mvargus;842612898 said:

---

The question about the Koran I can answer, but it runs into an interesting "interpretation" issue.

One of the verses of the Koran translates into "Kill the unbelievers wherever you may find them." This is what ISIS and other Islamist groups use to justify killing anyone who doesn't agree with him.

However, I have had Muslims argue that this verse pertained only to the time when Mohammed and his followers were returning to Mecca to claim it as the capital of the growing Islamic nation.

Of course the question them comes down to who decides which interpretation is correct.

---

The Levant was under continuous Muslim rule for nearly 13 centuries, first under the original caliphates, then under Ottoman rule, until it was divided by France and Britain after WW1. The fact that Christian minorities have survived and thrived there over that period dispels the notion that Muslims are bent on "killing the unbelievers wherever they may find them". Unfortunately basic historical facts don't shape public opinion as much as isolated terrorist incidents.

MiZery;842612909 said:

---

Not entirely correct. Combat is only ordered against those who are attacking or killing the innocent Muslims or fighting against the established Muslim state.

---

You do realize that Muslims conquered most of North Africa, Spain and nearly reached Austria in their drive through Eastern Europe. That was an aggressive war of expansion. Yes, there are those who now claim that fighting is only to be in defense of Islam, but anyone who studies the history of Islam and the Koran understand that the religion does allow and encourage wars of conquest.

Even during the establishment of the religion the followers were warlike. Its' hard to be 100% sure of anything since there is no contemporary written accounts, but most accounts suggest that after Mohammed was kicked out of Mecca and went to Medina he organized some of the tribes and took to raiding caravans to fund the new religion. (He had worked on caravans and would have known where and how to attack.) He also eventually ordered that the Jews in Medina be purged after initially allowing them to live in peace. At least there are tales that suggest that is what happened. Neither was an act of defense of Islam.

And those accounts are used by Muslims to show that war is allowed. However, its also not really discussed with anyone outside the religion, you have to dig hard to discover these tales.

Cal88;842612919 said:

---

The Levant was under continuous Muslim rule for nearly 13 centuries, first under the original caliphates, then under Ottoman rule, until it was divided by France and Britain after WW1. The fact that Christian minorities have survived and thrived there over that period dispels the notion that Muslims are bent on "killing the unbelievers wherever they may find them". Unfortunately basic historical facts don't shape public opinion as much as isolated terrorist incidents.

---

Christians didn't exactly "thrive". The Caliphate did allow them to live, but charged them an extra tax (the Dhimmi tax) for the privilege of living in Dar-al Islam (the Islamic world.) Christians also could have their sons taken away and pressed into permanent military service (the Jannisaries of the Ottoman Empire were all Christian boys taken from their families and trained to serve the Empire.)

Also early Islam was heavily influenced by the fact that they conquered/absorbed the remnants of the old Persian Empire very early. The early Caliphs were heavily influenced by Persian culture and quickly turned mostly secular, enjoying the rewards of being holy leaders while not really concerning themselves with the more martial demands of the religion. They would fight to defend the borders of the Islamic world, but stopped pushing quite as hard to expand it.

The best way to look at how things could be is to look at the area around the former Yugoslavia. That was the high point of the expansion of Islam as they pushed into Europe from the East. To this day there is very open hatred between Muslims and Non-Muslims in the region. The Greeks are the same. The peaceful tales out of the former Persian territories did not hold true on the borders where Islam was expanding and the rulers were not Islamic.

Now after WW1 and especially after WW2, things change for the worse. Part of that was the need of the Saudi Kings to find a way to stabilize their rule. They choose to push a very militant variant of Islam (Wahhabism). This version emphasized a loyalty to the regional leaders, and pleased the Saudi Royal Family because it helped reduce the danger of them seeing a rebellion. However, it also has helped drive the growth of the militant Islam that drives groups like ISIS. And its influenced Islam around the world.

