I did, and it said anonymous clueless coward on the internet, and a photo of yourself.

So a photo of a fake picture?

Racism: Discrimination against a group of people sharing the same culture, history or language – Oxford dictionary

You’re advocating collective punishment for a specific group of people, who are mostly non-white so I think the description given by Petr is entirely accurate. Incidentally, Jihadists are big fans of collective punishment so you’re closer to them than you think.

As for his motivation, it’s too early to say but years of US and Israeli oppression in MENA could certainly be a plausible reason for this attack. Shame on the Jordanian government for their complicity in it.

What punishment did I advocate? Nice victim blaming BTW. Stay classy.

Sure, you can pull the tired old ‘look up the definition of racist’ thing. Point is the article says he was religious but moderate. It’s highly unlikely you would bring religion into your comments if this story happened in Ireland or China or anywhere else that isn’t majority Muslim. That indicates prejudice towards over a billion people. well done on not being racist.

You have great sympathy for this man Monty Should join the jihad again the evil Israeli and US oppression

I made a simple observation that has been studied extensively – US terror in the region can be a major motivator for committing extremist acts. Nowhere did I condone the incident or claim the victims were responsible for US foreign policy.

Monty defending Muslim head hackers while blaming the Americans…for a change.

watch anything by sam harris on the muslim faith, and he talks at length about muslim apologists such as the people responding in this thread, and no you can not be racist against muslims, it is a faith so you get to be sectarian….

It is a well known fact that there is no such thing as a moderate muslim, the faith in itself openly calls for the death to non-believers, and yes that describes 1 billion people, in the same way as at one time christians believed herecy was punishible by death, its not that long ago..

and as for the whole “anonymous coward” remarks, please Petr Tarasov publish your email/phone number here and any number of us will be happy to debate it with you.

Oh dear. Edward, we’ll try again. Refer to Monty’s quote above from the Oxford dictionary as to what racist is.

oh dear Bob, seems you cant read

“culture, history or language”

1. muslim is a faith not a culture, 1 billion people do not share the same culture, a muslim in indonesia does not equal a muslim in saudi arabia. hence it is not racist.
2. history, 1 billion people across the globe, no common history.
3. language, see point 1 and 2.

would you like me to draw some pictures for you ?

Noam Chomsky on the state fundamentalism espoused by people like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt9QCAUPPeY

Noam also completely wiped the floor with Harris in an email exchange a few months ago.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/sam-harris-made-himself-look-idiot-email-exchange-chomsky-and-has-shared-it-world

Edward…copyright that..

Is the irony not lost on you of everything you are doing to interact with me is the net effect of our way of life in the west. You are very quick to decry the USA as a terrorist state, yet here we are in the first world talking to each other with the power of the internet. The same internet started out as a department of defense project..

In your world Edward, something is either evil or good. Grown-ups actually have the capacity for nuanced thoughts which doesn’t view the world in binary terms. No, I do not think the US is the cause of all issues in the world, nor do I think everything it’s done in its existence is evil or criminal. But the implication of your post seems to be that all the bombing, exploiting and terrorising of other countries is somehow justifiable because we have the internet. Do you see the utter moral bankruptcy of a suggestion like that? The US government did not fund the creation of the internet for humanitarian reasons, but it had a humanitarian outcome and I am grateful for that.

weird, I looked through my post trying to identify the binary statements of good and evil, had difficulty seeing them, maybe you could point them out?

I was making a wider point, which is that we sit here having a free and open debate over the internet as is our right, mostly due to the work of the US and our allies, and time and time again people jump on the anti-USA bandwagon, its easy, lazy and disengenuous, as I keep making the point, take a look at the way of life in the USA, now take a look around muslim countries, any of them, would you live there?

And yes the USA has a lot to answer for, the war in Iraq was and continues to be a complete disaster which destabilized the entire region.

Does that mean I am not to put blame on the US for everything that now happens across the globe? You only have to read the comments on the journal daily, a plane crashes and its somehow the US fault, its ridiculous, and its because of faux-intellectuals such as yourself quoting Chomski.

“You are very quick to decry the USA as a terrorist state, yet here we are in the first world talking to each other with the power of the internet.”

“there is no such thing as a moderate muslim, in the same way as there was no such thing as a moderate christian 100 years ago.”

