More on the "Religion of Peace."

[Ishmael]

Read the article or not as you will, but if you don't read it...........don't bother to argue that Islam is a "Religion of Peace."

Islam—Facts or Dreams?

Here's a teaser;

In 1993 I was a seasoned federal prosecutor, but I only knew as much about Islam as the average American with a reasonably good education—which is to say, not much. Consequently, when I was assigned to lead the prosecution of a terrorist cell that had bombed the World Trade Center and was plotting an even more devastating strike—simultaneous attacks on the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, the United Nations complex on the East River, and the FBI’s lower Manhattan headquarters—I had no trouble believing what our government was saying: that we should read nothing into the fact that all the men in this terrorist cell were Muslims; that their actions were not representative of any religion or belief system; and that to the extent they were explaining their atrocities by citing Islamic scripture, they were twisting and perverting one of the world’s great religions, a religion that encourages peace.

Unlike commentators and government press secretaries, I had to examine these claims. Prosecutors don’t get to base their cases on assertions. They have to prove things to commonsense Americans who must be satisfied about not only what happened but why it happened before they will convict people of serious crimes. And in examining the claims, I found them false.

Ishmael

 

[hashtag45]

And the storm is coming… . https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/e5/8a/52/e58a5251e62878171ac29619b69fcd87.jpg

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Yeah I'd like to see some apologists try and weedle out of this.

Not only have we had the problem eating away inside of 'us' in non-Islamic nations for a while, the funders and brains behind it all have played Western governments like the fools they have turned out to be.

I grew up in a Muslim country where my parents were at the top of government and the education system until after independence from the British Commonwealth - educationally, I grew up inside a United States Information Services Library, and when my father retired and left that country, his cooks and other household staff (albeit non Muslim) went to Washington DC to the White House staff. Fact.

Here in Australia, although I worked for government and in 'special areas,' no one ever asked me for my own experiences or insight and instead in fact, I have been lectured several times!!

Good luck sorting out the mess...

How much do I think the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 'royal family' has spent at its highest levels, in person, personally spent on organising Jihad around the world and since when?

I think they started at least as early on as the day of, or day after, the assassination of JFK, and you cannot enumerate the amount of money spent on the enterprise. And still being spent.

Who do I think Obama is? I KNOW who he is. And no American would believe me if I said. (but he's not Satan or Lucifer!!! Cruz we know, is that. Jokes aside, Obama is something directly and very physically, a part both of the House of Saud, and of one prominent though 'quite silent' American identity.) And I know this as a fact and not a theory or speculation.

 

[hashtag45]

Sorry, I don't mean it in any wrong way, but could you expand on the last paragraph (re Obama), please? It aroused my curiosity.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Who do I think Obama is? I KNOW who he is. And no American would believe me if I said. (but he's not Satan or Lucifer!!! Cruz we know, is that. Jokes aside, Obama is something directly and very physically, a part both of the House of Saud, and of one prominent thought 'quite silent' American identity.) And I know this as a fact and not a theory or speculation.

Perhaps you could expand upon your "part of the House of Saud" commentary.

 

[Lancecastor]

Aren't Muslims & Christians running about neck and neck for Most Killings in the Name of the Almighty?

 

[pensivepoet]

Aren't Muslims & Christians running about neck and neck for Most Killings in the Name of the Almighty?

All wars have religion somewhere in the recipe, and really, all killings in general if they're examined correctly.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

From your link:

Habitually, I distinguish between Islam and Muslims. It is objectively important to do so, but I also have a personal reason: when I began working on national security cases, the Muslims I first encountered were not terrorists. To the contrary, they were pro-American patriots who helped us infiltrate terror cells, disrupt mass-murder plots, and gather the evidence needed to convict jihadists. We have an obligation to our national security to understand our enemies; but we also have an obligation to our principles not to convict by association—not to confound our Islamist enemies with our Muslim allies and fellow citizens. Churchill appreciated this distinction. “Individual Moslems,” he stressed, “may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen.” The problem was not the people, he concluded. It was the doctrine.

If Andrew McCarthy can make this distinction, why not you and so many others who wish to damn with the broadest possible brush?

The overwhelming majority of modern day Muslims have and will continue to go to their graves having never lifted a finger against non-Muslims and, thus, by McCarthy's and your calculus constitute out-and-out traitors to their faith regardless of what they may believe or say they believe.

