218 thoughts on “The Islamic State”

  1. There are only two endgames. Either the entire world ends up living under Sharia law or Islam ends. The longer it goes on the bloodier it will be.

    The US, Russia, and China (and a few other countries) are all capable of ending Islam in an eyeblink. One bomb on Mecca, one bomb on Medina, and it is vividly demonstrated that Allah is powerless and also Hajj becomes impossible for generations.

    Make no mistake, what I just said has definitely crossed the minds of the guys in charge of such decisions. And the Russians and Chinese are not known for hand-wringing.

    1. There are only two endgames. Either the entire world ends up living under Sharia law or Islam ends. The longer it goes on the bloodier it will be.

      I see you’re following the same logic that Hitler used with regard to the Jewish people, they too were supposedly planning to take over the world.

      It’s amazing that people who can make so much sense on some matters are nothing short of raving lunatics on others.

      1. Clearly you have never heard that Islam divides the world into two parts, the House of Islam, and the House of War.

        1. The terms Dar al-Islam (House of Islam) and Dar al-Harb House of war) do not appear in the Quran or the Hadith.

          They are used, and have been for centuries, but other “Houses” also exist: Dar al Hudna (“house of calm”), Dar al-‘Ahd (“house of truce”) or Dar al-Sulh (“house of conciliation/treaty”), Dar al-Amn (“house of safety”), Dar al-Dawa (“house of invitation”).

          So no, the Quran does not require Muslim’s to wage war on non Muslims, no matter how strongly you wish that that were the case.

          1. the Quran does not require Muslim’s to wage war on non Muslims

            Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah … until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

            So Andrew, you are wrong. The choice is submit or die.

          2. https://prophetrejectors.wordpress.com/929-at-tauba-of-quran-doesnt-encourage-muslims-to-terrorism/

            This verse doesn’t ask the Muslims to do mindless slaughter as the media portrays or deceives. It gives the Muslims the permission to fight only those non-Muslims who do not pay jizya – the state tax. And we all know that jizya is applicable only in an Islamic state. Neither India, nor US or Britain are Islamic states.

            Since when is punishment for refusal to pay lawful taxes considered as terrorism?

          3. Wiki:
            The tax is no longer imposed by nation states in the Islamic world’

            The late Islamic scholar Abul A’la Maududi, of Pakistan, said that Jizya should be re-imposed on non-Muslims in a Muslim nation.[41] However, most Muslims generally reject the dhimma system, which encompasses jizya, as inappropriate for the age of nation-states and democracies.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

          4. I’m not defending ISIS or Islamic law, I want ISIS gone and want to see Islam move away from the more brutal practicing of their culture and religion, just as the West has – It’s only a few decades since Alan Turing and other gay men were being chemically castrated and imprisoned, sodomy laws have only been repealed in many Western countries in the last 2 decades and the opinions of people in many Muslim countries are shifting away from homosexuality being a crime.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law

            I’m condemning Ed Minchau for his insane belief that nuking two major cities (simply because they’re the more sacred of the Islamic cities) will some how result in peace.

            What it would actually do is create far more war, a the country that performed such a barbaric act would be disavowed by almost all other countries, if the US did it the only ally she would have remaining would be Israel, and that’s not because the rest of the world are too scared of Muslims, it’s because the vast majority of the people in the world aren’t insane enough to murder 2 or 3 million people for a power trip, only terrorists and people in need of psychiatric help would condone murder on that scale.

          5. Andrew, that was a weird slam on Israel. Israel quietly cooperates with Saudi Arabia. Israel wouldn’t support the destruction of Saudi Arabian cities either.

          6. And moreover, look at how the Israeli military fights with its foes — it doesn’t go in for indiscriminate mass murder – they try to target terrorists and warriors without killing their families, which is the complete opposite of nuking cities, because the Israeli public wants it that way, despite facing the threat of war as well as terrorism. And the USA has been learning from Israel — the US now uses the Israeli technique of using an explosion to rattle a house and encourage everyone inside to leave before blowing it up.

            Again, this is quite different from nuking a city — the idea that the US would ever do it is about as laughable and unrealistic as suggesting that Donald Trump could become President of the United States.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roof_knocking#Adaption_by_the_US_army

          7. Israel and Saudi Arabia also want countries with a majority of Jewish and Muslim people. Israel is a bit more open due to the conditions they were founded under but SA, not so much.

            You can’t go build a church in SA but SA builds mosques all over the world in an effort to colonize other countries with wahhabism.

            As two separate countries, they can cooperate on some levels but this wouldn’t happen if they were the same country.

          8. Wodun,

            Saudi Arabia and Israel don’t attack each other, and Israel would be strongly against nuking Meccah and Medina, for humanitarian reasons, as well as for strategic reasons. That was my point. I can’t tell if Andrew was really suggesting otherwise.

            What an insane thread.

          9. Remaining a US ally is a long way from condoning US actions.

            I have no doubt that most Israelis would condemn such an attack, possibly so would Netanyahu.

          10. Again, this is quite different from nuking a city — the idea that the US would ever do it is about as laughable and unrealistic as suggesting that Donald Trump could become President of the United States.

            I’d better keep that comment for future reference, just in case . . .

          11. What an insane thread.

            What’s insane is that I’m being lambasted for pointing out falsehoods about Islam, while almost no one else has agreed that Eds suggestion might be a tad excessive, and certainly counterproductive in terms of reducing terrorism.

          12. “while almost no one else has agreed that Eds suggestion might be a tad excessive, and certainly counterproductive in terms of reducing terrorism.”

            Oh! Andrew, I agree with everything you’re saying! (Everything except for mildly _maybe_ disagreeing with you about Israel, but that was a quibble.)

            It is nutty to think that the US or any of the major powers would ever carry out such an attack, but it is _completely_ nutty to think that this would solve the terrorism problem or in any way contribute to peace. I see no relevant similarity between the nuclear attacks on Japan to stop the Japanese Empire (and to send a message to the Soviets) and attacking Meccah and Medina, either for the goal of stopping ISIS, Saudi Arabia’s enemy, or for the goal of somehow bringing an end to violence from Islamic Extremists. It is such breathtakingly stupid proposal that I found it more interesting to quibble with you about Israel.

      2. “I see you’re following the same logic that Hitler used with regard to the Jewish people, they too were supposedly planning to take over the world.”

        First, there is no “supposedly” about it. Don’t be stupid.

        There have been over 28 thousand terrorist attacks in the name of Allah since 9/11. The gay club shooting in Orlando was only the bloodiest so far during this Ramadan – counting 50 dead in Orlando, there were 450 dead from Muslim terrorist attacks just during the first 8 days of Ramadan this year!

        And I’m not working from some wild conspiracy theory here. I’m going by their own words. What do you think “Caliphate” means? That’s the stated reason for being for ISIS – to establish a Caliphate. This has been going on for 1400 years, and these guys mean business.

        Second, I’m not the one with my finger on a nuclear button, but Putin is. I don’t know who has their finger on the button in China or France or Israel or India or Pakistan or Britain or North Korea any of the other nuclear powers (and don’t kid yourself, there are more).

        And if Iran gets a nuke? That guarantees a nuke will be used on a city. Jerusalem. Or Tel Aviv. And far from hand-wringing on the fainting couch, it will be a repeat of the celebrations of 9/11, with dancing in the streets.

        Obviously.
        \\
        So, all those nuclear powers I mentioned have made contingency plans. There will be some triggering event – a repeat of Beslan or a train bombing in Hong Kong or some other attack or even Iran testing a nuke – and boom. Someone, somewhere will make that decision. The US itself almost did so on 9/11.

        Thirdly, I am not proposing genocide or even killing anyone. Two cities would be destroyed, but that doesn’t mean that the people would not be warned to get out first. Whether they chose to stay and die would be up to them. A country like the USA might provide such a warning. A country like Russia might just go ahead and do it.

        1. “28 thousand terrorist attacks in the name of Allah since 9/11”

          Link please.

          “there were 450 dead from Muslim terrorist attacks just during the first 8 days of Ramadan this year!”

          Link please.

          “There are only two endgames. Either the entire world ends up living under Sharia law or Islam ends.”

          “What do you think “Caliphate” means? That’s the stated reason for being for ISIS – to establish a Caliphate.”

          You’re confusing ISIS with Islam, ISIS does not represent Islam, many Muslims are fighting ISIS on the ground, several Muslim countries are bombing ISIS, the Kurds are amongst those fighting hardest again ISIS, but rather than nuke ISIS, the deranged fool you are wants to nuke Mecca and Medina. Now what does that make you? It makes you a wannabe terrorist.

          The second half of your comment is even more of a deranged rant than the first half, these fingers on buttons about to nuke Muslim countries are a fictional creation in your own mind.

          Get some psychological help.

          1. You’re confusing ISIS with Islam, ISIS does not represent Islam

            Nope Andrew. Ed clearly called out ISIS that claims there attacks in the name of Islam. Muslims may be fighting against them, but your too busy fighting your straw men.

            I read the same article Ed did, and I won’t assist your desire to be lazy. So while you try to deny by claiming no source; try denying that Hamas attacked a restaurant in Tel Aviv with 2 gunmen. Deny that a Muslim killed a police chief and then tortured his wife before killing her all while streaming the event on Facebook. Please deny these things.

            Andrew, you may not care that ISIS called for attacks during Ramadan, an Islamic holy month, but attacks are occurring in their name and, according to the attackers, “for Allah”. ISIS believes they represent Islam, and that is all that matters.

          2. He wants to nuke Mecca and Medina! That’s supposed to be to punish ISIS?

            I read the same article Ed did, and I won’t assist your desire to be lazy.

            No, you Googled and found the article was on a nut job site (as I did) and rather than link to a nut job site you don’t link so you can pretend that the “article” has some merit.

            http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/american-attacks.aspx

            Their “terror attacks” are mostly incidents of domestic violence, they label them as “Islamic Terror Attacks”, because it serves their aim of building up the anti-Muslim hatred.

          3. ““28 thousand terrorist attacks in the name of Allah since 9/11”

            Link please.”

            http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/14/committed-denial-since-911-28000-terrorist-attacks-worldwide/

            ““there were 450 dead from Muslim terrorist attacks just during the first 8 days of Ramadan this year!”

            Link please.”

            Now we’re at day 10, 79 attacks and 684 dead.
            http://thereligionofpeace.com

            There. I just saved you ten seconds of Googling it for yourself.

            “The second half of your comment is even more of a deranged rant than the first half, these fingers on buttons about to nuke Muslim countries are a fictional creation in your own mind.

            Get some psychological help.”

            The countries I mentioned all have nuclear weapons. They all have people in charge of deciding whether to use them. I just don’t know all the names other than Putin. These people are not stupid. They obviously don’t go around hurling nukes willy-nilly. But you would have us think that none of them have considered those two cities in particular as targets?

            Do you honestly think that if Iran gets a nuke it won’t immediately use it on Israel? And that Israel will just calmly lie back and allow that to happen?

            Take heed. It is the willful blindness and smug obtuseness that you display above which is going to get Trump elected.

          4. There. I just saved you ten seconds of Googling it for yourself.

            No, I’ve replied to that in my comments to Leland.

            But you would have us think that none of them have considered those two cities in particular as targets?

            Absolutely, far fewer people share your insanity than you imagine.

            Do you honestly think that if Iran gets a nuke it won’t immediately use it on Israel? And that Israel will just calmly lie back and allow that to happen?

            Iran won’t nuke Israel, they don’t share your insanity either.

            Israel certainly would retaliate if someone nuked them, so almost certainly would the US. Retelliating against a nuclear attack is very different to initiating an unprovoked nuclear attack.

          5. OK Andrew, go ahead and dismiss Breitbart as “some nutjob site”.

            Oh, you mean that other site? Let’s take a look at the links on that page.
            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/14/boko-haram-kidnaps-three-women-near-chibok-town-in-north-nigeria/

            http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/woman-shot-dead-in-highway-terror/article8724995.ece?w=alauto

            http://www.dailysabah.com/africa/2016/06/14/bodies-of-42-fishermen-kidnapped-by-boko-haram-found-in-lake-chad

            That’s just the first few. Looks to me like the “nutjob site” is simply aggregating links from other nutjob websites like the Telegraph and the Daily Mail.

            So, take your sanctimony and shove it, if you can get it past your head.

          6. Andrew, the US is called the great satan by more than just Iran. While you condemn Ed for acknowledging a fact; no country has attacked Islam with nukes. I would think ISIS would love for that to happen, as they seem to believe, as a goal, it is their duty to start the qur’anic equivalent of biblical Armageddon.

            But what Obama doesn’t get; Americans are tired of being blamed for slavery that ended a hundred years ago, mistreatment of gays decades ago, and upset muslims. Particularly after another upset muslim killed dozens of people, other muslims are enslaving women across Africa and Asia. Place a little time on criticizing not to people who have weapons and don’t use them; and a bit more time on those that just used them yet again.

          7. I would think ISIS would love for that to happen, as they seem to believe, as a goal, it is their duty to start the qur’anic equivalent of biblical Armageddon.

