Obama, again with the cheap insults [Archive] - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

scottw

11-21-2015, 07:30 AM

some great points...

Why Does the Left Continue to Insist that Islamic Terrorism Has Nothing to Do with Islam?

By Jonah Goldberg — November 21, 2015

Dear Reader (Including those of you stunned by the news that Charlie Sheen has a sexually transmitted disease. Not since Jim J. Bullock announced he was gay have I been more shocked),

If you Google “Christian terrorism,” you’re probably a jackass to begin with. But if you do — bidden not by your own drive to jackassery but by the natural curiosity inspired by this “news”letter — you’ll find lots of left-wing trollery about how the worst terrorist attacks on American soil have been committed by Christians. Much of it is tendentious, question-begging twaddle. But I really don’t want to waste a lot of time on whether Tim McVeigh was a Christian or not (he really wasn’t).

What I find interesting is that many of the same people who clutch their pearls at the mere suggestion that Islamic terrorism has anything to do with — oh, what’s the word again? — oh right: Islam, seem to have no problem making the case that “Christian terrorism” is like a real thing. Remember how so many liberals loved — loved — Obama’s sophomoric and insidious tirade about not getting on our “high horses” about ISIS’s atrocities in the here and now because medieval Christians did bad things a thousand years ago? They never seem to think that argument through. Leaving out the ass-aching stupidity of the comparison, it actually concedes the very point Obama never wants to concede. By laying the barbaric sins of Christians a thousand years ago at the feet of Christians today, he implicitly tags Muslims with the barbarism committed in their name today.

Now, I see no need to wade too deeply into the theology here, but I think I am on very solid ground when I say that Islamic terrorism draws more easily and deeply from the Koran than Tim McVeigh drew from the Christian Bible. Of course, you’re free to disagree. In a free society, everybody has the right to be wrong in their opinions. (But don’t tell anyone at Yale that.)

THE BIG LIE

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton said: “Let’s be clear, though. Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

Now, unlike some people who e-mail me in ALL CAPS, I have no problem with politicians saying, “Islam is not our adversary.” In fact, I think it would be disastrous if our political leaders went around saying anything like “Islam is our enemy.”

It’s the second part of that Hillary quote that I have trouble with. Yes, some — most! — Muslims are peaceful. And while peacefulness and tolerance don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand (just look at opinion polls in the Muslim world on questions of sharia, homosexuality, women’s equality, free speech, and, of course, the Joooooooz), let’s stipulate that a great many Muslims are tolerant in their own fashion, too.

But it is simply a lie — an obvious, glaring, indisputable, trout-in-the-milk lie — that Muslims have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

Simply put, this is nonsense. But it’s not just nonsense. It is highly refined nonsense. If nonsense were radioactive, you could dump a barrel of it in a centrifuge, wait a few weeks, and out would come the claim that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Just off the top of my head is my hair. But figuratively speaking off the top of my head: The jihadists say they are motivated by Islam. They shout “Allahu akbar!” whenever they kill people. “Moderate Muslims” in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere have been funding Islamic radicals around the world for nearly a century. This morning in Mali, terrorist gunmen reportedly released those hostages who could quote the Koran. The leader of ISIS has a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies and openly talks about restoring the Caliphate.

Oh, one other thing: The Islamic State is called the Islamic State. I used to eat at a restaurant called “Burrito Brothers.” Saying the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam is like telling someone eating a burrito they bought at Burrito Brothers that Burrito Brothers has “nothing whatsoever” to do with burritos.

And like many other highly enriched radioactive substances, this nonsensical notion is weaponizable. It is dangerous. I would like to think that if you had an honest conversation with Hillary Clinton away from the cameras, she would say something like, “Of course, Islamic terrorism has a lot to do with Islam. But we can’t say that publicly because we have to isolate the radicals, not radicalize the moderates.”

That is an entirely defensible position intellectually. But that doesn’t make the “This Isn’t Islamic” claim any less of a lie. And what makes the lie dangerous — very dangerous — is the possibility that, to borrow a phrase from Barack Obama, these people believe their own bullsh***. The danger is twofold. On the one hand, if you engage an enemy without actually understanding its motivations and ambitions, you will inevitably screw it up because you’ll be constantly surprised by the facts on the ground. As Irving Kristol once said, “When we lack the will to see things as they really are, there is nothing so mystifying as the obvious.”

On the other hand, if you are trying to rally political support for your strategy, while at the same time giving the public every reason to believe you’re operating from a home-base in fantasyland, only fellow bullsh***ers and fools will rally to your banner. And, you’ll lose the confidence and trust of those people who see through the fog of bovine excrement.

spence

11-21-2015, 09:43 AM

VERY SURPRISED THAT SPENCE OR NEBE HAS NOT JUMPED ON THIS....:)
Was in Vegas all week. Glad you're thinking about me though.

spence

11-21-2015, 09:47 AM

some great points...
Interesting you'd find such gravitation towards a grotesque masturbatory example of circular logic.

Who has ever said Islam has *nothing* to do with it?

Keep reading stuff like this = ISIS wins.

spence

11-21-2015, 01:58 PM

Some interesting analysis...

http://www.cato.org/blog/syrian-refugees-dont-pose-serious-security-threat

Jim in CT

11-21-2015, 05:37 PM

Interesting you'd find such gravitation towards a grotesque masturbatory example of circular logic.

Who has ever said Islam has *nothing* to do with it?

Keep reading stuff like this = ISIS wins.

"Who has ever said Islam has *nothing* to do with it?"

Because only an idiot would say that, right?

Hilary: "Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism."

First, there are a lot of Muslims out there, who are carrying out terrorism, in the name of Islam. You define a terrorist by the idea that they are fighting for, and these people are fighting for Islam. They are therefore, Muslim terrorists.

Let's talk about the Muslims who aren't terrorists. Are most of them "tolerant"? Is there a Muslim country on this planet ,where it's a nice place to be a Jew or a homosexual? Or a woman for that matter?

Spence, what the hell is wrong with liberals? Open your eyes. By and large, these are not what you'd call "tolerant" people. The men must wear beards, the women must dress like ninjas, and remain illiterate.

Spence, what is to be gained, exactly, when you cast aside factual empirical evidence, in favor of political correctness? For what purpose?

Jesus God Almighty.

spence

11-21-2015, 06:14 PM

The men must wear beards, the women must dress like ninjas, and remain illiterate.

The literacy rate of young females in Iran is 98.5%. 60% of university students in Saudi Arabia are women, in fact there are 8 Muslim nations in the Middle East where more women than men go to University.

The bigger problem with women in many Islamic nations is that they can't find work for their skills.

Oh, and name one Muslim country where growing a beard is mandatory.

Conclusion = Jim clueless.

