Islam

[Aerion Brightflame]

So how about we discuss practical solutions to the issue of Islamic extremism rather than continue this pretty cyclical argument about whether Muslims are a problem or not, and whether the religion is inherently problematic or not. Because it's not going in a direction that's really contributing to anything, so lets make it constructive. 

 

Because, the one of  common things people say which is 'boots on the ground' has been shown not to work quite effectively over the last twenty or thirty years. So, people; What approach should we take to try stop this from being a problem in ten or twenty or thirty years? 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

My stance is simple. All Muslims aren't bad, because there's more to a person than just their religion. Islam itself is cancerous...and ironically growing uncontrollably 

[vla1ne]

Still a bit confused.  Are we condemning all of Islam, part of it, or. . .?

 

I can agree it is problematic.  But I'm not gonna say we should nuke 'em.  So I guess we're going back to war?  Again?  When we can't afford it?  Everybody hates Islam but I don't see a solution yet.

We (or at least i) are condemning parts of it, while also stressing that all of it needs a critical overlook. the book itself supports practices that are barbaric in this day and age, such as death for apostates and nonbelievers, and those in the extremist factions of this religion, even if they're in the minority, are getting their ideas directly from the book itself. that's the criticism, and even if it's only a minority who're becoming extremists, they are still a massive problem due to the way they operate

 

So how about we discuss practical solutions to the issue of Islamic extremism rather than continue this pretty cyclical argument about whether Muslims are a problem or not, and whether the religion is inherently problematic or not. Because it's not going in a direction that's really contributing to anything, so lets make it constructive. 

 

Because, the one of  common things people say which is 'boots on the ground' has been shown not to work quite effectively over the last twenty or thirty years. So, people; What approach should we take to try stop this from being a problem in ten or twenty or thirty years? 

The most efficient/effective approaches are often the most cruel ones in situations like these, and nobody wants that, so sadly, there's not going to be any lasting solutions until we either get past that way of thinking, or the extremists somehow change their minds.

[Agro]

For the record, there ARE Christian organizations and rebel groups that want to enforce christian law and are labeled as terrorist organizations who have killed many in contemporary history.

 

Here's a few to look at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Front_of_Tripura

- "The NLFT seeks to secede from India and establish an independent Tripuri state, and has actively participated in the Tripura Rebellion. The NLFT manifesto says that they want to expand what they describe as the kingdom of God and Jesus Christ in Tripura."

- "The NLFT has been described as engaging in terrorist violence motivated by their Christian beliefs."

- "The BBC reported in 2005 that independent investigations as well as confessions from surrendered members showed that the NLFT had been making and selling pornography to finance their activities. This includes DVDs of pornographic films made by the group with tribal men and women kidnapped and forced to participate in sex acts while being filmed. The movies are dubbed into various languages and sold illegally throughout the region for a profit. Statements from former members and one report state that the NLFT has a history of sexually abusing tribal women."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Council_of_Nagaland

- "The Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland (Burmese: NSCN) is a Naga nationalist Christian paramilitary group operating mainly in Northeast India, with minor activities in Northwest Myanmar. The main goal of the organisation is to establish a sovereign state, "Nagalim""

- "The organization's slogan is "Nagaland for Christ". Its manifesto is based on the principle of Socialism for economic development and a Baptist Christian religious outlook ‘Nagaland for Christ’. In some of their documents the NSCN has called for recognizing only Christianity in Nagalim. They believe in Christian theocracy.

- The group reportedly indulges in kidnapping, extortion and other terrorist activities. NSCN is accused of carrying out the 1992–1993 ethnic cleansing of Kuki tribes in Manipur, said to have leave over 900 people dead. During that NSCN-IM operation, 350 Kuki villages were driven out and about 100,000 Kukis were turned into refugees

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karantina_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_al-Zaatar_massacre

- "Maronite Christian militias perpetrated the Karantina and Tel al-Zaatar massacres of Palestinians and Lebanese Muslims during Lebanon's 1975–1990 civil war. The 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre, which targeted unarmed Palestinian refugees for rape and murder, was considered to be genocide by the United Nations General Assembly."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

- Y'all remember KONY2012 right?

