A German's View of islam

[Strychnine 1,802]

I think what he means is it's not possible now.

Two Points:

1) Being actually possible and the Radicals THINKING it is possible are different things.

2) The whole ISIS event now is proving that there is indeed a large number of Muslims that think it is indeed possible and that they are now doing it.

I am curious with several of you. Why do you think it is absolutely not going to happen?

I did not say anything relative to it, but I will respond anyway.

I think a radical group like ISIS is finding success where it has been finding it because of two things: 1. Syria (Assad specifically) has basically no friends in the region. 2. In Iraq, they found a Sunni population that seemed to prefer them to the Shiites. Whether they can even hold on to what they have in the long-term is certainly disputable, but expansion attempts into Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Jordan are not likely to be successful at all.

In order for a real Caliphate to be born and subsequently grow, someone would have to get several countries to agree to it, that are not likely to agree to it. Radical Sunni Islam is not going to gain traction in Iran, for example. Jordan is not likely to join Saudi Arabia in storming across the desert under the black flag of Jihad, and neither is the UAE. The moderate Muslims in those countries are not very interested in uniting with the radical Muslims in a Caliphate run by the radicals. For that matter, they are not very interested in uniting with the moderate Muslims in those countries in a Caliphate run by moderates. Sunnis and Shiites in general are going to disagree on it too.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Hardly. A murder committed in the name of Christianity (or Hinduism, or Buddhism, etc.) is no different than one committed in the name of Islam.

And when murders committed in the name of Islam out number all others combined, by say..1000 to 1, , is THAT a problem ?

Seems like you think not.

[homersapien 11,373]

Hardly. A murder committed in the name of Christianity (or Hinduism, or Buddhism, etc.) is no different than one committed in the name of Islam.

And when murders committed in the name of Islam out number all others combined, by say..1000 to 1, , is THAT a problem ?

Seems like you think not.

How in the world could you reach that conclusion? It baffles me.

(If not surprises me. :-\ )

[autigeremt 6,613]

No one expects it to be just one state. But there could be a caliphate in the ME with say 50M population, very aggressive militarily and politically.

I just don't see that happening. That would be a far worse case than Communism (for example) which burned itself out on it's own corruption.

People in general - including Muslims - basically want better lives for themselves. I don't see how the ISIS movement can provide that.

Communism is still alive. It has morphed, but it still exists.

I see a possible scenario that leads to the caliphate. Instability in the Middle East leaves the door open for this possibility.

[homersapien 11,373]

No one expects it to be just one state. But there could be a caliphate in the ME with say 50M population, very aggressive militarily and politically.

I just don't see that happening. That would be a far worse case than Communism (for example) which burned itself out on it's own corruption.

People in general - including Muslims - basically want better lives for themselves. I don't see how the ISIS movement can provide that.

Communism is still alive. It has morphed, but it still exists.

I see a possible scenario that leads to the caliphate. Instability in the Middle East leaves the door open for this possibility.

Do you really believe Communism has a future where it still exists?

I don't see anything beyond a brief proclamation of a rag tag band of radicals such as ISIS. And again, I don't see ISIS as capable of indefinite expansion.

So, can you briefly describe that scenario you see for a Caliphate?

[autigeremt 6,613]

No one expects it to be just one state. But there could be a caliphate in the ME with say 50M population, very aggressive militarily and politically.

I just don't see that happening. That would be a far worse case than Communism (for example) which burned itself out on it's own corruption.

People in general - including Muslims - basically want better lives for themselves. I don't see how the ISIS movement can provide that.

Communism is still alive. It has morphed, but it still exists.

I see a possible scenario that leads to the caliphate. Instability in the Middle East leaves the door open for this possibility.

Do you really believe Communism has a future where it still exists?

I don't see anything beyond a brief proclamation of a rag tag band of radicals such as ISIS. And again, I don't see ISIS as capable of indefinite expansion.

So, can you briefly describe that scenario you see for a Caliphate?

Sometimes I can't help but when you ask for explanations. Simply put, if you continue to have instability in the region it allows groups like ISIS to take more control...and once they do, they will combine their gains into one. Not hard to understand....I guess.

