Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook will fight to protect the rights of Muslims

[RustyTech]

^ @VitalyT @RustyTech

So if 90% of Muslims are Terrorists and there are 1.6 Billion Muslims around the globe, that means 1.4 Billion of Muslims around the Globe are Terrorists? **** lads, we f*ed.

Yes, yes we are..unfortunately!
I understand you and others in this thread are trying to have a more balanced view on Islam, and I'll give you that a small fraction of Muslims are NOT terrorists and want peace and love and whatnot, but for the other 95% of Muslims, it's to convert and if that doesn't work - kill.

H3llion, you mentioned Donald Trump. I wouldn't say he's the perfect candidate for presidency, and who knows who I'm voting for, but he knows how the economy works and will do everything he can to correct the US economy - Islam aside, that alone would be a good reason for someone to vote for him.

 

[Mister_K]

Yes, yes we are..unfortunately!
I understand you and others in this thread are trying to have a more balanced view on Islam, and I'll give you that a small fraction of Muslims are NOT terrorists and want peace and love and whatnot, but for the other 95% of Muslims, it's to convert and if that doesn't work - kill.

H3llion, you mentioned Donald Trump. I wouldn't say he's the perfect candidate for presidency, and who knows who I'm voting for, but he knows how the economy works and will do everything he can to correct the US economy - Islam aside, that alone would be a good reason for someone to vote for him.

I just don't believe that, if that was the case, we would be goners already. Is it the loud minority, do deep down most Muslims have the hate and drive to kill "infidels" who don't believe in a Deity or believe in another Religion? Maybe I just haven't met enough Muslims (might have to pop down to Milton Keynes in UK, apparently that's packed with Muslims).

Well, he said few things I do agree with regarding Syria and also Sadam Hussain but with few good points he shits on everything with some moronic statements and standup.

 

[DaveBG]

Zuckerberg is terrorism supporter then? Sad.

Not all Muslims are terrorists so to think and say so is obtuse.

you are joking right?

 

[Axle Grease]

Zuckerberg ought to ponder this question: Is it in the nature of Muslims to fight for the rights of non Muslims including Zuckerberg?

 

[VitalyT]

 

[wiyosaya]

I'll ask you again.

1. Which major religion outside of Islam preaches convert or kill?
2. Do you even know what you're talking about?

I'll make it very simple for you.

To answer the first question, all you have to do is cite a Christian, Buddhist, Taoist (or other major religion) doctrine that states unbelievers must be converted or killed.

To answer the second question, you simply need to respond yes or no. You either know the major characteristics and history of Islam and Christianity (the two religions relevant to the West) or you don't.

About Religions, don't tell me you do.

I've studied theology, world religion & culture, and Christian apologetics.

If you'd like, I can screen cap a college transcript to satisfy Wiyosaya's desire for "expert" credentials.

Ah yes, a college course or two makes an expert of you. LOL

Are you aware that there was a study done many years ago that states that those who are incompetent have no clue they are incompetent? http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Incompetent-People-Really-Have-No-Clue-Studies-2783375.php

So in your view, or perhaps in the view of your instructors (did you ever question those views), the Koran advocates killing infidels. Apparently, this view is not shared by everyone. http://www.justaskislam.com/32/does-islam-say-kill-the-infidels/ - since you probably will not read far enough on the page

We know the Quran orders believers to fight in combat against those who are the oppressors, aggressors and terrorists and those who are assaulting and killing the innocent men, women and children. But it gives out clear orders - NOT TO Fight against those who are not fighting against you...

I bet you come up with some sort of asinine conspiracy theory to this, or you will say this is wrong because your instructors or the views you ascribe to are imbued with the ultimate in truth.

But to mirror your viewpoint -

Perhaps, in the wake of the latest planned parenthood killings, all patriotic 'Mericans should call for rounding up all christians to make sure they are not all wackos who own guns and plan on killing all the people who do not believe in christianity or killing those that advocate freedoms that are not consistent with christian views.

However, this analogy will go beyond you, I bet.

 

[wiyosaya]

Zuckerberg ought to ponder this question: Is it in the nature of Muslims to fight for the rights of non Muslims including Zuckerberg?

Perhaps you should see my last post...

 

[3volv3d]

I feel sorry for Zuckerberg, he wants to put all his money into some kind of world peace type thing. And I don't remember a time when we had world peace. Someone somewhere is always at loggerheads.

