Jump to content


Photo

Terrorism


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
358 replies to this topic

#21 YoWid

YoWid

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,592 posts

User's Awards

     

Posted 14 November 2015 - 03:20 AM

Removed

 
 

Honestly, blaming Muslims for all the terrorism that happens in today's world is horribly generalizing but also spews antagonism that will only be met with further antagonism, which will only cause wars and the innocent civilians will be forced to relocate to various places where they can hope for bette life, usually in the western world as we have much more generous system to help people to get off their feet.
 
Also, by killing those extremists it will only cause to make the fallen to look like martyrs which will be used to recruit even more cannon fodders for the terrorists to fight a nonsensical "holy war".
 
And, this thread is horribly misleading as you are just assuming every modern terrorist is a muslim when we have plenty of terrorists that aren't associated to the Islam religion in any way. Look at Breivik. He killed over 77 people to get attention and spread the word about the "horrors of muslims and immigrants". Honestly, I believe the Norway government handled the aftermath it in the best manner possible. Arrested the terrorist, locked him up in prison for who-knows long and prevent him from getting much media exposure. When I was younger I believed he should have been executed for his crimes but after learning about martyrdoms and that terrorists who believe they are fighting for causes can be regarded as heroes by terrorists spreading false propaganda I came to realize we need to quench that kind of thinking as much as possible.
 
And so, generalizing all muslims as terrorists and is like generalizing all honey bees as hornets. It's incredible unproductive and downright incompetent thinking that benefits no one.
 
And to answer your question @ TridentPuff . Removing all muslims to get rid of muslim terrorists might be the absolute worst way to cleanse the world of terrorists as possible. It doesn't solve the problem why terrorism exist nor does it make anyone look in positive light and will set a horrible precedent for future generations that will risk people's lifes that are in no way associated with criminals just because they share the same religion.
 
Honestly this tread has gotten messy already so I wouldn't mind it getting locked or at the very least cleaned. Let's focus on general terrorism or the terrorism in France specifically so we can have a focus point and making the thread readable for people.

 
 
I vote for it cleaned instead of locked--this thread would make a good place to break all taboos concerning discussion of Islam and the Qur'an as well elucidate more on what links acts of terrorism to Islam and Muslims.

Removed


Edited by azer_moli, 14 November 2015 - 05:32 AM.

Spoiler Music by Gazillions

 

 

another story for another day

 


#22 kenkage

kenkage

    Shinigami

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts

Posted 14 November 2015 - 03:43 AM

Guys it is OK to critisize any religion & I believe it's even OK to say that Christians/Muslims are terrorists but I think it would be better for us to avoid insulting each other (or each other's religion/ethnicity).

Any way as a Christian I believe Islam is a man-made religion & because of that you could get a religious muslim to be as peacefull as the Pope or the religious muslim could be as radical as an ISIS militant...it all depends on how you interpret & teach a religion.

1Hh3Zj5.png


#23 azer_moli

azer_moli

    Member

  • Moderators
  • 3,115 posts
  • LocationFrance

User's Awards

2         

Posted 14 November 2015 - 05:48 AM

I'll use this for all of you

 

This is why the french gets attack so much. They treat the Muslims as outsiders. Compare it to American. Do we have a Muslim problem? Do Mullins run around and teach the Koran in schools?

 

Muslims have nothing to do with what happened. Those who are terrorists are not Muslims, they are Jihadists, they are Islamics, they are extremists. Whatever name you give them, don't put them together with Muslims. 

 

Now, to you specifically, there are so many things I'd like to say, but that'd get violent. 

 

True,  but let's be honest. The terrorists are Muslims. And the question at hand is if Muslims can be trusted, if we need to keep accepting Muslim refugees, if we need to attack Muslim countries or not. 

 

- Terrorists and Muslims are two different topics. 

- You trust humans or not, not believers. 

- Those Muslim refugees are obliged to leave their country because of Terrorists. 

- We (at least France does) already attack those countries. 

