"But what about the moderates?"

[WinterHold]

Usually, people just forget that groups like ISIS gain their popularity & fame by killing Muslims. They never start by killing non-Muslims.

They are not just "crazy fanatics", these guys have tactics, longterm goals -did you notice how ISIS took control of the oilfields in Syria ?- by the way they sell it with U.S dollars in the black market. Countries from the outside are supporting them & everybody knows it..it's so obvious.

Then, you have the pure fanatics, the insane ones. They also cause enormous pain to Muslims first, before non Muslims. The key-feature of a fanatic is that he accuse even the Muslims of being non-Muslims or not good enough for him.

So, we as Muslims, are hurt by these people the most. Why do many atheists & Christians speak of it as if Muslims are enjoying it ? well go ask the Muslim Kurds, who currently fight ISIS & many thousands of them left their homes to freeze next to Turkey.
Ask the Syrian rebels who got beheaded by ISIS.

We don't like it. But remember ? what made us so weak to handle a few terrorists was something called "Sykes Picot Agreement" between England and France to distribute muslims like cattle is small countries, without proper infrastructure or any experience -notice that the ottomans used to run all the stuff-.

Then, the middle east turned into a forest. some of the animals evolved and now they bite.
Please westerners (especially) and non Muslims generally..stop blaming islam.

[FatAndFaithless]

[Thumpalumpacus]

Sentence #2, in case you can't follow things without a map.

The last sentence in my post above, about opsec (that's shorthand for "operational security", meaning that people doing these sorts of things don't like to give the plan away ahead of time, for what I hope are obvious reasons), directly addressed that, before you even posted.

Why should I regard your post as an answer, when all it is in essence is a repetition of a claim without support that ignores the objection laid in front of it?

You need to explain why someone wishing to commit an atrocity would also wish to talk about it beforehand and thereby endager his prospects for accomplishment. That would be an answer. Your post, on the other hand, was simply drivel.

[Minimalist]

Because they almost always do. There are always leaks. That's largely how we have avoided attacks. We're not dealing with trained intelligence officers. We're dealing with schmucks like this bozo:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/nyregi...wanted=all

A crude car bomb of propane, gasoline and fireworks was discovered in a smoking Nissan Pathfinder in the heart of Times Square on Saturday evening, prompting the evacuation of thousands of tourists and theatergoers on a warm and busy night. Although the device had apparently started to detonate, there was no explosion, and early on Sunday the authorities were still seeking a suspect and motive.

Guy couldn't detonate propane, gasoline and fireworks (black powder). Some "terrorist." Maybe allah will only give him 1 virgin and she'll be ugly and hairy?

Meanwhile, you can talk to me about "moderates" when I see large scale denunciations of this in muslim communities.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29862886

Militants from Islamic State (IS) have killed at least 50 members of an Iraqi tribe in western Anbar province, officials and tribal leaders say.

The men and women from the Al Bu Nimr tribe are reported to have been lined up and shot in retaliation for resisting the jihadists.

A number of people from the same tribe were also found dead in mass graves earlier this week.

These were, after all, fellow muslims that they executed.

"Religion of peace" my fucking ass.

[xpastor]

The story of the extremist who was outed by two Ottawa mosques was apparently even better than I supposed. CBC news subsequently reported that at the second mosque in his Friday sermon the imam was denouncing the murders of the two soldiers. The extremist got to his feet and started tp heckle the imam, ranting that the second murderer was a hero and martyr. The authorities at the mosque called the police to eject him, and they reported what he had said, which resulted in the Mounties placing him under surveillance.

I mentioned in an earlier post that lone wolf is a designation used by the authorities to distinguish a solitary attacker from a group such as an organized cell. The distinction is important because groups are invariably easier to detect—there is always some "chatter" among the members which may be picked up by intelligence services. Lone wolf is not intended to make a sociological judgment about the number of friends and family the perpetrator may, or may not, have.

[LastPoet]

The moderates are valiantly fighting for their religion of peace!

Sorry, I can't but scornfully laugh at the above statement. Whatever the religion they refer to.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Because they almost always do. There are always leaks. That's largely how we have avoided attacks.

