Does Britain have a jihadi problem?

[canman]

I see Obama is in the UK and visited Stonehenge, apparently he wanted to see what real stones looked like.

I don't get it. A while ago Mick Jagger did a performance for the prez and friends. He's a real stone, isn't he?

Incidentally, the most recent Nat'l Geographic has a spread on some amazing neolithic stone structures on Orkney islands, north of Scotland. They're thought to pre-date Stonehenge by 2,500 years.

Ignorance is no fault of the ignorant, and can be dealt with by education. Which is what I and others have attempted to do in this and similar topics.

That's a lot nicer than I would have put it. Ignorance, by Muslim extremists, is studiously abided by. I don't think it's genetic, unless they've inherited dogmatic genes. I don't make excuses for drunks or people who insist on being ignorant.

As for lack of education: I knew a young hill tribe gal who had grown up in Burma village, everything built from bamboo and thatch. Not a wire or transistor or magazine in the whole place until a decade ago. She has zero schooling. Now she speaks German, English, Thai, as well as Burmese and Akha, and is doing great with her new family in Switzerland. She went from mud-between the toes poverty to attending art gallery openings. Now take a look at Muslim women: Their heads are in sand dunes, with a Q'ran shouting men's feet on top - keeping her down.

"I don't get it. A while ago Mick Jagger did a performance for the prez and friends. He's a real stone, isn't he?"

In my context stones = testicular fortitude

[JockPieandBeans]

The document that is allegedly the " Issued Fatwa "

States quite clearly, " that all muslims have signed up to the Geneva Convention "

When something is so obviously onerous, then it cannot be taken seriously.

In other words, it is a load of BS.

That would be my way of thinking. It is nothing more than an act of appeasement.

[canman]

Not just a thousand years ago.

From February of this year: Report Details Atrocities in Central African Republic

On Jan. 8, a man named Soba Tibati was sitting on a straw mat under a tree outside of his familys hut in a small town called Boyali in the Central African Republic.

Suddenly, Christian militias, known as anti-balaka, showed up and attacked. They decapitated Soba Tibati and killed 12 members of his family, among them a baby girl.

Just one example of present day Christian terrorism, it's easy to find many more.

Of course, atrocities by one group of religious fanatics do not excuse those by a different group.

Dear oh dear...you searched high...you searched low...from the frozen wastes of the arctic...to the steaming jungles of the equator and the burning deserts of Africa.

...and finally you found it...in a little village in the middle of nowhere...'christian terrorists'.......now you can proudly point at it and tell us christians are as murderous as Islam.

Nice try...but I would expect that from self-hating, anti-West ,anti-christian liberals.

Your 30 pieces of silver are in the mail.

You guys crack me up. When somebody puts the argument to you that huge numbers of people have been murdered in the name of Christianity, your reply is to say that argument is the first line of defense of an apologist and/or that it must have been a long search to come up with that evidence, you're too funny. We understand that you will only accept that your thinking is correct and nothing else matters, any and all evidence that points to the contrary can be summarily dismissed and the poster ridiculed, cool, not!

Please feel free to put up a list of attacks by Christian terrorists. For reference I have a very small sample of islamist terrorist attacks from one month in 2011. This is an exceedingly small sample of the attacks propogated in multiple countries by islamists over the years.

