Islamophobia

[-1=e^ipi]

Start demanding a carbon tax. It's the quickest way out.

A quicker way would be a trade embargo.

[Big Guy]

Mighty AC - thank you for the other references but they are all based on the PEW research results. Do you have anything from any other organization that has done research in this area?

I usually try to not respond to posters who are generally insignificant, I have to reply to Argus, the champion of that intellectual and researched statement of human interaction; "Of course rape is about sex!". Perhaps a lesson in math is in order. There are about 1 million Muslims in Canada. There are about 30 million people in Canada. Perhaps Argus might get someone to explain to him/she/it that Muslims represent about 3% of the population in Canada.

I have no interest in trading jibes. I assumed that Mighty AC had a more pragmatic view of the world but if you are set in you beliefs then it is very real for you. I would have hoped that you were more accepting of other viewpoints. I would not challenge that.

As to Argus, he/she/it is ...ah ...ah... a very prolific contributor of his/her/its unique view of life.

[Mighty AC]

Mighty AC - thank you for the other references but they are all based on the PEW research results. Do you have anything from any other organization that has done research in this area?

It is the largest and most comprehensive study ever done on the subject. Do you have any reason to doubt the results? Do you have anything to counter them?

I usually try to not respond to posters who are generally insignificant, I have to reply to Argus, the champion of that intellectual and researched statement of human interaction; "Of course rape is about sex!". Perhaps a lesson in math is in order. There are about 1 million Muslims in Canada. There are about 30 million people in Canada. Perhaps Argus might get someone to explain to him/she/it that Muslims represent about 3% of the population in Canada.

Interesting. What standards would a poster have to meet to be considered worthy or your time? Would you consider the passage quoted here to be a good exemplar of the kind of writing significant posters can create?

I have no interest in trading jibes. I assumed that Mighty AC had a more pragmatic view of the world but if you are set in you beliefs then it is very real for you. I would have hoped that you were more accepting of other viewpoints. I would not challenge that.

I hadn't noticed that we 'traded jibes'. It seems to me that you doubted a claim I made. I backed it up with a prominent and comprehensive study and you simply ignored the results and asked for different proof. If the data doesn't support your position on this topic you should consider the possibility that your world view is inconsistent with reality.

I think that religion is a problem in general, but not all are equally problematic. At this point in time Islam is the mother load of bad and violent ideas and is in serious need of criticism. In order to progress we must castigate bad ideas and elevate the good. Thus, we (especially my fellow liberals) have to stop acting as relativists and apologists for evil, violent and immoral actions and ideas. That doesn't mean that I think all Muslims are bad, dangerous or should be prevented from entering Canada. We need to work with the moderates, like Maajid Nawaz, that have learned to ignore the violent decrees of their scripture to reform the faith.

Anyway, having been made aware of my insignificance I will stop there and refer you to a podcast by Sam Harris. He's a neuroscientist, philosopher, best selling author and tireless advocate for reason. I highly recommend listening to at least the first 15 minutes. http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/after-charlie-hebdo-and-other-thoughts

If you feel like slumming it, I'd be interested in your thoughts on Sam's positions.

[Mighty AC]

A quicker way would be a trade embargo.

A trade embargo doesn't do anything to reduce our need for ME oil. Like a trade embargo, a carbon tax increases the price of fossil fuels reducing use and our need to interfere with ME affairs. Unlike a trade embargo the tax generates revenue that can be used to offset income taxes or subsidize alternatives.

[Bonam]

A trade embargo doesn't do anything to reduce our need for ME oil.

We have no need for ME oil.

[Mighty AC]

We have no need for ME oil.

Really? What would happen to the price of oil if nations like Saudi Arabia were hit with a trade embargo? How would that impact our economy and the cost of living as we do?

[-1=e^ipi]

A trade embargo doesn't do anything to reduce our need for ME oil.

The word 'out' has morphed into 'anything to reduce our need for ME oil'. Interesting...

