Islam - What's your view on it?

[Johnnypenso]

However if it's a civil war then depending on the view that you take something can either be a terrorist attack or an attempt to defend your country from oppressors.

Something like the ISIS Paris attacks takes some real mind-bending in order to justify as a defence of your country from oppressors.

I mean, take the Iraq civil war that's going on. It's between ISIS and the puppet government that the US installed after they forcibly toppled Saddam Hussain, and it's pretty hard to distinguish which is the lesser of the two evils for the country there. I mean, it makes Saddam Hussain's rule look pretty desirable. He did some fairly awful things, but at least it was a mostly stable country and the vast majority of people didn't have to worry about being blown up or shot on a daily basis.

Frankly, I think the government of a country has to be really, really terrible to warrant other countries stepping in to depose them. The decades of civil war that inevitably follow in the power vacuum are worse than any but the most tyrannical ruler.

How many of your own people do you have to kill before it's warranted that someone else step in?

 

[novcze]

Ok, so how much of your view of Muslims is based on first hand contact and how much is based on the media?

You are still generalizing when I talk all the time about specific poll results which is IMO more about immigration than about muslims. I don't think this is going anywhere so I just leave it be.

So people complain about refugees coming to Europe and how they ruining it? That they "support" Da'esh/IS? Oh wait, isn't those refugees are the same people who escaped from Da'esh and Syrian government?

I's not that easy, people don't have anything against giving help to real refugees, complaints are about how leftist governments of the EU are dealing with the situation. Anyone with the brain wants first and foremost stability in middle east not destruction of middle east.

Spoiler: offtopic complain

If it weren't for me believing that suicide is a sin, i would have probably ended my life a long time ago.

Spoiler: offtopic reaction

sigh, because random idiots are writing something on the internet? Do you realize how does it sound?

 

[ToyGTone]

Offtopic but...

sigh, because random idiots are writing something on the internet? Do you realize how does it sound? [/SPOILER]

I have far more problems than that, just read this please.
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/depression-thread.40474/page-26#post-11706852

If you think that's stupid to feel sad and bad then why don't you look at some high suicide rates of countries like japan where we always look at them as some of the most advance technological countries ever and a place i always wanted to visit yet somehow suicide rates are high. go ahead and call them stupid based on your logic. Also compare that place to a place where it's more than likely to be the victim of war because of Iran and Saudi Arabia...

Or remember that time where Keemstar accused Bashur for certain things and guess what? he went through a breakdown? yet people actually defended him. Might as well call him stupid for whining about it on the internet.

Apparently human feelings doesn't apply to the internet based on you and plenty others here.
Sorry for going offtopic but your respond pisses me off. I don't hate you or anything but....ehh.

 

[novcze]

Offtopic but...

I have far more problems than that, just read this please.
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/depression-thread.40474/page-26#post-11706852

I'm sorry that you have these problems I didn't know about it, but suicide is not a solution.

 

[Scaff]

You are still generalizing when I talk all the time about specific poll results which is IMO more about immigration than about muslims. I don't think this is going anywhere so I just leave it be.

I'm not generalizing about anything.

I'm putting the argument forward that many people may be forming opinions based on the media and information on the web that may well be inaccurate, rather than forming an opinion based on contact with the very people they are then going on to vilify.

I asked you specifically because you live in a country with a very, very small Muslim population. As such how you formed your opinions (which come across as very negative towards Muslims) could well be a rather good example of the influence the media can have. Your reluctance to answer would seem to be the answer.

You see my view is based on over thirty years of direct contact, both socially and in business, with thousands of Muslims. Its based on travelling, living and working in Muslim countries in the Gulf, Middle East and North Africa. Its based on working on a daily basis with Muslims from Iran, Jordan, Pakistan, The Emirates and Turkey on a daily basis.

Your view, I strongly suspect is based upon the right wing media (and worse) pushing an anti-Muslim agenda, and involves little to no direct contact with the people involved. Its a perfect example of 'othering'.



Oh and if the data you are putting forward is "more about immigration than about muslims" then you have the wrong thread.

 

[Sprite]

I'm not generalizing about anything.

