The Serious Side

That was a brilliant speech by Christine Amanpour, thanks so much for posting the link, Donna!

Laws are signed by politicians, for a certain reason.
Just some examples from German's law history:

80 years ago, marriages between Germans and Jews were illegal - by law (Jews lost their citizenship - by law).
75 years ago, homosexual and handicapped people were killed - by law.
40 years ago, married women needed their husband's allowance if they wanted to work - by law.
30 years ago, homosexuality was illegal, and homosexual relations went to prison - by law.
15 years ago, husbands were allowed to rape their wifes because rape within a marriage didn't exist - by law.

Laws change because our society changes...

LizzyNY wrote:

ladybugcngc wrote:

The current school of thought is: the breaking of laws can bring about change for the good.  That perspective is twisted and extremely dangerous.  The truth is we can work within the laws, to bring about change that extends to everyone a fair and equitable life. 

If our founding fathers agreed with you we'd still be a British colony. I am not a proponent of violence, but there are times when laws have to be broken to achieve justice.

Our Founding Fathers were not men who hid in plain sight and murdered people they found to be unjust.  They were not Men who believed they had the BIBLICAL RIGHT, BIBLICAL GRACE, BIBLICAL FLEXIBILITY TO lie, deceive, mislead, misguide, violate laws that were FAIR AND EQUITABLE to ALL people, or  impose violence to execute MORAL judgement.

They were Men who fought in a war where their position was made clear and their of independence from an OPPRESSIVE RULE was a designated end.

I find your position to compare the evil we are confronted with today, to the bravery our Founding Fathers stood in to DECLARE their independence: UNTHINKABLE.

party animal - not! wrote:..........and the UN Security Council is about to look like this...........!?

Putin,
Trump,
Xi Jinping
France - maybe Marie LePen!?
Theresa May

I hope they include the evil workings of ISIS and their partners of evil doers.

I'm anxious, angry and sad right now.  Trump is being legitimized.  He's getting the attention he thinks he so richly deserves.  He has gotten exactly what he wants.  And at the expense of denigrating so many who stood in his way.  

Yes PAN the cast of characters on the world stage in a year's time could be quite scary.  France could be next ...

The media must challenge Trump.  They can't let up.  They need to remind the public over and over of what he stood for during the campaign.  He needs to be called out when he tells lies .... like just a couple a days ago when he claimed he would have won the popular vote if there wasn't massive voter fraud. What an idiot.  And when Trump says scary things the media has the responsibility to strongly push back.  Trump today tweeted that burning the American flag should be a crime in which jail time is served or possibly an American's citizenship should be stripped.  Burning the U.S. Flag is a First Amendment right so unless there is a challenge to the Supreme Court decision to overturn that right it ain't going to happen.  But it is just an example of what  a loose cannon he is and how ignorant of our laws he is.  He is completely inarticulate in expressing his opinions and stances on policy.

I think in the end those who think Trump is their savior will be very disappointed.  Some may be helped along the way if we get a huge infrastructure bill passed (by a majority Republican Congress) and some jobs are created as a result.  But at this point I don't know what to expect from Trump's administration.  There is so much that can go wrong.  How many times will the Republicans have to bail him out if any awful messes arise from his business conflicts of interest or unseemly comments he makes .... on Twitter or elsewhere.  This is a road our country has never been down before.

ladybugcngc wrote:

LizzyNY wrote:

ladybugcngc wrote:

The current school of thought is: the breaking of laws can bring about change for the good.  That perspective is twisted and extremely dangerous.  The truth is we can work within the laws, to bring about change that extends to everyone a fair and equitable life. 

If our founding fathers agreed with you we'd still be a British colony. I am not a proponent of violence, but there are times when laws have to be broken to achieve justice.

Our Founding Fathers were not men who hid in plain sight and murdered people they found to be unjust.  They were not Men who believed they had the BIBLICAL RIGHT, BIBLICAL GRACE, BIBLICAL FLEXIBILITY TO lie, deceive, mislead, misguide, violate laws that were FAIR AND EQUITABLE to ALL people, or  impose violence to execute MORAL judgement.

