Atheistforums.com

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/muslim-leaders-expose-isis-lies-090930115.html#WC9VZSd

QuoteMuslim Leaders 'Expose ISIS' Lies’ In Digital Magazine

British muslim leaders are hoping to halt Islamic State’s online recruitment successes by launching a digital magazine offering an opposing viewpoint.
Haqiqah will “expose ISIS’ lies”, revealing “what really lies behind the terrorist organisation”.
It’s hoped that hearing imams and scholars offer an alternative perspective will deter disenfranchised British muslims from signing up for the perceived excitement of a life within Islamic State.
Editor-in-Chief Shaukat Warraich says on the site: “The Muslim youth are being misled. Their innocence is being preyed upon. They are being forced to accept lies backed up by propaganda. The truth of extremism could not be further away from the truth of Islam.”
This increased online presence will be used to rebuff claims by ISIS, also known as Daesh, arguing that the terrorist organisation has no religious legitimacy and is also failing socially and economically.
It comes as police, community groups and religious leaders attempt to stem the flow of young Britons fleeing to fight for Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.
Shaukat Warraich said: “Daesh is failing on multiple fronts, it is becoming increasingly desperate.
"The mass exodus of refugees has exposed their false claim of having established a ‘caliphate’ for Muslims in the region.
"A global message needs to go out from every corner of the world rejecting Daesh. If you agree then spread the messages - share Haqiqah magazine, pass it on to your young people and join us in our declaration of Daesh’s failure.”
Contributing author Shaykha Safia Shahid said: “Through Haqiqah, British imams and scholars will make it clear that Islam does not permit the killing of thousands of people, sexual abuse, and the destruction of mosques, churches and other religious monuments.
"Daesh has no claim and legitimacy to the beautiful and compassionate teachings of Islam; we can see its web of lies unravelling.”

Interesting. 

It's interesting. However, it doesn't have any news value, because it is something positive about muslims somewhere.

Not true Muslims. Where are the Muslims criticising terrorism? They actually are saying this to impose sharia. They are coming to get us.

Just getting that in to save some people some trouble. Now watch this thread get 5 or so posts and completely ignored like any other positive message thread...

You know the Islamphobes and racists on this board like pr are going to try to spin this into something sinister

Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - 

"Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it.  When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression..

Quote from: pr126 on October 09, 2015, 12:50:42 PM
Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - 

"Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it.  When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression..

like clockwork. I told you guys

If they said this in loud Raqqa, their life expectancy would be a matter of minutes.
They know that the infidel wants desperately to believe. Look, moderate Muslims! Hallelujah. 
They exist! They will change the world.
Or maybe not.

Don't worry, I don't vacation in shit holes ... no matter the local customs/religions.

Quote from: pr126 on October 09, 2015, 01:02:01 PM
If they said this in loud Raqqa, their life expectancy would be a matter of minutes.
They know that the infidel wants desperately to believe. Look, moderate Muslims! Hallelujah. 
They exist! They will change the world.
Or maybe not.

You're pretty much a one trick pony aren't you?

Just a realist.
While you applaud, the carnage, the mass murders, rape, slavery, and destruction  goes on unabated. Go back to sleep.

Quote from: CrucifyCindy on October 09, 2015, 01:10:43 PM
You're pretty much a one trick pony aren't you?

If it's so predictable and one-dimensional it should be easy for you to refute if you'd care to do so...

Why does a chronic charlatan warrant refuting every single time?

@ Shiranu

charlatan  (http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/charlatan)

How am I deceiving posters on this forum?  Do explain please.

You are not Black Adder? ;-)

Quote from: pr126 on October 12, 2015, 05:57:55 AM
@ Shiranu

charlatan  (http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/charlatan)

How am I deceiving posters on this forum?  Do explain please.

Your right, there is nothing deceptive about constantly posting articles that are either straight up lies, or at best greatly twisting the truth.

It's the articles that are deceiving, not you...

Why not refute the articles?
Are they really lies or just don't agree with your world view, therefore it must be lies.

.

Quote from: Youssuf Ramadan on October 09, 2015, 07:05:49 AM
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/muslim-leaders-expose-isis-lies-090930115.html#WC9VZSd

Interesting. 

I know of many Muslims who don't care about their religion (just like there are many Christians who don't care about Christianity). These people are NOT going to go on a crusade (OOPS, bad terminology?) to denounce what some perceive as BAD Islam ( or BAD Christianity). So the people who care about their religion ( Islam or Christianity) and perceive that the extremists in their religion are to be denounced are few, and so have little influence in the course of changing anything, anyone.

ISIS is doing exactly what Muhammad has done, and they are following the Quran to the letter.
Abu Bakr al Baghdadi is a Muslim scholar who knows Islam better than anybody.

By declaring his actions a lie, is saying that Islam is a lie. And that is apostasy.

But westerners not only do not know that, they do not want to know it either.

So enjoy your takiyya, it is what you want to hear, isn' it? The reality is too frightening. Best not to know.

Quote"Daesh has no claim and legitimacy to the beautiful and compassionate teachings of Islam; we can see its web of lies unravelling.”

Iif you believe that you deserve the the Darwin Award.

Quote from: Shiranu on October 11, 2015, 05:58:33 PM
Why does a chronic charlatan warrant refuting every single time?

I remember when this place was a space for debate rather than ad hominems.

People who have been dead for hundreds or thousands of years ... aren't much of an issue.  And any criminal can take any dead person as their exemplar ... whether they are being historically accurate, or just projecting their own rotten character.  Deal with the present, the past is dead already.  So who funded ISIS? ... it wasn't Muhammad and his magic time machine.  Lawrence of Arabia is more to blame, and the conflicts of 1914 ... than anything in the more distant past.  WW I didn't end in 1918 and WW II didn't end in 1945 ... and the Cold War didn't end in 1991 either.  They are all part of a larger pattern, that is only 100 years old.

Quran 33:21 is urging Muslims to emulate Muhammad as the best example for humanity.
ISIS and devout Muslims are doing just that. Emulating their prophet.

True ... in the sense that I emulate George Washington or Abraham Lincoln.  They have their detractors too.

But I really don't know any icons personally, nor do the emulators of Muhammad.  Think projection, not genuine emulation.  I can emulate my father, because I actually lived with him.

Quote from: Baruch on October 12, 2015, 01:15:31 PM
True ... in the sense that I emulate George Washington or Abraham Lincoln.  They have their detractors too.

But I really don't know any icons personally, nor do the emulators of Muhammad.  Think projection, not genuine emulation.  I can emulate my father, because I actually lived with him.

Yeah but how many people have you tortured and killed lately?

You have the right to emulate, and indeed do whatever you want up until the point of harming someone else.

My father didn't torture or kill, and neither do I.  You should be happy about that.  But you miss my point ... if you think emulating a fictional or legendary figure from the distant past ... means anything.  What if someone emulated a manga villain ... would you blame the manga?  Or is it just another ComicCon psychosis?

And yes, it is unwise and un-compassionate to harm people or the environment, yet we do it all the time, collectively.

Quote from: SilentFutility on October 12, 2015, 12:31:44 PM
I remember when this place was a space for debate rather than ad hominems.

Same. Even tried to address that it had gotten worse, and yet the forum just gets more and more toxic and partisan.

Again, if my actions are terrible, then there are several people who post here who are down right monstrous. Might want to deal with them first.

If everyone one is so upset I have a different opinion and respond in the same manner as I am treated, just tell me and I will go. I'm not going to pretend I have much to offer anyways.

----------------------------
Edit: On a calmer note; the reason I call him a chronic charlatan is because he continuously post articles that are either bold face lies or twisting the truth very, very close to the point of breaking. When confronted on it, the response from several is either, "Take it up with the writer not me!" or "Oh, I only posted because I am not biased!".

Imagine if a Christian came here and kept on posting articles about how Carl Sagan actually only did it for the money and was secretly a communist, or how atheism is the evilist ideology to have ever existed... and every time they were called on it, "Oh, I'm not the liar... just blame the author!" while continuing to spam that same message thread after thread, post after post. Would you expect the forum as a whole to not get tired of calling him on his shit, and to never just call a spade a spade?

I just ask to be held to the same standards as anyone else. When I am wrong, I am fine with admitting it when someone points out why I am wrong with something other than, "...well, in my opinion..."; see threads like the "Gender fluidity". But when I get called a ladyboy, a little bitch, take underhanded insults about my personal life in post after post after post, and no one fucking calls them out on it, then I do believe it is within my right to respond with a little bit of snark back mysel.

I only attack people based on their actions, and call them what they are; I have been repeatedly attacked with gender slurs and attack on my personal life and character, and no one said shit to them.

So again; if you really want me to believe Ad Hom. attacks aren't belonging on this forum, say some shit to the people who have actually attacked me personally rather than anything related at all to what I have to say. Thank you.

Apart from the strawman in the Carl Sagan paragraph, how about refuting those lies?

"This is why the article is a lie, because" .... and then present your counter argument with sources.
Until then, your posts are just your opinions.

And don't get too emotional. This is the Internet.

Quote from: pr126 on October 13, 2015, 12:26:24 AM
Apart from the strawman in the Carl Sagan paragraph, how about refuting those lies?

"This is why the article is a lie, because" .... and then present your counter argument with sources.

Already have on those that were. Just in case you forgot, you didn't post an article here, so it is a bit hard to refute one at the current time and place.

