Free Speech and Terrorism – Whatever you do, don’t mention Islam!

Whatever you do, decent progressive people, when terrorism comes up, don’t be “Islamophobic” and mention Islam! If Islam comes up anyway, do draw false equivalencies and hobble yourselves, citing Western imperialism as a moral hamartia disqualifying you from taking critical stances about the faith of a beleaguered minority. Studiously ignore freethinkers in that same minority, and, of course, those facing persecution in Muslim-majority countries. And definitely throw ex-Muslims — especially ex-Muslim women — under the bus. After all, they’re inconvenient, defenseless, relatively few in number, and often so harassed and threatened by their own communities that they surely won’t object. Remember, after all, you have the gunmen, machete-wielders, and honor brigades on your side.

In fact, you know that all too well. Might that be why you refuse to recognize Islamist ideology as the cause of much of the world’s present mayhem?

The above is a preamble to my discussion of the proximate cause of today’s essay — an article published by the Washington Post purporting to provide “guidance” in understanding the current plague of terrorism.

---

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.



SOURCE QUILLETTE


Very long article, but a must read.

My issue with calling out Islam itself over "Islamist terrorism" is that Islam as a whole tends to condemn these acts. When you call it Islamic, you're saying it's part of Islam, and there are a whole lot of peaceful Muslims who insist that it's not.

I prefer to let peaceful people define what their religion is and what it's not, rather than granting that privilege to violent terrorists.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/philippines-president-rodrigo-duterte-gives-middle-finger-to-the-eu/news-story/8c9c58f32b673d63d74684973e52cc73

The whole western imperial thing exists and antagonize far more than Just Islam.

THEY say actions speak louder than words and it’s pretty hard to misinterpret what Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte is trying to convey here.

The firebrand leader had only one thing to say over the European Union’s call to put an end to the killing of drug addicts and dealers.

Speaking in his home town city of Davao after the EU parliament called for better monitoring of human rights abuses, Duterte didn’t appear to take to kindly to the issue.

“I have read the condemnation of the European Union. I’m telling them, ‘F**k you,’” Duterte said during a speech yesterday.

But his defiance didn’t end quite there, he also called the EU a bunch of hypocrites,

“You should look at history books, encyclopaedia of events. Britain, France has the gall to condemn me. Again, I repeat it, f**ck you.”

He then stuck up his middle finger.

Duterte has come under fire from various human rights groups over his tough stance on crime and drugs which has left more than 3500 people dead.

The controversial leader swept to power in May after promising to kill 100,000 drug dealers within six months of coming to power.

It is what MOST of the world thinks about the west because it is ultimately true and the EU and UK try and brush their vast history of crimes under the carpet without any sort of compensation.

Funny how I have seen the English on here try and excuse it as Not being them personally and not accepting any responsibility (even thought all Citizens did gain financially from the mass theft that built the infrastructure in the UK)
So why should a Muslim accept responsibility at all, when they actually do condemn it and have not have any benefit from it.

Ben Reilly wrote:My issue with calling out Islam itself over "Islamist terrorism" is that Islam as a whole tends to condemn these acts. When you call it Islamic, you're saying it's part of Islam, and there are a whole lot of peaceful Muslims who insist that it's not.

I prefer to let peaceful people define what their religion is and what it's not, rather than granting that privilege to violent terrorists.

And of what relevance does that have in combating Islamic terrorism?
When it is Islamic doctrine and ideologies like martyrdom, Jihad etc, that are used to endorse violence?
Its not about defining the religion, but how it is taught and that in the Abrahamic faiths. All non-believers will suffer an eternity of pain for non-belief. As soon as you have such a Totalitarian belief that endorses pain and suffering for this, it is why there has been over 2,000 years of religious violence.

There are lots of Christians that say the Crusades were not down to Christian ideology, but the reality is that they were. If you are going to claim that a religion is not responsible for problems, then you end up becoming by default an apologist for the inquisition, the Crusades etc. Look at the US today for example, where because of still a strong literal Christian belief. That you have problems.

So who do you agree with which Christians to define Christianity, when 42,000 different denominations disagree with each other?

veya_victaous wrote:http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/philippines-president-rodrigo-duterte-gives-middle-finger-to-the-eu/news-story/8c9c58f32b673d63d74684973e52cc73

The whole western imperial thing exists and antagonize far more than Just Islam.

THEY say actions speak louder than words and it’s pretty hard to misinterpret what Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte is trying to convey here.  

The firebrand leader had only one thing to say over the European Union’s call to put an end to the killing of drug addicts and dealers.

Speaking in his home town city of Davao after the EU parliament called for better monitoring of human rights abuses, Duterte didn’t appear to take to kindly to the issue.

“I have read the condemnation of the European Union. I’m telling them, ‘F**k you,’” Duterte said during a speech yesterday.

But his defiance didn’t end quite there, he also called the EU a bunch of hypocrites,

“You should look at history books, encyclopaedia of events. Britain, France has the gall to condemn me. Again, I repeat it, f**ck you.”

He then stuck up his middle finger.

Duterte has come under fire from various human rights groups over his tough stance on crime and drugs which has left more than 3500 people dead.

The controversial leader swept to power in May after promising to kill 100,000 drug dealers within six months of coming to power.

It is what MOST of the world thinks about the west because it is ultimately true and the EU and UK try and brush their vast history of crimes under the carpet without any sort of compensation.

Funny how I have seen the English on here try and excuse it as Not being them personally and not accepting any responsibility (even thought all Citizens did gain financially from the mass theft that built the infrastructure in the UK)  
So why should a Muslim accept responsibility at all, when they actually do condemn it and have not have any benefit from it.

Okay explain why we see no Buddhist terrorism from the Vietnam conflict in the US or France? Or in Tibet?
You should see continued terrorism from not only this conflict but countless others, due to French colonialism?
We should see today in France and the US, due to the Vietnam war continued terrorism.
If you use such an apologist argument, where do you want to draw the line in history?
At the Arab expansionist colonial drive?

So the argument is misdirection and actually proving their is a problem within Islam, that we do not see elsewhere due to colonialism. As many countries suffered under European colonialism. There is no terrorism equivalent today because of these crimes, only encouraged from Islamic extremism.
If this is the case, then colonialism, is used as a poor apologist argument for Islamism, especially when Islam was spread by the sword itself.

because Vietnam was successful in expelling the invaders,
Ho Chi Min is largely Beloved by his people (interesting side note, due to Australian Vietnamese largely being refugees they have huge arguments with normal Vietnamese regarding Ho Chi Min. It is Basically a STFU and don't mention it topic)

And the Whole Philippines is Doing it right now and their Trump like leader LITERALLY gave you the middle finger and Said
"FUCK YOU, look at your own history and STFU hypocrites"
and there is Buddhist terrorism but it is normally directed at Islamic or Chinese interests not western interests, cause the West is no longer a real power in Asia.