The question you'll never be able to answer with any certainty is why is this so? Why would the vast majority of a group of people profess belief in a spiritual global call to arms that they have no intention of ever answering?

Not that the question demands an explanation. When individuals choose NOT to behave criminally it would seem sufficient to attribute it to some enduring element of humanity and leave it at that.

Yet the terminally suspicious prefer to break with McCarthy's admonition and embrace "conviction by association" as the safer and obligatory approach to all Muslims simply because Sharia law speaks to all despite the paltry numbers who reliably answer back.

It is this disproportionality of the "true faithful," if you will, which apparently cause non-Muslims to refer to the religion as one of peace. They simply emphasize how it is practiced by the majority rather than taught by certain (but certainly not ALL) clerics.

Not that their "ignorance" will be outdone. There will always be a small cadre of folks like yourself who elect to overestimate the depth of darkness in the hearts of most Muslims (or at the very least their overt behavior) out of a similar ignorance merely oriented in the opposite direction.

Onward Christian soldier.

 

[richard_daily]

I've yet to come across a "religion of peace".

 

[doctor_insanus]

http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyfwfsmYcd1r8owpao1_1280.png

 

[pensivepoet]

I've been in many Christian churches.
In one, the Pastor said, 'the Christian army is the only one who shoots their own wounded"
I replied, "Amen"
To believe is one thing, religion is quite another.

 

[nerfhearder]

It's all in what you do with it. Most religions are pretty peaceful to start out. Jesus never said to whack anyone. And then the Romans got involved. The end.

Don't know about Mohammed. I read the Koran a long time ago but it's like any other religous text and takes actual study not casual reading and is always open to interpretation like anything else so I can't really say if it's peaceful or not.

Can't figure out the Jews so I don't know about them. Outside of Israel they're seemingly peaceful but the OT is just chock full of some hardcore punishments that they are supposed to use. But then of course they don't use them so who the fuck nows what's going on there. Jews probably don't even know. Even the ultra orthodox don't go around stoning people for wearing blended cloth or whatever the hell it is they can't do.

 

[Sean]

And all Catholics are IRA supporters that want to blow up babies, obviously.

 

[nerfhearder]

And all Catholics are IRA supporters that want to blow up babies, obviously.

Yes, I'm pretty sure all Catholics are evil. Except maybe the pope, he seems pretty cool.

 

[pensivepoet]

I studied up on mohammed many yrs ago. I don't remember much, but he seemed quite the schiester.
He and his gang would wait until the jews were resting on their holidays, then attack them and say allah gave them a great victory.
Pretty much the strategy they still use but not with near the effectiveness as the jews have some really cool weapons that kick ass.

 

[nerfhearder]

I studied up on mohammed many yrs ago. I don't remember much, but he seemed quite the schiester.
He and his gang would wait until the jews were resting on their holidays, then attack them and say allah gave them a great victory.
Pretty much the strategy they still use but not with near the effectiveness as the jews have some really cool weapons that kick ass.

Nowadays I wouldn't fuck with the Jews. Hundred years ago or more, sure. Don't think they can be wiped out though. Pretty much everyone has tried and they're still with us.

 

[pensivepoet]

Yes, I'm pretty sure all Catholics are evil. Except maybe the pope, he seems pretty cool.

If it were me, I'd probably reverse that and I was raised Catholic.
The Catholics are just like any other political system.
The higher up you go, the dirtier it gets.
You don't get to be Grand Poobah without cutting some nasty deals along the way.

 

[pensivepoet]

Nowadays I wouldn't fuck with the Jews. Hundred years ago or more, sure. Don't think they can be wiped out though. Pretty much everyone has tried and they're still with us.

Yeah, I think after WWII, the jews pretty much said, "fuck whitey!"
The pope knew what was going on, the Brits knew, the Americans knew, but they all pretended they didn't.
Stopping the Sun by holding up Moses' arm, parting seas, and shouting down walls didn't seem to be working anymore.
It was time for a new plan not quite so faith based.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

From your link:



If Andrew McCarthy can make this distinction, why not you and so many others who wish to damn with the broadest possible brush?

The overwhelming majority of modern day Muslims have and will continue to go to their graves having never lifted a finger against non-Muslims and, thus, by McCarthy's and your calculus constitute out-and-out traitors to their faith regardless of what they may believe or say they believe.

