Serious Thread Topic: Can Terrorism Really Be Stopped?

[Marion Morrison]

OKC was a lashing out at the Federal government in response to Janet Reno ordering people needlessly burned to death.

All terrorism is "lashing out." Do you really want to split those hairs? Sounds like you think there's justified terrorism.

It was terrorism, and those were innocent government workers. I don't condone that.

Jihadist terror can ultimately be permanently reduced if the religion can finally go through its desperately-needed Reformation.

That would probably require a certain degree of isolation, where enough of the world demands and supports it.

Unfortunately, too many (the Regressive Left primarily) refuse to hold the religion accountable and make such a demand.

What are their reasons for that? Well, that's an interesting question.
.

The "reforms" you want are what happened to Christianity and Judaism in the modern world - the believers (mostly) don't believe or act in accordance with the faith. The faithful don't have actual faith. The faith of most is now equal to their Jesus Saves bumper sticker and that's roughly the depth (and knowledge) of their faith as well.

I'd be interested to know how you are going to suggest to faithful Muslims, who believe they are in an eternal war in defense of God, that they should instead act and think like the pluralistic and faithless capitalistic immoral Western nations who produce all of the immorality they are required, by faith, to reject? Good luck with that one.

You just made the case that Muslims won't change.


The Crusades have been over for hundreds of years, Jihad never stopped.

Jihad (to struggle with something, anything, for God) is not going to end. And if the people forbidden to kill for God did, for hundreds of years, why do you think people allowed to wage war, to kill under the right conditions, are just going to give that up? Because you ignore your holy book and teachings they are supposed to do the same? Why, because it's better for you?

I know what my answer to your demands would be - go fuck yourself.

^Melted. Do you know what my answer would be?

 

[OldLady]

I'd like to get some thoughts from the liberals on this, because as a liberal, I really don't hear a whole lot of solutions to stopping terrorism. Probably because it can't be stopped. But I'd still like to hear if there have been any solutions proposed by the left.

Also would like to hear thoughts from the right about a real solution. Do you guys really think that bombing people into oblivion is going to end terrorism? We're talking about religious extremism here -- violence against them only adds fuel to the fire. Does the right actually have a real, actionable solution to ending terrorism?

My personal point of view is that you can't really stop it. I don't see how it's possible as long as people still cling to these poisonous ME religions. The only real way we'd ever end global terrorism is through a sort of collective spiritual and psychological evolution to the next level, where as a society we've moved past the violent idiocy of archaic organized religion. The change must come from within. But that just isn't in the cards for the foreseeable future. In other words, we're screwed and terrorism will become more and more of a "normal" part of life.

Discuss...

The only real way we'd ever end global terrorism is through a sort of collective spiritual and psychological evolution to the next level, where as a society we've moved past the violent idiocy of archaic organized religion.
Give us 500 years and get back to us.
I'd still like to hear if there have been any solutions proposed by the left.
There is a huge ballooning of young people in the M.E. and Northern Africa. Over half the population is under 35. Unemployment is 30% and no hope of getting better. The solutions I've heard proposed are the boring socio-economic ones of focusing on more opportunity for young people. It won't stop all recruitment, but it would probably cut down on the numbers a lot in a generation.
There is no quick fix. I agree with you that JUST bombing the shit out of them isn't the solution. It's part of the solution because they CANNOT control swaths of territory in order to make $ and go about their bloody business undisturbed. Of course, it is also completely against everyone's ideas of human rights to barge in to a city, kill all the resistance and take over, which is how they have taken Raqqa and Mosul and the rest.
So bombs there are in order, imo.
But to keep it from being a chronic 100 year problem? Focus on a better future. Maybe not our responsibility, but help the actual governments in M.E. and Northern Africa do that. An international effort. Bring them into the awesome global economy. Right now, even parts of Egypt are running on 8 or 9 hours of electricity a day. The infrastructure and their economies are gasping. Out of work and desperate young men aren't all that different anywhere. Look what they do in Chiraq.
So that's one lefty's ideas.

