Iraqi father shoots dead seven ISIS militants in revenge for son's public online execution - before

[Luddly Neddite]

Awesome! Maybe he would like to join the Jordanian military?

Hey, sonny boy - Its time for you to learn this isn't a video game.

 

[Steinlight]

That's not possible. He's a Muslim. He is a jihadist just like the guys he killed!! It's a trick to lull us to sleep. Beware the Muslims!! All Muslims!!!

You live in the absolutist world where if one dislikes islamism or some of the precepts and scripture in Islam, we must hate all Muslims. In reality, your statement exposes your lack of intelligence. In your mind, either you must hate islam and hate all muslims, or defend Islam no matter what. There is no nuance to your position.

Sarcasm meter broken?

Your pals don't posess a nuanced view of the matter, dummy.

You wouldn't know what nuance was if it hit you over the head. You are a hysterical left wing caricature.

I like that approach you are taking. It's really original.

Tell me..what is the nuanced position when it comes to islamic extremism? Is it closer to Obama's position or that of Sean Hannity and Bill Maher? Go ahead....blow me away with brilliance!

Neither the Left or Right in America are correct, and more or less support the same foreign policy interests. Both McCain and Obama supported aiding syrian and libyan "moderate" islamist rebels. Bush did failed nation building in Iraq which created a power vacuum, Obama has done the same in supporting the overthrow of Gadaffi in Libya and Assad in Syria. From what I can tell, every US policy as of late has enhanced Islamism, not mitigated it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

That's not possible. He's a Muslim. He is a jihadist just like the guys he killed!! It's a trick to lull us to sleep. Beware the Muslims!! All Muslims!!!

You live in the absolutist world where if one dislikes islamism or some of the precepts and scripture in Islam, we must hate all Muslims. In reality, your statement exposes your lack of intelligence. In your mind, either you must hate islam and hate all muslims, or defend Islam no matter what. There is no nuance to your position.

Sarcasm meter broken?

Your pals don't posess a nuanced view of the matter, dummy.

You wouldn't know what nuance was if it hit you over the head. You are a hysterical left wing caricature.

I like that approach you are taking. It's really original.

Tell me..what is the nuanced position when it comes to islamic extremism? Is it closer to Obama's position or that of Sean Hannity and Bill Maher? Go ahead....blow me away with brilliance!

Neither the Left or Right in America are correct, and more or less support the same foreign policy interests. Both McCain and Obama supported aiding syrian and libyan "moderate" islamist rebels. Bush did failed nation building in Iraq which created a power vacuum, Obama has done the same in supporting the overthrow of Gadaffi in Libya and Assad in Syria. From what I can tell, every US policy as of late has enhanced Islamism, not mitigated it.

That's interesting.....and I agree with it. Our policies have failed miserably. Great work.

But...it isn't what we are talking about. You accused me of not having a nuanced position when it comes to Islamic extremism. I'm trying to ascertain what you think my position is. I would say that I am closer to Obama on the matter than I am to Hannity or Maher. I believe Obama's position is decidedly nuanced. Do you agree?

 

[Steinlight]

You live in the absolutist world where if one dislikes islamism or some of the precepts and scripture in Islam, we must hate all Muslims. In reality, your statement exposes your lack of intelligence. In your mind, either you must hate islam and hate all muslims, or defend Islam no matter what. There is no nuance to your position.

Sarcasm meter broken?

Your pals don't posess a nuanced view of the matter, dummy.

You wouldn't know what nuance was if it hit you over the head. You are a hysterical left wing caricature.

I like that approach you are taking. It's really original.

Tell me..what is the nuanced position when it comes to islamic extremism? Is it closer to Obama's position or that of Sean Hannity and Bill Maher? Go ahead....blow me away with brilliance!

Neither the Left or Right in America are correct, and more or less support the same foreign policy interests. Both McCain and Obama supported aiding syrian and libyan "moderate" islamist rebels. Bush did failed nation building in Iraq which created a power vacuum, Obama has done the same in supporting the overthrow of Gadaffi in Libya and Assad in Syria. From what I can tell, every US policy as of late has enhanced Islamism, not mitigated it.

That's interesting.....and I agree with it. Our policies have failed miserably. Great work.

But...it isn't what we are talking about. You accused me of not having a nuanced position when it comes to Islamic extremism. I'm trying to ascertain what you think my position is. I would say that I am closer to Obama on the matter than I am to Hannity or Maher. I believe Obama's position is decidedly nuanced. Do you agree?

