So if you try to kill a cop in the name of Islam....it is not influenced by Islam

[realibrad]

That made literally no sense whatsoever.

Who is it that you think is going to form a mob then?

 

[MongGrel]

So you are for no gun control then, right?

Do you have ADD? You are all over the place scrambling to make some sort of relevant post.

It's just typical for him.

 

[MongGrel]

Honestly, I'm just more concerned about the fact that my neighbor down the street who rents the only unkempt house in the neighborhood, is unemployed and deals drugs, lets his pit bulls run loose, and screams his unmuffled Harley up and down the street in the middle of the night, thinks he's a better, more upstanding, more patriotic, and more law-abiding citizen of this country than my black and Muslim neighbors just because he's white, "Christian," and has a Trump sign in his front yard.

If everything you stated there is true, there would probably be an easy solution to that problem.

 

[Vic]

Who is it that you think is going to form a mob then?

Any group of sufficient numbers can be manipulated into carrying out evil acts which the members of that group would never think of doing individually or in smaller numbers. This phenomenon has nothing to do with the intelligence or strength of the individuals within the group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology

 

[realibrad]

Any group of sufficient numbers can be manipulated into carrying out evil acts which the members of that group would never think of doing individually or in smaller numbers. This phenomenon has nothing to do with the intelligence or strength of the individuals within the group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology

Are Muslims immune to this?

 

[Vic]

Are Muslims immune to this?

Why would they be?

Yaknow, I recall that, in Ireland during The Troubles, there were a great many people who used the argument that "the problem" was Catholicism and that "the solution" was to treat all Irish Catholics as suspected terrorists.
It's been about 20 years now since the Troubles ended peacefully. Were those people right in any way?

 

[realibrad]

Why would they be?

Yaknow, I recall that, in Ireland during The Troubles, there were a great many people who used the argument that "the problem" was Catholicism and that "the solution" was to treat all Irish Catholics as suspected terrorists.
It's been about 20 years now since the Troubles ended peacefully. Were those people right in any way?

If you are asking me if I think the Irish Catholics should be treated as terrorists, then no. If you are asking me if I think the religion they had caused their actions, then no. The Troubles were not about religion. Horrible people, but not because of their religion.

That being said, it was not Irish Muslims that were causing a problem at that time. I would think it was silly to profile Muslims during that period because it was Irish Catholics causing the problems. I would be in full support of suspecting Irish Catholics over Muslims. What I think that means is probably not what "those" people wanted when they suspected the Irish Catholics. I would not advocate for taking away freedoms because of that suspicion, but I would also not do a blanket surveillance of everyone either. I would advocate investigative work and try to narrow down on who was causing the problems.

Anyway, why do you think terrorists are disproportionately Muslim?

 

[ivwshane]

If you are asking me if I think the Irish Catholics should be treated as terrorists, then no. If you are asking me if I think the religion they had caused their actions, then no. The Troubles were not about religion. Horrible people, but not because of their religion.

That being said, it was not Irish Muslims that were causing a problem at that time. I would think it was silly to profile Muslims during that period because it was Irish Catholics causing the problems. I would be in full support of suspecting Irish Catholics over Muslims. What I think that means is probably not what "those" people wanted when they suspected the Irish Catholics. I would not advocate for taking away freedoms because of that suspicion, but I would also not do a blanket surveillance of everyone either. I would advocate investigative work and try to narrow down on who was causing the problems.

Anyway, why do you think terrorists are disproportionately Muslim?

Because we have totally destabilized that whole region? Because we have meddled in the middle east for decades? Shit! We have people in this country committing terrorism against our government for its supposed meddling in their own affairs.

 

[Vic]

If you are asking me if I think the Irish Catholics should be treated as terrorists, then no. If you are asking me if I think the religion they had caused their actions, then no. The Troubles were not about religion. Horrible people, but not because of their religion.

