Sound familiar?

http://counterjihadreport.com/tag/islam-apologists/ wrote:The Marxist view holds that religion is just a placebo in the face of economic oppression. So, the thinking goes, if there is a problem in a Muslim society, it must mainly stem from poverty, inequality and class conflicts, as well as “Western imperialism.” Many people influenced by this view therefore tend to believe that after the overthrow of capitalism and imperialism, the “oppressed” will cast off religion, to which they cling merely for consolation and the hope of a better future in an afterlife. Those who maintain this view remain silent on viciously repressive governments such as Hamas, Iran and North Korea, even as they claim to fight “imperialism” alongside regimes that hate Jews, Christians and women, and, in their effort to expand, are often themselves “imperialist.”
In the meantime, many of these intellectuals, who include government leaders, seem to fantasize about the future of the Western and Muslim worlds as if once “capitalism,” “American imperialism” and “Zionist occupation” were abolished, these despots would suddenly discover they no longer need violence or Islamic radicalism, and that a sunny new era of peace would begin. So, their view seems to go, if you criticize Islamism, you are an intolerant, hard-hearted “racist” or “bigot,” and your remarks are obviously “hate speech.”

Hellsangel wrote:

http://counterjihadreport.com/tag/islam-apologists/ wrote:The Marxist view holds that religion is just a placebo in the face of economic oppression. So, the thinking goes, if there is a problem in a Muslim society, it must mainly stem from poverty, inequality and class conflicts, as well as “Western imperialism.” Many people influenced by this view therefore tend to believe that after the overthrow of capitalism and imperialism, the “oppressed” will cast off religion, to which they cling merely for consolation and the hope of a better future in an afterlife. Those who maintain this view remain silent on viciously repressive governments such as Hamas, Iran and North Korea, even as they claim to fight “imperialism” alongside regimes that hate Jews, Christians and women, and, in their effort to expand, are often themselves “imperialist.”
In the meantime, many of these intellectuals, who include government leaders, seem to fantasize about the future of the Western and Muslim worlds as if once “capitalism,” “American imperialism” and “Zionist occupation” were abolished, these despots would suddenly discover they no longer need violence or Islamic radicalism, and that a sunny new era of peace would begin. So, their view seems to go, if you criticize Islamism, you are an intolerant, hard-hearted “racist” or “bigot,” and your remarks are obviously “hate speech.”

Written by a Turk.

Hellsangel wrote:

http://counterjihadreport.com/tag/islam-apologists/ wrote:The Marxist view holds that religion is just a placebo in the face of economic oppression. So, the thinking goes, if there is a problem in a Muslim society, it must mainly stem from poverty, inequality and class conflicts, as well as “Western imperialism.” Many people influenced by this view therefore tend to believe that after the overthrow of capitalism and imperialism, the “oppressed” will cast off religion, to which they cling merely for consolation and the hope of a better future in an afterlife. Those who maintain this view remain silent on viciously repressive governments such as Hamas, Iran and North Korea, even as they claim to fight “imperialism” alongside regimes that hate Jews, Christians and women, and, in their effort to expand, are often themselves “imperialist.”
In the meantime, many of these intellectuals, who include government leaders, seem to fantasize about the future of the Western and Muslim worlds as if once “capitalism,” “American imperialism” and “Zionist occupation” were abolished, these despots would suddenly discover they no longer need violence or Islamic radicalism, and that a sunny new era of peace would begin. So, their view seems to go, if you criticize Islamism, you are an intolerant, hard-hearted “racist” or “bigot,” and your remarks are obviously “hate speech.”

Written by a Turk.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Conflating the general, decades-old ill-will in the Islamic world for Israel and US with the more recent development of Islamist terrorism is silly because the US and Israel are not - - notwithstanding American self-centeredness in this regard - the terrorists' primary targets. Isis is targeting Shia and Alawite regimes for now, with the eventual sights set on the House of Saud.  

The West seems to have lost the will to criticize political Islam. Not speaking out or taking action against Islamists is a sickness not only of the current U.S. government; many intellectuals also seem to suffer from it. In the West, there are goodhearted intellectuals who also apparently wish to deny what an all-enveloping role religion — and particularly Islam — plays in shaping and influencing how people think and act.

Hellsangel wrote:Islamism vs Islam. Sounds Clintonian again. You must have missed this paragraph in there:

The West seems to have lost the will to criticize political Islam. Not speaking out or taking action against Islamists is a sickness not only of the current U.S. government; many intellectuals also seem to suffer from it. In the West, there are goodhearted intellectuals who also apparently wish to deny what an all-enveloping role religion — and particularly Islam — plays in shaping and influencing how people think and act.