- ...its stated goals include establishment of multi-party democracy, ruling Uganda according to the Ten Commandments.

- It was listed as a terrorist group by the United States [...] and has been accused of widespread human rights violations, including murder, abduction, mutilation, child-sex slavery, and forcing children to participate in hostilities.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

- you know what the ku klux klan is

[Shalltear Bloodfallen]

For the record, there ARE Christian organizations and rebel groups that want to enforce christian law and are labeled as terrorist organizations who have killed many in contemporary history.

 

Here's a few to look at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Front_of_Tripura

- "The NLFT seeks to secede from India and establish an independent Tripuri state, and has actively participated in the Tripura Rebellion. The NLFT manifesto says that they want to expand what they describe as the kingdom of God and Jesus Christ in Tripura."

- "The NLFT has been described as engaging in terrorist violence motivated by their Christian beliefs."

- "The BBC reported in 2005 that independent investigations as well as confessions from surrendered members showed that the NLFT had been making and selling pornography to finance their activities. This includes DVDs of pornographic films made by the group with tribal men and women kidnapped and forced to participate in sex acts while being filmed. The movies are dubbed into various languages and sold illegally throughout the region for a profit. Statements from former members and one report state that the NLFT has a history of sexually abusing tribal women."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Council_of_Nagaland

- "The Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland (Burmese: NSCN) is a Naga nationalist Christian paramilitary group operating mainly in Northeast India, with minor activities in Northwest Myanmar. The main goal of the organisation is to establish a sovereign state, "Nagalim""

- "The organization's slogan is "Nagaland for Christ". Its manifesto is based on the principle of Socialism for economic development and a Baptist Christian religious outlook ‘Nagaland for Christ’. In some of their documents the NSCN has called for recognizing only Christianity in Nagalim. They believe in Christian theocracy.

- The group reportedly indulges in kidnapping, extortion and other terrorist activities. NSCN is accused of carrying out the 1992–1993 ethnic cleansing of Kuki tribes in Manipur, said to have leave over 900 people dead. During that NSCN-IM operation, 350 Kuki villages were driven out and about 100,000 Kukis were turned into refugees

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karantina_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_al-Zaatar_massacre

- "Maronite Christian militias perpetrated the Karantina and Tel al-Zaatar massacres of Palestinians and Lebanese Muslims during Lebanon's 1975–1990 civil war. The 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre, which targeted unarmed Palestinian refugees for rape and murder, was considered to be genocide by the United Nations General Assembly."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

- Y'all remember KONY2012 right?

- ...its stated goals include establishment of multi-party democracy, ruling Uganda according to the Ten Commandments.

- It was listed as a terrorist group by the United States [...] and has been accused of widespread human rights violations, including murder, abduction, mutilation, child-sex slavery, and forcing children to participate in hostilities.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

- you know what the ku klux klan is

 

See this post, this is a good post

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

See this post, this is a good post

Literally nobody said Christianity is innocent. NEVER.

 

We're saying Islam is significantly worse both in theory and action

[vla1ne]

See this post, this is a good post

it is definitely a good post, but it does not negate the current problem, Unless you're saying that allowing history to repeat itself with another religion is the proper way to go? Yes, christian extremists have, and do exist, but they are to be tolerated no more than the Islamic groups. The problem remains.

[Shalltear Bloodfallen]

Literally nobody said Christianity is innocent. NEVER.

 

We're saying Islam is significantly worse both in theory and action

 

I suggest you read it again.

 

The point wasnt that "Christianity isnt innocent". The point was "Even christianity has people prepared to use whatever means necessary to establish a "Christian state"" (among other things)

[Agro]

man i hope ali has more patience than i do

 

assuming he even comes here anymore

[StellarNova]

If you want to solve a problem in a rational way, you first have to acknowledge what the problem really is. So this discussion here is not a waste of time, in fact, this discussion is long overdue. We have to get our priorities straight. Nobody said that you can't criticize Christianity and Islam at the same time, or that if you are against the Taliban you are a Bush-lover or something. But some problems are worse than others.

