So the atheist "movement"...

[Tree]

Again, no it does not. Again, there is not one single Islam, any more than there is one single Christianity.

This is nothing but misleading, almost solipsistic level nonsense. Only someone WILLFULLY ignorant of basic theology can make this statement after it's been explained to them.

There's a field called theology and from it we can discern the main branches of Islam and the main branches of Christianity and what they teach.

They are not equal in terms of doctrine. The violent/theocratic divisions of Christianity are largely limited to fringe cults while the violent/theocratic divisions of Islam are the norm. Catholic doctrine - not preaching world conquest or theocracy. Protestant doctrine - not preaching world conquest of theocracy, apart from a few fringe cults that are statistically irrelevant. Sunni Islam - all four branches in support of Sharia (theocracy) and conquering non-Muslims to make them Muslims or dhimmis.

Again, just as a Christian can look at the passage in the Bible about stoning to death a child that speaks back and somehow contrives a cognitive dissonance to overcome it because of a tradition of belief within which that action doesn't fit, so a Muslim can look at a verse about Mo's justification for warring and contrive a cognitive dissonance to overcome it because of a tradition of belief within which that action doesn't fit.

Percentages moron. Look it up. HOW many Christians are "radical" vs number of Muslims that are "radical" i.e. violent/theocratic? That is also important if we're going to have a free society indefinitely.

There were polls done by Pew Research Center and others that debunk this overwhelmingly moderate Muslim myth.

Then there's the freedom indexes that debunk the notion that Muslim countries are as free as Christian countries. Wherever Muslims are a majority you'll tend to find either no democracy or a barely functional form of one full of corruption and attempts to subvert it to Sharia rule.

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-freedom-index-files/human-freedom-index-2015.pdf

You'll find that the lower you go, the more Muslim majority countries you'll encounter.

You'll find that among the top 10 freest countries, not one is Muslim majority despite Muslims making up over 1.5 billion of the population.

Actually you won't find any Muslim majority country until position 54, Albania, on this scale and Albania is only moderate because of forced secularization during the years of the communist regime where coercive government efforts were taken to undermine Muslim identity in Albania, the kind of efforts your ilk would decry as bigoted and Islamophobic.

Still wanna pretend they're equal?

 

[Tree]

So what DO we do about the situation?
What practical solutions would you suggest here?

You can start with a fundamental reconsideration of Islam's status as far as legality goes. We've been told you can't do anything at all about it because it's a religion and religion is a right. Is the issue really that simple? The US Constitution certainly doesn't say that, it says "FREE exercise" of religion is protected, not ALL exercise of religion and the US Supreme Court even singled out human sacrifice as a religious practice that wouldn't enjoy 1st amendment protections. Furthermore, the US Constitution applies only to people within US jurisdiction, it doesn't apply to people say outside its soil and who are not US citizens.

Now I support religious freedom, but as with all rights, they need to be subject to the non-aggression principle. This is true for speech, guns and everything else. To put it in other words, your right to flap your arms around ends where my face begins. It can easily be argued that Islam is not purely a religion but also a supremacist political ideology similar to fascism or communism. So given all of this, exactly to what extent is it protected from government action? The government has authority to intervene in matters of sedition or treason, whether this comes from a religious source or an atheist source or a secular source - irrelevant. After all, I can't claim my religion involves human sacrifice and then start mass murdering people consequence free, nor can I instigate human sacrifice, that would also make me guilty of murder even if others are acting on my behalf and my hands are "clean".

Trump had a good start with a moratorium on immigration from certain countries, I'd expand that list to all Muslim majority countries and start favoring migrants from countries with more similar values.

I'd reconfigure global alliances. Turkey has no place in NATO with the direction is it going. Saudi Arabia is not a reliable ally. If you need oil so badly trade with them based on oil and that's it, you don't need to welcome their people into your country any more than necessary, i.e. short business trips at best with constant surveillance. I'd support Israel as they are besieged by the same Islamic threat.

We sanctioned North Korea when they murdered Otto Warmbier and we should sanction any Muslim country that mistreats American or European citizens. Don't like them? Deport them, but return them unharmed. You don't get to jail them, fine them or flog them for talking to women or doing things that are not even crimes in the west. That shit won't be tolerated anymore. Put them on notice, they understand the language of strength.

A ban on foreign government entities funding mosques as this often amounts to war propaganda rather than legitimate free expression. You have many Saudi funded mosques for example that teach the necessity to make war on non-Muslims and institute Sharia. This is essentially equivalent to the Third Reich being allowed to broadcast war propaganda inside the US during WW2. It shouldn't happen as this violates the non-aggression principle and is therefore not protected speech. Mosques should be monitored for war propaganda and shut down if proof of this is found on sedition grounds. To do this the CIA should plant covert agents disguised as Muslim mosque goers that blend in. Islamic doctrine itself should provide the probable cause needed to conduct this kind of surveillance without violating the 4th amendment or similar privacy protections.

The FBI, CIA and other intelligence gathering agencies should be briefed on the nature of Islamic doctrine, no political correctness in the training manuals. Washington should hire analysts that research Islamic doctrine without the lens of political correctness and report their findings to the president.

I would NOT initiate another invasion unless one of these countries was trying to get a nuke, it's much easier to contain than invade.

The CIA should institute a program of promoting alternatives to Islam within Muslim majority countries. Whether this means supporting atheist activists in those countries, Christian missionaries, do what you gotta do to make it work. The true art of war is winning the war without fighting and we need to learn to play that subversion game. All our adversaries employ more covert propaganda type of actions to achieve their goals. The Soviet communists did it through active measures. Muslims do it through groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir and other pro-Islamic pro-Sharia propaganda groups. Saul Alinsky, a far left activist, did it through "community organizing" as he explained in his book Rules of Radicals, George Soros does it through his numerous so-called progressive organizations.

And finally end political correctness, remove Islamophobia from our vocabulary and encourage Muslims in our own countries to leave Islam by pointing out its moral failing.

The government should institute witness protection style programs for ex-Muslims until this trend of honor killing apostate relatives stops. The best way to undermine Islam is to support ex-Muslims.

This kinda does sound like an admission from you that Christianity had similar issues a few hundred years ago.

In terms of the non-aggression principle, yes, there were issues, there are still issues with some fringe cults, but even when the Catholic Church was theocratic it never really went as far as applying the mosaic law in its full form. The distinction between moral, ceremonial and judicial law is not a new thing.

Since that's the past and the people involved are long dead, I see no reason to hold a grudge against that church today. That's just as stupid as blaming America for slavery when it doesn't have it anymore and everyone involved is dead.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Again, no it does not. Again, there is not one single Islam, any more than there is one single Christianity.

This is nothing but misleading, almost solipsistic level nonsense. Only someone WILLFULLY ignorant of basic theology can make this statement after it's been explained to them.

Yeah, except that's bollocks and the notion that you're a fucking expert in theology is an outright joke, like you.

