Le Pen presses France to condemn 'Islamists'

[rb224315]

This business of distinguishing between "Islamists" vs. Islamism vs. Muslims vs. whatever has gotten tiresome.  Does any person in the West really think the extremists see us any differently if we use "Islamism" instead of "Islam"?  I can see it now:  one of the barbarians is setting up to lop off some Western reporter's head in the name of Allah (peace be upon him).  The reporter says "I said 'Islamist', not 'Muslim'."  The barbarian then says "Oh ok, I misunderstood.  I'll take off your hood & you can go on your way.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.  Say hi to your gay friends and enjoy your Christmas ham."

For you, the average Westerner, the difference between terms might mean something.  Unfortunately, you & I cannot understand the thinking of the psycho who can lop off someone's head, send a child into a market with a bomb strapped to them, countenance & commit rape, or buy & sell women into sex slavery.  Trust me when I say, you cannot empathize with them.  It is impossible for you to do so.  You have no idea what it's like to be the coldest of cold blooded killers.  If you think you can empathize with them, watch this video.  The woman was accused of a murder, but this is what the savages do to people like Daniel Pearl, too, whose only crime was . . . I can't think of any crime he committed.  He just refused to submit to Islam.

Oh, by they way, if these savages aren't Muslim, why the he11 do we bend over backwards to make sure the ones we capture on the battlefield get everything they need to conduct their lives according to Islamic requirements?  This American Thinker article is spot on.

[musiclady]

Why does somebody left or right need to come up at all, let alone in every single conversation? If I am wrong then you should demonstrate that; saying I'm throwing up left wing talking points does not discredit what I have said. Focus on the conversation, not on which political ideology a specific opinion might be closest to.

This is a political forum.  Political ideologies matter.  And political ideologies are determined by values which those on the other side 'of the aisle' don't share.

(And right now, a particular ideology..... that of the  progressive left........ is destroying this country and everything we hold dear).

Why are you so timid about admitting who and what you are, and why you think the way you do?

Man up.

[Dexter]

This is a political forum.  Political ideologies matter.  And political ideologies are determined by values which those on the other side 'of the aisle' don't share.

(And right now, a particular ideology..... that of the  progressive left........ is destroying this country and everything we hold dear).

Why are you so timid about admitting who and what you are, and why you think the way you do?

Man up.

I'm not timid about admitting anything; I've been honest about what I believe and have thoroughly discussed why I believe it. Political discourse can take place without one side accusing others of being associated with a political ideology they don't approve of. It is extremely redundant and irrelevant to most of the conversations. Obsessing over the political affiliation of the person making an argument does absolutely nothing to advance the conversation. Your arguments also tend to be a lot more clean and concise when you cut out the unnecessary nonsense.

[aligncare]

Why does somebody left or right need to come up at all, let alone in every single conversation? If I am wrong then you should demonstrate that; saying I'm throwing up left wing talking points does not discredit what I have said. Focus on the conversation, not on which political ideology a specific opinion might be closest to.

Dex is right, folks.

I've seen it here before. Someone will simply dismiss a poster as liberal or left wing and just walk away without dealing with the substance of what was said.

[DCPatriot]

Dex is right, folks.

I've seen it here before. Someone will simply dismiss a poster as liberal or left wing and just walk away without dealing with the substance of what was said.

 

[musiclady]

I'm not timid about admitting anything; I've been honest about what I believe and have thoroughly discussed why I believe it. Political discourse can take place without one side accusing others of being associated with a political ideology they don't approve of. It is extremely redundant and irrelevant to most of the conversations. Obsessing over the political affiliation of the person making an argument does absolutely nothing to advance the conversation. Your arguments also tend to be a lot more clean and concise when you cut out the unnecessary nonsense.

It's not 'redundant' to clarify where a person is coming from ideology when it bears a direct correlation to what that person is saying, and how one responds to the ideas being brought forth.

There may be people who throw out the 'liberal' line too frequently for your feelings, but when the essence of your argument (as is often the case) is a leftist straw-dog talking point, it's completely within the realm of the discussion to bring up your liberal bias as part of the conversation.

