Is America at war with radical Islam?

[CMNightRider]

Did it occur to any of the posters that the vast majority of people being slaughtered by ISIS are other Muslims?

Mostly for not being Muslim enough...or of belonging to the wrong particular branch of Islam.

From what I can see ISIS is simply a manifestation (albeit a bloodthirsty one) of what we have seen develop in the west over the past forty or fifty years post WW2

Street gangs becoming more violent, young people being held less responsible for their actions etc etc....and the result is??

Throw in a good dose of religion and there you have it. Northern Ireland or the Middle East or take on the whole world of unbelievers.

I challenge any of the long term expats to go back to their stomping grounds as they were when teenagers and see what has become of it..

Most of the ground troops in ISIS are relatively young people.

The twin perspective that IS are relatively young people and "what we have seen develop" over recent years suggest an extremely limited view point from which to view this issue. This leads one to think that events are a current phenomena, unique, and an expression of a particular angst of this age. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, just the opposite is true.

The small lapse in islamic [military] conquest only took place from the 17-19th century, and during that time simmering whahabbism grew (and other)- so, the conquest never changed. What changed following the failure of the siege of Vienna in the late 17th century was that while Ottoman overlords stopped the required muslim advance (because they got soundly thumped in Europe), imams closer to the people, and the ummah, continued birthing in doctrine the very militant conquest that existed for 1200 years prior, that the Ottomans now seemed reluctant to push. So, a person can wake in the 20th century and wonder where islamic jihad came from, it must be the result of these young folks, and that it developed only recently. No! The entire premise of islam is war. If you removed the requirement to war upon others from islam you would totally eviscerate the Shar'ia. These are the two eternal states of islam on earth, the house of war and the house if submission. Everyplace not enforcing sharia is the house of war.

Islamic conquest begun during their prophet's life; in fact it is his murder, slaughter, beheading, burning, raping, and mutilating of others that set the standard- just read the scriptures- they are everywhere (numerous examples). al-Insan al-Kamil - The Doctrine of The Perfect Man is an inherent component of every muslim's religious teaching and admonishment on how to lead their lives.

Not just jews, arabs, pagans, christians, but everyone on earth is subject to the islamic conquest because they are the perfect among all peoples. The goal in islam is jihad. You cannot assign contemporary modern values to an ideology that is predicated on murder and mayhem. Islam has pretty much either militarily or in jurisprudence or sub-sects preserved a nonstop tradition of warring upon everyone on earth. During these 1,400 years or so, some estimates place the number slaughtered from islam at over 250,000,000. Some say the largest holocaust in history, the 800 year murder rampage of Hindus, Buddhists, Jainists, etc., are easily over 100,000,000 dead alone! Perhaps those in the West should review an unvarnished history that is not rewritten, lately!

So, it makes little difference any longer if the US is at war with radical islam. Islam is at war with everyone. Unable to control his mouth while seething at a national prayer breakfast in the US recently, Obama argued the fallacious reasoning that the crusaders committed some horrible acts in their time as well. What? Did we really hear that? This was being said by the US in response to a Jordanian pilot being burning alive in a cage and the president advises us "not to get on our high horse" while the world is aghast in a flood of horrible images coming out of the mideast. Of course the crusaders, regardless of the accounts of excess, were a response to 400 years or islamic rape, plunder, slavery, and murder of Europeans. Besides the fallacy of hypocrisy argument the president increasingly reveals that the US is indeed at war, but the US is at war with America, not radical islam.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/06/asra_nomani_terrorist_in_jordanian_pilot_video_cited_similar_grievances_obama_aired_at_prayer_breakfast.html

http://eaglerising.com/14819/obama-defends-islam-scapegoating-christians-prayer-breakfast/

http://www.businessinsider.com/people-are-freaking-out-after-obama-compared-isis-to-the-crusades-2015-2

I think this is designed to inflame and incite conflict and only conflict. I believe it wants violent clashes of civilizations, cultures, peoples. It seeks to portray the whole of Islam and Muslims inclusively as inevitably and by nature invariably aggressive, violent, a direct threat to each and every one of us always and forever.

The truth as I see it from the Muslims I know and lived among in the Thai South is that they are the same as most Christians, which is to say they read their holy book, attend worship services, then go about their everyday lives in the real and modern secular world absent the deep background of hostilities or aggression described in the post. Their actual god is materialism, not a fanatical ideology or any ideology.

Certainly, if Muslim-Americans can be peaceful and integrated into the larger society in their local communities, the post above is all the more unrealistic, excessive, deliberately provocative and incendiary.

OTT.

Prez Obama and other responsible leaders of primarily Christian civilizations consciously take a low tone, low key, calm and restrained approach that is both wise and beneficial to all sides and each and every one of us. We needn't identify all or most Muslims as an enemy unless we want to have most or all Muslims as an enemy and unless we do in fact want a clash, violence, destruction.

The post attempts with a great determination to have a literal war.

"The post attempts with a great determination to have a literal war."??? Somehow, I don't think the above mentioned posts are going to start a war, OMG! If that suggestion isn't naive enough, referring to Obama as a "responsible leader of Christian civilisations" should be an eye opener. Obama couldn't lead a boy scout troop, and has repeatedly displayed hostilely towards "Christian civilisation."

Is America at war with radical Islam? Obama is doing everything he can to make people believe radical Islam doesn't exist. Radical Islam is real and an imminent threat to the west Anyone who would suggest otherwise, is either a little naive, or maybe unable to separate fact from fiction.

I think it is time for the free world to wake up from their liberal stupor, and stop this idiotic rambling about this being just a few radical Muslims that are causing the problem, and start eliminating these cockroaches from the face of the earth.

[boomerangutang]

Boomerangutang asserted: Iran and ISIS have a lot more in common than they have to clash about?

Morch responded: Like what?

I don't have it out for Iran. I was once ably assisted by an Iranian-American when I was in a tight spot, and he didn't even ask compensation for helping me out.

I know Iranians are Persian rather than Arab. Here's what they have in common with ISIS:

>>> fanatically Muslim

>>> keep women down, and assert women are inherently dirty and inferior

>>> snuff out freedom of press

>>> strongly back Sharia Law

>>> harsh medieval punishment for even minor offenses.

>>> Shouting 'Allah Akbar' in regard to anything/everything.

>>> Hate America

Granted, Afghanistan is more likely to side with ISIS, than Iran. But still, extremist cult beliefs can be binding. The only basic difference between Sunnis and Shi'ites stems from some some (obscure, to outsiders) interpretation of some event which happened hundreds of years ago. I have to read-up again on it. Yet, to keep the fires burning (literally and figuratively) for some family quarrel from hundreds of years ago appears near-ridiculous to forward-thinking westerners. It's as if they're straining to find things to quarrel about - and succeeding.

[Publicus]

Did it occur to any of the posters that the vast majority of people being slaughtered by ISIS are other Muslims?

Mostly for not being Muslim enough...or of belonging to the wrong particular branch of Islam.

From what I can see ISIS is simply a manifestation (albeit a bloodthirsty one) of what we have seen develop in the west over the past forty or fifty years post WW2

Street gangs becoming more violent, young people being held less responsible for their actions etc etc....and the result is??

Throw in a good dose of religion and there you have it. Northern Ireland or the Middle East or take on the whole world of unbelievers.

I challenge any of the long term expats to go back to their stomping grounds as they were when teenagers and see what has become of it..

Most of the ground troops in ISIS are relatively young people.

The twin perspective that IS are relatively young people and "what we have seen develop" over recent years suggest an extremely limited view point from which to view this issue. This leads one to think that events are a current phenomena, unique, and an expression of a particular angst of this age. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, just the opposite is true.

