For all we know, they were commiting a crime of an unrelated nature.
You do know there is a considerable amount of photographic evidence of dudes who look like these turkeys. You do know that the guys the police chased were armed with firearms and bombs, yeah? and these guys resisted arrest (unlike, say, a random citizen who wouldn't fire on police trying to talk to them). You do know that the people apprehended visited Islamic jihadi sites, yeah? you do know that the Australian imam "Sheil" Feiz inspired these dudes yeah? (according to: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/459253/20130419/feiz-mohammad-tamerlan-tsarnaev-boston-marathon.htm).
Now I agree that the arrested dude could be innocent by some means - but your statements don't make much sense given the evidence available to even us plebs. If you wanted to say "innocent until proven guilty" then I'm with ya. If you wanted to say "I'm bored with the manhunt and capture of Islamic terrorism that killed three people (including a Chinese national and a young boy) and wounding hundreds more, ruining a globally-reknowned celebration of athletic prowess, and traumatising many bystanders" then I'm not with you. In fact, I'd say you were perhaps a bit of a self-centered prat whose writing suggests a lack of empathy with the victims. By all means you can tire of the manhunt coverage, by all means feel free to speak (write) your opinion. Please don't be surprised if we think you are a bit of a git for shifting blame off the perpetrators. Such as implicitly suggesting the police had gone crazy and just grabbed some minor perps; and suggesting that coverage of a jihadi attack on US soil and the associated manhunt was not as newsworthy as say, Kim Kardashian's tribulations.
It seems to me that many of a Leftist bent still desperately want the terrorism to have been conducted by a right wing nut, so the leftists could feel comfortable with the world view. Instead, reality has just slapped many leftists in the face and completely destroyed the Leftist excuses for jihad (assuming that US and Israel foreign policies or poverty are the causes of jihad rather than than the Truth - that the Qur'an has 109 violent clauses the mainstream Muslims believe is their duty to fulfil). I don't know whether what your politics are, but this event should be a wake up call to every Free Person. The battle between the 7th Century political Islam and the rest of the World (whose outlook is mostly in the 21st Century) has been going on for 1400 years and will not stop without either the Islamists subjugating all non-Muslims (their stated goal, eg. according to Sura 9:29) or the Free World defeats the political system called Islam (just as National and Soviet Socialism were defeated).
Great post, man! It's hard to fathom the lynch mob mentality around here. I'm a big fan of taking the evil political ideology of Islam down, but we do that by application of laws to ourselves and others - not a mob with pitchforks. So I appreciate your reasoned statements a great deal.
There is also the fact that Microsoft also gained a lot of sales as hardware increased in capability. Through graphics changes from low-res mono to color to full color to hi-def resolution; from tiny memory limits on DOS to 16-bit to 32-bit to 64-bit; from desktop to laptop to corporate server. Each time Microsoft got a sale and clipped the ticket for enormous cash flows. Each time a new version of Windows came out for better hardware Microsoft was able to make just enough changes to the API that their competition had to scramble to keep up - which gave Microsoft advantages.
The biggest change is not heterogeneous computing, although customers are now comfortable with this, but the fact that even tablets are 'good' enough that we change them due to fashion cycles and not due to fundamental changes in hardware or software architectures. Desktops are still being bought, as they are great for certain tasks (eg. gaming, graphics design/CAD etc), but they also now last far longer before needing replacement. It is this that is changing Microsoft from a growth company to a staid (large, but) stable company. For a stock market addicted to capital gains rather than dividends Microsoft has been a poor buy for a long time. It means reporting about it is uninteresting and consumers find nothing new and innovative with it.
Microsoft will survive, but without the rapid changes in hardware and software architecture it used to bring (and consumers would crave, rather than resist as the do with new versions of Windows now) it no longer dominates consumer nor developer thought (the latter being particularly important, and Linux was successful in breaking Microsoft's mindshare hold over bleeding-edge developers at least half a decade ago).
As a developer I'm pleased I invested resources in developing for Java. That means I can do desktop, web and Android very easily (Mac is also covered, but iOS is problematic - fortunately Oracle and others are hard at work adapting standard Java for both iOS and Android [to replace the non-standard Android Java libraries]). Java is not the best platform in all (or, some would say, any) area, but it is getting to be nearly as ubiquitous as C. The reason I adopted and stuck with Java is because I knew computing platforms would change (and will change again in the future, in ways no one can predict) but I do know that Java is committed to having a portable language and libraries to go to whatever is coming. So I'm pleased with my decision to 'invest' (develop products and knowledge) in that technology. This should be a lesson for all technologists - the only constant is change. So the wise strategic choice is to adopt technologies that are designed to mitigate the inevitable change.
Free Speech including the right to cause offense is critical. Everything else is secondary. If you don't have Free Speech you have *nothing*. Now you may argue that the US already has Free Speech, but it turns out that actually what US citizens can and can't say is being steadily eroded by political correctness. Here are some things for you to consider: The incompetant Hiliary Clinton co-sponsored UN HRC Resolution 16/18 which seeks the criminalization of those that defame or cause offense to religions; consider the film "Innocence of Muslims" while it was mostly factually correct (see: http://www.pi-news.org/2012/09/fact-check-the-innocence-of-the-muslims/) the Obama Administration hunted down the producer and put him in jail (on some bullshit charges) which was a big signal that exercising Free Speech in the US about the subject of Islam (even making true statements) is an exercise that can land you in jail.
A party that has a central platform that will *actually* defend Free Speech would be great. That is, rather than assuming it exists and doesn't need to be defended, or only gives lip service to defending it while it gets progressively eroded (as Democrats do).
A second plank your Party might like to consider is making explicit the support for the primacy of the Constitution over foreign laws. There have been an increasing number of cases where foreign laws (particularly Sharia) have come in conflict with the US Constitution and the Constitution has often yielded. This got bad enough that Florida and Oklahoma need to draft state laws to prevent this happening again. It would be good to have a political party that was explicit about the primacy of US law for US citizens on US soil. This would also help Internet users - they should not be subject to foreign laws of censorship etc when accessing a server hosted outside the US.
The US economy is being destroyed because the inhabitants are doing several things:
1) Citizens are demanding benefits and entitlements from the Government without regard to overall programme cost or the contribution of the individual citizen. These entitlements are causing the overspending (not the defense budget which has been shrinking in relative terms for 60 years, even if it has grown in absolute terms although at a slower rate than the overall economy)
2) Politicians must grant the wishes of the citizens or they will not even have a chance to be elected. Therefore, politicians promise lies and bad policies are put in place. Pork programmes are demanded by citizens and granted by politicians from the public purse.
3) Politicians are continually growing the size of Government. This is a non-productive sector which consumes resources from the productive sector, and lately has been interferring with the ability of the productive sector of the economy in generating wealth. Of course Government regulation is needed to enure fairness, but outfits like the EPA have gone *insane* with regulation.
4) Besides the increased size of Government, individual government worker salaries and entitlements have increased to the point they exceed salaries in the private sector. The benefits of civil servants (eg. pensions) are now the largest source of debt in the US economy. Unfunded liabilities of entitlement programmes (mostly pensions etc) are now around $US 60 TRILLION (or a staggering $238 TRILLION according to Niall Ferguson's estimate) and far far exceed US defence spending at $0.8 TRILLION per annum, and falling (while also providing jobs and high-tech innovative industries with R&D funds).
So while you may see fiscal conservatives as "meanies who don't care about the poor" this is a mistaken view. It is the liberal spending policies of the Obama Administration (look at how spending has *increased* massively, even after the economic bailout) that are destroying the US economy and will ultimately hurt the poor far far more than fiscal conservatism would (which would reduce entitlements and wasteful programmes in the short term, but grow the economy in the long term which would allow more tax to be generated which would only then get redistributed to the poor; as JFK said about the importance of this, "A rising tide floats all boats").
The reason you repeat the fallacy of US defence spending is the result of several factors:
1) Cultural Marxism is now dominating the discourse. Marxism lost the economic and political battles, but has won the cultural battle. The cultural narrative is now directed by marxists of the Frankfurt School, and they are ensuring that America marches to its destruction while the population is misguided and misdirected by Marxist memes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M
2) the mainstream media are either too incompetent or complicit in this scheme (most journalists and editors now come from schools with programmes that are aligned with Cultural Marxism - which is why many newspapers enforce follow and enforce the Politically Correct narrative).
