UK ISIS/IS Fighters

Mikey23

@Ai_1... I admire your efforts to present reasoned and balanced argument to the debate but methinks that you are wasting your time. Ill educated and prejudiced rant is the order of the day here and noone is going to listen to what you have to say in case their own limited world view is challenged. I learned that about 5k posts ago...

ai_1

Mikey23 wrote:

@Ai_1... I admire your efforts to present reasoned and balanced argument to the debate but methinks that you are wasting your time. Ill educated and prejudiced rant is the order of the day here and noone is going to listen to what you have to say in case their own limited world view is challenged. I learned that about 5k posts ago...

Thanks Mikey!
I don't really expect philthy3 or the like to have a re-think or even present a reasonable explanation for their views, but still, if you don't voice disagreement they'll just take it as universal approval. As it is they think everyone agrees except for a "Guardian reading and Liberal voting minority of tree huggers" :roll:

You may be correct that I'm mostly wasting my time but if there's one person reading this thread who's currently on the fence and who might be swayed from buying into philthy3's disgusting line of self-righteous prejudiced nonsense then it's been worth the effort.

mamba80

Mr Goo wrote:

So long as there is a Pontiff sitting in the splendour of St Peters, with a treasure trove worth billions that could ease the suffering of those that donated it.

So long as there are men that nod and pray to a brick wall in a dusty city in Israel and defend themselves with fly by wire fighter jets against their stone throwing neighbours.

So long as there are millions who get down on their knees morning, noon and night and make it their life ambition to walk around a black cube in the middle of the Arabian desert.

So long as there are people in this world that believe in the lunacy of religion then the human race will not even reach first base as a civilisation.

Human beings are basically very violent, of all the animals on the planet, they will seek to exterminate anyone or anything in their way - even without an excuse, they ll attack each other, witness any town centre on a w/e.
Religion has diddly to do with it, Stalin, Pol Pot & Hitler (these are just the ones in the 20thC) were not religious zealots yet killed millions of people.
you are mistaking what is done in the name of religion and genuine religious teaching.
When I read about folk verbally attacking religious belief, I just think that these people are just a step away from being the aggressors themselves - without religion, these killings would still happen, its just that mankind uses it as a convenient smoke screen.

DeVlaeminck

No the majority of human beings are not very violent - I would guess that the majority in this country have never have had a serious fight in their adult lives. There are plenty of more aggressive animals than us, moles, deer, chimps.

ballysmate

DeVlaeminck wrote:

No the majority of human beings are not very violent - I would guess that the majority in this country have never have had a serious fight in their adult lives. There are plenty of more aggressive animals than us, moles, deer, chimps.

Come here and say that. I'll smash your face in!

ai_1

mamba80 wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

So long as there is a Pontiff sitting in the splendour of St Peters, with a treasure trove worth billions that could ease the suffering of those that donated it.

So long as there are men that nod and pray to a brick wall in a dusty city in Israel and defend themselves with fly by wire fighter jets against their stone throwing neighbours.

So long as there are millions who get down on their knees morning, noon and night and make it their life ambition to walk around a black cube in the middle of the Arabian desert.

So long as there are people in this world that believe in the lunacy of religion then the human race will not even reach first base as a civilisation.

Human beings are basically very violent, of all the animals on the planet, they will seek to exterminate anyone or anything in their way - even without an excuse, they ll attack each other, witness any town centre on a w/e.
Religion has diddly to do with it, Stalin, Pol Pot & Hitler (these are just the ones in the 20thC) were not religious zealots yet killed millions of people.
you are mistaking what is done in the name of religion and genuine religious teaching.
When I read about folk verbally attacking religious belief, I just think that these people are just a step away from being the aggressors themselves - without religion, these killings would still happen, its just that mankind uses it as a convenient smoke screen.

Some of this is dubious, some is mostly wrong, some is utter drivel.
Human beings are capable of being very violent but without provocation or indoctrination most are not...at all.
Not only are most people not basically violent but they tend to be repulsed by violence. There are, of course, exceptions.
Any town cenre on a w/e night? Occassional scuffles is about the size of it in most places in my experience, usually between intoxicated guys in their teens or wearly twenties. I spent a lot of my weekend nights in town centres and have never been in a fight and only ever seen a handful. None of them particularly serious. Violence happens, and happens relatively frequently but not per head of population. i.e. even in this worst case scenario the vast majority avoid violence.
Stalin, Pol Pot & Hitler were not religious zealots yet killed millions of people - Indeed. What is your point?
Who's saying that religion is the only source of intimidation, self-righteousness and violence? It's not. But it is the most consistent and predictable one. I agree with Mr. Goo that religion is a major stumbling block to civilised society. That doesn't mean there's no other challenges.

