Behold, the fruits of liberalism. What idiots Westerners are for letting the Muslims in by the millions. The culture and traditions of Islam has no place in it for Democratic institutions, liberty, and the traditional culture of others. True Islam only provides three alternatives for all those it comes into contact with; conversion, submission, or death. Western Civilization continues to slit its own throat and has no one to blame for it but itself. When will people learn?
Conservatives have been warning about the foolish policies both here and abroad that lead to such events, but the cries of the Paul Revere’s of the modern age are not heeded.It’s easy to laugh at and mock the silliness and lack of logic that our “Progressive” friend spout, but in practice the ideology they preach leaves a path of doom, death, and destruction and undermines the very foundational pillars of Western Civilization, logic, and common sense. Two tragedies have recently occurred that shine the spotlight of truth on such statements.
In London, a brave and committed soldier was massacred on a public street as passerbys gawked and even conversed with his blood-splattered killers while Sweden has now seen several nights of riots by Muslims. “Multiculturalism” and “diversity” are fun little words to banter around and are a part and parcel of the liberal agenda, but rarely do they bring forth the promised fruits of a utopian society. In fact, far too often it delivers nothing but blood, death, strife, discord, and societal fragmentation.
The reality is far darker than any like to admit. Of course, not every Muslim is a threat, and not every threat comes from a Muslim. But the religion itself was born in a flood of blood and conquest by the sword against all “infidels.” Such beliefs are as much at the heart of the religion as “love your neighbor as yourself” and the Ten Commandments are to Christianity. Islam has waged unceasing war against the West since its founding in the seventh century and it continues to this day.
This video shows the moment the two terrorists who butchered soldier Lee Rigby also tried to kill a woman cop who was first on the scene of the carnage.
[youtube]http://youtu.be/2OkzVYeNDds[/youtube]
From the video description:
“Shocking footage obtained by the Daily Mirror shows how the calculating pair lured officers to the scene by dragging the body into the middle of the road and brazenly waiting for armed police to arrive.When the first police car arrived the pair split up in a pre-planned manoeuvre with knife-wielding Michael Adebolajo charging them head-on, while his accomplice ran up alongside, aiming his revolver at them.The film of the 10 seconds of terror show how Adebolajo got within TWO FEET of the terrified female cop who was driving the armed response vehicle.She was armed with just a Taser as she sat in the driver’s seat of the BMW X5 and was only saved when a male colleague sitting in the back made a split-second decision to fire his machine-gun from point blank range through the window.As he is sent sprawling to the ground by the force of the two shots and the two cops jump out to cover him they appear to fail to spot the other suspect aiming his hand gun at them.Luckily a third SO19 marksman running round from the far side of the specialist Trojan unit spots him and he is brought to the ground as a further volley of six shots ring out in the suburban street in Woolwich, south east London.Former Det Ch Ins Peter Kirkham, an expert in firearms tactics said after watching the footage today: ” I have never seen anything like this before, or even heard of it happening before.
“For two suspects to carry out a brutal attack like this then stand around in plain sight waiting for the police is crazy.
“The instant the spot the police car come round the corner they are on it straight away. The first one is sprinting full speed towards the cops before they have even got out the car.
“The female officer only has her Taser out and must have been terrified. They had no option but to open fire to stop them.”
The dramatic climax to the horrific attack was filmed by a resident in a tower block over looking the scene in Artillery Road and captures the moment the terrorist charges the officers in a suspected death-by-cop suicide bid.
Such incidents as these, or the Boston bombing for that matter, are not mere isolated incidents but part of a vast pattern of attacks on the West and its institutions and a recurring theme that we see time and time again. To purposefully and willfully introduce these elements into Western countries and societies is a dramatic betrayal by some of their own people, culture, and nation. And we are not talking about the introduction of these potentially dangerous and radical elements into Western society in small numbers, but by the millions. It is amazingly irresponsible, dangerous, and increasingly catastrophic to entire peoples and continents. At what point will the West say “enough is enough” and stop such foolishness? Or is it too late already?
Only in small numbers have the followers of teachings of Mohammad shown themselves willing to assimilate into other cultures. Normally, the urge to subvert the dominate culture and substitute their own sharia laws and code of conduct is paramount, especially in large numbers. It causes endless friction and sometimes outright violence against the same people who, in their foolishness, offered up the hospitality of their society to them.
