Islam - What's your view on it?

[Imari]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/76...g-arms-problems-islam-donald-trump-muslim-ban

She had some good questions I think, so what are these Islamic countries doing to better their people? If there are divisions within the religion itself, what is being done on that end? Although refugees may find a new life somewhere else, they also import their thinking from back home which may cause issues in their new home. (integration?)

It's unfortunate that she's basically saying that Christian countries should be un-Christian and ignore people who could use their help and support.

This ignoring that the solution that Christian countries have made to their own divisions is to have Protestant countries and Catholic countries.

Realistically, Protestants, Catholics and Jews can all get along just fine when they take a breath and stop trying to be top dog. As another Abrahamic religion, I see no reason why Islam can't join in. It shares a lot more with Christianity than something like Buddhism or Hinduism. Or God forbid, atheism.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Which still misses the point I made in the first place. That terrorist violence goes in cycles, with one religion or ideology being the biggest factor at any given time and as one dies down another one starts. I have repeatedly acknowledged that currently attacks by Islamic extremists are current an issue, and my point in regard to using that graph was to put them in a historic context.

So you believe Islamic terrorism will be cyclical?

Here is a graph for suicide attacks:

And a graph of global deaths from terrorism:

And a table of the most terror prone countries as of 2010:
Ranking of countries at risk from terror attacks

Country Cause of the terror
No.1 most terror-prone country Somalia Islamism
No.2 Pakistan Islamism
No.3 Iraq Islamism
No.4 Afghanistan Islamism
No.5 Palestine Islamism
No.6 Colombia Communism and Drug prohibition
No.7 Thailand Islamism
No.8 Philippines Islamism
No.9 Yemen Islamism
No.10 Russia Islamism

http://markhumphrys.com/root.cause.html

And you want to say to GTP, with a straight face, that as the world becomes more Islamic we will see a decline in terror attacks?

From your posts you seem to wish to make no distinction between those who follow the religion peacefully and the small minority that what to enforce the faith via nay means they can.

So you think I deserve a label but don't want to put one down. Can I ask where I'm failing to make a distinction between those who follow the religion of a warlord peacefully and the small minority who have carried out no fewer than 30215 * deady terror attacks since 9/11, killing 1196 people in the past 30 days? Or am I in fact providing uncomfortable facts and using them to argue that the world currently has a problem with Islam.

That's thirty THOUSAND two hundred and fifteen - easily more than all other religions combined

So claiming his version of the faith was the only true one and the only way to be saved? That sounds the same as any of the three Abrahamic faiths.

Yes, the hijrah was just like the Exodus and Mohammad was just like Jesus, beheadings and all

That however still doesn't change the fact that your sources do not provide one piece of evidence beyond a basic 'go and spread the word of God, which is a refrain found in just about any faith on the planet. The 'evil' subtext is all the authors of the articles own.

It's not even just that:

https://en.europenews.dk/-The-profound-problem-of-Muslim-immigration-79004.html

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8637/islam-europe-conquest

(I also notice you didn't reply to the two gatestone articles regarding the Islamisation of Germany and UK apart from the usual "bu-bu-bu Gatestone are waycist")

Hell don't take their words for it, just listen to Khalid Sheikh Mohammad:

Islamists, like himself, are going to migrate to the United States, immigrate to the United States, wrap themselves in our civil rights to protect themselves, live off our welfare system to feed themselves, spread their jihadi message, and then when the time is right rise up and overthrow us from within.

That was said in 2004....

Or how about a history lesson
Q: What happened to the country that had a capital called the "Paris of the Middle East", that had a free press, women's rights and a burgeoning economy and tourist trade?
A: Civil War after mass Muslim migration was the straw that broke the camel's back

https://openborders.info/blog/lebanon-and-political-externalities-bleg/

(The situation is simplified, but you get the idea)

A claim that IS would send half a million refugees to sea at the exact same time (from the ever trustworthy Daily Mail - in a story so waterproof that even they hedge their bets) if they are attacked. A claim made in Feb 2015. Well they were attacked and it didn't happen (I think 500,000 people al at sea at the exact same time would have been noticed).

"Transcripts of telephone intercepts published in Italy claim to provide evidence that ISIS is threatening to send 500,000 migrants simultaneously out to sea in hundreds of boats in a 'psychological weapon' against Europe if there is military intervention against them in Libya."

Now a vast number of refugees have entered Europe, how many of them (as a percentage) have committed acts of terrorism or been arrested on terrorist related offences?

Huh? You say 500'000 is unrealistic then ignore the fact that around a million entered Germany alone. It doesn't matter so much what was promised - the end result is Europe now has a million plus extra people, a substantial amount being young Muslim males. It's as if you've completely ignored what has been going on in Europe the past few years. And then you go off again with this preoccupation on terror, despite earlier posts showing how many plots were foiled and how many attacks were succesfully carried out. I refer you back to the Islamisation articles, as terrorist attacks are but one end-point to Islamic invasion. Other features would be:

Saudi funding of Mosques and supporting extremist Islamist groups in Germany:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...fugees-who-arrived-last-weekend-10495082.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ahhabism-qatar-kuwait-islamists-a7473551.html

Muslim ghettos where women are told they "aren't welcome":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/17/french-bar-tells-women-isnt-paris-men/

Increase in the jail population:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31794599

Political corruption:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ed-to-take-place-in-muslim-communities-becau/

A greater cost for the tax payer (British Muslims are twice as likely to be unemployed):

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...social-group-in-the-uk-mps-warn-a7185451.html

Halal only restaurants: (ironically this article highlights Blackburn, one of the towns shown to be suffering from ethnic segregation. My local hospital also serves halal only meat):

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21169...med-for-being-a-failure-of-multi-culturalism/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/01/segregation-blackburn-whalley-range

Infiltration of British schools (Birmingham and East London a few years ago) and teaching that women aren't equal to men among other things:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...e-of-books-promoting-stoning-people-to-death/

And that's without even going into the news stories that have covered the recent wave of migrants.

Another claim it makes is that this must be true because the refugees are not going to Muslim countries. Quite is utter and complete bollocks. The single largest host country for them is Turkey, followed by Pakistan, Lebanon and then Jordan.

Where does it say that?

