[noemon]

Some white supremacists steal Arya/Iran from Persia and it is the Persians who are pretending...

The exonym Persia was the official name of Iran in the Western world before 1935, but the Iranian people inside their country since the time of Zoroaster (probably circa 1000 BC), or even before, have called their country Arya, Iran, Iranshahr, "Iranzamin" (Land of Iran), "Aryānām" (the equivalent of "Iran" in the proto-Iranian language) or its equivalents. The term "Arya" has been used by the Iranian people, as well as, by the rulers and emperors of Iran, from the time of the Avesta. Evidently from the time of the Sassanids (226–651 CE) Iranians have called it Iran, meaning "the land of Aryans" and Iranshahr. In Middle Persian sources, the name "Arya" and "Iran" is used for the pre-Sassanid Iranian empires as well as the Sassanid empire. As an example, the use of the name "Iran" for Achaemenids in the Middle Persian book of Arda Viraf refers to the invasion of Iran by Alexander the Great in 330 BC.[7] The Proto-Iranian term for Iran is reconstructed as *Aryānām (the genitive plural of the word *Arya) and the Avestan equivalent is Airyanem (as in Airyanem Vaejah). The internal preference for "Iran" was noted in some Western reference books (e.g. the Harmsworth Encyclopaedia, circa 1907, entry for Iran: "The name is now the official designation of Persia.") but for international purposes, "Persia" was the norm.

[Rei Murasame]

Well, liberal-capitalism has spread itself throughout the entire planet, and in the process of doing so it did not pause to destroy feudalists, rather, it co-opted them. The Islamists only object to American imperialism when it stops oppressing the workers and peasants for a brief moment and intrudes into their little fiefdom and begins making them feel uncomfortable.

At no point in time do Muslims actually care about 'the people', even those under them, because Islamic ideology is all about covering over gender politics and covering over class politics, so as to maximise the amount of exploitation that feudalist landlords can carry out.

The 'Islamic world war', is just essentially feudalist dung beetles battling over who will extract the most wealth from the pile of cultural shit which is the so-called 'Islamic world'. A world which is not even united because it produces an unlimited number of schisms based on which landlord is pissed off with which other landlord today, and on the basis of entirely immaterial concepts which vaguely correspond to differing forms of social organisation of feudalism.

So let's not lose sight of what we're discussing here.

Even Osama bin Laden was essentially a comprador who went into rage mode because George H. W. Bush slightly offended his feelings in 1990:

The Islamic Republic of Iran, under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini, suppressed the attempts of the petroleum workers to close down the plunder of oil resources by the Western companies, and today, more than two decades later, the Iranian economy is still heavily dependent on the sale of oil on the global market, with sales of over $20 billion annually. Even though relations with the US were apparently cut, the Islamic Republic of Iran carried out all of its services to the Western powers and the world capitalist system through the European states. It carried out joint covert operations with the CIA of the US to help finance the infamous Contras[5] against the Nicaraguan people and the Sandinista regime. It secretly continued relations with the Israeli government while denouncing the revolutionary forces in Iran as the “agents of ­Zionism”.

This picture also applies to the Islamic militant groupings in other countries. Take for example the assorted Islamic rulers of Afghanistan who were close allies of US imperialism and other reactionary states, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. According to bin Laden of al-Qaeda, the Saudi king was part of the umma as long as US military forces were not stationed on Saudi soil. According to the revolutionary communists, the Saudi king was a lackey of US imperialism and Saudi Arabia was a neo-colony of the US long before and after the 1990 stationing of US military forces there. And as far as we are concerned it does not matter whether or not the Saudi royal family is still part of the umma. The Saudi regime was not and will not be part of the people and has always been a gang of vicious exploiters that has to be overthrown.

The concept of umma serves as a reactionary united front strategy by the feudal and big capitalist classes who are struggling to get a better deal from the rulers of their countries and the imperialist powers.

