Islam - What's your view on it?

[ClydeYellow]

Unless I'm mistaken, 1/6th is still a minority.

A quite large one at that.

However, the data you posted alone is, frankly, quite useless. We already know that a minority of muslims in Europe tolerate or endorse terrorism - a minority large enough to allow for terrorist attacks like the one against Charlie Hebdo to be carried out. We don't know, however, what is their economical and social condition, or where they live in France, what version of Islam they follow, etcetera. All data important to understand if extremism is an intrinsic characteristic, a possibility, or a corruption of Islam - sure as hell more important than quoting passages from the often self-contradictory and surpisingly hard-to-interpret Quran.

I wouldn't be surprised if, say, the uneducated, economically disadvantaged muslims living in the outskirts of the cities of the South (which aren't as cosmopolite and multicultural as Paris and the Ile-de-France region, which has historically been somewhat of a country-within-a-country) were statistically likely to support Islamic fundamentalism. However, the attacks were carried out in Paris - where a large portion of Muslims are educated and have access to a wide choice of career opportunities, and aren't stygmatized much because of their ethnic/cultural origin (as I've had the chance to verify first-hand). What does that mean, then?

With that I do not want to say that those data should be disregarded or that it is false (after all, Gallup is one of the most respected private statistical analysis companies in the world), but simply suggest that if we want to make them useful we should start from there and ask how is it possible that 1/6 of European Muslims support this kind of attacks - and if they do, how comes that we aren't seeing more terrorists? Is it a strong support (the kind of support that led, say, 2,000 French citizens to become fighters in the ranks of the ISIL) or a weak one?

I'd rather leave simplicistic notions and solutions to simple minds.

 

[mr_geez]

I just heard about existence of a fellow by name Andy/Anjem Choudary. And I'm like W T F?!?!?!

Is he like a thing in UK?? Because for me he is doing a biggest disservice to Muslims imaginable.

I don't even want to repeat things he said because it is so ridiculous.

 

[Dennisch]

I just heard about existence of a fellow by name Andy/Anjem Choudary. And I'm like W T F?!?!?!

Is he like a thing in UK?? Because for me he is doing a biggest disservice to Muslims imaginable.

I don't even want to repeat things he said because it is so ridiculous.

 

[Johnnypenso]

With that I do not want to say that those data should be disregarded or that it is false (after all, Gallup is one of the most respected private statistical analysis companies in the world), but simply suggest that if we want to make them useful we should start from there and ask how is it possible that 1/6 of European Muslims support this kind of attacks - and if they do, how comes that we aren't seeing more terrorists? Is it a strong support (the kind of support that led, say, 2,000 French citizens to become fighters in the ranks of the ISIL) or a weak one?

I'd rather leave simplicistic notions and solutions to simple minds.

Supporting terror and committing terror are two different things obviously, so asking why we don't see more terror attacks isn't a connection I would make. It's a big leap between saying you support something heinous and actually going out and doing it yourself. All it tells me is that at many dinner tables across France, tens of thousands of little boys and girls will be listening to their fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters either say nothing about the recent attacks or overtly saying, "they asked for it" or words to that effect. A good portion will know their parents are wrong and will pretend to listen. A good portion will believe their parents and siblings because that's what's expected in many families. 1/6th of the population may be a minority, but it's not an insignificant number either. If you want to find the next generation of terrorists, those dinner tables might be a good start.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I just heard about existence of a fellow by name Andy/Anjem Choudary. And I'm like W T F?!?!?!

Is he like a thing in UK?? Because for me he is doing a biggest disservice to Muslims imaginable.

I don't even want to repeat things he said because it is so ridiculous.

This fella..

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/01/...houdary-following-charlie-hebdo-terror-attack

also...

 

[Johnnypenso]

I just heard about existence of a fellow by name Andy/Anjem Choudary. And I'm like W T F?!?!?!

Is he like a thing in UK?? Because for me he is doing a biggest disservice to Muslims imaginable.

I don't even want to repeat things he said because it is so ridiculous.

This interview should tell you all you need to know about Mr. Choudary.

 

[Scaff]

I though this was the Islam what's your view on it thread. I don't see how what the IRA did has anything to do with Islam, whether they are the same or polar opposites.

Please show me where I repeatedly judged a majority based on a minority. I posted a statistic in response to a query. I didn't say anything about the majority. Unless I'm mistaken, 1/6th is still a minority.

That you don't see how support for one terrorist organisation by a minority of a population relates to support for another terrorist organisation when discussing exactly how dangerous this minority is and how it relates to the majority is kind of the point.

