34 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

We target civilians, this has been known for a long time. We even do "double taps", where we also kill the first responders that go to help the injured. "Oops I killed hundreds and hundreds of thousands of civilians" isn't more moral than intentionally killing however many civilians have been killed by ISIS. The western world is giant glass house in that regard

Not going to defend the US government here. Still, it's not the official policy, but you are right in that regard. Though the US is the only country conducting drone strikes.

34 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

I wasn't twisting your words, I was proving a point. You don't hold Christianity to the same standard that you hold Islam. And I'd encourage you to skim through this:

https://thinkprogress.org/less-than-2-percent-of-terrorist-attacks-in-the-e-u-are-religiously-motivated-cec7d8ebedf6#.ubygb3ba6

And you're right, Christian terrorism is virtually non-existent in Europe. But are you really going to attribute the fact that they're Christian as the reason for that? 

And if you're curious about the terrorism threats in the US, check this out:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619

I was under impression we are talking about religious terrorism, not terrorism as a whole? How is that changing anything? We are taking about what makes up those 2%. And yes, I am going to attribute that fact. If Muslims can use religion as a motivation for their crimes, how come Christians here don't? You have even more poverty-ridden, homeless, no future, no job, no education young people that are not Muslims - how come they are not blowing themselves up? Could it be because they don't follow Islam?

The another source doesn't prove anything, as once again you are trying to steer the conversation from religious motivation to terrorism as a whole. I compiled the data from wikipedia (not the best source, but I think it is trustworthy enough for a list of terror attacks). I counted the number of perpetrators for both anti-abortion (christian motivated) and islamic terrorism in 21st century. If perpetrator was unknown, I assumed they were working alone. There were 16 Christian terrorists and 32 Islamic ones (19 in 9/11). That means 0.00000007% of USA's Christian population (70% of a whole) was involved in terrorism motivated by their religion. Compare that to 0.001115% of Muslims. Yes, the numbers are extremely small and certainly are not a reason to suspect any Muslim of being a terrorist. However, that's a 15556% increase in percent of terrorists compared to Christians. The numbers don't lie - by this virtue alone, I am inclined to say that it's impossible to hold Islam for me in high regard.

34 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

I'm not entirely convinced those polls are accurate or a fair assessment of the views held by those people.

Then the people who say they don't support ISIS in those pools can be lying as well.

34 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

I'm not entirely convinced those polls are accurate or a fair assessment of the views held by those people. People desperately trying to escape brutal murder from ISIS aren't exactly the kind of people you stop and ask "Hey, how do you feel about democracy?". Here in the United States, we call that freedom. You're allowed to believe whatever you want to believe, and think whatever you want to think. And here in the States, there are PLENTY of Christians that don't believe in separation of church and state, and would love to impose their religious beliefs on the entire population. But we feel OK about having them in the country, because they're good'ol white American Christians. 

Yep, that's freedom alright. As long as you don't infringe on others freedom, you are free to do as you please. You are saying they would love to - yet they are not doing it. But what I was pointing out is those people are not able to fit into Western democracies when they come here to Europe. Unless you say that democracy and liberty are worse than oppression and injustice, that is.

34 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

Oh, and I'm afraid you're wrong about the last part. I live in New York City, where very large numbers of immigrants from all over the world flocked to. We now have a Little Italy and Chinatown. Integration is preferable, but countless cultures and nationalities have failed to integrate and are doing just fine.

Come to Paris, Berlin, Brussels, visit one of the no-go zones in Sweden and we can talk about integration. In the US you did not have huge waves of migrants coming at once - that's good, that allows people to integrate way better. Here, it just doesn't happen. And if a culture fails to integrate, I don't really see how that can be called "doing just fine".

34 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

That's only scary if you ignore similar polls done among different religions. There has been a massive effort to paint Islam as the enemy of the free world, and that has come with a lot of cognitive dissonance in regards to how we think about the different religions.

http://www.rawstory.com/2011/08/poll-muslims-atheists-most-likely-to-reject-violence/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/a-fascinating-look-at-the-political-views-of-muslim-americans/242975/

I concede the point about US muslims, but I wonder what the results would be if the poll was also conducted in Europe and Middle East/North Africa. Still, that only be speculation.