I'll ignore the rest as it's likely just to contain more public onanism.

 

[Sparhafoc]

What practical solutions would you suggest here?

Interestingly, I was planning to ask the same thing.

Let's just assume that all of your (Tree's) most dire proclamations and fantasy claims are true, and that all Muslims are secretly waiting to stab us in the back while we sleep.

What exactly do you think we need to do here?

So, of course, you want to stop more Muslims coming into Europe - even though you don't live there and it's none of your business - and presumably the same with regards to the US as you mouth the Trumpist line.

Do you also wish to expel Muslims from these societies? Muslims who already live there, maybe having only ever lived in those nations?

What would you suggest doing about the numerous white Muslims - those who are ethnically members of the majority in any given nation, but who have adopted Islam as their preferred religion?

Do you imagine kicking them out too?

Do explain what you conceive of as your final solution.

 

[Sparhafoc]

It can be argued that the Moon is made of cheese, but it doesn't make for a very convincing argument.

 

[Tree]

What practical solutions would you suggest here?

Interestingly, I was planning to ask the same thing.

Let's just assume that all of your (Tree's) most dire proclamations and fantasy claims are true, and that all Muslims are secretly waiting to stab us in the back while we sleep.

What exactly do you think we need to do here?

So, of course, you want to stop more Muslims coming into Europe - even though you don't live there and it's none of your business - and presumably the same with regards to the US as you mouth the Trumpist line.

Do you also wish to expel Muslims from these societies? Muslims who already live there, maybe having only ever lived in those nations?

What would you suggest doing about the numerous white Muslims - those who are ethnically members of the majority in any given nation, but who have adopted Islam as their preferred religion?

Do you imagine kicking them out too?

Do explain what you conceive of as your final solution.

And I could ask you what you plan to do about the constant terror plots coming from Muslim communities and the attempts to subvert the secular rule of law and democratic systems and your honest answer would probably be "nothing" cause it's supposedly "part and parcel" of living in society... or something. I could also ask you what your "final solution" to white supremacist neo-Nazis, sexists, racists and Sargon of Akkad is? Kill them? Because clearly there are only two choices here either do nothing or do the most radical thing possible. (That was sarcasm by the way.)

What part of my post did you not understand? A moratorium on Muslim immigration would not invalidate previous migrations or cancel citizenships already obtained legally. Legally speaking, no law and no policy applies retroactively, it's all about what you do going forward.

Internally what I would do is covertly monitor mosques for attempted sedition or treason. To do this, I'd hire operatives posing as Muslims to blend in those communities and report what they find that may pose a threat to national security.

On a cultural level, I think Islam should be treated the same way organizations like the KKK are treated or communists or other radical non-religious ideologies, ridiculed and driven to the fringes such that people will leave them. It's how the KKK went from millions of followers to a few impotent thousand.

Your implication that opposing Islam somehow leads to genocide is just as ridiculous as the implication that opposing the KKK leads to KKK members being slaughtered. Well, it didn't. They were simply mocked into oblivion and most of them quit.

 

[Sparhafoc]

In relation to this entire discussion, where you, Tree, are the more critical voice, and "we" are less so, I think we have to remember that none of us want religious extremism. "We" may seem to be defending Islam from some of your criticisms, but that's because "we" see them as unfair, unjustified and, most importantly, unproductive. But don't fool yourself: "we" (most of us, I presume) would much prefer a world without any extremism - or a world without religion, period. But I am pretty sure that very few of us would want to get to such a world through war, genocide and destruction.
So when "we" defend against the likes of you and your criticisms, I think it's safe to say that we're not really defending Islam, but rather we're critical of the ways that you are criticising it, because that kind of criticism is unproductive and could have negative consequences.

It's not that I'm some fucking pacifist hippie that thinks we can sing our way to world peace, but I just know from experience that conflict usually breeds more conflict. And singling out a certain group in the population for unrelenting criticism will in my mind only further marginalize and extremify(tm) them.

...


P.S. If anyone else on these boards felt that I tried to speak on their behalf - unjustifiably, incorrectly - then apologies, but that was just my assessment of the general concensus here, and I tried to speak as general as I could. Feel free to correct me.

Yes, this is the voice of reason, and it's where an actual discussion could occur.

No one has defended Islam. It's a typical specious form of knee-jerking out of criticism that is often employed. It's like when criticism of Israel's policy is made and people immediately start labeling it 'anti-semitism' when criticizing the policy of a nation state has nothing to do with that.

What I would say is being defended is people's freedom. Humans are very good at homogenizing the other and then painting them as violent barbarians, but this never ends well for anyone. I genuinely think we've grown past this in the West.

With respect to violent Islam, I think we need to focus on the actual problem: the violent Muslim extremists. I don't think that collectivizing that blame can result in anything positive - if anything, it's going to ensure that non-violent extremist Muslims living in our societies feel vulnerable, threatened and alienated (something IS desperately tried to promote, which is terribly ironic), whereas, we should surely want to protect and nurture non-violent forms of Islamic belief. If there is a contest (and I don't think there really is any equitable one) then we want to support the side which jives with our own values. We don't want to pretend that they're supporting that which they oppose, or that they're to blame for something they haven't done. That's just injustice writ large and it diminishes us.

As I've mentioned many times, the most frequent target of Islamic fundamentalist violence are other Muslims, and that's where we should be spending our anti-terrorist dollars, supporting those groups who eschew any and all forms of violence in the name of their religion. They're entitled to their beliefs, wacky though they may be, and I don't think we need or should expect them to abandon a belief system which to them factually does not support violence or terror. Instead, we should join them in promoting it as the 'real' version, and portraying the violent versions as mad rabid dogs.

It really comes down to who we're trying to convince.

Are we trying to convince Europeans and Americans to hate and fear Muslims, or are we trying to convince predominantly younger Muslims that radicalization and extremism is fucking moronic and will only result in self-harm?

 

[Sparhafoc]

And I could ask you what you plan to do about the constant terror plots coming from Muslim communities and the attempts to subvert the secular rule of law and democratic systems and your honest answer would probably be "nothing" cause it's supposedly "part and parcel" of living in society... or something.

Well, let's be frank: you could ask me, but you won't. What you will do is you will tell me what I think, exactly as you have done.

I could also ask you what your "final solution" to white supremacist neo-Nazis, sexists, racists and Sargon of Akkad is? Kill them? Because clearly there are only two choices here either do nothing or do the most radical thing possible. (That was sarcasm by the way.)

The problem, of course, is that I have never, in any way shape or form, advocated or advanced any argument about doing anything about any of these groups. Again, this is you trying to make me take a position which isn't mine. There is no parity here, it's an evasive tactic you keep using so you don't need to answer, or to pretend that your format of argumentation is justified because I am doing it.

In reality, I am not the one making hundreds of posts arguing against any group of people. Whereas you factually are doing that.

