Manchester Arena 'explosion'

Originally Posted by Von Due

This idea, that terrorism is an intrincic part of Islam itself utterly fails to explain the periods in history when there were no terrorist attacks from Islamists.

I didn't say it is, did anyone else here?
Terror attacks are a modern tool of warfare to bring this ideology further.
It wasn't needed in the past.

I don't really care why Islam is what it is, what lead to it, or what these freaks think justifies what they do. I don't care. It's not the issue.
The issue is Manchester, Berlin, Nizza, London, Madrid, ... this list is a long one as you know.

I want it to end, instead of becoming worse.
And I see that all these attacks are committed in the name of the same ideology. It's never the Buddhists, the Christians, the Sikh, ...
Instead of finally addressing the core of the problem, the ideology that openly preaches to destroy the west/conquer it etc., we are more afraid of being not politically correct.
What to do? Not sure. We can hardly "ban" Islam, and it would also just lead to the vast majority of Muslims finally showing their real face. I am sure instant civil war would break out all over Europe.
But we can also not continue to act as if "Islam is not the problem!"
True, it isn't - just everything else is.
What can we do, do you have an idea?
Do you think there needs something to be done at all?

All the terror aside, the ideology is garbage from A to Z anyways, and it is beyond me that we are able to realize that banning Nazism is a good idea, yet we let other ideologies that aren't any better bloom all over Europe and excuse it with "freedom of religion".
This is ridiculous and will lead to the islamization of Europe, even though leftists love to ridicule this term, despite the demographic facts that strongly support it.
In a few decades, Europe will have changed drastically.
But hey, let's rather worry about being PC and convince us that 'diversity' is for some reason the way to go.
If I want to meet other cultures, I go visit their countries.

[Von Due]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

I didn't say it is, did anyone else here?
Terror attacks are a modern tool of warfare to bring this ideology further.
It wasn't needed in the past.

The Sicarii operated in ancient times and were by all standards a terrorist organization. Terror has a long history. India saw it, Palestine/Israel saw it.

I don't really care why Islam is what it is, what lead to it, or what these freaks think justifies what they do. I don't care. It's not the issue.
The issue is Manchester, Berlin, Nizza, London, Madrid, ... this list is a long one as you know.

It becomes an issue when you want to see it end.

I want it to end, instead of becoming worse.

I'm with you here.

And I see that all these attacks are committed in the name of the same ideology. It's never the Buddhists, the Christians, the Sikh, ...

Oh that is not correct. Buddhist terror has happened in this decade. Christian terror: The Italian mafia's killings of judges, policemen, priests and others, the Mexican drug cartels' grip on the entire Mexican society where femicide now is running rampant, it's terror by definition. For political gains, for power.

Instead of finally addressing the core of the problem, the ideology that openly preaches to destroy the west/conquer it etc., we are more afraid of being not politically correct.

No different from the proposals of literally dropping nukes on the entire Middle East.

What to do? Not sure.

Again I agree. I don't know either. There are points one have to look at though. Western/Russian involvement in these areas, French colonialism today, our domestically tendency of not hiring anyone with "weird" names for jobs other than kebab chefs, acknowledge that resources belonging to another state is not for anyone with a bigger gun to grab, stopping support of oppressive regimes no matter how sweet deals they offer, stopping the divide and conquer mentality found in our own business world, having our politicians and lawmakers acknowledging that human rights are not for a select few, a complete rework on how we "distribute" resources, wealth, medicines, rights... even if we have to pay through our noses financially.

We also are in need of an effective intelligence capable of doing their job. We are our own protection's worst nightmare the way we throw every monkey wrench in their gears in the name of some ideal freedom that doesn't exist in the first place. The agencies on the other hand need to work on their image. Too much funny business have eaten away the public's trust in them.

We also need laws to deal with the shadow figures behind the extremism. I don't cry if a hate preacher gets life in jail with monitored visits. Law enforcement needs the ability to work clandestine to find these figures and that is a problem (see trust issue).

We can hardly "ban" Islam, and it would also just lead to the vast majority of Muslims finally showing their real face. I am sure instant civil war would break out all over Europe.

No civil war but why ban it? For all I care all religion could be banned as a favour to all of us but nah.

Do you think there needs something to be done at all?

Absolutely. See above.

All the terror aside, the ideology is garbage from A to Z anyways, and it is beyond me that we are able to realize that banning Nazism is a good idea, yet we let other ideologies that aren't any better bloom all over Europe and excuse it with "freedom of religion".

