Obama responds directly to Trump's "radical Islam" label

[Scoop]

But how do you "weed out" people who share a certain ideology? What are the moral implications for advocating and legislating against thought crime, especially considering the freedom of religion is one of America's most fundamental principles? How does what you propose address extremists who are already Americans and might want to cause harm to others?

It sounds to me like this is some way to restrict certain people from entering the country indefinitely.

Islam is having a civil war right now. The Sharia Law/extremist/ISIL wing against the more moderate modern wing. Ensuring that the moderate wing wins is of course in our best interest. BUT here's my post from the first page:

ISIL will only be destroyed by a Muslim army. Any outside groups attacking ISIL will only galvanize Muslims to join ISIL perpetuating the problem. If, say tomorrow, we issued a trade embargo on all Muslim majority countries until they raised an army to destroy ISIL, it would happen and ISIL would be gone.

As would the school of thought that drives ISIL.

Watch the clip here. This exact point was debated nicely on Maher's show: None

The moderates need to stomp out the extremist faction, which only currently exists because it is culturally ok in the Muslim world to be a part of the extremist faction.

So, yes, until the Muslim world is no longer at war with itself and causing violence and degrading civil rights all over the world we should stop letting them in. That's not "indefinite." That's whenever Islam gets its fukking act together.

Two things on the freedom of religion point:

1. The Bill of Rights is only guaranteed to citizens, immigrants are not citizens.
2. "Freedom of religion" is not an excuse to blow people up.

 

[NvrCMyNut]

But how do you "weed out" people who share a certain ideology? What are the moral implications for advocating and legislating against thought crime, especially considering the freedom of religion is one of America's most fundamental principles? How does what you propose address extremists who are already Americans and might want to cause harm to others?

It sounds to me like this is some way to restrict certain people from entering the country indefinitely.

The right to bear arms is one of America's most fundamental principles but liberals have no problem with ignoring that

"How does what you propose address extremists who are already Americans and might want to cause harm to others?" Preventing communities like Molenbeek in Brussels forming will restrict & limit home-grown terrorism.

 

[JahFocus CS]

Bish

You will catch this fade if we ever cross paths IRL.

 

[NoMayo15]

First stop to solving a problem is acknowledging that it exists, something Obama seems very hesitant to do, which is what Trump was getting at.

No, he isn't. He's hesitant to say the problem is inherent in Islam ... because the overwhelming majority of Muslims live normal, peaceful lives. He wants to avoid the same amount of prejudice and hatred targeted at brown people in the US following 9/11. Some on the right would rather we take a hatchet to the problems surrounding Islam, when a scalpel would better address them.

The right to bear arms is one of America's most fundamental principles but liberals have no problem with ignoring that

"How does what you propose address extremists who are already Americans and might want to cause harm to others?" Preventing communities like Molenbeek in Brussels forming will restrict & limit home-grown terrorism.

Most mainstream liberals don't advocate for the complete banning of all firearms. They just want stricter guidelines on who has access to them, and how guns are tracked. The GOP nominee, however, is advocating for a "temporary" ban Muslims from entering the country & becoming citizens. Who can say how long that could be?

 

[NvrCMyNut]

No, he isn't. He's hesitant to say the problem is inherent in Islam ... because the overwhelming majority of Muslims live normal, peaceful lives. He wants to avoid the same amount of prejudice and hatred targeted at brown people in the US following 9/11. Some on the right would rather we take a hatchet to the problems surrounding Islam, when a scalpel would better address them.

Doesn't the radical adjective in 'radical islam' differentiate between the Muslims 'living normal peaceful lives' and those that are not?

That backlash was a consequence of the cultural climate of the time, not politics. We haven't changed our approach to radical Islam since 9/11, the 'nothing to do with Islam', 'religion of peace' etc tactic is clearly doing nothing but enabling them.

 

[NoMayo15]

Islam is having a civil war right now. The Sharia Law/extremist/ISIL wing against the more moderate modern wing. Ensuring that the moderate wing wins is of course in our best interest. BUT here's my post from the first page:

ISIL will only be destroyed by a Muslim army. Any outside groups attacking ISIL will only galvanize Muslims to join ISIL perpetuating the problem. If, say tomorrow, we issued a trade embargo on all Muslim majority countries until they raised an army to destroy ISIL, it would happen and ISIL would be gone.

As would the school of thought that drives ISIL.

