13 Wounded at Fort Lauderdale Airport

Rum, beer, women, movies, nice websites, gaming, etc., without interrupting the flow of martial threads.

Re: 13 Wounded at Fort Lauderdale Airport

Postby grzegorz on Sun Jan 08, 2017 9:21 pm

I had thought this was just another shooting of the week but yes it is odd that you can come heavy to the airport, fly and grab your guns at check out and basically cause terrorism.

Of course though it basically is just another random shooting in so many other ways and I doubt anything will change.

I hate the way the media flashes dude's photo (as if he were a celebrity) everywhere but I suppose that is how it always is.
Last edited by grzegorz on Sun Jan 08, 2017 9:27 pm, edited 4 times in total.
"Fascists rejected reason in the name of will, denying objective truth in favor of a glorious myth articulated by leaders who claimed to give voice to the people."

-Timothy Snyder
User avatar
grzegorz
Wuji
 
Posts: 4680
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:42 pm
Location: Divided States of America

Re: 13 Wounded at Fort Lauderdale Airport

Postby Dmitri on Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:23 am

This part (nothing odd about that IMO):
grzegorz wrote:yes it is odd that you can come heavy to the airport, fly and grab your guns at check out


Has nothing whatsoever to do with this part:
and basically cause terrorism


The relationship is coincidental in this case. The first part has been happening for decades without a single problem.

As Ian said, the problem was that a guy with mental problems/PTSD was not checked properly/slipped through cracks...

I hate the way the media flashes dude's photo (as if he were a celebrity) everywhere but I suppose that is how it always is.

Yeah freakin' hate that, but it's how it's (been) done... The only positive thing is that it reminds everyone that he's just another human, after all.
Last edited by Dmitri on Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dmitri
Great Old One
 
Posts: 9291
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:04 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA (USA)

Re: 13 Wounded at Fort Lauderdale Airport

Postby grzegorz on Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:27 am

I say odd because from the time I was a kid airports were often the target of terrorists you would have thought they would have figured this stuff out by now.

But yes, it really is just another shooting of the week a man and a story only in America and the exact same thing will happen again, this week and the week after...
Last edited by grzegorz on Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Fascists rejected reason in the name of will, denying objective truth in favor of a glorious myth articulated by leaders who claimed to give voice to the people."

-Timothy Snyder
User avatar
grzegorz
Wuji
 
Posts: 4680
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:42 pm
Location: Divided States of America

Re: 13 Wounded at Fort Lauderdale Airport

Postby Michael on Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:09 pm


I made a quick transcription of the first six minutes of the video where Sargon is reading a letter about Islam from a man in Pakistan. I'm sure I made are a few minor errors here and there, but I don't think I missed anything significant. —Michael

The Basis of Discrimination
In Islam, discrimination is based on belief and not tied to geography or race. Islam has a taxonomy of dehumanization: pagans, Muslims of the wrong sect, etc. Western culture does not have words that are counterparts for religious racism and sexism that are in Islam. Western society became secular long ago, and now that it is under assault from Islam, it lacks the linguistic weapons to fight religious ascendancy. Non-Muslims might not be interested in Islam, but Islam is very interested in non-Muslims.

Much of the Koran is addressed to non-Muslims. Islam actively engages kafir (apostates) and confrontation. Islam is universalist and intends to become a religion for all of humanity. Just like all have the right to comment on communism [as a political ideology], all have the right to comment on Islam.

Too often Western academia bundles Islam with Christianity and teaches it in religious studies. Islam should be studied in political science, along with communism, capitalism and fascism. What Islam needs, first and foremost, is secular comment and secular judgment. Most university's Islamic studies are staffed by Muslims, making them little different from madrassas.

Apostasy and Blasphemy
There are many issues with Islam that Western audiences should know. You can't leave Islam and you can't scrutinize Islam. Imagine if, during the Cold War, criticizing Karl Mark constituted blasphemy. Imagine the fear and paranoia in the West if people feared that criticizing Marx would mean a random, knife-wielding communist might kill them at any time, anywhere.

