# Muslims react



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/0...-king-against-isis-after-video-pilot-killing/

I'll give an "atta boy" to Jordan and other Muslims for standing up to ISIS.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Too bad the muslim in chief can't bring himself to do the same. but then:



"I Will Stand With the Muslims Should the Political Winds Shift In An Ugly Direction."

So said Barack Obama on Page 261 of his book, "The Audacity of Hope." Forever defending the Muslims against the bad people that might hurt them.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

7thswan said:


> Too bad the muslim in chief can't bring himself to do the same. but then:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That dead horse must be spattering you pretty good by now.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Wlover said:


> That dead horse must be spatter you pretty good by now.


You must not pay attention to what is going on. He proves he is one, more everyday.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

7thswan said:


> You must not pay attention to what is going on. He proves he is one, more everyday.


Yup, that dead horse is a pile of stinking goo.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

7thswan said:


> You must not pay attention to what is going on. He proves he is one, more everyday.


First, your facts are wrong. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/obamas-dreams-of-my-father/

Second, our continued support of those moderate Muslims, including flying in support of the Jordanians who have been fighting ISIS, seem to contradict the assertion that he is doing nothing. It makes for an interesting conundrum for those on the right. How does any American president fight Muslim extremists without supporting other Muslims?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> First, your facts are wrong. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/obamas-dreams-of-my-father/
> 
> Second, our continued support of those moderate Muslims, including flying in support of the Jordanians who have been fighting ISIS, seem to contradict the assertion that he is doing nothing. It makes for an interesting conundrum for those on the right. How does any American president fight Muslim extremists without supporting other Muslims?


That question is twisting logic a bit far.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> That question is twisting logic a bit far.


How. The attitude of some on the right is that there are no moderate Muslims. How then can we support any Muslims in their fight for control? If we support any Muslim aren't we doing just what Obama is being accused of. Or, can we admit that there are moderate Muslims who aren't intent on turning the United States into a caliphate. If you disprove the premise( no moderate Muslims) one can logically say a US president supporting Muslims isn't always a bad thing. But if you stand by the premise that there are no moderate Muslims then any support, by any president, is logically a bad thing.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Wlover said:


> Yup, that dead horse is a pile of stinking goo.


You probably spent more than 9 minuets to vote for obama. The least you can do is spend 9 listening to this 4 star General. Jan 28 2015. Then ask yourself, just what o meen by "fundamentaly transorming America".
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqkZBWd6-nI[/ame]


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> How. The attitude of some on the right is that there are no moderate Muslims. How then can we support any Muslims in their fight for control? If we support any Muslim aren't we doing just what Obama is being accused of. Or, can we admit that there are moderate Muslims who aren't intent on turning the United States into a caliphate. If you disprove the premise( no moderate Muslims) one can logically say a US president supporting Muslims isn't always a bad thing. But if you stand by the premise that there are no moderate Muslims then any support, by any president, is logically a bad thing.


The "moderates" do not matter, they will never stand up against their own. We must do what we have to to protect ourselves. We already have the Muslim Brotherhood in our governemt. This is not about politics, this is about our Children and Grandchildern, our Freedom. There is no Freedom in the religion of islam.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

7thswan said:


> The "moderates" do not matter, they will never stand up against their own. We must do what we have to to protect ourselves. We already have the Muslim Brotherhood in our governemt. This is not about politics, this is about our Children and Grandchildern, our Freedom. There is no Freedom in the religion of islam.


So, in order to "protect ourselves" we must align ourselves with and support Muslims. Until they no longer become useful to us and then we can align with the next group. Is the hope that we will eventually create so small a group they can be totally eradicated? And there's been very little freedom of religion in the history of Christianity, including now.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Why is the King reacting? Because a moderate Muslim was murdered. 
If they had stuck to killing non Jordanians, in all probability he would not be bombing them he like most moderates would be ignoring them.

You know when O said Christians kill in the name of Christ, it was over 500 years ago.
For the record, they were not really murdering for Christ anyway because Christ NEVER authorized it. Unlike Mohammed who did tell his people to murder those who refused to convert. I know some folks think the clan and jim crow and all came from Christians,. No they came from those to whom Christ will say depart from me I never knew you. 

For the record I support any Muslim, Buddhist , what ever who stands up to the cretins and takes them down. I just wish we had some one in office here as willing to go to the mattresses for us and the people we have lost both to isis and other terrorists.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MJsLady said:


> Why is the King reacting? Because a moderate Muslim was murdered.
> If they had stuck to killing non Jordanians, in all probability he would not be bombing them he like most moderates would be ignoring them.
> 
> You know when O said Christians kill in the name of Christ, it was over 500 years ago.
> ...


You do realize that the pilot that was killed was captured on an earlier bombing mission. 

What would you consider "going to the mattress"?


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

> What would you consider "going to the mattress"?


Publicly stating they are with out a doubt a terrorist group and we will seek and destroy them and anyone who supports them. 
Then putting action to the words.
Not sending folks to congress to answer questions, and having them sit there saying ah, um, well... 
As agent Sadusky said ,"This is not a day for um". 

As an aside, if we had dealt with Al Qeda in the first place, and the taliban, this group would not be nearly as powerful as it is. 

I am a peaceable person. I can and will live quietly side by side with anyone, until they give me reason not to. Christ does not prohibit self defense.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Too bad we don't have a real leader.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MJsLady said:


> Publicly stating they are with out a doubt a terrorist group and we will seek and destroy them and anyone who supports them.
> Then putting action to the words.
> Not sending folks to congress to answer questions, and having them sit there saying ah, um, well...
> As agent Sadusky said ,"This is not a day for um".
> ...


You mean a statement like this? http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/obama-video-isis-only-about-death-destruction-n299406

You mean maybe by working with, arming and supporting countries like Jordan who were running bombing missions before and are now? 

I'll agree that dealing with Al Qaeda in an effective manner in the 90's or early 2000's might have saved us a lot of grief. I'll point out that the Taliban never attacked us prior to our invasion of their country.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> How. The attitude of some on the right is that there are no moderate Muslims. How then can we support any Muslims in their fight for control? If we support any Muslim aren't we doing just what Obama is being accused of. Or, can we admit that there are moderate Muslims who aren't intent on turning the United States into a caliphate. If you disprove the premise( no moderate Muslims) one can logically say a US president supporting Muslims isn't always a bad thing. But if you stand by the premise that there are no moderate Muslims then any support, by any president, is logically a bad thing.


Where are those moderate Muslims? Jordan did not shift into battle mode because their population is moderate. It was solely because ISIS burned their pilot alive. Muslim sects and groups have always fought each other over any issue or even no issue at all. Before their pilot was burned, Jordan's response to ISIS was pretty tame because much of their population was opposed to it but they were pressured to participate by the US. King Abdullah is a decent guy, probably due to his Western education, but his population is as fractured as any other Muslim country.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> You mean a statement like this? http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/obama-video-isis-only-about-death-destruction-n299406
> 
> You mean maybe by working with, arming and supporting countries like Jordan who were running bombing missions before and are now?
> 
> I'll agree that dealing with Al Qaeda in an effective manner in the 90's or early 2000's might have saved us a lot of grief. I'll point out that the Taliban never attacked us prior to our invasion of their country.


Jordan has a reason to fight ISIS. They are squarely in the sites of ISIS. The Taliban is a terrorist group whose only reason for not attacking us was lack of ability.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

poppy said:


> Where are those moderate Muslims? Jordan did not shift into battle mode because their population is moderate. It was solely because ISIS burned their pilot alive. Muslim sects and groups have always fought each other over any issue or even no issue at all. Before their pilot was burned, Jordan's response to ISIS was pretty tame because much of their population was opposed to it but they were pressured to participate by the US. King Abdullah is a decent guy, probably due to his Western education, but his population is as fractured as any other Muslim country.


I'd guess the ISIS fighters they were bombing might duffer on your definition of tame.
So I'll ask the question again. If none are even moderate how do we support any of them? How do we engage in a war where we can't support anyone in the region. Or maybe we should be arming and backing the Christian minorities in the region to eliminate all traces of Islam?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

There is way too much wishful thinking going on with the idea that Islam will tolerate any killing of Muslims to protect any non-muslim. The supporting articles quoted said that Jordanian participation in the bombing of ISIS deeply divided the country , many of whom questioned why the country was participating in a conflict allied with the US. 
Only the extreme brutality against one of their own changed political opinion into a desire for revenge. If it had been a US pilot suffering that horror, there would have been no such reaction, probably some actual cheering. 
The middle east is and has been full of violence against each other. The closest thing to unity that happens is if there is a perceived threat from non-muslims. The general population will align over that- at least the ones not trying to use the outside force against their own enemy. 
The best thing the US can do is quietly support as too much overt support will be more likely to be seen making the force being supported into an enemy of Islam for being an ally of the west. 
Until Islam in general will see virtue in aligning with virtue in non-muslims versus always siding with a Muslim against a non-muslim, such terror groups will continue.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

poppy said:


> Jordan has a reason to fight ISIS. They are squarely in the sites of ISIS. The Taliban is a terrorist group whose only reason for not attacking us was lack of ability.