QuoteUntil then, your posts are just your opinions.

Indeed, but unlike some of us I never claim them to be anything more... nor do I try to use my opinions to invoke fear of those outside my culture. Though with how much of a mutt I am, that would be a bit hard to find a "relevant" culture that I cant trace a grandparent or great grandparent to... fear of the Japanese or Central Africans just isn't in vogue at the moment I'm afraid.

QuoteAnd don't get too emotional. This is the Internet.

Hmpf. Right. The go-to rebuttal around here, to avoid any sense of personal responsibility. I see why it's so fashionable.

Rhetoric is, in my opinion, the second most dangerous weapon in the world; the first being fear. You wish to use both to stir up a belief that any day the Muslims will destroy our way of life, will come and rape our women and stone our children, enforce Sharia law. You want to stir up fear that the liberal is allowing this all to happen and destroying "our way of life". To "prove" this, you post misinformation and insist that there is only one true Islam; and yet you strike me as a man who has never met a Muslim in your life, otherwise you would realise just how foolish that is.

I know Muslims from Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon, Turkey... and not a single one of them follows the same exact ideology. The Egyptians and Turks are all very progressive, secular minded... I have yet to met either who wants religion in government or law (infact, the Egyptians I know are all extremely against it and believe in a government frankly more reason based than most Western countries)); the Pakistanis on the other hand do fit the mold of your Muslim in their beliefs, but also believe that here in the United States they have to follow the rules of the land. The Iranian and the two Turks I know (in person) drink alcohol, the Iranian has tattoos, and one is an atheist.

But by your logic, they don't exist; nor do the head's of organizations of hundreds of millions, billions of Muslims who actively have condemned terrorism and live vastly different lives from country to country, even region to region. The only "true Muslims" that exist are the Wahhabiya ultra-orthodox branch, and everyone else is secretly a member just waiting at the flick of a switch to destroy us.

Again, if someone was to come in and use the exact same rhetoric to atheists, they would be laughed and cursed out of here... as has happened. Hell, even if someone was to use the exact same rhetoric about Christians, many of us would be against it. But because it's a different minority, one we disagree with, suddenly it becomes acceptable to lie and deceive if it helps further the agenda. It's hypocritical and downright shameful.

So internet or not, this is why it is "serious business". Words are powerful, regardless of what medium you are using them on. To treat them like worthless scribbles because they exist on a computer and not on a book shows a real misunderstanding of basically any concept of linguistics... or an intentional will to try to excuse your actions and take no responsibility for them.

I am fine with people insulting me; if I was taking it truly personal, I would leave. I just have to laugh and shake my head that I am called "too emotional" when my attacks are pathetic compared to the personal shit-slinging that has gone on without a blink of an eye from the people who call me and several others "too emotional" or "being a bully". I find that far more insulting than internet tough guys who think attacking me personally is going to somehow make them look more machismo or prove themselves correct. Though since they are given no negative responses from the same people who criticise me and others... I guess positive affirmation, or at least silently sitting by, does give them very little reason to change.

Quote“Through Haqiqah, British imams and scholars will make it clear that Islam does not permit the killing of thousands of people, sexual abuse, and the destruction of mosques, churches and other religious monuments.

Probably this is gonna be just a bunch of shitty post hoc rationalizations like what you see in christian apologetics about leviticus and other awful shit on the bible.
However I rather have that than murderous fanatics. Now if they would promote secularism as a necessity to support pluralistic society...

QuoteBut by your logic, they don't exist; nor do the head's of organizations of hundreds of millions, billions of Muslims who actively have condemned terrorism and live vastly different lives from country to country, even region to region. The only "true Muslims" that exist are the Wahhabiya ultra-orthodox branch, and everyone else is secretly a member just waiting at the flick of a switch to destroy us.

They do not exist in a sense that they have absolutely no voice, no power to change ANYTHING at all.
To do so, is to reject Islam's teachings which amounts to apostasy.

QuoteAny so-called "Moderate Muslims" will not be able to wrest control of the islamic agenda for several reasons. First of all, Mohammed, the Messenger of Allah’s eternal word, was not moderate. No so-called "Moderate Muslim" can legitimately tell another Muslim to stop doing the very things Mohammed himself did. The Qur’an not only condones but commands violence and coercion to further the Islamic agenda. People whom some call "Moderate Muslims" are labeled hypocrites by Allah Himself in the Qur’an. Any so-called "Moderate Muslims" will always lose the argument because, as ex-Muslim author Ibn Warraq says, “There may be "moderates" in Islam but Islam itself is not at all moderate.”

Quote...the head's of organizations of hundreds of millions, billions of Muslims who actively have condemned terrorism and live vastly different lives from country to country, even region to region.

Those Muslims are counting on the gullible to believe what they are saying.

"There you are, they said it, so it must be true. Nothing to worry about." Islam is peace. Let's get back to sleep.

Meanwhile global jihad is continuing unabated. Jihad? What jihad?

QuoteThey do not exist in a sense that they have absolutely no voice, no power to change ANYTHING at all.

Clearly. That's why the Muslims in the United States are all following Islam to-a-T, and the mosques here are cranking out radicals that are oppressing us. That's why Al Qaeda and ISIS have such huge American chapters constantly waging war on the infidel, as the "good Muslim" should do.

Perhaps you do not understand how Islam is structured? You view it as a monolithic entity akin to the RCC, where the Vatican says something and it is so (more or less). I ask; what is the Vatican of the Muslim faith? What central authority do they hold as THE divine interpreter of the Qu'ran?

I'll save you the trouble of replying, "The Qu'ran is the divine authority! It is unquestionable!"...

Question two; If the Qu'ran is unquestionable, why are there so many different interpretations of it? Why does Islam basically vary in one way or another from every single iman to the next? And given the abundance of various interpretations, why do you continue to insist it is some homogeneous entity that is only practiced by roughly 4.6 million Muslims (80 something % located in the Persian gulf), and the other 1.57 billion Muslims are all, "Not True Muslims" and apostates?

QuoteTo do so, is to reject Islam's teachings which amounts to apostasy.

Again, you just prove you have zero understanding that Islam is not a unified beast but a conglomeration of hundreds of different cultures that all interpret it in various ways. That, or around some 1,500,000,000 Muslims are apostates.

That is assuming you believe Wahhabiya is "true Islam", since it is the most prominent orthodox interpretation. And since you are saying anything that disagrees with "true Islam" is apostasy... then yeah, thats 1.5 billion+ apostates. If you want to give a little wiggle room, then that can probably be cut down to more like 900,000,000+ apostates... but you are the one insisting there is only one true Islam, so that would require you to admit you were not being serious to begin with...

Frankly I think that is a quite silly belief to have, but I also figure you never actually considered the actual logistics of that since, again, you ignorantly view the Middle East (and African, Asian and Western Muslims) as one giant, unified culture.

Quote from: pr126 on October 13, 2015, 01:32:38 AM
Any so-called "Moderate Muslims" will not be able to wrest control of the islamic agenda for several reasons. First of all, Mohammed, the Messenger of Allah’s eternal word, was not moderate. No so-called "Moderate Muslim" can legitimately tell another Muslim to stop doing the very things Mohammed himself did. The Qur’an not only condones but commands violence and coercion to further the Islamic agenda. People whom some call "Moderate Muslims" are labeled hypocrites by Allah Himself in the Qur’an. Any so-called "Moderate Muslims" will always lose the argument because, as ex-Muslim author Ibn Warraq says, “There may be "moderates" in Islam but Islam itself is not at all moderate.”

This is truth to a certain extend but look at christianity now a days, ultimately doctrine will be reshaped when the ethics of the believers evolve and their governments become more secular, which did actually kind of happen with the Ba'athism ideology,though this ideology was applied brutally with iron fist by dictators which had the opposite effect and caused radicalization. The best we can do for now is support Islam reformists and accelerate this evolution.

 :wall: :wall: :wall:

We are getting nowhere fast. You believe what you want to believe.

mauricio wrote:

QuoteThe best we can do for now is support Islam reformists and accelerate this evolution.

And how soon do you expect this to happen?

BTW, who is doing the supporting and how can it be done?

Quote from: pr126 on October 13, 2015, 02:07:34 AM
:wall: :wall: :wall:

We are getting nowhere fast. You believe what you want to believe.

Right. I'll believe the actual numbers, that 1.5 billion Muslims do not follow the Ultra-Orthodox you spout as being "true Islam" (Hey, you and the Saudi Clerics have something in common! Neato!) and you can keep on fearing the boogieman under your bed. Easier than accepting you are wrong, or admitting that "The One True Islam" was a hyperbole to stir the fears up and what you mean is, "The One True Islam*

*[Or Sects That Resemble It In Many Ways, But Differ In Others Based On Cultural Differences, Various Interpretations and Geo-Political Factors]".

Of course, admitting that would also undermine your entire belief that Islam is infailable... bit of a rock and a hard place... weird how the moment evidence goes contrary to you, you suddenly aren't at all interested in being proven wrong and turn your head the other way...

For those whom it may concern; do you perhaps have a glimpse now into why I don't always bother responding with facts, but rather just an, "Lol. Okay." sort of stab?

