Islamophobia in Canada

[Shady]

Fear sells, like hotcakes.

Yep, just ask the environmentalists and their climate change.

[Shady]

Off topic....Reagan did not fail as he had physics and economics on his side. Reagan had problems with radical Islam too....not space.

Exactly. People that still refer to missile defense systems as Star Wars may as well refer to the internet as wires n tubes too. But it doesn't change reality.

[DogOnPorch]

Fearing nuclear weapons seems prudent. Or are we suddenly immune to them post Ronny Raygunz?

[DogOnPorch]

Exactly. People that still refer to missile defense systems as Star Wars may as well refer to the internet as wires n tubes too. But it doesn't change reality.

Star Wars predates Reagan by a few Presidents. The Sprint had a 400G acceleration with one goal in mind. Impressive for any day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_%28missile%29

...and its partner(s)...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-14_Nike_Hercules

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIM-49_Spartan

Edited December 31, 2015 by DogOnPorch

[WestCanMan]

People with a little bit of information on the subject will know that Islam has been around for less than 1500 years and will instantly recognize your post as fear mongering and dismiss it with the derision it deserves.

I'm well aware of the history of Islam, Mohammed, the Koran and the Hadith. Are you? Tell me what a wise and kind person Mohammed was, and how nice it would be if all muslims followed his example. Tell us how few people died in order for that religion to spread, and how they are the model for tolerance that is revered worldwide Reefer.

I'll grant you that your post is not fear mongering but it reeks of naiveté.

[On Guard for Thee]

Cite?

Don't really need a cite to know neither the Italians nor the Irish are blowing the country up.

Edited December 31, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

[Rue]

Who said it was?

You said and I quote:

"You sure quote a lot of scripture for an atheist - from a self-despising sect perhaps?"

[DogOnPorch]

You said and I quote:

"You sure quote a lot of scripture for an atheist - from a self-despising sect perhaps?"

Like a lot of atheists, I've had to become familiar with the various ideologies that wish to impose their will over my life. Islam is one of those.

Edited December 31, 2015 by DogOnPorch

[ReeferMadness]

Like a lot of atheists, I've had to become familiar with the various ideologies that wish to impose their will over my life. Islam is one of those.

Worshipers at the altar of the religion of capitalism have done far more to impose their will on my life than any followers of Islam ever have or will.

[DogOnPorch]

Worshipers at the altar of the religion of capitalism have done far more to impose their will on my life than any followers of Islam ever have or will.

That's nice. Planes leave for Saudi Arabia daily.

[Big Guy]

The Islamophobes on this board have covinced me that those Muslims are out to get us. Islam, as a religion, preaches violence and the idea that Muslims are supposed to take over the world.

There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world.

There are 30 million Canadians (including a few Muslims) in Canada.

So how do these bright lights on this board who are convinced that Muslims intend to take over the world propose that Canadians react and/or protect ourselves from this invasion?

"They" outnumber us in Canada by about 55 to 1 and that ratio is increasing daily.

What do you suggest that the Canadian government do to protect us from being taken over or murdered by these Muslims?

Hey folks, I am afraid, very afraid - what do I do?

[Rue]

Like a lot of atheists, I've had to become familiar with the various ideologies that wish to impose their will over my life. Islam is one of those.

Well then hear me with utmost humility. I am not ever going to put you down for your atheist beliefs for the simple reason if nothing else you show nothing but respect for me so I show respect back. Hey its that simple.

That said, my personal version of God is an abstract energy source of creation, more like a physics phenomena that is infinite in process and can expand (exhale) or shrink (Inhale) with pulse of energy flow whose essence is fueled by the clash in negative and positive sources.

For me its very abstract its like a never ending series of pitchers of water pouring one after the other. Each God sets off another God and universe so to speak. Me I think the "messiah" is the potential in all of us to save the world by doing something positive and when we do we set off a ripple effect of positive things and the universe expands in positive creation helping us feel the connection back to the abstract source from whence it flows and when we do negative things we separate from the energy flow and connection and cause injury to the universe and shrink it.

I think everyone's actions when negative effect many forms of life or energy just as when they are positive.

