Some people really don't get it: overgeneralising what all Muslims believe and describing it as 'barbaric' are simply letting the terrorists win. They love this kind of response as it plays into the 'us against them' narrative. Proper solutions need to be found to engage disenfranchised and troubled young men and prevent them from joining a warped death cult.
So many people claim that they want this, that or the other but with nothing in the way of evidence to back it up. It seems that this angle is used to try and nulilfy arguments that don't conform to others' stance.
So, there you have it - in 25 years in the US, 94% of terrorist attacks are not related to Islam.
Extremely misleading, considering the significance and devastation of those attacks by other groups are absolutely dwarfed by 9/11 alone.
Agreed - id also guess (perhaps wrongly!?) that a lot of the atrocities committed by the non-Islamic groups (not inc the IRA) were committed by lone wolf nutters, as opposed to the literally hundreds of active (and rising) professional, funded and expert Islamic terrorist cells dotted all over the world.
Wooooooooowwwwww
- "non-Islamic groups, not including one of the biggest and most prolific non-Islamic terrorist groups that's existed" fucking lol that's like saying "not including Da'esh/Al-Qaida"
- you appear to imply that "lone wolf nutters" aren't as significant as organised movements. I'm sure those affected by what happened on Utoya would disagree.
I was just excluding them from the point I was trying to make, that (I suspected) the number of attacks referred to above, from non-Islamic groups, would ( the IRA apart) contain a lot more unorganised, unprofessional lone wolf attacks, I was not suggesting that they are not a worthy addition to the list of scumbag terrorist organisations over the last 20 years.
Lone wolf attacks are of course just as significant, esp to those directly affected. My point is that in discussing this current time in history, I think most people should be and are a lot more concerned about thousands of active, Islamic terrorist cells, who are open about their sickening intentions, dotted all around the world, rather than a potential lone wolf nutter from any religion, commuting an unexpected (but equally destructive) attack.
So many people claim that they want this, that or the other but with nothing in the way of evidence to back it up. It seems that this angle is used to try and nulilfy arguments that don't conform to others' stance.
Nobody knows. It's all speculation.
This is going away from the purpose of the thread, for which I apologise, the focus should be on those in Belgium.
However, ISIS have been really quite active in terms of media, so it's actually not that difficult to posit what their motivation is...
So many people claim that they want this, that or the other but with nothing in the way of evidence to back it up. It seems that this angle is used to try and nulilfy arguments that don't conform to others' stance.
Nobody knows. It's all speculation.
This is going away from the purpose of the thread, for which I apologise, the focus should be on those in Belgium.
However, ISIS have been really quite active in terms of media, so it's actually not that difficult to assume/guess what their motivation is...
This is nothing to do with Islam, these people are fucking mentalists
Christianity doesn't get the blame when America is dropping bombs on schools
Do you think these animals would still be committing such acts if it wasn't for Islam?
Yes... Because even without Islam, we would still be blowing up kids in Syria/Iraq
Better step it up then
And do precisely what ISIS want? Their whole philosophy is based on the notion of an all out war between true believers and the infidel...
Killing children anywhere has to be wrong, no matter who does it.
Who would argue with that?
It just winds me up that we can't have a moan about islamic extremist after they commit an attack like this without the reasons why they done it, by the same boring people every time
So, there you have it - in 25 years in the US, 94% of terrorist attacks are not related to Islam.
Extremely misleading, considering the significance and devastation of those attacks by other groups are absolutely dwarfed by 9/11 alone.
Agreed - id also guess (perhaps wrongly!?) that a lot of the atrocities committed by the non-Islamic groups (not inc the IRA) were committed by lone wolf nutters, as opposed to the literally hundreds of active (and rising) professional, funded and expert Islamic terrorist cells dotted all over the world.
Wooooooooowwwwww
- "non-Islamic groups, not including one of the biggest and most prolific non-Islamic terrorist groups that's existed" fucking lol that's like saying "not including Da'esh/Al-Qaida"
- you appear to imply that "lone wolf nutters" aren't as significant as organised movements. I'm sure those affected by what happened on Utoya would disagree.
