Well he IS the top expert in the country on Muslim radicalisation and terrorism. But if you think you know better than he…
I was just informing folks an interesting fact given by the government (UK) expert on Islamic radicalisation and terrorism.
So, who is “he”?
And I’m still waiting on SeniorCitizen007’s answer to my question.
Not really. You threw out one more silly claim with nothing to support it and now you are claiming that some unnamed “expert,” using a “documentary,” at some undetermined point in the past said something that you now claim backs up your odd statements.
The only thing interesting about your contributions to this thread have been that you seem to believe that other people should accept your nonsense when you cannot even bother to provide evidence for it. This is not a radio call-in opinion show with a lot of people with barely secondary educations making claims that they cannot support. Your failure to provide even the barest minimum of evidence for your beliefs means that you are failing to persuade anyone of those odd beliefs.
Cite?
It might be the documentary Generation Jihad. Check it out, I’m sure you’ll find it very informative.
“Might be?”
Since you haven’t really said anything in this thread beyond “Muslims are evil!” And your only evidence of this is the BBC documentary, I’m curious what you think the documentary actually said that convinced you that Muslims are evil, before I watch it. Given that it’s a BBC production, I am highly doubtful that your understanding of it matches the actual contents.
I fail to see how that’s a personal attack. The conclusion couldn’t be more obvious. Jefferson was the father of American liberal thought, just as Adams was the father of American conservative thought, and Jefferson goes out of his way to badmouth liberals at any opportunity. I expect Jefferson thinks the handle is a great joke.
In general, making arguments personal in this fashion is not appropriate. Please take questions about moderation to ATMB.
[/moderating]
That “refugees going on a rampage in Frankfurt” story? Never happened, according to Frankfurt police – the reports were based on the statements of 2 people, and contradicted the statements of numerous others in the area. The editor of the paper (Bild) who first wrote about the story has retracted it and apologized.
Bill Maher (and others) have endlessly pointed out this sort of false equivalence (check them out). They’re not all the same no matter how much the “radical” Islam “liberal” apologists try desperately to claim they are.
I do think that it is fair to say that Islam was actively and consciously spread by the sword, even during Mohammed’s day, and that background makes it easier for the religion to be used as a basis for belligerence.
But with the gross difference between scripture and daily practice, in Islam, Christianity, and many other religions, it’s unreasonable to single this feature out in Islam. Even accepting the common portrayal of Christ as a peace-loving hippie - and that’s not an uncommon view, even going back into Medieval times - it’s clearly true that Christianity was also predominantly spread by the sword, starting with Constantine and ending with the subjugation of the Americas and Africa by colonialists.
The link between religion and culture is so tenuous that it’s just silly to make the connection. Fundamentally, people like to form groups and they like to come up with rationalizations for killing outside groups. They will use any and all pretexts to do so.
Similarly, people like to find “something to blame” when bad things happen, regardless of how much sense it makes. If someone was told by God to go out and kill people, well clearly the guy was just crazy. If someone watched the Highlander and then goes out and decapitates some people, then clearly TV is too violent and we need to establish better content guidelines.
It’s just nonsense to take anything in Islamic scripture and attach that to terror when the foundations of terrorist military strategy comes from Catholic Irish trying to attack the Protestant British during the 20th century. I remember reading articles in the 80s about former IRA being hired in the Middle East to teach them how to do it.
I do not follow Bill Maher, but if what you are trying to say is that when you look at present day religious extremism, you will find more of that in Islam than in Christianity, I agree with you this far.
However you seem to conclude from that observation that Islam has some innate quality which makes it more dangerous than Christianity. (Please correct my if I am wrong.) That is where I believe you are wrong. When you look at the history of Christianity you will find all kinds of excessive extremism, sometimes on a massive scale. So obviously the religion lends itself to extremism too, and we should ask ourselves, why we are seeing comparatively little of that today. The religion has not changed, so something else must have. I find it not unreasonable to assume that the same change can affect Islam as well. In fact, I believe it already does. There is a moderate, reasonable Islam and it is not a fringe movement. It just (understandably) does not get the same kind of attention that the dangerous radical version is getting. But if we want the radical Islam to lose ground, the moderate competition should get all the support we can give. Rejecting the religion as a whole will not do any good.
This is true, but much greater progress can be made in preventing terrorism of any kind by focusing on preventing terrorist acts themselves. There are probably hundreds of thousands of people in this country who identify with white nationalism. Only a vanishingly small percentage engage in terrorist activities. There’s no value in putting the hammer down on white nationalists but there is value in identifying those white nationalists who absorb the rhetoric and believe it means they need to kill Muslims, blacks, etc.
There are hundreds of thousands of young, angry males with a fascination for guns in this country, but targeting all of these people isn’t a very effective strategy in preventing incidents like the Aurora Theater shooting.
There may be hundreds of thousands of conservative young Muslims in this country, but targeting them as a group jus because they are Muslim is certainly not going to prevent terrorism and mass killings of all types in this country and it is insurmountably difficult to target all these individuals in order to prevent a terrorist attack resultant from their interpretation of Islam.
It’s hard to understand the individual characteristics of a group when they are foreign to what you grew up with, but with time and effort we can go from ignorantly hating Islam because of some websites and excerpts from a book to understanding the religion in all its forms and the individuals who are a part of the religion, including the criminals.
I’m not looking at history - comforting as it may be for “liberals” - check out what is happening around the world NOW. You really should watch some Bill Maher clips - google: Maher+ stupid liberals+Islam
QFT
And one should never forget that the vast majority of Muslims do reject terrorism.
Well, I *am *looking at history. Not for comfort - what exactly in my post gave you that idea? I am looking at history for information. When you claim that the Qur’an is more harmful than the Bible, shouldn’t you look at what harm these two books have done while they were around? Seems reasonable to me.
As for Bill Maher (dare I say that’s who you look to for comfort?) - I have now looked him up and found that his profession is that of a TV comedian. I am sure he is good at what he does, but still, is that really your best authority on the merits of one religion over another?
Actually, I didn’t say Muslims were evil. I think you might be confusing me with the mild-mannered, eminent scientist Richard Dawkins. He was the one who said, “Islam Is one of the great evils in the world”. Check out the video for further details.
But being a “liberal”, no doubt you’ll claim he is a racist bigot.
What are they like, eh.
While not a wholesale Conservative, I support the death penalty, I’m pro-business, anti-recreational drugs, anti-prostitution, pro-military, small government, favor market solutions, and would gladly have voted for Romney or McCain (if McCain hadn’t chosen the airhead as his running mate).
And, knowing Dawkins, I would presume that he would say the exact same thing about Christianity as he has of Islam.
I’ll also note that you still haven’t really said anything of substance nor made any real argument beyond assertion. While I would argue against Dawkins, I’d at least respect that he had an argument that made some form of sense and was backed in history (presumably). As I’ve already pointed out in the thread, the scriptural teachings of Islam (and Christianity) are reprehensible. And it is fair to criticize them for that. Similarly it’s fair to criticize the colonialists, Islamic terrorists, etc. In many ways I would accept a statement that Islam is Evil. I just wouldn’t accept a stupid nor hypocritical argument to that effect.