My belief is abstract. Its more like physics but its form the Kabala, Hindu, Daoist, Buddhist teachings. Its harmless. I don't believe I have the right to tell anyone else how to think. I am a Jew because of the cultural connection to the suffering of my people not necessarily religious practices. I am more like a Unitarian or Bhuddist or a very Reconstructionist Jew. I appreciate the Old Testament the way I do the New Testament. I see them as allegories written at a time in the past to try make people repress their primal destructive behaviours No I don't read Moses literally or Jesus literally but it doesn't mean it ruins the story for me-the lessons are still relevant. I see no difference between Christianity and Judaism-for me the schism over who the Messiah is never existed between original Christians and Jews and that only comes later when Constantine fuses a pagan concept of the son of God into Christianity.

If someone says do you think Jesus is a messiah or the messiah I say to them-me personally I believe he said he and you and me we are all messiahs and from the same God so to speak and all of us were sent here to do good or bad through the gift of free choice.

So what the phack do I know. I can walk into any form of worship and I see the same themes. I am influenced by Wiccans and aboriginal elders as much as I am Bahaiis or anyone. Everyone has a way of talking about being civil including you.

I would respect anything you had to say in life.

The Islam I am comfortable with is the one Ismailis or Amidyah follow where they do not read the violent passages literally.

If people bothered to speak with either they would see how peaceful they are.

You bet I have problems with people who follow Islam and then try hide behind it to justify bigotry, terrorism, intolerance-same reason I would over my own religion. No I do not follow ultra orthodox or fundamentalist orthodox Judaism for the same reason I criticize fundamentalist Islam. The very same reasons.

People who try shut us up when we challenge Muslim extremism under the name of liberal political righteousness arfe fascists as far as I am concerned.

No I will not look the other way on a religious belief that believes women are inferior or might is right.

I can't stand religions when they get centralized and too big because then the layers of corruption come.

Do I respect certain Christian principles? Of course. The Jesus of Christians preached Judaism and the Talmud, the only schism comes not from him but after the fact from people writing after the fact about whether he is the son of God or a son of God.

Does anyone really think if a Jesus existed he would demand me or anyone do something we felt dishonourable? Do I sound like the kind of man that would be hung up on his terminology; I don't think so.

As for Muhammed, who the hell really knows what he said. What he wrote went onto leaves by his wife while he talked in his sleep. It was then rewritten hundreds if not thousands of times Who the hell knows when anyone really said.

All I know is this thread is a clear example of how criticism of Islam is called Islamophobia and when someone like me or you makes an effort to be polite and point out what in the religion we are not comfortable with we don't get an intelligent response just the snit faced response you got or in my case someone telling me I quoted too many Koran verses.

The Bible, the Koran, they have been used as weapons.

That is your response-respect. I say it again, people on this forum criticizing Islam criticize my religion and Christianity for the very same things. None of us defend burning witches, lighting people on fire, chopping off heads. The point is Judaism and then Christianity have for the most part moved on, Islam has not. That is fact. Pretending its not won't make the catastrophe of violent civil war in the Islamic world go away. Its real, its fueled by Islam and they can't shut people like you and me up.

[Rue]

Worshipers at the altar of the religion of capitalism have done far more to impose their will on my life than any followers of Islam ever have or will.

Explain how you are a victim of capitalism

Who has tortured you?

Who has stoned you?

Who has cut your head off?

Who force fed you Big Macs?

You want me to ask more questions as to the nature of what you claim has been imposed on you by capitalism?

Hey I can. How about you start with those or have I made it clear how absurd your comment is.

You really want to claim you have been victimized by capitalism but not Islam so it makes extremist Islam ok? That's your arguement?

If you don't feel it-it doesn't exist?

Wow such narcissism.

Because the slaughter of innocent people by Muslims hasn't impacted on you-its not important-but hey you are a victim of capitalism?

Wow talk about an elitist narcissistic take on life.

Please explain your victimization....then explain how you came to the conclusion its worse than living in Syria or Iraq or Sudan.

Sorry your comment is painfuly self centered and spoiled. Millions would love to trade places with you and your suffering.