I was just excluding them from the point I was trying to make, that (I suspected) the number of attacks referred to above, from non-Islamic groups, would ( the IRA apart) contain a lot more unorganised, unprofessional lone wolf attacks, I was not suggesting that they are not a worthy addition to the list of scumbag terrorist organisations over the last 20 years.
Lone wolf attacks are of course just as significant, esp to those directly affected. My point is that in discussing this current time in history, I think most people should be and are a lot more concerned about thousands of active, Islamic terrorist cells, who are open about their sickening intentions, dotted all around the world, rather than a potential lone wolf nutter from any religion, commuting an unexpected (but equally destructive) attack.
No, that's not how it works. You don't get to knowingly, wilfully leave out hard facts in order to propagate a point.
To make a highly exaggerated (yet still accurate) equivalence, it's like saying "the defeats and dropped points aside, Charlton have played very well this season".
Fair enough if that wasn't your implication, but you'd worded that very oddly imo. I think most people are indeed more concerned about organised terror at the moment, which is understandable.
So many people claim that they want this, that or the other but with nothing in the way of evidence to back it up. It seems that this angle is used to try and nulilfy arguments that don't conform to others' stance.
Nobody knows. It's all speculation.
PWR and literally just waking up to this.
To answer your rhetorical question, because I read!!!
Great article from The Atlantic called "What Isis really wants"
I've just seen a video of the aftermath of the bombing at the airport and in one of them, in what is a wonderful manifestation of stereotype, you can hear an American man ask "Where are the fucking soldiers?!?!?!"*
*I should note this is a person who is in an incredibly dangerous and stressful situation, and my personal coping mechanism for such surreal scenes is humour.
This is Islamic terrorism - not supported by all Muslims but there is a significant minority who are sympathetic to it. The extremist leaders who promote this need to be dealt with - how this should be done in Europe is no easy task. US and British foreign policy in the Middle East has been a f***ing disaster and we are having to live with the consequences.
This is nothing to do with Islam, these people are fucking mentalists
Christianity doesn't get the blame when America is dropping bombs on schools
Do you think these animals would still be committing such acts if it wasn't for Islam?
Yes... Because even without Islam, we would still be blowing up kids in Syria/Iraq
Better step it up then
And do precisely what ISIS want? Their whole philosophy is based on the notion of an all out war between true believers and the infidel...
Killing children anywhere has to be wrong, no matter who does it.
Who would argue with that?
It just winds me up that we can't have a moan about islamic extremist after they commit an attack like this without the reasons why they done it, by the same boring people every time
Agreed, ISIS are utterly hateful, and I would wish them removed utterly from the Earth - it's just that they know what the natural reaction to an atrocity will be, and want to magnify it into actual action, which they then will paint as an attack on all of Islam (or, conveniently, their definition of Islam).
So many people claim that they want this, that or the other but with nothing in the way of evidence to back it up. It seems that this angle is used to try and nulilfy arguments that don't conform to others' stance.
Actually, I initially phrased it wrongly - Daesh want us to hate Muslims, rather than be divisive amongst each other.
I suppose for them, "Westerners" bickering about whether or not to hate Muslims is a bonus side-effect of their plan. But it's pretty obvious that they want to pit "us" against "them":
So many people claim that they want this, that or the other but with nothing in the way of evidence to back it up. It seems that this angle is used to try and nulilfy arguments that don't conform to others' stance.
Actually, I initially phrased it wrongly - Daesh want us to hate Muslims, rather than be divisive amongst each other.
I suppose for them, "Westerners" bickering about whether or not to hate Muslims is a bonus side-effect of their plan. But it's pretty obvious that they want to pit "us" against "them":
"ISIS makes no secret of its ultimate ambition: A global caliphate secured through a global war."
To get to that end, let's follow the logic - sow discord between Muslims and non-Muslims; this becomes us vs them; this becomes a global war.
Hope that makes sense, sort of...
The big flaw though is that Muslims are at war with each other - sunni and shia are constantly warring. It is not a united religion - you only have to look through history. Our governments have pursued a highly ineffective foreign policy.