I really don't care if you find it tiresome that the fact of your liberalism is brought up from time to time.  It's a reality, and it matters in the course of a conversation.  If there were nothing more to it, you might have a basis for your whining (there may be with others on the forum, but not with me), but the only time I bring it up is when you USE a liberal argument.

And you usually do.

So........... If you want me to stop mentioning it, then stop using the liberal talking points and think for yourself.

The fact that you're still around on a conservative forum, as one is who not a conservative, indicates that, at some level, you must want to learn.  You can learn a lot here if you open your mind to conservatism.  There are many wise and experienced people here (and I'm not including myself in that category, though I have been around and engaged in politics for decades), and if you actually read what they say to you, you can grow, not only politically, but as a person.

Give it a try.

[musiclady]

Dex is right, folks.

I've seen it here before. Someone will simply dismiss a poster as liberal or left wing and just walk away without dealing with the substance of what was said.

Some, but not all.

LOTS of people around here have engaged him in his liberalism while discussing the issue rationally.  (In most of the conversations I've had with him of great substance, HE has 'walked away,' and not me,  He doesn't deal well with having his logical fallacies and factual errors challenged, and he doesn't deal well with having the actual facts presented to him.  He just somehow 'disappears' when faced with the truth).

As I see it, Dex wants it both ways.  He wants to argue liberal arguments, and have everyone pretend he's not. 

(And he likes to whine.  A lot.)

It doesn't work that way.

[alicewonders]

I don't think Dex is what I call "liberal", he is what I call "libertarian".  I consider myself to be liberatarian.  Some of my beliefs would be considered liberal by some here, but I don't think he is a "liberal" by any means.  In fact, I find Dex to be a cogent thinker and he presents his viewpoints in a very well thought out way - plus - I never see him lose his cool.  I appreciate his viewpoint.

 

[musiclady]

I don't think Dex is what I call "liberal", he is what I call "libertarian".  I consider myself to be liberatarian.  Some of my beliefs would be considered liberal by some here, but I don't think he is a "liberal" by any means.  In fact, I find Dex to be a cogent thinker and he presents his viewpoints in a very well thought out way - plus - I never see him lose his cool.  I appreciate his viewpoint.

There are conservative libertarians, and there are liberal libertarians.

On the issues with which I find myself on opposite sides of the issue, Dex has argued standard liberal perspectives.

And when he does, I will feel free to point that out.

Yes, he says he doesn't like government.  Yes, he says he doesn't like Obama.  Yes, he says he doesn't like either party.

Those perspectives can come from either left or right.

It's not being obsessed with 'labels.'  It's being concerned with truth.

[alicewonders]

There are conservative libertarians, and there are liberal libertarians.

On the issues with which I find myself on opposite sides of the issue, Dex has argued standard liberal perspectives.

And when he does, I will feel free to point that out.

Yes, he says he doesn't like government.  Yes, he says he doesn't like Obama.  Yes, he says he doesn't like either party.

Those perspectives can come from either left or right.

It's not being obsessed with 'labels.'  It's being concerned with truth.

I wasn't attacking anyone - especially you musiclady.  I value your viewpoint as well and you present your arguments well.  I was stating that I don't think Dex is liberal, at least as I define the term.  I like his viewpoint and I like that he doesn't get emotional when he is debating an issue with one of us. 

Yes, there are conservative and liberal libertarians.  I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative, but I am liberal on many social issues - but to me - the libertarian philosophy of limited government is what appeals to me. 

Assigning labels does make it confusing.  So many of us call ourselves "conservative" - but to some it means social conservative and to others it means fiscal conservative.  Some are both.  There are gray lines everywhere.

[musiclady]

I wasn't attacking anyone - especially you musiclady.  I value your viewpoint as well and you present your arguments well.  I was stating that I don't think Dex is liberal, at least as I define the term.  I like his viewpoint and I like that he doesn't get emotional when he is debating an issue with one of us. 

Yes, there are conservative and liberal libertarians.  I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative, but I am liberal on many social issues - but to me - the libertarian philosophy of limited government is what appeals to me. 