[WarTim 3,456]

And while the metaphor does have a few similar aspects, a (global) religion is not a country. Radical Islam doesn't really have much in common with the rise of the Third Reich beyond ruthlessness.

Ruthlessness? Oh yeah, they were all meanies.

<_</>

One thing which separates radical Islam from NAZIS or Commies ? The Necro-Muslims don't care if they live or die. It's all for allah, and that's the sort of radicalism that will more likely nuke a land than just try to take it over.

True. That's another key difference, which makes religious radicals all the more dangerous.

No...just Islamic radicals...

Hardly. A murder committed in the name of Christianity (or Hinduism, or Buddhism, etc.) is no different than one committed in the name of Islam.

Sorry. I missed the reports of all those Methodist radicals and their crimes. Please fill us all in!!! Bwahahahaha

[homersapien 11,373]

No one expects it to be just one state. But there could be a caliphate in the ME with say 50M population, very aggressive militarily and politically.

I just don't see that happening. That would be a far worse case than Communism (for example) which burned itself out on it's own corruption.

People in general - including Muslims - basically want better lives for themselves. I don't see how the ISIS movement can provide that.

Communism is still alive. It has morphed, but it still exists.

I see a possible scenario that leads to the caliphate. Instability in the Middle East leaves the door open for this possibility.

Do you really believe Communism has a future where it still exists?

I don't see anything beyond a brief proclamation of a rag tag band of radicals such as ISIS. And again, I don't see ISIS as capable of indefinite expansion.

So, can you briefly describe that scenario you see for a Caliphate?

Sometimes I can't help but when you ask for explanations. Simply put, if you continue to have instability in the region it allows groups like ISIS to take more control...and once they do, they will combine their gains into one. Not hard to understand....I guess.

Well, I certainly don't challenge that premise, but like they say, the devil's in the details. I was looking for something a little more specific.

[homersapien 11,373]

And while the metaphor does have a few similar aspects, a (global) religion is not a country. Radical Islam doesn't really have much in common with the rise of the Third Reich beyond ruthlessness.

Ruthlessness? Oh yeah, they were all meanies.

<_</>

One thing which separates radical Islam from NAZIS or Commies ? The Necro-Muslims don't care if they live or die. It's all for allah, and that's the sort of radicalism that will more likely nuke a land than just try to take it over.

True. That's another key difference, which makes religious radicals all the more dangerous.

No...just Islamic radicals...

Hardly. A murder committed in the name of Christianity (or Hinduism, or Buddhism, etc.) is no different than one committed in the name of Islam.

Sorry. I missed the reports of all those Methodist radicals and their crimes. Please fill us all in!!! Bwahahahaha

So did I. But I don't really get your point beyond throwing out a red herring.

So do you disagree with my premise or not?

[cptau 169]

No one expects it to be just one state. But there could be a caliphate in the ME with say 50M population, very aggressive militarily and politically.

I just don't see that happening. That would be a far worse case than Communism (for example) which burned itself out on it's own corruption.

People in general - including Muslims - basically want better lives for themselves. I don't see how the ISIS movement can provide that.

Communism is still alive. It has morphed, but it still exists.

I see a possible scenario that leads to the caliphate. Instability in the Middle East leaves the door open for this possibility.

Do you really believe Communism has a future where it still exists?

I don't see anything beyond a brief proclamation of a rag tag band of radicals such as ISIS. And again, I don't see ISIS as capable of indefinite expansion.

So, can you briefly describe that scenario you see for a Caliphate?

It was not an Islamic caliphate, but there have been recent political pan Arab unions in the Middle East.

In the late 1950s Egypt, Syria, North Yemen and later Iraq tried to form the United arab republic. It was formed due to a fear of communism. The Syrian army decide they got cheated and revolted as the Egyptians were in charged. The nation fell apart, but Egypt still uses the UAR name.

In 1971 Libya, Egypt, and Syria formed the federation of Arab states with Sudan joining in 1977. Again it fell apart and really never functioned as the countries couldn't agree on a joint government.

I doubt there could be such political unions now between the oil have and have nots. Even organized military conquests are not likely. The Arab countries can't even control their own populations now, much less invade a neighboring country.

