ADVERTISEMENT

How do you deal with Islam?

manichi said:
I think we can solidly answer that question with data if we’re talking actual physical danger

You are being redirected...

www.adl.org

I’m not aware of any domestic anti-colonizer groups that are regularly killing people in the US but maybe I’m missing something. They seem like a younger more prone to property damage-type crowd.

I also don’t think everyone who is anti-colonizer is also anti-white. I’m an example.
Click to expand...

Since when does it just matter about the US for you?

Thus, despite all the difficulties of this task, we show that between 1979 and May 2021 at least 48,035 Islamist attacks took place around the world. They caused the death of at least 210,138 people. On average, an Islamist attack caused the death of nearly 4.4 people
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: DANC and IUCrazy2
manichi said:
It really is. You’ve convinced yourself Gazans — even the kids — don’t deserve to live because you’ve seen evidence (via tweets) that they are not humans.

I remember similar anti- Muslim sentiment in the US after 9/11, as if Afghani and Iraqi babies were training the hijackers.

Stupid then and stupid now.
Click to expand...

this is from 2018…



Or maybe this?

 
They’re coming for Christians too

www.persecution.org

Harassment and Persecution Faced by Egyptian Christians - International Christian Concern

Amina endured harassment and threats in Beni Suef Governorate last year after moving there to begin her newly married life.
www.persecution.org www.persecution.org

You Christians, you worshipers of the cross, will not be able to do anything. This is our city, and we will cleanse it of people like you. Either you are with us, or you are against us, and whoever resists us will not live.’”
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
JamieDimonsBalls said:
Since when does it just matter about the US for you?

Thus, despite all the difficulties of this task, we show that between 1979 and May 2021 at least 48,035 Islamist attacks took place around the world. They caused the death of at least 210,138 people. On average, an Islamist attack caused the death of nearly 4.4 people
Click to expand...

Yawn. We’ve been over this. The Middle East (and Africa) will always lead the world in terrorism for geopolitical reasons. Not because Islam is inherently violent . Places like Bangladesh and Indonesia have terrorism levels on par with the US. Central Asia is full of large Muslim nations with much less terrorism than the US and other western nations. The ME was a violent place with heightened levels of factional violence before Islam existed, before Christianity existed.

I guess by your estimation the Irish were an inherently violent people until 20 years ago. Luckily for them Twitter didn’t exist yet and schools still taught history.
 
manichi said:
Yawn. We’ve been over this. The Middle East (and Africa) will always lead the world in terrorism for geopolitical reasons. Not because Islam is inherently violent . Places like Bangladesh and Indonesia have terrorism levels on par with the US. Central Asia is full of large Muslim nations with much less terrorism than the US and other western nations. The ME was a violent place with heightened levels of factional violence before Islam existed, before Christianity existed.

I guess by your estimation the Irish were an inherently violent people until 20 years ago. Luckily for them Twitter didn’t exist yet and schools still taught history.
Click to expand...
I don't understand where you're coming from. You say the ME has more terrorism because of geopolitics. But then reference a 2000 year history of the region. Obviously, the politics and the relative importance of various geographical and natural resources there have changed over the last 2000 years, though, right?

The ME wasn't more violent than Europe, for example, during the Caliphates. Those lasted pretty continuously from the 600s-the 1200s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamieDimonsBalls and DANC
stollcpa said:
Biden and the Dems think they can get along with Iran. Only idiots don’t recognize they want to exterminate us along with the Jews.

We should help Israel destroy their nukes.
Click to expand...
There are an awful lot of Iranians living in the US, folks even often call Los Angeles, “tehrangeles”- in the 1980’s we feared Shiites, then in 2001 a bunch of Sunnis flew planes into our buildings. I think once the mullahs are gone, give me Iran over the Saudis- I know Trump doesn’t agree since Saudis gave Jared the 2 billion before Trump became king LiV golf- influence peddling both sides of the aisle- watch and read
 
Indyhorn said:
There are an awful lot of Iranians living in the US, folks even often call Los Angeles, “tehrangeles”- in the 1980’s we feared Shiites, then in 2001 a bunch of Sunnis flew planes into our buildings. I think once the mullahs are gone, give me Iran over the Saudis- I know Trump doesn’t agree since Saudis gave Jared the 2 billion before Trump became king LiV golf- influence peddling both sides of the aisle- watch and read
Click to expand...
Some experts were saying in the early 2000s that if the goal of an invasion in the ME was to establish a successful democratic state as a beacon for the rest of the ME, Iran should have been the target because of the vibrant, Western-like society in Tehran pre-revolution. It's been over 40 years now since then, so I'm not so sure that's relevant anymore.

