The seeds of terrorism and extremism were planted in Islam from its very beginning. We could say that terrorism and extremism are planted in the darkest chasms of human nature. But they rose to the utter surface in the founding and expansion of Islam. Extremism and terrorism are the basic modus operandi of Islam. Even today, in leading Islamic States such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, extremism and terrorism are key instruments used to control and influence. ISIS is a threat to existing Islamic States because it is a competitor against their control of Islam, not because it represents a destruction of Islam or bastardization of it.

If anything, colonialism temporarily blunted Islamic extremism and terrorism. And those who control Islamic States are no less interested in wealth than capitalists are. They have always been so, but they go about it not by producing, buying, and selling, but mostly by confiscation.

As for Zionism, I'm no fan or apologist, but it, not Islamic terrorism and extremism, has been a reactive movement. And it is not what planted the seed of terror in Islam

It is not my assertion,I am merely passing on information that I found to be interesting. I have no link to offer, so you may process this as false seeing it does not fit your agenda.

Out of curiosity; do you doubt that Such an area exists in Brussels?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe if you google Molenbeek and have enough time to read all of the articles,then you will find enough to see the information I forwarded is credible.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Plants don't grow without seeds"

Wow, thanks. This may surprise you, but some zoologists now say that plants and human beings are, in fact, different.

Yes, we need to do a bit to win the hearts and minds, and mend some fences. But we're also going to kill a lot of people. Nebe, America has done more for Muslims worldwide, than any nation in the history o fth eEarth. Who helped the Afghanis fight the Soviets? Who helped feed the Somalis? Who helped liberate Kuwait? In addiiotn, there i sno better nation on Earth to live as a Muslim, than America. We have bled and dieds for these people. It's not enough. They want us to grow zz top beards and force our women to dress like ninjas and be illiterate. No, thanks.

So you're willing to do away with "capitalism" to appease the terrorists? Don't you own your own business for Christ's sake?

This is not a personal attack on Eben .

Most business owners that support Bernie are either A) not following the regulations . B) being paid in cash or barter , C) paying thier help in cash so as to avoid the hassle and cost involved in payroll or most likely D) all of the above .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No? Islam isn't the root of terrorism?

Islam i sbased on the life and teachings of Mohammed. I take it you're not an expert on the subject. He was a bloodthirsty, greedy, barbaric conquerer. The Japanese your grandfather fought against, took a page right out of his book. He was a bloodthirsty lunatic who killed everyone he didn't like. And this religion is based on him. And you deny that the violence comes from within the religion.

Interesting Article from a former Federal Prosecutor that explains otherwise with examples from the book.

http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/islam-facts-or-dreams/

Impressive to say the least
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Damn right it was.

I see your link and raise you this one.

http://www.thenation.com/article/her...isiss-motives/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Interesting . Blames Bush lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Think hard now. Think of the days before bush and when and why suicide bombers did their deeds. I know you can do it!

Life is not cause and effect. Life is a series of events that lead to another series of events. 5 plus 5 is 10 but 1 plus 1 a number of times equals 10 as well.

Saying Islam Is evil because they have suicide bombers is like saying that there is only 10 and forgetting that you need at least 9 other things to add to it to get there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yet many condemn the Catholic religion because of a few very dispicable molesters . Tell me you don't look at priest differently now . Sadly even I do and I spent 12 years in Catholic schools .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again. Cause and effect. A catholic priest is forced to stay unwed and not have sexual relations with women. That's the cause. The effect is pedophilia. If the pope was to have that rule changed I believe that that problem would go away. I don't view Catholic religion as a whole badly because of that problem. If it brings people security and happiness, then I'm happy for them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Most people I know don't "condemn the Catholic religion because of a few very dispicable molesters," they condemn the decades long systemic efforts by senior members of the entire church to cover it up.

From what I've read it's a lower to middle class area but not the hotbed of violence you characterize it as. I've never read anywhere that police fear to go there, in contrast it's supposed to be pretty sedate.

Just after the Paris attacks I was having lunch with several Belgians and they were flabbergasted at how the America media was portraying the situation in their country. That doesn't mean they don't have issues...

Jim, I've mentioned this before but you really should read up on your religious history.

Yea I don't think so . Good thing you're not a theripist
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bingo. That's the problem with Islam .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes. That's the problem. Not Islam itself.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's within Islam.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Other way around, Islam is within the problem.

