(12-09-2015 04:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 04:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Now, if you're actually asking what percentage of Muslims support those groups?, I don't have the first clue. There's really no way to honestly assess it.

So you completely disregard the polls above?

I didn't say that. Completely? No. But yeah...the ones from 2006, 2007, 2010 and 2011...and the ones from the debunked hate group Trump's using. Of all those polls there's only 2 or three that's even over 50%. That actually proves that Islam IS mostly a religion of peace.

Again this continual voir dire of me is useless. THE only point I made was that there is nothing that exists to indicate that most Muslims are not peaceful or tolerant. And, there isn't.

Yes, radicals exist. Yes, they're likely more often than the opposite, Muslim. But Tim McVeigh existed. Robert Dear exists. Scott Roeder exists. Just stop making unprovable claims and we're all be happy campers. That's all I'm saying.

(12-09-2015 04:59 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  https://cofda.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/u...-and-jews/

That guy is a professor in TN. That story is from 2013. He tried to walk back his statements, but it is what it is

Please don't tell me that you want me to take an unsourced blog as proof of something????

(12-09-2015 05:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 04:59 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  https://cofda.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/u...-and-jews/

That guy is a professor in TN. That story is from 2013. He tried to walk back his statements, but it is what it is

Please don't tell me that you want me to take an unsourced blog as proof of something????

I don't think it's proof of anything. I watched part of it, but I'm no expert and it certainly could be edited. None the less, if he is what would be considered a "moderate Muslim", it's still disturbing.

(12-09-2015 05:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 04:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 04:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Now, if you're actually asking what percentage of Muslims support those groups?, I don't have the first clue. There's really no way to honestly assess it.

So you completely disregard the polls above?

I didn't say that. Completely? No. But yeah...the ones from 2006, 2007, 2010 and 2011...and the ones from the debunked hate group Trump's using. Of all those polls there's only 2 or three that's even over 50%. That actually proves that Islam IS mostly a religion of peace.

Again this continual voir dire of me is useless. THE only point I made was that there is nothing that exists to indicate that most Muslims are not peaceful or tolerant. And, there isn't.

Yes, radicals exist. Yes, they're likely more often than the opposite, Muslim. But Tim McVeigh existed. Robert Dear exists. Scott Roeder exists. Just stop making unprovable claims and we're all be happy campers. That's all I'm saying.

"Mostly" a religion of peace?!? Compare them to other religions and crimes committed in the names of those respective religions and tell me if Islam is more or less peaceful than the others.

Have you read the New York Times Magazine piece on the professor from 2001? It's really quite interesting...and it really points out the dangers of Trump's plan to further alienate Muslim-Americans with his reckless rhetoric.

Some highlights:

Quote:Beyond the gothic confines of Yale, he was becoming one of the most influential conservative clerics in American Islam

Quote:an Internet conference call with more than 150 of his AlMaghrib students. “I want to be very frank here,” Qadhi said, his voice tight with exasperation. “Do you really, really think that blowing up a plane is Islamic? I mean, ask yourself this.”

None of the students defended the plot, but some sympathized with the suspect, said several students who participated in the call, one of whom provided a recording to The Times. Was it not possible, they asked, that he had been set up? And how could they trust the F.B.I. after all they experienced — the post-9/11 raids, the monitoring of mosques, the sting operations aimed at Muslims? A few went as far as to say that they could not turn against a fellow Muslim who was trying to fight the oppressive policies of the United States.

Qadhi paced the worn, gray carpet. “There were even Muslims on that plane!” he said. “I mean, what world are you living in? How angry and overzealous are you that you simply forget about everything and you think that this is the way forward?”

Quote:In the spectrum of the global Salafi movement, Qadhi, who is 36, speaks for the nonmilitant majority. Yet even as he has denounced Islamist violence — too late, some say — a handful of AlMaghrib’s former students have heeded the call. In addition to the underwear-bomb suspect, the 36,000 current and former students of Qadhi’s institute include Daniel Maldonado, a New Hampshire convert who was convicted in 2007 of training with an Al Qaeda-linked militia in Somalia; Tarek Mehanna, a 28-year-old pharmacist arrested for conspiring to attack Americans; and two young Virginia men held in Pakistan in 2009 for seeking to train with militants.

Qadhi said that none of those former students had approached him for counsel. But in recent years, countless others have come to him with questions about the legitimacy of waging jihad. “We’re finding ourselves on the front line,” Qadhi said. “We don’t want to be there.”

