The real threat from the Islamic State is to Muslims, not the west

The establishment of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria poses a far greater threat to Muslims than it does to the west. Western government may worry sleeper cells at home or radicalised Muslims travelling back from Iraq, but it is Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere who have most to worry about from the Islamic State. Even the brutal and horrifying decapitation of the journalist James Foley doesn't change anything - the number of Iraqis executed by Islamic State fighters is far, far more.

In many ways it is perhaps the worst development in recent Muslim history since 9/11. There are two reasons for this: First, it is likely to cause even greater unrest in countries where Muslims aren't a majority, and second, the Islamic State group could tear apart the Middle East and cause further unrest for generations.

confuzzled dude wrote:

The establishment of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria poses a far greater threat to Muslims than it does to the west. Western government may worry sleeper cells at home or radicalised Muslims travelling back from Iraq, but it is Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere who have most to worry about from the Islamic State. Even the brutal and horrifying decapitation of the journalist James Foley doesn't change anything - the number of Iraqis executed by Islamic State fighters is far, far more.

In many ways it is perhaps the worst development in recent Muslim history since 9/11. There are two reasons for this: First, it is likely to cause even greater unrest in countries where Muslims aren't a majority, and second, the Islamic State group could tear apart the Middle East and cause further unrest for generations.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/real-threat-from-islamic-state--201482316357532975.html

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

The establishment of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria poses a far greater threat to Muslims than it does to the west. Western government may worry sleeper cells at home or radicalised Muslims travelling back from Iraq, but it is Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere who have most to worry about from the Islamic State. Even the brutal and horrifying decapitation of the journalist James Foley doesn't change anything - the number of Iraqis executed by Islamic State fighters is far, far more.

In many ways it is perhaps the worst development in recent Muslim history since 9/11. There are two reasons for this: First, it is likely to cause even greater unrest in countries where Muslims aren't a majority, and second, the Islamic State group could tear apart the Middle East and cause further unrest for generations.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/real-threat-from-islamic-state--201482316357532975.html

>>>>This contradicts the title. If there is "even greater unrest where Muslims aren't a majority", wouldn't that include the West? Secondly, if the Middle East is torn apart and there is unrest for generations, wouldn't that spill over to the outside world? Isn't that especially true considering the default option is "it's always someone else's fault!"

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

The establishment of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria poses a far greater threat to Muslims than it does to the west. Western government may worry sleeper cells at home or radicalised Muslims travelling back from Iraq, but it is Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere who have most to worry about from the Islamic State. Even the brutal and horrifying decapitation of the journalist James Foley doesn't change anything - the number of Iraqis executed by Islamic State fighters is far, far more.

In many ways it is perhaps the worst development in recent Muslim history since 9/11. There are two reasons for this: First, it is likely to cause even greater unrest in countries where Muslims aren't a majority, and second, the Islamic State group could tear apart the Middle East and cause further unrest for generations.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/real-threat-from-islamic-state--201482316357532975.html

>>>>This contradicts the title. If there is "even greater unrest where Muslims aren't a majority", wouldn't that include the West? Secondly, if the Middle East is torn apart and there is unrest for generations, wouldn't that spill over to the outside world? Isn't that especially true considering the default option is "it's always someone else's fault!"

Haha...isn't it what Yogi Adityanath is saying right here?...

"Trend in riots in nation shows that places where Muslim population is 10-20 per cent communal tension is more. Where there is 20-40 per cent population, the communal tension is grave. Places where Muslim population is more than 40 per cent, non-Muslims have no place there," the Gorakhpur MP said.

What the newsitem of Mian Cofuzed Daud says is that a minority muslim can cause great disturbance among the majority in non-muslims if peple protested the ISIS. That is exactly the TRUTH Yogi openly says.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

The establishment of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria poses a far greater threat to Muslims than it does to the west. Western government may worry sleeper cells at home or radicalised Muslims travelling back from Iraq, but it is Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere who have most to worry about from the Islamic State. Even the brutal and horrifying decapitation of the journalist James Foley doesn't change anything - the number of Iraqis executed by Islamic State fighters is far, far more.

In many ways it is perhaps the worst development in recent Muslim history since 9/11. There are two reasons for this: First, it is likely to cause even greater unrest in countries where Muslims aren't a majority, and second, the Islamic State group could tear apart the Middle East and cause further unrest for generations.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/real-threat-from-islamic-state--201482316357532975.html

>>>>This contradicts the title. If there is "even greater unrest where Muslims aren't a majority", wouldn't that include the West? Secondly, if the Middle East is torn apart and there is unrest for generations, wouldn't that spill over to the outside world? Isn't that especially true considering the default option is "it's always someone else's fault!"

Haha...isn't it what Yogi Adityanath is saying right here?...

"Trend in riots in nation shows that places where Muslim population is 10-20 per cent communal tension is more. Where there is 20-40 per cent population, the communal tension is grave. Places where Muslim population is more than 40 per cent, non-Muslims have no place there," the Gorakhpur MP said.

What the newsitem of Mian Cofuzed Daud says is that a minority muslim can cause great disturbance among the majority in non-muslims if peple protested the ISIS. That is exactly the TRUTH Yogi openly says.

