All Muslims Must Be Assumed To Be Dangerous

All I can say is that this saddens me. I know Muslims. There are Muslims right here on ATS who have done nothing but contribute and be members in good standing. There are Muslims in my neighborhood who are the nicest people in the world. Should I assume this is an act? Just because of the actions of others? No. I will not.

IMHO, one should never assume anything about anyone predicated solely upon their faith, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, or background.

That said, to do so is your prerogative, and while profoundly disagreeing with you, I would defend to anyone trying to disabuse you of it your right to hold and express that opinion. Nor will I attack you for it. I will simply say what I did: it saddens me.

Peace.

You have to decide where your priorities lie.

Is it in protecting the rights of ALL people, including a group containingpeople who are seriously violent and would happily kill you, or in the rights of the people who belong in your country, have the same values as you, and want the same things as you?

Not all muslims are terrorists, that is for sure.

But currently all terrorists are muslims.

Therefore to remove all terrorists from your country, without any further bloodshed or pain or suffering, remove all muslims from your country and send them to a muslim country.

Then their rights are not being violated in regards to their religion or life, and no one else dies.

OR - allow them all to stay since "not all muslims are terrorists" and it wouldn't "be fair for them to be punished because of what someone else did".

Before you make your decision ask the victims of 911, Boston, etc how they feel about being unwilling victims, and if allowing more of the same kind of violence against innocent people and the impact it has on their rights and their families rights, is comparable/better/worse than the "rights" of a group of other people who have simply been asked to go and live peacefully in another place among people with the same ideas, views, and beliefs as themselves - no violence or loss of life necessary.

Peaceful solution, or painful solution.

Which is best for everyone?

All Republicans must be assumed to be racist as well as dangerous.

I understand SOME are probably decent people. Not ALL are racist, but are we willing to take that chance?

Last time we had a Republican president we had the worst terrorist attack in history on American soil. Republicans delusionally like to say Bush kept us safe. Really? Ask the people in WTC Towers 1 & 2 how safe Bush kept them on Sept 11, despite the warnings leading up to that attack.

An overwhelming majority favor torture, they show a complete disrespect for international law, an increasing number support the killing of innocent family members of terrorists; the banning of an entire people based solely on religion. They breed hate and have a proclivity for racial and religious conflict. How can that possibly keep us safe?

The danger of Republicans is real, their failures enormous, their detachment from reality ongoing, and I for one will NOT take the risk of voting for another Republican in my lifetime.

originally posted by: Power_Semi
But currently all terrorists are muslims.

Unabomber, Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, the JDL, Eric Rudolph, and others say hi. Or are those too past tense to be considered "current?"

Therefore to remove all terrorists from your country, without any further bloodshed or pain or suffering, remove all muslims from your country and send them to a muslim country.

Then their rights are not being violated in regards to their religion or life, and no one else dies.

Unless they're citizens of the United States in which case a whole slough of their rights are being violated if you "remove all Muslims."

OR - allow them all to stay since "not all muslims are terrorists" and it wouldn't "be fair for them to be punished because of what someone else did".

That would be consistent with their constitutional rights, yes.

We cannot defeat our enemy by curtailing our own civil liberties. If we have to, then what sort of victory is that? Mere survival? Is that all we aspire to now? Survive at any cost, and destroy the principles which make us what we supposedly are? In that case what are we even ostensibly fighting for?

Peace.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
All Republicans must be assumed to be racist as well as dangerous.

I understand SOME are probably decent people. Not ALL are racist, but are we willing to take that chance?

Last time we had a Republican president we had the worst terrorist attack in history on American soil. Republicans delusionally like to say Bush kept us safe. Really? Ask the people in WTC Towers 1 & 2 how safe Bush kept them on Sept 11, despite the warnings leading up to that attack.

An overwhelming majority favor torture, they show a complete disrespect for international law, an increasing number support the killing of innocent family members of terrorists; the banning of an entire people based solely on religion. They breed hate and have a proclivity for racial and religious conflict. How can that possibly keep us safe?

The danger of Republicans is real, their failures enormous, their detachment from reality ongoing, and I for one will NOT take the risk of voting for another Republican in my lifetime.

