patrick.net

thunderlips11 says

Jihad is not "Defensive", which is a dishonest argument

Some interpretations state that it is. There are many interpretations of Christianity, too. Most Christian teachers today focus on the more peaceful parts, but not all teachers. And, stating that the old testament doesn't apply is bullshit, IMO, b/c a lot of Christian teachings seem to come from it.

This applies to people in general, not you specifically, lips...

It's tiring to see a bunch of Christians interpreting their book in the best light while interpreting the other teams book in the worst light. From the atheist perspective, it looks a lot like a dick contest among dishonest brokers. If Christianity is so peaceful, why the Crusades?

Some people are making the argument that Christianity today is peaceful, so the Crusades don't count. But some of these same people are stating that it is inherent in the religion and the texts. Well, the texts haven't changed. Either base it on the underlying religions, and show that Christians have always been more peaceful, or base it on current society. Don't cherry pick and choose your way through the argument.

YesYNot says

Some interpretations state that it is. There are many interpretations of Christianity, too. Most Christian teachers today focus on the more peaceful parts, but not all teachers. And, stating that the old testament doesn't apply is bullshit, IMO, b/c a lot of Christian teachings seem to come from it.

Hold on. I gave you concrete historical facts, which you can easily verify yourself, that Islamic Jihad rolled out of it's birthplace in Medina and went on to literally conquer - by force of arms.

There's no interpretation. We have reports from the Koran itself of the earliest conquests, evidence of the Caliphs of Baghdad and the Disputed Succession of Ali, Byzantine and Persian records of the Muslims suddenly appearing on the periphery and invading.

From North Africa, to the Steppes of Russia, to the Gates of Vienna, to the plains of North India, Jihad meant to conquer, not defend.

From the very moment the Koran was written, violent conquests had already happened in the name of Jihad.

Any History of the Balkans, Spain, Russia, or the Byzantine Empire - just for the Western nations - will cover Aggressive, Imperialistic Jihad.

Nuke mecca and medina. Problem solved..

Vicente says

So Mr. Numbskull is all wrapped up in his minor work complaints. Maybe someone says MERRRY CHRISTMAS HERE'S SOME BACON HAR HAR or whatever and that fiinally pushes him over the edge. So he and Princess of Arabia get dolled up and hose down the room.

Except for all the heavy arms and explosive devices found at their home. Clearly they weren't in a friendly sort of attitude before said festivity. Plus he dropped the kid off with his mom for the reason of a phony doctor appointment. They were planning a terror attack. Maybe a coworker pissed him off enough to change plans and make his workplace the target instead of Walmart or somewhere else. Maybe it was going to be that place the whole time. The poor is that this was a Muslim who was radicalized and clearly preparing for war against his fellow citizens.
The fact that he fits the terrorist profile exactly (college educated with some graduate work) doesn't improve your assertion that he was a random dude who flipped out about workplace issues. Seriously, I thought only Obama could be that willfully ignorant!

I see a lot of people bringing up the Crusades as a horrible example of Christian violence in history. I'd like to remind them that the Crusades were a response to the ongoing Muslim jihad that was sweeping across the continent. It was a holy war in the most religious sense of the word. After all, the best thing to oppose an idea is another idea. Or to oppose a religion bent on world conquest by the sword. The armies of Christendom smacked down the Muslims for years and taught them their place.
Looks like we might be ready for a round two.

Quigley says

I see a lot of people bringing up the Crusades as a horrible example of Christian violence in history

Yes, the Crusades were to reconquer Christian Lands recently lost to Islam.

In fact, most of the places the Crusaders conquered were placed that had been conquered by Jihad, won back by the Byzantines, then lost a second time to Jihad.

We'll win as long as we play by old testament rules.
Quigley says

Looks like we might be ready for a round two.

To misquote Malcolm X:

Vienna didn't land on Islam, Islam landed on Vienna.

Quigley says

I see a lot of people bringing up the Crusades as a horrible example of Christian violence in history. I'd like to remind them that the Crusades were a response to the ongoing Muslim jihad that was sweeping across the continent. It was a holy war in the most religious sense of the word. After all, the best thing to oppose an idea is another idea. Or to oppose a religion bent on world conquest by the sword. The armies of Christendom smacked down the Muslims for years and taught them their place.

Looks like we might be ready for a round two.

