4
4
0
From "The Independent"
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/islamic-history-is-full-of-free-thinkers--but-recent-attempts-to-suppress-critical-thought-are-verging-on-the-absurd-9993777.html?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=*Democracy%20Lab&utm_campaign=Democracy%20Lab%20Weekly%20Brief%2C%20Jan.%2026%2C%202015
Islamic history is full of free thinkers - but recent attempts to suppress critical thought are verging on the absurd
"This has nothing to do with Islam," say the imams. "These callous and fanatic murders have nothing to do with us," say the mullahs. "Islam means peace," say the worshippers. These disclaimers, and variations on them, have been repeated countless times by Muslim commentators since the Charlie Hebdo killings. They are designed to distance people from guilt by association with those who kill and maim in the name of Islam.
But what about the sentence recently handed down to the (mildly) liberal blogger Raif Badawi in the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia? Ten years in jail, a massive fine, 1,000 lashes over 20 weeks (currently suspended because the first 50 lashes have rendered him "medically unfit")? Does this have "nothing to do with Islam"? Does the hashtag "Je suis un couteau" – referring to this week's stabbing of 11 Israelis on a bus – have "nothing to do with Islam"? Not to mention the 10 Christians killed during Charlie protests in Niger last week, or the ongoing depredations of al-Qaeda, Isis, Boko Haram, the Taliban and the Laskar Jihad of Indonesia?
The psychotic followers of these organisations all think that they are Muslims, and their Islam is based on beliefs that millions who subscribe to Wahhabism, the Saudi version of the religion – and its kin, Salafism – accept as essential ingredients of their faith. For example, that sharia, or Islamic law, is divinely ordained and immutable; that apostates and blasphemers should be killed; that women should be shrouded and confined to four walls and that men are their guardians.
This is a widespread version of Islam, made more so by modern communications; increasingly gaining followers in Europe, it can be, and is, used to justify all manner of atrocities. Yet this is an Islam of manufactured dogma which relies on neither the Koran nor the example of the Prophet Mohamed.
So where do these beliefs come from? From today's extremist leaders, of course. But also, historically, from caliphs and clerics who realised that religion could perform a very useful function: it could keep the masses in their place and ensure that power remained in the hands of a select few.
[EDITORIAL COMMENT:- It gets even more interesting once you consider the last twenty words of the C&P on a historical basis. Heck, it could even apply to "Open Mouth" radio.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/islamic-history-is-full-of-free-thinkers--but-recent-attempts-to-suppress-critical-thought-are-verging-on-the-absurd-9993777.html?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=*Democracy%20Lab&utm_campaign=Democracy%20Lab%20Weekly%20Brief%2C%20Jan.%2026%2C%202015
Islamic history is full of free thinkers - but recent attempts to suppress critical thought are verging on the absurd
"This has nothing to do with Islam," say the imams. "These callous and fanatic murders have nothing to do with us," say the mullahs. "Islam means peace," say the worshippers. These disclaimers, and variations on them, have been repeated countless times by Muslim commentators since the Charlie Hebdo killings. They are designed to distance people from guilt by association with those who kill and maim in the name of Islam.
But what about the sentence recently handed down to the (mildly) liberal blogger Raif Badawi in the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia? Ten years in jail, a massive fine, 1,000 lashes over 20 weeks (currently suspended because the first 50 lashes have rendered him "medically unfit")? Does this have "nothing to do with Islam"? Does the hashtag "Je suis un couteau" – referring to this week's stabbing of 11 Israelis on a bus – have "nothing to do with Islam"? Not to mention the 10 Christians killed during Charlie protests in Niger last week, or the ongoing depredations of al-Qaeda, Isis, Boko Haram, the Taliban and the Laskar Jihad of Indonesia?
The psychotic followers of these organisations all think that they are Muslims, and their Islam is based on beliefs that millions who subscribe to Wahhabism, the Saudi version of the religion – and its kin, Salafism – accept as essential ingredients of their faith. For example, that sharia, or Islamic law, is divinely ordained and immutable; that apostates and blasphemers should be killed; that women should be shrouded and confined to four walls and that men are their guardians.
This is a widespread version of Islam, made more so by modern communications; increasingly gaining followers in Europe, it can be, and is, used to justify all manner of atrocities. Yet this is an Islam of manufactured dogma which relies on neither the Koran nor the example of the Prophet Mohamed.
So where do these beliefs come from? From today's extremist leaders, of course. But also, historically, from caliphs and clerics who realised that religion could perform a very useful function: it could keep the masses in their place and ensure that power remained in the hands of a select few.
[EDITORIAL COMMENT:- It gets even more interesting once you consider the last twenty words of the C&P on a historical basis. Heck, it could even apply to "Open Mouth" radio.
Islam
Terrorism
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 30
7
7
0
If they're claiming that they do what they do in the name of Islam, then in my book they are Islamic terrorists.
(7)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CW5 (Join to see) Mr. Montgomery; The problem (as I see it) is that [EWAG here] the vast majority are unable to keep the distinction between "Islamic Terrorist" and "Muslim" clear and that the only way to try and head off calls for mass slaughter simply on the basis of religion (and without regard to what the person has done) is to make a SHARP distinction between "murderous sociopaths who are justifying their actions on their personal interpretation of Islam" and "Muslims"
I also agree with SSgt Kevin Chavez that we have to stop playing down the mindless violence aspect of the terrorists' behaviour (by concentrating on their religion) AND also stop "glorifying" mindless violence (even if it means the elimination of better than half of all TV programs and movies. [Unfortunately that would also mean the end of movies etc. that portrayed people like William Bonney as heroes and require that they be shown as the thugs and murderous thieves they were.]
I also agree with SSgt Kevin Chavez that we have to stop playing down the mindless violence aspect of the terrorists' behaviour (by concentrating on their religion) AND also stop "glorifying" mindless violence (even if it means the elimination of better than half of all TV programs and movies. [Unfortunately that would also mean the end of movies etc. that portrayed people like William Bonney as heroes and require that they be shown as the thugs and murderous thieves they were.]
(3)
(0)
PO1 Joseph Glennon
Even though they *are* Terrorists in general, and Islamic Terrorists specifically; since they are following the example of their prophet, and the commands / dictates in the Koran - I'm satisfied just calling them Muslims or MTBs (Muslim True Believers).
(0)
(0)
SFC William Farrell
They are terrorists, plain and simple. Does anyone really believe that Islam teaches them to wage terrorism against innocent civilians? Does Islam teach them to cut off the heads of civilians who are trying to help alleviate the suffering? Does Islam teach them to burn a man alive in a cage because he was a pilot who carried out bombing attacks on their fellow terrorists? I have not read the Koran and perhaps I should but from what I have heard, it does not teach that.
