20 minutes ago, unr3al said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/23/munich-shooting-german-iranian-gunman-targeted-children-outside/

"..inspired by far-right terrorist Anders Breivik..."

Just because he doesn't belong to or pledge allegiance to a terrorist group doesn't mean he isn't a terrorist based on what he did. It's not his fault that he's a certain ethnicity, but he was brought up in a Muslim household, and was apparently picked on at school and ostracized for it. Another example of bad integration into the rest of society. Despite the psychotherapy he was receiving for his depression, he took out his frustrations on innocent people.

Thats wrong.

muslims do not encounter any racism against them (exceptions maybe in East-Germany), but they're racist against Germans and other ethnicities here.

True fact, just gotta accept the truth.

On 7/23/2016 at 10:51 AM, ScarletDraconis said:

And still, it's only the ones you know about, or well, the ones our medias agree to speak about. For example, today, in Afghanistan, ~70 people got killed in a terrorist attack ISIS claimed to be theirs. But since it's Afghanistan, no one talks about it... :(

Yes, but in the Media's defense (which isn't something I've ever had to say), certain parts of the Middle East has never really came out of the Medieval age, regardless of ISIS involvement. The Middle East has always had issues that we Westerners' deem "barbaric" or far from "democratic" but at the end of the day, when Journalists asked people how they felt over there, they told them they were "used" to it, and that is something we don't really take into consideration. However, when something like this happens to places that are not used to this sort of thing, it becomes more shock value than anything else. 

19 hours ago, KarlieTheKloss said:

ISIL managed to take down a plane. A feat that haven't been executed since 2004, in Russia by Chechen terrorists. That happened with bribing and lacking security.

Al-Qaeda isn't as dangerous, since they are concist and is planning ahead. They play with rules. ISIL on the other hand, is an organization made of nutjobs. This results in them being less predictable, and thus harder to stop. And also, a lot of the Al-Qaeda attacks are from Iraq, so I'm not sure how it makes "Iraq, Syria, and other countries that aren't very stable" a valid awnser.

They only managed to take down that plane because they were able to pay a guy who worked on the airplane to smuggle a bomb in. They couldn't have done it if they didn't know one of the airport employees. It wasn't a super sophisticated plan, you can't give them that much credit.

Al-Qaeda isn't as dangerous now because we spent 10+ years pulling the roots out of their primary safe haven. My point is that ISIS has not risen to the level Al-Qaeda reached 15 years ago and I have a very hard time seeing them ever reach that level of success. ISIS is more dangerous than present day Al-Qaeda? Yeah, I think that is probably a fair statement. But that wasn't my point, my point is that ISIS is still relatively weak compared to previous terrorist organizations.

13 hours ago, unr3al said:

Without trying to debunk any of the points you were making to another person, I need to address this as it seems to be the elephant in the room that everyone is trying to ignore (not just on this forum board either, this applies much more broadly).

Only 8 of 11? I'm sorry, but that's what I'd call the soft bigotry of low expectations. We cant expect any better than 3 out of 11 people (predominantly Muslim) who commit terrorist attacks to do them for reasons that aren't based on religion? That's ridiculous. This is clearly a war of cultures between east and west, and America, Europe and the Middle East as individual sections of the world have some work to do to try and end this or at least try and turn this boiling over of aggression into a gentle simmer.

America only has about 3 million Muslims living within its borders, compared with the rest of the 1.5/1.6 billion all around the world. They are reasonably well integrated into the country, and while not all of them loosen their religious restrictions on things like clothing, prayer and treatment of wives; many of them do, especially as time goes on. They largely live in normal neighborhoods like everyone else, attend normal schools and integrate themselves with everyone else, becoming a useful member of society just like the rest of the people from other ethnicity that make America what it is today; an imperfect country, but a country I enjoy living in. Europe has a problem with its borders/immigration as some residents earlier in this topic mentioned, but it's possibly just as important to mention that they have a problem with properly integrating these people into the rest of society. Their Muslim residents live in slums, do not get the same education everyone else gets and do not have the same sort of police presence (if any) in these neighborhoods. There is also evident open racism, documented in the news and on the web (this is true of America as well, and is becoming more acceptable to show in public thanks to a certain candidate running for U.S. President). They house a large population of people who live in the west but may in fact still hate the west due to their lack of integration into society with everyone else. They likely feel like outcasts.

