More on the "Religion of Peace."

[Bidin~Time]

Don't worry, the Christian Taliban in the U.S. is doing its part to uphold the doctrine that since men are weak and incapable of controlling themselves around women who show off their skin, they've once again told a girl at prom she was wearing something too revealing:

http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/05/student_shamed_over_revealing.html#incart_2box

That's a shame. However, on a positive note, she can ACTUALLY entertain the thought of attending a prom, as well as attending the school hosting it; hell she can even go to <whispers> college. And all this without having to fear for her life. I'm sure there are women and girls in Taliban controlled areas who would happily trade places with her.

 

[Busybody]

And as a woman, I'm expected to embrace this dismissal based upon gender?

Oh, and hope my presence on a porn board is never discovered lest i be stoned to death...or is it beheaded?

yes you are

stfu.....get outa here

 

[Busybody]

That's a shame. However, on a positive note, she can ACTUALLY entertain the thought of attending a prom, as well as attending the school hosting it; hell she can even go to <whispers> college. And all this without having to fear for her life. I'm sure there are women and girls in Taliban controlled areas who would happily trade places with her.

well said

so any of his ilk forget that

 

[Busybody]

Don't worry, the Christian Taliban in the U.S. is doing its part to uphold the doctrine that since men are weak and incapable of controlling themselves around women who show off their skin, they've once again told a girl at prom she was wearing something too revealing:

http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/05/student_shamed_over_revealing.html#incart_2box

where is religion in taht story?

 

[RobDownSouth]

That's a shame. However, on a positive note, she can ACTUALLY entertain the thought of attending a prom, as well as attending the school hosting it; hell she can even go to <whispers> college. And all this without having to fear for her life. I'm sure there are women and girls in Taliban controlled areas who would happily trade places with her.

Made me think of this....

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/31/48/4c/31484c4c9d3800a171b1a7060dd68543.jpg

 

[someoneyouknow]

where is religion in taht story?

1 Corinthians. Go look it up.

 

[Busybody]

1 Corinthians. Go look it up.

what part of IN THAT STORY has YOU mystified?

 

[Busybody]

1 Corinthians. Go look it up.

2 fucking long

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1

show me

 

[someoneyouknow]

That's a shame. However, on a positive note, she can ACTUALLY entertain the thought of attending a prom, as well as attending the school hosting it; hell she can even go to <whispers> college. And all this without having to fear for her life. I'm sure there are women and girls in Taliban controlled areas who would happily trade places with her.

I'm sure there are as well and I recently met two from Afghanistan. The point being while the Taliban and Al Qaeda and Deash and all the rest of the Muslim wackadoodles are doing their thing, very similar things are going on in this country under the guise of Christianity.

For the record, Tennessee recently tried to make the Bible its official book but the governor chickened out by using the Constitution to justify vetoing the bill. Apparently when its convenient to use the as cover Constitution it can't be used quickly enough, except when the Constitution doesn't allow Christianity to be the one national religion in which case it's an affront to Christians everywhere and a violation of their rights.

See how Christianity is becoming more like Islam? Or should I say, going back to the way Christianity used to be?

 

[snugglestruggle]

Made me think of this....

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/31/48/4c/31484c4c9d3800a171b1a7060dd68543.jpg

What do you have against black people with an unusually dark skin pigmentation?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

You keep repeating the same thing over and over, that being that ALL Muslims aren't terrorists. A point that I have readily conceded at every turn. But how do you know which are and which aren't? How do you know which are providing material support even if they aren't actively engaged in the death and destruction themselves? It was a rhetorical question, you DON'T know. No one knows for certain. And that being the case they are ALL under suspicion. Or is the proper term 'person(s) of interest' now?

The whole 'innocent until proven guilty' notion is a fine standard to adhere to when you're dealing with an orderly society populated here and there with the run of the mill criminal elements. They've always been around and always will be. But that noble concept begins to fall apart when faced with a group, and a rather sizable group at that, whose purpose is the utter destruction of said society. Their belief system is immiscible with secular law. It really is just that simple. Lincoln said it best, "the constitution is not a suicide pact."

