I already brought this up, but it didn’t seem to help:
Truly, al-Qaeda are princes among men.
I once met a man who thought that, while Islam was not bad itself, it was possible to discuss the use of Islam by evil men to do evil things. That, while it was the culture in certain societies that was the real cause of their barbaric practices, we could discuss Islam as the tool used to enforce that culture.
I shot that man, and I would do it again.
I think the issue actually arises from the overwhelming majority of the worlds Islamic population being dumber than a box of shitrocks. The vast majority of the nations that are primarily Muslim have huge unemployment and people who can’t even spell their own fucking names. They are easily lead sheep who go in whatever direction the village elder points. This is why Afghanistan is a lost cause because the people will never be educated enough to think critically about their own religion, which is a problem when your society revolves around it.
I have had several Muslim friends over my life who are intelligent, thoughtful individuals who can be reasoned and debated with and I enjoy their company.
FTR I’m agnostic and have no dog in the religion fight, but for every Christian violent extremist there are 1000 Muslim extremists. I also guarantee that a way higher % of Muslim extremists would chop your fucking head off ASAP than Christian wackos. To claim otherwise is to be a pc extremist.
ETA: Yes I know my guarantees and percentages don’t mean shit to anyone but me but what the fuck eh?
The exact same thing about third world stupidity can be said about the Sub-Saharan African cultures being brainwashed into mindless, homicidal homophobia by American evangelicals. The specific religion has nothing to do with it. Any religion will work to make poor and uneducated people violent.
Nevertheless, discussion of the particular religion being used as a tool for evil in a particular place is not necessarily worthless.
For example, in certain parts of Africa there would be an impact if the Pope changed his stance on condoms. That is because of the specific religion of those regions. In Muslim countries, the Pope would have comparatively little influence. So it would not be accurate to say “any religion can do anything, so never discuss a particular religion”.
If there are common peculiarities about the interpretation of Islam in various countries that affects the shape of evil there, that is a worthy discussion. Evil is evil, but evil can also take many forms and be enforced in many ways.
OK, no link to any person of importance or influence. I think that
is what might be termed a “red herring”.
I did not stop anywhere.
The article started with 1993 I assume because that ws when the
first fatality occured, and continues through 2009, I assume the year
of the most recent fatality.
As for “sufficiency” the question is how much of a problem abortion
clinic terror is, and the answer, at one death every 2.25 years is that
it is not much of a problem compared to any other category of murder,
and nowhere near one 9/11.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic;13442 267]
Christ, this is desperate.
[/QUOTE]
All the desperation resides with people like you who try to make a
big thing out of a small thing.
In 2003 there were 16,163 arson arrests in the country. Since there
were sure to have been more cases than arrests, it may be reasonable
to assume a yearly average of 16,000 minimum. There were 173 abortion
clinic arsons “since” 1977, so let’s say 173 in 20 years for an average
of 8 per year. 8/16000 = .09%
Are you getting the picture now?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic;13442 267]
He was nominally Serbian Orthodox.
[/QUOTE]
Not according to the link I provided. Do better or drop it.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic;13442 267]
regardless of his personal beliefs, he explored Christian religious bigotry against Muslims for his own ends. It’s not especially relevant how devout he was, What matters is that he led a Christian genocide of Muslims.
[/QUOTE]
No, Milosevich led a Serbian genocide.
Here is an Orthodox church site:
http://www.incommunion.org/2004/12/12/the-serbian-orthodox-church/
(from link, my emphasis):
If only 5% of the Serbian population is uninvolved and unbaptised
that dilutes association of Christianity with the crimes they commited.
In the interest of transparency, here is a link which casts the Serbian
church in an unfavorable light:
Heavenly Serbia: from myth to genocide
I am not going to wade through the pros and cons of the debate.
It does not affect my thesis of that close to half of the world’s Muslims
suffer from a religiously inspired homicidal depravity, and that the
threat arising from them is the greatest threat facing international
order today.
