Thursday, March 12, 2015

Language of Persuasion and Religion

Each day there is a new report of murder and terror, in the name of religion, across the globe.  Many websites, independent from main-stream media, post the videos in their unedited form.

Each day, there are new words for analysis by leaders of Muslim nations in which "Jihad" is promised, specifically, against the United States and its allies.  The Iranian President spoke this week and even used the word "Jihad" regarding "negotiations" with the United States.  In country after country, every day, non Muslims or "disobedient" Muslims are being targeted for violence.  Women are a specific target.  The violence has a common denominator:  display.

Why such displays of violence under the banner (wording) of religion?

This short article explores how language reveals action and is a powerful predictor of violence, just as pattern is.


In some sense, everyone has a religion; that is, a belief system in which there is a 'final arbitrator' of right and wrong.  This is sometimes called the "principle passion", or drive, but can basically be seen when one is faced with a major ethical decision in life and must decide:  what is right, what is wrong, and why it is such. Even an avowed atheist has to discern between what is right and what is wrong, and the place of final appeal to said to be the place of "worship."  If I believe in no creator, no governing deity, yet define something has "definitively wrong", (or "truthful"), I make myself the final arbitrator and my own 'god' in this sense.  Even the one who says, "everyone knows this is wrong.  No religion is needed!" will eventually find that the final arbitrator was "everyone", that is, "society."

I ask students, for example, if it is "wrong" for me to walk up to someone I do not know, discern by facial feature, that he is different than me, and slap him across his face.

They answer, "it is wrong."

I ask, "How do you know it is wrong?" inevitably, one says "everyone knows it is wrong.  It is just wrong."

I then say that I am to understand that society, as a whole, condemns this action as being morally objectionable" to which the class agrees.

I then place myself in 1938 Nazi Germany and the victim is a Jew and by and large, society has accepted not only this slap, but for me to take the Jew's possessions, as well.

In the very least, this is done to make them think:  We do that which we believe; we articulate that which we believe.

When someone says, as an atheist, "It's wrong.  You should treat them as you want to be treated.  Everyone knows that", they are, perhaps unaware, borrowing an ethical code from Christianity.

History of how man thinks, and what society has done with what one thinks, is a powerful tool.

Racist taunts of blacks in America mocked African culture as blacks sold blacks into slavery and African culture, during the time of exploration and slavery, was, village by village, marked by slavery  and cannibalism with villages thought to be up to 70% enslaved, according to European explorers.  This argument is used by racists to call the Negro race "inferior."

Historically, the same racist can be asked, "Where did your people come from?" and, inevitably, historical roots can be explored and traced with evidence of...

slavery, cannibalism, violence, and injustice in every land known to mankind.

It was in this violent, dark world that mono-theism arose and "an eye for an eye" limited retributions and "Thou shalt not" was born.  This influence, beginning in ancient Israel, spread, sometimes through Israeli slaves in foreign lands.

There was a great line in the movie "Gladiator" in which the main character (I know, I know, a 'modern movie' and not one from the 1930's) is out on wars of conquest for "the glory of Rome" when he says "I have seen the rest of the world.  It is darkness.  Rome is the light."

Historically, this was a accurate line because it was, by and large, true, including the land where my roots were found:  Ireland.

As we watched the "light" of Rome in "Gladiator", we are horrified by violence in its society, including the gladiator sport fighting.

All of our roots can be traced back to violence.

So when one wishes to denigrate a particular race as inferior, one needs only to learn their own history to know that the world, over thousands of years, has come from very similar beginnings.

To understand what one does, we listen to what one says.  This is evident in the intent to deceive:  we look into the words to see what is intended.

Religion has caused great change in the world.  What were these religious beliefs that changed the world?

This becomes easier to discern when the words are written.

We do what we believe.

We can look at the "words" of religion, that is, the principle teachings, and then look at the precedent set by those who followed these "words."

We then can understand the language of persuasion versus the language of coercion.

There were three major religions that formulated and impacted the world:




Eschatology, or "Future" beliefs.

The words behind each religion tells us the history.  We do that which we believe, and societies (plural) have been impacted by those who acted upon what they believed.

Fortunately for us, these "words" are recorded even when history's writers wish to portray otherwise.

All three major religions speak of reaching the world.