It is the stated goal and policy of liberalism to flood the West with such as these.
Thanks guys! It’s working out great.
Crossposted from Constitution Club
We have no one to blame but ourselves. We feel compassion for those less to do than ourselves even when they refuse to show loyalty. The biggest sin of us “caring” is that we give them everything without them raising a hand to earn it. We allow them to invade our country by the millions and then wonder why they riot and burn down our neighborhoods.
This rant is not intended for everyday people, no we are the ones forced to pay for our “caring” politicians lack of common sense and lusts for power. The day is coming when nothing we do will be enough to right the sinking ship that is America. We give in to the homosexual lobbies with scant defense. We give into the illegals by rewarding them, no matter what we the people say our “caring” politicians do it any way. We have “caring” in Washington that get elected by saying one thing and then doing the opposite. You know people like John Boehner, and John McCain. How much longer can we sit and watch as nothing is done except talk. How much longer? How much longer will it take before we lose everything? I’m sick of it, if there was a place one could go for a little sanity in this world, but alas there is no place their insanity can’t reach.
If the British authorities can’t name their domestic enemies, they can only be defeated by them. Personally, I’m with the English Defense League. This mess will not be corrected without bloodshed on the streets of London.
I grew up in Northeastern Pennsylvania. There were thousands of immigrants who had fled Europe in the early 20th Century. They came to the US for a better life and we welcomed them as long as they accepted and lived by the values espoused by our founding documents. They had difficulty learning English, but they insisted their children learned. The parents of ist generation Americans were often more strict than the parents of others who have been here for many generations.
These immigrants maintained their culture by living in communities and having block parties where they celebrated holidays from the old country. They formed clubs open to everyone, but serving ethnic foods and playing ethnic music. The men served in the military. They became policemen. It is still possible to find a family owned Italian restaurant in the coal mining or slate quarry towns of Eastern Pennsylvania. Many of these immigrants were Catholic who moved into primary Protestant communities. There were some minor comments about the “Romans” but after a generation, religion was not an issue.
Progressives believe that our country will benefit from “multiculturalism”. They want to teach them in their native language, allow them to live by their own laws and fail to adapt to the values of their adopted country. They came from a place they didn’t want to be and our progressives are allowing them to change their adopted country into a country like the one they left. Westerner progressives (liberals) need to understand that our country may not be perfect, but it has much more potential than any other country due to the far thinking of our Founders. If Immigrants want to live in the west, then they need to adapt the values of that adopted country or leave. Otherwise, they are just here to exploit our good will and compassion.
Interesting. Since homosexuals and feminists are, for the most part, liberal. I look forward to seeing how they think Islamic culture (if there is such a thing) will deal with them.
A French soldier has just been stabbed in the next by a man donning a beard and wearing Arab clothing under his jacket.
http://news.sky.com/story/1095605/french-soldier-stabbed-in-neck-in-paris
And so it begins.
@Randy: Very well said and oh so true!
Dems and establishment Republicans support immigration reform, but never consider what could go wrong.
Wake up and pay attention!
Liberal values have very little to do with this. You might as well say Behold, the fruits of conservatism, on the grounds that the perpetrators are conservative Islamic extremists.
Western liberals and conservatives alike deplore this sort of total lunacy. It shouldn’t be used to widen the division between us for political gain. That only serves the cause of the lunatics.
@Greg: That type of thinking has gotten us to where we are. Some one has to wake up and drink the coffee. Stalin called it useful idiots.
Lee Rigby’s murderer had a Mosque leader named Imam Omar Bakri
Later, Bakri was deported from England and is now an open teacher of terrorists like Abeolajo.
Bakri expressed his pride and his surprise that terrorist Michael Abeolajo had the courage to fight and defend Islam.
And how did Abeolajo’s Mosque’s leader view Muslims who attempted to ASSIMILATE?
*The “covenant of security” is also called DHIMMITUDE.
Only SUBDUED infidels who pay the JIZYA tax are actually DHIMMIs.
Therefore, technically, only infidels IN Islamic ruled countries can even be DHIMMIs.
BUT the Muslims in UK define their generous DOLE from the UK taxpayers as their JIZYA.
