The Islamic Fundamentalism and its ties with terrorism

[2xx1xy1JD]

I think most people would trace the rise of ISIS to the power vacuum left after the fall of Saddam Hussein, and the later breakdown of the state When there was rebellion in Syria against Assad.

At the end of WW2 many countries in  western Europe were devastated. So was South Korea at the end of the Korean War. In both cases, the US invested very large sums of money in rebuilding, re-creating economies, and establishing politically strong states. Today, we see stability in these zones, and in many cases, a legacy of support for the US.

In Iraq, again large sums were earmarked for reconstruction, but very little seems to have been done properly.. We have all seen pictures of incomplete projects, and it is estimated that at least $8 billion is unaccounted for. There are some private companies, particularly those providing security, that have prospered, but the Iraqis  as a whole are very definitely worse off than under Saddam - and the Americans have gone home and left them to it. A great well of resentment has been formed.

This is by no means a reflection on the average US citizen, whose taxes have funded what should have been a rebuilding. Rather, it is a reflection on the level of corruption that has been allowed to pervade post war Iraq, and nobody seems to have been fully called to account. Through this corruption, a great opportunity was lost.

www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/03/25/$8-Billion-Tax-Dollars-Wasted-Rebuilding-Iraq

I was thinking about that.  Until recently, I don't think I appreciated just how amazing it is that countries like Germany and Japan, which had been enemy states during WWII, managed to abandon that path and exist as peaceful countries and allies now. 

When I was growing up, I knew people who would automatically boycott anything German (and sometimes Japanese products, although to a lesser extent).  Alan Dershowitz, for example, writes in his book "Chutzpah" that "...those who went along with Hitler's genocidal program, even passively so as to live the good life, should have been made to suffer in rough proportion to their complicity and culpability.  That is why the rebuilding of postwar Germany into one of the world's most affluent nations is a moral disgrace."  Trust me, I get the outrage that provokes statements like that - but I now believe that idea is deeply flawed.  I don't think that it was military defeat alone that killed Nazism in Germany and prevented it from coming back to life.  After all, Germany had been defeated in WWI, and the terms of the Treaty of Versailles and combination of humiliation and economic distress doomed the Weimar Republic and paved the way for Nazism.  It was the combination of decisive military defeat AND the rebuilding efforts afterward, plus a framework to recognize and deal honestly with what had been done during the Nazi era.

The difference matters.  WWII and the fight against Nazism is held up as the example of the classic good and moral war.  If we truly want to follow that example, though, you need to follow it all the way.  In places like Afghanistan and Iraq, there was a conventional military victory initially.  I don't think that there was ever any adequate thought about what it would take to do the rest of the work and transform those countries into functional civil societies.

[sawasdee]

@2xx1xy1JD

Thank you for understanding what I was trying to say, and not very coherently. I truly believe the goodwill is there, as it was in 1945, but I also think there is a level of corruption that could not have been imagined 70 years ago. The idea of profiting from the distress and despair of others was alien to society in the 1940s. Now, it is business as usual - how much can I make from the latest crisis?

[Cleopatra7]

I was thinking about that.  Until recently, I don't think I appreciated just how amazing it is that countries like Germany and Japan, which had been enemy states during WWII, managed to abandon that path and exist as peaceful countries and allies now. 

When I was growing up, I knew people who would automatically boycott anything German (and sometimes Japanese products, although to a lesser extent).  Alan Dershowitz, for example, writes in his book "Chutzpah" that "...those who went along with Hitler's genocidal program, even passively so as to live the good life, should have been made to suffer in rough proportion to their complicity and culpability.  That is why the rebuilding of postwar Germany into one of the world's most affluent nations is a moral disgrace."  Trust me, I get the outrage that provokes statements like that - but I now believe that idea is deeply flawed.  I don't think that it was military defeat alone that killed Nazism in Germany and prevented it from coming back to life.  After all, Germany had been defeated in WWI, and the terms of the Treaty of Versailles and combination of humiliation and economic distress doomed the Weimar Republic and paved the way for Nazism.  It was the combination of decisive military defeat AND the rebuilding efforts afterward, plus a framework to recognize and deal honestly with what had been done during the Nazi era.

The difference matters.  WWII and the fight against Nazism is held up as the example of the classic good and moral war.  If we truly want to follow that example, though, you need to follow it all the way.  In places like Afghanistan and Iraq, there was a conventional military victory initially.  I don't think that there was ever any adequate thought about what it would take to do the rest of the work and transform those countries into functional civil societies.

