US Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) the first Muslim U.S. Representative on the ban

[ArmenianJohn]

Honestly, it’s the Muslims that are responsible for their cohesive unit characterization. It is “Muslims” that convert to “radical Muslims”, not Catholics or Protestants... and Muslims don’t appear to want to openly and aggressively condemn the radical behavior either.

Yes it is "muslims" who convert to "radical muslims" and it's "christians" who convert to "radical christians" (e.g. white supremacist groups, pro-life terrorists, etc.). So that's not any different from any other religion.

As for muslims not wanting to openly and aggressively condemn the radical behavior, you're wrong. Tulc provided some great links to prove you're wrong about that, and I can also point to the fact that Syria's president Assad does nothing but fight against ISIS and radical islamist groups like Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, and several others and Syria's population overwhelmingly supports President Assad. Meanwhile, the USA is arming and funding those terrorist groups to fight against Assad.

So, you're not only wrong about muslims being anti-extremist, you are also ignoring the fact that the USA is taking the side of the terrorists and spending OUR tax dollars to fund and support radical islam. But you're blaming the majority of muslims like Assad and the Syrians??? Doesn't make sense.

You do make a good point about Saudi Arabia though.

My point about Saudi is the same as the point about Syria and how the US simultaneously funds and supports the most extreme and radical muslim terrorists while brainwashing Westerners through western media propaganda. How else can people blame islam as a whole while at the same time supporting America's funding of the most radical elements in Islam and fighting against the majority of muslims who are actually peaceful?

 

[Winken]

Sounds like the United States when the white man took this land from the indigenous peoples

Yes, it "sounds like" that, historically. But today is today.

 

[Winken]

How is it that the USA is best friends with these oppressive extremists but then turns around and calls Syrians, Iraquis, and other non-extremist muslims "a threat"???

Why do nations today do anything? The avoidance of nuclear war.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Why do nations today do anything? The avoidance of nuclear war.

Nations refrain from doing things in avoidance of nuclear war. They DO things as a result of greed, usually in the form of resources, the biggest one being oil/gas.

 

[pat34lee]

A couple of things you do indicate to me that you have the western propaganda version of what Islam is or isn't. You say "them" and "they" as though Muslims are a cohesive unit, but that has been demonstrated to be very false.

Nothing is 100% except God. Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but near enough every terrorist and supporter of terrorism is either Muslim or a Muslim apologist. Pretty much all others are fringes of something. Do you really think we would have so many Muslim terrorists if 75% of Muslims were against terrorism? Too many of those who pay lip service to peace still won't condemn violence against opposing groups of Muslims or infidels.

 

[pat34lee]

How is it that the USA is best friends with these oppressive extremists but then turns around and calls Syrians, Iraquis, and other non-extremist muslims "a threat"???

We should be very wary dealing with any Muslim nation. It wouldn't hurt to be wary around any nation as they have their own goals and they don't necessarily go along with ours.

 

[pat34lee]

Yes it is "muslims" who convert to "radical muslims" and it's "christians" who convert to "radical christians" (e.g. white supremacist groups, pro-life terrorists, etc.). So that's not any different from any other religion.

This is the worst type of moral equivalence. How many pro-life terrorists can you name, one? And who did they kill, random victims or those with blood on their hands? Yet you will see no, or few believers support their actions, as vengeance is not the job of believers.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Nothing is 100% except God. Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but near enough every terrorist and supporter of terrorism is either Muslim or a Muslim apologist. Pretty much all others are fringes of something. Do you really think we would have so many Muslim terrorists if 75% of Muslims were against terrorism? Too many of those who pay lip service to peace still won't condemn violence against opposing groups of Muslims or infidels.

So you can't explain to me why then we accept Saudi Arabia? You conveniently ignored that portion of my post which makes my entire point.

If you really believed what you are saying to me you would be up in arms over the tolerance the US shows for Saudi Arabia and the fact that we allow Saudis in when they are the ones responsible for the most terrorism. They are the ones behind ISIS and Al Qaeda and 9/11. You, like the USA as a country, don't apply the same criteria to Saudis that you apply to people of other nations. (You can substitute Pakistan/Pakistanis for Saudi/Saudis, by the way - same situation.)

Not all muslims are the same just as not all Christians are the same. Not even all Sunni Muslims are the same - there are so many factions and divisions among them as well, many of which have to do with non-religious things like nationality, politics, etc.

You also haven't told me where you get your information from. I think it's clear that you get it from biased Western sources but I was giving you a chance to tell me otherwise. I think it's pretty clear that what I know about the Middle East and Muslims/Islam in general is from sources far more close to the reality of what happens there.

Bottom line is that for your explanation that you gave above you have no explanation for why you're peachy fine with allowing Saudis and Pakistanis to be preferred over Syrians and Iraqis (which include Christians and Catholics). And that betrays your explanation above.