Now I would quite happily agree that Saudi (for example) could be doing a lot more. However when you source claims:

"Meanwhile, no one is bothering even to ask, much less answer, one central question: why is it incumbent upon Europe have to absorb all these refugees? Why not Saudi Arabia or the other Muslim countries that are oil-rich and have plenty of space? The answer is unspoken because non-Muslim authorities refuse to believe it and Muslims don’t want it stated or known: these refugees have to go to Europe because this is a hijrah."

It is clearly and factually talking nonsense, as the vast majority of Muslim refugees go to Muslim countries, so if the claimed definition of 'hijrah' were true they are getting it very, very wrong.[/quote]
They're talking about the Gulf states and speaking about the "refugees" who did choose Europe - it doesn't refute your claim that most genuine refugees go to neighbouring Muslim countries.

Religion makes people do stupid things, I quite agree, but as long as they are not doing stupid things to others in the name of God/Jebus/Mo/Sky Fairy X then I have no issue with them. Nor do I think that all followers of God/Jebus/Mo/Sky Fairy X are like that.

Yes, but you'd be hard pressed to find Jesus or Buddha insulting X's religion then beheading Y for writing poetry about them. I know it's a liberal thing to believe all religions are equal but at some stage we have to start looking at the facts.

The only proof for which they offer is, well nothing actually. A Daily Mail article of a threat that didn't happen, a miss-used series of quotes from the Koran (that are no worse than those found in any of the Abrahamic Texts) and five people arrested when trying to enter Europe.

Oh and one total and utter lie that attempts to by the articles stinger.

How is it misused? The rest of your point was addressed above

 

[Scaff]

So you believe Islamic terrorism will be cyclical?

Here is a graph for suicide attacks:

And a graph of global deaths from terrorism:

And a table of the most terror prone countries as of 2010:
Ranking of countries at risk from terror attacks

Country Cause of the terror
No.1 most terror-prone country Somalia Islamism
No.2 Pakistan Islamism
No.3 Iraq Islamism
No.4 Afghanistan Islamism
No.5 Palestine Islamism
No.6 Colombia Communism and Drug prohibition
No.7 Thailand Islamism
No.8 Philippines Islamism
No.9 Yemen Islamism
No.10 Russia Islamism

http://markhumphrys.com/root.cause.html
http://markhumphrys.com/root.cause.html

http://markhumphrys.com/root.cause.html
No, I said all terrorism was cyclical.

And you want to say to GTP, with a straight face, that as the world becomes more Islamic we will see a decline in terror attacks?

No, I used it as an example of how correlation doesn't equal causality.

So you think I deserve a label but don't want to put one down. Can I ask where I'm failing to make a distinction between those who follow the religion of a warlord peacefully and the small minority who have carried out no fewer than 30215 * deady terror attacks since 9/11, killing 1196 people in the past 30 days? Or am I in fact providing uncomfortable facts and using them to argue that the world currently has a problem with Islam.

That's thirty THOUSAND two hundred and fifteen - easily more than all other religions combined

Big numbers without context, shouting and no source. However lets take them at face value and put them into context.

1.6 billion people follow Islam, if each attack was carried out by ten people (which is unlikely - but lets stack the odds in favour of your argument) that would mean that 0.019% of the Muslim population of the world had carried them out.

Which in the context of all Muslims is a very, very small number of people.

Yes, the hijrah was just like the Exodus and Mohammad was just like Jesus, beheadings and all

Hijrah mean migration, nothing more. The 'additional' context has been added by your sources.

As for religious violence, yes the Bible (both old and new) is littered with it.

"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rise against their parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by everyone on account of My name, but the one who perseveres to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next."

"And if anyone will not welcome you or heed your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. Look, I am sending you out like sheep among wolves; therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves"

That's Jesus telling people that following him will lead to brother killing brother, etc. Telling them to go out and convert people in other lands, don't worry if they don't listen to you as that leads them to deserve a fate worse that Sodom and Gomorrah (which God wiped off the earth). Oh and you will be a minority in those places, so act innocent, but remain like the snake!

These are Biblical chapters that are open to the exact same interpretation as you and your sources are claiming about the Koran (and this is without the ones from the OT that require no interpretation, they are far more straightforward. Don't believe in God = kill them).

It's not even just that:

https://en.europenews.dk/-The-profound-problem-of-Muslim-immigration-79004.html

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8637/islam-europe-conquest

(I also notice you didn't reply to the two gatestone articles regarding the Islamisation of Germany and UK apart from the usual "bu-bu-bu Gatestone are waycist")

I have been nothing but polite and posted with respect to a differing view point.

If your response is to mock then you will not be a member here for much longer, the AUP is quite clear that this is not acceptable.

Hell don't take their words for it, just listen to Khalid Sheikh Mohammad:

That was said in 2004....

And he speaks for all Muslims?

Or how about a history lesson
Q: What happened to the country that had a capital called the "Paris of the Middle East", that had a free press, women's rights and a burgeoning economy and tourist trade?
A: Civil War after mass Muslim migration was the straw that broke the camel's back

https://openborders.info/blog/lebanon-and-political-externalities-bleg/

(The situation is simplified, but you get the idea)

Simplified to the point of being inaccurate, not to mention that Christian militias were as responsible for violence and Druze and Muslim ones in the Lebanon (and also misses out Israel's part in the mess as well).

Huh? You say 500'000 is unrealistic then ignore the fact that around a million entered Germany alone. It doesn't matter so much what was promised - the end result is Europe now has a million plus extra people, a substantial amount being young Muslim males. It's as if you've completely ignored what has been going on in Europe the past few years. And then you go off again with this preoccupation on terror, despite earlier posts showing how many plots were foiled and how many attacks were succesfully carried out. I refer you back to the Islamisation articles, as terrorist attacks are but one end-point to Islamic invasion. Other features would be:

You seem to have miss-read what was claimed in the article.

That half a million would be put to sea at the same time, in thousands of boats. Which did not happen.

Saudi funding of Mosques and supporting extremist Islamist groups in Germany:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...fugees-who-arrived-last-weekend-10495082.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ahhabism-qatar-kuwait-islamists-a7473551.html

Personally I have no more or less issue with Mosques being built than I do Churches being built. I have repeatedly said I have a problem with any funding of terrorism.

