Islamic terrorism why there is none in Japan

First topic message reminder :

Muslim terrorists can be proud: their share in world terrorist attacks is now close to 100%.

Seems there is not a single country where Muslims would not show their true colors… But no! There is such a country. It’s one of the most developed countries on Earth, and its democratic nature is recognized worldwide, a true ally of the USA and a member of NATO. However, with all this, there was not a single terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslims in this country. Moreover, there was not a single, even minor, riot, disturbance or protest, no matter how many citizens of this country support cartoons of the prophet Muhammad published in some Danish newspaper or in a French magazine.

The name of this lucky country is Japan.

Of course, Japan achieved this by some super effective integration policy, through using the most advanced technologies and assigning billions of yen on the building of thousands of mosques and Islamic schools all over Japan, banning pork in all public places, introducing separate hours for boys and girls in swimming pools in all public schools, and Japanese male doctors do not dare touch their female patients, Muslim women get immense social aid each time they have a child, Shari´a courts were introduced in the judicial system of Japan, and the Koran is considered a Holy Book in Japan….....


No, nothing of the kind. What Japan did to avoid problems related to Muslims was much simpler and cheaper; Japan is practically closed to Muslims.

Officially, immigration to Japan is not closed to Muslims. But the number of the immigration permits given to the applicants from Islamic countries is very low. Obtaining a working visa is not easy for adepts of Islam, even if they are physicians, engineers and managers sent by foreign companies that are active in the region. As a result, Japan is “a country without Muslims”.

There is no reliable estimate on the Japanese Muslim population. However, claims of thirty thousand made by some researchers are without doubt an exaggeration. Some claim that there are only a few hundred. This probably amounts to the number of Muslims openly practicing Islam. Asked to give an estimate on the actual number of Muslims in Japan, the ex-president of the Japan Islamic Association Abu Bakr Morimoto replied, “To say frankly, only one thousand. In the broadest sense, I mean, if we do not exclude those who became Muslims for the sake of, say marriage, and do not practice then the number would be a few thousand.”


Read the whole article here: http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2015/04/14/islamic-terrorism-why-there-is-none-in-japan/

Tommy Monk wrote:Jesus never killed anyone or instructed anyone to kill anyone.


Jesus never did any armed robberies or waged war on anyone.


He healed the sick, Fed the poor raised the dead and countless other miracles.



While the basis of Islam is Mohammed, who was a warmongering murdering robbing raping peadophile, and his gang of bandits who caused death and destruction wherever they went.

You are just repeating yourself ignoring what Christians believe

If we go down your road how do you know if Muhammad even existed?

The point is around what people believe and the Christians believe that Jesus is God and as God the believe he created the flood. killed the first born of Egypt, endorse slavery, called for human sacrifice, commanded Herem.

Again I am not denying how Islamic verses have been used to justify killings, you seem to be ignoring why Christians have.

Oh and it is claimed that Jesus did kill.


Jesus, aged one, then curses him, which causes the child's body to wither into a corpse. Another child dies when Jesus curses him when he apparently accidentally bumps into Jesus, throws a stone at Jesus, or punches Jesus (depending on the translation).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infancy_Gospel_of_Thomas


So ho do you explain centuries of violence committed by Christians



So again explain to me "Christian Just War" and "Herem"?

I love how Islamophobes bring up Muhammad and Aisha as though what happened there wasn't a very common practice throughout the Middle East (and probably most of the world) at the time. Hell, 500 years after Muhammad, King John (age 33) married Isabella of Angoulême (age 12).

Interestingly, of the many criticisms of Muhammad made at the time by his opponents, none focused on Aisha’s age at marriage.

According to this perspective, Aisha may have been young, but she was not younger than was the norm at the time. Other Muslims doubt the very idea that Aisha was six at the time of marriage, referring to historians who have questioned the reliability of Aisha’s age as given in the saying. In a society without a birth registry and where people did not celebrate birthdays, most people estimated their own age and that of others. Aisha would have been no different. What’s more, Aisha had already been engaged to someone else before she married Muhammad, suggesting she had already been mature enough by the standards of her society to consider marriage for a while. It seems difficult to reconcile this with her being six.

In addition, some modern Muslim scholars have more recently cast doubt on the veracity of the saying, or hadith, used to assert Aisha’s young age. In Islam, the hadith literature (sayings of the prophet) is considered secondary to the Qur’an. While the Qur’an is considered to be the verbatim word of God, the hadiths were transmitted over time through a rigorous but not infallible methodology. Taking all known accounts and records of Aisha’s age at marriage, estimates of her age range from nine to 19.