So many people claim that they want this, that or the other but with nothing in the way of evidence to back it up. It seems that this angle is used to try and nulilfy arguments that don't conform to others' stance.
Actually, I initially phrased it wrongly - Daesh want us to hate Muslims, rather than be divisive amongst each other.
I suppose for them, "Westerners" bickering about whether or not to hate Muslims is a bonus side-effect of their plan. But it's pretty obvious that they want to pit "us" against "them":
"ISIS makes no secret of its ultimate ambition: A global caliphate secured through a global war."
To get to that end, let's follow the logic - sow discord between Muslims and non-Muslims; this becomes us vs them; this becomes a global war.
Hope that makes sense, sort of...
It does, and I highly recommend the article I posted above because it goes into that in more depth.
What "ISIS HQ" and "ISIS Scholars" really want is the establishment of a caliphate, and to then bring all Muslims there, and to then expand that. Attacks like this are "Good for PR," and good for creating terror, but they aren't part of the purists' end goal, which at this stage is the creation of the caliphate.
I've seen a couple "who cares what they think" type comments, and I cannot disagree more. We went into two expensive (in all meanings of the word) wars just about 15 years ago with that kind of mentality. Want to know what Usama Bin Laden wanted? American Military Bases out of Saudi Arabia. And guess what, he got it.
It's easy to do the equivalent of "they hate our freedoms" or "theirs is a religion always at war" (if you consider there are hundreds of millions of Muslims, and maybe, 1 million members of ISIS, not a very good sample size), you often miss true motivations and thus a way to counterattack them. In some cases, it's a lot more complex, in others, it's a lot more fucking stupid.
So many people claim that they want this, that or the other but with nothing in the way of evidence to back it up. It seems that this angle is used to try and nulilfy arguments that don't conform to others' stance.
Actually, I initially phrased it wrongly - Daesh want us to hate Muslims, rather than be divisive amongst each other.
I suppose for them, "Westerners" bickering about whether or not to hate Muslims is a bonus side-effect of their plan. But it's pretty obvious that they want to pit "us" against "them":
"ISIS makes no secret of its ultimate ambition: A global caliphate secured through a global war."
To get to that end, let's follow the logic - sow discord between Muslims and non-Muslims; this becomes us vs them; this becomes a global war.
Hope that makes sense, sort of...
The big flaw though is that Muslims are at war with each other - sunni and shia are constantly warring. It is not a united religion - you only have to look through history. Our governments have pursued a highly ineffective foreign policy.
This, the people most under immediate threat from ISIS are Shia Muslims. ISIS fucking hates them, and that's a good ole fashion 1500 year old blood feud.
Another topic for another time is the disaffection of of second or third generation immigrants in western society who find themselves alienated and who lash out. This is not new and is not confined to Europe or Muslims in the last decade and a half.
So many people claim that they want this, that or the other but with nothing in the way of evidence to back it up. It seems that this angle is used to try and nulilfy arguments that don't conform to others' stance.
Actually, I initially phrased it wrongly - Daesh want us to hate Muslims, rather than be divisive amongst each other.
I suppose for them, "Westerners" bickering about whether or not to hate Muslims is a bonus side-effect of their plan. But it's pretty obvious that they want to pit "us" against "them":
"ISIS makes no secret of its ultimate ambition: A global caliphate secured through a global war."
To get to that end, let's follow the logic - sow discord between Muslims and non-Muslims; this becomes us vs them; this becomes a global war.
Hope that makes sense, sort of...
The big flaw though is that Muslims are at war with each other - sunni and shia are constantly warring. It is not a united religion - you only have to look through history. Our governments have pursued a highly ineffective foreign policy.
But surely that is true of (probably) all organised religions?
Schism has happened across the board, and has lead to some of the nastiest atrocities throughout history.
The problem is often that those on the outside don't know the nuances (or at least not well enough).
The Sunni - Shia divide has been going on for almost as long as Islam, unfortunately the mix of petrodollars, modern communications, the upsetting of the "balance" in the Middle East and a huge range of societal problems has led to a perfect storm.