During the months I spent in the insular world of young American Salafis, it became clear how pressing those questions are for many conservative Muslims who have come of age after 9/11. They have watched as their own country wages war in Muslim lands, bearing witness — via satellite television and the Internet — to the carnage in Iraq, the drone attacks in Pakistan and the treatment of detainees at Guantánamo. While the dozens of AlMaghrib students I interviewed condemned the tactics of militant groups, many share their basic grievances. They are searching for the correct Islamic response, turning to the ancient texts that guide their American lives. Their salvation, they say, hangs in the balance.

Quote:Arguably few American theologians are better positioned to offer an authoritative rebuttal of extremist ideology. But to do that, Qadhi says he would need to address the thorny question of what kinds of militant actions are permitted by Islamic law. It is a forbidden topic for most American clerics, who even refrain from criticizing their country’s foreign policy for fear of being branded unpatriotic.

For an ultraconservative cleric like Qadhi, the picture is more complicated. Engaging in a detailed discussion of militant jihad — a complex subject informed by centuries of scholarship — risks drawing the scrutiny of law enforcement and, Qadhi fears, possible prosecution. If he were to acknowledge that Islamic law endorses the legitimacy of armed resistance against Western forces in Muslim territory, he could give a green light to the very students he claims he is trying to keep off the militant path. Yet by remaining silent, Qadhi says he is losing the credibility he needs to persuade them of his ultimate message: those fights are not theirs, as Westerners, to fight. “My hands are tied, and my tongue is silent,” he said.

Militant clerics abroad have filled the void, none more than Anwar al-Awlaki, the American preacher who is now believed to be in hiding in Yemen with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Awlaki has been linked to numerous plots against the United States, including the botched underwear bombing. He has taken to the Internet with stirring battle cries directed at young American Muslims. “Many of your scholars,” Awlaki warned last year, are “standing between you and your duty of jihad.”

Why Yasir Qadhi Wants to Talk About Jihad

(12-09-2015 05:09 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 05:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 04:59 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  https://cofda.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/u...-and-jews/

That guy is a professor in TN. That story is from 2013. He tried to walk back his statements, but it is what it is

Please don't tell me that you want me to take an unsourced blog as proof of something????

I don't think it's proof of anything. I watched part of it, but I'm no expert and it certainly could be edited. None the less, if he is what would be considered a "moderate Muslim", it's still disturbing.

No, but the problem is this dubious source just puts a bunch of translations on the screen...none of which are verifiable by you nor I. Not to mention that we have no context whatsoever as to whom he's speaking to and whether these are even his own words. It'd be best not to but any weight on it. Especially after you read the NYT Magazine piece I linked above.

(12-09-2015 05:11 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 05:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 04:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 04:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Now, if you're actually asking what percentage of Muslims support those groups?, I don't have the first clue. There's really no way to honestly assess it.

So you completely disregard the polls above?

I didn't say that. Completely? No. But yeah...the ones from 2006, 2007, 2010 and 2011...and the ones from the debunked hate group Trump's using. Of all those polls there's only 2 or three that's even over 50%. That actually proves that Islam IS mostly a religion of peace.

Again this continual voir dire of me is useless. THE only point I made was that there is nothing that exists to indicate that most Muslims are not peaceful or tolerant. And, there isn't.

Yes, radicals exist. Yes, they're likely more often than the opposite, Muslim. But Tim McVeigh existed. Robert Dear exists. Scott Roeder exists. Just stop making unprovable claims and we're all be happy campers. That's all I'm saying.

"Mostly" a religion of peace?!? Compare them to other religions and crimes committed in the names of those respective religions and tell me if Islam is more or less peaceful than the others.

But that's moving the goal posts. I already said it's likely more violent. But the claim was most. Most means at least 50.1%.

If Islam is a peaceful religion, why do they attack?

Many are radicalized from birth and those adhere to a doctrine that demands action; convert the infidels or kill the ones not fit for slavery. This concerns me. Forever, Americans have been told to give up rights to fight Islamic terrorism. People are getting tired of being told that their legitimate concerns about terrorism are nothing but racism and everyone else is entitled to redress and concern but not Regular Joe American.

Maybe it's time to ask Muslims to make the same sacrifices.....

(12-09-2015 05:44 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  If Islam is a peaceful religion, why do they attack?

Many are radicalized from birth and those adhere to a doctrine that demands action; convert the infidels or kill the ones not fit for slavery. This concerns me. Forever, Americans have been told to give up rights to fight Islamic terrorism. People are getting tired of being told that their legitimate concerns about terrorism are nothing but racism and everyone else is entitled to redress and concern but not Regular Joe American.

Maybe it's time to ask Muslims to make the same sacrifices.....