But it feels like it has really had an impact on this thread. It feels derailed. What attacks of late, have been anything to do with the US. I mean Paris... .not in the US... Paris ... not in the US. Is it that because it is the French, WWII, better go help them out ? I mean America always has to stick its oar in.

I don't feel America helps ever. It is like, one group stands up and says, we are the bullies, and America, as usual, stands up and says, no no no, we are still doing the bullying as we have done since Vietnam, after we got big headed for joining WWII at the frickin end of, but took all the credit.

And all this middle east crap, as far as I remember was other powers selling weapons to Sadam, telling him to keep them in his pocket and not play with them, and he couldn't help himself. So over everyone went to confiscate them, and take some oil... Cause America can't find the light switch to Las Vegas' 24/7 light show, and the Toyota Prius is clearly just the devils work. "If GOD didn't want us to drive gas guzzlers..."

Then a while later 2 towers go down. Back over the way, slap some peoples in an effort to find Osama this time. Found Sadam instead. That will do it. America feels appeased. Well good for you.

And now here we go again. And everyone is hating on muslims for this apparent convert or kill. That's not just the fanatics ? That is how their religion works ?
Did Christians not convert or kill, don't be a witch? Don't float ? Drown women drown.

As someone said religion in it's day had stories and such for its time, and has been taken out of context for fanatics, as has the situations we are in, been used by fanatical government figure heads to push agendas, and laws / bills through which would usually have no grounds to stand on, but there is nothing better than a burning flag on which to cry wolf but everyone to go omg where, yes yes do what you will save us...

That picture of Clint Eastwood is a **** move. It actually shows how much of a dumb *** idea it is for Clint or anyone to have a gun, cause, he may not be trained, he may be mad from old age, he may have outdated points of view, which is kinda our argument on the religion front right ? Religion is outdated. We just need good morals and at most spirituality ? But the only people that should have guns are those of law enforcement protecting Joe Public.

America you have it wrong, you look like *****s across the pond, you have your own white people, of white faiths probably, shooting up your schools and such, and that is terrorism. So before you get on your high horse, take a look in the mirror. You won't because, you're American and you don't care about the world, just the land you stole

 

[davislane1]

However, this analogy will go beyond you, I bet.

It seems to me ironic that I'm supposed to be the low-intelligence ignoramus when all you seem to be able to do is to point and screech "stup!d!"

Insofar as the linked article is concerned... It makes a bunch of assertions backed by little more than tidbits linguistic support. There is no substantial theological case made there at all. I could do the very same thing:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God. Most contemporary Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Their apologists cater to these preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Here's a former Muslim speaking on the issue. Can't get more "expert" than having been a part of the religion:

According to Fadi, life under Islam is much different than the whitewashed version often presented by the Western media and Muslim pressure groups.

That includes the Koran's call to jihad, or "holy" war, against non-believers.

"It is basically a proscriptive demand found in the Koran when it comes to jihad - killing the infidels, spreading Islam until there is no other religion on earth except the religion of Allah," Fadi explained.

"The West does not know many, if not all, of these things because they're basically oblivious to what the Koran teaches as a whole. They're only fed portions of the Koran," he said.

Linking to websites or articles that do little more than confirm you view, without articulating a rational argument that supports your position, is the very essence of delusions of competence.

Stop projecting.

 

[wiyosaya]

However, this analogy will go beyond you, I bet.

It seems to me ironic that I'm supposed to be the low-intelligence ignoramus when all you seem to be able to do is to point and screech "stup!d!"

Insofar as the linked article is concerned... It makes a bunch of assertions backed by little more than tidbits linguistic support. There is no substantial theological case made there at all. I could do the very same thing:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God. Most contemporary Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Their apologists cater to these preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Here's a former Muslim speaking on the issue. Can't get more "expert" than having been a part of the religion:

According to Fadi, life under Islam is much different than the whitewashed version often presented by the Western media and Muslim pressure groups.

That includes the Koran's call to jihad, or "holy" war, against non-believers.

"It is basically a proscriptive demand found in the Koran when it comes to jihad - killing the infidels, spreading Islam until there is no other religion on earth except the religion of Allah," Fadi explained.

