U.S. faces "Americanization" of terror threat

[Chubminnow]

Would a Southern Baptist worship in a Synagogue, or a Jew in a Catholic church? Are there not Catholic schools, home schooling, etc. Why should Muslims who are American citizins not be afforded the same rights as other American citizens?

How do we define what is American? America is a melting pot of a variety of cultural, ethnic, religious, etc. backgrounds. There is something positive that we can learn from all of those.

Not sure what Southern Baptists or Catholics would do or where they'd worship or anything else, I consider them and the Jews to be grandfathered in so to speak.

Southern Baptists and Catholics don't have the same violent history in the United States that Muslims do, do they? This right here in itself gives me enough reason to be against them.

Probably what it all boils down to is putting 100% faith in God...letting the Mosque be built right there smack dab adjacent to where the WTC once stood, let the Muslims build their schools here, etc. God's gonna take care of it...kind of like tithing to your church...I have heard churches expect or would like to see everyone contribute 10% of their wages to the church. Never mind how you're going to make ends meet at the end of the month, don't let that bother you, put it in God's hands.

"Maybe" I could buy into this Muslim deal in 20 or 30 years from now...after the Muslims prove to me they are a peace loving people and want to do what is right...they don't have to build on my soil to prove such, they can do it right there in their homeland. Kind of like my wife's son...he doesn't have to live with me to show he's trying to live a good clean life...he can show me that while living at the homeless shelter. Incidentally, he doesn't live with me (thank goodness), I guess I was just throwing this out there to prove a point.

Bottom line is this....the secret service or central intelligence or whoever it was has made it official...Islamic terror groups are setting up camp right here in our backyard Andrew. I hope you like apples...if you do, then how do you like those apples?

[apb]

"...I meant all radical extremist muslims..."

Geo, I'm with you on that.

"Not sure what Southern Baptists or Catholics would do or where they'd worship or anything else, I consider them and the Jews to be grandfathered in so to speak...."

Again, this is completely unconstitutional. The constitution is very clear in this regard:

First Amendment - Religion and Expression
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
More info: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment01/

Basically, govt cannot do what you are suggesting. In addition, you also seem to be lumping all Muslims together as extremists. That is not the case. Not too long ago the issues with pediphile Catholic priets was all over the press. Based on that, should we consider all Catholic priests pediphiles and not allow Catholic churchs in the US? Certainly not. The vast majority of Catholics are decent people and are just as disgusted with pediphile priests as non-Catholics.

"..."Maybe" I could buy into this Muslim deal in 20 or 30 years from now...after the Muslims prove to me they are a peace loving people and want to do what is right...they don't have to build on my soil to prove such, they can do it right there in their homeland...."

Islam was started many centuries ago (~ 600 AD?), its not like it is some new cult that just sprang up recently. Most Muslims are peaceful. Again, you want to lump all Muslims together as one based on the actions of a few extremists. See my original comments on this. Bear in mind that many Muslims were born in the US, their parents were born in the US, their grandparents were born in the US, etc. Many have served, and continue to serve, in the armed forces to protect the US. Many Muslims see the US as their homeland. It is only within the last 30 years that extremists from elsewhere have been targeting the US.

"...Bottom line is this....the secret service or central intelligence or whoever it was has made it official...Islamic terror groups are setting up camp right here in our backyard Andrew. I hope you like apples...if you do, then how do you like those apples? ...."

I don't like those apples any more than you do. I have been quite clear in this thread and many others: extremists, here or abroad, need to be exterminated. Note that this is just the extremists, not all Muslims. I have no issue with peaceful Muslims, or any other peaceful religion for that matter. Again, you seem to want to want to lump all Muslims into the same group based on the actions of the extremists. I'm just not willing to throw away the US constitution and many of American's core values based on the actions of a few extremists. Its the whole "boogie-man" thing again that I discussed above.

Andrew

[GeoFisher]

Andrew.......I don't believe it is a boogie man thing at all.......

