I was somewhat surprised FD seemed to be taken-aback by what I would have thought was quite an obvious point - namely that he, along with most islam critics here, believe that ISIS accurately reflects the beliefs and attitudes of mainstream muslims:


freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 11:24am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24th, 2014 at 10:37am: Datalife wrote on Dec 24th, 2014 at 10:24am: Has anyone ever said ISIS is representative of all muslims? Clearly your not too familiar with FD or Baron's posts. Ask FD, I'm sure he'll be happy to give you a rambling explanation for how all muslims are secretly ISIS at heart, and that all the "nice" law-abiding things we do are merely a means to an end (the end of course to be head-hacking, rapist ISIS prodigy). Baron will argue that any muslim that is not like ISIS is not a real muslim - in the form of inane rhetorical questions. There are many things I can say without saying them. Just ask Gandalf. Fortunately we have Brian to constantly correct these unsaid things. It goes without saying.

FD seems to take offense because I didn't specifically ask him what those views are. Even after over two years of quoting Abu to a) demonstrate muslim's true desire  for a head-hacking state b) their innate deceitfulness in wanting to implement this through sleight of hand - all the while going to great pains to emphasise how representative Abu is of mainstream muslims.

Not to mention more generally, the constant smearing of mainstream muslims as:

- Being compelled to be the brutal rapist, murdering warlord their sinnister prophet was,
- "wanting to chip away at our freedoms at every opportunity" (and we can all guess for what  ultimate purpose),
- the sinnister taqqiya of all the mainstream leaders,
- any and every financial irregularities by mainstream islamic institutions are without question
always about financing terrorism,
-  constantly bringing up Malaysian muslims who support stoning and executing apostates.

But of course I'd hate to put words in your mouth FD, so this is your chance to explain to us in your own words, if you will.

Is it accurate to say that you believe that mainstream muslims are secretly ISIS at heart, and that all the "nice" law-abiding things we do are merely a means to an end?

and as an addendum to that:

is it also accurate to say that you believe that mainstream muslims are not the brutal head hackers that ISIS are only because they are too gutless, squeamish or more tactful - not that ISIS ideology and and actions doesn't reflect the true beliefs of mainstream muslims?

No. But you have my interest now. What are ISIS's beliefs and how do they differ from mainstream Islam?

Also, has your stance on ISIS softened lately? Are they victims of anti-Islamic propaganda?

freediver wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 8:53am:

No. But you have my interest now. What are ISIS's beliefs and how do they differ from mainstream Islam?

Actually I dont usually get involved in the Muslim topics but I also cant come to grips with what ISIS followers believe.

How do they claim to be good Muslims creating an Islamic State and behave like murders, rapists and the like?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 8:20am:

I was somewhat surprised FD seemed to be taken-aback by what I would have thought was quite an obvious point - namely that he, along with most islam critics here, believe that ISIS accurately reflects the beliefs and attitudes of mainstream muslims: freediver wrote on Dec 24th, 2014 at 11:24am: polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24th, 2014 at 10:37am: Datalife wrote on Dec 24th, 2014 at 10:24am: Has anyone ever said ISIS is representative of all muslims? Clearly your not too familiar with FD or Baron's posts. Ask FD, I'm sure he'll be happy to give you a rambling explanation for how all muslims are secretly ISIS at heart, and that all the "nice" law-abiding things we do are merely a means to an end (the end of course to be head-hacking, rapist ISIS prodigy). Baron will argue that any muslim that is not like ISIS is not a real muslim - in the form of inane rhetorical questions. There are many things I can say without saying them. Just ask Gandalf. Fortunately we have Brian to constantly correct these unsaid things. It goes without saying. FD seems to take offense because I didn't specifically ask him what those views are. Even after over two years of quoting Abu to a) demonstrate muslim's true desire  for a head-hacking state b) their innate deceitfulness in wanting to implement this through sleight of hand - all the while going to great pains to emphasise how representative Abu is of mainstream muslims. Not to mention more generally, the constant smearing of mainstream muslims as: - Being compelled to be the brutal rapist, murdering warlord their sinnister prophet was, - "wanting to chip away at our freedoms at every opportunity" (and we can all guess for what  ultimate purpose), - the sinnister taqqiya of all the mainstream leaders, - any and every financial irregularities by mainstream islamic institutions are without question always about financing terrorism, -  constantly bringing up Malaysian muslims who support stoning and executing apostates. But of course I'd hate to put words in your mouth FD, so this is your chance to explain to us in your own words, if you will. Is it accurate to say that you believe that mainstream muslims are secretly ISIS at heart, and that all the "nice" law-abiding things we do are merely a means to an end? and as an addendum to that: is it also accurate to say that you believe that mainstream muslims are not the brutal head hackers that ISIS are only because they are too gutless, squeamish or more tactful - not that ISIS ideology and and actions doesn't reflect the true beliefs of mainstream muslims?

To make it easy gandalf, every muslim in the world is ISIS, even that little old lady in the nursing home, the sick muslims in hospital, all deaf and blind muslims, Little muslim kids even the unborn child in a muslim ladies abdomen support ISIS.Honest

