patrick.net

rando says

Speak the truth about Islam. Do not give Muslims your tacit approval for the next murder, and the next, and the next...

No violence required. No war. Just honesty and courage.

Ah, but there IS violence. Do you think the terrorists kill more civilians than our drones and bombs? When did the Islamic terrorist attacks in the west start? Did Islam change since the 90's? You are not honest and will not be able to find a solution if you don't acknowledge the whole problem.

FP says

In contrast, the Russia narrative has mainly "appeal to authority," people with an established record of reportedly allegedly perjuring themselves for the team. Partisans deem them credible whenever the statements coincide with what the partisans want to hear. There is no physical evidence to prove anything illegal, only vague hints and innuendoes.

After the US led a grand coalition to defend Saudi Arabia and take back Kuwait. With the first WTC bombing. The same people reported "Cheering" on 9/11 were from the same Apartment Complexes in Jersey City and Paterson that NJ State Police and FBI visited in 1994.

I wonder if Manchester will be having any more anti Trump protests.

FP says

rando says

Speak the truth about Islam. Do not give Muslims your tacit approval for the next murder, and the next, and the next...

No violence required. No war. Just honesty and courage.

Ah, but there IS violence. Do you think the terrorists kill more civilians than our drones and bombs? When did the Islamic terrorist attacks in the west start? Did Islam change since the 90's? You are not honest and will not be able to find a solution if you don't acknowledge the whole problem.

There is blowback. No doubt US/western allied attacks on Moslem nations put a target on US and the west. So yes this needs to stop. But stopping our military from being international thugs won't stop ISIS. ISIS (which at this point is an idea not just a group of JV thugs like Obama called them, and you can't kill an idea) will fight till they run out of cowards willing to attack soft targets, or until there are no soft targets. In the meantime, ISIS achieves its will, painting the non-Islamic people as weak and corrupt.

Why can't people on the left be honest and just and say "22 lives is a small price to pay for the blessings of diversity"? Isn't that their de facto argument?

PeopleUnited, you missed the point. I'll wait a few more people to demonstrate missing it and I'll explain then.

FP says

rando says

Speak the truth about Islam. Do not give Muslims your tacit approval for the next murder, and the next, and the next...

No violence required. No war. Just honesty and courage.

Ah, but there IS violence. Do you think the terrorists kill more civilians than our drones and bombs? When did the Islamic terrorist attacks in the west start? Did Islam change since the 90's? You are not honest and will not be able to find a solution if you don't acknowledge the whole problem.

It's not fair to keep asking so many questions you already know they're not going to answer.

I'm not sure if these people even realize it but they're being used by competing factions, simultaneously.

What do terrorists want?

England, 1940: "Never yield to force. Never yield to the might of the enemy" England 2017: "We must get used to attacks like this."

errc says

What do terrorists want?

Sharia and an Islamic State.

Good Question.

The Leader of ISIS is a highly trained PhD in Islamic Studies who went to the best Religious Universities in the Islamic World.

It's as if some PhD in New Testament Studies from Harvard, who got his Bachelor's and Master's in Theology at Duke, "Doesn't really understand Christianity"

errc says

What do terrorists want?

Most of them want eternal paradise with 72 whores and a kingdom stretching from Syria to Yemen, as promised in the hateful fraud of Islam. The "moderate" Muslims want to spread Sharia. Both should be opposed, equally.

Imagine being trapped in a lobster kettle, slowly boiling alive; occasionally you see a spark from the fire below. That is the position some western European countries have created for themselves. The sparks of Islamic terrorism should alert them to the underlying fire that will otherwise consume them.

You and FP have argued that America has also done bad things, as if stopping those would solve the problem of Islam. You seem to forget the Muslim conquest of India, for example, which slaughtered more than 60 million Hindus before America was founded. You forget what Muslims do to other Muslims, even killing their own children for "honor". Most of the horrors of Islam started before America was founded and have nothing to do with us. You can certainly argue that the Bush and Clinton presidencies made matters worse by serving Hillary's Saudi and corporate clients at the expense of America, but they didn't slaughter a million Armenian Christians in the first genocide of the 20th century: that was Muslims, specifically the Ottoman Caliphate, whom America had not fought since the Barbary Wars a century earlier. America deserves credit for the Barbary Wars, which ended centuries of Barbaric piracy and the Barbary States' slave trade. The tendency to blame America does not solve the problem of Islam.

