Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Transcripts: Dr. Michael Welner The Depravity Scale

Forensic Psychiatrist: 'Crazy' Has Nothing to Do With Terrorism

The following is transcripts from clarion project.org  and allows for the reader to not only understand the criminal ideology that is Islam, but actually provide some insight into the criminal and violent outworking of supremacist ideology, itself. 

Anytime one believes to be supreme over others, innately, it must end in violence.  Even in "the religion of peace" the nation that is 100% Islamic still is rife with violence because of the inequalities in nature.  Where one has more than you, for example, and you are his superior, he must have cheated you; hence, the violence.  

Islam teaches that the world is in two parts; those in "peace" of Islam and those in war against Islam, needing to be brought into "peace" or submission; hence the "religion of peace" moniker which sounds like a mockery, is, from their perspective, the way they see the world.  This fits into a very "black and white" world with little gray.  

I've read with interest his work on "the depravity scale."    

From Clarion Project: 

A fascinating interview with renowned forensic psychiatrist Dr. Michael Welner on understanding and countering the mindset of extremists. 

Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist renowned for work both in cutting-edge legal cases and research on criminal evil, explained to the Clarion Project why it is a mistake to describe Islamist extremists as "crazy" and to attribute the conflict to cultural miscommunication, as if their actions are caused by a false impression of the West that can be rectified through talking and passivity.

Dr. Welner also discussed one of the major obstacles we face in fighting Islamic extremism -- lack of freedom of the press. Islamists control major media outlets in the Muslim world that reflexively demonize the  West. They consistely reject any blame for the human rights abuses and societal failures and refuse to facilitate meaningful retrospection.

If Islamist extremism is to be defeated, there must be enough intellectual freedom in the Muslim world for alternatives to be offered, he posits.
Below is a fascinating interview with Dr. Welner conducted by Clarion Project's Ryan Mauro:
Ryan Mauro: How do you approach these issues as a forensic psychiatrist?

Dr. Michael Welner: My conclusions are based on an appreciation of research and scientific method, as well as facts on the ground. My experience includes examination of Islamist terrorists and a familiarity with literature related to them and all of its scientific shortcomings. It also includes examination of mass killers who acted upon ideological motivations, religious zealots of a range of stripes and training in psychotherapy and how to use humor as a therapeutic device.
Forensic psychiatry embeds research understandings in a fact-based context. This is referred to as ecological validity. Without ecological validity, a claim based on forensic psychiatry has no grounding in the real world. For instance, researchers on crime have demonstrated poverty to be an important predictor of crime, but the conflation of this understanding to mean that poverty causes terrorism has long been debunked. This is because terrorism is more than a crime.
The application of forensic psychiatry to terrorism requires appreciation of the terrorist entities, their aims and where they operate. Ecological validity does not allow broad generalization, but reflects specific adaptation.
Mauro: "Crazy" is the term that is often thrown around by Americans to describe Islamist extremists because that's the closest we can come to rationalizing their behavior. Based on your expertise in mental health and psychiatry, is there a significant correlation between mental instability and Islamist terrorism?

Welner: The infrastructure assembled by large-scale Islamist organizations—Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and others, speaks to the very rational actors, thinkers and planners involved. They have succeeded because of highly-functioning, very organized individuals with exceptional people skills and capable management, administration and military strategy.
Crazy has nothing to do with the terrorism we see. Those who believe it does ignore what we have learned of the Guantanamo detainees and what Israelis have learned from their study of suicide bombers. They confuse actions that shock—actions that create a spectacle—with actions that are irrational.
Islamist terrorism is cold-blooded violence. It is proactive and planned, as opposed to a hot-blooded violence that is reactive and impulsive. The attacks are carefully crafted. The leaders are selected based on how their planning resonates with those who finance them. The supporting elements are chosen by how efficiently and reliably they provide logistical support. The perpetrators are selected based on how disciplined, dedicated, ruthless and in-control they are while carrying out destruction.
Mauro: Are there any signs we can see in a person's psychology or behavior as the radicalization process occurs? Average citizens know they should get worried when someone starts talking about murdering innocents and buying weapons, but what happens in the stages before that?