wally1 wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 9:10am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 28th, 2014 at 8:20am: I was somewhat surprised FD seemed to be taken-aback by what I would have thought was quite an obvious point - namely that he, along with most islam critics here, believe that ISIS accurately reflects the beliefs and attitudes of mainstream muslims: freediver wrote on Dec 24th, 2014 at 11:24am: polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24th, 2014 at 10:37am: Datalife wrote on Dec 24th, 2014 at 10:24am: Has anyone ever said ISIS is representative of all muslims? Clearly your not too familiar with FD or Baron's posts. Ask FD, I'm sure he'll be happy to give you a rambling explanation for how all muslims are secretly ISIS at heart, and that all the "nice" law-abiding things we do are merely a means to an end (the end of course to be head-hacking, rapist ISIS prodigy). Baron will argue that any muslim that is not like ISIS is not a real muslim - in the form of inane rhetorical questions. There are many things I can say without saying them. Just ask Gandalf. Fortunately we have Brian to constantly correct these unsaid things. It goes without saying. FD seems to take offense because I didn't specifically ask him what those views are. Even after over two years of quoting Abu to a) demonstrate muslim's true desire  for a head-hacking state b) their innate deceitfulness in wanting to implement this through sleight of hand - all the while going to great pains to emphasise how representative Abu is of mainstream muslims. Not to mention more generally, the constant smearing of mainstream muslims as: - Being compelled to be the brutal rapist, murdering warlord their sinnister prophet was, - "wanting to chip away at our freedoms at every opportunity" (and we can all guess for what  ultimate purpose), - the sinnister taqqiya of all the mainstream leaders, - any and every financial irregularities by mainstream islamic institutions are without question always about financing terrorism, -  constantly bringing up Malaysian muslims who support stoning and executing apostates. But of course I'd hate to put words in your mouth FD, so this is your chance to explain to us in your own words, if you will. Is it accurate to say that you believe that mainstream muslims are secretly ISIS at heart, and that all the "nice" law-abiding things we do are merely a means to an end? and as an addendum to that: is it also accurate to say that you believe that mainstream muslims are not the brutal head hackers that ISIS are only because they are too gutless, squeamish or more tactful - not that ISIS ideology and and actions doesn't reflect the true beliefs of mainstream muslims? To make it easy gandalf, every muslim in the world is ISIS, even that little old lady in the nursing home, the sick muslims in hospital, all deaf and blind muslims, Little muslim kids even the unborn child in a muslim ladies abdomen support ISIS.Honest

Hey Wally, how many average muslim people out there would watch ISIS on the news and think "well done"? There hasn't been any anti ISIS protests yet and we all know how much muslims love a good street protest.

freediver wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 8:53am:

No. But you have my interest now. What are ISIS's beliefs and how do they differ from mainstream Islam? Also, has your stance on ISIS softened lately? Are they victims of anti-Islamic propaganda?

No - but actually yes they are? I think thats where you are getting at.

I don't know what ISIS beliefs are - but they do seem to like a lot of raping and head hacking.

Are you now saying that mainstream muslims don't really approve of raping and head hacking? Isn't ISIS merely carrying out the orders of their sinister prophet?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 10:31am:

I don't know what ISIS beliefs are - but they do seem to like a lot of raping and head hacking.

The Islamic state are representing Islam,Muhammad did a bit of raping and head hacking they are doing as the Quran says in following the example of your prophet.

The will be no redaction of the Quran anytime soon so their actions will continue to be justified by the Quran and sunnah.

The Islamic state represents Islam, only the apologists would argue otherwise

freediver wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 8:53am:

No. But you have my interest now. What are ISIS's beliefs and how do they differ from mainstream Islam?

Yes, G, you Google taqiyya and get back to FD. We expect a full report on the beliefs of ISIL and Malaysian Muslims, thank you.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 8:20am:

I was somewhat surprised FD seemed to be taken-aback by what I would have thought was quite an obvious point - namely that he, along with most islam critics here, believe that ISIS accurately reflects the beliefs and attitudes of mainstream muslims

I think it would be more accurate to say that "namely that he, along with most Islam critics here, believe that ISIS accurately reflects the beliefs and attitudes of the Koran and the hadiths'.   After all, they are called fundamentalist exactly because they fanatically adhere to the texts and the historical precedent and do allow some Enlightenment-influenced distortion of the tradition.


You, Karnal, Brain are constantly switching to 'mainstream Muslims" when Koran- and hadith-based Islam is criticised.  But most people have no problem with Muslims who do not believe in Islam. I certainly don't. The problem is Islamic ideology and people who believe it and follow it, not the people who do not believe it and therefore do not follow it. Alas, sharia, dhimmitude, differentiation in human dignity between men and women, jihad, opposition to a variety of freedoms, especially free expression and enquiry, halal-compliance - these are Islamic tenets believing Muslims claim their own. These are mainstream Muslim ideas and values.

Mainstream or not...they are a bunch of hypocrites:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/27/world/middleeast/syria-isis-recruits-teenagers-as-suicide-bombers.html

He soon found himself in Iraq, but he quickly had misgivings and wanted to escape. His best chance, he decided, was a risky deception: volunteer to be a suicide bomber so he could surrender to security forces.

Back home he saw the group inflict severe punishments on men who were caught smoking cigarettes, yet in the camp, he said, he saw fighters smoking. He said he saw men having sex with other men behind the tents in the desert night. And, he said, he was increasingly put off by “the way they are killing innocent people.”

Or are they?..perhaps that is the norm? :-?

Here's my question:

What DO mainstream Muslims share with ISIL, Al Qaida, Al Nusra, Hamas, Hezb'allah, et al?
Can't be nothing.

Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 9:03am:

freediver wrote on Dec 28th, 2014 at 8:53am: No. But you have my interest now. What are ISIS's beliefs and how do they differ from mainstream Islam? Actually I dont usually get involved in the Muslim topics but I also cant come to grips with what ISIS followers believe. How do they claim to be good Muslims creating an Islamic State and behave like murders, rapists and the like?

You could ask that of Christians as well.  Remember for nearly two millennium, their "religion of peace" was used to justify the most horrendous atrocities, invariably against non-believers or schismatics.   Be it Bobby's favourite Inquisition (cue, Bobby with his stock youtube video) or the Conquistadores in the New World or the Holy Roman Empire in the German Principalities to the Kaiser's exhortation that German troops on the way to put down the Boxer Rebellion in China should act, "like Huns" or the Roman Catholic Church condoning the Holocaust or the Rwandan Genocide, Christians have done more than enough of the horrendous acts in the world.

