The News Thread

[HamburgerBoy]

That's not true tbh. The USA actually lets in far fewer refugees than most of Europe. I'm having difficulty finding the chart, but there's one out there that breaks down Americans of 50 or so different national origins, and I'm pretty sure most from Muslim countries are above average. We do have Hispanic illegals to cancel that out, of course, but that's a different issue.

I agree it's not as organized. On the other hand, it's more pervasive in the US. These are two very different "movements" with very different origins and culprits. My point has never been to say that they are equivocal.

When you consider that there are probably 50x the number of white Christians compared to all Muslims in the USA, the pervasiveness doesn't seem as interesting.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Again, that's a weak, racist/prejudiced argument. Violate the civil rights of Muslims based on their religion and/or ethnicity? Not only is it unconstitutional and unethical, it's a waste of resources. Most mosques are places people go to pray and build community. It would be a waste of resources to put them under surveillance. I'm all for infiltrating potential terrorist plots, but suspects should be chosen based on their actions, not their religion or ethnicity.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Was that in reply to me or something arg said? I never said anything about monitoring mosques and spying on all Muslims or anything. I just think it's silly when people try to play the "b-buh abortion bombers" card. Muslims disproportionately commit terrorist acts in the name of their religion, and worldwide. I don't think racial profiling would accomplish much/anything, though, at least without drastically reducing the privacy of citizens past a level not justifiable by the occasional terrorist attack. I personally consider radical Islam a mild threat to the USA in the grand scheme of things; I think it harms Muslim Americans more due to the inevitable backlash.

 

[CiG]

The argument that there are "Christian terrorists too" is probably the weakest argument I've ever encountered, this was a true display in the art of reaching.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

The argument that there are "Christian terrorists too" is probably the weakest argument I've ever encountered, this was a true display in the art of reaching.

There's nothing better then someone puffing their chest when they've offered nothing to conversation and have displayed an inability to process the facts they were given. My point is quite strong as Christian and white supremacist terrorism is a regular occurrence in the USA. In fact, they are a more frequent occurrence than Islamic terrorist attacks.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Was that in reply to me or something arg said? I never said anything about monitoring mosques and spying on all Muslims or anything. I just think it's silly when people try to play the "b-buh abortion bombers" card. Muslims disproportionately commit terrorist acts in the name of their religion, and worldwide. I don't think racial profiling would accomplish much/anything, though, at least without drastically reducing the privacy of citizens past a level not justifiable by the occasional terrorist attack. I personally consider radical Islam a mild threat to the USA in the grand scheme of things; I think it harms Muslim Americans more due to the inevitable backlash.

It was to you, but evidently that wasn't the point you were trying to make, so never mind. I agree with pretty much everything I bolded. The key distinction I make is that I don't think Muslims have a higher rate of terrorism because of anything specific to Islam. It has much more to do with the geopolitical location in the world and the context of modern world history.

 

[CiG]

There's nothing better then someone puffing their chest when they've offered nothing to conversation and have displayed an inability to process the facts they were given. My point is quite strong as Christian and white supremacist terrorism is a regular occurrence in the USA. In fact, they are a more frequent occurrence than Islamic terrorist attacks.

I'm sure there are, when you create loosely defined parameters in order to make your point.
By your standards we should count every drive-by shooting done in the ghettos as Christian terrorism too, obviously you won't though because that would clash with your anti-white narrative.

 

[Mort Divine]

How is being against discrimination of Muslims being anti-white. You talk of reaching then proceed to pull that.

 

[CiG]

How is being against discrimination of Muslims being anti-white. You talk of reaching then proceed to pull that.

I didn't say it was, who is reaching now?

 

[rms]

I'm glad it only took us like 15 posts to realize Crimson's original point was bullshit

 

[arg]

america has a massive hole of debt, our social security and pensions are in jeopardy, and we want to invite even more poor fucks too feed off of our welfare that our taxes pay for? makes no sense

 

[HamburgerBoy]

It was to you, but evidently that wasn't the point you were trying to make, so never mind. I agree with pretty much everything I bolded. The key distinction I make is that I don't think Muslims have a higher rate of terrorism because of anything specific to Islam. It has much more to do with the geopolitical location in the world and the context of modern world history.

Define "geopolitical location in the world". It's not just the Arab world, North Africa, and the Western powers that have problems. See jihadist violence in China, India, Indonesia, and Thailand, for example. Basically, if you have Muslim neighbors anywhere in the world, chances are some of them are going to want to kill you because you follow the wrong religion, or aren't as hardcore as them.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

I'm sure there are, when you create loosely defined parameters in order to make your point.
By your standards we should count every drive-by shooting done in the ghettos as Christian terrorism too, obviously you won't though because that would clash with your anti-white narrative.

My criteria are those outlined by the FBI, which I cited, but you were obviously too lazy to read. The acts I referenced are LEGALY defined as terrorism. This isn't just my random opinion. The one's you mentioned aren't terrorism because they aren't politically motivated. If you're not gonna put forth the effort to process my argument, don't bother responding.

 

[Dak]

You guys are poking all around down in the weeds and missing primary points:

Jihad is a component of Islam, so is taqiya. Not historical artifacts, not "extremist" attachments, etc. Muslims who eschew it, or take more tempered interpretations are behaving in spite of their religion, not because of it. There's a lot of nice stuff in the Quran about helping people - as long as they are Muslim, or accept Islamic supremacy.