That dumbass should visit Hyderabad which has 40% or more of muslim population for centuries.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Are you saying there was no riots, communal killings and nothing of that sort in Hyderabad for "centuries?", AND they are all living together in every block like true Bhais?

The plain fact is ordinary citizens dont complain against local mafia, goons, thugs, or muslims, bcz of the fear of being hurt. Just look at you and your ilk who are afraid to criticize any misdeed of a muslim even this far away on the net using anon handles, but waste no time in criticizing any misdeed by a hindu as though it is a holocaust.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

The establishment of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria poses a far greater threat to Muslims than it does to the west. Western government may worry sleeper cells at home or radicalised Muslims travelling back from Iraq, but it is Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere who have most to worry about from the Islamic State. Even the brutal and horrifying decapitation of the journalist James Foley doesn't change anything - the number of Iraqis executed by Islamic State fighters is far, far more.

In many ways it is perhaps the worst development in recent Muslim history since 9/11. There are two reasons for this: First, it is likely to cause even greater unrest in countries where Muslims aren't a majority, and second, the Islamic State group could tear apart the Middle East and cause further unrest for generations.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/real-threat-from-islamic-state--201482316357532975.html

>>>>This contradicts the title. If there is "even greater unrest where Muslims aren't a majority", wouldn't that include the West? Secondly, if the Middle East is torn apart and there is unrest for generations, wouldn't that spill over to the outside world? Isn't that especially true considering the default option is "it's always someone else's fault!"

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

The establishment of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria poses a far greater threat to Muslims than it does to the west. Western government may worry sleeper cells at home or radicalised Muslims travelling back from Iraq, but it is Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere who have most to worry about from the Islamic State. Even the brutal and horrifying decapitation of the journalist James Foley doesn't change anything - the number of Iraqis executed by Islamic State fighters is far, far more.

In many ways it is perhaps the worst development in recent Muslim history since 9/11. There are two reasons for this: First, it is likely to cause even greater unrest in countries where Muslims aren't a majority, and second, the Islamic State group could tear apart the Middle East and cause further unrest for generations.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/real-threat-from-islamic-state--201482316357532975.html

>>>>This contradicts the title. If there is "even greater unrest where Muslims aren't a majority", wouldn't that include the West? Secondly, if the Middle East is torn apart and there is unrest for generations, wouldn't that spill over to the outside world? Isn't that especially true considering the default option is "it's always someone else's fault!"

Cause for unrest is not threat, is it? If that was the case nearly a half of US citizens should be locked up or eliminated.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
Cause for unrest is not threat, is it? If that was the case nearly a half of US citizens should be locked up or eliminated.

>>>>What does this mean? There will be cause for unrest, but these communities have a gandhian approach that they sort it out with no problem whatsoever to others? And what are half of US citizens agitated about?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
Cause for unrest is not threat, is it? If that was the case nearly a half of US citizens should be locked up or eliminated.

>>>>What does this mean? There will be cause for unrest, but these communities have a gandhian approach that they sort it out with no problem whatsoever to others? And what are half of US citizens agitated about?

He is confuzed - seriously. He claimed Muslims lived happily with hindus with no incidents. When questioned he backs out and contradicts asking back if there were no riots in TN. He was the one who said there were no riots in Hyderabad and now saying int he very next post there were riots just like anywhere....Al-Akbari effect.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
notice how he is blaming US or hindus or Maurya for any and all atrocities of muslims. When there are hindus like him to defend why would muslims bother about defending themselves or continuing their atrocities as Modi ji, Amit ji and Yogi ji (MAY jis) say.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

The establishment of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria poses a far greater threat to Muslims than it does to the west. Western government may worry sleeper cells at home or radicalised Muslims travelling back from Iraq, but it is Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere who have most to worry about from the Islamic State. Even the brutal and horrifying decapitation of the journalist James Foley doesn't change anything - the number of Iraqis executed by Islamic State fighters is far, far more.

In many ways it is perhaps the worst development in recent Muslim history since 9/11. There are two reasons for this: First, it is likely to cause even greater unrest in countries where Muslims aren't a majority, and second, the Islamic State group could tear apart the Middle East and cause further unrest for generations.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/real-threat-from-islamic-state--201482316357532975.html

>>>>This contradicts the title. If there is "even greater unrest where Muslims aren't a majority", wouldn't that include the West? Secondly, if the Middle East is torn apart and there is unrest for generations, wouldn't that spill over to the outside world? Isn't that especially true considering the default option is "it's always someone else's fault!"

Cause for unrest is not threat, is it? If that was the case nearly a half of US citizens should be locked up or eliminated.

>>>>What does this mean? There will be cause for unrest, but these communities have a gandhian approach that they sort it out with no problem whatsoever to others? And what are half of US citizens agitated about?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>>What does this mean? There will be cause for unrest, but these communities have a gandhian approach that they sort it out with no problem whatsoever to others? And what are half of US citizens agitated about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>>What does this mean? There will be cause for unrest, but these communities have a gandhian approach that they sort it out with no problem whatsoever to others? And what are half of US citizens agitated about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States

So now Civil unrest incidents in US are the reason for the ISIS atrocities?

