What's the difference between Islam and Radical Islam?

Many Muslims are very nice people, but their ideology could at any moment turn to the violent un-American, terroristic sadistic ways. For the faint of heart - this approach rejects the politically correct approach from snowflake liberals who would have us turn the other cheek - whose bleeding heart bending over to protect the radical fascists borders on the pathological. People who want to embrace and preserve the fruits of these savage terrorists and welcome these evil culture destroying monsters into our lands.

quote:

---

Through all obstacles and enemies
Whether you go up or down
In the flames of revolt
Carry the flame to kindle
"Never mind"
For silence is filth
Worthless is blood and soul
For the sake of the hidden glory

​

To die or conquer the hill
-- Translated Hezbollah battle-song

---

We should never forget Black Sunday when 10 innocent people were killed by Radical Islamic Terrorists went on a blood thirsty savage rampage through Jerusalem fuelled by their hatred. Or the train bombing in Haifa that killed 4, including 2 French police officers! Not to mention the barbaric and murderous cafe bombing that took place less than a week later. Over the next few weeks more death was rained upon innocent people, peaking with a maniacal foam-frothed lunatic Islamic extremist threw a bomb into a market place killing 18 people, including 3 children - and injuring 24.We should never forget the bombing at Jaffa by Muslims. Or the July bombings and the nefarious plot to incite riots that resulted in 33 dead at Haifa. Or the bomb that less than two weeks later killed ten more innocent people when radical Islamic insurgents bombed a marketplace in Jerusalem. Or how a week later the disgusting radical Muslims killed 43 with a cowardly bomb attack in Haifa. The two dozen more innocent dead a month later with yet another marketplace bombingAll this in one year. The year after that sociopathic Muslims killed 33 in coordinated bombing attacks on market-places. Then there was the atrocious attack on a cinema by Islamic wretches who used a landmine to kill five in May. Dozens more killed the following month culminating in maniacal Muslims putting explosives on a donkey - a donkey! It killed 20. July saw yet more shootings, more bombings and more death at the hands of these insane, religiously motivated lunatics.When you start to go through it, piece by gory piece, it is clear why we should not allow Muslims into our country - they cannot, as a community, be trusted. While there may be wise scientists, pacifists and politicians, some of them nice people...they could at any time attack our markets and kill our people.The casualties just mount up. There was a single incident one year in which 91 people were killed after Muslims set bombs off in a hotel. A hotel! Just because, apparently, 'enemies of the Islamic people' were using it as a base - most of the people killed were just workers, they weren't even part of the military or government they were fighting against. What's that all about?I don't even want to get into the massacres and slaughtering of rural village folk.Maybe the liberals are right? Maybe if we talk to these folk they would say these things are unfortunate, inexcusable events where young undisciplined men went too far in a time of violence and anger:

quote:

---

We do not have to account to anybody, we are not to sit for anybody's examination and nobody is old enough to call on us to answer. We came before them and will leave after them. We are what we are, we are good for ourselves, we will not change, nor do we want to.

---

quote:

---

A Muslim brought up among Swedes may assume Swedish custom, Swedish words. He may be wholly imbued with that Swedish fluid but the nucleus of his spiritual structure will always remain Muslim, because his blood, his body... are Muslim. ... It is impossible for a man to become assimilated with people whose blood is different from his own. In order to become assimilated, he must change his body, he must become one of them.

---

quote:

---

Israel is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. The Islamic State will be restored to the people of Palestine. All of it. And for Ever.

​

The 6th Ayatollah of Crapistan or something.

---

quote:

---

Defensiveness by way of offensiveness, in order to deprive the enemy the option of attacking, is called active defense.

​

--Radical Islamist scholar

---

Talk about nonsense doubletalk!

quote:

---

Allah will be at our side. There is no retreat. Liberty or death.... The fighting youth will not recoil in the face of sacrifices and suffering, blood and torment. They will not surrender, so long as our days of old are not renewed, so long as our brethren are not ensured honor, bread, justice and Sharia.

---

quote:

---

History and experience taught us that if we are able to destroy the prestige of the Americans, the infidels will break. Since we found the enslaving government's weak point, we will not let go of it

---

quote:

---

ISIS' soldiers will penetrate your centers of activity and plague you. You have not heeded the warning. You continued to harm our brothers and murder them in wild cruelty. Therefore soldiers of the Islamic State will go on the attack, as we have warned you.

