Don't lose your head

[snipe10]

WTF, does the name calling help? Cabbage headed, or twat??? You guys are as bad as the politicians, how about just trying to listen to the other guy and then making your case in a civil manner. I don't know about any of you but when I'm called names, it makes it harder for me to see or hear the other guys side as I tend to just shut down.

 

[Doc68]

Typical. I'm done as I've kept my calm in this discussion. You can't come up with any answers when asked questions.

Feel free to PM me if you can carry a civil conversation without name calling.

 

[pteranadon]

from everything I've seen in this story is that the guy is wacko. It wouldn't of mattered if he said the devil made him do it or if he did it in the name of the "good book" He's a nutjob. period.
Not all muslims are bad or need to be held in cells or whatever you guys think.

Yes, it's trying times, but it's trying times for them also. I bet most muslims in the United States are great citizens and are afraid. Yes, afraid of angry people.
There are a lot of angry people out there.

Anyone who thinks aloud "that muslims are bad people" are NO

let me repeat NO better than those down there in ferguson demanding the police officer be arrested and charged and is guilty even before a trial begins.

It appears a lot of people are finding all muslims guilty in same fashion.

the "animals" down in feruson are just that. animals.

are we going to start looting and "looking for justice" the same manner now?

for fuck's sake, stop copying the freakin animals down in ferguson.

 

[pmclaine]

I agree with you on that! PC is what created a lot of issues these days.

Here is a timely real world example of how bending over backwards ends up just putting you in a good position to see the meat sword plunge into your backside.

Robert Spencer: An ISIS Nest Grows in Boston - David Horowitz Freedom Center

 

[Veer_G]

WTF, does the name calling help? Cabbage headed, or twat??? You guys are as bad as the politicians, how about just trying to listen to the other guy and then making your case in a civil manner. I don't know about any of you but when I'm called names, it makes it harder for me to see or hear the other guys side as I tend to just shut down.

I need to make a case for not wanting to have to put up with dirty looks and nasty, mistaken comments? I need to make a case for resenting like hell the fact that some people think that it's okay to start subjecting people who look like they fit a profile to ridiculous, repeated official scrutiny? What do we need to do? Sit-in at the lunch counters? Offer our shins up to police dogs in Selma, AL? Wade through the water from fire hoses?

It's my constitution, too, and I reserve the right to take full advantage of it. Do you really think that calling people cabbage-heads is unfair in response to an implied threat to turn certain folks in this country into second-class citizens? I'd say that if you do your sense of balance and justice is a bit out of whack.

 

[EventHorizon]

WTF, does the name calling help? Cabbage headed, or twat??? You guys are as bad as the politicians, how about just trying to listen to the other guy and then making your case in a civil manner. I don't know about any of you but when I'm called names, it makes it harder for me to see or hear the other guys side as I tend to just shut down.

I have sympathy for this view, it's logical and mature and in 99% of cases, it's the right thing to do. However, where's the common ground for having a conversation when someone feels that they are entitled to summarily round you, your family and everyone who 'looks' like an muslim - not actual terrorists, just someone who looks muslim - into concentration camps. It's a lot easier to be dispassionate and objective when the topic doesn't have a real life impact on you. For me it does. I've had goons give me the stare, I've even had two goons think they could follow me out a store to 'set me straight'. It didn't work out they way they wanted it to. I admit, I get hot under the collar, but it's because I have real world concern over mine and my families safety because of people like the assholes on their thread - it's not just academic to me.

Goons, and sorry for the name calling, but that's really what they are, like Doc and others are not to be reasoned with because there's so much info out there to arrive at a reasonable conclusion that for them to think like they do - well, they're just goons.

It's like the comments about the clips where the muslims only talk about they're afraid of reprisals but yet they don't condemn the actions of the loon who cut of the head of the HR lady.

Seriously!?! We bitch about the media, with good reason, ALL THE TIME, yet when it comes to reporting on muslims we take it all on full value faith that all context is represented fairly...

also, why should they condemn what happened? Why are they obliged to? Maybe they think it's the actions of someone who has nothing truly in common with them. Are all white people obliged to condemn and apologize for the actions of the KKK every time they do something? I would say not.

I view the speech of Doc and others as out and out hate speech and incitement and as such, a real threat to me and my family. I believe in the 1st Amendment. Doc can think (as poorly) whatever he wants and say it, but he ever gets the guts to 'do' then to me, he's a terrorist as there's no difference between him and the loons in mosques inciting violence against infidels.

Hope that gives some light on the topic.

 

[pmclaine]

from everything I've seen in this story is that the guy is wacko.

You are absolutely right....and so was Adam Lanza, and so is Jared Loughner, and so is James Holmes yet that didnt stop the diversity team from coming after every member of this site. Show me where any firearms organization has issued a call for these crimes to be committed. Show me where the NRA cut a check to pay for any of these heinous crimes to be committed.

So we of all people should understand tolerance of the greater group and not taint them with the crimes of the few.

The problem arises when we identify the threat and we bow to PC instead of going after it. Why have we criminally indicted the leadership of CAIR yet we still give the organization special privlidge and they get pretty much open door access to our elected leaders?

The entire organization doesnt walk, swim and quack like a duck but if the leaders are sounding that way, inciting crimes or funding them, lets cut the crap and call them ducks.

 

[EventHorizon]

You are absolutely right....and so was Adam Lanza, and so is Jared Loughner, and so is James Holmes yet that didnt stop the diversity team from coming after every member of this site. Show me where any firearms organization has issued a call for these crimes to be committed. Show me where the NRA cut a check to pay for any of these heinous crimes to be committed.

So we of all people should understand tolerance of the greater group and not taint them with the crimes of the few.

The problem arises when we identify the threat and we bow to PC instead of going after it. Why have we criminally indicted the leadership of CAIR yet we still give the organization special privlidge and they get pretty much open door access to our elected leaders?

The entire organization doesnt walk, swim and quack like a duck but if the leaders are sounding that way, inciting crimes or funding them, lets cut the crap and call them ducks.

So because of loopholes in lobbying laws we should as the most obvious and next best thing to plugging those loopholes go to throwing the Constitution completely out the window? You do realize that theres a difference between PC and the Constitution right...?

 

[pteranadon]

I'm not about PC, I just want to make sure we are all level headed. I have seen enough stupid f'cks basically out for all muslims. A few too many in here are wanting the blood to flow. I do not want to be associated with any dumbshit that talks that way. If you are protecting your house, so be it. blow the f'n head off the criminal. If you are protecting yourself outside the home, do it. If you are military and in the war, I encourage you. But coming in here and spouting off and encouraging hate among a group in which is obvious not all are like what we are "out" for; is just plain stupid.

The "Oklahoma" thread is no longer there for a reason.

 

[Doc68]

You J

I have sympathy for this view, it's logical and mature and in 99% of cases, it's the right thing to do. However, where's the common ground for having a conversation when someone feels that they are entitled to summarily round you, your family and everyone who 'looks' like an muslim - not actual terrorists, just someone who looks muslim - into concentration camps. It's a lot easier to be dispassionate and objective when the topic doesn't have a real life impact on you. For me it does. I've had goons give me the stare, I've even had two goons think they could follow me out a store to 'set me straight'. It didn't work out they way they wanted it to. I admit, I get hot under the collar, but it's because I have real world concern over mine and my families safety because of people like the assholes on their thread - it's not just academic to me.

Goons, and sorry for the name calling, but that's really what they are, like Doc and others are not to be reasoned with because there's so much info out there to arrive at a reasonable conclusion that for them to think like they do - well, they're just goons.

It's like the comments about the clips where the muslims only talk about they're afraid of reprisals but yet they don't condemn the actions of the loon who cut of the head of the HR lady.

Seriously!?! We bitch about the media, with good reason, ALL THE TIME, yet when it comes to reporting on muslims we take it all on full value faith that all context is represented fairly...

also, why should they condemn what happened? Why are they obliged to? Maybe they think it's the actions of someone who has nothing truly in common with them. Are all white people obliged to condemn and apologize for the actions of the KKK every time they do something? I would say not.

I view the speech of Doc and others as out and out hate speech and incitement and as such, a real threat to me and my family. I believe in the 1st Amendment. Doc can think (as poorly) whatever he wants and say it, but he ever gets the guts to 'do' then to me, he's a terrorist as there's no difference between him and the loons in mosques inciting violence against infidels.

Hope that gives some light on the topic.

Please show me where I stated every Muslim is a terrorist. Here's the quick answer, I didnt. All I stated was that we should be looking at them all a bit harder since they are the ones committing the crime. if that is "hate " speech you need to go out and get some thicker skin.

Once again you cannot come up with any answer to this current problem. Typical liberal, when they can't win an argument, call them racist and avoid the facts.

When do my rights to live peacefully and not worry about getting killed my a Muslim terrorist get put on the back burner to a group of people being allowed their freedom of speech, that incites violence?

 

[W54/XM-388]

The workplace violence story is such a line of BS it is not even laughable.
The guy was clearly a convert to the Muslim religion who had become radicalized and embraced the ideology of Convert or die.
He posted photos, videos and comments in abundance on YouTube and Social media espousing his radical beliefs.
He hit his tolerance limit for infidels & decided it was time to slaughter in the name of Allah.
His rampage was stopped by someone carrying a concealed weapon, otherwise he would have had a higher kill score.

Now contrast that with what happens if you happen to start posting YouTube videos and social media posts about wishing you could do harm to someone who lives in a big house painted the opposite of black in the middle of a district who's 2 initials match a comic book publisher's first 2 initials....
Well you most likely will get a very prompt visit from the Praetorian guard to determine if you need "encouragement" to engage in "right thinking", or if you need to be detained at the rulers pleasure.. And you can bet any of your friends or buddies who pose with you in photos or join in with encouraging comments will get their own personalized visit.

So obviously it's not that hard to keep an eye out for people going crazy on social media.
If only perhaps the politically correct BS and trying to pretend the followers of the Prophet are beyond reproach was eliminated and perhaps less tax money could be spent groping women and children at airports and more time / money could be spent watching YouTube & social media posts & flagging Muslims who are becoming radicalized and posting suggestions of potential craziness, and then paying them a visit to perhaps show them the error of their ways & keep them under non-covert surveillance, it might dissuade most from starting their own private Jihad.

The radicalization cycle is well understood and happens all over the western world, but fortunately for us, it usually goes hand in hand with public statements on social media... Seems like an easy enough thing to track down if one cared to do so.

That and of course what no "liberal" wishes to acknowledge.. that as many law abiding citizens carrying guns as possible is one of the most effective ways of quickly stopping the slaughter when someone decides to embark on their own private Jihad.

 

[pmclaine]

So because of loopholes in lobbying laws we should as the most obvious and next best thing to plugging those loopholes go to throwing the Constitution completely out the window? You do realize that theres a difference between PC and the Constitution right...?

Sure but if the leadership of a group is found to be funding an organization like Hamas or supporting those that incite violent action do we let it continue or do we say no that activity if acted upon, and it has been acted upon, violates the rights of others there fore the activity is invalid.

The Constitution shouldnt only protect criminality it should also ensure the pursuit of happiness for others. If an organizations stated principles disavow any of the Bill of Rights being enjoyed by others why is their organization legitimate?

