Western values and Islam are very, very compatible

[Eddie Teach]

What would you do with a dozen Muslims?

[Berkut]

But Trump wasn't speaking honestly about the problem.  Yes he said the magic words "radical Islamic terrorism" (and I agree it was a mistake of Obama to get himself into that semantic trap) but his solution was "ban all Muslims" because we "need to figure out what is going on".   He turned a real problem about radicalism in the Islamic world into a mostly fake problem about asylum policy. 

Of course, he is fucking moron.

But what he is good at is tapping into the fears of people, and the refusal by the left to acknowledge islamic radicalism and name it as such leaves an opening for a demagogue to be seen as the only person willing to actually recognize the problem.

[Razgovory]

I think Bush kept a lid on Muslim hate in his own party.  He took great pains to say we weren't waging war on Islam.  I hope Trump tries to do the same.

Why?

Because we don't want all of them hostile to us.  I thought that would have been obvious.

[The Brain]

Bush explicitly mentioned a crusade.

[Admiral Yi]

But Trump wasn't speaking honestly about the problem.  Yes he said the magic words "radical Islamic terrorism" (and I agree it was a mistake of Obama to get himself into that semantic trap) but his solution was "ban all Muslims" because we "need to figure out what is going on".   He turned a real problem about radicalism in the Islamic world into a mostly fake problem about asylum policy.

I don't know on what grounds you can accuse Trump of being dishonest on this issue.  Excessive, over the top, draconian, whatever, but dishonest?  Muslim immigration in general, and Syrian refugee immigration in particular, presents some level of risk.

[CountDeMoney]

What would you do with a dozen Muslims?

Sail to Europe in a gravy boat.

[viper37]

There is a difference between a beliefs system being used to justify behavior, and a belief system motivating that behavior.

But that's the core of the problem.
You and others says Islam motivates the violent behavior.  I believe it is used to justify said behavior.
Violence is part of any human societies.  Liberal, western societies have mostly confined it.  Other societies have channeled it toward a specific objective for their goals.  In some others, it is a result of widespread chaos.

I think when we are talking about jihadism, that is a downright dishonest position to take. It is always hard to determine what other people actually believe.

Djihadists certainly believe God wants them to act the way they do.  Just as Southerners believed God wanted them to rule over the black man.  And judging by the recent election and some post-electoral comments, that might still be true.

But it isn't impossible. And I think when it comes to radical Islam, we have pretty damn good evidence that people really do believe what they say - they are not "justifying" their actions, when those actions include their own physical destruction. I think we can very safely accept that a suicide bomber actually does believe he or she is going to wake up in heaven.

Of course they believe it.  Just like the Communists in the USSR believed in their cause.  Many are told so since their youngest age by their families, their surrounding.  That's why you call it indoctrination.

It doesn't mean it's because of the religion in itself.  A  religion is neutral, neither good nor evil.  They way you teach it though, it has a lot of meaning.  And we know for sure that Wahabism teaches that.  While Wahabism is part of Islam, Islam is not Whabism.  And their are other currents within islam too that also preach violence.  And other currents that preach peace and tolerance.  Just like Christianity.   My childhood friend was beaten by his mother to expel the demon from him.  She was and still is a good Christian Protestant.  She really believed she was doing good. She only stopped when he was old and strong enough to make it stop.

Is that Christianity?  Because that kind of behavior is certainly very present among many Christians.  It's one of the core principle of the Bible after all, the 4th commandment for Catholics, the 5th for Protestants.  Catholics were specifically told it meant obeying their parents commands, their teachers commands, their priests commands, bascially anyone in a position of authority.

Rather than accept that people actually make decisions based on their religious beliefs,

People are taught religion in a certain way and I found that way to vary a lot depending on cultural factor.
My parents learnt a lot about the 4th commandment.  We barely touched it.  Quebec underwent some cultural change in between.  Yet, the majority of the population was still Catholic when I went to school.  Same religion.  Different culture.

Each Easter, there are Christians crucifying themselves in the name of Christ.  It's not condoned at all by the Church, but they are good Catholics and they do it to get closer to God.  I never heard of such a rite in Quebec, despite the religious zeal of the population at one time.

This is dangerous, foolish, and intellectually vapid. It results in a lot of hand wringing and insistence on moral equivalence.

I make a difference between extremist religious beliefs and the normal practice of religion.  I make a huge difference between a secular government with religious people and a theocracy.

In a practical sense, it results in people like Donald Trump winning presidencies. When the only person speaking honestly about the problem are the people whose solutions are a fucking nightmare, you end up with those people in charge.

Then why are you lamenting his election?  He'll solve the problem, since Islam is the problem, according to you.  No muslims, no problem.  Or do you have doubt about your own position and that's why you don't like Trump's ideas?

Because he clearly views Christians as better than Muslims.

Obama and Clinton are so entangled in this world view that demands this moral equivalence between all possible belief systems that they won't even identify and label the problem, even while they are actually taking actions that clearly show that they DO in fact rationally understand that all religions are not the same, and act accordingly!

