Heritage Foundation Panelist on Radical Islam.. She really makes some historical points !

originally posted by: DarknStormy

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Willtell

Actually, I think Islam is due to be wiped off the planet before it ever begins to approach adolescence, much less civilized maturity.

God is not in favor of a satanic moon-god religion of any kind, shape or form.

And the day when HE wipes all also-rans off the planet is fast approaching.

I've got news for you champ.. The only religion that doesn't line up is Western Christianity. It's origins are Pagan, The Romans made up your perfect religion to appeal to Roman Pagans.

- Christmas falls on the Pagan Festival Saturnalia

- Easter also has it's origins in Pagan Worship

- Christians are involved in what is called "indirect Sun worship", now you know why Jesus always has a Sun behind his head.. Your Jesus is a fraud.

So if you want to accuse anyone of worshipping Moon Gods etc, accuse yourself because Christianity is riddled with ancient Pagan integrated celebrations. Along with that also

- Christians make Idols and worship them

- Jesus is not God and should not be worshipped as a God, he was a human.

- Going by the punishments and trials in all of the religious books, I believe Christianity is the one which is going away... Christians can't even fight for their doctrine let alone stick to the teachings, how can it survive?

I've got some bad news for you all. In every technologically advanced country agnostics and atheists are the fastest growing religions. Religions as a whole are about to have a huge decline. None match up with science NONE.

If I'm understanding the argument correctly, it seems like some people are saying that there are enough radical Muslims for us to consider all Muslims as either evil or supporting evil, which means we can consider genocide.

I think this is an oversimplification that ignores the historical context. We did not accidentally find ourselves at odds with Muslims. The history of the West is a story of imperial expansion, exploitation, and assimilation that persists to this day.

We routinely intervene in other regions' affairs, and many extremist leaders have been perfectly clear that they will resist our influence. We don't heed these warnings, though. We ignore dissenting voices and frame resistance as evil that must be stamped out. (This is SOP in the West, as we can see even within our own political discourse.)

Of course there is always collateral damage when crushing evil, but that's acceptable to us because evil threatens our very existence. However this collateral damage is less acceptable to neutral and peaceful Muslims, who are unlikely to forgive and forget that we destroy their families, friends, homes, way of life, etc.

I don't think Muslims are inherently violent and evil. I think we have created a context that promotes violent and evil behavior in Muslims. If there really are so many Muslim radicals, then I think the best solution is to create a context that promotes civility.

a reply to: ArtemisE

Religion and Science are completely different things and can co-exist beside each other. Religion doesn't denounce science, it only suggests that inventing things for evil ends is considered unrighteous. Nuclear and Chemical Weapons are an example though there are many different kinds of inventions which could be more of a burden to humanity than good.

But I bet most Atheists would agree with the above regardless of their stance towards religion.

a reply to: wagnificent


not at all, not at least from my perspective.......

My viewpoint is that there are enough for them to be considered a real threat......

If the numbers are even in the 5% range, thats more then most standing countries armies........I would say that qualifies as a real concern.....

And were not talking about just jerks and people with signs and general a-holes were talking about people willing to maim, dismember and blow up anyone who doesnt subscribe to their version of Islam, including other Muslims...

Im not however willing to demonize a whole religion or people because of it......

But I do think that the problem needs to be addressed more thoroughly by the religion itself if they hope to turn the tide......

originally posted by: ArtemisE

It doesn't make it better that Christianity has commited at least as many atrocities. It just makes devout Christians hypocrites.

Actually, that's your opinion. Realistically, hypocrisy is only applicable if I have actually commited, or condoned those acts. Your argument is invalid.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Good points! I am not hating on Muslims in particular, or hating at all. I am asking questions, and getting no real answers from people, other than to deflect, and blame others.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
You are mistaking Roman Catholicism with all the pagan inserts into their version of Christianity and Christianity .No doubt Rome has had it's vices spill over and influence the majority of denominational Churches but Rome didn't start the process .They have however magnified it . a reply to: DarknStormy

The Holy Roman Empire had there hands in the issue from the beginning. They persecuted Christians for roughly 300 years after Jesus was Crucified. So the case could be made that they did start the process remembering that those Christians would of had a very accurate account of what Christianity actually was. They pretty much knocked off the closest followers of Jesus and only centuries later would do a U-turn to embrace that religion themselves whilst adding and taking what they seen fit.

a reply to: 727Sky

The Nazis, seriously? Every single time the Nazis are used as an analogy. They're just thrown out there as the typical evil people. It's as if once you throw the Nazis into the mix that suddenly makes what you're saying reasonable and valid.

