Political Correctness enables Radical Fundamentalist Islam

[Deleted]

I'm curious Big Lin, I have a hard time accepting that you do not believe that that there was a Caliphate expanding Islamic borders in Africa to cover a large portion of the European coastal region and in some case far inland.

Trying to find common ground is usually difficult, but any serious attempt to do so begins with developing and agreeing to facts.

I believe that from Africa Islam did attack and conquer significant parts of Europe and held it for many years.

I also believe that the Carthaginians did things quite similar long before the first Caliphate. I also believe after the Carthaginians Rome made major inroads into the middle East and in Africa (at least as far as Egypt. My impression from your words is that you do not believe the Islam made such a Caliphate into an invasion of Europe?

[DAS (formerly BushAdmirer)]

Jul 18, 2016 19:39:56 GMT Big Lin said:

All this is just hysterical propaganda.

Of course there are people calling themselves Muslims - on the whole, NOT actually Muslims since they consistently carry out deeds that are specifically FORBIDDEN by the Quran so they are hypocrites - who do bad things.

Just as there are people calling themselves Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Marxists, atheists and so on who do bad things.

I've reached the conclusion that to those whose brains are warped by prejudice no amount of facts and reason will stop them believing their comforting propaganda no matter how false it is.

It seems that there is much disagreement as to which Muslims are real Muslims. Sunnis don't believe Shias are real Muslims.

In one sense, the ISIS terrorists are the most legitimate Muslims of all because they are closely emulating the actions of the Prophet Mohammad. He was a brutal warlord who kept slaves, beheaded enemies, killed Jews, Christians, and other unbelievers.

[♫anna♫]

Jul 18, 2016 19:39:56 GMT Big Lin said:

All this is just hysterical propaganda.

Of course there are people calling themselves Muslims - on the whole, NOT actually Muslims since they consistently carry out deeds that are specifically FORBIDDEN by the Quran so they are hypocrites - who do bad things.

Just as there are people calling themselves Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Marxists, atheists and so on who do bad things.

I've reached the conclusion that to those whose brains are warped by prejudice no amount of facts and reason will stop them believing their comforting propaganda no matter how false it is.

Big Lin people are getting sick of giving Islam a free pass and showing a double standard political correctness that we'd never give the Westboro Baptists or the Manson cult. Yes Islam will conquer Europe in a few decades.

[♫anna♫]

The horrible fate of the politically correct multiculturalist Jews of Medina who naively gave Muhammad sanctuary is documented in Islamic scriptures.


de.slideshare.net/mobile/Teaching_Missions/islam-s4-life-of-muhammad-ii
www.answering-islam.de/Responses/Osama/zawadi_safiyyah.htm
alisina.org/?p=1138
www.islam-watch.org/Larry/Muhammad-massacres-and-Sex-slaves.htm

www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/muhammad/rape.aspx

Big Lin DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) @menantol kronks blc iamjumbo victor

[Big Lin]

I'm getting a bit tired of hearing the same tired old record - especially when a lot of the time the tunes it plays are lies.

Can't anyone find something a bit more varied to post on?

Or has everyone been mysteriously hypnotised into an inability to reason, judge and take an interest in the wider world?

[Big Lin]

Jul 18, 2016 20:05:25 GMT @menantol said:

I'm curious Big Lin, I have a hard time accepting that you do not believe that that there was a Caliphate expanding Islamic borders in Africa to cover a large portion of the European coastal region and in some case far inland.

Trying to find common ground is usually difficult, but any serious attempt to do so begins with developing and agreeing to facts.

I believe that from Africa Islam did attack and conquer significant parts of Europe and held it for many years.

I also believe that the Carthaginians did things quite similar long before the first Caliphate. I also believe after the Carthaginians Rome made major inroads into the middle East and in Africa (at least as far as Egypt. My impression from your words is that you do not believe the Islam made such a Caliphate into an invasion of Europe?

There were only two periods in Muslim history when there was a unified Caliphate - the first from 632 AD to 661, the second from 1512 to 1923.

The Caliphate was, from 661 to 1492, split into a Western and Eastern Caliphate (both believing theirs to be the 'true' Caliphate.

And of course the Shia Muslims NEVER accepted the validity of the Caliphate.

The Caliphate only ever applied to Sunni Muslims.

Now it's certainly true that troops from Morocco conquered Spain and Portugal (except, I'm proud to say, as someone with Basque blood in me, NOT the Basque country where we DEFEATED the Moroccan troops in 718).

They tried to conquer France but were defeated by Charles Martel in 732.

Incidentally, the famous 'Chanson de Roland' is a pack of propagandist lies; the TRUTH is that Charlemagne was conducting a war AGAINST the Christians in Spain (particularly the Basques) and in COLLABORATION with the Moors.

But propaganda can become myth as we all know; Tonypandy is a twentieth-century example.

I believe that Muslims at various times in their history invaded Europe; just as non-Muslims at various times in their history invaded Muslim lands.

But the extent to which religion played much part in the Muslim conquests (at least from around 700 onwards) rather than simple imperialism and territorial expansion is pretty dubious.

[DAS (formerly BushAdmirer)]

Jul 21, 2016 16:00:58 GMT Big Lin said:

I'm getting a bit tired of hearing the same tired old record - especially when a lot of the time the tunes it plays are lies.

Can't anyone find something a bit more varied to post on?

Or has everyone been mysteriously hypnotised into an inability to reason, judge and take an interest in the wider world?