Please call it for what it is, terrorism, nothing else.
Please call it for what it is, terrorism, nothing else.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
If you have the word "Islamic" in the name of your group, or you claim to be doing what you're doing in the name of Islam, then you are an "Islamic terrorist."
(5)
(0)
SFC Jeff L.
COL Ted Mc Ted, this is the last thing I have to say about it. You asked for opinions and I gave mine. If you're trying to convince everyone to your way of thinking, then this probably isn't the forum for that.
I think they're Islamic Terrorists, not because I want to legitimize them or for any other nonsensical reason you can come up with. I take them at their word. THEY are in a religious war with us. They identify THEMSELVES as Islamic this-or-that. Who am I to say they aren't? I call them what they call themselves, and that is "islamic".
As to Mormon or martian "terrorists" (I have yet to see either) if they identified themselves as the Militant Mormon Brigade Freedom Fighters of Utah, and ran around beheading people for not meeting their demands, then I suppose it would be appropriate to call them "mormon terrorists." But since there seems to be only ONE religion on the planet at this moment in history that is doing it, I'm afraid we have to say "Islamic Terrorists."
I think they're Islamic Terrorists, not because I want to legitimize them or for any other nonsensical reason you can come up with. I take them at their word. THEY are in a religious war with us. They identify THEMSELVES as Islamic this-or-that. Who am I to say they aren't? I call them what they call themselves, and that is "islamic".
As to Mormon or martian "terrorists" (I have yet to see either) if they identified themselves as the Militant Mormon Brigade Freedom Fighters of Utah, and ran around beheading people for not meeting their demands, then I suppose it would be appropriate to call them "mormon terrorists." But since there seems to be only ONE religion on the planet at this moment in history that is doing it, I'm afraid we have to say "Islamic Terrorists."
(2)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
"The KKK is more of a political and social organization using religion to justify its crimes. Their intent was intimidation and suppression" -
I could be wrong, but I think you made the colonel's point for him.
I could be wrong, but I think you made the colonel's point for him.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LCDR (Join to see) - Lieutenant; Thank you. It's always "fun" to encourage someone to defeat themselves. (It also produces fewer casualties amongst "the friendlies".)
(1)
(0)
SFC Jeff L.
LCDR (Join to see) Negative, and Ted well was aware of that. He was attempting to equate the KKK with ISIS. As noted in the quote you used they were a political and social organization first and foremost. The religious aspect was secondary. In the case of ISIS/IL they are primarily a religious organization. They do what they do to further their religion, or their interpretation thereof. The two groups are motivated by different things - religion vs race. In retrospect I suppose that is probably the more appropriate and relevant point to illustrate their differences. Defending your crime by cherry-picking selected verses from the Bible is not the same, in my opinion, as being a religious organization. The kkk isn't trying to make everyone Southern Baptist on threat of death or dismemberment.
Ted is an islamic apologist and PC practitioner plain and simple. His obfuscation tactics were apparent straight out of the gate. Rather than address his thread topic head-on he would rather deflect any rational point by by creating false equity between ISIS/IL and any other straw he could grasp at.
Ted is an islamic apologist and PC practitioner plain and simple. His obfuscation tactics were apparent straight out of the gate. Rather than address his thread topic head-on he would rather deflect any rational point by by creating false equity between ISIS/IL and any other straw he could grasp at.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
"This has nothing to do with Islam," say the imams. "These callous and fanatic murders have nothing to do with us," say the mullahs. "Islam means peace," say the worshippers. These disclaimers, and variations on them, have been repeated countless times by Muslim commentators since the Charlie Hebdo killings. They are designed to distance people from guilt by association with those who kill and maim in the name of Islam.
And Islam also has this thing called Taqiyya, where Muslims are encouraged to lie, and be like Allah, whom they revere as the 'Greatest of Deceivers'. So why would I believe anything the so-called moderates say? Other moderates, like PM Erdogan of Turkey insist that there is no such thing as moderate Islam. Erdogan says it is insulting to say there are moderate Muslims and according to him, "Islam is Islam!"
IF they commit random acts of terror, they are terrorists; IF they are commiting acts of violence to advance the cause of Islam (as ISIS claims to be doing), AND/OR IF they say "Allah Akbar!" (as Major Hassan did at Fort Hood), they're Islamic Terrorists. If they subsidize groups identified as Islamic Terror Groups, they are no different than the people they support who are pulling the triggers.
And Islam also has this thing called Taqiyya, where Muslims are encouraged to lie, and be like Allah, whom they revere as the 'Greatest of Deceivers'. So why would I believe anything the so-called moderates say? Other moderates, like PM Erdogan of Turkey insist that there is no such thing as moderate Islam. Erdogan says it is insulting to say there are moderate Muslims and according to him, "Islam is Islam!"
IF they commit random acts of terror, they are terrorists; IF they are commiting acts of violence to advance the cause of Islam (as ISIS claims to be doing), AND/OR IF they say "Allah Akbar!" (as Major Hassan did at Fort Hood), they're Islamic Terrorists. If they subsidize groups identified as Islamic Terror Groups, they are no different than the people they support who are pulling the triggers.
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Capt Jeff S. Captain; Is your attitude similar to that of Mr. Bush when he was taking Saddam Hussein's denials of having "vast stockpiles of WMD" ad PROOF that he did have them?
If you tar those who are innocent with the brush of the guilty, does that do anything to assist the situation?
I am not denying that the terrorists profess to be Muslims and claim to be acting "in the name of Islam", but I do question the utility of whipping up hatred against over 1,500,000,000 people for the acts of a few.
Two quick questions, "What do you propose that the United States of America do about the Saudis and Pakistanis who have a lengthy history of supporting terrorism in the Middle East?" and "What do you propose that the government of the United States of America do about those 'American friendly' countries in Africa, Asia, and South America who have a lengthy history of internal terrorism (carried out by their own governments)?".
If you tar those who are innocent with the brush of the guilty, does that do anything to assist the situation?
I am not denying that the terrorists profess to be Muslims and claim to be acting "in the name of Islam", but I do question the utility of whipping up hatred against over 1,500,000,000 people for the acts of a few.
Two quick questions, "What do you propose that the United States of America do about the Saudis and Pakistanis who have a lengthy history of supporting terrorism in the Middle East?" and "What do you propose that the government of the United States of America do about those 'American friendly' countries in Africa, Asia, and South America who have a lengthy history of internal terrorism (carried out by their own governments)?".
