Response to “Are Mormons Closer to Muslims or Christians?”

'Honor' murderer boasts of triple killing"

By Reza Sayah, CNN

Mon, August 20, 2012



Kot Chutta, Pakistan (CNN) -- From behind the steel bars of his jail cell, Muhammad Ismail described with uncanny ease how he shot and killed his wife, his mother-in-law, and sister-in-law.



"The first shot hit the side of her body," Ismail said. "I left her there and went next door and killed my wife's mother and sister. I made sure they were all dead. Then I locked the door and left the house."



Without any apparent regret, Ismail said he would do it again.



"I am proud of what I did. That's why I turned myself over to the police."

Ismail's confession to the triple-murder that took place last February in a village in central Pakistan is a rare and chilling first-hand account of a so-called "honor" killing -- the murder of women who are usually accused of dishonoring their families by being unfaithful or disobedient.



Ismail accused his wife of eight months of repeatedly flirting with other men and spending long hours away from home.

"My wife never made me happy," said the 20-year-old who played drums in a traditional Pakistani wedding band before his arrest. "She was like a prostitute. She never took care of me."



The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan reported 943 women were "killed in the name of honor" in Pakistan last year, an increase of more than 100 from 2010."



http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/20/world/asia/pakistan-honor-confession/index.html?hpt=hp_c1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tww wrote:

Please numerically quantify what you mean by "a very small minority." Because the kind of numbers that appear to me are nothing close to a minority. Better yet let's break it down into 4 categories understanding that this is not so scientific as it is to get a better understanding of what we are talking about.

(1) Muslims that intend to oppress, kill or commit immoral acts in the name of their god. Want Sharia law enforced all over the world.

(2) Those that do not intend to personally commit such acts but tolerate or condone them because of religious belief. Support Sharia Law.

(3) Those that do not condone such acts but do not speak out against them or do not fight against them out of fear or apathy. Tolerate Sharia law.

(4) Those that would be considered American patriots or the equivalent ready to stand up to terrorism, condemn and fight against "radical Islam" like Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Iran (both political and spiritual leaders), and other Islamic groups that promote violence in the name of religion. This group also recognizes the right of Israel and America to exist and condemns the speech of those calling for the end of Israel. This group also speaks out against the adoption of Sharia law by American and European courts.



Every Muslim must fit in one of these categories. What percentage would you give each category?

First of all, you didn't answer any of my questions. But I'll go ahead and answer yours.



Group 1) I would suspect is 0.5-1% worldwide. This is the group that needs to be eliminated and I'm fine with finding and eliminating these turds.



Group 2-4) I don't really care about. I believe in their rights to participate and live their religion as they see fit, and if it's not infringing on the rights of others, let them worship how, where, or what they may. And I don't really care what other countries are doing. If Muslims in some middle eastern country come to america with the intent to do harm, I'll do whatever I can to stop such actions and will condone action including violent means if necessary. But if they are in their own countries (see Syria right now) I'm not a fan of a government police getting involved, especially because I believe it breeds more Group 1 type people and a perpetual hatred cycle (much like the hate cycle between Israel and Palenstine) begins with both sides committing atrocities against the other.



Bottom line. Anyone, domestic or foreign, who comes to my country and begins trying to take away freedoms and that's when I'll worry about it. Until them, I'm content to let foreign government handle these issues.



Now, you've attempted to change the subject. Please answer my questions or I'm done with this conversation.

Ddawg wrote:
'Honor' murderer boasts of triple killing"

By Reza Sayah, CNN

Mon, August 20, 2012



Kot Chutta, Pakistan (CNN) -- From behind the steel bars of his jail cell, Muhammad Ismail described with uncanny ease how he shot and killed his wife, his mother-in-law, and sister-in-law.



"The first shot hit the side of her body," Ismail said. "I left her there and went next door and killed my wife's mother and sister. I made sure they were all dead. Then I locked the door and left the house."



Without any apparent regret, Ismail said he would do it again.



"I am proud of what I did. That's why I turned myself over to the police."

Ismail's confession to the triple-murder that took place last February in a village in central Pakistan is a rare and chilling first-hand account of a so-called "honor" killing -- the murder of women who are usually accused of dishonoring their families by being unfaithful or disobedient.