Germany and Japan also accepted that they were defeated in 1945 (Italy had already collapsed and surrendered considerably earlier), something that didn't happen in Iraq or Afghanistan.  Afghanistan is known as the "graveyard of empires" for a reason. If neither the British Empire nor the Soviet Union could establish a functional centralized government in Afghanistan that also happened to be amenable to their interests, I don't know why the US thought it could do it, especially when our government was intent on cutting corners in every way imaginable.

Iraq, like Yugoslavia, was an artificial construct designed by clueless Europeans after World War I that was being held together tenuously by a strongman dictator. Once the strongman was gone, all of the pent-up ethnic and religious anger overflowed. George W. Bush didn't even know the difference between Sunni and Shia Muslims, and it never occurred to him Sadaam was the only thing keeping Sunni, Shia, and the other myriad groups in Iraq from killing each other. This is quite different than Germany and Japan. Japan, as most FJers know, is one of the most homogeneous countries in the world, and had a strong sense of itself as a country. While there is a great deal of variety across Germany, there wasn't any danger of ethnic violence breaking out, although many Germans who had settled in Eastern Europe before and during the war were expelled, and had to return to Germany proper. The question of how many German speaking countries ought to exist in Europe had been a contentious issue in the 19th century, which is why many people looked favorably on Hitler's "Greater Germany" idea, since it just seemed like self-determination in action.

I can see why Deshowitz would have wanted a more punitive settlement for Germany at the end of World War II, but the punitive war settlement imposed on Germany at the end of the first world war is what caused someone like Hitler to rise in the first place. The best thing we could have done is turn Germany into a "responsible" member of the world community, although Germany has more power today as the engine of the EU than it ever could have had as ruler of "Greater Germany." What happened instead was that the Germans at the end of World War II had their faces rubbed in Nazi atrocities in a way that almost never happens. You can see videos on youtube of Germans being marched into concentration camps by Allied soldiers, in addition to the Nuremberg trials for upper level Nazis. No matter what Germany did in the past or will accomplish in the future, those twelve years under Nazi power will be what most people think about. However, this kind of moral reckoning seldom happens, because if given a choice, many countries will ignore of downplay acts of moral wrongdoing in their history. Just think of how reluctant our Christian fundies are to admit that slavery/Jim Crow was a bad thing or that Native Americans were the victims of genocide at the hands of "godly" Europeans, and you'll see the problem. Stalin is quite popular in Russia, especially among patriotic-religious types, who think that the West is just jealous of Russian power, both in the past and the present:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11506970/Proportion-of-Russians-who-respect-Stalin-is-growing-poll-suggests.html

[2xx1xy1JD]

 

Iraq, like Yugoslavia, was an artificial construct designed by clueless Europeans after World War I that was being held together tenuously by a strongman dictator. Once the strongman was gone, all of the pent-up ethnic and religious anger overflowed. George W. Bush didn't even know the difference between Sunni and Shia Muslims, and it never occurred to him Sadaam was the only thing keeping Sunni, Shia, and the other myriad groups in Iraq from killing each other. This is quite different than Germany and Japan. Japan, as most FJers know, is one of the most homogeneous countries in the world, and had a strong sense of itself as a country.

One of the things that I keep finding troubling is just how little attention and intelligence seems to be devoted to truly understanding the people and dynamics in countries where the US is going to war.  To a certain extent, it's a failure that cuts across party lines.

[PregnantPornStar]

On November 30, 2015 at 8:15:00 AM, 2xx1xy1JD said:

One of the things that I keep finding troubling is just how little attention and intelligence seems to be devoted to truly understanding the people and dynamics in countries where the US is going to war.  To a certain extent, it's a failure that cuts across party lines.

Very true. I think that is partially due to the "hope" that we can continue to believe most people are good. It kind of sucks to realize that there is a whole lot of bad going on in certain parts of the world.  It is really easy to ignore the lives people live in North Korea or Syria, when we have vastly different lives. still, we are all human and when discussing lives of people, it gets tough. People get emotional and it is really shitty that we even need to question the cost of air strikes are "worth it" (meaning, it sucks that it even needs to be considered and we can't all live happily ever after) 

i think lack of understanding people, cultures and histories is putting those who are not understood at a disadvantage. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q2s_n6St1OI

[Terrie]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/indonesian-muslims-counter-isis_565c737ae4b072e9d1c26bda

[2xx1xy1JD]

On 2015-12-05, 11:18:42, PregnantPornStar said:

