America's Most Prominant Muslim Scholar On ISIS

Sheikh Hamza Yousef strikes out at ISIS, very eloquently.
This actually represents the opinion of the majority of us on ISIS. Posting it here for anyone who wants to know:
The first 2 minutes are traditional greetings of Islam, skip past them for the English sermon to start.

I'll just get Jet's argument out of the way for him.

Something something religion bad something something harboring terrorists something something nuke them all something something you're the crazy ones, not me.

Damn, it's like Jet was here the whole time!

*massages temples*

It's the same discussion...in a million different threads!

Would you smell if you had another name?

It's to trick people, so no matter wich thread they click on from the front page, it all looks the same!

If Ravael gets to do Jet, then I'll do Fonewear:

"Where's the booze?"

No no no, this is Fone.

<Fonewear> Reading is overrated anyway with women

I learned that at Huff Post.

Watch the video. Kind of explains everything. http://m.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/barbara-boland/muslim-student-who-ignited-media-firestorm-benghazi-panel-family-friend

The *** is crazy, but I'll have to admit she makes some good points.

Oh she's definitely part of the solution and not making anyone feel alienated and persecuted at all.
15-25% of Muslims are Radicals...How do we identify them? Is their turban Red as opposed to white?

What a bat ***crazy rant.

While I'd assert that the lady very well may be bat ***crazy, the rant was almost spot on.

You want to not be associated with the radicals? then stop defending them and their actions, oust them, make pleas for them to cease, but no you go on crying the persecution and race cards when it hasn't nothing to do with either.

Keep on trollin', it's not as funny as you think it is.

In other words "if yer not with us, yer with the turists".

There is a lot wrong with what she said. She clumped every China, Japan, Nazi Germany, Islam, Stalin's Russia together into one soup of American Rationalization. That is as dangerous as hate speech can get.

I'm glad she appeals to you though, and you find her to be right. It goes to show I had you figured from the start.

I'm sure there are people in Iraq's side using the same kind of hate speech to entice people into violence.

An eye for an eye, makes the world go blind. I guess people like you, Jet, serve some kind of greater cause that we are all too dumb to understand. Perhaps you are an over population fail-safe protocol within the human genome, evolved to help curb the over spread of humankind.

Either that or you're just a complete moron trying to justify his own blood lust.

That wasn't hate speech, but wow you're separated from reality more-so than I thought.
You don't understand what hate speech is if you think that is it.

But continue being an apologist for terrorists, it suits you.

As for the ad-hominem attacks: I'm not lustful for blood by any means, but I'll admit when war is necessary and I'm enough of a realist to realize that wars are dirty, nasty and there are casualties. Just because I think they're using the best option available to them, doesn't mean I have to like it.

Of course it was hate speech. The question presented to her was :HOW DO WE DEAL WITH AN IDEOLOGY?

She did not respond to the question. And then later accuses the questioner for not using her opportunity with the mic to be 'murican. She then proceeded to use the opportunity to bash and spew hate venom and get people riled up.

What drivel... what a sorry excuse for dialogue, conversation and debate.

You obviously don't know what hate speech is if you think that's hate speech, no wonder you also used the race card earlier.

Did you suck on the lead painted toys as a child?

Edit: as to her question, I've answered it several times and people like her and you who are terrorist apologists can't handle that answer, aka you can't handle the truth. On that note: I'm not particularly fond of the answer either, but it is the answer. Whether or not I like it is irrelevant to reality.

If he's Autistic then I hope he has the kind of support he needs and wish him all the best. I don't want to be cruel or anything like that but there really is a possibility he is autistic or suffers from some kind of mental ailment.

I can not for the life of me see any consistency in his internal reasoning.

There is great consistency, the failure to see it is on you. I've even explained it to you several times, and it goes beyond your scope of understanding.

I'm not sure if it's the barrier in culture or what, but it's just not getting through to you. But for the record: no I'm not autistic, nor do I suffer from any mental ailments. I times I've feared I may be a sociopath due to my low levels of empathy, but since I have at least some, that's thrown out of the window. But we could continue on ad-hominem *** by that particular troll for awhile, or we could talk about how to handle the acceptance of how to handle radicals.

"Its time we took PC and threw into the garbage"

Clearly an example of objective critique and analysis. Not by any means a lazy and sluggish mind's resort to rejecting all obstacles and challenges with one's own position.. no not at all.

Hey Jet, you don't need to say "F_ck Ni__as and Ch_nks" for it to be considered hate speech.

Not at all, but you do have to be targeting a group for a protected class, and last I checked terrorist isn't a protected class.

edit: to be fair though I hadn't seen the full video in some time, so I may have missed some parts, only watched the first half or so today, I don't recall her saying anything at all that constitutes as hate speech. Did she say we should kill all Muslims or something?

Only she didn't mention terrorists, she mentioned radicals.
A Radical and a terrorist are not one and the same.
This is the level of critical thinking that is required for political discussions; something you are not fit to participate in.

Radical does not mean right wing, left wing, or center. A radical muslim could also be someone who calls for the complete end to friday prayers. That's a radical idea, outside the norm.

She presents being radical as being terrorists without ever actually mentioning it, knowing that idiots like yourself will eat up her sack of sh!t argument and ask for seconds.

First problem, the criteria used to identify the 15-25% of Muslims that are Radicals - did they poll people on the phone and ask them "Hey, would you like to do something radical today? tell me are you for or against american intervention in the middle east?" Or maybe she took the estimated demographic that were directly effected by American Foreign policy? That wouldn't be hard. 1.6 million deaths in Iraq since the 2003 war - how many millions were family members or related to the 1.6 million dead? I guess all of them are Radicals now.

What she considers "radical" could include those that call for an end to uneven handed American foreign policy in the region. In which case the demographic would be more like 99.9999% of Muslims.

That percentage could also include those oppose the state of Israel.

Lumped in there could be the true extremists as well.


Again, the question was well presented. She could have been mentioning the 1.6 billion Muslims as potential allies in the fight against "radicals". It would be good to have 1.6 billion allies when fighting an ideology that BOTH parties reject.

But no, people like you want to reduce the complex situation down to a "US VS THEM" narrative.

They are one in the same for this purpose, but of course you'd quibble over such a minor discrepancy.

But I've said it before and I'll say it again: the % is irrelevant, a concept that you cannot seem to comprehend, yet you dare to insult anyone's else ability to discuss something?

Your own posts there show how biased and wrong you are.

But considering all you want to do is be a terrorist apologist none of this matters. I at least don't like what's going on, but will admit when there's no better course of action.

People like "me" don't give a ***about the Muslims, I don't care about you, you're irrelevant. This isn't a war on religion, yet you and the other apologists keep making it one.

To elaborate: what you want to cite as the reason for the conflict is irrelevant, the conflict exists and it has to be fought.

I love how he wipes isis's butts HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE for twisting the religion. He calls them fool's outright. hehe. this scholar rocks

There is no twisting, they're fighting their holy war as the book describes, there's no twisting to that.

Just like the bible calls for genocide. (inb4 our favorite christian apologist shows up).

Jet just take a break from the forums bro.