The problem I have right now with the CJ system is that it seems heavily weighted to protect the criminal and the victim is given no voice at all. In the worst cases the victim has lost life itself and we ring our hands over the hardship we submit the criminal to. I dont give a rats ass about the criminal. I care about the victim. The criminal makes choices of its own free will. The victim is a victim through bad timing or use of force.

 

[Doc68]

M

The workplace violence story is such a line of BS it is not even laughable.
The guy was clearly a convert to the Muslim religion who had become radicalized and embraced the ideology of Convert or die.
He posted photos, videos and comments in abundance on YouTube and Social media espousing his radical beliefs.
He hit his tolerance limit for infidels & decided it was time to slaughter in the name of Allah.
His rampage was stopped by someone carrying a concealed weapon, otherwise he would have had a higher kill score.

Now contrast that with what happens if you happen to start posting YouTube videos and social media posts about wishing you could do harm to someone who lives in a big house painted the opposite of black in the middle of a district who's 2 initials match a comic book publisher's first 2 initials....
Well you most likely will get a very prompt visit from the Praetorian guard to determine if you need "encouragement" to engage in "right thinking", or if you need to be detained at the rulers pleasure.. And you can bet any of your friends or buddies who pose with you in photos or join in with encouraging comments will get their own personalized visit.

So obviously it's not that hard to keep an eye out for people going crazy on social media.
If only perhaps the politically correct BS and trying to pretend the followers of the Prophet are beyond reproach was eliminated and perhaps less tax money could be spent groping women and children at airports and more time / money could be spent watching YouTube & social media posts & flagging Muslims who are becoming radicalized and posting suggestions of potential craziness, and then paying them a visit to perhaps show them the error of their ways & keep them under non-covert surveillance, it might dissuade most from starting their own private Jihad.

The radicalization cycle is well understood and happens all over the western world, but fortunately for us, it usually goes hand in hand with public statements on social media... Seems like an easy enough thing to track down if one cared to do so.

That and of course what no "liberal" wishes to acknowledge.. that as many law abiding citizens carrying guns as possible is one of the most effective ways of quickly stopping the slaughter when someone decides to embark on their own private Jihad.

You can't single out a certain type of people. That would be crazy and racist......

That's sarcasm. After surviving the fort hood massacre 2 months after I got back from Iraq, I realized that PC was going to be the fall of this country.

 

[woojos]

Here is a timely real world example of how bending over backwards ends up just putting you in a good position to see the meat sword plunge into your backside.

Robert Spencer: An ISIS Nest Grows in Boston - David Horowitz Freedom Center

This is part of the problem and why I think you guy's need to turn off the TV and propaganda outputs and look into the issue a bit. The word 'ISIS' occurred three times in that article, all in the first paragraph.

The Muslim American Society mentioned in there was said to a lobbying group for the Muslim Brotherhood, not ISIS. I'm not an expert at this stuff, and only recently started looking into it, but they are both Sunni organizations and in competition for the title of dominant Jihadist organization. If anybody can talk more in detail about all the different Jihadi camps, that are at competition for each, I'm all ears. I think the Muslim Brotherhood is primarily in Egypt, and ISIS Iraq and Syria. There are a ton of other camps in there and not only to you have fights between dominant Sunni Jihadists, but then there still is the Sunni-Shia fight and competition between the Saudis and Iran, Hezbollah and the Palestinians and really a ton of competing and conflicting interests.

I also think a lot of the stuff you see happening in America is not some splinter cell or officially sanctioned action of these groups, but more sad, loser idiots who want to be part of something, and look at whoever is in the news at the time and pick that group to associate with.

 

[EventHorizon]

Sure but if the leadership of a group is found to be funding an organization like Hamas or supporting those that incite violent action do we let it continue or do we say no that activity if acted upon, and it has been acted upon, violates the rights of others there fore the activity is invalid.

OK. No-one's argued otherwise. I personally don't believe in any exemptions being given to religious groups of any kind.... what is your point in regards to this thread?!

Constitution shouldnt only protect criminality

It doesn't. In any way, shape or form.

problem I have right now with the CJ system is that it seems heavily weighted to protect the criminal and the victim is given no voice at all. In the worst cases the victim has lost life itself and we ring our hands over the hardship we submit the criminal to. I dont give a rats ass about the criminal. I care about the victim. The criminal makes choices of its own free will. The victim is a victim through bad timing or use of force.

No-one has disagreed or even mentioned this...

 

[Switchblade]

Oklahoma: Crowd of Muslims Shout ?Praise Allah?, Surround Police AFTER Beheading Conference - Downtrend

Imam Chants "Allah Akbar" During 9/11 Memorial At Catholic University In Florida » Shark Tank

I could do it all day long, you know, showing how these people hate US while they live in OUR lands and take our money

When you have seen enough, maybe you too will get so sick and tired that you want to kick them all out of our, yes, OUR country. I give a rat's ass about any 'rights' under teh constitution where they apply to these skurvy. Those rights were meant for AMERICAN's, not this kind of scum

 

[EventHorizon]

The workplace violence story is such a line of BS it is not even laughable.
The guy was clearly a convert to the Muslim religion who had become radicalized and embraced the ideology of Convert or die.
He posted photos, videos and comments in abundance on YouTube and Social media espousing his radical beliefs.
He hit his tolerance limit for infidels & decided it was time to slaughter in the name of Allah.
His rampage was stopped by someone carrying a concealed weapon, otherwise he would have had a higher kill score.

Now contrast that with what happens if you happen to start posting YouTube videos and social media posts about wishing you could do harm to someone who lives in a big house painted the opposite of black in the middle of a district who's 2 initials match a comic book publisher's first 2 initials....
Well you most likely will get a very prompt visit from the Praetorian guard to determine if you need "encouragement" to engage in "right thinking", or if you need to be detained at the rulers pleasure.. And you can bet any of your friends or buddies who pose with you in photos or join in with encouraging comments will get their own personalized visit.

So obviously it's not that hard to keep an eye out for people going crazy on social media.
If only perhaps the politically correct BS and trying to pretend the followers of the Prophet are beyond reproach was eliminated and perhaps less tax money could be spent groping women and children at airports and more time / money could be spent watching YouTube & social media posts & flagging Muslims who are becoming radicalized and posting suggestions of potential craziness, and then paying them a visit to perhaps show them the error of their ways & keep them under non-covert surveillance, it might dissuade most from starting their own private Jihad.

The radicalization cycle is well understood and happens all over the western world, but fortunately for us, it usually goes hand in hand with public statements on social media... Seems like an easy enough thing to track down if one cared to do so.

That and of course what no "liberal" wishes to acknowledge.. that as many law abiding citizens carrying guns as possible is one of the most effective ways of quickly stopping the slaughter when someone decides to embark on their own private Jihad.

The workplace violence label wasn't PC, it was just straight up politics. Anyone with a half-functioning brain could see it for what it was, terrorism.

There's been no viewpoint here that denies terrorism occurs and has occurred. The point here is what CSAR and Doc are saying and supporting - that we 'round 'em up'. It's interesting CSAR gone quiet since his post kicked off the shitstorm. Enjoying his handiwork I assume.

 

[pmclaine]

This is part of the problem and why I think you guy's need to turn off the TV and propaganda outputs and look into the issue a bit. The word 'ISIS' occurred three times in that article, all in the first paragraph.

The Muslim American Society mentioned in there was said to a lobbying group for the Muslim Brotherhood, not ISIS. I'm not an expert at this stuff, and only recently started looking into it, but they are both Sunni organizations and in competition for the title of dominant Jihadist organization. If anybody can talk more in detail about all the different Jihadi camps, that are at competition for each, I'm all ears. I think the Muslim Brotherhood is primarily in Egypt, and ISIS Iraq and Syria. There are a ton of other camps in there and not only to you have fights between dominant Sunni Jihadists, but then there still is the Sunni-Shia fight and competition between the Saudis and Iran, Hezbollah and the Palestinians and really a ton of competing and conflicting interests.

I also think a lot of the stuff you see happening in America is not some splinter cell or officially sanctioned action of these groups, but more sad, loser idiots who want to be part of something, and look at whoever is in the news at the time and pick that group to associate with.

If you ask me ISIS went off the reservation and jumped the gun on the Muslim Brotherhood while they were busy licking their wounds from the pounding they took in Egypt. A pounding the result of all the Bright Stars and other US/Egyptian training/indoctrination/education during the 80's and 90's. Despite what the powers that be would have you think the current govt in Egypt, while it may be a coup, is leagues better than what would have been had the MB stayed in power. The generals want to go back to a secular country that can enjoy the fruits of tourism and selling fake antiquities at the pyramids. It was no surprise what was coming if the MB stayed in power.

The MB stated goal is a caliphate and return to the "Golden Era" of islamic power. Little did they realize that a bunch of lunatics were going to take advantage of the mess in Iraq and Syria to proclaim the caliphate without them. The MB has the Nikita Kruschev "sell us the rope we will hang you with" outlook. ISIS is a "here and now" organization. ISIS will be allowed to be sacrificed because they are the upstarts to the established order. The MB will continue its work politically while having the same goals as ISIS.

Think Mississippi primary on a violent scale.

 

[diverdon]

I grew up in London during the height of the IRA bombings, lost a close family friend to them.

Ya should have stayed there. Yer welcolme to return anytime.

 

[EventHorizon]

Ya should have stayed there. Yer welcolme to return anytime.

Nah, if I wanted to go back to a liberal shitpit I'd move to NY...

 

[EventHorizon]

You J


Please show me where I stated every Muslim is a terrorist. Here's the quick answer, I didnt. All I stated was that we should be looking at them all a bit harder since they are the ones committing the crime. if that is "hate " speech you need to go out and get some thicker skin.

Once again you cannot come up with any answer to this current problem. Typical liberal, when they can't win an argument, call them racist and avoid the facts.

When do my rights to live peacefully and not worry about getting killed my a Muslim terrorist get put on the back burner to a group of people being allowed their freedom of speech, that incites violence?

View attachment 51390

Here, argue with this...

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

 

[EventHorizon]

Oklahoma: Crowd of Muslims Shout ?Praise Allah?, Surround Police AFTER Beheading Conference - Downtrend

Imam Chants "Allah Akbar" During 9/11 Memorial At Catholic University In Florida » Shark Tank

I could do it all day long, you know, showing how these people hate US while they live in OUR lands and take our money

When you have seen enough, maybe you too will get so sick and tired that you want to kick them all out of our, yes, OUR country. I give a rat's ass about any 'rights' under teh constitution where they apply to these skurvy. Those rights were meant for AMERICAN's, not this kind of scum

That's good thinking there. It's just saying gun owners are murderous thugs because Charlton Heston dared raise a rifle over his head after the Columbine shootings...

Seriously...

I'm exhausted. Too many people who can't see what the fuck they're saying has every opportunity on back firing on them. I'm done. Rabble rouse all you want. Give PA a wide berth.

 

[snipe10]

Veer, I get your point and if I was in your shoes, I would be offended too, I'm just saying that you'll have a much better chance of getting the "other guy" to see your point, and change, if you do it without resorting to name calling. All of us as individuals have had different experiences than the guy right next to us and who knows what he feels inside and for what reason.