Do you believe that Irish-American Catholics who supported the IRA were ever a direct danger to the wider population of any country or that the support they gave can be used as evidence of the behavior of the rest of the Christians.

The inference that every one of the posts I've seen when they are given no context is that it can be extrapolated out to the wider population, or that support equals action. So to use the IRA example again, how many Americans turned into IRA terrorists?

What these also fail to differentiate is sect within Islam as well, which is a rather critical factor, and is akin to extrapolating support for the IRA to all Christians, something that also makes no sense at all.

I just heard about existence of a fellow by name Andy/Anjem Choudary. And I'm like W T F?!?!?!

Is he like a thing in UK?? Because for me he is doing a biggest disservice to Muslims imaginable.

I don't even want to repeat things he said because it is so ridiculous.

He's a well know mouth piece for radicals who is currently out on bail, he's also not an idiot and uses his knowledge of the law (he trained as a lawyer) to ensure he says no more than will earn him minimal action under the law.

He in no way represents any part of the mainstream British Muslim community, who have roundly condemn him (a facebook group Muslims against Anjem Choudary even exists).

 

[ECGadget]

This guy, Mr Choudary is a disgrace to Islam, and it is agreed pretty much unanimously that he is the worst representative of Islam at the moment and yet the media still choose to put him on, rather than the well known and respected Imams, such as Ebrahim Mogra, Ibrahim Desai, Imran ibn Adam etc.
Nobody should believe a word that comes out this guys mouth.

 

[ClydeYellow]

Supporting terror and committing terror are two different things obviously, so asking why we don't see more terror attacks isn't a connection I would make. It's a big leap between saying you support something heinous and actually going out and doing it yourself.

Exactly my point. Those are not (yet) radicalized muslims - they are simply people that may say, "well, the victims of the attack at the Charlie Hebdo hat it coming" or - as it's been repeated on social networks ad nauseam already - "the attack on the Kosher supermarket is not surpising since the Jews keep oppressing the Palestinese arab people". They are not radicals, they are people who, for the most part, are forced by the circumstances of social exclusion (explicit or implicit) to create their social connections all within their own Islamic community and to identify themselves as muslims and have no other definition of themselves - they can't say they are, say, French, because someone will answer "no you are not".

Anti-Islamism doesn't help with preventing radicalization. It only makes the work of jihadist recruiters easier.

(I should come back to this post at some point, to better explain myself. For now, this reply will have to suffice)

 

[Scaff]

This interview should tell you all you need to know about Mr. Choudary.

That Fox interviewed him means that they gave voice to the 3% (most extreme option on your figures for the UK), now I wonder if they then interviewed representatives of the 70% who in the UK say its never justified and provided them with sufficient air time The balance would be around 23 interviews of similar length.

That's the issue I have with focusing on the minority and ignoring the majority, its gets projected onto them as its all people see.

 

[Johnnypenso]

That you don't see how support for one terrorist organisation by a minority of a population relates to support for another terrorist organisation when discussing exactly how dangerous this minority is and how it relates to the majority is kind of the point.

Do you believe that Irish-American Catholics who supported the IRA were ever a direct danger to the wider population of any country or that the support they gave can be used as evidence of the behavior of the rest of the Christians.

The inference that every one of the posts I've seen when they are given no context is that it can be extrapolated out to the wider population, or that support equals action. So to use the IRA example again, how many Americans turned into IRA terrorists?

What these also fail to differentiate is sect within Islam as well, which is a rather critical factor, and is akin to extrapolating support for the IRA to all Christians, something that also makes no sense at all.

He's a well know mouth piece for radicals who is currently out on bail, he's also not an idiot and uses his knowledge of the law (he trained as a lawyer) to ensure he says no more than will earn him minimal action under the law.

He in no way represents any part of the mainstream British Muslim community, who have roundly condemn him (a facebook group Muslims against Anjem Choudary even exists).

I think that what you fail to see is that when 1/6th of a segment of the population supports an idea, it makes it easier to carry out your terrorist activities. Easier to find financial support, logistic support, sympathizers, safe houses, passage to foreign lands to run off and fight the infidels and the return home to fight them as well. If 1/100th of any group supported something you'd be hard pressed to walk into a pub full of that group and find a like minded individual. If 1/6 in that pub feel the way you do, a few minutes walking around and listening to conversations will quite often lead you where you want to go. That says nothing about the majority, but it doesn't take a majority to reign terror.