Persians and Arabs are obviously very different culturally, even if they both practice a version of Islam.

By the way, a really good book about Iran is Reading Lolita in Tehran.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamieDimonsBalls and Indyhorn
BradStevens said:
I don't understand where you're coming from. You say the ME has more terrorism because of geopolitics. But then reference a 2000 year history of the region. Obviously, the politics and the relative importance of various geographical and natural resources there have changed over the last 2000 years, though, right?

The ME wasn't more violent than Europe, for example, during the Caliphates. Those lasted pretty continuously from the 600s-the 1200s.
Click to expand...

I think you’re confusing politics (ever changing) with geopolitics, which is fixed to geography. Culture, resources, politics matter but the idea is that nations will consistently act in a certain way based on their borders e.g Russia constantly going through periods of expansion and contraction, always trying to buffer its strategic core.

Didn’t say other places weren’t violent. Just that, minus some extended periods of relative peace (as you pointed out), the ME has been at the empire game for 6000 years. As a natural transit point by land and sea between three continents, it’s had an unbelievable number of different foreign and regional invaders/ rulers (we are on that long list). Even recently. Layer in the three major and often incompatible religions that started there.

Just over the last 100 years the Turks, British, Russians, US have all played a part in making a mess of it, basically using it as a chess board: toppling governments, drawing new borders that served their purposes, oil became the world’s most important resource. Israel formed.

I think we can reasonably say these things are a recipe for intractable factional violence. Again, there are plenty of peaceful Muslim nations, but not all regions have the same geopolitical landscape.
.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Indyhorn
JamieDimonsBalls said:
As if it weren’t any more clear what kind of people these are

View embedded media
Click to expand...

I like it when they let the mask slip. The far left is every bit as awful as the far right. Maybe more of the not already insane liberals will start to wake up to the idea that the intersectional forcing folks are terrible people, with terrible ideas, who should be ostracized.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jet812 and DANC
IUCrazy2 said:
I like it when they let the mask slip. The far left is every bit as awful as the far right. Maybe more of the not already insane liberals will start to wake up to the idea that the intersectional forcing folks are terrible people, with terrible ideas, who should be ostracized.
Click to expand...
"not already insane liberals'? Is there such a thing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa
Going back to the OP, how to deal with Islam, thanks to @sglowrider for posting a clip from this Indian commentator. I looked at some of her other clips, and here she documents and discusses how the Chinese treat their Muslim Uyghur population:



Compare and contrast China's description** of their solution--reeducation camps designed to prevent radicalization--with what Israel has tried over the past decades. Should Israel look to China for the solution?

My response is no, because it would violate our Western norms, even if there is an argument that it might work better from the Israeli perspective, contra, I think @IUCrazy2, and even if I think the Palestinian "culture" is inferior to the Israeli one.

**That's China's description. In fact, there are reports of state sanctioned rape, sterilizations, forced labor, and refusal to allow the Uyghurs to even practice Ramadan or even speak their native language. The commentator here calls it cultural genocide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamieDimonsBalls and DANC
BradStevens said:
Going back to the OP, how to deal with Islam, thanks to @sglowrider for posting a clip from this Indian commentator. I looked at some of her other clips, and here she documents and discusses how the Chinese treat their Muslim Uyghur population:

View embedded media


Compare and contrast China's description** of their solution--reeducation camps designed to prevent radicalization--with what Israel has tried over the past decades. Should Israel look to China for the solution?

My response is no, because it would violate our Western norms, even if there is an argument that it might work better from the Israeli perspective, contra, I think @IUCrazy2, and even if I think the Palestinian "culture" is inferior to the Israeli one.

**That's China's description. In fact, there are reports of state sanctioned rape, sterilizations, forced labor, and refusal to allow the Uyghurs to even practice Ramadan or even speak their native language. The commentator here calls it cultural genocide.
Click to expand...