The reality is that once a religious group declares themselves exclusive of all others becoming the "chosen ones", doing in their eyes, "God's works," it becomes easier to justify what they do, to non-believers through what their various holy works states about what the fates of non-believers should be.   IS is no different, despite what the Islamophobes may claim.   It's just a bunch of murderous thugs who have decided that the normal social restraints on their behaviour no longer applies to them, because they are doing to the "other", "God's will".     ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 1:39pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 28th, 2014 at 9:03am: freediver wrote on Dec 28th, 2014 at 8:53am: No. But you have my interest now. What are ISIS's beliefs and how do they differ from mainstream Islam? Actually I dont usually get involved in the Muslim topics but I also cant come to grips with what ISIS followers believe. How do they claim to be good Muslims creating an Islamic State and behave like murders, rapists and the like? You could ask that of Christians as well.  Remember for nearly two millennium, their "religion of peace" was used to justify the most horrendous atrocities, invariably against non-believers or schismatics.   Be it Bobby's favourite Inquisition (cue, Bobby with his stock youtube video) or the Conquistadores in the New World or the Holy Roman Empire in the German Principalities to the Kaiser's exhortation that German troops on the way to put down the Boxer Rebellion in China should act, "like Huns" or the Roman Catholic Church condoning the Holocaust or the Rwandan Genocide, Christians have done more than enough of the horrendous acts in the world. The reality is that once a religious group declares themselves exclusive of all others becoming the "chosen ones", doing in their eyes, "God's works," it becomes easier to justify what they do, to non-believers through what their various holy works states about what the fates of non-believers should be.   IS is no different, despite what the Islamophobes may claim.   It's just a bunch of murderous thugs who have decided that the normal social restraints on their behaviour no longer applies to them, because they are doing to the "other", "God's will".     ::)

You put all sorts of unrelated and disparate things together in order to create the impression that there is a point that you are making (and to preen about your faux learning) when in fact all you are doing is muddied the waters by introducing all sorts of stupid tangential irrelevancies and demonstrated the chaos reigning in your head.

Your stupidity in motion, as examplified above, is to say that all sorts of violent things happened in history, others have done other things therefore to ask questions today about the actual dissonance between 'Religion of Peace' rhetoric and Islamic thuggery and violence is unacceptable hate. Islam get a free pas  because there has been history.  Really stupid and spineless, Brain.

Soren wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 5:12pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 28th, 2014 at 1:39pm: Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 28th, 2014 at 9:03am: freediver wrote on Dec 28th, 2014 at 8:53am: No. But you have my interest now. What are ISIS's beliefs and how do they differ from mainstream Islam? Actually I dont usually get involved in the Muslim topics but I also cant come to grips with what ISIS followers believe. How do they claim to be good Muslims creating an Islamic State and behave like murders, rapists and the like? You could ask that of Christians as well.  Remember for nearly two millennium, their "religion of peace" was used to justify the most horrendous atrocities, invariably against non-believers or schismatics.   Be it Bobby's favourite Inquisition (cue, Bobby with his stock youtube video) or the Conquistadores in the New World or the Holy Roman Empire in the German Principalities to the Kaiser's exhortation that German troops on the way to put down the Boxer Rebellion in China should act, "like Huns" or the Roman Catholic Church condoning the Holocaust or the Rwandan Genocide, Christians have done more than enough of the horrendous acts in the world. The reality is that once a religious group declares themselves exclusive of all others becoming the "chosen ones", doing in their eyes, "God's works," it becomes easier to justify what they do, to non-believers through what their various holy works states about what the fates of non-believers should be.   IS is no different, despite what the Islamophobes may claim.   It's just a bunch of murderous thugs who have decided that the normal social restraints on their behaviour no longer applies to them, because they are doing to the "other", "God's will".     ::) You put all sorts of unrelated and disparate things together in order to create the impression that there is a point that you are making (and to preen about your faux learning) when in fact all you are doing is muddied the waters by introducing all sorts of stupid tangential irrelevancies and demonstrated the chaos reigning in your head. Your stupidity in motion, as examplified above, is to say that all sorts of violent things happened in history, others have done other things therefore to ask questions today about the actual dissonance between 'Religion of Peace' rhetoric and Islamic thuggery and violence is unacceptable hate. Islam get a free pas  because there has been history.  Really stupid and spineless, Brain.

I am not asking for a "free pass for Islam", Soren.  As usual, your Islamophobia blinds you to any alternative explanation to this phenomena other than the sort of simplistic bigotry that you and your fellow Islamophobes engage in.

I am attempting provide an answer to Redneck's question and drawing upon a simile which he may well be more familiar with, that of Christianity's own violent and atrocity filled history going back over the last two millennia.  For a religion that prides itself on it's happy-clappy, lovey-dovey, forgiveness and love for all, it and it's followers spent an awful lot of time and effort slaughtering anybody who they felt deserved it because they worshipped their god slightly differently or perhaps even worshipped other gods.

You, OTOH just prefer your black-and-white answers.  Perhaps it makes it easier for you to see Muslims as non-humans while you cheer on their slaughter (I suspect you're too much a coward to ever get your hands bloody, personally).   ::)

Islam is persecuting others. Now. Why is it doing this if it a religion of peace? Why is it doing it now, plotting against Western countries as well as other Muslim countries, and especially Christians and other minorities in Muslim countries.

If you want to talk about the Thirty Year War, let's. But not INSTEAD of talking about what Islam is doing here, now and across the globe.

The Boxer Rebellion or the Irish Troubles or whatever other irrelevancy you want to throw in the mix are not excuses for Islam and Muslim behaviour and doctrines now.

Soren wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 7:01pm:

Islam is persecuting others. Now. Why is it doing this if it a religion of peace? Why is it doing it now, plotting against Western countries as well as other Muslim countries, and especially Christians and other minorities in Muslim countries. If you want to talk about the Thirty Year War, let's. But not INSTEAD of talking about what Islam is doing here, now and across the globe. The Boxer Rebellion or the Irish Troubles or whatever other irrelevancy you want to throw in the mix are not excuses for Islam and Muslim behaviour and doctrines now.

Who's made excuses for anybody, Soren, except yourself?

I have attempted always to place what is happening into a much wider context.  A context which you seem to want hidden for some reason.  Why?

