I grew up in a Christian home (Methodist) but never really bought in and considered myself an atheist from about ~12 years old or so.

@poolcleaner said that atheists might be the worst at "respect(ing) my beliefs and recogniz(ing) that I am not recruiting them and they are not recruiting me".

There's two parts of that. Respecting other beliefs, and not proselytizing.

Just speaking for myself, I would say that I am an atheist specifically because I don't respect the Christian beliefs that I grew up with, and feel much the same way about the dogmatic elements of any religion. Most religions share the basic tenet of the "Golden Rule" (or claim that they do), and as far as I am concerned that is the only thing of value to be found in any religion -- although it can exist perfectly fine outside of any religious context.

That's where proselytizing comes in though. For a while when I was younger, I wanted to "spread the good news" of atheism -- to show others what was so obvious and important to me, that idea that the Golden Rule works just as well outside of any religious context. I was "indignant" (as poolcleaner put it) and quick to tell people that I am atheist and to sort of "pick a fight" about it. I wanted to show people just how stupid and wrong they were.

I think LOTS of atheists are like that, especially early on after they part ways with religion. To be fair, a lot of that is defensiveness since atheists tend to get proselytized to a LOT by Christians that learn/discover that they are an atheist -- especially in the US.

Now I'm 20 years older and I live in a country that is 95% Buddhist, 4% Islamic, and 1% Christian/Other. Thailand isn't even really close to the most diverse Asian country in religious terms (Singapore has 5 religions with 10%+ of the population, with Buddhist being the most at 34%) but there is an air of practiced religious acceptance / tolerance here that is WAY different from back home in the US.

I'd wager that amongst the major religions, Christianity might contain the highest percentage of the "proselytizing type" -- those that really strongly believe in the message enough to want to spread it to those who don't, or those that have never really questioned their beliefs but who nonetheless buy in enough to think that it is important to get it out there. On the other hand, there are many more Christians who may be very strong believers but who are comfortable keeping that all internal and not proselytizing.

With atheists, I'd say that there is a high correlation between being very "out" / open about their atheism and being the "proselytizing type" of atheist. So, if you know that someone is an atheist, it is fairly likely that they will be a bit "indignant" about it. If someone is an atheist but doesn't feel the need to inform others about it, most people would never know/assume they were an atheist. I'm not talking about "closeted" atheists; just the difference between those who are going to tell you within 10 minutes of meeting you that they are an atheist without the subject ever coming up, and those that will only mention it if you directly ask them about it.

Keeping that it mind, I can actually believe that from an outside perspective, known atheists might be more aggressive than known Christians just due to that sort of selection bias. Maybe.

I'll try to remember that the next time someone uses that excuse to ignore the hate and commitment to murder all infidels, Christians and non Christians alike, that fills the bible and claims Islam is evil and a violent religion by comparison.
Now get your ass out there and firebomb some Red Lobsters.

If 300000000 were dedicated to the destruction of western civilization, it would be destroyed today.

Her contention that the peaceful majority is irrelevant means we must be in fear of and at war with every group we could name, because they all have radicals. That's simply asinine.

She is really angry about this question.
There are MANY Islamic peace movements, contrary to their implications that this single woman is it. Just a few below.

Islamic Peace Movement UK, more widely known as Islamic Movement UK or IMUK, is the largest Islamic organisation in the UK.[1] It was formed in 1989 in Leeds by Mohammed Kilyam

Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad (Mir-za Mas-roor Ah-mad) is the fifth Khalifa (Caliph) of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.

Spearhead by the Muslim Peace Coalition, 100 New York Imams in the spring of 2011 stood together to issue an historic statement that established the link between wars at home and wars abroad.

Man, fuck Maher after that. Calling trans women using the bathroom "weirdos peeing", backing Milo's attack and misgendering of that trans student, and Maher lavishing in the praise of his hatred of Islam from a white nationalist troll.

Maher just planted a massive flag in the "smarmy bigot of the left"ground.

Wilmore was great, at least.

Yes, how about that, "the argument followed". (I've got a screen shot of that. It's now my wallpaper. Lol. Jk).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law (I've done it before - and no doubt I'll do it again).

