In 2015, President Obama told CNN that 99.9 Percent of Muslims Reject Radical Islam. He made the comments in response to a question about the White House avoiding using the phrase “Islamic terrorists.”
Hillary Clinton says “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”
Are they correct?
Obama Rejects Religious War
“It’s absolutely true that I reject the notion that somehow that [Isis] creates a religious war”.
Let’s Be Clear
Breitbart provides this Hillary Islam Flashback.
Clinton claimed that using the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” to describe the previous radical Islamic terrorist attack in France — the Paris massacre, which occurred just a few days before she spoke — “gives these criminals, these murderers, more standing than they deserve, and it actually plays into their hands by alienating partners we need by our side.”
“In the end it didn’t matter what kind of terrorist we called [Osama] bin Laden. It mattered that we killed bin Laden,” Clinton sniffed.
By June, Clinton had grown uncomfortable enough with public perceptions of her terrorist-fighting credentials to assure a CNN audience that she was super-duper comfortable with saying the words “radical Islam.”
“From my perspective, it matters what we do more than what we say. And it mattered we got bin Laden, not what name we called him. I have clearly said we – whether you call it radical jihadism or radical Islamism, I’m happy to say either. I think they mean the same thing,” she said, making a game effort to keep her we got bin Laden without calling him a jihadi talking point alive.
However, when she made her desperate call to Bill O’Reilly after the Nice atrocity unfolded, she was suddenly uncomfortable with the “radical Islam” formulation again, going with “these radical jihadist groups” instead. Perhaps Mrs. Clinton could tell us about some moderate jihadist groups, for the purposes of comparison.
A Sunni Muslim Chimes In
Here’s a video that I would like you to play. The video is by a Sunni Muslim. It’s called By The Numbers – The Untold Story of Muslim Opinions & Demographics.
By the Numbers is an honest and open discussion about Muslim opinions and demographics. Narrated by Raheel Raza, president of Muslims Facing Tomorrow, this short film is about the acceptance that radical Islam is a bigger problem than most politically correct governments and individuals are ready to admit. Is ISIS, the Islamic State, trying to penetrate the U.S. with the refugee influx? Are Muslims radicalized on U.S. soil? Are organizations such as CAIR, who purport to represent American Muslims accepting and liberal or radicalized with links to terror organizations?
Question of the Month
Fundamentally, it may be fair to ask “Is religion in general the problem?”
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Clearly Islam is the problem. It is fundamentally incompatible with Freedom and Liberty. Further, it and it’s followers seek the destruction of Freedom and Libery, wherever it exists.
Sadly, the only way is to eradicate Islam as much as possible, they will never accept a co-existence.
“Clearly Islam is the problem. It is fundamentally incompatible with Freedom and Liberty.”
You mean, it is just like socialism, communism, progressivism, liberalism and neoconservatism? Just one big mass of freedom destroyers holding hands and singing Kumbaya together, while enslaving everyone they can get their ropes around?
In practice, the two “countries” on earth with perhaps the most freedom and liberty (albeit not necessarily much else), are both nominally Islamic.
Islam is incompatible with freedom and liberty when it ceases to be a religion, and attempts to take on the role of being a state. Just like Christianity became incompatible with freedom and liberty, when the Pope started aspiring to worldly power. And “Americanism” became incompatible with freedom and liberty, when it ceased to be about putting limits on what government could do, and instead became about “building a great nation”, “making the world safe for democracy” and other such mindless claptrap.
Leading to the conclusion that what is incompatible with freedom and liberty, is our old “friend”, the state. Government. Isis is incompatible, as they explicitly want to use Islam as an excuse to attain political power. But Islam the religion is, as Afghanistan shows, no more incompatible with freedom and liberty than any other religion or belief system. And likely more compatible than most.
The absolute worst response anyone can have to being bombarded with “Islamic terrorism” scare stories, is to let the state that is much closer to home, hence much more dangerous, use them as an excuse to amass even more power than they already have. Instead, if you wake up in the morning scared some Scary Muslim Virgin is going to come stumbling down your driveway with ill intent, arm up. Buy a better gate. Keep more of your income to yourself, rather than paying it to some government hacks who claim they will “keep you safe” on the plantation as long as you cheer for them and shut up. Etc. Etc.
No Muslim has ever done me a lick of harm. Not stolen a dime of what I have earned. Not banned me from buying the kind of armament I may feel is necessary to defend myself and mine, should one of them decide to break bad in my immediate vicinity. Nor forced me to subsidize their harebrained health care schemes, nor bail out their banks, nor debased my savings. So why should I hand over ever more power to those who, on the other hand, have and continue to do all of the above again?
Pity you weren’t in Nice lately at a certain time. You sure ‘talk’ a lot meaningless sentences after another.