The leaders of the Islamic movements have deployed the concept of umma (or united front strategy) with some success. There is a basis for that success, even though it is detrimental to the masses of workers, peasants and all the oppressed. The national subjugation of Muslim societies (by colonialism and imperialism combined with the semi-feudal structure dominating these societies) provides the material basis for the strategy of umma to gain some following amongst the oppressed masses. And the semi-feudal structure in and of itself means that tribal – and religious – affiliations and bonds amongst the people still have influence.

The introduction of class concepts into the political movements within the oppressed nations has always been reviled by the Islamic forces (and even by the secular nationalist forces), because they are not opposed to class oppression and exploitation. They uphold the feudal landlords’ right to own land and on that basis exploit the poor and landless peasant; and they uphold the capitalist ownership of the means of production and the exploitation of the workers. They uphold all kinds of oppressive social relations – most outstandingly, the subjugation of women by men. These Islamic forces do not consider imperialism to be the highest stage of capitalism. They call the Western powers “imperialist” when those powers do not give them enough room in running their respective oppressive social orders.

[blackjack21]

That's what the South Africans must have thought right before the end, the posturing of being "British aristocrats" is funny but it is not really fooling anybody.

You need us, that's the reality. South Africa isn't what it used to be, is it?

Liberals are in charge at present, so it's unfortunately their call as to how long they'd like to continue letting this happen.

At least we have similar tastes in women... :-)

It remains unclear to me to what extent, if any, Omar was actually working for ISIL.

Apparently, he was inspired by a black Muslim who was released from prison recently. This must be really hard for Obama, because he is black, gay, and Muslim.

Orlando gunman tied to radical imam released from prison last year, say law enforcement sources

How do you think this attack will impact Global Coalition strategy?

Not at all.

[Rei Murasame]

How do you think this attack will impact Global Coalition strategy?

I also agree with the others, no change will occur. Externally, the fight against ISIL will continue, and the anti-ISIL fight should of course be supported in all its forms.

By 2035 global warming is going to end it all over there anyway, as it will be about 52 degrees Celsius during the day in summer in Mesopotamia, but that's another topic entirely.
_________

At least we have similar tastes in women...

Beauty standards seem to be the only near-universal standard. Well, almost.

[noemon]

You need us, that's the reality. South Africa isn't what it used to be, is it?

I don't need you for anything mate, you need peace, tranquillity and adherence to your constitution about all Americans being equal lest you drag yourselves down to a civil war that will destroy you either way with a high probability of becoming the second class citizens that you will have created.

You want to go down that road, that's fine with me, knock yourselves out and could not really care less but I am letting you know that I will not be placing any bets on you coming out on top.

[night games]

The 'Islamic world war', is just essentially feudalist dung beetles battling over who will extract the most wealth from the pile of cultural shit which is the so-called 'Islamic world'. A world which is not even united because it produces an unlimited number of schisms based on which landlord is pissed off with which other landlord today, and on the basis of entirely immaterial concepts which vaguely correspond to differing forms of social organisation of feudalism.

So let's not lose sight of what we're discussing here.

:

What sight? The Muslims love their own shit. Whether we like it or not they are settled in their own world. There is Islamic world war and Obama drags America into it. He thought he only takes the progressive side, but for the loser party it doesn't seem that way. The result: spectacle attacks on gay scene.

[blackjack21]

I don't need you for anything mate, you need peace, tranquillity and adherence to your constitution about all Americans being equal lest you drag yourselves down to a civil war that will destroy you either way with a high probability of becoming the second class citizens that you will have created.

The brits still control the mines. Whereas, the Greeks are pretty much broke, am I right? You may not need me, but you need Frollein to bail out your debt riddled existence, if the press is to be believed.

You want to go down that road, that's fine with me, knock yourselves out and could not really care less but I am letting you know that I will not be placing any bets on you coming out on top.

Greece doesn't have the money to place bets. We're already on top. There's no need to place a bet.

The clash of civilizations is here, and multiculturalism means that these attacks will be everywhere. Multiculturalism doesn't work. It's a tragic idea.