I think that's the whole point. Many, like me, don't view those that do attack as all being actual Islamist's. Not saying many aren't, but I don't think most are. I think they're being used by those who are perverting the religion. We've seen it in other religions in our history. No, I'm not saying to the degree we're seeing it now.

But interesting that you mention Americans giving up their rights. What do you think would happen to Muslim-Americans, actual citizens, who Trump has said cannot get back into their country should they leave under his latest proposal? What about Muslims in our military on active duty in the ME who would not be able to come home?

And if you feel your legitimate concerns over terrorism aren't being heard, maybe it's because they're not legitimate? There's just way too much misinformation out there that is clouding the issue. The biggest threat, and we saw it last week in Cali, is the visa program. But you still have people conflating that program with the refugee program even through they are nothing alike.

But I can guaran-damn-tee you that the worst thing we can do is to continue this hateful rhetoric and fighting among ourselves. That's exactly the goal of ISIS.

(12-09-2015 06:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 05:44 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  If Islam is a peaceful religion, why do they attack?

Many are radicalized from birth and those adhere to a doctrine that demands action; convert the infidels or kill the ones not fit for slavery. This concerns me. Forever, Americans have been told to give up rights to fight Islamic terrorism. People are getting tired of being told that their legitimate concerns about terrorism are nothing but racism and everyone else is entitled to redress and concern but not Regular Joe American.

Maybe it's time to ask Muslims to make the same sacrifices.....

I think that's the whole point. Many, like me, don't view those that do attack as all being actual Islamist's. Not saying many aren't, but I don't think most are. I think they're being used by those who are perverting the religion. We've seen it in other religions in our history. No, I'm not saying to the degree we're seeing it now.

But interesting that you mention Americans giving up their rights. What do you think would happen to Muslim-Americans, actual citizens, who Trump has said cannot get back into their country should they leave under his latest proposal? What about Muslims in our military on active duty in the ME who would not be able to come home?

And if you feel your legitimate concerns over terrorism aren't being heard, maybe it's because they're not legitimate? There's just way too much misinformation out there that is clouding the issue. The biggest threat, and we saw it last week in Cali, is the visa program. But you still have people conflating that program with the refugee program even through they are nothing alike.

But I can guaran-damn-tee you that the worst thing we can do is to continue this hateful rhetoric and fighting among ourselves. That's exactly the goal of ISIS.

Bingo.

(12-09-2015 06:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I think that's the whole point. Many, like me, don't view those that do attack as all being actual Islamist's. Not saying many aren't, but I don't think most are.

Let me quote from something I posted here http://csnbbs.com/thread-761251-post-127...id12743968

(12-03-2015 12:20 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 12:14 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Guess it's just easier for some to not listen when Muslims speak.

ISIS "We killed this person in the name of Allah, like it says in the Koran"
Obama ""ISIS is not true Islam."
ISIS "We read the Koran and it said it was OK to kill in the name of Allah."
Obama ""ISIS is not true Islam."
ISIS "I mean, it's even in our name. Islamic State."
Obama ""ISIS is not true Islam."
ISIS "We stoned this woman to death for adultery, following instructions in the Koran"
Obama ""ISIS is not true Islam."
ISIS "Our goal is to establish a Caliphate and wipe infidels off this earth. Like it says in the Koran."
Obama ""ISIS is not true Islam."

(12-09-2015 06:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I think they're being used by those who are perverting the religion.

What do you gain by taking this tact? You're a good guy, but I prefer to be around people that are capable of admitting when they are wrong and moving on. You do no harm to a Muslim Joe American by stating Islam is an inherently violent, backwards religion that faces serious questions about it's doctrine and calls to jihad. We can decide whether to mock Islam in ways large and small and we don't have to ask permission to insult the Koran or make honest claims about Islam, or coordinate with anyone else, to say that violence in inherent to Islam.

(12-09-2015 06:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But interesting that you mention Americans giving up their rights. What do you think would happen to Muslim-Americans, actual citizens, who Trump has said cannot get back into their country should they leave under his latest proposal? What about Muslims in our military on active duty in the ME who would not be able to come home?

It seems there is some legal precedent to deporting or no longer issuing visas to groups of people for various reasons, and those reasons have been held Constitutional. I can hear the liberal meme generators being warmed up everytime there is gun violence. “But if it just saves ONE life!” Right. Which is the same reason for not admitting any more refugees from the Middle East or Africa and perhaps deporting the ones who are here now.

However, I do not support putting Muslims who are American citizens into that category. They are now our problem, if they are a problem at all, who have the full rights and responsibilities afforded to them by the Constitution and their American passport.

(12-09-2015 06:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And if you feel your legitimate concerns over terrorism aren't being heard, maybe it's because they're not legitimate?

