Why be anonymous? You are what we term a cultural' Muslim'. Would the Salafis agree that you are a Muslim. No they wouldn't, in their eyes you are an apostate and deserve to die like the rest of us. If you really believe in Free Speech then why aren't their million-Muslim marches in the streets of the West support the Free Speech rights of atheists? Where are the million-Muslim marches condeming jihadis? Why did not a single placard in Tahrir Square say "No Sharia!"? I'm afraid my friend you are a rare and tolerant beast. The vast majority of your co-religionists don't agree with you. The statistics say the majority support jihadi shahids and support imposing Sharia across the globe (which as anti-Free Speech as you can get).
Hopefully one day you'll realise that you are a cultural Muslim just because of your environment. If you start looking hard at any religion (not only, but including, Islam) you will find them full of nonsense, anti-scientific statements, and an agenda that suited keeping their ancient authors (and successive clergy) in power. Here's a good start for you: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
Come and join us reason-based people - we only accept things that have credible evidence. You don't need faith, you just need morality that balances the needs of the individuals with the actions that benefit society. Morality and rationalism has been around far far longer than the Abrahamic religions. You don't need the non-sensical constructs to make you submit as a slave. Walk and reason as a Free Man free of Fear - and do good for your fellow creatures.
You are confusing fiction with real life. For the sake of a cheap gag you discredit yourself. I've been to many countries in the Middle East (have you?). I'm no culture expert but they value and respect strength far more than we do. A man doesn't show weakness or he is shamed (and they worry a great deal about honor and shame - which is why they kill their own daughters, wives and each other).
The only way to defeat islamic extremists is to cut them off from manpower and supplies and that can be done only with non-combat means
Go and look at the surveys and statistics. The 'extremists' narrative is a lie propagated by the self-loathing media (who think it is newsworthy to continually denigrate the Free World, and try to give exotic natives/cults airtime pass no matter how brutal and inhumane their core doctrines are). If you look at the surveys yiou'll see that around 20% of the Ummah (the community of Muslims; which is estimated at 1.2 - 1.6 billion people) want to perform direct jihad. Around 50% (700 million or so) won't do direct jihad but support the ideal of those that do. Even higher percentages (eg. around 80% of Muslims in the UK) want to impose Sharia (which claims jurisdiction over non-Muslims; this makes Islam and ideology, and sets it completely apart from the other Abrahamic religions). So the narrative that it is 'extremists' that can be cut off is false. The idea of 'jihad' and 'sharia' are mainstream for Muslims and core doctrines. The only way to stop it is to reform or destroy the ideology. We could wait for reform but we don't have the decades or centuries to do this - Islamic states are gaining nuclear weapons and other WMDs and their core ideology says that they should use them to bring Islam to the whole world. Remember, these guys don't care about life, they care about the (fictional) afterlife they've been promised and the oinly guaranteed route to get there is to become a shahid (jiahdi martyr). Many consider themselves as doing Allah's work to nuke the planet (especially to kill rid the world of Jews, Christians and atheists) - and getting killed by doing this is the best outcome they could hope for. This doctrine is insane and inhumane, but is *core Islam* (not an extreme interpretation): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDMOxjHIt0U
I can only offer you the Blue Pill or the Red Pill. The media idiots are either poorly informed (unprofessional!) or are lying to you and deliberately not reporting on the true global situation. Do the research, follow the links I've given. Fight for liberty! (which means, criticise the enemies of Freedom/Islamic supremacists at least as much as you criticise the drones, k? and tell your friends the truth you discover)
It is clear you haven't read the Qur'an and don't understand Islam at all. You are speaking from a position of total ignorance. I hope when the jihadis come for you then you explain how you support them. They might wait for you to finish speaking before they take your head off, like Daniel Pearl etc.
We want the oil!
This is the mantra of the ignorant. Oil is a factor for sure but not the prime motivation of the US. You see, some parts of the US actually do understand what Islam commands (which you clearly do not - and haven't even bothered to check before posting your rubbish statements). The Free World is locked in struggle to the death with the totalitarian, theocratic political ideology called Islam. The Free World already defeated the gloabl threats from right-wing totalitarianism (National Socialism) left-wing totalitarianism (Soviet Communism); and is now engaged in a life-of-death struggle with the aggressive totalitarian ideology called Islam. The Islamic jihadi armies are failing but theior 'cultural jihad' is working quite well. Even you believe the lies ('taqiyya') of the jihadis. Wake up.
Have you read the Qur'an? obviously not. Read the hadiuths? obviously not. You are both closed minded and have an inaccurate view of Islam. How about you start with the following link and open your eyes to the fact I'm not bigoted (as you so incorrectly assume), it's just I have actually read the hate-speech warlord manifesto called the Qur'an and the brutal history recorded in the hadiths: http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html
Bullshit. The jihadis have been art war with every non-Muslim for 1400 years. You are an idiot if you think it is because of something the US did, or the Zionist movement in Palestine. The Muslims hate us and are working to subjugate us and put us in the Islamic social system - and have been doing this for 1400 years. Your argument is complete rubbish (peddled by the political Left because it has common cause with Islam in seeking destruction of existing society).
So it is a legitimate question to ask whether or not the drone strikes are acutally helping or just making the problem bigger. No matter what the media would often want you to believe the world isn't neatly black and white. Believe it or not the way your foreign policy is conducted affects how people all over the globe judge you and if you're seen as the world police who will use whatever means to destroy those who disagree with it with little to no regard for civillian lives... well, let's just say you're not making life any easier for yourselves.
More crap. The drones are a huge issue in Pakistan because the Pakistani ISI *created and support the Taliban* and the drones are so effective at taking the Taliban down. There is also a soveriegnty issue as well, but given the Pakistani ISI are covertly fighting the Free World this is dismissed. The line about drone strikes making more enemies is rubbish. The majority of Afghans want to be rid of the Taliban. If the people in the madrassas are angry who cares? they hate us anyway. Your average ignorant citizen around the world responds to what they are told: and the Left media, for its own reasons, says that opposing violent islamo-fascists is bad (they are idiots because they are ignorant of Islams intended aims). The people around the World are peeved because of the media spin, if they saw the full picture (or are in a country ruined by jihadis) then they vehemently disagree with your leftist point-of-view.
It is clear you don't know very much about the history of Islam or the contemporary situation at all. Hence you defend the indefensible.
It is the jihadis who are violating the international rules of war by hiding among civilians (eg. preparing bombs in their compounds). These rules require the drones to minimize casualties when going after the jihadis but recognize such people are legitimate targets even when hiding with their families.
It is a war crime to deliberately target civilians targets (with no nearby military facilities) which is why Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, etc have a modus operandi that is entirely war crimes. Because the US drones and Israelis seek to minimize civilian casualties and do not target civilians only that makes their actions legal under the international rules of war. It is clear from your false statements that you don't understand the international conventions at all. Hence you confuse drone strikes with war crimes (they are not), and hopefully you don't excuse the real war criminals (Al Qaeda, Taliban).
Eventually, you'll be able to show that no more than a handful of real civilians have ever been killed in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Every civilian death is a tragedy. However, in the fight against the evil ideology of Islam, which has global ambitions and is getting stronger, there is no second place. You win, or your culture is extinguished forever.
And I'm sure you'd approve if terrorists started shooting soldiers' wives and kids back home and claiming them as legitimate military targets.
This is a strawman. The drones do not kill women and children on purpose. They are tragic accidental deaths because the jihadis keep their families close to them and hide behind women and children. The jihadis remain legitimate and lawful targets. Your scenario talks about deliberately targetting women and children, which is what the Taliban (who you implicitly defend) do. This is illegal. If you can't see the difference you lack understanding of the legal aspects of the situation. The Taliban are the bad guys - you are just following a twisted morality if you think the US is the bad guys here. [not the US is not perfect by any means, but they are saints compared to the openly evil Taliban]
Drone strikes are legal, moral and necessary. They aren't sufficient though.
