Orlando Massacre

[Seattle Husker]

Here is Immanuel Al-Manteeqi on this very point --

".... Although supporters of extremist Islamist groups make up a relatively small percentage of the total Muslim population, this leads to underestimating the scope of the Islamist problem. In absolute numbers, more than 60 million Muslims the world over, a population roughly equal to that of the United Kingdom, holds a favorable view towards ISIS. Millions more are unsure about whether they hold a favorable or unfavorable view towards ISIS, according to Pew research.

So when events like this occur, people who raise religious concerns do not blame all Muslims, but blame the religious ideology that motivates such hatred, a religious ideology that ultimately has roots in the Islamic source texts themselves. Fair-minded commentators, therefore, do not dismiss such murderous actions as nihilistic crimes against humanity. Rather, they understand the murderers are motivated not by a nihilistic urge for violence, but by cold and calculated reasoning that runs deep in the Islamic source texts and traditions. These source texts and traditions provide the fertile breeding ground for people like Mateen....." http://thefederalist.com/author/immanuelalmanteeqi/

The only thing I'd add is that it's critical that we point out this is a perverted or antiquated reading of the Islamic source texts.

Christianity has evolved to a mostly peaceful religion. It's important that we push Islam towards that end too.

 

[Joe Fan]

The only thing I'd add is that it's critical that we point out this is a perverted or antiquated reading of the Islamic source texts..

Disagree.
It is a literal interpretation.
That is the entire issue in a nutshell.
Calling them radical is a misnomer. They are literalists.
They have only one book in their libraries. It is the only thing they read. And they read it every day. Then follow it.

"Westernized" Muslims are the radicals.


ps - One last tangential thing on this, you will never hear Obama/Clinton/Kerry have the exchange we just did. Which is a big problem for us.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[mchammer]

Whoa!

 

[iatrogenic]

The only thing I'd add is that it's critical that we point out this is a perverted or antiquated reading of the Islamic source texts.

Why is that critical?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Disagree.
It is a literal interpretation.
That is the entire issue in a nutshell.
Calling them radical is a misnomer. They are literalists.
They have only one book in their libraries. It is the only thing they read. And they read it every day. Then follow it.

"Westernized" Muslims are the radicals.


ps - One last tangential thing on this, you will never hear Obama/Clinton/Kerry have the exchange we just did. Which is a big problem for us.

OK. I can agree it's a literal interpretation, no different than Christian fundamentalists. Like Christianity that over time has transitioned to follow the more moderate interpretations of the text, we have to promote that moderation in Islam. The moderates may be the radicals but they vastly outnumber the literalists by any measure. We need to seize on that.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Why is that critical?

Declaring war on Islam would turn the US into Israel. We need to isolate the fundamentalists from the moderates. To Crockett or NJ's point, if we push the moderates towards the fundamentalists then I fear for our children's future. It's not a winnable solution but a survivable. If we agree that the muslims have been fighting this war for 2000 years, how much patience do you think the US has for a thousand year war?

 

[Joe Fan]

OK. I can agree it's a literal interpretation, no different than Christian fundamentalists. .....

Again with the moral equivalents.
I see i am making zero impact.

 

[Joe Fan]

Whoa!

Heh. I've never been much of fan of McCain
But, broken clocks ......

---------------------------
"Barack Obama is directly responsible for it, because when he pulled everybody out of Iraq, al-Qaida went to Syria, became ISIS, and ISIS is what it is today thanks to Barack Obama's failures, utter failures, by pulling everybody out of Iraq..... the responsibility for it lies with President Barack Obama and his failed policies,"

"As I have said, President Obama's decision to completely withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011 led to the rise of ISIL. I and others have long warned that the failure of the president's policy to deny ISIL safe haven would allow the terrorist organization to inspire, plan, direct or conduct attacks on the United States and Europe as they have done in Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino and now Orlando."
^^link above^^

 

[Joe Fan]

"CIA Director John Brennan will tell Congress on Thursday that Islamic State militants are training and attempting to deploy operatives for further attacks on the West and will rely more on guerrilla-style tactics to compensate for their territorial losses.

In remarks prepared for the Senate Intelligence Committee, Brennan says IS has been working to build an apparatus to direct and inspire attacks against its foreign enemies, as in the recent attacks in Paris and Brussels — ones the CIA believes were directed by IS leaders.

"ISIL has a large cadre of Western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for attacks in the West," Brennan said, using another acronym for the group. He said IS probably is working to smuggle them into countries, perhaps among refugee flows or through legitimate means of travel."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/pol...l-politics/article84049057.html#storylink=cpy

-----------------------------

Yet, at the same time, Obama has raised Syrian-refugee-to-the-US processing to an average of 100 per day. If you recall from a graph a few pages back, ~97% of Syrian Muslims prefer Sharia Law. I would suggest it is impossible to properly vet that number.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...s-syrian-refugee-processing-numbers-skyrocket

"Acting on its commitment to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees by the end of fiscal year 2016 (September 30), the Obama administration has cranked up the number being processed to the rate of 100 refugees a day...."