I.  Judaism had the claim to be a "light to the Gentiles" or a "light to the nations" while seeking to remain pure from external influences such as the ancient world's history of human sacrifices, in particular, as human sacrifice as a religion was common.  From the beginning of Judaism, we were given:

The Ten Commandments, or the "thou shalt nots", forbidding certain behavior.

Judaism did not take the call to be the "light to the Gentiles" with much conviction.  It spread slowly and lightly, and often, as was the case in Rome, through slavery.

The lack of zeal within Judaism to spread itself has been throughout history and evidenced in the first century where Christ, entering the temple, found the "court of the Gentiles" had become a flea market.  The specific location where non Jews (Gentiles) were permitted to hear the Torah was trampled by the buying and selling, which Christ then is recorded to have taken some leather cords and flip over the tables and drive out the sellers.

After the diaspora, Jews were known to be secluded in many societies, which, given human nature, bred fear and distrust, and claims of "hoarding" of money, such as "Jews only hire Jews" and eventually, the Nazi party's claim that "Jews were behind the Treaty of Versaille", which laid a yoke upon Germany that would bring about the second world war.

Put yourself in the shoes of the Jews.  As their nation was destroyed over a period of years by Titus, Josephus described the landscape of crucifixes, the instrument of Roman cruelty, to be as far as the eye could see, as if they were trees growing from the ground.  The siege of Jerusalem was so severe that starvation led to madness which led to the eating of their own children, and their temple destroyed.

As Jews went from land to land, they brought with them their specific monotheistic beliefs and placed strong emphasis upon education of their children.  Some assimilated more than others, which is why many Jews refused to leave Nazi Germany when they had the chance.  We hear, even today, documentaries where they are heard saying, "But we were Germans!  We fought for Germany in the Great War!"

They did not take seriously the words of the National Socialists, who's threats were made against worldwide Jewry.

Judiasm has not been known to go "door to door" to make converts, yet has historically welcomed converts, particularly post 1948, back to Israel.

Herein is the key for the article:  Judaism is a "persuasive religion."

Judaism is a "persuasive religion", that is, one in which others are verbally and/or visibly persuaded to accept its teachings, including the many "thou shalt nots" in society.

Although some have masked themselves in religion in order to conduct war, Judaism does not teach conquest by violence, therefore, it does not have a history of such.  Old Testament war references (Joshua) were specific to time, tribe and locale.  Jews did not, either by precept or precedent, claim to have a right to conduct warfare of expansion, in writing, or history.  They do not seek to expand by coercion.

Christianity is a persuasive religion. 

Christianity, in both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, is also a  "persuasive religion", where "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is used to persuade others to become followers.  This is the basic teaching and basic history.  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" joined to the "thou shalt nots", as Christianity expressed itself as a fulfillment of Judaism's beliefs and promises.

Though smaller sects have taught contrary, the major teaching of Judaism and Christianity about the future of the world is ancient:  "unto a thousand generations" will eventually come peace and prosperity where "the lion lays down with the lamb" and that military technology will eventually be used in agricultural advances with "they shall beat their spears into plowshares" embraced as promises.

The exception is the "end timers", "preppers", or others, considered generally, "dispensationalists" who, since the late 1970's, have gotten a great deal of press, though in number, are small.  Hal Lindsey's "Late Great Planet Earth" was a huge seller, and the predictions (I've analyzed them here in the blog) from Harold Camping "broke rank" due to his historic protestant background.

To date, none of the predictions has  come to pass.

As to a reminder that "people do what they believe", I spoke to people who had sold their homes and quit their jobs believing the end had come.  (1994).  Some were highly intelligent and none (that I either spoke to, or knew of) were impoverished.  They even used the sale of items to fund the purchase of billboards across the country.  This expression of freedom was met with derision or curiosity, for the most part.  Being ridiculed is part of what we accept as those who cherish freedom.  What one may hold sacred, another mocks.  In the USA historically, this has always been accepted.  In whatever position, the "unpersuaded" are free to not believe, as much as the "persuaded" are free to sell their homes.  I tried to persuade some against this, but still had to respect their freedom.

Judaism and Christianity are, therefore, "progressive" religions; that is, they seek to better the world through progress, overall, and they are "persuasive" religions.

 The reason I use "overall" is that there are small minorities that do not seek progression, such as Amish and various similar types.  They reject the progression of culture, yet it is not something "in writing", that is, something found in Torah or Bible.  As a small percentage, we are reminded:

Principle is not built upon exception.