Therefore, they stay somewhat peaceful.
Bakri (before he was deported) received well over 25,000 Pound Sterling per year in welfare payments.
It fits with the idea that Muslims consider themselves the victors in European countries, that new stronger French policing of 15 of the 751 no-go-zones around Paris led to this violence.
Some background:
August 24, 2012: The French government has announced a plan to boost policing in 15 of the most crime-ridden parts of France in an effort to reassert state control over the country’s so-called “no-go” zones: Muslim-dominated neighborhoods that are largely off limits to non-Muslims.
September 2012: The crackdown on lawlessness in the 15 ZSP ( “no-go” zones) begins.
The initial 15 ZSP are:
Seine-Saint-Denis (Saint-Denis, Saint-Ouen), ( 500,000 Muslims)
Paris (Paris XVIIIe),
les Yvelines (Mantes-la-Jolie, Mantes-la-Ville),
l’Essonne (Corbeil-Essonne),
la Somme (Amiens),
le Nord (Lille),
l’Oise (Méru et Chambly),
la Moselle (Fameck et Uckange),
le Bas-Rhin (Strasbourg),
le Rhône (Lyon IXe),
les Bouches-du-Rhône (Gardanne et Bouc-Bel-aire),
Marseille (Marseille IIIe, XIIIe, XIVe, XVe et XVIe),
le Gard (Vauvert et Saint-Gilles),
l’Hérault (Lunel et Mauguio)
and
la Guyane (Cayenne, Matoury, Remire-Montjoly).
(See ALL of them here: http://sig.ville.gouv.fr/Atlas/ZUS/)
Next month the French government was planning on expanding the policing of more “no-go-zones.”
Don’t know if this will accelerate that plan OR (a la Obama) lead to a retreat and surrender.
Anyone who witnesses this sort of thing, and then turns their anger over it on their fellow countrymen rather than on the people who did it, is being turned into a useful idiot by those very same people.
The biggest danger to us is our own division. Do you think our enemies don’t see that, and want to use that?
@Greg:
Greg, based on the gist of your characteristic tone on this blog, you are willfully denying reality. You do not negotiate with a rabid animal threatening innocents. You kill it. You have denied the clearly described violence, misogyny, and bloodthirsty nature inherent in the koran, and take every opportunity to deflect from the truth with fashionable – but utterly wrong – liberal PC platitudes in defense of islamic principles. You have tried to throw sectarian differences between Shia and Sunni islam, as if only one sect is violent and the other is “moderate”. The koran and the hadith are used by ALL muslims to justify jihad against all non-muslims.
Our soldiers work and train muslims. Our soldiers build water pumps and schools for muslims….and some of them murder our soldiers on our own bases. I personally treated an autistic Afghan boy who had been sodomized by his father, brothers and uncle after the perpetrators had been smoking hashish. What makes it even more sickening is they were all members of the Afghan police force.
Fine…not every muslim commits terorist acts. That doesn’t change what the koran TELLS muslims to do when dealing with infidels. To maybe help people understand….not every German was a nazi thug, but that doesn’t mean nazism was any less reprehensible, and we certainly weren’t tying ourselves in PC knots trying to rationalize nazi evil. It is the same with the satanic death cult of islam.
@Greg:
In your zeal to blame this on “conservatism“, you seem to have forgotten that terrorists are radical Muslims extremists. A conservative reading of the Koran favors the peaceful practice of Islam. It is the radical fringe element with a creative liberal interpretation of the Koran, that supports Jihad, treats women as serfs, and seeks death of all infidels (including Christians and Jews). The term “Radical” has historically most accurately refereed to liberal extremist movements.
@Greg: Multiculturalism is a liberal issue. That is why there are so many schools in California taught in so many languages. Even your efforts here to point the finger at conseratives for blame is a liberal characteristic. Look at Obama still blaming Bush for everything or others. Everyone but himself. A very liberal characteristic.
@Randy: To be fair to Greg, I saw that the Los Angeles Times (and at least one other major newspaper) started calling radical Islam ”conservative Islam,” a few days or weeks ago.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-tamerlan-tsarnaev-burial-20130505,0,3566507.story
Greg merely got the talking point and is running with it.