Because of this, it is impossible to know with any certainty how old Aisha was. What we do know is what the Qur’an says about marriage: that it is valid only between consenting adults, and that a woman has the right to choose her own spouse.

http://www.islamophobiatoday.com/2012/09/20/the-truth-about-muhammad-and-aisha/

Ben_Reilly wrote:I love how Islamophobes bring up Muhammad and Aisha as though what happened there wasn't a very common practice throughout the Middle East (and probably most of the world) at the time. Hell, 500 years after Muhammad, King John (age 33) married Isabella of Angoulême (age 12).

Interestingly, of the many criticisms of Muhammad made at the time by his opponents, none focused on Aisha’s age at marriage.

According to this perspective, Aisha may have been young, but she was not younger than was the norm at the time. Other Muslims doubt the very idea that Aisha was six at the time of marriage, referring to historians who have questioned the reliability of Aisha’s age as given in the saying. In a society without a birth registry and where people did not celebrate birthdays, most people estimated their own age and that of others. Aisha would have been no different. What’s more, Aisha had already been engaged to someone else before she married Muhammad, suggesting she had already been mature enough by the standards of her society to consider marriage for a while. It seems difficult to reconcile this with her being six.

In addition, some modern Muslim scholars have more recently cast doubt on the veracity of the saying, or hadith, used to assert Aisha’s young age. In Islam, the hadith literature (sayings of the prophet) is considered secondary to the Qur’an. While the Qur’an is considered to be the verbatim word of God, the hadiths were transmitted over time through a rigorous but not infallible methodology. Taking all known accounts and records of Aisha’s age at marriage, estimates of her age range from nine to 19.

Because of this, it is impossible to know with any certainty how old Aisha was. What we do know is what the Qur’an says about marriage: that it is valid only between consenting adults, and that a woman has the right to choose her own spouse.

http://www.islamophobiatoday.com/2012/09/20/the-truth-about-muhammad-and-aisha/

The problem with the defense of the above and just is the same with the bible, is there is no real set age of consent and the fact is in parts of the Muslim world Child marriage is a problem due to interpretations of this hadith which is seen as valid by many Muslims and until more Muslims question and expose this hadith which clearly does actually conflict with other hadiths from his collection there will continue to be a problem.
Its no good pointing out that some rightly challenge this Ben, when others certainly endorse this and why it is deemed acceptable in parts of the Islamic world. It is very clear in all 3 religions there is no set age of consent and it is something that is a problem. Until more speak out it will continue to be seen as acceptable, where again sadly where many are illiterate, they will take what Imans teach them.
So you may say Islamophobes, but you are ignoring a real problem and the fact there are many Muslims that view her age as 6 who also view it acceptable to marry child brides.

Nemesis wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I love how Islamophobes bring up Muhammad and Aisha as though what happened there wasn't a very common practice throughout the Middle East (and probably most of the world) at the time. Hell, 500 years after Muhammad, King John (age 33) married Isabella of Angoulême (age 12).

Interestingly, of the many criticisms of Muhammad made at the time by his opponents, none focused on Aisha’s age at marriage.

According to this perspective, Aisha may have been young, but she was not younger than was the norm at the time. Other Muslims doubt the very idea that Aisha was six at the time of marriage, referring to historians who have questioned the reliability of Aisha’s age as given in the saying. In a society without a birth registry and where people did not celebrate birthdays, most people estimated their own age and that of others. Aisha would have been no different. What’s more, Aisha had already been engaged to someone else before she married Muhammad, suggesting she had already been mature enough by the standards of her society to consider marriage for a while. It seems difficult to reconcile this with her being six.

In addition, some modern Muslim scholars have more recently cast doubt on the veracity of the saying, or hadith, used to assert Aisha’s young age. In Islam, the hadith literature (sayings of the prophet) is considered secondary to the Qur’an. While the Qur’an is considered to be the verbatim word of God, the hadiths were transmitted over time through a rigorous but not infallible methodology. Taking all known accounts and records of Aisha’s age at marriage, estimates of her age range from nine to 19.

Because of this, it is impossible to know with any certainty how old Aisha was. What we do know is what the Qur’an says about marriage: that it is valid only between consenting adults, and that a woman has the right to choose her own spouse.

http://www.islamophobiatoday.com/2012/09/20/the-truth-about-muhammad-and-aisha/

The problem with the defense of the above and just is the same with the bible, is there is no real set age of consent and the fact is in parts of the Muslim world Child marriage is a problem due to interpretations of this hadith which is seen as valid by many Muslims and until more Muslims question and expose this hadith which clearly does actually conflict with other hadiths from his collection there will continue to be a problem.
Its no good pointing out that some rightly challenge this Ben, when others certainly endorse this and why it is deemed acceptable in parts of the Islamic world. It is very clear in all 3 religions there is no set age of consent and it is something that is a problem. Until more speak out it will continue to be seen as acceptable, where again sadly where many are illiterate, they will take what Imans teach them.
So you may say Islamophobes, but you are ignoring a real problem and the fact there are many Muslims that view her age as 6 who also view it acceptable to marry child brides.

