Excellent video. Thank you.
As for the rest of it: I think Gabriel did have traumatic experiences that led to that extremely dangerous human motivation, "righteousness". If she limited herself to the issue of radical Islam we could be more accommodating. But she extends to all Islam being the villain, characterizing them as culturally "behind". Translation: In the way.... just as the Aztecs and the American Indians were in the way. Well financed righteousness is a very dangerous thing.
As for our friend: professional troll. That is all. Just pushing product. It's a living.

mishima is jj and congoboy all wrapped into one

A 2fer 4 da goofers

{I don't consider Mishima a "hater" rather just misguided and propagandized by the media mostly.}

Do you realize that you are actually parroting what you have been programmed to parrot? I am serious. That is the cliche, that is what to say to people who disagree with the Leftist viewpoint and worldview.

The truth is that I do not get American TV in my home. That is the reality, but you have been inculcated with that dogma that anyone who disagrees only does so because he has been watching TV, listening to the radio, etc.

But why not discuss concepts instead of wasting time and effort on cliches?

That's just part 1 of 4. I recommend watching the other the three parts if you have the time.

Sorry Mishima, but the same crap that Gabrielle is pushing about Muslim infiltration is the same thing that Michelle Bachmann and Rep. Peter King are pushing. There's no evidence for it that I can see, but if you know something about Muslim infiltration in America, please share it with me because I find that stuff fascinating.

All that nonsense about Muslim infilration is coming from the maintream media, be it the teevee, or mainstream publishing house. Just because you don't have a teevee doesn't mean you aren't buying into total crap.

Nah they're mostly full of hot air---some are here as we speak.

Right!

Yea, i see at least three among us.

I see one person simply playing games... Mr. "What if I told you it was all part of a book?"

... others I think just have divergent points of view.

I know who likes to play games here. Perhaps your right divergent points of view but after researching Brigette gabriel her beliefs are not all part of a book, if that's what you mean.

Ha! I believe you are quite correct.

The people who agree with Brigette Gabriel are the SAME people who 50 years ago would have taken her into the woods of Mississippi and after gang banging her beat her to within an inch of her life. Racists have found a group they can OPENLY hate because we all dislike Sand you know whats.

Precisely. Thank you.

hmmm... may be! It's certainly "revealing"....

That's true. Good one.

Mississippi has some fine folks in it, but you KNOW what I meant. Texas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina same difference.

{Why you hating on Mississippi? What did we do?}

It is a perfect example of the HYPOCRISY of Left-wingers.

You see, in Liberal-Land, one must never be "prejudiced," right? All cultures and people are equal, right? We should never prejudge and classify according to Political Correctness, right?

WRONG!!!

With Left-wingers, only specific categories apply to their "political correctness." One can insult, defile, mock and badger the others in the most hateful and ugly manner - in LIBERAL-LAND. And people of the deep south are in that "unprotected" category. This shows how hypocritical they are. Insult Arab culture or Islam? NO, NO, NO. THAT IS UGLY, RACIST, PREJUDICED.

But a male from the south? Hey, blast away with stereotypes, bias, insults, any ugly distortions. It is fine - IN LIBERAL-LAND.

I meant the "SAME" Racist who now hate Sand N!g^&$ as they call them 50 years ago would have been on her backside. My bad for mentioning a particular Southern state because Indiana was no better in the 20's Like I said before I am not a member of the Libertarian party, but I do agree with a majority of your Parties positions..

Good comment. I agree with you.

Nobody who is reasonable and sane would say all Muslims are evil. I actually had my own children in a private school that had so many Muslims that they had "non-pork" meals, and the teachers made accommodations at Ramadan when the students were often tired from not eating. Kids were great, Muslim and non. My experiences in Muslim countries, except for Afghanistan where they were barbarians, were great. I have asked for a transfer there.
But we of the West must not budge an inch to terrorists from the fear of appearing "prejudice" or "politically incorrect." I believe Europeans have bought into that crap, and the Muslims are threatening their civilization.

We of the West should not apologize for being superior and be proud of it. If we are not, we will not have the resolve to defend ourselves, and that is the real danger.

That is the problem my friend MANY islamophobes are not reasonable. I can not tell you how many fights and almost fights I have been in stopping people from picking on my Friends sister or other Muslim women for no other reason than wearing their Hijab.

hating some one based on religion is as absurd as hating some one for their race, from you who lifted nazi material against jews, and just recently on a thread about judaism claimed a desire for an oven.

does it pain you to pretend to be not bigoted, or is your hypocricy to through and through it doesnt even effect you anymore?

