Are we allowed to say "Islamic terrorists"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I would like to see is good Muslims not only denouncing terrorist acts in the name of Allah but also denouncing or at least clarifying/revising the scripture verses terrorist use to justify their violence. Denouncing the motive is more meaningful than denouncing the violent act.

I propose revising the bible to remove the part about taking glee in dashing babies against rocks, and so very many others.

would that be the old testament? try reading the new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeremiah 50:20-30 is shockingly violent.

Massacres ordered by God aren't unique to Islam. Somehow, almost all Christians understand they're not supposed to go out and slaughter people. Muslims get it too.

So why not change the verses to clearly reflect that understanding?

The bible is very clear that it cannot be changed. That happens to be a commandment taken seriously. But, how many millions of Christians understand it's not right with a revision?

Which Bible are you referring to?

[Anonymous]

""But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.""

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:A simple question: if the Muslims who commit acts of terrorism are a small minority and the vast majority of Muslims do not sympathize with their views, why does not the majority take on this minority and eliminate them?

ISIS and Al Qaeda are Sunni Muslims and several of the major countries in the Middle East and elsewhere are also largely Sunni including countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE; why don't these countries take the lead in eliminating these people who are responsible for the terrorism that is being perpetrated?

The reality is that Saudi Arabia and some other Gulf states have the same ideology and support the Wahhabi terrorists such as ISIS and al-Qaida. The Jordanian government, which is also Sunni, is actively fighting against ISIS. Coincidentally, the ancestors of the Jordanian royal family were chased out of what is now Saudi Arabia by the ancestors of the Saudi royal family. The Jordan's rulers are not Wahhabis, though there are lots of Wahhabis in Jordan.

Wahhabis are very intolerant of Shia and other Muslim offshoots. Iran is Shia, the current Iraqi government is Shia-dominated, and Syria is ruled by Alawis. In Yemen, the Houthis --who are Ismailis -- are dominating much of the country. So, you see the Saudis arming anti-Assad groups in Syria, actively bombing Yemen, and leading opposition to Iran. Saudi Arabia has no interest in fighting ISIS because ISIS and Saudi Arabia are on the same side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A simple question: if the Muslims who commit acts of terrorism are a small minority and the vast majority of Muslims do not sympathize with their views, why does not the majority take on this minority and eliminate them?

ISIS and Al Qaeda are Sunni Muslims and several of the major countries in the Middle East and elsewhere are also largely Sunni including countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE; why don't these countries take the lead in eliminating these people who are responsible for the terrorism that is being perpetrated?

Who do you think is leading the fight vs ISIS? It's not the U.S, it's primarily muslims that are trying to defeat them on the ground. How are there people that still don't know this?

Which country is leading the fight? What has Saudi Arabia done? What about the UAE? Bahrain? Qatar? Libya? How many Syrian refugees did these countries take in? None. It is certainly wrong to blame the muslim community as a whole for the acts of a few. However, if they don't do anything to fight it, at some point, they've become complacent. The muslim community needs to do more to fight these terrorists. They need to do more to eliminate this horrible faction from their peaceful religion.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A simple question: if the Muslims who commit acts of terrorism are a small minority and the vast majority of Muslims do not sympathize with their views, why does not the majority take on this minority and eliminate them?

ISIS and Al Qaeda are Sunni Muslims and several of the major countries in the Middle East and elsewhere are also largely Sunni including countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE; why don't these countries take the lead in eliminating these people who are responsible for the terrorism that is being perpetrated?

Who do you think is leading the fight vs ISIS? It's not the U.S, it's primarily muslims that are trying to defeat them on the ground. How are there people that still don't know this?

Don't deflect.

It is Shia Muslims who are doing so and that has to do with religious differences since the Shia and Sunni have been at each others throats for centuries. The Shia - mainly Iranians - also have geo-political reasons for fighting ISIS.

How many troops from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Pakistan, etc are fighting ISIS?

The Jordanian air force has been bombing ISIS. Saudi and Emirati forces would definitely not be welcome in Syria (they would join ISIS). The Pakistanis might come if someone would pay them.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A simple question: if the Muslims who commit acts of terrorism are a small minority and the vast majority of Muslims do not sympathize with their views, why does not the majority take on this minority and eliminate them?