That being said, it was not Irish Muslims that were causing a problem at that time. I would think it was silly to profile Muslims during that period because it was Irish Catholics causing the problems. I would be in full support of suspecting Irish Catholics over Muslims. What I think that means is probably not what "those" people wanted when they suspected the Irish Catholics. I would not advocate for taking away freedoms because of that suspicion, but I would also not do a blanket surveillance of everyone either. I would advocate investigative work and try to narrow down on who was causing the problems.

Anyway, why do you think terrorists are disproportionately Muslim?

I don't think that. In fact, I think that's a loaded question. It is evident that the anti-social douchebags who commit violent crimes (including terrorists) can belong to any race, religion, or ethnicity. "Terrorist" is the label we apply when the criminal just happens to Muslim, just like "thug" is the label that gets applied when the criminal happens to be black, and "Extremist" is the label used most often for whites. Generally, we apply these different labels even when the crimes are the same. I've never seen the media refer to Columbine, Sandy Hook, or UCC as acts of terrorism, but they do with the virtually identical crime in San Bernardino.
Once upon a time, terrorism referred to politically motivated crime, but no longer. Now it's just almost any crime committed by perpetrators of Middle Eastern descent.
So the question isn't "why are terrorists disproportionately Muslim," but why does our society use different labels to describe criminals who commit the same crimes?

 

[mysticjbyrd]

I don't think that. In fact, I think that's a loaded question. It is evident that the anti-social douchebags who commit violent crimes (including terrorists) can belong to any race, religion, or ethnicity. "Terrorist" is the label we apply when the criminal just happens to Muslim, just like "thug" is the label that gets applied when the criminal happens to be black, and "Extremist" is the label used most often for whites. Generally, we apply these different labels even when the crimes are the same. I've never seen the media refer to Columbine, Sandy Hook, or UCC as acts of terrorism, but they do with the virtually identical crime in San Bernardino.
Once upon a time, terrorism referred to politically motivated crime, but no longer. Now it's just almost any crime committed by perpetrators of Middle Eastern descent.
So the question isn't "why are terrorists disproportionately Muslim," but why does our society use different labels to describe criminals who commit the same crimes?

bullshit... You're generalizations are as bas bad as the people you're directing this criticism too.

 

[Moonbeam]

bullshit... You're generalizations are as bas bad as the people you're directing this criticism too.

Really? My reaction was, man oh man, those are not only insights novel to me, but ones that also fit reality to a T.

 

[realibrad]

I don't think that. In fact, I think that's a loaded question. It is evident that the anti-social douchebags who commit violent crimes (including terrorists) can belong to any race, religion, or ethnicity. "Terrorist" is the label we apply when the criminal just happens to Muslim, just like "thug" is the label that gets applied when the criminal happens to be black, and "Extremist" is the label used most often for whites. Generally, we apply these different labels even when the crimes are the same. I've never seen the media refer to Columbine, Sandy Hook, or UCC as acts of terrorism, but they do with the virtually identical crime in San Bernardino.
Once upon a time, terrorism referred to politically motivated crime, but no longer. Now it's just almost any crime committed by perpetrators of Middle Eastern descent.
So the question isn't "why are terrorists disproportionately Muslim," but why does our society use different labels to describe criminals who commit the same crimes?

Why would those be terrorism? Those things were not done for political reasons.

Your logic seems to be that you think terrorism has been expanded to non political acts of violence, and that should then mean all other violence should be included. The problem you seem to have is that you built your argument around a false premise.

So, to be clear, you don't think Muslims make up a disproportionate number of terrorists correct?

 

[Atreus21]

Because we have totally destabilized that whole region? Because we have meddled in the middle east for decades? Shit! We have people in this country committing terrorism against our government for its supposed meddling in their own affairs.