Jim in CT

11-21-2015, 08:02 PM

The literacy rate of young females in Iran is 98.5%. 60% of university students in Saudi Arabia are women, in fact there are 8 Muslim nations in the Middle East where more women than men go to University.

The bigger problem with women in many Islamic nations is that they can't find work for their skills.

Oh, and name one Muslim country where growing a beard is mandatory.

Conclusion = Jim clueless.

(1)What about Hilary saying that Muslims have nothing to do with terrorism? If she believes that Muslims are no more linked to contemporary terrorists than the Amish, is she of sound enough mind to be POTUS?

(2) Would you call Muslims 'tolerant'? I used hyperbole about literacy (though literacy rates for women are a lot lower than your statistic in Iraq and Afghanistan). Would you describe Muslim nations, in general, as "tolerant" of Christians, Jews, or homosexuals? They're not even tolerant towards each other for that matter.

I await your thoughtful reply.

Also, what do you think of your hero's comments that everyone who wants to be thoughtful about refugees, isn't as "tough" as he is? Of course, he hurls those insults in a forum where he cannot be challenged. How very brave.

spence

11-21-2015, 08:22 PM

(1)What about Hilary saying that Muslims have nothing to do with terrorism? If she believes that Muslims are no more linked to contemporary terrorists than the Amish, is she of sound enough mind to be POTUS?
She didn't say that. You should watch her full comments instead of a soundbite off of Drudge or your girlfriend on FOX.

(2) Would you call Muslims 'tolerant'? I used hyperbole about literacy (though literacy rates for women are a lot lower than your statistic in Iraq and Afghanistan). Would you describe Muslim nations, in general, as "tolerant" of Christians, Jews, or homosexuals? They're not even tolerant towards each other for that matter.
Tolerance is relative. Historically most Muslim nations have been as tolerant as anyone, but the Cold War and other power influences have certainly shaped the situation today. To describe Muslim nations "in general" for anything would be a great disservice.

Also, what do you think of your hero's comments that everyone who wants to be thoughtful about refugees, isn't as "tough" as he is? Of course, he hurls those insults in a forum where he cannot be challenged. How very brave.
He can and is being challenged. I think the GOP is using the issue to score points and pulling some Dems along with them. Obama should and is pushing back, I don't have an issue with this.

Jim in CT

11-21-2015, 11:42 PM

She didn't say that. You should watch her full comments instead of a soundbite off of Drudge or your girlfriend on FOX.

Tolerance is relative. Historically most Muslim nations have been as tolerant as anyone, but the Cold War and other power influences have certainly shaped the situation today. To describe Muslim nations "in general" for anything would be a great disservice.

He can and is being challenged. I think the GOP is using the issue to score points and pulling some Dems along with them. Obama should and is pushing back, I don't have an issue with this.

"She didn't say that"

Dozens of outlets are attributing that exact quote to her. If you have proof that she didn't say that, can you share it please?

"Tolerance is relative"

I don't know what that means. So that clerk in Kansas City is relatively tolerant? Or do only bigots who are sympathetic to the left, get called "relatively tolerant"?

"Historically most Muslim nations have been as tolerant as anyone"

Tell that to the Israelis. That may be the stupidest thing you have ever typed. Doesn't Islam mean "submission"? When have they ever celebrated diversity?

"To describe Muslim nations "in general" for anything would be a great disservice"

OK, I see. So only liberals get to make generalizations, like when Obama said conservatives "don't seem so tough to me". Or when Hilary says that conservatives are waging "a war on women", I don't recall you being opposed to her using generalizations.

Sorry, what's good for the goose, especially when it's true. The vast majority of Muslim nations, aren't great places to be a Christian, a Jew, a homosexual, or a woman. I am truly sorry if that fact makes Hilary look like the moron she is, but it's still a fact.

"I don't have an issue with this (Obama's using petty insults)."

I for one am shocked that you defend him. In equally shocking news, scientists announced today that water is wet.

scottw

11-22-2015, 05:50 AM

Tolerance is relative. the left proves this on a daily basis

Historically most Muslim nations have been as tolerant as anyone

I know right...and historically most leftists fancy themselves most tolerant too...particularly when in a room full of leftists, of course, when they leave that room...tolerance becomes relative...

I'll give you credit, you can sure regurgitate the talking points, especially the ones that make absolutely no sense

you should go easy on the cheap insults though, you sound like Obama and Trump

spence

11-22-2015, 08:15 AM

"She didn't say that"

Dozens of outlets are attributing that exact quote to her. If you have proof that she didn't say that, can you share it please?

Take 3 seconds to search for the actual speech, you can watch the video. If taking a single line out of context is your idea of journalism I guess that could explain quite a lot...

scottw

11-22-2015, 08:26 AM

Take 3 seconds to search for the actual speech, you can watch the video. If taking a single line out of context is your idea of journalism I guess that could explain quite a lot...

I'm pretty sure we've offered you the opportunity to watch the video with the exact words of the speeches/statements on many occasions where she and others like Obama lied...and you claimed she/they didn't mean what she/they actually said....sooooo...which is it???

must be relative

spence

11-22-2015, 08:28 AM

I'm pretty sure we've offered you the opportunity to watch the video with the exact words of the speeches/statements on many occasions where she and others like Obama lied...and you claimed she/they didn't mean what she/they actually said....sooooo...which is it???

must be relative
Name one.

Jim in CT

11-22-2015, 10:26 AM

Name one.

When it was alleged Bill was cheating, she said that he wasn't cheating, but rather, he was the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

She said she came under sniper fire.

Sea Dangles

11-22-2015, 02:30 PM

Uh oh
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

justplugit

11-22-2015, 03:21 PM

Tolerance is relative. Historically most Muslim nations have been as tolerant as anyone,.

Spence, I know you will rarely answer guestions, but please tell me where you found this fact and it's source.

These people have been intolerant within themselves and others who don't believe the same as themselves
and at war with each other for thousands of years.
Educate me with your references and comparisons.

spence

11-22-2015, 04:00 PM

Spence, I know you will rarely answer guestions, but please tell me where you found this fact and it's source.

These people have been intolerant within themselves and others who don't believe the same as themselves
and at war with each other for thousands of years.
Educate me with your references and comparisons.
I don't think it's a simple answer, my take is an understanding based on a lot of reading. It would be easy to assemble data showing Muslims to be both tolerant and intolerant, as one could do for Christianity just as easily.

scottw

11-22-2015, 05:19 PM

buckman

11-22-2015, 06:34 PM

detbuch

11-22-2015, 11:22 PM

Tolerance is relative. Historically most Muslim nations have been as tolerant as anyone, but the Cold War and other power influences have certainly shaped the situation today. To describe Muslim nations "in general" for anything would be a great disservice.

