re ISIS: Sometimes turning the other cheek is not an option.

[climber3986]

Lets be clear, US involvement in the middle east is without a doubt the worst foreign policy disaster in the past 25 years. Bush trying to export democracy was a terrible idea and caused the problem in the first place, we need to stay out of the middle east except on the most rare of occasions. That being said, ISIS is one of the very rare exceptions to the rule.

Lets wind the clock back a year. Remember this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/03/isis-kobani-kurds_n_5926102.html

ISIS was surrounding entire cities and exterminating everyone inside. I see people saying on this forum saying 'we need to stop bombing and start diplomacy.' Yes that is absolutely true, we need to get out of Afghanistan and begin diplomacy. We need to put a muzzle on the every republican in congress trying to sabotage the iran nuclear deal. We need to stop drone strikes in Pakistan. 99% of the time, diplomacy is the answer. For ISIS, it is not. We stopped the genocide of Kobani with force.

Please answer for me this:

If ISIS has a city surrounded and plans to exterminate everyone inside because they are not 'muslim' (ISIS isn't muslim we all know that, however I am referencing their state of mind here). What would you do? Nothing?

Try to negotiate with them? As they being lining people up in the dirt and shooting them in the back of the head with an ak47 do you change negation tactics?

This groups goal is to conquer every country in the middle east and then expand on to Europe. With what would you negotiate with? While that goal is a joke that will never happen, what WILL happen and is still happening now is the extermination of entire cities and villages of people who they run across. Saying 'its not our problem' and letting genocide happen when we caused the instability in the first place is irresponsible.

Some people are just plain evil and cannot be negotiated with.

[RobertEarl]

1. We should stop giving them arms

We should stop selling them Toyotas.

We should cut off their banking.

We should end the actions against Syria and we should help Iran to fight them.

We should make doubly sure Israel is not helping them.

Do all that, and more, and they won't be able to wage war.

[climber3986]

4. does not answer the question

All good ideas which we should do, but does not stop the here and now.

If ISIS surrounds another town / city next week, NONE of that will stop them from slaughtering thousands of people.

Will it suffocate them a few months down the road? Yes. However, sometimes force is needed.

[RobertEarl]

6. Well

Had we done all that from the start.......

In fact, it has been noted that our left over weapons in Iraq are what they have been using to kill people with.

I have this notion that war breeds war. And right f'n there is proof that I am correct.

[6chars]

16. Israel?

I saw what you did there.

[leftynyc]

26. You think Israel is helping isis?

That's pathetic. Not surprising for you, but truly pathetic.

[politicman]

2. heres a radical and simple idea...

How about trying something that is the most likely option to work.

Get the fuck out of the middle east, stop our hypocritical foreign policies that turn so many people against the west, and the muslims of the region that room to fight ISIS themselves without looking like they are selling out their religion on behalf of the west.

Right now, Sunni Muslims across the region are loath to fight against ISIS for fear of being associated as fighting on behalf of the west who with our foreign policies have alienated most of the Muslims in the mid-east.

In many Mid-easterners minds, the west with their hypocritical and sometimes murderous foreign policies are equated on the same level as ISIS, but because ISIS claims they are fighting on behalf of Islam, then many mid-easterners are unwilling to fight them because it would feel like they were siding with the non-muslim west.

Get out of the region, stop the hypocritical foreign policies that hurt the Muslims in the region and give them the room to fight ISIS without having the stigma of fighting on behalf of the west. Its that simple.

[Yorktown]

8. Do you think Vienna was attacked because of US policies?

Do you think islamism taught by petrodollars will stop if the US stays isolationist?

[Jim Beard]

9. I have a great deal of respect for the Kurds and we should support them more

and reward them more with all northern Iraq where most in Iraq live. They don't tuck tail and run like the Sunnis and the Syrians.

As far as the Syrians and all the other young, healthy and strong refugees, they should be sent back to Syria and fight for their homeland rather than running in front of the old men, women and children.

When I saw the border busting in Hungry by young healthy men, it made my blood boil. Others are ataying and actually fighting to get your country away away from Assad.

[Yorktown]

15. Problem: political Islam is also making progress among Kurds

15% islamists/Muslim Brotherhood type politicians at the latest elections.

