Serious 150+ dead in Paris terrorist attack

[Sochlo]

There are so many people who interpret Islam and the Qur'an differently that it's pointless to argue what's what. Truth is, there are people out there who believe themselves to be devout Muslims, whether that is true in Islam or not no one really cares, who justify this kind of shit every time it happens. I'd know, I've lived with them my whole life, and I'm disgusted every time they spout their "justifications" and see every other sheeple nod their heads. The Mosques that condemn what the terrorists do make it on the news, the ones that don't preach quietly.

Everybody loves peace. What you have to consider is the terms and measures people are prepared to undertake to achieve that peace. Islamic peace looks different to Western peace.

You cannot properly claim to know what proponents of a religion want until you understand what it is the religion actually commands of it's followers, as opposed to what the majority of self professed XYZists do.

The problem with Islam is that according to his own words, Muhammad actually carried out attacks on innocent people. He also commanded his followers to carry out attacks. Excuse me for this comparison but Jesus, on the other hand, did not. This is why Christians will condemn the occasional lone nutjob instantly and universally - any act of violence serves as evidence that he's in blatant error of the teachings of the Christ he claims to follow. Conversely, attacks by Muslims are (let's get real here) far more frequent, organized, institutionalized and lethal. People are quick to compare Christian violence with Islamic violence, but there's no comparison. In modern times, there has been a relatively small spattering of killers who claim to have done so in the name of Christ, as opposed to the countless regimes, terror factions and geurrilla armies who murder constantly and right before our eyes in the name of Islam. There is no Christian ISIS, Al Qaeda, or Boko Haram.

Muslims cannot truly condemn such attacks with the backing of the Qu'ran behind them. Will they condemn their prophet's attacks also? Of course not. The reality is - as much as we don't like to admit it - that the religion of Islam allows for violence of this kind.

Remember; a very small percentage of National Socialists actually gassed people. If we judged Nazism by the volume of people who actually killed - let's call them fundamentalist Nazis - then the 2015 opinion of Nazism would most likely be something along the lines of "generally peace loving people who's reputation is marred by a few extremists." Obviously that isn't the case, because we recognize that the core ideology behind Nazism is violent, regardless of how many of it's adherents carry the violent acts out. From this alone, we are able to conclude that Nazism as a whole is evil, and anyone who claims to subscribe to its teachings ought to earn the automatic and justified suspicion of those who value virtues such as freedom and racial equality, regardless of whether or not they have gassed any Jews personally (and yes, I just compared Islam to Nazism. Spare me the "OMG did you just compare..." comments.)

We ask the wrong question when we ask: Are all Muslims terrorists? No. Of course they aren't. What we should be asking is does the Qu'ran allow and endorse violence such as this? The answer is a definite yes, and that is a problem that has tainted Middle Eastern and European history from around the year 860, right up until now.

Remember that Muslims are permitted to lie and deceive infidels. If there is a distrust of Muslims, it is not unfounded. Unfair? Likely. Unfounded? No.

This is all ignoring hadiths, which is a whole different can of worms in itself.




EDIT: Ignore this post, I'm not in the right state of mind to claim anything.

 

[Rugi]

Mind you this is the same verse that is used by legal judges to condemn terrorists to death. Yet somehow Rugi has turned into a ISIS jurist and cut verses out of their contexts. Or maybe he has no idea wtf he is talking about. I'm drawing the line here, put some effort or leave.
a
tldr; This verse is called the Haraba verse, Haraba (kindly used google translate) being highway thievery, robbing and killing that was widespread at that time.

Somehow indeed, I literally just copy pasted it from a Quran pdf and put my ambiguous interpretation below it. Even if you do indeed have all the context to these stories and can personally guarantee that they have more context in Arabic or can be interpreted in a peaceful way please understand that that was not the purpose of showing you those quotes. The purpose was to display just how open the Quran is to an interpretation that favors discrimination and violence. Try reading these lines again understanding how it must appear to people who do not subscribe to these interpretations of the Quran or do not already have the bias of wanting to see the Islamic religion in a peaceful way. As an outsider I can sort of see how an extremist could justify their actions with the Quran.