Ask yourself: Do the actual governments actually want our help? Solving electricity and infrastructure problems would require those leaders a sincere desire to want their people to have infrastructure and electricity. Stop fucking apologizing, the leaders of these countries chose this. You are placing blame on US when it is them who still permit slavery and egregious income inequality. What is your real motive? Help them or bash US?

I just re-read my post and I fail to see where I blamed us for anything. Or bashed the U.S. for anything. I'm no genius and I know close to nothing about foreign policy. I am sharing what sounds to me to be a sensible approach to slowing terrorist recruitment in the future. I supported our current military efforts. Where have I been negative?

 

[ricechickie]

The "reforms" you want are what happened to Christianity and Judaism in the modern world - the believers (mostly) don't believe or act in accordance with the faith. The faithful don't have actual faith. The faith of most is now equal to their Jesus Saves bumper sticker and that's roughly the depth (and knowledge) of their faith as well.

I'd be interested to know how you are going to suggest to faithful Muslims, who believe they are in an eternal war in defense of God, that they should instead act and think like the pluralistic and faithless capitalistic immoral Western nations who produce all of the immorality they are required, by faith, to reject? Good luck with that one.

Yikes.

Well, never mind.

Hopefully they'll overcome us, then, and you'll be a bit happier.
.

I would like them to care as little about their faith, meaning they are very liberal about it, as most Christians and Jews are, which would make them believers in name only.

Now, how would you like me to tell the faithful Muslims "See, here's the problem, Omar, you actually believe and we (in the capitalist corrupted porn and drug-loving West) need you folks not to believe. If you'll only become as immoral and focused on wealth and pleasure as we are we'll all get along just dandy. Be a sport, Omar, and drop this God actually matters thing, it's really annoying and it makes it hard for me to sell your kids booze and porno videos.

People outside of the religion can't say anything to make a Reformation happen.

What they CAN do is stop enabling and spinning for jihadist atrocities. They can stop tolerating the religion's intense anti-liberal elements. That would provide far more leverage for those in the religion who DO want a Reformation.

That's it. That's what we can do. But many are choosing not to.
.

That's bullshit. No one's spinning or enabling jihadists except for the jihadists. I suspect those you refer to are those who understand that Islamic extremists are not all Muslims, and refuse to engage in wholesale discrimination of Muslims due to the acts of a few.

Looks like we disagree.

I'll agree with this honest liberal, a man who puts his life on the line every day against the jihadists as he fights for a Reformation of his beloved Islam, one who has to deal with so much interference from the Regressive Left (a term he himself coined):
.

He's talking about the either-or fallacy.

Maajid Nawaz is a Muslim, no?

He can enact reformation from within.

I, as a non-Muslim, can criticize and exhort change, but not demand anything (at least not without being an asshole, since it's not my religion).

What I can control, which he alludes to, is my own government's counterproductive foreign policy decisions when it comes to terrorism. That doesn't mean I am "aligned" with Muslims extremists.

 

[RightyTighty]

The "reforms" you want are what happened to Christianity and Judaism in the modern world - the believers (mostly) don't believe or act in accordance with the faith. The faithful don't have actual faith. The faith of most is now equal to their Jesus Saves bumper sticker and that's roughly the depth (and knowledge) of their faith as well.

I'd be interested to know how you are going to suggest to faithful Muslims, who believe they are in an eternal war in defense of God, that they should instead act and think like the pluralistic and faithless capitalistic immoral Western nations who produce all of the immorality they are required, by faith, to reject? Good luck with that one.

Yikes.

Well, never mind.

Hopefully they'll overcome us, then, and you'll be a bit happier.
.

I would like them to care as little about their faith, meaning they are very liberal about it, as most Christians and Jews are, which would make them believers in name only.

Now, how would you like me to tell the faithful Muslims "See, here's the problem, Omar, you actually believe and we (in the capitalist corrupted porn and drug-loving West) need you folks not to believe. If you'll only become as immoral and focused on wealth and pleasure as we are we'll all get along just dandy. Be a sport, Omar, and drop this God actually matters thing, it's really annoying and it makes it hard for me to sell your kids booze and porno videos.