 

Well there certainly are a fair share of terrorist attacks committed by Muslim Americans and many more foiled. Let's say hypothetically though that the reason these attacks are occurring is because of disenfranchisement of French Muslims. The next question is, are the French justified in such xenophobia? And if not, are the terrorists justified in retaliating against it in such a matter. I would hope that we all agree the answer to the second question is no. In which case, answering the first question boils down to a matter of practicality as opposed to morality. 

 

For starters, they can close the borders and impose a one child policy on the Muslims already there (just some simple ideas since you claim there isn't much the Elysee can do about it).  

 

Those attacks have nothing to do with how we welcome Muslims here. Nothing. 

Second, most Muslims in France are from Northern Africa, and they're here because of the tides France used to have with Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. Because they helped us during the WW. What's more, France allows any religion to be practiced. 

For the rest, I won't reply, it's not on topic. 

 

Lastly, closing the borders? In Europe? As if that'd ever happen. There will be more controls, but we won't close ourselves from the world. 

One child policy? France is not a totalitarian country, so no, that won't happen either. 

The Élysée has two choices: going on with its fight against terrorism, or giving up and leaving terrorists alone in the middle west. I think it's obvious we'll keep on going fighting against terrorists. 

 _____________________________________________

 

For all of you again: this thread has been cleaned. You may continue discussion, but keep off racism and don't ever associate again Muslims with terrorists. Call them by their name: extremists, Islamists, etc. 


  • Narubi, DrugzRule, tattaslayr and 1 other like this

#24 Fleet

Fleet

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,687 posts

Posted 14 November 2015 - 07:05 AM

There has to be attempts to differentiate between Muslims and the terrorists, whatever the response. When the British government ordered internment without trial for Irish Catholics in the seventies, it inflamed the situation. Sweeping generalisations that all Muslims, be they refugees or whatever, are terrorists will simply encourage a feeling, particularly among young people, that they are being stigmatised. That's where the extremists will sink their claws in.

That being said, I would hope that Muslim's are doing something among their youths to combat this. While it's incorrect to say that every Muslim is a terrorist, we also can't deny that this is their problem.
  • DarkNemesis and angervictor like this

#25 pyrogenic

pyrogenic

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 527 posts

Posted 14 November 2015 - 07:27 AM

Multi-culti blew in someones face.

 


Second, most Muslims in France are from Northern Africa, and they're here because of the tides France used to have with Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. Because they helped us during the WW.

 

They were French colonies, the French conquered them and later fought them furiously to prevent them from gaining independences, those were the ties; then people from these countries after WWII were taken and welcomed in as a source of cheap labour. Lets not get too idealistic there. Then the asimilation policy failed.

 

-----

 

As for Muslims I respect them. I just want them to stay in their countries.  They can be welcomed as guests, turists, yes. "Cultural enrichment"? No, thank you.

 

 

In regards to current immigration crisisin Europe:

Funny thing about current crisis is that USA which is destabilizing all the countries in Northern Africa and Middle East, causing wars and genocide, takes no responsibility for this. They are far, far away, beyond the ocean, not giving crap. Refugees? Whos gonna swim throu the Atlantic there? Destabilising EU? Even more profit.

Sacondary character here is angela merkel, who unilaterally invited everyone (do you belive some only group of selected refugees will come?) in Germany igniting immogration crisis. When Hungarians were lawfully protecting their boarders (and EU boarders) from the flock caused by German politics, the Hungarians were ostracised in the international arena. Now after the Germans screwed with taking the immigrants, they started forcing other countries to take immigrants from them. When Germans decided independently to take all the immigrants it was ok and all good, but when other countries independently decided to NOT take them like Germans want it - it angered Merkel and she used EU institutions (while it was Germany who told them to come in the first place, not the EU) to force them to take immigrants (who gave her right to do so? any ideas?) Ultimately the Germans themselves want to stop the immigration and put restrictions on the inside EU boarders (oh, werent they criticising Hungarians for it?)

 

So some ***** created crisis which they are unable to solve and are now forcing others to deal with it. And the civilians are now paying for it. Crimes, rapes, murders, unrest, gangs, and now terrorist attacks.