There is no parity whatsoever, which is why I keep rejecting it. You might not think I have a right to own my own position, but I will not allow you to make my position for me.

I don't think anyone on this forum would accept you making up their position for them. It is not a situation that can produce any reasoned discussion.

What part of my post did you not understand?

I understood all of it. You might have noticed that I responded to someone else's post which chronologically preceded yours. To spell that out: I read Gnug's post and replied to it before I read your post.

Regardless, I still asked some additional questions that you had not actually addressed.

A moratorium on Muslim immigration would not invalidate previous migrations or cancel citizenships already obtained legally. Legally speaking, no law and no policy applies retroactively, it's all about what you do going forward.

So how then does this solve your fear that all Muslims are waiting to stab us in the back?

Internally what I would do is covertly monitor mosques for attempted sedition or treason. To do this, I'd hire operatives posing as Muslims to blend in those communities and report what they find that may pose a threat to national security.

I have no reply to this. I just can't bring myself to arrive at this level of fiction in a serious topic.

But in essence, are you basically saying that the First Amendment doesn't apply to any form of Islam?

Your implication that opposing Islam somehow leads to genocide is just as ridiculous...

I didn't imply that.

... as the implication that opposing the KKK leads to KKK members being slaughtered.

I didn't imply that.

On a cultural level, I think Islam should be treated the same way organizations like the KKK are treated or communists or other radical non-religious ideologies, ridiculed and driven to the fringes such that people will leave them. It's how the KKK went from millions of followers to a few impotent thousand.

And...

Well, it didn't. They were simply mocked into oblivion and most of them quit.

While I am very much up for mocking silly beliefs (I think the soft power of satire is often overlooked), I am not sure that the result in your analogy matches your expectation when it comes to Islam.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-08-14/the-kkk-is-still-based-in-22-states-in-the-us-in-2017

The organized Ku Klux Klan movement saw a boost in its membership in 2017.

In fact more than half of today's Klans formed in the last three years.

Some 42 different Klan groups were active in 22 states as of June 2017, a slight increase from early 2016, according to a report from the Anti-Defamation League, a nonpartisan civil rights advocacy group. The Klan, known for promoting white supremacist and white nationalist ideas, has captured recent public attention amid fallout from a weekend marked by race-fueled clashes.

Also, how does making political martyrs out of the adherents of a religion result in them leaving that religion? Doesn't history suggest the opposite?

 

[Tree]

The problem, Sparhafoc, is that the west, especially Europe, has done just that and it hasn't worked. 16 years of post-9/11 appeasement, unreasonable accommodations, tolerance, denying the obvious and blaming critics of Islam for rocking the boat, you name it, none of it worked and things really jumped the shark in 2015 with the rise of ISIS. We're at a point now where Muslims make up 1-10% of the population (depending on the country) but account for almost all terror related murders in the past 16 years. And of course no other terrorist of any other ideology, secular or religious, can even top the 3k kill count on 9/11.

The fact is Muslims are not well integrated in either Europe or the US because Islamic values are not compatible with ours. We've literally given them paradise on Earth compared to the shithole countries they come from and far too many of them have been utterly ungrateful.

It's time to get tough.

Are we trying to convince Europeans and Americans to hate and fear Muslims, or are we trying to convince predominantly younger Muslims that radicalization and extremism is fucking moronic and will only result in self-harm?

How do you intend to do that? They have an ideology that teaches them non-Muslims are scum who should be subjugated and if you do this you'll get paradise and if you don't, you go to hell, secularism is evil, Sharia is the way blah blah blah.

This is how they think, they don't care about their own well being in this life because they think they'll get better in the next and you think you can just bribe them into being moderates or something? What can you possibly offer them that Allah hasn't already promised them (or at least they think he did)? It's easier to just try to convert them to another religion or make them atheists than try to fool them into thinking Islam is peaceful because the normative Sunni and Shi'ite theologies don't support a peaceful interpretation of Islam.

Humans are very good at homogenizing the other

There are plenty of examples to the contrary such as the existence of separatist movements, including successful separatism as was the case with Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia is actually far better off and more peaceful split into several different countries than one united mess where people with conflicting values and interests don't get along.

Iraq is another example of a country that could work better as 3 countries split along Sunni/Shi'ite/Kurd lines.

 

[Sparhafoc]

The problem, Sparhafoc, is that the west, especially Europe, has done just that and it hasn't worked.

Has done what?

16 years of post-9/11 appeasement, unreasonable accommodations, tolerance, denying the obvious and blaming critics of Islam for rocking the boat, you name it, none of it worked and things really jumped the shark in 2015 with the rise of ISIS.

I don't believe that any of this has happened.

Particularly the latter, it has precisely zero connection to what you've claimed.

What actually led to the rise of ISIS was our military intervention in the region based on a lie, destablizing the previous power structures and pumping weaponry into the region to equip anyone who would nominally fight our 'mutual' enemy.

If you want to argue that 'appeasement, unreasonable accommodation, tolerance, etc...' led to the formation of IS, then I think you are going to need to actually establish it factually with evidence because it appears to be entirely unrelated.

We're at a point now where Muslims make up 1-10% of the population (depending on the country) but account for almost all terror related murders in the past 16 years. And of course no other terrorist of any other ideology, secular or religious, can even top the 3k kill count on 9/11.

Again, I think that you are drawing erroneous conclusions. In what way was 9/11 a religiously motivated attack? I think it was political. As far as I am aware, al-Qaeda actually denied involvement, which given their stated doctrine of wanting to attack the US, seems a bit strange if they did actually do it. Rather, it would seem that they'd want to claim it even if they didn't do it - it being the most 'successful' attack on Western soil ever.

Further, even if al-Qaeda did make this attack, then there's plenty of evidence showing that it's political rather than religious.

Pulling up Wikipedia to check this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks

In Osama Bin Laden's November 2002 "Letter to America",[5][6] he explicitly stated that al-Qaeda's motives for their attacks include: Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia,[6][7][8] US support of Israel,[9][10] and sanctions against Iraq.

These are all political, albeit in terms of religious identity politics. None of it says 'scripture says we must do this'.

The fact is Muslims are not well integrated in either Europe or the US because Islamic values are not compatible with ours.

I beg to differ. I grew up in North London which had a sizeable Muslim Pakistani population. The tension, where it existed, wasn't drawn along religious lines, it was drawn along ethnic ones. Further, all those Pakistani Muslims went to school, they all got jobs, they all paid taxes and the like... in what way are they 'not compatible'?

We've literally given them paradise on Earth compared to the shithole countries they come from and far too many of them have been utterly ungrateful.

:roll:

I can't be bothered - I am trying to hold a serious discussion here, but you can't maintain it for any period of time. I'll do you the favour of ignoring this as a form of 'best reading'.

It's time to get tough.

Like we haven't been tough with Muslim majority nations for the last 2 centuries?

