When was our last conflict that didn't have a Muslim tie-in?

[MegaPoke]

Grenada?

Serious question. We've been at war most of my adult life and Im nearly 45.

Can't remember the last thing we were involved with militarily that didn't involve protecting some Muslims from other Muslims.

It's kind of blowing my mind how far people are bending over backwards to avoid calling modern Islam a fairly general global problem in it's entirety.

I saw one of those kind of rednecky facebook posts just now that people like the shit out of and forward all over the place. But you know what? I'm having a hard time seeing where it's wrong. And seeing the whole list laid out, it would be damming for just about any group except for some reason, Islam.

I honestly can't understand why progressives in particular tend to be so extremely lenient towards an ideology that subjugates women, persecutes homosexuals, is extremely intolerant of other faiths etc. etc. It's the complete antithesis of what any liberal stands for.

Anyway, DISCLAIMER: The following is a shameless cut and paste of what I would usually think of as a lowest common denominator facebook kind of thing. But tell me where it's wrong?

------------



Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bafi Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Musiims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims'

Think of it:
Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
Hindus living with Jews = No Problem
Christians living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem
Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Christians = No Problem
Christians living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Hindus = No Problem
Muslims living with Hindus = Problem
Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem
Muslims living with Christians = Problem
Muslims living with Jews = Problem
Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
Muslims living with Baha'is = Problem
Muslims living with Shintos = Problem
Muslims living with Atheists = Problem

MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM
**********SO THIS LEAD TO *****************

TheyÍre not happy in Gaza
They're not happy in Egypt
They're not happy in Libya
They're not happy in Morocco
They're not happy in Iran
They're not happy in Iraq
They're not happy in Yemen
They're not happy in Afghanistan
They're not happy in Pakistan
They're not happy in Syria
They're not happy in Lebanon
They're not happy in Nigeria
They're not happy in Kenya
They're not happy in Sudan
******** So, where are they happy? **********

They're happy in Australia
They're happy in England
They're happy in Belgium
They're happy in France
They're happy in Italy
They're happy in Germany
They're happy in Sweden
They're happy in the USA & Canada
They're happy in Norway & India

They're happy in almost every country that is not Islamic! And who do they blame? Not Islam... Not their leadership... Not themselves... THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!! And they want to change the countries they're happy in, to be like the countries they came from where they were unhappy.

Islamic Jihad: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
ISIS: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Qaeda: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Taliban: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hamas: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hezbollah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Boko Haram: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Nusra: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abu Sayyaf: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Badr: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Muslim Brotherhood: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Lashkar-e-Taiba: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Palestine Liberation Front: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Ansaru: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Jemaah Islamiyah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abdullah Azzam Brigades: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION


This post was edited on 2/19 11:40 PM by MegaPoke

 

[NZ Poke]

I'm with you on all this.

I'm libertarian and quite socially liberal, and it staggers my mind that so many 'progressives' are willing to give Islam a pass - when it's so opposite of liberal values (esp gender equality and gay rights).

You should check out the Joe Rogan podcast on the matter. Entire podcast is great (ex-Muslim guy), but this particular section is interesting.

 

[MegaPoke]

Thanks. I will check that out.

My guess on the progressives is that they are following Obama's lead on it. Plus it just feels a little xenophobic and racist to criticise a mostly poor dark skinned people.

But ideologically, even the so called moderate "good" Muslims tend to be very patriarchal and intolerant of gays. On this very board, some guy brought up the crusades as the best available of how Muslims are basically no more violent or intolerant than average Christians. The crusades, man.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

The answer to your question is Kosovo, 1999. However, we were protecting Muslims from Christians.

 

[osu_orangestreak]

Lets go back to the beginning of the country.

The first military conflict authorized by Congress that the United States fought on foreign land and seas was against who?

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Originally posted by osu_orangestreak:
Lets go back to the beginning of the country.

The first military conflict authorized by Congress that the United States fought on foreign land and seas was against who?

The Barbary pirates, who were Muslim. BTW, the conflict in Kosovo was ethnic, not religious.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

Yup we were protecting ethnic Muslims against ethnic Christians. You can purse words if you like, but the war was touted by the Clinton administration as protecting Muslims. The Serbians were Orthodox Christians, and were cleansing the Muslim Kosovar population to retake the territory.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Originally posted by Tulsaaggieson:

Yup we were protecting ethnic Muslims against ethnic Christians. You can purse words if you like, but the war was touted by the Clinton administration as protecting Muslims. The Serbians were Orthodox Christians, and were cleansing the Muslim Kosovar population to retake the territory.