Counter that with Christianity. Turn the other cheek, do good to those that persecute you, render unto ceasar, etc etc. Any "extremist Christians" are acting outside of the directives of Christ, not in agreement. You can't read the Gospels or the Pauline epistles and be like "WELP TIME TO START THE KILLIN!" even with the most absurd of interpretations. Yeah, there's the OT - but Christianity is pretty clear about Jesus doing away with that past. There's no "OT/NT" division in Islam.

Not even going to bother addressing the mental gymnastics required to try and "and/or" neonazis with abortion clinic bombers, not to mention that bombing abortion clinics isn't "terrorism" by "the" definition.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Define "geopolitical location in the world". It's not just the Arab world, North Africa, and the Western powers that have problems. See jihadist violence in China, India, Indonesia, and Thailand, for example. Basically, if you have Muslim neighbors anywhere in the world, chances are some of them are going to want to kill you because you follow the wrong religion, or aren't as hardcore as them.

That goes for every religion. There are always going to be some extremists. The disproportionate number in the Middle East is the result of a combintation of neocolonialism, political instability and valuable natural resources.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

You guys are poking all around down in the weeds and missing primary points:

Jihad is a component of Islam, so is taqiya. Not historical artifacts, not "extremist" attachments, etc. Muslims who eschew it, or take more tempered interpretations are behaving in spite of their religion, not because of it. There's a lot of nice stuff in the Quran about helping people - as long as they are Muslim, or accept Islamic supremacy.

Counter that with Christianity. Turn the other cheek, do good to those that persecute you, render unto ceasar, etc etc. Any "extremist Christians" are acting outside of the directives of Christ, not in agreement. You can't read the Gospels or the Pauline epistles and be like "WELP TIME TO START THE KILLIN!" even with the most absurd of interpretations. Yeah, there's the OT - but Christianity is pretty clear about Jesus doing away with that past. There's no "OT/NT" division in Islam.

Not even going to bother addressing the mental gymnastics required to try and "and/or" neonazis with abortion clinic bombers, not to mention that bombing abortion clinics isn't "terrorism" by "the" definition.

That's a nice clean-cut interpretation of the world's two biggest religions you have there. However, your interpretation is far from universally accepted. Tons of Chrisitans justify war using both Old and New Testement. You read Chrisitianity as pacificism, but many others do not.

And yeah, per the US government, the Army of God is a terrorist organization. So you can pull you're "but, but they're white!" act all you want, it doesn't change the meaning of the term nor the fact that the Department of Homeland Secuirty classifies them as such.

 

[Dak]

That's a nice clean-cut interpretation of the world's two biggest religions you have there. However, your interpretation is far from universally accepted. Tons of Chrisitans justify war using both Old and New Testement. You read Chrisitianity as pacificism, but many others do not.

Of course it's easy to justify war with the OT, but only a handful of fringe groups treat the OT as being relevant in any way beyond history, not "tons". I also didn't say Christianity was "pacifist", although many interpret it that way. Jesus did tell his disciples to take swords for self defense. Where are justifications of war in the NT? Armageddon? Haven't seen Jesus coming in the clouds yet. I think you're just pulling stuff out of your ass.

And yeah, per the US government, the Army of God is a terrorist organization. So you can pull you're "but, but they're white!" act all you want, it doesn't change the meaning of the term nor the fact that the Department of Homeland Secuirty classifies them as such.

Now you are talking about government declarations instead of a dictionary definition. Make up your mind. I would call them terrorists, but they don't fit the "political" definition.

Here's a pretty clear presentation from Sam Harris, hardly a Fox News puppet:

...groups like al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS. These people kill doctors, aid workers, and journalists on purpose. They are telling us with every breath how they want the world to be. They are not saying, “Sorry guys, we just don’t have the weapons you have, and so we’re obliged to use asymmetric, seemingly barbaric tactics like burning people alive in cages, taking sex slaves, and crucifying children. However, all this savagery doesn’t reflect how we want to live at all. Sorry for shooting Malala in the head. We won’t behave like that once we build the Caliphate.”

On the contrary, the Taliban still intends to kill Malala, and they have proudly told us so. And the ghoulish videos we see streaming out of ISIS are not their My Lai massacre. They’re not some moral error these people are struggling to correct. They reflect a sustained and conscious effort to put their best foot forward to the rest of the Muslim community. This behavior, which would otherwise be impossible to understand, makes perfect sense given their interpretation of Islam. And that’s the problem.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Funny timing that a white terrorist is apparently taking hostages in a Planned Parenthood right now.

That goes for every religion. There are always going to be some extremists. The disproportionate number in the Middle East is the result of a combintation of neocolonialism, political instability and valuable natural resources.

Aside from domestic cases like abortion clinic killers, it just doesn't happen as much from other religions, especially non-Abrahamic ones. Thailand has nothing to do with the Middle East aside from happening to contain a minority of people that follow a religion originating from there.

 

[Mort Divine]

Funny that the with me living in an area with more Muslims than any area in the US aside from maybe NYC and the only terrorism plot area here I could find anything on was actually in 2011 by a white man (from California) planning to bomb mosques in Dearborn, Michigan.

 

[Dak]

Hey look, a wild anecdote in its native habitat.

Only an idiot goes "all arabs/muslims are dangerous". The point is that Islam is a religion with some glaring problems in terms of assimilation. The threat of violent radicalization is higher with Islam than any other major religion, regardless of geopolitical happenings. Accordingly and in extension, importing people with such an ideological framework/worldview, who know mostly 3rd world conditions and regular violence is not advantageous to improving the QoL of those already on US soil, muslim or otherwise. Finally, again, Islam is about as regressive as it gets; if one didn't already have an understanding/appreciation for the internal conflictions of progressivism, the progressive support for Muslims being Muslim would be absolutely mindboggling.