ISIS is to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The KKK couldn't take over a Duncan donuts.

They don't usually have to.

When Dunkin Donuts sells a franchise the contract specifies that police officers are to be given free coffee.

[Angrboda]

Groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda embody the teachings of their parent faith and its founder. The KKK, not so much.

Christianity is also still Christianity without the KKK. Islam would be fundamentally changed as a whole if the extremists didn't exist. That's the point of Atlas' revisionist apologetic.

[Anomalocaris]

ISIS is clearly not an Islamic counterpart to the KKK.   The KKK is a secular social pheonomenom that arose from the defeat of the secular south in a secular struggle.   ISIS is a fundamentalist irredentist phenomenon that arose from the defeat of religious creed in the hands of secular modernism.

I wouldn't call the KKK secular. They require you to be a Christian to join. I don't know how that could be called secular.

I agree that it's a poor parallel to ISIS though.

You have effectively been required to be Christian to be a elected official during most of the country’s history.  That doesn’t change the fact that the office is secular.

Rather than implying KKK is a meaningfully Christian organization, the question may be what is it about Christianity that is so attractive to scums and villains.

[Minimalist]

Well, there were variants of the Klan... the Second One is the basis for our modern asswipes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

The second KKK preached "One Hundred Percent Americanism" and demanded the purification of politics, calling for strict morality and better enforcement of Prohibition. Its official rhetoric focused on the threat of the Catholic Church, using anti-Catholicism and nativism.[3] Its appeal was directed exclusively at white Protestants; it opposed Jews, blacks, Catholics, and newly arriving Southern European immigrants such as Italians.

Italians?  Ba fongool, you cracker-assed crackers.

[Drich]

Debate.

actually it doesn't. There are three arms of Islam at any point any one believer could be called to any of the three expressions of the muslim faith.

All three arms are based on Islam's great commission.. that is to take Islam and spread it world wide till all serve the god of islam.

They do this one of three ways.
1 they go in peacefully and selectively breed out the indigenous population over time. they water down the blood lines and eventually take over. most luke warm believers of islam live here they can more easily separate themselves from the other two expression of the islamic faith. They even have quranic permission to lie when confronted by their enemies so as not to bring too much attention to themselves.

2 They are instructed to try and convert. meaning like christians missionaries go into an area and try and get a population to convert to islam through study

3 Jihad is the holy war option where the infidels are expelled.

These are the structured beliefs of the SUnni which represent the vast majority of all of Islam. there are other sects but to the sunni the other sects are no better than any of us.

This is why hard core muslims in other countries will not denounce ISIS or al qaeda even if those people are not involved in jihad themselves... as jihad is still considered an active legit branch of worship in that religion..

While the KKK can be denounced and has been across the board by every branch of christian except the one they themselves fashion or run.

So no, not the same thing

[WinterHold]

The majority of believers in the "big theory of ISIS" being a representative of Islam forget the following things:

1-Most of its warriors are actually westerners or Russians. Ask yourself: how did these get visas to depart home, or get back home from the battlefield ?

You're a loon.  None of the majority contributors to ISIS foreign fighters, itself a piddling minority, are what any person would remotely consider "the west".  

Stop making excuses for violent islamism.

Before Islam, the Middle East was the boiling frontier between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Persian Empire.

The wars between the two ancient superpowers lasted for about 400 years:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%...anian_wars

    The Byzantine–Sasanian wars, also known as the Irano-Byzantine wars[2] refers to a series of conflicts between the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire and the Sassanian Empire of Persia. A continuation of the Roman–Persian Wars, the conflict involved several smaller campaigns and peace treaties lasting for years at a time.

So aren't you an islamophobe, propaganda-driven individual when you blame Muslims for wars that they didn't even start?


The Roman Empire is an invention of European origin, while the Sasanid Empire is a Persian invention of Persian origin. None of these two were Muslims, both of these (the Persians and the Romans) hacked each other from Greece down to the Middle East, either directly or through their vessels in the region.

So what's your point, exactly?

Even in history you fail to make a point, and you let your blind hate to religion controls you.

2-Why does ISIS has a fetish called "the murder of other Muslims"? Europeans and western communities are not new to war; just 80 years ago the west saw world war 2, and the gigantic amount of death and terrorism that was carried out by other western governments against western communities (like Germany bombing the civilians of London). So isn't it ignorant to say that Hitler -for example- represents the west?

Muslims have been hacking each other to pieces for centuries.  Why stop now?  Hitler -did- represent the west.  The US wasn't exactly in love with the lesser races in the 30's and 40's either...for example. It was his archytepal influence that lead us (or so we thought) to abandoning those sorts of viewpoints in our culture. His was an instructive example. You should take a hint.

This justification is getting old; and it's a broken record repeated by zionists, rightists and ignorant mobs alike to explain the chaos in the Middle East.