[Rugoz]

They clearly mean the liberal God, Rei - you know, the one who loves everyone equally and never judges anyone because, you know, that just wouldn't be cool. God the hippie social worker.

God is a human invention, we can make him whatever we want him to be. "God the hippie social worker" sounds good to me.

[night games]

The Americans are disoriented. Although ISIS took responsibility but it can be a lone wolf who was inspired by ISIS but not necessarily sent by them. Few months ago there was a similar attack in Tel Aviv. The terrorist Nasaat Melhem acted on his behalf but was "inspired" by ISIS. In the video from his cellphone he was seen drunk (Carlsberg beer though he supposed to be Islamist) and cursing Obama (see: 54 sec) the crusader and the slave.

The video is important because it shows the psychology of the current Islamist trend. No one sent them they are inspired by their own Jihadi rage.

In selfie recordings, Melhem is seen holding a bullet and cursing Shia Islam and telling U.S. President Barack Obama:


"Obama, convert to Islam, you Crusader! You won’t convert? Let’s see if the cross (Jesus) helps you, you son of a whore.”

[youtube]Co-xTxExMgs[/youtube]

[Bridgeburner]

Don't get me wrong I'm no fan of Islam, let alone islamists, however it seems ludicrous to believe that all those who claim the religion of Islam or are ascribed as being Muslimare Bart of some monolithic belief structure, where all believe the same on certain issues and support the same actions.

I'm so tired of this stale meme, it's not just limited to Wahabbis and Salafis, who comprise the fastest growing segment of Sunni Muslims, it extends to other schools of Islamic jurisprudence. I'm sure you can ask our resident jihadi Abu for further information. The question of homosexuality in Islam is a literal non-question, please go and find me Islamic movements that both enjoy popular support and are tolerant of homosexuality WITHIN the arab Muslim world (i.e, ground zero for theological validity of Islam)

We all know that's not how belief systems work. Instead they contain multiple schisms and strains each disagreeing with each other over numerous points, just like Christianity, liberalism or socialism.

Since you brought up Christianity, what a surprise, it is like saying Eucharist and Baptism is optional for Christians. It's retarded. Argue the topic, Islam, not Christianity. Is it impossible to EVER resist bringing up Christianity? It's so damn tiresome. For someone claiming to know about "schisms" and alleged strains that disagree with the criminality of homosex in Islam you sure love to talk about Christianity. Lets see some of these schisms in the Islamic world that make homosexuality acceptable that actually have a societally commanding presence. Oh, none exist.

So my point is that whilst we may broadly disapprove of a religion or all religions we should recognise the disparities within them and assign blame accordingly.

We are talking about one SINGULAR religion here. I never got the love affair secular types have with Islam, it seems like they fog over and get rosey eyes over some NOBLE SAVAGE mythos that extends solely to Islam.

[anarchist23]

This is an extract from an article by Robert Fisk in the Independent. The article was published on the 12th September 2001 a day after the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. It explains the reasons for the attacks and they are relevant today.

Eight years ago, I helped to make a television series
that tried to explain why so many Muslims had come to
hate the West. Last night, I remembered some of those
Muslims in that film, their families burnt by
American-made bombs and weapons. They talked about how
no one would help them but God. Theology versus
technology, the suicide bomber against the nuclear
power. Now we have learnt what this means.

[Goldberk]

I'm so tired of this stale meme, it's not just limited to Wahabbis and Salafis, who comprise the fastest growing segment of Sunni Muslims, it extends to other schools of Islamic jurisprudence.

I agree, but we're not talking about Islamic movements, we're talking about Muslims, all of which are complex individuals who are made up of multiple identities, Muslim, American, Pakistani, Liberal, Conservative, Wahabi etc.

To claim all individuals are an avatar of the movements they belong to or are believed to belong to is an oversimplification of how ideology works.

Argue the topic, Islam, not Christianity

The meta part of this discussion is about ideological/belief systems, and how members of them differ greatly from one another, i mentioned Christianity as an example amongst others.

I never got the love affair secular types have with Islam

I have said it and will say it again, I oppose Islam as muck as any religion.