And what ‘two countries’ are you babbling about?
Jihad is part of Islam as much hand is part of a glove covering it. No two ways about it. You can twist and turn and try to turn all the evil under the sun to be the fault of ‘our governments’ but I feel that is just part of your agenda.
The ignorance of extrapolating a tiny number of extreme events to blame a religion that is followed by billions of people around the world takes the breath away.
Had the “freedom-loving”, largely Christian-identifying U.S. not unnecessarily destroyed Iraq and Libya, etc., and Israel not abused the Palestinians for decades, there would be only a small fraction of “Islamic” terrorism that we find today.
Oh, and by the way, the man responsible for the Nice tragedy was Algerian, so you might want to read up on the connection between the two countries. I’m not excusing the horrific act, but rather pointing out how stupid it is to lay the blame for terrorism on the religion of those who commit the acts.
Tinky, obviously you did not even watch Ms. Raza’s video. Fifteen minutes is all you need. Get educated.
I am sure you are a reasonable person, but you underestimate the power of Islamic ideology as much as reasonable Germans underestimated the power of Hitler’s rhetoric.
@ctapang
It boggles my mind that you, and others on this blog cannot see through such obvious propaganda.
As well meaning as the author of the video may be, her presentation reeks of bias. From the vapid “obviously not all Muslims are radical, but a certain percentage are!”, to the absurd lumping together of Isis and Al-Qaïda with Hamas and the Iranian revolutionary Guard in her definition of “violent jihadists”.
All of that dubious crap, without a SINGLE MENTION of the motivation for terrorism.
She then goes to mention the migration problems in Europe without a SINGLE MENTION of how such migration waves were catalyzed.
Whatever credibility the author has is completely undercut by her obviousness biases, and unwillingness to accept that the West has plenty of culpability in the sharp rise of Muslim-related terror over the past couple of decades.
http://www.mofopolitics.com/2016/07/02/islam-cant-actually-take-world/
The threat of an external invasion is the only way a masculinely expressed political movement (conservatism) can deal with a effeminately expressed political movement (liberalism). For as long as I have been alive, socons have been losing the media battle vs liberals. That is because its alot like how a nagging wife frustrates and eventually beats down a poor sap of a husband, even though he is physically stronger.
So the only way to employ masculine force against its yin/yang of feminine subversion/seduction, is to externalize the threat (ie go out drinking and start a bar fight with Iraq).
It is also the only way conservatism can beat liberalism in the popular opinion.
Granted, when it comes to importing a massive amount of migrants that will perpetually vote democrat, they do have a point. But they can’t make that point honestly because it has no effect, so they frame it as an invasion that has to be met with violent force (because they are the daddy of of the daddy / mommy dynamic of politics).
So you believe that Islam became violent in response to US actions? Wow. I don’t know what to say to someone so ignorant of the 14 centuries of history that includes Islam.
Are you even aware that Islamic conquest and terror predates the US by about 1200 years?
While US policy can certainly be questioned over the past 25 years, let’s not pretend that history began with the advent of the Clinton Presidency.
Lucky me wasn’t right in front of a truck in Nice on a govern day. Nor, so far, right in front of any of the countless other trucks I have passed in my travels. Nor in the immediate vicinity of that other “jihadist” Tim McVeigh’s truck (or van) when that thing went boom. Nor when any number of countless drones have decided ditto. Nor in Hiroshima. Nor Pearl harbor. Nor Ruby Ridge. Nor Waco. Nor in some house Charles Manson decided to stop by…… Man, I’m feeling lucky today! Maybe I should go buy some lottery tickets!
Of course, none of the above have much to do with “incompatible with freedom and liberty.” Incompatible with absolute lack of any form of violence perhaps. But then again, elementary logic dictates that a person free to do anything he wants, except commit acts of violence, is strictly less free than someone free to do anything the first one can, plus commit violence….
While eradicating all possibility of any violence forever after sure sounds nice, it’s not really the most realistic utopianism out there. God (or Allah…Or evolution… Or all of them in concert) gave men fists and trigger fingers for a reason. A major part of which is to protect what they deem to be their freedom and liberty. Which may not always be 100% compatible with what others consider theirs. So, you get a bit of conflict. Nothing neither unfree nor illiberal about that.
What specifically is incompatible with freedom and liberty, is the notion that some, or in practice most, men, should hack of their fists and trigger fingers, while an elite class of them need not. That’s when you end up in an unfree world. Like an antebellum cotton plantation.
A slave revolt was brutal and nasty and violent and painful for all involved. And yet, infinitely preferable to the peace and tranquility that ruled when those pesky niggers didn’t think go all uppity and all. At least as far as compatibility with freedom and liberty is concerned.