Islamic extremists are nasty, horrible people who often commit horrible atrocities against innocents who don't deserve to suffer and die in such ways.   I provide no excuses for their actions and condemn them as I always have.

However, those events do not occur in isolation, no matter how much and how often you attempt to claim them as either unique or unusual.  They do not occur in a vacuum. They are more often than not in reaction to events which have occurred elsewhere and because of distorted beliefs in their religion which are not shared by the overwhelming majority of other Muslims.  Indeed, they are condemned by them, time after time but you refuse to accept or acknowledge those condemnations because of your bigotry against all Muslims, Soren.

You and your fellow Islamophobes are part of the problem.  Your obvious desire to persecute Muslims for their religious beliefs aren't going to solve it, you'll just fuel it.    That your hatred is so deep and intense that you refuse to see that means this conflict won't end today, nor tomorrow, nor next week or even next year.   It will drag on for decades, as you pour petrol on the fire and turn it happily into a conflagration that we will all be lucky to emerge from unscathed.

Your sort prefers that the world should burn, rather than take one step back and compromise your views.  You are the mirror image of the Salafist Islamists that you claim you oppose.    ::)

Soren wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 1:10pm:

Here's my question: What DO mainstream Muslims share with ISIL, Al Qaida, Al Nusra, Hamas, Hezb'allah, et al? Can't be nothing.

Homos. They all love homos.

Don’t you, old chap?

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 7:13pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 28th, 2014 at 7:01pm: Islam is persecuting others. Now. Why is it doing this if it a religion of peace? Why is it doing it now, plotting against Western countries as well as other Muslim countries, and especially Christians and other minorities in Muslim countries. If you want to talk about the Thirty Year War, let's. But not INSTEAD of talking about what Islam is doing here, now and across the globe. The Boxer Rebellion or the Irish Troubles or whatever other irrelevancy you want to throw in the mix are not excuses for Islam and Muslim behaviour and doctrines now. Who's made excuses for anybody, Soren, except yourself? I have attempted always to place what is happening into a much wider context.  A context which you seem to want hidden for some reason.  Why? Islamic extremists are nasty, horrible people who often commit horrible atrocities against innocents who don't deserve to suffer and die in such ways.   I provide no excuses for their actions and condemn them as I always have. However, those events do not occur in isolation, no matter how much and how often you attempt to claim them as either unique or unusual.  They do not occur in a vacuum. They are more often than not in reaction to events which have occurred elsewhere and because of distorted beliefs in their religion which are not shared by the overwhelming majority of other Muslims.  Indeed, they are condemned by them, time after time but you refuse to accept or acknowledge those condemnations because of your bigotry against all Muslims, Soren. You and your fellow Islamophobes are part of the problem.  Your obvious desire to persecute Muslims for their religious beliefs aren't going to solve it, you'll just fuel it.    That your hatred is so deep and intense that you refuse to see that means this conflict won't end today, nor tomorrow, nor next week or even next year.   It will drag on for decades, as you pour petrol on the fire and turn it happily into a conflagration that we will all be lucky to emerge from unscathed. Your sort prefers that the world should burn, rather than take one step back and compromise your views.  You are the mirror image of the Salafist Islamists that you claim you oppose.    ::)

Bollocks, my little Islamic fascist excuser. ISIL is happening not in a wider context but to particular people who are your contemporaries, and the atrocities are perpetrated by people who may have lived next door to you. What has motivated them to move from your neighbourhood to the killing fields of Iraq and Syria is Islam. Nothing else.

And they reach back to the Koran and Mohammed's example for sustenance in their barbarity. They attack policemen here, they take hostages, they plot attacks. They behead soldiers in London, attack and kill soldiers in Canada, blow up other Muslims and and kill and rape Christians because of their Islamic beliefs.

Islamic terrorism is motivated by Islam. If you also believe in Islam, you are implicated, you are tainted. Saying 'it has nuffin' to do wiv me' is not acceptable, Brain.

You simply muddy the waters, Brain.  The Islamic State is Islamic and shares many of the doctrines and convictions of the vast majority of Muslims. It is entirely consistent with the Koran and the example set by Mohammed and the historical practice of Muslims in control. i

Still resorting to ad hominem, Soren?  Tsk, tsk, so childish.  Very Freudian actually to attack authority figures, isn't it?  Perhaps Dr. Karnal would like to offer an opinion?   ;D

freediver wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 8:53am:

No. But you have my interest now. What are ISIS's beliefs and how do they differ from mainstream Islam? Also, has your stance on ISIS softened lately? Are they victims of anti-Islamic propaganda?

Yes, G, you forgot their victimhood so they can practice oppression. You know, like torturing that Jew for his gold.

Also, you neglected to mention their paedophilia.

Get with the program, G. When FD’s finished with you here, you’ll be the new Abu.

Just hurry up, answer his questions and be done with it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 10:31am:

freediver wrote on Dec 28th, 2014 at 8:53am: No. But you have my interest now. What are ISIS's beliefs and how do they differ from mainstream Islam? Also, has your stance on ISIS softened lately? Are they victims of anti-Islamic propaganda? No - but actually yes they are

That’s better. If you confess early you’ll make it much easier on yourself.

Now stop wasting FD’s time. He has a Wiki to compile.

Soren wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 11:18am:

But most people have no problem with Muslims who do not believe in Islam. I certainly don't.

Ah.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 10:31am:

freediver wrote on Dec 28th, 2014 at 8:53am: No. But you have my interest now. What are ISIS's beliefs and how do they differ from mainstream Islam? Also, has your stance on ISIS softened lately? Are they victims of anti-Islamic propaganda? No - but actually yes they are? I think thats where you are getting at. I don't know what ISIS beliefs are - but they do seem to like a lot of raping and head hacking. Are you now saying that mainstream muslims don't really approve of raping and head hacking? Isn't ISIS merely carrying out the orders of their sinister prophet?

