The list was from Obama Administration terror list.

and he banned innocent Muslims from coming into the country when? don't try to deflect the molester in chiefs raping of the ideals this country was founded on with a phony argument

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.

Innocent until they weren't, huh? That's kind of how it goes for any criminal.
That Trump was elected is proof that radicalization is alive and well in the right wing, too. Just look at the terroristic attack in Canada for proof. Muslims have no monopoly on radicalism.

Well there is a difference, generally people performing islamic terrorism are normal people who have been radicalised through their religion.
Where as the shooters in the US tend to have mental issues, are criminals, etc. So you have to wonder, what kind of religion is it, that it makes normal people act as if they have mental issues.

Saying that "they aren't the only people to be bad" is really dishonest and helps nobody. Especially those that need it the most, and it just gives the right-wingers more fuel - that is the reason why Trump is the president now. The left being dishonest, and because they don't acknowledge the facts. Where as the right simply don't understand facts in general lol.

As soon as the left start becoming more honest, acknowledge the facts then the far right will quiet down again. There will always be a few far right nutters, but not enough to sway the vote like has just happened.

That's a convenient, but likely baseless claim. Do you have any peer reviewed studies to back it up?
It's the same thing that allows it in every religion. Immoral people assume leadership positions and instruct faithful to act atrociously. Christianity was just as inhumane, the phrase isn't "nobody expects the Muslim inquisition". It's misguided to get myopic about history in order to demonize one religion, they all fall into this pitfall, it's the nature of blind faith that it's easily abused.
A good question might be what is it about religion that it makes normal people act as if they have mental issues, and I think I just answered that.
Looking at the issue honestly, not biased against "them", is essential. It allows you to ask "did my culture find a way to stop this behavior, and if so, how." Since no culture seems 100% free from it, pointing fingers isn't helpful. Since it's true that they aren't the only ones to "be bad", how is it dishonest? What fact does it ignore?
The left is not the factually challenged side of the two. The left believes science, the right doesn't. Issue settled.

I'm really only regurgetating what people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, Maajid Nawaz, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have said in their books and podcasts. So I'll direct you there, as they articulate it way better than me.
There is also http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/muslims-and-islam/ which the statistics are quite alarming, and the left choose to ignore many of these. They assume that everyone in the world is a good person, and that they would do good if they had the same opportunities. It's simply not the case.
All religions are not equal either (and I'm a staunch atheist), and neither are all cultures.

We might not have a perfect world, but it's dishonest to try to claim that everything and everyone is the same. It's dishonest to ignore that the majority of the world has decided to stop stoning gays, crucifying human rights protesters, and treating women worse than dogs. Just to name a few things.

2011 actually, although they didn't broadcast it, call it a ban, and it was limited to Syria only at the time.

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.

Absolute hyperbole, everyday Christians have not done the things I've listed in your life time.

I grew up in Texas where gays were beaten on sight, civil rights workers would go missing and that fact publicly cheered (slightly before my time), and many women are still expected to be totally subservient. Maybe not exactly your examples, but close enough for me to make my point.

And that's exactly what I mean about the left being dishonest. False equivalencies are just one of the things I read all the time. Whether on purpose to prove a point, or genuinely naive.

Not false in my eyes. Explain.
If the atrocities aren't the exact atrocities you accuse others of, just really close, they are absolute hyperbole or false equivalency? Now who's dishonest.
The point is that other religions oppress and terrorize the same targets to the same ends, but because they do it slightly differently you think that's dishonest to say? Please.
Ok, I'll try again being excessively careful.....no, everyday Christians aren't crusifying civil rights workers that we know of, but have definitely murdered them and still treat them inhumanely and with violence...they don't stone gays, but have murdered them and still discriminate against them and attack them physically.... they still subjugate women in many ways, including polygamy, but also differently from how many Muslims do....now am I honest and specific enough for you to accept the point, that Islam has no monopoly on religious evil, or are you going to claim that's not exactly the same, and so ignore the point again?

I'm not naive that there is rapid radicalization and that we need to get better at fighting that and quickly. It is also very obvious to me that trump actions drive and create terrorists. His bravado on the subject is what helped get him elected, but it could also be part of his downfall, because I see the numbers of terrorist attacks going up pretty soon.
My assumption about why Muslims radicalize is that the west has been bombing the shit out of them for decades. Maybe I'm wrong?
I try to use this scenario on my Mom, but she doesn't usually have much to say about it... 'What if Iraqis came over here and killed you and Dad, wouldn't you think that I'd try to do something about it or that I could radicalize?' I think she may assume some sort of moral superiority being an American or she just doesn't want to believe we could be part of the cause in creating the extremism.

Not that I support one or the other side of this retarded argument...

