Sri Lanka Terror Attack Redux (and all things related)

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Especially given that the vast majority of Muslims condemn terrorism and deny that it is a valid teaching of Islam.

 

This is your opinion. There is absolutely no way for you to know what 1 billion plus folks feel about what is and what is not a valid teaching of Islam.

This we do know: The Quran is the perfect word of Allah given to Muhammad personally...by Allah, himself. Muslims follow the Quran. If one doesn't follow the Quran...one is not a Muslim. Remember, Islam isn't a race nor is it a skin colour. It's a religion...and arguably a political system seeing it likes to jump into that ring when expedient.

As for your other...heh...argument.

Oskar Schindler was a good Nazi. The vast majority of Nazi Party members never hurt a fly. I'll let you extrapolate from there...

Edited April 30, 2019 by DogOnPorch

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

 

I do think I'm smarter than you, DoP and Argus, because I'm not driven by fear to justify hatred of Muslims.

 

And there you go again. You just proved my point.

From Pew Research:

Quote

In many cases, people in countries with large Muslim populations are as concerned as Western nations about the threat of Islamic extremism, and have become increasingly concerned in recent years. About two-thirds of people in Nigeria (68%) and Lebanon (67%) said in 2016 that they are very concerned about Islamic extremism in their country, both up significantly since 2013.

So, according to you, 2/3 of the people in Nigeria and Lebanon who expressed concern for the spread of radical Islam are just using that to hide the fact that they "hate" Muslims.

It was kind of nice here while you were on your hissy fit tantrum of refusing to post - at least these things could be discussed without you throwing histrionic fits every time someone has concerns about the spread of radical Islam and name-calling and your self-righteous "I'M SMARTER AND BETTER AND MORE MORAL THAN THE REST OF YOU BECAUSE I BELIEVE THERE IS NOTHING GOING ON IN ISLAM THAT IS WORTH WORRYING ABOUT."

[Goddess]

She doesn't like that it's coming to light that Muslim attacks on Christian churches are getting more and more common:

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/christian-attacks.aspx

More and more people are wondering why this gets so little press and is being ignored and shouted down by people like her.  The list above is only since the year 2001.  Have fun scrolling to the end, Dia.  Then come back and tell Dog and I and everyone else who's concerned about it that we're full of shit.

But don't worry, our magical borders in Canada will prevent this from happening here, right?

And as far as me "hating" Muslims - let me assure you, Dia - I have always.....ALWAYS......treated Muslims I meet with much, much more respect and dignity than they have ever treated me with.  And I will continue to do so, in spite of your myriad accusations of ME  and Dog being the problem in Islam.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Goddess

[dialamah]

26 minutes ago, Goddess said:

And there you go again. You just proved my point.

From Pew Research:

So, according to you, 2/3 of the people in Nigeria and Lebanon who expressed concern for the spread of radical Islam are just using that to hide the fact that they "hate" Muslims.

 

Yes, worried about Islamic extremism and radicalisation.  Unlike you, DoP and Argus, who are worried about Muslims, as evidenced by this comment:  Muslim terrorists are committing their act in the name of a political/religious ideology. All Muslims subscribe to this ideology to a greater or lessor degree.

Argus isn't just worried about *extremists*, but about all Muslims because they 'share the same ideology'.    And you are defending this statement, so you are also worried about *all Muslims* and not just the extremists.  And DoP, of course, who refuses to acknowledge that there are any Quranic verses Muslims could legitimately use to pursue a peaceful life.  

So do you think the Muslim majority in Nigeria and Lebanon are concerned about "all Muslims", or just the extremists?    Do you think they'd be bothered by the notion that Argus (and you and DoP) cannot or refuse to recognize the difference between them and terrorists?  

Quote

It was kind of nice here while you were on your hissy fit tantrum of refusing to post - at least these things could be discussed without you throwing histrionic fits every time someone has concerns about the spread of radical Islam and name-calling and your self-righteous "I'M SMARTER AND BETTER AND MORE MORAL THAN THE REST OF YOU BECAUSE I BELIEVE THERE IS NOTHING GOING ON IN ISLAM THAT IS WORTH WORRYING ABOUT."

Funny, isn't it?  I posted reasonably and "quietly", didn't use any caps, didn't call anyone names or even insult anyone - and here you are, full on caps, name calling and full of accusation.  Who is throwing a histrionic fit, I wonder?

Btw, you don't know why I stopped posting for a while.  Or why I decided to post again, here.  Why is it that people of your ilk become unglued if someone posts opinions, ideas or facts they don't like?  Can't handle a different viewpoint?

