Canada is the biggest terrorist threat to the USA

Hello all,

I am a Canadian born and raised . Roman Catholic by upraising. I believe a great threat to American security is coming from Canada. Especially from Toronto, Ontario and it's suburbs. They are being taken over by middle eastern immigrants. Tens of thousands arrive every year under our current insane immigration policy. I lived in Toronto for several years and have seen this once great city fall to crap. There are whole suburbs dominated by Islamic fundamentalists. The suburbs names are "Brampton" and "Mississauga". There are now more of them than natural born Canadians. That is a sad and dangerous situation. It is all of Canada that is effected but predominantly Ontario. America's biggest threat is not illegal immigration from the south but the powder keg that was once the great nation of Canada to the North. It makes me sick to my soul that these animals are given what seems like a free ride into Canada. I moved some years ago to Manitoba. Even now the encrouching hoards are coming here. I have nothing against the immigrants from India as they are predominantly Hindu and truely peaceful people. No devine madman dictating destruction to all that do not follow him.

Canada has not been attacked yet..but only a matter of time. Our version of the F.B.I. is called C.S.I.S. C.S.I.S has issued reports listing that they track dozens of ACTIVE terrorist cells operating in our borders. Dozens of organized groups all plotting our downfall in a rain of blood..and we keep letting them in..true insanity by our government.

Midas may be very politically incorrect but he is absolutely RIGHT in his views. We are at war with these people, we have been for centuries. This is not going to change. You may disagree on morale grounds but the reality is they hate us and everything we stand for. They teach their children to hate us. Just because one may sit next to you at work, school, where ever...makes no difference. Their beliefs are different than they are showing you. Deep down we are the enemy unless we surrender to their madman of a prophet. They may smile to your face but when they pray they are praying ultimately for your downfall. Do not let your compassion blur the reality of the situation.

For all the people that think Midas and myself are crazy..well only time will tell. Things are going to get worse long before it gets better regarding these animals. I hope no one you love gets hurt in the name of Allah.. I wish no harm to no one. They do not feel the same towards you.

 

Thanks...I never been shy to call a "duck-a-duck" and until the West recognizes the fact that islam is NOT a religion of peace (never has, never is, and never will be), we will (are) be in trouble.

 

There, you just did it again. A blanket condemation of Islam even after you just said that you know that not all Muslims are to blame for what some of them do. This is the line that you regularly jump back and forth across. No wonder anyone with a brain views you as unstable.
Try and deny that your statement above doesn't amount to a blanket condemnation. How do you explain the vast numbers of peaceful Muslims in the world? Stop playing psuedointellectual-contortionism and stand up and admit your racism. Anybody paying attention has no trouble seeing it.

And awozny...don't encourage him.

 

Asked, answered before..."moderate" muslims and "not muslim enough" muslims are not following the koran as mohammad intended. What I have a problem with are "true" muslims who are simply following their book of hate, the koran. Just like not all Germans were evil during the 1930's and 40's, too many followed the "hate" of Nazism and had to be killed off to save the world from these animals. The same holds true for those that follow "true" islam...these animals need to be put down. There...I said it and I offer no apologies for critcizing people that follow "true' islam.

You cannot deny this Moen...the facts are VERY clear on this subject. Even a smart guy like you should understand the history of islam.

The koran contains dozens of verses that call "true" muslims to war with us nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers, and kill the infidels wherever they may be hiding. Now...here's the kicker...muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that their allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

These verses are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not embedded within historical context (as are nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the koran.

Unfortunately, there are few, if any, verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to islam, or are killed. This proclivity toward violence and mohammad's own martial tradition have resulted in a trail of blood and bodies across world history.

The strangest and most untrue thing that can be said about islam is that it is a "Religion of Peace". If every standard by which the West is judged and condemned (slavery, imperialism, intolerance, women's rights, warfare...) were applied equally to Islam, the verdict would be absolutely devastating. Islam never gives up what it conquers, be it religion, culture, language or life. Neither does it make apologies or any real effort at moral progress. It is the least open to dialogue and the most self-absorbed. It is convinced of its own perfection, yet never open to critical examination.