Who knows, maybe whoever offended you had a life changing traumatic experience at the hand of someone not of his race or color. For example, if my sister was assaulted/raped/killed by a "___" person, I might not look at people of that race in the same way. Doesn't mean I'd think all those people are bad or rapists but it's just human nature to maybe take a second look at them.

Now these days with beheadings and attacks by terrorists (many who happen to be muslim or act or appear muslim) all in our face through the media who will exploit anything for ratings, people are nervous and scared. So a suggestion to "lock them all up and sort it out later" isn't really all that shocking. I personally don't agree with this approach but understand why some folks who are frustrated with our do nothing govt would suggest it.

Point is, I think reason and understanding are easier to achieve when we communicate in a civil fashion. I know (and I too don't always do so) this is easier said than done as when someone hits at your heart or soul, it's natural to react with emotion.

And yes I support your right to call anyone any name and I too get looks, but as I get older, I've tried to ignore those people and not give them the time of day.

Most of us here (there's always a few wacko's) seem to be pretty good guys. Just saying we all probably have a lot more in common than it sometimes appears.

I certainly hope I have not offended you or anyone and wish you the best. I can't imagine having to deal with some of the shit that you probably do.

 

[KYpatriot]

I will say this, everyone has an absolute right to their beliefs, whatever they are. They do not have an absolute right to act on those beliefs. It is clear that there are many Muslims in this country that want sharia law for the United States, just like there are many communists here that want to turn the US communist. As citizens of the US they are entitled to their opinions and are even free to try and convince me to join them by using their first amendment right to make an argument in the free marketplace of ideas. If that was all there was to it I wouldn't have a problem because I believe that people, when given an environment to make a truly free choice, would soundly reject the oppression and innate evil of the tyranny of either sharia law or communist rule.

The problem here is that Islam does not use the free marketplace of ideas alone to convince me. They make their argument against the backdrop of thousands upon thousands of violent acts that are committed expressly for the purpose of spreading sharia. It is just like the choice the mafia don offers, you can get the carrot or the stick, either way, it is an "offer you can't refuse." Let's be real, imams here in the US absolutely grow their ideology with the disaffected youth that are attracted to these acts even while meekly "rejecting violence" out the other side of their mouth. The entire religion benefits from the threat of violence from this subset of their membership because no business or city council or citizen wants to make themselves a target of such violence. Not even Comedy Central, which has absolutely insulted every religious or cultural figure America holds dear for a laugh on South Park, would allow a negative depiction of muhammad on their network.

So Islam operates just like a "peaceful" skinhead rally...the official line is peaceful protest while they rile everyone up with their hateful rhetoric and then when one of the acolytes acts on that rhetoric they get to claim innocence and start with the religion of peace BS. Then if that weren't circumventing the rule of law enough, when a citizen gets pissed off at this sham and calls them a name or speaks out against a mosque at ground zero then the Muslims play the victim card and claim racism, bigotry, and insensitivity. Claim victim status and cry injustice, use that to justify violence to achieve what your words never could, receive backlash, claim victim status...Rinse and repeat. Ever wonder why here in the US the rate baiters and the Muslims link up so much, or are even the same person? It's because as a society we often appease when we should have stood on principle.

That's how it is. With those facts on the ground, when so many Muslims around the world commit atrocious acts of violence in the name of their ideology then I absolutely begin to "profile" someone if they identify with that ideology, just like I would if they were a skinhead or communist or other value system I disagree with. An ideology does not get a free pass just because it is also claims to be a religion. We would have killed nazis all the same in the 1940s if they were a religion called the church of hitler, and we still would have been justified in doing so, because it was an ideology, not a people group, we were trying to defeat.

Some ideas are diametrically opposed, and cannot co-exist in the same space without one of them bending their beliefs to accommodate the other. Islam and our Constitution are that way. Communism and the Constitution are that way. If the rule of law will continue to exist here, then sharia cannot, unless sharia changes to conform to our law in every area it conflicts. When the imams here begin preaching THAT, that the fundamental elements of sharia must change, then I'll listen to their assertion that it is a religion of peace. Until then, our Constitutional Republic is on a collision course with Islam because the core tenants of each are incompatible. I won't apologize for that, and if those circumstances make life in the US increasingly uncomfortable for Muslims then whose fault is that? Of course they should not be arrested for mere belief, but if those beliefs mean that they are subjected to extra scrutiny, or that the general public dislikes them because of the violence so many do in the name of that belief, then so be it. No one here is entitled to acceptance, or welcome, or to be given a community where their beliefs cost them nothing when they are incompatible with the core principles of our society.

 

[pmclaine]

OK. No-one's argued otherwise. I personally don't believe in any exemptions being given to religious groups of any kind.... what is your point in regards to this thread?!

Okay than I guess you are agreeing. If an organization is found to be funding, supporting or inciting violence than it is illegitimate. I didnt say a religious group and as far as the subject of this post goes more so than any other religion, islam is a political organization.

It doesn't. In any way, shape or form.

Who gets to plead the fifth?, who gets the right to a speedy trial?, who gets to administer cruel and unusual punishment yet at the same time avoid it?

In days not too long ago a criminal reaped what was sown. Now we have the "Free Mumia movement". Even Tsarneav got a fawning spread in Rolling Stone and all Martin Richard got was dead. This is not a result of the way the Constitution is written its a result of how "we" have voted and how those we have put in power have decided to interpret things.

The protections the citizen enjoys as natural rights are correct in their being revered the problem comes about when it comes time for someone that has of their own free will chosen to violate the rights of others in society and we fail to step up and support the victim. The crap that is going on now would not be happening if we valued the rights of everyday Joe as much as we valued the rights of "chosen" others. In this country no organization or individual is legitimate that does not accept and respect the COTUS and especially the Bill of Rights. I think the disconnect comes from the fact the people we put in power no longer can relate to the issues everyday Joe deals with. Their "class" has little to do with the day to day life of average citizen. Once they attain their position they are pretty much guaranteed a lifetime of insulation from the issues your or I face (excuse my assumption that you or I are similar). Who gives more to make life good for this class? Me and you or the Saudi Govt?

 

[EventHorizon]

I will say this, everyone has an absolute right to their beliefs, whatever they are. They do not have an absolute right to act on those beliefs. It is clear that there are many Muslims in this country that want sharia law for the United States, just like there are many communists here that want to turn the US communist. As citizens of the US they are entitled to their opinions and are even free to try and convince me to join them by using their first amendment right to make an argument in the free marketplace of ideas. If that was all there was to it I wouldn't have a problem because I believe that people, when given an environment to make a truly free choice, would soundly reject the oppression and innate evil of the tyranny of either sharia law or communist rule.

The problem here is that Islam does not use the free marketplace of ideas alone to convince me. They make their argument against the backdrop of thousand upon thousands of violent acts that are committed expressly for the purpose of spreading sharia. It is just like the choice the mafia don offers, you can get the carrot or the stick, either way, it is an "offer you can't refuse." Let's be real, imams here in the US absolutely grow their ideology with the disaffected youth that are attracted to these acts even while meekly "rejecting violence" out the other side of their mouth. The entire religion benefits from the threat of violence from this subset of their membership because no business or city council or citizen wants to make themselves a target of such violence. Not even Comedy Central, which has absolutely insulted every religious or cultural figure America holds dear for a laugh on South Park, would allow a negative depiction of muhammad on their network. Islam operates just like a "peaceful" skinhead rally...the official line is peaceful protest while they rile everyone up with their hateful rhetoric and then when one of the acolytes acts on that rhetoric they get to claim innocence and start with the religion of peace BS. Then if that weren't circumventing the rule of law enough, when a citizen gets pissed off at this sham and calls them a name or speaks out against a mosque at ground zero then the Muslims play the victim card and claim racism, bigotry, and insensitivity. Claim victim status and cry injustice, use that to justify violence to achieve what your words never could, receive backlash, claim victim status...Rinse and repeat.

That's how it is. With those facts on the ground, when so many Muslims around the world commit atrocious acts of violence in the name of their ideology then I absolutely begin to "profile" someone if they identify with that ideology, just like I would if they were a skinhead or communist or other value system I disagree with. An ideology does not get a free pass just because it is also claims to be a religion. We would have killed nazis all the same in the 1940s if they were a religion called the church of hitler, and we still would have been justified in doing so, because it was an ideology, not a people group, we were trying to defeat.

Some ideas are diametrically opposed, and cannot co-exist in the same space without one of them bending their beliefs to accommodate the other. Islam and our Constitutional are that way. Communism and the Constitution are that way. If the rule of law will continue to exist here, then sharia cannot unless sharia changes to conform to our law in every area it conflicts. When the imams here begin preaching THAT, that the fundamental elements of sharia must change, then I'll listen to their assertion that it is a religion of peace. Until then, our Constitutional Republic is on a collision course with Islam because the core tenants of each are incompatible. I won't apologize for that, and if those circumstances make life in the US increasingly uncomfortable for Muslims then whose fault is that? They may not be arrested for mere belief, but if those beliefs mean that they are subjected to extra scrutiny or the general public dislikes them because of the violence so many do in the name of that belief then so be it. No one here is entitled to acceptance, or welcome, or to be given a community where their belief cost them nothing even though it is incompatible with the core principles of our society.

Incompatibility of the Constitution and any dogma that subjects the will of the individual to the will of the group or 'higher' power above the law of the land is the same. Look at the mega-churches that are pushing to subject laws and education to their christian beliefs despite the clear separation of church and state. I can, and do, argue that WHATEVER your beliefs, if they are not aligned or in conflict with the Constitution then you're the one who has to bend, not the Constitution. However, many christians don't feel that applies to them. They'll object to sharia (rightly so) yet they think entitled to push their views on others - abortion, gays, creationism vs evolution, stem-cell research etc. There's no difference and some of those groups have resorted to violence as well. How many doctors in abortion clinics have been killed, attacked, harassed?

The point of no entitlement to welcome is valid, no-one's asking for free hugs, but Pursuit of Happiness means just that. Hostility of opinion has no place in making that pursuit impossible or any more difficult than it is for anyone else.

My personal belief is this, be American first, whatever else second and if need be, privately at home. That gets me all sorts of comments of racist, bigot, redneck etc, but I'm fine with that because it's a position I believe in, live by and can easily point to examples of where national identity fragmentation led to destruction and war. However, what I do NOT abide by are people like Switchblade et al who say they have some innate powers to determine who is and isn't American. Forget that, that's just jingo bullshit without any thought.

Bottom line for me is this - act on those who have broken laws, that's the due process of our Constitution. I've no problem with profiling, I have a problem with harassment. I'll answer extra questions, no problem. I have a problem with intimidation and threats.

 

[EventHorizon]

Okay than I guess you are agreeing. If an organization is found to be funding, supporting or inciting violence than it is illegitimate. I didnt say a religious group and as far as the subject of this post goes more so than any other religion, islam is a political organization.





Who gets to plead the fifth?, who gets the right to a speedy trial?, who gets to administer cruel and unusual punishment yet at the same time avoid it?