They were Men who fought in a war where their position was made clear and their of independence from an OPPRESSIVE RULE was a designated end.

I find your position to compare the evil we are confronted with today, to the bravery our Founding Fathers stood in to DECLARE their independence: UNTHINKABLE.

There are many injustices and evils in our world.  You seem focused on one--although it's unclear to me what that is.  I believe there are many instances in which passive resistance and non-violent protest may be the only way to effect change and ensure justice. I also believe that injustice can--and must--be fought on many fronts at the same time.

We have a situation in the US right now where the US government has routinely ignored laws, treaties and the rights of sovereign nations and no one paid any attention until it became a major protest.

fava wrote:There are many injustices and evils in our world.  You seem focused on one--although it's unclear to me what that is.  I believe there are many instances in which passive resistance and non-violent protest may be the only way to effect change and ensure justice. I also believe that injustice can--and must--be fought on many fronts at the same time.

We have a situation in the US right now where the US government has routinely ignored laws, treaties and the rights of sovereign nations and no one paid any attention until it became a major protest.

I'm focused on the GLOBAL threat we are under by those who believe they are the righteous sent to god to avenge what they perceived to be wicked.  

"Good Trouble" to SOME maybe be a passive resistance and non-violent protest; however the TRUTH is "Good Trouble" to others are imposed lies, deception, misleading, misguiding, violation of laws, violence to execute what they perceive to be moral justice... and the twisted-wicked perspective these evil actions are a good, loving, caring "fight"capable of cleaning, healing and making life better.

Injustice must be clearly defined before it can be eliminated.  Military actions MUST be imposed with specific intent and have a designated end goal.

ladybugcngc wrote:

fava wrote:There are many injustices and evils in our world.  You seem focused on one--although it's unclear to me what that is.  I believe there are many instances in which passive resistance and non-violent protest may be the only way to effect change and ensure justice. I also believe that injustice can--and must--be fought on many fronts at the same time.

We have a situation in the US right now where the US government has routinely ignored laws, treaties and the rights of sovereign nations and no one paid any attention until it became a major protest.

I'm focused on the GLOBAL threat we are under by those who believe they are the righteous sent to god to avenge what they perceived to be wicked.  

"Good Trouble" to SOME maybe be a passive resistance and non-violent protest; however the TRUTH is "Good Trouble" to others are imposed lies, deception, misleading, misguiding, violation of laws, violence to execute what they perceive to be moral justice... and the twisted-wicked perspective these evil actions are a good, loving, caring "fight"capable of cleaning, healing and making life better.

Injustice must be clearly defined before it can be eliminated.  Military actions MUST be imposed with specific intent and have a designated end goal.

IMHO you are equating apples with oranges.

Ladybug - It seems no matter what the discussion you bring it back to ISIS and how it is unthinkable that they are allowed to exist. Being as evil and threatening to the world as they are they must not be allowed to exist. Sounds just like what they say about us. IMHO your arguments and theirs are pretty much the same - just with different enemies.

Now here's a little bit of hope........

http://adage.com/article/digital/kellogg-pulls-ads-breitbart-concern-hate-speech/306931/

and this is great #grabyourwallet

LizzyNY wrote:Ladybug - It seems no matter what the discussion you bring it back to ISIS and how it is unthinkable that they are allowed to exist. Being as evil and threatening to the world as they are they must not be allowed to exist. Sounds just like what they say about us. IMHO your arguments and theirs are pretty much the same - just with different enemies.

Lizzy, no where have I stated ISIS should not be allowed to exist.  My stand against ISIS is: 1.  their ideology is criminal and 2. acting on that ideology is criminal.  I believe they should be allowed to exist; however they should NOT be allow to persist in their criminal actions.

Jihadist believe they have a religious right.  I think it is important our legislators officially declare the ideology of ISIS/IS/Al Qaeda criminal or any religious group who believe they have the right to kill/murder, steal, and/or destroy the lives of others.  I hope legislation is introduced to ensure jihadist know, jihad is NOT a religious right under our constitution and actions of jihad are criminal acts punishable by law.