[VCR_CAT]

It's safe to say that at any point in time a group with whatever set of beliefs or worldview has attempted to impose said worldview as the governing law. The matter is not so much that ideologies or beliefs are making people want to do such things, but rather that such people are using said ideologies or beliefs to attempt to accomplish such things. Instead of trying to argue over what religion is responsible for what, let's focus on the topic at hand.

 

And another thing to point out, and this is more so directed to Winter who did this, as a person who's done religious studies at a post-secondary level, I do not recommend you simply take quotes from a religious text as a way of trying to establish an argument. You're not taking into account historical or cultural context, or even whatever else is going on in the text, or considering alternate translations and what the words in the original language could have meant. Unless you're showing the studies you've put into said texts and are able to show the most probable intended meaning of said texts and what it would have meant for its original, intended audience (which I can tell you right now isn't a 21st century North American male), you're backing your argument with faulty information and a distinct lack of proper research.

[StellarNova]

If these so-called "revealed truths" are dependent on their historical context, that's another reason to ditch them. To the religious mind, the word of god is literally true, no matter what the era.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

VCR, that would be fair, except a vast majority of Muslims show a desire to live under the literal meaning of the words. Those quotes DO represent the Islam I'm critising

 

That's like saying Future Fusion wasn't meant for Dragons, well no sheet, but it still needed to be put down when times made it a problem with them (I apologize for using a YGO example in a sensitive discussion, but it fit)

 

Laz, the point being unlike Islam they have not acted upon it as violently.

 

Ie. Islam is kingpin of religious cancer

 

Nobody is saying all Muslims are bad, I'll go a step further and say most Muslims are wonderful people. But the religion they follow is a backwards reactionary hateful one

[VCR_CAT]

If these so-called "revealed truths" are dependent on their historical context, that's another reason to ditch them. To the religious mind, the word of god is literally true, no matter what the era.

 

It's really not, and your second statement is about as equally false and ignorant as your first. If your intention is to shitpost; please don't. If you genuinely believe what you just said, then I suggest you go educate yourself before you make such claims.

 

 

 

VCR, that would be fair, except a vast majority of Muslims show a desire to live under the literal meaning of the words. Those quotes DO represent the Islam I'm critising

 

That's like saying Future Fusion wasn't meant for Dragons, well no s***, but it still needed to be put down when times made it a problem with them (I apologize for using a YGO example in a sensitive discussion, but it fit)

 

Laz, the point being unlike Islam they have not acted upon it as violently.

 

Ie. Islam is kingpin of religious cancer

 

Nobody is saying all Muslims are bad, I'll go a step further and say most Muslims are wonderful people. But the religion they follow is a backwards reactionary hateful one

 

I'm not suggesting you that I think you think muslims are bad people; and it's good to hear that you are making that disconnection between what information you hear about their belief and the people in that group. That's solid.

 

Unfortunately, your first statement isn't one I can take at face value because it's making a lot of assumptions that have no factual grounding. It's coming across more like you've developed an opinion regarding their beliefs system based on what you've heard about ISIS and other terrorist/fundamentalist/extremist groups or graphs posted in this thread (that don't actually grant as much information as your claim suggests they do).

 

What I'm saying here is; I strongly suggest you take the time to really learn what's what with a given religion before you make such statements. There's a lot more to learning what's behind a given belief system than casually reading one translation of an ancient text and following the news.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It actually came from my first hand encounter with Muslim civilians in India. Civilians, not Daesh. I'm not so Asanine to think that Daesh represents anything but themselves.

 

I'm terrified that a Muslim man down the street from my grandfather's for example cut off off his Wife's ears cause he suspected her of adultery and then proudly proclaim of his actions

 

I knew that man, and he seemed friendly to perfection. Yet look at the malice inherent. That's what Islam does to you

 

I'm terrified that people want to live under those laws, and that the head of CAIR for god sakes wants my beloved country to become an Islamic one.

 

Anecdotal? Sure. But it becomes less so when you have entire countries that operate under those laws

[mido9]

So how about we discuss practical solutions to the issue of Islamic extremism rather than continue this pretty cyclical argument about whether Muslims are a problem or not, and whether the religion is inherently problematic or not. Because it's not going in a direction that's really contributing to anything, so lets make it constructive. 