Welner: Those indoctrinated into terrorism within the United States are following a different vector than those overseas.
In Muslim countries and even in Western Europe and parts of Africa, extremely devout followings of Islam are widespread and intertwined with political and sectarian affiliations. In secular countries like the U.S. and Canada, where Muslims are only a small portion of the population and they have little political standing, enlisting in terrorist groups is out of step with the general environment, even for Muslims.
In America, a high proportion of those implicated in Islamist terror plots are either converts or recently became devout. Part of what drives this psychologically is that the newer conscript feels the need to prove his bona fides, just as do newer conscripts in hate groups like white supremacists.
This is part of what makes the U.S. and Western world's prison population so vulnerable to radicalization. Radical Islam connects with those who are already alienated from the host country that incarcerated them. For those ensnared and leave prison as disenfranchised ex-cons, violence is not as taboo as it would be for less-hardened peers.
All of those who are involved in Islamist terrorism are devout or believe they are devout. However, those who gravitate towards a more devout religious observance include many who do not have political aims and are merely following their faith. Others may be sympathetic to co-religionists who act for the cause of advancing the Caliphate (as ISIS is doing), or otherwise attacking the symbols of apostasy or the "apostates" themselves but would never personally act criminally.
Clearly, there are far more sympathetic followers of terrorist organizations' social media than there are those who actually participate in terror. And so the challenge becomes, who among the devout goes the terrorism route?
The process of radicalization is an intimate one. It reflects one's personal relationship with one's spirituality. In some instances, a cleric may be involved, but many self-radicalize because of their own curiosity and find fellow travelers online. Sometimes it is the company one keeps. Travel itineraries reveal exposure to training, rather than visits to family or sightseeing. Weapons training, when a recreational passion, is common to the devout who later reveal to be terrorists.
Mauro: How do you respond to those that argue that the conflict with Islamist extremists is just a misunderstanding between cultures due to a lack of heart-to-heart communication and self-esteem issues among recruits?

Welner: One can only achieve understanding, under ideal conditions of conciliation, between two humans of differing perspective. If one party dehumanizes another as a fundamental threat, then conciliation is not possible because the uncompromising goal—as in the case of ISIS—is that the other party is its enemy and submission or extermination is required.
For ISIS, understanding with others is an existential threat to the purity to which they lay claim. It is ISIS' and, more broadly, radical Islam's dehumanization of non-believers that feeds their cause and entitlement to brutalize. Likewise, this mindset demands that the only understanding we reach is submission, just like all fascisms before it and since.
Spectacle crime, such as terrorism, is a choice made by those with high expectations of themselves to do great but who are painfully aware of their underachievement. The ideology they choose is the bromide of their disappointment; the enemy they choose the projection of their shortcomings; and the terrorism they leap into a transcendence they would never otherwise achieve.
What ISIS' recruitment in the U.S. and elsewhere has achieved is the seduction of idealistic young recruits drawn to utopian religion. The recruits feel good about themselves, in some cases pursue the ISIS dream with their spouses and want to be a part of something greater.
These are a whole different group from the hardened, angry, dead-ended ex-cons who have violent histories and, often, previous drug problems that we've seen implicated in terror plots. The San Bernardino massacre was the birth of ISIS in Americana, reflecting the organizational signature of how far a couple would go for their faith—indeed they would die together -- and leave their baby an orphan.
Mauro: Let's talk about solutions. Is there any information from psychology and psychiatry that can help us understand what will de-radicalize someone? What has to happen for an Islamist extremist to change their mind about the cause they've embraced?

Welner: Because the problem is a religious one, its treatment is religious as well. And, just like cult treatment, terrorist treatment is difficult because the patient does not accept treatment willingly. And how can you "treat" a belief that is shared by one's physical or social media peer group? Psychiatric treatment for cult survivors requires isolation from other influencers. Isolation is impossible when you're dealing with a widespread community of believers, as is the case with radical Islam.
The results of deradicalization programs are still actively debated. High-profile failures demonstrate that the programs can be gamed by the terrorist “patients.” There are some success stories, however, but not enough transparency is available to allow us to become fully informed as to whether terrorists have reprogrammed themselves ideologically, become pacifist or simply matured to other passions.
Deradicalization programs aiming to re-educate the violence-oriented with a more peace-oriented Islam are part of a broader psychosocial strategy that integrates family influences and external life priorities like vocational developments. The programs of Asian countries with large Muslim populations and little Islamist influence, Singapore specifically, are particularly informative.
The intellectual freedom in these countries allow for introspection that is not possible, for example, in the Arab world or other Islamic countries. In those countries, discussion about defining Islam in a way that does not threaten the national interest is reflexively regarded as blasphemy. It is a form of political-correctness of the Muslim world that undermines well-meaning deradicalization programs.
Mauro: There's a common claim that the more we kill Islamist terrorists, the more hate will exist and the surrounding population will become terrorists as well. What's your take on the notion that killing terrorists is counter-productive and there must be a better alternative?