All terrorism Should be denounced as Terrorists and they all should be denied the legitimacy of association.

ISIS is clearly not really Islamic, they are clearly just monsters, we should not be enabling and assisting in their recruiting by telling the disenfranchised that they are an Islamic Organization. To you and tommy, etc that may have negative connotation but to a orphaned Muslim teen living in a bombed out village you make them sound like the organization that represents them.

veya_victaous wrote:because Vietnam was successful in expelling the invaders,
Ho Chi Min is largely Beloved by his people (interesting side note, due to Australian Vietnamese largely being refugees they have huge arguments with normal Vietnamese regarding Ho Chi Min. It is Basically a STFU and don't mention it topic)

And the Whole Philippines is Doing it right now and their Trump like leader LITERALLY gave you the middle finger and Said
"FUCK YOU, look at your own history and STFU hypocrites"
and there is Buddhist terrorism but it is normally directed at Islamic or Chinese interests not western interests, cause the West is no longer a real power in Asia.

All terrorism Should be denounced as Terrorists and they all should be denied the legitimacy of association.

ISIS is clearly not really Islamic, they are clearly just monsters, we should not be enabling and assisting in their recruiting by telling the disenfranchised that they are an Islamic Organization. To you and tommy, etc that may have negative connotation but to a orphaned Muslim teen living in a bombed out village you make them sound like the organization that represents them.

Misdirection again, when countless people suffered bombings and civilian casualties, let alone the oppression under French colonial rule and also Japanese Colonial rule. There are plenty of Vietnamese citizens in France and the US today and yet no terrorism from them at the time of the conflict or today. If the bases as you claim was due to colonialism, which finished roughly the same time, then colonialism or its crimes cannot be the underlining factor for Islamic terrorism. So that is where your reasoning falls down and its not just Vietnam, there is countless countries to choose from that we do not see any terrorism because of European colonialism. You did not even explain Tibet, which is still under occupation by the Chinese. Burma is oppressing Muslims, that is not terrorism and the Muslims there are not former colonialists. The bases for your methodology was on Colonialism remember?

No, what you have within the Philippines, is a Totalitarian dictator, murdering people and has no relevance. The country suffered appallingly under Japanese rule, so where is the terrorism against the Japanese by the people of the Philippines? There is none.

There is no person or figure within Islam, that can define what is the true Islam or for people o say who is or who is not following Islam. Hence the point why there is different schools within Islam and that even today, they are fighting for supremacy against each other. Shia and Sunni Islam is in a continued war of attrition against each other for control of Islam itself. ISIS very much uses Islamic doctrine. They are the closet to the original followers of Muhammad, based on what many Muslims themselves believe to be historical of early Islam itself. So why are they following claims to the historicity of Islam and Muhammad? These are  hadiths taught throughout many Muslim schools of thought on Islam. They did not appear overnight.

Thorin wrote:And of what relevance does that have in combating Islamic terrorism?

Nobody that I know wants to combat Islamic terrorism over here.  It's about as removed from the American mind as Burmese terrorism.  It exists, we all say tot-tut, but after sanctions, there's nothing we can do.  It's a problem, but so is any crime.

Islamic terrorism over here is negligible, and like any hate crime, it's something the local police are well able to handle.  We don't get too upset about a shooting in Aurora, Co., why should be be upset about a shooting in San Bernardino, Ca., just because someone shouts Allahu Akbar?

Tut-tut, bad ISIS.  Go back to your momma and behave yourself.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:And of what relevance does that have in combating Islamic terrorism?

Nobody that I know wants to combat Islamic terrorism over here.  It's about as removed from the American mind as Burmese terrorism.  It exists, we all say tot-tut, but after sanctions, there's nothing we can do.  It's a problem, but so is any crime.

Islamic terrorism over here is negligible, and like any hate crime, it's something the local police are well able to handle.  We don't get too upset about a shooting in Aurora, Co., why should be be upset about a shooting in San Bernardino, Ca., just because someone shouts Allahu Akbar?

Tut-tut, bad ISIS.  Go back to your momma and behave yourself.

Then you do not know the majority of your population and again to not combat, is effectively hoping the problem will just go away. That does not solve the problem or help he countless Muslims who suffer under Islamism. So again you are using misdirection, when Islamic terrorism does effect many nations including the US. To then even downplay terrorism does what exactly? Trying to deny that there is indeed a problem.

So by your methodology, its going to happen, so just allow people to die through doing nothing to stop this phenomenon. That is the climate denial answer to global warming. Its going to happen, so just allow this to continue until it grows to the breaking point. That does then see more people swing to the right, through the denial of some on the left, who wrongly thinks there is a conspiracy against Muslims. Even though many Muslims are the victims of this terrorism. As there is a conflict going on between shia's and Sunni's over gaining Islamic supremacy. Its a vicious cycle, one that has seen the inaction and denial by the left, cause many people to become fed up of the complete denial of conflict with liberal values.

Whether it be neo-Christian Conservative, you would not hesitate, but neo-conservative Islam, and you are in denial. Yet both are fundamentally the same

I think you need to read this in full

Yet another unedifying, wrongheaded piece of this sort finding its way into print is perhaps par for the course and possibly should be ignored, but unfortunately the blood being spilled on the streets of Europe, the United States, and, most recently, Turkey, won’t allow that. But before turning to the essay, I’ll make one more prefatory observation.
The ongoing Islamist terrorist onslaught against innocents (among them, Muslim innocents) has laid bare, for all to see, the intellectual muddle, preening masochism, and sweaty-palmed cowardice characterizing the response to it from people who call themselves, often quite ostentatiously, progressives or liberals, but whom we may accurately categorize as “regressive leftists” (or hypocrites, for short). Formerly just a hindrance to rational discourse regarding Islam and human rights, regressive leftists have now morphed, with the election of Donald Путин Америки(and the prospect of other polls to come in Europe), into a dire threat to West’s faltering liberal order.