 

34 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

Republicans fight for Christian legislation all the time. It was illegal for gay people to get married a few years ago because of Christians. It was illegal for gay people to visit their dying spouse in the hospital becuase of Christians. It was illegal (and still kind of is in some places) for women to choose to have an abortion because of Christians. Christians violate separation of Church and state all the time, but we don't care, because they're Christians.

And now it's possible to do all of that which was forbidden before, in a country that's 70% Christian. I don't really see signs of change in Islamic countries.

34 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

If you're arguing for Secularism, I am 100% on board with you. I don't want any country to have religious laws for the reasons you mentioned.

Secularism is the best way to guarantee liberty for all citizens, that we can agree upon. 

34 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

For the longest time, Turkey was a Muslim majority nation that maintained a secular government. 

 And now, after the "coup", with overwhelming popular support, Erdogan is going to transform it into an Islamic country, and he is not even doing that covertly.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/07/26/Turkey-s-Erdogan-Cleans-House-Form-More-Perfect-Islamic-State

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/president-erdogan-hopes-erase-ataturk-turkeys-memory/

34 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

But when you look at a country like Syria and claim that they got that way because they're Muslims, I absolutely disagree with you.  

Secular Syrian government is being attacked by both ISIS and "moderate opposition" with strong Islamic leanings.

Edited August 9, 20169 yr by Yard1

2 hours ago, Yard1 said:

Come to Paris, Berlin, Brussels, visit one of the no-go zones in Sweden and we can talk about integration.

No-go zones are myths, man! :) They are pure inventions of the ultra-conservative, right-wing medias and parties to support their allegations, but they are false. Google it, and you'll see, it's very easy :)

And again, not wanting to blame you, but no-go zones are another fearmongering weapon of many fascist/anti-muslisms parties through the world. Not saying you're one of them, but using their arguments surely doesn't help :)

32 minutes ago, ScarletDraconis said:

No-go zones are myths, man! :) They are pure inventions of the ultra-conservative, right-wing medias and parties to support their allegations, but they are false. Google it, and you'll see, it's very easy :)

And again, not wanting to blame you, but no-go zones are another fearmongering weapon of many fascist/anti-muslisms parties through the world. Not saying you're one of them, but using their arguments surely doesn't help :)

Look, I googled it!

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5128/france-no-go-zones

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5177/no-go-zones-britain

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3352406/Scotland-Yard-mocks-Trump-s-claims-London-police-terrified-Muslim-areas-officers-claim-tycoon-RIGHT.html#ixzz3u2WXbIyQ

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/28/daniel-pipes-the-danger-of-partial-no-go-zones/

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/21/many-european-no-go-zones-remain-unassimilated-hotbeds-of-radical-islam/

While the problem is exaggerated by the, as you said, ultra-conservative, right-wing medias and parties, there is a connection between high crime and high proportion of Muslim residents. While it doesn't show that Islam itself is at fault, It shows that the policy of integration and multiculturalism has failed and will continue to have a negative effect on both the resident population and migrants (radicalization).

Feel free to provide sources that support your argument.

Edited August 9, 20169 yr by Yard1

14 hours ago, Yard1 said:

I was under impression we are talking about religious terrorism, not terrorism as a whole? How is that changing anything? We are taking about what makes up those 2%. And yes, I am going to attribute that fact. If Muslims can use religion as a motivation for their crimes, how come Christians here don't? You have even more poverty-ridden, homeless, no future, no job, no education young people that are not Muslims - how come they are not blowing themselves up? Could it be because they don't follow Islam?

What point are you even trying to make, that people blow themselves up because they're Muslim? Care to list any other factors that you think contribute to why people blow themselves up, or is that all you've got? You don't think that generations of poverty, military intervention, theocracy, and mental illness play into it? Let me ask you again, is Christianity at fault for Christian terrorism? 

And the statistics are actually incredibly relevant. The threat of Islamic terrorism is massively over-blown by the media.