Beautiful.

Well put mate.

a reply to: Starhopper

Sorry for the late reply...I was emptying out my drool cup.

So, because Pakistan is, maybe, like that, I have my doubts as to the 20% number, but for the moment, I'll take you word as canon...you seem to be transferring that number to Islam in general, please correct me if I'm wrong in thinking that.

If it is that high, it's past time the other eight did something about it, isn't it, right alongside the non-Muslims.

Why is it that India, while they have their own issues internally, doesn't have the same unrest within the Islamic community, which while low percentage wise, is still well over 100 million. Why is that? You're closer to it than I am, by your account.

With the results in Irans elections there does seem to quite a few moderates out there, contrary to what some would have us believe. A gain of ninety seats isn't to be ignored, even if it is only a start.

Now then, I'll move on before I start drooling again...

a reply to: Metallicus

It's really hard for me to tell what right wing religious fundamentalists will bomb something ...so I will avoid them. Thanks for helping me make that decision.

originally posted by: AceWombat04
But currently all terrorists are muslims.

Unabomber, Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, the JDL, Eric Rudolph, and others say hi. Or are those too past tense to be considered "current?"

Currently - i.e. now - if we need to have a war on the meaning of our own language before we can have a war on the problem then we are doomed.

But your response typifies a real problem - never mind the truth, never mind the real attrocities that are being committed right now - make excuses for them and try and "prove" that someone in the past, of the group of people who are being victimised right now for completely different reasons once did something awful too.

But the violence will not stop, it will get worse, and worse, and worse, and historical examples of other kind of problems will fade to oblivion in the face of the new menace which will continue until either we say enough is enough, or we let it steam roller right over us and out children.

By all means allow your own to be overcome, but don't try to drag the rest of us dwon with you as a consequence of your apathy and hatred towards what is clearly right and just.

Keep your own prejudices and shame in your own home, it has nothing to do with the rest of us.

As someone pointed out earlier, peaceful muslims are the biggest group of victims of radical/extremist muslims. The problem is, we tend to generalize the teachings of their religion and appropriate it to the form that is most visible to us thru exposure of media. The ideologies of the religion by themselves are not extreme or violent, even given the foundations of islam which i agree have been violent, but only because the people who took to islam were being oppressed and persecuted by neighbouring religious groups, so essentially, they fought for their right to exist, unlike the islamic terrorism we see today.

So if the base ideology is not condoning islamic terrorism, then we must restrict ourselves to only talk about the wahabi tradition of islam. There is again a lot more to why wahabism is bent upon the destruction of the western world, that extends beyond their interpretations of an already mystical religion (yes islam is mystical, and the wahabis and few other traditions have oversimplified it). One of the reasons they show this wrath to the western world is because for centuries their culture has been invaded and threatened by western imperialism, whether it is cultural or economic. For example, the Saudis do not own their oil, they merely get a cut of the profit while the real ownership of their resources is in the hands of the west (recall 'confessions of an economic hitman'). They are angry at how globalization spreads nothing but western values, threatening to wipe their identities and cultures. They have stepped up the fight from defending themselves, to imposing on and invading the western world with their own twisted ideologies as an attempt to fight what they perceive to be an unjust ethnic and cultural cleansing.

And i'm not even talking about ISIS here. We don't know what the deal is with ISIS, but reports from people within have stated how there is an indoctrination of an extreme nature to all who join ISIS, with zero tolerance for questions or dissent. There is, obviously, a political interest behind the scenes, who have invested in manufacturing a brainwashed, extremely violent, terribly inhumane army to fight their political battle, while disguised as a religious group fighting in the name of their god and his plans. Most of the arab world is and has been very vocal and feels strongly about the unjust situation of the palestinians (their muslim brothers) who are trapped and being killed en masse by Israel. Strange that they didnt start by, nor have they gotten to, even touching Israel, whether by action or by speech. Does it have anything to do with Israel being one of the largest buyers of oil from ISIS? Why are they even selling their oil resources to a nation that should, in all their logic, be their enemy?