No, China goes too far. I am told (though I am incredulous) that there is moderate Islam. I don't want them sterilized, no rapes, none of that. You see the videos of the type of stuff they are shown in schools, that would be yanked and replaced with more "Westernized" education. I would yank Islam out of the schools. In the mosques, all the "Kill zee Jews" Imams would be disappeared and replaced with one's who focus more on all the "Christians and Jews are also people of the book and we should live with them".

I would also hang all of the leadership of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. I would outlaw membership in those groups by penalty of expulsion.

All the money the Hamas leadership stole would be used to rebuild with a focus on tourism and attracting Gulf and Egyptian investment. Gaza could be a Mediterranean Singapore where Europe, North Africa, and the Gulf States meet for business.

I think it would be best for those people if they ditched Islam. I think it is a garbage religion. However, you can't force that but you could seek out less crazy versions of it that I am told exist. (And if the don't exist then I think you go to the next option of stomping it out...but I am told that isn't necessary because Muslims are really warm and fuzzy people who just want to live in peace with everyone.)

Then again....

 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier, JamieDimonsBalls and DANC
IUCrazy2 said:
No, China goes too far. I am told (though I am incredulous) that there is moderate Islam. I don't want them sterilized, no rapes, none of that. You see the videos of the type of stuff they are shown in schools, that would be yanked and replaced with more "Westernized" education. I would yank Islam out of the schools. In the mosques, all the "Kill zee Jews" Imams would be disappeared and replaced with one's who focus more on all the "Christians and Jews are also people of the book and we should live with them".

I would also hang all of the leadership of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. I would outlaw membership in those groups by penalty of expulsion.

All the money the Hamas leadership stole would be used to rebuild with a focus on tourism and attracting Gulf and Egyptian investment. Gaza could be a Mediterranean Singapore where Europe, North Africa, and the Gulf States meet for business.

I think it would be best for those people if they ditched Islam. I think it is a garbage religion. However, you can't force that but you could seek out less crazy versions of it that I am told exist. (And if the don't exist then I think you go to the next option of stomping it out...but I am told that isn't necessary because Muslims are really warm and fuzzy people who just want to live in peace with everyone.)

Then again....

View embedded media
Click to expand...
Boko Haram in Nigeria are murdering savages. The Nigerian government does virtually nothing.

Our church has a branch there, in the northwestern part of Nigeria, and entire villages have been wiped out, with many women taken and given to Boko Haram fighters as wives.

Christianity had a long period where non-believers were persecuted, but it has evolved. If anything, Islam has gotten worse.
 
IUCrazy2 said:
No, China goes too far. I am told (though I am incredulous) that there is moderate Islam. I don't want them sterilized, no rapes, none of that. You see the videos of the type of stuff they are shown in schools, that would be yanked and replaced with more "Westernized" education. I would yank Islam out of the schools. In the mosques, all the "Kill zee Jews" Imams would be disappeared and replaced with one's who focus more on all the "Christians and Jews are also people of the book and we should live with them".

I would also hang all of the leadership of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. I would outlaw membership in those groups by penalty of expulsion.

All the money the Hamas leadership stole would be used to rebuild with a focus on tourism and attracting Gulf and Egyptian investment. Gaza could be a Mediterranean Singapore where Europe, North Africa, and the Gulf States meet for business.

I think it would be best for those people if they ditched Islam. I think it is a garbage religion. However, you can't force that but you could seek out less crazy versions of it that I am told exist. (And if the don't exist then I think you go to the next option of stomping it out...but I am told that isn't necessary because Muslims are really warm and fuzzy people who just want to live in peace with everyone.)

Then again....

View embedded media
Click to expand...
I obviously don't think you advocate the Chinese reality, but their rationalizations and descriptions aren't crazy talk. In those descriptions, they claim it is about preventing radicalization of the population, and they would also, I'm sure, justify it by referring to assimilation into China.

The comparison of the two highlights the limits of classically liberal notions of multiculturalism in the West (which I subscribe to), I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
IUCrazy2 said:
No, China goes too far. I am told (though I am incredulous) that there is moderate Islam. I don't want them sterilized, no rapes, none of that. You see the videos of the type of stuff they are shown in schools, that would be yanked and replaced with more "Westernized" education. I would yank Islam out of the schools. In the mosques, all the "Kill zee Jews" Imams would be disappeared and replaced with one's who focus more on all the "Christians and Jews are also people of the book and we should live with them".
Click to expand...

