21 Egyptian Christians Beheaded in Libya

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying radical Christian or radical.Muslim to me differentiates from the peace lovers. Its just different ways of looking at it. But neither attacks the entire group.

I am not complaining about saying "radical Muslim". The post that I criticized said "Islam" which refers to the entire religion. I think we should be even more specific than simply saying "radical". We are really concerned with those that resort to violence and oppression. They can be as radical as they want if they don't engage in violence and oppression.

And this is why we will continue to see beheadings and worse. What the hell do you think "radical" refers to? Eventually people will get it. But we obviously we have a long way to go. Let's just hope our we can elect a President capable of recognizing and responding to the threat. I don't care if we elect a democrat, republican, or Martian. We need someone with the balls to call radical Islam what is it - a cancer that needs to be cut from the planet.

[Anonymous]

I prefer "radicalized". More clearly delineates the crazies from the mainstream.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying radical Christian or radical.Muslim to me differentiates from the peace lovers. Its just different ways of looking at it. But neither attacks the entire group.

I am not complaining about saying "radical Muslim". The post that I criticized said "Islam" which refers to the entire religion. I think we should be even more specific than simply saying "radical". We are really concerned with those that resort to violence and oppression. They can be as radical as they want if they don't engage in violence and oppression.

I think there are a fee layers of discussions under way - one, what to call radical.Muslims ( your point above well taken, so what's the term?).
2) what to call a faith that is operationalozed in many places in a not very human rights friendly way ( Isis caliohate, Sa, Iran, Pakistan to name a few) and that teaches ita youngsters a very stern and infidel unfriendly world view?
3) what to call a religion which imposes restrictions on non believers with regard to its faith. Does the average Muslim feel there is a right, or no right, for non believers to draw muhammed? Can someone in the faith do it and suffer no more than a religious repercussion such as excommunication?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do you really believe Europe's Muslims are so fragile? I don't see mass Muslim insurrection in Europe ever happening on a mass scale. I've lived in Europe, I've been back several times in the past few years, I have relatives there, I read two of the languages fluently and a third somewhat, heck I even dated a few Algerians living in Europe (admittedly a while ago). Maybe a few thousand more might be turned to ISIS, maybe a few more terrorist attacks here and in Europe. But no way tens of thousands of Muslims in Europe are going to launch mass insurrection against their European states. That's ISIS' pipe dream but we don't need to buy into it.

Meanwhile, dissidents within Arab and Islamic countries are in jail or fear for their lives. Our silence hurts them rather than helping them.

It's like Chamberlain, always conciliating and missing the bigger picture. Are we really that scared? Are we really that impotent? Do we really see no way to handle alienation besides silence and winking at the anti-immigration folks? Like, I dunno, economic and social measures to reduce alienation? Is our silence really the only possible response? I'm sure you'll find the comparison to Chamberlain flattering, you're welcome.

Based on your logic, all Christianity should be criticized because of groups like the LRA, the KKK, and Westboro Baptist. Those groups prove that Christianity is clearly a religion of hate. If you suggest otherwise, you are clearly appeasing the extremists.

Do you believe that the best way to support moderate voices within Islam is to insult their religion?

You really are the master of twisting arguments. You always come back to the KKK and refuse to address head on issues like multiple Quranic verses calling for killing people who stand in God's way or taking female war captives as your slaves. Your refrain of "Christians are just as bad!", even though I willingly agree that the KKK is just as bad, isn't even an answer to the problem before us. You will undoubtedly say once again that scriptire is irrelevant. Tell that to ISIS and the rest. As long as these verses retain their standing as God's own words that He still wants us to follow in the 21st century, groups like ISIS WILL continue to use them.

Do you really think ISIS or even Algerians living in Paris banlieus read DCUM? Also, let's be clear: nobody is calling for a president or prime minister to criticize specific suras. But freer discourse in the press and, for Pete's sake, podunk places like DCUM, might actually help reform along. This certainly has a better chance of advancing discussion and reform than cringing because we think ISIS is right about provoking massive uprisings in Europe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying radical Christian or radical.Muslim to me differentiates from the peace lovers. Its just different ways of looking at it. But neither attacks the entire group.

