How 'bout the West stops fucking with the Middle East? Once we stop that, the "terrorists" will have no reason to hate us. It's not our freedoms that they hate, it's our policies.

actually, they hate our entire satanic 'infidel' culture... they don't need an excuse of policy to motivate their acts

and then consider how they 'feel' about atheists, or heretics and apostates... you can't reason or argue with a devout fanatic

how 'bout you pick up a book by christopher hitchens or else stop spewing your stormshits on our /hi/.

hate muslims, but don't like hitchens?- fascist spotted

>>12557
An ignorant person is one who doesn't know what you have just found out.

will rogers

Kill every American stupid enough to believe that Al Qaeda would supply an agent with Semtex without first explaining how it works.

How about this:
-Kick all Muslims out of Europe and North America
-Stop invading random Muslim countries every year

There, problem solved.
So far, all the major Muslim terrorist actions in Western countries have been comitted by Muslims who already lived in Western countries. 9/11 was done by a bunch of Muds who were living in Germany, the anthrax letters that were being mailed around in the US all came from within the country, and so on.

I support Islamic views, at the same time not following the religion because of my personal beliefs.
Many Muslims I know, at least they like to pretend to, don't like 'Western' culture. They don't like that there are boyfriends and girlfriends before marriage. They don't like the swearing in music. They don't like the blatant nudity in clothing. Also, something I've noticed fairly recently, I don't know if it's spread elsewhere (I'm in London) is that men are wearing feminine clothes. Proper butch, laddish men too. Skinny girl jeans with crop tops and earrings.
This is filthy, and I don't support it at all. Sure, you may call me assburger gay lololol 21st centry >2012.
Fuck you all.
I hope Islamic culture is implemented without the religion or the Islamic rules in the Qur'an. Yes, I am a firm believer in the Islamic Golden Age.

>>12589
I like that idea to a certain degree, but there are two problems with it:
1) It'll never happen that way. The two are too interlinked.
2) It won't grant basic freedoms. While I can kind of understand the think about marriage and girlfriend/boyfriends, it should always be legal for people to do that and I can't guarantee the Muslims in power would allow it. Furthermore, without that courtship, you're getting dangerously close to arranged marriage territory.

Not without a really awesome war you don't.

Just imagine if the muzzies tried to implement islamic law or become an official state-sponsored religion. I'd laugh my ass off, because for as much as christians like to talk about turning the other cheek (though that's fallen out of favor in the last few decades) and being a religion of peace, Christianity has by far the bloodiest, most violent history of any religion in the world. It's built in at every level. It didn't grow to be as successful as it is because it spread love and joy everywhere it went.

I only wonder if the Evangelicals who are already (hilariously) convinced they're God's Army in the opening salvos of Armageddon (whoops, read revelations again Evangelistadors), will attack the Mormons on their own turf first, or use them like Hitler used Stalin, as pawns in wiping out the Muslims, finishing off the Jews, before turning on them too.

Either way, fireworks are guaranteed. I laugh a little as all the stupid people die for the sake of nothing. Oh well, the population was getting a bit out of hand anyway...

...cause for as little as ignorant ameritards think of europe, seeing islam gain ground on a national level there would instantly trigger an invasion and war, even if they weren't invited. ...cause it's the christian thing to do.

i'm surprised more atheists aren't writing more bad end times parody fanfics... they certainly have a very good grip on the concept of Mary Sue characters and fanwank action

"actually, they hate our entire satanic 'infidel' culture... they don't need an excuse of policy to motivate their acts"

It's not the culture. They haven't attacked Norway or Brazil, have they? No, they're attacking the countries who are fucking with and attacking their countries.

they need to reestablish their glorious Caliphate by divinely-inspired conquest, Brazil and Norway are really poor fringe targets

they've nominated the U.S. to be their "Great Satan" adversary - which pretty much sums up their headspace

>>12614
I'm pretty sure Britain is still the Great Satan in their heart of hearts, since Britain was fucking with them for centuries before the US came along and started swatting their rears when they behaved like spoiled brats.

Remember the vehemence that time the Royal Navy allowed Iranians to board one of their vessels and kidnap the crew while it was in international waters.

>>12619
It's a depressing thought. The Brits who engineered all these terrible borders and stuff are long dead, and the current rulers of Britain aren't even related to them, yet they still have to eat shit over it.

would it be uncharitable to call it Karma?

