The world must say no to extremism

[H1w4yR1da]

Say no to extremism - its not difficult concept to understand.

Say no to Islamic extremism. As that's the only extremism that's affecting people at the moment.

[mania]

Say no to extremism - its not difficult concept to understand.

Say no to Islamic extremism. As that's the only extremism that's affecting people at the moment.

That is an Extremely blind thing to say considering thousands lay dead due to

another form of extremism. My guess is they & theirs feel affected both "at the moment" & for decades past

Carry on though as I know your reply ....that s what they get yada yada yada

Edited January 15, 2015 by mania

[Nemesis7]

Well written article , liked it.

[EnglishJohn]

Fine words, but pointless - the world needs to say no to many things, but when it comes to 'terror, the world specifically needs to demand equivalence for the drone deaths of wedding revelers in Afganistan, the Satirists in Paris and the children of Gaza.

Lets dispense with pointless platitudes and hand wringing only when death visits our doors, yet feign amnesia when it happens to others - then, and only then, will the word "World" be appropriate,

Utter nonsense. The USA and Israel attack people who have attacked them first.

You should try to think past the effects you see on TV and understand the mentality behind them.

The USA and Israel are responding to terrorist attacks against them with at least some attempt to target those responsible. The Satirists in Paris were murdered in cold blood for drawing cartoons.

They are NOTHING like the same thing.

Tell me, what do you think would happen if Hamas and Israel suddenly woke up to find they had swapped positions ?. Or if the extremists suddenly had all the technology and firepower and the rest of us were hiding in caves ?.

It would be a bloodbath like the world has never seen.

[MrTee]

Say no to extremism - its not difficult concept to understand.

Say no to Islamic extremism. As that's the only extremism that's affecting people at the moment.

Empirical evidence shows that only 2% of terrorist attacks in Europe over the last 5 years were committed by Muslim Extremists..

So clearly it's only in your mind..

How does it feel to give a free home to all these Extremist Muslims?

Edited January 15, 2015 by MrTee

[Morch]

It still does not absolve or condone terrorist attacks.

100% agree..........We probably disagree a bit on who all the terrorist are. I tend to see more than one group regardless of

being able to say .....yeah the xxx people never fought back they just took it so why doesn't everyone? In which case

what is the complaint? Take it quietly

Many want to confine or define justifiable/excusable terrorism or at least pretend they know nothing of it.

No problem...till xxx group says enough & grabs what ever small form of payback they can find.

No different in places like Palestine where they shoot those silly ineffective pipe rockets knowing full

well they are ineffective.

But you know even if they run out of those silly ineffective pipe rockets I tend to think they will then stand at the fences of what

use to be their lands & throw stones knowing full well they will be shot dead by the well armed via military aided

terrorist...in their view "Terrorists"

Same will happen elsewhere like the places drones go.

But when they cannot reach those with stones or silly pipe rockets they will look for something attainable to attack.

That of course too will be terrorism.

I will submit that the main difference will be the intent to hurt civilians as the main aim and purpose of the action.

Cue derisive "collateral damage" remarks. Fine. But this with the realization that virtually all victims of attacks such as the Charlie Hebdo one, are what would otherwise be called "collateral damage". Citing that these terrorists were supposedly radicalized by accounts of events overseas, carried out by a foreign army - how this makes attacking Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish deli, rather than, say, the USA embassy, even remotely reasonable escapes me.

As per the romantic misguided view some got on terrorist organizations, and specifically as appeared in the post above - it would not hurt applying some of the criticism both ways, rather than assuming a one directional stance.

[luk AJ]

There is everything right with extremism. What everyone should be focusing on is intolerance and violence. Extremism is just a belief that isn't the same as the majority belief, and that's fine and probably even necessary for change and advancement.

extremism |ikˈstrēˌmizəm|noun the holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism: the dangers of religious extremism.

fanatic |fəˈnatik|noun a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, esp. for an extreme religious or political cause.

zealot |ˈzelət|noun a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

uncompromising |ˌənˈkämprəˌmīziNG|adjective showing an unwillingness to make concessions to others, esp. by changing one's ways or opinions.

• harsh or relentless

ex·trem·ism noun \ik-ˈstrē-ˌmi-zəm\

: belief in and support for ideas that are very far from what most people consider correct or reasonable

[Morch]

Say no to extremism - its not difficult concept to understand.

Say no to Islamic extremism. As that's the only extremism that's affecting people at the moment.

