They attacked kids, and nothing is new

[Tehon]

If you're actually curious, you'll gobble up these short videos - the first of which, where Lawrence O'Donnell (I bet you know who he is!) interviews two of my favorite thinkers: The aforementioned Mr. Nawaz, and brilliant liberal Sam Harris (I'm a BIG fan) discuss this.

At 8:30 Nawaz says that Islamism is an ideology that is distinct from that of the religion of Islam. What is your belief Mac? That is a question for you. I know what they believe and it doesn't differ that much from my beliefs.

He separates Islamism from both jihadism and the religion of Islam. If I understand him correctly, he looks at Islamism as kind of a modern fascism laid on top of the traditional religion of Islam - the oppressive politicization of the religion, which he is against. Then jihadism takes Islamism to the next level with violence and intimidation and everything else. I believe that's what he's after with a Reformation - the splitting off of the religion from the other two ideologies. Among other things.

If I have that right, obviously I'd be all for it.
.

If my memory serves me correctly, Nawaz, as well as Harris, have softened their position.

You I'm not so sure about because you keep deflecting to them as if you're incapable of having your own opinion.

 

[Tehon]

Completely vile? You mean like providing school textbooks that are designed to radicalize children?

I'm not going to be brow beaten into pursuing a cause that is not my own at the exclusion of other relevant causes.

You're unable to NOT defend and empower Dark Age Muslims and support other relevant causes at the same time?

I think you are not giving yourself enough credit. I bet you can "Walk and chew gum at the same time".



So, what is your new, bizarre and otherworldly "reason" for NOT supporting Muslim Reformation?

It's not my cause I'm not Muslim. I wish them all the best. I support their efforts. But I'm being castigated for looking at the problem from a political perspective instead of a religious one. Mac apparently can not tolerate that I am a secularist and view things from a different perspective. He has a derogatory name for it.

Are you part of the secular left that rushes to defend/deflect/minimize every time the issue of Muslim Terrorism or Immigration comes up?

Not that I am aware of. I am tolerant of people's desire for religion though, of whatever stripe.

DO you support Trump's "Muslim Ban"?

I'm a bit ambivalent on that. On the one hand I think we are largely responsible for the conditions the people are fleeing from so I think we owe them a safe place. I also understand the need to keep out Islamic extremists. We need to have a strong vetting process. I'm not familiar with the existing one so it is difficult for me to say if it is or isn't strong enough. I think our government understands what is at stake. A compliant and unquestioning public.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Here ya go Tehon https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html?_r=0

 

[Tehon]

You're unable to NOT defend and empower Dark Age Muslims and support other relevant causes at the same time?

I think you are not giving yourself enough credit. I bet you can "Walk and chew gum at the same time".



So, what is your new, bizarre and otherworldly "reason" for NOT supporting Muslim Reformation?

It's not my cause I'm not Muslim. I wish them all the best. I support their efforts. But I'm being castigated for looking at the problem from a political perspective instead of a religious one. Mac apparently can not tolerate that I am a secularist and view things from a different perspective. He has a derogatory name for it.

Are you part of the secular left that rushes to defend/deflect/minimize every time the issue of Muslim Terrorism or Immigration comes up?

Not that I am aware of. I am tolerant of people's desire for religion though, of whatever stripe.

DO you support Trump's "Muslim Ban"?

I'm a bit ambivalent on that. On the one hand I think we are largely responsible for the conditions the people are fleeing from so I think we owe them a safe place. I also understand the need to keep out Islamic extremists. We need to have a strong vetting process. I'm not familiar with the existing one so it is difficult for me to say if it is or isn't strong enough. I think our government understands what is at stake. A compliant and unquestioning public.

Upon looking at LoneLaugher link. I would say that Trump's Muslim ban is unnecessary. My suspicions have been confirmed. We owe those refugees a safe place.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Hey! Maybe if we treat every Muslim like he or she is a potential terrorist

It's not my cause I'm not Muslim. I wish them all the best. I support their efforts. But I'm being castigated for looking at the problem from a political perspective instead of a religious one. Mac apparently can not tolerate that I am a secularist and view things from a different perspective. He has a derogatory name for it.