(0)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
Saddam did have WMD. He destroyed some of it, and some of it went to Syria, where his Baath Party was headquartered. If Iraq didn't have WMD, then what did these Kurds die from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack
The WORLD needs to take a stand against radical Islam. Consider Turkey, a so-called "moderate" / secular Islamic country. It's popularly elected PM Erdogan, whom the people demonstrated against for not representing their interests, stated that the term moderate Muslim was ugly and offensive and that "Islam is Islam."
If Islam is Islam, then the entire so-called religion is NOT peaceful and DOES NOT COEXIST, because it is wholly incompatible with ANY OTHER religion or form of gov't. It is a political system that has components of religion, as well as a Sharia judicial system that is at odds with our own system of justice.
So let's do some math. If we have 1.5 billion muslims in the world and just .1% of them are radical... How many is that, that are actively at war with the West and trying to kill us? 1.5 million? Can we ignore that?
EVERYWHERE Islam is you have violence and trouble. We do NOT need that here nor do we want it. I have a simple solution and it isn't PC:
BAN ISLAM.
Is that so hard to understand seeing as in just about every Muslim country there is effectively a ban on everything BUT ISLAM? We would simply be applying their own rules to them. If they whine about it, I'd tell them, when Christians can build a cathedral in Mecca and worship freely, you are welcome back here.
So if you want to be Muslim, you are free to leave to go to any one other country that accepts Islam. But while you are here, you aren't going to practice Islam. You aren't going to wear the Hijab. You aren't going to have mosques, training camps, or websites promoting your false religion. I'd seize all bank accounts belonging to CAIR and these other so called peaceful groups that have ties to terrorism. If they are found to be using the social media to advance the cause of Islam, I'd put a block on their websites, take away their citizenship and deport them. What? Isn't that against the First Amendment? Not when the group is at war with our society. Free speech comes with an obligation to be civil and not infringe upon the rights of others to their own pursuit of happiness. There would be a lot of griping and grumbling but in the end, we wouldn't be dealing with their mess here. The rest of the world would be cheering us and following suit. Europe needs to regain control of its cities and this assault on Western values needs to be stopped.
Islam doesn't recognize the sovereignty of our laws. The only thing it respects is strength so we will negotiate on our terms from a position of strength in dealing with Islam. And if Islam can't abide by OUR rules, it can't be tolerated here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack
The WORLD needs to take a stand against radical Islam. Consider Turkey, a so-called "moderate" / secular Islamic country. It's popularly elected PM Erdogan, whom the people demonstrated against for not representing their interests, stated that the term moderate Muslim was ugly and offensive and that "Islam is Islam."
If Islam is Islam, then the entire so-called religion is NOT peaceful and DOES NOT COEXIST, because it is wholly incompatible with ANY OTHER religion or form of gov't. It is a political system that has components of religion, as well as a Sharia judicial system that is at odds with our own system of justice.
So let's do some math. If we have 1.5 billion muslims in the world and just .1% of them are radical... How many is that, that are actively at war with the West and trying to kill us? 1.5 million? Can we ignore that?
EVERYWHERE Islam is you have violence and trouble. We do NOT need that here nor do we want it. I have a simple solution and it isn't PC:
BAN ISLAM.
Is that so hard to understand seeing as in just about every Muslim country there is effectively a ban on everything BUT ISLAM? We would simply be applying their own rules to them. If they whine about it, I'd tell them, when Christians can build a cathedral in Mecca and worship freely, you are welcome back here.
So if you want to be Muslim, you are free to leave to go to any one other country that accepts Islam. But while you are here, you aren't going to practice Islam. You aren't going to wear the Hijab. You aren't going to have mosques, training camps, or websites promoting your false religion. I'd seize all bank accounts belonging to CAIR and these other so called peaceful groups that have ties to terrorism. If they are found to be using the social media to advance the cause of Islam, I'd put a block on their websites, take away their citizenship and deport them. What? Isn't that against the First Amendment? Not when the group is at war with our society. Free speech comes with an obligation to be civil and not infringe upon the rights of others to their own pursuit of happiness. There would be a lot of griping and grumbling but in the end, we wouldn't be dealing with their mess here. The rest of the world would be cheering us and following suit. Europe needs to regain control of its cities and this assault on Western values needs to be stopped.
Islam doesn't recognize the sovereignty of our laws. The only thing it respects is strength so we will negotiate on our terms from a position of strength in dealing with Islam. And if Islam can't abide by OUR rules, it can't be tolerated here.
Halabja chemical attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Halabja chemical attack (Kurdish: Kîmyabarana Helebce کیمیابارانی ھەڵەبجە), also known as the Halabja Massacre or Bloody Friday,[1] was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988, during the closing days of the Iran–Iraq War in the Kurdish city of Halabja in Southern Kurdistan. The attack was part of the Al-Anfal campaign in northern Iraq, as well as part of the Iraqi attempt to repel the Iranian...
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
"This has nothing to do with Islam," say the imams. "These callous and fanatic murders have nothing to do with us," say the mullahs. "Islam means peace," say the worshippers. These disclaimers, and variations on them, have been repeated countless times by Muslim commentators since the Charlie Hebdo killings. They are designed to distance people from guilt by association with those who kill and maim in the name of Islam.
- Do I need to make a run-down of all the Christians who have done the exact same thing, or can you just agree this is a hypocritical statement?
- Do I need to make a run-down of all the Christians who have done the exact same thing, or can you just agree this is a hypocritical statement?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
COL Ted Mc
You won't get any argument from me on that one.
On the other hand, I'm really opposed to the "Kill them all and let Allah sort them out." philosophy espoused by some.
PS - When I speak of "hitting targets" I do NOT use the Internationally Accepted Air Force Definition "All bombs on target, none of them missed the ground.".
On the other hand, I'm really opposed to the "Kill them all and let Allah sort them out." philosophy espoused by some.
PS - When I speak of "hitting targets" I do NOT use the Internationally Accepted Air Force Definition "All bombs on target, none of them missed the ground.".
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
COL Ted Mc, terrorists are vermin. They should be eliminated at every opportunity. But to really beat them, you have to deny what motivated them to do what they do, as well as the means to do it.
Go after their revenue streams.
Go after their base of support within the population. Give the regular folks viable alternatives to siding with the militants.
Marginalize them by delegitimizing their message - the one that lures in recruits and financial support.
Without those things, insurgencies wither and die, leaving the remaining true believers much easier targets for assets at our disposal.
As a country at the decision-making level, we seem to neither get that nor inculcate that concept in the mind of those charged to execute it.
Whack-a-mole with drones just won't get it done.
Go after their revenue streams.
Go after their base of support within the population. Give the regular folks viable alternatives to siding with the militants.
Marginalize them by delegitimizing their message - the one that lures in recruits and financial support.
Without those things, insurgencies wither and die, leaving the remaining true believers much easier targets for assets at our disposal.