[Bridgeburner]

I agree, but we're not talking about Islamic movements, we're talking about Muslims, all of which are complex individuals who are made up of multiple identities, Muslim, American, Pakistani, Liberal, Conservative, Wahabi etc.

It's amusing you mention Pakistani because being Pakistani is centred around Islam. That's how Pakistanis distinguish themselves from genetically similar Hindus across the border - Islam. Their very existence as a nation is based around being MUSLIM South Asians.You should read some of the excerpts of leaders of Pakistan following Jinnah. A "liberal" Muslim can't exist because Islam never received the separation of church and state treatment the West did (they either choose liberalism, or choose Islam, the two cannot mutually coexist without some serious cognitive dissonance), the religion is politically, legally and socially active, it is present in all aspect of a devout Muslims life. It isn't restricted to a solely spiritual component. Being a "good, practicing Muslim" means adhering to these legal, political and social beliefs, not just the spiritual ones, as is made evident by Islamic scholars when they issue multitudes of fatwas on various things. And thus far, the Islamic world is not only not resisting it, but welcoming this attitude with open arms. They are happily choosing this path.

Why don't I regard the special snowflake "#notallmuslims" theory as being true? Because it's incompatible with being a good Muslim. What you are asking me to believe is that the majority of Muslims simply do not believe in the wider precepts of their religion outside of a spiritual connection to allah, which is frankly BS.

"Liberal Muslims" exist in the West where they are rightly called out for being puppets for liberals to create a neutered version of Islam.It's is why one can't take any variety of Islam that hasn't any popular support in the Islamic world as serious - it has zero theological foundations.

To claim all individuals are an avatar of the movements they belong to or are believed to belong to is an oversimplification of how ideology works.

Who cares if it's "oversimplification", it's the most accurate perception of reality - rather than dealing in one in a million exceptions to the norm. Malala Yousafazi existing doesn't somehow magically redeem the vast majority of Muslims in the Af-Pak region from being backward barbarians. The Islamic world (with the interesting exception of Iran, which is another topic) has done a terrible job of showcasing it's capacity or capability to resist its retrograde downswing.

The meta part of this discussion is about ideological/belief systems, and how members of them differ greatly from one another,

If they differ from each other there's no reason to be discussing them when the topic singularly pertains to one, which is, I agree, completely different from other religions.

I have said it and will say it again, I oppose Islam as muck as any religion.

I don't get what other religions have done to be placed on the same pedestal as Islam.

[unbalanced zealot]

It's amusing you mention Pakistani because being Pakistani is centred around Islam. That's how Pakistanis distinguish themselves from genetically similar Hindus across the border - Islam. Their very existence as a nation is based around being MUSLIM South Asians.

But you'd have to admit that the nature of political Islam in Pakistan has deviated back and forth. For example, under Zia-ul-Haq when Jamaat-e-Islami was influential and the ISI was less contained the disposition of Muslims in Pakistan was different to say as it is now in 2016.

Malala Yousafazi existing doesn't somehow magically redeem the vast majority of Muslims in the Af-Pak region from being backward barbarians. The Islamic world (with the interesting exception of Iran, which is another topic) has done a terrible job of showcasing it's capacity or capability to resist its retrograde downswing.

Have to agree with you here.

[noemon]

The brits still control the mines. Whereas, the Greeks are pretty much broke, am I right? You may not need me, but you need Frollein to bail out your debt riddled existence, if the press is to be believed.
Greece doesn't have the money to place bets. We're already on top. There's no need to place a bet.
The clash of civilizations is here, and multiculturalism means that these attacks will be everywhere. Multiculturalism doesn't work. It's a tragic idea.

Is this supposed to bother me?

Or is it supposed to mean that promoting apartheid between American Whites and American Blacks and American Muslims is not going to destroy your country utterly throwing it into civil war with a high chance of the whites ending up the second class citizens themselves?

