Terror attack in Barcelona

[213374U]

let me rephrase it because you missed the point.

when was the last time a christian mob killed gay people in public just because they are gay and the action was publicly endorsed and applauded by both the church and society with no legal action taken against the killers because killing gays was seen as a civic duty?

 

The answer would be, of course, when they last could get away with it. Reminder that it wasn't ecclesiastical authorities that pushed for secularization and the curbing of Church influence on public affairs. In fact, secularization was fought against tooth and nail by them. I like reminding folks of the fact that the Spanish Inquisition was still around in the 1800s, and the laws under which homosexuals were thrown in special prisons that were in effect until 1979 were, given the profound Catholic leanings of the Franco regime, an undoubtedly Christian heirloom.

 

Oh, but that doesn't count because they weren't a "mob" and they weren't doing it "in public" (despite trials being public), and uh... they weren't tapdancing on a cracker! Yeah, that's the ticket.

[teknoman2]

try coming up with a less nitpicky example that was not during a dictatorship in the most hardcore catholic nation of the world. and as you said, Franco had special prisons for them and they were taken to court before being locked up but enlighten me on this: were they sentenced to death and thrown in front of a crowd to be lynched? was it legal for a mob to lynch them in the street without a trial?

when was the last time that lynching a gay on the street was totally legal in a free country like UK,US, France etc? it still is today in Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Emirates, Philippines, Pakistan and so on and it recently became legal again in Libya after they toppled Qaddafi.

 

but the point of this discussion are not gay people, its the incompatibility of islam with the west. islam is a religion that considers certain things (like lynchings) as religiously, morally, socially and legally acceptable and these things have been legally, morally and socially (and more often than not even religiously) banned in the west. 

do they lynch gays in their homeland? do they lynch women for any reason they can come up with? do they marry and have sex with children? do they own slaves? do Shia and Suni kill each other? they do and i don't care one bit that they do, as long as they do it there where its the accepted way of life!

however here all these things are not acceptable and the question is: as a show of respect to their religious freedom, do we make them acceptable or do we deny them their religious freedom for the sake of our way of life? and what do we do if they use either of these decisions (or anything between) as a reason/opportunity to push for the islamization of the west?

 

and no, the excuse "the catholic church and its followers did all that too long ago" is not a valid argument for two reasons

1. it was long ago and it is something that the "no longer theocratic" west left behind even if some individuals still try to cling to it despite no longer having the formal approval of the church.

2. the catholics, just like the pre-mass immigration muslims, did things like the inquisition in their own countries. do you know what happened to catholics who tried acting like muslims act today in lands where their religion was not dominant (i.e Japan)? lets just say the locals didn't change their way of life as a sign of good will

[Ben No.3]

Let me ask you something teknoman: would you feel more comfortable if instead of muslims from the Middle East, the refugees would be christians from Africa.

 

Because, rationally speaking, you shouldn't be. The Christian down there have also already formed huge terror networks and spend their free time murdering muslims, look it up. They are terrorists and a danger to western civilisation just as much.

 

You see, it's not Islam that is opposed to democracy, it is religion as a whole.

 

But an other question. So you are against Muslim immigration because their values threaten our democracy? If yes; Then where do we stop? The Cubans have communist values, will we let them in? What about christians from the Vatican? Where do you draw the line? And how even? Stop all immigration from those countries? Check each and every one for comparability? And what about the Muslims, communists, Nazis that already live in your country? Send them away? Keep them? But where's the logic in that?

And are you sure that making a humans right to stay in your country based on his beliefs is a wise thing to do?

[pmp10]

Because, rationally speaking, you shouldn't be. The Christian down there have also already formed huge terror networks and spend their free time murdering muslims, look it up. They are terrorists and a danger to western civilisation just as much.

Don't you think that claim of equivalence might go a bit too far?

I might have missed some Christian terror attacks lately but still...

[Ben No.3]

 

Because, rationally speaking, you shouldn't be. The Christian down there have also already formed huge terror networks and spend their free time murdering muslims, look it up. They are terrorists and a danger to western civilisation just as much.

Don't you think that claim of equivalence might go a bit too far?

I might have missed some Christian terror attacks lately but still...

