Iran wants talks with Muslim states on Iraq

Although the screen says i can comment, i cant

Alexb:

I see!

Must be machine code.

Religion of Hatred strikes again.

Something that the cult zealots should realise is that even if they achieved their goal of Islamizing the whole world (something that thankfully will never happen) then the fighting and killing will just continue as they seek to "purify" their religion to their specific way of thinking.

Ultimately the only result possible with this belief system is death, on a global scale.

"Since 2003, tensions -- prone to flare-ups since around the time Saddam came to power in 1979 -- have centred on charges from Iraq's U.S.-backed government that Syria, estranged from Washington, has allowed insurgents to stream into Iraq.

Iraqi politicians have also lashed out at Saudi Arabia for inciting Sunni Islamist insurgents, a charge the kingdom denies. And while Baghdad's relations with Tehran are cordial, the U.S. military complains that Iran arms and trains Shi'ite militia.

Meanwhile, Iraq's relations with Kuwait to the south are strained as Baghdad chafes at Kuwait's insistence it continue to pay billions of dollars in reparations for former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion."

So what's the problem?

From our point of view, nothing.

To what extent does the US military/industrial complex play a part in the geo-political situation in the middle east ?

Bottom line problem of it all: Islam.

And the whole world hates Islam

Maybe they will have a shoot-out. Maybe someone will invite all the others to dinner and only one will walk out.

'Hundreds of cats, thousands of cats, millions and billions and trillions of cats...".

As Hugh says, what's the problem?

Homework for 'loveverybody' - google 'the Assassins' and see what turns up. Blaming the US 'militaryindustrial complex' for the vicious internecine warfare of the Muslim world - which started with the war of succession that followed muhammad's death, and has characterised every single part of that Muslim world, ever since, as any even moderately historically informed person ought to know - is utterly nonsensical.

And again, to 'loveverybody' - Hugh's opinion, repeatedly stated, is that no non-Muslim state or entity has any business letting Muslim entities get their claws on anything any more sophisticated than 'guns and jeeps'. Perhaps even selling them 'guns and jeeps' is going too far.

If all arms sellers - China, Russia, the USA, UK, everybody who is not a Muslim - were to cease selling ANY of their products to any Muslim within the Muslim world I believe that Mr Fitzgerald would be turning handsprings with relief and delight.

"lovererybody" wrote:

To what extent does the US military/industrial complex play a part in the geo-political situation in the middle east ?
......................

loveverybody, I suggest you read up on the history of the region--and most especially, the history of Islam.

Muslims have been brutalizing one another in Mesopotamia long before the US ever got involved in the region--in fact, long before the United States ever existed--and long before Britain got involved in the region, either.

The bloody Sunni/Shi'ite split dates to not long after the death of the "Prophet" Muhammed, during bloody wars of succession in the seventh century--when Ali was killed at the Battle of Karbala, in what is present-day Iraq.

Great parody! One of the best things about JW is its occasional drollery.

If these people find peace amongst themselves who/where do they move onto next?

Just what we need though, right, they're at peace so they can put all their energies into fighting us.. Uh oh.

A little perspective, besides looking at the geo-political situation in the middle east from the viewpoint of the enormous influence of politicians in funding the yearly trillion dollar budget of the US military/industrial complex.

It took Judaism and Christianity thousands of years to reform.

Equal rights to everybody in the US only took place in the 60s when Jim Crow laws were abolished.

Do we expect Islam to reform faster than Christianity and Judaism ? when Christianity had a 600 year head start on Islam ? Islam today in many parts of the world is equivalent to 15th century Christianity.

Yes, Islam needs to reform and we can see reformation in numerous muslim majority countries where sharia is not practiced in places like:

Burkina Faso
Gambia
Guinea
Mali
Senegal
Chad
Djibouti
Indonesia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgystan
Tajikstan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Albania
Azerbaijan
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Kosovo and
Turkey.

The fact that Osama Bin Laden could only get 19 or 20 muslims to murder Americans on 9/11 and could not get any of the millions of American muslims to murder Americans on 9/11 shows that Osama's strict militant interpretation of islam will only inspire about ( the most ) 75 muslims out of 1.5 billion muslims to commit the crime of murdering American civilians.

So the war on terror is actually not a war but a criminal case against about 75 muslims who are willing to murder American civilians on American soil.

If American troops leave muslim lands, you can be assured that the terrorists will not follow American troops home, just as the terrorists from Lebanon did not follow US troops back home when President Reagan pulled US troops from Lebanon and the Somali terrorists did not follow US troops back home when President Clinton pulled US troops from Somalia.

So why did the 9/11 attacks happen ?

What motivated Osama Bin Laden to declare "war" on the US govt ? Here are the main motivations in chronological order :

(1) Osama Bin Laden read about the US government in the 50s overthrowing a democratically elected Mossadegh of Iran and eventually the Shah terrorized his own people in Iran, thanks to the military support given by the US government

(2) He read about the US government in the 60s, arming the Israeli government that used those very US weapons to collaterally kill palestinian children and babies

(3) He saw the US government in the 70s using napalm, agent orange and carpet bombing Vietnam and Cambodia, collaterally killing hundreds of thousands or even millions.

(4) He saw the US government in the 70s supporting cruel, murderous dictators like the Shah of Iran

(5) He saw the US government in the 80s siding with the "christian" militias in Lebanon, the very christian militias that massacred muslims

(6) He saw the US government in the 80s supporting cruel dictators like Saddam Hussein

(7) He saw the US government in the 90s imposing cruel sanctions on Iraq resulting in UN reports stating that half a million Iraqi children died prematurely due to the sanctions

(8) He saw that the cruel Saudi dictatorship was being supported by the US government , the very dictatorship that tortured dissidents who opposed the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia

(9) He saw that the US government never left any country in which it had troops in ( example; US troops still present in Germany and Japan, even after the war had ended decades ago)

(10) He saw that warnings to the US government to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia were ignored

(11) He saw that the only way to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia was to launch a terror campaign

(12) He saw that his terror campaign against the US had failed and US troops still remained in Saudi Arabia 9 years after the gulf war had ended

(13) He saw that the only sure way to get the US government to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia was to launch an attack on the US homeland on 9/11/01

(14) He saw that the US government finally gave into his demands to withdraw troops, only after the 9/11 attacks, and US troops finally left Saudi Arabia in 2003, almost 13 years after the gulf war had ended

Ladies and gentlemen

it appears we have another Mohammedtroll, or Dementor, thinly disguised, on the premises.

We may safely ignore the feeble attempt at tu quoque and moral equivalencing between Christianity and Islam, at the outset (15th century Christianity was still light years ahead, morally and socially, of 15th-century Islam...shall I mention just one little word? - "monogamy"?); the threadbare claim that Islam has been hijacked by a 'tiny minority of extremists' (then where, pray, do those mobs of hundreds, and of thousands, of frenzied allahu-akbaring Muslim men come from, that turn out to pillage and burn and bash and kill Christians in Egypt and Pakistan and Indonesia, or Hindus in Pakistan and India?) and rattling off the usual rote list of 'grievances' and indulging in a most unseemly triumphalism, toward the end.