"Is that somehow above your comprehension level, so not coherent to you?" Yes, that's it. Clearly it's above my "comprehension level". Lol. So, have you got a clip showing Trump calling it a Muslim ban. Because I googled it and couldn't find one. Is there evidence that Muslim's are banned from the USA? I can't see any. I googled it but apparently the majority of Muslims in the world have no travel ban (it was a geographic ban, not a religious one). Apparently the Obama administration had already designated travel conditions on those seven countries and this is an extension of those conditions. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/feb/07/reince-priebus/were-7-nations-identified-donald-trumps-travel-ban/

I don't dispute that the list is not well thought out (by either administration). I don't dispute that the majority religion affected is Islam. I do dispute that it is singularly a Muslim ban, because it's not. It bans everyone from those nations. If you want to dispute this fact, then please provide some evidence. Jim Jefferies got it wrong.

Where did I defend anyone? I called out Jefferies. I can't see any words where I defend anyone.

I didn't support or vote for anyone. I'm not an American citizen. I'm looking from the outside in - and that gives me a good perspective.

No, I didn't confuse anything. Almost every single country benefits from 'illegal' immigrants as well as regular ones. France, for example, has thousands of illegal immigrants from mostly Islamic countries that provide services to it's mostly aging native population. We benefit no more and no less than any other nation from illegal immigration, as @newtboy mentioned, if you import food products or grow them locally you probably are benefiting from illegal immigration.

As far as your evidence, I hope this will suffice as 'some':

Steven A. Camarota, PhD, Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies, in a Jan. 6, 2015 article, "Unskilled Workers Lose Out to Immigrants," available at nytimes.com, stated:

"There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country and we also admit over a million permanent legal immigrants each year, leading to enormous implications for the U.S. labor market. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that there are some 58 million working-age (16 to 65) native-born Americans not working — unemployed or out of the labor market entirely. This is roughly 16 million more than in 2000. Equally troubling, wages have stagnated or declined for most American workers. This is especially true for the least educated, who are most likely to compete with immigrants (legal and illegal).

Anyone who has any doubt about how bad things are can see for themselves at the bureau's website, which shows that, as of November, there were 1.5 million fewer native-born Americans working than in November 2007, while 2 million more immigrants (legal and illegal) were working. Thus, all net employment gains since November 2007 have gone to immigrants."

Jan. 6, 2015 - Steven A. Camarota, PhD

George J. Borjas, PhD, Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at Harvard University, in a Sep./Oct. 2016 article, "Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers," available at politico.com, stated:

"[A]nyone who tells you that immigration doesn't have any negative effects doesn't understand how it really works. When the supply of workers goes up, the price that firms have to pay to hire workers goes down. Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent. Even after the economy has fully adjusted, those skill groups that received the most immigrants will still offer lower pay relative to those that received fewer immigrants.

Both low- and high-skilled natives are affected by the influx of immigrants. But because a disproportionate percentage of immigrants have few skills, it is low-skilled American workers, including many blacks and Hispanics, who have suffered most from this wage dip. The monetary loss is sizable...

We don't need to rely on complex statistical calculations to see the harm being done to some workers. Simply look at how employers have reacted. A decade ago, Crider Inc., a chicken processing plant in Georgia, was raided by immigration agents, and 75 percent of its workforce vanished over a single weekend. Shortly after, Crider placed an ad in the local newspaper announcing job openings at higher wages."

Sep./Oct. 2016 - George J. Borjas, PhD

Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., PhD, Emeritus Professor of Labor Economics at Cornell University, in an Oct. 14, 2010 briefing Report to the US Commission on Civil Rights, "The Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Wages and Employment Opportunities of Black Workers," available at usccr.gov, stated:

"Because most illegal immigrants overwhelmingly seek work in the low skilled labor market and because the black American labor force is so disproportionately concentrated in this same low wage sector, there is little doubt that there is significant overlap in competition for jobs in this sector of the labor market. Given the inordinately high unemployment rates for low skilled black workers (the highest for all racial and ethnic groups for whom data is collected), it is obvious that the major looser [sic] in this competition are low skilled black workers…

It is not just that the availability of massive numbers of illegal immigrants depress wages, it is the fact that their sheer numbers keep wages from rising over time, and that is the real harm experienced by citizen workers in the low skilled labor market."

Oct. 14, 2010 - Vernon M. Briggs Jr., PhD

There are more educated people than I that hold the same opinion, but let me give you an easier to understand, and absolutely true, example. How do I know it is true? When I was a much younger man, I worked for a roofing company. So I lived it.

The company I worked for was owned by a family friend, who had worked for most of his life in the field and had an excellent reputation. However, in the 90's around the time NAFTA was passed and (not related, I hope) illegal immigration spiked in Texas, he began to lose out to other companies. He did some snooping around and found out they were often charging hundreds of dollars less in their estimates than he could possibly offer, at least while still making a profit. He also found out that the two companies that were taking most of his business were staffed with illegal workers, being paid much lower wages than he could give to his legal employees.