 

[Trelloant]

Somehow indeed, I literally just copy pasted it from a Quran pdf and put my ambiguous interpretation below it. Even if you do indeed have all the context to these stories and can personally guarantee that they have more context in Arabic or can be interpreted in a peaceful way please understand that that was not the purpose of showing you those quotes. The purpose was to display just how open the Quran is to an interpretation that favors discrimination and violence. Try reading these lines again understanding how it must appear to people who do not subscribe to these interpretations of the Quran or do not already have the bias of wanting to see the Islamic religion in a peaceful way. As an outsider I can sort of see how an extremist could justify their actions with the Quran.

Is all religion not just interpretation? Do Priests and Rabbi and mullah not interpret the teachings of there religions in there own ways? Every single thing in the world can be interpreted. Now i'm not supporting the ISIS and other extremists in any way. However I think that we should steer the convo away from interpretation. It doesn't prove anything. I'm guilty of this too but continually having these interpretation arguements doesn't really help us come to an agreement. Both sides have relatively valid points.

I just don't like it when someone grabs small pieces that mean entirely different things in context.

 

[gvmgvm40]

The problem with Islam is that according to his own words, Muhammad actually carried out attacks on innocent people. He also commanded his followers to carry out attacks. Excuse me for this comparison but Jesus, on the other hand, did not. This is why Christians will condemn the occasional lone nutjob instantly and universally - any act of violence serves as evidence that he's in blatant error of the teachings of the Christ he claims to follow. Conversely, attacks by Muslims are (let's get real here) far more frequent, organized, institutionalized and lethal. People are quick to compare Christian violence with Islamic violence, but there's no comparison. In modern times, there has been a relatively small spattering of killers who claim to have done so in the name of Christ, as opposed to the countless regimes, terror factions and geurrilla armies who murder constantly and right before our eyes in the name of Islam. There is no Christian ISIS, Al Qaeda, or Boko Haram.

Reality check: Everyone knows about the Crusades, but the Albagensian and Baltic crusades and the Reconquista, when entire local populations, tens to hundreds of thousands of people, were either massacred or forcibly converted, or the religious wars of 16th and 17th centuries, where up to a quarter of the population of Central Europe perished, constantly get glossed over. Then you have colonialism rationalized as "civilizing mission" (and Manifest Destiny in case of USA) which, in addition to subjugation, exploitation and brutalization of entire populations and destruction of cultures; largely created the distribution of wealth and poverty we see today. From modern times, I can name the Bosnian Genocide, Lord's Resistance Army, various massacres during Lebanese Civil War (e.g.), the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Central African Republic, Christian terrorist groups in Northeastern India, opposing Catholic and Protestant militant groups in Northern Ireland, KKK and white nationalist terrorism, who fyi have killed almost twice as more people than jihadists in USA since 9/11 as well as rising neo-Fascism in Europe.

My point isn't that to say that Christianity is a violent religion or to make a comparison and say one is better or worse. Read about any state, religion or ideology that has ever held power and you'll see violence. My point is that people aren't robots whose behavior is directly determined by their culture, religion or ideology; the contemporary economic and political situation, conflicts and relations and historical context plays a bigger role. Whether the Quran really endorses violence or not is rather tangential in my opinion. People living at different times, in different societies, in different conditions can interpret religion very differently and justify very different actions with it: the same Christian books that inspired Mother Teresa also inspired the Inquisition and the followers of Buddha are committing genocide in Arakan as we speak now. You have pacifist Sufi orders and poets like Mevlana Celaleddin Rumi in Islam, too. You can't understand ISIS by googling "violence quran hadith" and ignoring the Ottoman legacy, British and French colonialism, Baathism, Arab nationalism and "enlightened dictators" of the 20th century and their brutal regimes, Cold War politics and the Iranian Revolution, the destruction, poverty and desperation caused by the Gulf Wars and the reasons of the flare-up of Sunni-Shiite sectarian conflicts in post-war Iraq that caused ISIS to emerge in the first place.