15 hours ago, Yard1 said:

The another source doesn't prove anything, as once again you are trying to steer the conversation from religious motivation to terrorism as a whole. I compiled the data from wikipedia (not the best source, but I think it is trustworthy enough for a list of terror attacks). I counted the number of perpetrators for both anti-abortion (christian motivated) and islamic terrorism in 21st century. If perpetrator was unknown, I assumed they were working alone. There were 16 Christian terrorists and 32 Islamic ones (19 in 9/11). That means 0.00000007% of USA's Christian population (70% of a whole) was involved in terrorism motivated by their religion. Compare that to 0.001115% of Muslims. Yes, the numbers are extremely small and certainly are not a reason to suspect any Muslim of being a terrorist. However, that's a 15556% increase in percent of terrorists compared to Christians. The numbers don't lie - by this virtue alone, I am inclined to say that it's impossible to hold Islam for me in high regard.

If Islamic terrorism makes up a tiny percentage of overall terrorism, why are we so caught up on it? Could it be that we fear them more than other terrorists? And no one is asking you to hold Islam in a high regard. I don't hold any religions in a high regard, including Islam or Christianity. I'm a secular agnostic. And 16 to 32 is not a very great ratio, especially since 19 of them were the 9/11 hijackers. So that's 16 to 17, if you don't count 9/11 (which is fair, since it was a massive one-time occurrence). Even if you keep that original ratio, its still rather disturbing. Compare our medias obsession with Muslim terrorists to the apparently high number of Christian terrorists. Compare the coverage of the Boston Bombings to the coverage of the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood attack. Same number of people killed, and only a fraction of the coverage. The real weapon is fear, and we're terrified of people that we perceive to be different than us.

15 hours ago, Yard1 said:

Then the people who say they don't support ISIS in those pools can be lying as well.

So could Christians who say they're not in favor of killing civilians. Weird how you didn't mention that possibility, but went straight to it when talking about Muslims...

15 hours ago, Yard1 said:

Yep, that's freedom alright. As long as you don't infringe on others freedom, you are free to do as you please. You are saying they would love to - yet they are not doing it. But what I was pointing out is those people are not able to fit into Western democracies when they come here to Europe. Unless you say that democracy and liberty are worse than oppression and injustice, that is.

But they ARE. There are plenty of laws, both on the books now and in recent history that have violated the rights of everyone in the name of Christianity. I'm far more concerned about the lake of Secularism among Christians than I am among Muslims. So far, the only talk I've ever heard about Sharia Law has been from right wingers who are absolutely terrified of it. Also, integration takes time. The fear of Sharia Law taking over is a right wing scare tactic, I don't buy into the hype in the slightest. And lets say a Muslim immigrants says they don't believe in democracy or secularism, but get to Europe and after a little while think "hey....this isn't so bad. I have a job, my kids are going to school, and I can pray however I want". That's the goal of immigration. So when I see polls of people from Syria saying nasty things, I don't care. That's what they've been raised to believe in their homeland, which they are now fleeing in search of a better life in the western world. 

15 hours ago, Yard1 said:

Come to Paris, Berlin, Brussels, visit one of the no-go zones in Sweden and we can talk about integration. In the US you did not have huge waves of migrants coming at once - that's good, that allows people to integrate way better. Here, it just doesn't happen. And if a culture fails to integrate, I don't really see how that can be called "doing just fine".

"No-go zones" are a myth, dude. The guy who came up with the term admitted to it. And also, we did have huge waves of migrants coming at once. Irish, Italian, German, etc...

 http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/paris-mayor-to-sue-fox-over-no-go-zone-comments/384656/

15 hours ago, Yard1 said:

I concede the point about US muslims, but I wonder what the results would be if the poll was also conducted in Europe and Middle East/North Africa. Still, that only be speculation.

The US is perhaps the most western of the western nations (in terms of media and commerce at least). Could it be that US Muslims are a model for westernization? 

15 hours ago, Yard1 said:

And now it's possible to do all of that which was forbidden before, in a country that's 70% Christian. I don't really see signs of change in Islamic countries.

Secularism is the best way to guarantee liberty for all citizens, that we can agree upon. 

 And now, after the "coup", with overwhelming popular support, Erdogan is going to transform it into an Islamic country, and he is not even doing that covertly.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/07/26/Turkey-s-Erdogan-Cleans-House-Form-More-Perfect-Islamic-State

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/president-erdogan-hopes-erase-ataturk-turkeys-memory/

Secular Syrian government is being attacked by both ISIS and "moderate opposition" with strong Islamic leanings.