"The West does not know many, if not all, of these things because they're basically oblivious to what the Koran teaches as a whole. They're only fed portions of the Koran," he said.

Linking to websites or articles that do little more than confirm you view, without articulating a rational argument that supports your position, is the very essence of delusions of competence.

Stop projecting.

My intent on projecting was to get you to see that you are projecting your own viewpoints. All "religious texts" are by far, open to interpretation. You and I could go back and forth forever. I could point to instances in the bible that some believe indicate contact with an alien intelligence. You could come up with some other interpretation of the same source material, and it could go on and on. Neither one of us could validate it because all religious texts have been interpreted differently by various entities over time.

If you want to view muslims as your enemy, then fine. That is your right and prerogative as, presumably, a US citizen. You have a right to free speech; however, I see that attitude as serving nothing productive. If you want to attack muslims because you think that every muslim is going to attack you, then I feel sorry for you. I see you as living in a constant state of paranoia literally shouting "oh my God, all muslims want to kill me."

So guess what? As I see it, you just contradicted yourself because you, yourself, said that the very lines that you cite as beyond doubt advocating killing of non-muslims or infidels are open to interpretation, and that means that not everyone will interpret those lines as you interpret them. You are backed into a corner with no way out and you are attempting to say anything that will support your viewpoint.

As I see it, there is no answer as it is a matter of interpretation, and, unfortunately, no one can go back to ask any of the religious icons, around whom the religious blather of religious texts was fabricated, what they would think of the modern day fabrications.

As someone who has self-professed to taking a few classes, I think that you should know that it is a common theme in all religious writings to elevate those who are written about to the level of godhood; it is the subsequent readers of such complete bullsh!t who choose to interpret the writings literally instead of from the eyes of a critical reader who understands that religious texts are fabrications not unlike the children's game where multiple children stand in a circle and one of them whispers in the ear of another and on around the circle. When the original statement reaches the end of the circle it is always different than what the originator said.

Consider that during the Paris attacks, a Muslim put his life on the line to protect non muslims http://readersupportednews.org/news...d-lives-in-attack-on-paris-kosher-supermarket before you go spouting complete bullsh!t that all muslims are commanded by the koran to kill all non muslims.

You may not want to face it my friend, but that act is at least one instance where the "linguistic twist" that I cited was practiced by one muslim. There are muslims out there that practice the same tenets that hold all life in the highest regard as do many hindu, jew, shinto, confucian, christian, and all the other religions.

 

[damnthereaper]

However, this analogy will go beyond you, I bet.

It seems to me ironic that I'm supposed to be the low-intelligence ignoramus when all you seem to be able to do is to point and screech "stup!d!"

Insofar as the linked article is concerned... It makes a bunch of assertions backed by little more than tidbits linguistic support. There is no substantial theological case made there at all. I could do the very same thing:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God. Most contemporary Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Their apologists cater to these preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Here's a former Muslim speaking on the issue. Can't get more "expert" than having been a part of the religion:

According to Fadi, life under Islam is much different than the whitewashed version often presented by the Western media and Muslim pressure groups.

That includes the Koran's call to jihad, or "holy" war, against non-believers.

"It is basically a proscriptive demand found in the Koran when it comes to jihad - killing the infidels, spreading Islam until there is no other religion on earth except the religion of Allah," Fadi explained.

"The West does not know many, if not all, of these things because they're basically oblivious to what the Koran teaches as a whole. They're only fed portions of the Koran," he said.

Linking to websites or articles that do little more than confirm you view, without articulating a rational argument that supports your position, is the very essence of delusions of competence.

Stop projecting.

I like how you use the Christian Broadcasting Network to prove your point, but of course there can't be any bias there at all?

 

[davislane1]

My intent on projecting was to get you to see that you are projecting your own viewpoints.

I'm not projecting anything.

The following statements are all verifiably true:

1. Jihad against the West is exclusively the domain of Islam.
2. Jihad is commanded by Islam.
3. Both Paris attacks, 9/11, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, Boston, et. al. were all carried out by Muslims in the name of Allah.
4. ISIS exists to establish and expand the Islamic state.
5. A significant portion of the European and American Muslim populations favor Islamic rule over European/American rule.

All "religious texts" are by far, open to interpretation.

