Deadly Shootings, Explosions In Paris

[CZroe]

Paris attacks: Eight terror suspects named so far are not refugees and have EU passports

LOL! That headline makes no sense when the article actually says this:

Eighth suspect (unidentified) carrying stolen passport in name of 'Ahmad al-Mohammad', 25 - from Idlib, Syria

If he's unidentified then how do they know he's a passport holder? The technicality that he was holding someone else's passport flies in the face of their point, but they tried to make it anyway.

And just what is their point? That people with passports can't use the refugee crisis to move around more freely and undetected when their names are on watch lists?

In that case you've got ~1.5 billion Muslims who either:

a) aren't very good Muslims (ie. they're not trying to kill you right now)
b) interpret the Koran in a way that allows them to lead a 'good enough' life in their respective opinions

or of course it could be that some dickheads are going around killing people 'in the name of Islam' just like some dickheads go around doing things in the 'in the name of Christianity'. Wasn't there a thread recently regarding an American guy who was publicly advocating the position that the Bible says that homosexuals should be executed, and adding "it's not me saying this, it's the Bible!"...

Since both Christianity and Islam are based on a supposedly benevolent yet officially genocidal deity, I can't help thinking that this is the pot calling the kettle black.

PS, some interesting Bible quotes regarding advocacy of jihad: http://www.openbible.info/topics/jihad



Ditto.

In other news: https://theintercept.com/2015/11/18/syrian-jews-refugees/
And a YouTube clip to compliment this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzLT6_TQmq8

That pastor wanted you to think that's what he was talking about until he specifically stated in no uncertain terms that he does not advocate killing them and is cares for their souls. He explained that the "death penalty" they "deserve" is the same death penalty that all sinners, including himself, "deserve:" natural death as opposed to eternal life ("for the wages of sin is death").

Granted, there are Christians who will take the same passages and interpret them incorrectly, but they are truly the minority.

You don't have to pick up a gun to be a radical Muslim extremist. Sympathizing and believing that they are doing God's work and tolerating them are just as bad (allows them to operate). Keep in mind that very few militarized extremists have days jobs. The money is coming from somewhere.

The Myth of the Radical Muslim Minority

 

[dank69]

so please tell us whats common between these terrorists? whats something that links them togther to carry out these attacks.

Heck it looks even worse for islam that these people were french, means they were radicalized by their religion in france.

Facts, you SJWs continue to ignore them.

What did Timothy McVeigh and Tamerlan Tsarnaev have in common? I'd say they used religion to justify their violence.

 

[mikeymikec]

You don't have to pick up a gun to be a radical Muslim extremist. Sympathizing and believing that they are doing God's work and tolerating them are just as bad (allows them to operate). Keep in mind that very few militarized extremists have days jobs. The money is coming from somewhere.

The Myth of the Radical Muslim Minority

Nope, stop there, I don't buy your definition of a radical, at least in the context of the kind of stuff that Al-Qaeda or ISIS are known to have done (e.g. 9/11, 7/7, Paris attacks, the bombing in Beirut recently, etc).

Let's take a different example. There are plenty of people who identify as Christian who are homophobic. Now, how do people harbour homophobic opinions? I can think of some categories:

1 - They think negative things about homosexuality (eg. "it's not right", "it's a choice and I think negatively of people who make that choice", "crime against God", etc), but the only type of occasion they voice these opinions are when they're around like-minded people, or say to a survey if they feel safe in doing so.

2 - Like example 1, except they also talk about their opinions to other people.

3 - Like example 2, except they will actively and explicitly participate in non-violent actions to "do their bit" to try and stop gay people achieving equal rights (such as voting against equal rights, lobbying their political representative, etc).

4 - Like example 3, but they will also advocate violence against gay people (direct violence like finding a gay person in the street and beating them up, or advocating say that the state should round them up and put them in camps).

5 - Like example 4, but they will participate in violence against gay people.

So my question is, in your opinion, is anyone who fits into any of these categories "radicalised"? If not, why not, and which categories are "radicalised" in your opinion, and why?