I dislike ZIONISTS for their politicle views not thier religious affileation. You might remember that I posted that infomation from SEVERAL sources not just Stormfront. The truth is the truth even if the devil is relaying it.

You seem to honstly believe I dislike jewish people and there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion. It is sad that if you dare point out the War Crimes of the Zionists in Tel Aviv you are labled anti sametic. I guess my condimnation of W's War Crimes makes me a hater of fellow Born Again Rednecks?

PS: I have NEVER said anything about putting jewish people in a oven. Honestly I am offended at the acusation!

yeah, the thing is tho, people dont tend to cite nazis when trying to make a point.

the sky may be blue, but im certainly not going to rely on nazi websites as a source of any information, even if they too determine the sky is in fact blue.

you lie with dogs and you get fleas.
you are happy to affiliate yourself with racists while also espousing racist shit like desiring an oven in regards to jews.

your information has nothing to do with truth, as you make it clear, and your sources also state.

"forget the pot, i want a convection oven"

on a post that had nothing to do with pot, but was about how much money supposed jewish groups were recieving from the government.
not a week ago.

"forget the pot, i want a convection oven"

Some one was talking about the Government giving away free stuff. Herbert Hoover promised if he won there would be “a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.” The person I made the response to said they were still waiting on their Chicken. I JOKINGLY said forget the pot give me a convection Oven. Are you so paranoid EVERY TIME someone mentions an oven you AUTOMATICALLY think they are talking about killing Jewish People? I suggest you NOT watch the cooking channel!

Gravity_Man maasanova:
There's 320,000,000 Americans living in a damn gas chamber RIGHT NOW!!!! Given poison food & water to drink like Hemlock & Bad Mushrooms!!!

WAIT. I WANT REPARATIONS. AND A NEW CAR. AND A CHICKEN.

Radical_Centrist Gravity_Man:
lol, forget the Pot I WANT a Convection Oven! :-)

I am sorry if you assumed I meant somersetting I did not. My Grandfather would often say "NEVER assume because it makes an ASS out of you and me!"

http://current.com/entertainment/comedy/93832054_only-3-of-homeland-security-ngo...

the thread about homeland security money going to jewish organizations was a thread not about jews?

It was but I thought the "CONTEXT" of the comment I was replying to made it clear I was talking about an Oven to cook the "FREE" Chicken in.

I believe you, but my experiences have been different, completely different. But I will agree that it is true that many people are completely unreasonable. I flew into D.C. a couple of years ago. The cab driver was Iranian. We had an interesting chat. I casually mentioned this later to my friend and his wife. His ignorant wife said,"weren't you afraid?"

I bit my tongue. Ignorant. I found the guy interesting. She found such a person frightening.

I think you are getting sucked in. That poster is probably tiring of me. Good luck

we can play this game all day to no avail.
as always you soft sell your positions.
while you may in actuality not be a bigot, you know full well their are bigoted positions that appeal to you, and in recognizing them for what they are you you soft sell them half assed as to not bare the burden of them.and when you are not able to percieve exactly how those positions will play out, and you find yourself in a corner, you default to "i didnt write it, just posted it".

all the while knowing full well from start to finish what you are doing.

this case is no different.as usual piggy backing on the more brazen bigots to throw your two cents in.never daring to be out right, always playing the role of tongue in cheek comment guy whos comments relate to the bigotry at hand, playing off it.

we can go around for another 20 comments arguing context until we are at the point of arguing over what "is" means.but none of it changes that on a post about the jews, you sought an oppostunity to drop your usual bias shit.

you have now lied to cover this up which shows you know it to be true.claiming it wasnt said on a thread about jews, when it was.

you know as well as any member of current knows that gravityboy is a lunatic who talks all sorts of insane shit that has nothing to do with anything.so you are trying to use his rantings which speak to all sorts of matters that have nothing to do with anything, as the validation of your efforts.
it is in the same field of excuses as "i didnt write it, just posted it" which is your normal defense for your offensive writings.

you want to dance the dance, and play this game, by all means knock yourself out.but it is beneath both of us, so i leave it to you alone.

The putative "jounalists" are everything but. They really only want to report one side of the issue: Present anarchists and radicals as persecuted and oppressed. They do not report the burning of the flag of the United States of America, the firebombs thrown at police, the destruction of property by OWS street trash, the yelling of obscenities, etc.