I've heard some people say that Islam needs a "reformation". It isn't that simple because many Muslims see Wahhabism and the groups like ISIS as the reformation and a return to "true" Islam. It might not be the real religion, but it has a lot of adherents and continues to win converts which makes it a force in the religion. Until other Muslims in a large group begin to loudly denounce them, it is hard to believe that they really feel that it is a false version.

mvargus;842612900 said:

---

What is an "assault weapon"?

---

Are you serious?
You may not like that "Assault Weapons" are defined by the US Justice Department.

In the United States, assault weapons were legally categorized for the first time when President Bill Clinton signed the federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) into law in 1994.
The ban expired in 2004.

While the term "assault weapons" has long been used globally to describe a broad variety of military and non-military weapons, those weapons were not defined by specific characteristics in America's legal system until Congress approved the AWB.

The AWB defined a broad category of semi-automatic rifles, handguns and shotguns with military-style characteristics as being "assault weapons." The law made it illegal to make those weapons in the U.S. for a 10-year period. In 2004, the AWB expired when Congress did not vote to renew it. As a result, it became legal to produce and own those firearms once again.

In general, the AWB defined any firearm with a detachable magazine and at least two of certain other characteristics as an assault weapon.

For rifles, those characteristics included:

Telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Grenade launcher
Flash suppressor

For shotguns:

Telescoping stock
Pistol grip
A capacity to hold more than five rounds

For handguns:

Threaded barrels made to attach a barrel extender, handgrip or flash suppressor
A barrel shroud that can be used as a handhold
Weight of at least 50 oz. when unloaded

Nineteen models of firearms were specifically named in the legislation as assault weapons, while other models were included under the umbrella of the law's definition of assault weapons.

Prior to the passage of the AWB in 1994, three U.S. states California, Connecticut and New Jersey had passed their own ban on certain firearms defined as assault weapons. New York and Massachusetts have since added assault weapon bans.

In each state, assault weapon definitions loosely follow the defining characteristics included in the 1994 federal legislation. In Connecticut, the law applies only to firearms specifically named as assault weapons, while in each of the other states the law applies to any firearm meeting the definitions set forth by statute.

Accept it...there are assault weapons.

Bears2thDoc;842612976 said:

---

Are you serious?
You may not like that "Assault Weapons" are defined by the US Justice Department.

In the United States, assault weapons were legally categorized for the first time when President Bill Clinton signed the federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) into law in 1994.
The ban expired in 2004.

While the term “assault weapons” has long been used globally to describe a broad variety of military and non-military weapons, those weapons were not defined by specific characteristics in America’s legal system until Congress approved the AWB.

The AWB defined a broad category of semi-automatic rifles, handguns and shotguns with military-style characteristics as being “assault weapons.” The law made it illegal to make those weapons in the U.S. for a 10-year period. In 2004, the AWB expired when Congress did not vote to renew it. As a result, it became legal to produce and own those firearms once again.

In general, the AWB defined any firearm with a detachable magazine and at least two of certain other characteristics as an assault weapon.

For rifles, those characteristics included:

Telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Grenade launcher
Flash suppressor

For shotguns:

Telescoping stock
Pistol grip
A capacity to hold more than five rounds

For handguns:

Threaded barrels made to attach a barrel extender, handgrip or flash suppressor
A barrel shroud that can be used as a handhold
Weight of at least 50 oz. when unloaded

Nineteen models of firearms were specifically named in the legislation as assault weapons, while other models were included under the umbrella of the law’s definition of assault weapons.

Prior to the passage of the AWB in 1994, three U.S. states — California, Connecticut and New Jersey — had passed their own ban on certain firearms defined as assault weapons. New York and Massachusetts have since added assault weapon bans.

In each state, assault weapon definitions loosely follow the defining characteristics included in the 1994 federal legislation. In Connecticut, the law applies only to firearms specifically named as assault weapons, while in each of the other states the law applies to any firearm meeting the definitions set forth by statute.

Accept it...there are assault weapons.

---

So basically an "assault weapon" is a weapon that has some cosmetic changes that you don't like.

Not one of the elements listed here improves the ability of a gun to hurt someone else. They just look scary or have shown up in a movie and have ignorant anti-gun fanatics saying "it makes it more dangerous!!!!"