Ishmael

I keep repeating the same thing over and over because you and yours keep repeating the same thing over and over: "How do you know which are (terrorists) and which aren't." "The constitution is not a suicide pact."

Lest you forget, I was one who was and still would be in favor of the NSA's telephone metadata database program. One, because it consisted entirely of third party information the, collection of which, did NOT require a warrant and thus constituted no violation of the Fourth Amendment whatsoever. That fact was long ago upheld by the Supreme Court. But this country went fucking nuts over nothing.

Nor was I outraged by so-called "torture" of illegal combatant detainees that rose to little more than emotional distress caused by yelling or shoving someone undergoing interrogation. And, no, that would not include waterboarding, ffs. That's a major problem with libnuts. They have no realistic perspective on what does and does not constitute torture or spying on Americans. But because THEY don't doesn't give YOU the right to shit can the Constitution.

Basically, you find terrorists by working outward to the broader network inhabited by a known terrorist. Western intelligence agencies do this all the time and very well with respect to targets outside the legal protections of domestic laws within the agency's home country. Within America, the FBI does it for the purpose of pursuing criminal prosecutions consistent with Constitutional limitations and protections.

This is simply the dual nature of fighting terrorism both on American soil and abroad. The Constitution is NOT a suicide pact when appropriately followed to obtain a criminal prosecution, NOR is it an impediment to inflicting casualties on enemies abroad in theaters of combat when capture and criminal prosecution is neither appropriate or possible.

We often have a choice in how to pursue this fight, and I have no problem in exercising that choice wisely. Most of our enemies are not subtle. This IS about religious dogma after all. If we don't have a half dozen intelligence agents sitting in every mosque throughout the world preaching "death to America" and making strong "friendships" with scores of attendees within those houses of "worship," I'd sure like to know why not.

Yeah, it's harder to fight the battle against enemies embedded here than those operating with less protection abroad. But unless you would LIKE to see door-to-door infantry fights in American cities, I think that's a "problem" worth having. Always.

 

[JinSun]

I keep repeating the same thing over and over because you and yours keep repeating the same thing over and over: "How do you know which are (terrorists) and which aren't." "The constitution is not a suicide pact."

Lest you forget, I was one who was and still would be in favor of the NSA's telephone metadata database program. One, because it consisted entirely of third party information the, collection of which, did NOT require a warrant and thus constituted no violation of the Fourth Amendment whatsoever. That fact was long ago upheld by the Supreme Court. But this country went fucking nuts over nothing.

Nor was I outraged by so-called "torture" of illegal combatant detainees that rose to little more than emotional distress caused by yelling or shoving someone undergoing interrogation. And, no, that would not include waterboarding, ffs. That's a major problem with libnuts. They have no realistic perspective on what does and does not constitute torture or spying on Americans. But because THEY don't doesn't give YOU the right to shit can the Constitution.

Basically, you find terrorists by working outward to the broader network inhabited by a known terrorist. Western intelligence agencies do this all the time and very well with respect to targets outside the legal protections of domestic laws within the agency's home country. Within America, the FBI does it for the purpose of pursuing criminal prosecutions consistent with Constitutional limitations and protections.

This is simply the dual nature of fighting terrorism both on American soil and abroad. The Constitution is NOT a suicide pact when appropriately followed to obtain a criminal prosecution, NOR is it an impediment to inflicting casualties on enemies abroad in theaters of combat when capture and criminal prosecution is neither appropriate or possible.

We often have a choice in how to pursue this fight, and I have no problem in exercising that choice wisely. Most of our enemies are not subtle. This IS about religious dogma after all. If we don't have a half dozen intelligence agents sitting in every mosque throughout the world preaching "death to America" and making strong "friendships" with scores of attendees within those houses of "worship," I'd sure like to know why not.