Wow, that is such a load of bullcrap. How did I "ignore" the problem of child abuse by merely pointing out that even if (and there is an "if" there) Muhammad took a very young girl as his wife, that was not a scandal in his day?

Seriously, you make me feel like I have to list every possible instance of something I would consider bad, or else that means I either ignore it or condone it.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:



The problem with the defense of the above and just is the same with the bible, is there is no real set age of consent and the fact is in parts of the Muslim world Child marriage is a problem due to interpretations of this hadith which is seen as valid by many Muslims and until more Muslims question and expose this hadith which clearly does actually conflict with other hadiths from his collection there will continue to be a problem.
Its no good pointing out that some rightly challenge this Ben, when others certainly endorse this and why it is deemed acceptable in parts of the Islamic world. It is very clear in all 3 religions there is no set age of consent and it is something that is a problem. Until more speak out it will continue to be seen as acceptable, where again sadly where many are illiterate, they will take what Imans teach them.
So you may say Islamophobes, but you are ignoring a real problem and the fact there are many Muslims that view her age as 6 who also view it acceptable to marry child brides.

Wow, that is such a load of bullcrap. How did I "ignore" the problem of child abuse by merely pointing out that even if (and there is an "if" there) Muhammad took a very young girl as his wife, that was not a scandal in his day?

Seriously, you make me feel like I have to list every possible instance of something I would consider bad, or else that means I either ignore it or condone it.

Your answer was bad for two reasons.

You came in declaring how Islamophobes are wrong on this when nobody knows the actual age, all that can be done is guessed, of which the fact is some Muslims believe the age is higher, and far more believe the age is 6. What matters here is what is believed so to try and claim someone is stupid here as you have done when nobody knows the age is very daft. The same for the poster Tommy to claim it is 6 is daft. How can you prove the age when most is down to faith?
I understand very well the collection of hadiths of Bukhari conflict, but what is needed is all Muslims to agree they are thus clearly not reliable

The second point, what does it matter if it was not a scandal in the day, today it certainly would be and being as the fact Muslim revere Muhammad then they clearly believe such a practice is acceptable. That is why it is utterly silly to argue over who is right on verses, when as seen clearly Muslims differ themselves and of which they cannot prove what is correct either. Again what is of most importance is what is believed and the scary fact that Muslims revere a man who they believe married a girl of 6. So much so we see young girls suffer a fate of child abuse, because they believe she was 6 and they revere this man.

Does that help show why I think your post was poor?

Nemesis wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote: This thread is about Japan and the lack of Muslims there and subsequently the lack of Muslim terrorism.



Everywhere else where there are loads of Muslims there is loads of Muslim terrorism.

I just proved there are "loads" of Muslims here (Dallas-Fort Worth) but no Muslim terrorism here.

When you get like this you remind me of the Cowardly Lion from Wizard of Oz: "I *do* believe in spooks, I *do* believe in spooks. I do, I do, I do, I *do* believe in spooks, I *do* believe in spooks, I do, I do, I do, I *do*!"

You never proved anything, in fact you were incorrect

Where is it incorrect? This supposed terror cell consists of 3 trailers in a trailer park with 7 women and children and around 5 males. Your banking everything on the Clarion article being correct. Either that or you have more information that you have not produced here.

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


You never proved anything, in fact you were incorrect

Where is it incorrect? This supposed terror cell consists of 3 trailers in a trailer park with 7 women and children and around 5 males. Your banking everything on the Clarion article being correct. Either that or you have more information that you have not produced here.

Read back and see what you missed.

Remember also the claim made by Ben.

Nemesis wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


You never proved anything, in fact you were incorrect

Where is it incorrect? This supposed terror cell consists of 3 trailers in a trailer park with 7 women and children and around 5 males. Your banking everything on the Clarion article being correct. Either that or you have more information that you have not produced here.

Read back and see what you missed.

Remember also the claim made by Ben.

I've looked through this thread already and I don't think I have missed anything. If I have can you point it out please.

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Read back and see what you missed.

Remember also the claim made by Ben.

I've looked through this thread already and I don't think I have missed anything. If I have can you point it out please.

Go back a page.

Nemesis wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Read back and see what you missed.

Remember also the claim made by Ben.

I've looked through this thread already and I don't think I have missed anything. If I have can you point it out please.

Go back a page.

I did. It mentions FBI files but I don't see these files. Do you have them?

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

Go back a page.

I did. It mentions FBI files but I don't see these files. Do you have them?