1. Jump up ^ "At least four dead in Dagestan blast". RIA NOVOSTI. January 14, 2011. Retrieved January 14, 2011.
2. Jump up ^ "Karachi unrest kills 27; PML-Q wants army operation". Dawn News Agency. January 15, 2011. Retrieved January 15, 2011.
3. Jump up ^ "Afghanistan: Bomb kills nine wedding guests in Baghlan". BBC News Online. January 16, 2011. Retrieved January 16, 2011.
4. Jump up ^ "Police: 18 van passengers killed after blast in northwest Pakistan". CNN. January 17, 2011. Retrieved January 17, 2011.
5. Jump up ^ "Taliban kill four alleged robbers in Hangu". Dawn News Agency. January 18, 2011. Retrieved January 18, 2011.
6. Jump up ^ "Suicide bomb kills 50 at Iraqi police centre in Tikrit". BBC News Online. January 18, 2011. Retrieved January 18, 2011.
7. Jump up ^ "Pakistan bomb: one killed in blast near Peshawar". BBC News Online. January 19, 2011. Retrieved January 19, 2011.
8. Jump up ^ "Baquba ambulance suicide bomber targets Iraq police". BBC News Online. January 19, 2011. Retrieved January 19, 2011.
9. Jump up ^ "Four soldiers dead, six wounded in surprise attack on Narathiwat army base; army in pursuit". Mcot. January 20, 2011. Retrieved January 21, 2011.
10. Jump up ^ "Rebel attack in southern Thailand kills four soldiers". BBC News Online. January 20, 2011. Retrieved January 20, 2011.
11. Jump up ^ "Karbala bombs kill dozens during Shia festival". BBC News Online. January 20, 2011. Retrieved January 20, 2011.
12. Jump up ^ "Somali pirates seize Mongolian-flagged bulk carrier". Reuters. January 20, 2011. Retrieved January 21, 2011.
13. Jump up ^ "Two bomb blasts rip through eastern Ukraine". Sofia Echo. January 20, 2011. Retrieved January 21, 2011.
14. Jump up ^ "Oil company convoy ambushed in Pakistan". BBC News Online. January 20, 2011. Retrieved January 20, 2011.
15. Jump up ^ "Malaysia navy foils ship hijack attempt, seizes pirates". BBC News. January 22, 2011. Retrieved August 7, 2011.
16. Jump up ^ "S Korean navy rescues hijacked vessel: East Africa agency". Xinhua. January 21, 2011. Retrieved January 21, 2011.
17. Jump up ^ "Three killed in Orakzai bomb blast". Dawn News Agency. January 22, 2011. Retrieved January 22, 2011.
18. Jump up ^ "Explosion in Peshawar, one killed". Dawn News Agency. January 23, 2011. Retrieved January 23, 2011.
19. Jump up ^ "Car Bombs Kill 10 In Baghdad". The Asian Age. January 23, 2011. Retrieved January 23, 2011.
20. Jump up ^ "Gunmen attack former mayor of Hangu". Dawn News Agency. January 23, 2011. Retrieved January 23, 2011.
21. Jump up ^ "Two bomb blasts strike pilgrims in Iraq city of Karbala". BBC News Online. January 24, 2011. Retrieved January 24, 2011.
22. Jump up ^ "Lahore and Karachi suicide blasts: Shias targeted". BBC News Online. January 25, 2011. Retrieved January 25, 2011.
23. Jump up ^ "Bomb kills nine in Thai south: police". Dawn News Agency. January 25, 2011. Retrieved January 25, 2011.
24. Jump up ^ "Manila bus bombing raises security threat". The Christian Science Monitor. January 25, 2011. Retrieved January 25, 2011.
25. Jump up ^ "Число погибших при взрыве в Хасавюрте увеличилось до четырех". Lenta.ru (in Russian). January 26, 2011. Retrieved 27 January 2011.
26. Jump up ^ "Uganda gay rights activist David Kato killed". BBC. January 27, 2011. Retrieved 2011-01-29.
27. Jump up ^ "Bomb at Baghdad funeral in Shia Muslim area kills 48". BBC News. January 27, 2011. Retrieved 27 January 2011.
28. Jump up ^ "Kabul Finest supermarket hit by deadly bomb attack". BBC News Online. January 28, 2011. Retrieved 28 January 2011.
29. Jump up ^ "Suicide blast kills eight near Kohat Tunnel". Dawn News Agency. January 28, 2011. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
30. Jump up ^ "Two killed as militants ambush security forces convoy in Khyber". Dawn News Agency. January 29, 2011.
31. Jump up ^ "Senior police official among six killed in Peshawar blasts". Dawn News Agency. January 31, 2011.
32. Jump up ^ "Somali police battle troops, leaving 16 dead". BBC News Online. January 31, 2011.
33. Jump up ^ "Nine killed in Peshawar explosion". BBC News Online. February 2, 2011. Retrieved 2 February 2011.