In lands where Judaism and Christianity took root (that is, became generally populous) were the lands where democracy arose,  and agriculture expanded, and society grew.

This became known as "the West", or "Western civilization."

Judaism and Christianity, in its core writings, are religions of "persuasion."

The attempt to persuade comes from words; that is,  the "holy" (meaning 'separate')  books, or writings:  The Bible (Talmud) so that it is in writing, which leaves  expectations as visible.

                          You  and I are free to be persuaded or not to be persuaded.

The language is plain enough that you may make an informed decision, and have the freedom to disagree without consequence to you, or your family.   Lawmakers had this in mind prohibiting government from mandating any religious worship from its citizens in America.

Islam, however, is a very different religion, from the perspective of "words", that is, the language believed, in writing, and taught.  This is the book known as the "Koran."

In Islam, the notion of persuasion is absent, or foreign.

                                             Islam is a religion of coercion, and not of persuasion. 

Question:  How do we know that Islam is a religion of coercion?

Answer:  By its words, found in written form.

The teaching of Islam from the Koran is "order" and "submission", hence the description of a "static" religion, that is, one not moving forward, or being "progressive" in society.

  The "West" has the "outworking" of its teaching including art, education, music, theater, agricultural advances, scientific advances, exploration, and so on.  This is consistent with the religious belief that the world began as a "garden" and the command to "dress and keep it", including conservation, ends with a "garden city" description.  The age of exploration was to spread its persuasion.  We do what we believe.

In all manner, mankind has done evil in the name of religion, often as a cover for greed, but it is only Islam that teaches explicitly:  Conquest by coercion.

Why terrorism?

The Koran teaches coercion and "spectacular" deaths; that is the written basis for terrorism.  To condemn Islamic terrorism is to publicly criticize Mohammad.  This is why when the call is given for "moderate Muslims to condemn the terrorism", there is a lack of response.

Specifically, the Koran teaches:

1.  Conquest by coercion not persuasion.
2.  Heavenly reward through violence.  This is where one is promised after-life sensuality for the 'spectacular' killing of an 'infidel', or a woman dying in childbirth.  Hence, the low view of women begins and what we call "terror", Islam calls "display" and "spectacular cruelty" (in English) so that the non Muslim will take notice, which will cause them to yield, and to pay 'tribute' or tax.

This leads to the tearing down education, specifically that of women as well as the targeting of homosexuals as seen recently.  To a "moderate Muslim" condemnation of this, we have the words of Mohammad:
  "Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Lot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done."

To condemn this is to condemn Mohammad.  Hence, the silence.

The depth of religious belief.

How deep does a religious belief go?

Look no further than the Christians under Nero who chose death by violence rather than denial of their beliefs.  It is deep, and it is powerful.

This is what gives humans the ability to go so far, for example, as to be a child, and pull a gun at point blank range upon another human as we saw recently via video.  Or, the lighting of fire of one video taped recently, or the spate of daily video releases including beheading by small knife, or the photo of the gay man thrown to his death.

These are not simply coming from one locale.

What is the impetus for such barbaric cruelty as lighting one on fire, while alive, while video taping it for the world to see, or to use a small knife to brutally behead one for the video?

It is a deep seated, religious and 'sacred' belief that what they are doing is commanded in the Koran, practiced in history (precedent) and expected by the Muslim community.

Could you take a kitchen knife and tear away at the neck of an unarmed man, kneeling before you?

To do so, in our society, we believe one must be sociopathic, mentally ill, beyond human reason and, in short, "sick" in order to do what we are seeing done on a regular basis.

We do not grasp that religious belief, itself, is deeply embedded within the mind, as something that is above average human behavior.

Religious belief is powerful.

What is the religious belief that is so powerful as to cause Muslims to do all forms of violent murder in cold blood?

I asked before if you were capable of cutting the throat of another.  The setting is important.  In "hot blood", you are likely capable of lots of violence  if the circumstance was set where your own child, for example, was in danger.  As a parent, you are likely capable of all sorts of violence in the name of protecting your child.

It is, however, in cold blood, that is, in a setting to which you must not "react", but "act" and this action will be most inhuman, therefore, careful training is necessary.  This is why, in warfare, men have to be trained to kill.  We underestimated the Japanese belief about death, early in World War II, and projected our mentality towards them, when we surrendered our troops only to have death marches, and be-headings, where photos became popular in Japan, much like kids in the US loved baseball cards.  The brutality stunned the Americans who responded, as humans do, in kind.