This is a very good point. However, the Muslims of that time were actually much more educated than their fellow Christians. Christians believed that gentlemen's hands were always clean; Muslims said you should wear masks and wash hands between patients. Christian physicians (monks) refused to adopt the techniques of heretics, no matter how superior. They were too busy praying and leeching. We were swinging from trees while they developed algebra and Arabic numbers. Something happened that caused Muslims to stop developing and actually go into their own dark ages; evidence of which can still be seen today.

OK. We have some more facts

When the story 1st broke I only heard "mass shooting in CA" and something about it being a "government facility" and "people with disabilities". Frankly, I thought mentally disturbed person, not terrorism. This was before the names of the suspects were released. Picture is slowly getting clear. Any way you slice it, its not good.
.

turtledove says

This is a very good point. However, the Muslims of that time were actually much more educated than their fellow Christians. Christians believed that gentlemen's hands were always clean; Muslims said you should wear masks and wash hands between patients. Christian physicians (monks) refused to adopt the techniques of heretics, no matter how superior. They were too busy praying and leeching. We were swinging from trees while they developed algebra and Arabic numbers. Something happened that caused Muslims to stop developing and actually go into their own dark ages; evidence of which can still be seen today.

This Guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Mutawakkil

Opposed Science that contradicted the Koran and versions of Islam that embraced Reason as a tool given by Allah in favor of Ritual and Mysticism.

Who also was the inventor of Jews wearing patches on their clothing, later adopted by Spaniards (and later, of course, Hitler) after they saw Jews wearing them during the Crusades.

Also, by about 1000-1100, most Greeks in the Middle East had converted to Islam to avoid the Jizya and no longer spoke or read Greek. There was also a rise of anti-science, anti-Kaffir Learning due to the "double punch" of Mongolian and Western successful counterattacks.

Heraclitusstudent says

This is what we are talking about.

Just going by land mass alone, they need the rest of Asia, Europe, Russia and the Americas and they win!

Yes by all means: Asia, Europe, Russia and the Americas should adopt much stricter gun controls and this will ceade the terrorism, no?

turtledove says

Something happened that caused Muslims to stop developing and actually go into their own dark ages; evidence of which can still be seen today.

Religion is a force that has always slowed mankind progress.
If you think (1) that BOOK A contains all the truth that need to be known, and (2) that everything happening on this earth doesn't matter and is only a preface to everlasting life, then what is the incentive to research, learn and try and make things better?

A typical example of that is what happened to the library of Alexandria during Arab conquests of Egypt.

It is thought that, upon learning the existence of the books, the Caliph Omar declared "they will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous." and he went on to order the burning of the manuscripts, some maybe from Euclid and Aristotle.

Rew says

It also shows that most want it ONLY applied to those of Muslim faith.

IT also shows there are many different interpretations.

However you turn this, the fact that a large percent of Muslims favor killing apostates and stoning adulterers is hardly something that should be defended by liberals in the west.

If a random cult in the US was teaching this, would you support it?

To the extent that other interpretations of these texts (that clearly say what they say and are considered the revealed word of God) are possible, this is the solution. We must then clearly state what interpretations are promoting human suffering and are as such evil.

Planned in advance: Couple destroyed digital devices, closed email accounts, wiped browsing history at least a day before shooting
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/3/syed-farook-tashfeen-malik-erased-digital-footprin/

Wife Malik participated, firing Assault Rifle. What does this mean for Syrian Refugees? Hopefully a stop to it.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-tashfeen-malik-20151203-story.html

Wife Malik posted loyalty to "Caliph" Al-Baghdadi on Facebook
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html

Time to freeze Visas to the Middle East.

Quigley says

Except for all the heavy arms and explosive devices found at their home. Clearly they weren't in a friendly sort of attitude before said festivity. Plus he dropped the kid off with his mom for the reason of a phony doctor appointment. They were planning a terror attack. Maybe a coworker pissed him off enough to change plans and make his workplace the target instead of Walmart or somewhere else. Maybe it was going to be that place the whole time. The poor is that this was a Muslim who was radicalized and clearly preparing for war against his fellow citizens.

The fact that he fits the terrorist profile exactly (college educated with some graduate work) doesn't improve your assertion that he was a random dude who flipped out about workplace issues. Seriously, I thought only Obama could be that willfully ignorant!

There was premeditation for sure, but I think to Vincente's and my point, the target was too personal. I still say drugs or Manchurian Candidate make the most sense. This guy was on something, or being manipulated by someone.

