Islamic hatred for the West comes from numerous factors that are intertwined both religiously and geopolitically.
There is firstly the forced displacement of Palestinian Muslims for the establishment of Israel as Western reparations to European Jews for the Holocaust. The religious importance of Israel to all Abrahamic religions makes it a geopolitical quagmire, as the Jews will forever view it as their holy land, the U.S. government will forever view itself as responsible to protect it (either for religious reasons or the practicality of having a powerful ally in the region), and Muslims will forever view it as stolen land. Another damning fact is that Israel is perpetrating human rights violations to expand their land with US support
There's also the infamous US backed Shah of Iran, whose brutal Nazi-like conditions and disregard for human rights created the atmosphere that allowed the rise of radical Shia Islam, which overtook the country under Ayatollah Khomeini, and the U.S. backing of the Shah and disregard of the Shah's human rights violations (despite the U.S. supposedly committing to protecting human rights when joining the UN) led Muslims to believe that the West were hypocritical liars who desired to exploit rather than help.
This Anti-Western sentiment is not helped by the most important factor, the U.S. governments continous funding of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government is one of the world's most repressive dictatorships, a sharia law theocracy that is the home of Wahaabism, the form of Islam worshipped by Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram. Despite this, the US government continues to fund the Saudi government. Trump's campaign promised to end terrorism, but instead he's done the opposite, giving the Saudi government $110 billion and leaving them off of his Muslim ban list. This alliance with the Saudis, along with his supposed desire to edit the UN Human Rights Council, show that he is a charlatan who desires not to end Islamic terror, but fund it so that he can continue to use it to scare his simple minded voters into rallying around him.
So quite simply, Muslims hate the West because we're either doing something to oppress the peaceful Muslims or prop up the radical ones. Of course Trump's idiot voters will never realize this, so they will continue to support him despite the fact that he is exacerbating their problems
^ 👆
And this:
Originally posted by Beniboyblinghttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/14/staggering-civilian-deaths-from-us-led-airstrikes-in-raqqa-says-un
Not hard to figure how this might incite people to blow us up in return.
Originally posted by Lestov16
Islamic hatred for the West comes from numerous factors that are intertwined both religiously and geopolitically.There is firstly the forced displacement of Palestinian Muslims for the establishment of Israel as Western reparations to European Jews for the Holocaust. The religious importance of Israel to all Abrahamic religions makes it a geopolitical quagmire, as the Jews will forever view it as their holy land, the U.S. government will forever view itself as responsible to protect it (either for religious reasons or the practicality of having a powerful ally in the region), and Muslims will forever view it as stolen land. Another damning fact is that Israel is perpetrating human rights violations to expand their land with US support
There's also the infamous US backed Shah of Iran, whose brutal Nazi-like conditions and disregard for human rights created the atmosphere that allowed the rise of radical Shia Islam, which overtook the country under Ayatollah Khomeini, and the U.S. backing of the Shah and disregard of the Shah's human rights violations (despite the U.S. supposedly committing to protecting human rights when joining the UN) led Muslims to believe that the West were hypocritical liars who desired to exploit rather than help.
This Anti-Western sentiment is not helped by the most important factor, the U.S. governments continous funding of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government is one of the world's most repressive dictatorships, a sharia law theocracy that is the home of Wahaabism, the form of Islam worshipped by Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram. Despite this, the US government continues to fund the Saudi government. Trump's campaign promised to end terrorism, but instead he's done the opposite, giving the Saudi government $110 billion and leaving them off of his Muslim ban list. This alliance with the Saudis, along with his supposed desire to edit the UN Human Rights Council, show that he is a charlatan who desires not to end Islamic terror, but fund it so that he can continue to use it to scare his simple minded voters into rallying around him.
So quite simply, Muslims hate the West because we're either doing something to oppress the peaceful Muslims or prop up the radical ones. Of course Trump's idiot voters will never realize this, so they will continue to support him despite the fact that he is exacerbating their problems
As for Isreal, the Muslims will just have to deal with the fact that it's not going anywhere.