As I've said to you before: there appears to be a huge gulf between your stated concerns and your solutions, where the latter seem designed to maximize conflict between groups of people.

Treating all Muslims as criminals because they're Muslim cannot be considered 'tough' just unjust. Treating all Muslims as criminals just because they're Muslims cannot achieve any form of desirable outcome - it makes it a conflict drawn on identity lines. It's identity politics.

Are we trying to convince Europeans and Americans to hate and fear Muslims, or are we trying to convince predominantly younger Muslims that radicalization and extremism is fucking moronic and will only result in self-harm?

How do you intend to do that? They have an ideology that teaches them non-Muslims are scum who should be subjugated and if you do this you'll get paradise and if you don't, you go to hell, secularism is evil, Sharia is the way blah blah blah.

Yes, you keep saying this, but it's manifestly not true because the majority of Muslims show no inclination whatsoever to subjugate anyone. In actual fact, the Muslim groups of both European nations and the US repeatedly espouse the values of their resident nation, decrying violence done in the name of their religion, and very clearly rejecting any and all association with such aggression.

From my perspective, you are repeating the words of the violent extremists, yet they are specifically distinguishable from the rest of the Muslim world by the very stint of them expressing these positions.

In reality, the majority of Muslims are just normal people, with the same aspirations and concerns other people have. They want jobs, financial security, health and success for their families, good education and prospects. That is what is evident, whereas your claims are just not evident. If the world was as you say it is, then it would be unarguable and apparent. Whereas, for those of us who live in areas with lots of Muslims, we just don't see this.

So I think it really comes down to what the basis is for your certainty. I don't believe it's based on the real world, I think it's based on echo-chambers. I think it's selection bias. I think it's ignorance masquerading as knowledge. You can take that as an insult, but it's not actually intended as an insult - I genuinely think it is the only way to explain the vast discrepancy between your claims and reality.

This is how they think,...

Point of order: 'this is how THEY think' is an utterly asinine claim to make. You cannot possibly expect people to accept that you can decree how 1.7 billion people think, or even that 1.7 billion people all think the same.

... they don't care about their own well being in this life because they think they'll get better in the next...

Again, it's just manifestly untrue. I work with some immigrant Pakistani Muslims here, and they work hard to earn money to buy things they want and need in this life for apparently the same reasons everyone else does - one of them just had a daughter and his wife has been very sick, and he has basically given up his social life to provide and care for her. I don't see how your generalization represents them, or in fact, any other Muslim I've known or encounter on a daily basis.

I find it perplexing how you can be so confidently wrong. Do you not see the error you are making in pretending to know the minds of so many people? Do you not see how egregious it is to make such claims when they are so evidently false?

Your diatribe is ancient. And it's never been true.

... and you think you can just bribe them into being moderates or something?

Bribe? Who talked about bribing anyone? As I've already told you many times - the majority of Muslims are not violent extremists, and that is what we call 'moderates' ergo there's no need to 'do' anything when they are already the majority of their own accord.

What can you possibly offer them that Allah hasn't already promised them (or at least they think he did)?

Nothing, not least because the majority of Muslims see no discrepancy between what Allah has in store for them and living a peaceful life.

It's easier to just try to convert them to another religion or make them atheists than try to fool them into thinking Islam is peaceful because the normative Sunni and Shi'ite theologies don't support a peaceful interpretation of Islam.

I don't think your rendition is even close to being an accurate approximation of reality. I think it's armchair make-believe.

Humans are very good at homogenizing the other

There are plenty of examples to the contrary such as the existence of separatist movements, including successful separatism as was the case with Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia is actually far better off and more peaceful split into several different countries than one united mess where people with conflicting values and interests don't get along.

Iraq is another example of a country that could work better as 3 countries split along Sunni/Shi'ite/Kurd lines.

I think you misread my point. I am not talking about separatism in nationalism terms, but rather about psychology and the phenomenon of the 'out-group'.

An example of this homogenizing would be asserting that 1.7 billion people all think the same, that all 1.7 billion of them don't care about their own well-being.

Again, feel free to take this as an insult and start your games, but to me these claims are not about the real world, only aspects of your imagination and the poorly conceived motivations for your fear and hatred of them.

 

[Sparhafoc]

For some clarity on the latter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups#Outgroup_derogation

Outgroup derogation is the phenomenon in which an outgroup is perceived as being threatening to the members of an ingroup.

There are approximately 10,000 papers available on Google Scholar on this topic:

https://scholar.google.co.th/scholar?q=outgroup+derogation&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi935HXuOnYAhVFqo8KHYASB7wQgQMIJTAA

 

[Tree]

So how then does this solve your fear that all Muslims are waiting to stab us in the back?

You're so dishonest, what I said was part of an analogy that wasn't meant to be taken literally.

I've explained my position that I don't think all Muslims are terrorists, I just think they're misguided and following a terrorist ideology. I also said, I don't take ignorance as an excuse. So even if they didn't know or didn't care what it's their books, that doesn't change anything. They should know better if they want people to trust them.

So how then does this solve your fear that all Muslims are waiting to stab us in the back?

Which isn't what I said first of all.

Second of all, I'm not looking for the perfect solution and there are plenty of boundaries I think shouldn't be crossed. Yes, there is a limit on what the government should have the power to do to stop Islamic supremacism. But limiting immigration to stop the movement of terrorists, fundamentalists and other people we don't trust and can't vet is not something I have an issue with. Immigration into a foreign country is a privilege, not a right. US law affords broad powers to Congress and the president to set immigration policy. If they wanted to ban all foreign gingers born on Tuesday but only after 2PM and excluding winter time they could do it. It would be a stupid pointless law or a stupid pointless executive order, but it wouldn't violate the Constitution.

I have no reply to this. I just can't bring myself to arrive at this level of fiction in a serious topic.

But in essence, are you basically saying that the First Amendment doesn't apply to any form of Islam?

It applies in so far as you're actually freely exercising religion as opposed to trying to commit treason/sedition under the guise of religion. I don't believe the political goals of Islamic doctrine are protected under that, I think the original intent of the first amendment was to protect personal religious worship and doesn't protect any aspirations to impose a theocracy in the US at all or to avoid responsibility for criminal activity by appealing to the religious nature of said criminal activity.

Let's clarify first that none of what I described in this paragraph would in any way violate the 1st amendment. Religious practice is not impeded in any way through this, at least as long as it doesn't involve sedition or treason against the US government. A fake Muslim government agent joining your mosque, lawfully participating in your community and you trusting him with "sensitive" information is not a violation of your religious freedom. If you don't like him, you can always ask him to leave your mosque. Good luck identifying him because an undercover cop isn't obligated to tell you he's a cop.