Not because they were Muslim; because they weren't Serbian.

 

[hollywood]

Mega,

Depending upon where you are in the world, the notion of Islam can have a very wide variance by its practitioners. Go to Indonesia (the most populous "Muslim" majority nation) or Malaysia for example and the attitudes are fairly western. Open public sale of alcohol, mixing of men and women, skimpy bathing suits, western movies, gambling, etc. are all part and parcel of the culture. Go to the middle east and the rules are pretty relaxed in places like abu dubai as well.

Obviously, when you get into looking at the culture of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan then you can clearly see how Islam has been used to greatly F'up the places.

Islam was pretty advanced and fairly cool on many social issues until the impact of the ultra-orthodox and ultra-controlling aspects of Wahhabism started getting a foothold and spread through the wealth and influence of the Saudi Royal family starting in the late 1700's. (But it really started getting world wide adherents in the turn of the last century.) If you want to put your finger on the one thing that has really caused the vast majority of the problems, undoubtedly the really conservative fervor of Wahhabists practices and procedures is clearly that thing. Unfortunately, it seems to me that for pragmatic reasons relating solely to oil for the past many decades the US has turned a big blind eye to what is really going on in Saudi Arabia and how many members of the Royal Family have been instrumental in trying to turn Islamic extremists against the US. It's like there's a mini-civil war going on inside the royal family, with many pro-west and many just as anti-west. I don't care whose been in the office of the Presidency, it seems the stance as been to try and excuse and obfuscate the "bad" side of the Saudi issue so as to not offend them.

I know this may sound crazy coming from me, but about the only politician I have seen who has actually gone public with what I consider very valid and fact based criticism of the Saudi govt and royals has been of all people - Mike Huckabee.

Until the freakin Wahhabist came into dominating many of the middle eastern countries, most of the middle eastern nations were welcoming of both Christians and Jews. In fact, back in the 1920's, both Tehran and Baghdad were well known for their "Jewish Quarter" which by then current standards were the most "upscale" and prosperous places in the two respective cities. Not to say things were perfect for the Jews, but they weren't any worse than what most jews faced in Europe, from primarily Christian antagonists. Of course, after the State of Israel was created, much of that was destroyed.

But one other aspect of the points you make I would like to raise. Of those conflicts, how many ultimately were about protecting the supply of oil, depriving our enemies of that oil or otherwise in the end connected to the oil economy of the middle east? Without oil, we would we (USA) used the CIA to conspire with Britiish intelligence to overthrow the democratically elected Pres of Iran, to re-install a despotic dictator back on the throne? Any idea as to how many minds in Iran that poisoned towards us and the "west"? (Imagine if after the many years of struggle against the British we gain our independence, only for the French to team up with the British to undermine our new government and put King George back into a ruling place over the colonies?) The fallout and backlash from our decision to protect corporate interests over helping a fledgling democracy take root in the middle east has colored our efforts there for nearly 70 years and created resentment of the US as being a "colonial" power who forces their will on the people of the region.

I agree that Obama's recent statements about ISIS not being "islam" follows the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. But the criticism of these statements, sort of ignores the reasoning behind them and the fact that nearly identical statements were routinely issued by the Bush Administration. The point is that in order to maintain the diplomatic ties with the countries in the region standing up to Isis, we sort of have to "pretend" (or at least give them a public pat on the back) to help distinguish between those governments in the region who practice a far different form of Islam than Isis, so as to not alienate them or seem like we are condemning the entirety of Islam.

(An analogy of sorts would be saying that Westboro Baptist are not representative of Christianity, which I think most people would not take offense or split hairs over.) If ISIS is Islam, and the vast majority of its victims are members of Islam, it doesn't seem that far off base to me to try and say that ISIS is merely using the cover of religion/Islam to take the barbaric actions it is. Just as in Africa where the followers of Joseph Kony and the Lord's Resistance Army, whose publicly stated goal is to create a Christian nation in Uganda in which the 10 Commandments would be supreme law of the land, would almost certainly be denied being an actual "Christian" group based on their violent murders including multitudes of Christians.

One thing I cannot help but conclude: If there was no oil in the Middle East, the vast majority of these conflicts would not exist as there would be nothing worth fighting over or interfering with. That's part of why I am so hopeful we can shake our countries reliance on fossil fuels and leave these bassackwards folks to play in their own sandboxes.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that last post was possibly the biggest load of horse shit I've ever read.