They don't, but continue to pretend that they do.

That's why I asked the question. It was sarcastic, but I didn't add the emote. The truth is that a gun is a gun. the whole definition you use is a legalistic one that was created not by gun makers or gun users, but by ignorant gun haters who were trying to find a reason to ban guns and thought that if they went for the scary ones first they could create a wave of reform at later get the rest.

Multiple studies have proven that the ban that went into effect in 1994 and expired in 2004 had little to no effect on gun violence or gun deaths.

Now if you are thinking "but what about the guns I see in movies that can shoot tons of bullets with one pull of the trigger?" you have 3 problems.

1) they have been illegal in the US since the 1930's
2) you can shoot one for about 3-4 seconds before you have to reload. There is a great youtube video of someone shooting a fully loaded AK-47 automatically. The video is very short because the gun runs out of bullets.
3) automatic fire is not accurate, and trained people use it only to make the other guy keep his head down (suppression fire). Gangs use it illegally, but otherwise you aren't ever going to face it unless the US is invaded or we have another civil war. Neither is going to happen tomorrow, so stop worrying about it.

We do need to come up with reasonable and intelligent fixes, but just blinding banning weapons because they look dangerous won't solve the root cause. It's not even treating the disease.

mvargus;842612936 said:

---

Christians didn't exactly "thrive". The Caliphate did allow them to live, but charged them an extra tax (the Dhimmi tax) for the privilege of living in Dar-al Islam (the Islamic world.) Christians also could have their sons taken away and pressed into permanent military service (the Jannisaries of the Ottoman Empire were all Christian boys taken from their families and trained to serve the Empire.)

Also early Islam was heavily influenced by the fact that they conquered/absorbed the remnants of the old Persian Empire very early. The early Caliphs were heavily influenced by Persian culture and quickly turned mostly secular, enjoying the rewards of being holy leaders while not really concerning themselves with the more martial demands of the religion. They would fight to defend the borders of the Islamic world, but stopped pushing quite as hard to expand it.

The best way to look at how things could be is to look at the area around the former Yugoslavia. That was the high point of the expansion of Islam as they pushed into Europe from the East. To this day there is very open hatred between Muslims and Non-Muslims in the region. The Greeks are the same. The peaceful tales out of the former Persian territories did not hold true on the borders where Islam was expanding and the rulers were not Islamic.

Now after WW1 and especially after WW2, things change for the worse. Part of that was the need of the Saudi Kings to find a way to stabilize their rule. They choose to push a very militant variant of Islam (Wahhabism). This version emphasized a loyalty to the regional leaders, and pleased the Saudi Royal Family because it helped reduce the danger of them seeing a rebellion. However, it also has helped drive the growth of the militant Islam that drives groups like ISIS. And its influenced Islam around the world.

I've heard some people say that Islam needs a "reformation". It isn't that simple because many Muslims see Wahhabism and the groups like ISIS as the reformation and a return to "true" Islam. It might not be the real religion, but it has a lot of adherents and continues to win converts which makes it a force in the religion. Until other Muslims in a large group begin to loudly denounce them, it is hard to believe that they really feel that it is a false version.

---

By 7th or 8th century standards, getting charged an extra tax for not following the official religion was actually quite an enlightened policy. In comparison, France for example had far more repressive policies against non-Catholic Christians, with protestants being massacred as late as the 18th century. After the Christian reconquest of Spain, the new policy was conversion or death, wiping out what had previously been a thriving multi-religious muslim-ruled Andalusian country. Most Andalusian Jews found refuge in other parts of the Muslim world, mainly in the Ottoman capital.

As well, Christians in the middle east have not had to pay a special tax for centuries. So you're basically criticizing Islam because of their tax and draft policies in the middle ages, at a time where non-Christians across the Mediterranean (or in the near east during the Crusades) were systematically exterminated or ethnically cleansed, and that's the kind of deeply flawed revisionist rhetoric that comes out a lot in islamophobic circles.