As a country at the decision-making level, we seem to neither get that nor inculcate that concept in the mind of those charged to execute it.
Whack-a-mole with drones just won't get it done.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
1st Sergeant; You are almost 100% correct. The only way to eliminate an indigenous resistance force is to remove its support base - and that means (in many cases) removing the ACTUAL underlying grievances.
Attempting to eliminate an indigenous resistance force by eliminating the indigenous population [a] doesn't work, [b] creates incredibly bad PR, [c] doesn't work, [d] is illegal, [e] doesn't work, [f] is against all the proclaimed values we stand for, and [g] doesn't work.
While it is true that "Whack-a-mole with drones just won't get it done." - it does create marvellous opportunities for politician's photo-ops as well as generating mega-buck earnings for the industries in politicians' bailiwicks.
Remember, the REALLY important thing in any war is to get re-elected.
Attempting to eliminate an indigenous resistance force by eliminating the indigenous population [a] doesn't work, [b] creates incredibly bad PR, [c] doesn't work, [d] is illegal, [e] doesn't work, [f] is against all the proclaimed values we stand for, and [g] doesn't work.
While it is true that "Whack-a-mole with drones just won't get it done." - it does create marvellous opportunities for politician's photo-ops as well as generating mega-buck earnings for the industries in politicians' bailiwicks.
Remember, the REALLY important thing in any war is to get re-elected.
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Cripes, sir. That is cynical.
Nobody said to attack their population. I will concede that it is highly effective to put them on the defensive by operating in their rear areas; they are a whole lot less likely to run if their homes are at stake.
Let's examine the current primary sources of terrorism:
1. ISIL/ ISIS/ IS - No real grievance that they have articulated all that well. They seem to just be hell-bent on establishing their own country and generally be barbarians.
My solution: let them exhaust themselves banging away at a population that will grow tired of their antics, let them pillage the area until there is nothing left, then try to govern what is left, let them fight Assad, who is very nearly as big an asshole as they are. When this has run it's course, help our "friends" in the area clean up the mess... but not too much.
2. The Taliban - Their gripe is that they want power. More than the other tribal groups outside Pashtu will cede.
My solution - this actually addresses our gripe, that the Taliban fostered an environment that allowed Al Queda to flourish and execute attacks against the US. Let it go. They can have their crap hole of a country. The only strategic threat the Taliban presents is only due to their access to narco-money. Concentrate on interdicting that. It should be pretty easy, considering the limited means to transport the product to market.
Al Queda - their stated gripe is the existence of Israel and the US in the Middle East. Neither are going away, unless we decide we don't need the Arab's oil resources. My solution: drill baby drill. Then we park our giant Navy with no job off their coast the next time they act up and NOBODY buys their oil. They will fold in under a month.
Frankly, I could give a damn what their greivances are. It is the oldest trick in the book: "life here sucks, but don't blame me. It is the Jews/ foreigners/ opposition/... fault. The things they complain about have nothing to do with the objectives they really strive for, nor the methods employed.
It is time for us to stop messing around with these clowns and go hard, or not at all.
Nobody said to attack their population. I will concede that it is highly effective to put them on the defensive by operating in their rear areas; they are a whole lot less likely to run if their homes are at stake.
Let's examine the current primary sources of terrorism:
1. ISIL/ ISIS/ IS - No real grievance that they have articulated all that well. They seem to just be hell-bent on establishing their own country and generally be barbarians.
My solution: let them exhaust themselves banging away at a population that will grow tired of their antics, let them pillage the area until there is nothing left, then try to govern what is left, let them fight Assad, who is very nearly as big an asshole as they are. When this has run it's course, help our "friends" in the area clean up the mess... but not too much.
2. The Taliban - Their gripe is that they want power. More than the other tribal groups outside Pashtu will cede.
My solution - this actually addresses our gripe, that the Taliban fostered an environment that allowed Al Queda to flourish and execute attacks against the US. Let it go. They can have their crap hole of a country. The only strategic threat the Taliban presents is only due to their access to narco-money. Concentrate on interdicting that. It should be pretty easy, considering the limited means to transport the product to market.
Al Queda - their stated gripe is the existence of Israel and the US in the Middle East. Neither are going away, unless we decide we don't need the Arab's oil resources. My solution: drill baby drill. Then we park our giant Navy with no job off their coast the next time they act up and NOBODY buys their oil. They will fold in under a month.
Frankly, I could give a damn what their greivances are. It is the oldest trick in the book: "life here sucks, but don't blame me. It is the Jews/ foreigners/ opposition/... fault. The things they complain about have nothing to do with the objectives they really strive for, nor the methods employed.
It is time for us to stop messing around with these clowns and go hard, or not at all.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
COL Ted Mc I would vote just "terrorists" whose cause or "rationale" is based on their view of Islam. However, the best type of terrorists, regardless of type, is a dead terrorists.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
They are Infidels but no one says it, they are not Muslims because they violate the Ten Commandments and do not follow the The Five Pillars of Islam so they are not Islam. We are caught in their web of deceit and add to their belief system. This is similar to treating pedophile priest as priest and moving them around to new places. Notice the change once they started locking up these perverts and the Catholic church got sued. IS stand for the Infidel State of Murders.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT Pedro Meza Captain; It is simple human nature not to want to admit that our ancestors/religion/leaders/country were ever anything less than perfect.
It is somewhat more difficult to celebrate the fact that we have arrived where we are DESPITE our ancestors/religion/leaders/country than BECAUSE OF them.
Personally I think that there is more to celebrate when you have overcome a handicap and achieved greatness than there is when it is simply handed to you on a silver platter. (It also makes you start to look for the next challenge to overcome rather than sitting back and stagnating "just because" you know that you will always have your rewards handed to you since you are entitled to them.
It is somewhat more difficult to celebrate the fact that we have arrived where we are DESPITE our ancestors/religion/leaders/country than BECAUSE OF them.
Personally I think that there is more to celebrate when you have overcome a handicap and achieved greatness than there is when it is simply handed to you on a silver platter. (It also makes you start to look for the next challenge to overcome rather than sitting back and stagnating "just because" you know that you will always have your rewards handed to you since you are entitled to them.
(1)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
Sir good point on human nature, but that is also the problem these Infidels understand it better then us and use it. The enemy applies the lessons of Sun Zu Art of War effectively, to which the only solution is to identify them as Infidels that break their religious laws and push for the media to report it; educate so that it takes away their recruits. That is why I say arm their women and have women take the fight to them because that is what is waiting for them in heaven an eternity of armed women. That too is Sun Zu.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT Pedro Meza - Captain; I ran across the following the other day and thought that you might like it especially if you read as far as the
"That impact was hard to avoid during the in-your-face combat Quick and his troops fought in Zhari. Their opponents set off bombs that killed and maimed indiscriminately, terrorized civilians and pushed an uncompromising, harsh brand of Islam. Yet the fighters themselves were often no more than 17, frequently jacked up on stimulants and, dead on the battlefield, seemed less than fearsome.