This is not hyperbole. The data show that the “politically correct” regressive-leftist refusal to speak forthrightly about Islamist terrorism played a powerful — in fact, probably decisive — role in sending Trump to the White House. Last summer, a Pew Research Center survey found that eight out of ten registered voters considered terrorism “very important” in their decision about how to vote in November.(The economy was slightly more important to them, but since the starkest difference between the two candidates concerned terrorism, it is not unreasonable to conclude that issue swung the vote in Trump’s favor.) Hillary Clinton’s stubborn obfuscation and puerile remarks on the subject surely did nothing to assuage their fears. Trump easily (and crudely) exploited this issue — indeed, made it a signature issue of his campaign — and defeated her.

Now to the Washington Post essay (which originally ran in The Conversation) “All terrorism attacks are not connected. But terrorists want you to think that they are,” by Dr. Natasha Ezrow, undergraduate director and a senior lecturer at the University of Essex. We may dispense straightaway with the title’s assertion: Ezrow nowhere offers evidence that terrorists hope we think one thing versus another. Published just after the recent Berlin Christmas Market slaughter, the piece purports to offer an overview of terrorist attacks worldwide and a presumably rational way of assessing them. It reads, though, as if authored by Hillary Clinton (or one of her regressive leftist advisors).
Ezrow begins by telling us that “In just one weekend in December, a series of terrorist attacks killed nearly 200 people in five countries. All of them claimed the lives of civilians, and all were claimed by different terrorist groups.” She then runs through a litany of the atrocities committed in 2016 in places as diverse as Yemen and Turkey, and Cairo and Maiduguri, and also includes a couple of bombings perpetrated by Kurdish (secular) militants.

“This is a horrific spate of attacks,” Ezrow declares, “and it should disturb us all.” But not too much, really, as she would have it. It turns out that “speculation” (no source cited) that “the attacks were somehow connected or coordinated” is unfounded. “All the attacks occurred in countries facing very specific challenges. Rolling them into one ‘wave’ of violence is misguided, and misunderstands the very real nature of global terrorist threats.”

Which gives us to think Ezrow will now enlighten us as to the “real nature” of the menace. Why are so many people blowing up themselves and others in so many places? Given that the assailants frequently shout Allahu Akbar! in flagrante delicto, justify their killing with verses from the Quran, and publicly profess allegiance to the Islamic State, might their deeds have at least something to do with Islam?

Not according to Ezrow, who opines that, “The nature of war has changed; most of victims of conflict are civilians, and more of the tactics used are unconventional.” She has discovered that even “insurgents” use terrorist tactics. And “70 percent of all terrorist attacks” are committed by lone wolves, often “in zones of conflict and instability.” Moreover, the “conflicts are rooted in grievances of inequality and exclusion” but “each event is not linked to the other. . . . [A]n act of terrorism in Cairo has nothing to do with the bombings taking place in Somalia.” In sum, bad-vibe zones and injustices spontaneously generate terrorism, in the same way that swamp air was once mysteriously thought to cause malaria.

Ezrow skitters away from the question of motive to tell us that all this bloody mayhem isn’t truly as bloody as we thought. In 2016, she writes, until the date her article was published, 15,320 people “are known to have been killed in terrorist attacks,” down from “28,328 deaths in 2015 and 32,763 in 2014,” and most of those in “countries that are unstable and troubled by war or insurgency — Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Syria.” The death toll, thus, is “decreasing.” The real problem lies in our own deficient cognition: we “underestimate just how deadly other forms of violence are. From 2001 to 2013, 406,496 people on American soil were killed by firearms, while during the same period 3,030 died because of a terrorist attack.” In 2015 guns killed “2,000 fewer [in America] than the global terrorism death toll.”

She closes with a banality and a flourish of faulty reasoning. The banality: “Terrorism’s preeminent effects are psychological rather than physical; it has a way of skewing our perceptions, meaning that we perceive a bigger menace than actually exists.” The faulty reasoning: “To fight it, we need to fight back against these psychological tricks.” The problem, again, rests with us, with our erring “perceptions,” with our falling for “psychological tricks,” which include “assuming that terrorist attacks are connected and trying to link them to a global extremist threat looming on our doorstep.” Hence we “misunderstand the unique problems facing each country — and what’s needed to defang them.”

Finis. And with nary a word on “what’s needed to defang” terrorists.
Ezrow’s “guidance” in effect boils down to: get a grip, gullible simplifiers, and, by implication, you “Islamophobes!” The religion she fails to name as the wellspring of almost all the above-mentioned killing has nothing to do with anything here; it does not even merit citation. The noun “Islam” appears nowhere in her nine hundred words; the adjectives “Islamist” and “Islamic” only once each. And besides, we have so much gun violence in the United States, why worry about terrorism? (Is there a regressive leftist who does not deploy this dodge?) And if you needn’t worry about terrorism, then why even bother searching for connections between terrorist acts?

Reason, honesty, and a decent respect for reality posit a counter-argument to this evasive pseudo-analysis. Since 9/11 Islam has been the principal motivation for terrorists across the globe. The FBI, as of May 2016, was tracking almost a thousand potential Islamist radicals in the United States, with 80 percent of them tied to ISIS. In Europe, the scale of the Islamist threat has overwhelmed the French security services, and that country, as a direct result of a spate of ghastly Islamist attacks, labors through its second year under a state of emergency.
In Austria’s case, crime committed by mostly Muslim migrants has been pushing politics to the right — the far right. (The Italians, though, have had enough and are set to ramp up expulsions.) With the defeat of ISIS on the battlefield looming, the Islamist threat to the continent looks set to worsen still. Fear of fundamentalist Shiite Iran acquiring nuclear weapons prompted the P5+1 countries to conduct nine years of negotiations with the Tehran regime to forestall a potentially apocalyptic eventuality. And again, with Islamist terrorism now affecting the outcomes of elections on both sides of the Atlantic, it is essential to protect our democracies and speak frankly about the ideology behind it.

The progressives’ reluctance to address Islam derives in part from the erroneous liberal notion that “all religions are the same” (if that is the case, where, then, as Sam Harris has asked, are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers?) and from outright ignorance about the doctrines of Islam — mainstream Islam — that can generate violence; namely, those concerning jihad (holy war) and martyrdom. Muslims waging war against “infidels” are carrying out God’s orders, and those who die doing so win immediate entry into paradise. (Of course proportionally few Muslims turn to violence, but those few are forcing this conversation upon us.) Other factors — say, Ezrow’s “grievances of inequality and exclusion” — may or may not be present. But belief in, and a willingness to act on, the doctrines of jihad and martyrdom are determinative and motivate the terrorist violence. Just as the terrorists themselves tell us.