 

Ideas are not criminal.  Actions can be criminal.  You cannot punish someone for what is inside their heads or make thoughts a criminal act.  "Crime" by its very legal definition is an act or failure to act.

How can legislators (people) outlaw or legislate against an ideology (an idea)?

They can't anymore than they can legislate against Christianity or Catholicism or Islam  for example?

They can only enact laws against people - and bear in mind most wars are caused by people!

fava wrote:Ideas are not criminal.  Actions can be criminal.  You cannot punish someone for what is inside their heads or make thoughts a criminal act.  "Crime" by its very legal definition is an act or failure to act.

If I understand correctly the ideology of ISIS/IS includes jihad a "holy war" where the threat of violence and the claiming responsibility of murderous acts have both occurred.  Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you will) both of these are included in your definition of crime.
 
Because religious freedom is included in our constitution and the act of jihad is considered by ISIS and others a religious act, I think it is important our legislators officially declare the ideology of jihad imposed by ISIS/IS/Al Qaeda criminal or any religious group who believe they have the right to kill/murder, steal, and/or destroy the lives of others based on religious freedom.
 
In others words I think it is important our legislators declare by law no person has a constitutional right under religious freedom to carry out or threaten to kill/murder, steal, or destroy the lives and property of others.  Included in your definition is the failure to act.  I'm not quite sure what that means legally; however I think it is important our legislators take legislative action in this area.

ladybugcng wrote:
 In others words I think it is important our legislators declare by law no person has a constitutional right under religious freedom to carry out or threaten to kill/murder, steal, or destroy the lives and property of others. 

You are correct in that we have the right of religious freedom. What you forget is that it comes with the responsibility to extend that right to all citizens within our borders - and to guarantee that they can practice their faith freely and safely as long as no one is harmed by their practices .(If someone is harmed the legal system can handle it.) So, what you are asking for is already in our Constitution, although perhaps not in the language you would like.

 And it is on the law books in every town and city in our country. It is the legal code by which our society operates. All the things you listed are crimes, regardless of the motivation, and are punishable by law. I don't know what kind of law you think should be passed, but I think it would be redundant and ineffective.

Do you for a minute believe that ISIS, Al Qaeda and groups like them don't know that what they're doing is illegal in every civilised country in the world? Of course they know. That's why they use the tactics they do. It's a weapon. It destabilizes normal life and creates fear. All the laws in the world won't matter to them because they don't believe those laws apply to them.

Great comment, Lizzy

Thanks, PAN. It's good to know someone else gets it. I'm beginning to think there should be a mandatory annual course on the Constitution and the responsibilities that accompany our rights. It seems that a lot of people don't understand they aren't the only ones the Constitution was written to protect and they are expected to extend to others the same rights that they enjoy.

Lizzy and PAN - There have been times in our history where people in the name of religion have carry out mass destruction and laws were made to insure clear boundaries. 
 
Legislation that declares by law no person has a constitutional right under religious freedom to carry out or threaten to kill/murder, steal, or destroy the lives and property of others can ONLY HELP in our efforts to stand against imposed murderous offenses in the name of God/religion.
 
I have no idea why the two of you would be opposed to legislative action.

No law is going to stop these people who want to commit murder. They don't care about laws you have to catch them to prosecute them and they know this.

ladybugcngc wrote:Lizzy and PAN - There have been times in our history where people in the name of religion have carry out mass destruction and laws were made to insure clear boundaries. 
 
Legislation that declares by law no person has a constitutional right under religious freedom to carry out or threaten to kill/murder, steal, or destroy the lives and property of others can ONLY HELP in our efforts to stand against imposed murderous offenses in the name of God/religion.
 
I have no idea why the two of you would be opposed to legislative action.

Because it's redundant?  Those things are already illegal--regardless of motivation.  Because legislation does not define "constitutional rights," the courts do?   Because debate on such an issue in Congress might serve to further marginalize muslims and American muslims who are not jihadists?

Ladybug - I'm "opposed to legislative action" because I don't know what kind of legislative action you mean (some kind of Congressional proclamation? That would be great! It would tie up Congress forever and they'd never get anything else done!), and because THE LAWS ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS!!! Apparently you want a special edict proclaiming these crimes are somehow worse if they are committed in the name of religion, but a crime is a crime no matter why it is committed and we have laws to deal with them.