The small lapse in islamic [military] conquest only took place from the 17-19th century, and during that time simmering whahabbism grew (and other)- so, the conquest never changed. What changed following the failure of the siege of Vienna in the late 17th century was that while Ottoman overlords stopped the required muslim advance (because they got soundly thumped in Europe), imams closer to the people, and the ummah, continued birthing in doctrine the very militant conquest that existed for 1200 years prior, that the Ottomans now seemed reluctant to push. So, a person can wake in the 20th century and wonder where islamic jihad came from, it must be the result of these young folks, and that it developed only recently. No! The entire premise of islam is war. If you removed the requirement to war upon others from islam you would totally eviscerate the Shar'ia. These are the two eternal states of islam on earth, the house of war and the house if submission. Everyplace not enforcing sharia is the house of war.

Islamic conquest begun during their prophet's life; in fact it is his murder, slaughter, beheading, burning, raping, and mutilating of others that set the standard- just read the scriptures- they are everywhere (numerous examples). al-Insan al-Kamil - The Doctrine of The Perfect Man is an inherent component of every muslim's religious teaching and admonishment on how to lead their lives.

Not just jews, arabs, pagans, christians, but everyone on earth is subject to the islamic conquest because they are the perfect among all peoples. The goal in islam is jihad. You cannot assign contemporary modern values to an ideology that is predicated on murder and mayhem. Islam has pretty much either militarily or in jurisprudence or sub-sects preserved a nonstop tradition of warring upon everyone on earth. During these 1,400 years or so, some estimates place the number slaughtered from islam at over 250,000,000. Some say the largest holocaust in history, the 800 year murder rampage of Hindus, Buddhists, Jainists, etc., are easily over 100,000,000 dead alone! Perhaps those in the West should review an unvarnished history that is not rewritten, lately!

So, it makes little difference any longer if the US is at war with radical islam. Islam is at war with everyone. Unable to control his mouth while seething at a national prayer breakfast in the US recently, Obama argued the fallacious reasoning that the crusaders committed some horrible acts in their time as well. What? Did we really hear that? This was being said by the US in response to a Jordanian pilot being burning alive in a cage and the president advises us "not to get on our high horse" while the world is aghast in a flood of horrible images coming out of the mideast. Of course the crusaders, regardless of the accounts of excess, were a response to 400 years or islamic rape, plunder, slavery, and murder of Europeans. Besides the fallacy of hypocrisy argument the president increasingly reveals that the US is indeed at war, but the US is at war with America, not radical islam.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/06/asra_nomani_terrorist_in_jordanian_pilot_video_cited_similar_grievances_obama_aired_at_prayer_breakfast.html

http://eaglerising.com/14819/obama-defends-islam-scapegoating-christians-prayer-breakfast/

http://www.businessinsider.com/people-are-freaking-out-after-obama-compared-isis-to-the-crusades-2015-2

I think this is designed to inflame and incite conflict and only conflict. I believe it wants violent clashes of civilizations, cultures, peoples. It seeks to portray the whole of Islam and Muslims inclusively as inevitably and by nature invariably aggressive, violent, a direct threat to each and every one of us always and forever.

The truth as I see it from the Muslims I know and lived among in the Thai South is that they are the same as most Christians, which is to say they read their holy book, attend worship services, then go about their everyday lives in the real and modern secular world absent the deep background of hostilities or aggression described in the post. Their actual god is materialism, not a fanatical ideology or any ideology.

Certainly, if Muslim-Americans can be peaceful and integrated into the larger society in their local communities, the post above is all the more unrealistic, excessive, deliberately provocative and incendiary.

OTT.

Prez Obama and other responsible leaders of primarily Christian civilizations consciously take a low tone, low key, calm and restrained approach that is both wise and beneficial to all sides and each and every one of us. We needn't identify all or most Muslims as an enemy unless we want to have most or all Muslims as an enemy and unless we do in fact want a clash, violence, destruction.

The post attempts with a great determination to have a literal war.

"The post attempts with a great determination to have a literal war."??? Somehow, I don't think the above mentioned posts are going to start a war, OMG! If that suggestion isn't naive enough, referring to Obama as a "responsible leader of Christian civilisations" should be an eye opener. Obama couldn't lead a boy scout troop, and has repeatedly displayed hostilely towards "Christian civilisation."

Is America at war with radical Islam? Obama is doing everything he can to make people believe radical Islam doesn't exist. Radical Islam is real and an imminent threat to the west Anyone who would suggest otherwise, is either a little naive, or maybe unable to separate fact from fiction.

I think it is time for the free world to wake up from their liberal stupor, and stop this idiotic rambling about this being just a few radical Muslims that are causing the problem, and start eliminating these cockroaches from the face of the earth.

It is the usual tripe and cliched rhetoric against Prez Obama and the glib vocabulary against a rational and balanced point of view....calling us "naive" and in a "liberal stupor" of "idiotic rambling" and the like which is banal and mundane; it accomplishes nothing and says more about the speakers of this nonsense than about any of us over on this side of it all.

The extreme right needs to shape up or ship out as its intellectual and cultural currency is bankrupt, stale, old, the same-o same-o rough hewn thinking and verbiage.

The jihadists need to be obliterated decisively and with finality, swiftly and efficiently. Conversely, the mass of the Muslim world is not a threat and it certainly is not a menace. I feel more uncomfortable around rightist extremists in my own society than I do around ordinary Muslims and the post demonstrates how and why.

Prez Obama and the leaders of Western Christiandom are showing a restraint and a balance the far right everywhere is incapable of having. They are to be repremanded and dismissed.

[Berkshire]

"The post attempts with a great determination to have a literal war."??? Somehow, I don't think the above mentioned posts are going to start a war, OMG! If that suggestion isn't naive enough, referring to Obama as a "responsible leader of Christian civilisations" should be an eye opener. Obama couldn't lead a boy scout troop, and has repeatedly displayed hostilely towards "Christian civilisation."

Is America at war with radical Islam? Obama is doing everything he can to make people believe radical Islam doesn't exist. Radical Islam is real and an imminent threat to the west Anyone who would suggest otherwise, is either a little naive, or maybe unable to separate fact from fiction.

I think it is time for the free world to wake up from their liberal stupor, and stop this idiotic rambling about this being just a few radical Muslims that are causing the problem, and start eliminating these cockroaches from the face of the earth.

It is the usual tripe and cliched rhetoric against Prez Obama and the glib vocabulary against a rational and balanced point of view....calling us "naive" and in a "liberal stupor" of "idiotic rambling" and the like which is banal and mundane; it accomplishes nothing and says more about the speakers of this nonsense than about any of us over on this side of it all.

The extreme right needs to shape up or ship out as its intellectual and cultural currency is bankrupt, stale, old, the same-o same-o rough hewn thinking and verbiage.

The jihadists need to be obliterated decisively and with finality, swiftly and efficiently. Conversely, the mass of the Muslim world is not a threat and it certainly is not a menace. I feel more uncomfortable around rightist extremists in my own society than I do around ordinary Muslims and the post demonstrates how and why.

Prez Obama and the leaders of Western Christiandom are showing a restraint and a balance the far right everywhere is incapable of having. They are to be repremanded and dismissed.

Very well articulated, Publicus. If any of the comments here are any indication, the right wing of the US should never, ever be in power again. Because if their rhetoric ever becomes a reality, it will be the death of us all.

[Ulysses G.]

The Republicans will be in power again and they will call radical Islam what it is. That is the first step to putting a stop to these terrorists.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[arjunadawn]

The Republicans will be in power again and they will call radical Islam what it is. That is the first step to putting a stop to these terrorists.

There is a cognitive dissonance in people who have 1) historical knowledge about islamic conquest 2) textual knowledge about islamic motivations 3) geopolitical knowledge of the modern islamic jihad and its relation to #1, above and 4) even a cursory knowledge of civilization war. Also, anybody who reads international news feeds.

