(June 12, 2015 at 11:59 am)Dystopia Wrote:

Quote:Islam is a global threat, Christianity isn't.

That's not something to laugh about. All religions are not equally violent; Islamic terrorism disproportionately overpowers Christian terrorism.

Quote:I know this doesn't fit the narrative that you want to believe -- indeed, that's probably why you haven't bothered searching out such information -- but believe me, if you ask them whether they'd be willing to defend their faith with violence, the numbers even here in America would be higher than you think, especially south of the Mason-Dixon line. Evidence? Here's some Christians who are very happy being just as brutal as the Muslims you would wish to single out:

It's not a narrative; I need facts. Entire majorities in Muslim countries all agree upon radical fundamentalist core beliefs. That's not the case with America. America is 80% Christian yet their beliefs greatly vary depending on state. The North is much more liberal in their belief than the Southern states, and even then, the Southern States have been tamed. Even hate-groups such as the KKK are no longer violent. The only part I agreed upon was Africa --- Africa is generally a violent country, Christian or Muslim; however, despite that, African Muslims are much more violent.

The Boko-Haram group for instance, by 2014 they had killed thousands of people. So this meme of ''Christians are bad too'' is grossly dishonest in modern context. Islam is much more violent in the modern world; Christianity and Judaism have mostly tamed themselves.

Christians in America and the rest of the world do not reach the levels of terror that we've seen from Islamic terrorism; the Christians in America mostly advocated backlash through the religious right which was largely non-violent.

Quote:"Defense of their faith" is a very broad question, which is exactly what I was getting at: you can get almost any desired response by tailoring poll questions ... and then massaging the stats, as that site clearly has done.

Seems pretty clear to me. We have seen riots erupt at people depicting Muhammad; not only in Western countries but other Islamic nations, with Islamic clerics vowing revenge; the Salmand Rushdie ''Satanic Verses'' was a good example --- the Aytollah Khomenhi declared Rusdhie a threat to Islam, and put a fatwah for his death. He's not the only person who has been forced into hiding for this.

This US cartoonist has went into hiding because of the extremist Islamic threat, her own freedom is at stake in the US itself.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...-1.2073298

When the Flying Spaghetti Monster mocked Jesus, nobody had to go into hiding. Christianity is reguarly mocked, whereas South Park was too afraid to depict Muhammad; globalisation has shown us just how radical Islam is.

Quote:Muslim terrorism is organized? What planet are you living on? They kill each other over sectarian differences far more than they non-Muslims, and Muslim terrorists seem to most often operate in tiny, independent cells only loosely affiliated with each other, sometimes an affiliation only found in choice of name.

Yes, it is organised; they have militant groups formed with clear-cut aims. They have clear-cut definitions of who is offensive to Islam and they were raided last year in Europe; the ''killing each other'' part isn't evidence of disorganization, that's evidence of power. Muslims groups are at war with each other for dominance over who defines Islam for the modern world.

Quote:Some Muslims are ... certainily not the majority that you are claiming is.

Saying *some* are is wishful thinking. A good chunk of the Muslim population have radical, dangerous belief that would be considered normal in their own world; hence why so many Islamic countries have oppressive laws.

Quote:Your title says "majority", yet your statistics don't demonstrate it.

My title says ''minority'' and then I demonstrate that countries within the Islamic world have entire majorities which hold radical belief. You have consistently dodged this fact, and offered no comment on 84% of Egyptians believing in death for apostasy, or the majority of British Pakistani Muslims believing that the Muhammad cartoonists deserve punishment.

These are dangerous beliefs which are held by entire demographics in certain countries.

Quote:Of course you're biting the baited hook, being told that the "majority" of Muslims engage in those barbaric practices, when in fact they are a minority, and then trying to prop such a view up with cherry-picking a poll.

No, this is a straw-man. I acknowledge that most Muslims aren't terrorists, but while most Egyptians Muslims will denounce terrorism, they will also strongly believe in death for apostasy. They condemn terrorism, yet still hold what we consider *radical* beliefs.

Same with British Pakistani's, many of them believe in punishing the Muhammad cartoonists. These figures can't be pushed aside and ignored, they are startlingly indicative of a wider problem with the doctrine of Islam and what it preaches.

If 84% of an entire country believes you deserve to die for leaving a religion, you KNOW there is a problem with the doctrine that they follow; these are highly, highly dangerous beliefs.

Quote:How many Iranians do you know? I know quite a few, personally. I think your view is skewed.

I know many Iranians who dislike the radicalism in Iran, yet in Iran they have no chance at overthrowing the religious authority.

Quote:lol, only a simpleton believes that morality is related to religion.

Morality can be related to religion. Often, religious people can be less moral. If a Southern Christian hates homosexuals, I'd rightfully judge him as less moral. If a Muslim believes in death for apostasy, I'll judge them as less moral.

(June 12, 2015 at 11:06 am)abaris Wrote:

(June 12, 2015 at 6:09 am)TheMessiah Wrote: The poverty part has been disproven. It's been consistently shown that the middle and upper classes in Islamic countries are more likely to be radical in their belief.

