Do you hate Islam ?

[Hermit]

I've yet to see a Muslim admit that the violence in Islam is because of Islam, and for them to remain a Muslim.

You are describing christianity as it was up to 200 years ago. The bible has not changed. The cherry picking from it has.

Whether there is an equivalence between Islam of today and Christianity of some hundreds of years ago doesn't change the fact that Islam as currently practiced by the vast majority of practicing Muslims is a disgusting sess pit of hate, racism, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and superstition, and is a bane to mankind and giant anchor on human progress.

So what is your conclusion?

[Coito ergo sum]

I've yet to see a Muslim admit that the violence in Islam is because of Islam, and for them to remain a Muslim.

You are describing christianity as it was up to 200 years ago. The bible has not changed. The cherry picking from it has.

Whether there is an equivalence between Islam of today and Christianity of some hundreds of years ago doesn't change the fact that Islam as currently practiced by the vast majority of practicing Muslims is a disgusting sess pit of hate, racism, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and superstition, and is a bane to mankind and giant anchor on human progress.

So what is your conclusion?

That depends on the question.

I've stated my conclusion quite clearly regarding the OP question, "do you hate Islam?"

Are you asking a different question?

If you're referring to the violence in Islam being because of Islam, then I have concluded that a lot of it is because of Islam. I conclude that based on the documentary evidence and audio/video evidence of Muslims who tell us why they are doing what they are doing. There seems to me to be a resistance, in the West primarily, to taking people at their words.

I think that is because the actions - blowing up women and children, slaughtering people through beheadings like cattle, honor rapes, setting women on fire because they aren't Muslim, stoning women, fanatical terrorism - all seem so horrid and nightmarish that we as humans seek explanations that aren't as horrific as what we see with our eyes and hear with our ears. So, we come up with more "nuanced" explanations which operate to shift the focus from the religious attacker to the secular attackee - it's not a war where Muslims are are fighting a holy war, it's a war where Muslims are being used by those who hold the strings to fight "against" those who are really to blame, the western powers who have held sway globally. Also, not taking them at their words allows us to prepackage a ready-made solution to the problem - the problem is not that Muslims attack and kill non-Muslims for religious reasons - the problem is that the West has "hegemony." Hegemony, though, is "bad", and therefore the solution is quite easy to see: if only the Western powers, especially the US, would stop the hegemony -- this would all be over. If we didn't assert hegemony, then the Islam would not be fighting against the west for the trumped up religious reasons which are merely a tool by those fighting the hegemony of the US.

In my view, that's not reality.

When I read Bin Laden's writings, for example, I read the writings of a true believer in Islam. He is racist/ethnocentric, and is pissed off because "Jews and Crusaders" are back in the Holy Land, and that dirty infidel feet are trodding on holy Arabian soil. That's what comes out loud and clear from his two main writings in the 1990s - his Declaration of War against the United States and his "Fatwa Against Jews and Crusaders." The "Muslim Countries" moreover, are religiously based and steeped in their cult like Earl Grey in a cup of boiling water. There is nothing about what they do that is not informed and motivated by their religion.

To ignore this, and suggest that what they are fighting is US global hegemony is to ignore the dozens of flash points all around the world. For example, just looking at a progression of atlases of the world over the decades of the last century will show the march of Islam to expand from north Africa into sub saharan africa, and that movement is continuing to this day. The wars continue, largely unsung and unreported as Islam continues its March to dominate that continent. To ignore the religious motivations is to ignore, in my view, reality.

Similarly, along India/Pakistan and India/Bangladesh borders, we get more religiously-motivated attacks. India had to carve off Pakistan and Bangladesh from itself because Muslims can't live near the filthy idolators (Hindus) without warring with them. And, since the separations there has been near constant tension, and what? Four wars between Indian and Pakistan? Islam can't let its neighbors alone, because unless you are Muslim you are at best "tolerated" and where possible, ousted or converted.

Similarly in Kosovo and the Balkans, Islam tried to expand. What the Serbs did was unforgivable, of course. But, it overshadows the fact that what the Muslim factions wanted to do was, themselves, expand.

I can go through several other examples off the top of my head where Islam clashes with other religions - Chechnya, Armenia/Azerbaijan, India/Pakistan, western China, Indonesia, the Philippines.....

When we view this globally - most of the Islamic clashes can not be explained by a resort to US global hegemony. But, they can be explained by religious motivation.

Once again - people often say and do what they mean.