Completely incorrect. There is nothing the US has or has not done that causes jihadis to hate you. Same with Israel. It is core to Islamic doctrine to hate and subjugate all non-believers. It is a mistake to think it is for any other reason. The other thing is the Arab and Islamic culture respect strength. If you are willing to compromise it shows weakness which they will push to exploit. The only way to earn respect is through strength and fighting at an intense pace that the jihadis can't match. That is the lesson Israel has learned the hard way. There is no quid-pro-quo with jihadi organizations. You can concede but all you get is 'hudna', a temporary respite while they gather strength preparing for the next attack. If you are weak you will not be offered hudna, jihadis take the weak down without remorse. Look at the slaughter of Lebanon. Your statements are nice in theory but just do not match the historical record or reality. There is no compromise with jihadis. Either you win decisively, or they win and you are extinguished. Winding down your offensive means looks like you are losing to jihadis and it emboldens more recruits. So your uninformed guesses about 'inflaming' the locals is wrong and counter to history (eg. see the Sunni Awakening in Anbar where the strength and moral restraint of US forces gained respect and did more than appeasement ever would).
If you are not afraid of the Islamist threat you are simply not paying attention. The evidence is all around (Eurabia etc). Go on YouTube and watch some of the stuff by Major Stephen Coughlin - and how the Pentagon completely misjudged the strategic nous of the OIC/Muslim Brotherhood. You are making the same fool mistake by stickking your head in the stand and ignoring the reality of the situation. The US/West are willing all the 'kinetic engagements' but are getting dominated in the Information Battlespace. We are winning the tactical engagements and losing the strategic situation. Too bad you have switched off because you haughtily believe you know everything. It sounds like you know far far less about the war against Islamists than you think. I would have been very pleased to refer you to some really great sources that are public, but hidden among the nonsense puff punditry. Stay an ostrich.
Pakistan has a bad image because of this: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks Most attacks are Muslim-on-Muslim . or on little girls that want education etc. This video game does nothing to their already well-deserved terrible reputation.
I don't like the insatiable growth of the US Federal Governent and dismantling of civilian protections (which Obama looks to continue increasing with his NDAA and Executive Orders). But look at the facts and get some perspective - without security the jihadis would certainly have killed thousands of people. It is just lucky that your law enforcement agencies are good and the jihadis are so dumb (do busy studying the Qur'an and not enough about stealth and warfare).
The drones don't 'bomb villages' (that statement shows how ignorant you are) they fire hellfire missiles into 'compounds' that the various special forces have usually reconoitered. Those compounds have jihadis and their families. Occasionally the missiles do miss and do kill villagers - this is indeed a tragedy, but is unintentional and less frequent than you would think. In Afghanistan NATO compensates for the damage, which inspires villagers to quickly bury donkies and claim them as killed civilians since the payoff is worth it.
Of course, if you are a cultural relativist you will excuse the jihadis for their violence and instead simply condemn the US/West/Israel for trying to defend their citizens against these vicious killers. You'll then probably come up with the excuse that the jihadis do it because they are poor (Osama bin Laden was rich), had their land 'stolen' (jihadis have been operating for 1400 years) or some other lame excuse. All the while you'll remain doggedly ignorant of the teachings of the Qur'an that make jihad obligatory for able Muslim males.
Meanwhile you'll probably ignore the hundreds of madrassas pumping out replacement zombies ready to kill Afghan villagers. You'll also ignore the Pakistani ISI and the crime syndicates and opium lords who provide the money for the Taliban. You'd much rather cherish the thought that the West is the bad guy for standing up to these brigands and crazed zealots.
Keep dreaming your false dream. Meanwhile the rest of us will be doing what we can to argue for our rights (stop creeping Sharia and 'cultural jihad' in the West!) and even for your rights. Hopefully one day you'll get a clue and realise who the evil guys really are - the ones that think it nothing to kill little girls for trying to get an education, or kill girls who don't want to be married to old men four times their age, or kill Muslims from another sect, or kill people just working in a building in Manhattan, or riding a bus in London, or a train in Spain, etc etc. That's the real evil.
You seem to be saying that not all religions are the same, rightly pointing the great many crimes and evils done in the name of Islam,
but insist that all Muslims are the same. Why the selective nuance?
I didn't mean to give that impression. All Muslims are the same in that they, like all religious folk, are equally deluded about superstition with no scientific evidence. I don't agree with this, but I have zero problem with this provided they keep their faith *personal*. Same with Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists and Jains etc. My beef is when the supremacists want to impose their rules on us. These rules are couched in political correctness and dictate what we may or may not say. These rules say that our schools may not serve pork, that university gyms must segregate to keep the Muslims happy (with the implicit threat of violence or noisy demonstrations if they don't get their way). That's when it stops being personal and intrudes on *non-believers*. Occasionally Christianity does this, and Judaism almost never so. Muslims do differ from other faiths because their *core doctrines* state they will achieve global domination and have dominion over *non-Muslims* as well as Muslims. Around 20% of the Ummah (which works out to be around 300 million people) belive in this [that's why young jihadis often don't stand in court to recognize judges]. Around half of all Muslims are not active supremacists but do agree with the goals of the supremacists (that's around 700 million people) - the eventual imposition of Sharia on all people of the globe whether Muslim or not. This makes the Muslims very different to other modern faiths. http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_(Shari'ah)
Look at the statistics. The narrative of the political Left (and mainstream media that promotes that narrative) is that the Islamist problem is only with 'extremists'. This is a complete lie. The statistics say that most Muslims want Sharia imposed around the globe - and Sharia claims non-Muslims under its jurisdiction. So yes, the "mainstream Muslims" you seek to defend do want to impose Sharia on *you and me* - they just don't believe in personally doing violence to achieve this (but almost always support jihadis doing the dirty work for them - since all sane and able Muslim men are supposed to wage jihad against unbelievers. This is a core doctrine. Fortunately most practicing Muslim men (those that visit the mosques rather than the 'cultural Muslims') wage jihad just by providing funds rather than physically taking arms.
Wake up and smell the homicide bombers. Islam is different. Lying (taqiyya) is permitted. Drugs are permitted. Homosexuality is not permitted in public but is absolutely rampant among Muslim men (who have no easy access to women). Pederastery is common. Child marriages are common (girls 10 - 15 are often married to men 40+). Wife beating is explicitly permitted by the Qur'an. Genocide (especially against Jews, Christians and atheists) is implied in the daily prayers. Jihad against all unbelievers is not only permitted, it is *oligitary* for all able Muslim men. We are lucky most of those who identify as Muslim see the theocracy as utter bullshit and go through the motions - since the Qur'an commands that apostasy is punishable by death (most of the young people of Iran fall into this category - they see Islam as fundamentally broken and the theocracy as their true enemy, not America). So yeah, Islam is very very different to other religions. Please read the Skeptics Annotated Qur'an (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm) and hadiths. You'll see how 'different' (as in, explicitly evil) Islam really is.
Do you think Christian pastors burn non Christian holy books to bolster freedom of expression? Or might it be because it's the wrong kind of holy book?
I don't care what their motivations are. The point is they are free to do it and
700 years ago was when the Mongols conquered Baghdad so explain again why your post and the GP's aren't compatible.
You might like to re-read the parent's post. They said, "Radical Muslims are anti-science, just as are radical Christians. Islam inherently promotes scientific inquiry.". This is utter bollocks, anyone who understands the teachings of Al Ghazali (that are still influential on Islam today) knows this. That is why the parent's statements were so very wrong.
Yes. Islamic scholars embraced and extended the writings of the Greeks and Romans. That has all been shut down for over 700 years (not due to the Mongol invasions, which have long since departed). There are only two Nobel Laureate physicists from the Islamic World, and one of those was a colaboration with non-Muslims. Given the length of time and number of Muslims (20% of the World population) it shows how under-represented Muslims are compared to the rest of the world. Why is this? because Islam is anti-science. The parent poster's statements were true 700 years ago but were spoken in the present tense, where they have been wrong for three quarters of a millenia. Admit it, "eric conspiracy" repeated bullshit propaganda and got his facts wrong.
The AC you responded to makes this same mistake and is equally as wrong.
