I Know That Not All Muslims Are Terrorists

By terror I mean those that attack innocents in the name of religion and the truth is that a disportioncate number of those ass wipes are or claim to be Muslim.

I happen to agree with you on the walls and screening part - like any of this is going to tell us what is in a man's head. As to the "claim" to be Muslim - hell the 9/11 hijackers all claimed to be Muslim - so did Bin Laden - but the thing is there is again no way to tell the difference between a Muslim and these so called perversions of Islam - they can't tell the difference so how are we to do so?

Let's set 9/11 aside. The attackers were all here on student visas, and it was something they could only do once.

The attacks since, in the US, and in Europe, have been mostly carried by people who were born in the West, and radicalized.

The Florida gay man, who was confused about his own sexuality, is someone who, I believe, used Islam as a cover for the mass murder he was going to commit.

ISIS is using a combination of things from the Qur'an, and their own interpretations, to commit massacres.

The French terrorist (Nice) was a wife-abuser and a failure in life. He used Islam to justify his crimes, and it looks like he received assistance, making his crimes more gruesome.

If some jack ass, or psychopath, decides to commit mass murder, they typically do not have something like ISIS, to walk him through the ropes, and that's probably why things are happening the way they are.

I hear you and from any perspective it is impossible to differentiate between the majority of peaceful adherents and those practicing the religion who are radicalized. The problems are to a certain extent seeded in islamic schools and mosques where the foundations for radicalization are laid. There are however basic problems with islam that are universal - Just think how it is that Bin Laden was given shelter and protection for ten years after 9/11 when many Muslims knew of his location and remained silent. It was more than the Taliban who provided Sanctuary and protection. Providing sanctuary to other Muslims is a basic tenant of their religion. There are many other control aspects / mechanisms as well and the end result is that to the outside observer Islam appears to be a criminal cult masquerading as a religion and very much unlike a simple group of core beliefs practiced among other peoples. Other religions have in the past been VERY barbaric - a quick read of history and the bible itself confirms this but the difference is that these religions evolved and no longer practice these barbarities while Islam never evolved and persists in cutting off heads and hands, in executing gays, adulterers, those who leave the religion - to every non-believer Islam is backwards and barbaric and worse they do not evolve to social norms of tolerance or acceptance yet they demand accommodation from us when they offer us none in return. Try being a Christian in Saudi Arabia - you might just have a difficult time of it. When non-muslims are prohibited from entering Mecca then why should Muslims be permitted into Jerusalem? There are valid concerns with Islam that go well beyond terrorism.

[quote]Try being a Christian in Saudi Arabia - you might just have a difficult time of it. When non-muslims are prohibited from entering Mecca then why should Muslims be permitted into Jerusalem?[/quote]

Israel is a multi-confessional country, with a Jewish majority, and 20% Muslim minority. Are you really saying that Israel needs to ban its citizens, from going to Jerusalem?

There is no such thing as a "Muslim" central authority. Saudi Arabia is an independent country. You're mixing up religion (Islam), with nationality (Saudi Arabia). It would be like mixing up the Vatican with Italy, and Catholics, all over the world, or making all Catholics accountable, for any action the Italian government takes.

Saudi Arabia, is a very dangerous entity. It is fighting ISIS / Muslim Brotherhood today, and al Qaeda in the past, but it's only because these organizations, have the Saudi Royals in their cross-hairs. Ideologically speaking, the Saudi regime, and Wahhabi madrassas, act as nurseries, for the radical ideologies, outwardly projecting as ISIS (today), and who knows what, tomorrow.

Speaking of Bin Laden. WE gave him shelter, protection, and armed him to the teeth, when he was serving our purposes. When you say Muslims protected him, you're painting 1.4B+ people, with a giant brush. If the Muslim community (whatever that means), had given him shelter, he would not have needed to hide, the way he did. A large part of Pakistan's population, is illiterate, and susceptible to religious radicals, themselves ignorant and uneducated. This is what you see in the streets, whenever someone (or someone is rumored to) offends their prophet (again, whatever that means).

Pakistan claims that it was not aware bin Laden was hiding in Abbotabad. This is probably true, but some elements of the Pakistani intelligence apparatus, sympathetic to bin Laden, were certainly aware of it, and facilitated his activities. It's clear though, from the intelligence we collected, that this support was very limited, as he was not able to move around freely.

