Every Muslim is a terrorist, period!!!!!

[mikeymikec]

Nice try at muddying the issue.

The issue is already impossibly muddy. Only an idiot would try to simplify the collective and diverse beliefs of ~1.5 billion people.

There are some things that MOST Christians believe MOST of the time because it's central to the faith.

Hold on, I thought you implied that this isn't a complicated issue. Only "most" Christians, "most" of the time? Come on, it must be much simpler than that, surely?

Islam has some of these 'most' issues as well but you (and SO many others) are saying that no one, NO ONE, is allowed to question them in any way because;
1) if even one is not like the significant group, it means they're not ALL like that, thus the actions of that significant group can be dismissed completely.

So, what do you define as a significant enough number of people when talking about the beliefs that "most Muslims believe most of the time"? PS, ~1.5 billion total.

and,
2) to say anything that makes people at all uncomfortable (unless it's a protected leftist issue that only discomforts low-ranked people on the progressive stack) is to be considered: [pick one:] [racist] [sexist] [bigoted] [hatemongering] [worse than ISIS]

So when have I said that you're not allowed to talk about things that make me feel uncomfortable?

 

[buckshot24]

I agree, it seems the terrorist have already won!!! Instead of directly targeting us, they will cause us to target ourselves....

I believe a GOP candidate will accelerate this, based on the simple nature of how conservatives act.

When was the last time an internment of US citizens happened? Who was president?

 

[bshole]

No, his fear isn't well founded. After all the anti-refugee rhetoric, there was an outpouring of support for the refugees in many areas by people sick and tired of the fear-mongering. And, shot in the dark here without actually looking it up, but I think the majority of Muslims in the U.S. are actually citizens. You don't get to deport citizens. And after WWII's Japanese camps, I really believe our country wouldn't be dumb enough to do that again. I'm willing to bet a large sum of money that Trump will not be elected President. The Republican Candidate will likely be Rubio, Cruz, or Bush. The Democratic candidate will be Hilary. In all likelihood, Clinton will win. Possible chance: Trump runs as a 3rd party. That would guarantee a Clinton win.

I disagree, if America was being attacked on a WEEKLY basis or monstrous scale by native Muslim terrorists, it would represent an existential threat. America dropped nukes and quarantined whole swathes of the population the last time it faced an existential crisis. Don't kid yourself. In the face of several hundred thousand or more dead American citizens and destruction of American cities, the American response would be extremely catastophic and blatantly anti-Muslim.

With regards to Islam and the West, the ONLY reason the West has kept the gloves on is because the Islamists have not killed enough Westerners. When and if the terrorists finally are able to detonate nuclear devices in Western capitols, THEN the gloves will finally come off and I can assure you that the West will go completely medeival in their response.

 

[mikeymikec]

You willing to direct that 'fucktards' comment towards the muslim clerics shown in those videos? Hmm? They qualify, according to your statement, but it would put you in dangerous territory wouldn't it?

If a person advocates killing innocent people because of their belief in the imaginary, I would consider them to be a fucktard.

I'm not sure how this puts me in "dangerous territory".

 

[Bart*Simpson]

That's because only a fucktard would put any stock in it (at least in the context of assuming that this is how Muslims generally think).

It's emblematic of how a significant enough number of them think that they're in charge of Iran, most of Syria, much of Iraq, and significant portions of Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algiers, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Ghana, Central African Republic, Somalia, Yemen, Lebanon, and a growing number of cities and neighborhoods in Europe.

And only a fucktard would deny it.

 

[realibrad]

I assume you mean "followers of other religions", lots of them obviously do already. As usual, people cherry-pick their beliefs. However, there are and forever will be fucktards and everyone needs to believe in something.

I say Christianity because it was once very violent and has some horrific things in its texts. Christians pretty must just ignore those parts now. Many other religious followers also do not fully adhere but many times they do not have the violent history and or numbers. Islam is a large monotheistic religion that has violent texts. Christianity is a large monotheistic religion that has violent texts. The difference is that one has calmed way the fuck down. Both should be left behind, but, one is better in terms of violence in the name of the religion right now.