Very true. I think that is partially due to the "hope" that we can continue to believe most people are good. It kind of sucks to realize that there is a whole lot of bad going on in certain parts of the world.  It is really easy to ignore the lives people live in North Korea or Syria, when we have vastly different lives. still, we are all human and when discussing lives of people, it gets tough. People get emotional and it is really shitty that we even need to question the cost of air strikes are "worth it" (meaning, it sucks that it even needs to be considered and we can't all live happily ever after) 

i think lack of understanding people, cultures and histories is putting those who are not understood at a disadvantage. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q2s_n6St1OI

I agree with the video.  I've ranted in other threads about western liberals who actually work to silence Muslim reformers and liberals.  Only those who come from privileged communities are given the right to criticize.  They are routinely denied a voice.  Where convenient, their concerns are appropriated - "well, of course this group resorted to violence.  It must have been a form of resistance to [insert pet cause]."  When they have ideas which may differ from those of liberals from privileged communities, those are shot down quickly.  They fail to see the privilege in saying, "my cause is more important than yours."

My original point, though, was also about the fact that you can't really make assumptions, good or bad, about ANY society.  You actually need to do the hard work of truly finding out how people think, where their priorities and allegiances lie, and understand the full dynamics of a society.  Part of me really wants to believe that governments are studying this stuff carefully, but then I listen to political debates that are incapable of going beyond "Muslim bad!  No, Muslim good!".  I've read some detailed descriptions of the lead-up to the Iraq war, and there is really very little analysis of what happens when you break open a country that's like an Arab Yugoslavia.

[PregnantPornStar]

6 hours ago, 2xx1xy1JD said:

I agree with the video.  I've ranted in other threads about western liberals who actually work to silence Muslim reformers and liberals.  Only those who come from privileged communities are given the right to criticize.  They are routinely denied a voice.  Where convenient, their concerns are appropriated - "well, of course this group resorted to violence.  It must have been a form of resistance to [insert pet cause]."  When they have ideas which may differ from those of liberals from privileged communities, those are shot down quickly.  They fail to see the privilege in saying, "my cause is more important than yours."

My original point, though, was also about the fact that you can't really make assumptions, good or bad, about ANY society.  You actually need to do the hard work of truly finding out how people think, where their priorities and allegiances lie, and understand the full dynamics of a society.  Part of me really wants to believe that governments are studying this stuff carefully, but then I listen to political debates that are incapable of going beyond "Muslim bad!  No, Muslim good!".  I've read some detailed descriptions of the lead-up to the Iraq war, and there is really very little analysis of what happens when you break open a country that's like an Arab Yugoslavia.

Yes, but at least in America, that seems to be the way MOST things are. This was discussed in another thread, but we are SO divided as a nation that we seem unable to discuss the facts and are more focused on whatever narrative fits the "side" you are on.

In regards to Islam, the second someone talks about how reform is needed, people get upset. I am not suggesting anyone is REQUIRED to speak out, but those who are certainly should NOT be shut down (I despise Reza Aslan for being one who does this. Over and over again. Often to Maajid Nawaz.) Dismissing what Maajid says is dismissing change  that could (and would) benefit an entire community/society.  Christianity, for the most part, has seen much reform. There will always be the fundies within Christianity and will always be fundamentalism within Islam.  Islam has some work to do (I am not saying Christianity doesn't have work as well, I think all religions will always have some level of work to do....but that is another discussion.) 

The other day CAIR comes out along with the Farook family attorney proclaiming the family's innocence (and Farook and Malik's innocence) It was absurd, but then it came to light that the mother is active in a very fundamentalist group. 

Yes, I am linking the Daily Caller...

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/05/shooters-mother-active-in-us-branch-of-pro-caliphate-islamic-group/

So, being that ICNA has had Anwar al-Awlaki as a speaker in the past (The youngest Boston Bomber was a "fanboy" of Anwar al-Awlaki) it seems that investigating extremist groups and really paying attention would be beneficial for all involved. That being part of the dynamic and also looking at the liberal dynamic, not only the "moderate" dynamic.  

[2xx1xy1JD]

The Muslim community in the US desperately needs a good advocacy and civil rights organization, particular when someone like Trump makes more outrageous statements each day.

CAIR, unfortunately, is not that group.  There may be some people there who are genuinely committed to doing good work, but the group is tainted by the "unindicted co-conspirator" label in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding trial and by the fact that its founders were part of a Hamas front-group.