Quote from: Shiranu on October 13, 2015, 02:17:11 AM
Right. I'll believe the actual numbers, that 1.5 billion Muslims do not follow the Ultra-Orthodox you spout as being "true Islam" (Hey, you and the Saudi Clerics have something in common! Neato!) and you can keep on fearing the boogieman under your bed. Easier than accepting you are wrong, or admitting that "The One True Islam" doesn't exist and what you mean is, "The One True Islam*

*[Or Sects That Resemble It In Many Ways, But Differ In Others Based On Cultural Differences and Geo-Political Factors]".

For those whom it may concern; do you perhaps have a glimpse now into why I don't always bother responding with facts, but rather just an, "Lol. Okay." sort of stab?

Shiranu, I am tired and weary to teach the unteachable.  It can't be done.

Quote from: pr126 on October 13, 2015, 02:24:10 AM
Shiranu, I am tired and weary to teach the unteachable.  It can't be done.

If you say so, Pr126-Sensei. Frankly, your xenophobic beliefs are not something I wish to learn anyways. Thank you for your earlier attempts though!

Note: Edited for -kun, which was the wrong honorific, though kinda of funny in hindsight. Ah well.

Quote from: pr126 on October 13, 2015, 02:11:22 AM
mauricio wrote:And how soon do you expect this to happen?

BTW, who is doing the supporting and how can it be done?

first question I have no idea. Second question Sam harris and maajid nawas. Maajid Nawaz changed the mind of a bomb maker, while in prison for being an islamist, about targeting western civilians. Seriously the speeches by Maajid Nawaz are really powerful the guy knows how to use rhetoric, obviously not all radicals will buy it and many despise it, but he is a beacon of hope imo. Listen to this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw1TLVKadzg
https://youtu.be/sWclm4Bi4UM?t=1h14m5s
https://youtu.be/OTEh_xtZhtA?t=1m27s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9rM6BKAGss&index=1&list=PLf3UymFHxHUnj-UAxe3DrO01ooJL7UB1I

Quote from: mauricio on October 13, 2015, 03:06:53 AM
first question I have no idea. Second question Sam harris and maajid nawas. Maajid Nawaz changed the mind of a bomb maker, while in prison for being an islamist, about targeting western civilians. Seriously the speeches by Maajid Nawaz are really powerful the guy knows how to use rhetoric, obviously not all radicals will buy it and many despise it, but he is a beacon of hope imo. Listen to this.

https://youtu.be/sWclm4Bi4UM?t=1h14m5s
https://youtu.be/OTEh_xtZhtA?t=1m27s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9rM6BKAGss&index=1&list=PLf3UymFHxHUnj-UAxe3DrO01ooJL7UB1I

Cant stand many of Harris' political views, but theologically/philosophically I don't know enough about him to like him or dislike him.

Likewise, I don't know much of this  Maajid Nawaz, but I am liking what I have heard so far from him. Don't have time to watch the whole video and see if he ends up going way out to left/right field and lose me though...

Shiranu wrote:

QuoteFrankly, your xenophobic beliefs are not something I wish to learn anyways.

Shhhh. Don't tell everybody.

European Union: Legislation on Racism and Xenophobia (http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l20540850_text)

Quote(Dec 16, 2008) On November 28, 2008, after lengthy negotiations, the Council of the European Union Framework Decision on Combating Certain Forms and Expressions of Racism and Xenophobia by Means of Criminal Law was finally adopted. The Decision obliges the EU Member States to criminalize the following intentional conduct:

Expecting the thought police to break down my door any minute...

Quote from: pr126 on October 13, 2015, 03:19:57 AM
Shiranu wrote:

Shhhh. Don't tell everybody.

European Union: Legislation on Racism and Xenophobia (http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l20540850_text)

Expecting the thought police to break down my door any minute...

The fact that political correctness is stupid does not make your points any more valid. Actually argue your case clearly.

Quote from: pr126 on October 13, 2015, 03:19:57 AM

Expecting the thought police to break down my door any minute...

I would not worry, they have not gone after Tony Blair yet who is clearly more in breach of those laws than you are.
Tony still will not admit how many Iraqis his orders killed.

Quote from: Shiranu on October 13, 2015, 03:13:43 AM
Cant stand many of Harris' political views, but theologically/philosophically I don't know enough about him to like him or dislike him.

Likewise, I don't know much of this  Maajid Nawaz, but I am liking what I have heard so far from him. Don't have time to watch the whole video and see if he ends up going way out to left/right field and lose me though...

Sam harris is kind of meh and takes a long time to make his point clear, but the slander he received from certain ''progressives'' (heavy emphasis on those quotation marks) like reza aslan , glenn greenwald, the young turks and ben affleck. Helped open my mind to the bullshit on my political side of the fence and made me see the fallaciousness of identity politics. I respect him for giving Maajid Nawaz a plataform and for changing his mind on the way he talks about islam by talking to Maajid. Maajid Nawaz imo is a great guy, hes very eloquent and conciliatory I urge you to hear what he has to say specially what he says about islamophobia and the voldemort effect, so you avoid the traps of identity politics.

I always wonder why those 1.5 billion peaceful moderate Muslims not protesting, demonstrating, speaking out against the tiny minority of jihadist who are clearly misunderstanding the peaceful teachings of Islam?

Any thoughts? 

Probably the wrong question.

Quote from: mauricio on October 13, 2015, 01:52:44 AM
This is truth to a certain extend but look at christianity now a days, ultimately doctrine will be reshaped when the ethics of the believers evolve and their governments become more secular, which did actually kind of happen with the Ba'athism ideology,though this ideology was applied brutally with iron fist by dictators which had the opposite effect and caused radicalization. The best we can do for now is support Islam reformists and accelerate this evolution.

I hear what you say but you need to take into account certain facts. Historically, Europe was no more different than the Muslim world - religion was the main course on the political agenda. However, Europe went through a horrific 30-year war that led to the concept of secularism - an idea which eventually was embedded in the US constitution. In the intervening years, it has become the basis of Western civilization. Unfortunately, the Muslim world did not go through a similar transformation. Reformist or moderates in the Muslim world have no or very little voice as what they advocate is basically like hitting your head against the wall. And so what we have in our time is a country like Saudi Arabia, a state at the complete opposite of a secular state, taking in billions of dollars every day, and spending it to promote its vision of the world throughout the Western world. The worst part is that it has maneuvered itself to be an indispensable ally of the US in the ME. And as a result, its strategy is going on full blast. And the main victim in this will be Europe.

Quote from: pr126 on October 13, 2015, 12:26:24 AM


"This is why the article is a lie, because" .... and then present your counter argument with sources.
Until then, your posts are just your opinions.

Don't worry about Shiranu. He has accused me of the same "crimes". Shiranu  has proven himself to be a staunch Islamic apologist. He is the poster child of the LEFT. In whatever argument you get into with him will quickly devolve into ad hominem.

QuoteDon't worry about Shiranu. He has accused me of the same "crimes".

If the shoe fits...

¯\_(ãƒ,,)_/¯

By the way; the two threads that I've posted in that would have reference to you would be the "Child makes clock..." and the last PR article about book burnings. In the first one you continually slandered someone over an article that extremely twisted the truth and out-right lied about the position someone held... it was not just me but also several people who generally lean more towards your side of the fence that pointed out the article was inaccurate slander... something you refused to ever accept, all while saying, "I only care about the truth".

The other that would have reference to you comes from, "Fahrenheit 451", where you posted....

QuotePC gone amock.

Notwistanding that some members of this forum would do the same if they had that power.

...even though the "article" had zero evidence it ever happened outside of a disturbingly hideously designed blog and "news" sites like "The Daily Sheeple" and Infowars, as well as several logical contradictions; ("We are not sure if it was a book burning or not actually, but it was definitely public and everyone saw it!" and the fact that there are no pictures from the event).

QuoteShiranu  has proven himself to be a staunch Islamic apologist.

Yes, it's much easier to call me that than admit your source was wrong, or that you never cared if it was true to begin with and just wanted to get people riled up. Personal responsibility can be a hard burden to bear, but I do believe you can do it someday.

QuoteHe is the poster child of the LEFT.

"I'm not partisan like everyone else, I just only post links from far-right sites like Breibart and Infowars and accuse anyone who disagrees with me of being a dirty leftist liberal! But I only do that because I am not partisan and am equal minded!"

Take the log out of your eye before judging me. You are just as much a partisan hack as anyone else here but don't have the integrity to admit it. You don't give a shit about the truth if it disagrees with your agenda, yet speak a mighty fine tune of, "I only care about the truth!".

Your actions paint a very different picture. Just accept who you are, you will be much happier once you do.

Quote from: pr126 on October 13, 2015, 04:45:43 AM
I always wonder why those 1.5 billion peaceful moderate Muslims not protesting, demonstrating, speaking out against the tiny minority of jihadist who are clearly misunderstanding the peaceful teachings of Islam?

Any thoughts? 

Probably the wrong question.

Why aren't the hundreds of millions of peaceful, moderate African Americans protesting, speaking out against the tiny minority of gangsters and drug dealers who give the community a bad name?

Why aren't the hundreds of millions of peaceful, moderate Conservatives not protesting, speaking out against the tiny minority of mass shooters, bombers, and other's who abuse minorities when they misinterpret Conservatism?

Why aren't the hundreds of millions of peaceful, moderate police officers protesting, speaking out against the tiny minority of cops who murder innocent people when they misinterpret their duty?