The antidote to the list of 'grievances' (excuses, rather; and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them turned out to be exaggerated or even false - any Muslim victim-whining as regards Lebanon, must be coldly countered by mention of, among other things, Damour, a Christian town of some ten thousand human beings, all of whom were gleefully massacred by MUSLIMS) is to be found in Raymond Ibrahim's "The Al-Qaeda Reader", which shows that when Al Qaeda spoke to its own, in Arabic, *none* of these supposed grievances figured very largely; they featured only in communications intended for the West, intended to try to press guilt buttons and thus cause confusion and demoralisation.

Fact is, Bin Laden is driven by the jihad imperative which is hard-wired into the foundational, and massively authoritative, core texts of Islam.

If the USA had never gone anywhere *near* the Islamosphere, ever, at any time from 1776 to the present day

(though it seems loveverybody has forgotten that the Muslim Barbary Pirates, unprovoked, attacked the ships of the newborn USA, and stole the cargoes, and enslaved the crews? and told the emissaries of the USA, Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, that such activity was commanded and sanctioned by the Qur'an? ...was the USA responsible for the thoroughly-Quranic greed and murderousness of the Barbary Pirates?).

I guarantee that the USA would still, sooner or later, have been attacked by Muslims;

it would have been attacked, as Byzantium was attacked, and as Persia was attacked, and as faraway India and western China were attacked; because it was there, because it was non-Muslim, and because it was big, and rich, and beautiful, a pirate's dream of plunder.

Let's mention, one more time, the "95 things that fuel Muslim extremism"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013525.php

And while we're at it, here's Abul Kasem's excellent essay - 'When Is Islam Oppressed?

http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/IslamOppressed.htm

And we mustn't forget The List of Things That Offend Muslims.

http://amboytimes.typepad.com/the_amboy_times/2007/02/the_list_of_thi.html

The Quran teaches hate, so no surprise here!

Loverbody,

Thank you for a provocative geo-political perspective in the renewed civilizational clash with Islam in general and Al Qeada and its affiliates specifically.

I don´t agree with your overall perspective and assessments for a number of reasons.

You seem to assume that the differences between Judaism/Christianity and Islam (in ethics, worldview and compatibility with a democratic order) is mainly due to Islam being 600 years younger than Christianity, and you claim that Islam in many parts of the world is equivalent to 15th century Christianity.

In this comparison you disregard some fundamental differences on the ideological/theological level.

Political ideologies grounded in theologies, such as it is in Islam, are not so easily dismantled, for they are grounded in the Immutable and simply must apply—yesterday, today, and tomorrow—regardless of all outward evidence to the contrary. To reject them is to reject the commandments of God (Allah) and fall into a state of infidelity.

Christianity is not founded upon the Immutable words of God but on people and it does not have any specific political/ideological agenda to be implemented, neither peacefully or by force (Holy War). On the contrary. Seperation of Church and state - or religion and politics - is found at the core of Christianity.

Christianity became corrupted because it got political power when it became state religion in the Roman Empire in the fourth century. Islam was corrupted from the very start because its founder Muhammad was the supreme religious, political, moral and military leader, and the supreme judge.

In "Islam and the West" Bernard Lewis summarise the unity of religion and politics in this way:

"To Muslims the state was the state of Gud, the army the army of God and the enemy was of course the enemy of God. Of more practical importance was it that the law was the law of God and in principle there could be no other law. The question of seperation of church and state did not arise because no church existed understood as an independent institution which could be seperated. Church and state was one and the same."

Those fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity explains their different dynamic. Christianity may become politically abusive and even barbaric but it always had to share its political power with the monarchs and noblemen and that made it adaptable, and it did not have power to stop the scientific revolution although it tried. Those who took its Holy Scriptures seriously, like Martin Luther, had to make rebellion against the political abuses and demand seperation of state and church. In Islam the suppression and persecution has always been against those who advocated secularism.

The failed secular experiment in Turkey is a good example because it demonstrate that in the long run a majority Muslim population will always prefer an Islamic state based on the Sharia law.
Not even a determined political elite backed by strong military power can move a Muslim population to accept a secular democratic order.
Iraq and Afghanistan confirm this by adopting a constitution based on Sharia law and the Islamic tradition - unity between religion and politics.

In my view Christianity - with its demand of secularisation - is the main reason why the Western societies could evolve a democratic political order build on rationality, and Islam - with its demand on uniy of religion and politics - is the main reason why no true liberal democracy exist in the Muslim world.

You ask: "Do we expect Islam to reform faster than Christianity and Judaism ?"

My answer is that islam cannot make any real reforms unless it change its basic tenents so radically that it becomes a new religion.
That is theoretically possible but I see no clear signs of it anywhere in Islam.

I don´t agree with your assessment of the reasons for the conflict between the US and Al Qaeda and will put forward my arguments later.

"Iran wants talks with Muslim states on Iraq"

The Muslim states are already making plans on how to divide Iraq and its oil fields amongst themselves..Once the US leaves (and it eventually will) Iraq may just fade into the dustbin of history conquered yet again ...by Muslims...

and the Muslims and Islam are all about conquering land and seizing its wealth...and if that land and wealth belong to other Muslims...so what?...

and as some have correctly pointed out ...all the money and effort and blood spent on "tarbaby Iraq" was nothing more than an effort in futility..save that it has brought into the eyes of the world the violent truth about Islam....as can be seen in films such as Fitna, Obsession, Submission...and others..

and as old ExSgtBrown used to point out.."Ban Muslim Immigration"...although it may never happen..he was right...

The solution is not war but cooperation with Islamist governments.

Fox News reports that the military wing of Hamas executed Al-Qaeda members in Gaza due to extremists challenging Hamas authority in Gaza.

ref :

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=15223166&ch=4226714&src=news

I do not approve of extrajudicial executions of even Al-Qaeda members but I do approve of the US rendition programs in which extremists are apprehended in an anti-crime program rather than a war program that caters to funding the yearly trillion dollar budget of the military/industrial complex

Islam is theocratic imperialism.

If you do not fight against that, Civilization falls.

TO : dumbledoresarmy

You stated :

(15th century Christianity was still light years ahead, morally and socially, of 15th-century Islam...shall I mention just one little word? - "monogamy"?)

Comment :

15th century Christianity still had a 600 year head start over 15th century Islam.

Jews stopped polygamy in the 11th century. Some Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews discontinued polygamy much more recently, as they emigrated to countries where it was forbidden. Some Karaite Jews practice polygamy today

The modern trend towards frequent divorce and remarriage is sometimes referred to by conservative Christians as 'serial polygamy' and some christians (followers of Christ) do practice polygamy, even today.