This is why we are supposed to support Secular leaders (even if they are dictators like Saddam Hussein). Its a little known fact that the CIA actually helped spread radical Islam, here's an interesting read if you're interested: http://www.salon.com/2015/11/17/we_created_islamic_extremism_those_blaming_islam_for_isis_would_have_supported_osama_bin_laden_in_the_80s/

Pre-Erdogan Turkey was a model for the Secular Muslim world, which is why the military (the protector of Turkey's secular government) launched the coup. A secular and western Muslim world is possible, if it were given the right conditions (education, secular leadership, economic stability, etc). We've deprived the Muslim world of those conditions for a very long time. This is why people such as yourself look at the Muslim world and believe that its the fault of the religion, but I believe that's just a misnomer of a much larger geopolitical issue.

1 hour ago, Riley24 said:

What point are you even trying to make, that people blow themselves up because they're Muslim? Care to list any other factors that you think contribute to why people blow themselves up, or is that all you've got? You don't think that generations of poverty, military intervention, theocracy, and mental illness play into it?

Of course they do, but you don't have impoverished Christians blowing themselves up and claiming they did so for a higher cause.

1 hour ago, Riley24 said:

But they ARE. There are plenty of laws, both on the books now and in recent history that have violated the rights of everyone in the name of Christianity. I'm far more concerned about the lake of Secularism among Christians than I am among Muslims. So far, the only talk I've ever heard about Sharia Law has been from right wingers who are absolutely terrified of it. Also, integration takes time. The fear of Sharia Law taking over is a right wing scare tactic, I don't buy into the hype in the slightest. And lets say a Muslim immigrants says they don't believe in democracy or secularism, but get to Europe and after a little while think "hey....this isn't so bad. I have a job, my kids are going to school, and I can pray however I want". That's the goal of immigration. So when I see polls of people from Syria saying nasty things, I don't care. That's what they've been raised to believe in their homeland, which they are now fleeing in search of a better life in the western world. 

You just said that integration is not required to "do along just fine", and now you are saying that migrants in Europe are getting education, jobs, and a good standard of life? There is no better life here! Maybe, possibly there was before, but now, there are simply too many people trying to capitalize. Your viewpoint is incredibly skewed. There is no infrastructure for such a huge number of people, and thus integration fails. No integration - no education - no jobs - radicalization. After all, what have those infidels do for us? But then again, you obviously don't seem to notice the reality. Migrants just "don't go along just fine" when there is no physical possibility of integrating them. As for western ideals and values, they won't start to believe in them when surrounded by people who think just like them. That's why uncontrolled migration has to stop - the standards of life are far below the expectation of those who come here. If the migrants shared the religion of the hosts, or their ideals and values, integration would be far easier, even with overwhelmed infrastructure. It would give those people something to identify with their new country. But the sad fact is that they have nothing, nothing in common with Europe - no language, no culture, no ideals, no religion. Not saying that's a bad thing and that "ours" is better (though it is my personal opinion that it is so), but it means that they won't view the natives as "their people", but as infidels, or simply others. And then, there is nothing stopping them from following their religion when it says to wage holy war against those who welcomed them into their countries.

1 hour ago, Riley24 said:

And the statistics are actually incredibly relevant. The threat of Islamic terrorism is massively over-blown by the media.

If Islamic terrorism makes up a tiny percentage of overall terrorism, why are we so caught up on it? Could it be that we fear them more than other terrorists? And no one is asking you to hold Islam in a high regard. I don't hold any religions in a high regard, including Islam or Christianity. I'm a secular agnostic. And 16 to 32 is not a very great ratio, especially since 19 of them were the 9/11 hijackers. So that's 16 to 17, if you don't count 9/11 (which is fair, since it was a massive one-time occurrence). Even if you keep that original ratio, its still rather disturbing. Compare our medias obsession with Muslim terrorists to the apparently high number of Christian terrorists. Compare the coverage of the Boston Bombings to the coverage of the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood attack. Same number of people killed, and only a fraction of the coverage. The real weapon is fear, and we're terrified of people that we perceive to be different than us.

