Islamophobia.

NotreDame said:

While this may be true, I fail to see why this matters. This isn't a comparison game in which we compare and contrast what Americans should fear more, other Americans or Daesh. Perhaps Americans can legitimately have a fear of both. Perhaps Americans killing other Americans is a phenomenon to be less fearful of than their fear of Daesh.

Looking back, in retrospect, the same argument could have been made to Al Qaeda and its status preceding 9/11. More Americans were killing Americans than Al Qaeda was or had killed prior to 9/11. Based on your reasoning, Americans had more to fear from other Americans than they did Al Qaeda. Yet, we now know Americans actually had quite a lot to fear from Al Qaeda.

So, I am not quite sure you are making some fantastic point here.

Click to expand...

But I thought Al Qaeda was a creation of U.K. and America ?
Bin Laden was originally, like Sadam Hussien, working for your government . So that is where you begin to make changes , amends .You make danger for everybody by doing that . Best to get your own house in order , then God will keep you safe ,but until then it will escalate .

Viren said:

I like how you mention Russia. This war is much bigger than just a Syrian civil war and a bunch of radical jihadists. You have China, Russia, Iran and Syria teaming up and making deals including what's call the new silk road connecting European and Asia with a new currency that's backed by natural gas which Russian and Iran have a monopoly on. You have Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the west teaming up and Syria is the showdown place between the east and west.

Click to expand...

Sometimes ,they just don't want to know the real story .

ecco said:

ecco said: ↑
Why call them radicals? They are believers in their holy scripture, that is not radical. I prefer the term Islamist Fundamentalists.

Click to expand...

That is exactly what they are.

ecco said:

ecco said: ↑
Not to derail, but... In the last few weeks, Americans murdered about 500 innocent people in America.
How many people do you think should be murdered, before something is done to greatly reduce this death toll?
We have more to fear from Americans killing Americans than we do from Islamic Fundamentalists killing Americans.

Click to expand...

When someone injects a subject that is not what the discussion is about it appears that they do not want to address the subject.
I have seen it among Christians who no matter what the political discussion is, and it begins to not look good for their views, they will interject something that is a 'hot' topic such as abortion.

ecco said:

But if they turn renegades,

Click to expand...

Tell me, what is the definition, in that book, of a 'renegade'? Who specifically is the quote talking about? Is your understanding of the word the same meaning that Mohammad intended? Because if it is not what Mohammad meant than it is not Islam, but is something else.

ecco said:

But our antiquated gun laws cause much more harm to us than terrorists have.

Click to expand...

That is not the discussion of this thread. Islamophobia, is not gun ownership phobia. Neither is it death phobia. Islam is not just about death. Islam is about lack of freedom, ie. freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of woman, etc.
Islam teaches against what our very society is built upon, Freedom of the individual to make choices.

NotreDame said:

Terrorist attacks are by their very nature different from ... a homicide committed with a firearm.

Click to expand...

Not to the dead person. Not to the husbands, wives, children.

NotreDame said:

Both are heinous acts, but an act of terrorism is done with such magnitude, scope, extent, number of targets, in such a fantastic manner, for lack of s better word, as to place people in fear with the purpose of collectively scaring society and induce society and government to change its behavior. This quite simply is different from an accidental shooting, an accidental death by firearm, or s homicide by firearm.

Click to expand...

School killings (deaths)
The Texas Tower shootings (17)were not a terrorist attack.
The Columbine shootings (15) were not a terrorist attack.
The Red Lake shootings (10) were not a terrorist attack.
The Blacksburg shootings (33) were not a terrorist attack.
The Sandy Hook shootings (28) were not a terrorist attack.

All of these received a lot of publicity and public and political hand wringing. Yet, every day Americans shoot and kill about 27 people. There is virtually no publicity, no press coverage and very little, political hand wringing.

It's only the BIG events that get noticed. Can you imagine CNN or Fox or CBS going on the evening news every night and spending a full minute talking about each death that occurred:
Today, in Las Vegas a man was shot and killed at a Drive-In.

Of course, these days, if the shooter in Las Vegas was heard to say Allahu Akbar, they would spend a good part of the broadcast on it.

emphasis mine

fat wee robin said:

But I thought Al Qaeda was a creation of U.K. and America ?
Bin Laden was originally, like Sadam Hussien, working for your government . So that is where you begin to make changes , amends .You make danger for everybody by doing that . Best to get your own house in order , then God will keep you safe ,but until then it will escalate .