When a regressive talks about Muhammed Ali being a Muslim, but not a terrorist, just ask them if they can imagine any Muslim celebrity leaving Islam and continuing to live their life as normal. Islam is like a prison for Muslims: you can't leave it. Also, Muslims go to China, India, Europe, America and Africa. They preach their religion freely, in seminars, on streets, setup mosques, and so on. Why is the Muslim world closed for non-Muslim preachers? Why can't Christian, Hindu, atheist missionaries set up shop in Muslim countries and convert people to their view? Muslim lands are essentially locked out of other religions, for Islam remains a totalitarian religion allowing no competitor. In the Islamic world, the social contract is not between man and society, but between Muslims and non-Muslims in society.

The invention of the academic category "the Muslim" is itself, problematic. It locks people up in their religion and this is what Islamists want. The West should identify Muslims with their country of origin, Bengali, Pakistani, etc., and deal with the community leaders, with these country-based communities, rather than one brand, "the Muslim community."

Another interesting fact is that Islam has little experience living as a minority; it always seeks power. It ruled India, Spain and Eastern Europe as a minority, and now Muslim minorities find themselves being ruled, in India and Europe, hence the anxiety. Many of those Islamists who initially opposed the creation of Pakistan, had this in mind, that if they were pious enough and organized enough in a united India, they, the minority, could once again rule the Hindu majority of India, like the Mughal times, once Britain had left.

One of the reasons Pakistan is so anti-India and so anti-Hindu is the caution of this imperialist dream. And speaking of imperialism, the West needs to understand that imperialism is not always state based. Non-states can also be imperialistic and imperialism is not always cultural and linguistic, it can also be religious.

Assimilation and Post-Modernism
Post-modernists are suspicious and critical of grand narratives. The Enlightenment had humbled Christianity, then Post-modernism came and humbled the Enlightenment universalism and de-constructed secularism. Apparently, the only grand narrative they're afraid of de-constructing is Islam. This is another point worth emphasizing. Why are Post-modernists afraid of taking on the grand narrative, ie. Islam? Also, they say cultural assimilation is genocide. If so, why do they tolerate religious assimilation? Why is Islam allowed to assimilate its converts and erase the diversity? Isn't that a form of genocide?

Reciprocation
Why don't Muslim majority countries strive for pluralism? Turkey, Malaysia, Egypt, Morocco, these are rich countries. Why don't they open up for non-Muslims and celebrate difference? Why isn't this liberal generosity reciprocated? Turkey was never colonized. It was itself the seat of the Ottoman Empire, which built its beautiful cities by stifling the growth of the Arab world and Eastern Europe. Will Turkey accept pluralism by inviting Eastern European Christian it once ruled over, or is post-colonial guilt only for the West?

Islam and Reform
The fight between liberal Muslims and Islamists is not on equal terms. Islamists use blasphemy laws and taboos as cover and a shield, as a trench from which to attack the opposition. They can come out with anything, while liberals have to watch their tongues. Liberals are extremely restricted in their speech, while Islamists lace their argument with Koranic or Prophetic authority, knowing full well that liberals can't oppose or contradict the Koran or the Prophet, so liberals have to work around that obstacle and in this way lose the force and substance of their argument. That is the one and only reason Islamists are winning everywhere.

The Muslim Left
All leftists in the West should ask themselves, "What happened to the Muslim left? Who exterminated them? Which ideology erased their existence?" Only by answering this question can we think about reviving left internationalism.

The Muslim Community
The regressives divide the wider society to far right, right, left and far left, so why not apply these same divisions to Muslim communities? Why do they suddenly suspend their judgment and identify Western Muslim population as "the Muslim community?"

Conclusion
Apostacy and blasphemy are two closed valves that need to be thrust open if Islam is to be compatible with Western values. Islam needs to move from a paradigm of coercion to a paradigm of choice. If we need any diversity, it is within Muslim communities in the West.
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11181
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: 13 Wounded at Fort Lauderdale Airport

Postby Michael on Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:10 pm

Here's my summation of the letter and the most important points that I think are correct:

Islam is a dominant, imperialist, political ideology that includes Muslims and non-Muslims alike and is not comparable in the present day to the popular Western religion of Christianity. Because it is primariliy a political ideology containing a religion, it should be treated akin to any political ideology, such as communism, capitalism, fasism, etc., and should not be treated reverently. It should be critically scrutinized, but it's not, which is how Islamists are winning, by incorporating Koranic and Prophetic theocracy into their arguments and then taking cover behind laws against apostacy and blasphemy, preventing effective counter-arguments.

