Terrorist Attacks

[Movie Max]

Let me guess, peaceful citizen harassment?:rolleyes:

Man arrested on suspicion of terror offenses near UK Parliament
"He is being detained under the Terrorism Act and is in custody in a south London police station."http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/27/europe/uk-whitehall-london-security-incident/

[Movie Max]

Teen admits planning 'London bomb attack'
A 19-year-old man has admitted planning a bomb attack, which may have targeted an Elton John concert in Hyde Park on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Haroon Syed, from Hounslow in west London, was caught after chatting online to undercover British agents.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39731946

[Movie Max]

Paris in broad daylight, unbelievable description...:eek:

Horror as man wearing Muslim tunic 'slits his father and brother's throats' in Paris street 'while shouting Allah Akbar'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4324448/Man-Muslim-tunic-cuts-dad-brother-s-throats.html

There was really no major follow-up on this story. I did find out that the knifeman was against murder and torture.

Double meurtre à Paris : le cri pour l'honneur de la mère de famille
Il est contre le meurtre et la torture !http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/video-double-meurtre-a-paris-le-cri-pour-l-honneur-de-la-mere-de-famille-20-03-2017-6777879.php

[Wplains]

I began discussing it, saying I didn't know there were Maoists in India (not just communists, but specifically Maoists). You say I'm deflecting, but concentrate your response on calling a man from China a Chinaman? Is that a big deal? If so, have you told your Muslim friends that you refer to them as "Muzzies"? ;)

Lol, true. Who the heck watches Al Jazeera anyway? It's not even on my cable channels.

I'm fascinated as to what the correct term is since Chinaman is apparently...what? Racist? Non-PC? Not acceptable? So what is it? A Chinese male? A Chinese Man? A Man from China?

Oh just saw this:

Man arrested on suspicion of terror offenses near UK Parliament

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/27/europe/uk-whitehall-london-security-incident/index.html

It's become a way of life in Europe. The Australians have the absolute right idea. We need to import some of their politicians.....

[Captain Steel]

Lol, true. Who the heck watches Al Jazeera anyway? It's not even on my cable channels.

I'm fascinated as to what the correct term is since Chinaman is apparently...what? Racist? Non-PC? Not acceptable? So what is it? A Chinese male? A Chinese Man? A Man from China?

Oh just saw this:

Man arrested on suspicion of terror offenses near UK Parliament

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/27/europe/uk-whitehall-london-security-incident/index.html

It's become a way of life in Europe. The Australians have the absolute right idea. We need to import some of their politicians.....

I'm always amazed at how PC ethnic terms come and go. What was once acceptable is now "hate speech" and what was once offensive is now okay.

Years ago "colored" was the polite term for dark skinned people of African descent, now it's considered insulting (even though certain organizations still have the word in their title)! "Black" was an angry term, but now it's the accepted terminology even by the community it was once used to offend & discriminate against.

"Oriental" was once used to define races of the far east, but now "Asian" is the only acceptable term even though "Asian" covers Middle-Easterners, Arabs, Israelis, Indians, Pakistanis, Persians, Turks, some Russians, and some Polynesians in addition to Oriental races. So if a police APB went out that a person was Asian - it would describe them as almost every race on Earth - not very useful.

We still call Native Americans "Indians" for some bizarre reason since the designation is based on a giant mistake which was realized very quickly, so the term never should have stuck. Why we agree to keep calling people a term based on a mistake is beyond me. Now we have confusing terms that don't differentiate between Native Americans and native people from a country in southern central Asia.

[Wplains]

I'm always amazed at how PC ethnic terms come and go. What was once acceptable is now "hate speech" and what was once offensive is now okay.

Years ago "colored" was the polite term for dark skinned people of African descent, now it's considered insulting (even though certain organizations still have the word in their title)! "Black" was an angry term, but now it's the accepted terminology even by the community it was once used to offend & discriminate against.

"Oriental" was once used to define races of the far east, but now "Asian" is the only acceptable term even though "Asian" covers Middle-Easterners, Arabs, Israelis, Indians, Pakistanis, Persians, Turks, some Russians, and some Polynesians in addition to Oriental races. So if a police APB went out that a person was Asian - it would describe them as almost every race on Earth - not very useful.

We still call Native Americans "Indians" for some bizarre reason since the designation is based on a giant mistake which was realized very quickly, so the term never should have stuck. Why we agree to keep calling people a term based on a mistake is beyond me. Now we have confusing terms that don't differentiate between Native Americans and native people from a country in southern central Asia.

Language is funny, I agree. In my own language, the polite term for black people is "negro" while the offensive term is "black" which is considered derogatory. This is the exact opposite of English. However, the PC madness is fast turning freedom of speech into a thing of the past. There are even some complete weirdos who want to ban "he" or "she" because ya know...it's offensive to differentiate between the genders. I guess we could all become its? Again language is funny because in French and Italian or Spanish there are very few gender neutrals, almost eveything is either feminine or masculine so it would be hilarious to see how eliminating gender references would work out....:D

[Dani8]

No mentions? Fancy that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/23/bomb-left-near-belfast-school-attempt-murder-police-officer/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-96808/Three-hurt-Belfast-blast-bomb-attack.html

[Movie Max]

Ooooh 4 ok.

Now it's five.

[Movie Max]

Willesden shooting: Police foil 'active terror plot'
She described the people who lived at the raided house as a "standard Muslim couple".http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39741196

[ashdoc]

No mentions? Fancy that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/23/bomb-left-near-belfast-school-attempt-murder-police-officer/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-96808/Three-hurt-Belfast-blast-bomb-attack.html

i read 'times of india' website for both national and international news . but this news was not on it . or at least i didnt see it .

[Movie Max]

Outspoken Maldives Blogger Who Challenged Radical Islamists Is Killed
His father, Hussain Rasheed, told the local news media that his son had been stabbed 16 times in the chest, neck and head.https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/23/world/asia/yameen-rasheed-dead-maldives-blogger-dead.html

Missteps of a Muslim activist
Two months ago on ABC TV’s Q&A, she opined that Islam was the “most feminist” religion. Chastised for this — a statement at odds with the bitter testimony of many Muslim women — she did not unsay it. Rather, she declared herself open to advice on the issue from Hizb ut-Tahrir, a hardline agitator for a global caliphate.

There is a struggle for the soul of Islam. Voices of moderate Islam — especially young people who make sense — are desperately needed.http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/missteps-of-a-muslim-activist/news-story/fcd10f8ee65d55d04ebbca0bdcf83570?nk=3440bebdf51c24dde0c94874159bc7d6-1493394757

[Wplains]

Willesden shooting: Police foil 'active terror plot'
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39741196

Another one named Mohammed. Funny how they are always Muslims - never Buddhists, Hindus or Jews, eh?

Two months ago on ABC TV’s Q&A, she opined that Islam was the “most feminist” religion.

Lol, that's seriously hilarious. The most mysoginist religion on the face of the earth, the "most feminist"? She must be deaf, dumb and blind. Her stupidity is a given though....

[Wplains]

Huge explosion at Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, UK. Police are reporting fatalities and injured people. No one seems to really know what is happening - another terrorist attack?

[Movie Max]

If it was just a gas explosion, that would signify a break in the recent UK attack and arrest trend.

[Wplains]

If it was just a gas explosion, that would signify a break in the recent UK attack and arrest trend.

I'm watching Sky News in the U.K. Police have confirmed they are treating it as a possible terror attack and have bomb experts on site. A number of people have died and many are injured. Very, very sad as they say the audience was made up of very young kids - the concert hall takes 21,000 people and the concert was sold out. Jeez! :(

Police now saying 19 dead, around 50 injured. Some talk of some type of nail bomb. Horrible!

[Stirchley]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

Here is a link. It's always frickin something.

[Wplains]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

Here is a link. It's always frickin something.

http://news.sky.com/story/live-manchester-arena-explosion-10889465

Most affected seems to have been in foyer area. Dreadful to think the dead may be mostly very young kids.

Also reporting a controlled explosion at Manchester cathedral gardens. The news are not sure if it's connected.

[Captain Steel]

Don't want to jump to the conclusions, but it's got to be the work of those Christian militias that Nancy Pelosi warned us are the greatest threat to secular modern society. My guess is it's probably those Amish... as it fits their pattern of absolutely no known terrorism, global or otherwise.
[end/sarcasm]

[donniedarko]

Looks like Manchester was a suicide bombet

[Captain Steel]

Looks like Manchester was a suicide bombet

Did you mean "bombette"?

This attack coincides with a date exactly 4 years ago when two Islamic Terrorists murdered British Army soldier Lee Rigby in the streets of Woolwich, southeast London (where they stabbed and beheaded him as bystanders watched in fear).

[ashdoc]

i have not posted it on this thread , but for the past several months the co religionists of these people have been derailing trains in india by placing heavy iron girders on the tracks at some remote spot where no one lives near the tracks . the trains hits the girder and gets derailed . most of these terror attacks have resulted in deaths and injuries .

[Elessar]

Such a sad news. Why do people gather so much hatred in them to do such things? You think that by bombing innocent people, your problem at home will be solved?

[Wplains]

The worst part is that this was a concert filled with children. Dead have now risen to 22 - I suspect there are many young kids among them. Awful!:(

[Dannii]

I am one hour away from Manchester, very tense atmosphere here.

[Wplains]

I am one hour away from Manchester, very tense atmosphere here.

Not surprised.

Pictured: First victim of Manchester terror attack named as 16-year-old Georgina Callander

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4533182/First-victim-Manchester-terror-attack-named.html#ixzz4htQI2FOv

16 years old....heartbreaking.

[Sarge]

Gutted.

Attacking kids. An 8 year old confirmed dead :mad: :(

[cat_sidhe]

I don't know what to say.

[Sarge]

I don't know what to say.

Me neither.

Heartbreaking.

[FromBeyond]

****.

[Dannii]

I am one hour away from Manchester, very tense atmosphere here.

Not surprised.

Pictured: First victim of Manchester terror attack named as 16-year-old Georgina Callander

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4533182/First-victim-Manchester-terror-attack-named.html#ixzz4htQI2FOv

16 years old....heartbreaking.
Are you in the UK too?

[Dannii]

One of our shopping malls has been evacuated.

[Captain Steel]

I don't know what to say.

I know what to say, but I doubt I'd be allowed to say it.

[Movie Max]

I know what to say, but I doubt I'd be allowed to say it.

Rats and cockroaches are moving up in the world, no longer the worst and most hated pests, as another species eagerly clings to that bottom spot.

[Captain Steel]

Manchester Arena bomber identified as Salman Abedi.
(What did I tell ya - sounds pretty Amish to me.)

Don't mistake my sarcasm as making light of the situation, rather it is a critique of those who continuously tout the progressive agenda of "the real threat is from Christians, Fundamentalist Islam no threat to us, no such thing as radical Islam or global Islamic terrorism, and let them all in."

The suspect is the son of refugees granted sanctuary in Britain.

PC liberals who oppose travel / refugee / immigration restrictions are "trumped" again by yet another example of how foolish and naive they are (no, naive isn't right - you can't be naive when you are proved wrong again and again and again) by continuing to tow their self-destructive PC line that ends up costing the lives of children.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/salman-abedi-manchester-attack_us_5923aed7e4b034684b0f367a

[Movie Max]

Manchester Arena bomber identified as Salman Abedi.
(What did I tell ya - sounds pretty Amish to me.)

Probably a convert, born John Smith.:rolleyes:

(no, naive isn't right - you can't be naive when you are proved wrong again and again and again) by continuing to tow their self-destructive PC line that ends up costing the lives of children.

No, not naive. All you have to be is a self-proclaimed activist with the urge to suppress or keep threads like this one dormant. See, that's just how you keep your world looking rosy.

[Sarge]

:mad:
:(

[Captain Steel]

big thread on manchester bombings on defence forum of india---

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/breaking-manchester-arena-blast-19-dead-and-more-than-50-hurt.79200/

Some of those posts got me thinking - all this talk of "carrying on as normal."

That's been the problem all along, every time one of these mass murders occurs the people are advised by leaders to carry on as normal. Well, it's not "normal." We should not be conditioned to start to believe this is normal and we're supposed to just go on as if it didn't happen.

Don't go on like normal - go on like an evil ideology once again massacred our children because that is exactly what's happened - it's happened before and nothing was done and will happen again if nothing is done!

Deploy the military! Demand every country in an alleged 65-nation "coalition" formed to stop ISIS half a decade ago finally commit troops to TAKE all ISIS held territories from all sides in one sweep using whatever force necessary (and if they don't want to participate then let them know they will be considered as "with the terrorists").

Tell the Arab League - put up or shut up! You either attack ISIS right now, start cleaning up the mess you created or be considered part of them! They're YOUR kids - it was your barbaric culture that spawned them and your cult that indoctrinated them - YOU start taking responsibility or suffer the consequences of being held responsible!

Drop a M.O.A.B. on an ISIS target everyday with the message that it won't stop until someone hands over Baghdadi!

Put mosques on notice that you WILL be surveilled! Put CARE on notice that as a terrorist co-conspirator you WILL be investigated. People WILL be profiled. Start arresting or deporting foreigners on terror watch lists. Start arresting those with ties to terrorism. Start arresting those at the ends of money trails that fund terrorism. Tell the U.N. to remove all state sponsors of terrorism from the security council now, or else you will no longer have a headquarters in our country and all your diplomats can leave tomorrow - no expenses paid!
Stop making arms deals with Muslim countries! Stop buying oil from Muslim countries. Tear up "deals" that give state-sponsors of terrorism money and resources to develop nuclear weapons! Stop telling allies that are subject to constant Islamic Terrorism to practice "restraint." Start telling the truth about Islam!

STOP GOING ON LIKE NORMAL! And stop listening to those who say the answer and response is to go on like normal. Stop listening to those whose only answer is sit back, relax and watch nothing happen as usual until we tell you about the next mass murder (maybe it will be near you so that you'll notice for a minute!) Genocide ON and ON and ON in country after country by the same murderers following the same cult of hate is not NORMAL!

[Dannii]

There's a vigil here in Liverpool to support our friends in Manchester. Been to Manchester many times, it's a lovely place, the people there are strong as shown on the news all over the world.

[christine]

mayor of london's statement makes no mention of islamic terrorism

30765

Ashdoc, Sadiq Khan will never issue a statement condemning 'Islamic' terrorism. No decent person in the UK will ever do that. To condemn the rest of the innocent Muslim population with that label will not happen and should not happen.

We never talked about Irish terrorism when the IRA were bombing mainland Britain. You can't call a whole set of peoples out like that.

[Don Schneider]

mayor of london's statement makes no mention of islamic terrorism

30765

Read here about Khan's links to a terrorist supporter and Jihad preaching man who praised the 9/11 terrorists and much, much more...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3544846/With-friends-like-Sadiq-Khan-fit-run-London-Labour-MP-s-dealings-Islamic-extremists-raise-doubts-suitability-London-s-mayor.html

This is the man that the people of London voted as their mayor? Eurabia is a lost cause. U.S. out of NATO! Let these degenerates defend themselves for once if anyone attacks them, like a resurgent Orthodox Russia.

[Equilibrium]

mayor of london's statement makes no mention of islamic terrorism

30765

Ashdoc, Sadiq Khan will never issue a statement condemning 'Islamic' terrorism. No decent person in the UK will ever do that. To condemn the rest of the innocent Muslim population with that label will not happen and should not happen.

We never talked about Irish terrorism when the IRA were bombing mainland Britain. You can't call a whole set of peoples out like that.


Totally agree. The time to seperate Islam from terrorism has come.

1.5 billion people on earth are Muslim and if they all subscribed to terrorism...trust me things would be a lot worse.

These terrorists are godless and belong to no religion no matter what they say. Islam doesn't want them.

[Equilibrium]

Ashdoc, Sadiq Khan will never issue a statement condemning 'Islamic' terrorism. No decent person in the UK will ever do that. To condemn the rest of the innocent Muslim population with that label will not happen and should not happen.

We never talked about Irish terrorism when the IRA were bombing mainland Britain. You can't call a whole set of peoples out like that.

the irish are different and the muslims are different . the irish are not driven by an ideology of world domination like the muslims are . nor does their population grow so fast .

your lack of experience on muslims will eventually lead to catastrophe if this attitude of denial about their real intentions continues this way . we hindus are far more experienced in dealing with these people and you got to trust us on this .

I have extensive experience with Muslims and I can assure you I don't know a single one bent on world domination.

When you say "Muslims" understand you're talking about 1.5 billion people. They are every where and all around you at all times and the VAST majority are just trying to live out peaceful lives.

[Equilibrium]

Also ashdoc, the hindu situation with Kashmir cannot be extrapolated to the rest of Islam. Horrors have been committed on both sides of that conflict.

[Captain Steel]

Ashdoc, Sadiq Khan will never issue a statement condemning 'Islamic' terrorism. No decent person in the UK will ever do that. To condemn the rest of the innocent Muslim population with that label will not happen and should not happen.

We never talked about Irish terrorism when the IRA were bombing mainland Britain. You can't call a whole set of peoples out like that.

So if it is improper to call it Islamic Terrorism then what should it be called?

One answer might be, "Why not just call it terrorism?" Well, because it's continuous terrorism united globally under a single ideology. Thus, it follows patterns and motives that are not the same as other terrorism (which currently is minimal compared to the overwhelming spread of Islamic Terrorism).

We can neither combat nor protect ourselves from an enemy if we won't identify it. Can't identify it would represent a lack of intelligence, but won't identify it represents a lack of responsibility - a level of negligence that would be on par with throwing our children to the wolves.

And by identifying it we can pinpoint who is more likely to commit it (rather than wasting resources chasing down say little old ladies from Alabama) where to look for it, what its origins are, what methods or strategies to look for, how it starts, how to stop or prevent it, etc.

Islam is not just a religion, it is also a political ideology, cultural mandate, a code for ethnic and religious discrimination & cleansing, a legal system based on dictatorial & oppressive principles, and a philosophy of war with a proudly stated goal of supremacy through genocide.

[Don Schneider]

I have extensive experience with Muslims and I can assure you I don't know a single one bent on world domination.

When you say "Muslims" understand you're talking about 1.5 billion people. They are every where and all around you at all times and the VAST majority are just trying to live out peaceful lives.

You said you are a surgeon, not a psychiatrist. I don’t believe you understand the psychology of either movements or individuals.

This particular suicide bombing terrorist is typical of what we have seen. His parents were Libyan refugees allowed into the U.K. Most such people are no problem, yes. The problem is that they have children (often a great many of them), as in this case. Young people, all young people, are prone to becoming disaffected for reasons having nothing to do with religion or politics. They’re unpopular in school, they don’t have a girlfriend, they can’t find a decent job or for myriad other reasons. They are “punk sore at the world, “ as Mario Puzo describes Carlo Rizzi in The Godfather. They are ripe for radicalization as religion provides the rationalization in their minds for taking out their frustrations and grievances on innocent third parties. This is exactly what we saw in the Boston and Orlando terror incidents.

Before the rise of the Nazis, the average German was characterized as being “moderately anti-Semitic.” But when the radicals came to power, the moderates didn’t kick up too much of a fuss, now did they? Radicals terrorize average people into following or at least acquiescing. Islam is the only religion of any consequence currently able to inspire such emotion and fanaticism and that makes it dangerous.

[Yoda]

We never talked about Irish terrorism when the IRA were bombing mainland Britain. You can't call a whole set of peoples out like that.
Without necessarily disagreeing, I think it's fair to point out that "Irish" is an ethnicity and "Islam" is an ideology. Criticizing someone for their race or place of birth is inherently bigoted, whereas criticizing them for their choices isn't.

[Equilibrium]

I have extensive experience with Muslims and I can assure you I don't know a single one bent on world domination.

When you say "Muslims" understand you're talking about 1.5 billion people. They are every where and all around you at all times and the VAST majority are just trying to live out peaceful lives.

You said you are a surgeon, not a psychiatrist. I don’t believe you understand the psychology of either movements or individuals.

This particular suicide bombing terrorist is typical of what we have seen. His parents were Libyan refugees allowed into the U.K. Most such people are no problem, yes. The problem is that they have children (often a great many of them), as in this case. Young people, all young people, are prone to becoming disaffected for reasons having nothing to do with religion or politics. They’re unpopular in school, they don’t have a girlfriend, they can’t find a decent job or for myriad other reasons. They are “punk sore at the world, “ as Mario Puzo describes Carlo Rizzi in The Godfather. They are ripe for radicalization as religion provides the rationalization in their minds for taking out their frustrations and grievances on innocent third parties. This is exactly what we saw in the Boston and Orlando terror incidents.

Before the rise of the Nazis, the average German was characterized as being “moderately anti-Semitic.” But when the radicals came to power, the moderates didn’t kick up too much of a fuss, now did they? Radicals terrorize average people into following or at least acquiescing . Islam is the only religion of any consequence currently able to inspire such emotion and fanaticism and that makes it dangerous.


