• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you agree with this womans comments against radical Islam?

Do you agree with this womans comments against radical Islam?

  • Im a right leaning American, no.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    39
15% to 25%?

I think a more likely statistic is .15% to .25% of all Muslims are radical extremists. What an absurd thought, that 300 million people are radical jihadists!

My God, what a moron that woman is.
That's funny, because you thought/think/Voted the Tea Party is "Radical":
Which is radical fringe is worse? The Weather Underground or the Tea Party? Why? - View Poll Results

but clearly Not ie, the Muslim Brotherhood who Won the last election in Egypt, with the even More Radical Salafis getting.. drum roll: 25%.

and there was this
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/180637-next-major-war-2.html
Ah, yes, this I largely agree with -- though I think it might be more accurate to use the term 'Western' society; I'm not sure how much it has to do with Christianity itself. I do agree with you that certain Islamic theocracies with a hell of a lot of oil money are quite Anti-Western in their geopolitics, and have been Funding networks like Al-Qaeda for a long time.

That is indeed a coming and current conflict of our time.
Who's the "Moron"?
 
Last edited:
That's funny, because you thought/think/Voted the Tea Party is "Radical":
Which is radical fringe is worse? The Weather Underground or the Tea Party? Why? - View Poll Results

but clearly Not ie, the Muslim Brotherhood who Won the last election in Egypt, with the even More Radical Salafis getting.. drum roll.. 25%.

and there was this
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/180637-next-major-war-2.html
Who's the "Moron"?

The radical Tea Partiers certainly don't constitute 15% to 25% of all Christians or Westerners, and thank God (metaphorically), for I shudder to think if they did!

Anyway, I absolutely maintain my stance that radical Islam is awful and must be eradicated. I also maintain that it is dangerous to the West and should not be tolerated in any way, shape or form.

This is logically coherent with my other allegation that nowhere near 25% of all Muslims are radical extremists.

The vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims are not radical jihadists, and should not be treated or feared as such. Those that are, however, ought to be identified and eliminated, whether that's through military, economic or educational force.
 
The radical Tea Partiers certainly don't constitute 15% to 25% of all Christians or Westerners, and thank God (metaphorically), for I shudder to think if they did!

Anyway, I absolutely maintain my stance that radical Islam is awful and must be eradicated. I also maintain that it is dangerous to the West and should not be tolerated in any way, shape or form.

This is logically coherent with my other allegation that nowhere near 25% of all Muslims are radical extremists.

The vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims are not radical jihadists, and should not be treated or feared as such. Those that are, however, ought to be identified and eliminated, whether that's through military, economic or educational force.
You "maintain" that the "coming conflict of our time" is a War with ".15-.25%" of Muslims?
LOL and ooops.

And you keep adding Modifiers to "Radical" to Fudge the issue, this time "jihadists".
One can be "radical", such as the aforementioned Salafis, and not be a Terrorist or Jihadi.
The Tea Party is "Radical" but the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafis, Wahhabis, etc aren't!
:^)
Clearly you've not read the string, and beyond that, are PC fudging every word you write
Too bad your old posts stay up to add hypocrisy to those semantic gymnastics.
We know your previous standard for "radical", you just made it Double Standard for Islam.
But you're not alone.
That would probably put you with every single 'no' voter in the string.
 
Last edited:
You "maintain" that the "coming conflict of our time" is a War with ".15-.25%" of Muslims?
LOL and ooops.

And you keep adding Modifiers to "Radical" to Fudge the issue, this time "jihadists".
One can be "radical", such as the aforementioned Salafis, and not be a Terrorist or Jihadi.
Clearly you've not read the string, and beyond that, are PC fudging every word you write
Too bad your old posts stay up to add hypocrisy to those semantic gymnastics.
Bye.

Bye? I guess.

Anyway, I maintain that it's plenty possible for a small minority to make an impact on a wider populace, and start to influence that populace in a big way. Your example of Egypt is a good one -- I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of Egyptians are not radical (Muslims, extremists, jihadists, whatever word you want) -- just, simply not radical.