The same would be true of the IRA or any other terrorist group. The more support you have in the general population, the easier it is to commit these acts of violence. Without broad community support you're just a lone wolf lunatic. But when you have people prominent in your religion like Mr. Choudary saying, "Sharia everywhere and lets kill the gays (but only with 4 witnesses, wouldn't want to take a chance on just one or two)" there will be simple minded or the downtrodden that listen to him and say, "Yeah I can dig it"

Easy to write this guy off as a crackpot, but when you get down to it, all he is saying is that he believes in sharia law and would like to see it widely implemented something that the hundreds of millions of muslims worldwide appear to agree with. So stoning adulterous women, killing gays, killing those that leave Islam, chopping the hands off of thieves, women completely covered head to toe with an observation slit, these are ideas that it seems most muslims support.

So maybe he isn't a crackpot after all. In fact under Sharia Law which it appears has broad support with Muslims worldwide, the Charlie Hebdo killings are perfectly justified.

 

[Scaff]

I think that what you fail to see is that when 1/6th of a segment of the population supports an idea, it makes it easier to carry out your terrorist activities. Easier to find financial support, logistic support, sympathizers, safe houses, passage to foreign lands to run off and fight the infidels and the return home to fight them as well. If 1/100th of any group supported something you'd be hard pressed to walk into a pub full of that group and find a like minded individual. If 1/6 in that pub feel the way you do, a few minutes walking around and listening to conversations will quite often lead you where you want to go. That says nothing about the majority, but it doesn't take a majority to reign terror.

The same would be true of the IRA or any other terrorist group. The more support you have in the general population, the easier it is to commit these acts of violence. Without broad community support you're just a lone wolf lunatic. But when you have people prominent in your religion like Mr. Choudary saying, "Sharia everywhere and lets kill the gays (but only with 4 witnesses, wouldn't want to take a chance on just one or two)" there will be simple minded or the downtrodden that listen to him and say, "Yeah I can dig it"

Easy to write this guy off as a crackpot, but when you get down to it, all he is saying is that he believes in sharia law and would like to see it widely implemented something that the majority of muslims worldwide appear to agree with. So stoning adulterous women, killing gays, killing those that leave Islam, chopping the hands off of thieves, women completely covered head to toe with an observation slit, these are ideas that it seems most muslims support.

So maybe he isn't a crackpot after all. In fact under Sharia Law which it appears has broad support with Muslims worldwide, the Charlie Hebdo killings are perfectly justified.

Did you actually bother to read the Pew study?

As once again you have simply presented it as a black or white option, with the inference of only one interpretation of Sharia law. Yet we have the following....

"Muslims differ widely as to whether sharia should be open to multiple understandings. While many say there is only one true interpretation, substantial percentages in most countries either say there are multiple interpretations or say they do not know."

....which paints a far more diverse and complex picture. However why bother with that when the inference that the majority of them (when in reality its a narrow one) what to chop bits off everyone (when its far more complex than that).

Seems your posts and Fox have quite a bit in common in that regard.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Did you actually bother to read the Pew study?

As once again you have simply presented it as a black or white option, with the inference of only one interpretation of Sharia law. Yet we have the following....

"Muslims differ widely as to whether sharia should be open to multiple understandings. While many say there is only one true interpretation, substantial percentages in most countries either say there are multiple interpretations or say they do not know."

....which paints a far more diverse and complex picture. However why bother with that when the inference that the majority of them (when in reality its a narrow one) what to chop bits off everyone (when its far more complex than that).

Seems you posts and Fox have quite a bit in common in that regard.

You seem to be stuck on the premise that the majority have to support something or it's somehow irrelevant or unimportant and we should dismiss it. Life isn't that black and white, sorry. Support of Sharia is widespread, it's not a fringe element of Islam like Lev Tahor or other tiny offshoots of major religions. Of course the picture is diverse and complex, but any inferences you draw about the facts I'm posting are your own, not mine. I'm perfectly capable of talking about a minority without inferring anything about the majority.

The comment about Fox is unnecessary if you want to continue having an adult discussion with me.

Note that within a couple of minutes I edited the "majority of muslims comment" before you responded.

 

[VolkswagenX]

This interview should tell you all you need to know about Mr. Choudary.

2 psychopaths having a discussion..

I do agree with one thing, can we please get back to discussion the empires torture program? To many distractions, first interview gate, then a plane crashes and now we had these 2 lunatics (or was it 3?) shooting people. ofcourse they end up dead (#whatasuprise#calledit). Good thing they left their ID for the police to find and made sure everybody knows that they were muslim. Didn't Bibi (that other extremist psychopath) worn the French that bad things would happen if the french would vote for Palestinian statehood? I know Bibi to be a fan of Isis.