Gonna ignore the Nazi comment and focus on he fact that:

1.) As a surgeon, I still had to do a psychiatry rotation during residency and medical school

2.) Being a psychiatrist is not a prerequisite for having a qualified opinion on this subject.

3.) I went to mosques quite often with friends when I was younger and even recently and I was always welcome with food and warmth and the sermons were always about loving your neighbor, following the word of good, asking for forgiveness...You know the same stuff I heard during mass growing up. I guess it's just my luck I missed the "how to be a terrorist" sermons.

4.) These guys are radicals. I have yet to meet any Muslim that does anything but denounce them. My Muslim friends at work are pretty visibly upset today because the religion they love is being further drugged through the mud by these foul human beings. These people are soulless, that are despised by all, Muslim or otherwise.

[Equilibrium]

Ashdoc, Sadiq Khan will never issue a statement condemning 'Islamic' terrorism. No decent person in the UK will ever do that. To condemn the rest of the innocent Muslim population with that label will not happen and should not happen.

We never talked about Irish terrorism when the IRA were bombing mainland Britain. You can't call a whole set of peoples out like that.

So if it is improper to call it Islamic Terrorism then what should it be called?

One answer might be, "Why not just call it terrorism?" Well, because it's continuous terrorism united globally under a single ideology. Thus, it follows patterns and motives that are not the same as other terrorism (which currently is minimal compared to the overwhelming spread of Islamic Terrorism).

We can neither combat nor protect ourselves from an enemy if we won't identify it. Can't identify it would represent a lack of intelligence, but won't identify it represents a lack of responsibility - a level of negligence that would be on par with throwing our children to the wolves.

And by identifying it we can pinpoint who is more likely to commit it (rather than wasting resources chasing down say little old ladies from Alabama) where to look for it, what its origins are, what methods or strategies to look for, how it starts, how to stop or prevent it, etc.

Islam is not just a religion, it is also a political ideology, cultural mandate, a code for ethnic and religious discrimination & cleansing, a legal system based on dictatorial & oppressive principles, and a philosophy of war with a proudly stated goal of supremacy through genocide.


I mean you can call it Islamic terrorism if you want but with the explicit understanding that it does not represent 99% of Muslims. That's why calling it Islamic is so..Well..misleading. The problem with religion is its followers.

Why don't we call the Nazis Radical Christian terrorism? Hitler was a very staunch Christian and thought Jesus was an Aryan fighter (Wikipedia source available if requested).

There ARE caveats though. For instance we call the kkk "white supremacists" but we all understand that not all white people are like that.

So yea, call them what you like my problem is with your underlying opinion that there must be something about Islam itself that causes people to become terrorists. And if this is your view point then I ask you to consider these two facts:

1.) 1.5 billion Muslims, shouldn't attacks be occurring hourly???? Daily??? I mean surely if even half the Muslims on earth are radicalized, the situation currently will be 1000x worse.

2.) More deaths have occurred in the name of Christianity than in the name of Islam and by a long shot. So....is there something in Christianity that causes people to go on murderous rampages? The answer is obviously not.

[Wplains]

Me neither.

Heartbreaking.

More candle lit vigils, more "we are not afraid" - right..... until the next atrocity! Shut down the radical mosques and deport foreign born criminals like the Rochdale abusers who are now fighting to remain in the U K at taxpayers' expense after being released from jail after having abused thousands of young girls . It's amazing how the police always say they were "aware" of these monsters but nothing is ever done about them. I'm totally disgusted with PC's and the apologists. Just totally furious and very angry at the moment as I watch the faces of the missing kids on TV.

And no I am not in the U.K. but I am European and feel a great solidarity with all European countries. Besides I have very close family members who are British.

[Equilibrium]

Me neither.

Heartbreaking.

More candle lit vigils, more "we are not afraid" - right..... until the next atrocity! Shut down the radical mosques and deport foreign born criminals like the Rochdale abusers who are now fighting to remain in the U K at taxpayers' expense after being released from jail after having abused thousands of young girls . It's amazing how the police always say they were "aware" of these monsters but nothing is ever done about them. I'm totally disgusted with PC's and the apologists. Just totally furious and very angry at the moment as I watch the faces of the missing kids on TV.

And no I am not in the U.K. but I am European and feel a great solidarity with all European countries. Besides I have very close family members who are British.

Who are the apologists. Pretty sure they are condemned by everyone and supported only by ISIS.

[Don Schneider]

I mean you can call it Islamic terrorism if you want but with the explicit understanding that it does not represent 99% of Muslims. That's why calling it Islamic is so..Well..misleading. The problem with religion is its followers.

Why don't we call the Nazis Radical Christian terrorism? Hitler was a very staunch Christian and thought Jesus was an Aryan fighter (Wikipedia source available if requested).

There ARE caveats though. For instance we call the kkk "white supremacists" but we all understand that not all white people are like that.

So yea, call them what you like my problem is with your underlying opinion that there must be something about Islam itself that causes people to become terrorists. And if this is your view point then I ask you to consider these two facts:

1.) 1.5 billion Muslims, shouldn't attacks be occurring hourly???? Daily??? I mean surely if even half the Muslims on earth are radicalized, the situation currently will be 1000x worse.

2.) More deaths have occurred in the name of Christianity than in the name of Islam and by a long shot. So....is there something in Christianity that causes people to go on murderous rampages? The answer is obviously not.

Hitler remained a nominal Catholic all his life, though I doubt he had been to Mass since his mother’s funeral. (However, it might account for his never having followed through on his threat to invade Vatican City to arrest all the anti-Nazi refugees being sheltered there; a latent fear of possible eternal ramifications.)

He once lamented the outcome of the Battle of Tours when Charles Martel and the Franks turned back the encroachment of the Moors into Europe. He stated that Christianity was not an appropriate religion for the “Aryan race” with its emphasis on meekness and humility. He said that Islam with its warlike nature would have been much better suited. He stated that inevitably the indigenous Europeans would have turned out the invaders but retained the religion as happened in parts of the Balkans.

Your knowledge of the Nazi period is abysmal. Church going was extremely discouraged within the Nazi party. (Goering was severely criticized for being married in a Lutheran church notwithstanding Hitler having been his best man.) Himmler and most of his fellow SS cranks advocated for the restoration of the ancient Germanic pagan religion along with their Infatuation with astrology. He felt as though he was the reincarnation of Henry the Fowler (876 – 2 July 936 A.D.), an early German king.

Might I suggest that if you are sufficiently interested in the subject that you go out and read at least a dozen well regarded books on the subject and then return to discuss the subject intelligently. My discussing this topic with you would not be unlike your discussing the latest surgical techniques with me.

[mark f]

/Thread closed. Please.

[Equilibrium]

Why closed? I was about to ask don for a rebuttal on the rest of my post instead of that one line he singled out! :p.

[Captain Steel]

I mean you can call it Islamic terrorism if you want but with the explicit understanding that it does not represent 99% of Muslims. That's why calling it Islamic is so..Well..misleading. The problem with religion is its followers.

Why don't we call the Nazis Radical Christian terrorism? Hitler was a very staunch Christian and thought Jesus was an Aryan fighter (Wikipedia source available if requested).

There ARE caveats though. For instance we call the kkk "white supremacists" but we all understand that not all white people are like that.

So yea, call them what you like my problem is with your underlying opinion that there must be something about Islam itself that causes people to become terrorists. And if this is your view point then I ask you to consider these two facts:

1.) 1.5 billion Muslims, shouldn't attacks be occurring hourly???? Daily??? I mean surely if even half the Muslims on earth are radicalized, the situation currently will be 1000x worse.

2.) More deaths have occurred in the name of Christianity than in the name of Islam and by a long shot. So....is there something in Christianity that causes people to go on murderous rampages? The answer is obviously not.

Well yes. That's obvious. I've read the Koran - it's a book about submitting to the will of God, Muslims being good to each other while establishing supremacy over all others via subjugation and genocide (and it's abrogated - meaning most of the peaceful passages are superseded by later intolerant passages - as Muhammad became more mad his "commandments" from Allah became more brutal.)

Within Islam, Muhammad is taught to be emulated as the example of a perfect man. He was a warrior and bandit who orchestrated mass murders and beheadings, and raped the wives of his victims after forcing them to watch the executions of their fathers, husbands and sons. Muslims don't deny this (yet there is no other religion or philosophy with a single founder that tells its followers to emulate the example of such heinous crimes). Muhammad commanded assassinations in response to insults. He made criticism of himself and his "religion" or attempts to leave his cult crimes punishable by death. He took slaves, kept women as sex slaves and he engaged in pedophilia.

Islam is like no other religion in that it has an eternally standing mandate from God authorizing his followers to murder non-believers for the crime of believing differently - and not just that, but saying they are duty-bound to do so. No other religion teaches this or anything even close. With such foundations & teachings it's not hard to understand why there are global networks of Islamic Terrorists.

Islamic attacks are occurring hourly and daily in Muslim dominated countries (look at some of the sites that track Islamic terror attacks - there are new entries everyday).

There's also the whole historical context - too long to go into, but most religions have been violent at some point. Mankind itself has slowly been evolving away from barbarism. Despite long histories of violence and corruption, most religions have grown up and adapted to the modern world, embracing coexistence over supremacy. Islam has not - it had an excessively violent and sadistic past and it's fundamental factions continue with the same ideology of supremacy - whereas with other religions, even the most fundamental factions are no longer conducting worldwide terrorism to achieve goals of genocide.

So, it boils down to my response to this argument I've heard so many times - when Christians engage in atrocities like murder they are acting in direct opposition to everything Christ taught and the example he set.

When Muslims engage in atrocities like murder in the name of religious supremacy they are acting in direct accordance to everything Muhammad taught and the example he set.

I totally agree that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, but this is despite what their ideology teaches, not because of it. Groups like ISIS are following directly what the Koran commands and the literal example of how to behave set by their Prophet.

[Captain Steel]

/Thread closed. Please.

Wanna talk about it, mark? (After all this is a "discussion" board - when I want a censorship board I turn off my computer and stare at the blank screen.) ;)

[christine]

Read here about Khan's links to a terrorist supporter and Jihad preaching man who praised the 9/11 terrorists and much, much more...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3544846/With-friends-like-Sadiq-Khan-fit-run-London-Labour-MP-s-dealings-Islamic-extremists-raise-doubts-suitability-London-s-mayor.html

This is the man that the people of London voted as their mayor? Eurabia is a lost cause. U.S. out of NATO! Let these degenerates defend themselves for once if anyone attacks them, like a resurgent Orthodox Russia.

I'm sorry, you quote the Daily Mail then you have lost me and most decent people in the UK

[Equilibrium]

Muhammad was not a pedophile or war bandit. He did not have sex slaves or behead people. And if you have credible sources to back up what you're saying let's see it. But you wont, just like you refused to back up anything you said in the other thread.

Sorry but you're a straight up Islamaphobe.

My experience with Muslims is that they are some of the kindest people on earth. And reading credible historic accounts of Mohammad indicate he was a gentleman and a peacemaker and a statesman of the highest quality. Everything you write is your opinion and quite frankly the opinion of the alt right and other fringe groups.

[Wplains]

Without necessarily disagreeing, I think it's fair to point out that "Irish" is an ethnicity and "Islam" is an ideology. Criticizing someone for their race or place of birth is inherently bigoted, whereas criticizing them for their choices isn't.

I was just going to say the exact same thing Yoda: Islam is NOT a race or a nationality. Sorry but as far as I'm concerned it's a fascist ideology based on the oppression and subjugation of women; an ideology which condemns homosexuality; an ideology which threatens peopple who want to leave it with ostracism at best and death at worst; an ideology which so wants to control every aspect of people's lives it even tells them which hand they must use to wipe their asses!

Islamphobia? Yup, phobia means the fear and horror of something. So tell me, from every terrorist event which has happened since 9/11, why we should not have a fear and horror of Islam?

Listen to the numbers this guy quotes about the so-called "tiny minority" of radical Muslims. Then go and check out an article in the Guardian (the Guardian, mind you, NOT the Daily Mail) about what British Muslims (supposed to be enlightened and educated after living in tolerant, free Britain) think about homosexuality and women's rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg

Half of all British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal, poll finds

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

Not scared yet? I am......

If the PC's are not reigned in and governments seen to be doing something (anything at all) to stop these radicals, then I am afraid one day we may really see populations hunting down and persecuting innocent Muslims. People will only tolerate things so far before they strike back.

PS-For those of you who don't know these British papers: the Daily Mail is the epitome of a right wing newspaper - much hated by the Left - and The Guardian is extremely left wing.

[Wplains]

/Thread closed. Please.

Why? Are you afraid of healthy discussions? The subject is uncomfortable therefore we sweep it under the carpet and just ignore all the issues?

[Don Schneider]

I'm sorry, you quote the Daily Mail then you have lost me and most decent people in the UK

Just because you don't like the source doesn't invalidate its accuracy in this instance. All of this came up during the mayoral campaign and apparently your PC countrymen didn't sufficiently care. Your PC infested people is doomed by birthrates. (What, Birmingham is 20% Muslim?) I'd suggest you'd start getting measured for appropriate female Islamic attire. Please don't even think about fleeing over here when the time comes. You'll never learn. Just plain fools.

[mark f]

Its one thing to have a discussion. It's another to vent. It's another thing to repeat, for years, seemingly ad infinitum, the same talking points in the far too many threads that this subject is brought up. I'm not censoring you - I can't do that. I'm asking everyone for a little self-censorship. I've typed thousands of comments I didn't post because I didn't think they would add any more to a "conversation" pissing contest.

[Don Schneider]

Why? Are you afraid of healthy discussions? The subject is uncomfortable therefore we sweep it under the carpet and just ignore all the issues?

That's the politically correct way, is it not? Hear no evil. See no evil....

[Captain Steel]

Muhammad was not a pedophile or war bandit. He did not have sex slaves or behead people. And if you have credible sources to back up what you're saying let's see it. But you wont, just like you refused to back up anything you said in the other thread.

Sorry but you're a straight up Islamaphobe.

My experience with Muslims is that they are some of the kindest people on earth. And reading credible historic accounts of Mohammad indicate he was a gentleman and a peacemaker and a statesman of the highest quality. Everything you write is your opinion and quite frankly the opinion of the alt right and other fringe groups.

My gosh.

Do you know who Aisha was? (Do you know how old she was when Muhammad took her for a wife or when he "consummated" their marriage?).

How did Muhammad "spread" Islam (did he just walk around with 12 friends and preach while handing out fish & bread?) ;)

How do you think he funded his war campaigns? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad
(see: Raids on Meccan caravans)

Do you know who the Banu Qurayza Jews were? This was the tribe where Muhammad ordered the beheadings of all men and boys over the age of puberty (between 600 and 900 of them!), and from which he took certain of his wives (former wives of his victims). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_wives#Widows_of_the_war_with_Mecca

Sorry to quote Wiki (since it's kind of considered the low brow of Internet info and not always entirely accurate - but it is quickest - and rest assured, when it comes to Islamic history they give the benefit of the doubt by whitewashing it with a PC brush - so the atrocities, many as they are even with the PC treatment - some things just can't be denied - are lacking in detail of how bad they were, which more indepth sites will explain).

I don't want to sound insulting Equi, but when you make statements that just deny historical facts with a knee-jerk defiance, it sounds like you haven't done much research on the subject. No offense.

[christine]

Just because you don't like the source doesn't invalidate its accuracy in this instance. All of this came up during the mayoral campaign and apparently your PC countrymen didn't sufficiently care. Your PC infested people is doomed by birthrates. (What, Birmingham is 20% Muslim?) I'd suggest you'd start getting measured for appropriate female Islamic attire. Please don't even think about fleeing over here when the time comes. You'll never learn. Just plain fools.

I don't like the source, it's well known in the U.K. for its right wing racist views. What mayoral campaign are you talking about anyway? Manchester? The best Labour leader we never had.

I'm sorry mate but you've launched a personal attack on me, and fleeing to a place where your views are prevalent is the last thing that'd ever be on my mind

[Yoda]

It feels like people are walking right up to the line of what constitutes a personal attack regularly in this thread, and sometimes going over it. And while I'm not sure whether or not counting someone among a group and then attacking the group technically qualifies, it's certainly against the spirit of the rule.

I'm not interested in parsing statements that are interested in straddling that line, though, so from now I'm not only removing any post that contains an ad hominem attack, but I'm not even going to bother informing anyone because, frankly, I don't have the time.

It is really, really easy for everyone to make their points without engaging in personal attacks, so there's no excuse for it.

[Wplains]

Its one thing to have a discussion. It's another to vent. It's another thing to repeat, for years, seemingly ad infinitum, the same talking points in the far too many threads that this subject is brought up. I'm not censoring you - I can't do that. I'm asking everyone for a little self-censorship. I've typed thousands of comments I didn't post because I didn't think they would add any more to a "conversation" pissing contest.

Sorry, it seems to me you are not happy because (in your opinion) this discussion is not PC. So you want to shut it down. That's censorship in my book. And I really don't see why I should subscribe to your notion of "self censorship".

Please disregard the positive point I gave you by mistake. Pressed the wrong banner there.

And if this post is considered an "attack", well sorry but it's just my opinion. I have to think with my own mind, not someone else's.

[Don Schneider]

I don't like the source, it's well known in the U.K. for its right wing racist views. What mayoral campaign are you talking about anyway? Manchester? The best Labour leader we never had.

I'm sorry mate but you've launched a personal attack on me, and fleeing to a place where your views are prevalent is the last thing that'd ever be on my mind

The post was about Khan, so what mayoral race do you think I was talking about? Regarding your last point, thank you for the reassurance.

[Yoda]

Sorry, it seems to me you are not happy because (in your opinion) this discussion is not PC.
I don't know why it seems that way to you, since he specifically listed other reasons: that people just repeat themselves, and are largely just venting. He didn't say anything about not being happy because some random group might be offended, so assuming this is about political correctness would appear to be total speculation.

So you want to shut it down. That's censorship in my book.
There's a lot of daylight between censorship and just not thinking a discussion is worth having, or can't be had without devolving into pointless nastiness.

And I really don't see why I shoudl subscribe to your notion of "self censorship".
Because it could lead to much more productive, civil discussions, I think. And it feels odd to have to defend such a universally-acknowledged virtue as considering what one says before saying it.

[Wplains]

British threat level has just been raised to "critical". This means they will probably be calling out the army. Good, maybe they can learn something from the Israelis. One of the safest countries I've ever been in.

[Cobpyth]

Muhammad was not a pedophile or war bandit. He did not have sex slaves or behead people. And if you have credible sources to back up what you're saying let's see it. But you wont, just like you refused to back up anything you said in the other thread.

Yes, he was. There's serious historical consent about that. I don't see why people feel the need to deny this.

It's painful that you're somehow not seen as a "kind" or "decent" person by a large part of our western society when you bring up simple facts like this concerning Islam or when you even dare to say that Islam as an ideology has major problems with it.

Oh well, I've had this discussion more than a hundred times already and the results from those discussions haven't really been fruitful, so I'll leave it at that.

[christine]

Manchester? It's the last mayoral race we've had that's relevant to the discussion.
And as for my last point you're welcome. I'd live in Manchester any day, or within 30 miles anyway!

[Don Schneider]

I don't know why it seems that way to you, since he specifically listed other reasons: that people just repeat themselves, and are largely just venting. He didn't say anything about not being happy because some random group might be offended, so assuming this is about political correctness would appear to be total speculation.

There's a lot of daylight between censorship and just not thinking a discussion is worth having, or can't be had without devolving into pointless nastiness.

Because it could lead to much more productive, civil discussions, I think. And it feels odd to have to defend such a universally-acknowledged virtue as considering what one says before saying it.

Points well, taken, Yoda. Must tone things down. Emotions have a way of spiraling out of control. Most of us are guilty of that.

[Don Schneider]

Manchester? It's the last mayoral race we've had that's relevant to the discussion.
And as for my last point you're welcome. I'd live in Manchester any day, or within 30 miles anyway!

Will you please go back and read my post that you quoted to determine what mayoral race I was referring to? Thank you. Although you don't live there, I assume you know what (major!) city in your own country that Sadiq Khan is (unfortunately) currently mayor of. Gees.

[christine]

Will you please go back and read my post that you quoted to determine what mayoral race I was referring to? Thank you. Although you don't live there, I assume you know what (major!) city in your own country that Sadiq Khan is (unfortunately) currently mayor of. Gees.

Fortunately it's not within your remit to feel anything about what mayors we have or we don't have.

[Don Schneider]

Fortunately it's not within your remit to feel anything about what mayors we have or we don't have.

That's the first thing you've said that I actually agree with! Guilty as charged. I don't live in Eurabia (and rest assured, never will!) How very sad. Once upon a time: "Bluebirds are over the white cliffs of Dover."

[Captain Steel]

Was just checking out some of the info from the Wikipedia links I posted and just as an example of the whitewashing I mentioned I found this:

"Close to Aisha's age, the two younger wives Hafsa and Zaynab were welcomed into the household."

