Individual factions at war and constant power struggles don't negate that the entire religion in and of itself is barbaric at its very core.
In fact, it only further proves it.
Gun attack on French magazine kills 12
- Thread starter acidie
- Start date
Individual factions at war and constant power struggles don't negate that the entire religion in and of itself is barbaric at its very core.
In fact, it only further proves it.
I am not talking about war, I am talking about jihadists terrorist attacks.
Ok...?
Those "jihadist terrorist attacks" you're referring to are a direct result of power struggles between warring factions.
Believe what you want, man. You've got your mind made up and me saying anything isn't going to change your mind.
Besides, I'm only saying what I suspect you already know but don't want to believe anyway. Just like the rest of the PC, kumbaya, "live and let live" people out there.
"No, only a small minority of muslims are radical terrorists! The rest are so peace loving and totally assimilate themselves and live peacefully alongside Western culture!"
Yeah, no. Not buying it. The entire religion is based on spreading it indefinitely by any means necessary. Terror, intimidation, gradual encroachment...whatever it takes.
Well you are wrong. Go and do some research about it. You are again taking a standpoint based on rhetoric and ignorance. It is a FACT that jihadists kill more Muslims than westerners even taking into account waring factions as you put it.
I will not believe what I want to believe, I will believe in facts that I have bothered to read up on and learn more about. Coincidentally thats why I am also an atheist.
I certainly don't believe in "live and let live", I firmly believe that all the terrorists need to be caught, tried and executed, together with inciters to the attacks too. I also believe that sharia law is disgusting and that western politicians are ridiculous for not stamping out this growing virus. I also don't believe that Muslims should have their own areas, schools etc. But then again I don't believe that of any religion or peoples. I also don't believe in tax breaks or public money being funnelled into any religion. Its all reprehensible.
The problem with demonising Muslims as a whole is that it is widening the divide and making communities more and more insular and fuelling more distrust and fear. This allows the "this and them" mentality to build up and makes it much easier for people to be radicalised.
Islam is not the only religion that orders its followers to spread it like a virus. Look at African missionaries, look at the fucking idiots knocking on my door at 8am yesterday morning. And if you are going to say that Islam is the only one who does it forcefully you need to educate yourself. Here is a good start Forced conversion (note how recent).
I will not believe what I want to believe, I will believe in facts that I have bothered to read up on and learn more about. Coincidentally thats why I am also an atheist.
I certainly don't believe in "live and let live", I firmly believe that all the terrorists need to be caught, tried and executed, together with inciters to the attacks too. I also believe that sharia law is disgusting and that western politicians are ridiculous for not stamping out this growing virus. I also don't believe that Muslims should have their own areas, schools etc. But then again I don't believe that of any religion or peoples. I also don't believe in tax breaks or public money being funnelled into any religion. Its all reprehensible.
The problem with demonising Muslims as a whole is that it is widening the divide and making communities more and more insular and fuelling more distrust and fear. This allows the "this and them" mentality to build up and makes it much easier for people to be radicalised.
Islam is not the only religion that orders its followers to spread it like a virus. Look at African missionaries, look at the fucking idiots knocking on my door at 8am yesterday morning. And if you are going to say that Islam is the only one who does it forcefully you need to educate yourself. Here is a good start Forced conversion (note how recent).
Believe me, I wish I were. Unfortunately, I'm not.
Oh, I have. I've read entire sections of the Qur'an with unbiased cliff notes to see what was in there. Curiosity got the best of me while I was deployed back in the day. Again, I wish I was wrong. But I'm not.
They want to be insular. Everything else is an abomination. (their prophet's words, not mine)
White guilt much? Yes, let's take the blame for them wanting to eradicate us. *golf clap*
1. You have a shitload of posts defending the "religion of peace" saying "they're not all like that!" and then you turn around and admit they order their followers to spread like a virus.
2. We aren't talking about other religions. We're talking about Islam. I've never said anything positive about other religions in this thread either. Every religion has to grow or it dies. That's the nature of the beast.
I'm not a fan of any of it. But only one major religion teaches it's hundreds of millions of children worldwide that anyone that doesn't also practice it's religion is rightly dispensable. (again, their prophet's words, not mine).
I don't have to dig up some obscure Wikipedia article to make my point. It's on the front page of CNN (and every other major news outlet) right this second.
That what I have been saying all along. This is a RELIGION problem, not just a Muslim problem, and has been for thousands of years.
And I am not blaming terrorism on whites marginalising moderate muslims I am saying that there is probably a cause and effect on the growing problem. It is just common sense, no matter how much it goes against current sentiment.
If we stop demonising all muslims will terrorism cease? I doubt it. But if we don't it will certainly become an even greater problem and threat than it already is.
