Slashdot Mirror

http://www.centerforsecuritypo...

#notallmuslims, but a whole fuckin lot of 'em.

How about an entire poll.

https://www.centerforsecurityp...

Now go fuck yourself and be gone!

because it demonstrates a significant lack of appreciation for the text, spirit, or values enshrined in the Constitution

Overall, I find the lack of appreciation for same by the other party to be far more discontenting. It is the Democrats, who wish to:

• Illegalize "hate speech", contrary to the First Amendment;
• Illegalize weapons — from knives and brass knuckles to firearms, contrary to the Second Amendment;
• promote Affirmative Action — contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment;
• abolish Electoral College and otherwise diminish the role of the member-States in the Union;

But those threats to the Constitution do not worry you, only Christianity does?..

the survey you cited includes no evidence that American Muslims agree with Sharia Law

Seriously? Are you that dense? The article I linked to is called (emphasis mine) "Muslims and Islam: Key findings in the U.S. and around the world". What does it tell you, that, while it has Sharia-support figures for about 20 other countries — and even a graphic showing same — the figures for the US are omitted? Ok, maybe, my growing up in the USSR gave me the ability to read between the lines, that the blissfully naive Americans do not possess. Fine. Let's look for other sources:

According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).

and:

nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

Now, these results are politically inconvenient to the still-prevailing dogma, so, as could be expected, the study is denounced (such as here) as "deeply flawed". But what better rebuttal could there be, than offering results of your own study contradicting those of the "flawed" one? And yet, none of the critics could cite their own numbers. Does that not tell you something?

a completely made up story

Once again, it is not "made up" at all — and certainly not completely made up. It is a real problem, and not just in the US (for which we, curiously, do not establishment-blessed figures at all), but also in Canada, UK, and Norway...

Quit denying it — makes you look stupid. You'll get better mileage out of arguing, "it is nothing to worry about" instead.

You make my point about atheists. Without an absolute origin to morality, morality is relative. My morality and your morality may differ and there is no absolute to reference to so there is no authority to say what is right and wrong. You can appeal to majority or experts, but it is still a relative measure.

You seem misled about Christianity. The Old Testament (Genesis through Malachi) describes the history of the nation of Israel. It informs the New Testament, but it does not guide Christians. Christians follow the teachings of Jesus Christ (thus the name Christian) as described in the gospels in the New Testament, who as I said previously summed up God's command to man in the following statement: "Love God and love your neighbor as yourself." Christians further believe that all are sinners, Christians should be humble and thankful that they have been forgiven and becoming a Christian is a decision of the heart between you and God; it is thus not something that can be forced. The idea of freedom of conscience is first and foremost among Christian concepts regardless of what you have been misled into believing. Do not confuse examples of those who do a poor job of following the the teachings of Jesus with the religion it'self. We are talking here about what you get following each religion to it's extreme practice, examples of poor behavior in the name of a religion but directly contrary to core teachings do not count against the religion conceptually. Those examples can be found with any religion.

You could not be more poorly informed about Islam as well. Feel free to actually read the Koran (I have) or history if you want to be informed. Muslims are commanded to charity towards other Muslims (or non Muslims if it will help them convert to Islam). Infidels can be lied to, cheated in business, enslaved for profit (Muslims were responsible for enslaving ~20 million Africans from 650-1900 AD and around 2.5 million whites from the Mediterranean from 1450-1700 AD) and infidels can be taxed or beheaded for non-conversion (this has been happening since the founding of Islam, and is CURRENTLY HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IN THE MIDDLE EAST WITH ISIS). I don't know about you, but that is a huge freaking difference to the Christian command to love everyone like you love yourself... I dare you to find 5 cases of Christians murdering people who won't convert to Christianity in the last 10 years. I can find that for Muslims in the last 10 days. Also, 25% of US Muslims in a recent study agree with violent Jihad, which blows a giant hole in the violent but small minority canard that has been floated. Islam is and always has been a violent religion. Of the 22 world conflicts actively fighting around the world, 21 of them involve Muslims on one or both sides.

http://www.centerforsecuritypo...

Hinduisim and the karma and reincarnation thing is great in theory for people being nice to each other, but the problem is you can't have a healthy society when you believe that everything from a bug to a bull have the same value as a human life. That world view has lead to the needless suffering and starvation of millions, which is pretty horrible by most approximations of morality.

Wanting to ban Muslims from entering the country simply on the basis of their religion is pretty awful.