Prior to us invading and occupying the Taliban expressed no interest in attacking us. They were the government in Afghanistan. Their policies and many of their actions were abhorrent but they posed no threat to us.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

He never once called them terrorists. Not one time.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> I'd guess the ISIS fighters they were bombing might duffer on your definition of tame.
> So I'll ask the question again. If none are even moderate how do we support any of them? How do we engage in a war where we can't support anyone in the region. Or maybe we should be arming and backing the Christian minorities in the region to eliminate all traces of Islam?


Arming the Taliban to fight the Russians did not mean they were friends. The US invasion happened because of the Taliban support of their participation in al-Qeada's war against the US after 9/11. 
There is that old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" nonsense that keeps going on. The enemy of your enemy may be an ally but that is certainly not the same as a friend.
There needs to be sea change in Muslim's tendency to make every non-muslim as worth nothing if the world is ever to contain non-muslims and peace at the same time.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

where I want to said:


> Arming the Taliban to fight the Russians did not mean they were friends. The US invasion happened because of the Taliban support of their participation in al-Qeada's war against the US after 9/11.
> There is that old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" nonsense that keeps going on. The enemy of your enemy may be an ally but that is certainly not the same as a friend.
> There needs to be sea change in Muslim's tendency to make every non-muslim as worth nothing if the world is ever to contain non-muslims and peace at the same time.


Muslims live to kill, they exist to fight.
They condone child molestation, rape and murder.
How do you make peace with that?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Cornhusker said:


> Muslims live to kill, they exist to fight.
> They condone child molestation, rape and murder.
> How do you make peace with that?


How do you choose sides and support any of that?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MJsLady said:


> He never once called them terrorists. Not one time.


Maybe this will help. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/02/04/fox-ignores-obamas-condemnation-of-the-islamic/202413


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Arming the Taliban to fight the Russians did not mean they were friends. The US invasion happened because of the Taliban support of their participation in al-Qeada's war against the US after 9/11.
> There is that old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" nonsense that keeps going on. The enemy of your enemy may be an ally but that is certainly not the same as a friend.
> There needs to be sea change in Muslim's tendency to make every non-muslim as worth nothing if the world is ever to contain non-muslims and peace at the same time.


And maybe there needs to be a sea change in the attitude that there are no moderate Muslims.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> I'd guess the ISIS fighters they were bombing might duffer on your definition of tame.
> So I'll ask the question again. If none are even moderate how do we support any of them? How do we engage in a war where we can't support anyone in the region. Or maybe we should be arming and backing the Christian minorities in the region to eliminate all traces of Islam?


Jordan nor any other Muslim country was flying many attacks on ISIS and many of those attacks resulted in no bombs being dropped. There is no debate about the results. ISIS is larger than ever. Bombing will not defeat ISIS. They know to stay in populated areas we will not bomb. Reports say Jordan killed 55 ISIS fighters in their stepped up attacks so far. Wonder how many bombs they dropped and missiles were fired to kill the 55? The costs of killing them by bombing has to be huge per fighter killed, plus probably more than 55 joined during that time.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Prior to us invading and occupying the Taliban expressed no interest in attacking us. They were the government in Afghanistan. Their policies and many of their actions were abhorrent but they posed no threat to us.


Egypt, Libya, and Syria posed no threat either but Obama chose to meddle in those countries.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> And maybe there needs to be a sea change in the attitude that there are no moderate Muslims.


The definition of 'moderate' is at the core. If moderate means "will not go out of the way just to kill non-muslims themselves" then there are plenty of moderate Muslims. If moderate means that they will feel that an atrocity against non-muslims that is conducted by Muslims in the name of Islam is just as vile and wrong as the same of a Muslim against another Muslim and they will take action on same, then show those.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> How. The attitude of some on the right is that there are no moderate Muslims. How then can we support any Muslims in their fight for control? If we support any Muslim aren't we doing just what Obama is being accused of. Or, can we admit that there are moderate Muslims who aren't intent on turning the United States into a caliphate. If you disprove the premise( no moderate Muslims) one can logically say a US president supporting Muslims isn't always a bad thing. But if you stand by the premise that there are no moderate Muslims then any support, by any president, is logically a bad thing.


I only see you saying there are no moderate Muslims.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> I'd guess the ISIS fighters they were bombing might duffer on your definition of tame.
> So I'll ask the question again. If none are even moderate how do we support any of them? How do we engage in a war where we can't support anyone in the region. Or maybe we should be arming and backing the Christian minorities in the region to eliminate all traces of Islam?


I think it should be pointed out that Jordan, although a large percentage of it's citizens are muslim, is not a declared muslim country. In fact they have enacted laws which prevent political parties from being based in religion.

To your OP I applaud Jordan for their condemnation and response to the ISIS killings. I wish other countries would recognize the brutal barbarism in ISIS's actions before it affects one of their own and move to eliminate it. Let's hope Jordan can become the mouth-piece to bring out moderate muslims.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

There are no moderate Muslims. I'm talking about Muslims who read and follow the Koran, attend Mosque, and do their daily prayers. There are indeed secular Muslims who are Muslim by birth only and do none of the above that could loosely be called moderate. However, moderate is a relative term. Ask those moderate Muslims if they object to Jews being killed and probably 80% of them will say no. Doesn't sound too moderate to me.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Muslims under the Koran have 2 choices.
Collect a tax from non believers or murder them. 
The Koran does not leave them the option to live quietly and ignore non believers. 
The issue has become that Muslims want to live where Islam is NOT THE power behind the people.

So they must choose, be correct in their worship or be "bad" followers.

If they choose to be bad followers then the correct followers are obligated to murder them as well for abdicating their Faith. 

The only way to win is for followers of Islam but to stay in their own countries. Not because Christians won't let them out but because there holy writ is not going to be tolerated by others. 

Even now here in TX we have 6, SIX!!!! Bills in our state congress dealing with folks trying to force sharia law into our courts. 

Now before anyone says well Christians... No not Christians. FALSE teachers were behind the crusades. Christ's commands on spreading the gospel are very VERY clear. Go and if they hear you and accept you stay and let your peace be upon them. If they do not accept you leave that place and wipe the dust of it off your feet. NO where are Christians to harm, harass or otherwise cause pain to unbelievers. We are told to avoid and not have anything to do with unbelievers if they refuse the gift God offers all. 

I have read, not studied, but read the Koran. It was years ago and I have admittedly forgotten much of it but I do remember the commands to tax or murder unbelievers. It was written in more than one place. I remember because it seemed contradictory to me in one place they are told to tax then in another to murder. How do they choose which one to do? I never could figure that part out, how to choose which infidels to let live and which must die.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> I only see you saying there are no moderate Muslims.


Post #33


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Post #33


One speaks for one. One does not speak for all. 

You simply thrive on discord of those that almost always disagree with you. 

That is not constructive, I am sure your goal is not to be constructive.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Post #33


Maybe you should read it. It's accurate. Ask any of your moderate Muslims a direct yes or no question and see how they dodge the question or flatly refuse to rebuke terrorism under any conditions.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> So, in order to "protect ourselves" we must align ourselves with and support Muslims. Until they no longer become useful to us and then we can align with the next group. Is the hope that we will eventually create so small a group they can be totally eradicated? And there's been very little freedom of religion in the history of Christianity, including now.


You one of those people that think every person should get a vacination?
How we going to tell which muslims are "good" ones? You want to risk it?
I think it was wrong to bring even 1 , ONE, eboli infected person here. Why risk it. You drive without insurance-why risk it. Run stop signs? why risk .............


----------



## TRellis (Sep 16, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Prior to us invading and occupying the Taliban expressed no interest in attacking us. They were the government in Afghanistan. Their policies and many of their actions were abhorrent but they posed no threat to us.


A government acknowledged by only three other countries - Saudi Arabia, U.A.E. and Pakistan. All three U.S. "allies". But they were quite complicit with their support of Osama bin Laden. I have serious doubts that the Taliban were completely unaware of bin Laden's desires to attack the U.S. They may not have known the details of 9/11, but they certainly knew the intentions of both bin Laden and Al Qaeda and gave their support.



where I want to said:


> Arming the Taliban to fight the Russians did not mean they were friends.