[WarTim 3,456]

And while the metaphor does have a few similar aspects, a (global) religion is not a country. Radical Islam doesn't really have much in common with the rise of the Third Reich beyond ruthlessness.

Ruthlessness? Oh yeah, they were all meanies.

<_</>

One thing which separates radical Islam from NAZIS or Commies ? The Necro-Muslims don't care if they live or die. It's all for allah, and that's the sort of radicalism that will more likely nuke a land than just try to take it over.

True. That's another key difference, which makes religious radicals all the more dangerous.

No...just Islamic radicals...

Hardly. A murder committed in the name of Christianity (or Hinduism, or Buddhism, etc.) is no different than one committed in the name of Islam.

Sorry. I missed the reports of all those Methodist radicals and their crimes. Please fill us all in!!! Bwahahahaha

So did I. But I don't really get your point beyond throwing out a red herring.

So do you disagree with my premise or not?

You have a premise jumbled in all of that horse hockey? Sorry. I was distracted in the attempt to lift and toss this darn red herring. :-)

[homersapien 11,373]

And while the metaphor does have a few similar aspects, a (global) religion is not a country. Radical Islam doesn't really have much in common with the rise of the Third Reich beyond ruthlessness.

Ruthlessness? Oh yeah, they were all meanies.

<_</>

One thing which separates radical Islam from NAZIS or Commies ? The Necro-Muslims don't care if they live or die. It's all for allah, and that's the sort of radicalism that will more likely nuke a land than just try to take it over.

True. That's another key difference, which makes religious radicals all the more dangerous.

No...just Islamic radicals...

Hardly. A murder committed in the name of Christianity (or Hinduism, or Buddhism, etc.) is no different than one committed in the name of Islam.

Sorry. I missed the reports of all those Methodist radicals and their crimes. Please fill us all in!!! Bwahahahaha

So did I. But I don't really get your point beyond throwing out a red herring.

So do you disagree with my premise or not?

You have a premise jumbled in all of that horse hockey? Sorry. I was distracted in the attempt to lift and toss this darn red herring. :-)

OK. Sorry you overlooked (forgot?) it. I highlighted it to help you out.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Why are the Left so obsessed with equating crimes by other religions from 100's or 1000's of years agoto what is happening today ?

We live NOW. In THIS time. Not during the Salem witch trials. Not during the Inquisition. Our influence on the world is starting today and goes forward. We can't change the past. And what we have to deal with , TODAY, is radical militant Islam. Not angry Catholics, not bitter Hindus, but Muslims.

Baffles me as to why the Left refuse to admit that simple reality.

[DKW 86 7,423]

Well, i hope that strychnine and others are right. I am not that optimistic, AT THIS MOMENT.

Once ISIS reaches the 3 year hurdle, where the new toy image wears off and the governing begins and they have to fix the roads, feed the poor, keep the power on, THEN we will see where all this goes. I tend to agree with others here tho. If ISIS doesnt move forward militarily, they will start to lose converts IMHO. They will have to keep beheading people and that will eventually get to be passe'. The titillation of the "Natural Born Killers" crowd is in large part driving them, imho. I see some of the recruiting they do as just x% of the population are just born ultra violent and drawn to butchery. It is the human condition. We usually have wars that purge these people from out of humanity every generation. I am afraid tho that a critical mass of these people may be forming within ISIS and it may clear the hurdle of self governance.

strychnine may be more correct tho. We are already hearing about the jihadis in ISIS leaving because they arent killing. They are getting bored with the normalization within ISIS. The "i am not cleaning toilets for ISIS" story is telling.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

With all the discussion here as a backdrop, how do ya'll see this morning's news that Jordan is willing to do a prisoner swap with ISIS......a terrorist for pilot? To me it is tough decision but further sends a message to ISIS they can kidnap a "good" guy and get one of their own free. i.e., they are in control.

[homersapien 11,373]

Why are the Left so obsessed with equating crimes by other religions from 100's or 1000's of years agoto what is happening today ?

We live NOW. In THIS time. Not during the Salem witch trials. Not during the Inquisition. Our influence on the world is starting today and goes forward. We can't change the past. And what we have to deal with , TODAY, is radical militant Islam. Not angry Catholics, not bitter Hindus, but Muslims.