            There we are in agreement (see my reply to Bilwick below) , and my attack on Ed has been because of his advocating nuking 2 Saudi cities.

            Cultures around the world are at different stages in social evolution, even today the illegality of homosexuality is not confined to the Muslim world, it takes time for cultures to change.

            A hundred years ago many of the things we condemn Islam for were common and accepted in Western countries, If there had be someone around to do it, would it have been productive for our fore-bearers to have been condemned as barbaric for customs that were accepted as Godly by them?

            I want ISIS and Boko Haram gone as much as 99% of humanity does, they’re pigs. We need to target those people, hitting others accidentally is bad, deliberately to make a point would just be more acts of terrorism.

          8. “He wants to nuke Mecca and Medina! That’s supposed to be to punish ISIS?”

            No. Read for comprehension. The intention is to end Islam altogether.

            I’m curious, Andrew, what do you see as an alternative? Do you think Islam’s bloodlust will be slaked after the next terrorist attack? Or the next one? Or the one after that?

            Or we could just keep on doing the same thing over and over (Boy, THIS hashtag will sure make them think!) expecting different results.

          9. No. Read for comprehension. The intention is to end Islam altogether.

            Hiroshima and Nagasaki still exist, the site of those Saudi cities would still exist, they’d be rebuilt and they’d be even more revered, and any country undertaking such a nuclear terrorist act would be without any friends or allies.

      3. I see you’re following the same logic that Hitler used with regard to the Jewish people, they too were supposedly planning to take over the world.

        We used atomic weapons on the Japanese who were trying to take over the world. There was a threshold that was considered to justify their use. The question here is what is that threshold for the USA and other countries?

        All of Islam isn’t engaged in Jihad but a significant number are. Because it is a global insurgency, that means there is also significant support among those who don’t directly take up arms. Then, there is the percentage of people who do neither but largely agree with the jihadists about the USA and Western Civilization.

        The troubling part is that there are also significant numbers, if not an outright majority, of leftists that believe the same things as this last group.

        It isn’t surprising that leftists want to have mass Muslim migration since they agree on many issues and hate many of the same groups. For Democrats, it fits right into their overarching strategy of identity politics and pitting races, ethnicities, genders, and religions against one another.

        Christianity is the predominate religion in the USA and Democrats hate Christians. The only way this changes is if other religious populations grow and the only way that happens is with mass migration.

        1. We used atomic weapons on the Japanese who were trying to take over the world. There was a threshold that was considered to justify their use. The question here is what is that threshold for the USA and other countries?

          Correct the US nuked Japan, would nuking Mecca and Medina be the equivalent for ISIS as nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was for Japan?

          1. It could come to it. Millions died with conventional weapons first.

            But at this time, carpet bombing isn’t allowed either. Actually, heavy bombing of Raqqa isn’t allowed. Well, to be really factual, our ROE won’t even allow fuel trucks to be struck. Apparently, we have to wait until an ISIS fighter steps into the open and far outside the kill radius of a hellfire from the nearest unconfirmed non-combatant.

          2. I don’t know what the threshold is but every slave taken, head chopped off, murder bomb, stabbing, person burned alive, drowned, or crucified brings us closer.

  2. There were some recent stories about how our intelligence services were inside of their communications network sowing discord. Spoofing identities and sending messages and saying jihadi units were places they weren’t and things like that.

  3. We know how to defeat ISIS. We lack only the will to do so.

    Then it doesn’t matter if we know how.

    1. It all sails right over your head doesn’t it?

      What the Islamists would dearly love to see is their recruitment boosted by the idiots who’d turn their enemies in the Muslim world into their friends, and the way for the West to do that would be for us to make war on Muslims for the crime of being Muslim.

      1. What the Islamists would dearly love to see is their recruitment boosted by the idiots

        Its a bit like global warming, everything boosts their recruitment. Worry about what does or doesn’t offend those engaged in jihad is stupid because everything offends them.

        1. Wodun, if you’re going to reply to me reply to what I said, stop building straw men. I said nothing about worrying about offending jihadists.

          1. You were saying that offending non-jihadists would turn them into jihadists. This is a common tactic used to discourage fighting back.

            On this specific topic, I think you are right. Nuking the holy cities of Islam would enrage the Muslim populace. There will be a point where no one cares what they think. What the global Muslim community should be asking is how their behavior enrages non-Muslims.

            People keep peddling the falsehood that ISIS and the multitude of other Islamist groups operate outside of Muslim society but the reality is they are a large part of it and the ideology that motivates these groups is held by many more who do not belong to any specific Islamist group.

          2. If you think mass murder is the same as causing offense we are definitely speak different languages.

            Where do you think ISIS came from? It was a result of Sunni’s in Iraq being expelled from the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki, when Sunni’s protested, hundreds were gunned down.

      2. Andrew,

        The “recruitment” argument pure sophistry.

        If you adhere to the recruitment argument then you are fated to do nothing and let them kill you. You can use that argument on any counter move we might make. All it does is immobilize you.

        It’s stupid and ignorant to use that as an argument.

        Furthermore, throughout history, aggressive counteraction has ended problems. Germany (twice) Japan, Soviet Union, Carthage, Persia, US Civil War, England’s Civil War, on and on and on and on.

        EVERY SINGLE TIME an aggressive counter move could have increased recruitment. However that did not stop the combatants and a decision was arrived at.
        You think that England in 1940 would have been better off not defending in the air because it might increase recruitment on the Nazi side?

        Furthermore, Clinton, Obama and their ilk haven’t the slightest ability to accurately measure recruitment effects. It requires mind reading on a huge basis.

        Please don’t use that argument again…people who do illustrate an appalling inability to think logically and an astonishingly weak knowledge of history.

        It is beyond stupid.

        1. p.s. An action should not be judged by whether or not it increases recruitment (even if you could calculate that which you can not).

          An action should be judged by whether or not it helps you WIN.,

        2. p.p.s. Andrew, do you think for one minute that any move we make that hurts their cause will not make them angry?

          The argument is that we make them angry and that ups recruitment.

          What successful action can you take that would allow you to win in this case that would NOT make them angry or hurt their cause?

          That’s right…….none

        3. Gregg, I’ve no problem with bombing ISIS, I have a huge problem with bombing cities in Saudi Arabia as some sort of weird way of attacking ISIS.

          What Ed is proposing is like getting into a war with Venezuela and as a way of hurting Venezuela, bombing Columbia, because well, it’s close enough.

          1. some sort of weird way of attacking ISIS.

            Saudi Arabia helps fund these terror groups. Wahhabism is one of the driving forces behind global jihad.

            Also, the problem is far larger than ISIS. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of similar groups. A lot of them work together too.

          2. Saudi Arabia helps fund these terror groups.

            America also funds terror groups, drug runners, sex slavery.
            I assume you mean Saudi Arabian citizens, I’ve seen far less evidence that the Saudi Government is into financing terrorism than I have that the US Government has financed terrorism, and going by any reasonable standard the US government certainly has financed terrorism post WW2, just terrorism that’s been in US interests.

            Anyway, are you saying you’re on board with Ed in nuking Mecca and Medina as a way to somehow hurt ISIS?

          3. It’s interesting that Andrew keeps making Ed the bad guy, after an Islamic radical just killed 49 in Orlando. Along the same lines; “One month after the San Bernardino terrorist attack that left 14 innocent people dead, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told advisors that right wing extremists pose just as much of a threat to the country as Islamic extremists.” Perhaps if we spent a bit more time focused on who is really killing people, we would never get to the threshold of escalation. That doesn’t seem to be the interest of the President, his staff, or his supporters.

          4. “Gregg, I’ve no problem with bombing ISIS, …”

            In that case we’ll never hear from you regarding actions, inducing recruitment.

            Otherwise we would have never bombed Berlin. Or Hanoi. Or taken a myriad of other actions, down through history, which were successful.

            You may have legitimate ideas as to why nuking Mecca is a bad idea.

            But recruitment effect is a stupid one.

          5. America also funds terror groups

            …and lots of other things Americans would not if the politicians hadn’t rigged the system. This is probably America’s worst offense which is why many Americans want to cut down the size of govt.

          6. just terrorism that’s been in US interests.

            What is Saudi Arabia’s interest in enabling these groups?

          7. “just terrorism that’s been in US interests.”

            What is Saudi Arabia’s interest in enabling these groups?

            What?

            You seem to have lost the context of my comment.

          8. It’s interesting that Andrew keeps making Ed the bad guy,

            That would be because my objections are to Ed’s advocating nuking Mecca and Medina as a solution to conflict in the Middle East and Islamic terrorism.

            Thankfully so far no one here has endorsed his final solution.

          9. “That would be because my objections are to Ed’s advocating nuking Mecca and Medina as a solution to conflict in the Middle East and Islamic terrorism.”

            That is quite simply, obtuse.

            I am not in charge of nuclear launch codes, and never will be. Nor do I work with nuclear weapons – I know myself and of what I am capable, and I vividly remember the fate of Gerald Bull.

            However, every country with a modern military – and we can certainly count those countries with nuclear weapons as modern militaries – has teams of people whose sole task is war gaming. I’m not talking about fooling about on Halo or World of Warcraft. What these people do is cynical in the extreme, and necessary.

            What they do is make contingency plans. If this, and this and this, then that.

            I bet you could name any city in the world, and some nuclear-capable country somewhere in the world has that particular city targeted for a nuke if the right conditions are met. It might be something as extreme as a Zombie Apocalypse to make France nuke Canberra, but someone somewhere has Canberra in their sights if the right conditions are met. Same with Lagos. And Lisbon. And Brazilia.

            But everyone with the possible exceptions of Pakistan and North Korea has a contingency plan for Mecca and Medina. The threshold might be a dirty bomb going off in a port city. It might be an attack at a major sporting event. It might be an attack in a Parliament, as nearly happened in Canada. Whatever the trigger, it’s looking increasingly more likely to happen every day.

            The decision has already been made in the war gaming process. Some set of events will unfold, the advisors to whomever makes the final decision will present him with the contingency plans, and either that guy says yes and boom or else he says no and it keeps going until the whole world is under Sharia.

            Do you see any other alternative? Do you think that people will just spontaneously stop killing randomly in the name of Allah? That would be splendid, wouldn’t it? While we’re making wishes, we can wish they had made that decision 17 years ago.

            Or do you take ISIS at their word when they say they are going to set up a Caliphate and then go about doing just that? When they tell us flat-out that they will be embedding their own people with the refugees, and then do exactly that, do you believe them? Because the next step, according to them, is to take over Europe. Looks pretty much like they’re doing exactly that, too.

            I’d really like to hear any other alternative that you can think of. Anything that would be even more destructive than worldwide Sharia law or two nuked cities doesn’t count.

        4. It requires mind reading on a huge basis

          Even perfect mind reading would not be good enough. If you measure something at 10. One side could claim, “If not for us it would have been 20” while the other side says, “It would have been 5.”

          And neither is provable.

  4. The notional ‘moderate’, ie, mainstream, muslim would be indistinguishable from an islamic terrorist. Moderate/mainstream, being someone who believes the koran is the word of allah as received by mohammad and cannot be gainsaid. Someone who is pious and lives their beliefs. That would include, iirc, ‘hudna’, lying to infidels in support of islam. Peaceful muslims are apostate fringe groups facing extermination in their homelands.

    1. I’ve read your comment 4 times, and there’s only one possible explanation:
      Rand’s blog attracts commenter’s from more than one universe.

      I say this because on the planet I live on the US and other Western nations have good relations with most of the Muslim countries we coexist with, we sell them stuff like planes, ships, computers, food, phones, TV programs, movies, cars, war stuff, cloths, machinery, livestock and all sorts of other things, and they sell us stuff like oil, gas, food, furniture, building products, machinery, and all sorts of other things. In addition to all those billions of dollars in trade every month millions of people from Western nations holiday in Muslim countries, with hundreds of our ships and airliners visiting their ports and airports and hundreds of their ships and airliners visiting their ports and airports every month.

      So, you see, on this planet peaceful Muslims are all over the place, interacting and trading with everyone else on the planet, with ther the vast majority of their governments seeking to grow this mutually beneficial relationship.

      Sadly things aren’t perfect here, we do have far too much death by terrorist groups, that both Western and Muslim countries work to suppress, but nothing like what you tell me happens on your world. I guess with so many countries run by terrorists you must have tens of millions of causalities every year, it must be like our World War 2 with tens of millions of men continuously engaged on the front lines and no interaction between Muslim countries and Western countries outside of killing each other.

      Anyway, I’m just glad that I’m on my planet, because I’d hate to live on your planet with all those Muslim countries being run by Islamic terrorists.

      1. millions of people from Western nations holiday in Muslim countries

        And in those friendly countries we trade with, if a woman is raped, she gets punished for it in a court of law. We interact with North Korea too, it doesn’t mean North Korea is a cool place.