You suggest that these things are done in the name of religion and are not the religious teachings themselves. Often true. However there are plenty examples where the religious leaders themselves have led or supported violence. Also ALL religions, incourage blind obedience. Questioning the dogma is generally considered a major problem. The unwillingness to question is lethal. There's not much that's more dangerous than having groups within society conditioned to believe and do what they are told.

"When I read about folk verbally attacking religious belief, I just think that these people are just a step away from being the aggressors themselves"
Could you define what you mean by attack?
Questioning beliefs is perfectly legitimate and vital to a healthy society.
Questioning religious beliefs is often perceived as an attack because people are so heavily invested in them. If you challenge my belief in something like, say, evolution I won't consider it an attack. And I will use evidence and reason to support my beliefs. If I discover flaws in my belief, I will consider changing it. This is not the case for religious beliefs in the vast, vast majority of cases.
Have you ever met someone who was willing to have an open, honest and civil debate obout the validity of their religion? Questioning is not attacking....except in the case of religion.
Now actual abusive, malicious, verbal attacks are a different matter. Which do you mean?

mamba80

Ai_1 wrote:

Some of this is dubious, some is mostly wrong, some is utter drivel.
Human beings are capable of being very violent but without provocation or indoctrination most are not...at all.
Not only are most people not basically violent but they tend to be repulsed by violence. There are, of course, exceptions.

,
Well you ve reacted in an abusive way to something you don't agree with - there was absolutely no need for your comments was there, which were written to belittle and intimidate me.... but I will grant you only on a small scale

What you describe is the indoctrination of a civilised society, scrape that away and human beings are a violent and a selfish species, they destroy and add nothing to the world, only themselves - so to ex Yugoslavia and Ruanda, these countries were generally peaceful but given the chance they turned on one another, you don't kill those numbers with a few fanatics - look what the west, in our name, has done to Iraq and Afghanistan -
Climate change, destruction of habitat, extinction of other species, the way they will do down another human for their own ends, all unfortunately points to what I ve said.
If you spend much time on the roads, you soon realise, that whenever threatened (and its not even a real threat) we react to type, anger and aggression never far from the surface - was it not Mr Goo himself who thought it was ok that Gorgeous George Galloway got a pasting ?

Instead of decrying religion, it might be better to look at our own choices and behaviour.

Mikey23

Religious debates are in my experience difficult and dangerous places to go on the internet.

Jesus is lord in my life and his teaching 'do unto others as you would expect them to do unto you' is not a bad way to live your life IMO or at least to attempt to. Im not afraid to discuss that with anyone at anytime but only in an adult and respectful way ie not on BR

mr_goo

Mikey23 wrote:

Religious debates are in my experience difficult and dangerous places to go on the internet.

Jesus is lord in my life and his teaching 'do unto others as you would expect them to do unto you' is not a bad way to live your life IMO or at least to attempt to. Im not afraid to discuss that with anyone at anytime but only in an adult and respectful way ie not on BR

I seem to recall that somewhere in the Book of Fairy Tales aka The Bible, it says that 'God is in each of us' or 'God is in all of us'. Ergo, We as humans on this lonely isle in space are our own God and therefore self determining beings. Responsible for the stewardship of the planet and the well being of the human being.
Amen. So ends today's sermon from the Rev Mr Goo.

pblakeney

Ai_1 wrote:

Mikey23 wrote:

@Ai_1... I admire your efforts to present reasoned and balanced argument to the debate but methinks that you are wasting your time. Ill educated and prejudiced rant is the order of the day here and noone is going to listen to what you have to say in case their own limited world view is challenged. I learned that about 5k posts ago...

Thanks Mikey!
I don't really expect philthy3 or the like to have a re-think or even present a reasonable explanation for their views, but still, if you don't voice disagreement they'll just take it as universal approval. As it is they think everyone agrees except for a "Guardian reading and Liberal voting minority of tree huggers" :roll:

You may be correct that I'm mostly wasting my time but if there's one person reading this thread who's currently on the fence and who might be swayed from buying into philthy3's disgusting line of self-righteous prejudiced nonsense then it's been worth the effort.