Even so, if the salafists come to power, there will be a problem, and I think it's very likely this will continue to occur. I think that the vast, vast majority of Iranians are not radical -- rather, they're moderate and normal people. That doesn't stop Iran from being dangerous and radical.

I'm not sure I'm necessarily disagreeing with that woman's statement -- I totally agree that the silent, peaceful majority don't carry their weight in non-democracies, and it often results in oppressive minority regimes that provoke instability in their region and beyond.

I just can't abide the absurdity of being told that 25% of all adherents to the world's second biggest religion are extremists. It's ridiculous.
 
Bye? I guess.

Anyway, I maintain that it's plenty possible for a small minority to make an impact on a wider populace, and start to influence that populace in a big way. Your example of Egypt is a good one -- I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of Egyptians are not radical (Muslims, extremists, jihadists, whatever word you want) -- just, simply not radical.

Even so, if the salafists come to power, there will be a problem, and I think it's very likely this will continue to occur. I think that the vast, vast majority of Iranians are not radical -- rather, they're moderate and normal people. That doesn't stop Iran from being dangerous and radical.

I'm not sure I'm necessarily disagreeing with that woman's statement -- I totally agree that the silent, peaceful majority don't carry their weight in non-democracies, and it often results in oppressive minority regimes that provoke instability in their region and beyond.

I just can't abide the absurdity of being told that 25% of all adherents to the world's second biggest religion are extremists. It's ridiculous.
Another DISHONEST post. Now he's changed to the word "extremist".
He buddy, the word in question, without any Doodads you added on like "jihadi", is "Radical".
No getting away with fudging with me.

You had no problem with "radical" for the Tea Party, but the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafis, Wahhabis.. aren't
Great stuff!

That and your goofy claim that the/Our Big coming conflict was with a mere .15-.25% of Muslims. (who btw, must be funded by other/more 'non radical' muslims/Govts)

So what's next?
1. You'll change the word "radical" to yet something else.. or add another modifier to it..
2. You'll "maintain" something that you are, in fact, Changing.. again.

It's attempted but Failed Disingenuity for all to see.
 
Last edited:
Another DISHONEST post. Now he's changed to the word "extremist".
He buddy, the word in question, without any Doodads you added on like "jihadi", is "Radical".

You had no problem with "radical" for the Tea Party, but the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafis, Wahhabis.. aren't
Great stuff!

That and your preposterous claim that the/Our Big coming conflict was with a mere .15-.25% of Muslims. (who btw, must be funded by other/more 'non radical' muslims/Govts)

So what's next?
1. You'll change the word "radical" to yet something else.. or add another modifier to it..
2. You'll "maintain" something that you are, in fact, Changing.. again.

It's attempted but Failed Disingenuity for all to see.

Seriously, where did you learn to speak English? This is some ballistic grammar and punctuation I see.

Anyway, I'm perfectly willing to call the Muslim Brotherhood, the Tea Party, the Salafists, the Westboro Baptist Church, the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah, the Israeli settlers and the NRA extremists. I think they're all extremist nutbags and their influence needs to be limited.

I have no idea why you're being so hostile -- it's almost comical. I'm largely agreeing with the basic statement (if not with you, because you don't appear to have a point) that radical Islam is dangerous and must be curbed. I'm totally behind that.

I'm just not totally behind demonising 300 million people who are beyond any shadow of a doubt NOT all extremists.
 
Seriously, where did you learn to speak English? This is some ballistic grammar and punctuation I see.

Anyway, I'm perfectly willing to call the Muslim Brotherhood, the Tea Party, the Salafists, the Westboro Baptist Church, the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah, the Israeli settlers and the NRA extremists. I think they're all extremist nutbags and their influence needs to be limited.
The word in question, again, is "radical".
See if you can make an honest post using That word instead of constantly changing it.

You thought it was "preposterous" that more than .15%-.25% of Muslims could be labeled as such, But a group as wide as the Tea Party, a significant block in the USA, was fine for it.
We got it!
That's why you keep changing the word: to avoid the obvious hypocrisy in it's use.
I completely understand the game, I'm just not going to let you get away with it.