 

[Joe Fan]

Can you guess this stock symbol?

 

[Horn6721]

Husker
How in your wildest imaginings do you think the West can "push"islam to becone more moderate or isolate the fundamentalists?
On a related note a Pew Research poll points to 60 million muslims support the idea that is ISIS.
It is likely even more.
There was an adage going around last year, something like "a radical Muslim wants to behead nonbelievers ,a moderate Muslim wants the radical Muslim to behead the nonbeliever..
I think that Pew poll proves the adage

 

[Crockett]

There was an adage going around last year, something like "a radical Muslim wants to behead nonbelievers ,a moderate Muslim wants the radical Muslim to behead the nonbeliever..
I think that Pew poll proves the adage

I think I'm beginning to understand the Trump political juggernaut a little better. Thanks 6721. I guess it's better to be depressed than uncomprehending.

 

[Horn6721]

Croc
I do not think that came from Trump
It was just one of those things that float around the Webz last year. Kinda like a political cartoon depicting Bush as a chimp or Ted Cruz's little girls as monkeys.
I only remembered it when I read the Pew poll.
Trump was not in my top 5 but he is way ahead of a woman who would lie to grieving families.

 

[NJlonghorn]

The thing about the Muslim population is that it is already gigantic (and growing). PEW Worldwide polling shows OVER 65 MILLION MUSLIMS SUPPORT ISIS. That is alot of people. For example, 20% of Muslims in Nigeria (which is over 15M people) and 28% in Pakistan (which is over 49M people) OPENLY support ISIS.

If I'm reading the table right, that's 14% in Nigeria (not >20%) and 9% in Pakistan (not 28%). ISIL's avowed support is sub-20% in all of the listed countries.

I understand that this is a huge number of people, and don't mean to downplay the enormity of the problem. But the percentage is a critical factor in deciding how best to confront the problem.

 

[Joe Fan]

If I'm reading the table right, that's 14% in Nigeria (not >20%) and 9% in Pakistan (not 28%). ISIL's avowed support is sub-20% in all of the listed countries......

I think I may have attached the chart from total population instead of Muslim pops
For example, can see Nigerian Muslim pop here

".....In Nigeria, there was somewhat more support for ISIS (14% favorable) compared with other countries, but attitudes differed sharply by religious affiliation. An overwhelming number of Nigerian Christians (71%) had an unfavorable view of ISIS, as did 61% of Nigerian Muslims. However, 20% of Nigerian Muslims had a favorable view of ISIS when the poll was conducted in the spring of this year. The group Boko Haram in Nigeria, which has been conducting a terrorist campaign in the country for years, is affiliated with ISIS, though the two are considered separate entities...."

 

[Seattle Husker]

Again with the moral equivalents.
I see i am making zero impact.

Noticed that you didn't comment on the Baptist Fundamentalist sermon I linked to. Moral equivalents? The only difference is that the American's sitting in the crowd at Verity Baptist Church are comfortable enough (smart enough?, westernized enough?) not to take what that preacher says and pickup a gun to go shoot a bunch of LGBT. Don't kid yourself into thinking that at least some in the crowd weren't nodding heads in agreement with him just as the ~60M Muslims agree with ISIS yet may not pickup a weapon. Do I think there are ~60M Christians that think like that preacher? Absolutely not. Do I think there are more than you are willing to admit? Yes, because it demonstrates that demonizing Muslims while ignoring the wrong-headed Christian fundamentalists is hypocritical.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I think I may have attached the chart from total population instead of Muslim pops
For example, can see Nigerian Muslim pop here

".....In Nigeria, there was somewhat more support for ISIS (14% favorable) compared with other countries, but attitudes differed sharply by religious affiliation. An overwhelming number of Nigerian Christians (71%) had an unfavorable view of ISIS, as did 61% of Nigerian Muslims. However, 20% of Nigerian Muslims had a favorable view of ISIS when the poll was conducted in the spring of this year. The group Boko Haram in Nigeria, which has been conducting a terrorist campaign in the country for years, is affiliated with ISIS, though the two are considered separate entities...."

This is critical to understand ISIS and a demonstration that the vast majority of Muslims don't support them. Yet much of what we hear on this thread is that we should treat all Muslims like they are ISIS. iatrogenic (sp?) advocates with extreme machismo towards taking the fight to all 1.6B. That's lunacy. There's no other way to describe it.

What's going on in Nigeria? That puts Boko Haram's success into context. They clearly have a significant groundswell of support.

 

[Htown77]

OK. I can agree it's a literal interpretation, no different than Christian fundamentalists.

It depends, are we talking about radical preachers or text? I have read the entire Bible front to back more than once.

A. The old testament punishments no longer apply as we are no longer under that covenant with God.

B. The new testament lables many activities as sinful, but it does not call for violence anywhere. A literal interpretation calls for forgiveness and leaving punishment to God. That's not evolution, that's what it literally says. The problems in the middle ages were mostly due to the fact that Bible was only read in Latin and people did not know what it said. Martin Luther's whole reformation was about the fact the Catholic Church had numerous policies not in line with the text.