The historical equality of Muslim nations compared to anyone else depends on how far back such relative equality existed, where, and how long it lasted. In Spain from the eighth to the 12th century, such relative equality of tolerance existed, though by todays standards it would be considered not only intolerant but oppressive. And, in Spain, even though the Muslims had conquered and ruled it, they were outnumbered by Christians, which made it more difficult to be as harsh as in those areas where they were the majority. And the tolerance deteriorated for various reasons including wars with Europeans, the demise of more "enlightened" rulers replaced by more austere Islamic ones, and external forces from Islamic fundamentalists.

But, though cases of relative Muslim tolerance had existed in certain places in the past, after the end of "Al-Andalus," the so called golden age of Islamic rule in Spain, Muslim tolerance, by and large, steadily degraded to its relatively intolerant character of today. The "relative" tolerance of long ago ceased to exist. Not so much because Muslim rule is not really, with some exceptions, more intolerant today than in the past, it's just that compared to most other nations, it is no longer relatively equal in tolerance. Quite the opposite.

Remember this from a previous post: "there is the fact that Islamic law takes circumstance into account. When Muhammad was weak and outnumbered in Mecca, he preached peace and tolerance (hence why Meccan Suras appear peaceful); when he became strong in Medina, he preached war and went on the offensive (hence why Medinan Suras are violent and intolerant). This dichotomy—preach peace when weak, wage war when strong—has been Islamic modus operandi for centuries."

The amount of tolerance embraced by Muslims toward non-Muslims is, for the most part, dependent on the governing power they possess. As I pointed out to you in an older thread, even an influential Canadian Muslim (forget his name) who insists that Islam is a religion of peace, and that it is wrong to characterize Islam as intolerant . . . even he admitted that when Muslims become the majority population things (like tolerance and equality) go wrong.

In a like manner, population demographics is one of the engines of cultural change. Mass immigration, especially of a group which holds strong fundamental beliefs alien to the ethos of the host country, and whose relative birthrate is much higher than the host, invokes the mostly unspoken fear of conflict and fundamental cultural change. Such migrations have historically proved that fear to be valid. Western Europe is visibly showing the beginnings of the conflict and cultural change induced not merely by the Muslim immigrants, but by the increasing numbers of "home grown" Muslims. And the demographics of countries with the largest Muslim populations are on a course of becoming Islamic nations within a couple of generations.

We are told by those who want to allow, for instance, large numbers of refugees--in this case mostly Muslims--that we have this really good vetting process and the chance of importing terrorists is very small. And that home grown terrorists are more likely than refugee terrorists. That may be true. Or not as true as some past statistics seem to demonstrate. But it totally focuses on the refugees--not on the generations produced by those refugees and the culture and belief system by which they raise those generations--the future "home grown" Muslims.

Refugees who have gone through the vetting process may well have no terrorist intentions, and may truly be grateful to be rescued from horrific conditions. But their children, being raised as Americans, won't have the need to be grateful, and, like most children, many may have a conflicting emotional allegiance between the culture which their parents instilled in them and the prevailing American culture. A pride in their origins can, at least in some, probably in many, instill a bitterness against this country for what they perceive as its unjust wars against those like themselves. And they can, as are at least some, be radicalized into "home grown" terrorists. But worse than that to me would be the change, by demographic "shift," of the philosophical and governing foundation of this country into one diametrically opposed to it.

I have witnessed Mexican immigrants, documented or undocumented, come here and be very productive, more so than a large portion of "home grown" Americans. They are grateful for and happy about the opportunity to live a good life--by the sweat of their own brow. But I have seen many of their children born and raised here, feel they have no occasion to be grateful, but, rather, to be bitter about what they perceive as, or are told exists, discrimination against their "people." Some, through an educational system that is often subsidized, become lawyers, activists, judges who advocate against "the system" and seek "social justice," and militate for amnesty for millions of illegals and for the entry of more millions. They have already impacted American culture and will do even more so. They may well be the dominant "race" (la Raza) in a couple of generations.

That may be a good thing. I have no opinion about that. I really like my Mexican neighbors. I like a lot about the Latino culture. And I have met many really nice Muslims. And I like their food . . . and some of their culture. But that is neither here nor there.

What I most deeply wish is that immigrants of all stripes would cherish the freedom which, supposedly, they came here for. And I want them to understand and appreciate the American foundational governing structure under which freedom is most likely to flourish. And to defend and protect it.

For the Latinos I have great hope.

detbuch

11-22-2015, 11:34 PM

The literacy rate of young females in Iran is 98.5%. 60% of university students in Saudi Arabia are women, in fact there are 8 Muslim nations in the Middle East where more women than men go to University.

The bigger problem with women in many Islamic nations is that they can't find work for their skills.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/saudi-arabia-struggles-to-employ-its-most-educated-women/2012/11/12/b8f30c34-2a87-11e2-96b6-8e6a7524553f_story.html

My wife taught at Princess Nora University for three years and confirms most of the stuff in this article. There is a problem with the religion itself, not as much with the desire of some Muslim countries' leaders--they can't, as yet, get around the religious laws in order to actually make reformational change. Iran, which inherited some advances imposed by the Shah, is a bit more advanced.

Jim in CT

11-23-2015, 09:20 AM

I don't think it's a simple answer, my take is an understanding based on a lot of reading. It would be easy to assemble data showing Muslims to be both tolerant and intolerant, as one could do for Christianity just as easily.

"I don't think it's a simple answer"

Then why, when you needed to defend Hilary's crazy comments, did you provide this simple answer..."Historically most Muslim nations have been as tolerant as anyone"

When you wanted to show that Hilary was correct, you sure made it sound simple.

The Muslims are tolerant. Tell that to the Jews and the homosexuals who live there. I guess you can't tell it to the homosexuals, as they might be extinct there by now, what with all the genocide tolerance and all.

"based on a lot of reading"

What did you read? The MSNBC guide of how to respond to thoughtful people?

Jim in CT

11-23-2015, 09:22 AM

Cute ... And you lumped in the Christian's too . Very Obama like ��
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"showing Muslims to be both tolerant and intolerant, as one could do for Christianity just as easily"

Yep, naturally he has to throw in some moral relativism. Because Christians, in the world today, are blowing people up, stoning women, and slaughtering fellow Christians by the thousands, gassing each other, etc. Christians also want to eradicate the Jews, etc...

Can't make this up. I dare you to try.

spence

11-23-2015, 10:36 AM

Yep, naturally he has to throw in some moral relativism. Because Christians, in the world today, are blowing people up, stoning women, and slaughtering fellow Christians by the thousands, gassing each other, etc. Christians also want to eradicate the Jews, etc...

Can't make this up. I dare you to try.
The context for the discussion was about tolerance, not violence. When you look a the religions over time I don't think any one can claim the violence title either.

Violence tends to also be relative to politics.

You should read Karen Armstrong's "Fields of Blood."