To give another example, I have known people who advocated IRA violence to achieve political ends (the kind that occurred since the sixties), however they probably haven't ever funded the organisation, nor IMO would they agree with violence against children or any other innocent people who are just trying to go about their daily lives (which are not in any way related to the political status quo or say law enforcement), by said organisation. Of course I still wouldn't agree with their advocacy in the first place (even if I can see why an organisation like the IRA was born in the first place, the British did some fairly sickening things to Ireland).

Admittedly I did not include funding in the five categories I've outlined, because to be fair I don't have a clue of how likely it is that say someone in category 1 would fund an organisation that advocates say violence against homosexuals, or would someone who funds an organisation whose official position is say category 2 or 3, is that organisation "radicalised" (btw this includes the official position of the Catholic church AFAIK)?

Furthermore, I'm always fairly sceptical of survey results, for this reason (a clip from Yes, Prime Minister, a political comedy that never seems to age):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

IMO to say that all five categories of people are radicalised is to dilute the term to such a degree that makes it almost completely meaningless, furthermore I really don't see how the sort of people in category 1 could be seen as aiding the cause.

 

[CZroe]

Nope, stop there, I don't buy your definition of a radical, at least in the context of the kind of stuff that Al-Qaeda or ISIS are known to have done (e.g. 9/11, 7/7, Paris attacks, the bombing in Beirut recently, etc).

Let's take a different example. There are plenty of people who identify as Christian who are homophobic. Now, how do people harbour homophobic opinions? I can think of some categories:

1 - They think negative things about homosexuality (eg. "it's not right", "it's a choice and I think negatively of people who make that choice", "crime against God", etc), but the only time they ever voice these opinions are when they're around like-minded people, or say to a survey if they feel safe in doing so.

2 - Like example 1, except they also talk about their opinions to other people.

3 - Like example 2, except they will actively and explicitly participate in non-violent actions to "do their bit" to try and stop gay people achieving equal rights (such as voting against equal rights, lobbying their political representative, etc).

4 - Like example 3, but they will also advocate violence against gay people (direct violence like finding a gay person in the street and beating them up, or advocating say that the state should round them up and put them in camps).

5 - Like example 4, but they will participate in violence against gay people.

So my question is, in your opinion, is anyone who fits into any of these categories "radicalised"? If not, why not, and which categories are "radicalised" in your opinion, and why?

To give another example, I have known people who advocated IRA violence to achieve political ends (the kind that occurred since the sixties), however they probably haven't ever funded the organisation, nor IMO would they agree with violence against children or any other innocent people who are just trying to go about their daily lives (which are not in any way related to the political status quo or say law enforcement), by said organisation. Of course I still wouldn't agree with their advocacy in the first place (even if I can see why an organisation like the IRA was born in the first place, the British did some fairly sickening things to Ireland).

Admittedly I did not include funding in the five categories I've outlined, because to be fair I don't have a clue of how likely it is that say someone in category 1 would fund an organisation that advocates say violence against homosexuals, or would someone who funds an organisation whose official position is say category 2 or 3, is that organisation "radicalised" (btw this includes the official position of the Catholic church AFAIK)?

Furthermore, I'm always fairly sceptical of survey results, for this reason (a clip from Yes, Prime Minister, a political comedy that never seems to age):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

IMO to say that all five categories of people are radicalised is to dilute the term to such a degree that makes it almost completely meaningless, furthermore I really don't see how the sort of people in category 1 could be seen as aiding the cause.

The people who sympathized and harbored Timothy McVeigh may not have been willing or able to bomb abortion clinics themselves, but they certainly enabled him with their radicalized beliefs.

I find it disturbing that so many Muslims hold similarly radicalized beliefs even if they would not pick up a gun or put on a vest themselves. To deny that they contribute is some way is to ignore reality.

