patrick.net

YesYNot says

Do you suggest policing what is said inside of Mosques?

Yes, domestically through infiltrators. Internationally, through collaborators and puppets.

YesYNot says

Are moderate (most) mosques in the US advocating stoning?

Don't think so, but they must be monitored nonetheless so that a radicalizer imam does not seize the platform "unexpectedly."

YesYNot says

Do you want to control what foreign countries use as punishment for crime?

Idealistically yes, but it is obviously impractical and un-enforceable. However, preventing radicals from getting to positions of power may eventually translate into death penalty for violation of moral codes to fall off the books.

YesYNot says

Should European countries make the US stop using the death penalty?

The can't due to national sovereignty but if they feel strongly against it, they have every right to criticize it in their press and in political speeches. We won't throw eggs at their embassy like you know who... or attack their newspaper offices like you know who...

Rew says

Section 5. Looks like anyone studying the Kings James is being taught on a wide scale to murder all christian non-believers in the name of god! (wink)

So, pointing to Jewish law to justify your argument? Now take a look at the New Testament. Do you know the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament?

http://news.yahoo.com/muslim-americans-fear-demonization-islam-mass-shooting-203253127.html

If liberals don't go further in condemning extreme ideas, other, less discerning people, will go further in associating any Muslims with these acts.
The wedge is there. The only question is where it cuts.

NuttBoxer says

Do terrorists consider a Health and Public Services building a high profile target? Doubtful.

I think it's likely entree of disgruntled nutjob, with a side of radical terrrorism.

Like the Oklahoma beheading last year. Sure the guy spouted a bunch of religious crap, but he was also being fired from his job at the food processing plant. Coworkers were killed, not random citizens.

So Mr. Numbskull is all wrapped up in his minor work complaints. Maybe someone says MERRRY CHRISTMAS HERE'S SOME BACON HAR HAR or whatever and that fiinally pushes him over the edge. So he and Princess of Arabia get dolled up and hose down the room.

If he were a pure terrorist, he'd have posted the Princess at the entrance to Walmart to prevent escape, and gone hunting for shoppers trapped inside. Or opened up on the line of people waiting for Santa at the mall. His choice of target is way personal.

Heraclitusstudent says

If liberals don't go further in condemning extreme ideas, other, less discerning people, will go further in associating any Muslims with these acts.

Yes, the problem is because enough people aren't saying: "Gosh, murders are bad!" as opposed to the fact that people are immediately claiming, "I know the motive, it is "X" and it is all Islam's fault!". The president has publicly cheered for these acts every chance he could ... ohhh ... no wait ... he simply has said: "The motives are unclear." Heck, even the FBI is saying this doesn't fit a typical pattern for terrorism and they are investigating.

turtledove says

So, pointing to Jewish law to justify your argument? Now take a look at the New Testament. Do you know the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament?

You don't get to exclude the Kings James as a primary Christian doctrine. Many Christian faiths/denominations use it exclusively or as the primary source.

The New Testament contains many passages, specifically about End Times, which are used as justifications to commit murder and other Christian based terrorist acts. That is correct though, it doesn't specifically contain a passage saying: "go kill people".

Heraclitusstudent says

This is irrelevant because it's not gospel, it's wildly discredited and no one believes it now.

By opposition a majority of Muslims worldwide believes that shariah law should be applied.

I'd like these two things proven with sources please. My personal experience is counter on both points.

http://www.arabnews.com/news/450061

The Arab world is split on interpretation of Sharia, and the majority of Islam is not pro violence as a means to an end. I'm sure you can find other sources for the above.

Take a look at how they want Sharia applied:
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

It doesn't take a scientist to see this was muslim extremism. Couple of radicals in coordinated attack assault, this is an act of terrorism all right. And once more Syrians get here, we'll get this more frequently.

Your own document shows that a large percent of Muslims want the sharia law. Especially outside Europe and ex-soviet countries. Remember these rules are extreme, medieval and brutal. That most Muslims in Africa/Arab countries/south central Asia/south east Asia think they should be applied is disconcerting to say the least. That even 12% in Turkey, a Nato country asking admission in EU, think they should is shocking.
We need to be intellectually honest here: the central doctrine of Islam is Jihad, paradise will not come on earth until the entire world is conquered and this conquest is a central tenet. It is the highest achievement for Muslim men to die in defense of the faith. This is what we are talking about.

Rew says

Yes, the problem is because enough people aren't saying: "Gosh, murders are bad!" as opposed to the fact that people are immediately claiming, "I know the motive, it is "X" and it is all Islam's fault!". The president has publicly cheered for these acts every chance he could ... ohhh ... no wait ... he simply has said: "The motives are unclear." Heck, even the FBI is saying this doesn't fit a typical pattern for terrorism and they are investigating.