The 'sex slaves' appear to be getting married off. According to Muslims like Abu, this is the preferred way to do it, rather than having concubines. Muhammed was known for his mercy and offering to marry his concubines.

freediver wrote on Dec 29^th, 2014 at 9:15am:

According to Muslims like Abu

Yes, and of course as you never tire of pointing out, Abu is a good representative of mainstream islam.

So FD's final answer - Is ISIS representative of mainstream muslims? - No....but really yes they are.

What is your answer Gandalf? You don't know?

freediver wrote on Dec 29^th, 2014 at 10:23am:

What is your answer Gandalf? You don't know?

You're asking me if *I* think ISIS is representative of mainstream muslims?

Really?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 29^th, 2014 at 11:28am:

freediver wrote on Dec 29th, 2014 at 10:23am: What is your answer Gandalf? You don't know? You're asking me if *I* think ISIS is representative of mainstream muslims? Really?

What is common to ISIL and mainstream Islam?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 29^th, 2014 at 11:28am:

freediver wrote on Dec 29th, 2014 at 10:23am: What is your answer Gandalf? You don't know? You're asking me if *I* think ISIS is representative of mainstream muslims? Really?

Yes. Or more specifically, mainstream Islam.

Answer the question!

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 8:20am:

I was somewhat surprised FD seemed to be taken-aback by what I would have thought was quite an obvious point - namely that he, along with most islam critics here, believe that ISIS accurately reflects the beliefs and attitudes of mainstream muslims: freediver wrote on Dec 24th, 2014 at 11:24am: polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24th, 2014 at 10:37am: Datalife wrote on Dec 24th, 2014 at 10:24am: Has anyone ever said ISIS is representative of all muslims? Clearly your not too familiar with FD or Baron's posts. Ask FD, I'm sure he'll be happy to give you a rambling explanation for how all muslims are secretly ISIS at heart, and that all the "nice" law-abiding things we do are merely a means to an end (the end of course to be head-hacking, rapist ISIS prodigy). Baron will argue that any muslim that is not like ISIS is not a real muslim - in the form of inane rhetorical questions. There are many things I can say without saying them. Just ask Gandalf. Fortunately we have Brian to constantly correct these unsaid things. It goes without saying. FD seems to take offense because I didn't specifically ask him what those views are. Even after over two years of quoting Abu to a) demonstrate muslim's true desire  for a head-hacking state b) their innate deceitfulness in wanting to implement this through sleight of hand - all the while going to great pains to emphasise how representative Abu is of mainstream muslims. Not to mention more generally, the constant smearing of mainstream muslims as: - Being compelled to be the brutal rapist, murdering warlord their sinnister prophet was, - "wanting to chip away at our freedoms at every opportunity" (and we can all guess for what  ultimate purpose), - the sinnister taqqiya of all the mainstream leaders, - any and every financial irregularities by mainstream islamic institutions are without question always about financing terrorism, -  constantly bringing up Malaysian muslims who support stoning and executing apostates. But of course I'd hate to put words in your mouth FD, so this is your chance to explain to us in your own words, if you will. Is it accurate to say that you believe that mainstream muslims are secretly ISIS at heart, and that all the "nice" law-abiding things we do are merely a means to an end? and as an addendum to that: is it also accurate to say that you believe that mainstream muslims are not the brutal head hackers that ISIS are only because they are too gutless, squeamish or more tactful - not that ISIS ideology and and actions doesn't reflect the true beliefs of mainstream muslims?

Way too jolly, by far.  Good questions and FD answers with one word ~ 'No" ~ and immediately proceeds to ask his own questions.

FD asks the questions here, Aussie. You’ll be next for being a snivelling, spineless appeaser.

Ask Aussie a question, FD. That’ll get him.

Karnal wrote on Dec 29^th, 2014 at 4:41pm:

FD asks the questions here, Aussie. You’ll be next for being a snivelling, spineless appeaser. Ask Aussie a question, FD. That’ll get him.

Is this when I get all sked 'n stuff??

Aussie wrote on Dec 29^th, 2014 at 4:50pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 29th, 2014 at 4:41pm: FD asks the questions here, Aussie. You’ll be next for being a snivelling, spineless appeaser. Ask Aussie a question, FD. That’ll get him. Is this when I get all sked 'n stuff??

FD asks the questions here. Right now he’s asking if G is the next Abu.

He’ll be onto you for supporting ISIS soon.

The Ottoman Muslim genocide of Armenin Christians looks very similar to the current massacres and atrocities by the Islamic State:

ON April 24, 1915, the day before the Anzacs landed at Gallipoli, the Turkish government in Constantinople rounded up hundreds of Armenian artists, intellectuals, academics, priests and community leaders and killed most of them.

At the time there were 15 million Turkish Muslims and about two million Christian Arm­enians in Turkey (or Anatolia as it was then). The Armenians were better educated and wealthier than most Turks and because of that were envied and hated, so much so that the government instituted a program of ethnic cleansing. The Turks had had practice runs before. Between 1894 and 1896, 200,000 Armenians were massacred by soldiers and armed mobs.

From May to September 1915, up to two million Armenians were killed or expelled from the Ottoman Empire. The adult men were massacred or sent to death camps, while their families were sent on death marches through the desert. They were murdered, raped, drowned, burned alive and left to die of hunger and thirst. Churches, monasteries and schools were destroyed. All material goods were confiscated. Girls were made sex slaves and forced to convert. Up to 1.5 million died.

Since then Turkish apologists have protested that only 600,000 died and that the deportations and massacres were merely unfortunate incidents in a civil war. In An Inconvenient Genocide, Australian lawyer Geoffrey Robertson sifts the evidence and details the reasons he considers the Turkish elimination of the Armenians a crime against humanity, a genocide.

He doesn’t spend much time on the history but presents witness accounts by diplomats, missionaries, journalists, doctors and soldiers. Some of the compelling accounts are by Australian prisoners of war. Even Turkey’s German allies, especially diplomats, were horrified by what was happening and sent voluminous reports back to Berlin.