In days not too long ago a criminal reaped what was sown. Now we have the "Free Mumia movement". Even Tsarneav got a fawning spread in Rolling Stone and all Martin Richard got was dead. This is not a result of the way the Constitution is written its a result of how "we" have voted and how those we have put in power have decided to interpret things.

The protections the citizen enjoys as natural rights are correct in their being revered the problem comes about when it comes time for someone that has of their own free will chosen to violate the rights of others in society and we fail to step up and support the victim. The crap that is going on now would not be happening if we valued the rights of everyday Joe as much as we valued the rights of "chosen" others. In this country no organization or individual is legitimate that does not accept and respect the COTUS and especially the Bill of Rights. I think the disconnect comes from the fact the people we put in power no longer can relate to the issues everyday Joe deals with. Their "class" has little to do with the day to day life of average citizen. Once they attain their position they are pretty much guaranteed a lifetime of insulation from the issues your or I face (excuse my assumption that you or I are similar). Who gives more to make life good for this class? Me and you or the Saudi Govt?

Again, I have no points of contention here... I agree. If any of my previous posts are still around where this issue has come up you'll find yourself violently agreeing with me...

 

[EventHorizon]

Once again you cannot come up with any answer to this current problem. Typical liberal, when they can't win an argument, call them racist and avoid the facts.

Here's my proposed solution (by the way, you've not cited any facts).

Civics. Teach civics in schools, universities and all public employees - military, police, DMV etc MUST pass to an advanced level on the understanding and application of US civics.

The primary purpose of becoming or being an American should be to celebrate and propagate the American ideal to the next generation so that it may continue. Fewer and fewer people realize the American Dream is not about money, stuff and things but about self-determination, liberty and freedom from being pushed around and told what to think 'or else'. When people realize or are taught, that that framework of freedom is actually fragile and prone to collapse in an environment of apathy on behalf of the citizenry - not the Mil, or police or Govt but them, the citizens - then things can hopefully get better. We'll do away from BS like 'Mexican-American or African-American or Italian blah blah blah'. Screw that. The day I became an American that's all I am. Not British-American or Iranian or anything else. My kids learn English first, if when they're older they want to learn something else great, I'll support and encourage, but like Teddy Roosevelt said, 'welcome to America, learn English in 5 years or leave'. I do not support this bi-lingual crap with Spanish.

I'm pro-immigration with the caveat that every legalized formerly illegal is given the chance to learn english and has to understand and practice what it means to be an American. You want to celebrate Cinqo-de-Mayo, fine, but at the end of the day, it's the Star-Spangled Banner that plays...

To any immigrant that enters and applies for citizenship there has to be an overt declaration that you recognize the US Constitution as the law of the land above and beyond any other beliefs and directives. If they display behavior against this oath then it's deportation. But all the rules, judgments and criteria as rooted in and exclusive to the Constitution. Not you petty fears or the jingo macho bullshit of Biffa.

 

[KYpatriot]

The problem is that we haven't made the transition in our thinking from fighting nation states to ideology. In WW2, the last successful war we fought, we declared war on Germany but we were really fighting an ideology. We dud our best to ostracize and demonize and stamp out every vestige of national socialism anywhere it existed. While it is not possible to ever completely eradicate an idea, we did a pretty good job of it just the same because now the very connotation of the word "nazi" is synonymous with evil. Thankfully for us, national socialism was concentrated in one country so we could fight it as a war against a nation state with the additional tasks of taking down the vestiges of that ideology.

Now, with Islam, we have a different problem because the ideology is being called a religion, even though it is really an all encompassing political and legal system. Americans, being used to keeping government and religion separate, don't understand that Islam is really a firm of government just like communism or national socialism, and is in fact as totalitarian as either of those and in some ways, particularly in treatment of women, even worse.

So while it is popular to say we are at war with terrorism, that is at best idiotic. Terrorism is a tactic, or a strategy. To say that we are at war with terrorism is akin to declaring war on the flanking maneuver or the rope a dope. It's nonsensical, but it does tell us something. It tells us that we refuse to face what we are really fighting, an ideology. An ideology called Islam.

The vast majority of Germans who lived under national socialism didn't necessarily agree with what was being done under that banner, but because they didn't stand up and stop it themselves from within they did get to suffer for it from without. That suffering was certainly a tragedy, but that doesn't mean their suffering was unjust. Our beliefs, our actions, or our lack of action, can have severe consequences as is obvious.

The reason we are losing the fight against terrorism is that we aren't providing the incentive to change the tenets of Islam that result in Islamic terrorism because we absolutely and absurdly refuse to acknowledge that Islam itself is the problem. That sharia law is the problem. That the belief system itself is the problem because it encourages outrageous acts of jihad for Allah because those are most rewarded in a religion of salvation by works. A legal system that is based religious dogma rather than inherent inalienable rights of man. A political system that acts as a dictatorship, treating women as slaves. The only place that doesn't happen is where Muslims have to share power with those of western beliefs.

We never used the word moderate nazi or moderate fascist in WW2 because anyone who accepted the title of nazi or fascist by definition wasn't moderate. Somewhere along the way we lost that bit of common sense.

It is time we call a spade a spade and stop trying to have our cake and eat it too by attempting to fight a war while trying not to say against who. A billion people worldwide believe in a ideology and political system that subjects people to tyranny, fear, and economic desolation, just like Communism. It is time we as a nation start speaking out and opposing Islam, just like Communism. It is not "one of the worlds great religions, worthy of respect and admiration" just because it has a billion members, anymore than Communism is worthy of respect as one of the worlds great political systems just because it also has a billion members. Until it changes, it is worthy of nothing more than our best efforts to defeat it, marginalize it, and block it as best we can. We have been fairly successful at doing this with communism. Our efforts weakened it, and our demonization of it and showing how our principles of freedom are different have led to a crumbling of communism from within as their own people see a better way. So must we do with Islam, but that won't even begin to happen until we define Islam as an ideology we will defeat. 13 years after 9/11, and we still haven't done so and worse we are actually retreating from it, choosing to embrace appeasement and simply saying Islam is peace because we say so even though fact demonstrates otherwise.

How many Americans did the Communists kill before we understood that the ideology was on a collision course with our freedoms? How many Americans were killed by Mussolini's fascists before we knew that ideology was going to be a problem? How many attacks on Americans did national socialists have to make before we understood that they were going to be an existential threat to the rule of law? If those three only had followed Mohammed's play book and make themselves a religion the US would have just stood aside and allowed them to enslave the entire world while our fathers sat around in chains and congratulated themselves on their tolerance right? Or is it maybe that our modern PC society is so ignorant and unappreciative of our own principles we don't understand an existential threat to them? You decide.

 

[KYpatriot]

Incompatibility of the Constitution and any dogma that subjects the will of the individual to the will of the group or 'higher' power above the law of the land is the same. Look at the mega-churches that are pushing to subject laws and education to their christian beliefs despite the clear separation of church and state. I can, and do, argue that WHATEVER your beliefs, if they are not aligned or in conflict with the Constitution then you're the one who has to bend, not the Constitution. However, many christians don't feel that applies to them. They'll object to sharia (rightly so) yet they think entitled to push their views on others - abortion, gays, creationism vs evolution, stem-cell research etc. There's no difference and some of those groups have resorted to violence as well. How many doctors in abortion clinics have been killed, attacked, harassed?

The point of no entitlement to welcome is valid, no-one's asking for free hugs, but Pursuit of Happiness means just that. Hostility of opinion has no place in making that pursuit impossible or any more difficult than it is for anyone else.

My personal belief is this, be American first, whatever else second and if need be, privately at home. That gets me all sorts of comments of racist, bigot, redneck etc, but I'm fine with that because it's a position I believe in, live by and can easily point to examples of where national identity fragmentation led to destruction and war. However, what I do NOT abide by are people like Switchblade et al who say they have some innate powers to determine who is and isn't American. Forget that, that's just jingo bullshit without any thought.

Bottom line for me is this - act on those who have broken laws, that's the due process of our Constitution. I've no problem with profiling, I have a problem with harassment. I'll answer extra questions, no problem. I have a problem with intimidation and threats.

We are mostly in agreement but where you lose me is conflating Christianity with Islam. It just isn't comparable. If thousands of Christians were cheering the murder of an abortion doctor, preaching jihad on those doctors, teaching that you get 72 virgins if they die while trying to murder those doctors, if baptists, Methodists, Catholics etc were dancing in the streets in towns all over America when one of those doctors was killed, then you might have a point. Until then, the comparison smacks of a personal bias, at least to me.

Also, advocating within the Constitutional system to make law based on personal beliefs, be they religious or otherwise, on an issue like abortion or any other issue is not only perfectly acceptable but the very point of a democratic republic. The only time these things are wrong is when someone uses force on you, rather than the legal process and the rule of law. I know we agree in that, and on your last paragraph we are 100%.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

The man had some issues, thats clear. He shouldve been kill`t "accidental" by the off-duty officer firing a few more rounds than were necessary "in the heat of the moment".

IS is a group that we should exterminate, period. From AQI > ISIS > IS, it seems theyre getting more and more organized; that is to say, theyre getting more funding with more volunteers that seem to`ve acquired some serious skillsets among the bunch. Even if that aint be the case, they done a good job a paintin the picture that way to make everyone think theyre organized as well with more numbers and more highly talented members than ever before. Again, whether that be the case or aint, thats exactly what theyre trying to convince us of. Hence, the word "terrorist".


Far as all this sikh stuff, rounding people up, take that discussion somewhere else yall really! Yall know neither I nor yall is in any position to make them decisions, so WTH`s the point in even entertaining the subject? Especially on the Hide where you`d likely get the boot for skirting the rules in that way. Let the cards be dealt, and then play your own damn hand. Yall think anyone making these decisions give a damn about what a few precision/LR shooting enthusiasts think on matters like this? I can tell ya, it dont matter what I think, and when it dont matter IMO its something that aint worth thinkin bout! Especially on subjects that I dont feel confident nor interested in my own research in. Veer, EH, Doc, I got nothing against yall but GTFO with anything skating the Hide policies period. Apparently yall reeled the thread back in enough(personally I think [MENTION=25047]KYpatriot[/MENTION] and [MENTION=59997]pmclaine[/MENTION] are mainly responsible for saving it and everybody seemed to calm down after that) to the point where the mods didnt kick yalls asses out. Im not a mod obviously, no better than any one else here, but theres other places where you can argue your religious ideas all day along, I suggest yall take it there if you aint wantin a virtual/interweb boot to the ass. Just a suggestion.


This is what I intend to leave off with: when the time comes that our people and/or government decide its necessary to fight fire with fire and fight IS with door-kickin /bursts to the face, you can bet Ill be on the frontline and/or in the fight however Im able to help. I cant judge noone on account of what they say over the interweb excepting a small few who Ive shouted out to many times and know they straight shootin hard chargin motherfuckers Ive never seen`t spout a single milligram of BS(bogey, GF, Mr Langelius, Darkside, Delta4-3, Mr Frank, Victory, 0311Hesco, Sterling Shooter, KraigWY, sandwarrior, VJJ). Hopefully we`ll have the likes of you on the frontline again when the time comes.