If providing support to other Muslims, is an observed absolute, then you would not have planes, from multiple Muslim nations, conducting daily sorties against other Muslims. Nor would you have Turkey, a mostly Muslim nation, taking a central part (again), in the fight against other Muslims.

When you say that Islam persists in cutting off heads, you're also painting with a very wide brush. The Sharia law is two main parts, civil and criminal. Only a handful of Muslim-majority nations, apply both. Some countries, like Turkey, Tunisia, and all the former Soviet Muslim Republics, do not apply either. Some apply modified civil codes (marriage/divorce), and only when it comes to their Muslim citizens. Others are a mixed bag (Pakistan for instance).

The handful of countries, where full Sharia laws, are still on the books, need to evolve. But, if you tell Saudi Arabia, that they should stop executing people for capital offenses, don't you think that we should also self-examined about the 1,437 executions, in the US, since the death penalty was re-instated by the Supreme Court?

Fighting Islam is not a good idea. Fighting terrorism is. Painting with a side brush, only hurts positive progress. A fix is not going to be instantaneous. How long did it take us to provide blacks and minorities with their basic rights? It's 2016, and we don't exactly live in a post racial America.

Personally, I had to take a step back, a deep, deep breath, and concluded that my prejudices, made me fear Muslims, when I should be thinking in terms of encouraging progress, no matter how small it is. I still cringe when I see a woman in a Burka, but I think to myself, that it is not possible to switch this off automatically, and that the next generation. is not going to have this problem. Our US society, eventually forces integration. When my paternal ancestors first arrived, in 1962, the boys were handed guns and told to fight for their new country. When the war was over, as Catholics, they had to face the same prejudiced attitude, that we're subjecting Muslims to. Guess what? our Catholic population, does not answer to the Pope, when it comes to how our country is run.

Frankly, I think that we have bigger fish to fry in the US. Even when you look at a city like Chicago, alone, where we're getting closer to 6,000 shootings, since January 1st. Not saying that we should let our guard down, but...

Well - you and I can agree that the problem with guns in America dwarfs by a massive margin any concerns over terrorism.

The problem with Islam is that the line is blurred between government, religion, law - indeed all aspects of daily life and control. That is what I mean when I say it is a criminal cult masquerading as a religion.

The comment on Muslims in Jerusalem compared to say Jews in Mecca - is a valid point - they are both religious cities and if Muslims can exclude non -muslims in their city then why can Jews and Christians not exclude Muslims from Jerusalem? Seems eminently fair and reasonable to me.

[quote]The comment on Muslims in Jerusalem compared to say Jews in Mecca - is a valid point - they are both religious cities and if Muslims can exclude non -muslims in their city then why can Jews and Christians not exclude Muslims from Jerusalem? Seems eminently fair and reasonable to me.[/quote]

What I was trying to say, is that you're using an apples to oranges, type of comparison.

Jerusalem, is [b][u]NOT[/u][/b] a Christian city. When the Jews first arrived (from what today is Iraq), it became a Jewish city.

The Babylonians, sacked it, razed it to the ground, and took the elite with them to Babylon, and most of the rest fled to Egypt. Eventually, the Jews made it back.

Then the Romans came.

Then the Christians appeared.

Then the Muslims came.

It is now in Israeli hands, and Israel is a multi-confessional country, with one fifth Muslims.

Saudi Arabia is an independent country, but you're saying that you want the actions of one country, to dictate how we treat ALL Muslims, most are not citizens of Saudi Arabia. That's an apples to oranges type of comparison.

Try going to the Great Mormon Temple, in Salt Lake City, and demand that you enter the inner sanctum. Should we ban Mitt Romney from all of the States?

Sigh... the point is that if an "entity" and I am not getting hung up on semantics gets to exclude others based on a religion from a city claiming that it is a HOLY PLACE and NON Believers are excluded then what exactly is unfair about applying this standard AGAINST THEM? It is a matter of equity - and to drive home the point that MUSLIMS demand accommodation from others but give none in return. Now if you insist on ignoring the point, well I can't help you but it is a very valid point.

Also I don't concede on your version of the history of Jerusalem. Yes right now it is in Israeli hands and that is not going to change any time soon.