[Jim Beard]

35. I still have to stand by the Kurds....

They are more dependable and will fight, rather than dissolve like the Iraq Sunnis and Shi'ite. I think they could be very good natural allies.

[Yorktown]

36. Well, my fear is Kurds are going the Turkish route

Ataturk's Turks could have been very good natural allies. Erdogan's Turks? Less so.

In the same way, because of the global wahhabi push, Kurds are becoming less reliable allies.

[politicman]

10. This is what I think.

These extremist in the photo and other that think that way will be combated by the majority of Muslims who don't agree in their version of Islam.

But the problem is they can't do that right now, because the Muslims of the region and around the world are quickly labelled as betraying their religion and made to look like they are doing the bidding of the west.
See, Muslims in the region and around the world hold their faith dearly, and if they are made to feel like they are fighting other Muslims on behalf of Western Christian nations so that these nations can continue to exploit the mid-east, then most Muslims will sit on the side lines and watch.

Give the majority of Muslims the room to combat these extremists by not feeling like they are doing the bidding of the west, give these Muslims the chance to define their religion without being painted by the extremists as puppets of the western world.

Pull out of the mid-east, don't meddle in their affairs, and let them fight it out, let the Muslims of the region see that fighting ISIS will benefit them in the end and not benefit the western world who will just continue to exploit the mid-east once ISIS is taken care of.

Let Muslims feel like they are fighting on behalf of their religion by not giving ISIS the ability to claim that those fighting them are betraying their religion by siding with countries who are not Muslims and who discriminate against Muslims.

[Yorktown]

14. No, because you forget the weight of petrodollars

Why do you think the corrupt princes of Saudi Arabia and Qatar stay in power when their behavior is so blatantly unislamic? Because they made a deal with the islamist devil. Let us (princes) wallow in baths of champagne and cocain and we will finance you, the radical preachers, and let you pump tons of money to radicalize people around the world.

Besides, even if there was not the massive weight of money bejhind the radicals, they also have the literal word of god with them: the radicals apply the Quran and the hadiths.
Anyone contestingt heir stance is in danger of being called an apostate which brings an immediate death sentence.

Hoping sanity will prevail if muslim lands are left alone is not likely to work.

In strategic terms, the only opportunity is to hit the weak point of the opponent's strength.
The strength of Islam is the adherence of 1.5Bn people to the doctrine.
The weakness is the doctrine itself. It has to be challenged intellectually head on.

[politicman]

17. heres a lesson on Islam for you

Let me give you a lesson in Islam.

Islam is not a centralised religion the same way that Catholicism is. In Catholicism, the priests around the world are nearly all appointed by the Vatican and when the Pope makes a decree all the priests follow it, a centralised power that controls the religion.

Islam on the other hand is a decentralised religion. It doesn't rely on Clerics in Saudi Arabia or anywhere else to direct the religion. Islam relies on the word of God which is contained in the Koran. Muslims believe that they must adhere to the words in the Koran as these are the words of god.

The problem is that the way that the Koran is written, passages can be interpreted many ways according to the reader. Sunni Saudi Arabia clerics interpret these passages in one way, Shiites interpret them in another and almost anyone can interpret it any way they like to fit their agenda.

Now as I said the clerics around the world are not appointed by a central authority, so anyone can call themselves an imam or cleric, get some followers and start to teach them their very own interpretation of these passages.

You can have a self styled imam inside his own house teaching his interpretation to his small group of followers as long as he convinces them that he is giving them the correct interpretation. If they trust him they will believe his interpretation.

That's how Al Quaeda and Isis and other groups get their recruits, they convince impressionable people that they have the right interpretation and those people believe them when they tell them that blowing yourself up in a crowd of innocent people will get them into heaven.

Lastly, the only way to change the doctrine of Islam is to change the Koran and write it in verses that have only one interpretation and cannot be interpreted in any other way.
Over 1400 years not one word of the Koran has ever been changed, and not one Muslim in the 1.7 billion of them in the world would ever accept a change in the Koran as every Muslim believes its the word of God and cannot ever ben changed no matter what.