People who want to impose Sharia law on others very well may provide refuge and support to a Jihadi who claims that is all he wants too. I'm not comfortable with Christians who want to use the law to enforce Christian punishments against non-believers either, but there are far fewer as a percentage who would embrace that.

 

[zinfamous]

Lol. Like I ever stopped.

 

[OutHouse]

HARD TRUTH About ‘Moderate Muslims’ From a Moderate Muslim

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/world/hard-truth-about-moderate-muslims-from-a-moderate-muslim

In my childhood I was told that every day that passes on the Islamic nation without a caliphate is a sin. That the failures and miseries of the Muslim world started the moment we gave up conquests and wars against the infidels. That our prosperity depends on conquering new lands, converting new believers, looting new resources and enslaving more women. I was taught that a Jew is essentially a demon in flesh and that it is our destiny as good Muslims to kill them all. I was regularly fueled by battle stories and stories of lethal feuds of seventh century Arabia. It was not just me, a small child in Cairo, who was raised with these great apocalyptic prophecies, it was also so many people from all around the globe.

The bottom line is; it is quite possible, at one point of history, to have an entire nation dominated by some very bad ideas. We have seen it before and we are seeing it today. For the west now to deny this historical fact and pretend that the majority of people are always naturally sane, rational, peace loving hippies is hypocritical, misleading and dishonest. It is an ugly lie that offends our intelligence. We have a long history of the major human consensus to persecute women, Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals. Thus, it is quite possible — at least theoretically — for a significant portion or even the majority of the world’s Muslim population (estimated to be over 1.5 billion) to be anti-Semitic, homophobic and in sympathy with violence and even Islamic totalitarianism.

Many parts of the Muslim world are intolerant towards free speech, criticism and reform. Human rights are not observed in most of the Muslim world; women’s rights, homosexual rights, minority rights, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of belief..etc. are things that the majority of non-violent Muslims do not observe. Execution of apostates, women who are not allowed to drive, sexual segregation, persecution of liberals and journalists, homosexual imprisonment, and persecution of non-Muslim minorities are all common themes almost in all Muslim countries. Many Muslim countries use public beheadings, hangings, lashings, stonings and chopping of limbs as an accepted form of punishment.

My argument is, we are using the label “moderate” for everyone who is not trying to kill us regardless of that person’s actual views. We are in a very bad situation to the extent that we have confused moderation with self-interest. The majority of the Muslim world may not be moderate, but rather acting in its daily life from a purely self-interested point of view. This is a very good thing. We should encourage all Muslims to act and preserve their self-interests. But we should not lie to them about the nature of their religious ideas.

If we are sincere about solving this pressing global issue, then we should be honest and truthful. We can’t fight cruel terrorists while we ally ourselves with people who commit similar atrocities but have more oil. We can’t allow ourselves to deceive our Muslim friends that it is their right to oppose free speech, LGBT rights, women’s rights etc. Moderate Muslims should not be part of the problem, they should be the solution. Islamic extremism will not be “degraded and ultimately destroyed” unless it is Muslims themselves who fight it. Being obsessed with religion is not a proper response and we should be honest and clear about that. I am aware of the fact that all I’m sharing is tough and not easy to do, but I can assure you that closing our eyes to reality will do us no good. Only acknowledging it will allow us to take our first steps toward a profound and desperately needed reform.

 

[mikeymikec]

The people who sympathized and harbored Timothy McVeigh may not have been willing or able to bomb abortion clinics themselves, but they certainly enabled him with their radicalized beliefs.

I find it disturbing that so many Muslims hold similarly radicalized beliefs even if they would not pick up a gun or put on a vest themselves. To deny that they contribute is some way is to ignore reality.

People who want to impose Sharia law on others very well may provide refuge and support to a Jihadi who claims that is all he wants too. I'm not comfortable with Christians who want to use the law to enforce Christian punishments against non-believers either, but there are far fewer as a percentage who would embrace that.

