dag hammarsjkold wrote:

Where are the so called moderate Muslims? In my opinion, if they exist, they are losing. They don't seem to be as media savvy as their counterparts

After the Paris attacks...

In an official statement, Iranian president Hassan Rouhani called the attacks a “crime against humanity.”
In the name of the Iranian people, who have themselves been victims of terrorism, I strongly condemn these crimes against humanity and offer my condolences to the grieving French people and government.
Indonesian president Joko Widodo condemned the “violence that took place in Paris,” and called for more international cooperation to fight terrorism.

Leaders of Arab states called the attacks immoral and inhumane. Qatar’s foreign minister Khale denounced the “heinous attacks,” adding, “these acts, which target stability and security in France are against all human and moral values.” Kuwaiti Emir Sheikh Sabah al-Sabah called the attacks “criminal acts of terrorism which run counter to all teachings of holy faith and humanitarian values.” The Saudi foreign ministry called for global cooperation to “root out this dangerous and destructive plague.”

http://qz.com/550104/muslims-around-the ... s-attacks/

If you didn't see any of this is western media, who's at fault?
They warped view of Islam is in part due to western medias lazy standards.
They play into the hands of ISIL and Al Queda by giving all kinds of coverage to the pissing in their pants politicians who use the threat of terror for political gain while actually ignoring the greater threats that kill Americans every day.
Remember how Ebola was a threat that couldn't be handled? The over reaction to foreign threats of any kind as long as they are foreign, , is a mainstay of populist politicians everywhere. Unfortunately.

Really, Ricky could you please refrain from lecturing about threats the US should be concerned about. ISIS is a Muslim quasi-state controlling a good swath of Iraq and Syria. It wants conflict with the West and it is encouraging all Muslims in the West to carry out Western attacks. Only an extremely small amount of Muslims need to respond to that call for there to be a real threat to national security. Yes , we should have more gun control and fewer homicides but it is a separate and distinct issue. And the homicide rate at least until recently had been going down a long time in the US. For one thing, there is a limit to what guy with a gun can do--there has not a shooting in the US close to the number of people killed in Paris. Would ISIS followers refrain from killing hundreds or even thousands if they could do it? Society can carry on with violence from separate, unrelated shootings by crazy people. Continued attacks by a group of organized people who want to cause a lot of destruction is another matter.

Look, we know that most Muslims just want to live their life, make money, have a family, and be free to worship their religion. So we need to find a way to deal with a complicated threat situation where a very small group of radical Muslims want war with the West. But it's a real threat. And we have to find a way to prevent these attacks without stomping over the rights of Muslims. But saying in effect that this is nothing to be concerned about, far more people die from unrelated gun attacks, stop picking on Muslims is to advise putting our head in the sand.

rickyp wrote:fate

Look, if Israel can screen people effectively (and they do), why can't we?

Do they? Is this effective?
There have been 74 terror events in Israel this year so far, and 49 deaths. Since 9/11 more than 600 Israelis have died in what are termed terrorist events.
This is of Israelis I presume.The database I sourced doesn't say whether it includes Palestinians killed by Israelis settlers in attacks..

You may be referencing the Israelis security at airports which is often deemed, and by track record proven, to be effective. But within Israel?

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrori ... elsum.html

I did mean El Al, of course.

However, given the proximity and motivation of groups like Hezbollah, I think they're doing pretty well no matter how you measure it.

freeman3 wrote:Look, we know that most Muslims just want to live their life, make money, have a family, and be free to worship their religion. So we need to find a way to deal with a complicated threat situation where a very small group of radical Muslims want war with the West. But it's a real threat. And we have to find a way to prevent these attacks without stomping over the rights of Muslims. But saying in effect that this is nothing to be concerned about, far more people die from unrelated gun attacks, stop picking on Muslims is to advise putting our head in the sand.

Ditto.

danivon wrote:Maybe it's not "anti-Semitic." I can go with just "meh" on Israel.

Maybe you don't get my reference. Reuven Rivlin is the President of Israel. When it comes to Judaism, he tends to identify with the Orthodox. He was the first to say "Ins'Allah". [/quote]

Yeah. Maybe you didn't get my reference . . . because it wasn't about Rivlin. He was in the video, so he was a bit difficult to miss.

Do they bring in Islamic leaders who pray the existence of Israel during Islamic holiday celebrations?

Don't know. But at last year's Iftar dinner Obama supported the existence and defence of Israel:

Interesting. I would not suspect you of believing Obama is an Islamic leader. Go figure. He must have secret meetings with the anti-Semite Rivlin.

I see what you mean with your assertion that he's as anti-Israel as any US President could be. Nowhere near as positive as when Eisenhower was neutral during the clashes between Israel and Nassers' Egypt.

Neutral would be an improvement.

Well, take it to a thread about Obama then. You've started enough of them. This one was about Trump.

I make a comment about Trump and you complain. Psh.

Look, if Israel can screen people effectively (and they do), why can't we?