You stated :

; the threadbare claim that Islam has been hijacked by a 'tiny minority of extremists' (then where, pray, do those mobs of hundreds, and of thousands, of frenzied allahu-akbaring Muslim men come from, that turn out to pillage and burn and bash and kill Christians in Egypt and Pakistan and Indonesia, or Hindus in Pakistan and India?) and rattling off the usual rote list of 'grievances' and indulging in a most unseemly triumphalism, toward the end.

Comment :

Yes, there are a very tiny minority of muslims, probably numbering in the 70s that do want to murder Americans on American soil but American muslims are not going to follow Osama Bin Laden unless they are one of the 75 muslims who are wanting to murder Americans.

You probably can find more Americans wanting to kill Americans than you will find muslims from the Middle East wanting to kill Americans on American soil.

Lynchings by mobs in the US peaked around the 1890s when thousands of blacks were murdered and so it is not surprising that some mobs in muslim countries might also do the same to certain people within their society.

Overall, the tens of thousands of Jews in Iran seem to be content with their status, just as blacks today in the US are content with their status in America

You stated :

(though it seems loveverybody has forgotten that the Muslim Barbary Pirates, unprovoked, attacked the ships of the newborn USA, and stole the cargoes, and enslaved the crews? and told the emissaries of the USA, Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, that such activity was commanded and sanctioned by the Qur'an? ...was the USA responsible for the thoroughly-Quranic greed and murderousness of the Barbary Pirates?).

Comment :

Every time somebody does anything in the name of religion, does not mean they are religious.

Just as President Truman stated that the war with Japan was a war between Christianity and Paganism, does not mean that the war against Japan was a religious war.

Govts will invoke religion when it suits their political objectives because govts, find that religion has a hold on certain sectors of society.

The Barbary pirates were in it for the money and they were not out to convert any Americans to Islam.

You stated :

it would have been attacked, as Byzantium was attacked, and as Persia was attacked, and as faraway India and western China were attacked; because it was there, because it was non-Muslim, and because it was big, and rich, and beautiful, a pirate's dream of plunder.

Comment :

You will find that "Christian" nations went to war at one time bearing the cross on their banners but that does not mean those wars were religious in anyway.

You stated :

Let's mention, one more time, the "95 things that fuel Muslim extremism"

Comment :

The solution is not war but cooperation with Islamist governments.

Fox News reports that the military wing of Hamas executed Al-Qaeda members in Gaza due to extremists challenging Hamas authority in Gaza.

ref :

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=15223166&ch=4226714&src=news

I do not approve of extrajudicial executions of even Al-Qaeda members but I do approve of the US rendition programs in which extremists are apprehended in an anti-crime program rather than a war program that caters to funding the yearly trillion dollar budget of the military/industrial complex

TO : Ipso Facto

You stated :

Political ideologies grounded in theologies, such as it is in Islam, are not so easily dismantled, for they are grounded in the Immutable and simply must apply—yesterday, today, and tomorrow—regardless of all outward evidence to the contrary. To reject them is to reject the commandments of God (Allah) and fall into a state of infidelity.

Comment :

People in any religion pick and choose what they want to follow, just as Jews today are not intent on conquering all lands up to Iraq and committing genocide on all those "pagans" living within those lands as commanded in the Old Testament ( Deut. 20:16)

Also you do not find Jews practicing an "eye for an eye" mutilation of criminals.

Christians too pick and choose what they want to follow as in going to war when Jesus clearly emphasized pacifism as Jesus told the Jews to flee Jerusalem when the Roman army was going to destroy Jerusalem in AD70.

Likewise, muslims interpret parts of the Koran/Hadith relating to relations to Jews and Christians as part of the historical relations between Muhammad and certain Jewish/Christian tribes and not as pertaining to contemporary relations between muslims and christians/jews.

In other words, most muslims do think that what Muhammad said about christians and jews only applied to certain treacherous Jews living during the days of Muhammad and at the same time, today's muslims also note that Muhammad had peace treaties with most christian and jewish tribes

You stated :

Christianity is not founded upon the Immutable words of God but on people and it does not have any specific political/ideological agenda to be implemented, neither peacefully or by force (Holy War). On the contrary. Seperation of Church and state - or religion and politics - is found at the core of Christianity.

Comment :

You are right in theory but in practice, numerous "christian" nations used to go to war with the banner of the cross and even today, many "christian" nations have the cross on their flag.

Yes, govts will make use of religion whenever it suits their political goals, just as President Truman stated that the war with Japan was a war between christianity and paganism.

You stated :

Christianity became corrupted because it got political power when it became state religion in the Roman Empire in the fourth century. Islam was corrupted from the very start because its founder Muhammad was the supreme religious, political, moral and military leader, and the supreme judge.

Comment :

Whether christianity became corrupt in the 4th century or Islam became corrupt from the very beginning, its still corruption whenever it started.

It will be like telling a victim of terror that the terror she faces due to a building falling on her due to a US bomb is different from the terror she would have faced if that same building was falling on her due to a terrorist bomb.

The terror she faces is still the same in degree, just as the corruption of christianity has the same degree of power as the corruption due to islam.

You stated :

Those fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity explains their different dynamic. Christianity may become politically abusive and even barbaric

Comment :

Yes, "christianity" has been abusive and barbaric, just as islam has been abusive and barbaric and to the victims of both religions, it does not matter from what theology or philosophy both the religions come from but what is similar are the effects on its victims.

When the US govt decided to drop the atom bomb on Hiroshima, those children in Hiroshima experienced the same horror and agonizing death as the civilians in Nanking experienced from the Japanese govt.

So likewise, the victims of "christian" brutality or islamic brutality experience the same terror, so all other discussions on the differences between Christianity and Islam are purely academic.

You stated :

The failed secular experiment in Turkey is a good example because it demonstrate that in the long run a majority Muslim population will always prefer an Islamic state based on the Sharia law.

Comment :

I have no problems with Sharia Law, just as Jews had no problems living under Old Testament laws that commanded an "eye for an eye".

As long as you know the rules, living under Sharia has its advantages : no legalized abortions, no legalized pornography, no skimpy clothing for muslims, no legalized drinking for muslims ( in Malaysian states where Sharia is the law, non-muslims can drink and wear skimpy clothing )

You stated :

Islam - with its demand on uniy of religion and politics - is the main reason why no true liberal democracy exist in the Muslim world.

Comment :

No true liberal democracy exists it the muslim world because conservative christians hate abortions, pornography, drinking/drugs and skimpy clothing.

Conservative christians will prefer to live in muslim countries than to be living in a secular Godless liberal western society as in Europe where church attendance is at an all time low

loveverybody is a bog-standard Muslim dementor peddling tu quoque, moral equivalencing, and the usual line in obfuscation.

Islam stoned women for adultery.

Neither Jesus (and Christians after him) or Jews *at the time of Mohammed* practised stoning for adultery.