Originally posted by ArtificialGloryAs for Isreal, the Muslims will just have to deal with the fact that it's not going anywhere.
Human rights violations should never simply be accepted.
And it's not just "Muslims" who should have an issue with it. The whole world should stand up against it as they did the Apartheid in South Africa.
Originally posted by Darth ThorYou probably should address the whole "Muhammad started those conflicts because he was a vicious warmonger" thing. Because while most of the stupid retards in this thread have their minds made up on the matter and think you or AG won the debate purely on the sides you chose, to someone who isn't decided on Islam AG's position is more convincing at the moment.
Ta. Not gonna spend any more time on that in this thread. I've said my bit. Haters gonna hate.
Originally posted by NemeBro
You probably should address the whole "Muhammad started those conflicts because he was a vicious warmonger" thing. Because while most of the stupid retards in this thread have their minds made up on the matter and think you or AG won the debate purely on the sides you chose, to someone who isn't decided on Islam AG's position is more convincing at the moment.
Well I was primarily addressing him taking the "violent" Quranic verses out of context, which I think was evident when I just posted more of the passage which was purposefully omitted by him.
Notice how he keeps quoting random stuff and not once is he giving the chapter and verse number or the book of Hadith so that I can look up the specific context myself. It just so happens the first one he pulled out I knew exactly where it was from. He's obviously got the most violent seeming verses and Hadiths saved somewhere on his computer, or he's pulling them from some hate website. I can guarantee he's never actually read the Quran himself or done any kind of serious study into Muhammad's life.
I've already quoted Quran chapter 60 verses 8-9 "God does not forbid you to be kind and just to those who do not fight you on account of your religion and do not drive you out of your homes. Indeed Allah Loves those who are Kind and Just.."
which makes it kind of clear whenever it's talking about fighting the Quran it's against those who have been attacking Muhammad and his followers and driving them out of their homes.
AG's response to that is simply "it's been cancelled" without substantiating that in any way.
His last post which I haven't replied to he's basically just making more stuff up again without substantiating his claims like here:
Originally posted by ArtificialGloryYes, but notice how they're only to be given safety if they're willing to hear the "word of God"(that is, to be converted to Islam). Otherwise, they're to be hunted like animals/oppressed.
Mohammed was just as much the aggressor as the pagans. He spread Islam through violent means so of course he came into conflict the pagans.
These are completely unsubstantiated statements. That chapter 9 that I've posted doesn't say anywhere that those who ask for protection must convert or die. On the contrary it's saying just because some people are evil and attacking you doesn't mean they all know exactly what's going on, and the fact that they're told to protect those "so they can hear the word of GOD" actually proves they were not Told "Convert or Die". Because they wanted them to "hear" it from a safe place so they could decide for themselves.
As for Muhammad starting wars against the Arab Pagans as much as they were against him, a simple wiki history check will show the first time Muhammad gave orders for to send his people into battle was the Battle of Badr:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Badr
Read the Background section. It was 13 years into his Prophethood and it was the Arab Pagans attempting to wipe his movement out.
It was also Muhammad who initiated Peace Treaties with them.
Also I won't be addressing Hadith's (sayings of Muhammad) without him giving the source, because many Hadith's are not even considered reliable.
The Quran's much easier to argue because there's 1 Quran which all Muslims consider the word of God, and it is the primary source of Islamic teachings.
So when the Quran says "There's no compulsion in Religion", that can't be cancelled out by a Hadith which 1) might not be authentic and 2) can more easily be read out of context.
But I will share Muhammad's Final sermon. Final as in can't be "cancelled" lol:
http://www.introductiontoislam.org/prophetlastsermon.shtml
Edit- Was going to underline parts but can't from my phone. Won't have access to my laptop until the weekend. But it does say "Hurt No One so No One may hurt You", and to treat Women well, and that there's no distinction between a black person and a white person or an Arab and a non-Arab. (Irradicating Racial and tribal and even gender prejudices was one of the primary purposes of Muhammad's message. That and feeding the needy and giving to the poor).
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Those you label as 'haters' usually are people who do not mince words and call out Islam for the toxic religion it is.