Lumping in mainstream Muslims
Sigh. It is you that is making the colossal mistake. In general, Muslims (human beings) are not the enemy. No one ever said they were. What is the enemy is the ideology of Islam and those that follow according to its teachings (which is not the majority of what can be called 'cultural Muslims'). However, just because the majority of Muslims are only Muslims in name only (just as most Christians are selective in application and hence are not 'devout') this does not excuse Islam in any way. The Islamic teachings are unquestionably evil (if you ever bother to look, have you?) and must be opposed by all Free Men. We get your point that Muslims are good people. Fine, let's get past that. It is Islam and 'Islamists' that must be vehemently opposed and never ever offered apologetics for. Can we agree on that?
The Muslim Brotherhood & Hamas are not related to Al Qaeda,
Hezbollah is Shia to everyone else's Sunni Islam,
and those other groups you quoted are all offshoots of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabis.
I know this but chose not to convolute my post with the details. What you appear to have failed to notice is that Sunni and Shia will work together to harm Israel, the US and the Free World. That's why Hezbollah and Hamas can work together. That is why Sunni and Shia were happy to destroy open and tolerant Lebanon, the Christians in Iraq, Hindus in India or Buddhists in Thailand; and Sunni and Shia will work together to commit genocide in Israel given a chance and subjugate the Free World (which they are currently working on; and many in the Free World apoloigize for these evils). That's why Iran supplies weapons to Hamas. You went one step further in your analysis than most people, but still stopped short of recognizing the cooperation of convenience that occurs. It is this that makes them all end-game equivalent, total Islamic domination of the planet. The details of whether Iran (Shia) or Saudi (Sunni) lead that world do not change the anti-Free World goal. So you are splitting hairs that are irrevant to my thesis (and that I'm very very well aware of, thank you).
"Fuck you" doesn't make for good foreign policy.
Not to your friends. To your enemies *who already consider they are at war with you* then "fuck you, we have the will to win, and we will win!" is the only sane and long-term strategy. Stating it early can also avert conflict from developing (you remember Neville Chamberlain don't you? Obama has the same instincts and lacks the will to win, yes he'll keep drones going so things don't get too bad, but he is not aiming for decisive and final victory, and there are only two strategic results in a war against Islam: total victory or total defeat). Pussy-footing around is making things worse not better. Examples: Israel giving the Sinai back gave temporary relief, but Egypt is making noises about ripping up the treaty because the hatred and indoctrination of Islam was never addressed; Israel giving Gaza back made things much worse, not better, because Islamic hatred was never addressed by the Rest of the World; the US failing to support the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran made things worse, not better; the US supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has made the strategic situation much worse, not better; However, a hearty "fuck you" followed by a Free World that was actually prepared to defend its values against barbarism would progress humanity more than meekly accepting the advance of the OIC's totalitarian agenda. I'm not scared of promoting liberty and Enlightenment values - even if you lack the minerals.
confusing San Francisco liberals with the Westboro Baptist Church.
There is no confusion in my mind. San Francisco liberals are aiding, abetting and apologizing for the jihadi agenda under the guise of corruptions like 'cultual relativism', 'politcal c
This shows how the Islamists not only claim rights for themselves, they also claim jurisdiction over non-Muslims. This should be no suprise as it is core Islamic doctrine (because Islam is a totalitarian theocratic political ideology with some superstition on top; it is not at all a personal 'religion' in the way Christianty or Judaism are).
Who claims and will enforce this jurisduction? The Organization of Islamic Cooperation of 56 countries (+the Palestinian Authority) does. To get the facts of the legality they claim see the following video by Major Stephen Coughlin (he also has other great *factual* videos on YouTube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey-TRpkUiPI
According to the OIC *you are already subject to Islamic law* (and Allah gave them the right to impose it) - it's just you don't know it. Under Islamic Law Al Qaeda practicing jihad is *not terrorism* but you defending yourself (by word, deed or action) is terrorism. Now that the Palestinian Authority (a title that has just been dropped as the pretense is no longer required) may have access to the UN International Criminal Court (and the UN and UN HRC is where the OIC forms the largest voting bloc) then it is very highly likely that ICC cases will start to be brought against Israeli generals on *terrorism* charges for defending themselves against jihadis. Black is white and white is black in the Islamic World. And all the "useful idiot" ignorant leftists and students will support the jihadi agenda against Israel, the US and the Free World. The world has gone mad. Hopefully the counter-jihadi resistance against Islamo-fascism will be strong enough by then - the Free World has started to wake up and is tired of taking shit from genocidal, misogynistic, homophobic, supremacist, lying, pedopholic, brutal, immoral Islamicists. It is time for all of us to choose whether to side with liberty, or with the global evil of Islamic ideology (as their apologists on these forums do).
The Koran is more internally consistent, having a single author and single editor, and is read in its original language
Ignorant Bullshit. The Qur'an was not created until 150 years after Mohammed's death (assuming he existed, there is little evidence). There were many competing versions of the Qur'an and a single version was taken as canonical and alternatives were burnt. The discovery (and subsequent suppression by uncomfortable Mulims) of the Saa'na Qur'an in 1972 in Yemen shows how inconsistent the Qur'an is. Then the Qur'an has 'satanic versus', then the hadiths have 'weak' hadiths that may or may not be accurate. Your position is ignorant of the facts and therefore bullshit. Do your homework: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm [shows how incredibly *inconsistent* the Qur'an is] http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/archive/ [this one rips the Qur'an apart and is funny]
Get a clue. Stop repeating the falsehoods made up by the evil Islamist supremacist. Your ignorance has led you to be an unpaid shill for evil.
As the Turkish Prime Minister famously said in 2007, "there are moderate Muslims, there is only on Islam. Islam is Islam.". Just because the majority of Muslims don't practice their beliefs doesn't make the *core doctrine* of Islam any less evil. Stop apologizing for evil. Stop defending it. Go and read the Qur'an and hadiths yourself and you will see that they contain more hate speech than Mein Kampf does.
The huge bulk of pseudo-Muslims don't matter. What matters is to recognize that the totalitarian, supremacist, theocratic, political ideology of Islam is not only false (its claims are not supported by science) but it is genocidally evil and must be opposed with no ifs, buts, or apologies by all Free People. So stop making apologies, you are enabling evil (which incidentally, could be construed as making you evil).
Note also that the pseudo-Muslims, who are not strict in their practice are as much in danger from devout Muslims as we are. Not I use the word 'devout' as this is accurate. Using the word 'extremist' is misleading, the terrorists and Islamic supremacists are devout to *core teachings* of genocide and hate; they are not misinterpreting the teachings in any way (which is the common excuse may by apologists hoping to fool those that don't understand what Islam actually teaches).
It is interesting you mention the Westboro Baptist. While I think they are fruitcakes, Terry Jones is absolutely 100% percent correct to burn a Qur'an with the intent of causing offense. The right to cause offence is protected as Free Speech and it is essential to exercise that Free Speech right (as Terry Jones did). Anyone who opposes it supports censorship (which is why it was suprising Petraeus sent him a note to prevent the burning - Petraeus was in Afghanistan to defend Free Speech, not to say when it may or may not be exercised!). Those that are politically correct and oppose anyone causing offense for anything are *against Free Speech* (although most people don't think it through or are too dumb to realise they are supporters of censorship). I presume you are an opponent of burning Qur'ans but recognize the right of Muslims to burn flags, each other, and us for some perceived injustice (like not converting to Salafi Islam when they demand we do)? Get real. The Westboros may be assholes, and burning Qur'ans is insenstive, but anyone who opposes their exercise of Free Speech is a closet totalitarian (whether they are smart enough to realise it or not).
You are utterly mistaken when you say "You are confusing a theological problem with a sociological one.". Osama bin Laden was very rich, powerful and had great social status - it was theology/ideology that drove him to murder 3000 human beings. It is clear you don't understand Islam at all and are talking through your politically-left-tinted glasses without knowing anything (no uncommon, once you acquired more facts you would disagree with the left's position in this matter). Go read the Qur'an and hadiths. Go and see how they are mostly about the *obligation* of Muslims to kill and rape and plunder unbelievers and Jews and Christians; and how it is ok molest children because Mohammed married Aisha at age 6 (although he did not consumate until age 9, that's still pedophilia in anyone's book, except the Mohammed's Qur'an, of course).