I suggest you have an eye check up then

Nemesis wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:



The problem with the defense of the above and just is the same with the bible, is there is no real set age of consent and the fact is in parts of the Muslim world Child marriage is a problem due to interpretations of this hadith which is seen as valid by many Muslims and until more Muslims question and expose this hadith which clearly does actually conflict with other hadiths from his collection there will continue to be a problem.
Its no good pointing out that some rightly challenge this Ben, when others certainly endorse this and why it is deemed acceptable in parts of the Islamic world. It is very clear in all 3 religions there is no set age of consent and it is something that is a problem. Until more speak out it will continue to be seen as acceptable, where again sadly where many are illiterate, they will take what Imans teach them.
So you may say Islamophobes, but you are ignoring a real problem and the fact there are many Muslims that view her age as 6 who also view it acceptable to marry child brides.

Wow, that is such a load of bullcrap. How did I "ignore" the problem of child abuse by merely pointing out that even if (and there is an "if" there) Muhammad took a very young girl as his wife, that was not a scandal in his day?

Seriously, you make me feel like I have to list every possible instance of something I would consider bad, or else that means I either ignore it or condone it.

Your answer was bad for two reasons.

You came in declaring how Islamophobes are wrong on this when nobody knows the actual age, all that can be done is guessed, of which the fact is some Muslims believe the age is higher, and far more believe the age is 6. What matters here is what is believed so to try and claim someone is stupid here as you have done when nobody knows the age is very daft. The same for the poster Tommy to claim it is 6 is daft. How can you prove the age when most is down to faith?
I understand very well the collection of hadiths of Bukhari conflict, but what is needed is all Muslims to agree they are thus clearly not reliable

The second point, what does it matter if it was not a scandal in the day, today it certainly would be and being as the fact Muslim revere Muhammad then they clearly believe such a practice is acceptable. That is why it is utterly silly to argue over who is right on verses, when as seen clearly Muslims differ themselves and of which they cannot prove what is correct either. Again what is of most importance is what is believed and the scary fact that Muslims revere a man who they believe married a girl of 6. So much so we see young girls suffer a fate of child abuse, because they believe she was 6 and they revere this man.

Does that help show why I think your post was poor?

So because Muhammad is said to have followed a custom which was normal for his time, you think that means most Muslims today believe it's OK to marry children?

Nemesis wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

Go back a page.

I did. It mentions FBI files but I don't see these files. Do you have them?

I suggest you have an eye check up then

You have the FBI files then,,,,,,correct?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Your answer was bad for two reasons.

You came in declaring how Islamophobes are wrong on this when nobody knows the actual age, all that can be done is guessed, of which the fact is some Muslims believe the age is higher, and far more believe the age is 6. What matters here is what is believed so to try and claim someone is stupid here as you have done when nobody knows the age is very daft. The same for the poster Tommy to claim it is 6 is daft. How can you prove the age when most is down to faith?
I understand very well the collection of hadiths of Bukhari conflict, but what is needed is all Muslims to agree they are thus clearly not reliable

The second point, what does it matter if it was not a scandal in the day, today it certainly would be and being as the fact Muslim revere Muhammad then they clearly believe such a practice is acceptable. That is why it is utterly silly to argue over who is right on verses, when as seen clearly Muslims differ themselves and of which they cannot prove what is correct either. Again what is of most importance is what is believed and the scary fact that Muslims revere a man who they believe married a girl of 6. So much so we see young girls suffer a fate of child abuse, because they believe she was 6 and they revere this man.

Does that help show why I think your post was poor?

So because Muhammad is said to have followed a custom which was normal for his time, you think that means most Muslims today believe it's OK to marry children?

A substancial amount of Muslims do believe this, yes.
Would you like to see a list of nations where there is a problem with child brides?
You do understand that Muslims try to emulate Muhammad do you not?
So do you not think that is a problem if Muslims believe it is okay, as why do you think they believe it is okay and based on what exactly?

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

I suggest you have an eye check up then

You have the FBI files then,,,,,,correct?

Not what I am talking about.

Nemesis wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


You never proved anything, in fact you were incorrect

Where is it incorrect? This supposed terror cell consists of 3 trailers in a trailer park with 7 women and children and around 5 males. Your banking everything on the Clarion article being correct. Either that or you have more information that you have not produced here.

Read back and see what you missed.

Remember also the claim made by Ben.

The claim I made is that there has been no Islamic-inspired terrorism in Dallas-Fort Worth despite 100,000 of its 6.5 million residents being Muslims.

You then point to a small compound of Muslims living farther from Dallas-Fort Worth than Paris is from London.

You then say they're terrorists even though the local sheriff is quoted in the media as saying that there is no suspicion of terrorist activity and that the neighbors say the people in the compound don't cause trouble.

Also left out of your narrative is that the people living in the compound aren't even Middle Eastern immigrants; they're African-Americans.

So, do you really think you've shown any Islamic-inspired terrorist acts in Dallas-Fort Worth?

Nemesis wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

I suggest you have an eye check up then

You have the FBI files then,,,,,,correct?

Not what I am talking about.

We are discussing the alleged terror cell in Sweeny. You said Ben had been proved wrong and all I'm asking is for you to show me where. You do have the FBI files, don't you?