If that were true and they were just truthful and sincere people who had studied tHe Quran then they'd have something good to say about the Religion as well.
Like how it was destroying Racism, Tribalism, Poverty 1400 years ago in a pretty backward society. How it was encouraged freeing slaves and how it gave rights to Women in a time when they had none.
They wouldn't purposefully hide context like you did by quoting 9:5 instead of just 9:1-6.
Nah mate, Fact is the vast majority of haters haven't even read the Quran. A few amongst them have just spent their time cherry picking verses to use against Muslims. And the rest of them just quote those same few verses over and over, claiming they're calling out the Faith for what it really is.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
These are completely unsubstantiated statements. That chapter 9 that I've posted doesn't say anywhere that those who ask for protection must convert or die. On the contrary it's saying just because some people are evil and attacking you doesn't mean they all know exactly what's going on, and the fact that they're told to protect those "so they can hear the word of GOD" actually proves they were not Told "Convert or Die". Because they wanted them to "hear" it from a safe place so they could decide for themselves.As for Muhammad starting wars against the Arab Pagans as much as they were against him, a simple wiki history check will show the first time Muhammad gave orders for to send his people into battle was the Battle of Badr:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Badr
Read the Background section. It was 13 years into his Prophethood and it was the Arab Pagans attempting to wipe his movement out.
It was also Muhammad who initiated Peace Treaties with them.
I wasn't talking about straight-up battles, I was talking about caravan raids(sometimes deadly) that Mohammed had his followers perform against the pagans.
Well, Mohammed had to cover his ass until he gained more followers, but it seems that the peace treaty was being violated by both sides with impunity.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Also I won't be addressing Hadith's (sayings of Muhammad) without him giving the source, because many Hadith's are not even considered reliable.The Quran's much easier to argue because there's 1 Quran which all Muslims consider the word of God, and it is the primary source of Islamic teachings.
So when the Quran says "There's no compulsion in Religion", that can't be cancelled out by a Hadith which 1) might not be authentic and 2) can more easily be read out of context.
But I will share Muhammad's Final sermon. Final as in can't be "cancelled" lol:
http://www.introductiontoislam.org/prophetlastsermon.shtml
Edit- Was going to underline parts but can't from my phone. Won't have access to my laptop until the weekend. But it does say "Hurt No One so No One may hurt You", and to treat Women well, and that there's no distinction between a black person and a white person or an Arab and a non-Arab. (Irradicating Racial and tribal and even gender prejudices was one of the primary purposes of Muhammad's message. That and feeding the needy and giving to the poor).
Whether you choose to address them or not, they are there and they have a profound impact on Islam and its teachings.
"There's no compulsion" is not only contradicted by the Hadiths and Mohammed(and his closest followers) himself, but also the Quran. So even if "No compulsion" is not canceled out, it doesn't cancel out all the nasty and violent stuff either. At best, the verses simply stand there in stark contradiction to each other and are in fact still debated to this very day.
That's very nice and wholesome, but like I said, it stands in contradiction to a whole lot of Hadiths, Mohammed's life and practices and even the Quran itself.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
If that were true and they were just truthful and sincere people who had studied tHe Quran then they'd have something good to say about the Religion as well.Like how it was destroying Racism, Tribalism, Poverty 1400 years ago in a pretty backward society. How it was encouraged freeing slaves and how it gave rights to Women in a time when they had none.
They wouldn't purposefully hide context like you did by quoting 9:5 instead of just 9:1-6.
Nah mate, Fact is the vast majority of haters haven't even read the Quran. A few amongst them have just spent their time cherry picking verses to use against Muslims. And the rest of them just quote those same few verses over and over, claiming they're calling out the Faith for what it really is.
Well, we were discussing the more negative aspects of the faith here so it's natural that that's where the conversation was focused. Certainly though, Islam did have a largely positive impact on the pre-Islamic Arabia and the Middle-East; it also had ideas that were quite progressive for the day and the location, but that was in the 7th and 8th centuries and Islam has mostly refused to move with the times. Islam is today to the modern world what pre-Islamic Arabia was to Islam in the 7th century. Even when it gave more rights to women, they were still considered 2nd class citizens at best and slavery was still condoned(including sex-slavery). Even in his last sermon, Mohammed claims that women should only be allowed to make friends with the permission/approval of their husbands.