You yourself would not last a day in any state ruled by fundamentalist
Islam, that is, if you stuck to your guns and told them they were
“assholes” as you have in this thread.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic;13442 267]
Serbian Christians led by Milosevic killed over a hundred times more people than bin Laden and victimized millions more non-fatally besides that.
[/QUOTE]
I would say that the death toll from Muslim terror has by now
surpassed that of the 1990s Serbs, who, as we have seen above,
were marginally connected to any Church. Whatever the nature
of the menace it was eradicated mostly by the forces of historically
Christian nations.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic;13442 267]
The rape camps were especially nice. I’ve never seen Muslims do that. Even al Qaeda has some fucking decency. Christians seem to have no bottom.
[/QUOTE]
You may never have “seen” Muslims rape anyone, but you have
“seen” them murder thousands by terrorist bombing.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic;13442 267]
remember the Holocaust?
[/QUOTE]
Christ this is desparate.
When you are getting your balls hammered flat try to smear your
opponent’s side of the argument by concocting association with
the Nazis.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic;13442 267]
Muslims have never done that either.
[/QUOTE]
Bin Laden has been quoted as saying he hates Jews and Christians
and that it is the duty of all Muslims to kill as many Jews and Christians
as they can get a bead on.
Nice try. There was no implied sarcasm in your post and if you meant it to be sarcastic, then you were being dishonest since it destroys your whole point.
You were trying to compare Milosevich to Bin Laden when it came to religious views but doing so is moronic.
You’re far better off comparing Milosevich to Abu Nidal or the Black September guerillas responsible for Munich.
Nidal was a Muslim and all of the Black September guerillas were Muslims but there’s little evidence that they were terribly religious and their religious beliefs had nothing to do with their actions. That’s why accounts from the 70s always referred to perpetrators of the Munich Massacre as “Arab terrorists”, “Arab guerillas”, “Palestinian terrorists”, or “Palestinian guerillas”.
Now yes, since the rise of Hamas, some ignorant fools have tried to retroactively relabel them “Muslim terrorists” but this makes little sense and those that do are in the extreme minority.
That’s also why whenever the media discusses Hamas and Fatah, despite the religious implications of Fatah’s name and the fact that they begin all their military communiques with the phrase “In the name of God, the merciful, the beneficent”, with rare exceptions they refer to Fatah as a “secular” organization or a “Palestinian nationalist” organization while referring to Hamas as a “Muslim” organization “radical Islamic” organization.
That doesn’t mean that somehow Fatah, the PKK, the IRA, and other “secular” organizations are somehow better or more palatable than Hamas, Al Quaeda, or the Lords Resistance Army.
As I said they are trite and banal. We’ve all heard them a thousand times by a thousand different people.
I’ll give you credit for not tiresomely bringing up Timothy McVeigh and squealing about him being a “Christian terrorist”.
That said, the examples you’ve given show either gross ignorance of the subject matter or a willful attempt to deceive the others reading this.
I don’t really feel like discussing this further because whatever respect I had for you plummeted after you decided to condemn two brave Muslim academics who’ve received considerable criticism as being “apologists” for Al Jazeera, because they defend Al Jazeera.
You made yourself look like a complete fool and revealed you had little if any integrity by describing these two men as “Islamophobic douchebags” because they revealed a fact, that Al Jazeera referred to Palestinian suicide bombers during the Intifada as “martyrs”, that you didn’t want to accept because it somehow or other it didn’t fit into your worldview and you couldn’t handle admitting you were wrong.
You’re despicable and you’re not remotely the man those two were whom you showed such contempt for.
Obviously, the hypocritical Islamophobes have their heads up their asses and will continute to obfuscacate, prevaricate and weasel as to how when Christians commit atrocities and genocide at a far greater scale than Muslims have ever done (and the Serbian genocide of Muslims absolutely was a CHRISTIAN genocide of Muslims), then it doesn’t really count as Christian, but if a Muslim runs a red light, then it proves that the entire Muslim religion is evil.
Have fun with your sicko bigotry. I hope it works out for you.