Greatttt....

truthbetold wrote:The author is saying ISIS is more of threat to the muslims in middle east than the west. Is he saying that ISIS is only a threat to middle east and not to west? CD help us understand it. 

Terrorists are always a threat to local community of their origin.  Their reach is limited. While their rhetoric reaches beyond stars , their actual abilities to hurt west are limited to sporadic incidents of violence against unfortunate victims who were trapped by them. Their goal is to use west as a punching bag but to gain power locally. They will hurt local populations directly using murder and mayhem.
They will further harm local people by economic disruption and stunted growth.  

What is the best way to snuff these extreme elements?

Local resistance.   ISIS can be most effectively defeated if local sunni populations recognize it as a threat and fight it with their lives.  It will be bloody, long drawn, and brutal war.  US and west can aid in many ways but this is a sunni fight.

The inaction or ineffective action of Saudi, egypt, jordan, palestine, and pakistan ruling classes against ISIS complicates and prolongs the fight.  Such fight may also create realization among muslim masses that they have to abandon many obscurantist islamic beliefs. May be that is the fear of saudi ruling class.

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:The author is saying ISIS is more of threat to the muslims in middle east than the west. Is he saying that ISIS is only a threat to middle east and not to west? CD help us understand it. 

Terrorists are always a threat to local community of their origin.  Their reach is limited. While their rhetoric reaches beyond stars , their actual abilities to hurt west are limited to sporadic incidents of violence against unfortunate victims who were trapped by them. Their goal is to use west as a punching bag but to gain power locally. They will hurt local populations directly using murder and mayhem.
They will further harm local people by economic disruption and stunted growth.  

What is the best way to snuff these extreme elements?

Local resistance.   ISIS can be most effectively defeated if local sunni populations recognize it as a threat and fight it with their lives.  It will be bloody, long drawn, and brutal war.  US and west can aid in many ways but this is a sunni fight.

The inaction or ineffective action of Saudi, egypt, jordan, palestine, and pakistan ruling classes against ISIS complicates and prolongs the fight.  Such fight may also create realization among muslim masses that they have to abandon many obscurantist islamic beliefs. May be that is the fear of saudi ruling class.

As of now ISIS is not a threat to the west as their core strategy is to occupy by brute force, that won't fly against any advanced countries heck they're even scared to stare at neighboring Iran, a majority shiite country let alone western countries. The problem with Islamophobes is they want paint everyone with a broad brush every single muslim that lives in the west is a threat for them.

truthbetold wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:The author is saying ISIS is more of threat to the muslims in middle east than the west. Is he saying that ISIS is only a threat to middle east and not to west? CD help us understand it. 

Terrorists are always a threat to local community of their origin.  Their reach is limited. While their rhetoric reaches beyond stars , their actual abilities to hurt west are limited to sporadic incidents of violence against unfortunate victims who were trapped by them. Their goal is to use west as a punching bag but to gain power locally. They will hurt local populations directly using murder and mayhem.
They will further harm local people by economic disruption and stunted growth.  

What is the best way to snuff these extreme elements?

Local resistance.   ISIS can be most effectively defeated if local sunni populations recognize it as a threat and fight it with their lives.  It will be bloody, long drawn, and brutal war.  US and west can aid in many ways but this is a sunni fight.

The inaction or ineffective action of Saudi, egypt, jordan, palestine, and pakistan ruling classes against ISIS complicates and prolongs the fight.  Such fight may also create realization among muslim masses that they have to abandon many obscurantist islamic beliefs. May be that is the fear of saudi ruling class.

As of now ISIS is not a threat to the west as their core strategy is to occupy by brute force, that won't fly against any advanced countries heck they're even scared to stare at neighboring Iran, a majority shiite country let alone western countries. The problem with Islamophobes is they want paint everyone with a broad brush every single muslim that lives in the west is a threat for them.

Cd

What kind of nonsense is that?  ISIS's is a threat to middle eastern sunni nations from inside and shite nations from outside.  If it get its hands on resources (oil and money) and a safe haven,  it will create a training center to launch attacks on muslim nations. Some of that effort will be directed at west. ISIS is a threat to every civilized nation.  so is boko harem. so is al quieda.  

USA as a prized target cannot remain indifferent to this threat. ISIS must be crushed in its infancy.  

If you have a better insight into ISIS thinking,  feel free to share it with us.

southindian wrote:ISIS could become successful and may become legitimate, even though all what they are doing that is photographed and videoed. They even have a Caliphate.

That reminded me another similar story.

Think about this... About 1300~1400 years ago another guy did the same thing, butchered thousands who did not follow his teachings and was revered by many. Today...his followers are 1 billion+ all across the world and growing exponentially.

The comparison is striking and scary.

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:The author is saying ISIS is more of threat to the muslims in middle east than the west. Is he saying that ISIS is only a threat to middle east and not to west? CD help us understand it. 