Empirical evidence shows that only 2% of terrorist attacks in Europe over the last 5 years were committed by Muslim Extremists..

So clearly it's only in your mind..

How does it feel to give a free home to all these Extremist Muslims?

Seems like an awful lot of percents, statistics, and figures come up on these topics - mostly unattributed, mostly not very reliable. This cuts both ways, of course.

[MrTee]

Say no to extremism - its not difficult concept to understand.

Say no to Islamic extremism. As that's the only extremism that's affecting people at the moment.

Empirical evidence shows that only 2% of terrorist attacks in Europe over the last 5 years were committed by Muslim Extremists..

So clearly it's only in your mind..

How does it feel to give a free home to all these Extremist Muslims?

Seems like an awful lot of percents, statistics, and figures come up on these topics - mostly unattributed, mostly not very reliable. This cuts both ways, of course.

Sorry I should have sent a link to support my assertion

https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/te-sat-2014-european-union-terrorism-situation-and-trend-report-2014

While you may doubt these finding I think Europol are more reliable than most - I'm sure one or two more extremist posters can link us to some hate site or other..

This report covers 2013 - further documentation is out there if you really want to know.

Edited January 15, 2015 by MrTee

[uptheos]

I wonder what kind of extremism people would have answered had they been polled?

General

Christian

Jewish

Catholic

Islamic

Hindu

Buddhist

IMO most would have said Islamic Extremism, but I might be wrong.

[MrTee]

Say no to extremism - its not difficult concept to understand.

Say no to Islamic extremism. As that's the only extremism that's affecting people at the moment.

Empirical evidence shows that only 2% of terrorist attacks in Europe over the last 5 years were committed by Muslim Extremists..

So clearly it's only in your mind..

How does it feel to give a free home to all these Extremist Muslims?

Seems like an awful lot of percents, statistics, and figures come up on these topics - mostly unattributed, mostly not very reliable. This cuts both ways, of course.

My assertion is further supported by the FBI - in the years 1980 -2005 6% of attacks were by Islamic Extremists - a slightly higher figure due to 9/11

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum

While the FBI may not be the brightest bunch around - they are the official US authority on "intelligence".

Edited January 15, 2015 by MrTee

[MrTee]

And even these figures for terrorist attacks are dwarfed in the USA by domestic violence

A 2014 study by University of North Carolina found, since the 9/11 attacks, Muslim-linked terrorism has claimed the lives of 37 Americans. In that same time period, more than 190,000 Americans were murdered

http://sites.duke.edu/tcths/files/2013/06/Kurzman_Muslim-American_Terrorism_in_2013.pdf

US Americans are more likely to get killed by a toddler than a Muslim Extremist..

[Thaiready]

But shouldn't the headline read "The world must say no to Islamic extremism"?

Why so? Are you ok with White Supremists and Zionist Israelis . Did you agree with the IRA or Baader Meinhor or Timothy Mcveigh? Are you saying yes to these extremists or or you simply an Islamaphobe trying to make a point?

Am I an Islamophobe? Of course I am! What a silly question!

Though I'd say there's nothing irrational in having a fear of Islam. It's perfectly natural in my opinion.

I prefer the term 'infidel'.

And strange as it may seem, neither White Supremists, Zionist Israelis, the IRA, the Baader Meinhoff gang nor Timothy Mcveigh have recently bombed Bali nightclubs, London Underground trains and buses, killed unarmed soldiers on the streets of western cities, drove explosive-laded cars into airports, attempted to destroy jet liners with exposives hidden in their clothing, raped hundreds of children in northern British towns or murdered Journalists in their offices.

Did I make my point?

You made you point and you also made mine.

You thinks its ok to hate people because of their religion - I don't.

You think its ok for one group of people to maim and kill, but not another - I don't

Your honesty is either refreshing, or depressing, but in any case, these views are the reasons we have extremism in the first place.

Pop that bubble your living in....the Only Extremists I see are Islamic.

[arjunadawn]

The world must say no to extremism
The Nation

"Those who kill in the name of religion are betraying their faith"

Bravo! I could not agree more. We "must say no to extremism." However, the murderers in Paris are absolutely not "betraying their faith." Their prophet was quite clear in both words and actions that those who slander the prophet, Al Lah, and Islam must be punished; in fact Islam has a rich literary history of the "Companions" dealing with those who insult with the pen.

These muslims did betraying their faith.

[Seastallion]

But shouldn't the headline read "The world must say no to Islamic extremism"?