 

Sure wage war on North African and Middle East countries and then invite them to your homeland to screw you up. Logic.  


  • TridentPuff likes this

#26 Morfeus

Morfeus

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 636 posts
  • LocationIn the moshpit

Posted 14 November 2015 - 07:40 AM

I can't believe people are actually still doubting the credibility on the matter of the Holocaust. I've visited the KZ-camp Dachau in Germany and walked in the synagogues of Prague, where the walls are covered with the names of the deceased Jews in World War II. I'm thoroughly disappointed in those that don't believe the terrible things that happened to not only Jews but also the handicapped, ethnic minorities, prisoners of war or political enemies of the Nazi-party. Shame on you.

 

I'm not gonna blame the peaceful Muslims either. Having a handful of Muslim friends, I can only say that they're not more dangerous than your average Christian or Atheist. Those Muslims also try to distance themselves from the extremists, which is only understandable.

 

But I do think religion as a whole is terribly flawed and that any religion has potential for terrorism or unforgivable acts of violence. Even Buddhists have been causing trouble in Asia. 
The world of religion is overdue in other words. The principles and basics that religions preach were good, when society was first established as an institution. But in our day, all the religions are falling terribly behind in terms of moral and modern thoughts.

 

If I had the choice between allowing people to keep their religious beliefs and removing all religious beliefs in the world, my choice would sadly be the latter.

 

Not that I don't like religious people mind you! I like 'em. But religion leads to a lot of bloodshed.


Edited by Morfeus, 14 November 2015 - 08:40 AM.

Take, take all you need

And I'll compensate your greed

With broken hearts

Sell, I'll sell your memories

For 15 pounds per year

But just the good days

 

#27 azer_moli

azer_moli

    Member

  • Moderators
  • 3,115 posts
  • LocationFrance

User's Awards

2         

Posted 14 November 2015 - 07:41 AM


They were French colonies, the French conquered them and later fought them furiously to prevent them from gaining independences, those were the ties; then people from these countries after WWII were taken and welcomed in as a source of cheap labour. Lets not get too idealistic there. Then the asimilation policy failed.

 

I was just giving the origin of it. 

Of course it partially failed. 

But that still doesn't mean those are the terrorists, and they all have the French nationality anyway. 

 

But immigrants are not terrorists either. 

I understand that such an event can make people think of the immigrants, and how they could be a danger to the good old European people. 

But you know what? I have a Syrian student in one of my classes. It's been over a year she doesn't have any news from her father. He has been imprisoned in Syria because he didn't agree with the Islamic State. 

This is the case of most of the migrants: they flee terror. 

And now what? We accuse them of being terrorists. 

This is nonsense. 


  • Morfeus likes this

#28 Zeando

Zeando

    Samurai

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,473 posts

Posted 14 November 2015 - 08:07 AM

will read all the previous posts later

what i don't get is what they think to achieve with these attacks every single time
it isn't an act of war, since even if hundreds died that's not gonna affect the nation (material position: army, economy, etc) as a whole
it doesn't work as protest, since after something like this it's unlikely the people affected will be in the mood to concede things
and it isn't the act of a single crazy person going on a killing spree, this was planned and prepared and done by more people
was this only for getting attention? for awareness? is it really needed to make a massacre for that? if it was only for attention that looked absurdly overdone
or wasn't there any specific goal, but just a way to vent their anger?

FQZQm2p.png
Forum Mafia Games

Spoiler The 4 ways of Discussion

#29 azer_moli

azer_moli

    Member

  • Moderators
  • 3,115 posts
  • LocationFrance

User's Awards

2         

Posted 14 November 2015 - 08:28 AM

@Zeando "This is because of all the harm Hollande [current French president] has done to Muslims all over the world." 

This is what one of them said in the Bataclan (where there was the show and 87 dead people). 

 

In a war against France, they'd lose. 

And we're already sending missiles over Syria. So it is war for them. 

Why do they kill people in such an event? To shock. 

It's not the same to kill soldiers and to kill citizens. One is putting his life on the line for his country, the other thinks he's safe. 

They want paranoia. 