I wasn't specifically talking about San Bernadino where motives may be unclear.
I was talking of murders at the cry of Allah Akbar and there are enough of those.

FortWayne says

And once more Syrians get here, we'll get this more frequently.

How many freedoms are you willing to trade away for the minute chance that Islamic terrorism harms US citizens?

Edit: Is it as much or more, than the loss of freedoms and greater regulation you are willing to undergo to safe guard against terrorism of domestic non-Islamic idealogical origination?

Heraclitusstudent says

Your own document shows that a large percent of Muslims want the sharia law.

It also shows that most want it ONLY applied to those of Muslim faith.
IT also shows there are many different interpretations.

Heraclitusstudent says

I was talking of murders at the cry of Allah Akbar and there are enough of those.

Really? Where are all those murders with "Allah Akbar" cries?

Vicente says

Instead of Afghanistan and Iraq, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia.

And for Boston bombing we should have invaded Russia. I like your logic!

Rew says

You don't get to exclude the Kings James as a primary Christian doctrine. Many Christian faiths/denominations use it exclusively or as the primary source.

I'm not excluding the King James Bible. Where did I say that?

You are looking to the Torah (Deuteronomy is part of the Torah, which is the first five books of the bible) and claiming that it proves that Christians are ordered to kill people. I simply pointed out that it is the Old Testament that you are looking at. The Old Testament is not unique to the King James version of the bible, btw. But you need to know that it isn't the Old Testament that makes it a Christian Bible. It's the New Testament that makes a bible -- a Christian bible. In the Christian section of the bible (remember the New Testament didn't exist until after Jesus, and the belief that Jesus is Christ is what defines a Christian),

Rew says

it doesn't specifically contain a passage saying: "go kill people".

If you live your life by the bible, but NOT by the New Testament... that's called a Jew. That is not a Christian. A Christian lives their lives by the New Testament.

Now I need to stop talking about this. It's bringing about flashbacks from my childhood. A decade and a half of religious education wasted on a heretic.

turtledove says

If you live your life by the bible, but NOT by the New Testament... that's called a Jew. That is not a Christian. A Christian lives their lives by the New Testament.

I think your definition of what makes a Jew or a Christian is not shared by most, and this being in Deuteronomy firmly includes it in huge numbers of published Christian bibles.
http://christianity.wikia.com/wiki/Deuteronomy

Do you prefer book of Luke then:
Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me."

YesYNot says

The Koran is as silly as Christianity, so I'm not stating that there is any truth to it. On the other hand, one interpretation is that Jihad is permanent so long as other people are attacking Islam. Since a cartoon is considered an attack, it's hard not to be 'attacking them.' But if we all take strategist's attitude and 'go to war against Islam,' it will be an "Us vs them" religious war. The poor atheist have to sit around watching people kill each other over their imaginary gods. Unfortunately, the atheists get killed too.

Jihad is not "Defensive", which is a dishonest argument apologists to fool Kaffirs. When Mohammed himself, who was an absolutely aggressive and violent conquerer led his armies from Mecca and Medina throughout Arabia as far as the Coast of the Med and into Iraq. The generation or two immediately following him killed off the Persians and came within a hair's breadth of conquering the entire Byzantine Empire, besieging Constantinople.

Jihad was waged from the South of France to the Gates of Vienna to the Forests around Moscow to the Jungles of Burma.

Islam did not spread from cities near the Red Sea to stretch from the Volga to Volta, from Mumbai to Madrid, by waging a peaceful defense, nor by Preaching.

Indeed, while Jamestown was just being founded in America, the Ottoman Islamic Empire was on the verge of conquering Austria; it had already conquered a quarter of Europe.

Rew says

https://carm.org/sites/default/files/kjv/Deut/Deut_17.htm

Section 5. Looks like anyone studying the Kings James is being taught on a wide scale to murder all christian non-believers in the name of god! (wink)

When was the last time somebody was stoned in Israel? Or among Hassids in Brooklyn?

Even the Puritans did not Stone Adulterers!

We're talking about Islam today, not what Hebrews may or may not have actually done before Caesar or Alexander lived.

In fact, here you go. These events happened within the past year or so.

The first two are pretty gruesome and graphic.

Here's another:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/11/04/woman-stoned-adultery-afghanistan-vstop-orig.cnn

Now post some videos of Christians or Jews in these days stoning adulterers, please.