Muslim ghettos where women are told they "aren't welcome":

Your using a bar (that does serve alcohol) as an example of Muslim religious intolerance? Spot the problem here.

On that basis can I use the Garrick club as evidence of Christian intolerance to women? After all I'm sure most of the members would self-indentify as Christian.

Increase in the jail population:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31794599

Did you read the article? The part about the role socio-economic factors playing a bigger part than faith does (poor young people commit more crime full stop), or that the re-offending rate is almost 10 percentage points lower than the average (36% vs 45%).

Political corruption:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ed-to-take-place-in-muslim-communities-becau/

Unique to Muslims is it?

A greater cost for the tax payer (British Muslims are twice as likely to be unemployed):

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...social-group-in-the-uk-mps-warn-a7185451.html

Did you read the article, once again context is everything.

Halal only restaurants: (ironically this article highlights Blackburn, one of the towns shown to be suffering from ethnic segregation. My local hospital also serves halal only meat):

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21169...med-for-being-a-failure-of-multi-culturalism/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/01/segregation-blackburn-whalley-range

And?

Do you hold a similar view with regard to Kosher foods?

Infiltration of British schools (Birmingham and East London a few years ago) and teaching that women aren't equal to men among other things:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...e-of-books-promoting-stoning-people-to-death/

A problem that also exists in Christian and Jewish faith schools as well, I take it you hold a smilar view in that regard.

And that's without even going into the news stories that have covered the recent wave of migrants.

None of which still indicates a planned and organised invasion. They are factors that stress societies whenever you experience migration, it was no different when the Indians or West Indians arrived.

They're talking about the Gulf states and speaking about the "refugees" who did choose Europe - it doesn't refute your claim that most genuine refugees go to neighbouring Muslim countries.

If they are talking about the gulf states alone why did they not say the gulf states? Not that it matters because some of the countries that are taking in large numbers are in the gulf.

Nor does it mention "that most genuine refugees go to neighboring Muslim countries" or come even close to that.

Yes, but you'd be hard pressed to find Jesus or Buddha insulting X's religion then beheading Y for writing poetry about them. I know it's a liberal thing to believe all religions are equal but at some stage we have to start looking at the facts.

Jesus's entire claim to be the messiah was an insult to Judaism, it's a core part of the fundamental canon of Christianity!

However Christian texts are quite happy to still carry rules that cite death as the penalty for plenty of offences and Buddhists are happy to cite defense of it when attacking others.

How is it misused? The rest of your point was addressed above

When you change the meaning of words your misusing them.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

No, I said all terrorism was cyclical.

.....Which predisposes that Islamic terrorism is cyclical, unless you make an exception to your rule.

I used it as an example of how correlation doesn't equal causality.

That is in essence saying that the relationship between an uptick in Islamic violence and Islamic population is down to chance.....

Big numbers without context, shouting and no source. However lets take them at face value and put them into context.

1.6 billion people follow Islam, if each attack was carried out by ten people (which is unlikely - but lets stack the odds in favour of your argument) that would mean that 0.019% of the Muslim population of the world had carried them out.

Which in the context of all Muslims is a very, very small number of people.

It's still over thirty thousand deadly attacks! And it doesn't even begin to address how many of the 1.6 billion approve of the attacks, which was explored in a post of mine that wasn't replied to.

Source was:

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

(The counter is now up to 30243, meaning in the time since my last post there have been 28 more deadly attacks

Hijrah mean migration, nothing more. The 'additional' context has been added by your sources.

It's not added by the sources quoted if if it's actually happening

As for religious violence, yes the Bible (both old and new) is littered with it.

"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rise against their parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by everyone on account of My name, but the one who perseveres to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next."

Thanks for proving my point that I was saving for later. This quote is saying that people will turn against true Christians, even within their family, which will lead to their persecution.

"And if anyone will not welcome you or heed your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. Look, I am sending you out like sheep among wolves; therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves"

That's Jesus telling people that following him will lead to brother killing brother, etc. Telling them to go out and convert people in other lands, don't worry if they don't listen to you as that leads them to deserve a fate worse that Sodom and Gomorrah (which God wiped off the earth). Oh and you will be a minority in those places, so act innocent, but remain like the snake!

These are Biblical chapters that are open to the exact same interpretation as you and your sources are claiming about the Koran (and this is without the ones from the OT that require no interpretation, they are far more straightforward. Don't believe in God = kill them).

Erm....did you miss the "innocent as doves" line? It's saying that at judgement people who refuse to listen will be treated harshly. Now that doesn't sit right with me (I'm probably an atypical Christian), but it's not proscribing Christians to do anything unlawful. It's telling us that we have to be wary of the world we live in because we will be targeted. Something backed up by the "most persecuted religion" tag

I have been nothing but polite and posted with respect to a differing view point.

If your response is to mock then you will not be a member here for much longer, the AUP is quite clear that this is not acceptable.

It's not to mock - it's to say that the gatestone articles were ignored.

And he speaks for all Muslims?

What? No. But since you seemed preoccupied with terrorists I thought I'd show what a terrorist said would happen a decade before it actually happened.

Simplified to the point of being inaccurate, not to mention that Christian militias were as responsible for violence and Druze and Muslim ones in the Lebanon (and also misses out Israel's part in the mess as well).

Wait can you expand on this, I'm not understanding what you mean

You seem to have miss-read what was claimed in the article.

That half a million would be put to sea at the same time, in thousands of boats. Which did not happen.

The end result matters more than what was said.

Personally I have no more or less issue with Mosques being built than I do Churches being built. I have repeatedly said I have a problem with any funding of terrorism.

Sad as it may seem to you, Europe is a Christian continent. The KSA's contribution to the refugee influx being the building of new Mosques should surely signal their ulterior motivees.

Your using a bar (that does serve alcohol) as an example of Muslim religious intolerance? Spot the problem here.

Hey, no-one said they had to be perfect Muslims. I was arguing that there was an Islamic invasion - not an Islamic invasion perfect to the laws of Islam

But more things, as you wish:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...uggle-in-NO-GO-ZONES-as-migrant-crime-rockets





http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/hundreds-muslim-no-go-zones-take-root-europe/

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5177/no-go-zones-britain

On that basis can I use the Garrick club as evidence of Christian intolerance to women? After all I'm sure most of the members would self-indentify as Christian.