 

[Johnnypenso]

2 psychopaths having a discussion..

I do agree with one thing, can we please get back to discussion the empires torture program? To many distractions, first interview gate, then a plane crashes and now we had these 2 lunatics (or was it 3?) shooting people. ofcourse they end up dead (#whatasuprise#calledit). Good thing they left their ID for the police to find and made sure everybody knows that they were muslim. Didn't Bibi (that other extremist psychopath) worn the French that bad things would happen if the french would vote for Palestinian statehood? I know Bibi to be a fan of Isis.

So are the hundreds of millions of Muslims that also support Sharia like Mr. Choudary also psycopaths?

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

 

[Scaff]

You seem to be stuck on the premise that the majority have to support something or it's somehow irrelevant or unimportant and we should dismiss it. Life isn't that black and white, sorry. Support of Sharia is widespread, it's not a fringe element of Islam like Lev Tahor or other tiny offshoots of major religions. Of course the picture is diverse and complex, but any inferences you draw about the facts I'm posting are your own, not mine. I'm perfectly capable of talking about a minority without inferring anything about the majority.

What other sort of inferences am I supposed to take when you automatically use a single interpretation of Sharia or present a narrow majority as if it were the whole?

This......

"So stoning adulterous women, killing gays, killing those that leave Islam, chopping the hands off of thieves, women completely covered head to toe with an observation slit, these are ideas that it seems most muslims support."

.....leaves little other inference than a belief on your part that a significant majority support a singularly hard-line view of Sharia. Yet the study you use to support you post clearly shows that its far more complex than that, as such its your presentation that is black and white. Across the two main Islamic sects a total of eight different interpretations exist, once you add in all the minor sects it heads way past the dozen. So which of these interpretations is in that the majority support?

Oh and I have never said that unless the majority say so it should be ignored, quite the opposite (and I have made that point a number of times). What I have said is that the minority (in the case of those who support terrorism) need to be addressed (and strongly if required) but its counterproductive and dangerous to treat the majority in the same manner. I have been very consistent in that regard.

The comment about Fox is unnecessary if you want to continue having an adult discussion with me.

That you present the majority via inferences from the minority and assume a worse case scenario with no regard to the differences between sects and how they interact and the differing interpretations they give to the religious text?

No, I stand by that observation.

Note that within a couple of minutes I edited the "majority of muslims comment" before you responded.

While I was responding, posts don't happen immediately and given that I was typing while cooking that was most certainly the case. I know exactly what you edited and when via the posts history.

2 psychopaths having a discussion..

I do agree with one thing, can we please get back to discussion the empires torture program? To many distractions, first interview gate, then a plane crashes and now we had these 2 lunatics (or was it 3?) shooting people. ofcourse they end up dead (#whatasuprise#calledit). Good thing they left their ID for the police to find and made sure everybody knows that they were muslim. Didn't Bibi (that other extremist psychopath) worn the French that bad things would happen if the french would vote for Palestinian statehood? I know Bibi to be a fan of Isis.

Sorry but are you by any chance claiming this was a false flag?

 

[VolkswagenX]

So are the hundreds of millions of Muslims that also support Sharia like Mr. Choudary also psycopaths?

View attachment 288781

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

What does that have to do with anything I said? Who were you supporting when Assad warned us about these so called moderate rebbels in Syria who got their funding from The Empire, Qatar and Saudi Arabia? Before we were introduced to al nusra and isis, these moderate rebels were slaughtering Syrians ( muslims, christans, everybody!) but there was no outrage. Where was you to condemn them?

I'm against any form of extremism, but it seems like the people here in the west only want to talk about morals and freedom of expression when our so called allies start pointing the guns at us.

Sorry but are you by any chance claiming this was a false flag?

No.

 

[Scaff]

No.

Then what are you saying because its not even remotely clear.

 

[ClydeYellow]

So are the hundreds of millions of Muslims that also support Sharia like Mr. Choudary also psycopaths?

No, they are people that live in traditionalist countries where to refer to the judgment of religious authorities is a social norm, and that often don't have the education to be critical of those traditional institutions. If you'd come in the area now referred to as Central Italy at the end of the 19th Century, I guess you'd have found many people living off the land supportive of the then recently-abolished Papal authority and of the non expedit prohibitionem importat that basically prohibited Christians from participating in the political life of the italian State (or be excommunicated).

Wherein in the West it's (for now) mostly the disenfranchised and marginalized low-class muslims that support more radical forms of Sharia that those practised in most of the Middle East, and that support more extreme ways to implement them - like terrorist attacks, or military action (hard to call the ISIL conquests "terrorism" at this point) - that are proposed by charismatic sociopaths like mr. Choudary.