Why so? Are you ok with White Supremists and Zionist Israelis . Did you agree with the IRA or Baader Meinhor or Timothy Mcveigh? Are you saying yes to these extremists or or you simply an Islamaphobe trying to make a point?

Am I an Islamophobe? Of course I am! What a silly question!

Though I'd say there's nothing irrational in having a fear of Islam. It's perfectly natural in my opinion.

I prefer the term 'infidel'.

And strange as it may seem, neither White Supremists, Zionist Israelis, the IRA, the Baader Meinhoff gang nor Timothy Mcveigh have recently bombed Bali nightclubs, London Underground trains and buses, killed unarmed soldiers on the streets of western cities, drove explosive-laded cars into airports, attempted to destroy jet liners with exposives hidden in their clothing, raped hundreds of children in northern British towns or murdered Journalists in their offices.

Did I make my point?

That's still no reason to ignore other violent extremists. You're saying act only against the biggest group and forget the rest.

[Seastallion]

Am I an Islamophobe? Of course I am! What a silly question!

Though I'd say there's nothing irrational in having a fear of Islam. It's perfectly natural in my opinion.

I prefer the term 'infidel'.

And strange as it may seem, neither White Supremists, Zionist Israelis, the IRA, the Baader Meinhoff gang nor Timothy Mcveigh have recently bombed Bali nightclubs, London Underground trains and buses, killed unarmed soldiers on the streets of western cities, drove explosive-laded cars into airports, attempted to destroy jet liners with exposives hidden in their clothing, raped hundreds of children in northern British towns or murdered Journalists in their offices.

Did I make my point?

You made you point and you also made mine.

You thinks its ok to hate people because of their religion - I don't.

You think its ok for one group of people to maim and kill, but not another - I don't

Your honesty is either refreshing, or depressing, but in any case, these views are the reasons we have extremism in the first place.

Pop that bubble your living in....the Only Extremists I see are Islamic.

That means it's you who's living in a bubble. The world has other violent religious nutters too.

[arjunadawn]

People should not kill or being killed for their believes. Extremism is the vomit of hate and cannot be tolerated. We should embrace our freedom and our freedom of speech. But personally, I think it is a bad idea to use the right on freedom of speech to insult a religion or people.

I am Belgian and I don't feel really patriotic, but when I see a cartoon with the words "Le Roi des cons est mort" after our King died is for me not acceptable and neither is it acceptable for Moslims when their God is insulted. .. "je suis Charlie"? ..not me.

You find it unacceptable, but do not grab your assault rifle and storm their offices.

You apply an acceptable reaction to what you find unacceptable.

It is true luk in his post finds it unacceptable but accepts their right to draw what they want.

Not everyone is as tolerant or has suffered as little as luk

But for folks to focus solely on the murder of the cartoonist work as the cause is short sighted too.

Every article that delves into these brothers past show they were initially turned by seeing things reported

of wrongful deeds done by others like in Abu Ghraib Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq etc

So were the cartoonist a last straw? Or more likely an achievable target ?

What ever.... but I doubt any can understand an inability to tolerate unless you or yours are on the side that eats crap everyday

in various forms of oppression, drone attacks, wrongful imprisonment etc etc

Looking at the outrage of many over the 12 deaths of innocents should give an idea of how those who

have suffered thousands of innocent deaths might also be enraged by now.

Yes before the useful tools state the usual BS like ...."well that is what they get for living near a terrorist"

Please consider some day your neighbor or your kids neighbor may have a so called terrorist in their midst

unbeknown to them. I hope they equally feel it is ok when they or theirs are vaporized by a hellfire missile due to their proximity

to a "suspected terrorist"

Indeed.

But the relative number of people reacting violently will probably have a thing or two to do with their culture, upbringing, education and social norms. Religion touches on all of these things.

In some ways what I just said.............But religion or not if your social norm is constantly being attacked & oppression I would hope you would eventually react too.

Mania, you make an impassioned and no unintelligent argument. The notion that single events or a series of events conspire to make a terrorist is not incorrect, but you are missing an ingredient in your recipe. The faith of islam is the glue that binds these events together. It is islam and the hate preachers in the mosques that conspire to make the cake. Long before abu garab and long before collateral damage there was 1390+ years of islamic aggression- an unbroken line of islamic glue that bound war and rage and god and duty. Those that assign contemporary motivations for jihad are totally on the wrong bus.

The nonsense that a series of unfortunate events makes a terrorist is awful. The flippant acceptance in which you state that our kids may some day have a terrorist in their midst is patent surrender. I wish to not yield a world where one day your children have terrorists in their midst. Win or lose, I choose not to concede surrender today!

