Fighting Islamic Jihad or Islamophobia? A Matter of Perspective....

[JohnO]

I highly recommend taking the time to go to the following website and either download and watch the .wmv or listen to the .mp3 file.
Robert Spencer speaking at the Heritage Foundation on his book tour for his book "The Truth about Mohammed". It is extremely enlightening.

http://origin.heritage.org/events/20...about-muhammad

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/20...t-Muhammad.wmv

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/20...t-Muhammad.mp3

[Peally]

Pretty sure sneezing on the wrong day is enough to cause others to resent us. Frankly from a personal perspective I couldn't give two shits why some countries hate us.

[GardoneVT]

Calling the the perp of the Oklahoma City bombing a Christian is pretty far fetched. Makes me question her intentions.

Some may credibly claim that a Muslim who commits murder is similarly disgenuine, but that's a digression.

Bottom line here is that the cause doesn't matter. Declaring war against "Islam" won't stop Christians from becoming terrorists,any more then declaring war on "poverty" will stop thugs in the hood from shooting people. There's quite a few folks in the world of all walks who'd blow it up for kicks. Debating the motivation of murderers is tilting at philosophical windmills .

Use appropriate force on the people who need it,and leave the politics and demographics out of it.To offer another Hollywood misquote - when you're staring down a loaded gun,does the politics of the attacker matter?

[blues]

That depends on the ultimate endgame. Utilizing force alone might provide a temporary measure of security (and I stress the might), but it does nothing to solve the underlying issue, and will only breed further resentment, perpetuating the cycle of violence anyway. Blaming these attacks on Islam fundamentally fails to understand why we are attacked, and means that we are unable to properly attend to the problem; killing a few jhadis looks good on the news and is an easily quantifiable metric, but does little, if anything, to actually stop these attacks in the long term. More drastic actions, such as direct engagement and destruction of IS, can certainly help tamp things down by destroying large parts of the infrastructure, but where it the political will for that? Are we willing to then sit there and actually nation-build this time? Or will we walk away again, and let the cycle begin anew?

Brute force is certainly a necessity to protect ourselves. The problem arises when folks are content to stop there. The message of acceptance is the beginning of understanding why others hate us, and thus potentially understanding what we need to do to stop creating reasons for others to resent us.

I don't disagree with you in many regards. But taking us or the west out of the equation so that it's not fundamentally a "western" mentality vs. Islam...

...I'm not seeing an end to sectarian violence...Sunni vs. Shia for example...or beyond those of a more moderate bent, the subjugation of their own by force of arms and terror by ISIS, AQ and other groups that treat those of the same nationality, religion and origins as grist for their mill.

Their atrocities against their own fellow countrymen and believers in the Quran demonstrates that the issue is not a simple us vs. them struggle.

Where do they intend to stop? How will they be stopped? Negotiation? Hasn't seemed to keep mosques and fellow travelers from being blown up regardless of the pleas of imams.

I'm not against using all tools available but the first step to sitting at a table and having a discussion is stopping the aggression by any means necessary. And if it's only temporary, as it has been throughout the history of humankind, this is just (apparently) the way of the world.

@Sidheshooter I've posted that video here previously. It is one of my (and my wife's) favorite clips...and it carries a strong message.

[JohnO]

Martial law declared in Philippines' south after IS-linked militant siege

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-2...ppines/8554248

[41magfan]

Poached from elsewhere, because, maybe the most cogent thing I've seen come out of the entertainment industry this decade:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct3BsyF64gM




I know: fiction, but it's good monologue.

The assertion sure isn't fiction, and it's really no more complicated than he suggested. Big problems require big solutions ..... governments (or individuals, for that matter) are not very good at that sort of thing.

[critter]

Some may credibly claim that a Muslim who commits murder is similarly disgenuine, but that's a digression.

Bottom line here is that the cause doesn't matter. Declaring war against "Islam" won't stop Christians from becoming terrorists,any more then declaring war on "poverty" will stop thugs in the hood from shooting people. There's quite a few folks in the world of all walks who'd blow it up for kicks. Debating the motivation of murderers is tilting at philosophical windmills .