Ismail accused his wife of eight months of repeatedly flirting with other men and spending long hours away from home.

"My wife never made me happy," said the 20-year-old who played drums in a traditional Pakistani wedding band before his arrest. "She was like a prostitute. She never took care of me."



The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan reported 943 women were "killed in the name of honor" in Pakistan last year, an increase of more than 100 from 2010."



http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/20/world/asia/pakistan-honor-confession/index.html?hpt=hp_c1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting. This sounds like another fringe radical, not the norm. I base that on the fact that he was ARRESTED for doing this in a majority Islamic country. If this was so tolerated in Islam, why is it against the law in Pakistan?



This sounds like another idiot who believes his religion gives him the right to unrighteous dominion, much like some of the Dan Jones/David Koresh types out there but simply on a smaller scale. Can't infer much about the religion of Islam from such an article. Just like you can't infer much about "Mormonism" from the Mountain Meadow Massacre. It would be similar to deciding what Christianity was all about by studying the KKK.

BroncoBot wrote:

'Honor' murderer boasts of triple killing"

By Reza Sayah, CNN

Mon, August 20, 2012



Kot Chutta, Pakistan (CNN) -- From behind the steel bars of his jail cell, Muhammad Ismail described with uncanny ease how he shot and killed his wife, his mother-in-law, and sister-in-law.



"The first shot hit the side of her body," Ismail said. "I left her there and went next door and killed my wife's mother and sister. I made sure they were all dead. Then I locked the door and left the house."



Without any apparent regret, Ismail said he would do it again.



"I am proud of what I did. That's why I turned myself over to the police."

Ismail's confession to the triple-murder that took place last February in a village in central Pakistan is a rare and chilling first-hand account of a so-called "honor" killing -- the murder of women who are usually accused of dishonoring their families by being unfaithful or disobedient.



Ismail accused his wife of eight months of repeatedly flirting with other men and spending long hours away from home.

"My wife never made me happy," said the 20-year-old who played drums in a traditional Pakistani wedding band before his arrest. "She was like a prostitute. She never took care of me."



The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan reported 943 women were "killed in the name of honor" in Pakistan last year, an increase of more than 100 from 2010."



http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/20/world/asia/pakistan-honor-confession/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;?



hpt=hp_c1

Interesting. This sounds like another fringe radical, not the norm. I base that on the fact that he was ARRESTED for doing this in a majority Islamic country. If this was so tolerated in Islam, why is it against the law in Pakistan?

You can believe it's a fringe element - and you would be wrong. I read a study, where Muslims were interviewed and asked their opinion of "Honor Killing." A full 10% supported it - if the honor of a family was insulted. That's not fringe. That is a deep cultural phenomenon.



"A July 2008 Turkish study by a team from Dicle University on honor killings in the Southeastern Anatolia Region, the predominantly Kurdish area of Turkey, has so far shown that little if any social stigma is attached to honor killing. It also comments that the practice is not related to a feudal societal structure, "there are also perpetrators who are well-educated university graduates. Of all those surveyed, 60 percent are either high school or university graduates or at the very least, literate."



hpt=hp_c1[/quote]

This sounds like another idiot who believes his religion gives him the right to unrighteous dominion, much like some of the Dan Jones/David Koresh types out there but simply on a smaller scale. Can't infer much about the religion of Islam from such an article. Just like you can't infer much about "Mormonism" from the Mountain Meadow Massacre. It would be similar to deciding what Christianity was all about by studying the KKK.

[/quote]



Yes he is an idiot. Yes he is exercising unrighteous dominion. That's where your argument falls apart.



Dan Jones and David Koresh are recognized by the societies they live in a Kooks. Honor killers are not. They are respected by their community.



Infer? What am I inferring? I am inferring nothing. I am pointing out factual behavior. That in the Islamic culture, "Honor Killing" is not unusual, happens all the time. It is not restricted to the Middle East. It occurs everywhere the Muslim faith exists. In Europe, African Continent, Britain, and the USA.



The Mountain Meadow Massacre was a 1 time event - it is not repeated thousands of times every year, globally, wherever the LDS faith exists. However, any where followers of Islam exist - "Honor Killings" occur. In Pakistan alone, 943 "Honor Killings" occurred in 2011.



