Islamophobia.

[FanthatSpark]

People screaming Islamophobia are like the ones playing the race card.

What? Islam is of many races, correct? Or is the statement meant like Christian, Jews and today Islamic persecution in the belief system as the "race card"?

 

[Armoured]

These are all phony refugees.

Riiiiiight.

 

[HondaMan]

What? Islam is of many races, correct? Or is the statement meant like Christian, Jews and today Islamic persecution in the belief system as the "race card"?

I didn't say that. Read again. I said that people who play the "oh we're the victims" race card, are alike the ones screaming "homophobia" and "islamophobia".

 

[NotreDame]

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.

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.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑

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

They are radical extremists and terrorists. They think the Koran tells them to use terror and fear to help convert the world to Islam. You do know that's their objective right ?

I wouldn't call it an objective right.

I would call it a "guide" based on a subjective fundamentalist literal interpretation.

 

[patrick jane]

ecco said: ↑

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

I wouldn't call it an objective right.

I would call it a "guide" based on a subjective fundamentalist literal interpretation.

No, i meant that there objective is to convert the world to Islam whether by peace or terror and violence. And you know that, right ?

 

[FanthatSpark]

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.

Just to add on Bear . Local news which only covers a certain distance covers most violence in the area. This not being national most people do not delve nationally for American on American deaths. As in this phobia being driven by mainstream "national" news that does what? Causes phobia, correct? Radio and TV mainstream reaffirms that fear in bombardment of the senses in pin point activities globally to massage that fear that for me made my heart jump as I ran into a Islam in a store (Covered in a post here in). This is not to say we are not cautious in all these issues of refugees or local sleeper cells . It basically comes down to how entrenched a mind is being bombarded in scare tactics to the point we don't take the kids to the park any more.

 

[ecco]

England at this point in history was among the most advanced countries of its time, and had an even brighter future laid out. Nothing backward about it. It wasn't a theocracy either, it was a monarchy.

You mean the part where the Catholic Church had a very strong influence on the Monarchy or when the King of the Monarchy declared himself Head of the Church?

However, technically, you are correct.

the·oc·ra·cy
THēˈäkrəsē/
noun
a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.​

By that definition Saudi Arabia is not a theocracy.
By that definition Iran is not a theocracy.
By that definition ISIL is not a theocracy.

 

[ecco]

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.​

This is an interesting point that keeps coming up lately. I can only assume we Americans are OK with being gunned down by other Americans but being gunned down by someone who isn't American would make us feel bad.

Yep!

 

[patrick jane]

Just to add on Bear . Local news which only covers a certain distance covers most violence in the area. This not being national most people do not delve nationally for American on American deaths. As in this phobia being driven by mainstream "national" news that does what? Causes phobia, correct? Radio and TV mainstream reaffirms that fear in bombardment of the senses in pin point activities globally to massage that fear that for me made my heart jump as I ran into a Islam in a store (Covered in a post here in). This is not to say we are not cautious in all these issues of refugees or local sleeper cells . It basically comes down to how entrenched a mind is being bombarded in scare tactics to the point we don't take the kids to the park any more.

Does that baby in the avatar have a turban on ? aha !!!

 

[ecco]

ecco:

Do those links show that christians and muslims have been at war with each other for 1500 years?​

If you delve deep enough in the trusting link. What should get your goat is this very real hypothetical that goes like this... A church sends a missionary over to help those in need not knowing they fund ISIS through their tax dollar. This missionary gets beheaded. Thus it is Christians killing Christians in funding. That should get every Christian here appalled . We "trusted" and it killed us. Why? Omittence that no mainstream will tell us "WE" funded a Christian killing machine.

The link linked to a post of yours in another thread which had a link to:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/01/false-equivalencies-isis-and-assad/
False Equivalencies: ISIS and Assad​

I don't usually follow links that are posted with no excerpts. However, in your case I did.

I did fully agree with the contents of the article. However, I don't see where that supports your argument. Perhaps you could quote some excerpts from the article that you feel support "This missionary gets beheaded. Thus it is Christians killing Christians"




ecco:

We supported ISIS for 5 years?