 

Because, the one of  common things people say which is 'boots on the ground' has been shown not to work quite effectively over the last twenty or thirty years. So, people; What approach should we take to try stop this from being a problem in ten or twenty or thirty years? 

In my opinion, a start would be to close up Sharia Courts in the UK or to ease them out: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3358625/Inside-Britain-s-Sharia-courts-EIGHTY-FIVE-Islamic-courts-dispensing-justice-UK-special-investigation-really-goes-doors-shock-core.html

 

It's kinda silly to have areas where a faith can totally supersede the law of a nation, especially when it's overall a much less just way to administer law especially for women. Then I guess you could lax up hate-speech laws against Islam and migrants, such as how The Guardian has removed comments on anything involving Islam or migrants. I mean, it's the most controversial, EU-Warping thing in the world now and it's not even allowed to be discussed?

[chairman ali]

LOL, the guy who posted a bunch of Ayat (Surah is a chapter, Ayah [plural: ayat] is a verse. Learn the terms before posting) has no idea how the Quraan works.

 

You've posted a bunch of Ayat but you didn't state when they were revealed, why they were revealed, about whom it was revealed, what is the tafseer (dissection) that is accepted by EACH school of Islam (Shia, Sunni, Sufi, etc.), what Ayah came before and after it, etc.

 

I hate to break it to you but this is called the Science of Tafseer. The Quraan, if you actually did your research, needs a teacher to teach you the utmost basics and then explain to you different aspects of it by using Hadeeth and Jurisprudence. 

 

EACH Ayah of the Quraan has 7 layers of meanings. Only a Prophet or Imam (both appointed by God) knows the 7 meanings. Some scholars may know a few layers. 

 

You're pretty much doing what members of ISIS do. They use one Ayah, take it completely out of its context and use it to justify their actions. They have no knowledge of Hadeeth science or Tafseer Science.

 

Oh and btw, I turned my library upside down to find anything about killing the raped, couldn't find anything. The rapist, in Islam, is sentenced to death. The raped doesn't get prosecuted for anything because she's a victim. Killing someone who's been raped is a cultural thing in a lot of the "Stan" countries.

[Dad]

LOL, the guy who posted a bunch of Ayat (Surah is a chapter, Ayah [plural: ayat] is a verse. Learn the terms before posting) has no idea how the Quraan works.

 

You've posted a bunch of Ayat but you didn't state when they were revealed, why they were revealed, about whom it was revealed, what is the tafseer (dissection) that is accepted by EACH school of Islam (Shia, Sunni, Sufi, etc.), what Ayah came before and after it, etc.

 

I hate to break it to you but this is called the Science of Tafseer. The Quraan, if you actually did your research, needs a teacher to teach you the utmost basics and then explain to you different aspects of it by using Hadeeth and Jurisprudence. 

 

EACH Ayah of the Quraan has 7 layers of meanings. Only a Prophet or Imam (both appointed by God) knows the 7 meanings. Some scholars may know a few layers. 

 

You're pretty much doing what members of ISIS do. They use one Ayah, take it completely out of its context and use it to justify their actions. They have no knowledge of Hadeeth science or Tafseer Science.

 

Oh and btw, I turned my library upside down to find anything about killing the raped, couldn't find anything. The rapist, in Islam, is sentenced to death. The raped doesn't get prosecuted for anything because she's a victim. Killing someone who's been raped is a cultural thing in a lot of the "Stan" countries.

 

Just for the sake of learning what's actually going on--even if my PM or something of the sort--could you actually explain the quoted pieces or verses that are being talked about?  I'm actually interested in understanding what's going on.

[chairman ali]

Just for the sake of learning what's actually going on--even if my PM or something of the sort--could you actually explain the quoted pieces or verses that are being talked about?  I'm actually interested in understanding what's going on.

 

I can appoint you to a forum where you can ask any questions. I'm no Tafseer expert, unfortunately. PM me if interested.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

LOL, the guy who posted a bunch of Ayat (Surah is a chapter, Ayah [plural: ayat] is a verse. Learn the terms before posting) has no idea how the Quraan works.

 

You've posted a bunch of Ayat but you didn't state when they were revealed, why they were revealed, about whom it was revealed, what is the tafseer (dissection) that is accepted by EACH school of Islam (Shia, Sunni, Sufi, etc.), what Ayah came before and after it, etc.