Welner: The claim that the "more we kill, the more they hate us" is vacuous, as if the Islamists were Tibetan monks set upon by Chinese occupiers. We are at war because our enemy has acted to murder us and to eliminate a way of life different from its own. And if the enemy uses a religious ideal to justify killing us, if we do not eliminate that enemy, that ideology will use its very survival to claim God's will to protect it in order to continue to kill us.
No matter how we as a nation pursue the Islamist threat, the United States will be portrayed as a devil deserving of destruction. Therefore, the "more we kill, the more they hate us" premise is irrelevant; we are hated not because we kill, but because we exist.
Were we not to kill, the U.S. would be slandered and propagandized against for any number of grievances, including for being a secular and pluralistic society. Those who control mass opinion in the nations where radical Islam is highly represented use the media to propagandize no matter what we do. Those who concern themselves with making the right impression among our enemies overlook the reality that our enemies control the messages to their populations.
Mauro: We've seen the power of political satire through Bassem Youssef in Egypt and now an Arab version of "SNL" is airing in the Middle East. Can you explain the importance of comedy, satire and being able to laugh at one's own identities (sect, religion, nationality, political party, etc.) in relation to Islamism?

Welner: Comedy is so powerful because humor’s ability to disarm penetrates defensiveness, and thus is one of the most effective ways to cultivate introspection.
The Islamic world is unusually defensive about the inhuman shame of Islamist violence, responding with rage and pride that blames non-Muslims. Undermining such self-deception is extremely difficult. The West makes it worse by accepting ingrained bigotry, be it the whitewashing of widespread rape by Muslim immigrants in Europe or silence in the face of Islamic misogyny or overlooking homicidality towards non-believers.
I am not convinced that there is enough freedom of the press in Muslim countries to allow for satire to confront the entrenched pathologies of radical Islamism. In other words, is the satire that currently exists truly humbling? Or is it simply another medium in which a comedian can make fun of Donald Trump and the Zionists like everyone else? Our own American satirists, sadly, incise in one political direction only and never take on Islamism. Even the rare outspoken humorists like Bill Maher only go so far as to offer criticism and political commentary, but not actual humor.
The U.S., the acknowledged beacon of free speech, touts "The Book of Mormon" for its comedic merit, but allows its creative types to be intimidated from satirizing Islam with equal treatment. Charlie Hebdo was decimated with no rejoinder to protect the capacity to satirize.
Since we do not set an example of protecting and promoting the full potential of comedy, because of our own self-censorship, what can be expected of the Muslim world? Until comedy is truly protected as free speech—without neither violence nor professional ostracism—we will reap the consequences of censoring free speech by failing to give example to peoples we should be inspiring.
Forensic psychiatrist Michael Welner, M.D., is chairman of The Forensic Panel. He has examined terrorists in cases in Guantanamo and elsewhere, perpetrators of mass killing, and religious extremist offenders spanning the criminal and civil case spectrum.

Dr. Welner's landmark Depravity Standard research, standardizing the distinction of criminal evil, is applicable to such contexts as war crimes. It is the first sentencing research to involve survey input of the general public to refine sentencing standards, and you can likewise participate, at www.depravitystandard.org
Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.


Andrew said...

Fascinating interview! Thank you for sharing it.

It confirms something that I've long suspected: satire and cultural self-deprecation do have an effect on social confidence levels.

In the West, our popular culture has been radically self-deprecating (anti-traditional, anti-Christian, anti-authoritarian, anti-white male, etc.) for quite some time. This has eroded our faith in the value of our own cultural ideals, contributing to relativism.

It makes me lament all the rise of Phenomenology (the thesis that things have reality/identity only in their *relationship* to other things) and the decline of Thomistic philosophy in which things had an intrinsic reality/identity.

When they write the obituary for Western, Christian civilization, I suspect that Phenomenology will be identified as the cause of death (or better yet, the murder weapon).

John Mc Gowan said...

Wow! Lots to work with.


OT Update:

Judge refuses to toss model's defamation lawsuit against Bill Cosby

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Comedian Bill Cosby on Tuesday lost his bid to throw out a defamation lawsuit brought against him and his former lawyer by supermodel Janice Dickinson, clearing the way for a trial in the sensational case, her attorney said.

Dickinson claims in the Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit that Cosby and his ex-attorney Martin Singer defamed her when they asserted in statements to the media that her account of being drugged and raped by Cosby in 1982 was a fabrication.