Look, if you want to reduce how much ME oil Canada uses, then it makes far more sense to target ME oil specifically, not oil in general (let alone anything that emits CO₂, which is what will be affected by a CO₂ emission tax).

a carbon tax

Please stop calling it a carbon tax. It is a CO₂ emission tax.

Unlike a trade embargo the tax generates revenue that can be used to offset income taxes or subsidize alternatives.

Then have a tariff on ME oil instead? That also generates revenue at targets the specific thing that you claim needs to be reduced.

[-1=e^ipi]

Really? What would happen to the price of oil if nations like Saudi Arabia were hit with a trade embargo? How would that impact our economy and the cost of living as we do?

It would make oil in Canada more expensive (especially in Eastern Canada), since you have reduced the supply of oil available to Canadians.

[Mighty AC]

The word 'out' has morphed into 'anything to reduce our need for ME oil'. Interesting... Look, if you want to reduce how much ME oil Canada uses, then it makes far more sense to target ME oil specifically, not oil in general

We have meddled in the ME largely to secure access to oil. The ME has the ability to affect the price of oil, the cost of living and our economy. A carbon tax facilitates a reduction in oil/fossil fuel use, making us less vulnerable to world oil supply and prices, while also generating revenue that can be used to offset income taxes, thus lowering the impact on our economy. We can stop meddling in middle eastern affairs, improve our environment, lower healthcare costs and improve our security while minimizing the impact of transition to our economy and standard of living.

We can continue to discuss the role of western foreign policy on ME relations and conflicts with Muslims in this thread, but the many other benefits of a carbon tax should be discussed elsewhere.

It would make oil in Canada more expensive (especially in Eastern Canada), since you have reduced the supply of oil available to Canadians.

Without generating revenue that can be used to fund tax cuts which soften the blow. Hence my preference stated above. Edited January 23, 2015 by Mighty AC

[eyeball]

Thus, we (especially my fellow liberals) have to stop acting as relativists and apologists for evil, violent and immoral actions and ideas.

Radical Islamic terrorists suck, they are the worst religious people on the planet and I'd be thrilled if they all died tomorrow.

Almost as thrilled as I'd be if the degenerate perverts from the West responsible for helping create them died along with them.

[-1=e^ipi]

We have meddled in the ME largely to secure access to oil.

Yet in North America, we cannot build a simple pipeline to access North American oil. Interesting...

It's almost like this 'it's all about the oil' hypothesis doesn't fit observations...

The ME has the ability to affect the price of oil, the cost of living and our economy.

Yes. It is called globalization and it is not inherently bad that global economies are interconnected. This silly 'fluctuation argument' makes no sense. If you had a choice to either earn $9 per hour some years and $10 per hour other years (and some foreigner gets to decide) or the choice to always earn $8 per hour, which would you choose. Would you choose the $8 per hour just because it is more 'stable' and because 'it is not susceptible to foreign interests'?

Furthermore, globalization can increase stability of markets, especially things like food markets, as well as be mutually beneficial if countries take advantage of comparative advantage.

A carbon tax facilitates a reduction in oil/fossil fuel use

It's a carbon dioxide emission tax. Stop calling it a carbon tax.

while also generating revenue that can be used to offset income taxes, thus lowering the impact on our economy.

If you tax a market, you create a deadweight loss for your economy unless you are trying to offset some externality (but you claim the justification for this is to 'reduce dependence on ME oil', so that can't be the case). The more you tax, the less ME oil you will buy and the worse off the economy will be. It's a trade-off. The way you present information suggests to me that you are trying to pretend this trade-off does not exist.

Tariffs on the other hand can be of net benefit to a country (under certain conditions if the other country doesn't retaliate, but this is rarely the case). I'll also point out that the demand of oil is highly inelastic (as has been noticed from price changes in the past) a tax on all oil will not have much impact on shifting sources of consumption of fossil fuels. Furthermore, since it is more expensive to produce fossil fuels in Canada, the effect of such a tax will affect domestic producers of oil relatively more than foreign producers of oil and it may result in Canada using proportionally more cheap ME oil, especially if Canadian oil is priced out of the Canadian market by a tax.