So you see, there is absolutely zero chance of ever changing the doctrine of Islam without having to fight every Muslim in the world, ISIS convinces its recruits that fighting for them is a way of fighting to protect the religion and if they die fighting to protect the religion then they go straight to heaven.
Right now, huge majority of Muslims in the world don't believe that ISIS ids fighting true Jihad, but if anyone ever forces the doctrine of Islam to change then every Muslim in the world would believe that that is the true Jihad, fighting to defend the religion they have in their heart.

[NutmegYankee]

19. Sounds more like Protestantism.

Remember, Christianity also isn't a centralized religion. Protestants don't follow the pope.

[politicman]

20. True but

True but Islam is unique in that the most important element of the religion is Jihad, which comes in 2 forms.

One form being the Jihad that one lives through his/her normal life by struggling against the temptations and sins of this world, basically trying to live a pious life in this world while constantly struggling and fighting against the sins that present themselves at every turn. If one succeeds at this Jihad then they will get to heaven.

The other form of Jihad being defending the religion even through combat if necessary. If one dies as a result of defending the religion then that person is guaranteed heaven no matter how many sins that person has committed in their life.



So with this element in the religion, it will be impossible to change the doctrine of Islam because every Muslim is required by their religion to defend their religion even if it means death.
Good luck trying to change the doctrine of Islam when the religion itself requires people who practice it to defend it even with their lives if necessary

[Yorktown]

23. Thanks, but I humbly think I'm very knowledgeable about Islam.

Let me give you two lessons in Islam:

(1) who pays the piper calls the tune. Case in point: France itself. The imams are appointed at mosques according to which country pays for the mosque's budget. That's why France had -roughly until 1990- Moroccan or Algerian or Tunisian mosques.

Then came in the Arab peninsula dollars, mostly Qatari. Result? Total radicalisation, with a boom of allegiance of French mosques to Salafism. Who pays the piper calls the tune.

(2) you made a statement which proves you need to study Islam more:

Over 1400 years not one word of the Koran has ever been changed, and not one Muslim in the 1.7 billion of them in the world would ever accept a change in the Koran as every Muslim believes its the word of God and cannot ever ben changed no matter what.

May I suggest you look into what itjihad is, and what Mu'tazila was?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%60tazila

[politicman]

29. You are trying to give a lesson in Islam to a Muslim?

1) Yes the Mosques in France for instance are appointed by which country pays for the mosque. But that sentence there just illustrates the point I was making that there is no central authority, basically whoever builds the mosque can appoint their own Imam to that mosque. Heck I could build my own mosque and appoint myself Imam and then go ahead and convince whoever attends my mosque of what ever interpretation I want to.
But even if one accepts your argument it doesn't make any difference, because radicalisation doesn't happen in the mosques which are surveilled around the clock, radicalisation happens in private homes and on the net. And the people who are making this radicalisation happen are not the Imams in the mosque who again are watched 24/7 by authorities, it is done by self styled Imams who convince impressionable people behind closed doors to believe in a distorted interpretation of the religion.


2) It is you that is wrong. For over 1400 years not a single word has been changed in the Koran. Even during the crusades when they tried to wipe out Islam, they were not able to succeed. Why?
Because the Koran doesn't just live on paper, every word is learnt by heart by too many adherents of Islam that even if you destroyed every Koran book or changed every Koran book in the world, the fact that the adherents of Islam can recite it word from word from memory protects it from ever being changed.
That's not to say that there won't be some obscure sect within Islam somewhere that has changed words in the Koran for their own benefit, but they will always just remain some obscure sects.
Case in point, there is a small sect within Islam that is called Alawite which is what my mum is (my dad being a Sunni), this sect goes so far as to sometimes change the Koran to fit their own beliefs which violate the fundamental tenets of Islam, but even through hundreds of years this sect has remained small and obscure because 95% plus of Muslims will always adhere to the Koran that has survived in tact since the days of Mohammed,

[Yorktown]

30. Yes. Because the faithful accept things which can be disproven

Three examples from your latest post #29 above:

(1) because radicalisation doesn't happen in the mosques which are surveilled around the clock, radicalisation happens in private homes and on the net.

