The Instigator
Lookingatissues
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Cobalt
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Isn't it time to recognize the elephant in the room

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 562 times Debate No: 82651
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

Lookingatissues

Pro

The attack by Muslim terrorists in Paris should alert the people all over the world that "Political correctness. multiculturalism, and liberal thought, no longer can be allowed to gloss over the fact or deny that there is a "elephant in our rooms and as much as we wish to ignore the elephant, Muslims wishing those who aren't Muslims harm, is a reality and can no longer be ignored. America once, took action to portect its citizens from a known enemy who also wished to kill Americans. The American government, since it couldn't identify the good Japanese in America from those who wished to do the American citizens harm had to be separated and removed from the country where they couldn't kill America's people. Its been said, "Not all Muslims are terrorist, but all terrorists are Muslims." Isn't it time to recognize the elephant in the living room before its allowed to kill Americans. What happened in Paris should be a wake up call for America, Political correctness won't save Americans lives, America acknowledging that, indeed, there is a elephant in the room and removing it will save America from what happened in Paris.
Cobalt

Con

Before we begin, I'd like to go through the opponent's opening statements and make it clear exactly what he is arguing for, for the benefit of clarity and for the benefit of the voters. I'll list off his arguments as a variety of contentions, that way they are already correctly paritioned for my rebuttal.

1. Political correctness, multiculturalism and liberal thought gloss over and/or deny "the elephant in the room".

2. Said elephant refers to Muslims who currently reside in the United States.

3. 'Not all Muslims are terrorist [sic], but all terrorists are Muslims.'

4. We should follow our historical example relating to the US japanese internment camps and remove Muslims from the general population in a similar manner. (Based upon his implications and final statment, in which he claims that the "elephant" must be removed.

I'll be addressing each of these points in the order presented. Following that, I will present my own case as to why removing all/the majority of Muslims from the general population in America is a patently bad idea. Finally, I will make some closing remarks.

Opponent's Arguments

1. Political correctness, multiculturalism and liberal thought deny/gloss over the existence of Muslims in this country.

The opponent does not present any evidence backing up this claim. Barring that, the traits that the opponent mentions all, to varying degrees, concern the idea of being respectful and mindful of the beliefs and customs of other people and other cultures. Looking at each of these ideas, we can more clearly see how the opponent's assertion does not follow.

Political correctness is defined as the avoidance of forms of expression or action that marginalizes or discriminates against some category of people, often categories of people already marginalized or descriminated against in the status quo. For instance, it is not politically correct to use the n-word. It is politically correct to say "African American" and in many cases, "black". When one uses political correctness, they are recognizing the existence of other groups and the types of language and words that offend them. Someone who is politically correct is more likely to be aware of the large number of Muslims in the US.

Multiculturalism refers to the coexistence of diverse cultures, where such differences include race, religion, beliefs, etc. A multicultural person is by definition more likely to be aware of Muslims in the US.

Finally, liberal ideology heavily supports the previous two ideas. One of the principles of liberalism is that we should not marginalize people based upon factors that present no danger to us. So again, a liberal is more likely to see the "elephant" in the room.

2. The elephant in the room refers to Muslims in the US.

This really isn't an argument, more just a point that the opponent implied that I wanted to make concrete. When he refers to the "elephant in the room", he is referring to Muslims living inside the United States.

3. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim.

This blatently false statement is what urged me to take this debate. The first part of this claim is technically correct, but the second couldn't be further from the truth. Between 1980 and 2005, a mere 6% of all domestic terrorist attacks were committed by Muslims. [1] 42% of these attacks were committed by Latino-related groups, followed by 24% committed by extreme left-wing terrorists.

To claim that "all terrorists" are Muslim is an example of a politically incorrect statement. It's politically incorrect because it makes a negative assumption about a category of people based upon a few outliers and because it's literally incorrect.

Second, the first part of the claim is that "not all Muslims are terrorists", but the opponent doesn't seem to realize just how few Muslims are terrorist. According to a head researcher at the RAND institute [2], an estimated 325,000 Muslims are already radicalized or have a strong potential to become radicalized. Compare this to the 1.57 billion Muslims in the world, and you get the statistic that only 0.02% of Muslims are radical. (Additionally, not all radical Muslims take radical actions, so the number of actual terrorists is less.

So to restate the opponent's claim in a more accurate way:

"Only a fifth of a percent of Muslims are terrorists and only 6% of terrorists are Muslim."