​

Trusting link in OP. ecco, we got to change our news source. Mainstream will not let us know we are the bad guys in this mess (Brain Washing through omittence). Ya got to read ecco, read . Leave out my ranting's in the Trusting link just read up . The article have in-line source gathering . If you look at the dates of some of those posts they are prophetic to whats happening now. As we close borders to plains and ships (Trade) for they "may" have RI's on them yet our allies have already let these people in, its going to make them jump ship as our allies, which is covered in Trusting link in OP.

Again, I don't see where that supports your argument. Perhaps you could quote some excerpts from the article that you feel support any of your arguments.


Perhaps I was looking at the wrong article.

 

[ecco]

(emphasis mine)

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. Some of their views have been characterized as not mere poor interpretations of the text but as a complete erroneous interpretation of the texts, an interpretation so detached from the plain text as to constitute as "twisting" the text.

I am not venturing an opinion as to whether "they" have indeed misinterpreted or "twisted" the text. I am merely stating the basis upon which many people characterize them as "radicals."

Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."​

A rational, literal, accurate interpretation of that verse is very clear.

If you would argue that it is wrong to take a literal interpretation of holy scripture, then I would remind you that some people of all faiths do it.

 

[FanthatSpark]

Does that baby in the avatar have a turban on ? aha !!!

LOL. ROFLOL. good one . Never noticed it before its been there since my enrolment here.

 

[amanuensis63]

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.

I think it actually does show something of importance. It is a classic case of RISK ASSESSMENT. As we all have heard it is safer to fly than drive but that doesn't mean people won't have fears of flying. In this case I am probably more likely to be killed by an American with a gun than an Islamist terrorist. We expend a great deal of effort to ensure that this particular fear is not realized. We want to eliminate any chance of getting gunned down by an islamic terrorist while leaving untouched the far greater risk of being gunned down by an American.

The internet meme (I think it is quote attiributed to John Oliver) paraphrased: that one failed shoe bomb attempt and we will forever remove our shoes at the airport vs countless thousands of Americans killed with gun violence and we don't have the national will to impose more draconian restrictions on getting guns.

In a sense it is "security theater" rather than dealing with risks in a rational manner.

And don't get me wrong, I'm as guilty as anyone of hyperinflating some low risks and ignoring larger ones. But it doesn't make my actions any less irrational when I do so.

 

[FanthatSpark]

ecco:

Do those links show that christians and muslims have been at war with each other for 1500 years?​

The link linked to a post of yours in another thread which had a link to:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/01/false-equivalencies-isis-and-assad/
False Equivalencies: ISIS and Assad​

I don't usually follow links that are posted with no excerpts. However, in your case I did.

I did fully agree with the contents of the article. However, I don't see where that supports your argument. Perhaps you could quote some excerpts from the article that you feel support "This missionary gets beheaded. Thus it is Christians killing Christians"





ecco:

We supported ISIS for 5 years?

​

Again, I don't see where that supports your argument. Perhaps you could quote some excerpts from the article that you feel support any of your arguments.


Perhaps I was looking at the wrong article.

ecco:

Do those links show that christians and muslims have been at war with each other for 1500 years?​

The link linked to a post of yours in another thread which had a link to:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/01/false-equivalencies-isis-and-assad/
False Equivalencies: ISIS and Assad​

I don't usually follow links that are posted with no excerpts. However, in your case I did.

I did fully agree with the contents of the article. However, I don't see where that supports your argument. Perhaps you could quote some excerpts from the article that you feel support "This missionary gets beheaded. Thus it is Christians killing Christians"






ecco:

We supported ISIS for 5 years?

​

Again, I don't see where that supports your argument. Perhaps you could quote some excerpts from the article that you feel support any of your arguments.


Perhaps I was looking at the wrong article.

Tried that and got remanded in copyright infringement. Also, it may be in another thread and I will get back to your request when I locate it. I will repost the quote above . thanks for heads up!
Before closing one would ask though, how does Russia in three short months devastate ISIS as we have been there since 2010? We that claim the most superior army in the world? Just some thing to mull over as I search for the article.

 

[bhsmte]

Tried that and got remanded in copyright infringement. Also, it may be in another thread and I will get back to your request when I locate it. I will repost the quote above . thanks for heads up!
Before closing one would ask though, how does Russia in three short months devastate ISIS as we have been there since 2010? We that claim the most superior army in the world? Just some thing to mull over as I search for the article.