So - try to excuse away. And try to say I am a hater. On both counts you are wrong. My point is, Islam and Mormonism are not alike - not at all. They both pray, they both believe in a God. They believe God speaks to messengers called prophets. But, so what. The points of similarity are minimal, superficial, and apply to many, many faiths world wide.

BroncoBot wrote:

Please numerically quantify what you mean by "a very small minority." Because the kind of numbers that appear to me are nothing close to a minority. Better yet let's break it down into 4 categories understanding that this is not so scientific as it is to get a better understanding of what we are talking about.

(1) Muslims that intend to oppress, kill or commit immoral acts in the name of their god. Want Sharia law enforced all over the world.

(2) Those that do not intend to personally commit such acts but tolerate or condone them because of religious belief. Support Sharia Law.

(3) Those that do not condone such acts but do not speak out against them or do not fight against them out of fear or apathy. Tolerate Sharia law.

(4) Those that would be considered American patriots or the equivalent ready to stand up to terrorism, condemn and fight against "radical Islam" like Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Iran (both political and spiritual leaders), and other Islamic groups that promote violence in the name of religion. This group also recognizes the right of Israel and America to exist and condemns the speech of those calling for the end of Israel. This group also speaks out against the adoption of Sharia law by American and European courts.



Every Muslim must fit in one of these categories. What percentage would you give each category?

First of all, you didn't answer any of my questions. But I'll go ahead and answer yours.



Group 1) I would suspect is 0.5-1% worldwide. This is the group that needs to be eliminated and I'm fine with finding and eliminating these turds.



Group 2-4) I don't really care about. I believe in their rights to participate and live their religion as they see fit, and if it's not infringing on the rights of others, let them worship how, where, or what they may. And I don't really care what other countries are doing. If Muslims in some middle eastern country come to america with the intent to do harm, I'll do whatever I can to stop such actions and will condone action including violent means if necessary. But if they are in their own countries (see Syria right now) I'm not a fan of a government police getting involved, especially because I believe it breeds more Group 1 type people and a perpetual hatred cycle (much like the hate cycle between Israel and Palenstine) begins with both sides committing atrocities against the other.



Bottom line. Anyone, domestic or foreign, who comes to my country and begins trying to take away freedoms and that's when I'll worry about it. Until them, I'm content to let foreign government handle these issues.



Now, you've attempted to change the subject. Please answer my questions or I'm done with this conversation.

I have attempted to change the subject? Really? I was asking for a clarification on your assertion. A central point of our discussion. You claim that the radicals are a minority. I do not believe that is true. The only way to proceed was to determine what you mean by "a very small minority."



Your questions are in fact irrelevant to the discussion of wether Islam is an oppressive and violent religion. You are following a tired liberal method of throwing emotional water on the subject when your assertions do not hold up to srutiny when facts are brought into the conversation. But to satisfy your question, no I do not believe all other religions are evil.



Back to the central point of wether it is a majority of Islam that is oppressive and has evil intentions or wether it is a minority:



You did not answer the question as to what percentage accounted for each category. The reason you did not was because using actual numbers destroys your assertion.



Category 1 is the people actually caught or are known to have committed crimes. This is the most visual group but they are really not the ones that provide a conclusion for us to determine the mindset of the whole. You claim that at most they 1% but if we take any account of crimes committed with a very logical understanding that most of these crimes do not happen with a single person but require a support group of people that are not caught, the number jumps significantly. I would give a conservative guess at something closer to 10%. But I will qualify that as well that the 10% is under today's political climate that is something of a tender box and if the tender is ignited it will cause the 10% to jump to numbers that are significantly higher.



Category 2 is the first group you declined to quantify. I believe this is by far the largest category of all. By your comment I gather that you believe so as well because it is the category that provides the make up of the Middle East. My guess is that this category is approximately 75% of Islam. This groups wants Sharia law everywhere and though they may not be willing to risk their lives to advance their cause they are willing to, at the very least, tolerate the violence of others because it takes them where they want to go. Though we may not be able to prosecute these individuals, it is their beliefs that fuel the fire and the blood is as much on their hands as it is on those that do murdering personally. When the president of of Iran or the clerics say that they want Israel wiped out, they are speaking to this the largest group.