        1. You’ve taken a few well publicized miscarriages of justice and assumed they’re the norm.

          Across the Muslim world there’s a huge range between countries with regard to the treatment of perpetrators and victims, in some countries the laws and their implementation is similar to that in our countries, in others the punishments are all over the place.

          Islamic law is similar to Western law in terms of recognizing that the fault is that of the perpetrator, as with Western courts though the trial outcome is sometimes not as it should be, with the status of the perpetrator often resulting in a perversion to justice (and yes, I am thinking about the Brock Turner case, and there have been many others. As shown with the Turner case it’s the disgraceful court results everywhere that get the publicity).

          http://islam.about.com/od/crime/f/rape.htm

          1. You’ve taken a few well publicized miscarriages of justice and assumed they’re the norm.

            The norm is what we in the West call miscarriages of justice. You know how needs to read a link about what it really means to be Islamic? The Muslims in the multitude of countries who think their Islamic law is different than what that link said.

          2. You’re simply wrong, rape is a serious offense in Islamic law, the norm in Muslim countries is as it is in Western countries, but unfortunately in countries with less strictly and formally enforced law, miscarriages happen more often, and more blatantly, that’s not just in Muslim countries, similar things happen in India – including the punishment of victim, similar miscarriages happen throughout Africa and other parts of Asia, and I’ve no doubt in parts of Latin America, it’s called corruption.

        2. Here’s one for you:
          http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Race-and-Justice-Shadow-Report-ICCPR.pdf
          Do you accept that in the US wealthy individuals of higher status can often get lighter sentences, or even escape conviction altogether in cases that would almost certainly result in the conviction of poorer lower status individuals?

          http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/02/justice/delaware-du-pont-rape-case/

          Exactly the same thing happens in other countries, where the justice system is rigged, often not so much against women as against the poor victim and in favor of the rich high status perpetrator.

          1. So this is what the discussion is now? A complaint about the US legal system. Once again, we’ve gone from a muslim person kills 49 people in the name of the Islamic State to the US is bad.

            Lecture us again, Andrew, about providing recruitment lines for Islamic radicals. Give us more the injustice of the US legal system. Maybe none of us have ever noticed. Could be the first we heard of it.

          2. Do you accept that in the US wealthy individuals of higher status can often get lighter sentences, or even escape conviction altogether in cases that would almost certainly result in the conviction of poorer lower status individuals?

            I find that terrible, but it’s not misogynism or hatred of gays.

          3. All humans have a history of treating each other poorly. The question is how do we deal with current actions. Turning the other cheek for another couple centuries hoping Islam will change to be more un-Islamic isn’t a good strategy and does nothing in the short or medium terms.

            Feeling guilty for our ancestors should not lead to inaction. Letting Islamist terrorists slaughter us isn’t going to make us feel better or absolve us of history.

    2. Andrew,

      I’m not sure you read jsallision comment at all. Indeed, I thought you might agree with this: “Peaceful muslims are apostate fringe groups facing extermination in their homelands.” Instead, you seemed to skip right over it.

      Is it because you won’t believe it unless he provides a source? How about this; if it is not true, why are we (and the rest of the western world) being asked to take in muslim refugees?

  5. I’m not sure you read jsallision comment at all. Indeed, I thought you might agree with this: “Peaceful muslims are apostate fringe groups facing extermination in their homelands.” Instead, you seemed to skip right over it.

    I don’t know why you think I’d agree with that.

    Is it because you won’t believe it unless he provides a source? How about this; if it is not true, why are we (and the rest of the western world) being asked to take in muslim refugees?

    Because there’s a civil war in Syria, refugees happen when countries have civil wars, doesn’t matter what continent or what religions are involved.

    1. Peaceful muslims are apostate fringe groups facing extermination

      I’d look up the verse in the Quran, but lying spin makes it pointless.

      1. So you deny ISIS is killing moderate Muslims. Your view I guess.

        Your reading comprehension’s gone out the back door.

        Kuwait is a peaceful country, it is ruled by Muslims, its rulers are not a fringe group.
        Qatar is a peaceful country, it is ruled by Muslims, its rulers are not a fringe group.
        UAE is a peaceful country, it is ruled by Muslims, its rulers are not a fringe group.
        Jordan is a peaceful country, it is ruled by Muslims, its rulers are not a fringe group.
        Kazakhstan is a peaceful country, it is ruled by Muslims, its rulers are not a fringe group.
        Bosnia is a peaceful country, it is ruled by Muslims, its rulers are not a fringe group.
        Malaysia is a peaceful country, it is ruled by Muslims, its rulers are not a fringe group.
        And lots more.

          1. I define “moderate Muslims” as those that want to get along with non Muslims and non Muslim countries.

            That would include the Governments and majority of the people in those countries.
            To me that’s the definition that counts.

          2. I define “moderate Muslims” as those that want to get along with non Muslims

            In their own countries? Because persecution of non-Muslims is widespread even in countries that get along with their neighbors. And populations of non-Muslims are small because of centuries of persecution.

            and non Muslim countries.

            Getting along with neighbors is great but it doesn’t say anything about the moderation of a belief system. North Korea or China could be considered moderate. Syria could have been considered moderate and look at how Syrians are now.

            When a group of not so moderate people all belong to a single country, sometimes they can get along with other countries. But what about when their not so moderate population moves in mass to other countries?

          1. Politicians make nationalist noises, doesn’t mean they get the votes to implement those policies, in Malaysia’s case they won’t.

          2. Your argument could be made about Democrats in the US trying to deny due process rights to American citizens. Do you call Democrats, a fringe group?

          1. Actually bob, you just made my point, but that’s not interesting, because we’ve learned nothing new about you.

          2. From your own link:

            ‘Salafism was imported in Bosnia during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War with Saudi financing. A fringe and marginalised movement, it is nonetheless very vocal and organised, with websites, Facebook pages and public gatherings.’

            ‘ In June, Bosnia passed a law to ban their citizens fighting in foreign wars. Joining jihad now constitutes criminal offence in the country with 10 years in jail, and Kosovo is reported to planning to implement the same.

            According to some estimates, about 50 young men travelled to Syria from Bosnia and 32 have already come back.

            The Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) called Islamism and nationalism in Bosnia “a dangerous tango”, although Wahhabist movements in the country are still “small and fragmented”.

          1. Despite their determination to keep Christianity out of their country the Kazakhstan Government qualifies as moderate under the definition I use: “as those that want to get along with non Muslims and non Muslim countries.”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Kazakhstan

            I don’t see their policies as impossible to work with for anyone other than those inclined towards Christian missionary work.

          2. I was a bit rushed and hadn’t read the full article.

            The laws regarding proselytize aren’t nearly as strict as I had thought, and freedom to practice religion is near universal in Kazakhstan.

            The cases mentioned in the Forum 18 article are likely the exception, I wonder if the attitude of the defendants had something to do with the charges being laid (we all know how attitude can make a big difference in the difficulty of dealing with the police). I say this because charges of proselytize being brought seem to be very rare in Kazakhstan which has a huge diversity in religion.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Kazakhstan#Freedom_of_religion_and_religious_tolerance

            I can honestly say that a lot of people in this country would be happy to see the banning of door-to-door selling of religion, especially by a couple of Christian sects that drop by all too often.

          3. I can honestly say that a lot of people in this country would be happy to see the banning of door-to-door selling of religion, especially by a couple of Christian sects that drop by all too often.

            Really? And these Christian groups aren’t even enslaving anyone or waging a global war of terrorism? What is the basis for discriminating against them then? Why is it that leftists are always defending Islamic terrorism but persecuting the same groups the terrorists hate?

            And Trump is the bigot?

  6. It gives the Muslims the permission to fight only those non-Muslims who do not pay jizya – the state tax. And we all know that jizya is applicable only in an Islamic state.

    That’s called spin by some. I call it BS. You can’t play word games while ignoring the factual reality.

    Are Muslims killing in the name of Islam? No amount of spin changes the answer. Are they doing so only in Islamic countries?

    That verse in Quran (9:29) isn’t giving permission; it is a directive. That ‘state tax’ as you spin it is applicable everywhere. Our country paid it during our founding years… are you going to claim the USA is an Islamic state? (not if I have something to say about it.)

    Keep in mind what you falsely claimed…

    the Quran does not require Muslim’s to wage war on non Muslims Then you claim a verse that does, doesn’t.

    Words don’t matter when lying is part of their faith. What matters is what the Muslims do in Islam’s name. Lying is part of their religion. It’s not only not a sin, it’s an obligation. Your assertion just promotes that lie which it is shown to be by actions rather than words.

    You should be ashamed of yourself Andrew for promoting clear lies that are proven to be such by actions not just of the jihadists but a majority of the worlds Muslims including a majority of those living in the USA. Did you never hear the chilling words of the Muslim student that was ‘For it?’

    It isn’t racist to speak the truth. Some Muslims are good Americans, but none that support the killers are.

    1. If you decline to pay your tax and the authorities use force against you, would you call that war?

      1. So you support special taxes on non-Muslims? Does it bother you that many of the places where people pay a jizya were conquered by Muslims and the jizya is used to persecute the original populace?

        Notice how the populations of non-Muslims has declined in areas conquered by Muslims. This is because of systematic oppression and violence that seeks to either drive out unwanted people or to eliminate them.

        In mainstream Muslim countries like Pakistan and Egypt, non-Muslims have their houses and places of worship burned to the ground, their women stolen for brides, and face miscarriage of justice in courts regularly. This has been going on for centuries.

        Then you get groups like ISIS who make non-Muslims pay the jizya, after they rob you. They are lucky if they are not sold into slavery or brutally murdered but the threat of death hangs over them every single day, as it does in many countries controlled by Muslims.

        1. So you support special taxes on non-Muslims?

          Strawmen have become a fad for you of late haven’t they?

          No Muslim Government imposes jizya, it’s not seen as suitable in the modern world.

          This is in my opinion a good thing.

          In mainstream Muslim countries like Pakistan and Egypt, non-Muslims have their houses and places of worship burned to the ground, their women stolen for brides, and face miscarriage of justice in courts regularly. This has been going on for centuries.

          Should I be congratulating you on discovering that fringe minorities in some Islamic nations do the things you describe?
          Can I point out that all humans have a history of treating each other poorly. The question is how do we deal with current actions, and that as long as the Governments in those countries genuinely fight against that barbarity I think it’s hypocritical to blame those governments, as you say “all humanity”.

        2. Strawmen have become a fad for you of late haven’t they?

          You said that everyone has to pay their taxes, implying there was nothing wrong with a jizya.

          Should I be congratulating you on discovering that fringe minorities in some Islamic nations do the things you describe?

          In both Egypt and Pakistan, the things I noted happen with the approval of governments. Miscarriages of justice happen in courts. No one from the government rescues kidnapped women. Government forces stand by and watch, sometimes even participate, in burning down houses and churches or other mob violence against non-Muslims.

          This isn’t fringe, its main stream.

          as long as the Governments in those countries genuinely fight against that barbarity

          They aren’t though.

          And in Egypt, Obama helped install the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama has been helping these Islamist supremacist groups take over and persecute non-Muslims. The global left wing always sides with the Muslim extremists too.

      2. “If you decline to pay your tax and the authorities use force against you, would you call that war?”

        Imbecilic…just really imbecilic.

        The people through their representatives voted that in. The people can vote that out if they so choose. The people can get the laws changed if they so choose.

        Go and try to do that in sharia-ville and check back with us when you are done.

        1. Moronic, just moronic.
          There’s democracy, and there’s dictatorship, dictatorship is not synonymous with Sharia law. Sharia law doesn’t require jizya, what, if any, aspects of Sharia law are implemented is decided by the government, which in most Muslim states is elected democratically. Full Sharia is not implemented in any country of the world, most Muslim countries have their own laws & chosen only few of laws from Sharia law.

          1. I withdraw this part of my comment above: Full Sharia is not implemented in any country of the world, most Muslim countries have their own laws & chosen only few of laws from Sharia law.

            From an unreliable page:
            https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law
            There’s big range across Muslim states with most Arab states essentially implementing full Sharia:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
            Possibly the first page may be technically correct, but it’s certainly not functionally correct.

  7. peaceful Muslims are all over the place

    Try not to miss this point Andrew: WE KNOW THIS.

    That does not change what Islam is or the words in black and white in the Quran.

    1. What Ken said, plus… lets read the news today (apologize if repeat but can’t find other post reply):

      First up, on whether Islamic radicals kill moderates, Alalam: ISIS Beheads Little Girl in Syria’s Raqqa, Soaks Mother’s Hands in Her Blood

      The girl, like most her age of either sex, didn’t want to go inside to play. She wanted to play outside a bit longer. Now perhaps, she wasn’t a moderate. But I’m willing to believe that if they would do this, then jsallison is on solid ground.

      Bloomberg: The Danger of Killing Islamic State’s Caliph:
      But some military strategists and scholars of Islam make a strong argument that the U.S.-led coalition would be better off if Baghdadi remains alive and in charge.

      Get it, even if we target just the leaders and kill them; supposedly we just empower them. I recommend reading all of Gregg’s comments on the matter.

