He would ask you to save room for him.

It always escalates when ion is around.

Eklipse so about this thread tell me more about your opinion, saying 100% of muslims are a threat and need to be killed, is considered as right for you?

Now you're putting words in to my mouth. Please, actually read my post and think about it before flying off the hook with wild accusations. I never said that all Muslims are a threat and I certainly never suggested killing anyone.

However, Islamic extremism is a serious problem and it is true that extremism like this occurs in greater proportion among Muslims. Something has to be done, but any attempt to even discuss a solution is immediately met with idiotic shouting of "Islamaphobia".

Vormulak is insane and takes things way too far, but underneath all the hate there is a small truth regarding the threat posed by Islamic terrorism, that is what I meant. Again, please think deeper before flying off the hook. Knee-jerk outrage is why it's almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion about topics like this.

Vormulak continuously saying insanities and you and some others dont giving a shit about him pursuing with his message of hatred, putting a whole community (the Muslims) into one category and considering all of them as evil.

We're ignoring Vormulak because responding to him is pointless. Any attempt to debate with him will just be met with insults. Sometimes it's better to just ignore his type otherwise you'll find yourself debating with a wall. It's a pointless waste of time.

Of course Vormulak here is 100% wrong.

He's wrong in saying that all Muslims are evil and should be destroyed.

He's not wrong in saying that terrorism is a serious problem and greater steps must be taken to deal with it, some of those steps we might find uncomfortable. It's a matter of how many need to die before we realize that business as usual isn't going to help us.

Edited 11/16/2015 17:33:29

Eklipse, everybody knows that extremist islamism is dangerous, so are extremist christians and any religious extremism or nationalist extremists, and the list goes on.
So there is not only Islam, and people who amalgamate the whole muslim community with terrorism are 100% wrong yes.
Thinking deeper? Before saying Vormulak is not always wrong, you have to be more precise and careful while commenting, because we were pointing out the fact that Vormulak considered every muslim as being insane or a great proportion of them, and you just showed later saying he was not totally wrong, I was not putting words in your mouth the fact you were unprecise in your comment made us thinking you were supporting his words, fortunately later you finally detailed what you wanted to say. There cannot be any reasonable discussions about topics like this one because this thread was formerly putting all the muslims as a threat, and was meant to convey a message of hatred.

You want to talk about terrorism? the first victims are Muslims, and remember that we are the guilty ones for the current situation in the Middle East, The colonial powers then the US intevention in Iraq destabilised an entire region, as ISIS grew first in the NOrth of Iraq. We should also blame the Wahabbist Saudis financing the Islamic State, the Western World does nothting against them too frightened about losing their oil revenues, terrorism is not inherent to Islam, it is inherent to politics and word powers greed. Hence I consider George Bush as guilty as the terrorists that attacked Paris 3 days ago. This is part of the domino effect.

Answering your comments about guns:

Guns are certainly not a remedy against terrorism, I know many Americans dont get it, but guns worsen the situation, and the fact that just one citizen having a gun would have stopped them is wrong, first of all they were at least 7 in 3 different places in Paris and heavily armed, how do you deal with someone exploding himself? Did people with guns helped on anything during the Boston attacks?
Guns should be only given to trustworthy people such as Police or the Army, no random civilians should get a war weapon or guns to defend themselves.

Edited 11/16/2015 18:18:49

Angry you're an idiot go read stats on gun crime.

Eklipse, everybody knows that extremist islamism is dangerous, so are extremist christians and any religious extremism or nationalist extremists, and the list goes on.

True, but when's the last time a group of Christians walked into a major city, screamed "Praise the lord!" and then killed over a hundred civilians? The number of terrorist attacks committed by Muslims exceeds that of other extremist groups by an enormous order of magnitude. Do Christians do horrible things too sometimes? Yes, but it's barely detectable in comparison.

before saying Vormulak is not always wrong, you have to be more precise and careful while commenting

Quite right. I should of remembered how much of a mine-field discussing Islamic terrorism is and that I'd have someone jump down my throat the moment I said something out of line.

remember that we are the guilty ones for the current situation in the Middle East

No. Those who commit terrorism are fully responsible. They have the final choice in their actions. The things western powers have done in the Middle East was horrible, but only rarely do the "victims" take revenge on politicians who ordered the destruction. They target civilians who had nothing to do with it.

terrorism is not inherent to Islam

But it is more prevalent to Islam then any other group. There has to be a reason or pattern behind that fact.

