Let's dispel the myth that poverty causes terrorism. It Doesn't!

Heck, in that area you had some real bastards, like the Tigers Militia.

The military arm of the Lebanese National Liberal Party, they were one of the major factions in the Lebanese Civil War. Financed primarily through a protection racket by the founders, they were involved in a great many atrocities and massacres, including some in refugee camps.

And this was a Christian Militia!

Whenever you have people become radicalized, offshoots will form of other factions. We have even had Druze terrorists participating in Palestine Liberation Front attacks in Israel sponsored by Syria. And one of the groups we are indirectly supporting in Iraq and Syria is the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK).

The PKK is an interesting organization. Considered by Turkey, the EU, NATO and Russia as well as Syria and Iran to be a "Terrorist Organization" which supports open rebellion for the creation of a Kurdish state, never the less all give them at least some amount of assistance. Most interesting is Turkey. Kind of like the relationship between the Taliban and Pakistan pre-2001, Turkey considers them to be terrorists and has been the main target of their attacks. Yet their intelligence organizations still work closely with them in order to root out common enemies, and gives them weapons and supplies just so they are not used in Turkey or against Turkish soldiers.

The biggest problem with so many is that they want the world to be entirely black and white, so they ignore all the shades of grey that really inhabit it.

 

I agree that terrorism is not a condition that can be caused by something like poverty... It is a tactic used to acheive a goal.
Of course, poverty and lack of education do make front-line terrorists (like suicide bombers) easier to create.

 

Not really. Quite a few "terrorists" are college educated. Radicalism ignores education.

In fact, more then one "radical" became that way because of experiences in college.

 

The leaders certainly are not poor, but the people who do the actual killing and martyring generally are. There are exceptions, but you don't go to the Yale campus to recruit infantrymen.

Btw, Daniel Pipes is an oaf of the largest possible magnitude.

 

religious fanaticism breads terrorists

 

Any kind of fanaticism does.

Religious, political, ideological, it really does not matter. You can be a Radical Luddite or Radical Environmentalist. It is the radicalism and fanaticism that causes the violence, not the actual cause that a person becomes radical towards.

 

I know you aren't saying that if poverty were effectively eliminated in Muslim lands and enclaves and every Muslim home and family that that would erase the Koran's order for Muslims to conquer the world for Allah.

But I want everyone who thinks it would to see this question and think about it in this context.

 

The Goal of Islam is to make all of humanity submit to Shariah Law.

"Every accommodation non-Muslims make for Muslims moves our culture, our beliefs, and our legal systems one step closer to Sharia law."

None of those others you mention have global conquest as a goal and none have the numbers or the zeal to do it nor the willing blindness of the foolish West to allow it as Islam does.

 

This is more or less the goal of any proselytizing religion.

Some are simply more enlightened in this era then others. Rather then trying to kill those who do not accept, they simply accept they will be going to hell and leave it at that.

However, this is all open to interpretation. Not all Muslims believe this, only the radicals. Most Muslims accept that for example Jews and Christians are "People of the Book", and are no more infidels then Shi'ites are to Sunni.

Do not take the radicals and think they are the mainstream.

 

Islam is NOT moderate even though some Muslims are.

I bear no personal animus towards modern, peaceful Muslims who wish to live a peaceful, and productive lifestyle.

But there are some things you can't sweep under the rug and which we mustn't ignore.

One, there are numerous examples of those modern, peaceful and productive and well educated Muslims whose offspring become problematic.

Two, there are the modern Muslims, themselves, who become suddenly Jihadist.

Three, let's not close our eyes to those Muslims who are peaceful Jihadi but who are performing the OBLIGATORY Jihad in ways which are quietly and covertly dangerous to our government and way of life, not in the short term but gradually.

Think CAIR. They wear suits and operate in the open and look and sound respectable but they are absolutely committed to Islamic conquest of America and although SOME of their members have been imprisoned or IINM deported for their activities, others avoid arrest or prosecution by using our laws to do their dirty work and yet remain free.

If I recall correctly you have an aeronautical background. Even if I'm mistaken about that you are smart enough to understand this analogy.

When Boeing Aircraft Co. receives a shipment of parts to use in the construction of their aircraft, if ONE part is found to be out of spec or somehow faulty, the entire batch of parts is rejected because one bad screw could result in hundreds or thousands of lives being lost if that bad part failed and causes a jumbo jet to fall over a big city. And in addition to the possible loss of life, the resulting lawsuits could bankrupt the company!

Why gamble on even a $100,000 part if the cost could be so terribly high? The reward vs risk of such a gamble would be foolish.

It is just not worth taking a chance on.

Well, we know that when Muslim populations grow beyond 2% of the total host nation's population Muslim toxicity becomes problematic.

Free societies can tolerate small Muslim populations. But once their numbers grow beyond 2% that is when major problems begin to happen.

And the problems that arise are just too toxic to be worth trying to tolerate their increased numbers.

Yes, that goes for the modern muslims too.

Just like in that shipment of aircraft parts.

Only one screw may be bad out of a batch of thousands.