[PregnantPornStar]

1 hour ago, 2xx1xy1JD said:

The Muslim community in the US desperately needs a good advocacy and civil rights organization, particular when someone like Trump makes more outrageous statements each day.

CAIR, unfortunately, is not that group.  There may be some people there who are genuinely committed to doing good work, but the group is tainted by the "unindicted co-conspirator" label in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding trial and by the fact that its founders were part of a Hamas front-group.

I cringed when I saw CAIR come out right after the shooting. Knew it would happen, but it happened so quickly and so shamelessly.  Connections to the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas are obviously not who you want representing anyone.  I have a couple friends who are involved with advocacy stuff, along with CAIR. I am sure they have no idea...or I hope they don't, but when I see them posting CAIR stuff on FB...ugh. CAIR isn't helping the Muslim community.  They are seemingly using terrorist  as PR opportunities on behalf of more fundamental interpretations of Islam. THAT is who is representing the Muslim community. 

Imagine if we had an anti-choice group held a news conference immediately after after the PP shooting and making demands to the rest of America to quell terrorism, I highly doubt the reaction would be positive and understanding. I doubt it would be sympathetic.  There are groups.  The American Islamic Forum for Democracy being one. 

[Alicja]

I don't think non-Muslims should be talking about what reforms should be made to Islam. That's all I'm adding.

 

[PregnantPornStar]

2 hours ago, Alicja said:

I don't think non-Muslims should be talking about what reforms should be made to Islam. That's all I'm adding.

 

People are allowed to criticize and discuss ideas/ideologies. Just as you can be critical and discuss republican ideas/ideologies. It is absolutely absurd to suggest I can not talk about reform that is needed in Islam. There are human right's issues that are happening to PEOPLE. Radical Islam is GROWING and that is not a good thing and not something people should have to sit back and make Muslims figure it out alone. Supporting liberal Muslims is something "I think" should be done and talked about. You don't have to if you don't think you should. 

Don't Call Me Porch Monkey

Quote

I am a Muslim. I am born to Muslim parents. I have a Muslim son. I have been imprisoned and witnessed torture for my previous understanding of my religion. The “Muslim experience” of liberal, reforming and dissenting Muslim, and ex-Muslim, voices is every bit as valid, every bit as relevant, and every bit as authentic as anyone else that is touched by this debate. But beyond that, just as one does not need to be brown to discuss racism, one does not need to be Muslim to discuss Islam. Ideas have no color, or country. Good ideas are truly universal. Any attempt to police ideas, to quarantine thought based on race or religion, and to pre-define what is and what isn’t a legitimate conversation, must be resisted by all. We would rightly wince if anyone called a white man a “blood-traitor” for befriending an African-American. It is no different to imply that certain stances taken by a Muslim, of their own agency, is nothing but “validation” for the “white man.” The pitfalls of “Am I Black Enough” are well-known. It is equally dangerous to disappear down the “Am I Muslim Enough?” rabbit hole. For the only winners in this gutter game of one-upmanship are ultimately the religious fanatics.

 

[Alicja]

2 hours ago, Alicja said: I don't think non-Muslims should be talking about what reforms should be made to Islam. That's all I'm adding.  

People are allowed to criticize and discuss ideas/ideologies. Just as you can be critical and discuss republican ideas/ideologies. It is absolutely absurd to suggest I can not talk about reform that is needed in Islam. There are human right's issues that are happening to PEOPLE. Radical Islam is GROWING and that is not a good thing and not something people should have to sit back and make Muslims figure it out alone. Supporting liberal Muslims is something "I think" should be done and talked about. You don't have to if you don't think you should. 

Don't Call Me Porch Monkey

Quote I am a Muslim. I am born to Muslim parents. I have a Muslim son. I have been imprisoned and witnessed torture for my previous understanding of my religion. The “Muslim experience” of liberal, reforming and dissenting Muslim, and ex-Muslim, voices is every bit as valid, every bit as relevant, and every bit as authentic as anyone else that is touched by this debate. But beyond that, just as one does not need to be brown to discuss racism, one does not need to be Muslim to discuss Islam. Ideas have no color, or country. Good ideas are truly universal. Any attempt to police ideas, to quarantine thought based on race or religion, and to pre-define what is and what isn’t a legitimate conversation, must be resisted by all. We would rightly wince if anyone called a white man a “blood-traitor” for befriending an African-American. It is no different to imply that certain stances taken by a Muslim, of their own agency, is nothing but “validation” for the “white man.” The pitfalls of “Am I Black Enough” are well-known. It is equally dangerous to disappear down the “Am I Muslim Enough?” rabbit hole. For the only winners in this gutter game of one-upmanship are ultimately the religious fanatics.

