patrick.net

Strategist says

You can't quite answer the question, can you?

Check the above. Didn't I say Radical Islam, is?
If you prefer: Islam is giving rise to the most violence committed in the name of a religion, today.

Strategist says

Marcus would just get frustrated and put everyone on ignore

I usually wait until you start being an asshole. But good though job being consistent with your inability to listen, understand an argument or respond to an argument with reason.

marcus says

When your argument consists of lying and misrepresenting me and being totally unable to consider why politicians say what they do about Islam, it means you know you are on thin ice.

First, whatever the reasons, politicians are in fact lying about the role of Islam in causing terror attack. I'm not distorting it, you are.
Second, I understand the reasons but I consider them specious. To consider that moderate Muslims cannot bear criticism of their ideas, or that such criticism would alienate them rather than pull them closer, is specious. To think many of them would turn violent just by being exposed to other, critical ways of thinking is an insult to the spirit of mankind.
Third, what they are doing simply doesn't work. While it may be a minor issue in the US for the time being, it is a huge issue in Europe with civilization defining consequences that will in turn have huge impact on the US.

What US authorities are doing with Islam is comparable to what Daladier and Chamberlain were doing with the Munich Pact in 1938 with Nazi Germany.

Heraclitusstudent says

politicians are in fact lying about the role of Islam in causing terror attack.

Where?

Heraclitusstudent says

To consider that moderate Muslims cannot bear criticism of their ideas, or that such criticism would alienate them rather than pull them closer, is specious. To think many of them would turn violent just by being exposed to other, critical ways of thinking is an insult to the spirit of mankind.

I think they are far more worried about the US population turning against over 3 million American Muslims, and giving rise to elevated unfounded fear, than trying to protect/foster/help Muslim reformation or moderates.

Heraclitusstudent says

What US authorities are doing with Islam is comparable to what Daladier and Chamberlain were doing with the Munich Pact in 1938 with Nazi Germany.

I don't see us placating or giving land to terrorists anywhere. That's a pretty weird analogy.

Rew says

Where?

Read previous quotes above. How many times do I need to quote it?
Or read a newspaper. Denial is everywhere.

Rew says

I think they are far more worried about the US population turning against over 3 million American Muslims

Why would the US population turn against Muslims just because you start insisting on things like women rights or defending separation of church and state?
This doesn't make sense. The US population already sees Muslims as different. What would change for Americans? Nothing.
In fact it's the opposite: doing nothing irritates regular Americans and push them into the arms of more extremist politicians like Trump, who are at least seen thinking about the issue.

Rew says

I don't see us placating or giving land to terrorists anywhere. That's a pretty weird analogy.

I see us conceding a huge ideological pass to avoid any confrontation, with the obvious and bizarre hope that the problem will somehow go away by itself.
That's the same thing.

Heraclitusstudent says

I see us conceding a huge ideological pass to avoid any confrontation

No. We simply choose to distinguish between Islamic terrorists, and practitioners of Islam. The idea that we could change an entire religion by telling them what we think of Islam, is even more arrogant and silly than the idea that we were going to help Iraq build a modern secular country after taking out Saddam.

The specious argument here has at it's core the idea that you can criticize Islam to be fatally flawed and inherently evil without causing many people to think they are justified in hating random good Muslims for the acts that Muslim terrorist commit.

You fail to take human nature in to account or how many ignorant assholes there are out there.

We have had violence against Muslims in response to terrorism even without promoting the idea that all of Islam is to blame.

marcus says

The idea that we could change an entire religion by telling them what we think of Islam, is even more arrogant and silly than the idea that we were going to help Iraq build a modern secular country after taking out Saddam.

By that standard the idea of changing the culture in a country like imperial Japan by bombing it is silly. Yet it happened.
Or the idea of changing the catholic church by proving it wrong again and again is silly. Yet it happened.
Some ideas are fragile and can be changed - as long as you don't give up from the start.

marcus says

We simply choose to distinguish between Islamic terrorists, and practitioners of Islam.

Make no mistake, among these 2 the later represent the biggest danger to civilization.
Some people are afraid of terrorists getting their hands on a nuke. Even that would do nothing to our civilization except galvanize it.

But you see the proportion of Muslims rising in Europe. They will eventually ask their due, leading to civil war or Islamic states in some regions, which would represent the death of civilization.
This is in the long term a far bigger threat than terrorists. (Not for the US but for Europe.)
Those who promote immigration as a way to foster economic growth should consider the cost of a civil war.

marcus says

The specious argument here has at it's core the idea that you can criticize Islam to be fatally flawed and inherently evil without causing many people to think they are justified in hating random good Muslims for the acts that Muslim terrorist commit.

Marcus, you are dreaming. Many people to think they are justified in hating random Muslims because Muslims keep attacking us.
If you want to consider human nature, start with that basic fact.

I'm not even saying that Islam is "inherently evil", but it can be shown to be fatally flawed.

marcus says

I think it's probably closer to saying that if you take a person that's not a criminal, and you call them a criminal and treat them as a criminal by not giving them a job and ostracizing them. Yeah, that would make them far more likely to become criminal.

Yeah, but what about the real criminals? Are they gonna stop being criminals if you don't call them criminals.

Rew says

I don't see us placating or giving land to terrorists anywhere. That's a pretty weird analogy.

Palestinians? Russia China India all have terrorism because Islamists think everything belongs to them.

marcus says

Strategist says

Marcus would just get frustrated and put everyone on ignore

I usually wait until you start being an asshole. But good though job being consistent with your inability to listen, understand an argument or respond to an argument with reason.

I say the same thing about you. Exactly the same.

marcus says

Heraclitusstudent says

I see us conceding a huge ideological pass to avoid any confrontation

No. We simply choose to distinguish between Islamic terrorists, and practitioners of Islam. The idea that we could change an entire religion by telling them what we think of Islam, is even more arrogant and silly than the idea that we were going to help Iraq build a modern secular country after taking out Saddam.

We did it with Christianity. Why not Islam?

Heraclitusstudent says

I'm not even saying that Islam is "inherently evil", but it can be shown to be fatally flawed.

Islam is inherently evil.

Rew says

Oops! Darn those radical Christians abducting people!

Sorry, Rew. There are only a few hundred LRA members at best - there used to be 10,000 or more when they got Muslim Money from the Sudan via Saudi Arabia (to terrorize South Sudan, ironically mostly Christian themselves).

Islamic Terror is widespread, and even if LRA IS a "Christian" Group - and I would characterize it mostly as a Ethnic Insurgency taken over by a Charismatic - it's the exception that proves the rule.

Number of Terrorist Attacks in the World (2015-2016) U Chicago.

http://cpostdata.uchicago.edu/search_new.php?clear=1

Interestingly, Population of Islam by State.

Finally, is Suicide Bombing acceptable?

Note the net column does not report "Rarely" as part of the sum. Also, WTF is "Rarely"? People can creatively interpret that in their mind to mean "If India does not acknowledge Islam as Supreme" or "If they continue to insult the Prophet."

How do you think self-identifying Christians polled in the US, Australia, Ireland, Poland, etc. would answer this one?

T L Lipsovich says

Note the net column does not report "Rarely" as part of the sum. Also, WTF is "Rarely"?

It means a "Yes"

T L Lipsovich says

Look closely at the map. More Muslims is directly proportional to more terrorism.

T L Lipsovich says

The interesting point is that most victims of Islam are in fact Muslims.
In particular with regard to the conflict Sunny shiits.

People who defend Islam are anti-Muslims.