It's again that time of the year ... or Muslim bashing!

[Crni Vuk]

Youre right. That is how people roll, I agree. I guess the problem then is that there are just way more Muslim radicals than there are radicals of other stripes and denominations. I cant remember the last time a Christian extremist drove a truck through a crowd of people or shot up a gay nightclub screaming "deus vult". Or how about all those bombings committed by Tibetan Buddhist radicals trying to overthrow the oppressive yolk of the Chinese? It just doesnt happen.

There's somethingly uniquely wrong with islam that gives rise to these people. We need to figure put what that is and how to stop it. It is incredibly unhelpful to that project when people try and pretend that Islam is no worse than other religions in spite of the stacks of evidence to the contrary.

While I agree, that we have probably more fundamental groups in the Muslim world right now, we should not forget that our news coverage is a bit ... strange to say the least.
Point is, not all attacks have to be motivated by clearly radical motivations. Where do you make a difference between someone who's an extremist and someone who's simply no clue, mentally ill? If you know what I mean. For example no one would the idea that someone like Charles Manson or Brevik would be sane individuals. Despite the fact that both would probably claim a political motivation for all of their actions.
So someone who's randomly attacking others with a knive in a buss in the name of Islam? That seems to be rather just one of the many lunatics/mentally ill people that you have everywhere.
But someone who prepared for months, training with explosives and experienced years of ideological indoctrination in terrorist camps, and used a car bomb to blow himself up? That's probably a lot more calculated.
What I want to say is, that a group like ISIS, can easily claim all sorts of incidents for their cause, and trough the news covereage and media they get more attention and supporters. We should not forget! They get a lot of benefit from propaganda as well. If we want to succesfully fight them, we can't just do it with bombs, soldiers and trough hard means. We have to fight primarily their ideology, trying to find out why young people, of which some experienced western education, got so easily radicalized and actually seek to go to Syria to fight a war for a cause they just learned about. And I wouldn't be surprised if there is a serious number of silent but disillusioned ISIS fighters out there. People who joined ISIS for some reason, but very soon realized that all they want from them, is to be cannon fodder.

I remember a case from a relatively famous MMA fighter Valdet Gashi who joined ISIS and vent to Syra to fight. He was rather active over social media and talking in favour of ISIS and all that. A german politican however started to get get in contact with him over the social networks, as he wanted to know from him why he joined ISIS. Strange enough, after some time Valdet simply vanished. No more messages. Nothing. If he died in combat, it would be very likely that ISIS would have sure made a small statement, praizing him as hero or something like that. But to simply dissapear? Even more interesting is that the minster who chatted with him, said how Valdet agreed with some of his criticism, because of the things Vadlet saw in combat and how some people treated for example, children, females and what you would describe as innocent civilans. Who can really say what happend to him. And many more that remain(ed) silent.

One of our greatest weapons in the fight against isis, is the simple truth, providing as much information as possible. One thing is to take action, if you have too. But the other is, to make sure that you reach also possible future generations of radicals. Or you just run in to the same problem over and over again.

 

[alec]

"They smell weird. They smell like school soup or raw chicken. And when it's really hot, they smell like mouse urine or sweat, but not just 'sweat sweat', more like 'buttcrack sweat' or 'nutsack sweat', it's a very peculiar odour. It's not something I would use in one of my creations, no." (Thierry Mugler)

"Statistically speaking I can not be the only white, heterosexual male who thinks a burqa is sexy as fuck. [...] Whenever I see one of them pious muslim bitches covered from head to toe, all I can think of is some hot anonymous doggystyle action. They're like nuns, but not quite as rare, which is a good thing 'cause, you know, I don't really want to fuck with an endangered species." (from The Diary of Samuel Pepys)

"I used to hate faggots and muslims, thinking they were the exact same thing, but then I discovered that muslims hate faggots, so I was like 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' and now I have sex in my poophole all day long. Last week my friends and I even made 'poop corn'. Do you know what 'poopcorn' is? Let's just say you'll need a bag of plain kernels, a funnel and a hairdryer if you want to make some." (Bruce Jenner)

"No. No, no, no!" (Donald Trump)

 

[Crossfire]

While I agree, that we have probably more fundamental groups in the Muslim world right now, we should not forget that our news coverage is a bit ... strange to say the least.
Point is, not all attacks have to be motivated by clearly radical motivations. Where do you make a difference between someone who's an extremist and someone who's simply no clue, mentally ill? If you know what I mean. For example no one would the idea that someone like Charles Manson or Brevik would be sane individuals. Despite the fact that both would probably claim a political motivation for all of their actions.
So someone who's randomly attacking others with a knive in a buss in the name of Islam? That seems to be rather just one of the many lunatics/mentally ill people that you have everywhere.
But someone who prepared for months, training with explosives and experienced years of ideological indoctrination in terrorist camps, and used a car bomb to blow himself up? That's probably a lot more calculated.
What I want to say is, that a group like ISIS, can easily claim all sorts of incidents for their cause, and trough the news covereage and media they get more attention and supporters. We should not forget! They get a lot of benefit from propaganda as well. If we want to succesfully fight them, we can't just do it with bombs, soldiers and trough hard means. We have to fight primarily their ideology, trying to find out why young people, of which some experienced western education, got so easily radicalized and actually seek to go to Syria to fight a war for a cause they just learned about. And I wouldn't be surprised if there is a serious number of silent but disillusioned ISIS fighters out there. People who joined ISIS for some reason, but very soon realized that all they want from them, is to be cannon fodder.