Whew, so you'd stop just short of concentration camps but are for forced religious conversion? Not only are you running around here representing American ideals like a boss but you are also clearly a student of history. nothing ever goes wrong with plans like that. set it and forget it.
 
manichi said:
Whew, so you'd stop just short of concentration camps but are for forced religious conversion? Not only are you running around here representing American ideals like a boss but you are also clearly a student of history. nothing ever goes wrong with plans like that. set it and forget it.
Click to expand...

So pushing non-jihadi Islam is forced conversion...thanks for saying the quiet part out loud about what Islam really is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC and Joe_Hoopsier
IUCrazy2 said:
So pushing non-jihadi Islam is forced conversion...thanks for saying the quiet part out loud about what Islam really is.
Click to expand...
Crazy I for one appreciate your openness on these issues. But let's be honest. You're not really advocating for non-jihadi Islam. You're conceding that it woukd be a stomachable alternative if it's possible, which you clearly don't believe it is. So even though you characterize "stomping out" Islam as a backup plan, that's actually the plan you're advocating.
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
Crazy I for one appreciate your openness on these issues. But let's be honest. You're not really advocating for non-jihadi Islam. You're conceding that it woukd be a stomachable alternative if it's possible, which you clearly don't believe it is. So even though you characterize "stomping out" Islam as a backup plan, that's actually the plan you're advocating.
Click to expand...

No, more nuanced than that. I am advocating we give the "moderate" Islam I am told exists a chance to prove itself. Find all the moderate Imams there are out there and drop them in the Palestinian mosques. Nobody that advocates Jihad is allowed. They want to claim that their religion will eventually encompass the world because Allah will come back and make it so, whatever. As long as they are not advocating for killing those who disagree. Give that a chance.

I then add on to that my opinion that this is basically a fantasy. I don't believe there is a truly moderate Islam. So then what?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
manichi said:
I think you’re confusing politics (ever changing) with geopolitics, which is fixed to geography. Culture, resources, politics matter but the idea is that nations will consistently act in a certain way based on their borders e.g Russia constantly going through periods of expansion and contraction, always trying to buffer its strategic core.

Didn’t say other places weren’t violent. Just that, minus some extended periods of relative peace (as you pointed out), the ME has been at the empire game for 6000 years. As a natural transit point by land and sea between three continents, it’s had an unbelievable number of different foreign and regional invaders/ rulers (we are on that long list). Even recently. Layer in the three major and often incompatible religions that started there.

Just over the last 100 years the Turks, British, Russians, US have all played a part in making a mess of it, basically using it as a chess board: toppling governments, drawing new borders that served their purposes, oil became the world’s most important resource. Israel formed.

I think we can reasonably say these things are a recipe for intractable factional violence. Again, there are plenty of peaceful Muslim nations, but not all regions have the same geopolitical landscape.
.
Click to expand...
Thanks for engaging with me on this. I think all the things you mention are important points. I'm just now sure why they are causally related to a region being more violent internally. I have no doubt factors like this shape a people's culture and morality, though.

For example, I get that geography is fixed. But geopolitics is not. One reason is that the importance of geography can change. See, St. Louis, Missouri. Technology, changing empires/nations/constitutional and ethnic structure of those entities on your border (thus changing the politics of the geography), discovery of resources (which have made ME the reason for so much foreign intervention now), are all at least as important or a mediating factor in the importance of geopolitical positioning. I think using history, here, for analogies and rule-making is less useful with the onset of rapidly accelerating change in the last few centuries.

Re borders, etc., that is true. I'm not sure though all the factors you list make it logically necessary or even more contingently likely that a place will suffer from internal factional violence or barbaric practices (beheadings, raping of women in other religions, etc.), which is what we see. Why wouldn't it make those people more likely to band together, for example, to drive out the foreign invaders (Switzerland might be an example of this. Maybe China in the past? Dune?)?

Anyway, interesting issues. I find stuff like this fascinating.
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
Crazy I for one appreciate your openness on these issues. But let's be honest. You're not really advocating for non-jihadi Islam. You're conceding that it woukd be a stomachable alternative if it's possible, which you clearly don't believe it is. So even though you characterize "stomping out" Islam as a backup plan, that's actually the plan you're advocating.
Click to expand...
Underlying hypothetical question to see how close you two are (even if not practically available to be proven):

If non-jihadi Islam is impossible, would you be in favor of eliminating it?
 