Similarly, the fact that Islam has Jihad baked in as a core feature, doesn’t say anything about it’s incompatibility with freedom and liberty. I’m no Islamic theologian, but it may make Muslims less accepting of handing over their freedoms and liberties to a totalitarian, secular state. Which, in the European context, and from a freedom and liberty perspective, is nothing but a good thing. Of course, the downside is, it similarly may make them MORE susceptible to hand those over to a nominally Islamic state. And that’s not such a good thing.
The important thing for then there, is to not fall for the fallacy that first the Christians, then Americans fell for, and which rendered the Christian world, then America, mere shadows of their formerly free selves. Meaning, they need to stick unwaveringly to a Sola Scriptura type interpretation of their texts. If it’s not explicitly and with a great degree of specificity outlined in one of a manageable for the average guy founding texts, it’s simply no concern of any state calling itself Islamic. Once they fall for the scam that the texts are “living documents”, that whichever hack happens to be in charge can “interpret” at will, it’s all over. And ditto if what is now largely a ragtag bunch of individual fighters, ever fall for the scam that they would somehow be better off handing in their guns to some Caliph and his handpicked warrior caste. But at least for now, give the guys the benefit of the doubt. Causing trouble for regimes that have spent the past century and a half robbing their citizens of every freedom and liberty they could, is hardly anything to be all up in arms and alarmist about.
“No Muslim has ever done me a lick of harm.
Bullshit!
Your rights have been trampled because of the actions of Muslim terrorists. Yes it is a follow on effect but…
The US bombed the shit out of Viet Nam. Remember all the Vietnamese terrorist blowback in the USA? Neither do I.
These people are different The don’t just talk different and cook different recipes.
They are different and the want something different in the world.
A world without your world.
Ah, I see. You’re outraged because Muslims sometimes use horrible violence to express their outrage at the horrible violence perpetrated on them by the certain Western powers.
Why couldn’t they just remain in the wreckages of their home countries and welcome American tourists to see the sights in a few decades?
A survey that was conducted by Gallop last year showed a greater percentage of Westerners believing that killing of innocent people can be justified as “collateral damage” than in a similar survey conducted on Moslems. The point here is that surveys can be manipulated to come up with almost any result that you may desire. The point remains, however, that the major problem Moslems face today is a cultural one, rather than emanating from religion itself. History has shown how religion throught history was used to justify criminal and barbaric actions- from the Inquisition in Spain to religious wars among Christians in Europe, to the genocide against native Americans in North and South America, etc. It is worth mentioning that the radical school of Islamic interpretations of religious texts, which is prevalent today started centuries ago at the expense of much more intellectual and universal schools of thought, due to the fact that it served the interests of the ruling class. Unfortunately, due to narrow-minded policies of foreign powers, this radical school has given a renewed impetus to organizations such as Moslem Brotherhood (Allowed while Egypt was under British rule), Wahhabi movement and, by extension, Alqaida (American alliance due to oil and in the blind drive to defeat communism) and Hamas (an offshoot of an earlier set-up and used as a counter-balance by Israel in their fight against PLO
When ‘white supremacists’ converge somewhere publicly, they are invariably outnumbered by white protestors telling them to get bent. When radical islamists commit mass mixer and advocate sharia law, so-called mainstream muslims are no where to be seen. They’re dead silent.
I consider that point to be very telling.
Mass ‘murder’.
Really? It seems like every time there is a mass under, Islamic groups come out of the woodwork denouncing the act.
You live in Florida, don’t you Jon?
Could you tell us which of the Islamic groups it was that came out to denounce the Pulse nightclub attack in Orlando? Targeted at homosexual night clubbers, fifty people were killed by a single individual, eclipsing the Virginia Tech massacre as the all-time worst US mass shooting.
Yes, I’m sure the Islamic groups jumped to their feet to quickly condemn that. Later, alleged assailant Omar Mateen’s father was spotted enthusiastically cheering at a Democratic rally, merely a few feet away from Mrs. Clinton herself.
Geez Diogenes, just go google it. Tons of them. You seem exceptionally cynical.
What actually happens is the groups use it to reinforce how much discrimination they are facing. Then, Loretta Lynch comes out to assess that the greatest threat comes from such Americans who are the sources of that discriminatory behavior.
It’s hogwash and if there were but an ounce of prevention taken you would see far fewer terrorist acts. Prevention sometimes means reporting stuff even if you’re unsure. You’d better be damned sure with bulldog Lynch on the job at the Obama Justice Dept. That old broad would be happy to put you in jail to further her political aims.
That’s exactly what happened in the San Bernardino massacre, the blood of whom’s victims are all over Lynch and Obama.
Islam is a political system bent on conquering the world – masquerading as a religion – so promoting the idea of religious tolerance such as CAIR would suggest will not likely end well.