Yeah, it's harder to fight the battle against enemies embedded here than those operating with less protection abroad. But unless you would LIKE to see door-to-door infantry fights in American cities, I think that's a "problem" worth having. Always.

I think that about clears everything up. I'd just like to stress once more that this has very little to do with Islam itself. If these were Australians or Brits or even Canadians doing the things these terrorists do, it would be the same. The American people want safety and security but they don't want to know how we do it. Lets keep it like that.

 

[Ishmael]

I keep repeating the same thing over and over because you and yours keep repeating the same thing over and over: "How do you know which are (terrorists) and which aren't." "The constitution is not a suicide pact."

Lest you forget, I was one who was and still would be in favor of the NSA's telephone metadata database program. One, because it consisted entirely of third party information the, collection of which, did NOT require a warrant and thus constituted no violation of the Fourth Amendment whatsoever. That fact was long ago upheld by the Supreme Court. But this country went fucking nuts over nothing.

Nor was I outraged by so-called "torture" of illegal combatant detainees that rose to little more than emotional distress caused by yelling or shoving someone undergoing interrogation. And, no, that would not include waterboarding, ffs. That's a major problem with libnuts. They have no realistic perspective on what does and does not constitute torture or spying on Americans. But because THEY don't doesn't give YOU the right to shit can the Constitution.

Basically, you find terrorists by working outward to the broader network inhabited by a known terrorist. Western intelligence agencies do this all the time and very well with respect to targets outside the legal protections of domestic laws within the agency's home country. Within America, the FBI does it for the purpose of pursuing criminal prosecutions consistent with Constitutional limitations and protections.

This is simply the dual nature of fighting terrorism both on American soil and abroad. The Constitution is NOT a suicide pact when appropriately followed to obtain a criminal prosecution, NOR is it an impediment to inflicting casualties on enemies abroad in theaters of combat when capture and criminal prosecution is neither appropriate or possible.

We often have a choice in how to pursue this fight, and I have no problem in exercising that choice wisely. Most of our enemies are not subtle. This IS about religious dogma after all. If we don't have a half dozen intelligence agents sitting in every mosque throughout the world preaching "death to America" and making strong "friendships" with scores of attendees within those houses of "worship," I'd sure like to know why not.

Yeah, it's harder to fight the battle against enemies embedded here than those operating with less protection abroad. But unless you would LIKE to see door-to-door infantry fights in American cities, I think that's a "problem" worth having. Always.

Yes, yes, you continually respond to what I keep saying. But you continually focus on only the parts that you choose to respond to. You ignore my statements that their core tenets are immiscible with Western law and society. And perhaps I should expand that further to include ANY form of law or society that is not conformal to their beliefs because the focus of their violence is not restricted to to Judeo/Christian cultures. The Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, and those of other beliefs are as much subject to their violence as we are. It is not without reason that 90% of the identified terrorist groups, worldwide, are Islamic.

As I said before, they're like a really big street gang out to dominate their territory. And their territory, as ordained in the Qur'an is the entirety of humanity. Their only allowable form of government is a theocracy, also ordained in the Qur'an.

This is the part of the discussion that you refuse to engage in. But it is probably the most important part of the discussion.

And as an aside, where in the hell did this quip about door to door infantry tactics come in.......and why?

Ishmael

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Yes, yes, you continually respond to what I keep saying. But you continually focus on only the parts that you choose to respond to. You ignore my statements that their core tenets are immiscible with Western law and society. And perhaps I should expand that further to include ANY form of law or society that is not conformal to their beliefs because the focus of their violence is not restricted to to Judeo/Christian cultures. The Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, and those of other beliefs are as much subject to their violence as we are. It is not without reason that 90% of the identified terrorist groups, worldwide, are Islamic.

As I said before, they're like a really big street gang out to dominate their territory. And their territory, as ordained in the Qur'an is the entirety of humanity. Their only allowable form of government is a theocracy, also ordained in the Qur'an.