One thing I get to do on a very regular basis in my job (every day) is handle passports. I must have seen a passport from every country in the world barring places like Bhutan or North Korea. One thing I've noticed is that almost every majority Islamic country in the world has a passport which says "not valid for travel to Israel" written on it. Fact is that citizens of these countries are barred from travelling to Israel, not by the Israelis but by their own governments which don't recognise Israel as a valid state. Kind of makes the task of vetting for potential terrorists a lot easier...

Sassenach wrote: Kind of makes the task of vetting for potential terrorists a lot easier...

Watch out!

There are some who would call that statement "Islamophobic."

freeman3

Yes , we should have more gun control and fewer homicides but it is a separate and distinct issue. And the homicide rate at least until recently had been going down a long time in the US. For one thing, there is a limit to what guy with a gun can do--there has not a shooting in the US close to the number of people killed in Paris.

The homicide rate is going down, but the incidence of mass shootings are way up.

The issues are NOT separate and distinct. There is a great deal of intersection...
One mass shooting with guns has the same result as another. Lots of dead and injured people.
The fact is that if there were tighter gun control laws they would make it far more difficult for both potential ]Islamic terrorists AND young white losers to arm themselves .
When politicians won't keep people on the no fly list from buying guns, then we know that the rationale intersection is not being met.

And by the way ...
One bombing, a case of domestic terrorism in the US was worse than Paris.

The Oklahoma City bombing was a domestic terrorist bomb attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. Carried out by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, the bombing killed 168 people[1] and injured more than 680 others.[2] The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a 16-block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings,[3][4] causing an estimated $652 million worth of damage.[

There was sensible action taken on the sale of fertilizer after this event...
After mass shootings? Nothing.

Sass

For one thing, there is a limit to what guy with a gun can do-

what is that limit? And couldn't enforced gun restrictions make that limit smaller? Then why not pursue this course of action. Both the Islamist and the usual suspects could be limited in their final tallies...
And why is it only one guy? At Columbine there were two. The Washington Sniper was two people...
And in a theatre, shopping mall or junior school, one shooter has done pretty well.
32 dead, 17 wounded at Virginia tech.
Since Sandy Hook,where a young white man shot 26 dead, including 20 children, there have been no new gun control measures passed. And no new research funded by Congress either.
Why can't that carnage cause political leaders to look to their responsibility to protect their citizens from all threats?

Why is it only when racially different, or foreign people, start shooting that there's a cry to do something? And only so far as what is done targets that group and inconveniences not at all the group who actually present, according to the deadly math of mass shooting deaths, a greater threat?
Because its convenient and easy to focus on those who are different. Because its politically expedient to distract the populace and provide them a bogey man to blame their problems on...
Mexicans, Muslims ... it don;t matter. as long as they are different.

The one thing about Islamic terrorists is its made it easier for Africans to travel now. No more lining up for Ebola checks.
.

Pretty sure you just quoted somebody else there and attributed it to me. I don't recall writing that in this thread.

rickyp wrote:Why is it only when racially different, or foreign people, start shooting that there's a cry to do something? And only so far as what is done targets that group and inconveniences not at all the group who actually present, according to the deadly math of mass shooting deaths, a greater threat?
Because its convenient and easy to focus on those who are different. Because its politically expedient to distract the populace and provide them a bogey man to blame their problems on...
Mexicans, Muslims ... it don;t matter. as long as they are different.

The one thing about Islamic terrorists is its made it easier for Africans to travel now. No more lining up for Ebola checks.
.

I'll let freeman3 destroy the rest of your post, but this is really a bit of work here.

I'll ask: are you saying that Americans are so racist they only care about mass shootings when it's not a white man doing the shooting? Is that really your position?

Sassenach wrote:Pretty sure you just quoted somebody else there and attributed it to me. I don't recall writing that in this thread.

Yeah, he was still quoting freeman.

Yes, I agree you were right on Ebola, Ricky...ISIS has not been around that long and thus far this year two out of four attacks in the US in which 4 or more people were killed have involved radicalized Muslims. The percentage of the US population that is Muslim is 2%, yet they were involved in 50% of shootings where 4 or more were killed. That's a bit out of proportion to their population...

freeman3 wrote:Yes, I agree you were right on Ebola, Ricky...ISIS has not been around that long and thus far this year two out of four attacks in the US in which 4 or more people were killed have involved radicalized Muslims. The percentage of the US population that is Muslim is 2%, yet they were involved in 50% of shootings where 4 or more were killed. That's a bit out of proportion to their population...

Looking at this list of mass shootings in 2015, there have been way more that 4 that killed 4 or more people. I make it over 30. http://www.shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mas ... gs_in_2015

There were 6 in November alone.

I was using the definition Mother Jones uses which excludes gang violence, domestic violence and armed robbery so as to focus on cases of indiscriminate mass murder. That was not indicated in my original post but that what I was recalling.
http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/w ... s-shooting

I think Mother Jones's definition is correct if what you're concerned about is someone going out and purposefully and indiscriminately killing as many people as they can. And under that definition Muslims have been involved in two out of the four mass, indiscriminate shootings in the US this year.

I see...

That definition also excludes the Colorado Springs PP shooting.