I'm not even going into the roots of Islamic "fundamentalism", but this is a good read.

 

[Reymedy]

Are you really gonna go their way and debate about all the stinky reasons people could find to legitimate barbaric human slaughtering.
I mean, if pokemon was even bigger we could possibly have people killing other people in the name of arceus all mighty.

When you commit such crimes you gave up on your humanity.
They don't think our way, they don't follow our moral codes, they don't value the things we value, they're not belonging to our specie to my eyes.

I live in a muslim family, and I decided not to believe in all this. Still, it disgusts me to think that my family or friends could be one second feeling even slightly uncomfortable with what happened because the terrorists attempt to associate their crimes with Islam.
Draw the line first between what is human and what is not, and then you'll realise how trivial are all the other characteristics a criminal could have.

 

[Asek]

Rugi Within nearly every holy text there will be conflicting messages and differant interpretstions a group can take off each significant passage. Such is the nature of any book thats written by such a large variety of authors, often from all kinds of differant backgrounds and viewpoints. To say the quran has passages that seem to promote violence may be true, but it would also have passages that are strictly against it. Pretty much every religious leader chooses to interpret the texts emphasising values relevant to today, and as such interpreting an emphasis on peace is whats done for all the global religions. This interpretation should then be the one followed by all followers of that faith, but sometimes splinters occur with their own interpretations

To put this into context using the bible ( which i am much more familiar with than the quran), in the beatitudes, jesus tells 'blessed are the peacemakers' (matt 5:9), as well as 'if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other side also (matt 5:39). however, the same jesus then tells the apostles 'let him who has no sword sell. His mantle and buy one' (luke 22:36), and the pslam 'blessed be thy lord, my rock. Who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle (psalm 144:1) also seems to advocate war. These messages are all in the same book, but seem to completley contradict each other. Its up to the religious leaders to interpret which way is correct, and make that the teaching for the religion. If an extremist group splinters off from the main group, they should no longer be associated with the majority

 

[gvmgvm40]

@Reymedy As sad as it is, people do even the most horrendous things because of "stinky reasons", not because they are pure reincarnation of evil. Anger is very natural after a tragedy like this, but dehumanizing terrorists instead of trying to understand why there are terrorists in some places and not in some other places doesn't really aid ending or preventing it. Case in point, the emergence of Nazism can be tied to a variety of factors like the British-German colonial rivalry, WW1 and Treaty of Versailles and the feeling of betrayal and unfairness that arose in German society as well as the general Eurocentric, racist mentality of the period. Yet the same German people that were largely complicit with Nazism are now one of the most tolerant and multicultural societies in Europe, just 2-3 generations later. So what happened? The Allies didn't chalk Nazism up to German culture or to the essential attributes of Germanness. Instead, European integration began as an incentive for West European nations to cooperate instead of antagonize each other, economical aid helped rebuild Germany instead of leaving it broke and desperate one more time and more importantly the political system of Germany was completely reformed; measures like two-tiered voting, an electoral threshold, a Constitutional Court and a state system (the Länder) were introduced explicitly to prevent another similar situation in the future. And it worked. If people are going to compare Nazism to Islamic neo-"fundamentalism", they should at least bother to get informed about both.

I mean, if pokemon was even bigger we could possibly have people killing other people in the name of arceus all mighty.

Yes, and that's precisely my point. Religions and ideologies don't automatically determine how people behave, there are a plethora of factors that influence that. I can argue that Islam doesn't allow violence but a) it doesn't change the fact that other people interpret it differently and justify their actions with it, b) it's beyond my point and c) arguing about religion leads nowhere anyway.