This is not only ill-planned, it's also dangerous, as events like the ones in Germany, France and England prove. I strongly suggest immigration overhaul for all of these countries (not ceasing it, but doing a better vetting process and pre-planning housing, educational and community outreach arrangements) to not just benefit the newcomers, but also the citizens that already live there.

Ok...I agree with what you are saying but I'm not sure how that had anything to do with what you quoted me on. And bigotry? I'm not saying the majority of Muslims commit attacks because of religion (or whatever you are accusing me of), I'm saying that out of the 11 attacks he listed only 8 of them were actual terrorist attacks linked to Islamic extremist. I'm saying the number is lower than what he is presenting it as. I have no idea how that makes me a bigot.

N/A

Edited November 14, 20178 yr by Account Deleted

1 hour ago, nic227 said:

Does it matter how they took down the plane? Don't think so, they did it, that's it, doesn't matter how.

Al-Qaeda may now be less dangerous than before, and that can be partially credited to the US and NATO for bombing the shit out of them for the last decade (which is great) but their infrastructure and leadership are still intact so they are still a very real threat. ISIL on the other hand I would say is already more dangerous than Al-Qaeda, simply because social media. One does not have to go to some middle eastern shithole to get "trained", you just reach out over social media, and boom, all of the sudden you have potential terrorists in every country of the world, just waiting for some event to trigger their anger, to blow themselves up, shoot or drive a truck into a crowd, or hit people with an axe in a subway car all in the name of fucking ISIL. ISIL operates like this, pushing regular people into attacking "soft targets", they don't plan big, huge attacks like Al-Qaeda does, which makes these smaller but still deadly attacks almost impossible to prevent.

And also, the Muslims that do commit these terrible acts do it in the name of Allah, which is a bunch of bullshit, because they have some stupid interpretation of the Quran. Nowhere in it does it once say that is is acceptable to kill any human being.

In the context of my argument it does matter how they took the aircraft down. The whole point of my argument was that ISIS, so far, cannot accomplish some of the large scale attacks that Al-Qaeda could meaning they are not as powerful as Al-Qaeda was. I'm not saying that Al-Qaeda is dead and is not a threat anymore. ISIS is likely a bigger threat than Al-Qaeda but they are still not as powerful as 2001 Al-Qaeda. Yes ISIS has done a lot more to take advantage of social media but they have to rely on these lone wolf actors to carry out attacks. While lone wolf attacks are harder to prevent due to their low profile they are also less effective than larger more planned out attacks, it shows that ISIS isn't strong enough to carry out those attacks themselves. Al-Qaeda had the resources to send a group of guys from the middle east all the way to the US, get them pilots training, get them on a plane, and carry out a major attack. ISIS, on the other hand, can't even send their own guys into Europe and rely on people that are already in those countries to carry out attacks in their name without providing any material support. Not saying ISIS isn't a threat or shouldn't be taken seriously, just saying they are not nearly as powerful as 2001 Al-Qaeda.

19 hours ago, Sn0wf4ll said:

Thats wrong.

muslims do not encounter any racism against them (exceptions maybe in East-Germany), but they're racist against Germans and other ethnicities here.

True fact, just gotta accept the truth.

Do you have any proof you can provide that says nobody in the rest of Europe holds hostilities towards Muslims? Have you heard of 'Brexit'? Perhaps you should look that up on Google, because the waves of refugees coming to England from the middle east was a major talking point for a lot of people. Get a grip.
 

9 hours ago, l3ubba said:

Ok...I agree with what you are saying but I'm not sure how that had anything to do with what you quoted me on. And bigotry? I'm not saying the majority of Muslims commit attacks because of religion (or whatever you are accusing me of), I'm saying that out of the 11 attacks he listed only 8 of them were actual terrorist attacks linked to Islamic extremist. I'm saying the number is lower than what he is presenting it as. I have no idea how that makes me a bigot.

It's not bigotry in the sense the word is normally used, per se.

The expression 'soft bigotry of low expectations" more or less means that it only devalues these Muslim immigrants to find it acceptable that 8 out of 11 terrorist attacks are religiously motivated. As if that's all we can expect of them. (There should be none that are religiously motivated. We should be able to hold them to a higher standard than 8 out of 11.) It doesn't mean you hate them from an ethnic standpoint. The phrase "soft bigotry of low expectations" was coined by a speech writer for George W. Bush for a speech written about 'No Child Left Behind' regarding the attitude some people have that the stupid will always remain stupid, and the poor will always remain poor. In this case, it's the attitude the western world has that Islam will always be the way it is and we can't say anything negative about it or that it should be reformed and we just need to respect their differences and try not to stop on anybody's toes so we don't get bombed or shot or stabbed to death.

I'm not accusing you of doing anything intentionally wrong, so I apologize if it came across that way. I just think it's ridiculous that we more or less tolerate these terrorist attacks the way we do and basically shrug our shoulders and say "what are you gonna do?" when it's glaringly obvious that religion is usually playing the major role in motivating these people. We as westerners always seem to try to find ways to marginalize this problem, or apologize for it or write it off as a cultural difference that we have to respect and allow. We don't. David Cameron, the Prime Minister who resigned said himself that while England should welcome cultures from all over the world to intermingle with English culture, that not all aspects of Islam are compatible with it; freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of sexual orientation, freedom of dress/expression, equality for women, homosexuals and ethnic or religious minorities.

People can call me salty if they want, but I think that's an inappropriate response considering the nature of these recent attacks, especially the Orlando shooting specifically targeting homosexual people.

Edited July 25, 20169 yr by unr3al

I'd say that I as a German know the best what's going and and it's absolutely wrong.

In fact they are racist towards us, the Germans and other ethnicities here. And

 

Quote

Ok, having lived in Germany a number of years that statement is partially very wrong. Muslim people don't integrate well into western culture and are racist toward western people. But on the other hand many westerners/Germans also look down upon, not necessarily all Muslims, but a large number from a certain country (ahem, Turkey) simply because there is the stereotype of them, especially youth, breaking the law, stealing things, tagging walls, and simply behaving like shitheads, and I have to say that they certainly live up to the stereotype.

is totally wrong. It's not only stealing and tagging and what not, the German government just recently admitted that they neglected and didn't care about them for many years and that they're now almost chanceless to strike them because they've been running the entire German underground crime all over Germany.

Many family clans etc. and fight each other and shootings and what else, too much to list.

There are for sure some Germans and even Europeans that look down to them but I'd say for reasonable reasons.

Of course there are muslims that behave nice and are integrated, but that's just the minority. The majority simply does NOT WANT to integrate and that's the core of all the problems around the world.

Especially in Europe we witness that on a daily basis.

It even starts with cartoons (you heard about that for sure), only they express it violently and then you wanna tell me it does not have anything to do with islam? You should watch that video of that Egyptian (famous) moderator, who is - of course - now in fear of his life.

 

Quote

Do you have any proof you can provide that says nobody in the rest of Europe holds hostilities towards Muslims? Have you heard of 'Brexit'? Perhaps you should look that up on Google, because the waves of refugees coming to England from the middle east was a major talking point for a lot of people. Get a grip.

of course I've heard and of course it's legit.

Angela Merkel just threw the Dublin contract away which made us fill up like a barrel without a ground. And no other country wants to keep up with that bullshit, of course they don't! Who wants such a wave of so many people coming into a country, especially when you know there are "refugees" that mostly flee because of economy reasons than of war.

If you want to be safe you go into the first country you are safe in, you do not travel through five secure countries to say "I need help, give me asylum". THEN you are a freaking economy refugee and no country wants that.

Especially not because they are mostly people that are not willing to adopt culture and integrate.

Why would they actually flee to the west where the devil lives than to go to their brothers in religion like Saudi Arabia? Guess what, they didn't want to take them.

Period.

 

Edit: Oh and, yesterday (I think) a muslim set off a bomb in Germany. 'Nuff said.

 

 

Edited July 25, 20169 yr by Sn0wf4ll

4 hours ago, Sn0wf4ll said:

Edit: Oh and, yesterday (I think) a muslim set off a bomb in Germany. 'Nuff said.

He was a Syrian refugee with mental health problems, it's completely unrelated to religion...

1 hour ago, ScarletDraconis said:

He was a Syrian refugee with mental health problems, it's completely unrelated to religion...

Oh please, let's call a spade a spade. People need to quit making excuses for these sort of people, not to mention that it was most definitely fueled by religion. He left a video pledging allegiance to an ISIS leader -- then shortly after, ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack on social media. Let's also not forget that this is after a string of attacks that have already happened in Germany, which both ISIS claimed responsibility for and respectively the attackers' claimed allegiance to ISIS in various ways.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/24/world/ansbach-germany-blast/ Suicide bomber pledges allegiance.  