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

Not what I am talking about.

We are discussing the alleged terror cell in Sweeny. You said Ben had been proved wrong and all I'm asking is for you to show me where. You do have the FBI files, don't you?

No I was discussing nothing with you actually, I was showing Bens claim was wrong.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Read back and see what you missed.

Remember also the claim made by Ben.

The claim I made is that there has been no Islamic-inspired terrorism in Dallas-Fort Worth despite 100,000 of its 6.5 million residents being Muslims.

You then point to a small compound of Muslims living farther from Dallas-Fort Worth than Paris is from London.

You then say they're terrorists even though the local sheriff is quoted in the media as saying that there is no suspicion of terrorist activity and that the neighbors say the people in the compound don't cause trouble.

Also left out of your narrative is that the people living in the compound aren't even Middle Eastern immigrants; they're African-Americans.

So, do you really think you've shown any Islamic-inspired terrorist acts in Dallas-Fort Worth?

So only Middle eastern people commit terrorism now then.

Wow

That is very naive.

You never heard of converts then?

Nemesis wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

Not what I am talking about.

We are discussing the alleged terror cell in Sweeny. You said Ben had been proved wrong and all I'm asking is for you to show me where. You do have the FBI files, don't you?

No I was discussing nothing with you actually, I was showing Bens claim was wrong.

Well I did post on this thread earlier in a response to this and you didn't take it up then. Do you have the FBI files that will prove beyond doubt that it is a terror cell?

Nemesis wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Read back and see what you missed.

Remember also the claim made by Ben.

The claim I made is that there has been no Islamic-inspired terrorism in Dallas-Fort Worth despite 100,000 of its 6.5 million residents being Muslims.

You then point to a small compound of Muslims living farther from Dallas-Fort Worth than Paris is from London.

You then say they're terrorists even though the local sheriff is quoted in the media as saying that there is no suspicion of terrorist activity and that the neighbors say the people in the compound don't cause trouble.

Also left out of your narrative is that the people living in the compound aren't even Middle Eastern immigrants; they're African-Americans.

So, do you really think you've shown any Islamic-inspired terrorist acts in Dallas-Fort Worth?

So only Middle eastern people commit terrorism now then.

Wow

That is very naive.

You never heard of converts then?

What about everything else I said?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

So only Middle eastern people commit terrorism now then.

Wow

That is very naive.

You never heard of converts then?

What about everything else I said?

That you are wrong, yes I know


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/24/hosam-maher-husein-smadi-_n_299340.html

Nemesis wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

So only Middle eastern people commit terrorism now then.

Wow

That is very naive.

You never heard of converts then?

What about everything else I said?

That you are wrong, yes I know


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/24/hosam-maher-husein-smadi-_n_299340.html

So now you're going to dredge up a completely different story. That was a plot, not terrorism. There was a lot of criticism that Smadi was encouraged by the undercover FBI agents on his case and entrapped, as well.

Nemesis wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

So only Middle eastern people commit terrorism now then.

Wow

That is very naive.

You never heard of converts then?

What about everything else I said?

That you are wrong, yes I know


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/24/hosam-maher-husein-smadi-_n_299340.html

From wiki

Smadi was in the United States illegally, and unaware he was under continuous surveillance, and that the other members of his "sleeper cell" were all Federal agents.[2] The agents in his "sleeper cell" had supplied him with inert chemical, so his bomb had not posed a real threat.[4]

Immigration officials were trying to determine how Smadi was able to work at a gas station, since he only had a 2007 tourist visa

Have you got the FBI files for the alleged Sweeny allegation?

Nemesis wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

So because Muhammad is said to have followed a custom which was normal for his time, you think that means most Muslims today believe it's OK to marry children?

A substancial amount of Muslims do believe this, yes.
Would you like to see a list of nations where there is a problem with child brides?
You do understand that Muslims try to emulate Muhammad do you not?
So do you not think that is a problem if Muslims believe it is okay, as why do you think they believe it is okay and based on what exactly?

So no humble pie on being wrong about the terrorism then I guess.

By the way my views is on Muslim extremism which is a huge problem.
Again this is not on many Muslims who have no wish for terrorism, but I do have concerns in regards to where in some Muslim areas of the world there is a lack of literacy and where Muslims are being taught poor conflicting views from hadiths.
This is one of the biggest concerns of religions because people emulate such important religious figures, hence why you wrongly took offense Ben to me showing how poor your previous views on Muhammad and the view he took a child bride.
The fact is you jumped in going well it was okay for the time, whoop dee doo. There is a major problem with that.

One It is then clearly believed that their deity sanctions such practices.

Two Thet the person they revere and emulate is seen to marry a girl which is basically chidl abuse and any others who did in the past I would view as the same, all being wrong.

So when I say you ignore this you clearly do as tot he effects of such a position held and viewed by many Muslims.