4. We should remove American Muslims from society.

This is a very bad idea for the following reasons:

A) Only 1 in 5,000 Muslims are expected to be radicalized (the maximum possible chance).

This means that you would be punishing 4,999 people for the crimes that 1 person has yet to even committ. Not only does this violate the Constitution in more ways than I care to list, but it's just a bad strategy. If you decided that you did want to go ahead and violate the Constitution, it would be much more beneficial to lock up all gang affiliated Latinos or all extremist white liberals.

B) Violation of the Constitution

Speaking of the Constitution, I think I will discuss how this proposed plan of action violates the very fundemental nature of this document -- the one upon which the basis of our country is founded. The first issue comes with the 6th Ammendment, which guarentees all accused the right to a fair trial. Locking up the 12 million US Muslims without said trial is directly against the 6th Ammendment.

If you are under the impression that the Constitution somehow does not apply to US Muslims, I'll refer you to the 14th Ammendment, which clearly guarentees all US citizens the protections of the Constitution.

My Argument

My argument will actually consist of only a single point, as the above rebuttal strongly implies many points by the very nature of the rebuttals themselves. My point has to do with democracy.

It is known that the United States was created to be and still is an indirect democracy. A democracy is unique from other forms of government in that the behavior of the government is meant to directly be influenced by the will of the people. It's the will of the people and their choice to be part of the democratic process that preserves the democracy.

If we were to imprison a large portion of the population (Muslims) we would be unjustly removing people from the democratic process. This means that minority would no longer be allowed to vote, directly removing their ability to influence the direction of the country. Such an action would create a US government that can no longer be considered a true democracy, as well-minded people have been systematically eliminated from participating and voicing their opinion. It cannot be said that one person's opinion on how the country should be run is any more or less valuable than another's. While that opinion may be technically incorrect or just a bad idea, it is still just as valuable because it is an imperative part of the democratic process.

By eliminating this minority from the process, you open up the potential for future legal abuses. For instance, if one can justify removing all Muslims, then it's not ridiculous to think one could justify removing all people who are not Christians (17% of the population.) Then, the remaining vote-capable citizens could easily justify removing more and more minorities, until only a small group of powerful people are left. This is aristocracy, a near opposite of democracy. Clearly, this cannot be allowed, indicating that the opponent's proposed action should also not be allowed.

Closing Statements

The opponent presented an argument unsupported by evidence or logic. Instead, he used discriminatory assertions to propose an unrealistic idea that would have little to no affect on terrorism in the United States or elsewhere.

Sources:



(1) - http://www.thedailybeast.com...;

(2) - http://www.csmonitor.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
Lookingatissues

Pro

Lookinattheissues .... Rebuttal to CON on DEBATE.org NOV 17Th. 2015 Information and reply being made up !!-18-2015
In my most recent subject" Isn't it time to recognize the elephant in the room," I made reference to many America refusing to acknowledge That indeed, there is an elephant in the room, the country that isn't being recognized mainly because of the public ridicule and the stigma against those who would dare point out the elephant, in this case, Muslims.
Are there still Americans brave enough to declare that Muslims represent a threat since there is no way of separating the dangerous Muslims who want to kill Americans from the good Muslims and be just like the child who pointed out that the "King had no clothes. "
By zack | 3/23/2004 | Articles
"We're all familiar with the fable of the naked king. The story of this 14th or 15th century king who runs around naked, but nobody says a word, or even acknowledges the fact for fear of being beheaded, or burned at the stake, or dropped in boiling oil or whatever they did to people who insulted the king in those days. It was just fear then. Today it actually has a name,Political Correctness...."
- See more at: http://www.laughatliberals.com...
"Hans Christian Andersen : The Emperor's New Clothes"
Then this from Wikipedia.
Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct, commonly abbreviated to PC) is an ordinarily pejorative term used to describe language, actions, or policies seen as being excessively calculated not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society.
_________________________________
References in periodicals archive....
Thought Prison: The Fundamental Nature of Political Correctness
Thought Prison: The Fundamental Nature of Political Correctness by Reference & Research Book News
Political correctness, gone too far? by Kippreport
Gradually, political correctness became an umbrella term for all manner of expressions.
Was JC PC? by Sanchez, Patricia Datchuck / National Catholic Reporte
All of those definitions of Political correctness defines what is in reality, a censorship, a gag, on any American who points out something or disagrees with those self-appointed politically correct "thought police" on freedom of expression. (The constitution of the United States: First Amendment, "Cogress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press...."
"What is Islam Religion? Islam is the name of the religion practiced by Muslims around the globe. It is based on the Qu'ran, which serves as their main book..."
www.qwhatis.com " Religion
The Quran:
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
"but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran"
You posted in your rebuttal,"The opponent does not present any evidence backing up this claim. Barring that, the traits that the opponent mentions all, to varying degrees, concern the idea of "....being respectful and mindful of the beliefs and customs of other people and other cultures.'" Looking at each of these ideas, we can more clearly see how the opponent's assertion does not follow."
"....being respectful and mindful of the beliefs and customs of other people and other cultures.' Its hard to respect a religion of foreign immigrants who's religion states that they should kill infidels, American Christians, In their very own country, If muslims wanted respect shown to them, they shouldn't kill Americans who's religion is different than theirs, thats not very respectful of others "beliefs and customs." The balance of my rebuttal to CON will follow in Comments below.
Cobalt

