The disturbing view of Muslims in the US

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What did BUSH do to cause this image? Not all Muslims are terrorist but damn near all terrorists are Muslim, today.

Consider Obama's drone program against brown Muslims, does he get a bit of responisbility.

The left wing whined that after 9/11 there would be riots and persecution of Muslims, never happened. Even after the Boston bombing very little. The left did inflate the ground zero Mosque BS into a racist thing but that is just what liberals do.

The image Muslims have is well earned and them really doing very little about those Muslims who preach hate only adds to the image.

Yeah, many terrorists are Muslims. Hardly surprising really. There are lots of Muslim places that have suffered from invasions from the west. If it were Americans fighting back, you'd say they have balls, but Muslims fight back and... oh, they're just bad. It's all how you want to perceive something really.

Obama is president of the US. He takes responsibility for what has happened, however he didn't start the whole thing and her certainly didn't escalate things like Bush did.

And then you go and expect Muslims to be in the news every day condemning every Muslim terrorist act, but Christians don't have to excuse all the crap that Bush pulled huh?

Muslims aren't just killing Americans. In India they are killing Hindus. In Africa they are killing Christians. In Malaysia they are killing Buddhists. Muslims kill anyone who isn't a Muslim. If you look at where all the conflict and terrorism is in the world, it's wherever Muslims are found.

Blaiming Muslim violence on America is propaganda. It's a bullshit.

And now they are invading Europe demanding to be let in, meanwhile Muslim countries turn them away. That is another reason to look poorly on Muslims.

You need to do some research. The three countries who have taken by far the most have been Muslim countries: Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan.

The problem isn't a lack of research.

The problem is an unwarranted fear and hatred of Islam, and bigotry concerning Muslims.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And Muslims have had problems with the west since the west (mostly Britain and France) invaded Africa, India and many other places. No, wait, since the Crusades when Christians marched across (or sailed to) the Middle East and fought people like Saladin.

What's your point?

Yes and Christians are still vilified for it.

You blamed Bush. My point is this has been going on for centuries.

Except when the pope said he believed in global warming then the left suddenly became Catholics. Lol

I blame Bush for massively intensifying the whole thing. Yes, it's been going on for ages, but the difference between 2000 and 2009 when Bush left office are massive. The view of Muslims is incredibly bad after what Bush did.

As for your Pope comment, what?????

Oh BS. The view of Muslims is bad because of what was done on 9/11 nothing Bush did. The view of Muslims is bad because of their demand for a ground zero mosque. The view of Muslims is bad because of crap like this: ISIS leader approves beheading of woman for wedding present – report

And what does the left do, they try and minimize it by trying to make beheading women equal to denying to issue a gay marriage license. There is something definitely wrong with the liberal left.

And this just seems so convenient for the right. I've made my argument in posts before this, so won't repeat myself.

You take a simplistic view of what happens and then try and pummel it. Often the simplistic view isn't reality.

Things in life can be understood simplistically. You know when someone is pulling your leg when they make things complicated.

Bush removing Saddam from power did not make the Muslims look badly, if anything it made Bush and the US look badly, except to the Kurds and all of Iraq's neighbors who were glad to be rid of the ahole.

People see things in sound bites. The Boston bombing, perpetrated by Muslims, that is what they remember and about all they remember. One minute a crowd of Americans is standing there and the next they are killed and wounded because of Muslims.

Generally situations like the Iraq war are not simplistic. But certain people decide it is so they can understand it. Doesn't make them right, but they will fight tooth and nail to make sure they don't feel stupid by having a simplistic view of things.

People do see little bits and ignore other stuff. I was speaking to one person about Africa. I asked him about cows, he said he didn't care about cows in Africa, to him all Africa was, was what he saw, and that was African Americans, most of whom have probably never even been to Africa. Did he want to understand the truth? No, he didn't give a damn about the truth. The truth involved too much information he didn't have and didn't want to learn. However he still had to have his opinion and still insulted when people disagreed with his opinion.

