Islamic Terrorism in the West ( Mega thread)

[tomahawk6]

Everyone living in the US is subject to US law no matter what your background is.So why should there be a seperate justice system for say muslims ? It undermines our society.If you live in Iran you are subject to their law.WE fought a cold war to oppose communist expansion and a threat to our way of life.Now we have another threat to our way of life - radical islam and its goal of world domination.In this case they are using our own civil rights law against us.Its insidious and people need to wake up.

 

[AbdullahD]

I agree with you 100%. At the same time I find suggesting not all Muslims are terrorists (while clearly true) is another one of those automatic responses after an attack.  I don't think most people need to be reminded not all Muslims are terrorists, the ones who DO believe that aren't in a position to have their mind changed anyways.


I would say one of my biggest issues or concerns about Islam (and though it Muslims) is how quickly "average" every day peace loving law abiding Muslims seem ready to turn ultra violent.  Burn a bible in front of a church surrounded by it's congregation and you may get called an ******* but that's probably it. Good chance some of them will want to hug you. Try that with a Quran and you may very well get ripped apart.

Look at Farkhunda Malikzada. She was a 27 year old Afghan woman living in Kabul who was murdered by a mob in March of 2015. We're not talking about hard core Taliban but "average" citizens. They thought she burned a Quran, a mob formed and the crowd stomped on her, kicked her in the head and started ripping at her clothes. The local police tried in vain to remove her but they were overwhelmed by the crowd.  She was then beaten into unconsciousness, ran over with a car, dragged  300 feet with the car then they set her on fire and watched her burn. The crowd apparently used parts of their own clothing to keep the fire going because the womans own clothes were too soaked in blood to stay alight.
It was found she never burned anything.  She was simply accused of it by a mullah with whom she was arguing with.

Islam goes from 0 to BURN THE HERETIC in seconds and I believe that's what sets it apart from the majority of other religions and one of the reasons it rubs so many people the wrong way.

Thank you for the explanation, These so called "Mullahs" doing these things are a disease and need to be removed.

Anyone who exercises that kind of power in that way, needs to be removed. But I also dont think it is just a Muslim thing, we are just the latest incarnation of it.

Now I respect your view and feel no need to field a response to it other  then this;

If you hear of a Steve Christianson (random name) commiting xyz attacks, in xyz country or a Klu Klux Klan Member commiting attacks... you will get a general feel for their ideology. So instead of saying a Christian extremist, saying a KKK extremist did xyz crime.

Just like if you heard Osama Bin Fitnah an agent for the Daesh extremist in the middle east committed xyz crime. You inmediately understand who and what he is,  but you dont make Innocent people guilty by religious association.

These people need to be treated like petty criminals to undermine their legitimacy in the eyes of those susceptible to radicalization and by not calling them Islamic Terrorists, Muslims dont feel threatened and yet we can still work with the authorities on these issues because they directly affect us.

Sorry if im not being clear, I hope you understand.  Even if you think im dead wrong lol

Abdullah

p.s my edits are to add in news links for muslims speaking out

http://m.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Catholic-Muslim-leaders-respond-to-Brussels-6945611.php

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2016/03/22/louisville-muslims-speak-out-brussels-attack/82128032/

 

[PuckChaser]

If you hear of a Steve Christianson (random name) commiting xyz attacks, in xyz country or a Klu Klux Klan Member commiting attacks... you will get a general feel for their ideology. So instead of saying a Christian extremist, saying a KKK extremist did xyz crime.

Just like if you heard Osama Bin Fitnah an agent for the Daesh extremist in the middle east committed xyz crime. You inmediately understand who and what he is,  but you dont make Innocent people guilty by religious association.

These people need to be treated like petty criminals to undermine their legitimacy in the eyes of those susceptible to radicalization and by not calling them Islamic Terrorists, Muslims dont feel threatened and yet we can still work with the authorities on these issues because they directly affect us.

I have no problem if you called someone a Christian terrorist, because by definition they are using their messed up view of Christian faith to commit terrorist acts. Using an adjective onto terrorist simply subdivides a really large term that means someone using violence to further a religious ideology/political goal. Those people who bomb pipelines? Eco-terrorists. People who bomb Planned Parenthood? If a Jew walks into a Palestinian mosque and blows himself up, he should be labelled as a Judaic terrorist, because his ideology (right or wrong) drove him to do that.

Just because someone uses the term Islamic terrorist, doesn't mean that person thinks all Muslims are terrorists.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Agreed.  If you're committing a terrorist act in support of x,y or z then you're an x, y or z terrorist.  Period.

I have no problem with labelling you as such and vilifying you for it.  And better still, seeing you star in some predator porn because of it.

 

[AbdullahD]

Agreed.  If you're committing a terrorist act in support of x,y or z then you're an x, y or z terrorist.  Period.