Hellsangel wrote:He isn't talking about 'religion' in general in the 'developing world'. He is talking about a specific religion everywhere - Islam. Right there I see you are trying to be PC.

Hellsu's Fave Turk wrote:
In the West, there are goodhearted intellectuals who also apparently wish to deny what an all-enveloping role religion — and particularly Islam — plays in shaping and influencing how people think and act.

Hellsangel wrote:There is that false equivalence again. I doubt it the adherents of any other religion are going around blowing themselves and others in the process.

Hellsangel wrote:Islamism vs Islam. Sounds Clintonian again. You must have missed this paragraph in there:

The West seems to have lost the will to criticize political Islam. Not speaking out or taking action against Islamists is a sickness not only of the current U.S. government; many intellectuals also seem to suffer from it. In the West, there are goodhearted intellectuals who also apparently wish to deny what an all-enveloping role religion — and particularly Islam — plays in shaping and influencing how people think and act.

Hellsangel wrote:The article was written in 2015. This, Comrade:

So you disagree with GWB and say that Islam is NOT peace?

Hellsangel wrote:This isn't about Republicans, Comrade. It's about the religion of your buddies in the Middle-East.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:This isn't about Republicans, Comrade. It's about the religion of your buddies in the Middle-East.

Then from where & how did Clinton & Obama appear in this thread? You still have't answer my question "What's your solution?

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:This isn't about Republicans, Comrade. It's about the religion of your buddies in the Middle-East.

Then from where & how did Clinton & Obama appear in this thread? You still have't answer my question "What's your solution?

Umm! That was you posting about GWB , Comrade.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:This isn't about Republicans, Comrade. It's about the religion of your buddies in the Middle-East.

Then from where & how did Clinton & Obama appear in this thread? You still have't answer my question "What's your solution?

Umm! That was you posting about GWB , Comrade.

Really!!

https://such.forumotion.com/t36514-sound-familiar#217188

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:This isn't about Republicans, Comrade. It's about the religion of your buddies in the Middle-East.

Then from where & how did Clinton & Obama appear in this thread? You still have't answer my question "What's your solution?

Umm! That was you posting about GWB , Comrade.

Really!!

https://such.forumotion.com/t36514-sound-familiar#217188

I guess you need to look up what Clintonian means, Comrade. I thought only Il Professore like to read things literally.

Here is a hint on what Clintonian means:
" It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
Then from where & how did Clinton & Obama appear in this thread? You still have't answer my question "What's your solution?

Umm! That was you posting about GWB , Comrade.

Really!!

https://such.forumotion.com/t36514-sound-familiar#217188

I guess you need to look up what Clintonian means, Comrade. I thought only Il Professore like to read things literally.

Here is a hint on what Clintonian means:
" It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"

And how should I read the bit "the current U.S. government". Please do enlighten us with your pearls of wisdom.

Hellsangel wrote:
Sigh! Here is a little logic, Comrade. Hope you get it.

This article was written in 2015.

You with me, so far?

And who is the head of the US government?

That's right! The President.

And who was the President in 2015?

Absolutely! Obama.

Hellsangel wrote:There is that false equivalence again. I doubt it the adherents of any other religion are going around blowing themselves and others in the process.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:There is that false equivalence again. I doubt it the adherents of any other religion are going around blowing themselves and others in the process.

Stick to the point. The author is talking about the influence of *one* religion on thoughts and actions. Everything I said is in that context.

Hellsangel wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:There is that false equivalence again. I doubt it the adherents of any other religion are going around blowing themselves and others in the process.

Stick to the point. The author is talking about the influence of *one* religion on thoughts and actions. Everything I said is in that context.

*Fixed*

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:There is that false equivalence again. I doubt it the adherents of any other religion are going around blowing themselves and others in the process.

Stick to the point. The author is talking about the influence of *one* religion on thoughts and actions. Everything I said is in that context.

*Fixed*

Yeah right. Other religions don't influence their adherents one bit. Your fix sure makes sense.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:I can't help it if you eat, drink and breathe terrorism and see that in everything you read. I'm sticking to the one sentence you pulled out of your Turk's article. There was no mention of any violence in that.

Hellsangel wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:I can't help it if you eat, drink and breathe terrorism and see that in everything you read. I'm sticking to the one sentence you pulled out of your Turk's article. There was no mention of any violence in that.

