- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 31,645
- Reaction score
- 7,598
- Location
- Canada, Costa Rica
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
What a weird poll is that?
Of course, radical Islam is NOT compatible with a free society.
The much more interesting questions are:
- how "moderate" is mainstream Islam?
- is mainstream Islam compatible with a free society?
- how large is the share of radical vs. mainstream vs. moderate Muslims among all Muslims?
How would we define a 'moderate' Muslim?
How would we define a 'moderate' Muslim?
that's not such a bad definition. The kind you find more at home and less on the streets. Would the male head of the household feel his wife has to wear a head covering, be allowed to drive, go outdoors without an escort? And how easy is it to be a 'moderate' in a Muslim dominated country?I'd say a moderate is someone who balances religion with other aspects of their life, such as work and family.
There are many Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus and Agnostics who are nutty as well, so every time Islam is mentioned it's not a requirement to also mention Christianity.I'd say, when he's not any more opposed to constitutional values than a "moderate Christian" or "moderate Jew", that's fine.
There are Christians who are more than a bit nutty, and it's their right to be, as long as they respect the law and constitution and strictly oppose violence in the name of their religion. The same should apply to Muslims, IMO.
that's not such a bad definition. The kind you find more at home and less on the streets. Would the male head of the household feel his wife has to wear a head covering, be allowed to drive, go outdoors without an escort? And how easy is it to be a 'moderate' in a Muslim dominated country?
To answer the original question, NO. Absolutely not. These are thoroughly evil supremacists, and there is no living in the world with them. They are part of a cult of blood, cruelty and death. We should send them all to hell, as soon as possible, and we should not hesitate to use very powerful weapons to do it. That will unavoidably mean the deaths of many innocent people, but that is a part of modern war. War criminals cannot be allowed to survive by sheltering among other people, and whoever refuses to turn them out, in whatever country, should expect to share their fate.
The notion that we can't fight a billion and a half people is mindless slop. Of course that's the last think any sane person wants, and it is not necessary. I am sure most of the world's Muslims are amenable to sharing the world with other people. But before that can happen, I think many of them will need to be taught a very hard lesson they will never forget. They need to see just what happens to the savages among them who choose to wage war on the United States.
Let a couple hundred thousand jihadists be killed, let it be done without much apparent effort, so that they and their dreams of glory are exposed as weak and foolish--and all the rest, all over the world, who might secretly have been applauding them in their war against our way of life will quickly start being very careful to condemn them. No better way to make a movement an object of scorn, in a culture of shame like theirs, than to absolutely crush its followers without seeming even to try very hard.
Them, or us. It's that simple, in the end. People here should stop wringing their hands and trying to deny the obvious, and resolve to go after these vermin, hammer and tongs, with whatever it takes.
Good lord. The real danger is that someone like you gain a position of power in the world.
Playing wack-a-mole with Muslim extremists is playing right into their hands. For every one you kill, ten will emerge. Especially if you bomb 'many innocent people', which you admit is unavoidable.
You're a neocon's wet dream on steroids.
What the hell is a neocon?
I've seen that kind of personally insulting drivel directed at other posters enough times to know the likes of you use it as a mindless substitute for the reasoned arguments you don't have game enough to make. If those other ten bastards you claim will come out for each one that's killed actually do, I'm sure the U.S. has more than enough bombs to kill them too.
What the hell is a neocon? And whose wet dream do you imagine you are? I've seen that kind of personally insulting drivel directed at other posters enough times to know the likes of you use it as a mindless substitute for the reasoned arguments you don't have game enough to make. If those other ten bastards you claim will come out for each one that's killed actually do, I'm sure the U.S. has more than enough bombs to kill them too.
By your lights, bombing the Germans and Japanese in WWII was playing right into their hands. For every one we killed, ten more emerged. We should just have talked nicely to them and tried to understand their point of view, because it's always wrong to make any other human feel invalidated and yucky. And violence never solves anything. And an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. And arms are for hugging . . .
Extremism in Iraq was always Muslims murdering other Muslims. The Americans and other democracies actually introduced democracy to the country for the first time in its history. ISIS arose only after the American and Coalition forces withdrew, with BHO calling the country 'stable' at that time.Neocons were responsible for the Iraq invasion, which amplified terrorism and extremism in the region to an unprecedented degree.
He did not say "kill 'em all". That is false. The only number mentioned was "a couple of hundred thousand", which is a very modest guess at the number of terrorists and their sympathizers..Your argument boils down to, 'Kill 'em all'. Do you think that is a reasoned position?
Is radical Islam compatible with a free society?
Extremism in Iraq was always Muslims murdering other Muslims. The Americans and other democracies actually introduced democracy to the country for the first time in its history. ISIS arose only after the American and Coalition forces withdrew, with BHO calling the country 'stable' at that time.
He did not say "kill 'em all". That is false.
Are you making the argument that Islamic terrorists should be allowed to run free?
We are seeing restriction on a free and open society even in the US from islamists.
Since radical Islam considers itself at war with the rest of the world, including non-radicalized muslims, I think the question pretty much answers itself.
Presumably this is Muslims being restricted because their following a law that is more restrictive than US law? If it's voluntary so what? Is US being violated?
And if so are the violators not being arrested on a large scale?
This is not a wargame for me to "concede."
Weak-o-pedia is not worth my time, and it never works in debates with me.
"concession" is a debate term where you concede that the other's position is the correct one.
It's a list of conflicts and the deaths as a result of them. If the truth and facts are not "worth your time" then what is?
here are some not wiki...
Highest death toll from wars | Guinness World Records
American War Deaths Through History
World War II death toll of all nations
Would you like to tell me how these don't count either?
Agreed. Nevermind that up to the level of medicine (where data is critical to living) wiki is almost always correct. He's being intellectually lazy.
2000 nigerians are believed killed today after a Boko Haram attack. Yesterday many died in Paris by local muslims. In france on new years day alone, nearly 1000 cars were burned by islamic "protestors". ISIS continues to flourish.
World wide, the death toll continues to climb-whats clear is that the presence of islam often leads to violence, in fact many of the worlds current military conflicts involve islam in a significant way. We live in an international world, where relations between nations matter, and where many value a free society.
Is radical Islam compatible with a free society?
"concession" is a debate term where you concede that the other's position is the correct one.
It's a list of conflicts and the deaths as a result of them. If the truth and facts are not "worth your time" then what is?
here are some not wiki...
Highest death toll from wars | Guinness World Records
American War Deaths Through History
World War II death toll of all nations
Would you like to tell me how these don't count either?
I do not prescribe to such military terms.
Yes, they do not count because they do not cover all the historical world wars that were not done in the name of religion. It is just WW1, WW2, and USA civil war. There is more than that in military exchanges.
The convincing non-Weaky references would have to put all the wars that were not done in the name of religion in one side, and put all the wars that were done in the name of religion on the other side. The death tolls from both should then be compared.
Pedophilia is almost universally lothed, at least here-though leftists try to let them out of jail asap.
Even amongst prisoners-pedophiles are unsafe.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?