[jessupjonesjnr87]

There is no sense in trying to minimise or downplay the extent to which Islam has failed, as a whole, to keep pace with the West on social issues, especially those surrounding women and gays. If I read him correctly, Goon would like us to, ultimately, accept this atrocity as growing pains, or as part of the authentic American experience of multiculturalism, likening it to Irish-American support for the IRA or the creation of Chinese-American enclaves; this does not sit well with me.

It's easy for the west to stay ahead when we have the third world to do our dirty work in.

Syria, Saddam's Iraq, Gaddafi's Libya, The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan all forward thinking secular regimes that promoted women's rights and education for rich and poor all targeted and most eliminated by western coalitions to be replaced with Whabbist fanatics. While the epicentre of Whabbism the Gulf States where some of the worst human rights violations against both women and homosexuals remains some of our closest allies in the region. We're even heading there for the world cup while they throw workers from scaffolding or whip and shoot them dead in the streets.

When Saudi's flew planes into the Twin Towers instead of attacking the fanatical Whabbist regime they came from the US instead turned on a secular regime. Saddam was no angel but the west was his ally when he was at his worst, gassing Iranian civilians with chemical weapons the west helped him develop.

The west is no stranger to death and blood shed, we're masters at it we just don't like it on our own doorstep any more.

[MrObjective]

There's a classic psycho of every kind, the Israelis killed two thousand people just a couple of years ago. Bhudists are burning Muslims in the East, Russia and the West in the Ukraine, thousands of Black kids shot to death by their own on the inner city streets of most major American cities.

Muslims don't have a monopoly on murder.

Your facts are suspect at best.

Buddhists are not "burning Muslims". Everybody is fed up with Muslims and even Buddhist who are known for their pacifism are finally fighting back as well they should. They are not setting Muslims on fire but the are burning them out.

As to Black kids being shot in the streets, they are doing it to themselves. African American culture is violent and depraved but we are not supposed to admit that because it would be insensitive.

Muslims have killed 90 MILLION Hindus. Ask a Hindu about the "religion of peace".

Maybe if you read about the centuries-long Islamic holocaust against Middle Eastern and North African women you would see how wrong you are.

http://biggerfatterpolitics.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-muslim-holocaust-against-women.html

Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally."

Muslim (1:30) - "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."

Bukhari (52:73) - "Allah's Apostle said, 'Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords'."

Bukhari (11:626) - [Muhammad said:] "I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes."

Muslim (1:149) - "Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause..."

MORE FACTS!


Terrorism and What Muslims Think About it

ICM Poll: 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... in-UK.html

NOP Research: 1 in 4 British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/ ... 2011-04-06
http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY

People-Press: 31% of Turks support suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq.
http://people-press.org/report/206/a-ye ... r-iraq-war

YNet: One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children:
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/ ... fanticide/
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 51,00.html

World Public Opinion: 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans
32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans

41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans

38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans

83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose)

62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (21% oppose)
42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose)

A minority of Muslims disagreed entirely with terror attacks on Americans:
(Egypt 34%; Indonesia 45%; Pakistan 33%)

About half of those opposed to attacking Americans were sympathetic with al-Qaeda’s attitude toward the U.S.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/ ... 09_rpt.pdf

Pew Research (2010): 55% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hezbollah
30% of Egyptians have a positive view of Hezbollah

45% of Nigerian Muslims have a positive view of Hezbollah (26% negative)
43% of Indonesians have a positive view of Hezbollah (30% negative)

http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims ... hezbollah/

Pew Research (2010): 60% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hamas (34% negative).
49% of Egyptians have a positive view of Hamas (48% negative)

49% of Nigerian Muslims have a positive view of Hamas (25% negative)
39% of Indonesians have a positive view of Hamas (33% negative)
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims ... hezbollah/

Pew Research (2010): 15% of Indonesians believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified.
34% of Nigerian Muslims believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified.
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims ... hezbollah/
16% of young Muslims in Belgium state terrorism is "acceptable".
http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/1275/Islam/art ... baar.dhtml