We've been over this already and the context doesn't make it look any better. Mohammed and his followers violated the peace treaty with their raids as well, including during the holy months.
Right, and what about the apologists who desperately try to whitewash Islam by attempting to "put things into context" when there either is none or it doesn't make the problematic verses look any better?
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
That's not true. Remember the context of the verse to make holy war until the pagans have either converted or paid up? There is no reason to think that the same didn't apply to the people who were given safe passage to hear the word of God. "Well, now that you've heard the infallible word of the one true God, choose: convert, pay up, or die".
Yeah I've already explained the context to you. I've posted the verses which make it clear.
Quran 9:4 "Except for those among the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty, and did not violate any of its terms, nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill the treaty with them to the end of its term. God loves the righteous."
Quran 9:7 "As long as they are upright with you, be upright with them. God loves the pious."
You're adding this bit: "Well, now that you've heard the infallible word of the one true God, choose: convert, pay up, or die" yourself. It doesn't say or even imply that anywhere. Because you're convinced it's some war mongering religion, so that's the way you're choosing to see those verses.
Originally posted by ArtificialGloryWell, Mohammed had to cover his ass until he gained more followers, but it seems that the peace treaty was being violated by both sides with impunity..
Again baseless speculation. Adding your own view on who he was and trying to pull it off as fact.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Whether you choose to address them or not, they are there and they have a profound impact on Islam and its teachings.
Why would or should I address anything you don't source? I've noticed that's a norm for you now even after continuously being called out on it.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
"There's no compulsion" is not only contradicted by the Hadiths and Mohammed(and his closest followers) himself,
That's a twsited way of looking at it when the Quran is the primary source for Muslims. Hadith's are secondary sources.
And for a capital punishment not to be mentioned in the Quran and actually contradicted by it makes the secondary source weak.
That's how historians come to conclusions and that's how Muslim scholars do as well.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
So even if "No compulsion" is not canceled out, it doesn't cancel out all the nasty and violent stuff either.
Those "violent" verses are put into context by 60:8-9 which i'm getting pretty tired of quoting to you:
"Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being kind toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act kind and justly."
^ Not only is this the Quran making that clear for anyone confused about it, it's actually Encouraging being good to non-muslims who mean muslims no harm.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
At best, the verses simply stand there in stark contradiction to each other and are in fact still debated to this very day.
Or maybe take them all together and see what message that leaves us with as the Quran itself says to do:
Quran 2:85 "So do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part?"
But hey if your take is it's a very imperfect book full of contradictions, then say that. But at least be fair to it, and realise that muslims will take whichever contradictions that suit them best. Ergo it's the people themselves who are war mongers and not the book/religion.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
That's very nice and wholesome, but like I said, it stands in contradiction to a whole lot of Hadiths, Mohammed's life and practices and even the Quran itself.
Given it was his Last Sermon (and he knew it could be it's last) it's more likely it was a summary of what he's preached from day1. It actually does align with the primary messages of the Quran, which is constantly saying to give to charity, feed the needy, and teaches that every human (whatever class or colour) are the children of Adam and Eve.
But again if you believe it's a contradiction, and that there's many contradictions, then that's fine as well. Because it comes back to the point that Muslims don't really hate Non-Muslims for the sake of it, or because their Religion teaches them that. But because those particular muslims are just bigots combined with political reasons.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Well, we were discussing the more negative aspects of the faith here so it's natural that that's where the conversation was focused. Certainly though, Islam did have a largely positive impact on the pre-Islamic Arabia and the Middle-East; it also had ideas that were quite progressive for the day and the location, but that was in the 7th and 8th centuries and Islam has mostly refused to move with the times. Islam is today to the modern world what pre-Islamic Arabia was to Islam in the 7th century. Even when it gave more rights to women, they were still considered 2nd class citizens at best and slavery was still condoned(including sex-slavery). Even in his last sermon, Mohammed claims that women should only be allowed to make friends with the permission/approval of their husbands.