This is the part of the discussion that you refuse to engage in. But it is probably the most important part of the discussion.

And as an aside, where in the hell did this quip about door to door infantry tactics come in.......and why?

Ishmael

Let me try again. I keep repeating myself and addressing the "size" of your "street gang" because you don't seem to pay the least bit of attention to your own self-contradicting propaganda. By the numbers YOU have cited in this thread, only 10% of Muslims are faithful enough to their "core tenets" to take up arms and commit the violence you say they are called to commit.

You accuse me of ignoring the uncompromising CALL TO MILITANCY contained in the Qu'ran which constitutes the virtual totality of the militant Islamists' dogma. Untrue. I freely acknowledge it. I discuss this all the time. Unacceptable to you, however, is the fact that I discuss it relative to the 90% of Muslims (a percentage you say you accept and acknowledge) which are merely "sympathetic" (50%) or wholly UNsympathetic (40%) to the "core tenets" of militant jihad and thus create a religion that is thoroughly at war with itself as much or more than it is with the rest of humanity.

Now I know you like to think that when push comes to shove that that sympathetic 50% is going to slide on over to the blood lust Sunni brigade one fine day and present a unified force against the rest of the world. But events in the region unmistakably suggest otherwise. There has been no shortage of cleaved infidel Muslim heads bloodying the sands of the Middle East since the First Fitna of 656 A. D. This internal strife continued to be at the heart of the rise of ISIS in direct response to the sectarian excesses of Iraq prime minister Nouri al-Maliki for the past decade.

The lie you insist on retelling is the portrayal of Islam as a monolithic, united violent force against the rest of the non-Muslim world. Nothing could be further from the truth. The unceasing savagery of the schisms and civil wars within Islam's various denominations and sects over the centuries make the war between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland look like an Amish barn raising in Lancaster, PA.

Talk about responses focusing on only preferential parts, focus on this. If 10% of all Muslims seek to subjugate the "entirety of humanity" by violence, then that humanity unarguably includes the 90% of all other Muslims significantly less pre-disposed to violence than the 10% of Islamic true believers would ruthlessly demand.

Until YOU honestly deal with this issue, I will continue to bring it within the line of sight of your pathetically narrow view.

And as an aside, where in the hell did this quip about door to door infantry tactics come in.......and why?

Ishmael

I tossed that in for those who like to believe we can legally apply a "construct of war" response to any and every act of terrorism committed on American soil. It simply is not true. Neither the American people nor the courts are going to support blatant violation of the Posse Comitatus Act without the expressed intent of Congress backed by unambiguous legislation.

We can certainly fight an all out war on American soil as the Germans did on German soil during World War II, but the kinetic threat to the United States will need to be no less dire.

 

[Ishmael]

Let me try again. I keep repeating myself and addressing the "size" of your "street gang" because you don't seem to pay the least bit of attention to your own self-contradicting propaganda. By the numbers YOU have cited in this thread, only 10% of Muslims are faithful enough to their "core tenets" to take up arms and commit the violence you say they are called to commit.

You accuse me of ignoring the uncompromising CALL TO MILITANCY contained in the Qu'ran which constitutes the virtual totality of the militant Islamists' dogma. Untrue. I freely acknowledge it. I discuss this all the time. Unacceptable to you, however, is the fact that I discuss it relative to the 90% of Muslims (a percentage you say you accept and acknowledge) which are merely "sympathetic" (50%) or wholly UNsympathetic (40%) to the "core tenets" of militant jihad and thus create a religion that is thoroughly at war with itself as much or more than it is with the rest of humanity.

Now I know you like to think that when push comes to shove that that sympathetic 50% is going to slide on over to the blood lust Sunni brigade one fine day and present a unified force against the rest of the world. But events in the region unmistakably suggest otherwise. There has been no shortage of cleaved infidel Muslim heads bloodying the sands of the Middle East since the First Fitna of 656 A. D. This internal strife continued to be at the heart of the rise of ISIS in direct response to the sectarian excesses of Iraq prime minister Nouri al-Maliki for the past decade.

