The Regressive Left and Islam -- What is happening here?

[NYcarbineer]

[

When your OP is constructed in such a call out fashion - ie labeling folks "regressive leftists" and adding a bunch of other inflammatory terms, it's difficult to respond in the thoughtful manner you are demanding particularly since you are lobbing the same insults and name-calling you accuse them of doing. But I'll try.

Exactly. Not the first time he's done it either.

 

[NYcarbineer]

littleMac is doing exactly what his good friend PC does. Start a thread with some nonsense, then, after dozens of posts from other posters knock it for a loop,

he and she come back in their threads maniacally crowing how no one can prove the OP false.

It's weird, and mildly amusing.

 

[Tehon]

Meanwhile, a group of people - the Regressive Left (as honest liberal Bill Maher refers to them), a group all too happy to attack the misdeeds of another religion (Christianity, obviously) in absolutely every possible way, at absolutely every opportunity, are bending over backwards to be defensive and so very tolerant of the first religion. A religion, by the way, that treats women and gays as lesser objects, among other behaviors that the Regressive Leftists loathe.
.

The term regressive left is being used by people, much like Bill Maher and Sam Harris, who show disdain for all religion. They use the term to attack those on the left who are more tolerant of people's religious beliefs. Apparently to the delight of some on the right.

Timing! I just posted about him!

There are also independents and honest liberals who agree with them.
.

I imagine anyone that hates religion would agree with them. And anyone that hates religion that is not their own.

Kind of strange that someone such as myself who does not believe in religion but is nonetheless tolerant of others beliefs has been painted as the extremist by those intolerant of religion and the religions of others.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

PAPAGEORGIO SAID:

"This thread is asking about the liberals that dismiss Muslim violence, yet are all to ready to hang a white Christian."

And again, this thread fails as a straw man fallacy, a ridiculous lie from the right, as ‘liberals’ do no such thing.

Just as the notion that liberals dismiss “Muslim violence” yet condemn ‘Christian violence’ is likewise a lie.

Indeed, there is no such thing as ‘Muslim violence’ or ‘Christian violence,’ religions cannot commit acts of violence, only individuals are capable of doing so; and that those individuals might be Christian or Muslim does not make them ‘representative’ of their faith.

Liberals condemn all acts of violence, regardless the religion of the individual who committed the crime.

Liberals also correctly understand that condemning an entire religion for the acts of the non-representative few is ignorant bigotry and nonsense.

 

[Kondor3]

...You stated that 76% of prominent Muslims "strongly" support Jihad. Wonder why? ...

Sore Loser Syndrome.

...1- In 1925 the Zionists invaded Palestine determined to murder and /or disappear the natives by any means necessary;..

Nope. They merely hoped to carve-out a home for themselves within a modest slice of the old Turkish province of Palestine, as promised by the British.

....2- In 1949 US President Harry S. Truman made 1.5 Muslims foreigners in their own land when he declared that Palestine belonged to the Zionists...

Nope. Wrong date. Wrong focus. It was May 11, 1948. Truman merely facilitated the recognition of the State of Israel; comprised at that juncture largely of existing Jewish-held land. Perhaps if the dumbass Arabs had left well enough alone, that would have been the end of it, but they ended with the infamous Great Arab Skeddaddle of 1948.

...3- In 1990 the US and UK invaded Iraq under false pretenses and remained there for 18 years - thousands were murdered and maimed...

Incorrect. It was Kuwait, not Iraq, and any border incursions over the Iraqi border were quickly withdrawn. Perhaps the dumbass Iraqis should not have invaded Kuwait?

...4- In 2011 the US invaded Syria, completely destroying that Country and forcing Syrians to become international refugees....

Incorrect. The US did no such thing.

...5- The Bush administration threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the stone age" after the September 11 attacks if the country did not cooperate with America's war on Afghanistan,..

And, given that those sleaze-bags hid Osama bin Laden, and operate their own Taliban in their Northwest provinces, that was a very excellent stimulus, wasn't it?

...Nevertheless the Muslims are supposed to grin and bear it. They are NOT supposed to let these historical facts make them bitter and extremists.