Add to your point; the tendency to attempt to win a debate by simply redefining the terms is a wholly liberal concept.
Original Post:
It is? In that case, it should be very easy to cite these statements. Please do.
@Tom: Ah!!! You so clevah . . .
38 ways to win an argument. You fail.
@Pete:
So you apparently have serious problems with these “liberal PC platitudes”, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion? It bothers you that liberals don’t support discrimination based solely on religion? Or inciting violence and hatred for the members of a specific religion? Perhaps you should explain the exact criteria you’re advocating for killing these “rabid animals” so we can see how Constitutional your fantasy life really is? Like the Original Poster, while you use the term “liberal”, your ire is really directed at the US Constitution, American values and the rule or law. You’re advocating nothing less than racial cleaning of the “West”, and we know what type of people advocate for that, and how it usually turns out.
@Nathan Blue:
Yawn. Did you say something?
@Tom: More than you, I’m afraid.
If you’re yawning, maybe you should go take a nap instead of being a contrary ass with no other point beyond moral relativism. You’re whole “argument” is one boring logical fallacy after the next. You’re not engaging in serious dialogue, but rather just sounding like a child.
Yawn, indeed.
@Nathan Blue:
Is there a serious argument to be had here? Perhaps there could be if a serious point of view was presented, rather than “the fruits of liberalism” are “Muslims gone wild” and then a random list of things that are supposed to incite outrage. You call my argument a fallacy; my argument is that there is no argument here, just hot air. There is not one factual piece of evidence presented to support the hypothesis. As for “moral relativism” I have no idea what you’re talking about. Is it moral relativism to ask someone to support his argument with facts, not hysterical hyperbole? Is it moral relativism to point out that arguing against Islam in America is arguing against the First Amendment? This post is insupportable in fact, playing only to emotion, and the emotion it’s attempting to capitalize on is pretty ugly. It deserves all the mockery and scorn that can be heaped upon it for being nothing but a sloppily formulated call to bigotry.
Now for the second time i’ll ask, do you actually have something to say on the topic. or are you just practicing to be a debate judge?
@Tom:
It isn’t liberals that are demanding we live under the rule of law ensconced in the Constitution. Liberals are the ones imposing speech codes, trying to confiscate guns, and using the IRS to crush political opposition. As far as hating a religion….for God’s sake these muslims are murdering innocents. You are saying we should stand idly by as muslims slaughter nonmuslims in the name of religious tolerance? The koran tells muslims to enslave, subjugate or kill nonmuslims. Using your reasoning, if a group of Aztecs started sacrificing non aztecs to Quetzlcoatl you would defend them under the guise of religious tolerance? We have the right to defend ourselves against barbarism in any form. Once muslims stop using their religion as a twisted justification for slaughtering those of us who refuse to follow their religion then we can talk about tolerance.
In the early part of the 20th century when Great Britain was the controlling force in Palestine muslim felons were publically executed and their bodies wrapped in pigskins for public burial. The muslim criminal problems went away. Perhaps it is time to repeat the procedure?
@Pete:
I think Tom’s pointing out how broadly sweeping the backlash is, which is lashing out against Muslims in general rather than keeping the focus narrowed to the ones actually responsible, and those who think (condone) and behave like them (those willing to act on their violent beliefs).
Really, who does this actually hurt? And who does it help?
When, over the course of a couple of years the same Mosque hosts both Asghar Bukhari and Omar Bakri Mohammed, it seems to me the public who call down evil on that Mosque are in their rights.
The undercover camera from inside that same Mosque shown only once on BBC was just awful!
*Parents being berated into beating their 7+ year old girls IF the children refused to voluntarily ”cover” before turning 8.
*Parents being encouraged to seek all aspects of ”the dole” they can possibly get so males would be free from working.
*Organizing public street-clogging ”pray-ins” so they could force more Mosques be built.
And so on.
Bakri even called assimilated Muslims a waste of space!
In war, if you stand with one side while fighting is occurring, you are a legitimate target for the other side to hit when the fighting carries on.
If you recall in Gaza the women stayed in the Mosque where militants ran until the militants had each ”covered” with the exact same clothes as the women, then they walked those militants out of the Mosque towards safety.
The IDF shot at their legs in an attempt to NOT kill ”innocent” women.