Right-Wing terrorists:
Arthur de Gobineau, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Heinrich von Treitschke, Gordon Kahl, Timothy McVeigh, David Copeland, Neil Lewington, Robert Cottage, Martyn Gilleard, Nathan Worrell, Anders Behring Breivik

Had they simply busted up some park benches or yelled obsenities a great number of people would still be alive. Note the absence of Muslims.

Don't forget Eric Rudolph and the guy who shot up a Unitarian church in Kentucky because he hated liberals.

Yep. Thanks, HurukoHaurhara. Good stuff.
I don't have much time today so I put that out as an invitation for our prevaricating friend to challenge. I'm certain that many here will overwhelm him with the long list of names of Right-Wing terrorists and supporters. And let's not forget the racial hatred incidents perpetrated by their states-rights predecessors whom they aspire to emulate today. It is terrorism just as well.
These are the Right-Wingers who wrap themselves in the American flag, then carry out their acts of terrorism and hatred.

Oh, I'm sure any response will have something to do with the Unabomber.

Yes, the Unabomber was a bad guy. We all agree. Him and Rudolph are in the same prison in Colorado.

You know what would be really funny? If the Unabomber, Rudolph and the shoe bomber guy all shared the same cell. They'd all drive each other crazy!

Well said!

Right. Together they killed, what, 6 people? Might as well throw in Bill Ayers too, who didn't manage to kill anybody.
McVeigh alone killed 170 (?). Anders Behring Breivik took out 77 and his entire ideology was derived from the American Right-Wing.
There were the survivalists in Michigan (?) who were gonna take out the police. There's the group in Georgia that was gonna blow up a bridge last year. It goes on.
So OWS folks did what, screwed in the park? I've done that (highly recommend it) and I'm not a terrorist. Neither was she. :)

Rudolph did wound more than 150.

There were a bunch of right-wingers here who plotted killing all the judges and wiping out the local sheriff's office in an entire county, but fortunately, they got caught before they hurt anyone. There was an undercover officer who infiltrated their group. Their defence was basically, "just kidding!" Most of them went to prison for like 7 to 10 years. One guy who just got out of prison was stopped by the police recently and he shot at them for no apparent reason and ran into the mountains and disappeared. No one knows what became of him.

"Might as well throw in Bill Ayers too, who didn't manage to kill anybody."

Do you know that some people are still trying to have him tried for murder? Do you know that Ayers actually wanted to have concentration camps after his freakin' revolution took place?

{Bill Ayers did what he did. That is resolved.}

No, it is not over. That scumbag is still keeping up his garbage. I read TWO of his books that were first published in 2009, cover to cover. There were pro-Marxist, and vicious anti-American jermiads, even celebrating brutal murders of policemen! Filth. He was the head of a main division of the AERA, probably the #1 organization for research in education in America.

It is not over with Ayers, and I am not referring to any "Obama connection" at all, so do not think that is where this is coming from. In fact, his book actually propelled me to write an article for a national publication, and I was surprised that this Liberal organization to which I used to belong actually published this research that concluded why we should NOT promote programs of "social justice" in our schools.

The Left-wingers DISTORTED Kent State. They distorted and DELIBERATELY omitted important information. Do you want to know what it is? Are you prepared for TRUTH? I have collected the TRUTH that can be verified, not that sick distortion and deception.

Let me know.

"Richard Nixon (and Kissinger) sent 2 million Cambodians to the Killing Fields"

You are over the top on that one. I mean you must have been inculcated by the best if you actually accepted such complete and utter nonsense.

The Left-wingers, specifically the New Left, praised Pol Pot in the beginning as an "agrarian reformer."

When the Killing Fields started, Noam Chimpsky actually said it was a complete fabrication. A lie. It was not going on, he said.

Then, more reports and refugees came forth. The Chump could no longer deny it, so he modified it. Now, he claimed it was just disinformation, an exaggeration. No more than 2,000 to 3,000 were killed. The CIA was exaggerating.

Then, it could no longer be denied.

So what did these prevaricating and deceitful New Leftists then say? They said the bombing of Cambodia drove the Khmer Rouge into a killing frenzy.

All of the personal insults to me from Left-wingers have no affect. But when I see something like you wrote, it really does get to me. I get incensed at the possibility that you may tell some unsuspecting person those lies, or some young person who does not know the truth of the lies and deceit of those who perpetuate that ugliness.