By the way, how do you like being lumped in with killers just because you, like them, don't like Muslims or Islam?  You didn't answer that question.  Though your hysterical response certainly gives me a clue. 

 

Edited April 30, 2019 by dialamah

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Yes, worried about Islamic extremism and radicalisation.  Unlike you, DoP and Argus, who are worried about Muslims, as evidenced by this comment:  Muslim terrorists are committing their act in the name of a political/religious ideology. All Muslims subscribe to this ideology to a greater or lessor degree.

Argus isn't just worried about *extremists*, but about all Muslims because they 'share the same ideology'.    And you are defending this statement, so you are also worried about *all Muslims* and not just the extremists.  And DoP, of course, who refers to acknowledge that there are any Quranic verses Muslims could legitimately use to pursue a peaceful life.  

 

How does one tell murderous Muslims from the non-murderous variety?

[dialamah]

 

9 minutes ago, Goddess said:

She doesn't like that it's coming to light that Muslim attacks on Christian churches are getting more and more common:

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/christian-attacks.aspx

Love your "source" (snicker).

From Media Bias Fact Check:

 

Quote

 

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake newsunless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Reasoning: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Hate Group

Notes: According to The Religion of Peace about page they are “a pluralistic, non-partisan site concerned with Islam’s political and religious teachings according to its own texts. The purpose is to counter whitewashing and explain the threat that Islam truly poses to human dignity and freedom, as well as the violence and dysfunction that ensues as a direct consequence of this religion’s supremacist ideology.”

In reality, this is a website that promotes anti-Muslim propaganda through only posting negative information about Islam, such as crimes that may not be related to ones religion such as this where they link to a Mixed factual source. In general, this source links to other media that has a right wing bias or is otherwise questionable by our methodology. The Religion of Peace also sources Robert Spencer in articles, who is on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate list. Overall, we rate The Religion of Peace as Questionable for having an extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy/propaganda and hate group tendencies. (D. Van Zandt 9/15/2017)

Special Note: We provide a link below to their website for the purpose of our Chrome Extensions, which requires a link to the website in order to display on Facebook and the Chrome task bar. We recommend not clicking the link.

 

 

So stupidly gullible.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

I could say the same about you and your attitude toward violence perpetrated by White guys who share many of the same views you do, hmm?  At least I recognize that there are *good* and *bad* white guys, along with *good* and *bad* Muslims, while you are stuck in "All white guys are good (but hard done by), and all Muslims are bad (and coddled)".

I never suggested all white guys are good and all Muslims are bad. 

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

Case in point:

Ergo: All Muslims are terrorists, potential terrorists or supportive of terrorism.   Which is patently untrue, given that they are most often the victims of such terrorism.

All Muslims ascribe to the ideology of Islam, else they would not be Muslims. Why is this so impossible for you to understand? There are not two separate Islams - one the terrorists use, and the one used by everyone else. It is one ideological system. The doctrine terrorists use is perfectly valid in terms of gays, apostates, heretics, blasphemers and those deemed 'enemies of Islam" being beheaded. Anyone who disrespects Islam in ANY of the 50 odd Muslim states is punished. Period. Look at that Christian woman in Indonesia recently sent to prison simply for an offhand complaint about the loudness of the Muslim call to prayer coming from a nearby mosque.

You also ignore the numbers game, as in:

There are said to be 1.6 billion Muslims in the world […]. Let’s say only 10% of the 1.6 billion harbor feelings of grievance toward ‘the West’, or desire to expunge the infidel, or hope to re-establish the caliphate. That 10% is 160 million people. Let’s say of that group only 10% would be inclined toward jihad. That’s 16 million. Assume that of that group only 10% really means it – would really become jihadis or give them aid and sustenance. That’s 1.6 million.

While only a minority openly admit to supporting terrorism, added together, that makes up hundreds of millions of people in the Muslim world. Which is why it's a hell of a lot more dangerous than a few wingnuts in robes.

Numerous polls in the region show a remarkably high level of support for jihadis […]. With an estimated 355 million inhabitants in the Middle East and North Africa, the polls […] actually suggest that several million people in the region may be very supportive of ISIS and/or al-Qaida. […] That is, the level of popular support is so extensive that the local population in certain areas is willing to go to some length to aid, abet and even glorify “the mujahidin” hiding in their midst. Hence, far from being an isolated terrorist underground or an extremist fringe, hated and despised by the surrounding populations, the jihadi movement has managed to insert itself as an insurgent movement with a foothold among the masses.

https://icct.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ICCT-Schmid-Muslim-Opinion-Polls-Jan2017-1.pdf

 

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

 

Love your "source" (snicker).