People outside of the religion can't say anything to make a Reformation happen.

What they CAN do is stop enabling and spinning for jihadist atrocities. They can stop tolerating the religion's intense anti-liberal elements. That would provide far more leverage for those in the religion who DO want a Reformation.

That's it. That's what we can do. But many are choosing not to.
.

That's bullshit. No one's spinning or enabling jihadists except for the jihadists. I suspect those you refer to are those who understand that Islamic extremists are not all Muslims, and refuse to engage in wholesale discrimination of Muslims due to the acts of a few.

Looks like we disagree.

I'll agree with this honest liberal, a man who puts his life on the line every day against the jihadists as he fights for a Reformation of his beloved Islam, one who has to deal with so much interference from the Regressive Left (a term he himself coined):
.

Regressive Left? Explain this to us. Donald Trump just had a very pleasant visit with the very people who not only funded, but also supplied, the people responsible for 9-11. And you think the Left is the problem here?

There's a problem here alright, and it ain't those on the left calling for Western restraint and religious tolerance and understanding.

 

[JoeB131]

Looks like we disagree.

I'll agree with this honest liberal, a man who puts his life on the line every day against the jihadists as he fights for a Reformation of his beloved Islam, one who has to deal with so much interference from the Regressive Left (a term he himself coined):

Yup, keep dragging out this guy, another minority trying to please white people.

Don't discuss about how we have had a policy towards the region that goes back to colonialism that is really our problem. Just try to pretend these folks wouldn't resist our invasions and general douchbaggery if it weren't for THAT religion.

Our problem isn't their religion. Our problem is our policies. The Zionists and Oil Companies tell you there's a Jihadist under your bed, and you are all keen to send other people's kids off to war.

Well, 27 years ago, I was one of those kids, really worried that if my unit was sent over there, was I going to die for some bullshit. and here we are, 25 years later, still in that region, still sending other peoples kids off to war, and still wondering why we are getting stung.

It's not even a left/right thing that you want to make it. Left-wing governments- Clinton, Obama, Blair - are just as likely to engage in this kind of Imperialist Ass-hattery as right wingers - the Bush Crime family, Sarkozy, John Major...

I don't really care if Islam "reforms" itself, even though the vast majority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims aren't strapping bombs to themselves and they are pretty much as secular as you are.

I care that people are making a lot of money on the status quo, and that's why it won't change.

 

[Mac1958]

Yikes.

Well, never mind.

Hopefully they'll overcome us, then, and you'll be a bit happier.
.

I would like them to care as little about their faith, meaning they are very liberal about it, as most Christians and Jews are, which would make them believers in name only.

Now, how would you like me to tell the faithful Muslims "See, here's the problem, Omar, you actually believe and we (in the capitalist corrupted porn and drug-loving West) need you folks not to believe. If you'll only become as immoral and focused on wealth and pleasure as we are we'll all get along just dandy. Be a sport, Omar, and drop this God actually matters thing, it's really annoying and it makes it hard for me to sell your kids booze and porno videos.

People outside of the religion can't say anything to make a Reformation happen.

What they CAN do is stop enabling and spinning for jihadist atrocities. They can stop tolerating the religion's intense anti-liberal elements. That would provide far more leverage for those in the religion who DO want a Reformation.

That's it. That's what we can do. But many are choosing not to.
.

That's bullshit. No one's spinning or enabling jihadists except for the jihadists. I suspect those you refer to are those who understand that Islamic extremists are not all Muslims, and refuse to engage in wholesale discrimination of Muslims due to the acts of a few.

Looks like we disagree.

I'll agree with this honest liberal, a man who puts his life on the line every day against the jihadists as he fights for a Reformation of his beloved Islam, one who has to deal with so much interference from the Regressive Left (a term he himself coined):
.

He's talking about the either-or fallacy.

Maajid Nawaz is a Muslim, no?