What!!! The U.S. never armed the âTalibanâ. At least not directly.

The U.S. armed various Afghan tribal factions that constituted the Mujahideen, who were fighting against the Russians and their own Soviet-supported government during the 80âs. After that war ended with the Soviet withdrawal in â89 or so, Afghanistan languished without a unified government for several years. The âTalibanâ was not even founded until 1994 and only took control of the country politically in â96 or so. And it only came to being with the support of the Pakistanis. 

I have no doubt that some of the weapons and training supplied by the U.S. found its way into âTalibanâ hands, but the U.S. did not overtly arm them. If you have evidence of the U.S. covertly or clandestinely arming the Taliban, then speak up.

I think that many people, including myself, have a bit of a problem with the fact that many Muslim leaders (both political and religious) have not vociferously condemned ISIS. The vast majority have not sought out the media to publicly ensure that the world knows that they do not agree with the âMuslim ideologyâ that ISIS espouses. 

Sure, Jordan was obliquely involved in some of the recent push-back against ISIS, but as a country it was certainly not screaming about their participation from the minarets even though ISIS is literally knocking on their door. ISIS has targeted and killed many (and mostly) Syrian and Iraqi civilians and virtually nothing was publicly said or done by most Muslims. 

In Jordan, now that one of their own has been gruesomely murdered they are foaming at the mouth calling for the complete eradication of ISIS. Where was that attitude and fervor after ISIS murdered several westerners? Where is that anti-ISIS fervor from the rest of the Muslim world.

TRellis


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

MJsLady said:


> He never once called them terrorists. Not one time.


Obama is running defence for Islam purely from Islamic reasoning, slander, the Muslim concept of it (anything critical and/or placing Islam in a negative light) is illegal. Itâs entirely irrelevant whether the so called âslanderâ is factual, the fact that it places the person or ideology in a negative light is reason enough for restriction and/or retribution.

This once again brings us back to the question of what or who Obama really is. I seriously doubt that he believes (fervently) in a deity, heâs first and foremost beholden to the Marxist ideology (but that doesnât necessarily make them mutually exclusive). I make the claim that, culturally, Obama is still a 3rd world Muslim, living in a modern Western society he wants to remake in Karl Marxâs image, not allahâs.
video at link.http://tundratabloids.com/2015/02/o...s-explains-why-he-runs-defense-for-islam.html


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/27/10-myths-about-afghanistan


"This was one of the most damaging periods in recent Afghan history when the west and Pakistan, along with mujahideen intransigence, undermined the best chance of ending the country's civil war. The overall effect of these policies was to prolong and deepen Afghanistan's destruction, as Charles Cogan, CIA director of operations for the Middle East and south Asia, 1979â1984, later recognised. "I question whether we should have continued on this momentum, this inertia of aiding the mujahideen after the Soviets had left. I think that was probably, in retrospect, a mistake," he said."




"Western backing for these rebels had also begun before Soviet troops arrived. It served western propaganda to say the Russians had-no justification for entering Afghanistan in what the west called an aggressive land grab. In fact, US officials saw an advantage in-the mujahedin rebellion which grew after a-pro-Moscow government toppled Daoud in-April 1978. In his memoirs, Robert Gates, then a CIA official and later defence secretary under Presidents Bush and Obama, recounts a-staff meeting in March 1979 where CIA officials asked whether they should keep the-mujahideen going, thereby "sucking the-Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire". The-meeting agreed to fund them to buy-weapons."





TRellis said:


> What!!! The U.S. never armed the âTalibanâ. At least not directly.
> 
> The U.S. armed various Afghan tribal factions that constituted the Mujahideen, who were fighting against the Russians and their own Soviet-supported government during the 80âs. After that war ended with the Soviet withdrawal in â89 or so, Afghanistan languished without a unified government for several years. The âTalibanâ was not even founded until 1994 and only took control of the country politically in â96 or so. And it only came to being with the support of the Pakistanis.
> 
> ...


It's true that the Taliban did not exist as a government but indeed the US funded the activities of the people who formed it. In fact that, along with Pakistani support directly lead to the Taliban victories.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> And maybe there needs to be a sea change in the attitude that there are no moderate Muslims.


Watch this video and tell me if you consider this woman a moderate Muslim. She's a member of the Muslim Student's Association at a university in California. Seems very pleasant and hasn't harmed anyone AFAIK. It seems people like ex Muslims or Jews who understand how terrorists think can draw their real feelings out of them. Videos like this are widely available. It is not an isolated case.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fSvyv0urTE[/ame]


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Thank You Poppy. That says it all. It is exactly what I hear on radio every time a muslim is asked to deny the terrorists. People just don't get it.For muslims to deny what the terrorists are doing is to deny part of their religion, their koran.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wlover said:


> That dead horse must be spattering you pretty good by now.


Really? Why do you suppose Jordan has king who defends them & we don't?
Dead horse? Are you referring to the Idiotincharge...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> How. The attitude of some on the right is that there are no moderate Muslims. How then can we support any Muslims in their fight for control? If we support any Muslim aren't we doing just what Obama is being accused of. Or, can we admit that there are moderate Muslims who aren't intent on turning the United States into a caliphate. If you disprove the premise( no moderate Muslims) one can logically say a US president supporting Muslims isn't always a bad thing. But if you stand by the premise that there are no moderate Muslims then any support, by any president, is logically a bad thing.


Facts are facts, and its a fact that the Idiotincharge supports the muslim brotherhood, send millions to hamas...more, but have to fact check the names.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I'd guess the ISIS fighters they were bombing might duffer on your definition of tame.
> So I'll ask the question again. If none are even moderate how do we support any of them? How do we engage in a war where we can't support anyone in the region. Or maybe we should be arming and backing the Christian minorities in the region to eliminate all traces of Islam?


Surely you know that the way war was waged in WWII is vastly different than now?
Surely you know that just about ALL our generals/military has come out to say the Idioitincharge has NO CLUE about how to win this. Do you not know how many heads in the military the Idioitincharge has replaced b/c they have the cojones to beat this enemy & HE DOES NOT!
I pray we are down to at least a couple who will do it.
Do you know that the hundred of bombings we've carried out is only causing minor damage? Why?
HUNDREDS per day are needed! AT LEAST! We need to step it up, show Jordan we can do it. Shoulda done that BEFORE any Americans were beheaded.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

From post #39-

In Jordan, now that one of their own has been gruesomely murdered they are foaming at the mouth calling for the complete eradication of ISIS. Where was that attitude and fervor after ISIS murdered several westerners? Where is that anti-ISIS fervor from the rest of the Muslim world.

TRellis

And how long did it take this Idioitincharge to do something after innocents were beheaded??
Oh, yeah, there was that speech where he said it was awful & we'd get em & 'bring then to justice' or some such nonsense...and 6 seconds later was laughing on the golf course...signs of a sociopath. btw. 
Your post was spot on, TRellis. I wish we'd see a little of that 'foaming at the mouth' from a leader here. BWhaha! No chance. Hordan's king even said he's fly missions himself. Doubt that, but he certainly could. Has the background. Our Idiotincharge doesn't even know how to pronounce "corpsemen".


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

poppy said:


> Egypt, Libya, and Syria posed no threat either but Obama chose to meddle in those countries.


And yet he didn't see fit to invade any of them.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> One speaks for one. One does not speak for all.
> 
> You simply thrive on discord of those that almost always disagree with you.
> 
> That is not constructive, I am sure your goal is not to be constructive.


One is your word not mine though judging from the responses here you might be close. 

I'll admit that I find "discord" fun at times. It is amusing to me to see the extremes that some will go to not answer simple questions. How quickly subjects are changed, straw men are constructed and destroyed, labels are attached and arguments are dismissed because of them, facts are made up and even when proven false doubled down on, ...... and the many other tactics employed. Sometimes I even learn a thing or two. I've been led down some interesting research paths by some of the claims made here. I learn from challenging others and having my own ideas challenged. Most often here I learn that my conceptions are valid and my feelings are right for me. I don't seek consensus or expect to change one mind. If I can get anyone to even think about why it is they think that way it is enough.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> And yet he didn't see fit to invade any of them.


No, he chose to drop bombs on Libya and Syria from above. And how is that a demonstration of Obama's moral superiority?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MJsLady said:


> Muslims under the Koran have 2 choices.
> Collect a tax from non believers or murder them.
> The Koran does not leave them the option to live quietly and ignore non believers.
> The issue has become that Muslims want to live where Islam is NOT THE power behind the people.
> ...