[chiang mai]

I rather had in mind a longer period of analysis than just one month, I was thinking in terms of a profile and comparison covering say, the past two hundred years!

[NeverSure]

I think your interpretation of the Geneva Convention part of the fatwa is quite wrong and portrays the fatwa incorrectly.

It speaks in the context of international agreements that everyone has signed up to, including Muslims. I would be quite correct to say that Christians have signed the Convention too. Look at the 196 signatory countries. There are many Muslim countries on that list.

This is quite clear to all but those that prefer the fatwa to not be an example of how there is NOT a deafening silence that condones IS. There is no flagrant lie unless the lie is when an Islamaphobe deliberately tries to misinterpret the fatwa.

"It speaks in the context of international agreements that everyone has signed up to, including Muslims."

Please give me a credible link showing that the US signed any of the treaties or declarations of the Geneva Convention?

Please give me a credible link showing that the US ever gave away any of its sovereignty to any international body? Do you actually believe it ever would?

Why do you believe that Obama can unilaterally decide to just go and bomb IS in Iraq and just keep doing it?

"I would be quite correct to say that Christians have signed the Convention too."

Does the US not consider itself a Christian country?

[JockPieandBeans]

Seastallion

Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

• Article 3 states that even where there is not a conflict of international character, the parties must as a minimum adhere to minimal protections described as: non-combatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due towounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; ( taking of hostages; © outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Now feel free to point out where muslims are currently complying with the terms and conditions of the Geneva Convention, that you seem to think that they have all signed up to and agree to abide by.

[NeverSure]

I rather had in mind a longer period of analysis than just one month, I was thinking in terms of a profile and comparison covering say, the past two hundred years!

We weren't around 200 years ago. How about we deal with what's happening right now?

[Ulysses G.]

I rather had in mind a longer period of analysis than just one month, I was thinking in terms of a profile and comparison covering say, the past two hundred years!

Anything that would avoid addressing what radical Islam is doing NOW.

[chiang mai]

I rather had in mind a longer period of analysis than just one month, I was thinking in terms of a profile and comparison covering say, the past two hundred years!

We weren't around 200 years ago. How about we deal with what's happening right now?

Taking a snapshot in time doesn't establish a trend or provide for sensible comparison against anything, stating that a series of events happened in a particular month is meaningless.

[H1w4yR1da]

And it's not only Britain with a Jihadi problem, it seems.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/09/07/4333562/german-official-shariah-police.html

"Wuppertal police reported earlier this week that a group of young Muslim men, clad in orange vests that had the words "Shariah police" printed on the back, had patrolled some parts of the city repeatedly asking people to stop drinking alcohol or visiting nightclubs."

I guess they seem to think Germans should be engaging more proper, Islamic type behaviour, like praying 5 times a day. Or cutting people's heads off and gang-raping children?

Edited September 8, 2014 by H1w4yR1da

[jacky54]

Taking a snapshot in time doesn't establish a trend or provide for sensible comparison against anything, stating that a series of events happened in a particular month is meaningless.

I'm sure your words would be a comfort to the thousands of children, wife's and husbands left behind after Islamic terrorists have killed family members, just starting on 9/11. So unreasonable of them just to blame Muslims over a small time frame!

[chiang mai]

Blah blah blah!

[hawker9000]

I rather had in mind a longer period of analysis than just one month, I was thinking in terms of a profile and comparison covering say, the past two hundred years!

Why? Were you alive 200 years ago? Was anybody alive today alive 200 years ago? FPS, 200 years ago they were still practicing slavery in the U.S. Women had no vote. The British burned down the White House. So what? How does what happened 200 years ago in any way excuse murders & atrocities Muslims are committing now? 'Sounds like an obvious attempt at obfuscation to me. Why don't we keep it to some reasonable and relevant period of time, eh?

