"Radical Islamic Violence" is not very realistic threat to the average American, unless they spend a lot of time abroad in those areas. If you think it is an imminent threat that affects "most Americans" here on U.S soil, a doctor can prescribe medication for your paranoid/schizo personality disorder. I'm fairly certain that any given American has a higher chance of hitting the jackpot for mega-millions than being involved in a terrorist attack. I didn't crunch the numbers but the odds are pretty astronomically low.

Anonymous wrote:

Do you deny that every American has little to fear from radical Muslim violence?

Of course I deny it. It's an utterly false statement.

If not, you clearly are not familiar with the reality of the threat. Perhaps you would benefit from a statistics course.

It seems pretty real to me based on recent events in the news.

Of course I didn't say anything about a most Americans facing a threat from an anti-Islamic backlash. Obviously, that didn't stop you from distorting what I did say.

I didn't distort anything you said. This entire thread is a straw man to take attention away from the real issue of the day--which is that, yes, jsteele, radical Islamic violence is a threat of global proportions. Now it's clear you disagree, but if so, disagree on that basis, not on OP's false basis that anti-Islamic prejudice is something to be very concerned about in general.

Do you disagree that the OP faces a greater threat from an anti-Muslim backlash then she does from radical Islamic violence?

Of course I do. Since the threat of radical Muslim violence is a real one, and the "threat" of "anti Islamic backlash" is a strawman, and she is a lesbian, she has a HELL of a lot more to worry about from radical Islam than she does from "anti Islamic backlash."

Based on your risk analysis of radial Islamic violence, I'm surprised you can sleep at night considering the significantly greater threat of drowning in your bathtub.

Is your prejudice against Muslims responsible for your radically exaggerated fear of Islamic violence? If so, maybe with a bit of reflection you can kill two birds with one stone?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol this poster is unhinged..."Guilty until proven innocent" is not a principle we follow in America. Maybe the PP should relocate to Russia where his/her type of thinking would be more welcome.

I agree, so no one is "guilty" of "backlash" or "discrimination" against Muslims until proven innocent. Maybe OP should relocate to Iran.

Unless you agree that all Christians (not only catholics) must denounce the pedophilia of the Catholic church (just one example, we can come up with many for any given group of people), than you really have no argument here. By your logic, most christians support pedophilia.

No.

If a Christian came here and posted a thread claiming they were afraid of anti-Christian "backlash" due to peophilia by the Catholic priests, I would treat that complaint as just as suspect as I do OP's. I would certainly want such a poster to explain why they believe they would be a victim of such alleged "backlash" if they didn't participate or support, or at least fail to conclusively renounce, the pedophilia activity of those priests.

You completely miss the point that the OP posted with an agenda. No one is required to accept at face value that kind of an agenda.

If some Christian posted implying that all the Catholic pedophile bashing was unfair and they were afraid of being included in it, I would most certainly want them to explain themselves, in detail.

Anonymous wrote:If the U.S. suffers another 9-11 or worse, I would say all bets are off.

You know it's amusing people refuse to take what's actually happening out there in "reality" at face value. France, Belgium, Germany, Mali, etc. etc. "It can't happen here." But it already did happen here, didn't it?

These folks are in denial. It's a subtle racism, they don't really take these brown foreigners very seriously, they don't think that these dedicated radicals could possibly pose a threat to the U.S., it's pure colonialist, first world privileged racism/culturist-ism.

Do you deny that every American has little to fear from radical Muslim violence?

Of course I deny it. It's an utterly false statement.

If not, you clearly are not familiar with the reality of the threat. Perhaps you would benefit from a statistics course.

It seems pretty real to me based on recent events in the news.

Of course I didn't say anything about a most Americans facing a threat from an anti-Islamic backlash. Obviously, that didn't stop you from distorting what I did say.

I didn't distort anything you said. This entire thread is a straw man to take attention away from the real issue of the day--which is that, yes, jsteele, radical Islamic violence is a threat of global proportions. Now it's clear you disagree, but if so, disagree on that basis, not on OP's false basis that anti-Islamic prejudice is something to be very concerned about in general.

Do you disagree that the OP faces a greater threat from an anti-Muslim backlash then she does from radical Islamic violence?

Of course I do. Since the threat of radical Muslim violence is a real one, and the "threat" of "anti Islamic backlash" is a strawman, and she is a lesbian, she has a HELL of a lot more to worry about from radical Islam than she does from "anti Islamic backlash."

If the U.S. suffers another 9-11 or worse, I would say all bets are off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol this poster is unhinged..."Guilty until proven innocent" is not a principle we follow in America. Maybe the PP should relocate to Russia where his/her type of thinking would be more welcome.

I agree, so no one is "guilty" of "backlash" or "discrimination" against Muslims until proven innocent. Maybe OP should relocate to Iran.

Unless you agree that all Christians (not only catholics) must denounce the pedophilia of the Catholic church (just one example, we can come up with many for any given group of people), than you really have no argument here. By your logic, most christians support pedophilia.