Assigning labels does make it confusing.  So many of us call ourselves "conservative" - but to some it means social conservative and to others it means fiscal conservative.  Some are both.  There are gray lines everywhere.

Oh......... I didn't take what you said to be an attack on me in the least, alice!  I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

I'm not so sure that labels necessarily make things confusing.  You just outlined where you stand on issues, and your posts back that up, so you, in, an a sense, honestly 'labeled' yourself.   So, if I, in a conversation with you said, "you are a fiscal conservative" it would be no offense to you, or if, on the other hand I said, "you are a social liberal," again, it would not be an offense.

I'm both a social conservative and a fiscal conservative, but I remain a Republican.  That puts me at odds with a number of conservatives here......... but that's OK with me.  It's what I am.  So again, if you said in a conversation that I was a social conservative and we were disagreeing, and if you said, "ah, but you're a social conservative" it would be no offense to me, and I wouldn't whine that you were 'labeling' me.

I think labels help define our positions, especially if we have the opportunity to give more detail to those positions.

For instance, I care very much about the environment, but I'm not a political environmentalist, because they don't give a rip about nature..... only about control.  From my youth I have been very interested in racial reconciliation, and for that reason I'm a conservative politically and don't identify one iota with the racist political left.

All that is to say, if someone argues from what is clearly a leftist talking point on any given issue, it is fair game to point that out.  When Dex argues as a Libertarian who hates both parties, I never interject anything about his liberalism.  But when he talks about other issues and uses talking points and straw dogs that could well be coming from DU or HuffPo, I think it's perfectly legitimate to point that out.

[Bigun]

Dex is right, folks.

I've seen it here before. Someone will simply dismiss a poster as liberal or left wing and just walk away without dealing with the substance of what was said.

MY problem is that I do not suffer fools gladly and have extremely limited patience with them!

[Dexter]

Some, but not all.

LOTS of people around here have engaged him in his liberalism while discussing the issue rationally.  (In most of the conversations I've had with him of great substance, HE has 'walked away,' and not me,  He doesn't deal well with having his logical fallacies and factual errors challenged, and he doesn't deal well with having the actual facts presented to him.  He just somehow 'disappears' when faced with the truth).

As I see it, Dex wants it both ways.  He wants to argue liberal arguments, and have everyone pretend he's not. 

(And he likes to whine.  A lot.)

It doesn't work that way.

First of all I just want to point out that the reason my opinions in our disagreements always seem to come from the left is because you're very obviously farther to the right than I will ever be, so when we disagree I will always be to the left of you. I would be amazed if we ever had a disagreement and I was arguing from the right. I don't feel compelled to post about how much we all agree with each other about an issue, so on threads like that I tend to not post; echo chambers are boring. Also, just because I choose to stop posting in a discussion it doesn't mean your point was so magnificent that I had no choice but to run away with my tail between my legs. When I feel I've said everything I wanted to say and that we have reached an impasse I tend to just let it go.

[Bigun]

First of all I just want to point out that the reason my opinions in our disagreements always seem to come from the left is because you're very obviously farther to the right than I will ever be, so when we disagree I will always be to the left of you. I would be amazed if we ever had a disagreement and I was arguing from the right. I don't feel compelled to post about how much we all agree with each other about an issue, so on threads like that I tend to not post; echo chambers are boring. Also, just because I choose to stop posting in a discussion it doesn't mean your point was so magnificent that I had no choice but to run away with my tail between my legs. When I feel I've said everything I wanted to say and that we have reached an impasse I tend to just let it go.

I'll bet you that after you have lived a few more years YOU will very much regret making that statement!

[alicewonders]

Oh......... I didn't take what you said to be an attack on me in the least, alice!  I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

I'm not so sure that labels necessarily make things confusing.  You just outlined where you stand on issues, and your posts back that up, so you, in, an a sense, honestly 'labeled' yourself.   So, if I, in a conversation with you said, "you are a fiscal conservative" it would be no offense to you, or if, on the other hand I said, "you are a social liberal," again, it would not be an offense.