I agree that the foreign policy has been ineffective. I might even go further than that, as we have deliberately supported the regimes from which the most hateful extremist ideology has arisen.
The problem has always been, with our foreign policy objectives in the region, that we have never really trusted the people, so have supported dictators and kings rather than encouraged the growth of democratic structures and society. Nowadays, those that we have supported are doing rather more to support those against us, such as ISIS and Al Qaida, than to seek peaceful co-existence...
So, there you have it - in 25 years in the US, 94% of terrorist attacks are not related to Islam.
Curious to see the source. One noticeable absence is "extreme right-wing individuals/groups." The biggest domestic terrorist attack in the US prior to 9/11 was the Oklahoma City bombing carried out by Timothy McVeigh.
Also curious to see the definition of "terrorist attack here." Genuinely can't think of any Communist or Jewish Extremist attacks, and I don't say that because I'm a Communist and a Jew. Same for Extreme Left-Wing attacks, (though this could be counting eco-terrorism, which was a real threat to empty SUVs).
But to your overall point, I am driving back to San Diego today and simply getting in my car is a far greater risk of injury or death than any terrorist. As is heart disease. Most cancers. I used to live in Florida, which is the home of around 7 lightning strikes per year, a higher number than those killed by Islamic terrorists in most years.
So many people claim that they want this, that or the other but with nothing in the way of evidence to back it up. It seems that this angle is used to try and nulilfy arguments that don't conform to others' stance.
Nobody knows. It's all speculation.
PWR and literally just waking up to this.
To answer your rhetorical question, because I read!!!
Great article from The Atlantic called "What Isis really wants"
I've just seen a video of the aftermath of the bombing at the airport and in one of them, in what is a wonderful manifestation of stereotype, you can hear an American man ask "Where are the fucking soldiers?!?!?!"*
*I should note this is a person who is in an incredibly dangerous and stressful situation, and my personal coping mechanism for such surreal scenes is humour.
To much to read this lunch time but if you gave these nut jobs what they asked today and stuck on a plate they would still be killing more tomorrow with another dreamed up piece of non-sense.
So, there you have it - in 25 years in the US, 94% of terrorist attacks are not related to Islam.
Curious to see the source. One noticeable absence is "extreme right-wing individuals/groups." The biggest domestic terrorist attack in the US prior to 9/11 was the Oklahoma City bombing carried out by Timothy McVeigh.
Also curious to see the definition of "terrorist attack here." Genuinely can't think of any Communist or Jewish Extremist attacks, and I don't say that because I'm a Communist and a Jew. Same for Extreme Left-Wing attacks, (though this could be counting eco-terrorism, which was a real threat to empty SUVs).
But to your overall point, I am driving back to San Diego today and simply getting in my car is a far greater risk of injury or death than any terrorist. As is heart disease. Most cancers. I used to live in Florida, which is the home of around 7 lightning strikes per year, a higher number than those killed by Islamic terrorists in most years.
It's true that the threat of dying from islamic extremism to Westerners undoubtedly overblown (but rising), but those stats from over 10 years ago, dated back as far as 35 years ago, do very little to explain level of threat from islamic extremism today, nor shed much light on plights of those in Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Kenya, Mali and elsewhere where specifically islamic extremism finds vast majority of its victims.
Well the CL bingo card is filled up. Shame on some of you. It seems as if you just can't wait to get online and post some hate filled deeply offensive post.
RIP to those that have lost their lives in this tragedy and my thoughts to all those injured.
So many people claim that they want this, that or the other but with nothing in the way of evidence to back it up. It seems that this angle is used to try and nulilfy arguments that don't conform to others' stance.
Nobody knows. It's all speculation.
PWR and literally just waking up to this.
To answer your rhetorical question, because I read!!!
Great article from The Atlantic called "What Isis really wants"
I've just seen a video of the aftermath of the bombing at the airport and in one of them, in what is a wonderful manifestation of stereotype, you can hear an American man ask "Where are the fucking soldiers?!?!?!"*
*I should note this is a person who is in an incredibly dangerous and stressful situation, and my personal coping mechanism for such surreal scenes is humour.
