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.
Eklipse,
First, I did not criticize the US alone I criticized the whole NATO community and the US on this, and so what? Is that forbidden to criticize the US now? I know you are damn patriotic but face the truth for once, and admit the US and their allies are greatly responsible for the current situation in the Midddle East. They are also responsible for doing nothing against the true ennemies of Islam and the World: The Saudi wahhabists and radical muslims spreading their message of hatred. Why nothing is done against them? Oil and money is the answer, do not ask anything else, this is the very answer of why the US and other powers will not do anything against them, because fighting them would put the world in danger and in a serious economic crisis (the 70s crisis was just small example at a minor scale of what the Oil industry can do).
Then, you omit 99% of my whole comment, and you intentionously change my words, I said the US should have NEVER attacked Iraq without the full consent of the UN council, but once it was done the US should have indeed helped the Iraqis something they never did actually, if you consider how the North of Iraq was left alone without any help and thats why ISIS grew.
Because if not helping the Iraqis to have a stable and secure state, what was the real motivation of the US intervention then? Money and politics are again the answer: Oil is one of the motivation of this war no secret again about that. Like the 1991 intevention against Iraq with Koweit, it was nothing else but to secure the precious Oil fields in the South of Iraq (that's perhaps also why the South of Iraq wasnt abandonned such as the uninteresting north of Iraq with less ressources that Exxon, Shell, BP or Total could have exploited?), and the intervention was decided without thinking about the repercussions and the aftereffects, motivated by Bush and his administration that there was a "clash of civilizations" (this are his words), this is how George W Bush was seeing the intervention, so there is no secret about why this totally failed, and why Iraqis were just a secondary factor during the intervention and were left alone when the serious threat that ISIS was becoming, grew in the North. Only the fierce Kurds took the arms and stopped them, fortunately the Kurds are here because without them the situation would have been worse.
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.
Few terrorist attacks actually happened in Europe, and we never had a significant one such as 911 killing thousands of people. As I told you not so long ago you had the Boston attacks, and America is not as secure as countries of Europe, because the US are the target#1 for ISIS and AlQaeda. Nevertheless, the thing is Europe is clearly closer to the Middle East, I heard about the Paris Attack that there was a Syrian guy, he crossed the Mediterranean sea, and came to Greece were he was signaled and they took his fingerprints, by foot he went through the Balkans, and in less than 1 months he was in France. It is like for the US having as neighbors ISIS instead of Mexico, the Geographic factor has to been taken in count.
Furthermore, you tell me about Americans stopping the terrorists, what you certainly did not know is that there had been at least 3 other potential terrorist attacks in France that have been stopped not so long before the Paris attacks (some stopped by brave citizens without guns): one in Toulon stopped by the Army nearby, one in a train going to Belgium, stopped by civilians and the Army, they sized the terrorists and no casualities were reported, and another attack in Nice against the Army again stopped. This is only what happened in France, and I believe countries like Germany or Britain have other successful examples they could talk about.
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
I just prove earlier particularly with the train terrorist attack that citizens in Europe can defend themselves without any guns, and btw do you really believe you can bring a gun everywhere like in a train or in a theater even in the US? So stop saying insanities, the US should try first to stop the numerous massacres due to their permisive laws you have about guns, allowing people to have a gun, go to a college and kill dozens of people (this happened so many times). What about vendettas against a community that free guns could possibly create? Imagine if the US had a big Muslim community such as in Europe, a islamist explode himself, and people to avenge the dead innocents decide to take the arms and punish the Muslims, because I am sure many would confuse Islamists with the entire Muslim community (just reading some comments here such as Vormulaks prove that), imagine if someone lost someone close like his wife or children during the attacks? if he had a gun there would be a chance that he would wnat to avenge himself, and if not killing the terrorist he would murder his family, this is why guns have to be confined to the authority not to random citizens, because we after all dont know what each of them could do.
This is the result when you let untrained people and random citizens having guns in their home. You know, we also hear in Europe about these tragedies about guns in your country, and I am at least proud to be in a nation where guns are outlawed.
Said Christian groups don't have nearly the scale of ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Islamic terrorism is a global and expanding threat. The Christian terrorist groups you mentioned have nowhere near the same amount of power and have little influence outside their own countries/regions. Are they still a problem to be dealt with? Of course, but they don't pose an imminent danger to the entire world.
Said Christian groups don't have nearly the scale of ISIS (and I took the time earlier to explain you why if you paid a little attention about it Eklipse) but still, they exist. Read also my comment about the historical background of Islam and Christianity, I already prove you that Christians could be as deadly as the Muslim ones, and that the reason was because the Church allowed atrocities and massacres in the past, for now the Vatican is led by reasonable leaders, the Pope conveys a message of peace, but imagine if we get a radical pope from the Opus Dei or who knows any other obscurantist christian movement? Things would be similar like what we know today with radical Islam.
I am personally not religious but was raised in the Catholic faith, I did most of the Catholic blessed sacraments, from Baptism to the sacrament of Confirmation, I went to Cathechism for my whole youth (even if I disagreed about it), my grandparents were very pious and achieved most of the christian pilgrimages such as Jerusalem, Rome, Lourdes or Santiago, so I am certainly not an ignorant about the Christian religion, and I wouuld also say I know quite a lot about Islam, because I read a lot about it and I have some friends who are Muslims and explained me a lot about their own religion. I define myself close to Agnoticism: not denying the existence of a god or a particular entity, but not identifying myself with any religions and any of their messages. I have my opinion about religions (which is not particularly a good opinion truth be told), but I wont share it here because I know I would offend many of you here.
Last but not least and as a conclusion, Islam and Christianity are very similar and share the same origin, saying Muslims are a threat is like saying that Christians are likely a similar threat for the Worlds peace. Comparing which religions is the most violent is totally stupid, because these 2 religions proved throughout their history that when being wronly interpreted by fanatic people or extremists they were equally violent and dangerous.
Edited 11/17/2015 10:51:58