If you're really that concerned that someone tell ISIS that their actions are unacceptable, write to our new president-elect and tell him to speak up. Tell him to stop the hate mongers he has let loose within our borders and to stop threatening to violate the Constitution because it inconveniences him. His actions/inactions are more of a threat to us than ISIS.

LizzyNY wrote:Ladybug - I'm "opposed to legislative action" because I don't know what kind of legislative action you mean (some kind of Congressional proclamation? That would be great! It would tie up Congress forever and they'd never get anything else done!), and because THE LAWS ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS!!! Apparently you want a special edict proclaiming these crimes are somehow worse if they are committed in the name of religion, but a crime is a crime no matter why it is committed and we have laws to deal with them.

If you're really that concerned that someone tell ISIS that their actions are unacceptable, write to our new president-elect and tell him to speak up. Tell him to stop the hate mongers he has let loose within our borders and to stop threatening to violate the Constitution because it inconveniences him. His actions/inactions are more of a threat to us than ISIS.

Just like specific legislation was instituted regarding hate crimes.  I'm looking to Congress to establish the same type of legislation that declares by law no person has a constitutional right under “religious freedom” to carry out or threaten to kill/murder, steal, or destroy the lives and property of others. 


This legislation will outline clear boundaries regarding religious freedoms under our constitution.  Those who think they have the right under religious freedom to impose violence, to execute what they perceive to moral justice, will have laws that clearly define they don’t have that religious freedom or right.

Now that's a profound and interesting discussion early in the morning!
And I can only agree with everything Lizzy said.

We already have laws which declare that nobody is allowed to murder other human beings or steal or destroy their property. The reasons for these crimes aren't important IMO - maybe at court when a defender wants to explain the reasons for his client's crime.

But is a crime, which is committed for religious reasons, worse than one committed by another reason? Should we measure one murder to another by law? In my area a court case just started where a couple kidnapped several women, tortured and raped them, two of them died - one from a town just ten miles away. In Germany nine immigrants were shot and many immigrants were injured due to bomb attacks over a period of about ten years. Banks were held-up, people were shot during those attacks. After years during which the police thought that the offenders were immigrants as well, a Neonazi organization said they were responsible for these attacks. They were supported by our Secret Services, police and politicians as well. I'm quite sure that the public will never get to know all the details about this case.
The boy who killed nine immigrant kids in Munich in summer, was a Neonazi - with Iranian parents.

What I really want to say with this:
Can we really measure crimes? Which murder is worse or more evil than the other? We know that jihadists aren't afraid to face the death penalty. They know that religios freedom doesn't allow them to kill others. These laws would just be a declination.

Carolhathaway - Ladybug seems to think that if we speak loudly enough and pass enough laws there will be an end to terrorism. Wouldn't it be nice if that were true?

Knowing something is a crime, knowing it is illegal, does not keep people from committing crimes. If it did the jails would be empty except for people who were mentally incapable of telling right from wrong. But they are not. The jails are full of people who know they are breaking the law and just don't care. (And, yes, I am well aware that there are many people imprisoned due to their unfortunate life circumstances, but that is a completely different problem.)

IMO there is no way to convince a committed jihadist that he/she is wrong. The best we can hope for is to  catch them and lock them up

Carol and Lizzy - There have been times in our history where people in the name of religion have carry out mass destruction and laws were made to insure clear boundaries. 


 I'm sure your argument was made when "hate crimes" were  legislated .  The truth is there are individuals who believe they are acting within the guidelines of religious freedom.  Legislation can only help in our efforts against those who believe they are acting within their religious freedom.


As Oldweston quoted so eloquently: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". Edmund Burke.

ladybugcngc wrote:

LizzyNY wrote:Ladybug - I'm "opposed to legislative action" because I don't know what kind of legislative action you mean (some kind of Congressional proclamation? That would be great! It would tie up Congress forever and they'd never get anything else done!), and because THE LAWS ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS!!! Apparently you want a special edict proclaiming these crimes are somehow worse if they are committed in the name of religion, but a crime is a crime no matter why it is committed and we have laws to deal with them.