 

Yeah, it is growing. As a non-Muslim, I just don't feel like I know much about the religion to critique it properly. I haven't read the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sunnah. I don't know anything about the renowned imams, muftis, and sheikhs. I just don't know enough about it.

I will say, however, that Wahhabism doesn't sound good to me.

[PregnantPornStar]

2 hours ago, Alicja said: I don't think non-Muslims should be talking about what reforms should be made to Islam. That's all I'm adding.  

People are allowed to criticize and discuss ideas/ideologies. Just as you can be critical and discuss republican ideas/ideologies. It is absolutely absurd to suggest I can not talk about reform that is needed in Islam. There are human right's issues that are happening to PEOPLE. Radical Islam is GROWING and that is not a good thing and not something people should have to sit back and make Muslims figure it out alone. Supporting liberal Muslims is something "I think" should be done and talked about. You don't have to if you don't think you should.  Don't Call Me Porch Monkey

Quote I am a Muslim. I am born to Muslim parents. I have a Muslim son. I have been imprisoned and witnessed torture for my previous understanding of my religion. The “Muslim experience” of liberal, reforming and dissenting Muslim, and ex-Muslim, voices is every bit as valid, every bit as relevant, and every bit as authentic as anyone else that is touched by this debate. But beyond that, just as one does not need to be brown to discuss racism, one does not need to be Muslim to discuss Islam. Ideas have no color, or country. Good ideas are truly universal. Any attempt to police ideas, to quarantine thought based on race or religion, and to pre-define what is and what isn’t a legitimate conversation, must be resisted by all. We would rightly wince if anyone called a white man a “blood-traitor” for befriending an African-American. It is no different to imply that certain stances taken by a Muslim, of their own agency, is nothing but “validation” for the “white man.” The pitfalls of “Am I Black Enough” are well-known. It is equally dangerous to disappear down the “Am I Muslim Enough?” rabbit hole. For the only winners in this gutter game of one-upmanship are ultimately the religious fanatics.

 Yeah, it is growing. As a non-Muslim, I just don't feel like I know much about the religion to critique it properly. I haven't read the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sunnah. I don't know anything about the renowned imams, muftis, and sheikhs. I just don't know enough about it.

I will say, however, that Wahhabism doesn't sound good to me.

Wahhabism shouldn't sound good to anyone! I think *most* of us agree with that. I am absolutely down with saying anyone who subscribes to Wahhabism sucks at life.

If you don't feel you know enough about it, that is fine. You also don't need to read entire religious texts to discuss. I think it is fair to say most people haven't read the entire Bible, but are pretty willing to critique Christianity. I also find, that as an atheist, I know a bit more about the Bible than some of my very Christian friends, but...they still believe and that is their thing, so...it can lead to interesting conversations.

Anyway, if you don't feel you know enough about it to feel comfortable critiquing it, you don't have to. That doesn't mean there are others who are not muslim who know enough to see where critique and reform could be beneficial. It is okay to suggest that looking at human rights and progressing to a more liberal Islam would be good for Muslims.

I also think it is important that people learn a bit about other faiths in their communities. (Even if that is your global community) as they clearly can drive what happens in our world. I am by no means suggesting you need to become a scholar.

Also, when thinking of groups like CAIR and knowing their ties are pretty unpleasant, I get upset when I see friends post about CAIR and suggesting individuals call them if they are being treated poorly. We need more outreach and better advocates. Discussions about CAIR also need to happen

And of course being kind to people and teaching your kids to be kind to people is important. Say hello, wave, smile, whatever. Treat them as you would anyone else...because, why wouldn't you? They are people.

Still...You can be critical of ideas. You can always be critical of ideas.

[Alicja]

2 hours ago, Alicja said: I don't think non-Muslims should be talking about what reforms should be made to Islam. That's all I'm adding.  

