London: Enough is enough … oh, really?

The prime minister has said “it is time to say enough is enough” as she condemned a terror attack on “innocent and unarmed civilians” which left seven people dead and 48 injured in London.

 

Why was it not enough after Manchester?

Why was it not enough After Nice?

Why was it not enough after Paris?

Why was it not enough after Istanbul?

Why was it not enough after Brussels?

Why was it not enough after Berlin?

Why was t not enough after Gazientep?

Why was it not enough after Ankara?

Why was it not enough after Surac?

Why was it not enough after Copenhagen?

Why was it not enough after Paris?

Why was it not enough after Border?

Why was it not enough after Moscow?

Why was it not enough after Vladikav/kaz?

Why was it not enough after Bologoye

Why was it not enough after Bratsk?

Why was it not enough after Ahmed?

Why was it not enough back in 2007 in London?

Why was it not enough back in 2004 in Moscow?

Why was it not enough in 2002 in  Moscow?

Why was it not enough after 9/11?

 

In fact why was it not enough in 630 AD when Mohammed took 30,000 men to the border of Syria and invaded?

Islam a religion of peace? The hell it is!

 

Ark

 

Advertisements

161 thoughts on “London: Enough is enough … oh, really?

  1. Don’t forget the 90 killed recently in Kabul as well as a result of terrorism. This list I think could easily be much longer including more of the terror attacks on other Muslim people.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. But we cannot possibly talk about the incompatibility between basic human rights and the martyrdom/jihad promoted and widely accepted by Islam without the illiberal liberals immediately condemning such a discussion as Islamophobia and by fiat verboten. Yet this is exactly the criticism needed today from all of us… muslims and non Muslims alike From Jeffery Taylor’s latest article (<a href="http://quillette.com/2017/06/04/manchesters-children-regressive-left/"/here)

    ” Religions are thought systems—thought systems conceived in ages of ignorance, asserted without evidence, and deployed to control human behavior—above all, female behavior. (snip) Religions, to be sure, deserve not a pass, but relentless critique, and Islam is no exception. After all, it declares its remit over humanity as a whole and thus must face criticism by us all. (snip) The edifice of distortion, doubletalk, and lies built around Islam (by obfuscationists like Reza Aslan, Glen Greenwald, Linda Sarsour, and so on) is starting to crumble (because non belief is rising in Muslim dominated countries).”

    So enough IS enough – of the illiberal Left trying to pretend there is no connection between Islam and these atrocities done in its name and doctrinal urging.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That’s an interesting angle, but don’t you think that stream of argumentation tries to give the impression that the “real” problem is this mythical left rather than terrorism, or even rather than the influence religion has on terrorism?

      Is the real problem that Reza Aslan is profoundly annoying, or that there are people who reach a point of derangement sufficient to take the lives of their fellow citizens? The proportion of animus directed at people whose intention is to prevent xenophobia seems exaggerated, to say the least.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. The very people advocating for liberalizing Islam – and moving the religion away from supporting martyrdom and jihad, which lies at the very heart of these terrorist atrocities – are the very ones being targeted most strenuously by the Regressive Left as the worst kind of Islamophobes. These are the moderate voices within Islam and the ones any liberal, anyone who respects individual rights and freedoms, should be supporting and not the mewling apologists who think Islam is just swell and who see absolutely no problem with millions of Muslims living in the West thinking killing in defense of the faith is perfectly fine, so fine, in fact, that any criticism is racist and bigoted and discriminatory.

        So tell me, Pink, how does one promote liberalizing the religion by demonizing its liberalizers? That’s the Regressive Left in action and, yes, it’s a huge problem well deserving of being equated by reasonable people with tolerating and even protecting the terrorist inspiring religious principles of martyrdom and jihad.

        The idea that Islam doesn’t kill people, people kill people reminds me of another popular apologist trope: guns don’t kill people, people kill people. And criticizing this trope by demonizing those who criticize it is what illiberal liberals do, and so that’s why they are the ones responsible for neutering any responsible and reasonable response to this root cause of Islamic terrorism. In military terms, it’s the same problem when half your army faces forward and the other half faces backwards. Illiberal liberals are facing the wrong direction here.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Do you really think the idea of “liberalising” a religion is credible? Plausible?
          Before you answer consider abortion is still illegal in Ireland. The answer to that isn’t liberalisation but secularism and a separation of church and state so profound it doesn’t give religion a seat at the table.
          Do we liberalise witchcraft to stop Africans setting fire to Albinos? The answer to ignorance is education, not liberalising the ignorance itself. That’s why I don’t buy the Hirsi Ali or Nawaz stories. In the scenarios they propose they just happen to be indispensable to this supposed liberalisation process which as far as I know hasn’t succeeded with any religion thus far.

          Liked by 4 people

          1. Pink, I agree secularization is the solution – the sooner the better – but I think getting there in populations who identify with it without tremendous violence is a process of small steps… each one palatable and defensible without attacking or dismantling the identity itself to it religious core supporters. And yes, I think this is exactly how major religions have evolved over time, constantly battling the fundamentals one small intolerant increment at a time.

            Like

            1. Teach the little children to (a) think for themselves, and (b) keep silent until strong enough to enact their own thoughts.

              And face it, Islam isn’t a ‘religion’ as westerners might know it. Islam is a system out for ‘full spectrum dominance’ — it was conceived by a paedophiliac genius with a brilliant grasp of human nature and how to achieve, retain, and expand power.

              Beating Islam would take brains and generations of applied focussed effort. So I think that Islam will win in the end …

              Liked by 1 person

              1. You wrote, “it was conceived by a paedophiliac genius with a brilliant grasp of human nature and how to achieve, retain, and expand power.”. I would replace the word “genius” with “warlord”. Mohamed of the Quran was a cut throat warlord doing his best to increase his power and to indulge his own desires. Hugs

                Liked by 1 person

            2. Hmmmm… so you think religions have genuinely evolved? Do you say that based on John Paul I’s death in ’78 or the recent trouvaille of mass (Catholic) baby graves in Ireland?
              If we’re going to talk small steps, they have to be plausible steps. Which nations or Imams are listening to these liberalising voices coming out of London or Boston?
              What I propose is the only reasonable option (which succeeded in Turkey, Egypt and other parts of North Africa): secularising the law. Not paid editorials to ex or not-so-ex-Muslims.

              Liked by 2 people

              1. Pink … will you please stop sending me backwards and forwards to my blasted dictionary? Ye gods … and I thought blogging would be easy … mutter mutter mutter

                Liked by 2 people

              2. Secularising the law … sounds easy. But when the ‘holy’ book IS the law, claims to be The Law, and is unquestioningly accepted to the point of utmost violence by the religiosi … where do you go? In Islam the ‘church’ is the state, is the law; end of story.

                In an Islamic state attempting to bring in an alternative (secular) law is to challenge the WOG (word of God) which is an automatic death sentence in itself.
                Kemal may have got away with it but I’d love to see likewise these days in Iran or Saudi. The basic WOGs brook neither challenge nor even simple query.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. I know it’s not easy. Despite our “enlightenment” there are still blasphemy laws in a good number of developed countries. A few months ago a Spanish court ruled a father could force his child to have first communion… and let’s not forget the influence of Catholicism in the law of various nations. Ireland and Brazil still prohibit abortion. Birth control and divorce were illegal in Italy, Ireland and Spain until the late second half of the 20th century. National Catholicism proved Europeans can be just as theocratic as the people on the other side of the Med.

                  Liked by 1 person

                2. Pink:

                  Religion and state should be two entirely separate issues. But it won’t happen—one controls mind, the other body.

                  Islam is a step further, their one hand most definitely controls both.

                  Religion is simply a means to wealth and power, as is politics — so of course they collude rather than figh; their teamwork approach can beat disparate any day, and does.
                  Religion controls mind, state controls body: working as a team, POOF~! (What chance does any ‘aware’ individual have?)

                  Like

    2. tildeb:

      No-one corrects me (or challenges—an interesting thought) when I state that “Religions are simply tools used by the unscrupulous to gather wealth and power from the unthinking”.

      I also note that almost every religion is the One True sole Unique pathway to God—ALL others are false …

      Liked by 4 people

  3. Black is white, white is black. Islam means peace (actually it means “submit” or “surrender,” apparently literally).

    I believe this was explained in the last press release from the Trump white House, no?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I agree with you up to a point. Why does she only say now, enough is enough as London is hit again? What about all the destruction wreaked upon areas of the world where the West have dropped bombs? just because some so called followers of Islam become terrorists it does not mean they are all violent, no more do Christian terrorists mean all Christians are violent. Most Humans are good.
    All the best to you, my fellow Human, 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I think perhapes you are beginning to see where the true root of the problem lies …. belief in supernatural nonsense and affording it credence.