If you're really that concerned that someone tell ISIS that their actions are unacceptable, write to our new president-elect and tell him to speak up. Tell him to stop the hate mongers he has let loose within our borders and to stop threatening to violate the Constitution because it inconveniences him. His actions/inactions are more of a threat to us than ISIS.

Just like specific legislation was instituted regarding hate crimes.  I'm looking to Congress to establish the same type of legislation that declares by law no person has a constitutional right under “religious freedom” to carry out or threaten to kill/murder, steal, or destroy the lives and property of others. 


This legislation will outline clear boundaries regarding religious freedoms under our constitution.  Those who think they have the right under religious freedom to impose violence, to execute what they perceive to moral justice, will have laws that clearly define they don’t have that religious freedom or right.

Hate crime laws already include religious motivation.

LizzyNY wrote:Carolhathaway - Ladybug seems to think that if we speak loudly enough and pass enough laws there will be an end to terrorism. Wouldn't it be nice if that were true?

Knowing something is a crime, knowing it is illegal, does not keep people from committing crimes. If it did the jails would be empty except for people who were mentally incapable of telling right from wrong. But they are not. The jails are full of people who know they are breaking the law and just don't care. (And, yes, I am well aware that there are many people imprisoned due to their unfortunate life circumstances, but that is a completely different problem.)

IMO there is no way to convince a committed jihadist that he/she is wrong. The best we can hope for is to  catch them and lock them up

In fact you could argue that laws specifically targeting them would increase their zeal.

fava - In fact you could argue that laws specifically targeting them would increase their zeal.
 
ladybug - History proves you wrong.  The mass destruction in the name of religion cease in great numbers once International laws were in place.  The legislation I'm seeking targets specific boundaries to "religious freedom" as relates to a "right" under our constitution.  This legislation can only lend itself to a necessary good considering the threat we as country find ourselves in. Please give an example and/or explain how this legislation would increase their zeal. 


 fava- Hate crime laws already include religious motivation.
 
ladybug - Legislation that set clear boundaries is just one thing we can do in an effort to stand against those who believe they have the constitutional right to exercise what they consider to be religious freedom.

It's been interesting reading everyone's thoughts here.  Ladybug, I agree with other posters here who question your argument.  The laws ALREADY exist.  What you are asking for amouts to redundancy.  Any special legislation putting boundaries on what is considered religious freedom would IMO have absolutely no positive impact. 

There are always going to be people who use their religion to benefit their own personal cause in a hateful way.  And they can justify their crimes against "non-believers" or "infidels" by claiming God told them to do it.  They will say their victims' hateful or criminal actions are seen as right and just in the eyes of their God.  These people are willing to die for what they think in their minds is the holy thing to do.  International, federal or state laws are not going to change someone's distorted religious views.  In fact many will say they are proud and willing to die for their beliefs ... as does ISIS.

If the terrorists already know they can be put in jail if caught what is stopping them from changing and not committing crimes?
I don't think a law specifically worded will mean anything to them since they have taken their religion and turned it around for their means.

As I've stated history proves legislation can help.  In this case legislation will send a clear message, to those who believe they have a constitutional right under religious freedom.  It may not stop those who seek to murder and/or cause the destruction of property of others.  However, it is a measure we can take. 
 
Donna, Lizzy, Fava, Carol, Annemarie I really don't understand your fervent opposition to something that stands against the very threat we currently live under.  
 
It sends a message to those who have suffer at the hands of murderous groups like ISIS/IS/Al Qeada that our legislators understand the threat and have taken measures to legislate clear boundaries that state: those actions are NOT considered a constitutional right under religious freedom.

Ladybug - It is not "fervent opposition" on my part. Pass a freakin' law if you want to. What I am voicing is my frustration with your inability to understand that such legislation would be, IMO, pointless and redundant at best and at worst a spur to further terror actions in response.

Short of carving your proposed law in steel and pounding the terrorists over the head with it, I don't see it having any effect at all.