“They’re not like our kids. They’re not strong, well-nourished people … They’re teeny,” says Quick. “When you see them laying there, it’s surreal. They’re little, frail drug addicts.”"
bit.
This is just one more piece of evidence that ISIS is NOT following "The Way of the Prophet".
PS - I don't think that it is only the Canadian soldiers who are prepared for the reality of war. (Actually you can NEVER be 100% prepared for "the reality of war" - even after you have wiped someone's guts off your face.)
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-soldiers-unprepared-for-the-reality-of-killing-retired-officer-says
"That impact was hard to avoid during the in-your-face combat Quick and his troops fought in Zhari. Their opponents set off bombs that killed and maimed indiscriminately, terrorized civilians and pushed an uncompromising, harsh brand of Islam. Yet the fighters themselves were often no more than 17, frequently jacked up on stimulants and, dead on the battlefield, seemed less than fearsome.
“They’re not like our kids. They’re not strong, well-nourished people … They’re teeny,” says Quick. “When you see them laying there, it’s surreal. They’re little, frail drug addicts.”"
bit.
This is just one more piece of evidence that ISIS is NOT following "The Way of the Prophet".
PS - I don't think that it is only the Canadian soldiers who are prepared for the reality of war. (Actually you can NEVER be 100% prepared for "the reality of war" - even after you have wiped someone's guts off your face.)
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-soldiers-unprepared-for-the-reality-of-killing-retired-officer-says
Canadian soldiers unprepared for the reality of killing, retired officer warns
The aftermath of Dave Quick's troops' first firefight was a rude awakening. When they saw the insurgents they killed some giggled nervously, gagged or trembled at the sight
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
I see ISIS leadership from the point of view of Sun Zu, which leads me to belief that we are either dealing with strategy planners or a puppet leadership that is being used. Care to discuss the possibilities of a puppet master?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Everyone seems to be fine with making sure "Islam" or "Islamic" are attached to these terrorist groups but my question to everyone here is, what if they were Christian?
I remember many Christians claiming that the Westboro Baptist Church were not true Christians.
I remember many Christians claiming that the Westboro Baptist Church were not true Christians.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SGT James Elphick - Sergeant; I believe that you are confusing "them" with "us" and "we" can't have that happen because "they" are evil and "we" are good.
(0)
(0)
SGT James Elphick
COL Ted Mc first of all, what? I'm not sure I understand your response. The point I am trying to make is that there are terrorist of all ilks, but everyone seems ready to attach Islam to these terrorist organizations but I wonder if they would feel the same if these were Christians. Basically, if the shoe was on the other foot and there were Christians terrorizing the Middle East in the name of Christianity, would everyone still react in the same manner?
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SGT James Elphick - Sergeant; OK, I'll try and make it clearer.
"WE" are "Christians".
"THEY" are "Muslims".
"WE" are "The Good Guys".
"THEY" are "The Bad Guys".
"WE" are not "terrorists".
"THEY" are "terrorists".
Therefore there can be no such thing as a "Christian Terrorist" (there is no way that "The Good Guys" ["WE"] can be "terrorists" ["THEM"]) and there can be no such thing as a "non-terrorist ["WE"] Muslim" ["THEM"].
I mean, face it, the logic is inescapable - right?
"WE" are "Christians".
"THEY" are "Muslims".
"WE" are "The Good Guys".
"THEY" are "The Bad Guys".
"WE" are not "terrorists".
"THEY" are "terrorists".
Therefore there can be no such thing as a "Christian Terrorist" (there is no way that "The Good Guys" ["WE"] can be "terrorists" ["THEM"]) and there can be no such thing as a "non-terrorist ["WE"] Muslim" ["THEM"].
I mean, face it, the logic is inescapable - right?
(0)
(0)
SGT James Elphick
I see what you are saying now COL Ted Mc and you are right, for many people, that logic is inescapable. That makes sense. Thank you for your response
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SrA Edward Vong - Airman; BINGO!
And a non-terrorist is a non-terrorist regardless or race, gender, or religion.
And a non-terrorist is a non-terrorist regardless or race, gender, or religion.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
They are always quoting the Koran, praising Ala, calling their murderous actions justified/directed by Mohammad, and publicizing the killings of their religious rivals/enemies.
YES, they are Islamic Terrorists!
YES, they are Islamic Terrorists!
(1)
(0)
PO3 Ken Jeschonek
Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner
http://www.politicalislam.com More videos here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0Uu4XnRS1hiz3JCpNFIuUg/videos For a version with English Subtitles: http://...
COL Ted Mc, sir. What does your first sentence have to do with anything previously said/stated? Show me a group of Jew’s, Christian’s or any other for that fact, that in the last 2000 years have been moving towards the end game of world domination and total population submissiveness?
Statement #2 is an oxymoron because I never disputed; contested or said anything to the contrary that Islam wasn’t all about conquering and world domination. Mohammad’s end game is total rule and domination and he doesn’t hide that fact, he preached it.
???WHAT???
“…cynical…sincerity…beliefs… "line troops"?...misled,…not sincere.
…cynical…sincerity…beliefs…"leadership"? Damn straight I am.”
???WHAT???
-Please watch in its entirety-
https://youtu.be/t_Qpy0mXg8Y
Statement #2 is an oxymoron because I never disputed; contested or said anything to the contrary that Islam wasn’t all about conquering and world domination. Mohammad’s end game is total rule and domination and he doesn’t hide that fact, he preached it.
???WHAT???
“…cynical…sincerity…beliefs… "line troops"?...misled,…not sincere.
…cynical…sincerity…beliefs…"leadership"? Damn straight I am.”
???WHAT???
-Please watch in its entirety-
https://youtu.be/t_Qpy0mXg8Y
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO3 Ken Jeschonek - PO; You ask me "What does the your first sentence have to do with anything previously said/stated?" and I'll tell you.
You defined a group of terrorists on the basis of what they claimed to be. I provided you with a hypothetical claim and asked you if you would define that group on the basis of what it claimed to be. Then I asked you the same question based on the hypothetical that the claim was bogus - BUT STILL MADE.
Then you asked me to show you a group of Jews, Christians, or any other for that fact that in the last 2,000 years have been moving towards the end game of world domination and total population submissiveness.
