Democrats Ban Iranians

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

That's not what trump called for.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how do you know what he called for?..you frequently tell us that politicians(particularly those that you adore) don't mean what they actually said, in fact, can often mean something entirely different than what they clearly state...perhaps you are taking him out of context or perhaps it was a long day on the campaign trail and he was exhausted...or maybe you aren't smart enough to grasp the concepts and nuances of what he was actually calling for.... soooo...you should probably just start calling him "President Trump" ...

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

That's not what trump called for.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, please explain Trump's plan to me, being I must have
missed something after seeing him interviewed at least 6 times
on the matter.

Better yet, first go back in time and answer the many
questions I have asked you to answer and you go all AWOL on me.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Spence, please explain Trump's plan to me, being I must have
missed something after seeing him interviewed at least 6 times
on the matter.

Better yet, first go back in time and answer the many
questions I have asked you to answer and you go all AWOL on me. :hihii:

Trumps plan is to self promote and divide the GOP to help Hillary win the election. You didn't get the memo ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Spence, please explain Trump's plan to me, being I must have
missed something after seeing him interviewed at least 6 times
on the matter.

Better yet, first go back in time and answer the many
questions I have asked you to answer and you go all AWOL on me.

I'm sure each interview was different based on his focus group polling.

What haven't I answered?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

So you think trump holds the USA's best interests above his own?? No way. He is pushing every envelope he can to stir the pot. He does not want to be president.. Only a fool would say the things he has said if he actually wanted to win the race. This is all about "The trump show"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Your author goes off the tracks in their very first sentence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, she puts the train back on the tracks from which it was derailed by Obama. Obama made a general statement about a religious test (allowing "only" Christians but not Muslims to immigrate here) being offensive and contrary to American values. But he got off the tracks initially by leaving out the reason for the "test," and then completely derailed the whole train when he claimed it was against American values.

Malkin got it all back on track by inserting the reason for the "test"--"in order to protect national security."

Then she corrected Obama's error re American values by quoting the Founder's thoughts on the purpose of immigration. They had definite "tests" for the kind of immigrants that should be allowed and welcomed. From what they said, it is clear that they would have been against importing thousands from a country whose culture, beliefs and view of government is contrary, even inimical, to ours, especially "in times of great public danger" and on "grounds of distrust."

As for importing Christians, they would be less adverse to that on grounds of ability to assimilate and with less of a threat in times of danger such as an ongoing war. But they would still have preferred to limit the number to those who would "increase the wealth and strength of the community."

Obama is wrong about a "test" being contrary to American values. And he is a consummate hypocrite to claim any attachment or fidelity to American values. He is about the fundamental transformation of America including the torching of its principles of government, and from the ashes creating a total reversal of the relation of the people to the government.

Not only did Obama get off the track in the first place, but you, as you are wont to do, got off the track of my post. I posted the article as a question: "When people criticize Trump for wanting a temporary ban on Muslim immigration by saying that's not who we are, or that it is un-American, or anti-constitutional, do they know what they are talking about? I'd think the Founders' opinion would be American, constitutional, and who we are."

And Malkin's article answered the question. But, as you often do, you avoided answering the question, and got off track.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No, she puts the train back on the tracks from which it was derailed by Obama. Obama made a general statement about a religious test (allowing "only" Christians but not Muslims to immigrate here) being offensive and contrary to American values. But he got off the tracks initially by leaving out the reason for the "test," and then completely derailed the whole train when he claimed it was against American values.

Malkin got it all back on track by inserting the reason for the "test"--"in order to protect national security."

Malkin? No wonder...

He doesn't leave out the reason for the test, in fact he goes to great lengths to demonstrate how absurd the idea is.

[spence]

There's also the broader context for this discussion beyond a religious test for terrorism victims to extend it to anyone trying to cross the border legally. Malkin appears to be indirectly lending support to that message as well.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

There's also the broader context for this discussion beyond a religious test for terrorism victims to extend it to anyone trying to cross the border legally. Malkin appears to be indirectly lending support to that message as well.