I'm putting the argument forward that many people may be forming opinions based on the media and information on the web that may well be inaccurate, rather than forming an opinion based on contact with the very people they are then going on to vilify.

Spot on.

Like Scaff, I work every day directly with 4 people who are Muslims, 3 from Pakistan and 1 from India I also work with some people who identify themselves as Christian. I also work in a building with a large diversity or religions. Never have I come across any negative reactions from anyone. My own personal working relationship is very close with people from all walks of life and I'm happy to advise I love working with these people.

Until you have close contact with people of a certain group then you can’t really say your opinions are well informed.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Spot on.

Like Scaff, I work every day directly with 4 people who are Muslims, 3 from Pakistan and 1 from India I also work with some people who identify themselves as Christian. I also work in a building with a large diversity or religions. Never have I come across any negative reactions from anyone. My own personal working relationship is very close with people from all walks of life and I'm happy to advise I love working with these people.

Until you have close contact with people of a certain group then you can’t really say your opinions are well informed.

Working with people isn't necessarily close contact IMO. Most people are on their best behaviour on the job and aren't likely to reveal their deepest, darkest secrets to Bob in the next cubicle or Sally in the big office while sharing a bagel in the lunchroom or meeting at the water cooler.

 

[Sprite]

Working with people isn't necessarily close contact IMO. Most people are on their best behaviour on the job and aren't likely to reveal their deepest, darkest secrets to Bob in the next cubicle or Sally in the big office while sharing a bagel in the lunchroom or meeting at the water cooler.

How about eating with their families at their homes, going for meals out and about in the city and attending Mosque with a friend as a guest to a family wedding?

I agree that people won't always tell you everything, especially working with them. However sitting next to the same person 4 days a week for 9:15 hours per day for years you do tend to learn something about them.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Working with people isn't necessarily close contact IMO. Most people are on their best behaviour on the job and aren't likely to reveal their deepest, darkest secrets to Bob in the next cubicle or Sally in the big office while sharing a bagel in the lunchroom or meeting at the water cooler.

As @Sprite says a relationship can go a lot further than that. I've worked with hundreds (I daresay even thousands) of Muslims, eaten at their homes, been a guest at their family events, I've lived, worked and breathed with "them". I hate to even say them, they were no different from anybody else except in the way that they were each different as individual people.

Some go to take some prayer time, so what? They spent far less time praying than I did outside smoking... and when required they can work seven-day weeks unlike some members of other religions

 

[Scaff]

Working with people isn't necessarily close contact IMO. Most people are on their best behaviour on the job and aren't likely to reveal their deepest, darkest secrets to Bob in the next cubicle or Sally in the big office while sharing a bagel in the lunchroom or meeting at the water cooler.

My family lived in Kuwait, Dubai, Bahrain and Saudi; I still have friends that live in the region, I travel to it at least once a year, speak to the offices in the region almost daily and work and socialise with Muslims.

Does that count as close contact, or does the Daily Mail, etc. still get to correct my personal experiences?

 

[Imari]

How many of your own people do you have to kill before it's warranted that someone else step in?

Clearly that's always going to be a subjective decision and based on factors specific to each situation. But what I'm trying to point out is that at that stage it's a decision of which is the lesser of two evils, and throwing a country into decades of civil war (which seems to be the common outcome of foreign interference) is a pretty big evil. One that I think often gets pushed aside in favour of dealing with the visible evil right now.

Working with people isn't necessarily close contact IMO. Most people are on their best behaviour on the job and aren't likely to reveal their deepest, darkest secrets to Bob in the next cubicle or Sally in the big office while sharing a bagel in the lunchroom or meeting at the water cooler.

I guess, but at least it's some contact. You talk with them and share some social contact. That's as much as you share with most people who aren't your close friends, so I think it's fine to say that spending a few years working with someone of a certain religion or culture gives you some insight into what at least some of those people are like.

Some go to take some prayer time, so what? They spent far less time praying than I did outside smoking... and when required they can work seven-day weeks unlike some members of other religions

I remember working with some Muslims during Ramadan. We were working a fairly physical job in a factory, and it was coming into Australian summer so it was hot. I was sort of worried about them not drinking any water during the day, as I didn't want them to pass out from heat stroke or something.