The lie you insist on retelling is the portrayal of Islam as a monolithic, united violent force against the rest of the non-Muslim world. Nothing could be further from the truth. The unceasing savagery of the schisms and civil wars within Islam's various denominations and sects over the centuries make the war between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland look like an Amish barn raising in Lancaster, PA.

Talk about responses focusing on only preferential parts, focus on this. If 10% of all Muslims seek to subjugate the "entirety of humanity" by violence, then that humanity unarguably includes the 90% of all other Muslims significantly less pre-disposed to violence than the 10% of true believers would ruthlessly demand.

Until YOU honestly deal with this issue, I will continue to bring it within the line of sight of your pathetically narrow view.



I tossed that in for those who like to believe we can legally apply a "construct of war" response to any and every act of terrorism committed on American soil. It simply is not true. Neither the American people nor the courts are going to support blatant violation of the Posse Comitatus Act without the expressed intent of Congress backed by unambiguous legislation.

We can certainly fight an all out war on American soil as the Germans did on German soil during World War II, but the kinetic threat to the United States will need to be no less dire.

At least I now know where your 90% number came from. So let's play the numb3rs game for a bit.

'Legally' we can do anything we want to do. The ethics involved are a whole different discussion. But we can significantly reduce the risk without having to sacrifice ethics. Merely a matter of establishing priorities.

What is of the highest priority? The welfare of the citizenry, or using the national treasure to put on acts of 'charity' for the benefit of being 'liked?' It's apparent that this 'charity' isn't being appreciated by anyone, least of all the recipients.

We agree to disagree on the followers of Islam. You from a legal standpoint, I from the standpoint of their doctrinal beliefs.

But why in the world would we want more in this nation? And not just the followers of Mohamed, but the flood from across the borders? The deficits far outweigh the benefits. They, all of them for the most part, are unskilled, uneducated, and unhealthy. In a world that is rapidly replacing cheap labor with robots, what are they going to do? Idle hands are the devils workshop and that phrase is of more than religious meaning.

Angela finally came out and said it out loud. Germany needed them to pay taxes. Taxes to support the outlandish social welfare programs the Germans, and the rest of Europe, had put in place. Follow the money. But of what value are unskilled laborers in a post industrial/service world? Not a hell of a lot, just more welfare recipients.

The Pols, like the generals that plan on fighting the last war again, have not considered what technology has wrought. They'd best be considering how to tax robots. And they will, eventually. God knows the bastards will tax anything they can get away with.

Which brings us full circle, what in the hell do we need them for? To flood the nation with the unemployed to be supported by robots so one party or another can maintain power? Who are the pawns in that game?

The obstacles for this nation are high enough in the coming years not to have them confounded by politicians preying on false charity so as to maintain political power based on a paradigm that is no longer valid. Who are the pawns in that game?

The Muslims belong in Muslimabad. Let them sort out there own problems, we have enough of our own without having to deal with their bullshit as well.

And as a footnote, I think this whole, "Leader of the free world" and "most powerful man in the world" is really starting to take hold with our modern presidents. The press is pushing it and I think it's unhealthy.

Ishmael

 

[phrodeau]

It's all the fault of those huddled masses yearning to get free stuff.

 

[Ishmael]

It's all the fault of those huddled masses yearning to get free stuff.

You're a real deep thinker sparky.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

In the first place, most of the violence in your stupid RANTburg link is in the combat theaters of the Middle East -- Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. My point is that there is a disparity of the export of the "revolution" outside of these areas given the allegation of the size of the jihadist community internationally.

Secondly, who the fuck do you think your kidding? When were YOU concerned about any deaths at the hands of jihadists other than white deaths? Shia and Sunni Muslims have been slaughtering each other for centuries. When did you ever give a shit?