If you want to reduce reliance on ME oil, you implement policies that target ME oil directly.

We can stop meddling in middle eastern affairs, improve our environment, lower healthcare costs and improve our security while minimizing the impact of transition to our economy and standard of living.

'Minimizing' is a much stronger claim that 'reducing' and I'm just going to say that this claim is BS. You are just trying to make excuses to implement a carbon dioxide emission tax even though other policies would be more effective at addressing this issue.

We can continue to discuss the role of western foreign policy on ME relations and conflicts with Muslims in this thread, but the many other benefits of a carbon tax should be discussed elsewhere.

If you want to argue for a carbon dioxide emission tax based on these other benefits then do so. But don't use ME oil dependence as an excuse because a carbon dioxide emission tax is not an optimal policy to address the ME oil dependence issue.

And it isn't so much a dependence issue as it is a 'the Saudis fund Wahhabist ideology that leads to terrorism' issue.

Without generating revenue that can be used to fund tax cuts which soften the blow. Hence my preference stated above.

Tariffs can generate revenue and are more targeted. You are just making excuses for yourself.

[Mighty AC]

I think your reasoning is flawed throughout most of this post but I will respond to the purely economic issues in another thread.

Yet in North America, we cannot build a simple pipeline to access North American oil. Interesting...

It's almost like this 'it's all about the oil' hypothesis doesn't fit observations...

Are you suggesting that we have not interfered in the middle east for economic reasons, namely access to oil?

It's a carbon dioxide emission tax. Stop calling it a carbon tax.

Carbon tax happens to be the common name. Stop being pedantic.

If you want to argue for a carbon dioxide emission tax based on these other benefits then do so. But don't use ME oil dependence as an excuse because a carbon dioxide emission tax is not an optimal policy to address the ME oil dependence issue.

And it isn't so much a dependence issue as it is a 'the Saudis fund Wahhabist ideology that leads to terrorism' issue.

I think the west should stop meddling in middle eastern affairs. But why is it that we interfere in ME conflicts and befriend or trade with nations like Saudi Arabia, despite the terrorism and human rights abuses? Oil. Why doesn't the west just boycott ME oil? Unfortunately, we depend on oil and our economy and standard of living is sensitive to its price. Cutting out a massive supplier will increase the price and tariffs on ME oil do not generate revenue if we are not purchasing ME oil.

I've stated that by minimizing western dependence on oil we improve economic stability, security and our environmental health while also removing the 'need' to interfere in ME affairs. Energy derived from oil will have to be replaced by other forms like electricity. Electricity derived from coal is harmful to our health and environment. Fortunately, a carbon tax helps to solve many aspects of this multifaceted problem.

A carbon tax will increase the price of fossil fuels but generate revenue to minimize the blow to the economy. It can be ramped up slowly to wean us away from our insecure, unstable and unhealthy oil dependence without leading to an increase in coal use. The benefits are many, including an eventual exit from the middle east.

[Argus]

I usually try to not respond to posters who are generally insignificant, I have to reply to Argus,

Why is that? Do I OWN you? Do you get all sweaty and bothered when you see my name? Or is it simply that I so readily disassemble the simplistic drivel you post?

Perhaps a lesson in math is in order. There are about 1 million Muslims in Canada. There are about 30 million people in Canada. Perhaps Argus might get someone to explain to him/she/it that Muslims represent about 3% of the population in Canada.

I'm glad you brought that up, though of course, not because you'll think you have made a mighty point in stating Muslims now make up 3% of the population. It affects nothing which I've said, which is that the Muslim population in Canada is simply too spread out and too small a minority to seriously impact our culture.

But recall that it was 1.5% only ten years ago.

It was .75% ten years before that.