This is the modern view of politics, people who vote, for the most part, don't have a clue what they're talking about. Many on this board don't either.
While both the republicans and democrats prey on those ignorant people, the Republicans more so than the Democrats.

Many Republican policies are simplistic. They're "tough on terror" and "tough on crime", often they'll be the ones responsible, as in the case of the Iraq War breeding terrorism like nobody's business, especially with ISIS. But they manage to get people to ignore this, then they say they need to be tough on ISIS, people don't realise that without Bush ISIS probably wouldn't exist and they wouldn't need to vote for someone to spend billions of dollars dealing with the problem that wouldn't have existed without the people they'd go and vote for to deal with it.

 

[Kondor3]

...The problem is an unwarranted fear and hatred of Islam, and bigotry concerning Muslims.

Rubbish.

Islam is the world's only surviving Warrior Religion.

Its founder was a bloodthirsty conqueror and hallucinating megalomaniac.

Its Unholy Writ permits violence and war against Non-Believers.

It never experienced the sort of Reformation and subordination to the Secular that Christianity experienced in Europe 500 years ago.

Its founder locked-out changes to its Scripture and mainstream Dogma.

It cannot and will not change, substantively, at its core.

It is autocratic and misogynistic and intolerant and willing to kill at the drop of hat, in matters they consider offensive, and the deluded bastards think that God says that's OK.

It is entirely incompatible with Western culture and philosophy and spirituality and democracy.

Your problem is not lack of information - it is a breakdown in your ability to distinguish Friend from Foe.

Out of either an admirable-albeit-misguided attempt to maintain a state of religious egalitarianism even when faced with a complete lack of reciprocity and the object taking advantage of your largesse - or out of a sense of misguided and suicidal internationalism - or attributable to a close sympathy or fraternity with the object of the exercise.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact, nor is the provision providing religious freedom and tolerance within our Republic.

Looks like your IFF transponder could use a checkup.

 

[Meathead]

For what it's worth, the negative view of Muslims is pretty much universal outside of Muslims themselves. Others despise them more than they despise each other.

 

[Pogo]

What I'm waiting for are the Muslim leaders in high positions around the world to come out and denounce terrorist attacks AND groups like ISIS.

The thing is, when you're going as they do so you tend not to hear them. And if your usual sources are Pam Geller and JizzHandWash, well they're gonna be filtered out.

But by all means feel free to link a negative.

And it'll have to make all those statements in post 257 go away.

Say what you want about Catholics, Jews, Protestants, etc., but if a terrorist group that associated themselves with the Catholic church did an attack like the Boston Marathon-the pope would IMMEDIATELY denounce it.

Bullshittio. Why would he do that? It would make for a very busy day.

Eric Rudolph bombed the Olympics, bombed an abortion clinic, killed a guard, maimed a nurse and bombed a lesbian bar. And then he lived as a fugitive here (near me).

Eric Rudolph is a Catholic. Were you part of the outcry against "Catholic extremism"? Were you out here calling for the Pope to denounce Eric Rudolph?

No, didn't think so.

The fact that some element does something and is simultaneously affiliated with Group X --- DOES NOT MAKE GROUP X THE PERPETRATOR.

It's funny how the left bashes the GOP for not wanting women to have equal rights, yet it's wrong to say that many Muslim countries are barbaric for the way they treat women in their culture? I think being stoned for cheating on your husband, not being able to get an education/vote, not choosing who you can marry, etc. is worse than not getting paid the same amount of money (which btw I do think is wrong).

All that is fucked up.
But they're also aspects of culture. You don't find the same social hierarchy bullshit going on in, say Saudi Arabia and Tunisia. Yet they're both also Muslim.

Again -- plug that into the bold sentence above, then look around and see where you are.

Composition Fallacy

This really really really ain't rocket surgery.

Did he do it in the name of Catholicism? Was he a part of a well organized group?

