Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
what a joke you are-----Yemen? its sunnis vs Shiites ---which ones you want to call "the extremists"?
I am calling AQAP extremists in Somalia, and it has largely been both the Shafis and the Zaidi who have been fighting them. My Yemen example has nothing to do with Sunni vs Shiites.
Somalia---Islamic faction against Islamic faction.
So you agree with me then that Muslims are on the front line fighting against Al Shabaab. Good.
which are the
"extremists" Iraq? ISIS vs kurds???----vs Shiites??
Kurds are largely Muslims too.
Libya----one insane Islamic faction against they other.
Mali? same thing
You should study both regions and conflicts a little more if you honestly feel comfortable reducing their conflicts to the above. In either case it seems like you've conceded the point that it is generally Muslims fighting radical Muslim groups in these areas.
you are a joke-----I have conceded WHAT??? I have conceded that for the past 1400 years muslims have engaged in internecine fighting -----basing their conflcts on anything
from religious doctrine to-----(as in the Yemeni civil war raging since circa 1960) WHO GETS THE OIL and to
WHO GETS TO BE CALIPH. I fail to see the situation as
"the good guys vs the bad guys". Who are the "good guys" and who are the "bad guys" ----in the Shiite vs Sunni
thing going on since the inception of Pakistan? Since we are on the subject-----who were the good guys and who were the bad guys in the 1971 Pakistani civil war?
I stated that most of the fighting against these radical groups that we currently hate is being done by Muslims. You admitted that this was true. Pretty straight forward.
You expect Christians and Europeans to fight the Islamic nutjob neanderthals? Ha ha ha.
you are a joke-----I have conceded WHAT??? I have conceded that for the past 1400 years muslims have engaged in internecine fighting -----basing their conflcts on anything
from religious doctrine to-----(as in the Yemeni civil war raging since circa 1960) WHO GETS THE OIL and to
WHO GETS TO BE CALIPH. I fail to see the situation as
"the good guys vs the bad guys". Who are the "good guys" and who are the "bad guys" ----in the Shiite vs Sunni
thing going on since the inception of Pakistan? Since we are on the subject-----who were the good guys and who were the bad guys in the 1971 Pakistani civil war?
I stated that most of the fighting against these radical groups that we currently hate is being done by Muslims. You admitted that this was true. Pretty straight forward.
wrong again-----I did not 'admit' anything. I correctly stated that muslims fight with each other. At no time did I suggest
that muslims fight with each other in the interests of civilization or decency. The US made a huge mistake in
the 1980s in funding the Taliban pigs just because they
were fighting the USSR. Their motivation for fighting
was the estabslishment of shariah shit in Afghanistan.
The Taliban didn't exist in its modern form during the 80s. We routed funds through Pakistan to many groups fighting the Soviets, including some of the predecessors of the Taliban, but the Taliban hadn't yet been established.
You're wrong, of course, about the Taliban in terms of their vulgar ideology. Their ideology is simply another manifestation of the vulgar ideology created by muhammud (swish) which is as cancerous and caustic today as it was 1,400 years ago..
The koran and the hadith, which are still interpreted literally, are a virulent manifesto of Islamo-fascism, and they are the blueprint for the Religion of Peace's agenda. It's just easier to lay the blame on a discrete group of vile knuckle-draggers with a name, rather than the Dark Ages politico- religious ideology that inspires them.
More "Islam is a monolith" rhetoric. It is really as tired at this point as it is unsupportable.
I am calling AQAP extremists in Somalia, and it has largely been both the Shafis and the Zaidi who have been fighting them. My Yemen example has nothing to do with Sunni vs Shiites.
So you agree with me then that Muslims are on the front line fighting against Al Shabaab. Good.
Kurds are largely Muslims too.
You should study both regions and conflicts a little more if you honestly feel comfortable reducing their conflicts to the above. In either case it seems like you've conceded the point that it is generally Muslims fighting radical Muslim groups in these areas.
you are a joke-----I have conceded WHAT??? I have conceded that for the past 1400 years muslims have engaged in internecine fighting -----basing their conflcts on anything
from religious doctrine to-----(as in the Yemeni civil war raging since circa 1960) WHO GETS THE OIL and to
WHO GETS TO BE CALIPH. I fail to see the situation as
"the good guys vs the bad guys". Who are the "good guys" and who are the "bad guys" ----in the Shiite vs Sunni
thing going on since the inception of Pakistan? Since we are on the subject-----who were the good guys and who were the bad guys in the 1971 Pakistani civil war?