3) Much of the US population has a woeful knowledge of geopolitics and history. They can easily be swayed by false memes because they don't know much about the history of plac
Ah, the demonization of the Left. So typical. Rather than understand the point I was trying to make, and then debating with whatever facts you knew to counter, you instead resorted immediately to applying labels. It shows how little thought *you* bring to the table - since you never have to use facts in your arguments and you can dismiss competing ideas based on labels you apply to those presenting them. I suggest you watch the following video to understand how the methods you have just used in fact reinforce the case I made: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M
Perhaps you could watch a historical documentary and learn a little bit about the issue. Cultural Marxism is different from economic or political Marxism. Since it appears you don't understand the difference I hope this video may teach you something: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M
Please watch the video and then get back to me to show me where I'm wrong. Your statements so far show you to be well indoctrinated by the precepts of the Frankfurt School. It's ok if you want to stay in the Matrix that is US culture, but at least have a look at the bars that you choose to remain behind. Sound good?
I agree with you. However, *if* Muslims were prepared to adapt Islam to be non-political then we would be open to accommodate it, yes? it is anti-scientific superstitious bullshit, but as long as it is personal bullshit I don't care too much.
We both know that without the political aspect Islam would be a husk, and without the threats of death for apostates it would wither and die as people could talk openly about how ridiculous it is. I do think it is worthwhile for reasonable people to state we would tolerate Islam if the ideology changed to be more tolerant itself. We know that won't happen, but at least it shows the "ball is in their court". This is especially relevant for all the confused liberals out there who think Islam if just another personal faith and it is the defenders of liberty who are the ones starting conflict and being unreasonable.
Thank you very much. It would be ideal if violence could be avoided and the ability of Muslims to practice personal faith be preserved without political Islam warping laws and customs (in the way that the million Muslims in Israel are able to worship without changing laws).
It is unfortunate the political Left that states it wishes to avoid war and violence is in fact making it more likely but denying the rising problem of Islamic supremacy.
I think part of the problem with reporting is the influence of Cultural Marxism, also known as Political Correctness. This means that journalists don't tie together important background information if it doesn't match the narrative of the angle they decided to take *before they started their story "investigation". What remains after the self-censoring does not make much coherent sense.
For example, looking around the World it appears as if much of the violence is random and much of the US response equally random. Hence you get notions that the US is doing drone strikes all over the place because of ridiculous speculations like the military are bored and are looking for sport (or equally, the military industrial complex needs wars for more money; it is quite good at getting money without wars - in fact, wars suck money out of new procurement programmes, so are not so good for most players in the MI complex; but I digress).
If you dig deeper than the mainstream media to join the dots you will see that many of the "random clashes" around the world are part of an organized campaign of Islamic expansion or sectarian conflict funded by Saudi and Iranian petrodollars (eg. the violence in the following countries is not isolated, it is connected by Islamic ideology: Bulgaria, Sweden, Denmark, France, Mali, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Israel, Syria, Turkey, Yemen, Iran, Pakistan, India, Thailand, the Philippines, Eastern China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Argentina and most recently, the US). This conflict has been going on for 1400 years, yet the shallow analysis of the press ties it to more recent events (eg. US intervention in Afghanistan). Similarly, the US is waging an equally stealthy global war to oppose this. Because the mainstream media has been self-censoring and reporting euphemism and memes that don't match that facts it is no wonder people cannot connect the dots to see what is really going on in the shadows. As long as things happen over time periods longer than a few months the mainstream media are fairly oblivious to it, and can easily be persuaded to parrot the propaganda of the antagonists rather than conduct a proper analysis.
There is no easy solution to the self-censoring, and eradication of the wider perspective of any story by the press. However, the Internet has made a huge difference and will only grow in importance. Internet news is bad in that bad reporting and fallacies live forever, but it has the huge advantage that anyone with an interest can fact-check and self-publish articles that can reference all sorts of detailed information. For example: sites like Gate of Vienna (http://gatesofvienna.net/) and others show the holistic picture of growing Islamism by tying together all the facts they can get their hands on - meanwhile, the mainstream media were effectively cowed into Sharia-compliant self-censorship by the violence resulting from the 'Danish cartoons' fiasco (and a lack of political leadership, and the political correctness concept of 'causing offense' as a crime, meant there was little support for free press defiance - hence the freedom of the press shrunk a little more).
Mainstream media news is only for those that want sound bites that skew the picture in the way the reporter wanted. Only Internet news sites provide the comprehensive analysis that allows tying together disparate events for a coherent picture of the motivations of those involved. Unfortunately that means that the huge number of people who only get their news through mainstream media have a very narrow and distorted picture of reality (which is why they voted Obama a second term to further fsck up the US economy [through government overspending on *massive* entitlement programmes the US simply cannot afford] and its Constitutional liberties).
The only "no" is in your utter immorality in defending jihadis and their ilk. Rather than counter the *facts* of multiple jihadi attacks worldwide (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks) you instead try and deflect using the tactics of personal demonization (as witnessed from your first and continued statements), just as written in this book "Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans" http://www.amazon.com/Bullies-Culture-Intimidation-Silences-Americans/dp/1476709998.
I bet you are so indoctrinated you have no idea what the hate speech in the Qur'an actually says, or about the 270 million souls killed by jihadis over the last 1400 years (and continuing today), or the goal of Islamists to destroy all liberties and human rights the Free World hold dear. Instead in your upside-down world you think you are resisting intolerance but instead you are defending the barbaric intolerance of Islam and opposing those who are arguing for *protecting* the liberties the Free World has (which is under massive threat by Islamists, even if you too ignorant to notice the facts and trends).
The fact is, you can't actually actually contest the *facts*, instead you try and bypass them since actually using the Scientific Method to alter your incorrect worldview to a better approximation using the facts and links I've given would blow the worldview the propagandists have fed you and you now parrot like a good little apologist for evil.
You are smug in your unearned and assumed moral superiority but the reality is because you live a fact-free bubble of ideological nonsense you are aiding and abetting the evil jihadis with your attempted defense of them. Shame on you for supporting the evil totalitarian, theocratic, misogynistic, racist, supremacist political ideology called Islam (which, apart from some nonsense superstitions, is largely indistinguishable from the ideology of National Socialism if you look closely). Supporting such evil is immoral!
You are worse than insane - you are willfully ignorant of the growing threat to human rights and quality in the World (what part of the Qur'an do you think talks about equality? for women? and homosexuals? and non-Muslims? and Jews? and Christians? and Zoroastrians? and atheists?). Stop defending the evil that is political Islam, because it makes *you* evil !
I'm not saying you're racist, and if I did I apologize
No problems, and thank you. You have shown yourself to be a reasonable fellow, which is great. In political discussion the word "racist" is often thrown around, usually with the intent of demonization such that the position of one party needs no further examination. It is a tactic used by all sides, but is a favorite of the Left. Fortunately it is clear this was not your intent. But I hope you are now aware that not all accusations of racist have basis in fact - and that it is often used to shut down an opponent, especially when they are telling uncomfortable truths that cannot be challenged on a logical basis.
I meant that your N-step plan for cleansing the Muslim ideology from otherwise-pristine American society will lead to racism among people who can't be bothered to differentiate a Muslim from someone with an olive-complexion or dark skin. I'd wager this is most people, and if you look at the effects of anti-immigration policy in the south or south-east you'll see what I'm talking about.
Please let me be clear here. I have *zero* problem with Muslims practicing their superstition as a personal faith. For sure they are anti-scientific and deluded, but that is their business. What I do have an *extreme* problem with is not Muslims (who are people, and often good), but the *political ideology* called Islam whose core doctrine is to assert political control over all people, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. That is a huge difference. Please re-read my statement so you are clear on what I mean.
I agree with you in that great caution has to be used to prevent discrimination against Muslims who are non-violent (technically these are no longer considered Muslims by Islam, they are "apostates" and condemned to death by the growing Wahhabi and Salafi movements). The steps I outlined would make no difference to Muslims practicing personal faith. All they do is prevent *political Islam* from changing Constitutional and case law in the Free World and US. I hope you can now see that I am not calling for the expulsion or harm of any minority. I'm calling for the upholding of Enlightenment Values where they are challenged by Sharia.