"A catholic priest is forced to stay unwed and not have sexual relations with women. That's the cause"

Jesus God Almighty, you are saying that the priest lifestylye turned these guys (who were previously normal) into monsters? First, they were't "pedophiles" they were "homosexual predators" (the victims were overwhelmingly post-puberty boys...that's NOT pedophilia, it's homosexual predation, but you won't hear many liberals say that out loud). They were homosexual predators who lied their way into the priesthood to have access to victims. At that time in our history (when we didn't know much about these abusers) it was also happenig in schools and with doctors. Did those professions "turn" previously normal people into the monsters they became? No. They were monsters to begin with.

Nebe, no priest ever said as he was abusing these boys "God Bless Jesus who commanded me to do this". The religion had nohting to do with their hideous actions. The jihadists, on the other hand, are motivated purely be religion.

No comparison, except for the damage done to victims, of course.

"If the pope was to have that rule changed I believe that that problem would go away"

Then please explain why there are sexual predators in many other professions that don't prohibit one from getting married.

So if the problem is equaly spread among followers of all religions, kindly explain why Christians, Jews, Mormons, Menonites, and the Amish, aren't trying to kill/enslave everyone who doesn't believe exactly what they believe? How is it possible, that you don't see that? There are Christians who live in back-breaking poverty. They aren't threatening world stability.

Jeff, do not read between the lines here. Please show me where I characterized it as a hotbed of violence. I was simply passing on information. The fact that your limited reading was incapable of revealing the same facts has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.
My guess is that if you were dining with this alleged group of Belgians today,their opinions of their plight may have changed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Additionally, if you actually did Google Molenbeek then you certainly would have come to a similar conclusion based on every article that displays regarding the area. Did you expect it to be a high income area where food and beverage are the draw? Would you drop Junior off for karate lessons there? What about Mrs Spence,would you feel safe leaving her there for her hair and nails?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Great points. Spence, this is the problem with the Muslim culture - when they immigrate to a new place (like Belgium), they don't make any attempts to assimmilate. So you have an area that's populated by illiterate, unemployable people who don't speak the language, and they make no effort to improve their standing. They have no desire to adopt a Belgian lifestyle. So they build these little enclaves in Belgium that look like the sh*tholes they left in Syria, way more than they resemble any other place in Belgium.

Sweden is further down this path, and they are getting ready to kick 'em all out.

Teddy Roosevelt once said "immigration without assimilation, is an invasion". A western nation can certainly have many ethnicities. It can only have one culture. I don't want a bunch of miniature versions of Syria here in the US, where the girls are beaten and not allowed to go to school. If a nation allows these people to live there, the Muslims have the responsibility of assimmilating a bit. And by and large, they won't. And that's on them, not on us.

Really?? You can't have sex with women so little boys will have to do. If you couldn't have sex with women would the Paperboy start looking good.

Then explain Little League coaches, scout leaders, and other youth organizations that have had to deal with that problem.

It takes a damaged person to commit those atrocities to children. Not lack of nookie

Like was stated, the problem was with the cover up and allowing it to go on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't forget married men 😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Compare that to jihadists, who may have been deranged before they found Islam. But at a minimum, Islam is fueling the fire of their homicidal tendencies. And in some cases at least, Islam was the original spark.

Comparing jihadists to the gay priests is crazy. Better to compare them to those who bomb abortion clinics, those are maniacs who are killing in the name of their religion. And they have killed, what, 12 people since abortion was legalized? They need to be routed from our midst, just like the jihadists.

Contrary to the article's contention that suicide bombings are about strictly secular acquisition of territory and resources, religious fervor is an important part of the equation.

The example of Tamil Tigers, Marxists, once being the world leader in suicide attacks, negating the idea that religious fervor is the sole motive for those attacks, misses the overall point that doctrine is motive whether its secular Marxism or fundamentalist Islam. Both types of suicide bombings are matters of doctrine. It would be idiotic for a suicide bomber to kill himself in order to gain territory or resources, at least so in this earthly life. But it would be rational if he believes he would gain resources in the next life.

And the article misses the whole point of Islam. The article separates secular desire from religious desire. That separation may exist in most other major religions, but there is no such separation in Islam. Islam, in its theocratic doctrine, is a secular religion. It is closer to Marxism than to Western secular democracy. And, like Marxism, it wishes to expand its territorial dominance worldwide. The major difference between the two, I suppose, is some notion of an all powerful Allah in one, and an all powerful dictatorship of some proletariat in the other. But in the end, each physically eliminates or subjugates dissidents and creates a utopia for the faithful. Socialism is not a whole lot different.

The article says 95% of suicide attacks since 1980 have in common that all are a response to military intervention. Even though there may have been different doctrines which provoked the suicide attacks, whether Marxists, nationalistic, religious, etc., it, again emphasizes the common thread, "military intervention," and avoids the different threads of doctrine. Which subtly negates the importance of doctrine.

