It's started...... NYPD attacked by jihadist...

[davsel]

After 1400 years of inbreeding, I don't give them much credit for using me as a pawn in their grand plans.
Shouldn't be faulted for stating the facts. Or is it just not PC?

[Ronin13]

My point is that they are using people like YOU, that generalize all Muslims, as ammunition to recruit other people of similar beliefs that would otherwise have sat aside.

I'm not attacking you, so please don't take it this way- but it's evident that you don't know enough about Islam, otherwise you wouldn't be bringing up others' generalizations. It seems, as far as I've learned about the various religions of the world, that Islam is the only one that employs subterfuge and outright lying to fool the enemy (in Islam that is everyone else) into thinking you're their friend. There are countless times Mahammad has done this. He preaches in the Qu'ran that it's just fine to lie to the infidel until you are strong enough to defeat him. So really, anyone generalizing is actually taking this little fact into account and saying "well since it's their tactical doctrine can we really afford NOT to generalize, since at any time any one of these folks could turn around and start slaughtering us?"

[Aloha_Shooter]

I'm not attacking you, so please don't take it this way- but it's evident that you don't know enough about Islam, otherwise you wouldn't be bringing up others' generalizations. It seems, as far as I've learned about the various religions of the world, that Islam is the only one that employs subterfuge and outright lying to fool the enemy (in Islam that is everyone else) into thinking you're their friend. There are countless times Mahammad has done this. He preaches in the Qu'ran that it's just fine to lie to the infidel until you are strong enough to defeat him. So really, anyone generalizing is actually taking this little fact into account and saying "well since it's their tactical doctrine can we really afford NOT to generalize, since at any time any one of these folks could turn around and start slaughtering us?"

The thing is that I think Danimal and I and probably others know there are tons of Muslims who take their Islamic faith about as seriously as Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi take their Catholicism BUT the generalizations can push people like that into taking it more seriously because they are defensive about their culture.

Most people I know don't really do deep analysis of their religious and cultural beliefs or practices or how those are linked to their overall philosophies and actions; some do but most don't. They act and react to what's presented to them at the moment and that's about it -- if they did deep analysis, the actual written Constitution and Founding Fathers would be more popular and we wouldn't see half the crap and cultural decay that we've experienced over the last 30-40 years.

In the meantime, we have a bunch of people who have grown up in a particular culture and have gotten defensive about it over the last 10-15 years, a smaller group of really evil people who use that defensiveness and any examples they can bend in order to recruit more into their jihad, and a larger group of useful idiots who are so devoted to the liberal extremes including multi-culturalism that they'll sell the jihadists the steel to make the knives used for the beheadings (under cost and at taxpayer expense, of course).

[Danimal]

Deleted

[davsel]

Why not let them go over and fight (die) for Islam? I don't understand why we would want to keep violence seeking Muslims within our borders. I'll even contribute to their plane tickets.

I believe the "positive contribution" pertains to spreading the truth about Islam. There is so many lies throughout all of our media and politicians concerning "Moderate Muslims," it is the least I can do to inject a little truth where I can. If someone reads it, does some more research on their own, they will be better prepared for what is coming. If they read it, get offended, give them a plane ticket.

[Bailey Guns]

Frankly, I don't think they need much prodding into recruiting new members. I seriously doubt they give a rat's ass if I (or average Joe Citizen) speaks ill of Islam. If their propaganda machine is as good as I think it is, they need only lie to the "believers" in order to recruit them. It's not our lifestyle and freedom they hate...it's the fact we don't believe like they do. It's been that way since the founding of our country and the days of Jefferson. They just take advantage of modern technology and other modern means to assist with their goals today.

And, I'm pretty certain not all followers of Islam really want to kill infidels. But enough of them do that makes me think the entire religion is just whacked. They could pretty much all disappear from the face of the earth and it wouldn't ruin my day in the slightest.

[68Charger]

I'll say it again and again... Unless they are ACTIVELY denouncing the acts of Islamic terrorists, they are at best IRRELEVANT, and more accurately condoning the terrorist actions.

How relevant were the citizens of Germany when Hitler was taking over the world? If they did not join the Nazi party, or actively fight, they were at best IRRELEVANT, and at worst complicit.

The whole culture of Islam prevents any of its members from getting in the way of Jihad... So at best, they are Irrelevant- and at worst another potential terrorist.

[Ronin13]

I'll say it again and again... Unless they are ACTIVELY denouncing the acts of Islamic terrorists, they are at best IRRELEVANT, and more accurately condoning the terrorist actions.

How relevant were the citizens of Germany when Hitler was taking over the world? If they did not join the Nazi party, or actively fight, they were at best IRRELEVANT, and at worst complicit.

The whole culture of Islam prevents any of its members from getting in the way of Jihad... So at best, they are Irrelevant- and at worst another potential terrorist.

At least Mrs. Gabriel got through to a few of us. Well said Charger, I like your addition to the point Bridgette Gabriel was making- add in complicit. Like that quote "It's not evil men we must fear, but the indifference of good men."

[Ronin13]

I had a discussion here recently too, and the "good" and "bad" thing is subjective. I'll give you an example. Take three people.

1) Pacifist gentleman

2) Take-no-shit individual

3) Violent nutjob.


Pit them against a psychopath. The pacificst does nothing and becomes the sociopaths target, choice victim, but in the process, the sociopath harms nobody else. Put simply, the pacifist becomes the psychopaths bitch. Is the pacifist bad?

The Take-no-shit type fights the psychopath, and pursues the psychopath, and makes the psychopaths life very difficult. To survive, the psychopath seeks out and finds multiple victims to exploit. Is this individual doing "good" in this situation?

The violent nutjob kills the psychopath. In this instance, is the nutjob bad?

What is the contribution "on the whole" of each individual to the fulfillment of "good" and "bad" ideals, irrespective of religion? People self-identify themselves almost always as "good" people. But with the pervasiveness of Americanized, Hollywood ideals ("oh, the guy robbing you just had a bad life and just needs a friend") are we not, in fact, "bad" for society ourselves? People are naïve across the spectrum both ways. More harm than good comes from hugging everybody, as does killing everybody. The reality is good and bad are not stripes on a zebra. Good often comes from seemingly bad actions and vice versa.

Sitting back and doing nothing has the net effect of a bad outcome. Does that not, in fact, make a person "bad"?

Touche! However, I'll say this, as this conversation has come up many times in my life. Doing nothing does not make someone "bad", per se. We have laws now that say otherwise- such as if you witness a crime and you don't call 911 you could be in hot water. But the failure to act, in and of itself, is not a bad act, it is just that, failure to act. Our societal norms have placed the non-action in the same category as the bad act, like the example of three boys beating up a classmate, by you not breaking it up at the very least, you are placed in the same category as the boys. You allow something to continue, and it is viewed, at least these days, that you have a duty to your fellow man to act. But what about that popular scenario that gets brought up around CCW discussions? Many here know the one, the guy who appears to be robbing the store clerk, but instead is a father of a child who was sold drugs by the store clerk. You happen to be in the store when this confrontation takes place, you draw and shoot the father. It's part of that 'don't get involved in situations you don't know' idea. So which is it? Do you have a duty to act, or a duty to not get involved because you don't know the whole situation. What if the guy is an undercover police officer? What if? What if? What if? It's an interesting dilemma to discuss. Foxtrot, you certainly do make some good points, at what point is a bad act considered good because it's being done to a bad person to prevent more bad. This is the reason why I don't view killing someone as a bad act- it's the circumstance, motive, situation, manner, and cause for killing that can be classified as a bad act (IE: murder).

[Danimal]

Deleted