      Is it not about time to admit that belief in a dead Jewish Rabbi coming back to life and claims that a disgusting war-mongering pedophile prophet flew to heaven on a winged horse is simply just so much utter nonsense?
      If ( what we would regard as normal ) people were prepared to admit this openly and publicly, then maybe there is chance that the extremists nutters will eventually have no where to hide?

      And all the best to you as well!

      Liked by 2 people

  5. I really do find this Islam matter dispiriting.

    The reality is that if the boot was on the other foot and Non Muslims committed such atrocities in Islamic countries, angry mobs would have slaughtered the non Muslims.

    I increasingly think that the non Muslim world needs to restrict Muslim immigration for its long safety.

    In Marawi in the Southern Philippines Islamic extremists have taken over the city and are killing people who can’t recite the Koran.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. If steps are not taken there is a very real chance that militias will begin to spring up. And it will only take one such group to hit the spotlight for many such groups to spring up all over Europe.
      And once this happens …. then the midden will really hit the windmill.

      Methinks the time has arrived when ”political niceties” will be be put aside.
      Margaret Thatcher went to war over the Falklands and I reckon there could well be a anti-Muslim backlash coming very soon.
      Don’t be surprised if the real possibility of internment is not being discussed by the British Parliament as we speak.

      Like

      1. An “anti-Muslim backlash”?

        Don’t hold your breath … in Britain it would be put down everywhere by the armed might of the British state. A harbinger was that Welsh shopkeeper with his tee shirts (I posted about it) (got about three viewers, ’twas ever thus).

        Like

    2. Peter I don’t think the solution to the terrorist problem is to prevent immigration. The solution is to oppose and hit hard any mythical belief driven violence. Any group that engages in violence gets the hammer, regardless of belief. Excluding the legitimate government forces needed to prevent, defend from, and destroy the terrorist. I know I have not given you details of how to do these acts, but one detail is we have to take religion out of are people good or not. We get caught up in the argument that this or that religion is violent. They all are if they get a chance to be in charge and they all will fight to be in charge. Where they can they use laws and courts. Where they can they use violence and force. I wonder, if we took the benefit of attacks away, how many would do them? I ask what do they think they are gaining when they do these stupid acts. If it is more rights or what ever, then we must make sure they don’t get it. Also we must have every religious leader of every faith say “in this country we follow the law” such thing from their pulpit. If they won’t or response is to take action against that group and that group alone. Well that is my idea. People here have better fleshed out ideas I am sure and I am willing to think on them. I just don’t think slamming the gates shut will stop the ideas they are acting on. Hugs

      Like

      1. Scottie I understand where you are coming from, but I sort of despair about Islam. Read this story from Pakistan to understand how Muslims treat the small Christian minority there:
        http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40203982

        I have witnessed the power of the brainwashing of religion and the power of identity thinking. I no longer hold out hope that we can change the thinking of Muslims. Everywhere in the world where they are in the majority they subjugate others. Thus for our own protection we need to make sure they don’t become a majority where we live.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Hello Peter. I understand the feelings and problem faced by you and a couple others I have talked with who live in areas that have been subject to a large vocal Muslim population that wants to change your laws and culture. Trust me I am not saying Islam is innocent or should not be held to account. If your government or laws are being disregarded or your people in jeopardy of course you have to stop the incoming threat. But to me that is a short term fix. The only reason I can think of that the religious group here in the US that wish to do gay people harm do not do so in a organized group way, but instead do it as lone wolf style attacks is they know they will be hammered by the laws. no matter how much power and sway their religion has in some places, the law will take action on them. Yes in some places some religions get more of a pass, but still they will be charged and prosecuted. The thing we need here in the US is stronger laws that prevent religions from escaping the consequences of their actions. That is why I said one of the things we have to insist on is in every religious establishment the leaders tell their congregations that they must follow the law and then the legal system must go after anyone who harms another regardless of religion. I think it starts with the church / mosque leaders. We may not be able to get the imams in arab countries to do it, but in secular countries like Australia, UK, the US… and others, we have to. Hugs

          Like

        2. Peter, considering the strong hold Christianity has on America, do you really think believers would allow radical Muslims to take control? The possibility of them becoming a majority seems pretty remote to me. Consider the recent marches against Sharia law.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Nan/Scottie

            No doubt my fears are irrational. But I have become somewhat paranoid about Islam.

            I realise there are bigger problems in the world, but it really gets to me when terrorists just seek to kill people just because they don’t share their religion.

            Like

            1. The reality is that Islam could, in the years ahead, become, one of the the biggest problems facing westerners and other Muslims alike.
              Unlike most terrorist organisations where a political solution can ultimately be found, radical Islam has no interest in finding a political resolution.
              If you have ever lived through constant terrorist threats you will understand what this does to the psyche.

              When the ANC embarked on its campaign of military aggression the threat of a bomb going off in a public place was very real. Very real indeed.
              There were times, albeit it few, where shopping in central Johannesburg was nerve wracking and we were often on high alert during the state of emergency in the eighties.
              And this was before Internet and instant access to news.
              Yes, there is a lot more chance of being shot by a gun owner or being killed in a motor accident, but the aim of terrorism is to incrementally rack up the level of fear in the hope of destroying the fabric of normal society until policy makers buckle or outright war is declared – as in Syria.

              And Jihadists consider this is all good and right. A form of theological cleansing. Certain extreme Christian groups have a similar outlook, but Islam seems to be the only group (currently) prepared to put it to practice.

              We have a fairly liberal and stable Muslim population here in South Africa, but what we would do if the extremists decided this was a perfect theater to push their agenda I have no idea.

              For the time being, I see no way clear to put an end to this.

              Ultimately, at some stage, religion has to be shown the door once and for all, and this will require a level of honesty from religious leaders – primarily Christian and Jew regarding its claims – that they have never had to face before.

              Like

            2. Oh Peter, I totally agree with you on that last part. But I know you know that Christians have done the same thing. Not as prevalent in modern society, but certainly history attests to many of their violent acts. This is not in any way excusing the terrorists. They are an ugly, cruel breed of people, but I suppose human activities must play themselves out. At least it seems that’s what’s happened over the centuries. We just happen to be living through an era when people are especially cruel to one another.

              Liked by 1 person

        3. Hello Peter. I read the story. Peter are you christian by any chance or former christian. You seem to be concerned only with the christians in the story and not other groups that are discriminated against. While there was loss of life, the police did charge the doctors. The system is working for the ones harmed. I have read of much worse treatment by the minority from the majority population in other places. Be well. Hugs

          Like

          1. Scottie I am a former Christian, now an atheist, I am Australian.

            I am concerned about all people who are victimised, not just Christians.

            As I mentioned to Nan I have developed a very real fear of Muslims. No doubt this is irrational, but it is there nonetheless. Yesterday the Australian government announced that a special was to be developed to house Muslims terrorists, that shows how many are already in custody. Around 50 years ago there very few Muslims in Australia, but now as a result of migration there is a sizeable minority.

            It is often the second generation Muslims who are the terrorists.

            Because Southern Europeans had integrated well into Australia it was assumed that Muslims would also, but sadly that has not been so.

            Liked by 2 people

            1. Hello Peter. No I don’t think your concerns are irrational. I think you have good reasons to be concerned. I just want to be rational and realistic in how we address the issue. The problem as I see it is not muslims or islam but religious extremist. Of any stripe. So how to address the fact they won’t let themselves assimilate? First they tend to group up for support in their own ways. That needs to be addressed. Didn’t noray or one of those Scandinavian countries develop a plan to get muslims to assimilate. The created a government department for it. The printed pamphlets, gave talks, got with Imams. The basically said you can’t do what you did back home here. No playing around. You see we like it the way we have it.
              Now the problem a lot of places have including mine country is the right to vote can cause groups who vote as a block to get their way. So you have to address that issue. Now the second generation as you mentioned and how to keep them from going over the deep end. The question I have is why do they do it. I admit I do not understand religious zealots at all. I get the people who do it for community and friendship, but really don’t believe. I do not understand those willing to die , willing to kill, willing to do horrendous things because they believe without any doubt and have no moral compass. Yes they’re willing to replace current better morals with the ones from a 2000 year old book. I think it is like any teen kids we need to reach. They need programs to keep them busy, give them things to do, teach them empathy, get them away from the programs of the church. If they have only the church to spend every day after school in, they will will see only their religion and they will do what all teens do, take it to the extreme. So does these things make sense? The work for all religious groups. Hugs

              Like

              1. Scottie, you say, ” The problem as I see it is not muslims or islam but religious extremist. Of any stripe.”

                Where are the Presbyterian terrorists?