The question you'll never be able to answer with any certainty is why is this so? Why would the vast majority of a group of people profess belief in a spiritual global call to arms that they have no intention of ever answering?

Not that the question demands an explanation. When individuals choose NOT to behave criminally it would seem sufficient to attribute it to some enduring element of humanity and leave it at that.

Yet the terminally suspicious prefer to break with McCarthy's admonition and embrace "conviction by association" as the safer and obligatory approach to all Muslims simply because Sharia law speaks to all despite the paltry numbers who reliably answer back.

It is this disproportionality of the "true faithful," if you will, which apparently cause non-Muslims to refer to the religion as one of peace. They simply emphasize how it is practiced by the majority rather than taught by certain (but certainly not ALL) clerics.

Not that their "ignorance" will be outdone. There will always be a small cadre of folks like yourself who elect to overestimate the depth of darkness in the hearts of most Muslims (or at the very least their overt behavior) out of a similar ignorance merely oriented in the opposite direction.

Onward Christian soldier.

The problem here, and this is a really great post, is that it addresses the sheeple and not those who are willing to act (something that I have long been discussing with Ogg). In the West, we are busy using false equivalency, shame and even the law to prohibit the active from leading, content to suicide as long as we go gently into that good night with the knowledge that we treated their sheeple with proper compassion and dignity. Meanwhile, their motivated act under not just the edicts of their religion, but under the cover of our proclivity to moral relativism, hesitation and concern over the idea that we might created more activists from the sheeple.



And onward Christian Soldier was one of the battle hymns of the abolitionists.

~tee hee~

 

[RobDownSouth]

The problem here, and this is a really great post, is that it addresses the sheeple and not those who are willing to act (something that I have long been discussing with Ogg). In the West, we are busy using false equivalency, shame and even the law to prohibit the active from leading, content to suicide as long as we go gently into that good night with the knowledge that we treated their sheeple with proper compassion and dignity. Meanwhile, their motivated act under not just the edicts of their religion, but under the cover of our proclivity to moral relativism, hesitation and concern over the idea that we might created more activists from the sheeple.



And onward Christian Soldier was one of the battle hymns of the abolitionists.

~tee hee~

What an eloquent way to state "We should hate them all, as a precautionary measure"!

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The problem here, and this is a really great post, is that it addresses the sheeple and not those who are willing to act (something that I have long been discussing with Ogg). In the West, we are busy using false equivalency, shame and even the law to prohibit the active from leading, content to suicide as long as we go gently into that good night with the knowledge that we treated their sheeple with proper compassion and dignity. Meanwhile, their motivated act under not just the edicts of their religion, but under the cover of our proclivity to moral relativism, hesitation and concern over the idea that we might created more activists from the sheeple.



And onward Christian Soldier was one of the battle hymns of the abolitionists.

~tee hee~

I'm just suggesting that you and other Western reactionaries make an appropriate distinction between, and an accurate acknowledgement of, the relative numbers of what you call "sheeple" and "those willing to act" who make up the population within Islam. I fail to see why that should be a "problem" or why treating any person with "proper compassion and dignity" who is NOT a terrorist would be "suicidal."

Is it because, as BusyBody loves to squawk, "we can't tell the innocent from the guilty"? What a bizarre affront to our American legal tradition and mandate of innocent until PROVEN guilty. For all you know you come into contact with criminal elements on a regular basis. For all you know you routinely walk the streets, shake the hands and return normal civil courtesies with non-Islamists who would rob you of your possessions, rape your wife and daughter and kill you in your sleep for the $8.64 in the change jar sitting on your dresser. Do you ever give such potential coincidence a moment's thought?

Had you served in the military with Timothy McVey, lived next door to John Wayne Gacey or served a cup of coffee to Ted Bundy, would you have castigated yourself in any way for having failed to discern their criminal proclivities in advance?

If Islam is a religion of hate, is our criminal justice system also lax for having allowed the Ku Klux Klan to exist for decades knowing full well that its members were responsible for all manner of criminal assault and murder throughout the South? What responsibility do we have as a society to repress the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church before one of those nutbags goes offline and actually kills a "fag member of the military in uniform" simply because -- well, you know, he or she was IN uniform?