Islam is Muhamad’s vision of the Christian end times. The purpose of Islam is to take over the world in order to create the Kingdom of God. Once that is done, Jesus will return to finally defeat evil.
That having been said, I’ve never personally met a Christian who follows the actual teaching’s of Jesus, nor have I met a Muslim who follows the teachings of Muhamad.
That is a good point, Tim. However the radical islamic terrorists have AK47s. I’m sure the more peaceful people who wish they could stop them are considering that. For that reason I think it is not obvious, and difficult to tell, how the general population of Islamists feels about the situation. Given the choice, I think the majority of people everywhere prefer peace.
No. We have to understand that Islam is both a political ideology with its own theory of government, as well as a religion. In the past 1400 years, Islam has been trying to dominate the whole world by force. It has succeeded once (when sensible people played nice to Islam), and it will succeed again if we continue to underestimate it.
I urge you to please read the short book by Dr Bill Warner, PhD “Sharia: Law for Non-Muslims”.
Carlos I do not disagree with what you wrote, but not all muslims are interested in dominating the world by force. Many of the ISIS terrorists are not as much interested in the religion as much as having power, sex slaves, etc. Also I would point out that almost all religions think their religion should dominate, though fortunately not necessarily by force. I would also point out that Christianity has historically been on & off again with force. Cue: “The Insurrection”.
Of course, not all Muslims are interested in dominating the world by force, in the same sense that not all capitalists are motivated by profit. That’s the whole point of the video by Ms. Raza. I am talking about Islamic Ideology, not about Muslims.
They are being imported here to disrupt our culture and the elite will use that to overtake our freedom. Obama is their useful idiot… Clinton is their best hope to progress their agenda.
Everybody knows we created the terrorists. So, now we have the same assholes that created them, now importing tham to OUR lands. Americans say Duhhh? Obama is their useful idiot, and Clinton is who the elitie need to keep it on the increase. All being done to intentionally destroy our culture so they can control everything.
Everybody knows we created the terrorists. So, now we have the same assholes that created them, now importing tham to OUR lands. Americans say Duhhh? Obama is their useful idiot, and Clinton is who the elitie need to keep it on the increase. All being done to intentionally destroy our culture so they can control everything.
if hillary brings in 500000 islamis an 99.9 will not try to kill you that means 500 will try to kill you.if you had a tub of 500000 jully beens an 500 of them will kill you how meny will you be willing to eat out of the tub
I’ve been waiting 15 years for this candid video, and for honest dialogue about the Muslim faith. You are a very brave woman, Mrs Raza, for finally speaking out and delivering this message. I will support you and your efforts in any way that I can.
Would there even be radical Islam without American Imperialism?
Narcissism, defined.
What? All this is the fault of America? How did you get to that conclusion? Have you looked at 1,400 years of Islamic ideology?
I haven’t found any evidence of Islamic terrorism directed towards westerners prior to the founding of the State of Israel. Does anyone have any evidence?
Barbary pirates.
The Barbary Pirates had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism and everything to do with making money. Other-wise we would have to say the African slave trade was Christian terrorism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade
I would agree imperialism generates negative views in those who have been conquered. But before we go condemning all capitalism as bad, maybe we should agree that any philosophy taken to extreme is a bad thing. Balancing philosophical differences is always a challenge, and many times keeping them separate is the best course of action.
Whether it’s 99% or 49%, really doesn’t matter. People should be judged as individuals.
There would be less Muslim violence directed at the US if the USG would get out of Muslim countries where it doesn’t belong.
The Muslim religion seems to have a greater tolerance for suicide (and suicide bombers) than the Judao-Christian religions.
Hezbollah is a Lebanese militia group that protects Lebanese Christians as well as Muslims. There even some Christians in it.
At my last professional job, I worked for a defense contractor (thanks taxpayers) and a Muslim co-worker, whose parents were Pakistani immigrants, often sat with us at lunch time. He played softball, his accent was American and he honored Ramadan.
In the estimation of most (all?) intelligence agencies, Hezbollah is a terrorist group. Lebanon will never again have a Christian leading the government, any more than Beirut will ever again be the Paris of the Middle East.
As for your co-worker of Pakistani descent, ask him why there are no females in leadership positions within the Islamic states. See if he can ask his parents about, the fate of Benazir Bhutto. She was the only woman to ever lead a predominantly Muslim government.
After listening to repeated calls to return to Pakistan from exile, she did so, apparently accepting all the nonsense she had heard about how reformed and civilized things had become. She arrived in October and was dead by December, felled by an assassin after multiple previous attempts were scuttled by her security team.
Lastly, who exactly does the Lebanese Christian need protection from?