Con

I had a somewhat difficult time combing through the opponent's argument, as it seems largely like some sort of ill-conceived political tirade against liberals and Muslims. However, I'll pick out the parts that are relevant to this debate, then cover them in the order provided.

Political Correctness is incompatible with recognizing Muslims exist in the U.S.

This seems to be the first point being made. The opponent compares "liberals" to The Emperor's New Clothes, saying that they pretend that Muslims don't exist all in the name of being politically correct.

Not only does the opponent's evidence not include any relevant facts regarding liberals beliefs, but the notion that liberals are ignoring Muslims runs counter to logic. Of course everyone is aware that Muslims exist in the U.S. Now the opponent may be actually saying "liberals ignore the fact that Muslims are a threat", which I have already demonstrated to be false. [Refer to R1]

The opponent makes a generalization of political correctness based upon his perception of what that is. He has no real evidence to support the idea that generally, political correctness relates to his resolution, or is even a bad thing.

Should we respect the religion of Islam?

The opponent, in R1, rather explicitly implied that we should remove Muslims from the general population. This is part of the resolution we are arguing.

Next my opponent quotes a passage from the Koran, then makes the generalization that all Muslims are prone to this behavior. If we look at the passage, it actually differs quite susbstantially from what the opponent paraphrased:

191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

192. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.

Once we see the actual verses, it's not so obvious that this is a violent religion. v191 states that you should slay those who are fighting you and retaliate when you have been attacked. You, however, should not fight in a Mosque unless someone fights you there. v192 clearly states that if they should stop fighting you, you are not to attack any longer. v193 states that you should fight against oppression until there is no more oppression left, but [again] do not be hostile toward those who are not fighting you.

This looks susiciously like self defense here in the U.S. If you are attacked, you can retaliate, except when it is clear the perpatrator is no longer aggressive toward you. This passage is not indicative of a violent religion, but rather a relgion that supports the idea that you have to fight to protect yourself, but have enough wisdom to know when to stop fighting.

Beyond that, how you practice your religion largely depends upon how you interpret your religion. Muslim Extremists interpretted the Koran to be a violent one, so they are violent. Many Christians have interpretted the Bible to be a violent one, so they were violent. [See The Crusades]. We cannot justify rounding up Muslims and putting them in a camp because of the possibility that they are violent, when in reality everyone has the potential to be violent and Muslims are no more likely. Note from R1, my statistics regarding how many Muslims are the reason for domestic terrorism (6%).

Conclusion

My opponent mostly offers a political diatribe with an extreme goal, while offering little supporting evidence along the way. What is most ironic here is the fact that he wants to round up Muslims and place them in a camp because he believes they could be extremremists -- when in fact the only extremism to be found here is in the opponent's plan itself.

I have provided evidence showing that camping Muslims would be a grave injustice based upon the Constitution, that Muslims are rarely at fault for domestic terrorism, and that because of this camping Muslims would have no significant effect upon local terrorism. (Unless you consider the anger many might feel at this injustice, sparking new terror.)
Debate Round No. 2
Lookingatissues