They want to make us pay because we welcome (more or less) refugees, and because we disagree with them. 

 

They're doing a good job at saddening us, shocking us, and making us even more resolved to disagree with the Islamic state in any case. 



#30 Passingby

Passingby

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,508 posts
  • LocationWindy City

Posted 14 November 2015 - 08:30 AM

It is an act of war. It is a veiled attempt to recruit more of the disenfranchised too. The knee-jerk reaction and the stirring of nationalistic anger would only cause the vulnerable (muslims) to be pressured into believing that it is them against the western world. Sadly, the roots of their problems is internally within their own community, and the (outside) western world could only be reactive in their actions. Any proactive ways of ridding extremists among a community would always have to start internally.
  • Phenomiracle likes this

YouTube: • MV 레드벨벳 • 

 

crYWlPI.gif

RED VELVET


#31 soccerislife

soccerislife

    Combat Butler

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,515 posts
  • LocationIn the darkness....No, seriously, anyone have a flashlight?

Posted 14 November 2015 - 08:34 AM

The events of yesterday and just having read from this thread makes me sad to be a human being today. I can only imagine the talks outside here. Condolences to all the victims involved.

Edited by soccerislife, 14 November 2015 - 08:34 AM.

  • Morfeus likes this

KUn5clI.jpg

 

 

Too lazy to change the sig. Found the avatar too hilarious to pass up though. xD


#32 Chillman

Chillman

    Shinigami

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,841 posts

Posted 14 November 2015 - 08:57 AM

I don't understand the difference between Muslims and Islamists.
  • Miss.J likes this

#33 azer_moli

azer_moli

    Member

  • Moderators
  • 3,115 posts
  • LocationFrance

User's Awards

2         

Posted 14 November 2015 - 09:04 AM

I don't understand the difference between Muslims and Islamists.

 

Same difference as Christians and Inquisitors. 

Muslims are normal peaceful believers. 

Islamists are extremists. They use the Quran for bad ends basically. 


  • Morfeus likes this

#34 Morfeus

Morfeus

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 636 posts
  • LocationIn the moshpit

Posted 14 November 2015 - 09:07 AM


In regards to current immigration crisisin Europe:
Funny thing about current crisis is that USA which is destabilizing all the countries in Northern Africa and Middle East, causing wars and genocide, takes no responsibility for this. They are far, far away, beyond the ocean, not giving crap. Refugees? Whos gonna swim throu the Atlantic there? Destabilising EU? Even more profit.
Sacondary character here is angela merkel, who unilaterally invited everyone (do you belive some only group of selected refugees will come?) in Germany igniting immogration crisis. When Hungarians were lawfully protecting their boarders (and EU boarders) from the flock caused by German politics, the Hungarians were ostracised in the international arena. Now after the Germans screwed with taking the immigrants, they started forcing other countries to take immigrants from them. When Germans decided independently to take all the immigrants it was ok and all good, but when other countries independently decided to NOT take them like Germans want it - it angered Merkel and she used EU institutions (while it was Germany who told them to come in the first place, not the EU) to force them to take immigrants (who gave her right to do so? any ideas?) Ultimately the Germans themselves want to stop the immigration and put restrictions on the inside EU boarders (oh, werent they criticising Hungarians for it?)
 
So some ***** created crisis which they are unable to solve and are now forcing others to deal with it. And the civilians are now paying for it. Crimes, rapes, murders, unrest, gangs, and now terrorist attacks.
 
Sure wage war on North African and Middle East countries and then invite them to your homeland to screw you up. Logic.  

 

Well, no one is waging war on any countries in North Africa or the Middle East for starters. War is being waged on terrorism. The revolutions during the Arabian Spring begun without Western interference. 

 

And besides; The European countries are not at fault for the massive amounts of refugees. The war in Syria is. Fought by both IS, the rebels and the Assad-government, that war is tearing everything apart. Whether IS emerged as a result of Western intervention is hard to determine, I won't make any guesses. Perhaps? I was against going into the Middle East from the start...