Rew says

How many freedoms are you willing to trade away for the minute chance that Islamic terrorism harms US citizens?

Let me turn this question on it's head.

How about we save freedom by not importing radicals that require a nosy surveillance state to monitor?

Rew says

I think your definition of what makes a Jew or a Christian is not shared by most, and this being in Deuteronomy firmly includes it in huge numbers of published Christian bibles.

I think you don't know what you are talking about. Of course, Deuteronomy is in the bible used by Christians. What you aren't understanding is how the Old Testament is used vs. the New Testament. Yes, both books are a part of the Bible. But the Old Testament is not the word that Christians live by. You are confused because you see the Old Testament as part of a Christian bible. So why is it there? Well, that's a very long discussion, but in short, the Old Testament is referenced by the New Testament. It provides history and context. The New Testament is predicated on the Jewish belief that there was only one God (an unusual idea at one point). But when Jesus came to Earth, Christians were taught how it all was to be interpreted and implemented. It is those teachings that make a Christian.

As for my opinion not being shared by most, the MW Dictionary defines a Christian as:

" a person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ"

So, I guess it is not just me. Where are those teachings, exactly? If you said the New Testament, you would be correct.

Luke says you may slay your enemies. Interesting how Christians didn't detail a definition of an enemy. Unlike Muslims who have a precise definition of who their enemies are.

thunderlips11 says

Jihad is not "Defensive", which is a dishonest argument

Some interpretations state that it is. There are many interpretations of Christianity, too. Most Christian teachers today focus on the more peaceful parts, but not all teachers. And, stating that the old testament doesn't apply is bullshit, IMO, b/c a lot of Christian teachings seem to come from it.

This applies to people in general, not you specifically, lips...

It's tiring to see a bunch of Christians interpreting their book in the best light while interpreting the other teams book in the worst light. From the atheist perspective, it looks a lot like a dick contest among dishonest brokers. If Christianity is so peaceful, why the Crusades?

Some people are making the argument that Christianity today is peaceful, so the Crusades don't count. But some of these same people are stating that it is inherent in the religion and the texts. Well, the texts haven't changed. Either base it on the underlying religions, and show that Christians have always been more peaceful, or base it on current society. Don't cherry pick and choose your way through the argument.

YesYNot says

Some interpretations state that it is. There are many interpretations of Christianity, too. Most Christian teachers today focus on the more peaceful parts, but not all teachers. And, stating that the old testament doesn't apply is bullshit, IMO, b/c a lot of Christian teachings seem to come from it.

Hold on. I gave you concrete historical facts, which you can easily verify yourself, that Islamic Jihad rolled out of it's birthplace in Medina and went on to literally conquer - by force of arms.

There's no interpretation. We have reports from the Koran itself of the earliest conquests, evidence of the Caliphs of Baghdad and the Disputed Succession of Ali, Byzantine and Persian records of the Muslims suddenly appearing on the periphery and invading.

From North Africa, to the Steppes of Russia, to the Gates of Vienna, to the plains of North India, Jihad meant to conquer, not defend.

From the very moment the Koran was written, violent conquests had already happened in the name of Jihad.

Any History of the Balkans, Spain, Russia, or the Byzantine Empire - just for the Western nations - will cover Aggressive, Imperialistic Jihad.

Nuke mecca and medina. Problem solved..

Vicente says

So Mr. Numbskull is all wrapped up in his minor work complaints. Maybe someone says MERRRY CHRISTMAS HERE'S SOME BACON HAR HAR or whatever and that fiinally pushes him over the edge. So he and Princess of Arabia get dolled up and hose down the room.

Except for all the heavy arms and explosive devices found at their home. Clearly they weren't in a friendly sort of attitude before said festivity. Plus he dropped the kid off with his mom for the reason of a phony doctor appointment. They were planning a terror attack. Maybe a coworker pissed him off enough to change plans and make his workplace the target instead of Walmart or somewhere else. Maybe it was going to be that place the whole time. The poor is that this was a Muslim who was radicalized and clearly preparing for war against his fellow citizens.
The fact that he fits the terrorist profile exactly (college educated with some graduate work) doesn't improve your assertion that he was a random dude who flipped out about workplace issues. Seriously, I thought only Obama could be that willfully ignorant!

I see a lot of people bringing up the Crusades as a horrible example of Christian violence in history. I'd like to remind them that the Crusades were a response to the ongoing Muslim jihad that was sweeping across the continent. It was a holy war in the most religious sense of the word. After all, the best thing to oppose an idea is another idea. Or to oppose a religion bent on world conquest by the sword. The armies of Christendom smacked down the Muslims for years and taught them their place.
Looks like we might be ready for a round two.