4 minutes ago, Solidefiance said:

Oh please, let's call a spade a spade. People need to quit making excuses for these sort of people, not to mention that it was most definitely fueled by religion. He left a video pledging allegiance to an ISIS leader -- then shortly after, ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack on social media. Let's also not forget that this is after a string of attacks that have already happened in Germany, which both ISIS claimed responsibility for and respectively the attackers' claimed allegiance to ISIS in various ways.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/24/world/ansbach-germany-blast/ Suicide bomber pledges allegiance.  

ISIS is not religious though. It's a group of crazy psychopaths using religion as a scapegoat. If a white male came into let's say a black neighborhood and started shooting and killing people randomly, would you say that it is because he's christian or catholic? No, you'd say that he's a dangerous psychopath. Islamophobia makes me sick :(

34 minutes ago, ScarletDraconis said:

ISIS is not religious though. It's a group of crazy psychopaths using religion as a scapegoat. If a white male came into let's say a black neighborhood and started shooting and killing people randomly, would you say that it is because he's christian or catholic? No, you'd say that he's a dangerous psychopath. Islamophobia makes me sick :(

Sorry dude but what you're doing is what we call in Germany "Gutmensch" and "Links" (Starry-eyed-idealist and left wing).

You keep making excuses to this sort of people instead of facing the truth. And at all you did not watch the video of the Egyptian moderator (that video actually went viral all over the media, especially in Europe).

 

It has nothing to do with your islamophobia, what ISIS actually does is the true islam.

N/A

Edited November 14, 20178 yr by Account Deleted

islam actually is what ISIS does, that's just the cruel truth. Because unbelievers shall be killed, you can find that everywhere in their book.

 

Out of three attacks, three times were refugees. Random coincidence right? Sure. The fear that many Germans had weren't heard, the government of Merkel just did not listen, broke every contract (Dublin to be specific) we had as the European Union stated and those Germans were called "nazis" and racists on a daily basis.

Now they pay the price for that.

8 minutes ago, Sn0wf4ll said:

It has nothing to do with your islamophobia, what ISIS actually does is the true islam.

You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about, and this sole sentence is the proof of it. I will now stop to interact with you, as I do not see the point to debate with people who prefer to stay ignorant and fearmongering rather than trying to learn and understand what is happening.

Have a good day sir :)

Actually you are the one who is being ignorant. No sense to run with blinds through the world but please, be my guest and do whatever you think is right.

 

Have a good one. :)

1 hour ago, Sn0wf4ll said:

islam actually is what ISIS does, that's just the cruel truth. Because unbelievers shall be killed, you can find that everywhere in their book.

Dude, have you ever read the bible? There's PLENTY of murder, rape, forced abortion, and slavery.

The difference is that Christians doesn't live like that and doesn't do things the bible says.

15 hours ago, unr3al said:

It's not bigotry in the sense the word is normally used, per se.

The expression 'soft bigotry of low expectations" more or less means that it only devalues these Muslim immigrants to find it acceptable that 8 out of 11 terrorist attacks are religiously motivated. As if that's all we can expect of them. (There should be none that are religiously motivated. We should be able to hold them to a higher standard than 8 out of 11.) It doesn't mean you hate them from an ethnic standpoint. The phrase "soft bigotry of low expectations" was coined by a speech writer for George W. Bush for a speech written about 'No Child Left Behind' regarding the attitude some people have that the stupid will always remain stupid, and the poor will always remain poor. In this case, it's the attitude the western world has that Islam will always be the way it is and we can't say anything negative about it or that it should be reformed and we just need to respect their differences and try not to stop on anybody's toes so we don't get bombed or shot or stabbed to death.

I'm not accusing you of doing anything intentionally wrong, so I apologize if it came across that way. I just think it's ridiculous that we more or less tolerate these terrorist attacks the way we do and basically shrug our shoulders and say "what are you gonna do?" when it's glaringly obvious that religion is usually playing the major role in motivating these people. We as westerners always seem to try to find ways to marginalize this problem, or apologize for it or write it off as a cultural difference that we have to respect and allow. We don't. David Cameron, the Prime Minister who resigned said himself that while England should welcome cultures from all over the world to intermingle with English culture, that not all aspects of Islam are compatible with it; freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of sexual orientation, freedom of dress/expression, equality for women, homosexuals and ethnic or religious minorities.

People can call me salty if they want, but I think that's an inappropriate response considering the nature of these recent attacks, especially the Orlando shooting specifically targeting homosexual people.