You are not alone.

For the following comments about humans being violent, then my take on it is that the majority are not violent.
However, the few that are violent control the sheep who are not.

mr_goo

After the barbaric murder of British aid worker David Haines, will Camoron sit on his hands and do nothing? I would like to hear him have some fire in his belly and say that these b45t4rd5 will be hunted down and killed. IS know that the west are treading on eggshells and take full advantage of our impotence.

With the help of Turkeys' open borders the Saudi and Qatar states funded IS in the beginning as they saw them as a means to overthrow Assad of Syria and install a Sunni Political system in that state . This has all backfired on them and they are pi55ing out straight now as IS could come knocking on their door.

Ladies and Gentlemen we live in one f***ed up world at the moment.

fast as fupp

'hunted down and killed'?

i thought the west advocated the rule of law, so surely these murderers should be put before a court- especially as the named culprit is supposedly a british citizen.

or would you just prefer a load of brown folk to be offed in the hope we get the right ones?

after all isnt this how all this business started with us indiscriminately killing middle eastern folks?

finchy

Those killers in Paris looked like they have been in combat before. I wonder if they've been to Iraq/Syria.

mr_goo

johnfinch wrote:

Those killers in Paris looked like they have been in combat before. I wonder if they've been to Iraq/Syria.

Probably.

Its amazing that a single Royal Navy frigate and a couple of patrol ships can police the seas around the Carribean and have a highly successful rate at stopping drug smuggling and piracy.
A handful of naval vessels also patrol off Syria and stop the regime from taking to the seas.
Yet there are tens/hundreds of thousands of military personnel and billions of pounds of military assets in Europe, and these b4st4rds still come and go through our sieve like borders and commit their heinous atrocities.

slowmart

Mr Goo wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Those killers in Paris looked like they have been in combat before. I wonder if they've been to Iraq/Syria.

Probably.

Its amazing that a single Royal Navy frigate and a couple of patrol ships can police the seas around the Carribean and have a highly successful rate at stopping drug smuggling and piracy.
A handful of naval vessels also patrol off Syria and stop the regime from taking to the seas.
Yet there are tens/hundreds of thousands of military personnel and billions of pounds of military assets in Europe, and these b4st4rds still come and go through our sieve like borders and commit their heinous atrocities.

It's too simplistic to expect conventional and tactical tools to defeat extremists.

It's idealodogy that you have to defeat and that's a hearts and minds battle.

mr_goo

I read this on the comments section of the Sky News site. Do not dismiss it after a couple of paragraphs, as a right wing reaction in the wake of the tragic events of the Paris massacre, read it in its entirety, only then will you understand the authors comment and fears.

Mumbai,, Nairobi, Boston, Madrid, London and now Paris - how many wake-up calls do we need before we overcome the absurd self-denial that allows us to accommodate and increasingly appease Islamist aggression by refusing to accept that Islam more generally is fundamentally at odds with the values, beliefs and freedoms we take for granted in our democratic societies?

So I wait for the words (as likely to come out of an Eton-educated Prime Minister as a local Imam) that this attack "has nothing to do with Islam".

And I wait - as I always wait - for someone, please someone, to question the implicit assumption in that statement that Islam is a religion of tolerance and peace.

I long for someone, please someone, who has at least taken the time to read the Koran to question whether the 109 verses that call for war with non-believers for the sake of Islamic rule might, just might, have something to do with what we are witnessing in Paris today.

And I long for them to ask if all this just might have something to do with why Muslim communities and families in the West are producing some of the most vicious killers in Iraq and elsewhere (when questioned about their sons' joining of Isis, of course, we get the other predictable lie: "we had absolutely no idea that he was going to do this. It has come as a total shock to us. Oh, and it has nothing to do with Islam."

Why do I worry about all this? Apart from the obvious threat to us all (and we know that these killers will eventually murder more people in London) I am a father of mixed race boys who will, I fear, be increasingly seen as legitimate targets by those idiot racists (whether in London, Berlin, Paris or Athens) who will use Islamist attacks as a justification for beating up anyone who looks 'foreign'.

