Thats true, somthing serious needs to be done about radical islam but everyone is to scared to even mention the word "islam" .... smh

RedWood wrote

Cancerous wrote

RedWood wrote

Cancerous wrote There's ONE man in the world who really wants to do something about radical Islamic terrorism, and they all call him a racist.

Theres more than 1 person mate theres many

Pfft, most won't even dare call it out for what it is.

This guy will [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

XeReviver wrote The Terrorist attacks are getting bigger Since 9/11. The one at Ariana grandes concert was a big one. the only one that could be blamed is the guards that check people. I believe that the United stats needs to do a better job at doing security checks and other types of protection. Not just take people that look to be part of isis because they are Muslim. Not all isis members are Muslim, granted a majority are.

Terror attacks actually seem to be decreasing in death count since 9/11, but increasing in frequency.
Only four Islamic terror attacks in Europe since 9/11 have reached over 100 dead, and the worst of those were in Moscow, Madrid, and Beslan from 2002 - 2004. The closest to reach those numbers of dead were the Paris attacks in 2015 but they were still around 100 off reaching the numbers in the earlier attacks.

The one at Ariana Grande's concert wasn't really big or small, it was like when a painter uses that flick the brush method to give their painting some extra depth.

All ISIS members are Muslim, but the issue with profiling isn't that we should be deciding who we do look at with more scrutiny it's deciding who we know we shouldn't be looking at with as much scrutiny as everyone else.
We should be looking for who could potentially be a Jihadi, not just who could potentially be a Muslim.
A 90 year old grandmother from Okinawa with her 6 grandchildren doesn't deserve as much scrutiny as a 28 year old man with his face clean shaven - the 9/11 hijackers shaved their faces so they wouldn't draw as much attention to themselves and it seems to be a trend which has continued.
This has nothing to do with skin color, or country of origin, because white people can be Jihadists too, but there are just some people who you know can be instantly ruled out a glance.

PMJ wrote US and U.K missile strikes kill more innocents every day than these terror attacks yet no one ever considers that to be part of the problem, it's always due to religion,
The whole situation is messed and I think WW3 is coming but to be honest like it or not, the west have themselves to blame

The problem is that you have it completely backwards. Most people consider that to be the only cause of terrorism.
If you post on Facebook right now, 'Religion is to blame for this' you'll get lambasted back into the womb.
If you post 'Maybe if we stopped bombing their countries and killing their innocents this would never happen.' and you'll be held up as a paragon of truth and wisdom.

In my opinion, it's 60% Islamic ideology, 40% geopolitics.
Yes, drone strikes help to radicalize people and aren't helping, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of these people hate the west for religious reasons and aren't radicalized by anything geopolitical.
This is how we have university students in the US and UK converting to Islam and then going to fight for ISIS.
This is why ISIS has its own magazine called Dabiq in which it lays out the religious reasons for what they do and here is one extremely important quote from that magazine which should really shake you to your core:

"The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."

ISIS themselves are telling us that drone strikes, torture, collateral damage, etc. are not their primary reason for hating the west, it is their interpretation of their religion.

Now here, in my experience, is where apologists like to start quoting the Quran, and then the violent verses are quoted back at them and it all comes down to a big "Who can give the best interpretation" contest.

Let's use the quote: Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

To the person bringing this quote up it seems like a perfectly good way to defend their opinion. The Quran promotes violence against non-believers and there is no way anyone can justify this.
But the apologist will say that this is only supposed to be interpreted that way in a time of war and the Muslim world is not at war so ISIS are not true Muslims.

Then the person will bring up another quote and this will go back and forth until they both get bored or block one another.

What everyone seems to forget to bring up is the idea of Jihad.
Jihad is something which is much more open to interpretation than these individual quotes. Jihad, to most Muslims, means an inner struggle.
But to some it means the outer war with the enemies of Islam.

Now, what are these Muslims who feel as though Jihad is a war against non-believers who go against the faith going to do when gay people are acceptable in a western nation, or when women can walk around without male escorts, wear short skirts and have sex with as many men as they want? That is their motivation for war, so all of these quotes which tell Muslims to kill non-believers in a time of war only are justifying the acts of ISIS through their interpretation of Jihad because they think they are in a war.

Yes, we can point to actions taken in the Middle East to explain the destabilization of the region and lump it into the pile of blame which lies with the west.
So rather than take poultry things like drone strikes, let's look at one of the major events people of this position like to point to as an explanation for why the Middle East as it is today is completely our fault. The deposition of Saddam Hussein

I have this conversation with people and they say things like, "Well yeah, Saddam Hussein was a bad guy but he wasn't bad enough to justify this."
And that just tells me that the person I'm talking to really knows nothing about Saddam Hussein.
Let's leave out his campaigns which saw hundreds of thousands of innocents killed at his order, and focus on one event which truly encapsulates how evil this man was, the moment at which he took power.
Not many people seem to know this story but it is truly incredible.

Saddam Hussein was sat on the stage in front of about 100 people, the Ba'ath party, all sat in an auditorium waiting to hear him speak.
A man is dragged into the room and led up onto the stage and takes place behind the podium. This man has been tortured.
He gives a speech implicating himself in a plot to overthrow the Ba'ath party and he begins to read out a list of co-conspirators.
One by one security grab the people he names in the crowd and lead them out and the names just keep coming.
As the fear spreads through the crowd people stand up and shout praise at Saddam Hussein, hoping that they won't be taken.