So without directly answering anything I asked, I think I'm correctly interpreting your response as "yes, I think all five categories represent radicalised people", which I think dilutes the definition of "radicalised" to the point of complete uselessness, and I wouldn't be surprised if maybe 75% of the people on this planet could be termed as "radicalised" in one respect or another, using your definition.

Furthermore, what the fuck does "do you think sharia law should be practised in the middle east" have to do with whether someone has been radicalised? My mother thinks that abortion is wrong, and in a discussion she defended Ireland's position regarding an Indian woman who died in hospital because they refused to abort a baby that turned out to be stillborn and poisoned the mother, so I'm pretty sure that my mum thinks that in an ideal world abortion would be illegal, so in such a survey she would probably agree, and in your opinion, she's also "radicalised".

One further point - take the questions that your YT clip mentioned and turn the situation on the flipside - ask these questions to typical Westerners, then give the survey results to ISIS and let them use it as propaganda material. That's basically what your YT clip just did in reverse, it peddled the "they are among us" rhetoric ("are you scared yet?"). The fact that most Westerners very likely are against Sharia law does not necessarily mean that they're in favour of the idea of forcing their views on the rest of the planet, however that's the kind of thing that ISIS would likely push, that we want to eradicate the accepted culture of billions of people. Whether Muslim countries want to have sharia law, honour killings, whatever, that's NONE OF OUR FUCKING BUSINESS. If that's the culture they want to live in, in a country that is run by a government of a like-minded opinion, that's their business. If we make it our business and try to force them to change, then everyone has a big fucking problem. Likewise, if Muslims tried to impose sharia law in a Western country, there would be a big fucking problem.

Other countries have different ideals and cultures to our own, deal with it, but not by labelling them as "radicalised", as that word is already in widespread use as either "wannabe terrorist" or just "terrorist".

 

[Newell Steamer]

Here is some more insight into 1.6 billion people, as per ATP&N Righthadist 'Logic':

- 1.6 billion Muslims smoke weed
- 1.6 billion Muslims sleep all day
- 1.6 billion Muslims do not go to the Mosque

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...h-say-blew-mistake-fiddling-suicide-vest.html

 

[CZroe]

Furthermore, what the fuck does "do you think sharia law should be practised in the middle east[Islamic countries]" have to do with whether someone has been radicalised? My mother thinks that abortion is wrong, and in a discussion she defended Ireland's position regarding an Indian woman who died in hospital because they refused to abort a baby that turned out to be stillborn and poisoned the mother, so I'm pretty sure that my mum thinks that in an ideal world abortion would be illegal, so in such a survey she would probably agree, and in your opinion, she's also "radicalised".

One further point - take the questions that your YT clip mentioned and turn the situation on the flipside - ask these questions to typical Westerners, then give the survey results to ISIS and let them use it as propaganda material. That's basically what your YT clip just did in reverse, it peddled the "they are among us" rhetoric ("are you scared yet?"). The fact that most Westerners very likely are against Sharia law does not necessarily mean that they're in favour of the idea of forcing their views on the rest of the planet, however that's the kind of thing that ISIS would likely push, that we want to eradicate the accepted culture of billions of people. Whether Muslim countries want to have sharia law, honour killings, whatever, that's NONE OF OUR FUCKING BUSINESS. If that's the culture they want to live in, in a country that is run by a government of a like-minded opinion, that's their business. If we make it our business and try to force them to change, then everyone has a big fucking problem. Likewise, if Muslims tried to impose sharia law in a Western country, there would be a big fucking problem.

Other countries have different ideals and cultures to our own, deal with it, but not by labelling them as "radicalised", as that word is already in widespread use as either "wannabe terrorist" or just "terrorist".

Your support for Sharia law in Islamic countries at the expense of freedom and basic human rights alarms me. Are you forgetting that imposing strict Sharia law on all Islamic countries would impose strict Sharia law on Hindus, Buddhists, Coptic Christians, agnostics, atheist, etc and deny them their basic human rights? They wouldn't even have freedom of religion. I believe you want to appear tolerant of religion when you express that view, but it's exactly the opposite.