No current actions by the US actually seek to ameliorate or even address the current onslaught and exponential growth of an existential threat- jihad. The acts of denial that there are no wolves in the yard does not comport with our hearing them howl as we lay to sleep. The protest that islamic jihad reflects an "extreme" interpretation of islam does not remotely marry with the fact that nearly all IS and related AQ and jihad literature is populated with valid citation and exegesis; there are negligible few protesting Islam's restarting its jihad machine in this Third Great Jihad, and very few can properly cite their own text as proof. Few grasp that it is inherently forbidden in Islam to re visit issues for which there has been a previous judicial ruling. Every single thing that is happening in regard to modern jihad has a very real, very recent, and very consistent chain of authority dating all the way back the prophet and his companions. The jurisprudence is enormous supporting what I say, and what radical islam says. History will later note how nothing was actually radical (but was basic interpretation of scriptures) at all and in that first failure of our language we erred.

In the end, the only standard one needs to apply to considering the White House actions/statements/policies/and actions abroad is cui bono? How benefits? Use that single standard and reach your own conclusions. The jihadis think they benefit. IS asserts it is 6 times larger than CIA estimates. Numerous former generals and admirals and others have concluded in a report in the US that the US has switched side on the war on terror- who benefits. Egypt thinks the US is promoting denial, subversion, subterfuge. Who benefits? Israel is pretty much already under the bus. Iran repudiates everything the US says, every day, very time, and parades with great pride their abusing the US in negotiations and the desperate nature of this administration to produce anything- Iran wants a nuclear bomb and the ability to act with impunity throughout the world. Obama is giving them this by stabbing our allies in the region, sunnis and jews alike- who benefits? (http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2015/02/obamas-secret-iran-strategy/).

Nigeria suffers from US stopping arms transfer. Boko Harem benefits? We allowed our Yemenese ally to be crunched under the buss and shia rebels have power. Cui bono? We re populated afghan terrorists warriors enemies combatants to the battle field before the cessation of hostilities. In fact, the US has screwed up every single thing it has touched abroad from the "reset with Russia" to the assassination and coup of Qaddafi in Libya. Cui Bono? Find me an explanation that touches on how all these points of injury to the West represent a coherent argument or policy not swayed toward enabling radical islam and we will consider it. I dont know of anyone who can explain the littered efforts of the US in the "war on terror." It is civilization treason! Period!

Islamic jihad is not new! There is an inherent ideology in the framework that compels war, compels butchery and barbarism, and demands consistency with 7th century mores and practices. Were there a valid argument there was no compulsion in Islam to war upon others there would be no islam. It is not possible- the two cannot be divorced. This is not an interpretation of islam it is fact. Islam requires two camps at all times, nonstop, until the end of the world- Islam is constructed as a House of War or House of Submission, dar al harb or dar al islam. All places which do not have sharia are the house of war and jihad must be waged nonstop. The idea that Islam is not at war with the US is puerile. Any notions that of what the US needs to do in response or not needs to realize the US had previously defined the threat over 20 years ago. It is only in the past 6 years that the threat has been whitewashed, the terms Islamic and terrorist and jiahd have been removed from the military and judicial lexicon. This is sheer Orwellian nonsense. The US is not even able to define its threat any longer.

[Publicus]

I just read another bad Michael Moore script of an Oliver Stone movie based on a documentary by Rupert Murdoch.

[NeverSure]

I just read another bad Michael Moore script of an Oliver Stone movie based on a documentary by Rupert Murdoch.

Translate: "I just got my butt kicked and I don't have anything to respond with."

[canman]

Did it occur to any of the posters that the vast majority of people being slaughtered by ISIS are other Muslims?

Mostly for not being Muslim enough...or of belonging to the wrong particular branch of Islam.

From what I can see ISIS is simply a manifestation (albeit a bloodthirsty one) of what we have seen develop in the west over the past forty or fifty years post WW2

Street gangs becoming more violent, young people being held less responsible for their actions etc etc....and the result is??

Throw in a good dose of religion and there you have it. Northern Ireland or the Middle East or take on the whole world of unbelievers.

I challenge any of the long term expats to go back to their stomping grounds as they were when teenagers and see what has become of it..

Most of the ground troops in ISIS are relatively young people.

The twin perspective that IS are relatively young people and "what we have seen develop" over recent years suggest an extremely limited view point from which to view this issue. This leads one to think that events are a current phenomena, unique, and an expression of a particular angst of this age. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, just the opposite is true.

The small lapse in islamic [military] conquest only took place from the 17-19th century, and during that time simmering whahabbism grew (and other)- so, the conquest never changed. What changed following the failure of the siege of Vienna in the late 17th century was that while Ottoman overlords stopped the required muslim advance (because they got soundly thumped in Europe), imams closer to the people, and the ummah, continued birthing in doctrine the very militant conquest that existed for 1200 years prior, that the Ottomans now seemed reluctant to push. So, a person can wake in the 20th century and wonder where islamic jihad came from, it must be the result of these young folks, and that it developed only recently. No! The entire premise of islam is war. If you removed the requirement to war upon others from islam you would totally eviscerate the Shar'ia. These are the two eternal states of islam on earth, the house of war and the house if submission. Everyplace not enforcing sharia is the house of war.

Islamic conquest begun during their prophet's life; in fact it is his murder, slaughter, beheading, burning, raping, and mutilating of others that set the standard- just read the scriptures- they are everywhere (numerous examples). al-Insan al-Kamil - The Doctrine of The Perfect Man is an inherent component of every muslim's religious teaching and admonishment on how to lead their lives.

Not just jews, arabs, pagans, christians, but everyone on earth is subject to the islamic conquest because they are the perfect among all peoples. The goal in islam is jihad. You cannot assign contemporary modern values to an ideology that is predicated on murder and mayhem. Islam has pretty much either militarily or in jurisprudence or sub-sects preserved a nonstop tradition of warring upon everyone on earth. During these 1,400 years or so, some estimates place the number slaughtered from islam at over 250,000,000. Some say the largest holocaust in history, the 800 year murder rampage of Hindus, Buddhists, Jainists, etc., are easily over 100,000,000 dead alone! Perhaps those in the West should review an unvarnished history that is not rewritten, lately!

So, it makes little difference any longer if the US is at war with radical islam. Islam is at war with everyone. Unable to control his mouth while seething at a national prayer breakfast in the US recently, Obama argued the fallacious reasoning that the crusaders committed some horrible acts in their time as well. What? Did we really hear that? This was being said by the US in response to a Jordanian pilot being burning alive in a cage and the president advises us "not to get on our high horse" while the world is aghast in a flood of horrible images coming out of the mideast. Of course the crusaders, regardless of the accounts of excess, were a response to 400 years or islamic rape, plunder, slavery, and murder of Europeans. Besides the fallacy of hypocrisy argument the president increasingly reveals that the US is indeed at war, but the US is at war with America, not radical islam.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/06/asra_nomani_terrorist_in_jordanian_pilot_video_cited_similar_grievances_obama_aired_at_prayer_breakfast.html

http://eaglerising.com/14819/obama-defends-islam-scapegoating-christians-prayer-breakfast/

http://www.businessinsider.com/people-are-freaking-out-after-obama-compared-isis-to-the-crusades-2015-2

I think this is designed to inflame and incite conflict and only conflict. I believe it wants violent clashes of civilizations, cultures, peoples. It seeks to portray the whole of Islam and Muslims inclusively as inevitably and by nature invariably aggressive, violent, a direct threat to each and every one of us always and forever.

The truth as I see it from the Muslims I know and lived among in the Thai South is that they are the same as most Christians, which is to say they read their holy book, attend worship services, then go about their everyday lives in the real and modern secular world absent the deep background of hostilities or aggression described in the post. Their actual god is materialism, not a fanatical ideology or any ideology.

