This right here.

After you just edited this out of your post:

lol so now you're moving the goal posts?

" is the EXACT same as a death penalty supported by the government"

you do realise that america has the death penalty by lethal injection right?

There is no more reason to talk to you, as you are not a reasonable person.  If you wish to equate the death penalty given to murderers to gays and women who "get out of line" being stoned as punishment, then go right ahead.  But, I will be no part of your conversations apologizing for terrorists.  Good day.

where in my quote does it say that?

is it reasonable to post that i've posted something that i didn't post at all?

isn't that hypocritical?

and it amuses me that you can't address the rest of my post which is actually what's relevent anyway, which is why i edited it

edit just for clarification this was what was quoted there

"BWAHAHAHA!  Yea, possibly getting death threats (sorry, this just doesn't happen as much as some who wish to demonize those in America want to believe), is the EXACT same as a death penalty supported by the government, as well as the majority of those who live in that country.  There's also the fact that those who would threaten violence would not only be frowned upon by the general public, but also would be prosecuted by the county/state.  "

no where is there mention of women, homosexuals or whatever... but i guess you needed a cop out 

The religion is not teaching how to become terorist the man it self decide it to become terorist based on their assumption and their own way of thinking, of how  he interpreated the meaning of the Quran differently, ISIS is wrong and not a Muslim by Islamict law its self.

The West assisted these people back during the Cold War to fight against the Soviets but imperialism is not to blame for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. The Wahhabi movement was the main push and their rise is almost by total luck. Their rivals, the Ottoman Empire, collapsed following World War I, and they found oil to fund their activities.

The Abrahamic religions in general have a lot of questionable text in their holy books but it is up to the responsibility of the reader too to understand something like stoning homosexuals is wrong and whoever promotes the stoning of homosexuals is a terrible person. We can't lay all the blame on people who lived in a time when they did not understand the Earth was sphere-like, the Earth goes around the sun and common knowledge that a wide variety of worldviews exist and are practiced.

ISIS is an extremist Islamist organisation just like how the KKK or the Westboro Bapist Church was/are an extremist Christain organisation but that does not mean that ISIS or others are representive of a religion of over one billion people. And ISIS poses the biggest threat right now to Sunni Muslims in Syria, Iraqi Kurdistan and Iraq, Shia Muslims in said areas and finally the Christains of Syria and Iraq, and while they are using Islam to try to justify their actions (and also using their version of Islam to try to manipulate people into joining their cause), there is no going around that ISIS as an organisation and people are just fucked up and that remains the same if they said they were Christain, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, Shinto, etc.

I am irreligious and an atheist and I think just laying the blame on an entire religion is scapegoating around the fact that some people are pretty fucked in the head. I have my fair share of criticism about religious texts based on historical, science, moral basises but the reader bares the brunt of responsibility of the actions they do inspired by the text, and I'm simplifiying that statement because I'm not in the mood to write an essay based on the power and influence of religion at 1:30 AM. But there are many Christains and Muslims who read their holy texts and are not horrible people so I definitely think that going on a witchhunt after every Muslim based on the actions and inspirations of ISIS, is rather counterproductive.

I agree, I mean IS' interpretation is not accepted by all Muslims.  Muslims and IS are fighting eachother.

It's just that too often we see these sects able to preach and brainwash enough followers to believe they are acting in the name of Allah.  It's not about what the Quran says, but about what teachers teach.  A peaceful teacher can make peaceful Muslims, while an evil teacher can skip over the "goodie" parts and focus on the parts that legislate hatered, jihad, martirdom, etc. with promises of paradise as reward for fucked up barbaric acts.

Babbling words based on your agenda won't make what you're saying true. You clearly have nothing to say that can be discussed... An empty vessel. Happy dodging the rest.

Yeah the Quran and alot of other religious books are just tools some people use to justify their hate towards something.If the Quran wasnt there then the hate would still linger and w8 for another way to be expressed.Its not really about violent religions like alot see it but its more about human nature and their backgrounds.

I pretty much agree with you but imperialism from countries like Britain, France and the United States (even Israel) does play a good part as it aggitates people in the Middle East and elsewhere. Imperialists were never wanted there in the first place but go there to this day by manipulating groups against each other and starting wars often because of their oil and other valuable resources. If you go back to when the Ottoman Empire fell, the Middle East was completely divided with no consideration of the needs of local people. This part is still a big issue and its no wonder stability is so bad there when nations were invented out of thin air. The Kurds, a people with no nation still are literally the strongest in this mess the middle east is currently in. An Iraqi people doesn't really exist.

You say about the Wahhabi movement and the odd thing is despite their evil believes is that the western world worked with them when it see fit and then disposed of them afterwards. 

The Saudi Royal Family are Wahhabi and to be honest are probably quite comfortable with alot of ISIS action. Beheadings and stonings are still extremely common punishments in Saudi Arabia even though they are an ally which goes back at least 100 years when the Saudis decided to do what the British Empire told them. 

Iran may be hold wahhadi too as they are a very conservative and authoritarian country too. Although Iran was never like this until 1979 Islamic Revolution which was a reaction to a CIA backed Coup in 1953, that overthrew a democratically elected government due to the west disapproving of the Iranian nationalisation of their own oil. In the 1950s, Iran was secular, tolerant and a fairly liberal society. Afghanistan was similar and now look at the state of it.

Imperial interests didn't care about that though and destroyed those societies. I think all this interference radicalised people especially when wars started kicking off let alone the unwanted and unjusted coups that took place. Our problem is we backed some dodgy people in the cold war and we underestimated them big time. Just like how we backed Al Qaeda in the 1980s and now they are all over the place and creating even more extreme groups like ISIS. Ideas are a big part of the problem but they are nothing on their own. 

I just glad we didn't overthrow Assad, that would of been a mess

Sorry for the long post but all i'm saying is these extreme muslims would of been nothing but a small frustrated group of society almost like the National Front had it not been backed by a great power like the United States

No worries, you bring up some good points. I did forget about the Western backing of the Saudis especially during and right after WW1, against the Ottoman Empire and to also secure allies and resources in the Middle East. Because of conflicts between Great Powers and a reliance on resources from that region, powers have paid little attention to the people of the Middle East.

I believe there was a report that imams in Saudi Arabia had to bascially be forced to condemn the actions of ISIS, which is downright sickening really that there is a good chance that personally they agree with the actions of ISIS. Which seems fitting I think because some people do think that ISIS as an organisation has it's roots in the Wahhabi movement (very possible that Al Qaeda is too) and not the Muslim Brotherhood as previously thought.

I don't want to get too off topic from the discussion but as far as I know, Iran is a different animal. Iran is fundamentalist as a government but the government is also enemies of Saudi Arabia. As much as I know from Iran bascially, throughout the Cold War it was struggling to remain neutral between the Soviet Union and the West, and evenutally that encouraged the Islamist movement as a third faction.

But yeah the Middle East does ripple the effects of World War I, II and the Cold War up to this day and probably for the foreseeable future.