Bill Maher: Islam is inherently worse than other religions.

[kentonio]

Cash fuels extremism. Terrorists are funded by Muslims. I think that has a lot more to do with it than what the West sid many years ago.

That's because like most westerners you conveniently ignore what we did over there, not just 'many years ago' but right up until the present day. The Arab Spring was a movement overturning governments WE installed and/or helped maintain because having a dictator in control was usually better for western interests than having the arabs determine their own leaders. Exactly the same **** America pulled with depressing regularity in South America and Britain did countless times in the past around the world.

Even today when a moderate group starts coming to prominence, we still tend to only offer limited support until we're sure that we can exploit them to our interests. Remember the original rebels in Syria? We hummed and hawwed until they were on the brink of destruction and now we act all shocked because the extremists took over instead and are now completely out of our control.

Cash does not fuel extremism, that's utterly idiotic. Desperation and resentment fuel extremism, which is why our campaigns that killed hundreds of thousands of people across the middle east and left countries tearing themselves apart in civil war have now led to a unifying movement of extremist Islamism. If you kill peoples wives and parents and brothers and children then they will be filled with hate not moderation. The only reason we don't understand that is because we have such incredibly comfortable lives in the west where we get to cry and ***** about which elected leader might add another 0.5% to our taxes, while people there are wondering whether their kids will still be alive tomorrow.

[Sava]

Cash does not fuel extremism, that's utterly idiotic.

Cash kinda fuels everything.

[Kidlicious]

what propaganda is that?

look at the map
[ATTACH=CONFIG]176870[/ATTACH]

Did CNN create that map?

[Kidlicious]

Cash kinda fuels everything.

This

[Bereta_Eder]

I do believe that the way many muslim countries and people treat women etc is despicable.
I just don't think that islam is an insurmountable obstacle.

as for who do
look at this map by beloved pew

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/28/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-and-blasphemy/

Today, apostasy is a crime in 23 out 49 Muslim majority countries. If that's all of islam, then what can I say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy

[Kidlicious]

I do believe that the way many muslim countries and people treat women etc is despicable.
I just don't think that islam is an insurmountable obstacle.

as for who do
look at this map by beloved pew

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/28/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-and-blasphemy/

Today, apostasy is a crime in 23 out 49 Muslim majority countries. If that's all of islam, then what can I say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy

So Islam is only bad for women. Wow, you are really transparent.

Apostasy is only part of the issue here. They do not believe in freedom.

[Bereta_Eder]

ok

[Kidlicious]

It didn't occur to you that if they believed in freedom they wouldn't be Muslim. K, bye.

[kentonio]

Cash kinda fuels everything.

Therefore pointing at it as the cause of extremism is retarded. People don't start strapping on suicide vests and cutting off peoples heads because someones offering to pay for the explosives and the knives.

[kentonio]

It didn't occur to you that if they believed in freedom they wouldn't be Muslim. K, bye.

Unlike you, who believe people should prostrate themselves before the commandments of an all powerful god? You remember just a day ago when you were shouting about how obeying god was all important, right? Yeah, some freedom.

[Kidlicious]

Should I repeat what I said in that post?

[MrFun]

Free Muslims Coalition

Muslims Against Terrorism

[Kidlicious]

Therefore pointing at it as the cause of extremism is retarded. People don't start strapping on suicide vests and cutting off peoples heads because someones offering to pay for the explosives and the knives.

Actually, you don't know what you are talking about. The history of Saudi Arabia is a history of jihad against unbelievers. It pre-dates western intervention in the ME. The Saudis of course became very rich, and have used that wealth to expand the influence of Wahhabism around the world.

[kentonio]

Actually, you don't know what you are talking about. The history of Saudi Arabia is a history of jihad against unbelievers. It pre-dates western intervention in the ME. The Saudis of course became very rich, and have used that wealth to expand the influence of Wahhabism around the world.

Read this please.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alasta...b_5748744.html

This part in particular should interest you..

Winning western endorsement (and continued western endorsement), however, required a change of mode: the "project" had to change from being an armed, proselytizing Islamic vanguard movement into something resembling statecraft. This was never going to be easy because of the inherent contradictions involved (puritan morality versus realpolitik and money) -- and as time has progressed, the problems of accommodating the "modernity" that statehood requires, has caused "the gene" to become more active, rather than become more inert.

Even Abd al-Aziz himself faced an allergic reaction: in the form of a serious rebellion from his own Wahhabi militia, the Saudi Ikhwan. When the expansion of control by the Ikhwan reached the border of territories controlled by Britain, Abd al-Aziz tried to restrain his militia (Philby was urging him to seek British patronage), but the Ikwhan, already critical of his use of modern technology (the telephone, telegraph and the machine gun), "were outraged by the abandonment of jihad for reasons of worldly realpolitik ... They refused to lay down their weapons; and instead rebelled against their king ... After a series of bloody clashes, they were crushed in 1929. Ikhwan members who had remained loyal, were later absorbed into the [Saudi] National Guard."

Saud used Wahhabism to gain power, and was willing to crush it when it raised the risk of interfering with that power. The Wahhabism that the House of Saud spreads is not the Wahhabism of ISIS, and there's a good chance that the House of Saud is going to fall victim to the beast they've created.

Seriously, read the article (and the previous one (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alasta...b_5717157.html), they're really fascinating.

[Kidlicious]

Ok, so western influence has actually moderated Saudi Arabia?

The point is the roots of radical Islam pre-date western influence. Radical Islam was already very influential. There is no reason to believe western influence has made a real difference one way or the other. The Saudis are still radicals. I don't think you understand Realpolitik. That simply means they will deal with the enemy as a means to an end.