Muslims should not be considered a monolithic group, but should be treated based on their country of origin because of its particular interpretation of Islam, such as Eastern European Muslims being much more tolerant than those from the Middle Eastern countries of Saudi Arabia or Iran.

It is not the West that needs diversity by treating all "Muslims" the same without consideration of their regional ideological beliefs, it is Islam which needs diversity by allowing scrutiny of its policies and inclusion of other ideologies into the political make-up of the countries where it specifically resides.

EDIT: spelling error
Last edited by Michael on Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11181
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: 13 Wounded at Fort Lauderdale Airport

Postby Michael on Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:33 pm

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:I believe China executes the most people, and that has nothing to do with Islam. Likewise, how many Muslims have killed westerners in the past ten years? Then look at how many Muslims have been killed by Western countries in the same time period. We are talking about a difference in the hundreds of thousands. I guess it's all about how you frame it and how narrow your perception is.

I think this thread is about claims of inherent violence in Islam and that this attack is one example of that, so in order to compare that to the USA led wars against Muslim countries of the past 25 years, which is a political policy, would not the comparison need to be made against another policy or ideology?

On one side, the USA military policy of invasion of Muslim countries has killed a lot more Muslims than is even possible by the kinds of attacks like the one in this thread or by other suicide bombers, terrorist attacks, etc. Is there any religious component to the USA invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan and related smaller wars in other Muslim countries? Certainly the Bush, Jr. admin. wanted to frame it that way in order to appeal to religious fundamentalists, but I don't think it's the case.

While I think the Muslims killed in their own countries by our invasions are crimes, that would be true regardless of their religion or mine. The wars are an important discussion, but I think the point here is mainly focused on the topic of immigration to Western countries by people from a variety of Muslim countries, and the alleged problems created by that immigration, based on political policies, which require so-called apologists for Islam that coincide with the immigrations. The immigration issue is mostly separate from the wars, although the refugee crisis starts to mix both topics together.

So, I don't think the number of Muslims killed by USA led wars, as regrettable as they are, is directly relevant to the claimed problems with Muslim immigration into Western countries or the claim that some Islamists are inherently violent.
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11181
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: 13 Wounded at Fort Lauderdale Airport

Postby Steve James on Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:09 pm

It is not the West that needs diversity by treating all "Muslism" the same without consideration of their regional ideological beliefs, it is Islam which needs diversity by allowing scrutiny of its policies and inclusion of other ideologies into the political make-up of the countries where it specifically resides.


I get confused because at on one hand the talk is about Islam and on the other about Muslim countries and regional differences. All Muslims by definition are part of and follow Islam. It's called the "Ummah" or collective community. So, granted, it's relatively simple to isolate particular political ideologies within Islam, those are regional and cultural differences that often have nothing to do with the religion. The exact same thing is true in the west. But, that's not even a problem. The problem is that the general "Islam is"... rhetoric offers no real solution. For ex., what about the Alawis, like Assad. Are we for or against him? What about the Wahabis in Saudi Arabia? What about Erdogan in Turkey? Let's not even start about Indonesian or Asian Muslims, who all are part of Islam. And, Pakistan, etc. "Islam" is about 1.5 billion human beings. We know for a fact that they all do not have the same politics or economic ideology. Indeed, the world war going on right now is within Islam.

I recall people pointing out how "the west" destabilized Iran, supported Iraq, etc., which led to the rise of an ideology of "kick out the westerners, specifically because they were supporting Israel. Well, the reason for supporting Israel (which didn't happen because anyone liked Jews) was to gain access to Arabian oil (which, after all, was the goal of western power in the region. It was about Suez and the Straits of Hormuz. Anyway, in the 80s, during the Palestinian uprisings in Israel, and the beginning of Arab (Muslim) terrorism, the complaint was there was no unity in the Arab world based on religion. It still is split in terms of religious ideology. Iraq is not Iran is not Lebanon.