"Welcomed into the household..." did you catch that? Wiki says these girls were "Welcomed into the household!" (Awww, isn't that sweet? Good ol' kindly Muhammad taking in little orphan girls - no wonder he's Allah's example of a perfect man to be followed!)

Let's review the context - these were little girls who just watched all the men and boys in their families beheaded (many accounts say that Muhammad and his men raped these girls as they forced them to watch the mass beheadings). They weren't his "wives" - they were kidnapped, enslaved children, put into bondage (probably tied up and chained for transport) and forced to "marry" this sick murderer and be used after that as child sex toys.

But Wiki says they were "welcomed" into what they call a "household" - which for the captured child brides was a concentration camp of rape and torture. Exactly what ISIS is doing with scores of little Christian girls in Iraq as we speak - following the direct example of their Prophet... Islam's "perfect" man!

[Captain Steel]

Points well, taken, Yoda. Must tone things down. Emotions have a way of spiraling out of control. Most of us are guilty of that.

Not hard to understand, Don, considering the reports of nearly two dozen people (mostly teens and little girls) killed and over 60 with devastating injuries.

I usually get like that after these attacks - and this is my way of venting.

I look back at my post from earlier today calling for some extreme measures that would show that we're not just going to "carry on as normal." It was a rant, but I don't retract them. They are things I'd like to see a President do (just don't know if I'd trust Trump to handle such measures in an effective way).

[Wplains]

.

I look back at my post from earlier today calling for some extreme measures that would show that we're not just going to "carry on as normal." It was a rant, but I don't retract them..

Unfortunately, we all know that nothing will be done as usual. The radicals will not be deported and will continue to use British taxpayer's money to fight their extradition in the courts. . The radical mosques will not be shut down and their members disbanded in the name of "tolerance". The suspected terrorists pinpointed by the police will continue to live their lives untroubled by the authorities while they plan their next attack - because, mark my words, there will be many, many more attacks like this one. If the UK ever manages Brexit they might, one day, be able to control their borders.....if Labour and Corbyn don't manage to get in. Maybe.....one day.....though I sincerely doubt it.

[Equilibrium]

Muhammad was not a pedophile or war bandit. He did not have sex slaves or behead people. And if you have credible sources to back up what you're saying let's see it. But you wont, just like you refused to back up anything you said in the other thread.

Yes, he was. There's serious historical consent about that. I don't see why people feel the need to deny this.

It's painful that you're somehow not seen as a "kind" or "decent" person by a large part of our western society when you bring up simple facts like this concerning Islam or when you even dare to say that Islam as an ideology has major problems with it.

Oh well, I've had this discussion more than a hundred times already and the results from those discussions haven't really been fruitful, so I'll leave it at that.
Let's see the proof of this "serious historical consent"

[Equilibrium]

To all the "Mohammed is a pedophile" people.

The age of aisha ranges from 9 to 18. No one knew her exact age. The most reliable source which is where we get everything we know about the life of the Prophet Muhammad is from ibn Hisham who wrote the life of the prophet roughly four hundred years after he lived in this source which is regarded as the most trusted Source aisha is roughly 16 years of age when she was married to the prophet there after the prophet specifically stated that he did not want to consummate the marriage until she was older. The marriage was consummated three years after the actual marriage therefore if these sources are correct she was roughly above the age of 20 and he was roughly the age of 40. A 40 year old MARRYING a 20 year old in 600 AD is nothing that anyone even in the Western Hemisphere would have raised their eyebrow at so keep talking about pedophilia.

[Captain Steel]

Let's see the proof of this historical consent.

LOL! I provided posts from a very liberal site that addressed all these points and even PC-bent Wikipedia confirms them! Most Muslims don't even deny Muhammad's history!!!

And the facts are so easily found on the Internet. You can look any of this info up yourself. Did you look up Aisha's age? (You do know what a pedophile is, right?)

Now, if you want to argue that child marriage is a cultural thing that must be viewed in an historical context (an argument I've heard many times before), that's fine, at least it's got some validity to it and doesn't just deny all history. It doesn't change the fact that it was what we call pedophilia.

You can argue semantics: Muhammad was a travelling preacher who just happened to form armies, invade others' territories and killed a lot of people. Okay - religious feelings aside, we still call that a warrior.
Muhammad justified his ransacking and taking spoils of war as religiously justified by his visions of Allah. Okay - whether he justified it with his own rational, was crazy or was actually talking to some god, that makes him no less of a bandit.

[Equilibrium]

Let's see the proof of this historical consent.

LOL! I provided posts from a very liberal site that addressed all these points and even PC-bent Wikipedia confirms them! Most Muslims don't even deny Muhammad's history!!!

And the facts are so easily found on the Internet. You can look any of this info up yourself. Did you look up Aisha's age? (You do know what a pedophile is, right?)

Now, if you want to argue that child marriage is a cultural thing that must be viewed in an historical context (an argument I've heard many times before), that's fine, at least it's got some validity to it and doesn't just deny all history. It doesn't change the fact that it was what we call pedophilia.

You can argue semantics: Muhammad was a travelling preacher who just happened to form armies, invade others' territories and killed a lot of people. Okay - religious feelings aside, we still call that a warrior.
Muhammad justified his ransacking and taking spoils of war as religiously justified by his visions of Allah. Okay - whether he justified it with his own rational, was crazy or was actually talking to some god, that makes him no less of a bandit.


See my post above.

[Sarge]

Most people appreciate that not all Muslims are terrorists, but a lot of Terrorists are claiming to kill in the name of Islam and this has to be acknowledged.

In the same way that not all white British people are racists, but some are.

Extremism should not be tolerated.

One of the things that does anger me is the response from Muslim community leaders.

It is one thing condemning the acts of terrorism but it needs to be more. The community leaders should be saying something like "Someone must know who these people are. If you notice your family member, friend or neighbour acting suspiciously then report it to the authorities."

I know that it is in the Koran that a Muslim should not side with an 'Infidel' over a Muslim but if you do nothing then you are an accomplice as far as I am concerned.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing"

Hate preachers and terrorist sympathisers should be deported if they are not nationals and if they are then they should be charged under terrorism laws,

I wouldn't name the killer in the media either.

I would just say "The attack was carried out by a coward..."

Name the dead, honour them and give them tributes, but the murderers should not get any attention.

[Dani8]

I wouldn't name the killer in the media either.

I would just say "The attack was carried out by a coward..."

Name the dead, honour them and give them tributes, but the murderers should not get any attention.

I couldn't agree more, Sarge, but unfortunately they did. I think the British media was keeping quiet on it; I'm not sure who named the coward.

[Sarge]

I couldn't agree more, Sarge, but unfortunately they did. I think the British media was keeping quiet on it; I'm not sure who named the coward.

He was named by the American media hours before the BBC and SKY news released it.

[Dani8]

He was named by the American media hours before the BBC and SKY news released it.

I cant find the first article I saw this morning but I also read that American anti terrorism tipped the Brit authorities off to who it was.They really shouldn't name those individuals but every single time. As you said, just refer to them as murderers and cowards.

[Cobpyth]

To all the "Mohammed is a pedophile" people.

The age of aisha ranges from 9 to 18. No one knew her exact age. The most reliable source which is where we get everything we know about the life of the Prophet Muhammad is from ibn Hisham who wrote the life of the prophet roughly four hundred years after he lived in this source which is regarded as the most trusted Source aisha is roughly 16 years of age when she was married to the prophet there after the prophet specifically stated that he did not want to consummate the marriage until she was older. The marriage was consummated three years after the actual marriage therefore if these sources are correct she was roughly above the age of 20 and he was roughly the age of 40. A 40 year old MARRYING a 20 year old in 600 AD is nothing that anyone even in the Western Hemisphere would have raised their eyebrow at so keep talking about pedophilia.

This is utterly false. The dishonesty and/or anti-intellectualism of this post is truly depressing.

Read this:
All the historical arguments that prove Muhammad married Aisha when she was 5-6 years old and consummated that marriage with her when she was 9-10 years old (http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/prepubescent.htm)

and this:
All the typical Islamic responses in defense of/denying Muhammad's pedophilia and why they are not historically/factually accurate (http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/prepubescent2.htm)

What you're saying in this post would not even be taken seriously by some of the most extreme Muhammad apologists, by the way.

[Equilibrium]

Most people appreciate that not all Muslims are terrorists, but a lot of Terrorists are claiming to kill in the name of Islam and this has to be acknowledged.

In the same way that not all white British people are racists, but some are.

Extremism should not be tolerated.

One of the things that does anger me is the response from Muslim community leaders.

It is one thing condemning the acts of terrorism but it needs to be more. The community leaders should be saying something like "Someone must know who these people are. If you notice your family member, friend or neighbour acting suspiciously then report it to the authorities."

I know that it is in the Koran that a Muslim should not side with an 'Infidel' over a Muslim but if you do nothing then you are an accomplice as far as I am concerned.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing"

Hate preachers and terrorist sympathisers should be deported if they are not nationals and if they are then they should be charged under terrorism laws,

I wouldn't name the killer in the media either.

I would just say "The attack was carried out by a coward..."

Name the dead, honour them and give them tributes, but the murderers should not get any attention.
Agree.

Many here would disagree on your statement regarding overall goodness of Muslims

[Captain Steel]

See my post above.

Aisha's age is definitely controversial: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Aishas_Age_of_Consummation

The most commonly accepted age by historians who are not apologists is based on the record of the girl's own claims - that she was taken by Muhammad when she was 6 and the marriage was consummated (i.e. the old man raped her) when she was 9.

I would like to add that we've had characters like the Ayatollah Khomeini advocating the rape of little girls and even female infants by Muslim men - he was regarded as one of the most revered and learned Islamic historians - basing his profound (and disgusting) "insights" on the practices and history of his Prophet. If Islam thought pedophilia immoral, why would one of their highest ranking, most revered Imam's (among many) be promoting sex with infants?

Whatever the historic truth is, Muslim men are still practicing forced marriage to little girls, child slavery, taking child brides, and committing rape on children in emulation of Muhammad. And ISIS has targeted little Christian girls in particular for their practice of this sick emulation.

http://imgur.com/N7FqYmD

[Equilibrium]

See my post above.

Aisha's age is definitely controversial: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Aishas_Age_of_Consummation

The most commonly accepted age by historians who are not apologists is based on the record of the girl's own claims - that she was taken by Muhammad when she was 6 and the marriage was consummated (i.e. the old man raped her) when she was 9.

I would like to add that we've had characters like the Ayatollah Khomeini advocating the rape of little girls and even female infants by Muslim men - he was regarded as one of the most revered and learned Islamic historians - basing his profound (and disgusting) "insights" on the practices and history of his Prophet. If Islam thought pedophilia immoral, why would one of their highest ranking, most revered Imam's (among many) be promoting sex with infants?

Whatever the historic truth is, Muslim men are still practicing forced marriage to little girls, child slavery, taking child brides, and committing rape on children in emulation of Muhammad. And ISIS has targeted little Christian girls in particular for their practice of this sick emulation.

http://imgur.com/N7FqYmD

The source you just quoted says the following:

"These dubious research techniques have led to several conflicting ages to be proposed for Aisha at the time of consummation, including 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 21 years"

But yea. She was 9 according to you.

Go read your conspiracy theories.

[Cobpyth]

The source you just quoted says the following:

"These dubious research techniques have led to several conflicting ages to be proposed for Aisha at the time of consummation, including 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 21 years"

But yea. She was 9 according to you.

Go read your conspiracy theories.

Learn to read before you attack someone.

[Captain Steel]

https://userscontent2.emaze.com/images/90ff1860-1863-4163-801b-950aa5b4e578/e599dc5a5b28beed97055e8f78eb70ce.jpg

First communion, being escorted by Dad? How cute...

Sorry... No, this is a marriage ceremony in Islam.
(You people really have no idea how sick this ideology actually is - you may know some western Muslims who don't practice this stuff and are perfectly good people - but that doesn't mean you know Islam.)

http://iranpoliticsclub.net/photos/muslim-child-brides/index.htm

https://egyptianstreets.com/2015/08/01/child-marriages-form-15-of-all-marriages-in-egypt/

[Equilibrium]

https://userscontent2.emaze.com/images/90ff1860-1863-4163-801b-950aa5b4e578/e599dc5a5b28beed97055e8f78eb70ce.jpg

First communion, being escorted by Dad? How cute...

Sorry... No, this is a marriage ceremony in Islam.
(You people really have no idea how sick this ideology actually is - you may know some western Muslims who don't practice this stuff and are perfectly good people - but that doesn't mean you know Islam.)

https://userscontent2.emaze.com/images/90ff1860-1863-4163-801b-950aa5b4e578/e599dc5a5b28beed97055e8f78eb70ce.jpg

http://iranpoliticsclub.net/photos/muslim-child-brides/index.htm


That is very disturbing.


But guess what I've been to the middle east and I can tell you that crap does not exist. Don't tell me "you don't know Islam" because I can tell you that I know Islam very very well. First hand, non western Islam.

[Equilibrium]

The source you just quoted says the following:

"These dubious research techniques have led to several conflicting ages to be proposed for Aisha at the time of consummation, including 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 21 years"

But yea. She was 9 according to you.

Go read your conspiracy theories.

Learn to read before you attack someone.

I didn't attack anyone. But he enjoys distorting history and I enjoy correcting him.

The source clearly states that the age ranges widely. And that was my point.

Learn to think before you type.

[Equilibrium]

To all the "Mohammed is a pedophile" people.

The age of aisha ranges from 9 to 18. No one knew her exact age. The most reliable source which is where we get everything we know about the life of the Prophet Muhammad is from ibn Hisham who wrote the life of the prophet roughly four hundred years after he lived in this source which is regarded as the most trusted Source aisha is roughly 16 years of age when she was married to the prophet there after the prophet specifically stated that he did not want to consummate the marriage until she was older. The marriage was consummated three years after the actual marriage therefore if these sources are correct she was roughly above the age of 20 and he was roughly the age of 40. A 40 year old MARRYING a 20 year old in 600 AD is nothing that anyone even in the Western Hemisphere would have raised their eyebrow at so keep talking about pedophilia.

This is utterly false. The dishonesty and/or anti-intellectualism of this post is truly depressing.

Read this:
All the historical arguments that prove Muhammad married Aisha when she was 5-6 years old and consummated that marriage with her when she was 9-10 years old (http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/prepubescent.htm)

and this:
All the typical Islamic responses in defense of/denying Muhammad's pedophilia and why they are not historically/factually accurate (http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/prepubescent2.htm)

What you're saying in this post would not even be taken seriously by some of the most extreme Muhammad apologists, by the way.


You quoted answering Islam?!?!?!? Hahahahahaha.

Dude. That site was debunked a long time ago. For your own sake do not ever use that site as your reference.

Haha. Ok I'm a lot more relieved now. For a second I thought you may be little slow but now I see your source explains all your thoughts.

Please read something other anti-muslim websites. Seriously.

Or if you want I can deny the Holocaust and direct you to the myriad of websites that make that claim and support it with all kinds of convincing material.

[Captain Steel]

That is very disturbing.


But guess what I've been to the middle east and I can tell you that crap does not exist. Don't tell me "you don't know Islam" because I can tell you that I know Islam very very well. First hand, non western Islam.

So, my friend, how do you explain the articles on child brides? (There are tons more from all over the world because people are outraged.)
Propaganda? Fake News? Who are the people posing for the photos? Anti-Muslim Christians or Jews exploiting their own daughters to get "even" with Islam?

Again, I'm not trying to insult you (I'm enjoying debating all this with you), but you just got done denying many simple and checkable facts of Muhammad's & Islam's history that posters here have provided references for, then you say you know Islam very very well. First hand, non western Islam.

What Muslims told you Muhammad was not a warrior, never ransacked, never orchestrated mass executions and didn't engage in what we now define as pedophilia - I'd like to know because there are a few million Muslims (both radical and moderate) who have no problem confirming these things as facts and part of their religion's history.

[mark f]

Fake news, yes. (http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/masswedding.asp)

[Equilibrium]

That is very disturbing.


But guess what I've been to the middle east and I can tell you that crap does not exist. Don't tell me "you don't know Islam" because I can tell you that I know Islam very very well. First hand, non western Islam.

So, my friend, how do you explain the articles on child brides? (There are tons more from all over the world because people are outraged.)
Propaganda? Fake News? Who are the people posing for the photos? Anti-Muslim Christians or Jews exploiting their own daughters to get "even" with Islam?

Nah I'm sure there are.messed up people who would love to use their religion for their own evil deeds.

So why aren't 1.5 billion Muslims married to kids then if that's the ideology??

Also, what about all those cases of polygamy in utah..does the west preach devaluing women????

Give me a break dude. Your understanding of Islam is rooted in pure ignorance. I've been to the middle east. I've lived there. I've spent years there, in multiple countries. I know Islam and Muslims intimately.I'm telling you, you are so so wrong.

[Camo]

Fake news, yes. (http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/masswedding.asp)

Ouch. That's embarrassing

[Equilibrium]

Fake news, yes. (http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/masswedding.asp)
Thank you mark.

I knew it couldn't be true.

[Equilibrium]

That is very disturbing.


But guess what I've been to the middle east and I can tell you that crap does not exist. Don't tell me "you don't know Islam" because I can tell you that I know Islam very very well. First hand, non western Islam.

So, my friend, how do you explain the articles on child brides? (There are tons more from all over the world because people are outraged.)
Propaganda? Fake News? Who are the people posing for the photos? Anti-Muslim Christians or Jews exploiting their own daughters to get "even" with Islam?

Again, I'm not trying to insult you (I'm enjoying debating all this with you), but you just got done denying many simple and checkable facts of Muhammad's & Islam's history that posters here have provided references for, then you say you know Islam very very well. First hand, non western Islam.

What Muslims told you Muhammad was not a warrior, never ransacked, never orchestrated mass executions and didn't engage in what we now define as pedophilia - I'd like to know because there are a few million Muslims (both radical and moderate) who have no problem confirming these things as facts and part of their religion's history.


You just got caught citing fake news stories, your other friend is quoting "answering islam" a notoriously antimuslim website that actually changes koranic verses.

You guys just don't want to deal with facts. That's why you come up with crap like "Mohammed is pedophile".

You're reading some rotten sources.

[Wplains]

I wouldn't name the killer in the media either.

I would just say "The attack was carried out by a coward..."

Name the dead, honour them and give them tributes, but the murderers should not get any attention.

This is something that has come up and is rather interesting. The British press are saying the ones who named the guy was actually the US press. Also, yesterday night, as I watching the events unfold live in Manchester (I have Sky News on my cabe channel) the reporters kept saying the Manchester police were being extremely cautions and not even officially saying it was a terrorist attack yet or even how many dead there were. Just that there were "fatalities". And then the reporters told us that American news sources were reporting 20 dead a full hour before the Brits did - and it turned out to be a very accurate count. Interesting that, huh? Wonder where they got the information from way before the British did?

[Cobpyth]

I don't attack anyone. But he enjoys distorting history and I enjoy correcting him.

The source clearly states that the age ranges widely. And that was my point.

Learn to think before you type.

You apparently don't even know what "dubious research techniques" means? Then I can't have a serious discussion with you.

Captain Steel is 100% correct about Muhammad's pedophilia and you are 100% wrong. Every respected historian in the world would agree with us and would be depressed by your unwillingness to face the truth that has been revealed to us through a large amount of valuable and credible historical sources. The most credible ones are mentioned in the links I've included in my earlier response to you.

It seems like you are the one who's distorting history and I have to say that I don't enjoy correcting you at all. It actually makes me rather sad that there are people who are still denying simple historical truths like this that are largely accepted in both the academic, theological and general intellectual world, especially when they don't seem to have even the slightest intention of actually looking at the historical facts that are being presented to you.

P.S. Check the sources that are cited. I don't care about the site they are posted on. Those are all that matter.

[Cobpyth]

You just got caught citing fake news stories, your other friend is quoting "answering islam" a notoriously antimuslim website that actually changes koranic verses.

You guys just don't want to deal with facts. That's why you come up with crap like "Mohammed is pedophile".

You're reading some rotten sources.

Answering Islam still mostly cites reputable sources. Look into them instead of simply saying "that site is debunked". Look at the literal texts of the historical sources.

You're the one who's denying generally accepted historical truths.

[Equilibrium]

I don't attack anyone. But he enjoys distorting history and I enjoy correcting him.

The source clearly states that the age ranges widely. And that was my point.

Learn to think before you type.

You apparently don't even know what "dubious research techniques" means? Then I can't have a serious discussion with you.

Captain Steel is 100% correct about Muhammad's pedophilia and you are 100% wrong. Every respected historian in the world would agree with us and would be depressed by your unwillingness to face the truth that has been revealed to us through a large amount of valuable and credible historical sources. The most credible ones are mentioned in the links I've included in my earlier response to you.

It seems like you are the one who's distorting history and I have to say that I don't enjoy correcting you at all. It actually makes me rather sad that there are people who are still denying simple historical truths like this that are largely accepted in both the academic, theological and general intellectual world, especially when they don't seem to have even the slightest intention of actually looking at the historical facts that are being presented to you.