Perhaps the most misleading and ultimately damaging (for the progressive cause) argument Ezrow advances consists in her attributing our alarm about the terrorist threat to “psychological tricks” and our “skewed perceptions.” Lesson No. 1 from Terrorism 101: terrorists do not have to kill many people in order to influence public opinion. They need only occasionally (and horrifically) disrupt order in our lives to prove that a government is incapable of carrying out its first, most fundamental duty — to protect its citizens. Telling people they are wrong to fear and then clumsily stifling talk of the provenance of the fear reeks of cowardice and even creates the impression of collusion with the terrorists — a proven loser’s strategy, as the recent U.S. presidential elections have just demonstrated.

Let’s put Ezrow’s essay behind us. Shillyshallying, doubletalk, and outright lying about Islam should give way to frank discussion about the faith’s troubling doctrines of jihad and martyrdom and their propensity to incite bloodshed. Such clarity is especially important now, as the Age of Trump dawns, and would help progressives restore their reputations after having effectively given in to regressive leftists — thereby losing the U.S. to Trump. Well-intentioned but useless online grandstanding and virtue-signaling — for example, the proclamation by the filmmaker Michael Moore, a professed Catholic, that “We are all Muslim” or the tweeted willingness of non-Muslims to sign up on a future Muslim registry — might be abandoned in favor of actual street demonstrations in favor of First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and religion for all citizens, including Muslims and — critically — former Muslims and atheists.

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion; free (critical) speech about religion has the effect of freeing people from religion. Today’s believers can be — and increasingly are becoming — the secularists of tomorrow, even in the Arab world.

Let the progressive movement return to the right side of history. Now that would be the best answer to Trump.

You do in fact prove the article right Quill

https://youtu.be/N46mIHEGHN0

Thorin wrote:Then you do not know the majority of your population and again to not combat, is effectively hoping the problem will just go away.

Frankly, the problem isn't here.  And I suspect that the Iraq War II is the last great foreign adventure that the US will ever undergo.  People here just don't give a shit.  It was the great awakening.

We are entering another phase of isolationism.  When a radical RW'r like Trump curries popularity by saying he was against foreign intervention, you know the fun and games are over.

Thorin wrote:That does not solve the problem or help he countless Muslims who suffer under Islamism.

People in Myanmar, or Burma, have suffered more, and longer.  

Thorin wrote:So again you are using misdirection, when Islamic terrorism does effect many nations including the US.

I'm not speaking prescriptively, but descriptively.  People don't want to send their children off overseas to kill other children.  They just seem to have lost the enthusiasm for that kind of thing.

Besides, healthcare is the thing that really heats up debates around here.

Thorin wrote:To then even downplay terrorism does what exactly? Trying to deny that there is indeed a problem.

Denial? Or just don't give a damn. I don't know that you can analyse people that much.  Different people have different impressions, born of different experiences.  A lot of Americans remember Viet Nam, some were in it.  People realize that the Cold War is over, and Russia is but a criminal enterprise today.

We appear to be on the threshold of something.  We don't know what it is, but we know what it isn't: it isn't going to be more meaningless wars overseas, that cost us $19-trillion, bankruptcy, loss of life, turn us into rapists, kidnappers, torturers, murderers and concentration camp owners, and give us absolutely nothing in return.  People see a bad deal when they see all these foreign adventures, and what was it that got Trump elected: The Art of the Deal?

Original Quill wrote:
Frankly, the problem isn't here.  And I suspect that the Iraq War II is the last great foreign adventure that the US will ever undergo.  People here just don't give a shit.  It was the great awakening.

We are entering another phase of isolationism.  When a radical RW'r like Trump curries popularity by saying he was against foreign intervention, you know the fun and games are over.


People in Myanmar, or Burma, have suffered more, and longer.  

I'm not speaking prescriptively, but descriptively.  People don't want to send their children off overseas to kill other children.  They just seem to have lost the enthusiasm for that kind of thing.

Besides, healthcare is the thing that really heats up debates around here.


I don't know that you can analyse people that much.  Different people have different impressions, born of different experiences.  A lot of Americans remember Viet Nam, some were in it.  People realize that the Cold War is over, and Russia is but a criminal enterprise today.

We appear to be on the threashold of somethng.  We don't know what it is, but we know what it isn't: it isn't going to be more meaningless wars overseas, that cost us $19-trillion, bankruptcy, loss of life, turn us into rapists, kidnappers, torturers, murderers and concentration camp owners, and give us absolutely nothing in return.  People see a bad deal when they see all these foreign adventures, and what was it that got Trump elected: The Art of the Deal?

1) Based on what evidence? You have just seen how many attacks there are each year and thousands of victims world wide. That is a problem. Your point on the Iraq war is misdirection, as Islamic terrorism, was happening long before that. Did you know that the Bali bombing was based on Al-qaeda upset that the west Intervened against Indonesia's genocide of East Timor? Just think about that? That Islamist, was upset, we stopped genocide in a predominately Christian area.

2) Further misdirection. It is because of the denial of the likes of the regressive, that have seen Trump play off this. By the fact some of the left have as you are doing a comparable form of denial to Climate change. They think if they speak out denying the problem. It will simply go away, when it has counter productive actions. Like people who are fearful of terrorism thus being easily swayed by Trump. If Obama and Clinton had spoken honestly about the issue, its doubtful Trump would have won. As seen to 80% of Americans, terrorism is an issue.

3) Further misdirection. Whilst Muslims are suffering there, they suffer far worse in China. Showing how little you know, but that is also an issue that needs tackling, but pails into comparison to the oppression of Non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries. You see, all you are doing is trying to deflect the problem away and yet there is hardly an Islamic terrorism in Burma or China. The west and Muslim countries are often the target, because again there is a war of supremacy going on. That has lasted since the beginnings of Islam

4) This is not so much about people but ideologies. For example, anything about the right and you are critical. When it comes to islamism, which is in effect a Totalitarian neo conservative belief, you make every excse under the sun and deny problems. Its like as I said to Ben.

When it is Islamic doctrine and ideologies like martyrdom, Jihad etc, that are used to endorse violence?
Its not about defining the religion, but how it is taught and that in the Abrahamic faiths. All non-believers will suffer an eternity of pain for non-belief. As soon as you have such a Totalitarian belief that endorses pain and suffering for this, it is why there has been over 2,000 years of religious violence.