Oh now we want to stop seeing the wood for the trees? And I should have posted the whole article for you? And since you want to get technical. Here is sentence from the excerpt I posted:

In the meantime, many of these intellectuals, who include government leaders, seem to fantasize about the future of the Western and Muslim worlds as if once “capitalism,” “American imperialism” and “Zionist occupation” were abolished, these despots would suddenly discover they no longer need violence or Islamic radicalism

Hellsangel wrote:Let's scroll back up a bit, Comrade. Let's see who posted anything about the 'current adminisitration'(sic)

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:I can't help it if you eat, drink and breathe terrorism and see that in everything you read. I'm sticking to the one sentence you pulled out of your Turk's article. There was no mention of any violence in that.

Oh now we want to stop seeing the wood for the trees? And I should have posted the whole article for you? And since you want to get technical. Here is sentence from the excerpt I posted:

In the meantime, many of these intellectuals, who include government leaders, seem to fantasize about the future of the Western and Muslim worlds as if once “capitalism,” “American imperialism” and “Zionist occupation” were abolished, these despots would suddenly discover they no longer need violence or Islamic radicalism

Isn't the proof in the pudding. Was Pakistan routinely sending militants to Kashmir prior to the mid-eighties? the west kept trying the same thing over and over again (for the last 30 years) and expecting a different result. Let me ask you one more time, What is your solution to this issue and how do you go about implementing it?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Let's scroll back up a bit, Comrade. Let's see who posted anything about the 'current adminisitration'(sic)

By all means, please do for your own sanity.

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:I can't help it if you eat, drink and breathe terrorism and see that in everything you read. I'm sticking to the one sentence you pulled out of your Turk's article. There was no mention of any violence in that.

Oh now we want to stop seeing the wood for the trees? And I should have posted the whole article for you? And since you want to get technical. Here is sentence from the excerpt I posted:

In the meantime, many of these intellectuals, who include government leaders, seem to fantasize about the future of the Western and Muslim worlds as if once “capitalism,” “American imperialism” and “Zionist occupation” were abolished, these despots would suddenly discover they no longer need violence or Islamic radicalism

Isn't the proof in the pudding. Was Pakistan routinely sending militants to Kashmir prior to the mid-eighties? the west kept trying the same thing over and over again (for the last 30 years) and expecting a different result. Let me ask you one more time, What is your solution to this issue and how do you go about implementing it?

That's what we elect governments for, Comrade. Personally I'm all for hitting reset.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:I can't help it if you eat, drink and breathe terrorism and see that in everything you read. I'm sticking to the one sentence you pulled out of your Turk's article. There was no mention of any violence in that.

Oh now we want to stop seeing the wood for the trees? And I should have posted the whole article for you? And since you want to get technical. Here is sentence from the excerpt I posted:

In the meantime, many of these intellectuals, who include government leaders, seem to fantasize about the future of the Western and Muslim worlds as if once “capitalism,” “American imperialism” and “Zionist occupation” were abolished, these despots would suddenly discover they no longer need violence or Islamic radicalism

Isn't the proof in the pudding. Was Pakistan routinely sending militants to Kashmir prior to the mid-eighties? the west kept trying the same thing over and over again (for the last 30 years) and expecting a different result. Let me ask you one more time, What is your solution to this issue and how do you go about implementing it?

That's what we elect governments for, Comrade. Personally I'm all for hitting reset.

Then stop calling others jihadi apologists, terrorist friends and all that jazz.

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:
Oh now we want to stop seeing the wood for the trees? And I should have posted the whole article for you? And since you want to get technical. Here is sentence from the excerpt I posted:

In the meantime, many of these intellectuals, who include government leaders, seem to fantasize about the future of the Western and Muslim worlds as if once “capitalism,” “American imperialism” and “Zionist occupation” were abolished, these despots would suddenly discover they no longer need violence or Islamic radicalism

Isn't the proof in the pudding. Was Pakistan routinely sending militants to Kashmir prior to the mid-eighties? the west kept trying the same thing over and over again (for the last 30 years) and expecting a different result. Let me ask you one more time, What is your solution to this issue and how do you go about implementing it?

That's what we elect governments for, Comrade. Personally I'm all for hitting reset.

Then stop calling others jihadi apologists, terrorist friends and all that jazz.

Ha, ha, Comrade. You have no clue what hitting reset is, do you? Jihadi apologists should be called Jihadi apologists.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:I can't help it if you eat, drink and breathe terrorism and see that in everything you read. I'm sticking to the one sentence you pulled out of your Turk's article. There was no mention of any violence in that.