But, I think the wider implication you are trying to say is that all of those religions are equal, and that the people just cherry pick. Not all religions are equal. Some frame society in a way that creates more problems then others.

Stick with Christianity. The Bible was often used to defend and criticize slavery. People, depending on the side they were on could pick and choose the verses they wanted to defend or demean the institution. Had religion not been in the US, slavery would have likely died much much sooner.

So, what would have happened if the religion in question was far more explicit about the violence it condoned and also said that the words in it were perfect and that nobody should ever question it? If the religion took a stance and said having slaves was good, then arguing about how slavery was bad would be questioning the prophet and or God. Christians have the ability to call the understanding of the Bible into question where as doing so in Islam right now can be taken as an act of apostasy which explicitly in Islam calls for death.

 

[mikeymikec]

So, what would have happened if the religion in question was far more explicit about the violence it condoned and also said that the words in it were perfect and that nobody should ever question it? If the religion took a stance and said having slaves was good, then arguing about how slavery was bad would be questioning the prophet and or God. Christians have the ability to call the understanding of the Bible into question where as doing so in Islam right now can be taken as an act of apostasy which explicitly in Islam calls for death.

Is Islam that much more explicit about the violence it condones? I've seen some "can't really get any more explicit" passages from the Bible on this point.

"Can be taken as an act of apostasy" is rather a vague point though, isn't it?

For example, if I were (in person) wanting to present an argument as to why Christianity is wrong on point X, I'd pick my (Christian) audience carefully; there are some very weird Christians around (and frankly I am sure there are some extremist Christians who'd go as far as any extremist Muslim, and while I'd grant that there are likely more extremist Muslims in the world than extremist Christians right now, that's beside the point). I would also want to pick someone who is likely to be receptive to my point/question; there's not a lot of point in asking someone whom you think will say "GTFO!" (or something similar). A sensible Christian would likely go through the same logic inside their own particular religion, as would a respective Muslim to their own. If it was generally accepted practice in Islam to go murdering anyone who questions "the official line", there would be little room for interpretation and ISIS frankly would be non-existent, furthermore there would be no students of that religion, because you can't truly understand something without asking some questions, and sometimes those questions are going to be real fundamental ones in how a key passage is interpreted and why. In reality however the problem is that there are many interpretations of particular passages even amongst moderates of that religion, you wouldn't have several divisions of Christianity and Islam if there weren't such interpretations.

 

[realibrad]

Is Islam that much more explicit about the violence it condones? I've seen some "can't really get any more explicit" passages from the Bible on this point.

"Can be taken as an act of apostasy" is rather a vague point though, isn't it?

For example, if I were (in person) wanting to present an argument as to why Christianity is wrong on point X, I'd pick my (Christian) audience carefully; there are some very weird Christians around (and frankly I am sure there are some extremist Christians who'd go as far as any extremist Muslim, and while I'd grant that there are likely more extremist Muslims in the world than extremist Christians right now, that's beside the point).

How is that beside the point? That is the point. The Quran gets a lot of its shitty parts from the fact that they get information from things like the Laws of Moses which come from Jewish texts. Much in the same way Christianity gets its shitty parts. As I said before, Jews and Christians for the most part ignore that crap now. As you seem to admit, there are more Muslim extremists right now. In my opinion, that has to do with the mixture of their religion/culture. Those things are too interconnected to be considered different things to me. In the west, Religion is split in big ways from culture. In the Islamic world, they are far more connected. Don't feel the need to take my word on that either. As the Muslims here on this forum if Islam and the culture are not one in the same. Many Christians try to make the claim that religion is woven into our culture and that the 10 command are the bases for our legal system, but its a stretch when compared to the Islamic world.

I would also want to pick someone who is likely to be receptive to my point/question; there's not a lot of point in asking someone whom you think will say "GTFO!" (or something similar). A sensible Christian would likely go through the same logic inside their own particular religion, as would a respective Muslim to their own. If it was generally accepted practice in Islam to go murdering anyone who questions "the official line", there would be little room for interpretation and ISIS frankly would be non-existent, furthermore there would be no students of that religion, because you can't truly understand something without asking some questions, and sometimes those questions are going to be real fundamental ones in how a key passage is interpreted and why. In reality however the problem is that there are many interpretations of particular passages even amongst moderates of that religion, you wouldn't have several divisions of Christianity and Islam if there weren't such interpretations.

