Manhattan Buckeye wrote:

cbus4life wrote: It would go a long way to helping our cause if we weren't so far up Israels ass that we can't see straight.

I'm assuming this was a joke.

When did Israel threaten the U.S. in any manner?

Again, I'm assuming this was a joke.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:Yes, it is there radical form of Islam, but in terms of not pissing off more Muslims, we just need to drop it.

The costs outweigh the benefits.
Radicals, terrorists, evil doers, bastards, etc will work.

Also, they are not Muslims, which Holder was saying. Giving their teachings and interpretations credit by claiming they are Islamic is the wrong way to go at it.

Islam has been hijacked by these jackasses, but we shouldn't give them credibility by claiming they are Islamic. They are not, plain and simple.
So, I see nothing with this statement. I wish he would have stated it better though.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Islam has been hijacked by these jackasses, but we shouldn't give them credibility by claiming they are Islamic. They are not, plain and simple.
So, I see nothing with this statement. I wish he would have stated it better though.

majorspark wrote:

Manhattan Buckeye wrote:

cbus4life wrote: It would go a long way to helping our cause if we weren't so far up Israels ass that we can't see straight.

I'm assuming this was a joke.

When did Israel threaten the U.S. in any manner?

Again, I'm assuming this was a joke.

No joke. The Jews control this country. We need a final solution to our Jewish problem. The the muslim nations will be singing our praises.

QuakerOats wrote: When will the real leaders of Islam weigh in and condemn, continuously, the radical violence of their fellow members of the 'religion of peace' ............. the world is waiting.

believer wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:Yes, it is there radical form of Islam, but in terms of not pissing off more Muslims, we just need to drop it.

The costs outweigh the benefits.
Radicals, terrorists, evil doers, bastards, etc will work.

Also, they are not Muslims, which Holder was saying. Giving their teachings and interpretations credit by claiming they are Islamic is the wrong way to go at it.

Islam has been hijacked by these jackasses, but we shouldn't give them credibility by claiming they are Islamic. They are not, plain and simple.
So, I see nothing with this statement. I wish he would have stated it better though.

How can you say in one breath it's a radical form of Islam and then in another claim they're not Islamic?

It is what it is P-town. Ask the non-Islamic radical Muslim extremists if they believe they aren't Islamic. Ask the mullahs and Islamic clerics who preach such a radical and hate-filled interpretation of Islam if their followers aren't Islamic.

You and other like you need to pull off your convenient elitist secular blinders and try to understand the mindset that allows such fervent religiosity to exist. Like it or not it does exist.

We are not offending the Muslims by calling their violent factions bent on converting the world to Islam radical.

Secular Western political correctness has no meaning in that religious-based culture.

CenterBHSFan wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Islam has been hijacked by these jackasses, but we shouldn't give them credibility by claiming they are Islamic. They are not, plain and simple.
So, I see nothing with this statement. I wish he would have stated it better though.

Wow. That's the first time, I think, that I've seen you use a curse word! haha

cbus4life wrote:

majorspark wrote:

Manhattan Buckeye wrote:

cbus4life wrote: It would go a long way to helping our cause if we weren't so far up Israels ass that we can't see straight.

I'm assuming this was a joke.

When did Israel threaten the U.S. in any manner?

Again, I'm assuming this was a joke.

No joke. The Jews control this country. We need a final solution to our Jewish problem. The the muslim nations will be singing our praises.

Sorta a joke, and sorta not a joke.

Obviously, i don't believe what Major posted, as he was joking.

But, i think we all too often turn a blind eye to the ILLEGAL actions of the Israeli's against the Palestinians, and we are a little too one-sided in our blind support of the Israelis.

Of course, we need to support them in some regard, as the Palestinians are dangerous neighbors in many ways.

However, many times they take action against innocent Palestinians, the continuous building of illegal settlements, and essentially human rights abuses at times. And we don't speak out against these.

Only recently has Sec. State Clinton others began to take steps to a stronger stance against Israel in certain regards. They need to be held accountable in some ways if they want our continued support. We shouldn't just support blindly.