[Mallardz]

I'm just going to ruin this thread and say;
"No. I think it's the nicest town in the whole of middle east"

[Hermit]

I've yet to see a Muslim admit that the violence in Islam is because of Islam, and for them to remain a Muslim.

You are describing christianity as it was up to 200 years ago. The bible has not changed. The cherry picking from it has.

Whether there is an equivalence between Islam of today and Christianity of some hundreds of years ago doesn't change the fact that Islam as currently practiced by the vast majority of practicing Muslims is a disgusting sess pit of hate, racism, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and superstition, and is a bane to mankind and giant anchor on human progress.

So what is your conclusion?

That depends on the question.

I've stated my conclusion quite clearly regarding the OP question, "do you hate Islam?"

Are you asking a different question?

If you're referring to the violence in Islam being because of Islam, then I have concluded that a lot of it is because of Islam. I conclude that based on the documentary evidence and audio/video evidence of Muslims who tell us why they are doing what they are doing. There seems to me to be a resistance, in the West primarily, to taking people at their words.

I think that is because the actions - blowing up women and children, slaughtering people through beheadings like cattle, honor rapes, setting women on fire because they aren't Muslim, stoning women, fanatical terrorism - all seem so horrid and nightmarish that we as humans seek explanations that aren't as horrific as what we see with our eyes and hear with our ears. So, we come up with more "nuanced" explanations which operate to shift the focus from the religious attacker to the secular attackee - it's not a war where Muslims are are fighting a holy war, it's a war where Muslims are being used by those who hold the strings to fight "against" those who are really to blame, the western powers who have held sway globally. Also, not taking them at their words allows us to prepackage a ready-made solution to the problem - the problem is not that Muslims attack and kill non-Muslims for religious reasons - the problem is that the West has "hegemony." Hegemony, though, is "bad", and therefore the solution is quite easy to see: if only the Western powers, especially the US, would stop the hegemony -- this would all be over. If we didn't assert hegemony, then the Islam would not be fighting against the west for the trumped up religious reasons which are merely a tool by those fighting the hegemony of the US.

In my view, that's not reality.

When I read Bin Laden's writings, for example, I read the writings of a true believer in Islam. He is racist/ethnocentric, and is pissed off because "Jews and Crusaders" are back in the Holy Land, and that dirty infidel feet are trodding on holy Arabian soil. That's what comes out loud and clear from his two main writings in the 1990s - his Declaration of War against the United States and his "Fatwa Against Jews and Crusaders." The "Muslim Countries" moreover, are religiously based and steeped in their cult like Earl Grey in a cup of boiling water. There is nothing about what they do that is not informed and motivated by their religion.

To ignore this, and suggest that what they are fighting is US global hegemony is to ignore the dozens of flash points all around the world. For example, just looking at a progression of atlases of the world over the decades of the last century will show the march of Islam to expand from north Africa into sub saharan africa, and that movement is continuing to this day. The wars continue, largely unsung and unreported as Islam continues its March to dominate that continent. To ignore the religious motivations is to ignore, in my view, reality.

Similarly, along India/Pakistan and India/Bangladesh borders, we get more religiously-motivated attacks. India had to carve off Pakistan and Bangladesh from itself because Muslims can't live near the filthy idolators (Hindus) without warring with them. And, since the separations there has been near constant tension, and what? Four wars between Indian and Pakistan? Islam can't let its neighbors alone, because unless you are Muslim you are at best "tolerated" and where possible, ousted or converted.

Similarly in Kosovo and the Balkans, Islam tried to expand. What the Serbs did was unforgivable, of course. But, it overshadows the fact that what the Muslim factions wanted to do was, themselves, expand.

I can go through several other examples off the top of my head where Islam clashes with other religions - Chechnya, Armenia/Azerbaijan, India/Pakistan, western China, Indonesia, the Philippines.....

When we view this globally - most of the Islamic clashes can not be explained by a resort to US global hegemony. But, they can be explained by religious motivation.

Once again - people often say and do what they mean.

Thanks for reiterating what you have said before, but how is islam different from what christianity used to be until the not too distant past? The aim of my question was to probe that, and also to elicit an answer from you as to what you propose we do about the problem of islamic militancy and terrorism that we currently face.

[Coito ergo sum]

Thanks for reiterating what you have said before, but how is islam different from what christianity used to be until the not too distant past?

What does it matter even if they're exactly the same? We shouldn't hate Islam because Christianity was just as fuck-all sucky 200 years ago?

We all know Christianity was quite violent in the past, and there were religious wars of aggression fought by Christians back in the day. I hate that too. But, currently, Christianity is tame in comparison to Islam, so I strongly dislike Christianity and I hate Islam. If I were given the choice to do away with only one of them, I would not hesitate in picking Islam. In a flat second.