Certainly, if Muslim-Americans can be peaceful and integrated into the larger society in their local communities, the post above is all the more unrealistic, excessive, deliberately provocative and incendiary.

OTT.

Prez Obama and other responsible leaders of primarily Christian civilizations consciously take a low tone, low key, calm and restrained approach that is both wise and beneficial to all sides and each and every one of us. We needn't identify all or most Muslims as an enemy unless we want to have most or all Muslims as an enemy and unless we do in fact want a clash, violence, destruction.

The post attempts with a great determination to have a literal war.

"The truth as I see it from the Muslims I know and lived among in the Thai South is that they are the same as most Christians"

Ask yourself this; If you had fallen in love and married a local girl; who would have to have converted to whose religion? What would have happened if you insisted the girl converted to Christianity? If you were gay do you think the local community would tolerate you holding hands or kissing your significant other in public or even co-habitating? What would happen if one of this peace loving muslim community converted to Christianity? Have you ever tried to ask a moderate muslim about some of the less palitable passages in the koran? Have you asked them why their religion specificly forbids them to befriend Christian or Jew?

Saying they are the same as most Christians is laughable.

[Publicus]

I just read another bad Michael Moore script of an Oliver Stone movie based on a documentary by Rupert Murdoch.

Translate: "I just got my butt kicked and I don't have anything to respond with."

I see something got lost in your translation.

No sense of humor for one thing....

[Publicus]

Did it occur to any of the posters that the vast majority of people being slaughtered by ISIS are other Muslims?

Mostly for not being Muslim enough...or of belonging to the wrong particular branch of Islam.

From what I can see ISIS is simply a manifestation (albeit a bloodthirsty one) of what we have seen develop in the west over the past forty or fifty years post WW2

Street gangs becoming more violent, young people being held less responsible for their actions etc etc....and the result is??

Throw in a good dose of religion and there you have it. Northern Ireland or the Middle East or take on the whole world of unbelievers.

I challenge any of the long term expats to go back to their stomping grounds as they were when teenagers and see what has become of it..

Most of the ground troops in ISIS are relatively young people.

The twin perspective that IS are relatively young people and "what we have seen develop" over recent years suggest an extremely limited view point from which to view this issue. This leads one to think that events are a current phenomena, unique, and an expression of a particular angst of this age. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, just the opposite is true.

The small lapse in islamic [military] conquest only took place from the 17-19th century, and during that time simmering whahabbism grew (and other)- so, the conquest never changed. What changed following the failure of the siege of Vienna in the late 17th century was that while Ottoman overlords stopped the required muslim advance (because they got soundly thumped in Europe), imams closer to the people, and the ummah, continued birthing in doctrine the very militant conquest that existed for 1200 years prior, that the Ottomans now seemed reluctant to push. So, a person can wake in the 20th century and wonder where islamic jihad came from, it must be the result of these young folks, and that it developed only recently. No! The entire premise of islam is war. If you removed the requirement to war upon others from islam you would totally eviscerate the Shar'ia. These are the two eternal states of islam on earth, the house of war and the house if submission. Everyplace not enforcing sharia is the house of war.

Islamic conquest begun during their prophet's life; in fact it is his murder, slaughter, beheading, burning, raping, and mutilating of others that set the standard- just read the scriptures- they are everywhere (numerous examples). al-Insan al-Kamil - The Doctrine of The Perfect Man is an inherent component of every muslim's religious teaching and admonishment on how to lead their lives.

Not just jews, arabs, pagans, christians, but everyone on earth is subject to the islamic conquest because they are the perfect among all peoples. The goal in islam is jihad. You cannot assign contemporary modern values to an ideology that is predicated on murder and mayhem. Islam has pretty much either militarily or in jurisprudence or sub-sects preserved a nonstop tradition of warring upon everyone on earth. During these 1,400 years or so, some estimates place the number slaughtered from islam at over 250,000,000. Some say the largest holocaust in history, the 800 year murder rampage of Hindus, Buddhists, Jainists, etc., are easily over 100,000,000 dead alone! Perhaps those in the West should review an unvarnished history that is not rewritten, lately!

So, it makes little difference any longer if the US is at war with radical islam. Islam is at war with everyone. Unable to control his mouth while seething at a national prayer breakfast in the US recently, Obama argued the fallacious reasoning that the crusaders committed some horrible acts in their time as well. What? Did we really hear that? This was being said by the US in response to a Jordanian pilot being burning alive in a cage and the president advises us "not to get on our high horse" while the world is aghast in a flood of horrible images coming out of the mideast. Of course the crusaders, regardless of the accounts of excess, were a response to 400 years or islamic rape, plunder, slavery, and murder of Europeans. Besides the fallacy of hypocrisy argument the president increasingly reveals that the US is indeed at war, but the US is at war with America, not radical islam.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/06/asra_nomani_terrorist_in_jordanian_pilot_video_cited_similar_grievances_obama_aired_at_prayer_breakfast.html

http://eaglerising.com/14819/obama-defends-islam-scapegoating-christians-prayer-breakfast/

http://www.businessinsider.com/people-are-freaking-out-after-obama-compared-isis-to-the-crusades-2015-2

I think this is designed to inflame and incite conflict and only conflict. I believe it wants violent clashes of civilizations, cultures, peoples. It seeks to portray the whole of Islam and Muslims inclusively as inevitably and by nature invariably aggressive, violent, a direct threat to each and every one of us always and forever.

The truth as I see it from the Muslims I know and lived among in the Thai South is that they are the same as most Christians, which is to say they read their holy book, attend worship services, then go about their everyday lives in the real and modern secular world absent the deep background of hostilities or aggression described in the post. Their actual god is materialism, not a fanatical ideology or any ideology.

Certainly, if Muslim-Americans can be peaceful and integrated into the larger society in their local communities, the post above is all the more unrealistic, excessive, deliberately provocative and incendiary.

OTT.

Prez Obama and other responsible leaders of primarily Christian civilizations consciously take a low tone, low key, calm and restrained approach that is both wise and beneficial to all sides and each and every one of us. We needn't identify all or most Muslims as an enemy unless we want to have most or all Muslims as an enemy and unless we do in fact want a clash, violence, destruction.

The post attempts with a great determination to have a literal war.

"The truth as I see it from the Muslims I know and lived among in the Thai South is that they are the same as most Christians"

Ask yourself this; If you had fallen in love and married a local girl; who would have to have converted to whose religion? What would have happened if you insisted the girl converted to Christianity? If you were gay do you think the local community would tolerate you holding hands or kissing your significant other in public or even co-habitating? What would happen if one of this peace loving muslim community converted to Christianity? Have you ever tried to ask a moderate muslim about some of the less palitable passages in the koran? Have you asked them why their religion specificly forbids them to befriend Christian or Jew?

Saying they are the same as most Christians is laughable.

Muslims in the Thai South were my friends and whenever I have visited there they are still my warm friends.

While I lived there they invited me to their religious services without any proselytizing and it was an exposure I readily welcomed.

They are ordinary people. They have gay people they know to be gay and there's no problem about that to include the annual ladyboy festival there.

They live in peace but detest the southern militants. They do feel strongly about the Palestinians but they never said a word to me about Israel, either way.

I once saw a teenager in an outdoor market who wore a white t-shirt that had a Christian cross on it under a do not enter circle and diagonal line with the words "Bad Religion" on it. I gave the kid a long look but he couldn't look at me personally or look me in the eye, which I found to be telling about his personal interactions vs his ideology.

I could write a lot more but I'll simply say to live and learn cause it's a good idea and it is the only real way to do it.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Publicus

[chuckd]

<snip>

Muslims in the Thai South were my friends and whenever I have visited there they are still my warm friends.

While I lived there they invited me to their religious services without any proselytizing and it was an exposure I readily welcomed.