There are lots of Christians that say the Crusades were not down to Christian ideology, but the reality is that they were. If you are going to claim that a religion is not responsible for problems, then you end up becoming by default an apologist for the inquisition, the Crusades etc. Look at the US today for example, where because of still a strong literal Christian belief. That you have problems.

So who do you agree with which Christians to define Christianity, when 42,000 different denominations disagree with each other?


5) Even further misdirection, so lets talk again about Vietnam, as I did with Veya.


Misdirection again, when countless people suffered bombings and civilian casualties, let alone the oppression under French colonial rule and also Japanese Colonial rule. There are plenty of Vietnamese citizens in France and the US today and yet no terrorism from them at the time of the conflict or today. If the bases as you claim was due to colonialism, which finished roughly the same time, then colonialism or its crimes cannot be the underlining factor for Islamic terrorism. So that is where your reasoning falls down and its not just Vietnam, there is countless countries to choose from that we do not see any terrorism because of European colonialism. You did not even explain Tibet, which is still under occupation by the Chinese. Burma is oppressing Muslims, that is not terrorism and the Muslims there are not former colonialists. The bases for your methodology was on Colonialism remember?

No, what you have within the Philippines, is a Totalitarian dictator, murdering people and has no relevance. The country suffered appallingly under Japanese rule, so where is the terrorism against the Japanese by the people of the Philippines? There is none.

There is no person or figure within Islam, that can define what is the true Islam or for people o say who is or who is not following Islam. Hence the point why there is different schools within Islam and that even today, they are fighting for supremacy against each other. Shia and Sunni Islam is in a continued war of attrition against each other for control of Islam itself. ISIS very much uses Islamic doctrine. They are the closet to the original followers of Muhammad, based on what many Muslims themselves believe to be historical of early Islam itself. So why are they following claims to the historicity of Islam and Muhammad? These are  hadiths taught throughout many Muslim schools of thought on Islam. They did not appear overnight.

Over the last few years I cannot guess how much islamic stuff I have read about or seen on TV, I am at the stage of not bothering.
Now, simply, my conclusion is this, why do we need them? IMHO they are hardly any benefit to us, cherrypick and control, no mosques anywhere here.

https://youtu.be/ydBD-6izYfE

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
Frankly, the problem isn't here.  And I suspect that the Iraq War II is the last great foreign adventure that the US will ever undergo.  People here just don't give a shit.  It was the great awakening.

We are entering another phase of isolationism.  When a radical RW'r like Trump curries popularity by saying he was against foreign intervention, you know the fun and games are over.


People in Myanmar, or Burma, have suffered more, and longer.  

I'm not speaking prescriptively, but descriptively.  People don't want to send their children off overseas to kill other children.  They just seem to have lost the enthusiasm for that kind of thing.

Besides, healthcare is the thing that really heats up debates around here.


I don't know that you can analyse people that much.  Different people have different impressions, born of different experiences.  A lot of Americans remember Viet Nam, some were in it.  People realize that the Cold War is over, and Russia is but a criminal enterprise today.

We appear to be on the threashold of somethng.  We don't know what it is, but we know what it isn't: it isn't going to be more meaningless wars overseas, that cost us $19-trillion, bankruptcy, loss of life, turn us into rapists, kidnappers, torturers, murderers and concentration camp owners, and give us absolutely nothing in return.  People see a bad deal when they see all these foreign adventures, and what was it that got Trump elected: The Art of the Deal?

1) Based on what evidence? You have just seen how many attacks there are each year and thousands of victims world wide. That is a problem. Your point on the Iraq war is misdirection, as Islamic terrorism, was happening long before that. Did you know that the Bali bombing was based on Al-qaeda upset that the west Intervened against Indonesia's genocide of East Timor? Just think about that? That Islamist, was upset, we stopped genocide in a predominately Christian area.

2) Further misdirection. It is because of the denial of the likes of the regressive, that have seen Trump play off this. By the fact some of the left have as you are doing a comparable form of denial to Climate change. They think if they speak out denying the problem. It will simply go away, when it has counter productive actions. Like people who are fearful of terrorism thus being easily swayed by Trump. If Obama and Clinton had spoken honestly about the issue, its doubtful Trump would have won. As seen to 80% of Americans, terrorism is an issue.

3) Further misdirection. Whilst Muslims are suffering there, they suffer far worse in China. Showing how little you know, but that is also an issue that needs tackling, but pails into comparison to the oppression of Non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries. You see, all you are doing is trying to deflect the problem away and yet there is hardly an Islamic terrorism in Burma or China. The west and Muslim countries are often the target, because again there is a war of supremacy going on. That has lasted since the beginnings of Islam

4) This is not so much about people but ideologies. For example, anything about the right and you are critical. When it comes to islamism, which is in effect a Totalitarian neo conservative belief, you make every excse under the sun and deny problems. Its like as I said to Ben.

When it is Islamic doctrine and ideologies like martyrdom, Jihad etc, that are used to endorse violence?
Its not about defining the religion, but how it is taught and that in the Abrahamic faiths. All non-believers will suffer an eternity of pain for non-belief. As soon as you have such a Totalitarian belief that endorses pain and suffering for this, it is why there has been over 2,000 years of religious violence.

There are lots of Christians that say the Crusades were not down to Christian ideology, but the reality is that they were. If you are going to claim that a religion is not responsible for problems, then you end up becoming by default an apologist for the inquisition, the Crusades etc. Look at the US today for example, where because of still a strong literal Christian belief. That you have problems.

So who do you agree with which Christians to define Christianity, when 42,000 different denominations disagree with each other?


5) Even further misdirection, so lets talk again about Vietnam, as I did with Veya.


Misdirection again, when countless people suffered bombings and civilian casualties, let alone the oppression under French colonial rule and also Japanese Colonial rule. There are plenty of Vietnamese citizens in France and the US today and yet no terrorism from them at the time of the conflict or today. If the bases as you claim was due to colonialism, which finished roughly the same time, then colonialism or its crimes cannot be the underlining factor for Islamic terrorism. So that is where your reasoning falls down and its not just Vietnam, there is countless countries to choose from that we do not see any terrorism because of European colonialism. You did not even explain Tibet, which is still under occupation by the Chinese. Burma is oppressing Muslims, that is not terrorism and the Muslims there are not former colonialists. The bases for your methodology was on Colonialism remember?

No, what you have within the Philippines, is a Totalitarian dictator, murdering people and has no relevance. The country suffered appallingly under Japanese rule, so where is the terrorism against the Japanese by the people of the Philippines? There is none.