I'm both a social conservative and a fiscal conservative, but I remain a Republican.  That puts me at odds with a number of conservatives here......... but that's OK with me.  It's what I am.  So again, if you said in a conversation that I was a social conservative and we were disagreeing, and if you said, "ah, but you're a social conservative" it would be no offense to me, and I wouldn't whine that you were 'labeling' me.

I think labels help define our positions, especially if we have the opportunity to give more detail to those positions.

For instance, I care very much about the environment, but I'm not a political environmentalist, because they don't give a rip about nature..... only about control.  From my youth I have been very interested in racial reconciliation, and for that reason I'm a conservative politically and don't identify one iota with the racist political left.

All that is to say, if someone argues from what is clearly a leftist talking point on any given issue, it is fair game to point that out.  When Dex argues as a Libertarian who hates both parties, I never interject anything about his liberalism.  But when he talks about other issues and uses talking points and straw dogs that could well be coming from DU or HuffPo, I think it's perfectly legitimate to point that out.

I agree with everything you said here.  I can't speak for Dex, but I think he is someone who used to be liberal - but is waking up to the fact that liberalism is not the answer.  He is evolving, like many of us are. 

Myself, I don't like genetically modified foods, I am an organic sort that wants to protect the environment too (like you, I hate the activists that are only in it to control us), I am in favor of drug legalization (details to be ironed out), I don't think the government should involve itself in issuing marriage licenses (that marriage is holy matrimony and should not be a tax issue) - and I even think that prostitution should be legal (prostitutes and drug dealers should have to pay taxes like the rest of us).  In these types of issues I would be labeled as a liberal by some people - and I'm OK with that. 

[Dexter]

Oh......... I didn't take what you said to be an attack on me in the least, alice!  I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

I'm not so sure that labels necessarily make things confusing.  You just outlined where you stand on issues, and your posts back that up, so you, in, an a sense, honestly 'labeled' yourself.   So, if I, in a conversation with you said, "you are a fiscal conservative" it would be no offense to you, or if, on the other hand I said, "you are a social liberal," again, it would not be an offense.

I'm both a social conservative and a fiscal conservative, but I remain a Republican.  That puts me at odds with a number of conservatives here......... but that's OK with me.  It's what I am.  So again, if you said in a conversation that I was a social conservative and we were disagreeing, and if you said, "ah, but you're a social conservative" it would be no offense to me, and I wouldn't whine that you were 'labeling' me.

I think labels help define our positions, especially if we have the opportunity to give more detail to those positions.

For instance, I care very much about the environment, but I'm not a political environmentalist, because they don't give a rip about nature..... only about control.  From my youth I have been very interested in racial reconciliation, and for that reason I'm a conservative politically and don't identify one iota with the racist political left.

All that is to say, if someone argues from what is clearly a leftist talking point on any given issue, it is fair game to point that out.  When Dex argues as a Libertarian who hates both parties, I never interject anything about his liberalism.  But when he talks about other issues and uses talking points and straw dogs that could well be coming from DU or HuffPo, I think it's perfectly legitimate to point that out.

You try to use labels in a derogatory way, and that does nothing to help your point or to advance the conversation.

[musiclady]

First of all I just want to point out that the reason my opinions in our disagreements always seem to come from the left is because you're very obviously farther to the right than I will ever be, so when we disagree I will always be to the left of you. I would be amazed if we ever had a disagreement and I was arguing from the right. I don't feel compelled to post about how much we all agree with each other about an issue, so on threads like that I tend to not post; echo chambers are boring. Also, just because I choose to stop posting in a discussion it doesn't mean your point was so magnificent that I had no choice but to run away with my tail between my legs. When I feel I've said everything I wanted to say and that we have reached an impasse I tend to just let it go.

Thanks for posting another one of your straw dogs, Dex.  Like Obama, you argue against points that were never made, and situations that never occurred, using magnificent hyperbole, I might add.

There have been multiple situations where I made points to which you might have replied, had you had anything to say, and you went away.  There are also multiple situations where there were many people who were smashing your straw dogs, and you just went away.