Lin - I would say this topic is being brought forward by a continuing stream of newsworthy current events. Whenever and wherever there is another heinous terrorist attack spawned by ISIL, Al Queda, or Hamas that's going to dominate the news and stimulate more postings to discussion boards.

The recent past has been replete with these attacks and the resulting discussions. San Bernardino, Baghdad, Orlando, Paris, Nice, Istanbul, and now Germany have all been in play. Atrocities by ISIL in Syria and Iraq also create news reports aong with those in Tunisia, Libya, and elsewhere.

Where is Putin when we need him to change the topic with another of his thug like actions? I'm sure he'll be back in action before too long.

Meanwhile, enjoy the video history lessons which have been quite interesting.

[Scottish Lassie]

I have always believed that it was possible to invade a country and then take over that country by peaceful means just by having children, and having these children occupy all the top posts where they will make the laws and be in authority. Eventually it happens and they rule the country. But it could happen in the future that when there are enough Muslims they could decide to rise up and take over via civil war. That's what I think could happen in regard to Christian countries in the future.

[Big Lin]

Jul 21, 2016 16:32:12 GMT DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) said:

Jul 21, 2016 16:00:58 GMT Big Lin said:

I'm getting a bit tired of hearing the same tired old record - especially when a lot of the time the tunes it plays are lies.

Can't anyone find something a bit more varied to post on?

Or has everyone been mysteriously hypnotised into an inability to reason, judge and take an interest in the wider world?

Lin - I would say this topic is being brought forward by a continuing stream of newsworthy current events. Whenever and wherever there is another heinous terrorist attack spawned by ISIL, Al Queda, or Hamas that's going to dominate the news and stimulate more postings to discussion boards.

The recent past has been replete with these attacks and the resulting discussions. San Bernardino, Baghdad, Orlando, Paris, Nice, Istanbul, and now Germany have all been in play. Atrocities by ISIL in Syria and Iraq also create news reports aong with those in Tunisia, Libya, and elsewhere.

Where is Putin when we need him to change the topic with another of his thug like actions? I'm sure he'll be back in action before too long.

Meanwhile, enjoy the video history lessons which have been quite interesting.

History of course is supposed to be about facts; so when poseurs like French alias Warner make one inaccurate and false statement after another I'd say 'entertaining' was the word rather than interesting.

And of course you choose to focus only on so-called Muslim terrorists (most of whose actions are specifically forbidden by the Quran which makes them about as Muslim as the KKK are Christian).

Frankly there have been more PKK atrocities in Turkey than ISIS ones (though they're trying to catch up).

Anyway, going away tomorrow and won't be back till Monday.

Let's hope members can find some different subjects to talk about because it's getting very tiring.

My Turkish brother-in-law is getting very tired of having to try to justify his existence to prejudiced Islamophobes.

[DAS (formerly BushAdmirer)]

Jul 21, 2016 21:51:56 GMT Big Lin said:

Jul 21, 2016 16:32:12 GMT DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) said:

Lin - I would say this topic is being brought forward by a continuing stream of newsworthy current events. Whenever and wherever there is another heinous terrorist attack spawned by ISIL, Al Queda, or Hamas that's going to dominate the news and stimulate more postings to discussion boards.

The recent past has been replete with these attacks and the resulting discussions. San Bernardino, Baghdad, Orlando, Paris, Nice, Istanbul, and now Germany have all been in play. Atrocities by ISIL in Syria and Iraq also create news reports aong with those in Tunisia, Libya, and elsewhere.

Where is Putin when we need him to change the topic with another of his thug like actions? I'm sure he'll be back in action before too long.

Meanwhile, enjoy the video history lessons which have been quite interesting.

History of course is supposed to be about facts; so when poseurs like French alias Warner make one inaccurate and false statement after another I'd say 'entertaining' was the word rather than interesting.

And of course you choose to focus only on so-called Muslim terrorists (most of whose actions are specifically forbidden by the Quran which makes them about as Muslim as the KKK are Christian).

Frankly there have been more PKK atrocities in Turkey than ISIS ones (though they're trying to catch up).

Anyway, going away tomorrow and won't be back till Monday.

Let's hope members can find some different subjects to talk about because it's getting very tiring.

My Turkish brother-in-law is getting very tired of having to try to justify his existence to prejudiced Islamophobes.

Lin - I would say your criticisms of Warner are a bit extreme. I see him as an intelligent and very well educated researcher who has taken a strong personal interest in the history of Islam.

The deeper he goes and the closer he looks at it, the worse it looks. I fully agree with Warner's overall conclusion that Islam's only successes have come via Jihad against unbelievers. I believe you and I are both unbelievers. Should Islamic Sharia Law be established in our countries, it would not go well for the two of us.

Regarding the PKK, I think the Kurds should have their own country with a piece of Iraq, a piece of Turkey, a piece of Syria, and a piece of Iran. That's not likely to happen but it would be the best solution. The Kurds are arguably the most sane group in that region.

[Deleted]

Yes, I agree Big Lin, history should be about facts. History can be for some a calling, even a vocation and in that, very personal. The more involved and the deeper one gets into the details of some segment of history, the more obvious it is that many historians use it for more than facts as they grasp it as a tool to achieve a political agenda. An example here is Howard Zinn who has B.A. from New York University and an M.A. and Ph.D. from Columbia University in history. He is one of those people who you hold up as an actual historian, the opposite of Bill Warner. Howard Zinn is the author of the book “A People’s History of the United States.” Promoted as a history book and used throughout many Universities it has influenced many youths. And yet. . . . . . . . it is a pure propaganda publication demonstrating a near hatred of the United States.

