Anti-Muslim backlash coming or not?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Some Muslims of Arab descent are American-born.

Most American Muslims are Native born Blacks.

[mawilson 2,133]

That's a pretty dodgy thing to say to be honest - not unlike suggesting that if we were at war in Africa that we shouldn't allow blacks to serve in the armed forces.

Don't try to generalize this. African Americans do not sympathize with Africans the way

many American Muslims sympathize with aspects of Hamas and Hezbollah (even though

they don't necessarily sympathize with the suicide bombings) and the core issues that are

the foundation of Palestinian grievances against Israel.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Oh that's really advanced.... like interning Japanese and German citizens during WWII...

It's really not because I'm not advocating interning anyone.

There is, however, a clear conflict of interest in allowing Muslims to join the military and fight their Muslim brothers.

I wouldn't have any problems with Muslims joining if we were fighting a war in China or Korea.

Most Muslims in the world are Asian.

[mawilson 2,133]

Oh that's really advanced.... like interning Japanese and German citizens during WWII...

It's really not because I'm not advocating interning anyone.

There is, however, a clear conflict of interest in allowing Muslims to join the military and fight their Muslim brothers.

I wouldn't have any problems with Muslims joining if we were fighting a war in China or Korea.

Most Muslims in the world are Asian.

But not Chinese or Korean.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

In world war II many Germans were Christians as were Americans. I suppose all of the Christian US soldiers should have been rejected.

Cut the #######, man.

Do Christians take up arms and fight holy wars against infidels when other Christians are attacked?

Yet a simple caricature of the Prophet Mohammed inflamed the entire Muslim world - in countries

as different and distant as Indonesia, Morocco and Saudi Arabia.

Thats what the Crusades was about Mark, only Muslims and, by extension, Jews were the infidels then.

Currently, it can be said that the conflicts Iraq and Afghanistan are seen as the invasion of the infidels into Muslim countries, thus, non-Muslims taking up arms against Muslims.

[Craneman 2]

This guy was nothing but an a$$wipe coward.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Oh that's really advanced.... like interning Japanese and German citizens during WWII...

It's really not because I'm not advocating interning anyone.

There is, however, a clear conflict of interest in allowing Muslims to join the military and fight their Muslim brothers.

I wouldn't have any problems with Muslims joining if we were fighting a war in China or Korea.

Most Muslims in the world are Asian.

But not Chinese or Korean.

There are may Chinese Muslims. That's who the Uiegers are.

[Craneman 2]

He was not Muslim, spent his time at the titty bar drinking beer,

he is a straightout coward, not Muslim, not Jew, not Christiean, just the church of Chicken Chit

This guy was nothing but an a$$wipe coward.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's a pretty dodgy thing to say to be honest - not unlike suggesting that if we were at war in Africa that we shouldn't allow blacks to serve in the armed forces.

Don't try to generalize this. African Americans do not sympathize with Africans the way

many American Muslims sympathize with aspects of Hamas and Hezbollah (even though

they don't necessarily sympathize with the suicide bombings) and the core issues that are

the foundation of Palestinian grievances against Israel.

It was analogous, not a generalization.

You're the one who suggesting that arab-americans should be judged by the lowest common denominator. If the government adopts that stance its creating institutionalized prejudice, which creates a climate of prejudice in wider society.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Gene Hunt

[nowhereman 1]

A xenophobic stance on such an issue (e.g. not allowing Muslims in our military because of a few tragic incidents) would create more problems than it fixes. For one you need interpreters & the best interpreters are native speakers, because not only do they have a better mastery of the language they understand the culture.

So hire the interpreters, just don't give them guns and force them to choose between their heritage

and their loyalty to the American cause, because you might not like what they choose.

Major Hasan was apparently a malcontent who was also a Muslim. The fact that he was a malcontent is the issue here; the fact that he is a Muslim isn't the central issue. From a leadership perspective a malcontent is a malcontent & again from what I understand there were warning signs that were not properly handled.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

That's a pretty dodgy thing to say to be honest - not unlike suggesting that if we were at war in Africa that we shouldn't allow blacks to serve in the armed forces.

Don't try to generalize this. African Americans do not sympathize with Africans the way

many American Muslims sympathize with aspects of Hamas and Hezbollah (even though

they don't necessarily sympathize with the suicide bombings) and the core issues that are

the foundation of Palestinian grievances against Israel.

You're merely guessing about what either group thinks.

I'm an American born child from a Palestinian immigrant family. Do you profess to know what I believe? I would bet to know more about American Blacks and American Muslims than you do.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

In world war II many Germans were Christians as were Americans. I suppose all of the Christian US soldiers should have been rejected.

Cut the #######, man.

Do Christians take up arms and fight holy wars against infidels when other Christians are attacked?

Yet a simple caricature of the Prophet Mohammed inflamed the entire Muslim world - in countries

as different and distant as Indonesia, Morocco and Saudi Arabia.

Thats what the Crusades was about Mark, only Muslims and, by extension, Jews were the infidels then.

Currently, it can be said that the conflicts Iraq and Afghanistan are seen as the invasion of the infidels into Muslim countries, thus, non-Muslims taking up arms against Muslims.

The Crusades on the surface may have been a "holy war" but I think its time US/European Christians stop apologizing for them. While the Christian Leaders of the day may have used religion as an excuse the real reason behind Crusades and the wars up through the 15th Century were about protecting the boundaries of the Byzantine Empire and in the larger sense Europe as a whole.

Had the Roman gods been the driving religion they would have been invoked instead.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Sousuke

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No that isn't correct - the first crusades were about protecting Constantinople but at the same time there was a ongoing factional feud between the Roman Catcatholic and Eastern orthodox churches.

Constantinople was conquered in the early 13th century under the pretext of The Fourth Crusade.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

In world war II many Germans were Christians as were Americans. I suppose all of the Christian US soldiers should have been rejected.

Cut the #######, man.

Do Christians take up arms and fight holy wars against infidels when other Christians are attacked?

Yet a simple caricature of the Prophet Mohammed inflamed the entire Muslim world - in countries

as different and distant as Indonesia, Morocco and Saudi Arabia.

Thats what the Crusades was about Mark, only Muslims and, by extension, Jews were the infidels then.

Currently, it can be said that the conflicts Iraq and Afghanistan are seen as the invasion of the infidels into Muslim countries, thus, non-Muslims taking up arms against Muslims.

The Crusades on the surface may have been a "holy war" but I think its time US/European Christians stop apologizing for them. While the Christian Leaders of the day may have used religion as an excuse the real reason behind Crusades and the wars up through the 15th Century were about protecting the boundaries of the Byzantine Empire and in the larger sense Europe as a whole.

That's true, but like Muslim terrorists, the language used to justify a holy war was religious. Even to the point where indulgences and promises of exemption from sins were offered by the Church in return for the slaughter of Muslims. Terrorists of today promise heaven and 70 virgins as rewards for protecting Muslim lands and the sphere of Islamic influence.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Had the Roman gods been the driving religion they would have been invoked instead.

That isn't correct either. Monotheism is useful politically because it creates less dissent - especially if the institutions of religion are under the control of the State (as they were in England after the Reformation). Under the Roman system the Gods were used in a largely political way too - though because religion was diluted among numerous different temples and cults, there wasn't any particular one that had dominance - certainly not to fire someone up in pursuit of Holy War.