But in Aus, something like 1 in 3000 Australians of Lebanese descent were accused (not convicted) of being involved in terrorist planning/actions etc. And Australians lost their shit about it.

1 in 20 of Australian Catholic clergy have been convicted of child molestation, which closely matches a US study of 107,000 clergy turning up 1 in 24 odd. No one seemed particularly perturbed...

Pro tip: The west is more concerned about muslims/arabic types because they're brown and strange (to us), even though your child is far more likely to be molested by a pedo than he/she is to be killed in a terror attack. Though I hate using it, seems like a "won't some one think of the children moment".

Hrm, wonder if you can deport catholics back to the Vatican...

Do you think their lack of educational opportunity plays into it too?
In your scenario, wouldn't it be easier to radicalize an orphan Fairbs if you only had a 1st grade education, the most out of any of your circle of friends? From what I read yesterday, that is the case for a HUGE percentage of Muslims in the middle east, and not by choice.

Just to add to Liberal Redneck's point of Arabs and American Rednecks having things in common, WWE was quite popular in the Middle East, as is car racing (F1 not Nascar though). Also camping and 4x4'ing.

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.

It's the "people in the west do bad things too" argument in a different format.

That's a bit like saying, my car already has a dent so I don't bother driving carefully anymore. And in Germany's case, I now drive with my eyes closed
EDIT: (and Trump has basically banned driving )

And yes, for NewtBoy that is all a false equivalency. The two issues have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and not even remotely relevant to immigration. (But maybe they could be made relevant, and like you've suggested we'll not only send back the pedo priests back to the Vatican we'll take in a progressive Muslim immigrant, it's win win!).

No, it's the 'your car has dents, so don't look down your nose at their rust' argument.

If you can't see the obvious relevance, I can't help you farther. I think it's willful blindness to avoid the obvious conclusion, because you don't SEEM that dense.

I honestly don't even remember the point of the original conversation, so I'll just take the minor compliment for now

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.

/giggle

To add some extra context, the 1 in 20 reply was after an Australian minister in the current government said we were wrong to support Lebanese immigration back in the 70's because of 27 some odds 'accused of terrorist support' types in modern Australia. Someone fired back the 1 in 20 statistic to poke holes in what has been a generally good thing for Australia, ie. integration of other cultures.

The rhetoric from the minister dried up pretty fast, because the figures were so awfully unbalanced that no sane person could try to continue to make the point without making a complete fool of themselves. Trump obviously doesn't have that problem (well, doesn't seem to care if he does make a bigger horses ass of himself).

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.

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.

@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.

are you implying that I'm a stupidhead?

I think education could definitely have a role. I don't think you'd need too much to connect the dots between the country who dropped the bomb out of the sky and the huge wound it created in your heart. Having enough heart or brain power to believe these foreign invaders have your best interests would be harder and may be beside the point if it pushed you over the edge.

M....a....y...b....e...;-)

No, it doesn't take much to connect those dots, but a good dose of ignorance is helpful to convince someone that terrorism will help solve their problems.

My counter is the previously mentioned authors who have spent there lives researching and living the things they write about. I'm not referring to their work to be condescending or to have a pissing contest. I've mentioned previously that anything I say will just be a poor regurgitation of their work, and it's a massive time saver for both of us when I can just refer you to them.

Yes I have an agenda. It's to stop this madness from both the left and right. The right are a lost cause, but the left can get there.

@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!

I totally agree that all religions have a problem, and all cultures have violence, fundamentalists, and other issues, but it's dishonest to say that they are all equal in problems, equally serious, equally harmful, or that the problems are equally widespread, equally ingrained in the culture, and especially equally represented by law and the government.

It's about rates, scale and motivation.

It would be dishonest to claim that there is no difference. Yet that is what it appears to be that's what you're suggesting.

Perhaps when you can draw big old Mo without the fear that someone will come after you, then we can start to talk about how equal all this is.

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
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.

Bob is posting Christopher Hitchens videos?!? Have the wolves begun living with the lambs!?!
Do you know what he said about Christian fundamentalism @bobknight33? It’s not flattering.

As a side note, and on topic with the video, every terrorist act perpetrated in America since 2017 has been committed by a right wing “Christian”.
The United States Department of Homeland Security reported in October 2020 that white supremacists (all right wing Christians) posed the top domestic terrorism threat, which FBI director Christopher Wray confirmed in March 2021, noting that the bureau had elevated the threat to the same level as ISIS.
A 2017 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that out of the 85 deadly extremist incidents which had occurred since September 11, 2001, white supremacist extremist groups were responsible for 73%, while radical Islamist extremists were responsible for 27%. The total number of deaths which was caused by each group was about the same, though 41% of the deaths were attributable to radical Islamists and they all occurred in a single event — the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting in which 49 people were killed by a lone gunman. No deaths were attributed to left-wing groups.
-wiki