Jim in CT

11-23-2015, 10:52 AM

The context for the discussion was about tolerance, not violence. When you look a the religions over time I don't think any one can claim the violence title either.

Violence tends to also be relative to politics.

You should read Karen Armstrong's "Fields of Blood."

"The context for the discussion was about tolerance, not violence"

Doesn't systemic violence against a targeted group, imply a lack of tolerance towards that group?

Spence, most Muslim nations are absolutely barbaric in their treatment of women, homosexuals, Jews, Christians, and drug addicts. Those are all groups that liberals sure claim to care a lof about (except Christians, of course, but we'll save that for later).

"When you look a the religions over time I don't think any one can claim the violence title either"

When you look at the last 100 years, I think there is a very, very clear winner in the "religious violence reality show challenge".

Do you really deny that? Honestly?

The Dad Fisherman

11-23-2015, 11:02 AM

"The context for the discussion was about tolerance, not violence"

Doesn't systemic violence against a targeted group, imply a lack of tolerance towards that group?

That must be like when my Old Man would say "This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you" just before I got spanked.....

Then again I'm pretty sure I got that ass whooping because he wasn't going to tolerate the way I was behaving :hee:

spence

11-23-2015, 11:06 AM

When you look at the last 100 years, I think there is a very, very clear winner in the "religious violence reality show challenge".

Do you really deny that? Honestly?
Is the root of the violence religion or politics? That's the question you should be asking.

Jim in CT

11-23-2015, 11:14 AM

Is the root of the violence religion or politics? That's the question you should be asking.

Boy, that's a real head-scratcher. Hmmm, let's see. Let me answer that question by asking you a quaetion. When the jihadists are about to slaughter their victims, or about to detonate a suicide vest, what do they cry out?

(1) Allahu Akhbar (God is great), or
(2) <insert name of any politician> is great?

Which is it?

Spence, just for laughs...if they aren't motivated by religion, but rather by politics, please tell us exactly which political ideology they are fighting for?

A terrorist is identified by th ecause he is killing for. Timothy McVeigh was Irish, that doesn't mean he was in the IRA. He was a political terrorist, an anti-government terrorist.

The jihadists are religious terrorists. That's the cause they are fighting for. If I am wrong, by all means, please tell me what they are fighting for? They want a world-wide secular parliamentary system? Are they all national socialists? No, I got it, they are all libertarians, they want everyone to be able to do whatever they want with no one else telling them what to do. That's it, isn't it?

Jim in CT

11-23-2015, 11:16 AM

That must be like when my Old Man would say "This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you" just before I got spanked.....

Then again I'm pretty sure I got that ass whooping because he wasn't going to tolerate the way I was behaving :hee:

True.

But I got spanked, and every time I got spanked, I absolutely had it coming. You spank your kid to teah them a lesson. Tough love is still love. Not the same as blowing him up because he doesn't want to wear his beard the way you command, or because he is willing to let his wife drive a car and learn to read.

buckman

11-23-2015, 11:49 AM

Is the root of the violence religion or politics? That's the question you should be asking.

That's the question you would ask if you don't want it to be about religion . Funny how a lot of the stuff the GOP does in politics,is blamed on religion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

11-23-2015, 12:23 PM

That's the question you would ask if you don't want it to be about religion .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Ok, that makes a lot of sense :tm:

scottw

11-23-2015, 12:32 PM

Is the root of the violence religion or politics? That's the question you should be asking.

the root of the violence is culture.... cultivated, shaped and defined by both religion and politics

http://www.politico.eu/article/molenbeek-broke-my-heart-radicalization-suburb-brussels-gentrification/

Nebe

11-23-2015, 12:51 PM

the root of the violence is culture.... cultivated, shaped and defined by both religion and politics

http://www.politico.eu/article/molenbeek-broke-my-heart-radicalization-suburb-brussels-gentrification/
I thought the root was all the bombs we drop on them and the random drone strikes. Wouldn't you want to kill someone if your house was bombed ? It's a vicious cycle
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

buckman

11-23-2015, 01:15 PM

I thought the root was all the bombs we drop on them and the random drone strikes. Wouldn't you want to kill someone if your house was bombed ? It's a vicious cycle
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bernie says it's climate change
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

11-23-2015, 01:18 PM

Is the root of the violence religion or politics? That's the question you should be asking.

In the case of so-called radical Islam, the answer is both. Fundamental Islam is both religion and government. There is no separation between those "roots" in jihadism.

That's why I have more confidence that Latino immigrants and their progeny could embrace the foundational American governmental system. The vast majority of them who are religious are Christian. There is a basis for a theological separation of church and state in the foundation of Christianity. Christ said to render unto Caesar (the state) what is "Caesar's and render unto God which is God's. It was exactly that basis which was one of the driving forces of the American Revolution and the constitutional founding of this country. It was that Judeo-Christian ethic which allowed secular and religious freedom to exist together under the over-arching principal of individual freedom.

That's why I have much less, if any, confidence that truly Muslim immigrants and their progeny who remain truly Muslim could embrace our constitutional principals of government. The basis, the foundation, the fundamental principle of Islam is the joining of politics and religion. For a true Muslim they are one and the same, and that juncture is not compatible with our foundational principles.

There is the hope that Islam will be reformed, and that might have the best chance of happening in our multi-cultural society with all of its supposedly superior benefits in the quality of life and freedom of choice. We hope that Islam can be seduced into reformation. The problem is that if you remove the joining of politics and religion from Islam, it is no longer Islam. The founder of Islam, Mohammed, specifically made religion and state the same entity. If you remove either from Islam, it is no longer the same thing.

Obviously, if Islam were to be compatible with our constitutional system and could be made so by removing either religion or politics from it, it would have to be the politics. But then what would be left? If the statist aspect is removed from Islam, it becomes a gutted shadow of what made it "great" and what was the driving force and principle in its foundation and growth. And its guiding rules embodied in the Quran and the Hadith would have to be so greatly revised as to become a different entity--maybe some offshoot or sect of its original ties to Judaism or the twelve tribes. I doubt that such a contradictory reformation can happen.

I think that so long as Muslims remain a small, relatively powerless group in the broad national sense, they can be a productive, cooperative, and "very nice" people with sporadic or unreported incidences of honor killings or other various gruesome doings that are part of their culture. When they become a majority the good, "nice", things begin to fall apart.

And, so long as Islam where it is the ruling power, is at war with the West, especially the great Satan America, there is that emotional, spiritual attachment to it and its war in the hearts and souls of faithful Muslims, even here in the U.S. And therein lies the potential, the probability, that young idealistic, truly Muslim, minds will be "radicalized."