 

[EventHorizon]

The problem is that we haven't made the transition in our thinking from fighting nation states to ideology. In WW2, the last successful war we fought, we declared war on Germany but we were really fighting an ideology. We dud our best to ostracize and demonize and stamp out every vestige of national socialism anywhere it existed. While it is not possible to ever completely eradicate an idea, we did a pretty good job of it just the same because now the very connotation of the word "nazi" is synonymous with evil. Thankfully for us, national socialism was concentrated in one country so we could fight it as a war against a nation state with the additional tasks of taking down the vestiges of that ideology.

Now, with Islam, we have a different problem because the ideology is being called a religion, even though it is really an all encompassing political and legal system. Americans, being used to keeping government and religion separate, don't understand that Islam is really a firm of government just like communism or national socialism, and is in fact as totalitarian as either of those and in some ways, particularly in treatment of women, even worse.

So while it is popular to say we are at war with terrorism, that is at best idiotic. Terrorism is a tactic, or a strategy. To say that we are at war with terrorism is akin to declaring war on the flanking maneuver or the rope a dope. It's nonsensical, but it does tell us something. It tells us that we refuse to face what we are really fighting, an ideology. An ideology called Islam.

The vast majority of Germans who lived under national socialism didn't necessarily agree with what was being done under that banner, but because they didn't stand up and stop it themselves from within they did get to suffer for it from without. That suffering was certainly a tragedy, but that doesn't mean their suffering was unjust. Our beliefs, our actions, or our lack of action, can have severe consequences as is obvious.

The reason we are losing the fight against terrorism is that we aren't providing the incentive to change the tenets of Islam that result in Islamic terrorism because we absolutely and absurdly refuse to acknowledge that Islam itself is the problem. That sharia law is the problem. That the belief system itself is the problem because it encourages outrageous acts of jihad for Allah because those are most rewarded in a religion of salvation by works. A legal system that is based religious dogma rather than inherent inalienable rights of man. A political system that acts as a dictatorship, treating women as slaves. The only place that doesn't happen is where Muslims have to share power with those of western beliefs.

We never used the word moderate nazi or moderate fascist in WW2 because anyone who accepted the title of nazi or fascist by definition wasn't moderate. Somewhere along the way we lost that bit of common sense.

It is time we call a spade a spade and stop trying to have our cake and eat it too by attempting to fight a war while trying not to say against who. A billion people worldwide believe in a ideology and political system that subjects people to tyranny, fear, and economic desolation, just like Communism. It is time we as a nation start speaking out and opposing Islam, just like Communism. It is not "one of the worlds great religions, worthy of respect and admiration" just because it has a billion members, anymore than Communism is worthy of respect as one of the worlds great political systems just because it also has a billion members. Until it changes, it is worthy of nothing more than our best efforts to defeat it, marginalize it, and block it as best we can. We have been fairly successful at doing this with communism. Our efforts weakened it, and our demonization of it and showing how our principles of freedom are different have led to a crumbling of communism from within as their own people see a better way. So must we do with Islam, but that won't even begin to happen until we define Islam as an ideology we will defeat. 13 years after 9/11, and we still haven't done so and worse we are actually retreating from it, choosing to embrace appeasement and simply saying Islam is peace because we say so even though fact demonstrates otherwise.

How many Americans did the Communists kill before we understood that the ideology was on a collision course with our freedoms? How many Americans were killed by Mussolini's fascists before we knew that ideology was going to be a problem? How many attacks on Americans did national socialists have to make before we understood that they were going to be an existential threat to the rule of law? If those three only had followed Mohammed's play book and make themselves a religion the US would have just stood aside and allowed them to enslave the entire world while our fathers sat around in chains and congratulated themselves on their tolerance right? Or is it maybe that our modern PC society is so ignorant and unappreciative of our own principles we don't understand an existential threat to them? You decide.

I really don't have a problem with this. I have no positive thoughts about islam whatsoever and in fact, the country I was born in, Iran has had all the negative effects of islam that you've mentioned. Backwardation, economic desolation and suppression. They punish women in horrific ways who dare (very bravely too) to push back against the sharia laws. The majority of people in that country are pro-Western but unarmed and ostensibly defenseless against the regime.

Your point about 'had Nazism been a religion' is interesting. The fact is however, we were at war against ALL Nazis because ALL Nazis were at war with us. There were no neutral Nazis or fascists. The same cannot be said with muslims. Not all muslims are at war with the West and so declaring war on islam means going to countries and peoples who are not doing anything to us - Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei etc. heck, I've spent a lot of time in Malaysia, they're not backward, or suppressive, women can do whatever they want and dress how they want etc. I would not support going to war with them.

How do you propose to implement this war? Who do you kill and who do you let live?

Finishing in the topic of Nazis - there are resurgent Nazi groups everywhere. The idea hasn't died.

 

[EventHorizon]

The man had some issues, thats clear. He shouldve been kill`t "accidental" by the off-duty officer firing a few more rounds than were necessary "in the heat of the moment".

IS is a group that we should exterminate, period. From AQI > ISIS > IS, it seems theyre getting more and more organized; that is to say, theyre getting more funding with more volunteers that seem to`ve acquired some serious skillsets among the bunch. Even if that aint be the case, they done a good job a paintin the picture that way to make everyone think theyre organized as well with more numbers and more highly talented members than ever before. Again, whether that be the case or aint, thats exactly what theyre trying to convince us of. Hence, the word "terrorist".


Far as all this sikh stuff, rounding people up, take that discussion somewhere else yall really! Yall know neither I nor yall is in any position to make them decisions, so WTH`s the point in even entertaining the subject? Especially on the Hide where you`d likely get the boot for skirting the rules in that way. Let the cards be dealt, and then play your own damn hand. Yall think anyone making these decisions give a damn about what a few precision/LR shooting enthusiasts think on matters like this? I can tell ya, it dont matter what I think, and when it dont matter IMO its something that aint worth thinkin bout! Especially on subjects that I dont feel confident nor interested in my own research in. Veer, EH, Doc, I got nothing against yall but GTFO with anything skating the Hide policies period. Apparently yall reeled the thread back in enough(personally I think [MENTION=25047]KYpatriot[/MENTION] and [MENTION=59997]pmclaine[/MENTION] are mainly responsible for saving it and everybody seemed to calm down after that) to the point where the mods didnt kick yalls asses out. Im not a mod obviously, no better than any one else here, but theres other places where you can argue your religious ideas all day along, I suggest yall take it there if you aint wantin a virtual/interweb boot to the ass. Just a suggestion.


This is what I intend to leave off with: when the time comes that our people and/or government decide its necessary to fight fire with fire and fight IS with door-kickin /bursts to the face, you can bet Ill be on the frontline and/or in the fight however Im able to help. I cant judge noone on account of what they say over the interweb excepting a small few who Ive shouted out to many times and know they straight shootin hard chargin motherfuckers Ive never seen`t spout a single milligram of BS(bogey, GF, Mr Langelius, Darkside, Delta4-3, Mr Frank, Victory, 0311Hesco, Sterling Shooter, KraigWY, sandwarrior, VJJ). Hopefully we`ll have the likes of you on the frontline again when the time comes.

I take you point, I went full retard but as I said earlier, it doesn't have to get to that hypothetical point before it becomes real for me - it already has hence my emotional response to this. I regret the profanity, it's not useful.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

I really don't have a problem with this. I have no positive thoughts about islam whatsoever and in fact, the country I was born in, Iran has had all the negative effects of islam that you've mentioned. Backwardation, economic desolation and suppression. They punish women in horrific ways who dare (very bravely too) to push back against the sharia laws. The majority of people in that country are pro-Western but unarmed and ostensibly defenseless against the regime.

Your point about 'had Nazism been a religion' is interesting. The fact is however, we were at war against ALL Nazis because ALL Nazis were at war with us. There were no neutral Nazis or fascists. The same cannot be said with muslims. Not all muslims are at war with the West and so declaring war on islam means going to countries and peoples who are not doing anything to us - Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei etc. heck, I've spent a lot of time in Malaysia, they're not backward, or suppressive, women can do whatever they want and dress how they want etc. I would not support going to war with them.

How do you propose to implement this war? Who do you kill and who do you let live?

Finishing in the topic of Nazis - there are resurgent Nazi groups everywhere. The idea hasn't died.

I like where youre going with this sir. Lets try to keep topics "on topic" with nothing but facts(Im not talking to you directly with that EH, I mean everybody, lets keep discussions civil and members trying to incite anger amongst other members with speculation and BS should be ignored if not banned).

The rules are ultimately up to interpretation, but from what I see the mods interpret it so that discussion like I mentioned: facts only and no negative/anger-inciting BS or comparing scripture to scripture. Again, Im not one to tell what you cant talk about on here, simply trying to give advice on how to NOT get banned and ultimately add to the content of the site and making even the Bear Pit a better place. KY I respect you alot sir. But like I said, in my own interpretation of the rules, Id stay away from comparing scripture to scripture, whether it be facts or not. Just trying to look out for you sir as I appreciate your input here. You seem mighty neighborly.

 

[EventHorizon]

It's getting late so I'm going to end with this. I usually don't like anecdotes as they serve no purpose in a credible debate but when I mentioned Malaysia it reminded me of a good friend of mine, a Malay called Rashid.

Rashid hits the mosque, knows the koran, doesn't eat pig but he's also one of the few people who can genuinely give me a run for my money at the pub. The idea of Rashid, one of the funniest, woman chasing guys I know, loping off a head in anger is absurd. Unless you're a pint of Stella Artois you've nothing to fear... Looking at him, he's all islam, but he's a crappy muslim. He'd be no more able to conceive of or enforce sharia law than Hugh Hefner.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

And damn EH you must be a nighthawk as myself sir! LOL(dont plan on sleeping for atleast the next three days or so - two tests in a row, a quiz right after that, and then a major group project due, all in this week!). Thats all major level Programming classes and the like FWIW. Wouldnt mind helping out the `Hide in any way I can Mr Frank if youre listenin in. Im actually doing a project right now on E-commerce sites such as Bruno`s, Bugholes/SPR, Brownell`s, MidwayUSA, and the likes of em. We had to come up with an idea for a E-commerce site, and luckily(I was truly surprised) I found two other kids in my class with very near to the same ideas. We ended up with what I proposed, a mixture between Bruno`s(rare/specialty reloading supplies/bullets/barrels/actions + custom gunsmithing service) and MidwayUSA/Brownell`s(large scale reloading supplies + accessories and the like for the tacticool stuff). I had proposed even incorporating a button-barrelling in-house manufacturing of barrels for the option of using our own barrels on the rifles we built ala Mr Clay Spencer of East Coast benchrest fame. But after working it over(we decided the best approach was to look at this as an undertaking we could pull off in real-life with a bit of luck and fortune - even though the professor had accepted and somewhat encouraged to do the opposite and think big instead of realistic) we decided in-house barrel manufacturing is just too serious a undertakin to face from the get-up. Maybe expanding to that later on, but for now we reeled it back some to make it more a realistic deal we could pull off. Obviously, Im alot more knowledgeable on this type of subject than your average Call of Duty fag turnt hobby AR15 range shooter which is what my groupmates basically are. I shot it straight with em on everything so far though and for that theyre trusting my judgment on the technical details and totin their weight for the building of the site.