Pro

Con's Argument here Round 3 and Lookingattheissues response here on Debate.org Nov. 21ST 2015
CON Posted,"I had a somewhat difficult time combing through the opponent's argument, as it seems largely like some sort of ill-conceived political tirade against liberals and Muslims. However, I'll pick out the parts that are relevant to this debate, then cover them in the order provided.
Lookingattheissues reply to Con November 21St. 2015 on DEBATE.org
You posted in your reply to my post,"......it seems largely like some sort of ill-conceived political tirade against liberals and Muslims....."
Lookingattheissues reply....I don't believe that what I posted consists of a tirade but sometime what some imply as tirades are in reality statements of facts that don't comport with the situation as they see them or would prefer the situation to be. "The Crusades - Middle Ages, There was no inevitability, ..... about the wars fought for possession of the Holy Land between western European Christians and near-eastern Muslims from the late 11th to the late 13th centuries." which you mentioned in your reply. Incidents that occured in the middle ages are hardly to be considered relevant or causative of what has, and is happening today between Muslims and the American people. I remember that when 3,000. innocent American citizens, who had done nothing to the Muslims, danced and hooted when they heard that Muslim terrorists had flew planes into the Twin Towers in New York and that Americans had been killed as a results.
"Remembering the ..... Arab Muslims 'Palestinians' "' that Danced .....in the streets when 3,000 Americans ... " were murdered.
.... Danced .....in the streets when 3,000 Americans ..." ...were murdered.
"Sep 01, 2008 " Remembering the Devilish Arab Muslims 'Palestinians' that Danced .....in the streets when 3,000 Americans ... " died.
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2072444/posts
CON Response"This seems to be the first point being made. The opponent compares "liberals" to The Emperor's New Clothes, saying that they pretend that Muslims don't exist all in the name of being politically correct."
Lookingattheissues....The politically correct Liberal Democrats refuse to acknowledge that terrorist acts carried on against Americans have been carried out by Muslims and clouds this fact by the use of labelsTerrorists, ISIS, ISEO. ,...."
CON: The opponent makes a generalization of political correctness based upon his perception of what that is. He has no real evidence to support the idea that generally, political correctness relates to his resolution, or is even a bad thing.
Lookingattheissues: Political correctness
Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct, commonly abbreviated to PC) is an ordinarily pejorative term used to describe language, actions, or policies seen as being excessively calculated not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society.
"In order to beat your enemy, you must first know your enemy..."If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
" Sun Tzu

"WASHINGTON " They"re burning and beheading victims in the name of Islam, but President Obama delivered a major speech Wednesday on combating violent extremism " while refusing to use the words "Muslim terrorists."
"No religion is responsible for terrorism " people are responsible for violence and terrorism," Obama told a crowd that included Muslim community leaders at the White House.
lookingattheissues: But, Muslims are "People," terrorists are Muslims.
Obama is quite good at using semantics, "euphemisms," "an inoffensive word or phrase substituted for one considered offensive or hurtful, especially one concerned with religion,...."
Why doesn't Obama identify Terrorists as Muslims, perhaps Obamas Book," The Audacity of Hope," would shed some light why this is. In Obama's book, ThE AUDACITY OF HOPE," he states," I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
In responding to a terrorist attack, there are only two choices - take the fight to the enemy or wait until they hit you again...."
Kay Granger
CON: The opponent, in R1, rather explicitly implied that we should remove Muslims from the general population. This is part of the resolution we are arguing. The Muslims entering this country from where ever they come from could be somewhat like the Trojan horse of Greek mythology to gain entrance into Troy during the Trojan War. How better to do harm to Americans than to mingle among the population with no way of identifying a enemy Muslim from a friendly, good intentioned Muslim. How did the Boston Marathon Bombers go unidentified until they struck, Because they were allowed to mingle among the American population.
Con Posted: it's not so obvious that this is a violent religion. v191 states that you should slay those who are fighting you and retaliate when you have been attacked.
Lookinatthe issues: Was the "American ,Steven Sotloff, American Journalist, Beheaded By ISIS" fighting Muslims, were the 3,000 Americans murdered in New York by Muslim terrorists fighting Muslims. And you say,"it's not so obvious that this is a violent religion...."
Con: ".....Many Christians have interpretted the Bible to be a violent one,... True Christians believe in the bible's teachings,Luke 6:31 "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you..." Of course, because one identifys themselves as Christian doesn't mean that they are anymore than whether a Muslim is a non- violent Muslim or a terrorist Muslim.
CON: My opponent mostly offers a political diatribe with an extreme goal, while offering little supporting evidence along the way.
Lookingattheissues: The evidence is quite evident to anyone and I listed the violent terrorist attacks by Muslims upon Americans in one of my previous posts. Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams
Marcus Tullius Cicero
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear."
Marcus Tullius Cicero
Cobalt

Con

The opponent has, again, posted his argument in the form of a text block. It's difficult to tell when I'm reading his words, someone else's words or a headline. However, I will again attempt to comb through it to find the relevant responses so that I can respond appropriately.