Care to share info on those six cases? I can find reference to a Sharia court offering the same sort of conflict resolution and mediation services to Muslims as Catholics and Jews have available to them through organizations affiliated with their faiths.

To condense your reply, calling the terrorists and bombing them isn't going to the mattress hard enough. What is?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

poppy said:


> Maybe you should read it. It's accurate. Ask any of your moderate Muslims a direct yes or no question and see how they dodge the question or flatly refuse to rebuke terrorism under any conditions.


I'd flatly refuse to rebuke terrorism under any circumstances. Ones man's terrorist is another man's hero.

But I'll be sure to ask a couple of friends at our end of the season fantasy football gathering tomorrow. I'm sure they'll do as they have in the past when discussing Muslim extremism. They'll look at me and tell me how wrong they feel it is and how it's not what they want their religion to be. Of course they're either lying or are bad Muslims. I'll let you judge. They'll still be my friends.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

7thswan said:


> You one of those people that think every person should get a vacination?
> How we going to tell which muslims are "good" ones? You want to risk it?
> I think it was wrong to bring even 1 , ONE, eboli infected person here. Why risk it. You drive without insurance-why risk it. Run stop signs? why risk .............


I do believe everyone should be vaccinated. Of course I'm not going to rush into your house with a needle and forcibly vaccinate you. I'm not going to rush around your house with a bottle if bleach shouting the only good germ is a dead germ.

I'm still waiting on that ebola case that your methods would have prevented.

I have insurance. The cost is cheap when compared to the potential consequences. And I do roll through the occasional stop sign. Lock me up.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> No, he chose to drop bombs on Libya and Syria from above. And how is that a demonstration of Obama's moral superiority?


I make no claims of his moral superiority. He is as flawed as any other.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> I'd flatly refuse to rebuke terrorism under any circumstances. Ones man's terrorist is another man's hero.
> 
> But I'll be sure to ask a couple of friends at our end of the season fantasy football gathering tomorrow. I'm sure they'll do as they have in the past when discussing Muslim extremism. They'll look at me and tell me how wrong they feel it is and how it's not what they want their religion to be. Of course they're either lying or are bad Muslims. I'll let you judge. They'll still be my friends.


Not wrong or lying probably. But again what are they doing, even as far as talking publicly against specific supporters of terrorism, about it? Or even expressing understanding that it is valid for non-muslims to have these concerns? Since you dismiss those concerns so readily, is that even an issue in your proposed conversations? Or does it slide past unremarked like the absences of those effective moderate muslims that pop up like a whack-a-mole? Brought up to refute extreme remarks then disappearing when examples are required.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> *I'd flatly refuse to rebuke terrorism under any circumstances. Ones man's terrorist is another man's hero.*
> 
> But I'll be sure to ask a couple of friends at our end of the season fantasy football gathering tomorrow. I'm sure they'll do as they have in the past when discussing Muslim extremism. They'll look at me and tell me how wrong they feel it is and how it's not what they want their religion to be. Of course they're either lying or are bad Muslims. I'll let you judge. They'll still be my friends.


Ah, I see our communication problem. You sound as radical as the terrorists. I WILL flatly rebuke terrorism. I am not opposed to fighting wars when needed but targeting innocents to cower the population goes way beyond that. As with all liberal views, yours is in shades of gray where there is no right or wrong and it depends on who is doing the terrorizing. I'm pretty sure you'd call a right wing fanatic who bombs an abortion clinic a terrorist but perhaps try to understand the reason why a brave "Palestinian" would crawl out of a tunnel under the border and blow up a family in Israel. To me they are both terrorism.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

What would you have them do. They're not public figures. They live their lives according to what they see as their religous precepts. They speak out against extremism and terrorism when the subject is broached. I've known both of these gentlemen for a long time, one for over 20 years. You're free to judge them from afar. They are valued members of their who have never asked anyone's religous affiliation before jumping in to help out. My grandson calls one uncle. I saw the sadness in his eyes after 9/11 at what some did in the name of his religion. I didnt condemn all Catholics or Protestants for the Northern Ireland troubles even though most of them never made public statements against the violence. Christianity comes in many forms while holding onto core beliefs. It didn't get there overnight without a lot of bloodshed and internal conflict. I have hope that what we are seeing in Islam are their own growing pains. My hope is that people like my friends will prevail. I have no problem with us defending our own country and even helping moderate Muslims around the world. By not acknowledging that moderate Muslims even exist only one alternative remains in my mind. A fully blown religous war that neither side will truly win.

Here's some wide spread outrage over ISIS for you. It likely won't be enough because they are only protesting the murder of another Muslim, after all. http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...s-denounce-jordanian-pilot-execution-kasasbeh


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> What would you have them do. They're not public figures.
> 
> Here's some wide spread outrage over ISIS for you. It likely won't be enough because they are only protesting the murder of another Muslim, after all. http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...s-denounce-jordanian-pilot-execution-kasasbeh


You are right- until non-muslims are treated with value, the same as muslims, there is no hope that terrorism can be on anything but a collision course with the rest of the world. The only hope is that Muslims will take active steps to effect change within Islam as anything from outside results in cries of insult to Islam and hardens the position. And it would take some courage as any support of non-muslims opens muslims up to the same attacks as done on non-muslims. They fear each other more than the outsiders- with justice.
It doesn't have to be every muslim. That's why I keep asking for examples. But a few would be hopeful. Not finding even one is a source of dispair.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Tricky Grama said:


> Facts are facts, and its a fact that the Idiotincharge supports the muslim brotherhood, send millions to hamas...more, but have to fact check the names.


Ofcourse he does, that is why the left is ok with the Idiot Fraud's adjenda, Control. We all know Obama is a marxist, and that is no different than the Control of islam. Even "moderate" muslims live under Control.Maybe the left gets defensive because they assume everyone needs control like they do.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Really? Why do you suppose Jordan has king who defends them & we don't?
> Dead horse? Are you referring to the Idiotincharge...


If you wish to have an actual discussion then we can do that. I however have decided that having a discussion with posters that name call is neither nice or of any real benefit to anyone. So if you continue to name call or use what I consider verbal put downs I will not engage.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> *Here's some wide spread outrage over ISIS for you. It likely won't be enough because they are only protesting the murder of another Muslim, after all.* http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...s-denounce-jordanian-pilot-execution-kasasbeh


Is it not a valid point that they are not protesting ISIS killing a Muslim and are protesting ISIS killing one of their own countrymen and specifically the way he was killed. If ISIS hadn't posted the video, there would be no marches. ISIS has killed thousands of Muslims, many brutally slaughtered and many of them women and children. Where were the Jordanian marches when all that happened? Have you seen any marches protesting the Japanese guy killed or the woman ISIS claims was killed by Jordanian air strikes (which was a lie)? BTW, polls show only 62% of Jordanians even consider ISIS a terrorist organization and it's only 31% for Al Qaeda. I don't blame them at all for protesting the murder of their countryman but let's not pretend the whole country hates ISIS.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

poppy said:


> Ah, I see our communication problem. You sound as radical as the terrorists. I WILL flatly rebuke terrorism. I am not opposed to fighting wars when needed but targeting innocents to cower the population goes way beyond that. As with all liberal views, yours is in shades of gray where there is no right or wrong and it depends on who is doing the terrorizing. I'm pretty sure you'd call a right wing fanatic who bombs an abortion clinic a terrorist but perhaps try to understand the reason why a brave "Palestinian" would crawl out of a tunnel under the border and blow up a family in Israel. To me they are both terrorism.


I'd agree that both of your cases are terrorism. The fit the standard definition, "the use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, to further political goals". It seems a bit broad to me in that this definition would include almost all acts of war. Is the Palestinian who walks up to an Israeli patrol wearing a suicide vest a terrorist or a freedom fighter? Is the afghani taliban who plants an IED targeted at a military convoy a terrorist or just trying to repel a foreign invader. I don't pretend that we live in a black and white world. What would you do, what tactics would you possibly use, to protect you and yours. Who might label you a terrorist for doing it?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

poppy said:


> Is it not a valid point that they are not protesting ISIS killing a Muslim and are protesting ISIS killing one of their own countrymen and specifically the way he was killed. If ISIS hadn't posted the video, there would be no marches. ISIS has killed thousands of Muslims, many brutally slaughtered and many of them women and children. Where were the Jordanian marches when all that happened? Have you seen any marches protesting the Japanese guy killed or the woman ISIS claims was killed by Jordanian air strikes (which was a lie)? BTW, polls show only 62% of Jordanians even consider ISIS a terrorist organization and it's only 31% for Al Qaeda. I don't blame them at all for protesting the murder of their countryman but let's not pretend the whole country hates ISIS.