I appreciate that you're trying to turn it into something noble with your hyperbolic nonsense, but you and I both know of situations where you just didn't have an answer to the truth being presented to you from the other side of the argument, so you disappeared.

[musiclady]

You try to use labels in a derogatory way, and that does nothing to help your point or to advance the conversation.

Thanks for your perspective, Dex.

It's not true, but I appreciate finding out why you're as whiny as you are.

[Dexter]

Thanks for posting another one of your straw dogs, Dex.  Like Obama, you argue against points that were never made, and situations that never occurred, using magnificent hyperbole, I might add.

There have been multiple situations where I made points to which you might have replied, had you had anything to say, and you went away.  There are also multiple situations where there were many people who were smashing your straw dogs, and you just went away.

I appreciate that you're trying to turn it into something noble with your hyperbolic nonsense, but you and I both know of situations where you just didn't have an answer to the truth being presented to you from the other side of the argument, so you disappeared.

You assume that me choosing not to engage your point means that I am incapable of engaging your point. That is incorrect, but this is one of those situations where there is no point in trying to convince you otherwise.

[musiclady]

You assume that me choosing not to engage your point means that I am incapable of engaging your point. That is incorrect, but this is one of those situations where there is no point in trying to convince you otherwise.

You're doing a lot of assuming yourself, there, Dex.  I just find it fascinating when someone like you leaves an argument when a key point (or several) has been made, and your argument destroyed.

Again............ nice that you can convince yourself that you're doing something noble in walking away without acceding the point.

But this is off topic, isn't it?

How about responding to some of the points I made upthread about how Islam is stuck in the 7th century because a large number of them believe that Allah wills that they be there?  How about the point I made about women's rights in Islam?  How about debating any of the issues I tried to discuss with you earlier?

Let's renew the actual conversation, shall we??

(Edited to remove unnecessary sarcasm.    )

[Dexter]

You're doing a lot of assuming yourself, there, Dex.  I just find it fascinating when someone like you leaves an argument when a key point (or several) has been made, and your argument destroyed.

Again............ nice that you can convince yourself that you're doing something noble in walking away without acceding the point.

But this is off topic, isn't it?

How about responding to some of the points I made upthread about how Islam is stuck in the 7th century because a large number of them believe that Allah wills that they be there?  How about the point I made about women's rights in Islam?  How about debating any of the issues I tried to discuss with you earlier?

Edited to remove unnecessary sarcasm.   

The world is not so black and white that disagreements can mostly end with one person being right and the other being wrong. It is all about your perspective and your values; that is how two intelligent people can have a completely different opinion. Sometimes people have to accept that they just disagree for reasons that cannot be reconciled by conversation; that is called an impasse, and I am good at identifying them and moving on.

If you really must know I didn't respond to your post earlier because I felt it was absurd. They do not choose to not be as grand as countries like the United States. They do not choose to have access to less technology and to live more difficult lives. Could you please show me where Allah instructed them to be hundreds of years behind the rest of the world culturally and technologically? The life of the average person over there sucks in comparison to here; nobody would make the choice for it to be that way. If they lived as comfortably as we do and could access education as easily as we can I think things would be a lot different.

[musiclady]

The world is not so black and white that disagreements can mostly end with one person being right and the other being wrong. It is all about your perspective and your values; that is how two intelligent people can have a completely different opinion. Sometimes people have to accept that they just disagree for reasons that cannot be reconciled by conversation; that is called an impasse, and I am good at identifying them and moving on.

If you really must know I didn't respond to your post earlier because I felt it was absurd and I didn't even feel like approaching it. They do not choose to not be as grand as countries like the United States. They do not choose to have access to less technology and to live more difficult lives. Could you please show me where Allah instructed them to be hundreds of years behind the rest of the world culturally and technologically? The life of the average person over there sucks in comparison to here; nobody would make the choice for it to be that way. If they lived as comfortably as we do I think things would be a lot different.

It's interesting that you, who feel oppressed by labels, determined my legitimate questions about Islam to be "absurd."  You don't realize how elitist you come across do you??