Ad Captandum said:
I have no idea why you're being so hostile -- it's almost comical. I'm largely agreeing with the basic statement (if not with you, because you don't appear to have a point) that radical Islam is dangerous and must be curbed. I'm totally behind that.

I'm just not totally behind demonising 300 million people who are beyond any shadow of a doubt NOT all extremists.
You're not agreeing with me at all.
You're vastly underestimating the number of Radicals in Islam at a ridiculous ".15%-.25%" which your last admission above just Busted. MB, Wahhabis, Salafis, alone are way more than .15%-.25%! And Many, Many, more in ie, Pakistan, Yemen, Iran, SE Asia, etc, are just as bad.
as well as having your estimate busted by your own previous post which claimed that would be our major conflict.
and of Course, there's the Strawman! "Not ALL"

Again:
I'm hostile because...
1. you keep moving the goal posts by adding modifiers (like "jihadi") to "radical", and again in this post, Outright Replacing it with "extremist" to muddy the issue and avoid your hypocritical use of it.
2. You again are saying you're "maintaining", now "agreeing", when you did no such thing.
Your latest post just a repeat of the Disingenuous tactics I specified in my numbers 1 & 2 in the post you quoted, but obviously ignored/hoped to Fudge again.
 
Last edited:
15% to 25%?

I think a more likely statistic is .15% to .25% of all Muslims are radical extremists. What an absurd thought, that 300 million people are radical jihadists!

My God, what a moron that woman is.

But her point about moderates standing by and doing much of nothing was spot on...
 
The radical Tea Partiers certainly don't constitute 15% to 25% of all Christians or Westerners, and thank God (metaphorically), for I shudder to think if they did!

Anyway, I absolutely maintain my stance that radical Islam is awful and must be eradicated. I also maintain that it is dangerous to the West and should not be tolerated in any way, shape or form.

This is logically coherent with my other allegation that nowhere near 25% of all Muslims are radical extremists.

The vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims are not radical jihadists, and should not be treated or feared as such. Those that are, however, ought to be identified and eliminated, whether that's through military, economic or educational force.

The TEA party does not even address social issues. They want limited taxation and govt intrusion, and strict govt accountability. If you are saying that is equivocal to people who believe Gays and Apostates should be stoned, and that we should live under a legal system based on Islam you simply dont know what you are talking about.

I've posted video's in this thread about the situation in Londonistan-YOU are going to figure this out long before any American liberal does.
 
Seriously, where did you learn to speak English? This is some ballistic grammar and punctuation I see.

Anyway, I'm perfectly willing to call the Muslim Brotherhood, the Tea Party, the Salafists, the Westboro Baptist Church, the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah, the Israeli settlers and the NRA extremists. I think they're all extremist nutbags and their influence needs to be limited.

I have no idea why you're being so hostile -- it's almost comical. I'm largely agreeing with the basic statement (if not with you, because you don't appear to have a point) that radical Islam is dangerous and must be curbed. I'm totally behind that.

I'm just not totally behind demonising 300 million people who are beyond any shadow of a doubt NOT all extremists.

This is beautiful-you think that the TEA party and the NRA somehow equate to "extremist nutbags". :doh Im by no means a fan of Westboro, but they aren't even the junior varsity version of what is ubiquitous in Islam. Probably just in YOUR town alone. Get your bearings, mate-you are lost.
 
Are you telling me you are precisely in the middle? The epitome of centrist? What are the odds of that?

I find it amusing that left or right people get so perplexed that someone isn't for 'em or agin-em. Isn't clearly friend or foe.

I'm close to the middle, but lean left, and that gets lefties and righties kerfuffled. Lefties assume I'm really true left, and righties try to figure out if I'm left enough to hate.
 
This is beautiful-you think that the TEA party and the NRA somehow equate to "extremist nutbags". :doh Im by no means a fan of Westboro, but they aren't even the junior varsity version of what is ubiquitous in Islam. Probably just in YOUR town alone. Get your bearings, mate-you are lost.

Come on, now. Even though they don't behead people, you know that the TEA Party and the NRA are full of extremists, and the % of extremists is way over the 25% mark. That statement of the post you cited is correct on that point.
 