So Mohammed and sharia - for sharia *does* prescribe stoning for adultery, and it is practised in Saudi Arabia and in Islamic Iran today - represented a *retrograde* movement, backward to a practice that Christians had never practised and that Jews had already abandoned for centuries.

As for 'conservative christians will prefer to live in muslim countries'...ROFLMAO. Rubbish. Nonsense. Garbage.

I KNOW what Mohammedan mobs are doing to my fellow Christians in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc etc etc. There is *no* Muslim-dominated country *anywhere* within which Christians are truly free and safe. I know what Muslim thugs are doing to Christian girls the age of my two daughters, in Egypt and in Pakistan and in Bangladesh. I know that if some random psychopath seizes my kid here in Australia, the cops will try their best to find her and get her back; or to track down her murderer, if she is killed. But if I am a Christian mother in Iraq or Egypt or Pakistan...fuggedaboutit.

I am a 'conservative' Christian. I am far freer to practise my faith in 'godless' secular Australia - with its beer and its wineries and its uncovered women - than I would be in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Like to tell anyone, 'loveverybody', what might happen to me if I walked down a street in Saudi Arabia with my hair and face uncovered, and wearing a pendant with a cross around my neck?

Since loveverybody wants to morally equivalence the biblical faiths - Judaism and Christianity - with Islam,
let's think about wife-beating.

Islam explicitly advises husbands to use it on deemed-to-be-potentially-rebellious wives, in Quran 4: 34.

Neither the Jewish nor the Christian scriptures contains any such injunction. If a Jew or a Christian beats his wife, he does so *without* a scriptural text to back him up.

And as for why a 'conservative Christian' woman like me prefers a non-Muslim to a Muslim country - I so prefer, because here I can walk down a street unaccompanied, in daylight, in normal street clothing (jeans, t-shirt, a sunhat [this is Australia, after all], hair loose or neatly tied back) without being subjected to gross sexual harassment by any random males I may encounter. It might be different, of course, for an Infidel woman unlucky enough to live in or near a suburb heavily infested with Mohammedan colonist-invaders.

Here is Judy Bachrach describing what it is like to be a visibly non-Muslim woman - or, for that matter, *any* woman - walking down the street in a Muslim-majority country:

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/2009%20-%20Summer/full-Bachrach.html

"Local women are of such negligible importance that they can be viewed as prey.
"On the other hand, foreign women are in a wholly different category: wild and yet easy, so menacing and just plain available they are invariably treated as prey.
"The foreigner without a murderous uncle by her side or a veil over her face is a communal dish."

And here is a *Muslim* woman from Pakistan describing the sheer pleasure of finding that, in a Western country, an unaccompanied woman is NOT routinely subjected, by random males in the street, to the harassment that she calls 'Eve-teasing'.

"When I came to Norway in 2002, the first cultural shock I got was that men in public places did not stare at women.

"I had observed and even experienced so much staring by men in Pakistan that I thought it was a universal reality.

"When I found that it was not so in Norway , I was upset for some time. I thought; "Am I so ugly that Norwegian men don't even give me a second look?"

"Soon I realized that men in Norway just don't stare at any women in public places.

" Imagine my feeling of excitement in my exposure to Norwegian society when I discovered that Eve-teasing is not a universal reality. This is one of the most cherished discoveries I have ever made whole my life..." - from an article featured on this very website on May 12 2005:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/006128.php

loveverybody's nonsense just doesn't stand up to the facts. Judy describes Egypt; the other article described Pakistan - all that those two countries - wildly different in language and ethnic makeup and in the character of their pre-Islamic societies - have in common is Islam; in both the men behave toward women, Muslim women and non-Muslim women, with exactly the same ugly mix of contempt and rapacity.

Anyway - back to topic: the posted article. Which I have gone back and re-read. As should always be done if a Mohammedtroll appears on a thread, throwing sand.

I agree with Hugh. Muslim vs Muslim infighting is - or should be - of no concern to us Infidels, provided it does not spill over into our own territories.

If the ummah chooses to rip itself to pieces inside its sandbox, well, we have already discovered by painful experience, in Afghanistan and in Iraq, that trying to keep the murderous Muslim kilkenny cats from leaping at one another's throats, is an exercise in futility. If they cannot keep from killing one another, why should our precious sons , whom we do *not* consciously pump out for use as jihad fodder, get killed trying to prevent Muslims from killing one another? Should Israel have intervened to stop Hamas throwing Fatah members out of windows in Gaza? Naaah.

We should be using our non-Muslim soldiers strictly to define and guard the disputed boundaries where dar al Islam keeps pushing, pushing, pushing against what it perceives as dar al Harb; and in some cases - e.g. Kashmir, Judea and Samaria, southern Philippines, southern Thailand, these are some but not all - to roll back the Ummah, or Muslim Mob, from territory it has seized or is in process of seizing and Islamifying (which means, inexorably, degrading and destroying) by violence.

And I agree with those posting above who expressed great scepticism about the value of any results likely to be obtained by non-Muslim states' 'cooperating' with Muslim 'governments'. Nothing has been achieved, in the past, by doing that - by sweettalking or offering goodies or sharing ideas...all that has ever borne fruit (as in the attempt to force Muslim states to outlaw chattel slavery) is ruthless gunboat diplomacy, and even then, Muslim compliance proved to be most temporary and illusory.

It is necessary to grimly keep in mind that Islam has NO concept of reciprocity, or Agreement, such as most high non-Muslim cultures possess; especially, it does NOT teach its adherents to practise the Golden Rule, toward non-Muslims; and it is also necessary to grimly keep in mind that, on the model of the legendary Treaty of Hudaybiyya, NO Muslim 'truce-treaty' or agreement with non-Muslims can be anything other than a temporary sham, undertaken purely for Muslim advantage, and broken as soon as the Muslim side perceives itself strong enough to go in again for the kill.

Perhaps we should start talking not about Muslim 'governments', but about Muslim gang bosses, great and small. The big bosses - like the abominable House of Saud or the ayatollahs in Islamic Persia - run 'countries'; the lesser mobsters run gangs like Hezb'allah or Hamas or Fatah or Islamic Jihad or Hizb ut Tahrir or the Ikhwan or Fethullah Gulen or the Taliban or...or...or...

Any non-Muslim dealings with such entities should not involve *any* concessions of territory by the non-Muslim side; it should also not involve any significant transfer of money or materiel or of knowledge (especially knowledge of how to make really dangerous weapons), from the Infidel side to the Muslim side.

