I agree, but that's why the antifa people do far more harm than good, even though their stated intentions may be good their methods aren't.

They allow it to be framed as a choice between actually violent Nazis/right and actually violent PC fascists/left. (This couldn't be better for the Nazis, as the extreme right is far larger, older, better prepared, with far more resources than the extreme left and I think they're orgasmic they're managing to turn the national narrative into a battle of extremist ideals.)

I think that's the moral relativism being attempted, and no reasonable person wants either choice.
All that said, I also think there isn't really a choice to be made between the two, but I still firmly refuse both.

What's a moderate to do?
Stand up and make your voice heard, making it clear that inclusion of fascism in the platform means you are out the door.
We must make it unavoidable that adding the ultra left to the party removes the moderates and independents, and undeniably kills the party. Have them look at Republicans as an example of what you get when you court the extremists, and show them that the gains moving towards center are far greater than those on the fringe.
It's outrageous to think they need to be told that, but clearly they do.

The extreme right IS growing it's base off the people the extreme left are alienating. It is NOT enough for the left to just hope to similarly grow it's base by those alienated by the extreme right. That didn't work so well for Hillary. "Growing it's base" is code for gaining power and support, aka more people that can act and vote. The Dems need to do more to draw in extra voters, the current trend of doubling down harder in condemnation of anyone that didn't vote Hillary is exactly the opposite of what they need to be doing. That's chasing away voters that need to be won over. Go back to those same voters with some of the olive branches I mentioned, or come up with some others, but at least make a blasted effort to grow your base out too or else your shrinking your own base while the right extremists are growing...

KKK, alt-right, nazi party, white nationalists, and generic right wing racists, all under the banner 'Unite the right' (meaning right wing, not the correct). That's not one radical group it's a conglomeration of many, all of which are firmly on your 'team', and the counter protesters were not so organized and were mostly non-affiliated locals protesting a hate march/rally in their town.

The right wingers came armed, in riot gear, with shields, clubs, and mace. The anti protesters had cardboard and sticks they picked up on site when confronted, and mace. The right marched, without permits, all weekend. (the one event they had a permit for was canceled due to repeated violence in each of those unsanctioned marches) The right wingers were 90%+ non residents that came to start a fight, the anti-protesters were, from what I've seen, nearly 100% locals.
The right wingers committed actual murder and uncountable attempted murders and assaults. I didn't hear of or see a single right winger being killed or even hospitalized.

With the right as one of those extremist groups, I expect violence, no matter the circumstances and I'm rarely disappointed.

But yeah...like your president, feel free to continue deflect blame from your team and keep trying to pretend it's all the "other's" fault and they are responsible for your team's hate crimes and racism. That's working so well for him...and you....winning.

*Facepalm*

Way to stand with the Nazis, Bob. Nice job.

PS: It's ANTIFA, not ANFTA. It's short for ANTIFACIST. Know your enemy.

Oh, but they do. Just start a "discussion" with them about genders or climate change.
But it didnt start with that. I was atheist once too. Then I noticed how totalitarian and extreme atheists often are. Pretty much like any ideology/religion.
So I became agnostic.

And yeah, we have a lot of them on this site too. Just with any other extremists, its useless to argue with them.

Funny thing is the old left is acting that extreme and downright lunatic, that the new right and new left are finding a lot of common ground now.

In Germany for example you can see that on Die Linke, a pure left party (links means left in German), which is actually well established. They are now suddenly talking about things that only the right wing would have talked about, so much that a new right wing party already offered some of them to join their party. Sure, they still have a lot of the old leftists among them who just keep raving in their delusions, but they are realizing reality and are leaning more and more to a policy of reality.

I said that before, if you act like extremists, you will lose the moderates and people who can still think for themselves, and thats exactly whats happening now. I considered myself more of a leftist than right winger too until a few months ago actually. Now, I would never go that far, because I know with what lunacy, hypocrisy I would be identified with. And that is actually making me mad, because there were a lot ideas from the left, that now have lost most of their credibility, throwing us all back decades, or more.

@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!

@newtboy,

Then, you (We) are suggesting legitimizing their claim to be autonomous states by accepting that classification to be able to declare war against them.

I addressed exactly that in my longer follow up to Enoch. I am asking you to open your eyes and look at the reality on the ground. It's not about legitimizing claims to statehood for convenience or opportunity or semantics or whatever. It is that an area of land larger than many European countries was running under their laws. Was paying them taxes. Was under their justice system. Was under their rule in every single manner. At that point you need to recognize the reality and call a spade a spade and start acting in accordance with reality and not just the borders drawn up on somebody's map somewhere.

You want an analogy in America, than have the whole state of Texas under the control of Richard Spencer and his likes. The American police don't go there, because they fear for their lives. Even the American military has stopped pushing in because their losses were too much. Instead the American military is using back chanels to mostly direct their violent terrorist attacks towards the Mexicans. If Mexico gets tired of Texans coming in and killing them, do they have no further recourse than to ask pretty, pretty please to the US to extradite Spencer and crack down on extremists? That is the reality in Tribal Pakistan with the Taliban calling all the shots.

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.

Terrorists are usually not from countries that America or even previously the Soviets have been bombing the shit out of.

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.

