Why is sympathy for Islam so common on the political left?

You are so of **** that I'm surprised that you don't explode. Show me the sympathy from "the Left" on display about terrorism with regard to this horrific act in Munich, which is still on-going. Where is it, chump?

 

Well, where is it?

 

The left has been so brainwashed to look for discrimination everywhere to point that they are like Don Quixote jousting at windmills. They are so brainwashed, they will even defend people who would behead them for their beliefs if the people from the right say ANYTHING about them.

 

not sure about that but hypothetically if it's correct then the only logical explanation is : why would they attack Muslims when others pretty much doing this job...and quite good at it...

This called : conserving energy.

I hope my post served the propose of educating you guys, you are welcome though

 

In his own mind?

 

I don't like Ben Shapiro but when someone is right, you give them props

The non radical Muslims are actually the minority. I have friends who identify as Muslim and they are nice and caring

but they are the ****ing minority

Most Muslims are radical and there is proof. It is not a religion of 'peace' when the majority are radicalized. Thats not how it works. You can't argue it differently.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/g7TAAw3oQvg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...o/shapiro-says-majority-muslims-are-radicals/

 

Shapiro's calculation is more correct than politifact's. They don't count people as radicals who say things like a suicide bombing against civilians can "rarely" be justified, Shapiro does. To me, only someone who says suicide bombings against civilians can NEVER be justified is not a radical.

But even if you follow politifact's calculation, you might not have a majority, but still hundreds of millions who follow eye-poppingly crazy radical beliefs.

 

Politifact doesn't take a strong opinion of what is radical and they listed out a few examples to show how they came up with their ruling. One of the scenarios is they count "sometime" justified (for suicide) as radical and even with that definition, Shapiro number is completely off.

Politifact article never used the word "rarely" so not sure what you are referring to there.

 

Doing so to the exclusion of common sense and safety?

There is nothing bigoted about pointing out the simple fact that these terrorist acts are in fact being committed by radical islamists. There is a very real problem in NOT pointing that out, as problems that aren't correctly identified cannot be solved. There is also nothing in pointing this out that indicates in any way that Islam itself is the problem, any moreso than when radical fringes of any other group commit terrorist acts is a mass criticism of the core group.

 

Lets turn the table and view it from our side of the world. If Christians demanded Christian rules and courts for any civil suit (not criminal) between two Christian only, Liberals would label them as dangerous radical zealots. Politifact is watering down their standard of a radical for Muslims in comparison to the rest of the world.

Regardless, if liberals held the same standards as they do for Christians(Allah forbid a radical Jehovah witness knock on your door on a Saturday morning) as they would for Muslims, perhaps they would understand that Islam is not a religion of peace. While the rest of the secular world unite and stand against extremism and terrorist, the Muslim nations stand idle aside and shrug their shoulders.

All nonsense aside, I fully understand liberals really do not care for Muslims. I respect liberals in principle like Sanders just as I respect true peaceful Muslims. However liberals in principle are not very common. When it comes to Islam, the spiteful liberals support Islam because they subscribe to the belief of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". The blind arrogance fails to let them see that they are the enemy. Orlando is a prime example. Arrogant liberals have tried to explain away that it was not Islam, but some crazy guy shooting up a night club because he was confused on his sexuality. Meanwhile, the rest of the Muslim world knows exactly why he did it.

 

And there is nothing to gain from doing so. How exactly will "pointing out the problem" solve anything?

 

This. My problem with the left on social issues is they are "trying too hard" start movements and take the high ground. I really enjoy Bill Maher's views on political correctness and Islam.

However, starting a war with Islam is not smart, which is why I don't understand about calling them out.

 

Well said. It's reminiscent of Hillary blaming the Orlando shooting on white people not listening to gay Latinos.

 

Did that actually happen?

 

I will reply inline, but what I see is you aren't asking to seek understanding, but telling me what I am. You have come to some conclusion and apply it quite generally. I know that's not me and so I reject pretty much all of it.

I would agree, but under a narrow definition and circumstances. So let's be clear. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Christians (or any other religious folks) handling their own civil disagreements outside the US court system and in their own Christians system, as long as it doesn't break any US laws. It's their freedom to practice their religion as they please without breaking US laws. This is because we are nation of secular laws (or try to be) and not religious law. If we were a nation of religious (said Christian) laws, then whether the people or a portion of the people of that nation is dangerous radical is based on what they believe and what they do, but not based on the simple fact that it's a religious nation. Likewise, country with sharia laws doesn't automatically equate to people in that country as radical. I would agree that nation under religious laws are backward simply because religious laws are very old have many beliefs that are not compatible with modern society. And so I further agree that people who demand a nation to change from "secular" law to religious law is dangerous.

Politifact analyze the claim, provide their data and their result. It's very clear why they said the claim is false. I don't know how you can argue it is not. As they showed, even under a very relax definition of what is radical, the claim is completely off and is false.

The vast majority of Muslim are peaceful. You may believe Islam isn't a religion of peace, but it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of them are peaceful.

Extremists and terrorists attacks are mostly done within Muslim nations. The people of those nations have been fighting back. They aren't standing idle.

And how would you know this? This isn't a fact statement but an opinion. I reject it.

And again, how would you know this? I completely reject this.

I don't think liberal necessary support Islam. In fact, I wouldn't be surprise that many do not support religion in general.

I think liberal support the vast people of Islam that are peaceful. That support is for those people and doesn't have anything to do with their "enemy".

For me personally, you aren't my enemy. The right isn't my enemy. While you think I might have general support for Islam, that's too narrow. I support all religion and their right to exists and practice in peaceful manners. Furthermore, I believe that everyone should be judge on their own and not by actions of others. So when someone said people of Islam are "bad", that's not fact and I disagree with it.

On the contrary, I think liberal try to be very precise on the 'evil' doer. I believe we try not to generalize, as I think we believe that's not helpful and does more harm.

This is a good example. If we are to simply said it's religion, we may be somewhat off. It's likely more accurate that it's religion + hatred toward gays. I believe specifics and less generalization is helpful to understand more precisly.

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tsd7ad2JJak?start=277" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

LOL. She wasn't blaming white people. How well do they pay you to spam?

 

To the actual Pew poll. Politifact are - without mentioning or addressing it - acting as if those who say suicide bombings are "rarely" justified are not radicals. This is how they arrive at their numbers.

But saying they are rarely justified means thinking there can be situations when they are (like "an attack on Islam" by drawing a cartoon?), which is already a radical position in my book.



There you see it. Politifact pretends that those who say "rarely" do not hold a radical view, Shapiro counts that as a radical view. I agree with Shapiro. The only non-radical view is saying they are never justified.

I believe that Politifact are intentionally misleading the audience here.

No, you are wrong. They do not provide their data. They are intentionally misleading the audience. They don't have own data. They are just sweeping the people who say suicide bombings against civilians can "rarely" be justified to defend Islam under the rug, without even informing the audience that that is a part of the poll. Your claim is completely off and is false.

And even IF you were to say "oh, people who say it's only rarely ok to blow up civilians at a bus stop to "defend Islam" are not radicals, they are a-ok", even then, you STILL have hundreds of millions of Muslims who say it's sometimes or often ok to blow up civilians "to defend Islam".

The hard facts are in this post. Don't ignore them.

 

This sentence is almost signature-worthy in its ignorance, but let me try to give a serious and generic answer.

No problem can ever be properly addressed - irrespective of the way to a solution - without acknowledging it exists.