Baffles me as to why the Left refuse to admit that simple reality.

OK, Raptor (and Tim). I thought it was obvious but I am willing to explain it if necessary.

1. Raptor made a comment about "necro-muslims" (sic) not caring if they live or die.

2. I agreed with Raptor pointing out "that is what makes religious radicals all the more dangerous" (than say, anarchists, or political radicals).

3. You chimed in to say, "no, just Muslims". That clearly implies that other religions either don't have radicals or that somehow their radicals are not as bad.

4. I pointed out that a murder committed in the name of Christianity, Buddhism or Hindu is just as bad as a murder committed in the name of Islam.

Now if you want to discuss the fact that the current problem with radical Islam is much worse than the problem with all other religions combined, that's fine. I would even agree with you . But you didn't say that.

Do you understand now?

What is it with this problem you have in not following the train of logic as written? Why do you make arbitrary jumps to interpretations that are not supported by the words?

Please try to be more careful in reading and writing. It's becoming tiresome to point out the words you are addressing - or writing - don't support your conclusions.

Or maybe just keep to your sophomoric one-line insults. You seem to have no problems with those.

[homersapien 11,373]

With all the discussion here as a backdrop, how do ya'll see this morning's news that Jordan is willing to do a prisoner swap with ISIS......a terrorist for pilot? To me it is tough decision but further sends a message to ISIS they can kidnap a "good" guy and get one of their own free. i.e., they are in control.

While I agree with you in principle, I imagine that Jordanian pilots are rather more valuable than a terrorist. And from a practical standpoint, such an exchange is not going to have an effect on the number of prisoners they capture in battle. Prisoner exchanges have been common to most wars.

Now if they start sending kidnap teams into other countries for hostages, that's a different case.

[WarTim 3,456]

Why are the Left so obsessed with equating crimes by other religions from 100's or 1000's of years agoto what is happening today ?

We live NOW. In THIS time. Not during the Salem witch trials. Not during the Inquisition. Our influence on the world is starting today and goes forward. We can't change the past. And what we have to deal with , TODAY, is radical militant Islam. Not angry Catholics, not bitter Hindus, but Muslims.

Baffles me as to why the Left refuse to admit that simple reality.

OK, Tim. I thought it was obvious but I am willing to explain it if necessary.

1. Raptor made a comment about "necro-muslims" (sic) not caring if they live or die.

2. I agreed with Raptor pointing out "that is what makes religious radicals all the more dangerous" (than say, anarchists, or political radicals).

3. You chimed in to say, "no, just Muslims". That clearly implies that other religions either don't have radicals or that somehow their radicals are not as bad.

4. I pointed out that a murder committed in the name of Christianity, Buddhism or Hindu is just as bad as a murder committed in the name of Islam.

Now if you want to discuss the fact that the current problem with radical Islam is much worse than the problem with all other religions combined, that's fine. I would even agree with you . But you didn't say that.

Do you understand now?

What is it with this problem you have in not following the train of logic as written? Why do you make arbitrary jumps to interpretations that are not supported by the words?

Please try to be more careful in reading and writing. It's becoming tiresome to point out the words you are addressing - or writing - don't support your conclusions.

Or maybe just keep to your sophomoric one-line insults. You seem to have no problems with those.

Sad. Now it makes up conversations and talks with itself. You may want to reply to RAPTOR........ Bwahahahaha

[homersapien 11,373]

Why are the Left so obsessed with equating crimes by other religions from 100's or 1000's of years agoto what is happening today ?

We live NOW. In THIS time. Not during the Salem witch trials. Not during the Inquisition. Our influence on the world is starting today and goes forward. We can't change the past. And what we have to deal with , TODAY, is radical militant Islam. Not angry Catholics, not bitter Hindus, but Muslims.

Baffles me as to why the Left refuse to admit that simple reality.

OK, Tim. I thought it was obvious but I am willing to explain it if necessary.

1. Raptor made a comment about "necro-muslims" (sic) not caring if they live or die.

2. I agreed with Raptor pointing out "that is what makes religious radicals all the more dangerous" (than say, anarchists, or political radicals).