QuakerOats wrote: When will the real leaders of Islam weigh in and condemn, continuously, the radical violence of their fellow members of the 'religion of peace' ............. the world is waiting.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I've heard from many Muslims that they are either radical form or not Muslims, depending on their opinion. The U.S. should not be involved in the debate and for simplistic purposes just drop it. We can continue to use it in a classified setting to our operatives on the ground to help solve the problem and eliminate the threat. But, as a matter of public discourse, it is not needed in my view. We need to emphasize the terrorist and criminal part, not the religious aspect. These guys are criminals, not religious warriors. They do not deserve to be called religious individuals.

I know it exists, trust me, I've been to the region, studied religious history oh and studied Arabic. But, I just prefer not to get into a religious tit for tat, and instead focus on the criminal/ terrorist aspect of it like the Israelis do.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:But, as a matter of public discourse, it is not needed in my view. We need to emphasize the terrorist and criminal part, not the religious aspect. These guys are criminals, not religious warriors. They do not deserve to be called religious individuals.

I know it exists, trust me, I've been to the region, studied religious history oh and studied Arabic. But, I just prefer not to get into a religious tit for tat, and instead focus on the criminal/ terrorist aspect of it like the Israelis do.

cbus4life wrote: It would go a long way to helping our cause if we weren't so far up Israels ass that we can't see straight.

jhay78 wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: I just think you add an element of discrimination against Islam following people by doing so. The radicals don't believe in Islam, they believe some radical form that should not be called Islam anymore and has many variances from true Islam. There is nothing wrong with just calling them Radicals and leaving it at that. To us, America, what does it matter if they are Radical Islam or Radical Judiasm, all that matters is that they are radicals.

If Islam hadn't gained its introduction into the world through violence, and if they hadn't had over 1300 years of spreading their religion through violence, then I could agree that today's radicals aren't true Muslims.
Therein lies the debate- it seems radical Muslims are being more true to the Koran and Islamic teaching, while "peaceful" Muslims are not.

Either way, Eric Holder's performance was embarassing.

QuakerOats wrote: When will the real leaders of Islam weigh in and condemn, continuously, the radical violence of their fellow members of the 'religion of peace' ............. the world is waiting.

dwccrew wrote:

cbus4life wrote: It would go a long way to helping our cause if we weren't so far up Israels ass that we can't see straight.

Exactly. Israel is an enemy to some of these middle eastern nations and since we are an ally of Israel, we are perceived as an enemy as well. I have no problem in backing an ally up, but when Israel continues to be just as violent (if not, more violent) than their enemies, I have issue with supporting them. Especially when they spit in our face. They have no plans of peace, they want to wipe Palestine off the face of the Earth just as much as Palestine wants to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.

jhay78 wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: I just think you add an element of discrimination against Islam following people by doing so. The radicals don't believe in Islam, they believe some radical form that should not be called Islam anymore and has many variances from true Islam. There is nothing wrong with just calling them Radicals and leaving it at that. To us, America, what does it matter if they are Radical Islam or Radical Judiasm, all that matters is that they are radicals.

If Islam hadn't gained its introduction into the world through violence, and if they hadn't had over 1300 years of spreading their religion through violence, then I could agree that today's radicals aren't true Muslims.
Therein lies the debate- it seems radical Muslims are being more true to the Koran and Islamic teaching, while "peaceful" Muslims are not.

Either way, Eric Holder's performance was embarassing.

Yes, it is so much more different than how Christianity has been throughout history. The Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.

All religions have a bloody past.

bigmanbt wrote: ^^^ Yeah, you people out there who claim the radicals are following the Koran stricter than others are the true Muslims, have ya read the Old Testament? God is described as being..."arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" in the Old Testament. So are people who kill in the name of Christianity (like the people who stoned to death a man because he was gathering sticks on the Sabbath day, more than likely to cook some food for his family) the true followers of Christianity?

You guys won't like it when this argument is turned against Christians, so maybe you should think about how it feels to a Muslim to have Islam turned against them.

cbus4life wrote: Islam and Christianity's "bloody past" is pretty much a wash, IMO.

jhay78 wrote:

dwccrew wrote:

cbus4life wrote: It would go a long way to helping our cause if we weren't so far up Israels ass that we can't see straight.