I'm not justifying any act of terror. I'm saying that there's no history of Islam being any more dominating than "Christianity" as in Rome or the British Empire. And, I wouldn't even say that anything done politically or economically by the west is Christian in any sense or motivated by Christian doctrine. The religious conflict today is within Islam (often based on who is supported by the west). For example, pick almost any Islamic country (Turkey, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan). Otoh, the economic conflict is between western interests and those who are more "nationalistic" when it comes to the Middle East. Iow, they are like those in the west who argue that immigrants are come in and take resources from the natives. They say that that is the pattern wherever there are westerners in the world.

Fwiw, I support Israel's right to exist, but purely on humanitarian grounds. I.e., it's not because we need a partner in the ME, or because of Judaism. There's no religious reason why the people can't coexist peacefully. Ok, then there's the issue of new settlements, water access and Zionism. The arguments people give today about Islam are almost exactly the same as the ones historically used against Jews.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 15756
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: 13 Wounded at Fort Lauderdale Airport

Postby Michael on Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:36 pm

Steve James wrote:The arguments people give today about Islam are almost exactly the same as the ones historically used against Jews.

What I'm getting from sources like Sargon is that the finer points that you just described are not discussed, but that the left is going so far to support a political policy of immigration that is overall unpopular with current citizens, that the policty makers and their far left supporters totally ignore social problems and crimes from Muslim immigrants, and then become apologists for just about any problems associated with that religion in order to prevent substantive discussion on the particulars of immigration policy. So when people want to give examples of problems with Muslim immigration, they're not allowed to distinguish between the small minority of "bad" ones and the normal ones, or to discuss problems with Muslim integration to the existing society and culture.

It's difficult for me to form an opinion on what the problems with the immigration policies really are because I have very little experience with it, and I also believe in religious freedom, so it's also not easy to accept the claim from the letter read in Sargon's video that Islam is an "imperialist political ideology", but the part of the topic that I can address is the sort of left vs. right situation, where it seems terms like Islamaphobia are meant to shut down discussion.
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11181
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: 13 Wounded at Fort Lauderdale Airport

Postby Steve James on Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:41 pm

So, I don't think the number of Muslims killed by USA led wars, as regrettable as they are, is directly relevant to the claimed problems with Muslim immigration into Western countries or the claim that some Islamists are inherently violent.


Michael, here's the problem with your argument. One, in the parts of Europe I know, Muslim immigration had begun in the 50s and 60s. In Germany, it was the Turks who'd come as "gastarbeiters" to help rebuild the nation in the post-war. In France, it was the Algerians. Watch the "Battle of Algiers" if you ever have a chance, btw. I wasn't in England, it was people from Pakistan and India who went there. Ok, I'm simplifying, but there was no religious culture clash in those countries. Otoh, there were and have been plenty of complaints by people (who were called the 'right') about immigration of foreigners, but not just or specifically Muslim.

Anyway, sure, it's reasonable to address the matter of a person's political ideology. It makes sense to be careful about who is allowed into the country. Yet, in the US, are we really concerned about people changing the culture? Or, is the argument that we don't want falafel trucks or mosques, the same way some don't want too many taco trucks?

Frankly, I have an opinion about treating those who have no shelter, etc., but it's not my call. I know what I'd like to happen to me. Imo, there's no way to stop someone who wants to do damage. In fact, I recall not too long ago when people were saying that all the security stuff was exaggerated. That the whole "anti-terrorism" thing was a ploy to increase government control. "Giving up liberty for the sake of security," was the phrase often used. "OBL was a myth, and we didn't kill him." Remember :)
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 15756
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: 13 Wounded at Fort Lauderdale Airport

Postby windwalker on Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:19 pm

It's difficult for me to form an opinion on what the problems with the immigration policies really are because I have very little experience with it, and I also believe in religious freedom, so it's also not easy to accept the claim from the letter read in Sargon's video that Islam is an "imperialist political ideology", but the part of the topic that I can address is the sort of left vs. right situation, where it seems terms like Islamaphobia are meant to shut down discussion


Thanks for a well reasoned and thoughtfule post. I do have experience with immigration policies and services. Not good.