And it discounts the motive for military intervention. It is cast as the sole boogey man. But military intervention is also a matter of doctrine. And there are different doctrinal motives for intervention. Some, as in US intervention, are actually a response to a foreign doctrine, such as Islam, that has attacked the US and threatens to continue to do so. And, in the case of Islam, its attacks have occurred before military intervention as a means to establish Islamic control.

The article wants to make foreign occupation as the motive for ISIS suicide bombings, but it doesn't account for the spread of so-called radical Islamism other than tracing the emergence of ISIS back to Afghan resistance to soviet occupation. But he doesn't account for the spread of Islam into previously unoccupied territories which were not Islamic. That spread has been true of Islam since its founding. Before Islam, the Middle East was diverse with a good deal of territory being Christian or Jewish. Not long ago, Lebanon was 80% Christian. Now it's more than 80% Muslim and growing more so.

The takeover of the Middle East and other Eastern countries by Islam was not due to revolts against foreign occupation. Islam was the invader of non-Islamic territories. It was not foreign "military intervention" against Muslims which created the expansion of Islam, it was the military intervention and terroristic tactics of Muslims against others which created that expansion. It was a theocratic radical named Muhammad who created a doctrine which called for world domination by his followers.

The article uses Abu Hamza as a source. Yet Abu Hamza became disillusioned with ISIS because the leaders, according to him, were not "good Muslims." That is, "they just wanted power." He called the foreign recruits "good Muslims." I presume by that he meant they were inspired by Islam not by acquisition of power. But the problem with that is that what he calls "good Muslims" have a different view of Islam than did its founder. Even the leaders of the epicenters of Islam, Saudi Arabia and Iran, have different views of Islam than what Hamza naively believes are "good Muslims." As McCarthy pointed out in the article posted by fishpart, what fundamentalist Islamists such as the Blind Sheikh, and by extension others such as ISIS, practice is in accordance to Islam's founding scripture. "Moderate" Muslims, like Hamza perhaps is, believe Islam is some religion of peace even though that is not demonstrated by scripture. As McCarthy pointed out, average Muslims can't answer fundamental questions about their theocracy. They leave that up to the Islamic scholars, such as the Blind Sheikh for instance, to say what doctrine means. And if they say Islam is a religion of peace, they literally accept that. Some, like Hamza, also accept that it is their duty, as a "good muslim" to jihad against those who threaten Islam. But, from what Hamza said about the leaders of ISIS, he probably would not agree with what Muhammad did if he knew the historical record rather than accepting the religious indoctrination that Muhammad was the perfect man. And if all "good" people, as he no doubt assumes he is, felt back in the day, as he does now, Islam may never have been created.

A reformation of Islam would have to condemn its founder in the same way that so many Muslims now claim to condemn radical Islamists. So a reformation of Islam would require the evolution of a totally new religion.

what the hell are you smokin' lately :rotf2:

I would assume that if police thought the area was too violent to patrol then yes, it would be a hotbed of violence.

What's sad is that the police were there, they even knew the location of the Paris attacker yet failed to notify federal authorities.

Bigger security issues here are the cultural unwillingness to assimilate immigrants, extreme privacy laws and systemic communication failures from local to the EU.

Arizona officials decry long voting queues
 

Deleted

How does it help the GOP to suppress Democratic voting in the primary? In the general election, yes. In the primary? What's to be gained?

All it means Jeff is that people get nervous when they enter an environment that has the potential for hostility,even police.I appreciate your opinion, however every country has areas in their security to exploit. I stand by my original statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought I hit new thread guess not

your opinion of what is or is not prudent is of no concern of these terrorists, they flew planes into buildings but you are scared of candidates suggesting preventative measures. This is America, when threatened, we defend, that is what we do, this president won't go on offense apparently, he won't even say the words radical Islamic.

There is smart and then there is stupid


did you read about this poor guy? Members of Islam want to kill you too
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016...-happy-easter/

Jeff : "Please don' t harm me, I voted for Hillary."
Terrorist: "You have a purty mouth."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The suicide blast, in the eastern Pakistan city of Lahore, killed at least 69 people, a local government spokesman told CNN.

"Mostly women and children are killed and injured in the blast target Christians and others near a kids amusement park ride



Its not just Americans or European or our way of life that extremist target they just want to kill violence is their only weapon 1 bomb gives them more advertising and voice than a 1million peaceful protest

They don't need much of a reason to kill