Why aren't the hundreds of millions of peaceful, moderate soldiers protesting, speaking out against the tiny minority of soldiers who have committed war crimes when they misinterpreted their orders?

Probably because 1.5 billion people shouldn't have to apologize for their actions of a fringe group, particularly one that was propped up by the West... we created the problem, and then we expect them to apologize for it? Really?

Do we atheists need to start hitting the street and apologizing for our fringe radicals as well?

Shiranu wrote:

QuoteProbably because 1.5 billion people shouldn't have to apologize for their actions of a fringe group, particularly one that was propped up by the West... we created the problem, and then we expect them to apologize for it? Really?

I think you are got this wrong.
No mention of wanting an apology.
Athough there are plenty of reasons for that. Like 14 centuries of conquest and 270 million corpses.

No, the "moderates" should endeavor to stop the carnage and destruction in the name of Islam, if Islam is really as peaceful and noble as they telling us it is.

They should protest "not in my name" to all the murders, beheading, rapes, tortures if it is not part of Islams teachings.

But they can't do that.

For the simple reason that Islam does teach murder, and mayhem because it is in the Quran and the sunna.

Quote from: Shiranu on October 13, 2015, 10:18:42 AM


(1) By the way; the two threads that I've posted in that would have reference to you would be the "Child makes clock..."


(2)The other that would have reference to you comes from, "Fahrenheit 451", where you posted....


(3) Take the log out of your eye before judging me. You are just as much a partisan hack as anyone else here but don't have the integrity to admit it. You don't give a shit about the truth if it disagrees with your agenda, yet speak a mighty fine tune of, "I only care about the truth!".

LOL

(1) As evidence were revealed bit by bit, the case of the child building a clock turned out to be a complete sham. It's amazing you're still defending your position on that.

(2) My comment on Farenheit451-thread was an opinion about PC. As usual, you can't distinguish when one someone is expressing an opinion from a fact.

(3) And your tirade to silence pr from expressing his opinions on this forum is well known.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 13, 2015, 12:20:57 PM
LOL

(1) As evidence were revealed bit by bit, the case of the child building a clock turned out to be a complete sham. It's amazing you're still defending your position on that.

(2) My comment on Farenheit451-thread was an opinion about PC. As usual, you can't distinguish when one someone is expressing an opinion from a fact.

(3) And your tirade to silence pr from expressing his opinions on this forum is well known.

*sigh*

1. You have zero understanding of why people were upset, do you? The clock being a disassembled and reassembled piece mislabeled as "built" by the kid is irrelevant. It's as irrelevant as Treyvon Martin having marijuana  in his system or "dressing like a thug" and yet you do the same thing; that somehow makes the actions of the authorities, the people who actually matter and who are being judged, justified.

Regardless of if he made the clock, dissembled it or bought it from a gay hooker from Somalia is irrelevant to why people care about the story. People care about the story because the school and the police failed to act in a way that one would expect of public officials and peace keepers.

But that is really irrelevant to the fact that you bold face lied about his father, isn't it? You just want to change the subject than admit you repeatedly posted misinformation from a right-wing fuckfest and portrayed it as the truth, and then when called on it by several members continuously deflected and bolstering how all you care about is "the truth".

You only care about YOUR truth; "the truth" could go fuck itself for all you seem to care.

2.

QuotePC gone amock.

Right. PC gone amock... except it NEVER HAPPENED. It's like me saying in a "serious" post about how the Ferengi are taking over the American government, "Conservatives gone amock!".

Tell me, what was PC gone amock in that story? And several members of the forum would do the same... gee, that doesn't at all imply that several members would do the same thing (of an event that never happened).

I'll address the opinion section in the next...

Quote(3) And your tirade to silence pr from expressing his opinions on this forum is well known.

Right. Having a different opinion now equals "silencing x from expressing their opinion.".

You know, if I had been calling mods to ban PR, that would be one way of silencing him. I have been organizing a campaign to have him thrown on ignore lists, that would be silencing him from expressing his opinion. Stating my own opinion on the other hand is not silencing him.

The sheer idiocy of what you just said paired with, "as usual, you can't distinguish when one someone is expressing an opinion", is frankly fucking staggering. You cannot apparently recognize opinion from, "OH MY GOD, HE IS TRYING TO OPPRESS ME", then want to judge me?

Take your own log out of your eye then come back before you make more of an idiot of yourself. And please, stop trying to silence me before I report you to a moderator, k thanks.

Quote from: Shiranu on October 13, 2015, 04:52:06 PM
People care about the story because the school and the police failed to act in a way that one would expect of public officials and peace keepers.

That's your opinion. AFAIC, the police and the school acted appropriately. To each his own.

Quote2.

It's like me saying in a "serious" post about how the Ferengi are taking over the American government, "Conservatives gone amock!".

The funny part is that you do exactly that.

QuoteRight. Having a different opinion now equals "silencing x from expressing their opinion.".

It is when you bring up that pr is lying just about every times he post on this forum , when in reality, he is expressing his opinions based on his experience and knowledge, and particularly if he links websites that are known to be of the right inclination.  Your knee-jerk reaction is to dismiss outright without even taking an iota of time to really examine the issue. You're not in for discussion but to suppress.

josephpalazzo wrote:

QuoteThat's your opinion. AFAIC, the police and the school acted appropriately. To each his own.

Plus it should send a message to any would be prankster not to be a dick.

The media had a field day howling about mistreating a member of the Master Race for no good reason.  The shame!

I disassembled my father's watch when I was a boy, but I never got it back together again.  Good thing it was an old watch and I got prior permission ... otherwise I would have been in trouble with my father, not with the PC police.

Quote from: Baruch on October 14, 2015, 07:19:57 AM
I disassembled my father's watch when I was a boy, but I never got it back together again.  Good thing it was an old watch and I got prior permission ... otherwise I would have been in trouble with my father, not with the PC police.

Your father didn't call a press conference ranting that you were mistreated because of your religion?!?... oh wait, wrong story...

Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 14, 2015, 10:01:28 AM
Your father didn't call a press conference ranting that you were mistreated because of your religion?!?... oh wait, wrong story...

My father was an atheist, so that would be hard to imagine ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on October 12, 2015, 06:42:04 PM
My father didn't torture or kill, and neither do I.  You should be happy about that.  But you miss my point ... if you think emulating a fictional or legendary figure from the distant past ... means anything.  What if someone emulated a manga villain ... would you blame the manga?  Or is it just another ComicCon psychosis?

And yes, it is unwise and un-compassionate to harm people or the environment, yet we do it all the time, collectively.

It means something when nearly a quarter of the world's population emulates someone or something.

I don't for a second think that emulating someone or something or following an ideology absolves someone from personal responsibility. I'm saying that an ideology can have very toxic elements even if good people use cognitive dissonance to ignore them.

There were plenty of otherwise good people who were supporters of the Nazi party in 30s Germany, there are plenty of people who follow various religions who are not bad people, but that doesn't change the ideology itself and what is written in the books. Just because a christian chooese to ignore much of the old testament whilst still calling themselves christian doesn't mean that the old testament doesn't have some pretty horrible things in it, for example.

"if good people use cognitive dissonance to ignore them" ... excellent!  But then Pr126 implies the same.  People do this all the time, to deal with complexity, to triage their situation when in crisis, to support their own delusions or deceits.  I don't know if there are any "good" people, but you are on the trail of something that is universal.  Well, that and cognitive harmony ;-)  One of the primary aspects of psychology is "paying attention" vs "ignoring".  Add "selective memory" and "selective forgetting" and you will hit pay dirt.

Though it is possible that if a large percentage of people have a particular habit or trait ... it is probably very close to what is really going on in people's heads ... though expressed in cultural norms and personal idiosyncrasy.

Quote from: CrucifyCindy on October 09, 2015, 12:44:19 PM
You know the Islamphobes and racists on this board like pr are going to try to spin this into something sinister

Ive actually seen Muslims shit up close  and I can say the culture is based off their religion which is baffling terrible. Why the fuck are you defending Muslims?

Some First World people have a guilty conscience, and mistakenly believe that had they been in their grandparent's shoes, they wouldn't have done all that militant colonialist stuff.  So they are actually narcissistically trying to not be their grandparents.  Or it could be just regular conscience ... they think they don't want to do nasty things to anyone ... but might not be aware how over time how futile that is.

And yes, some cultures have regressive aspects, like foot binding in Old China.  But I am not sure I want to go all Rudyard Kipling about it.

my grandparents were an atheist good ol boy, an mental hospital reject, an reverend bigot, and a handicapped shrew what do you want from me

Quote from: Draconic Aiur on October 14, 2015, 11:40:31 PM
my grandparents were an atheist good ol boy, an mental hospital reject, an reverend bigot, and a handicapped shrew what do you want from me

Sounds like y'all come from good people ;-)  Never devalue your ancestors ... without them you wouldn't be the wreck you are today ;-))

Quote from: Draconic Aiur on October 14, 2015, 11:23:56 PM
Ive actually seen Muslims shit up close  and I can say the culture is based off their religion which is baffling terrible. Why the fuck are you defending Muslims?