ISIS and Al Qaeda are Sunni Muslims and several of the major countries in the Middle East and elsewhere are also largely Sunni including countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE; why don't these countries take the lead in eliminating these people who are responsible for the terrorism that is being perpetrated?

The reality is that Saudi Arabia and some other Gulf states have the same ideology and support the Wahhabi terrorists such as ISIS and al-Qaida. The Jordanian government, which is also Sunni, is actively fighting against ISIS. Coincidentally, the ancestors of the Jordanian royal family were chased out of what is now Saudi Arabia by the ancestors of the Saudi royal family. The Jordan's rulers are not Wahhabis, though there are lots of Wahhabis in Jordan.

Wahhabis are very intolerant of Shia and other Muslim offshoots. Iran is Shia, the current Iraqi government is Shia-dominated, and Syria is ruled by Alawis. In Yemen, the Houthis --who are Ismailis -- are dominating much of the country. So, you see the Saudis arming anti-Assad groups in Syria, actively bombing Yemen, and leading opposition to Iran. Saudi Arabia has no interest in fighting ISIS because ISIS and Saudi Arabia are on the same side.

Thank you for telling it like it is.

I agree with you and that is where I have an issue with those who insist that it is only a small minority who perpetrate these acts of terrorism and ignore the fact that there are powerful interests within Saudi Arabia and elsewhere who support ISIS even if they pay lip service to opposing them. BTW, the same holds true with Pakistan though the motivations there are partly out of a fear that taking an active role against ISIS could result in fomenting a problem in their own country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I would like to see is good Muslims not only denouncing terrorist acts in the name of Allah but also denouncing or at least clarifying/revising the scripture verses terrorist use to justify their violence. Denouncing the motive is more meaningful than denouncing the violent act.

I propose revising the bible to remove the part about taking glee in dashing babies against rocks, and so very many others.

would that be the old testament? try reading the new.

Why? Did God change his mind between the two?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
The Jordanian air force has been bombing ISIS. Saudi and Emirati forces would definitely not be welcome in Syria (they would join ISIS). The Pakistanis might come if someone would pay them.

The dirty little secret the US and its allies don't like to talk about is that our major Muslim allies - Saudi A, UAE and Pakistan - all side with ISIS to one degree or another and for varying reasons.

Pakistan and especially major elements within ISI (Pakistan's intelligence service) are entirely sympathetic to ISIS. Shortly after 9/11 a Pew survey showed that over 60% of Pakistanis would support Osama bin Laden for president of Pakistan!

Pakistan harbored OBL for years and if you ask most Pakistanis, they would tell you that there is no way that the ISI and the army did not know he was there in their midst. It is the reason why the US did not give any forewarning to Pakistan before the raid that killed OBL. They knew that there were elements who would have warned OBL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have nothing constructive to say really, but I want to add that the anti-muslim sentiments based on the actions of a few make me sad and angry. I guess I wish that the quiet majority of which I have to believe I am a part was able to be louder than the very vocal fear- and hate-mongering few (I'm looking particularly at you, Fox News).

I hear ya.

But...when people say horrible things about Catholics and try to paint the entire church in a bad light thanks to the actions of a rather small group (hello pedophile priests and the evil asshats who covered it up), I take it on the chin and take it in stride. I don't whine about it because the critics have legit rocks to throw at the church. I never try to explain it or justify it. And perhaps most importantly, I wouldn't stay in a parish that condoned such horrific acts. I've also spoken out on the subject through letters to the archdiocese and face to face with several priests.

I know this isn't a perfect analogy, but I think it's fair to say that folks should understand why others might form some sort of opinion about them based on their affiliations---any affiliation: religion, political, country club, etc. And its on you to either own it or disprove it.

I forgot to mention that I was super close to leaving the church all together until the new pope came along. Sometimes it makes sense to abandon a sinking ship...or get some like minded people together to build a raft and launch a mutiny.

The new pope, while lovely, won't change anything. The Catholic Church is too hierarchical. And how can you honestly forgive what was done to children? What if one had been your child? Would you have given the church another chance?