ISLAM FOLLOWED ROMAN CHRISTIANITY AND RABBIS JUDAISM. JESUS' cHRISTIANITY NEVER ATTACKED ANYONE AND JESUS NEVER HAD AN ARMY. JESUS RELIGION NEVER CALLED BLACK PEOPLE UGLY, NAPPY HEADED, PUG NOSED SLAVES AND STUPID LIKE ALLAH DID.
KEEP ISLAM IN MECCA AND LEAVE ME ALONE. mY GOD MADE ;PIG FOR ME TO EAT AMD MUSIC TO LISTEN TO AND FOR ME TO MAKE THE MUSIC I HEAR. i WILL NOT DO ANY ALLAH AKBAR CRAP AS ALLAH IS NOT THE GOD I SERVE OR WISH TO SERVE. ALLAH IS NONE OTHER THAN THE GREATEST DECEIVER, LIAR, SCHEMER AS THE QURAN BRAGGED. ALLAH BRAGGED ABOUT BEING THE GREATEST LIAR SURA 3:54. ALLAH IS AKBAR LIAR WHICH MEANS ALLAH IS THE GREATEST LIAR. QURAN 3:54. tHE BOOK OF rEVELATIONS CALLS sATAN THE devil THE DECEIVER OF THE WORLD. gOD OF THE BIBLE PROHIBITED THE devil FROM ACTUALLY KILLING HUMANS BUT HE MAKES MEN KILL MEN. sEE BOOK OF jOB WHERE sATAN WAS NOT GIVEN THE RIGHT O KILL job>

Centuries of fear mongering by politicians has resulted in the tremendous expansion of government, ever since the founding fathers started deficit spending on the revolutionary war to "free" themselves from Great Britain.

Do you think the American people would have paid for the revolutionary war out of their own pockets ? ... They would have told the founding fathers to be as patient as the Canadians and not rebel against Britain.

Today, because 68 cents of every tax dollar goes to the military/industrial complex, its inevitable that the special interests from the military/industrial complex will have the biggest influence on the US govt and that is why the US govt has a military solution to problems rather than trying to save trillions through pragmatic negotiations, diplomacy and inexpensive covert operations.

The following is one example of a very expensive military solution to the events of 9/11 when pragmatic, covert, diplomatic efforts and a hundred million dollar financial incentive to the Taliban could have easily apprehended Osama bin Laden, marginalized his influence in the muslim world and saved trillions on the "war on terror".

We could easily have prevented the September 11 terrorist attacks, if we had done the following :

(1) Not got involved with the "Muhjahadeen" to oust the Soviet Union from Afghanistan....

..Osama Bin Laden's life was transformed by the experience he had in Afghanistan.

You could say his ideas of jihad were "born again" in Afghanistan and the aid the US gave the Muhjahadeen went a long way to helping this "born again" experience.

Osama Bin Laden himself stated that the ousting of the Soviet Union was the will of Allah (he did not mention that without the US, he would not have been able to oust the Soviet Union from Afghanistan)

and this so called "Will of Allah " experience against the Soviet Union encouraged him immensely and gave him the courage to later go after the US and if Bin Laden was defeated in Afghanistan against the Soviets ( which was very possible if the US did not help ) than Bin Laden might have concluded that it was not Allah's will to go after super powers,

or Bin Laden might to this day still be too busy fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan and not be able to use Afghanistan as a training base for attacks on the US.

(2) Not got involved in ousting Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, restoring the cruel dictatorship in Kuwait and protecting the cruel dictatorship in Saudi Arabia who live hedonistic lifestyles.

Saddam Hussein was anti-religious and ready to sell oil to the West.

In fact during the oil embargo of the seventies, when Arab nations restricted the sale of oil, Saddam Hussein went against the embargo and sold oil to the west.

According to the Duelfer Report, Saddam ,in the late nineties, through his officials told Charles Duelfer (special adviser to the CIA) that he wanted to start a dialogue with the US and wanted to be America's best friend in the Middle East.

If Saddam Hussein were to have taken over the middle east (which is next to impossible), he would have eradicated fundamentalist Islam that breeds terrorism, checked the regional aspirations of Iran and sold cheap oil to the US.

President Reagan told Saddam Hussein to stop supporting Palestinian groups in the early eighties and then President Reagan removed Iraq from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.........this is another of several examples that Saddam wanted to be our ally.

The CIA knew about the consequences of the Iraq war and the subsequent sectarian violence and yet the US government invaded Iraq even though during the 80s when Saddam Hussein was at his worst and actually using WMD, there was not one CIA report stating that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US.

(3) Not setting up bases in Saudi Arabia.

IF WE HAD NOT GOT INVOLVED IN THE GULF WAR, WE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD TROOPS IN SAUDI ARABIA..

The presence of US troops was the "straw that broke the camel's back".

What did Osama Bin Laden see in the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia ?

The only way to see what Osama Bin Laden saw is to go back in time to read and see what Osama read and saw.

What motivated Osama Bin Laden to declare "war" on the US govt ?

Here are the main motivations in chronological order :

(a) Osama Bin Laden read about the US govt. fire and atom bombing Japan in 1945 when Japan was already defeated as early as July of 1944 when Tojo resigned and Japan was negotiating concessions to the communists but FDR did not care about communists either killing tens of millions of civilians or that the crushing of Japan enabled communism to expand in Asia resulting in hundreds of thousands of US soldiers either dying horrifying deaths or being maimed, disfigured, deformed, blinded or paralyzed for life during the cold war.

(b) Osama Bin Laden must have read about US/Allied POWs in Japan and hundreds of thousands of Japanese children being terrorized, tortured and burned alive in the US fire and atom bombings of Japan and must have concluded that if the FDR/Truman did not care about the plight of their own US soldiers captive in Japan and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese children, why should Osama bin Laden care about lives when strategic goals were more important.

(c) Osama Bin Laden read about the US government in the 50s overthrowing a democratically elected Mossadegh of Iran and eventually the Shah terrorized his own people in Iran, thanks to the military support given by the US government

(d) He read about the US government in the 60s, arming the Israeli government that used those very US weapons to collaterally kill palestinian children and babies

(e) He saw the US government in the 70s using napalm, agent orange and carpet bombing Vietnam and Cambodia, collaterally killing hundreds of thousands or even millions.

(f) He saw the US government in the 70s supporting cruel, murderous dictators like the Shah of Iran.

(g) He saw the US government in the 80s siding with the "christian" militias in Lebanon, the very christian militias that massacred muslims.

(h) He saw the US government in the 80s supporting cruel dictators like Saddam Hussein.

(i) He saw the US government in the 90s imposing cruel sanctions on Iraq resulting in UN reports stating that half a million Iraqi children died prematurely due to the sanctions.

(j) He saw that the cruel Saudi dictatorship was being supported by the US government , the very dictatorship that tortured dissidents who opposed the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia.

(k) He saw that the US government never left any country in which it had troops in ( example; US troops still present in Germany and Japan, even after the war had ended decades ago).

(l) He saw that warnings to the US government to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia were ignored.

(m) He saw that the only way to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia was to launch a terror campaign.

(n) He saw that his terror campaign against the US had failed and US troops still remained in Saudi Arabia 9 years after the gulf war had ended.