And Islam's greatest friend here, ironically, is secular progressivism. It is the progressive/socialist hope that religion of all sorts will become hypocritical shadows of "faith" and fade away by force of strictly humanistic values of fairness, equality, and elimination of class disparities. It sees success in the marginalization of and perceived irrelevance of Christianity (so can let it wither and be destroyed in Muslim countries without protesting or doing much to help, and chastising Christians here reminding them of their past sins). And it sees the necessity of helping Muslim dissidents, refugees, and "moderates" in the hope that they too will weaken the fundamentals of their faith so that Islam is slowly "reformed"--and fades away.

There is also an indirect, "relative," tie between the progressives and the Muslims. Both share the principle of the "benevolent" all-powerful State. And both are incompatible with our founding constitutional structure. And both, at their true fundamental core, are (or can be re Islam) the enemy within that corrupts and destroys the character and foundation of this country. On the other hand, both would like to see the other disappear. But, in the meantime, each can be a tool of the other.

Nebe

11-23-2015, 01:23 PM

Bernie says it's climate change
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He does and it's a very good argument.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

11-23-2015, 01:48 PM

He does and it's a very good argument.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How was Osama Bin Laden negatively impacted by climate change? Or the Ft Hood shooter? Or the mastermind of the Paris attacks, who went to a prestigious high school?

Nebe

11-23-2015, 01:49 PM

The issues in Syria Jim. The issues in Syria.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw

11-23-2015, 02:08 PM

The issues in Syria Jim. The issues in Syria.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if only that were true

Nebe

11-23-2015, 02:15 PM

That's what he said during the debate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe

11-23-2015, 02:16 PM

Climate change leads to crop failure leads to hunger leads to uprising leads to terrorism
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Doover

11-23-2015, 02:28 PM

Climate change leads to crop failure leads to hunger leads to uprising leads to terrorism
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ah, the hysterical ravings of the edumacated Democrap mind.

Classic!

Fly Rod

11-23-2015, 02:54 PM

Nebe....now I know Y Jessi James robbed banks, the dust bowl of the thirties that reached to DC...yup it was climate change that made him do it or was it the locust......LOL....:)

buckman

11-23-2015, 06:28 PM

[QUOTE=Nebe;1086862]Climate change leads to crop failure leads to hunger leads to uprising leads to terrorism
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/QUOTE

Seems reasonable 😜
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe

11-23-2015, 08:59 PM

Google it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

11-23-2015, 09:51 PM

Climate change leads to crop failure leads to hunger leads to uprising leads to terrorism
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bernie should have explained that to Obama or Bush long ago. They could have suppressed uprising and terrorism simply by sending boatloads of grains to make up for crop failures.

But wait . . . don't the folks who breed terrorism live in the lands that produce the oil that is used to create climate change. Dang . . . they could stop pumping oil; which would prevent climate change; which would save their crops; which would remove the need for uprising and terrorism . . .

Nebe

11-23-2015, 10:29 PM

Is it the only reason? No.. But it is has a lot to do with it.
I can understand that you guys can't grasp complex issues.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

11-23-2015, 10:44 PM

Is it the only reason? No.. But it is has a lot to do with it.
I can understand that you guys can't grasp complex issues.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh crap . . . there are other reasons too? Does sound rather complex . . . and hopeless . . . it's tough enough to prevent climate change . . . But other reasons too . . . ahh man that's too much for simple mortals to fix. Gotta give Obama and Hillary some slack on that one. Maybe even Bush.

scottw

11-24-2015, 04:04 AM

. . . they could stop pumping oil; which would prevent climate change; . . .

oh my........

scottw

11-24-2015, 05:29 AM

hey Eben, you know that Assad is a Socialist...right?....maybe you should consider Syria...I hear there's plenty of room opening up and they have tons of raw material for your glass blowing...:wavey:

Fly Rod

11-24-2015, 07:52 AM

spence

11-24-2015, 08:06 AM

NEBE U may B right....could B too complex for me....Y R they not rioting in Northern Kentucky, there is hunger,there is no uprising, no terrorism,your president has taken away their livelihood, most coal mines R closed..... people in them towns R....:mad:
Kentucky is the third largest coal producer in the USA just behind West Virginia. Overall US coal production is still around all-time high levels.

scottw

11-24-2015, 08:08 AM

Kentucky is the third largest coal producer in the USA just behind West Virginia. Overall US coal production is still around all-time high levels.

which, I guess means....drought and famine and the resulting terrorism are just around the corner

Fly Rod

11-24-2015, 07:04 PM

spence

11-24-2015, 07:19 PM

Spence from one of your socialist websites....

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/01/13/coal-j13.html

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/as-coal-dwindles-appalachia-chokes-on-the-dust/ar-AAe8rsU
You're blaming the President, even that socialist website says the closures are about profit and shifting areas of production.

RIROCKHOUND

11-24-2015, 08:37 PM

which, I guess means....drought and famine and the resulting terrorism are just around the corner

No. Just lots and lots of meth...

Nebe

11-24-2015, 09:01 PM

Kentucky is the third largest coal producer in the USA just behind West Virginia. Overall US coal production is still around all-time high levels.

That's not what Rush Limbaugh said. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw

11-25-2015, 05:41 AM

Climate change leads to crop failure leads to hunger leads to uprising leads to terrorism
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the only problem with that theory is that what we've seen is that the Islamic terrorists are generally organized, well funded, educated and not suffering from the scourge of crop failure or hunger....they resemble some of what we see on American College campuses lately more than they resemble poor frustrated victims of drought stricken nations........nice try though

none of the Paris attackers appear to have been suffering famine
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34832512

the Boston Marathon bombers were not suffering from hunger...etc...etc

you can run through the list, lot's of examples to chose from...please show a single example where a terrorist act can actually be attributed to climate change in any way :huh:

this guy does not look malnourished http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3332376/French-ISIS-fighters-issue-warning-Fran-ois-Hollande-chilling-threat-new-attacks-France.html

and in all of the video etc..I've seen of protests and riots...I've never seen any signs or heard any cries or chants related to global warming, climate, famine or hunger

Nebe

11-25-2015, 08:01 AM

the only problem with that theory is that what we've seen is that the Islamic terrorists are generally organized, well funded, educated and not suffering from the scourge of crop failure or hunger....they resemble some of what we see on American College campuses lately more than they resemble poor frustrated victims of drought stricken nations........nice try though

none of the Paris attackers appear to have been suffering famine
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34832512

the Boston Marathon bombers were not suffering from hunger...etc...etc

you can run through the list, lot's of examples to chose from...please show a single example where a terrorist act can actually be attributed to climate change in any way :huh:

this guy does not look malnourished http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3332376/French-ISIS-fighters-issue-warning-Fran-ois-Hollande-chilling-threat-new-attacks-France.html

and in all of the video etc..I've seen of protests and riots...I've never seen any signs or heard any cries or chants related to global warming, climate, famine or hunger

If you were not a 2 dimensional thinker you would realize that what I am talking about here is that crop failure leads to someone in Iraq or Syria to abandoning their way of life and joining a terrorist group or even a rebel group because now they can eat and get paid.