Fast forward a year and he was close to declaring bankruptcy. Just like any type of labor where you pay your employees little to nothing comparatively to their compatriots in the same field, you cannot compete fairly. Net result, he was forced to let us go one by one, replacing us with illegals.

Obviously, I moved on, learned a different skill and began to make far more than I would have as a simple laborer. But the fact remains that an entire industry was undermined and radically changed by the inclusion of cheap illegal labor. This will not change if we simply ignore illegal immigration because it is the 'nice' thing to do. What it will accomplish is that young people will slowly find that certain jobs are out of their selection. It also will get worse the more accepted and commonplace illegal immigration becomes. I know for a fact that while I worked at Apple there were entry level support techs that were illegally here. Perhaps you will say that it is a benefit because it would prevent offshoring, but I disagree. What it does is make the working class poorer and doesn't solve the other issues brought about by illegal immigration, such as Emergency Rooms being flooded by people who can't afford insurance. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that it is common to go to the ER and see people stacked like cordwood because they can't refuse patients unless they are a private hospital.

As far as The Jungle, and my statement about it and it's author, I was merely pointing out that as much as you try to put forth that illegal immigrants have a bad life here in the USA, the fact is that we used to treat legal immigrants far worse. Perhaps it was a reach on my part, but it seemed logical at the time.

I doubt we will agree on any of this, but I respect your opinion. I live in a state that has a very large proportion of illegal immigrants, and while you are correct that they are generally not a criminal negative to society, they do have severe effects which I think you are overlooking. I do think that legal immigration policy needs massive change and businesses that exploit the almost slave like labor of illegals to make more profit should be punished severely. In the meantime, when we do catch illegals, they should be deported, not protected by a sympathetic politically motivated law enforcement group.

@transmorpher
then i mispoke,or you didn't understand.
i was addressing large swaths of history,so if it appeared i was making 'all things are fair,and equal" argument.

i apologize.

how about this:
at this point in history,it is islam that is by far the greatest threat to liberal democracies across the globe.they are threat to the process of democracies,and an even greater threat where they hold positions of political power.

the impetus and motivations that help promote,and therefor create a religious form of an echo chamber,which exponentially increases populations vulnerable to fundamentalist interpretations.either by force or fear,must be challenged.

always,and without reservation.
because to sit back and do nothing.....
/points to the dark ages.

that better?

i have no fear of drawing MO,nor calling out bad theosophy and even worse politics.

i am a man of faith,and my faith dictates my politics.

so i hoped i cleared that last bit up,and was clearer with my words.
goodnight man,i am whooped.

For my two cents, I'll gladly admit that today, Islam has the worst problem with violent extremism.
Will would admit that this is a transient condition and in the near future another religion will wear that crown?
Remember, on South park, Super Best Friends episode, they drew Muhammad and portrayed him as a semi super hero, it was broadcast, and nothing. Those days should return soon.

@transmorpher
so when i point out the historical implications,i am somehow automatically disregarding the inherent problems within islam itself?

and your counter is to not only NOT counter,but refuse to acknowledge the historical ramifications,because that is some political,agenda driven-drivel.

that the ONLY acceptable argument is to focus on the religion itself,and ignore all other considerations,because,again..just tools to be used and abused by the left to fuel the far right.

am i getting this right so far?

that to include history is actually the path that stops that path to move forward?

and here i was still hanging on to that tired old adage "those who refuse to recognize history,are doomed to repeat it".

i am glad that you found those authors so respectful and admired their analysis and dedication to research,but you didn't even bother to use one of THEIR arguments.you simply made claims and then told us you read some books.

dude..now i am just kinda...sad for you.

i am sorry that you are oblivious to your own myopia,and that you are coming across as condescending.yet really haven't posted anything of value that you have to contribute.

you are just pointing the finger and accusing people of their arguments being dishonest,when it appears to me that everyone here has taken the time to try to talk to you,and your replies have been fairly static.

hitchens tried to make the case,and failed in my opinion(i am not the only one),but a case i suspect you are referencing.that even if we took the history of neoliberalism,colonialism and empire building OFF the table.islam would STILL be a gaggle of extremist radicals seeking a one world caliphate.

which is why i referenced dearborn michigan.
it is why i mentioned kabul afghanistan.

we are talking about the radicalization of muslims.
why are they growing?
where do they come from?
why do they seem to be getting more and more extreme?

