DescentBB

...the bombing at the Ariana Grande concert yesterday (23rd, May).



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnY3hZEUkAAeeED.jpg

We don't need to worry about ISIS. We've already got our own local murdering extremists to worry about. Alt-Right or Alt-Reich, it doesn't matter. They kill just the same.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... story.html

Hate begets hate. Wash, rinse, repeat.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

Tunnelcat wrote:We don't need to worry about ISIS. We've already got our own local murdering extremists to worry about. Alt-Right or Alt-Reich, it doesn't matter. They kill just the same.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... story.html

Hate begets hate. Wash, rinse, repeat.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

There is a difference TC... islamic hate is 1400 years old.

So? What do we as a western culture need to do? Do we try and wipe out an entire religion, a religion that's spread all over the world and has millions of followers, all in an attempt to eliminate that segment of violent rot within their ranks? Or do we try and find a way to work together and make some sort of lasting peace, because I sure as hell don't see a way to solve the problem at end of a gun or the dropping of bombs. Inciting more violence towards the followers of an entire religion will only make them close their ranks against us and further drive their hate right into the marrow of their bones like a cancer, then we'll have an ever bigger and deadlier problem to deal with than just a few suicide bombers.

Tunnelcat wrote:Inciting more violence towards the followers of an entire religion will only make them close their ranks against us and further drive their hate right into the marrow of their bones like a cancer, then we'll have an ever bigger and deadlier problem to deal with than just a few suicide bombers.

What can we do? We can stop the denial- the willful blindness to the threat.

Those muslims that do not reject shariah (the subjugation of women, the killing of apostates, the killing of homosexuals, the destruction and subversion of western values) should not be allowed into our country in the first place.

We can start there.

Islamist attacks in Europe...

Wow, makes you think...

...of what a comparable map would look like showing attacks involving western military in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lybia, Somalia, etc.

Vander wrote:Wow, makes you think...

...of what a comparable map would look like showing attacks involving western military in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lybia, Somalia, etc.

Yes, because western countries are totally at fault for all terrorism and it has nothing to do with a supremacist religious ideology indigenous to many of those countries.

Just a news article yesterday confirming over 100 civilian casualties from a US-led bombing mission in Afghanistan. But yes, terrorism is a totally one-sided affair!

Nightshade wrote:

Tunnelcat wrote:Inciting more violence towards the followers of an entire religion will only make them close their ranks against us and further drive their hate right into the marrow of their bones like a cancer, then we'll have an ever bigger and deadlier problem to deal with than just a few suicide bombers.

What can we do? We can stop the denial- the willful blindness to the threat.

Those muslims that do not reject shariah (the subjugation of women, the killing of apostates, the killing of homosexuals, the destruction and subversion of western values) should not be allowed into our country in the first place.

We can start there.

TopGun just gave the perfect example of why that won't work. If we as a nation continue to indiscriminately kill people, all in the name of stopping terrorism, which is why we're STILL in Iraq, all we're going to do is create even more terrorists. You can bet that any of those people who lost a family member in a U.S. bombing raid are now going to hate us with a vengeance. I would if I were in their shoes. Now Trump is considering boosting troop numbers in Afghanistan. If we haven't killed off the Taliban in the 16 years of war we've been mired in, we ain't ever going to succeed by this point.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/12/opinions/ ... index.html

Tunnelcat wrote:
TopGun just gave the perfect example of why that won't work. If we as a nation continue to indiscriminately kill people, all in the name of stopping terrorism, which is why we're STILL in Iraq, all we're going to do is create even more terrorists. You can bet that any of those people who lost a family member in a U.S. bombing raid are now going to hate us with a vengeance. I would if I were in their shoes. Now Trump is considering boosting troop numbers in Afghanistan. If we haven't killed off the Taliban in the 16 years of war we've been mired in, we ain't ever going to succeed by this point.