Also in World War II, the suicide rate among German soldiers who were tasked with "special actions", that is, murdering unarmed non-combatents (Jews) was  high.  Even for soldiers, trained to kill, many killed themselves after killing unarmed men, women and children.  Others, deeply engrained in Nazi belief, which is now, in documentaries, rightfully called "religious belief" (Nazi ideology was, in deed, religious in nature) and it needed to be given to children ("Hitler Youth") with lots of propaganda against Jews, in order to get them to wipe out the Jewish race.

It was not a 'natural' act to kill in cold blood in Western mindset.  It was a shock to the system.

For Muslims, the sacred book of the Koran teaches that Islam is spread in this manner, and that the death must be in such a manner as to gain as much attention as possible, and that specific reward awaits the killers, specifically for their actions.  This is without respect to class, finance, or nationality, or race.

It is not about finance but about religious conviction.

"Islam is a religion of peace" is an "unnecessary sentence" making it "doubly important" in Statemet Analysis. Muslims, forbidden to lie to Muslims, will not make this statement, but they will make it to "infidels", that is, non-Muslims, or non-practicing Muslims.

The history of Islam is a history of violence because it is prescriptive violence and not the acts of a madman seeking to conquer, using religion to cover up murder.

As the Egyptian Christians were recently killed in the name of "Allah", with crosses, we were told  "it had nothing to do with religion."

Propaganda tells us:  "You did not see what your eyes saw.  You did not hear what your ears heard.  See and Hear what I tell you."

As the violence is prescriptive violence based upon a coercive religion, one must carefully consider what this means to arm those who have a static worldview for the future.

People may kill in the name of their nation, their nationality,  their specific cause, their race, their religion, and so on.  To do so is to do so against the written wording of their religion, except for those who hold to the Koran.


The Koran calls for expansive conquest by violence, specifically, and the obedient followers of the Koran have obeyed its calls historically and in our day.

Violence is often preceded by words, by individuals, and by organizations.

In Islam we must note that only the "disobedient" will refuse violence, which, as a refusal, takes several forms:

a.  One may not want to be the violent person but...
b.  the same one may not want to condemn the violence as to condemn violence is to condemn the Koran and oppose the words of Mohammad.

This goes not only historically, but even in the realm of domestic violence towards women and the denial of educational rights.

Words of violence precede violence.  

Here, we must grasp not only the prescriptive violence, but the coercive nature of Islam, and make some difficult decisions on how to protect our society which has always sought to tolerate opposing view points in life.

Next up:  How to screen for violence in employment interviews, particularly when employees work with people at risk, including children, the elderly, and those less capable of self protection.


Anonymous said...

where i live women are a target of both.

GetThem said...

Nicely written Peter. Reading that reminded me too that in the Islam and Jihadist culture, they bring up their youth to think violently. Just like Hitler Youth. Children are more impressionable, think of video games that kill people. It's much easier to teach a 5 year old to hate girls and that killing is okay. Their families teach their children barbarism and violence from birth. It's all around them. Children watch and learn. Islam starts hatred from birth and there is very little chance to escape... alive.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Thank you, GetTHem. Anonymous, please choose a name and explain!

I am looking specifically for non Muslim opinions and viewpoints regarding Muslim rights, Muslim sympathies, immigration, and so on.

This is not a partisan discussion. Insults and taunts will be deleted.

I am hoping to hear from those who advocate for women's rights, same-sex rights, education, and other areas in which there may be impact by either Muslim culture or Islamic teaching.

I also wish to hear from those who oppose the recent article on Netanyahu.


As a non Muslim, do you support Iran's quest for a Nuclear reactor, and if so, why?

Those who oppose it believe, as I do, that it will be used in anger. I am looking to learn more about the public's view contrary to my own, here, in this topic.

As a non-Muslim, why do you support Iran having a nuclear facility?

As a non-Muslim, do you support multi-culturalism from those who taken stances against women's education and homosexuality from the Koran?

And as always, if you assert, please explain why.

I enjoy good debate and grew up cherishing freed of speech. I ask for comments so that I may learn and expand my understanding. I fear its exercise is not only restrained, but becoming scarce.

Next up will be violence in language during job interviews to tackle the potential work place violence that may impact people at risk, specifically before the person is hired.

Can an interview reveal a violent history even if the subject passes a criminal background check?

