You Are Not So Smart -
Why You Have Too Many Friends on Facebook, Why Your Memory Is Mostly Fiction, and 46 Other Ways You're Deluding Yourself
|
Friday, 7 September 2018
quote [ Former president Barack Obama talked about the state of U.S. democracy at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign campus ]
In case you were wondering who the leader of the Democratic party was....well now you know.
It sure was nice to hear a Democrat make a speech...a damn good speech that laid out Democratic party ideals and pretty much defines what it means to be a Democrat then lays out a Patriotic argument to come together and ends with his loudest message of all... VOTE! Vote like your life depends on it cause this time it does.
|
5432 said @ 11:15am GMT on 10th September
You write that “It is not correct to then paint every practitioner of said religion as a Terrorist.” Which is obviously, univocally, and demonstrably true. Which is why I never argued in favour of such a thing. I did not chastise the Obama administration for not calling out all Muslims as terrorists, that would be insane, but rather for not identifying the roots of Muslin terrorism as Islamic. And no, simply calling out “Terrorism” is not sufficient, because motives matter. Our courts recognize motives matter, our police do, and, in the larger sense, any successful geopolitical struggle recognizes that motives matter.
Jihad, as much as some progressives would like to wish it away, is a very real thing, waged by thousands of militant Islamists around the world. It is distinctly “Islamic” in pedigree, rationale, aims and objectives. Yes, there is an understanding of “Jihad” as a personal struggle and an internal one. But there is no lack of theological underpinnings and hadiths that support it as a casus belli. Muhammad (PBUH) was, after all, a warrior. Christ was a pacifist. It would hardly be surprising if this difference in lifestyles and philosophy didn’t trickle down to the adherents of the two respective religions they founded.
It is not a coincidence that the perpetrators of Jihad call our "Allah is greatest" in the process of killing. It is the motivation for the act. Ignoring, or obscuring it, out of willful blindness is not good policy. If Christians were regularly found to be yelling “Jesus is Lord” before detonating suicide belts I would readily concede an religious component to the act. You must do the same given the realities of Jihad.
5432 said @ 11:17am GMT on 10th September
You write that “It is not correct to then paint every practitioner of said religion as a Terrorist.” Which is obviously, univocally, and demonstrably true. Which is why I never argued in favour of such a thing. I did not chastise the Obama administration for not calling out all Muslims as terrorists, that would be insane, but rather for not identifying the roots of Muslin terrorism as Islamic. And no, simply calling out “Terrorism” is not sufficient, because motives matter. Our courts recognize motives matter, our police do, and, in the larger sense, any successful geopolitical struggle recognizes that motives matter.
Jihad, as much as some progressives would like to wish it away, is a very real thing, waged by thousands of militant Islamists around the world. It is distinctly “Islamic” in pedigree, rationale, aims and objectives. Yes, there is an understanding of “Jihad” as a personal struggle and an internal one. But there is no lack of theological underpinnings and hadiths that support it as a casus belli. Muhammad (PBUH) was, after all, a warrior. Christ was a pacifist. It would hardly be surprising if this difference in lifestyles and philosophy didn’t trickle down to the adherents of the two respective religions they founded.
It is not a coincidence that the perpetrators of Jihad call our "Allah is greatest" in the process of killing. It is the motivation for the act. Ignoring, or obscuring it, out of willful blindness is not good policy. If Christians were regularly found to be yelling “Jesus is Lord” before detonating suicide belts I would readily concede a religious component to the act. You should do the same given the realities of Jihad.
5432 said @ 12:11pm GMT on 10th September
You write that “It is not correct to then paint every practitioner of said religion as a Terrorist.” Which is obviously, unequivocally, and demonstrably true. Which is why I never argued in favour of such a thing. I did not chastise the Obama administration for not calling out all Muslims as terrorists, that would be insane, but rather for not identifying the roots of Muslin terrorism as Islamic. And no, simply calling out “Terrorism” is not sufficient, because motives matter. Our courts recognize motives matter, our police do, and, in the larger sense, any successful geopolitical struggle recognizes that motives matter.
Jihad, as much as some progressives would like to wish it away, is a very real thing, waged by thousands of militant Islamists around the world. It is distinctly “Islamic” in pedigree, rationale, aims and objectives. Yes, there is an understanding of “Jihad” as a personal struggle and an internal one. But there is no lack of theological underpinnings and hadiths that support it as a casus belli. Muhammad (PBUH) was, after all, a warrior. Christ was a pacifist. It would hardly be surprising if this difference in lifestyles and philosophy didn’t trickle down to the adherents of the two respective religions they founded.
It is not a coincidence that the perpetrators of Jihad call our "Allah is greatest" in the process of killing. It is the motivation for the act. Ignoring, or obscuring it, out of willful blindness is not good policy. If Christians were regularly found to be yelling “Jesus is Lord” before detonating suicide belts I would readily concede a religious component to the act. You should do the same given the realities of Jihad.
<-- Entry / Current Comment
5432 said @ 11:15am GMT on 10th September [Score:-4]
You write that “It is not correct to then paint every practitioner of said religion as a Terrorist.” Which is obviously, unequivocally, and demonstrably true. Which is why I never argued in favour of such a thing. I did not chastise the Obama administration for not calling out all Muslims as terrorists, that would be insane, but rather for not identifying the roots of Muslin terrorism as Islamic. And no, simply calling out “Terrorism” is not sufficient, because motives matter. Our courts recognize motives matter, our police do, and, in the larger sense, any successful geopolitical struggle recognizes that motives matter.
Jihad, as much as some progressives would like to wish it away, is a very real thing, waged by thousands of militant Islamists around the world. It is distinctly “Islamic” in pedigree, rationale, aims and objectives. Yes, there is an understanding of “Jihad” as a personal struggle and an internal one. But there is no lack of theological underpinnings and hadiths that support it as a casus belli. Muhammad (PBUH) was, after all, a warrior. Christ was a pacifist. It would hardly be surprising if this difference in lifestyles and philosophy didn’t trickle down to the adherents of the two respective religions they founded.
It is not a coincidence that the perpetrators of Jihad call our "Allah is greatest" in the process of killing. It is the motivation for the act. Ignoring, or obscuring it, out of willful blindness is not good policy. If Christians were regularly found to be yelling “Jesus is Lord” before detonating suicide belts I would readily concede a religious component to the act. You should do the same given the realities of Jihad.