Malkin is far more reliable than Obama.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Malkin? No wonder...

He doesn't leave out the reason for the test, in fact he goes to great lengths to demonstrate how absurd the idea is.

The Obama speech is, as you would say, a lot of Bull @#@#@#@#it. "Only" Christians is a straw man. Restricting Muslims from the area in question and allowing Christians from there would not restrict other immigrants. And the "recruitment tool for ISIS" meme is a flimsy talking point. The biggest recruitment tool for ISIS is its success and its strict, pure, adherence to the fundamental nature of Islam to expand its power and control. ISIS has been recruiting, as was al Qaeda before it, as well as other splinter affiliates, well before Trump. And a fundamentalist Muslim would be insulted at being accused of becoming one because of who the U.S. chooses to allow as immigrants, or anything else the U.S. or anybody else does or says. A true follower of Mohammad holds non Muslims in contempt simply for not being a Muslim. And it is the will of Allah for Muslims to subjugate or kill infidels. I used to go on various more militant Muslim blogs and sites, and saw this superior haughtiness, and the ridicule of Westerners who tried to suggest an equality or to broach attempts at getting along.

As long as ISIS appears to be strong and gaining ground, it will be successful in recruitment. And U.S. immigration policy will having nothing to do with it.

And the vetting process is not as relevant in this case as he makes it out to be. It is not infallible. And if it takes so long, the better route would be to destroy ISIS in the two plus years required to vet and then release the refugees to their homeland. And if the destruction of ISIS does not make their return home feasible, there must be something bigger than ISIS going on there. And that would mean even more refugees. Better to spend the money it costs to vet and immigrate them on giving the males weapons and sending them from their camps back home. Take care of your own problem folks, rather than importing it here. Your wives and kids can join you after you've killed ISIS. And Obama is really helping you to kill it. Be strong. That would be a sort of anti-ISIS recruitment.

But what's more relevant in terms of my post is the communities of refugees created here, not how they were vetted to get here. That is the thrust of whether Trumps suggestion is anti-American or unconstitutional. And that is the point of Malkin's article. Her quoting of various key Founders shows that the suggestion is in line with American values, at least what used to be American values.

Hamilton said that those who are here as a result "of incorporating large number of foreigners" can promote "different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others," and can serve "very much to divide the community and to distract our councils, it has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another." And, once they are here, Hamilton said "the permanent [not the migration but the resident] effect of such a policy will be that in times of great public danger there will always be a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust, the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader."

And, with what the other Founders said about assimilation and welcoming those with special desirable qualities rather than merely "to swell the catalogue of people," Malkin's "track" was that Trumps suggestion is not un-American or unconstitutional. THAT was the "track" of the question I asked, but which you, once again, totally evaded, and then switched the discussion on a different, rather bogus, track.

Trumps suggestion may be "offensive" to some with delicate tastes, but it is not un-American or unconstitutional. And so I asked if those, some on this forum, who have said that it is not us, is anti-American, knew what they were talking about. Doesn't look like they do.

[detbuch]

Now Hillary, as a campaign gimmick, is screeching Obama's "recruitment tool for ISIS" meme to show how dumb Trump is, and how much better she is.

How stupid are we supposed to be to believe the contradictory BS they constantly spew? Are we supposed to believe that a presidential candidate's proposal is supposed to recruit Muslim's for ISIS but an actual sitting President calling ISIS the JV, and saying we will destroy ISIS, and bombing them, is not an even greater "recruitment tool"?

Oh . . . that's right, Obama, is not offending Muslims, he has told us that ISIS is not Islamic, that it doesn't represent Muslims. Uhhhh . . . so then why would Muslims join it?

Hard to figure out this "recruitment tool" stuff. I guess we're supposed to believe that Muslims can become irrational maniacs who will kill and destroy Americans at the drop of an obscure video, or at the suggestion of a temporary immigration policy. Mind you, kill not the actual video maker or the proposer of a policy, but all Americans anywhere they can be found.