If you're worried about a couple verses in the Koran, the answer is education. If we all followed the Bible as closely as they follow the Koran, we'd be executing people left and right for a hundred seemingly ridiculous reasons. I think there's a reasonable case to be made that, if left to their own devices, Christians today would descend into the same sort of fascism as we see in Saudi Arabia, with women being subjugated, slavery being reinstated (yes, it condones slavery), witches being burned at the stake (as puritans did early in our country), etc. Look what Christians do now to homosexuals based on a couple random verses from the Bible.
There is a huge difference between Islam and Christianity in that Christianity has (finally!) evolved past a literalist interpretation in the mainstream. Islam is still literalist. In fact, to question a literalist interpretation renders a Muslim an apostate (and the penalty for apostasy is *death*). Islam cannot be questioned by Muslims or they will be killed. Islam cannot be questioned by non-Muslims or they will be killed (as soon as devout Muslims are able to achieve this). That is why many freedom fighters around the world have already been killed for *truthful* criticism of Islamic barbarism (eg. in Holland and Denmark etc). So, I hope you see that while Christianity was a threat it is no longer much of a threat. Islam is still a threat, to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. That is why I provided you with the link http://www.religionofpeace.com/ so you could see the facts of what is going on today. A huge amount of Muslim on Muslim violence due to their literalist interpretation and the Sharia law that commands Muslims to kill all apostates
I call for nothing other than the preservation of Constitutional liberty for all, and the application of native law for all, with no exceptions. I propose no violence on the enemies of freedom that remain non-violent. I propose nothing based on race, only on ideology.
I'm afraid that reasonable and rational people will be wondering what you smoking given that you oppose civilized measures such as strengthening Free Speech laws and the restriction of activist judges that effectively set law bypassing normal democratic processes (that's why the Islamicists try and get precedents set in case law, since it effective changes laws without going through Congress).
It is clear you are reading into my words something you want to see (but not what was written), because you *desperately* want to defend jihadists despite all the facts indicating that Islam is the reason they commit their crimes against humanity.
Like the good little jihad apologist the Left has brainwashed you to be you try and make moral equivalence between someone calling for strengthening Free Speech and jihadis that commit murder in the name of Allah. Only a muppet still stuck in his propaganda Matrix would think that calling for strengthening Free Speech and legislating for native law (only) is "just as dangerous" as those promoting Sharia either by stealth, lying or violence. I guess you have soaked up the brainwashing against "discrimination" but never realise it also means "discernment" - the ability to tell good and evil. Moral relativism and political correctness has made you illogical and emotion-based rather than fact-based.
The following is already in action. All materials associating "islam" and "terrorism" in the same breath have been purged from the US Government. The DoD, CIA and FBI cannot call jihadi terrorism for what it is. The Fort Hood shootings are thus swept under the carpet as "workplace violence" with an unknown cause - despite Major Nidal Hussein's business card describing him as "Soldier of Allah" and the fact as he was murdering he went around screaming "Allahu Akhbar". It is *you* that is living under a delusion as to what is happening and how the Obama Administration and media are suppressing what is going on (no surprise, the Admistration is thoroughly penetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, the MB say so themselves: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates).
d) To undertake a strong effort to counter religious profiling, which is
understood to be the invidious use of
religion as a criterion in conducting questionings,
searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures;
Do you understand that the intent of 16/18 restrict Free Speech of all UN member countries? what constitutes intolerance? under Sharia "slander" is anything a Muslim doesn't want you to hear - no matter how truthful it is. Therefore any member of the 57 nation OIC can claim intolerance for speaking the (awful) truth about Islam. That is why the US opposed the draft resolutions - it was only incompetent Hiliary Clinton who let this through (no wonder, her chief assistant is the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Huma Abedin: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/08/12/Huma-Abedin-s-Ties-to-Muslim-Brotherhood-May-Be-Even-Deeper-Than-Rep-Bachmann-Suspected et al.)
Let's also not forget the fact that at its heart 16/18 is against the US First Amendment.
You are delusional.
False. You are in denial. You have zero facts and don't understand the subtleties and intent of documents unless they are written at a childish level for you. Be coddled in your delusion - hopefully the Islamicists won't place a pressure cooker IED next to where you are standing while you defend their immoral and barbaric actions - you idiot.
The Islamists don't hate America and Israel for what they have done or not done, or what they will do or not do. Islam commands Muslims to kill, convert or subjugate all non-Muslims. The Qur'an is very clear on this and it is not an extremist teaching, all five schools of Islamic jurisprudence are in completely agreement on this. So stop your denial of reality - it is shameful.
The word 'strawman' is like a meme on slashdot. Not everything is a strawman argument.
Yes, but you set a strawman argument, claiming I'm a racist when I made no mention of race. You don't even know what race I am. So stop protecting your bullshit strawman argument - which you are doing because you are intellectually lazy and closed minded - you would rather dismiss my argument out of hand without even looking at the citations I have given and justify this dismissal with your strawman. I suggest instead you use the Scientific Method, hear what I have to say (the links I gave), and then see whether it matches the evidence or not. What you are doing is illogical and un-scientific (dismissing the facts that are counter to the delusion you'd like to believe).
Now, if you're going deny that Islam is confined to a few distinct races (i.e. skin tones, as we tend to know them), then you're just playing ignorant.
This is another strawman you have constructed. You are again wrong. I always take pains to state that Islam is an evil political ideology (the evil of which you would clearly like to excuse). An *ideology* has zero to do with race. Even if it did, rational people would still be able to debate it in a logical manner. Only the weak minded politically correct fools censor free thought.
The basis for your list is that Islam == Terrorism. It doesn't. It's just that Muslims happen to live in impoverished countries that we keep declaring war against, or threatening to.
False. Islam is not equal to terrorism, statistically it just happens to be the motivation for over 90%. Stop projecting your own ignorance onto me. The second part of your statement are falsehoods promoted by the political Left who would like that to be the reason for Islamic terrorism. If you stop listening to the falsehoods and delusions of the Left you would instead have enough of an open mind to accept reality - the jihadis themselves say what their motivation is, and that motivation is Islam, eg. Sura 9:5 and 9:29 (please go an read them so you are less ignorant than you are now, and so you don't repeat the falsehoods of the political Left).
So just as people like you have learned to fear Muslims,
The reason rational people fear Muslims is because they deliberately strike at civilians, any time and any place. Contrary to the leftists propaganda you subscribe to the US does not do the same thing - it simply isn't economic to waste million dollar weapons on random killing. Now often in drone strikes today a jihadi will be in a compound with his family or other human shields. That is not the fault of the US and is in-fact the fault of the jihadi (it is immoral and internationally illegal for combatants to hide behind civilians).
Not to mention you're overly paranoid. If some population of Muslims in the U.S. wants to enact Sharia law in their city or state, they've got a huge obstacle: the U.S. Constitution. We don't even need to implement anti-sharia laws to enforce it, it's already there. We don't need such laws specifically targeting Muslims because they would (1) violate the constitution, (2) needlessly provoke the sort of violence those laws are trying to protect us against.
Dude, you really are quite ignorant of the facts, aren't you? No surprise, the left-leaning media are careful to hide reality for you, lest you stumble on the stated aims of the Islamists (which the immoral Left have common cause with). Here are some court cases where the Constitution has given was to Sharia: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/sharias_encroachment_into_american_courts.html
So please get a clue. I'm not a racist, I'm trying to shake you out of the Matrix you are in (fed lies by the leftist media and academia) and get you clued up on what is really going on.
False. What race is Islam exactly? no one is saying American Muslims have to do anything. What is being said is that Islamic law will not be applied to non-Muslims (despite the imposition of barbaric Sharia on all people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, this being an explicit goal of Islam). So quit with the false strawmen arguments please.
You are in a prison where you can't even see the walls, dude. By Islamicised I mean that Muslims get special treatment that non-Muslims do not. Examples:
1) Muslims may show images of Mohammed and discuss him; non-Muslims get killed if they do the same thing.
2) Muslims may criticise all other religions; non-Muslims may not criticise Islam (on pain of death), neither can Muslims - but the point is still the same.