From Media Bias Fact Check:

 

 

So stupidly gullible.

Ahhh, yes, the old "fake news" argument.

OK, Dia.  No Islamics are attacking churches anywhere in the world.  It's the most peaceful religion in the world. There I agree with you.  Perfect.  You can move on now.

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

How does one tell murderous Muslims from the non-murderous variety?

How does one tell a murderous Canadian guy from the non-murderous variety?  

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

 

Love your "source" (snicker).

From Media Bias Fact Check:

 

 

So stupidly gullible.

 

Oh...so those MANY attacks on Christians by Jihadists were all made up by that website? 

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

So stupidly gullible.

Anyone who believes the southern poverty law center would fit that description, yes. They've called anyone, including Muslims, who decry the harsh and backward value system of Islam 'Islamophobes' and 'hate mongers'. 

 

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

How does one tell a murderous Canadian guy from the non-murderous variety?  

 

Correct, Muslims can be Canadian.

So how does one tell which Muslims will take Allah's commands to fight the Unbeliever into the realm of reality?

Or can't you answer?

[Argus]

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

Here is what Mediabiasfactcheck says about The Spectator:

These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias.

Oh! My! GOD!

They're slightly to moderately conservative in bias! Aaaaaghhh! Ban them! Burn them!

[Goddess]

10 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

How does one tell murderous Muslims from the non-murderous variety?

And how are the murderous ones treated by their "Religion of Peace" community of fellow believers?

Let's discuss Ahlam Tamimi, who blew up women and children in a pizzeria in Jerusalem in 2001.  After her arrest, she was released as part of a prisoner exchange with Hamas. You would think that her community of Muslims, who you insist are all against violence, would want her prosecuted, but no:

Quote

 

Here's what happened instead (in Ahlam Tamimi's own words):

Afterwards, when I took the bus, the Palestinians were all smiling. You could sense that everybody was happy. When I got on the bus, nobody knew that it was me who had led [the suicide bomber to the target]... inside the bus, they were all congratulating one another. They didn't even know one another, yet they were exchanging greetings... As the number of dead kept increasing, the passengers were applauding.

 

 Her only regret was that there were not more of them:

I admit that I was a bit disappointed, because I had hoped for a larger toll. Yet when they said "three dead," I said: 'Allah be praised'...Two minutes later, they said on the radio that the number had increased to five. I wanted to hide my smile, but I just couldn't. Allah be praised, it was great.

 

Here is a devout Muslim not only killing people explicitly in the name of Islam, but openly praising Allah for the slaughter of children... just the sort of thing that Muslim leaders in the West claim "horrifies" them.  Yet, what was their reaction?  Total silence.

Quote

Muslims could have protested her release if they felt that she were guilty of "horrifying" crimes in the name of their religion.  None did.

Instead of being outraged, some Muslims actually celebrated Ms. Tamimi's release.  In fact, she was treated like a hero - and not just by Palestinians.  The keepers of Islam's holiest sites subsequently invited her to perform the pilgrimage to Mecca along with the other terrorists as guests of the Saudi king!

Quote

This doesn't mean that most Muslims agree with the violence, but the contradiction between what their religion teaches and what their hearts tell them accounts for their ambivalence - and our skepticism.  Empathy for those outside the faith is never encouraged by Islam, explaining why the Muslim community acts almost the opposite of how it is expected to much of the time, and why the passion and outrage in denouncing Islamic terror is largely absent in comparison to what we see when Muslims are genuinely offended over something relatively trivial.

Non-violent Muslims are fond of saying that they can't be held responsible for what another person does.  Fair enough.  But aren't they responsible for what they choose?  The case of Ahmal Tamimi isn't about what one person or one group teaches us about Islam.  It is about what all Muslims teach us by choosing to stay quiet in such glaring circumstances.  

If Muslims want to be believed when they say they believe terrorism is an offense to Islam, then they certainly failed here.

So tell us, Dia - since you speak for all Muslims - how DO you tell the violent ones from the non-violent ones?

[Goddess]

18 minutes ago, Argus said:

Oh! My! GOD!

They're slightly to moderately conservative in bias! Aaaaaghhh! Ban them! Burn them!

Clearly, they "hate" Muslims.

[DogOnPorch]

15 minutes ago, Goddess said:

And how are the murderous ones treated by their "Religion of Peace" community of fellow believers?