      1. even if we target just the leaders and kill them; supposedly we just empower them

        In Obama’s speech the other day, he bragged about how many ISIS leaders we have killed. This does hurt their organization but they plan for it. None of these guys are indispensable and they are all easily replaced.

        What Obama doesn’t talk about is how many low level ISIS members we kill because it isn’t taking place.

  8. Well, after 90+ comments on a post regarding the destruction of the Islamic State, what we have learned is bob and Andrew continue to deny that the Islamic State is a threat that is growing. Not much of a threat really, as they are actually killing gays, Christians, and moderate muslims. Still, Andrew and bob want to deny this every time it is mentioned. Instead, pearls are clutched in faux outrage because Ed noted a fact.

    bob is already not taken seriously in these threads. It seems Andrew wants to join him.

  9. I’m going to repeat this because I didn’t get an answer.

    I’m curious, Andrew, what do you see as an alternative? Do you think Islam’s bloodlust will be slaked after the next terrorist attack? Or the next one? Or the one after that?

    1. This documentary explains things, it all comes down to human nature, which is: If you f*ck people over by taking away their power to run their own lives, if you f*ck them over by killing their wives and families, when they have the chance they’ll f*ck you over. Islamic terrorism follows attacks on ordinary people by the people that Islamic terrorists later target.

      And yes, you can turn that around and say that: If you f*ck people over by killing their wives and families, when they have the chance they’ll f*ck you over. Attacks by Western nations usually follows attacks on ordinary people by the people that Western nations later target.

      It’s the hate mongers on both sides that start the wars and terrorism that ends up ruining the lives of ordinary people.

      If the Palestinians had never been displaced there wouldn’t have been Palestinian terrorists. If the Iraqi Sunni hadn’t been the victims of a Shiite power grab in Iraq (the product of the US invasion and subsequent mishandling of the reestablishment of representative government in Iraq by the US), and the corrupt and brutal regime of Assad – supported by Russia – there wouldn’t have been an ISIS.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzuQmeJrqZE

      If some Great Power were to conqueror America there would be attacks by Americans on that Great Power, and if desperate enough those American freedom fighters would hit soft targets, and they would be labeled as barbarians and savages, with retaliation by the Great Power also against soft targets also being justified, with commendations and medals handed to the warriors of the Great Power for attacking and killing those slaughtered civilians.
      In fact all that has already happened in America.

      It’s nothing but Human nature which enables the rationalizing your own killings as justified, and the rationalizing of the other sides killing as barbaric and not motivated by their victimization but by their religion, or their savageness, or whatever. There’s always a reason to kill those on the other side, the other side never has a good reason for their killing, at least not in the eyes of the hate mongers.

      1. Answer the damn question.

        I presented two options: worldwide Sharia law, or two nuked cities causing the end of Islam.

        What do you see as an alternative?

        What is the Third Way that will make people spontaneously stop randomly killing people in the name of Allah in half a dozen worldwide attacks every single day?

        1. World conflict isn’t going to spontaneously stop, and suggesting that it can makes you sound like a contestant in a beauty pageant.

          “And what do you want to happen this week Ms Minchau?”
          “Oh, I want World Peace!”

          Today there is less conflict in the world than there has been at any other time in history, we’ve gotten to this point through more global trade, better communications, stronger contacts between people the world over than there has been in the past, this trend is continuing and accelerating.

          These stronger ties are why we no longer have wars between villages within England, or wars between England and Scotland, or between the UK and France, or between different powers within Europe.

          It’s these ever increasingly strong ties that the hate mongers such as yourself would love to see broken, they want to see international ties fall apart because they love war, they love to hate, and so they propose final solutions designed to increase the conflict – like nuking foreign cities to murder millions of people who just want to live their lives and raise their families in peace, or conducting terror campaigns to murder thousands of people who just want to live their lives and raise their families in peace.

          You probably don’t get just how sick and perverted I think you and other campaigners for terror are.

          1. Will you even try to answer Ed’s questions?

            These ad hominem attacks: “You probably don’t get just how sick and perverted I think you and other campaigners for terror are.” don’t cut it.

            Telling us their are no longer wars between Scotland and England, when that’s been the case for over 250 years, does not suggest enlightment on your part.

          2. If this is your answer: “we’ve gotten to this point through more global trade, better communications, stronger contacts between people the world over than there has been in the past, this trend is continuing and accelerating.

            Let’s look at this: “Facebook, Google, Twitter agree to delete hate speech in 24 hours: Germany

            Do you think Ed made that deal? Do you support the agreement? Do you see this as acceleration of better communications or a giant step backwards?

            As for global trade accelerating, that would be nice if it were true.

            And then we come to your unsourced assertion, which in terms of my lifetime, and probably Ed’s too, doesn’t sound true at all.

          3. I really don’t care what you think of me personally. What is the third option that will prevent half a dozen terrorist attacks every damned day? What’s going to make them stop? Better communication? “Halt or I shall say Halt again!”

            Less conflict that at any time in history? That must be why there are millions of refugees pouring into Europe, and not into countries where they already speak Arabic. Reality, man, come and join it.

          4. It’s not rapidly growing, it’s been losing ground recently and will continue to do so, initially because it’s not strong enough militarily, but also and increasingly because it will have nothing to offer its adherents other than martyrdom.

            Murder and subjugate innocent people and they defend themselves with force, fighting back to regain what they once had, if fighting back doesn’t work most will try to get by under the subjugation, eventually the disenfranchisement becomes a political issue both internationally and domestically and it’s rectified, though that can take some time.

            Narrowly focused terror organization either die or have to broaden their appeal, which they do by becoming more mainstream and political.

            I can give you endless examples of terrorist organizations that have disappeared or turned to politics end the subjugation imposed on those they represented.

            Terror campaigns never achieve the goals their founders imagined they would.

          5. it’s been losing ground recently

            Even the State Dept says terrorist attacks up 35% Worldwide. That was 2015. However, I’m sure your own bias kept you form clicking the May 28th 2016 link to Fox pointing out the terrorism has increased 8 fold since 2010. Your assertion is wrong. Why do you keep making it?

          6. I’ve already pointed out the terrorism increases after people are displaced and subjugated, the rate at which people are displaced and subjugated goes up and down in the short term depending on the actions of the more powerful governments and nations, the level of terrorism increases after the displacement.

            The mess created from the overthrow of Saddam has been a terrible event for the victims of that war.

            It should be obvious that I’m talking about the long term trend, decade on decade, century on century the level of conflict on Earth has declined. Go back far enough and we were all warriors, now it’s about 1% of us.

  10. I figure the 1990s must have been the Dark Ages for “liberals,” despite the Clinton Gang occupying the White House. The Cold War was over, and the US had not yet awakened to the Islamist threat. During the Cold War, “liberals” had decades to be the Useful Idiots of the Communists; but in the 1990s they had not yet become the Useful Idiots of the Islamists. They must have felt lost.

  11. What’s insane is that I’m being lambasted for pointing out falsehoods about Islam, while almost no one else has agreed that Eds suggestion might be a tad excessive, and certainly counterproductive in terms of reducing terrorism.

    When you get to some actual falsehoods, please let us know. Anytime somebody provides you with an example (of which there is no shortage) you claim it’s not representative. Are any of the examples false? No. So, like it or not, they are representative.

    Ed did not advocate that we should nuke two cities. He said that it may occur (perhaps because we run out of other options? Or some nuke power just has had enough.)

    I don’t believe it would work, but it would send a message to the Saudis that paying off the bad guys is a bad idea.

    Being an apologist for terrorists make you a terrorist.

    1. Except for the last line, I agree completely, Ken. On the last line, I will contend that ignoring the actual harm done by terrorist to clutch pearls over discussion of responses to terrorism does nothing to stop terrorist. The ignorance, however it may come, doesn’t make one a terrorist, but it sure helps the terrorist’s cause.

  12. either for the goal of stopping ISIS

    It used to be Democrats would only allow that there was one group to worry about, AQ. Now, they say there is only one group to worry about, ISIS. The reality is there are hundreds or thousands of similar groups.

    Syria is filled with a multitude of competing Islamic armies. So is Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, and many other countries.

    In Iraq, Obama is using the same Shia militias we were fighting against during the Bush years to fight against ISIS. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that these Shia militias, that are still Iranian proxies, are brutal to civilians. How would Democrats, the media, and the world community react if Bush was using death squads?

    Why is there silence on the tactics Obama is using to fight ISIS?

    People keep saying how wrong it is to kill civilians but have nothing to say about Obama’s militias killing civilians. Heck these people don’t even recognize the historic scale of human suffering, mass displacement of tens of millions of people, global refugee crisis, and ending of nuclear non-proliferation brought about by Obama’s policies.

    Trump said he would kill terrorists families, I disagree unless they are active participants in warfare, and people freak out but these same people can’t utter a single word of condemnation for the historically unprecedented suffering caused in large part by Obama’s blunders.

    1. Trump really needs an interpreter that understands what he means. He has correctly noticed that many/some families of terrorists provide a support network such that they can often hide in plain sight.

      The support network is always the larger and more important aspect (true for any fighting units.) Killing terrorists means almost nothing if you leave the network in place.

      1. I think it is interesting that Marteen’s mosque, with 130 members, has had at 2 members commit terrorist attacks at different locations.

        1. There ya go with your paranoid delusions. Mosques are only a place for peaceful prayer. Any evidence contrary to that, no matter how statistically significant, even if caught on tape by racist citizen journalist (which will be punishable by death) is just an exception to be ignored (regardless of body count.)

          Speaking of statistics.

  13. There’s always a reason to kill those on the other side

    Now I see your malfunction Andrew. You see all fighting as morally equivalent. It’s all evil.

    You believe the only reason there are terrorists is because we asked for it, blaming the victim.

    You probably believe that capital punishment is never justified.

    Horseshit.

    Not fighting when you should is the moral depravity. When is that? When someone wants to kill you because you don’t share their beliefs would be one good example. I have never harmed a terrorist. By your logic I should never then be subject to terrorism.

    Like I said, horseshit.

    Defending others from attack is also justified. Doing nothing is the moral depravity.

    Do innocents get killed? They do. But you limit that, not by inaction, but by fighting back. 49 people could not have died if just one person had been able to shoot back. Even without a gun to defend themselves they could have rushed the shooter and again 49 people would not be dead. 4 out of 5 shots didn’t kill anyone. He had to reload at least a dozen times. Being nice to evil doesn’t work.

    1. Did you watch this:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzuQmeJrqZE
      I wasn’t saying fighting to defend yourself is immoral or unnecessary, if you’d been paying attention the whole of my comments rather than mining little bits of them and taking them out of context you’d know that.
      Watch the video, then ask yourself if a Sunni in Iraq whose family was murdered by a Government that was put in place by America after America invaded might not feel that America was the enemy, or perhaps innocent members of his family were killed by US troop in error, were those troops ever punished for their mistake? Almost certainly not, so there are a lot of Iraqi Sunni out there who thinks that:

      Not fighting when you should is the moral depravity. When is that? When someone wants to kill you because you don’t share their beliefs would be one good example. I have never harmed an American. So I should never then be subject to American terrorism.

      Defending others from attack is also justified. Doing nothing is the moral depravity.

      As far as the irrelevant topic of capital punishment is concerned, I’m pragmatic, if criminals can be rehabilitated at reasonable cost they should be, if they’re beyond rehabilitation they should be disposed of rather than wasting taxpayer money with imprisonment, so it’s likely that I’d be OK with capital punishment for crimes too minor for you yourself to think it acceptable.

      1. Andrew, I do try to understand your argument from your perspective. Your errors are very subtle.

        That Iraqi Sunni can believe anything he likes. It isn’t justified. He’s also not representative of the whole. People that have never had that hypothetical experience still want to kill us, so your example in those cases does not apply.

        I have never harmed an American

        You have to be careful switching from ideology to nations. They are not the same and the rules are different. Most warriors in opposing countries understand that it’s not a personal vendetta. That’s why, when a war ends, former opponents can become true friends. They actually have a shared experience.

        It’s different with the terrorists. They aren’t fighting to defend a nation. They are killing infidels, not deserving of life or respect… raping is not defending anything. It is only to humiliate the subhumans (in their view.)

        irrelevant topic of capital punishment

        Irrelevant? That’s an interesting response. The subject is ‘when killing is moral,’ so I’d say it’s very relevant.

        Andrew, there is a difference between good guys and bad guys. You are arguing there isn’t. It is NOT just a matter of perspective. Islam is not just their religion. It has no live and let live premise. They will act based on their relative strength. When strong, they don’t pretend to be something they aren’t. When weak, they flat out lie, but always with the intent to increase their power.

        You are attributing qualities to them, benefits of doubt, when there is no doubt. I welcome Muslims that want peace. These folks have to hide from their own countrymen. Did you know that many Muslims find Jeff Dunham’s Achmed the terrorist to be very funny. They get it. But they don’t acknowledge that in the cities where they would get in trouble.