3) Muslim blasphemy laws are being applied to non-Muslims (see UN HRC Resolution 16/18)
4) Muslim segregation laws for men and women are already in the Havard gym and other universities in the US
5) In the UK all schools serve halal meat whether you are Muslim or not (strangely, no animal rights activist challenges the torture of halal).
6) Many multi-national food companies how have halal-only products. eg., Cadbury chocolate has paid the Islam mafia protection racket to rate their chocolate as halal (in Australia the money Cadbury gave was then misappropriated for an islamic supremacist cause).
7) In the US there have been 21 cases where Sharia Law principles have faced off against the Constitution. In most cases the Constitution has yielded.
8) global mainstream media is completely cowed in reporting about Islam, due to threats of violence. This is Sharia compliant reporting.
All this is only the start. Islam will not conquer the US by force. What it intends to do is wage 'cultural jihad' and slowly bend US case law into setting Sharia-friendly precedents.
So, rather than demonizing me, could you please instead try and argue with facts? it turns out that I am sane, but you are in denial and self-delusion.
You are correct about the Bible. You are incorrect about what motivates Muslims to jihad. I agree that there have been other causes. What matters now is the rise of Islamic jihad and the intention to restore the Caliphate. Even America would struggle to fight 57 countries at once. So, we get your point that Islam is not the sole source of evil. Fine. However, your statements often sound like you are excusing Islam. That is a dangerous thing to do by easily confused Slashdotters (some of whom would love to cling to the idea that political Islam wasn't as evil as it is). Please don't make apologies for evil !
That organization is coming. It will be called the Caliphate. Many many islamicist supremacists who make comments on places like YouTube repeatedly mention the restoration of the Caliphate and what they will do to you once they have it. If one or two of them mentioned it you could dismiss it as fringe, but *all* of them mention it. They are aware of the situation. It is a shame you are not. Educate yourself about the coming Caliphate!
I have already refuted both your false understand of Islam (thanks to the Jedi-mind trick propaganda you swallowed whole) and your secondary tactic of unwarranted and false demonization.
Ok, you've swallowed the whole "poverty", "US intervention", "Israel" false narrative line. Then I have two questions for you: did you know that most jihadis come from *priviliged backgrounds*? They don't fight because of poverty, they fight because Islamic ideology tells them to. The second question is: using your (false) Leftist Narrative, how do you explain the fact that jihad has been going on for 1400 years and doesn't look it will stop by itself? again, could it be because the jihad is waged because of Islamic political ideology? (before the US was funded, or Israel re-founded, or drones were invented, or Mubarak came to power, etc etc).
Please understand that you are merely parroting Leftist Narrative that projects the ideology of the Left. This does not correlate at all with either the facts, nor the motivations that *the jihadis themselves* say are "inspiring" them. So stop repeating falsehoods and learn to be fact based. Then you will see that jihad is caused primarily by Islamic doctrine - and your understanding of the situation is completely backwards (which is what the propagandists wanted you to do).
Doubly false. Shows you don't know as much as you think you do - and you need to do a lot more research than merely regurgitate the propaganda of Hamas-inspired CAIR and their Leftist Allies.
False. Jihad means many things. There are not "many" interpretations of jihad. There are two. This shows you don't actually know what you are talking about. "Jihad akhbar" is "greater jihad" that is a personal struggle. "Jihad asghar" is the "lesser jihad". However it is jihad asghar that is called for in most of the 109 or so verses of the Qur'an that call for the slaughter and subjugation of non-Muslims. I hope you never repeat this falsehood again - you are supporting jihadis when you do (which is why their propaganda arms like CAIR and Muslim Student Association put the lie out there - to play a "Jedi Mind Trick" on any weak-minded person who will repeat the falsehood without investigating the facts). If you want to learn how you were mistaken please see the excellent YouTube videos by Major Stephen Coughlin. This one analyses the basis for jihad in Islamic Law (using *Islamic sources only*): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsArto3UVT0 "Stephen Coughlin, Part 2: Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law"
People like you really miss the Red Scare don't you?
False. Actually I wish Islam was a "religion of peace" rather than the evil totalitarian political movement it is. However, your characterization to slander me with projected falsehood is a typical tactic of the political Left. By trying to demonize an opponent it absolves you from ever listening to them or needing to produce facts to counter their argument (which in most cases, you couldn't do). Please desist from this. It is a bad habit and resorting to it shows you actually have no counter argument to make - which makes you look bad. I suggest instead of closing your mind to counter-evidence you instead follow the citations I give. That might cure you of your current delusions with regard to the nature and aims of political Islam (and you would then stop making excuses for evil).
Furthermore, let us conduct a "thought-experiment". Imagine if the Qur'an verses mentioning jihad really meant "personal struggle" rather than "total war against unbelievers", what would the Islamic World and Middle East then look like? would we still have 270 million killed by Islam? would we have subjugation and discrimination against all remaining non-Muslim populations in the Middle East (eg. Jews, Christians [Assyrians, Copts], Atheists, etc). Would the world have multiple attacks per day by the Muslims who follow the *mainstream* Islamic doctrine that jihad means warfare against unbelievers, check out the facts: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Now that you understand you have been repeating propaganda planted for you by evil jihadis and their apologists I hope you will stop parroting it. The following sites will help you distinguish the islamicist lies from reality (and show you *facts* that the mainstream media is too afraid to show): http://www.jihadwatch.org/ http://gatesofvienna.net/
Actually, I do have a multi-pronged approach consisting of many items. Unfortunately I still think it is necessary for some kinetic action to be taken against those who would never listen (eg. Al Qaeda). Now it turns out that I actually believe that many Muslims are in fact moral and very law abiding. It just turns out that the set of morals and laws that they obey are barbaric 7th Century edicts that doctrine prohibits from evolving or even discussing. The ideological battle to be waged is *far far* more important than the kinetic battle, but both are necessary for victory. At the moment the US is losing, badly, because it has deluded itself into believing political Islam is the same as various personal faiths - yet it most clearly is not.
Please note that I neither call for deportation nor extermination nor oppression of Muslims (a courtesy that Islamists are unwilling to extend to Kosovar Serbs, Iraqi Assyrians, Kurds scattered around the place, Armenians, Egyptian Copts, Indonesian Christians or Southern Sudanese). Let readers judge whether I am trying to be reasonable or not, while still opposing the evil totalitarianism of Islam and promoting the defense of Englightenment Liberties for all.
If you are interested in various aspects of Islamic Law (eg, how the OIC are using the UN to promote evil Sharia worldwide) or how jihad is not in any way an "extremist" Muslim doctrine (as the political left, leftist media, and Islamic apologists continually lie to you about) in the sense that it is, in fact, a *core and mainstream* Islamic doctrine. When an Islamicist says they "condemn terrorism" it never means they condemn jihad. They are condemning "illegal warfare", which in Sharia means those who oppose jihad. This is an example of the Islamic doctrine of lying called "tawriya". Citations for your enlightenment and pleasure: http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/139-louis-palme/1095-knowing-four-arabic-words-may-save-our-civilization-from-islamic-takeover.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsArto3UVT0 "Stephen Coughlin, Part 2: Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkAZUvQAzkc "Stephen Coughlin, Part 5: The Role of the OIC in Enforcing Islamic Law " http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t98WRrOPj2s "Stephen Coughlin, Part 3: Abrogation & the 'Milestones' Process" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y " Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner"
So, fellow Slashdotters, please let me cue you in. When the inevitable TV appearances have Muslims condemning terrorism there will be some genuine condolences (those that are good human beings, but bad Muslims) but more than a few will be practicing "tawriya" - saying something with the knowledge that you will interpret it in one way, while they view it as the complete opposite due to the different interpretation under (evil !!!) Sharia.
Notice how there are *multiple* Islamicist attacks around the World every day? doesn't your enormous ignorance concern you? don't do you feel even a tinge of guilt for trying to demonize those who know a fsck load more than you and are armed with facts rather than your wimpy and *false* opinions? It is apologists like you that are the problem. Your weak agenda has allowed the human-rights violating cancer of political Islam into tolerant societies. You are part of the problem yet you are too ignorant to understand it, yet. Fortunately the Islamicists state they are very very willing to provide many more examples for you on a daily basis until you finally wake to the *facts* of the situation - that political Islam is an evil totalitarian ideology that must be opposed by all moral Free People (which currently does not appear to include you - hopefully that will change as you learn more).
