I get it 
Shortcomings in your thought process is not my responsibility.
You first.
OK, so when I “think” about or maybe “contemplate” (is a beter word?) some “thing,” typically what goes through my mind revolves around one or more questions. For example: In the context of mainstream, present-day societies, what could be the motivation for any sort of teaching or indoctrination whose students willfully commit and participate in all the “bad” things Muslims stand accused of?
My attempt at a translation: “In modern societies, the Muslim extremists who advocate oppression and violence are doing so disingenuously in order to deliberately trick and delude, i.e., beguile, the Muslim adherents who believe them.”
Was that sort of right?
And if so, I don’t get why you think advocates of Salafist-fundamentalist violence and the like are being deliberately deceptive. Why isn’t it more plausible to think that they genuinely believe the radical doctrines they’re preaching?
The Muslim-Rest war has been going on or centuries (Crusades, North India vs Pakistan, Turks vs Chinese, etc) and I don’t think it will change anytime soon. India vs Pakistan and Israel will make sure of that.
I think “Muslims” are different because they have different socioeconomic issues too. The term “muslim” is used in Europe to refer to a broad group of unintergrated/uneducated 1/2/3/4 generation ethnicities from places like Pakistan and Africa; they are stereotyped as lower class and are responsible for a large amount of crime/riots.
I think anti-muslim racism is a mixture of classism, actual phobia and anti-black-style racism. Since it’s getting worse, I doubt anything will change during this lifetime.
Germany is also culturally very close to the UK. There have been forgiven for Imperialism just like every other country in Europe want to be forgiven.
It’s actually an incisive rebuttal to your point by showing that the more repressive Muslim nations don’t give a f*** that we abhor their illiberal laws on human rights.
That a nicely-worded reprisal from us should contrast with veiled faces and lashings of gays strikes a tone you mustn’t deny.
And your whole point on the West’s colonial past is yet again a half-cocked attempt to deflect from the present by returning to the past.
We are, of course, talking of Islam’s image in 2016.
First off, the student does not believe or is unawares, at least at the beginning of their Islamic experience. This goes for Isis killers, their ilk AND children brought up in “the faith.”
Secondly, If the Imams and other leaders “really do” believe it, then they are demonstrably criminals, openly advocating some of the horrific abomination condoned in this religion.
Thirdly, “if” as I propose, the Imams and other leaders actually recognize the playing field in a rational, contemporary context, that makes them vindictive, hateful megalomaniacs perpetrating fraud on entire societies for their own personal benefit.
It seems likely to me the 2nd and 3rd type probably coexist, just not sure of the ratio. That would be nice to know, in particular, exactly who they are, and make dealing with the whole mess much easier. The 2nd type would be subject to administrative proceedings, the 3rd, well, think about it.
I don’t find it at all implausible that people who openly advocate violence and oppression are demonstrably criminals.
I don’t see why you believe it’s more likely that people would be advocating such things just as a form of deliberate malicious trolling than because they genuinely believe in their morally warped interpretations of religious doctrine.
Translation required again. What does “actually recognize the playing field in a rational, contemporary context” mean?
I’m not going to explain commonly used English words to you. Try this:
Of course, not. That would demonstrate that you are using commonly used English words in ways that they are not actually used, commonly, in English.
Your “playing fields” remark makes no sense and it appears that you are either unwilling or unable to explain what you thought you were saying.
The problem isn’t the individual words’ meanings, it’s that you’re putting them into an order that makes no sense.
“Playing Field” in my statement implied the World. Ya know - the Planet. 
May I now expect a warning for using words out of order or some other contrived accusation?
No. We’ll just point and laugh.
Well, that’s not a particularly obvious or common use of the term “playing field”. The metaphor “playing field” typically refers to a particular situation, especially with regard to fairness. (As in, for example, saying “we have to level the playing field for students of different socioeconomic backgrounds” to mean that academic excellence should be equally available to poor students and rich ones.)
But okay, now that I know you’re using the term “playing field” to mean “the whole world” without any specified aspect or context, I’ll try parsing your sentence again, since for some reason you seem to think it’s unfair to expect you to explain what it means:
[QUOTE=UberArchetype]
“if” as I propose, the Imams and other leaders actually recognize the playing field in a rational, contemporary context, that makes them vindictive, hateful megalomaniacs perpetrating fraud on entire societies for their own personal benefit.
[/quote]
To recap, we’ve been talking about radical-Islamist extremists who advocate violence and oppression, and we’ve been debating the question of whether or how much they sincerely believe the extremist doctrines they’re preaching.
You have been “proposing” (AFAICT on the basis of no articulated reasons or evidence) that these extremists preach violent and oppressive doctrines not because they sincerely believe them, but instead (to quote my previous translation attempt) “disingenuously in order to deliberately trick and delude, i.e., beguile, the Muslim adherents who believe them”.
So, does your expression “actually recognize the playing field in a rational, contemporary context” mean something like “secretly agree with modern secular-rationalist ideas about how the world’s societies should be governed”?
And if so,
-
is there any particular reason you couldn’t have said that clearly in the first place, and
-
why is it that, according to your hypothesis, radical imams who secretly agree with the secular ideals of modern society are openly exhorting other Muslims to reject and attack the secular ideals of modern society?
Just for the lulz? Or because they simply hate everyone indiscriminately and enjoy seeing brainwashed violent-extremist Islamists and non-Muslim-majority secular societies at each other’s throats? Or because they derive, according to you, some unspecified “personal benefit” from the situation? Or because they’re actually an extraterrestrial fifth column implementing the first stages of a “divide and conquer” policy prescribed by their alien overlords? Or what?
-
You’re reading comprehension problem appears to me to be nothing more than a sophomoric diversionary attempt to use semantics as the basis for an ad hominem attack. I just find it odd you seem to have the moderators on your side for some reason. Is it because they are actually following this thread, because you really can’t understand plain English, seeking their assistance with same? Something else, I suspect.
-
…radical imams who secretly agree with the secular ideals of modern society? My bad. I did not know there was any such thing.
I’m not pointing. Just laughing! 
No, your prose really is incoherent.
I didn’t think there was either. But if your statement “the Imams and other leaders actually recognize the playing field in a rational, contemporary context” doesn’t mean that those imams “secretly agree with the secular ideals of modern society”, then what in fact does it mean?
As Human Action pointed out, the reason that various other posters including some mods* have been “on my side” in these efforts to figure out what you’re saying is that you really aren’t expressing yourself very clearly.
You apparently have no problem using straightforward English for squabbling and complaining purposes, as in remarks like "I just find it odd you seem to have the moderators on your side for some reason".
But when it comes to making statements that are supposedly intended to be part of the serious debate on the OP’s thread topic, you seem to feel the need to cloak them in protective bafflegab like “in terms of it’s adherent’s tendencies to not reflect similar demographics to other religious populations” and “beguiling institutionalization perpetuating notions of Gawd and afterlife” and “actually recognize the playing field in a rational, contemporary context”.
- And by the way, nowhere in this discussion of semantics have the mods actually posted qua mods rather than qua regular posters. So I don’t know why you seem so nervous about getting attention from posters who happen to be mods here: they’re not modding you, they’re just debating with you.
I thought they were laughing at me. 