Doesn't all opposition start somewhere? Should we demand that they react for the "right" reasons or should we applaud them for reacting at all?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wlover said:


> If you wish to have an actual discussion then we can do that. I however have decided that having a discussion with posters that name call is neither nice or of any real benefit to anyone. So if you continue to name call or use what I consider verbal put downs I will not engage.


If you can show me what this POTUS has done that is not idiotic, I'll think about it. We'll see if your list can come anywhere near to ours. We could start w/ObumerUnhealthcare.
Well, never mind on that. You cannot unring a bell. He said "CORPSEmen" 3 times. THREE! IDIOT! And an arrogant one. Hmmm...perhaps I COULD change the label...Arrogantidiotincharge.
Where where you back in the Bush days when that POTUS was called idiot? Or were you one of them?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Tricky Grama said:


> If you can show me what this POTUS has done that is not idiotic, I'll think about it. We'll see if your list can come anywhere near to ours. We could start w/ObumerUnhealthcare.
> Well, never mind on that. You cannot unring a bell. He said "CORPSEmen" 3 times. THREE! IDIOT! And an arrogant one. Hmmm...perhaps I COULD change the label...Arrogantidiotincharge.
> Where where you back in the Bush days when that POTUS was called idiot? Or were you one of them?


Interesting is'nt it. Upset about "name calling" but not about the abuse muslem women endure every day.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

7thswan said:


> Interesting is'nt it. Upset about "name calling" but not about the abuse muslem women endure every day.


I guess there is no need for me to even post. You know what I think, what I believe, what upsets me or does not upsets me.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

7thswan said:


> Interesting is'nt it. Upset about "name calling" but not about the abuse muslem women endure every day.


Some people can hold two thoughts at the same time.


----------



## MichaelZ (May 21, 2013)

Listen to what this former Muslim has to say:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/radio-...aling-the-truth-about-islam-with-usama-dakdok


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

My question still stands open. If there are no moderate Muslims to deal with what is the end game?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> My question still stands open. If there are no moderate Muslims to deal with what is the end game?


Now that is worth considering. There is little chance of coming to any agreement as any agreement only holds til some imam somewhere creates a fatwa and some one who has no success to protect decides they will take out their anger on the subject of the imam's ire. Appeasement is ineffective, only encouraging more violence. 
Why don't you ask your muslim friends that you mention frequently what would be an effective course to end the violence? This is not a jab but a serious question. My bet is that any answer will be what the west can do to stop irritating muslims but not one thing they themselves can do.

I will have to get back to you on my own ideas as I need more time than I have now to express some ideas.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> How. The attitude of some on the right is that there are no moderate Muslims. How then can we support any Muslims in their fight for control? If we support any Muslim aren't we doing just what Obama is being accused of. Or, can we admit that there are moderate Muslims who aren't intent on turning the United States into a caliphate. If you disprove the premise( no moderate Muslims) one can logically say a US president supporting Muslims isn't always a bad thing. But if you stand by the premise that there are no moderate Muslims then any support, by any president, is logically a bad thing.


 ............If , you had spent any time watching the fighting in Syria on You Tube , you would have figured out that there are , NO , so called moderate Muslims ! All factions in the war slaughter each other using the same basic techniques of execution for their prisioners . They make them get on their knee's , give them a drink of water , and blow their brains out . Some factions may be a little bloodier than others but it doesn't deviate that much . I'm obviously not including ISIS in my post . 
............And , it is not a bad thing for the US to choose a particular faction to support because we want the Leadership of Syria to be removed from power when this war eventually reaches closure . So , we logically choose 'That' faction which espouses that outcome ! Whether or not , they restore a somewhat representative government IF they win the war only time will tell . , fordy


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Now that is worth considering. There is little chance of coming to any agreement as any agreement only holds til some imam somewhere creates a fatwa and some one who has no success to protect decides they will take out their anger on the subject of the imam's ire. Appeasement is ineffective, only encouraging more violence.
> Why don't you ask your muslim friends that you mention frequently what would be an effective course to end the violence? This is not a jab but a serious question. My bet is that any answer will be what the west can do to stop irritating muslims but not one thing they themselves can do.
> 
> I will have to get back to you on my own ideas as I need more time than I have now to express some ideas.


It's something we have discussed. They see it as a generational thing. Just as the Christianity of today is different than that of 100, 500 or 1000 years ago they see Islam as evolving. The rate of change varies greatly depending upon where in the world one is. Many Muslims in the US don't want to live under the most severe strictures of Sharia law just as many modern day Christians don't choose to live by the strictest tenets of that faith. A lot has to do with how well they are assimilated into western life and how well they are accepted. They do value their cultural heritage but even that varies depending on where in the world that culture originated. Not recognizing these differences, lumping all Muslims together and not acknowledging that most of them just want to get from one day to the next just as you and I does more harm than good. It took Europe a few hundred years to (mostly ) sort out its religous differences. In places like Northern Ireland it still isn't fully settled. What makes you think the Muslim world won't eventually figure it out. The Muslims I know have no issue with dealing with those who commit acts of terrorism here or anywhere across the world. They do object to provoking it.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> My question still stands open. If there are no moderate Muslims to deal with what is the end game?


Therein lies the problem. Dealing with those considered moderate by some hasn't worked out well so far. We've been bribing the moderates for decades and no one can say the Middle East is not worse today.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> It's something we have discussed. They see it as a generational thing. Just as the Christianity of today is different than that of 100, 500 or 1000 years ago they see Islam as evolving. The rate of change varies greatly depending upon where in the world one is. Many Muslims in the US don't want to live under the most severe strictures of Sharia law just as many modern day Christians don't choose to live by the strictest tenets of that faith. A lot has to do with how well they are assimilated into western life and how well they are accepted. They do value their cultural heritage but even that varies depending on where in the world that culture originated. Not recognizing these differences, lumping all Muslims together and not acknowledging that most of them just want to get from one day to the next just as you and I does more harm than good. It took Europe a few hundred years to (mostly ) sort out its religous differences. In places like Northern Ireland it still isn't fully settled. What makes you think the Muslim world won't eventually figure it out. The Muslims I know have no issue with dealing with those who commit acts of terrorism here or anywhere across the world. They do object to provoking it.


As I said, until it hits what Muslims consider their own, they do nothing. That is not OK. Everyone wants to "get along" but not at the cost of allowing, even having sympathy for those causing, brutality to others. And usually in the west, especially brutality to others of its nationality. 
What you are instinctively saying, instinctive because I don't think you would agree to it consciencely, is that Muslims are acting in general as if they were in the middle ages. Revenge for insult mores. No tolerance of insulting opinions of their religion, although that intolerance plays largely in strictly personal issues too, which is unavoidable in the modern western world. That is clear simply looking at the insults here to both Christianity and Islam. If you can't take it, hold your own and go on without violence, then violence is inevitable.
And violence begets violence. People will chafe under their own government's insistence that they take violent stroke after stroke in order not to have escalating ethnic attacks from their own people. 
The only way to avoid this is for there to be at least some Muslim groups willing to be activists in support of some western mores, against some of their co-religionists. A noise loud enough to cause risk to themselves in support of others than themselves. Enough to show there may actually be some Muslims who will adapt to the west rather than demanding everyone in the west adapt to them. A Muslim Martin Luther nailing notice of change to the Cathedral door as a matter of putting principle before accommodation to just-getting-by.
Until then the only definition 'moderate muslim' will have is tomorrow's radical.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> My question still stands open. If there are no moderate Muslims to deal with what is the end game?


Sorry, did not see the original ?.
I would look to the Idiotincharge & ask what the strategy is.
BWHahaha!
Did you see the new sec of defence try to answer that the other day?
Stammered, uh'ed, ah'ed...he has no clue. Why?
B/c there IS NO STRATEGY! (prolly b/c this Idiotincharge is a complete wuss & belongs to Pink)
How 'bout the "Global Coalition" that the Idiotincharge mentioned the other day? There is NO global coalition. Wha? Belguim?
Here's an end game: Send special forces to Iraq & the Kurds area. Find the 40K ISIS monsters. Bomb them til they're gone. Let Jordan in on the plan. As well as the arab emirates. (& whoever else wants to be called 'moderate') Cannot expect to eradicate them w/7 bombing missions/day. Need HUNDREDS.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> It's something we have discussed. They see it as a generational thing. Just as the Christianity of today is different than that of 100, 500 or 1000 years ago they see Islam as evolving. The rate of change varies greatly depending upon where in the world one is. Many Muslims in the US don't want to live under the most severe strictures of Sharia law just as many modern day Christians don't choose to live by the strictest tenets of that faith. A lot has to do with how well they are assimilated into western life and how well they are accepted. They do value their cultural heritage but even that varies depending on where in the world that culture originated. Not recognizing these differences, lumping all Muslims together and not acknowledging that most of them just want to get from one day to the next just as you and I does more harm than good. It took Europe a few hundred years to (mostly ) sort out its religous differences. In places like Northern Ireland it still isn't fully settled. What makes you think the Muslim world won't eventually figure it out. The Muslims I know have no issue with dealing with those who commit acts of terrorism here or anywhere across the world. They do object to provoking it.