The opposite of, or alternative to, freedom of religion is called what? Beside, which religion, if only one, should win? My religion? I have no religion. Your? The Catholics'? Protestants? Or the old religion before it was destroyed by an intruding religion? Which religion, or no religion at all?

This is ridiculous and will lead to the islamization of Europe, even though leftists love to ridicule this term, despite the demographic facts that strongly support it.

Where do you get your facts from?

In a few decades, Europe will have changed drastically.

I'll take that as a prediction. Not a stating of facts as neither you nor I have a working crystal ball. I am not that worried...

But hey, let's rather worry about being PC and convince us that 'diversity' is for some reason the way to go.
If I want to meet other cultures, I go visit their countries.

It's not about being PC. It's about avoiding attrocities that can be avoided if we deal with the real, underlying problems which also include getting those who work in the shadows who are well protected behind laws and apathy.

As for different cultures and all that: Business and politics see it differently and so do consumers when it comes to jobs, money and prices. Then it's ok to go to other countries, not to visit but to demand. This is where finding a solution starts.

Last: How many Islamist attacks from the 4 million muslims in South America? What is South America's involvement in the Middle East? Any correlation?

Originally Posted by Von Due

The Assassins operated in ancient times and were by all standards a terrorist organization. Terror has a long history. India saw it, Palestine/Israel saw it.

Assassins kill selected targets, they do not commit mass-slaughtering of women and children. Or did they?
Whatever may be the case, I rather look at what happens now.
And now, Europe is in peril, with a rather bad prognosis.

Originally Posted by Von Due

It becomes an issue when you want to see it end.

I disagree. I see what you're getting it though.

Originally Posted by Von Due

Oh that is not correct. Buddhist terror has happened in this decade. Christian terror: The Italian mafia's killings of judges, policemen, priests and others, the Mexican drug cartels' grip on the entire Mexican society where femicide now is running rampant, it's terror by definition. For political gains, for power.

Yes, the infamous Buddhist terror attacks, don't we all remember the countless attacks, globally, with thousands of victims, over decades.
And the Italian Mafia? Drug Cartels?
These are completely different issues, with incomparable dimensions.

Originally Posted by Von Due

No different from the proposals of literally dropping nukes on the entire Middle East.

Yes. Right. Demanding that European politicians start to talk openly about Islam instead of repeating the same PC-nonsense of freedom, diversity and being so strong together - while bombs go off left and right - is the same as to ask for dropping nukes on the middle east...
It's basically synonymous, right?

Originally Posted by Von Due

Again I agree. I don't know either. There are points one have to look at though. Western/Russian involvement in these areas, French colonialism today, our domestically tendency [...]

Nothing of that influenced the content of the Quran. Nothing.

Originally Posted by Von Due

No civil war but why ban it? For all I care all religion could be banned as a favour to all of us but nah.

No civil war?
Considering the amount of Muslims in Europe, a ban of what is most important to them would most likely lead to a civil war. Protests would get insanely violent, because too many Muslims cannot control themselves when it is about their ideology. I experienced this multiple times, in person. As soon as you criticize (and I mean criticize, not insult or slander!) their beliefs, they completely lose it. God help you if you're alone with them if it happens, or worse: If they are in a group, while you're not.
I've been in these situations, and I learned my lesson: Islam means peace.

For all I care, yes, all religion could just disappear. In my opinion mankind should be advanced enough by now to understand how silly it is to believe in fantasy stories that are thousands of years old and unproven, even having these fantasy stories control their lives.
It is beyond stupid in my opinion - but as long as the Religion in question does not cause too many problems, let alone affect me directly, I don't care - to each his own!
If people following this ideology start to commit murder, and I see that ideology spread where I was born and raised up, in peace, I do start to worry.

Originally Posted by Von Due

The opposite of, or alternative to, freedom of religion is called what? Beside, which religion, if only one, should win? My religion? I have no religion. Your? The Catholics'? Protestants? Or the old religion before it was destroyed by an intruding religion? Which religion, or no religion at all?

No religion at all.
However, I am not saying "ban religion", it simply isn't possible, as I stated earlier. It is too inter-woven with our cultures and societies, of course.
And in the end I wouldn't care as long as no one suffers from it.
As I said: We cannot ban it. I made no statement if we should, or not, either.

Originally Posted by Von Due

Where do you get your facts from?