The Crusades

The first point the opponent makes concerns my mention of "The Crusades", to which the opponent responds by essentially saying, "What happened long ago isn't relevant to what is happening today between Muslims and the American peole." However, this simply isn't true. I brought up the Crusades to demonstrate that violence is not inherent in religion, but rather violence comes from interpretations of religion. In the Middle Ages, Christians interpretted their religion in such a way that they felt it allowed them committ great acts of violence against others. Contrary to this, many modern day Christians do not feel this way about the Bible.

Similarly, many Muslims do not feel that their is a violent one and they do not act violently because of it. A select few Muslims do interpret their religious text this way, which leads them to committ acts of violence. The important point here is that the likelihood to committ violence has nothing to do with the religion itself, but rather the way the religion is interpretted. In referencing the actual text from the verses the opponent brought up, I demonstrated that there was nothing inherently violent about those verses. They simply said that Muslims have the right to defend themselves from tyranny and opression. As most any Muslim today and they will tell you the beliefs of ISIS and similar groups are a gross misinterpretation of the Koran. It's important to remember that, although the 9/11 attacks were undoubtedly devastating, they were carried out by a very small group of extremists.

Political Correctness

My opponent responds to this point by repeating what I said and then following up with a definition of "political correctness". Again, the opponent has still not provided a link between a person being PC and that same person being more likely to blatantly ignore political facts/events/policies/etc. In fact, the observant reader might notice that the opponent has chosen to ignore all of the violence statistics I have thus far referenced. Since the opponent is implying he is not PC, are we to assume that people who aren't PC are more likely to ignore the reality of the situation?

Probably not. The more realistic answer is that the tendency to ignore facts one doesn't wish to believe are true is the result of a stubborn refusal to become less ignorant. Political correctness likely plays little part in this decision to remain ignorant.

"Terrorists are Muslim"

Here the opponent repeats a previous claiming without addressing my statistics. I demonstrated quite clearly that only 6% of domestic terrorism in the U.S. sine 2002 has been committed by Muslims. This means 94% was committed by non-Muslims, clearly proving that all terrorists aren't Muslim. In fact, the vast majority of U.S. terror incidents are not done by Muslims, meaning Muslim terrorism is quite rare.

The opponent completely ignores this and continues to assert that "all terrorists are Muslims". Prefer evidence over assertion.

Is Islam inherently violent and "Trojan Horse", say what?

The opponent has two points here. The first is an assertion that the Muslims entering this country are in some way a Trojan horse. This is not supported with evidence and is merely a narrative concocted in the opponent's mind. (Or more likely, someone else's mind.)

I have already demonstrated that only 6% of domestic terror incidents involved Muslims. It should be noted that Muslims have been consistently entering the country for a very long time now -- that we aren't only just now considering "letting them in". Despite that immigration of Islam, we see that terror incidents involving them are very low indeed. This discredits the opponent's assertion that immigration of Muslims is in some way a radical terrorist Trojan horse.

He reiterates a previous point, claiming that Islam must be violent because Muslims occasionally act violently. I have already thoroughly discussed this. There are occasions when people are violent and it seems independent of their belief system. Muslims have committed acts of terror, just as have Christians, Whites, Blacks, Latinos, Buddhists, Priests, etc. The sheer number of Muslims who don't commit violence and who don't believe in violence supports the idea that violence is external to Islam, rather than inherent.

The opponent briefly points out that "true Christians" aren't violent because of a particular verse in Luke. Note that this is the No True Scotsman fallacy. The opponent's opinion that these Christians aren't "true" Christians is just that -- an opinion. And a wrong one at that, since anyone who claims to believe in the Bible and the Christian god, regardless of their interpretation of those two things, is a Christian. Similarly, it is quite probable that many Muslims would say that ISIS members aren't true Muslims.

Conclusion

The opponent suggested that we must remove Muslims from the American public in order to "protect ourselves". The only evidence he provided was various incidents of terrorist attacks comitted by Muslims.

I have presented evidence showing that domestic terror is rarely committed by Muslims and that the "terrorism threat" is much more likely to come from White extremists and Latino gangs. By my opponent's argument, it would be wise to lock up all White and Latino people as well. I have additionally demonstrated that violence is not the result of religion, but rather the people practicing that religion.