I stated that most of the fighting against these radical groups that we currently hate is being done by Muslims. You admitted that this was true. Pretty straight forward.
wrong again-----I did not 'admit' anything. I correctly stated that muslims fight with each other. At no time did I suggest
that muslims fight with each other in the interests of civilization or decency. The US made a huge mistake in
the 1980s in funding the Taliban pigs just because they
were fighting the USSR. Their motivation for fighting
was the estabslishment of shariah shit in Afghanistan.
The Taliban didn't exist in its modern form during the 80s. We routed funds through Pakistan to many groups fighting the Soviets, including some of the predecessors of the Taliban, but the Taliban hadn't yet been established.
Ah, the Taliban, another product of the Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabism.
The Taliban didn't exist in its modern form during the 80s. We routed funds through Pakistan to many groups fighting the Soviets, including some of the predecessors of the Taliban, but the Taliban hadn't yet been established.
You're wrong, of course, about the Taliban in terms of their vulgar ideology. Their ideology is simply another manifestation of the vulgar ideology created by muhammud (swish) which is as cancerous and caustic today as it was 1,400 years ago..
The koran and the hadith, which are still interpreted literally, are a virulent manifesto of Islamo-fascism, and they are the blueprint for the Religion of Peace's agenda. It's just easier to lay the blame on a discrete group of vile knuckle-draggers with a name, rather than the Dark Ages politico- religious ideology that inspires them.
More "Islam is a monolith" rhetoric. It is really as tired at this point as it is unsupportable.
oh gee "professor osomir" any reasonable person with
any knowledge of Pakistan and islam knows that most
Pakistanis are sunni muslims who, whether they fully understand it----have been acculturated to the concept that the KORAN is the one single truth and the ISLAMIC SOCIETY which the Islamic scholars have developed as the
"shariah way" life over the past 1400 years is the IDEAL to which they adhere along with virtually all sunni muslims thruout the world. <<<< that is about all that hollie said---
so you want to dispute her statement?
There has been no singular Sunni understanding of Shariah law over the past 1400 years.
That's largely untrue. I refer, for one example to the beheadings of the war captives by ISIS currently jihadin' their way across Iraq and Syria. Beheadings are entirely consistent with practices and patterns of behavior established by muhammud (swish). Similarly, non-moslem groups are treated as inferior, as objects of revulsion and subjected to standards that are much different than the moslem population. Those elements apply to any moslem majority nation, past or present, as demonstration of my claim. I’ll cite the differing standards of proof in a sharia court and rights to religious freedoms (among a host of other standards), as they apply to moslems and non-moslems as evidence of my claim.
Slavery is not condemned in the Koran (it’s described explicitly), but it is in the laws of the USA for instance. Stoning of criminals is a viable method of punishment in the koran, but it is not acceptable to modern civilized nations. That is why there is such outrage against sharia in Moslem countries. It's not because they go "against the word of muhammud (swish)" -- but because they adhere to the word of Mo' (swish).
I stated that most of the fighting against these radical groups that we currently hate is being done by Muslims. You admitted that this was true. Pretty straight forward.
wrong again-----I did not 'admit' anything. I correctly stated that muslims fight with each other. At no time did I suggest
that muslims fight with each other in the interests of civilization or decency. The US made a huge mistake in
the 1980s in funding the Taliban pigs just because they
were fighting the USSR. Their motivation for fighting
was the estabslishment of shariah shit in Afghanistan.
The Taliban didn't exist in its modern form during the 80s. We routed funds through Pakistan to many groups fighting the Soviets, including some of the predecessors of the Taliban, but the Taliban hadn't yet been established.
You're wrong, of course, about the Taliban in terms of their vulgar ideology. Their ideology is simply another manifestation of the vulgar ideology created by muhammud (swish) which is as cancerous and caustic today as it was 1,400 years ago..
The koran and the hadith, which are still interpreted literally, are a virulent manifesto of Islamo-fascism, and they are the blueprint for the Religion of Peace's agenda. It's just easier to lay the blame on a discrete group of vile knuckle-draggers with a name, rather than the Dark Ages politico- religious ideology that inspires them.
More "Islam is a monolith" rhetoric. It is really as tired at this point as it is unsupportable.
Well the Islamic "extremists" sure seem to be behaving monolithically. Looks like they're following the same terrorist instruction booklet, it's called the Koran.