Yugoslavia is actually a bad example for your case, because cities like Sarajevo or Mostar with large Muslim populations have had relative harmony between different cultural and religious communities for centuries, until the dismantlement of the Tito regime and the civil war in the 90s (where I would add that Muslims were mostly victims of military attacks on civilians and ethnic cleansing). There are a lot of similarities with the Middle East there, because historically ethnic tensions in the Balkans have mostly flared up due to outside interventions and global conflicts, like the conflict between Croats and Serbs in WW2. Some of the same dynamic was there during the civil war in the 90s, with Russia backing the Serbs.

The Persian cultural influence over the center of islamic power is overstated, it faded by the time the center of power in the Muslim world moved to Damascus and extended further west towards Andalusia, at which point there was much more of a Mediterranean, Greco-Roman cultural influence, and that went both ways. If you look at Greek or Sicilian cuisine, or the siesta in Spain you can see that cultural influence. But there is a broader point that you've correctly pointed out, the fact that Saudi Arabia and its stark wahabist dogmas is more influential. Also most Americans are more familiar with that side of the muslim/arab world due to the Gulf and Arabia being closely integrated in the American military/economic sphere. Your impression of that world would have been very different if you've visited places like Beirut or Damascus, which are the cultural centers of the muslim-arab world.

mvargus;842612987 said:

---

So basically an "assault weapon" is a weapon that has some cosmetic changes that you don't like.
............ It's not even treating the disease.

---

LOL!!
Thanks for the credit, but I was not the one that defined "assault weapon."
As for "not even treating the disease," I think you are correct. As the disease as, I see it, is the notion that some people believe owning such firearms is an undeniable right.

Cheers!!!

Again, there is a WORLDWIDE acceptance of the definition of "assault weapon". If you don't want to accept it, that's your issue.

Guys, it's time to accept that nothing will change. The gunphiles will say "we need to do something" but will make sure that "something" does not involve limiting gun ownership and use. We are a society of exceptional people and it turns out that living amongst so many exceptional people means we will have an exceptional level of gun violence and mass murders compared to our first world peers. We should embrace American exceptionalism and celebrate our ability to mete out justice one bullet at a time (or several, in the case of semi-automatic firearms which have been easily converted to full-auto).

mvargus;842612987 said:

---

We do need to come up with reasonable and intelligent fixes, but just blinding banning weapons because they look dangerous won't solve the root cause. It's not even treating the disease.

---

I agree, we should make all guns illegal.

Good post, Cal88

The Ottomans-bless their hearts-were more interested in money than religious purity so were more welcoming of Christians and Jews (escaping the inquisition from Spain) than most empires of the day. Of course, you couldn't rise as a government official but that was a small price to pay for making it as a merchant; and you could always convert or bribe someone. It wasn't uncommon for people to have two names-a Muslim and a Christian one. As a result you not only had Beirut and Damascus you had Salonika and Constantinople and Eastern Europe where various ethnicities and religions mixed cheek to jowl. It was only after WW1 and the advent of nationalism that this began to unravel, leading to bizarre circumstances including the ethnic cleansing of populations. Greece and Turkey exchanged populations, where all "Greeks" were repatriated to Turkey and "Turks" to Greece. But the poor "Greeks" who had lived in Turkey since the Holy Roman Empire were returned to a country they knew nothing about, and had no affinity for, including-in many cases-language. Likewise, for the "Turks". The other factor for homogenization was the development of the State of Israel which led the Arab states to exclude, or exile their non Muslim populations. So now we are back to states being religious and ethnic proxies.

so ... history and weapons aside
We now have well-broadcast voices of Trump and Cruz.

Trump wants to isolate and eliminate members of a billion person + religion (they're all Guilty until proven 'innocent').
That was an initially well hidden strategy of four score and seven years ago (+/-) by "that" guy.
Trump needs to be elected first and then can make a fortune supplying brown shirts.

Cruz wants to slaughter innocent civilians hoping to kill a few bad guys (carpet bombs)
and, not to forget, make "the sands glow" (releasing KindaSleazy's mushroom cloud).

Nutz

Is it EVER going to end?
Not until everyone gets killed and 'God' and 'Allah' sort through the remains.