Paris. 123 dead
San Bernadino. 13 dead.

And that's just against Western targets in the fall of 2015. Tell me again how my concerns are not legitimate?

(12-09-2015 06:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But I can guaran-damn-tee you that the worst thing we can do is to continue this hateful rhetoric and fighting among ourselves. That's exactly the goal of ISIS.

The worst thing we can do is not admit the true nature of Islam and Islamic terrorism, which then forces us to work to physically defend against Islamic terrorism. For all you and I and all this message board disagrees, as we've seen numerous times in the past we generally will all band together and support each other even in the face of hateful rhetoric and fighting among ourselves, no?

That changes when ISIS supports armed terrorism in the USA. Hateful rhetoric and fighting among ourselves is not as bad as dead bodies.

We meddle in their internal affairs, so they meddle in ours. Their meddling takes the form of killing our people. We have two options:

1) Kill them until they get tired of dying, or
2) GTFO and leave them alone, and stay TFO

Note that half-assed limited involvement is not one of those options.

to the op's thread title.....



to owl.....yepper....

In the areas controlled by ISIS, the organization that most closely reflects the will of the people is guess who? ISIS.

I see a grave danger that we are going to support a government that will prove to be extremely unpopular with the governed. Not the first time we've bet on the wrong horse in one of these.

I would try to go back channel (because you can't do this openly) and reach out to ISIS. If we could broker a deal with them, that might be the best result we can get, by far. They'd have to agree to leave the Kurds alone, and that's a problem to them because greater Kurdistan has oil and they don't. Get the Saudis onboard to help them out financially. Maybe the ISIS area becomes part of Saudi Arabia.

I agree with Joe Biden, there should be an independent Kurdistan. Give it enough room to absorb Kurdish refugees from Turkey and Syria. If you could get the Kurds out of Turkey, the Turks would be very happy. Yeah, that's moving people around, just like my Palestinian Sinai proposal. But there are a few situations where you can make it work if you can make it attractive enough that people want to move. Draw the lines and then direct refugees to the appropriate places--Kurds to Kurdistan, Shias to Mesopotamia (Shia Iraq), Alewives to Syria (which would be reduced to the Mediterranean coast and coastal mountain ranges of current Syria), Sunnis to ISIS. They will assimilate a lot better there than bringing them here.

Bunch of indoctrinated lunatics. I wish there was a way to disable the ISIS fighters without killing them (they want to be killed so they can have their wonderful afterlife LOL). Dress them up in Burkhas and burn Korans in front of them.

Too much to read in this thread

No way you can have dealings with ISIS, even in secret, any more than you trust Iran.

(12-09-2015 08:02 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  No way you can have dealings with ISIS, even in secret, any more than you trust Iran.

The point is that you need some sort of Sunni government in charge of ISIS's current area. If not ISIS, then who?

(12-09-2015 07:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We meddle in their internal affairs, so they meddle in ours. Their meddling takes the form of killing our people. We have two options:

1) Kill them until they get tired of dying, or
2) GTFO and leave them alone, and stay TFO

Note that half-assed limited involvement is not one of those options.

I don't think option 2 will work. As the article explains, they believe they need to conquer everything. They consider just about every other Islamic organisation, going as far back as before the Ottoman Empire, to be apostate. They believe that Jihad must be waged at least once a year, and that all treaties are temporary.

Quote:The last caliphate was the Ottoman empire, which reached its peak in the 16th century and then experienced a long decline, until the founder of the Republic of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, euthanized it in 1924. But Cerantonio, like many supporters of the Islamic State, doesn’t acknowledge that caliphate as legitimate, because it didn’t fully enforce Islamic law, which requires stonings and slavery and amputations, and because its caliphs were not descended from the tribe of the Prophet, the Quraysh.

Baghdadi spoke at length of the importance of the caliphate in his Mosul sermon. He said that to revive the institution of the caliphate—which had not functioned except in name for about 1,000 years—was a communal obligation. He and his loyalists had “hastened to declare the caliphate and place an imam” at its head, he said. “This is a duty upon the Muslims—a duty that has been lost for centuries … The Muslims sin by losing it, and they must always seek to establish it.” Like bin Laden before him, Baghdadi spoke floridly, with frequent scriptural allusion and command of classical rhetoric. Unlike bin Laden, and unlike those false caliphs of the Ottoman empire, he is Qurayshi.

It's just insane. They literally believe the laws of the last 1000 years haven't been extreme enough. The Sharia Law we're we're all familiar with doesn't go far enough for them.

(12-09-2015 07:50 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Too much to read in this thread

"I just know" - the donald.....