What happened in France, or what happens daily in Iraq and Syria, is abhorrent and inhumane and I think we can all agree that ISIS should at least be militarily defeated in some way. And then what? You can't really solve a multifaceted issue like terrorism by military force alone. A political and economical reconstruction has to take place, but that doesn't really look possible in the near future because all political parties have different interests.

 

[Joim]

The problem is not with the Quran. The Old Testament has pretty wicked shit as well, and anyone that has read it can remember some pearls of wisdom like recommending to skin gays alive (Leviticus or Laws).

The problem comes from Wahabbism, the extremist sect of the Sunni... yeah, those in Saudi Arabia, the ones that just bought some cool missiles from the US, the ones that sells Oil to the west to then invest in Daesh. The overwhelming majority of muslims are more or less regular religious people. They aren't more dangerous than your common Texas Christian nut, they just pray five times a day, don't eat pork, and some dress their women as ninjas (which is already quite bad, but we did the same here less than 100 years ago, and anyway that's a direct cause of funding and training the taliban in orient to end socialist governments there), but they are not going to bomb anyone.

The extremist terrorists aren't even 1% of the world's muslims, I wonder if they even reach 0.001%. It's just an excuse for psychopaths and sadists, some others (the one that suicide) are just brain washed, just like people in sects like Manson's. It's all part of a very complicated geopolitical strategy, of course with a lot of economical interests.

Most muslims go by the following Quran words: "One who kills a person, kills whole humanity. One who saves a person, saves the whole humanity" (written from memory, don't remember the exact phrasing). So yeah, terrorism isn't islamic, and stop calling Daesh a state because that's only legitimating them.

Last but not least, do you want to help with the world situation? Stop voting politicians that sell weaponry to extremist Sunni / Wahhabist countries like Saudi Arabia, stop voting politicians that allow companies to buy their oil, stop voting politicians that allow what's happening in Turkey, stop voting politicians that train, arm, and give money to extremist forces just to disrupt local governments to increase their sphere of influence in middle east (I'm looking at you, countries that helped "moderate" rebels in Syria).

 

[veiva]

The extremist terrorists aren't even 1% of the world's muslims, I wonder if they even reach 0.001%. It's just an excuse for psychopaths and sadists, some others (the one that suicide) are just brain washed, just like people in sects like Manson's. It's all part of a very complicated geopolitical strategy, of course with a lot of economical interests.

Prefix: I'd like to note I agree it's not directly or even primarily Islam that causes instability in the Middle East and the rise of these terrorist groups. Poverty, poor education, and desperation caused and/or exemplified by gross misjudgments by various Western powers much more to blame, as well as the influence of fundamentalist governments (like Saudi Arabia, as you note). If it weren't Islam, it would be another religion or even some kind of non-religious ideology.

Muslim terrorists are a minority, no doubt. But, in large part, it's individuals who sympathize in some major part with the views that enable extremist Islam propagation, and they account for much more than 1% of the population (and for the record, there's somewhere between 30,000 and 200,000 active ISIS militants depending on what intelligence you use and 10,000 ISIS militants have been killed in a nine-month period as of June 2015, let alone the numbers of other Islam terrorist groups; 0.001% of Muslims is only 16,000 people). A happy, content individual is very unlikely to turn to extremist movements because it would be contrary to remaining happy and content, regardless of their sympathies. However, ISIS doesn't recruit happy Muslims living peacefully in integrated communities; they more often recruit the destitute and hopeless.

A significant amount of Muslims hold anti-secular views, which impedes when integrating in the West. The often-cited Pew study illustrates this. For example, there's an alarming amount of Muslims in a notable amount of Muslim-dominated countries that support execution of apostates. Among Muslims in Egypt who support Sharia law (upwards of 74% Egyptian Muslims believe it should apply to all and 24% believe it should apply to just Muslims), 86% support executing apostates. Egypt has 80 million Muslims.