Several women were shot in their legs while the men were prevented from rejoining the fight.
This photo is from a few years back, but how one earth do you NOT ”accidentally” hit an ”innocent” when you must take out this shooter?>
Where are their parents, you ask.
Those fighters are the parents of some of them.
No one is forcing them to do what they do.
BUT screaming ”you killed innocents!” is quite common — afterward.
@Wordsmith:
PC platitudes, as I mentioned before, serve no good. The glaring point that the left refuses to accept is that the book upon which islam is based is the justification for this violence. You can fool yourself into believing all you want that there is such a thing as “moderate” islam. Don’t spew out nonsense about islam being a peaceful religion. I have read the koran so I could try to understand the muslims around me when deployed to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan. A muslim will be “moderate” to a nonmuslim when the nonmuslim has the power to protect himself from muslim aggression. The muslim views the nonmuslim as subservient. Sharia law is misogynistic. Look at the events happening to coptic Christians in Egypt since the islamic thugocracy has taken control. Better yet, look at the writings of our second president on the dangers of muslim aggression back in the 18th century.
It is the underlying system of beliefs put forth by an illiterate meglomaniacal bandit pedophile that c laimed visions from a mystical being in order for Mohammed to justify getting whatever he wanted from people.
The moral relativism in which the left engages (while disingenuously feiging ignorance of their tactics as Tom does in this thread) allows only temporary solace to the weak minded. Continued avoidance of the need to acknowledge and properly deal with the danger of islam serves only to make us weaker.
@Pete:
Of course, to the extent the Constitution allows us to respond, your premise is complete hokum. I wonder where you’ve been if you think the American government, under two different Administrations, hasn’t reacted forcefully to terrorism, here and abroad. Domestically, prosecutions of domestic terror suspects have been overwhelmingly successful. Abroad, perhaps you’ve heard of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, and what we’ve been up to there.
You again offered nothing in the way of specifics, leaving us to draw our own conclusions as to what you’re proposing as preemptive measures against an entire religion. Are we talking about internment? Mass forced emigration? That’s all right out of the you-know-who handbook, and completely illegal/unconstitutional. So again, what is it you’re advocating for?
One of the most contemptible aspects of a post like this is the emotions it attempts to stir based on the flawed premise that being a good American, or good “Westerner”, is synonymous with hating Islam. It’s a blank check excusing illegal retaliation against innocent people. How many of those people attacked in the wake of Boston or Woolwich are Al Queda, I wonder? To you, that’s irrelevant. To me, it’s illegal, and immoral. It’s also counterproductive.
@Wordsmith:
Thanks, Word, for boiling this down with clarity and in an economy of words I can seemingly never achieve. 🙂
@Tom:
We know you don’t.
@Nathan Blue:
Groan. Anytime you want to actually say something, the floor is yours. Don’t be afraid to be specific, that is if you’re willing to shed your pretense of oracular mystery.
@Wordsmith: @Pete: Both Pete and Words have a point, in my opinion. The question is how far to you go to either side? Denigrating all Muslims for the actions of few is wrong, but so is ignoring the obvious cultural imperatives and situations that generate terrorists inside of another country.
The claim of the article is that the culture in question may be trying to subvert the “enemy” culture by internal siege. That’s coherent with what were seeing, and worth analyzing further.
The problem I have with accusations that Muslims are under-fire is that I haven’t heard reports of violence against Muslims here in the US, that I am aware of. Instead there are terrorists blowing up innocents and nakedly claiming jihad. That’s just a fact. For a US citizen to be wary )but not condemning) of Islam and Muslim neighbors is just good logic.
If some are serious about getting rid of the “stereotype” of Muslims as killers, they need to work within the communities and cultures to find our why this is happening and stop it. Until then, it’s OK for non-Muslims to ask questions and be critical, because innocents are literally loosing their heads for evil reasons.
@Tom:
” The incidents range from name calling and abuse on social media, to the painting of graffiti, attacks against mosques, and pulling off women’s headscarves in the street.”
Yeah, Tom, those “incidents” certainly equate to the beheading of a British soldier, doesn’t it? Wow! Abuse on social media? Obviously you have never read on sites like Slate what the left says about the right/Tea Party.
.