Hence I consider George Bush as guilty as the terrorists that attacked Paris 3 days ago.

As a side note: You do realize that Barack Obama has ordered just as many if not more military actions than Bush?

This is part of the domino effect.

Not this again. Using the domino effect to assign blame is ridiculous. History is nothing but a massive chain of events with one leading to another. You could blame almost any country for anything if you trace the cause and effect backwards enough.

Guns should be only given to trustworthy people such as Police or the Army, no random civilians should get a war weapon or guns to defend themselves.

The police and military aren't omni-present. If I don't have weapons to defend myself what am I supposed to do when an armed criminal, who doesn't give a crap about the law to start with and obtained his weapon on the black market, busts down my door? Hide in my closet? No thank you.

Christians did far more than that. They colonized the New World, Africa, maritime Asia and the subcontinent, attempted to impose not only their religion but their culture on them. The damage they wrought by destroying ancient civilizations and looting natives' wealth and labor is staggering. Colonization of the New World and its riches is the original cause of the West's current, albeit declining, supremacy.

Now, you may argue, and be perfectly justified in doing so, that not all the colonizers were Christians and not all Christians followed their faith devoutly and that most colonized out of greed. Just like that, I may also argue that Islam is not the cause of extremism, that not all Muslims are extremists and that those who practice terrorism do it not out of piety but to spread terror and acquire power. What religion even endorses violence for people who do not accept it? None that I know and certainly not Islam. Islam in fact starkly forbids suicide and strongly discourages the murder of even one human.

The US indirectly created and encouraged terrorist networks in its effort to advance its own interests. They funded a group that later became the Taliban to fight the Soviets on their behalf in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda also originated due to this and the invasion of Iraq. When the Soviets left, these groups found themselves purposeless and so turned to terrorism. These terrorists now strike back in revenge. As Afghanistan and the Middle-East has been mainly Muslim for the past 1800 years, therefore most terrorism is in the name of Islam. Just a convenient political veneer. There are some true fanatics but only a few. Many are disaffected and displaced people.
There are no indiscriminate, mindless bombings to slaughter civilians. Bombings are carefully calculated to convey specific political intentions and disposition.

Edited 11/16/2015 19:22:41

SVY you're ignoring the quotes form the quaran you're lying you dirty dog.

Go home, kid.

[/i]Christians did far more than that. They colonized the New World, Africa, maritime Asia and the subcontinent, attempted to impose not only their religion but their culture on them.[/i]

I'm referring to who is doing what in the present day, not over a hundred years ago. However, if you wish to look at the past then it's worth pointing out that Muslim history isn't any better. Muslim empires invaded Europe several times in a manner not unlike the Crusades,plus the prophet Mohammad originally spread Islam through war and conquest. I don't blame Islam for crimes of the past,however, for the history of every major group is equally bloody.

I'm more concerned about the present day, where extremist Muslims are one of the most active threats to world peace.

The problems of the present are rooted in the past. West colonized, used colonial wealth to kick off the Industrial Revolution, grew technologically strong, invaded countries to maintain dominance. Etc. I used some history to answer your question why terrorism in the name of Islam is so prevalent. Short answer: the regions where terrorism originated are predominantly Muslim. If they had been Christian, theoretically terrorism would have a Christian agenda/ideology.

Digressing here, but I have to correct your answer. Empires have always invaded countries. That's what empire means. The Muslims were no different. They didn't invade to spread religion, their wars were originally in self-defense, to reopen blocked trade routes. Later they turned into wars of conquest.
Islam appealed to a lot of conquered peoples at that time: because there was a tax on non-Muslims and because of its freshness as a new religion that was free from the corruptions of Christianity and Judaism. Very few were forced by violence to come to Islam. Many retained their old faiths. Incidentally, the prophet Muhammad died before any real war.
Also, under Muslim rule, Spain was the brightest jewel in the crown of Western Islam, a leading center of culture and science. The Muslims did a favor to the Christians by conquering and ruling it; under the Visigoths it would've been like the rest of Dark-Age Europe: unsophisticated, underdeveloped and warring with no science to speak of.