FP says

Ah, but there IS violence. Do you think the terrorists kill more civilians than our drones and bombs? When did the Islamic terrorist attacks in the west start? Did Islam change since the 90's? You are not honest and will not be able to find a solution if you don't acknowledge the whole problem.

To be sure George W. Bush and his agreement with the Saudis to invade Iraq as "retaliation" for the Saudi attack on America on 9/11 is one factor which has helped the Islamic terrorist wave along. Bush should be in jail.

But it's clearly far from the only factor. Muslims have taken up killing random innocent people in China, in Nigeria, Thailand, Sweden, Germany, the Philipines -- places that have nothing to do with the Iraq war at all.

A bigger factor would be the continuous Saudi funding for Wahhabi madrassas all around the Islamic world, but the biggest factor by far, IMHO, is the rise of the Internet and its use to propagate Islamic hate.

I suspect Bandar bin Sultan is actually the mastermind behind most of this, as he was of 9/11.

If someone bombed and killed my children in front of me...I'd probably have a hard time not wanting revenge also. Sometimes I'm shocked that US families whose relatives are killed by terrorists don't go nuts themselves and go on suicide missions themselves into the Middle East. Especially with the success of revenge movies like "Taken". Misery does love company. Most likely western comforts and counseling bring them back from the edge.

Weak-minded people at the brink of insanity who have nothing to lose in this world attitude will gravitate toward something that will reward their revenge. If that person lives in a 130 degree desert hellhole.... without western comforts I'd imagine terrorists organizations are like gangs in the inner cities. Join them to survive and eventually lose all hope.

Perhaps the ultimate solution is to create a world that isn't so unequal. Maybe then their will be less hopeless people tempted by the dark side?

That's actually the best praise I can give Christianity...and religion in general... it does pull people off the ledge of hopelessness on this earth if you buy into it.

BoomAndBustCycle says

Weak-minded people at the brink of insanity who have nothing to lose in this world attitude will gravitate toward something that will reward their revenge. If that person lives in a 130 degree desert hellhole.... without western comforts I'd imagine terrorists organizations are like gangs in the inner cities. Join them to survive and eventually lose all hope.

Perhaps the ultimate solution is to create a world that isn't so unequal. Maybe then their will be less hopeless people tempted by the dark side?

No, I think that's not it at all.

The majority of Islamic terrorists come from relatively comfortable circumstances, not poverty. Equality has little to nothing to do with the motivations for Islamic terrorism.

A psychological study by the Israelis concluded that the largest motive was a desire to prove devotion to Islam to other Muslims, especially to one's ancestral village and family.

They kill because it makes them feel like they are being good Muslims.

FP says

Ah, but there IS violence. Do you think the terrorists kill more civilians than our drones and bombs?

Yes they do. Terrorists have been killing innocent civilians all over the world. They kill anyone they hate. Other Muslims, Westerners, Africans, Asians. They also abuse human rights, enslave and auction off young girls still in their teens.

FP says

When did the Islamic terrorist attacks in the west start? Did Islam change since the 90's? You are not honest and will not be able to find a solution if you don't acknowledge the whole problem.

They started attacking the West well before the 1990's. Ever heard of the first Twin Tower bombings? As soon as they got hold of convenient bomb making technology, they have been attacking others.
Islam itself is the fucking problem to the whole damn world. When are YOU gonna acknowledge that?

The "It's all Western Oppression" doesn't explain Lashkar-i-Taiba in Pakistan/India or Abu Sayyf in the Philippines or Boko Haram in Nigeria. The latter is actually more violent than ISIS.

Indeed, where the Islamic sections of the Philippines, where the Spanish did not directly administer but where sultans merely paid a small tribute, are the places where Islamic Terrorism is strongest.