Because it is primariliy a political ideology containing a religion, it should be treated akin to any political ideology, such as communism, capitalism, fasism, etc., and should not be treated reverently. It should be critically scrutinized, but it's not, which is how Islamists are winning, by incorporating Koranic and Prophetic theocracy into their arguments and then taking cover behind laws against apostacy and blasphemy, preventing effective counter-arguments.


excatly ;)
Last edited by windwalker on Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:52 pm, edited 5 times in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 5823
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: 13 Wounded at Fort Lauderdale Airport

Postby Michael on Tue Jan 10, 2017 8:00 pm

Steve James wrote:
Michael wrote:So, I don't think the number of Muslims killed by USA led wars, as regrettable as they are, is directly relevant to the claimed problems with Muslim immigration into Western countries or the claim that some Islamists are inherently violent.


Michael, here's the problem with your argument. One, in the parts of Europe I know, Muslim immigration had begun in the 50s and 60s. In Germany, it was the Turks who'd come as "gastarbeiters" to help rebuild the nation in the post-war. In France, it was the Algerians. Watch the "Battle of Algiers" if you ever have a chance, btw. I wasn't in England, it was people from Pakistan and India who went there. Ok, I'm simplifying, but there was no religious culture clash in those countries. Otoh, there were and have been plenty of complaints by people (who were called the 'right') about immigration of foreigners, but not just or specifically Muslim.

Anyway, sure, it's reasonable to address the matter of a person's political ideology. It makes sense to be careful about who is allowed into the country. Yet, in the US, are we really concerned about people changing the culture? Or, is the argument that we don't want falafel trucks or mosques, the same way some don't want too many taco trucks?

Yes, I agree from the little I know about Muslim immigration to the USA and Europe during that period that it can be shown there is no inherent reason to ban Muslim immigration (which is one of the things I thought Trump said so very, very stupidly when he should have talked about country of origin and specific levels of risk). I also think there is very little chance of even those immigrating to the USA, of any kind, who don't want to integrate, becoming much of a problem, mostly because of the numbers. We already have lots of religious fundamentalists and I think a pluralist society can figure it out. Go to Provo if you have any doubts, lol.

Yeah, I watched Battle of Algiers some time ago, extremely good and memorable film, including its depiction of torture. Also saw The Lost Command (1966) with Anthony Quinn that gives a more mainstream view of the situation ::) . I much prefer Battle of Algiers and think that the director also made a masterpiece a few years later with Burn! (1969), starring Marlon Brando, about slavery in the sugar plantations of the Caribbean.

Frankly, I have an opinion about treating those who have no shelter, etc., but it's not my call. I know what I'd like to happen to me. Imo, there's no way to stop someone who wants to do damage. In fact, I recall not too long ago when people were saying that all the security stuff was exaggerated. That the whole "anti-terrorism" thing was a ploy to increase government control. "Giving up liberty for the sake of security," was the phrase often used. "OBL was a myth, and we didn't kill him." Remember :)

What? What?? Who in the world said such things? I have some vague recollection. :D

My argument is about the left vs. right discussion, that labeling people's disagreements with some or all of an ideology, such as Islam, as an irrational fear, such as Islamaphobia, is part of a larger problem in the West related to politcal correctness, which I mentioned a couple of weeks ago was classified by Dr. Jordan Peterson as a radical, leftist/Marxist ideology.