That is false, by the own understanding of European authorities. They report a gradual encroachment of Salafi preachers in the mosques. So yes, mosques in Europe are monitored, but no, it is possible to get radicalized in a European mosque. I can give you three examples without even googling:
- the Finsbury Park mosque which bred a few terrorists
- reports by French police Salafism is growing in the banlieue mosques
- the German imam who preached a woman cannot refuse herself to her husband

(2) For over 1400 years not a single word has been changed in the Koran.

It is a myth that Muhamad left a Quran which was not changed after his death:
First , it is well documented that some original Surahs were lost
Second, Uthman burnt the parts of the Qurans he alone decided were not original
Third, we now have different Qurans with -agreed, minor- variations.

(3) Even during the crusades when they tried to wipe out Islam

The objective of the Crusades never was to 'wipe out Islam', something which the Crusaders would have known to be impossible after all the military conquests and conversions of Islam.
Two of the multiple objectives of the Crusades were:
- to restore right of passage for the pilgrims to Jerusalem (something the Seljuks had denied/restricted)
- to relieve the pressure from the Caliphate military pressure on the Byzantine Empire.

[politicman]

31. you are wrong yet again.

1) Again I reiterate that radicalisation does not happen in the mosques. I have been too many a mosque and I have known many other Muslims that have attended any other Mosque, and I can categorically tell you that an Imam of a mosque does not preach to those attending to commit terror acts.
You understanding and my understanding of radicalisation must be miles apart, because I suspect that you think radicalisation is an Imam explaining to a Muslim how he or she should live their life according to the religion, many parts of which you vehemently disagree with.
My understanding of radicalisation as a Muslim is a person convincing someone that they should commit acts of terror in the name of the religion under a certain interpretation. Because I am a Muslim, I do not view parts of the religion that you disagree with as radicalisation, for me they are just part of being a Muslim and adhering to the faith. These might be harsh to many living in the western world, and even myself here in a western country, I don't and couldn't possible follow all the ways the religion tells me to live my life. But that is on me and I will pay for my sins in the after life, that is something that I have accepted.
Whether you think that many things in the religion are right in this day and age matters not, the mid-east has a different culture to the western world and they are accepting of these things. For instance I live here in the western world and I view women as equal to men and believe that my religion preaches because I interpret it that way, whereas the mid-east has a different culture than we have here and they may interpret it differently. It sounds harsh but its reality.


2) Again, I tell you not a single word in the Koran has been changed in 1400 years. Those thing you point out are claimed by a small amount of people, but 99% of Muslims around the world do not for one second believe these claims. Simply because from the moment the Koran came down and was given to the people, they started to learn to recite every word of the book. See you can destroy every book in existence but it wouldn't mean anything because the Koran doesn't just rely on paper, it is learnt in the hearts of people and recited word for word and passed from generation to generation that way. And because so many people have learnt to recite the one version of the book, if anyone comes out with a different version or forgets to include a surah into a book it is quickly discovered and disregarded by Muslims because the have the Koran in their brains and heart.


3) Again you are wrong. The crusades attempted to wipe out Islam, that's why they tried to kill anyone that was Muslim or force them to renounce their Islam faith. They also attempted to destroy any and all Islamic books and literature that they could get their hands on.
If someone slaughters thousands and thousands of people for simply following the Islamic faith and attempts to force many to renounce their Islamic faith whilst also destroying all the Islamic literature and books that they could get their hands on, then that is viewed as attempting to wipe out that faith every day of the week.
In the days of the crusades, Muslims had to recite their prayers under their breath and in their hearts for fear of being heard or found out and executed.

[Yorktown]

32. Sorry, but I can prove you wrong on all three counts

(1) terrorism taught in mosques? Proof on demand. First google hit:

AK-47 training held at London mosque
British Islamic extremists have been involved in weapons training with assault rifles at a mosque in London, intelligence sources have told The Observer.
The disclosures that hardline Islamists practised with Kalashnikov AK-47s at the Finsbury Park mosque in north London underline the pivotal role that Britain has played in the recruitment of volunteers to fight alongside Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda group all over the world. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/feb/17/terrorism.religion

And it wouldn't be too difficult to find youtubes of cheiks preaching hate.