Turkish law sanctions citizens who ‘‘insult Turkishness’’ by referring to the treatment of Armenians as genocide. Nobel prize-winning writer Orhan Pamuk was charged but his international fame kept him out of jail. This national­istic hypersensitivity cannot be over­estimated. In 2010, the BBC recorded a play I wrote based on the memoirs of a US vice-consul, Leslie Davis, who witnessed deportations, death marches and atrocities. Because Turkish actors were afraid news of their participation would travel back home, they dropped out or acted under assumed names.

Question, Soren.   Are the Turks of today responsible for what happened in 1915?

If so, are the Germans of today and the descendants of their collaborators, responsible for what happened to the Jews under the Nazis?   The Japanese of today for the crimes that occurred under the militarists in WWII?   The Americans of today for what occurred against the Native Americans in the 19th century?  The Spanish of today, for what occurred against the Native Americans in the 14-18th century?   ::)

What occurred in 1915 against the Armenians was reprehensible without a doubt but that was a century ago.  Who is still alive from then?

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 4^th, 2015 at 4:29pm:

Question, Soren.   Are the Turks of today responsible for what happened in 1915? If so, are the Germans of today and the descendants of their collaborators, responsible for what happened to the Jews under the Nazis?   The Japanese of today for the crimes that occurred under the militarists in WWII?   The Americans of today for what occurred against the Native Americans in the 19th century?  The Spanish of today, for what occurred against the Native Americans in the 14-18th century?   ::) What occurred in 1915 against the Armenians was reprehensible without a doubt but that was a century ago.  Who is still alive from then?

Question brian. Does Erdogan want to become the next Caliph?

He is ripe for the place is he not, his mob killed 1.5 million Armenians, today his mob supports ISIS, kills Kurds,.

Will Erdogan take over ISIS! How many innocents will be killed to fulfill his deranged naked muslim ambition.That's what you have to answer muslim brian.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_super/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpg

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 4^th, 2015 at 4:29pm:

Question, Soren.   Are the Turks of today responsible for what happened in 1915?

They are responsible for covering it up and banning anyone, such as NSW parliamentarians, who are not prepared to go along with their cover up.


SO I'd say they are heavily implicated.

And come to think of it, they have your mindset.

Soren wrote on Jan 4^th, 2015 at 9:46pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 4th, 2015 at 4:29pm: Question, Soren.   Are the Turks of today responsible for what happened in 1915? They are responsible for covering it up and banning anyone, such as NSW parliamentarians, who are not prepared to go along with their cover up. SO I'd say they are heavily implicated. And come to think of it, they have your mindset.

So, every Turk is responsible?

Yes, you do believe in Guilt by Association.

So, what are you going to do about the Danish collaborators of WWII, Soren?

Do you accept YOUR guilt?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 4^th, 2015 at 9:55pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 4th, 2015 at 9:46pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 4th, 2015 at 4:29pm: Question, Soren.   Are the Turks of today responsible for what happened in 1915? They are responsible for covering it up and banning anyone, such as NSW parliamentarians, who are not prepared to go along with their cover up. SO I'd say they are heavily implicated. And come to think of it, they have your mindset. So, every Turk is responsible? Yes, you do believe in Guilt by Association. So, what are you going to do about the Danish collaborators of WWII, Soren? Do you accept YOUR guilt?   ::)

The old boy says he's got some Kraut in him, so it's a moot point.

And no, the old boy does not except collective responsibility for his Nazism. He sees this as a personal choice.

Is there a mainstream Islam? Is that perhaps the source of the problem of trying to coexist with muslims?

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 4^th, 2015 at 4:29pm:

Question, Soren.   Are the Turks of today responsible for what happened in 1915? If so, are the Germans of today and the descendants of their collaborators, responsible for what happened to the Jews under the Nazis?   The Japanese of today for the crimes that occurred under the militarists in WWII?   The Americans of today for what occurred against the Native Americans in the 19th century?  The Spanish of today, for what occurred against the Native Americans in the 14-18th century?   ::) What occurred in 1915 against the Armenians was reprehensible without a doubt but that was a century ago.  Who is still alive from then?

Are australians today still responsible for what the Brits did in 1788? Apparently yes according to you and brother Hot Breath. ::) ::) ::) ::)

Quantum wrote on Jan 5^th, 2015 at 3:20pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 4th, 2015 at 4:29pm: Question, Soren.   Are the Turks of today responsible for what happened in 1915? If so, are the Germans of today and the descendants of their collaborators, responsible for what happened to the Jews under the Nazis?   The Japanese of today for the crimes that occurred under the militarists in WWII?   The Americans of today for what occurred against the Native Americans in the 19th century?  The Spanish of today, for what occurred against the Native Americans in the 14-18th century?   ::) What occurred in 1915 against the Armenians was reprehensible without a doubt but that was a century ago.  Who is still alive from then? Are australians today still responsible for what the Brits did in 1788? Apparently yes according to you and brother Hot Breath. ::) ::) ::) ::)

White Australians aren't responsible for what occurred, they are responsible for what has resulted.  They should acknowledge what happened instead of continually trying to minimise it's effects and hide from what happened by sweeping it under the carpet.  They should compensate Indigenes for the crimes which were committed and which has created their present situation where possible, return the land to them or pay rent on it.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 10:24am:

Quantum wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 3:20pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 4th, 2015 at 4:29pm: Question, Soren.   Are the Turks of today responsible for what happened in 1915? If so, are the Germans of today and the descendants of their collaborators, responsible for what happened to the Jews under the Nazis?   The Japanese of today for the crimes that occurred under the militarists in WWII?   The Americans of today for what occurred against the Native Americans in the 19th century?  The Spanish of today, for what occurred against the Native Americans in the 14-18th century?   ::) What occurred in 1915 against the Armenians was reprehensible without a doubt but that was a century ago.  Who is still alive from then? Are australians today still responsible for what the Brits did in 1788? Apparently yes according to you and brother Hot Breath. ::) ::) ::) ::) White Australians aren't responsible for what occurred, they are responsible for what has resulted.  They should acknowledge what happened instead of continually trying to minimise it's effects and hide from what happened by sweeping it under the carpet.  They should compensate Indigenes for the crimes which were committed and which has created their present situation where possible, return the land to them or pay rent on it.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Uh-oh, Brain. Junior is a Guilt by Association monger.