Edited September 8, 2014 by hawker9000

[canman]

Because of repeated mentions of 'fatwa' on this side, I looked it up on a Muslim-friendly site ( http://www.questionsaboutislam.com/shariah-islamic-law/what-is-a-fatwa.php ) and in a nutshell here's what was written:

It's an Arabic word that literally means, 'opinion'. When used in a religious context it has a stronger meaning. Any senior Muslim man can issue a fatwa. So, it's essentially an opinion issued by a senior male member of the Islamist community. Perhaps sometimes it emits from a consensus of old men in a committee-like scenario. Iran's Koimeini used to issue fatawa (the plural) as often as Thaksin issues defamation suits.

Boomerangutang's spin: If we hear of a 'fatwa' being declared by a British-based Muslim man, it can be interpreted as either: One man's (or committee's) opinion on declaring something, or it could be to appease British authorities and lull them (authorities and general public) in to thinking that 'moderates' are doing the right thing.

In the real world, the effect (of declaring a fatwa) is nothing more than a panacea, at best. It's words. Words aren't going to have any affect on keeping a group of extremists from doing anything they're bent on doing. However, such slick words may have the desired affect of lulling politicians and some of the general public in to thinking the Muslim community is serious about rooting out and destroying extremists. It's not.

Yes, the islamic world is littered with fatwa garbage:

Many were stunned when Saudi cleric Sheik Abdel Mohsen Obeikan recently issued a fatwa, or Islamic ruling, calling on women to give breast milk to their male colleagues or men they come into regular contact with so as to avoid illicit mixing between the sexes

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/06/saudi-women-use-fatwa-in-driving-bid.html

[chiang mai]

I rather had in mind a longer period of analysis than just one month, I was thinking in terms of a profile and comparison covering say, the past two hundred years!

Why? Were you alive 200 years ago? Was anybody alive today alive 200 years ago? FPS, 200 years ago they were still practicing slavery in the U.S. Women had no vote. The British burned down the White House. So what? How does what happened 200 years ago in any way excuse murders & atrocities Muslims are committing now? 'Sounds like an obvious attempt at obfuscation to me. Why don't we keep it to some reasonable and relevant period of time, eh?

You want to compare the actions of entire religions, solely on the basis of what happened in one particular month, tell me you're not for real!

[chuckd]

Woof!

Thanks for your well thought out post in response to my answering your earlier question.

You snide remarks can be directed elsewhere in the future. All they do is prove your mind is as shallow as your posts.

In case you didn't understand the message: it's almost impossible for me to take this debate even a little bit seriously, given the course and nature of the discussion thus far. And also, in case you didn't understand, "woof" implies barking, as in barking mad, which clearly some of the posters here are.

P.S. AC/DC was far more rewarding, intellectually stimulating and entertaining, compared to this debate.

What debate? You asked a question about a source. I provided the answer without comment. You then posted your idiotic "woof" post, which I understood completely.

All you had to do was say "thanks" and move on.

There is no debate between you and me.

Your one word posts are hardly rewarding, intelectually stimulating or entertaining and are certainly worth no more of my time.

Longer posts, however......

.

[simple1]

Please give me a credible link showing that the US signed any of the treaties or declarations of the Geneva Convention?

Is Cornell University Law School good enough?

The United States has ratified the four Conventions of 1949, but has not ratified the two additional Protocols of 1977.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/geneva_conventions

US State Department?

State Party to the Geneva Conventions, to improving the effectiveness of those Conventions, and to furthering the goals that the Conventions were intended to advance

http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2010/149784.htm

[canman]

I rather had in mind a longer period of analysis than just one month, I was thinking in terms of a profile and comparison covering say, the past two hundred years!

Why 200 years?

We are debating the here and now.

[JockPieandBeans]

Woof!

Thanks for your well thought out post in response to my answering your earlier question.