Edited December 31, 2015 by Rue

[DogOnPorch]

Well then hear me with utmost humility. I am not ever going to put you down for your atheist beliefs for the simple reason if nothing else you show nothing but respect for me so I show respect back. Hey its that simple....(etc)

Having some basic Cosmology in my background, the issue of metallicity precludes our planet and star being created in the beginning of anything. We're mere sprouts in this place called the Universe. But, since this is pretty much Greek to anyone not into physics/chemistry/etc, it must seem like a religion to the uninformed.

[SRV]

You know, I can't think of a single terrorist attack which was launched by someone who lost people to the "GWOT". Did the guys who flew those airplanes into the WTC bemoan their relatives - in Saudi Arabia - who had been killed in air strikes? Did the people who set off bombs in Kenya protest against the injustice of their people being killed? Did those who blew a big hole in the USS Cole complain about a GWOT which hadn't even started yet?

Your whinging is just the cliche'd liberal bigotry we've become so familiar with, which absolves 'brown people' of any responsibility for their actions because, well, they're just brown people! What can you expect!? They can't be held to the same standards as civilized white folks! No, no! Anything that they do bad is our fault because we were insensitive, or provoked them or were rude, or drew hostile cartoons or something like that! We should have known better than to provoke brown people!

First let me make clear that I abhor all acts of terrorism, whether they are carried out by brown, black yellow, red or white people. What constitutes an "act of terrorism" is controversial to say the least. I am willing to go with the UN General Assembly's definition: "Since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them." I believe that all terrorists of whatever skin colour should be held accountable. I believe that everyone who is not a terrorist, of whatever skin colour, should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and treated as such.

I have consistently argued that I believe that to date the GWOT has been counter productive, largely because we deny the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty to mostly brown, mostly Muslim people in or from countries that are Muslim. The GWOT has increased instead of diminished the threat of terrorism.

You cite examples of various terrorist attacks, and note that none of the perpetrators specifically mentioned that their actions were in retaliation for having lost people in the GWOT. This leads you to conclude that the unwarranted and unjustified killing or detention and torture of innocent Muslims has no impact whatsoever on an increasing terrorist threat posed by radicalized Muslims. It seems to me that the deaths of 2,996 people and the injuring of more than 6,000 innocent civilians in the 9/11 terrorist attack dramatically and profoundly changed the the attitudes of Americans and her allies. They were suddenly willing to suspend the rights of 'suspects', imprison and even torture them without due legal process, invade countries and overthrow governments in a GWOT. Yet you presume that the millions of innocent Muslim civilians who have died, tens of thousands of innocent Muslims who have been wrongfully imprisoned etc., all of which have friends, relatives, co-workers and neighbours, in this GWOT has not contributed to the recruitment of or resulted in an increase in retaliatory actions against the West by Muslim terrorists?!! Excuse me, but I'm just not willing to accept that all Muslims are that that much more willing to forgive and forget than we are!

There may also be some risk in continuing (?) to treat all Muslims as guilty until proven innocent, and denying large numbers safe haven. Our willingness to accept some risk and welcome refugees in the long run will probably do more to diminish the terrorist threat than refusing them entry..

That's drivel. In fact, the countries which have taken in the most Muslims are the ones who are having the most problems with Muslim violence. If you look at some of the polls taken of British Muslims, for example, substantial numbers of them support terrorism, including against Britain, and want to live in an Islamic state under Sharia law.

That's another noxious cliche the progressives like to spew, despite there being not a single shred of evidence that home grown Muslim terrorists in Canada, in the US, in Britain or France, were provoked in any way by people who didn't like or were suspicious of Muslims. Not a single one of them has ever complained about that, including the recent pair from San Bernadino. As for attacks on Muslims, there have been no more than a handful, and most were verbal. I find it not surprising you would fear that, as opposed to the far more numerous hate crimes committed against Jews, since those progressive who are most stridently supportive of Islam rarely concern themselves with what happens to Jews.