Fair enough, let's start with the Roman Catholic Church. Then we can switch to the Nazis (which is not to say that I'm equating the Nazis with the RCC). Then we can switch to England (which is not to say that I'm equating England with either the RCC or the Nazis). Then we can switch to "International Capitalism" (which is not to say that I'm equating "International Capitalism" with either the RCC or the Nazis or England). ALL of those groups sought "world domination" and all of those groups sought "total population submissiveness".
Practically every major religion has striven for "world domination" and "total population control".
Practically every major country has striven for "world domination" and "total population control".
Of course the details are in the definition of "world domination" and "total population control". Sometimes "world domination" simply means "We can do whatever we feel like doing without anyone seriously opposing us.". Sometimes "total population control" simply means "You can do whatever you want to do PROVIDED that we don't care if you do it.".
You defined a group of terrorists on the basis of what they claimed to be. I provided you with a hypothetical claim and asked you if you would define that group on the basis of what it claimed to be. Then I asked you the same question based on the hypothetical that the claim was bogus - BUT STILL MADE.
Then you asked me to show you a group of Jews, Christians, or any other for that fact that in the last 2,000 years have been moving towards the end game of world domination and total population submissiveness.
Fair enough, let's start with the Roman Catholic Church. Then we can switch to the Nazis (which is not to say that I'm equating the Nazis with the RCC). Then we can switch to England (which is not to say that I'm equating England with either the RCC or the Nazis). Then we can switch to "International Capitalism" (which is not to say that I'm equating "International Capitalism" with either the RCC or the Nazis or England). ALL of those groups sought "world domination" and all of those groups sought "total population submissiveness".
Practically every major religion has striven for "world domination" and "total population control".
Practically every major country has striven for "world domination" and "total population control".
Of course the details are in the definition of "world domination" and "total population control". Sometimes "world domination" simply means "We can do whatever we feel like doing without anyone seriously opposing us.". Sometimes "total population control" simply means "You can do whatever you want to do PROVIDED that we don't care if you do it.".
(0)
(0)
PO3 Ken Jeschonek
COL Ted Mc (ret), sorry but real world events called me away the past couple days.
Jesus, Jews, Star Wars, Nazis’, England and ‘The Roman Catholic Church’… I’m sorry but the topic of conversation with this thread is “Are They "ISLAMIC Terrorists" Or Just "Terrorists"?
You immediately deflect and drag into conversation everything but Islam. And comparing Star Wars... Star Wars? At least quote Yoda if you’re going to compare Star Wars to Islamic Terrorists!
For the most part, The Bible, The Torah, and The Jedi Code all talk and preach of peaceful domination of the unbelievers and the Universe. (Compassion, Love, Forgiveness and Understanding)
That and you didn't watch the Youtube clip I asked you watch.
Oh and here are some notable high-lights of the loving teachings of the Quran: (which aren’t hard to find either)
Quran (2:191-193) – “And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]… but if desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.”
There is a good case to be made that the textual context of this particular passage is defensive war, even if the historical context was not. However, there are also two worrisome pieces to this verse. The first is that the killing of others is authorized in the event of “persecution” (a qualification that is ambiguous at best). The second is that fighting may persist until “religion is for Allah.” The example set by Muhammad is not reassuring.
Quran (2:244) – “Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things.”
Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding caravans with this verse.
Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”
Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’).
Quran (4:74) – “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.” The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today’s suicide bombers.
Quran (4:76) – “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”
Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”
Quran (4:95) – “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-” This passage criticizes “peaceful” Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that “Jihad” doesn’t mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man’s protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).
Quran (4:104) – “And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain…” Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?
Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”
Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
Quran (8:15) – “O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey’s end.”
Quran (8:39) – “And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah” From the historical context we know that the “persecution” spoken of here was simply the refusal by the Meccans to allow Muhammad to enter their city and perform the Haj. Other Muslims were able to travel there, just not as an armed group, since Muhammad declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad’s intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until “religion is only for Allah.” According to Ibn Ishaq (324), Muhammad justified the violence further by explaining that “Allah must have no rivals.”
Quran (8:57) – “If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.”
Quran (8:59-60) – “And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy.”
Quran (8:65) – “O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight…”
Quran (9:5) – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.” According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam. Prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religions Five Pillars.
Quran (9:14) – “Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace…”
Quran (9:20) – “Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah’s way are of much greater worth in Allah’s sight. These are they who are triumphant.” The “striving” spoken of here is Jihad.
Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” “People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews. This was one of the final “revelations” from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad’s companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in just the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.
Quran (9:30) – “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”
Quran (9:38-39) – “O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place.” This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.
Quran (9:41) – “Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew.” See also the verse that follows (9:42) – “If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them” This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).
Quran (9:73) – “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.” Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that they are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today’s devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.
Quran (9:88) – “But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.”
Quran (9:111) – “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.”
Quran (9:123) – “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”
Quran (18:65-81) – This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story, which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source, tells of Moses encountering a man with “special knowledge” who does things which don’t seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would “grieve” his parents by “disobedience and ingratitude.” He was killed so that Allah could provide them a ‘better’ son.
Quran (21:44) – “We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?”
Quran (25:52) – “Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness…” “Strive against” is Jihad – obviously not in the personal context. It’s also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.
Quran (33:60-62) – “If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.” This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered “merciless” and “horrible murder” in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to “fight in the way of Allah” (3:167) and hence don’t act as Muslims should), those with “diseased hearts” (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and “alarmists” or “agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad’s biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today’s terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah’s eternal word to Muslim generations.
Quran (47:3-4) – “Those who reject Allah follow vanities, while those who believe follow the truth from their lord. Thus does Allah set forth form men their lessons by similtudes. Therefore when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,” Those who reject Allah are to be subdued in battle. The verse goes on to say the only reason Allah doesn’t do the dirty work himself is in order to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test. “But if it had been Allah’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.”
Quran (47:35) – “Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: “have the upper hand”) for Allah is with you,” This very important verse asserts that the Religion of Peace is not to grant peace to the broader society until Islamic rule has been established.
Quran (48:17) – “There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom.” Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means ‘spiritual struggle.’ Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted?
Quran (48:29) – “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves” Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status.
Quran (61:4) – “Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way” Religion of Peace, indeed! This is followed by (61:9): “He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist.”
Quran (61:10-12) – “O ye who believe! Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Penalty?- That ye believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: That will be best for you, if ye but knew! He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of Eternity.” This verse was given in battle. It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.
Quran (66:9) – “O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey’s end.” The root word of “Jihad” is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include “hypocrites” – those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.
From the Hadith:
Bukhari (52:177) – Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”
Bukhari (52:256) – The Prophet… was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).” In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.