                Like

                1. Tildeb, Presbyterians are a subset of Christianity. I already detailed that. Plus any religious group that achieves political power will abuse it. It is inherent in their holy books to push and force their religion on others. Plus they are humans, so power with no controls equals abuse. Hugs

                  Liked by 1 person

                2. Why is it that the Catholics can bring about a genocide and Inquisition yet the Presbyterians do not? After all, they share the same religious root, use the same scripture, worship the same god. Again, where are the Presbyterian extremists?

                  Like

                3. Where are the Presbyterians in majority or in control of a government. I hear there is no major crime way from the Jains. Tildeb I do not know every subset of every major religion, and every offshoot of every organization. I don’t see it necessary. The fact is in some places there are small offshoots and stand alone churches some which have only one family as members. But they are not a majority, they are not in power and they are still using the same holy book. Hugs

                  Like

  6. And what do we do?

    At point are people with known extremist tendencies placed under preventive detention? I see this as where we are heading as the number of radicals is so large that the security forces struggle to monitor them. I think that MI5 have more than 1,000 suspects under surveillance.

    Unfortunately, regardless of what we ant to hope, these terrorists are destroying our freedoms.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Acknowledging the root – religion – has to be addressed at some point. Otherwise there is every likelihood of a situation developing similar to what happened in Northern Ireland between Catholics and Protestants.Jerusalem and the West Bank.
      And of course, this will play right into the Islamist hands.

      Imagine cities such as London and Paris and Berlin and Stockholm partitioned?

      There is that very real possibility.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. ARK:

        Naaaaahhhh … turn the other cheek and all will be righteous.

        For myself I prefer no religion at all, but if we gotta have our religions … good old-fashioned Christianity might help (so long as the forests hold out …)

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Argus we have to pick another one as Christianity won’t due. I have been lucky in my life that I have never been directly threatened or harmed by a Muslim. However in my life I have had “Christian’s” threaten me with a knife, with being shot, and of course the good old trick of being assaulted and beat up when there was more of them than me. Strange how they never come out to have a good beat up when the numbers are equal or in my favor. I have never had a Muslim spray paint my shed with Islamic slogans but I did get a few mushed up verses from the bible a few times. Also the great rednecks I worked with loved to mess with my uniforms so much I stopped using the company cleaning service, because their church told them God hated us fags so much it was OK to vandalize our things. So ya, I have a real bad taste in my mouth for loud proud christians. Hugs

          Like

          1. Hence my end comment above—Christians when in full control use awesome amounts of wood for stakes and crosses for the folks who offend their sensitivities.

            The Abrahamic religions have a desperate need to be able to distinguish ‘sheep’ from ‘goats’—they are copulated by the fact that each franchise has so many sub-franchises and sub-sub-franchises (etc) (you’d think they’d get their bloody acts together) in vicious competition for the consumers’ bucks.

            And yes: nobody has yet challenged me when I state that “religion is Big Business” (and all the various sub-schools of ‘thought’ mere franchises); nobody, ever, and I have been blogging for a few years now.

            Christians, Jews, Muslims … all are what I call WOGS. (It used to be a disparaging term for ‘westernised oriental gentleman’ but I use it myself for followers of the Word Of God.)

            I am not a racist, but very much a beliefist. Colour of skin, ancestry, pedigree, whatever—meaningless … but if the guy believes in being unpleasant to folks not of his ilk, I detest the gentleman. In fact I hate the bastard with a deep vibrating loathing.
            All I ask of anyone is that they ‘live, and let live’ without hurting the innocent. (While I’m dreaming I may as well ask for a Lotto win too?)

            Liked by 2 people

            1. Well said Argus. I agree. I always thought organized religions are a behavior control device to move money and power from the large base to the leaders at the top levels. I would love your thoughts on the discussion Peter and I are having. I see the problem he is describing but I don’t have the answers other than what I said. Hugs

              Like

                1. Well Tildeb, it would start at the local Imam level and go on up to those running the the hierarchy of that religion. Sorry I am not up on the department flow chart for that religion. Hugs

                  Like

                2. Why? I don’t know the hierarchy of the buddhist killing where they are trying to force their way, or the christians in African countries. Heck I don’t even know the power structure flow chart for most governments. Hugs

                  Like

                3. Why? Because it’s part of doing your due diligence. After all, if you think you and others are correct about the money and power motivation, which you have no difficulty applying to Islam, then surely the answers are there. A two minute Google search should suffice. But, what if that linkage is missing? Then what?

                  Like

                4. I disagree with you on the importance of this. You are trying to compare apples to oranges and say they are both rocks. I was talking groups large enough to be power, have huge financial support, and a base large enough to provide a world wide support network. The major religions all do this. Some of the subsets of the major religions are large enough to qualify on their own, but they are still a subset of the larger organization, so they are part of the larger organization. Hugs

                  Like

                5. I think you’re quite wrong on this assertion, that religion is about power and money. And Islam is a very good example. That’s why this ideological assertion that Islam is like any other major religion – and therefore the harm MUST come from some ‘extreme’ fringe is not just naive but dangerously and willfully blind to reality. You believe your belief. Now where have I encountered this problem before?

                  From Quora:

                  “In Islam we don’t recognize any specific hierarchical structure like Papal and Archbishop in Roman Catholic. Because actually in Islamic teaching, the leader of a country should become both political leader and religious leader. There is no separation between the country and the religion. (In other words, we don’t recognize the secularism).”

                  This is very different from today’s Christianity and it’s not some mythical ‘extreme’ fringe. This is the mainstream religion. Your understanding fails to recognize this in your decision to frame Islamic jihad and martyrdom as ‘extreme’, as Argus frames it to be about ‘money and power’, that Nan frames it to be only from ‘nasty’ people. None of this is true. And so solutions directed at what is not true are doomed. That’s why this matters.

                  But it does indicate a level of willingness from many people here in the West to be beguiled into a false sense of security, that jihad and martyrdom widely accepted as a higher expression of devotion to Islam is actually the same as what we find in mainstream Christianity, we are to believe. But it’s not, is it? And this difference matters, not least of which is to stop fooling ourselves.

                  Like

                6. Sorry for the delay, Nan. Life, donchaknow.

                  The answer to this problem of religious expression in the public domain (and the rise of post modernist bullshit that tolerates intolerance, tolerates anti-enlightenment precepts and tenets in the name of ‘freedom’) is one of fundamental and essential shared values within the community of the national polis for it to work on behalf of all citizens. This set of basic values cannot be a house divided. So the root problem is driving partisan wedges into the public domain and crumbling our public institutions, giving rise to at best a system of oligarchy and, at worst, deepening civil strife that raises ‘security’ above all else. This is a recipe for disaster.

                  So my answer is the solution is the same for all Western countries: a new oath of citizenship that everyone must take upon reaching the age of majority if they wish to be citizens. It’s a reciprocal arrangement – attaching clear responsibility to the freedoms and rights we expect from our civil society and these obligations for these freedoms and rights have to be codified and accepted as such.

                  As for the details, that’s another thread but one that has to include the primacy of secularism.

                  Liked by 1 person

                7. You and I disagree about several things including how to have a conversation. First you believe you and seemingly you alone have the greater understanding of the issues. Anyone who disagrees with you, and there seem to be many, are naive, beguiled, not understanding the problem. You have misrepresented the meaning of what I have said to make it seem I am minimising a problem that only you in your strident approach can see.

                  OK, let’s reset, step back and try to have a conversation on this again. I never said the Muslims doing the terrorist attacks are fringe. I believe they are radicalized and extreme. There is a whole section of the Islamic religion that wants to take over the world for Islam. It is a “power” play. Their leaders want more control and power.

                  There is no real difference between the hierarchy of Islamic religions / governments and other major religions. Some small group has to be at the top making the rules and running the show. It then trickles down like a water stream, growing in size until it hits the base level ocean. Muslim controlled countries are run the same way other countries are. Take Iran. The only difference is what the country is based on.