 

[soulcougher73]

I don't think that. In fact, I think that's a loaded question. It is evident that the anti-social douchebags who commit violent crimes (including terrorists) can belong to any race, religion, or ethnicity. "Terrorist" is the label we apply when the criminal just happens to Muslim, just like "thug" is the label that gets applied when the criminal happens to be black, and "Extremist" is the label used most often for whites. Generally, we apply these different labels even when the crimes are the same. I've never seen the media refer to Columbine, Sandy Hook, or UCC as acts of terrorism, but they do with the virtually identical crime in San Bernardino.
Once upon a time, terrorism referred to politically motivated crime, but no longer. Now it's just almost any crime committed by perpetrators of Middle Eastern descent.
So the question isn't "why are terrorists disproportionately Muslim," but why does our society use different labels to describe criminals who commit the same crimes?

Terrorism is used to strike fear into another people from a certain group of people. You fear them, they scare you. Columbine, Sandy Hook was not about fear. It was just nut jobs going on a killing spree with no real hidden agenda behind it to strike fear into the anyone. One group you can classify and the other one not so much. Muslim is a lot easier to classify than crazy random white people.

Now if it was say the Hells Angels commiting terrorism then you could classify them since its all from one group of people with shared ideals etc.

To me it basically comes down to was the crime just a crime or was it more about an ideal is the best way to distinguish just a crime vs terrorism.

 

[Knowing]

Because we have totally destabilized that whole region? Because we have meddled in the middle east for decades?

I was under the impression that we were going to taper that about a decade ago. Sadly that was before we actively participated in the destabilization of a few more middle eastern countries.

Odd then that Ron Paul was harangued for his blowback theory.

 

[ivwshane]

I was under the impression that we were going to taper that about a decade ago. Sadly that was before we actively participated in the destabilization of a few more middle eastern countries.

Odd then that Ron Paul was harangued for his blowback theory.

I don't find it odd at all, most of the anti meddling politicians are hit hard on their position. It's sad but that's what happens when we have politicians who appeal to uniformed voters who want quick reactions rather than thoughtful responses.

 

[Vic]

Why would those be terrorism? Those things were not done for political reasons.

Your logic seems to be that you think terrorism has been expanded to non political acts of violence, and that should then mean all other violence should be included. The problem you seem to have is that you built your argument around a false premise.

So, to be clear, you don't think Muslims make up a disproportionate number of terrorists correct?

What was the political objective behind San Bernardino then? Or this cop shooting?

 

[Vic]

I don't find it odd at all, most of the anti meddling politicians are hit hard on their position. It's sad but that's what happens when we have politicians who appeal to uniformed voters who want quick reactions rather than thoughtful responses.

Destabilizing foreign governments has become a trillion dollar industry in the US that employs millions of people. And even though its primary source of funding is the US government, politicians can't touch it.

 

[raildogg]

We seem to have a lot of experts on Islam lately. Everyone's got an opinion!

Every day, people to stuff - work, live, eat and other things as well. Why do they do it? What motivates them? Their little so-called religion? Or is it their desire to make their lives "better"? What drives them?

When a man does something terrible, in that moment is he thinking how that act is helping HIM or is helping his religion? What comes first, himself or his religion? Is the so-called religion more important than his fame, fortune and notoriety? If the religion is actually more important, then why is he voluntarily killing himself?! Isn't him being alive more beneficial to the religion than him being dead?

It's strange because we've seen these incidents before. 9/11, Paris attacks and more. By committing these attacks, how do they benefit the attackers or their survivors? I can't say how it does in any way.

Quite the contrary. I think these incidents help those who exploit them for their personal gain.

 

[ivwshane]

We seem to have a lot of experts on Islam lately. Everyone's got an opinion!

Every day, people to stuff - work, live, eat and other things as well. Why do they do it? What motivates them? Their little so-called religion? Or is it their desire to make their lives "better"? What drives them?

When a man does something terrible, in that moment is he thinking how that act is helping HIM or is helping his religion? What comes first, himself or his religion? Is the so-called religion more important than his fame, fortune and notoriety? If the religion is actually more important, then why is he voluntarily killing himself?! Isn't him being alive more beneficial to the religion than him being dead?