This is what makes the verses of violence so dangerous. While muslim terrorist animals take them as literally as anything else in the koran, and understand that islam is incomplete without Jihad, others do little to contradict them. Indeed, what do they have? Speaking of peace and love may win over the ignorant, but when every twelfth verse of islam's holiest book either speaks to Allah's hatred for non-muslims or calls for their death, forced conversion, or subjugation, it's little wonder that sympathy for terrorism runs as deeply as it does in the broader community - even if most muslims personally prefer not to interpret their religion in this way.

In fact, many muslims are simply unaware of the koran's near absence of verses that preach non-violence. This is because their understanding of Islam comes from what they are taught by others. In the West, it is typical for Muslims to come to believe that their religion must be like Christianity - preaching the New Testament virtues of peace, love, and tolerance - because muslims are taught that islam is supposed to be superior in every way. They are somewhat surprised and embarrassed to learn that the evidence of the koran and the bloody history of islam are very much in contradiction to this.

For their part, Western liberals like Meon would do well not to sacrifice judgment and distinction on the altar of political correctness, or look for reasons to bring other religion down to the level of Islam merely to avoid the existential truth that this it is both different and dangerous.

There are just too many muslims who take the koran literally... and too many others who couldn't care less.

 

You SAY that you differentiate between the Islamic terrorists and those Muslims that have no malice towards the West but then go and make blanket condemnations. How can anyone take you seriously when you can’t even suppress your own racist inclinations?
You probably don’t have an answer for this question because you probably can’t even see the problem. Even when people like myself acknowledge that there certainly are Muslim elements that would do us harm if they got the chance, you continue to label us as appeasers because we can see the difference between the good ones and the bad ones, a distinction you only pay lip service to. Maybe it’s not so much that we’re appeasers as you are someone that just can’t see the forest for the trees. Maybe it’s just good old fashioned American bigotry alive and well and turning its ugly head towards the Middle East. The hatred of Blacks, Italians, Irish, Chinese, etc., all had their moments in this country during our short history and those groups eventually blended in and became the rich diverse culture we are today. There were always the people that hated the new members of this society until the day they died and blamed them for everything wrong with this country. You are no different than those earlier generations of misguided bigots that saw any newcomers as a threat. History will prove your views wrong again and you only need to look back at the numbers of immigrants that we now call Americans to see that I am right. Different day, same backwards attitudes. Some things never change.

 

I am just glad that the likes of you back during the 1930's and 40's were the minority and that this country did not sit idle and let the likes of Hitler's cancer spread and conquer the world.

The same can be said about islam. It is a cancer. It NEVER has been a religion of peace. The West in the past never paid that much attention to it because these animals were basically were killing off their neighbors and other "not muslim enough" muslims with swords, but now, these animals have the resources (oil) and weapons to carry forth their jihad globally.

It is shame that apologists like yourself cannot see "true" islam with its past, its history and more importantly its ACTIONS for what it is!

 

It is a shame that history has so much to teach you and you choose to ignore the vast majority of it. You are so stuck in your label-based opinions that you must carefully piece everything into your preconceived ideas. The only problem with trying to fit your narrow view of the world into what is actually happening is those pesky instances of reality which you have become legendary at ignoring. You like to pretend that you are the authority on this subject, even to the point where you repeatedly say "I told you so", but you have such a narrow outlook that you couldn't possibly be any kind of expert of any kind.
The lessons of the 30's and 40's are often not what gets passed down to later generations. The lessons of those times are that power mad dictators don't last more than a few years against the will of a free world much less a thousand year reich. You choose to learn the lessons of fear and preemption that lead to a slippery slope that we must entrust our leaders to navigate even after they have proven again and again their inability to manage even simple well-defined issues. Your trust of our leaders reminds me of the trust German citizens put in their leaders just before WWII. They may have had nothing to do with the Nazi party but both actively and passively supported their leaders in countless ways. This is just another one of those lessons that you just can't seem to include in your world view.