They explained to me that they started a bit earlier during that month. They tried not to put themselves under as much physical stress as normal. They took care to drink as much as they could beforehand and that usually they were fine, but if they actually felt unwell they simply drank what they needed. Their religion required that they do their best not to drink during daylight, but it didn't require them to put themselves or others in danger.

I thought that was pretty cool, and I thought it was pretty cool that they took the time to explain it to me. I think it's little things like that that you learn even just working with Muslims. Western societies come with a whole bunch of assumed knowledge about Christianity and it's traditions, but we don't necessarily have a lot of knowledge about other religions. That's fine, but I think it's good to learn before people start throwing shade.

 

[Johnnypenso]

As @Sprite says a relationship can go a lot further than that. I've worked with hundreds (I daresay even thousands) of Muslims, eaten at their homes, been a guest at their family events, I've lived, worked and breathed with "them". I hate to even say them, they were no different from anybody else except in the way that they were each different as individual people.

Some go to take some prayer time, so what? They spent far less time praying than I did outside smoking... and when required they can work seven-day weeks unlike some members of other religions

Thousands eh? Not sure how good your memory is but do you recall the names of the dozens of child molestors among them? Were you able to tell which of the women beat their children? Were the verbal abusers easy to spot? How about the wife beaters? Statistically speaking, there would be dozens, perhaps hundreds, that fall into at least one of those categories in a survey of thousands. Did they talk of their abuses at the lunch table or were they more likely to confess after a pop or two? I mean, you knew them well, right?

My family lived in Kuwait, Dubai, Bahrain and Saudi; I still have friends that live in the region, I travel to it at least once a year, speak to the offices in the region almost daily and work and socialise with Muslims.

Does that count as close contact, or does the Daily Mail, etc. still get to correct my personal experiences?

Nope, not really.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Thousands eh? Not sure how good your memory is but do you recall the names of the dozens of child molestors among them? Were you able to tell which of the women beat their children? Were the verbal abusers easy to spot? How about the wife beaters? Statistically speaking, there would be dozens, perhaps hundreds, that fall into at least one of those categories in a survey of thousands. Did they talk of their abuses at the lunch table or were they more likely to confess after a pop or two? I mean, you knew them well, right?

Exactly. There is simply no difference between "them" and anybody else. I see your point, I think, they could all be terribly bad people and we just wouldn't know. Terrifying in so many ways.

 

[Imari]

Thousands eh? Not sure how good your memory is but do you recall the names of the dozens of child molestors among them? Were you able to tell which of the women beat their children? Were the verbal abusers easy to spot? How about the wife beaters? Statistically speaking, there would be dozens, perhaps hundreds, that fall into at least one of those categories in a survey of thousands. Did they talk of their abuses at the lunch table or were they more likely to confess after a pop or two? I mean, you knew them well, right?

I think for most people there's a difference between "I knew him well" and "I knew about all the murders and molestations that he committed".

Nope, not really.

So what does close contact mean to you?

 

[Scaff]

Nope, not really.

Why?

 

[Sprite]

Thousands eh? Not sure how good your memory is but do you recall the names of the dozens of child molestors among them? Were you able to tell which of the women beat their children? Were the verbal abusers easy to spot? How about the wife beaters? Statistically speaking, there would be dozens, perhaps hundreds, that fall into at least one of those categories in a survey of thousands. Did they talk of their abuses at the lunch table or were they more likely to confess after a pop or two? I mean, you knew them well, right? Nope, not really.

I understand what you're saying, but you can say that about any group of people in any country from all walks of life. I don't think it has anything to do with a religion specifically.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I understand what you're saying, but you can say that about any group of people in any country from all walks of life. I don't think it has anything to do with a religion specifically.

Exactly, and you'll note that I didn't mention any religion, country or group of people in my responses to you. So at least we can agree that casual relationships with people don't reveal who they really are in many cases.

Why?

See above.

I think for most people there's a difference between "I knew him well" and "I knew about all the murders and molestations that he committed".

So what does close contact mean to you?

Close contact means you know the things about someone they don't tell anyone else or very few people. Their secrets, their fears, their weaknesses, no holds barred. IMO, everything else is casual.