What is decidedly nuanced about the US giving weapons to "moderate" syrian rebels who hand them over to ISIS who the US then has to bomb after ISIS uses the weapons to conquer a territory in Syria and Iraq that is larger than Belgium. You admit this policy failed, but think it nuanced?

Yea, Obama, the master strategist, lol.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Sarcasm meter broken?

Your pals don't posess a nuanced view of the matter, dummy.

You wouldn't know what nuance was if it hit you over the head. You are a hysterical left wing caricature.

I like that approach you are taking. It's really original.

Tell me..what is the nuanced position when it comes to islamic extremism? Is it closer to Obama's position or that of Sean Hannity and Bill Maher? Go ahead....blow me away with brilliance!

Neither the Left or Right in America are correct, and more or less support the same foreign policy interests. Both McCain and Obama supported aiding syrian and libyan "moderate" islamist rebels. Bush did failed nation building in Iraq which created a power vacuum, Obama has done the same in supporting the overthrow of Gadaffi in Libya and Assad in Syria. From what I can tell, every US policy as of late has enhanced Islamism, not mitigated it.

That's interesting.....and I agree with it. Our policies have failed miserably. Great work.

But...it isn't what we are talking about. You accused me of not having a nuanced position when it comes to Islamic extremism. I'm trying to ascertain what you think my position is. I would say that I am closer to Obama on the matter than I am to Hannity or Maher. I believe Obama's position is decidedly nuanced. Do you agree?

What is decidedly nuanced about the US giving weapons to "moderate" syrian rebels who hand them over to ISIS who the US then has to bomb. You admit this policy failed, but think it nuanced?

Yea, Obama, the master strategist, lol.

We are not communicating. When you accused me of not being nuanced...what were you referring to? It wasn't policy. Can you look back and check? Reread your accusatory post. That is what I am talking about here. The basic Muslim vs Muslim extremist question. Not our policy in the ME.

Shall we keep going or are you going to keep missing the gist of the discussion?

 

[Steinlight]

You wouldn't know what nuance was if it hit you over the head. You are a hysterical left wing caricature.

I like that approach you are taking. It's really original.

Tell me..what is the nuanced position when it comes to islamic extremism? Is it closer to Obama's position or that of Sean Hannity and Bill Maher? Go ahead....blow me away with brilliance!

Neither the Left or Right in America are correct, and more or less support the same foreign policy interests. Both McCain and Obama supported aiding syrian and libyan "moderate" islamist rebels. Bush did failed nation building in Iraq which created a power vacuum, Obama has done the same in supporting the overthrow of Gadaffi in Libya and Assad in Syria. From what I can tell, every US policy as of late has enhanced Islamism, not mitigated it.

That's interesting.....and I agree with it. Our policies have failed miserably. Great work.

But...it isn't what we are talking about. You accused me of not having a nuanced position when it comes to Islamic extremism. I'm trying to ascertain what you think my position is. I would say that I am closer to Obama on the matter than I am to Hannity or Maher. I believe Obama's position is decidedly nuanced. Do you agree?

What is decidedly nuanced about the US giving weapons to "moderate" syrian rebels who hand them over to ISIS who the US then has to bomb. You admit this policy failed, but think it nuanced?

Yea, Obama, the master strategist, lol.

We are not communicating. When you accused me of not being nuanced...what were you referring to? It wasn't policy. Can you look back and check? Reread your accusatory post. That is what I am talking about here. The basic Muslim vs Muslim extremist question. Not our policy in the ME.

Shall we keep going or are you going to keep missing the gist of the discussion?

You are the one that said you agree with me on MidEast policy but then suggest Obama's policy is nuanced, not me. You are all over the place. That is why you aren't nuanced.

How is Obama's policy nuanced?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I like that approach you are taking. It's really original.

Tell me..what is the nuanced position when it comes to islamic extremism? Is it closer to Obama's position or that of Sean Hannity and Bill Maher? Go ahead....blow me away with brilliance!

Neither the Left or Right in America are correct, and more or less support the same foreign policy interests. Both McCain and Obama supported aiding syrian and libyan "moderate" islamist rebels. Bush did failed nation building in Iraq which created a power vacuum, Obama has done the same in supporting the overthrow of Gadaffi in Libya and Assad in Syria. From what I can tell, every US policy as of late has enhanced Islamism, not mitigated it.