Muslims are considered to be victims and hence must be shielded from the dregs of society, a pet project for the Left.(READ: CrucifyCindy, shiranu)

Except many people are victims, and many of those are Muslims, because of the minerals under the sand dunes.  The rapacious Anglo-Saxon Mafia won't leave them alone ... the oil/gas has been in play even before WW I ... just not exploited much until after WW II.  And the dregs of society ... are the Elite ... the self appointed assholes who make life not worth living, because they horde all the money like Scrooge McDuck.  I will take an honest thief like Jean Valjean any day over a politician or banker.

Quote from: Baruch on October 15, 2015, 07:11:32 AM
Except many people are victims, ...

Well, the day you stop feeling to be a victim is the day you'll start to really live life.

Quote from: CrucifyCindy on October 09, 2015, 12:44:19 PM
You know the Islamphobes and racists on this board like pr are going to try to spin this into something sinister

Islam is not a race.

Phobia implies an irrational fear of something, not a reasoned out argument that may or may not be correct but is nonetheless arrived at through an attempt at a logical thought-process. In a debate, you assume the other person to be sane, and that they have a reason for thinking the way they do, and you discuss and question that reason and try to share your reasoning in order to make them understand and possibly be convinced by your point of view. By labelling someone phobic of something, you imply that their thoughts are irrational, hence from the outset you are not open for debate, you are closing off your mind.

If you're on this forum simply to tell people with other views that they are irrational rather than to share ideas, discuss things and ultimately to learn, then why bother at all? What does starting discussion with other people simply to shut down the discussion achieve?

Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 15, 2015, 07:23:39 AM
Well, the day you stop feeling to be a victim is the day you'll start to really live life.

Except I am not a victim.  I am a perp.  But there are actual victims ... I have victimized some, and my fellow uber-menschen have done the same.   Yes, I can really live life, if I can get one of those snappy SS uniforms.  This is why the US with 5% of the world's population, consumes 20% of the output ... and not just in the 19th century, but in the 21st.  See, you people assume I am opposed to immorality and sin ... but you are wrong.  I am in favor of ethics, because it reduces the damage and casualties from our gang wars.  Truce between baboons and hyenas.

QuoteIslam is not a race.

Well, considering that's not what he said... but I don't know of maybe more than 1 or 2 posters on the forum (and neither of them are part of this issue) who I would consider probable racists.

QuotePhobia implies an irrational fear of something, not a reasoned out argument that may or may not be correct but is nonetheless arrived at through an attempt at a logical thought-process.

I don't particularly think anyone here is an Islamaphobe (and I don't particularly think thats a very great word to begin with), but I do think several links they use are definitely posted by "Islamaphobes" in that they are not rational articles... nor factual half the time. I think a better word would just be lazy if a source appears to back up their bias. So biased, possibly so far as to say bigoted? Yeah, sure. But not Islamaphobic.

Criticizing, attacking Islam is bigoted.
Criticizing, attacking Christianity is not.

Isn't that double standards?  No? Why not?

Mysogyny, gender apartheid, child molesting, animal sacrifice, bigotry, hatred, racism, ill treatment of women, FGM, torture, mindless killings, eternal warfare, beheading, amputating limbs, pagan rituals, opposition to science- unless it is weapons, these are the fruits of Islam.

I am sure I have left a few out.

But for some atheists, - I am looking at you Shiranu, CrucifyCindy, it is worth defending. Really?

When most Christian publicity depicts moderates, and most Muslim publicity depicts radicals, it's easy to see defenders of the latter as upholding a double-standard when they happily attack the former for comparatively small issues. Also, those who are the loudest are heard by the largest audience.

To me, the most powerful image of the average Muslim comes from a story my grandparents told me about one of their trips to Israel. They're on a bus, and get to talking with an Israeli and a Palestinian; who were Jewish and Muslim, respectively. They got to talking about religious and ethnic tensions. Both of these men expressed that they just wanted the bullshit and the violence to stop, and to just live and let live. They weren't high-minded philosophers or scholars; just two average joes on a bus ride to wherever. This is how most people of any religion, race, or creed think, regardless of whatever they may profess. It doesn't make a very sexy headline, though.

Of course there are plenty Muslims who do not want eternal warfare, who would like to live in peace.
But what are they doing to convince their coreligionist of that, without getting themselves killed for it?

Can they openly reject the Quran and the teachings of Muhammad? Would they still be regarded as Muslims? 

QuoteCriticizing, attacking Islam is bigoted.
Criticizing, attacking Christianity is not.

If someone was here only to post anti-Christian things, calling them scum and worthless and a threat to our way of life that anyday will force us to follow biblical law, then yes I would consider them bigoted and obnoxious.

Quote
I am sure I have left a few out.

Quite a few. But as Byakuren pointed out, it's very easy to focus on the negative things that sell, and not the positives that don't.

QuoteBut for some atheists, - I am looking at you Shiranu, CrucifyCindy, it is worth defending. Really?

Frankly, I couldn't care less about someone's religious belief if it isn't being imposed on me or hurting anyone and think it's a nice way to keep touch with one's culture. So as long as it's not being imposed on me, as it is not here, then yes I think it is worth defending. And the overwhelming majority of Muslims are people just like you, me, the Christian cashier at your local market, the Jewish guy down the street, the Hindu passing you at the university, etc. etc., so clearly Islam is not the root cause. The average American Muslim anyways is almost identical to the average American Christian; the only huge difference I have seen is they are a little less quick to mention their religion or ethnicity because they are afraid of social backlash.

If so few Muslims practice "True Islam" (Saudi Waha.-ism), then I see as little reason to attack Islam as I do to attack Christianity for the WBC, the RCC or Judaism for the ultra-orthodox warmongerers in Israel or the isolationists who refuse to report crimes in American Jewish sections.

QuoteFrankly, I couldn't care less about someone's religious belief if it isn't being imposed on me or hurting anyone and think it's a nice way to keep touch with one's culture.

You couldn't care less because it does not affect you personally.  YET.
All the bad things happen far away, to other people. not your worry.

And the "culture" which is governed by Islam, a way of life, is not nice by a long shot. 
Try living as an atheist in an Islam dominated country, experience the "nice" culture close up and personal,  see how long you last.

Suppose that Islam will dominate Europe, which is a probability.
Do you think America will be left alone?

Quote from: Shiranu on October 16, 2015, 12:50:44 AM
If someone was here only to post anti-Christian things, calling them scum and worthless and a threat to our way of life that anyday will force us to follow biblical law, then yes I would consider them bigoted and obnoxious.

Quite a few. But as Byakuren pointed out, it's very easy to focus on the negative things that sell, and not the positives that don't.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about someone's religious belief if it isn't being imposed on me or hurting anyone and think it's a nice way to keep touch with one's culture. So as long as it's not being imposed on me, as it is not here, then yes I think it is worth defending. And the overwhelming majority of Muslims are people just like you, me, the Christian cashier at your local market, the Jewish guy down the street, the Hindu passing you at the university, etc. etc., so clearly Islam is not the root cause. The average American Muslim anyways is almost identical to the average American Christian; the only huge difference I have seen is they are a little less quick to mention their religion or ethnicity because they are afraid of social backlash.

If so few Muslims practice "True Islam" (Saudi Waha.-ism), then I see as little reason to attack Islam as I do to attack Christianity for the WBC, the RCC or Judaism for the ultra-orthodox warmongerers in Israel or the isolationists who refuse to report crimes in American Jewish sections.

This is true, thought i would say the average muslim is peaceful but probably more conservative in things like sexual mores and religious traditions, than your average European.
The thing is , coming back to the context of the thread, the immigrants and refugees coming to europe currently are not just muslims they are much more distinct individuals with a set of characteristics that will cause problems to europe (I described some of those in a post to crucifycindy in the previous page basically they are poor, they are in psychological distress, and they are coming into an alien culture.) . The decision to accept refugees is a decision that needs to be taken with a realistic perspective too.  Not just idealistically.

Pr126 ... Europe has repeatedly benefited from invasion ... just ask the Indo-Europeans.  Or are you Basque?

Being a busybody in foreign policy is a false reversal of American isolationism circa 1941.  In fact Americans then weren't isolationist, that is a convenient myth ... just ask the fascist supporters like Prentice Bush.  So to take care of all the 7 billion asshats in the world, the US needs to make war on those 7 billion asshats?  And why it is the US who needs to determine who is a threat and who is not ... why not the UN?

Quote from: Baruch on October 15, 2015, 07:47:55 PM
See, you people assume I am opposed to immorality and sin ... but you are wrong.  I am in favor of ethics, because it reduces the damage and casualties from our gang wars. 

In geopolitics, there is no ethics.

Quote from: mauricio on October 16, 2015, 01:45:12 AM
This is true, thought i would say the average muslim is peaceful but probably more conservative in things like sexual mores and religious traditions, than your average European.
The thing is , coming back to the context of the thread, the immigrants and refugees coming to europe currently are not just muslims they are much more distinct individuals with a set of characteristics that will cause problems to europe (I described some of those in a post to crucifycindy in the previous page basically they are poor, they are in psychological distress, and they are coming into an alien culture.) . The decision to accept refugees is a decision that needs to be taken with a realistic perspective too.  Not just idealistically.

Many posters are from America where Islam doesn't pose any real threat to the American way of life, at least for now. But Europe is a whole different case. Before the refugee crisis, already there were severe tensions between Muslims and their hosts. With the refugee crisis - there is little choice but to accept them, the alternative would be to let them die on the street and that is not acceptable - the tensions certainly will grow. Is the European leadership capable to turn this around and give these  refugees a decent life? It won't happen if there is a large segment of the population that feels threatened and undermines the considerable amount of effort required to achieve that goal.