Click to expand...

So, 9/11 was a result of god not protecting us because our house was not in order?

ecco said:

emphasis mine

So, 9/11 was a result of god not protecting us because our house was not in order?

Click to expand...

Maybe not a direct thing, but an interesting allegory. America made some bad "friends" in our thirst to fight a proxy war against our then enemy. And the things we "created" in that earlier war came back to haunt us.

I fear our actions in Iraq have repeated the narrative. And we are now standing on the precipice of a new set of bad potential choices in Syria.

Maybe we've finally found a place where there is no "wise" decision...only bad ones.

Jesus has no enemies*8. He returns good for evil, turns the other cheek, is crucified rather than a crucifier, etc.. The idea that we are supposed to "kill his enemies" is silly. As if God would need our help taking people out if that's what he actually wanted doesn't make sense either.

* People might consider Jesus an enemy, or even act as if he were one, but Jesus doesn't suffer from egotism, suffer from the passion of pride, etc and thereby doesn't return the misguided attitude.

[QUOTE="amanuensis63, post: 68903533, member: 365230"

But that was my point in relation to gun violence within the US. Who is a bigger threat to my continued existence? An ISIS terrorist getting into the US or a fellow US citizen? The numbers seem to say "A fellow US citizen" is my more likely threat.[/QUOTE]

That's really the only way to make risk assessments. That's what risk assessment is all about. It's always odds.

Click to expand...

No, the "only way to make risk assessments" is not to only compare numbers between one risk and another. Other factors must be taken into consideration, contingent upon the type and kind of risk we are discussing. Here, one risk is a terrorist attack on U.S. soil and to assess this risk requires more than an analysis of scrutinizing numbers between this risk and another.

Actually it's pretty much by definition irrational to take extreme measures to abate a lower probability risk while taking no such measures to abate a higher probability risk.

Click to expand...

No, this does not render the action taken to the lower probability risk as "irrational." Rather, this suggests more action is needed for the higher probability risk. In addition I do not believe "extreme measures" have been taken to the lower probability, but I digress.

Furthermore, why are we even discussing gun violence/gun death risk? This is a red herring, a tangential issue. I am done discussing this red herring.

An ISIS terrorist getting into the US or a fellow US citizen? The numbers seem to say "A fellow US citizen" is my more likely threat

Click to expand...

A few points, again, a numbers comparison in this context is a lousy risk assessment. Second, your statement above can be true but the U.S. would still be warranted in A.) Worrying about a potential terrorist attack and B.) Taking action to preclude a terrorist attack.

amanuensis63 said:

That's really the only way to make risk assessments. That's what risk assessment is all about. It's always odds.

Click to expand...

No, the "only way to make risk assessments" is not to only compare numbers between one risk and another. Other factors must be taken into consideration, contingent upon the type and kind of risk we are discussing. Here, one risk is a terrorist attack on U.S. soil and to assess this risk requires more than an analysis of scrutinizing numbers between this risk and another.

Actually it's pretty much by definition irrational to take extreme measures to abate a lower probability risk while taking no such measures to abate a higher probability risk.

Click to expand...

No, this does not render the action taken to the lower probability risk as "irrational." Rather, this suggests more action is needed for the higher probability risk. In addition I do not believe "extreme measures" have been taken to the lower probability, but I digress.

Furthermore, why are we even discussing gun violence/gun death risk? This is a red herring, a tangential issue. I am done discussing this red herring.

An ISIS terrorist getting into the US or a fellow US citizen? The numbers seem to say "A fellow US citizen" is my more likely threat

Click to expand...

A few points, again, a numbers comparison in this context is a lousy risk assessment. Second, your statement above can be true but the U.S. would still be warranted in A.) Worrying about a potential terrorist attack and B.) Taking action to preclude a terrorist attack.

Hank77 said:

Tell me, what is the definition, in that book, of a 'renegade'? Who specifically is the quote talking about? Is your understanding of the word the same meaning that Mohammad intended? Because if it is not what Mohammad meant than it is not Islam, but is something else.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what you or I believe. What matters is what other people believe based on their interpretations. There are obviously some who take the verse I quoted (just one of many with the same general context) to mean it is OK to kill non-believers. As I have stated, there is enough in any religious scripture to justify just about anything.

ecco:

Hank77 said:

That is not the discussion of this thread. Islamophobia, is not gun ownership phobia.