That's interesting.....and I agree with it. Our policies have failed miserably. Great work.

But...it isn't what we are talking about. You accused me of not having a nuanced position when it comes to Islamic extremism. I'm trying to ascertain what you think my position is. I would say that I am closer to Obama on the matter than I am to Hannity or Maher. I believe Obama's position is decidedly nuanced. Do you agree?

What is decidedly nuanced about the US giving weapons to "moderate" syrian rebels who hand them over to ISIS who the US then has to bomb. You admit this policy failed, but think it nuanced?

Yea, Obama, the master strategist, lol.

We are not communicating. When you accused me of not being nuanced...what were you referring to? It wasn't policy. Can you look back and check? Reread your accusatory post. That is what I am talking about here. The basic Muslim vs Muslim extremist question. Not our policy in the ME.

Shall we keep going or are you going to keep missing the gist of the discussion?

You are the one that said you agree with me on MidEast policy but then suggest Obama's policy is nuanced, not me. You are all over the place. That is why you aren't nuanced.

How is Obama's policy nuanced?

We are not talking about Obama's ME policy. We are talking about Obama's position regarding Islam vs Islamic extremism.

I haven't said that Obama's Mideast policy is nuanced. I said his position regarding the Muslim religion is nuanced. As is mine.

 

[Steinlight]

Neither the Left or Right in America are correct, and more or less support the same foreign policy interests. Both McCain and Obama supported aiding syrian and libyan "moderate" islamist rebels. Bush did failed nation building in Iraq which created a power vacuum, Obama has done the same in supporting the overthrow of Gadaffi in Libya and Assad in Syria. From what I can tell, every US policy as of late has enhanced Islamism, not mitigated it.

That's interesting.....and I agree with it. Our policies have failed miserably. Great work.

But...it isn't what we are talking about. You accused me of not having a nuanced position when it comes to Islamic extremism. I'm trying to ascertain what you think my position is. I would say that I am closer to Obama on the matter than I am to Hannity or Maher. I believe Obama's position is decidedly nuanced. Do you agree?

What is decidedly nuanced about the US giving weapons to "moderate" syrian rebels who hand them over to ISIS who the US then has to bomb. You admit this policy failed, but think it nuanced?

Yea, Obama, the master strategist, lol.

We are not communicating. When you accused me of not being nuanced...what were you referring to? It wasn't policy. Can you look back and check? Reread your accusatory post. That is what I am talking about here. The basic Muslim vs Muslim extremist question. Not our policy in the ME.

Shall we keep going or are you going to keep missing the gist of the discussion?

You are the one that said you agree with me on MidEast policy but then suggest Obama's policy is nuanced, not me. You are all over the place. That is why you aren't nuanced.

How is Obama's policy nuanced?

We are not talking about Obama's ME policy. We are talking about Obama's position regarding Islam vs Islamic extremism.

I haven't said that Obama's Mideast policy is nuanced. I said his position regarding the Muslim religion is nuanced. As is mine.

OK, now we are getting somewhere. You should construct your posts better next time and explain which policy you think is nuanced.

So lets go forward.

I totally disagree, I think Obama's most recent comments, suggesting one shouldn't criticize Islam as a religion because of the Crusades lack any nuance at all. Not only do they minimize and distract from the threat of Islamism today by citing an event that occurred almost a thousand years ago, it exposes a lack of the historical understanding on his part of the event of history. I don't think equivocating Christianity and Islam today and being historically ignorant shows any nuance at all.

 

[LoneLaugher]

That's interesting.....and I agree with it. Our policies have failed miserably. Great work.

But...it isn't what we are talking about. You accused me of not having a nuanced position when it comes to Islamic extremism. I'm trying to ascertain what you think my position is. I would say that I am closer to Obama on the matter than I am to Hannity or Maher. I believe Obama's position is decidedly nuanced. Do you agree?

What is decidedly nuanced about the US giving weapons to "moderate" syrian rebels who hand them over to ISIS who the US then has to bomb. You admit this policy failed, but think it nuanced?

Yea, Obama, the master strategist, lol.

We are not communicating. When you accused me of not being nuanced...what were you referring to? It wasn't policy. Can you look back and check? Reread your accusatory post. That is what I am talking about here. The basic Muslim vs Muslim extremist question. Not our policy in the ME.