        1. I’ve been saying the same thing over and over again on this blog for years. I think I’m consistent, my position starts with the belief that above all else we’re all slaves to Human instincts.

          Religion is a relatively thin veneer on top.

          Rule 1: We are all individuals, and need to be treated based on our actions as individuals.
          This to me is at the core of being on the right, but unlike most other right thinkers I’m consistent, I apply this principle both to those within my own country and to those in other countries, so I don’t stereotype, though it’s amongst the strongest of Human instincts to do exactly that when having to address the enemy.

          As far as telling the good guys from the bad guys goes, again I think I’m consistent, I don’t go Christian = Good, Muslim = Bad. If I must label goodies from baddies it would be that baddies are those that go against Rule 1 above, those that think that it’s fair and sane to treat all the people of this or that group the same, that they aren’t individuals, and needn’t be treated as individuals, I believe it’s the people who think like that who are the people who indulge in discriminant killing, I think Ed has put himself squarely into that category.

          As far as the capital punishment thing goes, I think I’m being consistent, again I’m sticking with Rule 1.

          Islam is not just their religion. It has no live and let live premise.

          If you actually look at the Quran you’ll find that there are several passages that the hate mongers take passages from the Quran out of context to promote their hate:
          002:193
          YUSUF ALI: And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.

          http://www.discoveringislam.org/killing_infidels.htm

          You are attributing qualities to them, benefits of doubt, when there is no doubt.

          Wrong again, all you have to do is look at the world around you, t h e _w h o l e _w o r l d, _w i t h _a l l _t h e _c o m m e r c e _a n d _t o u r i s m _t h a t _e x i s t s _b e t w e e n _M u s l i m _c o u n t r i e s _a n d _t h e _r e s t _ o f _ t h e _w o r l d, _i t ‘ s _h u g e _ a n d _h u g e l y _ i m p o r t a n t _t o _a l l _o f _u s_.

          I thought I should type that slowly because I keep saying it and it doesn’t seem to register with you.

          1. You seem to have that same problem. So I will repeat…

            “Try not to miss this point Andrew: WE KNOW THIS.

            In other words, I am following your rule #1.

            You believe in set theory? The problem isn’t with groups. The problem is correctly identifying which individual belongs in which group. Good and evil exists and individuals by their actions assign themselves to which groups.

            You are trying to tell me I don’t understand the Quran. You’ve got me there, but I do know something of its history which closely follows the history of their prophet.

            It does have nice things it says. Mohammad had his period when he wasn’t strong enough to slaughter his unbelieving relatives. He played nice until he was able to murder them. It’s no different today. Is it every Muslim. No. Because I know they are individuals. Do you get that because you write that you don’t.

            However, SOME ARE EVIL. They have self identified as part of the evil set. The good Muslims know this as well and some have tried to explain it to you, but you’re having none of it.

            You have a Utopian view of the world. Mortals can’t always figure out which set individuals belong to. But in the real world those sets are real even if as mortals we can’t always get it right. We still need to act with imperfect information.

          2. The context is if MUSLIMS GET ATTACKED then Muslims have the right to attack back

            This is a blatant lie which you agree with. They aren’t beheading christians because the christians attacked them. They are beheading them because they can.

            I went to Istanbul. I met a lot of nice Muslims, perhaps even more than you’ve ever known. Christians are allowed there in their constitution. They like the tourist dollars. They’re part of NATO. But I also came across Muslims that would have killed me if given the chance. I didn’t go looking for a fight, but they still found me. In one of the most civilized cities in the Muslim world.

            I even hired a street urchin to protect myself in public. She did a great job too (with younger brother in tow.)

            Yes, people are individuals. Some of those individuals are evil.

          3. WE KNOW THIS.

            But you continue to discount it.

            Is it every Muslim. No. Because I know they are individuals. Do you get that because you write that you don’t.

            Again you might say you get it, but you have been saying that they’re compelled by their religion to attack Christians:

            ken anthony
            June 15, 2016 At 1:56 AM
            the Quran does not require Muslim’s to wage war on non Muslims

            Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah … until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

            So Andrew, you are wrong. The choice is submit or die.
            . . . . .
            That verse in Quran (9:29) isn’t giving permission; it is a directive.

            Are you saying that you’ve changed your position and now accept that Muslims are not directed to kill and subjugate non Muslims?

            However, SOME ARE EVIL. They have self identified as part of the evil set. The good Muslims know this as well and some have tried to explain it to you, but you’re having none of it.

            And yet I said:
            “If I must label goodies from baddies it would be that baddies are those that go against Rule 1 above, those that think that it’s fair and sane to treat all the people of this or that group the same, that they aren’t individuals, and needn’t be treated as individuals, I believe it’s the people who think like that who are the people who indulge in discriminant killing,”

            Don’t you get that that includes those Evil Muslims??
            (I personally prefer not to use the term “evil” because it’s so theologically loaded (does being evil mean someones working for the Devil?) it’s always used subjectively and you yourself have been labeled evil by virtue of being an American).

            This is a blatant lie which you agree with. They aren’t beheading christians because the christians attacked them. They are beheading them because they can.

            And that is why ISIS is condemned and disowned by the majority of Muslims, they don’t consider ISIS to be acting as Muslims should act, and it’s also why I condemn ISIS (you did get that I condemn ISIS don’t you? I’m starting to wonder if you missed it, what with your claiming that I don’t understand that there are bad Muslims).

            Christians are allowed there in their constitution.

            Christians are allowed into all of the Muslim nations.

            But I also came across Muslims that would have killed me if given the chance.

            Outside of the obvious cases it’s no more dangerous for tourists from Western nations to travel through Muslim nations than it is for them to travel through any number of non Muslim nations. Tourists get robbed and murdered even in relatively civilized countries like Australia.

            I’ve traveled through Africa, I’d rate much of Africa as being far more dangerous than most Arab countries and Muslim countries further east, and I’d rate the Muslims in most sub Saharan countries as safer to deal with than many Christians and adherents of local religions.

            Islam gives structure and direction to peoples lives that many non Muslims lack, and being respectful to others is part of the teachings given to Muslims in that part of the world. Muslims might end up as terrorists, but they don’t seem to end up as members of street gangs.
            I suspect that that might largely apply to black Americans (both devout Christian and Muslims) as well?

          4. Partial correction: “Christians are allowed into all of the Muslim nations” as tourists except Saudi Arabia (they flip flopped on this a couple of years ago) Saudi Arabia allows in non-Muslims on business, but it’s not easy to get permission.

          5. “A substantial majority” means a significant minority of hundreds of millions of people don’t.

            Yes, and millions of Americans probably think it’s time to nuke someone.

            Them thinking that makes no practical difference, because a substantial majority of Americans aren’t that trigger happy.

          6. Rand, look at the actual numbers in Andrew’s Pew Research link. I don’t think you’ll change your mind about your fundamental positions, of course, but I bet you’ll be surprised by the numbers, and the geographical distribution.

            I find the degree of disdain for ISIS in Lebanon, Jordan, in the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip quite encouraging. In particular, 98% of Lebanese Sunnis have disdain for ISIS, and only 1% have a favorable view of it. Most of the support for ISIS comes from far away where I would imagine they they are much less informed than in Lebanon and Jordan.

  14. Murder and subjugate innocent people and they defend themselves with force

    It’s not so black and white. How do you explain children being recruited into guerrilla armies?

  15. But you continue to discount it.

    Not in the least most insignificant bit. May I point out that you, in this thread, have done the exact same thing. You said you’d bomb ISIS. Isn’t ISIS made up of individuals? That is a logical inconsistency.

    You can’t read my heart Andrew and you refuse to believe my words. Let me make it crystal clear…

    Muslims are people that share traits in common with all humans.

    Islam is a teaching that directly obligates its adherents to support, if not actively engage in, terrorism. Muslims admit this in poll after poll. They’re ‘For It,’

    The Quran says it in black and white and the terrorists seem to have no problem understanding it; which includes lying about what it says. You claim the Quran only gives permission to defend themselves. That is flat out false. If you don’t believe the words you should at the very least believe its followers actions. They even reveal who they are after lying about it.

    How convenient that ISIS are the bad guys and others are good. What about before ISIS existed? Are the Sunnis bad? The Shiite? Random guys yelling allahu akbar while slaughtering?

    You’re doing exactly what you falsely claim others are doing. I even gave you example of my holiday in a Muslim country, but it meant nothing to you.

    You even have a problem with the word, ‘evil.’ Evil exists Andrew. It’s not some made up concept to fill a collection plate (although evil can be found there as well… see, I see individual people… my sixth sense.)

    1. Islam is a teaching that directly obligates its adherents to support, if not actively engage in, terrorism.

      Totally wrong.

      Muslims admit this in poll after poll. They’re ‘For It,’

      More than wrong, a lie.

      The Quran says it in black and white

      Within the context, a lie.

      You claim the Quran only gives permission to defend themselves.

      No, I say the Quaran does not require Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims.

      How convenient that ISIS are the bad guys and others are good.What about before ISIS existed? Are the Sunnis bad? The Shiite? Random guys yelling allahu akbar while slaughtering?

      Members of ISIS all know where they stand, their organisation has been explicit about its actions, there should be no doubt with any of its membership.
      Having said that, throughout this discussion I have been well aware of what it took to precipitate ISIS, many of its members would have lost family members to the violence of Maliki’s government and purge, and the wars, they’re driven – as you are – by a need for revenge. But they all signed up to ISIS. I’ve said I want to see the organization gone, I don’t want to see all its members dead, just keep taking off the top – think back to my comments regarding capital punishment, most members of ISIS would be reformable, most members of the leadership not so, too hard core.
      There’s a practical limit to how fine you can cut hairs.
      To repeat my comment on it:
      I’m pragmatic, if criminals can be rehabilitated at reasonable cost they should be, if they’re beyond rehabilitation they should be disposed of rather than wasting taxpayer money with imprisonment, so it’s likely that I’d be OK with capital punishment for crimes too minor for you yourself to think it acceptable.

      You even have a problem with the word, ‘evil.’ Evil exists Andrew. It’s not some made up concept to fill a collection plate (although evil can be found there as well… see, I see individual people… my sixth sense.)

      I think you speak from an emotive or religious perspective (though obviously NOT a Christian perspective, since you’ve been advocating hatred and violence clearly in contradiction of Christ’s teachings) I try to take a more scientific perspective, outside of Humans there is no evil, inside of Humans you could argue that actions contrary to our instinctive drives are evil, but the courts would in most cases find insanity, as for actions consistent with our instincts but contrary to moral teachings, it always comes down to motivations like: Is it evil to steal bread to feed your family? Is it evil to retaliate and kill those who have killed your own? How about hurting them a bit? How about killing not the individuals that killed yours – since to can’t identify or reach those individuals – but killing people from the tribe that killed yours?
      The sane things we do are consistent with instinctive behavior, so from a scientific perspective I don’t like using the word, as I said, it’s too loaded, it’s inevitably used by the pious to justify them acting in ways or endorsing action (as you are) that are very, very, not pious.

      1. I say the Quaran does not require Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims.

        You say. Why do I get the feeling you’re telling me what is, is?

        You’re telling me not only that I do not know how to read English in context, but the terrorists themselves that justify what they do are misreading the Quran?

        OK, then let’s look at it in black and white:

        9:5 …slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way.

        9:29. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

        What does “Fight until subdued” mean? If you say, talk mean to me, then I’d have to ask your definition of slay them? If I don’t submit what does “until subdued” mean?

        2:191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them.

        That clears up what fight means, unless now you tell me “slay” is an internal struggle?

        47:4. Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah.s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

        Do you see how the terrorists “smite at their necks” or is this just a coincidence? “Thus (are ye commanded)” doesn’t sound optional to me?

        8:12. Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”

        I sure hope they don’t forget the fingers in this internal struggle for piety? You’ll tell me this smiting refers to a specific battle and is not a general instruction. But even if that were true, it’s still instructing them how to battle which they follow to this day. Another coincidence?

        You’re right Andrew… I’m a hater. I hate what is bad. Which includes someone telling me a pile of shit is a freakin’ rose.

        If you can watch the video where the Muslim student is “For it” and not get chills, you are no longer human. You really would be from a different universe than I.

          1. Thanks for the link, it is terrible that people hate so much.

            Here’s one for you, in this one people actually die, rather than just talk about it.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

            I assume in your mind the video you link to has some significance to the debate we’re having, that it somehow advances the case you’re trying to make. It does not, there’s no dispute that there are Palestinians and other Muslims that want to see Jews dead, but once again I’ll point out that a few are not representative of all the rest.

            Which is something I have no trouble understanding. Even though the US military often shoot and kill innocent people without good reason, it’s only a few and not representative.

          2. I’ll point out that a few are not representative of all the rest.

            I’m watching your video link right now. People die in war. You’ve already given that as a justification (for doing what the Quran says to do, which you say it doesn’t.) I’ve already stated it is not justification.

            Leland has given you a link showing that ‘few’ consists of million and is often a majority.