Can you not even grasp this and understand this is why there is a problem with child brides. Yopu are taking the wrong stance here thinking I am bashing Muslims. I am not, I am trying to open peoples eyes to speak out and bacl Muslims challenging this age where they shod the contradictions in the hadiths, so such a belief does not allow anymore children to be married off.

Now do you understand that this has fuck all to do with Islamophobis but the safety of Muslim young girls?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

That you are wrong, yes I know


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/24/hosam-maher-husein-smadi-_n_299340.html

So now you're going to dredge up a completely different story. That was a plot, not terrorism. There was a lot of criticism that Smadi was encouraged by the undercover FBI agents on his case and entrapped, as well.

That is poor, so now a terrorist threat of which he has been jailed is not an incident of could have seen people actually die.

Seriously that is pathetic and to now use excuses is even worse about being forced, for fuck sake.


You were wrong and ar least show some bloody humility

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

That you are wrong, yes I know


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/24/hosam-maher-husein-smadi-_n_299340.html

From wiki

Smadi was in the United States illegally, and unaware he was under continuous surveillance, and that the other members of his "sleeper cell" were all Federal agents.[2] The agents in his "sleeper cell" had supplied him with inert chemical, so his bomb had not posed a real threat.[4]

Immigration officials were trying to determine how Smadi was able to work at a gas station, since he only had a 2007 tourist visa

Have you got the FBI files for the alleged Sweeny allegation?

Was he in Dallas Texas?

Was the plot in Dallas Texas?

Oh well.

You didn't have the FBI files. In fact you never had them and threw everything into the Clarion article. You were wrong and here's why.

The FBI report on the investigation. Negative response to threat

Irn Bru wrote:You didn't have the FBI files. In fact you never had them and threw everything into the Clarion article. You were wrong and here's why.

The FBI report on the investigation. Negative response to threat

I see you are a very desperate poster, as what does that matter now after what I have just posted?

Never mind, am happy that this was wrong, I have the other incident, which you tried poorly to even deflect

Oh and we have another one:


 Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari—February 2011. Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari, a Saudi citizen studying in Lubbock, Texas, was arrested by the FBI after placing an order for the toxic chemical phenol. Both the chemical supplier and the freight shipping company became suspicious of the order, which could be used to make an improvised explosive device (IED), and alerted the FBI and local police. Surveillance of Aldawsari’s e-mail turned up a list of potential “nice targets” including dams, nuclear power plants, military targets, a nightclub, and the Dallas residence of former President George W. Bush. The search also recovered plans to acquire a forged U.S. birth certificate and multiple driver’s licenses. Aldawsari seems to have considered using these documents to obtain rental cars for use in vehicle bombings.

Nemesis wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:You didn't have the FBI files. In fact you never had them and threw everything into the Clarion article. You were wrong and here's why.

The FBI report on the investigation. Negative response to threat

I see you are a very desperate poster, as what does that matter now after what I have just posted?

Never mind, am happy that this was wrong, I have the other incident, which you tried poorly to even deflect

The other guy wasn't an American and he wasn't even a Texan and he was in the country illegaly on a tourist visa.

Hardly an inbuilt terror cell in the heart of DFW is it

Sources chum. Always check sources and don't believe everything you read in the papers or the internet.

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

I see you are a very desperate poster, as what does that matter now after what I have just posted?

Never mind, am happy that this was wrong, I have the other incident, which you tried poorly to even deflect

The other guy wasn't an American and he wasn't even a Texan and he was in the country illegaly on a tourist visa.

Hardly an inbuilt terror cell in the heart of DFW is it

Sources chum. Always check sources and don't believe everything you read in the papers or the internet.

We have Muslims extremists here not born to the Uk but they certainly reside here so your point is so flat, you have been able to created an entire e minor symphony with it.

So nothing to do with sources chum, just you not able like Ben and now we have a second terrorist above where you cannot admit you are both wrong.,

It is not hard, I did it tonight when you produced evidence on the homeless guy and what was the first post after you doing this?

Me admitting Darkness was right.

You may want to learn from that

Nemesis wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

I see you are a very desperate poster, as what does that matter now after what I have just posted?

Never mind, am happy that this was wrong, I have the other incident, which you tried poorly to even deflect

The other guy wasn't an American and he wasn't even a Texan and he was in the country illegaly on a tourist visa.

Hardly an inbuilt terror cell in the heart of DFW is it

Sources chum. Always check sources and don't believe everything you read in the papers or the internet.

We have Muslims extremists here not born to the Uk but they certainly reside here so your point is so flat, you have been able to created an entire e minor symphony with it.

So nothing to do with sources chum, just you not able like Ben and now we have a second one aslo to admit you are both wrong.,

It is not hard, I did it tonight when you produced evidence on the homeless guy and what was the first post after you doing this?