Hacking and slashing is a human trait; and a small list of examples will include the Crusades, the Huns, the Vikings, the three kingdom's war in China, the Japanese invasion of China, the British bombing of Dresden, the American atomic attack on Japan...what else?

It is an old, broken record. The violent blood-thirsty people are all humans. And for a very long while the white,Western man dominated the first rank without any competition:

In the book "Christianity Is Not Great" edited by John W. Loftus, this interesting part is mentioned and it sums up my view:

Of course, Islam is nowhere near invading and occupying England or the United States.

On the other hand, in 1798, seven hundred years after the battles of the First Crusade (see chapter 5 in this volume), Napoleon landed a French army of thirty thousand in Egypt, reinitiating the conquest of the Middle East. Perhaps three thousand Muslims were killed at the Battle of the Pyramids on July 21 and another three thousand during rioting against the French in Cairo. To head off an Ottoman counterattack, Napoleon invaded Palestine and Syria, where he executed thousands of prisoners of war. The Battle of Aboukir on July 25, 1799, cost another four to six thousand Muslim lives. The French were expelled in 1800, not by Muslims but by the rival invading English. A century later, after World War I and the Sykes-Picot Agreement, England and France would finally divide the Middle East between themselves.

So what are you talking about? are you a loon?

History wise the only blood-thirsty invaders who took the first rank are white people, with their muskets and atomic bombs. You will never wipe the shame of your race by throwing your own ancestors shameful history on somebody else.

From the crusades to the Iraq war to Trump, the white man is just stinking with blood. The disaster your people got us in due to the invention of the atomic bomb is enough, the millions killed in WW2 are enough, but you accuse Muslims of being the ones who hack and slash, and even call me a loony for pointing my finger at the truth?

3-Why does ISIS -ironically- only carry out operations that would destroy the public image of Muslims, and give dictators -like the Sauds- an excuse to torture their people even more?

Because they think that you are feckless muslims who do not have the sufficient level of islamic faith, and they can reach you.

No. That's the thinking of kindergarten kids. If ISIS was this naive they wouldn't have lasted a single day under the bombardment of the whole world. They kill me because they are a proxy made and created to serve a purpose -just like the proxies of the cold war-. But I suspect that you understand what that means -despite it being admitted by the White House-.

4-How does ISIS teleport to appear anywhere to carry out a certain mission under the excuse of "International Jihad"? but it doesn't show its face inside Israel or Saudi Arabia. Does Israel has a stronger domestic security than superpowers?

Isis doesn't do well in open conflict against against well trained soldiers with first world weapons.  They don't do particularly well against people who willing to commit warcrimes of equal or greater measure..either. Long been known.

Then, how did they manage to fight the U.S until today in Afghanistan?

5-Why does ISIS can also be read like "Israeli Secret Intelligence Service" ? Ironically, this name seems even more reasonable and make much much more sense

Hahahahahahah.  The jews did it!

Watch out, because even white Americans (who some of them are Jews) are repeating the same message as me:

6-Do you really still believe in the motives of the war on terror?

Yup, and just looking up at the above I can see why the work will -never- be done.

Me too.

---

Give em time, they're working on it.

Nobody will exceed the apocalyptic grim atomic blast that is so strong it can be seen from space, and curse the surroundings with mutations and slow death if they survived its fire. What non Muslims killed in WW2 alone equals centuries of wars by Muslims.

[WinterHold]

Groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda embody the teachings of their parent faith and its founder.  The KKK, not so much.

Christianity is also still Christianity without the KKK. Islam would be fundamentally changed as a whole if the extremists didn't exist.  That's the point of Atlas' revisionist apologetic.

I prefer the term "returned to its original shape"; which is following the Quran and treating the other books as they are: history books that weren't revealed by a God.

But yes; it will be a time capsule that would transfer Islam to the early days of the faith.

[The Grand Nudger]

I prefer the term "returned to its original shape"; which is following the Quran and treating the other books as they are: history books that weren't revealed by a God.

But yes; it will be a time capsule that would transfer Islam to the early days of the faith.

The original shape of islam was an aggressive military expansion under the guise of a holy crusade.  If you transported members of ISIS back to the 6th and 7th centuries, they'd be heroes. To be blunt, those are the heroes you're still worshipping today.

I see you losing your shit, up above, on account of being incapable of accepting that reality. Jihadists..ultimately, are just people who feel like you do, and decide to do something about it.

[chimp3]

Debate.

My father is a Pentecostal Preacher. Hard core! When I married my first wife - a black women  , I a white boy  - his only beef was that I did not ask him to perform the ceremony. I asked a friend who had a mail order theology degree. So, I have to agree with Kit!

Now, if I had married a man.....

[downbeatplumb]

Debate.

My father is a Pentecostal Preacher. Hard core! When I married my first wife - a black women  , I a white boy  - his only beef was that I did not ask him to perform the ceremony. I asked a friend who had a mail order theology degree. So, I have to agree with Kit!

Now, if I had married a man.....