You're wrong, of course, about the Taliban in terms of their vulgar ideology. Their ideology is simply another manifestation of the vulgar ideology created by muhammud (swish) which is as cancerous and caustic today as it was 1,400 years ago..
The koran and the hadith, which are still interpreted literally, are a virulent manifesto of Islamo-fascism, and they are the blueprint for the Religion of Peace's agenda. It's just easier to lay the blame on a discrete group of vile knuckle-draggers with a name, rather than the Dark Ages politico- religious ideology that inspires them.
More "Islam is a monolith" rhetoric. It is really as tired at this point as it is unsupportable.
oh gee "professor osomir" any reasonable person with
any knowledge of Pakistan and islam knows that most
Pakistanis are sunni muslims who, whether they fully understand it----have been acculturated to the concept that the KORAN is the one single truth and the ISLAMIC SOCIETY which the Islamic scholars have developed as the
"shariah way" life over the past 1400 years is the IDEAL to which they adhere along with virtually all sunni muslims thruout the world. <<<< that is about all that hollie said---
so you want to dispute her statement?
There has been no singular Sunni understanding of Shariah law over the past 1400 years.
That's largely untrue. I refer, for one example to the beheadings of the war captives by ISIS currently jihadin' their way across Iraq and Syria. Beheadings are entirely consistent with practices and patterns of behavior established by muhammud (swish). Similarly, non-moslem groups are treated as inferior, as objects of revulsion and subjected to standards that are much different than the moslem population. Those elements apply to any moslem majority nation, past or present, as demonstration of my claim. I’ll cite the differing standards of proof in a sharia court and rights to religious freedoms (among a host of other standards), as they apply to moslems and non-moslems as evidence of my claim.
Slavery is not condemned in the Koran (it’s described explicitly), but it is in the laws of the USA for instance. Stoning of criminals is a viable method of punishment in the koran, but it is not acceptable to modern civilized nations. That is why there is such outrage against sharia in Moslem countries. It's not because they go "against the word of muhammud (swish)" -- but because they adhere to the word of Mo' (swish).
ISIS is spreading exactly how Islam spread 1400 years ago, and thereafter. They were so brutal, and barbaric, that nations eventually submitted to Islam without a fight knowing quite well what would be in store for them should they resisit, hence the "peaceful" way in which Islam spread.
You used the phrase "my point"------just what is
your "point"? I do not see that the fact that over time--
in any given place infected by islam -----islam has its peaks
and its valleys-----is a point since all you have is that fact----
and you can cite the "valleys" as proof that of your contention "ISLAM IS MISUNDERSTOOD ---I can prove it
by citing a place where the islam thing is down in the valley
a bit"
I didn't claim that Islam is misunderstood, simply noted the basic fact that Islam isn't a monolith, which for some reason, you keep insisting upon.
More "Islam is a monolith" rhetoric. It is really as tired at this point as it is unsupportable.
oh gee "professor osomir" any reasonable person with
any knowledge of Pakistan and islam knows that most
Pakistanis are sunni muslims who, whether they fully understand it----have been acculturated to the concept that the KORAN is the one single truth and the ISLAMIC SOCIETY which the Islamic scholars have developed as the
"shariah way" life over the past 1400 years is the IDEAL to which they adhere along with virtually all sunni muslims thruout the world. <<<< that is about all that hollie said---
so you want to dispute her statement?
There has been no singular Sunni understanding of Shariah law over the past 1400 years.
That's largely untrue. I refer, for one example to the beheadings of the war captives by ISIS currently jihadin' their way across Iraq and Syria. Beheadings are entirely consistent with practices and patterns of behavior established by muhammud (swish). Similarly, non-moslem groups are treated as inferior, as objects of revulsion and subjected to standards that are much different than the moslem population. Those elements apply to any moslem majority nation, past or present, as demonstration of my claim. I’ll cite the differing standards of proof in a sharia court and rights to religious freedoms (among a host of other standards), as they apply to moslems and non-moslems as evidence of my claim.
Slavery is not condemned in the Koran (it’s described explicitly), but it is in the laws of the USA for instance. Stoning of criminals is a viable method of punishment in the koran, but it is not acceptable to modern civilized nations. That is why there is such outrage against sharia in Moslem countries. It's not because they go "against the word of muhammud (swish)" -- but because they adhere to the word of Mo' (swish).