Wow, talk about off topic. I like calling a spade a spade and it appears I done become a hypocrite myself after deriding others for taking threads off-topic. Sorry about that. For someone that dont partrake in caffeine(Im the dont sleep/sleep with 1 eye open type as it is with NO caffeine!). So yessuh, my clocks a tickin alright.

Back to the scheduled.....programmin I think is the word used in that sayin?

 

[Veer_G]

Far as all this sikh stuff, rounding people up, take that discussion somewhere else yall really! Yall know neither I nor yall is in any position to make them decisions, so WTH`s the point in even entertaining the subject? Especially on the Hide where you`d likely get the boot for skirting the rules in that way. Let the cards be dealt, and then play your own damn hand. Yall think anyone making these decisions give a damn about what a few precision/LR shooting enthusiasts think on matters like this?

Government derives its powers from citizens, just like you. Talking about equal application of the Constitution is a matter of being a steward of one's citizenship. If you think of being an American as just a happy accident of birth, I feel sorry for you. It's a precious gift.

I can tell ya, it dont matter what I think, and when it dont matter IMO its something that aint worth thinkin bout! Especially on subjects that I dont feel confident nor interested in my own research in. Veer, EH, Doc, I got nothing against yall but GTFO with anything skating the Hide policies period. Apparently yall reeled the thread back in enough(personally I think @KYpatriot and @pmclaine are mainly responsible for saving it and everybody seemed to calm down after that) to the point where the mods didnt kick yalls asses out. Im not a mod obviously, no better than any one else here, but theres other places where you can argue your religious ideas all day along, I suggest yall take it there if you aint wantin a virtual/interweb boot to the ass. Just a suggestion.

I'm not trying to skate around policy here. I'm not even the one who brought up a discussion of the subject. But when people start saying yes in here to the idea of limiting the enjoyment of our Constitution for a minority of people, I get more than a little concerned for my own safety and freedom. I get concerned for our country, because I start to think that we've forgotten what this country was supposed to have been about: an alternative to tyrannical societies in Europe that were subjecting both colonies overseas and minorities within their borders to horrible injustices. If there's an ideology that bears discussion, it's Americanism: Americanism (ideology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Sorry if that makes you scratch your head more than that with which you're comfortable.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

Government derives its powers from citizens, just like you. Talking about equal application of the Constitution is a matter of being a steward of one's citizenship. If you think of being an American as just a happy accident of birth, I feel sorry for you. It's a precious gift.



I'm not trying to skate around policy here. I'm not even the one who brought up a discussion of the subject. But when people start saying yes in here to the idea of limiting the enjoyment of our Constitution for a minority of people, I get more than a little concerned for my own safety and freedom. I get concerned for our country, because I start to think that we've forgotten what this country was supposed to have been about: an alternative to tyrannical societies in Europe that were subjecting both colonies overseas and minorities within their borders to horrible injustices. If there's an ideology that bears discussion, it's Americanism: Americanism (ideology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Sorry if that makes you scratch your head more than that with which you're comfortable.

Damn Veer you on the east part of the country like me, so yous a nighthawk too! LOL yous a old timer sir(no disrespect) you should likely hit the hay!

But yessir, I agree with everything you said. Americanism is certainly a concept that aint make me scratch no head.

To keep it shorter, what I likely shoulda said was: dont entertain people trying to incite anger in you. That goes for everyone, when you fixing to get angry then you forget about "civil" discussion and staying within the rules. I know you a sikh, Im a southern baptist. Ill leave it at that. Skinheads and Nazis be damned, hate has no place in this world whether it be in the mind of an effective soldier/sniper or a simple free civilian. Im not here to debate your scripture vs my scripture or whether Sikhs are close enough to radical Muslims to be rounded up the same(warning: understatement, I dont know much on sikh religion but I know its a damn sight different from radical Islam).

Whether it makes me more or less a patriot, I dont even vote, period. I just aint got interest in it. Washington DC might as well be a million miles away for all I care where Im from. I keep a ear to the rails at my immediate local and legislators be damned. Our sheriff has the say so; not no Senator, SC justice, or President. And thats how it should be and will hopefully stay.

 

[Doc68]

Here's my proposed solution (by the way, you've not cited any facts).

Civics. Teach civics in schools, universities and all public employees - military, police, DMV etc MUST pass to an advanced level on the understanding and application of US civics.

The primary purpose of becoming or being an American should be to celebrate and propagate the American ideal to the next generation so that it may continue. Fewer and fewer people realize the American Dream is not about money, stuff and things but about self-determination, liberty and freedom from being pushed around and told what to think 'or else'. When people realize or are taught, that that framework of freedom is actually fragile and prone to collapse in an environment of apathy on behalf of the citizenry - not the Mil, or police or Govt but them, the citizens - then things can hopefully get better. We'll do away from BS like 'Mexican-American or African-American or Italian blah blah blah'. Screw that. The day I became an American that's all I am. Not British-American or Iranian or anything else. My kids learn English first, if when they're older they want to learn something else great, I'll support and encourage, but like Teddy Roosevelt said, 'welcome to America, learn English in 5 years or leave'. I do not support this bi-lingual crap with Spanish.

I'm pro-immigration with the caveat that every legalized formerly illegal is given the chance to learn english and has to understand and practice what it means to be an American. You want to celebrate Cinqo-de-Mayo, fine, but at the end of the day, it's the Star-Spangled Banner that plays...

To any immigrant that enters and applies for citizenship there has to be an overt declaration that you recognize the US Constitution as the law of the land above and beyond any other beliefs and directives. If they display behavior against this oath then it's deportation. But all the rules, judgments and criteria as rooted in and exclusive to the Constitution. Not you petty fears or the jingo macho bullshit of Biffa.

That's a great answer. Now if we could only do that. I've been saying that for years. The United states was once called a melting pot. In reality it never was. Everyone wanted to keep part of their past(which is fine). But then certain groups started pushing their beliefs upon smaller groups. Now, these days everyone wants a title.

 

[snipe10]

So we're all good, right? See I told you we all have a lot more in common than it sometimes appears, if or when it comes down, I'd be happy to have any of you by my side and I hope you all would feel the same

 

[KYpatriot]

I really don't have a problem with this. I have no positive thoughts about islam whatsoever and in fact, the country I was born in, Iran has had all the negative effects of islam that you've mentioned. Backwardation, economic desolation and suppression. They punish women in horrific ways who dare (very bravely too) to push back against the sharia laws. The majority of people in that country are pro-Western but unarmed and ostensibly defenseless against the regime.

Your point about 'had Nazism been a religion' is interesting. The fact is however, we were at war against ALL Nazis because ALL Nazis were at war with us. There were no neutral Nazis or fascists. The same cannot be said with muslims. Not all muslims are at war with the West and so declaring war on islam means going to countries and peoples who are not doing anything to us - Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei etc. heck, I've spent a lot of time in Malaysia, they're not backward, or suppressive, women can do whatever they want and dress how they want etc. I would not support going to war with them.

How do you propose to implement this war? Who do you kill and who do you let live?

Finishing in the topic of Nazis - there are resurgent Nazi groups everywhere. The idea hasn't died.

One thing I like about EH is that he reasons and is able to cut to the heart of the matter, and really cares about our liberty.

EH you are right of course not all Muslims are at war with us, far from it. But there were plenty of Germans who didn't like Hitler who played along with the Nazi regime because it was safer for them. Same thing with the fascists. We have never fought a monolithic enemy. That doesn't mean that the strategy is wrong, and if these peaceful Muslim are for real then they will welcome the dismantling of sharia and the "Islamic" totalitarian states. Given that there are madrasahs all over the world that teach hateful rhetoric, I have my doubts but it will be up to them. They can reject the concept of jihad and sharia or be counted among them it will be up to them.

I think the way we have to fight it is the way we fought communism, and still do, though not as effectively as we once did. We need to be honest about what Islam is (a political system as much as a theology) and where it takes people. We oppose sharia wherever it is practiced as the crime against humanity that it is, by equating it as the moral equivalent to slavery that it is. We refuse to do business with, impose sanctions, and otherwise ostracize any country that has any form of sharia at all...yes this includes Saudi Arabia first and foremost. If Saudis were using Africans for slave labor like we used to do, imagine the outcry...yet millions are born into oppression and live in oppression there and they get a pass because of political correctness and oil.

We should fight proxy wars against Islam just like we did communism to contain and push back Islam just like we did with communism in the Cold War. We crush those economies and advocate for openness, civil rights, freedom, all those things we say we believe (until it's time to buy oil). So we stop buying that oil, and do what is right and start opposing sharia and turn it into a pariah like we did the nazis and to a lesser extent the communists.

When we have demonized and ostracized any country whatsoever that encourages any form of Islam that doesn't look like Malaysia, at least as you describe it (that's one I haven't been to) then something interesting will happen. People in these harder line countries will feel emboldened to throw off Islam themselves, just like has happened with communism in many cases, and Islam becomes a philosophy that self destructs under the weight of its own tyranny, and perhaps becomes Islam-lite or reformed Islam. That will never happen until Presidents of the United States stop propping up this tyrannical ideology by calling it a great religion, a religion of peace, etc etc. We never had a positive thing to say about communism because we wanted to undermine it, not encourage it. So must we do with Islam. It's going to take some intellectual honesty and some moral courage to call this spade a spade so I wouldn't expect that anytime soon. Liberals will foam at the mouth for religious liberty for those that want to behead us while simultaneously trying to limit Christian speech but what else is new.

So no, we don't start nuking Islamic countries or build internment camps anymore than we did with the Soviet Union. But we do fight them anywhere we can, sanction, oppose, undermine and otherwise fight a proxy/Cold War against Islam the same way we did with Communism. We won't stamp it out, but I believe we can turn it, just like communism, into something less virulent. Yes, there are still nazis, but people cross to the other side of the street when they see them coming and they are treated like kooks or weirdos. Kind of hard to go mainstream again for them. If they do, we ratchet up that campaign again too. Similarly, the hard line, pure expression of communism like North Korea, once a goal of true communists everywhere, is now an embarrassment to China and Russia. Communism is on the decline in large part because of our two prong strategy of marginalizing it morally and opposing it militarily and economically. So it can be with Islam, if we will only lead again.

 

[Josie]

I'm not trying to skate around policy here. I'm not even the one who brought up a discussion of the subject. But when people start saying yes in here to the idea of limiting the enjoyment of our Constitution for a minority of people, I get more than a little concerned for my own safety and freedom. I get concerned for our country, because I start to think that we've forgotten what this country was supposed to have been about: an alternative to tyrannical societies in Europe that were subjecting both colonies overseas and minorities within their borders to horrible injustices. If there's an ideology that bears discussion, it's Americanism: Americanism (ideology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Sorry if that makes you scratch your head more than that with which you're comfortable.

