Assimilation?

Islamic Terrorism is Motivated by Religion, Not Retribution

Vietnamese Americans venting their frustrations over the My Lai Massacre by hijacking jetliners crammed with civilians and slamming them into heavily populated skyscrapers whilst bellowing religious exclamations, are likewise conspicuously absent.

Similarly, there is a noticeable lack of Japanese Americans marching into concert halls and detonating suicide vests in crowds of schoolgirls and their guardians, in retaliation for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it would be an exceptional occurrence to encounter second generation German immigrants blowing up commuters on the London transport system as retribution for the 2nd World War. However, if these were indeed common occurrences, I would expect reasonable people to be swatting away this kind of tasteless excuse-making reflexively.

Islamic terrorists, conversely, are given special consideration. If the apologists’ arguments had any semblance of consistency, it would be acceptable to claim that Darren Osborn, the Finsbury park terrorist, had legitimate political grievances since his murder of an innocent Muslim must be viewed in the climate of ceaseless Islamic terror attacks. Likewise, if hundreds like him began committing terrorism against Muslims in scores of countries around the world.

The funniest thing about this rather funny thread is that most people reading it think that you are the troll.

Muslims complain because they want the good, old days of jizya payments back. Here is what the Iranian ex-Muslim Ali Sina says in his recent book Understanding Muhammad: "Megalomania, bullishness, the sense of entitlement and all other narcissistic traits of Muhammad are present in each and every Muslim, to the extent that they emulate their prophet.

As you asked, I answered your question about what is wrong with your logic.

You could present arguments that it isn't true.

Why should I bother.

While you are here Oralloy, you have the same annoying habit of presenting your beliefs as facts.

I don't know if you understand the term "confirmation bias" where you pull out every article, fact or quote that supports your beliefs and ignore the ones that don't.

You will notice that as soon as you start doing that... I tend to lose interest in the discussion since you aren't really discussing anything anyway (a discussion involves looking at ideas from more than one ideological bubble).

Having a discussion with someone who confuses beliefs with facts is neither productive nor fun.

Treating such a person with humor might not be productive either, but at least it is fun.

I assume you don't agree with Pamela that Black Muslims are subhuman/human hybrids. Go show her the facts, "challenge her with the truth". I would love to see how it is done. You want me to be "nice" to her... lead by example then.

1. Muslims are human beings. Human beings are complex, they have beliefs, loves, hates, hopes and fears.

The Quran Dehumanizes Non-Muslims
and Says that They are Vile Animals

Verse 7:176 compares unbelievers to "panting dogs" with regard to their idiocy and worthlessness.

Verse 7:179 says they are like "cattle" only worse.

Verse 9:28 says the unbelievers are unclean.

Verse 6:111 says they are ignorant.

Verse 4:76 says they are helpers of the devil.

Verse 5:60 even says that Allah transformed Jews of the past into apes and pigs. This is echoed by verses 7:166 and 2:65.

A hadith (Bukhari 54:524) says that Muhammad believed rats to be "mutated Jews" (also confirmed by Sahih Muslim 7135 and 7136).

2. Human beings should be judged by their individual actions, not lumped together in groups.

Every post you write and every article you link makes these two errors.

if some Muslim extremist

Islam says those things an extremist only repeats them.