which many here have attempted to answer,including myself.

but YOU are addressing and entirely different question:
'what is wrong with islam as a religion"

well,a LOT in fact and i already mentioned islams dire need for a reformation,but it goes further than that.you see the epistemology of both judiaism and christianity have been thoroughly argued over and over....and over..that what you find today is a pretty succinct refinement of their respective theologies.

agree/disagree..maybe you are atheist or agnostic,that is not the point.the point is that the so-called "finished' product has pretty clear philosophies,that adherents can easily follow.

for judaism this is in large part to the talmud,which is a living document,where even to this day rabbis debate and argue the finer details.not to be confused with holy scripture the torah.

christianity was forced to acknowledge its failings and flaws,because the theology was weak,and was becoming more and more an amalgamation of other religious beliefs,but most of all,and i think most importantly,the in-fighting with the vatican and the church of england had exposed this weakness,and christianity was on the brink of collapse due to its own hubris and arrogance.

they had no central authority.no leadership that the people could come to in order to clarify scripture.

so thanks to the bravery of martin luther,who risked being labeled a heretic,challenged the political power,which in those days was religious,and so began the process of reformation.

and also ended the dark ages,and western civilization stepped into the "age of enlightenment".

islam has had no such reformation,though is in desperate need of one.they had no council of nicea to decide what was holy canon and what was not,which is why you have more gospels of jesus in the quran than you do in the actual bible.

the king james bible has over 38,000 mis-translations in the old testament alone,whereas the quran has....well...we don't know,because nobody challenges the veracity of the quran.

am i winning you over to my side yet?
still think i am leftist "stooge' and "useful idiot"?

look man,
words are inert.
they are simply symbols.
they are meaningless until we lay eyes on them and GIVE them meaning.

so if you are a violent,war-loving person-------your religion will be violent,and warmongering.

if you are a peaceful and loving person----then your religion will be peaceful and loving.

the problem is NOT religion itself,and i know my atheists really don't want to hear that,but it's true.religion is going nowhere.

the problem is fundamentalist thinking.
the problem is viewing holy scripture as the unerring word of god.
which is why you see creationists attempt,in vain,to convince the rest of us that the earth is only 6,000 yrs old,and their only proof or evidence is a book.

so we all point and laugh.....how silly..6,000yrs old.crazy talk.

but WHY is the creationist so adamant in his attempts to defend his holy text?
because to accept the reality that the earth is not 6,000 yrs old but 14 billion yrs old,is to go against the word of god,and god is unerring,and if the bible is the word of god....and god is unerring.........

now lets go back to dearborn michigan.
if hitchens and harris are RIGHT,then that relatively stable community of muslims are really just extremists waiting for the angels to blow their horn and announce the time for JIHAD!!!

and,to be fair,that is a possibility,but a small one.

why?
because of something the majority of christians experience here in the states,canada,europe,australia...they experience pushback.

does this mean that america does not have radical christians in our midst?

oh lawdy do we ever.

ok ok..i am doing it again.
me and my pedantic self.

suffice to say:
islam IS a problem,even taken as a singular dynamic,that religion has serious issues.
but they are not the ONLY problem,which is what many of here have been trying to talk about.

ALL religions have a problem,and that problem is fundamentalism.which for christianity is a fairly new phenom (less than 100 yrs old) whereas islam has suffered from this mental malady pretty much since its inception.

ok..thats it..im done.pooped,whipped and in need of sleep.

hope i clarified some things with ya mate,but i swear to god if you respond with a reiteration of all your comments.i am going to hunt you down,and BEAT you with a bible,and not that wimpy king james either!
the hefty scofield study bible!

@transmorpher
i would say we disagree but i cant even say that.
you didn't counter ANYTHING i said,you just accused me of being dishonest.

which has been pretty much your position this entire thread.i thought i was doing you a solid by laying down some history,which helps explain some facets of radical islam.

notice my wording:facets.

do you realize that i taught comparative religion and cultural religious history?
do you realize just how foolish you appear to me right now?

you want to counter my argument....by not countering my argument,and implying i am being dishonest.

ok sweetheart,
i think i see the problem here.
YOU are seeing the dynamic through a singular lens.

you want to ignore the historical implications and simply focus on islam itself?
ok,that's fine.
i find it stupid,short sighted and incredibly biased,but whatever..

yoooou have an agenda to get to don't ya?