Exactly. There is simply no difference between "them" and anybody else. I see your point, I think, they could all be terribly bad people and we just wouldn't know. Terrifying in so many ways.

As usual, you leap to the wrong conclusion. My point wasn't that there's no difference between them and anybody else, although that is true, my point is that anecdotal evidence of your casual relationship with a few or even hundreds of people doesn't doesn't mean that you know what goes on behind closed doors in their homes nor does it mean that you can generalize to the entire population. Doesn't mean you know who they really are. It's no different than the old saying, that was mocked mercilessly for decades, at least on this side of the pond, "some of my best friends are black".

 

[Scaff]

See above.

All I see above is an answer to a question no one asked, on a point no one disputed.

The point was not are personal experiences perfect, which is what you have answered.

It was are personal experiences a better way to form an opinion that just using the tabloid press such as the Daily Mail or Breitbart.

You said it wasn't and I asked why. That you have not answered.

I ask because the Mail has a particular bend for portraying Eastern Europeans (you know like a certain member who seems to have based his opinion of Muslim from press of this nature) as drunks who like nothing more that to drive around hammered. Oh and they only leave home to come abroad and steal our jobs, women and live off welfare.

Now that doesn't gel within the eastern Europeans I know, but according to you I'm wrong and the Mail is right.

So once again, why?

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

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.

So what is it down 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).

And that makes it....acceptable somehow?

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

Huh. Where does it say that

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.

....but there is a clear principle that Muslims can follow in regards to lying to propagate their faith. There's even a name for it....

The end result didn't happen.

The end result was over a million migrants from Islamic lands....And you also failed to respond to my points about Lebanon and what a Jihadist predicted would happen (correctly). Also the problem the Dutch are having with Dutch Moroccans.

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

Huh? I never said ISIS was the invading force....And you've also ignored the other links I provided....

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

If the Garrick club was representative of when a majority Christian population moved into a Muslim country then sure....I guess....

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

Haaa....you think such a study would exist nowadays? You've already been shown what happens when a Swedish police officer speaks out about what's going on in his day to day work life.

Who tried to force you to eat it?

So in England I should be expected to go vegetarian because my local shop serves halal only produce?

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

Still evading the issue of providing evidence of other faiths invading state schools

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

Those locations experienced the effects of Muslim migration quite acutely.

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

And? Even if they are talking about them what does it matter?

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)

We were talking about the founders of the faiths chief....

-------------

As for the Islam on Christian violence I've given you at least 16 deaths from the start of the year, and that's just against one faith, whereas the reply was that Buddhists persecute Muslims in Myanmar - which isn't even Christian on Muslim violence and doesn't provide numbers for the amount of deaths attributable to that in 2017.

 

[Johnnypenso]

All I see above is an answer to a question no one asked, on a point no one disputed.

The point was not are personal experiences perfect, which is what you have answered.

It was are personal experiences a better way to form an opinion that just using the tabloid press such as the Daily Mail or Breitbart.

You said it wasn't and I asked why. That you have not answered.

I ask because the Mail has a particular bend for portraying Eastern Europeans (you know like a certain member who seems to have based his opinion of Muslim from press of this nature) as drunks who like nothing more that to drive around hammered. Oh and they only leave home to come abroad and steal our jobs, women and live off welfare.

Now that doesn't gel within the eastern Europeans I know, but according to you I'm wrong and the Mail is right.

So once again, why?

lI don't read the Mail. I don't know anything about the Mail. I wasn't responding to a post about the Mail. Why are you so obsessed with pigeonholing me into responding to a question about the Mail?

 

[Scaff]

lI don't read the Mail. I don't know anything about the Mail. I wasn't responding to a post about the Mail. Why are you so obsessed with pigeonholing me into responding to a question about the Mail?

Well mainly because you replied to my post that specifically mentioned it!

 

[Johnnypenso]

Well mainly because you replied to my post that specifically mentioned it!

And the, "nope, not really" was in response to the part of your question about close contact, which was what I was responding to with Sprite. Not sure why you'd want me to decide for you whether you should believe a newspaper or your own experiences or why I should have an opinion on that.