                  The thing you seem to want to demand is everyone vilify every muslim and all of Islam. No matter who or what they are evil to the core for being in that religion. The unforgivable sin. It doesn’t work that way. I know muslims who are decent good people. I also know christians who are decent good people. Their religion has holy books with dark shit in them, but they don’t act on the dark side. Does that mean they are not muslims and not christians, they would say no and I agree. so I do reject your cry of tar them all with the same brush. I also think your way of thinking does more harm than good as you push people who are on the fence into radicalization with the way they are looked at and treated. Be well. Hugs

                  Like

                8. I have asked you to defend your assertions (that I think are incorrect) and you come back with this? What… I’m mean?

                  I asked you specific questions so that you could accomplish the defense for your opinion without having to write a lot. You’ve just tried to avoid the obvious problem that many sects of religion do not produce extremists. Now you’re in huff and accusing me of all kinds of motives and means rather than simply accepting the fact – for that is what it is – that your presumptions about power and money driving religion is not a root as you presume but a byproduct of some religions. I think you’ve mistaken the symptom for the problem. If the basis of your argument is your own belief, then you’ve made a fundamental thinking mistake. I think you’ve made a fundamental thinking mistake… the same kind of mistake that comes from anyone who believes their beliefs more than the arbitration by reality of those beliefs. That’s why I asked you to produce a authoritative hierarchy – the collection of power and money that you argue drives this religion – that as far as I know doesn’t exist in Islam.

                  None of us are immune from thinking mistakes. That’s why it’s important to test and check what our opinions are based on. And if the basis of merit changes, and we are made aware of this change, then it should be without any personal cost to change them, to change our opinions, to better align our beliefs with knowledge and better information than what we simply want to believe. That’s not personal… unless you have invested some emotional capital in some opinion. That’s about you and your own insecurity… and not some kind of malicious character flaw from the person who points it out.

                  Like

                9. Hi Tildeb. Good morning my time. Having my first cup of coffee. Well let’s jump right in.
                  I disagree with you about just about everything you wrote. No surprise there. Islam is a religion. Religions are behavior modification and control devices. The exercise that to gain power over the masses to move money from the masses to the top echelon. The behavior control part is simple to show in the masses following the dictates of the leaders and of course talking some into suicide in the name of the religion. The money part is also clear in that someone pays for the mosques and the salary of the Imams. As for it being a hierarchy with leaders at the top we read often enough in the news about “high ranking clerics”. OK so I guess I should follow this up with IMO.
                  To the mean part. I did not say that. IF I was to describe you based on your discussions I have read I would say you are aggressively arrogant. If that translates to mean I don’t know as I am not a snowflake and I figure if I could handle being in Soviet controlled East Germany I can handle someone not agreeing with me, and I not agreeing with them. Water off a duck’s back so to speak. Why do I say you are aggressive? You tend to keep pounding long after the conversation is productive. You don’t talk so much as go on a strategic attack from what I have read. I say arrogant because anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and you add in all sorts of descriptors for that. You simply know you are right and those that disagree with you are either failing to see the facts, naive, emotional, insecure, and last note I think you added gullible but I would have to check. See the pattern? Oh I forgot mistaken. Again a pattern forms.
                  Now me on the other hand I don’t have a dog in the fight as they say. I don’t personally care. I gave my opinion, my view of it. You gave yours. They don’t agree. We are not going to agree. To me that is fine. But you want more than that. Sorry not going to get it from me. I enjoy hearing others opinions and stating mine. Sometimes a nice conversation or discussion evolves. That is grand. Talking with you seems less a discussion and more of an inquisition.

                  So we disagree. OK, so be it. It won’t change the taste of my coffee. I don’t feel the need to address anything else you have written here or before to me. I think it all has been said. So I will wish you a good day and move on to reading the rest of the comments and all the other blogs I go to. Be well. Hugs

                  Liked by 1 person

                10. So quick to condemn and discard that you miss my point and substitute your own. You actually believe your own belief: you state, “The thing you seem to want to demand is everyone vilify every muslim and all of Islam.”

                  No. I do not. You’re just making shit up and then smearing it on me. That is a vilification you are committing that is untrue and yet you seem to care not at all. Well, aren’t you the nice fellow. That doesn’t bode well for honest dialogue, Scottie, nor set up a level playing field for mutual respect for differing opinions. You’ve already infused your incorrect belief with merit that comes only from your unsavory belief that you’ve created and you’ve applied.

                  What I want to do is confront your opinion that, “organized religions are a behavior control device to move money and power from the large base to the leaders at the top levels.” I want to point out that that assertion is not true with Islam. There is no equivalent hierarchy, no hierarchy of ‘leaders’ who accumulate wealth and power. Sure, there are tens of thousands of Imams and mosques but there is no orthodox hierarchy. Yet the problems of violence this religion regularly and systemically produces is not equivalent to other religions that DO have an orthodox hierarchy, that DO accumulate wealth and try to obtain political power. This fact – and it IS a fact – is a problem for your opinion. And it IS a problem. It simply doesn’t fit. Either the facts are wrong or your opinion is not as well informed as you would like to believe. But rather than deal with this contrary fact and re-evaluate your opinion, you tell me the problem is me, my inability to have a conversation, my arrogance, my inquisitional approach. This is what I mean about substituting your belief and then presuming your substitution is worthy of equivalent truth value because it has equivalent truth merit. It doesn’t. You’re fooling yourself.

                  What I was trying to get at is that Islam really is a special case requiring far more than some dismissive hand waving utilizing some vague conspiracy theory. It is not like other religions. It really does produce a disproportionate amount of violence. To address this fact means we all have to stop empowering these kinds of false equivalencies, stop substituting our own beliefs and start looking at what is the case.

                  The solution to this violence is not some genocide against a billion plus people. The solution is not to build a wall figuratively or metaphorically and keep these ‘nasty’ people out. The solution is not to outlaw all religious belief. And it certainly isn’t found by going along with incorrect opinions like yours that mislead and distort and create false tolerance based on a false equivalency that ends up doing one thing: making it almost impossible to find real solutions that respect people’s human rights and freedoms while effectively addressing the very real problem of jihad and martyrdom. And that’s what this conversation started out being… reaching the point where recognizing that today’s enough is enough ISN’T enough. And it isn’t enough for good reasons: far too many of us really haven’t a clue about why our heartfelt hand waving and misplaced, misguided tolerance, is so consistently and reliably ineffective.

                  Like

                11. Wow. Tildeb you told me they have a structure and hierarchy when you quoted to me
                  From Quora:……. Because actually in Islamic teaching, the leader of a country should become both political leader and religious leader…..
                  You really can’t run a country without a structure. As they see no difference between the religion and country…….see the point?
                  I did not smear you , I looked at what you wrote and what you leave out. Your focus is entirely on Islam. While it clearly a religion, you refuse to accept it acts just like other religions when in fact it does. It is not a committee. It is not a loose group. It is a religious faith. You seem to want it separated from other religions so that makes me wonder. Then you seem to think the terrorism done by people of the Islamic faith is different from the terrorism of people of other faiths. However you have a point that while you are very aggressive where Islam is concerned I can’t read your mind so I don’t know what you really are thinking, so I could be wrong. I will just have to put it together from your comments. such as your writing.

                  …Islam really is a special case requiring far more than some dismissive hand waving utilizing some vague conspiracy theory. It is not like other religions….

                  Your last paragraph was nicely word filled. I personally did not see anywhere I wrote to be tolerant of terrorism. I did say all Muslims are not terrorist, and not all christians shoot gay people and Jewish people. I stick to that. I think you are wrong if you suggest singling out one group for abuse is going to decrease terrorism and suicide bombers. Integration will help nicely. Programs to get young people involved in things other than the mosque and off radical sites online would also help. I am sure there are other things we should try. Oh I guess I should say here that I don’t think my idea is going to damn the country and stop gravity or what ever gloom and doom you were professing my view and that of others would do. I notice that other than platitudes you do not provide any program or action to try. SO while I have several times moved from saying there is a problem to here are something to try as what has been done so far has not worked alone. What do you propose as proper actions?
                  Oh and thanks for proving my point of my last comment. I did write you seemed aggressively arrogant sure you and you alone could be correct. And in your last paragraph of your comment you write.

                  …And it certainly isn’t found by going along with incorrect opinions like yours that mislead and distort and create false tolerance based on a false equivalency that ends up doing one thing: making it almost impossible to find real solutions…

                  So I will stop my dismissive hand waving and put them to the keyboard and mouse to send this. But before I go I want to wish you a great day, happy times, and pleasant breezes. Hugs

                  Like

                12. I’ve been wondering how I could break through what you perceive (and what I think is far too many other people) to be an equivalency rather than a special case of religious belief concerning Islam compared to all other major and semi-major religions. It has been bothering me. So and I came up with what I consider a slam dunk argument and it is this…

                  Is there the same equivalency between those who have left Islam (and their cares and concerns) and those who have left these other religions?