And I am not blaming terrorism on whites marginalising moderate muslims I am saying that there is probably a cause and effect on the growing problem. It is just common sense, no matter how much it goes against current sentiment.
If we stop demonising all muslims will terrorism cease? I doubt it. But if we don't it will certainly become an even greater problem and threat than it already is.
We partly agree here. However, there's only one religion that's killing each other and others at a fever pitch right this second. And it sure isn't Buddhism.
Arguably even worse, there's only one religion who's violence has had a direct impact on the daily lives of everyone on Earth.
Every country on Earth has had to make policy, security, and logistical changes in response to Islamic radicalism. Every. Single. One.
That is a Muslim problem. Period. And no matter how anyone slices it, what is written in the book they ALL follow advocates this violence.
So until some major edits are made to their entire doctrine (I don't see that happening any time soon), this will ALWAYS be a problem.
Turkish president accuses 'the West' of being behind Charlie Hebdo attacks and deliberately 'blaming Muslims'
'French citizens carry out such a massacre, and Muslims pay the price,' Erdogan said yesterday.
'That's very meaningful ... Doesn't their intelligence organisation track those who leave prison?
'Games are being played with the Islamic world, we need to be aware of this.'
'The West's hypocrisy is obvious. As Muslims, we've never taken part in terrorist massacres. Behind these lie racism, hatespeech and Islamophobia,'
As Muslims, we've never taken part in terrorist massacres.
As Muslims, we've never taken part in terrorist massacres.
source
'French citizens carry out such a massacre, and Muslims pay the price,' Erdogan said yesterday.
'That's very meaningful ... Doesn't their intelligence organisation track those who leave prison?
'Games are being played with the Islamic world, we need to be aware of this.'
'The West's hypocrisy is obvious. As Muslims, we've never taken part in terrorist massacres. Behind these lie racism, hatespeech and Islamophobia,'
As Muslims, we've never taken part in terrorist massacres.
As Muslims, we've never taken part in terrorist massacres.
source
Europe' '-' 'Police' 'raid' 'Turkish' 'daily' 'publishing' 'Charlie' 'Hebdo' '-' 'France' '24
And our friend Tayp erdogan were a part of the march in Paris.
No doubt countries of Islam really push for free speech
And our friend Tayp erdogan were a part of the march in Paris.
No doubt countries of Islam really push for free speech
Again you are saying its a Muslim problem and I am saying its not, its a fundamentalist problem. You are insinuating that as all the terrorists are Muslims therefor it is Islam that is bad and therefor ALL muslims. You cannot draw that conclusion.
You are saying that the interpretation (thats all it is) that you read on the koran says to do bad things to others, that that is the interpretation of all muslims (at least the majority of them) but that is just not correct. The Muslims who call Islam the religion of peace are obviously not interpreting things the same way as you and are certainly not going around killing people.
Just to be clear I do not for a second believe Islam is the religion of peace, nor do I think it about Judaism nor Christianity.
Eh. Islam sucks.
But peaceful people don't suck.
I work with a LOT of peaceful, 1st generation Muslims, so obviously I don't buy into the hypothesis that all (or most) Muslims are ticking time bombs waiting to explode. Likewise, I see successful instances of multiculturalism on a daily fucking basis. It can work.
To me, this all boils down to childhood trauma and culturally reinforced memes that contribute to the cycle of childhood trauma.
Much like America isn't equal with regard to socioeconomic conditions, education, and crime rate, the Middle East (and other Muslim-heavy areas) isn't uniform in the makeup of its population.
If your country or city is experiencing an influx of violent, radical Muslims, it's probably because they're coming from war-torn, impoverished, highly volatile areas. They carry their baggage over with them. That's not an indictment of their race and religion so much as it is the viral nature of trauma.
I guess my point is this: Don't extrapolate specific instances of Islamic violence to all Muslims in general.
It's like if Sweden were to judge all Americans based on their experience with troubled US immigrants who came to their country from the most violent parts of Chicago. Would it be right to condemn all Americans based on that sample size? Likewise, would they be justified in isolating capitalism/consumerism as the causal factors for WHY Americans acted in such an antisocial manner?
...
Be cautious who you let into your country, but don't let yourself become radical in the process.
Sound reasonable?
But peaceful people don't suck.
I work with a LOT of peaceful, 1st generation Muslims, so obviously I don't buy into the hypothesis that all (or most) Muslims are ticking time bombs waiting to explode. Likewise, I see successful instances of multiculturalism on a daily fucking basis. It can work.
To me, this all boils down to childhood trauma and culturally reinforced memes that contribute to the cycle of childhood trauma.
Much like America isn't equal with regard to socioeconomic conditions, education, and crime rate, the Middle East (and other Muslim-heavy areas) isn't uniform in the makeup of its population.