After this, I wish to view the language source of "hands up!" and what came from this...

Thank you, all,


Tania Cadogan said...

Islam is The new (old) nazism.

The objectives are and were the same.

To erase from the world all those who are seen as different or inferior by those seeking total control.

If you do not meet with their perceived ideals then you are killed out of hand.
It doesn't matter your gender, your religion, your age, your sexual orientation if you are not perfect according to their rules and beliefs then you will die an interesting and agonising death

I wonder just how far daesh will go to meet their idea of religious perfection?
How long will it be before they decide simply being female means death as you cannot ever get to paradise as you are sinners and therefore not worthy.

How long will it be before those doing the killing become victims themselves as the children they have raised and trained turn on them for not being perfect muslims?

Islam is a religion brought about by a self confessed paedophile who cros dressed in womens clothing(apparantly he got his best ideas that way)
It is a warlike religion where you will convert or die unless it is deash in which case , even if you are muslim, you will still die anyway because you are a different sect.

It will come to a point where the whole world will say enough and do their darndest to erase every muslim from the planet, much as they did with the nazis in WWll.

The world will have no choice if it wants to have a future.
How soon this will be i do not know.
The public knows what is going on and demands action, the talking heads and politicians are in denial and believe the empty rhetoric they are being told by so called moderate muslims.

Sadly, there is no such thing as a moderate muslim, if they believe in allah and mohammed and follow islam then they have to follow its laws and the koran, and the koran makes it clear that infidels must convert or die and that women are 2 class citizens.

Muslims want to be the empire is used to be back in the 7th century, it has refused to advance and learn in the centuries since and never will.
it's mindset cannot get past the 7th century.
All the rights and privileges we anjoy today are anethema to the muslim, especially the male.

islam will one day self destruct and i hope i am not around when it does as it will be catastrophic for the whole planet.

Statement Analysis Blog said...


stepping outside of historic perspective and just comparing us with 1930 Germany and you are accurate.

I wrote of the comparison a few days before Israel PM spoke.

In this article, I just hope to show that we all do what we believe, and when what we believe is in writing, it allows for a strong perspective.

I believe Islam and the west is not a partisan issue for any of us.

I am hoping, specifically, for feedback from those who do not hold to Islam but were in defense of the nuclear deal with Iran, or agree with Islamic holidays in NYC, and so on.

I need to learn why, from a broad range of people, and am looking for perspectives from same sex, women advocates, pet advocates, libertarians, free speech advocates, and so on.

As our resident atheist with accent, I always appreciate your perspectives. I would appreciate them more if I just have a few more active brain cells.



My Sew Imperfect Life said...

This is only slightly OT. Are the dropped pronouns due to feeling he won't be believed? This is re: the "White Jihadi" Jake Bilardi.
"A fourth classmate, Daniel Puglisi, who was in the same Biology class with Jake, said: 'Honestly, I thought I had a friendly bond with him. He was such a nice kid. Was so well spoken. Was really intelligent. Had the aspiration of being a journalist. And had a keen interest in politics."

My Sew Imperfect Life said...

More sensitivity or is it cultural/way of speech?

"He was always respectful to me and I thought I'd never see this of him. It felt like a dream when I found out. Just so shocking and alarming. Mixture of emotions were instilled in me at the time. Honestly, don't know what else to say but it was very unexpected,' Puglisi told Daily Mail Australia.

John Mc Gowan said...


Did Nick Gordon Play Dr. Phil to Sway Bobbi Kristina Crime Probe?



Nick happens to mention that he and Bobbi Kristina got trashed partying into the wee hours the night before. And, yes, they had a big fight when they got home.

While he admits he’s been drinking and doing Xanax, an anti-anxiety drug, he has enough wits about him to blurt out: “Mom, I would never hurt anybody. I love people. I love babies. Everything!”

Anonymous said...

Sus said...

Since you asked...
First, my thoughts on a nuclear Iran and the talks going on right now...without delving into the religious issue.