By not addressing the real problem with Islam, by not having the courage to stand up and defend our shared values of tolerance and freedom, our political and media classes endangering my children and feeding the toxic anti-immigration narrative that, whether we like it or not, is feeding into and giving a certain respectability to narrow-minded bigots across Europe (and sadly on this site as well).

There is no easy solution, I know: but until we start asking the proper questions, there really is no way forward other than to capitulate to Islamic ideology and its call for submission to its values rather than ours.

slowmart

It's a wider conversation and a counter point would be the crime of Timothy McVeigh, a Christian fundamentalist who killed 168 and injured over 600


Unfortunately religion or political causes will always attract individuals who are at the extreme ends of either persuasion and human depravity knows no bounds in the furthering of whatever cause is at hand.

Go back and look at the demographics of nationalist and Protestant areas in Northern Ireland at the start of the troubles. You will see small pockets of orange and green, fast forward 10 years and those communities were polarised and the picture was totally covered in Orange and green. The definition of madness is to keep repeating the same actions over and over again with the same outcome. How many times in human history have we tried to convert, either by force, leverage or simply bribing political or religious beliefs?

The weekend after the a Brighton bomb the Sunday Express ran a quote of the day. In this instance it was a Irish Nationalist fighter who was quoted to the effect of ' you can't drag an idealodogy against the wall and machine gun it to death".

Moontrane

Slowmart wrote:

It's a wider conversation and a counter point would be the crime of Timothy McVeigh, a Christian fundamentalist who killed 168 and injured over 600


Unfortunately religion or political causes will always attract individuals who are at the extreme ends of either persuasion and human depravity knows no bounds in the furthering of whatever cause is at hand.

Go back and look at the demographics of nationalist and Protestant areas in Northern Ireland at the start of the troubles. You will see small pockets of orange and green, fast forward 10 years and those communities were polarised and the picture was totally covered in Orange and green. The definition of madness is to keep repeating the same actions over and over again with the same outcome. How many times in human history have we tried to convert, either by force, leverage or simply bribing political or religious beliefs?

The weekend after the a Brighton bomb the Sunday Express ran a quote of the day. In this instance it was a Irish Nationalist fighter who was quoted to the effect of ' you can't drag an idealodogy against the wall and machine gun it to death".

McVeigh was not a Christian fundamentalist, and what he did had nothing to do with Christianity. Stop perpetuating that stupid canard. :roll:

He was an agnostic, who said that logic/science was his god. He did not believe in hell. His motivation for what he did was derived from his perception that the Federal Gov't was becoming more and more tyrannical in dealing with its citizens e.g. Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidians in Waco, TX. The Oklahoma attack was on the 2nd anniversary of the siege in Waco.

slowmart

Moontrane wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

It's a wider conversation and a counter point would be the crime of Timothy McVeigh, a Christian fundamentalist who killed 168 and injured over 600


Unfortunately religion or political causes will always attract individuals who are at the extreme ends of either persuasion and human depravity knows no bounds in the furthering of whatever cause is at hand.

Go back and look at the demographics of nationalist and Protestant areas in Northern Ireland at the start of the troubles. You will see small pockets of orange and green, fast forward 10 years and those communities were polarised and the picture was totally covered in Orange and green. The definition of madness is to keep repeating the same actions over and over again with the same outcome. How many times in human history have we tried to convert, either by force, leverage or simply bribing political or religious beliefs?

The weekend after the a Brighton bomb the Sunday Express ran a quote of the day. In this instance it was a Irish Nationalist fighter who was quoted to the effect of ' you can't drag an idealodogy against the wall and machine gun it to death".

McVeigh was not a Christian fundamentalist, and what he did had nothing to do with Christianity. Stop perpetuating that stupid canard. :roll:

He was an agnostic, who said that logic/science was his god. He did not believe in hell. His motivation for what he did was derived from his perception that the Federal Gov't was becoming more and more tyrannical in dealing with its citizens e.g. Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidians in Waco, TX. The Oklahoma attack was on the 2nd anniversary of the siege in Waco.