File 134094770689.png - (47.98KB , 1357x628 , World 820.png )

You know what I like about Islam and Muslims?
The fact that they share history with anyone who is a Muslim.
European 'Christian' empires are rarely considered heritage for Christians worldwide. The Crusades are rarely considered heritage for Christians worldwide. The Americas are never considered heritage for Christians worldwide.

Yet, Arabia and Maghreb are considered heritage for Muslims. They don't give a shit about your past or your ethnicity. As long as you can pray salat and read the Qur'an, you're considered a descendant of that history. I see 'Islamic science', not 'Arab science'. Whereas in Europe, I see 'x country science', not 'Christian science'.

There really is brotherhood and integrity within Islam. I've never seen any religious or social group, which is of a relatively large size maintain its policies and somewhat egalitarian society for so long.

The only thing I have to criticise with it is, why the fuck is there conflict between Sunni and Shia? If Iran were to collaborate more with the rest of Arabia, it would definitely bring back the Middle Eastern 'global power' status. I think I'm right in saying Sunni is like Catholic, it is the beginning sect, or believed to be and Shia is like Protestant? Correct me if I'm wrong.

tl;dr - Christianity is selfish. Under Islam, there is unity. I wonder what Muslims think of Communism...

File 134097740035.jpg - (23.85KB , 400x290 , jesus_ali.jpg )

Both Shi'ism and Sunnism started at the same time, right after the prophet muhammed died. Both parties fought over who would succeed him. Eventually, their cultures diverged to the point that they even pray differently.

Culturally, I'd say Shi'ism is more like Catholicism, with the focus on anguish and martyr stories, murals, etc. plus the mean-ass harpies that teach kids.

>>12694
Plus, Coincidentaly, the divide between the two groups is also largely an ethnic divide: Persians v. Arabs/misc.

Mecca and Medina will turn into smouldering seas of radioactive glass before the shitskins outbreed the rest of the world's population.

>>12708
fuck off back to shitfront, faggot

the last fucking thing a history board needs is fucks with no grasp on reality, let alone history

consider the salafi jihadism against infidels, and even against Sufi

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/4/0/23086/Opinion/Salafi-doctrine-in-the-Muslim-Brotherhood.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafist_jihadism
http://news.yahoo.com/defiant-mali-islamists-pursue-wrecking-timbuktu-113255438.html

funny that these events aren't happening in the christian faith community

>>12718
They are recent events, no?
Therefore, this cannot be determined to ancient religions which were created over a thousand years ago or more. It's not like someone read a verse in the Qur'an for the first time and said "Aha! I know what this means! It means we can blow ourselves up". No, people have been reading that book for over a millennium. Misinterpretations that are so far from the truth cannot exist.

Therefore, it's something political or social which is being blamed or falsely represented by religion.

but jihad has been an integral part of their religion since it's founding, and never disavowed by their religious leaders

also, their political structures and social values are more tightly bound to their religious matrix than in the western cultures, and especially those of the more secular societies of Europe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam

>>12743
Protip 1: Jihad has personal spiritual meaning as well. Disavowing it entirely would imply that peeps should not try to better themselves in the eyes of the Great Wizard in the Sky.
Protip 2: Islam has no "leaders" like the Catholics do, only eminent scholars. Plenty of those be rejecting calls for armed Jihad against the West.
Protip 3: if you think Islam is in any way more militarized than dear old Christendom, I'd suggest you look into Clovis, Emperor Constantine and St. Augustine. School yourself on how exactly the early church and the sword connected. And then they still had to get at the crusades, or the European wars of religion.

>Jihad has personal spiritual meaning as well.
certainly, and do you now officially speak for the Great Wizard in the Sky?
>Plenty of those be rejecting calls for armed Jihad against the West.
yet plenty are obviously 'encouraging' violent jihad, rather than happy happy messages about 'improve your life' and worshiping your God in peace
>School yourself on how exactly the early church and the sword connected
riiiight... so if the dead ghost of ye olde militant Crusader Christendom magically arises... er, we were talking about current militant cultural action, and there isn't an equivalent revanchism in contemporary Christianity worldview

>>12749
I'm not him but:
Jihad does have a spiritual meaning. It literally means 'struggle'. This can be a spiritual struggle or a physical struggle or a mix of both.
They are not 'plenty' as you say. You only hear/read/see those because that's all that's shown to you. The same thing happened to the Irish when there was conflict between Ireland and the UK. It's called demonisation. It's used for propaganda.
All Empires were/are violent. The Islamic Caliphate was no different, and neither was the SPQR.