This is not rocket science.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe

11-25-2015, 08:03 AM

scottw

11-25-2015, 08:10 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
Climate change leads to crop failure leads to hunger leads to uprising leads to terrorism

again...look through the examples...you'll have a difficult time finding individuals who have been responsible for a terrorist attack and find and example where "crop failure leads to someone in Iraq or Syria to abandoning their way of life and joining a terrorist group"

there should be plenty to support your contention...even using what? three dimensional...four dimensional thinking??

buckman

11-25-2015, 08:14 AM

And furthermore, what does the Boston bombers have to do with the original argument that Bernie Sander's pointed out- that climate change is partly to blame for the unrest and de stabilization of Syria and Iraq ?

Looks like you are grasping at straws to prove he is wrong. He is not wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't get the rationale behind linking lack of food, and genocide . Mass migration maybe but not mass murder and murdering in the most brutal and barbaric ways .
Maybe I need to think in the fourth dimension then I can come up with reasons to excuse barbaric behavior
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw

11-25-2015, 08:18 AM

I don't get the rationale behind linking lack of food, and genocide . Mass migration maybe but not mass murder and murdering in the most brutal and barbaric ways .
Maybe I need to think in the fourth dimension then I can come up with reasons to excuse barbaric behavior
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

especially since we know that 4 in 10 Americans go to bed hungry every night

Nebe

11-25-2015, 08:27 AM

I don't get the rationale behind linking lack of food, and genocide . Mass migration maybe but not mass murder and murdering in the most brutal and barbaric ways .
Maybe I need to think in the fourth dimension then I can come up with reasons to excuse barbaric behavior
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Give them lots of crystal meth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe

11-25-2015, 08:29 AM

Isis has 30 thousand fighters.
Some came from the US and Europe, and others are there because it was their only option.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw

11-25-2015, 08:42 AM

Isis has 30 thousand fighters.
Some came from the US and Europe, and others are there because it was their only option.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ISIS is only the latest and greatest example of Islamic violence....you and Bernie act as though the problem just popped up recently and the rest of the left acts as though ISIS is the sole purveyor...stop with the knee jerk reaction wanting to blame everything on climate change...it's a little ridiculous.....it was not their only option....suggesting that is just providing justification

Nebe

11-25-2015, 09:14 AM

Bernie Sanders didn't say it was the only reason for people to embraced Bernie Sanders didn't say it was the only reason for people to embrace terrors terrorism. He just said it was a reason that should be looked at and it knowledged
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw

11-25-2015, 09:58 AM

Nebe

11-25-2015, 10:09 AM

“In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,” Bernie Sanders said during Saturday’s debate. “And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say you’re going to see countries all over the world — this is what the CIA says — they’re going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops. And you’re going to see all kinds of international conflict.”
Since the overwhelming majority of pundits and policymakers don’t understand the existential threat climate change poses, Sanders remarks were criticized, much as fellow presidential candidate Martin O’Malley’s were back in July. Yet for over three years, leading security and climate experts — and Syrians themselves — have made the connection between climate change and the Syrian civil war. Indeed, when a major peer-reviewed study came out on in March making this very case, Retired Navy Rear Admiral David Titley said it identifies “a pretty convincing climate fingerprint” for the Syrian drought.
Titley, a meteorologist who led the U.S. Navy’s Task Force on Climate Change when he was at the Pentagon, also said, “you can draw a very credible climate connection to this disaster we call ISIS right now.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw

11-25-2015, 10:23 AM

“In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,” Bernie Sanders said during Saturday’s debate. :screwy:

“And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say you’re going to see countries all over the world — this is what the CIA says — they’re going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops. And you’re going to see all kinds of international conflict.” :rocketem::horse::fence::liquify::morons:

Since the overwhelming majority of pundits and policymakers don’t understand the existential threat(fifth dimension thinking) climate change poses, Sanders remarks were criticized, :rotf2:

much as fellow presidential candidate Martin O’Malley’s were back in July. Yet for over three years, leading security and climate experts — and Syrians themselves — have made the connection between climate change and the Syrian civil war. so some Syrians blame the Syrian civil war on climate change...that's a good one...I think the American Civil War had a lot to do with climate change too...I think there was a peer reviewed paper drafted by experts in the field somewhere

Indeed, when a major peer-reviewed study came out on in March making this very case, Retired Navy Rear Admiral David Titley said it identifies “a pretty convincing climate fingerprint” for the Syrian drought.
Titley, a meteorologist who led the U.S. Navy’s Task Force on Climate Change when he was at the Pentagon, also said, “you can draw a very credible climate connection to this disaster we call ISIS right now.”

great...another nut...."climate fingerprint"...that's precious

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes...climate change/global warming wackos blame everything on climate change and global warming...which is why no one listens to them anymore :chased:

Nebe

11-25-2015, 10:31 AM

Tell that to your great grand children.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw

11-25-2015, 11:05 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post

“In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,” Bernie Sanders said during Saturday’s debate. :screwy:

Eben...shouldn't this be the other way around? sounds like Bernie is saying that climate change is being caused by the growth of terrorism..

might want to clarify that as it could be an important distinction...need to know if we should combat climate change by fighting terrorism or combat terrorism by fighting climate change

JohnR

11-25-2015, 11:12 AM

you and Bernie act as though the problem just popped up recently and the rest of the left acts as though ISIS is the sole purveyor...

Ding, ding, ding. "Lets go kill Westerners because of Climate Change" :laugha:

“In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,” Bernie Sanders said during Saturday’s debate. “And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say you’re going to see countries all over the world — this is what the CIA says — they’re going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops. And you’re going to see all kinds of international conflict.”
Since the overwhelming majority of pundits and policymakers don’t understand the existential threat climate change poses, Sanders remarks were criticized, much as fellow presidential candidate Martin O’Malley’s were back in July. Yet for over three years, leading security and climate experts — and Syrians themselves — have made the connection between climate change and the Syrian civil war. Indeed, when a major peer-reviewed study came out on in March making this very case, Retired Navy Rear Admiral David Titley said it identifies “a pretty convincing climate fingerprint” for the Syrian drought.
Titley, a meteorologist who led the U.S. Navy’s Task Force on Climate Change when he was at the Pentagon, also said, “you can draw a very credible climate connection to this disaster we call ISIS right now.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Rear Admiral David Titley - never heard of her (just kidding - too opportune to pass up) . There are a lot of smart Natsec and Ex Navy folk saying that the current Navy is so far removed from the warrior spirit due to the SocialJustice revolution in the government, we better hope there is no real peer level war.

Jim in CT

11-25-2015, 11:17 AM

Nebe, if Bernie says that some ISIS fighters joined up due to economic desperation, I would bet he is correct. SOME of them. Not all, and certainly not leadership. As Scott said, this problem has been around a long time, way before Al Gore correctly concluded he could scam thoughtless lefties to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, by bleating about climate change.

