Reply With Quote
And what would that be? Other than you have nothing of substance to say?
Kind of.
And what would that be? Other than you have nothing of substance to say?
Your*
And your obsession of me isn't super sad and wildly embarrassing?
What's with all this Joe Rogan ?
The real question is why do regressive liberals freak out over people like Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, Bill Maher, etc, who criticize Islam?
It's should be obvious to anyone who reads this tread that you have no ability discern a talented interviewer.
They have no answer to their criticism. So they resort to personal attacks (lol Joe Rogan) because they're exposed.
Crofl is that supposed to be an insult? Why would anyone care about my opinions on that?
I'm a liberal and I like Sam Harris and Bill Maher and I find it refreshing they have the freedom to and openly criticize Islam.
Is this the point you've made? Vy has ty taste in podcasts?
Again, I was just tying to understand what made you a superfan. That's all.
I'm not a super fan. Saying "so what" was to say you were focused on stupidity. But that's pretty much par for the course for you so I shouldn't be surprised.
Yeah man. Joe Rogan sucks. Stop listening to him.
Cool bro, thanks for the hot tip
I also have no problem with Sam Harris or Bill Maher criticizing Islam.
To my knowledge, neither has ever implied that all Muslims are complicit or should be suspected of involvement with terrorism. Correct me if the 2+ hour video says otherwise, I didn't watch it.
But the idea that Obama not using the magic words "radical Islam" is what led to Trump's nomination is ludicrous. As if using the magic words would have sufficed to conservatives and made them feel that Obama's foreign policy was satisfactory, and as if Trump's rise to the top wasn't a result of dozens of other factors.
Trump's rise was enabled by Republican leadership and conservative media that have, for the last 20+ years, been implying through innuendo everything Trump is currently saying more directly and in a way that is easily digested by the lowest common denominator.
Ok. Cool
If that were the argument (you didn't use the magic words), then I'd agree with you. But I don't think that's the argument. I think the point is that politicians do not draw a connection between Islam and terrorism out of a concern of offending moderate Muslims, being pc, etc... for example, Obama's reluctance to identify the role Islam had in the Orlando attacks.
What people like Harris see is that the failure to identify Islam as a cause of terrorism alienates voters and can drive them to demagogues like Trump because the connection between Islam and terror can be obvious and Trump is the "tough on terror candidate" (at least he postures that way). The way I understand it, people feel like reasonable leaders are being unreasonable in not attributing terror to Islam (ie, Obama saying ISIS isn't Islamic) and that creates a vacuum for morons like Trump to point the finger at Islam. And that resonates with voters.
I agree that trumps rise is attributable to a number of other factors. But I think people like Harris has a point and it's not just "you didn't use the magic words."
Semantics have been the crux of the argument. Try to find an example of any Republican politician who has pointed out Obama's avoidance of the magic words, and then try to find where they offer any tangible alternative to fighting terrorism that isn't currently being employed.
I'm not sure I understand the inherent need for people to hear the President say that ISIS is Islamic. It's a very superficial identifier and probably not the most important. I don't think identifying it as such would have any real impact on what people think about his approach to terrorism. He identifies it as Islamic terrorism, the next question from those people is "What are you going to do about Muslims?" That vacuum would still be there as evidenced by the insane number of people who still think Obama is a Muslim.What people like Harris see is that the failure to identify Islam as a cause of terrorism alienates voters and can drive them to demagogues like Trump because the connection between Islam and terror can be obvious and Trump is the "tough on terror candidate" (at least he postures that way). The way I understand it, people feel like reasonable leaders are being unreasonable in not attributing terror to Islam (ie, Obama saying ISIS isn't Islamic) and that creates a vacuum for morons like Trump to point the finger at Islam. And that resonates with voters.
I agree that trumps rise is attributable to a number of other factors. But I think people like Harris has a point and it's not just "you didn't use the magic words."