But never mind, since I know you're not a superior intellect, nor have you thought through issues more than I, I'll respond nonetheless....

It is in Allah's 'instructions' that infidels be killed.  It is in Allah's "instructions" that women be oppressed.  It is in Allah's "instructions" modernity is rejected, and the 7th century embraced.

When Afghanistan advanced into the 20th century, it was under Allah's "instructions" that the Taliban returned them to desolation and poverty.  The women in Afghanistan were no longer allowed to learn to read.  They were forced into subservience by those faithful to Allah.  It is those who are faithful to Allah who commit beheadings and honor killings when young girls decide they want to cut their hair or wear make-up.

The idea that Islam will "evolve" is what is absurd.  Every time it makes progress, the true believers jerk them back into the reality of what Mohammed really taught and believed.

I have heard that argument before.  Islam is just 'behind' Christianity and will become less brutal in a few centuries.

That argument is not based on the reality of either religion.  Christianity, based on the teachings of Christ, was peaceful and loving for centuries.  It is when governments and power became involved that any violence began.  It was the improper mixing of politics with the actual teaching of Christ.

Islam has been violent and political since its beginning.  Mohammed was a violent man.  The end of the Koran is his "progress" and it becomes more and more violent and restrictive.

Islam will not "evolve."  It will devolve as it becomes closer to what Mohammed actually taught.

[Dexter]

It is in Allah's 'instructions' that infidels be killed.  It is in Allah's "instructions" that women be oppressed.  It is in Allah's "instructions" modernity is rejected, and the 7th century embraced.

Whatever you think it is that Allah has instructed them to do, many Muslims don't agree with it, and that number is rising. Did you know that in Saudi Arabia women are slowly starting to gain rights? Did you know that lots of young Muslims living in the United States and Europe are fighting for things to change over there? Progress is being made in that region but your preconceived notions will never allow you to see it.

When Afghanistan advanced into the 20th century, it was under Allah's "instructions" that the Taliban returned them to desolation and poverty.  The women in Afghanistan were no longer allowed to learn to read.  They were forced into subservience by those faithful to Allah.  It is those who are faithful to Allah who commit beheadings and honor killings when young girls decide they want to cut their hair or wear make-up.

Were those Allah's instructions or the deliberate misinterpretations of extremists that were going to do what they wanted and find justifications for it either way?
 

The idea that Islam will "evolve" is what is absurd.  Every time it makes progress, the true believers jerk them back into the reality of what Mohammed really taught and believed.

I have heard that argument before.  Islam is just 'behind' Christianity and will become less brutal in a few centuries.

That argument is not based on the reality of either religion.  Christianity, based on the teachings of Christ, was peaceful and loving for centuries.  It is when governments and power became involved that any violence began.  It was the improper mixing of politics with the actual teaching of Christ.

Islam has been violent and political since its beginning.  Mohammed was a violent man.  The end of the Koran is his "progress" and it becomes more and more violent and restrictive.

Islam will not "evolve."  It will devolve as it becomes closer to what Mohammed actually taught.

I believe it will evolve, and that the Middle East will eventually join the rest of us as part of the civilized world.

[Bigun]

Whatever you think it is that Allah has instructed them to do, many Muslims don't agree with it, and that number is rising. Did you know that in Saudi Arabia women are slowly starting to gain rights? Did you know that lots of young Muslims living in the United States and Europe are fighting for things to change over there? Progress is being made in that region but your preconceived notions will never allow you to see it.

Were those Allah's instructions or the deliberate misinterpretations of extremists that were going to do what they wanted and find justifications for it either way?
 

I believe it will evolve, and that the Middle East will eventually join the rest of us as part of the civilized world.

Of course they will! They have been doing it for 1500 years already! How long should we wait?

Please see http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,159955.msg640748.html#msg640748

[Dexter]

Of course they will! They have been doing it for 1500 years already! How long should we wait?

How many of those 1500 years do you think we, our ancestors and Christianity have been part of the modern and civilized world as we know it today?