The Right-Wing's "Obama connection" fantasy is the only reason you mention the issue. You persist in the notion that you have credibility.

Sure. Did you know that 9/11 was an inside job? I have proof. Your neocons.

Over the top? Ahhhh... no. Wrong. Try the McNamara documentary, "Fog of War". Or the Kissinger documentaries. Sorry.

No, it is not. I really am asking you to stop the accusations of my lying. I am not lying. I will categorically state that this has nothing to do with it. I was interested in that scumbag before Obama ran for office. This is because that piece of garbage is in my field, poisoning people. THAT was my original interest in this trash. So, stop your mind-reading. It is stupid.

{Try the McNamara documentary, "Fog of Mar"}

Fatuous. I saw it. Twice. I was shocked at his admittance of the ugliness of the firebombings of civilian areas in Japan. I saw it. OK. How would I know that if I did not see it?

I said nothing of lying. Nor am I reading your mind. The issue is credibility and knowledge of motive. That's all.
I see absolutely no value in your reply on or off topic except to issue false accusations against me. Please refrain from that. Thanks.

I said my interest in Ayers was not related to Obama. You are telling me this is not true. That is calling me a liar. Please stop. If you choose to respond, respond to the content and stop calling me a liar and telling me what I think. If you do that, it only means that there can be no rational communication. I have studied Ayers in depth. If you would like to discuss this, let me know.

Fatuous? It is fatuous to simply offer reliable documentation about the matters you address? I offered that because your comments on the Cambodia matter were not consistent with the revelations from those actually responsible for it.
The issues you chose to mention had little to do with arguement. It was an illegal act by Nixon made worse by it's complete failure. Heavy loss of life was considered by Nixon to have no relevance to the perceived strategic importance of the bombing. Wrong.
You seem to arguing that a "reasonable" level of horror is acceptable. What is that level?

The idea that America was responsible for the Killing Fields, and you wrote that, is fatuous. Absurd. Hateful.

You deflected. I did not write about Nixon, nor did I defend him. My post was about your blaming America for the Killing Fields.

{You seem to arguing that a "reasonable" level of horror is acceptable.}

Stop the deceit. I wrote about how the Left interpreted the events in Cambodia. Read my posts.

[The idea that America was responsible for the Killing Fields]
The responsibility belongs to Richard M. Nixon, operating outside the law.
I read your posts. You simply prevaricate. I spoke to the known history on the fundamental issues of Cambodia. You addressed only the peripheral issues surrounding it.

[I said my interest in Ayers was...]
No. I am not calling you a liar.
You have previously expressed your opinion of Ayers with direct and disparaging correlation to his association with Obama.
I would note that this entire reply from you has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

I see you are not interested in the truth of what happened in Kent State.

I am awaiting the names of the Conservative sites where you go.

Any chance of getting into an honest conversation about race?

Oh do tell me if it's filled with as much sensational choir-preaching, blind speculation, absurd assumptions and outright lies like another classic: Michael Savage's Trickle Down Tyranny? A must read if you're seeking to enforce your own ideological narrative!!

Back on track, the reality is that one could insert any religion in place for those Muslim extremists; many mainstream religions had them, and it could've just as easily been (and once was) Christianity. Since these religions rely on interpretation, there comes the inevitable which is to interpret these texts in a manner that suits your selfish desires--often to promote power or find a scapegoat. Those appealing to religious faith are easily malleable. That problem is inherent within all religious faiths--not simply Islam; for there are MANY practicing Muslims who disavow these indoctrinated extremists.

MILLIONS of Teapublicans, no doubt.

No, it is an excellent read, very well-documented. I checked many of the references. Excellent and thorough. Highly recommended. It supported what I realized about the Left after much study, observation and reflection: Its primary drive is to centralize power. The Left wants to organize society and the economy for chialistic purposes, and that is what it has in common with Fascism, etc.

{ there are MANY practicing Muslims who disavow these indoctrinated extremists.}

Please name some well-known and respected Muslim religious leaders who have openly and clearly disavowed the terrorist attacks.

Compare this to the past two Popes. They open condemned invasions in the Middle East. The HEAD of the Catholic Church.

This speaks for itself.

You know there's something funny about extremes. Consider temperature. At extreme polarities, the difference in sensation between extreme hot and cold is, well, indifferent!