He says:

"Today's Turks aren't responsible for the Armenian Genocide, they are responsible for what has resulted.  They should acknowledge what happened instead of continually trying to minimise it's effects and hide from what happened by sweeping it under the carpet.  They should compensate Armenians for the crimes which Turks committed and which have created their present situation where possible, return the land to them or pay rent on it.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D"


The same goes for Turkish responsibility in Cyprus.

And by Hot Breaths's reckoning, also for your other examples like Germany, Japan, Spain as well as the Arabs and the Eastern Roman Empire, The Romans for the entire Roman Empire, etc, etc.  Junior is a liberation theologian, don't you know.  We are all living with 'results' which are our responsibility. 
Muslims are living with the 'results' of the 'tiny minority's actions'.

Not guilty, just responsible.  Thank you Hot Breath.

Every situation should be judged on it's merit Soren.  No guilt is attributed to today's white Australians.  Shame perhaps but not guilt because they didn't actually do it, they've just inherited the situation and continue to profit from it.

The Turks should acknowledge their shame for the Armenian genocide.  So should all the other examples you've mentioned.  If the descendents of the Armenian victims want to claim compensation then let them.

That doesn't mean the Turks of today are guilty of what happened a hundred years ago, they just have to stop lying about it and hiding from it.  Just like you have to stop lying and hiding from your Islamophobia.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Soren's making a big deal out of nothing. All HB is saying is that contemporary society aren't responsible for the crimes of previous generations - but they are responsible for apologising for it or sweeping it under the carpet.

Also nothing Brian said is at odds with this pretty basic point.

Of course Soren is making a big deal about nothing, that's all he ever does!   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

Soren's making a big deal out of nothing. All HB is saying is that contemporary society aren't responsible for the crimes of previous generations - but they are responsible for apologising for it or sweeping it under the carpet.

Do you agree with this Gandalf?


Quote:

They should compensate Indigenes for the crimes which were committed and which has created their present situation where possible, return the land to them or pay rent on it.

|dev|null wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 3:13pm:

Every situation should be judged on it's merit Soren.  No guilt is attributed to today's white Australians.  Shame perhaps but not guilt because they didn't actually do it, they've just inherited the situation and continue to profit from it. The Turks should acknowledge their shame for the Armenian genocide.  So should all the other examples you've mentioned.  If the descendents of the Armenian victims want to claim compensation then let them. That doesn't mean the Turks of today are guilty of what happened a hundred years ago, they just have to stop lying about it and hiding from it.  Just like you have to stop lying and hiding from your Islamophobia.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

In other words, the lefty scales of justice are adjusted to get the judgement decided beforehand.

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 4:26pm:

Do you agree with this Gandalf?

Absolutely, along with a note saying "we're sorry our ancestors were such complete c**nts towards you that has created your current predicament"

So we are not responsible, but we should pay compensation?

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 8:28pm:

So we are not responsible, but we should pay compensation?

Yes. But don't call it compensation if it makes you feel better - call it being charitable to your less privileged fellow citizens.

How much compensation do you think we should pay?

I have no idea

I'm hoping you haven't put much thought into this.

Quantum wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 6:12pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 3:13pm: Every situation should be judged on it's merit Soren.  No guilt is attributed to today's white Australians.  Shame perhaps but not guilt because they didn't actually do it, they've just inherited the situation and continue to profit from it. The Turks should acknowledge their shame for the Armenian genocide.  So should all the other examples you've mentioned.  If the descendents of the Armenian victims want to claim compensation then let them. That doesn't mean the Turks of today are guilty of what happened a hundred years ago, they just have to stop lying about it and hiding from it.  Just like you have to stop lying and hiding from your Islamophobia.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D In other words, the lefty scales of justice are adjusted to get the judgement decided beforehand.

So, you think the Turks didn't commit genocide against the Armenians a hundred years ago?   :o :o :o :o ;D ;D ;D ;D :o :o :o :o

|dev|null wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 3:13pm:

Every situation should be judged on it's merit Soren.

Yes.

But not every situation is judged from first principles.

There is an undeniably significant Islamic element in both ISIL and the Armenian Genocide. Muslims cannot NOT take a stance.

Saying 'it has nuffin' to do wiv me, mate' is a stance.

Why do you assume the Armenian Genocide was about Islam?  My understand is that it had more to do with Turkish nationalism.

Soren wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 5:24pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 3:13pm: Every situation should be judged on it's merit Soren.  Yes.

Unless Israel does it.

Gandalf do you also agree with HB's views on socialism?

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 7:20pm:

Gandalf do you also agree with HB's views on socialism?

I don't see them.

HB what is your views on socialism that FD refers to?

|dev|null wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 5:41pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 5:19pm: |dev|null wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 10:19am: How does any religion improve the world?  Like all opiates they keep the believers happy and blissfully unaware of reality.  Islam is no different.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D Christianity has made a HUGE difference over the last 2000 years. Yes, it has oppressed people and lied to them, promising them that if they accept their oppression they will be rewarded after they have died.  It's called the Christian Work Ethic.   I prefer the Marxist Work Ethic.  Work hard, receive your rewards now as a share of your labours!

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 7:20pm:

Gandalf do you also agree with HB's views on socialism?

He must do, FD. After all, Muslims and socialists hate Freeedom. It makes sense they’d just merge into the other, along with Nazism, Fordism, Taylorism, Keynesianism, developmentalism, post colonialism, vegetarianism, the tinted races, and everyone else who wants to take away the freedoms of decent white people everywhere.

Karnal do you ever find yourself spewing endless crap and realise you have forgotten what point you were trying to make?

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 9:52pm:

Karnal do you ever find yourself spewing endless crap and realise you have forgotten what point you were trying to make?

But of course. Don’t you?