The problem is that the Quran, just like the Bible says both good and bad. Depending on how you want to cherry pick, you can make either seem nice or evil. All of that said, we seem to agree that right now there are more Muslims doing terrorist attacks as a % of their population. I believe that we could reduce the violence if we allowed ourselves to criticize the shitty parts of the religion like we do in every other subject.

 

[mikeymikec]

How is that beside the point? That is the point.

What point, beyond stating the bleeding obvious?

The problem is that the Quran, just like the Bible says both good and bad. Depending on how you want to cherry pick, you can make either seem nice or evil. All of that said, we seem to agree that right now there are more Muslims doing terrorist attacks as a % of their population. I believe that we could reduce the violence if we allowed ourselves to criticize the shitty parts of the religion like we do in every other subject.

But what's the point in that? A bunch of Christians, semi-Christians, atheists and whatever else are not going to bring about changes in how Islam is represented in the world. I'm not even sure what problems there are that desperately require addressing, and some aren't inherently to do with Islam at all, just that there's some crossover between cultures and religion.

If ISIS disappeared right now without any consequences, how different would this discussion be? If the West would stop fucking with Islamic nations for its own selfish ends, would the changes we desire eventually come from within? Is it a necessity that Islamic nations replicate Western values as much as possible, or is a modicum of compatibility across cultures all that is needed?

One thing I am quite certain about however, is because many here and everywhere else want to lay the blame of extremism with Muslims in general, it breeds extremism on both sides. The more people that believe that "they're all the same", the more they'll believe that there are few choices in how to correct the problem.

 

[realibrad]

What point, beyond stating the bleeding obvious?

But what's the point in that? A bunch of Christians, semi-Christians, atheists and whatever else are not going to bring about changes in how Islam is represented in the world. I'm not even sure what problems there are that desperately require addressing, and some aren't inherently to do with Islam at all, just that there's some crossover between cultures and religion.

Maajid Nawaz disagrees with you. I would say that the believers are the ones who need to reform, as the believer is the one doing the actions based on his religion. The Christians reformed and the Muslims can to. What we can do as outsiders is to make sure we actually talk about things. Right now, religion is put into a category that you cannot say something is morally wrong because many seem to believe morality is subjective always, and that simply is not true.

If ISIS disappeared right now without any consequences, how different would this discussion be? If the West would stop fucking with Islamic nations for its own selfish ends, would the changes we desire eventually come from within? Is it a necessity that Islamic nations replicate Western values as much as possible, or is a modicum of compatibility across cultures all that is needed?

No doubt the west needs to get out of the middle east for the most part. To be fair though, the Middle east was a cluster fuck before and will be after. So depending on what you mean by getting out, little will change. SA would love to destroy Iran.

What do you mean by western values? I dont want to load that question, so ill leave it at that.

One thing I am quite certain about however, is because many here and everywhere else want to lay the blame of extremism with Muslims in general, it breeds extremism on both sides. The more people that believe that "they're all the same", the more they'll believe that there are few choices in how to correct the problem.

Oh come now. Lets make sure that we keep the blame mainly on the people who become terrorists. If you really think that racism/bigotry in the west drives someone to put on a bomb to blow up the wrong type of Muslims you are insane. Far more Muslim terrorists kill other Muslims who they deem to be the wrong type then they do attacking the west. Those terrorists have no love for the west, but they sure do hate others too.

 

[steppinthrax]

When a bunch of low life Rednecks protest outside a Mosque brandishing AR 15s, you know that Muslims in the US are in more danger than the rest of the population.

Crap link

Correct!!!!

 

[steppinthrax]

How are incensed ignorant people responding to a community discussion about a mosque "representative of the entire group" of America's general population? He thought about canceling it because he knew that the recent attacks were going to send haters to his discussion. The room would have been nearly empty otherwise as they typically draw only a few for these boring community planning discussions.