The opponent's entire argument is the stereotypical, tea party type argument which seeks to make rash and illogical policy decisions based upon a misunderstanding of the current situation and a purposeful disregard for the facts. This type of rhetoric may well work on Fox News, but it simply does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to an intellectual forum of exchange like DDO. Vote Con because of my evidence and arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Forever23 1 year ago
Forever23
Cobalt, can you start the minimum wage debate with katchabeswaransriram?
Posted by Lookingatissues 1 year ago
Lookingatissues
In my most recent subject" Isn't it time to recognize the elephant in the room," I made reference to many America refusing to acknowledge That indeed, there is an elephant in the room, the country that isn't being recognized mainly because of the public ridicule and the stigma against those who would dare point out the elephant, in this case, Muslims.
Are there still Americans brave enough to declare that Muslims represent a threat since there is no way of separating the dangerous Muslims who want to kill Americans from the good Muslims and be just like the child who pointed out that the "King had no clothes. "
By zack | 3/23/2004 | Articles
Posted by Lookingatissues 1 year ago
Lookingatissues
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.)
2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb explodes outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
2003 1
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers kill 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
Then There is The "2012 Benghazi attack....which.... took place on the evening of September 11, 2012, when Islamic militants attacked the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, murdered Four Americans.
" In the real world, societies that are unwilling to defend their values are overran by enemies who lack such inhibitions..."
From the book,"The Shadow Party," by David Horowitz and Richard Poe.
Then "The Swiss Philosophler Emmerich de Vatel opined. "Self defense is a natural right. Every nation, as well as every man, has therefore, a right to prevent other nations from obstructing her preservation, her perfection, and happyness that is, to preserveherself from all injuries.... and this right is a perfevt one, since it is a given to satisfy a natural and indispenable obligation: for when we cannot use constraint in order to cause our rights to be respected, their efects are very uncertain. It is a right to preserve herself from all injury that is called the right to security." Isn't it time to recognize the elephant in the room, if America doesn't recognize the elephant in the room, Political correctness will get a lot of Americans killed by those who aren't Politically correct nor tolerant.
Posted by Lookingatissues 1 year ago
Lookingatissues
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.
1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.
1995
April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the anti government p
Posted by Lookingatissues 1 year ago
Lookingatissues
The remainer of Lookingattheissues reply to CON:
3."Not all Muslims are terrorist [sic], but all terrorists are Muslims." This debate about Muslims is in relation to Muslims/ Syrian Refugees coming to America. Note, "Square brackets are most commonly used around the word 'sic' (from the Latin 'sicut', meaning 'just as'), to explain the status of an apparent mistake. Generally, sic means the foregoing mistake (or apparent mistake) was made by the writer/speaker..."
While it is true that America and the rest of the world has experienced acts of terrorism by other than Muslims other time but I was addressing the present era and which group of people have been involved in terrorist acts against America specifically.
1979
Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan's inauguration.
1982"1991
Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.
1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.
Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.
1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.
1985
April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant freque
Posted by Cobalt 1 year ago
Cobalt
Ok, that's what I thought you meant.
Posted by Lookingatissues 1 year ago
Lookingatissues
Posted by Cobalt 1 hour ago
Cobalt
What is the exact resolution that you are supporting?

My resolution is: If there is some doubts about the intentions of Muslims in America,since Muslims religion tells them to Kill Infidels, since we can't identify those Muslims who 's religion tells them to kill infidels from those Muslims who don't follow that religion, we, must, for our own safety, view all Muslims as thinking that its their duty to kill Infidels.
Posted by Lookingatissues 1 year ago
Lookingatissues
"A FOX IN THE HENHOUSE"
DON"T LET THE FOX GUARD THE HENHOUSE " "Don"t assign a job to someone who will then be in a position to exploit it for his own ends."
"The proverb has been traced back to "Contre-League" and is similar to the Latin: "Ovem lupo commitere"
The fox is a predator. Always looking for prey, the fox can not help his actions when looking at the wild animal in wooded settings. When a fox guards a hen house, inevitably the fox is going to eat some chickens...When said of a person, "the fox guarding the hen house", it means that they are untrustworthy, unreliable, and unscrupulous."
I am suggesting that Americans not allow Foxes/ Muslims, to roam freely amongst American infidels.
DON"T LET THE FOX GUARD THE HENHOUSE " "Don"t assign a job to someone... Muslims.... who will then be in a position to exploit it for...their... his own ends." To paraphrase the above Quote, Don't allow Muslims to be in the Hen House, who will then be in a position to exploit it for their own ends... Kill American infidels.....
Posted by Cobalt 1 year ago
Cobalt
Yea, I reread a few times. It's pretty clear what you mean. I'm accepting.
Posted by Cobalt 1 year ago
Cobalt
Are you saying we need to round up and remove Muslims within America from the general population?
No votes have been placed for this debate.