            But you are correct in one respect. Not all Muslims support terrorism. Are you going to continue to ignore my simple statement. Are you going to continue calling me a liar? Twice a month my eye doctor sticks needles in both of my eyes and I’m told he will have to do this every month for at least the next three years. Are you going to tell me he’s not a Muslim? Or I believe him to be a terrorist? That I’m not treating him as an individual?

            If I hated him, wouldn’t I find a different doctor?

            I note in the video that, that solder is treating those Muslims as individuals (DURING A FIGHT!)

            But you give no credit. His superiors are responsible for keeping him in the fight. It’s their job. That doesn’t make it right, but you don’t always have the option of dealing with individuals which you have already agreed to with reference to ISIS. That’s hypocritical.

        1. FFS, all of those passages were covered in one of the links I gave you earlier, you don’t address the reply to your interpretation in that link so you obviously didn’t look at it.

          Which indicates that perhaps you are indeed an unreasoning hater, as a reasonable person would actually look at his opponents points and consider them.

          http://www.discoveringislam.org/killing_infidels.htm

          1. you obviously didn’t look at it

            Where do you suppose I found those verses? You need to take a breath.

      2. you’ve been advocating hatred and violence clearly in contradiction of Christ’s teachings

        Romans 12:9

        Where do I advocate violence?

          1. I’m saying you don’t understand Jesus either. Hating bad is a Christian principle.

          2. Hating bad is a Christian principle.

            No, it’s a universal principle, the problem is that “bad” is subjective, that is often not an issue within a society, but in disagreements between societies each will define “bad” as what’s counter to their interests.

          3. it’s a universal principle

            It’s both. You don’t get to weasel out of ‘bad.’ You may have problems objectively identifying it, but it still exists.

            You’re just full of word games. I am a hater Andrew, but you have no concept.

            I proved hatred is not contrary to Christ’s teachings and you don’t acknowledge. You just play more word games. I’ve proved I listen to you and waste my time on irrelevant links you provide (trying to tell me that war is bad as if I didn’t already know???) and you send me to an apologist site that does almost nothing but twist the truth. A truth proven in daily headlines which you claim are not representative.

            Your interpretation of the Quran means nothing to the jihadist who interpret it in a straight forward way. They don’t need pretzel logic to justify there actions. They don’t need the great satan to do anything to justify their actions.

            They exist and they act regardless of who they represent or don’t. They’re individuals too.

          4. Romans 12:9-21New International Version (NIV)

            Love in Action
            . . .

            17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[b] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

            “If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
            if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
            In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[c]
            21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

            Heck! That’s a lot closer to what I’ve been saying than to what you Islamophobes have been saying!

          5. I find that “heap burning coals on his head” bit interesting and instructive, A lot of non-Christians would interpret that, not realizing the context and taking it as literal, as a barbaric act. My own interpretation is that it’s intended to signify your enemy having an epiphany, a realization that his actions aren’t justified, or as one source sees it:
            The passage about coals is about the emotional discomfort an enemy will feel when you waken his conscience about his conduct toward you.

        1. There are two points I’m making in this discussion

          1. Nuking Mecca and Medina will not end Islam, it would however lead to global chaos as it would be an action so add odds with what is acceptable for nations.

          2.The Quran does not obligate Muslims to make war on non-Muslims, but it sure doesn’t require them not to defend themselves if attacked.

          That’s the only points I’m making, everything else I’ve said is simply to support those points.

          1. I disagree on your first point. The Hajj s central to Islam and all Muslims are required to make the pilgrimage at least once in their lives. It is not optional.

            Eliminate the ability to participate in the Hajj for more than one lifetime, and Islam is done. Not to mention that a demonstration that the creature one has been worshiping is actually completely powerless will cause a great many to simply abandon Islam on the spot.

            As proof, I point to the Shinto religion.

          2. Well since your fantasy isn’t going to happen maybe the Muslims have got it right after all, maybe I should reconsider my atheism.

          3. I’ve given your claim further consideration, and you’re wrong:

            1. As you know Allah, like his omnipotent sky fairy versions in Christianity and Judaism doesn’t actually live in Mecca.

            2. Mohamed has already got it covered, if Muslims are defeated in battle the Quaran labels it a test of their resilience and faith, they’re expected to recover from defeats, thus proving their faith.

            3. Such proof would be demonstrated with the rebuilding of the cities, the removal of the contaminated soil, the piecing together that which was destroyed by the cowardly infidels.

            It occurs to me that what you advocate is simply another version of what Al Qaeda try to achieve with the destruction of the WTC, they were aiming to destroy the global financial system, but failed, your crack pot scheme would also fail.

            So unless you can arrange something like the increase in natural radioactivity that Asimov had occurring to the Earth in his later robot books I think your Evil plan would come to nought.

          4. The WTC is only considered sacred to those who hate bankers. The thing about free markets is that nearly by definition, they are distributed and not easily destroyed.

            I point out the WTC, as it happens to be the one issue you might have some understanding. You obviously don’t understand the significance of Mecca.

          5. OK, Andrew, first of all you’re not Atheist. Anti-Christian maybe, but not atheist. If you were you’d have the same level of contempt for Allah as you do for God.

            Secondly, the destruction of Mecca and Medina is not merely “defeat in battle”. For Muslims, that would be the loss of a 1400 year old war. They are not two random cities, these are the capital of Islam. That is like calling the destruction of Moscow and Washington a defeat in battle. Symbols are important to people, in case you hadn’t noticed.

            Third, who is going to rebuild those cities? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombs in the kiloton range. Go out to Nevada sometime and check out what happens when you drop a megaton range bomb on sand. And imagine digging up all that glass and disposing of it so that you could build a city in the same location. And if you relocate? Then it isn’t the same city.

            This entire thread you’ve gotten the vapors over my statement of fact: either Islam wins or Islam loses. There is no third option. Attempt peaceful coexistence with someone who is determined to kill you, and you will only die.

            So unless you can come up with a third option where Islam voluntarily stops killing random people en masse, all you’ve got is emotion.

          6. OK, Andrew, first of all you’re not Atheist. Anti-Christian maybe, but not atheist. If you were you’d have the same level of contempt for Allah as you do for God.

            Contempt? You think that being an atheist requires one to have “contempt” for the beliefs of others?

            Not at all, if anyone has contempt for the Christian God I would think it were you with your enthusiasm to kill your enemy when the Christian God is so keen on Christians making peace with their enemy.

            Here’s Romans 12:17-21 again:

            17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[b] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

            “If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
            if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
            In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[c]
            21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

            I get that, I think it’s very smart, very perceptive, you on the other hand seem to have contempt for its meaning.

            Nuclear bombs don’t typically leave as much radiation behind as people imagine, nothing like the level of contamination that occurred at Chernobyl, wihich is now easily low enough for any pilgrims that wish to visit that site.

            Your rest of your comment has been addressed throughout this thread.

          7. “Your rest of your comment has been addressed throughout this thread.”

            No, it has not. What option do you offer that will make Muslims stop randomly killing in the name of Allah? How many thousands of more people must die, year after year after year before they say ok, that’s enough blood?

            WHAT IS THE THIRD WAY?

            Don’t evade it. I don’t give a rat’s ass if you don’t like the two options I presented. They are the only two endgames! What is a third? Anything! C’mon man,

            If you cannot think of a third option that will end the killing, then all you have is emotion.

          8. No, it has not. What option do you offer that will make Muslims stop randomly killing in the name of Allah? How many thousands of more people must die, year after year after year before they say ok, that’s enough blood?

            Here’s Romans 12:17-21 again:

            17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[b] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

            “If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
            if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
            In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[c]
            21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

          9. Good luck getting the Muslim world to heed the words of the Bible.

            Your solution is surrender. That isn’t a third option, that’s one of the two I originally posted at the top of this thread.

    2. Muslims admit this in poll after poll. They’re ‘For It,’

      Lots of polls there. Even when not a majority, it’s fairly alarming that most numbers are well above double digits. There was a pew poll in 2013 that made a lot of press. It found that 13% Muslim Americans could justify attacks on civilians, but the upside 80% of Muslim Americans could not. 4/5 sounds great, but not when 1/10 think it is cool to kill civilians. But, this particular poll from April this year seems to fit with recent events. If 1/10 in 2013 think it is ok to kill civilians and 2/3 in 2016 won’t tell anyone about it (admit upfront that one poll is American and the other UK, but go back to that first link to see similarities across Western nations); then that well explains what we have been seeing recently.

  16. you have been saying that they’re compelled by their religion to attack Christians non-Muslims.

    FIFY. Yes (as shown throughout the world) and you have not refuted it. You have not answered a single question I asked about those verses. So I’ll just ask one.

    Does fight/slay just refer to an internal struggle?

      1. Your points were all answered in the link

        No Andrew, they aren’t. You accuse me of not being responsive when you won’t answer just one simple question.

        What does fight/slay mean?

          1. Now we’re getting some where. So if the definitions you gave me are correct, the Quran says strive vigorously (as in battle) and kill, murder and destroy.

          2. 047: 004
            YUSUF ALI: Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

            The non-Muslims quote this and start claiming terrorism and murder. However so is that the case? Or is the same case as always, that the non-Muslim is simply being dis-honest with themselves, and their fellow people. Well you make that choice after the explanation is given.

            Let us analyse this verse to see if it does truly preach terrorism or not. Obviously the part that non-Muslims use the most with this verse is when it reads:

            Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks;

            The verse is referring to battle, and war, that in a battle, when we meet the unbelieving army that we should aim for the neck. Is that terrorism, is that barbaric? Off course not, this is very logical, and this is the harsh reality of wars and battles, people get killed, and people go into a battle and war with the intention of killing their enemy. It is like if an army gives you instructions on how to attack your enemy during combat, would that be classified as terrorism? Off course it wouldn’t, so why is it classed as terrorism or barbarity when the Quran gives Muslims instructions on how they should fight during a battle with an enemy?

            So therefore there is nothing wrong with this part of the verse, it does not preach terrorism, or barbarity, not even close!

            The second part of the verse that the non-Muslim has a problem with is when it reads:

            bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom

            What exactly is wrong with this command? Logically after a battle there is a winner and a loser, and obviously after a battle several enemy combatants will come into the hands of the opposition, and logically they will be taken in as prisoners and held for ransom. Is this cruel? Is this barbarity? Not even close, this is the simply the harsh reality of war, in war and battle you risk death, and you risk capture, this is the reality of such events. Secondly, notice that the verse even says the prisoners can be released out of generosity! Basically a ransom is not the only means of freedom, a Muslim has two options, either let the person go out of your own generosity, or if you want, you can get a ransom out of the prisoner.

            So in conclusion this verse preaches no terrorism, it preaches no barbarity, all it gives are commands for the Muslims on how they should fight their enemy during battle, and what they should do with any prisoners they have.

            I didn’t see the words “murder” and “destroy” in there.

            As he says, what is said is standard in war, US troops do the same thing, in battle fighting and killing is not a crime.

          1. I will say one thing Andrew, at least you are willing to defend your [blatantly wrong] position. I commend you for that.

            “Iron sharpens iron.”

          2. See my comments above, I find myself agreeing with Romans 12 and still disagreeing with you.

  17. I have no idea what you’re talking about regarding Rom 12. It says “hate evil” varying with different translations but they all convey the same idea.

    The verse is referring to battle, and war,

    Here’s the problem. They are at war. Wars have rules they’ve chosen not to follow. They don’t wear uniforms so they are not entitled to the protection that provides.

    If you claim they are not at war, I’ll see your spin and raise you reality.

    They have a simple rule of war. When strong, behead. When weak, lie. They do this in every single instance.

    I’m not referring to all Muslims, so don’t accuse me of that.

    1. I have no idea what you’re talking about regarding Rom 12.

      Well that’s pretty sad considering I quoted what I was referring to:

      17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[b] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

      “If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
      if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
      In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[c]
      21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

      That’s a passage that I really get and you obviously don’t, in fact I think it’s a good summation of what Christ was preaching while on Earth.

      1. You’re obviously no more capable of taking passages from the Bible in context than you are anything else.

        1. It’s a good example of you ignoring what you don’t want to acknowledge. It says hate evil. Are you telling me that it doesn’t? As for the rest, it’s in complete agreement with hating evil (do you lack that kind of discernment?)

          I don’t think you understand what the word context means. For example it doesn’t mean ignore the points you don’t like. It also doesn’t refer to just words. We live in a word where people of a certain faith yell Allahu akbar right before slaughtering other people. That’s also context which you choose to ignore. If it only happened once we could ignore it, but it happens over and over again. How many times does it have to happen for it to become representative? It’s not ISIS, that’s just flavor of the month. What’s the contextual common thread… even Jay Leno’s jay walkers could tell you… but you pretend to be oblivious.

          1. I note you have been unable to provide an alternate interpretation to the passage I quoted, so I guess I’m right with my interpretation which is the obvious one, as for “Hate evil” in the context of Rom 12, it is that while you should hate evil (the concept), do not hate those you see as evil (the people), befriend them.