I guess you could....but you'd have to prove that it was a Christian club

Did you read the article? The part about the role socio-economic factors playing a bigger part than faith does (poor young people commit more crime full stop), or that the re-offending rate is almost 10 percentage points lower than the average (36% vs 45%).



Unique to Muslims is it?


Did you read the article, once again context is everything.

These are all counter-points to try and blame the host nation. Why then does the Hindu population not suffer the same fate - nor the Sikh, Jewish or Black African. Maybe it's time to liberals recognise there are other factors than the bog standard "socioeconomic". Even Dutch Moroccans are starting to:

https://www.rnw.org/archive/moroccans-agree-wilders-about-violent-moroccan-dutch-youths

(You read that right. They agree with Wilders!)

For the uninitiated:
"Forty percent of Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands between the ages of 12 and 24 have been arrested, fined, charged or otherwise accused of committing a crime during the past five years, according to a new report commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Interior."
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2624/moroccan-crime-netherlands

And?

Do you hold a similar view with regard to Kosher foods?

I haven't seen any Kosher only mainstream restaurants. And why should I be forced to eat food that has had a prayer recited by someone of a religion that I believe is a threat to Europe?

A problem that also exists in Christian and Jewish faith schools as well, I take it you hold a smilar view in that regard.

Huh? Infiltration of state schools by Jews?

None of which still indicates a planned and organised invasion. They are factors that stress societies whenever you experience migration, it was no different when the Indians or West Indians arrived.

Yeah. Those damn West Indians and their sexual assault antics in Cologne and Austria.

If they are talking about the gulf states alone why did they not say the gulf states? Not that it matters because some of the countries that are taking in large numbers are in the gulf.

That's taken from the sentence:

"Muslim countries that are oil-rich and have plenty of space?"

Nor does it mention "that most genuine refugees go to neighboring Muslim countries" or come even close to that.

Why should it?

Jesus's entire claim to be the messiah was an insult to Judaism, it's a core part of the fundamental canon of Christianity!

However Christian texts are quite happy to still carry rules that cite death as the penalty for plenty of offences and Buddhists are happy to cite defense of it when attacking others.

What? So you're saying that Jesus and Buddha carried out beheadings, which was my original point? From what I remember when death threats were put upon Jesus He didn't go to another town and kill people who insulted Him.

When you change the meaning of words your misusing them.

Erm. What part of those quoted passages was misused?

 

[Imari]

.....Which predisposes that Islamic terrorism is cyclical, unless you make an exception to your rule.

Not really, no. We have Islamic terrorists now. In the past we've had the IRA, the KKK, the Fenians, the Tamil Tigers, any number of revolutionary and guerilla groups and so on.

The thing is that each one tends to have their time in the sun where they're in the public eye and having an impact, and then they either achieve their goals or are suppressed and fade away into obscurity or are destroyed.

We have regular flare ups of terrorist groups, but it's rarely the same terrorist groups. Especially if you're considering the ones that have impact spreading internationally. Hence why terrorism is cyclical but Islamic terrorism isn't really.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Hence why terrorism is cyclical but Islamic terrorism isn't really.

That's my point.

What is the overarching objective of Islamic terrorism?

 

[Imari]

That's my point.

OK. I saw you interpreting Scaff saying the terrorism was cyclical also meaning the Islamic terrorism was cyclical. I must have misunderstood.

What is the overarching objective of Islamic terrorism?

I dunno. Ask a terrorist. I'd imagine it differs from group to group.

 

[Dotini]

What is the overarching objective of Islamic terrorism?

The price of U.S. occupation of Iraq, the price of U.S. empire in the Muslim world, is terror. The Islamic terrorists of 9/11 were over here because we were over there. We were attacked by suicide bombers in New York for the same reason that our Marines were attacked by a suicide bomber in Beirut. We took sides in a religious civil war, their war, and they want us out of that war. The fifteen hijackers from Saudi Arabia did not fly into the World Trade Center to protest the Bill of Rights. They want us off sacred Saudi soil and out of the Middle East. Is there anything over there--oil, bases, empire--worth risking an atomic bomb on U.S. soil?
Source: Where The Right Went Wrong, by Pat Buchanan, p. 85 , Sep 1, 2004

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

OK. I saw you interpreting Scaff saying the terrorism was cyclical also meaning the Islamic terrorism was cyclical. I must have misunderstood.

Yeah I misinterpreted him, I hold my hands up to that.

I dunno. Ask a terrorist. I'd imagine it differs from group to group.

But the overarching is to spread their version of Islam - hence why so many groups pledged allegiance to ISIS. How do you beat that? Where does it end?

The price of U.S. occupation of Iraq, the price of U.S. empire in the Muslim world, is terror. The Islamic terrorists of 9/11 were over here because we were over there. We were attacked by suicide bombers in New York for the same reason that our Marines were attacked by a suicide bomber in Beirut. We took sides in a religious civil war, their war, and they want us out of that war. The fifteen hijackers from Saudi Arabia did not fly into the World Trade Center to protest the Bill of Rights. They want us off sacred Saudi soil and out of the Middle East. Is there anything over there--oil, bases, empire--worth risking an atomic bomb on U.S. soil?
Source: Where The Right Went Wrong, by Pat Buchanan, p. 85 , Sep 1, 2004

I'm not sure I'd blame the US. Are you guys to blame for Pakistan? Syria? Nigeria?

 

[Imari]

But the overarching is to spread their version of Islam - hence why so many groups pledged allegiance to ISIS. How do you beat that? Where does it end?

You beat it the same way as any other terrorist group, by exploiting the fact that they're usually not as well equipped or well funded as most nations. That while they seem to have a single goal, that they also have factions and arguments and can easily splinter. That many of them are basically cults of personality and die with their leader.

You beat them by realising that while they make for scary headlines, they amount of actual damage they do is trivial. In Australia, you're at greater risk of death by falling out of bed. And if we're not being facetious, you're at significantly greater risk of dying from domestic abuse.

https://www.crikey.com.au/2014/09/04/the-real-threat-of-terrorism-to-australians-by-the-numbers/

Yet we're still scared of terrorists. Why is that? I'm sure there are parts of the world in which they're a real threat, but in most western countries they're about as dangerous as a fart in an elevator.