Are you part of the secular left that rushes to defend/deflect/minimize every time the issue of Muslim Terrorism or Immigration comes up?

Not that I am aware of. I am tolerant of people's desire for religion though, of whatever stripe.

DO you support Trump's "Muslim Ban"?

I'm a bit ambivalent on that. On the one hand I think we are largely responsible for the conditions the people are fleeing from so I think we owe them a safe place. I also understand the need to keep out Islamic extremists. We need to have a strong vetting process. I'm not familiar with the existing one so it is difficult for me to say if it is or isn't strong enough. I think our government understands what is at stake. A compliant and unquestioning public.

Upon looking at LoneLaugher link. I would say that Trump's Muslim ban is unnecessary. My suspicions have been confirmed. We owe those refugees a safe place.

And the fact that we have a better track record when it comes to assimilation of refugees is the reason we have little to fear from the Muslim population in America.

 

[Correll]

It's not my cause I'm not Muslim. I wish them all the best. I support their efforts. But I'm being castigated for looking at the problem from a political perspective instead of a religious one. Mac apparently can not tolerate that I am a secularist and view things from a different perspective. He has a derogatory name for it.

Are you part of the secular left that rushes to defend/deflect/minimize every time the issue of Muslim Terrorism or Immigration comes up?

Not that I am aware of. I am tolerant of people's desire for religion though, of whatever stripe.

DO you support Trump's "Muslim Ban"?

I'm a bit ambivalent on that. On the one hand I think we are largely responsible for the conditions the people are fleeing from so I think we owe them a safe place. I also understand the need to keep out Islamic extremists. We need to have a strong vetting process. I'm not familiar with the existing one so it is difficult for me to say if it is or isn't strong enough. I think our government understands what is at stake. A compliant and unquestioning public.

Upon looking at LoneLaugher link. I would say that Trump's Muslim ban is unnecessary. My suspicions have been confirmed. We owe those refugees a safe place.

Thus, you are part of the secular left that defends/deflects/minimizes when it comes to Muslim Violence.

 

[Correll]

Hey! Maybe if we treat every Muslim like he or she is a potential terrorist

Are you part of the secular left that rushes to defend/deflect/minimize every time the issue of Muslim Terrorism or Immigration comes up?

Not that I am aware of. I am tolerant of people's desire for religion though, of whatever stripe.

DO you support Trump's "Muslim Ban"?

I'm a bit ambivalent on that. On the one hand I think we are largely responsible for the conditions the people are fleeing from so I think we owe them a safe place. I also understand the need to keep out Islamic extremists. We need to have a strong vetting process. I'm not familiar with the existing one so it is difficult for me to say if it is or isn't strong enough. I think our government understands what is at stake. A compliant and unquestioning public.

Upon looking at LoneLaugher link. I would say that Trump's Muslim ban is unnecessary. My suspicions have been confirmed. We owe those refugees a safe place.

And the fact that we have a better track record when it comes to assimilation of refugees is the reason we have little to fear from the Muslim population in America.

Tell it to the dead gays in orlando.


NOt that they will respond, having been shot to death by a Muslim gay hater.

 

[Tehon]

Are you part of the secular left that rushes to defend/deflect/minimize every time the issue of Muslim Terrorism or Immigration comes up?

Not that I am aware of. I am tolerant of people's desire for religion though, of whatever stripe.

DO you support Trump's "Muslim Ban"?

I'm a bit ambivalent on that. On the one hand I think we are largely responsible for the conditions the people are fleeing from so I think we owe them a safe place. I also understand the need to keep out Islamic extremists. We need to have a strong vetting process. I'm not familiar with the existing one so it is difficult for me to say if it is or isn't strong enough. I think our government understands what is at stake. A compliant and unquestioning public.

Upon looking at LoneLaugher link. I would say that Trump's Muslim ban is unnecessary. My suspicions have been confirmed. We owe those refugees a safe place.

Thus, you are part of the secular left that defends/deflects/minimizes when it comes to Muslim Violence.