 

[Scaff]

So what is it down to?

Pretty much the same factors that drive any form of Terrorism.

However you are the one claiming the link, as such the burden of proof rests with you.

And that makes it....acceptable somehow?

I didn't say it did.

Huh. Where does it say that

Deliberation miss-interpretation. Odd that you seem to only have an issue with it when it comes to certain faiths.

....but there is a clear principle that Muslims can follow in regards to lying to propagate their faith. There's even a name for it....

Citation required.

The end result was over a million migrants from Islamic lands....And you also failed to respond to my points about Lebanon and what a Jihadist predicted would happen (correctly). Also the problem the Dutch are having with Dutch Moroccans.

You can try and change the frame of reference all you like, what he said he would do didn't happen.

Its not difficult to predict that you will get a large number of refugees from a war zone, its quite a different thing to directly forcing a million people onto thousands of boats ta the same time, which is what was claimed and didn't happen.

Your conflating something that was easily predictable with something that clearly didn't happen.

Huh? I never said ISIS was the invading force....And you've also ignored the other links I provided....

Nor have you shown Islam to be an invading force.

If the Garrick club was representative of when a majority Christian population moved into a Muslim country then sure....I guess....

You keep moving those goalposts. Explain to me how its a Muslim club if its selling booze.

Haaa....you think such a study would exist nowadays?

Why?

You've already been shown what happens when a Swedish police officer speaks out about what's going on in his day to day work life.

So you can't supply any objective evidence, but don't worry here's a totally subjective anecdotal post.

So in England I should be expected to go vegetarian because my local shop serves halal only produce?

Given that I strongly suspect that its not the only shop you have access to you then have the right to shop any place you like. No one has forced you to do anything.

Still evading the issue of providing evidence of other faiths invading state schools

I put free schools in the same group.

Those locations experienced the effects of Muslim migration quite acutely.

Goal posts moved again.

Do you not believe that past waves of immigrants and refugees have had the exact same accusations leveled at them?

And? Even if they are talking about them what does it matter?

It matter because the claim they made is not true. Oil rich Muslim countries with space (and without space) have taken in far more refugees that any other part of the world.

The claim they make is demonstrably untrue (and UNHCR records clearly show as much).

We were talking about the founders of the faiths chief....

No I'm talking about the faiths as a whole.

As for the Islam on Christian violence I've given you at least 16 deaths from the start of the year, and that's just against one faith, whereas the reply was that Buddhists persecute Muslims in Myanmar - which isn't even Christian on Muslim violence and doesn't provide numbers for the amount of deaths attributable to that in 2017.

Given that reporters and NGO's have no access to that part of Myanmar you want to dismiss it out of hand?

Or dismiss it based on an arbitrary set of conditions that you now want to impose?

Not a massive surprise I have to say.

And the, "nope, not really" was in response to the part of your question about close contact, which was what I was responding to with Sprite. Not sure why you'd want me to decide for you whether you should believe a newspaper or your own experiences or why I should have an opinion on that.

I don't need anyone to decide for me, I've already quite clearly given my opinion on it.

However given that you quoted the entire part and not just a section of it I was under the impression you might have a view on it.

 

[novcze]

Exactly. There is simply no difference between "them" and anybody else. I see your point, I think, they could all be terribly bad people and we just wouldn't know. Terrifying in so many ways.

That's why I see talk about personal contact rather useless, no one is questioning people but ideology, which have potencial to be quite destructive.


Jews in pre-ww2 Germany also had nice personal contact with Germans, they might even have schnitzel mit kartoffeln with them and how that turned out, all these nice Germans turned a blind eye when rabid idelogues came.

 

[Scaff]

That's why I see talk about personal contact rather useless, no one is questioning people but ideology, which have potencial to be quite destructive.

Ideologies don't exist without people, so I'm unsure why your attempting to separate the.

But as you now seem keen to re-engage in this discussion how about you answer my original question.

Jews in pre-ww2 Germany also had nice personal contact with Germans, they might even have schnitzel mit kartoffeln with them and how that turned out, all these nice Germans turned a blind eye when rabid idelogues came.