After a while about half of the room has been escorted out. The remaining 50 or so are then led outside and given guns.
They are told to shoot the 50 or so who were named as co-conspirators and they do, implicating themselves in this mass murder for fear of their own lives.

And the most incredible part of all is that he did this all on live TV.

If people are OK with this man, whose crimes range from benign to far beyond anything I've just described, being the last line of defense against groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS, rather than fighting this kind of dictatorship wherever it arises then I don't know what kind of world you want to live in, but it's not the same one that I do.

Visxal wrote In my eyes they are getting revenge, if the brits didn't bomb half of the middle east then this wouldn't happen.

They are getting revenge for us being un-Islamic countries.

"The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam." - ISIS

Now I was born in 1994 so I can't really remember anything between then and 9/11 but I do vaguely remember 9/11,

The shock of this terror attack was like nothing ever seen before, if the reason really is religious hatred then why wouldn't they only really make their mark in 2001?

Would it not make sense, if it was due to the fact the western word is not majority Islamic, that the IS militants were causing terror long before 9/11?

I see there were a couple of smaller incidents in the 90's but what I don't understand is that all of a sudden these IS militants decided to lay waste to western world countries nearly at the flip of a hat,

This whole "war on terror" that has been going on has only lined the pockets of the arms dealers (who pretty much control everything) and has been like pouring petrol on to an already burning fire,

You can say it's all due to religious hate, but if the US hadn't stuck their nose into countries business that was none of their own, for the sole benefit of taking over central banks and oil, taking what wasn't actually theirs to take then this mess wouldn't be half as bad.

We are in a horrible mess because when these drone strikes kill innocents, ISIS use it as propaganda to recruit, and for those recruits to seek revenge,

I haven't the first clue of how to get out of the mess we are in but I do believe it was solely started by the western world wanting to "take over everything" which they are still trying to do.

Visxal wrote In my eyes they are getting revenge, if the brits didn't bomb half of the middle east then this wouldn't happen.

You disgusting terrorist sympathising piece of trash.

What about the 29 Christians who were just slaughtered in Egypt whilst they were on their way to a monastery? What about the 90 who were blown away by Islamic terrorists in Kabul? Did they die as a result of British foreign policy too? People like you make me utterly sick.

Cancerous wrote There's ONE man in the world who really wants to do something about radical Islamic terrorism, and they all call him a racist.

Im curious, who are you talking about??

PMJ wrote Now I was born in 1994 so I can't really remember anything between then and 9/11 but I do vaguely remember 9/11,

The shock of this terror attack was like nothing ever seen before, if the reason really is religious hatred then why wouldn't they only really make their mark in 2001?

Would it not make sense, if it was due to the fact the western word is not majority Islamic, that the IS militants were causing terror long before 9/11?

I see there were a couple of smaller incidents in the 90's but what I don't understand is that all of a sudden these IS militants decided to lay waste to western world countries nearly at the flip of a hat,

This whole "war on terror" that has been going on has only lined the pockets of the arms dealers (who pretty much control everything) and has been like pouring petrol on to an already burning fire,

You can say it's all due to religious hate, but if the US hadn't stuck their nose into countries business that was none of their own, for the sole benefit of taking over central banks and oil, taking what wasn't actually theirs to take then this mess wouldn't be half as bad.

We are in a horrible mess because when these drone strikes kill innocents, ISIS use it as propaganda to recruit, and for those recruits to seek revenge,

I haven't the first clue of how to get out of the mess we are in but I do believe it was solely started by the western world wanting to "take over everything" which they are still trying to do.

Like I said, if you think that overthrowing Saddam Hussein was a bad idea then I don't know what kind of world you want to live in.
Blaming the west for ISIS completely rules out our intentions, and conspiracy theories about doing it just for the oil or to gain control and money bore me.
If it was just about money then the US wouldn't still be there. The Iraq war alone has cost the US $2 trillion.

Nothing has happened on the scale of 9/11 because 9/11 happened. Security increases have made it near enough impossible to do anything on that scale again.
Instead what we have are smaller attacks with firearms, knives, vehicles, and occasionally small IED's.

The reason why terrorist attacks have bumped up in numbers since 9/11 is because 9/11 did divide the world along geopolitical lines, this is where my 40% going to geopolitical reasons comes into it.
9/11 gave the Islamists in the world hope that their worldview could come to fruition if enough of these attacks happened which spurred them into action, but their worldview was still there before 9/11 happened.
The worldview is the root cause of the problem, and unless we take care of that root cause then yes, the west could stop drone strikes in the Middle East, we could return to pre-9/11 numbers of Islamic terror attacks, until someone comes along and does something like 9/11 again.

Blaming the west and its foreign policy for Islamic terror attacks is essentially saying, "Look, it was fine before 9/11 when you guys weren't meddling in everyone's affairs, we only had to put up with a few attacks every year, can't we just go back to that instead of dealing with the problem?"

Coushy wrote

Cancerous wrote There's ONE man in the world who really wants to do something about radical Islamic terrorism, and they all call him a racist.

Im curious, who are you talking about??

Isn't it obvious? Donald Trump. The man who called out Radical ISLAMIC terrorism in his inauguration speech.

Cancerous wrote

Coushy wrote

Cancerous wrote There's ONE man in the world who really wants to do something about radical Islamic terrorism, and they all call him a racist.

Im curious, who are you talking about??

Isn't it obvious? Donald Trump. The man who called out Radical ISLAMIC terrorism in his inauguration speech.

Its not obvious when the statement is factually very incorrect