SonOfCalVa;842613108 said:

---

so ... history and weapons aside
We now have well-broadcast voices of Trump and Cruz.

Trump wants to isolate and eliminate members of a billion person + religion (they're all Guilty until proven 'innocent').
That was an initially well hidden strategy of four score and seven years ago (+/-) by "that" guy.
Trump needs to be elected first and then can make a fortune supplying brown shirts.

Cruz wants to slaughter innocent civilians hoping to kill a few bad guys (carpet bombs)
and, not to forget, make "the sands glow" (releasing KindaSleazy's mushroom cloud).

Nutz

Is it EVER going to end?
Not until everyone gets killed and 'God' and 'Allah' sort through the remains.

---

Don't blame them. Someone has to elect them. What is it about this current environment that allows this type of hatred to thrive? It isn't religion. It is ultimately selfishness, where civility goes out the door at the first sign of potential sacrifice. We would rather hurt others (even those who are innocent - although who are we to judge who is innocent and who is not) than allow threats to what is ours. We will be civil as long as it doesn't cost us anything to be civil.

If we (our fellow Americans) don't vote for them, they can't do what they are threatening to do. We truly get the leaders and government we deserve. While most people here violently disagree with me on political matters, I am, like you, hopeful that we, as a country, rise above this nonsense in the near future.

calbear93;842613117 said:

---

Don't blame them. Someone has to elect them. What is it about this current environment that allows this type of hatred to thrive? It isn't religion. It is ultimately selfishness, where civility goes out the door at the first sign of potential sacrifice.

---

I really believe most / all of it is fear and ignorance, not hatred.

In the realm of history repeating itself, see the Japanese Internment camps of the 1940's.

MiZery;842612909 said:

---

Not entirely correct. Combat is only ordered against those who are attacking or killing the innocent Muslims or fighting against the established Muslim state.

---

It is a myth that Muhammed and Muslims only fight in defense.

The hatred in flyover country strong, and those folks are not ignorant. Something else is happening.

Cal88;842612919 said:

---

The Levant was under continuous Muslim rule for nearly 13 centuries, first under the original caliphates, then under Ottoman rule, until it was divided by France and Britain after WW1. The fact that Christian minorities have survived and thrived there over that period dispels the notion that Muslims are bent on "killing the unbelievers wherever they may find them". Unfortunately basic historical facts don't shape public opinion as much as isolated terrorist incidents.

---

Unfortunately that is no longer the case today in much of the Middle East. Everyday Christians and Jews face increased persecution and violence.

tequila4kapp;842613124 said:

---

I really believe most / all of it is fear and ignorance, not hatred.

In the realm of history repeating itself, see the Japanese Internment camps of the 1940's.

---

Fear and hate tend to be closely linked.

calbear93;842613117 said:

---

Don't blame them. Someone has to elect them. What is it about this current environment that allows this type of hatred to thrive? It isn't religion. It is ultimately selfishness, where civility goes out the door at the first sign of potential sacrifice. We would rather hurt others (even those who are innocent - although who are we to judge who is innocent and who is not) than allow threats to what is ours. We will be civil as long as it doesn't cost us anything to be civil.

If we (our fellow Americans) don't vote for them, they can't do what they are threatening to do. We truly get the leaders and government we deserve. While most people here violently disagree with me on political matters, I am, like you, hopeful that we, as a country, rise above this nonsense in the near future.

---

You have a disparate population separated by class, ethnicity, and geography with little in common. You have little national purpose or solidarity, other than making money. You have a corrupt political system. You have old white men suddenly committing suicides at alarming rates. You have an underclass, both white and black that is angry, violent , alienated and drug riddled. You have people fearful that they are going to be attacked by murderous terrorists. You have easy access to weapons. You have a media that encourages sensationalism.Why is any of this surprising?

GB54;842613146 said:

---

You have a disparate population separated by class, ethnicity, and geography with little in common. You have little national purpose or solidarity, other than making money. You have a corrupt political system. You have old white men suddenly committing suicides at alarming rates. You have an underclass, both white and black that is angry, violent , alienated and drug riddled. You have people fearful that they are going to be attacked by murderous terrorists. You have easy access to weapons. You have a media that encourages sensationalism.Why is any of this surprising?