(o) He saw that the only sure way to get the US government to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia was to launch an attack on the US homeland on 9/11/01.

(p) He saw that the US government finally gave into his demands to withdraw troops, only after the 9/11 attacks, and US troops finally left Saudi Arabia in 2003, almost 13 years after the gulf war had ended

...Placing our troops in Saudi Arabia deeply affected Osama Bin Laden and the Saudi religious leadership because of the historical record of the US govt in its dealings in the middle east and elsewhere.

An analogous way of looking at it would be America's involvement in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan because the Soviets had their "presence" in those countries and America was afraid communism would spread if the Soviets were allowed to have their presence in Vietnam, Korea and Afghanistan and thinking along the same lines, Al-Qaeda does not want American military presence in any Muslim country, especially "holy" Saudi Arabia because Osama was afraid the US govt would continue supporting the cruel Saudi dictatorship's crack down on dissidents.

So just as America was trying to prevent communism from spreading by being militarily involved in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan; Al-Qaeda wants to get "militarily" involved in preventing the US govt's support of cruel dictators in the middle east.

THIS IS THE MAIN REASON FOR THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS.....AMERICAN MILITARY PRESENCE IN SAUDI ARABIA and the subsequent imprisonment and torture of Saudi dissidents by the cruel Saudi dictatorship that provoked Osama Bin Laden to act.

(4) Not sanctioned Iraq....

..Osama Bin Laden points to UN reports, rightly or wrongly, that our sanctions on Iraq was the cause of half a million Iraqi children dying prematurely.

(5) not sold weapons to Israel...

...Osama Bin Laden points to the fact, rightly or wrongly, that American made weapons were used by the Israelis to kill Palestinian men, women and children through collateral damage

(6) reinforced cockpit doors and had air marshals on every flight, like Israel did long time ago.


Points 3 through 5 is all about perception based on facts that might have been blown all out of proportion in the minds of the radicals in the Middle East, but in the end, perception is what motivates people to commit horrendous acts.

Al-Qaida's wrong perception about the US, makes it not able to differentiate between the actions of the US government and its citizens because in Al-Qaida's mind, since we are a democracy, every citizen is responsible for the actions of our government .


We have read about numerous cases in the US in which loving fathers in our non-war zone and trauma-less America have nonetheless terrorized, tortured and killed their own children or pregnant wives, either through suffocation, drowning, hanging, beheading, stabbings or shootings,

so is it surprising that in Iraq or Afghanistan today, in the trauma of a war zone, where numerous victims see their loved ones being killed or blinded, maimed, deformed or paralyzed or disfigured for life due to either US bombings or sectarian violence that those victims are vulnerable to Al-Qaida's propaganda which is able to influence the victims to take revenge and kill Muslims allied with the US or collaterally/accidentally kill Muslim children in the process of attacking US forces or Shia militias ?


The following four examples is about the other side of the perception coin;

the American perception of foreigners and America's inability to differentiate between different groups of foreigners or unwillingness to care about foreign children as they would care about American children :

An example of American perception and its inability to differentiate between a small group of evil people and the innocent population at large can be seen in the deliberate terrorizing, torture and burning alive or blinding, maiming, disfiguring, deforming or paralyzing for life, hundreds of thousands of babies and children in the fire bombings of scores of Japanese cities and the atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War Two in 1945 when Japan was already defeated and ready to surrender conditionally as early as August of 1944.

The deliberate allied carpet bombing of Dresden during World War Two with the foreknowledge that the bombing will terrorize and kill or blind, maim, disfigure or deform for life, tens of thousands of Dresden's children is another example of the inability to differentiate between the small group of evil Nazis and the population at large.

Another example of American perception and its inability to differentiate between different Arab groups can be found in the large percentage of Americans who still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Al-Qaida and was behind the attacks on September 11, 2001.

Another example of American perception and its inability to differentiate between terrorists and other Arabs, resulted in the rejection of Dubai ports ( An Arab company) from operating in the US .

The inability or unwillingness to differentiate between a small group of terrorists and the larger innocent population is what leads both the US government and terrorists like Timothy McVeigh to launch attacks which result in either the collateral/accidental deaths of millions of civilians, children and babies in the case of US attacks (from 1776 through the wars of the 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st centuries) or in the case of terrorists, the deliberate murder of civilians without any thought about who will die due to their attacks.

Propensity towards war can also be traced to crisis that are either instigated or exploited and that results in the festering of the problem which can be used to scare the American public into not complaining about 68 cents of every tax dollar going to the profit agenda of the bloated, wasteful, corrupt military/industrial pork laden corporate welfare complex and in return for the trillion dollar yearly budget to the military/industrial complex, the fear mongering politicians are assured of being re-elected due to contributions from their friends in the military/industrial complex and the hundreds of thousands of employees of the miltitary/industrial complex that purposely makes sure that its facilities are spread out among numerous congressional districts in order to maintain the loyalty of its puppets in the US government.

The reason the US government lets a problem fester is because that is the only way the US government can expand because only during a crisis do the American people suspend all reasonable logic and give their power over to the US government and THAT IS HOW THE US GOVT. HAS GROWN OVER THE CENTURIES BY EXPLOITING EVERY CRISIS.

The military/industrial complex cannot be overlooked because the US government is structured around the corporate interests of the military/industrial complex thus giving rise to the entire machinery of government being geared towards war and military solutions instead of non-military solutions to problems and the resulting flourishing of no bid contracts and war profiteering (eg. the unnecessary cold war expenditures that ended up costing the American taxpayers about 5.5 trillion dollars i.e five hundred thousand million dollars plus ten times that same amount )

instead of directing valuable resources to useful projects in order to have
a much safer railway system using the latest radar and laser technology to prevent crashes,

latest parachute technology to prevent air crashes,

safe gang free environment,

gun violence free environment

and criminal activity free environment in our cities,

affordable health care,

affordable high quality education,

safe food, water, air and environment (example : free radon tests to prevent cancer ),

congestion free roads,

roads without pot holes,

bridges that are not dangerous,

levees that do not break,

utilities that are not overworked and that create outages,

more intensive medical research that cures cancer,
prevents heart disease,
diabetes and other deadly conditions,

more intensive research into cleaner alternative fuels,

more intensive technological research that gives easy access to broadband and congestion free Internet infrastructure,

lower taxes etc etc etc,

to improve the living standard of the average American.

The US govt. will not give up the American empire and has just approved 805 billion ( eight hundred thousand million plus another five thousand million ) to the military/industrial complex which does not include the hundreds of billions going to homeland security, maintenance of nuclear armaments, the veterans budget, and the interest payments on the debt borrowed on behalf of the military/industrial complex

and at this rate of spending, the US will eventually become a third rate economy with lower standards of living for the average American while social security benefits will be cut, health care rationed, cuts in high quality education and cuts in all essential projects etc etc.