The countries which have taken in the most refugees are Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt, in that order. And yes, the country which has experienced the most terrorist violence is one of those: Iraq, which accounts for fully half of the global total of jihadist terrorist attacks in the post-Iraq War period. (Together with Afghanistan the two countries account for 80 percent of attacks and 67 percent of deaths since the invasion of Iraq). But this increase in terrorist attacks in Iraq did not result from having taken in Refugees; it is a direct result of the GWOT's invasion of Iraq. I will cite some figures showing the extent to which the invasion of Iraq lost the hearts and minds of Muslims::

One measure of the impact of the Iraq War is the precipitous drop in public support for the United States in Muslim countries. Jordan, a key U.S. ally, saw popular approval for the United States drop from 25 percent in 2002 to 1 percent in 2003. In Lebanon during the same period, favorable views of the United States dropped from 30 percent to 15 percent, and in the world's largest Muslim country, Indonesia, favorable views plummeted from 61 percent to 15 percent. Disliking the United States does not make you a terrorist, but clearly the pool of Muslims who dislike the United States has grown by hundreds of millions since the Iraq War began. The United States' plummeting popularity does not suggest active popular support for jihadist terrorists but it does imply some sympathy with their anti-American posture, which means a significant swath of the Muslim population cannot be relied on as an effective party in counter-terrorism/insurgency measures. And so, popular contempt for U.S. policy has become a force multiplier for Islamist militants.

The Iraq Effect: War Has Increased Terrorism Sevenfold Worldwide --By Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, research fellows at the Center on Law and Security at the NYU School of Law. Bergen is also a senior fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington, D.C

But you seem to want to limit your examples to only Western countries who have taken in refugees, and cite a poll showing that in Britain "substantial numbers of them support terrorism, including against Britain, and want to live in an Islamic state under Sharia law."

I won't dispute your statement or these poll results. As a matter of fact I would expect the demographics of Muslim refugees to be varied since Muslims are not one homogeneous group. There will be advocates of Sharia law, Sunnis, Shiites, secularists, socialists, etc. I would not expect all of them to embrace and endorse the cultures and norms of the countries that are hosting them. After all they didn't all choose to migrate to their host country out of gratitude for its role in the GWOT, or because they preferred the culture and norms of their host country over their own. They fled because it was no longer safe to remain in their countries of origin, sometimes because of the GWOT which their host-country may be a participant in. Many refugees hope that things will resolve themselves in their countries of origin so that they might one day be able to return. The Pandora's box that the GWOT opened in Iraq, for example, make the possibility of most Iraqis being able to safely return to Iraq highly unlikely.

Paradoxically we are now in a situation where, on the one hand, accepting refugees presents a real threat insofar as it is unlikely that all of them will embrace and adopt our cultural values and norms. Some, perhaps most, will. But it would be naive to think that all of them will, especially if they have to listen to Donald Trump and his supporters every day! Some of them will probably be/become radicalized. On the other hand, refusing them entry will only confirm the ISIS narrative that the West is intolerant of and at war with all of Islam, and that Muslims must unite to defeat the West. Unless we can convince Muslims that this is not the case, acts of terrorism will only increase exponentially.

We can not put all of those monsters back into Pandora's box. But we can certainly stop feeding them!!

Quote

My greatest fear is that Canada will not be able to adequately manage the risk to newly arrived refugees posed by Canada's own Islamophobes. Ironically Canada's Islamophobes' attitude towards and treatment of Muslims may do more to radicalize newly-arrived refugees than ISIS has/will.

That's another noxious cliche the progressives like to spew, despite there being not a single shred of evidence that home grown Muslim terrorists in Canada, in the US, in Britain or France, were provoked in any way by people who didn't like or were suspicious of Muslims. Not a single one of them has ever complained about that, including the recent pair from San Bernadino. As for attacks on Muslims, there have been no more than a handful, and most were verbal. I find it not surprising you would fear that, as opposed to the far more numerous hate crimes committed against Jews, since those progressive who are most stridently supportive of Islam rarely concern themselves with what happens to Jews.

The have certainly been incidents that I, and many other Canadians as well as Muslims assume to be motivated by Islamophobia. The vandalism of the Mosque in Peterborough, for example, is presumed to have been a "hate crime", and was the second time the community's Mosque was targeted. The first was shortly after 9/11. In Peterborough the overwhelming supportive response of the Peterborough community was more than enough to prevent the radicalization of Muslims I'm sure. But you're right. Such incidents are few and far between. I hope that will continue to be the case.

But I do not underestimate the impact of verbal vitriol, especially if there is a lot of it. And there is a lot of it. By itself it may not be too problematic, but in combination with current strategies in the GWOT, it creates a great deal of ill-will towards America and her allies.