No I don't. Wether we loose people to terrorism because muslims drive through the streets and into a random crowd or because christians target and shoot muslims specifically would, for the dead and their families, not be much of a difference. Wether husbands beat their wives for Jesus or for Mohammed isn't much of a difference. Wether children are indoctrinated to follow the Bible or the Quran word by word isn't much of a difference. Wether gays are oppresss in the name of Allah or God isn't much of a difference. Edited August 23, 2017 by Ben No.3

[teknoman2]

Teknoman2 you don't understand. We cannot say anything against Islam TODAY because spanish inquisition and burning of Alexandria.

We white people are today responsible and need to atone for what our ancestors did, but Islamist terrorist and other special groups are not responsible for what they are doing today.

of course they aren't. as i said before, according to their religion allah takes all responsibility. they do not kill of their own free will and take no responsibility for any action, everything they did happened because allah decided that at that time and place it was supposed to happen.

[Zoraptor]

 

I might have missed some Christian terror attacks lately but still...

 

 

If you want large scale Christian terror attacks you can look at the CAR where there is widespread French sponsored 'ethnic cleansing' of muslims (following on from the France sponsored ethnic cleansing of Tutsis in Rwanda which everyone forgets about), and to an extent Nigeria. It's also not too far away time wise from Bosnia, and the unrest that spawned Boko Haram in Nigeria was not a one way street either. There's definitely a lot less, but there also some moral and logical chicanery going on to maximise the difference.

 

eg, I'd suggest that if you reversed the position with respect to drones and it were christian westerners being targeted- even with an actual 100% accuracy against military targets- rather than various brown muslims then that would be regarded unequivocally as terrorism in the west. There is after all the tendency to label attacks by anyone against western armed forces, ie legitimate military targets, as terrorism even though they are legit targets and the aim is clearly not to terrorise civilians. A roadside bomb destroying a humvee or a Bradley is the direct equivalent of a drone strike, but one is terrorism and the other not with no actual justification for the distinction beyond us being the good guys. As it is a huge number of people live under the constant threat of being blown up arbitrarily by someone thousands of km away which if you take away the names is obvious terrorism; but it isn't terrorism because the government tells us it isn't and they're 100% getting bad guys with no repercussions, honest.

[Hurlshort]

 

Teknoman2 you don't understand. We cannot say anything against Islam TODAY because spanish inquisition and burning of Alexandria.

We white people are today responsible and need to atone for what our ancestors did, but Islamist terrorist and other special groups are not responsible for what they are doing today.

of course they aren't. as i said before, according to their religion allah takes all responsibility. they do not kill of their own free will and take no responsibility for any action, everything they did happened because allah decided that at that time and place it was supposed to happen.

 

 

What, like predestination?

[213374U]

try coming up with a less nitpicky example that was not during a dictatorship in the most hardcore catholic nation of the world. and as you said, Franco had special prisons for them and they were taken to court before being locked up but enlighten me on this: were they sentenced to death and thrown in front of a crowd to be lynched? was it legal for a mob to lynch them in the street without a trial?

when was the last time that lynching a gay on the street was totally legal in a free country like UK,US, France etc? it still is today in Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Emirates, Philippines, Pakistan and so on and it recently became legal again in Libya after they toppled Qaddafi.

 

but the point of this discussion are not gay people, its the incompatibility of islam with the west. islam is a religion that considers certain things (like lynchings) as religiously, morally, socially and legally acceptable and these things have been legally, morally and socially (and more often than not even religiously) banned in the west. 

do they lynch gays in their homeland? do they lynch women for any reason they can come up with? do they marry and have sex with children? do they own slaves? do Shia and Suni kill each other? they do and i don't care one bit that they do, as long as they do it there where its the accepted way of life!

however here all these things are not acceptable and the question is: as a show of respect to their religious freedom, do we make them acceptable or do we deny them their religious freedom for the sake of our way of life? and what do we do if they use either of these decisions (or anything between) as a reason/opportunity to push for the islamization of the west?

 

and no, the excuse "the catholic church and its followers did all that too long ago" is not a valid argument for two reasons

1. it was long ago and it is something that the "no longer theocratic" west left behind even if some individuals still try to cling to it despite no longer having the formal approval of the church.