When religion becomes so protective over its believers - to the point of protecting the sick ones - it's no longer a religion. It's a mindfuck.[/quote

Thanks for proving my point!!! It's totally cool to say I've forgiven the priests for what they did since I maintained my catholic faith, but it's not okay to say anything about Muslims or question why they stick with their faith!!! Well done, pp!

To clarify: I never said I had forgiven anyone. Rather, I wasn't going to let the bad actions of a select few ruin my faith. I suspect that's how the good Muslims feel, right?

Is this a white guilt thing? We can throw rocks at American Catholics but we can't say anything about fill-in-the-blank? Nifty.

Are you talking to me?



I can't stand any religions. I don't understand why you stick with the church after it allowed the abuse to occur. And you never responded- Would you have stayed with the church had your child been raped by a priest (aka - man of God)? Or is the abuse part of this an "extremist" group branching off the Catholic Church?

No, that would be Opus Dei, right?

If I were Muslim, I'd be done with Islam, too. I don't hate Muslims. I work with two. One's older and practices. The younger one is married to a Protestant (didn't convert but isn't practicing either religion), and while her parents are faithful to the religion, she and her husband rarely make it to church.

I have to say that while Millennials aren't exactly my cup of tea, they are the least religious, which means that they may bring about a change the world needs.

senseless killings over a god - "My god is better than yours."
senseless abuse
senseless misogyny

Where's the good?

oh - and "white guilt thing?"
b/c Catholics can't come in all races, shapes and sizes? (even ex-Catholics)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeremiah 50:20-30 is shockingly violent.

Massacres ordered by God aren't unique to Islam. Somehow, almost all Christians understand they're not supposed to go out and slaughter people. Muslims get it too.

So why not change the verses to clearly reflect that understanding?

The bible is very clear that it cannot be changed. That happens to be a commandment taken seriously. But, how many millions of Christians understand it's not right with a revision?

There already is literally hundreds of different versions of the bible.

and INTERPRETATIONS of the bible, too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeremiah 50:20-30 is shockingly violent.

Massacres ordered by God aren't unique to Islam. Somehow, almost all Christians understand they're not supposed to go out and slaughter people. Muslims get it too.

So why not change the verses to clearly reflect that understanding?

The bible is very clear that it cannot be changed. That happens to be a commandment taken seriously. But, how many millions of Christians understand it's not right with a revision?

Bible changed everything that was in Old Testament with the Jesus. Read what Jesus says about killing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A simple question: if the Muslims who commit acts of terrorism are a small minority and the vast majority of Muslims do not sympathize with their views, why does not the majority take on this minority and eliminate them?

ISIS and Al Qaeda are Sunni Muslims and several of the major countries in the Middle East and elsewhere are also largely Sunni including countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE; why don't these countries take the lead in eliminating these people who are responsible for the terrorism that is being perpetrated?

Who do you think is leading the fight vs ISIS? It's not the U.S, it's primarily muslims that are trying to defeat them on the ground. How are there people that still don't know this?

Which country is leading the fight? What has Saudi Arabia done? What about the UAE? Bahrain? Qatar? Libya? How many Syrian refugees did these countries take in? None. It is certainly wrong to blame the muslim community as a whole for the acts of a few. However, if they don't do anything to fight it, at some point, they've become complacent. The muslim community needs to do more to fight these terrorists. They need to do more to eliminate this horrible faction from their peaceful religion.

Because Muslims in UAE, Qatar, Libya, KSA know better than stupid Americans and Europeans what those refugees will bring with them. That is why they gave money to EU and took none of the refugees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again. You know, a while back we used to say "Irish terrorists", yet no one took issue with it (or warned against "blaming" all of Ireland).

This would be valid if people blamed all of Ireland the same way they blame all Muslims for terrorism. The hatred being spewed towards and entire religion for the actions of what actually amounts to a very few, is staggering.

Very few = entire governments. Okay then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is that islamophobic? Will this thread get whacked due to PC?

Did you call Timothy McVeigh a Christian terrorist? Do you think he represents Christianity?

Liberals do. On this forum. All the damn time.