issuevoter wrote on Mar 23
rd, 2017 at 7:17pm:
Liberal progressives need to justify their continual defense of Islam. They need to look squarely at Islam and ask whether any country under the banner of the Prophet would tolerate Christians in their midst, if the Christian community had produced even a tiny fraction of the atrocities against the Islamic general public. And then they need to ask themselves whether the liberal progressive policy of turning the other cheek has achieved anything. It is time to give Muzlims a dose of their own medicine.
There's a considerable amount wrong with this statement.
Why shouldn't Islam be defended? Most Muslims are peaceful. They're just people, going about their lives, same as you and i. Why shouldn't they be defended from rampant Islamophobia? Or constantly being ascribed the same status as the worst case scenarios? When we assign people the status of the worst case scenarios of their demographic, it's called prejudice. Why shouldn't we defend against prejudice?
And what is this turning the other cheek business? All terrorists are dealt with, assuming they survive their attacks, with the full weight of the law. No cheeks are turned.
And what on god's green earth do you mean by giving them "a taste of their own medicine"? THe war on terror not enough for you? Bombing campaigns not enough for you? Depleted uranium shells not enough for you? Millions dead not enough for you?
What would you like to see happen Issuevoter? Be specific.