Ah, sweet. 
People that don't evolve after 1000 yrs & get even worse are evolving the other way.
There are many more terrorist/Islam outbreaks now than even 30 yrs ago. Keeps accelerating.
Perhaps that is what 'moderate' muslims want. OR are they the minority?
Also, your statement about most not wanting the 'strictest' of sharia law is telling. They nearly ALL want sharia law. Once that is in place, bam. Accellerates to be full blown.
Look at all the countries that have a muslim majority. Nothing but conflict. They thrive on it.
How's it working out for France? What is Germany doing about it? GB?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> As I said, until it hits what Muslims consider their own, they do nothing. That is not OK. Everyone wants to "get along" but not at the cost of allowing, even having sympathy for those causing, brutality to others. And usually in the west, especially brutality to others of its nationality.
> What you are instinctively saying, instinctive because I don't think you would agree to it consciencely, is that Muslims are acting in general as if they were in the middle ages. Revenge for insult mores. No tolerance of insulting opinions of their religion, although that intolerance plays largely in strictly personal issues too, which is unavoidable in the modern western world. That is clear simply looking at the insults here to both Christianity and Islam. If you can't take it, hold your own and go on without violence, then violence is inevitable.
> And violence begets violence. People will chafe under their own government's insistence that they take violent stroke after stroke in order not to have escalating ethnic attacks from their own people.
> The only way to avoid this is for there to be at least some Muslim groups willing to be activists in support of some western mores, against some of their co-religionists. A noise loud enough to cause risk to themselves in support of others than themselves. Enough to show there may actually be some Muslims who will adapt to the west rather than demanding everyone in the west adapt to them. A Muslim Martin Luther nailing notice of change to the Cathedral door as a matter of putting principle before accommodation to just-getting-by.
> Until then the only definition 'moderate muslim' will have is tomorrow's radical.


I'm reacting to the fact that religions, like any other group in power, will act to preserve and expand that power. Islam is no different in that regard than Christianity . It's no different than the conflict between "democracry" and "communism" fought in proxy wars between the US and the Soviet Union. It's no different than the series of wars fought between EnglÃ nd and France in N America ostensibly over land but just as much over which Christians would dominate those lands. These battles, as much as any, led to our founders separating religion from government. They saw the dangers of state religion. The native religions in the Americas didn't disappear willingly. They lost out to a more powerful god at the point of Spanish swords and European Muskets just as the pantheon of forest gods disappeared in the face of the Roman legions and their accompanying catholic priests.

We ourselves hardly seem to care about what happens until it affects us. Whether it's because there's something in a country we want or they do attack us we seldom react until it involves us either. Sometimes we have gone to great lengths to convince ourselves we are affected often causing more problems than we started with. 

I have no problem defending ourselves. I have no problem supporting those like the King of Jordan who are more moderate. It is too bad that moderates by nature never engender the response and strength that extremists of any bent do. Often times it's a matter of those non extremists reaching a critical mass so as to marginalize the edges. If all Muslims agreed with ISIS there'd be no battles. That there are is good news. We've made a lot of mistakes in the Middle East over many administrations including the current one. Supporting the ouster of Mubarak in Egypt without having a strong counter Islamist movement in place to replace him was one. Taking apart Iraq without a plan to rebuild it was another. Chaos and extremists love a vacuum and we've created many. Supporting those moderates that don't exist fills those voids and makes us safer.

You've told me what Muslims need to do. Now, what should we do?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

fordy said:


> ............If , you had spent any time watching the fighting in Syria on You Tube , you would have figured out that there are , NO , so called moderate Muslims ! All factions in the war slaughter each other using the same basic techniques of execution for their prisioners . They make them get on their knee's , give them a drink of water , and blow their brains out . Some factions may be a little bloodier than others but it doesn't deviate that much . I'm obviously not including ISIS in my post .
> ............And , it is not a bad thing for the US to choose a particular faction to support because we want the Leadership of Syria to be removed from power when this war eventually reaches closure . So , we logically choose 'That' faction which espouses that outcome ! Whether or not , they restore a somewhat representative government IF they win the war only time will tell . , fordy


By your definition it is hard to define us a good, Christian nation based on our conduct in conflicts new and old.

But if there are no moderates as you claim why should we hold out any hope that any representative government you hope for represents anything other than more extremism? If moderates don't exist they can hardly be represented.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Sorry, did not see the original ?.
> I would look to the Idiotincharge & ask what the strategy is.
> BWHahaha!
> Did you see the new sec of defence try to answer that the other day?
> ...


At least its a plan. How'd it work out in Afghanistan? 1000's of dead and wounded Americans, a few billion dollars down the drain and a country maybe worse off.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> I'm reacting to the fact that religions, like any other group in power, will act to preserve and expand that power. Islam is no different in that regard than Christianity . It's no different than the conflict between "democracry" and "communism" fought in proxy wars between the US and the Soviet Union. It's no different than the series of wars fought between EnglÃ nd and France in N America ostensibly over land but just as much over which Christians would dominate those lands. These battles, as much as any, led to our founders separating religion from government. They saw the dangers of state religion. The native religions in the Americas didn't disappear willingly. They lost out to a more powerful god at the point of Spanish swords and European Muskets just as the pantheon of forest gods disappeared in the face of the Roman legions and their accompanying catholic priests.
> ?


And has nothing been learned from our own history that Islam should be handed the right to be as medieval and brutal until they naturally evolve? Or should a minimum amount of modern behavior be demanded?

I think that it should be demanded publicly and with protests, not leaving it all to Jewish groups. Also with civil law suits when injury has resulted from Imams' incitement to violence.

At least with as much noise as the vocal Christian/secular media protests over gay hate speech or animal abuse. No slack for deflecting responsiblity with "moderate muslims" or 'Islamaphobia' counter attacks. Didn't get Catholics off the hook for pedophile priests, Mormons for polygamy, or apparently for Christians for anything in their history. Can you imagine if a Catholic stood up and said that, since they were not personally pedophiles, that the Catholic Church should not be blamed for supporting pedophile priests? 

Geesh, how many people here are quite willing to condemn Christians for every personal failing of any Christian in the history of Christianity, whether abetted or not by the religion or not, while in the next breath excuse every Muslim for systematic violence by large groups of its adherents on the basis of professing "it's not moderate muslims?" It smacks of a double standard where it is ok to criticize one group simply because you know that the first will be tolerant of it while the second complains constantly. Never hear of Christianophobia with the same frequency of Islamophobia yet it's the name of Islam attached to a majority of the current atrocities in the world, not Christianity.

BTW the ancient Romans were a very tolerant, on the whole, polytheistic culture. As long as you would sacrifice to their gods in the approved methods, you could also keep to your older gods. Not catholic in the lower case sense or upper case. Roman Catholics were not ancient Romans but were so named to differentiate them from the Eastern Christians after the Great Schism.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> By your definition it is hard to define us a good, Christian nation based on our conduct in conflicts new and old.
> 
> But if there are no moderates as you claim why should we hold out any hope that any representative government you hope for represents anything other than more extremism? If moderates don't exist they can hardly be represented.


If 'moderates' refuse to get invoved, they are a zero sum anyway. Or rather less as they keep getting in the way of anyone trying to actually do anything.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

where I want to said:


> If 'moderates' refuse to get involved, they are a zero sum anyway. Or rather less as they keep getting in the way of anyone trying to actually do anything.


Good point. There were good moderates in Germany under Hitler too but they were irrelevant because they did not rise up out of fear.


----------



## TRellis (Sep 16, 2013)

poppy said:


> Good point. There were good moderates in Germany under Hitler too but they were irrelevant because they did not rise up out of fear.


Actually, that reminds me more of the present situation with Putin and the whole Ukraine mess. Many in Europe, such as Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande, want to appease Putin and not push him. Could they be the modern-day version of Neville Chamberlain?

TRellis


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

TRellis said:


> Actually, that reminds me more of the present situation with Putin and the whole Ukraine mess. Many in Europe, such as Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande, want to appease Putin and not push him. Could they be the modern-day version of Neville Chamberlain?
> 
> TRellis


Good to take the time and evaluate, ponder that.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

Popped in and I see another thread which proves that religion has no effect on behavior.