If your country or city is experiencing an influx of violent, radical Muslims, it's probably because they're coming from war-torn, impoverished, highly volatile areas. They carry their baggage over with them. That's not an indictment of their race and religion so much as it is the viral nature of trauma.
I guess my point is this: Don't extrapolate specific instances of Islamic violence to all Muslims in general.
It's like if Sweden were to judge all Americans based on their experience with troubled US immigrants who came to their country from the most violent parts of Chicago. Would it be right to condemn all Americans based on that sample size? Likewise, would they be justified in isolating capitalism/consumerism as the causal factors for WHY Americans acted in such an antisocial manner?
...
Be cautious who you let into your country, but don't let yourself become radical in the process.
Sound reasonable?
You're contradicting yourself an awful lot Nickster. It's OK, I think a lot of people are struggling right now with how they feel and what they believe in and no one wants to be labeled a racist or bigot.
So if Islam is the antitheses of peace, then what does that make its followers? If RELIGION is the problem, then Islam is a problem. I don't hate all Muslims, but I hate those that would wish me dead. Unfortunately, whatever percentage of Muslims that is, whichever we label as "radical" or "extremist", that still means there's millions upon millions that I cannot come to terms with. Given their penchant for hiding in plain sight, that leaves me suspicious of the whole lot. It's a sad state of affairs, but it is what it is.
Do you think these last 4 (I'm including the girl here) attackers, or say those that bombed London, Madrid, or flew those planes into the twin towers had any friends or family? Do you think they would be able to completely hide their views or what they were up to from those people? I think it would be rather difficult. So then how many other Muslims were complicit in what they did? Surely many people had to know what they were up to, but did nothing to stop them. That's a HUGE part of the problem.
Contradictions?
Where did I say that I thought Islam was the antitheses of peace? I said that I didn't think it was the religion of peace, this doesn't follow that it is the antitheses.
If religion is the problem it DOESN'T mean Islam is the problem, it means RELIGION is the problem, including all the others. But at the same time I am not going to blame all religious people for the attacks. According to your logic I should though.
There are probably A LOT of muslims complicit in what they did, but again it does not logically flow because of that that muslims are bad and should be demonised.
Where did I say that I thought Islam was the antitheses of peace? I said that I didn't think it was the religion of peace, this doesn't follow that it is the antitheses.
If religion is the problem it DOESN'T mean Islam is the problem, it means RELIGION is the problem, including all the others. But at the same time I am not going to blame all religious people for the attacks. According to your logic I should though.
There are probably A LOT of muslims complicit in what they did, but again it does not logically flow because of that that muslims are bad and should be demonised.
the basic problem in this thread is that you haven't adequately proved the bolded part. you've "stated it" repeatedly, but your support of that statement has been in generalizations, absolutes, and circular arguments.
ok... here's one:
Yep, and you're doing it again.
If it's not the religion of peace, then it's not a peaceful religion. Therefore it is the opposite of peaceful.
If religion is the problem, then Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. are all part of the problem. Therefore they are each a problem according to what you are saying.
Religion is a problem according to you. Therefore it follows anyone that believes in a particular religion is part of that problem. If we don't demonize them for being complicit in 99.9% of the world's problems, then what should we do with them?
I guess I need to make things a little simpler for you to understand so I'll give an example.
This is an example a little bit closer to my home.
During the 80s the IRA (Irish Republican Army) were committing terrorist attacks against british targets, killing a lot of innocent people. It may come as a surprise to you (if you are American it certainly will) that the VAST majority of Irish people did not support the IRA. That didn't stop a large number of the British public from labelling Irish people terrorist scum. Now, among those normal people there were (and are) a large proportion who believe that the north of Ireland shouldn't be under british rule. The difference is that they weren't blowing people up and were not supporting the actions of the IRA.
Before you jump all over me and make an illogical connection in the above example I AM NOT saying that the IRA and the "Irish Problem" is the same as the current terrorist problem. I am just showing an example of how your flow of logic would justify the british demonising the Irish, even though that is ridiculous.
This is an example a little bit closer to my home.
During the 80s the IRA (Irish Republican Army) were committing terrorist attacks against british targets, killing a lot of innocent people. It may come as a surprise to you (if you are American it certainly will) that the VAST majority of Irish people did not support the IRA. That didn't stop a large number of the British public from labelling Irish people terrorist scum. Now, among those normal people there were (and are) a large proportion who believe that the north of Ireland shouldn't be under british rule. The difference is that they weren't blowing people up and were not supporting the actions of the IRA.
Before you jump all over me and make an illogical connection in the above example I AM NOT saying that the IRA and the "Irish Problem" is the same as the current terrorist problem. I am just showing an example of how your flow of logic would justify the british demonising the Irish, even though that is ridiculous.