Well at least you're finally being a bit fairer here. Admitting that Islam did bring human rights forward a great deal for it's time at least.
But why you think a violent war monger would do that for humanity is beyond me.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
We've been over this already and the context doesn't make it look any better. Mohammed and his followers violated the peace treaty with their raids as well, including during the holy months.
That's Your claim, that he violated his own peace treaty prior to the Pagans violating it.
What's fact though is The Quran itself only gives permission to break it and fight them when the Pagans were breaking it first and repeatedly. Again:
Quran 9:4 "Except for those among the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty, and did not violate any of its terms, nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill the treaty with them to the end of its term. God loves the righteous."
Quran 9:7 "As long as they are upright with you, be upright with them. God loves the pious."
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Right, and what about the apologists who desperately try to whitewash Islam by attempting to "put things into context" when there either is none or it doesn't make the problematic verses look any better?
Or perhaps they're just more learned in the source material than you are? Possible?
You seem to be quite a fair guy admitting politics plays a huge part in muslims violent attacks against the west. But when it comes to Islam you seem to shut off all your objectivity for some reason.
Muslims (as far as I know) don't go through other people's scriptures (be it Hindu's, Christians or Jews), trying to prove how violent and inhumane their scriptures are, and telling their Priests and Rabbis who say differently that they're Apologists. Probably because they're not looking to instigate more hate against those groups for absolutely no reason.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Yeah I've already explained the context to you. I've posted the verses which make it clear.Quran 9:4 "Except for those among the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty, and did not violate any of its terms, nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill the treaty with them to the end of its term. God loves the righteous."
Quran 9:7 "As long as they are upright with you, be upright with them. God loves the pious."
You're adding this bit: "Well, now that you've heard the infallible word of the one true God, choose: convert, pay up, or die" yourself. It doesn't say or even imply that anywhere. Because you're convinced it's some war mongering religion, so that's the way you're choosing to see those verses.
Again baseless speculation. Adding your own view on who he was and trying to pull it off as fact.
Why would or should I address anything you don't source? I've noticed that's a norm for you now even after continuously being called out on it.
That's a twsited way of looking at it when the Quran is the primary source for Muslims. Hadith's are secondary sources.
And for a capital punishment not to be mentioned in the Quran and actually contradicted by it makes the secondary source weak.
That's how historians come to conclusions and that's how Muslim scholars do as well.
Those "violent" verses are put into context by 60:8-9 which i'm getting pretty tired of quoting to you:
"Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being kind toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act kind and justly."
^ Not only is this the Quran making that clear for anyone confused about it, it's actually Encouraging being good to non-muslims who mean muslims no harm.
Or maybe take them all together and see what message that leaves us with as the Quran itself says to do:
Quran 2:85 "So do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part?"
But hey if your take is it's a very imperfect book full of contradictions, then say that. But at least be fair to it, and realise that muslims will take whichever contradictions that suit them best. Ergo it's the people themselves who are war mongers and not the book/religion.
Given it was his Last Sermon (and he knew it could be it's last) it's more likely it was a summary of what he's preached from day1. It actually does align with the primary messages of the Quran, which is constantly saying to give to charity, feed the needy, and teaches that every human (whatever class or colour) are the children of Adam and Eve.
But again if you believe it's a contradiction, and that there's many contradictions, then that's fine as well. Because it comes back to the point that Muslims don't really hate Non-Muslims for the sake of it, or because their Religion teaches them that. But because those particular muslims are just bigots combined with political reasons.
Well at least you're finally being a bit fairer here. Admitting that Islam did bring human rights forward a great deal for it's time at least.
But why you think a violent war monger would do that for humanity is beyond me.
That's Your claim, that he violated his own peace treaty prior to the Pagans violating it.
What's fact though is The Quran itself only gives permission to break it and fight them when the Pagans were breaking it first and repeatedly. Again:
Quran 9:4 "Except for those among the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty, and did not violate any of its terms, nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill the treaty with them to the end of its term. God loves the righteous."