It's similar to how white supremacy and the destitution of blacks operated in the South. Only a minor portion of whites--or even KKK members (upwards of 4 million members at its peak in the 1920s)--actually committed atrocities. But the passive support among whites enabled systematic oppression of blacks. We shouldn't tolerate racist ideologies, even on an individual level, simply because it promotes greater injustices, as is in this example. Similarly, we shouldn't tolerate fundamentalist ideologies, because it does much the same, especially within our communities.

At the same time, there are many Muslims, especially those already integrated into Western society or from wealthier communities, who hold much more liberal and secular views. The Pew study highlights the liberal/secular nature of American Muslims, for example. American mosques are notorious (in a good way!) for stemming remotely fundamentalist ideology. But America only accounts for some 7 million of the 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide, while more fundamentalist views are held in majority-Muslim countries with some non-fractional multiple of that.

So yes, it's not reasonable to claim "Muslims are terrorists" based on the actions of fundamentalists or "Islam is a religion of war and extremism" based on views held by some portion of Muslims or passages from the Quran. Just like it's not reasonable to claim "Christians are terrorists" because of modern and historical terrorism carried about by Christian fundamentalists or "Christianity is a religion of war and extremism" based on views held by some portion of Christians or passages from the Bible. However, simply doing the opposite is just as useless or dangerous. The world is very gray.

 

[Cresselia~~]

Putin Reveals 4O Countries That Are Funding ISIS At The G20 Summit
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/11/16/breaking-putin-reveals-4o-countries-that-are-funding-isis-at-the-g20-summit/

Russian President Vladamir Putin has revealed information that Western media won’t air. Two months ago he provided information illustrating that ISIS is funded by the West (you can watch that video here), and now he is making more noise at the G20 summit that’s currently taking place in Turkey, where he has supposedly shared intelligence data on Islamic State financing with his G20 colleagues.

To be honest, I'm not surprised at all. I wouldn't call this breaking news.
News from Asian countries have always been talking about similar stories like this, even when 9/11 first happened, it was already reported to be like that.
That's why a lot of us refuse to change our facebook avatars into French flag colours.
(But I chose to change it because I believe that those dead people are innocent, not because I've taken a political side.)
Nothing's supposed to be surprising when it comes to politics.

PS: Those who choose to hate Muslims because of these attacks are the stupidest scums on Earth.

 

[QuickBH]

Cresselia~~ This is why I have a problem with any politician who just claim that "oh, ISIS is a huge problem" while not addressing the fact that we're funding these scumbags. I'll not mention any specifics to avoid changing the conversation, but so far in America I've only seen two candidates running for president that have mentioned the fact that we're funding these troops that slaughter civilians and that we need to stop giving funding to these guys, and those two candidates are the only candidates I could see myself voting for. I want to end this crap and the best I can do is at least try to help end it with my vote. I suggest others who are 18+ to do the same if they want to stop it is by voting for these politicians that are against the West funding ISIS. (I believe Joim mentioned this as well, but it's nice to emphasize)

 

[Joim]

However, ISIS doesn't recruit happy Muslims living peacefully in integrated communities; they more often recruit the destitute and hopeless.

While I mostly agree with your post, there's something to note: many ISIS members were middle class and well educated young men. Jihadi John is a good example, he attended college, years later he was beheading those he had studied with. It's not only a problem of poor and marginalized people.

 

[veiva]

While I mostly agree with your post, there's something to note: many ISIS members were middle class and well educated young men. Jihadi John is a good example, he attended college, years later he was beheading those he had studied with. It's not only a problem of poor and marginalized people.

Of course it's not only a problem for the poor. Prior to the propagation of ISIS, Osama bin Laden came from a rich family and we very well know what he did. The problem of terrorism stemming from the Middle East as well as destabilization of the region has a million and one compacting factors, none of which is the overwhelming cause, but all of which lead to what is going on today. Heck, even anthropogenic climate change is a factor. Some factors are easier to highlight and quantify, like funding terrorist groups and Western imperialism; others are more nuanced but still, in some way, noticeably relevant, like the severity of beliefs held by portions of Muslims and the issue of poverty and education; and others are relevant but indiscernibly so, like environmental factors.