You snide remarks can be directed elsewhere in the future. All they do is prove your mind is as shallow as your posts.

In case you didn't understand the message: it's almost impossible for me to take this debate even a little bit seriously, given the course and nature of the discussion thus far. And also, in case you didn't understand, "woof" implies barking, as in barking mad, which clearly some of the posters here are.

P.S. AC/DC was far more rewarding, intellectually stimulating and entertaining, compared to this debate.

What debate? You asked a question about a source. I provided the answer without comment. You then posted your idiotic "woof" post, which I understood completely.

All you had to do was say "thanks" and move on.

There is no debate between you and me.

Your one word posts are hardly rewarding, intelectually stimulating or entertaining and are certainly worth no more of my time.

Longer posts, however......

.

And despite repeated requests for his comments and views on the link provided, has still failed to respond.

It is amazing how dumbstruck people become when they are provided with impartial, irrefutable evidence.

[chiang mai]

I rather had in mind a longer period of analysis than just one month, I was thinking in terms of a profile and comparison covering say, the past two hundred years!

Why 200 years?

We are debating the here and now.

If somebody wants to put up a list of things that happened in a particular month, that's fine, just don't point to that list and try to tell us that the list is evidence of anything other than what happened in that timeframe, statistically it is irrelevant and doesn't make as case for anything. If on the other hand, a person wanted to try and compare the behavior of entire religions globally, a longer time frame is required in order to derive a meaningful conclusion, 200 years, 300 years, 500 years, they're all fine, one month is not.

[canman]

I rather had in mind a longer period of analysis than just one month, I was thinking in terms of a profile and comparison covering say, the past two hundred years!

We weren't around 200 years ago. How about we deal with what's happening right now?

Taking a snapshot in time doesn't establish a trend or provide for sensible comparison against anything, stating that a series of events happened in a particular month is meaningless.

Come on man; I don't believe you are that dense. You and the rest of the TV readers can google terror attacks by year just as easily as I, the list I posted was simply be way of example. The attacks referenced were from wikipedia and for the year 2009 there are 286 terror incidents cited.

For Jan-June 2014 there are 192 cited (a small percentage of the real number)

[transam]

I read today that some German towns are having a problem with gangs of young "religious" folk roaming around the bars to give their "kind" hassle for having a beer, the police are now taking action.

[JockPieandBeans]

I rather had in mind a longer period of analysis than just one month, I was thinking in terms of a profile and comparison covering say, the past two hundred years!

We weren't around 200 years ago. How about we deal with what's happening right now?

Taking a snapshot in time doesn't establish a trend or provide for sensible comparison against anything, stating that a series of events happened in a particular month is meaningless.

Come on man; I don't believe you are that dense. You and the rest of the TV readers can google terror attacks by year just as easily as I, the list I posted was simply be way of example. The attacks referenced were from wikipedia and for the year 2009 there are 286 terror incidents cited.

For Jan-June 2014 there are 192 cited (a small percentage of the real number)

There are non so blind, as them that will not see.

[JockPieandBeans]

I read today that some German towns are having a problem with gangs of young "religious" folk roaming around the bars to give their "kind" hassle for having a beer, the police are now taking action.

Germany has had problems with Muslim Turks for a long time.

It was particularly loud when I was there in the 80's

[hawker9000]

I rather had in mind a longer period of analysis than just one month, I was thinking in terms of a profile and comparison covering say, the past two hundred years!

Why? Were you alive 200 years ago? Was anybody alive today alive 200 years ago? FPS, 200 years ago they were still practicing slavery in the U.S. Women had no vote. The British burned down the White House. So what? How does what happened 200 years ago in any way excuse murders & atrocities Muslims are committing now? 'Sounds like an obvious attempt at obfuscation to me. Why don't we keep it to some reasonable and relevant period of time, eh?

You want to compare the actions of entire religions, solely on the basis of what happened in one particular month, tell me you're not for real!