 

[FoRiZon]

So can we call the Mosque Attack on Canada several weeks back as "Act to cleanse terrorism"? [/sarcasm]

Terrorism is terrorism, no matter what sides you on.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

You beat it the same way as any other terrorist group, by exploiting the fact that they're usually not as well equipped or well funded as most nations. That while they seem to have a single goal, that they also have factions and arguments and can easily splinter. That many of them are basically cults of personality and die with their leader.

But by splintering you're still not decreasing their potential for damage

You beat them by realising that while they make for scary headlines, they amount of actual damage they do is trivial. In Australia, you're at greater risk of death by falling out of bed. And if we're not being facetious, you're at significantly greater risk of dying from domestic abuse.

https://www.crikey.com.au/2014/09/04/the-real-threat-of-terrorism-to-australians-by-the-numbers/

You're talking about terrorism against the West. What about global terrorism? I'm sure, as you are that if you made a graph with Muslim population globally and Islamic terrorism you'd see a rise in both with positive correlation.

Yet we're still scared of terrorists. Why is that? I'm sure there are parts of the world in which they're a real threat, but in most western countries they're about as dangerous as a fart in an elevator.

We're scared because they are becoming more frequent. That this coincides with an increase in the Muslim population in the West cannot be ignored.

So can we call the Mosque Attack on Canada several weeks back as "Act to cleanse terrorism"? [/sarcasm]

Terrorism is terrorism, no matter what sides you on.

I'd call that terrorism by the Far Right

 

[ToyGTone]

I was thinking about talking about Islam, Arabs and ISIS, expressing my opinion on them and also reply to several things i often see on the internet including those who wish us death or complaining about certain things among Arabian or Islamic Cultures.

The thing i would say is the problem i have with people talking about Islam and/or Arab's is that they need to acknowledge that not every arab or muslim is the same. They might have different cultures or different believes. You see, Arabs around the middle east and north africa have some different cultures between each other. Different arabic language, they might don't speak the same way as others. They have different opinions on what's acceptable or unacceptable. They might celebrate differently. They might have different values towards family, friends and strangers. Their origin might be different from others, some are black, some have Arab-Persian Origins, some might even have south or south east Asian origin but they all considered arabs because their families happened to live long enough to the point where they got mixed up with Arabs and started adopting arabic language and culture. Arab aren't exactly a single race but more of mixed races.

And then you have Islam with sub believes, the most known ones are Sunni and Shia but there's other such as khawarij, alawite...etc. Then there's also sub believes under those type of Islam Believes. Some might disagree with other by small things that aren't really harmful while some other type of Islam disagree with plenty of things. Some Shia believers might hate Aisha (One of the wifes of our Prophet and considered to be the "mother of all Muslims", at least what Sunni believes). Some might consider Ali ibn Abi Talib (Prophet Cousin) to be at same or even above level of the Prophet Mohammed. Some might not depend on Quran as much as others. some might celebrate Islamic Hoildays..etc Differently. Some might not agree with some rules of Sharia.

And then you have the individual who happens to be a Muslims and/or Arab. They might agree or disagree with what i said above differently. A Muslim in the West isn't necessary the same as the one's in South East Asia or Middle East especially if you talking about the person origins. Another thing is that some cultures might interfere with his Religion believes and might lead to doing prohibited things or cause misconception about his Religion or Culture.

Cultures also changes with time, try to look at us between now and the past decades or centuries. For Example, Back then, some families over here used to object of the idea of letting their children going to modern schools back when "modern" schools used to be a new thing. Sure there used to be education back then but it was different than what a modern schools is. Our country happened to be the first among the GCC countries (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain) to have a modern school. I happened to be in the oldest public school in Bahrain which was opened in 1919. That sounds a really late time and way further behind than any 1st world country but compare that to those other Arab Peninsula and you would find how ahead we used to be. Nowadays, almost every family in the GCC countries goes/went to school and would be considered a shameful towards the family to not have their kids get education.

Back in the day, people used to be more within the local culture and follow Islamic believes much more, mothers often stay at home to take care of her children and do things like cooking food or cleaning stuff. She would cover up when she goes outside or when strangers (those who isn't a part of the family) visit them. Nowadays both Men and Women spend time working outside. People adopting some western cultures and some spend most of their time speaking English even to those who could speak arabic. People wearing more causal clothing rather than traditional one's. People now don't have any problem with females getting direct contact to males. People who find it okay to go to night clubs and get drunk. People who socializes a lot more than they used to be especially with the internet. Some might find cousin or children Marriage to be unacceptable thing to do. Some might not apply towards some other countries (Saudi Arabia for example) but even some of their people want to change and move forward.

And i'm just talking about over here, let alone places like Jordan, Egypt or Morocco where they have different cultures.

Why i'm saying all this? Because plenty of people happened to take some stuff that some Arab or Muslim done and apply that to all Muslims and Arabs. Oh some Muslim refugee happened to rape some people at europe? Better blame the entire Muslims for doing an awful thing. If something in Quran or Hadith that non Muslims disagree and think that's a barbaric then just remember that not everyone depend on them or even if they believe in those two, he/she might not apply it anyways. There's Muslims who also might misunderstand some things about Islam. No Muslim or anyone else is perfect, they are all humans at the end. Plenty might not understand our culture or our believes and think that it's unacceptable and weird. Just let people believe and do whatever they want as longs as it doesn't harm others and respect other cultures and believes (sadly i'm seeing people doing otherwise, both Muslims and Non Muslims).

Took a long time to write this and i think my dinner went cold but i just hope that i didn't say anything wrong about others. I don't like involving in Politics or Religion but i don't like seeing being attacked for simply being a Muslim so i have to express my opinion here. Have a great day

 

[CSLACR]

I was thinking about talking about Islam, Arabs and ISIS, expressing my opinion on them and also reply to several things i often see on the internet including those who wish us death or complaining about certain things among Arabian or Islamic Cultures.