I know, I know, some guy somewhere writing a book, or making a cartoon, or giving a speech, or creating a video, will surely set off this latent tic in Muslim consciousness so that Muslim's around the world have mass demonstrations and create havoc, injury, and death. But, after all, we must understand, those with the tic are not really Muslims.

Even the really true Muslims are at war with the tic infested Mus . . . er, pseudo-Muslims. Not a very successful war . . . even though the really true and peaceful Muslims vastly outnumber the fake ones. The good guys are probably having difficulty defeating the bad guys because the good guys are just too peaceful--like babies fighting pit bulls.

In the meantime, bad guys like Trump are recruiting the not-Muslims-with-the-latent-tic to join the evil pseudo-Muslims.

Hey, here's a small list of documented tic-infested, not-Muslim, phony jihadist groups which have sworn allegiance or support for ISIS. Note the dates for each linking to ISIS (well before Trumps proposed policy):

Islamic State's 43 Global Affiliates
Interactive World Map

Following the creation of the Islamic State (IS), Emir Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi called for jihadi groups around the world to pledge allegiance to IS. Below are lists of jihadi groups that have pledged allegiance/support as of 15 Dec. 2015.

SUPPORT/PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO IS
• al-I'tisam of the Koran and Sunnah [Sudan] - 1 Aug. 2014 - Support
• Abu Sayyaf Group [Philippines] - 25 Jun. 2014 - Support
• Ansar al-Khilafah [Philippines] - 14 Aug. 2014 - Allegiance
• Ansar al-Tawhid in India [India] - 4 Oct. 2014 - Allegiance
• Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) [Phillippines] - 13 Aug. 2014 - Support
• Bangsmoro Justice Movement (BJM) [Phillippines] - 11 Sep. 2014 - Support
• Jemaah Islamiyah [Philippines] 27 Apr. 2015 - Allegiance
• al-Huda Battalion in Maghreb of Islam [Algeria] - 30 Jun. 2014 - Allegiance
• The Soldiers of the Caliphate in Algeria [Algeria] - 30 Sep. 2014 - Allegiance
• al-Ghurabaa [Algeria] - 7 Jul. 2015 - Allegiance
• Djamaat Houmat ad-Da'wa as-Salafiya (DHDS) [Algeria] 19 Sep. 2015 - Allegiance
• al-Ansar Battalion [Algeria] 4 Sep. 2015 - Allegiance
• Jundullah [Pakistan] - 17 Nov. 2014 - Support
• Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) [Pakistan/Uzbekistan] Video - 31 Jul. 2015 - Allegiance
• Tehreek-e-Khilafat [Pakistan] - 9 Jul. 2014 - Allegiance
• Leaders of the Mujahid in Khorasan (ten former TTP commanders) [Pakistan] - 10 Jan. 2015 - Allegiance
• Islamic Youth Shura Council [Libya] - 22 Jun. 2014 - Support
• Jaish al-Sahabah in the Levant [Syria] - 1 Jul. 2014 - Allegiance
• Martyrs of al-Yarmouk Brigade [Syria] - Dec. 2014 - Part of IS - Allegiance
• Faction of Katibat al-Imam Bukhari [Syria] - 29 Oct. 2014 - Allegiance
• Jamaat Ansar Bait al-Maqdis [Egypt] - 30 Jun. 2014 - Allegiance
• Jund al-Khilafah in Egypt [Egypt] - 23 Sep. 2014 - Allegiance
• Liwa Ahrar al-Sunna in Baalbek [Lebanon] - 30 Jun. 2014 - Allegiance
• Islamic State Libya (Darnah) [Libya] - 9 Nov. 2014 - Allegiance
• Lions of Libya [Libya] (Unconfirmed) - 24 Sep. 2014 - [Support/Allegiance]
• Shura Council of Shabab al-Islam Darnah [Libya] - 6 Oct. 2014 - Allegiance
• Jemaah Anshorut Tauhid (JAT) [Indonesia] - Aug. 2014 - Allegiance
• Mujahideen Indonesia Timor (MIT) [Indonesia] - 1 Jul. 2014 - Allegiance
• Mujahideen Shura Council in the Environs of Jerusalem (MSCJ) [Egypt] - 1 Oct. 2014 - Support
• Okba Ibn Nafaa Battalion [Tunisia] - 20 Sep. 2014 - Support
• Jund al-Khilafah in Tunisia [Tunisia] - 31 Mar. 2015 - Allegiance
• Central Sector of Kabardino-Balakria of the Caucasus Emirate (CE) [Russia] - 26 Apr. 2015 - Allegiance
• Mujahideen of Tunisia of Kairouan [Tunisia] 18 May 2015 - Allegiance
• Mujahideen of Yemen [Yemen] - 10 Nov. 2014 - Allegiance
• Supporters for the Islamic State in Yemen [Yemen] - 4 Sep. 2014 - Allegiance
• al-Tawheed Brigade in Khorasan [Afghanistan] - 23 Sep. 2014 - Allegiance
• Heroes of Islam Brigade in Khorasan [Afghanistan] - 30 Sep. 2014 - Allegiance
• Supporters of the Islamic State in the Land of the Two Holy Mosques [Saudi Arabia] - 2 Dec. 2014 - Support
• Ansar al-Islam [Iraq] - 8 Jan. 2015 - Allegiance
• Boko Haram [Nigeria] - 7 Mar. 2015 - Allegiance
• The Nokhchico Wilayat of the Caucasus Emirate (CE) [Russia] - 15 Jun. 2015 - Allegiance
• al-Ansar Battalion [Algeria] - 4 Sep. 2015 - Allegiance
• al-Shabaab Jubba Region Cell Bashir Abu Numan [Somalia]- 7 Dec. 2015 - Allegiance