But I wasn't elaborating on all these factors, just the issue of values held by a significant (not necessarily majority, but also not minority) portion of Muslims. Hence why I quoted just an excerpt of your post.

edit: I see where you are coming from, I think. Doesn't help that the "Prefix" bit of my initial post doesn't even seem to be complete; the bit about poverty isn't even a complete sentence or thought. That's what I get for adding it afterwards. Well, I suppose this post better serves that purpose now.

 

[verbatim]

Putin Reveals 4O Countries That Are Funding ISIS At The G20 Summit

LITERALLY the first link on that page.

US Intelligence Officer: “Every Single Terrorist Attack In US Was A False Flag Attack”

 

[mertyville]

I am suprised that so many people fall for that common tactic.

What are the main ingridience for Terrorism? Oppression and more Terrorism. That is why Europe and America was fearing the people in Egypt after their dictator died, because the millitary support and weapons were send from those places to Egypt and not because they are muslim.

What happened within 24 hours after the Paris attack? France bombarded Syria targeting ISIS Terrorist and casually killing above 300 innocent people. Ironicly nobody cares about those, since they are all muslim hence potencial terrorist. So France is killing them for the sake of peace...oh wait?

Let us assume all muslim are evil (because the quran is appearently evil), don't you think that the muslim would win an all out war if they actually wanted to not simply out of the number of muslim (the majority of muslim don't live in Europe or Amerika but on the other 2 continents) but they would also target one of the many nuclear reactors in Europe and simply kamikaze throught (killing fellow muslim but it was for the sake of "peace").

I also can't believe that because of that attack, even a German politician is saying things like "if things are getting out of hand war for "peace"" because nobody is profiting from war but the weapon industry.

Edit:
in short, we are justifying murder (or war which is a much nicer term for murder) because of murder. The guy who killed the 300 people in paris died with them, so whom to punish for it?

 

[Joim]

What happened within 24 hours after the Paris attack? France bombarded Syria targeting ISIS Terrorist and casually killing above 300 innocent people.

[citation needed]

 

[veiva]

I am suprised that so many people fall for that common tactic.Let us assume all muslim are evil (because the quran is appearently evil), don't you think that the muslim would win an all out war if they actually wanted to not simply out of the number of muslim (the majority of muslim don't live in Europe or Amerika but on the other 2 continents) but they would also target one of the many nuclear reactors in Europe and simply kamikaze throught (killing fellow muslim but it was for the sake of "peace").

I don't understand your post; it's all over the place and makes certain claims that I've seen no evidence for. Especially this bolded bit.

Even if terrorists had some bomb or attack vector of incredible power, a nuclear power plant is incredibly resistant to attacks it would be incredibly useless making it a poor target. Nuclear reactors have safety mechanisms that prevent meltdowns; depending on the exact case, these mechanisms are completely automated, so "an inside job" sort of approach wouldn't work (for the record, Chernobyl is an exception and was made possible by poor safety/engineering standards [budget cuts] on top of a Soviet official who had never been told no). Similarly, an outside attack would end up being useless with the containment wall remaining virtually unscathed. Even a nuclear attack (i.e., the most powerful weapons we have) would be pretty pointless, as the wall would most probably resist it (even at "ground zero" in Hiroshima and Nagasaki bunkers remained in some form, and they were not built to survive nuclear attacks assuredly).

In a nutshell, this bolded point of yours is incredibly absurd and doesn't help your post in any way.

 

[JES]

I am suprised that so many people fall for that common tactic.