When people on here say they want to "limit the constitution for a minority of people", they are making that statement out of emotion and directing it towards the people committing these heinous acts of violence on innocent people in the name of a very perverted religious ideology. I think what most people mean by that is that the small population of people that live in our great country and complain about our way of life and abuse our freedoms should be rounded up and sent away/dealt with whatever. The fact is that these people and the system we have created that breed these people, do need to be dealt with. They are a burden on our society and they are backed by loop holes in our laws, politicians and special interest groups out of political need. Below is an article that kind of touches on the issue of Somali refugees that are brought to the country and never attempt to embrace our culture, but rather reject it and trample all over the citizens they live amongst. This is just a very tiny example of what is taking place all over North America. And if a white, politically conservative, Christian, veteran, or all the above speak out about it they are instantly attacked and called racist, islamaphobes, bigots, ect. ect. These small groups of people have the biggest, loudest, and most politically supported voices and it is deteriorating the country. Granted, there are 10's of millions of immigrants who come to this country practice/celebrate their culture in private, start small businesses, seek out an education, and are overall positive contributing members of our society. Those are not the people these inflammatory comments are directed at. Its these idiots that are being converted to islam in prison, CAIR, political refugees, and other special interest groups that need to be dealt with.

Rounding them up and putting them in camps, no, that is not the answer. That is insane. But dealt with, sure. I'm not smart enough to come up with the right way to deal with these people but if something doesn't happen in the not to distant future, violence will be the action. This is America and our constitution is based on Christian principles of morality. The vast majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians (below is data from the 2010 census). Our constitution, based on Christian principles, allows freedom of religion by whomever, where ever. My family are a mix of European immigrants, mainly Irish, and Native American. So I am supportive of immigration, multiculturalism, and diversity, but NOT at the expense of the American way of life. All of our ancestors came to this country, embraced it, built it, sacrificed for it, made it what it is today, but now its being slowly dismantled by an ideology that is on a collision course with our Constitution, Islam. These forums and social media conversations are a healthy way to talk about the issues. Its not enough though, this is just a stepping stone. I don't know what the solution is, just abiding by and enforcing our laws, set forth by the constitution would be a good start.

I'll tell you this. I had a conversation with my wife on FaceTime tonight and asked her what some of her opinions are on Islam, issues in the Middle East, ISIS/ISIL, the beheading in OK, and a few other things. I'm embarrassed to admit this but she didn't really have much to say about any of it and asked why I thought it was so important. I really just summed it up by asking her when she thought it would be an appropriate time to address the issue? "Now or when someone comes to our front door and asks her to start wearing a hijab in the community or, when they start building mosques and playing the azan, or start paying a tax or convert to Islam?" So bottom line is that something needs to start happening now to stop all this tolerance bullshit or we're going to reach a point I described to my wife where people are going to resort to violence.

I'm one of those people that will result to violence if this crap reaches my doorstep. Everyone that I know and associate with will result to violence. This isn't tough guy internet talk. I fought like hell for my country and seen great American's families sacrifice a ton for the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan, just to see it wasted away by politicians and what not. I don't want to see anymore of it in America either. Now I enjoy the civilian life and have a family to provide safety, shelter, and opportunity for. I don't want it to come to violence but I'm sick and tired of speaking out against it all only to be labeled racist, extremist, ring winged nut ect ect. I just wish the so called "peaceful" muslims would stand up and take the lead on all this extremist shit. If a non muslim is the face of the conversation is becomes an us vs. muslim bigotry conversation. If you are going to live within these borders, you will follow our laws, embrace our culture and way of life, and modify your culture and religion so that it may coexist peacefully with ours. Unless that happens there will be violence.



Refugees in U.S. state drawn to welfare, jihad

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0075.pdf

 

[pteranadon]

I'm not convinced one bit that our Country of ours will fall to the fears people talk about in here.

History shows the United States would more likely fall from within.

And being the Nation of ours was founded on Judea Christian "laws" I really doubt we'll change anytime quick, then fall apart (within).

There is a better chance China or Russia takes us over. There is a better chance our children and grandchildren will be speaking Chinese or Russian.

But until the history comes to show it's ugly head....

I guess some will stoop to being afraid (terror).

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

I say bring it on. Plenty of young men from my parts eager for some fun. And what some of them lack in marksmanship, they make up for with their skill in the woods and quite a few are sneaky enough to make you think theyre walkin on cats paws. I would love to see how IS matches up with our finest hunters, with both sides equipped similarly. Not to underestimate them, but I doubt IS would stand a chance considering the numbers that would be stacked against them. Like was said in another thread though, I doubt IS would be stupid enough to even try a small scale Viet Cong style guerrilla war here, much less a full-scale invasion. Their only reasonable plan of attack is a few(or many) separate small teams of terrorists going after soft/undefended targets.

 

[EventHorizon]

One thing I like about EH is that he reasons and is able to cut to the heart of the matter, and really cares about our liberty.

EH you are right of course not all Muslims are at war with us, far from it. But there were plenty of Germans who didn't like Hitler who played along with the Nazi regime because it was safer for them. Same thing with the fascists. We have never fought a monolithic enemy. That doesn't mean that the strategy is wrong, and if these peaceful Muslim are for real then they will welcome the dismantling of sharia and the "Islamic" totalitarian states. Given that there are madrasahs all over the world that teach hateful rhetoric, I have my doubts but it will be up to them. They can reject the concept of jihad and sharia or be counted among them it will be up to them.

I think the way we have to fight it is the way we fought communism, and still do, though not as effectively as we once did. We need to be honest about what Islam is (a political system as much as a theology) and where it takes people. We oppose sharia wherever it is practiced as the crime against humanity that it is, by equating it as the moral equivalent to slavery that it is. We refuse to do business with, impose sanctions, and otherwise ostracize any country that has any form of sharia at all...yes this includes Saudi Arabia first and foremost. If Saudis were using Africans for slave labor like we used to do, imagine the outcry...yet millions are born into oppression and live in oppression there and they get a pass because of political correctness and oil.

We should fight proxy wars against Islam just like we did communism to contain and push back Islam just like we did with communism in the Cold War. We crush those economies and advocate for openness, civil rights, freedom, all those things we say we believe (until it's time to buy oil). So we stop buying that oil, and do what is right and start opposing sharia and turn it into a pariah like we did the nazis and to a lesser extent the communists.

When we have demonized and ostracized any country whatsoever that encourages any form of Islam that doesn't look like Malaysia, at least as you describe it (that's one I haven't been to) then something interesting will happen. People in these harder line countries will feel emboldened to throw off Islam themselves, just like has happened with communism in many cases, and Islam becomes a philosophy that self destructs under the weight of its own tyranny, and perhaps becomes Islam-lite or reformed Islam. That will never happen until Presidents of the United States stop propping up this tyrannical ideology by calling it a great religion, a religion of peace, etc etc. We never had a positive thing to say about communism because we wanted to undermine it, not encourage it. So must we do with Islam. It's going to take some intellectual honesty and some moral courage to call this spade a spade so I wouldn't expect that anytime soon. Liberals will foam at the mouth for religious liberty for those that want to behead us while simultaneously trying to limit Christian speech but what else is new.

So no, we don't start nuking Islamic countries or build internment camps anymore than we did with the Soviet Union. But we do fight them anywhere we can, sanction, oppose, undermine and otherwise fight a proxy/Cold War against Islam the same way we did with Communism. We won't stamp it out, but I believe we can turn it, just like communism, into something less virulent. Yes, there are still nazis, but people cross to the other side of the street when they see them coming and they are treated like kooks or weirdos. Kind of hard to go mainstream again for them. If they do, we ratchet up that campaign again too. Similarly, the hard line, pure expression of communism like North Korea, once a goal of true communists everywhere, is now an embarrassment to China and Russia. Communism is on the decline in large part because of our two prong strategy of marginalizing it morally and opposing it militarily and economically. So it can be with Islam, if we will only lead again.

We declared a war against Germany, not Nazism. We went to war against nation states - Germany, Japan, Italy etc. We did not, declare war against ideology. We went to war only after an act of war was committed against us. We may have associated, strongly, those states with political ideologies that were repulsive, but we never placed those ideologies as the raison d'être for going to war.

If we have ever gone to war purely on ideology then it's Vietnam. Not a success story and even then, I feel Vietnam was a cynical exercise that was prolonged by the war criminals known as Nixon and Kissinger.

Post-WW2 we in fact, frequently and as a matter of POLICY, supported and created regimes that had far more in common with Nazism, Fascism and tyranny of the worst order, than they did with anything in line with or sympathetic to the Constitution - Greece, Chile, Iran, Indonesia, South America as a continent etc... The argument that we go to war against an ideology because it stands in opposition to our Constitution would immediately demand first and foremost a civil war against every State that abuses the 4th amendment, the 2 Amendment etc. We need to declare war on NY, CA, MA, etc as a first order priority before we get to dealing for foreigners.

We never went to war against communism in the manner you suggest, instead, we used it as a euphemism for the Soviet Union because our policy was to avoid a hot war directly with them at all costs. Also, it's a false premise to state that we defeated communism. We didn't, we accelerated it's self-destruction through economic attrition via the arms race. Here's an additional irony, without the use of the fractional reserve banking system, we would not have been able to do it. There is no coincidence that Reagan raised the debt ceiling more times than any other president before him. It's not widely known and probably rarely accepted by those who lionize him (wrongly). I believe in fact it was Carter who started this economic warfare with the Soviets and Reagan took it to the next level.

We have no due process in our Constitution to declare what is or isn't a religion. A good portion of our Founding Fathers were not religious and at best were Deitists with no particular doctrine. I know this rubs some people the wrong way who think the Constitution is a christian document but no, it's not. You cannot, with any legal basis, summarily declare Americans who happen to be muslims as enemy of the state because you view their doctrine as being counter to the Constitution when their actions have not broken any laws. The Constitution does not give you that right and in fact, it overtly denies it to you. I would argue that the 2nd Amendment exists to prevent a govt. from ever doing such.

This comes down to the conundrum of liberty as I see it. Liberty is not a safe haven, it's not a protected state. Liberty is a challenge to do your best without a safety net. You state the implied violence of anyone insulting islam. I would agree it exists but the threat of violence is not unique to islam. The mafia held similar sway but through the legal system based on investigation and infiltration of the mafia, and NOT the subjection of Italians - even though mafia was almost exclusively an Italian phenomena), it's been largely defeated albeit supplanted by Russian, Chechen, Jamaican and Asian mafias...

The lack of intestinal fortitude by the producers of South Park to insult islam does not validate your view that muslims are an enemy state en masse. I bet they wouldn't set out to insult the mexican cartels overtly either. Incidentally, the mexican cartels have slaughtered well over 250K people in less than 10 years... well above the rate of slaughter of islamic terrorists in the same duration... why, if the preservation of life and sanctity of human dignity is of concern - do we not declare an all out war against the cartels? The cartels have a much bigger and real threat profile to the US right here and now.

In the end, as stupid as I think it is as an ideology - along and equally with all religions - I reject the idea of saying islam is worthy of destruction because we simply have no authority to decide this. More savagery has been committed over time by other religions which have since 'toned it down' so who's to say the same won't happen to islam? No-one with any credibility in my view.

Do I want to see all ISIS dead? Yes - slowly and screaming if possible. Would I want all those who are anti-US out of this country in a perfect world? Yes. But to me that includes Jews who put the interests of israel before the US but yet live here, benefit here from the protections afforded them but who scrounge and save every penny while claiming tax exemption so they can send money overseas while actively resisting any real form of assimilation or Americanism of any kind. To me, they're no better than welfare leeches.