A hard copy link analysis chart showing jihadi groups around the world who have issued statements in either support or opposition to the Islamic State (IS) under its Emir Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is available by clicking here.

The updated version of this map and more than 45 others available to subscribers of the IntelCenter Database (ICD) in the Geospatial Component.

Additional reporting and original source materials are contained in the IntelCenter Database (ICD). Sign up for a free 10-day trial of the ICD and see additional details by clicking here.

To get notices for significant updates and more, subscribe to our mailing list:

Here's link to article for clicking internal links within it: http://intelcenter.com/maps/is-affil...tml#gs.JZXxQYI

Now, no doubt, the formation of these fake Muslim groups, and the several other not-Umma recognized jihadist groups like al Qaeda, or Taliban, or other groups affiliated and supportive of them, are, as we are told, the result of U.S. insults to Islam (but these guys are not really supposed to be Muslim's, so why do they care if Islam is insulted?) such as the invasion of Iraq, or even Afghanistan (though that was the GOOD invasion so shouldn't be offensive).

Funny thing, though, removing our presence from Iraq doesn't seem to satisfy that latent tic in the not-really-Muslims. Seems like a damned if you do or damned if you don't scenario. And it is disturbing that there are these other voices, such as those in Afghanistan who are terrified of the war between ISIS and the Taliban there, and who see ISIS's tactics and success as attractive to young, idealistic Muslims, and the fear that many of them will be recruited into ISIS. But, then, those who would join it could not truly be Muslims. Just more who have the latent tic. Even some Taliban leaders who see the old Taliban regime as outdated and ineffective have gone over to ISIS as having the better, purer doctrine, and more successful tactics. But they, too, must have the tic.