Soren wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 5:24pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 3:13pm: Every situation should be judged on it's merit Soren.  Yes. But not every situation is judged from first principles. There is an undeniably significant Islamic element in both ISIL and the Armenian Genocide. Muslims cannot NOT take a stance. Saying 'it has nuffin' to do wiv me, mate' is a stance.

Consider this, Soren...The "Young Turks" revolution had come to power in 1908.  Do you even know what the guiding ideals of that revolution were?  From your comments, as usual, you put down all motivation in Muslim countries to one thing - Islam, despite in fact the Young Turks attempting to change the attitudes of Turkish Muslims to their own religion to the point where it was criticised for, "they were severely denounced by the Ulema, who accused them of "trying to change Islam into another form and create a new religion while calling it Islam".[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Turks#Materialism_and_positivism]Source[/url].  The views of the Young Turks were heretical to traditional Islam, Soren.    ::)

The real reason why the Young Turks (Later officially known as the Committee of Union and Progress [CUP; Turkish: İttihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti] ), created the Armenian Genocide were nationalistic, not Islamic.  They feared the Armenians were what was to become known later in the Spanish Civil War as a "fifth column" and were going to support the Allied powers and in particular Russian ambitions in Eastern Turkey.   The objective was not to wipe the Armenians out but rather to remove them from Eastern Turkey, away from the Russian advance where they might have delivered cities/towns to the Russians who were advancing from Russian Armenia in strength:


Quote:

The conflicts at the Caucasus Campaign, the Persian Campaign, and the Gallipoli Campaign affected places where Armenians lived in significant numbers. Before the declaration of war at the Armenian congress at Erzurum, the Ottoman government asked Ottoman Armenians to facilitate the conquest of Transcaucasia by inciting a rebellion among the Russian Armenians against the tsarist army in the event of an Caucasian Front. Jakob Künzler, head of a missionary hospital in Urfa, documented the large scale ethnic cleansing of both Armenians and Kurds under the Three Pashas during World War I.[13] He gave a detailed account of deportation of Armenians from Erzurum and Bitlis in the winter of 1916. The Armenians were perceived to be subversive elements (a fifth column) that would take the Russian side in the war. In order to eliminate this threat, the Ottoman government embarked on a large scale deportation of Armenians from the regions of Djabachdjur, Palu, Musch, Erzurum, and Bitlis. Around 300,000 Armenians were forced to move southwards to Urfa and then westwards to Aintab and Marash. In the summer of 1917, Armenians were moved to the Konya region in central Anatolia. Through these measures, the CUP leaders aimed to eliminate the Armenian threat by deporting them from their ancestral lands and by dispersing them in small pockets of exiled communities. By the end of World War I, up to 1,200,000 Armenians were forcibly deported from their home vilayets. As a result, about half of the displaced died of exposure, hunger, and disease, or were victims of banditry and forced labor.[14] Around this period, the CUP's relationship to the Armenian Genocide shifted. Early on, Armenians had perceived the CUP as allies; and the beginnings of the Genocide, in the 1909 Adana massacre, had been rooted in reactionary Ottoman backlash against the Young Turks. But during World War I, the CUP's increasing nationalism began to lead them to participate in the Genocide.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Turks#1914.E2.80.931917_period:_Armenian_Genocide]Source[/url]

They used Islam or what they referred to as "Islam", which as we've seen not actually Islam but what they had redefined it as a means to motivate Turks against the Armenians but it was not the reason why they promoted the Genocide, Soren.

Of course, such reasoning isn't as black and white as you like but hey, we know your Islamophobia doesn't allow you to see anything more complex, now does it?    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 11:40pm:

They used Islam or what they referred to as "Islam", which as we've seen not actually Islam but what they had redefined it as a means to motivate Turks against the Armenians but it was not the reason why they promoted the Genocide, Soren. Of course, such reasoning isn't as black and white as you like but hey, we know your Islamophobia doesn't allow you to see anything more complex, now does it?    ::)

You are hideous, Brain. And your stupidity and low intelligence is no longer an excuse.



You excuse genocide so as to excuse Islam. Or "Islam". Or what 'Muslims' or Muslims called Islam or 'Islam'.

Soren wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 10:50pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:40pm: They used Islam or what they referred to as "Islam", which as we've seen not actually Islam but what they had redefined it as a means to motivate Turks against the Armenians but it was not the reason why they promoted the Genocide, Soren. Of course, such reasoning isn't as black and white as you like but hey, we know your Islamophobia doesn't allow you to see anything more complex, now does it?    ::) You are hideous, Brain. And your stupidity and low intelligence is no longer an excuse. You excuse genocide so as to excuse Islam. Or "Islam". Or what 'Muslims' or Muslims called Islam or 'Islam'.

Where have I excused it, Soren?

As usual, your blatant Islamophobia prevents you from accepting any other explanation other than one which blames Islam for everything.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 11:19pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 25th, 2015 at 10:50pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:40pm: They used Islam or what they referred to as "Islam", which as we've seen not actually Islam but what they had redefined it as a means to motivate Turks against the Armenians but it was not the reason why they promoted the Genocide, Soren. Of course, such reasoning isn't as black and white as you like but hey, we know your Islamophobia doesn't allow you to see anything more complex, now does it?    ::) You are hideous, Brain. And your stupidity and low intelligence is no longer an excuse. You excuse genocide so as to excuse Islam. Or "Islam". Or what 'Muslims' or Muslims called Islam or 'Islam'. Where have I excused it, Soren? As usual, your blatant Islamophobia prevents you from accepting any other explanation other than one which blames Islam for everything.   ::)

You excuse Islamic hostility to non-Muslims and the West in particular everywhere, no matter what is done in the name if Islam.  You have never done otherwise. 

Anyone who notices the atrocities done in the name of Islam as being motivated by Islam is persecuting Muslims - that's all you ever can and do say.




http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iuuJ68Qr-pc/VM4j42_QztI/AAAAAAACz0I/EjM58378n40/s1600/theo3.jpg