BoomAndBustCycle says

Perhaps the ultimate solution is to create a world that isn't so unequal. Maybe then their [sic] will be less hopeless people tempted by the dark side?

Maybe we need a thread to refute this recurring myth.

The issue has been studied empirically: among Muslims, wealth and education increase the risk of terrorism. Anecdotally, OBL had a university degree and tens of millions of USD when he decided to devote his life to Islamic jihad. Other examples abound.

Disproving the myth feels like playing whackamole. Part of the problem is MSM journalists get paid by publicists to say things on behalf of their clients. Some opine with magical thinking and recite the myth. So, book smart (but not street smart) people can quote some commercial "journalist" saying that myth, and deny the empirical evidence as well as the widely documented examples. They want to believe it, based on their identities as either identitarian liberal or well informed or whatever.

They fail to see that Muslims have their own identities. Muslims identify as Muslims and thus want to believe Islam. It motivates them. If you give them means and opportunity, you increase the risk they will do what Islam says: strike terror into the enemies of Allah and kill the disbelievers. The myth above is part of the taqiyyeh: Allah is the best deceiver, and such deceptions enable the Muslims to outwit the gullible westerners, and trick the infidels into paying jizya subsidizing hijrah.

PeopleUnited says

Like clockwork Dan trots out the red herring of mustaches being more important characteristics than ideas.

There is nothing about disbelieving in supernatural sky daddies that makes people commit genocide, wage war, or burn gays and witches at the stake. However, there is a great deal about religion that makes people do those things. When people hold up "god hates fags" signs, sorry bro, but that does have something inherently to do with their religion. When Muslims say death to the infidels, religion is the cause. And it's not just a few people. The majority of people in the past 10,000 years have been motivated to evil causes either committing vile acts themselves or enabling others directly due to religion. History supports my beliefs and contradicts yours.

And again, what the flying fuck is the upside of the delusion you call a religion?

PeopleUnited says

There is plenty of violence and hate in this world that has nothing to do with religion.

There is plenty of violence in this world not caused by North Korea having nukes and ICBMs. That does not imply that it's OK for North Korea to have nukes and ICBMs. Is logic really that hard?

rando says

No violence required. No war. Just honesty and courage.

Yes, but honesty and courage in opposition to all religions, not just the worse one.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

I don't get it. Are you saying that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is Islamic? Why would you think that? Oh, I get it...

www.youtube.com/embed/ilCmywMin8I

Don't you know your opinion doesn't count and you need to check your CIS sane privilege lest you offend the retards.

curious2 says

eternal paradise with 72 whores

Paid for by blood.

Rin says

curious2 says

eternal paradise with 72 whores

Paid for by blood.

I'm sorry, but 72 women who went through their entire lives as virgins? You know you're getting 72 of these...

And I mean the one on the left.

rando says

To be sure George W. Bush and his agreement with the Saudis to invade Iraq as "retaliation" for the Saudi attack on America on 9/11 is one factor which has helped the Islamic terrorist wave along. Bush should be in jail.

This is nonsense. I thought we discussed this before? The Saudis publicly and privately didn't want Saddam toppled because they knew the Shia majority would take over in Iraq and give Iran more influence.......as they most certainly did.

Dan8267 says

PeopleUnited says

There is plenty of violence and hate in this world that has nothing to do with religion.

There is plenty of violence in this world not caused by North Korea having nukes and ICBMs. That does not imply that it's OK for North Korea to have nukes and ICBMs. Is logic really that hard?

Good thinking Dan. There is hope for you after all.
Do us a favor and knock some sense into Pinky.

Can you imagine what would happen if a group of Christians put together a new Crusade against ISIS, chartered a few boats, and set sail for Syria loaded down with weapons and ammo? What kind of world condemnation would result? Would the ship even be allowed to arrive or be torpedoed to the bottom by UN interests?

Yet the reverse is happening and we shake our heads and cry diversity...

Dan8267 says

rando says

No violence required. No war. Just honesty and courage.

Yes, but honesty and courage in opposition to all religions, not just the worse one.