 

I hate to break it to you but this is called the Science of Tafseer. The Quraan, if you actually did your research, needs a teacher to teach you the utmost basics and then explain to you different aspects of it by using Hadeeth and Jurisprudence. 

 

EACH Ayah of the Quraan has 7 layers of meanings. Only a Prophet or Imam (both appointed by God) knows the 7 meanings. Some scholars may know a few layers. 

 

You're pretty much doing what members of ISIS do. They use one Ayah, take it completely out of its context and use it to justify their actions. They have no knowledge of Hadeeth science or Tafseer Science.

 

Oh and btw, I turned my library upside down to find anything about killing the raped, couldn't find anything. The rapist, in Islam, is sentenced to death. The raped doesn't get prosecuted for anything because she's a victim. Killing someone who's been raped is a cultural thing in a lot of the "Stan" countries.

Isn't the proper way to cite verses, like

 

(40:28, i.e. sura 40, ayah 28)

 

I should have said (Surah 2: Ayah 216), but I didn't think just saying (Surah 2:216) would confuse people that much

 

As for the rest, you said it yourself, very few people know all 7 verses, a lot more can read Arabic or English or w/e religion this text is translated to. Ignoring the face value of the texts under the guise that it's a misinterpretation is silly, because the amount of people who read the literal meaning of the text far exceeds those who understand the "true" meansing

 

In some twisted way, Islam is a the foundation for Daesh, pulling that justification out form under their feet isn't a poor endevor to follow

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Islam is the most popular religion in the world with over 1.6 billion people - about a quarter of the world's population. It has been around for about a millennium and a half.

 

ISIS has been around for around a decade and a half, with at most, 25000 fighters (the CIA's number as of 2016). The NYPD, for reference, has twice as many members. 

 

ISIS's roots are every bit as American as they are "Islamic".

 

If you want to fear ISIS, go ahead. If you want to believe 9/11 was solely the fault of Al-Qaeda and justified the Iraq war, go ahead. If you prefer to believe JFK was assassinated by a lone gunman, go ahead. Some enjoy the Goat Control format. To each their own.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Islam is the most popular religion in the world with over 1.6 billion people - about a quarter of the world's population. It has been around for about a millennium and a half.

And while most other religions have cleaned up their act, Islam hasn't

 

Nobody is denying Christianity funked up, but you can see progression from 1000 AD Christianity to current

 

The fact that half the Arab countries are the way that they are pretty clearly demonstrates that Islam is a broken system (well Religion is in general, but that's too unpopular of a stance to take for atleast another 100 years)

 

Again, my stance is, Islam is the problem not the people, maybe in part due to the ignorance of the majority of people w/ regards to the Quran's teachings

 

But that's not an excuse, what you "mean" doesn't hold much water when the physical meaning that people are following is stoning people for having an affair

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

The fact that half the Arab countries are the way that they are pretty clearly demonstrates that Islam is a broken system

 

 

Correlation in our current global snapshot 1500 years later does not imply causation (though it would of course be in the interests of Islam's staunch opponents for us to overlook that). Islamic countries have historically been relatively prosperous (certainly relative to today), and still today Qatar has the highest GDP per capita in the world.

 

Today we live in a world in which the global empire is predominantly Christian. Global empires tend to do their share of invading, colonizing and enslaving with the United States being no exception. It makes sense, then, that 55% of the world's wealth today belongs to Christians and 5.8% belongs to Muslims. Islam is still in second place, mind you, with Hinduism at 3.3%. Hinduism has a lower GDP per capita than Islam, but gets considerably less flack. 

 

As for your allegation that today's Muslims have killed more people than today's Christians, it's absurd. 

If Muslims have just now decided to wake up, smell the roses and set up their murder industrial complex, they're pretty far behind the curve set by America the beautiful, which is no doubt the reason America so graciously lent them a hand. 

[vla1ne]

 

A very detailed and well though out argument...