2. the catholics, just like the pre-mass immigration muslims, did things like the inquisition in their own countries. do you know what happened to catholics who tried acting like muslims act today in lands where their religion was not dominant (i.e Japan)? lets just say the locals didn't change their way of life as a sign of good will

 

Hahaha. So any examples aren't valid because "that was then and this is now", and obviously a mob doing it on the street is so much worse than a kangaroo court issuing a sentence with no recourse. And of course, if it didn't happen in the UK, France or the US, it's not a valid example either, because they aren't really Christians if it's "the most hardcore Catholic nation in the world" (by the way, that would be the Vatican, actually).

 

You sure you don't want me to find an example where attackers were literally tapdancing on a cracker? Because I mean, it's not such an arbitrary prerequisite considering everything else that's enough for you to splain any other occurrences away. Careful though, keep the hand-waving up and you'll pull a muscle.

 

As for your stance regarding "the incompatibility of Islam with the West", I take it this is your expert opinion after thoroughly researching the issue and studying the myriad different interpretations of fiqh, yes? Perhaps you'd care to share some citations, specific fatwas by Islamic scholars living perfectly well-adjusted lives in the West that help support your assertion? Failing that, you can provide hard figures that show that the millions of Muslims living in the West are actually failing to abide by the laws of their respective countries of residence, and bowing only to sharia.

 

And by the way: toleration does not involve "accomodating whatever because muh cultural heritage". Toleration is based on and demands respect for secular law, and secular law supersedes religious doctrine whenever the two come in conflict. Read up, bro. The West isn't going to become a neo-Caliphate if you blink.

[teknoman2]

Let me ask you something teknoman: would you feel more comfortable if instead of muslims from the Middle East, the refugees would be christians from Africa.

 

Because, rationally speaking, you shouldn't be. The Christian down there have also already formed huge terror networks and spend their free time murdering muslims, look it up. They are terrorists and a danger to western civilisation just as much.

 

You see, it's not Islam that is opposed to democracy, it is religion as a whole.

 

But an other question. So you are against Muslim immigration because their values threaten our democracy? If yes; Then where do we stop? The Cubans have communist values, will we let them in? What about christians from the Vatican? Where do you draw the line? And how even? Stop all immigration from those countries? Check each and every one for comparability? And what about the Muslims, communists, Nazis that already live in your country? Send them away? Keep them? But where's the logic in that?

And are you sure that making a humans right to stay in your country based on his beliefs is a wise thing to do?

i find your examples a bit ham fisted. why would a cuban have a problem living here? despite the difference in economical ideology, the social ideology is similar enough to allow a coexistence that does not require either side to give up it's way of life for the sake of the other.

there is only one question that needs to be asked really: when in Rome, act like a Roman... are you willing to follow this rule? if not, its best for everyone that you stay home. those whom you used as examples can and do follow this rule because it conflicts little if at all with their original way of life. some others however, with muslims being most prominent, come from places where the way of life is diametrically opposite to the way of life in EU, USA, Canada etc. and when they move there, are unwilling or unable to adjust their mentality to the different environment and instead ask for the environment to change in accordance to their original way of life.

so no, i'm not against anyone immigrating anywhere, as long as he is willing to accept that he is a guest in someone else's house and should not ask (or expect) from the host to remodel the house for his sake.

[teknoman2]

 

try coming up with a less nitpicky example that was not during a dictatorship in the most hardcore catholic nation of the world. and as you said, Franco had special prisons for them and they were taken to court before being locked up but enlighten me on this: were they sentenced to death and thrown in front of a crowd to be lynched? was it legal for a mob to lynch them in the street without a trial?

when was the last time that lynching a gay on the street was totally legal in a free country like UK,US, France etc? it still is today in Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Emirates, Philippines, Pakistan and so on and it recently became legal again in Libya after they toppled Qaddafi.

 

but the point of this discussion are not gay people, its the incompatibility of islam with the west. islam is a religion that considers certain things (like lynchings) as religiously, morally, socially and legally acceptable and these things have been legally, morally and socially (and more often than not even religiously) banned in the west. 

do they lynch gays in their homeland? do they lynch women for any reason they can come up with? do they marry and have sex with children? do they own slaves? do Shia and Suni kill each other? they do and i don't care one bit that they do, as long as they do it there where its the accepted way of life!

however here all these things are not acceptable and the question is: as a show of respect to their religious freedom, do we make them acceptable or do we deny them their religious freedom for the sake of our way of life? and what do we do if they use either of these decisions (or anything between) as a reason/opportunity to push for the islamization of the west?

 

and no, the excuse "the catholic church and its followers did all that too long ago" is not a valid argument for two reasons

1. it was long ago and it is something that the "no longer theocratic" west left behind even if some individuals still try to cling to it despite no longer having the formal approval of the church.

2. the catholics, just like the pre-mass immigration muslims, did things like the inquisition in their own countries. do you know what happened to catholics who tried acting like muslims act today in lands where their religion was not dominant (i.e Japan)? lets just say the locals didn't change their way of life as a sign of good will

 

Hahaha. So any examples aren't valid because "that was then and this is now", and obviously a mob doing it on the street is so much worse than a kangaroo court issuing a sentence with no recourse. And of course, if it didn't happen in the UK, France or the US, it's not a valid example either, because they aren't really Christians if it's "the most hardcore Catholic nation in the world" (by the way, that would be the Vatican, actually).

 

You sure you don't want me to find an example where attackers were literally tapdancing on a cracker? Because I mean, it's not such an arbitrary prerequisite considering everything else that's enough for you to splain any other occurrences away. Careful though, keep the hand-waving up and you'll pull a muscle.

 

As for your stance regarding "the incompatibility of Islam with the West", I take it this is your expert opinion after thoroughly researching the issue and studying the myriad different interpretations of fiqh, yes? Perhaps you'd care to share some citations, specific fatwas by Islamic scholars living perfectly well-adjusted lives in the West that help support your assertion? Failing that, you can provide hard figures that show that the millions of Muslims living in the West are actually failing to abide by the laws of their respective countries of residence, and bowing only to sharia.

 

And by the way: toleration does not involve "accomodating whatever because muh cultural heritage". Toleration is based on and demands respect for secular law, and secular law supersedes religious doctrine whenever the two come in conflict. Read up, bro. The West isn't going to become a neo-Caliphate if you blink.

 

i can't provide citations of the islamic scholars you speak of. most of those who i have seen speak, spoke about how medieval-like is the social mentality of islamic countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia and how the rest of the world left them behind.

and i can tell you of hundreds of examples of well adjusted muslims who were born, raised and educated under the best conditions the countries they lived in offered, and who left these countries to join ISIS

Sweden has entire areas that have become a sort of unofficial independent countries where local authorities have no control and sharia is the only acceptable law.

similar attempts are happening in england with neighborhoods being labeled as "sharia zones" as the overwhelming majority of their population are of middle eastern origin.

 

to fair though, i don't blame them for doing it. they just follow their religious doctrine as taught to them by their priests. the biggest problem is the "muh heritage" people who have flooded the media and encourage that behavior while discouraging the voicing of any concern about the result of "unchecked tolerance".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What, like predestination?

 

it was a mind trick invented by Muhammad as a means to make the killing of his enemies guilt free for his followers. "you had no say in the matter, allah guided your sword through that man's chest because he decided it was time for that man to die"

the problem fot the islamic world started when theology scholars decided to apply that to literally everything. "the wood you throw in the fire does not burn because of the fire, but because allah decided at that very moment that it must burn". 

in short these scholars brainwashed everyone into thinking that allah is like an AI game master in a D&D game who can make decisions in real time about everything that happens at any given moment and humans are the NPCs in the game who act according to these decisions without choice or will of their own.

Edited August 23, 2017 by teknoman2

[Hurlshort]

There are already millions of Muslims living in the West with no problems with the laws or the culture. There are plenty of Mosques and Imams that preach tolerance and acceptance. It isn't some pipe dream.

 

edit: teknoman gets mad when we point out historical precedents, but then keeps talking about stuff Mohammad did in the past. Pope Julius II would quite likely agree with his "Allah guides my sword" principal.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Hurlshot

[Malcador]

There are already millions of Muslims living in the West with no problems with the laws or the culture.

 

That's what they want you to think.....

[redneckdevil]

I'm all for Muslims immigrants coming here legally and without special treatment as long as they respect and integrate.

While yes they do have radicalized zeolites and those are a problem everyone should agree, but I think an equal size problem is on our end with how the PC and media in how we elevate and give more power to victimhood and our media having a "do not touch".

When the extremist shot up the gay night club in Florida, why was our media soooo slow and seemed to be forced to admit the man was Muslim? Why when the shooter shot up that college that someone went into his data on campus and changed his religion AFTER his death? Why do we allow Sharia law in sanctuary cities and other places and those don't to fear being called a racist even though it's a religion based? Etc etc.

Muslims have been coming in for quite some time and we haven't had that much problems compared to the amount of them here. BUT because it's a volatile religion like most religion and we are in a volatile society right now, we do need to do something in prevention from terror cells from forming and being able to thrive here.

[HoonDing]

"Why do we allow Sharia law in sanctuary cities"

 

There's Sharia law in NYC? WOW

[BruceVC]

Teknoman2 you don't understand. We cannot say anything against Islam TODAY because spanish inquisition and burning of Alexandria.

We white people are today responsible and need to atone for what our ancestors did, but Islamist terrorist and other special groups are not responsible for what they are doing today.

  I can understand how sometimes it does feel like this but dont believe it, reasonable criticism and condemnation of Islamic extremism is perfectly normal and is what we should be doing. 

[Hurlshort]

I'm all for Muslims immigrants coming here legally and without special treatment as long as they respect and integrate.

While yes they do have radicalized zeolites and those are a problem everyone should agree, but I think an equal size problem is on our end with how the PC and media in how we elevate and give more power to victimhood and our media having a "do not touch".

When the extremist shot up the gay night club in Florida, why was our media soooo slow and seemed to be forced to admit the man was Muslim? Why when the shooter shot up that college that someone went into his data on campus and changed his religion AFTER his death? Why do we allow Sharia law in sanctuary cities and other places and those don't to fear being called a racist even though it's a religion based? Etc etc.

Muslims have been coming in for quite some time and we haven't had that much problems compared to the amount of them here. BUT because it's a volatile religion like most religion and we are in a volatile society right now, we do need to do something in prevention from terror cells from forming and being able to thrive here.

 

Look, I have plenty of issues with the media, but I'm scratching my head over a few of your examples. 

 

1. What is the proper timeline to jump on the Muslim terrorist story? The big hesitancy I saw in the Orlando nightclub shooting seemed to center on whether this was anti-gay or something else, made even more confusing by the fact the guy seemed to be a regular at the club. It is a fair criticism though, but I'd hardly call it a conspiracy. If the media really is trying to cover up the religion of people who commit these acts, they are doing a piss poor job of it. You have plenty of conservative sites that jump all over the religion angle right away, so I don't see this as a huge problem.

 

2. I'm not sure which college shooting you are talking about. Sadly there are a few of them.

 

3. I have no idea what cities are implementing Shari'ah. That sounds like a sensationalist headline you get from some clickbait website. I live near a bunch of Sanctuary cities, and we don't have anything like Shari'ah. 

 

4. We ARE doing quite a bit to prevent terror cells. Since 9/11 we've already sacrificed a number of our rights withe bills like the Patriot Act so the government can crack down on this stuff. At what point have we given up too much of our liberty for protection?

[redneckdevil]

 

I'm all for Muslims immigrants coming here legally and without special treatment as long as they respect and integrate.

While yes they do have radicalized zeolites and those are a problem everyone should agree, but I think an equal size problem is on our end with how the PC and media in how we elevate and give more power to victimhood and our media having a "do not touch".

When the extremist shot up the gay night club in Florida, why was our media soooo slow and seemed to be forced to admit the man was Muslim? Why when the shooter shot up that college that someone went into his data on campus and changed his religion AFTER his death? Why do we allow Sharia law in sanctuary cities and other places and those don't to fear being called a racist even though it's a religion based? Etc etc.

Muslims have been coming in for quite some time and we haven't had that much problems compared to the amount of them here. BUT because it's a volatile religion like most religion and we are in a volatile society right now, we do need to do something in prevention from terror cells from forming and being able to thrive here.

Look, I have plenty of issues with the media, but I'm scratching my head over a few of your examples.

 

1. What is the proper timeline to jump on the Muslim terrorist story? The big hesitancy I saw in the Orlando nightclub shooting seemed to center on whether this was anti-gay or something else, made even more confusing by the fact the guy seemed to be a regular at the club. It is a fair criticism though, but I'd hardly call it a conspiracy. If the media really is trying to cover up the religion of people who commit these acts, they are doing a piss poor job of it. You have plenty of conservative sites that jump all over the religion angle right away, so I don't see this as a huge problem.

 

-----it isn't about what time in that situation, the problem was that the media tried to cover up the dialogue from the phone call. At the time the refugees were a very sore subject and anyone against the idea was racist and islamicphobe, so the media was tip toeing around bad press of anyone of Islam.

 

2. I'm not sure which college shooting you are talking about. Sadly there are a few of them.

 

------I'm trying to find the story, it happened in 2015 or 2016. A lone student opened fire at a college campus killing a few and dying himself (forgot if was killed or offed himself). The college had changed his personal information of religion from Islam to Hindo and students were upset because they felt like they were being deceived.

 

3. I have no idea what cities are implementing Shari'ah. That sounds like a sensationalist headline you get from some clickbait website. I live near a bunch of Sanctuary cities, and we don't have anything like Shari'ah.

 

-----You are problemly right, because trying to Google anything doesn't show me the articles I remember reading of them busting up small towns because law enforcement couldn't do anything. Another reason I dislike "news" lol.

 

4. We ARE doing quite a bit to prevent terror cells. Since 9/11 we've already sacrificed a number of our rights withe bills like the Patriot Act so the government can crack down on this stuff. At what point have we given up too much of our liberty for protection?

-----it agree we have, BUT tip toeing around Islam is counter productive to what's going on.

Like how the Obama administration removed Islamic/Muslim from the 9/11 govt document of what type of terrorist because of PC. Hell it was the reason why the Media was not only slow but also at first said he wasn't anything to do with Islam until the phone conversation was released. Hell look back on these boards a year and/or 2 ago and u will see how the media has down played alot of atrocities or simply went to name calling anyone who questioned or had a problem with what's going on. Brexit/Trump showed that the media and PC culture instead of identifying and/or even acknowledging the problems, what were people who wanted Brexit? Racist (against a religion?) and islamicphobic. Even Trump supporters were called that along with Nazis and deplorable.

Because people had a problem with non intigration and examples of the gang rape that went on for years in England and no one did a thing because to show anything bad about the way people used the religion would have lost their jobs and the respect for being called racists.

 

That's why I'm saying about the victimhood and the "do not touch or else be labeled a racist/Nazi/sexist/etc because we learned that **** don't fly with us. Treat the religion like we do Christianity (which is viewed in a negative light, look at Bernie Sanders refusing the one man opportunity because he was a Christian and in a Christian group said things about Muslims that Muslims of course would say about Christian's or hell any religion). That will blow up in our face because we are allowing it to bypass the restrictions we have sacrificed (or had stolen away) rights to make us safer. Treating it negativity when negative **** happens and not covering up/glossing over will prevent most of the nuetral Muslims from getting any ideas. Take away any perceived religious grand standing/platform supported by a political party/PC/Media. The extremist we always gonna have a problem with, but that's not religion alone. We get that with political, bored, and/or crazy people.

[teknoman2]

There are already millions of Muslims living in the West with no problems with the laws or the culture. There are plenty of Mosques and Imams that preach tolerance and acceptance. It isn't some pipe dream.

 

edit: teknoman gets mad when we point out historical precedents, but then keeps talking about stuff Mohammad did in the past. Pope Julius II would quite likely agree with his "Allah guides my sword" principal.

there is a difference: christianity today is not what it was 1000 years ago. it evolved with the times and over time it both shaped and got shaped by the culture that has become our way of life today in the west, so christians today are completely different than christians back then. islam on the other hand has reshaped the culture of every place it has spread to but, like a monolith, it has changed very little if at all in the last 1000 years and by extend there was little to no change in the mentality of it's followers who still behave like its the 11th century AD.

just to point out the sophistry in your reply though, i don't remember ever referencing islamic actions that are ancient history as a comparison to what another religion does today (like "the catholics did the crusades 1000 years ago, so its fine if muslims do their jihad now"). i speak of their actions today and explain where the origin of these actions can be found within their religion and how it came to be.

the "god guides my actions because they are righteous" (or deus vult for short) was a key element of crusade propaganda, despite the fact that christian religion teaches free will, so you'll get no argument from me on that, however while for crusaders it was a convenient lie, for muslims it was a core tenet of their faith.