They are ordinary people. They have gay people they know to be gay and there's no problem about that to include the annual ladyboy festival there.

They live in peace but detest the southern militants. They do feel strongly about the Palestinians but they never said a word to me about Israel, either way.

I once saw a teenager in an outdoor market who wore a white t-shirt that had a Christian cross on it under a do not enter circle and diagonal line with the words "Bad Religion" on it. I gave the kid a long look but he couldn't look at me personally or look me in the eye, which I found to be telling about his personal interactions vs his ideology.

I could write a lot more but I'll simply say to live and learn cause it's a good idea and it is the only real way to do it.

"I once saw a teenager in an outdoor market who wore a white t-shirt that had a Christian cross on it under a do not enter circle and diagonal line with the words "Bad Religion" on it. I gave the kid a long look but he couldn't look at me personally or look me in the eye, which I found to be telling about his personal interactions vs his ideology."

Daring to stare down some anonymous teenager wearing an offensive shirt hardly qualifies you as an expert on radical Islam.

[simple1]

"The truth as I see it from the Muslims I know and lived among in the Thai South is that they are the same as most Christians"

Ask yourself this; If you had fallen in love and married a local girl; who would have to have converted to whose religion? What would have happened if you insisted the girl converted to Christianity? If you were gay do you think the local community would tolerate you holding hands or kissing your significant other in public or even co-habitating? What would happen if one of this peace loving muslim community converted to Christianity? Have you ever tried to ask a moderate muslim about some of the less palitable passages in the koran? Have you asked them why their religion specificly forbids them to befriend Christian or Jew?

Saying they are the same as most Christians is laughable.

Muslims in the Thai South were my friends and whenever I have visited there they are still my warm friends.

While I lived there they invited me to their religious services without any proselytizing and it was an exposure I readily welcomed.

They are ordinary people. They have gay people they know to be gay and there's no problem about that to include the annual ladyboy festival there.

They live in peace but detest the southern militants. They do feel strongly about the Palestinians but they never said a word to me about Israel, either way.

I once saw a teenager in an outdoor market who wore a white t-shirt that had a Christian cross on it under a do not enter circle and diagonal line with the words "Bad Religion" on it. I gave the kid a long look but he couldn't look at me personally or look me in the eye, which I found to be telling about his personal interactions vs his ideology.

I could write a lot more but I'll simply say to live and learn cause it's a good idea and it is the only real way to do it.

Off topic, but worth a response.

After living within a Thai Muslim community for four years, I agree with Publicus on the culture of Thai Muslims. From my experience It's a common error for posters to associate strict Arab Muslim cultural conservatism with the general Thai Muslim community.

I suggest the percentile of Thai Muslims who understand Islam as presented by Arjunadawn and others is tiny.

[arjunadawn]

"The truth as I see it from the Muslims I know and lived among in the Thai South is that they are the same as most Christians"

Ask yourself this; If you had fallen in love and married a local girl; who would have to have converted to whose religion? What would have happened if you insisted the girl converted to Christianity? If you were gay do you think the local community would tolerate you holding hands or kissing your significant other in public or even co-habitating? What would happen if one of this peace loving muslim community converted to Christianity? Have you ever tried to ask a moderate muslim about some of the less palitable passages in the koran? Have you asked them why their religion specificly forbids them to befriend Christian or Jew?

Saying they are the same as most Christians is laughable.

It is a false narrative to state that christians are the same as muslims. Why? Because it improperly frames the issue. It posits a meaningless assertion. The underlying reality is no human is an animal, mostly. All humans at one time or another have absolutely interchangeable needs, dreams, fears, realizations, and moments of transcendence. All humans wish to be loved, want to feel secure, wish themselves more lovely, bigger muscles, smaller belly, more attractive, bigger penis, larger breasts, desirable, graced, blessed, beloved of others, sought by god, and may have possessions, and health and romance. All humans variously have this very unique characteristics among the natural world. These are the mechanics of the delusion of Self, or being alive and aware that we are alive As opposed to a tree, which has awareness but cannot be said to know it has. Considering these remarkable similarities, it is patently obvious that less divides humans than connects us. Yet this foundational truth is mired by shadowy ideologies like a blight upon crops.

What divides us are practices and mores of dead agents of selfish vision, corrupt shenanigans, imaginary gods, worldly power, and dark conquest. Whether Islam, Judaism, or Christianity, all serve, at one point or another, to divide the us from them; in the case of islam, intentionally. In Islam an entire ideology is actually predicated upon the them being abhorrent in the eyes of man and god and the us being chosen and beloved of god. It is no surprise then that we all would variously seem similar at differing periods of life, different moments of observation, at the pinnacle of our triumphs, and in our shared despair. But this does not make the conclusion that the defining ideologies we adhere to are similar; no, not at all. Christianity is as different from Islam as apples from rubber bands. It is utterly false logic to assert that because we bleed similarly, what we are convicted to is basically the same. No.

What few accept is that the excesses of christianity were actually in deep contrast to the tenets and teachings of the final dispensation of their prophets. In the case of Islam, from the 7th century until the present, the excesses and outrages are actually in substantial compliance with the injunction to go forth and war upon all others until the world is in total submission to Al Lah. Herein lies the real deep contrast.

[chuckd]

"The truth as I see it from the Muslims I know and lived among in the Thai South is that they are the same as most Christians"

Ask yourself this; If you had fallen in love and married a local girl; who would have to have converted to whose religion? What would have happened if you insisted the girl converted to Christianity? If you were gay do you think the local community would tolerate you holding hands or kissing your significant other in public or even co-habitating? What would happen if one of this peace loving muslim community converted to Christianity? Have you ever tried to ask a moderate muslim about some of the less palitable passages in the koran? Have you asked them why their religion specificly forbids them to befriend Christian or Jew?

Saying they are the same as most Christians is laughable.

Muslims in the Thai South were my friends and whenever I have visited there they are still my warm friends.

While I lived there they invited me to their religious services without any proselytizing and it was an exposure I readily welcomed.

They are ordinary people. They have gay people they know to be gay and there's no problem about that to include the annual ladyboy festival there.

They live in peace but detest the southern militants. They do feel strongly about the Palestinians but they never said a word to me about Israel, either way.

I once saw a teenager in an outdoor market who wore a white t-shirt that had a Christian cross on it under a do not enter circle and diagonal line with the words "Bad Religion" on it. I gave the kid a long look but he couldn't look at me personally or look me in the eye, which I found to be telling about his personal interactions vs his ideology.

I could write a lot more but I'll simply say to live and learn cause it's a good idea and it is the only real way to do it.

Off topic, but worth a response.

After living within a Thai Muslim community for four years, I agree with Publicus on the culture of Thai Muslims. From my experience It's a common error for posters to associate strict Arab Muslim cultural conservatism with the general Thai Muslim community.

I suggest the percentile of Thai Muslims who understand Islam as presented by Arjunadawn and others is tiny.

Let us assume that small minority of Muslims are radical Islamists is 1 in 1,000.

How many radicals are there in the US with a Muslim population of 6.67 Million?

My calculator comes up with 6,670 radical Islamists presently residing in the US.

It only took 19 of them to bring down the World Trade Centers.

If America isn't at war with Islam, they better rethink their position.

To quote Astronaut James Lovell..."Houston, we've had a problem"...and the problem is growing larger.

[Exsexyman]

Boomerangutang asserted: Iran and ISIS have a lot more in common than they have to clash about?

Morch responded: Like what?

I don't have it out for Iran. I was once ably assisted by an Iranian-American when I was in a tight spot, and he didn't even ask compensation for helping me out.

I know Iranians are Persian rather than Arab. Here's what they have in common with ISIS:

>>> fanatically Muslim

>>> keep women down, and assert women are inherently dirty and inferior

>>> snuff out freedom of press

>>> strongly back Sharia Law

>>> harsh medieval punishment for even minor offenses.