Terrorists are always a threat to local community of their origin.  Their reach is limited. While their rhetoric reaches beyond stars , their actual abilities to hurt west are limited to sporadic incidents of violence against unfortunate victims who were trapped by them. Their goal is to use west as a punching bag but to gain power locally. They will hurt local populations directly using murder and mayhem.
They will further harm local people by economic disruption and stunted growth.  

What is the best way to snuff these extreme elements?

Local resistance.   ISIS can be most effectively defeated if local sunni populations recognize it as a threat and fight it with their lives.  It will be bloody, long drawn, and brutal war.  US and west can aid in many ways but this is a sunni fight.

The inaction or ineffective action of Saudi, egypt, jordan, palestine, and pakistan ruling classes against ISIS complicates and prolongs the fight.  Such fight may also create realization among muslim masses that they have to abandon many obscurantist islamic beliefs. May be that is the fear of saudi ruling class.

As of now ISIS is not a threat to the west as their core strategy is to occupy by brute force, that won't fly against any advanced countries heck they're even scared to stare at neighboring Iran, a majority shiite country let alone western countries. The problem with Islamophobes is they want paint everyone with a broad brush every single muslim that lives in the west is a threat for them.

Cd

What kind of nonsense is that?  ISIS's is a threat to middle eastern sunni nations from inside and shite nations from outside.  If it get its hands on resources (oil and money) and a safe haven,  it will create a training center to launch attacks on muslim nations. Some of that effort will be directed at west. ISIS is a threat to every civilized nation.  so is boko harem. so is al quieda.  

USA as a prized target cannot remain indifferent to this threat. ISIS must be crushed in its infancy.  

If you have a better insight into ISIS thinking,  feel free to share it with us.

There are a lot of ifs and buts in your argument and you're saying my argument is nonsense?!

truthbetold wrote:
Yes. I am saying it is a threat and it is evolving.  Some ifs were already answered. Remember Mosul bank.  ifs are relevant because those ifs will become reality if USA does not take pro active action.  ISIS controlled oil for a period of time.  But were bombed out by us planes.  So in this context ifs tell you what can happen. So stop playing with words and explain your illogical position.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/real-threat-from-islamic-state--201482316357532975.html

>>>>This contradicts the title. If there is "even greater unrest where Muslims aren't a majority", wouldn't that include the West? Secondly, if the Middle East is torn apart and there is unrest for generations, wouldn't that spill over to the outside world? Isn't that especially true considering the default option is "it's always someone else's fault!"

Cause for unrest is not threat, is it? If that was the case nearly a half of US citizens should be locked up or eliminated.

>>>>What does this mean? There will be cause for unrest, but these communities have a gandhian approach that they sort it out with no problem whatsoever to others? And what are half of US citizens agitated about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States

confuzzled dude wrote:

southindian wrote:ISIS could become successful and may become legitimate, even though all what they are doing that is photographed and videoed. They even have a Caliphate.

That reminded me another similar story.

Think about this... About 1300~1400 years ago another guy did the same thing, butchered thousands who did not follow his teachings and was revered by many. Today...his followers are 1 billion+ all across the world and growing exponentially.

The comparison is striking and scary.

FYI a lot of advancements happened since then and the world is not the same.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>>This contradicts the title. If there is "even greater unrest where Muslims aren't a majority", wouldn't that include the West? Secondly, if the Middle East is torn apart and there is unrest for generations, wouldn't that spill over to the outside world? Isn't that especially true considering the default option is "it's always someone else's fault!"

Cause for unrest is not threat, is it? If that was the case nearly a half of US citizens should be locked up or eliminated.

>>>>What does this mean? There will be cause for unrest, but these communities have a gandhian approach that they sort it out with no problem whatsoever to others? And what are half of US citizens agitated about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States

1) You didn't answer the first part of my question, which is bolded above.

The New York Times reported the other day on ISIS’s “prodigious” print and online materials, which reveal some relevant details.

ISIS propaganda, for instance, has strikingly few calls for attacks on the West, even though its most notorious video, among Americans, released 12 days ago, showed the beheading of the American journalist James Foley, threatened another American hostage, and said that American attacks on ISIS “would result in the bloodshed” of Americans. This diverged from nearly all of ISIS’s varied output, which promotes its paramount goal: to secure and expand the Islamic state.

The same article quoted a scholar who said ISIS has consistently focused on what militants call “the near enemy” – leaders of Muslim countries like Bashar al-Assad of Syria – and not “the far enemy” of the United States and Europe. “The struggle against the Americans and the Israelis is distant, not a priority,” Fawaz A. Gerges said. “It has to await liberation at home.”

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/real-threat-from-islamic-state--201482316357532975.html

>>>>This contradicts the title. If there is "even greater unrest where Muslims aren't a majority", wouldn't that include the West? Secondly, if the Middle East is torn apart and there is unrest for generations, wouldn't that spill over to the outside world? Isn't that especially true considering the default option is "it's always someone else's fault!"

Haha...isn't it what Yogi Adityanath is saying right here?...

"Trend in riots in nation shows that places where Muslim population is 10-20 per cent communal tension is more. Where there is 20-40 per cent population, the communal tension is grave. Places where Muslim population is more than 40 per cent, non-Muslims have no place there," the Gorakhpur MP said.

