Deez' Buddy, a Muslim Mayor, Unlimited Hypocrisy from the Left and Muslims

[Crockett]

Deez: I don't fault our killing of Germans, Japanese, ISIL, Al Quida, Muslim militias or Saddam's armies. I just don't see a reason to pat ourselves on the backs for being an exceptionally peaceful people who have shown unmitigated restraint in the face of attack or potential attack. If it wasn't a crusade, what the hell were we doing in Iraq?

I also believe the vetting of refugees has been scientific, thorough and effective. The two militants from the group of seven affected countries who made armed terrorist attacks were, it's pretty clear, radicalized here. I believe mistreating Muslims and validating radical Muslims' us-vs. them world view is counter to our long term security. I believe that the Obamas/Clintons/Bushes were correct in not using the term "Radical Islamic Terrorism" and that it's use, rather than illuminating a path to victory, instead energizes those who love conflict.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Don't know her, but on the positive side there is one more of the other gender in the dating pool if Mrs. Crockett finally throws me out.

That's a him, not a her. Don't be fooled into using the wrong pronouns just because the trannies say you should.

 

[Crockett]

That's a him, not a her. Don't be fooled

Joe showed us the picture ... I promise I won't be fooled.

 

[iatrogenic]

I also believe the vetting of refugees has been scientific, thorough and effective.

This may or may not be true. Time will tell. As has been pointed out repeatedly, however, there is a bigger problem with Muslims.

The two militants from the group of seven affected countries who made armed terrorist attacks were, it's pretty clear, radicalized here.

This is indicative of the bigger problem mentioned above.

I believe mistreating Muslims and validating radical Muslims' us-vs. them world view is counter to our long term security.

How is improving our short-term security counter to our long-term security?

Validating, what you correctly state is the Muslim's "us vs. them world view", which is central to the problem, is known as protecting our citizens from a group of individuals that have no respect for your life or beliefs.

I believe that the Obamas/Clintons/Bushes were correct in not using the term "Radical Islamic Terrorism" and that it's use, rather than illuminating a path to victory, instead energizes those who love conflict.

Crock, even though you are a liberal, you make some good points and express your ideology well, but this statement is a little ridiculous in my opinion. Projecting your western thoughts, ideals, and history on to Muslims is a mistake. The world is dealing with a cult (Islam) that was formed by a thief, polygamist, and slave owner. The cult grew in numbers, and at various times in territory held, via violent armed aggression aimed at both converting non-believers that some schmuck named Mohammed was the only Prophet of God and acquiring material goods they could not themselves produce, beginning in the sixth century. If not for the battles of Tours and Vienna, Europe, and consequently the U.S.A., would probably be bowing to Mecca five times a day. Their goals for expansion and oppression of others continues today. Their treatment of women, homosexuals, Christians, Jews and people of any other religion has consistently been "less than stellar" to put it mildly.

I doubt that most people, and even you after learning the history of Islam, will continue to believe, given the authenticated feedback we have all received for the last 1500 years and most recently in France, Germany, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, the U.S.A., Africa, etc., that your liberal construct, devoid of authenticated feedback, of avoiding the term "Radical Islamic Terrorist" is going to "illuminate the path to victory".

The sad fact is that there is no path to victory. We are not going to get Muslims to change their minds concerning how they achieve life after death anymore than we will change the minds of Christians and salvation. America's path to "victory" is to keep these people from coming to the USA, and that path to victory will be through blocking immigration, and further illuminated with Spectre gunships and rockeye cluster bombs.

 

[Crockett]

I doubt that most people, and even you after learning the history of Islam, will continue to believe, given the authenticated feedback we have all received for the last 1500 years and most recently in France, Germany, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, the U.S.A., Africa, etc., that your liberal construct, devoid of authenticated feedback, of avoiding the term "Radical Islamic Terrorist" is going to "illuminate the path to victory".

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=512501470

What I said is that using the term "Radical Islamic Terrorism" will not illuminate a path to victory, contrary to all the Republican politicians' incantations. I contend that avoiding the term, avoiding useless conflict with non-radical Muslims, and improving relations with them carries less risk long term than being on the "right side" of a large scale conflict. From my readings, cooperating Muslims are the most important element in thwarting violent actions by the radicalized ones.

If you assume conflict inevitable and every Muslim represents a threat to our way of life, I'm not sure we have enough of a reality overlap to have any meaningful discussions on immigration policy. I'll defend my assessment of history by noting I was the best history student in my high school class, am the father of the best history student at a much larger high school and read history for fun. Certainly the spread of Christianity, most impressively demonstrated by St. Patrick and John Wesley, can result from gentle efforts to win hearts and minds. But the Spaniards were not especially gentle in bringing the love of Christ to my native New Mexico, nor elsewhere in the Americas. I'm not thinking that study of the the Conquistadors provides meaningful insight into modern Christianity.

I support a clear eye assessment of risk and intelligent policy to mitigate risk, which can't be eliminated, save through absolute trust in salvation. Thus, unlike some of my liberal friends, I don't hate oil and gas pipelines, which in my assessment are generally well-constructed, well-maintained, risk-mitigating ways to transport massive amounts of hydrocarbons.

I've met Muslims, liked Muslims and I don't feel like a crybaby because I care that a child in Denton gets to meet her Iraqi grandfather, suffering from early onset dementia, while there is still something left of the man's personality. That, by the way, doesn't mean I want to see our children beheaded or caged and then consumed in flames.