(2) The Quran never having changed? Even the hadiths say so
(the surah-eating goat, the verses forgotten because its reciters all died at the same battle, the surah which resembled another but in a harsher version and was lost, it's all in sahih muslim)
And the fact 99% of Muslims worldwide think the Quran never changed is testament to the fact they do not dare contest the one sentence in the Quran itself which says it was never changed even when muhamad kept inventing other surahs after that one saying the Quran never changed. We have different Qurans. One guy wrote a whole book on the subject. here, one webpage with a long list of different versions of the Quran in existence: http://answering-islam.org/Green/seven.htm

(3) the Crusades attempting to wipe out Islam? Find me a reputable book saying so.
But Tamerlan (Timur) did attempt to eradicate all people in his path who refused to convert to Islam.

[politicman]

33. My response,

1) You do realise that if some ak-47 training goes on in a mosque here or there, it is not a directive from some central authority of all Muslims somewhere in the world for that mosque or all mosques to do such actions.
Saudi Arabia funds and builds some mosques around the world and they can dictate which Imam they put in charge of the mosques they built, but they have no way of knowing what goes on in that mosque on a day to day basis or what is said on a day to day basis between the walls of that mosque. Same with Iran and the mosques they build. Same with the mosques that are funded and built from community donations in any part of the world.
Let me give you an example of what I am talking about:
I used to attend this mosque in my area, and the Imam was a real good person who had some harsh views according to what the religion teaches but always used to denounce terror and extremism.
But he wasn't always present in that mosque at every minute, and so anyone could walk off the street and attend that mosque and start to gain the trust of regular attendees to the point where they believe this person is a pious individual and listen to him and start to be convinced by his interpretations of things. The same way that a principle of a school can't always know what is said or happens in the classrooms by teachers and students alike or even the school yards of that school.
Keep in mind that hundreds of totally different people can attend a mosque at any one time, so if a small group of those people find each other at a mosque and then take their friendship back to their homes and preach their, they can then use the mosque for nefarious deeds that the guardians of the mosque don't know about, but this does not mean these people were radicalised in the mosque, it mean they were radicalised somewhere else and used the mosque as a way to try and blend in with peaceful Muslims as a way to get cover for themselves.
Also, keep in mind that there will always be an exception to the rule like the one you cited, but just like anything in life, an exception to the rule is exactly that, an exception, not the rule.


2) I'll say it again, there are always people spreading claims and rumours and stories and attempting to change things within the Koran and hadiths to either fit the interpretation they want or to damage the religion.
Just look at all the different sects in Islam, the reason there are different sect within the religion is because a group of people wanted to believe a certain way and thus they omitted certain surahs for their own gain or changed certain hadiths for their own gain or even just interpreted things their won way for their own gain.
But these groups are small in comparison to the entire Muslim population that goes by the original words of the Koran which they have never changed for 1400 years.
An example of what I am talking about is my dad was Sunni, my mum is Alawi, her sect have gone and disregarded plenty of hadiths or literally changed plenty of hadiths to suit there agenda of believing that Ali was the true prophet even though the Koran specifically says it was Muhammed, and they have even gone as far as to have their own version of the Koran that suits their belief.
But they are such a tiny tiny percentage of Muslims worldwide, that they are considered an obscure sect of Islam that their version of hadiths and Koran is dismissed whole heartedly by majority of Muslims.


3 All I need to say is this, that killing Adherents to a faith and trying to force them to renounce their faith while destroying their Islamic items is trying to wipe out a faith, its as simple as that.

[Yorktown]

34. I stand my ground, and provide additional proof

(1) On imams themselves preaching hatred and terrorism

France Deports 40 Imams For 'Preaching Hatred,'
http://www.ibtimes.com/europe-terror-threat-france-deports-40-imams-preaching-hatred-interior-minister-says-1987822

FBI: 10% of U.S. Mosques Preach Jihad
http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/Mosques-preach-jihad/2009/11/10/id/336125/

Lots of other google hits, and I voluntarily excluded what Geller and her ilk say.