First of all, many of the things the world is dependent on were funded through the public system. Investment in education, science and technology are desirable, and it’s all the more reason the US should cut it’s astronomically high military budget and pour more resources into things which are indispensable to society. The US has always been strong on science and technology, you’ll get no arguments from me there. But again you can’t recognise this fact without shitting on Arab countries and displaying your total ignorance of the history of the region. Arab intellectuals were responsible for many advancements and findings in science and mathematics. Iran has seen considerable progress in science in the last few decades. Does Iran’s great accomplishments scientifically preclude its government from committing heinous crimes on its own population?

“Iran’s university population swelled from 100,000 in 1979 to 2 million in 2006. 70% of its science and engineering students are women. Iran’s scientific progress is reported to be the fastest in the world. Iran has made great strides in different sectors, including aerospace, nuclear science, medical development, as well as stem cell and cloning research.”

I do not blame the US for everything nor do I subscribe to pathetic conspiracy theories like the one you’re referencing. But I do blame the US for causing a considerable degree of suffering in Asia, as do many scholars, intellectuals and historians.

Monty, I can’t find that definition of racism in the oxford dictionary…is it Oxford English Dictionary or oxforddictionaries.com?…I have a feeling this might be a loose 3 or 4th definition of racism…and not a 1st definition…which most people follow as a definition. I might be wrong – could you provide the link please?

It’s good to be anti-Islam… but not anti-Muslim. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIaGWURONRU

@Monty Wuggy. You very conveniently forget that these Arabs you mention were all captured Christians at the time of their intellectual flowering and since then nothing of note has emerged from the Arabs since they became Muslim. How may Nobel prizes compared to Israel/or any other fair comparison you can make? And how about the Golden Age of Islam? let’s see,-
—”This was the state of Islamic knowledge when Islam conquered Baghdad in the Christian nation of what is now Iraq. In short, Islam brought nothing to the intellectual table to start the Golden Age. The knowledge of the Golden Age in Baghdad came from the conquered Jews, Christians, Persians, and Hindus.

Islam took the “Arabic” numerals and the zero from the Hindus. The parabolic arch came from Assyria, the dome from Persia, and the barrel vault came from the Romans. Suddenly, the ignorant jihadists “owned” the world’s finest minds. This explains how so much of the Islamic knowledge was actually translated into Arabic by Christians. O’Leary’s book How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs gives a list of the best known scholars of the Baghdad (Abbasid caliphate) Golden Age. Out of theses 22 “Muslim” scholars, 20 were Christian, 1 was Persian and 1 was Muslim. Each and everyone had an Arabic name, so it is assumed that they were Muslim. It was the Christians Assyrians who translated the Greek philosophers into Syriac and then Arabic. It had to be this way. The Christians had a long tradition of education and learning that came from the Greeks, Jews and Romans; the Muslims had none. It had to be Christian Kafirs who brought the Greek and Roman knowledge to the Muslims. Ironically, the Muslims claim all of the credit for the translations saving Greek knowledge from the Dark Ages (more about that name later).

Another example of taking credit is found in Iraqi history texts which claim that the Assyrians, Sumerians, and Babylonians were all Arabs. This allows Islam to take credit for earlier work.

Islam makes great claims for its advanced medicine, which was the best in the West. However, the Christians and Jews were the chief practitioners. For 200 years the Bakhtishu family, Assyrian Christians, were the physicians to the Caliphs of Baghdad.—”
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Factual_Persuasion_-_Golden_Age

@Monty Wuggy et al. Your comment is an opportunity to straighten out this issue. For that let me quote Bible/Koran expert Bill Warner in The American Thinker below with closing comment from ‘thereligionofpeace’.

—”See also: Comparing Islam and Christianity, Muhammad and Jesus

Also: The Political Violence of the Bible and the Koran by Bill Warner in the American Thinker. This article points out that about 67% of the Sira is devoted to Jihad. The Islamic trilogy (the Quran, Hadith and Sira) contain 9.6 times as much violence as the Hebrew Bible (there New Testament has none).