Exactly. Israel is an enemy to some of these middle eastern nations and since we are an ally of Israel, we are perceived as an enemy as well. I have no problem in backing an ally up, but when Israel continues to be just as violent (if not, more violent) than their enemies, I have issue with supporting them. Especially when they spit in our face. They have no plans of peace, they want to wipe Palestine off the face of the Earth just as much as Palestine wants to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.

jhay78 wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: I just think you add an element of discrimination against Islam following people by doing so. The radicals don't believe in Islam, they believe some radical form that should not be called Islam anymore and has many variances from true Islam. There is nothing wrong with just calling them Radicals and leaving it at that. To us, America, what does it matter if they are Radical Islam or Radical Judiasm, all that matters is that they are radicals.

If Islam hadn't gained its introduction into the world through violence, and if they hadn't had over 1300 years of spreading their religion through violence, then I could agree that today's radicals aren't true Muslims.
Therein lies the debate- it seems radical Muslims are being more true to the Koran and Islamic teaching, while "peaceful" Muslims are not.

Either way, Eric Holder's performance was embarassing.

Yes, it is so much more different than how Christianity has been throughout history. The Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.

All religions have a bloody past.

Not defending the Crusades or Inquisition or anything like that, but you cannot even begin to compare Islam's bloody past (and present) with Christianity. Name the last Christian leader to call for violence against someone.
So should Eric Holder and the Justice Dept/ Homeland Securtity be watching for Christians equally as much as radical Islamic groups?

jhay78 wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: ^^^ Yeah, you people out there who claim the radicals are following the Koran stricter than others are the true Muslims, have ya read the Old Testament? God is described as being..."arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" in the Old Testament. So are people who kill in the name of Christianity (like the people who stoned to death a man because he was gathering sticks on the Sabbath day, more than likely to cook some food for his family) the true followers of Christianity?

You guys won't like it when this argument is turned against Christians, so maybe you should think about how it feels to a Muslim to have Islam turned against them.

People who kill in the name of Christianity are violating:

A) the clear teaching of Jesus in the Gospels
B) the clear teaching of the apostles in the NT
C) one of the Ten Commandments (you know, in the OT?)

The clear teaching of Christianity is not found in a tiny corner of one verse in Leviticus or Deuteronomy (a verse, btw, which Jesus clarified in the NT).

cbus4life wrote: Islam and Christianity's "bloody past" is pretty much a wash, IMO.

dwccrew wrote:

jhay78 wrote:

dwccrew wrote:

cbus4life wrote: It would go a long way to helping our cause if we weren't so far up Israels ass that we can't see straight.

Exactly. Israel is an enemy to some of these middle eastern nations and since we are an ally of Israel, we are perceived as an enemy as well. I have no problem in backing an ally up, but when Israel continues to be just as violent (if not, more violent) than their enemies, I have issue with supporting them. Especially when they spit in our face. They have no plans of peace, they want to wipe Palestine off the face of the Earth just as much as Palestine wants to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.

jhay78 wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: I just think you add an element of discrimination against Islam following people by doing so. The radicals don't believe in Islam, they believe some radical form that should not be called Islam anymore and has many variances from true Islam. There is nothing wrong with just calling them Radicals and leaving it at that. To us, America, what does it matter if they are Radical Islam or Radical Judiasm, all that matters is that they are radicals.

If Islam hadn't gained its introduction into the world through violence, and if they hadn't had over 1300 years of spreading their religion through violence, then I could agree that today's radicals aren't true Muslims.
Therein lies the debate- it seems radical Muslims are being more true to the Koran and Islamic teaching, while "peaceful" Muslims are not.

Either way, Eric Holder's performance was embarassing.

Yes, it is so much more different than how Christianity has been throughout history. The Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.

All religions have a bloody past.

Not defending the Crusades or Inquisition or anything like that, but you cannot even begin to compare Islam's bloody past (and present) with Christianity. Name the last Christian leader to call for violence against someone.
So should Eric Holder and the Justice Dept/ Homeland Securtity be watching for Christians equally as much as radical Islamic groups?

Both have a very bloody past and one is notmore blody than the other. Because the media focuses on a small, but radical, faction of Islam, people automatically assume Islam is a violent faith.