There is no person or figure within Islam, that can define what is the true Islam or for people o say who is or who is not following Islam. Hence the point why there is different schools within Islam and that even today, they are fighting for supremacy against each other. Shia and Sunni Islam is in a continued war of attrition against each other for control of Islam itself. ISIS very much uses Islamic doctrine. They are the closet to the original followers of Muhammad, based on what many Muslims themselves believe to be historical of early Islam itself. So why are they following claims to the historicity of Islam and Muhammad? These are  hadiths taught throughout many Muslim schools of thought on Islam. They did not appear overnight.

Bumped to allow the debate to continue without pointless posts not engaging in he debate

Your post is much to long to make a point, didge.  You go from Iraq, to climate change, to China, to Ben, to Abraham, to Christians, to veya to the Crusades to Viet Nam.

I think you are trying to make sense of ideology.  I can pick out a single strand of ideology--gun control, Iraq, religion, Mexicans, women, racism, etc., etc.--but I don't think you can wrap your mind around all of it in one breath.

Best to dial it back.  The American people have lost the lust and enthusiasm for foreign military adventures.  The whole purpose is missing.  The last gasp was this thrust in Iraq, and you can see what a bust that was.

Absent a purpose to be enthusiastic about, it simply ain't gonna happen.  We seem to be going into a new age of isolationism in America. We'll watch. Interesting. But it's someone else's issue.

Original Quill wrote:Your post is much to long to make a point, didge.  You go from Iraq, to climate change, to China, to Ben, to Abraham, to Christians, to veya to the Crusades to Viet Nam.

I think you are trying to make sense of ideology.  I can pick out a single strand of ideology--gun control, Iraq, religion, Mexicans, women, racism, etc., etc.--but I don't thin you can wrap your mind around all of it in one breath.

Best to dial it back.  The American people have lost the lust and enthusiasm for foreign military adventures.  The whole purpose is missing.  The last gasp was this thrust in Iraq, you can see what a bust that was.

Absent a purpose to be enthusiastic about, it simply ain't gonna happen.  We seem to be going into a new age of isolationism.

1) Which means you cannot counter the points.

Which means you are conceding to my points

2) Are you saying we should not understand ideologies?
How about Nazism?
The Alt Right?

3) You want me to dial it back about the dangers of the Alt Right and Nazism?
Please explain that to me, when they are in effect Totalitarian dangers?

4) Iraq again. So lets look at Iraq. The US no matter if they went to war for the wrong reasons, ousted a tyrant that was complicit in the murder of half a million people. Was responsible for the deaths of a million people in the Iraq and Iranian war. On being free from this tyrant. Many who had been oppressed and after recently being failed by the west after the First Iraq war. Where 200,000 died in the insurrection, which the west failed to support against Saddam. Had some decide on revenge. This was then backed, supported and financed by Iran. To engage in violence against Sunni Muslims. This escalated because of hate between Muslims on which Islam was right, to the point of hundreds of thousands of deaths. So when freedom was offered to the Iraqi people. Muslims extremists in the governments of Iran and Saudi, took the opportunity to murder thousands of Iraqi's and all because of Islam. Over who is right in regards to Islam, where they back this up with religious doctrine. Just as they have for 1400 years. For one purpose only, their own form of Islamic supremacy.

So yes please fail to understand what the problem is in regards to an ideology

https://youtu.be/udQGMi2oook

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Your post is much to long to make a point, didge.  You go from Iraq, to climate change, to China, to Ben, to Abraham, to Christians, to veya to the Crusades to Viet Nam.

I think you are trying to make sense of ideology.  I can pick out a single strand of ideology--gun control, Iraq, religion, Mexicans, women, racism, etc., etc.--but I don't thin you can wrap your mind around all of it in one breath.

Best to dial it back.  The American people have lost the lust and enthusiasm for foreign military adventures.  The whole purpose is missing.  The last gasp was this thrust in Iraq, you can see what a bust that was.

Absent a purpose to be enthusiastic about, it simply ain't gonna happen.  We seem to be going into a new age of isolationism.

1) Which means you cannot counter the points.

Which means you are conceding to my points

2) Are you saying we should not understand ideologies?
How about Nazism?
The Alt Right?

3) You want me to dial it back about the dangers of the Alt Right and Nazism?
Please explain that to me, when they are in effect Totalitarian dangers?

4) Iraq again. So lets look at Iraq. The US no matter if they went to war for the wrong reasons, ousted a tyrant that was complicit in the murder of half a million people. Was responsible for the deaths of a million people in the Iraq and Iranian war. On being free from this tyrant. Many who had been oppressed and after recently being failed by the west after the First Iraq war. Where 200,000 died in the insurrection, which the west failed to support against Saddam. Had some decide on revenge. This was then backed, supported and financed by Iran. To engage in violence against Sunni Muslims. This escalated because of hate between Muslims on which Islam was right, to the point of hundreds of thousands of deaths. So when freedom was offered to the Iraqi people. Muslims extremists in the governments of Iran and Saudi, took the opportunity to murder thousands of Iraqi's and all because of Islam. Over who is right in regards to Islam, where they back this up with religious doctrine. Just as they have for 1400 years. For one purpose only, their own form of Islamic supremacy.

So yes please fail to understand what the problem is in regards to an ideology

Bumped again to allow people to actually debate

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Your post is much to long to make a point, didge.  You go from Iraq, to climate change, to China, to Ben, to Abraham, to Christians, to veya to the Crusades to Viet Nam.

I think you are trying to make sense of ideology.  I can pick out a single strand of ideology--gun control, Iraq, religion, Mexicans, women, racism, etc., etc.--but I don't thin you can wrap your mind around all of it in one breath.

Best to dial it back.  The American people have lost the lust and enthusiasm for foreign military adventures.  The whole purpose is missing.  The last gasp was this thrust in Iraq, you can see what a bust that was.

Absent a purpose to be enthusiastic about, it simply ain't gonna happen.  We seem to be going into a new age of isolationism.

1) Which means you cannot counter the points.

Which means you are conceding to my points

2) Are you saying we should not understand ideologies?
How about Nazism?
The Alt Right?

3) You want me to dial it back about the dangers of the Alt Right and Nazism?
Please explain that to me, when they are in effect Totalitarian dangers?