Anonymous wrote:
I asked HER to denounce it. You denounced it. I denounced it. OP is the one who is asserting a fear of discrimination. If she is unwilling to unequivocally denounce both the radical Islamic violence, and the religious doctrine underlying it, then it's perfectly rational to question her motives. I'm not a mind reader, this isn't a jury trial, I don't have to presume she has pure motives, so it's perfectly OK for me to ask her to denounce those two issues very clearly before even concerning myself about her puffed up fears of discrimination.

Obviously if she is not willing to denounce it, then potentially yes of course she MIGHT support it, or at least not be against it. What other reason would she have for NOT denouncing it? You tell me.

She does not have to denounce it. You have no right to expect her to. Your prejudice against Muslims is exactly the sort of thing she is worried about. You are demonstrating that her fear is real.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol this poster is unhinged..."Guilty until proven innocent" is not a principle we follow in America. Maybe the PP should relocate to Russia where his/her type of thinking would be more welcome.

I agree, so no one is "guilty" of "backlash" or "discrimination" against Muslims until proven innocent. Maybe OP should relocate to Iran.

You seem to be very out of touch with reality...go peddle your agenda somewhere where it actually matters. Noone on DCUM really cares.

Non-Islamic Lives Matter, bro.

Anonymous wrote:
There you go, distorting things again. I did not tell her what "her" real concern should be. I stated what THE "real" concern IS--the actuality and reality of global radical Islamic violence.

I am glad you believe that every American has little to fear from radical Muslim violence, but that's just your opinion, isn't it?

I think most Americans have far LESS to fear from "anti Islamic backlash."

It's a pure straw man, and the only reason OP even posted it is as a diversion from what "really" concerns most Americans.

It is truly ironic that you would accuse me of distortions given your inability not to distort. Your posts are nothing but examples of straw men, moving the goal posts, and simply making things up.

Do you deny that every American has little to fear from radical Muslim violence? If not, you clearly are not familiar with the reality of the threat. Perhaps you would benefit from a statistics course. Of course I didn't say anything about a most Americans facing a threat from an anti-Islamic backlash. Obviously, that didn't stop you from distorting what I did say. Do you disagree that the OP faces a greater threat from an anti-Muslim backlash then she does from radical Islamic violence?

Now I see that mind-reading is amongst the abilities that you claim. Forgive me if I doubt your skill in that particular area. What evidence beyond your own base prejudice to doubt the OP's stated reason for posting?

Your entire argument is based on the presumption that all Muslims support violence unless they convince you otherwise. That is an unfair and prejudiced position. You can argue around and around all you want, but it won't change the fact that at root you are making a bigoted argument.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote: You asked the OP to denounce violence and she did.


No. I asked her to unequivocally denounce radical Islamic terror violence, and she did not do that.

I also asked her to unequivocally denounce the radical violent Islamic religious doctrine underlying that violence, and she did not do that either.

Nor did you.

Fine. I denounce radical Islamic terror. I denounce the radical violent Islamic religious doctrine underlying that violence.

Will you denounce the expectation that Muslims support violence unless they state otherwise?

I asked HER to denounce it. You denounced it. I denounced it. OP is the one who is asserting a fear of discrimination. If she is unwilling to unequivocally denounce both the radical Islamic violence, and the religious doctrine underlying it, then it's perfectly rational to question her motives. I'm not a mind reader, this isn't a jury trial, I don't have to presume she has pure motives, so it's perfectly OK for me to ask her to denounce those two issues very clearly before even concerning myself about her puffed up fears of discrimination.

Obviously if she is not willing to denounce it, then potentially yes of course she MIGHT support it, or at least not be against it. What other reason would she have for NOT denouncing it? You tell me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol this poster is unhinged..."Guilty until proven innocent" is not a principle we follow in America. Maybe the PP should relocate to Russia where his/her type of thinking would be more welcome.

I agree, so no one is "guilty" of "backlash" or "discrimination" against Muslims until proven innocent. Maybe OP should relocate to Iran.

You seem to be very out of touch with reality...go peddle your agenda somewhere where it actually matters. Noone on DCUM really cares.

Anonymous wrote:Lol this poster is unhinged..."Guilty until proven innocent" is not a principle we follow in America. Maybe the PP should relocate to Russia where his/her type of thinking would be more welcome.

I agree, so no one is "guilty" of "backlash" or "discrimination" against Muslims until proven innocent. Maybe OP should relocate to Iran.

Anonymous wrote:I think Trump had a chance at winning up until he started getting carried away with his anti-Muslim agenda. I would support more through background checks on refugees and even investigating mosques with extremist membership or ties to terrorists. But thinking that every Muslim should card some type of special card? I'm not Muslim, but as someone of Middle Eastern descent, I think he wants America to go backwards. I think it is important for the next President to care about all of his constituents, not just white ones. I'm a little disappointed that I'm going to have to vote for a Democrat since all of the Republicans are nuts.

You can't discriminate against Muslims like Trump suggested, so that was ridiculous on his part. Any such program would not last five seconds assuming it was even put into place in the first place. Any court would immediately block it as unconstitutional.

HOWEVER--there is nothing at all unconstitutional about limiting immigration of refugees from certain countries such as Syria particularly young adult males i.e. the most likely terrorists.

Lol this poster is unhinged..."Guilty until proven innocent" is not a principle we follow in America. Maybe the PP should relocate to Russia where his/her type of thinking would be more welcome.