OK, I have made my stance on Muslims here clear before. It is largely populated by decent people but they stay silent on radicalism and atrocities so they carry some guilt by association for not speaking out. Furthermore, there is no hierarchy in Islam like there is in the Catholic church. Priests must abide by the pope - cardinals, archbishops and bishops see to this. This is why you have one Muslim saying the Koran says be peaceful and another using it to say convert to Islam or die.
However, the arguments used by this woman attacking Islam were weak. Saying history ignores the majority who were peaceful is massively unfair. She is effectively saying that since only the crimes committed by a minority are remembered we should ignore the peaceful majority. I'm sure she would have put her head above the parapet in Nazi Germany and said "hold on Hitler isn't this too much?" Or would have spoken out against Stalin? She should go to North Korea and use the same argument - I'm sure 20 million North Koreans love starving to death, living in cages and being oppressed - they are the ones supporting Kim Jong Un's nuclear programme that deprives them of food and isolates them from the outside world.
Her argument was complete shit. The question was how can you attack an ideology with weapons. My reply would be you are not attacking an ideology, you are defending one. We should be defending the right to self-determination, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and basic human rights. This is western ideology. These radicals are attacking this philosophy, using weapons and violence to propagate their belief system, so it is a moral imperative that we defend our ideology. That defence takes weapons.
Fuck I'm good.