Judging all American based on those who disrupt a Mosque discussion after a major terrorist attack is like judging all Muslims based on those who committed a major terrorist attack.

They're misguided and emotional, just like you, OP.

LOL,

This is one of many examples of intolerant people voicing their opinions (in various ways) about Muslims. In the past, there had been a few and far infrequent. Now it seems like it's everyday.

Issue I see...

God forbid (or whatever you believe), another 9/11 scale attack occurs within the US again. I can see people "losing their shit" and going complete anti-muslim, anti-arab, anti-brown etc.... Almost as a last ditch effort to quell the fear.

 

[steppinthrax]

When was the last time an internment of US citizens happened? Who was president?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066

 

[mikeymikec]

No doubt the west needs to get out of the middle east for the most part. To be fair though, the Middle east was a cluster fuck before and will be after. So depending on what you mean by getting out, little will change.

I don't believe that the Middle East will automatically improve as a result of the West screwing around with it less, I just meant that there'll be less excuse for extremists to point fingers at other people to blame for the problems they perceive. Of course, the consequences of past actions will take some time to stop being felt.

What do you mean by western values? I dont want to load that question, so ill leave it at that.

An obvious example was GWB "wanting to bring democracy to Iraq", which had little to do with the price of fish. Some prat will likely think that we/they ought to get of Sharia law immediately to peacefully co-exist with Western culture, which I think Islamic nations are extremely unlikely to want to give up on at any point soon, it seems pretty much the centrepiece to a society that has integrated religion and state (which I think is a bad idea, but if they tried to do away with it very abruptly, they would have a religious civil war on their hands, I'm sure of that). However, a compromise may be needed in order to achieve better acceptance of other religious beliefs. This isn't a topic that I'm well read up on btw, just the impression I get from news articles I read.

Oh come now. Lets make sure that we keep the blame mainly on the people who become terrorists. If you really think that racism/bigotry in the west drives someone to put on a bomb to blow up the wrong type of Muslims you are insane. Far more Muslim terrorists kill other Muslims who they deem to be the wrong type then they do attacking the west. Those terrorists have no love for the west, but they sure do hate others too.

How do you suppose people become radicalised, by only talking and listening to themselves?

The rate of attacks on Muslim people have apparently gone way up lately. I read a statistic that since the Paris attack, those kind of attacks have gone up by 300%. Another story I read was how a guy in London tried to destroy a mosque and the reason why he failed was that it was raining. The more people there are that sympathise with actions like that (or even simply appear to), the more people who will see people sympathising with actions like that. Some from each side of sympathizers will go on to engage in extremist behaviour. I'm surprised you're arguing this point. "Muslims attacking Muslims" seems to be completely beside the point I was making.

If you're a Muslim and you're regularly encountering varying levels of hostility (anything from looks of distrust / worriedness due to your presence, or a story I heard about an American student who didn't want to sit near a Muslim student because of the Paris attacks and the teacher letting it go without comment, or another story I heard about a foreign-looking taxi driver in NYC who wasn't getting any fares shortly after the Paris attacks, customers would look at him and move on to find another cab), are you telling me that you wouldn't start resenting it, after a while you'd start anticipating it, and shortly after you'd start thinking "they're all the same", because that's what they obviously think about "your sort"?

 

[Meghan54]

Yes. Oh and the FBI, but I think we all agree here that it was mainly me.

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum

2002-2005 Muslims accounted for 6% of the documented terrorist acts in the US.

The Muslim population accounts for less than 1% of the US population. Its a very small group. So, literally everything I said is true and can be verified.

Any other questions?

Actually, the figure should be 4%. 25 acts of terrorism committed according to your linked list during that time period you mentioned......and ONE documented act done by a "Muslim extremist". That gives you 4%.

ONE out of 25. Sure, it sounds better to say 4% or 6% or whatever, but when you portray it as one out of twenty-five acts of terrorism from 2002-2005, which is also factual, it sure loses its dramatic punch, doesn't it?