No they aren't. With established religions, the portions of texts that are open to interpretation are limited to a small subset of passages that for one reason or another present linguistic or cultural difficulties (the records needed for interpretation are unknown or unclear). This is one of the reasons major tenants of world religion are consistent across the globe while, as in the case of Christianity, various denominations exist that split on finer details.

In any event, logical/philosophical scrutiny makes it fairly easy to weed out rational interpretations from bogus ones. For instance, a literal 7-day creation.

People can interpret all they like. What is reasonable and what is unreasonable isn't a matter of choice.

Consider that during the Paris attacks, a Muslim put his life on the line to protect non muslims http://readersupportednews.org/news...d-lives-in-attack-on-paris-kosher-supermarket before you go spouting complete bullsh!t that all muslims are commanded by the koran to kill all non muslims.

If the book says to kill infidels and a Muslim interferes with other Muslims doing so, he is being inconsistent with a core tenant of the faith.

It seems that the people on the other side of the fence on this issue are incapable of delineating between a group and individuals. Are all Muslims going to conduct jihad? No. That's so patently obvious it shouldn't even need mention.

However, "not all Muslims are like that!" doesn't protect Americans and Europeans from jihadists, and it doesn't protect "moderate" Muslims from the mounting backlash. It also does not address the even more important demographic issue.

Zuckerberg et. al. are playing for the other team. It's as simple as that.

I like how you use the Christian Broadcasting Network to prove your point, but of course there can't be any bias there at all?

Yes, because linking to ask Islam to support an argument about Islamic tenants–one of which includes lying to further the faith–isn't at all dubious.

Do you have an actual refutation, or is DISQUALIFY the only thing you have to offer?

 

[damnthereaper]

My intent on projecting was to get you to see that you are projecting your own viewpoints.

I'm not projecting anything.

The following statements are all verifiably true:

1. Jihad against the West is exclusively the domain of Islam.
2. Jihad is commanded by Islam.
3. Both Paris attacks, 9/11, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, Boston, et. al. were all carried out by Muslims in the name of Allah.
4. ISIS exists to establish and expand the Islamic state.
5. A significant portion of the European and American Muslim populations favor Islamic rule over European/American rule.

All "religious texts" are by far, open to interpretation.

No they aren't. With established religions, the portions of texts that are open to interpretation are limited to a small subset of passages that for one reason or another present linguistic or cultural difficulties (the records needed for interpretation are unknown or unclear). This is one of the reasons major tenants of world religion are consistent across the globe while, as in the case of Christianity, various denominations exist that split on finer details.

In any event, logical/philosophical scrutiny makes it fairly easy to weed out rational interpretations from bogus ones. For instance, a literal 7-day creation.

People can interpret all they like. What is reasonable and what is unreasonable isn't a matter of choice.

Consider that during the Paris attacks, a Muslim put his life on the line to protect non muslims http://readersupportednews.org/news...d-lives-in-attack-on-paris-kosher-supermarket before you go spouting complete bullsh!t that all muslims are commanded by the koran to kill all non muslims.

If the book says to kill infidels and a Muslim interferes with other Muslims doing so, he is being inconsistent with a core tenant of the faith.

It seems that the people on the other side of the fence on this issue are incapable of delineating between a group and individuals. Are all Muslims going to conduct jihad? No. That's so patently obvious it shouldn't even need mention.

However, "not all Muslims are like that!" doesn't protect Americans and Europeans from jihadists, and it doesn't protect "moderate" Muslims from the mounting backlash. It also does not address the even more important demographic issue.

Zuckerberg et. al. are playing for the other team. It's as simple as that.

I like how you use the Christian Broadcasting Network to prove your point, but of course there can't be any bias there at all?

Yes, because linking to ask Islam to support an argument about Islamic tenants–one of which includes lying to further the faith–isn't at all dubious.

Do you have an actual refutation, or is DISQUALIFY the only thing you have to offer?

Well when one makes an argument, it's usually best try a neutral source, not one that would be more likely to support ones argument. So to answer your question I am refuting your facts by disqualification, so yes and no?

 

[davislane1]

Well when one makes an argument, it's usually best try a neutral source, not one that would be more likely to support ones argument. So to answer your question I am refuting your facts by disqualification, so yes and no?

A fact can only be refuted by being proven false. Disapproving of the source is not a refutation. At best is an objection based on a fallacy.