LizzyNY wrote:Ladybug - It is not "fervent opposition" on my part. Pass a freakin' law if you want to. What I am voicing is my frustration with your inability to understand that such legislation would be, IMO, pointless and redundant at best and at worst a spur to further terror actions in response.

Short of carving your proposed law in steel and pounding the terrorists over the head with it, I don't see it having any effect at all.

Thanks Lizzy your support regarding passing this law means a lot.    Friendship hug.

Just a point. 

Don't you think that if such a law was the solution to these world problems, it would have been enacted years, no eons, ago across the globe? 

And we'd all be living in everlasting peace.

Our "fervent opposition" to your argument ladybug is because we all feel the laws already exist as they pertain to hate crimes. ISIS and other terrorist groups don't live by prescribed laws. Why would that change?  PAN makes a great point.

I think this is another issue that will have to agree to disagree.

Actually not to worry though.  Trump declared during the campaign that he will destroy ISIS ... wipe them off the face of the earth.

Ladybug, they have taken their religion and made it into something it is not and does not stand for. They know they are wrong and still choose to do so. So no I don't think any law specifically worded will stop them.
Maybe, 20 or 30 years a go they would care about the law. But now no they want to kill and are willing to die for their twisted beliefs.

I thought this was a very nice gesture. It's nice to know that there are those who know that all are not evil.

http://people.com/human-interest/texas-man-holds-you-belong-sign-outside-of-mosque/

PAN and Annemarie- we can enact the law nationally.  Factual truth: some religions have a fervent respect for laws of the land.  To legislate clear boundaries just might make a difference.

Donnamarie - I agree to disagree.  The conversation is always welcome.

Thanks annemarie for that heartening post.  I think all of us can make even the tiniest difference by smiling and acknowledging others as they walk down the street or in a store or on the subway.  Being kind on the most basic level can make someone else's day ... especially those who have felt discriminated against.

They don't respect their religion nor care about the laws that are already in place. I don't see this law changing that just how I see it.

annemarie wrote:They don't respect their religion nor care about the laws that are already in place. I don't see this law changing that just how I see it.

I respect your opinion and extend my hand to agree to disagree.

http://people.com/human-interest/texas-man-holds-you-belong-sign-outside-of-mosque/


Very well done!

I can agree to disagree no problem

annemarie wrote:Ladybug, they have taken their religion and made it into something it is not and does not stand for. They know they are wrong and still choose to do so. So no I don't think any law specifically worded will stop them.
Maybe, 20 or 30 years a go they would care about the law. But now no they want to kill and are willing to die for their twisted beliefs.

The other issue is that of course this has nothing to do with religion. They have hijacked religion and are attempting to ride on its wings. These are sick puppies. It is not about Islam and not about religion. Suggesting anything to the contrary empowers them. This is the reason I try to refer to them as Daesh. Apparently they hate it. And that other name includes a reference to the religion they have stolen. IMHO the most powerful tool in fighting these sad people is to refuse to dignify them with the name they have chosen for themselves (trying to sound way bigger and more important than they are) and to deny them the claim to any religious cloak. To do that we need to embrace the followers of Islam as our brothers and sisters - showing Daesh that this fraudulent ruse will fail.

End of my rant 

oldweston wrote:The other issue is that of course this has nothing to do with religion. They have hijacked religion and are attempting to ride on its wings. These are sick puppies. It is not about Islam and not about religion. Suggesting anything to the contrary empowers them. This is the reason I try to refer to them as Daesh. Apparently they hate it. And that other name includes a reference to the religion they have stolen. IMHO the most powerful tool in fighting these sad people is to refuse to dignify them with the name they have chosen for themselves (trying to sound way bigger and more important than they are) and to deny them the claim to any religious cloak. To do that we need to embrace the followers of Islam as our brothers and sisters - showing Daesh that this fraudulent ruse will fail.

End of my rant 

Oldweston do you have a resource where Islamic leadership has disavowed ISIS/IS/AL Qaeda and other groups who claim they are Islamic operating under Jihad?

Just to amplify what Oldweston said it is a very good thing to use the name Daesh simply because these thugs want to be called a state or caliphate. They want to set up their own state in which they have every possible facility just like any other country e g banking systems, passports, computer experts, doctors, teachers etc, (and have succeeded in that)

So if the rest of the world keeps calling them a state that simply confirms and endorses their existence. That is exactly what they want.