Various sources over the last ten years.
If you google for demographic studies and observations regarding Islam in Europe, you will sure find a lot on it.

Originally Posted by Von Due

I'll take that as a prediction. Not a stating of facts as neither you nor I have a working crystal ball. I am not that worried...

Did I say it is a fact?
It is the future, so yes, it is a prediction - what else?
But these predictions rely on demographics, history and other data.

Also: Not that worried?

Originally Posted by Von Due

It's not about being PC. It's about avoiding attrocities that can be avoided if we deal with the real, underlying problems which also include getting those who work in the shadows who are well protected behind laws and apathy.

What are the real problems?
Again, what from today, has influenced the content of the Quran and Sharia? Nothing.
It is what it is. PC people just try to find some magic reasons to shift the blame - for whatever reason.
Why is it not OK to come to the conclusion that the ideology of Islam is dangerous?

Originally Posted by Von Due

Last: How many Islamist attacks from the 4 million muslims in South America? What is South America's involvement in the Middle East? Any correlation?

Well, 4 million Muslims all over South America?
No wonder there is not much going on in that regard.
Give it time... let them spread a bit more, you'll see.

Let's look at it globally:




So let's assume these numbers are way off, even by, let's say, crazy 50%.
Wouldn't that still be enough to finally realize something's a tiddy tad wrong with that ideology, and why having Europe - or whatever place - flooded with it, is a terrible, terrible idea?

If you really think none of this is a problem, or even not true, so be it. I'm not here to convince you. I don't care, and said about Islam what I can say at this point.

[Von Due]

One problem there is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. One makes a claim, another disproves the claim, the first changes the premises. Terror is terror end of that story. Terror is not a competition where 2nd place gets a green card. If you want to understand terror then you can't do what you do there, dismiss anything that hasn't got the "Muslim" tag on it. Terror is not what happens "here" exclusively, by "those" exclusively, hurting "us" exclusively.

You have posted those charts before if I recall correctly and I ask: Of 1600 million worldwide, where do they live, the ones who were asked? In Europe or in Asia? In cities or rural areas? Which countries? Did you spot the decreasing numbers as the opinions got more extreme?

Here's a thought to play with: apparently 500 million of 1600 million do not want Sharia law. Where do they live? Roughly 1000 out of 1600 million do not want death for leaving Islam. Where do they live?

I believe I already said this the first time those charts were posted but yes, there are people who want Sharia, who want to kill infidels and all that. They need to be contained. The point is, I say they do not represent all Muslims as your own charts also show.

[Skybird]

The overwhelming majority of those plotting the terror attacks in Madrid and London after 9/11, were "well-integrated", well-educated Muslims of social middle class, students, with good job perspectives, stable homes, and good income or outlook for good income. The polcie was stunned back then that the usual profiles they had of terrorist personalities, did almost completely fail. It made the news ten years ago, if you remember.

Today we see quite some migrants who get radicalised within just 2-3 months at times. 2-3 months. Obviously they cam into contatc with a toxix, highly potent agent. Not even reeducation camps in the USSR or PRC were that successful.

It is one of the most beloved lies of the Western political left to claim that Muslim terrorism gets bred by social disadvantages. And that they would not form up if only we would love them more, no matter their often unspeakable and unacceptable behavior of spitting on us and our home's culture and values. The left loves this lie because it allows it to propagate once again the class-less society and the redistribution of wealth from the privilegde evil wealthy people to the poor sods serving the cliche'S role of being victims. The political left implies therefore that Muslim terrorism and mass murder is a freedom fight and a fight for justice and recognition.

It. Is. Nothing of that.

It just is coldblooded, mean, underhanded murder, this time targetting children and young teens in scores. -There is nothing to be understood. Nothing to be explained. There is nothing to be forgiven. And no foul "compromise" and none of these endlessly talked about "reasonable solutions" to be accepted.

[Von Due]

Originally Posted by Skybird

It just is coldblooded, mean, underhanded murder, this time targetting children and young teens in scores. -There is nothing to be understood. Nothing to be explained. There is nothing to be forgiven. And no foul "compromise" and none of these endlessly talked about "reasonable solutions" to be accepted.

So.... what would your solution be?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Von Due

So.... what would your solution be?

Lead, force Muslims in the West to unconditionally follow - or kick them out of the way. I don't care for their precious sentiments. I just don't care. They still defend islam and claim it is peace? So let them pay the blood tax all alone. I refuse to be interested any longer.