In the middle east (and many Islamic nations) how do you think it looks to them when the US (a predominantly Christian nation) stations troops and props up governments in other countries? We look to them as they do to us.

jhay78 wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: ^^^ Yeah, you people out there who claim the radicals are following the Koran stricter than others are the true Muslims, have ya read the Old Testament? God is described as being..."arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" in the Old Testament. So are people who kill in the name of Christianity (like the people who stoned to death a man because he was gathering sticks on the Sabbath day, more than likely to cook some food for his family) the true followers of Christianity?

You guys won't like it when this argument is turned against Christians, so maybe you should think about how it feels to a Muslim to have Islam turned against them.

People who kill in the name of Christianity are violating:

A) the clear teaching of Jesus in the Gospels
B) the clear teaching of the apostles in the NT
C) one of the Ten Commandments (you know, in the OT?)

The clear teaching of Christianity is not found in a tiny corner of one verse in Leviticus or Deuteronomy (a verse, btw, which Jesus clarified in the NT).

You know that the same logic could be applied to Islam. That the teachings do not reflect those of Mohammed. It is widely known (to those that have studied various world religions) that Mohammed often prayed with Christians and invited them to worship with him peacefully.

jhay78 wrote:

cbus4life wrote: Islam and Christianity's "bloody past" is pretty much a wash, IMO.

Your opinion and historical facts are at odds with one another.

dwccrew wrote:

jhay78 wrote:

dwccrew wrote:

cbus4life wrote: It would go a long way to helping our cause if we weren't so far up Israels ass that we can't see straight.

Exactly. Israel is an enemy to some of these middle eastern nations and since we are an ally of Israel, we are perceived as an enemy as well. I have no problem in backing an ally up, but when Israel continues to be just as violent (if not, more violent) than their enemies, I have issue with supporting them. Especially when they spit in our face. They have no plans of peace, they want to wipe Palestine off the face of the Earth just as much as Palestine wants to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.

jhay78 wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: I just think you add an element of discrimination against Islam following people by doing so. The radicals don't believe in Islam, they believe some radical form that should not be called Islam anymore and has many variances from true Islam. There is nothing wrong with just calling them Radicals and leaving it at that. To us, America, what does it matter if they are Radical Islam or Radical Judiasm, all that matters is that they are radicals.

If Islam hadn't gained its introduction into the world through violence, and if they hadn't had over 1300 years of spreading their religion through violence, then I could agree that today's radicals aren't true Muslims.
Therein lies the debate- it seems radical Muslims are being more true to the Koran and Islamic teaching, while "peaceful" Muslims are not.

Either way, Eric Holder's performance was embarassing.

Yes, it is so much more different than how Christianity has been throughout history. The Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.

All religions have a bloody past.

Not defending the Crusades or Inquisition or anything like that, but you cannot even begin to compare Islam's bloody past (and present) with Christianity. Name the last Christian leader to call for violence against someone.
So should Eric Holder and the Justice Dept/ Homeland Securtity be watching for Christians equally as much as radical Islamic groups?

Both have a very bloody past and one is notmore blody than the other. Because the media focuses on a small, but radical, faction of Islam, people automatically assume Islam is a violent faith.

In the middle east (and many Islamic nations) how do you think it looks to them when the US (a predominantly Christian nation) stations troops and props up governments in other countries? We look to them as they do to us.

jhay78 wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: ^^^ Yeah, you people out there who claim the radicals are following the Koran stricter than others are the true Muslims, have ya read the Old Testament? God is described as being..."arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" in the Old Testament. So are people who kill in the name of Christianity (like the people who stoned to death a man because he was gathering sticks on the Sabbath day, more than likely to cook some food for his family) the true followers of Christianity?

You guys won't like it when this argument is turned against Christians, so maybe you should think about how it feels to a Muslim to have Islam turned against them.

People who kill in the name of Christianity are violating:

A) the clear teaching of Jesus in the Gospels
B) the clear teaching of the apostles in the NT
C) one of the Ten Commandments (you know, in the OT?)

The clear teaching of Christianity is not found in a tiny corner of one verse in Leviticus or Deuteronomy (a verse, btw, which Jesus clarified in the NT).

You know that the same logic could be applied to Islam. That the teachings do not reflect those of Mohammed. It is widely known (to those that have studied various world religions) that Mohammed often prayed with Christians and invited them to worship with him peacefully.

And when they (and Jews in the Arabian peninsula) refused to convert, he and his army proceeded to slaughter them.

