1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The President and 'Violent Extremism'

Tom1070 Wrote: Feb 27, 2015 6:06 AM
I agree. Good news. Now just 49 900 to go. Even if it were true that “IS have nothing to do with Islam or Muslims”, that still leaves the battle within – how to deal with a group, 27% (if British Muslims are anything to go by) of which sympathise with the mass-murdering Hebdo killers. Do you agree that moral equivalence, jobs and democracy is the solution, as Obama does? And the Left still has to contend with this: "The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported Monday that 1,465 Islamic State members have been killed by US-led air strikes since September 23, 2014. Over 1,000 civilians have also been killed in the attacks, the London-based organization reported." (http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Senior-ISIS-commanders-killed-in-air-strikes-in-Iraq-fate-of-leader-Baghdadi-unknown-392261) Is the civilian cost of this bombing an acceptable price to pay for this campaign? If so, we are in agreement. If not, why are both of you celebrating Obama’s bombing campaigns? Why is the killing of suspected terrorists (after all, how do you know that these were IS commanders?) and killing of innocent civilians something to be celebrated in the former, and conveniently overlooked in the latter, when Gitmo and waterboarding were/are so disgusting to the Left? How do both of you rationalise the two? These issues are not unrelated to the actual American war against ISIS.
In response to:

The President and 'Violent Extremism'

Tom1070 Wrote: Feb 26, 2015 7:26 AM
Update: Jihadi John. Degree in computer science from UK uni, so hardly unskilled. Wanted to leave UK to go to Kuwait (hardly democratic), barred from entering there so sought out another non-democratic state, Syria.
Very revealing indeed. And who brought about this problem in the West? The Left, who have long infected the MSM, universities, politics that endless immigration is OK and that if anyone challenges this, then they are by default a racist and Islamophobic. Even assimilation is too dirty word for them. Must be multiculturalism. The Left are sabotaging the West and its achievements. Do these people in the video look like "jobs" or "democracy" (Obama's solutions) are going to change their world views?
In response to:

The President and 'Violent Extremism'

Tom1070 Wrote: Feb 25, 2015 5:07 PM
Here's a link to the above figures: http://comres.co.uk/polls/bbc-radio-4-today-muslim-poll
In response to:

The President and 'Violent Extremism'

Tom1070 Wrote: Feb 25, 2015 5:00 PM
1. Clearly the above post of mine is an extension of the one I wrote below, which does address it by agreeing with the key points and asking posters to point out where specifically they disagree with it. 2. Correct, there are some off topic on the Right too, and they should stay on topic. I address the Left, as they are mostly the ones which disagree with the TH article (naturally) and if so, surely they should point out where they disagree. When you say that there is no need at times to deal with the specifics but instead the 'framing', that sounds like avoiding the difficult task of actually reading the article. Framing + specifics I can go along with.
In response to:

The President and 'Violent Extremism'

Tom1070 Wrote: Feb 25, 2015 4:08 PM
Obama’s strategy within our borders seems to be moral equivalence (Islam is not the problem), democracy and jobs. I agree with DP that this is shying away and won’t work. Dialogue and action are needed fast. In an ideal world, a real discussion would centre on the sayings in each holy book which are/are not compatible with modern secular western constitutional democracy. Not easy. Who among the Muslim community is going to publicly speak out and say, yes, x/y/z are incompatible and that needs to change, when they may suffer god knows what for their troubles. A few brave souls have spoken out, but extremely rare. I’m sure many more would love to but are silent - not wanting to rock the boat in their own communities or purely out of fear. But this is a conversation that needs to happen to deal with it over the long term. Obama must be the person to make that possible. If he’s shying away, who will take it up? Leadership has to come from the top. As long as large minorities hold the above views, then in the short term we have to protect ourselves, eg. by limiting Muslim immigration. We also need to place more emphasis on assimilation instead of multiculturalism. If Obama won’t do what it takes, then he will indeed be shying away from the greatest threat to our values that we face, IMO, and that makes DP’s analysis here close to the mark.
In response to:

The President and 'Violent Extremism'

Tom1070 Wrote: Feb 25, 2015 3:55 PM
Thanks for your reply, Doug. Appreciate in turn your good will and sense of humour and can see your point about going beyond the article where relevant. Agree that Obama has condemned IS many times. And yes, he continues to drone them wherever possible, within the constraints that he faces. We also agree that there is no point in ticking off the entire Muslim world unnecessarily. DP and I would disagree with you over this: “terrorists comprise but a tiny portion of the world’s Muslims”. Firstly we don’t have figures on what % are prepared to engage in terrorism. In any case “tiny” is very misleading. Interesting BBC poll reported on in the UK press today about Muslim attitudes in Britain: • 27% of British Muslims sympathise with Paris gunmen (murder of 16 journalists, police officers and Jews) • more than 10% say satirical cartoons "deserve" to be attacked • 49% believe Muslim clerics preaching that violence against the west can be justified are out of touch with mainstream Muslim opinion • 20% agree that Western society can never be compatible with Islam. Most I think would agree that these are alarming figures, and these cannot be disassociated from their faith. We are going to have to deal with that. As you say: “To the extent that Islam is used by those intent on terrorism, we should seek to weaken and sever that connection. To the extent that Islam lends itself to those opposing terrorism, we should seek to strengthen that influence.” Agreed. But how? (contd below)
In response to:

The President and 'Violent Extremism'

Tom1070 Wrote: Feb 25, 2015 5:34 AM
Anyone know how to contact TH? Their Contact function is not working (understaffed?). I want to communicate the following to them: Dear Townhall To make the TH Comments section under the Columns pages more effective, I believe a notice along the following lines would be useful, strategically placed above or below the ‘Start the discussion…’ box: "When posting on a particular article, please respond to what the author actually writes in that article." I believe something as simple as this should help to limit the tendency for posters to talk past one another. When that happens, discussion is impossible. The aim of the Comments section should be to foster discussion on the topic at hand.
In response to:

The President and 'Violent Extremism'

Tom1070 Wrote: Feb 25, 2015 4:53 AM
To our friends on the Left: when posting on a particular article, please respond to what the author actually writes in THAT article, not what you think they did/not write, or what he did/not write/say elsewhere. I think much disagreement/confusion will be avoided if we all follow that basic principle. Personally I don't see that Dennis is saying anything contentious in this article. The very simple point he is making is that much of the Islamist violence the world is confronted with is overtly committed in the name of their religion, and that violence committed by other religious faiths is not committed in the name of their religion. Further, the Islamic violence has a basis in the Koran. Why is that so hard to see? Pretty obvious really. Of DP's critics, DougIndeap goes closest in attempting to actually deal with the article, but ultimately argues thus: what good can it do to say this (in my view, acknowledge the truth) when that might further antagonise the Muslim world. I understand that view. But many would argue that pretending that what is true isn't, is ultimately counter-productive.
In response to:

Against Terrorism -- But for What?

Tom1070 Wrote: Jan 24, 2015 9:32 AM
Well said, Pat. What is it that we in the West as a whole agree on? Not much, judging by politics. Even free speech, something that most in the West at first glance would agree is one of our pillars, is not much of a pillar at all when put to the test. How often are ideas that differ to our own treated on their merits v attacking the person who uttered them. Enter Islam, a religion/way of life that virtually all Muslims feel an incomprehensibly (to us in the West) strong attachment to, add in their much higher fertility, a fraternal society (eg the concept of Ummah) v our individualistic society, and I see an accommodation by us to their beliefs/politics and a waning of our own hard won freedoms. Either that or putting up the barriers to immigration (from a certain group)and retreating, or conflict. In a small organisation I work for in the Middle East, I know of at least 3 white males who have married Muslims and converted to Islam and three white females. No prizes for guessing the religion of the children. I see the writing on the wall. I like your quote from TS Eliot on democracy. Scary, but very possibly true.
1 - 10 Next