 

[bob333]

Zuckerberg is terrorism supporter then? Sad.

This comment. Lol ! Are you educated?

 

[hahahanoobs]

Saw the title, saw the amount of comments, knew comments would be a sh*t show.

 

[damnthereaper]

Well when one makes an argument, it's usually best try a neutral source, not one that would be more likely to support ones argument. So to answer your question I am refuting your facts by disqualification, so yes and no?

A fact can only be refuted by being proven false. Disapproving of the source is not a refutation. At best is an objection based on a fallacy.

Then I choose fallacy for 500 Trebek! Seriously though, I can not prove your site false because, I'm honestly not going to take the time to survey the Muslim population of the world on their view of Islam and Jiihad (1.4 Billion emails are definitely going to be seen as spam by filters anyways). But you yourself are taking the word of one man as representative of an entire population, which is a huge leap of faith (pun intended). The world and views within a population are not black and white, and settle in a huge area of grey. To make another point, would you say the shooter of abortion clinic represented the majority of Christian values? No, because he doesn't. There are Muslim terrorists, Christian terrorists, domestic terrorists, foreign terrorists, white terrorists, black terrorists, Asian terrorists, Middle Eastern, European, american...the list goes on and on. Every ideal has it's extremists but to fully understand an ideal, you have to look pass those extremists views.

But don't take it from me, cause I'm just an Agnostic, who believes passing judgement on any one's religion or those without one, based on some bad eggs is unfair. But I'm also probably an ***** for believing that.

 

[davislane1]

But don't take it from me, cause I'm just an Agnostic, who believes passing judgement on any one's religion or those without one, based on some bad eggs is unfair.

Why do you think I have cited the Quran and linked to news stories and factual data in this thread?

Taking one man's word that Islam presents no threat is just as foolish as taking one who says it's out to get you.

You determine truth by weighing the evidence. That evidence, which is abundant, supports the notion that Islam is a threat.

In Nazi Germany, most Germans did not support Hitler and his followers. The moderate Germans had no desire for conquest or genocide. Even some Jews supported the party before it started rounding them up. Prior to Hitler's rise, fewer than 3% of the population were Nazis. At it's peak, about 10% were registered national socialists.

That minority of Germans was responsible for the single greatest war in the history of the world. The people who spoke out against the Nazi's prior to WWII were shot down and dismissed as anti-German fear mongers.

Just ask the ghost of Chamberlain. He knew how non-threatening the German people were because of their rich culture and scientific achievements. He was convinced–and heard it from the man himself–that the Aryans were not out for conquest; that they wanted peace and prosperity.

While a small percentage (which equates to millions) of Muslims go about raping (see Sweden's crime statistics) and murdering infidels in their own countries and performing genocide against infidels in Middle Eastern countries, Mark Zuckerberg has the audacity, the social tone deafness, and the unmitigated historical irony to imply that the Muslims are the population that needs protection.

I've done my research. You should do yours.

 

[damnthereaper]

Why do you think I have cited the Quran and linked to news stories and factual data in this thread?

Taking one man's word that Islam presents no threat is just as foolish as taking one who says it's out to get you.

You determine truth by weighing the evidence. That evidence, which is abundant, supports the notion that Islam is a threat.

In Nazi Germany, most Germans did not support Hitler and his followers. The moderate Germans had no desire for conquest or genocide. Even some Jews supported the party before it started rounding them up. Prior to Hitler's rise, fewer than 3% of the population were Nazis. At it's peak, about 10% were registered national socialists.

That minority of Germans was responsible for the single greatest war in the history of the world. The people who spoke out against the Nazi's prior to WWII were shot down and dismissed as anti-German fear mongers.

Just ask the ghost of Chamberlain. He knew how non-threatening the German people were because of their rich culture and scientific achievements. He was convinced–and heard it from the man himself–that the Aryans were not out for conquest; that they wanted peace and prosperity.

While a small percentage (which equates to millions) of Muslims go about raping (see Sweden's crime statistics) and murdering infidels in their own countries and performing genocide against infidels in Middle Eastern countries, Mark Zuckerberg has the audacity, the social tone deafness, and the unmitigated historical irony to imply that the Muslims are the population that needs protection.

I've done my research. You should do yours.