And to be truly factual, there were multiple acts of terrorism committed by the same group over a few days/weeks/months which were compressed into one "act" in that list. As an example, on the Harborcreek, PA incident, it actually was inclusive of several acts across two days, 5/11-12/02. But since one group committed the acts in one general area, Harborcreek, PA, it was counted as a single terrorist act. Or during this listed period, 8/02-10/02, in Henrico and Goochland Counties, VA, multiple acts were committed by the same group across two counties over two months, yet a single entry. So, the percentage is probably even lower than 4% once you tease out the terror acts.


Of course, I do believe that linked list of yours does demonstrate what others have mentioned; homegrown terrorists are much more of a threat to the U.S. than any Muslim extremists in the Middle East.

 

[realibrad]

Actually, the figure should be 4%. 25 acts of terrorism committed according to your linked list during that time period you mentioned......and ONE documented act done by a "Muslim extremist". That gives you 4%.

ONE out of 25. Sure, it sounds better to say 4% or 6% or whatever, but when you portray it as one out of twenty-five acts of terrorism from 2002-2005, which is also factual, it sure loses its dramatic punch, doesn't it?

And to be truly factual, there were multiple acts of terrorism committed by the same group over a few days/weeks/months which were compressed into one "act" in that list. As an example, on the Harborcreek, PA incident, it actually was inclusive of several acts across two days, 5/11-12/02. But since one group committed the acts in one general area, Harborcreek, PA, it was counted as a single terrorist act. Or during this listed period, 8/02-10/02, in Henrico and Goochland Counties, VA, multiple acts were committed by the same group across two counties over two months, yet a single entry. So, the percentage is probably even lower than 4% once you tease out the terror acts.


Of course, I do believe that linked list of yours does demonstrate what others have mentioned; homegrown terrorists are much more of a threat to the U.S. than any Muslim extremists in the Middle East.

Sorry, the link I gave was only for 2002-2005. The 6% comes from 1980-2005. The articles that I got my information from all say 1980-2005, but they now all link to the same link I gave. It may have gotten updated.

I want to also point out that you are splitting homegrown terrorists and Muslim extremists as if Muslims born and raised in the US cannot be extremists. Maybe you just misspoke.

Also, I said that Muslims as a group of the US represent a disproportionate amount of terrorism. That is true by not only the acts that actually happened, but also the attempts. I never said or implied they were a bigger threat to society than say swimming pools that kill far far more people. You seem to be attacking something I did not say.

 

[realibrad]

I don't believe that the Middle East will automatically improve as a result of the West screwing around with it less, I just meant that there'll be less excuse for extremists to point fingers at other people to blame for the problems they perceive. Of course, the consequences of past actions will take some time to stop being felt.

Agreed.

An obvious example was GWB "wanting to bring democracy to Iraq", which had little to do with the price of fish. Some prat will likely think that we/they ought to get of Sharia law immediately to peacefully co-exist with Western culture, which I think Islamic nations are extremely unlikely to want to give up on at any point soon, it seems pretty much the centrepiece to a society that has integrated religion and state (which I think is a bad idea, but if they tried to do away with it very abruptly, they would have a religious civil war on their hands, I'm sure of that). However, a compromise may be needed in order to achieve better acceptance of other religious beliefs. This isn't a topic that I'm well read up on btw, just the impression I get from news articles I read.

Is this not one of the problems though? They have such a strong link with their religion and their entire culture that to try and change any part on any side, you inherently run into people feeling you are attacking their religion. GWB was an idiot if he thought he could invade Iraq and "free" the people. Iraq was lead by an asshole who kept other assholes in check. Saddam was a POS for sure, but what we did there made matters worse. But, the goal should still be democracy. The hurdle will be splitting the religion from the rest of society. Even here in the US we have the slow creep of religion coming back into our government.

How do you suppose people become radicalised, by only talking and listening to themselves?

No, by talking to other extreme believers. My point is that radicals rarely attack western targets. They are far more happy to kill the other Muslims who do not believe 100% in their ideology. The reason extremists target other Muslims more often has little to nothing to do with the west.