[Choctastic]

And even these figures for terrorist attacks are dwarfed in the USA by domestic violence

A 2014 study by University of North Carolina found, since the 9/11 attacks, Muslim-linked terrorism has claimed the lives of 37 Americans. In that same time period, more than 190,000 Americans were murdered

http://sites.duke.edu/tcths/files/2013/06/Kurzman_Muslim-American_Terrorism_in_2013.pdf

US Americans are more likely to get killed by a toddler than a Muslim Extremist..

They won't hear you.

Fear drives out reason.

Don't forget your Doctor. 100,000 per year die from taking the properly prescribed dose of medication. That excludes those recorded as dying from other causes and those injured. Extrapolate that across the globe and you are talking millions.

But hey. We are talking religion, brother. We all have 'Faith' in our Doctors.

[Morch]

Empirical evidence shows that only 2% of terrorist attacks in Europe over the last 5 years were committed by Muslim Extremists..

So clearly it's only in your mind..

How does it feel to give a free home to all these Extremist Muslims?

Seems like an awful lot of percents, statistics, and figures come up on these topics - mostly unattributed, mostly not very reliable. This cuts both ways, of course.

Sorry I should have sent a link to support my assertion

https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/te-sat-2014-european-union-terrorism-situation-and-trend-report-2014

While you may doubt these finding I think Europol are more reliable than most - I'm sure one or two more extremist posters can link us to some hate site or other..

This report covers 2013 - further documentation is out there if you really want to know.

Thanks, not going over dozens of pages to validate one liner claims on an open forum, though.

As far as I could tell, your figure relates, if indeed correct, to attack executed, rather than including plots cut in the bud and attacks designated as hate-crimes or even regular crimes. It does not take into account arrests as well.

As pointed out the link refers to a single year only.

The replay incorporates your two other posts related posts.

This is not about "really wanting to know", but just an extension of my original comment.

[arjunadawn]

But shouldn't the headline read "The world must say no to Islamic extremism"?

Why so? Are you ok with White Supremists and Zionist Israelis . Did you agree with the IRA or Baader Meinhor or Timothy Mcveigh? Are you saying yes to these extremists or or you simply an Islamaphobe trying to make a point?

Am I an Islamophobe? Of course I am! What a silly question!

Though I'd say there's nothing irrational in having a fear of Islam. It's perfectly natural in my opinion.

I prefer the term 'infidel'.

And strange as it may seem, neither White Supremists, Zionist Israelis, the IRA, the Baader Meinhoff gang nor Timothy Mcveigh have recently bombed Bali nightclubs, London Underground trains and buses, killed unarmed soldiers on the streets of western cities, drove explosive-laded cars into airports, attempted to destroy jet liners with exposives hidden in their clothing, raped hundreds of children in northern British towns or murdered Journalists in their offices.

Did I make my point?

That's still no reason to ignore other violent extremists. You're saying act only against the biggest group and forget the rest.

The US State Department was arguing this same point; it refuses through its spokeswoman to label Paris an act of Islamic terrorism, rather terrorism. They argue they are putting in place a comprehensive plan to address extremism. When pushed it was asserted there is all types of extremism in the world.

Here's the rub- the world is not hemorrhaging because rednecks in Arkansas don't like the Fed, or Jews. The world is not hemorrhaging because right wing jews want the west bank, or Burmese monks dont like people from Bangladesh settling their lands. The world is hemorrhaging from islamic jihad. To deny this point, or obfuscate this reality has terrible and lasting consequences.

Yes, devise plans for the biggest group, which poses the greatest threat and you will achieve a policy that 1) finally defines this particular threat and 2), sets the standards by which other groups, when reaching a level when speech turns to action, can also be held accountable.

[Seastallion]

You find it unacceptable, but do not grab your assault rifle and storm their offices.

You apply an acceptable reaction to what you find unacceptable.

It is true luk in his post finds it unacceptable but accepts their right to draw what they want.

Not everyone is as tolerant or has suffered as little as luk

But for folks to focus solely on the murder of the cartoonist work as the cause is short sighted too.

Every article that delves into these brothers past show they were initially turned by seeing things reported

of wrongful deeds done by others like in Abu Ghraib Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq etc

So were the cartoonist a last straw? Or more likely an achievable target ?