4) Iraq again. So lets look at Iraq. The US no matter if they went to war for the wrong reasons, ousted a tyrant that was complicit in the murder of half a million people. Was responsible for the deaths of a million people in the Iraq and Iranian war. On being free from this tyrant. Many who had been oppressed and after recently being failed by the west after the First Iraq war. Where 200,000 died in the insurrection, which the west failed to support against Saddam. Had some decide on revenge. This was then backed, supported and financed by Iran. To engage in violence against Sunni Muslims. This escalated because of hate between Muslims on which Islam was right, to the point of hundreds of thousands of deaths. So when freedom was offered to the Iraqi people. Muslims extremists in the governments of Iran and Saudi, took the opportunity to murder thousands of Iraqi's and all because of Islam. Over who is right in regards to Islam, where they back this up with religious doctrine. Just as they have for 1400 years. For one purpose only, their own form of Islamic supremacy.

So yes please fail to understand what the problem is in regards to an ideology

No, it's much simpler than all that. We don't care.

Oh, we care enough to read the papers and watch MSNBC or Faux News, have an opinion or swear at Chris Matthews...but invest in an overseas adventure...not likely.

If Trump is stupid enough to fall into that pit, he ain't there for long. But I don't think he's there for long anyway.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


1) Which means you cannot counter the points.

Which means you are conceding to my points

2) Are you saying we should not understand ideologies?
How about Nazism?
The Alt Right?

3) You want me to dial it back about the dangers of the Alt Right and Nazism?
Please explain that to me, when they are in effect Totalitarian dangers?

4) Iraq again. So lets look at Iraq. The US no matter if they went to war for the wrong reasons, ousted a tyrant that was complicit in the murder of half a million people. Was responsible for the deaths of a million people in the Iraq and Iranian war. On being free from this tyrant. Many who had been oppressed and after recently being failed by the west after the First Iraq war. Where 200,000 died in the insurrection, which the west failed to support against Saddam. Had some decide on revenge. This was then backed, supported and financed by Iran. To engage in violence against Sunni Muslims. This escalated because of hate between Muslims on which Islam was right, to the point of hundreds of thousands of deaths. So when freedom was offered to the Iraqi people. Muslims extremists in the governments of Iran and Saudi, took the opportunity to murder thousands of Iraqi's and all because of Islam. Over who is right in regards to Islam, where they back this up with religious doctrine. Just as they have for 1400 years. For one purpose only, their own form of Islamic supremacy.

So yes please fail to understand what the problem is in regards to an ideology

No, it's much simpler than all that.  We don't care.

Oh, we care enough to read the papers and watch MSNBC or Faux News, have an opinion or swear at Chris Matthews...but invest in an overseas adventure...not likely.

If Trump is stupid enough to fall into that pit, he ain't there for long.  But I don't think he's there for long anyway.

1) Correction. You do not care. Which there lies your problem, you only care about yourself and not others in the US. You should be addressing fears with answers. What you are doing here is denying them. You care about climate change, but for some reason do not care about other things that directly effect humans. Imagine your stance when Japan bombed Pearl Harbour. That you did not care? By such a stance, you would have prolonged the war by years, causing millions of more deaths. In fact Russia would never have been able to defeat the Germans, as they were between 1941 and 1943 reliant on aid from the British and the US. They would have been unable to pull off their large scale encirclement's. Which required mobile transports, of which the US supplied 3 quarters of lorries to the Russians. Let alone all the tanks, aircraft, materials etc

2) No, you offer what you care about, countless more american care and are concerned about many issues, of which you wish to sweep under the carpet. Hence why they stopped listening to those on the left who are regressive and illiberal and fell prey to people who were not afraid to speak about issues, like Trump for example. You handed him the Presidency on a platter and you fail to see how you did. He never addressed their fears, but tuned into them. If Clinton and Obama had been honest about issues like Islamism for example, instead of claiming no connection, let alone other issues. Trump would never have been President. No matter all the hacking and scandals.

Thorin wrote:Correction. You do not care. Which there lies your problem, you only care about yourself and not others in the US. You should be addressing fears with answers.

No, I've just said, I'm speaking descriptively and not prescriptively.  Now you're trying to attribute the message to the messenger.  You may as well be shouting at the wind.

You will see America implode if they try to start another war overseas...whether in the middle east or Iceland.

Thorin wrote:No, you offer what you care about, countless more american care and are concerned about many issues, of which you wish to sweep under the carpet.

I'm afraid not, didge.  Wait and see.

The proof is in the pudding.  The last president who tried to start/ride out a foreign war ended up tucking tail and running.  It's over, as were his public days.

I wonder...who do you see as enthusiastic about foreign wars in the US?  Close your eyes.  Can you really imagine anyone in favor of such a thing.  I mean, what is the attraction?  America is really down on Israel, what with Natanyahu.  Certain folks get a little hard-on when there's a Muslim-involved shooting; but that's just reading the news, and then everyone goes on to Monday Night Football.  

Who do you think America is that you see lustful people polishing up their AR-15's?  I haven't seen that sort of thing since 2003. There are no more bumper-stickers. It's over.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:Correction. You do not care. Which there lies your problem, you only care about yourself and not others in the US. You should be addressing fears with answers.

No, I've just said, I'm speaking descriptively and not prescriptively.  Now you're trying to attribute the message to the messenger.  You may as well be shouting at the wind.

You will see America implode if they try to start another war overseas...whether in the middle east or Iceland.

Thorin wrote:No, you offer what you care about, countless more american care and are concerned about many issues, of which you wish to sweep under the carpet.

I'm afraid not, didge.  Wait and see.

The proof is in the pudding.  The last president who tried to start/ride out a foreign war ended up tucking tail and running.  It's over, as were his public days.

I wonder...who do you see as enthusiastic about foreign wars in the US?  Close your eyes.  Can you really imagine anyone in favor of such a thing.  I mean, what is the attraction?  America is really down on Israel, what with Natanyahu.  Certain folks get a little hard-on when there's a Muslim-involved shooting; but that's just reading the news, and then everyone goes on to Monday Night Football.    

Who do you think America is that you see lustful people polishing up their AR-15's?  I haven't seen that sort of thing since 2003.  There are no more bumper-stickers.  It's over.

1) False premise. America has been in countless conflicts and has never imploded. Even during its own civil war. Which if we factor in California going Independent, It would lose all Military capabilities which would have to be surrendered to the rest of the US army. Even its personnel of Californians in the US armed forces would be out numbered by at least a factor of ten to one and would rendered a new nation state of California as vulnerable. Not only this such a state  is still going to be reliant on trade with the world. Hence such a Calexit is still reliant on the world to help this new nation.

2) Misdirection again. He never turned tail, but is still residing unchallenged for his war. Of which you have not refuted my points over how Islamism was by far more he cause of deaths in Iraq.