>>> Shouting 'Allah Akbar' in regard to anything/everything.

>>> Hate America

Granted, Afghanistan is more likely to side with ISIS, than Iran. But still, extremist cult beliefs can be binding. The only basic difference between Sunnis and Shi'ites stems from some some (obscure, to outsiders) interpretation of some event which happened hundreds of years ago. I have to read-up again on it. Yet, to keep the fires burning (literally and figuratively) for some family quarrel from hundreds of years ago appears near-ridiculous to forward-thinking westerners. It's as if they're straining to find things to quarrel about - and succeeding.

Over recent years the ratio of females against males entering higher education in Iran has risen to 60%. How do you square this with your outright falsehood, "Keep women down, and assert women are inherently dirty and inferior"? Not just higher education either, according to UNESCO world survey, Iran has the highest female to male ratio at primary level of enrollment in the world among sovereign nations, with a girl to boy ratio of 1.22 : 1.00.

You really should try and educate yourself a bit more before spouting bigoted nonsense.

[BKKBobby]

Boomerangutang asserted: Iran and ISIS have a lot more in common than they have to clash about?

Morch responded: Like what?

I don't have it out for Iran. I was once ably assisted by an Iranian-American when I was in a tight spot, and he didn't even ask compensation for helping me out.

I know Iranians are Persian rather than Arab. Here's what they have in common with ISIS:

>>> fanatically Muslim

>>> keep women down, and assert women are inherently dirty and inferior

>>> snuff out freedom of press

>>> strongly back Sharia Law

>>> harsh medieval punishment for even minor offenses.

>>> Shouting 'Allah Akbar' in regard to anything/everything.

>>> Hate America

Granted, Afghanistan is more likely to side with ISIS, than Iran. But still, extremist cult beliefs can be binding. The only basic difference between Sunnis and Shi'ites stems from some some (obscure, to outsiders) interpretation of some event which happened hundreds of years ago. I have to read-up again on it. Yet, to keep the fires burning (literally and figuratively) for some family quarrel from hundreds of years ago appears near-ridiculous to forward-thinking westerners. It's as if they're straining to find things to quarrel about - and succeeding.

The split between sunni and shia isnt obscure to anyone with a basic history book about islam.

The split is bigger than the split between catholics and protestants.

The split happened as soon as Muhammed died. Since the beginning.

Shias dont acknowledge any of the caliphates as legitimate.

Shias thought that Muhammeds cousin Ali should be the leader of the faith and its followers.

Also the killing of Hossein and his men in Karbala, Iraq is seen as a very big event among shias. The date of that event is a time for mourning among religious shias every year.

The split is very big indeed.

Shias believe that the person that should be the religious authority over all muslims should be a blood relative to Muhammed. The last one alive supposedly went into hiding, the mahdi. Hes equal to the christians messiah. They are waiting for him to return.

Radical sunnis dont even consider shias to be muslims.

Edited February 10, 2015 by BKKBobby

[CMNightRider]

Muslims in the Thai South were my friends and whenever I have visited there they are still my warm friends.

While I lived there they invited me to their religious services without any proselytizing and it was an exposure I readily welcomed.

They are ordinary people. They have gay people they know to be gay and there's no problem about that to include the annual ladyboy festival there.

They live in peace but detest the southern militants. They do feel strongly about the Palestinians but they never said a word to me about Israel, either way.

I once saw a teenager in an outdoor market who wore a white t-shirt that had a Christian cross on it under a do not enter circle and diagonal line with the words "Bad Religion" on it. I gave the kid a long look but he couldn't look at me personally or look me in the eye, which I found to be telling about his personal interactions vs his ideology.

I could write a lot more but I'll simply say to live and learn cause it's a good idea and it is the only real way to do it.

"Muslims in the Thai South are your friends, and they like gay people??" Muslims in the south of Thailand, have been slaughtering Buddhists for decades. They have killed Thai children, teachers, and Buddhists monks in the name of Islam. These people escalated they reign of terror in 2004, and if the Thai government follows Obama's lead, the south of Thailand will soon resemble Afghanistan. Muslims are like the plague once their numbers increase. "You stared down a teenager in an outdoor market wearing a white tee-shirt" you say? Oh boy, lol.

[Ulysses G.]

You really should try and educate yourself a bit more before spouting bigoted nonsense.

Try following your own advice.

- Tens of thousands of women have been executed in Iran since 1979, when the mullahs took power. They were executed on political grounds, for their opposition to the policies of the ruling government. Among those executed were tens of pregnant women.

- The worst kinds of torture are inflicted on woman prisoners who oppose the regime. These include repeated sexual assaults, amputation of body parts and...

http://www.wfafi.org/laws.pdf

[Steely Dan]

Muslims in the Thai South were my friends and whenever I have visited there they are still my warm friends.

While I lived there they invited me to their religious services without any proselytizing and it was an exposure I readily welcomed.

They are ordinary people. They have gay people they know to be gay and there's no problem about that to include the annual ladyboy festival there.

They live in peace but detest the southern militants. They do feel strongly about the Palestinians but they never said a word to me about Israel, either way.

I once saw a teenager in an outdoor market who wore a white t-shirt that had a Christian cross on it under a do not enter circle and diagonal line with the words "Bad Religion" on it. I gave the kid a long look but he couldn't look at me personally or look me in the eye, which I found to be telling about his personal interactions vs his ideology.

I could write a lot more but I'll simply say to live and learn cause it's a good idea and it is the only real way to do it.

"Muslims in the Thai South are your friends, and they like gay people??" Muslims in the south of Thailand, have been slaughtering Buddhists for decades. They have killed Thai children, teachers, and Buddhists monks in the name of Islam. These people escalated they reign of terror in 2004, and if the Thai government follows Obama's lead, the south of Thailand will soon resemble Afghanistan. Muslims are like the plague once their numbers increase. "You stared down a teenager in an outdoor market wearing a white tee-shirt" you say? Oh boy, lol.

I don't doubt the anecdotal experience was as portrayed, however this is exactly as one would expect from the first stage of Jihad. The three most southerly provinces are well into stage two of jihad, if not stage three because the ethnic cleansing of Buddhists there is well underway.

[BKKBobby]

You really should try and educate yourself a bit more before spouting bigoted nonsense.

Try following your own advice.

- Tens of thousands of women have been executed in Iran since 1979, when the mullahs took power. They were executed on political grounds, for their opposition to the policies of the ruling government. Among those executed were tens of pregnant women.

- The worst kinds of torture are inflicted on woman prisoners who oppose the regime. These include repeated sexual assaults, amputation of body parts and...

http://www.wfafi.org/laws.pdf

Dont ignore this post or try to make it seem unrelevant by talking in circles or using a smart way of putting together your sentences Ulysses. G

Mohammad Mossadegh were a democratically elected leader in a Iran with no religious laws. He was as left-leaning as the average swedish government.

He nationalised the oil which anyone would understand cause Iran had made a very unfair deal with UK a long time ago.

UK wanted to topple him. Instead of doing it themselves they played the US and put communist paranoia into the US which then arranged a coup and toppled Mossadegh. CIA did this. Its public information. Not classified anymore.

They installed a brainless Puppet Shah that were doing everything he was told by his foreign masters.

Iran was considered the most modern and west-oriented country in the middle east.

What if USA never toppled Mossadegh?

If he wasnt toppled there would never have been an islamic revolution in Iran 1979.

Edited February 10, 2015 by BKKBobby

[Publicus]

Muslims in the Thai South were my friends and whenever I have visited there they are still my warm friends.

While I lived there they invited me to their religious services without any proselytizing and it was an exposure I readily welcomed.

They are ordinary people. They have gay people they know to be gay and there's no problem about that to include the annual ladyboy festival there.