Source please.

The people most likely to sympathize and join extremist causes belong to the middle class and have at least a primary school education. Most terrorist groups (Islamic) are funded by powerful people.

Economic/social class section.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Terrorism

Majority of Islamic terrorist is sourced through and powered by well-educated people.

Particularly, this was from the Rand Corporation report on counter-terrorism:

''Terrorists are not particularly impoverished, uneducated, or afflicted by mental disease. Demographically, their most important characteristic is normalcy (within their environment). Terrorist leaders actually tend to come from relatively privileged backgrounds. These conclusions are firmly supported by empirical analysis''

(June 13, 2015 at 5:06 am)TheMessiah Wrote: That's not something to laugh about. All religions are not equally violent; Islamic terrorism disproportionately overpowers Christian terrorism.

Europol and FBI statistics sing a different tune. 4 (Europe) and 6 (USA) percent of all terrorist attacks are motivated in any way, shape or form by religion. That's not even exclusively Isam, but all religious motives, Brejvik included. I posted links to the reports in different threads and they are in the public domain. Easy to check.

But of course, they only deal in facts and realities instead of bigoted assumptions and blanket statements about a group.

So yes, if it wasn't fucking disgusting, it would be something to laugh about.

yup, Islam is 500 years behind Christianity. The problem I have with the Jewish religion and Islam religion is that they are Jewish and Muslim first. Not regular people first, not my neighbor , but "My Religion's people" first.

I was laughing that you think Islam is a global threat. The Islamic State couldn't reach the Iberia Peninsula without being shot on sight. This is merely a narrative to shift people's attention from the actual threat, that is way in front of you and has been for decades

(June 13, 2015 at 7:39 am)Dystopia Wrote: I was laughing that you think Islam is a global threat. The Islamic State couldn't reach the Iberia Peninsula without being shot on sight. This is merely a narrative to shift people's attention from the actual threat, that is way in front of you and has been for decades

It is most certainly a global threat; that's why Islamic terrorism dominates America's foreign policy right now. His foreign policy is dominated by his inability to beat ISIS, it's also why China, a communist country is going to extreme lengths to get Muslims out of their country, and not allow any religious influx.

Where is the invasion then? Do they have means to invade the west?

(June 13, 2015 at 6:50 am)abaris Wrote:

(June 13, 2015 at 5:06 am)TheMessiah Wrote: That's not something to laugh about. All religions are not equally violent; Islamic terrorism disproportionately overpowers Christian terrorism.

Europol and FBI statistics sing a different tune. 4 (Europe) and 6 (USA) percent of all terrorist attacks are motivated in any way, shape or form by religion. That's not even exclusively Isam, but all religious motives, Brejvik included. I posted links to the reports in different threads and they are in the public domain. Easy to check.

But of course, they only deal in facts and realities instead of bigoted assumptions and blanket statements about a group.

So yes, if it wasn't fucking disgusting, it would be something to laugh about.

Saying terrorism, especially from the likes of ISIS or Al-Queada is not motivated by religion is willful ignorance. It is wishful thinking to think Islamic terrorism is not motivated by religion; especially considering they justify their violence with verses of the Qu'ran and attempt to enforce their Sharia on other people. Most ISIS recruits from the West were university educated.

Hell, the most infamous Islamic terrorist was a millionaire; major terrorist groups have sourcing from the elite Muslims. Saudi Arabia has been long-known for funding terrorism. So has Pakistan.

You, like many others who love to use the term ''Islamophobe'' struggle to separate criticism of the Islamic doctrine from bigotry towards Muslims as people. I don't hate Muslims, but I do hate their ''holy'' book.

So the evidence that ''poverty drives terrorism'' despite the fact that the bulk of terrorist groups are made up of middle to upper class privileged Muslims in addition to the funding they get from rich Muslims really destroys this laughable meme of ''poverty drives terrorism''.

Poverty doesn't drive terrorism, Islam drives terrorism. The ideology and belief-set in Islam is a key drive; the promise of Matyrdom in Islam is especially dangerous. There are Muslims, privileged ones who truly believe that killing people for their ''holy'' book will lead them to an eternal paradise; you may laugh at the idea, but people truly believe this nonsense --- and it's why Islam is especially more dangerous than other Abrahamic faiths.

(June 13, 2015 at 5:30 am)TheMessiah Wrote: Economic/social class section.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Terrorism

Yeah, as I said before in another thread. Your sources need some serious work. But I guess, you won't be the one doing it, since serious sources and being critical about your sources contradicts your bias. And bias is ultimately the one and only purpose of all the threads you're creating. WikiIslam is as trustworthy as Conservapedia. From their own statement about trying very hard to look like the real wiki.

Quote:Is WikiIslam a branch of Wikipedia or the Wikimedia foundation?

No, we are not in any way related to or endorsed by these organizations. Our only commonality is our use of the same Mediawiki software which is also used by many other wiki websites.