This doesn't violate the 4th amendment either and to settle any dispute about this, Islamic doctrine provides enough written evidence as probable cause for an attempted sedition investigation. Now, having covert operatives join mosques as pretend-Muslims to see if they're following the law is no more different than a police officer entering a mall to see if any crime is committed or joining a criminal gang as an undercover cop or posing as children online to catch pedophiles. Mosques and malls are open to the public by default, you don't need a warrant to go in (you'll only need a warrant if you want to go snoop around in rooms restricted to the public). They can stay there for as long as they want unless the manager/imam in charge/whatever explicitly asks them to leave.

REMEMBER, a cop isn't obligated to tell you he's a cop. So if you trust him, invite him to your home, mosque whatever and share your plans to break the law in a major way such as a terror plot or sedition against the government, you're kinda fucked.

I didn't imply that.

Everyone knows that use of the words "final solution" wasn't coincidental.

Stop lying.

 

[Sparhafoc]

You're so dishonest, what I said was part of an analogy that wasn't meant to be taken literally.

How does taking your words at face value make me dishonest?

You did not say that your analogy was not meant to be taken literally. That's ironically untrue.

Here is the page and quote:

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15724&p=184199&hilit=+assassin#p184199

And that's only possible because many Muslims are ignorant of what Islam says. For some, it only takes someone pointing out the teachings of Islam to make them theocratic or terrorist. For others who are already closeted radicals, it only takes an opportunity to show it, like having the confidence in the strength of numbers.

...

The idea that I can co-exist with an assassin roommate, I just have to hope he never opens the envelope with instructions to kill me or if he does he never goes through with it (because reasons?), is utterly laughable.

Cite specifically where you said that this analogy was not meant to be taken literally.

I've explained my position that I don't think all Muslims are terrorists, I just think they're misguided and following a terrorist ideology. I also said, I don't take ignorance as an excuse. So even if they didn't know or didn't care what it's their books, that doesn't change anything. They should know better if they want people to trust them.

Again, the parallel is employed to show you that you are maintaining different standards. There is hateful content in the Bible, but you don't then decree that - whether due to ignorance or apathy - all Christians should be considered dangerous on account of it.

It is very much relevant before you attempt to dismiss it.

It is an example of in-group complexity versus out-group simplicity.

You talk about theology as if it's a mono-entity (ironically while telling me that I don't know what I am talking about) whereas, there are actually many ways to be a Muslim just as there are many ways to be a Christian. An individual of either group is perfectly free to select which parts of their religious texts they find relevant to them, which inspire them, and to ignore the bits that they can't assimilate.

So for example, you talk about Christians maintaining the notion of a new covenant, but at the same time, you must know that many Christians are ardently against same-sex marriage on religious grounds. The problem is that the verses addressing homosexuality in the Bible are in the older covenant parts. They are wholly free to pick and choose as per their personal inclinations, and of course, they can be judged by other people accordingly. However, not all Christians are against same-sex marriage, so it would be erroneous to contend that it is ubiquitous to Christians. This is precisely the same as your oft-repeated contention that all Muslims want to subjugate the kuffar. In reality, it's simply not ubiquitous to Muslims, and that's what actually is relevant..

So how then does this solve your fear that all Muslims are waiting to stab us in the back?

Which isn't what I said first of all.

Then what was your analogy about assassin room-mates meant to convey?

Second of all, I'm not looking for the perfect solution and there are plenty of boundaries I think shouldn't be crossed. Yes, there is a limit on what the government should have the power to do to stop Islamic supremacism. But limiting immigration to stop the movement of terrorists, fundamentalists and other people we don't trust and can't vet is not something I have an issue with.

Ok, but you've also seemed many times to argue that just by being Muslim, they are participating in or advancing something like terrorism. So what is the precise difference between your position stated above and a blanket ban on Muslims?

Is there any distinction? Can Muslims who are not terrorists, fundamentalists, or untrustworthy immigrate? Or are Muslims, by definition, these things?

Immigration into a foreign country is a privilege, not a right. US law affords broad powers to Congress and the president to set immigration policy. If they wanted to ban all foreign gingers born on Tuesday but only after 2PM and excluding winter time they could do it. It would be a stupid pointless law or a stupid pointless executive order, but it wouldn't violate the Constitution.

What could be done and what should be done are two very different things. You could take your gun and go and shoot random Muslims in the street, but that doesn't mean it's a desirable thing to do.

Ergo, it's hard to understand why you are arguing for something that doesn't seem desirable.

Also, I think there is unquestionably an element here that does violate the constitution, albeit not with relevance to immigrants who aren't actually covered by it, but rather of the freedoms and liberties of Muslims who are natural born citizens of the USA.

I have no reply to this. I just can't bring myself to arrive at this level of fiction in a serious topic.

But in essence, are you basically saying that the First Amendment doesn't apply to any form of Islam?

It applies in so far as you're actually freely exercising religion as opposed to trying to commit treason/sedition under the guise of religion. I don't believe the political goals of Islamic doctrine are protected under that, I think the original intent of the first amendment was to protect personal religious worship and doesn't protect any aspirations to impose a theocracy in the US at all or to avoid responsibility for criminal activity by appealing to the religious nature of said criminal activity.

But you can't establish whether or not any given Muslim is intending to commit treason/sedition or install theocracy without first abrogating their religious freedom. Do you not see a Catch-22 there?

Let's clarify first that none of what I described in this paragraph would in any way violate the 1st amendment. Religious practice is not impeded in any way through this, at least as long as it doesn't involve sedition or treason against the US government. A fake Muslim government agent joining your mosque, lawfully participating in your community and you trusting him with "sensitive" information is not a violation of your religious freedom. If you don't like him, you can always ask him to leave your mosque. Good luck identifying him because an undercover cop isn't obligated to tell you he's a cop.

As I've said, I can't join you in this flight of fantasy and simultaneously take you seriously.

This doesn't violate the 4th amendment either and to settle any dispute about this, Islamic doctrine provides enough written evidence as probable cause for an
attempted sedition investigation.

Of course, in reality it doesn't - no court on the land would accept that. Plus, the state assuming that the belief in Islam necessarily results in sedition appears to be very much in contradiction to the free exercise of religion.

Now, having covert operatives join mosques as pretend-Muslims to see if they're following the law is no more different than a police officer entering a mall to see if any crime is committed or joining a criminal gang as an undercover cop or posing as children online to catch pedophiles. Mosques and malls are open to the public by default, you don't need a warrant to go in (you'll only need a warrant if you want to go snoop around in rooms restricted to the public). They can stay there for as long as they want unless the manager/imam in charge/whatever explicitly asks them to leave.

Yeah, a cop in every mosque and every mall across the entire nation all the time. It's too fictitious for me to entertain.

REMEMBER, a cop isn't obligated to tell you he's a cop. So if you trust him, invite him to your home, mosque whatever and share your plans to break the law in a major way such as a terror plot or sedition against the government, you're kinda fucked.

I just... I can't. It's very hard to take you seriously when this is the level of your response.

I didn't imply that.