Well, just be grateful that you live in the U.S. with our First Amendment, otherwise, a number of left wingers would be cooling their heels in jail for tweeting “hate” about conservatives. Hell, that might even include you.
What is counterproductive is refusing to call the enemy by its name and refusing to call their actions by its name (terrorism) instead of “work place violence.” Not all Nazis were responsible for gassing Jews, but we were not afraid to call them Nazis. Now CAIR is demanding that prisoners of U.S. jails be allowed to wear a hijab, or as I like to call them, beekeeper outfits. Perhaps CAIR would serve its membership better if it came out against the terrorist actions of its own membership, instead of demanding that the U.S. change rules and regulations to suit only Muslims.
Mohammed build a cult on encouraging his followers to rape, pillage, maim and kill those who did not accept his teachings. Not much has changed in 1,400 years.
@Tom: With all the groaning and yawning, I’m not sure an adult voice would be in the right place.
As to pretense, I’m specifically addressing yours. Logical fallacies and rhetorical devices are not conducive to real discussion. My hope was to invite you to real conversation, rather than continually watch you reenforce liberal stereotypes (truth is whatever emotional impulse I feel today, not a careful examination of reality, both concrete and abstract). Please don’t demand others have a “point” when the goal of your own rants is simple bullying and one-up-man-ship.
No, I’m not offering up my thoughts to someone who will parse a sentence or phrase out of context and launch into a petty rant that merely conforms to their own prejudices rather than on open exploration of what is true.
Informed rational freedom loving people have all the reasons in the world to fear islam. The twin fogs of political correctness & ignorance must be dispersed before western society better understands this menace. Even a brief review of islamic theology & history quickly exposes the deadly roots of this evil ideology.
Mohamhead was a 7th century murdering warlord who rose to power on a river of blood surrounded by thugs and gangsters using intimidation, violence, deception and trickery to expand their criminal empire while mercilessly suppressing and killing their opponents and enriching themselves on stolen booty.
The evil koran is a collection of sayings and speeches by this diabolical madman claiming divine guidance from some mythical sky-god which has inspired generations of crazed fanatics to abhorrent behavior resulting in historys worst ever crimes against humanity starting 1400 years ago and still continuing even today.
Islam is just another fascist totalitarian ideology used by power hungry fanatics on yet another quest for worldwide domination and includes all the usual human rights abuses & suppression of freedoms.
and some snappy infographics, great for emailing…
http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/1479/dangermoko.jpg
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/9963/dangerislam.jpg
@retire05:
The fact you measure discrete crimes against each other and feel those perpetrated against random Muslims should some how “equate'” to those perpetrated in the name of Islam by criminals and terrorists goes to the heart of my point. I don’t care which are worse because they’re all criminal in my eyes. How exactly can crime against random people be justified by unconnected acts of terror? How does it make up for it? I’m sure it makes a person like you feel better, but it doesn’t solve the problem.
I am grateful. That’s why I’m speaking out against those who would subvert the First Amendment in the name of bigotry. You know, people like you.
The Nazis blamed all Jews for the woes of the Weimar Republic with a relentless propaganda effort no different than what I’m seeing here. And then they perpetrated ever increasing acts of random violence against Jews. You push a little further each time and see how the world reacts, and then you go further still. So people like you who are cheerleaders and proponents for retaliation against Muslims are just greasing those skids.
@Tom:
There is a blogger who spent over 30 years in the U.S. Diplomatic Corp, and who also speaks, and reads, Arabic, who can convey the truth to you more than I can. Let me introduce you to DiploMad:
http://thediplomad.blogspot.com/2013/05/how-many-times-do-we-have-to-hear-about.html
If you feel like getting your ass handed to you with great finesse, just tell him how you feel. But prepare to bleed.
@Nathan Blue:
I guess the invitation got lost in the mail. All you’ve done is try to sidetrack the discussion by labeling me without offering anything in the way of concrete example or fact. If you can’t back up anything you’re stating as fact, then how are we gauge the value of your words? How can we not infer a value from your sheer evasiveness?