Slashdot Mirror
For all we know, they were commiting a crime of an unrelated nature.
You do know there is a considerable amount of photographic evidence of dudes who look like these turkeys. You do know that the guys the police chased were armed with firearms and bombs, yeah? and these guys resisted arrest (unlike, say, a random citizen who wouldn't fire on police trying to talk to them). You do know that the people apprehended visited Islamic jihadi sites, yeah? you do know that the Australian imam "Sheil" Feiz inspired these dudes yeah? (according to: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/459253/20130419/feiz-mohammad-tamerlan-tsarnaev-boston-marathon.htm).
Now I agree that the arrested dude could be innocent by some means - but your statements don't make much sense given the evidence available to even us plebs. If you wanted to say "innocent until proven guilty" then I'm with ya. If you wanted to say "I'm bored with the manhunt and capture of Islamic terrorism that killed three people (including a Chinese national and a young boy) and wounding hundreds more, ruining a globally-reknowned celebration of athletic prowess, and traumatising many bystanders" then I'm not with you. In fact, I'd say you were perhaps a bit of a self-centered prat whose writing suggests a lack of empathy with the victims. By all means you can tire of the manhunt coverage, by all means feel free to speak (write) your opinion. Please don't be surprised if we think you are a bit of a git for shifting blame off the perpetrators. Such as implicitly suggesting the police had gone crazy and just grabbed some minor perps; and suggesting that coverage of a jihadi attack on US soil and the associated manhunt was not as newsworthy as say, Kim Kardashian's tribulations.
It seems to me that many of a Leftist bent still desperately want the terrorism to have been conducted by a right wing nut, so the leftists could feel comfortable with the world view. Instead, reality has just slapped many leftists in the face and completely destroyed the Leftist excuses for jihad (assuming that US and Israel foreign policies or poverty are the causes of jihad rather than than the Truth - that the Qur'an has 109 violent clauses the mainstream Muslims believe is their duty to fulfil). I don't know whether what your politics are, but this event should be a wake up call to every Free Person. The battle between the 7th Century political Islam and the rest of the World (whose outlook is mostly in the 21st Century) has been going on for 1400 years and will not stop without either the Islamists subjugating all non-Muslims (their stated goal, eg. according to Sura 9:29) or the Free World defeats the political system called Islam (just as National and Soviet Socialism were defeated).
Great post, man! It's hard to fathom the lynch mob mentality around here. I'm a big fan of taking the evil political ideology of Islam down, but we do that by application of laws to ourselves and others - not a mob with pitchforks. So I appreciate your reasoned statements a great deal.
I'm not in the US and don't watch Fox News. Sorry, your smear has failed. I suggest you watch the documentary I posted.
There is also the fact that Microsoft also gained a lot of sales as hardware increased in capability. Through graphics changes from low-res mono to color to full color to hi-def resolution; from tiny memory limits on DOS to 16-bit to 32-bit to 64-bit; from desktop to laptop to corporate server. Each time Microsoft got a sale and clipped the ticket for enormous cash flows. Each time a new version of Windows came out for better hardware Microsoft was able to make just enough changes to the API that their competition had to scramble to keep up - which gave Microsoft advantages.
The biggest change is not heterogeneous computing, although customers are now comfortable with this, but the fact that even tablets are 'good' enough that we change them due to fashion cycles and not due to fundamental changes in hardware or software architectures. Desktops are still being bought, as they are great for certain tasks (eg. gaming, graphics design/CAD etc), but they also now last far longer before needing replacement. It is this that is changing Microsoft from a growth company to a staid (large, but) stable company. For a stock market addicted to capital gains rather than dividends Microsoft has been a poor buy for a long time. It means reporting about it is uninteresting and consumers find nothing new and innovative with it.
Microsoft will survive, but without the rapid changes in hardware and software architecture it used to bring (and consumers would crave, rather than resist as the do with new versions of Windows now) it no longer dominates consumer nor developer thought (the latter being particularly important, and Linux was successful in breaking Microsoft's mindshare hold over bleeding-edge developers at least half a decade ago).
As a developer I'm pleased I invested resources in developing for Java. That means I can do desktop, web and Android very easily (Mac is also covered, but iOS is problematic - fortunately Oracle and others are hard at work adapting standard Java for both iOS and Android [to replace the non-standard Android Java libraries]). Java is not the best platform in all (or, some would say, any) area, but it is getting to be nearly as ubiquitous as C. The reason I adopted and stuck with Java is because I knew computing platforms would change (and will change again in the future, in ways no one can predict) but I do know that Java is committed to having a portable language and libraries to go to whatever is coming. So I'm pleased with my decision to 'invest' (develop products and knowledge) in that technology. This should be a lesson for all technologists - the only constant is change. So the wise strategic choice is to adopt technologies that are designed to mitigate the inevitable change.
Free Speech including the right to cause offense is critical. Everything else is secondary. If you don't have Free Speech you have *nothing*. Now you may argue that the US already has Free Speech, but it turns out that actually what US citizens can and can't say is being steadily eroded by political correctness. Here are some things for you to consider: The incompetant Hiliary Clinton co-sponsored UN HRC Resolution 16/18 which seeks the criminalization of those that defame or cause offense to religions; consider the film "Innocence of Muslims" while it was mostly factually correct (see: http://www.pi-news.org/2012/09/fact-check-the-innocence-of-the-muslims/) the Obama Administration hunted down the producer and put him in jail (on some bullshit charges) which was a big signal that exercising Free Speech in the US about the subject of Islam (even making true statements) is an exercise that can land you in jail.
A party that has a central platform that will *actually* defend Free Speech would be great. That is, rather than assuming it exists and doesn't need to be defended, or only gives lip service to defending it while it gets progressively eroded (as Democrats do).
A second plank your Party might like to consider is making explicit the support for the primacy of the Constitution over foreign laws. There have been an increasing number of cases where foreign laws (particularly Sharia) have come in conflict with the US Constitution and the Constitution has often yielded. This got bad enough that Florida and Oklahoma need to draft state laws to prevent this happening again. It would be good to have a political party that was explicit about the primacy of US law for US citizens on US soil. This would also help Internet users - they should not be subject to foreign laws of censorship etc when accessing a server hosted outside the US.
A couple of citations/references for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States#Unfunded_obligations_excluded
http://silverdoctors.com/niall-ferguson-us-unfunded-liabilities-top-238-trillion/
The "100k" club, the number civil servants drawing more than $100k per annum is *soaring*
http://newjersey.watchdog.org/2013/04/15/100k-club-3/
So while you may see fiscal conservatives as "meanies who don't care about the poor" this is a mistaken view. It is the liberal spending policies of the Obama Administration (look at how spending has *increased* massively, even after the economic bailout) that are destroying the US economy and will ultimately hurt the poor far far more than fiscal conservatism would (which would reduce entitlements and wasteful programmes in the short term, but grow the economy in the long term which would allow more tax to be generated which would only then get redistributed to the poor; as JFK said about the importance of this, "A rising tide floats all boats").
The reason you repeat the fallacy of US defence spending is the result of several factors:
1) Cultural Marxism is now dominating the discourse. Marxism lost the economic and political battles, but has won the cultural battle. The cultural narrative is now directed by marxists of the Frankfurt School, and they are ensuring that America marches to its destruction while the population is misguided and misdirected by Marxist memes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M
2) the mainstream media are either too incompetent or complicit in this scheme (most journalists and editors now come from schools with programmes that are aligned with Cultural Marxism - which is why many newspapers enforce follow and enforce the Politically Correct narrative).