That’s fine, but it’s certainly not what the OP and NCDane are up to.
Was it in Reno, by any chance, tough guy?
Actually, since you appear to be claiming that the Munich massacre was an example of Muslim terrorism I’d say you’re the one that some would consider an Islamophobe and you’re the one who clearly has his head shoved up his ass.
Please, read a book on the subject. I know that books can be intimidating for some people, but they can help you develop a better understanding of the world. Also some have pictures and large text which might make it easier for you.
At the very least look up the word “Islamophobe” because it doesn’t mean what you think it means.
OK, why does the percentage of Muslims in favor of capital punishment for apostasy or adultery fluctuate so much my country? IF the percentage of muslims in favor of capital punishment is a proxy for radicaliztion, as you seem to imply, you might conclude that the Jordanese Muslims are more radical than the Lebanese Muslims.
To the extent we are using radical Islam as a proxy for terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism doesn’t seem to correlate perfectly with terrorism (Doesn’t Lebanon have more terrorists than Jordan?).
Are some middle eastern countries fucked up? Sure, but they would be fucked up with or without Islam.
If you can show me a cite that over 50% of muslims believe a 14 year old rape victim should be whipped to death, I think you’ve got a point. Otherwise, you should stick with adultery and apostasy and not imply that most Muslims would be OK with whipping a 14 year old rape victim to death.
It just isn’t so. There ARE factions of Muslims who wish for the death to people who are not Muslim.
No there aren’t.
C’mon man, it’s in black and white!
[CENTER]The Quran Dehumanizes Non-Muslims
and Says that They are Vile Animals[/CENTER]
The Ayatollah Khomeini, who dedicated his entire life to studying Islam, said that non-Muslims rank somewhere between “feces” and the “sweat of a camel that has consumed impure food.” Small wonder. The Quran dehumanizes non-Muslims, describing them as “animals” and beasts:
Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. (98:6)
Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe. (8:55)
Verse 7:176 compares unbelievers to “panting dogs” with regard to their idiocy and worthlessness. Verse 7:179 says they are like “cattle” only worse.
Verse 5:60 even says that Allah transformed Jews of the past into apes and pigs. This is echoed by verses 7:166 and 2:65.
A hadith says that Muhammad believed rats to be “mutated Jews” (Bukhari 54:524, also confirmed by Sahih Muslim 7135 and 7136).
Verses 46:29-35 even say that unbelieving men are worse than demons who believe in Muhammad.
According to Islamic law, non-Muslims may be owned as property by Muslims, but - in keeping with Islam’s supremacist message - a fellow Muslim should never be (unless they convert to Islam after enslavement). Even Christians and Jews are not considered fully human in that the penalty for killing one of them is limited to one-third of the compensation due for unintentionally killing a Muslim.
Your hate site is uninformed, bigoted blather.
I don’t think so…it’s precisely citing the Quran. There are things in the Old Testament which, in this day and age aren’t exactly real nice.
What gives you the right to act as though the books of Islam are perfect and don’t have embarrassing passages?
Look, it’s fairly simple. There are 1.25 billion muslims. If you were right about Islam, you wouldn’t be reading about incidents like this because they would be as common, and as newsworthy, as traffic accidents.
Doesn’t matter how many Muslims there are, the Quran STILL has things in it which are without a doubt, and in all seriousness, embarrassing in today’s society and which, if taken literally, can cause it’s adherents to behave in an uncivilized way.
Gay bashing, is a point in the Old Testament, which if taken literally, some people think, hey it’s in the Bible, so it’s okay to bash gays.
The Quran has equally heinous ideas, that if taken literally, make for hatred of non-believers, an okay way to think and behave.
Huh? So if the number is less than 50 all is well with Islam? Please. The point is that some Muslims are okay with this, just as some Muslims have been okay with the many other acts of unimaginable barbarism I’ve read about during the past dozen years or so. And for the record, I did not say that most Muslims would be okay with whipping the girl to death. Where do you get this idea that 50% is some magical number anyway?