Whatever

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Well, it looks like ol' Mac was really, really wrong.

My assumption has always been that the one (1) thing the jihadists knew they couldn't do was slaughter children. Pop concert, school, hospital, church, whatever. I've always assumed that such an attack would be the one (1) thing that would unite the country and world against them, and that they were aware of that.

Nope, not gonna happen. Not kids. As crazed as they are, these guys know better.

Turns out that was completely wrong. Look at the comments by the usual suspects on these threads. Say something bad about the animals who did this, and ultimately the personal attacks and name-calling will begin - not directed at the jihadists, at you.

How much outrage has there been from the "media"? Half as much, one tenth as much, as they have with a story about Trump? Nope. No outrage. Just calm, balanced "reporting". How much outrage here? All of it from the usual suspects is directed at those who are outraged over the slaughter of kids.

I don't even want to think about what this really means.
.

I have read the same reports and it's almost like no one wants to tell the real facts about the suspects or the group that claims "credit" for the incident. It is almost like "no big deal" and as the Lord Mayor of London said "This is the new normal" and the Brits seem to have bought into the propaganda. Never thought that I would see the day.

 

[Esmeralda]

Well, it looks like ol' Mac was really, really wrong.

My assumption has always been that the one (1) thing the jihadists knew they couldn't do was slaughter children. Pop concert, school, hospital, church, whatever. I've always assumed that such an attack would be the one (1) thing that would unite the country and world against them, and that they were aware of that.

why would you think that? Children have been getting slaughtered for years in our various wars in the Middle East. How many Children died in our invasion of Iraq, the Gulf War, the Libyan Civil War, the Zionist invasion of Gaza?

Hey, guy, everyone thinks this is bad and stuff. It's just that you hard core Islamophobes aren't exactly offering any real solutions to the problem.

"Let's get those guys!!"

Um, we've been getting those guys for 16 years now, and we are just creating more of them. Before they were just limited to Afghanistan. Now we have Yemen, Syria, Libya and Iraq that are all nests for this sort of thing.

"Let's ban the Muslims from getting into our countries!!!"

Um... okay. except most of the jokers who carry out these attacks were born in the countries they attack, so i'm not sure what good that's going to do, exactly. Let's ban new people so that their children or grandchildren won't be upset about whatever stupid thing we are going to do in 20 years?

Turns out that was completely wrong. Look at the comments by the usual suspects on these threads. Say something bad about the animals who did this, and ultimately the personal attacks and name-calling will begin - not directed at the jihadists, at you.

Maybe because we get tired of you trying to hide your Islamophobic bigotry behind a nice suit.

Look, the West is never, ever going to have a discussion we livw about why we have a problem in that region. We'll just keep creating these guys and keep sending people over there to die needlessly.

Please note that Mac will not actually address any point I just made, he'll just say, "See, see, it's exactly what I said it was... see, see!"

Precisely, thanks. You people literally can't help yourselves.
.

I remember Paula Dean being destroyed for saying the N word 20+ years ago, and the bakers for not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple, but children being killed and injured, oh well, must make excuses. What a sick, evil world we live in.

You mean like the right wing did for Sandy Hook?

 

[Meathead]

]You mean like the right wing did for Sandy Hook?

Very feeble, even for an aging ding bat.

 

[Mac1958]

Yeah, I didn't think you'd check out the videos.

The Regressive Left is making it much tougher for people like Ali and Nawaz to advocate for an Islamic Reformation, and they are, in effect, enabling the jihadists.

As I've pointed out so many times.

Again, if you're actually curious, there's plenty of material online. I've gone over this enough.
.

As I asked, what is YOUR problem.

I don't like the Regressive Left.
.

Okay, name names…who is the “regressive left” on this board? Name names. Name the people who you think find Manchester “funny” as you put it.

Oh, I never have to name names. That takes all the fun out of it. I mention the Regressive Left or the PC Zealots or the Conservative Talk Radio fans and they all come out of the woodwork for me, like Pavlov's dogs. And they just HAVE to illustrate my point for me when they do. Holy crap, no WAY do I give THAT jewel up.