 

Samir Kuntar is another example. Part of the same exchange in 2008.

Here's a guy who bashed a young child's head against rocks with his rifle butt to kill her. Greeted as a returning hero rather than a pariah.  He killed JEWS.

I can't imagine such a fellow getting a hero's welcome in my culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Nahariya_attack

Edited April 30, 2019 by DogOnPorch

[dialamah]

2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Ahhh, yes, the old "fake news" argument.

 

What can I say, pick stupid sources, get laughed at.

Quote

OK, Dia.  No Islamics are attacking churches anywhere in the world.  It's the most peaceful religion in the world. There I agree with you.  Perfect.  You can move on now.

Where did I say Churches aren't getting attacked?   

Please be aware that thanks to sites like the one you referenced falsehoods are deliberately and accidentally spread.  For instance, and I have no doubt this is included in your link, there were reports of many Christians killed in Nigeria in February and March of this year.  Many people asked why "This was being ignored in MSM media", even though it could be found in MSM.  But even more important, most sources - especially the right-wing and/or anti-Muslim ones, failed to mention that Christians had also carried out their own massacre, attacking and killing about 130 Muslims.  It's also not made clear in Western media that the conflict is not primarily religious in nature, but is a conflict between herders and farmers, which has been exacerbated by the effects of climate change.  

Facts matter.  Sources matter.  Figure it out.

[DogOnPorch]

Then again...

CBC gave this guy quite the welcome.

 

 

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

 

Facts matter.  Sources matter.  Figure it out.

 

So again I ask...

How does one tell which Muslims will follow Allah's commands as set-out in the Quran?

 

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Anyone who believes the southern poverty law center would fit that description, yes. They've called anyone, including Muslims, who decry the harsh and backward value system of Islam 'Islamophobes' and 'hate mongers'. 

 

Anything to avoid a few facts, eh?  The Media Bias Fact Check does their own assessment of media; in this case, they merely noted that the ReligionofPeace site uses Robert Spencer as a source.  Spender is a well-known alt-right figure**, and that the SPLC had put him on their hate list.  If you want to use that sort of "logic" to accept without question the information from TheReligionofPeace, that's up to you of course.  But you may as well quit calling yourself 'moderate', 'reasonable' or even 'well-informed'.

**Oops, I am thinking of Richard Spencer. Nonetheless, whether Robert Spencer deserves SPLC center designation, he is very ani-Muslim.

Edited April 30, 2019 by dialamah

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

So again I ask...

How does one tell which Muslims will follow Allah's commands as set-out in the Quran?

 

She will never answer that.  She is more concerned with denying what's going on in Islam and if forced to admit something - she will make every excuse in the book for them.

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Anything to avoid a few facts, eh?  The Media Bias Fact Check does their own assessment of media; in this case, they merely noted that the ReligionofPeace site uses Robert Spencer as a source.  Spender is a well-known alt-right figure, and that the SPLC had put him on their hate list.  If you want to use that sort of "logic" to accept without question the information from TheReligionofPeace, that's up to you of course.  But you may as well quit calling yourself 'moderate', 'reasonable' or even 'well-informed'.

 

Spencer isn't alt-right.

Robert is an Islamic scholar...I know it bothers you when non-Muslims know the Quran better than you do. 

Edited April 30, 2019 by DogOnPorch

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

So again I ask...

How does one tell which Muslims will follow Allah's commands as set-out in the Quran?

 

They will all tell you they follow Allah's command, whether it's to accept Jews/Christians/unbelievers as brothers and friends, to ignore them or to kill them; to forgive apostates, ignore them or to kill them, whether to welcome their gay members, or shun them.

Tired of your stupid questions, though.  You need new material; I'll watch for it.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, dialamah said:

They will all tell you they follow Allah's command, whether it's to accept Jews/Christians/unbelievers as brothers and friends, to ignore them or to kill them; to forgive apostates, ignore them or to kill them, whether to welcome their gay members, or shun them.

Tired of your stupid questions, though.  You need new material; I'll watch for it.

 

So you're admitting Trump Jr was correct...cool.

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, dialamah said:

They will all tell you they follow Allah's command, whether it's to accept Jews/Christians/unbelievers as brothers and friends, to ignore them or to kill them; to forgive apostates, ignore them or to kill them, whether to welcome their gay members, or shun them.

Tired of your stupid questions, though.  You need new material; I'll watch for it.

Hahaha!  They will just "tell" you if they plan on killing anyone.  No worries!

OMG - and you call ME stupid.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Goddess