The rate of attacks on Muslim people have apparently gone way up lately. I read a statistic that since the Paris attack, those kind of attacks have gone up by 300%. Another story I read was how a guy in London tried to destroy a mosque and the reason why he failed was that it was raining. The more people there are that sympathise with actions like that (or even simply appear to), the more people who will see people sympathising with actions like that. Some from each side of sympathizers will go on to engage in extremist behaviour. I'm surprised you're arguing this point. "Muslims attacking Muslims" seems to be completely beside the point I was making.

This is a symptom of the problem of their culture right now. In the west, when a Christian nut does some dumb shit, people pull away. When a Muslim nut does some dumb shit, others copy it. Sure, other crimes you get copy cats, like mass shootings in the US, but in terms of religious shit, its not equal. My point is that Muslims right now are not all that moderate when compared to other large religions, and I wish they were.

If you're a Muslim and you're regularly encountering varying levels of hostility (anything from looks of distrust / worriedness due to your presence, or a story I heard about an American student who didn't want to sit near a Muslim student because of the Paris attacks and the teacher letting it go without comment, or another story I heard about a foreign-looking taxi driver in NYC who wasn't getting any fares shortly after the Paris attacks, customers would look at him and move on to find another cab), are you telling me that you wouldn't start resenting it, after a while you'd start anticipating it, and shortly after you'd start thinking "they're all the same", because that's what they obviously think about "your sort"?

Oh no doubt it would make me unhappy. I also would not get pissed at those people and go and blow up a most of other Muslims either. Bigotry is stupid unless you have an argument against an idea, but then its not bigotry anymore right?

 

[BurnItDwn]

I'm glad you found some people who were decent. Most American Muslims are. But Muslims themselves say "please don't lump all Muslims into one basket." There's a spectrum of beliefs and practices. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

Your term Islamophobia is a loaded term. People can be against Islam for many different reasons. E.g., please consider how logically screwed up it is for people to claim to be for women's rights, gay rights, freedom of religion, etc., and yet support Islam which as it is practiced by most Muslims (American Muslims are nonrepresentative and make up only 0.002% of Muslims worldwide) is heavily discriminatory. Many Muslims polled by Pew are in favor of the death penalty for apostasy (atheism or converting away from Islam), for example.

Most of the Muslims I know are in America on a work visa or are immigrants. They are from India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh. These are of course educated professionals. They more or less just want to make a good life for their family.

 

[buckshot24]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066

Exactly.

 

[werepossum]

Let me point something out to you that is very funny to me.

American says all Muslims are terrorists, country is full of bigots and you want to leave. You now believe that because you hear about this type of thing often, it shows it represents a widespread problem.

Americans read about all the terrorist activity around the world. Why is it wrong for people to think that Islam has a problem with terrorism, but not for you to think the USA has a bigot problem?

To be clear, not all Muslims are terrorists. Nothing that I have said should lead anyone to believe that, but I have no doubt that some will take what I have said to be in favor of bigots.

Islamic texts has some very problematic things in it, and so do other religious texts such as the Bible. Right now, the followers of those religions do not commit as many terrorist activities in the name of their religion as do Muslims. Idiots are then going to say all Muslims are terrorists, which is wrong, but it should not mean we should not discuss problems with Islam. We should be able to talk about religious problems.

Well said. If we cannot discuss the underlying problem for fear of offending, then we are doomed to lose. (Although given how many people believe us "winning" is to be murdered without reacting, losing might not be all that different.)

Because I thought (based on history), this is not the first time we (US) have held prejudicial beliefs on a particular group of people. It was the Irish at one point, the Blacks (for a large part of history), Jews etc....

Now we are concentrated on the Muslims. It had started in the 90s and it's been steadily going up.

I have a Islamic name (given and legal). I also have middle-eastern ancestry. So I'm concerned about being a potential target. In the past, a illegal target (hate crime). But now it seems it may become acceptable as a legal target (i.e. database, internment). Esp if (as others have noted), there is a terrorist event every week etc....

Boy, it sure is a good thing that only the US has these prejudicial beliefs on a particular group of people. Imagine how screwed we'd be if that sort of intolerance spread to Muslims!