Jesus taught, love your enemy, bless them that curse you, turn the other cheek, blessed are the peacemakers, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The reason Jesus said all this was he knew it was human nature to join a group for survival (religion, tribe, gang, nation) and create an us-vs-them mentality. Everything about us is good, everything about them is evil, and if you question us, you are unpatriotic. Always looking for a fight.

Instead of peace and love, most christians I know want more war against muslims, even though they are not directly threatened. Constantly obsessing over people 6,000 miles away. If you didn't understand the animal nature of humans, this would seem really weird.

So if christians can't follow their religion of peace, stands to reason that muslims don't follow theirs either, and the extremists are doing violence of their own accord. Their problem with us might have something to do with us occupying and bombing their land, and installing dictators and supporting this and that group, and imposing sanctions resulting in hundreds of thousands of dead children, etc, etc. Constant meddling.

Of course, because we have to be loyal to our gang, we can't question any of our actions, but have to only focus on the evil of our enemy. We hate the golden rule. If we followed the golden rule, we would allow another country to come bomb us and replace the evil Obama, as we do to others around the world.

And of course, the big government folks see every solution involving more spending - more bombing, etc, etc, which is good for the military industrial complex that Republican president Eisenhower warned us about.

I don't really understand why those who dislike muslims, want to spend trillions of dollars over there trying to keep them from killing each other. Just stay home and keep a low profile, and if we're directly attacked, do something about it, but quit stirring things up. Life did not start on 9/11 - we were messing with them long before that.

Leave them alone!


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

Another thought is that we are so concerned about the atrocities in the middle east, yet for years guys in Africa were running around cutting arms off, etc. Why no outcry? Maybe they were the wrong religion? How do we decide which bad stuff we care about?

And of course, we haven't ever fixed anything. We got rid of the evil Saddam (who was our guy), only to end up with ISIS. Happens repeatedly. Just like we staged a coup against the elected leader of Iran in the 1950's and ended up with religious nuts years later. But of course, we can't leave people alone. Especially since they have our oil, and as we're finding out, have been overcharging us greatly. Though the first Iraq invasion was supposed to ensure the free flow of oil. Yeah, right.

But of course, as long as we're fighting muslims, all is right.


And by the way, mmoetc, did you say a few billion spent in Afghanistan? You might want to research that. My son was stationed over there and marveled at all the new equipment and machinery lined up forever. Trillions to be made. Figure we'll spend 6 trillion in Iraq alone after lifetime care of the maimed and debilitated.

I read a few years ago this article written by an army officer in the Armed Forces Journal about how the top brass were lying about progress made in Afghanistan, well back into the Bush years. One more disaster because we can't leave people alone. But big money to be made.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/truth-lies-and-afghanistan/


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

DJ in WA said:


> Popped in and I see another thread which proves that religion has no effect on behavior.
> 
> 
> Life did not start on 9/11 - we were messing with them long before that.
> ...


Apparently, according to Obama, way back to the Crusades. Oh-wait. That ignores the height of the Islamic Conquests when they were busy not leaving the rest of the world alone.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> If 'moderates' refuse to get invoved, they are a zero sum anyway. Or rather less as they keep getting in the way of anyone trying to actually do anything.


Moderates are involved in fighting groups like ISIS. Or do you believe that all sides in the fight are equally extreme? How about the Kurds who we have backed for decades ( except when backing them might upset someone like Turkey). Muslim extremists or not? Worth arming and providing air cover to? Why or why not?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> And has nothing been learned from our own history that Islam should be handed the right to be as medieval and brutal until they naturally evolve? Or should a minimum amount of modern behavior be demanded?
> 
> I think that it should be demanded publicly and with protests, not leaving it all to Jewish groups. Also with civil law suits when injury has resulted from Imams' incitement to violence.
> 
> ...


You mean Muslim clerics like this one serving life in prison for aiding terrorists? http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/1/9/abu-hamza-conviction.html

I don't condemn all Catholics for abuses of some priests. I don't condemn the entire religion for the role the hierarchy played in covering up abuse. I don't condemn all Muslims for the some.

A religion whose first commandment includes holding no other god would be ok with bowing and sacrificing to another?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

In response to DJ's post # 85, Christ taught to help others. IMHO, we see monsters/savages killing innocents ANYWHERE we should be obliged to help.
I guess no one knows how GWB help Africa?
Also, we get bogged w/trying to be tolerant of "religion", this is a problem b/c Islam is a theocratic political movement heck bent on taking over the world, setting up a caliphate under sharia law.
And NO, Christians do NOT want to do that.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> You mean Muslim clerics like this one serving life in prison for aiding terrorists? http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/1/9/abu-hamza-conviction.html
> 
> I don't condemn all Catholics for abuses of some priests. I don't condemn the entire religion for the role the hierarchy played in covering up abuse. I don't condemn all Muslims for the some.
> 
> A religion whose first commandment includes holding no other god would be ok with bowing and sacrificing to another?


But the Catholic church was sued. It was picketed. And there were media stories all over about it. And it's hierarchy took notice, very unwillingly, but did take notice. And no one person here would have defended the Church based on an idea that "moderate" catholics where not responsible. So maybe there's a chance for change without having to "blame" everyone if "everyone" agrees they have a problem to be solved.

BTW what I really think would make a difference is not the US convicting an imam, as it convicted pedophile priests, but if some Islamic authority took action itself to ensure they never acted as a congregation for such people again. That would be hopeful as recognition that they have an obligation, just as the Catholic Church has done to say they will not protect priests committing criminal acts. 

I spent some time looking for a fatwa against terrorism. And there was one, issued in 2010 by a Sunni scholar who is a follower of Sufism. Unfortunately there is a little loophole as the Koran specifically requires it in the defense of Islam. So I guess that means if you just can't find any basis for deciding that some action is in defense of Oslam, you just can't do it. If you believe this particular imam is not false to begin with. And you can see how well that's working. 

I wonder if there is an authority for religiously trying and "defrocking" imams making irresponsible fatwas, thus making their orders null. I know that Saudi Arabia tried to limit freewheeling fatwas by making a list of people who are solely permitted to issue them but I don't think the Saudi have stopping terrorism against infidels as a concern, even if they were universially in control.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> But the Catholic church was sued. It was picketed. And there were media stories all over about it. And it's hierarchy took notice, very unwillingly, but did take notice. And no one person here would have defended the Church based on an idea that "moderate" catholics where not responsible. So maybe there's a chance for change without having to "blame" everyone if "everyone" agrees they have a problem to be solved.
> 
> BTW what I really think would make a difference is not the US convicting an imam, as it convicted pedophile priests, but if some Islamic authority took action itself to ensure they never acted as a congregation for such people again. That would be hopeful as recognition that they have an obligation, just as the Catholic Church has done to say they will not protect priests committing criminal acts.
> 
> ...


I really didn't want to make this a comparison between the Catholics handling of sexual abuse and Muslim terrorism but here's a little perspective. The Catholic hierarchy knew for decades, likely centuries that abuse occurred. Their response was to hide behind the cross. As late as 2001 a future Pope aided in the cover up. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/09/20/us-says-pope-immune-from-molestation-lawsuit/. Yet he and all other high church officials are immune from lawsuits. Not one Bishop or Cardinal has been charged with obstruction of justice for moving priests or "counseling " victims. The church has used every legal strategy available to avoid responsibilty including having individual dioces declaring bankruptcy to avoid payment of civil penalties.

Mosques are under government scrutiny and surveillance. I asked my friends whether they had ever heard a call to take over the US and make it a Muslim state, to support terrorism , to hate the infidel in any of their Mosques or religous meetings. They laughed. They also then looked at me and said they did know places in this country where such things were talked of. The told me that their religous leaders have spoken out against such things. That they discuss these things with their children and explain the wrongness of such speech. Of course I'm sure they're just laughing at me behind my back as I walk away because they couldn't possibly believe that not killing me would be the righteous thing to do. After all, they're just Muslims.

Gather your evidence, file your lawsuits. Or maybe get to actually know some of the people you're so quick to label and lump together.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> I really didn't want to make this a comparison between the Catholics handling of sexual abuse and Muslim terrorism ........
> Gather your evidence, file your lawsuits. Or maybe get to actually know some of the people you're so quick to label and lump together.


Yet both cases have one thing in common- incidents followed by blanket denials.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Yet both cases have one thing in common- incidents followed by blanket denials.


The only blanket denial that this thread has provided evidence of is the existence of moderate Muslims.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> The only blanket denial that this thread has provided evidence of is the existence of moderate Muslims.