There are a whole lot of assumptions in the statements and opinions expressed by you, TG and Vander.

The assumption is: vengeance. Isn't vengeance the real driving force behind
he terrorism?

Not really. Did we see Vietnamese suicide bombers in the US or France during the Vietnam war? No.

Were there war crimes committed by US soldiers (some well documented)? Yes.

There were certainly more grounds for Vietnamese vengeance against a powerful country that killed many of their families and villages than any other individual country in the middle east.

The Vietnamese people were bound by nationality and some would argue- race...but not by a supremacist ideology based in a religion. Jihad is a virtual article of faith in islam.

The muslim brotherhood was founded in 1938. Well before any US armed incursions- yet this 'brotherhood' was founded in the name of pan-islamism. Islamic supremacism. A reinvigoration of political islam- in fact, one that inspired the gran mufti of Jerusalem to advocate to Hitler for the eradication of the Jews and the Holocaust.

You have to kill more than you create, those 100 casualties were caused by explosives the cowards were hiding there, behind civilians…like always.

The idea that America is responsible for terrorists can be disputed by one simple fact…

Most victims of Islamic terrorism are Muslims…if America disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow, they would simply have one less target, and country to blame for all of their problems.

No, that doesn’t mean that people in the middle east don’t have some legitimate issues with the west.

Nightshade wrote:Yes, because western countries are totally at fault for all terrorism and it has nothing to do with a supremacist religious ideology indigenous to many of those countries.

I didn't say terrorism is all the west's fault, I only put your map into perspective. If you think Islam is a supremacist religious ideology, wouldn't it be pragmatic to attempt to minimize the creation of the conditions that breed extremists? At least our part in it?

Vander wrote:I didn't say terrorism is all the west's fault, I only put your map into perspective. If you think Islam is a supremacist religious ideology, wouldn't it be pragmatic to attempt to minimize the creation of the conditions that breed extremists? At least our part in it?

You have to enumerate what "our part" is before we can have a discussion about it.

Nightshade wrote:You have to enumerate what "our part" is before we can have a discussion about it.

With as much time as you seem to spend thinking on this topic, I kind of feel like you should already understand what I'm saying, even if to disagree.

We're an active participant in two civil wars, our bombs have killed people in at least four countries, and we inked a deal to ship in another 100 billion in weapons. That was just last week!

Do you think the end result of that is more moderates or more extremists?

Vander wrote:We're an active participant in two civil wars, our bombs have killed people in at least four countries, and we inked a deal to ship in another 100 billion in weapons. That was just last week!

Wrong. We're involved in two PROXY wars. These wars are between two extremist factions- Saudi Arabia, a number of the gulf states and Iran (sunni and shiite islamists) with independent bit players in the middle- like ISIS and al qaeda with clandestine support from Turkey and possibly even Pakistan.

Vander wrote:Do you think the end result of that is more moderates or more extremists?

The extremists will exist now whether we're involved or not. The kettle was already boiling with "extremists" before we got into the mess.

Nightshade wrote:There is a difference TC... islamic hate is 1400 years old.

possibly the stupidest thing you've ever written, and that is going a ways. Hate is hate, and it predates Islam by a few years.

So you object to the basic premise, that war and strife create the conditions where extremism flourishes. Is that right?

I don't think that question was aimed at me, but here's my two cents. Western aggression and colonialism created a great deal of the bedrock upon which extremists built over the ensuing years . Likewise the ongoing meddling has made US and the Western World the targets of extremists who might well concentrate on their Middle Eastern brethren were we not constantly doing so. Finally, without an end to Western military involvement(highly unlikely with the proxy situations alluded to above), either direct or indirect, there is NO CHANCE of ending either extremist violence or ongoing recruitment. The problem is not religion, or lack thereof, but severe economic deprivation, centuries of subjugation, and possibly the harshest existence on the planet for far too many people in the Middle Eastern nations(not all, by any means, I am talking of large pockets of such, though).