This post was edited on 2/21 9:16 AM by Marshal Jim Duncan

 

[07pilt]

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:
Not to put to fine a point on it, but that last post was possibly the biggest load of horse shit I've ever read.

Donger level reasoning right there.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:
Not to put to fine a point on it, but that last post was possibly the biggest load of horse shit I've ever read.

Donger level reasoning right there.

Well, that's two notches above 07pilt level. So, I've got that going for me.

 

[long-duc-dong]

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:
Not to put to fine a point on it, but that last post was possibly the biggest load of horse shit I've ever read.

Donger level reasoning right there.

He's just calling a spade a spade. Hollywood's last post was all over the place. He couldn't make up his mind where he wanted to go with it so he just let the lawyer in him come out and enjoyed listening to himself typing. He does that often. Probably patted himself on the back when he hit post message. You do that sometimes. But hey, thanks for thinking of me.

 

[long-duc-dong]

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:
Not to put to fine a point on it, but that last post was possibly the biggest load of horse shit I've ever read.

Donger level reasoning right there.

Well, that's two notches above 07pilt level. So, I've got that going for me.

Two notches? Damn man my incoherent responses are at least three levels above the numbers nerd, no?

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Mega, I agree. I can't believe that the religion gets such a free pass. And it's not like ISIS is twisting the Koran, either. It's just a violent theology, and it's black and white. It's a tribal, stone-age religion.

All that said, the most pointless thing we could do is declare some type of "holy war" and pick a zero-sum fight with half the world.

 

[Anodyne]

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:

Originally posted by osu_orangestreak:
Lets go back to the beginning of the country.

The first military conflict authorized by Congress that the United States fought on foreign land and seas was against who?

The Barbary pirates, who were Muslim. BTW, the conflict in Kosovo was ethnic, not religious.

Despite some technical aspects of the question ('authorized by Congress'), It could be argued that the first action by the United States against a foreign enemy on foreign soil was the Northwest Indian War, which started in 1795. The Articles of the Confederation gave several tribes in the west full title of the land they lived on and started the process of formalizing diplomatic ties as if they were sovereign nations. This was the 'nations within a nation' era of Indian policy. But,obviously, there was no stopping white settlers from moving onto those lands, which created the conflict that led to Continental troops 'invading' the tribal lands to 'protect' the settlers.

If you disregard the NW Indian War, then you still have the Quasi-War of 1798-1800, spurred by the XYZ Affair (c'mon people, this was in your US History to 1865 intro course!). The US normalized relations with England (Jay Treaty---this will probably be an ID term on you midterm) in 1798 and refused to pay their war debt to France. After much saber-rattling and attacks by the French navy on American vessels, Congress voided the treaty with France and authorized the US navy to attack French ships. Yes, I know that technically this was not an authorized engagement on land and sea.

Also, it should be noted that the US went to great lengths to downplay the religion of the Barbary pirates (much more so in the second than first). And, you could invert the original question: who were the first foreign forces that the United States fought alongside after the conclusion of the Revolution (besides Indian allies in the NW Indian War and the British allies in the Quasi-War)? Muslims---as part of "mercenary" force led by US marines in the battle that inspired the Marine Corps Hymn.

 

[Anodyne]

Answer to Mega's original question is certainly Panama (1989) or you could say CIA-'advised' actions against FARC in Colombia (2001 to ?). There are, almost certainly, some US forces in Colombia playing a major role in things like firing smart missiles into Ecuador that take out FARC leaders.

 

[davidallen]

Haiti ('94 as I recall)
Panama
Somalia
OKC Bombing/McVey
Waco/Branch Davidians.
You could argue drug cartels on the boarder but they don't rise to the same level.

Of course on an international basis you don't hear about groups like the FNLC. Nor do we consider anti-Muslim terrorists like Anders Breivik. Muslim on Muslim violence is off the charts. And you have Israel to consider with 399 acts of terror committed by Israeli settlers per the State Department in 2013....


This post was edited on 2/24 1:40 PM by davidallen

 

[MegaPoke]

davidallen, statistically unrepresentative.

What is your motivation here? Just curious.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[aix_xpert]

"One thing I cannot help but conclude: If there was no oil in the Middle East, the vast majority of these conflicts would not exist as there would be nothing worth fighting over or interfering with. That's part of why I am so hopeful we can shake our countries reliance on fossil fuels and leave these bassackwards folks to play in their own sandboxes."

