http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/12/17/isis-slaughters-150-females-in-iraq-for-refusing-to-marry-have-sex-with-militants/

If Islam really *was* the driver,you wouldn't see shit like this happening.
Notice how the perpetrators and the victims are both Sunni.

Islam is just an excuse for a bunch of young uncivilized thugs to make war on anyone and everyone who gets in their way.

We know you have blinders on this issue Amy, but I am somewhat surprised Greg agrees with you.

Any serious reader of history can come up with a hundred examples of ethnic sectarian conflict fueled by some ideology or the other, but that ideology is always pretextual.

I didn't say what Gregg thought. But you actually can't argue with this bit I wrote above in any fact-based way:

The problem isn't individual Muslims but Islam, which calls for the death or conversion of the infidel, the death of apostates, the death of gays, and the installation of The New Caliphate across the globe.

Islam is a poisonous ideology, totalitarianism masquerading as religion.

Feel free to dispute what I wrote about Islam above.

You cannot. Not by any using of the facts.

Small correction - Muslims are also in danger but mostly from other Muslims. There is a domestic ethnic parallel, but it's taboo to discuss. It does not server the current social justice meme.

From the link, how it goes for Shiites in Saudi Arabia:

The government has restricted the names that Shias can use for their children in an attempt to discourage them from showing their identity. Saudi textbooks, criticized for their anti-Semitism, are equally hostile to Shiism often characterizing the faith as a form of heresy worse than Christianity and Judaism. Wahabi teachers frequently tell classrooms full of young Shia schoolchildren that they are heretics.[32]

In the town of Dammam, a quarter of whose residents are Shia, Ashura is banned, and there is no distinctly Shia call to prayer. There is no Shia cemetery for the nearly quarter of the 600,000 Shias that live there. There is only one mosque for the town’s 150,000 Shias. The Saudi government has often been viewed as an active oppressor of Shias because of the funding of the Wahabi ideology which denounces the Shia faith.[33]

In March 2011, police opened fire on protesters in Qatif, and after Shia unrest in October 2011 the Saudi government promised to crushed any further trouble in the eastern province with "an iron fist."[34]

Saudi Arabia is spearheading an anti-Shia campaign that threatens to inflame the whole Islamic world in the Middle East and beyond. According to the Independent, "Satellite television, internet, YouTube and Twitter content, frequently emanating from or financed by oil states in the Arabian peninsula, are at the centre of a campaign to spread sectarian hatred to every corner of the Muslim world, including places where Shia are a vulnerable minority, such as Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Malaysia."

I am an atheist, but I can get behind the Jesus stuff -- feed the poor, clothe the sick, etc.

I speak up about Islam because I see the massive human rights abuses (mass slaughter being the worst) that it calls for, and find it a danger to human life and civilization as we know it. And no, that isn't overblown.

The problem isn't individual Muslims but Islam, which calls for the death or conversion of the infidel, the death of apostates, the death of gays, and the installation of The New Caliphate across the globe.
Islam is a poisonous ideology, totalitarianism masquerading as religion.

Feel free to dispute what I wrote about Islam above.

You cannot. Not by any using of the facts.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 18, 2014 7:47 AM

I'm not arguing the *facts* as you call them. My argument is with causation, and comparison to other religions/ideologies that have become an umbrella which totalitarians use like a uniform to distinguish between *us* and *them*. (*Them* being the evil other, the cause of all their perceived problems )

As I have pointed out before, Shinto still exists, but it isn't currently being used as an organizing principle by a totalitarian dictatorship to justify killing millions of Asians, and Caucasians in an expansionist drive to take over half the world.

Why is that?

"...it wouldn't be multi-culti and PC to want to protect a white Jewish person from violence."

That's buying into the left's argument that Jews are white people and therefore automatically oppressors, not to mention in no possession of any possible indigenous claim to land in the Middle East.

Many Ashkenazi Jews have light skin, but I'm no more a white person than these Palestinian children.

Actually, the correllation is directly linked to Islam, people are simply following the later Sur'ahs of the Qu'ran, as their faith instructs them to. It tends to be cyclic in Islamic culture, but it's fairly obvious they're in an expansionist role, and arguably have been for nearly a century.....

"I don't know anything about Shinto, which doesn't seem a danger to people in Sweden, France, lower Manhattan, and countless others around the globe in the way Islam does."

This was my point.

Maybe if you learned more about Shinto, and Japanese culture and history you would have more insight into Islam.

I personally don't judge dangerous ideologies and people by who they are a danger to the present moment.

Like an epidemic, they spread if unchecked, and become a danger to everyone, and civilization itself.

Islam is not unique, and never has been. It isn't the driver...

Poisonous Arab culture is the driver, and Arab leaders, and terrorist groups who use Islam to manipulate the poor, the gullible, and the stupid.

They aren't following the Koran when they kill other Muslims.

So the argument that *the Koran tells them to do it * is simplistic and naive.

Why is that?
B/c MacArthur.
Current El Presidente and the previous Bush-men were so careful to avoid criticizing islam, while D.M. recognized shinto for what it is. Had any western gubmint started doing to islam what Mac did to shinto and Japan, perhaps more ex-muslims would speak out. Of course, Japan's population is only 10% or today's muslim population, so there is that. But as long as events like Rotherham go on without even an eye blink, the situation will be hard to handle.