They live in peace but detest the southern militants. They do feel strongly about the Palestinians but they never said a word to me about Israel, either way.

I once saw a teenager in an outdoor market who wore a white t-shirt that had a Christian cross on it under a do not enter circle and diagonal line with the words "Bad Religion" on it. I gave the kid a long look but he couldn't look at me personally or look me in the eye, which I found to be telling about his personal interactions vs his ideology.

I could write a lot more but I'll simply say to live and learn cause it's a good idea and it is the only real way to do it.

"Muslims in the Thai South are your friends, and they like gay people??" Muslims in the south of Thailand, have been slaughtering Buddhists for decades. They have killed Thai children, teachers, and Buddhists monks in the name of Islam. These people escalated they reign of terror in 2004, and if the Thai government follows Obama's lead, the south of Thailand will soon resemble Afghanistan. Muslims are like the plague once their numbers increase. "You stared down a teenager in an outdoor market wearing a white tee-shirt" you say? Oh boy, lol.

The quotes presented in the post are not of or from my post.

My post is about the Muslims in the South I lived among and I said the Muslims in the area I lived and worked live in peace and "detest the southern militants," and that the huge majority of Muslims are "ordinary people" who are similar to the vast majority of Christians who themselves are ordinary people.

But don't let accuracy and respect of the facts of my post get in the way of an ideology or of a bent or of any prejudice....or any broad and sweeping condemnation or detestation of one's own.

While I never said I was staring down any Muslim in the South, I do stare down bogus posts and I in fact take them on directly and decisively to correct them. It's like making a good swift kick to get the attention of the other guy so here's looking at you stud.

[Publicus]

"The truth as I see it from the Muslims I know and lived among in the Thai South is that they are the same as most Christians"

Ask yourself this; If you had fallen in love and married a local girl; who would have to have converted to whose religion? What would have happened if you insisted the girl converted to Christianity? If you were gay do you think the local community would tolerate you holding hands or kissing your significant other in public or even co-habitating? What would happen if one of this peace loving muslim community converted to Christianity? Have you ever tried to ask a moderate muslim about some of the less palitable passages in the koran? Have you asked them why their religion specificly forbids them to befriend Christian or Jew?

Saying they are the same as most Christians is laughable.

Muslims in the Thai South were my friends and whenever I have visited there they are still my warm friends.

While I lived there they invited me to their religious services without any proselytizing and it was an exposure I readily welcomed.

They are ordinary people. They have gay people they know to be gay and there's no problem about that to include the annual ladyboy festival there.

They live in peace but detest the southern militants. They do feel strongly about the Palestinians but they never said a word to me about Israel, either way.

I once saw a teenager in an outdoor market who wore a white t-shirt that had a Christian cross on it under a do not enter circle and diagonal line with the words "Bad Religion" on it. I gave the kid a long look but he couldn't look at me personally or look me in the eye, which I found to be telling about his personal interactions vs his ideology.

I could write a lot more but I'll simply say to live and learn cause it's a good idea and it is the only real way to do it.

Off topic, but worth a response.

After living within a Thai Muslim community for four years, I agree with Publicus on the culture of Thai Muslims. From my experience It's a common error for posters to associate strict Arab Muslim cultural conservatism with the general Thai Muslim community.

I suggest the percentile of Thai Muslims who understand Islam as presented by Arjunadawn and others is tiny.

Let us assume that small minority of Muslims are radical Islamists is 1 in 1,000.

How many radicals are there in the US with a Muslim population of 6.67 Million?

My calculator comes up with 6,670 radical Islamists presently residing in the US.

It only took 19 of them to bring down the World Trade Centers.

If America isn't at war with Islam, they better rethink their position.

To quote Astronaut James Lovell..."Houston, we've had a problem"...and the problem is growing larger.

Let us assume

Let us not...it always goes in wrong and bad directions as once again evidenced in the post....

[Publicus]

Muslims in the Thai South were my friends and whenever I have visited there they are still my warm friends.

While I lived there they invited me to their religious services without any proselytizing and it was an exposure I readily welcomed.

They are ordinary people. They have gay people they know to be gay and there's no problem about that to include the annual ladyboy festival there.

They live in peace but detest the southern militants. They do feel strongly about the Palestinians but they never said a word to me about Israel, either way.

I once saw a teenager in an outdoor market who wore a white t-shirt that had a Christian cross on it under a do not enter circle and diagonal line with the words "Bad Religion" on it. I gave the kid a long look but he couldn't look at me personally or look me in the eye, which I found to be telling about his personal interactions vs his ideology.

I could write a lot more but I'll simply say to live and learn cause it's a good idea and it is the only real way to do it.

"Muslims in the Thai South are your friends, and they like gay people??" Muslims in the south of Thailand, have been slaughtering Buddhists for decades. They have killed Thai children, teachers, and Buddhists monks in the name of Islam. These people escalated they reign of terror in 2004, and if the Thai government follows Obama's lead, the south of Thailand will soon resemble Afghanistan. Muslims are like the plague once their numbers increase. "You stared down a teenager in an outdoor market wearing a white tee-shirt" you say? Oh boy, lol.

I don't doubt the anecdotal experience was as portrayed, however this is exactly as one would expect from the first stage of Jihad. The three most southerly provinces are well into stage two of jihad, if not stage three because the ethnic cleansing of Buddhists there is well underway.

It's generally recognized there are five most southernly Muslim majority provinces where the population of Muslims in each province equals some 90% or greater.

Three of them down there have serious problems: Pattani, Yala, Narithiwat.

Another of the five,Songkhla, has occasional problems, while yet another, Satun has virtually no problems.

Meanwhile the cleansing of political moderates up here is not going well for the local far right regardless of whatever stage in might be in.

[chuckd]

You really should try and educate yourself a bit more before spouting bigoted nonsense.

Try following your own advice.

- Tens of thousands of women have been executed in Iran since 1979, when the mullahs took power. They were executed on political grounds, for their opposition to the policies of the ruling government. Among those executed were tens of pregnant women.

- The worst kinds of torture are inflicted on woman prisoners who oppose the regime. These include repeated sexual assaults, amputation of body parts and...

http://www.wfafi.org/laws.pdf

Dont ignore this post or try to make it seem unrelevant by talking in circles or using a smart way of putting together your sentences Ulysses. G

Mohammad Mossadegh were a democratically elected leader in a Iran with no religious laws. He was as left-leaning as the average swedish government.

He nationalised the oil which anyone would understand cause Iran had made a very unfair deal with UK a long time ago.

UK wanted to topple him. Instead of doing it themselves they played the US and put communist paranoia into the US which then arranged a coup and toppled Mossadegh. CIA did this. Its public information. Not classified anymore.

They installed a brainless Puppet that were doing everything he was told by his foreign masters.

He got toppled and now US have to take consequence of playing god without even having a good cause.

Iran was considered the most modern and west-oriented country in the middle east.

What if USA never toppled Mossadegh?

May I comment on your post?

You are correct that the CIA was instrumental in over throwing the rule of Mossadegh and installing, as you call him a "brainless Puppet", back into his office.

That "brainless puppet" was Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, also known as the Shah of Iran.

The Shah was placed again, on the Peacock Throne in 1953 and very effectively ran his nation until the Islamic revolution in 1978 drove him into exile again.

I lived in Tehran and traveled quite a bit around the country from 1974 to 1979. During that nearly five year period I saw Iran move from a country where sliced bread was unavailable into a full grown partner of the west, with a growing and thriving middle class.

The government was largely secular, the economy was good and people were prosperous, free and happy.

If you feel like blaming the US for the Iranian situation, go for it. But don't blame the CIA. Blame Jimmy Carter who, on 1 January 1978 convinced the Shah to permit more freedom of the press and relax his control of the media.