I have no problem with labelling you as such and vilifying you for it.  And better still, seeing you star in some predator porn because of it.

I think we can get along

 

[jollyjacktar]

That's the refrain my distant cousin Rodney always asked.  To quote Barack,  "yes, we can" :nod:

 

[OldSolduer]

I think we can get along

Agreed.  If you're committing a terrorist act in support of x,y or z then you're an x, y or z terrorist.  Period.

I have no problem with labelling you as such and vilifying you for it.  And better still, seeing you star in some predator porn because of it.

I think we have some winners here. I'm with both of you.

And for the record....I like Predator Porn. Gunship porn is good too.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I think we have some winners here. I'm with both of you.

And for the record....I like Predator Porn. Gunship porn is good too.

Spooky porn is the best.

 

[The Bread Guy]

An interesting list of "commentary IA's" following terror attacks from someone who writes about Russian affairs:

Once again terrorism has struck Europe, this time in Brussels, and the whole cycle begins anew. What cycle am I referring to? I guess the best comparison is something like a morbid, shameful version of “the 12 Days of Christmas.”

We’ve got Americans who’ve never had a passport talking about how this could have been prevented if only Belgians could carry concealed handguns.

Out of those, a certain portion will explain what they would have done in that situation, had they been allowed to carry their concealed firearm.

There are the Islamophobes screaming “I told you so” while totally ignoring the fact that the vast majority of Muslims don’t do anything like this, and if even 1% of them were, European cities would look like a war zone.

We’ll get the over-compensating liberal who insists that this has “nothing to do with Islam at all.”

There’s the snarky little s**t who needs to remind everyone that changing your Facebook profile pic “doesn’t actually do anything,” because obviously anyone doing that believes that it does.

There’s the radical leftist demanding to know why these people didn’t change their profile pic to the flag of some other country that recently suffered a terrorist attack, just as they did as soon as they heard about the attack in Brussels.

Perhaps another leftist, maybe the same as the one above, will immediately remind everybody that this terrorism is the result of foreign policy, specifically that of the US, because otherwise nobody would know. And yes, I’ve already received reports of folks like this blaming the attacks on Belgian colonialism in the Congo. You read that correctly.

You’ve got Russian political figures rubbing their hands with glee over the misfortune of Europeans. And before you claim that there wasn’t enough sympathy over the Russian Sinai airliner bombing- keep in mind that the Russian government took a long time to even acknowledge the possibility that it was a terrorist attack even as Western governments were strongly suggesting that terrorism was the cause of the disaster.

And I don’t even need to check to know that hundreds if not thousands of people were declaring the attacks to be a “false flag” staged by the government even before the blood dried ...

And on that false flag thing?  Sure enough, it's already out there via the folks at globalresearch.ca  :facepalm:

 

[Jarnhamar]

Spooky porn is the best.

Took me a second to get that. i was thinking, like that guy with the mask in scream videos?

An interesting list of "commentary IA's" following terror attacks

That list seems bang on.

 

[tomahawk6]

I was having trouble agreeing with the author until this paragraph.

I don’t want to overstate the threat of ISIS. Movements just as barbaric and destructive as theirs have lasted far longer and probably done more damage. But it seems that they’re the only people who believe in anything, as horrible as that anything is. Maybe the reason we haven’t smacked them down yet is that we have become so cynical about our values, so disconnected from them, that we can’t muster up the courage to stand up for them.

 

[Kilo_302]

A Gwynne Dyer column on the threat of terrorism. It would serve us well to take a deep breath and think before reacting to attacks like the ones in Belgium.

elgium may be a boring country, but it still seems extreme for a Belgian politician to say the country is now living through its darkest days since the end of the Second World War. Can any country really be so lucky that the worst thing that has happened to it in the past 70 years is a couple of bombs that killed 34 people?

Respect for the innocent people killed by terrorists does not require us to take leave of our senses. What is happening now is a media feeding frenzy that has become almost a statutory requirement after every terrorist attack in the West.

The fact that I am writing about the bombs in Brussels contributes to the delusion that they are not only nasty, but also important.

It is the volume of coverage that determines an event's perceived importance, not what is actually said about it. But if we in the media are compelled to write about an event like the Belgian bombs anyway, what can we truthfully say about it that will not feed the panic?

The first thing, after every terrorist attack, is to stress that media coverage of the attack is its primary purpose, indeed, almost its only purpose.

Second, we have to put the alleged "threat" of such terrorist attacks into perspective. People rarely do this for themselves, because once events are beyond the range of their daily experience most people cannot distinguish between what is truly dangerous and what is only dramatic and frightening.