Oh now we want to stop seeing the wood for the trees? And I should have posted the whole article for you? And since you want to get technical. Here is sentence from the excerpt I posted:

In the meantime, many of these intellectuals, who include government leaders, seem to fantasize about the future of the Western and Muslim worlds as if once “capitalism,” “American imperialism” and “Zionist occupation” were abolished, these despots would suddenly discover they no longer need violence or Islamic radicalism

Isn't the proof in the pudding. Was Pakistan routinely sending militants to Kashmir prior to the mid-eighties? the west kept trying the same thing over and over again (for the last 30 years) and expecting a different result. Let me ask you one more time, What is your solution to this issue and how do you go about implementing it?

Kinnera wrote:
Pre-mid eighties, Pakistan waged three wars with India and lost heavily. So it (the ISI, specifically) came up with the strategy of sending the jihadi terrorists to India and bleed India slowly. That is the cheapest alternative they have to hurt India.
Let America fund the chuddies, give each a million dollars, tell them to go to Pakistan on a suicide mission and blow themselves up there. Do you think even one chaddy will be willing to do it? Not in a million years...not for a million dollars. 

Kinnera wrote:Stop blaming everything and everyone for all the heinous crimes that these jihadi, caliphate, etc brainwashed terrorists are doing.

Kinnera wrote:So what if america or whoever funded them or supported them? What is it that is driving them to become terrorists? Is it Reagan or the money that America gave? Is it Reagan and America that drove them do it? How foolish it is to blame someone else. As I said, let America try it with the chaddies or reiigious guys from other religions. Tell them to blow themselves up for the support and monetary funds that America will provide. Will they do it?

Hellsangel wrote:Sure, Comrade. The root cause of terrorism is the Great Satan from the West. Let's go with that.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:So what if america or whoever funded them or supported them? What is it that is driving them to become terrorists? Is it Reagan or the money that America gave? Is it Reagan and America that drove them do it? How foolish it is to blame someone else. As I said, let America try it with the chaddies or reiigious guys from other religions. Tell them to blow themselves up for the support and monetary funds that America will provide. Will they do it?

Were Iraqis, Syrians blowing each other up from time immemorial? Who trained and armed them? Foolish to blame? Foolish is not acknowledging our interventionist actions.

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:So what if america or whoever funded them or supported them? What is it that is driving them to become terrorists? Is it Reagan or the money that America gave? Is it Reagan and America that drove them do it? How foolish it is to blame someone else. As I said, let America try it with the chaddies or reiigious guys from other religions. Tell them to blow themselves up for the support and monetary funds that America will provide. Will they do it?

Were Iraqis, Syrians blowing each other up from time immemorial? Who trained and armed them? Foolish to blame? Foolish is not acknowledging our interventionist actions.

America intervened in Vietnam, combodia and all. Did ppl of those countries become terrorists like the muslims of Iraq and Syria?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:So what if america or whoever funded them or supported them? What is it that is driving them to become terrorists? Is it Reagan or the money that America gave? Is it Reagan and America that drove them do it? How foolish it is to blame someone else. As I said, let America try it with the chaddies or reiigious guys from other religions. Tell them to blow themselves up for the support and monetary funds that America will provide. Will they do it?

Were Iraqis, Syrians blowing each other up from time immemorial? Who trained and armed them? Foolish to blame? Foolish is not acknowledging our interventionist actions.

America intervened in Vietnam, combodia and all. Did ppl of those countries become terrorists like the muslims of Iraq and Syria?

Circumstances of American intervention were completely different and the extent of destruction caused by modern technologies to the livelihood of civilians and, the strategies weren't the same. And the biggest difference was, there was no ally called Saudi in Vietnam's case.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:So what if america or whoever funded them or supported them? What is it that is driving them to become terrorists? Is it Reagan or the money that America gave? Is it Reagan and America that drove them do it? How foolish it is to blame someone else. As I said, let America try it with the chaddies or reiigious guys from other religions. Tell them to blow themselves up for the support and monetary funds that America will provide. Will they do it?

Were Iraqis, Syrians blowing each other up from time immemorial? Who trained and armed them? Foolish to blame? Foolish is not acknowledging our interventionist actions.

America intervened in Vietnam, combodia and all. Did ppl of those countries become terrorists like the muslims of Iraq and Syria?

Circumstances of American intervention were completely different and the extent of destruction caused by modern technologies to the livelihood of civilians and, the strategies weren't the same. And the biggest difference was, there was no ally called Saudi in Vietnam's case.