In short, your position is false and it is evident that you haven't even looked at any evidence against your 'no nothing' position. Go and look at the following sites, and if you are not shocked and still believe that the problem is not Islam but is instead something else then come back here and challenge me. Once you actually know something then you are qualified to debate. Until you know something it is better you stop speaking untruths.
You are wrong. There was a Golden Age of Islamic science but it was shut down over 700 years ago because the questions started to get too uncomfortable for the Caliph in Bagdad. Now it is forbidden to question, Allah requires your unquestioning obedience. That is as anti-science as you can get. Therefore your post is incorrect, you are misinformed, and as a result you are spreading incorrect information. You might want to stop doing that.
Note that the current theological view of Muslims is that there *are no laws of nature and everything that happens in the will of Allah*. Hence, there is no gravity, only Allah causes things to fall by his will. Allah could just as easily cause something not to fall. Because they believe there are no natural laws Muslims believe it is more profitable to study the sunnah (Qur'an and hadiths) and avoid hellfire of the afterlife than diabolical books about science that the Westerners have. This follows the philosophy set by Al Ghazali: http://www.suhaibwebb.com/islam-studies/imam-al-ghazali-on-studying-science/
The reason Al-Ghazali opposed science and reason is precisely why we embrace it. He opposed it because it would lead people away from Allah. We like science because it allows people to develop reason and reject superstition and false constructs (eg. the fictions of Allah/God/Yaweh/Krishna etc for which there is *zero reputable scientific evidence*).
So, the current theology of Islam is completely anti-science. It wasn't always that way (when the Muslims were reading Greek and Roman texts) but is now.
Being "politically correct" is against Free Speech. That's why the Islamists push the politically correct buttons of Westerners to neutralize opposition - they don't want to you speak freely and criticize their genocidal and supremacist ideas. As long as you accept political correctness you will be afraid to offend Muslims. Speaking the truth always offends Muslims because they don't want the Free World to discover the truth about their evil ideology.
Because of political correctness the Obama Administration has a censor list that bans the Pentagon and FBI from using words like "Islamist", "jihadi", "terrorist" etc. Stephen Coughlin has an excellent series discussing this is detail on Youtube. He shows how the US is winning all the fights on the battlefield but completely losing the "information battlespace" (a situation analagous to Vietnam, except that now the leftist elites in Obama's Administration oppose the war while the citizens can see the necessity of destroying all Islamists no matter what their brand-name is). Here's an example of an eye-opening Stephen Coughlin video (a briefing he has given the Pentagon): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhZe7eZK4dw
Note that all Islamist groups have the same goals, they just believe in different means to achieve this goal. Therefore: Al Qaeda == Hamas == Hezbollah == Muslim Brotherhood == Salafis == Wahabbis == Boko Haram == Abu Sayyaf etc etc in ideological end-game goals. So when you hear Muslim Brotherhood you are correct in instantly translating that as "Al Qaeda" as they are ideologically end-goal equivalent.
As long you strive to be politically correct you will be against Free Speech. They are incompatible concepts. As long as the majority support political correctness (euphamistic and untruithful speech) over Free Speech (eg. telling the unvarnished truth) then the Islamist ideologues will win - and they are winning in the West (slowly changing the West to conform to their needs rather than the other way around) because those that are politically correct don't have the courage of their convictions to oppose Islamic supremacism.
Unlike political correctness, Free Speech is all about the rigths of people to say things we don't want to hear and we may find offensive. If people were only able to stay stuff we agree with we wouldn't need Free Speech laws anyway. The right to speak and offend others *is* the core of Free Speech. That's why political correctness is completely anti-Free Speech. If you support policical correctness (or worse, condemn those who are not politically correct) then you are an opponent of Free Speech.
Actually, I graduated the officer school of the Royal New Zealand Airforce two decades ago. Military personnel have complete freedom of speech and thought. They just can't present those *in public* without authorization. There is a world of difference between that and your cartoon caricature statement.
You are right about A. However B is not the whole story. While corporates in the US have very strong sway (we agree there) they are only "influencers" and not "decision makers". The shambles that is likely to be the Obama Administration's next term is likely to be counter to the wishes of very many corporates and much of the populace (despite his suppression attempts, the documentation has been found that he was a card-carrying Marxist, and his ideology is definitely Big State at the expense of individual liberties - as shown by his policies and appointments).
Yes, and the Fifth Amendment was also effectively shut down. Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, pretending he had "serious reservation", but in fact it was the Administration which forced Senator Levine to remove safeguards in the original draft law.
Obama gets great press (since the press are Left-sympathetic). However, if you bother to watch what is going on in the long-term, and delve into details, it is very apparent he has a neo-Marxist agenda. This means that the State trumps the individual liberties that Americans have had for hundreds of years. I'm neither Democrat nor Republican (I'm a New Zealander, so appreciate the Lord of the Rings references in the video I linked; since filming and post-production was done nearby to me). As a citizen of the Free World that recognizes how the US Constitution protects not only US citizens but also provides leadership to governments and citizens of other countries too. Seeing Obama's trajectory, which will almost certainly get worse in his second term, is very worrying. He's currently overturning hundreds of years of Enlightenment-inspired laws, and destroying decades of global alliances. Obama's dim-witted Secretary of State kowtowed to the OIC in the UN and promising to enforce UN HRC Resolution 16/18 which limits the Free Speech of citizens everywhere, but also is against the US First Amendment rights of US citizens in the US (hence, every US citizens should be asking wtf? about Hilliary and Obama; if they stopped watching the American Idol contents for a little bit). Obama is appeasing the enemies of America and the Free World, and he is isolating or abandoning many of America's allies around the globe.
Of course, unless you dig for the details the mainstream media are selectively presenting you facts, in the US these days its as bad as the selective news coming from Al Jazeera or Russia today. I suggest listening to Bill Whittle and Thomas Sowell with an open mind - you will see that the fact-based analyses will lead you to conclude that Obama's agenda is both deliberate and harmful to the strategic interests of the US and the Free World. Remember, not only do you have to listen to the politicians you agree with, you ought to also listen to the counter-points made by the politicians you disagree with - you will learn so much more and sometimes those counter-arguments have merit. In fact, by listening to counter-arguments of Obama's opponents I quickly learned that their criticisms were often fact-based and it was Obama's positions that were ideological and counter-productive to individual liberty.
It seems the "Change" Obama promised is not what you hoped it would be (noticed he was light on details? - that's because you [and I] would never have supported him if you knew what he wanted to do; unless he can be pinned down it looks like the next four years could well do damage that will take four decades to repair, and some liberties may never be restored).
Like Hilliary Clinton's moronic support for UN HRC Resolution 16/18 where she promised to suppress ('name and shame' she said) the Constitutional First Amendment Free Speech rights of her own citizens at the behest of the repressive Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) [who are the mafia voting bloc who now run the United Nations]. This is absolutely scandalous yet the majority of US citizens seem more concerned with retaining the ability to obtain unlicensed semi-automatic weapons or the Kardashian foibles rather than making a fuss about the current Administration's assault on Free Speech (eg. the US military now has a list of words it may not use, like "Islamic terrorism" etc).
In a democracy *the people* are the arbiters of what is 'nonsense' and what is not. Not some jumped up bureaucrat or an AC fascist apologist. While I might not agree with the Death Star petition, nor the Sharia for USA petition, it doesn't mean that people shouldn't have the chance to put anything to their fellow citizens and have the White House consider them without raising the threshold to un-democratically restrictive levels.
Slashdot Mirror
Why be anonymous? You are what we term a cultural' Muslim'. Would the Salafis agree that you are a Muslim. No they wouldn't, in their eyes you are an apostate and deserve to die like the rest of us. If you really believe in Free Speech then why aren't their million-Muslim marches in the streets of the West support the Free Speech rights of atheists? Where are the million-Muslim marches condeming jihadis? Why did not a single placard in Tahrir Square say "No Sharia!"? I'm afraid my friend you are a rare and tolerant beast. The vast majority of your co-religionists don't agree with you. The statistics say the majority support jihadi shahids and support imposing Sharia across the globe (which as anti-Free Speech as you can get).