What is your evidence, that Russia has "devastated" ISIS?

 

[FanthatSpark]

What is your evidence, that Russia has "devastated" ISIS?

It is assumed the link in OP of trusting has been read. to shorten this go to last post by me and read that article. It shows Russia (Air) with local ground troops are winning -Thus Far. Gaining territory taken by ISIS.

 

[ecco]

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.​

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.

Why does it matter?

http://heedinggodscall.org/content/pfctoolkit-10

GUN VIOLENCE in the UNITED STATES
Gun Deaths:
More than 30,000 people are killed by firearms each year in this country
More than 30 people are shot and murdered each day
​

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.

21st Century
< 15,000 From foreign terrorists - 9/11, Ft. Hood etc, Iraq & Afghanistan (all coalition forces - not just Americans)
> 150,000 From Americans murdering Americans

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

Yes, it is a fantastic point.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand the threat from religious fundamentalist organizations. But our antiquated gun laws cause much more harm to us than terrorists have.

 

[NotreDame]

I think it actually does show something of importance. It is a classic case of RISK ASSESSMENT. As we all have heard it is safer to fly than drive but that doesn't mean people won't have fears of flying. In this case I am probably more likely to be killed by an American with a gun than an Islamist terrorist. We expend a great deal of effort to ensure that this particular fear is not realized. We want to eliminate any chance of getting gunned down by an islamic terrorist while leaving untouched the far greater risk of being gunned down by an American.

The internet meme (I think it is quote attiributed to John Oliver) paraphrased: that one failed shoe bomb attempt and we will forever remove our shoes at the airport vs countless thousands of Americans killed with gun violence and we don't have the national will to impose more draconian restrictions on getting guns.

In a sense it is "security theater" rather than dealing with risks in a rational manner.

And don't get me wrong, I'm as guilty as anyone of hyperinflating some low risks and ignoring larger ones. But it doesn't make my actions any less irrational when I do so.

But a risk assessment focusing on the number of Americans killed by some entity or people in relation and comparison to another entity/people is an inaccurate, incomplete, and faulty risk assessment.

Again, relying upon your reasoning, America had little to fear of Al Qaeda in 1997 when compared to Americans killing other Americans. America had little to fear of Al Qaeda for a significant part of 1998 in comparison to Americans killing other Americans. After all, Al Qaeda was killing as many Americans as Americans were killing Americans in 1997 and 1998. But in retrospect, we now know we should have been more fearful of Al Qaeda and rightfully so.

It does not make sense to wait until planes fly into buildings and buildings begin to fall, thereby the death toll rises significantly, to be fearful of some entity or people belonging to the entity.

And a risk assessment based on nothing more than comparing and contrasting numbers of people killed by other people, and/or some entity, group of people, or people belonging to some entity, is a lousy risk assessment. Waiting for people to drop like flies in significant numbers before being fearful, and before having a legitimate worry, is useless as a risk assessment.

 

[NotreDame]

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.​

Why does it matter?

http://heedinggodscall.org/content/pfctoolkit-10

GUN VIOLENCE in the UNITED STATES
Gun Deaths:
More than 30,000 people are killed by firearms each year in this country
More than 30 people are shot and murdered each day
​

21st Century
< 15,000 From foreign terrorists - 9/11, Ft. Hood etc, Iraq & Afghanistan (all coalition forces - not just Americans)
> 150,000 From Americans murdering Americans


Yes, it is a fantastic point.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand the threat from religious fundamentalist organizations. But our antiquated gun laws cause much more harm to us than terrorists have.

So? Is your point we shouldn't worry about the terrorists? Is your point we shouldn't do anything to preclude another terrorist attack? What is your point, really? What is your point of bringing up gun violence and deaths as a result of a firearm and terrorism, terrorist attacks, potential terrorist attacks, abating terrorist attacks, precluding terrorist attacks, and worrying/fearful of another terrorist attack?

At this moment, you do not have a fantastic point other than to quote statistics and compare them, which is edifying but doesn't do anything other than to inform us as to the data, the numbers.

Is your point to merely inform people of the data, the numbers, and their comparison? Just quote data for the sake of quoting data?