The Muslim population in Canada is doubling every ten years. And whatever one thinks of their views on terrorism, we have few doubts about their views on homosexuals, on womens rights, and on anything which offends the Koran. If the growth rate continues they'll be 7% of the population in ten years, and 14% in 20. And the interesting thing about that is virtually everything their most ardent liberal defenders believe in is anathema to them. And from the one significant survey I can recall taken of Muslim social beliefs in Canada the younger ones born in Canada are MORE conservative and religious than their parents, not less.

I have no interest in trading jibes.

That's a good attitude to have, except you do it constantly, and your jibes are as unimaginative and simplistic as your political and social views.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Argus

[Big Guy]

I rate that reply as informative, sensitive, mature and accurate as "Of course rape is about sex". You are setting new standards on this board. Why not try, "Of course terrorism is about Islam". You are on a roll. Go for it.

Thank you for another one of your unique comments directed at Big Guy.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The benefits are many, including an eventual exit from the middle east.

This is a false notion...there will be no exit from the Middle East. The global economics of petroleum reserves and production will continue regardless of tree hugging taxes against carbon dioxide.

[-1=e^ipi]

I think your reasoning is flawed throughout most of this post but I will respond to the purely economic issues in another thread.

Are you suggesting that we have not interfered in the middle east for economic reasons, namely access to oil?

No, I am not saying that. Western countries have interfered in the middle east for numerous reasons, including oil.

I think your reasoning is flawed throughout most of this post but I will respond to the purely economic issues in another thread.

Carbon tax happens to be the common name. Stop being pedantic.

It's a dumb name this is misleading and is an insult to the intelligence of the electorate.

I think the west should stop meddling in middle eastern affairs.

I reject the dichotomy of intervention vs isolationism. Things should be treated on a case by case basis. Sometimes intervention makes sense.

But why is it that we interfere in ME conflicts and befriend or trade with nations like Saudi Arabia, despite the terrorism and human rights abuses? Oil.

The original reason for the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia was primarily oil if you go back to the 1930's and 1940's, but it has evolved a lot since then and the oil relationship doesn't apply to the entire middle east either.

You may have heard of this event known as Word War 1. After WW1, the Ottoman Empire was defeated and collapsed. Nations like Turkey was born and many of the Ottoman Empire's former territory (Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon), etc. was controlled by Britain and France. Intervention via Western Colonialism long pre-dates intervention for oil purposes. Many muslim-majority non-ME countries such as Pakistan and Algeria were also colonies.

Heck if you want to go back even further, there have been many conflicts between muslim-majority countries and Europe over the past 1400 years. How do you think Iberia and the Balkans were colonized by the Umayyads and the Ottomans respectively? What do you think the battle of Tours, the battle of Vienna or the conquest of Constantinople were about? Haven't you heard of the crusades? Have you heard of the first Barbary war?

You may have also heard of this thing called the Cold War, where the US and other western nations were primarily interested in defeating communism, not oil. God-loving muslims happen to make good allies against godless communists and the interests of the west and many muslim-majority countries happened to overlap. Ever heard of the Iranian revolution? Do you think it's just a coincidence that the west is strongly allied with Sunni-majority countries like Saudi-Arabia and Turkey, but allied against Shia-majority countries like Iran (and to an extent against Assad's regime)? Was that about oil, or about trying to prevent the spread of communism during the cold war? How about the US support for the Taliban in Afghanistan? Do you really think that was about oil rather than defeating the USSR? Why do you think the US decided to arm Saddam Hussein against Iran? Was that oil or because of the cold war?

The gulf war, okay that was very much about oil. But it was also about maintaining the integrity of International Law that was set up after WW2.

Then you had George Bush come in, who thought the Saudi's were super awesome and moral because they believed in God strongly (and many christian fundamentalists think belief in God = good and moral person). Then you had 911, which was committed by people from Saudi Arabia and the UAE that where Wahhabi Sunni Islamists, the ideology that was spread by Saudi Oil money. The invasion of Afganistan was a justified response to these attacks since the Taliban refused to had over Osama bin Laden. Then you had the invasion of Iraq by the USA and the UK which was primarily driven by stupidity, overconfidence in intelligence (which was propagated by confirmation bias), and the desire to get revenge on someone for 9-11 (again, not due to oil). Of course we would never invade Saudi Arabia, because they have been the west's BFF for so long, even though they have far more oil...

