"[we can] not lower ourselves to mimick our foe's draconian methods in attempt to defeat that foe."
"we need to completely eradicate ISIS using any means necessary and wipe them permanently from the Earth."
Dont't you see a discrepancy or contradiction here?
No because it is a nonexistent contradiction.
If we were to do as you suggest and kill innocent Muslims who have nothing to do with ISIS, which is exactly what you advocate, we would be as bad as ISIS themselves, since they DO kill innocent Christians, Jews and other religious minorities.
If you really think that a "Final Solution" method is the best way to solve this problem, you're even more daft than I had thought you were.
Well, I think I saw it. Thoguh I'm unsure which term is the most appropriate. Contradiction, discrepancy or perhaps oxymoron?
Removing ISIS "permanently from the Earth" seems comparable to removing the Muslims from Europe, albeit with the notable difference that the former scenario probably requires killing them. Unless the idea is to somehow talk the ISIS members into stop supporting ISIS. Behave, guys! But that sounds about as dangerous, insane and ineffective as setting your house ablaze to keep warm. So which "method" is the most draconian?
Kill innocent Muslims? I don't think I have suggested to kill anyone. So that's not "exactly what [I] advocate".
Are there any such thing as "innocent Muslims"? As I can gather, a Muslim is someone who follows Islam. Which probably is the largest and most dangerous religion and political movement that has ever existed. Certain translations of Islamic texts (the Quran and Hadith) that I've read, as well as comments from Muslim "leaders" living in this day and age, tell a whole lot of nasty things. Like that Muslims have a duty to kill those that convert from Islam, as well as non-Muslims that refuse to convert to Islam (save for Christians and Jews, that allegedly may get away with paying a tax called "jizya"). Freedom is the cancer. Islam is the answer. Violence (including torture and death penalty), animal abuse (halal slaughter), child abuse (circumcision), lies allowed if not encouraged (taqiya and kitman)... This sounds like a draft for a script for a horror movie. At it means that there are no Muslims that are "good people" or are not our mortal enemies. The last 1,400 years of history (since Islam were founded) shows that Muslims can't coexist peacefully with non-Muslims (and not neccesarily with other Muslims either).
So I wonder where "Faux-pas Pete" got this idea about "the vast majority of Muslims are good people" from. The best we can hope for, in my opinion, is that that comment was meant as sarcasm. Even if there was only one single Muslim (or anyone else that was obligated to kill me) anywhere on the planet, I would think there were too many of them.
No, I don't know what the final solution is. Rather I'll describe the course of action mentioned as among the first steps to solve the problem. A neccesary but not sufficient step. If you believe you have one or more better idea(s), please let us know.
- Karsten B. Motvind.
- Kill innocent Muslims? I don't think I have suggested to kill anyone.
Yes, you do seem extraordinarily clueless about the real-world ramifications of what you're suggesting. If one were to suppose you weren't just a troll.
- Are there any such thing as "innocent Muslims?"
Demolishes the non-troll supposition. I won't say nobody is as stupid as your remarks make you appear, but when combined with your ability to string words together into sentences, it's pretty implausible.
Nice touch, adding in the phrase "final solution" at the end.
"seem extraordinarily clueless" - well, that's your impression and I don't think I can change that. I am absolutely not a troll.
"I won't say nobody" - what, excactly, do you think makes me appear stupid? I would like to know, so that I might try to prevent anything like that from happening again.
"Nice touch" - if you had bothered to check, you might have noticed that it was the commenter I replied to that made that "nice touch":
If you really think that a "Final Solution" method is the best way to solve this problem
But why not discuss the subject at hand? Mind you, I am not the subject of this discussion.
This is baffling, an outrageous generalization to the point it's almost comical. What you suggest is the same as having the United States banish all teenagers because of a number of school shootings, which were perpetrated by teenagers.
You can't be this dense. Get a grip. Though if you can seriously ask "Are there any such thing as "innocent Muslims?", you're hopelessly delusional.
Are there any such thing as "innocent Muslims"?
What is your major malfunction? If all Muslims were as dangerous as you claim, the ENTIRE world would be rubble RIGHT NOW. As you can see, it's not. There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. Don't you think that if every single one of them was equally dangerous, we'd all be dead at this moment? Use you head.
Secondly, you need to understand that the Sunnis-Shia divide is as stark as the Protestant-Catholic divide was (and still is in many cases). For sure, the Sunnis are more old-school and the Shia are more easy going. The Sunnis are like the Catholics and the Shia are like the Protestants. Think of it this way: why do Iran and Saudi Arabia hate each other so much? Why do you think Saudia Arabia wants the West to attack Iran? Because the Iranians are Shia and the Saudis are Sunnis. That is a huge division within Islam.
There are also other offshoots of Islam, like Sufism and the Ahmadayia. And certainly, there are dangerous Muslims in the World that we need to target and bring to justice, or better yet, destroy, like the Jihadis, Salafis, Wahabbis and other Islamic terrorists. They are a minority within Islam and they need to be destroyed. That cannot be denied. But to blame the rest of the Muslim world for the actions would as absurd as blaming the entire Christian community for the actions of the so-called "Christian" KKK or so-called "Christian" Neo-nazis.
One thing I think you and I can agree on is that our common enemy is the terrorists. You need to realize that the Muslims' enemy is also the terrorists. If we write off a 1.5 billion Muslims, we would be discarding allies in the war against terrorism. That's undeniably true.
With the exception of your spelling and grammar mistakes, I'm in agreement with you Pete.
Just out of curiosity, first result of googling 'bible supports murder':
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19)
So, christians can kill the entire french nation because it willing allowed one muslim. Then salt the land. Interesting.
By your logic, should we kill all the christians to be on the safe side?