(2) On the Quran not having been preserved as it itself claims

Reported 'Aisha (RA): ‘the verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times was revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) expired and we were occupied by his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper.’ (Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 1944)

(3) on the Crusades' objective being to eradicate Islam.
I notice you are slowly backing down. Now the simple killing of adherents of a faith is counted as trying to 'wipe out' the religion. If that is so, then you are by implication saying the Muslim conquests had as an objective to eradicate Christianity, and succeeded far better. Syria, Egypt, the Maghreb were Christian, Iran was Zoroastrian, Afghanistan was Buddhist, Bangladesh was Hindu. Not that I care one way or the other, mind you. I have equal disrespect for Christianity and Islam.

[politicman]

38. Again my response

1) Your very own link that you provided says that these Imams were deported for preaching hatred, not for radicalising people to be terrorists.
There is a difference between Imams preaching hatred and radicalising their followers and inciting them to commit terror acts.
As an example, for all anyone knows these Imams could have given sermons in their mosques denouncing the West's hypocritical policies or they could have given sermons denouncing what they consider to be the West's degrading morals, etc, etc.
It could have been something that sits right on the line of free speech or preaching hatred, but with the current climate of the last 5 years the French could have erred on the side of caution and deported them.
Point being that it was radicalisation creating terrorists, at worst it could be deemed hate speech by your very own article, and the West itself has plenty of institutions (both religious and secular) that engage in hate speech all the time.


2) Religious scholars way more versed in Islam religion and history have poured over every little detail to do with the religion and have reiterated that the Koran as it stands today is the exact same as when it came down to Muhammed. These are not just a handful of scholars, there are thousands upon thousands of scholars throughout the world, from generation to generation that learn every aspect of Islam and the history of Islam and they all come to the same conclusion. There are even scholars from other religions that research the history of Islam to try and discredit it and they even accept the fact that the Koran has not changed at all.
And that is because from the very beginning from when the verses came down to Muhammed, as each verse came down, it was written down as well as memorized and recited by the followers at that time and has been that way ever since.

3) I'm not slowly backing down on anything, you are trying to be selective with wrote I wrote earlier. Not just the simple killing of adherent of a faith, but trying to force those they didn't kill to renounce their religion, as well as destroying any literature or books to do with the religion that they could get there hands on. As I said, during the crusades Muslims had to pray and recite within under their breaths and within their hearts for fear of being discovered and killed, etc.

And yes Muslims themselves had instances in their histories where they wanted to wipe out faiths that they considered insulted god.. Its a fact and I admit it. Most times people converted willingly to Islam (as evidenced by the fact that Islam has been the fastest growing religion for a long time) but there were times when some Muslims after the prophets time tried to wipe out faiths in land that they had conquered.
But that's beside the point because I brought up the crusades simply to prove that they tried to and couldn't wipe out Islam and no one will ever be able to.

[Yorktown]

40. Again, my objections

(1) mosques preaching terrorism.
The article I quoted earlier cited the FBI saying 10% (400/4000) American mosques are preaching jihad. And when the FBI mentions jihad, it's not the inner struggle sense of jihad (which is the minority use in the Quran and hadiths)
Besides, your point about "the West itself has plenty of institutions (both religious and secular) that engage in hate speech all the time" is weird. Since when do two wrongs make a right. White supremacists, Islam, Jerry Falwell and the KKK are all wrong.

(2) I gave you proof the Quran had been changed over time
I quoted the hadith proving it, I gave you a link with differing copies of the Quran, what more do you want?
The only reason Muslim clerics have to go saying the Quran never changed is because the Quran itself makes that claim,

"Verily, I revealed the Dhikr and verily I will preserve it." [Quran 15 ]

It's all the more funny that muhammad kept writing new verses for at least another 15 years, since the surah 15 is one of the early Meccan ones.

Anyway, i quoted to you the hadith were Aisha herself said some surah had been lost. There are also hadiths which bear witness to the fact muhammad himself rewrote the famous satanic verses. Not to mention the fact some ayats abrogate earlier ayats. The Quran was there, for eternity ready in the clouds, and god communicates his error and trial process on foolscap paper? Too funny.

(3) the Crusades were not about wiping out Islam.
I already told you that the fact would have been clear to the dimmest western medieval intelligence. Anyway, History proves it was not their intention or within their ability, or they would have had to reconquer all the lands invaded by muhammad's armies.