Terrorist is a facade that just doesn't hold up here. It's more like he was a copycat, using the current climate of government induced terror and violence to justify his deranged actions.

My theory, he was looking for a target. Went to the Christmas Party and saw people drinking and celebrating, and was like "This IS THE SHIRK!! HARAM!!!"

thunderlips11 says

Wife Malik participated, firing Assault Rifle. What does this mean for Syrian Refugees? Hopefully a stop to it.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-tashfeen-malik-20151203-story.html

Except.....

she wasn't Syrian!

My money is on HER as being the goading influence here.

And to your point somewhat:

Weapons used definitely not AK-47 smuggled over in anyone's luggage.

turtledove says

Luke says you may slay your enemies. Interesting how Christians didn't detail a definition of an enemy. Unlike Muslims who have a precise definition of who their enemies are.

I think the enemy is very well defined in the Bible just as it is in the Quran : evil, of which unbelievers can be a source or propagator of. In practice, where the enemy was often defined as a specific living person, Christianity would say heretic, while later, Islam coined infidel.

You can claim Christian terror groups aren't the pure teachings of Christ, not true Christianity, but that's the same case for Islam. There is no place in the Quran that states murder is a path to salvation. Christians may be "following the teachings of Jesus", but they harken back to old testament as the law of God, and how much Jesus obviates those laws, is all interpretation. Radical Christian terror groups interpret whole hosts of things in interesting ways, just as the radical Islamic groups do.

As far as to how relevant any of this really is to life in the US ... frankly ... Islam is a smaller blip, in the blip of causation of terror attacks. Most domestic attacks are Christian, Jewish, or have other non-Islamic leanings if there is a religious component.

The fastest growing, and often considered the top terror threat in the US, is the "sovereign citizen" movements that have exploded since post 9/11. These groups are predominantly Christian, but I wouldn't say that's a major component of their motivation as of yet. I'm sure we will get some backlash now for the recent attack in San Bernadino ... and this can continue to go round and round.

- The easier you can draw divisions between yourself and another, the easier it is to do harm to them.
- You are more likely to die from accidental suffocation while sleeping than terrorism.
- In the US, if you are killed by a terrorist, odds are greater it will NOT be of Islamic origination.

Many seem so ready to vilify 1.5 billion people out of fear and misunderstanding. All we have to do is be scared and draw the divisions and the terrorists win. So I generally dislike your, to paraphrase, "Well at-least Christianity doesn't say murder is a path to heaven, and bunches of people aren't preaching that." Those things aren't true for Islam either, especially domestically.

We focus on religion as a causative agent too much. In truth that's simply a component in steeling motivation and resolve. The causation of terrorism isn't religion. It's social injustices (perceived or real) and the belief that violence can change it.

Christianity isn't superior by any factor that it isn't now being used as a predominant motivator to kill. Christianity has, can be, and is being used today to do just that. Just like Islam.

Vicente says

Weapons used definitely not AK-47 smuggled over in anyone's luggage.

Could be a strawman buyer... I believe the FBI announced they were investigating this.

Rew says

As far as to how relevant any of this really is to life in the US ... frankly ... Islam is a smaller blip, in the blip of causation of terror attacks. Most domestic attacks are Christian, Jewish, or have other non-Islamic leanings if there is a religious component.

Evidence? Also, please note that the vast majority of Americans are at least nominally Christian, whereas the Muslim population is in the low single digits, so we'll have to weigh attacks relative to population.

So even if Christian Fundamentalists kill 50 people in a ten year period and Muslims only, say, 14, Islam is far and away more violent because there are far, far, far fewer Muslims than Christians in the USA.

Vicente says

Weapons used definitely not AK-47 smuggled over in anyone's luggage.

So what? If Paris events teach us anything the actual acquisition of weapons is not that big a problem even in a country where everything but bb guns is banned.

Rew says

Most domestic attacks are Christian, Jewish, or have other non-Islamic leanings if there is a religious component.

That's bullshit and has been disproved plenty of times. There are hardly any religiously motivated broad killings except for the usual suspects. Most other forms of domestic terrorism go against a specific cause, be it eco/animal rights. anti-government extremism, anti-abortion or even anti-semitic attacks by others groups. None of those are attacks aimed at world domination and subjugating/killing all non-believers.

thunderlips11 says

So even if Christian Fundamentalists kill 50 people in a ten year period and Muslims only, say, 14, Islam is far and away more violent because there are far, far, far fewer Muslims than Christians in the USA.