Everyone knows that use of the words "final solution" wasn't coincidental.

Did I say it was coincidental?

No. I have my reason for using it - the reason you said is wrong. Feel free to ASK me what MY reason is, but again, you telling me what I think is really rather part of the inherent problem behind much of your 'reasoning'.

Stop lying.

You should stop projecting at me because you have been shown wrong so many times.

 

[Tree]

What actually led to the rise of ISIS was our military intervention in the region based on a lie, destablizing the previous power structures and pumping weaponry into the region to equip anyone who would nominally fight our 'mutual' enemy.

And just how did these ISIS operatives get into Europe and do so many deadly attacks if not for a lenient immigration policy based on the false assumption that all cultures are equal?

Military intervention might have played a role, but you keep forgetting this happened under Obama's watch because he pulled out too early. ISIS wasn't important in 2003 nor in the following years of the Bush administration, this happened under Obama's administration. And I never advocated military intervention in the Muslim world unless a country was pursuing nukes, I much prefer isolating them

Again, I think that you are drawing erroneous conclusions. In what way was 9/11 a religiously motivated attack? I think it was political.

Islam is both religious and political.

Further, even if al-Qaeda did make this attack, then there's plenty of evidence showing that it's political rather than religious.

Pulling up Wikipedia to check this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks

In Osama Bin Laden's November 2002 "Letter to America",[5][6] he explicitly stated that al-Qaeda's motives for their attacks include: Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia,[6][7][8] US support of Israel,[9][10] and sanctions against Iraq.

These are all political, albeit in terms of religious identity politics. None of it says 'scripture says we must do this'.

That's a very selective reading of Osama's manifesto which includes religious justification and he even mentioned how he thinks we're evil cause we drink, fornicate and allow women freedom and we govern based on "man-made laws" i.e. secularism and democracy rather than theocracy.

And his political reasons are due to religion. Islam is religious and political. The unconditional Muslim solidarity he displays is religious and political as Muslims are commanded to favor each other and be ruthless with non-Muslims. Why else would Saudi citizen care what's happening in other countries? His opposition to Israel is religious because Israel is founded on land that once was ruled by the Ottoman caliphate. Nutjobs like him have said the same thing about parts of Spain and the Balkans, none of this is new to me. To them, once a land is under the banner of an Islamic state, it can never be anything else and anything else will be seen as an act of aggression against Islam.

Presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia is a bullshit reason that exposes his religious motivations. First, that's not his decision to make, he represents no government, second, the Saudis allowed those troops in, those troops didn't come to conquer the Saudis. This is more to do with the Islamic aversion to having non-Muslims in the Arabian Peninsula. While the Saudi government doesn't go quite as far, permitting tourism at least, non-Muslims are not permitted to enter Mecca and Medina and can't be citizens. This is due to a hadith in Sahih Muslim saying:

"I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims…"

This is actually the one place in the world where non-Muslims are not even allowed to live as dhimmis, let alone come in with troops. You can see how this would "trigger" an asshole snowflake like Osama and his ilk.

The method used to carry out this attack is Islamic. Since those attackers think they're going to paradise, they don't value their own lives and in fact Islamic doctrine promises paradise to Muslims dying while fighting non-Muslims. Very few other non-Muslims or Muslims not motivated by their religion would go on such a suicide task. Read 9:111 "Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah ? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment."

I'm sorry Sparhafoc, you've been lied to by the media who try to downplay or deny Islam's role in 911. No wonder you're so consistently wrong on every single issue related to Islam.

 

[Tree]

Please explain exactly how undercover infiltration of a mosque as a fake Muslim violates religious freedom?

If you're a Muslim and you got to a mosque and you're part of an Islamic community exactly how does one random guy in the crowd that doesn't even stand out, you don't know he's a cop, isn't doing anything illegal, isn't being aggressive, prevent you from getting on your knees 5 times a day to pray? Explain. The claim is laughable.

Even if you're the owner of the mosque, nobody forced you to leave the door open for the wider public to come in. No cop needs a warrant for that.

 

[Sparhafoc]

What actually led to the rise of ISIS was our military intervention in the region based on a lie, destablizing the previous power structures and pumping weaponry into the region to equip anyone who would nominally fight our 'mutual' enemy.

And just how did these ISIS operatives get into Europe and do so many deadly attacks if not for a lenient immigration policy based on the false assumption that all cultures are equal?

You're not making any sense. You claimed that the rise of IS was caused by tolerance and appeasement and etc... IS didn't 'rise' in Europe, it rose in the Middle East.

Military intervention might have played a role, but you keep forgetting this happened under Obama's watch because he pulled out too early.

Try to stick to one line of erroneous reasoning at a time, eh?

ISIS wasn't important in 2003 nor in the following years of the Bush administration, this happened under Obama's administration.

Yes, I've already addressed this before when you made this lazy mistake.

And I never advocated military intervention in the Muslim world unless a country was pursuing nukes, I much prefer isolating them

It's amazing how similar your reasoning is to certain components of 20th century politics.

Again, I think that you are drawing erroneous conclusions. In what way was 9/11 a religiously motivated attack? I think it was political.

Islam is both religious and political.

While I can understand you wanting to evade addressing the question, it obviously doesn't support the claim you made. You need to actually show that 9/11 was motivated by religion for it to be considered so.

That's a very selective reading of Osama's manifesto which includes religious justification and he even mentioned how he thinks we're evil cause we drink, fornicate and allow women freedom and we govern based on "man-made laws" i.e. secularism and democracy rather than theocracy.

Except, of course, it's not selective because the source I quoted wasn't part of this discussion and obviously therefore cannot have tailored its summary to be selective.

And his political reasons are due to religion.

Do you plan to provide any material support for your claims, or are you going to stack assertions?

Islam is religious and political.

Only insomuch as all religious things are political because religions are believed by people who are also political.

The unconditional Muslim solidarity he displays is religious and political as Muslims are commanded to favor each other and be ruthless with non-Muslims.

So it's political then.

Why else would Saudi citizen care what's happening in other countries?

Well, let's take a look at what Saudi says of IS, shall we?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/17/saudi-clerics-fatwa-declares-terrorism-heinous-crime-sharia-law

Saudi Arabia's senior clerical leadership has issued a new fatwa, or legal ruling, declaring terrorism a "heinous crime" under sharia law – part of an intensifying campaign by the conservative kingdom to undermine the legitimacy of Islamic State (Isis) insurgents in Iraq and Syria and to discourage support for the extremists.

"Terrorism is contrary to the purposes of the great religion of Islam, which came as a mercy to the world … and to ensure the system of worldly coexistence," said the 21-strong council of senior scholars, according to the Saudi Press Agency. "Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, which is innocent of this deviant ideology … [terrorism] is nothing more than corruption and criminality rejected by Islamic sharia law and common sense."