Quigley says

I see a lot of people bringing up the Crusades as a horrible example of Christian violence in history

Yes, the Crusades were to reconquer Christian Lands recently lost to Islam.

In fact, most of the places the Crusaders conquered were placed that had been conquered by Jihad, won back by the Byzantines, then lost a second time to Jihad.

We'll win as long as we play by old testament rules.
Quigley says

Looks like we might be ready for a round two.

To misquote Malcolm X:

Vienna didn't land on Islam, Islam landed on Vienna.

Quigley says

I see a lot of people bringing up the Crusades as a horrible example of Christian violence in history. I'd like to remind them that the Crusades were a response to the ongoing Muslim jihad that was sweeping across the continent. It was a holy war in the most religious sense of the word. After all, the best thing to oppose an idea is another idea. Or to oppose a religion bent on world conquest by the sword. The armies of Christendom smacked down the Muslims for years and taught them their place.

Looks like we might be ready for a round two.

This is a very good point. However, the Muslims of that time were actually much more educated than their fellow Christians. Christians believed that gentlemen's hands were always clean; Muslims said you should wear masks and wash hands between patients. Christian physicians (monks) refused to adopt the techniques of heretics, no matter how superior. They were too busy praying and leeching. We were swinging from trees while they developed algebra and Arabic numbers. Something happened that caused Muslims to stop developing and actually go into their own dark ages; evidence of which can still be seen today.

OK. We have some more facts

When the story 1st broke I only heard "mass shooting in CA" and something about it being a "government facility" and "people with disabilities". Frankly, I thought mentally disturbed person, not terrorism. This was before the names of the suspects were released. Picture is slowly getting clear. Any way you slice it, its not good.
.

turtledove says

This is a very good point. However, the Muslims of that time were actually much more educated than their fellow Christians. Christians believed that gentlemen's hands were always clean; Muslims said you should wear masks and wash hands between patients. Christian physicians (monks) refused to adopt the techniques of heretics, no matter how superior. They were too busy praying and leeching. We were swinging from trees while they developed algebra and Arabic numbers. Something happened that caused Muslims to stop developing and actually go into their own dark ages; evidence of which can still be seen today.

This Guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Mutawakkil

Opposed Science that contradicted the Koran and versions of Islam that embraced Reason as a tool given by Allah in favor of Ritual and Mysticism.

Who also was the inventor of Jews wearing patches on their clothing, later adopted by Spaniards (and later, of course, Hitler) after they saw Jews wearing them during the Crusades.

Also, by about 1000-1100, most Greeks in the Middle East had converted to Islam to avoid the Jizya and no longer spoke or read Greek. There was also a rise of anti-science, anti-Kaffir Learning due to the "double punch" of Mongolian and Western successful counterattacks.

Heraclitusstudent says

This is what we are talking about.

Just going by land mass alone, they need the rest of Asia, Europe, Russia and the Americas and they win!

Yes by all means: Asia, Europe, Russia and the Americas should adopt much stricter gun controls and this will ceade the terrorism, no?

turtledove says

Something happened that caused Muslims to stop developing and actually go into their own dark ages; evidence of which can still be seen today.

Religion is a force that has always slowed mankind progress.
If you think (1) that BOOK A contains all the truth that need to be known, and (2) that everything happening on this earth doesn't matter and is only a preface to everlasting life, then what is the incentive to research, learn and try and make things better?

A typical example of that is what happened to the library of Alexandria during Arab conquests of Egypt.

It is thought that, upon learning the existence of the books, the Caliph Omar declared "they will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous." and he went on to order the burning of the manuscripts, some maybe from Euclid and Aristotle.

Rew says

It also shows that most want it ONLY applied to those of Muslim faith.

IT also shows there are many different interpretations.

However you turn this, the fact that a large percent of Muslims favor killing apostates and stoning adulterers is hardly something that should be defended by liberals in the west.

If a random cult in the US was teaching this, would you support it?

To the extent that other interpretations of these texts (that clearly say what they say and are considered the revealed word of God) are possible, this is the solution. We must then clearly state what interpretations are promoting human suffering and are as such evil.

Planned in advance: Couple destroyed digital devices, closed email accounts, wiped browsing history at least a day before shooting
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/3/syed-farook-tashfeen-malik-erased-digital-footprin/

Wife Malik participated, firing Assault Rifle. What does this mean for Syrian Refugees? Hopefully a stop to it.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-tashfeen-malik-20151203-story.html

Wife Malik posted loyalty to "Caliph" Al-Baghdadi on Facebook
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html

Time to freeze Visas to the Middle East.

