winning points there with the more extreme portion of a certain demographic, and you’re also alienating the other portion of that demographic who truly does believe in the freedom of religion and has no qualms at all if somebody wants to be Muslim.

Therefore, I wouldn’t word it as handling “Islam” either more and more of a war on ISIS, which could be used to gradually introduce the truth about the reality of the certain cultural traits present in the Arab region: That they don’t believe in freedom of religion at all, have a terrible human rights record focusing on how women are treated which will start to resonate with the SJW crowd.

Not to steal Bin Laden’s language, but he spoke a bit on having to deal with the “near enemy” before the “far enemy”. He needed to defeat the West on his home soil, before he could free up the resources to attack them in their homeland.

The equality crowd still views various parties sounding the alarm bell about Islam as the near-enemy, and perceives them all as members of the more extreme very-right wing crowd. This shuts them down and closes their minds to starting to accept the reality of how “Islam” or certain interpretations of it, really embodies totalitarianism, intolerance, and inequality.

Tone down the rhetoric, it’s really just causing the idiots to pop-off (I remember seeing something about the FBI arresting white guys planning attacks on Mosques), and start disseminating the ugly reality of some of the ISIS and more extremist Islamic interpretations.

Considering how big of assholes most of the “Islamists” are, this shouldn’t really be that hard. I’d be more critical of the US propaganda efforts, and I also recently read that SOCOM was lobbying to start handling some of the deradicalization campaigns.

The FBI was supposed to release a flash game at some web page that I was looking forward to playing with, aimed at deradicalization and the state department’s efforts have amounted to a twitter war that they are losing. [/quote]
Check out Captain Booksmart as he dances through the raind drops!
What? Can’t find a definition for jihad that doesn’t contain Holy War?[/quote]

Point being, whether or not we define the current conflicts as a Holy War is irrelevant, they already have hence we’re in one whether we want to be or not. You don’t have to be religious to be in a Holy War, only a religion gets to decide that and they already have.
I am for calling a spade a spade, but the lies of PC forbid us from speaking truth as it is lest you be a bigot.
We have people openly calling for the end of free speech for crying out loud, do you think they want to face the truth?
[/quote]
I unerstand that affect of pc, and I’m saying that it doesn’t work. Playing politics doesn’t work. Underestimating the ability, conviction, ferocity, and duration of the mujahadi and those who support them~ doesn’t work.
Until we reframe this whole conflict to put it into the perspective it deserves we will continue to do things that do not work.[/quote]

Oh I understand and I agree. I just don’t know how to give you what you want. People flat don’t want to face the truth. They are always making excuses and not dealing with the problem honestly, which is largely why we are still dealing with it.

To be perfectly honest, I think it would take another large scale attack on our soil, maybe 2 to get people’s resolve inline with what needs to be done. The price of honesty in this case, is blood.

Sam Harris makes the case in close to its best form here. He does this by not being a pussy but also (and this is where the Right tends to fall on its face) not wildly overstating his case. The case is still, of course, very critical. A lot of it is specific to Glenn Greenwald, but then Greenwald is an archetypal far-Left Islamist apologist, so it works in a completely general sense. If you are interested in Islam vis-a-vis the West, make time to listen:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/welcome-to-the-end-of-my-patience

The short answer to the thread title is that non-Muslim Americans are justified in being anti-Muslim…to a point, in a particular and intelligent and qualified way.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Muhammad ibn Zakariya Razi – Persian physician, alchemist, chemist, philosopher, and scholar:

If the people of this religion [Islam] are asked about the proof for the soundness of their religion, they flare up, get angry and spill the blood of whoever confronts them with this question. They forbid rational speculation, and strive to kill their adversaries. This is why truth became thoroughly silenced and concealed.[/quote]

Great quotes Push. People also forget, or flat do not know, was that our first war after the Revolution was against Muslims, in the Barbary Wars. After Jefferson merely tried to battle the pirates and have them stop confiscating American ships and imprisoning and killing Americans. This only served to embolden the pirates to kills the infidel. So, Jefferson sent in the Marines and bulldozed Tripoli. Problem solved.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Muhammad ibn Zakariya Razi – Persian physician, alchemist, chemist, philosopher, and scholar:

If the people of this religion [Islam] are asked about the proof for the soundness of their religion, they flare up, get angry and spill the blood of whoever confronts them with this question. They forbid rational speculation, and strive to kill their adversaries. This is why truth became thoroughly silenced and concealed.[/quote]

Great quotes Push. People also forget, or flat do not know, was that our first war after the Revolution was against Muslims, in the Barbary Wars. After Jefferson merely tried to battle the pirates and have them stop confiscating American ships and imprisoning and killing Americans. This only served to embolden the pirates to kills the infidel. So, Jefferson sent in the Marines and bulldozed Tripoli. Problem solved.[/quote]

Literally picked this up this morning, lol…

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Muhammad ibn Zakariya Razi – Persian physician, alchemist, chemist, philosopher, and scholar:

If the people of this religion [Islam] are asked about the proof for the soundness of their religion, they flare up, get angry and spill the blood of whoever confronts them with this question. They forbid rational speculation, and strive to kill their adversaries. This is why truth became thoroughly silenced and concealed.[/quote]

Great quotes Push. People also forget, or flat do not know, was that our first war after the Revolution was against Muslims, in the Barbary Wars. After Jefferson merely tried to battle the pirates and have them stop confiscating American ships and imprisoning and killing Americans. This only served to embolden the pirates to kills the infidel. So, Jefferson sent in the Marines and bulldozed Tripoli. Problem solved.[/quote]

Literally picked this up this morning, lol…[/quote]

Great minds think alike! You’ll certainly get a more detailed account from that book then my brief 2 seconds dedicated to the whole account.

The implications of the Barbary Wars were quite dramatic in just American politics. Jefferson was the first president to create a standing Army and Navy, something he was dead set against prior to being the president. Ironically, that was probably the very thing that saved our ass in later conflicts to come.

No, it is not JUST made to look that way - I have seen it growing in this forum very clearly, and other places as well

Warning to the West

Interesting article. Can’t say it’s wrong but if you change the word Muslim to the word Jew, it almost sounds like something written in Der Stürmer.

It’s hard to understand how so many people keep defending these people. Nobody seems to know anything, until captain loony goes and blows away a cop.

Imam - “I never saw it coming.”

http://mobile.philly.com/beta?wss=/philly/hp/news_update&id=364807851

Iran has detained 2 US Navy boats and 10 sailors, but hey they will stick to the Nuclear Deal right ?

It was a great book by the way. Very quick read.

I see more harm than good in either path

From what I recall, Trump said to ban Moslems from entering the U.S. until a good vetting process is constructed. Which seems reasonable, at first glance at least - raising the question about what such a process might looks like, blah blah blah. Condemning that outright and upfront is more harm than good, in my opinion

As for apologizing for terrorism, I consider it more harm than good to align myself in a way that resonates with a mindset that has me identified with the enemy. I shouldn’t apologize for what I didn’t do - couldn’t apologize genuinely even if I wanted to fake it - which I don’t.

In general acting/thinking/feeling as if I owe or am owed something by others for being Moslem is more harm than good in my opinion.

1 Like