My point is, honesty doesn’t come with a title. The ‘facts’ of Howard Zinn’s book can be checked and if one does so, it will be found lacking and is obviously focusing on a political agenda changing actual historic facts. Yes, Big Lin, history should be about facts. However, it would be more correct to say that written history is about facts as presented by the writer. Written history is often warped by a political agenda.

Those who read history as written by others should do their own checking to come to their own conclusions. I believe you and I have done that as to the works Bill Warner. Obviously we have come to two different conclusions. I have check many of the facts he has presented and have not found them wanting. For example, presentation of the attacks of Islam on Europe. I too had sought evidence of these attacks and had gather such evidence from the time of the beginning of Islam to the time of the Crusades. When I subsequently became aware of Bill Warner I matched my findings against his and the only thing I found wrong with his presentation was that mine had ‘more’ attacks by Islam into Europe. That is, I find him credible.

I realize that you have come to a different opinion of him although I believe that your focusing on his use of the phrase, “they were speaking Rome” has resulted in a misunderstanding of his intent on your part.

But that and other things aside, I strongly believe that the culture of Islam is not compatible with Western culture. I believe that any contacts will be abrasive at best and will result in aggressive contacts between them. I believe that if the West had not gone after the energy sources in the Mideast, and thereby caused an infusion of wealth into the Mideast, there would be little contact today. But that is coming to an end as the West is developing far more energy sources in the West than ever existed in the Mideast. With that reality the wealth of the Mideast will begin to diminish. Of course the danger is that those of the Mideast have (and are) acquiring weapons of mass-destruction. I also believe that due to the Islamic philosophy, the odds are that they will use those weapons. What will happen then will not be good for anyone.

Within this reality the facts presented by Bill Warner are significant as they contribute (if used) to Western government understanding of Islamic established governments.

You can (and probably will) continue to imply that what you offer are ‘the’ facts, and continue to wonder at the lack of acceptance of them by others.

[kronks]

Jul 18, 2016 20:05:25 GMT @menantol said:

I'm curious Big Lin, I have a hard time accepting that you do not believe that that there was a Caliphate expanding Islamic borders in Africa to cover a large portion of the European coastal region and in some case far inland.

Trying to find common ground is usually difficult, but any serious attempt to do so begins with developing and agreeing to facts.

I believe that from Africa Islam did attack and conquer significant parts of Europe and held it for many years.

I also believe that the Carthaginians did things quite similar long before the first Caliphate. I also believe after the Carthaginians Rome made major inroads into the middle East and in Africa (at least as far as Egypt. My impression from your words is that you do not believe the Islam made such a Caliphate into an invasion of Europe?

Often conquests are only possible when replacing something even worse.

Not always though.

But didn't the USA essential fail in Afghanistan and Iraq because the locals preferred Islam rule to the corruption
riddled alternative?

[♫anna♫]

Jul 21, 2016 21:51:56 GMT Big Lin said:

Jul 21, 2016 16:32:12 GMT DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) said:

Lin - I would say this topic is being brought forward by a continuing stream of newsworthy current events. Whenever and wherever there is another heinous terrorist attack spawned by ISIL, Al Queda, or Hamas that's going to dominate the news and stimulate more postings to discussion boards.

The recent past has been replete with these attacks and the resulting discussions. San Bernardino, Baghdad, Orlando, Paris, Nice, Istanbul, and now Germany have all been in play. Atrocities by ISIL in Syria and Iraq also create news reports aong with those in Tunisia, Libya, and elsewhere.

Where is Putin when we need him to change the topic with another of his thug like actions? I'm sure he'll be back in action before too long.

Meanwhile, enjoy the video history lessons which have been quite interesting.

History of course is supposed to be about facts; so when poseurs like French alias Warner make one inaccurate and false statement after another I'd say 'entertaining' was the word rather than interesting.

And of course you choose to focus only on so-called Muslim terrorists (most of whose actions are specifically forbidden by the Quran which makes them about as Muslim as the KKK are Christian).

Frankly there have been more PKK atrocities in Turkey than ISIS ones (though they're trying to catch up).

Anyway, going away tomorrow and won't be back till Monday.

Let's hope members can find some different subjects to talk about because it's getting very tiring.

My Turkish brother-in-law is getting very tired of having to try to justify his existence to prejudiced Islamophobes.

Big Lin your Muslim brother in law simply has to openly denounce the excesses of Fundamentalist Sharia Islam and support others who do as other truly moderate anti Sharia Muslims do. It disturbs me how so many Muslims just want the topic of atrocities done in the name of Islam hushed up.

I certainly have understanding for people who are disturbed by Old Testament scriptures and welcome their freedom to discuss this openly. I don't whine about Christianophobes. Why do passive Muslims who whine, play the victim and avoid the issues get a free pass? We support free speech and open debate in Western civilisation. If your brother in law supports censor, ignoring and hushing up what's being done in the name of Islam by others and wants us censored then sorry he's part of the problem.

I take these Westboro Baptists apart even though they don't commit violent acts and there's only about 20 active members. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church . It's politically correct to make a media sensation out of the WBs, but we have to dummy up and be Islamophiles, etc. when a non Christian religion preaches hate and even becomes violent.