Click to expand...

But if we had more GunOwnershipPhobia we might just take some of the money being spent in "the war to combat Islamic Fundamentalist terror" and spend it to try to reduce the annual murders of 10,000 Americans.

Hank77 said:

Islam is not just about death. Islam is about lack of freedom, ie. freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of woman, etc. Islam teaches against what our very society is built upon, Freedom of the individual to make choices.

Click to expand...

For the most part, I agree with you. Saddam Hussein ruled a predominantly Muslim country. There was more religious and personal freedom than there is today in Saudi Arabia. The Shah of Iran was overthrown by religious fundamentalists in 1979. Today Iran is more secular than it has been in the last thirty years. All Muslims are not driven by fundamentalist religious fervor.

englishantebellum said:

The day you let fear mongering turn you against an entire culture of people, you have given the terrorists all that they desire.

Click to expand...

Im sorry but I hate when people use the fear-mongering thingy. Pure liberal Bureaucratic Spin.



Those are the words of the Koran. Behead... kill.... fear... terror.

ter·ror·ist
[ˈterərist]

NOUN

1. a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.

NotreDame said:

For those wanting to impose strict entrance criteria for Syrian refugees, or a temporary moratorium on their admittance, on the basis of safety concerns, considering the evidence, are not "Islamophobes."

Click to expand...

It is when we already have strict entrance requirements. Before the Paris attacks we had only agreed to take in 10,000 refugees in 2016. Canada, in contrast took in 25,000 in a six week period.

Albion said:

Too scared? If beheadings, hostage taking, sex slaves, and random murders of anyone that ISIS can get in its sites is not something that an intelligent person should be worried about--especially in the face of almost total inactivity on the part of our own government--what would you think WOULD actually merit such concern??

Click to expand...

Our government has not been inactive. Have you forgotten that just before the Paris attacks we killed Jihadi John? Obama is simply not willing to put boots on the ground at this point. And I can't blame him after Iraq and Afghanistan. We know we are against ISIS but who and what are we fighting for? If we hadn't invaded Iraq there would be no ISIS.

Those are the words of the Koran. Behead... kill.... fear... terror.

Click to expand...

I'm only going to address that very first verse, the only one which mentions beheading or terror since it is such a good example of how the hate-blogs distort the Qur'an:

Here is how you quoted 8:12:
"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."

But here is what the verse actually said:
"When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger."
Note the first part of the verse was deliberately cut off on hate-blog version deceiving people into thinking the Qur'an was ordering people to do the beheading when in fact God was ordering angels to do so in this story.

ecco said:

Why call them radicals? They are believers in their holy scripture, that is not radical. I prefer the term Islamist Fundamentalists.

Click to expand...

First off "Islamist Fundamentalists" is a contradiction in terms. Even the term 'fundamentalist' is problematic when applied to Islam. And the acts which we find reprehensible are certainly not Qur'anic.

NotreDame said:

I think the reason and rationale for calling or describing "them" as "radicals" is because some of "their" views, interpretations, of the Koran and other texts sacred to Muslims is "radical." Stated more precisely, some of the interpretations they espouse are not a rational or reasonable understanding of those texts.

Click to expand...

ISIS is an apocalyptic death cult. Islam is not.

FanthatSpark said:

That being the worst demise we join them which means we no longer support ISIS as we did for 5 years thus now we start seeing reprisals and or a waking of sleeper cells.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? We never supported ISIS.

This will be mainstream concentration (The same mainstream that omits 5 years U.S. vs 3 months Russia) in fighting terror by terrorizing common Joe and Mary. Brain washing . There comes a time we must take this nation back. We can not trust our reps of foreign policy any longer to commit atrocities in our name. See the phobia? It's classic, as you see it too.

Click to expand...

What I see is you are making absolutely no sense.

Cerberus~Infinite said:

And furthermore, the majority of them who don't want to kill you simply want to impose a form of theocratic tyranny on you so backwards it would make even Fred Phelps cringe.

Click to expand...

Except the majority of the don't want to do any such thing.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/inside-islam-what-billion-muslims-really-think/

smaneck said:

ISIS is an apocalyptic death cult. Islam is not.

Click to expand...

What exactly is your point? I only ask because everything in my post would support your or is in agreement with your statement above.