To much to read this lunch time but if you gave these nut jobs what they asked today and stuck on a plate they would still be killing more tomorrow with another dreamed up piece of non-sense.
It doesn't really have anything to do with "giving them what they want," I highly recommend reading at some point then replying.
Well the CL bingo card is filled up. Shame on some of you. It seems as if you just can't wait to get online and post some hate filled deeply offensive post.
RIP to those that have lost their lives in this tragedy and my thoughts to all those injured.
Absolutely doesn't take long.
34 people dead now. Yet people must have their say.
I really don't understand how people can claim these attacks are "nothing to do with Islam", thus absolving this barbaric religion of any responsibility when these bombers are shouting "Allah Akbar" before murdering tens of people.
And people pray before going to war... You can't have it both ways
It could be argued that those who pray before going to war, are indeed going to war for the greater good, because they believe in the mission they are embarking upon is to help many by stopping the few.
There is a great difference between that and those who are mindlessly killing innocent civilians.
I really don't understand how people can claim these attacks are "nothing to do with Islam", thus absolving this barbaric religion of any responsibility when these bombers are shouting "Allah Akbar" before murdering tens of people.
And people pray before going to war... You can't have it both ways
It could be argued that those who pray before going to war, are indeed going to war for the greater good, because they believe in the mission they are embarking upon is to help many by stopping the few.
There is a great difference between that and those who are mindlessly killing innocent civilians.
No there isn't. That's the horrible problem.
You find no moral difference between a trained soldier in a war he believes to be just/in his country's interest of self defense and someone purposefully setting off a bomb in a crowded square of civilians?
Well the CL bingo card is filled up. Shame on some of you. It seems as if you just can't wait to get online and post some hate filled deeply offensive post.
RIP to those that have lost their lives in this tragedy and my thoughts to all those injured.
Absolutely doesn't take long.
34 people dead now. Yet people must have their say.
A good point well made. I'll get off my soapbox. Also worth keeping the people of Turkey in you thoughts/prayers/etc., as they have a litany of such attacks.
Well the CL bingo card is filled up. Shame on some of you. It seems as if you just can't wait to get online and post some hate filled deeply offensive post.
RIP to those that have lost their lives in this tragedy and my thoughts to all those injured.
So many people claim that they want this, that or the other but with nothing in the way of evidence to back it up. It seems that this angle is used to try and nulilfy arguments that don't conform to others' stance.
Nobody knows. It's all speculation.
This is going away from the purpose of the thread, for which I apologise, the focus should be on those in Belgium.
However, ISIS have been really quite active in terms of media, so it's actually not that difficult to assume/guess what their motivation is...
Nope, they have publish their own magazine and have online portals aimed at recruitment. They produce some of the most polished PR footage outside of the corporate and governmental world.
To claim that any inclination regarding their motivation is guesswork is pretty unfair, they are more than capable of spreading their insidious message unfortunately.
Comments
Killing children anywhere has to be wrong, no matter who does it.
So many people claim that they want this, that or the other but with nothing in the way of evidence to back it up. It seems that this angle is used to try and nulilfy arguments that don't conform to others' stance.
Nobody knows. It's all speculation.
Lone wolf attacks are of course just as significant, esp to those directly affected. My point is that in discussing this current time in history, I think most people should be and are a lot more concerned about thousands of active, Islamic terrorist cells, who are open about their sickening intentions, dotted all around the world, rather than a potential lone wolf nutter from any religion, commuting an unexpected (but equally destructive) attack.
However, ISIS have been really quite active in terms of media, so it's actually not that difficult to posit what their motivation is...
It just winds me up that we can't have a moan about islamic extremist after they commit an attack like this without the reasons why they done it, by the same boring people every time
To make a highly exaggerated (yet still accurate) equivalence, it's like saying "the defeats and dropped points aside, Charlton have played very well this season".
Fair enough if that wasn't your implication, but you'd worded that very oddly imo. I think most people are indeed more concerned about organised terror at the moment, which is understandable.
To answer your rhetorical question, because I read!!!