 

Unfortunately...the religion of islam IS the government for these muslim countries and its koranic verses ARE the law of the land. Why you dismiss that is beyond all logic and rational!

This religion is not the result of some mad dictator who lives a few years as you put it...it is a movement that has lasted for hundreds of years, not the lifespan of some mad man like Hitler.

This religion, which to these people is more important than laws passed by reasonable and rational people, is the CAUSE of the world's cancer. I am simply pointing this out and that we must deal and defeat this cancer before it consumes us...like all cancers.



Even a smart guy like yourself must admit this is a religion of hate and the most intolerant major religion on the fact of this Earth!

 

I believe what they do or do not believe is irrelevant. I believe that what is written in some ancient book of mysticism is no more relevant than what is written in any of those books from the bible to the tor rah. I believe that you can no more judge a people by their ancestors than you can predict the weather by looking at past meteorology records or by predicting earth quakes by looking at the Geological record of an area. You can't use broad observations from the past to predict specific current events.

What is important is what is said and done today. I have no trouble taking those elements that hate us at their word or preparing for the possibility that they may try and inflict damage on us. I draw the line however at condemning an entire group of people for the actions of a few that falsely claim to represent the entire group. I'm sure that there is nothing that they'd like better than for the entire West to be at war with the entire Muslim population and they make no bones about that desire. I just can't imagine helping them with that goal as you seem to be doing. If anything we should be fomenting closer relationships with moderate Muslims not trying to drive a wedge between our two cultures by spewing hatred and suspicion. Sure, it's not the sexy macho solution but it would being this situation to an end much sooner and with far less loss of life. But then again, who would get to sit behind their computer screens and rage at the other side?

 

Have you seen what these muslims leaders are saying, TODAY?

Have you seen what these "true" muslims are doing, TODAY?

Have you read what these muslims are doing, TODAY?

That ancient book called the koran is the being implemented by muslims, TODAY!!

And no...it is not just a "few", shoot...26% of muslim males in THIS country alone have no problems with suicide bombings!! This is not just a "few". And the rest of the muslim population has no resolve to stop (take action) against this cancer within their own freakin' religion. That speaks volumes in its own right!

I condemn the whole group no differantly than how we condemned the country of Germny that followed the hate of Hitler....except this is way worse because this is the basis of a RELIGION where their RELIGION trumps the law (any law) of any governing nation!

 

What percent are actually suicide bombers? What percent actually participate in Jihad? What percent actually fly airplanes into buildings? Of the 1.5 BILLION Muslims on the planet, what number of them actually do more than agree with some obscure violent act defined as justified in some survey? Let me start the number for you 0.000xxx. When you get the calculator out and total up all the suicide bombings and acts of Jihad and divide them by 1.5 Billion, please feel free to fill in the rest of the number. And of the other 99.000xxx, just lump them in with your number as they might have some good reason to hate the West too.
Your logic is just mind boggling.

 

You keep on mentioning the "actions of a few" as your only argument...an argument that apologists/appeasers of islam try to make ALL of the time.

But you are wrong!

I am often asked to guess as to how many muslims are jihadists. The easiest answer is: enough to commit the terrorist acts detailed in over a 1,000-page-long Islamic Terror Timeline that details islamic terror act over islamic terror attack. But if you are looking for a more analytical response, I think the math goes something like this:

There are between 1.2 and 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. Half are women. While a substantial percentage of Islamic women support jihad, less than one in fifty Islamic terrorist acts is actually perpetrated by a female. That leaves us with a maximum pool of jihadists that is just over 50% of the total population.

The overwhelming preponderance of terrorist acts are conducted by young muslim men 15 to 30 years old. This age bracket covers about half of the male population of the islamic world, leaving us with a potential jihad pool of 25% of all Muslims - approximately 300 million people.