I suppose in some ways I live in a more depressing world as I have to accept the freedoms of others who I would rather see vaporized such as the Westboro Church fags, the KKK, Nazi groups, muslims hate groups, Sharpton, Bloomberg, Clinton etc, but then, as I have been reminded in real life and by the postings of some here, it's all to easy for others to see me and assume I'm not entitled to my own inalienable rights because my skin, hair and features are 'mooosleem'.

 

[KYpatriot]

We would not have declare war against Germany if they hadn't adopted the ideology of national socialism which led them to expand their borders. After the invasion and defeat of military forces through the Potsdam agreement we set up intense and serious efforts to try and wipe out any vestige of national socialism, to the point where it became difficult to fund Germans suitable to run the country. Anything nazi was illegal, in print or other media, and our propaganda forces created a campaign of "collective guilt" for nazi actions that was so effective that even today Germans are often sheepish about showing any pride in their country and German achievement, which is considerable. It worked, and again while no idea can ever be destroyed you can marginalize them.

More to the point, in virulent islam the ideology isn't specific to a country so it requires a different approach unless we want to do the Iraq thing over and over which would obviously be stupid. It isn't Islam as a faith we fight, but Islam as a political system using force on its own people and others.

I think you underestimate the effectiveness of our anti-communist efforts in the Cold War. We threw a roadblock in the face of communism anywhere and everywhere we could, diplomatically, militarily, and yes economically. Again we didn't defeat it, but we did marginalize it morally to the point where liberal political theorists now avoid the label like the plague when once upon a time Marx and Engels were the darlings of academic political theory. We have changed the perception of what was once considered a viable and wonderful political theory by opposing its progress however we could diplomatically and economically while running a sixty year propaganda campaign against it. Is communism dead? Of course not. Had we embraced it as a philosophy of peace that just has some wayward members, just as we presently do Islam, would it be a much larger and more dangerous force in the world and our country today? Yes I think it would.

EH you clearly know more about the dangers of the full expression of Islam and sharia law than most Americans. Many Americans don't even know what sharia is, or where it leads. Our media talks about a about "the war on women" here in our own country which is a joke but refuse to even hint at the actual war on hundreds of millions of women in the world suffering under sharia in Islam. We used to point out, exhaustively, how our system of self government favorably compares and contrasts with that of communism...yet we never have taken on a serious campaign to discredit and demonize the elements of Islamic belief, like sharia, that lead to terrorism and the subjugation of their own people.

I am glad you mentioned the race aspect of it. When we go to " war against terror" and bomb Islamic countries but say we aren't bombing them because of the ideology of Islam, then it is easy for them to believe we are bombing them because they are brown or middle eastern. Clearly defining the threat we are attempting to degrade would make it more clear that we aren't opposing brown people or Arabs or Persians but instead an ideology. You mentioned the Italians and the mob; you can be absolutely certain that Italians got more attention because of the fact that most mafioso were Italian. That isn't being racist, it is common sense, as long as we keep it about the mob and not a race. If we subjected Italian neighborhoods to that scrutiny without ever declaring that our efforts were on mob suppression then it would make our efforts look racially motivated.

You are correct that religions change and reform over time. It is undoubtably long past time for Islam to do so but it hasn't, in my opinion, because of the fact that it is a political system as well and exerts power not as a faith but in statehood through sharia where the imams control all law as well. We must attack the statehood element of that system through a full court press in the model of our 60 year opposition to communism. Maybe someday Islamic sharia will collapse of its own weight and reform from within but we need not wait, we can hasten that along just like we did with communism. Instead our current policy actually encourages the preservation of that system in many cases, as the experience of the Iranians in 79 makes clear (an absolute travesty of justice there). When the totality of the Islamic world resembles Malaysia the threat of Islamic terrorism will be a shell of its former self. If they can do it, so can the middle easterners.

I understand a lot about our past failures of moral leadership in many cases, but those failures should never hold us back from trying again in the future. Otherwise no one would ever beat any negative influence in their life like alcoholism. We are spinning our wheels in the war on terror because we don't have the moral courage to define who it is we are fighting. Many in the Islamic world would love for us to define it and shine a light on sharia so that they can get out from under it and experience free choice.

In passing, I totally agree with you on the cartels and would have done more good for this country had I been bombing huge haciendas with guitar shaped swimming pools in Columbia rather than Iraq, but the cartels are another subject.

Finally I agree we need to keep our focus on the Constitution throughout. That why I would like to reform the war on terror. Right now it would be more properly described as a war on the bill of rights and especially the 4th amendment. What I am trying to propose here is to turn it slightly into an ideological war against the political system of sharia. If we could create a fracture between the faith and it's political rule by imams through a campaign similar to our campaign against communism then we would all be better off.

 

[EventHorizon]

I'd like to segue to something I think we've avoided discussing - what causes islamic radicalism? Is it religious fervor or is it perhaps a reaction to outside influences mixed with deep religious conviction?

I came across this



The level of religiosity of the moderates and radicals (as defined in the study) was the same. In fact, their appreciation of the positives of Western culture were almost the same. Yet the defining influence on who was radical and moderate was simple - the reaction to the level of negative influence on islam and domestic affairs.

Your proposal to confront and 'blockade' would, as the data in this one study suggests, inflame radicalism. You and I both advocate a 'leave them to their devices' policy towards the ME. To me, that includes withdrawing our support for Saudi and Isreal. They're both big boys, they can sort out their own shit and neighborly disputes. The USA is not morally obliged to either country and i don't see either country as any sort of ally worth having given the cost of staying there or supporting either of them.

Should something on a humanitarian scale happen - like the slaughter being committed by ISIS - then we only get involved on equal footing with a allied response and participation. We are not the global cop, we are part of a global force 'for good'. Once the job's done, we're out...

The US meddled in Indonesia, Saudi, Iran, Qatar, Israel etc. Those were events that have spawned bad harvests for us. Certainly past errors should not prohibit future good deeds, but repetition of bad deeds is never going to yield good results.

I think once the fuel for the fire is removed the radicalism will die at home. In the meantime, those who incite violence and show violence should be dealt with to the fullest and complete remit of the law without political expediency being involved. It's worth reading a book called 'The Looming Tower' [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Looming_Tower/] within the context of how Bin Laden was able to put his considerable skills of organization and PR to practice by using US actions as recruiting materials with the coup d'etat being the embassy bombings and the attack on USS Cole which finally gave him the money and recruits he needed for what was going to be 9/11.

By no means is it 'all our fault'. No, but if we are to fight radicalism it's best to first cease doing actions that solve nothing and worse, embolden and enable the enemy IMHO.

As a final point, I'll ask you to consider this. No-one here likes Bloomberg and or the gun-grabbers efforts to make us seem like murderous goons yet their PR campaign is centered around smearing us, slandering our motives for having guns and in effect, trying to get businesses to close their doors and services to us... sound like a familiar tactic? Is it going to make you give up your rights and guns or...?

 

[EventHorizon]

I want to make an apology to Doc. I said some downright shitty and stupid things to him without any real basis. I'm a passionate guy about some things and I lost my shit. Sorry Doc, and thank you very much for your service.

Cheers

 

[woojos]

The US meddled in Indonesia, Saudi, Iran, Qatar, Israel etc. Those were events that have spawned bad harvests for us. Certainly past errors should not prohibit future good deeds, but repetition of bad deeds is never going to yield good results.

I think once the fuel for the fire is removed the radicalism will die at home. In the meantime, those who incite violence and show violence should be dealt with to the fullest and complete remit of the law without political expediency being involved. It's worth reading a book called 'The Looming Tower' within the context of how Bin Laden was able to put his considerable skills of organization and PR to practice by using US actions as recruiting materials with the coup d'etat being the embassy bombings and the attack on USS Cole which finally gave him the money and recruits he needed for what was going to be 9/11.

By no means is it 'all our fault'. No, but if we are to fight radicalism it's best to first cease doing actions that solve nothing and worse, embolden and enable the enemy IMHO.

I'm completely with you on this and it's something I've been studying a bit in my spare time as well. Saudi Arabia is as hard-line Islamist as they come, complete with state sanctioned beheadings and the persecution of native Christians. What people haven't yet accepted yet, is that Saudi Arabia is probably more of a US ally than Israel, and they have helped the US a lot in exchange for our protection. I have two specific things in my mind the Saudi's have done for us, but I won't mention them here.

This fight we are in is not about extremist Islam.

The US has meddled all over the World, but it was in the context of the Cold War, and motivated by trying to put a hurt on the Soviets. We funded/armed Bin Laden and the Mujahideen through the Pakistanis to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan and they were successful. People have also speculated that the US allowed Pakistan to develop something that no other Middle Eastern country has in exchange for these services. Then we just left, although with the fall of the Soviet Union there was more pressing business to attend to. What happened was Bin Laden was emboldened by his victory over a World Power and then decided to take a shot at the US. There were 9 Afghan tribes back then who fought the Soviets on our behalf, paid for our victory with a ton of their own blood, and most of these tribal leaders have either been killed or are still on the US most wanted list for terrorism (I know at least one is but I would have to look into it more).

Why they are again considering arming "terrorists" to fight other "terrorists" and thinking it will yield a different outcome is something I am still trying to figure out.

Look at Iran under the Shaw, and the evils the SAVAK did to keep any opposition party in check, which was supported by the US. After the Iranian revolution, they have deliberately put statements in their Constitution banning any imperialism or foreign influence in the politics of their country. This also led directly into the Iran-Contra affair, where certain government entities lied to Congress, ran weapons to Iran in exchange for freeing hostages (Yes we have negotiated with terrorists and some very powerful officials ended up with felony charges for it who were then pardoned), then illegally used these funds to fight another proxy war in Nicarauga. I have found references, albeit of dubious credibility, where the Russians were supporting the opposing Nicaraguan party making it a genuine proxy war, but as of yet I have found no direct connection to Russian supporting the Iranian opposition. This is a very morally ambiguous period in American history, and there's a lot more to the story and I am no expert. This was during the Carter to Reagan switch and probably can be considered another mini-coup in American history.

The sad thing is whenever some of these things are brought up, certain individuals whose personal ideologies are based on the moral high ground, are troubled by the contradiction and whoever brings it up is labelled un-American and subversive at best, and a traitor at worst.

The argument is contained here: [url]http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/10/01/back_to_iraq_an_exchange_between_2_marines_in_hawaii_with_different_views , and this is something the libertarians and paleo-conservatives have been arguing for ages.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfmWurRgmMM

 

[EventHorizon]

That's an interesting link, thanks!

I'm not sure about 'doing nothing' and the argument of 'they'll never come here' is not a strong one given past history. Unfortunately, we've shown ourselves to be up for a fight without a good plan on how to fight it. We let OBL get away in Tora Bora (read Kill Bin Laden), we had zero planning for post-defeat of Saddam and then we settled into a weird 'limbo' of ill-defined ROEs and objectives (read Obama's Wars). Militarily we're awesome, in the literal sense of the word. Organizationally and ideologically - not so great.