[Deleted]

Anna, you’ve hit the nail right on the head. I really don’t care if someone supports Islam or doesn’t, or for that matter any other religion, open discussion is always best. And yes, it is apparent that when people begin to talk about the philosophy of Islam, others get very defensive. That is, they seem to get defensive about any talk of what they perceive as being negative about Islam.

While the talking about Islam may seem negative, it is less about the religious aspect than about its direct involvement on government. Personally I don’t care what type of religious philosophy anyone wants to believe in, but rather only in the sense that it tries to control the government of others. If someone wants to believe in tree spirits or that a shaman can chant direct contact to a God or Gods, I don’t care, but when they use that to control nonbelievers into adherence to their religion, that is open to debate. When a religion uses the strength of their religion tied into government to sentence others to personal punishment or death, for their personal beliefs, that religion is open for debate.

More importantly, when such dialog does occur and the speaker is attacked rather than the content, then that religion is open to debate. A perfect example is the Westboro Baptists when they demonstrate in ways that harms others (such as disrupting funerals) they are open to debate. On the other hand, those who do things not normally accepted such as speaking in tongues or dancing with snakes (both as examples of Christian sects) within their own services they are personally free to do so without harassment.

The problem as I see it, is the clashing of different cultures. More to the point, the clashing of very different practices within differing cultures. Personally I don’t care if some culture has specific dietary requirements, that has no impact on me, unless I run a restaurant and am required to serve specific types of food. Or if I run a bakery and am forced to provide cakes designed in ways I find offensive. In Western culture such restrictions are being forced on business owners in the name of political correctness. This ‘forcing’ is not part of Western culture. However, outside of Western culture there are areas where it is normal to enact such forcing of laws. Even in that difference there is no real problem but when those of another culture bring those restrictions to areas of Western culture and try to enforce them, then that, at the very least is open to debate. A debate not allowed in other cultures.

Bill Warner has been pilloried (verbally) by some for what he has offered. Apparently some believe that his offered information is wrong and apparently then the assumption is that he is a ‘bad’ person who only does this for ulterior reasons. At the same time others have found what he offers to be worthy and accurate. Certainly that difference is open to dialog. But a civil dialog and not one that is based on impugning the character of Bill Warner or others.

[Deleted]

Jul 21, 2016 16:08:28 GMT Big Lin said:

Jul 18, 2016 20:05:25 GMT @menantol said:

I'm curious Big Lin, I have a hard time accepting that you do not believe that that there was a Caliphate expanding Islamic borders in Africa to cover a large portion of the European coastal region and in some case far inland.

Trying to find common ground is usually difficult, but any serious attempt to do so begins with developing and agreeing to facts.

I believe that from Africa Islam did attack and conquer significant parts of Europe and held it for many years.

I also believe that the Carthaginians did things quite similar long before the first Caliphate. I also believe after the Carthaginians Rome made major inroads into the middle East and in Africa (at least as far as Egypt. My impression from your words is that you do not believe the Islam made such a Caliphate into an invasion of Europe?

There were only two periods in Muslim history when there was a unified Caliphate - the first from 632 AD to 661, the second from 1512 to 1923.

The Caliphate was, from 661 to 1492, split into a Western and Eastern Caliphate (both believing theirs to be the 'true' Caliphate.

And of course the Shia Muslims NEVER accepted the validity of the Caliphate.

The Caliphate only ever applied to Sunni Muslims.

Now it's certainly true that troops from Morocco conquered Spain and Portugal (except, I'm proud to say, as someone with Basque blood in me, NOT the Basque country where we DEFEATED the Moroccan troops in 718).

They tried to conquer France but were defeated by Charles Martel in 732.

Incidentally, the famous 'Chanson de Roland' is a pack of propagandist lies; the TRUTH is that Charlemagne was conducting a war AGAINST the Christians in Spain (particularly the Basques) and in COLLABORATION with the Moors.

But propaganda can become myth as we all know; Tonypandy is a twentieth-century example.

I believe that Muslims at various times in their history invaded Europe; just as non-Muslims at various times in their history invaded Muslim lands.

But the extent to which religion played much part in the Muslim conquests (at least from around 700 onwards) rather than simple imperialism and territorial expansion is pretty dubious.

Big Lin, your comment, “ . . . But the extent to which religion played much part in the Muslim conquests (at least from around 700 onwards) rather than simple imperialism and territorial expansion is pretty dubious. . . . “ I guess that we have quite different understandings of Islam. When Islam grows to the point that it is large enough to become the government, it becomes the driving and defining force of government defining the Caliphate (border limits) of that government and, it defines the efforts to expand those border limits. When a government expands by Caliphate using the process of Jihad it is by definition religious because the separation of a secular government doesn’t exist. It is a government defined and driven by Islam.



Another of your comments, “ . . . There were only two periods in Muslim history when there was a unified Caliphate - the first from 632 AD to 661, the second from 1512 to 1923. . . . . The Caliphate was, from 661 to 1492, split into a Western and Eastern Caliphate (both believing theirs to be the 'true' Caliphate. . ..“ supports the point that from around 632 CE to 1923 CE there has been an expansionist Caliphate. That because of ruler differences within the various leaders, a point can be made that there has been no letup in the expansionist Caliphate, nor is there today.



Such as 'Chanson de Roland' and ‘Tonypandy’ notwithstanding, the various segments of Islam attack Europe from the West to the East with primary justification being one of expansion of Islam. That such tied in with the personal goals of various rulers is beside the point.