What ever.... but I doubt any can understand an inability to tolerate unless you or yours are on the side that eats crap everyday

in various forms of oppression, drone attacks, wrongful imprisonment etc etc

Looking at the outrage of many over the 12 deaths of innocents should give an idea of how those who

have suffered thousands of innocent deaths might also be enraged by now.

Yes before the useful tools state the usual BS like ...."well that is what they get for living near a terrorist"

Please consider some day your neighbor or your kids neighbor may have a so called terrorist in their midst

unbeknown to them. I hope they equally feel it is ok when they or theirs are vaporized by a hellfire missile due to their proximity

to a "suspected terrorist"

Indeed.

But the relative number of people reacting violently will probably have a thing or two to do with their culture, upbringing, education and social norms. Religion touches on all of these things.

In some ways what I just said.............But religion or not if your social norm is constantly being attacked & oppression I would hope you would eventually react too.

Mania, you make an impassioned and no unintelligent argument. The notion that single events or a series of events conspire to make a terrorist is not incorrect, but you are missing an ingredient in your recipe. The faith of islam is the glue that binds these events together. It is islam and the hate preachers in the mosques that conspire to make the cake. Long before abu garab and long before collateral damage there was 1390+ years of islamic aggression- an unbroken line of islamic glue that bound war and rage and god and duty. Those that assign contemporary motivations for jihad are totally on the wrong bus.

The nonsense that a series of unfortunate events makes a terrorist is awful. The flippant acceptance in which you state that our kids may some day have a terrorist in their midst is patent surrender. I wish to not yield a world where one day your children have terrorists in their midst. Win or lose, I choose not to concede surrender today!

The flaw in your frequently impassioned argument that it is the religion itself is that the majority of Muslims are peace-loving and abhor murder and mayhem as much as we do.

The notion that a series of events creates a terrorist is realistic. All the young men going over to Syria are angry men, not zealots. If the atrocities Mania refers to in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Abu Graib etc, hadn't occurred, ISIS would be anathema to them and they would rather play their rap music and talk about girls.

[mania]

I will submit that the main difference will be the intent to hurt civilians as the main aim and purpose of the action.

Cue derisive "collateral damage" remarks. Fine. But this with the realization that virtually all victims of attacks such as the Charlie Hebdo one, are what would otherwise be called "collateral damage". Citing that these terrorists were supposedly radicalized by accounts of events overseas, carried out by a foreign army - how this makes attacking Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish deli, rather than, say, the USA embassy, even remotely reasonable escapes me.

As per the romantic misguided view some got on terrorist organizations, and specifically as appeared in the post above - it would not hurt applying some of the criticism both ways, rather than assuming a one directional stance.

Yes cue the "collateral damage" remarks. Rightfully so....How is Charlie different than a wedding party

blown to bits with no terrorist in sight any different? Or a simple metting of village elders mistaken for terrorist?

Ah intent?? One was a mistake....ooops sorry bought that.

Like the reporters blown away by an Apache gunship in Baghdad? While the shooters etc joked on the helicopter &

even lit up an ambulances with kids in it who came to help the reporters? Ooops collateral damages all with good intent??

Come now

Ok fine lets play your game & simply say....

Yes the good fruit is always high on the tree.

But if the starved are incapable of reaching it as it is too well protected by

aid/height....Well maybe they will take what they can reach.

Maybe they know they cannot reach an embassy

After all not everyone has it set in black & white.

Some hold even us little people responsible for what our governments do to them.

Matters not how dumbed down/censored our news is. They figure how could we not know

& also they do know we choose & keep them in office so we must be ok with their actions.

Trust me criticism is both ways & violence is never condoned

But what I see here is far from both ways. It is always assumed we woke one day

& terrorist<sic> hated us....WTH all we did was take a nap...how did this happen.....Yeah sweet dreams

Edited January 15, 2015 by mania

[Seastallion]

Why so? Are you ok with White Supremists and Zionist Israelis . Did you agree with the IRA or Baader Meinhor or Timothy Mcveigh? Are you saying yes to these extremists or or you simply an Islamaphobe trying to make a point?

Am I an Islamophobe? Of course I am! What a silly question!

Though I'd say there's nothing irrational in having a fear of Islam. It's perfectly natural in my opinion.

I prefer the term 'infidel'.

And strange as it may seem, neither White Supremists, Zionist Israelis, the IRA, the Baader Meinhoff gang nor Timothy Mcveigh have recently bombed Bali nightclubs, London Underground trains and buses, killed unarmed soldiers on the streets of western cities, drove explosive-laded cars into airports, attempted to destroy jet liners with exposives hidden in their clothing, raped hundreds of children in northern British towns or murdered Journalists in their offices.