                  You don’t have to answer this but perhaps revisit the question in your mind from time to time when you have an opportunity to listen to the cares and concerns of an ex-Muslim brave enough to speak publicly.

                  Liked by 1 person

                13. That’s an interesting perspective.
                  I stand under correction, but Muslims deemed to be apostates are regarded as being under the threat/promise(?) of a death sentence and have to contend with the possibility of being the object of a specific Fatwa yes?

                  Like

                14. Yes. ‘Fallen’ Catholics don;t need to fear siblings and parents who will kill them. Ex-Presbyterians don’t have to go through a security check to gather with other ex-Presbyterians. The actors from the stage show The Book of Mormons do live under constant threat of death from Mormons. The amount of worry for one’s personal safety for no longer believing in any religion or cult of any other religion I’m aware of isn’t even in the same ballpark as the standard fear and ongoing threat to ex-Muslims… even when living in the safest democracies in the world.

                  Liked by 1 person

                15. Even in Islam the practice is not part of the Koran per se but is almost always codified as part of the local Islamic law for a population, which then crosses into being defined as a ‘cultural’ practice even when committed in local areas that are of different religious majority (areas of India and Nepal, and Sri Lanka) for example, that are not ‘Islamic’).

                  The much vaunted morally perfect Bible doesn’t come right out and state killings be done for reasons of ‘honour’ but clearly permits all kinds of patriarchal killing that is fully equivalent. So any advocacy from religious texts is highly problematic, as is associating the practice with only Islam – by Muslim populations where the vast majority of honour killings are to be found. Yet it is the patriarchy promoted by many religions that really lays the social groundwork for this deplorable action meant to subjugate women into chattel. Killings over dowry issues, over homosexual relatives, over divorce, are also part and parcel of this acceptance and, again, can be claimed as a ‘cultural’ practice moreso than a religious one.

                  That’s why I’m wondering where you’re going with this.

                  Like

                16. Hello Tildeb. I like this on the part of not needing an answer, even though I have planned to answer anyway. 🙂

                  Yes depending on area the concerns are the same. Sadly. They range quite a gambit from what I have heard from people and reports. I know you are trying to get to the killing or maiming of apostates. Well sadly Islam is not alone in that damned respect. In some areas where versions of christianity and buddhism are practiced as a state power or almost state power they do these things also. I do wish it was not so as I hate anyone being hurt in the name of religion, something so unprovable and a delusion. Be well. I find an interesting conversation going on at Mels blog on the meanings of religion and faith. Come join in and share your views of the subject. Hugs

                  Like

                17. Well shoot, you only need to google to come up with examples. I did.

                  http://nypost.com/2015/10/16/son-beaten-to-death-because-he-wanted-to-leave-the-church/

                  http://religionnews.com/2017/05/14/christian-militias-kill-up-to-30-muslim-civilians-in-central-african-republican/

                  This has great sections on modern kills by christians, christians killing in Africa, and really horrible is the massive numbers of people currently being killed by christians for being a witch.
                  Gods just read about the court case where a church group almost killed a 23 year old guy trying to beat the gay out of him here in the states, and I am gay. So now that they are killing pagans and the gays, I am a target twice over. Add my winning personality and I may really be screwed.

                  Look Tildeb I know you are desperately trying to prove your point. But google killing by (insert religious group) will give some results. Add a country you know that religion is a majority in and you get a massive amount of responses. Do you really want to keep flogging this dead horse? Hugs

                  Liked by 1 person

                18. I’m not talking about individual cases of violence, Scottie, nor trying to relate specific cases of violence related to some religious difference.

                  What I’m talking about is your neighbour who comes to the decision to leave their __________ religion.

                  Is there a difference when that blank is filled in with ‘Islam’ that is not present for any other typical religion?

                  Be honest

                  I sincerely do not know any widespread fear of being killed for doing so… except with Islam. I could be wrong. But before you presume anything at this point about me and my motives here, know that I work with Muslims, I have Muslim neighbours, I do business with Muslims, I teach Muslims, I volunteer with Muslims, I perform with Muslims, and in no case do I think poorly of any of them as people. I have spoken at length with some of them about their (versions of) Islamic faith, and what I understand scares the shit out of me.

                  And the reason is because it is from this form of religious belief that comes a significant threat of acceptable violence even by the most peace-loving Muslims… an acceptance, a willingness to tolerate and accept violence done in its name, that I do not find with any other religious belief. I do not know of any general threat of violence for criticizing the Catholic Church or some evangelical wing of Protestantism. Even with Sikhism that has had some significant violence, I find Sikhs present a uniform condemnation for this extremism. But I do not find this with Islam; a Sunni doctor explained to me that he – a poor Muslim – was in no position to judge the piety and righteousness of a good Muslim – one who thought blowing up a bus station here in Canada was the right thing to do and was shot to death for his desire to attain martyrdom in the name of jihad. I do not find this same widespread sense of acceptance and justification and apologetic reasoning for religious violence in any other religion here today and I do not see other religions producing never-ending streams of people willing to commit mass murder in the name of honoring their religious belief.

                  This is why I keep saying that the equivalency claimed by so many is really just a shared belief that is not adduced from reality.

                  Like

                19. Just my two cents here as I’ve been following along … your last comment was probably the clearest one I’ve read and provided a much better picture of what you’ve been trying to say all along. Keep it simple, tildeb.

                  Liked by 1 person

                20. Well lets see you think Muslims have a corner market on fear because of their religious views and the fact they act on them. You think only people in Islamic areas are afraid that others may find out they don’t follow this or that of the faith, or may not believe it at all. Have I summed this up right. Oh and by the way you just confirmed what I wrote so long ago when this conversation started. You have a special focus on Muslims and Islam.

                  The answer to your question is…. Yes without a doubt. Look I think your focus on Islam is giving you a blind side. I keep saying anywhere religion gains power of the state or power as to ignore the state they will commit atrocities in the name of their religion, their god, their idea of what their god wants.
                  You know and work with muslims. Great. I am gay and follow gay news. The reason I know about christianity killings in Africa is one of their favorite targets is gay people. Amoung them is the gay people who are in the relgion and go to church terrified that anyone would suspect as they would be killed. These reports claim people are afraid to leave the church. I watch documentaries of charities who have to pay churches to not kill women they have kicked out for being a witch or unclean or some such crap.

                  No major world religion has avoided generating violence extremist movements from within its ranks. This quote is from http://www.humanreligions.info/violence_and_crime.html .

                  Our point of point of difference is not that extremeism and acts of terror is wrong. It is not that programs and ways have to be developed that not only prevent attacks, stop threats before they happen, but also counter the radicalization of youth. Radicalization of anybody really. No denying in some areas Islam is the main culprit. No denying Islam is trying hard for the world title and record in terrorism and killing. But I can’t honestly say they are the only religion that does this crap. It depends on the area. In those areas there is the widespread acceptance of extremism in the name of the religion. The killings, the other crap. It is not that Islam doesn’t do a lot of bad crap. It is that islam is not alone. Also sadly the religions are gaining strength as they do this stuff. The tougher they seem , the more determined, the stronger they act ( yes to some doing terror and killing lots of people are marks of strength and toughness ) the more followers they generate. So as to your point that somethings need to be done about Islam, I agree. To say that Islam is in a category all its own is not looking at the whole picture.
                  Now again, have we flogged our beliefs enough on this subject or shall we wear our keyboards out trying to convince each of something the other doesn’t believe or accept? You say you want to get through to me. I don’t have that same need towards you. I told you before I don’t feel everyone must believe as I do. I don’t lose anything if you disagree with me. But you are worrying this like a dog on its favorite toy. Chew as much as you like it won’t change what I think on this. I have looked at the evidence I could find and formed my conclusion. You formed yours off your knowledge. So have a great day / night depending on where you are. Hugs

                  Like

                21. I would love some others to weigh in with their thought on our topic here. I think Ark already did in a lower comment I read. Nan you said you were following, any thoughts? John, Argus, Peter..and all others I may have missed, I value your opinions. I learn stuff in these talks, I learned stuff looking things up that Tildeb sent links to. I discovered more explain to me why I have the opinion I do. Thanks. Hugs

                  Like

                22. Scottie, I really don’t want to get into a discussion on this. You’re doing just fine. 🙂 At least I now understand where tildeb is coming from, Not sure I totally agree, but then we all see things from different perspectives.