"It was a big victory for us today and we're very, very pleased," said Dickinson's attorney, Lisa Bloom. "The court ruled that we will go to trial against Bill Cosby. We've been fighting for almost a year so Janice Dickinson can prove her claims of defamation against him."

The attorney representing Cosby in the defamation suit, Christopher Tayback, referred requests for comment on the ruling to a spokeswoman who could not immediately be reached for comment.

Dickinson is one of more than 50 women who have accused Cosby, 78, of sexual assault, often after allegedly plying them with drugs or alcohol in a series of incidents dating back decades.

Most of the alleged assault cases are too old to be cause for criminal prosecution.

Pennsylvania prosecutors late last year filed charges against Cosby related to an alleged 2004 sex assault, just days before the statute of limitations was about to expire. He is currently out on bail awaiting trial.


elf said...

Question :
(Regarding Shaylyn Ammernan case)
Shaylyn's father and grandmothers statements were full of red flags and inconsistencies and they've (the paternal side of her family) have been cleared with father and uncle passing polygraph's and the killer making a confession that he did it all alone. I guess my question is, do you think the red flags were due to the father suspecting it was his brothers friend? And what about the grandmothers timeline inconsistancies?

Anonymous said...

Sidney Moorer is trying to be a model/actor. I wonder what Tammy thinks of it?


Anonymous said...

I said Sidney was gay bc of perfectly matching tie/shirt...people didn't believe it...more evidence with what you posted anon 9:24.
I'm sure Tammy is proud of her handsome man.

Anonymous said...

Actually, I just looked at pics...he's not really good-looking is he? Certainly nothing to write home about. The off center mini-beard in the first picture where he is wearing the "Grumpy" shirt is really quite awful.

Anonymous said...

Back to the Islamic article...recently, I've been researching Islam, and yes it is a fundamentally violent religion. Mohammed was a murdering warlord and he is considered the "perfect" example of behavior. He was also a rapist and pedophile. So there you have it folks...not a peaceful religion. Of course, you can't utter these words on social media or people absolutely pounce on you...after all Islam is the "religion of peace". And "we all worship the same God". And whatever other meme people want to throw at you. It is a nihilistic religion. It truly is a death cult.

I try to be open-minded but always knew there was something strange about the religion. I actually fell in love with a Muslim and he was quite in love with me also even after not seeing me for many years. All I had to say was "I miss you" and he immediately came a thousand miles to see me. Oh but his Muslim Dad didn't like that. And the Muslim Dad won in the end, in fact he won in the beginning because these poor souls are absolutely controlled by their Muslim parents who demand they marry Muslims from their home country of origin or be "disowned". So the fact they "dabble" in Western ways is quite meaningless. It actually is a searing kind of pain to love someone and have that kind of chemistry with them where life itself became a joy in their company and to have that person turn on you and denounce you as a corrupt Westerner after knowing them for 15 years because their Dad made them finally join a Muslim dating site and marry a Muslim from their country of origin.
Yeah, so anyway, Islam sucks any way you look at it. It's definitely not a fun thing and will not leave you smiling your teeth off.

Anonymous said...


Could you do an analysis of Calvin Harris? He has been found guilty two times of murdering his wife, but managed to get both convictions thrown out. The third time he went on trial, there was a hung jury. Now, he is going on trial for a fourth time, and has opted for a bench trial.

Below is a link to an interview he did for 48 hours. He only allowed them to ask very limited questions. I have an opinion on his statements but would like to get someone else's take on it first. Thank you


Hey Jude said...

I am thinking to take part in the survey, though I would like the option to opt out and delete if I change my mind half way through - one has to sign up to read the questions. My reservation might be that many people would want longer sentences for some crimes and, if implemented, that could be counterproductive. In the UK there are often complaints in forums, and in news sites' comments, about inadequate sentences for rape and for other violent crimes - some people would like the death penalty restored, and for life sentences to mean life, and for there to be no early release for those who plead guilty. The judiciary point out that if criminals were given the sentences the public wants, it would lead to an increase in the number of murder victims - if sentences were much increased, it would create a motive for murder in those who otherwise would have walked away from their victim - an attacker might think they might just as well commit murder as rape if there were not much difference between the sentences they would get for one crime or the other - a dead victim wouldn't be able to identify or testify against him/her.

The results will be interesting , though there might not be enough response from enough residents of enough countries to build an accurate moral demography. I either haven't yet read, or have missed, if the results will be publicly available, but one would hope so.

Anonymous said...