The most logical way to determine the percentage of muslims who are salafi/fundamentalists - a precondition to jihad - is to consider the most recent elections in Islamic countries. For example, the fundamentalist Islamic group Hamas received 65% of the popular vote in "Palestine." The somewhat secular Fatah, at least by comparison to Hamas, won only 30% of the votes.

While he was not popularly elected, Turkey's president, Ahmet Necdet Sezar, is a fundamentalist Muslim. Turkey's parliament, which selected him by a 70% majority, is formed as a result of a popular mandate and it is predominately comprised of fundamentalist Muslims. Turkey's Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is the nation's most popular leader. He is a convicted felon who believes: "Mosques are our barracks, domes are our helmets, minarets our bayonets, and believers our soldiers." He won a landslide victory in 2002 - and Turkey is considered to be the most moderate Islamic state.

The recently elected fundamentalist Islamic nutcase ruling Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (I-am-in-a-mood-for ji-had), earned 62% of the popular vote. The most moderate Islamic challenger garnered less than twenty percent support. The notion that the majority of Iranians are hostile to the Shia mullahs, and are poised for a revolution, is a myth.

In Lebanon, politicians got all excited when 50,000 people marched in support of democracy. The following week when 500,000 people protested in support of Islam/Submission, the percentage of fundamentalist Muslims became clear. Fundamentalist Islamic candidates in the most recent Iraqi elections, those individuals who belonged to clerical parties like the Islamic Revolution in Iraq founded by Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, won 65% of the seats in the new parliament.

While opinion surveys can be suspect, and are often tainted by the manner in which a question is phrased, there are three that are worth mentioning. Opinion polls taken by the British Government reveal that 70% of Iraqis think killing Americans is justified, something that is impossible to justify outside the conditioning of fundamentalist Islam. The rising death toll of American troops and stunning escalation in terror in Iraq give credence to those numbers. Polls taken in Pakistan, where bin Laden is being harbored, reveal that 70% of Pakistanis view the world's most famous Islamic terrorist very favorably. In fact, Osama has become the most popular name for boys in the region. Last, as I recently reported in the thread, "Told you so", 26% of muslim men in this country (not a islamic hell hole like Saudi Arabia) believe suicide bombing is warranted!

Therefore, based upon the most objective data available to us, at least 60% of all Muslims have the potential to be jihadists by way of their fundamentalist voting patterns. That is to say, Islam has grown substantially closer to its salafi, and thus terrorist, roots over the past decade. It is safe to say that 750 million Muslims are fundamentalists trying to follow Allah's orders and Muhammad's example. And as fundamentalists, they are potential jihadists.

Now use some rational and logic Meon! Try it...it wouldn't hurt!

If the 60% response levels derived from polling data is an accurate reflection of the current state of Islam, then sex and age criteria further reduce Islamic terrorist candidates down to a maximum of one in every seven Muslims - 25% of 60%. That means that no more than 15% of the total Islamic population of 1.2 to 1.5 billion people has the potential to be a terrorist should the opportunity arise. That equates to a minimum of 180 million potential jihadists and a maximum of 225 million.

But when it comes to actual jihadists, to those who have or will commit an act of terrorism in Allah's name, research suggests that they represent no more than one in one hundred of the 180 million young fundamentalist Muslim men prepared mentally, morally, and spiritually to be terrorists. That means that there are 1.8 million actual Islamic jihadists on the planet today - a number which could jump one hundred fold almost instantaneously should the opportunity arise.

Middle East political commentator Daniel Pipes says that there are no less than 130 million Islamic jihadists but I don't believe that is possible because there haven't been sufficient jihadist attacks over the past 20 years for that many Muslims to be engaged in the business of killing people for Allah. The potential pool of jihadists, however, is reasonably close to Pipes' estimate. Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch is on another planet with his estimate of as many as 650 million jihadists - one in every two Muslims.

Before you get a warm and cozy liberal feeling...