They can also Eat Shit and Die for all anyone in The West cares; at least, anyone who owns a pair; no matter HOW many Fifth Columnist slime come crawling out of the woodwork.

Was there anything else?

 

[Papageorgio]

When your OP is constructed in such a call out fashion - ie labeling folks "regressive leftists" and adding a bunch of other inflammatory terms, it's difficult to respond in the thoughtful manner you are demanding particularly since you are lobbing the same insults and name-calling you accuse them of doing. But I'll try.

I object to the singling out of Islam, as somehow not deserving of the same rights and protections in this country as other religions have. Whether it's the extreme right trying to claim it isn't a real religion but a "socio-political" ideology, trying to strip Muslims of their rights as American citizens, or claiming that "reasonable accommodation" applies only to non-Muslim religions and if it's a Muslim it's "creeping Sharia".

Treat them the same as any other religion in America. What's so hard about that?

I agree. Yet the group of people to whom I refer (a term taken from honest liberals Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins) won't do what you say.

They'll attack Christians all day long, as viciously as they can, but when the next jihadist slaughter occurs, you'll see them being very, very, VERY tolerant of Islam, AND you'll see them deflect/change the subject immediately from the jihadist slaughter directly to misdeeds of Christianity. Like clockwork, guaranteed.

It is precisely that blatant hypocrisy that I question in this particular thread, and the motivations behind it.
.

I agree, they are ready to pounce if a white Christian is a gun man. His faith is a key point, however like the Ft. Hood shooter, it was workplace violence, it had nothing to do with terrorism and his Muslim faith. Crazy how the left thinks.

Just like the OP your argument is fallacious. The Fort Hood shooting wasn't designated workplace violence by the left, it was designated so by the DoD.

The DOD that has Obama as the Commander and Chief? Lol! Now you are being silly.

Good point but there is a reasonable explanation for why it was done that had to do with Military codes unrelated to Obama.

Lol! You are funny.

 

[Papageorgio]

[This thread is asking about the liberals that dismiss Muslim violence, yet are all to ready to hang a white Christian.

And no liberals have been identified who do so.

Rdean, luddley, Lahkota, three of many.

 

[Tehon]

I agree. Yet the group of people to whom I refer (a term taken from honest liberals Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins) won't do what you say.

They'll attack Christians all day long, as viciously as they can, but when the next jihadist slaughter occurs, you'll see them being very, very, VERY tolerant of Islam, AND you'll see them deflect/change the subject immediately from the jihadist slaughter directly to misdeeds of Christianity. Like clockwork, guaranteed.

It is precisely that blatant hypocrisy that I question in this particular thread, and the motivations behind it.
.

I agree, they are ready to pounce if a white Christian is a gun man. His faith is a key point, however like the Ft. Hood shooter, it was workplace violence, it had nothing to do with terrorism and his Muslim faith. Crazy how the left thinks.

Just like the OP your argument is fallacious. The Fort Hood shooting wasn't designated workplace violence by the left, it was designated so by the DoD.

The DOD that has Obama as the Commander and Chief? Lol! Now you are being silly.

Good point but there is a reasonable explanation for why it was done that had to do with Military codes unrelated to Obama.

Lol! You are funny.

Terror act or workplace violence? Hasan trial raises sensitive issue
So, victims and others are demanding, why is the November 2009 attack at Fort Hood being tried as a case of workplace violence and not as an act of terror?

Military law expert Scott L. Silliman says the answer is simple - because the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not have a punitive article for "terrorism."

"They really didn't have an option," says Silliman, director emeritus of Duke University's Center on Law, Ethics and National Security in Durham, N.C. "He was an active-duty officer. The crime occurred on a military installation. … It was obvious he was going to face a court-martial."

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

...3- In 1990 the US and UK invaded Iraq under false pretenses and remained there for 18 years - thousands were murdered and maimed...

Incorrect. It was Kuwait, not Iraq, and any border incursions over the Iraqi border were quickly withdrawn. Perhaps the dumbass Iraqis should not have invaded Kuwait?