The underlying motivation for these people is religious, it's not economic, and it's certainly not environmental.

Haven't heard one yet, yell out "Mother Nature Akhbar!"

spence

11-25-2015, 11:26 AM

Nebe, if Bernie says that some ISIS fighters joined up due to economic desperation, I would bet he is correct.
This is actually a big problem, young Syrian men don't have jobs and are joining ISIS for a paycheck...

Jim in CT

11-25-2015, 11:35 AM

This is actually a big problem, young Syrian men don't have jobs and are joining ISIS for a paycheck...

And you know this how? Do they have to disclose this on their ISIS job application?

If all they wanted was money, well now they have it. They have captured huge oil fields, some reports say ISIS is selling a million dollars of oil a day. If they took over the oil fields and then just focused on the oil business, one might make a case that this is all about economics. Not sure how machine-ginning 130 French folks, improves their economic outlook more than capturing oil fields does.

Desperate economic conditions might help in recruiting a few more foot soldiers. It's clearly not the underlying cause that they are trying to promote.

detbuch

11-25-2015, 11:51 AM

“In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,” Bernie Sanders said during Saturday’s debate.

In fact, Islam is directly related to the growth of terrorism. Of the two, Islam and climate change, Islam is demonstrably more related to terrorism, and on a vastly greater scale.

“And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say you’re going to see countries all over the world — this is what the CIA says — they’re going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops. And you’re going to see all kinds of international conflict.”

All kinds of international conflict have existed since the beginning of nation states and all kinds of conflict have always occurred even before that. The ultimate socialist method of eliminating international conflict is to eliminate "states" and have one world order dictated by an all-powerful central bureau of various "experts" controlling every aspect of the great unwashed masses' lives by unopposed law, force, and "training" to accept the peaceful coexistence of all beings and things. Notions of man made climate change, income inequality, individual biases and differences outside prescribed doctrines of human behavior, overpopulation, and so forth, are powerful propagandistic tools which are used to hopefully bring about an eventual stable, population controlled, paradise.

Since the overwhelming majority of pundits and policymakers don’t understand the existential threat climate change poses, Sanders remarks were criticized, much as fellow presidential candidate Martin O’Malley’s were back in July. Yet for over three years, leading security and climate experts — and Syrians themselves — have made the connection between climate change and the Syrian civil war. Indeed, when a major peer-reviewed study came out on in March making this very case, Retired Navy Rear Admiral David Titley said it identifies “a pretty convincing climate fingerprint” for the Syrian drought.

The climate fingerprint has always existed. It has existed more as a climate fist in the past with greater fluctuations and higher and lower degrees of temperature, all well before human intervention. Even now, the vast percentage of influence over climate is not man made. The tiny percentage due to human CO2 emission is supposedly a "tipping point" which puts us over some edge. The various non-human tipping points of the past suggest that nature has more in store for us and there will be little we can do about it. On the other hand, I suppose, as Bernie suggests, we can all become terrorists.

Titley, a meteorologist who led the U.S. Navy’s Task Force on Climate Change when he was at the Pentagon, also said, “you can draw a very credible climate connection to this disaster we call ISIS right now.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You could draw all sorts of credible connections to this "disaster," but why overlook the most obvious and important ones.

There have always been droughts in the Middle East and elsewhere. And yes, they have caused, and will cause, in the future, human misery--even conflicts. But terrorism is a different kind of "conflict." It is not a methodology used to ameliorate natural or even human caused changes in climate. The amounts of money, effort, killing are employed to bring about ideological change, not climate change. Just as have been past terrorisms, including Nazism and bolshevism in the twentieth century. And neither the goals nor the results had anything to do with climate.

And if some of the useful idiots recruited by the ideologues join the jihads because of poverty, man made or natural, the simple answer would be to offer them welfare rather than war.

And if we are to think that elimination of climate change will help to bring about the end of terrorism, or conflicts, then we are in a la-la land of mistaken identity. We cannot eliminate climate change. And it is not the cause of terrorism.

Nebe

11-25-2015, 11:59 AM

Economic hardship is from...... Wait for it......... Waiiiit forrrrrrrr it...............

Crop failure ! Holy clam and cuttlefish !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw

11-25-2015, 12:15 PM

Economic hardship is from...... Wait for it......... Waiiiit forrrrrrrr it...............

Crop failure ! Holy clam and cuttlefish !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:gu::cputin::screwy::huh:

detbuch

11-25-2015, 12:31 PM

Economic hardship is from...... Wait for it......... Waiiiit forrrrrrrr it...............

Crop failure ! Holy clam and cuttlefish !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So killing people in France is supposed to stop crop failure.? Do you really believe that if we stop using fossil fuels there will be no crop failures? If so, seems like the answer would be to blow up the oil rigs in the Middle East rather than killing folks around the rest of the world.

Oh, yeah . . . yeah . . . some are too stupid to see the connection. They're probably stuck in some two dimensional sort of thinking where the only option is to hire out as assassins. At least then they'll have food in their belly. Sounds like criminal behavior. Ah, that's right. Socialists, a-la Bernie, believe that society is the problem, not criminals. If society was just, there would be no criminals. Oh, maybe some incorrigibles who might profit from some time in reorientation, or maybe a gulag of some sort.

Yup, society must control everything, including climate change. This will take great, minutely detailed, planning. That cannot be left up to run-of-the-mill regular people. They always tend to eff things up. And letting them self-control by the use of some little book of fairy tales and Santa Clauses is much too demeaning. All persons must be given dignity. That can only be done taking away silly notions of freedom and individuality, and instilling a rational devotion to governing experts.

Then they will have the true dignity of being provided what they obviously cannot provide themselves. And in the correct and equal proportions. Climate change will then be neutralized as a source of human discomfort.

Nebe

11-25-2015, 12:44 PM

What does Paris have to do with the people of Syria and their uprising ?

You guys crack me up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw

11-25-2015, 12:49 PM

What does Paris have to do with the people of Syria and their uprising ?

You guys crack me up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria

do a little reading..lot's of obvious reasons for Syrian unrest....climate change is never mentioned and if it were it would be very low on the list of factors

detbuch

11-25-2015, 01:06 PM

What does Paris have to do with the people of Syria and their uprising ?

You guys crack me up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,” Bernie Sanders said during Saturday’s debate. “And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say you’re going to see countries all over the world — this is what the CIA says — they’re going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops. And you’re going to see all kinds of international conflict.”

Bernie connected climate change to "terrorism." What does terrorism "have to do with the people of Syria and their uprising?"
Are the people of Syria terrorists? Are they "moderate" rebels? Are they "protesters" who've stepped it up a notch?