I believe the we should be in talks with Iran, as a matter of fact, we have no choice.
1. Iran has the capabilities and the materials now. We're not "giving" them anything. We're attempting to get them monitored.
2. The other nations in the talks want to lift sanctions and deal with Iran. Sanctions from the U.S. alone will not be effective.
3. There's a larger deterrant to Iran amassing nuclear weapons than any agreement...It's Israel, Russia, the U.S., and probably Saudia Arabia. This is the reason the breakout time is a sticking point. Iran knows as soon as they activate something they shouldn't those countries are targeting them.
4. This bears repeating...It's far better to have Iran monitored regularly and dealing with us than be isolated and some type of Cold War situation. Negotiations are preferable to war.
5. Now Russia. Oh my. I frankly believe this is why we are a back door "we all know what you're doing, but we'll pretend not" type of way. Russia is determined to expand and become its former self. Think Germany after WWI. The Ukraine once had the world's third largest nuclear stockpile. We talked them into giving them up, promising we would defend them against Russia. See how that happened? Not. Very recently the U.S. helped Latvia amass troops and weapons on their border with Russia. Russia and Iran border each other, have some deals that have soured. I don't think the U.S. knows who to trust here. It may behoove the U.S. and Europe (and Israel) to have an ally in Iran. I'll leave it at that.

That's my reasoning in wanting the talks. I know the U.S. has always been about the "big stick", but I just can't agree with that philosophy any longer. The world knows how strong the U.S. is. Hide the stick and deal with others with respect.

Anonymous said...

^^^ Agreed, and add that we need an international coalition to enforce international law. The US and Israel cannot "go it alone" and insist on actions of Iran. What authority do we have under our constitution to prohibit another nation to not have a weapon we have thousands of. I'm not saying Iran should be allowed to have them, I'm saying the authority to prohibit has to come from INTERnational pressure, including a strong coalition. If we'd had a stronger alliance in place before Germany's invasions of Polsnd and France, we could have prevented more of the holocaust. What happened soon after WW2? The UN was formed, NATO was formed. Why? To prevent dangers like Germany's aggressive genocide. To now say "we don't care the other member nations of the UN Security Council wants, we're doing what Isrsel wants" is a dumb move and only weakens our international standing.

Don't like the UN or international laws? Then we don't have constitutional authority to insist on much of anything. Unless you believe invasions like the one in Libya are constitutional, which I do not.

I don't mind a big stick as long as there is international support for wielding it.

Anonymous said...

To add, some new understanding/agreement is preferred because there doesn't seem to be much faith that Iran is currently not seeking a nuclear program. Netanyahu seems to agree. So something new needs to happen to gain assurances for monitoring their (lack of) a program. If those assurances/permissions to monitor aren't evident, there should be no deal, as Obama said. If we can't trust now and can't seek something new to improve our ability to monitor, then it's all just a dog and pony show.

Sus said...

I can't agree that Islam is a "violent religion." Muslims follow the interpretation of the Koran and other books, by religious leaders. Therefore, it's not the religion itself, but the interpretation that decides behavior. If I understand correctly, Sunni and Shiite follow different historical time periods of interpreting Mohammad's words, or different teachers of the past. Modern day religious leaders then continue to interpret and give their views to their followers. This is another reason it was deemed that Iran might negotiate. Their religious leader has shown somewhat forward leanings and opening up to the west.

We see the same thing in the Christian religion. Our Christian denominations were based upon religious leaders/teachers interpretation of the Bible. Christians do have a choice, but as world history goes, that's a recent development.

Muslims are saying, I believe rightly so, that AlQueda, ISIS, and others are extremists groups. They do not stand for Islam or their principals. There are over one and a half billion Muslims in the world. Obviously they are not all trying to kill Christians and Jews. Certain extremist groups are. Certain extremist groups that have named themselves Islamic. Those groups no more represent Islam than the Ku Klux Klan represents Christianity. Just because they have a cross doesn't mean all Christians follow them. Just because ISIS has a Koran doesn't mean Muslims follow them. By the way, the argument can be made that ISIS members are using and hiding behind Islam. Released prisoners report ISIS is actually far far from devout Muslims. They don't teach from the Koran. They don't do their daily prayers. They seem to follow none of Islam's usual practices. It's reported they're more interested in ransom money, and importing porn.

I agree that women, children, minorities, gays, different religions do not have basic right of safety that I do. I read about atrocities and stop to thank God that I was born in the United States of America. That's the difference, and that's why I will always be for immigration laws that allow others this privilege. The hard truth is that we cannot make the entire world the United States, and we have no right to. We were a nation of open doors. Then we became imperialist and a nation builder. We've disposed and propped up leaders. We've invaded to "aid", and we've invaded because another nation might be a threat to us somewhere down the road. We've bombed innocent people and label them collateral damage from Southeast Asia to the Middle East. I can put myself in others shoes and see that around the globe The United States is seen as the aggressor.