            So as usual, you look to ignore the context of the passages you quote.

            Misrepresentation is your whole game and misrepresentation is a form of lying.

          2. So as usual, you look to ignore the context of the passages you quote.

            Slander.

            Misrepresentation is your whole game and misrepresentation is a form of lying.

            More slander. This thread is getting a bit complicated (so I just read this part above) but you will note I’ve already answered you below. We actually have some agreement surprisingly.

            you have been unable to provide an alternate interpretation to the passage I quoted

            You say this passage only refers to war? Fine, let’s stipulate that. You’ve also admitted that a subset are at war with us, so this passage does apply. So it’s a distinction without a difference.

            You’ve tried to justify this war by accusing us of starting it. This can only be believed by someone dismissing all historical context. You don’t get to define the window so that we are guilty by ignoring everything that came before. Murderers (not killers) and terrorists have no justification for what they do. None.

    2. They have a simple rule of war. When strong, behead. When weak, lie. They do this in every single instance.

      That’s everyones rule of war, when strong you rely more on your superior fire power and obliterate your enemy, when weak you rely more on deception and subterfuge.

      Are you going to start attacking those nasty Brits for the way they so meanly deceived the Nazi’s on so many occasions? How about those mean Americans that so often use their superior fire power?

      1. I don’t remember us cutting off the heads of our enemies? Also, there is a great deal of difference between war time deception and lying. Or perhaps you just admitted they are at war with us? in which case you’re right, lying is allowed.

        1. You’re the one who claimed that “They have a simple rule of war. When strong, behead. When weak, lie. They do this in every single instance.”

          If you’re referring to “when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks” the link I provided explains that, at the time that was written attacking the neck, where there is no armor is sensible, these days using rifles rather than swords the advise is to aim for the middle of the torso.

          I’m pretty sure ISIS and a few other terrorist organisations are at war with us, the rest of the Muslim world is not, this explains why the rest of the Muslims aren’t going around smiting at our necks or aiming for the middle of the torso. s for the lying amongst those at peace, you must need to get out more, God knows I’ve seen enough lying recently, mostly from those claiming to be Christians.

          1. That’s called slander unless you can back it up with an actual case of lying.

            My simple rule was a simplification obviously, but generally true as you’ve already acknowledged.

            I’ll accept as true that some Muslims are at war with us and some are not. Which means we are at war.

            Our point of contention is what does the Quran teach and do its followers represent that teaching?

            You can not deny that the subset of Muslims that are at war with us are doing so according to the Quran’s teachings (you’ve argued that much.)

            So even if the Quran does teach peace, love and harmony and that’s how many Muslims interpret it; It really doesn’t matter because we are still left with a sizable subset that believe and act accordingly as terrorists.

            Are you with me so far?

            I hate what the terrorist do and believe you do as well.

            So are you going to continue to falsely accuse me of hating all Muslims?

            We have a problem that must be dealt with.

          2. You can not deny that the subset of Muslims that are at war with us are doing so according to the Quran’s teachings (you’ve argued that much.)

            Where have I argued that?

            So are you going to continue to falsely accuse me of hating all Muslims?

            OK, I’ll accept that you only hate members of ISIS and other terrorist groups.

            So what’s your prescription for ending terrorism?

          3. (Clarification of part of above comment)
            Where have I argued that those Muslims that are at war with us are acting “according to the Quran’s teachings”?

          4. So what’s your prescription for ending terrorism?

            I just have to wait for God’s promise. This is sometimes difficult because I have my own proactive ideas, but it’s my job to just watch. We are living in the last days of human rule. It will become obvious to everyone that no human has a solution (but some humans are very much part of the problem.)

            We are at war and they fight without a uniform so the rules of war say they have no legal protection. If captured they should get no trial. No jury. They do not go to jail. They get shot. Unless I am defending myself or others, I will not be doing the shooting.

            Where have I argued that [they are following the Quran’s teachings]?

            By arguing that the Quran is talking about conduct of war and that they are at war with us. You have argued their war is justified (it isn’t) because we harmed them first (we didn’t.)

            One additional point. Christians are individuals as well so you should use a bit of caution when using a broad brush.

            We all put people in groups. It’s normal. We simply have to remember they are individuals first. Even some ISIS members may feel they are trapped into that life.

          5. We are at war and they fight without a uniform so the rules of war say they have no legal protection.

            A minor point that I won’t dwell on, but the law requires “a distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance, carrying weapons openly, and conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.”

            With their flag and within the territory they openly fight for they probably usually meet the distinctive signs visible at a distance part at least.

            By arguing that the Quran is talking about conduct of war and that they are at war with us. You have argued their war is justified (it isn’t) because we harmed them first (we didn’t.)

            I have argued that they see their war as justified, I have not said I consider it justified, though I consider it inevitable after the 2003 invasion followed by the expulsion of Sunni from Maliki’s government with the concurrent persecution and murder of many Sunni civilians.

            Prior to that:
            The US and allies certainly did invade Iraq in 1990 (justified), certainly did clash with the Sunni forces of Saddam. A truce had been reached, Saddam certainly did abide by the conditions of the truce,and the US certainly did break that truce in attacking and occupying the whole of Iraq after the 2003 war.

            This (from wiki) I believe to be an accurate description of the truth of those events:
            Since the invasion, the U.S. and British government statements concerning Iraqi weapons programs and links to terrorist organizations have been discredited. While the debate of whether Iraq intended to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons in the future remains open, no WMDs have been found in Iraq since the invasion despite comprehensive inspections lasting more than 18 months.[84] In Cairo, on 24 February 2001, Colin Powell had predicted as much, saying, “[Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.”[85] Similarly, assertions of operational links between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda have largely been discredited by the intelligence community, and Secretary Powell himself later admitted he had no proof.[86]

            In September 2002, the Bush administration said attempts by Iraq to acquire thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes pointed to a clandestine program to make enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. Powell, in his address to the UN Security Council just before the war, referred to the aluminum tubes. A report released by the Institute for Science and International Security in 2002, however, reported that it was highly unlikely that the tubes could be used to enrich uranium. Powell later admitted he had presented an inaccurate case to the United Nations on Iraqi weapons, based on sourcing that was wrong and in some cases “deliberately misleading.”[87][88][89]

            The Bush administration asserted that the Hussein government had sought to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger.[90] On 7 March 2003, the U.S. submitted intelligence documents as evidence to the International Atomic Energy Agency. These documents were dismissed by the IAEA as forgeries, with the concurrence in that judgment of outside experts. At the time, a US official stated that the evidence was submitted to the IAEA without knowledge of its provenance and characterized any mistakes as “more likely due to incompetence not malice”.

            So the US invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked attack.
            The US then failed its obligations to Iraqis to ensure representative government, Maliki was left to do as he pleased, and what he pleased was exactly that which happens in most countries with a population where you have two tribes who hate each other with one having a considerable advantage in man power: A civil war.

          6. Andrew, you’ve opened up a whole new can of worms with that last comment, but I’m too exhausted to pursue it beyond this one point. The truce included a no fly zone which Saddam violated by taking pot shots at the planes. There’s a lot more to be said, but I’m done.

          7. Well you claimed “because we harmed them first (we didn’t.)” so I was only replying to your claim.

            I will add that though I think they have a reasonable grievance against Maliki and his allies within Iraqi.

            Terror attacks on countries not involved in the 2003 invasion cannot be justified on any level in terms of the Quran, and the justification in the Quran for terror attacks on those few coalition partners are very weak (which is why they’re condemned by most Muslims and non-Muslims alike).

            In terms of the standards and ethics of the modern world the terror attacks cannot be justified.

  18. I didn’t see the words “murder” and “destroy” in there.

    So you didn’t even read the links you provided me? Wow!

    1. Well you gave me a bit of a fright there, thought I must have missed something, but no, you’re just making sh!t up.

        1. I had assumed you were referring to the translation of the Quran, despite what you may wish “murder” and “kill” are not synonymous.

          1. For once you are correct, murder and kill are not the same thing.

            I didn’t see the words “murder” and “destroy” in there.

            Which is ironic since you provided me with the definition of fight/slay. You don’t see because you are willfully blind. You also accuse me of not understanding the biblical passage I referred you to on no basis except you choose to believe I don’t understand what I’ve been studying for over half a century. None of the passage you quoted contradicts hating what is bad.

            Then you accuse God of imposing a command we can’t obey (or did you think your subjective version of bad has no consequence?)

            Perhaps I can help you get it. Hating bad does not refer to hating people (did that click on the lightbulb?)

            Murder is bad. Not subjectively, but by definition. So a Christian is commanded to hate murder. You see how that works?

          2. “I didn’t see the words “murder” and “destroy” in there.”

            Which is ironic since you provided me with the definition of fight/slay.

            No, you said “the Quran says strive vigorously (as in battle) and kill, murder and destroy.”

            The links to the Quran I provided did not use “murder” or “destroy”, you acknowledge that kill and murder are not synonymous terms, so unless you can find somewhere in the Quran that does advocate”murder” you are wrong in saying it advocates murder.

          3. you are wrong in saying it advocates murder

            Let’s say you are right that the Quran is talking in the context of war so that it is not advocating murder. However, those at war with us have chosen not to follow the rules of war and therefore are guilty of murder.

            I concede your point.

  19. I like the Koran quote (I’m using the word “like” sarcastically) abouit every tree rising up to point out a Jew behind it, so the Jew may be killed,

    “It doesn’t say ‘Jew’! It says Schmoo!’* And it doesn’t say ‘kill’–it says ‘make nice.'”–Taqquiya Andrew

    *An old reference for you codgers, See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmoo

    They sound “liberals,” without the sadistic power lust.

    1. Andrew wants us to accept his definition of the Quran when it’s words can have various meanings. The point being it absolutely does not matter if Andrew is 100% correct and the Quran is nothing but peace and love.

      What matters is what it says motivates some to be terrorists or support terrorism.

      Another problem is his defense of the Quran is inconsistent. He claims all the slay verses refer to self defense and that’s clearly true in the case of 2:190-191. But the link he provided wants to play it both ways saying fight in Surah 9 refers to the tongue, but also to self defense. Surah 9 says nothing about either. It’s pure made up spin. Just because it plausibly could be interpreted that way means we have to look at the broader context.

      The broader context is those in Islam are saying what it means: “slay the unbelievers.” They’re not talking about self defense or just with the tongue and terrorists are acting accordingly.

      Andrew himself is saying they fight us because we gave them grievances… not that he agrees with their grievances. So why give them that? It’s odd that he would say they do not represent Islam, yet goes out of his way to make their actions seem righteous???

      That he’s made a number of false accusations toward both me and a group (what happened to we’re all individuals?) I will simply ignore.

      He accuses me not only of being an Islamophobe with no basis, but continues to assert that I hate people. I hate the evil that people do, but he seems unable to see that distinction… then presumes to lecture me on Romans 12!!!

      His idea of context is to cherry pick the parts that support his position and ignore the rest. But you can’t ignore the rest and claim to be in context!

      He was right about 2:191. He may be right about other points. But a lot of that simply doesn’t matter since he willfully ignores that millions that he claims are unrepresentative are following the teachings as they understand them with the result that they intend to kill every non Muslim that doesn’t submit.

  20. What matters is what it says motivates some to be terrorists or support terrorism.

    The wording of the Quran has remained unchanged for 1400 years, if it were the wording of the Quran that motivated Muslims to violence against non-Muslims the rate of violence would remain essentially constant, it has not.

    The fact is that terrorism against Western targets spikes after Western nations have become embroiled in the affairs of Muslims in their own lands to the detriment of those Muslims, and we’re talking about massive displacement of people with very large numbers of refugees and, with the recent surge, many dead Muslims of the section of the Muslim community that later produces those terrorists.

    It can only be an extraordinary level of self delusion to claim that it’s the religion (a constant), rather than the trauma of specific events (intermittent) that provides the motivation to Terrorists.

    Another perspective is that there are something like 1.5 billion Muslims around the world, in countries in which there has not been social disruption as a result of Western meddling there are very few Muslims taking up jihad, in Muslim countries where disruption as a result of Western meddling has occurred we have high numbers taking up jihad. (but you often get a few fanatics in any population, in Christian Norwegians, in American bombers of federal buildings).

    Obviously this is no coincidence, any scientist noting the high correlation would conclude that the causation is not from religious beliefs but from the social disruption.

    Here’s a hypothetical for you: If some great power were to decide that the legitimate owners of North America are the native Americans, that the lands were stolen from them and so in a generous move expel all the people of foreign ethnicity from the bulk of the country, forcing them to live in squalor in New York with few resources, how would you foreigner Americans react?

    Would you foreign Americans take up arms and fight for “justice?” would you resort to guerrilla warfare, how about terrorism – hitting soft targets?

    You bet your bottom dollar you would, and the incidence of terrorism perpetrated by Americans would skyrocket.