Yeah, doesn't look like an invasion of Iraq to me...

 

[Mac1958]

littleMac is doing exactly what his good friend PC does. Start a thread with some nonsense, then, after dozens of posts from other posters knock it for a loop,

he and she come back in their threads maniacally crowing how no one can prove the OP false.

It's weird, and mildly amusing.

Wow, I'm REALLY in your head.
.

 

[Mac1958]

The Regressive Lefties here, as I predicted, are desperately trying to make this thread about anything other than what it is actually about: Specifically, asking why they behave as they do, as outlined clearly in the OP.

Fortunately, some interesting theories have been offered, and that works for me.

They sure did get upset, though. I feel bad.


.

 

[LoneLaugher]

This is so fascinating to watch, and election of London's new mayor is shedding even more light on it.

Members of one specific religion - a religion with a current record of extreme violence, intimidation and terror - are telling us precisely what they're going to do, and they're doing it. It's expansion is clear and rapid and undeniable. We're watching it happen in real time, particularly across Europe. This isn't a partisan or religious opinion, it is a clear fact, based on observation.

Meanwhile, a group of people - the Regressive Left (as honest liberal Bill Maher refers to them), a group all too happy to attack the misdeeds of another religion (Christianity, obviously) in absolutely every possible way, at absolutely every opportunity, are bending over backwards to be defensive and so very tolerant of the first religion. A religion, by the way, that treats women and gays as lesser objects, among other behaviors that the Regressive Leftists loathe.

Exactly what is happening here?

Is this just a petulant, knee-jerk reaction against Christianity and conservatives, is it that simple? Are they willing to be so very tolerant of one specific religion just to be contrarian against certain other people they hate?

Or could it be more? Is this behavior related to the payback tactics that we're seeing with race and wealth? Or perhaps do they harbor certain affinities for the religion to which they won't openly admit?

And directly to the Regressive Leftists here: I'm certainly not, nor do I ever, expect a straight, clear and honest answer from you on this. What I expect from you is the standard deflection, derision, personal insults and name-calling. I know that's what we'll get, it's an easy prediction. This thread is specifically about your behaviors, not about Islam. I'm just curious about this, and perhaps some other responses will shed some light or provide some clues.
.

When your OP is constructed in such a call out fashion - ie labeling folks "regressive leftists" and adding a bunch of other inflammatory terms, it's difficult to respond in the thoughtful manner you are demanding particularly since you are lobbing the same insults and name-calling you accuse them of doing. But I'll try.

I object to the singling out of Islam, as somehow not deserving of the same rights and protections in this country as other religions have. Whether it's the extreme right trying to claim it isn't a real religion but a "socio-political" ideology, trying to strip Muslims of their rights as American citizens, or claiming that "reasonable accommodation" applies only to non-Muslim religions and if it's a Muslim it's "creeping Sharia".

Treat them the same as any other religion in America. What's so hard about that?

I agree. Yet the group of people to whom I refer (a term taken from honest liberals Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins) won't do what you say.

They'll attack Christians all day long, as viciously as they can, but when the next jihadist slaughter occurs, you'll see them being very, very, VERY tolerant of Islam, AND you'll see them deflect/change the subject immediately from the jihadist slaughter directly to misdeeds of Christianity. Like clockwork, guaranteed.

It is precisely that blatant hypocrisy that I question in this particular thread, and the motivations behind it.
.

Prove it. Name names and show examples. Guaranteed? Clockwork? Should be easy.

 

[Papageorgio]

I agree, they are ready to pounce if a white Christian is a gun man. His faith is a key point, however like the Ft. Hood shooter, it was workplace violence, it had nothing to do with terrorism and his Muslim faith. Crazy how the left thinks.

Just like the OP your argument is fallacious. The Fort Hood shooting wasn't designated workplace violence by the left, it was designated so by the DoD.

The DOD that has Obama as the Commander and Chief? Lol! Now you are being silly.

Good point but there is a reasonable explanation for why it was done that had to do with Military codes unrelated to Obama.

Lol! You are funny.