What the newsitem of Mian Cofuzed Daud says is that a minority muslim can cause great disturbance among the majority in non-muslims if peple protested the ISIS. That is exactly the TRUTH Yogi openly says.

That dumbass should visit Hyderabad which has 40% or more of muslim population for centuries.

Are you saying there was no riots, communal killings and nothing of that sort in Hyderabad for "centuries?", AND they are all living together in every block like true Bhais?

The plain fact is ordinary citizens dont complain against local mafia, goons, thugs, or muslims, bcz of the fear of being hurt. Just look at you and your ilk who are afraid to criticize any misdeed of a muslim even this far away on the net using anon handles, but waste no time in criticizing any misdeed by a hindu as though it is a holocaust.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
Cause for unrest is not threat, is it? If that was the case nearly a half of US citizens should be locked up or eliminated.

>>>>What does this mean? There will be cause for unrest, but these communities have a gandhian approach that they sort it out with no problem whatsoever to others? And what are half of US citizens agitated about?

He is confuzed - seriously. He claimed Muslims lived happily with hindus with no incidents. When questioned he backs out and contradicts asking back if there were no riots in TN. He was the one who said there were no riots in Hyderabad and now saying int he very next post there were riots just like anywhere....Al-Akbari effect.

"where Muslim population is more than 40 per cent, non-Muslims have no place there," the Gorakhpur MP said "
What does the above statement mean? to which I responded.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
notice how he is blaming US or hindus or Maurya for any and all atrocities of muslims. When there are hindus like him to defend why would muslims bother about defending themselves or continuing their atrocities as Modi ji, Amit ji and Yogi ji (MAY jis) say.

Don't twist my words, I did not blame Mauryas rather said brutality was just not limited to Moghuls, all the Kings operated in a similar fashion.

rawemotions wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>>This contradicts the title. If there is "even greater unrest where Muslims aren't a majority", wouldn't that include the West? Secondly, if the Middle East is torn apart and there is unrest for generations, wouldn't that spill over to the outside world? Isn't that especially true considering the default option is "it's always someone else's fault!"

Haha...isn't it what Yogi Adityanath is saying right here?...

"Trend in riots in nation shows that places where Muslim population is 10-20 per cent communal tension is more. Where there is 20-40 per cent population, the communal tension is grave. Places where Muslim population is more than 40 per cent, non-Muslims have no place there," the Gorakhpur MP said.

What the newsitem of Mian Cofuzed Daud says is that a minority muslim can cause great disturbance among the majority in non-muslims if peple protested the ISIS. That is exactly the TRUTH Yogi openly says.

That dumbass should visit Hyderabad which has 40% or more of muslim population for centuries.

Are you saying there was no riots, communal killings and nothing of that sort in Hyderabad for "centuries?", AND they are all living together in every block like true Bhais?

The plain fact is ordinary citizens dont complain against local mafia, goons, thugs, or muslims, bcz of the fear of being hurt. Just look at you and your ilk who are afraid to criticize any misdeed of a muslim even this far away on the net using anon handles, but waste no time in criticizing any misdeed by a hindu as though it is a holocaust.

What exactly were the Razakars about and their "secular" acts ? It was about ethnic cleansing of Non-Muslims, especially Hindus/Sikhs etc.. Obviously that was  conveniently forgotten. The root cause is evil Political Islamist/Jihadist Doctrine that is part of what is called a "Holy" Book, that ordinary Muslims who want nothing to do with Jihad/Political Islam are unable to oppose. Unless that is tackled front and square, by Muslims themselves, there will be NO solution.

pravalika nanda wrote:some insight from david brooks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/opinion/david-brooks-the-revolt-of-the-weak.html?src=me&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Most%20Emailed&pgtype=article



it's comforting to hear him say isis will succumb in several years.

I agree that Muslims are paying the price for it at the moment, which is why it is astounding that they have nothing to say. I don't expect the ones at the center of this to speak up but other Muslims do need to denounce this in a big way and state that it is unacceptable for these criminals to speak for them.  We're not going to make any progress if americans keep sending troops and supplies but middle class muslims, those with means, do nothing. 

Also, the sheer cruelty of ISIS will be appealing to many sick minds who can be brainwashed around the world and then there will be local ISIS networks. I can't believe I'm saying this but maybe we should have less reporting and air time for ISIS. They did behead another American journalist just now though.

rawemotions wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
Cause for unrest is not threat, is it? If that was the case nearly a half of US citizens should be locked up or eliminated.

>>>>What does this mean? There will be cause for unrest, but these communities have a gandhian approach that they sort it out with no problem whatsoever to others? And what are half of US citizens agitated about?

He is confuzed - seriously. He claimed Muslims lived happily with hindus with no incidents. When questioned he backs out and contradicts asking back if there were no riots in TN. He was the one who said there were no riots in Hyderabad and now saying int he very next post there were riots just like anywhere....Al-Akbari effect.

"where Muslim population is more than 40 per cent, non-Muslims have no place there," the Gorakhpur MP said "
What does the above statement mean? to which I responded.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
notice how he is blaming US or hindus or Maurya for any and all atrocities of muslims. When there are hindus like him to defend why would muslims bother about defending themselves or continuing their atrocities as Modi ji, Amit ji and Yogi ji (MAY jis) say.