The thing i would say is the problem i have with people talking about Islam and/or Arab's is that they need to acknowledge that not every arab or muslim is the same. They might have different cultures or different believes. You see, Arabs around the middle east and north africa have some different cultures between each other. Different arabic language, they might don't speak the same way as others. They have different opinions on what's acceptable or unacceptable. They might celebrate differently. They might have different values towards family, friends and strangers. Their origin might be different from others, some are black, some have Arab-Persian Origins, some might even have south or south east Asian origin but they all considered arabs because their families happened to live long enough to the point where they got mixed up with Arabs and started adopting arabic language and culture. Arab aren't exactly a single race but more of mixed races.

And then you have Islam with sub believes, the most known ones are Sunni and Shia but there's other such as khawarij, alawite...etc. Then there's also sub believes under those type of Islam Believes. Some might disagree with other by small things that aren't really harmful while some other type of Islam disagree with plenty of things. Some Shia believers might hate Aisha (One of the wifes of our Prophet and considered to be the "mother of all Muslims", at least what Sunni believes). Some might consider Ali ibn Abi Talib (Prophet Cousin) to be at same or even above level of the Prophet Mohammed. Some might not depend on Quran as much as others. some might celebrate Islamic Hoildays..etc Differently. Some might not agree with some rules of Sharia.

And then you have the individual who happens to be a Muslims and/or Arab. They might agree or disagree with what i said above differently. A Muslim in the West isn't necessary the same as the one's in South East Asia or Middle East especially if you talking about the person origins. Another thing is that some cultures might interfere with his Religion believes and might lead to doing prohibited things or cause misconception about his Religion or Culture.

Cultures also changes with time, try to look at us between now and the past decades or centuries. For Example, Back then, some families over here used to object of the idea of letting their children going to modern schools back when "modern" schools used to be a new thing. Sure there used to be education back then but it was different than what a modern schools is. Our country happened to be the first among the GCC countries (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain) to have a modern school. I happened to be in the oldest public school in Bahrain which was opened in 1919. That sounds a really late time and way further behind than any 1st world country but compare that to those other Arab Peninsula and you would find how ahead we used to be. Nowadays, almost every family in the GCC countries goes/went to school and would be considered a shameful towards the family to not have their kids get education.

Back in the day, people used to be more within the local culture and follow Islamic believes much more, mothers often stay at home to take care of her children and do things like cooking food or cleaning stuff. She would cover up when she goes outside or when strangers (those who isn't a part of the family) visit them. Nowadays both Men and Women spend time working outside. People adopting some western cultures and some spend most of their time speaking English even to those who could speak arabic. People wearing more causal clothing rather than traditional one's. People now don't have any problem with females getting direct contact to males. People who find it okay to go to night clubs and get drunk. People who socializes a lot more than they used to be especially with the internet. Some might find cousin or children Marriage to be unacceptable thing to do. Some might not apply towards some other countries (Saudi Arabia for example) but even some of their people want to change and move forward.

And i'm just talking about over here, let alone places like Jordan, Egypt or Morocco where they have different cultures.

Why i'm saying all this? Because plenty of people happened to take some stuff that some Arab or Muslim done and apply that to all Muslims and Arabs. Oh some Muslim refugee happened to rape some people at europe? Better blame the entire Muslims for doing an awful thing. If something in Quran or Hadith that non Muslims disagree and think that's a barbaric then just remember that not everyone depend on them or even if they believe in those two, he/she might not apply it anyways. There's Muslims who also might misunderstand some things about Islam. No Muslim or anyone else is perfect, they are all humans at the end. Plenty might not understand our culture or our believes and think that it's unacceptable and weird. Just let people believe and do whatever they want as longs as it doesn't harm others and respect other cultures and believes (sadly i'm seeing people doing otherwise, both Muslims and Non Muslims).

Took a long time to write this and i think my dinner went cold but i just hope that i didn't say anything wrong about others. I don't like involving in Politics or Religion but i don't like seeing being attacked for simply being a Muslim so i have to express my opinion here. Have a great day

I've never seen a video made by a woman who escaped a Muslim dominated area talking about how peaceful the Muslims were.
I've never heard anyone that has gone to almost anywhere in question (without pretending to be muslim) that says they're a peaceful people.

I've seen a lot of the opposote though. The only people Ive heard call them peaceful are white people who've never been over there, and themselves on TV camera.

In fact, I've heard that if I walk down the street in said countries I will be tortured and beheaded.

Why would I want them to walk down my street then?

 

[mustafur]

I've never seen a video made by a woman who escaped a Muslim dominated area talking about how peaceful the Muslims were.
I've never heard anyone that has gone to almost anywhere in question (without pretending to be muslim) that says they're a peaceful people.

I've seen a lot of the opposote though. The only people Ive heard call them peaceful are white people who've never been over there, and themselves on TV camera.

In fact, I've heard that if I walk down the street in said countries I will be tortured and beheaded.

Why would I want them to walk down my street then?

You haven't seen much then, not denying it happens but you can't lump them all in the same boat, they are still the same species as you and I regardless what they believe, so to say they are all like something isn't how it works.

Especially when your sources are I heard and I saw therefore X is all like Y.

 

[CSLACR]

You haven't seen much then, not denying it happens but you can't lump them all in the same boat, they are still the same species as you and I regardless what they believe, so to say they are all like something isn't how it works.

Especially when your sources are I heard and I saw therefore X is all like Y.

Actions speak louder than words. All I'm saying. Even the peaceful Muslims I see are terroized by other Muslims.

Like it or not, Muslims are the only religion in the world left that runs around killing in the name of their god. Sure maybe a handful of random fanatics also fit the bill, but it's only Muslims, for all intents and purposes.

Perhaps you can show me another religion preaching the death of everyone that doesn't convert, I may have missed it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Like it or not, Muslims are the only religion in the world left that runs around killing in the name of their god. Sure maybe a handful of random fanatics also fit the bill, but it's only Muslims, for all intents and purposes.

Perhaps you can show me another religion preaching the death of everyone that doesn't convert, I may have missed it.

From the hollybibble:

2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,
3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:
5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Nowadays only religious extremists condone that view, of course. Much like Isla'am.

 

[CSLACR]

From the hollybibble:



Nowadays only religious extremists condone that view, of course. Much like Isla'am.

I know. Everybody loves Deuteronomy.