I'm not sure, Iatrogenic, we have a large enough reality overlap to meaningfully discuss intelligent ways to mitigate risk. I'm just not believing the Muslim religion has inherent flaws that will result, inevitably, in horrific conflict with people like us. I can't really explain it well in a post here. My fundamental belief that people who in many circumstance will be kind and law-abiding can in other circumstances be violent criminals is well explained by gifted author Malcolm Gladwell in chapter 4 of his book, The Tipping Point. The chapter title is "The Power of Context: Bernie Goetz and the Rise and Fall of New York City Crime."

It's my fundamental belief that creating needless hardship for people because of their religious faith has potential to create alienation among Muslims that will be far more dangerous to our safety than letting through a radical Muslim or two that would have been stopped by even more thorough vetting. By the way, I have spent time talking with people who actually went though the vetting process and had family members, hardly dangerous, who failed to get Visas.

 

[iatrogenic]

If you don't believe that the Muslim faith has inherent flaws that bring it into conflict with other people, how do you explain 1500 years of history and the glut of current problems throughout the world that are caused by Muslims?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Deez: I don't fault our killing of Germans, Japanese, ISIL, Al Quida, Muslim militias or Saddam's armies. I just don't see a reason to pat ourselves on the backs for being an exceptionally peaceful people who have shown unmitigated restraint in the face of attack or potential attack. If it wasn't a crusade, what the hell were we doing in Iraq?

A crusade? Let's break this down. The Crusades were sanctioned by Catholic church to conquer the religiously significant Holy Land and to protect Christian pilgrims. The Iraq War was sanctioned by secular governments - the US and its allies. They claimed the operation was to overthrow Hussein, whom they claimed was developing a chemical, biological, and nuclear program and sponsoring terrorism. People often say they don't believe those were the real reasons, but even they typically claim some sort of corporate conspiracy by Halliburton to build infrastructure and by oil companies to steal oil. I've never heard them suggest a covert religious basis for the war, because it would be absurd. Iraq isn't sacred land to Christians, and if it was, we wouldn't have allowed an Islamic government to take control or allowed Muslim voters to elect a leadership. We would have killed, enslaved, or expelled the Muslim population and colonized the country with Christian settlers. That's what a real crusade actually looks like, so calling it a "crusade" is an entirely absurd description

Nevertheless, who's patting themselves on the back? That has nothing to do with this.

I also believe the vetting of refugees has been scientific, thorough and effective.

The problem is that nobody believes that when we're talking about people from the nations at issue. How the hell are you going to vet somebody from Libya, Syria, or Somalia? What data would we rely upon? These are borderline failed states.

I believe mistreating Muslims and validating radical Muslims' us-vs. them world view is counter to our long term security.

Again, you're blowing this way out of proportion. Mistreatment is not what we're doing to the people form these countries. This is minor stuff. Mistreatment is what they do to minorities in their own countries every day.

If the "be nice, and they won't hate us" mentality was particularly effective, Western Europe would be one of the most terror-free places in the world. They obviously aren't. This doesn't mean we should go looking for trouble, but restricting access to the US from people who are from chaotic Islamic regimes is entirely reasonable and sure as hell isn't "mistreating" anybody.

 

[Mr. Deez]

So just when I start defending Trump against Crockett, he decides to announce that he basically agrees with Crockett and Jeremiah Wright that we suck and have no moral authority. Link.

The remarkable thing about this is that if Obama said the same thing, the people who currently adore Trump would be hitting the roof about what an America-hating monster he is. He'd be lumped in with guys like Ward Churchill, but Trump said it, so it's all good.

It's going to be a tough four years. Trump's going to do something that's debatable. The Left will crap in their pants like it's the friggin apocalypse. Fair minded people will explain why it's not the apocalypse and defend Trump. Then Trump will say something loony.

 

[Crockett]

If you don't believe that the Muslim faith has inherent flaws that bring it into conflict with other people, how do you explain 1500 years of history and the glut of current problems throughout the world that are caused by Muslims?

I didn't say it had no flaws or that it hasn't been an instrument of violence or oppression and warfare. I do have strong belief in humanity and the world is gradually becoming more humane and our interconnections are trending towards a more gentle, enlightened society. My impression of Muslims is very much influenced by the relationships I have with people of Muslim faith.

 

[iatrogenic]

So just when I start defending Trump against Crockett, he decides to announce that he basically agrees with Crockett and Jeremiah Wright that we suck and have no moral authority. Link.

The remarkable thing about this is that if Obama said the same thing, the people who currently adore Trump would be hitting the roof about what an America-hating monster he is. He'd be lumped in with guys like Ward Churchill, but Trump said it, so it's all good.

It's going to be a tough four years. Trump's going to do something that's debatable. The Left will crap in their pants like it's the friggin apocalypse. Fair minded people will explain why it's not the apocalypse and defend Trump. Then Trump will say something loony.

Agreed. That was an extremely stupid comment by Trump.

 

[iatrogenic]

I didn't say it had no flaws or that it hasn't been an instrument of violence or oppression and warfare. I do have strong belief in humanity and the world is gradually becoming more humane and our interconnections are trending towards a more gentle, enlightened society. My impression of Muslims is very much influenced by the relationships I have with people of Muslim faith.

That is the "how I want it to be" view, which is admirable, versus the "how it is" view, which is reality. My direct interactions with individual Muslims has also been positive, but the I cannot ignore the inhumane acts they are committing around the world.