Iraq again. So lets look at Iraq. The US no matter if they went to war for the wrong reasons, ousted a tyrant that was complicit in the murder of half a million people. Was responsible for the deaths of a million people in the Iraq and Iranian war. On being free from this tyrant. Many who had been oppressed and after recently being failed by the west after the First Iraq war. Where 200,000 died in the insurrection, which the west failed to support against Saddam. Had some decide on revenge. This was then backed, supported and financed by Iran. To engage in violence against Sunni Muslims. This escalated because of hate between Muslims on which Islam was right, to the point of hundreds of thousands of deaths. So when freedom was offered to the Iraqi people. Muslims extremists in the governments of Iran and Saudi, took the opportunity to murder thousands of Iraqi's and all because of Islam. Over who is right in regards to Islam, where they back this up with religious doctrine. Just as they have for 1400 years. For one purpose only, their own form of Islamic supremacy.

You see there is a major problem within Islam, that makes it stand out as to why there is so much violence.

Its called Transgression. In Islam, its dogmatically  ordained to fight against those who transgress islam. Which allows for the biggest goal post movement to argue for violence and conflict. You see, even the US in the first Iraq war, where they went to save Muslims from transgressions from Saddam. Was viewed by Islamist as a transgression. As they were based on Saudi territory. This is the problem within Islam. That land conquered through colonial conquest, is claimed to be ordained by Allah for all time and that no non-Muslim army is allowed to intervene and help Muslims suffering. Hence why its easy with an argument of hate, for Islamist's to continue this cycle of hate against the US. You have shia's and sunni's who hate each other, but can overcome this hate, when it comes to non-Muslims like the US. Both the Far Right and islamists want the same thing, a religious war. Muslim against non-Muslim. You are ensuring that happens, by denial of these problems. All the time you deny these issues, we see more swing further to fear based arguments from the Far Right.

3) You then further digress onto Israel, the only non-Muslim nation to stand up to Islamic fascism. It has taken on hundreds of thousands of Jews ethnically cleansed from Muslim nations. Who were kicked out as Jews, simply because Israel existed as a nation. Even today, Jews are being claimed as settlers, for simply returning to parts of East Jerusalem, from where they were ethically cleansed by the Jordanians in 1948. All of which Jews being settled is legal under the League of nations. This has never been rescinded by the UN.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 violates Article 80 of the United Nations Charter and accordingly is illegal in international law.

Any attempt by the Security Council to enforce Resolution 2334 or to pass any new Resolutions based on Resolution 2334 will also be illegal.

Article 80 preserves the legal rights vested in the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home within 22 per cent of the territory comprised in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine (“Mandate”). That territory includes what is known today as Area "C" located in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and East Jerusalem (“disputed areas").

Resolution 2334 seeks to erase and annul – not preserve – those vested Jewish legal rights in the disputed areas by:

1. Claiming that Jews now presently living – or seeking in the future to live – in the disputed areas constitutes "a flagrant violation under international law" – when in fact their right to live there is sanctioned by Article 6 of the Mandate and Article 80.

2. Alleging that the right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in the disputed areas requires the consent of any other party.

3. Calling on all States to discriminate between Jews living in the disputed areas and Jews living in Israel.

4. Discouraging Jews from living in the disputed areas when Article 6 of the Mandate specifically encourages close Jewish settlement in the disputed areas.

The Us has endorsed this ethnic cleansing by the latest UN resolution. Like I said I agree with condemning Israel for demolishing Palestinian terrorist families homes etc, but to claim Jews are living illegally, from where they were forced to live? Is endorsing that ethnic cleansing. All of which is nothing more than misdirection. Especially when the US was formed completely on settlements and living space at the expense on the indigenous Indians. The Jews are indigenous to Israel and its the Arabs who are the colonists. So its of no wonder that the US backed such an abhorrent resolution,

In 1948, the Arab Legion ethnically cleansed - illegally - the millennia-old Jewish Quarter
of eastern Jerusalem, as well as other parts of the "old city." The Jordanians, occupying the area, expelled every last Jew, destroyed 58 synagogues and tens of thousands of Jewish graves, and forbade Israelis to pray at their holiest places. Arab Muslim settlers - including some from Hebron, which had violently murdered most of its own Jews only a few decades before, in 1929 - were later transferred in to replace the Jews who had been violently expelled from their homes in eastern Jerusalem. The area became a slum.

Only 19 years later, In 1967, Israel took Jewish eastern Jerusalem and REVERSED that ethnic cleansing, allowing Jews to return. It did so without ethnically cleansing Arabs, or even expelling the Arab settlers. Today Jerusalem is a busy city in which people from all sects and cultures rub shoulders, nearly all peaceably.

Today, the Palestinian Authority - with the Obama Administration and the United Nations cheering it on - claim that it was illegal for Israel to reverse that 19-year act of ethnic cleansing and demand that the Jews be forced out once again. They insist that Jews have no ties to the ancient Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem; to our holiest place on earth, the Temple Mount, and to the Second Temple's Western Wall; to the cemeteries where our people were buried for centuries; and to the houses from which all Jews were violently expelled only 19 years before 1967.

4) You cannot ignore over 300 million US citizens. By doing so, has seen an idiot gain power in Trump.
So nice try and deflecting from Israel
That is desperation on your part

I'm quite comfortable, thank you.

I am predicting that the American people will not stand for any more foreign interventions...short of an attack on American territory. There is no sentiment for it, and if any politician tries it, it would lead to impeaching or worse...revolution.

I have no stake in my prediction. It is of no consequence to me whether you believe it or not. It's just that you will look like a fool when my prediction comes to fruition.

Original Quill wrote:I'm quite comfortable, thank you.  

I am predicting that the American people will not stand for any more foreign interventions...short of an attack on American territory.  There is no sentiment for it, and if any politician tries it, it would lead to impeaching or worse...revolution.

I have no stake in my prediction.  It is of no consequence to me whether you believe it or not.  It's just that you will look like a fool when my prediction comes to fruition.

What do you think terrorism is quill?
If not for an attack on the american people?
You were the person that wanted to call for revolution, with separating California.
I respect you loads mate, but you have to stop being contradictive
You spend your days bashing right wing on here
Islamism, is neo-conservatism.
You have been conditioned to rightly be critical of Neo-Christian conservatism, but shy away when its Islamists, who want the same thing
The point you fail to grasp, is I want to help Muslims combat extremism and recognize problems within Islam