How about Ted Cruz and his alleged mistresses. Cruz and at least two women have "answered" the allegations, but none of them has issued a reliable denial. They've called the story "tabloid garbage," but none have said "I did not have sex with Ted Cruz" or in Ted's case "I did not have sex X,Y,Z, etc."

One of the women, Amanda Carpenter, came pretty close to a denial, but didn't get all the way there.

She said, "My relationship with Senator Cruz was purely professional." "I have been 100% faithful to my husband." "I have no knowledge of the allegations in the supermarket tabloid story."

If none of these people can say they didn't hook up with each other, we can't say it for them.

Nanaof4 said...

Anonymous at 8:02

I would say her statements are much like Bill Clinton's. Her meaning of being faithful and purely professional is not defined. She is allowing us to use our definition to come to the conclusion that she did not have any type of an intimate relationship with Cruz.

Andrew said...

The transcript of the Tapper interview is up. It is not exculpatory, to say the least.

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

elf said...
Question :
(Regarding Shaylyn Ammernan case)
Shaylyn's father and grandmothers statements were full of red flags and inconsistencies and they've (the paternal side of her family) have been cleared with father and uncle passing polygraph's and the killer making a confession that he did it all alone. I guess my question is, do you think the red flags were due to the father suspecting it was his brothers friend? And what about the grandmothers timeline inconsistencies?

I've read that the uncle passed his polygraph. I've noted no one has come out and said that the father passed his. Just that he was polygraphed.

At first Kyle Parker said that Adam was with him when they disposed of Shaylyn. The FBI (?) told him Adam passed his polygraph. Hearing this, he said he acted alone, that that's when he said he raped Shaylyn and disposed of her. They said that Adam Parker confessed to his step-dad that "they will know who did it" when they conduct a DNA test (if any survived from being bleached away). I don't know if that means he was only talking about himself.

In my opinion, the timeline doesn’t jive for the amount of work involved in abducting a live Shaylyn: IMO, the amount of abuse they say inflicted was too severe for it to happen while he pulled over before en driving to the isolated location to dispose of her body… and build a campfire to destroy evidence. Did he have bleach in his car, too, or did he take it from the Ammerman home? Is there any one on public record that he stopped for groceries? Where did the bleach come from? Does Kyle Parker smoke? (Lighter with which to build the fire?) Once that was all taken care of, he then drove out of the woods to someone else’s home in town, arrived at 3:30, then proceeded to to clean his car, do (his friend’s) laundry and shower.

I watched an) interview this morning given by the woman whose garage he parked in. She said he drove into her garage and parked around 3:30AM. Adam said he left between 3:00 and 4:00. Kelly Roger and friend arrived to the house at 4:00 and (I’m assuming) Kyle had already left. Obviously someone was up as I find it hard to believe that anyone would “drop in” to someone’s house if everyone was asleep or passed out drunk (Adam).


There are so many inconsistencies, I really can't help but think that LE has purposely not made more arrests for a reason. I can't reconcile the fact that the investigation into Shaylyn's abuse and death, stops with Kyle Adams.

Nic said...

... If one party dehumanizes another as a fundamental threat, then conciliation is not possible because the uncompromising goal—as in the case of ISIS—is that the other party is its enemy and submission or extermination is required.


It is ISIS' and, more broadly, radical Islam's dehumanization of non-believers that feeds their cause and entitlement to brutalize.


Therefore, the "more we kill, the more they hate us" premise is irrelevant; we are hated not because we kill, but because we exist.

[end snip]


That about sum's [it] all up right there.

This is an excellent an insightful interview. I wish all on-line publications would pick it up.

Droll Skeptic said...

Islam isn't even a religion...its a totalitarian political ideology masquerading as one. It's time the world started treating it as such, and give the Qu'ran its proper place on the shelf alongside Mein Kampf and Das Kapital.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Your comparison is fair, if not weak.

Islam is a political and military ideology first and foremost. In this, it is supremacist, such as was Nazism.

It has a religious component where its sexual violence is carried over from this life to the next life.

In scope, it is 100 times worse than nazism, but in the 1940's, we did not talk about "moderate Nazis";

Well said, Droll.

I wonder if my comparison, too, is weak.


Anonymous said...