He certainly did so in the name of his religious views, yes. And I'd say the Catholic Church is a fairly well organized group, yes again.

That's not the point. All this accomplishes is to continue your own fallacy. The point would be that he didn't go out and take a vote of all the Catholics in the world as a massive plebiscite to give himself permission -- nor did they tell him to do it -- nor did he seek the approval or advice of the Church hierarchy -- nor did THEY tell him to do it.

That's why we call BOTH of these bogus arguments "Composition Fallacies". As we've pointed out about 634 times.

Again --- guess I should post this over and over until the day it sinks in --- if a drunk gets into a Toyota and runs someody over ..... that does not mean Toyota did it.

SMFH

edit: When you have to cite Saudi Arabia as an example of a high morality...you know your argument is weak.

Ummm... the "high morality in that analogy is Tunisia there, Sparky. Another point sails over another head.

when a radical muslim terrorist screams "allah hu akbar" just before blowing up innocent people, is he doing it in the name of his religion? yes or no.

When you burn your hand on a soldering iron and scream "JESUS CHRIST!" are you doing it in the name of religion? Yes or no?

You do understand how profanity works?

Not sure what this has to do with Tunisia but whatever... to return to a previous analogy, Eric Rudolph may have been bombing and killing people in the name of religion; that's not the same thing as saying the religion put him up to it.

You do understand who free will works? Yes or no?

Was Eric Rudolph operating under the dictates of Christianism, or was he working off his own free will?
Now plug that in, and be consistent.

Those last two words right there ^^ are critical.

 

[Redfish]

What I'm waiting for are the Muslim leaders in high positions around the world to come out and denounce terrorist attacks AND groups like ISIS.

The thing is, when you're going as they do so you tend not to hear them. And if your usual sources are Pam Geller and JizzHandWash, well they're gonna be filtered out.

But by all means feel free to link a negative.

And it'll have to make all those statements in post 257 go away.

Say what you want about Catholics, Jews, Protestants, etc., but if a terrorist group that associated themselves with the Catholic church did an attack like the Boston Marathon-the pope would IMMEDIATELY denounce it.

Bullshittio. Why would he do that? It would make for a very busy day.

Eric Rudolph bombed the Olympics, bombed an abortion clinic, killed a guard, maimed a nurse and bombed a lesbian bar. And then he lived as a fugitive here (near me).

Eric Rudolph is a Catholic. Were you part of the outcry against "Catholic extremism"? Were you out here calling for the Pope to denounce Eric Rudolph?

No, didn't think so.

The fact that some element does something and is simultaneously affiliated with Group X --- DOES NOT MAKE GROUP X THE PERPETRATOR.

It's funny how the left bashes the GOP for not wanting women to have equal rights, yet it's wrong to say that many Muslim countries are barbaric for the way they treat women in their culture? I think being stoned for cheating on your husband, not being able to get an education/vote, not choosing who you can marry, etc. is worse than not getting paid the same amount of money (which btw I do think is wrong).

All that is fucked up.
But they're also aspects of culture. You don't find the same social hierarchy bullshit going on in, say Saudi Arabia and Tunisia. Yet they're both also Muslim.

Again -- plug that into the bold sentence above, then look around and see where you are.

Composition Fallacy

This really really really ain't rocket surgery.

Did he do it in the name of Catholicism? Was he a part of a well organized group?

He certainly did so in the name of his religious views, yes. And I'd say the Catholic Church is a fairly well organized group, yes again.

That's not the point. All this accomplishes is to continue your own fallacy. The point would be that he didn't go out and take a vote of all the Catholics in the world as a massive plebiscite to give himself permission -- nor did they tell him to do it -- nor did he seek the approval or advice of the Church hierarchy -- nor did THEY tell him to do it.

That's why we call BOTH of these bogus arguments "Composition Fallacies". As we've pointed out about 634 times.

Again --- guess I should post this over and over until the day it sinks in --- if a drunk gets into a Toyota and runs someody over ..... that does not mean Toyota did it.

