could it be that the religion islam is a trojan horse
- Thread starter thepenofareadywriter
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so the 8 muslims you know make you a bigger expert than the 8 muslims i've known?
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
I think those muslims would say it was americans. The US military is made up of many religions, including muslims. The attacks were not done because of, or in the name of, christianity...
Yes, this is horrible. These acts of violence were not because of religious commands to do so, whereas Islamic acts of violence are done because of religious commands to do so...
When you say 'ours', I take it you mean americans? If so, I totally agree. This was my statement - "Islam is currently more violent than the other abrahamic religions because of god's commands to commit ongoing violence..."
My statement was regarding abrahamic religions. America is not an abrahamic religion, so my statement stands...
Yes, but as christians they are to be following the new testament, which abrogates the commands of the old testament. There are no verses that incite violence in the new testament afaik...
That may be true, but again, these other groups are not mistreating women because their religion tells them them to. Whereas when women are oppressed in the Islamic world, it is directly because their religion tells them to. I think a lot of the confusion comes from not differentiating a religion (Islam) from political entities (america, the tea party, etc.). Political entities have done far more violence than Islam, no doubt. Some talk about muslims as if it were a race of people and Islam as if it were a specific region, while of course, there are muslims of every race and in nearly every country. Americans citizens are made up of every religion, including Islam. America is mostly made up of christians, but america does not do its violence in the the name of, or commands of, christianity. Islam does its violence in the name of, and commands of, Islam. That is the major difference that seems people seem to be missing...
It's all so horrible...
Last edited:
panhead
Well-Known Member
Ask that question after you've been forced to change your religion then driven from your homeland under pain of death by a terror group .
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
iraq was a war of choice by a born again christian who said god talks to him and whose country is almost 80% christian.
false on all counts.
murdering abortion doctors and bombing gay night clubs is because they think god commands them to end abortion or the unnatural gayness of people. the KKK was a christian organization who cited biblical verses to persecute blacks. manifest destiny (euphemism for native american genocide) was a wholly christian concept.
and i'd say a lot of islamic violence against us is not because the koran commands them to do so, but because we swooped into their land out of choice and killed 135000+ innocent civilians directly (another 1-2.5 million indirectly by ruining their homeland). not to mention all the women our soldiers raped while we were over there.
i honestly think that our destructive role is why some want to kill us not because of some book.
does that make sense? would you agree?
i mean judeo-christian western civilizations. that's who they see coming into their country out of choice and killing innocent civilians by the hundreds of thousands.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
they sound like violent people.
perhaps not as violent as those whose views would be described as genocidal. but ya know. pretty violent.
say, what did our forefatehrs do the natives of this nation in the name of christianity? was it a convert or die kinda thing?
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Those are horrible sentiments from sick minds, for sure...
Of course not all Muslims want to kill us, or anyone. Most of the 30 or so muslims that I got to know well (fiance's friends and family) did not wish violence toward anyone (a few or them REALLY did, though). At the same time, they realize their holy texts command it. It is similar for members of any group who's organization commands unsavory action, be they christian, jewish, etc.. Since most humans are intrinsically moral, they will cherry pick the moral parts and leave alone the shitty aspects of their group's dogma. But just because most muslims don't practice this violence doesn't mean they're not supposed to according the their holy texts. That is the part that concerns me, that they are supposed to...
Last edited:
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
nope. not true.
some who prey on the stupidity and desperation of the illiterate and poor will pervert the koran in that fashion, but what you state is simply not the case anymore than it is the case for jews or christians.
panhead
Well-Known Member
their body count is nowhere near ours, your statement is false. demonstrably so.[/QUOTE]
When you say 'ours', I take it you mean americans? If so, I totally agree. This was my statement - "Islam is currently more violent than the other abrahamic religions because of god's commands to commit ongoing violence..."
My statement was regarding abrahamic religions. America is not an abrahamic religion, so my statement stands...
Yes, but as christians they are to be following the new testament, which abrogates the commands of the old testament. There are no verses that incite violence in the new testament afaik...
That may be true, but again, these other groups are not mistreating women because their religion tells them them to. Whereas when women are oppressed in the Islamic world, it is directly because their religion tells them to. I think a lot of the confusion comes from not differentiating a religion (Islam) from political entities (america, the tea party, etc.). Political entities have done far more violence than Islam, no doubt. Some talk about muslims as if it were a race of people and Islam as if it were a specific region, while of course, there are muslims of every race and in nearly every country. Americans citizens are made up of every religion, including Islam. America is mostly made up of christians, but america does not do its violence in the the name of, or commands of, christianity. Islam does its violence in the name of, and commands of, Islam. That is the major difference that seems people seem to be missing...