Are there radical "Christian" preachers that preach violence? Sure. Are they "fundamentalists"? Well they would not be fundamentally following the text.

I have not read the Koran so I can not opine as to what the text itself fundamentally and literally says. However, I can tell you what the Bible literally says. If someone says it preaches violence, then it is not being interpreted literally.

The problem here is the misapplication of the word "fundamentalism". You could say that every religion has a group of radical believers that support violence. However, not every religion's fundamentalists would be pro violence. Fundamentalist would only accurately describe a religious person if their core texts support violence. It is inaccurate to apply "fundamenalist" to Christians and Im sure other religions in the case of religious violence. Not all religions are the same and not all religious fundamentalists would be the same. As for Islam? I have not read the Koran.

 

[iatrogenic]

Netanyahu and John Brennan agree with me.

We could get rid of a good chunk of Muslims in America with a tactical nuke strike on Detroit. That's a double bonus.

 

[Mr. Deez]

That strategy worked great when they were there and we were here, travel from there to here took weeks upon weeks, and weapons only reached as far as a person could throw them. The modern world is too intertwined to kick an entire religion into submission.

There's a time and place for kicking *** (which I assume to mean military action of some kind), but despite some smack talk from Trump about "bombing the **** out of ISIS," I don't see much of a plan or doctrine from either candidate setting forth when it's appropriate and to what extent. Airstrikes sound big and tough, but they do little without ground troops following them up. Who's up for invading Iraq (again), Syria, and Libya, and who's up for having a few thousand US troops killed and sometimes through barbaric means (decapitations, getting thrown off buildings, burned alive, etc.) and seeing the killings on the internet? Who's up for seeing US troops do some ugly things and sometimes to innocent people? Who's up for having their taxes raised to finance these operations? Not too many, and as bad as it is, having a bunch of gay dudes shot to death isn't going to suddenly change the game.

We're going to condemn it, do the obligatory blabbing dance about Muslims (if you're a Republican) and gun control (if you're a Democrat) until the public gets bored from hearing about those topics, and then go on with our lives. Until something bigger happens, there isn't much point in talking about *** kickings.

That said, the machisimo you exude when spewing venom is very sexy. If I were female, or gay, I wouldn't be able to get you out of my mind.

Lol!

 

[iatrogenic]

Be sure and let us know when "something bigger" happens so we can take it seriously.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Be sure and let us know when "something bigger" happens so we can take it seriously.

Just pointing out reality. The public will decide when it's big enough to take seriously. Maybe a Paris-style attack (multiple coordinated attacks, more fatalities, etc.) will be enough. Maybe a 9/11-style attack (thousands dead, large scale destruction) will be enough. Maybe mass shootings will be enough if several happen in rapid succession. Maybe it'll take a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon. Who knows? However, a seemingly isolated mass shooting certainly isn't enough.

 

[Joe Fan]

...... The only difference is that the American's sitting in the crowd at Verity Baptist Church are comfortable enough (smart enough?, westernized enough?) ....

The only difference?

 

[Joe Fan]

This is critical to understand ISIS and a demonstration that the vast majority of Muslims don't support them. Yet much of what we hear on this thread is that we should treat all Muslims like they are ISIS......

I think much of what you hear here is that the President and his Admin have a sworn duty to protect the Constitution and the citizens of the Republic.
The question has become, is his/their willing failure to do that a breach of the oath and thus an impeachable offense?

 

[iatrogenic]

It is very evident that the Orlando mass murder is not an "isolated" incident. It is yet another incident in a 1500 year battle.

 

[Joe Fan]

It is very evident that the Orlando mass murder is not an "isolated" incident. It is yet another incident in a 1500 year battle.

 

[Joe Fan]

AT least one of the local gunshops the shooter went into contacted the FBI about him --

".... said Thursday his workers had a gut feeling about Mateen when he came to the store four or five weeks ago.

Mateen asked for level 3 body armor, according to Abell, but was told the store didn't carry it. He then made a phone call and spoke in Arabic before asking for bulk ammunition, but employees did not sell it to him.

Abell told reporters "we contacted FBI direct" after Mateen left the store but he did not elaborate on how investigators responded ....."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-shooting-gun-store-owner-says-they-called-fbi-about-omar-mateen/

 

[NJlonghorn]

Just pointing out reality. The public will decide when it's big enough to take seriously. Maybe a Paris-style attack (multiple coordinated attacks, more fatalities, etc.) will be enough. Maybe a 9/11-style attack (thousands dead, large scale destruction) will be enough. Maybe mass shootings will be enough if several happen in rapid succession. Maybe it'll take a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon. Who knows? However, a seemingly isolated mass shooting certainly isn't enough.

I don't understand why so many people are hung up on the "how much is enough?" question. The question we need to focus on is "will taking action make things better or worse?" I understand that people will have different answers to that question, but anyone who isn't asking it is putting emotion ahead of reason.

 

[iatrogenic]

I'm a little surprised that 29% aren't towing the party line. They are usually in lock step regardless of the truth.