Of course the reality of things is far more complex than that, and I am painting in very broad strokes here - for example, I'm not factoring in the influence of Islamic fundamentalism as a response to the failure of pan-Arabism in Middle Eastern and North African countries. But my strokes are still far more narrow than those of political opportunists and panicked people, I think.

Who were you supporting when Assad warned us about these so called moderate rebbels in Syria who got their funding from The Empire, Qatar and Saudi Arabia?

The Free Syrian Army. Which I am still rooting for, BTW, both in their conflict against the fascist Assad government who sent them to shoot civilians that asked for democratic elections and in their conflict against the ISIL (and al-Nuzra, to which however they're forced into a limited cooperation contingent to the current situation, as far as I'm aware).

 

[Johnnypenso]

What other sort of inferences am I supposed to take when you automatically use a single interpretation of Sharia or present a narrow majority as if it were the whole?

This......

"So stoning adulterous women, killing gays, killing those that leave Islam, chopping the hands off of thieves, women completely covered head to toe with an observation slit, these are ideas that it seems most muslims support."

.....leaves little other inference than a belief on your part that a significant majority support a singularly hard-line view of Sharia. Yet the study you use to support you post clearly shows that its far more complex than that, as such its your presentation that is black and white. Across the two main Islamic sects a total of eight different interpretations exist, once you add in all the minor sects it heads way past the dozen. So which of these interpretations is in that the majority support?

Oh and I have never said that unless the majority say so it should be ignored, quite the opposite (and I have made that point a number of times). What I have said is that the minority (in the case of those who support terrorism) need to be addressed (and strongly if required) but its counterproductive and dangerous to treat the majority in the same manner. I have been very consistent in that regard.


That you present the majority via inferences from the minority and assume a worse case scenario with no regard to the differences between sects and how they interact and the differing interpretations they give to the religious text?

No, I stand by that observation.



While I was responding, posts don't happen immediately and given that I was typing while cooking that was most certainly the case. I know exactly what you edited and when via the posts history.


Sorry but are you by any chance claiming this was a false flag?

You are still caught up in this minority/majority thing. I'll make it simpler for you by leaving those words out. Lots and lots, according to the polls I quoted, millions upon millions of Muslims worldwide support either a single or multiple interpretations of Sharia. Millions of Muslims somewhat or greatly support terrorism. Some of those Muslims are influencing other Muslims into doing harm. Only a fool would dismiss this as insignificant. If 10% of a given population supports an extra $100 tax credit for single mothers, no one dies if it isn't implemented. If 10% of a given population supports terrorism and laws that are contrary to our western ideas of law and punishment, people can and have died as a result.

I don't know what the answer is, but I think burying out head in the sand and just dismissing these freaks as having nothing to do with Islam is too simplistic of an approach to a very complicated situation. It would be nice to sweep things under the rug that way, but it won't work. However tenuous the connection it is still there.

No offense but I take your inference about Fox News as a snide and condescending remark. I don't accept your observation.

 

[Scaff]

You are still caught up in this minority/majority thing. I'll make it simpler for you by leaving those words out. Lots and lots, according to the polls I quoted, millions upon millions of Muslims worldwide support either a single or multiple interpretations of Sharia. Millions of Muslims somewhat or greatly support terrorism. Some of those Muslims are influencing other Muslims into doing harm. Only a fool would dismiss this as insignificant. If 10% of a given population supports an extra $100 tax credit for single mothers, no one dies if it isn't implemented. If 10% of a given population supports terrorism and laws that are contrary to our western ideas of law and punishment, people can and have died as a result.

When have I dismissed it as insignificant?

You've even just quoted me saying.......

"Oh and I have never said that unless the majority say so it should be ignored, quite the opposite (and I have made that point a number of times). What I have said is that the minority (in the case of those who support terrorism) need to be addressed (and strongly if required) but its counterproductive and dangerous to treat the majority in the same manner. I have been very consistent in that regard."


.....stating that those who either carry out terrorist attacks or who support them need to be address, and if required strong measure may need to be taken.

How exactly is that dismissing it as insignificant?

I don't know what the answer is, but I think burying out head in the sand and just dismissing these freaks as having nothing to do with Islam is too simplistic of an approach to a very complicated situation. It would be nice to sweep things under the rug that way, but it won't work. However tenuous the connection it is still there.

And as stated above, I am not burying my head in the sand at all, rather I'm avoiding a simplistic view that we can deal with all Muslims as a single group.