Meanwhile, continued focus on Muslims as the source of terrorism continues to draw a divide between Muslims and the westernized world and gives sociopathic outcasts a reason to draw inspiration from radical Islamic terrorism and carry out attacks on us. That's ISIS' real strategy for infiltrating America.
I think the reason why people need to hear the President say those words is for the assurance that he's correctly identified the problem. Otherwise, you're left with situations like the response to Orlando, where Obama's position seemed to be that this was solely an issue of gun control and Islam had no role whatsoever. This is why the point isn't solely one of semantics -- it's about correctly identifying a problem. It's like having a rowboat with two leaks; plugging one hole while ignoring the other isn't going to stop you from sinking.
I do think that your point about the words the President uses not having an influence on his actions has merit. But it's equally true that the President sets the tone for, or at least has a strong influence on, policy. Again with Orlando, if the issue is teed up as one of gun control, you will never appropriately address the problem because you're ignoring one of the causes. If Obama had identified radical Islam, along with lax gun control, as the problem, the policy debate, and the resulting policy, would be different.
The point is that our leaders, like Obama, are not being honest with us about the causes of terrorism. And that is a legitimate problem.
That's why it's important to focus on the ideology and not the actor. The issue isn't the Muslim, it's the doctrine that radicalized the Muslim. I think that knee-jerk reactions like Trumps ban Muslims! are pretty alienating and counterproductive.
But on the flip side, what does it say about so-called moderate Muslims that the suggestion that their religious belief can be and has been used for terrorism would radicalize them? I don't think that a moderate Muslim engineer is going to all of a sudden become radicalized, quit his job, move to Syria and join Isis just because I criticize Islam. And the fact that the bogey-man of Muslim alienation is raised here is the point -- criticizing Islam isn't going to radicalize moderate Muslims.
Fair enough. I don't fully agree but this is well said.
I don't think a moderate devout Muslim in America would be radicalized in that way either, and I think we've seen that it's the less devout ones who have carried out the attacks on American soil. They are outcasts who see their Middle Eastern / Muslim heritage as their iden y, and they have drawn inspiration from terrorism abroad as a way to get back at a world that has rejected them. Muslims with a secure sense of community, especially within their mosques, are not at all likely to radicalize. ISIS' hope is that they can draw division between these Muslims and America, but they will fail because they don't understand the POV of American Muslims and how good they have it here (relatively speaking).That's why it's important to focus on the ideology and not the actor. The issue isn't the Muslim, it's the doctrine that radicalized the Muslim. I think that knee-jerk reactions like Trumps ban Muslims! are pretty alienating and counterproductive.
But on the flip side, what does it say about so-called moderate Muslims that the suggestion that their religious belief can be and has been used for terrorism would radicalize them? I don't think that a moderate Muslim engineer is going to all of a sudden become radicalized, quit his job, move to Syria and join Isis just because I criticize Islam. And the fact that the bogey-man of Muslim alienation is raised here is the point -- criticizing Islam isn't going to radicalize moderate Muslims.
#NotAllMuslims are created equal.
Shiite's/Levanites/Iranians who came here in the 70's = cool for the most part
Sunni/Wahabist/Salafists = like pouring cyanide into the melting pot. Letting them into the country is complete and utter lunacy.
Agreed. The 70's Lebanese and Iranians for the most part are kick ass entrepreneurs that embraced their new American life.
It is the Sharia believing assholes that don't belong here under any condition.
Anyone that supports importing hard core Muslims that believe in Sharia inescapably and undeniably support discriminating against LBGTQ's and women.
disagree. people are allowed to believe whatever they want in this country. as long as they aren't practicing sharia, i have no problem with them.
just like people are free to believe that gay marriage is wrong, or that abortion is wrong, etc. as long as you don't impose that belief on others, nobody should have an issue with it
Lib s grasping at any excuse to avoid discussing the topic (radical Islam), per par.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