Did I make my point?

That's still no reason to ignore other violent extremists. You're saying act only against the biggest group and forget the rest.

The US State Department was arguing this same point; it refuses through its spokeswoman to label Paris an act of Islamic terrorism, rather terrorism. They argue they are putting in place a comprehensive plan to address extremism. When pushed it was asserted there is all types of extremism in the world.

Here's the rub- the world is not hemorrhaging because rednecks in Arkansas don't like the Fed, or Jews. The world is not hemorrhaging because right wing jews want the west bank, or Burmese monks dont like people from Bangladesh settling their lands. The world is hemorrhaging from islamic jihad. To deny this point, or obfuscate this reality has terrible and lasting consequences.

Yes, devise plans for the biggest group, which poses the greatest threat and you will achieve a policy that 1) finally defines this particular threat and 2), sets the standards by which other groups, when reaching a level when speech turns to action, can also be held accountable.

I agree that Islamic terrorism should be tackled first, as it is the biggest problem right now. What I object to is H1w4r1der's insistence that it is ONLY Islamic terrorism that should be tackled. Why would he deliberately ignore some other extremist violence (which can't be mentioned as they are of other religions,...only Muslims can be criticised here, is my understanding)

Or perhaps he was just baiting to get someone to mention those forbidden groups?

[arjunadawn]

It is true luk in his post finds it unacceptable but accepts their right to draw what they want.

Not everyone is as tolerant or has suffered as little as luk

But for folks to focus solely on the murder of the cartoonist work as the cause is short sighted too.

Every article that delves into these brothers past show they were initially turned by seeing things reported

of wrongful deeds done by others like in Abu Ghraib Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq etc

So were the cartoonist a last straw? Or more likely an achievable target ?

What ever.... but I doubt any can understand an inability to tolerate unless you or yours are on the side that eats crap everyday

in various forms of oppression, drone attacks, wrongful imprisonment etc etc

Looking at the outrage of many over the 12 deaths of innocents should give an idea of how those who

have suffered thousands of innocent deaths might also be enraged by now.

Yes before the useful tools state the usual BS like ...."well that is what they get for living near a terrorist"

Please consider some day your neighbor or your kids neighbor may have a so called terrorist in their midst

unbeknown to them. I hope they equally feel it is ok when they or theirs are vaporized by a hellfire missile due to their proximity

to a "suspected terrorist"

Indeed.

But the relative number of people reacting violently will probably have a thing or two to do with their culture, upbringing, education and social norms. Religion touches on all of these things.

In some ways what I just said.............But religion or not if your social norm is constantly being attacked & oppression I would hope you would eventually react too.

Mania, you make an impassioned and no unintelligent argument. The notion that single events or a series of events conspire to make a terrorist is not incorrect, but you are missing an ingredient in your recipe. The faith of islam is the glue that binds these events together. It is islam and the hate preachers in the mosques that conspire to make the cake. Long before abu garab and long before collateral damage there was 1390+ years of islamic aggression- an unbroken line of islamic glue that bound war and rage and god and duty. Those that assign contemporary motivations for jihad are totally on the wrong bus.

The nonsense that a series of unfortunate events makes a terrorist is awful. The flippant acceptance in which you state that our kids may some day have a terrorist in their midst is patent surrender. I wish to not yield a world where one day your children have terrorists in their midst. Win or lose, I choose not to concede surrender today!

The flaw in your frequently impassioned argument that it is the religion itself is that the majority of Muslims are peace-loving and abhor murder and mayhem as much as we do.

The notion that a series of events creates a terrorist is realistic. All the young men going over to Syria are angry men, not zealots. If the atrocities Mania refers to in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Abu Graib etc, hadn't occurred, ISIS would be anathema to them and they would rather play their rap music and talk about girls.

Hello SS: It is the religion itself. It cannot be otherwise. Were we to presume I am wrong, an entire analysis of history would then be required to find how, in every single instance of jihad, slaughter, etc. a precursor existed from the host countries to invite such diabolism. How did 100,000,000 people in the subcontinent, during the Second Jihad, invite this tragedy?

How can we possibly otherwise reconcile the candid, clear, and direct authority from the koran and hadith for said acts?

The continued embracing of the theory that events make the bad people will continue to invite further acts of terror. Violence only ever responds to strength; not reason- certainly not reason when one is imbued with the divine authority.