My introduction to Islam was on September 11th, 2001.
That has a lasting impact.

Most Americans do not know a Muslim. I mean really know them as a person. The media highlights the atrocities committed across the world and it's all people hear about. The extremes are highlighted because they make the best news... the best videos.

It's easy for both sides to forget there are normal human beings among each others demographics. It's easy to forget that there are moderates when moderates get no voice. No prominence in communications. And by missing that communication we lack commonalities and understanding with one another. We miss the building blocks, the foundation, for a peaceful cohabitation.

I understand seeing the hatred broadcast by the media and thinking you need to shrink from the challenge. To take no risk and do whats safe at the moment. Yet in the long run, if we allow our divisions to fester...

The world is not a pretty place, it never has been. The subject you raise speaks to the human condition. Our nature is at times vile and acts like a disease spreading its illness unless good men stand together to face it. As a species we need to lend strength to moderate voices and work together for a better world.

You should have gone to engineering school. Even in the 70s in Chattanooga there were a LOT of Muslims in engineering school, from Islamic nations all over the world. Most of them receiving financial aid and all of them paying in-state tuition - while people from just over the line in Georgia paid massively higher out-of-state tuition. They are about what one would expect of any large group, a mixed bag. Some literally weren't worth shooting, openly hating America even though their own nation could offer no such opportunity. A surprising number of them had memorized all or large parts of the Quran. Others were quite nice. In fact, one guy from Iran was one of the honestly nicest people I've ever known. (Even before the hostage crisis when he kind of had to be and in fact told most people he was from Jordan.)

 

[Vic]

Food for thought:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/dec/17/turkey.international

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13331628

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...n-death-sentence-meriam-yahya-ibrahim-toddler

http://www.christianpost.com/news/s...es-death-sentence-for-bible-smugglers-131352/

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/...esh-blogger-hacked-death-150807102408712.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...fter-blasphemy-rumor_5650a369e4b0879a5b0b4242

http://time.com/3533236/malaysia-islam-muslim-dogs-canines-religion-syed-azmi-alhabshi/

What makes America great is that we don't do those things.

 

[Vic]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066

While FDR's action here was unquestionably immoral, it was also unquestionably legal. We were at war.
We are not at war now.

(I won't bother going into how that order was pushed for and carried out by California farmers as a ruse to steal land from their Japanese-American neighbors).

 

[norseamd]

While FDR's action here was unquestionably immoral, it was also unquestionably legal. We were at war.

Maybe, but from what I understand they were put in some pretty miserable conditions. Not concentration camp bad, but maybe falling under cruel and unusual punishment. Think they got to sleep in mass bunks in tents without heating and air-conditioning. IN THE DESERT.

That would be a double whammy every 24 hours, cooking in the day, and freezing in the night.

 

[werepossum]

Maybe, but from what I understand they were put in some pretty miserable conditions. Not concentration camp bad, but maybe falling under cruel and unusual punishment. Think they got to sleep in mass bunks in tents without heating and air-conditioning. IN THE DESERT.

That would be a double whammy every 24 hours, cooking in the day, and freezing in the night.

Not only that but the 49% who weren't Japanese (Germans, Romanians, Hungarians, Italians and Bulgarians) never even got an apology.

 

[norseamd]

Not only that but the 49% who weren't Japanese (Germans, Romanians, Hungarians, Italians and Bulgarians) never even got an apology.

And Anglo culture uses their fighting against Hitler as a free ride to excuse their racist and genocidal history. Like the turning away from Jewish refugees in World War 2, or the continued discrimination against Jews even after the end of World War 2 throughout America, in places like swimming pools, exposing and teaching kids in the whole 9 yards of racism from birth. And going farther back, you have smug British whiteman civilized supremacy over the "primitives", anti-Chinese sentiment and murderous riots, federal legislation against most every ethnic group out there including many European ethnicities, and a grand genocidal sweep of Native Americans over a whole continent.

Most major European countries all have a similar history of racism, genocide, and imperialism. Or at least some part in it.