Don't twist my words, I did not blame Mauryas rather said brutality was just not limited to Moghuls, all the Kings operated in a similar fashion.

For three days a Sikh Guru was tortured, because he stood in the way of converting Kashmiri Hindus convert. Which Emperor tortured like that purely for religious purposes ? We have had repeated Farhanama's listing the misdeeds of Islamic Emperors (Jizya Tax) and what not, with the sole purpose of conversion by sword, including taking war booty to central asia. Only a moron would ignore all that, All because of an Evil Islamic Supremacist Doctrine. Hinduism did not have such a doctrine. Thus there is NO scope for comparison.
Period!

confuzzled dude wrote:

pravalika nanda wrote:some insight from david brooks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/opinion/david-brooks-the-revolt-of-the-weak.html?src=me&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Most%20Emailed&pgtype=article



it's comforting to hear him say isis will succumb in several years.

I agree that Muslims are paying the price for it at the moment, which is why it is astounding that they have nothing to say. I don't expect the ones at the center of this to speak up but other Muslims do need to denounce this in a big way and state that it is unacceptable for these criminals to speak for them.  We're not going to make any progress if americans keep sending troops and supplies but middle class muslims, those with means, do nothing. 

Also, the sheer cruelty of ISIS will be appealing to many sick minds who can be brainwashed around the world and then there will be local ISIS networks. I can't believe I'm saying this but maybe we should have less reporting and air time for ISIS. They did behead another American journalist just now though.

Thanks for posting this. Brooks puts everything back in perspective, cure for all that right wing hyperventilation.

confuzzled dude wrote:

rawemotions wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Haha...isn't it what Yogi Adityanath is saying right here?...

"Trend in riots in nation shows that places where Muslim population is 10-20 per cent communal tension is more. Where there is 20-40 per cent population, the communal tension is grave. Places where Muslim population is more than 40 per cent, non-Muslims have no place there," the Gorakhpur MP said.

What the newsitem of Mian Cofuzed Daud says is that a minority muslim can cause great disturbance among the majority in non-muslims if peple protested the ISIS. That is exactly the TRUTH Yogi openly says.

That dumbass should visit Hyderabad which has 40% or more of muslim population for centuries.

Are you saying there was no riots, communal killings and nothing of that sort in Hyderabad for "centuries?", AND they are all living together in every block like true Bhais?

The plain fact is ordinary citizens dont complain against local mafia, goons, thugs, or muslims, bcz of the fear of being hurt. Just look at you and your ilk who are afraid to criticize any misdeed of a muslim even this far away on the net using anon handles, but waste no time in criticizing any misdeed by a hindu as though it is a holocaust.

What exactly were the Razakars about and their "secular" acts ? It was about ethnic cleansing of Non-Muslims, especially Hindus/Sikhs etc.. Obviously that was  conveniently forgotten. The root cause is evil Political Islamist/Jihadist Doctrine that is part of what is called a "Holy" Book, that ordinary Muslims who want nothing to do with Jihad/Political Islam are unable to oppose. Unless that is tackled front and square, by Muslims themselves, there will be NO solution.

While I don't in any fashion condone razakar atrocities, similar atrocities were committed by Hindus on non-hindus, the below is an example of such callous acts. One can't jump to conclusions based on one or two incidents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence_in_Odisha

Propagandhi711 wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

pravalika nanda wrote:some insight from david brooks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/opinion/david-brooks-the-revolt-of-the-weak.html?src=me&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Most%20Emailed&pgtype=article



it's comforting to hear him say isis will succumb in several years.

I agree that Muslims are paying the price for it at the moment, which is why it is astounding that they have nothing to say. I don't expect the ones at the center of this to speak up but other Muslims do need to denounce this in a big way and state that it is unacceptable for these criminals to speak for them.  We're not going to make any progress if americans keep sending troops and supplies but middle class muslims, those with means, do nothing. 

Also, the sheer cruelty of ISIS will be appealing to many sick minds who can be brainwashed around the world and then there will be local ISIS networks. I can't believe I'm saying this but maybe we should have less reporting and air time for ISIS. They did behead another American journalist just now though.

Thanks for posting this. Brooks puts everything back in perspective, cure for all that right wing hyperventilation.

comrade mulla reddy, you didnt understand his point at all, did you? read the below two points he's trying to make before proclaiming your approval of a conservative commentator. they sound like the "perspective" you also have?

This is precisely the norm that ISIS and other jihadi groups are trying to destroy. If they succeed, then the Middle East will devolve into a 30 years war of faith against faith. 


Putin and ISIS are not threats to American national security, narrowly defined. They are threats to our civilizational order.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

comrade mulla reddy, you didnt understand his point at all, did you? read the below two points he's trying to make before proclaiming your approval of a conservative commentator. they sound like the "perspective" you also have?

This is precisely the norm that ISIS and other jihadi groups are trying to destroy. If they succeed, then the Middle East will devolve into a 30 years war of faith against faith. 