ok.
then let us just strip the dynamic of ALL historical implications and focus solely on islam itself.
(which is why you mentioned Maajid Nawaz, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, Hitchens )
you clever clever boy...
i see what you did there../ruffles hair.
you are SO adorable when you are being myopic and lazy!

so what would you like to discuss?
how islam is in desperate need of a reformation?
or maybe how the original intent of islam from a spiritual perspective was hi-jacked by his cousins and turned into a political conquest machine,that subjugated ...

you know what?
why am i bothering?
you have revealed yourself to be a condescending,sanctimonious know-nothing.who read a couple of books and thinks he 'get's it".

no dude..you read sam harris.

look man,
i am not here defending islam,because as religions go,islam is kinda shit.
but to ignore how neoliberalism and american interventionism have amplified,and worsened and already crappy situation.

that's not even intellectually dishonest.
that is just plain lazy.

whats next?
you gonna do some 'thought experiments" and try to argue that at least america's "intentions" were nobel?

you WERE! weren't you!!

and this little revisionist nugget "Those countries have had problems long before any western intervention."

oooh really?
because,unlike YOU,i actually know the history of that region.
so if you want we can compare how some cities and countries were considered "progressive" and even "liberal",and even some (granted,only a few) that were considered "secular" *gasp*.

how about this,instead of me repeatedly taking you to the woodshed to give ya some of that "learnin",how about you just go look up the history of kabul,afghanistan.

that's it.just one city.

and then come back and tell me that neoliberalism,colonialism and good old fashioned empire building hasn't been a major force in the rise in fundamentalism and radicalization in the middle east.

it looks like you really ARE going to make go all the way back to the dark ages!

and dude..seriously..hitchens ROCKED,but sam harris?
no..juuust no.
i don't do apologists as a counter argument.

edit:i will say that i agree with this "There are actual muslims (such as Maajid Nawaz)that say islam has a problem(especially particular strands of it), and it needs reform. Embracing the muslims who want reform is the only way forward."

you mean that islam may need a reformation?
*gasps*/clasps hands to face.
didn't i fucking already SAY that?

ah well,foiled by my pedantic ways.

And western intervention made those problems exponentially worse and directed their anger outwards towards us.

Ignoring the many factors that historically and consistently radicalized people from many religions to demonize one is the right being dishonest.

Islam has a problem. It's the same problem all religion has, it's easily abused to foster hatred of non/incorrect believers and violence towards them. It just happens that this problem is most pronounced in Islam today. That has not been the case for much of history, including recent history.

Those countries have had problems long before any western intervention.

Again, this is the left being dishonest. Please stop doing it, you're only making things worse for the refugees by fueling the far right.

There are actual muslims (such as Maajid Nawaz)that say islam has a problem(especially particular strands of it), and it needs reform. Embracing the muslims who want reform is the only way forward.

EDIT: Everything you've said has been rebutted by Maajid Nawaz, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, Hitchens and so on.

radical islamic terrorism is the usage of a rigid fundamentalist interpretation as a justification predicated on abysmal politics.

ill-thought and short sighted politics is the tinder.
hyper-extremist fundamentalism is the match.

ISIS would never even have existed without al qeada,who themselves would not have existed without US interventionism into:iran,egypt and saudi arabia.

and this is going back almost 70 years.

so lets cut the shit with apologetics towards americas horrific blunders in regards to foreign policy.actions have consequences,there is a cause and effect,and when even in the 50's the CIA KNEW,and have stated as much,that there would be "blowback" from americas persistent interventionism in those regions.which stated goals (in more honest times) was to destabilize,dethrone (remove leaders not friendly to american business) and install leaders more pliant and easily manipulated (often times deposing democratically elected leaders to install despots.the shah and sadam come to mind).

see:chalmers johnson-blowback
see: Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard.

or read this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

so to act like islamic radicals just fell from the fucking sky,and popped out from thin air,due to something that has been boiling for almost 70 years is fucking ludicrous.

radicalization of certain groups in populations have long been understood,and well documented.

and religion,though the most popular,and easiest tool to motivate and justify heinous acts of violence for a political goal,is not the SOLE tool.

nationalism is another tool used to radicalize a population.
see:the nazi party.

but it always comes down to:tribalism of one kind or another.