Hopefully one day you'll realise that you are a cultural Muslim just because of your environment. If you start looking hard at any religion (not only, but including, Islam) you will find them full of nonsense, anti-scientific statements, and an agenda that suited keeping their ancient authors (and successive clergy) in power. Here's a good start for you: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
Come and join us reason-based people - we only accept things that have credible evidence. You don't need faith, you just need morality that balances the needs of the individuals with the actions that benefit society. Morality and rationalism has been around far far longer than the Abrahamic religions. You don't need the non-sensical constructs to make you submit as a slave. Walk and reason as a Free Man free of Fear - and do good for your fellow creatures.
You're confusing them with Klingons.
You are confusing fiction with real life. For the sake of a cheap gag you discredit yourself. I've been to many countries in the Middle East (have you?). I'm no culture expert but they value and respect strength far more than we do. A man doesn't show weakness or he is shamed (and they worry a great deal about honor and shame - which is why they kill their own daughters, wives and each other).
The only way to defeat islamic extremists is to cut them off from manpower and supplies and that can be done only with non-combat means
Go and look at the surveys and statistics. The 'extremists' narrative is a lie propagated by the self-loathing media (who think it is newsworthy to continually denigrate the Free World, and try to give exotic natives/cults airtime pass no matter how brutal and inhumane their core doctrines are). If you look at the surveys yiou'll see that around 20% of the Ummah (the community of Muslims; which is estimated at 1.2 - 1.6 billion people) want to perform direct jihad. Around 50% (700 million or so) won't do direct jihad but support the ideal of those that do. Even higher percentages (eg. around 80% of Muslims in the UK) want to impose Sharia (which claims jurisdiction over non-Muslims; this makes Islam and ideology, and sets it completely apart from the other Abrahamic religions). So the narrative that it is 'extremists' that can be cut off is false. The idea of 'jihad' and 'sharia' are mainstream for Muslims and core doctrines. The only way to stop it is to reform or destroy the ideology. We could wait for reform but we don't have the decades or centuries to do this - Islamic states are gaining nuclear weapons and other WMDs and their core ideology says that they should use them to bring Islam to the whole world. Remember, these guys don't care about life, they care about the (fictional) afterlife they've been promised and the oinly guaranteed route to get there is to become a shahid (jiahdi martyr). Many consider themselves as doing Allah's work to nuke the planet (especially to kill rid the world of Jews, Christians and atheists) - and getting killed by doing this is the best outcome they could hope for. This doctrine is insane and inhumane, but is *core Islam* (not an extreme interpretation):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDMOxjHIt0U
Fortunately most Muslims are good human beings (which necessarily makes then bad Muslims). Don't confuse the fact that many Muslims reject their core (clearly evil) Islamic teachings with Islam itself being tolerant or moderate. The totalitarian ideology of Islam is the problem, and must be neutralized. We are quickly running out of time to do this. Citations:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
http://www.al-rassooli.com/palestine/index.html
http://muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com/
I can only offer you the Blue Pill or the Red Pill. The media idiots are either poorly informed (unprofessional!) or are lying to you and deliberately not reporting on the true global situation. Do the research, follow the links I've given. Fight for liberty! (which means, criticise the enemies of Freedom/Islamic supremacists at least as much as you criticise the drones, k? and tell your friends the truth you discover)
It is clear you haven't read the Qur'an and don't understand Islam at all. You are speaking from a position of total ignorance. I hope when the jihadis come for you then you explain how you support them. They might wait for you to finish speaking before they take your head off, like Daniel Pearl etc.
We want the oil!
This is the mantra of the ignorant. Oil is a factor for sure but not the prime motivation of the US. You see, some parts of the US actually do understand what Islam commands (which you clearly do not - and haven't even bothered to check before posting your rubbish statements). The Free World is locked in struggle to the death with the totalitarian, theocratic political ideology called Islam. The Free World already defeated the gloabl threats from right-wing totalitarianism (National Socialism) left-wing totalitarianism (Soviet Communism); and is now engaged in a life-of-death struggle with the aggressive totalitarian ideology called Islam. The Islamic jihadi armies are failing but theior 'cultural jihad' is working quite well. Even you believe the lies ('taqiyya') of the jihadis. Wake up.
Have you read the Qur'an? obviously not. Read the hadiuths? obviously not. You are both closed minded and have an inaccurate view of Islam. How about you start with the following link and open your eyes to the fact I'm not bigoted (as you so incorrectly assume), it's just I have actually read the hate-speech warlord manifesto called the Qur'an and the brutal history recorded in the hadiths:
http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html
Bullshit. The jihadis have been art war with every non-Muslim for 1400 years. You are an idiot if you think it is because of something the US did, or the Zionist movement in Palestine. The Muslims hate us and are working to subjugate us and put us in the Islamic social system - and have been doing this for 1400 years. Your argument is complete rubbish (peddled by the political Left because it has common cause with Islam in seeking destruction of existing society).
So it is a legitimate question to ask whether or not the drone strikes are acutally helping or just making the problem bigger. No matter what the media would often want you to believe the world isn't neatly black and white. Believe it or not the way your foreign policy is conducted affects how people all over the globe judge you and if you're seen as the world police who will use whatever means to destroy those who disagree with it with little to no regard for civillian lives... well, let's just say you're not making life any easier for yourselves.
More crap. The drones are a huge issue in Pakistan because the Pakistani ISI *created and support the Taliban* and the drones are so effective at taking the Taliban down. There is also a soveriegnty issue as well, but given the Pakistani ISI are covertly fighting the Free World this is dismissed. The line about drone strikes making more enemies is rubbish. The majority of Afghans want to be rid of the Taliban. If the people in the madrassas are angry who cares? they hate us anyway. Your average ignorant citizen around the world responds to what they are told: and the Left media, for its own reasons, says that opposing violent islamo-fascists is bad (they are idiots because they are ignorant of Islams intended aims). The people around the World are peeved because of the media spin, if they saw the full picture (or are in a country ruined by jihadis) then they vehemently disagree with your leftist point-of-view.
It is clear you don't know very much about the history of Islam or the contemporary situation at all. Hence you defend the indefensible.
It is the jihadis who are violating the international rules of war by hiding among civilians (eg. preparing bombs in their compounds). These rules require the drones to minimize casualties when going after the jihadis but recognize such people are legitimate targets even when hiding with their families.
It is a war crime to deliberately target civilians targets (with no nearby military facilities) which is why Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, etc have a modus operandi that is entirely war crimes. Because the US drones and Israelis seek to minimize civilian casualties and do not target civilians only that makes their actions legal under the international rules of war. It is clear from your false statements that you don't understand the international conventions at all. Hence you confuse drone strikes with war crimes (they are not), and hopefully you don't excuse the real war criminals (Al Qaeda, Taliban).
Eventually, you'll be able to show that no more than a handful of real civilians have ever been killed in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Every civilian death is a tragedy. However, in the fight against the evil ideology of Islam, which has global ambitions and is getting stronger, there is no second place. You win, or your culture is extinguished forever.
And I'm sure you'd approve if terrorists started shooting soldiers' wives and kids back home and claiming them as legitimate military targets.
This is a strawman. The drones do not kill women and children on purpose. They are tragic accidental deaths because the jihadis keep their families close to them and hide behind women and children. The jihadis remain legitimate and lawful targets. Your scenario talks about deliberately targetting women and children, which is what the Taliban (who you implicitly defend) do. This is illegal. If you can't see the difference you lack understanding of the legal aspects of the situation. The Taliban are the bad guys - you are just following a twisted morality if you think the US is the bad guys here. [not the US is not perfect by any means, but they are saints compared to the openly evil Taliban]
Drone strikes are legal, moral and necessary. They aren't sufficient though.