I do not doubt that the majority of ALL people in the world wish to live in peace; even many of these very bad people, in their own manner, seek the same thing. That so many muslims do not act out this aggression does not make the connection to their scripture faulty. It only means they do not act on the authority afforded them.

Fewer clearer examples for my point of view can be offered then one recently. Speaking before Al-Azhar university, the deeply esteemed Islamic center for learning throughout most history, Egyptian President al Sisi delicately noted that the very body- "corpus" of Islamic texts that muslims have made sacred over the years are alienating and injuring the entire world. He considers whether it is possible that the entire population of 1.7 billion muslims want to kill the other 7 billion people on earth. He responds "impossible." But his noting this is evidence that the fact remains, one can draw few other conclusions. Why would I be wrong for surmising the same thing that was just declared before the entire sunni islamic umma?

Read for yourself:

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/egypts-sisi-islamic-thinking-is-antagonizing-the-entire-world/

[mania]

Mania, you make an impassioned and no unintelligent argument. The notion that single events or a series of events conspire to make a terrorist is not incorrect, but you are missing an ingredient in your recipe. The faith of islam is the glue that binds these events together. It is islam and the hate preachers in the mosques that conspire to make the cake. Long before abu garab and long before collateral damage there was 1390+ years of islamic aggression- an unbroken line of islamic glue that bound war and rage and god and duty. Those that assign contemporary motivations for jihad are totally on the wrong bus.

The nonsense that a series of unfortunate events makes a terrorist is awful. The flippant acceptance in which you state that our kids may some day have a terrorist in their midst is patent surrender. I wish to not yield a world where one day your children have terrorists in their midst. Win or lose, I choose not to concede surrender today!

Trust me I dont miss much

You can go read & see what you have missed.

See what even OBL's manifesto cited as reasons for attacks.

Nice to try & use religion as a catch all but it is far from that.

If it was then all the poorer are we as what do we base our terrorism on them as?

Please dont say payback/revenge etc.....Instead go back...way back...see when it started & who started it.

Plenty of blame to go around...none have clean hands.

Not just the US media accounts but the installations of puppet regimes...the arming of so called freedom fighters

to sway things in a desired direction...The outright assassinations of scientists & politicians.

Want this to end? So do I but I have a pretty good view & can see both sides.

Concede or surrender? Like Vietnam? Iraq, Libya? At the end of the day what was left?

If we dont want terrorist in our midst we should not be terrorist in theirs.

Edited January 15, 2015 by mania

[arjunadawn]

Am I an Islamophobe? Of course I am! What a silly question!

Though I'd say there's nothing irrational in having a fear of Islam. It's perfectly natural in my opinion.

I prefer the term 'infidel'.

And strange as it may seem, neither White Supremists, Zionist Israelis, the IRA, the Baader Meinhoff gang nor Timothy Mcveigh have recently bombed Bali nightclubs, London Underground trains and buses, killed unarmed soldiers on the streets of western cities, drove explosive-laded cars into airports, attempted to destroy jet liners with exposives hidden in their clothing, raped hundreds of children in northern British towns or murdered Journalists in their offices.

Did I make my point?

That's still no reason to ignore other violent extremists. You're saying act only against the biggest group and forget the rest.

The US State Department was arguing this same point; it refuses through its spokeswoman to label Paris an act of Islamic terrorism, rather terrorism. They argue they are putting in place a comprehensive plan to address extremism. When pushed it was asserted there is all types of extremism in the world.

Here's the rub- the world is not hemorrhaging because rednecks in Arkansas don't like the Fed, or Jews. The world is not hemorrhaging because right wing jews want the west bank, or Burmese monks dont like people from Bangladesh settling their lands. The world is hemorrhaging from islamic jihad. To deny this point, or obfuscate this reality has terrible and lasting consequences.

Yes, devise plans for the biggest group, which poses the greatest threat and you will achieve a policy that 1) finally defines this particular threat and 2), sets the standards by which other groups, when reaching a level when speech turns to action, can also be held accountable.

I agree that Islamic terrorism should be tackled first, as it is the biggest problem right now. What I object to is H1w4r1der's insistence that it is ONLY Islamic terrorism that should be tackled. Why would he deliberately ignore some other extremist violence (which can't be mentioned as they are of other religions,...only Muslims can be criticised here, is my understanding)

Or perhaps he was just baiting to get someone to mention those forbidden groups?