Quigley says

Except for all the heavy arms and explosive devices found at their home. Clearly they weren't in a friendly sort of attitude before said festivity. Plus he dropped the kid off with his mom for the reason of a phony doctor appointment. They were planning a terror attack. Maybe a coworker pissed him off enough to change plans and make his workplace the target instead of Walmart or somewhere else. Maybe it was going to be that place the whole time. The poor is that this was a Muslim who was radicalized and clearly preparing for war against his fellow citizens.

The fact that he fits the terrorist profile exactly (college educated with some graduate work) doesn't improve your assertion that he was a random dude who flipped out about workplace issues. Seriously, I thought only Obama could be that willfully ignorant!

There was premeditation for sure, but I think to Vincente's and my point, the target was too personal. I still say drugs or Manchurian Candidate make the most sense. This guy was on something, or being manipulated by someone.

Terrorist is a facade that just doesn't hold up here. It's more like he was a copycat, using the current climate of government induced terror and violence to justify his deranged actions.

My theory, he was looking for a target. Went to the Christmas Party and saw people drinking and celebrating, and was like "This IS THE SHIRK!! HARAM!!!"

thunderlips11 says

Wife Malik participated, firing Assault Rifle. What does this mean for Syrian Refugees? Hopefully a stop to it.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-tashfeen-malik-20151203-story.html

Except.....

she wasn't Syrian!

My money is on HER as being the goading influence here.

And to your point somewhat:

Weapons used definitely not AK-47 smuggled over in anyone's luggage.

turtledove says

Luke says you may slay your enemies. Interesting how Christians didn't detail a definition of an enemy. Unlike Muslims who have a precise definition of who their enemies are.

I think the enemy is very well defined in the Bible just as it is in the Quran : evil, of which unbelievers can be a source or propagator of. In practice, where the enemy was often defined as a specific living person, Christianity would say heretic, while later, Islam coined infidel.

You can claim Christian terror groups aren't the pure teachings of Christ, not true Christianity, but that's the same case for Islam. There is no place in the Quran that states murder is a path to salvation. Christians may be "following the teachings of Jesus", but they harken back to old testament as the law of God, and how much Jesus obviates those laws, is all interpretation. Radical Christian terror groups interpret whole hosts of things in interesting ways, just as the radical Islamic groups do.

As far as to how relevant any of this really is to life in the US ... frankly ... Islam is a smaller blip, in the blip of causation of terror attacks. Most domestic attacks are Christian, Jewish, or have other non-Islamic leanings if there is a religious component.

The fastest growing, and often considered the top terror threat in the US, is the "sovereign citizen" movements that have exploded since post 9/11. These groups are predominantly Christian, but I wouldn't say that's a major component of their motivation as of yet. I'm sure we will get some backlash now for the recent attack in San Bernadino ... and this can continue to go round and round.

- The easier you can draw divisions between yourself and another, the easier it is to do harm to them.
- You are more likely to die from accidental suffocation while sleeping than terrorism.
- In the US, if you are killed by a terrorist, odds are greater it will NOT be of Islamic origination.

Many seem so ready to vilify 1.5 billion people out of fear and misunderstanding. All we have to do is be scared and draw the divisions and the terrorists win. So I generally dislike your, to paraphrase, "Well at-least Christianity doesn't say murder is a path to heaven, and bunches of people aren't preaching that." Those things aren't true for Islam either, especially domestically.

We focus on religion as a causative agent too much. In truth that's simply a component in steeling motivation and resolve. The causation of terrorism isn't religion. It's social injustices (perceived or real) and the belief that violence can change it.

Christianity isn't superior by any factor that it isn't now being used as a predominant motivator to kill. Christianity has, can be, and is being used today to do just that. Just like Islam.

Vicente says

Weapons used definitely not AK-47 smuggled over in anyone's luggage.

Could be a strawman buyer... I believe the FBI announced they were investigating this.

Rew says

As far as to how relevant any of this really is to life in the US ... frankly ... Islam is a smaller blip, in the blip of causation of terror attacks. Most domestic attacks are Christian, Jewish, or have other non-Islamic leanings if there is a religious component.

Evidence? Also, please note that the vast majority of Americans are at least nominally Christian, whereas the Muslim population is in the low single digits, so we'll have to weigh attacks relative to population.

So even if Christian Fundamentalists kill 50 people in a ten year period and Muslims only, say, 14, Islam is far and away more violent because there are far, far, far fewer Muslims than Christians in the USA.