So being gay and dressing up as a policeman is now OK?
Something positive in every video.

Seriously society needs to provide some way of allowing regular muslims an honourable way out of this current mess. If you want to alienate all muslims, you are as much a part of the problem as radical muslims are.

@bobknight33
why is @newtboy a dumb fuck?

for pointing out that historically suicide bombers have not been exclusively muslim.newt is not disagreeing that radical islamic suicide bombers exist,he is simply pointing out that the practice of bombing in the name of religion is not an exclusively muslim practice when viewed through the lens of history.

the problem is NOT exclusively the religion of islam,the problem is fundamentalist thinking.so while at this point in history it is islam that is the theology that is twisted for a sinister and destructive purpose,the same justifications can be found in ALL religions,predominantly from the abrahmic:judaism,muslim and christianity.

this is not a simple issue,there are many factors to be considered on why people will strap a bomb to their chests and walk into a crowded cafe and blow themselves up.

factors such as:education,employment,community,family structures and most of all...hope.we need hope.all of us need hope but when conditions for normal people are so oppressive and hopeless,people will seek to find hope anywhere,which can be in the form of religion.

look,
words are inert,they are meaningless until someone reads those words..and then interprets them.

this is particularly true when addressing religion.
if you are a violent person,then your religion will be violent.
if you are peaceful and loving,then your religion will be peaceful.

no matter which sacred text you adhere to,be it the quran,the bible or the torah.you will find justification for any and all acts you choose to engage in,be it violent or peaceful.

and THAT is what sargon is addressing!
sargon is dissecting the apologetics of those who are just not getting the plot.radical islam is a problem,a big problem,and attempting to dismiss the underlying factors in order to make a more "palatable" explanation is wading into dangerous waters.

so we can understand the politics and motivation of a young man from palestine who straps explosives to his chest and blows himself up taking innocent civilians with him.we can look at the events that led up to that grievous choice.we know,because there is historical record,how badly the palestinian people are being treated,and have been for decades.the young man was stripped of hope,and the only solace he found was in the quran and so began his radicalization.

it is the politics that always,and i mean ALWAYS,sets the stage but it is the religion that lays out the justification.

which is what newt was basically talking about.
we can use the exact same calculus for fundamentalist christians,or zionist jews.

think about it,how many radicalized muslims live in america?
how many?
deerborn michigan has the largest muslim community in america.now go look at how many suicide bombers are born from that region.
notice anything?

politics is the fuel,religion is the match.

some here may take issue with sargon's take on this situation,but he is making valid points in regards to how some people (mainly on the left) engage in apologetics,while ignoring the larger implications.

if we,as a species,wish to curb the tide of religious fundamentalism and the radicalization of whole communities.then we need to address the politics first and foremost.otherwise this "war on terror" will become never-ending.because the "war on terror' is actually on "war on ideas",really bad ideas,predicated on even worse politics.

today it is islam.
tomorrow it may be christianity,and there is a whole army of fundamentalist and dominionist christians just waiting to be called for their "holy war".

or should i just call it "christian jihad".

Maybe, but you don't get to define words. The dictionary does, that's where I cut and pasted the definition from.

1)difference of opinion. Absolutely was that.
2) It was clearly outright bigoted statements and implications, and innuendo.
3) Perhaps, but his plan is to not allow ANY Muslims in. That's the definition of bigoted. Putting everyone on prison until you can figure out how to determine who's criminal....bigoted. he does NOT accept that non-radicalized Muslims exist, he blames them ALL for not turning in the 'radicals', painting them all as radical. You know he CLAIMS there's no vetting system in place at all for refugees, completely ignorant of the truth which is that it's incredibly hard and takes around 2 years for a refugee to be accepted.
4)wrong.

OK, since you can't understand the language and want to fight over dictionary definitions you don't understand, this conversation is over.
Enjoy your ignorance and naiveté.

Dear God, I must agree with @radx, how can he say that when women are still kept as sex slaves? Or people are still worked to death? Or there is still war? What the hell?! Look at the bloody state of Europe right now, or perhaps Britain?! Or America for that matter, a radical Muslim just killed 50 members of the LGBT community!!!!!

And the world is BETTER?!

ugh, politicians...

Excellent propaganda. 40 seconds of radical muslim horror - in German, Belgian, French, Swedish cities possibly near you, a real present day danger which we need to do something about .

And then they start using the words refugee and Arab.

Of the current wave of people uncontrollably and iresponsibly invited by Angela Merkel and company to Germany estimates are (because real official numbers apparently will not be available before mid 2016) about 40% are refugees from war zones, mostly Syria, families, many educated people, several irrelevant religions (including a few flavors of muslim) some Arabs. We can keep these and try to help them. Educational videos and money will keep them warm and fed, Afghan families will eventually learn to use flushing toilets. They will find jobs and start kebab joints and go to school. Refugees.