He can enact reformation from within.

I, as a non-Muslim, can criticize and exhort change, but not demand anything (at least not without being an asshole, since it's not my religion).

What I can control, which he alludes to, is my own government's counterproductive foreign policy decisions when it comes to terrorism. That doesn't mean I am "aligned" with Muslims extremists.

So you don't want to assist those who are pushing for Reformation.

I believe you.
.

 

[RightyTighty]

OKC was a lashing out at the Federal government in response to Janet Reno ordering people needlessly burned to death.

All terrorism is "lashing out." Do you really want to split those hairs? Sounds like you think there's justified terrorism.

It was terrorism, and those were innocent government workers. I don't condone that.

Jihadist terror can ultimately be permanently reduced if the religion can finally go through its desperately-needed Reformation.

That would probably require a certain degree of isolation, where enough of the world demands and supports it.

Unfortunately, too many (the Regressive Left primarily) refuse to hold the religion accountable and make such a demand.

What are their reasons for that? Well, that's an interesting question.
.

The "reforms" you want are what happened to Christianity and Judaism in the modern world - the believers (mostly) don't believe or act in accordance with the faith. The faithful don't have actual faith. The faith of most is now equal to their Jesus Saves bumper sticker and that's roughly the depth (and knowledge) of their faith as well.

I'd be interested to know how you are going to suggest to faithful Muslims, who believe they are in an eternal war in defense of God, that they should instead act and think like the pluralistic and faithless capitalistic immoral Western nations who produce all of the immorality they are required, by faith, to reject? Good luck with that one.

You just made the case that Muslims won't change.


The Crusades have been over for hundreds of years, Jihad never stopped.

Jihad (to struggle with something, anything, for God) is not going to end. And if the people forbidden to kill for God did, for hundreds of years, why do you think people allowed to wage war, to kill under the right conditions, are just going to give that up? Because you ignore your holy book and teachings they are supposed to do the same? Why, because it's better for you?

I know what my answer to your demands would be - go fuck yourself.

^Melted.

Too much for your childish mind to comprehend. My bad.

 

[Mac1958]

Yikes.

Well, never mind.

Hopefully they'll overcome us, then, and you'll be a bit happier.
.

I would like them to care as little about their faith, meaning they are very liberal about it, as most Christians and Jews are, which would make them believers in name only.

Now, how would you like me to tell the faithful Muslims "See, here's the problem, Omar, you actually believe and we (in the capitalist corrupted porn and drug-loving West) need you folks not to believe. If you'll only become as immoral and focused on wealth and pleasure as we are we'll all get along just dandy. Be a sport, Omar, and drop this God actually matters thing, it's really annoying and it makes it hard for me to sell your kids booze and porno videos.

People outside of the religion can't say anything to make a Reformation happen.

What they CAN do is stop enabling and spinning for jihadist atrocities. They can stop tolerating the religion's intense anti-liberal elements. That would provide far more leverage for those in the religion who DO want a Reformation.

That's it. That's what we can do. But many are choosing not to.
.

That's bullshit. No one's spinning or enabling jihadists except for the jihadists. I suspect those you refer to are those who understand that Islamic extremists are not all Muslims, and refuse to engage in wholesale discrimination of Muslims due to the acts of a few.

Looks like we disagree.

I'll agree with this honest liberal, a man who puts his life on the line every day against the jihadists as he fights for a Reformation of his beloved Islam, one who has to deal with so much interference from the Regressive Left (a term he himself coined):
.

Regressive Left? Explain this to us. Donald Trump just had a very pleasant visit with the very people who not only funded, but also supplied, the people responsible for 9-11. And you think the Left is the problem here?

There's a problem here alright, and it ain't those on the left calling for Western restraint and religious tolerance and understanding.

Mr. Nawaz carefully explained the term he coined in the very post you quoted.

Read it, or don't. I'm not expecting to make any headway here.
.

 

[Marion Morrison]

OKC was a lashing out at the Federal government in response to Janet Reno ordering people needlessly burned to death.