Completely incorrect. There is nothing the US has or has not done that causes jihadis to hate you. Same with Israel. It is core to Islamic doctrine to hate and subjugate all non-believers. It is a mistake to think it is for any other reason. The other thing is the Arab and Islamic culture respect strength. If you are willing to compromise it shows weakness which they will push to exploit. The only way to earn respect is through strength and fighting at an intense pace that the jihadis can't match. That is the lesson Israel has learned the hard way. There is no quid-pro-quo with jihadi organizations. You can concede but all you get is 'hudna', a temporary respite while they gather strength preparing for the next attack. If you are weak you will not be offered hudna, jihadis take the weak down without remorse. Look at the slaughter of Lebanon. Your statements are nice in theory but just do not match the historical record or reality. There is no compromise with jihadis. Either you win decisively, or they win and you are extinguished. Winding down your offensive means looks like you are losing to jihadis and it emboldens more recruits. So your uninformed guesses about 'inflaming' the locals is wrong and counter to history (eg. see the Sunni Awakening in Anbar where the strength and moral restraint of US forces gained respect and did more than appeasement ever would).
If you are not afraid of the Islamist threat you are simply not paying attention. The evidence is all around (Eurabia etc). Go on YouTube and watch some of the stuff by Major Stephen Coughlin - and how the Pentagon completely misjudged the strategic nous of the OIC/Muslim Brotherhood. You are making the same fool mistake by stickking your head in the stand and ignoring the reality of the situation. The US/West are willing all the 'kinetic engagements' but are getting dominated in the Information Battlespace. We are winning the tactical engagements and losing the strategic situation. Too bad you have switched off because you haughtily believe you know everything. It sounds like you know far far less about the war against Islamists than you think. I would have been very pleased to refer you to some really great sources that are public, but hidden among the nonsense puff punditry. Stay an ostrich.
Pakistan has a bad image because of this: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks Most attacks are Muslim-on-Muslim . or on little girls that want education etc. This video game does nothing to their already well-deserved terrible reputation.
The reason the TSA do it is because they are afraid of this. Look at the constant stream of lethal jihadi attacks around the World: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
I don't like the insatiable growth of the US Federal Governent and dismantling of civilian protections (which Obama looks to continue increasing with his NDAA and Executive Orders). But look at the facts and get some perspective - without security the jihadis would certainly have killed thousands of people. It is just lucky that your law enforcement agencies are good and the jihadis are so dumb (do busy studying the Qur'an and not enough about stealth and warfare).
The drones don't 'bomb villages' (that statement shows how ignorant you are) they fire hellfire missiles into 'compounds' that the various special forces have usually reconoitered. Those compounds have jihadis and their families. Occasionally the missiles do miss and do kill villagers - this is indeed a tragedy, but is unintentional and less frequent than you would think. In Afghanistan NATO compensates for the damage, which inspires villagers to quickly bury donkies and claim them as killed civilians since the payoff is worth it.
It is completely awesome the drones do this because if they didn't the jihadis would continue their following reign of terror:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
Of course, if you are a cultural relativist you will excuse the jihadis for their violence and instead simply condemn the US/West/Israel for trying to defend their citizens against these vicious killers. You'll then probably come up with the excuse that the jihadis do it because they are poor (Osama bin Laden was rich), had their land 'stolen' (jihadis have been operating for 1400 years) or some other lame excuse. All the while you'll remain doggedly ignorant of the teachings of the Qur'an that make jihad obligatory for able Muslim males.
Meanwhile you'll probably ignore the hundreds of madrassas pumping out replacement zombies ready to kill Afghan villagers. You'll also ignore the Pakistani ISI and the crime syndicates and opium lords who provide the money for the Taliban. You'd much rather cherish the thought that the West is the bad guy for standing up to these brigands and crazed zealots.
Keep dreaming your false dream. Meanwhile the rest of us will be doing what we can to argue for our rights (stop creeping Sharia and 'cultural jihad' in the West!) and even for your rights. Hopefully one day you'll get a clue and realise who the evil guys really are - the ones that think it nothing to kill little girls for trying to get an education, or kill girls who don't want to be married to old men four times their age, or kill Muslims from another sect, or kill people just working in a building in Manhattan, or riding a bus in London, or a train in Spain, etc etc. That's the real evil.
You seem to be saying that not all religions are the same, rightly pointing the great many crimes and evils done in the name of Islam, but insist that all Muslims are the same. Why the selective nuance?
I didn't mean to give that impression. All Muslims are the same in that they, like all religious folk, are equally deluded about superstition with no scientific evidence. I don't agree with this, but I have zero problem with this provided they keep their faith *personal*. Same with Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists and Jains etc. My beef is when the supremacists want to impose their rules on us. These rules are couched in political correctness and dictate what we may or may not say. These rules say that our schools may not serve pork, that university gyms must segregate to keep the Muslims happy (with the implicit threat of violence or noisy demonstrations if they don't get their way). That's when it stops being personal and intrudes on *non-believers*. Occasionally Christianity does this, and Judaism almost never so. Muslims do differ from other faiths because their *core doctrines* state they will achieve global domination and have dominion over *non-Muslims* as well as Muslims. Around 20% of the Ummah (which works out to be around 300 million people) belive in this [that's why young jihadis often don't stand in court to recognize judges]. Around half of all Muslims are not active supremacists but do agree with the goals of the supremacists (that's around 700 million people) - the eventual imposition of Sharia on all people of the globe whether Muslim or not. This makes the Muslims very different to other modern faiths.
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_(Shari'ah)
Look at the statistics. The narrative of the political Left (and mainstream media that promotes that narrative) is that the Islamist problem is only with 'extremists'. This is a complete lie. The statistics say that most Muslims want Sharia imposed around the globe - and Sharia claims non-Muslims under its jurisdiction. So yes, the "mainstream Muslims" you seek to defend do want to impose Sharia on *you and me* - they just don't believe in personally doing violence to achieve this (but almost always support jihadis doing the dirty work for them - since all sane and able Muslim men are supposed to wage jihad against unbelievers. This is a core doctrine. Fortunately most practicing Muslim men (those that visit the mosques rather than the 'cultural Muslims') wage jihad just by providing funds rather than physically taking arms.
Wake up and smell the homicide bombers. Islam is different. Lying (taqiyya) is permitted. Drugs are permitted. Homosexuality is not permitted in public but is absolutely rampant among Muslim men (who have no easy access to women). Pederastery is common. Child marriages are common (girls 10 - 15 are often married to men 40+). Wife beating is explicitly permitted by the Qur'an. Genocide (especially against Jews, Christians and atheists) is implied in the daily prayers. Jihad against all unbelievers is not only permitted, it is *oligitary* for all able Muslim men. We are lucky most of those who identify as Muslim see the theocracy as utter bullshit and go through the motions - since the Qur'an commands that apostasy is punishable by death (most of the young people of Iran fall into this category - they see Islam as fundamentally broken and the theocracy as their true enemy, not America). So yeah, Islam is very very different to other religions. Please read the Skeptics Annotated Qur'an (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm) and hadiths. You'll see how 'different' (as in, explicitly evil) Islam really is.
Do you think Christian pastors burn non Christian holy books to bolster freedom of expression? Or might it be because it's the wrong kind of holy book?
I don't care what their motivations are. The point is they are free to do it and
700 years ago was when the Mongols conquered Baghdad so explain again why your post and the GP's aren't compatible.
You might like to re-read the parent's post. They said, "Radical Muslims are anti-science, just as are radical Christians. Islam inherently promotes scientific inquiry.". This is utter bollocks, anyone who understands the teachings of Al Ghazali (that are still influential on Islam today) knows this. That is why the parent's statements were so very wrong.
Yes. Islamic scholars embraced and extended the writings of the Greeks and Romans. That has all been shut down for over 700 years (not due to the Mongol invasions, which have long since departed). There are only two Nobel Laureate physicists from the Islamic World, and one of those was a colaboration with non-Muslims. Given the length of time and number of Muslims (20% of the World population) it shows how under-represented Muslims are compared to the rest of the world. Why is this? because Islam is anti-science. The parent poster's statements were true 700 years ago but were spoken in the present tense, where they have been wrong for three quarters of a millenia. Admit it, "eric conspiracy" repeated bullshit propaganda and got his facts wrong.
Telling truth and proividing citations for this view is "Flamebait" these days. Unbelievable!