Putin and ISIS are not threats to American national security, narrowly defined. They are threats to our civilizational order.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

pravalika nanda wrote:some insight from david brooks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/opinion/david-brooks-the-revolt-of-the-weak.html?src=me&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Most%20Emailed&pgtype=article



it's comforting to hear him say isis will succumb in several years.

I agree that Muslims are paying the price for it at the moment, which is why it is astounding that they have nothing to say. I don't expect the ones at the center of this to speak up but other Muslims do need to denounce this in a big way and state that it is unacceptable for these criminals to speak for them.  We're not going to make any progress if americans keep sending troops and supplies but middle class muslims, those with means, do nothing. 

Also, the sheer cruelty of ISIS will be appealing to many sick minds who can be brainwashed around the world and then there will be local ISIS networks. I can't believe I'm saying this but maybe we should have less reporting and air time for ISIS. They did behead another American journalist just now though.

Thanks for posting this. Brooks puts everything back in perspective, cure for all that right wing hyperventilation.

comrade mulla reddy, you didnt understand his point at all, did you? read the below two points he's trying to make before proclaiming your approval of a conservative commentator. they sound like the "perspective" you also have?

This is precisely the norm that ISIS and other jihadi groups are trying to destroy. If they succeed, then the Middle East will devolve into a 30 years war of faith against faith. 


Putin and ISIS are not threats to American national security, narrowly defined. They are threats to our civilizational order.

Yet another example of hyperventilation.

rawemotions wrote:
Your claims were that when they are 40%, people (especially Non-muslims) lived in "Peace". That is a blatant Lie. You have been caught by your pants. First accept your mistake. The incident you talk about is irrelevant to the main point of the  discussion.  Razakar issue was NOT just any incident, it was mass murder, pillage and ethnic cleansing.  We can quote many such incidents. Moplah Riots and associated ethnic cleansing, where again Hindus were cleansed without provocation. How can we forget Bangladesh, where the larges ethnic cleansing of Hindus happened and has been happening for the past 30 years. their Musllims were > 70% and now they have become 90%. The Razakars were headed by Qasim rizvi, who's basis for indulging in ethnic cleansing, was Supremacy of Muslims, because of right of of conquest!

Propagandhi711 wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

pravalika nanda wrote:some insight from david brooks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/opinion/david-brooks-the-revolt-of-the-weak.html?src=me&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Most%20Emailed&pgtype=article



it's comforting to hear him say isis will succumb in several years.

I agree that Muslims are paying the price for it at the moment, which is why it is astounding that they have nothing to say. I don't expect the ones at the center of this to speak up but other Muslims do need to denounce this in a big way and state that it is unacceptable for these criminals to speak for them.  We're not going to make any progress if americans keep sending troops and supplies but middle class muslims, those with means, do nothing. 

Also, the sheer cruelty of ISIS will be appealing to many sick minds who can be brainwashed around the world and then there will be local ISIS networks. I can't believe I'm saying this but maybe we should have less reporting and air time for ISIS. They did behead another American journalist just now though.

Thanks for posting this. Brooks puts everything back in perspective, cure for all that right wing hyperventilation.

comrade mulla reddy, you didnt understand his point at all, did you? read the below two points he's trying to make before proclaiming your approval of a conservative commentator. they sound like the "perspective" you also have?

This is precisely the norm that ISIS and other jihadi groups are trying to destroy. If they succeed, then the Middle East will devolve into a 30 years war of faith against faith. 


Putin and ISIS are not threats to American national security, narrowly defined. They are threats to our civilizational order.

Yet another example of hyperventilation.

no answer, huh? thot so

confuzzled dude wrote:

rawemotions wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>>What does this mean? There will be cause for unrest, but these communities have a gandhian approach that they sort it out with no problem whatsoever to others? And what are half of US citizens agitated about?

He is confuzed - seriously. He claimed Muslims lived happily with hindus with no incidents. When questioned he backs out and contradicts asking back if there were no riots in TN. He was the one who said there were no riots in Hyderabad and now saying int he very next post there were riots just like anywhere....Al-Akbari effect.

"where Muslim population is more than 40 per cent, non-Muslims have no place there," the Gorakhpur MP said "
What does the above statement mean? to which I responded.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
notice how he is blaming US or hindus or Maurya for any and all atrocities of muslims. When there are hindus like him to defend why would muslims bother about defending themselves or continuing their atrocities as Modi ji, Amit ji and Yogi ji (MAY jis) say.

Don't twist my words, I did not blame Mauryas rather said brutality was just not limited to Moghuls, all the Kings operated in a similar fashion.

For three days a Sikh Guru was tortured, because he stood in the way of converting Kashmiri Hindus convert. Which Emperor tortured like that purely for religious purposes ? We have had repeated Farhanama's listing the misdeeds of Islamic Emperors (Jizya Tax) and what not, with the sole purpose of conversion by sword, including taking war booty to central asia. Only a moron would ignore all that, All because of an Evil Islamic Supremacist Doctrine. Hinduism did not have such a doctrine. Thus there is NO scope for comparison.
Period!

