Yes, it does depend on the nature of the presence, you're right. It always will. Aggressive criminality that can be tied to what people see as their religious rights needs to be punished. I was talking about religious expression comparable to that of other established groups.youkrst wrote:that depends entirely on the Muslim presence surelyDWill wrote:If what is meant is that we don't want to have more visible Muslim presence, we should reject that thinking.
for example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoiCYwoJKrE
and speaking of Obama
Of the total killed since Obama took his oath of office on January 20 2009, at least 314 have been civilians, while the number of confirmed strikes under his administration now stands at 456.
Research by the Bureau also shows there have now been nearly nine times more strikes under Obama in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia than there were under his predecessor, George W Bush.
And the covert Obama strikes, the first of which hit Pakistan just three days after his inauguration, have killed almost six times more people and twice as many civilians than those ordered in the Bush years, the data shows.
The figures have been compiled as part of the Bureau’s monthly report into covert US drone attacks, which are run in two separate missions – one by the CIA and one for the Pentagon by its secretive special forces outfit, Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).
The research centres on countries outside the US’s declared war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan.
When I said I approve of Obama's handling, I mean specifically his public posture regarding whether terrorism is Islamic. He has avoided saying this, though many want him to. The day before yesterday he did make a more forceful, but still constructive statement about Muslim leaders needing to make their condemnation of terrorists better known.
The political fire of Obama somehow being soft on terrorists or radical elements doesn't make sense because of the facts you cite.