Sadly and tragically, the US government has not been a blessing to the world but rather its actions has spawned blowback in the form of WW2, the Cold War, the Middle Eastern Wars, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the rise of communism and fascism and the resulting loss of hundreds of millions of lives and the loss of hundreds of thousands of US soldiers, hundreds of thousands of US soldiers maimed, deformed, blinded, paralyzed or disfigured for life and the despair experienced by hundreds of thousands of American families who have their loved ones adversely affected by war

all because of the power trips of the war mongering chicken hawk politicians and their profit driven supporters in the greedy, corrupt, wasteful, bloated military/industrial pork laden corporate welfare entitlement complex that has got hundreds of trillions of dollars of hard earned taxpayers money over the decades, all in the name of honor, duty, freedom, patriotism and liberty.

As one wise Samuel Johnson said on the evening of April 7, 1775, "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel".

If any defense contract gets reduced or cancelled, you can bet the war profiteering defense contractor and his puppet in the US govt. will rally up his supporters and say its not patriotic to cancel a defense contract.


From the destruction of innocent Japanese cherry blossom trees during World War Two in Washington DC to the presence of US nuclear weapons that "tell" foreign governments that if they kill our children with a nuclear attack, the US government has the right to kill all their children with our nuclear weapons, is a testimony to the similarity between the terrorists and what the US government has at least done in the past in which both the terrorists and the US government have punished or wanted to punish collaterally or otherwise, "trees" and the general population (of innocent men, women, children and babies ) for the evil doings of a few

Ladies and gentlemen

I believe that loveverybody's spew, above, adequately demonstrates that it is a Mohammedtroll trying to push guilt buttons.

However.

The unpleasant truth is this: that if the United States ceased to exist tomorrow - indeed, if the whole region of the Americas became, overnight, exactly what it was in AD 1400, that is, a shifting patchwork of assorted Native societies ranging from hunter-gatherers (California) to citydwellers (Aztecs, Incas) - the Ummah, or Muslim Mob, in its various manifestations, would continue its Jihad, its struggle to impose a global sharia despotism, unabated. Jihadis would continue to murder and enslave the peoples of black Africa; jihadis would continue to assail Jews not only in Israel but wherever else Muslims could get at them; Jihad would continue to be waged against India, and against Thailand, and against the Philippines.

Why do I believe that?

Jacques Ellul, a French Reformed Christian, lay theologian and sociologist with a deep knowledge of the history of institutions and systems of law, who taught law at the University of Bordeaux, and participated in many inter-faith ‘dialogues’, penned a brief foreword on ‘jihad’ – Islamic warfare – for his friend Bat Ye’or’s book “The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam” (1991; English translation published 1996; that is - BEFORE September 11 2001).

From that foreword I quote this disturbing assessment (remember, he speaks as a sociologist):

“there is so much talk nowadays of the tolerance and fundamental pacifism of Islam that it is necessary to recall its nature, which is fundamentally warlike!”.

He argues, *as a sociologist*, that the Jihad appears to him to be 'an institution, not an event'. That is: it is "part of the normal functioning of the Muslim world".

The Jewish scholar Joseph Schacht, in his monumental academic tome "An Introduction to Islamic Law" (1982; note, yet again, the date), remarks:

“The basis of the Islamic attitude towards unbelievers is the law of war; they must be either converted, or subjugated, or killed”.

And from Ibn Ishaq's canonical life of Mohammed, which together with the main Hadith collections forms the basis of the Sunnah:

Ishaq: 204 (A. Guillaume translation) - “‘Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man [Muhammad]?’

*‘Yes. In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.’”* {my emphasis added - dda}.

Ishaq:231 - “Muslims are one ummah (community) to the exclusion of all men. Believers are friends of one another to the exclusion of all outsiders.”

And as for Sunnis and Shiites and the continuous internecine strife of the Muslim world...well, that's jihad too, 'internal struggle'...

let's hear something more from Ellul - "Since the Jihad is not solely an external war, it can break out within the Muslim world itself - and wars among Muslims have been numerous, but always with the same features".

Q.E.D.

TO : dumbledoresarmy

Whichever way you look at it; the US govt, the western world and the non-muslim world has caused more wars, more world wars and more death and destruction than what the muslim world has contributed to man's inhumanity to man from the dawn of civilization.

Yes, both muslim and non-muslim cultures have both advantages and disadvantages: for example, the muslim world has honor killings but the western world's record on killing women by husbands and boyfriends is dismal. In fact, murder rates in most of the muslim world is lower than the murder rates in the western world

Ladies and gentlemen

I think by its latest posting, 'loveverybody' has sufficiently exposed itself either as a self-hating westerner with no accurate knowledge of human history either recent or ancient, or as an out and out Muslim spin-doctor with no interest in the truth whatsoever.

As for the rates of murder in 'most' Muslim countries being lower than in western countries...does anyone here believe that a country like Somalia, or Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or for that matter Saudi Arabia, or even Turkey, is able to keep, or even wants to keep, more accurate police records than, say, Australia, or the UK, or the USA?

Shall we raise the topic of rape?...given the bizarre Islamic 'laws' about rape, one *has* to assume that the vast majority of rapes carried out in the Muslim world go unreported, for a girl who tells anyone she's been raped is highly likely to be 'punished' for it by being 'honor' murdered...by her own ever-lovin' family. And if her family doesn't kill her, well, if she's lucky, she might end up flogged, or imprisoned - one estimate recently made was that 70 % of women prisoners in Pakistan, are...*rape victims* who had been 'convicted' of 'immorality'. Of course, in some parts of the Islamic world, a girl who gets raped, and reports it, if she can't produce the obligatory four male muslim witnesses of good character, will be publicly stoned to death by an ecstatically howling male mob. *puke*

Given the honor-shame 'cover up' mindset that is all-pervasive in the Islamosphere (see Nonie Darwish for more on this - she *lived* in it for more than twenty years, as an Egyptian Muslim) who here believes that governments or individual researchers within dar al Islam are even going to want to find out, much less own up to, exactly how many murders, rapes, drug addicts, prostitutes, and HIV infections they have? Remember Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stating that there weren't any homosexuals in Iran? Gee. And the man comes from the very same society that produced 'The Perfumed Garden'. ROFLMAO.

In the early 1990s the police in the UK did a study. They discovered that a woman married to a Muslim man was EIGHT TIMES MORE LIKELY to be murdered by her spouse, than a woman married to a man of any other religious affiliation.

And girls and women from the 'Asian' community in the UK - which is mostly Muslim - were found to commit suicide at a rate TEN TIMES that of girls in UK populations of other backgrounds.

And see this article:

http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/483/521.html

which tries to tot up how many Arabs and Muslims are and have been killed, in recent decades, *by their fellow Arabs and by fellow Muslims*.

"The tragedy is that in Arab and Muslim countries a massacre is happening. A genocide protected by the silence of the world. A genocide protected by a deception that is perhaps unparalleled in the history of mankind. A genocide that has no connection to Israel, to Zionism or to Jews.
"A genocide of mainly Arabs and Muslims, by Arabs and Muslims".