Abortion was a bad comparison to use because it is entirely possible to be agnostic/atheist and still oppose abortion. The right to your own life is a universally understood basic human right and the view on abortion hinges on when you arbitrarily chose that a human is first entitled to it. That said, as a percentage, far fewer Jews and Christians want to impose their Christian or Jewish laws and punishments on non-believers by government/law.

I have no problem with Muslims and have had many as my friends and coworkers over the years. I have a problem with any radical of any religion who wishes to imposed their laws/beliefs/punishments on others by force. I acknowledge that this is far more prevalent among people of Islamic faith than most religions because I can be tolerant without sticking my head in the sand or ignoring it.

 

[Fern]

What did Timothy McVeigh and Tamerlan Tsarnaev have in common? I'd say they used religion to justify their violence.

Timothy McVeigh didn't have any religious beliefs. He claimed to be agnostic.

He explained his motivations for the bombing and they had nothing to do with religion.

Wiki explains it pretty well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Religious_beliefs

Fern

 

[mikeymikec]

Abortion was a bad comparison to use because it is entirely possible to be agnostic/atheist and still oppose abortion.

The word 'radical' (and words derived from it) has nothing to do with religion. Seriously, look it up.

Your support for Sharia law in Islamic countries at the expense of freedom and basic human rights alarms me.

Jesus fucking christ. Can you stop with the "they are among us" rhetoric for a moment and answer my original question? You implied a definition of radical that I don't agree with. If you want to familiarise yourself with that question, it was here: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37846318&postcount=628

I do not support sharia law in the slightest (nor do I have the faintest idea where you got that idea from, you might want to spare some thought to wonder how you came to that conclusion). However, just like my example regarding my mother's attitude with regard to abortion, even if she was to answer yes to a survey question to be "should all countries ban abortion", what does this mean in terms of "radicalisation"? Do you recognise that that abortion survey question is not the same as asking say, "do you think that all countries should be forced to ban abortion at any cost"? Also, using the rationale you've apparently been using, how do you think a typical Muslim living in an Islamic country should react to a typical Westerner's response regarding whether Sharia law should be practised at all, anywhere? How should that Muslim person interpret the response, that the Westerner has been "radicalised"? What do you suppose is likely to happen if most typical Muslims believe that most typical Westerners have been "radicalised", and vice versa? How great a threat therefore do you suppose 'typical Muslims' are going to think that a country like America poses to them and their way of life?

 

[CZroe]

The word 'radical' (and words derived from it) has nothing to do with religion. Seriously, look it up.

Excuse me, but you were following the conversation at all, you would see that I responded to your post about most Muslims being non-radical and some Christians being radical with a link about "The Myth of the Radical Muslim Minority" and a correction about your particular example of a radicalized Christian. We've been arguing about the "Myth of the Radical Muslim Minority" video ever since, so don't try to change the subject. As per the direction of your original post that I responded to, this is all about whether or not Islam is more violent than other major religions.

Your support for Sharia law in Islamic countries at the expense of freedom and basic human rights alarms me. Are you forgetting that imposing strict Sharia law on all Islamic countries would impose strict Sharia law on Hindus, Buddhists, Coptic Christians, agnostics, atheist, etc and deny them their basic human rights?

Jesus fucking christ. Can you stop with the "they are among us" rhetoric for a moment and answer my original question? You implied a definition of radical that I don't agree with. If you want to familiarise yourself with that question, it was here: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37846318&postcount=628

LOL! There isn't even a hint of that rhetoric in what I said. I said that Islamic countries imposing Sharia law would force their beliefs on non-Muslims who also live in those countries and deny them their basic human rights including freedom of religion. You couldn't even be an atheist/agnostic without serious consequences. My point was that Islamic countries simply have an Islamic majority and the population is not 100% Muslim. Saying that it is OK for them to impose Sharia law on everyone within their borders ignores a basic principle of freedom and human rights.

I do not support sharia law in the slightest (nor do I have the faintest idea where you got that idea from, you might want to spare some thought to wonder how you came to that conclusion)...