---

Redistricting would help. Gerrymandered districts make for more polarization and less bipartisanship. Politicans cater to the safe constituencies in their districts, and can dig their heels in knowing that they'll get re-elected. The threat of losing enough votes to lose the next election makes for more moderate governance.

Not a cure-all, but it'd be a huge step in the right direction.

BearsWiin;842613155 said:

---

Redistricting would help. Gerrymandered districts make for more polarization and less bipartisanship. Politicans cater to the safe constituencies in their districts, and can dig their heels in knowing that they'll get re-elected. The threat of losing enough votes to lose the next election makes for more moderate governance.

Not a cure-all, but it'd be a huge step in the right direction.

---

I agree with you, and that is the reason why presidential elections are usually led by the more moderate candidates. Yet, for some reason, we seem to be at risk of selecting extreme candidates on both sides (Trump/Cruz and Sanders) in the primary.

calbear93;842613171 said:

---

I agree with you, and that is the reason why presidential elections are usually led by the more moderate candidates. Yet, for some reason, we seem to be at risk of selecting extreme candidates on both sides (Trump/Cruz and Sanders) in the primary.

---

This is part of the problem, especially on the Republican side. It's become very hard for a moderate candidate to make it out of their primary (due to the polarization BearsWiin describes), and even the ones that do (McCain, Romney) have had to tilt so far to the right in order to win that primary, it puts them at a disadvantage in the general election.

We see some of this on the Dem side too, but so far not to the same extent. Sanders has support, but Hillary remains the overwhelming favorite. And even Sanders is nowhere near as loony extreme in his public statements as Trump.

BearsWiin;842613155 said:

---

Redistricting would help. Gerrymandered districts make for more polarization and less bipartisanship. Politicans cater to the safe constituencies in their districts, and can dig their heels in knowing that they'll get re-elected. The threat of losing enough votes to lose the next election makes for more moderate governance.

Not a cure-all, but it'd be a huge step in the right direction.

---

It would help. The other problem is that both parties have become more restricted ideologically, to the point that they are adopting positions that are barriers to entry. No Republican can support gun control or more access to abortion now; likewise no Democrat can support less gun control or call for less abortions. But in fact these positions are just representative of the loyalists who vote in primaries not necessarily representative of how people think; the country has a much more nuanced view of these things. I would welcome more democracy-open primaries, less or no party affiliation, maybe even proportional representation that might lead to more splintering but also more more participation as the two parties need to be disrupted. In fact, this is the one good thing I see out of the Trump candidacy-it represents a total rejection of the party and its leaders.

sycasey;842613132 said:

---

Fear and hate tend to be closely linked.

---

In Eugene Burdick's first novel (Cal prof, Ugly American author) the Ninth Wave, he created a political campaign based on the social equation that Fear + Hate = Power ... precient.
Especially with the deadly duo of Trump and Cruz, they're pushing Fear, moving into Hate, which will give them Power.
Happened twice before, before my time: Germany against non-Aryans (Jews, Gypsies, etc) and HERE, Japanese internment camps.
Not calling Trumpet and Cruz "names" but the behavior seems very similar. Cruz is being cast as a more "moderate" Trump.
As Sinclair Lewis wrote: It Can Happen Here.

SonOfCalVa;842613203 said:

---

In Eugene Burdick's first novel (Cal prof, Ugly American author) the Ninth Wave, he created a political campaign based on the social equation that Fear + Hate = Power ... precient.
Especially with the deadly duo of Trump and Cruz, they're pushing Fear, moving into Hate, which will give them Power.

---

Or as another great philosopher once said . . .

SonOfCalVa;842613203 said:

---

In Eugene Burdick's first novel (Cal prof, Ugly American author) the Ninth Wave, he created a political campaign based on the social equation that Fear + Hate = Power ... precient.
Especially with the deadly duo of Trump and Cruz, they're pushing Fear, moving into Hate, which will give them Power.
Happened twice before, before my time: Germany against non-Aryans (Jews, Gypsies, etc) and HERE, Japanese internment camps.
Not calling Trumpet and Cruz "names" but the behavior seems very similar. Cruz is being cast as a more "moderate" Trump.
As Sinclair Lewis wrote: It Can Happen Here.