ISIS is spreading exactly how Islam spread 1400 years ago, and thereafter. They were so brutal, and barbaric, that nations eventually submitted to Islam without a fight knowing quite well what would be in store for them should they resisit, hence the "peaceful" way in which Islam spread.
true----right now I am haunted by the picture of the Jordanian kid burning up in a cage. --------the lives of his parents are now hell.
my take on the popularity of ISIS amongst Tunisia----is that
the muslim population of Tunisia is doing that which muslim
populations have done for centuries-----a cyclic desire for
the good old fascist filth of THE GLORIOUS CALIPHATE OF
OMAR
You realize that the Muslim population of Tunisia just held democratic elections and voted moderates into power right? That would seem to rather cleanly counter your theory.
what a joke you are-----Yemen? its sunnis vs Shiites ---which ones you want to call "the extremists"?
I am calling AQAP extremists in Somalia, and it has largely been both the Shafis and the Zaidi who have been fighting them. My Yemen example has nothing to do with Sunni vs Shiites.
Somalia---Islamic faction against Islamic faction.
So you agree with me then that Muslims are on the front line fighting against Al Shabaab. Good.
which are the
"extremists" Iraq? ISIS vs kurds???----vs Shiites??
Kurds are largely Muslims too.
Libya----one insane Islamic faction against they other.
Mali? same thing
You should study both regions and conflicts a little more if you honestly feel comfortable reducing their conflicts to the above. In either case it seems like you've conceded the point that it is generally Muslims fighting radical Muslim groups in these areas.
you are a joke-----I have conceded WHAT??? I have conceded that for the past 1400 years muslims have engaged in internecine fighting -----basing their conflcts on anything
from religious doctrine to-----(as in the Yemeni civil war raging since circa 1960) WHO GETS THE OIL and to
WHO GETS TO BE CALIPH. I fail to see the situation as
"the good guys vs the bad guys". Who are the "good guys" and who are the "bad guys" ----in the Shiite vs Sunni
thing going on since the inception of Pakistan? Since we are on the subject-----who were the good guys and who were the bad guys in the 1971 Pakistani civil war?
I stated that most of the fighting against these radical groups that we currently hate is being done by Muslims. You admitted that this was true. Pretty straight forward.
You expect Christians and Europeans to fight the Islamic nutjob neanderthals? Ha ha ha.
the only conclusion I can draw from Osimir---regarding his
REASON for repeating with apparent pride "muslims are killing each other" is that he wishes us to believe that the
"GOOD MUSLIMS" (ie non-extremists muslims) are
doing us a big favor by fighting extremist muslims. Well---
sorry Osimir------history provides its lessons-----the same muslims who shoot each other-----clearly preferto shoot
us.
We will not stop fighting you all until the law of Allah is establishedMy point was to utilize it as an example of how even you guys, with all of your advantages, aren't perfectly versed in global conflict, so the assumption that people living in third world countries would be is a bit of a stretch; furthermore, you guys i'm sure hardly relate to such groups (which is perfectly reasonable, you have little enough in common) just like most Muslims who you are fingerprinting in your generalizations and accusations of tacit approval hardly see themselves connected to these violent groups in the same way that you do.
You seem to be well versed in derailing any thread that has anything negative about Islam in it. Did anybody claim to be well versed in every single fucking conflict in the world now, however obscure or minute? Wake up and smell the Jihad.
Yes, you guys are predicating your notion of Muslim tacit approval of Islamist terrorism on the illogical notion that people in third world countries:
A.) are perfectly versed in conflict
And
B.) even relate to each other in the overly generalized way that you have arbitrarily decided to group them
Side note: it isn't a derailment of a thread to point out logical inconsistencies within your stances.
People in the third world who are suffering from Islamist terrorists waging ethnic cleansing and genocide, don't need to be "well versed in conflict." All they see is a bunch of religious Muslim assholes coming to kill them. This is the legacy of Mohammad and the fruits of Islam, 1400 years later. Neanderthal barbarian savages. We have one right here in this thread.
And in those countries it tends to be Muslims on the front lines fighting those local expressions of extremism. Your bigotry would lump all of them together though, and they deserve better than that.
Pay attention knucklehead, the LEGACY OF MOHAMMAD, is causing Muslims to slaughter both Muslims and non Musłims in the name of Islam.