Lol. Nice try. No, I said not 200 years, and I told you why not 200 years...

Edited September 8, 2014 by hawker9000

[boomerangutang]

I have read this fatwa again and it will ultimately be useless. I suspect within the next week you will see increasingly more critique of this fatwa by jihadi watch groups. A lot of observers (IMO) will reject this fatwa. This fatwa contained two religious citations, both of which are equvicol.

In the first citation an early verse in the koran is cited: 5:1, and the second fairly close in Islamic history- 8:72. The koran is based on "abrogation." This means that for every part of the koran any later part that addresses even remotely the same issue supersedes the former. There are 114 suras in the koran- a lot of wiggle room here and the jihadis will see this immediately.

Also, it contains a flagrant lie, one which reveals who the intended audience really is. "Muslims" have no capacity to be signatories to the Geneva Convention, etc. This fatwa cannot withstand the scrutiny of even cursory review.

https://makkah.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/fatwa-against-isis.jpg

http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/165-jon-mc/1564-uk-imams-fatwa-against-british-muslims-joining-the-islamic-state.html

I think your interpretation of the Geneva Convention part of the fatwa is quite wrong and portrays the fatwa incorrectly.

It speaks in the context of international agreements that everyone has signed up to, including Muslims. I would be quite correct to say that Christians have signed the Convention too. Look at the 196 signatory countries. There are many Muslim countries on that list.

This is quite clear to all but those that prefer the fatwa to not be an example of how there is NOT a deafening silence that condones IS. There is no flagrant lie unless the lie is when an Islamaphobe deliberately tries to misinterpret the fatwa.

Fatwa, shatwa, plotwa. It's just words. People can spill out words as easy as a frog can croak. Ayotollay Komeini, while leader of Iran, wrote his interpretation of Islamic laws. One of his inserts (pun intended) was, in effect: 'it's ok for a man to stick his dong in to a young girl, as long as it doesn't go farther than the crown of his dong.' It's also OK, according to the revered Ayotollay, to rub your hard on a little boy's leg while the kid is sitting on your lap. Big question: would you hire a Muslim man to baby-sit your kids?

Also: even if there's a Mumbai-style outbreak in England (armed Muslim bad guys creating havoc), there will be a reaction by police, but it won't be a blanket response - such as forced expulsion of sectors of Muslims. It won't happen. Neither UK, nor any other European country can put the toothpaste back in the tube. Even if confronted, the baddest of the bad boys can simple say the right words, "It wasn't me. I'm a British citizen and I love my country" ...and he'll be let off. He can even say "Oh those extremists, I hate 'em. They cause so much trouble." Again, it's words. Words are cheap. Words can change as easily as the mind, and thoughts can change 10 times a second.

[arjunadawn]

I have read this fatwa again and it will ultimately be useless. I suspect within the next week you will see increasingly more critique of this fatwa by jihadi watch groups. A lot of observers (IMO) will reject this fatwa. This fatwa contained two religious citations, both of which are equvicol.

In the first citation an early verse in the koran is cited: 5:1, and the second fairly close in Islamic history- 8:72. The koran is based on "abrogation." This means that for every part of the koran any later part that addresses even remotely the same issue supersedes the former. There are 114 suras in the koran- a lot of wiggle room here and the jihadis will see this immediately.

Also, it contains a flagrant lie, one which reveals who the intended audience really is. "Muslims" have no capacity to be signatories to the Geneva Convention, etc. This fatwa cannot withstand the scrutiny of even cursory review.

https://makkah.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/fatwa-against-isis.jpg

http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/165-jon-mc/1564-uk-imams-fatwa-against-british-muslims-joining-the-islamic-state.html

I think your interpretation of the Geneva Convention part of the fatwa is quite wrong and portrays the fatwa incorrectly.

It speaks in the context of international agreements that everyone has signed up to, including Muslims. I would be quite correct to say that Christians have signed the Convention too. Look at the 196 signatory countries. There are many Muslim countries on that list.