Also, I didn't reiterate what I said before. I expressly did not reiterate what I said before. I specifically told you I had already expressed my opinion concerning the OP question, and I went on to address the issue you raised about Islamic terrorism not really being about religion but instead being about resistance to US global hegemony.

The aim of my question was to probe that, and also to elicit an answer from you as to what you propose we do about the problem of islamic militancy and terrorism that we currently face.

Well you should have asked that specifically, instead of just hanging the question out there: so what is your conclusion?

In any case, what do I propose we do about the problem of Islamic militancy and terrorism that we currently face. Well, I would start by drastically reducing the Western reliance on Muslim countries' fossil fuels. That would be project number 1. As soon as we stop the flow of oil money into Muslim countries, they will be hard pressed to project any power outside their borders and they will fast run out of money to buy and service high technology items.

Two, where there are aggressive projections of power by Muslim countries, I would suggest that we in the West fight them. If I had my druthers, continental Europe and the US would draw a very firm line with Muslim countries, and be very unified. It is my belief that had the West remained unified after 9/11/01 and ousted Hussein together, without the divisions in the UN, then much of what we are currently facing would not be happening. The political maneuvring where France, Russia and others try to "counter" American power allows countries like Iran to play off of that.

Three, we ought to draw the lines of a Palestinian state along some reasonable facsimile of the 1967 borders, vote on it in the UN and set up the two states. If the world would unite, then the problem would be solved. That's obviously fantasy disco, of course, and is more of a dream than anything possible in reality.

Four, I would have the west actively support democratic resistance movements within autocratic regimes like Iran, and I would work diplomaticallly with countries like Saudi Arabia to move toward liberal reforms.

Five, I would push the UN to require that no country be religiously based, and that a fundamental precept - a fundamental human right - is that the State and Church/Mosque be separate. I would make the Idea of a "Christian" or "Muslim" country illegal under international law. That, too, is fantasy disco. But, until then, I would want all the western countries to stand up for that principle, and advance it to the extent possible.

That's a start - what would you do?

[Clinton Huxley]

Never mind Islam. The militant wing of The Church of England can do things with a cucumber sandwich that would make your hair turn white.

[Coito ergo sum]

Never mind Islam. The militant wing of The Church of England can do things with a cucumber sandwich that would make your hair turn white.

Too much mayo?

[Clinton Huxley]

Never mind Islam. The militant wing of The Church of England can do things with a cucumber sandwich that would make your hair turn white.

Too much mayo?

They sometimes forget to cut the crusts off

[Coito ergo sum]

Never mind Islam. The militant wing of The Church of England can do things with a cucumber sandwich that would make your hair turn white.

Too much mayo?

They sometimes forget to cut the crusts off

Oppressive bastards!

[Coito ergo sum]

Iranian women's rugby team take to the field wearing modesty-preserving headscarves and tracksuits

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... z0vT8K1rhT








...because the Italian women's rugby players are immodest whores....so sayeth Allah the most merciful....

[Santa_Claus]

Never mind Islam. The militant wing of The Church of England can do things with a cucumber sandwich that would make your hair turn white.

Yup

But I ain't saying anything about the beard going white.....

[Santa_Claus]

Yes. and all who follow it (aka Muslims) or anyone who respects it.

The answer is simple:-

1) Crucifixtions on an industrial scale.

2) 1000 Bomber raids . With Lancasters. (nowadays can be pilotless and full of Smart Bombs - would be self financing if hooked up with Nintendo on a pay for play basis).

In fact (in my book) the answer to many things is covered by either of the above. or both

And the irony is I don't have a problem with Muslims blowing things / themselves up nor even wishing to turn the world Muslim - I understand why they want to, I just don't want to live under that nonsense - nor be forced to "respect" it (only a fool can respect stupidity). I just want my Govt to resist with all available means, not bury it's head in the sand

Still, compared to the Papist scum I am quite liberal when it comes to Muslims. The Chosen people ain't high on my list either. And as for the Church of Enything............

Ho! Ho! Ho!

[Trolldor]

Christianity didn't have the destructive capability that Islam has today.

[Hermit]

Christianity didn't have the destructive capability that Islam has today.

Just as well too. Can you imagine what the crusaders would have done if they had access to modern weaponry and transport? What about if today's surveillance technology was available to christian theocracies? :shudder:

[Trolldor]

They would have spent most of their time threatening their own followers.
There was a reason printing the bible in english was considered heresy.