3) Much of the US population has a woeful knowledge of geopolitics and history. They can easily be swayed by false memes because they don't know much about the history of plac
Ah, the demonization of the Left. So typical. Rather than understand the point I was trying to make, and then debating with whatever facts you knew to counter, you instead resorted immediately to applying labels. It shows how little thought *you* bring to the table - since you never have to use facts in your arguments and you can dismiss competing ideas based on labels you apply to those presenting them. I suggest you watch the following video to understand how the methods you have just used in fact reinforce the case I made:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M
Perhaps you could watch a historical documentary and learn a little bit about the issue. Cultural Marxism is different from economic or political Marxism. Since it appears you don't understand the difference I hope this video may teach you something:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M
Please watch the video and then get back to me to show me where I'm wrong. Your statements so far show you to be well indoctrinated by the precepts of the Frankfurt School. It's ok if you want to stay in the Matrix that is US culture, but at least have a look at the bars that you choose to remain behind. Sound good?
I agree with you. However, *if* Muslims were prepared to adapt Islam to be non-political then we would be open to accommodate it, yes? it is anti-scientific superstitious bullshit, but as long as it is personal bullshit I don't care too much.
We both know that without the political aspect Islam would be a husk, and without the threats of death for apostates it would wither and die as people could talk openly about how ridiculous it is. I do think it is worthwhile for reasonable people to state we would tolerate Islam if the ideology changed to be more tolerant itself. We know that won't happen, but at least it shows the "ball is in their court". This is especially relevant for all the confused liberals out there who think Islam if just another personal faith and it is the defenders of liberty who are the ones starting conflict and being unreasonable.
Thank you very much. It would be ideal if violence could be avoided and the ability of Muslims to practice personal faith be preserved without political Islam warping laws and customs (in the way that the million Muslims in Israel are able to worship without changing laws).
It is unfortunate the political Left that states it wishes to avoid war and violence is in fact making it more likely but denying the rising problem of Islamic supremacy.
I think part of the problem with reporting is the influence of Cultural Marxism, also known as Political Correctness. This means that journalists don't tie together important background information if it doesn't match the narrative of the angle they decided to take *before they started their story "investigation". What remains after the self-censoring does not make much coherent sense.
For example, looking around the World it appears as if much of the violence is random and much of the US response equally random. Hence you get notions that the US is doing drone strikes all over the place because of ridiculous speculations like the military are bored and are looking for sport (or equally, the military industrial complex needs wars for more money; it is quite good at getting money without wars - in fact, wars suck money out of new procurement programmes, so are not so good for most players in the MI complex; but I digress).
If you dig deeper than the mainstream media to join the dots you will see that many of the "random clashes" around the world are part of an organized campaign of Islamic expansion or sectarian conflict funded by Saudi and Iranian petrodollars (eg. the violence in the following countries is not isolated, it is connected by Islamic ideology: Bulgaria, Sweden, Denmark, France, Mali, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Israel, Syria, Turkey, Yemen, Iran, Pakistan, India, Thailand, the Philippines, Eastern China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Argentina and most recently, the US). This conflict has been going on for 1400 years, yet the shallow analysis of the press ties it to more recent events (eg. US intervention in Afghanistan). Similarly, the US is waging an equally stealthy global war to oppose this. Because the mainstream media has been self-censoring and reporting euphemism and memes that don't match that facts it is no wonder people cannot connect the dots to see what is really going on in the shadows. As long as things happen over time periods longer than a few months the mainstream media are fairly oblivious to it, and can easily be persuaded to parrot the propaganda of the antagonists rather than conduct a proper analysis.
There is no easy solution to the self-censoring, and eradication of the wider perspective of any story by the press. However, the Internet has made a huge difference and will only grow in importance. Internet news is bad in that bad reporting and fallacies live forever, but it has the huge advantage that anyone with an interest can fact-check and self-publish articles that can reference all sorts of detailed information. For example: sites like Gate of Vienna (http://gatesofvienna.net/) and others show the holistic picture of growing Islamism by tying together all the facts they can get their hands on - meanwhile, the mainstream media were effectively cowed into Sharia-compliant self-censorship by the violence resulting from the 'Danish cartoons' fiasco (and a lack of political leadership, and the political correctness concept of 'causing offense' as a crime, meant there was little support for free press defiance - hence the freedom of the press shrunk a little more).
Mainstream media news is only for those that want sound bites that skew the picture in the way the reporter wanted. Only Internet news sites provide the comprehensive analysis that allows tying together disparate events for a coherent picture of the motivations of those involved. Unfortunately that means that the huge number of people who only get their news through mainstream media have a very narrow and distorted picture of reality (which is why they voted Obama a second term to further fsck up the US economy [through government overspending on *massive* entitlement programmes the US simply cannot afford] and its Constitutional liberties).
The only "no" is in your utter immorality in defending jihadis and their ilk. Rather than counter the *facts* of multiple jihadi attacks worldwide (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks) you instead try and deflect using the tactics of personal demonization (as witnessed from your first and continued statements), just as written in this book "Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans" http://www.amazon.com/Bullies-Culture-Intimidation-Silences-Americans/dp/1476709998.
I bet you are so indoctrinated you have no idea what the hate speech in the Qur'an actually says, or about the 270 million souls killed by jihadis over the last 1400 years (and continuing today), or the goal of Islamists to destroy all liberties and human rights the Free World hold dear. Instead in your upside-down world you think you are resisting intolerance but instead you are defending the barbaric intolerance of Islam and opposing those who are arguing for *protecting* the liberties the Free World has (which is under massive threat by Islamists, even if you too ignorant to notice the facts and trends).
The fact is, you can't actually actually contest the *facts*, instead you try and bypass them since actually using the Scientific Method to alter your incorrect worldview to a better approximation using the facts and links I've given would blow the worldview the propagandists have fed you and you now parrot like a good little apologist for evil.
You are smug in your unearned and assumed moral superiority but the reality is because you live a fact-free bubble of ideological nonsense you are aiding and abetting the evil jihadis with your attempted defense of them. Shame on you for supporting the evil totalitarian, theocratic, misogynistic, racist, supremacist political ideology called Islam (which, apart from some nonsense superstitions, is largely indistinguishable from the ideology of National Socialism if you look closely). Supporting such evil is immoral!
You are worse than insane - you are willfully ignorant of the growing threat to human rights and quality in the World (what part of the Qur'an do you think talks about equality? for women? and homosexuals? and non-Muslims? and Jews? and Christians? and Zoroastrians? and atheists?). Stop defending the evil that is political Islam, because it makes *you* evil !
I'm not saying you're racist, and if I did I apologize
No problems, and thank you. You have shown yourself to be a reasonable fellow, which is great. In political discussion the word "racist" is often thrown around, usually with the intent of demonization such that the position of one party needs no further examination. It is a tactic used by all sides, but is a favorite of the Left. Fortunately it is clear this was not your intent. But I hope you are now aware that not all accusations of racist have basis in fact - and that it is often used to shut down an opponent, especially when they are telling uncomfortable truths that cannot be challenged on a logical basis.
I meant that your N-step plan for cleansing the Muslim ideology from otherwise-pristine American society will lead to racism among people who can't be bothered to differentiate a Muslim from someone with an olive-complexion or dark skin. I'd wager this is most people, and if you look at the effects of anti-immigration policy in the south or south-east you'll see what I'm talking about.
Please let me be clear here. I have *zero* problem with Muslims practicing their superstition as a personal faith. For sure they are anti-scientific and deluded, but that is their business. What I do have an *extreme* problem with is not Muslims (who are people, and often good), but the *political ideology* called Islam whose core doctrine is to assert political control over all people, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. That is a huge difference. Please re-read my statement so you are clear on what I mean.
I agree with you in that great caution has to be used to prevent discrimination against Muslims who are non-violent (technically these are no longer considered Muslims by Islam, they are "apostates" and condemned to death by the growing Wahhabi and Salafi movements). The steps I outlined would make no difference to Muslims practicing personal faith. All they do is prevent *political Islam* from changing Constitutional and case law in the Free World and US. I hope you can now see that I am not calling for the expulsion or harm of any minority. I'm calling for the upholding of Enlightenment Values where they are challenged by Sharia.
If you're worried about a couple verses in the Koran, the answer is education. If we all followed the Bible as closely as they follow the Koran, we'd be executing people left and right for a hundred seemingly ridiculous reasons. I think there's a reasonable case to be made that, if left to their own devices, Christians today would descend into the same sort of fascism as we see in Saudi Arabia, with women being subjugated, slavery being reinstated (yes, it condones slavery), witches being burned at the stake (as puritans did early in our country), etc. Look what Christians do now to homosexuals based on a couple random verses from the Bible.