Also, consider the British Empire. An Empire ruled by a monarch who claims to be appointed by the God in Christianity and wears the title of 'Defender of the faith'. This Empire enslaved and 'genocided' many Negroes and Indians and sent them off to foreign lands, in the West Indies and South Africa to name a couple, to work on plantations.

>>12763
>Jihad does have a spiritual meaning. It literally means 'struggle'.
yeah, i know that... it's also the core spiritual underpinning to restoration of the Kalifa
>They are not 'plenty' as you say
yet there are 'plenty enough' for their jihad to proceed, and there is certainly NO widespread outcry against the violence from inside the muslim world
>The same thing happened to the Irish when there was conflict between Ireland and the UK. It's called demonisation
yeah, i understand propagandist principles, and the middle east situation is not the same as northern Ireland... unless the Irish were practicing the old religion and somehow planning on a reborn Celtic Empire from Ireland across to England & Scotland and then reclaiming ancestral lands in western europe, while converting all the Christians to their faith or putting them to the sword
>The Islamic Caliphate was no different, and neither was the SPQR.
the violence was present, but the spiritual drive and spiritual 'authority' were/are quite different
>Also, consider the British Empire.
obviously won't defend all their colonial actions OR excuse muslim slavers who sold african slaves to the british

>>12764
... and restoring the Caliphate is a bad thing? The Middle East has been decaying since the Ottoman Caliphate was losing it's influence and was effectively manipulated by the British and the French.
Well maybe there are, but you just don't hear of it because our media doesn't want to cover that. A recent example. The 'Occupy' movement was being broadcasted on Youtube a whole month before any American news channel broadcasted it on television. The media broadcasts what they want to. You hear what they want you to hear, unless you seek it out yourself.

There are individuals who do not count for the majority. They may speak for a greater group, but it can't ever be considered valid without a majority present.

>... and restoring the Caliphate is a bad thing?
if you are a very devout muslim, and don't ever question the dominant belief system and 'religiously' follow all the many rules, it would probably be peachy
if your personal understanding of islam is opposed by your local/regional hierarchy, you 'would' conform to their version or be declared apostate and treated rather harshly
and if you want to convert to islam, you had better be very very careful and choose the right sect... and never change your mind, because islam takes an 'extreme' view about backsliding and apostasy
if you can freely submit and fit yourself to the prevailing religious faction, and can live within a strict set of rules of conduct, and have no natural tendencies to ask irritating questions of 'authority', and have no desire to explore or create new ideas or think beyond the bounds of what is considered 'right' and 'proper' by something that was written centuries ago in another culture, and are comfortable with having most parts of your life directed by the dead hand of the past... you should do well - because islam will NOT EVER fit itself to your will or nature

>The media broadcasts what they want to. You hear what they want you to hear, unless you seek it out yourself.
pretty much... but don't you think it's slowly changing for the better with all the advancing communication technologies and the younger generations relying much more on non-traditional and non-corporate news sources?

File 134172348017.png - (320.73KB , 866x558 , Hitler + Islam.png )

>>12771
They weren't persecuted if they payed a tax. I've not heard of this kind of alternative in European Christian countries. Catholics/Jews were simply exiled or killed.
Surely Islam not changing shows solidarity? I mean, if something hasn't changed for over a thousand years, that means whatever they were doing was correct? Ever heard the phrase 'If it ain't broken, don't fix it'? Even today, there are only two main divisions, Sunni and Shia, the rest are very small. But in Christianity/Hinduism/Buddhism there are lots of divisions each representing a large group.
If you look at Islamic history, they were increasing and expanding for quite a while. They gave Al-Andalus (the Islamic part of Iberia) a place on the map. They pretty much created the building blocks for the mighty Spanish Empire, which was the largest/richest empire on the Atlantic Ocean until the British took India. Yet the Muslims started out of tribes in the desert and converts.
This shows their system works, and it also works to help create the foundation of other empires.
>non-corporate news sources
Oh how I wish that was true.
If something becomes large enough, it will be marketed. Eventually. Youtube has ads on videos. Even fucking internet memes have become marketed, you can buy products with internet memes on it.