Starting with the worst one. What's the point of attacking the Buddhist Dalai Lama when all he wants to do is meditate.

curious2 says

Perhaps the Internet doesn't work where you are, or nobody has taught you how to use a search engine. You might consider China (61% atheist, 6% religious), and several other successful countries have wide majorities who are not religious. You don't know what "we always had" unless you are a lot older and better read than you appear to be.

THAT"s your example? China?? For real?

A country that a few decades ago killed tens of millions of their own people and have now totally fucked up their demographic balance with their forced abortion and sterilization policies resulting in huge numbers of men with no women to marry? Millions and millions of little spoiled napoleon-complex males with no sexual outlet. That will end well!

Europe is regressing in part because their atheist culture can't even be bothered to procreate to maintain their welfare state, let alone their civilization. Same deal with Russia. A hollowed out country of alcoholics. It's fucking bleak if you ask me.

History belongs to those who bother to show up.

socal2 says

Europe is regressing in part because their atheist culture can't even be bothered to procreate to maintain their welfare state, let alone their civilization. Same deal with Russia. A hollowed out country of alcoholics. It's fucking bleak if you ask me.

My prediction is, by the end of the century the majority of the world's population will be a highly educated, productive, and almost totally atheist.
Religion is nothing but history, myths, rumors, superstitions, and a hell of a lot of nonsense. Religion causes wars, human rights abuses, and restricts scientific development and progress. If anyone wants to believe all that supernatural nonsense that religion preaches, please go ahead. There is no law against stupidity.

socal2 says

History belongs to those who bother to show up.

I have to agree with that. You have made some good points.

Marcus tried to make some of the same points, but stumbled into false and illogical absolutes and emotional ad hominem nonsense.

One question though: how have all other species aside from humans survived without religion? You don't see most bears paying a subset of bears to opine about imaginary deities. You don't even see other primates doing that. If religion is essential to our success, how did our pre-human ancestors manage to succeed without it?

Perhaps when you criticize atheism, you're really trying to criticize modern western materialism, which arrived in Russia amid the collapse of Soviet communism.

Blind beliefs, what religions are about, predispose towards tribalism, fanaticism, and enable manipulation. The degree to which they are able to influence people depend on the circumstances - education of the population, economic and political situation, etc. However, given the "right" conditions, they incite and justify horrible acts.

Right now, a large part of the muslim world lives in such conditions - lack of education, poverty, overpopulation, fail states, foreign interventions, aggressions and occupations. It is therefore not surprising that right now muslims are the perpetrators of horrific acts incited by religion. However, if we look into the not too distant past, there are plenty of instances of other religious groups conducting atrocities. So the specifics of the muslim religion alone cannot explain the terrorist acts today.

If people adhering to other religions are put into similar circumstances (including educational lever, religiousness, etc), I expect that they will also turn to violence. Maybe the degree of savagery or the methods of killing will be different, but these are details. The mere existence/influence of religion and the other factors mentioned above are primary and more important than the exact flavor or religion. You cannot change the religion and reduce its influence before educating people and improving their way of life.

curious2 says

If religion is essential to our success, how did our pre-human ancestors manage to succeed without it?

They don't believe we had pre-human ancestors. They think we did not evolve, and the earth is only 6,000 years old.
I once read....."God was a primitive means of explaining the unknown" Yes, we humans started to think then, but we could only come up with primitive theories called God and religion due to our limited knowledge. We know that is nonsense today, but clearly we have not advanced enough to know where everything came from.

Strategist says

They don't believe we had pre-human ancestors. They think we did not evolve, and the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Catholics believe in evolution. Jews believe in evolution. Do you not know this?

curious2 says

One question though: how have all other species aside from humans survived without religion? You don't see most bears paying a subset of bears to opine about imaginary deities. You don't even see other primates doing that. If religion is essential to our success, how did our pre-human ancestors manage to succeed without it?

Our pre-human ancestors didn't succeed. They are all extinct.

Bears (and many other nuisance species like great white sharks) would be extinct if humans didn't purposefully choose to conserve them at the expense of risking our own lives.