Great article from The Atlantic called "What Isis really wants"
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
I've just seen a video of the aftermath of the bombing at the airport and in one of them, in what is a wonderful manifestation of stereotype, you can hear an American man ask "Where are the fucking soldiers?!?!?!"*
*I should note this is a person who is in an incredibly dangerous and stressful situation, and my personal coping mechanism for such surreal scenes is humour.
how many Latino's have been involved in terrorist activities in europe?
US and British foreign policy in the Middle East has been a f***ing disaster and we are having to live with the consequences.
Sorry for being boring...
Backs up my point about discord/disunity.
Actually, I initially phrased it wrongly - Daesh want us to hate Muslims, rather than be divisive amongst each other.
I suppose for them, "Westerners" bickering about whether or not to hate Muslims is a bonus side-effect of their plan. But it's pretty obvious that they want to pit "us" against "them":
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/11/middleeast/isis-syria-iraq-caliphate/
"ISIS makes no secret of its ultimate ambition: A global caliphate secured through a global war."
To get to that end, let's follow the logic - sow discord between Muslims and non-Muslims; this becomes us vs them; this becomes a global war.
Hope that makes sense, sort of...
If someone said "other than when Charlton play Palace or Millwall, their fans are recognised as some of the best behaved in the league"
I think that would be a valid point?
Our governments have pursued a highly ineffective foreign policy.
What "ISIS HQ" and "ISIS Scholars" really want is the establishment of a caliphate, and to then bring all Muslims there, and to then expand that. Attacks like this are "Good for PR," and good for creating terror, but they aren't part of the purists' end goal, which at this stage is the creation of the caliphate.
I've seen a couple "who cares what they think" type comments, and I cannot disagree more. We went into two expensive (in all meanings of the word) wars just about 15 years ago with that kind of mentality. Want to know what Usama Bin Laden wanted? American Military Bases out of Saudi Arabia. And guess what, he got it.
It's easy to do the equivalent of "they hate our freedoms" or "theirs is a religion always at war" (if you consider there are hundreds of millions of Muslims, and maybe, 1 million members of ISIS, not a very good sample size), you often miss true motivations and thus a way to counterattack them. In some cases, it's a lot more complex, in others, it's a lot more fucking stupid.
Another topic for another time is the disaffection of of second or third generation immigrants in western society who find themselves alienated and who lash out. This is not new and is not confined to Europe or Muslims in the last decade and a half.
Schism has happened across the board, and has lead to some of the nastiest atrocities throughout history.
The problem is often that those on the outside don't know the nuances (or at least not well enough).
The Sunni - Shia divide has been going on for almost as long as Islam, unfortunately the mix of petrodollars, modern communications, the upsetting of the "balance" in the Middle East and a huge range of societal problems has led to a perfect storm.
I agree that the foreign policy has been ineffective. I might even go further than that, as we have deliberately supported the regimes from which the most hateful extremist ideology has arisen.
The problem has always been, with our foreign policy objectives in the region, that we have never really trusted the people, so have supported dictators and kings rather than encouraged the growth of democratic structures and society. Nowadays, those that we have supported are doing rather more to support those against us, such as ISIS and Al Qaida, than to seek peaceful co-existence...
Also curious to see the definition of "terrorist attack here." Genuinely can't think of any Communist or Jewish Extremist attacks, and I don't say that because I'm a Communist and a Jew. Same for Extreme Left-Wing attacks, (though this could be counting eco-terrorism, which was a real threat to empty SUVs).
But to your overall point, I am driving back to San Diego today and simply getting in my car is a far greater risk of injury or death than any terrorist. As is heart disease. Most cancers. I used to live in Florida, which is the home of around 7 lightning strikes per year, a higher number than those killed by Islamic terrorists in most years.
This is much more instructive on current level of threat: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/11/daily-chart-12
32,700 killed last year around the world alone, and not many by Deep South America Christian nutjobs.
RIP to those that have lost their lives in this tragedy and my thoughts to all those injured.
34 people dead now. Yet people must have their say.
To claim that any inclination regarding their motivation is guesswork is pretty unfair, they are more than capable of spreading their insidious message unfortunately.