I also agree that there are more hate crimes and also much vitriol against Jews than against Muslims at present. (I also think that there is a great reluctance to criticize the actions of the Israeli government in the West Bank and Gaza for fear of being branded anti-Semitic, but that's another topic for another day) And, obviously, the terrorist threat posed by white US born gun-wielding Americans is much greater than the threat Islamophobia presents to Muslim refugees.

There are certainly many real threats out there, but we will never get anywhere by grossly exaggerating some while minimizing or completely denying the existence of others. Or threats to others! And any and every action or inaction entails risks which must be carefully and objectively analysed. The crisis is causing us all to become increasingly polarized, and any criticism of the strategies of either side is being misconstrued as supporting the "enemy". This polarization is both avoidable and counterproductive.

Edited January 1, 2016 by SRV

[bush_cheney2004]

..... It seems to me that the deaths of 2,996 people and the injuring of more than 6,000 innocent civilians in the 9/11 terrorist attack dramatically and profoundly changed the the attitudes of Americans and her allies. They were suddenly willing to suspend the rights of 'suspects', imprison and even torture them without due legal process, invade countries and overthrow governments in a GWOT.

Point of order please....the United States and allied nations were more than willing to do such things before 9/11/2001. The GWOT was just another chapter in longstanding policies of influence, control, counter-terrorism, and military/economic hegemony with broad political support.

[SRV]

Point of order please....the United States and allied nations were more than willing to do such things before 9/11/2001. The GWOT was just another chapter in longstanding policies of influence, control, counter-terrorism, and military/economic hegemony with broad political support.

I won't and don't dispute that the US government and other nations that support her have a long history of doing such things. But arguably most American citizens weren't particularly aware of it until after the GWOT was launched. In fact they were pretty much unphased by acts of terrorism as long as they were committed on somebody else's soil. And then there's state terrorism, and the installation and support for despots, and all that...

But I won't amend my post to accommodate or incorporate all that. Its long enough as it is!

Edited January 1, 2016 by SRV

[bush_cheney2004]

I won't and don't dispute that. (But I won't amend my post to accommodate it.)

That's fine, but I just wanted to demonstrate how easy it is to change the historical narrative to suit current ideology and perspectives, and much more consistent with your assertions vis-a-vis "human rights" in another thread.

Edited January 1, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[SRV]

That's fine, but I just wanted to demonstrate how easy it is to change the historical narrative to suit current ideology and perspectives, and much more consistent with your assertions vis-a-vis "human rights" in another thread.

Yes, i restrain myself quite a bit sometimes in an effort to not make people so defensive that they stop thinking. When your words threaten someone's self-image (or the image of their national identity) they can't afford to hear you anymore. My Bahai friend tells me "It's not about bursting bubbles, It's about parting veils, Stewart. It's about parting veils."

I see my vocation as replacing the wrong answers with some of the right questions, but I've learned not to pose them all at once.

[SRV]

That is your response-respect. I say it again, people on this forum criticizing Islam criticize my religion and Christianity for the very same things. None of us defend burning witches, lighting people on fire, chopping off heads. The point is Judaism and then Christianity have for the most part moved on, Islam has not. That is fact. Pretending its not won't make the catastrophe of violent civil war in the Islamic world go away. Its real, its fueled by Islam and they can't shut people like you and me up.

I will assume that you mean Islam for the most part has not moved on. That would be consistent with your earlier reference "The Islam I am comfortable with is the one Ismailis or Amidyah follow where they do not read the violent passages literally."

How and why Judaism and Christianity move on? Why hasn't Islam?

I wonder if neoliberal capitalist expansion hasn't satisfied Judaeo-Christian imperialist expansion needs, and if so, why it hasn't done the same for Islam?

By the way, I appreciated your Koran quotes, and hope you share a few more!

[Argus]

Don't really need a cite to know neither the Italians nor the Irish are blowing the country up.

So you have no examples to cite at all? You said it had been proven numerous times...

[On Guard for Thee]

So you have no examples to cite at all? You said it had been proven numerous times...

You're maybe not paying attention: we have a lot of people in this country who are, or are descended from immigrants, who once were assumed to be people who were going to wreck the place, in much the same way as you are trying to do now. It didn't happen then, and won't likely now.