Category 3 is a much smaller group and may reflect closer to what we see in an American Muslim. This group speaks peaceably but do to fear or apathy they do nothing to turn the tide of evil acts committed by members of their religion. So though to a lessor extent the blood is on their hands as well. I approximate this group at about 14%.



Category 4 is by far the smallest group. These are the true brave freedom fighters of Islam. No one can know for sure how large this group is but I will generously give it 1%. These are not anyone we would meet or converse with. They are the ones that risk their lives as spies or perform similarly important duties as they work to prevent Sharia law and the violent take over of the world by Islam.



Conclusion: 10% are doing the will of 85%. 14% are willing to compromise and live peaceable lives but no one knows what they will do if the heat gets turned up. They are certainly not willing to turn against the other 85%. So 85% supporting Sharia law and the destruction of Israel and 14% willing to go along for the ride. There is only one conclusion to be made. Islam moves in an evil direction as long as its policies go unchecked.



Note to Broncobot: If you keep trying to pull in other religions to this discussion it will only serve to show that you are not willing to address the facts about Islam. So be flippant if you want but if you have a meaningful point in defense of Islam, make it.

I'm not jumping into the discussion of whether or not Islam is evil, but it should be noted that even in extremely pacifist Canada the very very small minority of Muslims who come out against terrorism, jihad, and in support of Israel face severe repercussions and death threats.

BroncoBot wrote:

'Honor' murderer boasts of triple killing"

By Reza Sayah, CNN

Mon, August 20, 2012



Kot Chutta, Pakistan (CNN) -- From behind the steel bars of his jail cell, Muhammad Ismail described with uncanny ease how he shot and killed his wife, his mother-in-law, and sister-in-law.



"The first shot hit the side of her body," Ismail said. "I left her there and went next door and killed my wife's mother and sister. I made sure they were all dead. Then I locked the door and left the house."



Without any apparent regret, Ismail said he would do it again.



"I am proud of what I did. That's why I turned myself over to the police."

Ismail's confession to the triple-murder that took place last February in a village in central Pakistan is a rare and chilling first-hand account of a so-called "honor" killing -- the murder of women who are usually accused of dishonoring their families by being unfaithful or disobedient.



Ismail accused his wife of eight months of repeatedly flirting with other men and spending long hours away from home.

"My wife never made me happy," said the 20-year-old who played drums in a traditional Pakistani wedding band before his arrest. "She was like a prostitute. She never took care of me."



The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan reported 943 women were "killed in the name of honor" in Pakistan last year, an increase of more than 100 from 2010."



http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/20/world/asia/pakistan-honor-confession/index.html?hpt=hp_c1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting. This sounds like another fringe radical, not the norm. I base that on the fact that he was ARRESTED for doing this in a majority Islamic country. If this was so tolerated in Islam, why is it against the law in Pakistan?



This sounds like another idiot who believes his religion gives him the right to unrighteous dominion, much like some of the Dan Jones/David Koresh types out there but simply on a smaller scale. Can't infer much about the religion of Islam from such an article. Just like you can't infer much about "Mormonism" from the Mountain Meadow Massacre. It would be similar to deciding what Christianity was all about by studying the KKK.

Where is the logic and common sense in this thought process? "Just another fringe radical." Do you repeat this statement 30 times each week?



Does a single incident from a hundred years ago equal millions of incidents over the same period of time? Of course not, that is not sound logic. That is the very application of swallowing camels and straining at gnats. You can't go into a court of law and argue that your client is not guilty of murder because other people have committed murder also. And you cannot argue that a kid that steals a candy bar is just as much of a criminal as a bank robber.



I know you do not even believe what you are saying. If you did then you could prove it by taking your best Muslim friends and going to Tehran to preach freedom of religion but you won't do it because we all know what would happen. On the other hand, you could go to Temple Square and burn a Book of Mormon and you might get a ticket at the very worst. So please stop trying to make silly comparisons.

hawkwing wrote:

I'm not jumping into the discussion of whether or not Islam is evil, but it should be noted that even in extremely pacifist Canada the very very small minority of Muslims who come out against terrorism, jihad, and in support of Israel face severe repercussions and death threats.

+1. Bingo! I am not, nor have I stated that Islam is evil. You decide that one - based on facts. However, I have taken a stand, and do state, that the LDS faith, or Mormonism and Islam are not closer than Mormonism is to Christianity - no way.