 

The problem is: People are fleeing from their goddamn homes and countries,many of them are heavily traumatized, having watched friends or family die in front of their eyes and some are even in need of medical assistance.

I live in Denmark, which borders Germany to the south, and we have our fair share of refugees, though most passed through to Sweden 

Do we have the moral high-ground to simply say "Nope!" to all those people, who are rushing to our borders for help? I think not. It's such a tough and touchy situation, that debating it often gets very intense.

 

People like to blame everyone but very rarely do they actually come up with a solution to this humanitarian crisis. 


Take, take all you need

And I'll compensate your greed

With broken hearts

Sell, I'll sell your memories

For 15 pounds per year

But just the good days

 

#35 Zeando

Zeando

    Samurai

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,473 posts

Posted 14 November 2015 - 09:27 AM

@azer_moli so it was mostly to vent anger?
shock and paranoia don't have long lasting effects, most of the shock goes away after some days or months, and only grief is left

"In a war against France, they'd lose.
And we're already sending missiles over Syria. So it is war for them. "

yep, they may think they're fighting a war, but attacks like these are not war actions,
to me it looks as if someone tries to fight a war by tossing rocks at the other side
now, if they somehow did encourage and supplied criminal groups inside france that could had a different meaning, or was that what they were trying to do? :/

"They want to make us pay because we welcome (more or less) refugees, and because we disagree with them. "
i get that, but are you going to stop cause they made an attack? most likely not, so what use (on a concrete level) did that attack have? that's what i'm not getting

"They're doing a good job at saddening us, shocking us, and making us even more resolved to disagree with the Islamic state in any case. "
yep, that's what i'm talking about, they're worsening their own situation on an international level, it may have meaning for them as an act of revenge, but can't see much they may have gained from it

 

what i find strange is, coming up with a plan like that should have required time and organization, someone can feel angry and use that as a reason, but same as for panic and shock, anger can't last forever by itself, one would normally rethink what they are about to do if they get the time for it, making me find unlikely a plan like that could be moved, planned and put in action only on anger, so if someone else was fueling the anger of the terrorists, making the plan for them and supplying them, wonder what was the goal (since simple anger got previously excluded)

 

just think about the attack to that magazine which did happen in january, was there any change/effect after that?


Edited by Zeando, 14 November 2015 - 09:32 AM.

FQZQm2p.png
Forum Mafia Games

Spoiler The 4 ways of Discussion

#36 Oben

Oben

    there were no malfunctions

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,443 posts

User's Awards

         2   

Posted 14 November 2015 - 09:31 AM

@Zeando

Well, a terror attack by some islamists will result in violence against a lot of muslims in return, which will again push those into the arms of radicals. It's a recruitment process in many ways that will likely strengthen the terrorists and destabilize the target.


Edited by Oben, 14 November 2015 - 09:31 AM.

  • DarkNemesis, TridentPuff, Phenomiracle and 2 others like this

#37 Milareppa

Milareppa

    Live Long and Prosper

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,094 posts

User's Awards

2         

Posted 14 November 2015 - 09:39 AM

It's my understanding that the vast majority of western Europeans are opposed to mass immigration of muslims and the liberal elites in the government are forcing it upon them....


If we're going to generalise Western Europe, let's generalise:

 

People in western Europe who object to immigration of Muslims usually object to any form of immigration. Muslims are only a current topic because of the amount of refugees coming in from Syria and related countries. Before the Muslims, the complaint was about the Polish. Before that it was Romanians and Hungarians. And so on.

Their objection is to immigration. Note the full stop.

This kicks off in a significant way as a result of recessions. The popular image becomes that of immigrants coming in and taking tax-payers benefits and jobs during periods of high unemployment.

That's a very right-wing argument. It's also a very working class argument (who can hold very anti-immigration beliefs in large part because they're the ones who suffer most during periods of high unemployment).

In general, populations within western Europe - when surveyed on policies where the policies have been deliberately divorced from the parties that have issued them (ie, all people can do is read a bit of text and say whether they agree or disagree) - tend to be more left wing than their governments, and even more tolerant of immigration when they get to read the actual policy rather than just hearing media-filtered sound bites.