The difference, as we point out in this article is not just quantitative, but one of quality as well. As Warner puts it: “The political violence of the Koran is eternal and universal. The political violence of the Bible was for that particular historical time and place. This is the vast difference between Islam and other ideologies. The violence remains a constant threat to all non-Islamic cultures, now and into the future.”
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Bible-Quran-Violence.htm

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/09/the_political_violence_of_the.html

“Purchased” “inheritance”

Hmmmm…try “God”

Well that is old testament long time ago Present day Jewish teaching does not advocate holy war Few synagogs would teach Jewish holy war Israel is a very secular state Islam does have concept of fightings for Islam and forced conversions Also Islamic countries are not secular Than is how it spread in its early years Are you a convert to Islam Monty

Citing TheAmericanThinker as evidence Christianity doesn’t suffer from fundamentalism is hilarious. It’s full of right-wing conspiracies, subscribes to creationism, believes in Christian Zionism and denies climate change for theological reasons.

“There are numerous reasons the “But It’s Just the Old Testament!” Defense doesn’t do the trick:

1) There is no explicit or categorical textual proof from the New Testament that supports the idea that the Old Testament (or the Law) “doesn’t count”. For every verse cited to prove such a claim, there is another that can be cited for the opposite view. In fact, it seems that the textual proof for the opposite view is greater, even overwhelming. For example, Jesus says in the Gospels:

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

5:19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

And Jesus also said:

Luke 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for one dot of the Law to become void.

There are other verses that similarly seem to affirm the importance of keeping the Law. On the other hand, the evidences used to counter this view are less explicit and less direct.

2) Both the Old and New Testament are considered by all mainstream branches of Christianity to be “just as inspired as the New Testament.” The New Testament itself affirms the accuracy of the Old Testament:

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

3:17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

“All Scripture – This properly refers to the Old Testament…it includes the whole of the Old Testament, and is the solemn testimony of Paul that it was all inspired.” More importantly, as Catholic.com says (emphasis is ours): “Scripture — all of Scripture — is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). This means that the Old Testament is just as inspired as the New Testament and thus an expression of the will of Christ.”

[Update I: A reader pointed out the following: Christians see Jesus as God. That means that he was also the God of the Old Testament. The same God who commanded all those killings and the author of all those violent and disgusting commands as listed in your previous articles. So the violence Jesus supports and predicts is not only evident in the New Testament, but he is supposedly also the author of said violent commands in the Old testament as well. Not only then is the Old Testament “an expression of the will of Christ”–it is Christ.]

Protestant Christianity, as seen on this popular Evangelical site, also agrees with this assessment:

Jesus is always in perfect agreement with the Father (John 10:30), so we cannot argue that war was only God’s will in the Old Testament. God does not change (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).

3) On this note, Jesus Christ himself is depicted in the New Testament as being very violent during his Second Coming (see part 5). Even if we completely sweep the Biblical prophets and the Old Testament under the rug (which is exactly what anti-Muslim Christians do in debates with Muslims), it doesn’t change the fact that Jesus in the New Testament is very violent: he promises to kill or subjugate all of his enemies, which includes those whose only crime is to refuse to believe in him. So, even if we completely disregard the OT, this wouldn’t solve the “problem”.

More importantly, the fact that Jesus promised to kill his enemies (a promise he made during his First Coming)–even if he is yet to fulfill this promise–shows that Jesus did not reject the violent ways of the earlier Biblical prophets. He simply was not in a position of authority or power to carry out these acts of unbridled violence. He wouldn’t have promised violence if he truly rejected the OT’s violence.

When we published an article about the violent Second Coming of Christ, many critics cried “you can’t compare Jesus’ supposed violence in the future with what Muhammad actually already did!” (How quickly anti-Muslim Christians can turn something they believe in with all their might and which they believe is central to their faith–the Second Coming of Christ–into a “supposed” event makes us wonder if this is not Christian taqiyya?) Yet, it was during his First Coming that Jesus made the promise to kill all those who did not believe in him; the action–a violent threat to ruthlessly slaughter infidels (i.e. Luke 19:27)–has already been made.

4) Christians not only routinely cite the Old Testament, but they specifically cite it with regard to Jesus. Various prophecies in the OT are attributed to Jesus: these prophecies depict the Messiah as a violent conquering king who brutally vanquishes his enemies. (Please read the section entitled “Christians Affirm Militant Old Testament Prophecies” in part 5 of the Understanding Jihad Series.) This reinforces point #3 above: Jesus is seen as fulfilling, not rejecting, the violence of the Old Testament. After all, the violence of the OT was “an expression of the will of Christ.”