    Would it make any sense, any sense at all, for the members of this great power that righted a hundreds of years old wrong to attribute this surge in American terrorism to most Americans being white? To most Americans being Christian? To most Americans being uncivilized? Frankly I think it would take an extraordinary level of self delusion for them to attribute the surge in American terrorism to anything other than their own meddling in North America.

  21. if it were the wording of the Quran that motivated Muslims to violence against non-Muslims the rate of violence would remain essentially constant

    You say there are 1.5 billion Muslims today. How many were there 1400 years ago? When was the pax mohammed?

    1. I’m talking about recent history, obviously the rate of attacks has varied considerably from year to year since WW2, while the Muslim population has slowly increased.

      If you want to go back over the last 1400 years, allowing for population increase, I’d bet that the level of conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims is far lower now than it has been over most of that time.

      1. Andrew, your argument is the Quran does not motivate terrorists to violence? Good luck with that argument.

        1. I guess that means you finally get my point, though won’t acknowledge it as it contradicts the narrative you’ve been fed for much of your life.

          1. Oh, I get your point. Islam creates a certain percentage of killers from a population of 1.5 billion because they read the Quran which tells them to slay unbelievers (although you tell me when it says slay non-Muslims it doesn’t actually mean slay non-Muslims.)

            You disavow the terrorists while at the same time making excuses for them.

            If 1,499,999,999 Muslims were terrorists you’d tell me they’re both not representative and justified at the same time.

          2. If that comment is saying that my point is that: Islam creates a certain percentage of killers from a population of 1.5 billion because they read the Quran which tells them to slay unbelievers (although you tell me when it says slay non-Muslims it doesn’t actually mean slay non-Muslims.)

            Then you’re pretending which is why I’m quite pleased with my comment here:
            http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=64836#comment-381304
            I admit that sometimes I leave room for misinterpretation or misrepresentation in my comments, it’s hard not with an opponent determined to believe what they want to believe. But that comment, with that comment I see you get it, the logic is sound and the objectivity of perspective is clear, so what do you do? You ignore it, you see the point you don’t want to see. So you pretend it’s not there.

            You disavow the terrorists while at the same time making excuses for them.

            Not excuses, recognition of the reality of their situation and their Human nature.

            As I point out, in my June 20, 2016 At 5:43 PM comment (the one you’re so keen to ignore) if your people (or my people) were in a similar situation to Iraq’s Sunni’s many would react with similar violence.

            People are always says “I understand why you did it but I cannot condone it” that translates to “If I (or at least my peers) were in the same situation I’d (or my peers) would probably do exactly the same thing, but I can’t actually admit to that, because to do so would put me in an extremely difficult position with other people I have to live with.

            If 1,499,999,999 Muslims were terrorists you’d tell me they’re both not representative and justified at the same time.

            If 1,499,999,999 Muslims were soldiers against America it would be because America bombed Mecca and Medina.

          3. “I understand why you did it but I cannot condone it” that translates to “If I (or at least my peers) were in the same situation I’d (or my peers) would probably do exactly the same thing, but I can’t actually admit to that, because to do so would put me in an extremely difficult position with other people I have to live with.”

            So call me a sheeple, it just means I’m a hell of a lot less sheeplish than you.

          4. What you are ignoring Andrew is that people other than Muslims have also been stressed but without becoming terrorists. For all your talk about individuals, your first inclination is to put everyone into your box.

            One of the things I pride myself on is acknowledging an opponent’s good point. While yours had some merit, it was incompletely so I refrained from commenting on it (I needed to add the parts you forgot in my own mind.) Then you make yourself look foolish with your mind reading act.

            You have an amazing ability to reach conclusions that are unsupported by the evidence you present. You have enlightened me on some points but then try to use those to persuade me to go where the evidence doesn’t go.

            You can’t see the nose on your face. Many terrorists are Muslims. The Quran encourage them. Their families support them. The results speak louder than any argument you’ve made.

            Your kneejerk reaction is so clear any commentor here could parody it. For the record, name calling loses it’s power when, as you have, you do it too often.

          5. What you are ignoring Andrew is that people other than Muslims have also been stressed but without becoming terrorists.

            Really? When I look at conflicts around the world I find the level of terrorism has more to do with the size and nature of the conflict than the religion of the participants.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups

            Certainly the number of Islamic organizations is large, but most are products of major conflicts involving Israel and America. Smaller conflicts around the globe still produce terrorists, all these countries have had problems with non-Muslim terrorists:

            South Africa, Japan, Colombia, Phillippines, India, Israel, Cambodia, Chile, Greece, Spain, Nepal, Britain, Ireland, Ukraine, Sri Lanka, Russia, China, Peru, Myanmar, USA, Norway, Indonesia, Serbia, Several other Balkan states, Numerous African nations, and that’s a far from complete list, as a lot of indigenous terror organizations not targeting Westerners are not included.

            Perhaps you can list a few examples of non-Muslim people who’ve been persecuted and displaced but not resorted to terrorism.

          6. When I look…

            We’ve already determined you are incapable of seeing the obvious. Did you actually look at the list you provided?

            you’re still not addressing my June 20, 2016 At 5:43 PM comment

            I’ve addressed it four times already. Like I said, you are blind to what you don’t care to see. This is the fifth and final time I will address it. Pay attention.

            Does social disruption cause terrorism apart from religious considerations?

            Of course it does. I never denied this. Your malfunction is to claim this as THE explanation for Islamic terrorists.

            in countries in which there has not been social disruption as a result of Western meddling there are very few Muslims taking up jihad

            Why is that so? Because those populations have been pacified by almost complete institutional terrorism.

            Muslims in those countries either toe the line or get mutilated or killed. Civilized countries don’t do that sort of thing. But if you get your way we will be playing “Cowboys and Muslims” rather soon and I guarantee the outcome.

            Do you really believe Imadinnerjacket when he said there are no homosexuals in Iran?

            Go ahead, you can explain that one to me.

            Perhaps you can list a few examples of non-Muslim people who’ve been persecuted and displaced but not resorted to terrorism.

            After the civil war, blacks did not become terrorists (although the 1960s did see terrorists that included blacks. Those don’t qualify by your criteria since they weren’t displaced by the civil war.)

            Jews did not rise up against the Egyptians. They left Egypt. …and many other countries that persecuted them since then.

            The numbers of Christians being persecuted today vastly outnumber any Christian terrorists and those are denounced by Christians without hesitation or attempted excuses.

            What about Islam?

            7th century – founded by an illiterate murdering pedophile.
            He starts his holy service by killing his relatives because they laughed at him.

            After the illiterate pedephile’s death, four Caliphs continued the murdering in Persia, Levant, Egypt, and North Africa. Lands which had no Muslims. They did not stop there.

            By the 8th century Muslims had conquered more than 5,000,000 square miles of non Muslim lands.

            An attempt at reason, the Mu’tazila, was ruled illegal (punishable by death of course.)

            The 11th to 13th centuries saw them conquering in India.

            They continued moving into Europe and Asia. In 1492 (why does that date ring a bell) Spain drove them out.

            The crusades were an attempt to protect pilgrims going to Jerusalem from Muslim attack.

            In the 13th century the Mongols had, had enough of Muslims. They conquered until stopped in Jerusalem but then were eaten away from within to become Islamic themselves (a process going on in America today.)

            15th and 16th centuries – they fought among themselves to form 3 empires.

            18th century – more than a million Europeans and Americans sold into slavery by capturing Muslims (Barbary pirates.) We paid tribute and the Muslim ambassador of the time said…

            “[the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

            Apparently this Muslim ambassador reads the same Quran I did, but that you do not. Note they were not engaged in or claiming a defensive war.

            I apologize to Rand for the bandwidth. Andrew, I will not reply to any more comments from you here.

          7. We’ve already determined you are incapable of seeing the obvious. Did you actually look at the list you provided?

            Obviously I went through the entire list organizations to ascertain any religious connections.

            “you’re still not addressing my June 20, 2016 At 5:43 PM comment.”
            . . . .
            “in countries in which there has not been social disruption as a result of Western meddling there are very few Muslims taking up jihad.”

            Why is that so? Because those populations have been pacified by almost complete institutional terrorism.

            What? That makes no sense, are you arguing that the Muslims in those countries have been pacified by the non-Muslims, or that the non-Muslims having supposedly been pacified by the Muslims somehow leaves the dominant Muslims unable to carry out terrorism against the West?

            Muslims in those countries either toe the line or get mutilated or killed. Civilized countries don’t do that sort of thing. But if you get your way we will be playing “Cowboys and Muslims” rather soon and I guarantee the outcome.

            I guess you must be referring to the pacification of Muslims by institutional terrorism imposed by non-Muslims, OK, but I don’t get how that supports your case of Muslim terrorism.

            Do you really believe Imadinnerjacket when he said there are no homosexuals in Iran?

            Go ahead, you can explain that one to me.

            Obviously homosexuals in Iran are suppressed in the same way that they were in Western countries up until a few decades ago, I suppose you must be arguing that Western countries were barbarically suppressive of homosexuals until recently, OK, but I don’t see the relevance how that strengthens your case against Islam.

            Just another example of you ignoring our own recent repressiveness.

            “Perhaps you can list a few examples of non-Muslim people who’ve been persecuted and displaced but not resorted to terrorism.”

            After the civil war, blacks did not become terrorists
            I’m not really getting your logic there, under slavery the blacks were terrorized by their barbaric owners, after slavery was ended they were so relieved at their improved levels of freedom they didn’t fight for the end of American apartheid system under the twentieth century (although the 1960s did see terrorists that included blacks. Those don’t qualify by your criteria since they weren’t displaced by the civil war.)

            So what, terrorism by Muslims that weren’t displaced doesn’t count?

            Jews did not rise up against the Egyptians. They left Egypt. …and many other countries that persecuted them since then.

            Are you saying no Jews never fought back against persecution prior to WW2?

            If so you would be wrong, they fought oppression, and so they should have, if you’re suggesting that not fighting repression is praise worthy I disagree.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_military_history

            The numbers of Christians being persecuted today vastly outnumber any Christian terrorists and those are denounced by Christians without hesitation or attempted excuses.

            The number of Muslims persecuted today vastly outnumbers the number of Muslim terrorists, and since terrorists are a subset of the persecuted anything else is impossible.

            What about Islam?

            Here you give me a long list of conflicts involving Muslims, and blame the Muslims, it reminds me of equally stupid attempts to blame the US for all the casualties in all the wars they’ve had any direct or indirect involvement in for the last 70 years – 20 million deaths was the figure the proponents of that stupid theory came up with, however lets look at your list.

            7th century – founded by an illiterate murdering pedophile.
            He starts his holy service by killing his relatives because they laughed at him.

            Sounds a bit like the Christian Henry The Eighth who killed a whole series of wives because they failed to provide him with a male heir.

            After the illiterate pedephile’s death, four Caliphs continued the murdering in Persia, Levant, Egypt, and North Africa. Lands which had no Muslims. They did not stop there.

            The Most Catholic empires of Spain and Portugal conquered Latin America in that blood fest estimated casualties run as high as 137 million people.

            By the 8th century Muslims had conquered more than 5,000,000 square miles of non Muslim lands.

            Between them the Spanish and British empire conquered more than 20 million square miles of non Christian lands.

            The 11th to 13th centuries saw them conquering in India.

            The conquests that the British had started in North America the US finished.

            They continued moving into Europe and Asia. In 1492 (why does that date ring a bell) Spain drove them out.

            The Christian nations really got into the swing of slavery at about that time, out doing the efforts of previous slavers with their ravaging and raping of Africa for slaves, many of whom died under filthy and inhuman conditions on slave ships.

            The crusades were an attempt to protect pilgrims going to Jerusalem from Muslim attack.

            The Crusades were a series of attacks and wars by European Christianity against Muslim lands.

            In the 13th century the Mongols had, had enough of Muslims. They conquered until stopped in Jerusalem but then were eaten away from within to become Islamic themselves (a process going on in America today.)

            The invasion of the “Mongol hordes” which have ravaged much of Asia and into Europe was defeated by internal strife with Christian and Muslim opponents also contributing. Contact with Muslim and Christian nations happened long after the start of the Mongols expansion across Asia.

            15th and 16th centuries – they fought among themselves to form 3 empires.

            The Christian nations of Europe had the most bloody war in European history between 1937 and 1945, this war followed an almost continuous series of bloody wars fought between the European Christian nation since the introduction of Christianity into Europe.

            18th century – more than a million Europeans and Americans sold into slavery by capturing Muslims (Barbary pirates.)

            The Christian nation of USA invades Vietnam, a pointless war costing millions of lives.

            And in case you still think Muslims are responsible for all the wars and conflict over the last 1500 years, here’s a list of the bloodiest conflicts:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

            As you can see, Muslims hardly rate compared to the number of deaths caused by the Chinese, Christians and Japanese.

  22. I surrender, Islamofascists! El-Andrew just pointed out all the bad things the West has done in the past, so I’m running up my own white flag right now.

    1. Not so fast, Bilwick. I have realized my mistake in my argument and have solved it. Later today I will post it on my blog.

Comments are closed.