                  Liked by 2 people

                23. Oh Tildeb, I did forgot to mention. I read online where a major cleric in london did come out forcefully against the bombing. On YouTube several Muslims have responded also calling out theses actions. SO some populations of Muslims are speaking up. Sadly they are not making a dent except in their mosques. Hugs

                  Like

                24. Oh yes, there is much condemnation of this ‘extreme radicalism’ by many imams. To little if any effect. Why is that, Scottie?

                  Well, unlike all other religions, over a third of university educated, British born, middle to upper class Muslims between the ages of 21 to 35 admit violence in ‘defense’ of the faith is justified.

                  Now don’t go anywhere. Think about this.

                  How many Muslim youth are we talking about? A few? Only ‘extremists’? Only the ‘radicalized’? No. That’s not who believes violence done in the name of defending the faith is acceptable. It’s HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS in just Britain. Multiply that throughout the Western world and you have a ripe situation for maintaining a very large pool from which there can be constant recruiting of GOOD Muslims – good, meaning the pious Muslims, those who actually FOLLOW the teachings of the Koran, those we consider ‘fundamentalists in any other religion except Islam – to submit (and that’s what the term Islam MEANS) to the tenets of martyrdom in the name of jihad.

                  There is NO equivalency in other religions practiced in the West for this level of popular support for violence done in the name of ‘defending’ these religions. That’s not my opinion, Scottie. That’s a fact. A brute fact. The kind of fact that informs knowledge about this subject. Islam is unique in this regard. Your neighbour could be a self-described witch and feel quite confident that no mob will gather to burn her alive. You yourself can feel quite confident that you can sally forth tomorrow without being thrown off a roof top for being gay.Yet in the same neighbourhood, an ex-Muslim really does face the very real threat of being targeted for violence for being an ex-Muslim.

                  Again, think about this fact.

                  Now think about your opinion that claims equivalency. Try to make this fact of support for violence in the name of jihad fit into the model of equivalency you support. Notice what you have to do: come up with either singular examples of violence done in the name of some religion (which is not what we’re talking about) or travel somewhere outside of the West to find widespread violence supported by some religion (which is not what we’re talking about). What we’re talking about from the Original Post is reaching the point of saying Enough Is Enough and then wondering why nothing we seem to do affects ongoing mass murdering in the name of Islam… over and over and over and over and over and over….

                  My drift is that a central problem in addressing Islamic mass murdering in the West is misunderstanding what the problem actually is. And it’s not a few radicalized individuals; it’s part of what constitutes Islam. It is in fact a central component of what constitutes Islam. That’s why it will not go away by Imams denouncing these actions nor providing interventions for Muslim youths who wish more than anything to be seen as GOOD Muslims willing to be defenders of the faith. That doesn’t work. It doesn’t make a dent in the hundreds of thousands of young, well educated, British born affluent Muslims who in spite of all these words condemning these atrocities still think it is justifiable to use violence in defense of the faith… because that’s what the Koran says. And being a good or poor Muslim is directly related to how well or how poorly one follows the central tenets of the faith as revealed in the Koran. That’s the issue: that belief in the piety for submitting to obey these fundamental tenets of the Koran… and not some other belief in some god.

                  How do we address that particular belief about martyrdom and jihad and submitting to atrocious behaviours as being atrocious rather than pious and godly?

                  Well, we should at the very least be willing to have this conversation.

                  But look what happens: anyone who tries to do so, who tries to have this essential and vital conversation about the very real problem of martyrdom and jihad in today’s world here in the West is vilified as an Islamophobe, as a bigot, as someone who is intolerant. Look how quickly you jumped to the conclusion that I was some kind of genocidal supporter against Muslims. You did what many on the Left do: assume an equivalency between criticism of Islam for promoting and supporting and sustaining the Islamic tenets of martyrdom for jihad with intolerance for Muslims, that correctly identifying Islam as a root problem for Islamic terrorism through jihad is somehow the same as Mormons wearing magical underwear. What this assumption and knee-jerk reaction does is kill the one conversation we are going to have to have to find effective solutions about these tenets that are at the root of Islamic inspired mass murder in defense of the faith. And jumping to this conclusion by means of empowering incorrect assumptions and false equivalencies serves only one master: political Islam.

                  Somehow we’ve got to change this idea that the good Muslim is the one who is the most fundamental, the one who is willing to exercise martyrdom in the name of jihad.That’s what has to change and that necessarily means criticizing Islam itself and holding it to be fundamentally different than all other religions that have been liberalized and stripped of political power here in the West. We have got to stop coddling Islam and helping it be protected from legitimate attempts to liberalize it, stop vilifying those Muslims who try to do exactly this.

                  Enough really is enough but it has to start with each and every one of us willing to be vilified to speaking truth to power. It starts with me. It starts with you. It’s starts when we start having the real conversation.

                  Like

                25. Oh my ghosts and goblins, they’re everywhere. I got up this morning and had to push one off my wheel chair. As I was shaving one ran into the bathroom to use the toilet. I nearly cut myself. Good chap though he offered me a sharper blade. I found a couple in my closet. I yelled at them. I told them this was 2017 and no one should be in the closet, now get out there and hold a parade. I found a gaggle of them in the kitchen but most ran when I turned on the lights. There were five about to have a fatwa against the refrigerator. They must have found the pork roast Ron made me yesterday. It was great by the way, with potatoes, gravy , and corn as a veggy. I am glad they did not find the big ham we had last week, they might have thrown the refrigerator off the window sill. By the hair of their beards there was a hoard behind the couch plotting the best way to play spin the bottle as the only ones they could find in our house had the dreaded alcohol in them. Lucky for me it worked out. They were not these christian pastors looking to kill gays.

                  http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/christian_pastor_says_gays_worthy_of_death_at_conference_with_3_gop_presidential_candidates

                  http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/gop-confab-ends-with-call-to-execute-gays-who-dont-repent-send-queen-elsa-back-to-hell/

                  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/06/14/pastor-refuses-to-mourn-orlando-victims-the-tragedy-is-that-more-of-them-didnt-die/?utm_term=.353a48c6f693

                  http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/03/video-reveals-pastor-calls-for-execution-of-gays-then-introduces-ted-cruz-on-stage/

                  these are just a few, very few of the stuff we face. After the Pulse nightclub shooting two different highly preachers preached that it was too bad more of us had not died and that they personally would kill more, it was a good thing by his holy book.
                  Let’s go on to the rest of the book you wrote. OH wait one more thing. This is from 2005 so it is old news, but it is worth a mention. http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619

                  Hey this one is really new, data up to 2015. http://reason.com/archives/2017/03/24/do-muslims-commit-most-us-terrorist-atta
                  “Part of it reads. For those five years, the researchers found, Muslims carried out only 11 out of the 89 attacks, yet those attacks received 44 percent of the media coverage. Such fears are indeed misplaced. Your risk of being killed in a jihadist terror attack in the last 15 years amounted to roughly 1 in 2,640,000. Even if you stretch the period back to include 9/11, the risk would still just have been 1 in 110,000. Your lifetime risk of dying in a lightning strike is 1 in 161,000, and your chance of being killed in a motor vehicle crash is 1 in 114.”
                  These are just quick google search on who is killing and what religions are involved. Granted some are statistics just for the USA but the searches do tend to disabuse some ideas.

                  OK enough of that. it gets boring for me, for the other people in the conversation. The fact is that Islamics are trying real hard to get the title of top asshole pricks killing people. Tildeb do you read what I wrote in my replies to you? I have covered so much territory in responses. You simply won’t be satisfied until you beat the horse to death and everyone agrees with your opinion. I get the feeling you have to be right no matter the cost. So let me wade through what you wrote. Dang I am going to go make coffee first, I printed your comment and it took TWO full pages of small print. BRB

                  While I wait for the coffee I am going to check Arks blog for a sec, hold on.

                  OK, not sure how you can get a bunch of mosque leaders in any county to have much effect on the leaders of the religion in Iran and Saudi arabia. Just like the churches that accept gay people are not making a bit of difference to people like Bryan Fischer who is on the radio constantly calling for our death.