And I noticed you repeated four false claims made by Muslims:

Most times people converted willingly to Islam (as evidenced by the fact that Islam has been the fastest growing religion for a long time)

- Most countries came to Islam through military coercion (the Islamic conquests)
- Within these conquered countries, most people came to Islam by financial coercion (Jizzya)
- Today Islam grows organically, by higher birth rates than other religion/secular societies
- and by losing few adherents since it is punishable by death

All in all, I've got the feeling we are not going to agree on much.
Believers never concede the wrongs of their faiths, and I doubt I will ever believe in any.

[politicman]

41. and yet my response yet again...

1) Of course 2 wrongs don't make a right, but I made the statement about how there is plenty of institutions in the west that preach hate speech simply to show that preaching hate speech is not the same as radicalising followers to commit terror act. France wanted to err on the side of caution by deporting these Imams which also shows a discrimination by the west because when was the last time you saw members from the far right party in France be deported or punished for their constant hate speech.
If the FBI really think that 10% of mosques in America are preaching Jihad, then why hasn't the FBI moved to arrest these people and shut down the mosques? It doesn't pass the smell test.

2) As I said before, there are some sects or tiny cults within Islam that have changed, added and removed certain things verses and hadiths to support what they believe. Like I said my own mum is a Alawi (my dad was sunni) and her sect has altered many hadiths and even verses in the Koran to support their specific beliefs that majority of Muslims worldwide find haram.
If one little tiny sect of Islam can do this then what makes you think that someone with an agenda can't put up a webpage and add, change and remove things to support their agenda.
I could show you 25 different webpages from 25 different sects in Islam that have differing accounts of the Hadith and some even have differing Korans.
But as I said, the scholars from the huge majority of Muslims in every part of the world have studied every aspect of Islam and its history and have all come to the same conclusion, that the Koran has not changed.
A webpage is just that, it can have false information on it that deceives the reader such as yourself, I'll stick with the thousands of accredited scholars in the world who all agree the Koran has not changed.

3) I hear what you say, but its not right. The crusades was all about destroying the Islamic faith within the lands they controlled, that's why they killed Muslims for simply being Muslims, that's why they try to force Muslims to renounce their faith and that's why they destroyed any and all literature and books to do with the Islamic faith that they could get their hands on. If they had succeeded destroying Islam from within the lands they controlled, they were going to continue to conquer land by land and repeat the process in those lands as well.

Lastly, you are wrong. Muhammed instructed his disciples to preach the Islam religion during the days when they were outnumbered and threatened by non believers. Slowly but surely people converted to Islam and the prophet was able to control Arabia. Muhammed sent out envoys to the 4 parts of the world to preach to get new followers.
Sure wars were fought between Muslims and others, as at that time Islam was an ideology was a threat to others who didn't believe. Because of this Muslims conquered lands.

Its a fact that more people convert to Islam than other religion in the world on a yearly basis.

But like you said, we should agree to disagree.
Thanks for the debate anyway

[Yorktown]

42. Again, again, etc

(1) 10% of US mosques preaching jihad
To answer your question, it does not fall under incitation to violence if the call to jihad is made in general, without inciting immediate violence. Jihad is free speech, I fear.

(2) Some more proof the Quran varied over time:
• at the time of muhammad, the diacritic signs had not been codified. So the earlier versions of the Quran could not have been written with diacritic signs as now. And over time, these signs have evolved. That is one obvious variation.
• you also probably know there were differences in the way the Quran was recited according to dialects. So different written copies were made based on the authoritative reciter of each dialect. Hence another source of variance.
Nafi (from Medina; d.169/785)
Ibn Kathir (from Mecca; d.119/737)
Abu `Amr al-'Ala' (from Damascus; d.53/770)
Ibn `Amir (from Basra; d.118/736)
Hamzah (from Kufah; d.156/772)
al-Qisa'i (from Kufah; d.189/804)
Abu Bakr `Asim (from Kufah; d.158/778)

(3) Crusades as annihilation of Islam.
Suggest you read an authoritative book on the subject. The consensus is that the key objectives were to allow pilgrimage and relieve Bysantium. The fact Muslims were slaughtered was par for the course in medieval times, even up to Renaissance when the Muslims besieging Vienna offered a choice between surrender or total massacre.