There are no extremists preaching Deuteronomy. Can you show me a single instance of that being preached?
(no using muslims, we can find plenty of that)

 

[TenEightyOne]

I know. Everybody loves Deuteronomy.

There are no extremists preaching Deuteronomy. Can you show me a single instance of that being preached?
(no using muslims, we can find plenty of that)

Okay, let's start with WBC (obvious content warning for the easily offended). A few minutes on YouTube will turn up the rest of what you're looking for such as

Spoiler

(another content warning)

this

We all know that these kinds of preachers are at work, it's just that when they're Christian we dismiss them as crazy-funny and when they're not the media says "OMG teh muslimz is comin".

Anyone crazy enough can take a 1000-year-old text as being socially applicable (or viable) now. It isn't.

 

[PeterJB]

How many planes have WBC hijacked? How many women have they beheaded for speaking out of turn? How many gays have they thrown off the roof of the Kansas State Capitol? How many nightclubs have they shot up? People don't take them seriously because it's hard to when they pose no threat to anyone except themselves.

 

[Dennisch]

How many planes have WBC hijacked? How many women have they beheaded for speaking out of turn? How many gays have they thrown off the roof of the Kansas State Capitol? How many nightclubs have they shot up? People don't take them seriously because it's hard to when they pose no threat to anyone except themselves.

The words on their signs hurt.

 

[TenEightyOne]

How many planes have WBC hijacked? How many women have they beheaded for speaking out of turn? How many gays have they thrown off the roof of the Kansas State Capitol? How many nightclubs have they shot up? People don't take them seriously because it's hard to when they pose no threat to anyone except themselves.

That's a different question from the one I answered although you write as if it's related.

If you want to get into Christian terror attacks then that's easily done, it just doesn't answer the "preaching" question.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

I was thinking about talking about Islam, Arabs and ISIS, expressing my opinion on them and also reply to several things i often see on the internet including those who wish us death or complaining about certain things among Arabian or Islamic Cultures.

The thing i would say is the problem i have with people talking about Islam and/or Arab's is that they need to acknowledge that not every arab or muslim is the same.

I think it's a case of preaching to the converted. I don't see much of that happening at GTP. Even though CSLACR's post may appear to fit this criteria, but he doesn't actually draw the conclusion that "all Muslims are like this"

That's a different question from the one I answered although you write as if it's related.

If you want to get into Christian terror attacks then that's easily done, it just doesn't answer the "preaching" question.

.
Which means you have to talk about proportionality.

In the past 4 days there's been 2 terror attacks in Afghanistan, 1 in Somalia, Iraq, Egypt, Israel while in Uganda a Muslim mob of 90 stormed a church, beat the men, raped the women and carried away the pastor - all for the crime of converting Muslims to Christianity.

http://www.christiansinpakistan.com...ally-assaults-15-christian-women-in-a-church/

 

[PeterJB]

That's a different question from the one I answered although you write as if it's related.

If you want to get into Christian terror attacks then that's easily done, it just doesn't answer the "preaching" question.

There's a fine line between preaching an extreme message to your congregation and then them going out and actually doing it. How many cases are there of members of Steve Anderson's congregation going out and personally killing LGBT people?

 

[Imari]

Like it or not, Muslims are the only religion in the world left that runs around killing in the name of their god.

Yeah....no. Not even close.

How many planes have WBC hijacked? How many women have they beheaded for speaking out of turn? How many gays have they thrown off the roof of the Kansas State Capitol? How many nightclubs have they shot up? People don't take them seriously because it's hard to when they pose no threat to anyone except themselves.

Them goalposts, they are a movin'.


For those who actually think that Muslims are the only people that kill in the name of religion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_violence

So that covers the other main Abrahamic religions, who turn out to be entirely as touchy as Muslims but in a bit of a downswing at the moment. Don't worry, I'm sure they'll be back at it before long.

While we're at it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffron_terror
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

That covers just about all the major religions.

 

[mustafur]

We could do massive damage to Radical islamic terrorism if we just put sanctions or even an embargo on Saudi arabia, stop them funding radical mosques around the world and strategically ruin their trade routes if the even dare think funding alqueda who by proxy end up supplying weopons to ISIS via recruits who ditch them for the more successful radical group.

And the final nail in the coffin for ISIS would be to put pressure on turkey to not buy their oil or ditch them from NATO and have it as an act of War.

That would be the fastest possible way to get what we all want and get an end to this problem but as you can see it's not exactly a problem with 1.6 billion people more a problem with currupted power hungry governments.

But the Military industrial complex wouldn't ever allow these actions to take place.

 

[Scaff]

That is in essence saying that the relationship between an uptick in Islamic violence and Islamic population is down to chance.....

No, its saying it may not be the only factor involved and the answer may not be as simplistic as you want it to be.

It's still over thirty thousand deadly attacks! And it doesn't even begin to address how many of the 1.6 billion approve of the attacks, which was explored in a post of mine that wasn't replied to.

I've answered it many times over, maybe not to you but certainly in this thread.

People are unfortunately allowed to do so, many Americans publicly supported the IRA, got involved in fund-raising for them (including the current US President).

Thanks for proving my point that I was saving for later. This quote is saying that people will turn against true Christians, even within their family, which will lead to their persecution.

The quote can and has been interpreted in many different ways, that's the point.

Erm....did you miss the "innocent as doves" line?

No.

It's saying that at judgement people who refuse to listen will be treated harshly. Now that doesn't sit right with me (I'm probably an atypical Christian), but it's not proscribing Christians to do anything unlawful. It's telling us that we have to be wary of the world we live in because we will be targeted. Something backed up by the "most persecuted religion" tag

Nope its saying they can lie to mislead people to the true agenda of conversion by any means.

Actually its not, its just vague enough that you can argue it that way. Whats interesting is that you are happy to accept an interpretation of Islamic text as a clear order to do wrong, but defined Christian text that can be quote-mined in the exact same way.

It's not to mock - it's to say that the gatestone articles were ignored.

And yet that's exactly what you did. Next time don't.

The end result matters more than what was said.

The end result didn't happen.

Sad as it may seem to you, Europe is a Christian continent. The KSA's contribution to the refugee influx being the building of new Mosques should surely signal their ulterior motivees.