Does this jog your memory?

Whether Muslim countries want to have sharia law, honour killings, whatever, that's NONE OF OUR FUCKING BUSINESS. If that's the culture they want to live in, in a country that is run by a government of a like-minded opinion, that's their business. If we make it our business and try to force them to change, then everyone has a big fucking problem. Likewise, if Muslims tried to impose sharia law in a Western country, there would be a big fucking problem.

It's not unlike saying that slavery is OK because it's none of our business what the Confederate States do. Hitler exterminating the Jews doesn't concern us because it's none of our business what the Nazis do. Islamic countries imposing Sharia law on everyone within their borders *IS* a similar concern.

...However, just like my example regarding my mother's attitude with regard to abortion, even if she was to answer yes to a survey question to be "should all countries ban abortion", what does this mean in terms of "radicalisation"? Do you recognise that that abortion survey question is not the same as asking say, "do you think that all countries should be forced to ban abortion at any cost"?

He listed the research organization if you have any questions about how the survey questions were presented.

 

[mikeymikec]

Excuse me, but you were following the conversation at all, you would see that I responded to your post about most Muslims being non-radical and some Christians being radical with a link about "The Myth of the Radical Muslim Minority" and a correction about your particular example of a radicalized Christian. We've been arguing about the "Myth of the Radical Muslim Minority" video ever since, so don't try to change the subject. As per the direction of your original post that I responded to, this is all about whether or not Islam is more violent than other major religions.

I haven't changed the topic at all, and the conversation you were referring to was you responding to a point I had made! You've missed what I've been talking about completely since then.

Does this jog your memory?

It's not unlike saying that slavery is OK because it's none of our business what the Confederate States do. Hitler exterminating the Jews doesn't concern us because it's none of our business what the Nazis do. Islamic countries imposing Sharia law on everyone within their borders *IS* a similar concern.

These are so utterly different examples that I'm honestly not surprised that you somehow managed to come to such an erroneous conclusion. One is a scenario regarding things that are being done in a country and a civil war ensues because they're considered to be incompatible with the principles of the country, your second example wasn't even the reason why WW2 occurred, and the third is there presumably because you think it ties off your point nicely and somehow therefore I support sharia law apparently. The mind boggles.

And you still haven't managed to answer the question I originally put to you. Seriously, I give up. I ask you a question, you respond with something that's vaguely on the same topic but is no way an answer to the question.

Then you go on to disparage my opinion in a competely fucking unrelated thread!
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=37848434&posted=1#post37848434

 

[CZroe]

I haven't changed the topic at all, and the conversation you were referring to was you responding to a point I had made! You've missed what I've been talking about completely since then.

These are so utterly different examples that I'm honestly not surprised that you somehow managed to come to such an erroneous conclusion. One is a scenario regarding things that are being done in a country and a civil war ensues because they're considered to be incompatible with the principles of the country, your second example wasn't even the reason why WW2 occurred, and the third is there presumably because you think it ties off your point nicely and somehow therefore I support sharia law apparently. The mind boggles.

And you still haven't managed to answer the question I originally put to you. Seriously, I give up. I ask you a question, you respond with something that's vaguely on the same topic but is no way an answer to the question.

Then you go on to disparage my opinion in a competely fucking unrelated thread!
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=37848434&posted=1#post37848434

Excuse me, but *I* was arguing *my* point, princess. You are changing the subject to get out of a corner. I smacked you with a dose of reality about the percentage of Muslims holding inarguably radical Islamic views and you tried to change the subject about what kind of "radicals" we are talking about and what defines "radical." Shameful.

This is not how you win debates. This is not how you argue a point. This is not how you apply logic and reason. It's no wonder you make similar logic errors in other thought processes.

 

[mikeymikec]

Excuse me, but *I* was arguing *my* point, princess. You are changing the subject... shamefully. I smacked you with a dose of reality about the percentage of Muslims holding inarguably radical Islamic views and you tried to change the subject about what kind of "radicals" we are talking about and what defines "radical."