True, but when's the last time a group of Christians walked into a major city, screamed "Praise the lord!" and then killed over a hundred civilians? The number of terrorist attacks committed by Muslims exceeds that of other extremist groups by an enormous order of magnitude. Do Christians do horrible things too sometimes? Yes, but it's barely detectable in comparison.

Eklipse, you told me it is ridiculous to talk about the Domino effect to explain how we finally came to the current situation in the Middle East, well saying that Muslims are commiting more terrorist attacks compared to Christians without explaining why and the social/economic origin of it and just thinking because it is inherent of their religion is also utterly ridiculous.

The rise of terrorism in the name of Islam is quite recent, during centuries Islamic civilizations were seen as far more advanced compared to the Christian ones.

Just as an historical aside, during the Darkest Ages of Europe, elsewhere a civilization was shining for its technological, cultural and economic advances.
At the meantime, in Europe, barbarians from the north had overrun much of Europe and the classical civilization of Greece and Rome had gone into eclipse.
At this period Islamic Spain became a bridge by which the scientific, technological, and philosophical legacy of the Abbasid period, along with the achievements of al-Andalus itself, passed into Europe. Astronomy, Mathemathics, Social Sciences, Geography the Muslims were far advanced in every field during this period. Most of the European christians scholars of that period went to Toledo, Cordoba and Bagdad schools and universities, to have the opportunity to attend some classes of the most famous islamic scholars such as Arzachel (Maths), Al Bitruji (Astronomy), Avenzoar (Medicine), Ibn Hazm (Physics), or Al Idrisi (Geography).
.
Nowadays, the best example of their legacy are the arabic origin words in science such as: Algebra, Altair and Betelgeuse (in Astronomy), Algorithm, Alkaline (in chemistry), Elixir, Cipher, and the list goes on.

Later, when the Ottoman Empire finally arose and conquered most of the remaining part of the Byzantine Empire and unified most of the Muslim World, this Caliphate was an example of tolerance for Europe: territories and communities were divided into Millet, like the Millet of the Jews or the Millet of Ortodox Christians, each of the millet having one representing leader of his community in the "Sublime Porte" of Constantinople. At the meantime in Iberia, Christian powers were ruthlessly killing hundred of thousand of Moriscos or Spanish Muslims and expelling the remaining Muslims and Ashkenazi Jews from Spain.

These are just some examples of what Enlightened Islamic civilizations could achieve, and this also proves to you and people that are still having a bad image about Islam, that it is certainly not worse nor better than the Christian faith. Both have the same origin, and actually quite close in many aspects.

Now the origin and the rise of terrorism among the Muslim societies, everything startedm for what I read, with the rise of Wahhabism (a very radical and obscurantist Islamic movement) in the Arabian peninsula in the 19th century onwards and finally helped by the British forces (I guess you heard of Lawrence of Arabia?) supporting the Al Saud family during their conquest of Arabia against the Ottoman Empire.
Nowadays Wahhabists are destroying their own nation's culture, profaning and destroynig Mosques and Saint's and Muhammad friends and family's tombs and sanctuaries.
The holy city of Mecca is disfigured by gigantic luxury hotels and the entire ancient city has been destroyed, the poors are removed far from the city, contradicting with the Islamic values very much similar to the Christian ones about misery and helping out people in need.
Wahhabism and Radical Islam originates from both the Colonial inteference and intrusion bringing this movement to the leading position whereas it was a minority before.The mix of Wahhabism and the perversion of the Sauds and other Arabian chieftains by the money they accumulated with the oil industry and a unregulated capitalist economy, led to the situation we have today.
The transformation of Arabia under the Sauds did more harm than anything to Islam, as Arabia gathers the most holy and important places and institutions in the Muslim World. It's like if the Vatican was led by a very extreme movement such as the Opus Dei, and perverting the Catholics with values of the past. Remember the Crusades? It was led by a fanatic pope calling a massive army to free Jerusalem and sanctioned by the Catholic Church, Crusades and Jihad are here very similar.