Any Muslim who thinks that jihad (which means "struggle") means joining a terrorist group "is ignorant and has gone astray", the clerics declared on Wednesday.

And in terms of the population:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-saudi-arabia-lebanon-overwhelmingly-reject-is-and-the-us/

The most striking as well as encouraging finding is that ISIS (also known as Islamic State, or IS) has almost no popular support in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Lebanon — even among Sunnis. Among Egyptians, a mere 3 percent express a favorable opinion of ISIS. In Saudi Arabia, the figure is slightly higher: 5 percent rate ISIS positively.

So presumably they care because they are just as much threatened by violent Islamic extremism as everyone else.

In fact, IS made a point of it...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-security-islamic-state/islamic-state-threatens-attacks-in-saudi-arabia-idUSKBN19020R

In a video that appeared to have been recorded before the attack on Tehran, five masked fighters were shown threatening Shi’ites in Iran as well as the Saudi Arabian government saying their turn “will come”.

“Allah permitting, this brigade will be the first of jihad in Iran, and we ask our brothers the Muslims to follow us, as the fire that was ignited will not be put out, Allah permitting,” one of the masked fighters said, according to SITE.

At the end of the video, he sent a message to the Saudi government.

“Know that after Iran, your turn will come. By Allah, we will strike you in your own homes... We are the agents of nobody. We obey Allah and His Messenger, and we are fighting for the sake of this religion, not for the sake of Iran or the Arabian Peninsula.”

Difficult to spin the homogeneity patter in the face of reality, isn't it?

His opposition to Israel is religious because Israel is founded on land that once was ruled by the Ottoman caliphate. Nutjobs like him have said the same thing about parts of Spain and the Balkans, none of this is new to me. To them, once a land is under the banner of an Islamic state, it can never be anything else and anything else will be seen as an act of aggression against Islam.

Whereas, he specifically stated that his explicit opposition to Israel was its treatment of Muslims.

So who are we to believe is most accurately representing him? Him? Or you?

When you keep wrongly telling me what I think, don't you think it makes it somewhat hard for me to believe you can tell me what someone else thinks when they say differently?

More interestingly, why am I to believe that you know? Is your confidence to be the bar by which we judge the validity of your claims?

Presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia is a bullshit reason that exposes his religious motivations. First, that's not his decision to make, he represents no government, second, the Saudis allowed those troops in, those troops didn't come to conquer the Saudis. This is more to do with the Islamic aversion to having non-Muslims in the Arabian Peninsula. While the Saudi government doesn't go quite as far, permitting tourism at least, non-Muslims are not permitted to enter Mecca and Medina and can't be citizens.

So now he's 'lying' about his reasons because.... cui bono?

There's no actual reason to assume that he would feel the need to lie. Of course, he might be wrong, but it's hard to understand quite how you are supposed to be a legitimate source of what he thinks whereas his own words aren't.

This is due to a hadith in Sahih Muslim saying:

"I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims…"

So not something he said?

This is actually the one place in the world where non-Muslims are not even allowed to live as dhimmis. It's their way or the highway.

Yes, it's a horrible place where people are discriminated against because of their beliefs.

The method used to carry out this attack is Islamic.

Flying planes into buildings is 'Islamic'?

Could you cite the passage you're appealing to, please?

Yes, I know you're going to respond belligerently to this, but it is such a silly claim.

Since those attackers think they're going to paradise, they don't value their own lives and in fact Islamic doctrine promises paradise to Muslims dying while fighting non-Muslims.

Even if you are right and that is what they think, it's still not actually providing any evidence as to the motive of their attack being religious rather than political.

Very few other non-Muslims or Muslims not motivated by their religion would go on such a suicide task.

Well, apart from the founders of the modern suicide attack, the Tamil Tigers... oh and the Japanese kamikaze... and the Chera's suicide squads resistance to 11th century Chola dynasty invasion... and the first ever suicide bomber Russian revolutionary Ivan Yemelyanov who held a suitcase bomb to detonate in case the first attack on the Tsar failed... and the Dare to Die Corps during the Xinhai Revolution.... and the Selbstopfereinsatz Luftwaffe in the Battle of Berlin... and the North Korean and South Korea suicide squads in the Korean War... and how far can we go back? Samson pulling down the temple on his own head? Or the 1st Century AD Jewish Sicarii sect?

I mean, very few indeed, and obviously only those motivated by religion?? /scratchy head emoticon

Read 9:111 "Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah ? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment."

Read Judges 16:28-30 "Then Samson called to the Lord and said, “O Lord God, please remember me and please strengthen me only this once, O God, that I may be avenged on the Philistines for my two eyes.” 29 And Samson grasped the two middle pillars on which the house rested, and he leaned his weight against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other. 30 And Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines.” Then he bowed with all his strength, and the house fell upon the lords and upon all the people who were in it. So the dead whom he killed at his death were more than those whom he had killed during his life."

I'm sorry Sparhafoc, you've been lied to by the media who try to downplay or deny Islam's role in 911. No wonder you're so consistently wrong on every single issue related to Islam.

I'm sorry Tree, but your confident assertions do not indicate any accuracy with respect to reality, nor does your appeal to conspiracies. Of course, if you were wrong on every single issue related to Islam and ignorant of it, then you would naturally see the factual truth as being wrong. This is what happens in radicalizing echo-chambers.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Please explain exactly how undercover infiltration of a mosque as a fake Muslim violates religious freedom?

A mosque?

No, no, no.... your fantasy notion was of having secret operatives in ALL mosques.

Now, assuming there's a genuine suspicion of seditious or terrorist activity in any given mosque, then such a sting operation might well be legally justified (having, of course, passed the requisite court procedure) but treating all Muslims across the entire nation as suspicious based solely on their religious beliefs would, I can only imagine, be seen as the government interfering with the right to freely practice a religion.

Of course, it would be up to a court to decide, not you.

If you're a Muslim and you got to a mosque and you're part of an Islamic community exactly how does one random guy in the crowd that doesn't even stand out, you don't know he's a cop, isn't doing anything illegal, isn't being aggressive, prevent you from getting on your knees 5 times a day to pray? Explain. The claim is laughable.

The entire concept is indeed laughable, and as I said: it's very hard to take you remotely seriously that you actually think that this is feasible, constitutional or desirable.

Even if you're the owner of the mosque, nobody forced you to leave the door open for the wider public to come in. No cop needs a warrant for that.

Are you really going to claim that putting an undercover detective in every mosque in the nation doesn't require court permission?

Perplexing how frequently your confidence smacks up against your fantasy notions of reality.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Some more interesting facts which, according to Tree's sense of sensationalist conspiracy theorism are just lies perpetrated by the media or other shadowy organisations to convince you that people like Tree are wrong even though they're certainly, unquestionably right in every single utterance... the truth is that there are about 2106 mosques in the USA - a big job for the nationwide undercover squad he envisions.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/mosques-in-united-states-study_n_1307851.html

Researchers also asked about how Muslim leaders approach their religion. The majority — 56 percent — said they believe in a flexible interpretation of the Quran and the Sunnah (the way the Islamic prophet Muhammad practiced the religion) that isn’t always literal and takes into account modern life.