You look at either extreme of the political spectrum and you see different albeit equal problems in their structure and philosophy... Flaws.

The issue we humans seem to struggle with is observing life and situations in areas of gray rather than absolutes or extremes. I urge you to differentiate between the extreme left and fascism, and the balance in between personal responsibility and collective society. You'll find nobody here advocating fascism, because that's simply a straw-man to what people like me desire: justice, true equal opportunity across all financial classes, a clean democracy, and an informed citizenry not afraid of inconvenient truths and critical inquiry. Things of this nature are not so bad. See unlike fascist totalitarians people like me, who label themselves progressives, are opposed to things like censorship, violence as a means of enforcement, or deception and propaganda.

When democracy is functioning properly, that central power is in reality within the people as a whole. So no, that's not what we have with fascism, that's what we have with democracy.

There is nothing wrong with believing in peace and happiness, as you expose as our true agenda.

Red-herring. You're missing my point over religion. Christian extremists have murdered throughout history. Whether Muslims are more or less violent is beside the point I'm making. How malleable and easily manipulated you are once you've accepted faith and the word of others as blind truth is the topic at hand.

To amuse you, I've known Muslims here in the states. They read the Koran differently (again, that subjective interpretation again). They do not condone these attacks. Oh, and this didn't take too long to find: http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/

Muslims do not have a figurehead like Catholics do. They're more like protestants who find salvation through interpreting the religious texts. They haven't had a Khaleefah (equivalent to pope) for hundreds of years I believe.

"You'll find nobody here advocating fascism"

True, but they are actually supporting and promoting it, willy-nilly, unaware that they are.

{unlike fascist totalitarians people like me, who label themselves progressives, are opposed to things like censorship, violence as a means of enforcement, or deception and propaganda.}

Perhaps you are the rare exception. Perhaps you agree that we should not centralize power in the federal government, and perhaps you believe states should retain their powers, even if it means that flag burning can be punished with fines, that gays cannot marry, and that abortion will not be legal if the states so decide. Perhaps you will not be like them and agree that our country is based on the greatest concept of human freedom and liberty ever known to man, and that we brought freedom to more people than ever in human history. And perhaps you would not mind if a manger scene were set up on a public property or that a coach could say a prayer for the school team before the game. And hopefully, you would agree that Texas and Tennessee can go their own way in the textbook changes and not mock and insult them. And just maybe you think that we should strive to adhere to the Original Intent of the Constitution as well as we can.

I hope so.

Your fear is concentrated on a logical fallacy termed, "Reductio ad Absurdum." It could also be considered a slippery-slope fallacy, and both fall under a straw-man argument. You attack a principle in an extreme rather than for what it is. Ad Absurdum occurs when you try to disprove a declaration by illustrating its faults at a more outrageous level (e.g., taking a whole bottle of aspirin is dangerous, therefore one pill is dangerous). Slippery-slope is sort of the reverse (e.g., going hunting leads to killing humans; marijuana leads to heroine, etc.) Instead of being concerned with whether we're "supporting and promoting" fascism, why don't you analyze the position WE have.

{Christian extremists have murdered throughout history. Whether Muslims are more or less violent is beside the point I'm making. How malleable and easily manipulated you are once you've accepted faith and the word of others as blind truth is the topic at hand.}

No, I am referring to reality and not cherry-picked events in history. Islam is a religion of conquest that has never stopped. Right from the start. And they almost took over Europe in the 15th century. They want to establish a theocracy, and they will if they get the control. They will. This is unlike the West. Perhaps one can make a case that centuries ago there were religious wars in the name of Christianity, but this is the 21st century. The Muslims are still in the barbaric past. If you do not have the resolve to protect our great civilization, you will lose it, and to them. To barbarism, and they are barbarians.

{Muslims do not have a figurehead like Catholics do.}

No matter, of course.

Excellent link and I checked a number of the references. They look valid. I am glad to see that these people, most of whom seem to have positions of some note, have openly and clearly condemned the attack.

I was wrong. Thank you.

I sent that link off to two friends. One is an avid reader about Islam and terrorism. Another actually wrote a book about it after doing field research. I will let you know what they think. Keep in touch. Truth!

I will stick to the original premise: The drive to centralize power. This is a consistent characteristic and a defining one among the Left. I wrote a number of things, but you did not reply to any of them.

Really? How's that?

Mishima, glad you took an interest in that link.

"and perhaps you believe states should retain their powers, even if it means that flag burning can be punished with fines, that gays cannot marry, and that abortion will not be legal if the states so decide."