---

FDR created Japanese internment camps.

Bobodeluxe;842613130 said:

---

The hatred in flyover country strong, and those folks are not ignorant. Something else is happening.

---

People are really pissed off and we have a guy in the White House who resides in the satisfaction of his own inaction and self-serving platitudes rather than a decisive leader who is not afraid to make difficult if not questionable or perhaps even reprehensible decisions. We could bomb ISIS to hell in a week yet Obama is stuck on an island surrounded by the waters of rules of engagement and is afraid to dive in, for him he would rather do nothing than sink-or-swim. Trump is the exact opposite, he comes from a life of luxury but is also an experienced dealmaker who is not afraid to get his hands dirty or getting burned, he has a winner's mentality which is reflected in his brash and grandiose campaign flair. Clinton may be experienced and sensible but she is also part of the Washington elite and voters don't want another soft leader like Obama. I do not see her beating Trump unless she really shows assertion like we haven't seen before. Trump is the anti-Obama and voters will be looking for that in 2016.

Strykur;842613220 said:

---

People are really pissed off and we have a guy in the White House who resides in the satisfaction of his own inaction and self-serving platitudes rather than a decisive leader who is not afraid to make difficult if not questionable or perhaps even reprehensible decisions. We could bomb ISIS to hell in a week yet Obama is stuck on an island surrounded by the waters of rules of engagement and is afraid to dive in, for him he would rather do nothing than sink-or-swim. Trump is the exact opposite, he comes from a life of luxury but is also an experienced dealmaker who is not afraid to get his hands dirty or getting burned, he has a winner's mentality which is reflected in his brash and grandiose campaign flair. Clinton may be experienced and sensible but she is also part of the Washington elite and voters don't want another soft leader like Obama. I do not see her beating Trump unless she really shows assertion like we haven't seen before. Trump is the anti-Obama and voters will be looking for that in 2016.

---

So you predict a Trump victory, then?

NVBear78;842613128 said:

---

It is a myth that Muhammed and Muslims only fight in defense.

---

Do Christians fight only in defense? After all we believe in "Thou Shalt Not Kill"

68great;842613245 said:

---

Do Christians fight only in defense? After all we believe in "Thou Shalt Not Kill"

---

Statements like these are so dishonest and disingenuous that you lose credibility. What Christian organization is currently promoting destruction of non-believers? Yes, there are soldiers who also happen to be Christians who are obligated to fight in wars engaged in by their country. We have US soldiers who are Muslims, who are Christians, who are Buddhist, and who are atheists who fight under the authority of our country to protect the interest of their fellow Americans. Are you seriously comparing them to ISIS? If not, what is your point? I don't know whether Islam promotes violence, but defending Muslims do not require you to be dishonest about Christianity. If someone who claims he is a Christian commits a criminal act, that makes the recording of a beheading of a fellow American by ISIS OK in your eyes? That makes Christianity and Islam one and the same? Or are you saying that ISIS is not a Muslim organization? Since there are atheist who kill as well, are atheist driven to kill for their lack of faith just like extreme Islamist are driven to kill for their faith? Are they one and the same? What really is your point? That Christians and atheists are no better than ISIS? No one quotes the New Testament as justification and authorization for killing. There may be people who claim to be Christians who commit horror, but not in the name of obeying the requirements of the New Testament.

Let's be honest. The most dangerous terrorist organizations are those who adopt an extreme interpretation of Islam. It doesn't mean that the crazies have not hijacked the religion but trying to besmirch Christianity to defend Islam is not going to make your defense any more convincing.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/washington-watching-the-5-deadliest-terrorist-groups-the-11687

mvargus;842612903 said:

---

Anyone who thinks that a gun looks inherently scary puzzles me. If no one is touching it, its nothing more than an elaborately decorated metal rod.