3. You chimed in to say, "no, just Muslims". That clearly implies that other religions either don't have radicals or that somehow their radicals are not as bad.

4. I pointed out that a murder committed in the name of Christianity, Buddhism or Hindu is just as bad as a murder committed in the name of Islam.

Now if you want to discuss the fact that the current problem with radical Islam is much worse than the problem with all other religions combined, that's fine. I would even agree with you . But you didn't say that.

Do you understand now?

What is it with this problem you have in not following the train of logic as written? Why do you make arbitrary jumps to interpretations that are not supported by the words?

Please try to be more careful in reading and writing. It's becoming tiresome to point out the words you are addressing - or writing - don't support your conclusions.

Or maybe just keep to your sophomoric one-line insults. You seem to have no problems with those.

Sad. Now it makes up conversations and talks with itself. You may want to reply to RAPTOR........ Bwahahahaha

OK you got me. You two work so closely together it's easy to mix you up. I should have realized it was Raptor by the fact it contained a paragraph.

But no matter, the response applies to both of you. Raptor for his idiotic misinterpretation and you for your evasion.

And I see you are back to your one-liners. Good. Seems you took my advice anyway.

[WarTim 3,456]

Why are the Left so obsessed with equating crimes by other religions from 100's or 1000's of years agoto what is happening today ?

We live NOW. In THIS time. Not during the Salem witch trials. Not during the Inquisition. Our influence on the world is starting today and goes forward. We can't change the past. And what we have to deal with , TODAY, is radical militant Islam. Not angry Catholics, not bitter Hindus, but Muslims.

Baffles me as to why the Left refuse to admit that simple reality.

OK, Tim. I thought it was obvious but I am willing to explain it if necessary.

1. Raptor made a comment about "necro-muslims" (sic) not caring if they live or die.

2. I agreed with Raptor pointing out "that is what makes religious radicals all the more dangerous" (than say, anarchists, or political radicals).

3. You chimed in to say, "no, just Muslims". That clearly implies that other religions either don't have radicals or that somehow their radicals are not as bad.

4. I pointed out that a murder committed in the name of Christianity, Buddhism or Hindu is just as bad as a murder committed in the name of Islam.

Now if you want to discuss the fact that the current problem with radical Islam is much worse than the problem with all other religions combined, that's fine. I would even agree with you . But you didn't say that.

Do you understand now?

What is it with this problem you have in not following the train of logic as written? Why do you make arbitrary jumps to interpretations that are not supported by the words?

Please try to be more careful in reading and writing. It's becoming tiresome to point out the words you are addressing - or writing - don't support your conclusions.

Or maybe just keep to your sophomoric one-line insults. You seem to have no problems with those.

Sad. Now it makes up conversations and talks with itself. You may want to reply to RAPTOR........ Bwahahahaha

OK you got me. You two work so closely together it's easy to mix you up. I should have realized it was Raptor by the fact it contained a paragraph.

But no matter, the response applies to both of you. Raptor for his idiotic misinterpretation and you for your evasion.

And I see you are back to your one-liners. Good. Seems you took my advice anyway.

Translation: homey was/ is WRONG. ( you must submit all apologies in triplicate. We will get back to you when you grow a brain or barry does something presidential...whichever comes first) Bwahahahaha

[homersapien 11,373]

Why are the Left so obsessed with equating crimes by other religions from 100's or 1000's of years agoto what is happening today ?

We live NOW. In THIS time. Not during the Salem witch trials. Not during the Inquisition. Our influence on the world is starting today and goes forward. We can't change the past. And what we have to deal with , TODAY, is radical militant Islam. Not angry Catholics, not bitter Hindus, but Muslims.

Baffles me as to why the Left refuse to admit that simple reality.

OK, Tim. I thought it was obvious but I am willing to explain it if necessary.

1. Raptor made a comment about "necro-muslims" (sic) not caring if they live or die.

2. I agreed with Raptor pointing out "that is what makes religious radicals all the more dangerous" (than say, anarchists, or political radicals).

3. You chimed in to say, "no, just Muslims". That clearly implies that other religions either don't have radicals or that somehow their radicals are not as bad.

