Good points or no, they're nothing but opinions without factual backup. So, yes, if someone wants to debate something serious like this with me over beer or a boardgame, they'd better come armed with facts, or they're getting nowhere. You might've noticed me not budging from any position stated without a factual rebuttal. I don't assume wrongness based on their level of involvement or their opinion. I assume wrongness based on opinions offered differing from facts I have observed.

The 12,000 attacks is as close to fact as we can get. It comes from: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ , which has sifted through and logged all (reported) terrorist attacks in the world, and excluded those not connected with Islamic terrorists. If you scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page (just above the 4 pictures that starts with Ismail Haniyeh) you will see links to previous years' lists, and scroll just above that and you will see the list for this year beginning at 10/8/2008. So, yeah, I didn't pull it out of my ass.

"A few" bad apples? How many terrorist attacks in recent memory can be contributed to other religions? How many terrorist attacks, if any, other than those carried out by Muslim extremists, can you recall?

857 people died in November alone at the hands of Islamic militants.

How the hell can you even -attempt- to justify that? Oh, its just a small fraction of Muslims. . . . . . I'm sure the people of Mumbai would be glad to hear that.

Invictus: I didn't say Islam was founded in 622. I said Jihad has been active since then.

The Jihad against the Arabs, 622-634 C.E.
http://www.historyofjihad.com/

Sorry, but it's immaterial to my point.

C.E is what's stupid, not Jihad happening since then. Islam was spread by the sword, that's just history.

how anti muslim is that site Marchosias if your going to find information at least find it from a credible, neautral source.

... You just summed up my entire argument in one simple sentence.

"Islam was spread by the sword, that's just history."

That's going to go in my signatures on other forums, with credit to you.

christianity was also spread by the sword invictus, ot that you said it wasnt just clarifying a point

I didn't say Christianity wasn't, but Jesus didn't lead an army to take Jerusalem. Sure the Spanish forced it on the Indians, but the Apostles didn't wage war on Rome.

Am I alone on thinking Common Era is ridiculous?

Anti-Muslim *extremist*. Anti-Muslim *militants*. Anti-Muslim *terrorists*. Trim, since you're calling into question the credibility of my source, I challenge you to disprove any -one- of the facts they have presented. And if, and only if, you can manage that task, your next job is to find me a more credible source. Just one. And if you manage to find me a site with a better, more comprehensive logging of militant Islamic attacks, I will happily use them as my new source.

But you won't. You can't. Not only because you don't want to, and that you believe that it can't be done, you've purposely made the decision to keep yourself ignorant.

You won't accept any kernel of truth because it goes against your beliefs. You -believe- that you're correct, and nothing can sway you from that position. I'm more than willing to admit that I'm wrong, but there's a whole lot of proof, and bodies, that are weighing against you.

... I do love how Trim has to point to the negative aspects of Christianity to support Muslim Terrorists. The two are not connected, and the one does not justify the other.

More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined.

Invictus, yes, the Common Era thing is ridiculous. It can -also- mean Christian Era, if you're of the Anno Domini crowd. They changed it to be more "sensitive" to non-Christian cultures. Gotta love Political Correctness.

your missing the points compeletly, these extremists are doing acts in the name of the muslim face but its not what the koran says at all, and looking at your sources i can see why you have ended up so misguided. Go read a book not an internet site by a respected accreditied islamic teacher, let me just go look through my books and il find you a good one.

i didnt point to the negative aspects of christinatiy at all i was just saying that not just islam was spread by the point of the sword.if you want i will gladly go and point out the many negative aspects of christianity but i wont as it has no bearing on this discussion.

I think you're missing the point. The argument is about actions. The Koran can be abused just like the Bible.

Do you honestly deny these things are happening because of a misapplication of Muslim belief?

What is wrong with spreading what you believe is truth by the sword? I am not arguing in favor of modern terrorists but I would argue that Mohammad and his armies displayed nothing but piety. At least most of them ;)

How can you have a pious war?

No, Trim, you're missing the point. Yes, Christianity -was- spread by the sword. Now Christianity is spread through missionaries, words, and paper. Islam was also spread by the sword. And now Islam is spread by knives, grenades, IEDs, suicide bombers, car bombers, RPGs, mortars...

I have read "a" book. That book was the Quran. I don't need to read a misguiding book by one of your "respected" Islamic teachers that says, no, no, Islam is the Religion of Peace... Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... (the terrorists killing people...)

I get enough sleight of hand from the American media. I don't need it from a Muslim attempting to disguise the intentions of the extremist sect of his own religion.

Invictus: If your religion advocates war, you can conduct it piously.

Speaking of which...

Last words of the flight crew of Flight 93:

"Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!"

You're starting to lose me.

Marchosias, I appreciate your points but I'm going to make a case for a different picture of the world.

You've agreed that religion is not inherently violent, but you keep making the distinction that extremists are predominantly Muslim. Your main point seems to be that the Koran is a violent and xenophobic text and so it is to be expected that we have violent Muslim extremists.

I am absolutely disgusted by military extremism and in no ways condone it's actions. I don't think that Islam is the root of the issue though. I do think that it provides many of the justifications for the extreme actions, but I would say most religions have justification for extreme action, and religious leaders have always found a way to justify some sort of interpretation of holy text to suit some objective. In the end though, it is not the Muslim religion that is the motivation, it is the justification for extremist actions which ultimately have non-religious objectives.

In the end, extremists are always the underdogs. It's not because they are a certain group of people, it's because that certain group of people is oppressed or unequal. That's not to say that all underdogs are extremists, but that all extremists are underdogs. It's always the most desperate, with the most to gain, that are the most violent in their actions. Religion is used as justification and as a cohesive force, but it is not the root cause.