Why is it awful? You may or may not agree, that it would help, but what is "awful" about it? It is not "simply" a religion — no other religion that I know of specifies a particular form of government as the only one acceptable. Most are mum on it, while Christianity explicitly leaves "Cæsar's to Cæsar". Donald Trump's page, to which you linked yourself, has links to results of a poll of Muslims already in the US showing, they would like to be governed by Sharia rather than the Constitution. Arguably, a President — who's solemn responsibility is upholding the document — would be derelict of his main duty, if he allowed even more people with such opinions to enter the country and become citizens. This is not much different than blocking Communists and Nazis from immigrating...

And before you say "First Amendment" — stop. Insults against Islam are already deadly dangerous — and even the "moderate" Muslims would like it to be illegal. When Iran called for murder of Salman Rushdee, Margaret Thatcher gave the man state's protection. Today we are more likely to see the victim blamed for his own "intolerance". For example, instead of the state's protection, the would-be Koran-burner was asked to pay for additional police presence out of his own pocket in order to exercise his First Amendment rights. Trump is more likely to reverse this unfortunate trend, and that is a good thing...

reject Islamism, but we should do it without blaming all Muslims

It is increasingly hard to make a distinction. But the ban Trump is proposing is not permanent — rather it is "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". That is, until reliable methods of separating "Islamists from Muslims" (your choice of terms, not mine) can be developed.

And, of course, there's his ridiculous wall idea

Why is it "ridiculous"? When Israel implemented their wall — which critics were calling ridiculous and evil too — the number of terrorism-related deaths inside Israel plummeted.

Seizing the remittances earned by people working here is very disagreeable to me; that's effectively a large tax on people who are, generally, low income.

As Trump points out, most of the remittances originate from illegal immigrants. Now, such illegality might not warrant death penalty or even incarceration, but any and all financial penalties are perfectly justified. What of the legal immigrants? Well, they too can easily avoid this "tax" you disapprove of by holding on to their monies — it will achieve Trump's goal anyway. Because the goal is not to rob these folks, but to compel Mexico to (help) pay for the wall construction.

His stance on NAFTA and free trade in general is not supported by most economists

Economics are a scandalously unscientific discipline. Frustrated Harry Truman once demanded to see a "one-handed economist" — so exasperated he became of the endless "one the one hand/on the other hand" coming from his economic advisers.

Now I am for free trade — not because it is effec

No immigrant is actually trying to install it in an EU country. Why would they? They are much better off with our laws.

Makes sense, and you'd think that, wouldn't you? Unfortunately, people don't always want what's in their best interests.

That is a very convenient position you have there, that way you never have to examine evidence or produce counter-evidence.

It is easy to see why you wouldn't want to have to produce counter-evidence against his positions. The Center for Security Policy is headed by a man with meaningful credentials, among others:

Frank Gaffney

In April 1987, Mr. Gaffney was nominated by President Reagan to become the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, the senior position in the Defense Department with responsibility for policies involving nuclear forces, arms control and U.S.-European defense relations. He acted in that capacity for seven months during which time, he was the Chairman of the prestigious High Level Group, NATO’s senior politico-military committee. He also represented the Secretary of Defense in key U.S.-Soviet negotiations and ministerial meetings.

From August 1983 until November 1987, Mr. Gaffney was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy under Assistant Secretary Richard Perle.

From February 1981 to August 1983, Mr. Gaffney was a Professional Staff Member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by Senator John Tower (R-Texas). And, in the latter 1970s, Mr. Gaffney served as an aide to the late Senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson (D-Washington) in the areas of defense and foreign policy.

Tough luck there. Life doesn't always work out the way you expect.

I did nothing, so thanks for the sarcasm. I merely provided links to research done by someone else (which it appears you failed to read). I would also suggest you go an look at "The Muslim Brotherhood in America"
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/the-muslim-brotherhood-in-america/
by Frank Gaffney (who was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defence under Reagan, and founder of the Center for Security Policy).

I also suggest you take a look at the Investigative Project on Terrorism's research about the Brotherhood penetration in the White House (which explains why the White House reacts so virulently to calls for investigation - the Obama Administration sees the MB as moderate and agrees with their aims, although the events in the Middle East have forced them to wake up to reality, instead of their deluded dreams of the MB as compatible with Western-style democracy):
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates

So, you can be sarcastic if you want. You'd get further if you could refute the references I have provided - but I think you'll find the assertion I made about Huma Abedin is true. The reason she passed a background check is that they don't consider Muslim Brotherhood affiliation as a threat these days (which is insane, but that's the current Democratic party for you).