Like you mentioned, most of them never show or profess a Christian manifesto, but if they are white Americans they are deemed Christian terrorists. You may as well file all the people killed in Mexico's drug wars under Christian terrorism since Mexico is predominantly Christian ;) A more accurate line would be that compared to all other potential causes, the risk of getting killed in a terrorist attack is very low. Which is of course hopefully always true and certainly no reason not to act or not to defend your country from these attacks.

Rew says

I think the enemy is very well defined in the Bible just as it is in the Quran : evil, of which unbelievers can be a source or propagator of. In practice, where the enemy was often defined as a specific living person, Christianity would say heretic, while later, Islam coined infidel.

You can claim Christian terror groups aren't the pure teachings of Christ, not true Christianity, but that's the same case for Islam. There is no place in the Quran that states murder is a path to salvation.

BS. The Shariah law explicitly recommends killing people in a number of situations. The idea that Islam if only applied in its purest form does not condone violence is non-sense and a total lack of intellectual integrity. Just read the texts.

The comparison to Christianity is specious and irrelevant. No we are not perfect. But there is clearly a unique issue here with that religion, and not recognizing it is preposterous and dishonest.

Rew says

Islam is a smaller blip, in the blip of causation of terror attacks. Most domestic attacks are Christian, Jewish, or have other non-Islamic leanings if there is a religious component.

Would you say 911 was a blip? We have a small percent of Muslims. Would you say ISIS is a blip in Sirya? In almost all countries with large percent of Muslims you have either killings of non-believers and/or killing, amputations, whipping of Muslims themselves. Why are you turning your eyes away from that?

Right on, HS.

Here's a great irony that is never mentioned:

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

mell says

That's bullshit and has been disproved plenty of times.

No. Most domestic attacks are Christian, Jewish, or have other non-Islamic leanings if there is a religious component. (bolded the last part of that sentence for you. Exact copy from above)

Which fits a graph like this ...
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/

Which is built off a table of FBI attacks like this ...
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum

Rew says

Which is built off a table of FBI attacks like this ...

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum

Which bizarrely doesn't count the Beltway Snipers as Terrorists, even though there was countless diary entries, drawings, etc. with Koranic Quotes and expressions of love for OBL. Probably for Political Reasons so Bush could claim "No Terror on US Soil since GWOT started".

Also, the FBI counts every time some Greenie spikes a Redwood tree or pulls the wires on a Forestry Service bulldozer as a single unique act of "Terrorism".

9/11 was also a "Single Act of Terrorism" according to the FBI.

In my book, it would take a whole lotta redwood tree spiking to equal one 9/11.

Rew says

Which fits a graph like this ...

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/

Loon Watch is an Islamic Apologist site, it never criticizes or mentions Islamic Terror.

Loon Watch operator Nathan Lean also hates Atheists. Funny how it's okay for him to hate on Islam Critics, but not okay for Atheists to make snarks about Islam (but okay when we make snarks about Christians)
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins_harris_hitchens_new_atheists_flirt_with_islamophobia/?source=newsletter

Rew says

I think the enemy is very well defined in the Bible just as it is in the Quran : evil, of which unbelievers can be a source or propagator of.

That's exactly the problem. People think if they obey rules, then by definition they aren't evil.

Eichmann believed that too and look what happened to him.

lalalala says

So what? If Paris events teach us anything the actual acquisition of weapons is not that big a problem even in a country where everything but bb guns is banned.

I just read an article by the NRA pointing out that we in California have already met Obama's gun control wishlist, and have the strictest anti-gun laws in the country. So much for legislating safety...

Ironman says

Crap, now how will Obama try to spin this into the need for stricter gun laws. The AR15's used in the shooting were illegal in the configuration they were in. But Obama STILL thinks criminals with abide by any laws that are passed, that's why we need MORE laws.

Nah, the Graun is already whining that the ISIS connection will take the debate "away" from Gun Control and back towards Immigration and the Multi Cult.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/04/san-bernardino-shooting-tashfeen-malik-isis-connection

Heraclitusstudent says

That's exactly the problem. People think if they obey rules, then by definition they aren't evil.

Eichmann believed that too and look what happened to him.

Totally agree. And no one religion is any more innately prone to radicalization than another, especially the three Abrahamic religions, which are very "law" based. Societal factors are equally as stronger a catalyst toward being able to radicalize someone. (IE : plenty of worshiping Muslims around me, well off, American, and I'm not afraid they are going to blow me up one day. Cannot say the same for the poor and oppressed in the mid-East.)