There are plenty of people here who regularly do precisely what Nawaz describes - spin and deflect after every jihadist atrocity, launching into personal insults and name-calling at anyone who dares to challenge the jihadists. Trying to compare modern-day Christianity with modern-day Islam, bringing up the freaking Crusades, screaming RACIST, on and on and on.

If you really, seriously, truly can't see that, if you can really read through these threads (including this one) and "not see" it, then there is absolutely nothing I can say.
.

Sure there is something you can say, their names. But for some reason when you are asked to be honest…you’re being very, how should I say, politically correct.

I'm being perfectly honest. I'm being perfectly candid. And nice try with the PC thing - I don't care about "offending" the Regressive Left, or anyone else, for that matter. I was quite clear that naming names takes all of the fun out of watching you folks flip out and expose yourselves.

Come to think of it, another reason I don't get personal (like you folks do) is that it just motivates people to endlessly hump my leg (which you're doing now).

If YOU were honest, if YOU were actually curious, you would just go through the thread and observe the posts that (a) clearly deflect from the topic and/or from jihadism, (b) make blanket denial that anyone is doing what I point out in the OP, and/or (c) ignore the topic altogether and just attack me. Everything here is in English here, it's easy. There are dozens of examples. Examples of the very point I make in the OP, because regressives just can't help themselves. And every one of them is a person I would consider a Regressive Leftist.

So go ahead and look. If you're actually curious. I even point out, all the way through the thread, examples of my OP. That should make it even easier for you. If you're actually curious. My guess is that you will report that you saw none of the above, and that would not surprise me in the least.

Which would be appropriate.
.

 

[Mac1958]

If you're actually curious, you'll gobble up these short videos - the first of which, where Lawrence O'Donnell (I bet you know who he is!) interviews two of my favorite thinkers: The aforementioned Mr. Nawaz, and brilliant liberal Sam Harris (I'm a BIG fan) discuss this.

At 8:30 Nawaz says that Islamism is an ideology that is distinct from that of the religion of Islam. What is your belief Mac? That is a question for you. I know what they believe and it doesn't differ that much from my beliefs.

He separates Islamism from both jihadism and the religion of Islam. If I understand him correctly, he looks at Islamism as kind of a modern fascism laid on top of the traditional religion of Islam - the oppressive politicization of the religion, which he is against. Then jihadism takes Islamism to the next level with violence and intimidation and everything else. I believe that's what he's after with a Reformation - the splitting off of the religion from the other two ideologies. Among other things.

If I have that right, obviously I'd be all for it.
.

If my memory serves me correctly, Nawaz, as well as Harris, have softened their position.

You I'm not so sure about because you keep deflecting to them as if you're incapable of having your own opinion.

Aw, how dishonest. I've made my position abundantly clear on this issue, over and over and over and over.

You're illustrating the point of my OP wonderfully, thank you.

And by the way - I specifically and purposely quote honest liberals rather than wacky conservatives because shoving the words of honest liberals into the faces of the Regressive Leftists is much more effective. And it makes you folks much more cranky because honest liberals (a) are much tougher targets for you, and (b) expose you for what you are, and are not. My guess is that you know that, and that you're just avoiding it. As dishonest people do.

This whole thread is replete with examples of the points I make about the Regressive Left. Deflection from jihadism. Dishonesty. Personal attacks. You folks have just walked in and dropped it all on my lap. And you just keep doing it. As usual. You complained a while back about how I wanted to make this thread all about me, yet you keep going after me personally. You're still doing it. See? Typical.

So, thanks again.
.

 

[Mac1958]

The amount of examples of the OP just continues to pile up in this very thread, and the regressives somehow "don't see" any of it.

Absolutely incredible. I have more respect for the power of ideology every day. It literally blinds people. It literally distorts perceptions.
.

 

[JoeB131]

Huh? Promoting myself? For what?

Why do you keep making this about ME?

Because you are totally full of yourself and in love with the sound of your own voice.

People like Nawaaz and Ali are their biggest enemies, because they expose the regressives for what they are.