Of all the Terrorism that is occurring around the world - and right here at home (9-11, the shootings at Fort Hood, etc.). Note - those Terrorist events have never been condemned by any major Islamic leader. Never. Isn't that alarming?



And, the topic of Honor Killings which I injected - those have never been condemned by Islamic leaders. And, they happen about 1,000x a year, in 1 single Islamic country (Pakistan). Worldwide, they probably occur over 2,000x a year - and that is probably a very conservative figure. Think about that. That's over 2,000 innocent women and girls that are being brutally murdered because of some superficial B.S. "Because there honor was offended. It can literally be, I didn't like her talking to "that" person. Bam! Stabbed to death. Done.



Another news item that I read about was an Islamic woman being raped. She went to the authorities, accused her rapist, and it went to court. Per Sharia Law, there must be 3 or 4 witnesses to prove the crime of rape occurred. The female victim could not produce that number of witnesses. So - guess what the Islamic court verdict was? The female rape victim was ordered to marry her rapist! Problem solved! Can you imagine that kind of a decision coming out of a Bishop's Court or a High Council Court? Not a chance.



So - for all you Islamic apologists that try to use pretzel logic and excuse away very inhumane and horrible behavior within the Islamic community - wake up. It is appalling.

I do not profess great expertise or insight into Islam like some of you seem to do. So take what I say with a grain of salt if you like. Honor killings are horrific. 2,000 are too many. But remember context. There are over a billion Muslims and so 2,000 is a very very small number. Islam is much more "decentralized" than Christianity. There aren't the same leaders of denominations in the same way there are in Christianity. This leads to various formations. The Muslims I know in Boise (there are some!) are utterly appalled by honor killings. You'll never read or hear of them because that is not news. It is very dangerous to conclude that Islam is abhorrent because of the vile acts of some people or some groups. Give me a Muslim neighbor any day over an agnostic cynic. To answer the OP, I think we are closer to Christianity IF it means Christianity believes in Christ as the Redeemer of all the world, our Advocate with the Father, modern day prophets and revelation that declares this Christ. I see little in "Christianity" that does that today. Much of Christianity today is morally and spiritually bankrupt.

I've wondered for a few years, if Islam wouldn't benefit from a return of a Caliph. Some central authority who can speak for Islam.



The problem, though, is that you can't separate Islam the religion from Islam the political ideology.

SpiffCoug wrote:
I've wondered for a few years, if Islam wouldn't benefit from a return of a Caliph.

"I'm going, going, back, back, to Caliph, Caliph"

SpiffCoug wrote:
I've wondered for a few years, if Islam wouldn't benefit from a return of a Caliph. Some central authority who can speak for Islam.



The problem, though, is that you can't separate Islam the religion from Islam the political ideology.

I've speculated similarly, but if it is just some person or group of people, I doubt it would help. Men (or women) without the Spirit and on their own are not much to hope on. It was after all groups of men that gave us the Nicene Creed and the Spanish Inquisition and indulgences....

SpiffCoug wrote:
I've wondered for a few years, if Islam wouldn't benefit from a return of a Caliph. Some central authority who can speak for Islam.



The problem, though, is that you can't separate Islam the religion from Islam the political ideology.

AGree with both of these sentiments.

tww wrote:



Note to Broncobot: If you keep trying to pull in other religions to this discussion it will only serve to show that you are not willing to address the facts about Islam. So be flippant if you want but if you have a meaningful point in defense of Islam, make it.

:lol: thanks dad.



I'm trying to have a meaningful conversation but it doesn't really appear to be going anywhere. I've given my thoughts on Islam:

1. Leave them alone and they will fall on their own sword.

2. They aren't too much different than many other religions. All have had "issues" in their past/current. I personally believe that the lack of moral fortitude and the gradual loss of personal liberties in the USA is more dangerous that Islam.



I understand your concerns. What are your solutions. you can't force someone to change their beliefs. It will only make them dig in deeper. If the US military is not able to qualm the violence in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, etc no amount of force can. It's their religion, it's what they believe, as twisted as it may seem to you and me.