"Kill 'em all!" is your meme, I believe. ISIS is your dream come true. They are far more concerned with beheading Sunnis than you. If they manage to catch you with the same pooper scooper, all well and good. But if you really believe they have a ghost of a chance of actually realizing their "goal" of having a caliphate ruling over Western Europe and the United States, you are truly dumber than I ever thought you were.

Agreed. This is what they do when we take out their leadership because it is despotic, cruel and undemocratic. Without someone to fear, without the morality police and without the threat of death, they behave as their culture and religion has taught them to behave; Islam is a cult of war created out of Syriac Christianity to suit the mores and customs of a raiding and rapacious culture.

As Ishmael is patiently pointing out, there is a significant percentage of the peaceful population that cannot bring itself to condemn Jihad because they are sympathetic with its aim to impose morality on the immoral.

In my over half a century on this planet, I have watched as we ruthlessly purged the Christians of this proclivity only to see the purgers turn around and deny that Islam has stepped into the void they created.

 

[Busybody]

I keep repeating the same thing over and over because you and yours keep repeating the same thing over and over: "How do you know which are (terrorists) and which aren't." "The constitution is not a suicide pact."

Lest you forget, I was one who was and still would be in favor of the NSA's telephone metadata database program. One, because it consisted entirely of third party information the, collection of which, did NOT require a warrant and thus constituted no violation of the Fourth Amendment whatsoever. That fact was long ago upheld by the Supreme Court. But this country went fucking nuts over nothing.

Nor was I outraged by so-called "torture" of illegal combatant detainees that rose to little more than emotional distress caused by yelling or shoving someone undergoing interrogation. And, no, that would not include waterboarding, ffs. That's a major problem with libnuts. They have no realistic perspective on what does and does not constitute torture or spying on Americans. But because THEY don't doesn't give YOU the right to shit can the Constitution.

Basically, you find terrorists by working outward to the broader network inhabited by a known terrorist. Western intelligence agencies do this all the time and very well with respect to targets outside the legal protections of domestic laws within the agency's home country. Within America, the FBI does it for the purpose of pursuing criminal prosecutions consistent with Constitutional limitations and protections.

This is simply the dual nature of fighting terrorism both on American soil and abroad. The Constitution is NOT a suicide pact when appropriately followed to obtain a criminal prosecution, NOR is it an impediment to inflicting casualties on enemies abroad in theaters of combat when capture and criminal prosecution is neither appropriate or possible.

We often have a choice in how to pursue this fight, and I have no problem in exercising that choice wisely. Most of our enemies are not subtle. This IS about religious dogma after all. If we don't have a half dozen intelligence agents sitting in every mosque throughout the world preaching "death to America" and making strong "friendships" with scores of attendees within those houses of "worship," I'd sure like to know why not.

Yeah, it's harder to fight the battle against enemies embedded here than those operating with less protection abroad. But unless you would LIKE to see door-to-door infantry fights in American cities, I think that's a "problem" worth having. Always.

my goodness, Im surprised you dont bore yourself with these LONG TOMES

here is THE problem

when the US et all LOOK for TERRORISTS

they LOOK FOR VETERANS, NRA PEOPLE etc etc etc etc etc, and last on TOTEM pole, MUSLIMS.....thats why KNOWN WOLVES ALWAYS COMMIT TERRIR



Its simple stupid

ITS ISLAM, ITS MUSLIMS, KILL EM

 

[Busybody]

LOOK AT SPLC

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/hate-incidents

Note MUSLIMS?

I dont

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

They're praying to be last...



... or waiting for a timely conversion.

 

[Lancecastor]

It's all the fault of those huddled masses yearning to get free stuff.

T Mobile has kiosks on Lesbos to get the boat people to switch upon arrival.

Free Unlimited data and international texting.

 

[Busybody]

Top General: We Should Never ‘Send Americans Into A Fair Fight’



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/27/t...nd-americans-into-a-fair-fight/#ixzz47VTVZJfw


I agree

KILL EM ALL!