---

It shouldn't puzzle you at all. It is a threatening device. Frankly they make me really uncomfortable. When Grandpa takes out his rifles, I leave the room. I was never a gun guy or a car guy. I can't relate to America's fascination with them and people's driving desire to wield them. I went to shooting ranges as a kid and have been around guns many times, and I always hated it and was more than a little disturbed by the other guys who were clearly getting off on the destruction and machismo (something gun enthusiast always want to balk at being part of the equation, but go to any place any person is shutting a gun and tell me honestly they are not having adrenaline rush and feeling like a "bad ass"). This is an area where many gun enthusiast are very disingenuous. They want to put forward their passion for guns and gun rights, but they will NOT cop to the place where that passion originates or how it is expressed as a very primal feeling of power, destruction, might, etc. They try and sit straight faced and talk calmly about responsible gun ownership and their detached joy of owning a gun, when their actual desire and experience handling the weapon is anything but dispassionate and entirely rational.

Maybe guns don't hold any iconic connotation of violence to you, but they certainly do culturally. They are a completely charged image. Look at 90% of movie posters, the omnipresence of guns, the position the gun is held, and who is holding it, all are signifiers. Guns are coded with meaning. In a film the moment a gun is drawn, it changes the scene. The camera and music react to it. We can't take our eye off of it. It holds emotional power. It immediately raises the stakes, drama, and heartbeat of the viewer.

Just because you may feel comfortable around guns does not mean that they don't have a huge visual power and are not deployed iconography with deep cultural/psychological significance throughout the world. So yes, the design, the firepower, and the firing rate are all part of the discussion to both limit the destructive power and the sexiness of violence. Copycat crimes ae not committed with pink pop guns, they are committed with what LOOKs military and bad ass. Cuz that's how the shooters want to feel.

Arabs and Isis Muslims and even peaceful Muslims do not quarrel with beheadings. We lethally inject people here. It's death both ways, but in the west it is easy to see these people in the Middle East as depraved and barbaric. They do little in that arena to dispel this notion. Sometimes cutting off a hand for stealing. Stoning women--nit men--for adultery. Okay, apologists, defend depravity.

NVBear78;842613215 said:

---

FDR created Japanese internment camps.

---

And your point is?

sycasey;842613132 said:

---

Fear and hate tend to be closely linked.

---

Correct. See one Donald Trump.

Strykur;842613220 said:

---

We could bomb ISIS to hell in a week yet Obama is stuck on an island surrounded by the waters of rules of engagement and is afraid to dive in, for him he would rather do nothing than sink-or-swim.

---

Please explain how you/we/trump/cruz would go about "bombing ISIS to hell in a week?" Would this bombing be indiscriminate, at the risk of killing hundreds of thousands of innocents? Millions?

Okay - so now it's done - we've carpet bombed them all to death. Now what? Wars over, no more worries for Americans? Does anyone on the ground get to survive? If so, what's to prevent the next generation from taking up the call to arms? Hell, we just bombed the hell out of them without a care in the world for whether the target was an extremist or just a regular guy. That seems to me to be pretty good motivation to want to kill Americans.

Perhaps we should just nuke them and be done with it, right? Great idea you got there.

Strykur;842613220 said:

---

People are really pissed off and we have a guy in the White House who resides in the satisfaction of his own inaction and self-serving platitudes rather than a decisive leader who is not afraid to make difficult if not questionable or perhaps even reprehensible decisions. We could bomb ISIS to hell in a week yet Obama is stuck on an island surrounded by the waters of rules of engagement and is afraid to dive in, for him he would rather do nothing than sink-or-swim. Trump is the exact opposite, he comes from a life of luxury but is also an experienced dealmaker who is not afraid to get his hands dirty or getting burned, he has a winner's mentality which is reflected in his brash and grandiose campaign flair. Clinton may be experienced and sensible but she is also part of the Washington elite and voters don't want another soft leader like Obama. I do not see her beating Trump unless she really shows assertion like we haven't seen before. Trump is the anti-Obama and voters will be looking for that in 2016.

---

You are NUTZ