There are 1.6 billion muslims in the world, according to pew.....even if there were only 1/2 that many, that is a TON of muslims.

Now, if 1 in 10000 is a radical, that makes about....160,000 RADICAL hate filled............US HATING...........crazy, EVIL people.

It is simply math my friend. If these numbers are even close, then teh US and the Western world will be at war with these radicals.......FOREVER.........or until we send a more serious message.

Later,

Geo

[apb]

Geo, I agree, this is not a short war. We will be fighting these people for a long time. My boogie man comment was directed more towards those folks who seem to want to lump all Muslims together as being anti-US. Its not that simple.

Came across this article that I thought was of interest along these lines. I fully admit I am not a W fan, however, his comments here I think are right on.

Bush was right: We're not at war with Islam

September 13, 2010|By Julian E. Zelizer, Special to CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/1...Top+Stories%29

In the aftermath of 9/11, Americans were angry, fearful and scrambling for answers.
In the days that followed the terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush and Congress prepared their response, starting to work on stronger counterterrorism measures and preparing for a war in Afghanistan, where the Taliban had housed al Qaeda networks for many years.
A few Americans turned their rage against Muslims who were living in the United States.
Within a few days, Muslims, as well as individuals mistakenly perceived to be Muslims, were attacked. The Sikh owner of a gas station in Mesa, Arizona, was killed by a man who went on to shoot a Lebanese clerk at another gas station.

Near Dallas, Texas, a man shot and killed a 46-year old Pakistani who owned a small grocery store. In Cleveland, Ohio, a man drove a Ford Mustang right through an Islamic center.
Nine years after 9/11, there is a lot for Americans to contemplate as they look back. Although people have focused a lot of attention on Bush's appearance before a group of New York firefighters at ground zero, another highly significant moment took place on September 17.
That day, at the Islamic Center in Washington, the president delivered a powerful message about the need to keep America's response to 9/11 from turning into a war against Muslims. This message was as important to his war on terrorism as the strategy of regime change, or pre-emptive war.
Unfortunately, this is a principle that has been slowly and dangerously undermined in recent weeks as a result of the controversy over a proposed Islamic cultural center and mosque a few blocks from ground zero.

Speaking at an emotionally charged moment, just six days after the attacks, Bush told the audience that it was vital for Americans to understand that the terrorists did not represent the Muslim tradition.
"Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don't represent the best of America; they represent the worst of humankind, and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior," Bush said.

The president reiterated his firm commitment to protecting the constitutional rights and honoring the important role of the Muslim community in the United States.
In no uncertain terms, Bush said: "The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war."

America, he said, "counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads."
Many Muslim leaders were impressed by the president's speech as well as by how most Americans were responding to the trauma.
"Americans have shown great maturity," Sayyid Syeed, the secretary general of the Islamic Society of North America, told the media. He reported the calls he was receiving expressing support for his community greatly outweighed the hate crimes.

Over the coming years, Bush stuck with the argument that he made on September 17. While Bush would come under criticism for many aspects of his war on terrorism -- including policies such as the use of interrogation tactics that critics called torture -- he continued to be very clear in his defense of Muslims.

The president returned to the Islamic Center on June 2007, reminding his audience of his earlier speech: "We gather, with friendship and respect, to reaffirm that pledge -- and to renew our determination to stand together in the pursuit of freedom and peace. We come to express our appreciation for a faith that has enriched civilization for centuries."

Bush's philosophy is now under fire. In response to the proposal to build an Islamic center near ground zero in New York City, a heated national debate has unfolded about Muslims in America. While some focused their criticism on whether this was a proper project so close to the site of the attacks, many others turned it into a different kind of discussion.
Some national Republican leaders, including Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, have made provocative comments, helping to make it a national issue. Gingrich warned of the "radical Islamists" he said were behind the project, comparing it to Nazis putting up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington.
At the local level, the debate has taken an even more dangerous turn.
A Florida pastor, Terry Jones, announced he would burn copies of the Quran. Even when he came under criticism from a broad spectrum of leaders, including Gen. David Petraeus, he did not at first desist.
Rather than listening, he said, "Maybe it's time to send a message to radical Islam that we will not tolerate their behavior."