What happened within 24 hours after the Paris attack? France bombarded Syria targeting ISIS Terrorist and casually killing above 300 innocent people. Ironicly nobody cares about those, since they are all muslim hence potencial terrorist. So France is killing them for the sake of peace...oh wait?

That is exactly what enrages me. Not only did we just kill 300 people who I saw as possible recruitments to our side (and could be used to counter ISIS propaganda by, I don't know, telling everyone how terrible it is to live under their iron fisted idea of a government), but it also gives other people all the more reason to not trust, or even hate us, and support ISIS's mission to reinforce this "us or them" mentality.

Do they WANT the situation to spiral out of control further? Do they want more people to join ISIS? Because that is pretty much what they are doing!!!

And I swear, when the politicians start saying that they need us to give up our more of our liberty so they can better protect us, I'm going to tell them to take their suggestions, and stick them up their collective asses, and up the asses of the arms manufacturers who are going to benefit from this! It's bad enough that we no longer have privacy, and I've probably been labeled by some government or military organization as a possible subversive element! If this is part of a conspiracy to justify a police state, then I wouldn't be surprised if I end up shot!

 

[QuickBH]

Uhh guys, where the hell did you get the information that France just killed 300 civilians?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/middleeast/france-raqqa-airstrikes-on-isis/
According to this and the others I have read, there have been no civilian casualties, so unless you have any evidence to prove me wrong, this whole 300 civilians thing has 0 connection to reality.

 

[veiva]

And I swear, when the politicians start saying that they need us to give up our more of our liberty so they can better protect us, I'm going to tell them to take their suggestions, and stick them up their collective asses, and up the asses of the arms manufacturers who are going to benefit from this! It's bad enough that we no longer have privacy, and I've probably been labeled by some government or military organization as a possible subversive element! If this is part of a conspiracy to justify a police state, then I wouldn't be surprised if I end up shot!

This is one of the largest aspects of the "war on terror" that I dislike. I have certain predispositions towards incredibly paranoid thinking. Activities I enjoyed included potentially suspect computer activities (reverse engineering, security) as well as unrelated things (nuclear energy/technology, radical political views). I fear my own government using data collection and acting on it for the wrong reasons against me in the potential future. However, I don't fear being a victim of a foreign or even domestic terrorist attack (the logistics or feasibility of such a thing, especially considering where I live [within walking distance of one of the larger military installations in the US, Fort Bragg], make it incredibly unlikely).

 

[verbatim]

Islam is not a religion of terrorism, but it is the religion of terrorists. Islam contains a violent extremist sect in a way that other religions do not - you would have to be an idiot to blame all Muslims for terrorism, but you would also have to ignore the evidence to claim there is no correlation. Other religions have totally done this in the past, and it was equally bad then.

By that logic

Christianity is THE religion of terrorists by way of the Lord's Resistance Army.

Buddhism is THE religion of terrorists because of the Bodu Bala Sena anti-muslim extremist group.

What about the specific targeting of Muslims in terrorist attacks in the Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre, or by Anders Brevik in Norway.

One of the WORST things about this is seeing people DEMAND that Muslims around the world condemn the actions of people they have never met and share no genealogical heritage with. You don't see American Jews apologizing to the rest of the world for a murderer that claims to share a Religion with them and none of the Christian churches apologized for the massacre of 77 people, it's not because they're hiding from something, it's because they have NOTHING to do with these people committing these horrible acts, and the Muslim's in America, in Europe, in all walks of the world that have NOTHING to do with ISIS shouldn't be put on the spot because of assholes who try to identify with them.


All those scary could be terrorists that are coming from Syria to the United States, you know, the one's that are running AWAY from Islamic Extremism, the one's that have to prove that they are NOT affiliated with Islamic Extremism, the one's that get screened for months and manage to not be killed for that period of time, they ONLY connection they have with ISIS is that they're trying not to get shot by them. Anyone who's advocating the banning of refugees on Religious or geological principles is trying to sentence INNOCENT people to death on the pure basis of bigotry.