Quran 9:7 "As long as they are upright with you, be upright with them. God loves the pious."
Or perhaps they're just more learned in the source material than you are? Possible?
You seem to be quite a fair guy admitting politics plays a huge part in muslims violent attacks against the west. But when it comes to Islam you seem to shut off all your objectivity for some reason.
Muslims (as far as I know) don't go through other people's scriptures (be it Hindu's, Christians or Jews), trying to prove how violent and inhumane their scriptures are, and telling their Priests and Rabbis who say differently that they're Apologists. Probably because they're not looking to instigate more hate against those groups for absolutely no reason.
Here's some context for you straight from the Quran: "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." And I'm supposed to believe they were going to be treated differently just because they were initially granted safe passage? Nonsense.
It's not clear who even started the hostilities as history is muddled at best, but when Mohammed got called out on engaging in hostilities during the holy months, he had this to say: "They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and hindering (men) from Allah's way and denying Him, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah, and persecution is graver than slaughter". Apparently some of his followers were "hindered" so he retaliated with deadly force.
Google is there for you, can it possibly be that hard?
The Hadiths are necessary for the interpretation of the Quran and Mohammed is the most revered person in Islam, and his life and actions are taken extremely seriously.
Once again, straight from the Quran: "They wish that you should reject faith as they reject faith, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."
Well, I'm sorry, but that's contradicted by a whole plethora of verses that encourage violence and oppression against infidels, from the Quran, the Hadiths, and the life and actions of Mohammed.
I'm not sure what's that supposed to mean? If you believe in the whole of scripture, then you basically have to practice doublethink. There's really no way to hand-wave all the horrible stuff in Islam and some people will choose to believe in the horrible stuff or at least abide those who do. The fact is that it is definitely, undeniably there.
Sorry, but Islam condones slavery, so that's not treating people equally. It also justifies war against non-believers. Mohammed himself started quite a few wars, especially later in his life once he had the resources and the manpower to do so. Also, believers and non-believers are not to be treated equally according to the Quran: "Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves."
Why is the idea that people are not all black or white beyond you? A violent warmonger is not exempt from doing some good every once in a while; Stalin and Hitler did some good as well. Does that mean we should revere them(or, Zeus forbid, imitate them) or their ideologies?
It's not clear who was the first to violate the treaties, that is lost to history. And no, Mohammed and the Quran are not reliable sources in this case, as they would claim that it was the pagans who did so, for very obvious reasons.
Is it also possible that they are massively invested in it and will do everything to try and rationalize all the nasty stuff?
I am sorry, but I believe it is you who has shut off his objectivity when it comes to Islam. It's plainly obvious from the Quran, the Hadiths, Mohammed's life, and even current practices that Islam is at the very least a highly authoritarian and a dogmatic religion. One that, unlike Judaism and Christianity, is yet to undergo a reformation/enlightenment.
I think it's because Jews, Christians and Hindus combined are barely even a blip on the radar compared to Islam when it comes to terrorism. That is the whole point of this discussion.
This is a clip where Sam Harris slaps down the idea that our own actions are to blame for the reason we are hated, begins at 2 mins in:
Originally posted by Surtur
This is a clip where Sam Harris slaps down the idea that our own actions are to blame for the reason we are hated, begins at 2 mins in:
Saying that one oppressed religion doesn't resort to extreme violence to fight their oppression isn't an argument that another does not.
Al Qaeda stated numerous times that their main objective was to push the influence of the US out of the middle east.
ISIS, on the hand, are just batshit crazy. Their goals would be ****ing hilarious if they weren't such horrible *****. Read a translation of their magazine Dabiq or its successor, Rumiyah if you want to see how mental they truly are.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Let's also not forget that Al Qaeda were formed groups of jihadis armed and funded by the U.S. 👆
I love how extreme righties justify this and more in the name of "Our interests".
Oh no, Hitler is back from the dead as a robot zombie vampire. I know lets fund Dr. Doom!
What can possibly go wrong?