All terrorism is "lashing out." Do you really want to split those hairs? Sounds like you think there's justified terrorism.

It was terrorism, and those were innocent government workers. I don't condone that.

Jihadist terror can ultimately be permanently reduced if the religion can finally go through its desperately-needed Reformation.

That would probably require a certain degree of isolation, where enough of the world demands and supports it.

Unfortunately, too many (the Regressive Left primarily) refuse to hold the religion accountable and make such a demand.

What are their reasons for that? Well, that's an interesting question.
.

The "reforms" you want are what happened to Christianity and Judaism in the modern world - the believers (mostly) don't believe or act in accordance with the faith. The faithful don't have actual faith. The faith of most is now equal to their Jesus Saves bumper sticker and that's roughly the depth (and knowledge) of their faith as well.

I'd be interested to know how you are going to suggest to faithful Muslims, who believe they are in an eternal war in defense of God, that they should instead act and think like the pluralistic and faithless capitalistic immoral Western nations who produce all of the immorality they are required, by faith, to reject? Good luck with that one.

You just made the case that Muslims won't change.


The Crusades have been over for hundreds of years, Jihad never stopped.

Jihad (to struggle with something, anything, for God) is not going to end. And if the people forbidden to kill for God did, for hundreds of years, why do you think people allowed to wage war, to kill under the right conditions, are just going to give that up? Because you ignore your holy book and teachings they are supposed to do the same? Why, because it's better for you?

I know what my answer to your demands would be - go fuck yourself.

^Melted.

Too much for your childish mind to comprehend. My bad.

That's when it time for you to get out or die. Simple as that.

 

[JoeB131]

I, as a non-Muslim, can criticize and exhort change, but not demand anything (at least not without being an asshole, since it's not my religion).

What I can control, which he alludes to, is my own government's counterproductive foreign policy decisions when it comes to terrorism. That doesn't mean I am "aligned" with Muslims extremists.

THANK YOU!!! Well said. Point will be completely lost on Mac, though.

 

[ricechickie]

I would like them to care as little about their faith, meaning they are very liberal about it, as most Christians and Jews are, which would make them believers in name only.

Now, how would you like me to tell the faithful Muslims "See, here's the problem, Omar, you actually believe and we (in the capitalist corrupted porn and drug-loving West) need you folks not to believe. If you'll only become as immoral and focused on wealth and pleasure as we are we'll all get along just dandy. Be a sport, Omar, and drop this God actually matters thing, it's really annoying and it makes it hard for me to sell your kids booze and porno videos.

People outside of the religion can't say anything to make a Reformation happen.

What they CAN do is stop enabling and spinning for jihadist atrocities. They can stop tolerating the religion's intense anti-liberal elements. That would provide far more leverage for those in the religion who DO want a Reformation.

That's it. That's what we can do. But many are choosing not to.
.

That's bullshit. No one's spinning or enabling jihadists except for the jihadists. I suspect those you refer to are those who understand that Islamic extremists are not all Muslims, and refuse to engage in wholesale discrimination of Muslims due to the acts of a few.

Looks like we disagree.

I'll agree with this honest liberal, a man who puts his life on the line every day against the jihadists as he fights for a Reformation of his beloved Islam, one who has to deal with so much interference from the Regressive Left (a term he himself coined):
.

He's talking about the either-or fallacy.

Maajid Nawaz is a Muslim, no?

He can enact reformation from within.

I, as a non-Muslim, can criticize and exhort change, but not demand anything (at least not without being an asshole, since it's not my religion).

What I can control, which he alludes to, is my own government's counterproductive foreign policy decisions when it comes to terrorism. That doesn't mean I am "aligned" with Muslims extremists.

So you don't want to assist those who are pushing for Reformation.

I believe you.
.

And now you employ the very same fallacy that Maajid Nawaz described.

I want to assist in things I can change.

 

[Mac1958]

People outside of the religion can't say anything to make a Reformation happen.