Except terrorists aren't poor or poorly educated, particularly those that strike in the West. The profile of terrorists is generally well-educated and well off, and more often from wealthy countries.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB110911119848561282
http://scholar.harvard.edu/barro/files/02_0610_mythpoverty_bw.pdf

You know what drives Terrorism? Identity Politics and Religion.

thunderlips11 says

Now post some videos of Christians or Jews in these days stoning adulterers, please.

PS Still Waiting for some videos of Western Jews and Christians stoning adulterers, or killing somebody for working on the Sabbath, etc. in recent times

Rew says

no one religion is any more innately prone to radicalization than another

For example, droning over something 5 times a day is an excellent way to wash your brain. Repetition is one of the most potent propaganda technique.

Rew says

Societal factors are equally as stronger a catalyst toward being able to radicalize someone.

Societal factors are factors. They don't influence written dogmas. And there is a link between beliefs and actions. This cannot be denied.
One other factor here are the deliberate, organized, well financed attempts by foreign groups in the world to spread these beliefs into the west.

I understand in your angelic view of the world everyone just want to live in peace and attend their own business. As inconvenient as it is to you, this view is just too simplistic. Some people have an ideology of death, they are bent on teaching it, and spreading it. Where you give them space, they will multiply. And what you are doing now is exactly that: defending that space in the name of liberty of cult.

This is a battle of ideas. It cannot be won, by bombing, or by forbidding actions.
It certainly cannot be fought by totally ignoring the problem.
No. Bad ideas are fought by confronting them, in the media, and person by person.
But to do that, you need to first recognize that there is a problem.

This will not go away by itself. The problem will only grow and grow. Just watch Europe.
The attacks that already happened are unlikely to be the end of it.

question is irrelevant given the dearth of facts...

YesYNot says

San Bernardino shooting - mental health problem or Islamic war?

Ironman says

So, who wants to answer?

Thunderlips already answered this: you need a nosy surveillance state/ continuation or enhancement of the patriot act

MMR says

Thunderlips already answered this: you need a nosy surveillance state/ continuation or enhancement of the patriot act

Let me refine my answer: you need a concentrated surveillance. Since having a single massive haystack that incorporates most of the worlds telecommunications among billions of people and firms is a big handicap towards finding a few needles. Fine if the NSA is trolling for economic, military or political secrets of non-Americans, normal intelligence collection.

We might start by checking the social media and emails of those applying for Visas from certain MENA countries. Or those who fit a certain profile, like Muslim Engineers who lived/studied in Germany.

This should be paired with greatly reducing the numbers of immigrants allowed to even apply each year for those countries, which will also reduce the haystack's size and make it easier to actually sort through the evidence.

thunderlips11 says

We might start by checking the social media and emails of those applying for Visas from certain MENA countries. Or those who fit a certain profile, like Muslim Engineers who lived/studied in Germany.

Or guys from Russia, like these two Tsarnaev fuckwads.

lalalala says

Or guys from Russia, like these two Tsarnaev fuckwads.

I thought you Banderastanis were hoping for the Chechens to help you out. You know what they say about judging somebody by their friends and heroes. Fundie Islamists and Nazi Collaborators.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/world/europe/islamic-battalions-stocked-with-chechens-aid-ukraine-in-war-with-rebels.html

thunderlips11 says

I thought you Banderastanis

Who?

Guess what? Enrique Marquez, Jr., suspected of supplying arms to the San Ber Terrorists...
is Bah'ai, Unitarian, Roman Catholic, Smarta Hinduism... a convert to the Religion of Peace!

Investigators with the FBI today questioned Enrique Marquez Jr., the man who originally purchased the two “assault-style” rifles used in last week’s San Bernardino shooting in which 14 people were killed, according to law enforcement officials briefed on the probe.

Authorities have been trying to talk to Marquez, 24, since the weapons were first traced to him, but could not until today because he was being evaluated for an unspecified health care issue, the officials said.

...
An individual associated with a local mosque, who asked not to be named, said Marquez started coming there three or four years ago, after he had converted to Islam. The person said Marquez was shy and polite, but did not seem that bright. Two members of Farook’s family, but not Syed Farook, attended the same mosque, the person said.

Marquez previously worked at a Wal-Mart, and before that was employed by the California Department of Food and Agriculture, federal officials told ABC News.