The AC you responded to makes this same mistake and is equally as wrong. Lumping in mainstream Muslims
Sigh. It is you that is making the colossal mistake. In general, Muslims (human beings) are not the enemy. No one ever said they were. What is the enemy is the ideology of Islam and those that follow according to its teachings (which is not the majority of what can be called 'cultural Muslims'). However, just because the majority of Muslims are only Muslims in name only (just as most Christians are selective in application and hence are not 'devout') this does not excuse Islam in any way. The Islamic teachings are unquestionably evil (if you ever bother to look, have you?) and must be opposed by all Free Men. We get your point that Muslims are good people. Fine, let's get past that. It is Islam and 'Islamists' that must be vehemently opposed and never ever offered apologetics for. Can we agree on that?
The Muslim Brotherhood & Hamas are not related to Al Qaeda, Hezbollah is Shia to everyone else's Sunni Islam, and those other groups you quoted are all offshoots of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabis.
I know this but chose not to convolute my post with the details. What you appear to have failed to notice is that Sunni and Shia will work together to harm Israel, the US and the Free World. That's why Hezbollah and Hamas can work together. That is why Sunni and Shia were happy to destroy open and tolerant Lebanon, the Christians in Iraq, Hindus in India or Buddhists in Thailand; and Sunni and Shia will work together to commit genocide in Israel given a chance and subjugate the Free World (which they are currently working on; and many in the Free World apoloigize for these evils). That's why Iran supplies weapons to Hamas. You went one step further in your analysis than most people, but still stopped short of recognizing the cooperation of convenience that occurs. It is this that makes them all end-game equivalent, total Islamic domination of the planet. The details of whether Iran (Shia) or Saudi (Sunni) lead that world do not change the anti-Free World goal. So you are splitting hairs that are irrevant to my thesis (and that I'm very very well aware of, thank you).
"Fuck you" doesn't make for good foreign policy.
Not to your friends. To your enemies *who already consider they are at war with you* then "fuck you, we have the will to win, and we will win!" is the only sane and long-term strategy. Stating it early can also avert conflict from developing (you remember Neville Chamberlain don't you? Obama has the same instincts and lacks the will to win, yes he'll keep drones going so things don't get too bad, but he is not aiming for decisive and final victory, and there are only two strategic results in a war against Islam: total victory or total defeat). Pussy-footing around is making things worse not better. Examples: Israel giving the Sinai back gave temporary relief, but Egypt is making noises about ripping up the treaty because the hatred and indoctrination of Islam was never addressed; Israel giving Gaza back made things much worse, not better, because Islamic hatred was never addressed by the Rest of the World; the US failing to support the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran made things worse, not better; the US supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has made the strategic situation much worse, not better; However, a hearty "fuck you" followed by a Free World that was actually prepared to defend its values against barbarism would progress humanity more than meekly accepting the advance of the OIC's totalitarian agenda. I'm not scared of promoting liberty and Enlightenment values - even if you lack the minerals.
confusing San Francisco liberals with the Westboro Baptist Church.
There is no confusion in my mind. San Francisco liberals are aiding, abetting and apologizing for the jihadi agenda under the guise of corruptions like 'cultual relativism', 'politcal c
This shows how the Islamists not only claim rights for themselves, they also claim jurisdiction over non-Muslims. This should be no suprise as it is core Islamic doctrine (because Islam is a totalitarian theocratic political ideology with some superstition on top; it is not at all a personal 'religion' in the way Christianty or Judaism are).
Who claims and will enforce this jurisduction? The Organization of Islamic Cooperation of 56 countries (+the Palestinian Authority) does. To get the facts of the legality they claim see the following video by Major Stephen Coughlin (he also has other great *factual* videos on YouTube):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey-TRpkUiPI
According to the OIC *you are already subject to Islamic law* (and Allah gave them the right to impose it) - it's just you don't know it. Under Islamic Law Al Qaeda practicing jihad is *not terrorism* but you defending yourself (by word, deed or action) is terrorism. Now that the Palestinian Authority (a title that has just been dropped as the pretense is no longer required) may have access to the UN International Criminal Court (and the UN and UN HRC is where the OIC forms the largest voting bloc) then it is very highly likely that ICC cases will start to be brought against Israeli generals on *terrorism* charges for defending themselves against jihadis. Black is white and white is black in the Islamic World. And all the "useful idiot" ignorant leftists and students will support the jihadi agenda against Israel, the US and the Free World. The world has gone mad. Hopefully the counter-jihadi resistance against Islamo-fascism will be strong enough by then - the Free World has started to wake up and is tired of taking shit from genocidal, misogynistic, homophobic, supremacist, lying, pedopholic, brutal, immoral Islamicists. It is time for all of us to choose whether to side with liberty, or with the global evil of Islamic ideology (as their apologists on these forums do).
The Koran is more internally consistent, having a single author and single editor, and is read in its original language
Ignorant Bullshit. The Qur'an was not created until 150 years after Mohammed's death (assuming he existed, there is little evidence). There were many competing versions of the Qur'an and a single version was taken as canonical and alternatives were burnt. The discovery (and subsequent suppression by uncomfortable Mulims) of the Saa'na Qur'an in 1972 in Yemen shows how inconsistent the Qur'an is. Then the Qur'an has 'satanic versus', then the hadiths have 'weak' hadiths that may or may not be accurate. Your position is ignorant of the facts and therefore bullshit. Do your homework:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm [shows how incredibly *inconsistent* the Qur'an is]
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/archive/ [this one rips the Qur'an apart and is funny]
Get a clue. Stop repeating the falsehoods made up by the evil Islamist supremacist. Your ignorance has led you to be an unpaid shill for evil.
As the Turkish Prime Minister famously said in 2007, "there are moderate Muslims, there is only on Islam. Islam is Islam.". Just because the majority of Muslims don't practice their beliefs doesn't make the *core doctrine* of Islam any less evil. Stop apologizing for evil. Stop defending it. Go and read the Qur'an and hadiths yourself and you will see that they contain more hate speech than Mein Kampf does.
As Sam Harris says, the problem with Islamic Fundamentalists is the Fundamentals of Islam. So get real about Islam, k?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDMOxjHIt0U
The huge bulk of pseudo-Muslims don't matter. What matters is to recognize that the totalitarian, supremacist, theocratic, political ideology of Islam is not only false (its claims are not supported by science) but it is genocidally evil and must be opposed with no ifs, buts, or apologies by all Free People. So stop making apologies, you are enabling evil (which incidentally, could be construed as making you evil).
Note also that the pseudo-Muslims, who are not strict in their practice are as much in danger from devout Muslims as we are. Not I use the word 'devout' as this is accurate. Using the word 'extremist' is misleading, the terrorists and Islamic supremacists are devout to *core teachings* of genocide and hate; they are not misinterpreting the teachings in any way (which is the common excuse may by apologists hoping to fool those that don't understand what Islam actually teaches).
It is interesting you mention the Westboro Baptist. While I think they are fruitcakes, Terry Jones is absolutely 100% percent correct to burn a Qur'an with the intent of causing offense. The right to cause offence is protected as Free Speech and it is essential to exercise that Free Speech right (as Terry Jones did). Anyone who opposes it supports censorship (which is why it was suprising Petraeus sent him a note to prevent the burning - Petraeus was in Afghanistan to defend Free Speech, not to say when it may or may not be exercised!). Those that are politically correct and oppose anyone causing offense for anything are *against Free Speech* (although most people don't think it through or are too dumb to realise they are supporters of censorship). I presume you are an opponent of burning Qur'ans but recognize the right of Muslims to burn flags, each other, and us for some perceived injustice (like not converting to Salafi Islam when they demand we do)? Get real. The Westboros may be assholes, and burning Qur'ans is insenstive, but anyone who opposes their exercise of Free Speech is a closet totalitarian (whether they are smart enough to realise it or not).
You are utterly mistaken when you say "You are confusing a theological problem with a sociological one.". Osama bin Laden was very rich, powerful and had great social status - it was theology/ideology that drove him to murder 3000 human beings. It is clear you don't understand Islam at all and are talking through your politically-left-tinted glasses without knowing anything (no uncommon, once you acquired more facts you would disagree with the left's position in this matter). Go read the Qur'an and hadiths. Go and see how they are mostly about the *obligation* of Muslims to kill and rape and plunder unbelievers and Jews and Christians; and how it is ok molest children because Mohammed married Aisha at age 6 (although he did not consumate until age 9, that's still pedophilia in anyone's book, except the Mohammed's Qur'an, of course).