What they CAN do is stop enabling and spinning for jihadist atrocities. They can stop tolerating the religion's intense anti-liberal elements. That would provide far more leverage for those in the religion who DO want a Reformation.

That's it. That's what we can do. But many are choosing not to.
.

That's bullshit. No one's spinning or enabling jihadists except for the jihadists. I suspect those you refer to are those who understand that Islamic extremists are not all Muslims, and refuse to engage in wholesale discrimination of Muslims due to the acts of a few.

Looks like we disagree.

I'll agree with this honest liberal, a man who puts his life on the line every day against the jihadists as he fights for a Reformation of his beloved Islam, one who has to deal with so much interference from the Regressive Left (a term he himself coined):
.

He's talking about the either-or fallacy.

Maajid Nawaz is a Muslim, no?

He can enact reformation from within.

I, as a non-Muslim, can criticize and exhort change, but not demand anything (at least not without being an asshole, since it's not my religion).

What I can control, which he alludes to, is my own government's counterproductive foreign policy decisions when it comes to terrorism. That doesn't mean I am "aligned" with Muslims extremists.

So you don't want to assist those who are pushing for Reformation.

I believe you.
.

And now you employ the very same fallacy that Maajid Nawaz described.

I want to assist in things I can change.

I provided my opinion on what people outside of the religion can do.

You ignored it.

It's now clear to me that many don't want a Reformation.
.

 

[OldLady]

Young People ( maybe unhappy) with no place to go each day no school, job or money are targets. can't see how we can fix that in other places, we have not figured out how to do it here yet .

We have to start thinking about it and trying different things in order to figure out what works and what doesn't. It has not been a priority. We are just emerging from a severe recession that set us back a lot. Everyone knew in 2008 that it would. But thinking and discussing ideas is the first step. Like here.
I don't think we need to "fix" the M.E. They need to, but the entire global community should help in whatever way is requested. I get that some of the leaders are making decisions based on their own self-interest. No one said any plan would work 100%.

 

[RightyTighty]

I would like them to care as little about their faith, meaning they are very liberal about it, as most Christians and Jews are, which would make them believers in name only.

Now, how would you like me to tell the faithful Muslims "See, here's the problem, Omar, you actually believe and we (in the capitalist corrupted porn and drug-loving West) need you folks not to believe. If you'll only become as immoral and focused on wealth and pleasure as we are we'll all get along just dandy. Be a sport, Omar, and drop this God actually matters thing, it's really annoying and it makes it hard for me to sell your kids booze and porno videos.

People outside of the religion can't say anything to make a Reformation happen.

What they CAN do is stop enabling and spinning for jihadist atrocities. They can stop tolerating the religion's intense anti-liberal elements. That would provide far more leverage for those in the religion who DO want a Reformation.

That's it. That's what we can do. But many are choosing not to.
.

That's bullshit. No one's spinning or enabling jihadists except for the jihadists. I suspect those you refer to are those who understand that Islamic extremists are not all Muslims, and refuse to engage in wholesale discrimination of Muslims due to the acts of a few.

Looks like we disagree.

I'll agree with this honest liberal, a man who puts his life on the line every day against the jihadists as he fights for a Reformation of his beloved Islam, one who has to deal with so much interference from the Regressive Left (a term he himself coined):
.

Regressive Left? Explain this to us. Donald Trump just had a very pleasant visit with the very people who not only funded, but also supplied, the people responsible for 9-11. And you think the Left is the problem here?

There's a problem here alright, and it ain't those on the left calling for Western restraint and religious tolerance and understanding.

Mr. Nawaz carefully explained the term he coined in the very post you quoted.

Read it, or don't. I'm not expecting to make any headway here.
.

You have a true gift for ignoring all salient points that don't fit your narrative. Those "alliances" that he speaks of, Trump was was just shaking their hands and drinking their coffee. Saudi Arabia, a Muslim kingdom, finances terrorism around the world (with our cash) and chops off heads but it's the American Left that's the problem? Fascinating.

 

[Mac1958]

People outside of the religion can't say anything to make a Reformation happen.