This is a straw-man. I believe nothing in the sort. You misconstrue my meaning for not being a fascist and sending me down to the extreme right.

... And if those states were to widely accept abortion, to allow gays to marry, and to allow the burning of the flag—would you accept this outcome? We have a disagreement on the method of attributing power. Centralization also means standardization in many ways. True there should be some level of balance between states and federal, but I honestly do not view this as a vital issue. Are the issues themselves right or wrong? Once we use critical inquiry (reason, logic, ethics), we can as a society more rapidly progress forward.

"I will stick to the original premise: The drive to centralize power."

I retorted with a claim that centralized power in a democracy is diffused among the people. Moreover, centralized power != fascism.

"Really? How's that?"

How is what?

{This is a straw-man. I believe nothing in the sort.}

So, you do not believe the states should be able to decide that. OK.

{And if those states were to widely accept abortion, to allow gays to marry, and to allow the burning of the flag—would you accept this outcome?}

Of course. Before 1972, for example, 8 states allowed flag burning, and 42 did not.

{Centralization also means standardization in many ways.}

Yes.

{True there should be some level of balance between states and federal, but I honestly do not view this as a vital issue.}

I think that it is one of the main issues, a central one. It is a mindset, and it reflects not only how one wants to see society organized, but it also reflects one's view of human nature.

{Are the issues themselves right or wrong? Once we use critical inquiry (reason, logic, ethics), we can as a society more rapidly progress forward}

Most issues are decided by values and the view of human nature.

...and teavangelicals (new word heard it on the PBS NewsHour lastnight! :) )

You are smarter than this. I know you are. What you're saying is as wrong as saying all Americans are fat, lazy, and stupid even if you can point to many who actually are. It is a generalization. You, as a rational adult understand this, so what is your motivation for saying what you do? Do you wish to perpetuate the division between conservatives and liberals? Is that your main goal? Are you offering yourself up as a token conservative? I'm not biting. I do not think your projected image represents all conservatives.

For one, I know you're an atheist and therefore you must also deny that "our God is the God of love". I could point out why the fictional character known as God isn't love via biblical passages, but you obviously already know about that. I can tell that you're not dumb. Therefore you cannot possibly honestly truly believe what you said, so why say it? If your goal was to sway people into believing you, you must know that's impossible here. No, that's not your goal. Nor are you expressing your honest opinion, assuming you are smart enough, which I think you are. I have my own theory, which leads me to my note for others:

NOTE: Nobody should take what Mishima says and use that to generalize all conservatives. Most conservatives are just regular people who probably don't even pay attention to politicis. Just like most liberals. Most people barely pay any attention at all to reality. We're all one humanity. All of us... ignoring national borders or anything else that is used to divide us.

e{I know you're an atheist and therefore you must also deny that "our God is the God of love".}

Christianity's basic premise is love. It is unrelated to whether or not I am a believer. I have inherited Western Civilization which has a strong Christian heritage. I am certainly glad I did not inherit a Muslim culture/religion.

"what is your motivation for saying what you do? "

Left-wingers are hiding the threat from Muslim terrorists, they are denying it in the name of their political ideology: Anti-westernism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Americanism. Leftists are weakening the resolve to protect our way of life by constantly attacking the very foundation of our civilization and finding fault. The Leftist revise our history to protray it as one of hate and oppression. Their protecting Islam is only one part of this.

"Yes. Even casual observation confirms this. There are "no-enter" zones in European cities already where the police and "infidels" do not enter. Barbarism and evil. Kill one's own daughter or sister for dating an "infidel."

Pish posh. If this were true, then non-Arab Muslims (ie; Westerners) would not be able to visit primarily Muslim countries such as Jordan and Egypt without being killed. Egypt alone has around 8 million Christians, and despite some incidents of sectarian violence, how do you rekon they've gotten along all these centuries without be mass genocided?

I think you've been drinking some expired conservatard koolaid. I'm not doubting the existence of Muslims who hate non-Muslims, but I live in an area with a very heavy Arab Muslim population with a mosque less than two blocks away and there are no "no-enter" zones.

{I live in an area with a very heavy Arab Muslim population with a mosque less than two blocks away and there are no "no-enter" zones.}

In what European country?

You mean like our leftist president who took out OBL? I'm referring of course to the great Barack Obama.

And a couple of dozen of OBL's vice-presidents....