Palin did condemn the pastor by tweeting that "book burning is antithetical to American ideals," but then tied the two issues together when she went on to say that "people have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation -- much like building a mosque at ground zero."
Although the pastor agreed to cancel the Quran burning after a call from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warning it would put American lives at risk, the incident stoked the fires of hatred.

If this kind of inflammatory rhetoric continues, it will erode a central and crucial principle in the war on terrorism. It also contradicts the nation's constitutional and pluralistic traditions -- the very traditions we want to defend from terrorism -- while doing irreparable harm abroad.
When Bush spoke at the Islamic Center, he took a pivotal step in defining how he wanted to defend the nation and go about punishing the aggressors who killed thousands of civilians. His message cannot be forgotten.

Should local and national debate move in a different direction, we will be paying the cost as a nation for decades to come by destroying our image in the Muslim world, thus playing into the hands of the terrorists.

We'd be abandoning the very best ideals that our country has to offer.

[Chubminnow]

I don't reckon there's anyway to tell the difference between a peace loving Muslim and one of those terroristic Muslims is there?

Just kidding (sort of)...

[Chubminnow]

Between George's and Andrew's posts here, this has been an enlightening thread, at least for me it has anyway. I'm going to have to re-read some of the posts and read the latest attachment(s) included in a couple of posts, maybe that'll help me better understand what the real deal is. But for now I guess I'm feeling kind of wore out on the subject...mush brain.

[Grumpy]

Apb, you wrote in a post above: "you also seem to be lumping all Muslims together as extremists. That is not the case. Not too long ago the issues with pediphile Catholic priets was all over the press. Based on that, should we consider all Catholic priests pediphiles and not allow Catholic churchs in the US? Certainly not. The vast majority of Catholics are decent people and are just as disgusted with pediphile priests as non-Catholics."

You anology is flawed because the Catholic church does not teach it priests to be pediphiles but Mohamed did tell ALL MUSLIMS to "Convert them or kill them!!" And no matter what apologists like you and Roadtoad say THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PEACEFUL MUSLIM!! "Peaceful Muslim" is a controdiction in terms because by the fact that they are admonished to kill all Infidles that they can't convert as a basic precept of Islam. Saying that they don't have to believe or practice that is like saying a Christian or Jew can still be a good Christian or Jew even if they only abide by the first four and the last three of the Ten Commandmentsm or that they can pick and choose which of the Commandments they want to abide by.

I agree that all Muslims are not necessarily terrorsists but I firmly believe that all Muslims are bent on the destruction of America and all other free countries. Shria and democracy cannot coexist.

Grumpy

[apb]

You anology is flawed because the Catholic church does not teach it priests to be pediphiles but Mohamed did tell ALL MUSLIMS to "Convert them or kill them!!" And no matter what apologists like you and Roadtoad say THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PEACEFUL MUSLIM!! "Peaceful Muslim" is a controdiction in terms because by the fact that they are admonished to kill all Infidles that they can't convert as a basic precept of Islam. Saying that they don't have to believe or practice that is like saying a Christian or Jew can still be a good Christian or Jew even if they only abide by the first four and the last three of the Ten Commandmentsm or that they can pick and choose which of the Commandments they want to abide by.