Which leaves 60% of north african, balkan, middle eastern immigrants, overwhelmingly men 18-25, muslim, many illiterate (some Arab but that is irrelevant). Who join the masses of crazy radical muslims already living here in Europe previously. Not refugees. Not running away from something but running to the social systems and muslim ghettos of western Europe. Not easily separable from the above mentioned refugees. Protected by the insane political correctness of German and Swedish and Belgian politicians. Educational videos will entertain them and keep them warm. No amount of welfare will ever be enough for them. Very few will get an education and jobs, lots of trouble ahead. How do we get rid of these people now? Radical muslim immigrants.

Meanwhile we also have lots of regular immigrants in Europe, like Ukrainians, Russians, varieties of asians, and generally from all over the world as the trend is that jobs are available in parts of Europe and overall its a nice safe place to live in.

Problem is if we dont get rid of the stupid radical muslims its not going to stay that way, as jews and now women have found out in some large European cities. Hopefully the refugees can stay, but our inability to react in the face of danger at least according to previously agreed measures (Schengen border protection) will make it difficult for us to help real refugees in the face of public opinion damaged by these idiots (radical muslims and politically correct politicians).

Funny how this is somehow Americas fault. Mind boggled.

The video above is by radical muslims presenting themselves as all-out assholes trying to ruin Europe. This is not about America, not about gradual change in Europe, this is about radical muslims imposing their laws and customs on communities in Europe, here, now, with immediate and horrible consequences.

This has nothing to do with helping war refugees.

If we can not stop radical muslims from getting into Europe or at least kick them out on their first offense, we are weak and stupid and deserve to get what is in store for us.

We can pretend its not important but it is important to them. Most other immigrants dont want to hurt us, these do, they also state this publicly, we keep ignoring the warning.

Radical muslims hate jews, hate dogs, hate all non-muslims and some muslims, behave like primitives, yet think they are superior to us and we still believe we can "help" them? We believe they can be "economically useful"? WTF?

In my house I choose who can come to visit and who can stay. I can be nice to other people but I want to choose who to be nice to and I definitely demand visitors to be nice to me or leave.

ok.
i am reading your response.
and trying to follow your logic..
it is..confusing.
i do not mean that in a critical way.it literally is confusing.

so let me understand this.
you think that because people pointing out the hypocrisy on american foreign policy somehow translates to a moral relativism in regards to assad?
that one is more evil than the other?
and to point to one means to ignore the other?

ok.
which one is MORE evil:
1.the assad regime which has been brutal on its own citizens.beheadings,executions in the street.the people are in a constant state of fear.
this is a common tactic for brutal dictators.fear and intimidation and when then start getting out of control? killings and maimings.of the public kind.
assad has been on the human rights watch for decades.
he is a monster.
or.
2.america and britain have been sending weapons and training a weak rebel force (for the past few years btw).after the outbreak of violence of the arab spring and assads decending hammer of escalating violence the rebels find their ranks being filled by alqeada,muslim brotherhood and other radical muslim factions.
which has the culminative effect of not only creating the civil war but prolonging it.
death tolls of innocents rising.
displaced syrians in the millions.

which of these two are "more" evil?
both caused death.
both caused suffering.
or do you think training and arming rebel factions which only serves to prolong the conflict less evil?

while evil is an arbitrary and subjective word the answer is BOTH are evil.
on a basic and human level BOTH bear responsibility.

let us continue.

now america has had a non-interventionism policy so far.just supplying training and weapons and prolonging the civil war and henceforth:the violence,death,maiming and suffering.

then two things quietly happened.
syria russia and china (iran as well) began talks to drop the petrodollar AND assad refusing a natural gas pipeline through syria (probably in order to not piss off russia).

when you realize that americas currency is almost solely propped up by the petrodollar,the current white house rhetoric starts to make more sense.

this is why evidence on who is responsible for the chemical attacks is important because the united states government used THAT as its reason for NOT entering the conflict (even though it already was involved,but not directly).the united states didnt want to get directly involved.
until the pipeline and petrodollar talks started to surface.

and then as if by magic.
a chemical attack is executed.
now assads army was winning,on all fronts.
why would he risk international intervention if he was winning?
now i am not saying that dictators and tyrants dont do dumb things,but that is dumb on an epic level.
doesnt make sense.
doesnt add up.

so the whole drumbeats for war now.
which were non-existent a month ago...
are all about "humanitarian" and "human rights" and a new "axis of evil".

bullshit.plain and simple.

this is about oil.
about the petrodollar.
this is about big business.