P.S. Check the sources that are cited. I don't care about the site they are posted on. Those are all that matter.


Yea ok. Go read more answering Islam, I'm sure they are just as accurate as that story your compadre just posted.

I'm "100%" wrong lmao. Your OWN source says she was anywhere from 12 to 21. How dense are you??!!


Dude I just can't, is comical now.

[Equilibrium]

You just got caught citing fake news stories, your other friend is quoting "answering islam" a notoriously antimuslim website that actually changes koranic verses.

You guys just don't want to deal with facts. That's why you come up with crap like "Mohammed is pedophile".

You're reading some rotten sources.

Answering Islam still mostly cites reputable sources. Look into them instead of simply saying "that site is debunked". Look at the literal texts of the historical sources.

You're the one who's denying generally accepted historical truths.


They are not generally accepted truths and I will not read a website that's the equivalent of the KKK writing an article on black women's rights. Think bro. Think.

[Cobpyth]

LAST POST (ok, it isn't):

Captain Steel's news story was fake news and I wasn't defending that.

All of the sources I've checked on the page about Aisha on the site I've posted earlier seem sound to me.

The notion that Muhammad was a pedophile is a widely accepted truth amongst historians and NOT a conspiracy theory. Everyone who denies the fact that it's widely accepted and that it's confirmed by many sound historical sources is either ignorant or unwilling to face the truth.

They are not generally accepted truths and I will not read a website that's the equivalent of the KKK writing an article on black women's rights. Think bro. Think.

This is a preposterous comparison. Look at the actual sources.

I'm "100%" wrong lmao. Your OWN source says she was anywhere from 12 to 21. How dense are you??!!

This is painfully ironic. This guy reads: "DUBIOUS RESEARCH TECHNIQUES" have resulted in different ages (12-21) compared the mainstream historical accepted age (9-10 years old) and thinks this proces that she was 12 to 21 years old. And Then calls me dense?
Painful to read.

That's all.

[Captain Steel]

Fake news, yes. (http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/masswedding.asp)

Okay, I'll concede that one (but how do we know all the claims of fake news aren't fake themselves?) ;)

And what about all the other reports? What about Khomeini on the record with the infant sex?

It's all fake news then? All of it? The pedophila, the history of Muhammad, the terror attacks with the "Allahu Akbar"? Fort Hood? ISIS in Iraq & Syria? False Flags? Where do we draw the line, that's what I want to know? Do we just give up, realize that absolutely nothing can be confirmed and enjoy the Matrix?

How do we know Ariana Grande didn't just pull a "Grande" publicity stunt?

(Like my friend, the conspiracy theorist says - "The guy at the school was whispering in Bush's ear that the mission was a success - that's why Bush just sat there and nodded. Cheney fired the missile into the Pentagon. There is no Flight 93 - just a bomb blast in a field and a plane in a hanger! Then he said "pull" building 7! They blamed it all on Hussein to get the oil! And those beheading films from Iraq? All those guys with the masks were American CIA! It's all just to frame Muslims! Don't you see that?")

P.S. I thought you wanted this thread closed? ;)

[Camo]

The first sources linked in that first AnsweringIslam link take you to a University of SouthCalorina page where it says "Sorry, the page you are looking for does not exist." The rest are to anti-islam sites.

[Captain Steel]

P.S. "caught" - that suggests I intentionally tried to spread fake news. I didn't know it was fake - it was a photo that came up when I went to research articles on the subject and it had a story with it. My bad for falling for the sensationalistic aspect & not investigating it.

And you wanna know why? Because "Lois, I never lie." I make mistakes, but I never lie. :)

[Camo]

I'm not siding with anyone here for the record, i've read the whole discussion and frankly i don't see how this is relevant to anything at all. Don't think either side gets an upper hand whether he was or wasn't a paedophile.

[Equilibrium]

Fake news, yes. (http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/masswedding.asp)

Okay, I'll concede that one (but how do we know all the claims of fake news aren't fake themselves?) ;)

And what about all the other reports? What about Khomeini on the record with the infant sex?

It's all fake news then? All of it? The pedophila, the history of Muhammad, the terror attacks with the "Allahu Akbar"? Fort Hood? ISIS in Iraq & Syria? False Flags? Where do we draw the line, that's what I want to know? Do we just give up, realize that absolutely nothing can be confirmed and enjoy the Matrix?

How do we know Ariana Grande didn't just pull a "Grande" publicity stunt?

(Like my friend, the conspiracy theorist says - "The guy at the school was whispering in Bush's ear that the mission was a success - that's why Bush just sat there and nodded. Cheney fired the missile into the Pentagon. There is no Flight 93 - just a bomb blast in a field and a plane in a hanger! Then he said "pull" building 7! They blamed it all on Hussein to get the oil! And those beheading films from Iraq? All those guys with the masks were American CIA! It's all just to frame Muslims! Don't you see that?")

P.S. I thought you wanted this thread closed? ;)


Nah man, can't take anyone who that easily posts a fake story. Nothing you say is credible to me. Have a nice day.

[Equilibrium]

LAST POST:

Captain Steel's news story was fake news and I wasn't defending that.

All of the sources I've checked on the page about Aisha on the site I've posted earlier seem sound to me.

The notion that Muhammad was a pedophile is a widely accepted truth amongst historians and NOT a conspiracy theory. Everyone who denies the fact that it's widely accepted and that it's confirmed by many sound historical sources is either ignorant or unwilling to face the truth.

They are not generally accepted truths and I will not read a website that's the equivalent of the KKK writing an article on black women's rights. Think bro. Think.

This is a preposterous comparison. Look at the actual sources.

I'm "100%" wrong lmao. Your OWN source says she was anywhere from 12 to 21. How dense are you??!!

This is painfully ironic. This guy reads: "DUBIOUS RESEARCH TECHNIQUES" have resulted in different ages (12-21) compared the mainstream historical accepted age (9-10 years old) and thinks this proces that she was 12 to 21 years old. And Then calls me dense?
Painful to read.

That's all.


You need to read more. I know you mean well and I swear I was taking you seriously but once I realized your source was answering Islam...well you lost me and anyone who values integrity in scholarship and discussion. You need to get to a point where you understand what a primary source is and what makes a source credible before you start debating with me. Cheers.

[Wplains]

That is very disturbing.


But guess what I've been to the middle east and I can tell you that crap does not exist. Don't tell me "you don't know Islam" because I can tell you that I know Islam very very well. First hand, non western Islam.

Hmm, it doesn't? Not according to Amnesty International. That map there certainly seems to include the majority of the Muslim countries of the ME and elsewhere. I would even venture to say it includes every single Muslim country in the world.

http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/where-does-it-happen/

[Cobpyth]

The first sources linked in that first AnsweringIslam link take you to a University of SouthCalorina page where it says "Sorry, the page you are looking for does not exist." The rest are to anti-islam sites.

Read some of the actual historical documents that some of the texts come from. It's logical that most of these are posted on anti-Islam sites. That's how the internet (unfortunately) works. You can also read historical academic books about this subject that would confirm the historical truth that I'm arguing for here, though.

Also, freaking WIKIPEDIA even basically acknowledges that he was a pedophile. Check their sources.

Anyway, I agree with you, Camo, that this discussion isn't actually relevant. It's just frustrating to see someone denying accepted historical truth.

[Cobpyth]

You need to read more. I know you mean well and I swear I was taking you seriously but once I realized your source was answering Islam...well you lost me and anyone who values integrity in scholarship and discussion. You need to get to a point where you understand what a primary source is and what makes a source credible before you start debating with me. Cheers.

I'm constantly urging for you to read the primary sources. You're the one saying that the platform where the primary sources are posted on is biased and that therefore all the primary sources are biased as well. This is pure irony.

I'm an avid reader and I very well understand how historical research works. You seem to be the one who doesn't.

[Captain Steel]

Nah man, can't take anyone who that easily posts a fake story. Nothing you say is credible to me. Have a nice day.

Score one for you!
I do admit when I made a mistake.

Now, since I do study Islam and you are now my intellectual superior in all things Islamic (due to the posting of one misleading photo that I failed to validate), can you educate me on my apparent mis-learning that led me to believe Muhammad was a warrior, ransacker and mass executioner after my hearing and reading many Islamic scholars attest to those things?

[Camo]

Child brides definitely do exist in the muslim world, anyone saying they don't is in denial. And it's not a tiny issue, it's a major one that needs to be tackled. To be fair though i think your link makes it clear it's not a sole Islamic problem, i think it clearly shows it's a 3rd World problem more than anything.

20 COUNTRIES WITH THE HIGHEST ABSOLUTE NUMBERS OF CHILD MARRIAGE*

India
Bangladesh
Nigeria
Brazil
Ethiopia
Pakistan
Indonesia
Mexico
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Tanzania
Uganda
Philippines
Egypt
Mozambique
Niger
Sudan
Iran
Nepal
Thailand
Kenya

20 COUNTRIES WITH THE HIGHEST RATES OF CHILD MARRIAGE*

Niger
Central African Republic
Chad
Mali
Bangladesh
Burkina Faso
Guinea
South Sudan
Mozambique
India
Malawi
Somalia
Nigeria
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Madagascar
Nicaragua
Uganda
Sierra Leone
Cameroon

Plenty of those aren't Muslim Countries, Brazil has the most Christians in the world for example. I think it's more to do with deplorable conditions, poverty, lack of education. Unless you also want to call it a Christian problem to considering Brazil (and others) feature highly on both of those lists.

[Camo]

Read some of the actual historical documents that some of the texts come from. It's logical that most of these are posted on anti-Islam sites. That's how the internet (unfortunately) works. You can also read historical academic books about this subject that would confirm the historical truth that I'm arguing for here, though.

Also, freaking WIKIPEDIA even basically acknowledges that he was a pedophile. Check their sources.

Anyway, I agree with you, Camo, that this discussion isn't actually relevant. It's just frustrating to see someone denying accepted historical truth.

I'm not arguing whether it's true or not, just saying a direct link to these sources probably would have been better than a link to an anti-islam site.

To be fair though, for the longest time the only place i could find the Articles of Secession and Constitution of the CSA for debates was on some Conspiracy Theory Site even though it was the Primary Documents.

[Cobpyth]

What would be your objective historical opinion concerning Muhammad consummating marriage with Aisha when she was ten years old, Camo?

I need some credible back-up for this.

[Cobpyth]

I'm not arguing whether it's true or not, just saying a direct link to these sources probably would have been better than a link to an anti-islam site.

You're right, but I thought my opponent in this discussion would be willing enough to actually look at the primary sources, which he could easily trace himself if he wanted to (even though he claims to know so much about what primary sources are).

To be fair though, for the longest time the only place i could find the Articles of Secession and Constitution of the CSA for debates was on some Conspiracy Theory Site even though it was the Primary Documents.

Long live biased sites that often post valid primary documents (but unfortunately sometimes don't in order to make their larger point)! :p

[Camo]

What would be your objective historical opinion concerning Muhammad consummating marriage with Aisha when she was ten years old, Camo?

I need some credible back-up for this.

Really could not say. I've always heard she was 9 years old but i've never bothered to look into it, it's not the sort of thing i'd like to really considering it's very disturbing. It wouldn't surprise me though.

[Camo]

You're right, but I thought my opponent in this discussion would be willing enough to actually look at the primary sources, which he could easily trace himself if he wanted to (even though he claims to know so much about what primary sources are).



No joke, i was in the middle of writing a post saying i haven't and won't look at the sources because i don't think it's relevant, but all Cob is telling you to do is read the primary sources linked on that site. Then i checked the links and the first bunch of numbered ones were broken which is why i posted that.

[Wplains]

Fake news too? Especially the part about Syria....

http://www.dw.com/en/terre-des-femmes-says-end-child-marriage/a-36253139

It seems to be a problem in Germany. Hint: the men marrying children are NOT Germans.

http://www.dw.com/en/ministry-proposal-imams-in-germany-to-face-fines-for-marrying-children/a-36231107

Fake news?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/18/zahra-yaganah-afghanistan-child-bride-author-light-of-ashes-book

Not a credible source?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28250471

[Cobpyth]

Really could not say. I've always heard she was 9 years old but i've never bothered to look into it, it's not the sort of thing i'd like to really considering it's very disturbing. It wouldn't surprise me though.

Fair enough. Pedophilia is indeed always a very disturbing subject to research and to discuss. I genuinely didn't enjoy this conversation, but I felt the widely accepted truth deserved an advocate here.

Time to go back to the film section! :)

[Wplains]

Child brides definitely do exist in the muslim world, anyone saying they don't is in denial. And it's not a tiny issue, it's a major one that needs to be tackled. To be fair though i think your link makes it clear it's not a sole Islamic problem, i think it clearly shows it's a 3rd World problem more than anything.

20 COUNTRIES WITH THE HIGHEST ABSOLUTE NUMBERS OF CHILD MARRIAGE*

India
Bangladesh
Nigeria
Brazil
Ethiopia
Pakistan
Indonesia
Mexico
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Tanzania
Uganda
Philippines
Egypt
Mozambique
Niger
Sudan
Iran
Nepal
Thailand
Kenya

20 COUNTRIES WITH THE HIGHEST RATES OF CHILD MARRIAGE*

Niger
Central African Republic
Chad
Mali
Bangladesh
Burkina Faso
Guinea
South Sudan
Mozambique
India
Malawi
Somalia
Nigeria
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Madagascar
Nicaragua
Uganda
Sierra Leone
Cameroon

Plenty of those aren't Muslim Countries, Brazil has the most Christians in the world for example. I think it's more to do with deplorable conditions, poverty, lack of education. Unless you also want to call it a Christian problem to considering Brazil (and others) feature highly on both of those lists.

Not saying it's solely a Muslim country problem. Just responding to the poster who said this did not exist because he "knows Islam" very well. However, a lot of those countries above have very big (if not a majority) of Muslim populations.

[Cobpyth]

No joke, i was in the middle of writing a post saying i haven't and won't look at the sources because i don't think it's relevant, but all Cob is telling you to do is read the primary sources linked on that site. Then i checked the links and the first bunch of numbered ones were broken which is why i posted that.

I always copy the writers/relevant pieces of text and look if some of the relevant writings are simply findable on google. I rarely click the links. I attempt to find the sources directly.

[Equilibrium]

Child brides definitely do exist in the muslim world, anyone saying they don't is in denial. And it's not a tiny issue, it's a major one that needs to be tackled. To be fair though i think your link makes it clear it's not a sole Islamic problem, i think it clearly shows it's a 3rd World problem more than anything.

20 COUNTRIES WITH THE HIGHEST ABSOLUTE NUMBERS OF CHILD MARRIAGE*

India
Bangladesh
Nigeria
Brazil
Ethiopia
Pakistan
Indonesia
Mexico
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Tanzania
Uganda
Philippines
Egypt
Mozambique
Niger
Sudan
Iran
Nepal
Thailand
Kenya

20 COUNTRIES WITH THE HIGHEST RATES OF CHILD MARRIAGE*

Niger
Central African Republic
Chad
Mali
Bangladesh
Burkina Faso
Guinea
South Sudan
Mozambique
India
Malawi
Somalia
Nigeria
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Madagascar
Nicaragua
Uganda
Sierra Leone
Cameroon

Plenty of those aren't Muslim Countries, Brazil has the most Christians in the world for example. I think it's more to do with deplorable conditions, poverty, lack of education. Unless you also want to call it a Christian problem to considering Brazil (and others) feature highly on both of those lists.

Not saying it's solely a Muslim country problem. Just responding to the poster who said this did not exist because he "knows Islam" very well. However, a lot of those countries above have very big (if not a majority) of Muslim populations.

Don't change your words. you tried to link it to Islam itself, as if muslims go to amosque and get taught there to be pedophiles, THAT was your point. Sadly, you were proven wrong and worse than that you really lost all credibility when you revealed your source.

[Camo]

Not saying it's solely a Muslim country problem. Just responding to the poster who said this did not exist because he "knows Islam" very well. However, a lot of those countries above have very big (if not a majority) of Muslim populations.

That was more to Captain who seemed to be linking it solely to Islam. I do think there's plenty of fundamentalist muslims who advocate this and those people need to be stopped, but saying it's a majority problem in muslim countries is disingenous at best. Every Country except India and Bangladesh on the highest percentage list (stops at 38%) are extremely poor African Countries and some of those have majority Christian or other Populations. 1 Child Bride is way too many but i don't think the data you provided matches up with Captains picture.

[Camo]

Don't change your words. you tried to link it to Islam itself, as if muslims go to amosque and get taught there to be pedophiles, THAT was your point. Sadly, you were proven wrong and worse than that you really lost all credibility when you revealed your source.

That was Captain. Wplains provided that to rebuke your assertion that child brides don't exist in muslim countries.

[Equilibrium]

Fake news too? Especially the part about Syria....

http://www.dw.com/en/terre-des-femmes-says-end-child-marriage/a-36253139

It seems to be a problem in Germany. Hint: the men marrying children are NOT Germans.

http://www.dw.com/en/ministry-proposal-imams-in-germany-to-face-fines-for-marrying-children/a-36231107

Fake news?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/18/zahra-yaganah-afghanistan-child-bride-author-light-of-ashes-book

Not a credible source?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28250471

I read these articles from CREDIBLE sources (thank you for not embarrassing yourself). As these guys (especially the guardian) represent the highest of journalistic standards I took the time to read them.

I did not really see a link between Islam and child marriage. I read nowhere that these young women were forced to do things because they are Muslim.

I read that they are in CAMPS and desperate and poor and that they want to marry their daughters off as fast as possible to secure their future TO OTHER YOUNG BOYS. The BBC article mentions a 13 year old girl marrying a 14 year old boy...and then not being allowed to actually do anything with each other.

It seems to me that child marriage occurs, as one poster mentioned, out of poverty and lack of education. THAT is a lot more credible and true. It is also true that in a lot of cases those countries are Muslim.

My beef here is with those ignorant enough to want to link it to Islam as if, again, muslims go to a mosque and are told to be pedophiles.

The discussion here is about islam facilitating and/or being the cause of pedophilia and that is what is utterly false. Otherwise there are 1.5 billion pedophiles on earth.

Hey guys instead of just reading hack websites, go to a mosque yourself. If you're in the states or in the UK the sermons will be mostly in english. You check them out for yourself and tell me what you find.

[Equilibrium]

Don't change your words. you tried to link it to Islam itself, as if muslims go to amosque and get taught there to be pedophiles, THAT was your point. Sadly, you were proven wrong and worse than that you really lost all credibility when you revealed your source.

That was Captain. Wplains provided that to rebuke your assertion that child brides don't exist in muslim countries.

Sorry I wasn't trying to quote you, just wplain. I find your posts to be rooted in reality, so I thank you for that.

[Wplains]

I read these articles from CREDIBLE sources (thank you for not embarrassing yourself). As these guys (especially the guardian) represent the highest of journalistic standards I took the time to read them.

I did not really see a link between Islam and child marriage. I read nowhere that these young women were forced to do things because they are Muslim.

I read that they are in CAMPS and desperate and poor and that they want to marry their daughters off as fast as possible to secure their future TO OTHER YOUNG BOYS. The BBC article mentions a 13 year old girl marrying a 14 year old boy...and then not being allowed to actually do anything with each other.

It seems to me that child marriage occurs, as one poster mentioned, out of poverty and lack of education. THAT is a lot more credible and true. It is also true that in a lot of cases those countries are Muslim.

My beef here is with those ignorant enough to want to link it to Islam as if, again, muslims go to a mosque and are told to be pedophiles.

The discussion here is about islam facilitating and/or being the cause of pedophilia and that is what is utterly false. Otherwise there are 1.5 billion pedophiles on earth.

Hey guys instead of just reading hack websites, go to a mosque yourself. If you're in the states or in the UK the sermons will be mostly in english. You check them out for yourself and tell me what you find.

You, however, stated that this does not happen. I think it does and it's a part of their culture. Denying it won't make if go away. The fact is most Islamic countries treat women in the most appalling way and they justify it by saying it was the Prophet who told them that they could behave that way.

Oh and I've been to a Mosque in Dubai or Abu Dhabi (can't remember which). But, since I'm a lowly woman, I was told to get myself up to the upper level where the men wouldn't be "distracted" by my "beauty". Honestly, I had a real good laugh at that one....:D

PS-No one said all Muslims were pedophiles - just that their founder was one.

Good night all. I'm off as it's very late for me. Sleep tight!

[Equilibrium]

I read these articles from CREDIBLE sources (thank you for not embarrassing yourself). As these guys (especially the guardian) represent the highest of journalistic standards I took the time to read them.

I did not really see a link between Islam and child marriage. I read nowhere that these young women were forced to do things because they are Muslim.

I read that they are in CAMPS and desperate and poor and that they want to marry their daughters off as fast as possible to secure their future TO OTHER YOUNG BOYS. The BBC article mentions a 13 year old girl marrying a 14 year old boy...and then not being allowed to actually do anything with each other.