 

comparing the actions of a group of ancient ignorant people who were deceived into going against the teachings of their faith for the profit of some kings and bishops, to the same actions made by modern people who knowingly follow a religion that was meticulously crafted for the purpose of raising fanatical soldiers, is like comparing the drunk driver who lost control of his car in the rain and killed a pedestrian to a professional sniper/hitman.

 

some choose not to follow the warmongering teachings of their religion and instead keep a more private approach to their religious practices, thus integrating into the society they live in but they are the exception. as long as its not the religion itself to change from being a "list of people to kill" and evolve along with the times, the majority will be made of the extremists who kill the people on the list and the moderates who silently nod in agreement, with those who truly seek a peaceful coexistence being a marginalized minority. 

Edited August 24, 2017 by teknoman2

[Hurlshort]

 

some choose not to follow the warmongering teachings of their religion and instead keep a more private approach to their religious practices, thus integrating into the society they live in but they are the exception. as long as its not the religion itself to change from being a "list of people to kill" and evolve along with the times, the majority will be made of the extremists who kill the people on the list and the moderates who silently nod in agreement, with those who truly seek a peaceful coexistence being a marginalized minority. 

 

 

Except they are not the exception, given that there are millions of people already living peacefully in the west. Realistically there are very few extremists compared the 1.8 billion Muslims in the world. You are making assumptions that have no basis in fact.

[teknoman2]

 

 

some choose not to follow the warmongering teachings of their religion and instead keep a more private approach to their religious practices, thus integrating into the society they live in but they are the exception. as long as its not the religion itself to change from being a "list of people to kill" and evolve along with the times, the majority will be made of the extremists who kill the people on the list and the moderates who silently nod in agreement, with those who truly seek a peaceful coexistence being a marginalized minority. 

 

 

Except they are not the exception, given that there are millions of people already living peacefully in the west. Realistically there are very few extremists compared the 1.8 billion Muslims in the world. You are making assumptions that have no basis in fact.

 

a few million to almost 2 billion is a very small percentage. and yes the extremists are also a small percentage but the overwhelming majority are the so called moderates: those who will not dirty their hands with terrorism but who also do not disapprove of it as long as the victims are not fellow muslims. and as i said, as long as the monolithic structure of islam that requires from its followers to stay mentally and socially stuck to 1000AD does not change, any moderate or integrated muslim has the potential to become an extremist just by going to the wrong mosque.

[Hurlshort]

Again your assumptions have no basis in fact. There is an actual profile of the type of person that is vulnerable to radicalization. Saying that any moderate Muslim has the potential to become an extremist is baseless fear mongering. It's like saying every Black person or Mexican has the potential to be a gang member. Does that sound racist?   

[Malcador]

All this makes me wonder why sociology was never an elective offered to us back in Eng.

 

Hm.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Sheep beg to be slaughtered: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/08/23/barcelona-attack-mastermind-deportedjudges-blocked-human-rights/

Edited August 25, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

[teknoman2]

Again your assumptions have no basis in fact. There is an actual profile of the type of person that is vulnerable to radicalization. Saying that any moderate Muslim has the potential to become an extremist is baseless fear mongering. It's like saying every Black person or Mexican has the potential to be a gang member. Does that sound racist?   

and what that profile may be?

because as far as i know, those who join ISIS come from all walks of life.

integrated muslims who were born and raised in France and had a master's degree were as willing to go to Syria and join the jihad as the Iraqi child who's parents died in a US bombing.

girls who were raised in the safety and freedom of the west, went willingly to a place they knew all too well had no regard for their life beyond the use of their wombs to give birth to more jihadists when their mothers were desperate to get away from there and to live in a place where they were not treated like merchandise.

after 100 years of progress, the people of Turkey are all too eager to embrace Erdogan's ideal of recreating the theocratic kingdom their country once was.

in my opinion there is this profile for those who get radicalized: anyone that prioritizes his faith in his religion over everything else, regardless of his socio-economic standing or level of education.