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:So what if america or whoever funded them or supported them? What is it that is driving them to become terrorists? Is it Reagan or the money that America gave? Is it Reagan and America that drove them do it? How foolish it is to blame someone else. As I said, let America try it with the chaddies or reiigious guys from other religions. Tell them to blow themselves up for the support and monetary funds that America will provide. Will they do it?

Were Iraqis, Syrians blowing each other up from time immemorial? Who trained and armed them? Foolish to blame? Foolish is not acknowledging our interventionist actions.

America intervened in Vietnam, combodia and all. Did ppl of those countries become terrorists like the muslims of Iraq and Syria?

Circumstances of American intervention were completely different and the extent of destruction caused by modern technologies to the livelihood of civilians and, the strategies weren't the same. And the biggest difference was, there was no ally called Saudi in Vietnam's case.

Napalm? Agent Orange? And now you it is the fault of allying with the Saudis, Comrade? Yeah. They should have allied with Iran.

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:So what if america or whoever funded them or supported them? What is it that is driving them to become terrorists? Is it Reagan or the money that America gave? Is it Reagan and America that drove them do it? How foolish it is to blame someone else. As I said, let America try it with the chaddies or reiigious guys from other religions. Tell them to blow themselves up for the support and monetary funds that America will provide. Will they do it?

Were Iraqis, Syrians blowing each other up from time immemorial? Who trained and armed them? Foolish to blame? Foolish is not acknowledging our interventionist actions.

America intervened in Vietnam, combodia and all. Did ppl of those countries become terrorists like the muslims of Iraq and Syria?

Circumstances of American intervention were completely different and the extent of destruction caused by modern technologies to the livelihood of civilians and, the strategies weren't the same. And the biggest difference was, there was no ally called Saudi in Vietnam's case.

Yeah....the livelihood is gone, so I turn into a terrorist and I feel it's ok to kill all the kafirs, rape and take as sex slaves even minor yezidi kafir girls. It's all ok because my text says so and America made me do this and i lost my livelihood.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
Were Iraqis, Syrians blowing each other up from time immemorial? Who trained and armed them? Foolish to blame? Foolish is not acknowledging our interventionist actions.

America intervened in Vietnam, combodia and all. Did ppl of those countries become terrorists like the muslims of Iraq and Syria?

Circumstances of American intervention were completely different and the extent of destruction caused by modern technologies to the livelihood of civilians and, the strategies weren't the same. And the biggest difference was, there was no ally called Saudi in Vietnam's case.

Yeah....the livelihood is gone, so I turn into a terrorist and I feel it's ok to kill all the kafirs, rape and take as sex slaves even minor yezidi kafir girls. It's all ok because my text says so and America made me do this and i lost my livelihood.

I'm afraid you're confusing what I said with the ISIS. I don't recall ever supporting ISIS acts or the organization itself.

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:
America intervened in Vietnam, combodia and all. Did ppl of those countries become terrorists like the muslims of Iraq and Syria?

Circumstances of American intervention were completely different and the extent of destruction caused by modern technologies to the livelihood of civilians and, the strategies weren't the same. And the biggest difference was, there was no ally called Saudi in Vietnam's case.

Yeah....the livelihood is gone, so I turn into a terrorist and I feel it's ok to kill all the kafirs, rape and take as sex slaves even minor yezidi kafir girls. It's all ok because my text says so and America made me do this and i lost my livelihood.

I'm afraid you're confusing what I said with the ISIS. I don't recall ever supporting ISIS acts or the organization itself.

Are we not talking about the Jihadi or Caliphate driven terrorists? Where's the confusion? That's all over my posts above.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
Circumstances of American intervention were completely different and the extent of destruction caused by modern technologies to the livelihood of civilians and, the strategies weren't the same. And the biggest difference was, there was no ally called Saudi in Vietnam's case.

Yeah....the livelihood is gone, so I turn into a terrorist and I feel it's ok to kill all the kafirs, rape and take as sex slaves even minor yezidi kafir girls. It's all ok because my text says so and America made me do this and i lost my livelihood.

I'm afraid you're confusing what I said with the ISIS. I don't recall ever supporting ISIS acts or the organization itself.

Are we not talking about the Jihadi or Caliphate driven terrorists? Where's the confusion? That's all over my posts above.

By the same logic who are those millions of refugees that are running away from the ISIS, are they not muslims? Are they jihadists, thugs, goons and rapists?