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/an-accurate- ... -cms-15532

I accept the source may be questionable and my apologies if I've perpetuated an incorrect statement but who truly knows the motivations of someone who can justify killing so many civilians indiscriminately? That said fundamentalists, in whatever shade will happily kill innocents to provide a platform for their views.

pblakeney

Fundamentally, there can only be one way to deal with fundamentalists.
And the paradox continues.

letap73

Mr Goo wrote:

I read this on the comments section of the Sky News site. Do not dismiss it after a couple of paragraphs, as a right wing reaction in the wake of the tragic events of the Paris massacre, read it in its entirety, only then will you understand the authors comment and fears.

Mumbai,, Nairobi, Boston, Madrid, London and now Paris - how many wake-up calls do we need before we overcome the absurd self-denial that allows us to accommodate and increasingly appease Islamist aggression by refusing to accept that Islam more generally is fundamentally at odds with the values, beliefs and freedoms we take for granted in our democratic societies?

So I wait for the words (as likely to come out of an Eton-educated Prime Minister as a local Imam) that this attack "has nothing to do with Islam".

And I wait - as I always wait - for someone, please someone, to question the implicit assumption in that statement that Islam is a religion of tolerance and peace.

I long for someone, please someone, who has at least taken the time to read the Koran to question whether the 109 verses that call for war with non-believers for the sake of Islamic rule might, just might, have something to do with what we are witnessing in Paris today.

And I long for them to ask if all this just might have something to do with why Muslim communities and families in the West are producing some of the most vicious killers in Iraq and elsewhere (when questioned about their sons' joining of Isis, of course, we get the other predictable lie: "we had absolutely no idea that he was going to do this. It has come as a total shock to us. Oh, and it has nothing to do with Islam."

Why do I worry about all this? Apart from the obvious threat to us all (and we know that these killers will eventually murder more people in London) I am a father of mixed race boys who will, I fear, be increasingly seen as legitimate targets by those idiot racists (whether in London, Berlin, Paris or Athens) who will use Islamist attacks as a justification for beating up anyone who looks 'foreign'.

By not addressing the real problem with Islam, by not having the courage to stand up and defend our shared values of tolerance and freedom, our political and media classes endangering my children and feeding the toxic anti-immigration narrative that, whether we like it or not, is feeding into and giving a certain respectability to narrow-minded bigots across Europe (and sadly on this site as well).

There is no easy solution, I know: but until we start asking the proper questions, there really is no way forward other than to capitulate to Islamic ideology and its call for submission to its values rather than ours.

Interesting that Pakistan was not mentioned in the above comment -was that because ordinary Muslims were the victims of fundamentalists. There are 1.6 billion Muslims in this world, a lot of those are victims of groups like ISIS, the Taleban, Al Qaeda etc, a lot of them are disgusted by these attacks, a lot of them lead very ordinary lives. The solution is surely not to label these 1.6 billion people as the problem, treat them as the problem and in the process radicalizes others to become fundamentalists.

ballysmate

You tell 'em girl'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q0fW-UOqd0

Moontrane

Slowmart wrote:

Moontrane wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

It's a wider conversation and a counter point would be the crime of Timothy McVeigh, a Christian fundamentalist who killed 168 and injured over 600


Unfortunately religion or political causes will always attract individuals who are at the extreme ends of either persuasion and human depravity knows no bounds in the furthering of whatever cause is at hand.

Go back and look at the demographics of nationalist and Protestant areas in Northern Ireland at the start of the troubles. You will see small pockets of orange and green, fast forward 10 years and those communities were polarised and the picture was totally covered in Orange and green. The definition of madness is to keep repeating the same actions over and over again with the same outcome. How many times in human history have we tried to convert, either by force, leverage or simply bribing political or religious beliefs?

The weekend after the a Brighton bomb the Sunday Express ran a quote of the day. In this instance it was a Irish Nationalist fighter who was quoted to the effect of ' you can't drag an idealodogy against the wall and machine gun it to death".

McVeigh was not a Christian fundamentalist, and what he did had nothing to do with Christianity. Stop perpetuating that stupid canard. :roll:

He was an agnostic, who said that logic/science was his god. He did not believe in hell. His motivation for what he did was derived from his perception that the Federal Gov't was becoming more and more tyrannical in dealing with its citizens e.g. Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidians in Waco, TX. The Oklahoma attack was on the 2nd anniversary of the siege in Waco.

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/an-accurate- ... -cms-15532

I accept the source may be questionable and my apologies if I've perpetuated an incorrect statement but who truly knows the motivations of someone who can justify killing so many civilians indiscriminately? That said fundamentalists, in whatever shade will happily kill innocents to provide a platform for their views.