SMFH

edit: When you have to cite Saudi Arabia as an example of a high morality...you know your argument is weak.

Ummm... the "high morality in that analogy is Tunisia there, Sparky. Another point sails over another head.

when a radical muslim terrorist screams "allah hu akbar" just before blowing up innocent people, is he doing it in the name of his religion? yes or no.

When you burn your hand on a soldering iron and scream "JESUS CHRIST!" are you doing it in the name of religion? Yes or no?

You do understand how profanity works?

Not sure what this has to do with Tunisia but whatever... to return to a previous analogy, Eric Rudolph may have been bombing and killing people in the name of religion; that's not the same thing as saying the religion put him up to it.

You do understand who free will works? Yes or no?

Was Eric Rudolph operating under the dictates of Christianism, or was he working off his own free will?
Now plug that in, and be consistent.

Those last two words right there ^^ are critical.

The difference is that where islam teaches its diciples to kill all non-believers, Christianity teaches to love all people no matter what their religion.

There in no inconsistency in acknowledging that a very tiny % of mentally ill people commit crimes and claim that they did it in the name of Christianity, and acknowledging that almost all of the terrorists in the world today are muslims who are being indoctrinated into a culture of death in the muslim madrassas and mosques.

Using your logic, all terrorists are operating under their free will. The difference is that many muslims are taught to hate and kill by their religious leaders. Is not the leader of Iran teaching hate when he says death to america and israel. What Christian leader has ever made such a statement?

 

[Freewill]

What did BUSH do to cause this image? Not all Muslims are terrorist but damn near all terrorists are Muslim, today.

Consider Obama's drone program against brown Muslims, does he get a bit of responisbility.

The left wing whined that after 9/11 there would be riots and persecution of Muslims, never happened. Even after the Boston bombing very little. The left did inflate the ground zero Mosque BS into a racist thing but that is just what liberals do.

The image Muslims have is well earned and them really doing very little about those Muslims who preach hate only adds to the image.

Yeah, many terrorists are Muslims. Hardly surprising really. There are lots of Muslim places that have suffered from invasions from the west. If it were Americans fighting back, you'd say they have balls, but Muslims fight back and... oh, they're just bad. It's all how you want to perceive something really.

Obama is president of the US. He takes responsibility for what has happened, however he didn't start the whole thing and her certainly didn't escalate things like Bush did.

And then you go and expect Muslims to be in the news every day condemning every Muslim terrorist act, but Christians don't have to excuse all the crap that Bush pulled huh?

Muslims aren't just killing Americans. In India they are killing Hindus. In Africa they are killing Christians. In Malaysia they are killing Buddhists. Muslims kill anyone who isn't a Muslim. If you look at where all the conflict and terrorism is in the world, it's wherever Muslims are found.

Blaiming Muslim violence on America is propaganda. It's a bullshit.

And now they are invading Europe demanding to be let in, meanwhile Muslim countries turn them away. That is another reason to look poorly on Muslims.

You need to do some research. The three countries who have taken by far the most have been Muslim countries: Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan.

The problem isn't a lack of research.

The problem is an unwarranted fear and hatred of Islam, and bigotry concerning Muslims.

Of course, unwarranted fear, like those who fear global warming, is a problem. But fear of Muslims, not so much unwarranted.

If you are keeping score:

People killed by radical Muslims on 9/11: 2,996
Muslim-Americans killed "in revenge": 1

Wow they are way ahead.

 

[Freewill]

Yes and Christians are still vilified for it.

You blamed Bush. My point is this has been going on for centuries.

Except when the pope said he believed in global warming then the left suddenly became Catholics. Lol

I blame Bush for massively intensifying the whole thing. Yes, it's been going on for ages, but the difference between 2000 and 2009 when Bush left office are massive. The view of Muslims is incredibly bad after what Bush did.

As for your Pope comment, what?????