All I have to do is quote them, and the regressives lose their shit.

By the way, check out Sam Harris on this topic, too. Another honest lefty who is trying to stop the regressives.

actually, the problem has always been that the premise is flawed. Terrorism isn't a political movement, and it isn't a religion. It's a tactic. And 'reforming' Islam, whatever the fuck that means, doesn't resolve the underlying grievance.

The oldest "terrorist" group in the middle east is the Palestine Liberation Organization. It wasn't driven by religion, it was driven by the fact the Zionists stole their land. Women held key areas of responsibility in the PLO and carried out it's attacks.

And somehow, making Islam more tolerant of gays or some shit (like the fundy Christians wouldn't throw gays off a roof if they could get away with it) isn't going to resolve those underlying greivences.

But dumb Islamophobes like you will keep telling yourselves shit about 76 virgins in the afterlife.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Well, it looks like ol' Mac was really, really wrong.

My assumption has always been that the one (1) thing the jihadists knew they couldn't do was slaughter children. Pop concert, school, hospital, church, whatever. I've always assumed that such an attack would be the one (1) thing that would unite the country and world against them, and that they were aware of that.

why would you think that? Children have been getting slaughtered for years in our various wars in the Middle East. How many Children died in our invasion of Iraq, the Gulf War, the Libyan Civil War, the Zionist invasion of Gaza?

Hey, guy, everyone thinks this is bad and stuff. It's just that you hard core Islamophobes aren't exactly offering any real solutions to the problem.

"Let's get those guys!!"

Um, we've been getting those guys for 16 years now, and we are just creating more of them. Before they were just limited to Afghanistan. Now we have Yemen, Syria, Libya and Iraq that are all nests for this sort of thing.

"Let's ban the Muslims from getting into our countries!!!"

Um... okay. except most of the jokers who carry out these attacks were born in the countries they attack, so i'm not sure what good that's going to do, exactly. Let's ban new people so that their children or grandchildren won't be upset about whatever stupid thing we are going to do in 20 years?

Turns out that was completely wrong. Look at the comments by the usual suspects on these threads. Say something bad about the animals who did this, and ultimately the personal attacks and name-calling will begin - not directed at the jihadists, at you.

Maybe because we get tired of you trying to hide your Islamophobic bigotry behind a nice suit.

Look, the West is never, ever going to have a discussion we livw about why we have a problem in that region. We'll just keep creating these guys and keep sending people over there to die needlessly.

Please note that Mac will not actually address any point I just made, he'll just say, "See, see, it's exactly what I said it was... see, see!"

Precisely, thanks. You people literally can't help yourselves.
.

I remember Paula Dean being destroyed for saying the N word 20+ years ago, and the bakers for not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple, but children being killed and injured, oh well, must make excuses. What a sick, evil world we live in.

You mean like the right wing did for Sandy Hook?

What happened at Sandy Hook? Be precise.

 

[JoeB131]

The amount of examples of the OP just continues to pile up in this very thread, and the regressives somehow "don't see" any of it.

That's because you haven't made your prima fascia case.

You started out with a flawed premise, and when people point out the glaring flaws, you use that as evidence that they are regressives.

 

[JoeB131]

For every attack like this, we should drone strike 5 mosques in the middle east. For a large terrorist attack even close to 9/11, we should nuke Mecca.

Yes, because clearly the best way to fight a group that has less than 100,000 members is to antagonize 1.3 billion muslims.

Here's the ugly reality. When ISIL is defeated, it will be defeated by other Muslims, disparate groups with their own agendas. And then some of those people will turn on us because their agendas aren't our agenda.

 

[JoeB131]

Would any other regressive here like to attack the Muslims who are risking their lives standing up to the jihadists?

You mean the opportunists who are doing no such thing? Nope, I think Lone did a pretty good job exposing these two as phonies.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm a huge Sam Harris fan - he's a brilliant, articulate, respectful, civil and HONEST liberal, not to mention a neuroscientist.

Here he (as usual) calmly describes how the Regressive Left lies and distorts and deflects, and should share the blame for the rise of Trump:
.