_Well, here's the problem. The "war on terror" is so loosely defined that the US is considered to be in a constant state of war._
When I said war I meant war. The war on terror isn't a war so much as a misuse of language.
_Here's the thing - it still injustice in wartime. It's acceptable injustice according to the rules of engagement, but the person being murdered, imprisoned or otherwise abused_
I did exclude violence from being acceptable even in wartime. The only things I thought acceptable would be limitations to freedom. You can put people into a cage temporarily - but it does have to be a comfortable one.
You used right-wing echo chambers as your citations, for a start
Unfortunately the right (not all of them though) seems to have woken up to this issue rather quicker than most on the left. That pains me somewhat - but I can't do anything about it.
You also seem to spend a lot of time attacking "the left",
I'm not attacking the left for being left - I'm attacking them for being fooled by Islam. That causes me great sadness. Some even in my own church (who really should know better) have made the same mistake and that saddens me even more.
you just run find and replace on his comments to replace words like "Muslim" or "refugee" with "Jew" and you pretty much have Hitler's rhetoric repeated verbatim.
That sounds good - but I don't think it is actually true.
Lets try it:
"I Adolf Hitler am calling for a complete halt on Jewish immigration until the Reichstag can work out what the hell is going on"
Nah - doesn't sound like Adolf to me.
Incidentally, whilst I think Trump has identified the problem more clearly than most US politicians I also think his proposed solutions are too selfishly US centric. They do nothing to help the millions of Christians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Yazidis, Hindus, Atheiasts - and for that matter members of genuinely peaceful minority islamic sects like Ahmadis who have the misfortune to live in countroes where mainstream Islam dominates the political system. It is these people whose fate bothers me. The threat in the US is actually minimal at present.
Like most religions, there are massive differences in belief, many internal battles (most victims of Islamic violence are also Muslim) and the majority of followers are moderates.
The belief that the majority of muslims are moderates may be comforting - but it is not exactly true.
Most muslims that you meet in the west are genuinely moderate - however most of them are also nominal. They haven't studied their faith much - they just take whatever their local Imam says as true.
In muslim majority countries it is different. Although most are still, in a sense, moderate, the minority that are not now amounts to a really substantial number of people. Look at Pakistan for example. A few years ago a Christian woman was arrested for blasphemy on the accusation of local muslims. She was sentenced to death. A major national politician called for her release and the repeal of the blasphemy laws. He, in turn, was murdered for taking this stand and the culprit was tried and hanged.
This hanging provoked huge demonstrations - not on the grounds that hanging was immoral as might have happened elsewhere but on the grounds that the killer was performing a public service on behalf of the prophet. I'll not quote any sources on this- you can look up Asia Bibi on Google and you will find plenty - maybe even some that meet your criteria of not being a rightwing cesspool.
The point is this most muslims are moderate (they just want to get on with their lives) but when islam is in the ascendancy they won't/can't stop the extremists from getting their way (after all they just want to get on with their lives) - and the more muslims there are the more extremists there will be.
there are numerous "Christian" groups in the US who are jealous of theocracies who can treat those people as second class citizens without bleeding heart liberals stopping them
but they'll never get their way - because the bleeding heart liberals are also Christian and can quote the bible back at them. UNfortunately this doesn't seem to work with the Koran because there are no suitable texts in there.
extremists who wish to believe that there's a holy war between Islam and the West.
I have enough experience with that cesspool to know that there's often no evidence at all, and what there is can often be distorted, re-edited and outright lied about.
Well maybe I was being lazy - I have seen much evidence from many different sources for this - I just quoted the one that came top of the google search - and I checked that there WERE linked sources - within it - that were not being significantly distorted.
you regularly make shit up about other people based on short interactions.
OK, which of the things I said were wrong?
Are you NOT on the left politically?
Did you NOT make this comment (amongst many)
Extreme right-wing ideas exist in all religions. There are millions of Muslims who do not adhere to those ideas, so it's a good idea not to pretend they do if you wish for their support or cooperation. Like most religions, there are massive differences in belief, many internal battles (most victims of Islamic violence are also Muslim) and the majority of followers are moderates.
For a start it is a stretch to say that extreme right wing ideas eist in all religions. It may be true that extreme right wing ideas exist amongst the adherents of all religions - but that is quite different.
Making that statement is a classic "tu quoque" argument commonly used to defend ISlam from accusations that relate to clear statements in its holy texts and the behaviour of its founder.
Homophobics and holocaust deniers, for example, usually have those labels applied because they're accurate descriptions for what they're saying.
Holocaust deniers might be an accurate description but it is still a cheap argument. If your arguing with someone who denies the holocaust then you surely should not need to resort to name calling.
Homophobia is NEVER an accurate description. A phobia is an instinctive irrational fear. Someone who suffers from a fear of (eg) spiders is not being nasty to spiders they just melt down into uncontrollable fight/flight reactions in their presence. If you have never suffered such symptoms it is easy to use the term as a term of abuse but it looks pretty bad to anyone who has.
A genuine homophobic is someone who would have a panic attack in the presence of a homosexual.
Use of the term "homophobia" is actually offensive to genuine phobics.
To me the problem is that phrases like "hate speech" can be used to label political speech that you disagree with.
The boundary ought to be quite easy to establish.
A religion can put forward its doctrines - and adherents of other religions (or atheists) can say what they like about them - however distasteful these words might be to the first religion's believers.
The line is crossed when violence is advocated.
The middle ground here is measures short of violence that disadvantage certain groups (eg Trump's muslim ban - or Saudi Arabia's ban on non-muslims visiting certain areas). I don't know the full answer here -but in time of war western democratic countries have used such measures citing "necessity". In a war it might be acceptable because it is cearly only for a limited time. When such measures are implemented in peacetime (eg McCarthyism) then it does tend to result in injustice.
One thing right-wingers really need to learn is that saying "he did it first!" like a little child does not absolve their candidate of their own words and actions.
I don't know where you get the idea that I am a right winger from. I am anything but. On 99% of policy issues in the US I would have backed Bernie Sanders.
What is going on today is that anyone calls out on Islamic anti-semitism is dismissed as a Nazi. To equate Trump's proposed temporary muslim ban with the nazis is pretty much a stretch.
It seems to me that the left has held its nose in the face of the extreme right wing ideas that exist within islam on the grounds that it wants the muslim vote.
ON issues like womens rights and homosexuality (not to mention the attitude to those of other faiths and none displayed in islamic countries) islam is just about the most illiberal major ideology in the world.
I don't want to support Trump but on that one point he does seem to recognise this reality - even if his proposed solution is impractical. Other political figures seem to be in a fantasy land that denies the reality of islamic history. I have noted that prominent ex-muslims like Ali-Sina support Trump (even though the ban would impact him personally as an Iranian with an islamic name) though others reject his tactics but still take the main point - see
Whereas Trump has, for example, advocated for forcing Muslims to carry special IDs to make sure they're easily recognised. You know, exactly like the Nazis did with the Jews, gays, gypsies, communists and others they wanted to exterminate.
check up who they learnt those tactics from... I'd say it's a case of what goes around comes around....
and by "disagreeing with the left" you mean "proposing ideas that are not only literally the same as the ones used in pre-WWII Nazi Germany, but also targeted against selected group for no reason other than hate".
In a world where many on the so called the left have chosen to ally themselves with groups whose ideas are themselves "literally the same as the ones used in pre-WWII Nazi Germany" your comment makes no sense!