It seems that no matter what we do or don't, these groups keep popping up. Of course, Obama and the banshee really do know that we are causing these groups and that some of our dumb folks keep doing or saying things that become "recruitment tools" for the tic infested phony Muslim groups. And they know that it cannot be an actual ideological desire on the part of the recruits. All they really need is respect, an equal footing, and good jobs. It cannot be that that there is something in their hearts and souls that yearns for Islamic victory, for promised caliphates and glory, for a triumph of their heritage and its truly superior and righteous way of life. That's just a bunch of "spirit" gibberish. Just an errant tic.

[PaulS]

Just saw Trump got the endorsement of both the KKK and a Neo Nazi group. That should help him w/all the undecided Repubs. I'm sure he will reach out to the John Birch Society for the trifecta.

[Fly Rod]

Paul U got that wrong hillary got them endorsements,after all them 2 groups R racist left wing socialist democrats that she and obama support to do away with the jewish population in Israel.....C anyone can spread rhetoric.....U R getting as bad as your democratic sweet heart.....saturday she claimed Mr. Trump was Isis best friend and using his speeches for recruiting....SHE's WRONG just like her taking sniper fire.....news media looked all weekend and did not C any truth to her statement.....LOL...

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Just saw Trump got the endorsement of both the KKK and a Neo Nazi group. That should help him w/all the undecided Repubs. I'm sure he will reach out to the John Birch Society for the trifecta.

Curious where you just "saw that" ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

Curious where you just "saw that" ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Star Magazine

[detbuch]

As for Hillary's and Obama's "recruitment tool for ISIS" meme, there is this actual recruiting video for ISIS, and it is not Trump, but Obama, Clinton, Bush, and others who are pictured as recruiting tools. Here's the link to an article that contains the video. It is enlightening as to what ISIS is really about and what motivates them. Please watch the video, and be enlightened:

http://www.redstate.com/2015/12/20/b...g-video-video/

[detbuch]

As for Hillary's and Obama's "recruitment tool for ISIS" meme, there is this actual recruiting video for ISIS, and it is not Trump, but Obama, Clinton, Bush, and others who are pictured as recruiting tools. Here's the link to an article that contains the video. It is enlightening as to what ISIS is really about and what motivates them. Please watch the video, and be enlightened:

http://www.redstate.com/2015/12/20/b...g-video-video/

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As for Hillary's and Obama's "recruitment tool for ISIS" meme, there is this actual recruiting video for ISIS, and it is not Trump, but Obama, Clinton, Bush, and others who are pictured as recruiting tools. Here's the link to an article that contains the video. It is enlightening as to what ISIS is really about and what motivates them. Please watch the video, and be enlightened:

http://www.redstate.com/2015/12/20/b...g-video-video/

Trump made his inflammatory remark about banning Muslims on December 7th, the video you're linking to was released on November 24th.

Your rhetoric is just as bad as Trump. Keep it up and perhaps you've got a shot at making the next video?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Trump made his inflammatory remark about banning Muslims on December 7th, the video you're linking to was released on November 24th.

You really fail to get the point ?
I guess love really is blind
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

You really fail to get the point ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What, that ISIS desperately wants to foment fear of Muslims in the Western world?

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by spence

Your rhetoric is just as bad as Trump. Keep it up and perhaps you've got a shot at making the next video?

spence.....she said video....not his statements....LOL

[Nebe]

LOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Trump made his inflammatory remark about banning Muslims on December 7th, the video you're linking to was released on November 24th.

As Buckman said, you really failed to get the point. Or maybe it's just another one of your straw man tactics--setting up a disparity in dates as if that was the issue and distracting from or evading the point being made. Or maybe just another instance of your not paying attention, or poor reading comprehension, or failure to grasp what's in front of your nose. Or maybe you just don't want to grasp it. As Buck said, love is blind.

The point, as I said, is that it is an actual ISIS recruiting video (not a hypothetical or non-specific one a la HRC's accusation against Trump), and it had nothing to do with Trump (he has been saying insulting things about Islam and ISIS before November 24--pay attention). And the video featured, among others, her hubby and Obama as "recruitment tools."