Oh BS. The view of Muslims is bad because of what was done on 9/11 nothing Bush did. The view of Muslims is bad because of their demand for a ground zero mosque. The view of Muslims is bad because of crap like this: ISIS leader approves beheading of woman for wedding present – report

And what does the left do, they try and minimize it by trying to make beheading women equal to denying to issue a gay marriage license. There is something definitely wrong with the liberal left.

And this just seems so convenient for the right. I've made my argument in posts before this, so won't repeat myself.

You take a simplistic view of what happens and then try and pummel it. Often the simplistic view isn't reality.

Things in life can be understood simplistically. You know when someone is pulling your leg when they make things complicated.

Bush removing Saddam from power did not make the Muslims look badly, if anything it made Bush and the US look badly, except to the Kurds and all of Iraq's neighbors who were glad to be rid of the ahole.

People see things in sound bites. The Boston bombing, perpetrated by Muslims, that is what they remember and about all they remember. One minute a crowd of Americans is standing there and the next they are killed and wounded because of Muslims.

Generally situations like the Iraq war are not simplistic. But certain people decide it is so they can understand it. Doesn't make them right, but they will fight tooth and nail to make sure they don't feel stupid by having a simplistic view of things.

People do see little bits and ignore other stuff. I was speaking to one person about Africa. I asked him about cows, he said he didn't care about cows in Africa, to him all Africa was, was what he saw, and that was African Americans, most of whom have probably never even been to Africa. Did he want to understand the truth? No, he didn't give a damn about the truth. The truth involved too much information he didn't have and didn't want to learn. However he still had to have his opinion and still insulted when people disagreed with his opinion.

This is the modern view of politics, people who vote, for the most part, don't have a clue what they're talking about. Many on this board don't either.
While both the republicans and democrats prey on those ignorant people, the Republicans more so than the Democrats.

Many Republican policies are simplistic. They're "tough on terror" and "tough on crime", often they'll be the ones responsible, as in the case of the Iraq War breeding terrorism like nobody's business, especially with ISIS. But they manage to get people to ignore this, then they say they need to be tough on ISIS, people don't realise that without Bush ISIS probably wouldn't exist and they wouldn't need to vote for someone to spend billions of dollars dealing with the problem that wouldn't have existed without the people they'd go and vote for to deal with it.

List of Islamic Terror Attacks in America

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yeah, many terrorists are Muslims. Hardly surprising really. There are lots of Muslim places that have suffered from invasions from the west. If it were Americans fighting back, you'd say they have balls, but Muslims fight back and... oh, they're just bad. It's all how you want to perceive something really.

Obama is president of the US. He takes responsibility for what has happened, however he didn't start the whole thing and her certainly didn't escalate things like Bush did.

And then you go and expect Muslims to be in the news every day condemning every Muslim terrorist act, but Christians don't have to excuse all the crap that Bush pulled huh?

Muslims aren't just killing Americans. In India they are killing Hindus. In Africa they are killing Christians. In Malaysia they are killing Buddhists. Muslims kill anyone who isn't a Muslim. If you look at where all the conflict and terrorism is in the world, it's wherever Muslims are found.

Blaiming Muslim violence on America is propaganda. It's a bullshit.

And now they are invading Europe demanding to be let in, meanwhile Muslim countries turn them away. That is another reason to look poorly on Muslims.

You need to do some research. The three countries who have taken by far the most have been Muslim countries: Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan.

The problem isn't a lack of research.

The problem is an unwarranted fear and hatred of Islam, and bigotry concerning Muslims.

Of course, unwarranted fear, like those who fear global warming, is a problem. But fear of Muslims, not so much unwarranted.

If you are keeping score:

People killed by radical Muslims on 9/11: 2,996
Muslim-Americans killed "in revenge": 1

Wow they are way ahead.

Oh, wow, facts that are just missing lots of stuff. You forget the number of people the US managed to get killed by making a political vacuum in Iraq.

Now you want to bring global warming into this debate..... er......