In other words, you’re not going to engage in a debate because you don’t have faith that you can defend your position. Beyond your vague criticisms of me, what exactly are you offering? I suppose we can add your laughably diffuse post #32 as further evidence just how far out of the way you’ll go not to take a concrete position here, one you might actually have to defend. You’re little bigotry lite stance isn’t even worth my time to dismantle, because you’ve left yourself so many weaselly little escape hatches. The OP, to his credit, advanced a clear hypothesis. The problem is he provided zero factual evidence to support it. I requested something in the way of evidence in post #17, which you took great issue with, for reasons beyond me. I don’t know how debates work where you’re from, but if you can’t stake your position and then support it, what value are you bringing to the discussion exactly? The value I’m bringing by asking that question is crystal clear: can your post withstand even the most cursory push-back ,or will it collapse like a house of cards. I’m still waiting for that evidence.
@retire05:
Since you can’t get the job done, I should run over there to debate with someone who can, someone smarter than you? A strange admission on your part, and a rare example of insight.
@Randy, #14:
I wasn’t pointing a finger at conservatism. I was pointing a finger at the total absurdity of the statement that we’re somehow looking at The Fruits of Liberalism.
As you point out, the terrorists are radical Muslim extremists. Their thinking and behavior has absolutely nothing in common with the thinking and behavior of liberals. Liberal thinking and behavior did not give rise to such people.
I would hope it isn’t only liberals who resist the idea that all Muslims should be condemned for the behavior of a minority of radical extremists.
@Greg:
Liberal (leftist) thinking brought these people to the West in large numbers, teaches that Western culture is inferior to all others, suppresses an honest discussion of the true nature of Muslim attacks, and provides Muslims with welfare so that they can sit around becoming radicalized instead of using their time to earn a living. This bitterly hostile parallel society was built inside of ours by wishful thinking, like yours.
@Tom: Ah, and the point is I’m not discussing this with you, because you’re not discussing anything. It’s yawns, groans, and whining. Funny how that aggravates you, given that your tactic of drawing people into making statements you can misinterpret is akin to playing a made-up game with a four-year-old: they change the rules, and meanings of the rules, to ensure “victory”. You took the hyperbole of the author as a fact in order to do your own sidetracking, bereft of intellectual rigor.
I’m addressing the fact that your posts here are not serious inquiries, but rather infantile ramblings with no merit. All the proof you need can be found by scrolling up . . .
So no, I don’t play four-year-old games of mutable meaning that belay a childish need to “win”. You’ve not added to this discussion (overall) and your pretense of empirical reasoning is only being invoked because you think it’s expedient to your . . . uh, cause? Not sure what I’d call it.
My point is that you have no point, beyond playing in your own world and being combative. And you’re not a good debater, by any means. You’re here looking for a fight, not promoting values or honest criticisms of any kind.
I’ll pass.
@Nathan Blue:
Wow, good for me, I guess. I’m not sure why it took you five paragraphs to back down when it only took Retard05 four sentences, but any time you want to man up and debate a point I’ve made rather than cast aspersions my way from your hidey hole, be my guess. It’s all right up there waiting for you, Champ.
From the OP:
Possibly the single most offensive post I’ve see on this site to date. And it’s not like there hasn’t been similarly low guttural competition.
Heads up, Dave the not so sage. The reason that we “idiot Westerners” let Muslims in is because our founding principles do not discriminate based on religion. Novel concept, eh? Now if you want to argue specific individuals and their qualifications – outside the fact they happen to be Muslim – there might be some common ground.
You may think your version of a cleansed-of-Muslim America is an improvement. I see it as the most obvious of slippery slopes.
@Greg:
I, (Ditto not Randy) did not say you were pointing a finger at conservatives, I merely pointed out that you are incorrect to refer to radical-fringe extremist Muslims as “conservatives,” when they are not.
I think we can all agree that extremism (aka fanaticism) is not beholden to any particular ideology or religion, although if we are to be honest, we must note there are particular groups that attract radicals and can through a group’s enthusiasm, energize that extremism into dangerous fanaticism.
Dave’s reference to liberalism in his article, does not point a finger at any particular political party either. It refers to too liberal immigration policies that do not examine the quality/background of immigrants, which allows far too many dangerous types to enter under the radar and without periodic review. That foolhardy type of immigration policy is what is absurd and what poses a public danger, as has been proven time and time again, on examination of how terrorists so easily entered nations, whereby they trained, planned and executed their terrorist acts.