I really got on my soapbox on that one. This has been on my mind for awhile.

Sus said...

"we're doing what Israel wants' is a dumb move and only weakens our International standing."

Yes! And this is what gets me. Any coalition agreement with Iran would only seem to be in the best interests of Israel. It means Iran would be monitored by the Security Council. Something Israel, itself, doesn't adhere to. There is no way Iran could produce a bomb that could threaten Israel without Israel blowing them to smithereens. Not to mention the Saudiis will surely bring back there uranium. They hate Iran. I keep wondering how Kerry's handling it with the Saudiis. I'm going to watch oil prices from there. ;-)

Israel has always relied upon the U.S. for its defense and the U.S. has paid a heavy price for it. We ensure Egypt doesn't have nuclear weapons by financing them. We invaded Iraq twice at Netanyahu's advice. Do you know how many casualties Israel suffered in those wars? Zero. We are fighting what was created from that vacuum.

We can't keep fighting Israel's enemies alone. A coalition will be better for Israel, also.

Anonymous said...

I don't consider Islam a religion. I feel that it's a cult. The word religion to me, means something special, no matter what the specific details are, whether it be Christian, Jewish, or anything in between. Anything or anyone that teaches pure hate and murder, rape, pedophilia, etc., is not special, it's not a religion, and its definitely not peaceful.

Statement Analysis Blog said...


What do you make of the Iranian verbal military threats, if only during 2015, against the US and Israel?

Thanks for the input,


Statement Analysis Blog said...

I, again, remind posters:

if you assert, please prove, or, in the least, supply either a link or news story.

As to Muslims "feeding the hungry, loving the homosexual, and spreading good will in the world", the assertion will need something, anything, even a single news article, to remain posted.

Otherwise, propaganda will be deleted.

I am looking for opinions from non-Muslims who support Islamic culture in America. I am attempting to learn and examine different perspectives.

Thus far, only partisan thought has been added. I am looking for detail....

thanks again,


Anonymous said...

Child marriage????

Sus said...

"...Iranian verbal military threats..."
Off the top of my head I can only recall one...something about 'taking Israel off the map'. It's difficult to analyze a statement like that with no context, that many say is misinterpreted, and that Netanyahu uses for political reasons.

It may be deep rooted feelings of hatred toward Israel. But then again, Israel and Iran once were allies. Perhaps Iran feels threatened by Israel and the U.S.

Again, I try to put myself in the shoes of the Muslim nations. Israel (and the U.S.) use preemptive aggression to "lead" globally. "Um, you look a bit too powerful. I believe we'll prop up a dictator in your country. We will invade and strike you down if you have the capabilities to harm our friend, Israel."

It cannot be denied anymore that Israel is defending herself by holding down everyone else in the Middle East. And it's done with US aid. That policy has caused the rise of extremist groups using any horrendous means possible to fight the powers that be.

Sara said...

A lot of these country's that hate us are like junior high school girls that hate the pretty girl because all the boys like her. It's jealousy plain and simple and old as dirt. Covetous behavior that Christianity warns against.
We, the U.S., do more good than harm. Yes, we need to reduce the harm we do, but on balance, we help more than we hurt.

Elizabeth said...

I watched that episode and think he was putting on an act. He kept "crying" spntaneously but there were no tears, puffy or red eyes, runny nose or anything to show he was really crying.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Iran releases video of their new cruise missile.

By the way, the website posted has a video of a panel of commentators that was heavy on logic and short on emotion, which is always of interest to readers here.

Thank you for the poster who directed me there. I may read the author's books. He is a former FBI instructor, who now is concerned over who is instructing the FBI (and military) on Islam violence.

A great point:

There may be a moderate muslim, but there is no such thing as moderate Islam. It is the ideology.

Those who have posted that they wish to not blame all when some are responsible, will appreciate the way this is approached in the panel discussion.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

Here it is.

I appreciate commentary on it.


Sus said...

I will definitely look at it. Funny you mention the FBI, which has long been a concern of mine. I don't think that people are getting a clear picture of how Ferguson, the rush to disband police forces, and even moving the ATF over to the DOJ is playing into this. Someone is pushing anarchy. Someone is removing the forces who actually do remove dangerous criminals from our streets.