It seems to me that child marriage occurs, as one poster mentioned, out of poverty and lack of education. THAT is a lot more credible and true. It is also true that in a lot of cases those countries are Muslim.

My beef here is with those ignorant enough to want to link it to Islam as if, again, muslims go to a mosque and are told to be pedophiles.

The discussion here is about islam facilitating and/or being the cause of pedophilia and that is what is utterly false. Otherwise there are 1.5 billion pedophiles on earth.

Hey guys instead of just reading hack websites, go to a mosque yourself. If you're in the states or in the UK the sermons will be mostly in english. You check them out for yourself and tell me what you find.

You, however, stated that this does not happen. I think it does and it's a part of their culture. Denying it won't make if go away. The fact is most Islamic countries treat women in the most appalling way and they justify it by saying it was the Prophet who told them that they could behave that way.

Oh and I've been to a Mosque in Dubai or Abu Dhabi (can't remember which). But, since I'm a lowly woman, I was told to get myself up to the upper level where the men wouldn't be "distracted" by my "beauty". Honestly, I had a real good laugh at that one....:D

PS-No one said all Muslims were pedophiles - just that their founder was one.

My only statement (and if i said otherwise foprgive me) is that Islam is not the root cause of child marriages. I'm sure it happens and again, I'm sure some twisted muslim out there will twist and bend scriptures as he wants to fulfill his dark fantasies, but that is NOT the norm. In the Muslim world that is a very taboo thing.

So I take it you retract your original statement that ISLAM TEACHES PEDOPHILIA???? Because nothing you've shown me proves it or even suggests.

Secondly, is there something in the culture that causes this behavior? Maybe. But again, its usually low education low income type places. For instance I can tell you that the rate of child marriages in Northern thailand, Brazil, and some of these other non-muslim majority countries is much much higher than in any of the Mid-east countries. Pre-war Syria which I spent an entire year in was a very open society and things like child marriages and polygamy were about as taboo as there as they are here in the US.

Also, you went to a fake Muslim country in so many respects. Those guys say no drinking allowed but they are the drunkest ones at the bar that night lol.

Go to Malaysia next time. You'll feel more welcomed there than you would at a relatives house.

And finally, I hope you understand you were told to go the upper level not because you were a "lowly woman" but because separation during prayer removes interferring forces like attraction from prayer with God. Quite frankly I understand that completely, I met my first girlfriend at mass because I couldnt stop thinking about how cute she was. But I fail to see how this is connected to pedophilia. Are we now going to move the discussion to how ISLAM TEACHES MEN TO TREAT WOMEN LIKE DOGS?


Anyways.

[Dani8]

No comments on this from a few days ago? No, I didn't think so because it doesnt fit the agenda of the thread which is clearly obvious and has been from the get go

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-blast-idUSKBN18I0N8

People just want to squabble rather than think of the kids and adults having fun getting murdered or injured by a halfwit, or thinking of the Mofos currently in or near Manchester having a rough time dealing processing this. Thinking of you Sarge, Dannii, Christine and all other mofos in the UK.

[ashdoc]

No comments on this from a few days ago? No, I didn't think so because it doesnt fit the agenda of the thread which is clearly obvious and has been from the get go

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-blast-idUSKBN18I0N8

People just want to squabble rather than think of the kids and adults having fun getting murdered or injured by a halfwit, or thinking of the Mofos currently in or near Manchester having a rough time dealing processing this. Thinking of you Sarge, Dannii, Christine and all other mofos in the UK.

there is no agenda and that is why i am not posting about the many terrorist attacks that the followers of one particular religion are doing in my country . i have not posted much about the islamic terror attacks in my country ( india ) . so many islamic terror attacks have occurred in my country since this thread started , but i have hardly posted about them . if there was an agenda then i would have hardly let the chance to post about islamic terror in india go away .

i have said this before and again i will repeat---this thread was started because the moment every terror attack occurred , a new thread was being started about it . it was happening before you joined . so i started this thread so that all terror attacks are bunched in one thread rather than being spread out in the 'intermission ; miscellaneous chat' section . why start a new thread for every terror attack ? let them all be in one single thread . that was the intention .

this thread most concentrates on attacks in western civilisation because most members are from the west . the attack in thailand is not mentioned because don't seem to be any active members from that country here .

if i start to mention islamic terror attacks in my country , the thread could get a daily boost and never go dormant :D

[Dannii]

Please no!...not a sticky! It's OK to talk about terrorist attacks but this is Movie Forums.

This.


Movie Forums.


I'm getting a bit fed up seeing all these political threads and so on. I don't go into them anymore.


I come on MoFo for movies and to escape the world, like watching movies to escape the world for a few hours... if I wanted current affairs I'd stay on Facebook all day clicking the trending buttons.
What does sticky mean?

[Dannii]

No comments on this from a few days ago? No, I didn't think so because it doesnt fit the agenda of the thread which is clearly obvious and has been from the get go

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-blast-idUSKBN18I0N8

People just want to squabble rather than think of the kids and adults having fun getting murdered or injured by a halfwit, or thinking of the Mofos currently in or near Manchester having a rough time dealing processing this. Thinking of you Sarge, Dannii, Christine and all other mofos in the UK.

there is no agenda and that is why i am not posting about the many terrorist attacks that the followers of one particular religion are doing in my country . i have not posted much about the islamic terror attacks in my country ( india ) . so many islamic terror attacks have occurred in my country since this thread started , but i have hardly posted about them . if there was an agenda then i would have hardly let the chance to post about islamic terror in india go away .

i have said this before and again i will repeat---this thread was started because the moment every terror attack occurred , a new thread was being started about it . it was happening before you joined . so i started this thread so that all terror attacks are bunched in one thread rather than being spread out in the 'intermission ; miscellaneous chat' section . why start a new thread for every terror attack ? let them all be in one single thread . that was the intention .

this thread most concentrates on attacks in western civilisation because most members are from the west . the attack in thailand is not mentioned because don't seem to be any active members from that country here .

if i start to mention islamic terror attacks in my country , the thread could get a daily boost and never go dormant :D
What a lovely msg😊. i'm an hour away from Manchester and i gotta say i'm nervous cos i live in a busy town, but i'll go about as normal and be vigilant as i do.

[Wplains]

My only statement (and if i said otherwise foprgive me) is that Islam is not the root cause of child marriages.

Well, I remember it as you saying this stuff doesn't happen in the ME, which is why I responded. It certainly happens in every single Muslim country as demonstrated in that Amnesty map --- so if it's wrong, blame Amnesty, not me. Maybe there are varied reasons for it but if it also happens in Islamic countries it means it is, at the very least, tolerated to an extent where the law does nothing about it. So I interpret that as meaning there are no laws against it. Simple logic, I think.

So I take it you retract your original statement that ISLAM TEACHES PEDOPHILIA????

Umm, no I don't retract anything for the simple reason that I never said that. Care to point out where I did?

Pre-war Syria which I spent an entire year in was a very open society and things like child marriages and polygamy were about as taboo as there as they are here in the US.

I don't doubt it. However, the very fact that just because they are in a war situation all of a sudden child marriage shoots up to a much higher percentage tells me that it is not as "taboo" as you say it is. Because can you imagine Americans or Europeans allowing child marriage because they had a civil war? Hmm, don't think it would happen but that's just my opinion.

Also, you went to a fake Muslim country in so many respects.Those guys say no drinking allowed but they are the drunkest ones at the bar that night lol.

I did? Which country was fake Muslim? Dubai? Abu Dhabi? Didn't realize they were fake, lol. As to the alcohol question, I suspect that happens in many, many Muslim countries. A couple of years ago, my husband took me to the Maldives which is a Muslim country. When we arrived at the capital city, we went through Customs and a small bottle of whiskey my husband had bought at the previous airport was confiscated with the justification "we are a devout Muslim country and alcohol is not permitted here". Okaaayy, we did not dispute that. So imagine our surprise when we got to our island resort and every single restaurant on the island......sold wine, beer and every other kind of alcoholic beverage you could imagine? So I was amused and thought: right, no alcohol - devout Muslims - what you really mean is we can only consume the alcohol you provide so you can make a profit. Hypocrites!

And finally, I hope you understand you were told to go the upper level not because you were a "lowly woman" but because separation during prayer removes interferring forces like attraction from prayer with God.

Ah, so because men can't control themseves, women should be removed from their sight? BTW, I was born an RC and have often been to mass. Can't say that problem has ever to occurred to me.

Are we now going to move the discussion to how ISLAM TEACHES MEN TO TREAT WOMEN LIKE DOGS?

No, because IMO, Islamic men treat women worse than they treat dogs....or goats for that matter. You know, forcing them to walk about dressed in stiffling black shrouds? Forcing them to cover their hair and sometimes their faces? Stoning them to death? Blaming the rape victiim for her rape and jailing or publiciy flogging her for it? Condoning and encouraging "honor killings" (what's "honorable" about it)? Practicing FMG? You know, really fun stuff like that?

[Wplains]

.

this thread most concentrates on attacks in western civilisation because most members are from the west . the attack in thailand is not mentioned because don't seem to be any active members from that country here .
:D

I totally agree. I never even saw any news about an attack in Thailand. And you are absolutely right: We certainly pay more attention to attacks in Western countries for the simple reason we are Westerners. Manchester is practically in my back yard even though I live in a different country. Europe is a small continent compared to others. It ony takes me 2 hours to fly to London or Paris or Brussels.

[Movie Max]

Child brides definitely do exist in the muslim world, anyone saying they don't is in denial. And it's not a tiny issue, it's a major one that needs to be tackled.

In the name of the governing ideology; grab 'em while they're young, teach 'em the rules, explain all the "beautiful blessings", break them in, and you'll end up with bright young females, like these two...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18HuWgvbckw

[Equilibrium]

Since this is a terrorist thread and most of you seem to want to victimize only non-Muslims and paint all Muslims and Islam with one broad disgusting brush, allow me to express my condolences to the victims of BOTH the Manchester suicide bombing as well as the massacre by ISIS of 52 innocent Syrian Muslims 6 days ago (which no one here deemed were fit enough to mention). May all those who suffer under terrorism rest in peace.

http://time.com/4784339/isis-syria-attack-central-hama-damascus-aleppo/

[Movie Max]

...allow me to express my condolences to the victims of BOTH the Manchester suicide bombing as well as the massacre by ISIS of 52 innocent Syrian Muslims 6 days ago (which no one here deemed were fit enough to mention).

You're here and you mentioned it. Welcome to the terrorist topic. Congrats on figuring out what the thread is for. No one is preventing you from adding a terror attack of your choice. No one is claiming to be aware of all the ones that took place. No one is disputing the fact that muslims are frequently the victims of terror attacks. Throw in a link to the terrorism story that affects you the most (ex: 52 Syrian Muslims) or the one you'd like to draw attention to. I focus on the ones which affect parts of the civilized world that I am most familiar with. I am not confusing terrorist activity in war zones with soft target attacks away from war zones. Stop with the guilt trips.

[Equilibrium]

...allow me to express my condolences to the victims of BOTH the Manchester suicide bombing as well as the massacre by ISIS of 52 innocent Syrian Muslims 6 days ago (which no one here deemed were fit enough to mention).

You're here and you mentioned it. Welcome to the terrorist topic. Congrats on figuring out what the thread is for. No one is preventing you from adding a terror attack of your choice. No one is claiming to be aware of all the ones that took place. No one is disputing the fact that muslims are frequently the victims of terror attacks. Throw in a link to the terrorism story that affects you the most (ex: 52 Syrian Muslims) or the one you'd like to draw attention to. I focus on the ones which affect parts of the civilized world that I am most familiar with. I am not confusing terrorist activity in war zones with soft target attacks away from war zones.

Agree with everything except 2 dozen women and childreb are still considered soft targets war zone or not.

[Movie Max]

Agree with everything except 2 dozen women and childreb are still considered soft targets war zone or not.

Well, you didn't shed any light on your attempted guilt trip. How about just adding a link or some info on this terrorist attack involving 2 dozen women and children, so that the readers can know it was a soft target attack.:idea:

EDIT: Got it. Yes, soft target...

The head of the National Hospital in Salamiyeh, Dr. Noufal Safar, said the hospital received 52 bodies, including 11 women and 17 children. He said some of them were beheaded and others had their limbs amputated.

[Dani8]

Why do they keep leaking intel? Mind boggling.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/24/us-officials-leak-more-manchester-details-hours-after-uk-rebuke?CMP=fb_gu

[Don Schneider]

Well, I called this one right, at least. The suicide terrorist was born in the UK, is characterized as aloof and quiet, a stranger to most in his neighborhood.. He dropped out of college. His parents were Libyan refugees. As I said, this is increasingly the typical recruitment profile and as the amount of disaffected (for reasons divorced from either religion or politics; just punk sore at the world and looking for an excuse to vent their simmering resentment upon innocent others), native born young Muslims grow exponentially in proportion to the high birth rates of Muslims, so will the recruitment pool for radicals. Eventually, the radical Islamists will intimidate the moderate majority into compliance. This is exactly what happened in Nazi Germany regarding the Jews.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/05/24/uk-police-raids-attacker-home-and-more-shubert-lkl.cnn/video/playlists/manchester-arena-ariana-grande-incident/

I’m right with this too. Why? Because I have studied history. Western European civilization is doomed. Its denizens go on and on about their “values.” Values they indeed have. That’s the problem. They are twisted and warped, crafted by elitist, intellectual idiots of the hallowed halls of academia totally devoid of that virtue commonly termed “common sense” for want of a better description. The Western Europeans have turned their backs on their heritage, their ethnicity and, most of all, God and their religions. Nature abhors a vacuum and the handwriting is on the wall for all not blinded by the mass psychosis of “political correctness”; pacifism masquerading as "tolerance."

The Western European degenerates cling instead to the materialism of quasi-socialism. Every great empire in history from Babylon through Athens, Rome and Venice has decayed and ultimately vanished from material affluence. The hardscrabble virtues of hard work and patriotism of their ancestors that built such wealth were abandoned in the pursuit of consumption and luxury.

The United States must abandon these feckless, degenerate people and ally with a resurgent Orthodox Russia. After a Dutch appeals court ruled that a political party advocating the legalization of pedophilia had the right to be on the ballot, Mr. Putin responded: “We’re supposed to accept this?” No, Mr. Putin, you should not! If Sodom and Gomorrah were mere myths, then Western Europe have brought them to life. Their moral depravity has adversely affected us. We must resist and take back our country!

[Wplains]

Don't change your words. you tried to link it to Islam itself, as if muslims go to amosque and get taught there to be pedophiles, THAT was your point. Sadly, you were proven wrong and worse than that you really lost all credibility when you revealed your source.

What are you talking about? I said child marriage exists in Muslim countries. It does - undeniably. So what source is not credible? Amnesty International? You are making no sense...

[Equilibrium]

My only statement (and if i said otherwise foprgive me) is that Islam is not the root cause of child marriages.

Well, I remember it as you saying this stuff doesn't happen in the ME, which is why I responded. It certainly happens in every single Muslim country as demonstrated in that Amnesty map --- so if it's wrong, blame Amnesty, not me. Maybe there are varied reasons for it but if it also happens in Islamic countries it means it is, at the very least, tolerated to an extent where the law does nothing about it. So I interpret that as meaning there are no laws against it. Simple logic, I think.

So I take it you retract your original statement that ISLAM TEACHES PEDOPHILIA????

Umm, no I don't retract anything for the simple reason that I never said that. Care to point out where I did?

Pre-war Syria which I spent an entire year in was a very open society and things like child marriages and polygamy were about as taboo as there as they are here in the US.

I don't doubt it. However, the very fact that just because they are in a war situation all of a sudden child marriage shoots up to a much higher percentage tells me that it is not as "taboo" as you say it is. Because can you imagine Americans or Europeans allowing child marriage because they had a civil war? Hmm, don't think it would happen but that's just my opinion.

Also, you went to a fake Muslim country in so many respects.Those guys say no drinking allowed but they are the drunkest ones at the bar that night lol.

I did? Which country was fake Muslim? Dubai? Abu Dhabi? Didn't realize they were fake, lol. As to the alcohol question, I suspect that happens in many, many Muslim countries. A couple of years ago, my husband took me to the Maldives which is a Muslim country. When we arrived at the capital city, we went through Customs and a small bottle of whiskey my husband had bought at the previous airport was confiscated with the justification "we are a devout Muslim country and alcohol is not permitted here". Okaaayy, we did not dispute that. So imagine our surprise when we got to our island resort and every single restaurant on the island......sold wine, beer and every other kind of alcoholic beverage you could imagine? So I was amused and thought: right, no alcohol - devout Muslims - what you really mean is we can only consume the alcohol you provide so you can make a profit. Hypocrites!

And finally, I hope you understand you were told to go the upper level not because you were a "lowly woman" but because separation during prayer removes interferring forces like attraction from prayer with God.

Ah, so because men can't control themseves, women should be removed from their sight? BTW, I was born an RC and have often been to mass. Can't say that problem has ever to occurred to me.

Are we now going to move the discussion to how ISLAM TEACHES MEN TO TREAT WOMEN LIKE DOGS?

No, because IMO, Islamic men treat women worse than they treat dogs....or goats for that matter. You know, forcing them to walk about dressed in stiffling black shrouds? Forcing them to cover their hair and sometimes their faces? Stoning them to death? Blaming the rape victiim for her rape and jailing or publiciy flogging her for it? Condoning and encouraging "honor killings" (what's "honorable" about it)? Practicing FMG? You know, really fun stuff like that?


Sorry but you misunderstood me. Child marriage and polygamy is STILL taboo in Syria (not under ISIS control).

I think I'm going to stop debating with you, it's exhausting and you seem set in your ways and only willing to see things that confirm your preheld beliefs.

I've been known to be convinced (provided enough evidence) of things I didn't believe in before and I think that's what makes me reasonable and confident in my belief system.

[Wplains]

They are twisted and warped, crafted by elitist, intellectual idiots of the hallowed halls of academia totally devoid of that virtue commonly termed “common sense” for want of a better description. The Western Europeans have turned their backs on their heritage, their ethnicity and, most of all, God and their religions

Well, not all of us Western Europeans have done this. Except now we are called "racists", "xenophobes" and "fascists" if we speak out against all of this madness. No wonder right wing parties are on the rise in Europe. :rolleyes:

[Wplains]

Sorry but you misunderstood me. Child marriage and polygamy is STILL taboo in Syria (not under ISIS control).

It's taboo but it's on the rise? So which is it? If it was taboo it would not be "on the rise" - it would not have existed at all and it certainly wouldn't be easily accepted just because of civil war; as it seems to be. Again, can you see Europe or the US accepting child marriage as normal at the end of a 4-year civil war? I can't but maybe you feel that values would change dramatically in that short period of time though mine certainly wouldn't.

I think I'm going to stop debating with you, it's exhausting and you seem set in your ways and only willing to see things that confirm your preheld beliefs.

Yes ditto for you! Do what you like - I couldn't give a rat's ass if you debate with me or not, frankly. Plenty of other fish in the sea, after all. It just seems to me that when people have no arguments left they play the "oh you're not worth debating" card! :rolleyes:


Cheerio then!

[Equilibrium]

Terrorists father days the following (article from Washington post)

“We don’t believe in killing innocents,” he told the AP. “This is not us."
http://wapo.st/2ryMgSI


But you know, I'm sure it's because he was raised Muslim and taught how to be a terrorist and all that jazz :rolleyes:

[Equilibrium]

Sorry but you misunderstood me. Child marriage and polygamy is STILL taboo in Syria (not under ISIS control).

It's taboo but it's on the rise? So which is it? If it was taboo it would not be "on the rise" - it would not have existed at all and it certainly wouldn't be easily accepted just because of civil war; as it seems to be. Again, can you see Europe or the US accepting child marriage as normal at the end of a 4-year civil war? I can't but maybe you feel that values would change dramatically in that short period of time though mine certainly wouldn't.

I think I'm going to stop debating with you, it's exhausting and you seem set in your ways and only willing to see things that confirm your preheld beliefs.

Yes ditto for you! Do what you like - I couldn't give a rat's ass if you debate with me or not, frankly. Plenty of other fish in the sea, after all. It just seems to me that when people have no arguments left they play the "oh you're not worth debating" card! :rolleyes:


Cheerio then!


Again, you're not getting it's on the rise within ISIS which does not represent Syrians! If ISIS took over Europe beheadings and child abuse would be on the rise and you can't claim "it was there before" a foreign entity brought it in. ISIS is a foreign entity to Syria. Do you understand that????

In other words, it's happening with the ISIS people not with the regular people.

Keep rolling your eyes.

[Wplains]

Again, you're not getting it's on the rise within ISIS which does not represent Syrians!

In other words, it's happening with the ISIS people not with the regular people.



Okaaay......

But the article I posted a link to where it said child marriage was on the rise said this:

There is an alarming rise in the number of Syrian refugee girls in Jordan being forced into early marriages, according to the new figures from the United Nations.