Both Slick and Vander proceed from false assumptions.

'Extremist' views aren't exactly considered extreme by devout muslim believers.

Here, get educated by a muslim:



So...from 'everyday normal' muslim that quietly goes to school, work, etc...to violent jihadi isn't that big of a leap.

The second assumption is that poverty increases 'extremism.'

No. A majority of jihadist terrorists in the west have been well off, western educated and in no way in peril of starvation or the like.

'Starving extremists' have only become that way through their own hand in their indigenous countries by cutting themselves off from trade and so on due to infrastructure destruction or literal burning of bridges with non-muslim people or nations (or with other muslim sects they deem heretical.)

Nightshade wrote:Wrong. We're involved in two PROXY wars.

I think I should further clarify. The distinction between civil war and proxy war is the placement of arbitrary lines within a regional religious sectarian conflict, and it's mostly irrelevant to what I'm talking about. Our own involvement inherently makes them proxy. It's the war part that's important.

callmeslick wrote:The problem is not religion, or lack thereof, but severe economic deprivation, centuries of subjugation, and possibly the harshest existence on the planet...

I'm trying to say that even if you think Islam itself is the problem, continuing to dump weapons and war into the region seems counterproductive to me.

Nightshade, I'm genuinely curious to your thinking. If you think Islam is a "supremacist religious ideology" and extremists will exist whether we're involved or not, with little difference in numbers or degree, what is the benefit to being involved militarily? What reasoning do you use to make the elevation of "let them kill each other" to "let's help them kill each other" seem like a good idea? A good in and of itself, making sure none of these crazy people get too powerful?

Vander wrote: If you think Islam is a "supremacist religious ideology" and extremists will exist whether we're involved or not, with little difference in numbers or degree, what is the benefit to being involved militarily?

If you're saying that nothing in human relations exists in a vacuum, well...DUH.

There are other agendas at work in the middle east of course- not the least of which being access to energy resources upon which Europe and much of Asia is dependent.

The forces involved (US/Europe/Saudi Arabia/Iran/Russia) are trying to look out for their own self interests (like any other powers for time immemorial) in sometimes furiously ham-handed ways. These forces could care less about who is in charge IF access to these strategic resources and trade routes are more stable and favorable to them as a result.

They do inevitably seem to back different dogs in a fight though- so you see the proxy wars ensue. From the outside it looks like everyone is just 'throwing arms and money' into a growing conflict.

None of this changes the fact that islam is STILL a supremacist religious ideology founded 1400 years ago.

The idea that poverty, war and hardship causes terrorism has been debunked so many times it’s not funny…sure the poor have always provided the rank and file in most conflicts…but it is always the elite that breed the idealism.

Nightshade wrote:There are other agendas at work in the middle east of course- not the least of which being access to energy resources upon which Europe and much of Asia is dependent.

So you generally support our action's in the region for the purpose of resource extraction and trade routes, conflict doesn't drive extremism here because they're already extremist, and terrorism is not a reaction to this, but the product of an ideology of supremacy? Is that a fair representation?

Seems about right to me considering how other people react to the same kinds of things.

and, when you have zero empathy, sense or willingness to learn what most in this thread have at least a passing knowledge of, best just to keep the trap closed:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

until some Westerners get the fact that equating a religion, during a Holy month, with killing just might offend sincerely religious people, we're screwed. Because a segment of those offended souls might become radicalized, but the larger issue(far larger) is that a lot of sincerely religious people will give just a wee bit smaller of a ★■◆● about Westerners getting killed by the radical minority amongst them.

Could someone just put this fucker out of the world's collective misery already?

Vander wrote:So you generally support our action's in the region for the purpose of resource extraction and trade routes, conflict doesn't drive extremism here because they're already extremist, and terrorism is not a reaction to this, but the product of an ideology of supremacy? Is that a fair representation?

Do you support "our actions?"