What they CAN do is stop enabling and spinning for jihadist atrocities. They can stop tolerating the religion's intense anti-liberal elements. That would provide far more leverage for those in the religion who DO want a Reformation.

That's it. That's what we can do. But many are choosing not to.
.

That's bullshit. No one's spinning or enabling jihadists except for the jihadists. I suspect those you refer to are those who understand that Islamic extremists are not all Muslims, and refuse to engage in wholesale discrimination of Muslims due to the acts of a few.

Looks like we disagree.

I'll agree with this honest liberal, a man who puts his life on the line every day against the jihadists as he fights for a Reformation of his beloved Islam, one who has to deal with so much interference from the Regressive Left (a term he himself coined):
.

Regressive Left? Explain this to us. Donald Trump just had a very pleasant visit with the very people who not only funded, but also supplied, the people responsible for 9-11. And you think the Left is the problem here?

There's a problem here alright, and it ain't those on the left calling for Western restraint and religious tolerance and understanding.

Mr. Nawaz carefully explained the term he coined in the very post you quoted.

Read it, or don't. I'm not expecting to make any headway here.
.

You have a true gift for ignoring all salient points that don't fit your narrative. Those "alliances" that he speaks of, Trump was was just shaking their hands and drinking their coffee. Saudi Arabia, a Muslim kingdom, finances terrorism around the world (with our cash) and chops off heads but it's the American Left that's the problem? Fascinating.

Trump is a dangerous clown, and this deflection has nothing to do with my point.
.

 

[RightyTighty]

That's bullshit. No one's spinning or enabling jihadists except for the jihadists. I suspect those you refer to are those who understand that Islamic extremists are not all Muslims, and refuse to engage in wholesale discrimination of Muslims due to the acts of a few.

Looks like we disagree.

I'll agree with this honest liberal, a man who puts his life on the line every day against the jihadists as he fights for a Reformation of his beloved Islam, one who has to deal with so much interference from the Regressive Left (a term he himself coined):
.

He's talking about the either-or fallacy.

Maajid Nawaz is a Muslim, no?

He can enact reformation from within.

I, as a non-Muslim, can criticize and exhort change, but not demand anything (at least not without being an asshole, since it's not my religion).

What I can control, which he alludes to, is my own government's counterproductive foreign policy decisions when it comes to terrorism. That doesn't mean I am "aligned" with Muslims extremists.

So you don't want to assist those who are pushing for Reformation.

I believe you.
.

And now you employ the very same fallacy that Maajid Nawaz described.

I want to assist in things I can change.

I provided my opinion on what people outside of the religion can do.

You ignored it.

It's now clear to me that many don't want a Reformation.
.

How long before you come to grips with the idea that the answer to you wanting the Muslims to be as faithless as the West is - fuck you and the horse you rode in on?

 

[Mac1958]

Looks like we disagree.

I'll agree with this honest liberal, a man who puts his life on the line every day against the jihadists as he fights for a Reformation of his beloved Islam, one who has to deal with so much interference from the Regressive Left (a term he himself coined):
.

He's talking about the either-or fallacy.

Maajid Nawaz is a Muslim, no?

He can enact reformation from within.

I, as a non-Muslim, can criticize and exhort change, but not demand anything (at least not without being an asshole, since it's not my religion).

What I can control, which he alludes to, is my own government's counterproductive foreign policy decisions when it comes to terrorism. That doesn't mean I am "aligned" with Muslims extremists.

So you don't want to assist those who are pushing for Reformation.

I believe you.
.

And now you employ the very same fallacy that Maajid Nawaz described.

I want to assist in things I can change.

I provided my opinion on what people outside of the religion can do.

You ignored it.

It's now clear to me that many don't want a Reformation.
.

How long before you come to grips with the idea that the answer to you wanting the Muslims to be as faithless as the West is - fuck you and the horse you rode in on?

Great. I'll agree with Mr. Nawaz, you spin and deflect for jihadist atrocities.

There's really nowhere for this conversation to go.
.