Few people are aware of another aspect of this barbaric cult…
Taqiyya!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F4wBeshTsw
Having lost my FDNY brother-in-law on 9-11, did quite a bit of reading about this barbaric cult. The best of all the books was “The Sword of the Prophet” by Trifkovic. He rather uniquely took the history to the current.
Some of the history of what the Turks did to Christian Greeks and Armenians was hauntingly brutal. But the whole history is barbaric.
Never forget this cult was created to enrich Moh. He got 20% of all the booty and first pick of the slaves from the butchering. That only should tell people a lot.
As a native New Yorker myself, I can understand how you let the portrayal of Islam through a terrorists actions affect you. But your judging 1.7 billion people on the actions of terrorists? Do you know any Muslims in real life?
You are a fool. I have worked with many dozens of Muslims – including radicals. I have also traveled widely through many Muslim countries. I have also been invited to Muslims weddings.
What is not reported in the west to morons like you is the endless acts of terror that go on globally every day. Fuck off.
Have you red the holy book of Islam ? Have you noticed there that everyone that is not islamic must be converted or killed? Read their holy book – the most violent , pro-child sexual molesting holy book ever red by me!
The Koran specifically states that Christians, Jews and Manicheans do not have to be converted as they are “people of the book”. Which is why millions of Christians and Jews still live in the region.
The importance here is that Muhammad ruled that if a later Surah contradicted a previous Surah, then the most recent and newer Surah was the true word of Allah. This is why figuring out the chronological order of the Surah is so essential to understanding Islam. It is also why one must read the whole Quran and not listen and decide matters only on quotes of individual Surah. The fact that Surah exist that have opposite intent and meanings should be noted so one can discern the validity of each Surah. If one is quoting from the Mecca Quran and there is a contradicting Surah in the Medina Quran, then the quote is no longer valid. Where much of the rituals come from the Mecca Quran along with the calls for tolerance and peace, the more exclusionary and violence condoning Surah in the Medina Quran negate the peaceful intention of the Surah from the earlier Mecca writings. This is why one must be careful when accepting as fact anybody’s quoting of the Surah of the Quran.
The problem with the video is that I can just as well replace radical Muslims with radical Christians and the story remains the same. Christians have been responsible for the massive casualties via their illegal wars in Iraq, Libya, Serbia, Syria, etc. Christians provide the Saudi Arabians with weapons to kill Muslim kids. It is clear that the leaders of the Christians (the US) want to rule the world. Is it not that some Muslims want to fight back, because they see the structured approach of bombing all Muslim countries back to the Middle Ages? Shock and awe we call that. I think Erdogan summarized it well some time ago: ‘The West does not care about dying Muslim children’.
“Christians were responsible?” What turnip truck did you fall off of? What idiot would post such utter Bullshit?
A Turk immigrant did the seattle mall attack, when do we move from 99.9% to 99.8% of mohammadans are peaceful?
I know 99.8% doesn’t sound as reassuring
http://muslimmatters.org/2015/01/09/get-the-muslim-icondemn-app/
99.9% of US citizens wont understand it even after they’ve read it twice.
Mish, you really should stick to what you know best… economics. I respect your opinions in that area.
0.1% is 1.5 million. That’s still a lot of terrorists, even if you accept that number as fact.
Everyone believes what they want to believe, regardless of reality. Muslims, Christians and Jews who enjoy a peaceful and charitable world will read those parts of their respective holy books and explain away the rest. The same for those who seek violence.
The U.S. Military is full of Christians who think nothing of lobbing bombs at towns full of innocent women and children. It is just being human.
I would be happy to end immigration to the U S altogether. Regardless of race or religion. I’m a fan of maintaining diverse ways of living in different parts of the world instead of one giant melting pot.
Once again you prove yourself an ignorant fool.
I will be glad when this election is over and you go back to writing about economics, that is why I read your blog and I get it you are a Republican as that has been clear from the first time I read your commentary. I read dozens of sources daily on economics since I also work in the financial services industry and I read sources from left, right, and non-partisan. Stick to economics as I love the graphs and data and sources you provide in your commentary.
Well – I am definitely not a Republican, and I do not particularly care for Trump.
I have in the past been accused of being an Obama Lover simply because I predicted he would win.
This is why happens when you are enlightened, ie. you fight for people to express opinions even if they are against yours, for the purpose to have a balanced and progressive civilization.
Congrats.
True that economy is Mish’s favorite but I don’t think anyone can blame someone to try to inform people on his own blog like site.
Political correctness is the greatest danger to our society. It allows the problems identified in the video, as well as the adoption of unproven theories such as human induced global warming and other scams to become accepted, because people will not challenge the perpetuators and force them to provide proof of their statements. If any radical statement is challenged and the people behind it required to prove their theories, most would fail and we would have a simpler society.