And so we return to Iraq, where if the USA leaves, and all western nations leave, the Sunnis and Shiites will (once they have exterminated the remaining Christians, Mandaeans and Yazidis) get down to tearing each other's throats out, just like they did in the Iran-Iraq war. If no modern non-Muslim country sells them weapons, they will do it with bricks, rocks, knives and their bare hands; until some murderous strongman claws his way to the top of the heap, and imposes some sort of order (mostly by killing people) for a few decades...until he gets assassinated.

dumbledoresarmy stated :

As for the rates of murder in 'most' Muslim countries being lower than in western countries...does anyone here believe that a country like Somalia, or Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or for that matter Saudi Arabia, or even Turkey, is able to keep, or even wants to keep, more accurate police records than, say, Australia, or the UK, or the USA?

Comment :

Even if the police records are not accurate in muslim countries, the fact still remains that the record of husbands and boyfriends killing women in the US is dismal.

Man's inhumanity to man does not depend on islam; in fact, non-muslims have through wars and world wars have killed hundreds of millions of people more than any genocide committed in muslim countries.

dumbledoresarmy stated :

Shall we raise the topic of rape?...given the bizarre Islamic 'laws' about rape, one *has* to assume that the vast majority of rapes carried out in the Muslim world go unreported, for a girl who tells anyone she's been raped is highly likely to be 'punished' for it by being 'honor' murdered...by her own ever-lovin' family. And if her family doesn't kill her, well, if she's lucky, she might end up flogged, or imprisoned -

Comment :

rape occurs in all societies and is not confined to the muslim society.

Yes, rape is handled differently in muslim societies than in non-muslim societies but it is logical to assume that rapes in muslim societies is not as frequent as in non-muslim societies for the fact that muslim girls usually lead sheltered lives and a potential rapist has more access to a non-muslim girl than a muslim girl.

During the Vietnam war, US soldiers had easier access to Vietnamese girls than US soldiers have access to muslim girls in Afghanistan or Iraq and so its logical to assume rapes are more common in non-muslim countries than in muslim countries

dumbledoresarmy stated :
one estimate recently made was that 70 % of women prisoners in Pakistan, are...*rape victims* who had been 'convicted' of 'immorality'. Of course, in some parts of the Islamic world, a girl who gets raped, and reports it, if she can't produce the obligatory four male muslim witnesses of good character, will be publicly stoned to death by an ecstatically howling male mob. *puke*

Comment :

Prison rapes are common in all societies around the world and as for stoning, thats a barbaric practice that needs to be stopped and the best way to stop it is through diplomacy and financial incentives to change .

Today, most muslim countries do not "stone" and even those who do practice stoning, its a very rare occurence.

Here are examples of stoning by non-muslims :

James the Just, in AD 62 stoned by non-muslims, after being condemned by the Sanhedrin.
Saint Timothy stoned by non-muslims after AD 67
Saint Eskil, Anglo-Saxon monk stoned to death by non-muslim Swedish Vikings
Moctezuma II, last Aztec Emperor (although the Aztecs claim he was executed by the Spanish.) stoned by non-muslims
Du’a Khalil Aswad, stoned to death by non-muslims in Iraqi Yazidi Kurdistan (2007)

dumbledoresarmy stated :

Given the honor-shame 'cover up' mindset that is all-pervasive in the Islamosphere (see Nonie Darwish for more on this - she *lived* in it for more than twenty years, as an Egyptian Muslim) who here believes that governments or individual researchers within dar al Islam are even going to want to find out, much less own up to, exactly how many murders, rapes, drug addicts, prostitutes, and HIV infections they have?

Comment :

It is logical assume that muslim women who are largely sheltered in muslim societies will be subject to much less rape, prostitution, drug addiction, murders and HIV infections compared to women in non-muslim societies who have much more freedom of movement.

dumbledoresarmy stated :

Remember Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stating that there weren't any homosexuals in Iran? Gee. And the man comes from the very same society that produced 'The Perfumed Garden'. ROFLMAO.

Comment :

President Ahmadinejad stated his opinion and did not say that it was a fact. In my visits to muslim countries I have seen anecdotal evidence of homosexuals not being harmed in anyway ( as long as they do not flaunt their homosexuality in public )

dumbledoresarmy stated :

In the early 1990s the police in the UK did a study. They discovered that a woman married to a Muslim man was EIGHT TIMES MORE LIKELY to be murdered by her spouse, than a woman married to a man of any other religious affiliation.

Comment :

That study is not logical because why would a muslim man be more likely to kill a submissive, sheltered wife compared to a non-muslim man's wife whose wife goes out to party or has an affair at the office with another man ?

dumbledoresarmy stated :

And girls and women from the 'Asian' community in the UK - which is mostly Muslim - were found to commit suicide at a rate TEN TIMES that of girls in UK populations of other backgrounds.

And see this article:

http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/483/521.html

which tries to tot up how many Arabs and Muslims are and have been killed, in recent decades, *by their fellow Arabs and by fellow Muslims*.

Comment :

Suicide is mostly due to psychological problems and its logical to assume that a sheltered, submissive girl in a muslim household has less psychological problems than a girl who is subject to ridicule in society, who has boyfriend problems and other problems arising from the freedom of movement experienced by non-muslim girls

dumbledoresarmy stated :

"The tragedy is that in Arab and Muslim countries a massacre is happening. A genocide protected by the silence of the world. A genocide protected by a deception that is perhaps unparalleled in the history of mankind. A genocide that has no connection to Israel, to Zionism or to Jews.
"A genocide of mainly Arabs and Muslims, by Arabs and Muslims".

Comment :

More genocides have happened in non-muslim countries by the hundreds of millions compared to muslim countries ( example : the Jewish holocausts in Europe, Cambodian, Rwanda, Russian/communist, Chinese genocides etc )

dumbledoresarmy stated :

And so we return to Iraq, where if the USA leaves, and all western nations leave, the Sunnis and Shiites will (once they have exterminated the remaining Christians, Mandaeans and Yazidis) get down to tearing each other's throats out, just like they did in the Iran-Iraq war. If no modern non-Muslim country sells them weapons, they will do it with bricks, rocks, knives and their bare hands; until some murderous strongman claws his way to the top of the heap, and imposes some sort of order (mostly by killing people) for a few decades...until he gets assassinated.

Comment :

Yes, "christians" have been killing "christians" ( example ; the American civil war where over 600 000 "christian's died ) and muslims have been killing muslims.

You can visit most muslim countries and see christians and jews and muslims living in peace.

The radicalism in muslim countries is mostly due to the presence of western troops and once those western troops leave and once the west helps muslim countries develop and solve the israeli-palestinian conflict, you will find that muslims will further marginalize the radicals within their society and thus make those radicals irrelevant