But I can not deny that the western main stream media also seems to have an interest in painting all muslims as terrorists and islam as a religion of violence. Like it has been said, only one tradition within islam is behind global terrorism, and even they have been misled by their political elite who have an interest in promoting violent interpretation of the quran. Many muslims who are not from the wahabi tradition, and many that are as well, do not believe in violence. They are the people who often immigrate to other countries so their next few generations dont get indoctrinated by the same violent ideologies. They are the muslims who move to other countries and respect the laws of the land and desire nothing else but to be able to believe and worship their idea of a god, without harming or being harmed. Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of islam and the wahabi tradition, itself has an underground movement of more enlightened, educated, humane individuals that recognize the politics of fear and dissent against it. They are unable to do so openly under the totalitarian regime of the monarch, which expressly forbids dissent under threat of death (less publicized liberal movements within saudi arabia rose during the arab spring and were immediately squashed by the Saudi military). It's not for lack of trying. And make no mistake, the war here is not religious, its political. Its power hungry. It is driven by what every unit of political economy around the world is driven by. Greed.

And those who say peaceful, moderate muslims aren't standing up against the radicals, you will never find them if all you keep watching is the mainstream media. There are many independent documentaries, many on youtube, that document the unhappiness and total disapproval of moderate muslims towards such violence. Did you hear that numerous muslims united together and voiced their disapproval of ISIS and marched thru the streets of london very recently? Well that happened: www.independent.co.uk...

So the question is, why didnt you hear of it? Why isnt it being talked about? Why are you only being told things that incriminate a large religious group in your eyes, and never things that show them for what they really are? What interest does the MSM have in withholding such perspectives? Who really are the oppressors here? What is their agenda? Are they preparing you for something? Are they trying to manufacture your consent?

a reply to: Power_Semi

Things are not that black and white or mutually exclusive. I can and do acknowledge the threat of all forms of terrorism - Islamic terrorism included - but that doesn't mean "all current terrorists are Muslims." Are you genuinely asserting that the only present terrorists in existence today are Muslim? We will have to agree to disagree on that point if so. And my pointing that out does not mean I'm ignoring the - admittedly - proportionally far larger problem of terrorism arising from the militant Islam.

As for allowing "my own" to be overcome... "My own" includes both all of the rest of humanity, and all of my fellow American citizens... including those which happen to be Muslim. I will not throw my brothers and sisters under the bus or advocate for their removal from this nation simply on the basis of what boils down to guilt by association.

I respect your opinion and your right to it, but I will never agree with it. Nor will I concede that by refusing to do so I'm somehow "hateful" towards "what is clearly right and just." Those sorts of rigid absolutes which empower you to feel justified in making such assumptions and assertions about my person and character hold no water with me, sorry.

Peace.

this thread is like trump not saying he condone violence at his rallies, but watches as it happens.

ATS urges people to deny ignorance yet nurtures and cultivates these sort of theead. because theres no such thing as bad press.

as long as they can generate a revenue, their modo is subject-matterless...

i see the op gave a 10to20 % of Muslims are assumed to be terrorists or radicalized... and people accept this as truth and argue with it. query its validity first, then have a debate or have conversation.

But again you must then believe that... all drivers are drunk drivers...all Christians want to blow up abortion clinics...all hispanics are part of the Cartel and will behead you in an instant...all italians are mobsters...all homosexuals like broadway musicals...all millenials listen to Justin Bieber...all old people love Frank Sinatra...Everyone living in California is a Democrat...all people living in Nevada Gamble.

Also keep in mind that you're more likely to fall down your steps and die than be killed by a terrorist, so as far as threat levels go, you should remove your steps in your house and build ramps and talk about it in anonymous online forums before you talk about Muslims.

We teach our children not to try to pet a strange dog. We do so to keep them from getting bit on the slight chance the dog chose to bite. We treat every gun as being loaded and ready to fire. We throw out pills that have expired just to be sure we don't make ourselves sick.