Shall we keep going or are you going to keep missing the gist of the discussion?

You are the one that said you agree with me on MidEast policy but then suggest Obama's policy is nuanced, not me. You are all over the place. That is why you aren't nuanced.

How is Obama's policy nuanced?

We are not talking about Obama's ME policy. We are talking about Obama's position regarding Islam vs Islamic extremism.

I haven't said that Obama's Mideast policy is nuanced. I said his position regarding the Muslim religion is nuanced. As is mine.

OK, now we are getting somewhere. You should construct your posts better next time and explain which policy you think is nuanced.

So lets go forward.

I totally disagree, I think Obama's most recent comments, suggesting one shouldn't criticize Islam as a religion because of the Crusades lack any nuance at all. Not only do they minimize and distract from the threat of Islamism today by citing an event that occurred almost a thousand years ago, it exposes a lack of the historical understanding on his part of the event of history. I don't think equivocating Christianity and Islam today and being historically ignorant shows any nuance at all.

Of course. This misunderstanding is to your doing at all. I'm the one who has communicated poorly. Yes sir.

Obama's take is nuanced. He understands that running around yelling about the religion of Islam being evil or intent on killing us all is fucking stupid. He knows that he needs to have Muslims standing and fighting alongside Christians and Jews and others....if the extremism is to be dealt with effectively. That is nuanced. You don't get that by dropping red meat to the dummies in this nation.......of any religion.....who are afraid of all Muslims.

What he stated at that breakfast was fact Christianity has had extremists. They've also had opportunists who used the religion to reach their geo-political goals. They have been marginalized. Islam has extremists and opportunists. They have yet to be marginalized. Same shit...different religion.....and work left to do. As with Christians.....Muslims are overwhelmingly peaceful. A nuanced position recognizes that fact and doesn't aim to widen the divide.

 

[Roadrunner]

That's what it takes to deal with scum like this. IS screwed the pooch when they decided to kill their prisoners while supposedly negotiating for a trade.

ISIS and the whole shitpile region is a Muslim problem.

TIme some stepped forward to handle it, because it is not our problem.

 

[Roadrunner]

That's not possible. He's a Muslim. He is a jihadist just like the guys he killed!! It's a trick to lull us to sleep. Beware the Muslims!! All Muslims!!!

You live in the absolutist world where if one dislikes islamism or some of the precepts and scripture in Islam, we must hate all Muslims. In reality, your statement exposes your lack of intelligence. In your mind, either you must hate islam and hate all muslims, or defend Islam no matter what. There is no nuance to your position.

Sarcasm meter broken?

Your pals don't posess a nuanced view of the matter, dummy.

You wouldn't know what nuance was if it hit you over the head. You are a hysterical left wing caricature.

I like that approach you are taking. It's really original.

Tell me..what is the nuanced position when it comes to islamic extremism? Is it closer to Obama's position or that of Sean Hannity and Bill Maher? Go ahead....blow me away with brilliance!

Neither the Left or Right in America are correct, and more or less support the same foreign policy interests. Both McCain and Obama supported aiding syrian and libyan "moderate" islamist rebels. Bush did failed nation building in Iraq which created a power vacuum, Obama has done the same in supporting the overthrow of Gadaffi in Libya and Assad in Syria. From what I can tell, every US policy as of late has enhanced Islamism, not mitigated it.

Nation building in the entire region has failed since dead Brits drew the lines chopping up the old Ottoman Empire.

There is a Muslim schism still being fought inside of a Persian/Turkish battle to determine who will rule the Arabs.

Time to let those fuckers fight it out, and sit on the side and sell weapons to all.

They will pay the national debt for us as they fight over Mohammed's rightful heir.

 

[Steinlight]

What is decidedly nuanced about the US giving weapons to "moderate" syrian rebels who hand them over to ISIS who the US then has to bomb. You admit this policy failed, but think it nuanced?

Yea, Obama, the master strategist, lol.

We are not communicating. When you accused me of not being nuanced...what were you referring to? It wasn't policy. Can you look back and check? Reread your accusatory post. That is what I am talking about here. The basic Muslim vs Muslim extremist question. Not our policy in the ME.

Shall we keep going or are you going to keep missing the gist of the discussion?

You are the one that said you agree with me on MidEast policy but then suggest Obama's policy is nuanced, not me. You are all over the place. That is why you aren't nuanced.