I find it amusing that left or right people get so perplexed that someone isn't for 'em or agin-em. Isn't clearly friend or foe.

I'm close to the middle, but lean left, and that gets lefties and righties kerfuffled. Lefties assume I'm really true left, and righties try to figure out if I'm left enough to hate.

I have no skin in the game regarding any posters lean. I like poll threads and word them how I do because they allow us to dissect these issues and gain insight into peoples thoughts. I find this useful.
 
Come on, now. Even though they don't behead people, you know that the TEA Party and the NRA are full of extremists, and the % of extremists is way over the 25% mark. That statement of the post you cited is correct on that point.

Actually I disagree, perhaps there is a bit of distortion to your view.
 
Okay, so let's assume that one polling source is 100% correct. 13% said they have favorable opinions of Al Qaeda. That's nowhere near what the video stated.

:shrug: You won't get argument from me about Al-Qaeda, but support for Al-Qaeda is different than support for Islamist groups.

What is that supposed to mean? A Muslim winning an election in Pakistan is just as likely as a Christian winning an election here. And in the last general election, the winning party was the fiscal conservative, right-wing, "pro-American" party.

Ah, no, not the same as "A Christian Winning Here".

Let's say that Mike Huckabee had run on a platform of enforcing Christian morality on the populace, Amending the Constitution to conform to the Bible, and encouraging the death sentence for apostasy or insulting Christianity. And won. That would be closer to what it would look like if we were to try to build a parallel between the Islamists who win elections and a Christian winning here.
 
The TEA party does not even address social issues. They want limited taxation and govt intrusion, and strict govt accountability. If you are saying that is equivocal to people who believe Gays and Apostates should be stoned, and that we should live under a legal system based on Islam you simply dont know what you are talking about.

I've posted video's in this thread about the situation in Londonistan-YOU are going to figure this out long before any American liberal does.

I'm no fan of radical Islam, and I think it's dangerous and cancerous. I also advocate the limitation of all religion in Western society, Islam foremost as a particularly repressive and anti-modern one.

But I can't help at laugh at the truly, utterly absurd claims by some US conservatives about "Britainistan" or "Londonistan" or other silly (albeit amusing) references to the 'Islamisation' of Western Europe.

If you were really up on the subject, you would know that 90% of all persons charged with hate speech and discrimination are Muslims, and both Cameron's government and the New Labour before it have taken huge steps to arrest any growing radical influence in the British Islamic community.

I'll also point you to the recent enquiries in some London inner-city schools, in which police and government officials have identified and neutralised several radical Islamist teachers.

So, all this is to say that where there is a potential problem, we deal with it.

But overwhelmingly, the more important thing I'd like to let you know, having lived in London for a long, long time -- the idea that there are neighbourhoods that follow Sharia law or are patrolled by radical Islamic militias is nonsense.

Seriously, it has zero basis in fact. The Daily Mail (essentially a tabloid notorious for running scaremonger articles about anything from killer broccoli to killer Pakistanis) periodically comes up with a story about a woman harassed in some bad part of London for wearing skimpy clothes, or some mosque that's teaching the kids to be suicide bombers. Inevitably, when you delve deeper into these stories, you realise that they're either A) Unsubstantiated or B) Grossly twisted for the purpose of selling newspapers.

It probably occurs occasionally -- something like a woman walking home at night being harassed by a bunch of young men because she's in a short dress, or an outsider wandering into the wrong neighbourhood and getting mugged.

I ask you -- is it any different in Chicago, New York, Dallas, Phoenix, Atlanta, LA, Detroit, Boston or Miami? Or any other US city I can name?

Maybe I should start running headlines: "The increasing Africanisation of Chicagafrica! FOUR WHITE WOMEN RAPED BY RAMPAGING AFRICANS -- WHEN WILL THE GOVERNMENT STAND UP TO THE INCREASING BLACKIFICATION OF AMERICA?!"

It's absurd. Socioeconomic factors are the cause here. The Pakistanis in inner-city London are poor and uneducated. They resort to crime, and feel oppressed by outsiders, particularly white Britons.

They're not all going to grow up to be Osama bin Laden, as much as every black person in Chicago isn't going to grow up to be Malcolm X.
 