The fact that the LDS church has numerous articles published in official church magazines is enough for me to not judge the whole of Islam by a few irresponsible acts. Like BoiseBYU pointed out, the ratio of violent acts to number of Muslims suggest that most Muslims are not violent. The fact that violence is against the law in Muslim countries suggests (to me at least) that they have limits. I think we would make a lot more progress by reaching out to these people rather than demonizing them.

BroncoBot wrote:

Note to Broncobot: If you keep trying to pull in other religions to this discussion it will only serve to show that you are not willing to address the facts about Islam. So be flippant if you want but if you have a meaningful point in defense of Islam, make it.

:lol: thanks dad.



I'm trying to have a meaningful conversation but it doesn't really appear to be going anywhere. I've given my thoughts on Islam:

1. Leave them alone and they will fall on their own sword.

2. They aren't too much different than many other religions. All have had "issues" in their past/current. I personally believe that the lack of moral fortitude and the gradual loss of personal liberties in the USA is more dangerous that Islam.



I understand your concerns. What are your solutions. you can't force someone to change their beliefs. It will only make them dig in deeper. If the US military is not able to qualm the violence in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, etc no amount of force can. It's their religion, it's what they believe, as twisted as it may seem to you and me.



The fact that the LDS church has numerous articles published in official church magazines is enough for me to not judge the whole of Islam by a few irresponsible acts. Like BoiseBYU pointed out, the ratio of violent acts to number of Muslims suggest that most Muslims are not violent. The fact that violence is against the law in Muslim countries suggests (to me at least) that they have limits. I think we would make a lot more progress by reaching out to these people rather than demonizing them.

Touche! Fair enough, I deserved that. I was probably overreacting to what seemed to be a little chippyness in your last post.



On your #1: Not sure how that can be done or maybe even what you mean exactly. It appears to me that they refuse to be left alone. Otherwise, I am sure we would gladly do it.



Your #2: To the point of Islam being pretty much like every other religion. I don't understand how you can seriously make that claim. I don't see any other religions that are sponsoring or growing terrorists. I don't see any other religions that are intent on taking over the world by whatever means is necessary. I don't see any other religions that will kill one of their own for converting to another religion. I don't see any other religions with anything as oppressive as Sharia law. I don't see any other religions that will produce death threats for speaking out against them or for burning a book of scripture. Heck Baptists don't even do that.



However, on the second half of #2, I totally agree with you. I will add to that that the very reasons I agree with you on the second part relate to the reasons I disagree on the first part. As American's lose liberties we become more like Islam. I believe that there are many people that would have America like Islam, not for any real religious value but for the control. Keep in mind that all previous attempts to rule the world or a part of it by secular means only ended up falling to power derived from Christian values. If anyone is going to rule the world they have to eliminate America and to bring down America you must first wipe out Christian values. To start drawing comparisons or raising up Islam to the same level as Christian values only serves to degrade the latter.



Besides, if bullets ever start flying I don't want to die for Islam because some fool said Mormons and Muslims are all the same. Jews I am prepared to stand with but Muslims, no.



Which brings me to your other questions. I have no bandaid for the problems presented by the political and religious beliefs of people in the middle east. That is why it scares me. It may have sounded a little paranoid for me to mention bullets flying but can anyone doubt that that is exactly where this is headed?



BoiseBYU won't mind me saying that I disagree with his analysis because his methodology is flawed. If you are only counting the number of suicide bombers then yes, that would constitute a minority. But there are many more crimes that we need to include in the picture. Those would be all moral crimes committed by our values, not theirs. I am talking about crimes of cultural/political origin that would not be acceptable to us. Before you start saying that we have crimes just like they have crimes, the difference is that the crimes I am talking about have either tradition in Islam or are sidestepped by their culture. Once we have broadened the scope of what we include in the measure of crimes, then we have to take into consideration that those who commit the crimes were not living on an island. They did not invent themselves and they did not commit the crimes by themselves. They had teachers and they had help. Then we must factor in the number that don't show up in any records because they were never caught. Maybe a statistician would care to way in on this? My point is to get an accurate picture you have to account for all of the people that perpetuate the criminal activity and not just the criminals themselves.



Which brings me back to Sharia law. Anyone with sympathies toward Sharia law becomes part of the problem. That is what is see and the conundrum regarding good Muslim v. bad Muslim.



As far as reaching out to them. Most definitely yes, as we should with all people. We should be exporting the US constitution all over the world. However, Muslims have a long way to go before I can justify trusting them.