I dont understand why so many "moderate" Muslims jump to the defence of Islam without explaining what their religion actually does say that is so wonderful in their view. For example, I could say, as a Christian, were there Christian terrorist attacks, my religion does not promote that, Jesus did not even fight back against those killing him, Jesus stopped the stoning of the adulterous woman, Jesus did not kill, he actually raised people from the dead. Like I said, you see on social media Muslims posting memes like "we all worship the same God" or "not in my name"...in fact I dont personally see Muslims saying "Islam is a religion of peace"...I think that is more the liberal apologists. So, are these Muslims being disingenuous when defending their religion with these unconvincing feel-good memes? Or do they actually believe their religion promotes goodness?

Tania Cadogan said...

She said, "My relationship with Senator Cruz was purely professional." "I have been 100% faithful to my husband." "I have no knowledge of the allegations in the supermarket tabloid story."

I like to freewheel my brain cell on occasion, to see what pops up.
Sometimes garbage, sometimes astute and sometimes hmmm.

This statement came under the hmmm category.
"My relationship with Senator Cruz was purely professional."
The keyword was professional
Being an escort or a hooker would make the 'relationship' purely professional.
The woman offers a service, the male agrees to use the service, a deal is agreed for said service, the service is rendered and payment is made and both go off to their next appointment happy.

" "I have been 100% faithful to my husband."
Why the need to include a percentage?
What is her definition of faithful?
What is included?
What is excluded?
Have been
Is there a time when she hadn't been?

"I have no knowledge of the allegations in the supermarket tabloid story."
If she has no knowledge of the tabloid's allegations, why is she making a denial?
Why specify supermarket tabloid and not the media in general?

She makes no strong reliable denial.

Tania Cadogan said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I dont understand why so many "moderate" Muslims jump to the defence of Islam without explaining what their religion actually does say that is so wonderful in their view ... Or do they actually believe their religion promotes goodness?

They have no choice but to defend their ideology, if they don't they risk being killed by their fellow muslim.

Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them.

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true as it relates to the Muslim identity.

Tawriya - Intentionally creating a false impression.

Muruna - 'Blending in' by setting aside some practices of Islam or Sharia in order to advance others.

Kitman is characterized by someone telling only part of the truth.
Governments, the media, liberals, left wing apologists, even Christian religions all minimize the truth about islam.

A common form of kitman is to quote only the few peaceful passages from the Quran, knowing full-well that that passage was later abrogated by a more militant, contradictory verse.

They treat islam as a religion not an ideology.
They think love, good deeds, aid, forgiveness, tolerance of their 'religion' even that giving them jobs will cause muslims to become peaceful, tolerant, responsible citizens just like the rest of the world.

They don't understand it will never happen, it can't happen.

They don't understand the concept of if you aren't a muslim then you must be converted, at gun point if necessary or simply exterminated and wiped off the face of the Earth.
Just because Christianity and other religions couldn't even contemplate the idea of wiping out another religion from the face of the Earth, doesn't mean islam feels the same way, even though that is what we are told to believe.

It is not comparing like with like despite what those in power are telling us.

If you ask a muslim how they feel about another muslim of the same sect, they will speak positively about them.
If you then ask about a muslim from a different sect, then you will see the hatred and vitriol, if they even decide to speak about them at all.

They will say don't ask me about them, they are infidels.

Although they may worship the same god, unlike Christianity which happily accepts different sects within its belief, muslims will not tolerate any other sect, sunni hates shia and vice versa and both hate Yazidis and muslims won't even tolerate sub sects of their own sect.

Remember muslims have been indoctrinated from birth to believe everything their 'religion' teaches them.
It controls every aspect of their life from birth to death, their rights, their laws, everything.
Islam supersedes the host nation's laws, rights and obligations.
Islamic law, is above all man made laws.
Muslims will say whatever is needed to allow them to remain and infest their host nation.
They will selectively edit quotes from the koran, which will paint them in a positive light, secure in the knowledge it will not be examined closely.

Anonymous said...


Thank you for breaking it down like that. Especially the aspects of deception and making false impressions. Even on social media, there is something puzzling about the lack of direct condemnation towards ISIS atrocities (and "not in my name" does not suffice as condemnation) combined with feel-good memes that makes a person begin to wonder about the nature of Islam and its believers. I think they are very indoctrinated and I myself have been quite close to a Muslim for many years but that element of superiority was hidden not far from the surface. I feel it is a very flawed religion which is very different than Christianity with many things lacking such as the virtue of forgiveness. You helped very much explain the mentality of the ideology of Islam, and until researching it I never realized how it does control every aspect of their lives as you pointed out, including mandating they are required to sleep on their right side! It seems like a very hyper-controlling religion and when combined with principles such as dominance and forcing others into submission could create a very virulent "religion".