Blindly accepting Muslim immigrants is anti-liberal

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Clinton supported the disastrous intervention in Libya, and supports taking al-Assad out of power, which would leave a power vacuum for groups like ISIS.

Or the rebels. it's a 3-way dance.

If you want to support Assad because he's the best choice to fight off ISIS, I can't argue there -- but let's not pretend that our best choice is necessarily a good choice.

Clarissa Ward said it perfectly yesterday on CNN. Assad is the lifeline for ISIS (or ISIS breathes because of Assad).

If Assad was dealt with in 2011-2013, ISIS wouldn't have become what it is today. If Assad is not taken out now, you risk the Sunni Syrians (really the only ones who can defeat ISIS for good) feeling that though they hate ISIS, maybe the best choice for them pragmatically (as Michael Weiss said of the Sunnis in Iraq) is to join forces with ISIS against the bigger threat to Syrian Sunnis. Assad/allies are the one that killed 200k (96% of the documented civilian casualties) of their civilian brethren.

Plus, Assad actually supports ISIS (by being a big oil customer/partner and by largely avoiding targeting ISIS though the regime targets the rebels repeatedly) because he needs it in order to remain. It is the rebels who have been the most effective against ISIS despite almost 0 support even though they have about 9 countries/groups fighting against them (including ISIS). And this success is sustainable. That should tell you that the rebels are the best equipped to take on ISIS, especially when they can dedicate all of their resources and energy against it once the regime falls.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-buddhist-monks-love-muslim-hating-trump.html

If you knew the history of Islamic violence against Buddhists, you'd understand why Burmese Buddhists might be supporting Trump.

Couldn't have anything to do with the recent history of Buddhismic violence against Muslims, could it? Of course it's understandable that people who throw babies on machetes/swords splitting them in half or burn people alive just because they're Muslims support Trump. Because that's the type of people they are and the type of person they'd support would be someone who says dangerous things against Muslims like some extremist, hateful Buddhist monks do. Radical Buddhism is dangerous and as a Muslim, I would fear for my life if one of these Buddhists came to the US. Perhaps Trump should consider imposing a ban on certain Buddhists. I mean, that's the sentiment that was described just on this thread regarding Muslims so that should be the case if that logic was applied here.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

And considering that he's a despot who imprisons and brutally tortures his own people, that would be commendable, all other things being equal.

That sounds like the same argument that got us into Iraq. Anyways, that kind of ruler isn't unusual in that part of the world. In fact, likely it's necessary to keep power. Iraq has already shown us what happens when you try to run an Arab country the way you do a Western one.

We never do... why start now?

Because it might work better than what we've been doing.

Couldn't have anything to do with the recent history of Buddhismic violence against Muslims, could it?

If you knew the history of Islamic violence against Buddhists, you might understand that too. What goes around comes around...

 

[FireDragon76]

Some folks just have a rosy view of Buddhism, I guess. In actual Buddhist countries, terrorism and "holy war" in the name of the Sangha is not unknown, despite the Buddha being known for sitting serenely and preaching love and compassion.