[Rue]

I won't and don't dispute that the US government and other nations that support her have a long history of doing such things. But arguably most American citizens weren't particularly aware of it until after the GWOT was launched. In fact they were pretty much unphased by acts of terrorism as long as they were committed on somebody else's soil. And then there's state terrorism, and the installation and support for despots, and all that...

But I won't amend my post to accommodate or incorporate all that. Its long enough as it is!

I don't agree with some of what you say but I appreciate the effort made. A lot of people criticize lengthy posts. No one forces them to read them. You show you care and put effort in your responses. You write them, I will read them-may not always agree but I read them. Your efforts are appreciated.

[Argus]

You're maybe not paying attention: we have a lot of people in this country who are, or are descended from immigrants, who once were assumed to be people who were going to wreck the place, in much the same way as you are trying to do now. It didn't happen then, and won't likely now.

Really? We have lots of groups that we thought would murder us in large numbers? Who would that be? Your statement seemed to suggest that we would have been subjected to lots of attacks but that since we let a lot of immigrants into the country those attacks didn't happen. You said this was proven lots of times. So prove it.

[Argus]

I believe that everyone who is not a terrorist, of whatever skin colour, should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and treated as such.

That's a trite but meaningless statement in the context of war. Would you suggest soldiers not fire at others because they haven't been 'proven guilty'? Of course, in a normal war the other side wears uniforms. This one they do not. Therefore one presumes that if someone is carrying weapons in an area where there is fighting that he is the enemy.

I have consistently argued that I believe that to date the GWOT has been counter productive, largely because we deny the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty to mostly brown, mostly Muslim people in or from countries that are Muslim.

I simply don't believe that's true. Where possible, people suspected of violence are arrested so they can be interrogated. But given many are in lawless lands surrounded by armed allies that's simply not a possibility in all cases. It's done where we can do so without engaging in combat and risking losing a lot of lives.

The GWOT has increased instead of diminished the threat of terrorism.

Your opinion. Mine is different. I don't think it has diminished the threat, but it has eliminated a lot of those who were engaged in terrorism, or planning on terrorism.

This leads you to conclude that the unwarranted and unjustified killing or detention and torture of innocent Muslims has no impact whatsoever

What 'unwarranted and unjustified' killing and detention of 'innocent Muslims' are you speaking of?

Yet you presume that the millions of innocent Muslim civilians who have died, tens of thousands of innocent Muslims who have been wrongfully imprisoned etc., all of which have friends, relatives, co-workers and neighbours, in this GWOT has not contributed to the recruitment of or resulted in an increase in retaliatory actions against the West by Muslim terrorists?!!

Okay. Well, given the vast, vast majority of Muslims who have been killed have been killed by their own co-religionists, shouldn't it be provoking them to killing their home-grown terrorists and extremists instead? I mean, western forces in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan target miltants, while the militants tend to target just about anyone. Even the UN is pretty clear that the great majority of civilian casualties are caused by the terrorists, guerrilas, militants, or whatever politically correct term you wish to use.

I won't dispute your statement or these poll results. As a matter of fact I would expect the demographics of Muslim refugees to be varied since Muslims are not one homogeneous group. There will be advocates of Sharia law, Sunnis, Shiites, secularists, socialists, etc. I would not expect all of them to embrace and endorse the cultures and norms of the countries that are hosting them.

Then why should we let them in in the first place?

Some of them will probably be/become radicalized. On the other hand, refusing them entry will only confirm the ISIS narrative that the West is intolerant of and at war with all of Islam, and that Muslims must unite to defeat the West. Unless we can convince Muslims that this is not the case, acts of terrorism will only increase exponentially.

And letting Muslims into our country is going to do that? I've seen no evidence of that so far. The French have let in so many ten percent of their population are Muslims. That hasn't made them loved in the Muslim world. Sweden has opened their arms to Muslims, and is not a participant in the war on terror, but that hasn't meant their Muslim newcomers are integreating peacefully, or have abandoned extremism.

I also agree that there are more hate crimes and also much vitriol against Jews than against Muslims at present.

Why do you suppose we're not seeing any Jewish terrorists attacking western countries, then? I mean, given your suggestion that being mean and disrepsectful to Muslims here inspires terrorism shouldn't it also inspire terrorism in Jews?