Noticed the use of "Jihad" was used in the thread.

Was curious about the meaning of Jihad both within Islam and by others outside.

Thought some of the Coolerites might be interested in this attempt to give a meaning to Jihad. The article in part states the following..

“Jihad” literally means striving, or doing one’s utmost. Within Islam, there are two basic theological understandings of the word: The “Greater Jihad” is the struggle against the lower self – the struggle to purify one’s heart, do good, avoid evil and make oneself a better person. The “Lesser Jihad” is an outward struggle. Jihad constitutes a moral principle to struggle against any obstacle that stands in the way of the good. Bearing, delivering and raising a child, for example, is an example of outward jihad, because of the many obstacles that must be overcome to deliver and raise the child successfully. Jihad may also involve fighting against oppressors and aggressors who commit injustice. It is not “holy war” in the way a crusade would be considered a holy war, and while Islam allows and even encourages proselytizing, it forbids forced conversion. In Islamic tradition, the form of jihad that involves fighting requires specific ethical conditions under which it is permissible to fight, as well as clear rules of engagement such as the requirement to protect non-combatants. Scholars have compared Jihad that involves fighting to the Christian concept of “just war.”
 
Last edited:
hoot1 said:
Noticed the use of "Jihad" was used in the thread.

Was curious about the meaning of Jihad both within Islam and by others outside.

Thought some of the Coolerites might be interested in this attempt to give a meaning to Jihad. The article in part states the following..

“Jihad” literally means striving, or doing one’s utmost. Within Islam, there are two basic theological understandings of the word: The “Greater Jihad” is the struggle against the lower self – the struggle to purify one’s heart, do good, avoid evil and make oneself a better person. The “Lesser Jihad” is an outward struggle. Jihad constitutes a moral principle to struggle against any obstacle that stands in the way of the good. Bearing, delivering and raising a child, for example, is an example of outward jihad, because of the many obstacles that must be overcome to deliver and raise the child successfully. Jihad may also involve fighting against oppressors and aggressors who commit injustice. It is not “holy war” in the way a crusade would be considered a holy war, and while Islam allows and even encourages proselytizing, it forbids forced conversion. In Islamic tradition, the form of jihad that involves fighting requires specific ethical conditions under which it is permissible to fight, as well as clear rules of engagement such as the requirement to protect non-combatants. Scholars have compared Jihad that involves fighting to the Christian concept of “just war.”
Click to expand...
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Spartans9312, DANC and hoot1
hoot1 said:
Noticed the use of "Jihad" was used in the thread.

Was curious about the meaning of Jihad both within Islam and by others outside.

Thought some of the Coolerites might be interested in this attempt to give a meaning to Jihad. The article in part states the following..

“Jihad” literally means striving, or doing one’s utmost. Within Islam, there are two basic theological understandings of the word: The “Greater Jihad” is the struggle against the lower self – the struggle to purify one’s heart, do good, avoid evil and make oneself a better person. The “Lesser Jihad” is an outward struggle. Jihad constitutes a moral principle to struggle against any obstacle that stands in the way of the good. Bearing, delivering and raising a child, for example, is an example of outward jihad, because of the many obstacles that must be overcome to deliver and raise the child successfully. Jihad may also involve fighting against oppressors and aggressors who commit injustice. It is not “holy war” in the way a crusade would be considered a holy war, and while Islam allows and even encourages proselytizing, it forbids forced conversion. In Islamic tradition, the form of jihad that involves fighting requires specific ethical conditions under which it is permissible to fight, as well as clear rules of engagement such as the requirement to protect non-combatants. Scholars have compared Jihad that involves fighting to the Christian concept of “just war.”
Click to expand...

Taqiyya.

I believe their actions more than their words.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jet812
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D

U.S. GOP Republican Rep. George Santos Lie Tracker

Replies
111
Views
4K
The Water Cooler
MyTeamIsOnTheFloor
MyTeamIsOnTheFloor
Q

Labor Strikes and Worker Protests Erupt Across Iran: ‘This is Slavery’

Replies
2
Views
870
The Water Cooler
Cottage Grove
C
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back