Political correctness tends to be used to stop people from identifying an individual with the worst aspects of others who share their race or religion. You’ve probably seen that when a Muslim commits mass murder, suddenly some people will say every Muslim is bent on world domination. Or a black woman will live on welfare therefore every black person is lazy.
Political correctness is a tool to stifle free speech. It is the ultimate passive aggressive technique to fragment our society and remove our freedoms. Terrorists are doing their part to help government militarize and coerce the people into total control in the name of safety. Thus little will be done to stop terrorists since they are aiding the overall effort to transform us into a fascist militaristic state.
The follow-up so very few ever pay attention to. Many FACTS are now in:
On this 99.9% BS, check out this PEW report and the survey results on page 5, “Muslim American Views on Islamic Extremism.” Note the very high “Don’t Know / Refused to Answer” percentages on questions that should have clearly had an obvious answer.:
MUSLIM AMERICANS: MIDDLE CLASS AND MOSTLY MAINSTREAM
http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf
Interesting to note the last question was ignored. The middle east is an endless clash of irrational and absolute ideologies – murdering each other in the name of the same sky ghost.
Parents now condition their children to conform to totalitarianism when they offer them the first invisible apple – err – religion. “Credo quia absurdum” paraphrasing Tertullian.
Really good video that certainly puts things in perspective!
The video was “Islam by the Numbers” posted by Mish.
DHS admits refugee fraud ‘easy to commit’
Thursday, September 22, 2016
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/22/dhs-memo-admits-refugee-fraud-easy-commit/
Refugee fraud is “easy to commit” and much tougher to detect, Homeland Security officials acknowledged in an internal memo made public by members of Congress Thursday that challenges the department’s own assurances as it seeks to increase the number of refugees from dangerous countries.
“Fundamentally, it may be fair to ask “Is religion in general the problem?”
Mike “Mish” Shedlok”
Mish, it depends upon what is true. Whatever is not true, that is the problem.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
“Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Do not covet your neighbor’s (insert whatever your neighbor has here).
“Do not bear false witness.”
“If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”
Truth is. Even if not a single person agreed with it, what is true would still be true. Truth isn’t determined by majority vote or mob rule. Truth isn’t the winner writing history.
If all religions are false, then they are a problem. If a particular religion is false, it is a problem. If atheism is false, then atheism is a problem. If a philosophy is false, it is a problem. If an economic view/belief is false, it is a problem. If a political view/construct is false, it is a problem.
Is there right or wrong? How is that determined? Is greed wrong? Is corruption wrong? Is lying wrong? Is a lack of humility wrong? Is apathy wrong? Is not standing up for what is right wrong?
There is Truth. Is it discoverable? Is it knowable? Is an apathetic world likely to find/know it? Or does each one have to search for it, like a treasure?
Is God real? Is there no god? Is this lifetime all there is? If there is God, and not a single person believes it, is He true or false?
What is Truth? If you don’t like it or agree with it, would you be willing to acknowledge it?
That’s the first question on the road to sorting out problems.
You believe in economic Truths. You know not all economic systems/views are valid. You pursue and fight to bring awareness to that truth. You are an economic evangelist. Should politicians and the federal reserve consider you a problem? Are they true? Or are you true? Or are you all false.
What is Truth?
You have to care about that in every area. You have to be willing to allow those with counter views the liberty to disagree with you. In liberty, in a civilization that loves their neighbors as much they love themselves, everyone has the right to speak and consider all views. It is impossible for all views to be valid. They might even all be false. If one of the views is True, in liberty, each one has same he chance to find it. If they care to search for it.
Obviously, it is a problem. Religions connected with political enforcement power is always going to be a problem. In the modern West, religions have lost almost all of their power to enforce their rules and regulations via legal punishments. People brought up in Islam in Islamic countries don’t have this attitude about government and religion, and I suspect it would take several generations for their descendants raised in the West to reach even that percent level Obama quoted.
But that will never happen because of the cult itself. You can’t change a word of the Koran and as such, it is written you are to be subdued or killed.
“Is religion in general the problem?” Come on, Mike. Where are the Presbyterian terrorist? Baptist? Hindu. Sihk, Buddhist? To say the least, that is a false equivalence. Even Bill Maher hates religion, but acknowledges that.
How many wars have been fought over religion?
Look at Ireland – Even protestants and Catholics were bombing each other
How many U.S. Soldiers in Iraq were Presyterians or Baptists? Why wasn’t “shock and awe” considered an act of terrorism?
Answer to Jon: because it is the winners that write the history.
It was believed that Iraq should be invaded because it had WMDs. That belief turned out to be wrong. The belief had credibility partly because of what was known about it’s leader Saddam Hussein. In any case, the UN had mobilized weapons inspection teams also because of that belief. It’s just where the intelligence was at the time.