People are allowed to criticize and discuss ideas/ideologies. Just as you can be critical and discuss republican ideas/ideologies. It is absolutely absurd to suggest I can not talk about reform that is needed in Islam. There are human right's issues that are happening to PEOPLE. Radical Islam is GROWING and that is not a good thing and not something people should have to sit back and make Muslims figure it out alone. Supporting liberal Muslims is something "I think" should be done and talked about. You don't have to if you don't think you should.  Don't Call Me Porch Monkey

Quote I am a Muslim. I am born to Muslim parents. I have a Muslim son. I have been imprisoned and witnessed torture for my previous understanding of my religion. The “Muslim experience” of liberal, reforming and dissenting Muslim, and ex-Muslim, voices is every bit as valid, every bit as relevant, and every bit as authentic as anyone else that is touched by this debate. But beyond that, just as one does not need to be brown to discuss racism, one does not need to be Muslim to discuss Islam. Ideas have no color, or country. Good ideas are truly universal. Any attempt to police ideas, to quarantine thought based on race or religion, and to pre-define what is and what isn’t a legitimate conversation, must be resisted by all. We would rightly wince if anyone called a white man a “blood-traitor” for befriending an African-American. It is no different to imply that certain stances taken by a Muslim, of their own agency, is nothing but “validation” for the “white man.” The pitfalls of “Am I Black Enough” are well-known. It is equally dangerous to disappear down the “Am I Muslim Enough?” rabbit hole. For the only winners in this gutter game of one-upmanship are ultimately the religious fanatics.

 Yeah, it is growing. As a non-Muslim, I just don't feel like I know much about the religion to critique it properly. I haven't read the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sunnah. I don't know anything about the renowned imams, muftis, and sheikhs. I just don't know enough about it.I will say, however, that Wahhabism doesn't sound good to me.

Wahhabism shouldn't sound good to anyone! I think *most* of us agree with that. I am absolutely down with saying anyone who subscribes to Wahhabism sucks at life.

If you don't feel you know enough about it, that is fine. You also don't need to read entire religious texts to discuss. [emoji6] I think it is fair to say most people haven't read the entire Bible, but are pretty willing to critique Christianity. I also find, that as an atheist, I know a bit more about the Bible than some of my very Christian friends, but...they still believe and that is their thing, so...it can lead to interesting conversations.

Anyway, if you don't feel you know enough about it to feel comfortable critiquing it, you don't have to. That doesn't mean there are others who are not muslim who know enough to see where critique and reform could be beneficial. It is okay to suggest that looking at human rights and progressing to a more liberal Islam would be good for Muslims.

I also think it is important that people learn a bit about other faiths in their communities. (Even if that is your global community) as they clearly can drive what happens in our world. I am by no means suggesting you need to become a scholar.

Also, when thinking of groups like CAIR and knowing their ties are pretty unpleasant, I get upset when I see friends post about CAIR and suggesting individuals call them if they are being treated poorly. We need more outreach and better advocates. Discussions about CAIR also need to happen

And of course being kind to people and teaching your kids to be kind to people is important. Say hello, wave, smile, whatever. Treat them as you would anyone else...because, why wouldn't you? They are people.

Still...You can be critical of ideas. You can always be critical of ideas.

Thank you for explaining. You make good points and I understand where you're coming from a bit better. [emoji4]

[PregnantPornStar]

1 hour ago, Alicja said:

Thank you for explaining. You make good points and I understand where you're coming from a bit better.

Well, Thanks. That may be the nicest think anyone has said to me on FJ.

I am kidding, people have been kind, but really, thanks for taking the time to listen and understand. 

[SpoonfulOSugar]

I think the stories that have emerged about this:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/09/us/san-bernardino-muslim-american-fund-raiser/

deserve much more attention.

I just checked.  Right now, they are less than $500 from $200,000.

[Cartmann99]

12 minutes ago, SpoonfulOSugar said:

I think the stories that have emerged about this:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/09/us/san-bernardino-muslim-american-fund-raiser/

deserve much more attention.

I just checked.  Right now, they are less than $500 from $200,000.

Thank you for posting this. I heard something about earlier, but the total was only around 100k when I heard about it. I'm very glad to hear that they have surpassed their latest goal of 175k. 

[SpoonfulOSugar]

This is also an interesting counterpoint to the ugly rhetoric:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/12/12/this-republican-senator-visited-a-mosque-to-repudiate-donald-trump/?tid=pm_politics_pop_b

 

I don't know anything of this Senator beyond his comments, but I appreciate those comments.

Quote

“There can be no religious test for those who serve in public office; we do not tolerate religious discrimination in the workplace, or in the neighborhood,” Flake said. “The slogan on the Statue of Liberty — ‘give us your poor, your tired, and your huddled masses yearning to breathe free’ — contemplates no religious test for those who reach our shores. … My hope and prayer today is that the isolated voices calling for division are overwhelmed by the chorus of voices like those in this room today calling for acceptance, for tolerance and inclusion.”

(emphasis added)