It's all so horrible...[/QUOTE]
So many points you made I agree on , way too many to quote .
You do realize that any anecdotal evidence you post will be disregarded as irrelevant & the points you made will only be answered with more probing questions or comparisons.
We got it from the left flank earlier , now were getting it from the right flank while the left rests & prepares for battle , it's like a hockey team the way they work these threads .
I'm going to bed , it's more fun sleeping with a Muslim than arguing politics , g-night all .
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
This is where I stopped reading because you just admitted that your argument is separate from reality since you get to ignore history including the very recent history of genocidal wars against them by the West in order to insist they're some kind of threat.
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
The Iraq war was not made by Bush alone, it of course had congressional approval. It was not done in the name of christianity. The resolution named these factors -
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
I agree that these nuts thought that god wanted them to do these horrible things, but they did not get that idea from their holy text, which is the new testament. The biblical verses used by the KKK were not from the new testament, which is what christians are commanded to live by. Manifest Destiny had a christian element, but was by no means wholly christian, it was more racial and nationalistic...
I agree that a lot of hatred toward america is retaliatory. With or without those actions by the US, their holy texts command violence against us. So, those muslims that harbored no ill will for us before we unjustly attacked their land now have an excuse to follow the commands of the holy texts. It would be interesting to see an outraged muslim group attack the US and claim, 'This attack had nothing to do with Islam, it's because you guys are fucking assholes!' But afaik, muslim attacks are only cited in the name of Islam...
They see western nations coming to attack them which are largely comprised of christians and jews, but also include those nations' muslim troops. I believe they see western civilizations as monstrous polical entities, not as crusading christians...
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Sorry for the long cut & paste -
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Terrorism
Economic and Social Conditions
Terrorism goes across social and economic lines
The 400 terrorists on whom I’ve collected data were the ones who actually targeted the “far enemy,” the U.S., as opposed to their own governments. I wanted to limit myself for analytical purity to that group, to see if I could identify anything different from other terrorist movements, which were far more nationalistic.
Most people think that terrorism comes from poverty, broken families, ignorance, immaturity, lack of family or occupational responsibilities, weak minds susceptible to brainwashing - the sociopath, the criminals, the religious fanatic, or, in this country, some believe they’re just plain evil.
Taking these perceived root causes in turn, three quarters of my sample came from the upper or middle class. The vast majority—90 percent—came from caring, intact families. Sixty-three percent had gone to college, as compared with the 5-6 percent that’s usual for the third world. These are the best and brightest of their societies in many ways.
Al Qaeda’s members are not the Palestinian fourteen-year- olds we see on the news, but join the jihad at the average age of 26. Three-quarters were professionals or semi- professionals. They are engineers, architects, and civil engineers, mostly scientists. Very few humanities are represented, and quite surprisingly very few had any background in religion. The natural sciences predominate. Bin Laden himself is a civil engineer, Zawahiri is a physician, Mohammed Atta was, of course, an architect; and a few members are military, such as Mohammed Ibrahim Makawi, who is supposedly the head of the military committee.
Far from having no family or job responsibilities, 73 percent were married and the vast majority had children. Those who were not married were usually too young to be married. Only 13 percent were madrassa-trained and most of them come from what I call the Southeast Asian sample, the Jemaah Islamiyya (JI). They had gone to schools headed by Sungkar and Bashir. Sungkar was the head of JI; he died in 1999. His successor, Bashir, is the cleric who is being tried for the Jakarta Marriott bombing of August 2003; he is also suspected of planning the October 2002 Bali bombing.
As a psychiatrist, originally I was looking for any characteristic common to these men. But only four of the 400 men had any hint of a disorder. This is below the worldwide base rate for thought disorders. So they are as healthy as the general population. I didn’t find many personality disorders, which makes sense in that people who are antisocial usually don’t cooperate well enough with others to join groups. This is a well-organized type of terrorism these men are not like Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, loners off planning in the woods. Loners are weeded out early on. Of the nineteen 9-11 terrorists, none had a criminal record. You could almost say that those least likely to cause harm individually are most likely to do so collectively.
At the time they joined jihad, the terrorists were not very religious. They only became religious once they joined the jihad. Seventy percent of my sample joined the jihad while they were living in another country from where they grew up.[1]
December 2004
According to a Rand Corporation report on counter-terrorism, prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense (US), terrorists are not particularly impoverished, uneducated, or afflicted by mental disease.