This is Obama's explanations on his stance:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/28/politics/obama-radical-islamic-terrorism-cnn-town-hall/
You call it cowardly, I call it just.
If my Prime Minister was saying that, I'd be satisfied he doesn't wear pink glasses.  To you that's not enought.  Your most hidden secret desire is to see Trump's plan in action, I guess, hoping it will work.

When Christian fundamentalists start driving cars into crowds in Germany,

Christian fundamentalists have all 3 levels of power in your government.  Christian fundamentalists in Europe have a say inside many political parties, either extreme right wing like le Front National or other more moderate religious parties that organize protests in front of churches targetted for demolition or transformation in condos.

They do not need violent tacticts.  Altough FN supporters have used some, they have all the power they need to effect change.  The moderate right wing parties are forced to listen to them to get a part of their electorate.

When a religious minority feels threatened, they often resort to violence.  Toward themselves, or toward others.
At 90%+ religious people in the US, there is no need to use force to convert people, the critical mass is there.

Germany should start having some discussion about what those beliefs systems mean, how they interact with modern society, what security threats that creates, and how to deal with them. They should not wring their hands and note how Buddhists have been known to be violent as well, so we really should not consider what the Christians actually believe, and just keep mouthing platitudes that assure us that we are sufficiently PC and tolerant at the expense of everything else.

Germany is a sovereign countries with fairly intelligent people, I'm sure the Germans are able to make their own decision process on this.

What I want from my government though, is the end of religion in government.  All religion.  No religious symbols of any kinds for people in a relation of authority to me.  Soldiers, police officers, judges, crown prosecutors, nothing to indicate their primary loyalty to something else than our government.  Only by taking steps to contain integrists do we prevent its rise.  Not by targeting innocent practionners, not by ignoring the truly dangerous individuals.

[Berkut]

Damn, you nailed me. I am a secret Trump supporter.

Great discussion.

[viper37]

Muslim immigration in general, and Syrian refugee immigration in particular, presents some level of risk.

Then the debate is simple.  How many victims (dead&injured) by mass shooting per year vs How many victms by a Muslim immigrant every year.  Let's take an average on 30 years, for US only. 
Which ever is higher should be tackled first.  Then if the problem persists, adress the second issue.

if the dead body count for Muslim immigrants in the US is higher than the death tool by guns, then certainly, it is honest to invoke a ban on muslim immigration for security reasons.

[viper37]

Damn, you nailed me. I am a secret Trump supporter.

Great discussion.

Ah, I see.  You are free to insult people, but they should always remain polite when adressing you.  Really sounds like a Trump supporter.

[CountDeMoney]

Euro/Québécois/atheistic hangups over religion is always hilarious.  The dialogue equivalent of strippers in clear heels.  All Daddy issues, all the time.

[Admiral Yi]

Then the debate is simple.  How many victims (dead&injured) by mass shooting per year vs How many victms by a Muslim immigrant every year.  Let's take an average on 30 years, for US only. 
Which ever is higher should be tackled first.  Then if the problem persists, adress the second issue.

if the dead body count for Muslim immigrants in the US is higher than the death tool by guns, then certainly, it is honest to invoke a ban on muslim immigration for security reasons.

Your solution is extremely simple if we ignore 1) the desire of American citizens to own guns 2) the Constitution, and 3) the fact that immigration is a privilege not a right.

[viper37]

But what he is good at is tapping into the fears of people,

and the refusal by the left to acknowledge islamic radicalism and name it as such leaves an opening for a demagogue to be seen as the only person willing to actually recognize the problem.

When people are allergic to facts, what is there to do?  Inflate the rethoric?  Is that what you really want?  What good does it serve?  I'd want a leader who acts, not a leader who talks.

Under Obama ISIS was contained and pushed back from Iraq, a mess created by Republicans.  Bin Laden was found and killed, something the Republicans were unable to do, they even called off the attack when they had him cornered in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Obama was too soft on many things, namely in his interactions with Republicans and Russians, always trying to seek a compromise rather than acting unilateraly.  Other than that, he was much better at handling the terrorist threat than the Republican government that preceded him.  He might have done better had he not wasted time solving the mess Bush left.

[viper37]

Your solution is extremely simple if we ignore 1) the desire of American citizens to own guns 2) the Constitution, and 3) the fact that immigration is a privilege not a right.

of course my solution is simple.  It's not a solution, it's a statement of facts.  An honest leader would point out there are dangers to everything, he would say that honestly, giving easy acces to guns is the problem, and then just about anybody can get a gun and commit a mass shooting.  He could remind the populace that there is, on average, one shooting per week in the US, and only 1 in 52 was done by a muslim immigrant.

That would be honest.

Otherwise, it's as honest as blaming Jewish bankers for financial crisis.

[Admiral Yi]

of course my solution is simple.  It's not a solution, it's a statement of facts.  An honest leader would point out there are dangers to everything, he would say that honestly, giving easy acces to guns is the problem, and then just about anybody can get a gun and commit a mass shooting.  He could remind the populace that there is, on average, one shooting per week in the US, and only 1 in 52 was done by a muslim immigrant.

That would be honest.

Otherwise, it's as honest as blaming Jewish bankers for financial crisis.

It's not a statement of fact.  It's an attempt to frame an issue in a way that favors your preferred policy.