 

In general, for every Western European you meet who objects to immigration, you'll meet someone who agrees with it. You'll also meet a lot of people who object to economic immigration who support helping refugees, meaning the people who object to immigration are more complex in their beliefs than simply objecting to every immigrant that comes into a country.

 


Edited by Milareppa, 14 November 2015 - 09:48 AM.

  • DrugzRule likes this

#38 Passingby

Passingby

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,508 posts
  • LocationWindy City

Posted 14 November 2015 - 09:46 AM

@Zeando

 

An act of war doesn't have to always result into a decisive victory. Think of it as a skirmish. Numerically, to be able to kill hundreds of your enemy is a form of victory anyway, especially considering the amount of manpower that were effectively used to net that result. Their war is not that of direct confrontation, as these acts of terrorism is when they are able to hurt their enemies the most. It's vulnerable spot for an otherwise unbeatable enemy. 

 

Morale is also key. Think of those attackers that died by blowing themselves up. It's an act of martyrdom. It's the ultimate sacrifice. They are heroes. This can only help further their cause, and to be honest, it is a decisive victory. How the rest of the world reacts afterwards would only determine how lasting the effects of their skirmish would be.


Edited by Passingby, 14 November 2015 - 09:48 AM.

  • DrugzRule likes this

YouTube: • MV 레드벨벳 • 

 

crYWlPI.gif

RED VELVET


#39 pyrogenic

pyrogenic

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 527 posts

Posted 14 November 2015 - 09:46 AM

Well, no one is waging war on any countries in North Africa or the Middle East for starters. War is being waged on terrorism. The revolutions during the Arabian Spring begun without Western interference. 

 

And besides; The European countries are not at fault for the massive amounts of refugees. The war in Syria is. Fought by both IS, the rebels and the Assad-government, that war is tearing everything apart. Whether IS emerged as a result of Western intervention is hard to determine, I won't make any guesses. Perhaps? I was against going into the Middle East from the start...

 

 

 

 

Haha, yeah, no Western Infulences, all this fully armed "moderate oposition" with no actual leadership suddenly popping in each country, with support of US, and later with even military support from US and european countries, don't make me laugh. 

 

"The war in Syria" too didn't fall upon us from outer space. 

 

All this chaos, thousands of people losing their lifes, homes, families, economical degeneration and insecurity of all those countries, eventualy even grounds for IS to apear... you call that anyones "SPRING"?

 

I'm sorry if I sound all agressive about that, but what I see in the events of 13.11.15 is aftermath of the long lasting policy of some of the western countries in case of African/Arabian countries.

 


People in western Europe who object to immigration of Muslims usually object to any form of immigration. Muslims are only a current topic because of the amount of refugees coming in from Syria and related countries. Before the Muslims, the complaint was about the Polish. Before that it was Romanians and Hungarians. And so on.

 

Polish, Romanians and Hungarians are, believe it or not, of european cultural field - and on a different note they are also part of the EU, so comparing them to current Muslim migration is strange.

Being blind to their own, different cultures is a sign of arrogance.

 

Also generally topic on migration from Africa and Middle East isn't something totally new, it's just that this topic became hot recently.


Edited by pyrogenic, 14 November 2015 - 10:04 AM.

  • TridentPuff likes this

#40 Zeando

Zeando

    Samurai

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,473 posts

Posted 14 November 2015 - 09:48 AM

@Oben

so was it to create destabilization inside france, by creating an islamist faction inside it?

makes sense if they plan to later use that islamist faction to further create confusion

 

but it looks unlikely they may have any success in creating a big enouth islamist faction to create real destabilization, since even if they managed to recruit the entirely of the current islamic ethnic population they would still have a pretty smal group

 

ethnic groups: French 92%; Arab/North African 4%; German 2%; Breton 1%; Catalan 1%

http://www.populstat...ope/franceg.htm

 

unless they and banking once again on the demographic growth to take over after some decades...


FQZQm2p.png
Forum Mafia Games

Spoiler The 4 ways of Discussion




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users