It is geopolitics, all the way down ;-(.  But ethics between gangsters is still useful, capiche?  My ex was part Sicilian.  And we both knew a vendetta was a bad idea.

Quote from: Baruch on October 16, 2015, 07:00:27 AM
It is geopolitics, all the way down ;-(.  But ethics between gangsters is still useful, capiche?  My ex was part Sicilian.  And we both knew a vendetta was a bad idea.

Ethics deals with the rules of conduct within the context of a society where there is a legislative body (to establish the rules), the courts (to determine if the rules were broken) and a police force (to make sure the rules are not broken). In geopolitics, there is no such structure: it's whoever has the bigger guns rules (also known as the law of the jungle). Yes, humans have tried to establish that kind of structure on the international scene (the international court at Hague, the UN at NYC) but it doesn't work, and most likely will never work. For your ethics to apply in geopolitics, you would have to establish ONE government for all, ONE court for all, ONE police force for all. Dream on.

Legislation?  That is "legality" not "ethics".  Ethics is the AMA ... not.

Quote from: Baruch on October 16, 2015, 07:16:20 AM
Legislation?  That is "legality" not "ethics".  Ethics is the AMA ... not.

Which part of "a legislative body (to establish the rules)," don't you understand?

Usually that implies a political body, not doctors at a conference getting drunk.  I follow the Oath of Maimonides myself, not the Hippocratic Oath.  I am not a medical doctor, but I did sleep overnight at a Holiday Inn Express ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on October 16, 2015, 07:30:39 AM
Usually that implies a political body, not doctors at a conference getting drunk.  I follow the Oath of Maimonides myself, not the Hippocratic Oath.  I am not a medical doctor, but I did sleep overnight at a Holiday Inn Express ;-)

Who cares about doctors, unless you need medical advice? Hey yoohoo, get your head cleared up, ethics deals with rules of conducts, and those are established by the legislative body of the country.

Quote from: pr126 on October 16, 2015, 12:40:28 AM
Of course there are plenty Muslims who do not want eternal warfare, who would like to live in peace.
But what are they doing to convince their coreligionist of that, without getting themselves killed for it?

Can they openly reject the Quran and the teachings of Muhammad? Would they still be regarded as Muslims? 

The same reason most atheists aren't in the streets protesting communism.

Protesting communism will not get you killed. Well, maybe in North Korea. I don't know.  Other than that, no.

Muslims protesting against Islam's teaching could be a health risk.

Quote from: pr126 on October 16, 2015, 11:17:09 AM
Protesting communism will not get you killed. Well, maybe in North Korea. I don't know.  Other than that, no.

Muslims protesting against Islam's teaching could be a health risk.

I think you've answered your own question, at this point. Atheists don't protest an oppressive atheistic ideology even though it is perfectly safe to do so; whether it's because it doesn't affect him personally or he's just too busy putting food on the table, Average Joe Atheist doesn't go to anti-communist protests. Now remember that Average Joe Muslim has the same concerns in life, but also has to worry about being killed if he tries to do anything about it.

The best people will remain silent under the best of circumstances. Why, then, are you criticizing those who are silent in worse circumstances?

QuoteYou couldn't care less because it does not affect you personally.  YET.
All the bad things happen far away, to other people. not your worry.

You clearly haven't seen my posts before, then.

QuoteAnd the "culture" which is governed by Islam, a way of life, is not nice by a long shot. 
Try living as an atheist in an Islam dominated country, experience the "nice" culture close up and personal,  see how long you last.

About as long as if I was going to advertise myself as atheist in a place like Colombia or certain parts of Mexico I would reckon.

QuoteSuppose that Islam will dominate Europe, which is a probability.

You use that word probability... I do not think it means what you think it means.

Yes, it's a probability... it's also "probable" that aliens run the government. Just not particularly likely.

QuoteYou use that word probability... I do not think it means what you think it means.

Yes, it's a probability... it's also "probable" that aliens run the government. Just not particularly likely.

EURISLAM  (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=8632.0)

Islam has made Europe its bitch before.  Though not without opposition.  Maybe if it happens again, y'all can take your obsessions off of the poor Russians.

Quote from: Shiranu on October 16, 2015, 12:50:44 AM
If someone was here only to post anti-Christian things, calling them scum and worthless and a threat to our way of life that anyday will force us to follow biblical law, then yes I would consider them bigoted and obnoxious.

Quite a few. But as Byakuren pointed out, it's very easy to focus on the negative things that sell, and not the positives that don't.

How many christian states are executing people for apostasy? How many large-scale christian armed groups that engage in middles-ages style pillaging, raping and torturing across country-sized pieces of land are there?

I consider all organised religions to be a threat to the average person just wanting to live their own life in peace on some level, in that wars can be started over any ideology and fundamentalists use them to brutalise others, but let's be realistic for a moment about the nature of facing multiple threats: some are more immediate and threatening than others.

In most western european countries there are members of virtually every world religion, often living in somewhat close proximity. Some more disruptive and threatening than others. It is simply reality that out of all religions, ideologies and groups threatening world peace right now, in 2015, there is one that is particularly dangerous.

QuoteIt is simply reality that out of all religions, ideologies and groups threatening world peace right now, in 2015, there is one that is particularly dangerous.

And if you think that is Islam you are, frankly, deluded.

If we are going by just flat out kill count, Islam still has a long way to go in the last 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 years to various Western and Chinese ideologies. Same with oppression of minorities.

Quote from: Baruch on October 16, 2015, 08:25:57 PM
Islam has made Europe its bitch before.  Though not without opposition.  Maybe if it happens again, y'all can take your obsessions off of the poor Russians.

China would never allow that to happen.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 19, 2015, 08:16:20 AM
China would never allow that to happen.

Seems Russia, with its Syrian, Hezbollah and Iranian allies, won't allow that to happen.

Quote from: Baruch on October 19, 2015, 12:52:12 PM
Seems Russia, with its Syrian, Hezbollah and Iranian allies, won't allow that to happen.

If I had those countries as allies, I wouldn't take the trouble to even mention them.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 19, 2015, 12:55:28 PM
If I had those countries as allies, I wouldn't take the trouble to even mention them.

Worked fine in WW II ... Soviet Union and China were on the Allied side.  Allies aren't about who you like, but who is willing to help you kill your enemies.

Quote from: Shiranu on October 19, 2015, 07:04:37 AM
And if you think that is Islam you are, frankly, deluded.

If we are going by just flat out kill count, Islam still has a long way to go in the last 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 years to various Western and Chinese ideologies. Same with oppression of minorities.

Something may or may not have been a big threat 10 years ago, that something does not stop something else being a threat right now.

10 years is a long time and a lot can happen in it.

If we're going by kill counts in the last 80 years the Germans would be pretty high on the old kill count meter. Are you suggesting that by this logic they're one of the biggest current, present-day threats to world peace? You're calling me deluded but then turning around and saying that because people killed people in WW2 they're a threat to world peace? Also, I resent being called deluded for thinking differently to you.

Go on then, as I'm so clearly deluded it should be very obvious which ideology is more dangerous than the one that has a book condoning various acts of horrific violence that is worshipped by nearly 1/4 of the world's population, a proportion which I might add is rapidly increasing? Christianity? Nope, not as violent, new testament supersedes the old and their proportion of the world's population is in rapid decline. Buddhists? Fringe far right groups with ten members?

Maybe you might disagree with which group is the most dangerous, and it is all subjective so we could argue over it forever essentially, but to call me deluded when that's how the numbers stack up is a bit off isn't it?

QuoteGo on then, as I'm so clearly deluded it should be very obvious which ideology is more dangerous than the one that has a book condoning various acts of horrific violence that is worshipped by nearly 1/4 of the world's population, a proportion which I might add is rapidly increasing? Christianity? Nope, not as violent, new testament supersedes the old and their proportion of the world's population is in rapid decline. Buddhists? Fringe far right groups with ten members?

The oligarchical political system of several of the world's most powerful nations is one very obvious ideology. So is several of the neo-right wing groups that have an actual chance of controlling nations that dominate the global economy and largest militaries in the world. Rampant consumerism that devalues human life in the "other, far away lands". Warhawks who have lead us into campaigns that have murdered and displaced millions in the Middle East.

Those are just a few.

QuoteSomething may or may not have been a big threat 10 years ago, that something does not stop something else being a threat right now.

That's not what I said. The last ten years means now to last ten. Last 20 now to last 20. Etc. Etc.

QuoteMaybe you might disagree with which group is the most dangerous, and it is all subjective so we could argue over it forever essentially, but to call me deluded when that's how the numbers stack up is a bit off isn't it?

The numbers don't stack up in your favour though, so that belief IS in fact deluded.

Quote from: Baruch on October 19, 2015, 06:59:15 PM
Worked fine in WW II ... Soviet Union and China were on the Allied side.

You're talking on different scales now: Russia, with its Syrian, Hezbollah and Iranian allies compared with WW2 allied countries with China and Soviet Union.

QuoteAllies aren't about who you like, but who is willing to help you kill your enemies.

Agree.