But her point about moderates standing by and doing much of nothing was spot on...

Oh, yeah. I agree with that. Even if the vast majority of Muslims are moderate and don't support terrorist actions (which is true), there's still an element that does support violent extremism, and that can never be tolerated.
 
I have no idea why you're being so hostile .

Hostility is not an unusual reaction to an snivelling,underhanded agenda based upon complete dishonesty,false equivalences,and the desire to deceive.

Were you to attempt some honesty and integrity, instead, you might receive a different reaction.
 
Hostility is not an unusual reaction to an snivelling,underhanded agenda based upon complete dishonesty,false equivalences,and the desire to deceive.

Were you to attempt some honesty and integrity, instead, you might receive a different reaction.

No, it's not unusual, but it is somewhat juvenile. Look at you -- you're trying your hardest to annoy me, using words like 'snivelling', 'underhanded', and 'dishonesty'.

But I have no stake in your misconceptions of my purpose, and so I do not become hostile. That's the only way to debate.

Anyway, I'll say it once more, for all and sundry to hear:

I oppose radical Islam. I oppose extreme Islam. I oppose jihadist Islam. I oppose radical Christianity. I oppose extreme Christianity. I oppose Christian crusades.

I oppose the Salafists. I oppose the Wahhabists. I oppose the English Defence League. I oppose the Tea Party. I oppose the Ayatollah in Iran. I oppose the Likud party in the Knesset. I oppose Al-Qaeda. I oppose the Islamic State in Syria and the Levant (ISIS). I oppose the National Rifle Association. I oppose radical feminists. I oppose the Westboro Baptist Church. I oppose the Muslim Brotherhood. I oppose Hamas.

And so many more.

They're all radical -- though not, of course, to the same degree. Al-Qaeda is of course far more radical than the Tea Party. But they're all radical, and they're all making the world a less stable and prosperous place. They're all awful.

How could I possibly make myself any clearer to you?
 
Seriously, where did you learn to speak English? This is some ballistic grammar and punctuation I see.

Anyway, I'm perfectly willing to call the Muslim Brotherhood, the Tea Party, the Salafists, the Westboro Baptist Church, the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah, the Israeli settlers and the NRA extremists. I think they're all extremist nutbags and their influence needs to be limited.

I have no idea why you're being so hostile -- it's almost comical. I'm largely agreeing with the basic statement (if not with you, because you don't appear to have a point) that radical Islam is dangerous and must be curbed. I'm totally behind that.

I'm just not totally behind demonising 300 million people who are beyond any shadow of a doubt NOT all extremists.

Ok so the tea party is extremist?

What about the left who will say that I'm engaging in a "war on women" and that I hate women and want to control them for no other reason than that I am pro-life. All I have to say to a leftist is that I'm pro-life, nothing else and that is the response they give to me. they know nothing at all about me other than I disagree with their views of abortion yet they know for a fact that I want to control women. They don't know nor do they care that I am a husband and father who does everything possible to make my wife and daughters lives happy and safe. Nope.....all they need to know is I don't share their opinion on the abortion issue so I hate women and want to control them.

That's not extreme?
 
How could I possibly make myself any clearer to you?



Well,for starters, you could stop lyng through your teeth about the number of muslims who hold beliefs that you would consider extreme if you applied the same standards to them as you do to any other people.

There would, indeed,be hundreds upon hundreds of millions if you only had the integrity necessary to judge all by the same standards.
 
This is beautiful-you think that the TEA party and the NRA somehow equate to "extremist nutbags". :doh Im by no means a fan of Westboro, but they aren't even the junior varsity version of what is ubiquitous in Islam. Probably just in YOUR town alone. Get your bearings, mate-you are lost.

It amazes me,sometimes, how uneducated, dishonest people can get so carried away by their dogmatism that they would resort to such idiotic comparisons. If the tea party are extremists for their conservative beliefs, then over a billion Muslims must be extremists. If the Landover Baptist is an extremist organization for their opinions about gay people, there are hundreds and hundreds of millions of extremist Muslims. If a religious sect in the west shuns apostates,these same chittering parrots would call them extremist and then in the next breath call muslims "moderate" who would support KILLING apostates.