 

your argument's put together well, the problem lies in the articles you're using, i've got work in one hour so i don't have all that much time to take on all of your points, so i'll do the second one first since it's got the most meat on it's bones,(including that nice little chart) 

 

there's something in the very beginning that already stands out to me, it doesn't quite detract from the argument made, but it signifies the kind of article we're dealing with, it calls bill maher a bigot. now, i neither know much, nor care about bill maher, but if you're going to call him a bigot, it's best to hold off until you've at least got some facts on the ground eh? so from the start, it shows its slant, and while that's not bad, it's never a good way to form a paper.

 

now, the second paragraph makes a very interesting statement "As for political violence, people of Christian heritage in the twentieth century polished off tens of millions of people in the two world wars and colonial repression." they're claiming that the world wars were based solely on religion (christian religion), now, i'm no supporter of religions, but what this does, is place the blame 100% on the shoulders of christianity/catholicism ect, and this is done solely to push the narrative, that islam is the underdog, the weaker, more peaceful religion so to speak. it's using the bodies stacked to imply that muslims are the more peaceful religion. the main reason this does not hold water, is because it's akin to saying that one guy who murders is less of a villain because there's a more charismatic killer going around killing more people. both are bad, winter shot at both in his last statement, but the topic in this article is islam, not christianity, what this article is doing, and what many of you seem to have done yourselves, is attempt to divert the topic from one killer to the other. if you want, i can make a completely new topic and s*** all over christianity using more facts than even this article, but this is the topic here, is for islam, and as such, christianity, for this one topic, gets a bye.

 

now, onto the next, and by far largest mistake that this article makes, it uses outright numbers, not percents, numbers. now, i grazed this slightly with the murderer example, but christianity is the dominant religion, in other words, it has millions more people following it, both are abrahamic religions, so there are parallels there that i could draw, but do not have the time to. now, the flaw in this chart, is that you are taking a smaller nomination, and stacking it up against a vastly larger nomination based solely on sheer numbers. in every category, positive or negative, islam will lose, now, turn those numbers into percentages. and you can make apt comparisons, but they did not, and due to a lack of details in the post, i cannot either.

 

every post in this article does this, it takes just numbers, with no context  and claims that it makes one worse than the others.

 

now, onto the third, and most often overlooked issue with this, ad that lies in your own comments as well: 

"If Muslims have just now decided to wake up, smell the roses and set up their murder industrial complex, they're pretty far behind the curve set by America the beautiful, which is no doubt the reason America so graciously lent them a hand. "

 

what you are saying here, even if by accident, is that america is responsible for everything violent that islam has done. this takes accountibility away from islam, and robs them of agency. they do not have to be violent, in fact, as yo, winter, and abab acknowledge, many of them actually want peace. but the religion itself is not helping with this, as stated above, this religion allegedly takes multiple levels to understand, yet it's supposed to be a religion of peace (what's the instructed penalty for leaving the religion again? eternal peace?). now, one of my main objections is that it has been interpreted in such a way that people are willing to BLOW THEMSELVES UP in the name of allah, yet alla (who supposedly sees most, if not all of creation) remains strangely silent on the issue. so either they aren't actually going against the wishes of their god, or their god simply doesn't care, both of which go against the peaceful narrative. there's a third option, but this isn't that kind of discussion, so i'm leaving it out for the sake of argument..

 

 

 

 

as i said, i have work soon, so i can't quite form all of this properly, but there's something else in this article tat i noticed, stemming from the comments section that sums up many of my objections to the claimed religious based violence throughout history:

Where is the clear distinction between national wars and religious ones?

Attacks against civilians vs. men in uniform?

Attacks by people of the same religion against each other vs. against other religions?

Governments and militias that use fundamentalist religious narratives vs. those who focus on earthly interests?

And last but not least, number of those civilians killed by each religion?

There is no comparative mention of numbers, size and activities of Christian vs. Muslim vs. Buddhist vs. Jewish non-state organizations. Nor is there a list of countries who’s governments actively and publicly support organizations that target civilians vs. those that arrest and fight such extremists.

 

that's one of the core disagreements, there was little to no distinction in this article, they stacked up bodies, and left it at that. that is elementary level statistics. i need more detail than that.

 

now, i'm out of time, but that's the gist of my objections to your article, there's far more, but don't have the time to post them, so i'll address any objections you have, and the rest of your post later.