I've repeatedly pointed out that lumping all Muslims together as a whole is a problem, many different sects exist, with a wide range of views and to treat them all the same is counter-productive.

Yes those who fall into the category of either carrying out attacks or supporting them need to be dealt with in a proportionate manner, however those who condemn such activities need to be supported, as casting them into the same category is counterproductive (and by failing to acknowledge the difference that is how it comes across).

Moderates are more likely to become even more moderate if that fact is recognized and acted upon, just as they are unlikely to remain moderate if they are treated no differently than those who carry out attacks or support attacks.

I've not said that those who carry out attacks have nothing to do with Islam (that would be incorrect - they believe they are carrying out these actions to protect it), however I am able to differentiate between the various groups, to understand that the differing degrees involved need differing actions and focus. In exactly the same way that I know my local parish vicar believes in the Christian God and that he is doing his work, just as much as Anders Breivik believes in the Christian God and that he is doing his work. However I'm not going to treat my local Vicar as I would someone who supported the actions of Breivik.

I'm also acutely aware of how actions by the West (which is seen as singularly Christian my many in the Middle East - a view that is just as dangerous as treating all Muslims as a whole) are going to be interpreted if and when we get things wrong.

This has been a consistent view I have held in this and other threads, as such my head is not in the sand, I am not dismissing any part of this as insignificant, nor am I sweeping it under the carpet and I am more than aware of just how complex this is.

No offense but I take your inference about Fox News as a snide and condescending remark. I don't accept your observation.

Take it as that if you wish, I have no control over that at all. It was not delivered with that intent, you may not like the observation but that is exactly how you come across from my reading.

 

[RC45]

(saw this some place on the Interwebs - let us see all those muslim sympathizers explain the facts away)

The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bafi Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Musiims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims'
Think of it:
Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
Hindus living with Jews = No Problem
Christians living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem
Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Christians = No Problem
Christians living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Hindus = No Problem
Muslims living with Hindus = Problem
Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem
Muslims living with Christians = Problem
Muslims living with Jews = Problem
Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
Muslims living with Baha'is = Problem
Muslims living with Shintos = Problem
Muslims living with Atheists = Problem
MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM
**********SO THIS LEAD TO *****************
They’re not happy in Gaza
They're not happy in Egypt
They're not happy in Libya
They're not happy in Morocco
They're not happy in Iran
They're not happy in Iraq
They're not happy in Yemen
They're not happy in Afghanistan
They're not happy in Pakistan
They're not happy in Syria
They're not happy in Lebanon
They're not happy in Nigeria
They're not happy in Kenya
They're not happy in Sudan
******** So, where are they happy? **********
They're happy in Australia
They're happy in England
They're happy in Belgium
They're happy in France
They're happy in Italy
They're happy in Germany
They're happy in Sweden
They're happy in the USA & Canada
They're happy in Norway & India
They're happy in almost every country that is not Islamic! And who do they blame? Not Islam... Not their leadership... Not themselves... THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!! And they want to change the countries they're happy in, to be like the countries they came from where they were unhappy and finally they will be get hammered
!!!!
Islamic Jihad: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
ISIS: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Qaeda: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Taliban: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hamas: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hezbollah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Boko Haram: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Nusra: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abu Sayyaf: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Badr: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Muslim Brotherhood: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Lashkar-e-Taiba: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Palestine Liberation Front: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Ansaru: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Jemaah Islamiyah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abdullah Azzam Brigades: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
AND A LOT MORE" !

 

[Scaff]

@RC45

Do you seriously believe that no other faith has even had an issue with another apart from when Muslims are involved?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/1...dian-churches-torch-home-prominent-christian/
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/12/27/india-stop-hindu-christian-violence-orissa

Its possiable to keep going for a very long time, for a wide variety of religions.


Or that only Muslim terrorist organisations exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Contemporary
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/12/04/3599271/austin-shooter-christian-extremism/
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-a...ks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-men
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_terrorism#After_the_creation_of_Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

And again I can keep going for a very long time.

Do some Muslims carry out violent attacks on those of other religion and of no religion? Yes

Do some members of just about every religion on the face of the planet carry out violent attacks on those of other religion and of no religion? Yes

Quite frankly to believe otherwise would require you to ignore a volume of facts that is quite frankly huge.

 

[Furinkazen]

@RC45 I could take Iraq for one and shoot that down, no pun intended.