I am not complaining about saying "radical Muslim". The post that I criticized said "Islam" which refers to the entire religion. I think we should be even more specific than simply saying "radical". We are really concerned with those that resort to violence and oppression. They can be as radical as they want if they don't engage in violence and oppression.

I think there are a fee layers of discussions under way - one, what to call radical.Muslims ( your point above well taken, so what's the term?).
2) what to call a faith that is operationalozed in many places in a not very human rights friendly way ( Isis caliohate, Sa, Iran, Pakistan to name a few) and that teaches ita youngsters a very stern and infidel unfriendly world view?
3) what to call a religion which imposes restrictions on non believers with regard to its faith. Does the average Muslim feel there is a right, or no right, for non believers to draw muhammed? Can someone in the faith do it and suffer no more than a religious repercussion such as excommunication?

I agree. And the way to figure this out is to ask how we would handle it in our own backyard?

The Klan is a good enough example. They have most of the elements, including a brand of Christianity that prohibits race mixing.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do you really believe Europe's Muslims are so fragile? I don't see mass Muslim insurrection in Europe ever happening on a mass scale. I've lived in Europe, I've been back several times in the past few years, I have relatives there, I read two of the languages fluently and a third somewhat, heck I even dated a few Algerians living in Europe (admittedly a while ago). Maybe a few thousand more might be turned to ISIS, maybe a few more terrorist attacks here and in Europe. But no way tens of thousands of Muslims in Europe are going to launch mass insurrection against their European states. That's ISIS' pipe dream but we don't need to buy into it.

Meanwhile, dissidents within Arab and Islamic countries are in jail or fear for their lives. Our silence hurts them rather than helping them.

It's like Chamberlain, always conciliating and missing the bigger picture. Are we really that scared? Are we really that impotent? Do we really see no way to handle alienation besides silence and winking at the anti-immigration folks? Like, I dunno, economic and social measures to reduce alienation? Is our silence really the only possible response? I'm sure you'll find the comparison to Chamberlain flattering, you're welcome.

Based on your logic, all Christianity should be criticized because of groups like the LRA, the KKK, and Westboro Baptist. Those groups prove that Christianity is clearly a religion of hate. If you suggest otherwise, you are clearly appeasing the extremists.

Do you believe that the best way to support moderate voices within Islam is to insult their religion?

You really are the master of twisting arguments. You always come back to the KKK and refuse to address head on issues like multiple Quranic verses calling for killing people who stand in God's way or taking female war captives as your slaves. Your refrain of "Christians are just as bad!", even though I willingly agree that the KKK is just as bad, isn't even an answer to the problem before us. You will undoubtedly say once again that scriptire is irrelevant. Tell that to ISIS and the rest. As long as these verses retain their standing as God's own words that He still wants us to follow in the 21st century, groups like ISIS WILL continue to use them.

Do you really think ISIS or even Algerians living in Paris banlieus read DCUM? Also, let's be clear: nobody is calling for a president or prime minister to criticize specific suras. But freer discourse in the press and, for Pete's sake, podunk places like DCUM, might actually help reform along. This certainly has a better chance of advancing discussion and reform than cringing because we think ISIS is right about provoking massive uprisings in Europe.

I agree that IS and Algerians living in Paris don't read DCUM. I said as much in an earlier post. I don't write for their benefit. Rather, I try to discuss things with the mostly US residents that read this forum. I am not going to rehash all of our earlier discussions -- feel free to go read the earlier threads if you have forgotten. If you believe that criticizing an entire religion is beneficial for achieving your goals -- whatever they are -- then by all means do it. I have never prevented you from doing it. IS has made clear that they welcome your doing exactly that. For myself, I advocate a smarter strategy. Instead of dividing Muslims from the West, we should divide Muslims from IS. I don't believe that you do that by insulting them.