 

[rturner76]

Nothing is 100% except God. Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but near enough every terrorist and supporter of terrorism is either Muslim or a Muslim apologist. Pretty much all others are fringes of something. Do you really think we would have so many Muslim terrorists if 75% of Muslims were against terrorism? Too many of those who pay lip service to peace still won't condemn violence against opposing groups of Muslims or infidels.

Not every terrorist is a Muslim or even most according to New America. They did a study back in 2015. This was before the Orlando shooting and San Bernardino shooting so those statistics are not included. It still paints a picture of a situation that warrants attention......

A new study on domestic terrorism, conducted by New America's David Sterman and Peter Bergen, found that right-wing terrorism in the United States has killed 48 people since September 2001. Those include attacks by white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and anti-government radicals.

Study: Right-wing Terrorism has Killed 48 People in the U.S. Since 2001

"Law enforcement agencies around the country have told us the threat from Muslim extremists is not as great as the threat from right-wing extremists," Charles Kurzman, a University of North Carolina professor and an author of a forthcoming survey on police attitudes toward extremism, told Shane

Homegrown Extremists Tied to Deadlier Toll Than Jihadists in U.S. Since 9/11

As can be seen above, there are many threats besides Islamic extremism. Mostly from radical right wing and white nationalist groups

 

[ArmenianJohn]

This is the worst type of moral equivalence. How many pro-life terrorists can you name, one?

Several. From wiki:

• March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.[I 4]
• July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside another facility, the Ladies Center, in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings. Hill received a death sentence and was executed on September 3, 2003. The clinic in Pensacola had been bombed before in 1984 and was also bombed subsequently in 2012.[I 5]
• December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.[I 5]
• January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Rudolph admitted responsibility; he was also charged with three Atlanta bombings: the 1997 bombing of an abortion center, the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, and another of a lesbian nightclub. He was charged with the crimes and received two life sentences as a result.[I 6]
• October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death with a high-powered rifle at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Slepian's murder after being apprehended in France in 2001.[I 7]
• May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as Tiller served as an usher at a church in Wichita, Kansas.[I 8] This was not Tiller's first time being a victim to anti-abortion violence. Dr.Tiller was shot once before in 1993 by Shelley Shannon, who was sentenced 10 years in prison for the shooting.
• November 29, 2015: A shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado, left three dead and several injured, and a suspect Robert L. Dear was apprehended.[I 9][I 10][I 11] The suspect had previously acted against other clinics, and referred to himself as a "warrior for the babies" at his hearing.[I 12][I 13] Neighbors and former neighbors described the suspect as "reclusive",[I 10] and police from several states where the suspect resided described a history of run-ins dating from at least 1997.[I 11] As of December 2015, the trial of the suspect was open;[I 12] but, on May 11, 2016, the court declared the suspect incompetent to stand trial after a mental evaluation was completed.[I 14]

And who did they kill, random victims or those with blood on their hands?

Both. But are you saying that there's a difference? Are you saying or even implying that some of these terrorists are justified because they killed "those with blood on their hands"?? It's ironic that you accuse me of "moral equivalence" and then you ask this question.

Yet you will see no, or few believers support their actions, as vengeance is not the job of believers.

It appears you might support the actions of those who committed the violence against those who are not random victims or have blood on their hands because you raised that question as though it is some kind of exemption from considering their actions to be actual terrorism.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

We should be very wary dealing with any Muslim nation. It wouldn't hurt to be wary around any nation as they have their own goals and they don't necessarily go along with ours.

Any muslim nation or just any nation? Here you're equivocating by shifting the goalpost from "any muslim nation" to "any nation". Should we be wary of Canada, UK, and Germany? Why are you not clamoring to stop those people from entering this country?

As for muslim nations - can you explicitly state that you want the US to curtail ALL Saudis, Turks, Egyptians, Kuwaitis, UAE citizens, etc. as well?

How about Jordanians? Do you consider Jordan to be a threat to the USA??

 

[Winken]

Any muslim nation or just any nation? Here you're equivocating by shifting the goalpost from "any muslim nation" to "any nation". Should we be wary of Canada, UK, and Germany? Why are you not clamoring to stop those people from entering this country?

As for muslim nations - can you explicitly state that you want the US to curtail ALL Saudis, Turks, Egyptians, Kuwaitis, UAE citizens, etc. as well?

How about Jordanians? Do you consider Jordan to be a threat to the USA??

Radical, militaristic Islam is the outrageous threat. How long would it take Islamists to convert to radical, militaristic Islam, if they had the upper hand in the USA? NATO? Failure to convert under Islamic Sharia law would cost them their lives. So much easier to convert.

 

[pat34lee]

So you can't explain to me why then we accept Saudi Arabia? You conveniently ignored that portion of my post which makes my entire point.