Nah. It's a wide topic with plenty of places for me to be hypocritical, but mostly no. You? Was my previous post an accurate summary of your thoughts on the matter?

Vander wrote:Nah. It's a wide topic with plenty of places for me to be hypocritical, but mostly no. You? Was my previous post an accurate summary of your thoughts on the matter?

No, I do not support many of our country's actions- but yes, I agree with "conflict doesn't drive extremism here because they're already extremist, and terrorism is not a reaction to this, but the product of an ideology of supremacy."

Nightshade wrote:No, I do not support many of our country's actions- but yes, I agree with "conflict doesn't drive extremism here because they're already extremist, and terrorism is not a reaction to this, but the product of an ideology of supremacy."

actually the only sect with such ideology is rooted in Saudi Arabia, which Lord Dampnut sells arms to, like every predecessor.

I guess the part that I either don't understand or don't agree with is not differentiating between levels of extremism. I can certainly understand the viewpoint that says a woman forced to wear a burka is unacceptable and cutting off the head of an infidel is unacceptable, but they are not equivalent. So I reject the notion that war and strife can't exacerbate extremism. Rational people with a choice don't stay in a war zone. Those that choose to stay are usually fanatical. Those forced to stay then get to contend with a greater proportion of fanatics.

for those of you who either are of Islamic faith, or studied comparative Theology along the way, this is sort of a big deal. Similar to Baptists, Muslims don't adhere to hierarchal clergy, so each leader can issue his/her own fatwahs. For a large, sort of diverse group to release a group fatwah, especially worded thus, means something. Maybe not to ThunderBunny, but it should:

https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/20704 ... acks-Haram

Ferno wrote:

Yes. An invitation to islam. That is what I have gotten in the past.

It's all good till you refuse.

Oh...and by the way, "innocent lives" are only those of muslims. islam regards anyone else as infidels who are NOT "innocent."

so, NS, either you refused, as seemingly lived through the ordeal, or converted and are just messing with us. Which is it?

Nightshade wrote:Yes. An invitation to islam. That is what I have gotten in the past.

It's all good till you refuse.

Oh...and by the way, "innocent lives" are only those of muslims. islam regards anyone else as infidels who are NOT "innocent."

Oh, so you have personal experience with muslims and know what it's like when you decline their invitation. Tell me... do you think they'd appreciate what you've been saying here?

Do you think they would be okay with you judging all of them from reading opinions and watching videos about Muslims?

Because right now, i'm pretty sure you shut the door and walked away rather quickly after you declined their offer.

What he really means is that he once saw a guy wearing a turban and ran away crying.

callmeslick wrote:so, NS, either you refused, as seemingly lived through the ordeal, or converted and are just messing with us. Which is it?

As I have posted several times before:

My father was teaching Arab students for SAIC. Most probably teaching them enough English for them to handle the weapons systems the government had just sold to the U.A.E.

His students then asked my dad if he'd like to come out and visit them for dinner with me- and so we went and all sat down and had chicken and rice in one of their apartments near Ft. Bliss. Shortly after eating, one of them pulled out a Quran (Koran or whatever you wish to call their holy book- as our names for it are basically just anglicized spellings for the Arabic) and told us we should convert before we were '6 feet under.' Those were their exact words.

I politely thanked them and so did my father and we said nothing more as we left.

Was it a threat? No, I don't think so- but they were adamant that they were in the right on the subject of God and religion.

I wasn't going to get into a religious argument with a room full of true believer zealots. Back then I had no idea what islam was really about (it was 1997 or so) nor had 9/11 happened as it was four years prior to that attack.

So yes, I lived...but of course I never saw those Arab guys ever again.

So you had one bad personal experience that's directly analogous to a Bible-thumper stating that you'll go directly to hell if you don't accept Jesus as your personal lord and savior on the spot...and because of that you have a massive hate-on for an entire religion. Wow.