Me admitting Darkness was right.

You may want to learn from that

No chum, you were wrong in claiming that the information about the Sweeny place was correct when it wasn't because you didn't check it out thoroughly. as you should have done. So to get out of the jam you run around all over the place and off the beaten track trying to find anything else to prove you are right and you come up with an illegal immigrant and now a Saudi national studying in Texas. Funny you never mentioned these in the first place isn't it and that's because you didn't know about them at the time.

Your saving grace

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

We have Muslims extremists here not born to the Uk but they certainly reside here so your point is so flat, you have been able to created an entire e minor symphony with it.

So nothing to do with sources chum, just you not able like Ben and now we have a second one aslo to admit you are both wrong.,

It is not hard, I did it tonight when you produced evidence on the homeless guy and what was the first post after you doing this?

Me admitting Darkness was right.

You may want to learn from that

No chum, you were wrong in claiming that the information about the Sweeny place was correct when it wasn't because you didn't check it out thoroughly. as you should have done. So to get out of the jam you run around all over the place and off the beaten track trying to find anything else to prove you are right and you come up with an illegal immigrant and now a Saudi national studying in Texas. Funny you never mentioned these in the first place isn't it and that's because you didn't know about them at the time.

Your saving grace

Not wrong about stating Ben's claim was wrong chum.
So that is now two terrorists and you are concerned over when I play my joker cards.
You have much to learn.

Thank you for proving you cannot admit you are wrong though jumping in here thinking you were being clever and you got sucked in doing so.

Nemesis wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

A substancial amount of Muslims do believe this, yes.
Would you like to see a list of nations where there is a problem with child brides?
You do understand that Muslims try to emulate Muhammad do you not?
So do you not think that is a problem if Muslims believe it is okay, as why do you think they believe it is okay and based on what exactly?

So no humble pie on being wrong about the terrorism then I guess.

By the way my views is on Muslim extremism which is a huge problem.
Again this is not on many Muslims who have no wish for terrorism, but I do have concerns in regards to where in some Muslim areas of the world there is a lack of literacy and where Muslims are being taught poor conflicting views from hadiths which they take literally.
This is one of the biggest concerns of religions because people emulate such important religious figures, hence why you wrongly took offense Ben to me showing how poor your previous views on Muhammad and the view he took a child bride.
The fact is you jumped in going well it was okay for the time, whoop dee doo. There is a major problem with that.

One It is then clearly believed that their deity sanctions such practices.

Two That the person they revere and emulate is seen to marry a girl which is basically child abuse and any others who did in the past I would view as the same, all being wrong.

So when I say you ignore this you clearly do as to the effects of such a position held and viewed by many Muslims.

Can you not even grasp this and understand this is why there is a problem with child brides. Yopu are taking the wrong stance here thinking I am bashing Muslims. I am not, I am trying to open peoples eyes to speak out and back Muslims challenging this age where they shod the contradictions in the hadiths, so such a belief does not allow anymore children to be married off.

Now do you understand that this has fuck all to do with Islamophobis but the safety of Muslim young girls?

I would like Ben to address this to understand my stance which is not Muslim bashing but highly critical of religions, where I once made the same mistakes by defending bad practices by some Muslims. Which is my point it has to stop and we have to be critical and stop using claims of discrmination, because it is not discrmination to speak out to where children are being abused

Nemesis wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

We have Muslims extremists here not born to the Uk but they certainly reside here so your point is so flat, you have been able to created an entire e minor symphony with it.

So nothing to do with sources chum, just you not able like Ben and now we have a second one aslo to admit you are both wrong.,

It is not hard, I did it tonight when you produced evidence on the homeless guy and what was the first post after you doing this?

Me admitting Darkness was right.

You may want to learn from that

No chum, you were wrong in claiming that the information about the Sweeny place was correct when it wasn't because you didn't check it out thoroughly. as you should have done. So to get out of the jam you run around all over the place and off the beaten track trying to find anything else to prove you are right and you come up with an illegal immigrant and now a Saudi national studying in Texas. Funny you never mentioned these in the first place isn't it and that's because you didn't know about them at the time.

Your saving grace

Not wrong about stating Ben's claim was wrong chum.
So that is now two terrorists and you are concerned over when I play my joker cards.
You have much to learn.

Thank you for proving you cannot admit you are wrong though jumping in here thinking you were being clever and you got sucked in doing so.

You're joker cards

I was only contesting your claim on Sweeny - the one where you where you were banking everything on the Clarion report. That was your big mistake on my part.

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

Not wrong about stating Ben's claim was wrong chum.
So that is now two terrorists and you are concerned over when I play my joker cards.
You have much to learn.

Thank you for proving you cannot admit you are wrong though jumping in here thinking you were being clever and you got sucked in doing so.

You're joker cards

I was only contesting your claim on Sweeny - the one where you where you were banking everything on the Clarion report.  That was your big mistake on my part.  