You might remember how totally outdated the FBI computer systems were during the reign of Louis Freeh. Muller's FBI has been spending it's entire time upgrading the FBI's systems and is still not finished. It would be understandable that the FBI would not want to put any resources into dumping an old database.

Or they might be covering up that the (previous) president's top campaign contributors were foreign agents.

SELECT * WHERE organization != "Haliburton"
and Country != "Saudi Arabia"
and Topic != "Energy"
ORDER BY "Contribution Amount"

It would be unthinkable if the president's top contributors were agents of a foreign government. Our president would never sell out our national security to another country.

Roadmap for War on Iraq and the New American Empire brought to by:

Elliott Abrams , Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney , Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes , Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld , Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz

xyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzy

Tell that to the families that have lost mothers, fathers, children, aunts, and uncles to US foriegn policy. Tell the hundreds of Americans who still have family in Iraq that "history" doesn't matter. Has the US ever made a public apology or offered real long term support to make up for past crimes?

Very well-- lets listen to those Iraqi families. Almost every last Iraqi exile will tell you that we must remove Saddam. That is how we begin to repay the Iraqis. That is how we apologize. We don't do it by leaving him there to kill millions more. You've proved my point for me.

Back this up with real proof. I'm sure the US has proof, but in the interest of maintaining an edge in spying, the president probably decided not to reveal the information.

The burden of proof isn't on me. I'll give you some links to get you started- but this murdering, torturing, genocidal, chemical-weapons using madman has given the world plenty of proof of what he's done. the burden of proof is on those who would protect him-- on YOU. Here's the links: One Two Three That is on the WTC alone. Saddam OPENLY pays families of suicide bombers. Here's one on Salman Pak: Four I could go on forever. Clearly it is you who has not done enough reading. I've fulfilled a burden that wasn't even mine. Now you think we should protect a madman. You present your evidence.

If he was convincing, wouldn't the European nations given their support?

Actually, they all do, with the exception of France and Germany, who are trying to dominate Europe. And instead of just listening to other people, why don't you analyze the facts? If those guys are right, prove it. Don't just base your opinion on their authority. That is no more valid than me basing my opinion on George W. Bush's opinion alone. Chirac, by the way, is the only major world leader to be personal friends with Saddam, dating back to the days when he helped sell Saddam two nuclear reactors. He's also being investigated for corruption, and is only not being prosecuted because of immunity afforded by his office. The argument at the UN isn't about Iraq. They all know he is in violation of the terms of the resolution. This is about constraining US power.

The best way to win the war is to win the hearts and minds of Muslims and have them turn Saddam and Bin Laden in themselves

How about starting by promoting democracy in the region, giving the people political power and economic hope? How about removing these dictators bent on regional domination through WMD, who brutalize their populations and then conveniently blame the US and Jews to deflect criticism from themselves? How about stopping the torture and genocide practiced by Saddam? But you're not really interested in the people, if you were you'd advocate saving them from this monster. Why don't YOU read something instead of telling other people that you're more well-read than them in "philosophy" and "history". And although I asked that we keep this debate civil, every respondent has taken a cheap shot at President Bush. I can't take you guys seriously unless you show that you're interested in whether war is right or wrong-- instead of whether you're more well-read, sophisticated, and "subtle" than the President.

That was just a test flight of one. They'er considering deploying a lot of these.

That wingspan size is almost a 737's wingspan, but luckily these things will fly much, much higher than normal 737 commercial traffic, so not much danger there.

Anyway my point: it is not routine, they're considering making flights routine, and frankly I'm all for it. We need to prtect our airspace (anyone who doesn't agree with me has been in a coma for the last year and a half) and, most importantly now, our port security and waterways.

Greg Gallagher -- Get informed! Center for Security policy..

Funny... but whatever we do, don't use Brazil as a template for our future. The country's most popular candidate is Mr. da Silva, a co-founder with Fidel Castro of a network of terrorist groups and Marxist parties. He hates the United States with a passion. Refer to this article about the coming storm in Brazil which I read from The Center for Security Policy. If you want the cause of electronic voting to gather steam, perhaps you should use another example. It's likely that in the future, if Mr. de Silva takes power, there won't be voting of any sort, IMHO.