Another point is that there appears to be a change in parts of the Muslim world in the past 30-40 years, such as the rise of Wahabi-ism and ISIS, that may be connected to recent alleged problems of integration of Muslim immigrants in Western countries. However, yeah my inner conspiracy theorist says that is directly related to USA/Western support for jihadi warfare, ie. our creation of Al Queada, that is admitted by its creators Robert Gates, Zbigniew Brzezinski, etc., at least that they created the jihadi phenomenon and, that in spite of "blowback", its usefulness militarily is worth the costs, paraphrasing Brzezinski's interview from '93 with that French rag. Have never heard him answer if 9/11 was worth it since he supports the US govt. explanation that Al Queada did it, which is why we had to invade Afghanistan without evidence, invade Iraq (again) without evidence, and so on. Sorry, maybe going off topic.
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11181
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: 13 Wounded at Fort Lauderdale Airport

Postby Michael on Tue Jan 10, 2017 8:04 pm

windwalker wrote:
It's difficult for me to form an opinion on what the problems with the immigration policies really are because I have very little experience with it, and I also believe in religious freedom, so it's also not easy to accept the claim from the letter read in Sargon's video that Islam is an "imperialist political ideology", but the part of the topic that I can address is the sort of left vs. right situation, where it seems terms like Islamaphobia are meant to shut down discussion


Thanks for a well reasoned and thoughtfule post. I do have experience with immigration policies and services. Not good.

Because it is primariliy a political ideology containing a religion, it should be treated akin to any political ideology, such as communism, capitalism, fasism, etc., and should not be treated reverently. It should be critically scrutinized, but it's not, which is how Islamists are winning, by incorporating Koranic and Prophetic theocracy into their arguments and then taking cover behind laws against apostacy and blasphemy, preventing effective counter-arguments.


excatly ;)

Have been watching Sargon's vids for a few weeks, which also lead to other youtube channels that give various viewpoints. Got to Jordan Peterson's channel from there, he takes a lot of time to explain his POV, which is not about Muslim immigration, but about political correctness, which I think is related. Peterson says look for people who do a good job of disagreeing with you. Part of my reason for watching these vids is to better understand the people who voted for Trump or Brexit.
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11181
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: 13 Wounded at Fort Lauderdale Airport

Postby windwalker on Tue Jan 10, 2017 8:18 pm

Part of my reason for watching these vids is to better understand the people who voted for Trump or Brexit.


haha good. I look at "trump" "brexit" in of themselves as symptoms its not about them directly more like a reaction in order to correct
One that I would have thought would have been expected even predicted.

Some of the channels you mentioned lay out things a very logical way with lots of supporting facts and evidence.
With Sargon, his SJW clips are very funny as I find a lot what he mentions being played out here.
Last edited by windwalker on Tue Jan 10, 2017 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 5823
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: 13 Wounded at Fort Lauderdale Airport

Postby Steve James on Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:43 am

Well, you can speak of Islamic terrorists during the last 40 years. But Christian terrorism has been in the Americas for the last 500. Start with Columbus letters, the Pilgrims, the slave holders, the segregation it's, all Christianity who used the Bible to justify their actions against others. Many still do.

It is reasonable to distinguish between what people do, the religion they claim to practice and their culture or ethnicity. Some people can't do it. However, all I care about is what people do with their ideas about people.

Nobody can reason me into disliking or stigmatizing a group of people. Not the Russians, or the Vietnamese, or Germans, or Jews, or even "White" people. BTW, remember we used to have Muslims posting here. None agreed with Islamic terrorism. AFAIK, none remain. I note the outrage when anyone brings up the KKK or Nazis. Usually, the counter is that there are people with similar views in all groups. Yeah, we know. What is you suggestion for a final solution? How do we eliminate them. I'll accept it for all of them.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 15756
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: 13 Wounded at Fort Lauderdale Airport

Postby Michael on Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:17 am

I guess the response is that no one that I know of tries to deny Christian terrorism in the past or present, but the extreme left's political ideology is not only to deny that there are any social problems related to some tiny minority of Muslims immigrating to Western countries, but then accuse people trying to discuss it of being racists. Then extreme lefties in office go on to deny their responsibility for the alleged causes of economic problems that are occurring at the same time as the immigration policies, while also doing nothing to alleviate the symptoms of either problem, all while seemingly either terribly out of touch, like Clinton, IMO regarding her understanding of Trump's popularity, or in denial, like some say about Jeremy Corbyn, although I don't really know about him, but I include him here for a Trump/Brexit viewpoint of the topic.
Last edited by Michael on Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11181
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

PreviousNext

Return to Off the Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest