Paris Attack 11/13/2015

[Captain Steel]

Coordinated, mass-casualty, terror attack in Paris on multiple fronts.
Supposedly (as best as can be determined at this point) carried out by terrorist operatives of the Islamic State.

Thoughts, theories, speculations, prayers?

(The Obama administration wants to continue and even increase a major influx of "unvetted," Syrian & Middle-Eastern refugees - mostly young men - into the United States.) Good idea?

A couple months ago, Europeans protesting the tidal wave of Islamic refugees pouring into their countries were called "xenophobes, racists and Nazis" because they feared the potential threat of security breaches within their borders, hidden Islamic State cells, and increased acts of terrorism. Should those people still be considered "phobic"?

[jrs]

Been watching this throughout the day. It sucks.:(

[Citizen Rules]

I feel mad, I feel outraged...but more than that I feel sickened in my stomach...and I feel scared that these terror acts are only going to increase. I feel as if the world has become more dangerous this sad day.

[Slappydavis]

(The Obama administration wants to continue and even increase a major influx of "unvetted," Syrian & Middle-Eastern refugees - mostly young men - into the United States.) Good idea?

A couple months ago, Europeans protesting the tidal wave of Islamic refugees pouring into their countries were called "xenophobes, racists and Nazis" because they feared the potential threat of security breaches within their borders, hidden Islamic State cells, and increased acts of terrorism. Should those people still be considered "phobic"?

Can we at least wait until there is any confirmation on the perpetrators before we rush to condemn a vulnerable group of people?

[Captain Steel]

Can we at least wait until there is any confirmation on the perpetrators before we rush to condemn a vulnerable group of people?

I don't think we're condemning a vulnerable group of people - it's a question of is risking the gift of a Trojan horse worth what might be contained within?

It's kind of like when you were in school and told some privilege was revoked because of one kid who did something that "ruined it for everybody."

I feel bad for the refugees - but are countries just supposed to shrug and accept the fact that there may be mass-murdering terrorists purposefully inserted into these masses?

It's like if you quarantined a whole airplane of people because one person on board had Ebola - it would be terribly unfair to detain and virtually "imprison" all the people who weren't infected, but without a way to tell who was a carrier and who wasn't, what choice would you have?

When thousands of people have their privacy rights violated by having to pass through metal detectors at airports because one nut may have a gun or a knife - do we consider that everyone is being condemned by being slowed down, stopped and searched in order to be cleared?

We have to remember that ISIS said this is what they were going to do - they said they are putting operatives in among the refugees to infiltrate and attack... and they said they will do the same in the U.S.

[Slappydavis]

I feel bad for the refugees - but are countries just supposed to shrug and accept the fact that there may be mass-murdering terrorists purposefully inserted into these masses?

Again, wait. We do not know if these people were among the refugees. I still may disagree with your perspective after we know more, but the least you could do is wait for facts before you fit an agenda in.


It's like if you quarantined a whole airplane of people because one person on board had Ebola - it would be terribly unfair to detain and virtually "imprison" all the people who weren't infected, but without a way to tell who was a carrier and who wasn't, what choice would you have?

Well, if they aren't showing symptoms of Ebola, they are not contagious. So no, you don't need to imprison all of them.


When thousands of people have their privacy rights violated by having to pass through metal detectors at airports because one nut may have a gun or a knife - do we consider that everyone is being condemned by being slowed down, stopped and searched in order to be cleared?

Yes. I consider that a colossal waste of human life. I think we've certainly overreacted with those policies, and I hope there is not a similar overreaction in this case.

[Captain Steel]

They may not be among the refugees - but does it really matter if they're radical Islamic Terrorists among the refugees, or radical Islamic Terrorists who immigrated to France a couple years ago to set up a cell, or radical Islamic Terrorists who are French citizens determined to enact terrorism in the name of Islamic supremacy?

And, let's say for the sake of argument, these particular terrorists were NOT among the refugees - does that mean that there could be no terrorists among the refugees when the Islamic State said that's the very tactic they're going to use as their method to export their terrorism, and when the vast majority of refugees follow an ideology that teaches them (brainwashes most of them from birth since Islamic countries in the Middle East teach genocide in their schools & mosques) that it's their personal divine responsibility to rid the Earth of infidels under the command of their prophet and in the name of their god?

The root problem is a political ideology unified in it's singular goal to establish a worldwide Caliphate via terrorism and the genocide of the infidel.

[mark f]

Whatever terrorist group is responsible, the "war on terrorism" can never be won.

[Daniel M]

Sigh...

[Slappydavis]

They may not be among the refugees - but does it really matter if they're radical Islamic Terrorists among the refugees, or radical Islamic Terrorists who immigrated to France a couple years ago to set up a cell, or radical Islamic Terrorists who are French citizens determined to enact terrorism in the name of Islamic supremacy?

And, let's say for the sake of argument, these particular terrorists were NOT among the refugees - does that mean that there could be no terrorists among the refugees when the Islamic State said that's the very tactic they're going to use as their method to export their terrorism, and when the vast majority of refugees follow an ideology that teaches them (brainwashes most of them from birth since Islamic countries in the Middle East teach genocide in their schools & mosques) that it's their personal divine responsibility to rid the Earth of infidels under the command of their prophet and in the name of their god?

The root problem is a political ideology unified in it's singular goal to establish a worldwide Caliphate via terrorism and the genocide of the infidel.

It does matter. It matters if we are punishing moderate Muslims for the actions of the radical ones. Sometimes I feel like people forget that the vast majority of those killed by ISIS haven't been Christians, but moderate Muslims. We are not fighting a war against Islam.

[Citizen Rules]

Sigh...why? For who?

[Captain Steel]

Sigh...why? For who?

Non-movie-related thread on a Movie Forum? ;)

[Sexy Celebrity]

Sigh.... Sigh.... Sigh.... Sigh..... Sigh.....................

[Captain Steel]

It does matter. It matters if we are punishing moderate Muslims for the actions of the radical ones. Sometimes I feel like people forget that the vast majority of those killed by ISIS haven't been Christians, but moderate Muslims. We are not fighting a war against Islam.

I hear you, Slappy. I don't claim to have all the solutions - but the threat is there.
It's not just something common sense tells us, based on the history of Islamic Terrorism, but it's been openly stated by the terrorists themselves that this is what they're going to do.

And they laugh about it since they know that free societies have no defense against it...

So we're left with a choice - either be cruel to those who appear to be seeking help and turn our backs on our own principles of compassion, respect for life & liberty, OR let in strangers who may have fundamentalists among them obsessed with murdering the very people attempting to show them compassion.

I don't know what people are supposed to do when hundreds of thousands of refugees who practice the same ideology that fuels global Islamic Terrorism are seeking asylum in your country, when their own Islamic brethren state that infiltration under the guise of seeking refuge is a long-established & divinely-authorized tactic of their ideology to infiltrate the infidels and destroy them from within - and this has been one common strategy of Jihadism for 1400 years.

[Slappydavis]

So we're left with a choice - either be cruel to those who appear to be seeking help and turn our backs on our own principles of compassion, respect for life & liberty, OR let in strangers who may have fundamentalists among them obsessed with murdering the very people attempting to show them compassion.

I don't know what people are supposed to do when hundreds of thousands of refugees who practice the same ideology that fuels global Islamic Terrorism are seeking asylum in your country, when their own Islamic brethren state that infiltration under the guise of seeking refuge is a long-established & divinely-authorized tactic of their ideology to infiltrate the infidels and destroy them from within - and this has been one common strategy of Jihadism for 1400 years.

This I can relate to. It's not an easy decision, and a lot of people will get hurt either way. I just would hate to see the refugees put through more suffering for this, but I know they will.

[Captain Steel]

This I can relate to. It's not an easy decision, and a lot of people will get hurt either way. I just would hate to see the refugees put through more suffering for this, but I know they will.

You sound like you have a good heart, Slappy.

In a world where we have ideologies of hatred based on goals of supremacy achieved by destroying other people, and religious cults that teach their children that God says it's their duty to kill non-believers, there are no winners. Suffering will continue as long as certain people place hate as their priority over love.

[ashdoc]

i think i should do my european vacation ( which i have been planning for some time ) before european civilization ends and the things that i wanted to see in europe no longer exist :(

[Captain Steel]

i think i should do my european vacation ( which i have been planning for some time ) before european civilization ends and the things that i wanted to see in europe no longer exist :(

Let's be careful out there, ashdoc.

[carlspackler]

Attack after attack but always remember to be tolerant.
Yes let's wait and see who really did it,the Christians,The Jews or maybe Santa.

[carlspackler]

Sigh...

Unfortunately that 's how the world is.
Hundreds of people get murdered and all we can do is give a huge SIGH!!!
You're pathetic.

[Captain Steel]

Attack after attack but always remember to be tolerant.
Yes let's wait and see who really did it,the Christians,The Jews or maybe Santa.

Maybe it's not just any Christians, but those Amish. The men with their straw hats and beards (beards I tell you!) And their horse-drawn carts. But the dead giveaway is their rejection of zippers! Any people who reject zippers can't be up to any good, can they?
<end/sarcasm>

[BraedenG33]

Perhaps it would be best to not think about the politics of all this and just realize that an awful tragedy has befallen us as members of humanity today, and just feel sympathy for those who were lost or who lost loved ones today, and we can focus on the rhetoric and the politics of it all once things have subsided and we've properly allowed time to simply feel for what has happened. If you feel angry, that is okay. If you are afraid, that is okay. If you are saddened, that is okay. Allow yourself to feel as you need to, but let's not get wrapped up in analysis and logic after such a horrific event that defies these very constructs.

Rest in peace to those that were lost, and my heart goes out to all that were affected by these atrocities.

[The Sci-Fi Slob]

WW3 will start soon. The globalist so called 'leaders' in the west will push Putin too far over Syria, and he will deploy a strike team of 100 foot marshmallow men on the US.

[Sexy Celebrity]

WW3 will start soon.
Unfortunately, you'll miss every moment of it because you'll be in a prolonged drunken blackout.

But don't fret -- they'll be a ton of history books and programs to tell you everything once you wake up.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I keep thinking this thread says "Panic Attack."

[Sexy Celebrity]

Sigh...

Unfortunately that 's how the world is.
Hundreds of people get murdered and all we can do is give a huge SIGH!!!
You're pathetic.
SHUT THE F UP!

YOU WILL NEVER BE THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL MOFO!

Never!

NEVERRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!

[The Sci-Fi Slob]

If there is a nuclear war, I will survive and roam the wastelands of Britain with my army of 'beer boys'. I'm pretty sure I will look like this:

http://d2ciprw05cjhos.cloudfront.net/files/v3/styles/gs_large/public/images/15/05/screen-shot-2015-04-15-at-2.10.04-pm-620x400.png?itok=j2PCrBES

[Sexy Celebrity]

If there is a nuclear war, I will survive and roam the wastelands of Britain with my army of 'beer boys'. I'm pretty sure I will look like this:

http://d2ciprw05cjhos.cloudfront.net/files/v3/styles/gs_large/public/images/15/05/screen-shot-2015-04-15-at-2.10.04-pm-620x400.png?itok=j2PCrBES
I'll join you. I'll be one of your baby making slaves. I won't run away. Especially not for Charlize Theron.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Let's all just stop worrying about this for a moment and be happy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-diB65scQU

Come on.

This world isn't a total disaster.

It's my 100th birthday today. Something's right in the world right there. Come on. Be happy.

[-KhaN-]

Just to mention, France already had millions of Muslim citizens and this already happened if you remember? Even before people from Middle East started coming, that attack on French newspaper.

[carlspackler]

Rest in Peace the Parisian dead.
No the world isn't a total disaster....yet.

Love.:suspicious:

[-KhaN-]

Let's be harsh for a moment. France is fast to bomb legitimate governments, not so fast to bomb terrorists, hope they change their opinion after this...

[MovieMeditation]

I just woke up and heard what had happened. It's so frigthening. Cold-hearted attacks on innocent people done in a way only the Islamic Movement can do it.

Even if I know it happens and I know how sick those people are who do it, I still can't get myself to understand "why". It seems to cold and completely unneccesary. Why do all these innocent people have to do die... It's so tragic and I will never understand it.

It's not like I'm less worried now that we have a 1000 immigrants coming into our country every day. First off, there are violent people in between, who rapes and robs, that's a fact, because we have only had more of that since we started getting "those in need" into our country. And who knows, maybe some of them are Islamic Terrorists who plan to do the same damage to the rest of Europe too... It's so scary to think about really.

[carlspackler]

Let's be harsh for a moment. France is fast to bomb legitimate governments, not so fast to bomb terrorists, hope they change their opinion after this...

"Legitimate Governments" now there's a contradiction in terms.

Some sort of shift in policy is required to say the least.............but not only in France.

[christine]

I'll just show my respect for the dead by saying how awful the whole thing is and leave it at that.

Yes, I agree with you Chyp.
Can people stop talking about refugees in the same sentence as these terrorist murderers

[carlspackler]

Yes, I agree with you Chyp.
Can people stop talking about refugees in the same sentence as these terrorist murderers]

Why?
They may be one and the same.

PC ******** has made immigration a no go subject and you get labelled a racist if you dare to touch it.

But nevermind,as long we "rise above it" "be tolerant" and try to "understand" then the violence and murder will soon stop.

My fcuckin arsehole.:eek:

[ashdoc]

Yes, I agree with you Chyp.
Can people stop talking about refugees in the same sentence as these terrorist murderers

the law of averages will catch up at some point . the more the refugees come in , the more will some ISIS operatives slip in among them , and there will be increase in terrorist attacks .

yeah , the other refugees will not explode bombs or anything . all they will do is convert the areas of Britain that they become majority in into areas where people ( especially women ) will have to respect their dress code . and other rules like not drinking etc---their religion forbids alcohol .

one day when the area you live in begins to respect their dress code , you post a photo of yourself in MOFO personal pictures thread---christine in hijab :D

[The Gunslinger45]

My the dead rest in peace. My God comfort those who has lost loved ones in this attack. And may justice come swift the those who carried it out.

[CiCi]

All my love, thoughts and prayers to all the deceased and their loved ones. Horrific doesn't begin to cover what happened last night, but I hope they know they're not alone.

According to BBC news this was carried out in response to France's involvement in Syria after an eye witness overhead the attackers in the theatre saying so. Apparently, France is "their" primary target. But with the borders closing and Belgium tightening their borders with France, they're unlikely to get far.
I still feel as though London or Berlin or another major city nearby could be next though.

[ashdoc]

the french were mocking the russians over their downed airliner over a week ago . now they are the victims themselves .

http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/78/590x/secondary/hebdo-384645.jpg

[False Writer]

Can we at least wait until there is any confirmation on the perpetrators before we rush to condemn a vulnerable group of people?

ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack.

I'm gonna have to forgo being politically correct for this, but it's just so simple: stop letting them in!

I know it may sound "evil" "racist" "homophobic" "nazi-ish" whatever but when your own citizens are getting blown up you have to start doing something about it!

Europe is practically spoon-feeding radical Islam's victory over them because they just can't stop letting in millions of refugees because they're just scared to death of not looking politically correct. Instead of putting their foot down and actually standing up for their own culture...

And yes, it is at the expense of the innocent refugees, and I do feel for them. The risk of ISIS infiltrators being among them though and doing massive damage to French citizens is just wayyy too great. Maybe there still could be a way for them to get to safety, but how it is now will spell doom for an entire continent.

I can see it now, in the future, history will be written about how Islam conquered Europe, and people reading it will be scratching their heads saying "What the hell!? They just let them into their countries? No wonder they got conquered!"

[Captain Steel]

Well, we can put the refugee argument to rest as they are reporting that they found a Syrian passport on one of the terrorists and he was a terrorist who entered France as a refugee.

[Sexy Celebrity]

BTW, November 13th just happens to be Whoopi Goldberg's birthday. :whoopi:

[christine]

]

Why?
They may be one and the same.

PC ******** has made immigration a no go subject and you get labelled a racist if you dare to touch it.

But nevermind,as long we "rise above it" "be tolerant" and try to "understand" then the violence and murder will soon stop.

My fcuckin arsehole.:eek:

That's as maybe but all refugees aren't terrorists. That's like saying the terrorists are men so all men are terrorists.

[Citizen Rules]

Well, we can put the refugee argument to rest as they are reporting that they found a Syrian passport on one of the terrorists and he was a terrorist who entered France as a refugee.
I'm not surprised to hear that, any 'good' ISIS operative of Syrian nationality, would want to be the first on the bus for France or any other bleeding heart European country...then in their new 'home' he finds easy killing of innocent infidels...if the ISIS operative is killed he's glad of it, as he goes to his reward in Paradise to claim his seventy two virgins.

ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack.

I'm gonna have to forgo being politically correct for this, but it's just so simple: stop letting them in!

Europe is practically spoon-feeding radical Islam's victory over them because they just can't stop letting in millions of refugees because they're just scared to death of not looking politically correct. Instead of putting their foot down and actually standing up for their own culture...

I can see it now, in the future, history will be written about how Islam conquered Europe, and people reading it will be scratching their heads saying "What the hell!? They just let them into their countries? No wonder they got conquered!" Excellent post! You are correct, did you know what you described as happening in Europe with an influx of refugees with different culture, religion and values is the same situation that brought down the ancient Roman Empire? Rome wasn't conquered by an army mightier than them. Rome grew weak with complacency as 'barbarians' from conquered Roman territory immigrated to Rome, the barbarians culture ultimately replaced that of Rome. No more Rome. And it all started with an early form of PC thinking...Pax Romano...Peace in Rome. Once the Romans stopped being Roman, they ceased to exist.

[Yasashii]

I live in the very middle of Europe (Poland), and I can tell you this: the people don't actually want the immigrants over here. They protest all the time. The thing is, our governments didn't give a ****. Instead of saying "No, we will not let them in", they said "alright, so we will just decide who gets what share of the immigrants".

The people around here don't give a slightest **** about being PC. Especially in Poland. I can tell you this personally, being a bisexual atheist in this country.

It's the governments that are solely to blame. What's even more scary is that it makes sense that they would act like this. Letting in immigrants of such a different culture creates divisions between people, which is a lovely situation for them because it's easier to rule a divided nation that can't unite.

[christine]

I object to European countries being called bleeding heart. What do you want Europe to do when thousands of people are arriving here from Syria? Do you realise what it's like there? What would you do if your family lived in a war zone and your children were being shot at by IS or barrel bombed or in danger of being civilian casualties of US or European bombers? These 'influx of refugees' are people you know, just like you and me, just trying to get a better life for their families. If that's bleeding heart to care what happens to other human beings, then I despair :(

[Citizen Rules]

I object to European countries being called bleeding heart. If it makes you feel any better, America is also a bleeding heart country, thanks to our ridiculous president who has made it 'illegal' to use the phrase Muslim terrorist.


What do you want Europe to do when thousands of people are arriving here from Syria? I was just talking about that with my wife. The proper and smart thing to do is: Establish UN refugee camps in a war free zone inside of Syria, provide sanitary conditions, doctors, food and supplies. When Syria stabilizes, the refuges can return to their homes.

[CiCi]

Citizen, I was thinking about something like that too as an alternative, because I think something needs to change, we can't keep going on as we are, as sad as that may be :(

I know it'll be extremely difficult, considering those people are absolutely desperate, but when we struggle to distinguish between terrorist and refugee and attacks of this scale occur, well I think France are right in closing their borders. It's just such a difficult situation because so many people will suffer no matter what path Europe decide to take.

[Citizen Rules]

Citizen, I was thinking about something like that too as an alternative, because I think something needs to change, we can't keep going on as we are, as sad as that may be :(

I know it'll be extremely difficult, considering those people are absolutely desperate, but when we struggle to distinguish between terrorist and refugee and attacks of this scale occur, well I think France are right in closing their borders. It's just such a difficult situation because so many people will suffer no matter what path Europe decide to take. Thanks CiCi. I get discourage that some people scream at those who don't want Syrian refugees to immigrate to their country. No one is saying let them die, no one is saying we don't care. But there are better alternatives than just absorbing the problem by taking in the refugees. Help them? of course!

It's funny that other Muslim countries don't really want the refuges. Where's the other middle eastern countries loving arms at, why don't they help?

[Sane]

It's funny that other Muslim countries don't really want the refuges. Where's the other middle eastern countries loving arms at, why don't they help?

That's not correct. Turkey has taken 2.1 million, Lebanon 1.2 million, Jordan 1.4 million, Saudi Arabia between 100,000 and 500,000, Iraq 250,000, UAE 242,000, Kuwait 120,000, Eqypt 134,000. Not all Middle Eastern countries but all considered to be "muslim" countries.

[Citizen Rules]

Thanks Sane for that information. Between those countries and other Muslim countries they should be able to take all the refuges or provide UN refuge camps in their countries with the idea that the refugees one day will be returned to their homes.

[-KhaN-]

Filter for French flag on Facebook? YouTube going with French flag...Seriously...

I know how this will sound but it's still correct... Thousands of people died and still die from terrorism in Syria, Libya, Pakistan ... Who will ever putt their flag up? Remember their names? Putt # for them on Twitter? This world is full of false moral and hypocrisy... How many of you heard about Jihadists during Yugoslav Civil War who beheaded all non-Muslims?

What happened in Paris is truly sickening, sad and horrible but talking like that is only place on Earth people die, while ignoring casualties that are happening all over world is pathetic.

Sorry for the rant, go on...

[False Writer]

Excellent post! You are correct, did you know what you described as happening in Europe with an influx of refugees with different culture, religion and values is the same situation that brought down the ancient Roman Empire? Rome wasn't conquered by an army mightier than them. Rome grew weak with complacency as 'barbarians' from conquered Roman territory immigrated to Rome, the barbarians culture ultimately replaced that of Rome. No more Rome. And it all started with an early form of PC thinking...Pax Romano...Peace in Rome. Once the Romans stopped being Roman, they ceased to exist.

Yeah that's exactly how I feel like today's western world is heading. Nothing lasts forever and it seems like the west will fall the same way as Rome did.

I object to European countries being called bleeding heart. What do you want Europe to do when thousands of people are arriving here from Syria? Do you realise what it's like there? What would you do if your family lived in a war zone and your children were being shot at by IS or barrel bombed or in danger of being civilian casualties of US or European bombers? These 'influx of refugees' are people you know, just like you and me, just trying to get a better life for their families. If that's bleeding heart to care what happens to other human beings, then I despair :(

What about the families of the victims that were killed or hurt in the Paris bombings? Do you think they feel the same way? Do you really want to risk more European citizens getting blown up? Often times the choices aren't so black and white, sometimes choices need to made for the best interest of your citizens. Heck, I'm not even European but I'm very concerned for the people there.

I do support Citizen's suggestion, those who really need help can be helped by being sent to a refugee camp—and not at the risk of your own citizens, as you saw by the Paris bombings.

[The Rodent]

News in... one of the sand-jockey raghead ISIS bombers... they found the bastard's passport.


He entered France by posing as a Syrian refugee.


I've signed an online petition, along with a few hundred thousand other UK Citizens, to close the UK borders to all immigration until ISIS is defeated.

[mark f]

No import/export?

[The Rodent]

If that's what it would take... I'd go along with it.

[The Rodent]

I also think the UK should bring in a Ban on beards.
That'll smoke out the peaceful ones from the extremists.

[christine]

What about the families of the victims that were killed or hurt in the Paris bombings? Do you think they feel the same way? Do you really want to risk more European citizens getting blown up? Often times the choices aren't so black and white, sometimes choices need to made for the best interest of your citizens. Heck, I'm not even European but I'm very concerned for the people there.

Of course I feel despair for the families of the victims of the Paris bombing, but do you appreciate the sheer numbers of civilians who are dying in Syria too? Like Khan says there will be no memorial services for them, they're just the cannon fodder.
We are all human beings on a small planet , we may be lucky enough to be born in England or America but consideration has to be given to the other human beings on the planet who live in terrible conditions but who are fathers, mothers just the same as us. Have a heart.

[Captain Steel]

I also think the UK should bring in a Ban on beards.
That'll smoke out the peaceful ones from the extremists.

Not so sure about that - most of the 9/11 hijackers were clean shaven (probably to draw less suspicion and appear less Middle Eastern).

Hey, if you're a devout enough Jihadist you'll do virtually anything if it means killing some infidels - that includes shaving, drinking, eating some pork, commiting suicide, etc.

[Nausicaä]

From the UK, saw this in London on the News and thought it was beautiful:

http://www.london24.com/polopoly_fs/1.3912632.1421002775!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg

[-KhaN-]

I think next couple of years will sadly be full of terrorism as ISIS can't be defeated without ground troops in Syria and nobody is at the moment ready to be that involved. Even if you do manage to totally destroy them in Syria and Iraq their "ideals" already spread. Libya is not a country anymore, any tribe that takes airport in Tripoli say's they are new rulers, so I guess ISIS might try and spread there. But one thing is interesting, just few days before this attack on Paris, ISIS lost important city, their supply line has been cut. Is this just a prof of how desperate they are?

[jrs]

Filter for French flag on Facebook?

I filtered mine.

[CiCi]

My city did the same thing too!
http://www.sunderlandecho.com/webimage/1.7571707.1447528188!/image/1988779474.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_620/1988779474.jpg

Loads of places across the world have done similar things too, it definitely restores your faith in humanity a bit, especially the Porte Ouverte hashtag on twitter.

[-KhaN-]

I filtered mine.

I didn't.

[False Writer]

Of course I feel despair for the families of the victims of the Paris bombing, but do you appreciate the sheer numbers of civilians who are dying in Syria too? Like Khan says there will be no memorial services for them, they're just the cannon fodder.
We are all human beings on a small planet , we may be lucky enough to be born in England or America but consideration has to be given to the other human beings on the planet who live in terrible conditions but who are fathers, mothers just the same as us. Have a heart.

Yes, I said that in my first post.

But do you know just how many innocent people get killed or have something terrible happen to them? In Europe or America people get murdered every minute. In Africa, Boko Harem or whatever it's called is killing innocents by the hundreds. We all know what's happening in the Middle East... So much bad stuff happens and if you try mourn it all you'd have a mental breakdown in 5 seconds. Do you mourn for each and every innocent person that gets killed? If not, then there is someone out there that you're forgetting about, someone innocent that doesn't have a memorial service.

I'm not trying to get on you or anything but just saying that we can't always be the "good guys" or the "Hollywood heroes" that we want to be. Sometimes tough choices need to be made in order to not bring tragedies like what happened in Paris from happening on our doorstep.

[-KhaN-]

Interesting thing, Gaddafi actually said if he dies, Europe will be full of people running from N.Africa and Middle East, fearing terrorism.

[Yoda]

We are all human beings on a small planet , we may be lucky enough to be born in England or America but consideration has to be given to the other human beings on the planet who live in terrible conditions but who are fathers, mothers just the same as us. Have a heart.
Earlier you objected to these countries being called "bleeding heart," but when you say "Have a heart" to people who object to the policy, isn't it a fair term? I think most of the people who disagree do so not because they lack empathy (which, intentionally or not, is the implication of your plea), but because they have a different view of how to balance empathy for people in the here and now against long-term concerns. The victims of this attack were fathers and mothers, too.

[Mr Minio]

I've signed an online petition, along with a few hundred thousand other UK Citizens, to close the UK borders to all immigration until ISIS is defeated. Wait for me! I swear I won't kill anyone!

[honeykid]

From the UK, saw this in London on the News and thought it was beautiful:

http://www.london24.com/polopoly_fs/1.3912632.1421002775!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg

They did it with the London Eye, too.

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FCTyzW9oWEAEBtI0.jpg%3Amedium&f=1

And Tower Bridge,

[Cobpyth]

It's an absolute tragedy that a terror attack of this magnitude was still possible in one of Europe's capital cities in this day and age... They're still performing raids here in Belgium at the moment to clean up the mess that was already going on under our very own noses for a long time.

I hope the international (and especially the European) response will not be as weak as it was ten months ago. It's time to take this problem seriously.

1) Europe needs to protect its outside borders and institutionalize a much more effective screening policy. I'm all for immigration, but it needs to be done in a much more controlled fashion than it is now, especially in times like these. Everyone who dares denying that may have the best intentions at heart, but is in reality simply being idealistic and naive, if you ask me.
I also think it would be wise to adopt an economic allocation formula to divide the people we allow inside our Union between the countries that have the highest demands for the kind of labor they are able to offer. A win-win situation. Smart solidarity.

2) It's time to stop counting on local rebels to fight ISIS. That strategy is failing big time. We need a strong and well coordinated legion of Western allied forces to fix this tremendous chaos that's happening in Syria and Iraq right now. This monster needs to be put to rest before we can start thinking about how to make the region more healthy again. Of course the "well coordinated" part is the biggest challenge here. I still believe it's possible, even in a post-Iraq War era.
I do understand the argument against this, though, as rooting for this war would mean that you'd have to trust the strategic visions of today's western (political and military) leaders. The past in mind, it's perfectly reasonable to not be able to make that leap of trust (anymore)...

[-KhaN-]

2) It's time to stop counting on local rebels to fight ISIS.

Rebels are one of biggest reasons ISIS exists, Assad's regime and Syrian army are the ones fighting both ISIS and Al Qaeda partners.

[Captain Steel]

My city did the same thing too!
http://www.sunderlandecho.com/webimage/1.7571707.1447528188!/image/1988779474.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_620/1988779474.jpg

Loads of places across the world have done similar things too, it definitely restores your faith in humanity a bit, especially the Porte Ouverte hashtag on twitter.

This is all well and good. People engage in this sort of memorializing after a horrific event because it makes them feel better. But these shows of support don't restore my faith in humanity.

Right now, humanity isn't the problem, fundamentalist Islam is - and you don't see too many open & public displays addressing that issue (and there haven't been a whole lot of million-Muslim-marches against Islamic Terrorism... gee, I wonder why?)

Unfortunately, colored lights, candle vigils and President's talking tough about how they're now really going to have a war on terror don't address the problem or prevent the next terror attack from occurring.

We like to hear French President Hollande talk tough, but what exactly does it mean when he declares a new rhetorical "war" on terrorism?
Is he going to carpet bomb Iraq to eliminate ISIS?
Of course not, because that would mean killing the civilian population.

There's no real intelligence on the ground to pinpoint ISIS strongholds, and ISIS is embedded in civilian areas, they hold hostages, use human shields, keep human slaves and keep little Christian girls with them that they've kidnapped so they can gang-molest them on a daily basis.

So beyond bombing some empty buildings & blowing up a few ISIS vehicles (if they're lucky) and killing civilians along with a few ISIS members here & there, what does ANY country intend to do beyond the virtually pointless things they've done already? (More red, white and blue lights?)

We've been lied to about some "60 plus" coalition of countries (that's almost 3/4 of the planet) uniting to "destroy ISIS".
Just a few countries in the Middle East alone could do that in a matter of months... if they wanted to.

The Obama administration can't even provide a list of these alleged "60" countries, no less explain what the "plus" is supposed to mean.
(What, is it like 60 countries "plus" three guys in Luxembourg sending selfies giving the thumbs-up? What does "plus" mean, when you can't even say who the 60 countries are?)

[Citizen Rules]

After the attack yesterday, I took my very limited knowledge of the situation to come up with some 'plans' for dealing with ISIS and the Syrian conflict. I would share my ideas, (if anyone wants to hear them)...but I'd really like to hear your and other peoples ideas for some kind of solution to the ISIS/Syria problem.

[Cobpyth]

Rebels are one of biggest reasons ISIS exists, Assad's regime and Syrian army are the ones fighting both ISIS and Al Qaeda partners.

The problem is that we also can't morally count on Assad, as he's responsible for even more deaths than ISIS is. That's why we've been arming moderate rebels this whole time (the ones who are both against Assad and against ISIS), which has been completely ineffective so far.
We need to do this ourselves. We've been attacked. A strong response from us (more than the few air strikes that have been performed so far) is completely justified now, in my opinion.

I know it's not all that simple (and I've consciously been using very broad terms when speaking about issues that are actually very complex to deal with, because that's the level where this discussion is at right now), but I feel like there's way more potential out there to repress this source of evil than the measures that have been taken so far.

[honeykid]

You can't bomb ISIS out of existence because it doesn't exist as an entity.

[Cobpyth]

You can't bomb ISIS out of existence because it doesn't exist as an entity.

It's not (only) a question of bombing. It's a question of ground troops, I'm afraid.

[-KhaN-]

The problem is that we also can't morally count on Assad, as he's responsible for even more deaths than ISIS is. That's why we've been arming moderate rebels this whole time (the ones who are both against Assad and against ISIS), which has been completely ineffective so far.
We need to do this ourselves. We've been attacked. A strong response from us (more than the few air strikes that have been performed so far) is completely justified now, in my opinion.

"Moderate" rebels are beheading as much as ISIS, only difference is they are not in the spotlight. I don't think people who get their head cut care are they "moderate" or not. Assad killed more people than ISIS? How? When?

Fact is, strong and sometimes brutal leader is needed in order to keep Middle East in check, look at Syria now and look at it during Assad regime, look at the world now and look at it back then. Funny how West still didn't learn not to arm any kind of rebels as they will get shot with their own weapons. We are here, at this moment because someone wanted Assad out and then things went bad. Libya should be an obvious definition of why those regimes shouldn't be touched. Gaddafi and Assad kept their country's in peace and prosperity (whatever some people want to agree or not). Neither of them was a saint, but they were good leaders for country's of that type. Just look at situations in Libya and Syria now...

I know it's not all that simple, but I feel like there's way more potential out there to repress this source of evil than the measures that have been taken so far.

Everyone is running after their own interest, as you said above, West supported war in Syria (by supplying rebels).

[Captain Steel]

The problem is that we also can't morally count on Assad, as he's responsible for even more deaths than ISIS is. That's why we've been arming moderate rebels this whole time (the ones who are both against Assad and against ISIS), which has been completely ineffective so far.
We need to do this ourselves. We've been attacked. A strong response from us (more than the few air strikes that have been performed so far) is completely justified now, in my opinion.

I know it's not all that simple (and I've consciously been using very broad terms when speaking about issues that are actually very complex to deal with, because that's the level where this discussion is at right now), but I feel like there's way more potential out there to repress this source of evil than the measures that have been taken so far.

I agree. Even the most pessimistic of military strategists have said that ISIS could have been eliminated quickly in its early stages, could be eliminated by the U.S. (no less along with the mysterious "coalition of 60 plus countries" that Josh Earnest keeps talking about) and that just a few Middle Eastern countries together could eliminate ISIS from without and within, if only they'd choose to.
There's something else at play here.

I've never been for arming the Syrian rebel forces because we learned they are largely made up of Al Qaida (the same people who murdered nearly 3000 Americans in 2001 - lest we forget) along with other Islamic Terror groups who's ultimate goal is to kill everyone else as their ideology commands, and a few genuine groups of Syrians who'd just like to live freely instead of under a genocidal dictator.

Also, let's not forget that ISIS is just the current incarnation of Al Qaida in Iraq.
Al Qaida came out of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Muslim Brotherhood is the group of fundamental Islamists that Obama supported, saying they would bring freedom and democracy to Egypt and the Middle East.
(Why would he think that a group of known Islamic fundamentalists who desire Sharia law, who violate human rights at every turn in the name of their religion, and who give birth to, sponsor & export global Islamic Terrorism would have anything to do with bringing freedom to the Middle East?)

[-KhaN-]

It's not (only) a question of bombing. It's a question of ground troops, I'm afraid.

There were troops on the ground already, Assad's troops, Syrian troops, legitimate Syrian army . I guess as always, interests lead to wrong choices, this could have been cut at its start.

[Cobpyth]

"Moderate" rebels are beheading as much as ISIS, only difference is they are not in the spotlight. I don't think people who get their head cut care are they "moderate" or not. Assad killed more people than ISIS? How? When?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrian-government-forces-responsible-for-more-civilian-deaths-than-isis-human-rights-group-claims-a6673956.html

Fact is, strong and sometimes brutal leader is needed in order to keep Middle East in check, look at Syria now and look at it during Assad regime, look at the world now and look at it back then. Funny how West still didn't learn not to arm any kind of rebels as they will get shot with their own weapons. We are here, at this moment because someone wanted Assad out and then things went bad. Libya should be an obvious definition of why those regimes shouldn't be touched. Gaddafi and Assad kept their country's in peace and prosperity (whatever some people want to agree or not). Neither of them was a saint, but they were good leaders for country's of that type. Just look at situations in Libya and Syria now...

From a Western point of view, you may be right that the world may seem better with those dictators in place, but from a humain point of view, it's morally completely indefensible.

That said, like you, I wasn't a big supporter of the Arab spring either, as Islamism was always going to be the result.

The real tragic places in this world are those where pragmatism seems incompatible with morality...
You're definitely right that times were easier for us when we decisively chose for the former, but that doesn't automatically mean it was "right" either.

[-KhaN-]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrian-government-forces-responsible-for-more-civilian-deaths-than-isis-human-rights-group-claims-a6673956.html


Can I give an advice? I have been through all of this so trust me when I say, you can't believe everything you read. You just said they are supporting rebels so...You know how for example in Libya West supported rebels and freedom fighters? And everyone knew that in reality they are Al Qaeda. Isn't this a claim made before attack on every country? Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, everyone who needs to get removed from government is attacked for using "chemical" weapons against his own people etc. Old story used over and over again...


From a Western point of view, you may be right that the world may seem better with those dictators in place, but from a humain point of view, it's morally completely indefensible.

Why? What was wrong with those regimes? Libyans had better standard of life than some major country's. Democracy can't be just putt in a society over night. It's also important to say, to who were those regimes brutal? They kept extremists in check. In Syria you didn't have any religious restriction, girls could walk with tattoos, piercings and stuff. You could eat pig meet at the street without any problems. How many other Muslim country's had those options?

I see we agree on other parts so no need tho discuss those further.

EDIT: It's 2 am here so we will continue this tomorrow. :)

[Cobpyth]

Can I give an advice? I have been through all of this so trust me when I say, you can't believe everything you read. You just said they are supporting rebels so...You know how for example in Libya West supported rebels and freedom fighters? And everyone knew that in reality they are Al Qaeda. Isn't this a claim made before attack on every country? Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, everyone who needs to get removed from government is attacked for using "chemical" weapons against his own people etc. Old story used over and over again...

The only claim I was making is that the Assad government is responsible for (way) more civilian deaths than ISIS. I don't think you'll find any statistics that prove me otherwise.

Again, it's a question of pragmatism versus morality. He's a potential enemy and a potential ally at once.

Why? What was wrong with those regimes? Libyans had better standard of life than some major country's. Democracy can't be just putt in a society over night. It's also important to say, to who were those regimes brutal? They kept extremists in check. In Syria you didn't have any religious restriction, girls could walk with tattoos, piercings and stuff. You could eat pig meet at the street without any problems. How many other Muslim country's had those options?

I suggest you read up on the horrible acts that happened under those regimes you're defending. They did not only keep "extremists" in check. They massacred everyone who didn't want to bow to their extremist authoritarian statism. I'm sure you don't really believe that any of those regimes seemed ideal to live under, right?

Again, it may have been easier to deal with for us (than it is now), but never underestimate or try to condone the purely evil acts these specific regimes have committed. That would be a mistake both historically and humanly.

[Pussy Galore]

I'm just throwing it out there, you speak as if western moral principles (democracy, freedom, etc.) The ones from the enlightenment, liberté, égalité, fraternité and so on. You're speaking as if those principles were objective moral truth, as if it was encrypted in our universal human nature that these are the ''good'' principles as opposed to the other ones. I'm not saying I disagree or I agree, I actually don't know, but if you want to make a ''war'' to ISIS you should at least give a justification to explain why these principles are universal moral truth. What I mean is that moral relativism is not something that is without any sense, it's a good argument with weight to it and those in favor of exporting democracy should answer to it.

[Citizen Rules]

Western nations like the USA are always trying to export democracy to the rest of the world, but not every country/region/group wants democracy. That's why the USA's attempt to establishing democratic governments doesn't always work. Just my observation.

[Cobpyth]

I'm just throwing it out there, you speak as if western moral principles (democracy, freedom, etc.) The ones from the enlightenment, liberté, égalité, fraternité and so on. You're speaking as if those principles were objective moral truth, as if it was encrypted in our universal human nature that these are the ''good'' principles as opposed to the other ones. I'm not saying I disagree or I agree, I actually don't know, but if you want to make a ''war'' to ISIS you should at least give a justification to explain why these principles are universal moral truth. What I mean is that moral relativism is not something that is without any sense, it's a good argument with weight to it and those in favor of exporting democracy should answer to it.

Why should someone answer about anything if moral relativism is the only "truth"?

[Pussy Galore]

I don't mean to say objectively that there is no truth, but just that I can't find on what grounds in morality something is better then something else.

[Cobpyth]

I don't mean to say objectively that there is no truth, but just that I can't find on what grounds in morality something is better then something else.

So you're saying you can't find on what grounds, for instance, killing an innocent child is worse than not killing an innocent child?

[Pussy Galore]

On what ground do you say that killing an innocent child is worse than not doing it is my question. Sure I have a very strong intuition regarding that question, but on what grounds can I justify it? On the amount of suffering? On common sense? On don't do to others what you don't want to do? How do you decide? What is the criteria that make us all say killing someone else is not acceptable? I would love to find it so that we can universalise it and have a moral society.

For instance, I personally can't find on what ground is it worse to kill a human then to kill a non human animal. I wouldn't be able to justify it.

[Cobpyth]

On what ground do you say that killing an innocent child is worse than not doing it is my question. Sure I have a very strong intuition regarding that question, but on what grounds can I justify it? On the amount of suffering? On common sense? On don't do to others what you don't want to do? How do you decide? What is the criteria that make us all say killing someone else is not acceptable? I would love to find it so that we can universalise it and have a moral society.

I remember you asking me once on what grounds I decided something was moral or not.

This was my answer:

I took a course in moral philsophy and I learned some techniques there. Here's a simplified version of the one I think is the most valuable. Basically, it's a mix between Kant and Bentham.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The basis of the whole technique is that initially, in principle, the immorality of the action needs to be proved, not the morality.

1) I look if there's a 'moral principle' being infringed upon. If I'm positive there is (of course you have to substantiate this), I'll go to the next "step", if there isn't (you also have to substantiate this), the action is not immoral.

2) What are the principles in favor of the action and do they overrule the principles that are infringed upon? First you have to prove there are principles that are in favor of the action and then you need to put the two groups of principles (against and in favor) in a figurative balance.
The importance of certain principles are both absolute and contextual and the moral discussion should also always be aware of that.
There are several techniques you can use to substantiate which side of the balance has the moral high ground:
- A generally accepted principle outweighs a controversial principle
- Individual principles have precedence over group principles
- Fundamental rights have precedence over rights that are merely derived from fundamental rights (i.e. when they're more specific)
- More principles outweigh less principles
- Basic needs have precedence over supplemental needs
etc.

If the moral principles from step 1 are overruled, the action is not immoral. If they aren't, we go to step 3.

3) When a principle has been infringed upon and it isn't overruled by any other principle, it's still possible that there's a case of "justified exception". You need to demonstrate three things:

- You need to show there is a moral basis to the action. You need to demonstrate the morality of the action.

- You need to demonstrate the necessity of the action.
Basically you need to do two things here: first you need to show that there are undesirable consequences when the action isn't taken and then you need to show that there aren't any realistic alternatives to prevent those consequences.

- There needs to be a proportionality between means and ends.

If you have demonstrated that there might be a case for "justified exception", the action can still be moral.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see, everything within the reasoning needs to be substantiated and argued. There's always room for discussion. Nothing is absolute.

I'm not saying I always go through this whole process when judging whether an action is moral or not, but it has become a sort of rational guide for me that helps me substantiating my opinions.

Besides thinking rationally about every moral case, I also think it's always important to look at the social and psychological context of it, especially when judging people on their moral behavior.

Will there ever be a universal way to define morality? Probably not.
Does that mean we need to act according to normative moral relativism? No. Believe in your own strength as a thinker.

Anyway, we're going off topic a little bit here. I just feel like you're getting a little lost in the wasteland that morality (especially the "overthinking" of the concept) can sometimes be. I've learned that it's essential to at least trust your own mind a little bit and not look for the objective truths that you won't find unless you allow something that's supposed to be bigger than this all into your way of thinking.

Anyway, this is probably food for another thread. ;)

[Pussy Galore]

I'm not a moral relativist btw, I'm just really questionning myself about it, I personally have a hard time putting forward moral principles without this ''universal criteria'' because what derives form it is that we have to arbitrarily draw lines, which is something questionnable. Also, I don't trust intuitions, they can change, they are highly influenced by culture. And if we base ourselves upon our intuitions I think we are relativists because we put aside reason for what seems to be our nature.

[carlspackler]

That's as maybe but all refugees aren't terrorists. That's like saying the terrorists are men so all men are terrorists.

The press in Belgrade just reported that one of the Paris bombers entered through Serbia on October 7th. AS A REFUGEE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Drastic measures are called for to deal with these vermin.
I am astounded that Western European countries continue to let these people in.

The first of 20,000 refugees will arrive in Glasgow by plane tomorrow(Monday) from Syria.
The so called leaders of our country are spineless gutless and fcuckin clueless and they continue to advocate that the religion of Islam is a peaceful religion,David Cameron actually said that yesterday.

Donald Trump has a point.:eek:

[Pussy Galore]

The problem is that there are people that actually need help, the solution is not necessarily to refuse to let them in our countries, but more to have more thorough examinations as to which migrants do we accept.

[Captain Steel]

In tonight's Democratic debate - all three candidates absolutely refused to use or even acknowledge the term "Radical Islamic Terrorism" when directly questioned about the cause of the Paris attack and what ideology drives global Islamic terror attacks.

One of them said they'd used the term "Radical Jihadists," but they will not admit in any terms whatsoever that the ideology of Islam has anything to do with Islamic Terrorism, the Islamic State or any of the 100 or so other major Islamic Terrorist organizations that carry out terrorism in the name of Islam.

So they utterly deny the reality that global Islamic Terrorism has a single religious / political ideology behind it which is shared by its operatives (that just so happens to follow the literal commandments of the Koran, the violent examples set by Mohammad that all Muslims are instructed to follow, and the 1400 year history of Islam.)

I guess they're trying to convince us that decades of global Islamic Terrorism are random events conducted by large organized groups of random people with different beliefs and of diverse religions (perhaps the Amish?) who got together randomly for absolutely no purpose and have no agenda besides random violence toward no select targets in an effort to strive toward nothing since none of them have any shared ideology.

It was almost sickening, in light of the carnage in Paris, that not one of these idiots would dare speak the truth or disobey the mandate of Obama that they not identify the ideology behind Islamic Terrorism or identify who is carrying out the attacks. This level of denial is dangerous.

[carlspackler]

Where are all the French Muslim tears for the French dead.
Where are the Muslim marches for peace.
Where is the condemnation from the mosques.
The silence is deafening.

[carlspackler]

The problem is that there are people that actually need help, the solution is not necessarily to refuse to let them in our countries, but more to have more thorough examinations as to which migrants do we accept.

Sorry,the solution is to stop them crossing our borders.

Thourough examinations.............no too late for that,anyway our governments would see that as racial profiling and according to the PC BIBLE that is number one on their commandments list. THOU SHALT NOT RACIALLY PROFILE!!

[False Writer]

Where are all the French Muslim tears for the French dead.
Where are the Muslim marches for peace.
Where is the condemnation from the mosques.
The silence is deafening.

This is something I've heard about, and I kinda agree, even if they aren't the ones blowing people up they sure do seem like they aren't condemning it in any way.

[Sane]

This is something I've heard about, and I kinda agree, even if they aren't the ones blowing people up they sure do seem like they aren't condemning it in any way.

Well, the people in France probably have some things on their mind and it's only a day later so let's give them a chance rather than sitting thousands of miles away and making demands of them. There has obviously been plenty of condemnation from Muslims all around the world.

[Captain Steel]

Hillary said something tonight to the extent of; "If we have a way to vet these people, then we should be bringing them in." (not verbatim)

I had to interject, "We have no way to vet the quarter million Syrian refugees Obama wants to bring here. We have no way to vet a single person, especially when ISIS will send operatives who are blank-slate non-entities, who have been radicalized, who will act as sleepers waiting to activate and who have little traceable background, whose training has been kept secret and whose contacts are untraceable."

How do you vet hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom will have no records to even look at?

[christine]

Where are all the French Muslim tears for the French dead.
Where are the Muslim marches for peace.
Where is the condemnation from the mosques.
The silence is deafening.

I don't know which media you've been following but:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34820093

http://time.com/4112830/muslims-paris-terror-attacks-islam-condemn/

http://www.alternet.org/media/muslims-around-world-condemn-paris-attacks

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/the-paris-attacks-were-a-declaration-of-war-against-islam-itself/

etc

[Daniel M]

Also why should Muslims especially feel the need to stand up and apoligise or condemn the behaviour of these people any more than you and I?

And as Christine points out your statement is false anyway, read and hear what you want...

No Muslim I have ever met, or currently know, would be anything but upset by the tragic news. They all think this behaviour is disgusting and has no place in Islam, stop acting as if they or their religion is responsible.

There have been thousands of refugees in France for years now, there are millions of migrants in Europe in general, a lot their through legal means. You people act as if the only way to come into this country and attack it is through being a refugee, mainly people legally migrate or are even originally from the countries that they attack. Migration controls, deterrents etc. are nothing but political tools to mask over the real problem, it needs to be dealt with at source, through education, intelligence etc. - this is a highly thought out and well planned problem we have to deal with. Terrorism isn't as simple as a refugee coming over and attacking, its planned, its paid for, it would have been possible for this attack to have happened at any time over the last couple of years but they choose now. It's all about timing, it's come now because of the refugee wave and major events taking place, they want to create a war between religions and civilizations.

[Pussy Galore]

The islamic doctrine isn't responsible for those crimes, something is and I don't know what it is, but it is not the Quran or the muslim religion that is particularly more violent then any other. Here's a simple argument that shows it to you

(1st premise) You can find justification to kill in the bible and in the quran if you take it litteraly
(2nd premise) It's mostly muslims that commits terrorist acts nowadays (even though there are many shootings in the states)
-----
(conclusion) The problem isn't in the text itself, but in the interpretation that some have of it.

Why it's muslims that do these atrocities? is a question that deserves to be answered. However, I, as an atheist or a chrsitian, am in no way less responsible for these terrible events then someone called Mohammed who is a muslim and knows what theology is and sees his religion as a way to find god or anything. Lets have intelligent discussions trying to point out where the breaking point was, what are the solutions. Putting the responsability on muslims for those horrible things is just plain stupid.

[honeykid]

The EU may have to look at it's free movement policy, but this is going to go on for decades, if not generations. You can't just shut the borders because it's not practical or even viable. One of the few times I've agreed with Cameron is with how he talked about dealing with this on the doorstep, rather than ferrying people all over Europe.

Any military excursions have to be long term and, again, I don't see that happening. There isn't the public or political will to do so. It's now apparant that we came out of Afghanistan too soon and yet, after 13 years, no one really knows why we were there or what we did. The irony is that this (and Syria) is exactly the kind of thing that Blair and Bush wanted Iraq to be, and yet, it's partly because they went in when it wasn't that it now is.

There always has been (and probably always will be) angry young men who want to lash out at the world. Fifty years ago you bought a leather jacket, carried a knife and got into fights. Now someone is prepared to train and convince you that your life will mean something and you'll be rewarded in the afterlife and that reach is worldwide and instant because of todays technology. Before you went to war or joined the Crusades or something. The most dangerous thing about this threat is that it doesn't even rely on sleeper cells (although this does appear to've been one at this point.) The point is just to tell people to go out and do in for ISIS or in their name and it's almost impossible to defend against that if they don't make some stupid mistake.

[Cobpyth]

Also why should Muslims especially feel the need to stand up and apoligise or condemn the behaviour of these people any more than you and I?

And as Christine points out your statement is false anyway, read and hear what you want...

No Muslim I have ever met, or currently know, would be anything but upset by the tragic news. They all think this behaviour is disgusting and has no place in Islam, stop acting as if they or their religion is responsible.

They (as in, all the moderate Muslims) are not responsible. I agree with that 100%. Their religion, however, certainly is part of the problem and I think acknowledging that is a very important first step in starting a broad movement to reform it.
Comments like "it's not Islam" are not helpful, because they deny that there's a problem within the Islamic ideology (which there clearly is). Avoiding the ideological confrontation will not lead to the solutions that are needed.

Luckily, there already are Muslims that understand the concept of secularism and freedom of speech very well and who speak and act accordingly, but there's still way too much poisoned discourse coming from important western Muslim leaders as well. Not condemning that would be a big mistake.

It's a classic example, but if you'd go to some of your Muslim friends with a drawing of Muhammed, you'll be amazed to see how many of them are not being quite as polite and moderate anymore...

There have been thousands of refugees in France for years now, there are millions of migrants in Europe in general, a lot their through legal means. You people act as if the only way to come into this country and attack it is through being a refugee, mainly people legally migrate or are even originally from the countries that they attack. Migration controls, deterrents etc. are nothing but political tools to mask over the real problem, it needs to be dealt with at source, through education, intelligence etc. - this is a highly thought out and well planned problem we have to deal with. Terrorism isn't as simple as a refugee coming over and attacking, its planned, its paid for, it would have been possible for this attack to have happened at any time over the last couple of years but they choose now.

Well, many of the dangerous, radicalized people of today in Europe, happen to have fought in the Syrian war or at least can be traced back to the Middle East, because that's where the "headquarters" of Islamic radicalism currently are. I think it's a very logical step to screen today's influx (at least the ones originating from those areas) more profoundly because of those reasons.

As you say, it's also important to fight radicalism at home as well, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep an eye out for potential external threats, which have been proven as very real by friday's events and the backgrounds of the specific perpetrators.

It's all about timing, it's come now because of the refugee wave and major events taking place, they want to create a war between religions and civilizations.

They want to spread fear. That's their main intention and strategy. Not being afraid of a big confrontation and the fierce victory of western civilization would be the only response that proves that their tactics have completely failed. At least, that's how I see it.

[False Writer]

Also why should Muslims especially feel the need to stand up and apoligise or condemn the behaviour of these people any more than you and I?

And as Christine points out your statement is false anyway, read and hear what you want...

No Muslim I have ever met, or currently know, would be anything but upset by the tragic news. They all think this behaviour is disgusting and has no place in Islam, stop acting as if they or their religion is responsible.

There have been thousands of refugees in France for years now, there are millions of migrants in Europe in general, a lot their through legal means. You people act as if the only way to come into this country and attack it is through being a refugee, mainly people legally migrate or are even originally from the countries that they attack. Migration controls, deterrents etc. are nothing but political tools to mask over the real problem, it needs to be dealt with at source, through education, intelligence etc. - this is a highly thought out and well planned problem we have to deal with. Terrorism isn't as simple as a refugee coming over and attacking, its planned, its paid for, it would have been possible for this attack to have happened at any time over the last couple of years but they choose now. It's all about timing, it's come now because of the refugee wave and major events taking place, they want to create a war between religions and civilizations.

Because they're blowing people up maybe? Condemning it would paint them in a much better light, and if they are indeed doing that, then good for them.

Of course refugees aren't the only ones carrying out terrorist attacks, but it's undeniable that it adds more fuel to the fire and to the body count.

I'm concerned for you all over there—but if you don't mind being in danger, then who am I to say what should happen in Europe?

[Daniel M]

Because they're blowing people up maybe? Condemning it would paint them in a much better light, and if they are indeed doing that, then good for them.

Of course refugees aren't the only ones carrying out terrorist attacks, but it's undeniable that it adds more fuel to the fire and to the body count.

I'm concerned for you all over there—but if you don't mind being in danger, then who am I to say what should happen in Europe?

I am aware that people are being blown up. My question is that why should all Muslim people need be responsible to apoligise or condemn the actions of these people any more than me or you. I haven't made a public statement, joined a march or anything like that, but I am disgusted by the attacks. Whose to say that they aren't too?

They shouldn't need to have to come out and protect their beliefs to the people that believe all of Islam is the problem, every time that something like this happens.

[Cobpyth]

I am aware that people are being blown up. My question is that why should all Muslim people need be responsible to apoligise or condemn the actions of these people any more than me or you. I haven't made a public statement, joined a march or anything like that, but I am disgusted by the attacks. Whose to say that they aren't too?

They shouldn't need to have to come out and protect their beliefs to the people that believe all of Islam is the problem, every time that something like this happens.

Why is it so crazy to believe that an ideology that promises 72 virgins in some paradise afterlife if you kill and die for the cause of spreading and defending it, is at least part of the problem of today's radicalism (which shows all the signs of being founded on these ideas)?

I think it isn't and I also think it's not crazy to especially ask from those people who endorse this ideology called Islam to strongly condemn these actions, as they will ultimately have more influence on its followers than so called infidels like us.

[Pussy Galore]

Go read my comment Cobpyth, I think I refuted that pretty well.

[Cobpyth]

Go read my comment Cobpyth, I think I refuted that pretty well.

No, you didn't. You actually litterally said they can find arguments in their texts to kill people. Why wouldn't the doctrine be the problem then?

[Pussy Galore]

Christians also can, but they generally don't do it.

[Cobpyth]

Christians also can, but they generally don't do it.

Compare the figure of Christ with the figure of Muhammed and I think you'll see that this so called equivalence between these two religions and their main prophets is quite ridiculous. Islam is a militant and conquering ideology. Christianity mainly isn't (even though some have done evil things in its name in the past as well, regretfully).
There's a clear difference in focus.

[Pussy Galore]

What I mean is that someone can, if they want to, in both case find a justification for murder in the texts. Not that they are equivalent, I actually don't care about that you probably already know my position on religion, I think it's a pointless irrationnal belief. However, I don't think the problem is in islam, the problem is humans who take justify their acts with the Quran. There are also sourats that asks for peace, it depends on how you interpret it.

[False Writer]

I am aware that people are being blown up. My question is that why should all Muslim people need be responsible to apoligise or condemn the actions of these people any more than me or you. I haven't made a public statement, joined a march or anything like that, but I am disgusted by the attacks. Whose to say that they aren't too?

They shouldn't need to have to come out and protect their beliefs to the people that believe all of Islam is the problem, every time that something like this happens.

Because it is their religion that is spreading so much fear and death and destruction. Simple as that.

I'm not saying every single one of them needs to condemn it, if some high authority figures that speak for the majority of them says they condemn it then that's good enough for me. If they want to live in western countries then they should really make it clear that they do not condone and will never do what the extremists are doing now.

[christine]

I think you will start to get a groundswell of opinion against IS from Muslims.
Only last week at the bus stop I heard a young girl wearing a headscarf telling another girl that she feels like she gets funny looks on the bus and in the street. Its blatently wrong and I hope campaigns like this can get people together
http://www.isisnotinmyname.com/

[Frightened Inmate No. 2]

muslims shouldn't have to apologize on behalf of radical islam. they already despise them enough for constantly bringing all of this racial hatred on them. we don't make christians apologize every time someone burns down an abortion clinic. the majority shouldn't be required to apologize for the minority just because some people are too stupid to tell the difference.

[Camo]

Horrible tragedy, i haven't been able to get this mindless carnage out of my head since it happened. I was following another forum while this was happening and when information came out that the hostages in the theatre were being executed,a someone posted exactly what i think everone was feeling "people are being slaughtered as i type, i feel sick".

RIP :(

[Captain Steel]

Problem is - "radical" Islam is fundamental or orthodox Islam.

ISIS is following Islam literally (because what ISIS does is what Islam teaches).
ISIS follows the example of the man who founded Islam as he had hundreds of innocent people beheaded (the Banu Qurayza Jews), practiced conquest & conversions through violence to spread Islamic supremacy, had people who verbally disrespected or argued with him assassinated, took slaves, took his victims' wives as sex slaves, forced these women to watch as their husbands & sons were beheaded before they'd be defiled by him and his men, and he raped little girls (he married little Aisha when she was age 6 and defiled her when she was age 9.)

Modern Ayatollahs in Iran teach that Islam authorizes men to sodomize infant females based on the practices of their prophet! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2471602/posts

No other major religion with a single founder follows one that was a mass murderer or who taught that murdering innocent human beings was a divine responsibility of his followers to spread their religion's supremacy.

When we look at the lives of these other "founders" (individuals who had a major religion based upon their teachings), we find accounts of men who were living examples of forgiveness, peace and love. For example: Zoroaster (a.k.a. Zarathustra), Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama), Jesus, Lao Tzu & Confucius.
They weren't warriors, they weren't violent, instead they were exemplary of the most positive human virtues. They preached benevolence to those who believe differently and even to those who might wrong you.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Muhammad.
That's what's so vexing - virtually every "single-founder" religion in the world was built around pacifists who had no interest in harming anyone, yet Islam was built around someone who grew to extol violence, revenge, intolerance & conquest.
(Is it any wonder then that prisons are such fertile ground for conversions where murderers, psychopaths and rapists are eager to convert to a religion that tells them they'll be rewarded with virgins to rape in heaven for killing more innocent people? And the Muslims that convert these criminals aren't looking to save their souls or have them repent their crimes - their looking for warriors to carry out more attacks on infidels.)


So the more moderate factions of Islam should be far more vocal since it is their religion - their religion's teachings, their tenets, their scriptures, their religious history of invasion & conquest, and the example of the man they hold as their prophet that is directly responsible for the ideology of intolerance and terrorism that results from such a cult of belief.
If they don't believe in what their religion teaches, what their scriptures say, what their holy prophet commands, and the instructions to follow Muhammad's historical examples of mass murder, slavery and rape, then they should denounce Islam.

No sane, reasonable or rationale person would follow a psychotic doctrine of hate, murder, misogyny, child abuse and genocide - so why aren't Muslims leaving Islam and denouncing it by the hundreds of millions?

Why are so many Muslims terrorists? Why is there a global terrorist movement that originates in Islam?

It's because of what Islam teaches - it teaches supremacy, violence, terrorism and genocide - it is written in the Koran! No other religion has tenets based on these things. No other religion claims to have standing and eternal orders from God that it is their personal responsibility to murder innocent people for having different beliefs - Islam is the only religion that believes this. And anyone who tries to tell you differently is either very ignorant of the tenets & history of Islam and its prophet or is lying.

When Christians commit assault or murder of anyone, they are in direct and total opposition to everything their religion's founder taught.
When Muslims commit assault or murder of "infidels", they are in direct obedience to everything their religion's founder taught.

[Citizen Rules]

Those of you who say the majority of Muslims are not the problem...are correct.

However those of you who think that the terrorist attacks are not a religious problem...are wrong.

ISIS core belief is their radicalized Islamic religion. They seek to spread their religious ideas through murder, terror and war. The western world can't deal with ISIS until people stop being so stupidly PC about it.

When the world can say that radicalized Islam beliefs are the problem, then we have a chance of solving that problem.

[Daniel M]

Because it is their religion that is spreading so much fear and death and destruction. Simple as that.

I'm not saying every single one of them needs to condemn it, if some high authority figures that speak for the majority of them says they condemn it then that's good enough for me. If they want to live in western countries then they should really make it clear that they do not condone and will never do what the extremists are doing now.

Don't be so ridiculous. Parts of their religion might be being used to justify horrible actions, but in now way does that make them responsible or suggest that they would condone it, and if they don't speak out against it, it shouldn't be assumed that way either.

Hundreds of thousands of Muslims have been killed by ISIS, every Muslim I know despises them and their actions. Just because it doesn't get reported in the media (why should/would it, either) doesn't mean they they support the actions, it's absolute common sense and should go without saying that the Muslim community does not condone these actions.

[-KhaN-]

Isis is killing Muslims, just to point out. There are two kinds of Muslims, same as two kind of Christians.

[Daniel M]

Also, I do find certain elements of Islam to be problematic. I often find myself conflicted in my views in that I would consider myself a supporter a of a lot of great modern day movements and rights, yet a lot of these are undermined in Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia, who I have heard have beheaded more people than ISIS in the past year. I think the problem is these particular nations and regions, it's a cultural thing more than a religious one. I think that Christian texts are probably less open to scrutiny than Islamic ones, but that's not to see there isn't bad stuff there either, the difference is that the Christian people and major Christian nations have evolved to allow for discrepancies between what is taught and what is allowed, they've adapted to rightfully accommodate human rights, I think this is sensible considering the evolution of capitalism and the way the world has shaped up over the past thousand years or so on. There needs to be tougher action taken by countries like the UK and US against dictatorships like Saudi Arabia who behead people for being homosexuals or sorcerers.

There is definitely progression being made by certain states where Islam is the majority religion, and there are definitely many things to be celebrated in the religion, once again I'll also reiterate that every Muslim I know or have met have been happy to integrate to the culture, respect other religions, condemn terrorism etc., it's completely blown out of proportion the issue of "terrorist sympathisers" or however you want to label it, and it's disgusting I think to see the amount of people/groups that incite hatred towards Muslims who feel like they are being marginalised which unfortunately leads to segregation and divides, I've heard that in France that is a big issue with this. How do you expect them to integrate though when people evidently make such naive assumptions about them.

[Pussy Galore]

Captain Steel here are a couple versets that show love and peace

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

''If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.'' (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

shall I continue?

[Captain Steel]

Don't be so ridiculous. Parts of their religion might be being used to justify horrible actions, but in now way does that make them responsible or suggest that they would condone it, and if they don't speak out against it, it shouldn't be assumed that way either.

Hundreds of thousands of Muslims have been killed by ISIS, every Muslim I know despises them and their actions. Just because it doesn't get reported in the media (why should/would it, either) doesn't mean they they support the actions, it's absolute common sense and should go without saying that the Muslim community does not condone these actions.

If someone does not condone what Islam teaches (or doesn't want to follow the examples of the prophet as every Muslim is instructed to do), or doesn't want to acknowledge the nearly 200 Koranic passages of intolerance & violence toward others, or does not agree that women are not full human beings entitled to equal rights, that Jews are "monkeys and pigs" that need to be slaughtered, that it's your personal responsibility to slash the throat of every non-believer wheresoever you may find them, that killing yourself in order to murder infidels will gain you virgins to rape in the afterlife, that homosexuals should be executed for their orientation, or that forced sex on children is an acceptable practice... then why would they remain Muslim?

Or more aptly: how could anyone in their right mind, knowing what Islam teaches, knowing what Islam has done, remain Muslim?

[Captain Steel]

Isis is killing Muslims, just to point out. There are two kinds of Muslims, same as two kind of Christians.

Muslims have been killing Muslims for centuries - because the most fundamental idea of Islam is to kill anyone who believes differently than you do. Of course different factions arise, as with any religion or philosophy. But when the base tenet / commandment is kill anyone who doesn't believe what we believe, there is only going to be violence.

[Captain Steel]

Captain Steel here are a couple versets that show love and peace

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

''If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.'' (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

shall I continue?

Yes, please continue. And when you're done please list the Jewish terror attacks taking place in more than 50 countries all over the world. The beheadings committed by Hebrews, all the Jews flying planes into buildings, bombing trains in Spain, slaughtering hundreds in hotels in India, murdering schools full of children in Russia, blowing up night clubs, restaurants, theaters, hospitals. Tell us about the Jews murdering Christians by the thousands throughout Africa.

Deeds, not words.

[-KhaN-]

The point is, ISIS is at war against the world, not Christians, Jews and so on.

[CiCi]

If someone does not condone what Islam teaches (or doesn't want to follow the examples of the prophet as every Muslim is instructed to do), or doesn't want to acknowledge the nearly 200 Koranic passages of intolerance & violence toward others, or does not agree that women are not full human beings entitled to equal rights, that Jews are "monkeys and pigs" that need to be slaughtered, that it's your personal responsibility to slash the throat of every non-believer wheresoever you may find them, that killing yourself in order to murder infidels will gain you virgins to rape in the afterlife, that homosexuals should be executed for their orientation, or that forced sex on children is an acceptable practice... then why would they remain Muslim?

Or more aptly: how could anyone in their right mind, knowing what Islam teaches, knowing what Islam has done, remain Muslim?

The same could be applied to Christianity though. Why do people still belong to a church that instead of confronting their sexual abuse scandals, alternatively did what they could to cover them up, that killed thousands if not millions of Americans when Isabella and Ferdinand of Spain decided to colonise their lands and obliterate their cultures, that tortured false converts to Catholicism who only wanted to stay in the land in which their existence was completely revolved around, that burned hundreds of thousands of women and men for being a "witch", that massacred thousands upon thousands of French citizens... for being Protestant, that want you to wash your hands whenever you go into public in case you touched a non-believer, that preach acceptance and tolerance but then consistently object to homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, contraception and to a lesser extent women working and speaking in church. People don't condone them either yet they are still over 1 billion Christians, and I haven't even scratched the surface of all of their atrocities.

All religions have their dark and sinister sides, yet people still practice them because of their cultures or because they have some useful stuff in them, like the Bible instructing people not to kill is a law in (I'm guessing) every country in the world.

[Captain Steel]

The point is, ISIS is at war against the world, not Christians, Jews and so on.

Agreed. ISIS is at war with humanity. So are about 100 other fundamentalist Islamic Terrorist organizations that want the world ruled by Islam.
(But this is all modern, right? None of the ideology accounts for 1400 years of the EXACT same tactics, as advised by Islamic leaders dating all the way back to Muhammad, used to spread Islam through subterfuge, infiltration, terrorism, subjugation, intimidation and direct conflict.)

How do you think there are so many organizations all stemming from one ideology?
How are they on a global level?
Why are they able to recruit tens of thousands from all over the world? (I don't see any other GLOBAL religious terrorist organizations that appeal to thousands of followers with the offer of "Yes, you too can experience the thrill of cutting little children's heads off and putting them on spits all in the name of Allah!") For some reason such offers aren't appealing to ANY other religions to the point where tens of thousand across the globe want to go join!

Where do you think the money comes from to fund all these groups? (After all, Muslims only believe in peace and wouldn't dare condone or support such violence, right?) And yet, conservative estimates say that "radical" Islam has hundreds of millions adherents and an indeterminable amount of covert supporters (kind of strange if all Islam teaches is peace).

Every time a poll is taken of "moderate" Muslims, it comes back that a significant amount say they support terrorism in the name of Islam, or to defend their prophet from criticism.

So how did the movement get to be so huge when absolutely no one else in Islam would even think of supporting the people doing exactly what their religion says they're supposed to do?

My guess is: all the funding, weapons, intelligence, recruitment propaganda, bomb-making equipment, IED training, safe-housing, contacts, personnel, aid and material support MUST be coming from the Amish (or maybe those Mormons)! I mean, who else could it be since Islam is a religion of peace?

[Sane]

Yes, please continue. And when you're done please list the Jewish terror attacks taking place in more than 50 countries all over the world. The beheadings committed by Hebrews, all the Jews flying planes into buildings, bombing trains in Spain, slaughtering hundreds in hotels in India, murdering schools full of children in Russia, blowing up night clubs, restaurants, theaters, hospitals. Tell us about the Jews murdering Christians by the thousands throughout Africa.

Deeds, not words.

And yet over and over you use the WORDS to show why you think the problem is Islam rather than the actions of individuals ...

So, if it is not the words now can you link me to similar rants by you against Catholicism due to the DEEDS of people who do actually represent that religion?

[Sexy Celebrity]

Let's just bomb all of these monsters until there's nothing left of them. If they wanna obsess over their crazy ideas about the afterlife, let's just send them all over to THAT afterlife.

Those of us who prefer LIFE can just enjoy what we have in this LIFE. Thank you.

[-KhaN-]

@Captain Steel

Edit: Got what you are saying. I'm just pointing out Islam is split between Sunni and Shiite, same as Christianity is split between Orthodox and Catholic. Isis are mostly Sunni and are killing Christians and Shiites alike... And ISIS is getting supply's from Western allies as S.Arabia.

[Captain Steel]

And yet over and over you use the WORDS to show why you think the problem is Islam rather than the actions of individuals ...

So, if it is not the words now can you link me to similar rants by you against Catholicism due to the DEEDS of people who do actually represent that religion?

LOL! I could, but not on this board since I haven't engaged in other religious threads (which themselves are frowned upon since this IS supposed to be a movie site).

I've railed against Catholicism and its history (but I love all Catholics, and all individuals who don't harm others, no matter their religion... just for the record.)

I've railed on parts of Christianity and various sects.

I myself am a former Protestant Christian who left my religion to become Agnostic over some very minor tenets (those being the Great Commission and the idea that all non-Christians may be destined for hell in the afterlife).

I left a religion over a couple ideas about talking to people and a concept that only applies after people die and which, the religion believes, is entirely up to the individual's choice).

Yet many Muslims stay with a religion that tells them to kill other people while they are alive here on Earth and to follow the example of a mass-murdering pedophile.

So yeah... if I'm going to renounce a peaceful religion with tenets of forgiveness and love because of some airy-fairy ideas about witnessing & the afterlife, then you can bet I'm gonna speak out about a religion that promotes genocide, personal "divinely-authorized" responsibility to murder non-believers here in this life, and has spawned a global network of mass-murdering terrorists. :)

[sumantra roy]

Western nations like the USA are always trying to export democracy to the rest of the world, but not every country/region/group wants democracy. That's why the USA's attempt to establishing democratic governments doesn't always work. Just my observation.

Have you heard of any such occurrence in history where the U.S, with the cooperation of the C.I.A of course, overthrowing democratically elected governments by coup attempts and imposing direct, undemocratic rule through puppet regimes?

[Friendly Mushroom!]

''If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.'' (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Well in the Bible's defense, here's something I found.

John 8:1-11New International Version (NIV)

8 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

[Captain Steel]

And yet over and over you use the WORDS to show why you think the problem is Islam rather than the actions of individuals ...

So, if it is not the words now can you link me to similar rants by you against Catholicism due to the DEEDS of people who do actually represent that religion?

And another thing... why do people ALWAYS want to bring up Christians and Jews after EVERY single Islamic Terrorist attack?

I'm not accusing you of doing that, Sane, since the religious comparisons already occurred.

But it's a mania!
It's this knee-jerk, apologist reaction that happens in the media and everywhere.

Another Islamic Terror attack? How many hundreds of innocent people slaughtered this time? Hmmm... Well... what about those horrible Christians, huh???!!!

After the Charlie Hebdo attack, the first thing Obama started talking about was the Crusades of 900 years ago to show how "all religions" have violent factions.
Then he went on to say that "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." which was the exact same message of the Islamic Terrorists who shot the staff in the streets!!!!!!!! ...who committed mass murder over the exact same idea!!! OMG!!!!!!

So... game plan... Islam commits yet another mass murder atrocity in the world?... First thing we do is start talking about those awful Holy Roman Catholics of 900 years ago who conducted the Crusades (which, btw, began as a means to stop the Islamic hordes that were slaughtering their way across Europe) and the Inquisition. Then let's quote some four thousand-year-old Hebrew scriptures that no one currently pays any attention to, no less acts upon, to show how heinous modern Jews are!

THAT will give those people talking about the latest Islamic Terror attack something to chew on, rather than observing how the "Religion of Peace" has spawned global terrorism which is increasing at a geometric rate and recruiting thousands of Islamic adherents desiring to become terrorists by embracing & acting upon the fundamentals of the ideology!

[Sane]

And another thing... why do people ALWAYS want to bring up Christians and Jews after EVERY single Islamic Terrorist attack?

I'm not accusing you of doing that, Sane, since the religious comparisons already occurred.

But it's a mania!
It's this knee-jerk, apologist reaction that happens in the media and everywhere.

Another Islamic Terror attack? How many hundreds of innocent people slaughtered this time? Hmmm... Well... what about those horrible Christians, huh???!!!

After the Charlie Hebdo attack, the first thing Obama started talking about was the Crusades of 900 years ago to show how "all religions" have violent factions.
Then he went on to say that "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." which was the exact same message of the Islamic Terrorists who shot the staff in the streets!!!!!!!! ...who committed mass murder over the exact same idea!!! OMG!!!!!!

So... game plan... Islam commits yet another mass murder atrocity in the world?... First thing we do is start talking about those awful Holy Roman Catholics of 900 years ago who conducted the Crusades (which, btw, began as a means to stop the Islamic hordes that were slaughtering their way across Europe) and the Inquisition. Then let's quote some four thousand-year-old Hebrew scriptures that no one currently pays any attention to, no less acts upon, to show how heinous modern Jews are!

THAT will give those people talking about the latest Islamic Terror attack something to chew on, rather than observing how the "Religion of Peace" has spawned global terrorism which is increasing at a geometric rate and recruiting thousands of Islamic adherents desiring to become terrorists by embracing & acting upon the fundamentals of the ideology!

You've missed the point. People bring up other religions in response to the attack on Islam from people who don't seem to attack other religions with quite the same "ferocity". For example, you have mentioned pedophilia over and over in relation to Islam and yet when Catholocism is brought up, not a word but you point out that you love Catholics. See the difference?

[Citizen Rules]

And another thing... why do people ALWAYS want to bring up Christians and Jews after EVERY single Islamic Terrorist attack? Why?...it's white guilt. Us poor white folk have the need to blame ourselves for every evil in the world. We believe we caused all the problems in the world starting with the Crusades and so anything that happens must be the fault of us evil white Christians.

[Sane]

Why?...it's white guilt. Us poor white folk have the need to blame ourselves for every evil in the world. We believe we caused all the problems in the world starting with the Crusades and so anything that happens must be the fault of us evil white Christians.

Nonsense. I'm not a Christian.

[Citizen Rules]

But if your white, I bet you feel guilty for pass sins commented by the white race. Am I right?

[Captain Steel]

You've missed the point. People bring up other religions in response to the attack on Islam from people who don't seem to attack other religions with quite the same "ferocity". For example, you have mentioned pedophilia over and over in relation to Islam and yet when Catholocism is brought up, not a word but you point out that you love Catholics. See the difference?

I see a huge difference. Continuous mass murder all over the world by a fascist ideology based on genocide requires "ferocity"!!! The problem is there is not enough ferocity!

The first reaction from the world is to start rationalizing and making excuses by criticizing other religions that have absolutely nothing to do with what's happened! AAARRRGGGHH!

Other religions DO NOT have global level organizations that are chopping people's heads of en masse! Don't you get that?

Hindus aren't slaughtering Christians, Jews aren't slaughtering Bhuddihists. Yazidis aren't throwing homosexuals off buildings! Shintos aren't beheading hostages. Radical Islam is the only religion that is attacking others, including Muslims, on a global level.

[Sane]

But if your white, I bet you feel guilty for pass sins commented by the white race. Am I right?

Wow ... no.

[False Writer]

Wow ... no.

If you don't then YOU'RE RACIST!!! :p

[Mr Minio]

Paris Mission in Battlefield 3 takes place on November 13.

[Sane]

I see a huge difference. Continuous mass murder all over the world by a fascist ideology based on genocide requires "ferocity"!!! The problem is there is not enough ferocity!

The first reaction from the world is to start rationalizing and making excuses by criticizing other religions that have absolutely nothing to do with what's happened! AAARRRGGGHH!

Other religions DO NOT have global level organizations that are chopping people's heads of en masse! Don't you get that?

Hindus aren't slaughtering Christians, Jews aren't slaughtering Bhuddihists. Yazidis aren't throwing homosexuals off buildings! Shintos aren't beheading hostages. Radical Islam is the only religion that is attacking others, including Muslims, on a global level.
Still no comment about the DEEDS of another religion I see. Moving on ...

Yes, you are right - radical Islam. Not Islam. Can we stop tarring 1.7 billion people with the same brush now? Including over four million refugees when we aren't even sure if only one of them was involved.

You constantly attack Islam despite the fact there are Muslims in every country who are just as shocked by these events as everyone else. Two of my closest friends are Muslims and yes their wives both wear head scarves. The idea that there is something wrong with their religion or they should somehow feel responsible for these events is insane. When my mother died this year the single kindest person I know was my Malay friend in Singapore. It still brings tears to my eyes remembering what he wrote in a letter he sent me - and I'm an atheist!

That is a DEED.

Just like Catholicism is not responsible for priests molesting children, Islam is not responsible for insane people who twist it to suit their own evil purposes. Just like how Catholics are not responsible for the actions of their priests, Muslims are not responsible for the actions of murderers.

One of the world leaders, sorry I forget which one, said that the actions of the terrorists is completely at odds with their religion and they are not Muslims. I'll believe him rather than a psychopath shooting innocent people on the streets of Paris.

Attack "Radical Islam" all you like but constant attacks on Islam and suggestions that Muslims should leave their religion is out of line. Go to Malaysia at Christmas some time and look at the queues of Malay women lining up to take a photo of their children with Christmas trees, santa, crosses and images of Jesus before you judge what Islam is and who Muslims are based on the actions of murderers.

[Citizen Rules]

Just like Catholicism is not responsible for priests molesting children, Islam is not responsible for insane people who twist it to suit their own evil purposes. That's an unfair comparison.

The Catholic priest who molest children are not part of a religious sect that teaches molestation. If one of the many Catholic sects had as a teaching the molestation of children then your comparison would be valid.

ISIS is a religious sect inside of mainstream Islam. It would be valid to compare ISIS to the Branch Davidians Christian sect that was headed by David Koresh.

If the Branch Davidians with their love of firearms and mistrust of the US government had grown in numbers and embraced terrorism to further their own religious belief, then and only then would you have a legitimate comparison.

[-KhaN-]

I heard today (if anyone can check it so we can take it as a fact, please do so) that Iraq tipped both France and USA about something coming up.

[honeykid]

Hindus aren't slaughtering Christians, Jews aren't slaughtering Bhuddihists. Yazidis aren't throwing homosexuals off buildings! Shintos aren't beheading hostages. Radical Islam is the only religion that is attacking others, including Muslims, on a global level.
This bit isn't correct. Religious zealots are killing each other left, right and centre all over the world. Look at Burma, for crying out loud. There's Buddhists kicking off there.

[christine]

ISIS is a religious sect inside of mainstream Islam. .

i don't know that this is true. if it was inside mainstream Islam then it would be mainstream. the IS version of Islam twists the basic tenets of Islam. There's plenty of information on the Internet to tell you about the peaceful nature of Islam the fact that a tiny section of people prefer to interpret the same words as the vast majority of Muslims live by peaceably, just tells you they live outside the mainstream.

[Citizen Rules]

Yes I said ISIS is outside of the mainstream of Islam.

Those of you who say the majority of Muslims are not the problem...are correct.

However those of you who think that the terrorist attacks are not a religious problem...are wrong.

ISIS core belief is their radicalized Islamic religion. They seek to spread their religious ideas through murder, terror and war. The western world can't deal with ISIS until people stop being so stupidly PC about it.

When the world can say that radicalized Islam beliefs are the problem, then we have a chance of solving that problem.

[Sane]

That's an unfair comparison.

The Catholic priest who molest children are not part of a religious sect that teaches molestation. If one of the many Catholic sects had as a teaching the molestation of children then your comparison would be valid.

ISIS is a religious sect inside of mainstream Islam. It would be valid to compare ISIS to the Branch Davidians Christian sect that was headed by David Koresh.

If the Branch Davidians with their love of firearms and mistrust of the US government had grown in numbers and embraced terrorism to further their own religious belief, then and only then would you have a legitimate comparison.

???

[matt72582]

When terrorism happens, it seems to me a religious person or group wish it's not "one of theirs"

I've already read so much all over the net of people using this to justify their religion, or to use incidents to show their religion is superior.

After the War In Iraq, no one mentioned "Christians are dropping bombs on Islamic Nations" - and for a President who said he'd embrace peace, we've had some kind of military involvement with 7 countries, all Muslim.

It's not just religion that's the problem, I think it's the group itself, especially when people trade their individuality for the group. Some people are insecure in their own skin and feel they have to be a part of a group, part of something. If you attack that group, they'll take it personally.

I never notice anyone mentioning the tenets of certain religions. I haven't read "Thou Shall Not Kill" or "Love You Enemy" or "Turn The Other Cheek". I see people who consider themselves ________ yet their actions are so contradictory.

There was an attack in Lebanon, and there's constant terrorism in many nations, but we'll only hear/see whatever will make the most money for advertisers.

[Captain Steel]

This bit isn't correct. Religious zealots are killing each other left, right and centre all over the world. Look at Burma, for crying out loud. There's Buddhists kicking off there.

The operative word I've been using is "global" level.

Yes, I certainly acknowledge that there are and always have been extremists in almost every religion.

Furthermore, there are individuals in every religion, every culture and every walk of life who are or become mentally disturbed, psychotic, or homicidal... people who just go insane for any number of reasons and may well kill in the name of their religion while experiencing delusions, schizophrenia, chemical imbalance, or psychotic episodes. These rare events may occur not because this is what their religion teaches, but because they've snapped.

As always, all Muslims are not terrorists, MOST Muslims obviously are not terrorists, all Muslims do not support terror, and MOST Muslims do support terrorism.

But people keep comparing global Islamic Terrorism to violence in other religions.

The difference is, unlike every other major religion, Islam TEACHES lying, intolerance, revenge, torture, dismemberment, violence and genocide as it's divine right toward establishing the Earthly supremacy of Islam.

These ideas don't come from some alternate version of the Koran or some historical Mohammad worshiped and imitated only by some radical sect - it's the same Koran and same Mohammad that is accepted as divine by all of Islam.

Islam commands its adherents to follow the example of their founder who orchestrated mass-murders, forced conversions via terror, assassinations, practiced slavery, sex-slavery, rape and child molestation, saying that God authorized him and his followers to commit what every other rational philosophy identifies as "evil".

And Islam teaches & believes that its followers have the right to murder innocent people for having different religions or beliefs as their personal duty to Allah.

These things are the opposite of what every other religion teaches. (And I'm glad that most Muslims do not act on the foundational teachings of their religion and would rather focus on things like the 5 Pillars.)

If this was NOT the case (as so many claim), and Islam was simply a religion that teaches and is dedicated only to PEACE, then we'd only see an occasional, mentally disturbed, chemically imbalanced, or brain-damaged individual (who just happens to be Muslim) doing something violent like we see occasionally in every other religion, culture, society and walk of life.

But, unfortunately, this is NOT what we see.
What we see is global-level Islamic Terror organizations consisting of literal armies of terrorists conducting attacks daily throughout the world and recruiting thousands of like-minded individuals who want to kill in the name of the religion - which itself is an ideology that literally instructs its followers to kill others.

[Captain Steel]

Now - the next issue - the news is now saying that France is conducting massive airstrikes against ISIS in Syria.

My first reaction is "great!" But this begs a serious question...

The ISIS situation has been going on for nearly 2 years. Are we to believe that suddenly, after Friday night's attack in Paris, that France (part of the mysterious "60 plus country" coalition) and France alone has received brand new intelligence telling them exactly where ISIS' strongholds are in Syria?

If anyone knew where these strongholds were, why weren't they destroyed before? Why only AFTER a terror attack in Paris?
It seems a little coincidental (or maybe contrived?) that all these various locations only became known and have been confirmed by intelligence on the ground as being ISIS occupied and vacant of civilians since Friday night.

And I'm sure, just like Jordan was going to wipe out ISIS with massive airstrikes after the terrorists brutally burned a Jordanian pilot alive, this current campaign will be short lived.

What I'm suggesting is it may merely be a show of force meant to give some temporary sense of solace to the populace that's just suffered a terror attack.

And since France is bombing locations that are said to be ISIS "strongholds" that ONLY became known AFTER the Paris attack, could this mean that they might be dropping bombs on indiscriminate targets and perhaps unintentionally killing untold numbers of civilians?

Just asking.

[Frightened Inmate No. 2]

i'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by trying to prove to us how terrible islam is. you've already admitted that most muslims are not terrorists, are you just looking for a way to be able to justify the persecution of all muslims because their religion has some bad stuff in it that the majority of them don't even adhere to? if we've already established that the vast majority of them are not radical and we can safely assume they condemn these attacks, what purpose does it serve in analyzing the details of their religion, something they know far more about than anyone here.

[Camo]

i'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by trying to prove to us how terrible islam is. you've already admitted that most muslims are not terrorists, are you just looking for a way to be able to justify the persecution of all muslims because their religion has some bad stuff in it that the majority of them don't even adhere to? if we've already established that the vast majority of them are not radical and we can safely assume they condemn these attacks, what purpose does it serve in analyzing the details of their religion, something they know far more about than anyone here.

I don't have a strong opinion on this either way but this is... i don't even know how to approach this, Inmate is a great poster, hope he returns to that at one point!!

[Captain Steel]

i'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by trying to prove to us how terrible islam is. you've already admitted that most muslims are not terrorists, are you just looking for a way to be able to justify the persecution of all muslims because their religion has some bad stuff in it that the majority of them don't even adhere to? if we've already established that the vast majority of them are not radical and we can safely assume they condemn these attacks, what purpose does it serve in analyzing the details of their religion, something they know far more about than anyone here.

The purpose is to identify the truth about the ideology.

(One simple purpose is to exercise the old adage that honesty is the best policy - to just live in reality, stop lying to people about what Islam believes, stop whitewashing the facts about the source of global terrorism, and stop denying the truth because we're so afraid of hurting the feelings of the people who follow a religion that openly states in its own scripture that it believes in genocide.)

If we understand the ideology we can better understand its motives, strategies, goals, areas of concentration, sources of aid, support, funding, and tactics.

Using that information, we may be able to better safeguard against those tactics. It's pretty much common sense that you learn as much as you can about ideologies, political movements or criminal organizations that pose a clear and present threat. And you learn about as much as you can, and make public as much info as possible about certain groups that have already attacked you and have stated they are trying to destroy you.

You can't protect yourself if your being attacked by a force which you tell yourself and your populace is just a random bunch of individuals with no particular motive or goal.

We currently have people in the highest levels of government who utterly deny that the political ideology of Islam exists. According to them, there is no such thing as Islamic Terrorism. So the "Islamic State" is really just the "State."
No terrorism anywhere has anything to do whatsoever with Islam. So we should look everywhere else EXCEPT at Islam or Islamic controlled areas for ways to protect against terrorism because we and no other country ever has and never will experience any terrorism from any type of Islamic forces because no terrorism has ever derived from Islam. Don't ever investigate Muslims, ignore Islamic Terror ties, ignore funding for terror groups that comes from the Islamic community. Don't listen to chatter from Islamic Terror groups (because there are no such things), etc.

Do you see how ridiculous, illogical and dangerous this PC denial becomes?

Could you imagine trying to win WWII if the words "Nazis", "Fascist Italy" and the "Japanese Empire" were forbidden and it was politically incorrect to examine or acknowledge the motives, goals and tactics of these forces because saying the words might offend some people in Europe?

I fully acknowledge that the vast majority of Germans, Italians and Japanese were very good people during WWII, and even the majority of those in the military were simply doing their patriotic duty by serving their country just like our soldiers were. But because of that fact, should we have ignored and denied the existence of the Nazis, the Italian Fascist Regime, and the Imperial Japanese military?

[sumantra roy]

Hindus aren't slaughtering Christians, Jews aren't slaughtering Bhuddihists. Yazidis aren't throwing homosexuals off buildings! Shintos aren't beheading hostages. Radical Islam is the only religion that is attacking others, including Muslims, on a global level.

This isn't true...in India, there is a right wing, extremist Hindu fundamentalist group called RSS, which has been responsible for many riots in it's history where Hindus slaughtered both Muslims and Christians.

quoting wikipedia here "It has been criticised as an extremist organisation and as a paramilitary group.[/URL] It has also been criticized when its members participated in anti-Muslim violence and has since formed militant wing Bajrang Dal. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#cite_note-Breker-21"] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#cite_note-Margolis2000-6)Along with other extremist organisations the RSS was involved in a wide range of riots, often inciting and organising violence against Christians and Muslims."

by the way, I am a Hindu by religion...

[Sane]

The operative word I've been using is "global" level.

Yes, I certainly acknowledge that there are and always have been extremists in almost every religion.

Furthermore, there are individuals in every religion, every culture and every walk of life who are or become mentally disturbed, psychotic, or homicidal... people who just go insane for any number of reasons and may well kill in the name of their religion while experiencing delusions, schizophrenia, chemical imbalance, or psychotic episodes. These rare events may occur not because this is what their religion teaches, but because they've snapped.

As always, all Muslims are not terrorists, MOST Muslims obviously are not terrorists, all Muslims do not support terror, and MOST Muslims do support terrorism.

But people keep comparing global Islamic Terrorism to violence in other religions.

The difference is, unlike every other major religion, Islam TEACHES lying, intolerance, revenge, torture, dismemberment, violence and genocide as it's divine right toward establishing the Earthly supremacy of Islam.

These ideas don't come from some alternate version of the Koran or some historical Mohammad worshiped and imitated only by some radical sect - it's the same Koran and same Mohammad that is accepted as divine by all of Islam.

Islam commands its adherents to follow the example of their founder who orchestrated mass-murders, forced conversions via terror, assassinations, practiced slavery, sex-slavery, rape and child molestation, saying that God authorized him and his followers to commit what every other rational philosophy identifies as "evil".

And Islam teaches & believes that its followers have the right to murder innocent people for having different religions or beliefs as their personal duty to Allah.

These things are the opposite of what every other religion teaches. (And I'm glad that most Muslims do not act on the foundational teachings of their religion and would rather focus on things like the 5 Pillars.)

If this was NOT the case (as so many claim), and Islam was simply a religion that teaches and is dedicated only to PEACE, then we'd only see an occasional, mentally disturbed, chemically imbalanced, or brain-damaged individual (who just happens to be Muslim) doing something violent like we see occasionally in every other religion, culture, society and walk of life.

But, unfortunately, this is NOT what we see.
What we see is global-level Islamic Terror organizations consisting of literal armies of terrorists conducting attacks daily throughout the world and recruiting thousands of like-minded individuals who want to kill in the name of the religion - which itself is an ideology that literally instructs its followers to kill others.

So you believe that ISIS has come up with the correct interpretation of the Koran and moderate Muslims are ignoring it? So which are the passages that you think, as does ISIS, instruct the followers to do all those things and explain why you and ISIS are right ... and all the moderates and scholars who say that the ISIS ideology is not true Islam, are wrong.

Let's start with the passage that says it's ok to kill innocent people - I'm sure you know many Muslims continually quote a passage that says quite the opposite.

[Captain Steel]

This isn't true...in India, there is a right wing, extremist Hindu fundamentalist group called RSS, which has been responsible for many riots in it's history where Hindus slaughtered both Muslims and Christians.

quoting wikipedia here "It has been criticised as an extremist organisation and as a paramilitary group.[/URL] It has also been criticized when its members participated in anti-Muslim violence and has since formed militant wing Bajrang Dal. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#cite_note-Breker-21"] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#cite_note-Margolis2000-6)Along with other extremist organisations the RSS was involved in a wide range of riots, often inciting and organising violence against Christians and Muslims."

by the way, I am a Hindu by religion...

I don't know how to express the reality of the expansiveness of Islamic Terrorism without posting lists that are so long that the posts would probably warrant removal for taking up too much space.

Check out this very incomplete and PC influenced list just to get an idea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks#2000s

There are other sites that have lists where they need separate url's for each month because the lists of Islamic Terror attacks are so long that each month needs a site just to fit all the murders committed in the name of Islam.

Yes, there are some violent groups in other religions. No one is defending them. But the issue is the one ideology that is at global proportions - that attracts thousands of terrorist adherents every month because it is so pervasive - that murders on average 2000 people a month, every month, every year, around the world.

Have Hindu terrorists attacked people in over 50 countries?
Have they murdered estimated millions of Christians throughout Africa over the last two decades?
Have they attacked American cities, buildings, capitals, military bases, churches, Jewish centers, airports, food processing plants, universities, highways, recruitment centers, naval centers, ships, airplanes, marathons, embassies & consulates?
(Because all these areas have been attacked by Islamic Terrorists on American soil or were American properties on foreign soil.)

[Captain Steel]

So you believe that ISIS has come up with the correct interpretation of the Koran and moderate Muslims are ignoring it? So which are the passages that you think, as does ISIS, instruct the followers to do all those things and explain why you and ISIS are right ... and all the moderates and scholars who say that the ISIS ideology is not true Islam, are wrong.

Let's start with the passage that says it's ok to kill innocent people - I'm sure you know many Muslims continually quote a passage that says quite the opposite.

ISIS follows a literal interpretation of the Koran (it has many translations, as most scriptures, but there's only one Koran. It's pretty clear. By the second page it starts talking about how infidels are to be punished).

Now an argument could be made that the Jewish Old Testament is also very intolerant & violent - so it's a good thing that no Jews are acting on a literal following of their scripture, otherwise they'd be executing people over violations of ancient Hebrew laws that we today find so ridiculous as to be laughable.

There are some peaceful passages in the Koran, but they are outweighed by the many passages of violence.
And I'm not going to go into a long study of Surah and verse, and start debating lines, but there are indeed passages that say it's a sin to murder anyone else, but then there are passages that later clarify that anyone else is referring to other Muslims, not infidels.

Then there's the issue that the Koran is abrogated.

As Muhammad became increasingly insane and deranged from the STD's he contracted from his many wives and sex slaves, he kept contradicting himself whenever he'd emerge from one of his communications with Allah - this was resolved by saying everything stated later on in the Koran supersedes everything written earlier. This is abrogation.
What ends up happening is many of the peaceful commandments are later countermanded by violent ones that authorize supremacy through violence.

I urge everyone to read the Koran. And then learn how it is supposed to be read (with abrogation).

[Sane]

You are constantly stating how evil Islam is, which obviously reflects very poorly on its followers, and using words like Genocide and saying it instructs its followers to kill innocent people. So, back it up. Post the passages and explain why you agree with the ISIS interpretation and not that of moderate Muslims.

[Captain Steel]

You are constantly stating how evil Islam is, which obviously reflects very poorly on its followers, and using words like Genocide and saying it instructs its followers to kill innocent people. So, back it up. Post the passages and explain why you agree with the ISIS interpretation and not that of moderate Muslims.

Come on, this info is publicly available. (Or just get a Koran and read it.)

Just for the record I separate the ideology of Islam from "all" Muslims.

It's like identifying the ideology of "National Socialism" as separate from "all" Germans.
It was the ideology that ruled Germany. Now were all Germans Nazis? Of course not. Were all Nazis Germans? Pretty much.
In the late 1930's - early 1940's did all Germans in Germany have to live under the Third Reich or die? Yes.
SoI can say most Germans, then and now, were good people. And I can say that Nazism was a fascist ideology and pure evil. Lots of Germans bought into it, some understood it more than others, some had no idea what it was about but just went along thinking they were being patriotic, some knew it's goals, some didn't, but Nazism was evil, Germans were not.

As requested, here's a few passages from the Koran considered less than kind...
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

[Sane]

Thanks for the link to such a balanced site :D

But no, you are the one pedalling the fear and the hatred so you post your interpretation and again, explain why moderate muslims are wrong. Just start with one - you said "And Islam teaches & believes that its followers have the right to murder innocent people for having different religions or beliefs as their personal duty to Allah. " Killing innocent people is their personal duty to Allah? Post that passage.

[Camo]

Thanks for the link to such a balanced site :D

But no, you are the one pedalling the fear and the hatred so you post your interpretation and again, explain why moderate muslims are wrong. Just start with one - you said "And Islam teaches & believes that its followers have the right to murder innocent people for having different religions or beliefs as their personal duty to Allah. " Killing innocent people is their personal duty to Allah? Post that passage.

It is called thereligionofpeace.com, what more do you want? :p

Yeah, i really don't want to discuss all of this. Your comment made me laugh there Sane so thanks :)

[Captain Steel]

Thanks for the link to such a balanced site :D

But no, you are the one pedalling the fear and the hatred so you post your interpretation and again, explain why moderate muslims are wrong. Just start with one - you said "And Islam teaches & believes that its followers have the right to murder innocent people for having different religions or beliefs as their personal duty to Allah. " Killing innocent people is their personal duty to Allah? Post that passage.

Yes, I knew the site would raise some eyebrows - yet you can find the same information on any number of sites or in any Koran. (And you can hear these passages repeated ad infinitum in any Arabian mosque, by any ISIS Imam or Iranian Ayatollah.)

I'm pedaling fear and hatred?

I'll admit, the truth is scary.

And hatred - well, you've got a point there. I'm just a bit too human I guess.
I suppose I should try to show more love to the Jihadist mass murderers who brutally slaughtered innocent people as they cowered on the floor of the theater as the terrorists splattered their brains onto others around them one by one - maybe expressions of love for those courageous, mass-murdering "lions of Islam" will show the grieving French families how much compassion we have for their pain?

Islamic Terrorists just slaughtered 129 innocent human beings and maimed over 400 in Paris.
On Thursday they murdered 43 people in a residential area in Beirut.
And in just the last week they have murdered hundreds more innocent human beings: men, women, children, the elderly and infants in Iraq, Israel, Syria, Niger, Egypt, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Jordan, Cameroon, Chad, and on November 4th, a student vowing to behead infidels and praising Allah stabbed four people on the UC Merced campus in California, USA.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/7/faisal-mohammad-uc-merced-stabber-wrote-praise-fo-/?page=all

But I'm pedaling fear and hatred? Seriously? I'm the one spreading fear and hatred.

I haven't attacked anyone, ever. I haven't led any chants of "death to" any country. I didn't walk up to people at Parisian cafes and shoot them point blank in the head. I didn't kill hostages trapped in a theater one by one. I wouldn't know how to make a bomb, a suicide belt or an IED. I've never shot an assault weapon. I wouldn't be able to behead anyone, nor would I have desire to do so for any reason whatsoever. I've never stabbed anyone in my life.
But my talking about terrorism along with everyone else right now, after one of countless terror attacks on one of our country's allies, is pedaling fear and hatred.

[Shadow]

My deepest sympathies are with those affected by this beyond senseless tragedy :( Best wishes to the victims and their families.

[Cobpyth]

But I'm pedaling fear and hatred? Seriously? I'm the one spreading fear and hatred.

I haven't attacked anyone, ever. I haven't led any chants of "death to" any country. I didn't walk up to people at Parisian cafes and shoot them point blank in the head. I didn't kill hostages trapped in a theater one by one. I wouldn't know how to make a bomb, a suicide belt or an IED. I've never shot an assault weapon. I've never stabbed anyone in my life. But my talking about terrorism along with everyone else right now, after one of countless terror attacks on one of our country's allies, is pedaling fear and hatred.

Let's keep this in mind first and foremost when talking to eachother about what happened. There's no need to accuse anyone who hasn't really done or said anything wrong (I think practically noone is this thread really has, we're just seeing things from different perspectives that are all defensible).

Let's not lose sight of the real enemy while having a discussion about this.

[Sane]

So no passage to back up what you said? Ok, so let's just say that what you said wasn't quite right was it?

The rest of it, not one person has disagreed with your thoughts on "radical Islam" so not sure what the carry on is for. To say that radical Islam is actually the correct interpretation of the Koran? Nope, you gotta back that up or it's just spreading fear.

[Camo]

Not to do with anything necessarily. I was brought up Catholic with great Priests including one who made time to discuss my growing Atheism with me, who wouldn't say a word to any of my family all of which are regulars in his Church, before i was comfortable explaining so myself. Just saying, i know any mention of Catholics here are to illustrate the few aren't the many.

All i'd say is that if i personally had faith, i would be proud to be a Roman Catholic like most of my family despite what some awful priests have done.

[Cobpyth]

So no passage to back up what you said? Ok, so let's just say that what you said wasn't quite right was it?

The rest of it, not one person has disagreed with your thoughts on "radical Islam" so not sure what the carry on is for. To say that radical Islam is actually the correct interpretation of the Koran? Nope, you gotta back that up or it's just spreading fear.

Just search quotes that tackle the issue of "infidels" (you simply need to google it). You'll find plenty of inspiration to kill people if you interpret some of those litterally. ;)

In moderate circles, most of these quotes are nuanced or even condemned, but it's not really hard to see how a more extreme interpretation could produce violence.

I know people don't want to condemn all Muslims and I don't want to (and won't) either, but at least we can condemn a book for having extremely hateful passages, right?

[Captain Steel]

So no passage to back up what you said? Ok, so let's just say that what you said wasn't quite right was it?

The rest of it, not one person has disagreed with your thoughts on "radical Islam" so not sure what the carry on is for. To say that radical Islam is actually the correct interpretation of the Koran? Nope, you gotta back that up or it's just spreading fear.

The first passage listed on that site backs up what I said.

There are so many: K 8:012 Set 28, Count 62 "...make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html

I didn't say radical Islam is the "correct interpretation," I said it is a "literal interpretation."

And the "carry on" is for my American sister Nohemi Gonzalez.

I'm sorry if I'm carrying on. Maybe I'm just a little more tired of Islamic Terrorism than some of you younger folks who didn't have to watch people you may have known jump from the towers.

[Camo]

Please stop with stuff like your last sentence Captain. You have no idea what anyone else here has went through or what age they are, which shouldn't mean anything anyway whether someone is 1 or 21 they have still went through something.

From your comment i assume you have lost family due to terrorism, my deepest sympathy to you there. Some of my family have also died due to Terrorism, Irish (both sides), the most recent of which was when i was 2 years old, despite my age i think i am as qualified as you to feel personally affected by Terrorism, and i'd appreciate you not talking down to me or anyone else my age. Thanks.

[Captain Steel]

I don't mean to be talking down to anyone, Camo. I guess that I have a hard time hearing from other Americans who've lived through 9/11, (or anyone for that matter) who have knowledge about all the attacks on our allies & non-stop attacks around the world, have knowledge of all the attacks on our own soil (those carried out & those thwarted), who listen to news reports and / or vary their news sources, who could just turn on any news network over the last couple days, yet engage in what seems like apologism.

No one is saying all Muslims are terrorists.

But when we can provide sources of information about Islamic Terrorism, endless lists, pick any month from the last decade and find dozens of Islamic Terror attacks, show that nation after nation has been victimized by the same terrorist ideology, provide quotes from Imams, passages from the Koran, history texts, etc.... and then have people say they just don't believe you or anyone else, or "well, what about the Crusades?", or how other religions are just as bad if not worse, or for you to know so much about Islam you must be some kind of "Islamophobe," or you're just paranoid (hundreds of people murdered by terrorists two days ago, but we're just paranoid, I've heard these things and more on other sites)... these kinds of continuous reactions to every Islamic Terror attack just makes it seem like some people are either very obstinate, in some sort of denial, or are very naive.

[Sane]

The first passage listed on that site backs up what I said.

There are so many: K 8:012 Set 28, Count 62 "...make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html

.

How does a passage about a specific battle back up you saying "And Islam teaches & believes that its followers have the right to murder innocent people for having different religions or beliefs as their personal duty to Allah"? Innocent people? It was a battle!

Seriously, you've gotta stop reading anti-Islam websites to try to understand the Koran. It's like asking ISIS to explain the passages to you ... actually it's pretty much exactly the same as that because their goals are often the same.

[Sane]

Just search quotes that tackle the issue of "infidels" (you simply need to google it). You'll find plenty of inspiration to kill people if you interpret some of those litterally. ;)

In moderate circles, most of these quotes are nuanced or even condemned, but it's not really hard to see how a more extreme interpretation could produce violence.

I know people don't want to condemn all Muslims and I don't want to (and won't) either, but at least we can condemn a book for having extremely hateful passages, right?

Im sure most religious texts written over a thousand years ago require some understanding to interpret. Out of context, yup, lots of hateful passages and that is the ISIS interpretation because it suits them. So do we accept the ISIS interpretation or that of religious scholars that are not trying to kill us?

[Camo]

Captain, i've went out of my way to avoid these discussions, i was following a different forum at the time this was happening, waiting for the great information posted there and had to swim through these exact discussions to get there. I have posted four (now five) times in this thread and haven't commented on anything else you or anyone said.

I still think that sentence was ridiculous though, and something you should retract since a youngster (me) has came forward with their own experiences with terrorism.

[Zotis]

I think Sane has a valid point Captain Steel. You can't just quote a passage without even looking at the context to understand how it should be interpreted. It's easy to missunderstand what other people say in daily conversation. Understanding religious texts, especially ancient ones originally written in a different language, requires a certain level of actual study.

[carlspackler]

As usual,discussions like these get murky and the atrocity disappears.
The same will happen with the next one.

Drastic measures are needed because nothing else has worked,especially "tolerance"

[Camo]

Outside of maybe ten posts on the first two pages, i don't remember the "atrocity" being mentioned at all. The last 7 pages have been about whether Islam is inherently evil or not.

[christine]

I think Sane has a valid point Captain Steel. You can't just quote a passage without even looking at the context to understand how it should be interpreted. It's easy to missunderstand what other people say in daily conversation. Understanding religious texts, especially ancient ones originally written in a different language, requires a certain level of actual study.

This is very true . Picking bits of the Koran and the Hadiths off the internet without context and without the background of an Islamic education doesn't seem like a sound way to argue a case. I'm not a religious person, but I have read the bible and I do know there's ways of interpreting that text to further different agendas, so the Koran with its Hadiths is even more open to interpretation.
What I'm more concerned about is the rise of IS and the how young people get radicalised to such an extent that they can commit such atrocities in the countries they were born and brought up in. What is going on in our societies that these people obviously feel they can't fit in.

[carlspackler]

Outside of maybe ten posts on the first two pages, i don't remember the "atrocity" being mentioned at all. The last 7 pages have been about whether Islam is inherently evil or not.

Correct.

[honeykid]

If the point is that religious fanatics live by the literal word of their religious texts, then I'd say "duh". Of course they do. All religious fanatics do. Other religious people have to fanny about, duck and dive to explain why something written thousands of years ago meant to say something different or means something different now. They can find passages that offer up a different interpretation because these texts are usually a minefield of contradictions.

These Muslims (the terrorists) have different values to us and they want to kill us and they think they're right, just as anyone with God on their side does. That's all you have to understand.

[Yoda]

I don't see why it's so difficult to believe that a) a religion's followers are not responsible for one another's actions but b) that the types of people a religion produces are still, in aggregate, a reflection on it.

People are broken, so every worldview leaves itself open to some abuse or misapplication. The question is whether this particular religion/worldview is especially likely to be misapplied in a way that leads to particularly terrible things, like bombing innocent people. I'm not sure I see anyone really addressing this; just dismissing the entire examination based on a).

[Captain Steel]

Slight change of subject - I'm re-posting this just because it's some of the latest news about the event, and I wonder what others think.

As an add on, reports are coming in that these targets were provided to France by the U.S. So I have to ask - if we have confirmed stronghold coordinates, then why didn't we attack them already? Are we saving targets (and tacitly allowing ISIS to carry on) so we'll have something to hit and show as "feel good" propaganda after the next terror attack?

Now - the next issue - the news is now saying that France is conducting massive airstrikes against ISIS in Syria.

My first reaction is "great!" But this begs a serious question...

The ISIS situation has been going on for nearly 2 years. Are we to believe that suddenly, after Friday night's attack in Paris, that France (part of the mysterious "60 plus country" coalition) and France alone has received brand new intelligence telling them exactly where ISIS' strongholds are in Syria?

If anyone knew where these strongholds were, why weren't they destroyed before? Why only AFTER a terror attack in Paris?
It seems a little coincidental (or maybe contrived?) that all these various locations only became known and have been confirmed by intelligence on the ground as being ISIS occupied and vacant of civilians since Friday night.

And I'm sure, just like Jordan was going to wipe out ISIS with massive airstrikes after the terrorists brutally burned a Jordanian pilot alive, this current campaign will be short lived.

What I'm suggesting is it may merely be a show of force meant to give some temporary sense of solace to the populace that's just suffered a terror attack.

And since France is bombing locations that are said to be ISIS "strongholds" that ONLY became known AFTER the Paris attack, could this mean that they might be dropping bombs on indiscriminate targets and perhaps unintentionally killing untold numbers of civilians?

Just asking.

[Sane]

I don't see why it's so difficult to believe that a) a religion's followers are not responsible for one another's actions but b) that the types of people a religion produces are still, in aggregate, a reflection on it.

People are broken, so every worldview leaves itself open to some abuse or misapplication. The question is whether this particular religion/worldview is especially likely to be misapplied in a way that leads to particularly terrible things, like bombing innocent people. I'm not sure I see anyone really addressing this; just dismissing the entire examination based on a).

Saying that anyone is dismissing the entire examination is simply not correct. What posts are you basing this on?

The whole point of this is to get to a place of actually understanding what we are dealing with - and getting an anti-Islamic site to explain the Koran then posting over and over about what it apparently teaches is not that place.

If I want to understand the bible should I talk to a biblical scholar or a satanist?

It is also incredibly unhelpful to keep pushing "truths" about Islam in an attempt to divide our society. It is beyond bizarre to me that people continually do exactly what ISIS want. If we want to find a solution surely the first step is to not do exactly what the crazy people shooting innocent people want us to do?

They want to kill us all. Right? And to do that they need more supporters - they get more supporters by having Muslims around the world left with nowhere else to go. That is exactly what happens now with young Muslims who think they have nowhere else to turn.

They want all of those refugees that are trying to escape them to be turned back so they are forced to stay in their "paradise" and they can add to their numbers.

Ever time we do exactly what ISIS want we are one step closer to WWIII and ever time threads like this or news stories become simply attacks on Islam we are helping to increase their support.

Everyone needs to watch this and get some understanding of what is going on - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XXUZjyZVj6s - Australian Muslim writer and tv presenter Waleed Aly.

If we want to stop iSIS then we diminish its power in every way - not do things that increase it,

As to why Islam has this problem to start with? I'm not completely sure of all of the history but it seemed to have started about the time of the Islamic Revolution and probably in the way that ISIS has grown it used incorrect versions of the Koran to convert susceptible people. Then when we go to war in the Middle East it creates an environment perfect for extremism - regardless of whether the war was "right" or not. The power of ISIS seemed to grow during the Iraq war.

There is obviously far more to it though and I certainly don't have the answers.

[honeykid]

I don't think knowing where these camps/HQ's/whatever is that new. It rarely is, but it's the quality of the information which has to be confirmed. After that, you've got legal requirements and public opinion to think about and, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that this (and things like this) are done as a response to show that they're doing something. Sadly, it's probably not the right thing or time to do it, but it's a token to make people feel better. It's human nature to want to hit back and leaders don't like to look impotent.

[Yoda]

Saying that anyone is dismissing the entire examination is simply not correct. What posts are you basing this on?
The responses that contain essentially no argument other than pointing out that many Muslims are peaceful and/or making an analogy to Christians and not expecting them to account for the misdeeds of other Christians.

The rest of your reply seems to be aimed at someone other than me, or else predicated on the idea that my response can be extrapolated into a total defense of what some others in the thread have said.

[Sane]

The responses that contain essentially no argument other than pointing out that many Muslims are peaceful and/or making an analogy to Christians and not expecting them to account for the misdeeds of other Christians. None of which dismiss the entire examination.

The rest of your reply seems to be aimed at someone other than me, or else predicated on the idea that my response can be extrapolated into a total defense of what some others in the thread have said.

Its aimed at what the discussion is about. Didn't you just say that people are dismissing the entire examination? So I examined ...

[Citizen Rules]

....They [ISIS] want all of those refugees that are trying to escape them to be turned back so they are forced to stay in their "paradise" and they can add to their numbers.

Ever time we do exactly what ISIS want we are one step closer to WWIII and ever time threads like this or news stories become simply attacks on Islam we are helping to increase their support...

Sane I've found you to be an intelligent, thoughtful person so don't take anything I'm saying here other than spirited debate.

You say we are doing what ISIS wants....how do you know that? You say ISIS wants us to turn back the Syrian refugees, how do you know that?

[Captain Steel]

Sane, no offense, but you kept asking for passages from the Koran that support things I postulated.
Since I don't have the book committed to memory, I Googled "violent passages in the Koran," then posted a link to the first site that came up.

I've read the book. I've looked at study guides. I've listened to Imam's, practicing Muslims, fundamentalist Muslims and former Muslims (some more moderate, some less, that both criticize and defend the text) and been to many sites on the net that discuss it over the last 15 years.
These varied sources plus my own look at the book have helped form my opinion - not from looking at anti-Islam websites. (I haven't saved any of the many online sources I've looked at as favorites that I could refer back to.) And as with all other scriptures I've read, I've committed none to memory and cannot quote chapter & verse. So when people request passages, I have to do a search for them just like most everyone else.

There are tons of online sources - many that back up what I've said and many that present counter opinions. Some are objective, some are subjective. In light of global Islamic Terrorism, it is probably difficult to find completely objective web sites that don't either whitewash the scriptures to some extent to defend Islam or view them in a more negative context to try to show what may be influencing such extensive levels of terrorism.

Now, what do you think of the French airstrikes in Syria?
A strategic, well-planned part of the "60 plus country" coalition to hit designated targets with minimal "collateral damage" to degrade and destroy ISIS? Or a contrived show of force in reaction to the Paris attack, the real purpose of which is just to give the populace a feeling that something is being done in response?

[Yoda]

None of which dismiss the entire examination.
Sure it does: the fact that the replies consistent only of the observation that many of the religion's adherents are peaceful suggests that they think this fact, alone, serves as a rebuttal. If they didn't, they'd say more.

[Sane]

Sure it does: the fact that the replies consistent only of the observation that many of the religion's adherents are peaceful suggests that they think this fact, alone, serves as a rebuttal. If they didn't, they'd say more.

Who in this thread hasn't said "more"?

[Sane]

Sane I've found you to be an intelligent, thoughtful person so don't take anything I'm saying here other than spirited debate.

You say we are doing what ISIS wants....how do you know that? You say ISIS wants us to turn back the Syrian refugees, how do you know that?

Because they tell us that. If you can watch the video it will explain it much more eloquently than I can. Their whole purpose is to separate the world into believers and non-believers and have a holy war.

[Sane]

Now, what do you think of the French airstrikes in Syria?
A strategic, well-planned part of the "60 plus country" coalition to hit designated targets with minimal "collateral damage" to degrade and destroy ISIS? Or a contrived show of force in reaction to the Paris attack, the real purpose of which is just to give the populace a feeling that something is being done in response?

it was to be expected and is understandable but an ideology can't be stopped with bombs unfortunately. ISIS will need to be defeated militarily but that will just cause whoever is left to go underground, go back to the Al Qaeda game plan of focussing solely on terrorism and we will probably have an increase in attacks.

The more important question is whether the ideology can be defeated and we, as in "the west" or "Christian countries", can't do that - only the Islamic world with our help can do that.

[Yoda]

Who in this thread hasn't said "more"?
Here are a couple of examples:

http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1411971#post1411971

http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1412014#post1412014

Please note that "more" in this context is not a catch-all for "anything else." It refers to more on the specific question of whether or not the behavior of a religion's adherents reflects on it. As far as I can see, that idea has been dismissed with pretty much nothing other than pointing out that the extremists in question are in the minority.

[-KhaN-]

Now, what do you think of the French airstrikes in Syria?
A strategic, well-planned part of the "60 plus country" coalition to hit designated targets with minimal "collateral damage" to degrade and destroy ISIS? Or a contrived show of force in reaction to the Paris attack, the real purpose of which is just to give the populace a feeling that something is being done in response?

ISIS is a military nonsense that can be taken down by any "medium" military power. Russians reported their tanks just being parked around, they are already crippled ,lost an important city and a supply line.They might posses some equipment but nothing much, tanks are their most advanced weapon and in today's world, tanks can be taken down with ease, it's even question how many of those they have, I would bet on few after Russian bombing. Also, they don't have enough educated men to work with advanced weaponry - even if they had some.

But I agree that they can't be totally defeated by airstrikes, their military progress can only be stopped (as it is) but in order to eliminate them you need ground troops and Syria is sadly not united and is short in numbers as people are running from being drafted and recruited in military.

So I don't see ISIS going away in military sense for a while and they will be here for a long time in terrorist matters.

Here is the map:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Syrian%2C_Iraqi%2C_and_Lebanese_insurgencies.png/785px-Syrian%2C_Iraqi%2C_and_Lebanese_insurgencies.png

Pink - Iraq
Light Red - Syria
Orange - Lebanese
Grey - ISIS
Dark Yellow - Iraqi Kurdistan
Yellow - Syrian Kurdistan
Light Green - Syrian Rebels
White - al-Nusra (Terrorists)
Blue - Hezbollah (Iran)

Quick note big parts of ISIS and Iraq territory are just deserts, main city's are closer to sea.

[False Writer]

It is also incredibly unhelpful to keep pushing "truths" about Islam in an attempt to divide our society. It is beyond bizarre to me that people continually do exactly what ISIS want. If we want to find a solution surely the first step is to not do exactly what the crazy people shooting innocent people want us to do?

They want to kill us all. Right? And to do that they need more supporters - they get more supporters by having Muslims around the world left with nowhere else to go. That is exactly what happens now with young Muslims who think they have nowhere else to turn.

They want all of those refugees that are trying to escape them to be turned back so they are forced to stay in their "paradise" and they can add to their numbers.


I already said before that if peaceful muslims condemn extremism and let us know for sure that they won't go suicide bombing, then they would have somewhere to go. Many people on here though are saying how they don't need to explain themselves so... we're still left not knowing whether or not many muslims in western countries are extremists or not. Which means that there's a massive chance that more bombings are gonna happen.

[Sane]

I already said before that if peaceful muslims condemn extremism and let us know for sure that they won't go suicide bombing, then they would have somewhere to go. Many people on here though are saying how they don't need to explain themselves so... we're still left not knowing whether or not many muslims in western countries are extremists or not. Which means that there's a massive chance that more bombings are gonna happen.
Peaceful Muslims constantly condemn terrorism. I'm just not sure where you are looking because it is everywhere from leaders to normal people on Twitter. Christine even posted links in this thread. I posted a video in the last couple of hours!

[Sane]

Here are a couple of examples:

http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1411971#post1411971

http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1412014#post1412014

Please note that "more" in this context is not a catch-all for "anything else." It refers to more on the specific question of whether or not the behavior of a religion's adherents reflects on it. As far as I can see, that idea has been dismissed with pretty much nothing other than pointing out that the extremists in question are in the minority.

Your definition of "dismissing" is a million miles away from mine. CiCi answered a question with examples from another religion to clarify her point that she summed up in the last paragraph. Isn't that "answering" or "discussing" rather than "dismissing"? FIs post was just making a point - if that fits with "dismissing the entire examination" then fair enough.

[christine]

Sane I've found you to be an intelligent, thoughtful person so don't take anything I'm saying here other than spirited debate.

You say we are doing what ISIS wants....how do you know that? You say ISIS wants us to turn back the Syrian refugees, how do you know that?

It stands to reason. Their twisted logic works for them, they're savages whose leaders exploit young men who feel they have nothing to live for in the countries they're born in. IS looks strong, it looks defiant, it looks like a disaffected young blokes idea of a great computer game. I'd love to know what some of those lads think when they leave their homes in Europe and actually get to the IS camps.
Everytime we bomb IS we are giving them more reason for their cause in their eyes - its the West killing Muslims. Every time we argue about giving help to refugees we give them reason to use social media to exhort susceptable people to join their cause - it's The West turning away our brothers and sisters. This is despite the fact that Syrians and Iraqis are fleeing from IS violence in their own countries.

and here's another news item for carlspackler

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/15/muslim-and-jewish-leaders-gather-at-paris-concert-hall-memorial

[Citizen Rules]

It's not a given, that if we don't take the refugees into our countries, that ISIS scores points and becomes stronger.

It can equally be argued that, if after the Paris bombings the western countries still have laxed security and are still willingly take in the refugees...that ISIS sees that as a weakness, thus giving them more confidences as they see we are afraid to act.

Both viewpoints are only speculation and opinion...and should not be stated as fact.

[Daniel M]

Without even considering a number of other factors, to answer Captain Steel's question about not previously bombing ISIS locations if we have previously known them - what about the very basic question of whether bombing them is a good idea/solution?

[-KhaN-]

Without even considering a number of other factors, to answer Captain Steel's question about not previously bombing ISIS locations if we have previously known them - what about the very basic question of whether bombing them is a good idea/solution?

What is the other solution? Let them expand?

[Daniel M]

No, coming up with a sensible solution with all the parties involved, in particular in Syria and the surrounding regions. This whole problem has came about because of Assad's reactions to protests and rebels, with lots of different countries getting involved (or not) and aiding different parties for their own political gain. There needs to be an agreement in place that unites the different countries at least for now, so they can work together and deal with the problem there. If they need to be fought on the ground then there needs to be a caulculated approach that aims to protect innocent lives.

[christine]

It's not a given, that if we don't take the refugees into our countries, that ISIS scores points and becomes stronger.

It can equally be argued that, if after the Paris bombings the western countries still have laxed security and are still willingly take in the refugees...that ISIS sees that as a weakness, thus giving them more confidences as they see we are afraid to act.

Both viewpoints are only speculation and opinion...and should not be stated as fact.

I'm not saying it's a given, I said us arguing about refugees gives them fuel for their fire. Of course IS will see any violent successes they have in Europe as Western weakness. They will use anything they can publicity wise to radicalise more followers. I'm stating that as a fact. Have you not read or seen about their vast social media presence? The problem here is that they are fighting a guerilla war in Europe. We do need to look at security, and searching for intelligence of course, but when the Irish troubles were going on in the UK, and the UK populace being on high alert for years, people could still plant bombs in the heart of London and the IRA could claim that as being a victory for their cause.

We can pump more money into our security, but without having your country on lockdown and subjecting your people to security that impinges on their daily life, you won't be able to stop lone gunmen or bombers.

[-KhaN-]

No, coming up with a sensible solution with all the parties involved, in particular in Syria and the surrounding regions. This whole problem has came about because of Assad's reactions to protests and rebels, with lots of different countries getting involved (or not) and aiding different parties for their own political gain. There needs to be an agreement in place that unites the different countries at least for now, so they can work together and deal with the problem there. If they need to be fought on the ground then there needs to be a caulculated approach that aims to protect innocent lives.

That's happening at the moment, minus ground troops. Iraq,Syria,Russia,Iran and Lebanon are working together. Only problem being that they can't get full control over territory as they lack men to do so, they need time or someone's ground troops. Lately all of mentioned country's presidents/PM's visited Russia, some did it few times, even Israel PM did and they might join (for their own fear of terrorists).

[Slappydavis]

I'm not getting involved in how this thread has taken a turn from the initial focus (but I'm not condemning the subjects the past few pages of debate).

But I do want to point out, again, that waiting for more information can pay off. And it appears that it is doing just that:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34832512

It appears that nearly all of the attackers have not been refugees. The passport found also appears to be a fake, though he still may have been posing as refugee.

However, this information may change as well. But taking a step back and waiting to make more informed decisions on the refugee issue at this point seems obvious.

That said, much of the rest of the discussion, while possibly getting off the initial topic, doesn't really rely on whether or not it was refugees. I'm just concerned with the reactionary way in which fingers were immediately pointed at the refugees without waiting for information.

To be totally honest, I thought more of the attackers were going to turn out to be refugees. Though we still don't have the facts so maybe some more were involved.

I'm disappointed in the governors that are taking the anti-refugee stance, but it doesn't seem like it'll hurt the governors in any way. I can't say I'm surprised or even say it's a bad political move for them.

[Captain Steel]

I'm wondering why there have been so many comments about sticking to the initial focus.
Discussions evolve, they make turns, they go off on related tangents. That is natural for a conversation.

Paris just experienced a terror attack from a known terrorist group currently bringing chaos to other parts of the world.

So I don't see people discussing or debating the causes of such terrorism as losing focus.
And the topic involves international politics, the views of Presidential candidates, the Civil War in Syria, the chaos in Iraq, global Islamic Terrorism, the Islamic State's activities everywhere (including their recruitment, use of social media, sleeper agents in other countries, implanting agents among refugees & terror groups allying with or supporting ISIS), nations going to war with ISIS, the Syrian refugee crisis, the media coverage, etc.

All these things and more are part of what led up to the Paris attack and are now part of the aftermath & implications of things that may come.

[Slappydavis]

If that was in part directed at my reply, I tried to specifically say that I wasn't getting involved in the change in conversation, not that I thought it shouldn't happen.

I also tried to make it clear that my desire to wait for information is particularly strong in regards to reactions to the Paris attack. There are other topics (such as if Islam is inherently more radicalized) that there's little point in "waiting" for new information (though certainly we don't "know" everything, it's not as if we are waiting for it to surface), so I was confining my comments to a particular area.

[Captain Steel]

Not directed at you specifically, Slappy. There have been several comments since the start of this thread about keeping or losing focus. Unless people start posting recipes here or something, I haven't seen much anything on this thread that was not directly pertinent, relevant or at least very related to the topic. :)

[Slappydavis]

Gotcha, I was concerned I wasn't coming off the way I meant to.

[-KhaN-]

Friend from Germany just told me (checkd it) that terrorist attack was supposed to happen at a friendly game between Germany and Netherlands. Germany sent their hardest special force, supposedly there was an ambulance car full of explosive parked next to stadium.

[Citizen Rules]

After the Paris bombing I came up with some 'brain storm' ideas for dealing with ISIS and the Syrian/middle eastern problem. Bear in mind I know very little about Syria or ISIS. I'm not saying I support my idea either. I'm just throwing it out there for debate.

But first here's an excellent background article on the Middle East, really it's good.

http://index.heritage.org/military/2015/chapter/op-environment/middle-east/

From that article:
"However, there is still a high degree of reluctance in many Arab countries to tackle one of the region’s biggest security problems: the rise of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. It is a major source of frustration for U.S. and Western policymakers that these countries often prefer that the U.S. and other Western powers deal with these matters on their behalf."

My idea:
What if the U.S. and other western nations took a hands off approach to Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. We would do this by pulling out all of our troops and military advisers and stopped all bombing missions. We would still support friendly Arab nations like Jordan, etc and Israel too.

This could remove the 'western thorn' in ISIS side. ISIS then would loose recruiting ability, as they could no longer say to young potential terrorist: 'see the western infidels are occupying Islamic land, that is a sin'. Without 'evil' westerns occupying Muslim land ISIS looses some of its steam and terroist attacks on western soil could decline.

As important benefit would be without the U.S. and western forces involvement, the Sunni Muslim lead countries would be forced to deal with ISIS and do their own dirty work. These Sunni lead countries are afraid of losing power to ISIS. ISIS then would turn their attention to the Sunni Muslim countries in the area.

Thoughts?....Feel free to comment, criticizes and post your own solutions.

[honeykid]

Standing back and letting them all kill each other is something which is often brought up. I've known people for whom this was the only way to deal with the Middle East going back to the first Gulf War and I'm sure I'd have heard the same about Iran/Iraq, Lebonon, Egypt, Algiers and the rest had I been around at the time. The argument is can/should we sit there and do nothing when we can help/protect/whatever? How principled are we? Does it matter if we're seen to be hypocrites? The politicians have to make the decisions, but they've got their own careers and image to think about. Look at Hollande's response with the air strikes. Pointless. Insignificant and, probably, as much as the terrorists could hope for short of a full military invasion. But he wanted to be seen doing something and not looking weak. Was it the right thing to do or not? I don't know. But it was the right thing to do politically. Especially for a left wing President.

Whatever we do or don't do will affect us regardless, so I suppose the question is, what do we want to do and how much will we let it affect us? It's not just being at war, terror attacks, violence, etc. Our economy is still pretty fragile and another downward turn might not be too far away. Instability will affect that and affect the markets and, whether we like it or not, that is everything to us.

[-KhaN-]

My idea:
What if the U.S. and other western nations took a hands off approach to Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. We would do this by pulling out all of our troops and military advisers and stopped all bombing missions. We would still support friendly Arab nations like Jordan, etc and Israel too.

Noble idea but as someone said, it's better to fight terrorist as far away from your borders as possible. Imagine ISIS spreading and actually getting some important city or capturing Nuclear Weapons...

This could remove the 'western thorn' in ISIS side. ISIS then would loose recruiting ability, as they could no longer say to young Muslims: 'see the western infidels are occupying Islamic land, that is a sin'. Without 'evil' westerns occupying Muslim land ISIS looses some of its steam.

That would work, if they were sane to start with. Spain, parts of Italy and all of Balkans at different times belonged to Muslims (Moors, Ottomans and so on) so I doubt they would stop. Also their full name is "Islamic State of Iraq and Levant" , this is Levant:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/Levant_%28orthographic_projection%29.png/600px-Levant_%28orthographic_projection%29.png

Light green is for country's that are sometimes not included in the term Levant but I doubt ISIS would care about that. Once done with Middle East they would look for N.Africa, then eventually Europe through Spain, Greece or Italy.

As important benefit would be without the U.S. and western forces involvement, the Sunni Muslim lead countries would be forced to deal with ISIS and do their own dirty work. These Sunni lead countries are afraid of losing power to ISIS.


Sunni country's are supporting ISIS, such as S.Arabia and Turkey. Maybe they want to connect all Sunni states? But when it comes to Turkey it's simply to get rid of Kurds.


Now, to keep it short here is some stuff from top of my head. USA needs to stop S.Arabia and whoever has biggest influence needs to do same with Turkey, maybe EU and Russia, that would stop ISIS from getting money and weapons. Then we would need to find final solution about Syrian Civil War, because Syria can't fight and make a counter offensive if it has inner fighting. I would support Assad as in my opinion he is a strong leader and not in to the religion, as I said before, Syria had no religion restrictions, you could eat a pig, drink alcohol, girls with tattoos etc. This is why I wouldn't support "moderate rebels", they are cutting heads as much as ISIS, they are religious and would probably be end of religious freedom of Syria. So there would need to be a solution that will unite Syria and then air and supply support would be a huge help with Syrian forces on ground. ISIS is very weak when it comes to military and rule mainly over deserts.

[CiCi]

Friend from Germany just told me (checkd it) that terrorist attack was supposed to happen at a friendly game between Germany and Netherlands. Germany sent their hardest special force, supposedly there was an ambulance car full of explosive parked next to stadium.

It was, just found this on Sky News, which seems to be one of the most up to date articles about it.
http://news.sky.com/story/1589396/germany-match-cancelled-over-concrete-threat
Germany's match against the Netherlands has been called off after information a bomb attack was planned, according to police in Hanover.

The city's police chief Volker Kluwe told German television that authorities have "concrete evidence that someone wanted to set off an explosive device in the stadium."

A second stadium in Hanover, where the German band Söhne Mannheims was due to play, has also been evacuated.

Meanwhile, the city's main train has been partially closed following reports that a suspicious object was found in a train.

Security Tightened In Hanover Before Germany v Netherlands Match.
Police secure a scene at Robert-Enke-Strasse

The football stadium was evacuated about an hour and a half before kick off.

Thousands of spectators who had already arrived at the HDI-Arena were told to calmly leave the area via loudspeaker.

Police chief Volke Kluwe told public broadcaster NDR: "The key warning reached us about 15 minutes before the gates opened."

He urged people to keep away from stadiums and not move in large groups.

Shortly before the game was cancelled, police officers cordoned off an area outside the stadium after finding a suspicious object.

However, interior minister for the German state of Lower Saxony Boris Pistorius said no explosives have been found, contradicting media reports that explosives had been discovered in an emergency vehicle outside the stadium.

Speaking at a press conference with German interior minister Thomas de Maiziere, Mr Pistorius said no arrests have yet been made.

Mr de Maiziere refused to reveal the source of the intelligence on the planned attack following German media reports that authorities were tipped off by French intelligence officials.

He said the game had been cancelled for "good reasons, difficult reasons", but would not elaborate for fear it would "unsettle the public."

Just hours earlier Mr de Maiziere had warned that the terrorist threat in Germany was "very high".

Chancellor Angela Merkel and several other government ministers were due to attend the match to send a signal that Germany would not bow to terrorism in the wake of the Paris attacks.

They were not in the stadium when the game was called off and have now returned to Berlin.

Spokesman for the German national side Jens Grittner tweeted that the team were en route to the stadium when they were diverted by police. He said they had been taken to a "safe place" and that he could not disclose any more information.

It comes as armed police patrol Wembley for England's match with France.

On Friday three suicide bombers attacked areas outside Paris' Stade de France as Germany played the French national side.

After the blasts the German team spent the night in the Stade de France changing room as it was considered too dangerous for them to cross Paris.

"There was a lot of fear and anxiety in the dressing room that night," said head coach Joachim Loew. "We were afraid."

Police are hunting for two fugitives suspected of being directly involved in the Paris attacks which left 129 people dead.

Germany arrested seven people near the Belgium border earlier on Tuesday on suspicion of terrorism. All have now been released.

[honeykid]

The police said that the they had a 'concrete security threat' with just under two hours before kick off and that it was because of an "intention to ignite explosives". I've still not heard/seen that any explosives have been found yet, though.

[ashdoc]

This could remove the 'western thorn' in ISIS side. ISIS then would loose recruiting ability, as they could no longer say to young potential terrorist: 'see the western infidels are occupying Islamic land, that is a sin'. Without 'evil' westerns occupying Muslim land ISIS looses some of its steam and terroist attacks on western soil could decline.



you really dont know these people . the west being forced to retreat from these lands you mention will be heralded as a great muslim victory and the ISIS would be flush with recruits as enthusiasm for joining it will increase .

[Rhett Butler]

Everything that can be done is being done, it seems like. It used to be said that when 3 or more people conspire, one of them is a government agent. Now, it's just not the case, anymore. Attacks like the attack in Paris and the Boston bombing only emphasize that they'll just keep slipping through the government's fingers. Declaring war on terrorists, or dropping bombs on ISIS compounds ... it's all just vanity.

We're keeping terrorists on the run and that's a good thing. We're not making it easy for them. And that's really the best that we can hope for. Just to keep the pressure on ... otherwise, there's no viable solution to this problem. How can you reason with someone so blinded by their zeal that they'll behead someone and eat their heart, raw? Spying, political rhetoric, bombs ... none of that kind of stuff reaches into desperate men's hearts.

[Sane]

After the Paris bombing I came up with some 'brain storm' ideas for dealing with ISIS and the Syrian/middle eastern problem. Bear in mind I know very little about Syria or ISIS. I'm not saying I support my idea either. I'm just throwing it out there for debate.

But first here's an excellent background article on the Middle East, really it's good.

http://index.heritage.org/military/2015/chapter/op-environment/middle-east/

From that article:
"However, there is still a high degree of reluctance in many Arab countries to tackle one of the region’s biggest security problems: the rise of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. It is a major source of frustration for U.S. and Western policymakers that these countries often prefer that the U.S. and other Western powers deal with these matters on their behalf."

My idea:
What if the U.S. and other western nations took a hands off approach to Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. We would do this by pulling out all of our troops and military advisers and stopped all bombing missions. We would still support friendly Arab nations like Jordan, etc and Israel too.

This could remove the 'western thorn' in ISIS side. ISIS then would loose recruiting ability, as they could no longer say to young potential terrorist: 'see the western infidels are occupying Islamic land, that is a sin'. Without 'evil' westerns occupying Muslim land ISIS looses some of its steam and terroist attacks on western soil could decline.

As important benefit would be without the U.S. and western forces involvement, the Sunni Muslim lead countries would be forced to deal with ISIS and do their own dirty work. These Sunni lead countries are afraid of losing power to ISIS. ISIS then would turn their attention to the Sunni Muslim countries in the area.

Thoughts?....Feel free to comment, criticizes and post your own solutions.



Didn't read all of that article but the bit you posted seems out of date. There have been constant attacks by Islamic states and even Iran has been fighting them on the ground. Turkey (not an Islamic state as such but obviously majority Muslim) has bombed them. Lebanon has been fighting them and of course the Kurds were basically fighting them on their own for a long time. I think that both Jordan and the UAE have attacked them from the air. I guess they may be referring to specific countries like Saudi Arabia who have been slow to get involved.

What I basically disagree with in what you have said is that it sounds like a plan for Al Qaeda, not ISIS. Our response needs to focus on stopping them achieving their goal. Us vs them. Believers vs non-believers. A holy war.

If we leave the middle east and they therefore lose one of their recruiting tools, what happens? They will increase terror attacks to make up for it. Focus even more on disunity in our societies, increase racism, increase anti-islamic sentiment and so on. Ultimately they will draw us out again because no western country will sit back and be attacked without responding.

The problem here is not just that these guys are crazy ... it's that they are really smart and they seriously believe they have god on their side and they aren't scared of death. Incredibly scary.

We can't do one thing and think it will help because they will just do more of something else. If their goal was a little more simple than action on one front may work but when their goal is WWIII then we have to fight them on all fronts.

We have to work out some way of stopping young males in western countries from being recruited. Incredibly difficult but it is what we must do. This whole refugee thing has turned into a bit of a red herring because Islamic terror attacks are seldom carried out by refugees. Even in France it looks like seven or eight French or Belgian guys and one refugee. How does focussing on the refugee help?

Focus on the problem.

We must deal with ISIS militarily but until we can stop young men getting sucked in by their ideology terrorist attacks will continue ... and to be honest it really feels like they are going to increase.

Here's something scary I read the other day. One in four young men in France looks upon ISIS favourably. 25%! Guess what ... Less than 8% of French people are Muslims ... That was in this article which is really worth reading to understand what we are fighting - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/15/terrorists-isis

[Captain Steel]

Yesterday, President Obama said one of his reasons for not identifying Islamic Terrorists as Islamic (he won't say Radical Islam, has altered official anti-terrorist training documentation to remove all references to Islamic Terrorism, and forbidden his administration from putting the words Islam, Islamic, or Muslim in conjunction with the word terrorism) is that identifying this particular source of terror would ramp up recruitment by ISIS.

Recruitment from what source?

So far, we know that ISIS has recruited from Islam - tens of thousands of Muslims from all over the world.
Obama just said that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism and is a religion of peace that believes in compassion and love for all mankind.

So he and like-thinkers say that if you call Radical Islamic Terrorism what it is, then large numbers of Muslims (who we are told only worship peace and love mankind) will suddenly forget everything we're told they believe in and be lured to ISIS with promises that they'll be able to behead little children, gang-rape little girls, behead bound captives and massacre entire villages of people.

I'm confused by this "logic."

Why would anyone raised to believe in peace and belonging to a religion that is all about peace be attracted to a group that gives them the opportunity to leave their loving religious community of compassion to torture & kill innocent people in the most heinous ways?

And how has ISIS recruited tens of thousands of adherents to the religion-of-peace from all over the world?

If the "rewards" of becoming an evil genocidal killer only appeal to psychotics who are mentally unbalanced or individuals who did too many drugs, then why hasn't ISIS recruited similar large numbers from all other religions (since mental illness is not limited to any one group of people)? Yet we don't know of too many Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Shintos, Baha'is, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, or Taoists being recruited by ISIS because of the promise to become a mass murderer.

We might also say it's a cultural thing --- ISIS has nothing to do with the ideology of Islam, they just happen to be attracting disenfranchised youth from poverty-stricken, third-world countries (and if these young people maybe just had jobs, there'd be no terrorism?)

But that is NOT the case - ISIS is attracting and recruiting tens of thousands of Muslims from all over the world, even from the U.S. (one of the most prosperous, well-educated countries on Earth with the highest standard of living).

So that theory is shot.

So what's the common denominator since ISIS isn't attracting any people from any other religions with the seduction that their members will be able to murder & maybe, after enough genocide, rule the world?

If Islam is a religion of peace that does NOT have any beliefs of supremacy through conquest, then WHY are tens of thousands of Muslims from all over the world streaming to join ISIS?

How are these Muslims being recruited in such numbers when we are told Islamic Terror groups have absolutely nothing to do with Islam, they are universally hated by Muslims and everything they do is completely antithetical to the teachings of Islam?

If Islam is about peace, how are groups like ISIS attracting even a few Muslims, no less tens of thousands from all over the world?

[MovieBuffering]

Not that this has anything to do with the discussion. But the reason these people are so pissed off is they live in the desert with no hope of advancing their lives at all. So they turn to the only thing they know which is religion. When religion is your sole purpose and outlet in life that spells big trouble. Over here we have so many other outlets and choices in life so we don't focus on religion as much, it doesn't strangle us. In that way I feel bad for them, a lot of them are just a product of their environment, lost from the beginning never had a chance. I wish we could like build basketball courts or libraries over there. It's a shame.

Also I don't understand why they don't just kill themselves. If they believe what they believe so much that they aren't afraid to die and would prefer it. What the hell sense does it make to bomb the people that want to live and enjoy life. Just kill yourself, you get what you want we get what we want. Win Win. Makes too much sense I guess.

I am really hoping for a hostile alien invasion so the whole world can have a common enemy instead of each other! Ha anyways that's my silly rant.

[Captain Steel]

I am really hoping for a hostile alien invasion so the whole world can have a common enemy instead of each other! Ha anyways that's my silly rant.

And, if not a hostile alien invasion, maybe just one with a stern warning?
(Do you think Radical Islamic Terrorists would even heed it?)

Klaatu barada nikto!

[Zotis]

Not that this has anything to do with the discussion. But the reason these people are so pissed off is they live in the desert with no hope of advancing their lives at all. So they turn to the only thing they know which is religion. When religion is your sole purpose and outlet in life that spells big trouble. Over here we have so many other outlets and choices in life so we don't focus on religion as much, it doesn't strangle us. In that way I feel bad for them, a lot of them are just a product of their environment, lost from the beginning never had a chance. I wish we could like build basketball courts or libraries over there. It's a shame.

Also I don't understand why they don't just kill themselves. If they believe what they believe so much that they aren't afraid to die and would prefer it. What the hell sense does it make to bomb the people that want to live and enjoy life. Just kill yourself, you get what you want we get what we want. Win Win. Makes too much sense I guess.

I am really hoping for a hostile alien invasion so the whole world can have a common enemy instead of each other! Ha anyways that's my silly rant.

I don't know if I should laugh or cry. This post demonstrates such a total lack of understanding of the situation that I don't even know where to begin or what to say. On the one hand I don't want to insult you or boost my own ego. I genuinely want to help. But on the other hand I feel like if I say go google "The Decline of Morality" or read about the Crusades, or read the idiot's guide to religion, that you'll take that as me insulting your intelligence. I don't know... just go do those three things. Or watch a documentary on religious fanaticism or something.

I think it's very hard for non-religious people to understand the minds of religious people. Let me just talk about the whole suicide thing. From their perspective, sure it's better to die and go to heaven then to live on the Earth. The reason they don't just blow their brains out is because serving their god while alive on the Earth will actually yield eternal rewards in heaven, so before they die they want to please their god and earn those rewards that will last forever. Not to mention that most people belonging to any religious group are nominal, not devout. So they don't even really know that much about their own religion, and they pretty much just believe it in a vague sense because they were born and raised with it being brainwashed into them, but they're more preoccupied with their life. Either way Muslims don't see Westerners as people who just want to enjoy their life, they see them as evil godless savages who want to corrupt the world and who need to be killed in order to make the world a better place. Or something more along those lines. The other day I was just talking with someone about a stir caused by a recent news paper article. A Western woman in Afganistan was sitting on a patio drinking a beer and wearing a short skirt, and the way the Muslims looked at that was as it confirming their greatest fears about how the West will corrupt their society. They see such things as drinking alcohol and women wearing "sexy" clothing as utter abominations.

Are you starting to get the picture? Anyway, please just take a deeper look at the issue. I'm not trying to be rude or insult you or anything, but you're lack of understanding is actually pretty shocking. The war between the Islamic world and the Western world has been going on for over a thousand years. These terrorist attacks are really just a continuation of the Crusades. And it's never going to stop. We may defeat ISIS, but after one war ends another begins. There will never be global peace.

[Cobpyth]

Another desperate attack going on in Paris right now (by the remaining terrorists). Already three people dead...

[Captain Steel]

Another desperate attack going on in Paris right now (by the remaining terrorists). Already three people dead...

Reports keep changing - first I heard three cops "shot" - on CNN I heard one cop "shot".

But this just in: French police have engaged in a firefight and have the mastermind of the Paris attack pinned down in an apartment (or building) in a Paris suburb.

My guess is that they probably will not be able to take this guy alive as he'll probably kill himself rather than surrender or be captured (either just shoot himself, or if he has explosives, try to take some cops with him.)

[Sane]

Yesterday, President Obama said one of his reasons for not identifying Islamic Terrorists as Islamic (he won't say Radical Islam, has altered official anti-terrorist training documentation to remove all references to Islamic Terrorism, and forbidden his administration from putting the words Islam, Islamic, or Muslim in conjunction with the word terrorism) is that identifying this particular source of terror would ramp up recruitment by ISIS.

Recruitment from what source?

So far, we know that ISIS has recruited from Islam - tens of thousands of Muslims from all over the world.
Obama just said that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism and is a religion of peace that believes in compassion and love for all mankind.

So he and like-thinkers say that if you call Radical Islamic Terrorism what it is, then large numbers of Muslims (who we are told only worship peace and love mankind) will suddenly forget everything we're told they believe in and be lured to ISIS with promises that they'll be able to behead little children, gang-rape little girls, behead bound captives and massacre entire villages of people.

I'm confused by this "logic."

Why would anyone raised to believe in peace and belonging to a religion that is all about peace be attracted to a group that gives them the opportunity to leave their loving religious community of compassion to torture & kill innocent people in the most heinous ways?

And how has ISIS recruited tens of thousands of adherents to the religion-of-peace from all over the world?

If the "rewards" of becoming an evil genocidal killer only appeal to psychotics who are mentally unbalanced or individuals who did too many drugs, then why hasn't ISIS recruited similar large numbers from all other religions (since mental illness is not limited to any one group of people)? Yet we don't know of too many Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Shintos, Baha'is, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, or Taoists being recruited by ISIS because of the promise to become a mass murderer.

We might also say it's a cultural thing --- ISIS has nothing to do with the ideology of Islam, they just happen to be attracting disenfranchised youth from poverty-stricken, third-world countries (and if these young people maybe just had jobs, there'd be no terrorism?)

But that is NOT the case - ISIS is attracting and recruiting tens of thousands of Muslims from all over the world, even from the U.S. (one of the most prosperous, well-educated countries on Earth with the highest standard of living).

So that theory is shot.

So what's the common denominator since ISIS isn't attracting any people from any other religions with the seduction that their members will be able to murder & maybe, after enough genocide, rule the world?

If Islam is a religion of peace that does NOT have any beliefs of supremacy through conquest, then WHY are tens of thousands of Muslims from all over the world streaming to join ISIS?

How are these Muslims being recruited in such numbers when we are told Islamic Terror groups have absolutely nothing to do with Islam, they are universally hated by Muslims and everything they do is completely antithetical to the teachings of Islam?

If Islam is about peace, how are groups like ISIS attracting even a few Muslims, no less tens of thousands from all over the world?

The Koran says you can fight back if you are attacked. Perfectly normal - we do exactly the same thing and we claim to be peaceful.

The issue then becomes that ISIS is using that and saying that the west is at war with Islam so all of the people joining think they are following the Koran. They are wrong obviously but let's be honest, after things like the Iraq War it is probably not that hard to sell it. Apart from that there will also just be a fair number of naturally violent people that exist in all societies and this gives them focus ... and I'm sure there are a lot that are simply idiots. We hear a lot that a large number of people who join quite quickly realise they have f***ed up but then can't escape. I have heard that this is the experience in the UK with a reasonable number of returning extremists being shocked by what they have seen and have actually been de-radicalised

Now, there are about 30,000 people who have joined ISIS from foreign countries but most are from the Middle East - less than 5,000 from the west. Considering that the US actually has very low numbers of people joining relative to their population then your government is probably on the right path in that regard. I think the US has had about the same number as Australia.

For all your criticism of Obama your country is obviously doing something right.

Anyway, those 5000 people are a serious problem - especially when you take into account that that is just the number that have gone to Syria - obviously lots of supporters haven't. If we work out how to stop the next 5000 from being radicalised then maybe we have some hope and given that the US is doing this reasonably well, perhaps Obama's focus on language is important. My understanding is that the people working in the field of de-radicalisation believe things like this are important but I haven't looked into it too much.

Better to try something than wait for WWIII to start. Our government, which is conservative, is basically doing the same thing with their use of language.

[Mr Minio]

Klaatu barada nikto! Klaatu barada ni... *COUGH* *COUGH*

[Captain Steel]

The Koran says you can fight back if you are attacked. Perfectly normal - we do exactly the same thing and we claim to be peaceful.

The issue then becomes that ISIS is using that and saying that the west is at war with Islam so all of the people joining think they are following the Koran. They are wrong obviously but let's be honest, after things like the Iraq War it is probably not that hard to sell it. Apart from that there will also just be a fair number of naturally violent people that exist in all societies and this gives them focus ... and I'm sure there are a lot that are simply idiots. We hear a lot that a large number of people who join quite quickly realise they have f***ed up but then can't escape. I have heard that this is the experience in the UK with a reasonable number of returning extremists being shocked by what they have seen and have actually been de-radicalised

Now, there are about 30,000 people who have joined ISIS from foreign countries but most are from the Middle East - less than 5,000 from the west. Considering that the US actually has very low numbers of people joining relative to their population then your government is probably on the right path in that regard. I think the US has had about the same number as Australia.

For all your criticism of Obama your country is obviously doing something right.

Anyway, those 5000 people are a serious problem - especially when you take into account that that is just the number that have gone to Syria - obviously lots of supporters haven't. If we work out how to stop the next 5000 from being radicalised then maybe we have some hope and given that the US is doing this reasonably well, perhaps Obama's focus on language is important. My understanding is that the people working in the field of de-radicalisation believe things like this are important but I haven't looked into it too much.

Better to try something than wait for WWIII to start. Our government, which is conservative, is basically doing the same thing with their use of language.

I wish there was time to respond to all the points of your excellent post, Sane, but alas the hour grows late. (Damn raid on the mastermind on the news is keeping me up all night!)

As to the ISIS recruits who get there and realize they've messed up...
I know there are a lot of total idiots out there, but seriously? They've never watched the news? Never seen an article or video or ANYTHING about the group they're going to join? How can that be? They must have wanted to go join after at least looking at ISIS magazines or web sites, yes? ISIS prides itself on its graphic photos of beheadings, mass graves, little girls for sale, filmed torture, dismemberment, crucifixions and executions too heinous to describe. How can anyone going to join them not know what they do?

I've heard those reports too, it's just hard to believe. Sounds like anyone who's intelligent enough to negotiate travel overseas could also be that stupid or uninformed. It's probably more a case of Islamic zealotry that drives them, then when they get there and see the actual blood and children's severed heads on spits (or if they're female, get raped a few times,) they realize what fundamental Islam is really about and lose the stomach for it.


So let me just understand this view about saying the words "Radical Islam"...
If I or anyone utters these words, then large numbers of completely peaceful Muslims who happen to hear it will suddenly disavow all their religion's teachings of peace and rush to join ISIS so they can become mass murders? (That's basically what Obama and other apologists are saying.)

Is it like a "Manchurian Candidate" type thing where, when the secret code words are uttered, peaceful Muslims suddenly lose their independent conscious will and must kill? (I'm being sarcastic with that last part, of course).

If I was a moderate Muslim, such a concept would be offensive to me as it assumes that my people are some kind of hypersensitive, weak-willed robots, driven only by uncontrolled emotion, erroneously placed rage & unable to engage in any form of critical analysis.
I'm going to turn my back on my morality and ethics that I've held all my life to become a genocidal, child-murdering terrorist & rapist because I heard some politician say "Radical Islam" when referring to a group that is literally called the "Islamic State," or 100 other terrorist groups that have "Muslim" or other Islamic references in their names?
That's an offensive and insulting concept.

Even Middle Eastern leaders who are Muslim themselves refer to terrorists as belonging to "Radical Islam." So the apologists with their silly, condescending and offensive PC theories about semantics are full of it!

[Captain Steel]

For people who say we must respect Muslims, let's start by respecting their intelligence rather than inferring that they'll become candidates for ISIS recruitment simply from hearing the words "Radical Islam" when referring to terrorist groups like the Islamic State.

[Sane]

Just stop and think about the actual situation rather than trying to find reasons to criticise Obama. There are no answers to be found in partisan politics. Should I go into what a great job Bush did? Have we found those WMDs yet? No, it's unhelpful. Let's actually try to find what we can do to help.

This isn't that hard - Moderate Muslims aren't joining ISIS. It is mostly people that are susceptible to their crap thanks to a variety of reasons - probably often social and economic. If recruiters get their hands on those people they then use the words of politicians and others to say "they don't want you here, you will never be part of this society, Muslims and non-believers can't live together, look at America, every time Obama mentions Islam he calls us criminals, and terrorists, there is a war on Islam, you need to make a choice, a country that doesn't want you here or IS where you will be with your people. Here look at these photos of our Islamic paradise ..." Or something like that I would imagine.

The most famous Australian fighting for ISIS had a history of drug use and depression. He worked as security for strip clubs. Basically just an all round loser ... and then a recruiter got hold of him. ISIS aren't recruiting the best of the best ...

These are people - not a book or a religion. People kill each other every day and make horrendously bad choices. The people being recruited are weak and easily manipulated ... weak and easily manipulated people exist. They are real. At least Obama is trying to do something - just like our leader and those of many countries. Pretty sure they are taking advice from people who know much better than you and I. They aren't using inclusive language just to annoy you ;)

[ashdoc]

But the reason these people are so pissed off is they live in the desert with no hope of advancing their lives at all. So they turn to the only thing they know which is religion .

iraqis have turned to ISIS too , and iraq has lots of oil and is potentially rich . plus the land near its two great rivers ( tigris and euphrates ) is fertile too .

[ashdoc]

Guess what ... Less than 8% of French people are Muslims ...

that is just the census figure . census figures of most countries always give lower numbers of muslims in order not to alarm you . actually muslims in france have probably crossed the 10 percent mark .

[honeykid]

This is one of the reasons why 'just leaving them to it' won't be allowed to happen. As I said, the markets rule and there's no way we're going to let them have control of all those resources. Obviously we shouldn't let them because of what they'd do with it, but the fact that it'll stop us having access to it would be more than reason enough.

[seanc]

They aren't using inclusive language just to annoy you ;)

No, they are actually using that language just to annoy him. And the right is insisting they use other language just to annoy the hell out of me. All of this has been politicized to the point of no return. The language semantics that our politicians and media are playing right now couldn't help what is going on in the world less and people should be as annoyed by it as I am and stop feeding into it.

As far as Isis goes I truly believe that both parties think they are doing what's right. It really isn't any different than the debate we have on crime in this country. One side thinks it is a socioeconomic issue and feels the best way to help it is to find ways to nurture the nature of what is going on so we can prevent more people from wanting to join these zealots. They are correct.

The other side thinks the best way to snuff out these zealots is to hit them as hard and as fast as we can to squash what is going on at this moment. They are also correct.

If we can ever find a way in the Western world to balance the right and left side of our brain there is no telling how effective we can be. As it is we are never going to get rid of terrorism all together. If we believe there is only one head to this snake we haven't been paying attention the last fifteen years, let alone paying any attention to the history of the Middle East since the world began.

I believe we have three countries right now who are very invested in seeing Isis defeated and it will happen despite what we call them and despite what we call the war, situation, conflict, church meeting, etc.

I will now crawl back into my corner and watch you guys bash your head against the wall from a distance.

[-KhaN-]

that is just the census figure . census figures of most countries always give lower numbers of muslims in order not to alarm you . actually muslims in france have probably crossed the 10 percent mark .

Isn't number of Muslims a secret in France? Because by French constitution all people living in France are French and all religious stuff is forbidden in public (cross as much as any Muslim clothes)?

[Citizen Rules]

But the reason these people are so pissed off is they live in the desert with no hope of advancing their lives at all. So they turn to the only thing they know which is religion. That reminds me of my plan number two: (which can be used along with plan number one)

There's a lack of diversity in much of the middle east, especially in the poorer rural (desert areas). The people there tend to stay within their own communities which are made up of similar peoples. Unlike many westerns who live in a multi-cultured metropolitan environment with a rich and diverse media...the middle easterns don't have much contact with a varied population of other: (races, creeds, religions, world view points). So they are prone to be more pissed off at an enemy they don't really know (us westerns), all they have is their religion. History has shown the poorer you are the more ignorant you tend to be and the more you turn to extreme religious ideas.

I often have thought the best way of defeating terrorism in the middle east is through cultural assimilation. The more the west can dump western style images and values into the media they watch over there, the more they will start thinking like us. The more they can see that their religious jihad is something out of the stone age and modern people don't act that...the less extremist ideas they will have. Think of how gay rights too off in America, it increased by awareness through exposure to positive gay people on tv shows and positive media image. We need to bombard them with western style media and values. Assimilate them.

[Captain Steel]

Just stop and think about the actual situation rather than trying to find reasons to criticise Obama. There are no answers to be found in partisan politics. Should I go into what a great job Bush did? Have we found those WMDs yet? No, it's unhelpful. Let's actually try to find what we can do to help.

This isn't that hard - Moderate Muslims aren't joining ISIS. It is mostly people that are susceptible to their crap thanks to a variety of reasons - probably often social and economic. If recruiters get their hands on those people they then use the words of politicians and others to say "they don't want you here, you will never be part of this society, Muslims and non-believers can't live together, look at America, every time Obama mentions Islam he calls us criminals, and terrorists, there is a war on Islam, you need to make a choice, a country that doesn't want you here or IS where you will be with your people. Here look at these photos of our Islamic paradise ..." Or something like that I would imagine.

The most famous Australian fighting for ISIS had a history of drug use and depression. He worked as security for strip clubs. Basically just an all round loser ... and then a recruiter got hold of him. ISIS aren't recruiting the best of the best ...

These are people - not a book or a religion. People kill each other every day and make horrendously bad choices. The people being recruited are weak and easily manipulated ... weak and easily manipulated people exist. They are real. At least Obama is trying to do something - just like our leader and those of many countries. Pretty sure they are taking advice from people who know much better than you and I. They aren't using inclusive language just to annoy you ;)

So, if Moderate Muslims aren't joining ISIS, but ISIS is recruiting tens of thousands of Muslims from all over the world, then this reinforces the fact that there are a whole lot of non-moderate "radical" Muslims in the world.

How does a religion that is allegedly all about peace and teaches only love, forgiveness, compassion and respect for life produce these levels of "radical" terrorists?

And if the answer is just misinterpretation by religious extremists or some form of warped zealotry, then why don't we see global terrorist movements and non-stop massacres all over the world from the dozen or so other major-sized religions on the planet?

Could the answer lie not in the politically-correct apologist explanations which are all easily refuted, but in the fact that there is something inherently wrong in an ideology that has as its most basic tenet: kill the infidel?

No other religion has a prevailing and eternal objective to subjugate or kill everybody else who believes differently as the basis of it's religious philosophy.

So could such a philosophical foundation based on the political idea of total supremacy on Earth through genocide perhaps be part of the problem and maybe at least part of an explanation for why there are so many Muslims who want to do exactly what their religion, many of their leaders, many of their Imams, many of their mosques, their scriptures, and their prophet instructs them to do?

And lets remember, ISIS is just one Islamic Terror group of about 100 other Islamic Terror groups that each have thousands of members ready to kill in the name of their religion (which we are told is peaceful). Not to mention there are entire countries made of radical fundamentalist Islamic extremists.

[christine]

Citizen are you serious with your plan 2?? until I think you are, I won't respond

This is an interesting article by a former IS hostage which explains better what I was saying yesterday about IS wanting us to retaliate to give them more fuel for their zealotry

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/16/isis-bombs-hostage-syria-islamic-state-paris-attacks

also

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/jihad-isnt-all-its-cracked-up-to-be-say-disgruntled-isis-recruits-9896629.html

[Citizen Rules]

Citizen are you serious with your plan 2?? until I think you are, I won't respond
That wasn't meant as a joke, yes I was serious....It would take another generation for young Islamic males in the middle east to grow up with more media/internet exposure to western culture before they might adopt a more global liberal view. I'm not saying that is the only thing that can be done, but it would be a step in the right direction.

Even if we have to spend millions on a satellite to get that information to them. I'm not sure why you would be opposed to that plan 2? as it's more in line with the 'hug a refugee' plan that will supposedly show ISIS that we're good people in the west.

[Sane]

CS, you just ignored what I wrote and continued on with exactly the same stuff that you have come up with before. You will never find answers unless you open your mind and learn about what is actually happening. What we have done before is not working. So, you can either keep doing exactly what ISIS wants and be part of the problem or you can open yourself up to ideas that are different and perhaps be part of the solution (apologies for the use of that horrible cliche).

All you are doing is attacking. Whilst I disagree with CR a lot he is coming up with solutions. So what is your plan, apart from being an ISIS pawn?

[honeykid]

How does a religion that is allegedly all about peace and teaches only love, forgiveness, compassion and respect for life produce these levels of "radical" terrorists?
Have you seen/read Christian history? Not just Christian, of course, they've all done it. It's what cults do.

And if the answer is just misinterpretation by religious extremists or some form of warped zealotry, then why don't we see global terrorist movements and non-stop massacres all over the world from the dozen or so other major-sized religions on the planet?
Again, go back centuries and you'll see plenty of it. Because they believe it and it's real to them, they take it more seriously. Not only was it the truth, it was fact.

I think a lot of it is because the countries where much/most of those people are most influenced are the most socially 'advanced' for want of a better word. In terms of education and standards of living they're way ahead.

It appears that Islam, unlike other religions, has been mostly left in the middle ages in terms of its worldview. The aim for us is to bring them/it into the modern world. For the most part, that's exactly what's happened, but it only takes a few. By few, I do mean a small percentage.

If we take the refugees as a threatening group. There's up to 1.5m of them and rising. If a tenth of one percent of them are radical (whether they do something or not) that's 1,500 people. In percentage terms it's barely worth mentioning, but 1,500 terrorists would do a huge amount of damage and spread a huge amount of fear, as well as making it feel as if 'they're everywhere' If we arbitrarily take ten terrorists per attack, that'd be 150 attacks in Europe. A year of a new attack pretty much every other day would feel like an apocalypse and yet I don't think anyone would say 1,500 people out of 1.5m is a representative group.

[Captain Steel]

Rules - along that line - back after 9/11, I called for a "propaganda war."
Now, this sounds very distasteful as most people think propaganda is false information, and it certainly can be. But it can also be true information. It's really just any type of information used to support an agenda.

So what I was suggesting was a tell-the-truth-about-Radical-Islam and rally-to-promote-peaceful-Islam campaign. Basically, a disclosure or exposure on entirely factual information. It would put much focus on the Muslim victims of Islamic Terror and be distributed to both the entire world and the Muslim community worldwide in hopes of garnering support from more moderate Muslim factions and letting those too intimidated to fight back against Radical Islam know that the world recognizes their plight and is behind them, and that people who truly want peace, must all ban together to stop terrorism.
(Unfortunately, getting "the world" to actually unite to get behind anyone to fight Radical Islamic Terrorism has proved to be a fantasy despite a lot of rhetoric.)

Instead, what we get in the real world is the PC media attempting to sweep most Islamic Terrorism under the rug (who remembers or is still talking about the Tunisia Beach Massacre from just a few months ago? Or the Bardo Museum Massacre in Tunis this past March? Or the Garissa University Collage Massacre in Kenya from this past April where Islamic Terrorists murdered 148 students and staff? And the only reason people are remembering & talking about the Charlie Hebdo attack right now - that happened this past January - is because of this past Friday the 13th massacre in Paris.)

All these ideas of preventing, slowing or stopping Islamic Terrorism will always be fantasy until the world wakes up and starts acknowledging what is, rather than wallowing in the PC delusion that if we try not to offend anyone by telling the truth, then everyone will start to like us and will get along.

The biggest threat to mankind right now is not Radical Islamic Terrorism, it is the PC mindset that has allowed and enabled terrorism to get to the levels where it is today and continues to enable & promote it in a thousand different ways.

What Political Correctness refuses to understand is that true respect can only be earned, it can't be coaxed through denial of facts, kowtowing, appeasement, capitulation or flattery.

[Captain Steel]

CS, you just ignored what I wrote and continued on with exactly the same stuff that you have come up with before. You will never find answers unless you open your mind and learn about what is actually happening. What we have done before is not working. So, you can either keep doing exactly what ISIS wants and be part of the problem or you can open yourself up to ideas that are different and perhaps be part of the solution (apologies for the use of that horrible cliche).

All you are doing is attacking. Whilst I disagree with CR a lot he is coming up with solutions. So what is your plan, apart from being an ISIS pawn?

Let me understand - saying "Radical Islam" is what ISIS wants us to do because then they'll get more recruits? Many peaceful Muslims who don't currently hear the words will suddenly run to join ISIS if they hear them? So anyone who doesn't want to be part of the problem of growing Islamic Terrorism should not say any words relating to Islamic Terrorism?

Obama, Democrats, Liberals and entire camps of PC thinkers won't say the words, yet tens of thousands of Muslims have gone to join ISIS. Should we assume that if Obama uttered the dreaded non-PC words than tens of millions of peaceful Muslims would suddenly want to become murderers and run to join ISIS? According to the FBI over 250 American Muslims have joined ISIS - without their President ever uttering the words "Radical Islam."

How, without these oh-so-inflammatory words coming from their President, did so many Americans just suddenly turn their back on their religion that teaches only peace, in the richest country in the world? Did they one day just overhear a FOX News broadcast and it triggered them to go from watching cute kitten videos on YouTube and the compassionate peace of Allah to a burning desire to slaughter little infidel children by the thousands?

The argument is PC ridiculousness.

The concept thinks it can somehow try to manipulate rational Muslims to not turn to terrorism with stupid, child-psychology-level, semantic games that any halfway intelligent person can see right through.

The dangerous aspect of it is that it's an open capitulation and show of appeasement toward the very radicals the PC camp refuses to identify - which only invites more victimization by the terrorists who attack anything they view as weak. (Metaphorically, it's handing over the lunch money to the bully and calling him "Uncle" instead of identifying him as a bully).

And as for not-so-peaceful Muslims - they'll use any words, phrases, drawings, writings, music, art, fashion, religious views, sexual orientations, (even ancient museum artifacts), any excuse at all to become inflamed... or no excuse to become inflamed. They have a standing order from God to kill no matter what anyone says or doesn't say. If the entire West suddenly was struck mute it wouldn't change the fact that we are still infidels that Radical Islamists believe deserve to die.

[Sane]

Again you ignore what I said and just keep saying the same thing. You can't let it go.

And then this ...The argument is PC ridiculousness.

.

I give up :)

[Captain Steel]

Again you ignore what I said and just keep saying the same thing. You can't let it go.

And then this ...

I give up :)

It's called debate. You haven't refuted my claim (that there's something inherently wrong in an ideology that promotes genocide - and maybe that's PART of the reason why so many of its adherents are becoming terrorists) or supported how using a certain term will cause peaceful people (and the prevailing claim is that Islam is peaceful) to become terrorist recruits.

This was the reason Obama gave publicly for why it's bad to use the term - because it will cause more Muslims (who we're told are following a doctrine of peace) to want to become terrorists, it will trigger some internal desire for violence or fertile part of their psyche in them that will make them somehow ripe for recruitment to terrorists.

I didn't say this, he did, and he's supported by millions who agree with him.
I'm just asking for someone to explain the logic behind it, if there is any.

[Mr Minio]

Two appreciators of Asian beauty having an argument? Ridiculous! I'm hereby sending my secret Asian beauty agent to mediate and put an end to this conversation.

[seanc]

So, if Moderate Muslims aren't joining ISIS, but ISIS is recruiting tens of thousands of Muslims from all over the world, then this reinforces the fact that there are a whole lot of non-moderate "radical" Muslims in the world.

How does a religion that is allegedly all about peace and teaches only love, forgiveness, compassion and respect for life produce these levels of "radical" terrorists?

And if the answer is just misinterpretation by religious extremists or some form of warped zealotry, then why don't we see global terrorist movements and non-stop massacres all over the world from the dozen or so other major-sized religions on the planet?

Could the answer lie not in the politically-correct apologist explanations which are all easily refuted, but in the fact that there is something inherently wrong in an ideology that has as its most basic tenet: kill the infidel?

No other religion has a prevailing and eternal objective to subjugate or kill everybody else who believes differently as the basis of it's religious philosophy.

So could such a philosophical foundation based on the political idea of total supremacy on Earth through genocide perhaps be part of the problem and maybe at least part of an explanation for why there are so many Muslims who want to do exactly what their religion, many of their leaders, many of their Imams, many of their mosques, their scriptures, and their prophet instructs them to do?

And lets remember, ISIS is just one Islamic Terror group of about 100 other Islamic Terror groups that each have thousands of members ready to kill in the name of their religion (which we are told is peaceful). Not to mention there are entire countries made of radical fundamentalist Islamic extremists.

Don't you think that the issue is as much with the cultural and political ideaology as it is the religious? If not how do you explain the millions of Muslims who don't suscribe to radical Islam? Also, how do you explain the young people they recruit from Western countries who have no prior ties to the Muslim religion?

[Captain Steel]

Asians bring peace. Actually Asian women - the men are just warmongers!
(I'm joking! I may be able to point out flaws in political ideologies that couch themselves in religions, but "I am no racialist.")
P.S. That's a quote from a very off-color (some would say offensive) Monty Python sketch, btw.

[Captain Steel]

Don't you think that the issue is as much with the cultural and political ideaology as it is the religious? If not how do you explain the millions of Muslims who don't suscribe to radical Islam? Also, how do you explain the young people they recruit from Western countries who have no prior ties to the Muslim religion?

Let me be perfectly clear (one of my favorite introductory lines from politicians)...

In all seriousness, I acknowledge that many of the points I've been arguing with from Sane and others are valid, at least to an extent.
i.e. I don't disagree with many of the varied explanations for the causes of terrorism.

These causes are certainly part of the problem, but like all explanations, don't account for every facet or the entirety of the problem.
I'm saying something similar - I'm putting out an explanation that may addresses part of the problem, perhaps a big part, but certainly cannot be used for every single individual case.

How I account for the millions of Muslims who don't subscribe to radical Islam is they are not radicals (or any of the synonyms: extremists, fundamentalists, orthodox, zealots, etc.) Their focus is not on the political aspect of Islam and / or they don't take their religion, its teachings, its scriptures, the examples set by their prophet to be followed literally. For some, it may be a degree of apathy toward religion or even a degree of ignorance.

I've known some Catholics who know less about what they are supposed to believe and the history of their sect than I do (and I've never been Catholic).

So there are a lot of people (and this goes for a lot of Muslims) who are more concerned with their daily life, their immediate family needs, their careers, and coping with their society in the modern world for whom "religion" is more of a familial obligation, a heritage or community convention, or traditional trapping that they hang onto for the sake of maintaining their status quo.