@transmorpher

so when you use this "ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven. "

to solidify your argument,all i see is someone ignoring the history and pertinent reasons why that group even exists.

you may recall that ISIS was once Al qeada,and they were SO radical,SO fanatical and SO violent in their execution of religious zeal..that even al qeada had to distance themselves.

because,again...
religion is used as the justification to enact terrorism due to bad politics.
but the GOAL is always political.

you may remember that in the early 90's the twin towers were attacked and it was the first time americans heard of al qeada,and osama bil laden.

who made a statement back in 1993 and then reiterated in 2001 after 9/11 that the stated goal (one of them at least) was for the removal of ALL american military presence in saudi arabia (there was more,but it mostly dealt with american military presence in the middle east).

but where did this osama dude come from?
why was he so pissed at america?
just what was this dudes deal?

turns out he was already on the road to radicalization during the 80's.coming from an extremely wealthy saudi arabian family but had become extremely religious,and he saw western interventionism as a plague,and western culture as a disease.

he left the comforts of his extremely wealthy family to fight against this western incursion into his religious homeland.he traveled to afghanistan to join the mujahideen to combat the russians,who were actually fighting the americans in a proxy war.and WE trained osama.WE armed him and trained him in the tactics of warfare to,behind the scenes,slowly drain russia of resources in our 50 year long cold war.

how's that for irony.

osama was not,as american media like to paint the picture "anti-democratic or anti-freedom".he saw the culture of consumerism,greed and sexual liberation as an affront to his religious understandings.

this attitude can be directly linked to sayyid qtib from egypt.who visited the united states as an exchange student in 1954.now he wasnt radicalized yet,but when he returned to egypt he didnt recognize his own country.

he saw coco cola signs everywhere,and women wearing shorts skirts,and jukeboxs playing that devils music "rock and roll".

he feared for his country,his neighbors,his community.
just like a southern baptist fears for your soul,sayyid feared for the soul of his country and that this new "westernization" was a direct threat to the tenants laid down by islam.

so he began to speak out.
he began to hold rallies challenging the leadership to turn away from this evil,and people started to take notice,and some people agreed.

change does not come easy for some people,and this is especially true for those who hold strong religious ideologies.
(insert religion here) tends to be extremely traditional.

so sayyid started to gain popularity for his challenge if this new "westernization",and this did not go un-noticed by the egyptian leadership,who at that time WANTED western companies to invest in egypt.(that whole political landscape is totally different now,but back then egypt was fairly liberal,and moderately secular).

so instead of allowing sayyid to speak his mind.
they threw him in prison.
for 4 years.
in solitary.

well,he wasn't radicalized when he went IN to prison,but when he came OUT he sure was.

and to shorten this story,sayyid was the first founder of the muslim brotherhood,whose later incarnation broke off to form?

can you guess?
i bet you can!
al qeade

@Fairbs ,@newtboy and @Asmo have all laid out points why radicalization happens,and the conditions that can enflame and amplify that radicalization.

so i wont repeat what they have already said.

but let us take dearborn michigan as an example.
the largest muslim community in america.
how many terrorists come from dearborn?
how many radicals reside there?
how many mosque preach intolerance and "death to america"?
how many imams quietly sanction fatwas from the local IHOP against american imperialistic pigs?

none.

becuase if you live in stable community,with a functioning government,and you are able to find work and support your family,and your kids can get an education.

the chances of you become radicalized is pretty much:zippo.

the specific religion has NOTHING to do with terrorism.
religion is simply the means in which the justifications to enact violent atrocities is born.

it's the politics stupid.

you could do a thought experiment and flip the religions around,but keep the same political parameters and do you know WHAT we find?

that the terrorists would be CHRISTIAN terrorists.

or do i really need to go all the way back to the fucking dark ages to make my point?

it's
the
politics
stupid.

Came here to say exactly this.

I'll add that Anwar al-Awlaki wasn't just hiding out in Yemen. The Fort Hood shooter was emailing back and forth with him. The attempted bombings in Times Square and of Northwest Airlines flight 253 were also linked back to him. So yeah, there were absolutely guys in Yemen helping launch attacks on American nationals and American soil.

That all said, blanket bans on everyone from the country period is only A answer and mayhaps not THE answer, baby with the bath water and all. Most of our Islamic allies, and the highest percentage of victims of jihadist terrorism are the moderate muslims in those same countries.

He was on the verge of making a point about the radicalization of US Muslims. Remember Anwar al-Awlaki, US citizen killed by drone? Guess which other country he lived in? The countries on the list, with the exception of Iran, all have weak central governments that are unable to prevent large groups of terrorists operating in their country and spreading radical islamic beliefs. I think Egypt and Saudi Arabia should probably be there too just based on their history, but maybe diplomatic considerations were made. Obviously Trump had no concern over diplomatic relaions with Iran.