I replied to that in Post #26.

 

[pat34lee]

right-wing terrorism in the United States has killed 48 people since September 2001. Those include attacks by white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and anti-government radicals.

A whole 48? And in only 16 or so years? My my.

Since 2001, Chicago has experienced 7,916 murders (as of September 06, 2016).

From Sept. 2001 till 2007 - 6 years - nearly 100,000 people were murdered in the US.

And about all the 'right wing' attackers. Many it seem were not so right as left.
And many left wing attacks are never registered as such, and are just ignored.
Left-wing v. right-wing violence

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Radical, militaristic Islam is the outrageous threat. How long would it take Islamists to convert to radical, militaristic Islam, if they had the upper hand in the USA? NATO? Failure to convert under Islamic Sharia law would cost them their lives. So much easier to convert.

So then why is that not true in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, or other countries where muslims have "the upper hand"???

 

[ArmenianJohn]

A whole 48? And in only 16 or so years? My my.

Since 2001, Chicago has experienced 7,916 murders (as of September 06, 2016).

From Sept. 2001 till 2007 - 6 years - nearly 100,000 people were murdered in the US.

And about all the 'right wing' attackers. Many it seem were not so right as left.
And many left wing attacks are never registered as such, and are just ignored.
Left-wing v. right-wing violence

how about the 200,000 or so civilians killed by US terrorist attacks in the middle east?

 

[rturner76]

A whole 48? And in only 16 or so years? My my.

Since 2001, Chicago has experienced 7,916 murders (as of September 06, 2016).

From Sept. 2001 till 2007 - 6 years - nearly 100,000 people were murdered in the US.

And about all the 'right wing' attackers. Many it seem were not so right as left.
And many left wing attacks are never registered as such, and are just ignored.
Left-wing v. right-wing violence

Ok so the right wing attacks don't mean anything. THere are only a few compared to the 100,000 people that were murdered in the US from 2001-2007 according to what is posted here. Knowing that, and knowing that during that same period of time, there were even less attacks carried out by Islamic terrorists on US soil, should we reach the same conclusion as above,say it is meaningless and ignore those attacks?

Should we stop spending billions of dollars and engaging in illegal wire tapping and other illegal surveillance techniques to search for Islamic terrorist suspects? Should we continue to shut down borders, break up families and all the other tactics use to stop Islamic extremism because like white nationalist killings, the numbers aren't very high here at home?

Do you think it is wise to have no defence against the right wing or other home grown groups or people that would plan attacks that are not Muslim also?

The program, "Countering Violent Extremism," or CVE, would be changed to "Countering Islamic Extremism" or "Countering Radical Islamic Extremism," the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.
Exclusive: Trump to focus counter-extremism program solely on Islam - sources

 

[Winken]

So then why is that not true in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, or other countries where muslims have "the upper hand"???

What were they seeking to impose in 1948, 1967, 1973, and in the multiple attacks on the Jewish nation since? If they were successful the Hebrew folk would be annihilated in a horrendous outburst of slaughter. Islam would celebrate the establishment of Sharia, parading through the blood.

 

[pat34lee]

Ok so the right wing attacks don't mean anything. THere are only a few compared to the 100,000 people that were murdered in the US from 2001-2007 according to what is posted here. Knowing that, and knowing that during that same period of time, there were even less attacks carried out by Islamic terrorists on US soil, should we reach the same conclusion as above,say it is meaningless and ignore those attacks?

Not so fast. They don't get off that easily. 'They' being Muslims and the left. The so-called right wing attacks are vastly overblown for drama, and leftist attacks rarely reported as such. As stated in the article in my last post, many leftist attacks are misreported (lied about) to blame the right. And why would they do such, except to hide their own guilt.

You do a disservice by trying to limit the scope of Muslim atrocities. There have never been IRA attacks in Antarctica. So what? They did plenty of damage where they were. And Muslims are a danger everywhere they live, and not just for terrorism. Ask the huge numbers of women raped by these 'refugees' in Sweden and Denmark. When you ask vipers to live in your home, you will get bitten sooner or later and Europe is getting bitten again and again and again. Insanity.

 

[pat34lee]

Should we continue to shut down borders, break up families and all the other tactics use to stop Islamic extremism because like white nationalist killings, the numbers aren't very high here at home?

Do you think it is wise to have no defence against the right wing or other home grown groups or people that would plan attacks that are not Muslim also?

When your house is on fire, your first concern should be for your family's safety. Supposed white supremacist violence doesn't even make the list of top threats. Liberal and black violence, OTOH, yes. Conservatives are not safe being asked to speak at college campuses and even our new Secretary of Education was chased off from a school campus by a small mob of morons who should have been arrested if not shot. There is no excuse for such actions.