We are already at war with Islam. Where have you been?

@Anonymous: So I gave that one a monocle because I agree with the statement. Nothing makes more sense than violently beating down violent people, as a violent people will not engage in peaceful discussion.

@Anonymous: So.. neither will we?

@Anonymous: Correct, neither will or should we.

Radical Islam (note the "radical" qualifier there please) believes fervently, religiously, in the extermination of all those who will not convert to Islam. They believe it is a divine mandate to slaughter said heathens. A --divine mandate--.

You tell me ... if someone has an absolute, 100% faith in their god and additionally fervently believes that their god not only sanctions but demands that you kill all those who will not convert ... are you someone who can be reasoned with (yes, please go ahead and also think of the Crusades for an example)?

The fact is that there are currently on this earth groups of people between which no peaceful solution will ever be found. It then comes down to violent warfare and the people left standing get to say what the future holds. I, for one, hope that the future does not hold a mandate to be Muslim or die.

@Anonymous: If there is a qualifier (see: "Radical Islam"), then the religion as a whole should not be labeled as violent. It's not as if Christianity hasn't spawned violent sects or ideologies that, when taken to radical-but-logical extremes, didn't lead to the wholesale slaughter of non-Christian groups. (see: Crusades).

If you support war against Islam, then you're supporting, encouraging, and fighting the same war their radicals are fighting against "the west": one in which the casualties are people who aren't necessarily representative of (or represented by) the broad labels you apply them. (see: Great satan, etc.)

@Anonymous: But all Muslims -- not only extremists -- practice Islam. The sentiment I was addressing is expressed in the image, which reads, "'ISLAM' is a religion of violence."

I grew up in a country that is now spawning its own version of Muslim extremists, yet there, not so many years ago, I schooled beside both Muslims and Christians: There was never any tension over our differing beliefs, and there was mutual sadness when we heard of inter-religion clashes in other parts of the country.

In the context of my experiences, I only think that the sooner we stop saying "Islam" and start talking about "Muslim extremists," the sooner we'll find more allies on our side. We, who understand the difference, must stress it whenever possible, because our politicians are too busy drumming up emotions that can be converted into votes to realize the harm they are causing.

@Anonymous: Well said.

Ron Paul 2012.

How is Santorum even still in this race lol?




seriously though. how?

@Anonymous: Let's see:

Republicans are afraid of Gingrich's history;
Majority of Republicans are not Libertarian;
Rick Santorum is not Mitt Romney, and he has somehow (successively) trolled the political conversation into focusing on social issues;
Most Republicans, it seems, are willing to do everything to /not/ elect Romney.

Romney will probably eventually win the nomination by appearing less hysterical and "more presidential" than his opponents.

@Anonymous: I call it trolling because it's inflammatory and clearly less relevant to the general populace than, say, the economy, which Mitt Romney has at least tried to focus on. Santorum, however, is taking the easy route with social topics, and using the emotions they generate, as well as how "middle-class" he appears next to Romney (EVERYONE appears middle-class or lower next to 56K-a-day Romney) to appeal to easy votes.

And when a Republican uses robocalls to call on Democrats to vote in a REPUBLICAN primary... well, I'm pretty hard-pressed to not call him a troll.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/28/romney-admits-robocalls-michigan-primary?newsfeed=true

And this my friends, is why I'm voting for Ron Paul.

@Anonymous: It's all about Vermin Supreme.