As Orla Guerin reports from Zaatari refugee camp, poverty is forcing some families to effectively sell their daughters to much older men, and there is now an organised trade in young girls.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28250471

Umm, this camp is in Jordan .....which not under ISIS control as far as I can see. These people are in Jordan yet they are "selling their daughters to much older men". They are not under ISIS, not under threat of beheading, yet.....still contemplating child marriage. I presume then these are not "regular people"? What are they then? Irregular people?

Am I still "not getting it" or is it you who is not making sense? Or maybe, you don't know Syria as well as you think you do....:D

[Equilibrium]

Again, you're not getting it's on the rise within ISIS which does not represent Syrians!

In other words, it's happening with the ISIS people not with the regular people.



Okaaay......

But the article I posted a link to where it said child marriage was on the rise said this:

There is an alarming rise in the number of Syrian refugee girls in Jordan being forced into early marriages, according to the new figures from the United Nations.

As Orla Guerin reports from Zaatari refugee camp, poverty is forcing some families to effectively sell their daughters to much older men, and there is now an organised trade in young girls.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28250471

Umm, this camp is in Jordan .....which not under ISIS control as far as I can see. These people are in Jordan yet they are "selling their daughters to much older men". They are not under ISIS, not under threat of beheading, yet.....still contemplating child marriage. I presume then these are not "regular people"? What are they then? Irregular people?

Am I still "not getting it" or is it you who is not making sense? Or maybe, you don't know Syria as well as you think you do....:D

Volunteered my services at zaatari camp for three months. It's just sad there. You only wind up there if you are poor or uneducated which as we have discussed before are three major risk factors for child marriages NOT Islam as you want to imply.

It's just really sad there. I left depressed.

[Wplains]

Volunteered my services at zaatari camp for three months. It's just sad there. You only wind up there if you are poor or uneducated which as we have discussed before are three major risk factors for child marriages NOT Islam as you want to imply.

It's just really sad there. I left depressed.

I can well believe it is sad. I can well believe it is depressing.

As to the matter child marriage, you go on believing what you like and I will continue to draw my own conclusions from what I read and observe. In a nutshell, we will agree to disagree! :D

Ciao - have a good night.

[Equilibrium]

Volunteered my services at zaatari camp for three months. It's just sad there. You only wind up there if you are poor or uneducated which as we have discussed before are three major risk factors for child marriages NOT Islam as you want to imply.

It's just really sad there. I left depressed.

I can well believe it is sad. I can well believe it is depressing.

As to the matter child marriage, you go on believing what you like and I will continue to draw my own conclusions from what I read and observe. In a nutshell, we will agree to disagree! :D

Ciao - have a good night.


Well you have yet to answer why 1.5 billion Muslims aren't marrying children. So, yes, I will continue to be a scientist and let the evidence rule above all else.

And you can keep doing...well whatever it is you do that makes you hate 1 in 7 people.

[Captain Steel]

Since this discussion is continuing, I'd like to ask a question...

First, let me say that having learned my lesson about not fully validating sources (although I'm not sure how one validates a photo with a caption & article from multiple websites - please forgive my lack of tech savvy) I'd like to ask about a rather infamous quote by the late Ayatollah Khomeini that has been around for quite a long time, especially since he died in 1989.

Khomeini, as most know, was the "Supreme Leader" of Iran in the 80's. He was one of the most highly revered Imams in modern Islamic history and was a noted scholar on Shia Islamic history and Islamic law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini

This is excerpted from a set of books Khomeini wrote on Islamic Jurisprudence called the ‘Tahrir al Wasilah’. Translated into Farsi, the book is called “Tahrirolvasyleh.”

I'll put the quote in a spoiler box because it is graphic & may be offensive to some...

"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomizing the child is acceptable.

If a man does penetrate and damage the child then, he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl will not count as one of his four permanent wives and the man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister.

It is better for a girl to marry at such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband’s house, rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven."

["Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth edition, Qom, Iran, 1990]

There is much more in this book and another he wrote called "The Little Green Book" that advocates the practices of pedophilia and bestiality (along with other behaviors we would consider perversions) as prescribed practice of Islamic law, custom and religious observance.

My question is why would an Imam say such things if pedophilia is as illegal / taboo in Islam as it is in any other modern religion or philosophy? And why would it come from a religious & political leader of a country: an Imam that provides teaching on Islamic law as instruction on the ways and accepted behavior of Muslims within Islam?
Or has this information been refuted as false, slanderous or anti-Islamic propaganda?

Below are some links to sites that discuss this issue - Disclaimer: I do not know if these sites are considered pro or anti Islam or just neutral / informational, I have NOT investigated them, just posted the first few that come up under a search...

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/iran-the-spiritual-manual-of-the-shia-supreme-leader-ayatollah-khomeini-sex-with-infants-and-animals/

http://www.nairaland.com/1086492/ayatollah-khomeinis-book-sex-shias

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread602959/pg1

http://www.solomonstemple.com/2010/08/the-ayatollah-book/

https://www.facebook.com/ExposingDeviants/videos/1443052472591715/

http://hadithcollection.com/sahihmuslim/136-Sahih%20Muslim%20Book%2008.%20Marriage/11409-sahih-muslim-book-008-hadith-number-3309.html

Thank you.

[Equilibrium]

Since this discussion is continuing, I'd like to ask a question...

First, let me say that having learned my lesson about not fully validating sources (although I'm not sure how one validates a photo with a caption & article from multiple websites - please forgive my lack of tech savvy) I'd like to ask about a rather infamous quote by the late Ayatollah Khomeini that has been around for quite a long time, especially since he died in 1989.

Khomeini, as most know, was the "Supreme Leader" of Iran in the 80's. He was one of the most highly revered Imams in modern Islamic history and was a noted scholar on Shia Islamic history and Islamic law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini

This is excerpted from a set of books Khomeini wrote on Islamic Jurisprudence called the ‘Tahrir al Wasilah’. Translated into Farsi, the book is called “Tahrirolvasyleh.”

I'll put the quote in a spoiler box because it is graphic & may be offensive to some...

"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomizing the child is acceptable.

If a man does penetrate and damage the child then, he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl will not count as one of his four permanent wives and the man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister.

It is better for a girl to marry at such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband’s house, rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven."

["Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth edition, Qom, Iran, 1990]

There is much more in this book and another he wrote called "The Little Green Book" that advocates the practices of pedophilia and bestiality (along with other behaviors we would consider perversions) as prescribed practice of Islamic law, custom and religious observance.

My question is why would an Imam say such things if pedophilia is as illegal / taboo in Islam as it is in any other modern religion or philosophy? And why would it come from a religious & political leader of a country: an Imam that provides teaching on Islamic law as instruction on the ways and accepted behavior of Muslims within Islam?
Or has this information been refuted as false, slanderous or anti-Islamic propaganda?

Below are some links to sites that discuss this issue - Disclaimer: I do not know if these sites are considered pro or anti Islam or just neutral / informational, I have NOT investigated them, just posted the first few that come up under a search...

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/iran-the-spiritual-manual-of-the-shia-supreme-leader-ayatollah-khomeini-sex-with-infants-and-animals/

http://www.nairaland.com/1086492/ayatollah-khomeinis-book-sex-shias

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread602959/pg1

http://www.solomonstemple.com/2010/08/the-ayatollah-book/

https://www.facebook.com/ExposingDeviants/videos/1443052472591715/

http://hadithcollection.com/sahihmuslim/136-Sahih%20Muslim%20Book%2008.%20Marriage/11409-sahih-muslim-book-008-hadith-number-3309.html

Thank you.
So there's a pedophile imam. I'm so shocked.

Shall we discuss the rampant pedophilia that continues to this day in the Catholic church that they had to go make several high profile movies about??(spotlight).

Did Jesus teach pedophilia????

Bah. What's the point. It's not that you didn't validate your sources, it's that now I know what you're reading. As I've said before, time is limited and I don't have time to read fake news or conspiracy theories. Take care.

[Camo]

AboveTopSecret is a conspiracy theory forum. Can't believe you linked to a thread there, that place is a cesspool.

[Captain Steel]

So there's a pedophile imam. I'm so shocked.

Shall we discuss the rampant pedophilia that continues to this day in the Catholic church that they had to go make several high profile movies about??(spotlight).

Did Jesus teach pedophilia????

Bah. What's the point. It's not that you didn't validate your sources, it's that now I know what you're reading. As I've said before, time is limited and I don't have time to read fake news or conspiracy theories. Take care.

As I said, these sites were the first that come up in a Google search - beyond glancing at them, I didn't read them. If you choose not to believe anything I say, that's your prerogative - there's not much I can do about that.

I've been hearing & seeing this quote for years, and many critics of Islam refer to it as an example of how pedophilia is allowed in Islam (and they say an Imam who is highly revered and regarded as a scholar and an authority on Islamic law said this based on the tradition of the Prophet taking child brides).

I'm just wondering if the quote itself is real or if it was made up for propaganda? I can't find confirmation, just sites saying these things are written in Khomeini's books on Islamic rules.

You didn't answer the question (and if you don't know, that's fine) but you inferred that Khomeini may have been a pedophile. I can understand that in your comparison to pedophile priests - the big difference is no Catholic priest regarded as a political & religious leader and interpreter of religious law ever wrote that pedophilia was part of their religion. Allegedly, Khomeini prescribes it as an allowed part of Islam and goes so far as to go into explicit details as if writing an instruction manual.

It's one thing if Khomeini was a closet pedo (those exist in every religion and position of power), but why would he prescribe the rules of pedophilia in a book on Islamic Jurisprudence specifically written to instruct Muslims on their religious laws and tenets?

Equi, you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder - I'm not stating anything, I'm asking a question. My goal here is truth. If something is false, I'm the first person who wants to know it. I appreciate that the photo I posted was revealed to be misrepresented, now I know. Interestingly enough, I did a little further looking and found that that same photo shows up in a bunch of YouTube videos on child brides!!! So I've begun to post the Snopes refutation on some of those videos to let others know. My desire is to be educated and informed, not to be biased, prejudiced or fed information by ANY agenda.

[Captain Steel]

AboveTopSecret is a conspiracy theory forum. Can't believe you linked to a thread there, that place is a cesspool.

Thanks Camo. I can't believe it either... I guess the explanation for my lack of knowledge about that site is that unlike others here, I haven't memorized 1,085,628,900 website's names by heart, opened them all, investigated and validated to make sure they aren't conspiracy theory forums. I hope to get around to doing that one day, but right now I just don't have the time. So in the meantime, I'll have to find sites that address questions the mentally-challenged way - by typing the keywords into Google and see what comes up. ;)

But seriously, I posted the first few sites that came up when I typed in the name of Khomeini's book - apparently some are forums, blogs, articles, Facebook pages, etc. As I originally said, these are just sites that reference the material in my question.

Since we have some folks here who claim or seem to be Islamic scholars, I was hoping they could provide some answers on this question - my offering up a sample of websites was saying, here's what comes up in a Google search.

Okay? Is that okay? Everybody okay now? Anybody still wracked with Captain Steel-o-phobia?

[Camo]

There's probably a StormFront thread on this, you should check there.

[Captain Steel]

There's probably a StormFront thread on this, you should check there.

LOL! ...after looking it up.
As said, I haven't memorized over a billion websites... yet.

Here's a question - how come so many are quick to say "your an Islamophobe, you're a this, you're a that..." but when someone asks a serious question - just a question mind you, not an opinion, not a statement - about something that may (or ultimately may not) have to do with Islam, all those who claim to be authorities from experience and who are so up in arms suddenly go quiet (or come back with more snarky remarks)?

[Camo]

Another Controlled Explosion - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/manchester-attack-latest-detectives-hunt-terror-network/

[Camo]

LOL! ...after looking it up.
As said, I haven't memorized over a billion websites... yet.

Here's a question - how come so many are quick to say "your an Islamophobe, you're a this, you're a that..." but when someone asks a serious question - just a question mind you, not an opinion, not a statement - about something that may (or ultimately may not) have to do with Islam, all those who claim to be authorities from experience and who are so up in arms suddenly go quiet (or come back with more snarky remarks)?

Dunno, you should ask whoever said they were an authority on islam, i don't know who they are. All i'm saying is you should check your links before posting them, on other harsher sites members get infractions for just link dumping which was what you were doing. I don't have a clue if that comment is real or not, i never commented on it only the sites you chose to link to. And i wouldn't open any of them if you paid me.

Don't know why you keep saying you haven't memorized a billion sites, all you'd have to do is check the one site you linked to before deciding to post it.

[Captain Steel]

Another Controlled Explosion - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/manchester-attack-latest-detectives-hunt-terror-network/

Okay, that's more like it - serious, informative, neutral, (no snarkiness).
Keep up the good work, my friend!

[Captain Steel]

Dunno, you should ask whoever said they were an authority on islam, i don't know who they are. All i'm saying is you should check your links before posting them, on other harsher sites members get infractions for just link dumping which was what you were doing. I don't have a clue if that comment is real or not, i never commented on it only the sites you chose to link to. And i wouldn't open any of them if you paid me.

Don't know why you keep saying you haven't memorized a billion sites, all you'd have to do is check the one site you linked to before deciding to post it.

Good to know, I did open them all to make sure they weren't spam or laden with pop-ups, etc. I wouldn't want to do that to people.

[Camo]

Father of Manchester Arena suicide bomber 'was a member of al-Qaeda linked militant group'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/renegade-libyan-faction-accuses-britain-nurturing-manchester/

[Captain Steel]

Dunno, you should ask whoever said they were an authority on islam, i don't know who they are. All i'm saying is you should check your links before posting them, on other harsher sites members get infractions for just link dumping which was what you were doing. I don't have a clue if that comment is real or not, i never commented on it only the sites you chose to link to. And i wouldn't open any of them if you paid me.

Don't know why you keep saying you haven't memorized a billion sites, all you'd have to do is check the one site you linked to before deciding to post it.

Now that we're ALONE here together... (don't worry, nothing gay about to happen...) but who is that in your new Avatar? Have to admit I'm missing Idris.

[Camo]

Now that we're ALONE here together... (don't worry, nothing gay about to happen...) but who is that in your new Avatar? Have to admit I'm missing Idris.

Snoop, from The Wire same as the Idris one i had. Thinking about changing it soon, not sure what to though.

https://s14.postimg.org/7woc60eo1/snoopppppppppppp.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/52l6skchp/)

[Dani8]

Meanwhile, breaking news on the source of all sources - facebook; one poster asked

Why didnt they give him a fair trial before condemning him as a suicide bomber?????????????????????????

Ummm...maybe because the lunatic blew himself up to kill innocent people? Not much his lawyer can ask him in the witness box.

Where do these people come from. Bloody hell.

[Captain Steel]

Meanwhile, breaking news on the source of all sources - facebook; one poster asked

Why didnt they give him a fair trial before condemning him as a suicide bomber?????????????????????????

Ummm...maybe because the lunatic blew himself up to kill innocent people? Not much his lawyer can ask him in the witness box.

Where do these people come from. Bloody hell.

Sounds like a Monty Python skit!

[Dani8]

Sounds like a Monty Python skit!

She thinks it's a global media conspiracy theory. One guy offered her a tinfoil hat and called her Dear. She hit the roof he called her Dear.
Seriously, people over there comment on news articles without even reading them. She had no idea he was dead. Jaysus. You cant switch on the news or open a newspaper here without getting an idea of what happened.

[Dani8]

I guess the explanation for my lack of knowledge about that site is that unlike others here, I haven't memorized 1,085,628,900 website's names by heart, opened them all, investigated and validated to make sure they aren't conspiracy theory forums.
Since we have some folks here who claim or seem to be Islamic scholars, I was hoping they could provide some answers on this question - my offering up a sample of websites was saying, here's what comes up in a Google search.




And sorry, matey, but just on those two points

1. No one here claims to have memorised 1,085,628,900 websites. I hadn't even heard of the one Cam called you on but it took me 3 seconds to see it is a conspiracy theoriest forum.

2. The only person I recall in this thread claiming to be an Islamic scholar was you. Tapping away on google a scholar does not make. I can say I've studied Pizzagate but 4chan loonies and how it's relayed in the media means zip.

[Movie Max]

Snoop, from The Wire same as the Idris one i had. Thinking about changing it soon, not sure what to though.

Mr.T would be good. Enjoy it while you can. I'm wating for the moment when using an avatar that doesn't match your skin color will be considered cultural appropriation. Rachel Dolezal will still be up for grabs.:D

[Wplains]

Well you have yet to answer why 1.5 billion Muslims aren't marrying children. So, yes, I will continue to be a scientist and let the evidence rule above all else.

And you can keep doing...well whatever it is you do that makes you hate 1 in 7 people.

No probably many of them aren't.....but many of them are. And I don't "hate" anyone especially 1 in 7 people whom I don't know personally. I do despise their whole Fascist ideology because it's based on the subjugation and oppression of women. That is why child marriage is allowed and condoned (if not actually actively encouraged - though if that quote from Komeini is true....ugh) because females are seen as expendable commodities, to be bought and sold and disposed of at the male's whim, be it her father, husband, son or brother. Check out the laws regarding women for the vast majority of Muslim countries and I'm sure you'll see what I mean. Though, I'm sure you will then have some blithe comment to make about how this is all a conspiracy theory and these women actually have it much better than in the West because, you know...Islam is all about protecting women. The laws protecting women in Islamic countries have about as much credibility as the Constitutions of Communist countries: all very pretty on paper and then totally disregarded in practice.

BTW, I loved how you disregarded Komeini's alleged comment as just a pedophile Iman. Yes but one whose word is law to millions and one whom many more follow(ed) blindly and who is revered and adored as an Authority on Islam. And last I looked, pedophile priests are considered immoral and criminal in the Catholic church - not people to emulate and follow and they certainly are not held up as an example.

[Wplains]

Father of Manchester Arena suicide bomber 'was a member of al-Qaeda linked militant group'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/renegade-libyan-faction-accuses-britain-nurturing-manchester/

Well, well, well.....what a surprise - NOT!

[Movie Max]

#PrayForMarawi

Filipinos who noticed #PrayForManchester - which has been tweeted 3 million times - called for similar attention to be given to their cause.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-40030447

[Camo]

Manchester bombing latest: Army bomb disposal team called to college in Hulme with video.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/25/manchester-arena-bombing-latest/

Also read on another site that 8 people including the bombers father were arrested in Libya. Can't find anything on it though so it might not be true.

Edit: I think that's probably a rumour that got mixed up on social media because from that same link:

One man was arrested after a property was searched in the Withington area of Manchester, while another was detained elsewhere in the city, Greater Manchester Police said.

The arrests take the total number of men in custody to eight after a series of raids across Manchester, Wigan and Nuneaton, Warwickshire.

[Wplains]

Manchester bombing latest: Army bomb disposal team called to college in Hulme with video.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/25/manchester-arena-bombing-latest/

Also read on another site that 8 people including the bombers father were arrested in Libya. Can't find anything on it though so it might not be true.

Edit: I think that's probably a rumour that got mixed up on social media because from that same link:


I don't this its a rumour because I read his father and brother had been arrested in Lybia on
various news sites this morning,

Indeed the BBC is saying this:

Eight men and one woman have been arrested in the UK since Monday night.
They include Abedi's older brother, Ismail, 23. The woman has since been released without charge.

The arrests were made following a series of police raids across Manchester, Wigan and Nuneaton in Warwickshire.

Twenty-year-old Hashem Abedi, Abedi's younger brother, was detained in Tripoli on suspicion of links with the so-called Islamic State group on Tuesday evening.
Reuters news agency has told the BBC that Abedi's father, Ramadan, has also been detained Libya.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-40008389

He seems to be no "lone wolf" nor a "madman who acted alone" . What we do know is he was being watched by the police. Right...being watched. And he's was still able to kill and maim over 80 people while deliberately targeting children. :sick:

[Wplains]

Faces of some Manchester survivors.

http://www.reuters.com/news/picture/survivors-of-manchester?articleId=USRTX37KJD

[Camo]

Right, i thought it was mixed up because the father was being lumped in with the 8 who were arrested, there was no mention of that being separate.

Edit: Also that last bomb threat i posted turned out to not be anything: it was deemed safe and the roads were reopened.

[Equilibrium]

Well you have yet to answer why 1.5 billion Muslims aren't marrying children. So, yes, I will continue to be a scientist and let the evidence rule above all else.

And you can keep doing...well whatever it is you do that makes you hate 1 in 7 people.

No probably many of them aren't.....but many of them are. And I don't "hate" anyone especially 1 in 7 people whom I don't know personally. I do despise their whole Fascist ideology because it's based on the subjugation and oppression of women. That is why child marriage is allowed and condoned (if not actually actively encouraged - though if that quote from Komeini is true....ugh) because females are seen as expendable commodities, to be bought and sold and disposed of at the male's whim, be it her father, husband, son or brother. Check out the laws regarding women for the vast majority of Muslim countries and I'm sure you'll see what I mean. Though, I'm sure you will then have some blithe comment to make about how this is all a conspiracy theory and these women actually have it much better than in the West because, you know...Islam is all about protecting women. The laws protecting women in Islamic countries have about as much credibility as the Constitutions of Communist countries: all very pretty on paper and then totally disregarded in practice.