---

Then they come over to our lands are we surprised when they make demands for us to build houses of worship for them? To alter the way we prepare and present food to please their sensibilities? This is the core of their culture, surely, to demand by whatever means concessions to their way of life, with little compromise. They force people to segregate in public settings, on public transport - just so they don't have to sit next to women as they feel it is sinful. They impost so-called 'modesty' standards on their women and force them to cover up with veils and scarves. They want to set up private schools where they can indoctrinate their children into their way of life and force them to read their so-called 'Holy Books'. They spit at young girls and call them whores. They even try to force architectural design decisions onto the rest of us!These are the people that foisted the likes of Soros and Marcuse onto decent Western Culture, changing it irrevocably forever. Sorry, did I say Muslims? I meant to say Jews all along. Trigger Warning: these events happened. The names, title and religion of the participants have been changed to protect the snowflakes.

Oh hello Coyote, didn't expect to see you in this thread. What's bullshit?

I'm pretty sure those figures are basically correct. Source.

Does it make it easier to recognize radical religious groups and the environments that spawn them if they are less than 50 years ago or something? Also, some of the examples happened in the last year (for instance forcing religious modesty norms on women, segregation on planes, spitting at little girls and calling them whores).

Congratulations, you've just helped the jihadists and ultra-conservatives in their cause through your affirmation. Nice work. *facepalm* "Hitler Youth Week" was the slanderous characterisation used by Horowitz that she was quoting him on. The actual event was "Justice in Palestine Week".Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

To what? I'm comparing radical and violent religiopolitical views and actions. Because the topic is about the difference between non radical and radical Islam I thought it useful to show the difference between another religious group that has had radical and violent elements in it. The time those elements existed hardly seems particularly relevant. I know, right? It's almost as if when some people go around saying that when Muslim immigrants do these things it is evidence of Islamic migration is destroying our culture are engaging in hyperbole and fearmongering. Damn - it's almost if I was trying to set that kind of point up by utilizing a group Conservatives are less inclined to criticize.

quote:

---

A Muslim could say that we should treat women equally, but that isn't anything that is inherent to Islam.

---

Ask Pastor Stephen Anderson and you'll find him saying that it isn't a tenet of Christianity. Ask the Haredi jews and you'll see they say that isn't a tenet of Judaism.

My point wasn't that 'the jews were bad too 80 years ago'. My point was, as I said, to highlight what the deal with radical religious types is. Political context, social forces of a certain time and place. That stuff that we use today to understand the Irgun's and IRA's of yesterday. No problem. The entire point was that some people wouldn't get it, so that I could explain to them that the takeaway of Irgun should not be Judaism is intrinsically bad, and can erupt in violence at any time therefore we should be fearful and suspicious of Jews but instead that socio-political forces can turn people violent and their religion is merely a framework they use to justify their violence. So don't apologize, thank you for taking the step that allowed me to do this. Have you ever noticed that religious extremists always seem to have temporal grievances like territorial and community safety/integrity concerns at their root, rather than a specific religion?Maybe that's what the 'deal is' with 'all these radical muslims'? The goal is to discuss the origins and motivations for radical extremists of all colours, but particularly those of a religious group. It's a silly gif indicating essentially 'yes good point': don't fret. ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’Understanding why humans acted before matters when trying to understand why they are acting in a similar way today. Is this point really that subtle?

Still doing the terrorist recruiters work for them? I'm sure that'll work out well. I think the word you are looking for, to quote you, is 'Woops.' Of course, when the right uses innuendo and slander to smear Muslims it's clever. When the left do it to Christians, its disgusting. I didn't expect any less from you.

It wasn't presented as news. That's a key factor in fake news. Calling everything you disagree with as 'fake news' is silly. If it comes from an outlet claiming to be news, then you are at least not making a category error, but calling what I said 'fake news' is absurd.Saying that true Islam is Wahhabism is what the Wahhabist recruiters do. Saying ISIS represents true Islam is what ISIS do. What are the chances you'll abandon your faith, Faith? Zero. The 'best case' scenario is that Muslims will see your 'compelling argument' or 'declarations of truth' and think to themselves 'Well if ISIS is true Islam, and I am a Muslim, I should join and/or materially support ISIS'. Which is the tactic the recruiters use.Hence: you are going the work of terrorist recruiters. You are the patsy. You have been driven to spread radical Islamic propaganda. innuendo: an allusive or oblique remark or hint, typically a suggestive or disparaging one.Yes, it was.A group that says they are :

quote:

---

committed to ending Israel’s occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Separation Wall. It recognizes the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality. It calls for respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194

---

Is not remotely like the Hitler Youth. It was stupid, manipulative and lying. That's why you can't show how it is true - because it isn't.