Use appropriate force on the people who need it,and leave the politics and demographics out of it.To offer another Hollywood misquote - when you're staring down a loaded gun,does the politics of the attacker matter?

The comparison between Christianity and Islam is asinine (not that you're doing that). Christianity went through its reformation several centuries ago. Islamic doctrine remains as it was in the 7th century -- with the life and actions of its prophet as the "pure" example. There were nine crusades conducted in response to jihadist aggression. There have been over 1500 unprovoked military invasions/jihads. Islamism
hasn't changed a lick - it's not a religion of peace; it's not a religion at all. It's a geopolitical doctrine. It has been doing exactly the same things it has been doing since its inception which is why we have 60 some odd Islamic States. Granted, not all Muslims support Islamism and sharia horseshit just like not all Jews support Zionism. Simply put, Islamism should be declared treason in any western democracy and treated exactly as such - any call for Sharia, etc., equals immediate deportation or summary execution.

We certainly wouldn't tolerate groups of Christians attempting to institute "Biblical Courts" et al, or groups of Marxists attempting to undermine our supreme law... oh... wait...

[GardoneVT]

The comparison between Christianity and Islam is asinine (not that you're doing that). Christianity went through its reformation several centuries ago. Islamic doctrine remains as it was in the 7th century -- with the life and actions of its prophet as the "pure" example. There were nine crusades conducted in response to jihadist aggression. There have been over 1500 unprovoked military invasions/jihads. Islamism
hasn't changed a lick - it's not a religion of peace; it's not a religion at all. It's a geopolitical doctrine. It has been doing exactly the same things it has been doing since its inception which is why we have 60 some odd Islamic States. Granted, not all Muslims support Islamism and sharia horseshit just like not all Jews support Zionism. Simply put, Islamism should be declared treason in any western democracy and treated exactly as such - any call for Sharia, etc., equals immediate deportation or summary execution.

We certainly wouldn't tolerate groups of Christians attempting to institute "Biblical Courts" et al, or groups of Marxists attempting to undermine our supreme law... oh... wait...

Terrorists and murderers come from various backgrounds and cultures. Who cares what religion a suicide bomber claims ? Shall we divine the geopolitical doctrine of a hood rat who thinks shooting at cops and kids is perfectly normal behavior?

There will always be sick puppies who want to hurt people. It may be convenient to think we can toss them all under a label ,ban the label ,and then say "problem solved"- but that's bullshit. All that does is erode our national values for no reason. We will be targets for terrorism whether we ban Islam or not. Passing xenophobic laws to stop man from hurting his fellow man is equally farcical as thinking a "No Guns Sign" will repel violence.

[JohnO]

Granted, not all Muslims support Islamism and sharia horseshit

Cafeteria Muslim? One that decides not to follow certain tenets of the faith/system or whatever description you want to assign to Islam. Muslim in name only? Unfortunately if you are a true believer you are down with the Jihad.

If a "Muslim" appears to be a quiet normal member of western society are they? Or are they practicing Taqiyya? http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pa...n/taqiyya.aspx

[Peally]

Terrorists and murderers come from various backgrounds and cultures. Who cares what religion a suicide bomber claims ? Shall we divine the geopolitical doctrine of a hood rat who thinks shooting at cops and kids is perfectly normal behavior?

There will always be sick puppies who want to hurt people. It may be convenient to think we can toss them all under a label ,ban the label ,and then say "problem solved"- but that's bullshit. All that does is erode our national values for no reason. We will be targets for terrorism whether we ban Islam or not. Passing xenophobic laws to stop man from hurting his fellow man is equally farcical as thinking a "No Guns Sign" will repel violence.

In my observation for 90% of mass attacks and street killings you certainly can indeed toss them under a handful of labels. It's not every night Tom Brady goes around murdering mistresses noire mystery style.