Humans are at the absolute top of all species. Nothing else comes close. What other species create art, music..........and organized religion?

socal2 says

This is nonsense. I thought we discussed this before? The Saudis publicly and privately didn't want Saddam toppled because they knew the Shia majority would take over in Iraq and give Iran more influence.......as they most certainly did.

OK, I've read about it and you're right. The Saudis feared an Iraqi invasion, but they also feared the breakup of Iraq and a resulting Shia-dominated part, which has in fact happened. And so they did not support the US invasion of Iraq.

The US ignored Saudi involvement in 9/11 and attacked Iraq simply because the excuse of 9/11 gave them the opportunity. Couldn't have Saddam threatening to price oil in Euros, because that would put the dollar under threat.

It does look like Bandar was involved in planning 9/11, though I still don't understand why exactly.

FP says

You cannot change the religion and reduce its influence before educating people and improving their way of life.

That's a false absolute, and it doesn't explain the radical disparities between Muslim countries and other countries that have similar poverty. Muslims are vastly more likely to commit terrorism than similarly poor people of any other religion. And, again, among Muslims, education and wealth increase the risk of terrorism; I don't know how many times I have to keep repeating that before it gets through. Think of OBL with his $10 million and university degree: that's a lot of education and improvement to deliver, only to see it diverted to jihad.

socal2 says

Our pre-human ancestors didn't succeed. They are all extinct.

Bears (and many other nuisance species like great white sharks) would be extinct if humans didn't purposefully choose to conserve them....

Neanderthals lived more than twice as long as humans have lived. Other species have been around much longer, and continue into the present, and may yet outlive us. The fact humans have exterminated many other species is not exactly an endorsement of religion. Human scientists deserve credit for exterminating smallpox, but most scientists are atheists or agnostic; exterminating many other species was a self-defeating blunder.

socal2 says

What other species create art, music..........and organized religion?

I'm delighted to learn that you appreciate Lady Gaga, but are you saying there were no successful civilizations before she arrived? I'm a fan, but even I survived for years before first hearing her name, and back then I did not even realize that she was essential. Today, yes, of course. And that's the issue with calling something essential: without it, what would have arisen instead?

FP says

Right now, a large part of the muslim world lives in such conditions - lack of education, poverty, overpopulation, fail states, foreign interventions, aggressions and occupations. It is therefore not surprising that right now muslims are the perpetrators of horrific acts incited by religion. However, if we look into the not too distant past, there are plenty of instances of other religious groups conducting atrocities. So the specifics of the muslim religion alone cannot explain the terrorist acts today.

FP, no one cares about past history. Right now there is a whole lot of muslim terrorists who wish death upon us all. ISIS was started under that premise. And the only reason those martyr occasions are rare is because they are fighting in the middle east, and can't afford to create more death in our country.

Christianity = love and forgiveness.
Islam (the popular ISIS verion) = murder everyone else.

That's no comparison today. Expecting those people to stop attempting to kill us is foolishly naive. Their business model and faith depends on murdering us.

Strategist says

They don't believe we had pre-human ancestors. They think we did not evolve, and the earth is only 6,000 years old.

You see if you need to believe this, what does it say about how secure you are in your beliefs ?

You could ask 100 Catholic priests, 200 protestant ministers (not fundies), i.e Episcopalian, Presbitarian, Lutheran, etc, 100 Rabbis and possibly not find a single one that believes this.

Kinda sad that you need to lie about what being religious means, in order to justify not believing. I don't particularly believe myself, but I believe there may be value in religion, an I admire some people who have faith. And I don't have any need to lie about what modern non fundamentalist religion is.

marcus says

Kinda sad that you need to lie about what being religious means, in order to justify not believing. I don't particularly believe myself, but I believe there may be value in religion, an I admire some people who have faith. And I don't have any need to lie about what modern non fundamentalist religion is.

Yes, there can be value in religion at times, but that does not negate the fact that religion is the number one cause of wars, human rights abuse, and suppression of progress.
Islam is the ultimate proof.