I'm much more concerned with this type of domestic terrorism. Our lawmakers have done us a big disservice by voting with special interest in the guise of "our rights." It's led to more and sometimes impossible policing. Which in turn has led to wanting no police. Then who will step in to the empty void? Hmmm.

Statement Analysis Blog said...


I am going to post it.

I am still at a loss in understanding the angry reaction to Benjamin Netanyahu's speech against arming Iran.

I do not understand the defense of Islam, or the silence against it, specifically by women's rights, the gay community, and freedom of speech advocates.

This is why I am going to post it. I need to provoke dialog.

My guess is partisan thinking where one thinks they must defend Barak Obama, rather than the madness of the topic.

Iran has, in 2015, promised to destroy Israel and the United States.

I do not see why a single American who is not Muslim, would want to see any deal, good or bad, with Iran.

My only guess has been partisan but perhaps denial, or disbelief that one nation could use this weapon.

We did.

I am hoping that people will see that religious conviction is powerful.

I find this interesting:

terrorists, in the years before open jihad joining, became more pious in their religion, which led to deeper respect for the Koran and the life of Mohammad, both which call for violence against us.

I am hoping some of my friends here on the blog that have traditionally found a lot to disagree over, will pipe up and explain.



Sus said...

"against arming Iran"
That's rhetoric. We're not arming Iran. We want to negotiate a deal where Iran is monitored so they can't be a danger.

As to Iran making threats...the Middle East is a tinderbox. The world is a tinderbox. We're all making threats. Have you listened to Israel?

Landscapes change. We deal with enemies sometimes. Are you really saying we should have nothing to do with Germany? Japan? Vietnam? Cuba? If there are nations who we should be concerned with, then what about Pakistan?

I respect that you are not, but I separate the nation and religion. We are dealing with Iran and what is best for that region.

This is why I voted for Barak Obama. I'm glad to see it finally emerge, or for him to stand up for it. Some call it sympathizing with Muslims. Some say he is a Muslim. Its lleading in a global society. It's showing that the United States is great on its own merit. We do not have to beat down everyone else to stand on top, never letting them have a chance to shine.

If you want to change the inherent (ok, I'm giving you that) violence in Islam, it will never be done by war. You are not going to wipe out 1.6 billion Muslims because you don't like their religion. Think about that statement. It should sound familiar.

I thought it was an affront to President Obama to have Netanyahu speak to Congress. It was inviting a foreign leader as if his word was more important than our President's. I mostly ignored it. The letter to Iran set me off!! That's putting it mildly. :-) That was insinuating our president is a traitor, he and the US can't be trusted, and proved to me party affiliation is more important to Republicans than the safety of our nation.

I've probably gone on long enough. Except as I said in the earlier post...I believe ripping the fiber from within is the bigger problem. It's important to look at who is rushing into to "protest."

Statement Analysis Blog said...


If you believe that a deal that allows Iran to have a nuclear power plant that is monitored, I think I understand your position.

Let me know if this is accurate:

you believe that Iran can have a nuclear power plant monitored by the US/UN and this will keep them from developing a nuclear bomb?

Is this correct?


Statement Analysis Blog said...

AT your own discretion.


Sus said...

Yes. With all types of stipulations on the amount of uranium, etc. Inspections throughout Iran and from satellites. Of course, we don't know what terms their working on, but it's reported it may involve moving materials to Russia much like the Saudiis do now. Then do we inspect Russia?

Sus said...

Iran has nuclear plants. It's the enrichment plants that are a problem. They need inspected to test if the urananium is at a level for bomb making. Iran has already been enriching at a level to make a bomb.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Yes, I know.

I was just trying to understand if this was your position.

UN or US inspector would keep it from developing weapons.

I wonder if others hold to this, as well, as the basis for objecting to Neyanhau's position.

thank you


Sus said...

I wish others would speak, also. I want avoid war if at all possible. If Iran is willng to talk, talk. I kind of think that's how others feel, but maybe I'm wrong. My little town of 1500 lost two young men in Iraq. It effected our town greatly. My nephew did two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. I was never so glad to have someone home. I and most I talk to are tired of war. We'd rather have our sons and daughters home. I even downright resent a bunch of senators basically saying, "Don't talk. War is better." Hmpff.

Unknown said...


I have not had much time recently. I will try to read all posts and write when I can. I tried to make a google account for posting here. I will see if it worked.