 

[MatskiMonk]

(saw this some place on the Interwebs - let us see all those muslim sympathizers explain the facts away)

The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bafi Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Musiims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims'
Think of it:
Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
Hindus living with Jews = No Problem
Christians living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem
Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Christians = No Problem
Christians living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Hindus = No Problem
Muslims living with Hindus = Problem
Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem
Muslims living with Christians = Problem
Muslims living with Jews = Problem
Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
Muslims living with Baha'is = Problem
Muslims living with Shintos = Problem
Muslims living with Atheists = Problem
MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM
**********SO THIS LEAD TO *****************
They’re not happy in Gaza
They're not happy in Egypt
They're not happy in Libya
They're not happy in Morocco
They're not happy in Iran
They're not happy in Iraq
They're not happy in Yemen
They're not happy in Afghanistan
They're not happy in Pakistan
They're not happy in Syria
They're not happy in Lebanon
They're not happy in Nigeria
They're not happy in Kenya
They're not happy in Sudan
******** So, where are they happy? **********
They're happy in Australia
They're happy in England
They're happy in Belgium
They're happy in France
They're happy in Italy
They're happy in Germany
They're happy in Sweden
They're happy in the USA & Canada
They're happy in Norway & India
They're happy in almost every country that is not Islamic! And who do they blame? Not Islam... Not their leadership... Not themselves... THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!! And they want to change the countries they're happy in, to be like the countries they came from where they were unhappy and finally they will be get hammered
!!!!
Islamic Jihad: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
ISIS: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Qaeda: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Taliban: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hamas: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hezbollah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Boko Haram: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Nusra: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abu Sayyaf: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Badr: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Muslim Brotherhood: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Lashkar-e-Taiba: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Palestine Liberation Front: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Ansaru: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Jemaah Islamiyah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abdullah Azzam Brigades: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
AND A LOT MORE" !

Didn't realise you get the Daily Mail in Texas.


edit: USA funding of IRA to try and blow up my Sister on her way to work.. go USA.. leader of the free world.

edit 2: Furi liked that before I got all anti-USA.

 

[PeterJB]

This appears to have been completely overlooked by the media. I'm guessing because it didn't happen in Europe:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/boko-haram-deadliest-massacre-baga-nigeria

 

[RC45]

@RC45

Do you seriously believe that no other faith has even had an issue with another apart from when Muslims are involved?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/1...dian-churches-torch-home-prominent-christian/
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/12/27/india-stop-hindu-christian-violence-orissa

Its possiable to keep going for a very long time, for a wide variety of religions.


Or that only Muslim terrorist organisations exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Contemporary
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/12/04/3599271/austin-shooter-christian-extremism/
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-a...ks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-men
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_terrorism#After_the_creation_of_Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

And again I can keep going for a very long time.

Do some Muslims carry out violent attacks on those of other religion and of no religion? Yes

Do some members of just about every religion on the face of the planet carry out violent attacks on those of other religion and of no religion? Yes

Quite frankly to believe otherwise would require you to ignore a volume of facts that is quite frankly huge.

Typical muslim sympathizer.

You are totally ignoring the volume, number, frequency and relevance of muslim violence world wide.

Doesn't it get tiring constantly trying to find the obscure non-muslim violence that peppers the world over?

Hold on - I bet your next post will be about the crusades.... wait for it... wait for it.

You are either stupid or a liar.

The sheer volume of muslim violence directed at non-muslims that have no dog in the fight over the last 125 years alone so overshadows ALL other faiths put together in their (muslim) global reach of terrorist activities only a complete liar would ignore the fact that MUSLIMS are the problem.

Period.

The religion promotes violence, anger, oppression and subjugation.

islam has not had a reformation yet - it is stuck in the 6th century. It is an antiquated violent religion that kills many people annually.

The fact that fools such as yourself do not comprehend that if "only 10% of the muslims are bad" yet still this many people globally die and are oppressed at the hand of islam and mohamed then the religion really is a problem.

This means that the other "90% good muslims" have no control over the violent 10%.

Until they clean up their act, islam has no place in the modern world.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I've repeatedly pointed out that lumping all Muslims together as a whole is a problem, many different sects exist, with a wide range of views and to treat them all the same is counter-productive..

At no point did I lump all Muslims together.

Yes those who fall into the category of either carrying out attacks or supporting them need to be dealt with in a proportionate manner, however those who condemn such activities need to be supported, as casting them into the same category is counterproductive (and by failing to acknowledge the difference that is how it comes across).

I agree, which is why I never cast them into the same category either.

Moderates are more likely to become even more moderate if that fact is recognized and acted upon, just as they are unlikely to remain moderate if they are treated no differently than those who carry out attacks or support attacks.

Can't argue with that.

