K-9

Earlier on.

No worries.

BJ tables. Nice. GO BILLS!!!

It would be an interesting court case as there is no precedent for denying entry based on religious beliefs. Regardless, doing so violates the very spirit that America was founded on. Thank goodness the Pilgrims weren't subjected to the same kind of scrutiny.

Well, I want a litmus test for all future presidential candidates. Stupid voters or not, the onus is on the candidate to have a grasp of the Constitution he is expected to protect.

Bush himself was careful not to cross lines and warned us all, publicly, that we needed to be careful in how we framed the narrative against terrorists of the Muslim persuasion. I mean if G Dub can understand that...

How is it that the presumptive Republican candidate can propose a religious litmus test to those seeking to enter this country? It is baffling to me that anyone with such a light grasp of our 1st amendment is allowed to run for an office requiring him to swear an oath to protect it. Amazing.

This point is not lost on me. I appreciate the comparison. And it's an interesting study to be sure.

Good response, Mr. President. Ironically, he had to actually say the words, "radical Islam" in his denouncement of Trump. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-14/obama-says-u-s-doing-everything-in-our-power-to-stop-attacks

The passage of time is an interesting and important aspect to it all, I think. Islam is in its infancy compared to the other Abrahamic religions that have had so much more time to assimilate modernity and its advances in science, etc. over the millennia. It really wasn't that long ago, comparatively speaking, that Jews were stoning people to death for eating pork or Christians were burning people at the stake for being heretics. Although we never should have done away with tossing women into bodies of water to see if they floated to determine whether they were witches or not. I've heard from both Arab and Iranian friends that it's prevalent in the entire region. Why wouldn't it be? Humans gonna human, regardless.

Oh, but we have to say Islam, Islam, Islam, because, you know, then we would know who the enemy is. Because we are all stupid. He'd fit in well with the Christian idiots in Uganda.

When I think of millionaire terrorists, I think Bin Laden. But he had a lot of trouble selling his ideas to other millionaires. Then again, Saudi Arabia is home to BILLIONAIRE terrorists. The fertile ground for recruitment is the poor and disaffected. Always will be. I find using exceptions to point to the rule is intellectually dishonest. Is that a yes or no?

Do you appreciate the difference between people who are Muslim and the Muslim people

It wasn't me. I was quoting another contributor in this thread who said that.

I was being rhetorical, but I'm glad you made this point. It's ironic that the Middle East, much if it made rich by its resources, is such a fertile ground for the recruitment of young people to follow these mad sects. It's no coincidence that countries like Saudi Arabia, which doesn't share the wealth, has so many more young men joining terrorist groups vs. say, Kuwait, which invests it's wealth in its people and their young men are far less apt to join an ISIS of al Qaeda. I haven't checked in a few years, but at one point the unemployment rate for men 18-24 in Saudi Arabia was nearly 50%. That is inexcusable in such a rich land.

I am concerned about the rise of Christian fundamentalism in Africa. These zealots are just as cruel in the name of religion as anybody else. I don't want to get into a pissing contest about the sheer numbers or who is worse, the point is that people continue to be persecuted in the name of religion, regardless of which one. The more pertinent question is why and what gives rise to it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-mungai/christian-fundamentalism-africa_b_935268.html

Leave the coddled American brain out of it. That is its own sad commentary on our culture, sadly. It isn't as simple as asking leaders in Muslim countries to grasp the nuance as most do and have for a long time. It is their constituencies and the sheer difference in cultures where words, syntax, and context have COMPLETELY different meanings and applications and clarity of translation is difficult if it translates at all. A simple example is the word "jihad" for example. We accept is as "holy war". But in many Muslim cultures, "jihad" is the only context for war, holy or not. In those cultures one might wage "jihad" against a neighbor who stole a goat in the same way he would wage "jihad" against an infidel. I get that we all want our leaders to exhibit the same level of outrage by using preferred language that better illustrates that. But it just isn't that simple when the language is more important in areas of the world we need to curry favor with. Strategically and tactically not using certain words and combinations is the better play. And as I've said repeatedly, we all know who the enemy is by their words and actions and the semantics don't change that or the way in which we combat him. Not in the least. This isn't directed at you, but for anyone to assert that our president and military leadership doesn't understand EXACTLY who we are fighting and why and where, is complete folly and those that do assert that do so only to score political points.

Agree entirely. It's a sad commentary that the great comedians and satirists of the day no longer wish to perform at college venues.

Do we need allies in the predominantly Muslim Middle East now and in the foreseeable future? This has never been about offending politically correct Americans who are over-sensitive to and always on the lookout for the micro-aggressions you cite. It's about something far more strategic.

Can you appreciate the difference between: People who are Muslim. and The Muslim people Or between: Islamist and Islam

Mr. Cohen would do well to cite EVERY Obama reference over the years. He has used the term "Islamic extremists" in the past as well. But when writing an op-ed piece, it's important to shoe-horn language to fit your premise. Of course it's over the top. Hyperbole is a time-honored literary tool for making a point. Saying "muslim acts of bloodthirsty mass murder" is also over the top as well as highly prejudice.

There's a lot of material here to keep the forensic psychiatrists busy for a long time. Quite the dilemma for the conservative news networks, though. Which aspect scores the most political points: repressed homosexuality or ISIL jihadist? Ailes must have been up all night working on today's memo.

As Muslims, are they capable of committing "muslim" acts of bloodthirsty mass murder? The NYPD should immediately replace these officers with Mexicans.

Trump bans the Washington Post after already blacklisting other media outlets from his campaign. Unbelievable. Goebbels would be so proud of his tactics. Iraq OKd the use of Apache helicopters for the first time today. We had offered them earlier, but were refused. I think this is significant in that it portends an increase in American military personnel on the ground and in the air.

The use of the term, "ISIL" is strategic in nature. It automatically increases the sheer geographical dimensions and places on notice every country from Turkey to Egypt in terms of the historical designs ISIS has on its plans for domination. Iraq and Syria are a drop in the bucket. If there are any computer/internet experts here, why is it that ISIS can't be blocked from hosting a website, access to social media, etc.? Seems with all of our cyber-security and cyber-warfare capability, this could be done. I know I'm being hopelessly ignorant (oh no, did I just call myself a bad name?), but any light shed would be appreciated.