This is not how you win debates. This is not how you argue a point. This is not how you apply logic and reason. It's no wonder you make similar logic errors in other thought processes.

If you want to have a logical argument, then if someone asks you a question regarding a statement you've made, you answer it. My question to you has been the same for quite a few posts now.

If you don't want to do that, that's entirely up to you, but please don't try to lecture people on how to conduct a logical argument.

 

[CZroe]

If you want to have a logical argument, then if someone asks you a question regarding a statement you've made, you answer it. My question to you has been the same for quite a few posts now.

If you don't want to do that, that's entirely up to you, but please don't try to lecture people on how to conduct a logical argument.

The discussion between you and me was about the percentage of Muslims that hold inarguably "radical" views including imposing Government institutionalized Sharia law on others (no freedom of religion) and supporting OBL. It has nothing to do with "other" radicals. I have answered everything relevant. If you want to discuss irrelevant things about the definition of "radicals" then...

What percentage of Ninja Turtles are "radical?" ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!1

 

[norseamd]

refugees who left Raqqa are pretty uniform in why they stayed so long: reprisal from ISIS if caught fleeing, having jihadis sack their homes

https://twitter.com/mike_giglio/status/667768195198136320

 

[SP33Demon]

MikeyC, sharia law should be our business because their Hadith says they will fight a western nation in Dabiq. ISIS is goading western countries (including yours) into a ground war there to fulfill their prophecy and gain more recruits. The more countries with sharia law, the more that will try to kill citizens of western countries for "mischief against allah" (Koran 5:33).

Also, care to explain how jihadi john originated from your country? He lived in the lap of luxury, well educated, but still became radicalized. Britain is partly responsible. Don't worry though, soon you guys will be outbred in 50 years by muslims and your grandkids will be wearing burqas. No offense, but you should probably be trying to have babies instead of posting here.

One can only speculate as to what percentage 26 million would be of the total population in 2051. With about ten million British people currently over the age of 65 (Muslims make up only 1∙2 percent of over 65s) and average British birth rates below replacement level, the number of Muslims in Britain by the year 2051 could be anything from forty to fifty percent.

It’s important to point out that the population projections made here are not mathematical certainties. They are reasoned arguments based on causal facts (a time series) that are reasonably expected to continue into the future.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/5632/uk_muslim_population_of_26_million_by_2051

 

[mikeymikec]

MikeyC, sharia law should be our business because their Hadith says they will fight a western nation in Dabiq. ISIS is goading western countries (including yours) into a ground war there to fulfill their prophecy and gain more recruits. The more countries with sharia law, the more that will try to kill citizens of western countries for "mischief against allah" (Koran 5:33).

Ooh, everyone stop everything, we've got some prohecies to fulfil! There are countries that likely have been practising Sharia law since forever and now they're going to risk fucking up their status quo and team up with ISIS because...? You know, the countries in question have governments, corporations, citizens with jobs, and people who like to accumulate money/material things/power/popularity just like in most countries, and your prediction sees them not only going up against many developed countries with lots of resources at their disposal, but also going up against countries that they do business with.

But out of curiosity, I'll accept your premise for a moment to see where your logic goes. How do you propose convincing countries to stop Sharia law? Does one possibility involve military force? Do you just want to stop sharia law or do you have a laundry list of other facets of their cultures that you would like to eradicate? Have you considered that you aren't just advocating going up against ISIS, you're advocating trying to change the way that millions of people live their lives and telling them that basically they're immoral beings. So while ISIS currently consists of what, 30k people, you're talking about essentially going to war with hundreds of millions of people who now have a serious beef with you when they didn't before your little crusade. When there was little reason for them to join ISIS's jihad before, there bloody well is after attempting your idea.

Also, care to explain how jihadi john originated from your country? He lived in the lap of luxury, well educated, but still became radicalized. Britain is partly responsible. Don't worry though, soon you guys will be outbred in 50 years by muslims and your grandkids will be wearing burqas. No offense, but you should probably be trying to have babies instead of posting here.