No offense Grumpy, but I can also find plenty of references in the bible that reflect a similar image of all who are not Christian. Been a while, but either the book of Judges or Joshua (may be both), there was a lot of smiting going on. God commanded the Isrealits to "kill every man, woman, and child" of a number of the neighboring groups as they believed in a different god. How many Christians today will work on a Sunday? I seem to remember the book of Numbers talking about a man who they found gathering firewood in the desert on a Sunday and was stoned to death for not resting on the Sabbath. If an angry mob was banging on your door was demanding that you give up a man under your roof so that they could "know" him, would you offer up your daughters in his place like in the story of Lot? Another similar story as that in the Old Testiment too. Just a few examples. People seem to take their religion a la carte and forget about the parts of their holy texts that they do not like. Basing your options of all who accept one religion based on the acts of a few is folly.

.... Shria and democracy cannot coexist....

I agree. I want no part of Shria Law for the US. Note that the majority of Muslims do not want it either. Again, its the extremists who force such things on their own people.

Andrew

[Col Forbin]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PEACEFUL MUSLIM!!

Grumpy

How many muslims do you personally know. My guess is none. How much of the Koran have you read other than internet or other searches highlighting the violent passages that seem to defend your view - my guess is little to none. Most prejudice on any group of people is due to a lack of knowledge of that group of people. We all are aware that there are radical extremist - so I am in no way saying they are all peace loving people - but the same can be said for any group of people.

[Grumpy]

You wrong, I have read the koran (a translated version in its entirety), many years ago, and from that reading and contact with Muslims I came to believe that Islam was/is a violent oppressive religion which I wanted no part of. BTW, I have also read the Bible and I decided I didn't want any part of Christianity either.

Grumpy

[Col Forbin]

If you have read it all, you have read more than me. I have read large parts of it - enough to know that the bulk of the writings are anything but violent in nature. However, I still can't seem to lump an entire group of people as being violent based on the actions of a few. The bad part about it, those few that are casting a negative shadow on the whole, are so extreme in beliefs and actions that it has tarnished the reputation of such a large group of people. I refuse to let this taint my views. All of the muslim people I have ever known have been extremely nice and generous people - far from violent, and I truly feel they are a more accurate representation of the muslim people throughout this world, and especially in this country.

[RoadToad]

From "Discussion Board Rules":
5. No complaints about how the boards are run or the site will be allowed. We will gladly accept any e-mail complaints you would like to send to us, but no complaints on the board any more. No answers on the board any more.

Now 2 moderators are arguing, on the boards (not in email), about to moderate the boards. I don't see how you guys can expect the rest of us to follow the rules when you yourselves don't.

Back to the topic:

You wrong, I have read the koran (a translated version in its entirety), many years ago, and from that reading and contact with Muslims I came to believe that Islam was/is a violent oppressive religion which I wanted no part of. BTW, I have also read the Bible and I decided I didn't want any part of Christianity either.

Grumpy

Now, from Geo's thread entitled "Re: This just in....from a PEACEFUL religion......."

Roadtoad, thank you, I have not had that good a belly laugh in years. A professed agnostic wanting to debate theology—what a hoot!!

Anyhow, I don’t feel I am qualified to debate theology. I have read the Bible but I still think that War and Peace was much more entertaining. I have never had any interest in reading the Koran. Long before the current surge of Islam, I read enough about it and its history to determine that Islam was/is a very violent and oppressive religion which I wanted no part of.

As to your point that: “If you read the entire passages, it becomes apparent that they don't refer to ALL non-Muslims, only those that "attack them in their land.", I think that a short study of the history of Islam, and its desire, aim and attempts for the subjugation of all non-Muslims would show that your limited version and understanding of “convert them or kill them” is the one that is erroneous.

That being said, I have no disagreement with you. Anything that is written, or spoken, including and especially the contents of the Bible and the Koran, is open to interpretation. Why else can a Republican and a Democrat listen to a speech by Obama (or any other person) and come away with two very divergent opinions of what was said and/or ment by the exact same words.

Grumpy

Only one of those posts could be true. I don't for a minute believe that you would have read the Koran "in its entirety" if you "had no interest" in reading it. I personally don't believe that you've ever read a translation of it, or you wouldn't keep posting the same fallacies about Islam over and over.