And how many of those leaks and tips were provided by Muslims? Here's a list: http://interfaithcenter.org/archives/2718

Meanwhile, you can talk to me about "moderates" when I see large scale denunciations of this in muslim communities.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29862886

These were, after all, fellow muslims that they executed.

Although it was issued back in Aug, these sorts of attacks have already been condemned by ISIS, and I have already linked to that specific condemnation in this conversation with you.

What we are seeing here is your confirmation bias in action. I presented you with a number of condemnations, including those dealing with the group and its atrocious practices, and you clearly didn't read them. After all, that would require you to question your own premises.

This information is not hard to find ... but you have to want to find it.

"Religion of peace" my fucking ass.

So, you will have noted by now that I've never once called Islam the "religion of peace", and the reason for that is that I don't believe that it is.

[Chas]

Meanwhile, you can talk to me about "moderates" when I see large scale denunciations of this in muslim communities.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29862886

These were, after all, fellow muslims that they executed.

Although it was issued back in Aug, these sorts of attacks have already been condemned by ISIS, and I have already linked to that specific condemnation in this conversation with you.

What? ISIS has been condemned by some Muslim leaders; ISIS has condemned nothing.

What we are seeing here is your confirmation bias in action. I presented you with a number of condemnations, including those dealing with the group and its atrocious practices, and you clearly didn't read them. After all, that would require you to question your own premises.

This information is not hard to find ... but you have to want to find it.

I think your gross misreading of your own link above demonstrates your confirmation bias.

"Religion of peace" my fucking ass.

So, you will have noted by now that I've never once called Islam the "religion of peace", and the reason for that is that I don't believe that it is.

They claim that sobriquet for themselves. So, there's that.

[DeistPaladin]

A point I really need to clarify which I think address some of your concerns.

Hard for YOU to square [how to reconcile moderate beliefs with scripture or even basic tenets of a faith], because apparently, you agree with fundamentalist Muslims on that point. Millions of Muslims manage it. Q.E.D.

The point I was trying to make is not that moderate Muslims don't exist.

The point is this, summed up in a nutshell:

Be careful what you call "The Word of God". Some people might actually believe it.

Longer version:

Moderates hold up the Bible/Koran/etc. and say "Word of God". The fundies say "we agree and here's what it says..."

Sure, the moderates begin their mental gymnastics of "Well, when it says... it really means...". As AronRa recently said, (paraphrased) "they read between the lines rather than read the lines themselves". In other words, they start with their beliefs and, rather than read what's there, they see what they want to.

You may say, "great". Yeah, that's great for them. Maybe it's great for their whole local community. Can you guarantee me that nobody will read the actual words printed on the page after being told it's the Word of God and come to the obvious conclusion instead of the nice, heavily massaged, not-really-what-it-says-but-let's-pretend version?

For example, the Biblical god really does hate fags. It says so in the Bible. It says they must die. It says to kill them and their blood is on their hands. Sure, 99.99% of Christians never would but do you see how it's dangerous calling stuff like that "The Word of God". Some idiot might actually believe it and act on it.

That's what makes religion dangerous. Most adherents are good people who want to believe their religion is good. A few actually read the scriptures. That's how the nutty ones are generated. And if only 5% of believers are those few, the ideology is still toxic.

[Thumpalumpacus]

What? ISIS has been condemned by some Muslim leaders; ISIS has condemned nothing.

That was me mis-typing, obviously; if you peruse the link you'll garner the point, despite my error.

You did read the link ... right?

I think your gross misreading of your own link above demonstrates your confirmation bias.

It obviously wasn't a "misreading", I was multitasking and mistyped. I trust that you can read the intent of the post, and not flog what is an obvious typo.

Clearly, the moderates in that link condemned the brutalities performed, by ISIS, in Iraq and Syria.

They claim that sobriquet for themselves. So, there's that.

Yes, and he put that into a reply to me, so I felt the need to clear up any confusion. Is there a problem with me making clear that I don't buy that line of bullshit?