4. I pointed out that a murder committed in the name of Christianity, Buddhism or Hindu is just as bad as a murder committed in the name of Islam.

Now if you want to discuss the fact that the current problem with radical Islam is much worse than the problem with all other religions combined, that's fine. I would even agree with you . But you didn't say that.

Do you understand now?

What is it with this problem you have in not following the train of logic as written? Why do you make arbitrary jumps to interpretations that are not supported by the words?

Please try to be more careful in reading and writing. It's becoming tiresome to point out the words you are addressing - or writing - don't support your conclusions.

Or maybe just keep to your sophomoric one-line insults. You seem to have no problems with those.

Sad. Now it makes up conversations and talks with itself. You may want to reply to RAPTOR........ Bwahahahaha

OK you got me. You two work so closely together it's easy to mix you up. I should have realized it was Raptor by the fact it contained a paragraph.

But no matter, the response applies to both of you. Raptor for his idiotic misinterpretation and you for your evasion.

And I see you are back to your one-liners. Good. Seems you took my advice anyway.

Translation: homey was/ is WRONG. ( you must submit all apologies in triplicate. We will get back to you when you grow a brain or barry does something presidential...whichever comes first) Bwahahahaha

Now now Tim. Your are exceeding your capabilities. That's two lines.

[WarTim 3,456]

Why are the Left so obsessed with equating crimes by other religions from 100's or 1000's of years agoto what is happening today ?

We live NOW. In THIS time. Not during the Salem witch trials. Not during the Inquisition. Our influence on the world is starting today and goes forward. We can't change the past. And what we have to deal with , TODAY, is radical militant Islam. Not angry Catholics, not bitter Hindus, but Muslims.

Baffles me as to why the Left refuse to admit that simple reality.

OK, Tim. I thought it was obvious but I am willing to explain it if necessary.

1. Raptor made a comment about "necro-muslims" (sic) not caring if they live or die.

2. I agreed with Raptor pointing out "that is what makes religious radicals all the more dangerous" (than say, anarchists, or political radicals).

3. You chimed in to say, "no, just Muslims". That clearly implies that other religions either don't have radicals or that somehow their radicals are not as bad.

4. I pointed out that a murder committed in the name of Christianity, Buddhism or Hindu is just as bad as a murder committed in the name of Islam.

Now if you want to discuss the fact that the current problem with radical Islam is much worse than the problem with all other religions combined, that's fine. I would even agree with you . But you didn't say that.

Do you understand now?

What is it with this problem you have in not following the train of logic as written? Why do you make arbitrary jumps to interpretations that are not supported by the words?

Please try to be more careful in reading and writing. It's becoming tiresome to point out the words you are addressing - or writing - don't support your conclusions.

Or maybe just keep to your sophomoric one-line insults. You seem to have no problems with those.

Sad. Now it makes up conversations and talks with itself. You may want to reply to RAPTOR........ Bwahahahaha

OK you got me. You two work so closely together it's easy to mix you up. I should have realized it was Raptor by the fact it contained a paragraph.

But no matter, the response applies to both of you. Raptor for his idiotic misinterpretation and you for your evasion.

And I see you are back to your one-liners. Good. Seems you took my advice anyway.

Translation: homey was/ is WRONG. ( you must submit all apologies in triplicate. We will get back to you when you grow a brain or barry does something presidential...whichever comes first) Bwahahahaha

Now now Tim. Your are exceeding your capabilities. That's two lines.

Translation:Homey was WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG...Bwahahahaha. (Btw you posted two lines to tell me I posted two lines) You just can't win homey...

[homersapien 11,373]

Translation:Homey was WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG...Bwahahahaha. (Btw you posted two lines to tell me I posted two lines) You just can't win homey...

I don't care if you want to fulfill the role of village idiot, but can you please cut down on the chain of quotes attached to them to save space?

See this post for a helpful demonstration.

[WarTim 3,456]

Translation:Homey was WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG...Bwahahahaha. (Btw you posted two lines to tell me I posted two lines) You just can't win homey...

I don't care if you want to fulfill the role of village idiot, but can you please cut down on the chain of quotes attached to them to save space?

See this post for a helpful demonstration.

Translation: Hissy fit continues....LOL