5) The official views of the Church itself do not endorse the idea of “tossing the Old Testament aside”: even when it comes to formulating a doctrine in regards to war, the OT must be taken into consideration. It is argued that there is concordance, not dissonance, between the Old and New Testaments. As the esteemed theologian Prof. Samuele R. Bacchiocchi concluded:

An attentive study shows that the NT complements, rather than contradicts the teachings of the OT regarding warfare…A balanced reading of the NT texts suggests that there is a basic agreement between the Old and New Testaments on their teaching on warfare.

The violent wars in the OT are reconciled by arguing that Biblical Israel was justified in its declarations of war and was only acting in self-defense: “At various times in the Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites to defend their nation by force of arms.” Of course, this is not supported by the facts: the Israelites were clearly the aggressors, annihilating and/or running off the indigenous populations of a land that they believed was divinely given to them. They were only “defending themselves” insofar as any aggressive occupier will “resist” those they occupy.

6) The fact of the matter is that all mainstream Christian groups affirm both the Old and New Testament as canon. The Church fought off any attempts to “throw away the Old Testament”. In the second century of Christianity, Marcion of Sinope rejected the Old Testament because of the violence, war atrocities, and genocide contained therein. He was denounced by the Church, and his views towards the Old Testament were officially damned as heresy. Tertullian, the Father of Western Christianity, issued a rebuttal against Marcion.

We read:

Marcionism. Marcionism owed its existence to Marcion, an individual who gained popularity in Rome in 140-144. His theology was influenced heavily by the Gnostics, and he denied the power of the God of the Old Testament. He promulgated the use of a limited form of the New Testament, including Luke’s Gospel and Acts, and many of the Pauline epistles, the former since Luke was a Gentile and the latter since he was sent to preach to the Gentiles. He found the God of the Old Testament contradictory and inhumane. The “orthodox” Christianity of the time rejected his argumentation, upheld the value of the Old Testament, and dutifully began the work of canonization of the Old and New Testaments. The specter of Marcion loomed large enough so as to merit refutation by Tertullian at the end of the second century; nevertheless, Marcion’s movement mostly died out or assimilated into other Gnostic groups.

Marcionism died out, thanks to the Church and its insistence of the Old Testament’s validity. The Catholic Encyclopedia calls the Marcionist sect “perhaps the most dangerous foe Christianity has ever known.” Today, there are some modern-day believers, called New Testament Only Christians, who reject the Old Testament due to its inherent violence, war atrocities, and genocide. This group is a very small minority, a “heretical” group that is at odds with the main body of Christianity.

So, unless you happen to be a New Testament Only Christian, the “But That’s Just the Old Testament!” Defense simply doesn’t apply to you. The existence of the New Testament Only Christians, however, is actually indicative of just how violent the Bible is: it couldn’t be reconciled, so more than half of it had to be jettisoned.

* * * *

None of this is to say that Christians must interpret the Bible in a violent manner. But what we are saying is that a softer reading of the Bible requires textual acrobatics, convoluted argumentation, and theological mind-bending. The reasons given why the Old Testament Law are no longer in effect are far more complex to grasp then the simple, straight-forward understanding one gets from reading Jesus’ seemingly simple, straight-forward statements, such as:

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

5:19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

This reinforces a point made in an earlier part of this Series:

Why is it that these anti-Muslim ideologues allow theological and textual acrobatics when it comes to the Bible, but meanwhile they forbid the contextualization of Quranic verses? Certainly it is much easier to “constrain” the violent verses of the Quran than it is for the Bible, since the Quran itself almost always cushions these verses in between mitigating verses. This contrasts quite considerably with the Bible, which has violent verses wrapped in violent passages.

Anti-Muslim Christians point to various verses of the Quran that they claim are intrinsically violent. When it is pointed out to them that their own holy book is replete with violent passages, they respond by explaining why and how they interpret these Biblical passages in a peaceful manner. In the same breath, however, they forbid Muslims from doing the same to the Quran.

Rejecting the Old Testament is a perfectly fine way for a Christian believer to theologically constrain the violence of the Bible, one that we wholeheartedly support. But such a believer should know that his holy book requires such theological mechanisms to constrain its violence, and this should logically endow upon him some religious modesty when it comes to the holy books of others.

* * * *

7) Perhaps the most important reason why the “But That’s Just the Old Testament!” Defense doesn’t work is that it doesn’t do a damned thing for Jewish followers of the Hebrew Bible. Jews don’t believe in the New Testament or Jesus. In fact, their most holiest of books is the Torah, which is the first five books of the Old Testament (known as the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible to Jews). These include Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy–some of the most violent books of the entire Bible, replete with holy war and divinely ordained genocide. To Jews, the Torah and the Hebrew Bible are 100% active and applicable, with no New Testament to overrule or abrogate them.