As for the Presbyterian and Baptist soldiers in the US military, nobody much gave a damn about them when Operation Desert Storm required their deployment on the other side of the planet Earth in order to drive an invading army from it’s Islamic neighbor’s borders. Christian troops were expected to hold clandestine worship services whilst risking their lives in Kuwait and any Hebrew in the ranks had better keep that to himself altogether. There wasn’t any religious tolerance there, even amidst the pillaging undertaken by the Iraqi army, which is really sort of incredible.
Who funds the “terrorists”? Muhammad? The Imam of Bumfukistan? Christianity must be the evil plague on humanity because the money is coming from the West.
This simplistic trolling is weak but very pervasive , Hence the new names around here with the same old stale message.
Islam is the problem:
It’s the fundamentalists. And the problem is they have a persuasive and dangerous message for the disenfranchised Muslim male, especially the young. Any organization this successfully at recruiting people to carry out killing in the name of God needs to be taken at face value. Saudi PR is very well-funded and it’s aim is to hide themselves among the moderates – would not be surprised if this plays a role in the PC agenda.
“Obama Rejects Religious War”
Unless it is against Christians.
Hillary Clinton says “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”
How are Christians treated in Saudi Arabia, the center of Islam?
Why are there no go zones in Islamic communities in western countries?
Why are Muslim refugees in Europe being called rapefugees?
BWHAHAHAHA
Time to start moderating posts.
I guess posts with the “J” word is set to “auto-delete”
Religion is the scourge of man but Islam holds a special place in that pantheon. Christians long ago accepted that what concerns Caesar is the province of Caesar (separation of Church and State). And Christianity has long since lost its medieval Spanish Inquisition terror elements.
Treatment of Women has come much farther in the West than most areas on earth and if we measure by suffrage, it has been 100 years since full equality was bestowed. Longer for some freedoms and shorter for some attitudes to have changed. But Islam is just bizarre in its treatment of women. How any enlightened person can support or tolerate it is beyond me
Religion is not the problem, for 100% of people have religion. Let’s exam.
What is a religion? It is a belief of truth. It may not be the truth, you only have to think that it is, then you have a religion of some sort. You don’t need to believe in some sort of God, gods or Allah to have a religion, you only need to believe what you believe is the truth to have a religion and try to propagate it, or at least try to protect yourself from losing it.
The dominant religion today in the US is that “everyone should be entitled to his own opinion of truth, and you should keep yours to yourself.” Now, this is the religion that does not keep itself to its believers, but is forced upon all in the US today.” The problem is, the truth shouldn’t be kept to oneself and not be shared to those who are in the dark.
The question is, is “there is no truth” the truth? In other words, this truth that most people believe today is the one “truth” that CANNOT be.
Religion is not the problem, because all have one. The problem is which one is true, and why don’t all people subscribe to it? To solve the problem, we either need to all find and obey the truth, or get rid of of those who are not in the truth.
Here then is the question, what is the truth, have you really found it, rather than subscribe to a believe that there is not truth (true religion)?
If it is the truth, then its followers have no reason whatsoever to force it to anyone, but will also be persist about it. Why? Because by definition, truth holds itself. if a truth needs its believers to stand up for it, then it’s no truth. In the end, truth will prevail itself without enlisting the help of its followers. Those who found it will die for it, not by fighting and killing those who disagree, but by being killed by those who are not in the truth (inherently evil), all the while not fighting back at all for he/she has the truth.
Truth will in the end be the one to get rid of those not in it, not its followers. Its followers should only proclaim the truth so that people in the dark may finally find and know the truth. And if you really have the truth, you will proclaim it even if it means that you will be killed for it. For you have the truth and fear not even death.
Now, which (any) religion/truth proclaims to die is to gain? (Terrorists proclaim to gain is to die, so not theirs).
This is simply culture clash. Islam clashing with Christian cultures, Islam clashing with Hindu culture, Islam clashing with various Chinese cultures, etc. etc. Do you see a common thread here?
Add Buddhists, Atheists, Jainists, Sikhs and all other religious other then Mohs organized crime cult that gave him 20% of the riches and 20% of the slaves…plus the ultimate trump card on power – Allah spoke to him. He is even noted for invoking Allah when his wives argued. Allah spoke to him whenever it served purposes.
If people today say they heard voices in their head we would commit them. But since we don’t commit many these days, he would probably show-up in the headlines shooting up a mall.
“Religion Poisons Everything”, The great Christopher Hitchens.