That Sunni Islam and Shia Islam do not see eye to eye on all things is true. They do not even believe each other to be true Muslims. That they pick their leaders in differing methods makes little difference to those of us who are People of the Book or Kafir, as we are of no account within either Sect of Islam. Today’s Islam (both Sunni and Shia) represent Islamic Philosophies alien to Western Philosophy.



I have little doubt that there are individual Muslims who do not accept the hard fist approach to non-Muslims but I suggest that if they push that perspective they are likely to be declared Apostate. If so, it is also likely that (by at least some Imams) they will be subject to the penalty of death as I am (being an Atheist).



My primary point has been and remains, that Islamic based culture is incompatible with Western culture and that there is no way that the two can live among each other without one dominating the other.

[DAS (formerly BushAdmirer)]

More terrorist attacks in Munich, Germany today targeting shoppers at a mall including children. No confirmation as of this moment that this is ISIL inspired. We do know from a CNN report that one of the shooters yelled "Allahu Akbar" while pulling the trigger. However, Fox News later said they have no report of anyone shouting Allahu Akbar so there are conflicting news reports.

The shooter committed suicide after his killing spree. Wore a backpack with 300 rounds of ammo for his Glock. German born 18 year old of Iranian descent. No info yet on how religious he was but unlikely that he was connected to ISIL because Iran is Shia and ISIL is Sunni.

9 people dead

These soft target attacks on innocent unarmed civilians are really despicable.

What really concerns me is public support for ISIL, Taliban, Hamas, and Al Queda (and similar) terror groups on the Arab Street. If groups like ISIL have millions of supporters, that means they'll likely have a steady stream of recruits and funding. That makes it very difficult to eradicate

Even though most Muslims have a negative opinion of ISIL, there is such a large Arab population that they don't need majority support.

An analysis of four polls surveying Arab public opinion towards the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) reveals that the group has a bare minimum of 8.5 million strong supporters and that's a conservative estimate. If you include those who feel somewhat positively towards the Islamic State, the number rises to at least 42 million.

The estimate is based on a March 2015 poll by the Iraq-based Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies;  a November 2014 poll by Zogby Research Services; another  November 2014 poll by the Doha-based Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies and an October 2014 poll by the Fikra Forum commissioned by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

For example, seventeen percent of Syrians said that they completely support the Islamic State's goals and activities in the March 2015 poll. That statistic grows to 27% when you account for Syrians who do not consider the Islamic State to be a terrorist group.

(source and more detail: www.clarionproject.org/analysis/isis-has-least-42-million-supporters-arab-world)

[Big Lin]

Well, let's see. The Munich shooter's victims were almost all Muslim. He also shouted loudly 'I am a German' and was also apparently heard shouting 'f..king foreigners.'

He had severe mental problems and was a great admirer of the various right-wing nutjobs in America who had carried out school shootings.

Hardly a typical Muslim fundamentalist.

[Big Lin]

Big Lin, your comment, “ . . . But the extent to which religion played much part in the Muslim conquests (at least from around 700 onwards) rather than simple imperialism and territorial expansion is pretty dubious. . . . “ I guess that we have quite different understandings of Islam. When Islam grows to the point that it is large enough to become the government, it becomes the driving and defining force of government defining the Caliphate (border limits) of that government and, it defines the efforts to expand those border limits. When a government expands by Caliphate using the process of Jihad it is by definition religious because the separation of a secular government doesn’t exist. It is a government defined and driven by Islam.

Well, my understanding of Islam is based on knowledge and personal experience as well as considerable study both of the history of the religion and the content of its beliefs. Now my knowledge, experience and study has taught me that Islam is no more monolithic than Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism or even Marxism, fascism and Nazism.

Strike one.

When ANY group or ideology 'becomes the government' to a greater or lesser degree it becomes 'the defining force' of that government. That's as true of non-Muslim governments NOW as it was of Christian governments during the time when Islam was at its strongest militarily.

So all you're saying applies to ANY group or ideology - from liberalism, conservatism, Marxism, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and so on every bit as much as it applies to Islam.

Strike two.

Now as you've been told several times now the Caliphate was NEVER recognized by Shia Muslims and only ever enjoyed status among the Sunnis. Even among them because the Caliphate was split for long centuries - rather as the Catholics had popes and anti-popes - its 'domination' was severely restricted.

Nor is it true that Muslim governments 'expanded by Caliphate' nor is it true that jihad - a word that has numerous different meanings in Islam and which like most Westerners you completely fail to understand - was the 'process' used to 'expand the Caliphate.' Particularly when you forget the 'expansion' carried out by Shias who didn't even RECOGNIZE the Caliphate as having any religious validity!

So not only is the 'Caliphate' NOT a 'government defined and driven by Islam' but it is also not even a 'government' in the way that the term is generally understood.

Strike three.

My comments about the only periods when a unified Caliphate existed being between 632 to 661 and 1512 to 1923 not only DON'T support your claim that from 632 to 1923 there was an expansionist Caliphate; they DISPROVE it. The Caliphate was at its widest extent up to 732 AD - from that point onwards it was in steady retreat. They failed to conquer France; the Basques and later other groups in Spain began the process of reconquest; in the East the Mongols began to smash the Arab and (later) Turkish hegemony; so in every respect your analysis is FALSE to the FACTS of history.

The Caliphate (which in any event only ever applied to Sunni Muslims) was abolished in 1923 and since then NO individual has succeeded in becoming recognised as a genuine claimant to that title.