 

[RightyTighty]

That's bullshit. No one's spinning or enabling jihadists except for the jihadists. I suspect those you refer to are those who understand that Islamic extremists are not all Muslims, and refuse to engage in wholesale discrimination of Muslims due to the acts of a few.

Looks like we disagree.

I'll agree with this honest liberal, a man who puts his life on the line every day against the jihadists as he fights for a Reformation of his beloved Islam, one who has to deal with so much interference from the Regressive Left (a term he himself coined):
.

Regressive Left? Explain this to us. Donald Trump just had a very pleasant visit with the very people who not only funded, but also supplied, the people responsible for 9-11. And you think the Left is the problem here?

There's a problem here alright, and it ain't those on the left calling for Western restraint and religious tolerance and understanding.

Mr. Nawaz carefully explained the term he coined in the very post you quoted.

Read it, or don't. I'm not expecting to make any headway here.
.

You have a true gift for ignoring all salient points that don't fit your narrative. Those "alliances" that he speaks of, Trump was was just shaking their hands and drinking their coffee. Saudi Arabia, a Muslim kingdom, finances terrorism around the world (with our cash) and chops off heads but it's the American Left that's the problem? Fascinating.

Trump is a dangerous clown, and this deflection has nothing to do with my point.
.

You posted a quote from a guy who says don't cut deals with repressive theocratic totalitarian barbaric regimes? Trump just did.

How, exactly, does that not apply?

 

[ricechickie]

That's bullshit. No one's spinning or enabling jihadists except for the jihadists. I suspect those you refer to are those who understand that Islamic extremists are not all Muslims, and refuse to engage in wholesale discrimination of Muslims due to the acts of a few.

Looks like we disagree.

I'll agree with this honest liberal, a man who puts his life on the line every day against the jihadists as he fights for a Reformation of his beloved Islam, one who has to deal with so much interference from the Regressive Left (a term he himself coined):
.

He's talking about the either-or fallacy.

Maajid Nawaz is a Muslim, no?

He can enact reformation from within.

I, as a non-Muslim, can criticize and exhort change, but not demand anything (at least not without being an asshole, since it's not my religion).

What I can control, which he alludes to, is my own government's counterproductive foreign policy decisions when it comes to terrorism. That doesn't mean I am "aligned" with Muslims extremists.

So you don't want to assist those who are pushing for Reformation.

I believe you.
.

And now you employ the very same fallacy that Maajid Nawaz described.

I want to assist in things I can change.

I provided my opinion on what people outside of the religion can do.

You ignored it.

It's now clear to me that many don't want a Reformation.
.

I ignored it because it was stupid and not happening.

You think there's some people who are "excusing" terrorism. Those people just refuse to hate Muslims en masse.

 

[Mac1958]

Looks like we disagree.

I'll agree with this honest liberal, a man who puts his life on the line every day against the jihadists as he fights for a Reformation of his beloved Islam, one who has to deal with so much interference from the Regressive Left (a term he himself coined):
.

Regressive Left? Explain this to us. Donald Trump just had a very pleasant visit with the very people who not only funded, but also supplied, the people responsible for 9-11. And you think the Left is the problem here?

There's a problem here alright, and it ain't those on the left calling for Western restraint and religious tolerance and understanding.

Mr. Nawaz carefully explained the term he coined in the very post you quoted.

Read it, or don't. I'm not expecting to make any headway here.
.

You have a true gift for ignoring all salient points that don't fit your narrative. Those "alliances" that he speaks of, Trump was was just shaking their hands and drinking their coffee. Saudi Arabia, a Muslim kingdom, finances terrorism around the world (with our cash) and chops off heads but it's the American Left that's the problem? Fascinating.

Trump is a dangerous clown, and this deflection has nothing to do with my point.
.

You posted a quote from a guy who says don't cut deals with repressive theocratic totalitarian barbaric regimes? Trump just did.

How, exactly, does that not apply?

Um, again, I agree with Mr Nawaz.

How many times do I have to say this?
.