I don't think Muslims had the Gestapo snooping around on what people are saying. 60 million people didn't just die because a small majority of peaceful Germans were "irrelevant." Almost 40 million? Where on earth does that figure come from please? So that means around 20 million died in the war...how can that be when the Soviet Union alone lost around 20-25 million people.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

There are many Muslims condemning this version of Islam, I could show you loads of sites that do all over the place, something the MSM don’t ever publicize.
Whose fault is that?

Sufis, the mystical version of Islam, and a variety of other Muslim schools of thought, HAVE ALWAYS VEHEMENTLY condemned THESE CRAZIES IN Islam. What else can they do?

The bulk of Islam is in Turkey, Indonesia and Malaysia, not just in the Middle East which has been fomenting violence ever since the state of Israel has come into existence, which should tell you something…

Also, if you look closely you’ll see who is fighting these nuts, OTHER MUSLIMS.

In Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and many other places.

What can Christians do about Jim Jones and David Quraish?
Nothing

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: junglimogli
a reply to: 727Sky


That penalist woman is loud mouthed and more political than anything .. some of her points may be valid, but she has not answered the question that was posed .. she used an emotional rant to deviate from the question and get people to clap over a 'usa usa usa' chanting attitude ..
she is talking about 4 dead americans .. compared to millions of innocents killed in other countries to 'avenge' their deaths ..because politicians like bush talked like her to ger american's blood to boil ..

The question posed still remains ... how do fight an ideoplogy ..a thought process with weapons ..
In my opinion, that penalist woman is offtopic ..and does not deserve the applause ..

it was a panel on benghazi.

saba was trolling and off topic. gabriel told her in no uncertain terms she was.

millions of innocents? really? where?

and one eliminates the thought process to stop ideology.

A lot of innocents have been killed, detained, maimed, etc worldwide ..in the name of avenging 911 .. yes, unofficially in the million + .. officially you will never hear about it ..
If your official figure of a few thousands is your defense to justify that it's 'ok' ..then we're done here ..
You can never eliminate the thought process with bombs ... thats the same mentality that will get you killed eventually .. because you will sprout thousands of more terrorists ..

a reply to: ArtemisE

Ok. CHristaians do not literally worship the "SUN" Aslo the image behind his head isnt suppossed to be th e"SUN" but a halo of power radiating from him.Also Jesus is a "SON" of God.

Christmas:Lacking any scriptural pointers to Jesus's birthday, early Christian teachers suggested dates all over the calendar. Clement. . . picked November 18. Hippolytus . . . figured Christ must have been born on a Wednesday . . . An anonymous .,] believed to have been written in North Africa around A.D. 243, placed Jesus's birth on March 28" (Jeffery Sheler, U.S. News & World Report, "In Search of Christmas," Dec. 23, 1996, p. 58).

Jesus' parents came to Bethlehem to register in a Roman census. Such censuses were not taken in winter, when temperatures often dropped below freezing and roads were in poor condition. Taking a census under such conditions would have been self-defeating.
Given the difficulties and the desire to bring pagans into Christianity, "the important fact then . . . to get clearly into your head is that the fixing of the date as December 25th was a compromise with paganism" (William Walsh, The Story of Santa Klaus, 1970, p. 62).

So yeah They stated a date that was not correct but it was during that year ay least.

Easters explanation

Tha above squares the excuse that it wasnt 3 days.

The only thing "pagan" about easter is the bunny rabbit and commercialism



I suspect thestuff you quoted was from a muslim or aetheist. If they call Jesus just a man then their own Quran is suspect because he is given honor in their qu ran.

I see you believe science has all the answers yourself though correct? Science still cannot with certainy show a cel evolving into a human being eventually yet can it?
Science does not believe in coincidences correct? but there are tons of them for life to had evolved on its own.

Ya know...it is a good point that the majority of Islam, and for that matter, the entire world population is by and large full of peaceful loving human beings.