If they're terrorists, why does Obama want to help them? Does he want to help terrorists? Isn't the narrative that they're actually fighting the terrorists like ISIS?

This is confusing. Talk about "cracking me up."

The quote by Bernie talks about "the growth of terrorism" and "all kinds of international conflict." Seems like he is taking climate change growing terrorism beyond what's happening in Syria.

Nebe

11-25-2015, 01:54 PM

So you guys think that without any doubt that climate change is not related to the fuels that ignite terrorism ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

11-25-2015, 03:19 PM

So you guys think that without any doubt that climate change is not related to the fuels that ignite terrorism ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Climate change can be related to just about anything. It is even related to the expansion of human life. It can be the cause of human misery. Or can ignite growth of all the things which help human life to flourish. It can have a connection to every societal perspective, from good to bad, from constructive to destructive. But in most cases, it is peripheral to larger human perspectives and machinations, most of which would exist whether climate changed or not.

But climate change is inexorable. The idea that it can be maintained between some small parameters which will have no effect on humans is a pipe dream.

And to say that it has more than a usual peripheral effect on ideologies that are driven and exist whether climate change exists or not, places the cart before the horse and focuses on causes which, if they didn't exist, the ideology and its implementation, e.g. Islamic terrorism, would still exist and strive to reach its ideological goal.

The goal of Islamic terrorism is not connected to climate change, but it certainly can be used as a peripheral motivation to help it along if some useful idiots need it as motivation. Just as climate change can be used as a notion to persuade massive changes in societies, especially to transform individualistic social structures into collectivist ones.

scottw

11-25-2015, 03:31 PM

climate change sounds like a religion

spence

11-29-2015, 03:39 PM

That's why I have much less, if any, confidence that truly Muslim immigrants and their progeny who remain truly Muslim could embrace our constitutional principals of government. The basis, the foundation, the fundamental principle of Islam is the joining of politics and religion. For a true Muslim they are one and the same, and that juncture is not compatible with our foundational principles.

I think it ultimately comes down to what people want from life. Democracy, personal freedoms? I'd wager that there's a lot of similarities with Judeo Christian ethics at the individual level. Granted that Islam has a closer tie to politics than Christianity structurally, but this has also been bastardized by Cold War politics the past 60 years.

I also don't see much difference between a devout Muslim recognizing the Constitution as the basis for US government versus an evangelical Christian. I doubt those who can't deal with it are going to be banging down the door to immigrate any time soon.

Jim in CT

11-29-2015, 08:36 PM

I think it ultimately comes down to what people want from life. Democracy, personal freedoms? I'd wager that there's a lot of similarities with Judeo Christian ethics at the individual level. Granted that Islam has a closer tie to politics than Christianity structurally, but this has also been bastardized by Cold War politics the past 60 years.

I also don't see much difference between a devout Muslim recognizing the Constitution as the basis for US government versus an evangelical Christian. I doubt those who can't deal with it are going to be banging down the door to immigrate any time soon.

"I'd wager that there's a lot of similarities with Judeo Christian ethics at the individual level"

Wrong. I don't see Jews or Christians treating their women, or homosexuals, the way that Muslims do. And that's not just jihadists I'm talking about.

detbuch

11-29-2015, 08:38 PM

I think it ultimately comes down to what people want from life.

That is ultimately obvious. But it is so fundamental that, as a general statement, it is misleading. The sameness in general implies similarity in the specific. But the specifics make all the difference. So the question is what does a true Muslim want from life? To conjure up an answer, one must first have an inkling of what it means to be a true Muslim.

Democracy, personal freedoms?

Democracy and personal freedoms are not automatically compatible. A defined and limited democracy which is constrained from imposing law on all "persons" simply by the will of a majority, or by the whim of centralized power, is required in order to preserve personal freedoms. The definition of such a democracy must limit it to a minimum of powers which subjugate it to the sovereign "persons." A good example would be the U.S. Constitution--as written and intended.

I'd wager that there's a lot of similarities with Judeo Christian ethics at the individual level.

A lot? Maybe in generalized characterizations of individual human behavior and desire--the coming down to what people want paradigm. But in the specifics within those characterizations, there is a world of difference between Judeo Christian ethics and Islamic ethics. That is, if we are speaking of true Christians and true Muslims.

Granted that Islam has a closer tie to politics than Christianity structurally,

Islam doesn't merely have a "closer tie" to politics, it IS politics. It is "structurally" composed as a theocratic system of government. The "religion" and the "government" are one and the same. There is no separation. There is no secular component to Islamic law. If we are speaking of true Islam.

True Christianity is not "structurally" concerned with the politics of this world. It distances itself from the realm of the State (that which is Caesar's) and enters into the spiritual realm of the "person." The connection, if you care to call it political, is directly between the person and God (that which is God's). If we are speaking of true Christianity.

but this has also been bastardized by Cold War politics the past 60 years.

Both religions have been bastardized in the course of their existence. There have been periods where Christianity was bastardized into an arm of the State. And periods in certain places where Islam was "structured" into a more tolerant quasi-secular theocracy. But reform for each has been a return to fundamentals. And, though bastardization began to make the religions a bit more similar in "structure," they maintained fundamental differences. And reformation to original "structure" allows Christianity to be perfectly compatible to our Constitution. Fundamental, true, Islam doesn't fit. It doesn't allow for sovereign individuals, or individual rights, or personal freedom . . . etc.

I also don't see much difference between a devout Muslim recognizing the Constitution as the basis for US government versus an evangelical Christian.

Bless you Spence . . . always the nice guy, suppressing any natural inclination to hate or discriminate (or not having such inclinations) . . . always wanting to make us all alike, refusing to see any differences which might run counter to your niceness . . . and ever ready to twist and couch your language in irrelevant truths and in such a way as to make be what isn't.

That you don't see "much" (I guess "some" but not important) difference between a devout Muslim and an evangelical Christian recognizing the Constitution as the basis for US government is neither here nor there in regard to their view and allegiance to that Constitution. Again, you state the obvious similarity implying that there are no significant differences.

Do you see much of a difference between an anarchist, or a communist, or a Nazi, recognizing the Constitution as the basis for the U.S. government versus an evangelical Christian? What? . . . should a communist see the Communist Manifesto as the basis for U.S. government? Seeing as how the Constitution IS the basis for U.S. government one would have to be blind (or a Progressive) not to see that.

It is absolutely possible, probable, and true that a Christian can not only see that, but could in his mind, heart, and soul abide by and be faithful to the Constitution. Communists, Nazis, anarchists, Socialists, true Muslims, (and Progressives) can not in their mind, heart, and soul (if they have one) abide by and be faithful to the Constitution.

I doubt those who can't deal with it are going to be banging down the door to immigrate any time soon.

They're already here--including communists, Nazi's, anarchists, Socialists, true Muslims as well as bastardized ones (and Progressives).