[Robert DeLong]

While I agree with your assessment, this one significantly toned down that animosity. It gave credit where credit was due, and questioned how deep the knowledge went. He offered advice and actually stated that Trump is on the correct approach, and that he should not overlook the true motivations that drive radical and even other factions within the Islamic religion. Namely Sharia superiority. It is the obstacle that must be fought and conquered if there is ever to be a change with Islam that will facilitate peace among the religions.

All in all I thought it was a thoughtful and respectful piece.

I must admit that I started reading with a completely biased attitude that I would reject this piece. However, I can find no real fault with it because it does not start with the premise that his questions regarding Trump, prove that Donald Trump does not fully understand the problem. He s actually encouraged by what he sees, as I was encouraged by what I read.

[Gaffer]

Yes, the animosity is toned down because these goons backed the wrong guys. Just as a matter of approach it would make sense for them to ‘tone down’ their stuff.

While I agree about the toning down, the tone to me came off as arrogantly tutorial in chastising Trump to my mind.

What difference does it really make if as he claims “Trump believes Islam is a culture of death, or as he believes, a culture of conquest.” The end result is the same: if you don’t submit, you die.

As for the Radical Islam vs. regular Islam thing, I believe that they are one in the same, but in this societal climate we have right now, that’s not a preferred mantra. But that still doesn’t erase the fact that the overwhelming preponderance of jihadism/terrorism is committed by Muslims which leads one to the inescapable conclusion that there is something very, very wrong and sinister about Islam across the board.