The Religion of Selflessness, Empathy, and Courage.

[retrospooty]

You obviously don't understand that the Crusades were a reaction to moslem invasions. The entire world would look like the middle east does now if not for the Crusades, with technology set back a few hundred years to boot. The current invasion that is being forced on Western Civs must end.

LOL, great. A medieval solution to a modern day problem. You are several stages beyond clueless. I blame myself for engaging with you in the first place. Your first post really said it all - absolute nutjob not capable of having an adult conversation about a very real problem.

 

[glenn1]

OK, now I see what you are getting at, but I am not seeing the point of it. Rather than discuss the actual issue and/or the actual people committing the acts, or even the innocent people condemned by association, you are really only concerned with identifying which group commits worse acts per capita? OK, you got it... I am not sure exact #'s because no such study exists, but I am fairly sure that per capita, there are quite alot more Muslim extremist violent psychos than there are Christian extremist violent psychos. Not sure what that realization gets us though. Lets say .1% of Christians are extremist violent psychos, and 1% of Muslims are extremist violent psychos... Gasp, that is 10x
the amount of extremist violent psychos per capita. We still cannot condemn the 99.9% of Christians or the 99% of Muslims.

It doesn't really have a point other than accuracy. With such small sample sizes of extremists willing/able to act out their violent fantasies I don't know if it has any policymaking value to say there are 5x more Muslim extremists than Christian when both are tiny numbers.

 

[DrunkenSano]

Not to be an ass about it, but that is pretty narrow. What if hypothetically 5% of all white people were violent criminals. Should we condemn all white people, even ones 1/2 way around the world that never met anyone in that 5%, or should we just condemn the 5%?

The problem that we have as a society is that we are grouping people together, people that never met and associating them with extremists. What we should be "condemning" is the acts and the people that committed the acts... Not other people that look similar to the people that committed the acts. It's really not difficult.

In my opinion, it would depend on what the rest of the population views the 5% of violent criminals. Do they visibly oppose them and actually take active measures to reduce that 5% number? Or do they silently support them or even in some cases, verbally support them. Do the rest of the population support that philosophy? If it is the former, then no, you do not condemn the rest of the whites but you help them root out and destroy the 5% of evil in their society. However, if it is the latter, then yes, you can start condemning the population.

That is the problem, at least from an outsider's stand point right now, perhaps part of the blame is on the media because they only portray what can give them higher ratings these days. But it almost seems like (not in the US) Muslims are not against the extremists, they seem to agree that non-believers do deserve what is happening to them. There appears to be nothing being done to root out the extremists and more are flocking to their cause.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

You obviously don't understand that the Crusades were a reaction to moslem invasions. The entire world would look like the middle east does now if not for the Crusades, with technology set back a few hundred years to boot. The current invasion that is being forced on Western Civs must end.

Curious; why do you say moslem, instead of muslim? I've rarely ever seen it spelled that way. I'm not familiar with it. Is there a difference in meaning?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[retrospooty]

Curious; why do you say moslem, instead of muslim? I've rarely ever seen it spelled that way. I'm not familiar with it. Is there a difference in meaning?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

You clearly aren't dealing with an educated person here. You are dealing with a person too gripped by fear to even begin to be rational.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Curious; why do you say moslem, instead of muslim? I've rarely ever seen it spelled that way. I'm not familiar with it. Is there a difference in meaning?

It's the old-school spelling and is considered offensive now.

 

[brycejones]

It's the old-school spelling and is considered offensive now.

How classy you are.

 

[jihe]

So, back on topic. Are we talking Buddhism here? The buddhists seem a peaceful bunch.

 

[Atreus21]

So, back on topic. Are we talking Buddhism here? The buddhists seem a peaceful bunch.

Nevertheless, Buddhism has had a few incidents.

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

Therefore it's indistinguishable from Islam's terror problem.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Nevertheless, Buddhism has had a few incidents.

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

Therefore it's indistinguishable from Islam's terror problem.

Hmm, I like these guys:

The militant side of Thai Buddhism became prominent again in 2004 when a Malay Muslim insurgency renewed in Thailand's deep south. Since January 2004, the Thai government has converted Buddhist monasteries into military outposts, commissioned Buddhist military monks and given support to Buddhist vigilante squads

 

[agent00f]

In my opinion, it would depend on what the rest of the population views the 5% of violent criminals. Do they visibly oppose them and actually take active measures to reduce that 5% number? Or do they silently support them or even in some cases, verbally support them. Do the rest of the population support that philosophy? If it is the former, then no, you do not condemn the rest of the whites but you help them root out and destroy the 5% of evil in their society. However, if it is the latter, then yes, you can start condemning the population.

That is the problem, at least from an outsider's stand point right now, perhaps part of the blame is on the media because they only portray what can give them higher ratings these days. But it almost seems like (not in the US) Muslims are not against the extremists, they seem to agree that non-believers do deserve what is happening to them. There appears to be nothing being done to root out the extremists and more are flocking to their cause.

Generally the goal of this kind of warfare is to trigger some asymmetric response which forms the basis for greater support ("told you they were bad"). For example, that's why christians or the alt-right are quick to jump on the cross at any perceived slight.