bryzenscki called this 20 yrs ago in his book "the grand chessboard"

and that is my counter argument.
and by your last post on my page i think you agree in some fashion.

now,
let us discuss your "final solution".
oh my friend.you accused so many of being naive.
reading your conclusion i can only shake my head.
not that i dont appreciate your time or that i dont see maybe why you feel that way.
i just dont think you grasp the enormity of it and have listened to one too many of the uber-rights "paper tiger" argument.

if we choose the path you think is the best to put assad on his heels.
america launches a limited strike on assad forces.
and lets say those strategic targets are 100% incapacitated (unlikely,but this is hypothetical).
what then?
have you considered what the reaction of russia,china,iran,saudi arabia, might be?
because according to international LAW,without a united nations concensus.russia and china AND iran would have the right to step in,set up shop and tell you to go fuck yourself.they would dare you to cross that line.
and what then?
do you cross it? and under what grounds?
you have (and when i say YOU i mean america) already disregarded every single policy put forth in regards to international law.the irony is the you (america) were vital in the creation of those very laws.(we rocked that WW2 shit son).

so pop quiz jack.what do you do?
do you really think you can ignore russia and china?ignore the international community?
do you really think the american government gives two shits about people dying in another country?
(checks long list of historical precedent)
not..one..bit.

here are the simple facts.
YOU are a compassionate human being who is outraged over the suffering and execution of innocent people.
YOU.
and i and pretty much everybody with a soul and a heart.
but YOUR argument is coming from that outrage.and man do i wish i was your age again.
god i admire you for this alone.
but the simple,hard and ugly fact is:
this country is about its own business of empire.
they could not give a fuck who is dying or being oppressed,tortured or enslaved.
i will be happy to provide the links but please dont ask...i dont wish to see your heart break anymore than it already has.
you and i live under the banner of an empire.this is fact.
this empire only cares about its own interests.

so let us talk about the very thing that is the emotional heart of the matter shall we?
the syrian people.
how do we alleviate their suffering?
how do we quell the tidal wave of dying?

a limited strike on strategic targets would help the innocents how exactly?
by bombing them?this is your logic?
or is "collateral damage" acceptable? and if so..how much?
do you realize that there are no actual 'strategic targets".assads troops are embedded just as much as the rebels are.
so..where do you hit for maximum effect?
and how many innocent deaths are acceptable?
and if the goal is to weaken assads forces,to level the playing field,wouldnt this translate to an even MORE prolonged conflict?
and wouldnt that equal even MORE innocent people dying?

this scenario is WITHOUT russia,china or iran intervening!

you are killing more and more people that i thought you wanted to save!
what are you doing man? are you crazy!

so i ask you.
what are your goals?
is it revenge?
is it regime change?
do you wish to punish assad?

then assasination is your only true option that will get the results you want and save innocent lives.

in my opinion anyways.

this is why i choose the non-intervention or the negotiation route.
yes..there will still be violence but only to a point.
when negotiations begin there is always a cease fire.
in that single move we stopped the violence.
this will also have the effect of bringing other international players to the table and much needed food,supplies and medical for the syrian people.

all kinds of goodies for the syrian people who are in such desperate need of help.
wanna go with me? ill volunteer with ya!

so which path is better for the syrian people?
a limited strike which at the very least will prolong this vicious civil war.
or negotiations which will bring a cease fire,food,water,medical help,blankets,clothes and smiles and hugs for everyone!

are ya starting to get the picture?

i have lived on three continents.
met and lived with so many interesting and amazing people.
learned about so much and was graced and touched in ways that are still incredible for me to explain.
and you have got to be the most stubborn mule i have ever met...ever.

but kid.you got some serious heart.
so you stay awesome.
namaste.

*edit-it appears assad may be the culprit.syria just accepted russias offer to impound the chemical weapons.so we know they have them.lets see what the US does.
i still think you are going to get your wish for military action.so dont be getting all depressed on me now.

For me, it's simply about percentages.

The majority of Christians and Muslims are good people.

Both religions have some funny ideas that most modern people find abhorrent.

Some, like slavery, have been almost universally discarded.

Others, such as the role of women or tolerance of homosexuality, less so. I'd argue that, for all its faults, Christianity has made more progress in this area than Islam. It's by no means perfect (see WBC, women priests, etc), but it's better than the way women are treated in places like Saudi.

The fact is that taking a random sampling of their congregations, Muslims are more likely to hold beliefs that are incompatible with modern human rights values.

Partially, I believe that part of the problem is inherent in the teachings of Islam.

But I feel that a significant factor has been ignored in this debate.

Muslims make up a much larger percentage of the worlds poor and uneducated, and that to my mind, is probably the most compelling explanation as to why there are more radical Muslims.