It does help to remind people that terrorism is a statistically insignificant risk, that they are in much greater danger of dying from a fall in the bath than of dying in a terrorist attack.

And finally, a little dispassionate analysis quickly deflates the notion that terrorism is "an existential threat" (as British Prime Minister David Cameron once said). For example, the recent terrorist attacks in Europe largely have been confined to French-speaking countries.

Muslim immigrants in France and Belgium mostly come from Arab countries, and especially from North Africa, where French is the second language. Radical Islamism is much weaker in the rest of the Muslim world, so Germany (whose Muslims are mostly Turkish) and Britain (where they are mostly of South Asian origin) generate fewer Islamist extremists than the francophone countries, and face fewer terrorist attacks.

France's and Belgium's Muslim citizens also are less integrated into the wider community. French housing policy has dumped most of the immigrants in high-rise, low-income developments at the edge of the cities, often beyond the end of the metro lines. Unemployed, poorly educated and culturally isolated, their young men are more easily recruited into extremist groups.

There is no terrorist army in Belgium, just a bunch of young men making it up as they go along. For example, the Brussels attacks happened four days after the arrest of Salah Abdeslam, the sole survivor of the gang who carried out the attacks on the Bataclan arena and the Stade de France in Paris last November.

Back in Brussels after failing to use his suicide vest in the Paris attack, Abdeslam was a psychological wreck, and his Islamist colleagues undoubtedly expected that once in police custody he would sing like a canary. So they decided to launch another attack and go to glory before the police kicked in their doors.

Prime Minister Charles Michel issued the usual incantation about Belgians being "determined to defend our freedom," but Belgium's freedom is not at risk. Terrorists are not an existential threat. They are a lethal nuisance, but no more than a nuisance.

 

[tomahawk6]

How should we be viewing attacks such as Paris and Brussels ? Take a deep breath you say ? These are attacks upon civilian populations designed to make people fear muslim terrorists.In the case of IS their goal is to add Europe to their caliphate.Of course they can resist or give in.Events in Syria and Iraq demonstrate that there can be no compromise if you want to keep your head on your shoulders.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Gwynne Dyer gets one thing right in my uninformed opinion:

          "The first thing, after every terrorist attack, is to stress that media coverage of the attack is its primary purpose, indeed, almost its only purpose."


First, I stress that my opinion is uninformed. I know little about terrorism, except that it is a tactic, not a belief system or a nationality; and I know even less, therefore, about counter-terrorism, except that it doesn't seem to be working very well; but I do know, personally, some people who do study terrorism and think about it a lot and, generally, I defer to their opinions.

But, second, it does seem rather intuitively obvious to me that since one of the main aims of terror attacks is to frighten people, then "communicating" the attack is, indeed, one of the most important outcomes. If there are no frantic media reports about the attacks in Brussels then the people in Antwerp, Bruges, Ghent and Liège will not be frightened, will they?

 

[tomahawk6]

The flip side is that an informed public can help law enforcement.

 

[Kilo_302]

How should we be viewing attacks such as Paris and Brussels ? Take a deep breath you say ? These are attacks upon civilian populations designed to make people fear muslim terrorists.In the case of IS their goal is to add Europe to their caliphate.Of course they can resist or give in.Events in Syria and Iraq demonstrate that there can be no compromise if you want to keep your head on your shoulders.

Just what E.R. said. Taking a deep breath and understanding they AREN'T an existential threat to the West, and don't let the media report it that way. If they're designed to make people fear terrorists, the second half of your post about the caliphate basically is helping their cause.

The fact is, many governments find ISIS a convenient bogeyman. It's clear no one in the West is serious about defeating terrorism. If we were, we wouldn't be using military force, and/or we definitely wouldn't be using it with such half-measures like the bombing campaign we've seen. I find it hard to believe policymakers haven't learned that military force just draws more recruits. We've been at this for 15 years. Maybe it's time for a new strategy.

 

[Journeyman]

Maybe it's time for a new strategy.

Suggestions?

 

[Flavus101]

Suggestions?

Exactly, people who say that something is messed up without offering up even a bit of a solution aren't much of a help.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Suggestions?

As John Powell suggests, we need to invite them to join us for drinks at the Dorchester.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/07/-sp-how-to-talk-to-terrorists-isis-al-qaida

Of course, we'll also need politicians with the guts to follow this example. Good luck with that.

 

[tomahawk6]

The Belgian government has admitted to making some mistakes. :-\

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/03/25/belgian-government-admits-errors-hindered-effort-to-stop-brussels-attacks.html?intcmp=hpbt1

"We are looking at large numbers of foreign fighters who have returned as potential terrorists," he said. "And we are faced with a strategic decision by the Islamic State to aggressively target Europe. These are all very challenging dimensions. As for how large the community is and who has been sent back - that is the golden question."