How is Obama's policy nuanced?

We are not talking about Obama's ME policy. We are talking about Obama's position regarding Islam vs Islamic extremism.

I haven't said that Obama's Mideast policy is nuanced. I said his position regarding the Muslim religion is nuanced. As is mine.

OK, now we are getting somewhere. You should construct your posts better next time and explain which policy you think is nuanced.

So lets go forward.

I totally disagree, I think Obama's most recent comments, suggesting one shouldn't criticize Islam as a religion because of the Crusades lack any nuance at all. Not only do they minimize and distract from the threat of Islamism today by citing an event that occurred almost a thousand years ago, it exposes a lack of the historical understanding on his part of the event of history. I don't think equivocating Christianity and Islam today and being historically ignorant shows any nuance at all.

Of course. This misunderstanding is to your doing at all. I'm the one who has communicated poorly. Yes sir.

Obama's take is nuanced. He understands that running around yelling about the religion of Islam being evil or intent on killing us all is fucking stupid. He knows that he needs to have Muslims standing and fighting alongside Christians and Jews and others....if the extremism is to be dealt with effectively. That is nuanced. You don't get that by dropping red meat to the dummies in this nation.......of any religion.....who are afraid of all Muslims.

What he stated at that breakfast was fact Christianity has had extremists. They've also had opportunists who used the religion to reach their geo-political goals. They have been marginalized. Islam has extremists and opportunists. They have yet to be marginalized. Same shit...different religion.....and work left to do. As with Christians.....Muslims are overwhelmingly peaceful. A nuanced position recognizes that fact and doesn't aim to widen the divide.

Look, don't hassle me because you are autistic and and can't construct proper posts. In the future, When you say you disagree with Obama's MidEast policy, than say his policy is nuanced, people are going to assume you are talking about the same policy. This is unless you differentiate and explain which policy specifically you think is nuanced.

If that is what he thinks that people who criticize Islam and Islamism think "Muslims" are intent on killing us all, and he is predicating his false equivocation on this absurd notion, than his world view is even more ill informed than was previously thought. Honestly, I think you are appropriating your absurd view to him. I don't think Obama is nearly as stupid as you and thinks this. I think his world view is defined by his belief in cultural relativism and this leads to his equivocation of Christianity and Islam.

By equivocating, he is minimizing and ignoring the fact that Islamic extremism poses a far greater threat to the World than any other so called religious extremism. He isn't helping anyone, including people in the Muslim world who bear the brunt of Islamic extremist violents(particularly shias, sufis, and christians), by claiming that Islamic extremism, particularly this strain of sunni islamism, has nothing to do doctrinally with Islam. So not only is it dishonest, this dishonesty in no way promotes sound foreign policy. How can you have a sound foreign policy that is so divorced from reality? Even President Al Sisi admits this strain is preeminent in Islam, and is more or less calling for a reformation or revolution in the faith to break from this growing radical sect.

Just because most Muslims aren't terrorists doesn't mean there is a growing brand of wahabbi sunni islam that is sympathetic to the actions of these terrorist groups, and that this sect doesn't have basis in the texts of the Koran. Most Muslims aren't violent jihadists, but this doesn't mitigate the fact that Islam expanded in the first place out of Arabian peninsula out of violent Jihad and that that tradition lives on to this day through groups like ISIS. And to suggest this has nothing to do with the Islamic theology, that these radical groups are violent individuals that just happen to be muslim is naive at best, dishonest at worst.

Also, saying that we in the West shouldn't raise criticisms of Islam doctrinally today because of the Crusades 1000 years ago is absurd.That is what he said. All it does is serve to deflect rightful criticism off Islam and ignore the present day situation(ironically by having to go back to the Middle Ages to find a Christian transgression he is showing how very different Islam is from other faiths today). It also misdirects guilt upon modern day Christians for something it should not at all feel guilty for. The problem with the Crusades is that we lost, not that they were unjustified or an act of terror like the ones ISIS commits today. They were on the whole a defensive action against Islamic expansion.

 

[Yarddog]

That's not possible. He's a Muslim. He is a jihadist just like the guys he killed!! It's a trick to lull us to sleep. Beware the Muslims!! All Muslims!!!

Obviously he wasnt, dont quite get the purpose of your sarcasm.