When we published articles showcasing the violence of the Bible–especially after our article about “the Bible’s prescriptive, open-ended, and universal commandments to wage holy war and enslave infidels”–pro-Christian elements were quick to throw the Old Testament (and their Jewish comrades) under the bus: The God of the Old Testament was a god of war, whereas the New Testament is a god of love.

In order to prove their claim against Islam, the anti-Muslim ideologues must prove the “uniqueness” of the Quran’s violence. Certainly, this is Robert Spencer’s clear-as-daylight argument on p.19 of his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades):

The Qur’an is unique among the sacred writings of the world in counseling its adherents to make war against unbelievers.

Short of proving the uniqueness of the Quran’s violence, Spencer et al. have failed in what they set out to do. If it can only be proved that the Quran is only as violent as the Tanakh (or the Torah)–or that Islam is just as violent as Judaism–then what big deal is this? If Spencer wants to fear-monger about Islam, and if–using the same standards–it can be proven that Judaism is just as violent as Islam (nay, more violent)–then will Spencer also fear-monger about Judaism? Can we expect a JewWatch.com website coming soon?

In fact, such a site already exists, and it looks like JihadWatch, just against Jews instead of Muslims. Indeed, if the same conclusions about Islam were applied to Judaism, then all this would be exposed for what it really is: wholesale bigotry. But it is much easier to get away with bigotry against Muslims than it is against Jews.

How can Robert Spencer hide behind the “But That’s Just the Old Testament!” Defense when his comrade-in-arms is Jewish? Pamela Geller of the Atlas Shrugs blog is a partner in crime with Spencer and company. Clearly, the anti-Muslim Christian right is linked at the hip with Zionist Jews in their shared hatred of Muslims. Why is one side of this unholy alliance willing to throw the other under the bus, and why is the other side ominously quiet when they hear arguments such as “But That’s Just the Old Testament”?

Our argument has never been that the Quran has no violence in it. Rather, our argument is: all holy books, including the Quran but also the Bible, have violence in them; in fact, the Bible is far more violent than the Quran. This is in response to the question that most Americans answered incorrectly: is Islam more likely than other religions to encourage violence? Most importantly, this argument of ours is a response to a claim made by Robert Spencer.

This argument of ours is also based in our deeply held conviction that religions and religious scriptures are just what their readers make of them, as stated in the introduction of this Series:

The reader should not think that I believe that a certain religion or another is violent. Rather, there exist peaceful and violent interpretations of religion. I reject the view held by religious orthodoxy that the human mind is simply an empty receptacle that unthinkingly “obeys” the divine plan. Hundreds of years after their prophets have died, believers (of all faiths) are forced (by virtue of not having a divine interlocutor) to exert their own minds and ethics to give life to texts, to render 3D realities from 2D texts. Such an elastic idea–that a religion is whatever its believers make it into–is certainly anathema to orthodox adherents who simply desire a step-by-step instruction manual to produce human automatons. But the truth is that even these orthodox adherents necessarily inject into the religious texts their own backgrounds, beliefs, and biases.

One can see why I do not think that simply showing a Biblical verse here or there would prove that Judaism or Christianity are violent faiths. There is a long journey from what is on the page to what is understood and put into practice. And once this reality is comprehended, it is hoped that Jews and Christians will gain a larger perspective when they approach Muslims and their religion.

Opponents have claimed that this Series so far has just been a case of tu quoque fallacy: yet, this is fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of this Series, which is certainly not designed to convert the readers to Islam, but rather to refute the commonly held notion that Islam is somehow more violent than other faiths, a view that the majoritarian group can easily hold (and demagogues like Robert Spencer can reinforce) unless dissenters like ourselves challenge it.”

Wow!!! I’m outta my depth here….

I thought this was the comment section..not the novel section.

Monty this argument comes up so much but is so easy to refute. Please name a Christian group killing exclusively in the name of Christianity. That doesn’t include political groups killing for political reasons that happen to be Christian. I’m sure if you dig long enough you will find a few sparse example dotted over the last hundred years but compare that to the incidents that Muslims have carried out in the last year alone in the name of Islam that I can think of, off the top of my head.