Btw: Mohamed Laroussi wrote a nice text in 'Morocco Today' with the following sentence: "I ask all the men and women who repeat unceasingly that "Islam is innocent of these people" to stop this hypocrisy". Do you agree with him?

And yes, even though we are miles apart in this discussion, it's fun.

[yeoman6987]

11. Weird thing is they keep hitting liberal areas. Explain that.

[arcane1]

3. You operate on the false premise that only the US should do anything n/t

[climber3986]

5. i never said only the us should do something.

[ffr]

7. Oil. Stop using oil & plastics.

But we as a society can't or won't. Expect this to continue until we move to other fuels.

Isn't that what President Gore wanted us to do in 2000?

Oh, that's right. Not enough Democrats voted in 2000 to ensure he became president and didn't vote for Kerry in 2004 and didn't vote in the mid-terms in between. So we got this stupid congress and this mess of gridlock and we can't do anything realistic to break the oil habit.

[delrem]

12. You describe what the USA did to Falluja.

And, in fact, to the whole country of Iraq. And Afghanistan. And Vietnam. And....
Yes, it's just plain evil and you're spot on, there's no reasoning or negotiating with such evil.

So, what do you plan to do about it?
Cheerlead for even more of it?

[climber3986]

24. Why would I cheerlead for more of it?

I would get out of Afghanistan/ Iraq and stay out only in the most rare circumstances.

I say we did the right thing last year when we assisted the kurds/yazidi with pushing back ISIS from around Kobani and prevented genocide.

If ISIS surrounds an entire city and threatens them with genocide like they did with kobani.

What would YOU do? Let it happen? If we hadn't of helped they would have been annihilated.

[Liberal_in_LA]

13. They are sick sick sick

[bemildred]

18. It doesn't sound like you can be negotiated with either. nt

[Orsino]

27. There is just the tiniest whiff of the ticking time bomb about the OP...

...it being a little simplistic and carefully crafted so as to admit of no disagreement. "What if no diplomacy were possible?" It asks. "What if violence were the only available response? Would you then admit that we must commit violence?" Tautology.

It's not airtight, however. Even violence these days is not mutually exclusive with diplomacy. If fight we must, better to do so in alliance with other powers through negotiations that do not put us in conflict with other interested parties. The UN ought to be our route, if only to help our new war not look so much like naked corporate American aggression/interference/occupation. Or like a knee-jerk reaction by a nation of bloodthirsty fools.

But yeah, sometimes we have an opportunity or obligation to send in troops. If that's what we'really going to do, we should also accept responsibility for the quagmire likely to result, and for the civilian casualties we're going to inflict. Our aim is not perfect; how many innocentts are we going to kill/maim/pauper?

[Bad Thoughts]

21. Fixing the problem and avoiding the problem are not the same thing

I get your point. I think to many people assume that the solution to ISIS is not doing the things that encouraged it in the first place. Disrupting nations ad hoc and relying on commodities from people with agendas will prevents groups like ISIS from emerging in the future, but it is not the contemporary solution for ISIS. It is extant; it has money and material; it has attracted adherents from far beyond its Iraqi roots. And it is committing genocide and other crimes against humanity. Moving to alternative energy will alleviate the problem of similarly radical groups emerging in the future, but that is still years, if not decades, down the road.

[marmar]

25. Tackling issues with childlike simplicity is not an option.

[MisterP]

28. aerial bombing just hits fixed assets and brought IS *into* existence, assassination also helps

them because there's always someone to step in (and in fact OBL's human sacrifice by the ISI allowed the power vacuum that gave IS "backward linkages" outside of the Syrian-Iraqi border)

ground troops will spark anger and even rebellion (or at least IS recruitment) by Sunnis, and use of proxy forces like the Peshmerga never turn out well (the Kurds are the ones with plenty of honor killings and infibulations, and Rojava's just pretending to be "Westernized" for the dinero): given our record, we might even turn on them

the best approach is to go after the money men, but that means Riyadh

[killbotfactory]

37. maybe we should stop backing factions that aim to destroy stable governments?

you know, so there aren't large lawless areas where the terrorist death cults can run around and be horrible?