Why do we have to break our dependence on fossil fuels? We only need to break our dependence on THEIR fossil fuels, yet your Democratic allies are against any type of local fossil fuel development (fracking, Keystone, local coal, etc...). So by proxy you would prefer that we import from these regions, because there is no technical feasibility to use anything else.

Justin

 

[davidallen]

Originally posted by MegaPoke:
davidallen, statistically unrepresentative.

What is your motivation here? Just curious.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Motivation? Presenting some unthought of facts... Broadening the discussion to not just US but conflict in the world. Nothing much more than that.

Statistically unrepresentative? Curious how that might be. The narrower the perspective we take the fewer parallels we see. Is there something to learn from the IRA experience as it relates to ISIL? Don't know but it should be worth considering. Did the Basque uprisings perhaps show a path forward for Israel and the occupied territories? I am certainly no expert but it could be worth a discussion.

Religious extremism is a plague on humanity. The same for Chauvinism. The star of the moment is Islamic extremism - with nearly 1/4 the world population identifying as Muslim this is a huge problem. In the past we have had the Hutus and the Tutsis center stage with a million people dead in a 6 month time period. I think that actually is a statistically relevant addition to the conversation...

 

[CBradSmith]

Originally posted by MegaPoke:

What is your motivation here?

Posted from Rivals Mobile

A good question.

 

[CBradSmith]

Originally posted by davidallen:

Originally posted by MegaPoke:
davidallen, statistically unrepresentative.

What is your motivation here? Just curious.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

Motivation? Presenting some unthought of facts... Broadening the discussion to not just US but conflict in the world. Nothing much more than that.

Statistically unrepresentative? Curious how that might be. The narrower the perspective we take the fewer parallels we see. Is there something to learn from the IRA experience as it relates to ISIL? Don't know but it should be worth considering. Did the Basque uprisings perhaps show a path forward for Israel and the occupied territories? I am certainly no expert but it could be worth a discussion.

Religious extremism is a plague on humanity. The same for Chauvinism. The star of the moment is Islamic extremism - with nearly 1/4 the world population identifying as Muslim this is a huge problem. In the past we have had the Hutus and the Tutsis center stage with a million people dead in a 6 month time period. I think that actually is a statistically relevant addition to the conversation...

Didn't see this response, as I lagged in hitting "send" to my above post.

That said, you've got instances with generally accepted numbers, all in recent time.

Care to compile a quick netting out of numbers you (or others) attribute to "religious" associated violence, then putting that number over the generally accepted totals for practicing populations or "claim to be" populations of each religion. Next you can run that back into time to come up with a trend.

That would seem more worthwhile than arbitrarily throwing in other bad guys, as it would emulsify any vibe that you're pushing back against the growing belief that there's something rotten in the state of Denmark, er, Islam, by the generally recognized playground strategy of "see, others do it too." You'd poo-poo that right out of way by creating a framework for evaluation.

Appreciated.

 

[davidallen]

I'll get right on that... yeah, no.

 

[BIGOSUFAN]

Originally posted by davidallen:

Originally posted by MegaPoke:
davidallen, statistically unrepresentative.

What is your motivation here? Just curious.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

The star of the moment is Islamic extremism - with nearly 1/4 the world population identifying as Muslim this is a huge problem.

Except that ISIS are not "extremists", they are simply Muslims who are following the teachings of Muhammad to a tee. Their interpretation of Islam is a historically correct interpretation.

 

[davidallen]

My friend Google helped me find this...it might help answer some of your questions.

Actually, a pretty decent skim. Not sure of the reputability of the authors, but a lot of data here.

Page 31 of the PDF gives you their analysis of religious motivation for terrorism over time. Combine that with the composition by group on page 50ish and you see exactly what we have all said here. Islamic extremism is a huge problem. Other things cause people to do evil as well.


This post was edited on 2/25 11:39 AM by davidallen

Global Terrorism Index Report

 

[CBradSmith]

Originally posted by davidallen:
I'll get right on that... yeah, no.

Haha, I figured. We like to gripe on this site, but rarely validate or produce.

I'll grant that you're one I generally associate with being intellectually honest. Though I'm not fond of the "others do it" strategy that doesn't move the ball along on a topic at hand.

 

[davidallen]

Originally posted by CBradSmith:

Originally posted by davidallen:
I'll get right on that... yeah, no.

Haha, I figured. We like to gripe on this site, but rarely validate or produce.

I'll grant that you're one I generally associate with being intellectually honest. Though I'm not fond of the "others do it" strategy that doesn't move the ball along on a topic at hand.