In short, your position is false and it is evident that you haven't even looked at any evidence against your 'no nothing' position. Go and look at the following sites, and if you are not shocked and still believe that the problem is not Islam but is instead something else then come back here and challenge me. Once you actually know something then you are qualified to debate. Until you know something it is better you stop speaking untruths.
You are wrong. There was a Golden Age of Islamic science but it was shut down over 700 years ago because the questions started to get too uncomfortable for the Caliph in Bagdad. Now it is forbidden to question, Allah requires your unquestioning obedience. That is as anti-science as you can get. Therefore your post is incorrect, you are misinformed, and as a result you are spreading incorrect information. You might want to stop doing that.
Note that the current theological view of Muslims is that there *are no laws of nature and everything that happens in the will of Allah*. Hence, there is no gravity, only Allah causes things to fall by his will. Allah could just as easily cause something not to fall. Because they believe there are no natural laws Muslims believe it is more profitable to study the sunnah (Qur'an and hadiths) and avoid hellfire of the afterlife than diabolical books about science that the Westerners have. This follows the philosophy set by Al Ghazali: http://www.suhaibwebb.com/islam-studies/imam-al-ghazali-on-studying-science/
The reason Al-Ghazali opposed science and reason is precisely why we embrace it. He opposed it because it would lead people away from Allah. We like science because it allows people to develop reason and reject superstition and false constructs (eg. the fictions of Allah/God/Yaweh/Krishna etc for which there is *zero reputable scientific evidence*).
So, the current theology of Islam is completely anti-science. It wasn't always that way (when the Muslims were reading Greek and Roman texts) but is now.
Being "politically correct" is against Free Speech. That's why the Islamists push the politically correct buttons of Westerners to neutralize opposition - they don't want to you speak freely and criticize their genocidal and supremacist ideas. As long as you accept political correctness you will be afraid to offend Muslims. Speaking the truth always offends Muslims because they don't want the Free World to discover the truth about their evil ideology.
Because of political correctness the Obama Administration has a censor list that bans the Pentagon and FBI from using words like "Islamist", "jihadi", "terrorist" etc. Stephen Coughlin has an excellent series discussing this is detail on Youtube. He shows how the US is winning all the fights on the battlefield but completely losing the "information battlespace" (a situation analagous to Vietnam, except that now the leftist elites in Obama's Administration oppose the war while the citizens can see the necessity of destroying all Islamists no matter what their brand-name is). Here's an example of an eye-opening Stephen Coughlin video (a briefing he has given the Pentagon):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhZe7eZK4dw
Although this should be no surprise. The Obama Administration has continued the Bush Administration's policy of outreach to muslims, and now has Muslim Brotherhood affiliates in positions of influence. See: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates
and the ideologue Obama is informed but refuses to listen to warnings about the Brotherhood. The US Government is not acting in the strategic interest of the people!
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3877/opposition-leader-obama-administration-downplayed
Note that all Islamist groups have the same goals, they just believe in different means to achieve this goal. Therefore: Al Qaeda == Hamas == Hezbollah == Muslim Brotherhood == Salafis == Wahabbis == Boko Haram == Abu Sayyaf etc etc in ideological end-game goals. So when you hear Muslim Brotherhood you are correct in instantly translating that as "Al Qaeda" as they are ideologically end-goal equivalent.
As long you strive to be politically correct you will be against Free Speech. They are incompatible concepts. As long as the majority support political correctness (euphamistic and untruithful speech) over Free Speech (eg. telling the unvarnished truth) then the Islamist ideologues will win - and they are winning in the West (slowly changing the West to conform to their needs rather than the other way around) because those that are politically correct don't have the courage of their convictions to oppose Islamic supremacism.
Unlike political correctness, Free Speech is all about the rigths of people to say things we don't want to hear and we may find offensive. If people were only able to stay stuff we agree with we wouldn't need Free Speech laws anyway. The right to speak and offend others *is* the core of Free Speech. That's why political correctness is completely anti-Free Speech. If you support policical correctness (or worse, condemn those who are not politically correct) then you are an opponent of Free Speech.
Actually, I graduated the officer school of the Royal New Zealand Airforce two decades ago. Military personnel have complete freedom of speech and thought. They just can't present those *in public* without authorization. There is a world of difference between that and your cartoon caricature statement.
You are right about A. However B is not the whole story. While corporates in the US have very strong sway (we agree there) they are only "influencers" and not "decision makers". The shambles that is likely to be the Obama Administration's next term is likely to be counter to the wishes of very many corporates and much of the populace (despite his suppression attempts, the documentation has been found that he was a card-carrying Marxist, and his ideology is definitely Big State at the expense of individual liberties - as shown by his policies and appointments).
Yes, and the Fifth Amendment was also effectively shut down. Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, pretending he had "serious reservation", but in fact it was the Administration which forced Senator Levine to remove safeguards in the original draft law.
Here's Bill Whittle explaining it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgrktRgjBXk
Obama gets great press (since the press are Left-sympathetic). However, if you bother to watch what is going on in the long-term, and delve into details, it is very apparent he has a neo-Marxist agenda. This means that the State trumps the individual liberties that Americans have had for hundreds of years. I'm neither Democrat nor Republican (I'm a New Zealander, so appreciate the Lord of the Rings references in the video I linked; since filming and post-production was done nearby to me). As a citizen of the Free World that recognizes how the US Constitution protects not only US citizens but also provides leadership to governments and citizens of other countries too. Seeing Obama's trajectory, which will almost certainly get worse in his second term, is very worrying. He's currently overturning hundreds of years of Enlightenment-inspired laws, and destroying decades of global alliances. Obama's dim-witted Secretary of State kowtowed to the OIC in the UN and promising to enforce UN HRC Resolution 16/18 which limits the Free Speech of citizens everywhere, but also is against the US First Amendment rights of US citizens in the US (hence, every US citizens should be asking wtf? about Hilliary and Obama; if they stopped watching the American Idol contents for a little bit). Obama is appeasing the enemies of America and the Free World, and he is isolating or abandoning many of America's allies around the globe.
Of course, unless you dig for the details the mainstream media are selectively presenting you facts, in the US these days its as bad as the selective news coming from Al Jazeera or Russia today. I suggest listening to Bill Whittle and Thomas Sowell with an open mind - you will see that the fact-based analyses will lead you to conclude that Obama's agenda is both deliberate and harmful to the strategic interests of the US and the Free World. Remember, not only do you have to listen to the politicians you agree with, you ought to also listen to the counter-points made by the politicians you disagree with - you will learn so much more and sometimes those counter-arguments have merit. In fact, by listening to counter-arguments of Obama's opponents I quickly learned that their criticisms were often fact-based and it was Obama's positions that were ideological and counter-productive to individual liberty.
It seems the "Change" Obama promised is not what you hoped it would be (noticed he was light on details? - that's because you [and I] would never have supported him if you knew what he wanted to do; unless he can be pinned down it looks like the next four years could well do damage that will take four decades to repair, and some liberties may never be restored).
Like Hilliary Clinton's moronic support for UN HRC Resolution 16/18 where she promised to suppress ('name and shame' she said) the Constitutional First Amendment Free Speech rights of her own citizens at the behest of the repressive Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) [who are the mafia voting bloc who now run the United Nations]. This is absolutely scandalous yet the majority of US citizens seem more concerned with retaining the ability to obtain unlicensed semi-automatic weapons or the Kardashian foibles rather than making a fuss about the current Administration's assault on Free Speech (eg. the US military now has a list of words it may not use, like "Islamic terrorism" etc).
In a democracy *the people* are the arbiters of what is 'nonsense' and what is not. Not some jumped up bureaucrat or an AC fascist apologist. While I might not agree with the Death Star petition, nor the Sharia for USA petition, it doesn't mean that people shouldn't have the chance to put anything to their fellow citizens and have the White House consider them without raising the threshold to un-democratically restrictive levels.