The defense department came out with a statement that the Afghan police that killed the American soldiers did it because of stress. That is so lame it is embarrassing. This kind of garbage is a good example of the very bad trend I see taking place. This kind of thinking will only get more people killed. As long as we live in denial that the source of the problem is from a religious level we will never be able to deal with it. If we keep saying we are just like them then one day we will wake up and that statement will be true.

tww wrote:

tww wrote:



Note to Broncobot: If you keep trying to pull in other religions to this discussion it will only serve to show that you are not willing to address the facts about Islam. So be flippant if you want but if you have a meaningful point in defense of Islam, make it.

:lol: thanks dad.



I'm trying to have a meaningful conversation but it doesn't really appear to be going anywhere. I've given my thoughts on Islam:

1. Leave them alone and they will fall on their own sword.

2. They aren't too much different than many other religions. All have had "issues" in their past/current. I personally believe that the lack of moral fortitude and the gradual loss of personal liberties in the USA is more dangerous that Islam.



I understand your concerns. What are your solutions. you can't force someone to change their beliefs. It will only make them dig in deeper. If the US military is not able to qualm the violence in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, etc no amount of force can. It's their religion, it's what they believe, as twisted as it may seem to you and me.



The fact that the LDS church has numerous articles published in official church magazines is enough for me to not judge the whole of Islam by a few irresponsible acts. Like BoiseBYU pointed out, the ratio of violent acts to number of Muslims suggest that most Muslims are not violent. The fact that violence is against the law in Muslim countries suggests (to me at least) that they have limits. I think we would make a lot more progress by reaching out to these people rather than demonizing them.

Touche! Fair enough, I deserved that. I was probably overreacting to what seemed to be a little chippyness in your last post.



On your #1: Not sure how that can be done or maybe even what you mean exactly. It appears to me that they refuse to be left alone. Otherwise, I am sure we would gladly do it.



Your #2: To the point of Islam being pretty much like every other religion. I don't understand how you can seriously make that claim. I don't see any other religions that are sponsoring or growing terrorists. I don't see any other religions that are intent on taking over the world by whatever means is necessary. I don't see any other religions that will kill one of their own for converting to another religion. I don't see any other religions with anything as oppressive as Sharia law. I don't see any other religions that will produce death threats for speaking out against them or for burning a book of scripture. Heck Baptists don't even do that.



However, on the second half of #2, I totally agree with you. I will add to that that the very reasons I agree with you on the second part relate to the reasons I disagree on the first part. As American's lose liberties we become more like Islam. I believe that there are many people that would have America like Islam, not for any real religious value but for the control. Keep in mind that all previous attempts to rule the world or a part of it by secular means only ended up falling to power derived from Christian values. If anyone is going to rule the world they have to eliminate America and to bring down America you must first wipe out Christian values. To start drawing comparisons or raising up Islam to the same level as Christian values only serves to degrade the latter.



Besides, if bullets ever start flying I don't want to die for Islam because some fool said Mormons and Muslims are all the same. Jews I am prepared to stand with but Muslims, no.



Which brings me to your other questions. I have no bandaid for the problems presented by the political and religious beliefs of people in the middle east. That is why it scares me. It may have sounded a little paranoid for me to mention bullets flying but can anyone doubt that that is exactly where this is headed?



BoiseBYU won't mind me saying that I disagree with his analysis because his methodology is flawed. If you are only counting the number of suicide bombers then yes, that would constitute a minority. But there are many more crimes that we need to include in the picture. Those would be all moral crimes committed by our values, not theirs. I am talking about crimes of cultural/political origin that would not be acceptable to us. Before you start saying that we have crimes just like they have crimes, the difference is that the crimes I am talking about have either tradition in Islam or are sidestepped by their culture. Once we have broadened the scope of what we include in the measure of crimes, then we have to take into consideration that those who commit the crimes were not living on an island. They did not invent themselves and they did not commit the crimes by themselves. They had teachers and they had help. Then we must factor in the number that don't show up in any records because they were never caught. Maybe a statistician would care to way in on this? My point is to get an accurate picture you have to account for all of the people that perpetuate the criminal activity and not just the criminals themselves.



