Eyebrowsbv31 said:
Are evangelicals radical Christians? yes, but they haven't blow'd something up recently. My point is that, in world were we accept religion and tolerate it (unlike you) there are fringes that cause problems.
Eyebrowsbv31 said:
As I've said before in another thread, I think Islam is an awesome religion;
..wait for it..
Eyebrowsbv31 said:
Do they want to kill people in the name of Allah? Seems like it.
.....?
*sigh*... So much wrong with this entire statement, but I'm going to respond directly to the comment that I'm intolerant. I tolerate everyone and everything, until you try to enforce your beliefs on me via fear or threat of physical violence. Glad I cleared that up for you? Great, next..
Eyebrowsbv31 said:
- you have anything to back that up? Other than ensuring due process for foreigners and citizens alike, advocating for more transparency in government activity, and calling the AZ legislation racially charged and unconstitutional.. yea, that guy's a dumbass - I guess the test in your eyes will be if he decides to force BP into paying for their negligence or gives them a slap on the wrist (which you would probably prefer).
Eyebrowsbv31 said:
"He doesn't want to confine people into boxes verbally so automatically he is a fundamentalist sympathizer?"
Right right, okay okay, the Nazis can't be called nazis! That confines them into a a box verbally, gotcha, it's unfair to treat evil people badly, right, okay, sunshine and bubbles, sunshine and bubbles! So, back in WW2 these... Enthusiastic socialists with views of Racial purity, not that radical purity is bad! Oh no no, condemned and...pacified 6 million peoples of some form of religion we can't mention because we don't want to put them in a box verbally as a group.
Nazi's, Socialists, Islam, Sunshines, and Bubbles?!?! WTF?!
Fine I'll play this game.
...Ok, In Nazi GERMANY - you had a central hub, a base of operations for the national socialist party to operate out of, Otherwise known as a NATION STATE. Now, there is no Central Evil for "Radical Islam" - there is no base of operations, and it is not as cut and dry as it used to be. You can't single out and profile people or a country like Iran or Iraq, or Afghanistan because even in these areas there are people with dissenting opinion and "Muslims that eat pork and have a sense of humor" as you put it.
Why can't we do this, because we are fighting an IDEOLOGY, and that is where the problem lies - it steamrolls if you try to compare radical Islam versus moderate/modern Islam and isolate (or profile) people. Then, in essence, you do what America did to its Japanese American citizens during WWII and anger an entire generation of citizens. If your going to consider a group of religious zealots crazy you have to consider them all crazy and dangerous, because grouping them in fringe clusters and labeling them patronizes the remaining members. Like what Mr. Holder did in that interview. He said there are a variety of reasons why people do these things, and if you isolate it to ONLY religious based fanaticism and label it as such you create anger that spills over into the "moderate" side of islam.
For example, a larger population of african americans are in prison than any other race group. you can make the narrowed claim that african americans are more likely to commit crime (which you might believe), but to say that race is the ONLY factor that plays into their criminality is FALSE!
Eyebrowsbv31 said:
FDR would spin in his grave.
....huh?
Look dude, I think we're on the same side of this battle but on different fronts. You want to identify the threat and eliminate it - I want to attack the thought process/situations that brings people to do unreasonable things - but when you go off on these tangents about Holder and sunshine you sound like a FoxNews rubberstamp.**BUZZWORD!**