                  You are not aware of the many church run universities churning out Christian religious extremists. yes they are not having open death squads…yet. They are pushing hard for a theocracy here in the states that would allow them to do the things they think would please their god. I could describe the political situation but we are doing our best to stay secular. Which leads to the point I keep making. Any religion given the power of a state, the funds and the support will do horrendous acts and terror. Scott Lively was on trial for crimes against humanity for pushing for death to gays in countries on the African continent. Sadly the US is exporting christian radical ideas to the world. They admire the stuff done in Russia to get rid of gays. Look up the stuff done to gay in Russia. I watched the videos and it was sickening. Abuse, torture, and death. Nicely supported by the local police turning away saying they see nothing, and a federal state that pushing the idea that gays are the worst offence to god and country. And none of this is Islam, nor Muslim.

                  ok, back to your tome. You are wrong about one thing. I can not go about not fearing for my life in a large part of this country. You must not live here as it is in the news constantly. Just this morning I read about an attack on a gay couple in Key West of all damn places. I read daily of brutal attacks that leave permanent injuries or death to gay people. Everywhere from cities or the country where I live. Ron and I are not young anymore and we have physical problems. Until my surgery I am in my chair or for short distances using my walker. I couldn’t even run from the nut job knife wielding nut jobs in places here in North Fort Myers where I live. Florida is not a safe state for gay people thanks to the deep religious influence and the politicians pandering to them. When I moved here it was a safe state mostly not because the general population was different but because the state government and the police made it clear they wouldn’t accept attacks on us. That all changed when the republicans took over all branches of the state government. Oh yes they pander a bit in some cities like Orlando when there is a tragedy, but the rest of the time they vocally feed fuel to the hate. Now with Trump the attackers are embolden. The one who attacked the two in Key West told them it “was Trump country now”. SO I understand the creep of religious extremist who want to do terror. It is young college people, many assaults and threats are done around collages, especially the religious ones.
                  More coffee and a calm down time. Sorry had a friend killed, beaten to death so badly his face was destroyed, by thugs who claimed that fags needed to die and should be used for hunting. I remember the trial, where it was so hard to get people to see the motivation was not robbery or anything else but hate. The guys who did it admitted it was hate, gay bashing they call it. But the judge and prosecutors would let it be added to the charges. Gay hate is getting worse in a lot of the country.

                  OK back to your dissertation. OK so we have covered your “brute fact” with more facts. Moving on. You keep saying that Islam is the only most horrible dangerous, terrorism control freak of religions. Well yes they sure do a lot to promote that idea. And with the size of their population, the countries that are open theocracies, and the idea the countries and the imams push that the world needs to be controlled by them ( other religions also want to grow super large, control the country and people ) . Yes we are seeing all sorts of reasons for these attacks, but really it comes down to the idea of control by the heads of these religions. The Ayatollahs want more power. Yes the run the government’s and they want the world. Just like the heads of other religions want theirs to run the country they are in, or in case of the radicals of the US they want all the small undeveloped countries first. Oh when I was looking up how to spell ayatollahs I found this, which I thought was nice. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/06/muslim-leaders-refuse-perform-funeral-prayers-london-bridge/

                  The tenets of Islam are horrible, you are correct. So are the tenets in the bible. I bet the other religions also have some sick stuff in them. Let’s be honest Tildeb what makes the religion of Islam so dangerous is the money support they have to push it, the state support from countries they have to radicalize it. The two big exporters of muslim terror is Iran and Saudi Arabia. There are smaller ones, but the players in this are all around the oil rich region of the middle east. Now there is different fractions of belief that want the other side wiped out. You complaint about those who leave the faith , who are women, who are gay …ect are in danger is in those places where the state promotes the the tenets of the religion. It is the same for any religion in power, control of the state or area. Islam is special only in that they are targeting your areas and get a lot of news coverage. You mention the tenets of the Koran being the problem, again without state support and fund they wouldn’t matter. The change the koran with the bible and the same problems would arise. I never said you were a bigot against muslims, I did say you were focused on muslims. You are. Read what you write. Also please read what I write as I have responded to this charge before. You want to open our eyes to the threat you are focused on but refuse to see the threat we are telling you about. goes both ways here. Back to Morons and others. Mormons use very strong arm tactics in the state of Utah and push their faith hard in every country. They have mandatory mission requirements. Give them complete control and they will be stoning people in the name of whatever space being it their god.

                  OK I am done. I have spent all day on this since I got up. I have not done any of my other stuff, not blogged , tweeted or anything. Heck I have not even eaten yet. That is OK, Ron is up and getting me food. Please if you are going drag the skeleton of this subject on another ten mile tour, make the comments shorter. I only have one life to live and want to do other things with it. Be well and happy. Hugs

                  Liked by 1 person

                26. Oh you are so correct. I have refused to respond to any of your comments. I simply can’t be bothered to address the issue you raise. Oh and I never agree to anything you state as that would weaken my ability to totally destroy your ideas and declare a resounding victory of…something I guess. Silly me. I am so hard to deal with . Hugs

                  Like

                27. I’d offer the Meccanese for starters. (You know, that old solid gold bathtub myth …)

                  I got a few home truths from a Saudi princess once—wee Scottish lassie, always moving and very careful (she escaped, somehow). She said the palaces have private booze collections to rival those of anyone in the world (and reek of hash).

                  Liked by 1 person

    2. Peter … some would shriek in horror at the thought of modern Nazis resurrecting the idea of concentration camps. (Ya gotta watch out for them Snowflakes, I tells ya.)

      The answer is compulsory—rigidly enforced—education. Teach the infants and up how to actually think.
      Not, mind you, that many would survive the rigours of childhood in moslem homes …

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Why not?

          Ya gotta have a start-point. Where would the liberation of Europe be if we’d left it all to the Russians and gave up on D-Day?

          Liked by 1 person

    1. Nan … love is responding to values. If someone displays MY values, I can ‘love’ them.

      I do not automatically ‘love’ people I am told that I ‘should’ love, and if they display characteristics that I don’t love, I cannot love them.

      Anyone who ‘loves’ because he/she/it is told to isn’t a person—it is an automaton. No?

      For survival we MUST think, for ourselves, using genuine values. Judge, pick, choose.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The clue was in the sigh, right? I love it … and my reply is always addressed/intended for/to everybody.

        Hell, I’m even sarcastic myself sometimes … (SFX: cue male chorus singing ‘The Wild Rover’ here, please. Fade in and make ’em sound a bit sozzled)

        Liked by 1 person

  7. There is a reason President Trump suggested by his executive orders that there should be at least a temporary halt to immigration from those six countries heavily controlled or influenced by radical Islamist terrorism.
    He wasn’t being racist… he is trying to fulfil his duty to ‘provide for the common defense’ and protect the people he serves, Americans on American soil.
    PM May gets that now. The world should understandn that now. Unless one is so caught up in Trump hatred (que Kathy Griffin and Reza Azlan) to see what is Right in front of their eyes, that is.

    Liked by 2 people

          1. No jz. I’m not the one you should be asking on why what country is on or off. Saudi Arabia in my humble opinion should probably be there too, but I did not create the list. It’s silly to ask me why one country is not on.

            Like

            1. You are saying the ban is rational, are you not? Then rationalise why Saudi Arabia, the No. 1 exporter of terrorism and single greatest funder of sunni terrorist organisations, including Al Queda and ISIS) is not on this supposed “rational” list…

              Like

              1. Again… You are trying to make me responsible for why one country is not on the list when I didn’t create the list. You’re asking the wrong guy and I think you know it. Ask the right guy, jz.

                Like

                1. No, I’m asking you. You believe the ban is rational, so rationalise it.

                  And while you’re at it, please name a single terrorist attack that has originated from any of the banned countries…

                  Liked by 1 person

              2. JZ:

                I think the reason why the Saudis are tolerated (and with sales of modern arms) is because Jesus loves them. And Allah, so they have powerful allies.
                It doesn’t hurt their case either, that if they wanted to they could (in an act of religious piety) Saddamise their own oil wells and thus have a significant effect on the west and all who sail in her.

                It’s an ages old tenet, that thing about not biting the hand.

                (Interestingly, as a self-confessed Conspiracy Theorist I often ask myself the same question.)

                Liked by 1 person

    1. Mike, you yourself said tRUmp wasn’t being “racist” and “is trying to fulfil (sic) his duty to ‘provide for the common defense.’ Yet, as John as pointed out, he did not include the ONLY country that attacked the U.S. How is that not being racist?

      He’s not asking you to “think” for tRump. He’s asking you to defend your statement.