So the whole nonsense of pretending that 'an expansionist Caliphate' exists and has continued to exist for hundreds of years is simply FALSE to the FACTS.

As for the paranoid fantasy about 'the various segments of Islam attack Europe from the West to the East with primary justification being one of expansion of Islam. That such tied in with the personal goals of various rulers is beside the point' all I can say is you must stop reading all these conspiracy nutjobs. And you're very naive if you seriously imagine that rulers haven't consciously used religion as a tool to further their own ends. Believe me, when I lived in saudi Arabia the king was an alcoholic and ate pork and various other things that are haram but he was quite happy to lie to the people and use religion as a tool of social control.

That Sunni Islam and Shia Islam do not see eye to eye on all things is true. They do not even believe each other to be true Muslims. That they pick their leaders in differing methods makes little difference to those of us who are People of the Book or Kafir, as we are of no account within either Sect of Islam. Today’s Islam (both Sunni and Shia) represent Islamic Philosophies alien to Western Philosophy.

That represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what Islam is. Actually Mohammed was totally clear that People of the Book were NOT Kufur (he also included Zoroastrians as well as Christians and Jews in that classification).

Most of the loopers who go around carrying out terrorist acts are NOT genuine Muslims. They do things that are consistently 'haram' - forbidden - which in itself proves that they are NOT Muslims but heretics and blasphemers who have either been brainwashed by conscious false prophets or who are themselves deliberately LYING about what Islam is.

The MAJORITY of Muslims REJECT and CONDEMN terrorism as UNISLAMIC. There have been NUMEROUS fatwas against terrorism by senior Muslim clerics as well as public demonstrations AGAINST it. The media,working hand in hand with the conservative agenda of presenting Islam as the enemy, doesn't publicise them. The conservative agenda is to steal the people's freedom by any means possible and scapegoats are a tried and tested method of doing so. The Nazis did it with the Jews and the conservatives are doing the same trick with Muslims.

My primary point is and remains that talking of an Islamic-based culture is as nonsensical and naive as talking of a Christian-based or Jewish-based culture. Marxism and National Socialism are far more incompatible with western culture (which I take to mean the liberal humanist values of the Enlightenment; not sure how you'd interpret Western culture) and that it's as absurd to assume that Islam and Western culture can't coexist as it was for the Nazis to pretend that Jews and Gentiles can't coexist.

[Big Lin]

Jul 22, 2016 15:57:35 GMT @menantol said:

Anna, you’ve hit the nail right on the head. I really don’t care if someone supports Islam or doesn’t, or for that matter any other religion, open discussion is always best. And yes, it is apparent that when people begin to talk about the philosophy of Islam, others get very defensive. That is, they seem to get defensive about any talk of what they perceive as being negative about Islam.

While the talking about Islam may seem negative, it is less about the religious aspect than about its direct involvement on government. Personally I don’t care what type of religious philosophy anyone wants to believe in, but rather only in the sense that it tries to control the government of others. If someone wants to believe in tree spirits or that a shaman can chant direct contact to a God or Gods, I don’t care, but when they use that to control nonbelievers into adherence to their religion, that is open to debate. When a religion uses the strength of their religion tied into government to sentence others to personal punishment or death, for their personal beliefs, that religion is open for debate.

More importantly, when such dialog does occur and the speaker is attacked rather than the content, then that religion is open to debate. A perfect example is the Westboro Baptists when they demonstrate in ways that harms others (such as disrupting funerals) they are open to debate. On the other hand, those who do things not normally accepted such as speaking in tongues or dancing with snakes (both as examples of Christian sects) within their own services they are personally free to do so without harassment.

The problem as I see it, is the clashing of different cultures. More to the point, the clashing of very different practices within differing cultures. Personally I don’t care if some culture has specific dietary requirements, that has no impact on me, unless I run a restaurant and am required to serve specific types of food. Or if I run a bakery and am forced to provide cakes designed in ways I find offensive. In Western culture such restrictions are being forced on business owners in the name of political correctness. This ‘forcing’ is not part of Western culture. However, outside of Western culture there are areas where it is normal to enact such forcing of laws. Even in that difference there is no real problem but when those of another culture bring those restrictions to areas of Western culture and try to enforce them, then that, at the very least is open to debate. A debate not allowed in other cultures.

Bill Warner has been pilloried (verbally) by some for what he has offered. Apparently some believe that his offered information is wrong and apparently then the assumption is that he is a ‘bad’ person who only does this for ulterior reasons. At the same time others have found what he offers to be worthy and accurate. Certainly that difference is open to dialog. But a civil dialog and not one that is based on impugning the character of Bill Warner or others.

It's not a question of Bill French alias Warner being 'pilloried' for 'offering information.'

He has posted NUMEROUS statements that are PROVABLY, FACTUALLY WRONG.

He has ZERO credibility and he is either a moron, a lazy thinker who believes the ignorant propaganda he's been fed by others or else a conscious liar.

There are (as I posted a while back) no fewer than NINE errors of FACT in his claims. PROVABLE, DEMONSTRABLE ERRORS OF FACT.

The trouble is that authoritarians hate truth because it undermines their attempts to repress and control everyone. That's as true of leftoids as it is of rightoids.

I have shown NINE errors of fact made by French; some of them laughably stupid.

Why are you authoritarians so wimpish about admitting that you're wrong?