Robert: Why don’t you just admit you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about? The most heinous crime of this millennium was committed by a born-again Christian who claimed he had to invade and destroy a country because God told him to smite the enemy. Then we have Zionists both Jewish and Christian who feel like theology makes their oppression and killing of Palestinians a virtue. Or how about Christian militias in North Africa who slaughtered hundreds of Muslim civilians and caused thousands to flee their home? Unlike you, I do not think theology alone is the cause of these crimes. Most violence in the world is political motivated, with religion often offering a moral justification for it or even facilitating it at times. So no, your claim that it is easy to refute just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The violence committed by the West against Muslims far exceeds the violence they’ve committed against us.

270+ million non Muslims murdered in the name of Islam since its foundation would say different.

Nothing to do with islam? Watch- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N46mIHEGHN0

Monty, you are the reason that attacks like Charly hebdo happen. Yes you and all your ilk. Do you not feel the slightest bit guilty that your fanatical defense of a horrible ideology contributes and allows these incidents to happen easier and more frequent. Also if you think Hitler killed specifically in the name of a Christian god and invaded Poland to spread Christianity message than you are an idiot as well as a murder apologist and are not worth anyone’s time here

@Robert Cummins. Hitler murdered in the Spirit of Islam that he idolized and in the emulation of tactics of the Armenian Genocide by the Ottoman Turks.
—”By DOMINIC GREEN
Jan. 16, 2015 3:55 p.m. ET
164 COMMENTS
‘It’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion,” Hitler complained to his pet architect Albert Speer. “Why did it have to be Christianity, with its meekness and flabbiness?” Islam was a Männerreligion—a “religion of men”—and hygienic too. The “soldiers of Islam” received a warrior’s heaven, “a real earthly paradise” with “houris” and “wine flowing.” This, Hitler argued, was much more suited to the “Germanic temperament” than the “Jewish filth and priestly twaddle” of Christianity—”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-review-ataturk-in-the-nazi-imagination-by-stefan-ihrig-and-islam-and-nazi-germanys-war-by-david-motadel-1421441724

So true Patrick Islam is a murderous fascist cult the similarities with National Socialism is striking.

For some reason Monty can’t see how similar these ideologies are or is it he refuses to see it for convenience purposes?.

Robert: Who mentioned anything about Hitler?

Jordan also had a world famous victim in its midst….his surname was Al Kasasbeh……remember him?

Whupass by proxy….

It was more a philosophical question…

patethic attempt at blaming the U.S. as usual. You dont like living in the west with our standard of living then go live in Saudi Arabia, they are hiring.

Petr..and I replied with sarcasm…not my usual style.

Edward: US is the greatest supporter of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is the largest importer of US arms globally. If you actually do despise Saudi Arabia for its human rights violations, you should harbour great disdain for the government which has empowered it for decades.

ok, so tell me what should the USA do with regard to saudi arabia, you obviously have better ideas?

Petr … I gave myself a red thumb for that..

I think the US should do what several people in the West want it to do. Pull support of the hideous regime, and stop funding a government that promotes a vicious, sectarian form of Islam. Without the support of the West, the KSA would be very fragile and would likely collapse soon after.

So now Russia is instead supplying them with weapons and buying their oil at discount prices, I guess you would consider Putin a better alternative?

And as for pulling support for the KSA, look what happened in oh let me think, egypt, iraq, syria.

Egypt held elections, who did they vote in? remind me my memory is fuzzy.

The US didn’t pull support for Mubarak, it continued right up until he was deposed and then they showed very little hostility to the democratically elected government of Egypt. The Brotherhood have many flaws but they were less extreme than both Mubarak and Sisi. As for Syria, that’s separate category, Assad’s terrorism has little to do with the US.

I do think it’s interesting you claim to abhor terrorism, but you’re saying we should accept the funding of a terrorist state because we have no choice but to. Putin uses the same rationale in Syria too. Guess supporting terrorism is fine when the West benefits from it.

The Muslim Brotherhood are a terrorist organization.

Rowe: Why doesn’t your beloved US government think so?

What you on about Monty? I couldn’t give a rats ar$e about the US government, but the MB are a terrorist organization.

Monty old testament is for the Jews the Jewish law Some of which they still keep like circumcision. New testament is for Christians no longer under the Jewish law now under grace

Tell that to the fundamentalist Christians in the US who are still guided by the Old Testament. They could do with your wisdom.