Only 28% of Pakistanis Have Unfavorable Opinion of ISIS

More semantics.

The anarcho-libertarian viewpoint is that the free flow of labor would be prevented by the enforcement of borders by Government, even at a state and local level. I didn't ask what your view of federalism was, I asked you what your view on immigration was.

If I didn't already know what the words meant, I would probably look into dictionary definitions.

 

It wasn't "a protest", it was many. The country shut down Facebook, Youtube, and a few hundred other sites on the internet.

It's preposterous because you are implying that the majority in Pakistan do not know what 9/11 is, when 72% of them knew enough about it to question who the culprit was.

Are they at war in Senegal, Burkina Faso, Malaysia, and other countries on the list, where people had a more definitive answer than "I don't know"?

 

If it's not a religious war, then why are the Alawites and Christians all on Assad's side? Probably because the rebels' political views are just an extension of their religious views, which calls for the establishment of a Sunni theocracy in Syria. But contrary to what you might think, not every Sunni actually wants to live under an Islamic theocracy, which is why so many Sunnis are fighting for Assad, who was a secular ruler, albeit an autocratic one.

And if the concept of the Ummah transcends things like politics as you claim, then how can a disagreement over politics in Syria precipitate a violent conflict between Sunnis?

It's not a talking point. It's a fact. Only a tiny minority of either sect of Islam has actually ever engaged in terrorism. The overwhelming majority of them are just minding their own business.

Some Muslims are a threat to us. Most aren't. It's pretty simple.

That would be the warrantless, mass surveillance program that collects, stores, and analyzes the private electronic communications of every American, which is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment's letter and spirit.

And while we're on the topic, feel free to provide some examples of how the NSA's mass surveillance program has served to prevent or interdict a terrorist plot against Americans or westerners in general. Clearly, it did nothing to stop the attacks on Paris.

It is implied by your generalizations.

How do you know the majority knew about a Facebook contest?

And some countries have a nearly 100% rejection.

How do you know that they knew about it?

 

No, it's the answer to your question.

Oh, so now you're the spokesperson for "anarcho-libertarians".

You're asking for my view on immigration in the context of federalism and I gave you my answer. I don't believe the federal government has the constitutional authority to "open" or "close" borders which belong originally to the states.

Here is the dictionary definition according to Merriam Webster: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Which is so vague as to be largely meaningless. If you're going by that definition, then the US government is engaged in acts of terrorism almost around the clock. Bush's "shock and awe" campaign would be an express admission of his intention to commit terrorism against an entire country. Not that I object to that characterization of Bush's actions, but something tells me that's not how you see it.

 

Maybe you're just a glass half-empty sort of guy....

 

I didn't say the majority in Pakistan don't know what 9/11 is, I said that the majority in the tribal areas don't know what 9/11 is, and 72% of the Pakistanis asked said they didn't know who was behind the 9/11 attacks.

 

Well, KSA is pretty hard on terrorists.

55 Terrorists awaiting execution.

http://www.arabnews.com/featured/news/838841

Al-BAHA: Fifty-five terrorists linked to Al-Qaeda are awaiting execution after they were found guilty of involvement in terrorist activities that claimed the lives of more than 100 citizens and residents, and 71 security men.

Since 2003, 124 terrorist attacks have taken place, claiming 100 lives and injuring 569 others.

Over 250 terror strikes have been thwarted across the Kingdom.

In confrontations with terrorists, 71 security men were killed and 407 wounded, with authorities killing 176 terrorists.

 

Because there are varying degrees of adherence in every belief system. Some Muslims are serious enough about their religion to transcend things like politics, whereas others are not.

A significant minority supports the goals of terrorists, even if they personally are not participating in terrorism.

Your statement would be true even if 49.99% of them posed a threat.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24532218/jamshid-muhtorov-case-feds-used-warrantless-wiretaps

What I apparently implied is based on your own interpretations of what I wrote.

I don't, but it was obviously a big issue in Pakistan at the time, with the country shutting off Facebook, Youtube, and hundreds of other sites.