For example, I wouldn't say that Ahmadenijad is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons because he firmly believes that his role in life is to send as many white people to the grave as possible, but because it would give Iran a lot more political power. I wouldn't say that the Middle East resents the modern state of Israel because they are Muslim and Isreal is a Jewish state, but because they feel that much was taken away from them without their permission to create the state of Israel and they resent that. Obviously historical conflicts colour this affair, but in the end it's simply the us vs. them quality that colours all human affairs in history. It's not that the Koran is especially xenophobic, it's that humans are quite naturally xenophobic since they tend to be part of some group which is naturally in conflict with other groups for finite resources.

I'm not justifying their actions, because I think they're morally horrendous, but I would point out that it's easier for us to not be violent because we're on top, and sometimes it's the only recourse they have, or they know.

It might be interesting that most terrorist attacks are conducted by Muslims with whichever statistics you see, but it's correlation, not causation, and I think that Christianity could just as easily have served as justification. In the end, we can't justify actions against Muslims simply because of this...

Do you honestly deny these things are happening because of a misapplication of Muslim belief? well no thats pretty much exactly what im saying.

So Marchosias so you would prefer to get your information from inflammitary, misguided, fear mongering websites rather than accredicted experts on the subject, actually that does seem to tie in with all your views on this topic so i will leave you to your own misguided opinion.

I think the connections you're making between Islam and violence are actually just the connections between violence and humanity and historical underdogs. The most violent parts of Christian history were when they were not top dog.

and to finish it off quickly why the koran is a book of peace-But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).
Qur'an 8:61

Invictus: They were essentially praying to Allah as they killed themselves, their plane load of people, and everyone else they killed in the buildings. Their holy text commands killing unbelievers. Therefore, conducting their war piously.

Chris: You make some great points, and, for the first time today, I find someone who offers a differing opinion that I agree with- bravo sir.

But I again must clarify that I am not justifying actions against Muslims, not by any stretch of the imagination. I will restate that I have a number of Muslim friends who are some of the coolest people I know. (Yes, I'm from California, I talk funny sometimes.) They are the ones who supply me with a lot of the anti-Islamic militant fodder. They are the ones who pointed me to the websites I've been quoting most often.

In support of what you're saying, I'm going to quote Robert Heinlein.

"...experience taught them that what they were doing was the way to survive. [What they] do with pleasure and success must be 'moral.' "

...With the point previously made that the survival instinct can be cultivated into an instinct for the survival or a group through the sacrifice of an individual.

Trim: "So Marchosias so you would prefer to get your information from inflammitary, misguided, fear mongering websites rather than accredicted experts on the subject, actually that does seem to tie in with all your views on this topic so i will leave you to your own misguided opinion."

Inflammatory, misguided, fear mongering websites? How many other world religions have had to clean up Clerics of their religion because they were smeared by a a bomb they were putting together inside their house of worship?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/afghan-mosque-blast.jpg

If you can show me an "accredited expert" who admits that Muslim terrorists are actually killing people, that they're wrong for doing it, and condemns all the terror attacks, then I'll listen to him. But if he's like any of the "accredited expers" I've seen interviewed, or read statements from, they make no apologies and offer only smoke and mirrors.

And, Trim, you failed to quote the sutras right before 8:61. Here, I'll cover for you and show the whole thing.

(8:59) And let not those who disbelieve think that they shall come in first; surely they will not escape. (8:60) Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly. (8:61)But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).

So, sure, if your enemy wants peace- after you've struck terror in their hearts by the show of your military, then by all means, make peace with them. In other words: make them surrender, make them submit. And then you can have peace. Very peaceful text you have there, Trim.

Chris: Really? How about the Spanish Inquisition? That was Christian on Christian violence when it was the dominant religion in Europe. And the Crusades? The only Western European territory endangered by the Muslims at the time was Spain, and what would become Turkey, but was the Byzantine Empire. Otherwise, Christians in that situation were top dog still. And what about the Conquistadors? Certainly the Christians had the upper hand in that battle as well.

Christianity at its worst was during the height of its power. Kinda throws a monkey wrench in your argument, but nonetheless, I do see the connection between guerilla warfare/terrorism and being the underdogs.

And just in case you think that picture I posted is just more "misguidedness", here. Will you trust the Khaleej Times?

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/darticlen.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2008/August/subcontinent_August154.xml&section=subcontinent&col

you have totally misunderstood that quote havnt you, its not about scaring people into submiting, i have had enough of this, explain away this one then- Those who believe (in the Quran), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians...and (all) who believe in God and the last day and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." The Qur'an, 2:62

im not looking at anymore of your links as the first 2 websites you posted shows how biased your information is.

Marchosias... Christianity may have been dominant in Europe during the time of the Crusades but it absolutely was not dominant religion. Islam was very much alive and kicking... it's funny that you dismiss the fall of the Byzantine Empire which was one of the largest Christian empires, with Constantinople being the seat of the Eastern Orthodoxy and definitely an important city to the Christian religion having been named after the man who brought Christianity to the limelight as the first Christian emperor. The Ottoman empire was very much threatening Europe, going as far as to lay siege to Vienna. They had naval superiority and controlled the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, and the Bosphorus, as well as the land route to China forcing Christian Europeans to turn westward for an alternate route.

If you think the Conquistadors had the upper hand you should probably look at the numbers again... they were only successful because they were lucky and they were ruthless in their exploitation of the welcome they received. If they hadn't been so swift and violent they would have never staked their claim against the Aztec and Incan empires. They assassinated their leaders after exchanging gifts and being hosted for months... If that happened in any one of our nations that would immediately be called extreme...