Griping is cheap an easy. Sometimes that is all I have time for! My intent was just to broaden the conversation... Don't really disagree with the anti Islam sentiment. I just extend it a bit to an anti religious extremism sentiment.

 

[CBradSmith]

Originally posted by davidallen:

Originally posted by CBradSmith:

Originally posted by davidallen:
I'll get right on that... yeah, no.

Haha, I figured. We like to gripe on this site, but rarely validate or produce.

I'll grant that you're one I generally associate with being intellectually honest. Though I'm not fond of the "others do it" strategy that doesn't move the ball along on a topic at hand.

Griping is cheap an easy. Sometimes that is all I have time for! My intent was just to broaden the conversation... Don't really disagree with the anti Islam sentiment. I just extend it a bit to an anti religious extremism sentiment.

I wouldn't call it "anti-Islam sentiment," but rather an "Is there a distrubing trend within the population that identifies itself as Islamic."

Two totally different things, but the ramifications of the different characterizations can mean a lot about the person(s) engaging in dialogue on the topic.

I hear ya on the time thing.

 

[davidallen]

Originally posted by BIGOSUFAN:

Originally posted by davidallen:

Originally posted by MegaPoke:
davidallen, statistically unrepresentative.

What is your motivation here? Just curious.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

The star of the moment is Islamic extremism - with nearly 1/4 the world population identifying as Muslim this is a huge problem.

Except that ISIS are not "extremists", they are simply Muslims who are following the teachings of Muhammad to a tee. Their interpretation of Islam is a historically correct interpretation.

I guess that is a question for you and your Imam to decide... Anecdotally I know many Muslims horrified by the violence of ISIL and others. That doesn't count for much and I don't particularly care to do the homework to understand what "true Islam" is just as I don't really ever intend to sort out and reconcile the violence of the Torah/Old Testament.

 

[CBradSmith]

Hollywood could legitimize what he's surmising by parsing out the data as well.

Otherwise the notion that BUT FOR oil, there'd be no conflict, is simply what his heart wants with no evidence to support one way or the other.

Also might include in the analysis the prohibitive nature of clashing with a largely Islamic practicing nation in Indonesia due to location. Or, what correlation does proximity and ease of accessibility have to do with conflict - from both sides of conflict?

 

[davidallen]

Originally posted by CBradSmith:

Hollywood could legitimize what he's surmising by parsing out the data as well.

Otherwise the notion that BUT FOR oil, there'd be no conflict, is simply what his heart wants with no evidence to support one way or the other.

Also might include in the analysis the prohibitive nature of clashing with a largely Islamic practicing nation in Indonesia due to location. Or, what correlation does proximity and ease of accessibility have to do with conflict - from both sides of conflict?

You do see that one could build a credible argument of a snow ball effect? I don't think Wood or anyone else is saying oil is an exclusive, necessary, or even sufficient condition for the state of affairs in the Islamic world. Rather, it is one of many factors that contribute to those state of affairs.

Partitioning of the Middle East by the Brits, the creation of Israel, the west's need for reliable cheap oil (and the support of political allies who weren't exactly working in the interest of the people) - each cause contributing to a larger and larger divide between the Muslim and nonMuslim world - playing off the tribal tendencies of humans across the planet. How else do you end up with Richard Reid (other than he was nuts)?

In no way does this explain away the moral failing of ISIL, OBL, et al. Islam is a necessary condition no doubt, but Wood does at least speak to causes contributing to that historically distant philosophy/religion.

This post was edited on 2/25 1:20 PM by davidallen

 

[BIGOSUFAN]

Originally posted by davidallen:

Originally posted by BIGOSUFAN:

Originally posted by davidallen:

Originally posted by MegaPoke:
davidallen, statistically unrepresentative.

What is your motivation here? Just curious.


Posted from Rivals Mobile

The star of the moment is Islamic extremism - with nearly 1/4 the world population identifying as Muslim this is a huge problem.

Except that ISIS are not "extremists", they are simply Muslims who are following the teachings of Muhammad to a tee. Their interpretation of Islam is a historically correct interpretation.

I guess that is a question for you and your Imam to decide... Anecdotally I know many Muslims horrified by the violence of ISIL and others. That doesn't count for much and I don't particularly care to do the homework to understand what "true Islam" is just as I don't really ever intend to sort out and reconcile the violence of the Torah/Old Testament.

I agree that most rank-and-file Muslims are decent people. I am simply pointing out that by objectively studying the history of Islam, ISIS is following the teachings of the Muslim prophet very closely.

 

[CBradSmith]

So now the topic pivots to...what?