1. It is not MY version of history. I don't make history up. Just like everyone else, I read history books, and references. In the interest of brevity, I tried to make it short. Here's one of the links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jerusalem

2. The salient point, is that MUSLIMS are NOT preventing you and I from going to MECCA. Saudi Arabia is. If you want equitable treatment, then (and this is not an exhaustive list):

- Lobby your Congressman/woman, to pass laws preventing Saudi Arabians, from driving to the Mojave Desert, because that's what Mecca looks like. So, stick a meteor in (as that's what the Muslim holy rock is, and not something Muhammad requested from God), with flat, hot sand, for tens of miles around.

- Drive an electric car, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

- Invade Saudi Arabia, and open Mecca up, for all religions.

- Stop riding Uber, because Saudi Arabia (the government) owns 10% of Uber.

Just a few suggestions.

PS: I have about as much desire to go to Mecca, as I do to the Mojave, if the Mojave, has 5 million sweaty men and women, segregated from each other, circling a meteor, tossing stones, at some statutes, to ward off evil spirits, and then setting off a bonfire. Oh, wait, I think we have one of those. It's called Burning Man.

IN part - then I suggest you read some more

"When the Jews first arrived (from what today is Iraq), it became a Jewish city."

Try reading where the Jews actually came from when they settled the land of Canan and drove out the inhabitants - they came up from Egypt through the Sinai....

Here's a reference to Abraham's birthplace:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur_Ka%C5%9Bdim

And a reference to his origins:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham#Abram.27s_origins_and_calling

What you seem to be referring to, is the exodus, which is when the Jews forced their way out of Egypt, and back to what today is Israel. However, chronologically, this came AFTER they had migrated to Egypt, from Canaan. Read the OT, the book of Genesis, and the book of Exodus (you, the parting of the sea, etc.).

The links I provided, give you the chronology.

Yes I was referring to the time immediately following Moses - who never set foot in the land of Israel dying just before he entered as the last of the generation who was responsible for the sin of the golden calf. The exodus from Egypt is the first time Israel actually became a nation in what is now the modern State of Israel. Jews were a small group of family almost non existent prior to the long period of slavery in Egypt and there they became numerous and the tribes were formed then. The reason for them moving to Egypt in the fist place was that there was a severe drought and famine elsewhere and only in Egypt was there fresh water to grow crops with. Jerusalem as a capital with the building of the temple and the time of Solomon only happened after this time, a bit less than 3500 years ago. According to the bible the place where Jacob laid his head and dreamed of the assent to heaven was the very same rock - that the Arab squatters eventually put the Dome of the Rock - which is on the site of the Temple in Jerusalem - and hence a major problem between those who want that mosque there and those who wish to see the Temple rebuilt which means that sooner or later that mosque is going to have to be removed and there is going to be hell to pay over this issue.

@pdqsailor1: It was probably a good 400 years, before David Sacked Jerusalem, and established a unified Israel, around 1,000 BCE. The story of Moses, when examined through reality, and history, is a work of fiction, as told in Exodus.

BTW, the biblical accepted version of events, is that famine affected Egypt as well, but Joseph, son of Israel, through a complicated set of circumstances, had predicted it, and made sure that Egypt had the surplus wheat and food stored up.

The First temple, was constructed in 832 BCE, so about 2,850 years ago.

Those who wish to see the Temple rebuilt, also believe that the State Of Israel, as home to the Jews, should not be there, and that the Jews should not return, until after the Temple is rebuilt.

I've been to the Western Wall, and the Dome of the Rock, and I stood on top of the famous rock. The one that all those so-called Prophets, used as a launch pad to the Heavens. It's just a cave, and a small one at that.

Bottom line: this has nothing to do with who can claim ownership of Jerusalem, as its history is very complex, and it is today home to important relics, that belong to three different religions, and Israel has Jewish, Muslim and Christian citizens.

The West Bank Muslims, are not free to go to the Dome of the Rock, without special permits and under strict control. Jews are not allowed to enter the Dome of the Rock (to pray), or organize prayers in its yard. The only time the Dome was damaged, it was done by an Australian Christian extremist, who was trying to hasten the Second Coming, but attempting to start a war.