Bukhari (52:220) – Allah’s Apostle said… ‘I have been made victorious with terror’
Abu Dawud (14:2526) – The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, “There is no god but Allah” and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)
Abu Dawud (14:2527) – The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious
Muslim (1:33) – the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah
Bukhari (8:387) – Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah
Muslim (1:149) – “Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause…”
Muslim (20:4645) – “…He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa’id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!”
Muslim (20:4696) – “the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: ‘One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihid died the death of a hypocrite.'”
Muslim (19:4321-4323) – Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: “They are of them (meaning the enemy).”
Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, “Kill any Jew who falls under your power.” Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad’s men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.
Tabari 9:69 “Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us” The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.
Ibn Ishaq: 327 – “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
Ibn Ishaq: 990 – Lest anyone think that cutting off someone’s head while screaming ‘Allah Akbar!’ is a modern custom, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve.
Ibn Ishaq: 992 – “Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.” Muhammad’s instructions to his men prior to a military raid.
Jesus, Jews, Star Wars, Nazis’, England and ‘The Roman Catholic Church’… I’m sorry but the topic of conversation with this thread is “Are They "ISLAMIC Terrorists" Or Just "Terrorists"?
You immediately deflect and drag into conversation everything but Islam. And comparing Star Wars... Star Wars? At least quote Yoda if you’re going to compare Star Wars to Islamic Terrorists!
For the most part, The Bible, The Torah, and The Jedi Code all talk and preach of peaceful domination of the unbelievers and the Universe. (Compassion, Love, Forgiveness and Understanding)
That and you didn't watch the Youtube clip I asked you watch.
Oh and here are some notable high-lights of the loving teachings of the Quran: (which aren’t hard to find either)
Quran (2:191-193) – “And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]… but if desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.”
There is a good case to be made that the textual context of this particular passage is defensive war, even if the historical context was not. However, there are also two worrisome pieces to this verse. The first is that the killing of others is authorized in the event of “persecution” (a qualification that is ambiguous at best). The second is that fighting may persist until “religion is for Allah.” The example set by Muhammad is not reassuring.
Quran (2:244) – “Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things.”
Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding caravans with this verse.
Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”
Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’).
Quran (4:74) – “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.” The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today’s suicide bombers.
Quran (4:76) – “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”
Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”
Quran (4:95) – “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-” This passage criticizes “peaceful” Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that “Jihad” doesn’t mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man’s protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).
Quran (4:104) – “And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain…” Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?
Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”
Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
Quran (8:15) – “O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey’s end.”
Quran (8:39) – “And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah” From the historical context we know that the “persecution” spoken of here was simply the refusal by the Meccans to allow Muhammad to enter their city and perform the Haj. Other Muslims were able to travel there, just not as an armed group, since Muhammad declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad’s intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until “religion is only for Allah.” According to Ibn Ishaq (324), Muhammad justified the violence further by explaining that “Allah must have no rivals.”
Quran (8:57) – “If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.”
Quran (8:59-60) – “And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy.”
Quran (8:65) – “O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight…”
Quran (9:5) – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.” According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam. Prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religions Five Pillars.
Quran (9:14) – “Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace…”
Quran (9:20) – “Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah’s way are of much greater worth in Allah’s sight. These are they who are triumphant.” The “striving” spoken of here is Jihad.
Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” “People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews. This was one of the final “revelations” from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad’s companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in just the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.
Quran (9:30) – “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”
Quran (9:38-39) – “O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place.” This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.
Quran (9:41) – “Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew.” See also the verse that follows (9:42) – “If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them” This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).
Quran (9:73) – “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.” Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that they are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today’s devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.
Quran (9:88) – “But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.”
Quran (9:111) – “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.”
Quran (9:123) – “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”
Quran (18:65-81) – This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story, which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source, tells of Moses encountering a man with “special knowledge” who does things which don’t seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would “grieve” his parents by “disobedience and ingratitude.” He was killed so that Allah could provide them a ‘better’ son.
Quran (21:44) – “We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?”
Quran (25:52) – “Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness…” “Strive against” is Jihad – obviously not in the personal context. It’s also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.
Quran (33:60-62) – “If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.” This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered “merciless” and “horrible murder” in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to “fight in the way of Allah” (3:167) and hence don’t act as Muslims should), those with “diseased hearts” (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and “alarmists” or “agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad’s biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today’s terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah’s eternal word to Muslim generations.
Quran (47:3-4) – “Those who reject Allah follow vanities, while those who believe follow the truth from their lord. Thus does Allah set forth form men their lessons by similtudes. Therefore when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,” Those who reject Allah are to be subdued in battle. The verse goes on to say the only reason Allah doesn’t do the dirty work himself is in order to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test. “But if it had been Allah’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.”
Quran (47:35) – “Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: “have the upper hand”) for Allah is with you,” This very important verse asserts that the Religion of Peace is not to grant peace to the broader society until Islamic rule has been established.
Quran (48:17) – “There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom.” Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means ‘spiritual struggle.’ Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted?
Quran (48:29) – “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves” Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status.
Quran (61:4) – “Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way” Religion of Peace, indeed! This is followed by (61:9): “He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist.”
Quran (61:10-12) – “O ye who believe! Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Penalty?- That ye believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: That will be best for you, if ye but knew! He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of Eternity.” This verse was given in battle. It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.
Quran (66:9) – “O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey’s end.” The root word of “Jihad” is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include “hypocrites” – those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.
From the Hadith:
Bukhari (52:177) – Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”
Bukhari (52:256) – The Prophet… was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).” In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.
Bukhari (52:220) – Allah’s Apostle said… ‘I have been made victorious with terror’
Abu Dawud (14:2526) – The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, “There is no god but Allah” and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)
Abu Dawud (14:2527) – The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious
Muslim (1:33) – the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah
Bukhari (8:387) – Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah
Muslim (1:149) – “Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause…”
Muslim (20:4645) – “…He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa’id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!”
Muslim (20:4696) – “the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: ‘One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihid died the death of a hypocrite.'”
Muslim (19:4321-4323) – Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: “They are of them (meaning the enemy).”
Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, “Kill any Jew who falls under your power.” Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad’s men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.
Tabari 9:69 “Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us” The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.
Ibn Ishaq: 327 – “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
Ibn Ishaq: 990 – Lest anyone think that cutting off someone’s head while screaming ‘Allah Akbar!’ is a modern custom, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve.