@hpqp The point is that there is no such thing as "plain old religious fanaticism" - it's always tied up in whatever economic and political circumstances are shaping the region and family and the person committing the act. Sure - religious people would like to think that their religion is separate from their worldly circumstances, but if you don't give credence to any supernatural dimension of religion, it also becomes impossible to separate religion from the other socio-cultural-economic-historic factors that also drive conflict.

I work regularly with Muslims who each are rich enough to buy my worldly belongings a couple of times over, and violence is the farthest thing from their minds. Exploiting migrant workers and suppressing equality and freedom of speech is quite familiar to them, but violence - despite their Muslim faith - is very foreign to most of them. Which of course is why Al Qaeda considers them traitors to Islam - they have too much in common with their supposed enemies the Israelis or Americans, and almost no common points of reference with a radical Muslim Chechen or Afghan.

Islam today is the most violent religion only in its overlap with regions that are good breeding grounds for violent extremism anyway - there's no reason to believe that in a country with the material preconditions the US has that fundamentalist Muslims wouldn't be more like the Westboro Baptists. By trying to indicate that Islam is in itself a greater driver of violence than Christianity, Maher conflates extremely disparate cultures and regions and obscures the real issues.

This skill would not even get him a job at the circus.

It would get him a radical Muslim job as a henchman. He just needs to convert.

>> ^bobknight33:

Is all this Mitt bashing this week just to cover up the failed Obama relations with the Muslims shit going on in the middle east?
Obama knew 3 days in advance about this and blames a piss poor video.


What the fuck are you talking about? How does Mitt shoving his foot in his mouth in a MAJOR way have ANYTHING to do with Muslims losing their minds over a movie?

Do you even comprehend what Mitt Romney was disclosing in that leaked video. It is a significant and very scary look into his actual political agenda. He is an out-of-touch, elitist, bigoted, self-absorbed douche.

I am not saying Obama is any better, but you need to get your head out of your ass if you think that the outrage over that leaked video is in anyway connected to paranoid, radical Muslims.

You could tax the rich out the ass, take all corporate profits and still not be even close to solving the debt issue. You are a fool to believe otherwise.

Comparing the USA to other counties is a moot point. Who cares about other countries. Each country solves its own issues. What look towards Greece and Spain as model socialized societies? Fuck that they are a sinking ship. Germany is the most financially secure country and that's because of their thrift.


Obama is the most leftest liberal this country has ever had. To make his presidency worse he has turned his back on Israel and given the wink and nod to the radical Muslim brotherhood to rise up and take over some countries in the middle east.

Domestically had has done shit except given everyone a large personal tax called healthcare. Everyone will have to pay up. Employers will bail out of providing insurance and we will have to pay it all.

Jobs What jobs The US is running negative. More jobs are lost than created. His policies have failed.

The unemployment would be a lot higher if they counted those who have stopped looking altogether.

A lot the money he has given out were to state labor unions and to useless failed green jobs.


>> ^RFlagg:

This. No matter what Fox and Rush and all the other screw over the working class so 1 or 2% of the population doesn't have to pay an extra 3% tax people say, Obama isn't a Liberal. He campaigned as one, but aside from bringing this country in line with every other country in the world except the communists and Islamic ones by ending Don't Ask Don't Tell (which even McCain said he would support when the military said it wanted to end it, but then didn't support it when they asked), he hasn't really done anything liberal.
I love how some on the right say even Liberals don't like Obama... yes, because he isn't the liberal people voted for, he's a centralist/left leaning Republican, at best a far right leaning Democrat. Now how much is Obama's fault is hard to tell. It could be he is a far right leaning Democrat, or he could just lack the balls to stand up the Republicans (likely), or he could be a victim of the promise the Republicans made when he won in that they would never negotiate and never give in and never let him win, that they would do everything they could do make sure his Presidency was a failure (even more likely).
I.

Committing crimes because offended by cartoons? What are these guys, radical Muslims?

*adds to playlist*

Quantum, your the kind of person who would watch the holocaust happen in front of you and shrug. Eh just Adolph's personal values. His values are equal to mine.

I will openly condemn the 9-11 hijackers, and I don't think that takes much audacity.

I think you don't care about this incident because he attack his daughter. *Non-American

I think anyone on this site who knows your general viewpoint toward radical Muslims, will have
a hard time believing you've suddenly become the most open minded person in the world. To the point
where people running their daughters over is fine. That statement you made is for..., I don't even know?
(Please Explain I'm so Confused)

>> ^quantumushroom:

We shouldn't be condemning this man at all...we have no right to judge his unique religious and cultural views based on our values.
All values are equal.


Then you will not judge my unique cultural view wherein I call you a fucking cunt troll. All values are equal.

You win King of the Trolls. Stop posting forever.