And just in case you weren't aware, they evolved from the relics of the Republican guard of Saddam Hussein after he was killed

ladybugcngc wrote:

oldweston wrote:The other issue is that of course this has nothing to do with religion. They have hijacked religion and are attempting to ride on its wings. These are sick puppies. It is not about Islam and not about religion. Suggesting anything to the contrary empowers them. This is the reason I try to refer to them as Daesh. Apparently they hate it. And that other name includes a reference to the religion they have stolen. IMHO the most powerful tool in fighting these sad people is to refuse to dignify them with the name they have chosen for themselves (trying to sound way bigger and more important than they are) and to deny them the claim to any religious cloak. To do that we need to embrace the followers of Islam as our brothers and sisters - showing Daesh that this fraudulent ruse will fail.

End of my rant 

Oldweston do you have a resource where Islamic leadership has disavowed ISIS/IS/AL Qaeda and other groups who claim they are Islamic operating under Jihad?

ladybug I am sorry but this is where I part company. Sorry but really? This is not a question that you should be asking nor should you expect an answer. It is completely disrespectful and inappropriate. Do we ask Christians to publicly, repeatedly and incessantly assert that they are not allied with the crazies who kill and hate in the name of Christ. Do we ask white people to stand up and disavow any affiliation with the KKK. We don't. This kind of thinking is exactly what Daesh wants.

ladybugcngc wrote:

oldweston wrote:The other issue is that of course this has nothing to do with religion. They have hijacked religion and are attempting to ride on its wings. These are sick puppies. It is not about Islam and not about religion. Suggesting anything to the contrary empowers them. This is the reason I try to refer to them as Daesh. Apparently they hate it. And that other name includes a reference to the religion they have stolen. IMHO the most powerful tool in fighting these sad people is to refuse to dignify them with the name they have chosen for themselves (trying to sound way bigger and more important than they are) and to deny them the claim to any religious cloak. To do that we need to embrace the followers of Islam as our brothers and sisters - showing Daesh that this fraudulent ruse will fail.

End of my rant 

Oldweston do you have a resource where Islamic leadership has disavowed ISIS/IS/AL Qaeda and other groups who claim they are Islamic operating under Jihad?

After each and every terror attack, leaders of thousands mosques, islamic groups and just every day Muslims disavow daesh, the terrorists, and loudly shout at the rooftops, that these terrorist acts do not belong to islam. They release public letters anr statements. Muslims march against daesh. It's easy to look it up, there are thousands of these open letters and statements.

Are you aware, that most of the victims of daesh are muslim?

Fingersandtoes wrote:
After each and every terror attack, leaders of thousands mosques, islamic groups and just every day Muslims disavow daesh, the terrorists, and loudly shout at the rooftops, that these terrorist acts do not belong to islam. They release public letters anr statements. Muslims march against daesh. It's easy to look it up, there are thousands of these open letters and statements.

Are you aware, that most of the victims of daesh are muslim?

I'm so sorry Fingerandtoes, I searched and could not find it.  Can you please send me a link?

ladybugcngc wrote:

Fingersandtoes wrote:
After each and every terror attack, leaders of thousands mosques, islamic groups and just every day Muslims disavow daesh, the terrorists, and loudly shout at the rooftops, that these terrorist acts do not belong to islam. They release public letters anr statements. Muslims march against daesh. It's easy to look it up, there are thousands of these open letters and statements.

Are you aware, that most of the victims of daesh are muslim?

I'm so sorry Fingerandtoes, I searched and could not find it.  Can you please send me a link?

I searched for 'Muslims denounce isis' and this was the second link that came up.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/70000-muslim-clerics-issue-fatwa-condemning-terrorism/

This was an interesting article that came up with the same search.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/nov/24/why-its-wrong-to-demand-that-muslims-condemn-isis

Thank you so much Fingersandtoes.  The links helped a lot.  I did search however I only saw articles from main stream media.  I find the links you provided extremely interesting.  I will do more research.