So the argument that *the Koran tells them to do it * is simplistic and naive.
But it troo. Perhaps, it's as simple as that. Chairman Mao had a bunch of simplistic and naive ideas collected in his little Red Book. A few million deaths later, he is still the man in China.

"while D.M. recognized shinto for what it is"

Douglas MacArthur changed Japanese culture, and government at the point of a gun. Much like the British did to Hinduism in India in the 19th century.

He didn't wipe out Shinto, which was my point. And the British Colonial government didn't wipe out the Hindu religion either. They neutered it.

Shinto has gone from being a death cult used by the Samurai leaders to keep the peasants in line and justify their expansionist dreams in Asia to a benign form of ancestor worship still widely practiced in Japan.

And maybe if people really studied and understood what you need to do to change a culture, they might stop focusing on Islam, and deal with the fucking Arabs.

He didn't wipe out Shinto, which was my point. And the British Colonial government didn't wipe out the Hindu religion either. They neutered it.
Bingo! If Iraq was to be invaded, at least go the distance and change it like Japan. THe shock and awe did not go far enough, imho. The bush-men had this idea that "let freedom reign" will be enough.
fucking Arabs.
Are you really that naive? Are you the same person as Crid? You both have that same holier-than-thou attitude.
Yes, islam is an arab invention. However, only about 50% of the followers are now arabs. Did Luther change only the germans in 1500, or did he focus on christianity as a whole??

"Iraq was to be invaded, at least go the distance and change it like Japan. THe shock and awe did not go far enough, imho. The bush-men had this idea that "let freedom reign" will be enough."

You are rewriting history here. Bush and his guys knew you couldn't walk out after five years, and expect anything but chaos.

Last I checked in 2009 we had thousands of ground troops there with an indefinite end date.

Obama pulled them all out, and proved you right.

"Yes, islam is an arab invention. However, only about 50% of the followers are now arabs. Did Luther change only the germans in 1500, or did he focus on christianity as a whole??

Posted by: Stinky the Clown at December 18, 2014 10:20 AM

Luther didn't change nearly as much as you seem to think he did, and he wasn't the only *reformer* in Europe.

He would have changed almost nothing if the Germans like the English weren't sick of getting their political marching orders, as well as their religious ones from Rome (and losing a big portion of their tax revenues to Rome as well)

The reformation broke the political power and economic power of the Catholic Church in Northern Europe. That was its major accomplishment.

"Are you really that naive? Are you the same person as Crid? You both have that same holier-than-thou attitude"

I love Crid. He isn't me, Wrong sex for one, and I don't believe he ever served in the military.

He doesn't engage in sock puppetry, and neither do I.

I think that *holier than thou attitude* you perceive is a necessary defensive mechanism on your part when you throw around terms like *Shinto* and drop names like *MacArthur*, and *Luther* without having done the intellectual heavy lifting of reading the damn books, (hundreds of them) and then reflecting on what you have read.

Good grief, Isab, the more you write, the more you twist yourself into a pretzel. Yes, Japan was changed at the point of a gun. Please note I didn't write any opposite. Yes, the Iraq invasion was botched, it should never have happened. Since it did happen, it should have been all in. Germany, Japan changed at the point of a gun. A long occupation.

Yes, islam is a naive and simplistic ideology. Yes, people follow it for that reason: no intellect required. Not b/c they think about it. Yes, Mao had a simplistic and naive ideology. A few million died, but there's another billion left, right?

Just b/c you can't comprehend it, doesn't mean it isn't true, which is why you need your holier than thou attitude. Also, please note: Mauritania, Somalia, Afghanistan: 99-100% muslim. Are these "fucking arab" majority countries?

"Islam is just an excuse for a bunch of young uncivilized thugs to make war on anyone and everyone who gets in their way."

I think a lot of us come at this from a different direction than Crid and Isab. The "young uncivilized thugs" are being led and we, or better said, I do not see them being led by other young uncivilized thugs.

My vocabulary is in a need of a serious update. You see, in my archaic parlance, fabricating details and misrepresenting facts was called "lying." Now its just "editorializing." Who knew?

The problem with modern societies, and the reason I think will never find any kind of intelligent life in the universe(or reach the stars ourselves), is that those enlightened enough to see the problem dont have the stomach to kill those that need killing.

They often dont even have the capacity to defend themselves from a direct threat let alone preemptively annihilate a prospective one.

Sad fact is the easiest solution to out problem would be to start with a couple of nukes at the height of the haj and and interdict the entire region for a century.

Banish all muslims who commit crimes to the interdicted region and occasionally dump bio weapons on large population clusters in the zone.

But that would be "wrong" and "inhumane" so we will do nothing as they continue to expand and a few hundred years from now we'll all be living in the 7th century again until the sun goes nova

"I editorialized."

Is that now a journalistic euphemism for "I wrote a big pack of lies"?

lujlp: "Sad fact is the easiest solution to out problem would be to start with a couple of nukes..."

Sooner or later that's what it will have to come down to. It may seem wrong and inhumane to most people now because if we did it massive numbers of innocent souls would suffer and die by our hand. But eventually it will no longer be a question of what's right or wrong, humane or inhumane; but of which inhumanity is less abhorrent to us: the suffering and death of our innocents by their hand, or the suffering and death of their innocents by our hand.