Well, I can see where an animal ecology of humans normally devoid of Muslim conduct in their everyday lives could view that first contact with normal Muslim social behavior as a radical temporal change in their social space and time continuum of orderly, taken for granted, subjective meaning. Calling discomforting Muslim conduct radical, however, does not change the fact that it is not radical, but traditional, orthodox, Muslim behavior, as defined in their recipe book of knowledge called the Koran. I suppose calling it radical is just a sophisticated form of hippie denial, shock, and confusion by the live and let live victims of the Muslim’s inexplicable objective aggressive behavior. And then calling the victims of that objective Muslim behavior Islamophobes and suffering from a sort of bigoted “false consciousness” is a typical blame the victim strategy by Muslims, Marxists, and modern Humanists who, allegedly, are supposedly not into being judgemental neo-colonial cultural imperialists.
Here in the US there are about 3.3M Muslims. Not a large number but sufficient to be very noticeable if a sizeable portion felt their religion demanded they engage in terrorism or violence. Just note, if 1 out of 99 felt that way that would be 33,000 terrorists, that would be more than sufficient for a pretty serious guerrilla war. Instead we have had about 10 or so Jihadist type attacks since 9/11. If you count failed attacks make that 20. Round it up to 100. What that amounts to is, well nothing.
More interesting if Islam is the problem, how good would Islam based profiling work? Well let’s start with the most recent bomber from Elizabeth NJ. I’m showing 3 mosques in Elizabeth. Let’s say each mosque has one main cleric and 3 lower level clerics. So that’s 9 people. Let’s say we also track the top ten people who attend each mosque on a regular basis. That’s 30 people so we are up to 39. Toss in family and close friends who you might also want to keep an eye on and you’re up to nearly 100 people. That’s a lot to watch but manageable for law enforcement (of course I’m giving law enforcement a head start here by just looking at Elizabeth NJ….how would they know that town would have a bomber in it? they wouldn’t but let’s give them that).
Only problem, you probably wouldn’t have the guy even on your radar. You have a guy who was a bit of a screw up. He got his HS girlfriend pregnant, didn’t have custody, had an on again off again relationship with his father….went to Pakistan and came back with a wife (as did his brother)….seemed to be doing ok with his own apartment but then he couldn’t make the rent and ended up stuck again at his father’s place.
Up until this point not anyone who would be nominated as “American Muslim of the Year” by any of those 3 mosques. If Islam was the problem why are so many of the terrorists in this mold rather than more ‘star Muslims’?
In other words, look at abortion clinic bombers. If Roman Catholicism was the problem, I’d expect to see a lot of bombers with a ‘star Catholic’ history (such as alter boy, going to mass every day, etc. etc.). Instead when they are caught, they are more often than not pretty marginal Catholics (if that) based on all their earlier behavior.
Instead I think a better model here is a ‘loser model’. Person tries to fit in to his culture and family….it doesn’t quite work for him either because of his personal bad habits/issues or just bad luck. At this point most people either just leave their cultural background or hunker down and accept their lot in life for better or worse. A very slim number, though, decide to ‘go big rather than go home’. They figure they will try not just following their religion but outdoing their religion. Rather than just go to mosque and cut out the bad habits, they will try to blow something up. For white suburban kids rather than just stop playing video games and get a job and some friends, they try to shoot up a school. In Tim McVeigh’s case rather than just sign a petition against the BATF or vote libertarian, he decides he’ll blow up a building.
So if ‘Islam is the problem’ why is there such a lack of concrete evidence for it?
We know the numbers, so now we can resolve this through simple engineering. Since the Muslims are breeding at such rapid rates in countries that can’t feed them, the Soylent Green solution is an obvious choice. We can harvest them, and feed them to starving Muslims in consumer-preferred forms like Bokologni, AlQuedarizo, Iraqi chops, Persiangiana, and Isalami. For desert, Gazzalatto. Get Tyson on the job.
For Muslims Mohamid was the perfect example of a human being. This is what makes Islam so dangerous….why??? Just a simple look at this man and his way of life should answer that question. First-was he a peaceful man?? From what I can gather seems he was an extremely violent warlord bent on conquest and taking what belonged to others weaker than him. Prostrated himself to those stronger while making plans to some how stab them in the back. A real man of God. Second-did he have compassion for others??? Yep, he sure did!! His favorite wife who was all of six years old, he was so compassionate to her he held of having sex with her until she turned nine!!! Totally an upstanding human being!!! He didn’t have much compassion for gays, though. Being gay meant death except for forced sex on young boys, too young to grow facial hair. He considered them the same as women and this practice is still considered a delicacy. In Afghanistan many of our soldiers come home needing years of therapy from witnessing men gang raping little boys and being ordered to stand down and allow it because it is a part of the culture there. Mohamid setting perfect examples for the world!!! If I imitated Mohamid as a general rule every day I would carry a little rug around with me all the time and pray several times a day also……who wouldn’t??