      Liked by 4 people

        1. With due respect, Mike you opened with the initial salvo/comment
          It’s only logical that one would ask why Trump did not extend the ban to include Saudi.
          For you to seem to sidestep this very real concern is baffling?
          On the face of it, Trump’s motivations might appear for the benefit and safety of the US but it does not take a genius to realise he has ulterior motives.
          If only for their human rights violations the US should cease diplomatic relations etc.
          Also, I would venture that most Americans ( as most people for that matter) are largely ignorant of the link between Islamic terrorism and Saudi and not that au fait with their internal policies either.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. Sorry. Once again. Is was asking me to defend a list I did not create and justify a country I did not exclude. He may be asking a very good question, one that should have an answer, but He was asking the wrong guy. I am not responsible for the list for the countries on or off of it. Again, I don’t want to fight today. Respect my wishes please. Thx

            Like

            1. Here you go again, KIA, offering and advertising support for a terrible policy but then evading your responsibility for why you support it by saying you didn’t write it.

              *sigh*

              Yes, you didn’t kill the person; the gun you were holding and the trigger you pulled, and the bullet you loaded into it had far, far more to do with the killing and so you can’t possibly be held responsible because, hey, you’re not the designer and manufacturer of guns and know little about ballistics and aerodynamics and don’t like talking about gun shot trauma and – besides – today’s not a good day for you to talk about it . Maybe tomorrow.

              Liked by 4 people

            2. @Kia
              If you did not want to ”fight” then why comment on an obviously controversial topic?
              You seemed to be defending Trump’s stance regarding his immigration ban – which may be a valid way to go – but to exclude one of the worst offenders – Saudi Arabia – and then refuse to acknowledge Trump’s suspect motives is cause for concern from everyone here.
              If you forgot about Saudi and overlooked it or got a bit carried away, then we understand.

              But to now appear to hand wave this issue seems to be neither rational nor completely on the level.
              And after all the crap bandied about against you by people such as Wally and James and Colorstorm one would think you would recognise this better than most.
              Just saying …

              Liked by 3 people

      1. Some would say that it wasn’t the good folks of Saudi that attacked the US—it was maverick juvenile delinquent religious nuts that attacked the US (others might say an act of revenge, but there ya go).

        And if there really were any Saudi Govt input, of course the CIA would know about it, and of course the marines would be right in there teachin’ ’em a lesson* .

        Others think that Saudis are just carefully choreographed scapegoats—I have an open mind on that point but still would love to know why those collapsing skyscrapers (one wasn’t hit by anything) fell so sweetly into their very own personal footprints …

        * Or not

        Liked by 2 people

  8. While it does seem Kia supports tRump ban or whatever he calls it, does it also include withdrawing US drones from such places? Or do their bombs still shell such places?
    And yes why is it enough now? How many more must die before we say enough and really do some constructive thing to reduce their occurrences?

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Aaah … I wondered if anyone would remember the drones!

      Let’s face it, if the core issues of religion are not addressed this problem will not go away. Oh, it may fade into the background a little if people are prepared to genuinely address the extremist aspects of religion, but we will still be left with the belief in supernatural crap.

      Let’s be honest with ourselves, if Ken Ham can get away with the Ark Project why is anyone surprised that Muslim extremists want to blow shit up and kill people?

      Who knows, the next extremest militant uprising in the future might well be Christian?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. The Christian militant forces have already pushed back several times both here and abroad …

        Mark Juergensmeyer (American scholar in religious studies and sociology) categorizes contemporary Christian terrorists as being a part of “religious activists from Algeria to Idaho, who have come to hate secular governments with an almost transcendent passion and dream of revolutionary changes that will establish a godly social order in the rubble of what the citizens of most secular societies regard as modern, egalitarian democracies.” (i)Wikipedia

        Liked by 3 people

          1. Ark:

            I never thought I’d hear myself say this—

            “Yay! Come on Christians! Boom boom!”

            But response in kind is a legitimate part of warfare, no? And we are in a war … but no bugger will admit it. And the west is undergoing an invasion, a 4GW invasion. (But I haven’t been called on that one either …)

            Like

          2. Hello Ark, I am glad I checked back on this conversation, I missed these on your blog. The attacks you speak of have been planned here in the states. Not just mosques, but housing centers and kids play areas. & or more mosques have been burned. It seems there is a huge hatred of Islam. Sadly the government and local police normally turn away from trying to find the perps. Hugs

            Liked by 1 person

      2. The drones are fighting terrorists from our midst and any civilian death is collateral damage. At least we get to rid the world of terrorists.

        I don’t know if it is purely a religion issue. While I agree fully something ought to give,

        Why is the action of the US, UK and others of attacking Iraq, Libya, botched raid in Somali not seen sources of aggression and that these are non-state or state sponsored responses to such bombings?

        Like

        1. At its core, the motivation is religion. Whether those who use religion as the reason actually believe the crap they espouse is another issue all together!

          Why is the action of the US, UK and others of attacking Iraq, Libya, botched raid in Somali not seen sources of aggression …
          Ah … well, Mak, these people are simply foreigners … Dontchaknow, so it doesn’t really matter that much.

          Like

          1. If the motive is religious, then we can safely say the US, UK and others can be seen as Christian aggressors against Muslim aggression. Players are state and none state.
            I keep forgetting some of these things my friend.

            Liked by 2 people

            1. They will not openly admit to being xian, but the western ”culture” we are so often reminded of is traditionally Christian.
              At the very least, it is an us against them scenario.

              Like

            2. False equivalency, Mak, and I’m surprised you keep going back to this dry well.

              The cause for these terrorist activities is purely religious – specifically the motivation of martyrdom for jihad – and recognizing that brute fact as the motivator does not mean that the use of force by Western States is “then” Christian. There simply is no religious equivalency, which you know perfectly well. So why this creeping apologist approach to excuse all the world’s ills by vilifying the West? It’s tendentious.

              Like

              1. False equivalency you say. And insist the only motive is religious. How convenient.
                I am not an apologist for state or non state aggressors but I do honestly believe there are more causes than one for human action.
                Wherever the west is or west of what I don’t know.
                Your argument reminds me of those who argue there was a single cause for world War 1 and that was the killing of the Duke.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. Seems crazy, doesn’t it. There’s a letter from King George to the Kaiser (his cousin) sent just before the outbreak of hostilities which is just weird. In it he implores “Willie, please don’t do this…”

                  Like

  9. Last-Minute Message For a Time Capsule

    I have to tell you this, whoever you are:
    that on one summer morning here, the ocean
    pounded in on tumbledown breakers,
    a south wind, bustling along the shore,
    whipped the froth into little rainbows,
    and a reckless gull swept down the beach
    as if to fly were everything it needed.

    I thought of your hovering saucers,
    looking for clues, and I wanted to write this down,
    so it wouldn’t be lost forever – –
    that once upon a time we had
    meadows here, and astonishing things,
    swans and frogs and luna moths
    and blue skies that could stagger your heart.

    We could have had them still,
    and welcomed you to earth, but
    we also had the righteous ones
    who worshipped the True Faith, and Holy War.
    When you go home to your shining galaxy,
    say that what you learned
    from this dead and barren place is
    to beware the righteous ones.

    ― Philip Appleman

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I see echoes of several sources here—ancient Greece and the Kohima monument for starters. (Is the guy a ‘flying saucer nut’?)

      Like

    1. Peter:

      That’s the essence of decent Law in so much as someone has to actually be bad before he gets punished.

      Suspicion alone isn’t enough, and wrt the issue in the article—what crime does a philanthropist commit by giving a few sweets to kiddies?
      And even then, bringing the One True Faith to the Godless infidel is every religious nutter’s bounden duty (regardless of franchise).

      Wealth and power is what religion is all about, nothing less. (More if they can get it.)

      Liked by 1 person

      1. John it is a pretty sensitive issue here as two Australians were killed in London, including one from South Australia where the match was played.

        A couple of years back when Greece and Turkey played a soccer match there was a minutes silence before the match played in Turkey to commemorate people killed in the Paris terrorist attacks. A significant minority of crowd chanted ‘Allah Akbar’ during the minute’s silence. Just disgusting to me and partly why I support limiting Islamic immigration.

        Why let people into your country who seem to hate you?

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Agreed. We had a real problem with Lebanese guys riding into Coogee on the weekends just to pick a string of whirlwind fights, call girls Skippies, then flee. I really couldn’t understand the behaviour.

          Like

      2. All protocol issues are discussed with teams by officials and refs before every match, even more so for an International event.
        They knew exactly the drill, you can bank on it.
        Can you recall any other event where any similar form of observance was not observed by all people? I can’t.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. Been following the discussion between tildeb and Scottie with interest. Both of you make valid points, though tildeb’s position pretty much reflects my own understanding.

    Here in Australia with a very small Muslim population, just yesterday the largest police force announced they are setting up a special policing group to focus exclusively on Islamic terrorism.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s