...thinking that only 60% of Muslims are sufficiently indoctrinated in fundamentalist Islam to be a terrorist should the opportunity arrise, and that only 25% of those Muslims are the appropriate age and sex to actually engage in jihad, let's consider some recent historical events. In 1917, less than 3% of Russians were Communists. Yet since that 3% was sufficiently corrupted by an immoral and ruthless religion (Socialist Secular Humanism), they quickly came to oppress the entire nation - murdering 30 million Russians in the process.

In 1924, less than 3% of Germans were Nazis. And yet since that 3% was sufficiently corrupted by Hitler's "People's Religion" as it was immorally and ruthlessly laid out in Mein Kampf (a best seller in today's muslim countries), that 3% came to oppress the entire nation and led the world into a war that killed 50 million people.

Also keep in mind that while only 15% of Muslims are potential jihadists today, that percentage is growing rapidly. Thanks to OPEC funding and clerical indoctrination, the Islamic world is becoming increasingly fundamentalist. In twenty years most Muslims could be terrorists - and probably will be.

There is another factor in play that we must not ignore. When America invaded Iraq my analysis was validated. With accessible Infidel targets, the gap between potential jihadists and actual jihadists narrowed substantially. Acts of terrorism increased over one million percent - from one every several months to hundreds per day. Given the opportunity to tangibly demonstrate their religion, an unparalleled number of Muslims became terrorists. Therefore, should there be another miscue like Iraq, or should the war on terror be expanded, rather than dealing with 1.8 million Islamic jihadists, the world will have to confront a hundred million of them, or more.

The moral of the story is: the fastest way to convert potential jihadists into actual jihadists is to send infidels into an Islamic country.

To say that the American invasion of Iraq was counterproductive, is the understatement of the decade.

 

That's O.K. just ignore my questions and go off on another rant. Your specific answer is "enough". I guess that is good enough to blanket all Muslims and accuse and label anybody that isn't willing to agree with you as appeasers.
I guess I've heard enough. Time for you to jump up and down and declare yourself the winner. Having learned nothing, you plod along unscathed. Good for you.

 

My complements Midas, your answer was exactly what Mr. Moen's question had ask to have explained. I wasn't sure at first, but went back and reread his post and then read your answer again. Now it is evident that he isn't about to accept anything you have to say on the subject, for what ever reason he may have, so don't bother to explain any further. What you had to say made perfect sense to me, and that is all I care about anyway. Thanks for being so thorough in your explination. Job well done.

 

Gee...I thought I answered Moen as logical and rational as one could!

Again...Like the comparisons of Nazi Germany to those that follow "true" islam. Sure, not all Germans were bad, but when only 3% of their population followed Nazism in 1924 eventually evolved in a movement that caused 50 million to lose their lives, how can you NOT look at the muslim voting records, the PEW Reseach results, their ACTIONS, and other measures that prove that "true" islam has more of a foot hold that even made the Nazis leaders jealous!

That's right...even Nazi leaders marveled at how islamic jihadists gave their life to their allah! They were jealous!

Nazi attitudes regarding islam were perhaps best expressed by Himmler, who stated:

“I have nothing against Islam because it educates the men in this division for me and promises them heaven if they fight and are killed in action. A very practical and attractive religion for soldiers.”

 

What amazes me is that you throw out statistics, percentages, and other numbers and then draw your own warped conclusions from them and then state your personal biases as facts. Then you go off sounding like a preacher on a mission as if empowered by your own supreme knowledge. Using genuine facts but reaching flawed conclusions is no more valid than just guessing. At least if you'd guessed, you'd be correct occasionally. Nothing you ever state has any concrete relationship to your conclusions. It is all innuendo and conjecture with a heavy dose of personal bias.

 

My conclusions are based on sure FACT, REFERENCES, HISTORY, and their hate-book, the koran itself!

Where do your facts (0.000xxx) come from?

I guess we should let the lurkers (the forum) choose who makes a better argument.

 

A detailed look at your “Logic”. Part 1

I’m going to invest some time in explaining to you why what you call logic is really just you drawing your own conclusions from historical “facts”, accepted figures, and examples that have little to do with the current situation. I hope that you read this and take away something from it. I don’t pretend to invalidate your opinions or your perceptions, I just want to show you that the line between facts and opinions blurs in your rhetoric fairly regularly.