As I pointed out in an earlier post, if Trumps proposal is supposed to be a "recruitment tool" for ISIS, Obama's words and actions, should be more so. The pot calling the kettle black thing, except the pot is blacker here (no pun intended). And this actual ISIS recruiting video proves that point. Hillary or Obama using the "recruitment tool" meme is either hypocritical or ignorant. Or worse, a rhetorical distortion (lie?) for political purposes.

This actual recruitment video also points out what I've said several times before, that so-called radical Islam is not so much a response to what we say or do, but is driven by a desire to restore the power and dominance of fundamental Islam--no matter what we say or do.

Your rhetoric is just as bad as Trump. Keep it up and perhaps you've got a shot at making the next video?

THE next video? See, this intentionally myopic focus on a video now and then when it suits a political tactic, blinds us to the hundreds, maybe thousands, of insulting anti-Islamic videos that have been made and are being made. Countless insulting words have been said. Untold actions, military, political, or otherwise have been done. Picking one of these out every now and then as some singular "recruitment tool" is on the wrong side of stupid. Or an insidious political "tool."

And, actually, my rhetoric has been intrinsically far more complimentary and truthful re fundamental Islamism than the pap put out by those who try to frame true Muslims as just being regular folks like the rest of us in the West. Viewing them through our liberal secular lens thus equating their hopes, dreams, desires to ours is viewing a myth. Through the lens of fundamental Islam, that is a pathetic insult. They are superior to us. We can be equal to them only if we convert. Then we will no longer see through a glass darkly. We will see the truth, the correct path provided by Islamic scripture and Sharia.

I disagree with their view, but I have said that they are holding true to their belief. That they are not little puppets to what they consider our corrupt way of life. They are far more insulted by what they consider a condescending view of them as just regular and equal folks to and like the rest of us than they are by some video. And it must be extremely offensive to them to be depicted as maniacs who go about killing and destroying simply because they are irrationally angry over videos, rather than rationally doing what their religion, their law, tells them to do.

I think this recruitment video demonstrates much of that.

[Fly Rod]

Spence Hillary's concussion, she is a little confused of who is in videos used by Isis recruiting.... it's her husband.....LOL

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The point, as I said, is that it is an actual ISIS recruiting video (not a hypothetical or non-specific one a la HRC's accusation against Trump), and it had nothing to do with Trump (he has been saying insulting things about Islam and ISIS before November 24--pay attention). And the video featured, among others, her hubby and Obama as "recruitment tools."

I doubt many militant Muslims paid much attention to Trump before his recent remarks. That Trump isn't in the video, yet elected politicians are makes perfect sense.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, if Trumps proposal is supposed to be a "recruitment tool" for ISIS, Obama's words and actions, should be more so. The pot calling the kettle black thing, except the pot is blacker here (no pun intended). And this actual ISIS recruiting video proves that point. Hillary or Obama using the "recruitment tool" meme is either hypocritical or ignorant. Or worse, a rhetorical distortion (lie?) for political purposes.

Obama is a recruitment tool because we're bombing them.

Trumps remarks don't serve any rational test and they're highly inflammatory, especially to American Muslims. Isn't the point made by ISIS that the Western world is hostile and inhabitable to Islam?

If that's what they want why give it to them?

This actual recruitment video also points out what I've said several times before, that so-called radical Islam is not so much a response to what we say or do, but is driven by a desire to restore the power and dominance of fundamental Islam--no matter what we say or do.

I see we've dropped the "they hate us for our freedoms" rhetoric. That's a start...

THE next video? See, this intentionally myopic focus on a video now and then when it suits a political tactic, blinds us to the hundreds, maybe thousands, of insulting anti-Islamic videos that have been made and are being made. Countless insulting words have been said. Untold actions, military, political, or otherwise have been done. Picking one of these out every now and then as some singular "recruitment tool" is on the wrong side of stupid. Or an insidious political "tool."