You know, I am not sure I agree with the sources you have posted. It seems that they only concern US terrorism. You are taking an US-based point of view, and that's fine. I'll take an European point of view. In the 21st century, according to wikipedia, there were 41 terrorist attacks in Europe. 29 of those were Islam-motivated (71%). Since mid 2012, only Islam motivated attacks occurred, and the frequency with which they are occurring is skyrocketing. That coincides with mass arrival of Muslim migrants. To prove the point that Islamic terrorism is indeed a real and one of the biggest threats here - in 21st century, Islamic terrorists have taken the life of 555 people and wounded 3859. That's respectively 96% and 95% deaths and injuries caused by terrorism as a whole in Europe in 21st century. How is that not a real threat? I could mention Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan where Islamic terror is a daily occurrence, but I don't have enough data right now.

Worldwide, here is a chart that shows the problem nicely. The data is from wikipedia again:
https://methodicalinsanity.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/terrorism-has-no-religion/

1 hour ago, Riley24 said:

So could Christians who say they're not in favor of killing civilians. Weird how you didn't mention that possibility, but went straight to it when talking about Muslims...

You are the one who brought up the point of, to quote " I'm not entirely convinced those polls are accurate or a fair assessment of the views held by those people. ". I merely pointed out that if you don't agree with those polls on assessing a portion of the views of those people, you don't agree with the polls at all. Essentially, that is an extension of your logic, not mine.

1 hour ago, Riley24 said:

"No-go zones" are a myth, dude. The guy who came up with the term admitted to it. And also, we did have huge waves of migrants coming at once. Irish, Italian, German, etc...

All were Christian and shared the Western culture, which allowed for far easier integration, and you did not have Irish or German terrorists shooting people on the streets. Going by your logic, this proves Muslims integrate harder. 

1 hour ago, Riley24 said:

"No-go zones" are a myth, dude.

I'll counter your source with:

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5128/france-no-go-zones

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5177/no-go-zones-britain

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3352406/Scotland-Yard-mocks-Trump-s-claims-London-police-terrified-Muslim-areas-officers-claim-tycoon-RIGHT.html#ixzz3u2WXbIyQ

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/28/daniel-pipes-the-danger-of-partial-no-go-zones/

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/21/many-european-no-go-zones-remain-unassimilated-hotbeds-of-radical-islam/

And before you dismiss the links above as "rightist propaganda" (though Washington Times is quite the respectful publication), I might as well dismiss your as "leftist" propaganda.

Coming back on topic, Fox News overblown the issue, and that allowed some to use it as an excuse to completely dismiss the problem and claim it as a myth. It is true that there are no places where the state cannot assert its power, but there are places where the state doesn't wish to because of fear of violent response from the Muslim community. That Washington Times piece explains better than I do, and the Gatestone Institute provides great data straight from the countries with such problems themselves.

1 hour ago, Riley24 said:

The US is perhaps the most western of the western nations (in terms of media and commerce at least). Could it be that US Muslims are a model for westernization? 

That's debatable. What is western-ism anyway? But alright, let's assume for the sake of argument that it is true. There is one thing that allows US Muslims to integrate well - the Atlantic Ocean. You don't have huge waves of Muslim immigration, and for the most part, Muslim communities are rather spread out. That is not the case here.

1 hour ago, Riley24 said:

This is why we are supposed to support Secular leaders (even if they are dictators like Saddam Hussein). Its a little known fact that the CIA actually helped spread radical Islam, here's an interesting read if you're interested: http://www.salon.com/2015/11/17/we_created_islamic_extremism_those_blaming_islam_for_isis_would_have_supported_osama_bin_laden_in_the_80s/

Yeah, I know about that. For example, CIA supplied weapons to Afghanistan Taliban during their war with the USSR. We all know what happened later. The thing is that secular leaders are not at all supported by the US or Europe. Syria, Libya, Egypt - those countries had their secular governments removed (or are in the process of being removed) by the Islamists with US support (supplying weapons and "military advisors" to Syrian rebels is an example). But that's the point we agree upon.

1 hour ago, Riley24 said:

This is why people such as yourself look at the Muslim world and believe that its the fault of the religion, but I believe that's just a misnomer of a much larger geopolitical issue.

I believe that Islam is a huge part of that larger geopolitical issue. I believe that if those nations were under the same conditions but with no Islam involved, we would not have the problem of X-religion terrorism coming from those regions. If the perpetrators themselves say that it was Islam that caused them to commit terror, how is that not the cause? It surely is not the only one, but it is the direct one.

This is a very interesting debate, but I'll have to catch some sleep. Please don't worry when I don't respond for some time.

Edited August 10, 20169 yr by Yard1