This is quite clear to all but those that prefer the fatwa to not be an example of how there is NOT a deafening silence that condones IS. There is no flagrant lie unless the lie is when an Islamaphobe deliberately tries to misinterpret the fatwa.

Fatwa, shatwa, plotwa. It's just words. People can spill out words as easy as a frog can croak. Ayotollay Komeini, while leader of Iran, wrote his interpretation of Islamic laws. One of his inserts (pun intended) was, in effect: 'it's ok for a man to stick his dong in to a young girl, as long as it doesn't go farther than the crown of his dong.' It's also OK, according to the revered Ayotollay, to rub your hard on a little boy's leg while the kid is sitting on your lap. Big question: would you hire a Muslim man to baby-sit your kids?

Also: even if there's a Mumbai-style outbreak in England (armed Muslim bad guys creating havoc), there will be a reaction by police, but it won't be a blanket response - such as forced expulsion of sectors of Muslims. It won't happen. Neither UK, nor any other European country can put the toothpaste back in the tube. Even if confronted, the baddest of the bad boys can simple say the right words, "It wasn't me. I'm a British citizen and I love my country" ...and he'll be let off. He can even say "Oh those extremists, I hate 'em. They cause so much trouble." Again, it's words. Words are cheap. Words can change as easily as the mind, and thoughts can change 10 times a second.

The gymnastics necessary to suggest Christians and Muslims are bound as signatories to the Geneva convention can also apply to children, red necks, and cats and dogs.

This fatwa represents nothing more than an insight into another dynamic taking place in global jihad. The Muslim Brotherhood, et all, is not the only player in town and this has some fairly pissed as the MB has labored long and hard to defeat the west. This fatwa is rubbish and narcissistic. It achieves nothing. Watch.

[thaibeachlovers]

May I make some comments on your thinking?

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, and thus those that oppose your position may not support what you oppose; You are correct to say you would be sliding into false logic and (possibly) wrong conclusions if you thought otherwise.

I think it important that if you are going to maintain that you have no problem with Muslims then you should make the distinction of "some" Muslims when talking about "the underlying ideology that motivates (them) to antithetical actions.....", and "Therefore..the actions of (some) Muslims are fair game..." etc. Without the distinction, you do lump all Muslims together and it is simply not true that the majority of Muslims perform actions antithetical with civilised life.

You make an understandable argument that the silent majority show tacit endorsement for the terrorism, but it is not a conclusive argument at all. There may be many reasons you do not hear much outcry. Ennui, fear of reprisal, lack of opportunity, lack of cohesive society are some possibilities that do not imply tacit agreement. Lack of media coverage (because it's not as sensational a story as a beheading) could be another. The deafening silence is most certainly NOT a declaration of approval.

It may be contrary to your intuition, but others have intuition of their own, based on their own experiences and knowledge. What you have is an unsubstantiated belief, albeit with some things that compel you. Thus alternate (and also unsubstantiated) views are no more fantasy than your own.

" the many and varied polls taken from muslims throughout the world suggesting an alarming passive support for jihadi actions. ", Are you sure this is statistics presented in a genuine way? Can you provide a few of the many?

Yes, you could be correct. I know. It is possible my fears discriminate what I process, finally. I wont go into polls as someone else just covered that. But I can only state that when all the noise of arguments are set aside and I just sit with my gut I am keenly aware that a growing darkness is spreading throughout the western world. I cannot escape that, but I can qualify my positions in regard to muslims in the future.

You said you have no problem with Muslims. I get the sense that you write the word, a proper noun, deliberately with a lower case initial. Or perhaps my sense is completely off on this, I know it could be.

Back to your unease. Has anyone asked the question of "Why is a dark and hateful ideology gaining recruits?" I mean, there's cults everywhere, and there's something for everyone, but why this one? What is attractive about it.

<What is attractive about it.>

Islam means submission. It is attractive to those that want to be told what to do and not have to make any decisions for themselves, like thinking about the morality of what they do.