My friend, in the case of the scumbag McVeigh, he made his motives clear:

When the bomb went off, McVeigh was two blocks away. He says he didn't look back and his feet were lifted off the ground by the blast's force. He recited to himself a bitter lyric from a song by Bad Company: "Dirty for Dirty."

"What the U.S. government did at Waco and Ruby Ridge was dirty," he says. "And I gave dirty back to them at Oklahoma City."

slowmart

Ballysmate wrote:

You tell 'em girl'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q0fW-UOqd0

mmmmm.

The same "girl"

In 2007 at the Christians United for Israel annual conference, Gabriel delivered the following speech:

The difference, my friends, between Israel and the Arab world is the difference between civilization and barbarism. It's the difference between good and evil [applause].... this is what we're witnessing in the Arabic world, They have no soul, they are dead set on killing and destruction. And in the name of something they call "Allah" which is very different from the God we believe....[applause] because our God is the God of love.

—Christians United for Israel annual conference 2007[42]


Where did she get the figure 20% of all Muslims are radicals? This twot actually suggests devout Muslims are terrorists.

She further advocates that America "protects" herself from the Muslim danger.

Change a couple of words and she sounds like Hitler, spreading fear and hate based on nothing other than a difference of religion. The Australian response to their taste of terrorism gives you hope for the human race.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... ia/383765/

DeVlaeminck

I don't think anyone doubts that only a tiny minority of Muslims would commit these kind of acts. Beyond them though there are a growing number of fundamentalist and ultra conservative muslims who are increasingly at odds with the freedoms that have been fought for in Western democracies.

ballysmate

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I don't think anyone doubts that only a tiny minority of Muslims would commit these kind of acts. Beyond them though there are a growing number of fundamentalist and ultra conservative muslims who are increasingly at odds with the freedoms that have been fought for in Western democracies.

The woman in the youtube video linked in my post above makes the point that there were only a minority of Nazis, most Germans were decent people, but in the end their decency was irrelevant. Likewise Islam.

ballysmate

I posted in the other thread but on reflection, it would be more apt to post here.

It is unlawful for a believer to kill another believer, accidents excepted. He that accidently kills a believer must free one Muslim slave... He that kills a believer by design shall burn in Hell for ever. He shall incur the wrath of God, who will lay His curse on him and prepare for him a mighty scourge.

Quran 4:92-93; "Women," Dawood, p. 92

When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.

Quran 9:5; "Repentance," Dawood, p. 186

Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.

Quran 48:29, "Victory," Dawood, p. 514

Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them.

Quran 4:34, "Women," Dawood, p. 83

[Forbidden to you are] married women, except those whom you own as slaves.

Quran 4:24, "Women," Dawood, p. 81


If these translations are accurate, how can any religion that exhorts its followers to slay unbelievers, condones slavery and treats half the worlds population as chattels be worth a w@nk?
If I formed a political party along those lines, I would quite rightly cause outrage and probably face arrest. So why is it acceptable from religion?
We have put up with this bollox for long enough.

pblakeney

It will end once people realise that all religious books are only books, written by men.

ballysmate

PBlakeney wrote:

It will end once people realise that all religious books are only books, written by men.

Spot on.

finchy

Ballysmate wrote:

If these translations are accurate, how can any religion that exhorts its followers to slay unbelievers, condones slavery and treats half the worlds population as chattels be worth a w@nk?
If I formed a political party along those lines, I would quite rightly cause outrage and probably face arrest. So why is it acceptable from religion?
We have put up with this bollox for long enough.

You could go through the Christian Bible and Jewish Talmud and find a lot of very similar sayings. The difference is that throughout most of the Western world, organised religion has, on the whole, been brought to heel.

IMO, the problem is that we're stuck in a vicious circle now. Extremist Muslims and Western governments will blame each other for starting the conflict, but as long as civilians on both sides are being killed, opinion will become increasingly polarised. The West will continue to regard civilian casualties in the Muslim world as an unfortunate yet acceptable price to pay for fighting Al-Qaeda, ISIS et al, whereas Islamic extremists will judge Western populations as bearing collective responsibility and therefore legitimate targets. I wish I knew what the solution was, but it might just be a question of waiting for the fire to run out of fuel.