No. Those who commit terrorism are fully responsible. They have the final choice in their actions. The things western powers have done in the Middle East was horrible, but only rarely do the "victims" take revenge on politicians who ordered the destruction. They target civilians who had nothing to do with it.

No? We arent guilty of the current situation of the Middle East? This is pure hypocrisy. I explained earlier how colonialism destabilized the region particularly with Arabia, now about the US intervention in Iraq, yes it did more harm than anything, half of the country is out of control, and ISIS rose in Iraq without the US and NATO army lifting a finger, the worst thing is that it is now known that the ISIS army is led by many ancient generals of Saddam Hussein that were never worried, stopped nor arrested by the US army in Iraq.
You cant neglect the fact that the Western Powers led by the US are now responsible for the tragic current situation in the MIddle East.
George W Bush preached to attack Iraq upon a lie (that Saddam hid nuclear weapons), so things were screwed since the beginning, since the US intevened for bad reasons that werent fully supported by the UN council: remember about France and Germany refusing to collaborate? Many nations were actually hostile of any intervention, but well the US did not care at all because as the superpower they are they could handle it alone, now see the results of it after 12 years of US presence in Iraq, congrats! So yeah I blame more the Western powers (colonial powers of France and Britain, and the neo imperialistic American superpower) than the poor Muslims and other communities of the Middle East suffering the most of this insane war.

The police and military aren't omni-present. If I don't have weapons to defend myself what am I supposed to do when an armed criminal, who doesn't give a crap about the law to start with and obtained his weapon on the black market, busts down my door? Hide in my closet? No thank you.

I still maintain guns should not be allowed for civilians, only trained and professional forces should have weapons. This could possibly avoid in your state Eklipse some of the many tragedies that happened this recent years about mass slaughtering in schools, theaters, universities, or some tragedies that happened with children that accidentaly took the father's gun and shot their brothers or sister or themselves without knowing about the dangers because they are kids. If you see what I mean. This domestic accidents or massacres by civilians (not endoctrinated ones by Islam or criminals) never happened in Europe (or at least in France). Now Vormulak tell me more about your figures, I am really interesting to see how guns are more efficient.

Edited 11/16/2015 21:02:13

guns worsen the situation

Because having no guns in a situation where people are going to kill you makes it worse. What is worse than death?

how do you deal with someone exploding himself?

>What is shot placement
I'd take a citizen with a .22 who visits the range every other weekend over some sandmonkey terrorist with 3 years of experience firiing from the hip because "allah will guide the bullets"

no random civilians should get a war weapon or guns to defend themselves.

Because you'd prefer to just up and die, not defend yourself :^)

Because you'd prefer to just up and die, not defend yourself :^)

Here in Europe we are doing well without guns.

Mfw i try sifting through this cancer

https://youtu.be/okthJIVbi6g?t=14s

his is pure hypocrisy. I explained earlier how colonialism destabilized the region particularly with Arabia, now about the US intervention in Iraq, yes it did more harm than anything, half of the country is out of control, and ISIS rose in Iraq without the US and NATO army lifting a finger

Speaking of hypocrisy...Here you go again criticizing the U.S for intervening in the Middle East only to, in the very next line, criticize the U.S for not intervening enough. Which is it, Panda? Should the U.S use military force in the Middle East or not? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Here in Europe we are doing well without guns.

Events of the last 15 years would prove otherwise. What happened in Paris recently could be duplicated in nearly any European city of your choosing because the average European citizen has almost no way to defend themselves. If a terrorist attack happens and there aren't police nearby, you're most likely dead.

Now, the same thing could happen in any U.S city of course, but the chances of the attack being stopped or at-least partly negated is much higher since there is a portion of citizens with the ability to fight back.

Because having no guns in a situation where people are going to kill you makes it worse.

If you are getting robbed? As soon as the assailant has his gun pointed at you, it's already game over.

Reported

The "Troll King" has spoken...

*sigh*
*hits report button*

*cries*