I am not saying that any attacks are acceptable. When I say that "only 8 out of the 11" it is because I am saying he is exaggerating the number a bit. I don't know how that could be twisted into me saying there is an acceptable number of attacks. I am seriously confused on how you even got to that conclusion, I mean seriously, that is the most confusing response I have ever got to one of my posts.

3 hours ago, ScarletDraconis said:

ISIS is not religious though. It's a group of crazy psychopaths using religion as a scapegoat. If a white male came into let's say a black neighborhood and started shooting and killing people randomly, would you say that it is because he's christian or catholic? No, you'd say that he's a dangerous psychopath. Islamophobia makes me sick :(

Psychopath or not, it's not necessarily a coincidence that a whole heap of different groups we deem to be "terrorists" are terrorists because they believe in their religion, no matter how skewed it may be. Like I said before, some Middle Eastern places have simply not merged out of the Medieval ages where Jihad is still a thing. Other Middle Eastern places have taken it upon themselves to "modernize" and this is why we have X middle eastern "terrorist" attacking Y middle eastern (Y represents a Middle Eastern country that does not necessarily believe in X's "ideas"). This is where we have internal conflict of interest, for example ISIS held Fallujah up until Iraqi forces retook it. Then you have the Civvies smack dab in the middle, and this is where who's propaganda game is the strongest - in this case, it's ISIS or X terrorist organization 90% of the time. 

I'm not islamophobic, but I do recognize more and more that this "religious war" is striking a very same fine line to that of the Jihad and Crusades and how they went way back when, the difference being is that there isn't Christians/Catholics going over to Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan etc, etc, and blowing themselves up in the name of -insert god here-. Religion, unfortunately, will always play a key role in how people act, and to me, there will always be religious tensions between those who do not believe the same. 

As far as your comparison with a white man killing people in a black neighborhood goes, is kind of far fetched and as nic227 had put it so eloquently, the chances of the white man doing it because of a religion is very, very slim as it would make no real sense in that scenario. It would be a better bet that the white man did it because of racial tensions more than anything else, or his own racial reasons. 

In the end however, people who do monstrous heinous things because of X, Y, or Z reasons are typically deemed psychopaths because we as what we feel to be normal functional human-beings can't fathom such an action. However, what is important is how those people got to be a psychopath in the first place, their reasons for their actions speak a whole helluva a lot more than the action itself. You don't wake up one day, think to yourself and decide to blow away an entire mall full of people or alternatively blow yourself up in that very same process. 

12 hours ago, Solidefiance said:

Psychopath or not, it's not necessarily a coincidence that a whole heap of different groups we deem to be "terrorists" are terrorists because they believe in their religion, no matter how skewed it may be. Like I said before, some Middle Eastern places have simply not merged out of the Medieval ages where Jihad is still a thing. Other Middle Eastern places have taken it upon themselves to "modernize" and this is why we have X middle eastern "terrorist" attacking Y middle eastern (Y represents a Middle Eastern country that does not necessarily believe in X's "ideas"). This is where we have internal conflict of interest, for example ISIS held Fallujah up until Iraqi forces retook it. Then you have the Civvies smack dab in the middle, and this is where who's propaganda game is the strongest - in this case, it's ISIS or X terrorist organization 90% of the time. 

I'm not islamophobic, but I do recognize more and more that this "religious war" is striking a very same fine line to that of the Jihad and Crusades and how they went way back when, the difference being is that there isn't Christians/Catholics going over to Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan etc, etc, and blowing themselves up in the name of -insert god here-. Religion, unfortunately, will always play a key role in how people act, and to me, there will always be religious tensions between those who do not believe the same. 

As far as your comparison with a white man killing people in a black neighborhood goes, is kind of far fetched and as nic227 had put it so eloquently, the chances of the white man doing it because of a religion is very, very slim as it would make no real sense in that scenario. It would be a better bet that the white man did it because of racial tensions more than anything else, or his own racial reasons. 

In the end however, people who do monstrous heinous things because of X, Y, or Z reasons are typically deemed psychopaths because we as what we feel to be normal functional human-beings can't fathom such an action. However, what is important is how those people got to be a psychopath in the first place, their reasons for their actions speak a whole helluva a lot more than the action itself. You don't wake up one day, think to yourself and decide to blow away an entire mall full of people or alternatively blow yourself up in that very same process. 

Amen to you, brother.

^-^