And then you have the cultural relativist Obama get in (as well as 'ISIS are not Muslim' David Cameron). Obama very quickly aligned himself with the Muslim Brotherhood all the way back in 2009 (see his speech in Cairo, or look at the fact that many people close to him are in the Muslim Brotherhood). This alignment had nothing to do with oil and everything to do with Obama's cultural relativism + the standard western guilt mentality that 'muslims are oppressed / are a minority so can do no wrong'. Then you had the Arab spring, where most westerners deluded themselves into thinking that it was all about overthrowing evil dictators and that 'everyone wants what westerners want'. The foreign policy of the west was naively dictated by this and all of the western politicians ignored the strong possibility of Islamists taking over (which was obvious to anyone that looked at the history of the middle east, and was obvious to some people like Putin).

The libya invasion was arguably justified, but Western governments weren't skeptical enough about Islamists taking over. Plus, even mentioning the issue of Islamism is 'racist' and 'we must not offend anyone' which is why you had the Obama administration blame a random poorly made video for the assassination of the US ambassador to Libya. Then you had Western governments naively support the rebels against Assad because again most westerners did not consider the problem of Islamists and believed in this 'Assad is an evil oppressive dictator that we must overthrow' narrative, so the west funded Islamist 'moderate' rebels in Syria (which Saudi Arabia wanted the west to do, because they wanted to wage a proxy war against Iran). And in that past year, that stupid funding of 'moderate' rebels in Syria has backfired and now ISIS has taken over large parts of Iraq and Syria.

Finally, rather than getting Sunni-majority regional powers such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia to intervene, the west has decided it has to intervene against ISIS even though if Sunni-majority counties dealt with the issue, ISIS would not be able to invoke Surah 9 of the Quran to get more recruits. Also, the west, especially the USA, has had this 'we must intervene everywhere' mentality since WW2 and if anyone tries to challenge this mentality, people bring up Hitler.

So there are many factors that have resulted in the current relation between the Middle East and the west. From religious conflicts over the past 1400 years, to colonialism, to WW1, to the cold war, to oil, to belief that theism makes a person good, to religious apologism, to cultural relativism, to western progressive guilt syndrome, to the false dichotomy between intervention and isolationism, to ignorance and to stupidity. Oil is just one factor and not even a major one anymore. This is why I reject the 'its mostly about oil' hypothesis. Also, if it were 'all about oil' then the USA would have built the Keystone XL pipeline, yet it's been delayed for a longer period of time then it took to defeat Hitler.

Why doesn't the west just boycott ME oil?

Numerous reasons. Weak politicians wanting to avoid an unhappy populace (from higher gas prices) to get re-elected are probably the primary reason. Though I think right now 'Canadian oil is evil' has a lot to do with it. Plus you had the eco-radicalism over the past decades that has prevented things such as new offshore drilling in the USA.

Cutting out a massive supplier will increase the price and tariffs on ME oil do not generate revenue if we are not purchasing ME oil.

Tarrifs on ME generate revenue, unless they are so high that it becomes too expensive to import. But didn't you want the importation of less oil? So you want a reduction in ME oil, but not a complete reduction, and you want to collect revenue? Then moderate tarrifs are the best way to go. It seems to me that you are making an excuse to implement a carbon dioxide emission tax.

I've stated that by minimizing western dependence on oil we improve economic stability, security and our environmental health

Minimizing western dependence on oil would mean not importing any oil, which you have constantly implied you don't want to do because you want to collect revenue.

Secondly, this implication is just false. Removing oil imports does not necessarily improve economic stability because there are fluctuations in the price of North American oil (due to changes in supply, demand, costs of extraction, and idiot politicians making it difficult for companies to operate efficiently or transport oil efficiently such as in pipelines) will no longer be cushioned by the global oil market. Security, again it varies; In WW2, Japan had little access to foreign oil and this reduced their security since this limited Japan's military capabilities.