There is a huge difference between Islam and Christianity in that Christianity has (finally!) evolved past a literalist interpretation in the mainstream. Islam is still literalist. In fact, to question a literalist interpretation renders a Muslim an apostate (and the penalty for apostasy is *death*). Islam cannot be questioned by Muslims or they will be killed. Islam cannot be questioned by non-Muslims or they will be killed (as soon as devout Muslims are able to achieve this). That is why many freedom fighters around the world have already been killed for *truthful* criticism of Islamic barbarism (eg. in Holland and Denmark etc). So, I hope you see that while Christianity was a threat it is no longer much of a threat. Islam is still a threat, to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. That is why I provided you with the link http://www.religionofpeace.com/ so you could see the facts of what is going on today. A huge amount of Muslim on Muslim violence due to their literalist interpretation and the Sharia law that commands Muslims to kill all apostates
I call for nothing other than the preservation of Constitutional liberty for all, and the application of native law for all, with no exceptions. I propose no violence on the enemies of freedom that remain non-violent. I propose nothing based on race, only on ideology.
I'm afraid that reasonable and rational people will be wondering what you smoking given that you oppose civilized measures such as strengthening Free Speech laws and the restriction of activist judges that effectively set law bypassing normal democratic processes (that's why the Islamicists try and get precedents set in case law, since it effective changes laws without going through Congress).
It is clear you are reading into my words something you want to see (but not what was written), because you *desperately* want to defend jihadists despite all the facts indicating that Islam is the reason they commit their crimes against humanity.
Like the good little jihad apologist the Left has brainwashed you to be you try and make moral equivalence between someone calling for strengthening Free Speech and jihadis that commit murder in the name of Allah. Only a muppet still stuck in his propaganda Matrix would think that calling for strengthening Free Speech and legislating for native law (only) is "just as dangerous" as those promoting Sharia either by stealth, lying or violence. I guess you have soaked up the brainwashing against "discrimination" but never realise it also means "discernment" - the ability to tell good and evil. Moral relativism and political correctness has made you illogical and emotion-based rather than fact-based.
The following is already in action. All materials associating "islam" and "terrorism" in the same breath have been purged from the US Government. The DoD, CIA and FBI cannot call jihadi terrorism for what it is. The Fort Hood shootings are thus swept under the carpet as "workplace violence" with an unknown cause - despite Major Nidal Hussein's business card describing him as "Soldier of Allah" and the fact as he was murdering he went around screaming "Allahu Akhbar". It is *you* that is living under a delusion as to what is happening and how the Obama Administration and media are suppressing what is going on (no surprise, the Admistration is thoroughly penetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, the MB say so themselves: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates).
d) To undertake a strong effort to counter religious profiling, which is understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in conducting questionings, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures;
Do you understand that the intent of 16/18 restrict Free Speech of all UN member countries? what constitutes intolerance? under Sharia "slander" is anything a Muslim doesn't want you to hear - no matter how truthful it is. Therefore any member of the 57 nation OIC can claim intolerance for speaking the (awful) truth about Islam. That is why the US opposed the draft resolutions - it was only incompetent Hiliary Clinton who let this through (no wonder, her chief assistant is the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Huma Abedin: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/08/12/Huma-Abedin-s-Ties-to-Muslim-Brotherhood-May-Be-Even-Deeper-Than-Rep-Bachmann-Suspected et al.)
Let's also not forget the fact that at its heart 16/18 is against the US First Amendment.
You are delusional.
False. You are in denial. You have zero facts and don't understand the subtleties and intent of documents unless they are written at a childish level for you. Be coddled in your delusion - hopefully the Islamicists won't place a pressure cooker IED next to where you are standing while you defend their immoral and barbaric actions - you idiot.
Oh, by the way, I hope you are not so far in Leftist delusion that you would be pleased at the Boston civilian murders as these guys:
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/04/16/muslims-celebrate-with-sweets-praise-to-allah-over-boston-bombing-62151
The Islamists don't hate America and Israel for what they have done or not done, or what they will do or not do. Islam commands Muslims to kill, convert or subjugate all non-Muslims. The Qur'an is very clear on this and it is not an extremist teaching, all five schools of Islamic jurisprudence are in completely agreement on this. So stop your denial of reality - it is shameful.
The word 'strawman' is like a meme on slashdot. Not everything is a strawman argument.
Yes, but you set a strawman argument, claiming I'm a racist when I made no mention of race. You don't even know what race I am. So stop protecting your bullshit strawman argument - which you are doing because you are intellectually lazy and closed minded - you would rather dismiss my argument out of hand without even looking at the citations I have given and justify this dismissal with your strawman. I suggest instead you use the Scientific Method, hear what I have to say (the links I gave), and then see whether it matches the evidence or not. What you are doing is illogical and un-scientific (dismissing the facts that are counter to the delusion you'd like to believe).
Now, if you're going deny that Islam is confined to a few distinct races (i.e. skin tones, as we tend to know them), then you're just playing ignorant.
This is another strawman you have constructed. You are again wrong. I always take pains to state that Islam is an evil political ideology (the evil of which you would clearly like to excuse). An *ideology* has zero to do with race. Even if it did, rational people would still be able to debate it in a logical manner. Only the weak minded politically correct fools censor free thought.
The basis for your list is that Islam == Terrorism. It doesn't. It's just that Muslims happen to live in impoverished countries that we keep declaring war against, or threatening to.
False. Islam is not equal to terrorism, statistically it just happens to be the motivation for over 90%. Stop projecting your own ignorance onto me. The second part of your statement are falsehoods promoted by the political Left who would like that to be the reason for Islamic terrorism. If you stop listening to the falsehoods and delusions of the Left you would instead have enough of an open mind to accept reality - the jihadis themselves say what their motivation is, and that motivation is Islam, eg. Sura 9:5 and 9:29 (please go an read them so you are less ignorant than you are now, and so you don't repeat the falsehoods of the political Left).
So just as people like you have learned to fear Muslims,
The reason rational people fear Muslims is because they deliberately strike at civilians, any time and any place. Contrary to the leftists propaganda you subscribe to the US does not do the same thing - it simply isn't economic to waste million dollar weapons on random killing. Now often in drone strikes today a jihadi will be in a compound with his family or other human shields. That is not the fault of the US and is in-fact the fault of the jihadi (it is immoral and internationally illegal for combatants to hide behind civilians).
Not to mention you're overly paranoid. If some population of Muslims in the U.S. wants to enact Sharia law in their city or state, they've got a huge obstacle: the U.S. Constitution. We don't even need to implement anti-sharia laws to enforce it, it's already there. We don't need such laws specifically targeting Muslims because they would (1) violate the constitution, (2) needlessly provoke the sort of violence those laws are trying to protect us against.
Dude, you really are quite ignorant of the facts, aren't you? No surprise, the left-leaning media are careful to hide reality for you, lest you stumble on the stated aims of the Islamists (which the immoral Left have common cause with). Here are some court cases where the Constitution has given was to Sharia:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/sharias_encroachment_into_american_courts.html
So please get a clue. I'm not a racist, I'm trying to shake you out of the Matrix you are in (fed lies by the leftist media and academia) and get you clued up on what is really going on.
False. What race is Islam exactly? no one is saying American Muslims have to do anything. What is being said is that Islamic law will not be applied to non-Muslims (despite the imposition of barbaric Sharia on all people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, this being an explicit goal of Islam). So quit with the false strawmen arguments please.
You are in a prison where you can't even see the walls, dude. By Islamicised I mean that Muslims get special treatment that non-Muslims do not. Examples:
1) Muslims may show images of Mohammed and discuss him; non-Muslims get killed if they do the same thing.
2) Muslims may criticise all other religions; non-Muslims may not criticise Islam (on pain of death), neither can Muslims - but the point is still the same.
3) Muslim blasphemy laws are being applied to non-Muslims (see UN HRC Resolution 16/18)
4) Muslim segregation laws for men and women are already in the Havard gym and other universities in the US
5) In the UK all schools serve halal meat whether you are Muslim or not (strangely, no animal rights activist challenges the torture of halal).