Possibly, assuming Islamic deception is not being practiced.

See above.

 

No it wasn't.

On what basis would an anarcho libertarian support Government drawing and enforcing borders?

Yet those states also have a Government tasked with defining and enforcing borders between them and another country.

Which is why I said "Islamic terrorism". That narrows it down quite a bit.

This all hinges on whether you believe Western civilization is on the same level as Islamic terror groups, which you apparently do.

 

It's likely so many are on the fence because they desperately want the US to get out of their country, and ISIS would pursue this goal.

 

Sure is better then zero percent.

 

The Paki's have a 55% unfavorable view of Al Queda. 13% favorable view. Terrorist hearts that support terrorists attacking their common enemy. Don't have such a favorable view of AQ as they do of ISIS because ISIS has not done ops in Pakistan yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/01/world/asia/rel-muslims-al-qaeda/

 

If im not mistaken, you are not really religious so you probably wont agree with my opinion on this.

Liberalism and Islam are both at the root evil ideologies that dwell in the darkness. They both believe the ends justify the means. They both lie to further their cause. They both kill and destroy to further their cause. And they both hate Christians with a burning passion because (i believe) they know deep down that Christians and Christianity represent the light, truth, goodness.

Islam, at the end of the day, is a lie. Progressivism/Marxism and its promises, too, are a lie. When you confront Muslims with the truth they try to destroy you. When you confront Progressives with the truth, they too, try to destroy you. Nothing terrifies these two groups more than the truth. So even though Islam represents everything liberalism is opposed to liberals would rather side with fellow liars who dwell in darkness than Christians who know the truth.

 

BS. Islam is the Truth, as Muslims- to this day- carry out God's will on earth.

Meanwhile, America recently legalized homosexual marriage. As the Qur'an says, Christians are lost.

 

That's much less than the number of white and blue eyed Germans who supported the Nazis.

 

Non-Christians in America rammed homosexual marriage through. The 30% or so of Americans who are actual practicing Christians have zero power.

Muslims (*)(*)(*)(*) little boys. You belong to a disgusting religion, bro. You really have no room to talk

 

Again, is it Islam's fault that Christianity ceased to be taken seriously a long time ago in the West? Perhaps because it is inherently irrational? I mean, how can God be one and three?

Sorry, brah, but I've been studying my religion for quite a while. Ergo, what the average Westerner has to say about it is inconsequential.

 

[video=youtube;g7TAAw3oQvg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg[/video]

 

You claimed to have been studying your religion for "quite a while" and used the slang term "brah" (popular with youthful types) in the same sentence. How droll.

 

This post is a very good summary of the situation. Unfortunately, many Americans are unable to see the actions of their military through the eyes of those who are affected.

Another part that is psychologically important here is the Robin Hood effect. Many people naturally root for the underdog, even though the methods used by the underdog in this case are highly questionable. And ISIS is the underdog in this asymmetrical fight. One just has to look at the recent death of Jihadi John. H may become a martyr, who has died a hero in fighting the largest geopolitical power, and was willing to die for this fight. The brutal and barbaric methods he used become secondary to the idea.

 

Christians are lost? What about the Islamic regions where stories of honor-killing goats and other livestock because some sick individual violated them are fairly common? Are those regions practicing the "truth?" Seems pretty ass backwards to me.

- - - Updated - - -

Not if your moral compass functions properly they don't.

 

Great video. The apologists for Islam have a lot of work to do in response. Stand by for obfuscation and redirection.

 

It doesn't matter what they do. The fact of the matter is that God still taken seriously...unlike in the West, which is increasingly having nothing to do with the Abrahamic religions.

I guess Westerners who hate Islam are just jealous of it.

 

"In other words, you aren't doing it."
Best you got? What are you....... a little girl?

"What does my post count have to do with your weak arguments?"
It has a lot to do with it, little girl. Tells me that you sometimes get tired of your game system, the basement gets dark and cramp and your Mama won't bring you down any hot chocolate. Try getting a job.....

 

Youre kidding arent you....why the (*)(*)(*)(*) would anyone be jealous of Islam.......