I was contesting Bens, yours is based off bens, so it comes full circle chum back to Bens claim, which you did also try poorly to defend, so you also then were wrong. lol
So you still have at least created an e minor symphony lol

Oh and there is more:


The FBI’s fight against terrorism funding paid a big dividend yesterday when five former leaders of a U.S.-based Muslim charity were convicted of funneling more than $12 million to the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.
Guilty verdicts on all 108 counts against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development were announced in federal court in Dallas, Texas, representing the largest victory against terrorist financing in the U.S. since the 9/11 attacks.


http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/november/hlf112508

Nemesis wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

Not wrong about stating Ben's claim was wrong chum.
So that is now two terrorists and you are concerned over when I play my joker cards.
You have much to learn.

Thank you for proving you cannot admit you are wrong though jumping in here thinking you were being clever and you got sucked in doing so.

You're joker cards

I was only contesting your claim on Sweeny - the one where you where you were banking everything on the Clarion report.  That was your big mistake on my part.  

I was contesting Bens, yours is based off bens, so it comes full circle chum back to Bens claim, which you did also try poorly to defend, so you also then were wrong. lol
So you still have at least created an e minor symphony lol

No chum. I joined this thread because I was skeptical about the Clarion report and posted on it. You didn't address that back to me but you did say later that Ben was wrong on the Sweeny place and had been proved to be wrong. As it turns out he was right on that and so was I and you were wrong because you believed what you read on the internet without checking it out like you should have done.

You can run around all night long finding terror incidents all you like but on what I posted on Sweeny you were wrong and it's time to man up and admit it.

C'mon man - you can do it.

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

I was contesting Bens, yours is based off bens, so it comes full circle chum back to Bens claim, which you did also try poorly to defend, so you also then were wrong. lol
So you still have at least created an e minor symphony lol

No chum. I joined this thread because I was skeptical about the Clarion report and posted on it. You didn't address that back to me but you did say later that Ben was wrong on the Sweeny place and had been proved to be wrong. As it turns out he was right on that and so was I and you were wrong because you believed what you read on the internet without checking it out like you should have done.

You can run around all night long finding terror incidents all you like but on what I posted on Sweeny you were wrong and it's time to man up and admit it.

C'mon man - you can do it.

You are boring me with your bull now chum.
I said Ben was wrong on his claim.
He was wrong.
You want to make some moral victory over the Claron report be my guest because I already admitted I was incorrect there read back, showing you fail to read what people post and again show your desperation here.
So you just screwed up again twice now HAR HAR HAR HAR

You did though also try to deny and go off where the terrorists I posted came from as if that had no relevance, showing you did engage off that part of the debate which proves like I said that you are a person with no humility.
So the moment you responded to that part, you set yourself up to fall and was involving yourself backing Ben's claim, which as seen was in error. Are you going to try and claim you never responded to that now or would you like me to post that part agin, when you now seem to be suffering from amnesia lol

The best part here is you continue to refuse to admit your failing here.

At least Ben has better sense than yourself it seems chum, I again suggest you learn some humility as you clearly have none and where you now think that being a foreign extremist living within a socity is not a concern where they attempt to commit a terrorist act or fund terrorism which kills innocent people..

So I showed humility, you now offer feeble excuses and thank you for proving that.

Nemesis wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

So because Muhammad is said to have followed a custom which was normal for his time, you think that means most Muslims today believe it's OK to marry children?

A substancial amount of Muslims do believe this, yes.
Would you like to see a list of nations where there is a problem with child brides?

You do understand that Muslims try to emulate Muhammad do you not?

So do you not think that is a problem if Muslims believe it is okay, as why do you think they believe it is okay and based on what exactly?

And Mohammed was a warmongering, murdering robbing, raping psychotic peadophile... what a great example for people to want to follow...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

A substancial amount of Muslims do believe this, yes.
Would you like to see a list of nations where there is a problem with child brides?

You do understand that Muslims try to emulate Muhammad do you not?

So do you not think that is a problem if Muslims believe it is okay, as why do you think they believe it is okay and based on what exactly?

And Mohammed was a warmongering, murdering robbing, raping psychotic peadophile... what a great example for people to want to follow...!!!

That is a bad example to follow.

Well the Muslims who do follow this example are either ignorant of what exactly it is they are following and pretty stupid, or they do know what it is they are following and are themselves down right evil and dangerous.

Tommy Monk wrote:Well the Muslims who do follow this example are either ignorant of what exactly it is they are following and pretty stupid, or they do know what it is they are following and are themselves down right evil and dangerous.

The problem is religion, hence why I asked you about "Herem"
The Christians for centuries used the genocides as justification for not only butchering Muslims but also Christians where  the later were butchered if they did not surrender their town or city.
Clearly it happens and is a major problem how people view and interpret religion.