Your seriously attempting to try and use this as validation of using the right wing press and borderline far right sources as a preferred way of understanding an entire group of people!

The German press (and for that matter a good deal of it outside Germany) was not attempting to warn Jews of the danger of Nazi ideology, quite the opposite, it was used to 'others' Jews and act as justification for persecution of Jews.

In many cases it was the Germans who had direct contact with Jews who risked their own lives to save Jews.

Let me ask you another question, who are the 'Jews' in this analogy you are attempting to use.

 

[novcze]

Your seriously attempting to try and use this as validation of using the right wing press and borderline far right sources as a preferred way of understanding an entire group of people!

I have no idea where you get that and why are you trying to connect me with far right. I sort of ignored your innuendos but you are quite persistive.

You are putting too much emphasis on personal contact, which is what my analogy should illustrate, that doesn't mean I prefer tabloids as source of information.

Ideologies don't exist without people, so I'm unsure why your attempting to separate the.

Why? Because I think that people living in e.g. UAE or Saudi Arabia would not end up on the conclusion that homosexuality is punishable by the death penalty without certain ideology. Or would they? It's similar to my previous analogy, silent majority means nothing when rabid ideologues hold the rudder.

 

[TenEightyOne]

all these nice Germans turned a blind eye when rabid idelogues came.

That's bollocks.

I have no idea where you get that and why are you trying to connect me with far right.

I think most who read your posts would think it's because of the sources you seemingly favour.

 

[Imari]

...all these nice Germans turned a blind eye when rabid idelogues came.

Hans and Sophie Scholl say stick it in your pie hole.

 

[Scaff]

I have no idea where you get that and why are you trying to connect me with far right.

That would be in part down to the sources you have used, in part down to the language you use and in part down to the bias you display.

You also seem to be suggesting that I base my view of you on contact with you, yet you go on to argue that emphasis should be placed on that. As such you can't now complain that I base my view more on the conspiracy theory nutter you quote from YouTube and your use of the Gatestone Institute as a source.

You seem to want a different standard applied to yourself that you wish to afford others.

I sort of ignored your innuendos but you are quite persistive.

It's not innuendo, but if you would answer perfectly reasonable questions asked of you then the need to make assumptions could be avoided.

You are putting too much emphasis on personal contact, which is what my analogy should illustrate, that doesn't mean I prefer tabloids as source of information.

Your analogy (along with the unanswered questions around it) doesn't illustrate any such thing.

How about you answer my original question rather than avoiding it?

Why? Because I think that people living in e.g. UAE or Saudi Arabia would not end up on the conclusion that homosexuality is punishable by the death penalty without certain ideology. Or would they? It's similar to my previous analogy, silent majority means nothing when rabid ideologues hold the rudder.

Four questions.

What makes you assume that all people in those countries hold those views?

How many people from those countries have you discussed this with?

What was the first Muslim state to legalise homosexually and in what year did they do it?

What about Christian countries in which people hold those views?

 

[novcze]

Hans and Sophie Scholl say stick it in your pie hole.

so not all but majority turned a blind eye , happier?

That would be in part down to the sources you have used, in part down to the language you use and in part down to the bias you display.

So everyone who wants to stop mass immigration, have peace in the middle east and is aware of potential danger of islam is now far-right?

You also seem to be suggesting that I base my view of you on contact with you, yet you go on to argue that emphasis should be placed on that.

You seem to want a different standard applied to yourself that you wish to afford others.

That's not correct, I don't make assumptions about individuals and their motivation from forum posts, unlike you.

As such you can't now complain that I base my view more on the conspiracy theory nutter you quote from YouTube and your use of the Gatestone Institute as a source.

Out of curiosity, who is this YouTube conspiracy nutter?

It's not innuendo,

So it's insinuation?

but if you would answer perfectly reasonable questions asked of you then the need to make assumptions could be avoided.

Reasonable by what standard? It wasn't relevant to my point and was laughable, because I don't care about religion of the people I meet.

What makes you assume that all people in those countries hold those views?

Did I assume that? Probably poorly written on my side, point was that people living in these states have no other choice but to submit to conception of islam of their government. (which was my point, division between people and ideology)