 

[LoneLaugher]

We are not communicating. When you accused me of not being nuanced...what were you referring to? It wasn't policy. Can you look back and check? Reread your accusatory post. That is what I am talking about here. The basic Muslim vs Muslim extremist question. Not our policy in the ME.

Shall we keep going or are you going to keep missing the gist of the discussion?

You are the one that said you agree with me on MidEast policy but then suggest Obama's policy is nuanced, not me. You are all over the place. That is why you aren't nuanced.

How is Obama's policy nuanced?

We are not talking about Obama's ME policy. We are talking about Obama's position regarding Islam vs Islamic extremism.

I haven't said that Obama's Mideast policy is nuanced. I said his position regarding the Muslim religion is nuanced. As is mine.

OK, now we are getting somewhere. You should construct your posts better next time and explain which policy you think is nuanced.

So lets go forward.

I totally disagree, I think Obama's most recent comments, suggesting one shouldn't criticize Islam as a religion because of the Crusades lack any nuance at all. Not only do they minimize and distract from the threat of Islamism today by citing an event that occurred almost a thousand years ago, it exposes a lack of the historical understanding on his part of the event of history. I don't think equivocating Christianity and Islam today and being historically ignorant shows any nuance at all.

Of course. This misunderstanding is to your doing at all. I'm the one who has communicated poorly. Yes sir.

Obama's take is nuanced. He understands that running around yelling about the religion of Islam being evil or intent on killing us all is fucking stupid. He knows that he needs to have Muslims standing and fighting alongside Christians and Jews and others....if the extremism is to be dealt with effectively. That is nuanced. You don't get that by dropping red meat to the dummies in this nation.......of any religion.....who are afraid of all Muslims.

What he stated at that breakfast was fact Christianity has had extremists. They've also had opportunists who used the religion to reach their geo-political goals. They have been marginalized. Islam has extremists and opportunists. They have yet to be marginalized. Same shit...different religion.....and work left to do. As with Christians.....Muslims are overwhelmingly peaceful. A nuanced position recognizes that fact and doesn't aim to widen the divide.

Look, don't hassle me because you are autistic and and can't construct proper posts. In the future, When you say you disagree with Obama's MidEast policy, than say his policy is nuanced, people are going to assume you are talking about the same policy. This is unless you differentiate and explain which policy specifically you think is nuanced.

If that is what he thinks that people who criticize Islam and Islamism think "Muslims" are intent on killing us all, and he is predicating his false equivocation on this absurd notion, than his world view is even more ill informed than was previously thought. Honestly, I think you are appropriating your absurd view to him. I don't think Obama is nearly as stupid as you and thinks this. I think his world view is defined by his belief in cultural relativism and this leads to his equivocation of Christianity and Islam.

By equivocating, he is minimizing and ignoring the fact that Islamic extremism poses a far greater threat to the World than any other so called religious extremism. He isn't helping anyone, including people in the Muslim world who bear the brunt of Islamic extremist violents(particularly shias, sufis, and christians), by claiming that Islamic extremism, particularly this strain of sunni islamism, has nothing to do doctrinally with Islam. So not only is it dishonest, this dishonesty in no way promotes sound foreign policy. How can you have a sound foreign policy that is so divorced from reality? Even President Al Sisi admits this strain is preeminent in Islam, and is more or less calling for a reformation or revolution in the faith to break from this growing radical sect.

Just because most Muslims aren't terrorists doesn't mean there is a growing brand of wahabbi sunni islam that is sympathetic to the actions of these terrorist groups, and that this sect doesn't have basis in the texts of the Koran. Most Muslims aren't violent jihadists, but this doesn't mitigate the fact that Islam expanded in the first place out of Arabian peninsula out of violent Jihad and that that tradition lives on to this day through groups like ISIS. And to suggest this has nothing to do with the Islamic theology, that these radical groups are violent individuals that just happen to be muslim is naive at best, dishonest at worst.

Also, saying that we in the West shouldn't raise criticisms of Islam doctrinally today because of the Crusades 1000 years ago is absurd.That is what he said. All it does is serve to deflect rightful criticism off Islam and ignore the present day situation(ironically by having to go back to the Middle Ages to find a Christian transgression he is showing how very different Islam is from other faiths today). It also misdirects guilt upon modern day Christians for something it should not at all feel guilty for. The problem with the Crusades is that we lost, not that they were unjustified or an act of terror like the ones ISIS commits today. They were on the whole a defensive action against Islamic expansion.

Bullshit.