The countries with one of the most intolerant cultures, are some of the best educated and wealthiest people on the planet. Countries such as UAE and Saudi Arabia. These countries are best buds with the west, and yet they still jail women when they are raped (not the rapist), and they stone and crucify protesters asking for human rights. These are the actual laws, not a few extremists, or terrorists, it's the law of the country. They are intolerant and oppressive by law, thanks to their theocratic ruling system.

To sum up the above, it's not an educational issue, it's not a poverty issues, it's not a revenge issue. It's culture, attitudes, and religion.

No. Compromise implies give and take, not a one sided one way capitulation. I think 'both side's (as if there are only two factions) need to work together for common goals, not try to force their agenda down the other's throat. Trump voters need to change, especially the far right ones, same for Clinton voters on the far left. Neither extreme is good for the nation, but centrists are a dying breed. Sanders did reach out and had Republican support.....the DNC fucked us all by fucking him.
I understand the idea that Trump is the lesser evil, if you don't believe anything bad about him and believe he's successful, like most of his supporters. I contend the only evidence they have for that is his worthless word, because he wrote a book about how to get ahead by lying and screwing people over....but they didn't read it.

The pc crowd has damaged the left as much as the Nazis have the right. They both suck, but moderate dems at least fight the pc thugs, not so much on the right.

They aren't islamaphobes for discussing that question, they are islamaphobes for saying only Islam makes violent extremists.
Transphobes for pronoun use...just dumb to me.
Homophobes for obeying a priest that said to hate them, or attack them, or deny their humanity....absolutely....especially since they must cherry pick what's ok and what's not to justify their hatred but excuse similar sins they commit (shellfish, blended fabrics, both just like homosexuality, all three from the old testament, so not for Christians anyway).

The war on Xmas is bullshit. I've never once seen a real person upset in the least over merry Xmas....unless it's displayed on public property, that's unacceptable for any religion.

I really think the outrage over pc thugs is a red herring. If you don't live on a liberal campus, you'll probably never meet one. I live in liberal hippy paradise and I haven't. What they want is nuts, but who cares, Nazis want a Nazi state, which is nuts and anti American, who cares, it won't happen.
Maybe I'm wrong and pc has taken over, but I don't see it outside of South Park.

While I respect many of them, I don't take assertions like that for granted without evidence that it's true, not just an assumption. The pew research didn't have a study about religious extremists correlating with insanity in some religions and not others....I looked, but it did have an answer to your question of why Arab Muslims are more prone to extremism, severe lack of educational oportunity.

No, all religions are not equal, but they share certain traits and are nearly all equally susceptible to abuse in the right circumstances.

It's also dishonest to claim only one culture still does those things. Every single one was done by average everyday Christians in America in my lifetime, and are just an okeydoke from someone in authority away from returning to being acceptable in many places.

Edit: I'm not one of those that think everyone is good, the opposite, I think human nature is to be evil if you think you'll get away with it, and to be decent people we must consciously fight that instinct.

I was about the reply to Bobknight - to say basically the same thing.

Unfortunately, a lot of us who are "liberal" can't understand this. There is truth to it, I'm not going to say that it isn't batshit crazy but for instance, I worked 5 days at a design temp job (before I quit and got the job of a lifetime a week later) and the owner was an older lady. She listened to FOX news ALL DAY long, totally in the box and in the zone for the alt-right mentality.

She, as a small business owner, who probably has other "conservative"(extremist) friends on the Chamber of Commerce (of which she was a part of) really believed that Trump as a "BUSINESS" person would be a great president in creating a better economy for"business"(tax loopholes everywhere, YES!!! No living wage or minimum wage increases, YESSS!!! fucking dicks the lot of em). I had to listen to this shit for those 5 days, but yeah - people really believe(d) it. There are business people out there, who aren't Bobknights eating doritoes in that wheel-less, rusted, mobile home in the trailer park waiting for the next tornado to plop down on tornado alley and give them the ultimate ride to the otherside, that believed in having a business person in the white house a good thing (fucking capitalists and terribly ignorant poor people IMO lol).

Media is in a real shithole these days. I mean, I still listen to Democracy Now! & NPR... but everything is slanted one-way or another...

The thing is, most of the recent attacks in Europe and in the US were by Muslims who were innocent and regular people, up to the point until they were radicalized and committed terror. They weren't trained extremists like the ones that did 9/11. There are way more layers to this that the left like to admit.

And while I don't agree with Trumps policies, I think there needs to be a good discussion about why this one particular demographic is so prone to radicalization. And the faster this discussion happens the more people can be helped.

But it just seems like the left don't want to talk about it, in case they appear to be racist, and the right don't want to talk because they actually are racist. The refugees are trapped in a bunch of sensationalist material from two sides of the camp.

If people joined extremists groups because they weren't helped by some countries, then shouldn't the extremists at least not attack the countries that are now helping them?

Again I know it happens, but I'm not agreeing it's the actions of a reasonable person, and all it does is make a stronger case to have some hard border policies. (not Trumps policies, but some very in-depth vetting process).

They governments are only becoming right-wing because populations are demanding a right-wing government, and populations are only becoming xenophobic because of the attacks. Otherwise it would never have gained any traction and it would have only remained the view of a few racists.