As for environmental health, isn't the reason all the environmentalists against the Oil Sands because it emits slightly more CO₂ per barrel than Middle Eastern oil? If the USA and Canada replace ME oil with Canadian oil, isn't that 'bad for the environment'?

while also removing the 'need' to interfere in ME affairs.

Cause ISIS and Islamism will just conveniently disappear... It's not like the Quran prophesizes that Muslims will take over the world or anything... *sarcasm*

Energy derived from oil will have to be replaced by other forms like electricity.

Or you could use North American oil...

Electricity derived from coal is harmful to our health and environment.

Which has nothing to do with the problems in the Middle East.

If you want to advocate a carbon dioxide emission tax based on the merit of negative externalities associated with human health and the environment, then do so. But don't use the problems in the Islamic word as an excuse to implement this tax in order to avoid the burden of proof that shows that the carbon tax is an optimal response to the supposed negative externalities associated with carbon dioxide emissions.

A carbon tax will increase the price of fossil fuels but generate revenue to minimize the blow to the economy.

As said earlier, minimize is the wrong verb here, you want to use reduce. Also, 'blow to the economy' is poorly defined.

Edited January 23, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm glad you brought that up, though of course, not because you'll think you have made a mighty point in stating Muslims now make up 3% of the population. It affects nothing which I've said, which is that the Muslim population in Canada is simply too spread out and too small a minority to seriously impact our culture.

They are somewhat concentrated in some places such as Ottawa. Why do you think a candidate for the recent municipal election wanted to impose Sharia?

[-TSS-]

This collective victimhood is the thing which gets to anyone's nerves. Newsflash for every muslim and every muslim-huggers: Almost nobody thinks that all muslims are terrorists.

All the more reason to get irritated about the whinging and whining about rising islamophobia after every event of islamic terrorism.

[Mighty AC]

I reject the dichotomy of intervention vs isolationism. Things should be treated on a case by case basis. Sometimes intervention makes sense.

Great, because I'm not suggesting either. I'm suggesting we minimize our dependence on oil. The weaning off process will take some time.

Minimizing western dependence on oil would mean not importing any oil, which you have constantly implied you don't want to do because you want to collect revenue.

You're confused here. To minimize western dependence on oil we have to seek the bulk of our energy from other sources.

Removing oil imports does not necessarily improve economic.

Agreed. We need to minimize oil use overall, not just cut out imported oil.

As for environmental health, isn't the reason all the environmentalists against the Oil Sands because it emits slightly more CO₂ per barrel than Middle Eastern oil?

Sure, Canadian dilbit emits more carbon dioxide, wastes immense amounts water, contaminates rivers and covers huge expanses of land with leaking toxic lakes, but burning the finished product is also bad for our health and the environment. Again this isn't the thread for this part of the discussion, but it's nice to know that one simple tax can improve so many areas.

Cause ISIS and Islamism will just conveniently disappear... It's not like the Quran prophesizes that Muslims will take over the world or anything... *sarcasm*

When our economy no longer depends on their oil we now have a choice in what we get involved in. We could simply act as peace keepers or even look the other way like we did with Rwanda, Sudan, the CAR, etc.

Which has nothing to do with the problems in the Middle East.

Keep up my man...we have to replace energy formerly supplied by oil and electricity derived from coal isn't a step forward. Thankfully, a carbon tax helps prevent a back track there.

If you want to advocate a carbon dioxide emission tax based on the merit of negative externalities associated with human health and the environment, then do so. But don't use the problems in the Islamic word as an excuse to implement this tax in order to avoid the burden of proof that shows that the carbon tax is an optimal response to the supposed negative externalities associated with carbon dioxide emissions.

The burden of proof has come down against fossil fuels long ago. The interesting part, and the relevance to this thread, is the carbon tax also helps us improve relations with the hornets nest in the ME.