Watch the clip here. This exact point was debated nicely on Maher's show: None

The moderates need to stomp out the extremist faction, which only currently exists because it is culturally ok in the Muslim world to be a part of the extremist faction.

So, yes, until the Muslim world is no longer at war with itself and causing violence and degrading civil rights all over the world we should stop letting them in. That's not "indefinite." That's whenever Islam gets its fukking act together.

Two things on the freedom of religion point:

1. The Bill of Rights is only guaranteed to citizens, immigrants are not citizens.
2. "Freedom of religion" is not an excuse to blow people up.

You never really addressed my questions, so I guess I'll just respond to your rambling. First, I don't know if I believe there is a military solution for changing religious dogma. Even if we could kill every admitted member of ISIL, you still have groups like Boko Haram and al-Shabaab in Africa, and wahhabi leaders in Saudi Arabia. Ultimately, the problem is an ideological difference between them and the west, and I don't know if killing everyone willing to kill for jihad is feasible..never mind the morality of it.

Do you realize how many centuries it took for Christianity to "get its fukking act together"? This isn't just a conflict that can be addressed over the span of a few months. What you're talking about is a major religious reformation, and groups of people just don't give up their beliefs that easily. Considering this basic truth, a law of this sort would be a de facto indefinite ban.

I never excused violence in any circumstance, so I'm not sure why you even brought that up. To the first point, you're just wrong. Even illegal aliens have rights afforded to them by the constitution.

 

[NoMayo15]

Doesn't the radical adjective in 'radical islam' differentiate between the Muslims 'living normal peaceful lives' and those that are not?

That backlash was a consequence of the cultural climate of the time, not politics. We haven't changed our approach to radical Islam since 9/11, the 'nothing to do with Islam', 'religion of peace' etc tactic is clearly doing nothing but enabling them.

Perhaps, but the problem I have is the notion that Obama is hesitant on addressing the problem. Regardless of what you label these people, Obama has been vigilant in seeking out and bringing to justice those that commit acts of terror. His policies have just about mimicked his predecessor, but because he doesn't want low-information people to think this is some kind of religious war between Christians and Muslims, he's said to be weak on terrorism from the right. It's just a political ploy, and has nothing to do with identifying a problem.

 

[Pitfalls0117]

This dude here and JudgeJoeC0on need to be exterminated

Don't you have a six to ten page essay on Manuel Ferrara's stroke game for your university of Phoenix queer studies seminar to finish up?

 

[Tony D'Amato]

Don't you have a six to ten page essay on Manuel Ferrara's stroke game for your university of Phoenix queer studies seminar to finish up?

You've either been lutking or you're an alias. Either way, you're clearly a bish a n1gga to cape for 2 other bish azz n1ggaz.

 

[Pitfalls0117]

You've either been lutking or you're an alias. Either way, you're clearly a bish a n1gga to cape for 2 other bish azz n1ggaz.

I've had this account long enough to have observed your, uh, interesting, JBO posting techniques, so no, I'm not an alt.

But back when I WAS lurking, I had to read through all of your slander in the True Detective S2 thread

Both of those things aren't serious but if you stan Hildebeest that might be a bridge too far

 

[Tony D'Amato]

I've had this account long enough to have observed your, uh, interesting, JBO posting techniques, so no, I'm not an alt.

But back when I WAS lurking, I had to read through all of your slander in the True Detective S2 thread

Both of those things aren't serious but if you stan Hildebeest that might be a bridge too far

Oh so u liked True Detective Season 2, that may be worse than being a Trump supporter.

You all kinds of fukked up

 

[Pitfalls0117]

You all kinds of fukked up

Real recognize real

 

[StatUS]

The right want a Holy War, some of the left are too soft on Islam. Obama's in the middle and bombs brown people without blinking an eye.

Thread.

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

Don't you have a six to ten page essay on Manuel Ferrara's stroke game for your university of Phoenix queer studies seminar to finish up?

 

[NvrCMyNut]

Perhaps, but the problem I have is the notion that Obama is hesitant on addressing the problem. Regardless of what you label these people, Obama has been vigilant in seeking out and bringing to justice those that commit acts of terror. His policies have just about mimicked his predecessor, but because he doesn't want low-information people to think this is some kind of religious war between Christians and Muslims, he's said to be weak on terrorism from the right. It's just a political ploy, and has nothing to do with identifying a problem.

Think copying George W Bush is a good thing brehs