No you don't you liars! Tree said this isn't possible, therefore more than half of Muslim leaders are lying because they're nefariously leading us into a false sense of security to hide their true agenda even though the other 44% must not have grasped that notion or just mistakenly told the truth... blast, you let the halal cat out of the haram bag!

So yeah, more than half of the mosques in the US are intrinsically in contradiction to Tree's certain demagoguery. Of course, I am sure Tree you will want to assure us that you are right regardless, no?

The only question I guess that's left is what it would actually take for you to acknowledge an error on your part... any error, really, but one as egregious as your claim to know the minds of the actually not monolithic 1.7 billion people you pretend you can speak for.

From what I can see, the backfire effect (academically known as a form of belief perseverance) is in full operation here, so no matter what form of evidence is presented to you contradicting your confident assertions, it will just make you believe even more confidently that you are right. In fact, you've essentially admitted as much when responding to me by saying that if I say it, you won't accept it.

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

Belief perseverance (also known as conceptual conservatism[1]) is maintaining a belief despite new information that firmly contradicts it.[2] Such beliefs may even be strengthened when others attempt to present evidence debunking them, a phenomenon known as the backfire effect

https://effectiviology.com/backfire-effect-facts-dont-change-minds/

Instances of the backfire effect have been observed in a large number of scientific studies, which looked at various scenarios:

A study which examined voting preference showed that introducing people to negative information about a political candidate that they favor, often causes them to increase their support for that candidate.
A study which examined misconceptions about politically-charged topics (such as tax cuts and stem-cell research), found that giving people accurate information about these topics often causes them to believe in their original misconception more fervently, in cases where the new information contradicts their preexisting beliefs.
A study which examined parents’ intent to vaccinate their children, found that when parents who are against vaccinating are given information showing why vaccinating their child is the best course of action, they sometimes become more likely to believe in a link between vaccination and autism. Furthermore, even when these parents’ misconceptions regarding the vaccination-autism link are reduced, the information still leads to a decreased intent to vaccinate their children (a phenomenon that has also been observed for other types of vaccination decisions, such as choosing to vaccinate against the seasonal flu).

 

[Tree]

I noticed that a major error you made wasn't addressed. There's actually no significant rise in KKK membership. Membership will fluctuate, but the trend is clear. It's going down in the long term.

Have you considered that the backfire effect might apply to you too?

Researchers also asked about how Muslim leaders approach their religion. The majority — 56 percent — said they believe in a flexible interpretation of the Quran and the Sunnah (the way the Islamic prophet Muhammad practiced the religion) that isn’t always literal and takes into account modern life.

This information is not coming from a reliable source as these surveys were released by:

Council on American-Islamic Relations
Islamic Society of North America
Islamic Circle of America

These are organizations with a vested interest in spreading Islamic apologist propaganda. CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism funding case.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/30/fbi-cuts-ties-cair-following-terror-financing-trial.html

CAIR's founders Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad were previously involved with the Islamic Association of Palestine, a group exposed for being a Hamas front and lead by Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook, a senior Hamas member.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihad_Awad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Association_of_Palestine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mousa_Mohammed_Abu_Marzook

A Muslim Brotherhood member Mohamed Akram Adlouni claimed about both the IAP and ISNA organizations that they are "our organizations and the organizations of our friends".

https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/20-an-explanatory-memorandum-on-the-general.pdf

ISNA has given a platform to apologists like Linda Sarsour, a radical Muslim masquerading as a social justice activist, who mocked Ayaan Hirsi Ali's genital mutilation.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/12852/muslim-womens-march-organizer-attacks-female-hank-berrien

The only question I guess that's left is what it would actually take for you to acknowledge an error on your part... any error, really, but one as egregious as your claim to know the minds of the actually not monolithic 1.7 billion people you pretend you can speak for.

I don't know their minds and my life is too short to discern that, all the information I have to go on is their public allegiance, what system of values they claim to hold, and sadly that doesn't make me trust them.

Now, assuming there's a genuine suspicion of seditious or terrorist activity in any given mosque, then such a sting operation might well be legally justified (having, of course, passed the requisite court procedure)

That's an interest case of special pleading. If detectives were to find a written bank heist plan, they could pretty much charge you with conspiracy even if you never set foot in that bank since attempted robbery is also a crime even if unsuccessful. And you're telling me violent religious texts calling for sedition against non-Muslim governments don't even justify an investigation? Only if you're a PC activist judge. No wonder we can't rein in Islamic terrorism.

A warrant would not be needed anyway because there's no expectation of privacy in most mosques. The door is left open for the public to enter and that includes on duty cops. It's true for most restaurants, hotel lobbies (not hotel rooms), malls and such. Permission to enter is implicit. They don't need a warrant to obtain information that is visible in plain view either.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-warrant-basics-29742.html

While I can understand you wanting to evade addressing the question, it obviously doesn't support the claim you made. You need to actually show that 9/11 was motivated by religion for it to be considered so.

You want an answer to the question "In what way was 9/11 a religiously motivated attack?" I already explained it to you.

Literally every single grievance, including the political ones are rooted in Islamic law. You say "I think it was political." Political and religious are not exclusive when it comes to Islam, so arguing a political motive somehow disproves the religious is nonsense.

That said, you have to be naive to take everything he says at face value. You think he was a terrorist but not a liar? War is deception to these people.

And Al Qaeda operates in countries that aren't the US and never attacked Muslim countries. They can come up with any excuse they want to paint their cause as defensive, but it's more about offensive warfare. They don't get along with any non-Muslims, not just Americans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#Activities

 

[Tree]

Saudi Arabia's senior clerical leadership has issued a new fatwa, or legal ruling, declaring terrorism a "heinous crime" under sharia law – part of an intensifying campaign by the conservative kingdom to undermine the legitimacy of Islamic State (Isis) insurgents in Iraq and Syria and to discourage support for the extremists.

"Terrorism is contrary to the purposes of the great religion of Islam, which came as a mercy to the world … and to ensure the system of worldly coexistence," said the 21-strong council of senior scholars, according to the Saudi Press Agency. "Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, which is innocent of this deviant ideology … [terrorism] is nothing more than corruption and criminality rejected by Islamic sharia law and common sense."

Any Muslim who thinks that jihad (which means "struggle") means joining a terrorist group "is ignorant and has gone astray", the clerics declared on Wednesday.

Pot calling the kettle black.

Saudi Arabia is responsible for funding most of the war propaganda in foreign countries, spread through the mosques they build there, that lead to groups like ISIS appearing.

I care not for their lip service. Their actions speak louder than words. The only thing positive that can be said of that shithole nation is that it's not North Korea.