These are not fears...these logical actions are called avoiding a potentially dangerous situation by assuming the worse...and hoping for the best. So when it comes to people, many of you here claim that somehow Muslims should be excluded from this level of caution. Hell...the President is so sure that he is bringing MORE Muslims into our country even after ISIS has said it WILL use that path for entering the USA. (hint: he doesn't give a flying...whatever about you or your life)

So where is the problem here? Why aren't people who think every Muslim should be trusted putting guns to their head and pulling the trigger, petting strange dogs or swallowing out-dated pills? Simple! They are hypocrites. They wish you to believe that what has saved people and animals from death for millions of years is worthless when it comes to Muslims. Why? Because THEY DON'T LIKE IT. It isn't because you are wrong to be cautious...you aren't wrong. It is because they don't like the fact that being cautious around a religion that preaches hate, is anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-anything-that-isn't-them, etc.

Wake the hell up. There are evil people, there are evil religions and there are evil groups of all kinds. Hell...the same people who scream racism if we are cautions around Muslims turn around and attack Christians, Republicans, red-necks, Jews, the rich, etc., etc., etc. So yes...be cautious around the Muslim but avoid, in every way possible they lying hypocrite.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
We teach our children not to try to pet a strange dog. We do so to keep them from getting bit on the slight chance the dog chose to bite. We treat every gun as being loaded and ready to fire. We throw out pills that have expired just to be sure we don't make ourselves sick.

These are not fears...these logical actions are called avoiding a potentially dangerous situation by assuming the worse...and hoping for the best. So when it comes to people, many of you here claim that somehow Muslims should be excluded from this level of caution. Hell...the President is so sure that he is bringing MORE Muslims into our country even after ISIS has said it WILL use that path for entering the USA. (hint: he doesn't give a flying...whatever about you or your life)

So where is the problem here? Why aren't people who think every Muslim should be trusted putting guns to their head and pulling the trigger, petting strange dogs or swallowing out-dated pills? Simple! They are hypocrites. They wish you to believe that what has saved people and animals from death for millions of years is worthless when it comes to Muslims. Why? Because THEY DON'T LIKE IT. It isn't because you are wrong to be cautious...you aren't wrong. It is because they don't like the fact that being cautious around a religion that preaches hate, is anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-anything-that-isn't-them, etc.

Wake the hell up. There are evil people, there are evil religions and there are evil groups of all kinds. Hell...the same people who scream racism if we are cautions around Muslims turn around and attack Christians, Republicans, red-necks, Jews, the rich, etc., etc., etc. So yes...be cautious around the Muslim but avoid, in every way possible they lying hypocrite.

Really? You just compared trusting muslims to petting stray dogs? You are more likely to get killed in a plane crash or car accident than by a muslim terrorist. Do you also teach your children to stay away from cars and planes?

Please don't insult us by trying to rationalise your dislike of muslims with an extremely weak analogy. I would have more respect for you if you just came out and said it (yes, i know you don't care what i think of you)

Stay classy

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a religion that preaches hate

But it doesn't.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
is anti-woman

It is not.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
anti-gay

Nope.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
anti-anything-that-isn't-them, etc.

More nonsense, just like the rest of your post. And no, don't bother to bring up "evidence" from BS websites that are written by bigoted a**holes. Sorry for the harsh words, but it is just that.

A few websites post "facts" about a religion by twisting, cutting and distorting verses from its book, then people like you just copy and paste that crap, OVER AND OVER AGAIN --- despite having been debunked like a GAZILLION times - or even worse - the people who post that do not even bother to actually read said book and see for themselves the manipulation and bigotry that is running rampant from those "experts" --- as long as there is something negative said about Islam you just take it at face value. Don't you have a mind of your own?

Argh ...

a reply to: sHuRuLuNi
There is an agenda to turn the middle east into an US petro-protectorate. It relies upon morons sacrificing themselves and their children. That requires fear and hatred as a great motivator. So that only leaves the question...are those bigots on ATS part of the indoctrination? The indoctrinated? Or both?

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I just don't get it.

You have an avatar that states "Proud to be American, ashamed of my government".

And yet here you are preaching your government's kool-aid drinking propaganda.