I fully share your frustration that President Obama and many others fail to identify "radical Islamists" by that appropriate label. But at best, it is a PR irritation. If avoiding the label does nothing to deter the motivations or actions of "those who are willing to act" criminally, where is the evidence that failure to call the enemy by the wholly accurate characterization increases their number? Incorrectly assuming that future criminals who have yet to commit a crime are "hiding under the radar" among a greater population of innocents and that such evasion alone and long before any criminal conspiracy begins formation somehow represents a "moral" failure of government and tactical incompetence of law enforcement is the biggest lie that your own "false equivalency" (i.e. every Muslim is a potential terrorist fully worthy of the most discriminating suspicion) propagates.

That is YOUR "shame" born from YOUR "immoral relativism" which you and far too many others have nonetheless chosen to wear so arrogantly. Such a posture bewilders the minds of normal people who can only attribute such odd beliefs as an inexplicable mutation of biology or sociology which itself is inadequately (but not inaccurately) characterized as "mere ignorance."

 

[Busybody]

I'm just suggesting that you and other Western reactionaries make an appropriate distinction between, and an accurate acknowledgement of, the relative numbers of what you call "sheeple" and "those willing to act" who make up the population within Islam. I fail to see why that should be a "problem" or why treating any person with "proper compassion and dignity" who is NOT a terrorist would be "suicidal."

Is it because, as BusyBody loves to squawk, "we can't tell the innocent from the guilty"? What a bizarre affront to our American legal tradition and mandate of innocent until PROVEN guilty. For all you know you come into contact with criminal elements on a regular basis. For all you know you routinely walk the streets, shake the hands and return normal civil courtesies with non-Islamists who would rob you of your possessions, rape your wife and daughter and kill you in your sleep for the $8.64 in the change jar sitting on your dresser. Do you ever give such potential coincidence a moment's thought?

Had you served in the military with Timothy McVey, lived next door to John Wayne Gacey or served a cup of coffee to Ted Bundy, would you have castigated yourself in any way for having failed to discern their criminal proclivities in advance?

If Islam is a religion of hate, is our criminal justice system also lax for having allowed the Ku Klux Klan to exist for decades knowing full well that its members were responsible for all manner of criminal assault and murder throughout the South? What responsibility do we have as a society to repress the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church before one of those nutbags goes offline and actually kills a "fag member of the military in uniform" simply because -- well, you know, he or she was IN uniform?

I fully share your frustration that President Obama and many others fail to identify "radical Islamists" by that appropriate label. But at best, it is a PR irritation. If avoiding the label does nothing to deter the motivations or actions of "those who are willing to act" criminally, where is the evidence that failure to call the enemy by the wholly accurate characterization increases their number? Incorrectly assuming that future criminals who have yet to commit a crime are "hiding under the radar" among a greater population of innocents and that such evasion alone and long before any criminal conspiracy begins formation somehow represents a "moral" failure of government and tactical incompetence of law enforcement is the biggest lie that your own "false equivalency" (i.e. every Muslim is a potential terrorist fully worthy of the most discriminating suspicion) propagates.

That is YOUR "shame" born from YOUR "immoral relativism" which you and far too many others have nonetheless chosen to wear so arrogantly. Such a posture bewilders the minds of normal people who can only attribute such odd beliefs as an inexplicable mutation of biology or sociology which itself is inadequately (but not inaccurately) characterized as "mere ignorance."

saying TERRORISM is a CRIMINAL process is OGGISM and SUICIDE

its WAR

DEAL WITH IT AS SUCH

 

[Beco]

Aren't Muslims & Christians running about neck and neck for Most Killings in the Name of the Almighty?

Yes, but muslims have live up to the "what have you done for me lately" motto

 

[Busybody]

What an eloquent way to state "We should hate them all, as a precautionary measure"!

just as ALL TYLENOL bottles were recalled cause of ONE poisoned bottle

just as hundreds of thousand of Toyotas were were called fro SIX sudden acceleration issues

just as ALL Chipotle's were closed for a few tainted areas


YES ALL

 

[Busybody]

What an eloquent way to state "We should hate them all, as a precautionary measure"!

isnt THIS cute

The NIGGER taht attacks ALL NRA when a CRAZY shoots up a joint

says this

cute

STFU, NIGGER