BTW, I loved how you disregarded Komeini's alleged comment as just a pedophile Iman. Yes but one whose word is law to millions and one whom many more follow(ed) blindly and who is revered and adored as an Authority on Islam. And last I looked, pedophile priests are considered immoral and criminal in the Catholic church - not people to emulate and follow and they certainly are not held up as an example.
Then you clearly don't understand Islam (which has been painfully apparent long before this post). Unlike Christianity, Islam is a decentralized religion. There is no pope. There is no Vatican. There is no governing body that directs 1.5 billion Muslims what to do. Certain states like Saudi Arabia follow doctrines like wahabism and have imams issue their interpretations. These are meant to be consumed and are not law as you incorrectly pointed out. There's an imam who put out a statement that it's ok to hit your wife as long as you only use two fingers. Another imam said it's permissible to drink alcohol. So it's all garbage and again not law anywhere.

Khomaini is not revered or viewed as an authority on Islam...unless you're talking to his supporters in which case their entire agenda is to convince you of that.

Again, Christianity teaches that Jesus is savior of man. And I would say most if not all Christians believe that. You're telling me Islam teaches child marriages...But most if not very close to all 1.5 billion Muslims do not condone such action.

So it's like you want to force Muslims into YOUR twisted version of their own religion.

The question remains, if Islam teaches child marriages, why aren't the majority of Muslims married to children.

[Movie Max]

The question remains, of Islam teaches child marriages, why aren't the majority of Muslims married to children.

I'm guessing here, but, maybe a first cousin is looked upon as the more desirable option in a union?

[Equilibrium]

The question remains, of Islam teaches child marriages, why aren't the majority of Muslims married to children.

I'm guessing here, but, maybe a first cousin is looked upon as the more desirable option in a union?


Don't know if trolling or what..But genetic diseases are very rare in the middle east for the very reason that incest is not tolerated as it is even here in the states (west Virginia and Kentucky lol)

[Wplains]

You're telling me Islam teaches child marriages...But most if not very close to all 1.5 billion Muslims do not condone such action.

So it's like you want to force Muslims into YOUR twisted version of their own religion.
.

I am not telling you anything of the kind and I never said that though you keep telling me I did. Not my fault you have problems with interpretation. What I did say was that Islam encourages (if not actively condones) child marriage because it does not value females

And I'm glad 1.5 million Muslims "do not condone such actions" though that is not borne out by that map put out by Amnesty international where every single Muslim country in the world is included in the areas where child marriage is a problem. So I guess it must be a teensy weensy minority hardly worth mentioning and that Amnesty must then have a very big anti Muslim agenda, huh?

The only version I have of Islam is that it's an misogynist, homophobic ideology which I want nothing to do with. Nor do I want to live anywhere near any place where they are dominant.

[seanc]

Then you clearly don't understand Islam (which has been painfully apparent long before this post). Unlike Christianity, Islam is a decentralized religion. There is no pope. There is no Vatican.

and you think she is the only one that needs to look closer into the religion they are talking about?

[Movie Max]

Don't know if trolling or what..

...or what.

Bradford study finds higher birth defect risk in married cousins
Of 5,127 babies of Pakistani origin, 37% had married parents who were first cousins, compared to less than 1% of married couples nationally.http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-23183102

Keeping it in the family
In Egypt, around 40% of the population marry a cousin; the last survey in Jordan, admittedly way back in 1992, found that 32% were married to a first cousin; a further 17.3% were married to more distant relatives. Rates are thought to be even higher in tribal countries such as Iraq and the Gulf states of Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Kuwait.http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21693632-marriage-between-close-relatives-much-too-common-keeping-it-family

[Equilibrium]

You're telling me Islam teaches child marriages...But most if not very close to all 1.5 billion Muslims do not condone such action.

So it's like you want to force Muslims into YOUR twisted version of their own religion.
.

I am not telling you anything of the kind and I never said that though you keep telling me I did. Not my fault you have problems with interpretation. What I did say was that Islam encourages (if not actively condones) child marriage because it does not value females

And I'm glad 1.5 million Muslims "do not condone such actions" though that is not borne out by that map put out by Amnesty international where every single Muslim country in the world is included in the areas where child marriage is a problem. So I guess it must be a teensy weensy minority hardly worth mentioning and that Amnesty must then have a very big anti Muslim agenda, huh?

The only version I have of Islam is that it's an misogynist, homophobic ideology which I want nothing to do with. Nor do I want to live anywhere near any place where they are dominant.

The amnesty international showed every single muslim country huh??

Wow. I just looked at the list and nope sorry I didnt even see half of the muslim countries listed. But keep making up facts.

It seems you want nothing to do with Islam OR integrity and truth.

[Captain Steel]

Then you clearly don't understand Islam (which has been painfully apparent long before this post). Unlike Christianity, Islam is a decentralized religion. There is no pope. There is no Vatican. There is no governing body that directs 1.5 billion Muslims what to do. Certain states like Saudi Arabia follow doctrines like wahabism and have imams issue their interpretations. These are meant to be consumed and are not law as you incorrectly pointed out. There's an imam who put out a statement that it's ok to hit your wife as long as you only use two fingers. Another imam said it's permissible to drink alcohol. So it's all garbage and again not law anywhere.

Khomaini is not revered or viewed as an authority on Islam...unless you're talking to his supporters in which case their entire agenda is to convince you of that.

Again, Christianity teaches that Jesus is savior of man. And I would say most if not all Christians believe that. You're telling me Islam teaches child marriages...But most if not very close to all 1.5 billion Muslims do not condone such action.

So it's like you want to force Muslims into YOUR twisted version of their own religion.

The question remains, if Islam teaches child marriages, why aren't the majority of Muslims married to children.

Some good points. And that is a good question. My only guess (if the assertion is true) is that Islam may only advocate it, but not demand it - obviously.

Pedophilia is a sexual fetish & perversion that is appealing only to a small (and disturbed) minority in any society, so it may be a case of saying "Hey, you Muslim guys who like the little girls can go ahead because that's what Muhammad did, but for most of you guys who still like grown women, carry on as usual."
I'm just theorizing based on the hypothesis that the assertion (that some Muslims are using the example of Muhammad as their excuse to practice pedophila) is true.

Allegedly Khomeini was a pedophile, but unlike any other closet pedo-clergyman, he openly justified it as a legitimate Islamic practice because it followed the example of Muhammad. He not only justified it, but allegedly prescribed how to go about it as part of Islamic law & religion for those Muslim men who shared the fetish and wanted to follow the example of their Prophet.

For such obviously heinous statements from a famous Imam & teacher of Islamic law, I'm wondering where all the refutations are from the Muslim world - I'm sure they're out there since, as pointed out, billions of Muslims do not advocate or engage in pedophilia - I just haven't been able to find any.

We know that some ISIS members are engaging in child rape, forced marriages, child sex slavery and trading / selling girls, and they also justify it as a literal following of the example set by the perfect man that their religion taught them to follow.

Question is: if pedophilia is as forbidden, illegal, sinful and taboo in Islam as in any other religion, where did these guys who follow a literal and fundamental interpretation of Islam get this idea?

[Equilibrium]

Then you clearly don't understand Islam (which has been painfully apparent long before this post). Unlike Christianity, Islam is a decentralized religion. There is no pope. There is no Vatican.

and you think she is the only one that needs to look closer into the religion they are talking about?


Absolutely.

Are you seriously saying there's a centralized church in Islam because it seems that's what you're objection is...

[seanc]

Absolutely.

Are you seriously saying there's a centralized church in Islam because it seems that's what you're objection is...

No I am saying if you think the Pope and the Vatican create policy for Christianity you haven't been paying attention for 200 years.

[Equilibrium]

Don't know if trolling or what..

...or what.

Bradford study finds higher birth defect risk in married cousins
Of 5,127 babies of Pakistani origin, 37% had married parents who were first cousins, compared to less than 1% of married couples nationally.http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-23183102

Keeping it in the family
In Egypt, around 40% of the population marry a cousin; the last survey in Jordan, admittedly way back in 1992, found that 32% were married to a first cousin; a further 17.3% were married to more distant relatives. Rates are thought to be even higher in tribal countries such as Iraq and the Gulf states of Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Kuwait.http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21693632-marriage-between-close-relatives-much-too-common-keeping-it-family

Noted. And I have no rebuttal. It seems that incest occurred in those two countries on a higher than average level. Thanks for the links.

[Equilibrium]

Absolutely.

Are you seriously saying there's a centralized church in Islam because it seems that's what you're objection is...

No I am saying if you think the Pope and the Vatican create policy for Christianity you haven't been paying attention for 200 years.


I didn't say that.. .But Christianity is a lot older than 200 years...And its early foundations WERE based on edicts from centralized governing bodies. Even to this day there is a heirchal structure to the ministry. (Priest, bishop archbishop etc).

No such structure exists in islam. An Imam is someone who leads prayer and ANYONE who is muslim can do that, you do not need to go to a special school or get prior approval. You can walk into the mosque and ask to lead prayer..You're The imam now.

[seanc]

Absolutely.

Are you seriously saying there's a centralized church in Islam because it seems that's what you're objection is...

I'm probably more on your side than most people in the thread. I think I am convinced that terrorism is more of a sociological problem than a religion problem. I sure as hell don't give a flip about the linguistic semantics the right and left are playing right now. However you keep telling anyone that says anything negative about Islam that they need to do research because they can't possibly know the minds of a billion people. Then you assert that you know the minds of a billion people. Before you say that you know because a billion people aren't blowing people up think about whether you care about the effect Westboro Baptist has on culture. The effect Trump has. The effect the cardinals that looked the other way have. Actions are not the only thing that dictate extremism or are harmful to our way of life.

[seanc]

I didn't say that.. .But Christianity is a lot older than 200 years...And its early foundations WERE based on edicts from centralized governing bodies. Even to this day there is a heirchal structure to the ministry. (Priest, bishop archbishop etc).

No such structure exists in islam. An Imam is someone who leads prayer and ANYONE who is muslim can do that, you do not need to go to a special school or get prior approval. You can walk into the mosque and ask to lead prayer..You're The imam now.

Islam isn't over 200 years old? A billion people randomly decided to follow the same text and God?

Jesus was preaching against the centralized governing bodies well over 200 years ago. So if you want to go back to the beginning you are going to have a lot of terrible things to debunk, but I think we spent many pages on that.

I thought we had moved on to talking about the present.

[Equilibrium]

I didn't say that.. .But Christianity is a lot older than 200 years...And its early foundations WERE based on edicts from centralized governing bodies. Even to this day there is a heirchal structure to the ministry. (Priest, bishop archbishop etc).

No such structure exists in islam. An Imam is someone who leads prayer and ANYONE who is muslim can do that, you do not need to go to a special school or get prior approval. You can walk into the mosque and ask to lead prayer..You're The imam now.

Islam isn't over 200 years old? A billion people randomly decided to follow the same text and God?

Jesus was preaching against the centralized governing bodies well over 200 years ago. So if you want to go back to the beginning you are going to have a lot of terrible things to debunk, but I think we spent many pages on that.

I thought we had moved on to talking about the present.


I don't understand the problem...all I'm saying is islam the religion exists in a very decentralized manner. That's all. I didn't say islam isnt older than 200 years......

[Equilibrium]

Absolutely.

Are you seriously saying there's a centralized church in Islam because it seems that's what you're objection is...

I'm probably more on your side than most people in the thread. I think I am convinced that terrorism is more of a sociological problem than a religion problem. I sure as hell don't give a flip about the linguistic semantics the right and left are playing right now. However you keep telling anyone that says anything negative about Islam that they need to do research because they can't possibly know the minds of a billion people. Then you assert that you know the minds of a billion people. Before you say that you know because a billion people aren't blowing people up think about whether you care about the effect Westboro Baptist has on culture. The effect Trump has. The effect the cardinals that looked the other way have. Actions are not the only thing that dictate extremism or are harmful to our way of life.


If the conversation were about minutiae then you'll see I have my own criticisms. But the conversation is about..child marriages, pedophilia, and other abhorrent issues and in that respect, I think it's important for someone to defend 1.5 billion people who are not what they are painted to be.

[Camo]

I thought we had moved on to talking about the present.

Thank god. I still don't have a clue why people are going on about paedophillia or how it even started.

[Equilibrium]

I thought we had moved on to talking about the present.

Thank god. I still don't have a clue why people are going on about paedophillia or how it even started.
It's because two people in this thread made the claim that Muslims and Mohammed were pedophiles and I'm sorry but ignorance cannot be ignored no matter what the topic was originally about. But I'm ok with putting it to rest and moving on with the topic.

[Captain Steel]

Thank god. I still don't have a clue why people are going on about paedophillia or how it even started.

We were talking about how modern terrorist claim they are motivated by following the tenets of Islam and the examples set by Muhammad as their religion instructs. Equi had denied that Muhammad had ever been a warrior, a bandit, someone who ordered assassinations of blasphemers & infidels, a mass murderer of Jews and a pedophile (all historical facts acknowledged by most Muslims and used by terrorists to justify their various atrocities). That's how it started. :)

[Dannii]

I've decided to help the victims of the Manchester terrorist attack by donating my blood.

[seanc]

I don't understand the problem...all I'm saying is islam the religion exists in a very decentralized manner. That's all. I didn't say islam isnt older than 200 years......

My problem is that right now we have a very big problem in the Western world. The people who are performing these very violent acts are doing it in the name of one religion. For two days I have seen you dismiss anyone who brings that up by saying they should read more. It is a very complex problem that won't be solved on Mofo but people who want to talk about shouldn't be swatted away like pesky flies. Islam isn't above reproach anymore than Catholicism or Christianity is when people do horrible things in the name of it. Westboro weighs heavily on my mind still and this is a fringe group of less than 1000 people. Non-Christians think they represent my views though. It makes me want to puke and makes me look inward and ask how I can change that perception. It doesn't make me tell people to read more.

[Equilibrium]

I don't understand the problem...all I'm saying is islam the religion exists in a very decentralized manner. That's all. I didn't say islam isnt older than 200 years......

My problem is that right now we have a very big problem in the Western world. The people who are performing these very violent acts are doing it in the name of one religion. For two days I have seen you dismiss anyone who brings that up by saying they should read more. It is a very complex problem that won't be solved on Mofo but people who want to talk about shouldn't be swatted away like pesky flies. Islam isn't above reproach anymore than Catholicism or Christianity is when people do horrible things in the name of it. Westboro weighs heavily on my mind still and this is a fringe group of less than 1000 people. Non-Christians think they represent my views though. It makes me want to puke and makes me look inward and ask how I can change that perception. It doesn't make me tell people to read more.

But the topics at hand were pedophilia, terrorism as basic tenant of Islam and child marriages as being condoned by Islam.

I'm not in disagreement that we have a problem that needs fixing but people are posting fake news stories and calling Muhammad a pedophile. It's like trying to argue Jesus was a murderer and thats just how I feel??!!! No. Sorry, but you dint get to just "feel" that way when nothing of the sort was historical.

Let's have a civilized conversation about how we can fix the problem at hand that does NOT start with "well Mohammad and Islam are pedophiles and basically their religion tells them to be evil"

Until then, yes you'll have to suffer my posts.

[Equilibrium]

I've decided to help the victims of the Manchester terrorist attack by donating my blood.
Very nice of you.

[Dani8]

I've decided to help the victims of the Manchester terrorist attack by donating my blood.

Good for you, Danni. At last something positive in this thread.

Interesting article by an Australian academic and journalist on terrorism.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/in-my-imagination-my-daughter-was-in-manchester-arena-that-night-too-20170525-gwcr9p.html

[Wplains]

The amnesty international showed every single muslim country huh??

Wow. I just looked at the list and nope sorry I didnt even see half of the muslim countries listed. But keep making up facts.

It seems you want nothing to do with Islam OR integrity and truth.

Again you seem to have a problem with interpretation. Did you look at the MAP? You know, that little graphic where all the countries of the world are represented? Did you see the dark colour? Those are the countries where child marriage is accepted and considered problematic. There is only four Muslim countries where apparently it's not the norm and those are Lybia, Oman, UAE and Tunisia. I missed those, I concede.

Where you are saying Muslim countries are not represented, I presume, is in the list entitled: 20 COUNTRIES WITH THE HIGHEST RATES OF CHILD MARRIAGE*

So let's just have a look at those countries:

1. Niger - Islam is the dominant religion in Niger and is practiced by 94% of the population.
3. Chad - 1993 census which found that Muslims made up 53.1%
4. Mali - An estimated 90 percent of Malians are Muslim,
5. Bangladesh - Islam is the largest religion of Bangladesh; Muslims constitute over 90% of the population
5. Burkina Faso - 60.5% of the population adheres to Islam
5. Guinea - Guinea is approximately 85 percent Muslim
12. Somalia - The major religion in Somalia is Islam
13. Nigeria - Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) found 53% Muslim
19. Sierra Leone - 71.3% of the country's total population is Muslim

So, out of 20 countries which have the highest rates of child marriage, 9 are Islamic countries with one (Eritrea) having disputed percentages between Muslims and Christians - United States Department of State (USDoS) estimated that 50% of the population was Muslim and around 48% was Christian - Pew Research Center, around 62.9% of Eritrea's population in 2010 adhered to Christianity, and 36.2% followed Islam - though it still has a very high percentage of Muslims - so I did not include it).

So 9 out of 20 seems a fairly high percentage of Muslim countries where child marriage is a problem. However, the map only excludes a tiny percentage of Islamic countries - even Turkey which is supposed to be a fairly enlightened country and has aspirations to be a part of the European Union has problems with child marriage. Even some of the countries in Europe (Bosnia Herzegovina, Albania and Kosovo) are included in the problematic areas of child marriage. And the main religion there? Again it is Islam.

No matter how much you want to deny it, child marriage seems to be very much a part of the Muslim world The same not being true of the West, Russia, China and a few countries in South America.

[Dannii]

I've decided to help the victims of the Manchester terrorist attack by donating my blood.

Good for you, Danni. At last something positive in this thread.

Interesting article by an Australian academic and journalist on terrorism.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/in-my-imagination-my-daughter-was-in-manchester-arena-that-night-too-20170525-gwcr9p.html
Thank you Dani. I've read the posts on this thread and can see people are angry at what's happened, i reckon you guys and girls would donate too given the chance.

[Wplains]

It's because two people in this thread made the claim that Muslims and Mohammed were pedophiles and I'm sorry but ignorance cannot be ignored no matter what the topic was originally about. But I'm ok with putting it to rest and moving on with the topic.

Wrong and you're twisting words again. I am not sure Mohammed was a pedophile though everything I have read certainly seems to suggest it - I never made that assertion in this discussion. And no one ever said that all Muslims were pedophiles, just that there is a huge problem in Islam with child marriages. So please, do not put words in people's mouths, hmm?

[Wplains]

I've decided to help the victims of the Manchester terrorist attack by donating my blood.

Good idea. That's a great way to help!

[Captain Steel]

But the topics at hand were pedophilia, terrorism as basic tenant of Islam and child marriages as being condoned by Islam.

I'm not in disagreement that we have a problem that needs fixing but people are posting fake news stories and calling Muhammad a pedophile. It's like trying to argue Jesus was a murderer and thats just how I feel??!!! No. Sorry, but you dint get to just "feel" that way when nothing of the sort was historical.

Let's have a civilized conversation about how we can fix the problem at hand that does NOT start with "well Mohammad and Islam are pedophiles and basically their religion tells them to be evil"

Until then, yes you'll have to suffer my posts.

You don't believe it is historical, others do. The things you deny about Muhammad's history are commonly held as factual history by both believers and nonbelievers alike.
Whether Muhammad's recorded history is entirely accurate or not, there are some followers who use the record and passed down tradition of his history as their excuse to commit crimes now. Obviously members of ISIS feel it's historical because they use the example as their justification to rape children.

And please stop saying that anyone here is saying Muslims are pedophiles. No one here has said ALL Muslims are pedophiles just as no one here has said that ALL Muslims are terrorists - you are attributing false rhetoric to those you disagree with to try to make them sound unreasonable.

Most Muslims are peaceful. Some Muslims are terrorists - but this terrorism is continuous, growing and has reached a global-level scale.

[Equilibrium]

I've decided to help the victims of the Manchester terrorist attack by donating my blood.

Good for you, Danni. At last something positive in this thread.

Interesting article by an Australian academic and journalist on terrorism.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/in-my-imagination-my-daughter-was-in-manchester-arena-that-night-too-20170525-gwcr9p.html


Thank you for that article, I found it enlightening. Totally agree with "terrorism is meant to be seen, to be noticed" part.

[Dani8]

Thank you Dani. I've read the posts on this thread and can see people are angry at what's happened, i reckon you guys and girls would donate too given the chance.

Have all the missing concert goers been reunited with their parents yet, Dannii?