[jacky54]

If somebody wants to put up a list of things that happened in a particular month, that's fine,

Just the first week of the month and yet:

Islam's Latest Contributions to Peace"Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are harsh

to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" Quran 48:29

2014.09.06 (Arsal, Lebanon) - Another captive is beheaded by caliphate terrorists. 2014.09.05 (Rawalpindi, Pakistan) - A female polio worker is shot to death in her home by suspected fundamentalists. 2014.09.05 (Ashara, Syria) - A youth is executed and crucified to punish other residents calling for an end to the caliphate. 2014.09.04 (Sulaiman Bek, Iraq) - The bodies of thirty-five truck drivers, kidnapped months earlier by Sunni militants are discovered in a mass grave. 2014.09.04 (Karrada, Iraq) - A half-dozen innocents are slain when fundamentalists set off a bomb near alcohol shops. 2014.09.04 (Ghazni, Afghanistan) - Fundamentalists set off a massive truck bomb outside a government office, killing eighteen.

[mccw]

May I make some comments on your thinking?

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, and thus those that oppose your position may not support what you oppose; You are correct to say you would be sliding into false logic and (possibly) wrong conclusions if you thought otherwise.

I think it important that if you are going to maintain that you have no problem with Muslims then you should make the distinction of "some" Muslims when talking about "the underlying ideology that motivates (them) to antithetical actions.....", and "Therefore..the actions of (some) Muslims are fair game..." etc. Without the distinction, you do lump all Muslims together and it is simply not true that the majority of Muslims perform actions antithetical with civilised life.

You make an understandable argument that the silent majority show tacit endorsement for the terrorism, but it is not a conclusive argument at all. There may be many reasons you do not hear much outcry. Ennui, fear of reprisal, lack of opportunity, lack of cohesive society are some possibilities that do not imply tacit agreement. Lack of media coverage (because it's not as sensational a story as a beheading) could be another. The deafening silence is most certainly NOT a declaration of approval.

It may be contrary to your intuition, but others have intuition of their own, based on their own experiences and knowledge. What you have is an unsubstantiated belief, albeit with some things that compel you. Thus alternate (and also unsubstantiated) views are no more fantasy than your own.

" the many and varied polls taken from muslims throughout the world suggesting an alarming passive support for jihadi actions. ", Are you sure this is statistics presented in a genuine way? Can you provide a few of the many?

Yes, you could be correct. I know. It is possible my fears discriminate what I process, finally. I wont go into polls as someone else just covered that. But I can only state that when all the noise of arguments are set aside and I just sit with my gut I am keenly aware that a growing darkness is spreading throughout the western world. I cannot escape that, but I can qualify my positions in regard to muslims in the future.

You said you have no problem with Muslims. I get the sense that you write the word, a proper noun, deliberately with a lower case initial. Or perhaps my sense is completely off on this, I know it could be.

Back to your unease. Has anyone asked the question of "Why is a dark and hateful ideology gaining recruits?" I mean, there's cults everywhere, and there's something for everyone, but why this one? What is attractive about it.

Islam means submission. It is attractive to those that want to be told what to do and not have to make any decisions for themselves, like thinking about the morality of what they do.

Also the dark side power is attractive. Some humans love to feel power; the power over life and death being perhaps the greatest. It's seductive as it is destructive.

Same reason why criminals continue crime even after they are rich; they are buzzing, feel high off the power.

Same like street thugs fighting for no reason; ego and feeling high off their own power to do harm; to be a bad man. "Jihadi cool" , like trend to act like a gangsta amongst some youth ; rebellious instincts; buzz on the dark side power.

Media and modern world needs examples of great good side power; people examples of doing great goodness; so people see cool in the light/ good deeds.

Need something like Jedi knights.

Kung &lt;deleted&gt; or martial arts trained warriors for freedom and justice to stand against the darkness. Not the hateful rabble of right wing extremists but an enlightened group with clear minds from high meditation training.

Dreaming; maybe one day such a force will emerge.