Junebug
Well-known member
To terrorize.
And *I'm* being simplistic?
To terrorize.
I think this is true. I have no doubt that the masses of radical Islam are led by their faith beliefs. I liken it to a similar situation to prosperity gospel megachurches. There are usually a few charlatans gaining on the backs of earnest believers desperate to believe anything that will offer them or their children a better life. Obviously Joel Osteen and Creflo Dollar aren't leading their flock to violence, but the psychology is the same.
That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse. Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and al Qaeda promote; to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.
But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans -- of every faith -- to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It's our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we travel down that road, we lose. That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values plays into the hands of groups like ISIL. Muslim Americans are our friends and our neighbors, our co-workers, our sports heroes -- and, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are willing to die in defense of our country. We have to remember that.
No wonder you guys don't think ISIS is a problem. You think these guys are like your church going friends.
Christian fundamentalists are a real threat to our county, believe it or not.
Knowell, I really want to know: what does a person have to say to convince you that he thinks "ISIS is a problem"? It seems to me that you and 8xDeacs and others are beating this point over and over again that posters or Obama or whoever "don't think ISIS is a problem". I think ISIS is a problem, I just don't think it's a problem worth sending a bunch of American boys to die in the desert over, nor do I think it's a problem worthy of abrogating fundamental American values of religious non-discrimination over. What is your threshold for acceptable problem-acknowledgement? It seems to me that if someone doesn't agree with whatever your preferred policy response to ISIS may be (and you're keeping that pretty close to the vest, by the way), you think that person "doesn't believe ISIS is a problem".
So tell me, since we both agree that ISIS is a "problem", what is the policy response to that problem? Let's talk about that.
They are a threat to getting your most liked candidate elected, but that's about it.
I think this is true. I have no doubt that the masses of radical Islam are led by their faith beliefs. I liken it to a similar situation to prosperity gospel megachurches. There are usually a few charlatans gaining on the backs of earnest believers desperate to believe anything that will offer them or their children a better life. Obviously Joel Osteen and Creflo Dollar aren't leading their flock to violence, but the psychology is the same.
I am not saying that I have the answer. I have thrown out some ideas. I would hope the last thing we consider is a go-it-alone war against ISIS.
I think we need to have an overarching strategy that has as an endgame the defeat of ISIS and Islamic terrorism. Currently, it does not appear that we have any strategy at all. I think working with countries in the region with a carrot and stick approach. Possibly economically isolating countries that do not address their own Islamic radicalism issues. Financially rewarding those countries that do. I would have no problem stopping immigration from countries that cannot get a grip on their terrorist problems. Military aid to countries that work with us. Boots on the ground if there is a large enough contingent.
My post does not dismiss anything of the sort. YOU read into the post what you wanted to read into it based on a stereotype.Your posts dismisses that the NRA is a problem and your only examples of complexity are gun free zones and an undefined "racial issue."
The current foreign policy team couldn't organize panic in a doomed submarine. - @MBCompanyMan
Apparently there are.Does anyone believe that the problem of guns in the US is not complex?
So if we ignore the racial makeup of gun violence, gangs, rights of self-defense, gun free zone failures, drug laws, hunter culture, political drivers (on both sides), gun industry, military contribution, history and then boil it down to "having faith in weapons to solve all their problems" which is bizarre in and of itself, then it's simple. Wow.The solutions are complex because the problem is so simple. To solve our gun problem, we have to untangle American gun culture in which many people have faith in weapons to solve their problems.
I am not saying that I have the answer. I have thrown out some ideas. I would hope the last thing we consider is a go-it-alone war against ISIS.
I think we need to have an overarching strategy that has as an endgame the defeat of ISIS and Islamic terrorism. Currently, it does not appear that we have any strategy at all. I think working with countries in the region with a carrot and stick approach. Possibly economically isolating countries that do not address their own Islamic radicalism issues. Financially rewarding those countries that do. I would have no problem stopping immigration from countries that cannot get a grip on their terrorist problems. Military aid to countries that work with us. Boots on the ground if there is a large enough contingent.
"Liberties" isn't a strawman, gun rights are in the Bill of Rights. When you act like it's a strawman, then you FEED the very fear you are talking about and eliminate any rational useful conversation. That's why gun regulations dropped post Sandy Hook. People have the basic right to have guns. The only real question is what guns should or should not be allowed. The line has gotten stricter and stricter over my lifetime. There does not seem to be an end in sight until people are completely disarmed. That's the fear.When you use a straw man future argument for securing "liberties" it becomes extremely difficult to have a rational and useful conversation on anything.
"Liberties" isn't a strawman, gun rights are in the Bill of Rights. When you act like it's a strawman, then you FEED the very fear you are talking about and eliminate any rational useful conversation. That's why gun regulations dropped post Sandy Hook. People have the basic right to have guns. The only real question is what guns should or should not be allowed. The line has gotten stricter and stricter over my lifetime. There does not seem to be an end in sight until people are completely disarmed. That's the fear.