[Anonymous]

We condemn, we roundly condemn, and we prosecute when they commit crimes.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do you really believe Europe's Muslims are so fragile? I don't see mass Muslim insurrection in Europe ever happening on a mass scale. I've lived in Europe, I've been back several times in the past few years, I have relatives there, I read two of the languages fluently and a third somewhat, heck I even dated a few Algerians living in Europe (admittedly a while ago). Maybe a few thousand more might be turned to ISIS, maybe a few more terrorist attacks here and in Europe. But no way tens of thousands of Muslims in Europe are going to launch mass insurrection against their European states. That's ISIS' pipe dream but we don't need to buy into it.

Meanwhile, dissidents within Arab and Islamic countries are in jail or fear for their lives. Our silence hurts them rather than helping them.

It's like Chamberlain, always conciliating and missing the bigger picture. Are we really that scared? Are we really that impotent? Do we really see no way to handle alienation besides silence and winking at the anti-immigration folks? Like, I dunno, economic and social measures to reduce alienation? Is our silence really the only possible response? I'm sure you'll find the comparison to Chamberlain flattering, you're welcome.

Based on your logic, all Christianity should be criticized because of groups like the LRA, the KKK, and Westboro Baptist. Those groups prove that Christianity is clearly a religion of hate. If you suggest otherwise, you are clearly appeasing the extremists.

Do you believe that the best way to support moderate voices within Islam is to insult their religion?

You really are the master of twisting arguments. You always come back to the KKK and refuse to address head on issues like multiple Quranic verses calling for killing people who stand in God's way or taking female war captives as your slaves. Your refrain of "Christians are just as bad!", even though I willingly agree that the KKK is just as bad, isn't even an answer to the problem before us. You will undoubtedly say once again that scriptire is irrelevant. Tell that to ISIS and the rest. As long as these verses retain their standing as God's own words that He still wants us to follow in the 21st century, groups like ISIS WILL continue to use them.

Do you really think ISIS or even Algerians living in Paris banlieus read DCUM? Also, let's be clear: nobody is calling for a president or prime minister to criticize specific suras. But freer discourse in the press and, for Pete's sake, podunk places like DCUM, might actually help reform along. This certainly has a better chance of advancing discussion and reform than cringing because we think ISIS is right about provoking massive uprisings in Europe.

I agree that IS and Algerians living in Paris don't read DCUM. I said as much in an earlier post. I don't write for their benefit. Rather, I try to discuss things with the mostly US residents that read this forum. I am not going to rehash all of our earlier discussions -- feel free to go read the earlier threads if you have forgotten. If you believe that criticizing an entire religion is beneficial for achieving your goals -- whatever they are -- then by all means do it. I have never prevented you from doing it. IS has made clear that they welcome your doing exactly that. For myself, I advocate a smarter strategy. Instead of dividing Muslims from the West, we should divide Muslims from IS. I don't believe that you do that by insulting them.

A lot of this hate theology was preached in mosques in the west - a lot of Isis was recruited from the west - is there some educating to be done in these communities by their own community members?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying radical Christian or radical.Muslim to me differentiates from the peace lovers. Its just different ways of looking at it. But neither attacks the entire group.

I am not complaining about saying "radical Muslim". The post that I criticized said "Islam" which refers to the entire religion. I think we should be even more specific than simply saying "radical". We are really concerned with those that resort to violence and oppression. They can be as radical as they want if they don't engage in violence and oppression.

I think there are a fee layers of discussions under way - one, what to call radical.Muslims ( your point above well taken, so what's the term?).
2) what to call a faith that is operationalozed in many places in a not very human rights friendly way ( Isis caliohate, Sa, Iran, Pakistan to name a few) and that teaches ita youngsters a very stern and infidel unfriendly world view?
3) what to call a religion which imposes restrictions on non believers with regard to its faith. Does the average Muslim feel there is a right, or no right, for non believers to draw muhammed? Can someone in the faith do it and suffer no more than a religious repercussion such as excommunication?

You call them all exactly what they are. Morally repugnant. And you deal with them by wiping them off the face of the planet. I am one of the most liberal, peace loving people you'll ever meet. However, I recognize that sometimes you have to cut out a tumor that is threatening the rest of the body. It's time to stop pussyfooting around with these animals. Start by holding the Muslim Clerics responsible. They know exactly what is going on in their Mosques. You are NUTS if you think they are clueless. This will end the moment the U.S. decides to stop trying so hard to be politically correct. Even the dumb ass names piss me off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Martyrs of Libya - rest in peace!