Fear of Muslims??? Why would I fear a Muslim? A friend of mine is a Muslim, she wouldn't hurt a fly, she's a bit bossy though. I went to Southern Africa last year, there's a history of Muslims in the area due to trading. Places like Inhambane in Mozambique which has it's semi-famous old mosque. It's not the Muslims I fears in that area, it was the criminals who walk around with knifes and guns.

But then some people want to know the truth, others want to make the truth simple so they can understand it. You seem to be aiming for the latter.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I blame Bush for massively intensifying the whole thing. Yes, it's been going on for ages, but the difference between 2000 and 2009 when Bush left office are massive. The view of Muslims is incredibly bad after what Bush did.

As for your Pope comment, what?????

Oh BS. The view of Muslims is bad because of what was done on 9/11 nothing Bush did. The view of Muslims is bad because of their demand for a ground zero mosque. The view of Muslims is bad because of crap like this: ISIS leader approves beheading of woman for wedding present – report

And what does the left do, they try and minimize it by trying to make beheading women equal to denying to issue a gay marriage license. There is something definitely wrong with the liberal left.

And this just seems so convenient for the right. I've made my argument in posts before this, so won't repeat myself.

You take a simplistic view of what happens and then try and pummel it. Often the simplistic view isn't reality.

Things in life can be understood simplistically. You know when someone is pulling your leg when they make things complicated.

Bush removing Saddam from power did not make the Muslims look badly, if anything it made Bush and the US look badly, except to the Kurds and all of Iraq's neighbors who were glad to be rid of the ahole.

People see things in sound bites. The Boston bombing, perpetrated by Muslims, that is what they remember and about all they remember. One minute a crowd of Americans is standing there and the next they are killed and wounded because of Muslims.

Generally situations like the Iraq war are not simplistic. But certain people decide it is so they can understand it. Doesn't make them right, but they will fight tooth and nail to make sure they don't feel stupid by having a simplistic view of things.

People do see little bits and ignore other stuff. I was speaking to one person about Africa. I asked him about cows, he said he didn't care about cows in Africa, to him all Africa was, was what he saw, and that was African Americans, most of whom have probably never even been to Africa. Did he want to understand the truth? No, he didn't give a damn about the truth. The truth involved too much information he didn't have and didn't want to learn. However he still had to have his opinion and still insulted when people disagreed with his opinion.

This is the modern view of politics, people who vote, for the most part, don't have a clue what they're talking about. Many on this board don't either.
While both the republicans and democrats prey on those ignorant people, the Republicans more so than the Democrats.

Many Republican policies are simplistic. They're "tough on terror" and "tough on crime", often they'll be the ones responsible, as in the case of the Iraq War breeding terrorism like nobody's business, especially with ISIS. But they manage to get people to ignore this, then they say they need to be tough on ISIS, people don't realise that without Bush ISIS probably wouldn't exist and they wouldn't need to vote for someone to spend billions of dollars dealing with the problem that wouldn't have existed without the people they'd go and vote for to deal with it.

List of Islamic Terror Attacks in America

Posting something without opinion or argument is.... well... a waste of time.

 

[Flopper]

Who supported and sold arms to the Shah and propted up he evil regime?

ROFL... there was nothing evil about the Shah.

He crushed Leftist and Islamic uprisings. As we saw in the wake of his departure, there is no downside to crushing that evil. The only potential downside is in allowing it to fester, as we are witnessing, today.

Correct, Iran under the Shah was a modern successful country that was using its oil resources to better the lives of its people. Then the radical element of islam took over and it reverted to a 17th century shithole.

Yes and No, Iran has had a number of secular movements since 1906. Today, Iran has a serious problem in regard to secularism and government oppression of secular life styles particularly in regard to women. Women account for over half of university students in Iran and 70% of Iran's science and engineering students because men tend to favor trade schools, direct entrance into the workplace, or education and a career outside of Iran. When women graduate, they work but when they marry, they find themselves literally barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. To make matters worse the government has been making moves to restrict women's access to higher education and clamping down on employment of women. All this comes at a time when Iran has a big shortage of highly trained workers. A shortage that is likely to grow with Iran's push to increase economic growth.