Which brings me back to Sharia law. Anyone with sympathies toward Sharia law becomes part of the problem. That is what is see and the conundrum regarding good Muslim v. bad Muslim.



As far as reaching out to them. Most definitely yes, as we should with all people. We should be exporting the US constitution all over the world. However, Muslims have a long way to go before I can justify trusting them.

TWW is right agan. I don't mind. :) I don't think my analysis is flawed though. One billion Muslims is a lot of people to paint so broadly. And Islam is not so monolithic as you make it out to be. You lump it all together. I think that undermines your point to a degree.

tww wrote:
The defense department came out with a statement that the Afghan police that killed the American soldiers did it because of stress. That is so lame it is embarrassing. This kind of garbage is a good example of the very bad trend I see taking place. This kind of thinking will only get more people killed. As long as we live in denial that the source of the problem is from a religious level we will never be able to deal with it. If we keep saying we are just like them then one day we will wake up and that statement will be true.

We are not just like them. Far from it. There are huge differences in scripture, leadership, politics, reliance on a Savior etc etc etc. There are some core beliefs that could be considered common ground, but the differences are enormous.



I'd just like to clarify what I meant by falling on their own sword. I'd like to see our troops entire removed from that region (for multiple reasons). If the Muslims are such a violent hateful group like it has been suggested here, let them go back to fighting each other. Let them keep each other in check. One thing that fires me up more than anything is the UN/foreign governments attempting to tell America how to behave. In much the same way, I think that the Muslim nations have united against the USA because of our meddling in their affairs. Just get out, let them figure out how to deal with the violence. Let them earn their independence like America earned hers.



I realize that's much simpler to say than do, but something has to change.



It's been an interesting conversation. I'll let you have the last word tww (and others). This will be my last post concerning the matter.

tww wrote:

The defense department came out with a statement that the Afghan police that killed the American soldiers did it because of stress. That is so lame it is embarrassing. This kind of garbage is a good example of the very bad trend I see taking place. This kind of thinking will only get more people killed. As long as we live in denial that the source of the problem is from a religious level we will never be able to deal with it. If we keep saying we are just like them then one day we will wake up and that statement will be true.

+1. The U.S. Govt. under the Obama Administration are living in denial. The Fort Hood shooting, where Nidal Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 29. A pretty obvious terrorist mass murder - yes? Not according to the Obama Admin. It's just work place violence.



Major Hasan, went to a gun store and asked specifically, which gun could he buy that had the highest capacity, and the most technologically advanced. He bought a gun, that he was advised, would "cause severe damage."



On Nov. 5, 2009 at 1:30 PM Hasan entered the Soldier Readiness Processing Center with his very lethal, high capacity, semi-automatic handgun. It was fitted with not 1, but 2 laser sights - one red, and one green.



He shouted "Allahu Akbar" and opened fire. Hasan passed up shooting civilians, and instead focused on shooting people in Army uniforms. Hasan did not stop shooting until Sergeant Mark Todd shot Hassan 5 times.



Guess what the official report classified the Fort Hood incident as? A terrorist incident? No. Classified as "workplace violence."



Hasan had shared his beliefs with associate Duane Reasoner Jr. that "you're not supposed to have alliances with Jews or Christian or others, and if you are killed in the military fighting against Muslims, you will go to hell." Reasoner further refused to condemn the attack as Hasan's brother, explaining "they were troops who were going to Afghanistan and Iraq to kill Muslims. I honestly have no pity for them."

Nidal Hasan was a committed, radical Jihadi. Here is what was printed on his Army business card:



"Behavioral Health - Mental Health - Life Skills

Nidal Hasan, MD, MPH

SoA (SWT)

Psychiatrist"



SoA = Soldier of Allah

SWT = When writing the name Allah (God), it is followed with the abbreviation "SWT." It stands for the Arabic words - "Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala (Glory to Him the Exalted)



Note - before transferring to Fort Hood, Maj, Nidal Hasan attended a Mosque in Maryland. Guess who runs that Mosque? The Muslim Brotherhood.



Do you think his actions were terrorism? Or work-place violence?



"You have to view this segment of the Meet the Press interview with Army chief of staff General George Casey to believe it, by admitting that the army’s diversity policies had trumped its security policies, and worst of all by making this statement: ‘As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.’”



What is wrong with us?