Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Persians" and "Iranians" are one and the same thing ( Persia is an old name for Iran to make the long story short.)
We are yet to see a single Iranian suicide bomber.
But Arabs of the Gulf states ( the birth place of Islam) and Chechens ( who are most likely related to Arabs of the Gulf States) - that's a different ball game.
No, not all Persians are Iranians, and not all Iranians are Persian. That's why I made the distinction. Yes, there are some Americans who are aware of Persian history.
Regardless, none of the ignorami that are screaming about Islamofascism are bothering to distinguish between different types of Muslims, much less where they are from. As far as they are concerned, if someone is a Muslim, that person is either a terrorist or a potential terrorist and not to be trusted. It doesn't matter where they're from or how long they've been in this country.
Also, no Chechens are not "most likely related to Arabs." Though there is some ethnic diversity in their population due to the location of the country, they are ethnic Caucasians for the most part. And I actually mean Caucasians in relation to the Caucasus Mountains.
Please don't try to educate me on subjects I am already aware of.
No, not all Persians are Iranians, and not all Iranians are Persian.
How so, please give me an example?
Quote:
Regardless, none of the ignorami that are screaming about Islamofascism are bothering to distinguish between different types of Muslims, much less where they are from. As far as they are concerned, if someone is a Muslim, that person is either a terrorist or a potential terrorist and not to be trusted. It doesn't matter where they're from or how long they've been in this country.
Oh, I distinguish them - very much so. I see a big difference say between a Tadzhik/Uzbek from Central Asia, and an Arab from the Gulf states.
Quote:
Also, no Chechens are not "most likely related to Arabs." Though there is some ethnic diversity in their population due to the location of the country, they are ethnic Caucasians for the most part. And I actually mean Caucasians in relation to the Caucasus Mountains.
Although all people living in Caucasian Mountains are "Caucasians" (I use this word in the same sense as you do,) the inhabitants of Northern Caucasus are quite different from the rest. Their culture ( vs the culture of the rest of Caucasus,) is very similar to Arab culture and it happened to be so, that in 6-7th centuries Islam has been brought to Caucasus "by fire and sword" by Arabs. So I always suspected that Northern Caucasus was the place where the remnants of Arab tribes have settled. Even for a reason that is is the second "hot spot" after the Gulf countries, that produces radical Islam and suicide bombers.
Quote:
Please don't try to educate me on subjects I am already aware of.
You are aware of some facts. But not all of them, so it's not about "educating you" in particular.
But overall if I'd state my opinion on Islam - it's a dangerous thing, a dangerous philosophy that can't be contained that easy. And as a believer I can only add that it's here to control the Christendom, and it can't be removed/destroyed unless there will be a decision made from above.
Like I said in the title. Is she wrong? If so, why?
She begins her statement saying that all Muslims are being unfairly portrayed. I don't accept that premise as true, thus we have a non-starter. Everyone wants to portray themselves as victims these days, which is a sad statement on our society when people actively WANT to be victims. That said, I don't disagree that radical Islam is an ideology that can't be defeated with weapons. The only model that has ever worked in this type of scenario is the Northern Ireland model. After eight centuries of labeling the Catholics as extremists & terrorists. The English tried to defeat them militarily and simply couldn't. Only after they agreed to sit down with them at the negotiating table as an opposing government, rather than terrorists, were they able to negotiate the peace.
I don't think anyone disagrees with going after the 15-25% radicals. Obama's waged very successful military campaigns against the worst of them.
Where people take issue is when some Americans have a knee jerk reaction and throw all the rest of the 75-85% of Muslims in the same category as the dangerous ones.
It's a four minute video, summary is needed when it's long.
With respect to your other point, I don't think anyone is doing that, in fact quite the opposite. Any time someone poses national security concerns with respect to this group of people, they are immediately labeled as racist, intolerant, etc. Yet those who are criticizing (including most of the mainstream media) are ignoring the fact that there are very valid grounds to be concerned about extremism. 15-25% is a huge number.
And what % of Christians want to enforce their version of "sharia law" in this country?
Look, blaming Muslims for extremists is like blaming all musicians for Ted Nugent.
I work with people who are Muslims. It has never come up once. They just go about their jobs, saving the lives of all comers.
She begins her statement saying that all Muslims are being unfairly portrayed. I don't accept that premise as true, thus we have a non-starter. Everyone wants to portray themselves as victims these days, which is a sad statement on our society when people actively WANT to be victims. That said, I don't disagree that radical Islam is an ideology that can't be defeated with weapons. The only model that has ever worked in this type of scenario is the Northern Ireland model. After eight centuries of labeling the Catholics as extremists & terrorists. The English tried to defeat them militarily and simply couldn't. Only after they agreed to sit down with them at the negotiating table as an opposing government, rather than terrorists, were they able to negotiate the peace.
How was that a personal attack? You started a thread with literally no actual content in it. You didn't even tell us what the video was about. On better forums you'd have your thread locked for that crap and find yourself banned if you kept it up.
Quote:
With respect to your other point, I don't think anyone is doing that, in fact quite the opposite. Any time someone poses national security concerns with respect to this group of people, they are immediately labeled as racist, intolerant, etc. Yet those who are criticizing (including most of the mainstream media) are ignoring the fact that there are very valid grounds to be concerned about extremism. 15-25% is a huge number.
You mean like Ben Carson saying Muslims shouldn't be president? Painting the entire religion with the "terrorist" or "un-American" brush is a favorite pastime of a rather large portion of our country.
This is the fundamental problem with our approach to religious extremism. A huge chunk of the country thinks all Muslims are a bunch of terrorists who are here to force sharia law on everyone. Another huge chunk tries to pretend there isn't a problem at all in some effort to be politically correct. And then there are the reasonable people in the middle who think we should fight the extremists and defend the moderate Muslims against the crazy ones. Those people get called terrorist sympathizers by the far right and bigots by the far left.
This is the fundamental problem with our approach to religious extremism. A huge chunk of the country thinks all Muslims are a bunch of terrorists who are here to force sharia law on everyone. Another huge chunk tries to pretend there isn't a problem at all in some effort to be politically correct. And then there are the reasonable people in the middle who think we should fight the extremists and defend the moderate Muslims against the crazy ones. Those people get called terrorist sympathizers by the far right and bigots by the far left.
I don't think anyone disagrees with going after the 15-25% radicals. Obama's waged very successful military campaigns against the worst of them.
Where people take issue is when some Americans have a knee jerk reaction and throw all the rest of the 75-85% of Muslims in the same category as the dangerous ones.
I guess I would feel a bit better about that statement if their leaders and they themselves showed some outrage and condemned terrorist actions. I think the 15% of terrorists represent what the other 80% really wants to be and the remaining 5% want nothing to do with terrorism. If that is the case that religion should no longer exist because it's a threat not only to Americans but the entire world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