You don't get to determine what I may or may not be 'sad' about.

Hey, no-one said they had to be perfect Muslims. I was arguing that there was an Islamic invasion - not an Islamic invasion perfect to the laws of Islam.

So an organisation that executes people who smoke and drink is operating out of a bar that sells booze! OK.

But more things, as you wish:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...uggle-in-NO-GO-ZONES-as-migrant-crime-rockets





http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/hundreds-muslim-no-go-zones-take-root-europe/

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5177/no-go-zones-britain

I guess you could....but you'd have to prove that it was a Christian club

No I don't. You already conceded that point above ("Hey, no-one said they had to be perfect Muslims").

These are all counter-points to try and blame the host nation. Why then does the Hindu population not suffer the same fate - nor the Sikh, Jewish or Black African. Maybe it's time to liberals recognise there are other factors than the bog standard "socioeconomic".

Then you will have no problem providing a peer reviewed study that controls for socio-economic factors.

I haven't seen any Kosher only mainstream restaurants. And why should I be forced to eat food that has had a prayer recited by someone of a religion that I believe is a threat to Europe?

Who tried to force you to eat it?

Huh? Infiltration of state schools by Jews?

Are you not aware of the issues with 'Free' faith schools of all faiths?

Yeah. Those damn West Indians and their sexual assault antics in Cologne and Austria.

I don't believe it needed to be narrowed down to specific locations?

That's taken from the sentence:

"Muslim countries that are oil-rich and have plenty of space?"

You are aware that countries not in the Gulf meet that definition?

What? So you're saying that Jesus and Buddha carried out beheadings, which was my original point? From what I remember when death threats were put upon Jesus He didn't go to another town and kill people who insulted Him.

Are Jesus and Buddah the only voices in the religious texts and teachings of those faiths?

No. You might want to take a look at the events in Ski Lanka or Myanmar and the religious violence carried out by Buddhists (based on the teachings of historical figures in Buddhism) against Muslims, Christians and other faiths (and its happening right now)

I've never seen a video made by a woman who escaped a Muslim dominated area talking about how peaceful the Muslims were.
I've never heard anyone that has gone to almost anywhere in question (without pretending to be muslim) that says they're a peaceful people.

You've never heard of anyone coming back from a holiday in the Maldives or Dubai (or many others)?

You are aware that not every country that has a Muslim majority is a war torn hell-hole?

I've seen a lot of the opposote though. The only people Ive heard call them peaceful are white people who've never been over there, and themselves on TV camera.

I've been, I've worked in them, my family lived in them for over a decade.

What about you?

In fact, I've heard that if I walk down the street in said countries I will be tortured and beheaded.

Said countries? You said "Muslim dominated area".

Never yet been beheaded in one.

At no point taking this (while having a beer) was I beheaded.

Why would I want them to walk down my street then?

Because you would do well to not believe every absurd claim made and actually talk to some of these people.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

A conversation that is symptomatic of the west's relationship with Islam:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...n-abdel-magied--in-fiery-qanda-debate/8267212

Jacqui Lambie, a populist politician who is as outspoken as she is uninformed, tries to suggest that Islam and sharia law are one and the same. When Yassmin Abdel-Magied, an educated and prominent Muslim, tries to show her otherwise, Lambie - the original bogan senator - goes on the attack rather than trying to inform herself of the issues.

 

[CSLACR]

No, its saying it may not be the only factor involved and the answer may not be as simplistic as you want it to be.


I've answered it many times over, maybe not to you but certainly in this thread.

People are unfortunately allowed to do so, many Americans publicly supported the IRA, got involved in fund-raising for them (including the current US President).



The quote can and has been interpreted in many different ways, that's the point.


No.


Nope its saying they can lie to mislead people to the true agenda of conversion by any means.

Actually its not, its just vague enough that you can argue it that way. Whats interesting is that you are happy to accept an interpretation of Islamic text as a clear order to do wrong, but defined Christian text that can be quote-mined in the exact same way.



And yet that's exactly what you did. Next time don't.



The end result didn't happen.



You don't get to determine what I may or may not be 'sad' about.



So an organisation that executes people who smoke and drink is operating out of a bar that sells booze! OK.






No I don't. You already conceded that point above ("Hey, no-one said they had to be perfect Muslims").



Then you will have no problem providing a peer reviewed study that controls for socio-economic factors.



Who tried to force you to eat it?


Are you not aware of the issues with 'Free' faith schools of all faiths?



I don't believe it needed to be narrowed down to specific locations?



You are aware that countries not in the Gulf meet that definition?



Are Jesus and Buddah the only voices in the religious texts and teachings of those faiths?

No. You might want to take a look at the events in Ski Lanka or Myanmar and the religious violence carried out by Buddhists (based on the teachings of historical figures in Buddhism) against Muslims, Christians and other faiths (and its happening right now)




You've never heard of anyone coming back from a holiday in the Maldives or Dubai (or many others)?

You are aware that not every country that has a Muslim majority is a war torn hell-hole?




I've been, I've worked in them, my family lived in them for over a decade.

What about you?



Said countries? You said "Muslim dominated area".

Never yet been beheaded in one.

View attachment 627606

At no point taking this (while having a beer) was I beheaded.


Because you would do well to not believe every absurd claim made and actually talk to some of these people.

Yeah....no. Not even close.



Them goalposts, they are a movin'.


For those who actually think that Muslims are the only people that kill in the name of religion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_violence

So that covers the other main Abrahamic religions, who turn out to be entirely as touchy as Muslims but in a bit of a downswing at the moment. Don't worry, I'm sure they'll be back at it before long.

While we're at it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffron_terror
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

That covers just about all the major religions.

I knew I shouldn't have said Christians don't do it, i knew it and I said it anyway....of course they do.

Which leads nicely to my next point.
Can't we all just be athiests so we stop having wars?

Yes I think Muslims like to fight over their god, I know they do. They've been at it forever. Whether someone lives in a currently peaceful muslim area really has no sway on the matter.
People that believe in invisible men in the sky fight and kill over who's is better.
There's always some or most that would rather not fight, but enough will that it always happens.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Can't we all just be athiests...

I hope so.

...so we stop having wars?

Seemingly not.