6) Many multi-national food companies how have halal-only products. eg., Cadbury chocolate has paid the Islam mafia protection racket to rate their chocolate as halal (in Australia the money Cadbury gave was then misappropriated for an islamic supremacist cause).
7) In the US there have been 21 cases where Sharia Law principles have faced off against the Constitution. In most cases the Constitution has yielded.
8) global mainstream media is completely cowed in reporting about Islam, due to threats of violence. This is Sharia compliant reporting.
All this is only the start. Islam will not conquer the US by force. What it intends to do is wage 'cultural jihad' and slowly bend US case law into setting Sharia-friendly precedents.
So, rather than demonizing me, could you please instead try and argue with facts? it turns out that I am sane, but you are in denial and self-delusion.
You are correct about the Bible. You are incorrect about what motivates Muslims to jihad. I agree that there have been other causes. What matters now is the rise of Islamic jihad and the intention to restore the Caliphate. Even America would struggle to fight 57 countries at once. So, we get your point that Islam is not the sole source of evil. Fine. However, your statements often sound like you are excusing Islam. That is a dangerous thing to do by easily confused Slashdotters (some of whom would love to cling to the idea that political Islam wasn't as evil as it is). Please don't make apologies for evil !
That organization is coming. It will be called the Caliphate. Many many islamicist supremacists who make comments on places like YouTube repeatedly mention the restoration of the Caliphate and what they will do to you once they have it. If one or two of them mentioned it you could dismiss it as fringe, but *all* of them mention it. They are aware of the situation. It is a shame you are not. Educate yourself about the coming Caliphate!
I have already refuted both your false understand of Islam (thanks to the Jedi-mind trick propaganda you swallowed whole) and your secondary tactic of unwarranted and false demonization.
Ok, you've swallowed the whole "poverty", "US intervention", "Israel" false narrative line. Then I have two questions for you: did you know that most jihadis come from *priviliged backgrounds*? They don't fight because of poverty, they fight because Islamic ideology tells them to. The second question is: using your (false) Leftist Narrative, how do you explain the fact that jihad has been going on for 1400 years and doesn't look it will stop by itself? again, could it be because the jihad is waged because of Islamic political ideology? (before the US was funded, or Israel re-founded, or drones were invented, or Mubarak came to power, etc etc).
Please understand that you are merely parroting Leftist Narrative that projects the ideology of the Left. This does not correlate at all with either the facts, nor the motivations that *the jihadis themselves* say are "inspiring" them. So stop repeating falsehoods and learn to be fact based. Then you will see that jihad is caused primarily by Islamic doctrine - and your understanding of the situation is completely backwards (which is what the propagandists wanted you to do).
Doubly false. Shows you don't know as much as you think you do - and you need to do a lot more research than merely regurgitate the propaganda of Hamas-inspired CAIR and their Leftist Allies.
False. Jihad means many things. There are not "many" interpretations of jihad. There are two. This shows you don't actually know what you are talking about. "Jihad akhbar" is "greater jihad" that is a personal struggle. "Jihad asghar" is the "lesser jihad". However it is jihad asghar that is called for in most of the 109 or so verses of the Qur'an that call for the slaughter and subjugation of non-Muslims. I hope you never repeat this falsehood again - you are supporting jihadis when you do (which is why their propaganda arms like CAIR and Muslim Student Association put the lie out there - to play a "Jedi Mind Trick" on any weak-minded person who will repeat the falsehood without investigating the facts). If you want to learn how you were mistaken please see the excellent YouTube videos by Major Stephen Coughlin. This one analyses the basis for jihad in Islamic Law (using *Islamic sources only*): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsArto3UVT0 "Stephen Coughlin, Part 2: Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law"
People like you really miss the Red Scare don't you?
False. Actually I wish Islam was a "religion of peace" rather than the evil totalitarian political movement it is. However, your characterization to slander me with projected falsehood is a typical tactic of the political Left. By trying to demonize an opponent it absolves you from ever listening to them or needing to produce facts to counter their argument (which in most cases, you couldn't do). Please desist from this. It is a bad habit and resorting to it shows you actually have no counter argument to make - which makes you look bad. I suggest instead of closing your mind to counter-evidence you instead follow the citations I give. That might cure you of your current delusions with regard to the nature and aims of political Islam (and you would then stop making excuses for evil).
Furthermore, let us conduct a "thought-experiment". Imagine if the Qur'an verses mentioning jihad really meant "personal struggle" rather than "total war against unbelievers", what would the Islamic World and Middle East then look like? would we still have 270 million killed by Islam? would we have subjugation and discrimination against all remaining non-Muslim populations in the Middle East (eg. Jews, Christians [Assyrians, Copts], Atheists, etc). Would the world have multiple attacks per day by the Muslims who follow the *mainstream* Islamic doctrine that jihad means warfare against unbelievers, check out the facts:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Now that you understand you have been repeating propaganda planted for you by evil jihadis and their apologists I hope you will stop parroting it. The following sites will help you distinguish the islamicist lies from reality (and show you *facts* that the mainstream media is too afraid to show):
http://www.jihadwatch.org/
http://gatesofvienna.net/
Actually, I do have a multi-pronged approach consisting of many items. Unfortunately I still think it is necessary for some kinetic action to be taken against those who would never listen (eg. Al Qaeda). Now it turns out that I actually believe that many Muslims are in fact moral and very law abiding. It just turns out that the set of morals and laws that they obey are barbaric 7th Century edicts that doctrine prohibits from evolving or even discussing. The ideological battle to be waged is *far far* more important than the kinetic battle, but both are necessary for victory. At the moment the US is losing, badly, because it has deluded itself into believing political Islam is the same as various personal faiths - yet it most clearly is not.
For the specifics of my suggestions I hope you will consider my post I put here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3651105&cid=43459335
Please note that I neither call for deportation nor extermination nor oppression of Muslims (a courtesy that Islamists are unwilling to extend to Kosovar Serbs, Iraqi Assyrians, Kurds scattered around the place, Armenians, Egyptian Copts, Indonesian Christians or Southern Sudanese). Let readers judge whether I am trying to be reasonable or not, while still opposing the evil totalitarianism of Islam and promoting the defense of Englightenment Liberties for all.
If you are interested in various aspects of Islamic Law (eg, how the OIC are using the UN to promote evil Sharia worldwide) or how jihad is not in any way an "extremist" Muslim doctrine (as the political left, leftist media, and Islamic apologists continually lie to you about) in the sense that it is, in fact, a *core and mainstream* Islamic doctrine. When an Islamicist says they "condemn terrorism" it never means they condemn jihad. They are condemning "illegal warfare", which in Sharia means those who oppose jihad. This is an example of the Islamic doctrine of lying called "tawriya". Citations for your enlightenment and pleasure:
http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/139-louis-palme/1095-knowing-four-arabic-words-may-save-our-civilization-from-islamic-takeover.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsArto3UVT0 "Stephen Coughlin, Part 2: Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkAZUvQAzkc "Stephen Coughlin, Part 5: The Role of the OIC in Enforcing Islamic Law "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t98WRrOPj2s "Stephen Coughlin, Part 3: Abrogation & the 'Milestones' Process"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y " Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner"
So, fellow Slashdotters, please let me cue you in. When the inevitable TV appearances have Muslims condemning terrorism there will be some genuine condolences (those that are good human beings, but bad Muslims) but more than a few will be practicing "tawriya" - saying something with the knowledge that you will interpret it in one way, while they view it as the complete opposite due to the different interpretation under (evil !!!) Sharia.
False. Stop projecting. Also, you are *wrong*. You are spouting your *opinion*. Here are the *facts*: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
Notice how there are *multiple* Islamicist attacks around the World every day? doesn't your enormous ignorance concern you? don't do you feel even a tinge of guilt for trying to demonize those who know a fsck load more than you and are armed with facts rather than your wimpy and *false* opinions? It is apologists like you that are the problem. Your weak agenda has allowed the human-rights violating cancer of political Islam into tolerant societies. You are part of the problem yet you are too ignorant to understand it, yet. Fortunately the Islamicists state they are very very willing to provide many more examples for you on a daily basis until you finally wake to the *facts* of the situation - that political Islam is an evil totalitarian ideology that must be opposed by all moral Free People (which currently does not appear to include you - hopefully that will change as you learn more).