I guess what bothers me more than anything about these profoundly illiberal apolgists for the antithesis of liberalism is that they do nothing but contribute what amounts to rhetorical pollution to the discussion. Since they are on the left (usually the authoritarian hard left), they are often confused with liberals, and the voices of actual liberals cannot be heard above the cacophany of their polluted views. People think these automatic defenses of pre-enlightenment belief systems IS the sign of a liberal, and that the lies, the mealy-mouthed double talk and the false equivalences that constitute their stock in trade is smehow a liberal characteristic. It isn't. Their duplicity is not the product of a world view that is liberal. It is the product of a world view that is profoundly ANTI liberal, so thorough is their support for the misogyny, the patriarchy, the theocratic ideology,the hatred of gays, and the enormous disregard for humanist values.

Simply put --they would not produce such a huge,stinking pile of sophistry to defend these archly regressive values if there was even the tiniest hint of liberalsim in their world view.
 
Please name all the domestic Christian terrorists who have killed someone.

Frazier Glenn Cross, Wade Michael Page, Shawna Forde, Albert Gaxiola, Jason Bush, Scott Roeder, and many others.

All radicals have Some terrorist sympathy for Obvious reason/definition: rooting for Islam v the West/Christians/Jews/Hindus.
Nonetheless, we WERE Talking about the term 'radicals', which Ms Gabriel conservatively estimates at 25%.

That makes no sense. There is a difference between supporting fundamentalist Islamic values, just like how people support fundamentalist Christian values here, and supporting violence and terrorism as a means to defend their values. Many people in believe in the values of western civilization, but would prefer not to go to war to defend those values. And if you watch the Young Turks video someone posted earlier, it was mentioned by one of the interviewees that there were cases where Gabriel defined radical as praying more than five times a day.

We keep having apologists for Worldwide Islamic violence do the redirect/Deflection to America alone which is only maybe 2% Muslim.
(So one can assume the debate is Over on the Gabriel claim as it is now UNcontested)

As to your Left Wing article from 'Alternet' it's Misleading/untrue.
Only hundreds of arrests have prevented more Islamic acts of terror.

Denying the reliability of a source because it doesn't back up your argument is not an actual argument. Try again.

That would be 50 Foiled plots in/against America since 9/11.
50 Terror Attacks Foiled Since 9/11
Not including 'Successful' plots like Fort Hood.
Ouch.
And since we Are talking Worldwide, not just the USA...
Several Hundred Die Every Week, and 1500-2000 Die Every month in the Name of Islam.
These are Only crimes in the Name of Islam.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/i...oing it at a more frequent rate than Muslims. Neither religion is barbaric because of this minority. What is so hard about that to understand?

If defending knuckle-dragging views that haven't changed in 1500 years is the sign of "progressive" politics, I'd hate to think what your politics must have been before they progressed.

You seem to think that I am defending terrorists themselves. That is not true. I am talking about Muslims who do not support terrorism, which are the vast majority of them. It's called allowing freedom of thought and association and not judging an entire religion based on a tiny minority within the religion's viewpoint.

:shrug: You won't get argument from me about Al-Qaeda, but support for Al-Qaeda is different than support for Islamist groups.



Ah, no, not the same as "A Christian Winning Here".

Let's say that Mike Huckabee had run on a platform of enforcing Christian morality on the populace, Amending the Constitution to conform to the Bible, and encouraging the death sentence for apostasy or insulting Christianity. And won. That would be closer to what it would look like if we were to try to build a parallel between the Islamists who win elections and a Christian winning here.

That is false because I am talking about people who identify with Islam and win elections, not Islam radicals who want to shove the Quran down the throats. The Pakistani government is not the kind of government you are referring to. And as I have previously mentioned, persecuting those who do not identify with Christianity is not exactly absent from the U.S.
 
Someone's fundamentalist views, regardless of what religion they are fundamentalist towards, are not relevant if they do not support terrorist groups.

What truly idiotic sophistry.

You could have just said right off the bat that you would attempt any dishonest rationalization at your disposal in order to obscure the truth.
 
Back
Top Bottom