My own personal belief is that French is a conscious liar but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that he's a fool or a lazy thinker who just swallows any lies he's told by an approved source.

[Big Lin]

Jul 22, 2016 13:39:25 GMT ♫anna♫ said:

Jul 21, 2016 21:51:56 GMT Big Lin said:

History of course is supposed to be about facts; so when poseurs like French alias Warner make one inaccurate and false statement after another I'd say 'entertaining' was the word rather than interesting.

And of course you choose to focus only on so-called Muslim terrorists (most of whose actions are specifically forbidden by the Quran which makes them about as Muslim as the KKK are Christian).

Frankly there have been more PKK atrocities in Turkey than ISIS ones (though they're trying to catch up).

Anyway, going away tomorrow and won't be back till Monday.

Let's hope members can find some different subjects to talk about because it's getting very tiring.

My Turkish brother-in-law is getting very tired of having to try to justify his existence to prejudiced Islamophobes.

Big Lin your Muslim brother in law simply has to openly denounce the excesses of Fundamentalist Sharia Islam and support others who do as other truly moderate anti Sharia Muslims do. It disturbs me how so many Muslims just want the topic of atrocities done in the name of Islam hushed up.

I certainly have understanding for people who are disturbed by Old Testament scriptures and welcome their freedom to discuss this openly. I don't whine about Christianophobes. Why do passive Muslims who whine, play the victim and avoid the issues get a free pass? We support free speech and open debate in Western civilisation. If your brother in law supports censor, ignoring and hushing up what's being done in the name of Islam by others and wants us censored then sorry he's part of the problem.

I take these Westboro Baptists apart even though they don't commit violent acts and there's only about 20 active members. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church . It's politically correct to make a media sensation out of the WBs, but we have to dummy up and be Islamophiles, etc. when a non Christian religion preaches hate and even becomes violent.

Ahmed is constantly denouncing terrorism and extremism.

Just as lots of other Muslims I know are.

A few weeks ago there was a group of a couple of hundred Muslims in South London protesting against it.

Did it get media coverage? Of course not.

Authoritarians want to pretend that Islam is the enemy just as the Nazis pretended the Jews were.

Even when Muslims DO protest and demonstrate the media ignores them.

It's following the conservative agenda of demonising Muslims.

Don't be naive; don't fall for their propaganda.

Think for yourself and experience a wide variety of life and cultures for yourself.

[♫anna♫]

All I've seen were pasted smears from SPLC Big Lin . It would be authoritarian to accept SPLC as a credible source for truth.

[♫anna♫]

More power to your brother in law if he's going on record publicly as denouncing Sharia Fundamentalist Islam. The Islamic scriptures recounting the history of Muhammed are pretty scary too. I rather like some sects of Islam like Sufiism which tries to dance away from the brutal Fundamentalist core of Islamic scriptures. I wish them success and God's protection.

[DAS (formerly BushAdmirer)]

When one of these attacks happens, the various TV networks, such as CNN, BBC, Fox, etc. are in a race to try and be first with the details. This is how they attract viewers. Sadly, CNN erroneously reported that the Munich shooter shouted Allahu Akbar when firing, and that he was an Iranian. Fox disputed that report. It was later confirmed that he was a German born citizen of Iranian descent and no one has found any connection to Islamic extremists. I don't think we can blame this one on Islam.

However, the Munich attack was an exception. Most of these horrific incidents do have an Islamic connection.

For instance, just today:

(CNN)A deadly hostage-taking at a Catholic church in Normandy, in which a priest was killed and another person seriously wounded, was a terror attack committed in the name of ISIS, French President Francois Hollande has said.

Speaking to journalists in the northern French town of Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, where two men took five people hostage during morning Mass Tuesday, Hollande said the attack was a "cowardly assassination" carried out by "by two terrorists in the name of Daesh" -- another name for ISIS.

The Catholic priest, the Rev. Jacques Hamel, 86, was killed when two men stormed the church in the northern region of Normandy, Dominique Lebrun, the Archbishop of Rouen, said in a statement posted on the diocese website.

Hamel had his throat slit in the attack, said Agnes Thibault Lecuivre, spokeswoman for Paris' anti-terrorism prosecutor.

[DAS (formerly BushAdmirer)]

Jul 26, 2016 16:30:17 GMT Big Lin said:

Jul 22, 2016 13:39:25 GMT ♫anna♫ said:

Big Lin your Muslim brother in law simply has to openly denounce the excesses of Fundamentalist Sharia Islam and support others who do as other truly moderate anti Sharia Muslims do. It disturbs me how so many Muslims just want the topic of atrocities done in the name of Islam hushed up.

I certainly have understanding for people who are disturbed by Old Testament scriptures and welcome their freedom to discuss this openly. I don't whine about Christianophobes. Why do passive Muslims who whine, play the victim and avoid the issues get a free pass? We support free speech and open debate in Western civilisation. If your brother in law supports censor, ignoring and hushing up what's being done in the name of Islam by others and wants us censored then sorry he's part of the problem.

I take these Westboro Baptists apart even though they don't commit violent acts and there's only about 20 active members. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church . It's politically correct to make a media sensation out of the WBs, but we have to dummy up and be Islamophiles, etc. when a non Christian religion preaches hate and even becomes violent.

Ahmed is constantly denouncing terrorism and extremism.

Just as lots of other Muslims I know are.

A few weeks ago there was a group of a couple of hundred Muslims in South London protesting against it.

Did it get media coverage? Of course not.