Oh the irony... ATS really kills me sometimes.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Wouldn't that be a dislike of religion its funny how this gets turned around. It's very deceptive I personally hate all religions they are nothing more than a means of control. Islam uses people to commit acts of terror in hopes of creating a caliphate never mind the fact that the people committing thr acts won't see it. Christianity uses religion as a way to gain wealth look at the millions the Vatican takes in then realize you have others like Mormons etc. Religion is used to shape ideas good or bad.

Bottom line is islam isn't the cause of terrorism its the sword. Just like guns don't kill people people do. People use thus sword to accomplish their goals and innoscent people did in the process. And just to make myself clear their is no such thing as being anti muslim its not a race its an ideal. And like any ideal can be weilded to create terrorists. Now the differences between Islam and other religions is simple other religions seek wealth Islam seeks control of others. It's built into the religion. No other religion is also a form of government.It is a governmental system the same as communism, socialism, democracy, etc. And that is what the west fails to understand. To create this government requires conquering other governments see Mohammad and his conquest. Had he been defeated Islam wouldn't exist no one would willing submit to Islam it took force.

a reply to: amazing

So I take it you never lock your front door, never lock your car, never lock your gym locker, never hide your valuables, etc, because even though we all know some people will take the opportunity to steal, not all people are thieves.

Or do you take steps to protect yourself and your belongings?

The point isn't whether it's some, half, most, few, the majority, the minority, the point is most people acknowledge a threat multiple times every day to insure their own safety.

And right now there's a clear threat within Islam and no one on the left wants to even acknowledge it. They just want to argue "it's not all Muslims". Well no **** it's not all Muslims. That also does nothing to confront the threat.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Starhopper

Sorry for the late reply...I was emptying out my drool cup.

So, because Pakistan is, maybe, like that, I have my doubts as to the 20% number, but for the moment, I'll take you word as canon...you seem to be transferring that number to Islam in general, please correct me if I'm wrong in thinking that.

If it is that high, it's past time the other eight did something about it, isn't it, right alongside the non-Muslims.

Why is it that India, while they have their own issues internally, doesn't have the same unrest within the Islamic community, which while low percentage wise, is still well over 100 million. Why is that? You're closer to it than I am, by your account.

With the results in Irans elections there does seem to quite a few moderates out there, contrary to what some would have us believe. A gain of ninety seats isn't to be ignored, even if it is only a start.

Now then, I'll move on before I start drooling again...

Chill, I take back what I said about you being a drooling moron.
India has around 180 million muslims and they have their own sectarian conflicts and conflicts with the hindus, and it often spills into violence.
I'm doubtful about the 20% part too. It's much higher for Pakistan specifically. You can visit
www.pewforum.org...
and read about the statistics for Pakistan and other muslims countries.
The majority of muslims in Pakistan consider the word 'liberal' a dirty word, literally. While this majority does not itself do terrorist attacks, they condone terror attacks in the West (saying that they should get a taste of what we get here every day) and they support that asshole Mumtaz Qadri who murdered the governor of Punjab because he had spoken out against the barbaric and retarded blasphemy laws of pakistan. People who support that murderer are scum imo, and unfortunately a lot of people I knew were applauding the murder the day after it happened, and when qadri was executed 5 years later, a huuuuge mob of retards came out to protest and try to get the authorities to let him go free because he is a religious 'hero'.
You're free to sit in your house and make judgements about people on the other side of the world but as someone who's living here I can tell you my first hand experience. You can choose to dismiss that if you want, it's easier to stick to your beliefs whether they're right or wrong.
The reality is that Islam has not undergone any reforms or modernisation like christianity or judaism has. Those 2 religions are #ed up too but their followers decided to stop following the barbaric aspects of their holy books. Not so with islam. And with this self righteousness comes persecution of minority groups of other religions or islamic sects and oppression of women.
Iran executes homosexuals and has a lot of other #ty aspects. Pakistani mobs tear apart poor christians falsely accused of blasphemy or they languish in jail for years. The 'moderate' majority is silent about all of this and other kinds of barbarity done because of their 'peaceful' religion. Peaceful... lol.
My advice for people in the West who have to deal with increasing number of muslims immigrants is to continue making fun of islam. Don't target muslims specifically, target their retarded and evil beliefs and force them to assimilate instead of the other way round.