As it proves the existence of non pedophile catholic, if it proves anything. I think you confuse noninvolved with moderate and have yet to provide a definitiin of moderate. If a person does not pick up a gun to shoot non-muslims because they are non-muslims, is that good enough to be moderate even if they give money to a charity that supports those who do that?


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

where I want to said:


> As it proves the existence of non pedophile catholic, if it proves anything. I think you confuse noninvolved with moderate and have yet to provide a definitiin of moderate. If a person does not pick up a gun to shoot non-muslims because they are non-muslims, is that good enough to be moderate even if they give money to a charity that supports those who do that?


 ..........The three muslim dental students executed by the murder for no reason other than hate exhibited the essence of 'moderate' muslims to me ! Their plan was to return to Syria\Lebanon and treat All patients who required dental work . They had NO predispositions or biases towards those who would need treatment based upon the patients religious values . That's about as close to a 'Moderate' Muslim as a Non Muslim could expect . 
...........The executioner , a white male , non muslim murdered (3) innocent , very bright , very dedicated dental students probably because of Hate and wanting to 'get' even . These are the 'Muslims' we want in our country and should encourage them to come to the USA and become citizens ! , fordy


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> As it proves the existence of non pedophile catholic, if it proves anything. I think you confuse noninvolved with moderate and have yet to provide a definitiin of moderate. If a person does not pick up a gun to shoot non-muslims because they are non-muslims, is that good enough to be moderate even if they give money to a charity that supports those who do that?


Post of the day award.
Wow, what common sense.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> As it proves the existence of non pedophile catholic, if it proves anything. I think you confuse noninvolved with moderate and have yet to provide a definitiin of moderate. If a person does not pick up a gun to shoot non-muslims because they are non-muslims, is that good enough to be moderate even if they give money to a charity that supports those who do that?


I've provided a couple of examples of those I would call moderate. They are invilved in their local communities and with their families. The young dentist killed in Chapel Hill would be someone I consider moderate from what I've read. He not only got involved by trying to help others, he spoke out against the killing of Jews. 

I would insert knowingly into your question. There are many charities who do much good work around the world who help people regardless of their religous beliefs. It doesn't mean they support those beliefs or those who do evil in the name of their religion, just that they understand that true charity come with no strings attached.

I realize that you'll not change your mind one iota. Neither will I and I'm done with this.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

fordy said:


> ..........The three muslim dental students executed by the murder for no reason other than hate exhibited the essence of 'moderate' muslims to me ! Their plan was to return to Syria\Lebanon and treat All patients who required dental work . They had NO predispositions or biases towards those who would need treatment based upon the patients religious values . That's about as close to a 'Moderate' Muslim as a Non Muslim could expect .
> ...........The executioner , a white male , non muslim murdered (3) innocent , very bright , very dedicated dental students probably because of Hate and wanting to 'get' even . These are the 'Muslims' we want in our country and should encourage them to come to the USA and become citizens ! , fordy


The murderer had a long standing argument with the Muslims due to parking at the building. Parking lots are assigned by number and the woman's sister made a habit of parking in his spot. He was not only non Muslim, but an atheist who ranted against all religions on Facebook. He was an admitted progressive who championed gay rights. IOW, he was an angry weirdo.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> I've provided a couple of examples of those I would call moderate. They are invilved in their local communities and with their families. The young dentist killed in Chapel Hill would be someone I consider moderate from what I've read. He not only got involved by trying to help others, he spoke out against the killing of Jews.
> 
> I would insert knowingly into your question. There are many charities who do much good work around the world who help people regardless of their religous beliefs. It doesn't mean they support those beliefs or those who do evil in the name of their religion, just that they understand that true charity come with no strings attached.
> 
> I realize that you'll not change your mind one iota. Neither will I and I'm done with this.


Actually, due to the muders of the NC students, which I have been reading about intensely becaused it seemed a confirmation of my fears, I am not done. That the motive is not yet clear does not change the reaction I had.

I have some fears about Muslims in the US, partly due terrorism actually carried out, but also due to the mixed bag of apparent aggression in a couple of instances with Muslims in casual meetings. And the contrast between those recent ones and the contacts I'd had earlier in my life with Muslims being friendly and open. Things have changed.

This situation is made worse by the pretense that these ugly terrorists actions are just confined to a few radical individuals and it is the predjudice of Americans against Muslims that is the real problem. The same stupid litany happens- there is an terrorist incident of extreme ugliness, immediately followed in the media by a rash of announcements about fears that there will be a rush of anti-Islamic responses and announcements by some Islamic official that Muslims are innocent and peace loving.

The effect of this is to tell Americans, who have just been attacked and are justly fearful, that their reactions are the problem, not the criminals who acted. The officials appear more interested in keeping Muslims safe from retaliation than protecting the populace while Muslims appear more worried about how it effects them than in the victims or the larger populace. It's a massive message of quit whining and go home. 

So suspicion grows that, with every hint of hate speech or foiled terrorist plot, there is a massive conspiracy being allowed to grow while worry is flicked off as bigotry or umimportant. Muslims want to pretend they are not involved while they are defended by those dismissing fears- the famous moderate argument. The public is told to just move along-nothing to see here.

The truth is quite apparent that either "radicalized" muslims are admitted to the country or created here by some means and refusing to talk about it makes suspicions worst. So maybe Muslims are tired of hearing about it and just want it to go away but flipping off fears only makes the suspicions worse as those fearful are totally disregarded and on their own to figure things out.

It is not Muslims that are so much an issue with me but the flipping off. Something is going wrong and dismissing acknowledgment of that makes it worse,


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

poppy said:


> The murderer had a long standing argument with the Muslims due to parking at the building. Parking lots are assigned by number and the woman's sister made a habit of parking in his spot. He was not only non Muslim, but an atheist who ranted against all religions on Facebook. He was an admitted progressive who championed gay rights. IOW, he was an angry weirdo.


^^^^^exactly!!!^^^^

Here everybody goes convicting of a hate crime without all the facts. Motive is all speculation at this point. Didn't we learn anything during the Martin or Brown media hype?

http://www.wral.com/funeral-set-for-3-killed-near-unc-chapel-hill/14442350/

I don't care what his motive was! He murdered three people. I condemn that not caring what his motive is. Fast trial is needed and if convicted, a fast death sentence should be carried out!


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Wait a min, they said the argument was over parking spaces. Then they bring up hate crimes? "hate crime" more pc garbage. I don't belive in hate crimes,all crimes are hatefull.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

7thswan said:


> Wait a min, they said the argument was over parking spaces. Then they bring up hate crimes? "hate crime" more pc garbage. I don't belive in hate crimes,all crimes are hatefull.



That's what we've come to in this country. No matter the facts, anytime a black or Muslim is murdered, the assumption is that hate is involved. However, if a black or Muslim kills a white, excuses for the murderer are easy to find.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

poppy said:


> That's what we've come to in this country. No matter the facts, anytime a black or Muslim is murdered, the assumption is that hate is involved. However, if a black or Muslim kills a white, excuses for the murderer are easy to find.


I remember thinking that when I read about the recent Little League kerfuffle. It is clear they violated the rules but the parents interviewed all indicated that it was racism. After all they did not know anything about the rules.
So there is now a substantial group of high achieving black children who have been taught that rules are not important, even though the whole Little League exists solely because of rules, because racism, not rule breaking, was why their title was taken.
And no one raised the question of why all the players on that team, if taken without regard to territories illegally, were all black. Not a hint of racism raised about that.
No, everyone wants to out victim their neighbors. As if it conveys special rights. Hmmm- I wonder if there is such a mindset in this.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

I hear Rham Emanual is asking them to reverse their decision.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

http://nypost.com/2015/02/12/chicago-little-league-whistle-blower-getting-death-threats/



7thswan said:


> I hear Rham Emanual is asking them to reverse their decision.


And the person who complained is getting death threats. For all the noise, specifics are pretty hard to come by. As usual, the media reports opinion only, which is much easier to report than facts.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ls-quoting-verses-Koran-forbid-slaughter.html

"The granny who stood up to ISIS: Elderly woman filmed confronting militants and branding them 'devils' before quoting verses in the Koran that forbid slaughter


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

So,is she still alive?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Wlover said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ls-quoting-verses-Koran-forbid-slaughter.html
> 
> "The granny who stood up to ISIS: Elderly woman filmed confronting militants and branding them 'devils' before quoting verses in the Koran that forbid slaughter


God bless every fearless old woman in the world. They know crap when they see it.

Wait a minute- that video was taken from inside the car. How did something recorded by ISIS troops that was a criticism end up posted for the world to see? I smell a rat.


----------