The focus is quite deliberately far sighted. Trump's words aren't a single data point. What the enemy is witnessing are the masses of support for his racist rhetoric. As they say, Trump is a master marketer, he's giving his followers what he thinks they really want.

That this could be the most powerful person in the world must be a terrifying proposition for peace loving Muslims everywhere.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I doubt many militant Muslims paid much attention to Trump before his recent remarks. That Trump isn't in the video, yet elected politicians are makes perfect sense.

Absolutely (well, relatively, if you're offended by notions of absolute). What Obama, Kerry, Clinton, etc., said or did or doing, are every bit as much "recruitment tools" as what Trump said--they are even more so because they have the power to carry out their words.

Obama is a recruitment tool because we're bombing them.

Absolutely, like I said.

Trumps remarks don't serve any rational test and they're highly inflammatory, especially to American Muslims.

You're being an extremist here with the word "any". And I thought you were a relativist not an absolutist. Surely a relativist could see a "depends on context" scenario in which Trump's temporary ban on Muslim immigration here would be rational. Maybe you absolutely don't. Strange.

And "highly inflammatory"? Are you saying that American Muslims are being inflamed? Does that mean they are being recruited into ISIS? Or that they have no concern over the possibility of ISIS, or any other "extremist" Islamic group "radicalizing" American Muslims?

Isn't the point made by ISIS that the Western world is hostile and inhabitable to Islam?

If you are referring to the video I posted, the point is that Islam has no place in it for "the Western world". The Western world has no habitable place in Islam. The Western world is corrupt and immoral. It is not acceptable to Islam and must be destroyed.

If that's what they want why give it to them?

See, there you go again with that condescending tone. Islam is not appreciative of the notion that we can give it anything. Islam has what it needs without our help. Islamists would take offence at being relegated to needing our permission to do what they do. We are not worthy, in no position, to give Islamists anything except that which they will exact from us regardless if we consent or not.

The focus is quite deliberately far sighted. Trump's words aren't a single data point. What the enemy is witnessing are the masses of support for his racist rhetoric. As they say, Trump is a master marketer, he's giving his followers what he thinks they really want.

Well if he's giving them what they want, then their wanting precedes him. At least he is willing to abide by the will of the people. That would be a good start for a politician. Are Obama and Hillary giving their followers what they want? Are they giving the American people what they want? Do they have master marketers guiding them? Focusing on Trump as if he's the recruiting tool for ISIS, and disregarding the ocean of videos and rhetoric and bombings is a political trick. And it distracts from what Islamists "really want." And, yeah, BTW, Obama, Clinton, and a host of others are every bit, and more, part of that ocean of "recruitment tools" for ISIS. And they are, at the very least, hypocrites at pointing to Trump as one.

That this could be the most powerful person in the world must be a terrifying proposition for peace loving Muslims everywhere.

That makes no sense.

[buckman]

Why do I get the feeling that somewhere deep in the bowels of the Democratic headquarters, an ISIS recruitment video starring Donald Trump is being made . It amazes me that now terrorism is Donald Trump's fault .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

Why do I get the feeling that somewhere deep in the bowels of the Democratic headquarters, an ISIS recruitment video starring Donald Trump is being made . It amazes me that now terrorism is Donald Trump's fault .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That seems more suited to the Republicans. Nixon even had a committee that use to sit around thinking of sleazy things to do. They did it so much that laws had to be passed to try to prevent it.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

That seems more suited to the Republicans. Nixon even had a committee that use to sit around thinking of sleazy things to do. They did it so much that laws had to be passed to try to prevent it.

Did that come up during the investigation, that Hillary was kicked off of for being unethical and sleazy ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by PaulS

That seems more suited to the Republicans. Nixon even had a committee that use to sit around thinking of sleazy things to do. They did it so much that laws had to be passed to try to prevent it.

Paul There is no political group then the democrats that R more sleazy then the democrats forcing and herding people into obamacare forcing fines for not joining and huge co pays when needing medical assistance.....