The Boston Marathon bombing, both World Trade center attacks, the recent knifing attacks in Europe, and in other too numerous to list acts of terrorism, in the majority of cases were perpetrated by immigrants who turned out to be radical Islamic fanatics. This is simple statement of fact and not an indictment of the Muslim religion or immigrants in general.
Pete is correct in stating that the Koran has numerous entries that call for the killing of, or violent conversion of non-Muslims. It also has contradictory entries that declare Christians and Jews as brother’s of “the Book” and say that Muslims can coexist in peace with them. There are also portions of the Old Testament & Torah that could be used to foster violence. Nor do these types of pro-violent “teachings” only existent in religious dogma, but destructive teachings exist in other, secular ideological groups (The Weather Underground and eco-terrorists,) also instruct their devotees in practices that can lead to the endangerment of life and limb.
This doesn’t change the fact that all ideologies can be taught in ways that foster peaceful coexistence. We need to focus on discovering and stopping dangerous fanatics and not the wholesale bigotry of persecuting all those who follow an ideology that do not agree with our own. We should be able to peacefully confront those who would use their ideology to deny our rights or who seek to engage in culture wars without reducing ourselves to violent acts.
@Wm T Sherman, #41:
IMHO, the story that the influx of Muslim immigrants occurred entirely on the watch of liberal governments, or because of liberal ideas that multiculturalism is something that should be encouraged for it’s own sake, is a fairy tale. Immigration was allowed in Western Europe mainly to provide those who could most profit from it with an abundant supply of cheap labor. The same is true of our own illegal immigration problem. Witness the fact that it was allowed to go on during a long period when republicans had control the government. It was allowed to continue because it provided a ready supply of cheap labor, which business profited enormously from exploiting.
What did Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II ever do out our immigration problem? What did Margaret Thatcher ever do about the UK’s? I think the answer is essentially the same in each case: Nothing. There was talk that appealed to those who objected, but nothing was ever really done.
@Ditto, #45:
I don’ t see any other long-term solution. Things like Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri’s Fatawa on Terrorism could be big steps in that direction. It doesn’t help when no distinction is made between extremist elements and an entire religion.
@Nathan Blue:
I agree that there are points worthy of merit and mention on both sides of the equation. Absolutely.
In regards to the last paragraph, a “peaceful takeover”, if that’s the way it’s to be looked at, isn’t exclusive to just Muslims; but any immigrant group or religious group looking to set up a “state within a state” as opposed to integration and assimilation into the adopted country; or looking to make converts.
My issue is with the jihadi mentality first, that expresses itself in violence, especially violence targeted at innocent civilians.
Cultural backwardness might be seen as related; but for me, it’s a separate issue.
I think John Hawkins (even as I would quibble with some of his criteria) strikes the kind of balanced critique of which you are speaking of, Nathan.
There are some 300 comments in this thread; somewhere in there, I’m pretty sure I found some news items regarding violence and post-9/11 backlash against Muslims. I agree with Retire05 pointing out in that thread that the numbers aren’t that high when compared to some other special interest groups (Jews).
In regards to terrorists blowing up innocents and claiming jihad, is this representative of the majority practitioners of all of Islam or a sizeable minority who condone and participate in it? Jihadis themselves, I don’t believe, are great in numbers.
Some of the terror plots that have been successfully foiled have also owed thanks to Muslims who have tipped off the FBI.
I don’t expect anyone here will like this article; but I think it at least serves as food for thought and it’s worth considering some of the points that are brought up.
Question is: Like Sandy Hook and gun violence, Do we truly have an epidemic problem of jihadi violence? Is what happened in Woolwich last week really the norm? Or is it something that will serve to fuel anti-Islam prejudice and serve the interests of the al-Qaeda network and their desire to drive that wedge between the West and Islam? How many of the 1.5 billion Muslims out there actually go around each day thinking “I’ve got to kill or convert some infidels today, or I’m a bad Muslim….”?
I more or less agree with the rest of the points in your comment.
@Pete:
We’ve traveled this road before. If the “you” in your sentences is directly aimed at me, then you are once again arguing past me.
Here is a question for thought- given that most of the people the Muslim fanatics kill are other Muslims, wouldn’t it stand to reason that Muslims have the most to fear from these nutjobs and therefore don’t care for them?