Sooner or later, The people of Iran will have a more secular government, however that doesn't mean the people will abandon, Islam. It just means the government won't be cramming it down their throat.

 

[Redfish]

Who supported and sold arms to the Shah and propted up he evil regime?

ROFL... there was nothing evil about the Shah.

He crushed Leftist and Islamic uprisings. As we saw in the wake of his departure, there is no downside to crushing that evil. The only potential downside is in allowing it to fester, as we are witnessing, today.

Correct, Iran under the Shah was a modern successful country that was using its oil resources to better the lives of its people. Then the radical element of islam took over and it reverted to a 17th century shithole.

Yes and No, Iran has had a number of secular movements since 1906. Today, Iran has a serious problem in regard to secularism and government oppression of secular life styles particularly in regard to women. Women account for over half of university students in Iran and 70% of Iran's science and engineering students because men tend to favor trade schools, direct entrance into the workplace, or education and a career outside of Iran. When women graduate, they work but when they marry, they find themselves literally barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. To make matters worse the government has been making moves to restrict women's access to higher education and clamping down on employment of women. All this comes at a time when Iran has a big shortage of highly trained workers. A shortage that is likely to grow with Iran's push to increase economic growth.

Sooner or later, The people of Iran will have a more secular government, however that doesn't mean the people will abandon, Islam. It just means the government won't be cramming it down their throat.

we said the exact same thing, you just used more words.

 

[Redfish]

Muslims aren't just killing Americans. In India they are killing Hindus. In Africa they are killing Christians. In Malaysia they are killing Buddhists. Muslims kill anyone who isn't a Muslim. If you look at where all the conflict and terrorism is in the world, it's wherever Muslims are found.

Blaiming Muslim violence on America is propaganda. It's a bullshit.

And now they are invading Europe demanding to be let in, meanwhile Muslim countries turn them away. That is another reason to look poorly on Muslims.

You need to do some research. The three countries who have taken by far the most have been Muslim countries: Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan.

The problem isn't a lack of research.

The problem is an unwarranted fear and hatred of Islam, and bigotry concerning Muslims.

Of course, unwarranted fear, like those who fear global warming, is a problem. But fear of Muslims, not so much unwarranted.

If you are keeping score:

People killed by radical Muslims on 9/11: 2,996
Muslim-Americans killed "in revenge": 1

Wow they are way ahead.

Oh, wow, facts that are just missing lots of stuff. You forget the number of people the US managed to get killed by making a political vacuum in Iraq.

Now you want to bring global warming into this debate..... er......

Fear of Muslims??? Why would I fear a Muslim? A friend of mine is a Muslim, she wouldn't hurt a fly, she's a bit bossy though. I went to Southern Africa last year, there's a history of Muslims in the area due to trading. Places like Inhambane in Mozambique which has it's semi-famous old mosque. It's not the Muslims I fears in that area, it was the criminals who walk around with knifes and guns.

But then some people want to know the truth, others want to make the truth simple so they can understand it. You seem to be aiming for the latter.

I would not use the word 'fear' when describing how most americans feel about muslims. I think "distrust' is more accurate.

No one has said that all muslims are bad people. I worked with many good honest muslims in the mid east for years. But did I fully trust them? only a very few.

Islam teaches that lying and deception are permissible if they are needed to reach a goal called for by the koran.

When we try to apply judeo/christian principles to muslims, it doesn't work because they do not think about right and wrong the same way we do.

The problem is not the people, its the religion.

 

[Mac1958]

I would not use the word 'fear' when describing how most americans feel about muslims. I think "distrust' is more accurate.

Those who are ideologically obligated to spin for the PC-protected religion aren't going to be honest about that.

That way they can use the dishonest term "Islamophobe".
.

 

[Redfish]

I would not use the word 'fear' when describing how most americans feel about muslims. I think "distrust' is more accurate.