Yes, yes you have done your research. So going with the facts you presented, as it stands right now a small percentage, which as you said is still millions of people, are committing these acts of terrorism. And yes I do agree that that small percentage of people are a threat to the world and can cause a lot of damage. Is it the right thing though to brandish and persecute the majority based on a small minority? All that does is help increase that minority. I would think it would be bad tactics to drive more people into ISIS by showing that the countries they are at war with treat all Muslims with disdain. That's fueling the fire. Now I'm not going to sit here and debate analogy of Islam to Nazism or even ISIS to Nazisim, because I see them as apple and oranges...and strawberries?

You get my point.

 

[davislane1]

Is it the right thing though to brandish and persecute the majority based on a small minority?

Nobody is calling for Muslims to be persecuted. We're saying they should not be allowed to immigrate to Western nations and that the ones already (legally) in Western nations should be appropriately scrutinized until the situation resolved. Just like what happened in WWII with the Japanese, the Germans, and the Italians. According to Zuck and seemingly half of this forum, that's just biggoted nonsense the Muslims need protection from.

Persecution of Muslims will be the consequence of the politically correct circus being run by progressives. What do you think the natural response is when a government favors foreigners over it's native people:

--> Muslims murder and rape Europeans
--> European governments allow more Muslims in
--> Europeans complain
--> Europeans governments call them bigots and import more Muslims

--> Muslims murder Americans
--> American government allows more Muslims in
--> Americans complain
--> American government calls them bigots and imports more Muslims

Do you honestly believe those sequences end non-violently? There is not one instance in history where that scenario hasn't ended in a bloodbath.

Now I'm not going to sit here and debate analogy of Islam to Nazism or even ISIS to Nazisim, because I see them as apple and oranges...and strawberries?

Both are concerned with supremacy and territorial domination, and both are (was, in the case of national socialism) portrayed as non-threats in spite of every bit of evidence to the contrary. It's apples to apples. (Though, ISIS would do well to get some Hugo Boss uniforms.)

 

[damnthereaper]

Nobody is calling for Muslims to be persecuted. We're saying they should not be allowed to immigrate to Western nations and that the ones already (legally) in Western nations should be appropriately scrutinized until the situation resolved. Just like what happened in WWII with the Japanese, the Germans, and the Italians. According to Zuck and seemingly half of this forum, that's just biggoted nonsense the Muslims need protection from.

Persecution of Muslims will be the consequence of the politically correct circus being run by progressives. What do you think the natural response is when a government favors foreigners over it's native people:

--> Muslims murder and rape Europeans
--> European governments allow more Muslims in
--> Europeans complain
--> Europeans governments call them bigots and import more Muslims

--> Muslims murder Americans
--> American government allows more Muslims in
--> Americans complain
--> American government calls them bigots and imports more Muslims

Do you honestly believe those sequences end non-violently? There is not one instance in history where that scenario hasn't ended in a bloodbath.



Both are concerned with supremacy and territorial domination, and both are (was, in the case of national socialism) portrayed as non-threats in spite of every bit of evidence to the contrary. It's apples to apples. (Though, ISIS would do well to get some Hugo Boss uniforms.)

I'm not calling you bigot. I'm just saying that view only helps divide people. If the US had banned immigration of all Germans, Einstien wouldn't have been in the US, he wouldn't have written his letter to Roosevelt, and America wouldn't have had its proverbial big stick at the time. WWII the war you seem to be very fascinated with, would of probably taken a lot longer with Japan and could possibly ended up with a lot more causalities.

To quote an older Roosevelt: "Speak softly, carry a big stick."

 

[Hexic]

I knew I should have popped some popcorn before scrolling through these comments.

Steve, we need some e-popcorn. Stuff is getting real in the comment section. :]

 

[NTAPRO]

Lol, if only guest accounts were enabled for this post. All it takes is the mention of muslim support and everyone goes wild

 

[dividebyzero]

Lol, if only guest accounts were enabled for this post. All it takes is the mention of muslim support and everyone goes wild

Hey, I'm just waiting for the clickbait sites to notice the traffic and comment avalanche and begin their inevitable shock'n'scare pieces: " Your neighbours new quadcopter: High tech toy or potential ground attack platform?"...."Self driving cars - All bomb, no martyr"....

 

[John Vance]

It's not a case of hate Mark, it is just plain common sense, untill we get a handle on these back ground checks no more immagrants.