It's strange because we've seen these incidents before. 9/11, Paris attacks and more. By committing these attacks, how do they benefit the attackers or their survivors? I can't say how it does in any way.

Quite the contrary. I think these incidents help those who exploit them for their personal gain.

I agree!

 

[realibrad]

What was the political objective behind San Bernardino then? Or this cop shooting?

Striving, applying oneself, struggling, persevering for Islam against western culture.

Now, I had asked you if you thought that Muslims make up a disproportionate amount of terrorism.

Here is a link from a far right outlet, but it should still work. This was in 2011.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sunni-muslim-extremists-committed-70-terrorist-murders-2011

According to NCTC, of the 12,533 terrorism-related deaths worldwide, 8,886 were perpetrated by “Sunni extremists,” 1,926 by “secular/political/anarchist” groups, 1,519 by “unknown” factions, 170 by a category described as “other”, and 77 by “Neo-Nazi/Fascist/White Supremacist” groups.

The amount of terrorism has only grown as well. ISIS is the biggest reason for Islamic terrorism right now. The facts support that terrorism is growing, and the majority of the growth is coming from Islamic groups.

So, do you still think Muslims do not make up a disproportionate amount of terrorism, or are you going to shift to blaming other groups because Muslims are helpless people who were turned into terrorists?

 

[Moonbeam]

We seem to have a lot of experts on Islam lately. Everyone's got an opinion!

Every day, people to stuff - work, live, eat and other things as well. Why do they do it? What motivates them? Their little so-called religion? Or is it their desire to make their lives "better"? What drives them?

When a man does something terrible, in that moment is he thinking how that act is helping HIM or is helping his religion? What comes first, himself or his religion? Is the so-called religion more important than his fame, fortune and notoriety? If the religion is actually more important, then why is he voluntarily killing himself?! Isn't him being alive more beneficial to the religion than him being dead?

It's strange because we've seen these incidents before. 9/11, Paris attacks and more. By committing these attacks, how do they benefit the attackers or their survivors? I can't say how it does in any way.

Quite the contrary. I think these incidents help those who exploit them for their personal gain.

You have calculated that life is more important than ideas, but what if there are things worth dying for? Do you know if there aren't? Your assumptions about the value of the life of a suicide bomber, for example, as being more important than his mission make perfect sense to you because you wear different shoes. How do you know your calculation is superior to somebody else's?

 

[Moonbeam]

So, do you still think Muslims do not make up a disproportionate amount of terrorism, or are you going to shift to blaming other groups because Muslims are helpless people who were turned into terrorists?

Are you seriously saying that the growth of terrorism in Muslim areas has nothing to do with our involvement in those countries? I don't suppose you would call the military destruction of Iraq terrorism, would you, or that the MOAB is anything other than just a kiss on the cheek.

 

[raildogg]

You have calculated that life is more important than ideas, but what if there are things worth dying for? Do you know if there aren't? Your assumptions about the value of the life of a suicide bomber, for example, as being more important than his mission make perfect sense to you because you wear different shoes. How do you know your calculation is superior to somebody else's?

Yes, things might be worth dying for. What I was getting at was "Who benefits from these attacks?"

The attacks we have seen over the years seem to not really help the cause of these so-called terrorists. However, it always seems to help in one way or another the politicians who exploit them for their gain. Or replace the word politician with corporate interests, media, etc.

You are correct. I am making assumptions based on my opinions and experiences. Every other person will look at it totally differently.

And I did not mean that life is more important than ideas. I was trying to say that when people do stuff, they do it for their own interests first in that moment. The religion might have some relevance but not entirely. This basic selfishness of humans must never be ignored. It comes before anything else.

 

[Sulaco]

What was the political objective behind San Bernardino then? Or this cop shooting?

Are you truly that stupid?

The guy flat out said after attempting to kill the man:

"I follow Allah. I pledge my allegiance to the Islamic State and that's why I did what I did," Archer said, according to Clark.

I mean, seriously? You're that dense?