Had these Muslim nations and their public not enabled, idolized, elevated and encouraged the Al Quedas, Muslim Brotherhoods, Talibans, Hamas, ISIS, Hezbollahs etc as "heroic religious warriors" they wouldn't be facing this cancer themselves. So they are sowing what they have reaped.
Now that the cat is out of the bag it's too late, too little. Funny how they want the West, the same people they spent decades bashing and trashing, to help them fight the Islamists.
We will not stop fighting you all until the law of Allah is establishedYou seem to be well versed in derailing any thread that has anything negative about Islam in it. Did anybody claim to be well versed in every single fucking conflict in the world now, however obscure or minute? Wake up and smell the Jihad.
Yes, you guys are predicating your notion of Muslim tacit approval of Islamist terrorism on the illogical notion that people in third world countries:
A.) are perfectly versed in conflict
And
B.) even relate to each other in the overly generalized way that you have arbitrarily decided to group them
Side note: it isn't a derailment of a thread to point out logical inconsistencies within your stances.
People in the third world who are suffering from Islamist terrorists waging ethnic cleansing and genocide, don't need to be "well versed in conflict." All they see is a bunch of religious Muslim assholes coming to kill them. This is the legacy of Mohammad and the fruits of Islam, 1400 years later. Neanderthal barbarian savages. We have one right here in this thread.
And in those countries it tends to be Muslims on the front lines fighting those local expressions of extremism. Your bigotry would lump all of them together though, and they deserve better than that.
Pay attention knucklehead, the LEGACY OF MOHAMMAD, is causing Muslims to slaughter both Muslims and non Musłims in the name of Islam.
Had these Muslim nations and their public not enabled, idolized, elevated and encouraged the Al Quedas, Muslim Brotherhoods, Talibans, Hamas, ISIS, Hezbollahs etc as "heroic religious warriors" they wouldn't be facing this cancer themselves. So they are sowing what they have reaped.
Now that the cat is out of the bag it's too late, too little. Funny how they want the West, the same people they spent decades bashing and trashing, to help them fight the Islamists.
What you all don't get is that we sunni Muslims love Allah and his prophet more than we love our mothers. We are all Islamic state citizens. This isn't some gang in the desert you're fighting. This is ww3 the beginning has just begun.
There are plenty of ways to battle without picking up a weapon. America should release all Muslim prisoners. Leave Muslim lands alone.
What you all don't get is that we sunni Muslims love Allah and his prophet more than we love our mothers. We are all Islamic state citizens. This isn't some gang in the desert you're fighting. This is ww3 the beginning has just begun.
We will not stop fighting you all until the law of Allah is establishedYou seem to be well versed in derailing any thread that has anything negative about Islam in it. Did anybody claim to be well versed in every single fucking conflict in the world now, however obscure or minute? Wake up and smell the Jihad.
Yes, you guys are predicating your notion of Muslim tacit approval of Islamist terrorism on the illogical notion that people in third world countries:
A.) are perfectly versed in conflict
And
B.) even relate to each other in the overly generalized way that you have arbitrarily decided to group them
Side note: it isn't a derailment of a thread to point out logical inconsistencies within your stances.
People in the third world who are suffering from Islamist terrorists waging ethnic cleansing and genocide, don't need to be "well versed in conflict." All they see is a bunch of religious Muslim assholes coming to kill them. This is the legacy of Mohammad and the fruits of Islam, 1400 years later. Neanderthal barbarian savages. We have one right here in this thread.
And in those countries it tends to be Muslims on the front lines fighting those local expressions of extremism. Your bigotry would lump all of them together though, and they deserve better than that.
Pay attention knucklehead, the LEGACY OF MOHAMMAD, is causing Muslims to slaughter both Muslims and non Musłims in the name of Islam.
Had these Muslim nations and their public not enabled, idolized, elevated and encouraged the Al Quedas, Muslim Brotherhoods, Talibans, Hamas, ISIS, Hezbollahs etc as "heroic religious warriors" they wouldn't be facing this cancer themselves. So they are sowing what they have reaped.
Now that the cat is out of the bag it's too late, too little. Funny how they want the West, the same people they spent decades bashing and trashing, to help them fight the Islamists.
There are plenty of ways to battle without picking up a weapon. America should release all Muslim prisoners. Leave Muslim lands alone.
What you all don't get is that we sunni Muslims love Allah and his prophet more than we love our mothers. We are all Islamic state citizens. This isn't some gang in the desert you're fighting. This is ww3 the beginning has just begun.
