And where did I say that? The reaction is one against outside (non-Muslim) nations getting involved in regional affairs. That is a reaction of all Muslims. That reaction is different when it is done by regional (Muslim) nations - hardly surprising. And I repeat - I said that the bombings (and wars) have inflamed the situation. There is an obvious difference between that and what you just claimed. But hey, it's becoming typical of the direction of this forum that you would post such a response.
Anyway, as you don't seem to read your emails, I'll ask you here (once again) to close my account - I have a habit of getting drawn back with it still working and as I dislike the developing tone of this place, it is best I stop posting.
Thanks for the housing stuff in the past. It's a shame I can't say the same for your highly distasteful final comment.
US bombing is not the cause of worldwide Islamic terrorism, but the result of Islamic terrorism. Even Islamic countries go after the worst scum bags, but no one complains about the bombing they do.
So what? Are you denying that it has inflamed the situation? And which Islamic countries have done the kind of bombing that the US has done? And even if they had done the same, you must be able to understand how they would create distinct reactions in the Islamic world.
Imagine all of Egypt as ISIS. Going back 18 years to present a terrorist act is a hell of a lot better than what is happening in Syria on a daily basis.
And you think it's solely about Syria? If it wasn't Syria, it would be something or somewhere else. The US attacks and the attacks in the West aren't a product of Syria. And those attacks wouldn't have been stopped by your 'plan.'
Yup. All of my posts applied to Egypt to a certain point. See, we have a solution.
What? Your points apply to Egypt and they STILL have a serious terrorist problem. Your ideas aren't solutions.
It's a belief system you are dealing with. You can't overcome that unless there is a sea change in the outlook of those drawn to fundamentalism, and you don't get that from brutality and oppression. When did Christianity suddenly change from the inquisition to most people paying lip service to it when it suits them? The answer is that it didn't. It was a long drawn out process over centuries. Whether there will be a change with the more extreme beliefs held by some in Islam I have no idea, but it won't happen at the end of a gun that is for sure.
Nice guy solutions? Your country has been bombing the hell out of Muslim countries for the better part of 15 years. What has happened to the growth in fundamentalism during that period? And your solution is to ramp it up further?
Oh boy, and I thought you were smart. Islamic terrorism is worldwide. I don't need to repeat the facts, so stop blaming the infidels when Islam is the root cause of all terrorism.
My point seems to have flown right over your head. You want to ramp up the 'tough guy' approach as your solution. The US has bombed multiple countries and it has done nothing to reduce fundamentalism. And if you can't wrap your head around the fact that the approach works in the favour of the likes of Daesh, then there is nothing much to discuss with you. It has clearly inflamed the situation - there's a big difference between saying that and arguing that it caused it. Even you should be able to understand that.
It doesn't exist. Your country is sporadically touched by terrorism. You've had one huge attack and smaller ones carried out by one or two people, in a number of cases from within a single family. How exactly do you propose finding a solution for that? You can't. That is the simple answer. You may never be able to. We in the West might simply have lived through one of the most peaceful periods in human existence, and things might go down hill from here in all respects - it's quite possible given the world's population, diminishing resources, massive pollution, climate change, pooling of wealth in the hands of a few, likely enormous future unemployment with the adoption of robots, and on and on the list goes. It's not necessarily a recipe for a particularly bright future.
You have identified a lot of problems related to Islamic terrorism, but not having a solution will not give you the authority to oppose extremist reactions from the other end of the spectrum. So far the "nice guy" solutions have not worked, which is why I support humiliating those who support terrorism and the sharia laws.
Nice guy solutions? Your country has been bombing the hell out of Muslim countries for the better part of 15 years. What has happened to the growth in fundamentalism during that period? And your solution is to ramp it up further? And you 'support humiliating those who support terrorism and the sharia laws.' How do you propose doing that, and what exactly do you expect the outcome of it to be?
Yeah, because in CIC's world a short post on an internet forum is obviously going to offer a quick solution to something that doesn't have a quick solution. Why not just get back to your crayons CIC and give your tiresome interjections a rest?
My solution? Come on Strategist, it is an immensely complex, multi-layered problem that is going to take cooperation from all sides to even begin to address. It's blatantly obvious however, that Trump's blustering nonsense isn't the answer. In fact, his plans would very likely make the situation worse.
Here is the bottom line atheists and even some religious folks may all agree on:
We want a world that is peaceful prosperous and progressive, based on science, without the influence of religion.
Do you agree Islam is the number one barrier to that scenario? And how would you go about achieving that goal, wether or not you agree Islam is a barrier to that goal?
You are never going to get a world free of religion. It quite clearly appeals to the needs of a great many people, so it is a redundant point. You think that 'humiliating and treating (them) as outcasts' will stop fundamentalism. That is simply moronic. You may have noticed that they don't care what the likes of you and I say or think, and no doubt the sort of policies you would support would probably increase the number of people joining Daesh, so perhaps a little more thought and a bit less knee-jerk bluster would be a good thing.
Those who support terrorism and sharia laws will not understand reason and constructive criticism. Humiliating them and treating them as the outcasts they are, is what will make them ashamed of being Muslims.
I'd laugh if I didn't think you were actually being serious.
Carter Banned Iranians from Coming to US During Hostage Crisis
Trump is a monster, a madman and a vile racist. He's just like Hitler. Or Jimmy Carter.
During the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter issued a number of orders to put pressure on Iran. Among these, Iranians were banned from entering the United States.
Yes, because that is clearly the same as banning all Muslims from every single country outside of the US, something which would also, apparently, include your own US Muslim citizens living abroad. The fact that you are lapping up such glaring fascist demagoguery speaks volumes.
I heard over the weekend the Saudi students who come to the US get about $100,000 in spending money per annum. They don't bother to take our jobs, but love to take our lives.
Care to offer some proof for that figure? As far as I'm aware, they get a very generous package, including a monthly stipend of a little below $2000. If you know differently, then feel free to provide a link. You keep blathering about changing the outlook of Muslims. What better way than having their most intelligent young people studying abroad? They will be some of the most influential members of their society. If a good number of them leave with more positive views of the West, are more open to the West, etc., then that should be viewed as a very good thing (even to you). But instead, here you are throwing out false figures and putting a negative spin on a clearly positive thing.
You can't debunk it. So the doubt must stay with you forever unless you are intellectually dishonest.
Debunk what? Eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. You've got one that is contradicted by multiple accounts. You, of course, ignore the many in favour of the one. Why is that? For crying out loud, her account in itself raises an obvious question - how exactly could she claim they were white when they were masked?