The Shah was forced to leave Iran in January 1979 and Ayatollah Khomeini returned to rule. The rest is history.

[Ulysses G.]

You really should try and educate yourself a bit more before spouting bigoted nonsense.

Try following your own advice.

- Tens of thousands of women have been executed in Iran since 1979, when the mullahs took power. They were executed on political grounds, for their opposition to the policies of the ruling government. Among those executed were tens of pregnant women.

- The worst kinds of torture are inflicted on woman prisoners who oppose the regime. These include repeated sexual assaults, amputation of body parts and...

http://www.wfafi.org/laws.pdf

Dont ignore this post or try to make it seem unrelevant by talking in circles or using a smart way of putting together your sentences Ulysses. G

Ignore your post because it has nothing to do with mine OR the OP? Far be it from me. However, I suggest you read up on how your hero contrived referendums, rigged elections, and sought control of the armed forces. He was deposed largely by the Iranians themselves.

http://www.cfr.org/iran/myth-american-coup/p30900

[chuckd]

<snip>

Let us assume

Let us not...it always goes in wrong and bad directions as once again evidenced in the post....

Then what percent of the Muslim population do you think, believe, understand are considered radical Islamists?

I used as an example one in a 1,000.

In your considered opinion is it one in 10,000? One in 50,000?

Pretend I'm a teenager wearing a shirt you don't like and stare me down with some numbers.

[BKKBobby]

You really should try and educate yourself a bit more before spouting bigoted nonsense.

Try following your own advice.

- Tens of thousands of women have been executed in Iran since 1979, when the mullahs took power. They were executed on political grounds, for their opposition to the policies of the ruling government. Among those executed were tens of pregnant women.

- The worst kinds of torture are inflicted on woman prisoners who oppose the regime. These include repeated sexual assaults, amputation of body parts and...

http://www.wfafi.org/laws.pdf

Dont ignore this post or try to make it seem unrelevant by talking in circles or using a smart way of putting together your sentences Ulysses. G

Mohammad Mossadegh were a democratically elected leader in a Iran with no religious laws. He was as left-leaning as the average swedish government.

He nationalised the oil which anyone would understand cause Iran had made a very unfair deal with UK a long time ago.

UK wanted to topple him. Instead of doing it themselves they played the US and put communist paranoia into the US which then arranged a coup and toppled Mossadegh. CIA did this. Its public information. Not classified anymore.

They installed a brainless Puppet that were doing everything he was told by his foreign masters.

He got toppled and now US have to take consequence of playing god without even having a good cause.

Iran was considered the most modern and west-oriented country in the middle east.

What if USA never toppled Mossadegh?

May I comment on your post?

You are correct that the CIA was instrumental in over throwing the rule of Mossadegh and installing, as you call him a "brainless Puppet", back into his office.

That "brainless puppet" was Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, also known as the Shah of Iran.

The Shah was placed again, on the Peacock Throne in 1953 and very effectively ran his nation until the Islamic revolution in 1978 drove him into exile again.

I lived in Tehran and traveled quite a bit around the country from 1974 to 1979. During that nearly five year period I saw Iran move from a country where sliced bread was unavailable into a full grown partner of the west, with a growing and thriving middle class.

The government was largely secular, the economy was good and people were prosperous, free and happy.

If you feel like blaming the US for the Iranian situation, go for it. But don't blame the CIA. Blame Jimmy Carter who, on 1 January 1978 convinced the Shah to permit more freedom of the press and relax his control of the media.

The Shah was forced to leave Iran in January 1979 and Ayatollah Khomeini returned to rule. The rest is history.

That middle class was a fraction of the population. They were upper-middleclass with cheap maids, servants, cooks and nannies. The shah was a dictator. His secret service make Mossad look like angels. The abuse that Savak did equals the mullahs secret service but without religion in the mix. The people marching in the streets against the Shah were mostly secular university students and intellectuals. In the chaos that came with the revolution the mullahs grabbed the power.

The religious uneducated masses outside the capital were irrelevant and not a force involved with the revolution.

Edited February 10, 2015 by BKKBobby

[canuckamuck]

May I comment on your post?

You are correct that the CIA was instrumental in over throwing the rule of Mossadegh and installing, as you call him a "brainless Puppet", back into his office.

That "brainless puppet" was Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, also known as the Shah of Iran.

The Shah was placed again, on the Peacock Throne in 1953 and very effectively ran his nation until the Islamic revolution in 1978 drove him into exile again.

I lived in Tehran and traveled quite a bit around the country from 1974 to 1979. During that nearly five year period I saw Iran move from a country where sliced bread was unavailable into a full grown partner of the west, with a growing and thriving middle class.

The government was largely secular, the economy was good and people were prosperous, free and happy.

If you feel like blaming the US for the Iranian situation, go for it. But don't blame the CIA. Blame Jimmy Carter who, on 1 January 1978 convinced the Shah to permit more freedom of the press and relax his control of the media.

The Shah was forced to leave Iran in January 1979 and Ayatollah Khomeini returned to rule. The rest is history.

I thought all of it was history?

[Steely Dan]

You really should try and educate yourself a bit more before spouting bigoted nonsense.

Try following your own advice.

- Tens of thousands of women have been executed in Iran since 1979, when the mullahs took power. They were executed on political grounds, for their opposition to the policies of the ruling government. Among those executed were tens of pregnant women.
- The worst kinds of torture are inflicted on woman prisoners who oppose the regime. These include repeated sexual assaults, amputation of body parts and...

http://www.wfafi.org/laws.pdf

Dont ignore this post or try to make it seem unrelevant by talking in circles or using a smart way of putting together your sentences Ulysses. G

Mohammad Mossadegh were a democratically elected leader in a Iran with no religious laws. He was as left-leaning as the average swedish government.

He nationalised the oil which anyone would understand cause Iran had made a very unfair deal with UK a long time ago.

UK wanted to topple him. Instead of doing it themselves they played the US and put communist paranoia into the US which then arranged a coup and toppled Mossadegh. CIA did this. Its public information. Not classified anymore.

They installed a brainless Puppet that were doing everything he was told by his foreign masters.

He got toppled and now US have to take consequence of playing god without even having a good cause.

Iran was considered the most modern and west-oriented country in the middle east.

What if USA never toppled Mossadegh?

May I comment on your post?

You are correct that the CIA was instrumental in over throwing the rule of Mossadegh and installing, as you call him a "brainless Puppet", back into his office.

That "brainless puppet" was Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, also known as the Shah of Iran.

The Shah was placed again, on the Peacock Throne in 1953 and very effectively ran his nation until the Islamic revolution in 1978 drove him into exile again.

I lived in Tehran and traveled quite a bit around the country from 1974 to 1979. During that nearly five year period I saw Iran move from a country where sliced bread was unavailable into a full grown partner of the west, with a growing and thriving middle class.

The government was largely secular, the economy was good and people were prosperous, free and happy.

If you feel like blaming the US for the Iranian situation, go for it. But don't blame the CIA. Blame Jimmy Carter who, on 1 January 1978 convinced the Shah to permit more freedom of the press and relax his control of the media.

The Shah was forced to leave Iran in January 1979 and Ayatollah Khomeini returned to rule. The rest is history.

That middle class was a fraction of the population. They were upper-middleclass with cheap maids, servants, cooks and nannies. The shah was a dictator. His secret service make Mossad look like angels. The abuse that Savak did equals the mullahs secret service but without religion in the mix. The people marching in the streets against the Shah were mostly secular university students and intellectuals. In the chaos that came with the revolution the mullahs grabbed the power.

The religious uneducated masses outside the capital were irrelevant and not a force involved with the revolution.

The leftist students and intellectuals soon found their marriage of convenience with the Islamists ended in a messy divorce, many hung around swinging from lampposts. Given enough time U.S progressives would suffer a similar fate if not rescued from their own idiocy.