[Mighty AC]

All the more reason to get irritated about the whinging and whining about rising islamophobia after every event of islamic terrorism.

Muslims really do experience Islamophobia, especially after terrorist attacks. That's not right. What may be worse though are Ben Affleck types who would call anyone who denounces the violence, homophobia and misogyny committed by many Islamic cultures as racist. WTF? Those who would turn a relativist eye on that kind of behaviour and excuse it are unintentionally evil. What's that they say about the road to hell again?

[Mighty AC]

It's more than a shame. It increases the alienation of peaceful Muslims from our societies and increases the vulnerability of young Muslims to violent sects....

Painting all with one brush is not constructive.

Just trashing Muslims isn't an answer to anything. The dialogue with peaceful Muslims will have to include looking at our own roles too.

Almost nobody is painting all Muslims with one brush. This tends to be a BS cover for the corner many have talked themselves into. By not speaking out against the ills of many Islamic cultures you're aiding the violent misogynists and homophobes. We defend or turn a blind eye to such medieval, destructive behaviour. Morals are not relative, women are not property and should not be beaten, gays and apostates should not be killed.

We do need to work with peaceful Muslisms who want to reinvent the faith and the culture, but we cannot ever overlook and must never avoid challenging the evil being committed. The west has certainly contributed to the problem for economic reasons. We are critically dependent on oil and that needs to change.

[-1=e^ipi]

You're confused here. To minimize western dependence on oil we have to seek the bulk of our energy from other sources.

Maybe you do not understand the meaning of the verb minimize...

Agreed. We need to minimize oil use overall, not just cut out imported oil.

We do not 'need to do this'. You are just using the issue of islamism to somehow justify your eco-socialist agenda.

we have to replace energy formerly supplied by oil and electricity derived from coal isn't a step forward.

False premise.

The burden of proof has come down against fossil fuels long ago. The interesting part, and the relevance to this thread, is the carbon tax also helps us improve relations with the hornets nest in the ME.

Do you not understand what burden of proof is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

[drummindiver]

What makes you believe that we can blame the teachings of Islam for hate, violence and chaos?

A penniless, male, angry, Arab, Muslim, who has lost his home and members of his family to Western forces kills an American and he does so because he is a Muslim?

If the rhetorical isolated incidences like the one you illustrated are all that were happening in the world we would not be having this debate. That is obviously not the case.

Scroll down for the numbers

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-30080914

Edited January 25, 2015 by drummindiver

[drummindiver]

And 950 Million Muslims DO NOT Support Violent Jihad

The survey found the global median for Muslims opposed to violence in the name of Islam was 72 percent.

spin spin spin ...

And the very sad thing is that the more North American Muslims are vilified for what others have done, the more young North American Muslims, marginalized and vilified here in theirown countries, will be vulnerable to fringe fanatics' persuasion to violence.

.

That means only 750 million DO support it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg

And lets not forget Taqiyya. Of the 950 million, are 100% telling the truth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya

Edited January 25, 2015 by drummindiver

[jacee]

Almost nobody is painting all Muslims with one brush.

Yes they are.

This tends to be a BS cover for the corner many have talked themselves into. By not speaking out against the ills of many Islamic cultures

Then people can identify those groups without generalizing to 'Muslims'.

you're aiding the violent misogynists and homophobes. We defend or turn a blind eye to such medieval, destructive behaviour. Morals are not relative, women are not property and should not be beaten, gays and apostates should not be killed.

True, so identify who's doing that. It isn't 'Muslims' in general.

We do need to work with peaceful Muslisms

We won't be able to if we marginalize and alienate them with broadbrush stereotypes.

who want to reinvent the faith and the culture,

It's not the faith. It's the extremist violent sects.

See, you just alienated all Muslims.

but we cannot ever overlook and must never avoid challenging the evil being committed. The west has certainly contributed to the problem for economic reasons. We are critically dependent on oil and that needs to change.

Well then let's start with us.

.