Ibn Ishaq: 992 – “Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.” Muhammad’s instructions to his men prior to a military raid.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
To me and according to the "Just War Theory" are these terrorist part of the group called Islam? Or are they using that as a convinent excuse to make a war (illeagle as it is) against the world? Using that as a measuring stick they are criminals. There may be some with legitimate gripes about things and found this was the only way to handle the situation. (which is possible.)But most in the "Extremist" category do not care in any way shape or form what their religious base represent and find ways to make their holy books read what they want and use that as an exuse to fight. The regular terrorist wil fight for any reason the group will fight but both are rebellious against the government they live in and against any and all government including the government they claim to e working for (or religious group). Remove the real problem and you will have peace.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Robert Gunderson
Hi Col Ted Mc,
I did not know that that was a good description ether way. I wrote a research paper for collage on the "Just War Theory" and all my sources state " that war can only be declaired by the governing, lagitamet and respected body of the declairing parties and for the right reasons". This leaves out terrorist groups. because they are a group who are trying to divert there government with an unlawful act usualy ending up in murder. Which in my book makes them criminals. Also according to the theory they do not abide by the "rules of war", as put out in part 2 of the theory.
I did not know that that was a good description ether way. I wrote a research paper for collage on the "Just War Theory" and all my sources state " that war can only be declaired by the governing, lagitamet and respected body of the declairing parties and for the right reasons". This leaves out terrorist groups. because they are a group who are trying to divert there government with an unlawful act usualy ending up in murder. Which in my book makes them criminals. Also according to the theory they do not abide by the "rules of war", as put out in part 2 of the theory.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO3 Robert Gunderson - PO; If "... war can only be declaired by the governing, lagitamet and respected body of the declairing parties and for the right reasons ..." and the "Patriots" were seeking to overthrow the "governing, legitimate, and respected body" which was the legal government of the American colonies [which they were] - does that mean that the American Revolution was not a "Just War"? After all, the colonial governments (and the British Crown/Parliament WERE the "duly constituted public authorities" and the "Continental Congress" was not.
When framing your answer, please remember that the "Patriots" were trying to subvert "their government with an unlawful act which frequently ended up in murder" (the "Loyalists" weren't a bunch of lily-white nice guys either).
When framing your answer, please remember that the "Patriots" were trying to subvert "their government with an unlawful act which frequently ended up in murder" (the "Loyalists" weren't a bunch of lily-white nice guys either).
(0)
(0)
PO3 Robert Gunderson
Hi COL Ted MC,
Thanks for your thoughts. As I see it in this country and how it was put together, The American coloniese tried to address their problems with the government on both sides of the ocean and were not heard. Also the issues grew to such a problem that the more we complained the more oppressive the "government became in the colonies. The Continental Congress was supported by many people here and considered more lawful than those in the colonial and Parliamentery government over seas. I agree nether side handled the situation very well. But how much degrigation can one set of people take before taking a declaired action against their government for not providing the basic rights for the individual and group? But you do have some good points to think about. How would you handle the colonies situation from ether side?
Thanks for your thoughts. As I see it in this country and how it was put together, The American coloniese tried to address their problems with the government on both sides of the ocean and were not heard. Also the issues grew to such a problem that the more we complained the more oppressive the "government became in the colonies. The Continental Congress was supported by many people here and considered more lawful than those in the colonial and Parliamentery government over seas. I agree nether side handled the situation very well. But how much degrigation can one set of people take before taking a declaired action against their government for not providing the basic rights for the individual and group? But you do have some good points to think about. How would you handle the colonies situation from ether side?
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO3 Robert Gunderson - PO; There is a whole lot more to the reasons behind the American Revolution than those which are taught in the average High School Civics/History class. The fact that the legal government of the day was attempting to suppress both piracy and smuggling (both of which were being rather widely indulged in by "American colonists") is seldom mentioned as a causative factor - but it was, because it threatened the economic interests of some really wealthy individuals. [ASIDE - You might want to take a look at the actual reasons advanced for founding colonies in "The New World" - as opposed to the "Recruiting Slogans" trumpeted about to induce people to actually go to those colonies.]
The fact that the "American colonists" were fearful that the lawful government was about to outlaw slavery and thereby cause great economic hardship for some really wealthy individuals is another causative factor which is seldom mentioned.
The fact that the "American colonists" wanted the British government to bear the full cost of supplying the troops necessary to expunge the lawful claims of the Native Americans so that the land speculators amongst the "American colonists" (read as " a few really wealthy people") could reap the economic benefit of all that "free" land is also seldom mentioned as a causative factor.
The Continental Congress was "supported" by approximately 30% of the American colonists (primarily the "Outs" who were quite wealthy and who wanted to get even richer by becoming the "Ins"). The lawful government was "supported" by approximately 30% of the American colonists (primarily the "Ins" who were quite wealthy and who wanted to get even richer by remaining as the "Ins"). About 40% of the American colonists didn't give a damn either way just as long as "The Gummint" stayed off their backs.
It would have been difficult to handle the "Colonial Situation" from either side. The Patriot-Colonists wanted benefits which they felt they were entitled to but which they didn't feel they had any obligation to pay for - and that wasn't going to happen. The Loyalist-Colonists wanted things to stay the way they had always been - and that wasn't going to happen.
However, regardless of reality, the mythos surrounding the American Revolution has become so firmly established that it has to be treated as if it were fact - and there is not a single thing that I can think of to say against the ex post facto rationales advanced for why the American Revolution was "A GREAT Thing". Those rationales may not actually have been true (at the time) but they should have been - and that's good enough for me because they are true now.
The fact that the "American colonists" were fearful that the lawful government was about to outlaw slavery and thereby cause great economic hardship for some really wealthy individuals is another causative factor which is seldom mentioned.
The fact that the "American colonists" wanted the British government to bear the full cost of supplying the troops necessary to expunge the lawful claims of the Native Americans so that the land speculators amongst the "American colonists" (read as " a few really wealthy people") could reap the economic benefit of all that "free" land is also seldom mentioned as a causative factor.
The Continental Congress was "supported" by approximately 30% of the American colonists (primarily the "Outs" who were quite wealthy and who wanted to get even richer by becoming the "Ins"). The lawful government was "supported" by approximately 30% of the American colonists (primarily the "Ins" who were quite wealthy and who wanted to get even richer by remaining as the "Ins"). About 40% of the American colonists didn't give a damn either way just as long as "The Gummint" stayed off their backs.
It would have been difficult to handle the "Colonial Situation" from either side. The Patriot-Colonists wanted benefits which they felt they were entitled to but which they didn't feel they had any obligation to pay for - and that wasn't going to happen. The Loyalist-Colonists wanted things to stay the way they had always been - and that wasn't going to happen.
However, regardless of reality, the mythos surrounding the American Revolution has become so firmly established that it has to be treated as if it were fact - and there is not a single thing that I can think of to say against the ex post facto rationales advanced for why the American Revolution was "A GREAT Thing". Those rationales may not actually have been true (at the time) but they should have been - and that's good enough for me because they are true now.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google