Quote from: Shiranu on October 22, 2015, 06:22:56 PM
The oligarchical political system of several of the world's most powerful nations is one very obvious ideology. (citation needed) So is several of the neo-right wing groups that have an actual chance of controlling nations (citation needed) that dominate the global economy (citation needed) and largest militaries in the world. Rampant consumerism that devalues human life in the "other, far away lands" (citation needed). Warhawks who have lead us into campaigns that have murdered and displaced millions in the Middle East.

Those are just a few.

The numbers don't stack up in your favour though, so that belief IS in fact deluded.

You haven't given me any numbers to stack up against other than abstractedly mentioning kill count. Also, who has killed the most in the past is not necessarily the largest threat. I do absolutely agree that decades of foreign intervention by the UK and USA have fucked up a lot of places and have planted the seeds that grew into hatred of the west in many cases.

You didn't call my belief deluded, you called me deluded, don't backpedal. Take it back or stand by it.

Quote
You haven't given me any numbers to stack up against other than abstractedly mentioning kill count.

Nor have you, and if you really think I need to cite for you that the American, Russian, Chinese militaries and economies are the most powerful in the world then I am not entirely sure there is any point in continuing. Next I'll likely have to site that the sky is blue and water is wet. Frankly, not interested.

QuoteYou didn't call my belief deluded, you called me deluded, don't backpedal. Take it back or stand by it.

If your belief is deluded, you are inherently deluded and vice versa. So there is nothing to take back. The only thing left is to add; it's really disappointing to see someone I respected as a poster being consistently standoffish, extremely hypocritical with the standards he holds friend and foe to and whom plays so intentionally dense and moronic as a way of arguing.

It's one thing to see that from people who have been jackasses the whole time, I expect it from them. I don't particularly expect it from people who use to contribute things of value.

Quote from: Shiranu on October 23, 2015, 06:12:36 PM
Nor have you, and if you really think I need to cite for you that the American, Russian, Chinese militaries and economies are the most powerful in the world then I am not entirely sure there is any point in continuing. Next I'll likely have to site that the sky is blue and water is wet. Frankly, not interested.

If your belief is deluded, you are inherently deluded and vice versa. So there is nothing to take back. The only thing left is to add; it's really disappointing to see someone I respected as a poster being consistently standoffish, extremely hypocritical with the standards he holds friend and foe to and whom plays so intentionally dense and moronic as a way of arguing.

It's one thing to see that from people who have been jackasses the whole time, I expect it from them. I don't particularly expect it from people who use to contribute things of value.

Perhaps we never real know someone, until we have seen their Internet posts.  And those aren't clinically indicative except on topics they feel passionate about (I'm talking about you ... Bronies).

Quote from: Shiranu on October 23, 2015, 06:12:36 PM
Nor have you, and if you really think I need to cite for you that the American, Russian, Chinese militaries and economies are the most powerful in the world then I am not entirely sure there is any point in continuing. Next I'll likely have to site that the sky is blue and water is wet. Frankly, not interested.

If your belief is deluded, you are inherently deluded and vice versa. So there is nothing to take back. The only thing left is to add; it's really disappointing to see someone I respected as a poster being consistently standoffish, extremely hypocritical with the standards he holds friend and foe to and whom plays so intentionally dense and moronic as a way of arguing.

It's one thing to see that from people who have been jackasses the whole time, I expect it from them. I don't particularly expect it from people who use to contribute things of value.

Just because someone is the most powerful doesn't mean that they have the most intent to do harm. You're not interested because you're only interested in telling everyone what you think and having them all agree with you.

Yet again, more insults etc. I'm now also playing stupid and moronic as well as being deluded because you don't agree with me. Also disagreeing with you isn't hypocritical. I just disagree.

Finally, with regard to numbers, I said only this:

Quote from: SilentFutility on October 22, 2015, 05:55:04 PM
the one that has a book condoning various acts of horrific violence that is worshipped by nearly 1/4 of the world's population, a proportion which I might add is rapidly increasing?

Then you asserted that the numbers don't stack up, and then you didn't provide any numbers.


If disagreeing with you on a forum where people debate, share ideas and discuss things is standoffish (when you're the one throwing insults around I might add), then it is you who is being hypocritical.


You are clearly not interested in debating this subject, only dictating your opinion and insulting and discrediting anyone who disagrees. I make no apologies for "disappointing you" by daring to have a different opinion to you that doesn't falter in the wake of your insults and lack of actual rebuttal.

Nations with greater power, bear greater responsibility for the results ... including Japan (third largest economy, greater than Russia's).  But people love to split authority from responsibility ... the powerful love to enhance their authority, and let the little people bear all the responsibility ;-(  We should focus on that and not petty concerns.

Quote from: Baruch on October 24, 2015, 10:17:25 AM
Nations with greater power, bear greater responsibility for the results ... including Japan (third largest economy, greater than Russia's).  But people love to split authority from responsibility ... the powerful love to enhance their authority, and let the little people bear all the responsibility ;-(  We should focus on that and not petty concerns.

That is a bit an over exaggeration, don't you think? All societies can be shown to break down into an upper, middle and lower class - and sometimes subdivisions within these. And each class bears its share of authority/responsibility, not necessarily in equal amount. A society that ensures mobility between the classes is preferable to one that doesn't, from my POV. And I don't see any particular reason why we should focus on the little people - they get no special attention, maybe some individuals if they so merit.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 24, 2015, 11:02:51 AM
That is a bit an over exaggeration, don't you think? All societies can be shown to break down into an upper, middle and lower class - and sometimes subdivisions within these. And each class bears its share of authority/responsibility, not necessarily in equal amount. A society that ensures mobility between the classes is preferable to one that doesn't, from my POV. And I don't see any particular reason why we should focus on the little people - they get no special attention, maybe some individuals if they so merit.

Yes, life is just grand, if you have nubile nude females dropping grapes into your waiting mouth.  Are you a follower of Ayn Rand?  I followed her in my youth, but not much since.  The "great man" theory of reality is very much her POV.  My POV is that some people are assholes, or maybe all of us are.  I don't care what accomplishments the monkeys think they have done.

QuoteJust because someone is the most powerful doesn't mean that they have the most intent to do harm. You're not interested because you're only interested in telling everyone what you think and having them all agree with you.

What relevance is intent? If I hurt you because I don't like you, or if I hurt you to further my agenda and you got in the way... tell me how much it will matter to the person who was hurt.

I am not interested in intent because it is irrelevant, not because I want people to agree with me. If I wanted people to constantly agree with me, I sure as fuck wouldn't spend my time here.

QuoteYet again, more insults etc. I'm now also playing stupid and moronic as well as being deluded because you don't agree with me.

Uh, no, you are playing stupid and moronic because you are asking for citation that the major nations economies and militaries are the most powerful in the world. There is no way to not say that in an "insulting" manner, because by it's very nature one should be insulted if called on that. The truth is under no obligation to be non-insulting, nice as that would be.

QuoteAlso disagreeing with you isn't hypocritical. I just disagree.

Not what I said. You do not hold people you agree with to the same standards of citations on articles that are very, very questionable at best as you do "the other side". You do not hold people remotely to the same level of, "I remember when this forum was more than ad homs". You are a hypocrite in your social circles, not in your argument.

And if I am being hypocritical about something, by all means call me on it. That's not an insult, that's a statement of "get your shit together". I have not found any of the insults thrown at me by you or several others insulting, but from you I do find them disappointing.

Quotethe one that has a book condoning various acts of horrific violence that is worshipped by nearly 1/4 of the world's population, a proportion which I might add is rapidly increasing?

Several ways to address this...

1. That number is closer to 50%, since the Bible and Qu'ran both statistically are comparable in terms of violence per percentage... the Bible at nearly 3% of it is violent verses, the Qu'ran at 5%.

If we are going to hold the two as "violent" books because of 2.7% and 5% percentage has violent verses, then are we going to ignore the verses that promote peace and "right" living? Since we love to only quote the bad, let's get some of the good in here for once... lest we be cherry pickers ourselves.

QuoteThe Prophet Muhammad (s) said: “Do not turn away a poor man…even if all you can give is half a date. If you love the poor and bring them near you…God will bring you near Him on the Day of Resurrection.”
â€"â€"â€" Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 1376

The Prophet Muhammad (s) said: ““It is better for a leader to make a mistake in forgiving than to make a mistake in punishing.”
â€"â€"â€" Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 1011.

The Prophet Muhammad (s) said: “Indeed, an ignorant man who is generous is dearer to God than a worshipper who is miserly.”
â€"â€"â€" Al-Tirmidhi: Hadith 580.

The Prophet Muhammad (s) said: “Anybody who believes in Allah and the Last Day should not harm his neighbor, and anybody who believes in Allah and the Last Day should entertain his guest generously, and anybody who believes in Allah and the Last Day should talk what is good or keep quiet (i.e. abstain from all kinds of evil and dirty talk).”
â€"â€"â€" Narrated by Abu Hurayrah, Sahih Al Bukhari, Vol: 8 Hadith 47.

“Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well and that if they do wrong you will do wrong. But (instead) accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong if they do evil.”
â€"â€"â€" Prophet Muhammad (s) as reported in Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 1325.

Truly, a book of true, unadulterated, unfathomable and unopposed evil.


Argument 2. - Take a look at where your shirt is made. Take a look at where the parts on your computer were made. Take a look where nearly every single product you own, every piece of food you eat, was made or grown. Now think about the living standards of the people who made it. We employee millions upon millions of slaves in everything but name in Latin America, Africa, Asia (and for food, at least here in the States, Hispanic slave labour in the fields). Does Islam hold a candle to how many people are suffering not for anything like a religion, but rather just plain, basic greed and indifference of the post-colonial West?