Terror act or workplace violence? Hasan trial raises sensitive issue
So, victims and others are demanding, why is the November 2009 attack at Fort Hood being tried as a case of workplace violence and not as an act of terror?

Military law expert Scott L. Silliman says the answer is simple - because the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not have a punitive article for "terrorism."

"They really didn't have an option," says Silliman, director emeritus of Duke University's Center on Law, Ethics and National Security in Durham, N.C. "He was an active-duty officer. The crime occurred on a military installation. … It was obvious he was going to face a court-martial."

You go with that. We all know the real reason. And remember Benghazi? That was over a book? Lol!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Just like the OP your argument is fallacious.

Okay, just for the record: A couple of posts earlier, I said this:

They'll attack Christians all day long, as viciously as they can, but when the next jihadist slaughter occurs, you'll see them being very, very, VERY tolerant of Islam, AND you'll see them deflect/change the subject immediately from the jihadist slaughter directly to misdeeds of Christianity. Like clockwork, guaranteed.

Are you saying that doesn't happen, that my statement is untrue? Is that your point?

It does not happen.

 

[Papageorgio]

The Regressive Lefties here, as I predicted, are desperately trying to make this thread about anything other than what it is actually about: Specifically, asking why they behave as they do, as outlined clearly in the OP.

Fortunately, some interesting theories have been offered, and that works for me.

They sure did get upset, though. I feel bad.


.

None can address your issue, they make excuses.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The Regressive Lefties here, as I predicted, are desperately trying to make this thread about anything other than what it is actually about: Specifically, asking why they behave as they do, as outlined clearly in the OP.

Fortunately, some interesting theories have been offered, and that works for me.

They sure did get upset, though. I feel bad.


.

None can address your issue, they make excuses.

Nobody here exhibits the behavior he described.

 

[MaryL]

Well, it makes me wonder, who makes up the constituency that voted for Sadiq Kahn? The left doesn't quite explain this. Odd how the left attacks traditional English Christian values and endorses a religion that would destroy Christianity, the west and liberalism. When a white female Christian becomes mayor of Mecca, we can talk about diversity in the real world.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The Regressive Lefties here, as I predicted, are desperately trying to make this thread about anything other than what it is actually about: Specifically, asking why they behave as they do, as outlined clearly in the OP.

Fortunately, some interesting theories have been offered, and that works for me.

They sure did get upset, though. I feel bad.


.

I'm reminded of a little diagnostic device I used at a website several years ago. It was brand new to me at the time. I posted a statement indicating that there were sure a lot of antisemites in the forum and it acted in similar fashion.

The most antisemitic posters at the site were falling all over themselves in denial.

Ah -- the telltale heart!

 

[Tehon]

Just like the OP your argument is fallacious. The Fort Hood shooting wasn't designated workplace violence by the left, it was designated so by the DoD.

The DOD that has Obama as the Commander and Chief? Lol! Now you are being silly.

Good point but there is a reasonable explanation for why it was done that had to do with Military codes unrelated to Obama.

Lol! You are funny.

Terror act or workplace violence? Hasan trial raises sensitive issue
So, victims and others are demanding, why is the November 2009 attack at Fort Hood being tried as a case of workplace violence and not as an act of terror?

Military law expert Scott L. Silliman says the answer is simple - because the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not have a punitive article for "terrorism."

"They really didn't have an option," says Silliman, director emeritus of Duke University's Center on Law, Ethics and National Security in Durham, N.C. "He was an active-duty officer. The crime occurred on a military installation. … It was obvious he was going to face a court-martial."

You go with that. We all know the real reason. And remember Benghazi? That was over a book? Lol!

Well, how could I possibly argue against something that you simply "know". Too funny.

 

[Papageorgio]

The Regressive Lefties here, as I predicted, are desperately trying to make this thread about anything other than what it is actually about: Specifically, asking why they behave as they do, as outlined clearly in the OP.

Fortunately, some interesting theories have been offered, and that works for me.

They sure did get upset, though. I feel bad.


.

None can address your issue, they make excuses.

Nobody here exhibits the behavior he described.

Lol! Man, you are in denial nutter.