 

[Colonel Hogan]

We agree to disagree on the followers of Islam. You from a legal standpoint, I from the standpoint of their doctrinal beliefs.

No. Stop. Let's keep this simple. Are you defining our disagreement on the number of Muslims committed to violent jihad? There is nothing "legal" about the number itself, whatever it may be. It's just a number. Nor do I define "committed" in a legalese context. But I do define it in a context far more likely to produce direct violent action from the "believer" than mere "sympathy." I hardly think that is an insignificant distinction.

You say the number is 10% based on independent opinion polls. Okay. For purposes of discussion the population of militant Islamic jihadists IS roughly 10%. Are we now in agreement on that?

My bitch with you and others is that you then proceed to paint 100% of Muslims with the "doctrinal beliefs" held primarily by militant jihadists. You only quote the most militant of passages from the Qur'an which militants use to justify their butchery and NEVER give equal time as to WHY such large numbers of other Muslims (upwards of 90% as you've allowed) don't interpret those passages in the same fundamentalist way as the militants.

You NEVER address that wide diversity of BELIEF within Islam and the impact such diversity of belief has on the realistic threat from a mere 10% of lunatics within a religion.

You talk out of both sides of your mouth and the right side belies the left. When you speak of "THEIR" doctrinal beliefs and the focus of "THEIR" violence, your implication, left unqualified, is that ALL Muslims have violent beliefs and inclinations. The "correct" interpretation of the doctrine leaves no other possibility.

But you've admitted not only the possibility, but the unarguable fact that a vast number of Muslims don't hold such violent beliefs and, therefore, are not at all likely to act violently in response to inflammatory doctrine.

And then in your next post or thread, you will turn right around and minimize the very existence of this overwhelming majority of Muslims who reject the slaughter of non-believers as sound Islamic doctrine.

This isn't about your opposition to immigrant refugees. It's about your hypocritical refusal to paint an accurate picture of what most Muslims believe, and, far more importantly, what they are actually likely to DO to non-believers as a result.

 

[Busybody]

No. Stop. Let's keep this simple. Are you defining our disagreement on the number of Muslims committed to violent jihad? There is nothing "legal" about the number itself, whatever it may be. It's just a number. Nor do I define "committed" in a legalese context. But I do define it in a context far more likely to produce direct violent action from the "believer" than mere "sympathy." I hardly think that is an insignificant distinction.

You say the number is 10% based on independent opinion polls. Okay. For purposes of discussion the population of militant Islamic jihadists IS roughly 10%. Are we now in agreement on that?

My bitch with you and others is that you then proceed to paint 100% of Muslims with the "doctrinal beliefs" held primarily by militant jihadists. You only quote the most militant of passages from the Qur'an which militants use to justify their butchery and NEVER give equal time as to WHY such large numbers of other Muslims (upwards of 90% as you've allowed) don't interpret those passages in the same fundamentalist way as the militants.

You NEVER address that wide diversity of BELIEF within Islam and the impact such diversity of belief has on the realistic threat from a mere 10% of lunatics within a religion.

You talk out of both sides of your mouth and the right side belies the left. When you speak of "THEIR" doctrinal beliefs and the focus of "THEIR" violence, your implication, left unqualified, is that ALL Muslims have violent beliefs and inclinations. The "correct" interpretation of the doctrine leaves no other possibility.

But you've admitted not only the possibility, but the unarguable fact that a vast number of Muslims don't hold such violent beliefs and, therefore, are not at all likely to act violently in response to inflammatory doctrine.

And then in your next post or thread, you will turn right around and minimize the very existence of this overwhelming majority of Muslims who reject the slaughter of non-believers as sound Islamic doctrine.

This isn't about your opposition to immigrant refugees. It's about your hypocritical refusal to paint an accurate picture of what most Muslims believe, and, far more importantly, what they are actually likely to DO to non-believers as a result.

10% is 150 million

diversity in Islam doesnt mean what you want it to mean

HOW DO YOU TELL THE GOOD FROM THE BAD