Authoritarians want to pretend that Islam is the enemy just as the Nazis pretended the Jews were.

Even when Muslims DO protest and demonstrate the media ignores them.

It's following the conservative agenda of demonising Muslims.

Don't be naive; don't fall for their propaganda.

Think for yourself and experience a wide variety of life and cultures for yourself.

Lin - I believe you're trying to change the topic here to 'Good Muslims.' We all know there are many good Muslims. We know that they far outnumber the terrorist supporters and almost infinitely outnumber the actual terrorists. Those good guy Muslims aren't the subject of this discussion because they're not the problem. They're inert.

It matters not if 99.999% of all Muslims are good Muslims. What matters would be the small sliver that are killing us.

Ex-Terrorism Task Force member Steve Rogers says.

"In the early 2000s when I was on the National Joint Terrorism Task Force, I remember reading al-Qaida's training manual,"

"This was a 10-, 20-, 30-year strategic plan to do what? To go after the big prize, take down the United States of America … in America." (Note: Though he was talking about America, the same comment applies equally to Britain, France, Spain, Italy, etc.).

"In that training manual, it was clear: Infiltrate their universities, infiltrate their schools, their neighborhoods, their market, infiltrate the news media, embed yourself in every neighborhood," he said.

No one should be surprised there are ISIS sympathizers within our borders, Rogers said. After all, there were Nazi sympathizers in the United States during World War II and Soviet agents during the Cold War.

The proof of that Rogers says is in the news almost every day now. San Bernardino, Orlando, Paris, Nice, etc.

[DAS (formerly BushAdmirer)]

From the Wall Street Journal

By Bret Stephens
July 25, 2016

At last count, members of the European Union spent more than $200 billion a year on defense, fielded more than 2,000 jet fighters and 500 naval ships, and employed some 1.4 million military personnel. More than a million police officers also walk Europe’s streets. Yet in the face of an Islamist menace the Continent seems helpless. Is it?
Was France helpless in May 1940?

Let’s stipulate that a van barreling down a seaside promenade isn’t a Panzer division, and that a few thousand ISIS fighters scattered from Mosul to Marseilles aren’t another Wehrmacht. But as in France in 1940, Europe today displays the same combination of doctrinal rigidity and loss of will that allowed an Allied army of 144 divisions to be routed by the Germans in six weeks. The Maginot Line of “European values” won’t prevail over people who recognize none of those values.

So much was made clear by French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, who remarked after the Nice attack that “France is going to have to live with terrorism.” This may have been intended as a statement of fact but it came across as an admission that his government isn’t about to rally the public to a campaign of blood, toil, tears and sweat against ISIS—another premature capitulation in a country that has known them before.

Mr. Valls was later booed at a memorial service for the Nice victims. It would be heartening to think this was because he and his boss, President François Hollande, have failed to forge a strategy to destroy ISIS. But the public’s objection was that there hadn’t been enough cops along the Promenade des Anglais to stop the attack. In soccer terms, it’s a complaint about the failure of defense, not the lack of a proper offense.

Then there is Germany, site of three terror attacks in a week. It seems almost like a past epoch that Germans welcomed a million Middle Eastern migrants in an ecstasy of moral self-congratulation, led by Angela Merkel’s chant of “We can do it!” Last summer’s slogan now sounds as dated and hollow as Barack Obama’s “Yes we can!”

Now Germany will have to confront a terror threat that will make the Baader-Meinhof gang of the 1970s seem trivial. The German state is stronger and smarter than the French one, but it also surrenders more easily to moral intimidation. The idea of national self-preservation at all costs will always be debatable in a country seeking to expiate an inexpiatable sin.

Thus the question of whether Europe is helpless. At its 1980s peak, under François Mitterrand and Helmut Kohl, the European project combined German economic strength and French confidence in power politics. Today, it mixes French political weakness with German moral solipsism. This is a formula for rapid civilizational decline, however many economic or military resources the EU may have at its disposal.

Can the decline be stopped? Yes, but that would require a great unlearning of the political mythologies on which modern Europe was built.

Among those mythologies: that the European Union is the result of a postwar moral commitment to peace; that Christianity is of merely historical importance to European identity; that there’s no such thing as a military solution; that one’s country isn’t worth fighting for; that honor is atavistic and tolerance is the supreme value. People who believe in nothing, including themselves, will ultimately submit to anything.

The alternative is a recognition that Europe’s long peace depended on the presence of American military power, and that the retreat of that power will require Europeans to defend themselves. Europe will also have to figure out how to apply power not symbolically, as it now does, but strategically, in pursuit of difficult objectives. That could start with the destruction of ISIS in Libya.

More important, Europeans will have to learn that powerlessness can be as corrupting as power—and much more dangerous. The storm of terror that is descending on Europe will not end in some new politics of inclusion, community outreach, more foreign aid or one of Mrs. Merkel’s diplomatic Rube Goldbergs. It will end in rivers of blood. Theirs or yours?

In all this, the best guide to how Europe can find its way to safety is the country it has spent the best part of the last 50 years lecturing and vilifying: Israel. For now, it’s the only country in the West that refuses to risk the safety of its citizens on someone else’s notion of human rights or altar of peace.

Europeans will no doubt look to Israel for tactical tips in the battle against terrorism—crowd management techniques and so on—but what they really need to learn from the Jewish state is the moral lesson. Namely, that identity can be a great preserver of liberty, and that free societies cannot survive through progressive accommodations to barbarians.