Those who are ideologically obligated to spin for the PC-protected religion aren't going to be honest about that.

That way they can use the dishonest term "Islamophobe".
.

The primary tactic of the left is to divide us in every way possible, age, sex, religion, location, ethnicity, sexual preference, and of course race. Its nothing new, tyrants and socialists throughout history have used the same tactics. Make one demographic believe that another demographic hates them without reason. Divide and conquer. Obama did it twice in elections and is still doing it.

 

[Mac1958]

I would not use the word 'fear' when describing how most americans feel about muslims. I think "distrust' is more accurate.

Those who are ideologically obligated to spin for the PC-protected religion aren't going to be honest about that.That way they can use the dishonest term "Islamophobe"..

The primary tactic of the left is to divide us in every way possible, age, sex, religion, location, ethnicity, sexual preference, and of course race. Its nothing new, tyrants and socialists throughout history have used the same tactics. Make one demographic believe that another demographic hates them without reason. Divide and conquer. Obama did it twice in elections and is still doing it.

Very successful so far.
.

 

[Liminal]

Muslims, like blacks, are responsible for the image the US has of them.
Not to say that's justified in all cases but that is reality.

Mass media like FOX News has something to do with shaping those perceptions as well.

 

[Redfish]

Muslims, like blacks, are responsible for the image the US has of them.
Not to say that's justified in all cases but that is reality.

Mass media like FOX News has something to do with shaping those perceptions as well.

Yeah, telling the truth has a lot to do with shaping perceptions. Showing both sides is a terrible thing for a media outlet to do, they should all be 100% biased like MSNBC, right asshole?

 

[Liminal]

Muslims, like blacks, are responsible for the image the US has of them.
Not to say that's justified in all cases but that is reality.

Mass media like FOX News has something to do with shaping those perceptions as well.

Yeah, telling the truth has a lot to do with shaping perceptions. Showing both sides is a terrible thing for a media outlet to do, they should all be 100% biased like MSNBC, right asshole?

MSNBC and FOX News are just flip sides of the same coin. They are both selling a product, they both represent corporate interests. Know what I mean........asshole.

 

[Liminal]

And now they are invading Europe demanding to be let in, meanwhile Muslim countries turn them away. That is another reason to look poorly on Muslims.

You need to do some research. The three countries who have taken by far the most have been Muslim countries: Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan.

The problem isn't a lack of research.

The problem is an unwarranted fear and hatred of Islam, and bigotry concerning Muslims.

Of course, unwarranted fear, like those who fear global warming, is a problem. But fear of Muslims, not so much unwarranted.

If you are keeping score:

People killed by radical Muslims on 9/11: 2,996
Muslim-Americans killed "in revenge": 1

Wow they are way ahead.

Oh, wow, facts that are just missing lots of stuff. You forget the number of people the US managed to get killed by making a political vacuum in Iraq.

Now you want to bring global warming into this debate..... er......

Fear of Muslims??? Why would I fear a Muslim? A friend of mine is a Muslim, she wouldn't hurt a fly, she's a bit bossy though. I went to Southern Africa last year, there's a history of Muslims in the area due to trading. Places like Inhambane in Mozambique which has it's semi-famous old mosque. It's not the Muslims I fears in that area, it was the criminals who walk around with knifes and guns.

But then some people want to know the truth, others want to make the truth simple so they can understand it. You seem to be aiming for the latter.

I would not use the word 'fear' when describing how most americans feel about muslims. I think "distrust' is more accurate.

No one has said that all muslims are bad people. I worked with many good honest muslims in the mid east for years. But did I fully trust them? only a very few.

Islam teaches that lying and deception are permissible if they are needed to reach a goal called for by the koran.

When we try to apply judeo/christian principles to muslims, it doesn't work because they do not think about right and wrong the same way we do.

The problem is not the people, its the religion.

Applying Judeo/Christian principles doesn't seem to work very well for most Christians either.