I have read many of his posts, I don't think he was baiting you. I think he was saying pretty much what I am saying: Islamic terrorism is the single greatest threat to the world today. Other forms of extremism exist but do not pose such existential threats. Establish a defining protocol for dealing with islamic terrorism. In this manner general imperatives can be laid out and adjusted toward the islamic threat. The imperatives and manner of which can also be applied, and modified, for other emerging threats. But indeed, define the threat that is most needy. I fear the pretense to broadly go after extremism when there is little other than islamic, will actually embolden and have the unintended consequence of propelling anti blasphemy laws.

When the world is on fire from islamic jihad, every hour, every day, every where, and someone points out, "What about the other extremists?" there is a disconnect in the minds of many; it is... whats the word? Cognitive dissonance

This is why so many regular folks are scratching their heads at the words of their elected leaders.

[MrTee]

Empirical evidence shows that only 2% of terrorist attacks in Europe over the last 5 years were committed by Muslim Extremists..

So clearly it's only in your mind..

How does it feel to give a free home to all these Extremist Muslims?

Seems like an awful lot of percents, statistics, and figures come up on these topics - mostly unattributed, mostly not very reliable. This cuts both ways, of course.

Sorry I should have sent a link to support my assertion

https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/te-sat-2014-european-union-terrorism-situation-and-trend-report-2014

While you may doubt these finding I think Europol are more reliable than most - I'm sure one or two more extremist posters can link us to some hate site or other..

This report covers 2013 - further documentation is out there if you really want to know.

Thanks, not going over dozens of pages to validate one liner claims on an open forum, though.

As far as I could tell, your figure relates, if indeed correct, to attack executed, rather than including plots cut in the bud and attacks designated as hate-crimes or even regular crimes. It does not take into account arrests as well.

As pointed out the link refers to a single year only.

The replay incorporates your two other posts related posts.

This is not about "really wanting to know", but just an extension of my original comment.

First of all, my posts were not aimed at you

These are not "my" figures. There all figures collected by government agencies and or Universities..

You doubted the veracity of what I asserted as tough I just plucked these figures out of the air.

You also doubted the reliability of these figures and now when I offer you a link to support my assertion you back out as its too much for you to be "going over dozens of pages to validate one liner claims on an open forum", though.

Now you further try to negate what I am saying by bringing other mitigating circumstances - .. ( to attack executed, rather than including plots cut in the bud and attacks designated as hate-crimes or even regular crimes. It does not take into account arrests as well.) Had you read the documents I linked in my posts - its not a lot of reading after all - then you'd see you were incorrect.

Its almost as though you want to deny it without backing that up with any knowledge.

The same Europol site has stats for each year since its inception.

Its way too easy to get swept up in the anger about events such as Charlie Hebdo, or other Islamic terrorist activities, but at least tackle the issue with foresight of knowledge..

InB4 puerile apologist comments..

I'm not in any way apologising, explaining, or excusing what these evil barbaric people do. But I do recognise its in everyone's interest to move forward in such a way that doesn't mean creating ever more hatred, death and destruction.

[Chicog]

Funny how none of these world leaders went a marching in Lagos to commemorate the 2,000-odd that got butchered in Nigeria.

[mania]

I have read many of his posts, I don't think he was baiting you. I think he was saying pretty much what I am saying: Islamic terrorism is the single greatest threat to the world today. Other forms of extremism exist but do not pose such existential threats.

Come now......This is nothing short of sensationalism.........

The Single greatest threat to the world today?????

The world today?????

Ok...how many high tech warships do these guys have?

Ummm that would be none

How many aircraft capable of being a world threat?

Ummm that would be none

How many nuclear subs? I think you know

So how in the heck do we come up with this sensationalized claim of them being

the single greatest threat to the world today???? I will tell you how

Scare Mongering in order to control you & get you to give up ever more of your freedoms

Folks should grow a pair & look at reality.

The main reason this rag tag group regardless of size have any real weaponry at all is we likely gave it to them

while we thought they were our lap dogs & we needed yet another regime removed so we could install one that suited our "greater" needs.

Folks should take a bite of reality & drop the sensational claims

Try to remember ...“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Edited January 15, 2015 by mania

[Ulysses G.]

Again people are missing the point that it is not "extremism" here but an orthodox interpretation of Islam. One can have Jewish and Christian and even Buddhist extremists who advocate violence, but in this situation it is not extremists but an orthodox interpretation of Islam, an interpretation adhered to by many, that advocates such violence and intolerance.

Orthodox as in following the Qur'an literally. Radical Muslims are not perverting the religion. They are following it strictly.