Your words: You keep on mentioning the "actions of a few" as your only argument...an argument that apologists/appeasers of islam try to make ALL of the time.
My words: It is not my only argument by far. I have pointed out that there are billions of Muslims that do not participate in the violence but you only see the few that do and lump all others in with them with a pretty flimsy guilty by association argument that many Muslims sympathize with those that commit violence. You also cite voting records that overwhelmingly support organizations like Hamas as proof that all Muslims are violent psychopaths without considering other factors that would account for their voting preferences such as corruption of the current leadership, inept performance, and social factors that make their choices somewhat logical even if we don’t find them to our tastes. You simply inject your own cultural bias into the issue and call it fact.

Your words: But you are wrong!
My words: Oh, Am I?

Your words: I am often asked to guess as to how many muslims are jihadists. The easiest answer is: enough to commit the terrorist acts detailed in over a 1,000-page-long Islamic Terror Timeline that details islamic terror act over islamic terror attack. But if you are looking for a more analytical response, I think the math goes something like this:
My words: You don’t really know how many Muslims are active terrorists or Jihadists. You even say that the easy answer is the nonspecific “enough”. A 1,000-page-long Islamic terror timeline? Who produced this and for what purpose and where is it viewable? How is Islamic terror defined? What period of time does it cover? This isn’t really an answer to my question. I asked specifically for the number of terrorists so that I could divide them into the 1.5 billion Muslims on the planet so we could see how many actually are involved in terrorists activities. You provided nothing here. And now you’re going to attempt to clarify with “a more analytical response”. I can’t wait for this.

Your words: There are between 1.2 and 1.5 billion Muslims in the world.
My words: Depends on your source but I’ll go with you numbers here.

Your words: Half are women.
My words: One would assume.

Your words: While a substantial percentage of Islamic women support jihad, less than one in fifty Islamic terrorist acts is actually perpetrated by a female. That leaves us with a maximum pool of jihadists that is just over 50% of the total population.
My words: I don’t know why you think that saying “a substantial percentage of Islamic women support Jihad”, is an analytical analysis when it is nothing more than your own unsubstantiated opinion. Now you begin to slip across the line from facts to opinions and fool those not paying much attention. I, however, am paying attention. You also say that 1 in 50 terrorist acts are committed by a Muslim female. From there, you then jump to the conclusion that 50% of all terrorists are Muslim men in your next statement assuming that on the one hand women are too small of a percentage to be included but at the same time their support of Jihad and their voting choices implicate them as terrorists. Which way would you like it? Either they are terrorists or they aren’t. They can’t be innocent because after all, they are Muslims. With 1.5 Billion Muslims in the world, you assumptions leave us with approx. 750,000 potential terrorists.

Your words: The overwhelming preponderance of terrorist acts are conducted by young muslim men 15 to 30 years old.
My words: I don’t have any idea where you got this figure from since it isn’t referenced as you say you do so often. But let’s just assume you are correct for the sake of argument and however you’ve defined terrorism there are indeed a large number of Muslim men 15 to 30 that commit an “overwhelming preponderance”, whatever analytical language that derives from, of terrorist acts.

 

A detailed look at your “Logic”. Part 2

Your words: This age bracket covers about half of the male population of the islamic world, leaving us with a potential jihad pool of 25% of all Muslims - approximately 300 million people.
My words: O.K. again no reference as to where you found that half the Muslim population of the world falls into the age category of 15 to 30. Are you guessing? What analytical data are you pulling this from? Now you’ve incorrectly calculated that 300,000 is one quarter of 1.5 billion. Fine, maybe you’ve assumed the lower estimate of 1.2 billion Muslims but never stated why you assumed it and not the 1.5 billion number in your “analytical analysis”. Could it just be your opinion creeping in again?