Populus Poll (2006): 12% of young Muslims in Britain (and 12% overall) believe that suicide attacks against civilians in Britain can be justified. 1 in 4 support suicide attacks against British troops.
http://www.populuslimited.com/pdf/2006_02_07_times.pdf
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07 ... h-islamist

Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).
22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall).
29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall).
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/musli ... df#page=60

Pew Research (2011): 8% of Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified (81% never).
28% of Egyptian Muslims believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified (38% never).
http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/ ... extremism/

Pew Research (2007): Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/musli ... df#page=60
ICM: 5% of Muslims in Britain tell pollsters they would not report a planned Islamic terror attack to authorities.
27% do not support the deportation of Islamic extremists preaching violence and hate.
http://www.scotsman.com/?id=1956912005
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07 ... amist.html

Federation of Student Islamic Societies: About 1 in 5 Muslim students in Britain (18%) would not report a fellow Muslim planning a terror attack.
http://www.fosis.org.uk/sac/FullReport.pdf
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07 ... h-islamist

ICM Poll: 25% of British Muslims disagree that a Muslim has an obligation to report terrorists to police.
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/20 ... 0Nov04.asp
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07 ... h-islamist

Populus Poll (2006): 16% of British Muslims believe suicide attacks against Israelis are justified.
37% believe Jews in Britain are a "legitimate target".
http://www.populuslimited.com/pdf/2006_02_07_times.pdf
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07 ... h-islamist

Pew Research (2013): At least 1 in 4 Muslims do not reject violence against civilians (study did not distinguish between those who believe it is partially justified and never justified).
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/T ... report.pdf

Pew Research (2013): 15% of Muslims in Turkey support suicide bombings (also 11% in Kosovo, 26% in Malaysia and 26% in Bangladesh).
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/T ... report.pdf

PCPO (2014): 89% of Palestinians support Hamas and other terrorists firing rockets at Israeli civilians.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/poll- ... on-israely

Pew Research (2013): Only 57% of Muslims worldwide disapprove of al-Qaeda. Only 51% disapprove of the Taliban. 13% support both groups and 1 in 4 refuse to say.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/mus ... st-groups/

BBC Radio (2015): 45% of British Muslims agree that clerics preaching violence against the West represent "mainstream Islam".
http://comres.co.uk/polls/bbc-radio-4-t ... slim-poll/

Palestinian Center for Political Research (2015): 74% of Palestinians support Hamas terror attacks.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/193395

Pew Research (2014): 47% of Bangladeshi Muslims says suicide bombings and violence are justified to "defend Islam". 1 in 4 believed the same in Tanzania and Egypt. 1 in 5 Muslims in the 'moderate' countries of Turkey and Malaysia.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/con ... ddle-east/

The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 19% of Muslim-Americans say that violence is justified in order to make Sharia the law in the United States (66% disagree).
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/ ... g-Company-

Nationwide-Online-Survey-of-Muslims-Topline-Poll-Data.pdf

The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 25% of Muslim-Americans say that violence against Americans in the United States is justified as part of the "global Jihad (64% disagree).
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/ ... l-Data.pdf

The Sun (2015: Following Nov. 2015 attacks in Paris, 1 in 4 young Muslims in Britain (and 1 in 5 overall) said they sympathize with those who fight for ISIS.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... -poll.html

See also: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_(Terrorism) for further statistics on Islamic terror.

[SpecialOlympian]

Your argument is persuasive and I have come around to your point of view. But what's the next step? How do we deal with Muslims?

[Suska]

All of the candidates are defacto market pawns, they will go on brute-forcing for profit and influence regardless of the incident, and regardless of the election results. A tech-inspired paradigm shift is undermining it, it's unclear how that will unfold, I think it is the common man's one real hope though, that a global government will inevitably be a starkly limited thing, actual domestic governance is too tied to cultural matters - it can even be regarded as necessarily responsive or as too experimental to be something that can be regulated by an inclusive democracy. It's one thing to police organic communities, something else to call it a community, what is really a culturally sterilized capital dominating marketplace.

[Dave]

What the hell are you talking about?