China and India are the two largest countries and growing fast... think about the standards of living in those countries. 36% of the world's population lives in those two countries alone, and the living standards for many, especially in India, are comparable to anywhere in the Middle East.  These countries also wield geo-political power far beyond anyone in the Middle East does, the closest likely being Saudi Arabia and Iran who, while players, are not super powers like these two.

QuoteYou are clearly not interested in debating this subject, only dictating your opinion and insulting and discrediting anyone who disagrees.

You first claim I am not interested in debating, then claim I am only interested in discrediting... what point is there debating if you do not intend to try and prove the other belief wrong. If I had no intention of trying to discredit, my only option would be to say, "You are 100% right" and then there would be no debate.

QuoteI make no apologies for "disappointing you" by daring to have a different opinion to you that doesn't falter in the wake of your insults and lack of actual rebuttal.

Again, your opinion has fuck all to do with why you are disappointing. It is your behaviour that is a let down, but then again I should have expected as much given the turn several posters have taken in the last year or so.

Edit: Sorry, missed a part...

QuoteIf disagreeing with you on a forum where people debate, share ideas and discuss things is standoffish (when you're the one throwing insults around I might add), then it is you who is being hypocritical.

1. It's not the disagreement.

2. Would you say sharing the ideas about creationism is still just, "sharing ideas"? So why is factually bunk articles posted about Islam with a strong xenophobic ideological motivation considered "sharing ideas" instead of posting bullshit.

3. I'll give you the standoffish, though it has gotten worse thanks to a slew of ad homs. and deeply personal attacks by several posters that went unremarked upon by anyone. Still giving you that one though.

Quote from: Baruch on October 24, 2015, 02:51:02 PM
Yes, life is just grand, if you have nubile nude females dropping grapes into your waiting mouth.  Are you a follower of Ayn Rand?  I followed her in my youth, but not much since. 

Which part of "He's a little trick for your little brains to ax: To anyone who's on the Left, like you for instance, I will be on the Right. To those on the Right, I will be on the Left" don't you understand?

QuoteMy POV is that some people are assholes, or maybe all of us are.  I don't care what accomplishments the monkeys think they have done.

You're the one who brought the idea of focusing on the little people. Are you backing away from that?

Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 24, 2015, 03:19:47 PM
Which part of "He's a little trick for your little brains to ax: To anyone who's on the Left, like you for instance, I will be on the Right. To those on the Right, I will be on the Left" don't you understand?

You're the one who brought the idea of focusing on the little people. Are you backing away from that?

But ... but ... we are mirrors of each other ... I am doing the same to you ... but you never voice a Left opinion, just the Right ones (occasionally Center).  We are like dancers together both of whom have two Left feet, or is that two Right feet? ;-)

You consistently hero worship, but I feel the same temptation as you.  Though we might differ on individual candidates for Madame Toussauds' cabinet of wax people.  And sometimes you don't respond to specific questions, but that is OK.

Quote from: Baruch on October 24, 2015, 06:13:46 PM
But ... but ... we are mirrors of each other ... I am doing the same to you ... but you never voice a Left opinion, just the Right ones (occasionally Center).  We are like dancers together both of whom have two Left feet, or is that two Right feet? ;-)

You consistently hero worship, but I feel the same temptation as you.  Though we might differ on individual candidates for Madame Toussauds' cabinet of wax people.  And sometimes you don't respond to specific questions, but that is OK.

No, we are not mirror of each other. Only in your dreams. I've been on this forum for nine years. If you had followed my consistent opposition to the Republican party you would be thinking I'm a Lefty. Your perception of people is warped by your left-wing worldviews. So of course to you, I am on the Right.  In another post, I wrote: " But it's my economics knowledge that has led me to see the fallacies of the Left and the Right. They are both horribly terrible in regard to what is considered as sound economic principles. " I guess that went over your head.

Quote from: Shiranu on October 24, 2015, 03:14:51 PM
What relevance is intent? If I hurt you because I don't like you, or if I hurt you to further my agenda and you got in the way... tell me how much it will matter to the person who was hurt.

I am not interested in intent because it is irrelevant, not because I want people to agree with me. If I wanted people to constantly agree with me, I sure as fuck wouldn't spend my time here.

Uh, no, you are playing stupid and moronic because you are asking for citation that the major nations economies and militaries are the most powerful in the world. There is no way to not say that in an "insulting" manner, because by it's very nature one should be insulted if called on that. The truth is under no obligation to be non-insulting, nice as that would be.

Not what I said. You do not hold people you agree with to the same standards of citations on articles that are very, very questionable at best as you do "the other side". You do not hold people remotely to the same level of, "I remember when this forum was more than ad homs". You are a hypocrite in your social circles, not in your argument.

And if I am being hypocritical about something, by all means call me on it. That's not an insult, that's a statement of "get your shit together". I have not found any of the insults thrown at me by you or several others insulting, but from you I do find them disappointing.

Several ways to address this...

1. That number is closer to 50%, since the Bible and Qu'ran both statistically are comparable in terms of violence per percentage... the Bible at nearly 3% of it is violent verses, the Qu'ran at 5%.

If we are going to hold the two as "violent" books because of 2.7% and 5% percentage has violent verses, then are we going to ignore the verses that promote peace and "right" living? Since we love to only quote the bad, let's get some of the good in here for once... lest we be cherry pickers ourselves.

Truly, a book of true, unadulterated, unfathomable and unopposed evil.


Argument 2. - Take a look at where your shirt is made. Take a look at where the parts on your computer were made. Take a look where nearly every single product you own, every piece of food you eat, was made or grown. Now think about the living standards of the people who made it. We employee millions upon millions of slaves in everything but name in Latin America, Africa, Asia (and for food, at least here in the States, Hispanic slave labour in the fields). Does Islam hold a candle to how many people are suffering not for anything like a religion, but rather just plain, basic greed and indifference of the post-colonial West?

China and India are the two largest countries and growing fast... think about the standards of living in those countries. 36% of the world's population lives in those two countries alone, and the living standards for many, especially in India, are comparable to anywhere in the Middle East.  These countries also wield geo-political power far beyond anyone in the Middle East does, the closest likely being Saudi Arabia and Iran who, while players, are not super powers like these two.

You first claim I am not interested in debating, then claim I am only interested in discrediting... what point is there debating if you do not intend to try and prove the other belief wrong. If I had no intention of trying to discredit, my only option would be to say, "You are 100% right" and then there would be no debate.

Again, your opinion has fuck all to do with why you are disappointing. It is your behaviour that is a let down, but then again I should have expected as much given the turn several posters have taken in the last year or so.

Edit: Sorry, missed a part...

1. It's not the disagreement.

2. Would you say sharing the ideas about creationism is still just, "sharing ideas"? So why is factually bunk articles posted about Islam with a strong xenophobic ideological motivation considered "sharing ideas" instead of posting bullshit.

3. I'll give you the standoffish, though it has gotten worse thanks to a slew of ad homs. and deeply personal attacks by several posters that went unremarked upon by anyone. Still giving you that one though.

We're discussing who the biggest threat to world peace is. I don't need citations for who has the most powerful military, you said that they're the biggest threats to world peace without any evidence to back it up. My assertion is that just because a group or nation is the most powerful, does not mean that it is the largest threat to world peace.

I'm not sure what behaviour I've displayed that could disappoint you beyond disagreeing with you something, perhaps debating it in a manner you also happen to dislike as well. I thought debating things etc. was the point of being here.

By discredit I meant calling me deluded etc. to discredit me rather than arguing against my points specifically. Apologies if this was unclear.

As for your arguments 1 & 2:

1:
I imagine that the majority of violent parts of the bible are in the superceded old testament as already covered. Also, while I have no statistics, the proportion of people who take a literalist interpretation of islam is much higher. There are mainstream, literalist schools of islamic thought that do this that are in a majority in several countries eg. Saudi Arabia. How many literalist christian groups are out there severing heads and hands, killing and torturing etc? Very few, as this isn't the middle ages anymore.

2:
I don't disagree that western foreign policy and ways of life cause huge amounts of suffering world wide.
Perhaps by world peace I'm being unclear: I think that tensions between the islamic world and the west is one of the most major threats to world peace in terms of it is one of the most likely things that could spark off a large-scale war or conflict on a semi-global scale.

The Muslim vs Other conflict should cause war ... because the Other is doing their best to destroy the Muslims, short of just nuking them out of existence.  The Muslims and the Other are both predatory.  The largest military or largest country ... is a great threat to peace too ... we are the ones who are trying to destroy the Muslims (see PNAC).  It was planned long before 9/11.  The problem for the Muslims is that they are dis-united and lacking in military resources ... necessary to destroy the West ... as per justice, it should be destroyed ... since we initiated the violence ala Axis.  Now we are the Germans!

If one is unaware of one's nations culpability, or one is a jingo who supports whatever stupidity one's nation is doing ... then this nuance won't bother one.  Just support the home team, even if the grandstands are burnt down.  If I were an average Muslim, then just like an average Christian etc ... I would want to kill the West (not seeing that this is maybe a bad idea ... but then my Fuhrer is better than your Fuhrer).