How do you know it is true, then? In what way is this specific group like the Hitler Youth so much that characterising it as 'Hitler Youth Week' is not, in fact, slanderous and filthy lies - to use your terminology.

They also supported the Allies How does this relate to American students who want equal rights for Arabs in 2017? Yeah, as I thought - it's innuendo and slander. Thanks for confirming.

I don't see why learning about what causes groups to resort to terrorism won't help us.Irgun were fighting for territorial rights, self-determination, autonomy and so on. The Muslim terrorists say the same thing. Irgun more or less vanished with the formation of Israel - at least one of the terrorist group's leaders became Prime Minister of Israel. So we could consider that giving the Muslims at least some of what their extremists want may be an idea to destroy the motivation to terrorise. We could consider the IRA and how they were given certain compromises with autonomy, sovereignty, amnesty. They essentially got their own parliament, their own executive branch. IRA leaders have (allegedly) become politicians (eg., Gerry Adams).We spent years with soldiers in Ireland, with forces in Israel. That made things worse. Perhaps we might consider what has worked in the past to our solutions for the future? Correct. My comments were directed at neither. Yes, as a simplification, that's right. Not zero terrorism, obviously. There are always going to be terrorist groups of many religious persuasions. Most terrorist recruitment, most martyr videos are primarily focussed on territorial and political concerns. The 'get of our lawn' type justifications. Killing Americans won't result in the institution of Sharia law in America - that's not most terrorist's ambition at all. Obviously there are crazy Christian terrorists and Muslim terrorists that will always think they can achieve their goals through some insane gesture - but finding a political solution, probably one that nobody is happy with but which increases the number of people that can 'live with it' is the first and probably biggest step that will have the most significant impact.The Jews got Israel, Irgun merges into the IDF. The violence against Arabs didn't cease - but it changed character from overt attacks on civillians to at least trying to target military enemies with a rhetoric that seems to rue collateral damage. It isn't fixed, but that's because the solution that solved Irgun pushed the problems elsewhere and created Islamic versions of the same thing.In Ireland, there were still groups who rejected the Good Friday Agreement and violence and tension remained, but it is a thousand times better today than it was twenty years ago. Attacks against England basically stopped pretty quickly.

Call the natives of Palestine whatever you like. There were lots of them there. There are photos and everything. There were nearly a million people living there, in towns and everything:

quote:

---

Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine, 1920:

​

Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic.

---

By 1948 - 2/3 of the 1.6 million people living there were Arabs. By 1968, just twenty years later, it was 86% Jewish with the Muslim population being only about 1/5 of the size it once was. 10s of thousands (approx 70,000) homes of Palestinian Arabs were destroyed. 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were force to leave the area (they were expelled). They wanted to return to their homes, they wanted to be allowed to live in the areas agreed upon when Israel was first created. Israel told them they could piss in a fire.The Justice for Palestine group believes the original plan drawn up should be adhered to. That Israel should withdraw to its originally agreed upon borders, and give equal rights to Arabs living within Israel. The Arabs of the time may have rejected the partition. Many of them today would accept it. The Justice for Palestine group is of this opinion.This is not Hitler Youth, even if they disagree with you politically.The area in the 19th Century was of a low population, but then Arabs began to migrate there, and later the Jews. By the time Israel was about to be formed most of the people there were Arabs, living in an area called Palestine. It was not a nation - as it had not been given independence by Britain who had assumed control after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire - a Muslim political entity.This is one of the few times in modern history where a minority migrant group actually succeeded in assuming control of the whole land. It would probably have been used as an example of why we should be afraid of immigrants and the terrorism they bring with them, had it not been so politically incorrect for the right-wing Conservatives to do this. It was less populated in the 19th Century. But by the 1920s things had changed and people were living and breeding there in large numbers. By the 1940s, most of the Arabs that lived there had been born there. Neither did Turkey, or Iraq....they were part of the Ottoman empire, not nation states. The nation states we see today were largely created by the British and French Sykes-Picot agreement. There is still not much of a consensus view of national identity, the borders not agreed upon. See the Kurds for a good example or the Iraq/Kuwait relationship.The Palestinan Arabs wanted independence, a homeland recognized in Palestine. The Palestinian Jews wanted the same. Both groups resorted to violence. The Palestinian Jews got what they wanted, the Palestinian Arabs were pushed out, and have had unequal rights and have been disenfranchised ever since.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Wrong. They even say so themselves.