I want to point out though that as humans, we are ALL subject to the molds of our environments in which we are raised. Gandhi was not born Gandhi, and Hitler was not born Hitler, they were born into their circumstances and went from there developing into the people we know them as today. So, it is no wonder why places like Canada for instance, is incredibly safer than say, Iraq. Well it should be obvious why this is. There are the have's and the have not's in the world and it's our global society which allows, foments and encourages scarcity, competition, greed, and social stratification, which all are breeding symptoms of violent abhorrent behavior. Canada is a Have country, much like the rest of the Western countries. And Iraq, on top of being dealt one bad hand after the next, has been left a Have Not country. Thus you have regions where peace will reign the day, and others where violence is the norm. This SHOULD be quite obvious.

Perhaps if we lived in a society conducive to peace, equality and above all - MEETING THE BASIC NEEDS OF A DECENT QUALITY OF LIFE FOR EVERYONE - then perhaps...just maybe...there wouldn't be such brainwashing schemes as jihad...or perhaps any religion for that matter. Not because it would be forced out of society, but because people would generally do away with it and recognize it as the least viable option for a happy fruitful and survivable life. Likely because they would easily be able to learn that shelter, food and clean water, home comforts and the like do not come from invisible entities which only exist in their own collective psyche, but instead are made by humans and humans alone (technology)...while resources aren't hoarded by individuals and governments for the sheer purpose of destruction and control.

I know everyone is going to say...'Well, how in the hell is that supposed to happen?'...I don't know, but stopping the use of the one thing that controls us all, MONEY, would likely be a great starting point. And anyone who argues that we can't stop using monetary economics because what else would we use, is someone who is totally useless in terms of helping the planet get away from the abhorrent society that it is. These issues, like jihad, are systemic. The people who choose to wage jihad are JUST PEOPLE. If the system doesn't change to include EVERYONE, then nothing at all will change. Like the original question/statement said in the video...you can't and won't win a physical war against an ideology. Nor can you impose western culture on eastern culture. There is middle ground and it is finding a way to get the idiots out of power and find a way to meet EVERYONE'S basic human needs. Anything short of that will result in failure.

That said I can only encourage people to rise against and drop out of the money game. I need help with that encouragement too. I recognize that I am an agent and victim of this system and I don't want to be either for much longer. It is hard to go against the grain. In fact I would assume it feel quite impossible to most. Perhaps just talking about it and getting the idea spreading is the first step?

originally posted by: wagnificent
If I'm understanding the argument correctly, it seems like some people are saying that there are enough radical Muslims for us to consider all Muslims as either evil or supporting evil, which means we can consider genocide.

I think this is an oversimplification that ignores the historical context. We did not accidentally find ourselves at odds with Muslims. The history of the West is a story of imperial expansion, exploitation, and assimilation that persists to this day.

We routinely intervene in other regions' affairs, and many extremist leaders have been perfectly clear that they will resist our influence. We don't heed these warnings, though. We ignore dissenting voices and frame resistance as evil that must be stamped out. (This is SOP in the West, as we can see even within our own political discourse.)

Of course there is always collateral damage when crushing evil, but that's acceptable to us because evil threatens our very existence. However this collateral damage is less acceptable to neutral and peaceful Muslims, who are unlikely to forgive and forget that we destroy their families, friends, homes, way of life, etc.

I don't think Muslims are inherently violent and evil. I think we have created a context that promotes violent and evil behavior in Muslims. If there really are so many Muslim radicals, then I think the best solution is to create a context that promotes civility.

Too true! People some times have a really hard time realizing they would feel the same as the Muslims.....

What if a the tea party/LGBT group blew up a church/government building in Moscow. Then imagaine Russia demands to come into the us to get them. Undoubtably we say no and go to war. Now who is the American citizenry gonna blame when there are deaths???? Not the LGBT/tea party group, we will blame Russia!

originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: ArtemisE

Religion and Science are completely different things and can co-exist beside each other. Religion doesn't denounce science, it only suggests that inventing things for evil ends is considered unrighteous. Nuclear and Chemical Weapons are an example though there are many different kinds of inventions which could be more of a burden to humanity than good.

But I bet most Atheists would agree with the above regardless of their stance towards religion.

If you look at the bible/Koran as a philosophy book with a lot of words to live by, then I agree.


If you look at your religious text as the infallible word of god, then obviously it comes into conflict with religion.

originally posted by: Chronogoblin

originally posted by: ArtemisE

It doesn't make it better that Christianity has commited at least as many atrocities. It just makes devout Christians hypocrites.