I have a feeling here that you're not so much asking me a question but telling me your answer to a question that I didn't ask. Cool story bro.

 

[CZroe]

Ooh, everyone stop everything, we've got some prohecies to fulfil! There are countries that likely have been practising Sharia law since forever and now they're going to risk fucking up their status quo and team up with ISIS because...? You know, the countries in question have governments, corporations, citizens with jobs, and people who like to accumulate money/material things/power/popularity just like in most countries, and your prediction sees them not only going up against many developed countries with lots of resources at their disposal, but also going up against countries that they do business with.

But out of curiosity, I'll accept your premise for a moment to see where your logic goes. How do you propose convincing countries to stop Sharia law? Does one possibility involve military force? Do you just want to stop sharia law or do you have a laundry list of other facets of their cultures that you would like to eradicate? Have you considered that you aren't just advocating going up against ISIS, you're advocating trying to change the way that millions of people live their lives and telling them that basically they're immoral beings. So while ISIS currently consists of what, 30k people, you're talking about essentially going to war with hundreds of millions of people who now have a serious beef with you when they didn't before your little crusade. When there was little reason for them to join ISIS's jihad before, there bloody well is after attempting your idea.

I have a feeling here that you're not so much asking me a question but telling me your answer to a question that I didn't ask. Cool story bro.

A Christian "sin" doesn't cease to be a sin just because a secular/agnostic government doesn't punish it or make it illegal. They can abide by Sharia if they want, but the government should not be enforcing it on others any more than yours or mine should enforce Christian morals. Duh. This isn't rocket science.

Institutionalized Sharia Law is wrong for the same reason all government-mandated religions are wrong. Tolerance of a group's religion/beliefs does not mean turning a blind eye to the institutionalized persecution of non-believers. Freedom and liberty and basic human rights demand that this should not be tolerated.

We place embargoes and refuse to deal with nations which violate the human rights of their citizens all the time. It doesn't have to be war, but it should not be acceptance.

 

[mikeymikec]

They can abide by Sharia if they want, but the government should not be enforcing it on others any more than yours or mine should enforce Christian morals. Duh. This isn't rocket science.

I should point out that SP3Demon is arguing a different and incompatible point to you, yet you're not arguing the point with him. I'm guessing that you're advocating only targeting the countries that are enforcing sharia law even though their population isn't completely muslim. What about the muslims who don't think sharia law is a good idea? Also, I'm sure a fair number of people who have been subjected to punishments imposed by sharia law who no longer think much of it.

We place embargoes and refuse to deal with nations which violate the human rights of their citizens all the time. It doesn't have to be war, but it should not be acceptance.

Human rights abuses are going on in tonnes of countries all of the time. It might be easier to make a very short list of countries not engaging in human rights abuses. By placing embargoes on countries, you're literally screwing up thousands of businesses, possibly run by people (or at least employing them) that you're trying to "protect", and helping that country's economy circle the drain. When that happens, people get desperate, and do desperate shit, like join ISIS. They also blame you for screwing up their country.

 

[norseamd]

Syrian Passport in Paris May Be Planted, German Minister Says

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-in-paris-may-be-planted-german-minister-says

 

[Ichinisan]

Syrian Passport in Paris May Be Planted, German Minister Says

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-in-paris-may-be-planted-german-minister-says

...but it still can’t be ruled out that this was indeed an IS terrorist posing as a refugee,” he told reporters in Berlin on Tuesday

What does this German guy know that we don't know? Nothing.

 

[CZroe]

What does this German guy know that we don't know? Nothing.

If I say it may be planted by aliens I expect to be taken seriously and quoted as if I had some reason to think that.

Ahem:
It may be planted by aliens.

 

[norseamd]

Syrian suspect in Paris attacks travels through Ecuador, Colombia: Ecuadorian official

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-11/21/c_134839691.htm