But is it worth it to examine each and ever part to determine which ones are good and which are bad?

And in the case of Muslims we have no reliable way of detecting the bad ones and the so called moderates won't snitch on their fellow Muslims friends, relatives or Mosque-mates.

Therefore, out of an enlightened sense of self preservation we must consider ALL Muslims as a monolithic group.

And that means we need to restrict Muslim levels in America to no greater than 2% or we will suffer the same kind of problems that the French, the British, the Swedes, the Germans, the Russians, the Norwegians and the Israelis, to name a few, are suffering.

We are not stupid and we are not suicidal therefore we should learn the the lessons from their mistakes in ignoring the seemingly benign stages of Muslim infiltration and occupation.

We can not ignore this any longer.

We need to do what we can to avoid the explosions the fires, the assaults, the rapes, the shootings, the riots and the infiltration which has doomed ALL of Europe to become a majority Muslim continent by 2050.

Look at what is ALREADY happening in the heavily Muslim populated enclave of Dearborn, Michigan.

The Goal of Islam is to make all of humanity submit to Shariah Law.

"Every accommodation non-Muslims make for Muslims moves our culture, our beliefs, and our legal systems one step closer to Sharia law."

 

I have a question:

i think that from the start that mindset would be put down as discriminatory. I think it would be a teeny bit more socially tolerable to put immigration caps on all races(whites included) so it doesn't look like blatant racism. Would that work any better? I know it would make America a terror target anyways since it includes Muslims and we can deal with that but international condemnation as well as of becoming...*whispers* isolationist.

 

Well, let me know if there is any terrorism related to the US not allowing enough emigrants of a select group into the country.

And remember, I have no horse in this race. But you are making a comparison that has no basis in fact here. I myself have never heard of any terrorist attacks upon the US due to it's emigration policies, either to much or not enough.

"Yankees! You do not let enough of my people in, so I blow up your Embassy until you let more of my people in!"

Sorry, does not fly.

 

Pointing out Jewish terrorists is anti Semitic. They are chosen therefore allowed to blow up hotels full of goyim. Shame on you!

 

Those educated "terrorists" generally rely on a steady supply of desperate and poor uneducated people to carry out the actual acts of violence.
Those geographic areas where radicalism has become the norm are hardly centres of wealth and education.

 

Eliminating poverty among Christians wouldn't cause them to "erase" their teachings that non-Christians are evil enough to deserve eternal torture either.

 

What does this have to do with your inference (in post #8 ) that there are no "non Muslim terrorists"?

Besides, are you really saying that Christian extremists (for example) don't believe in converting all non-believers to their belief system, and that those who won't convert deserve everlasting torture?

 

Did I REALLY say that or is it something you think I posted?

Let me check again.

Ah, I remember now.

I was trying to goad someone into engaging me in discussion.

it took so long for someone (you) to do it I'd almost forgotten the trap i set.

I know of the Tamil tigers and other non-Muslim terrorists.

That's why you'll notice I didn't explicitly say there weren't any.

I asked where are they?

EDIT: And in answer to your last question, I don't care what Christians WANT.

Just as long as they don't break the law or try to subvert the government in order to replace it with Shariah and or subjugate the Kafirs I don't care.

Neither should you.

But that is your business.

 

Are you trying to exercise mind control or what???

jesus said love one another. That was his marching orders to Christians.

period.

Those who go beyond that are breaking the law and we have enough other Christians ready and able to keep the bad ones in line.

Islam orders all Muslims to conquer the world for Allah.

Read the things I've posted and if you aren't a Muslim or a hard headed apologist you will figure it out.

Now I have a game to watch.

 

I agree that legislation founded on religious dogma is a bad thing, which is why I find it amusing that there are republican voters raving about Sharia law while supporting politicians that want to implement christian dogma.

 

Because we shouldn't put the cart before the horse.

The Constitution and the laws are there to preserve freedoms and liberty not the other way around.

Seems you have it bass ackwards.

Pardon if this seems off the mark re: your post. I'm distracted.

EDIT: Raving suggests a positive reaction. You mean ranting. Yes?

 

Right.... Except for such passages as Romans 13:1-5, Luke 22:36, and the entire OT...

What is that assertion based on?

Your posts are subjective interpretations with no reference or supporting evidence.

All religious texts are equally flawed and subject to misinterpretation and/or vilification.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2001/09/0925_TVkoran.html

 

how does legislating christian dogma while fearmongering about the legislation of islamic dogma have anything to do with "putting the cart before the horse"?

Exactly why religious dogma of ALL kinds (including christian) should not be legislated.

How so?

 

No one is alarmed by Christianity except extremists.

Christians aren't in the news every night for executing innocents and blowing stuff up.

You are trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shix.

If that is your bag, then you should know how silly it is.

But do your thing.

Free country.

So far.

You should be trying to keep it that way.

 

I was high on nachos when I typed that.

Please disregard.

 

Are you a lying Muslim (not a slam but a description, as Allah encourages Muslims to lie when it serves their purpose of advancing Islam)?

Or are you a misguided apologist?

Why it matters is because you should already know your religion better than you portend in your comments.