[Dani8]

Thank you for that article, I found it enlightening. Totally agree with "terrorism is meant to be seen, to be noticed" part.

I really like Waleed. Very smart man and straight down the middle.

[Dannii]

Thank you Dani. I've read the posts on this thread and can see people are angry at what's happened, i reckon you guys and girls would donate too given the chance.

Have all the missing concert goers been reunited with their parents yet, Dannii?
I think so yes. A police woman from neighboring Cheshire is amongst the dead, her partner is critical. We held a minutes silence across the country today. It's very emotional here, everyone is talking about it. The poor little girl who died is on my mind.

[Dani8]

I think so yes. A police woman from neighboring Cheshire is amongst the dead, her partner is critical. We held a minutes silence across the country today. It's very emotional here, everyone is talking about it. The poor little girl who died is on my mind.

I havent even checked the news yet. All gets a bit much, doesnt it, and would be so much worse for you guys over there.

[Dannii]

There's stories of heroism coming out, a taxi driver from Cheshire crossed the police cordon to pick up his passengers, 3 teenage girls, and got them home safely to their families, he survived the hillsborough disaster and he said it reminded him of it.

[Dani8]

Totally agree with "terrorism is meant to be seen, to be noticed" part.

Just on this point, this is why I don't understand why Americans were leaking info when the Brits were being tight lipped. Starve them of free promotion, don't give it to them, especially when the authorities are trying to catch the maniacs.

[Equilibrium]

Totally agree with "terrorism is meant to be seen, to be noticed" part.

Just on this point, this is why I don't understand why Americans were leaking info when the Brits were being tight lipped. Starve them of free promotion, don't give it to them, especially when the authorities are trying to catch the maniacs.
So do we know for sure who is leaking the info?? I mean is it Trump or just someone in the agency?

[Dani8]

So do we know for sure who is leaking the info?? I mean is it Trump or just someone in the agency?

I have no idea but I was utterly amazed someone from NBC passed it on (apparently)

[Equilibrium]

So do we know for sure who is leaking the info?? I mean is it Trump or just someone in the agency?

I have no idea but I was utterly amazed someone from NBC passed it on (apparently)
Just doesn't make sense why anyone would think leaking out that kind of information would be a good idea.

[Dani8]

Just doesn't make sense why anyone would think leaking out that kind of information would be a good idea.

I know. The same with releasing his name so early. Good grief. I'm not a journo but for goodness sake, they need to get a grip. It's like (OK this is a pretty lame analogy) people on the net who give future spoilers. Got to be the first one to the line. I don't understand it. Do they think potentially screwing an investigation will win them a Pulitzer?

[Wplains]

And please stop saying that anyone here is saying Muslims are pedophiles. No one here has said ALL Muslims are pedophiles just as no one here has said that ALL Muslims are terrorists - you are attributing false rhetoric to those you disagree with to try to make them sound unreasonable.

He has a slight problem with interpretation. He like to "interpret things to fit in with his pov...even if they are less than the truth..
:D

[ynwtf]

I know. The same with releasing his name so early. Good grief. I'm not a journo but for goodness sake, they need to get a grip. It's like (OK this is a pretty lame analogy) people on the net who give future spoilers. Got to be the first one to the line. I don't understand it. Do they think potentially screwing an investigation will win them a Pulitzer?


Future Spoilers?
http://www.radass.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/funny-newspaper-ads-20.jpg








;P~

[Wplains]

I think so yes. A police woman from neighboring Cheshire is amongst the dead, her partner is critical. We held a minutes silence across the country today. It's very emotional here, everyone is talking about it. The poor little girl who died is on my mind.

I think it's safe to say that those that haven't is because they are dead. I so feel for the poor parents - I know the desperation of trying to reach your child when their phones don't answer. There is this huge, enormous relief when they finally pick up. Not having your child answer their phone for 24 hours after a horrific event like that.....well, their suffering is unimaginable and every parent's worst nightmare.

[Wplains]

So do we know for sure who is leaking the info?? I mean is it Trump or just someone in the agency?

Seriously? Do you think Trump (who just happens to be in Europe at the moment) is getting hourly updates from the Manchester Police or MI5 and then leaking the info directly to the American Press via Twitter or WattsApp? Good Lord......:rolleyes:

[Guaporense]

Most Muslims are peaceful. Some Muslims are terrorists - but this terrorism is continuous, growing and has reached a global-level scale.

Not true at all. Today's terrorism is very small in scale if compared to state sponsored terrorism such as the firebombing of Japanese civilians by the US federal government in 1945 (at about 300,000 deaths, or 0.4% of Japan's population at the time). Yes, that was technically terrorism:

"Terrorism is a term used in its broadest sense to describe the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim. It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence against civilians or non-combatants."

The level of violence in the world today is much smaller than in any past period of history: the probability you will die in a violent death today is 100 times smaller than 1 thousand years ago.

Read this:

http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/11/the-decline-of-violence

[Equilibrium]

So do we know for sure who is leaking the info?? I mean is it Trump or just someone in the agency?

Seriously? Do you think Trump (who just happens to be in Europe at the moment) is getting hourly updates from the Manchester Police or MI5 and then leaking the info directly to the American Press via Twitter or WattsApp? Good Lord......:rolleyes:

You have a problem. I was just asking...It's not like trump just leaked classfied info to the russians last week or anything.

You need to get a hold of yourself.

[Equilibrium]

Most Muslims are peaceful. Some Muslims are terrorists - but this terrorism is continuous, growing and has reached a global-level scale.

Not true at all. Today's terrorism is very small in scale if compared to state sponsored terrorism such as the firebombing of Japanese civilians by the US federal government in 1945 (at about 300,000 deaths, or 0.4% of Japan's population at the time). Yes, that was technically terrorism:

"Terrorism is a term used in its broadest sense to describe the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim. It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence against civilians or non-combatants."

The level of violence in the world today is much smaller than in any past period of history: the probability you will die in a violent death today is 100 times smaller than 1 thousand years ago.

Read this:

http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/11/the-decline-of-violence

Very informative. Thank you.

Reminds me of a video I saw about the number deaths that happened in World War II, the last few minutes of the video are all about how wwe have never lived in more peaceful times (judged by the numbers). Obviously its just as dangerous of a world but I think we are better at controlling massive casualities.

check it out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwKPFT-RioU

[Dani8]

Equi, trump announced today anyone leaking Intel will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Will post when I get home. I haven't seen anyone say he did it.

[Wplains]

Not true at all. Today's terrorism is very small in scale if compared to state sponsored terrorism such as the firebombing of Japanese civilians by the US federal government in 1945 (at about 300,000 deaths, or 0.4% of Japan's population at the time). Yes, that was technically terrorism:

Wasn't that during WWII? So I guess the London Blitz or the carpet bombing of German cities would also be considered "terrorism" by you?


[

[Wplains]

You have a problem. I was just asking...It's not like trump just leaked classfied info to the russians last week or anything.

You need to get a hold of yourself.

I just thought it was funny you saying Trump could be leaking info to the press Hard to believe he'd have time for that while visiting the Pope, heading for the NATO meeting and visiting Saudi Arabia.

As to the Russian leaks, has that been proven? I haven't been following that, so just wondering if it is true?

And I am "holding" myself quite well, thank you very much! :D

[Equilibrium]

You have a problem. I was just asking...It's not like trump just leaked classfied info to the russians last week or anything.

You need to get a hold of yourself.

I just thought it was funny you saying Trump could be leaking info to the press Hard to believe he'd have time for that while visiting the Pope, heading for the NATO meeting and visiting Saudi Arabia.

As to the Russian leaks, has that been proven? I haven't been following that, so just wondering if it is true?

And I am "holding" myself quite well, thank you very much! :D

Yea the Russian leaks happened. The source that was endangered by this leak was Israeli and Israel had to make "changes" accordingly. Presumably they took steps to protect their man who obtained that info by changing his or her identity.

[Equilibrium]

Equi, trump announced today anyone leaking Intel will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Will post when I get home. I haven't seen anyone say he did it.
Yea I just got a Washington post about it. Interesting stuff.

[Captain Steel]

Not true at all. Today's terrorism is very small in scale if compared to state sponsored terrorism such as the firebombing of Japanese civilians by the US federal government in 1945 (at about 300,000 deaths, or 0.4% of Japan's population at the time). Yes, that was technically terrorism:

"Terrorism is a term used in its broadest sense to describe the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim. It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence against civilians or non-combatants."

The level of violence in the world today is much smaller than in any past period of history: the probability you will die in a violent death today is 100 times smaller than 1 thousand years ago.

Read this:

http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/11/the-decline-of-violence

Hi Guap! Long time no read.

Yes, we've had the definition of terrorism discussion before - I'm not saying don't continue it, just acknowledging that it is a term with a definition that can be applied in a lot of ways.

Every schoolground bully or mugger is engaging in a form of what could be called terrorism (any time intimidation using the threat or action of physical harm occurs, it's a kind of terrorism in its broadest sense).

It sounds like you are including acts of war in your definition - which, in a broader sense, they most certainly are.

So, since you brought up Japan, I'd add to Wplains' question and ask if you think that the attack on Pearl Harbor was terrorism even though it was a military attack on a military target and only about 68 civilians were killed along with 2335 military personnel?

Whatever your answer, we've all heard the comparative arguments to divert attention away from Islamic Terrorism before also. Sure, most people will have more of a chance of dying of cancer, auto accidents, alcoholism or from falls than from an Islamic Terror attack. That doesn't change the fact that Islamic Terror is spreading and that our governments are acting like idiots by trying to open our borders to more of it.

[Wplains]

Yea the Russian leaks happened. The source that was endangered by this leak was Israeli and Israel had to make "changes" accordingly. Presumably they took steps to protect their man who obtained that info by changing his or her identity.

Don't know that happened so this makes no sense to me. There is much rumour and speculation in anything involving Trump so I often wonder what is true and what is not. I tend to take pretty much everything with a grain of salt these days given the level of hysteria in the press about him.

[Equilibrium]

Yea the Russian leaks happened. The source that was endangered by this leak was Israeli and Israel had to make "changes" accordingly. Presumably they took steps to protect their man who obtained that info by changing his or her identity.

Don't know that happened so this makes no sense to me. There is much rumour and speculation in anything involving Trump so I often wonder what is true and what is not. I tend to take pretty much everything with a grain of salt these days given the level of hysteria in the press about him.
Basically, the piece of info trump gave to Russia was something only a specific Israeli source knew. Therefore that source became endangered.

Anyways there are a lot of ???? surrounding trump and one hardly knows what to believe.

[Guaporense]

Very informative. Thank you.

Reminds me of a video I saw about the number deaths that happened in World War II, the last few minutes of the video are all about how wwe have never lived in more peaceful times (judged by the numbers). Obviously its just as dangerous of a world but I think we are better at controlling massive casualities.

check it out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwKPFT-RioU

I know that video. That vídeo is a modern classic (really puts the Russo German war into perspective) Also reminds me of this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

The world today has never been better. That's specially true in developing countries: in 1950 an Indian expected to live 33 years now it's 68 years, Chinese moved from 32 in 1940 to 76 years now.

The idea that terrorism is a significant threat to people's lives is essentially a product of media induced hysteria: cigarettes and coke (it's a main cause for obesity) kill far more people than terrorism does for instance. And about 14,000 people are murdered in the US every year.

[Guaporense]

Hi Guap! Long time no read.

Yes, we've had the definition of terrorism discussion before - I'm not saying don't continue it, just acknowledging that it is a term with a definition that can be applied in a lot of ways.

I think that it's definition is clear: indiscriminate slaughter of civilians to scare the population to obtain political/religious objectives. The terror bombing (as Churchill called it) fits the definition: drop bombs randomnly on civilians to scare them.

Stalin used to randomly kill like 1 out of every 10,000 Soviet citizens every year, just to keep the population scared: terrorism on its own population.

Every schoolground bully or mugger is engaging in a form of what could be called terrorism (any time intimidation using the threat or action of physical harm occurs, it's a kind of terrorism in its broadest sense).

I wouldn't classify bullying as terrorism, it's doesn't fit the definition of indiscriminate attack on civilians.

It sounds like you are including acts of war in your definition - which, in a broader sense, they most certainly are.

ISIS is essentially a government as well give that they control territory so their terrorist attacks are acts of war.

So, since you brought up Japan, I'd add to Wplains' question and ask if you think that the attack on Pearl Harbor was terrorism even though it was a military attack on a military target and only about 68 civilians were killed along with 2335 military personnel?

No. Because it had a clear military objective: to destroy the US naval capabilities in the Pacific. Japan's invasion of China involved activities that are closer to terrorism, the bombing of Chinese cities was terror bombing just like the US bombing of Japanese cities.

Whatever your answer, we've all heard the comparative arguments to divert attention away from Islamic Terrorism before also. Sure, most people will have more of a chance of dying of cancer, auto accidents, alcoholism or from falls than from an Islamic Terror attack. That doesn't change the fact that Islamic Terror is spreading and that our governments are acting like idiots by trying to open our borders to more of it.

Xenophobia is not the right measure to take against it, it will probably increase terrorism. Don't want terrorism? Stop meddling in the Middle East. Brazil, for instance, is the second largest Christian country in the world and the largest Catholic country in the world, yet, terrorism doesn't exist in here.

Therefore, the Muslins don't hate Christians because they don't attack Christian countries, they attack countries that they perceive are attacking them and they are: the US, UK and France among others dropped about 30,000 bombs in 2016 on middle Eastern countries:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy

Terrorism is a reaction of ISIS against countries whose only way of attack is indiscriminate targeting of civilians.

[7thson]

squares are rectangles because the opposite sides are the same length
rectangles arent squares because not all sides are the same length

[Guaporense]

Wasn't that during WWII? So I guess the London Blitz or the carpet bombing of German cities would also be considered "terrorism" by you?

Any indiscriminate attack on civilians without clear military targets is terrorism. A German historian of bombing actually explained that the conditions for terror bombing in Ww2 were very similar to the conditions for Islamic terrorism now: ISIS uses suicide bombers to try to attack Western countries that are attacking ISIS. The UK used terror bombing as a way to attack Germany since they couldn't land in Europe for 80% of WW2 since they had no large army. The US fire bombing of Japan was actually very stupid because it served no military purpose (they had an excuse for bombing civilians indiscriminately: that since Japanese industry was dispersed in small scale workshops around residential areas so they claim to attack armament production they had to slaughter civilians in mass, anyway that feels like a really bad joke now).

So terrorism has been used in much larger scale in the past. Although it's true we have more terrorism now than in the 1980s for instance. Terrorism increased after Western countries began meddling a lot more in the Middle Eastern affairs. Invading Iraq was tremendously stupid and it disestabilized the whole region, allowIng ISIS to rise. Now I think that Western countries should simply give up on Syria and allow Putin to have it as his satellite state. Russia/Syria/Iraq will eventually take care of ISIS and so terrorism would become their problem not the West's.

[Camo]

Guap is doing gods work in this thread. :D

Nah, seriously interesting posts. Was coincidentally reading about the fire bombings of Tokyo recently and it sounded insane, and depressing. Have to agree that was a terror attack (well campaign actually) just like Dresden.

[Wplains]

Any indiscriminate attack on civilians without clear military targets is terrorism. A German historian of bombing actually explained that the conditions for terror bombing in Ww2 were very similar to the conditions for Islamic terrorism now: ISIS uses suicide bombers to try to attack Western countries that are attacking ISIS. The UK used terror bombing as a way to attack Germany since they couldn't land in Europe for 80% of WW2 since they had no large army. The US fire bombing of Japan was actually very stupid because it served no military purpose (they had an excuse for bombing civilians indiscriminately: that since Japanese industry was dispersed in small scale workshops around residential areas so they claim to attack armament production they had to slaughter civilians in mass, anyway that feels like a really bad joke now).

So terrorism has been used in much larger scale in the past. Although it's true we have more terrorism now than in the 1980s for instance. Terrorism increased after Western countries began meddling a lot more in the Middle Eastern affairs. Invading Iraq was tremendously stupid and it disestabilized the whole region, allowIng ISIS to rise. Now I think that Western countries should simply give up on Syria and allow Putin to have it as his satellite state. Russia/Syria/Iraq will eventually take care of ISIS and so terrorism would become their problem not the West's.

"Terror bombings" by the UK and the US in two countries they were fighting against in a war. What an interesting concept! So I guess the London blitz was not a "terrror bombing" since you don't happen to mention that as you also don't talk about Pearl Harbour? And I would make an educated guess that these "terror bombings" were actually attempts at bringing an aggressive country to it's knees and maybe, you know, end the war? Because if I remember correctly, it was actually Germany and Japan who attacked other countries with a view to conquering them, not the other way around. So any means of ending a war against an aggressive invader was entirely justified. If the US hand't dropped an atom bomb in Hiroshima (Japan surrendered the next day) the war in the Pacific would have have dragged on and on with the result that many more tens of thousands would have been killed. But maybe you think that would have been preferable to these "terror bombings"?

[Wplains]

Guap is doing gods work in this thread. :D

Nah, seriously interesting posts. Was coincidentally reading about the fire bombings of Tokyo recently and it sounded insane, and depressing. Have to agree that was a terror attack (well campaign actually) just like Dresden.

Yes, how amazing, a country that was almost the sole defender of Europe against the Nazis bombs Dresden and it is depressing and insane? Ditto for Tokyo in Japan - a country which carried out an attack on the US with no warning. Do you actually know who started WWII? Hint: it was neither the U.K. nor the US!

[Camo]

Yes, how amazing, a country that was almost the sole defender of Europe against the Nazis bombs Dresden and it is depressing and insane? Ditto for Tokyo in Japan - a country which carried out an attack on the US with no warning. Do you actually know who started WWII? Hint: it was neither the U.K. nor the US!

What are you even talking about? I'm from the UK and my grandad and his brothers fought in WWII. Trust me i'm firmly on the side of the allies...christ. Both Dresden and Tokyo were arguably indiscriminate attacks on civilians to cause panic and possibly change public opinion. If you believe they were strategic attacks then fair enough you aren't alone there, but neither are me and Guap in thinking they were terror attacks.

And i'd call the Blitz a terror attack too for the record.

[Wplains]

What are you even talking about? I'm from the UK and my grandad and his brothers fought in WWII. Trust me i'm firmly on the side of the allies...christ. Both Dresden and Tokyo were arguably indiscriminate attacks on civilians to cause panic and possibly change public opinion. If you believe they were strategic attacks then fair enough you aren't alone there, but neither are me and Guap in thinking they were terror attacks.

And i'd call the Blitz a terror attack too for the record.

Of course both Tokyo and Dresden air attacks were meant to cause panic and change public opinion. As was the London Blitz. That was the whole bloody point! Attacks on civilians of a country you are at war with has always been a part of military strategy for God's sake. It's called demoralizing the enemy and it's been used as a strategy of war since the Stone Age. Describing attacks on civilian populations as "terrorists atracks" is flabbergasting. I don't suppose you've ever heard the phrase: "all's fair in love and war"? War is dirty and horrible and there are no rules. So if you don't want your civilian populations to get clobbered, don't start a war!

[Camo]

Of course both Tokyo and Dresden air attacks were meant to cause panic and change public opinion. As was the London Blitz. That was the whole bloody point! Attacks on civilians of a country you are at war with has always been a part of military strategy for God's sake. It's called demoralizing the enemy and it's been used as a strategy of war since the Stone Age. Describing attacks on civilian populations as "terrorists atracks" is flabbergasting. I don't suppose you've ever heard the phrase: "all's fair in love and war"? War is dirty and horrible and there are no rules. So if you don't want your civilian populations to get clobbered, don't start a war!

So we are in agreement that the main objective of Dresden, Tokyo and the Blitz was to terrorize civilians. Cool, glad to see you agree they were terror attacks.

[Wplains]

Muslins don't hate Christians because they don't attack Christian countries, they attack countries that they perceive are attacking them

Oh you mean like Sweden?

Brazil, for instance, is the second largest Christian country in the world and the largest Catholic country in the world, yet, terrorism doesn't exist in here

I would venture to say the reason terrorism doesn't exist in Brazil is because they have no significant Muslim population just like Japan. Islam isn't even mentioned as a significant religion in Brazil it's so underrepresented. Maybe that is the reason it doesn't have terrorism? Do you have terrorism in the Eastern European countries who refuse to accept "refugees" like Poland and Hungary? Umm, no precisely because they have very few Muslims. Though Mad Merkel, of course, is still demanding the rest of Europe open it's borders to all the people she invited to Germany and now finds they are too many to cope with. Without, I might add, consulting absolutely anyone else about it.

Very relevant cartoon:

http://starecat.com/angela-merkel-feeding-pigeons-too-many-running-away/

[Wplains]

So we are in agreement that the main objective of Dresden, Tokyo and the Blitz was to terrorize civilians. Cool, glad to see you agree they were terror attacks.

No, we most certainly are not. They were a part of military strategy to win a war which is a vastly different thing. Not acts of terrorism - acts of war. If you can't tell the difference - well, not my problem.