Everyone always asks, "how stupid are these people, why would they blow themselves up". The truth of the matter is that because of the bigots that play into their hand, they are winning when they die. Every time their is a major terrorist attack attributed to Islam, the persecution of innocent, peaceful, hard working Muslims skyrockets.


People ask why so many people work for terrorists, the truth of the matter is that, when they run away from the hate and persecution of their homeland, leave everything behind, then get firebombed the INSTANT they get to a European country, they have no where to go but back.


It's because of bigotry that the world is the way it is right now, but it's bigotry on both sides of the aisle. The instant you allow yourself to succumb to the same irrational hate that causes people to blow themselves, you start helping them, justifying their actions.


/rant

 

[QuickBH]

verbatim I kind of agree with you, (except on the Syrian refugees part, it's still a we don't know whom we're bringing in, but I'm willing to bet a good portion are innocents) but whom the hell demands that every Muslim apologizes for this crime? Besides for a few crazies, nobody really does that. Seriously, where the hell is this narrative and, as a Middle Eastern in a proud Muslim family, why the hell do we not get this on social media or in real life? Why do my Muslim friends not experience this, and the demanding of Muslims apologizing isn't brought up by people giving talks on (mainstream) news media?

I do however, see vocal minorities (progressives/sjw's/feminists) flat out say that stuff like ISIS is just trying to spread a good message or flat out bring this directly to the fault of the civilians, blaming "Islamophobia" and using it as why these people lost their lives, even though no evidence of that has been shown and more goes with the fact that these bombers believed that killing people in the name of religion will fuel happiness in their narcissistic lifestyle. But I know that these people are batshit insane and are very few in comparison to the whole world, but me seeing significantly more of that makes me believe that that narrative is flat out false.

 

[Sapientia]

Honestly, it doesn't even matter if Islam is the "religion of terrorists", because 99% of daesh fighters aren't theologians, but often don't even pratice Islam / have an idea about it. Some of them even need "Islam for Dummies" before joining daesh. This is not at all an islamic problem, but a social problem.

People going to Syria to fight are basically the same as people who do school shootings: People who "lost" in society, want acknowlodgement and their "15 minutes of fame". Typical radical people are often alone and not very successful and meet people who accept them and give them a task. This applies to Nazis, but also to Salafists and any other type of radical movement. That's the problem we have to solve: Social problems in our society that cause people to move to Syria and cut off heads. Because this "homegrown terrorists" are our biggest problem

 

[verbatim]

except on the Syrian refugees part, it's still a we don't know whom we're bringing in, but I'm willing to bet a good portion are innocents

They key word here is all, all of them are innocent, that's kind of a perquisite to passing a year of background checks.

A Department of Homeland Security official stated that there is no evidence that refugees accepted into the U.S. are more likely to commit terrorism than anyone else in the country. In fact, there have been no recorded terrorist attacks committed by refugees. The U.S. has admitted 1.5 million migrants from the Middle East since September 11, 2001. The terrorist attacks that have occurred since 9/11 have been committed either by American natives or non-refugee immigrants.

 

[QuickBH]

They key word here is all, all of them are innocent, that's kind of a perquisite to passing a year of background checks.

The main question is, though, is that do we really know the backgrounds of these immigrants? It's common knowledge at this point that U.S. is currently against the Syrian government, so there is no intelligent sharing on these individuals. There is no way for us to vet them because we don't have the tools to know their background. I wish we had, but we really don't.

I'm not willing to (try to) debunk the Homeland Security statistic, so I will take it for face value as true and assume that no tricks were played to skew the statistics. However, it is a moot point. Even if there is no correlation back at 9/11, they're could very well be one now, and especially since we realized that at least one of the terrorists in Paris was related to Syria. I understand that that's vague, but even so, it's still important to be cautious on these people as individuals, we simply do not know their background, and just like with any immigrant, if we don't know their background, it's quite risky letting them in..