Terrorists are not particularly impoverished, uneducated, or afflicted by mental disease. Demographically, their most important characteristic is normalcy (within their environment). Terrorist leaders actually tend to come from relatively privileged backgrounds. These conclusions are firmly supported by empirical analysis[2]
2009
2011 study finds no link between poverty and support for militant groups, and suggests poorer people are actually less likely to support extremist groups than the more affluent, better educated people.
What is your source for this statement?
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
No where do I ignore history, it is simply not the point of this thread. When discussing reality, it is possible to speak of the past, and it is possible to speak exclusively of the present. The thread's theme is asking if Islam is currently a threat. It seems that you are looking for a thread about which religion historically has the most violence under its belt, or the injustice by the US against middle eastern countries. It's not that I don't think those are important or interesting topics, it is simply that they are not the point of this thread...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i'm sure that citizens of muslim nations have a similar airing of grievances against the judeo-christian westerners who invaded their homeland and left hundreds of thousands of their innocent countrymen dead.
and let's not forget the raping of their women.
denial.
the KKK was motivated by christian beliefs. i will cite them.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm
those who murder abortion doctors and bomb gay night clubs are directly influenced by their texts. they don't care if it's new testament or not.
manifest destiny was justified almost wholly in christianity too.
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwo...9-manifest-destiny-and-american-indians-44894
no.
only very very very fringe elements of muslims have ever acted on their texts alone, which do not say what you think they say.
it is almost wholly retaliatory, not koran based. you'd feel the same way if someone came to your country, killed a few hundred thousand of your fellow citizens, and raped your women.
no. they directly cite our support for israel, which is driven wholly by religious beliefs. they see as as fighting a religious war. this is backed up by their stated reasons.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
sounds like his tiny study, which is not repeated anywhere that i can find, sows that the types of people actually taking up arms against foreign invaders are the same as the types of americans who would take up arms if a foreign invader swooped in and killed hundreds of thousands.
in other words, the types who would fight for country rather than koran thumping.
do you disagree?
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
I'm sure you're correct...
Those aren't christian beliefs, they are bibical beliefs in the old testament as the data in your post confirms. Christians are supposed to disregard the old testament since jesus came to clarify god's will (he was god himself, afterall) which is the new testament. If christians were supposed to follow the old testament, what would separate their beliefs from judaism?
I believe you are correct that these acts of violence are influenced by the old testament, but that is not christianity...
Your link is from a biased source, I think this link is from more diverse and accurate sources -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny
Afaik, there is nothing in christian dogma about Americans, or whites, having the right to conquer other peoples and take their land. Many people may have believed that god endorsed this concept, but it isn't from christian dogma...
Do you have a credible source for the statement that only fringe elements act on their texts alone? I was told what these texts say by lifelong Palestinian muslims from the Arabic quran (and confirming this via studying English interpretations), can you demonstrate how they are incorrect?
Is this an opinion, or a statement of fact? If the latter, may I ask for the sources?
No doubt...
Yes, you are correct that our support of Israel is a point of contention among muslims. I believe that it is partially viewed as a religious war, but I think most muslims are shrewd enough to see it for it's other purpose (and perhaps its main purpose), which is for the US to have a military foothold in the middle east. Our support if Israel is not entirely religious - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–United_States_relations
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
That study of 400 terrorists against the US was only a small part of the information I linked to, it was all I could paste into a single post. There are many other studies cited in my link from all around the world from many years, replete with links to those complete studies. If you find what you consider more comprehensive studies, I'll gladly take a look. I believe that all sorts of americans, or people of any other nationalities, would take up arms if their country was attacked. Your earlier statement was 'some who prey on the stupidity and desperation of the illiterate and poor will pervert the koran in that fashion'. I wanted to demonstrate that it is not mainly the illiterate and poor that understand these koranic verses as commanding violence, rather it is more often the educated and affluent that come from solid family backgrounds...
Last edited:
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So let's just ignore history then...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you keep saying this, but there is nothing about homosexuality being wrong in the new testament. yet christians are infamous for their gay bashing.
do you see the obvious double standard in your posts that i see?
that is just wishful thinking my friend.
i'm gonna hop out of this one, you don't seem to be prepared to abandon demonstrably false views.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
are those the same educated and affluent folks who are shrewd enough to discern that our support for israel is pretty much not religious and whatnot?
you seem to be implying that these are smart people who are not fighting because they perceive judeo-christian westerners supporting israel or because their homeland was invaded and their countrymen killed, but solely because "the foran commands them to do so".
when i put it like that, do you even believe that?