Your words: The most logical way to determine the percentage of muslims who are salafi/fundamentalists - a precondition to jihad - is to consider the most recent elections in Islamic countries. For example, the fundamentalist Islamic group Hamas received 65% of the popular vote in "Palestine." The somewhat secular Fatah, at least by comparison to Hamas, won only 30% of the votes.
My words: So let my see if I have your analytical analysis straight here, never mind the references, I’ve given up looking for them. The most logical way to determine the percent of Muslims across the Middle East that are “Pre-Jihadists” is to look at the most recent Palestinian voting numbers??? Maybe they don’t consider the U.S. designation of Hamas as a terrorist group before they cast their votes. Maybe they consider other things like political corruption, their own circumstances, their families futures, where their next meal is coming from, etc. I seriously doubt many of them vote for more terrorism as their number one concern. To assume that our values and political interests are the only consideration they should be thinking about and labeling them as terrorists for doing otherwise is a pretty ethnocentric analytical analysis. Extending that “logic” to the whole of the Middle East is just compounding dumb logic.

Your words: While he was not popularly elected, Turkey's president, Ahmet Necdet Sezar, is a fundamentalist Muslim. Turkey's parliament, which selected him by a 70% majority, is formed as a result of a popular mandate and it is predominately comprised of fundamentalist Muslims. Turkey's Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is the nation's most popular leader. He is a convicted felon who believes: "Mosques are our barracks, domes are our helmets, minarets our bayonets, and believers our soldiers." He won a landslide victory in 2002 - and Turkey is considered to be the most moderate Islamic state.
My words: While you don’t actually come out and say that a large majority of Turkish citizens are Muslim terrorists, you certainly imply that they are with innuendo in your “analytical analysis”. I don’t know where you got the idea that you could determine that an entire country, a U.S. ally no less, can be classified as terrorists just by who they democratically elect to political office. You demonstrate your cultural naïveté every time you try to characterize a people you’ve never met, never talked with, never seen outside of the U.S. media that you claim to despise and mistrust. As someone that works in the field of research, I can tell you the anecdotal examples rarely if ever constitute analytical analysis and are a poor substitute for critical thinking.

Your words: The recently elected fundamentalist Islamic nutcase ruling Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (I-am-in-a-mood-for ji-had), earned 62% of the popular vote. The most moderate Islamic challenger garnered less than twenty percent support. The notion that the majority of Iranians are hostile to the Shia mullahs, and are poised for a revolution, is a myth.
My words: Iran is not a democracy and you don’t have to be told that, you already know that. Again, you follow this up with more of your own opinions based on what? That’s right, your own biases. Analytical analysis seems to have long since been abandon by you but that doesn’t stop you from pretending to use it. Say it doesn’t make it so.


Listen, I could go on like this point after point but it would just be more of the same. Let’s just cut to the chase so that this will fit into one or two posts and call it a day.

You live under the self-imposed illusion that if you take a fact of history or current events or even actual demographic data and throw it out there you can put any spin on it, interpret it way you want, or just plain see it the way you already see the world. An actual fact doesn’t automatically lend your personal assertions any degree of credibility whatsoever. Your idea of using facts and rational arguments in your posts is tantamount to credibility by association.

Now for my opinion. You are a very poor advocate for you own opinions. You overstate and inflate your own sense of importance and knowledge, understate any evidence at all of any contradictory evidence if you look at it at all, you look at historical events with a massive degree of contemporary bias and never take into account the massaging of history, you draw conclusions that are in no way supported by the evidence, and you unceasingly attempt to stereotype, label, misconstrue, and belittle those that don’t see things with your narrow perspective in a futile attempt to lend your opinion more validity than it has any right to merit.
It would seem that if you put all this characteristics together, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of you seeing anything differently but I would bet that you probably go through most of your life in this manner and cointalk is the least of your problems. That is how I perceive you and your opinions/ “facts” and why I can never take anything you have to say without a large dose of salt. If you know what I mean.

 

Muhhamed MOEN if you want to sleep with the Muslims sleep with them by yourself.