I've not said that those who carry out attacks have nothing to do with Islam (that would be incorrect - they believe they are carrying out these actions to protect it), however I am able to differentiate between the various groups, to understand that the differing degrees involved need differing actions and focus. In exactly the same way that I know my local parish vicar believes in the Christian God and that he is doing his work, just as much as Anders Breivik believes in the Christian God and that he is doing his work. However I'm not going to treat my local Vicar as I would someone who supported the actions of Breivik.

I am also able to differentiate, but I don't see what the actions of a single person from a different religion in a one time incident have to do with consistent, persistent terrorist attacks around the world. It's irrelevant to this situation IMO.

Take it as that if you wish, I have no control over that at all. It was not delivered with that intent, you may not like the observation but that is exactly how you come across from my reading

I could care less about the observation, but the fact that you made such a passive aggressive low blow, says a lot more about you than it does about me. IMO of course.

edit: USA funding of IRA to try and blow up my Sister on her way to work.. go USA.. leader of the free world.

edit 2: Furi liked that before I got all anti-USA.

Wasn't there huge financial support out of Boston for the IRA?

 

[ECGadget]

I really like how you call people like us fools, or sympathisers, stupid or liars, @RC45
Please go study Islam for a couple of decades, come back and make that same statement again. Because I guarantee that you will not be able to.

You want to talk terrorism in the last 125 years? Let's talk about I don't know... The KKK. Let's talk about the IRA. Let's talk about the international laws Israel has been breaking since 1948. Let's talk about all those students and people (may God bless all their souls) who were killed by various gunmen across the USA over the past couple of years. How about the Apartheid? Hitler? What about the whole "Weapons of Mass Destruction" incident? They do the same thing as these Terrorists. They TERRORISE communities. Strange how they are not branded as such. Please good sir, open your eyes to the whole world around you, past and present, and see what you fail to see. Every religion or no religion will have this. Do I blame other religons what the things people did in that religion or belonging to it? No because if I did I would be stupid, irrational and quite frankly quite insane.

And again to make a lovely point here.
Hirabah (Terrorism) is forbidden in Islam. And the definition is roughly to act in such a way that an individual no longer feels safe to walk the streets of a community. This includes everything from petty crimes to full scale corruption.
Yes, that clearly shows that these Terrorists follow a true Islam, right?
Forgive me for my blunt attitude here.

 

[Scaff]

Typical muslim sympathizer.

I sympathize with no religion.

You are totally ignoring the volume, number, frequency and relevance of muslim violence world wide.

No I'm not, I am however aware of a wider world that you seem happy to ignore.

Doesn't it get tiring constantly trying to find the obscure non-muslim violence that peppers the world over?

No as its rather easy, quite a bit of it goes on.

My own country spent decades as a target of Christian based terrorism that killed members of the government, royal family, armed forces and civilians and was actively supported and funded by people from your country right the way up to your own government.

Hold on - I bet your next post will be about the crusades.... wait for it... wait for it.

Oh dear.

You are either stupid or a liar.

I'm neither, but you would do well to re-read the AUP if you wish to remain here.

The sheer volume of muslim violence directed at non-muslims that have no dog in the fight over the last 125 years alone so overshadows ALL other faiths put together in their (muslim) global reach of terrorist activities only a complete liar would ignore the fact that MUSLIMS are the problem.

History says you wrong on that one if your going for a 125 year time period, as that saw the fall of the Ottoman empire at the hand of (Christian) Europeans.

Period.

Or not.

The religion promotes violence, anger, oppression and subjugation.

They all do.

islam has not had a reformation yet - it is stuck in the 6th century. It is an antiquated violent religion that kills many people annually.

Actually they already had one, and I wish Islam was back in the 6th Century when it openly accepted all other religions and worked with them to further knowledge. The modern Islamic violence actually has it vague route in the late 18th century and has only been on the rise since the 1920's at best (and took a long time to get going - only taking serious root in the 1960's with money from oil in the Gulf states).

The fact that fools such as yourself do not comprehend that if "only 10% of the muslims are bad" yet still this many people globally die and are oppressed at the hand of islam and mohamed then the religion really is a problem.

Check that AUP again.

This means that the other "90% good muslims" have no control over the violent 10%.

Do the peaceful Christians have control over the LRA, the Real IRA, the Christian terror groups in India (of which many exist)?

Nope.

Until they clean up their act, islam has no place in the modern world.

@Johnnypenso - I take it all back, this one is Fox news and far more.

So given that the good Christian/Jewish/Buddist/etc ones have no control over the violent ones means that those faiths have no place in the modern world.

However on a serious note are you actually calling for the removal of all Muslims based on the actions of a minority?