"Historian S. R. Goyal has attributed the decline and disappearance of Buddhism from India to the hostility of the Brahmanas. An incident oft cited is the destruction of the Bo Tree and Buddhist images by Saivite King, Shashanka, persecution by Pusyamitra Sunga (185 BC to 151 BC) who detested the Law of the Buddha had set fire to the Sutras, destroyed Stupas, razed Samgharamas and massacred Bhikkus and even killed the deity of the Bodhi tree. There is also mention of the Huna onslaught on Taxila (in Pakistan), the persecution of Buddhist monks by Mihirkula."

http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2012/06/09/why-buddhism-prospered-theasia-died-india

confuzzled dude wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
Thanks for posting this. Brooks puts everything back in perspective, cure for all that right wing hyperventilation.

comrade mulla reddy, you didnt understand his point at all, did you? read the below two points he's trying to make before proclaiming your approval of a conservative commentator. they sound like the "perspective" you also have?

This is precisely the norm that ISIS and other jihadi groups are trying to destroy. If they succeed, then the Middle East will devolve into a 30 years war of faith against faith. 


Putin and ISIS are not threats to American national security, narrowly defined. They are threats to our civilizational order.

Yet another example of hyperventilation.

no answer, huh? thot so

If they succeed, then the Middle East will devolve into a 30 years war of faith against faith - David Brooks

again, What's the title of this thread?

confuzzled dude wrote:

rawemotions wrote:
Your claims were that when they are 40%, people (especially Non-muslims) lived in "Peace". That is a blatant Lie. You have been caught by your pants. First accept your mistake. The incident you talk about is irrelevant to the main point of the  discussion.  Razakar issue was NOT just any incident, it was mass murder, pillage and ethnic cleansing.  We can quote many such incidents. Moplah Riots and associated ethnic cleansing, where again Hindus were cleansed without provocation. How can we forget Bangladesh, where the larges ethnic cleansing of Hindus happened and has been happening for the past 30 years. their Musllims were > 70% and now they have become 90%. The Razakars were headed by Qasim rizvi, who's basis for indulging in ethnic cleansing, was Supremacy of Muslims, because of right of of conquest!

I'm sorry to say this but you're the one lying blatantly or taking my comment out of context. I never said they lived in peace, go back and see my original comment which was in response to that MP's comment "Places where Muslim population is more than 40 per cent, non-Muslims have no place there," the Gorakhpur MP said." My point was non-muslims existed in hyderbad in spite of 40% population of muslims for centuries.

The King of Saudi Arabia is more interested in having ISIS occupied with fighting the West, because if it gets well established it is going to take over Saudi Arabia, an expert on Muslim studies Mohamed Ghilan told RT’s program In the Now.

rawemotions wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

rawemotions wrote:
Your claims were that when they are 40%, people (especially Non-muslims) lived in "Peace". That is a blatant Lie. You have been caught by your pants. First accept your mistake. The incident you talk about is irrelevant to the main point of the  discussion.  Razakar issue was NOT just any incident, it was mass murder, pillage and ethnic cleansing.  We can quote many such incidents. Moplah Riots and associated ethnic cleansing, where again Hindus were cleansed without provocation. How can we forget Bangladesh, where the larges ethnic cleansing of Hindus happened and has been happening for the past 30 years. their Musllims were > 70% and now they have become 90%. The Razakars were headed by Qasim rizvi, who's basis for indulging in ethnic cleansing, was Supremacy of Muslims, because of right of of conquest!

I'm sorry to say this but you're the one lying blatantly or taking my comment out of context. I never said they lived in peace, go back and see my original comment which was in response to that MP's comment "Places where Muslim population is more than 40 per cent, non-Muslims have no place there," the Gorakhpur MP said." My point was non-muslims existed in hyderbad in spite of 40% population of muslims for centuries.

I did not know that being ethnically cleansed repeatedly is considered "living". It must be a new definition, fit enough for Islamic Supremacists like you and your friends. After all killing people in the name of religion is a time honoured tradition among your political Islamist friends. 

What do you have to say about the reprehensible behaviour of your Political Islamist/Jihadist friends In Bangladesh and Pakistan (where  Hindus/Sikhs have been subjected to systematic ethnic cleansing for decades) and a tiny nation like Maldives, which makes it a point to claim that it is 100% Muslim ?

confuzzled dude wrote:

The King of Saudi Arabia is more interested in having ISIS occupied with fighting the West, because if it gets well established it is going to take over Saudi Arabia, an expert on Muslim studies Mohamed Ghilan told RT’s program In the Now.

http://rt.com/op-edge/184472-saudi-arabia-isis-threat-terrorism/

Hellsangel wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

comrade mulla reddy, you didnt understand his point at all, did you? read the below two points he's trying to make before proclaiming your approval of a conservative commentator. they sound like the "perspective" you also have?

This is precisely the norm that ISIS and other jihadi groups are trying to destroy. If they succeed, then the Middle East will devolve into a 30 years war of faith against faith. 


Putin and ISIS are not threats to American national security, narrowly defined. They are threats to our civilizational order.

Comrade has gone from shooting from the hip to shooting himself in the foot, endorsing right wing columnists.