A good read contrasting Islam & Christianity:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2702

Again, not all Muslims (probably even a large majority of them) are not violent and disapprove of terror and violence. But are they being true to the Koran and the teachings of Mohammed?

jhay78 wrote:
And when they (and Jews in the Arabian peninsula) refused to convert, he and his army proceeded to slaughter them.

A good read contrasting Islam & Christianity:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2702

Again, not all Muslims (probably even a large majority of them) are not violent and disapprove of terror and violence. But are they being true to the Koran and the teachings of Mohammed?

dwccrew wrote:I know many muslims outside of my family and they are all the same way. Very peaceful and condemn the radicals that are trying to hijack the religion.

The president’s strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind and, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself of one’s community.
And there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children. Indeed, characterizing our adversaries this way would actually be counterproductive. It would play into the false perception that they are religious leaders
defending a holy cause when in fact, they are nothing more than murderers, including the murder of thousands upon thousands of Muslims.
This is why Muslim leaders around the world have spoken out forcefully and often at great risk to their own lives to reject al-Qaida and violent extremism. And frankly, their condemnations often do not get the recognition they deserve, including from the media.Moreover, describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by al-Qaida and its affiliates to justify terrorism, that the United States is somehow at war against Islam. The reality, of course, is that we have never been and will never be at war with Islam. After all, Islam, like so many faiths, is part of America.
Instead, the president’s strategy is clear and precise. Our enemy is al-Qaida and its terrorist affiliates. For it was al-Qaida who attacked us so viciously on 9/11 and whose desire to attack the United States, our allies and our partners remains undiminished. And it is its affiliates who have take up al-Qaida’s call to arms against the United States and other parts of the world.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I think John Brennan, president’s principal advisor on homeland security and counterterrorism, said in a speech at CSIS yesterday about the new National Security Strategy what I think is the right answer:

The president’s strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind and, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself of one’s community.
And there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children. Indeed, characterizing our adversaries this way would actually be counterproductive. It would play into the false perception that they are religious leaders
defending a holy cause when in fact, they are nothing more than murderers, including the murder of thousands upon thousands of Muslims.
This is why Muslim leaders around the world have spoken out forcefully and often at great risk to their own lives to reject al-Qaida and violent extremism. And frankly, their condemnations often do not get the recognition they deserve, including from the media.Moreover, describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by al-Qaida and its affiliates to justify terrorism, that the United States is somehow at war against Islam. The reality, of course, is that we have never been and will never be at war with Islam. After all, Islam, like so many faiths, is part of America.
Instead, the president’s strategy is clear and precise. Our enemy is al-Qaida and its terrorist affiliates. For it was al-Qaida who attacked us so viciously on 9/11 and whose desire to attack the United States, our allies and our partners remains undiminished. And it is its affiliates who have take up al-Qaida’s call to arms against the United States and other parts of the world.

pp.3-4.
http://csis.org/files/attachments/100526_csis-brennan.pdf

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I think John Brennan, president’s principal advisor on homeland security and counterterrorism, said in a speech at CSIS yesterday about the new National Security Strategy what I think is the right answer:

The president’s strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind and, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself of one’s community.
And there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children. Indeed, characterizing our adversaries this way would actually be counterproductive. It would play into the false perception that they are religious leaders
defending a holy cause when in fact, they are nothing more than murderers, including the murder of thousands upon thousands of Muslims.
This is why Muslim leaders around the world have spoken out forcefully and often at great risk to their own lives to reject al-Qaida and violent extremism. And frankly, their condemnations often do not get the recognition they deserve, including from the media.Moreover, describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by al-Qaida and its affiliates to justify terrorism, that the United States is somehow at war against Islam. The reality, of course, is that we have never been and will never be at war with Islam. After all, Islam, like so many faiths, is part of America.
Instead, the president’s strategy is clear and precise. Our enemy is al-Qaida and its terrorist affiliates. For it was al-Qaida who attacked us so viciously on 9/11 and whose desire to attack the United States, our allies and our partners remains undiminished. And it is its affiliates who have take up al-Qaida’s call to arms against the United States and other parts of the world.

pp.3-4.
http://csis.org/files/attachments/100526_csis-brennan.pdf