+1. Simply because they were Coptic Christians. Anger and sadness.

[Anonymous]

The term PP wants is "fundamentalist" as opposed to the violent radicals. Or, in French, "integriste" (missing an accent there), which translates to "fundamentalist" and which you see all the time in French newspapers. Just like the way we distinguish between fundamentalist Christians and the radical Christians who blow up abortion clinics. It seems counterproductive to invent confusing new labels.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of this hate theology was preached in mosques in the west - a lot of Isis was recruited from the west - is there some educating to be done in these communities by their own community members?

There actually wasn't a lot -- but a few well-publicized cases. While reading about the Charlie Hebdo attackers, I learned that they had actually avoided mosques and organized religious activities because there was so much opposition to their beliefs in those communities. They were radicalized in people's living rooms.

It is interesting that the Charile Hebdo and Copenhagen attacks were committed by individuals who were born and raised in those countries. It would be very worthwhile to understand what is alienating such individuals from their society. Read this article about a guy who moved to Canada when he was 10:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/14/imprisoned-terror-charges-fahim-ahmad-gives-insight-radicalization/

When he became radicalized, he couldn't even read the Quran. He was motivated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Note this in context of our current discussion:

There would be things like people calling you “terrorist,” or mistreating you for how you were dressed or being racially profiled by the police. Those happened to me and people around me. You start to feel like you don’t fit in, and the only way you can fit in is by maybe going away somewhere else, like maybe the country your parents came from, or maybe an “Islamic State” somewhere.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote: I agree that IS and Algerians living in Paris don't read DCUM. I said as much in an earlier post. I don't write for their benefit. Rather, I try to discuss things with the mostly US residents that read this forum. I am not going to rehash all of our earlier discussions -- feel free to go read the earlier threads if you have forgotten. If you believe that criticizing an entire religion is beneficial for achieving your goals -- whatever they are -- then by all means do it. I have never prevented you from doing it. IS has made clear that they welcome your doing exactly that. For myself, I advocate a smarter strategy. Instead of dividing Muslims from the West, we should divide Muslims from IS. I don't believe that you do that by insulting them.

Thanks for that. Another non-answer to my questions about whether Muslims are really as fragile as you think, whether ISIS is right that unkind words from DCUM are going to lead to mass Muslim uprisings in Europe, or whether conciliation has worked historically. Thanks also for the sinister references to "whatever my goals are", suggestions that I've forgotten earlier discussions, and assertions that your way is "smarter". (Note: do NOT call me butthurt again. I always point out your insults because I think it's better than getting down in the mud with you.)

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Why can't you just say that?

How exactly do you "divide Muslims from ISIS"? With cupcakes? I posted earlier that we need social and economic policies, so you don't own that, but it hasn't exactly worked in Europe either. Maybe they just need to try harder.... I still think, however, that as long as verses about how God wants you to kill unbelievers are allowed to stand without broad-based moral challenges, from within and outside Islam, then some future group like ISIS, the Taliban, or al Qaeda, maybe 50 years from now, will think they should act on these verses.

Signed, another fed up liberal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying radical Christian or radical.Muslim to me differentiates from the peace lovers. Its just different ways of looking at it. But neither attacks the entire group.

I am not complaining about saying "radical Muslim". The post that I criticized said "Islam" which refers to the entire religion. I think we should be even more specific than simply saying "radical". We are really concerned with those that resort to violence and oppression. They can be as radical as they want if they don't engage in violence and oppression.

And this is why we will continue to see beheadings and worse. What the hell do you think "radical" refers to? Eventually people will get it. But we obviously we have a long way to go. Let's just hope our we can elect a President capable of recognizing and responding to the threat. I don't care if we elect a democrat, republican, or Martian. We need someone with the balls to call radical Islam what is it - a cancer that needs to be cut from the planet.

+1000 Totally agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Peaceful religion

And Egypt, an Islamic State, set bombers to bomb ISIS strong holds in response, yesterday/today. Muslim fighting Muslim, not religion.