Actually, that's your opinion. Realistically, hypocrisy is only applicable if I have actually commited, or condoned those acts. Your argument is invalid.

You condone the acts of genocide you believe god commited right? Or at least you don't disavow him for them right?

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: ArtemisE

Ok. CHristaians do not literally worship the "SUN" Aslo the image behind his head isnt suppossed to be th e"SUN" but a halo of power radiating from him.Also Jesus is a "SON" of God.

Christmas:Lacking any scriptural pointers to Jesus's birthday, early Christian teachers suggested dates all over the calendar. Clement. . . picked November 18. Hippolytus . . . figured Christ must have been born on a Wednesday . . . An anonymous .,] believed to have been written in North Africa around A.D. 243, placed Jesus's birth on March 28" (Jeffery Sheler, U.S. News & World Report, "In Search of Christmas," Dec. 23, 1996, p. 58).

Jesus' parents came to Bethlehem to register in a Roman census. Such censuses were not taken in winter, when temperatures often dropped below freezing and roads were in poor condition. Taking a census under such conditions would have been self-defeating.
Given the difficulties and the desire to bring pagans into Christianity, "the important fact then . . . to get clearly into your head is that the fixing of the date as December 25th was a compromise with paganism" (William Walsh, The Story of Santa Klaus, 1970, p. 62).

So yeah They stated a date that was not correct but it was during that year ay least.

Easters explanation

Tha above squares the excuse that it wasnt 3 days.

The only thing "pagan" about easter is the bunny rabbit and commercialism



I suspect thestuff you quoted was from a muslim or aetheist. If they call Jesus just a man then their own Quran is suspect because he is given honor in their qu ran.

I see you believe science has all the answers yourself though correct? Science still cannot with certainy show a cel evolving into a human being eventually yet can it?
Science does not believe in coincidences correct? but there are tons of them for life to had evolved on its own.

I wasn't the guy who said the "sun theory " thing. I think the tought that sun worship evolved into monothieism is very possible, but that wasn't me.

Evolution is a proven fact. There is no micro and macro evolution. It's all micro. It's just that micro over time leads to what creationists deem " macro evolution." There is no mysterious "macro" step that creationists claim we haven't seen.

Artimise yeah I know you didnt post it i stated in my reply that you quoted someone else who was either a muslim or aetheist.

Still about evolution. Until they can show me in simulation(accurately) its all coincidence that a certain chain of molecules moved a certain way themselves. They just happened to be in th eright measures and the right amount of electricity coincidentally? If science dont believe in coimcidence(AKA LUCK) The start of life dont fly.

originally posted by: yuppa
Artimise yeah I know you didnt post it i stated in my reply that you quoted someone else who was either a muslim or aetheist.

Still about evolution. Until they can show me in simulation(accurately) its all coincidence that a certain chain of molecules moved a certain way themselves. They just happened to be in th eright measures and the right amount of electricity coincidentally? If science dont believe in coimcidence(AKA LUCK) The start of life dont fly.

That's abiogenesis, not evolution. No one has a real good example of abiogenesis. Evolution is different.

a reply to: ArtemisE

I'll ask you this: do you think that to support the idea of something like stoning a woman to death is not an extremist viewpoint? How about shooting them in the back of the head with an AK/47 in a public place like a football pitch? How about hanging a gay man from a crane in your town square?

You seem to think that for somebody to be considered as an extremist or a radical then that person would have to be active in the pursuit of committing terrorist deeds.

I don't agree, and I think you are naive, to be honest.

If a person contends that gay people should be executed for being gay, for example, then they hold an extremist viewpoint, in my books. And although they may not be the ones prepared to "kick the stool" out from under a person condemned to hang because of their sexual orientation, they support those who do. To me that is the whole point of this discussion.

The video I posted earlier in this thread shows what I consider to be an illustration of how many devout Muslims hold extremist viewpoints on subjects like adultery and homosexuality. And I am not contending that other religious institutions like Christianity are better, a turd is a turd.

At the end of the day, when you take into account the amount of Muslim people who hold and tolerate these views compared to the number of Muslims who have actively spoken out about the atrocities committed in the name of Islam, you'll get where I'm coming from.

The old muslim are so evil, i go by body counts, and muslims are down by a couple million.