Machine gun attack on Paris magazine office

When I have repeatedly said the exact opposite? Ok, I'm tired of your lies and trolling. You get put on ignore and I'll check back in two weeks to give you another chance.

I said defenders not supporters. There is a difference.

Name them.

Supporters are the fans and boosters. Defenders are a combination of big guys who rush the quarterback and fast guys who try to stay with the receivers. You should know this, Garamet.

I always wondered what my crazy neighbor in alabama would sound like on a message board, and now I see what it would look like.

Did you just get here or something? These are the segment of the board who wouldn't admit that fire is hot.

14th Prophet has run some tremendous interference in this thread.
I'm sure her Imam will be pleased.

Yes, to defend would be an even stronger embrace. Nobody here defends, supports, or thinks there is anything to redeem about terrorism. So again, the big red flag is raised regarding your powers of perception.

So Tererunt hates The South and the Midwest. I'm sure they are heart-broken to say the least.
And maybe (just maybe) those snide smart assed comics and too cool for school rock bands actually do appreciate the military - or at least those serving in it. Maybe their thinking isn't as binary as some would want it to be. Humans are complicated and multi-layered creatures.

Well I'm sure your crazy neighbor thinks the same when about you if they ever drop in on this forum. Just sayin'

People can bring up all the stoning and shit from the old testament they want, but no one who follows the bible is currently stoning anyone. Radical Islamists who follow the Koran are currently murdering thousands. The comparison is idiotic.

Yes, quite true. And what of the other 1.6 billion?

There is nothing the least bit credible about the Washington Times. It's a propaganda rag for the moonies, an extremely cultish right-wing christian offshoot.

He has a forklift?

No, there is a special sort of crazy that roams around and does not get imprisoned because they are coherent enough to survive. I am serious here. Frank, the crazy neighbor, often talked in non sequitors. He was alive and had something to say. He was not a bad person, but he was very annoying. You can hold a conversation with him at times, but you are going to hear some crazy things.

As said by the stump who has no understanding of what makes people tick.

And you do? Is your med school diploma hanging on your wall or what?

What of them? We're only talking about the radical terrorists. Do we HAVE to be so fucking PC that we HAVE specify "but not all Muslims yaddadaa" in EVERY FUCKING POST? Or are you too fucking stupid to realize it?

Since this thread has been about just that question for the last ten pages, it seems reasonable to read your post in its context.

Except it hasn't. It really hasn't. No one has said all Muslims are terrorists. People have said there it is not a tiny minorty who support terrorism, as the apologists often claim, and folks have pointed out the support for terrorism is pretty darn high (around 1/3rd) and that it is virtually impossible to reliably tell the good and bad muslims apart.

Islam has a violence problem that is disproportionate to its size of followers - violence done in the name of Allah and/or Muhammed is done at a rate an order of magnitude compared to any other religion. Until they address that, the religion will be blamed for not addressing the problem successfully. The question is what percentage of Muslims want it contained. That number is nowhere nearly as high as right wing conservative fear and nowhere nearly as low as left wing liberals would hope. Its a concrete problem, with perhaps 1% of the religion radicalized to violence, but a much larger group sympathizing and assisting. The number is often in the single digits or low teens in the west - but can be as high as 60-70% in some countries. The percentage that say attacks are 'sometiemes justified' is sobering.

You may be. Zombie and Flashy and Dinner and Ramen and Archangel and Castle, among others, are calling for annihilation. The clue is in the words "all Muslims."

I saw a figure yesterday that 38% of all Muslims agree that, while they themselves wouldn't act on it, violence is okay in response to insults to the faith.

And what was the percentage of Christians who responded comparably were asked that question?

So you are telling us your opinion is based on some figure that you pulled out of your ass which just happens to agree with you. What sort of argument is that? You probably should do a little more investigation in some decent sources.

And there are plenty of Christians, including some of our active posters, that would have no problem using the Bible to legislate laws to prevent gay marriage, rights for transgendered persons and women from having abortions under any circumstances.

I'm simply stating a figure I heard yesterday, because Demi brought it up, to elaborate on his post. I'm not expressing an opinion on it one way or another. It's from a TV news report, derived, IIRC, from a magazine poll, not from my ass. I neither agree with it nor disagree with it. Any interpretation of my reason for posting is purely your own fucking psychoses interposing themselves on a simple statement. You may all go fuck yourselves today.

Getting Islam to face its violence problem seems to be on the same order as getting the police to clean out their bad apples, the GOP to kick out its anti-science crazies, the Catholic church to hand all their pedos over to the police, or to get America to stop watching reality TV.
There's this addiction to inertia in all cases.

Not to mention all the laws related to "blasphemy" or "desecration" still on the books today.

Christians haven't evolved past violent responses to insults so much as they've simply outsourced those responses to the state.

You're undermining the very foundation of traditional BLT, you smelly hippy.