I remember a case from a relatively famous MMA fighter Valdet Gashi who joined ISIS and vent to Syra to fight. He was rather active over social media and talking in favour of ISIS and all that. A german politican however started to get get in contact with him over the social networks, as he wanted to know from him why he joined ISIS. Strange enough, after some time Valdet simply vanished. No more messages. Nothing. If he died in combat, it would be very likely that ISIS would have sure made a small statement, praizing him as hero or something like that. But to simply dissapear? Even more interesting is that the minster who chatted with him, said how Valdet agreed with some of his criticism, because of the things Vadlet saw in combat and how some people treated for example, children, females and what you would describe as innocent civilans. Who can really say what happend to him. And many more that remain(ed) silent.

One of our greatest weapons in the fight against isis, is the simple truth, providing as much information as possible. One thing is to take action, if you have too. But the other is, to make sure that you reach also possible future generations of radicals. Or you just run in to the same problem over and over again.

That all seems reasonable enough. I, more or less, agree.

 

[Vergil]

Point is, not all attacks have to be motivated by clearly radical motivations. Where do you make a difference between someone who's an extremist and someone who's simply no clue, mentally ill? So someone who's randomly attacking others with a knive in a buss in the name of Islam? That seems to be rather just one of the many lunatics/mentally ill people that you have everywhere.

When multiple people commit attacks all in the name of the same group it's clearly not a lone insane individual. The bus attack is just yet another example of someone attacking someone in the name of allah. It's not just "one of many lunatics", it is yet another moslem migrant attacking someone in the name of Islam.

But someone who prepared for months, training with explosives and experienced years of ideological indoctrination in terrorist camps, and used a car bomb to blow himself up? That's probably a lot more calculated.

You mean like the people in Belgium who set off that bomb, the massive attack in Paris or the Orlando club shooting where not only was the guy seen there multiple times before the attack but he was also already on a terrorist watch list and then he promptly called 9/11 and pledge himself to Allah and ISIS? This isn't a problem with a whole bunch of unrelated people who just coincidentally believe in the exact same ideology.

What I want to say is, that a group like ISIS, can easily claim all sorts of incidents for their cause, and trough the news covereage and media they get more attention and supporters. We should not forget! They get a lot of benefit from propaganda as well. If we want to succesfully fight them, we can't just do it with bombs, soldiers and trough hard means. We have to fight primarily their ideology, trying to find out why young people, of which some experienced western education, got so easily radicalized and actually seek to go to Syria to fight a war for a cause they just learned about.

So instead of fighting the people raping and murdering us we should stop fighting, open up our borders to them and start talking. Good plan.

And I wouldn't be surprised if there is a serious number of silent but disillusioned ISIS fighters out there. People who joined ISIS for some reason, but very soon realized that all they want from them, is to be cannon fodder.

Conjecture. And this just circles back to what has already been discussed about how we can't vet every single ISIS member to make sure we're only attacking the "really, REALLY bad ones" while they're shooting at us. Do you think they give a fuck if a Western soldier who they're fighting against might possibly be more sympathetic than others?

I remember a case from a relatively famous MMA fighter Valdet Gashi who joined ISIS and vent to Syra to fight. He was rather active over social media and talking in favour of ISIS and all that. A german politican however started to get get in contact with him over the social networks, as he wanted to know from him why he joined ISIS. Strange enough, after some time Valdet simply vanished. No more messages. Nothing. If he died in combat, it would be very likely that ISIS would have sure made a small statement, praizing him as hero or something like that. But to simply dissapear? Even more interesting is that the minster who chatted with him, said how Valdet agreed with some of his criticism, because of the things Vadlet saw in combat and how some people treated for example, children, females and what you would describe as innocent civilans. Who can really say what happend to him. And many more that remain(ed) silent.

One example where we don't actually know at all what happened to him and you're projecting your own thoughts onto what might have maybe, possibly happened to him. Just because a few people disagree with ISIS in their territory doesn't mean we should just pack up and "fuck it" because a few dozen people in ISIS aren't "so bad". Since you seem to have such a hard on for talking about Nazis would you say that everyone should have just left the Nazis alone because some Germans might not have agreed 100% with the Nazi party?

One of our greatest weapons in the fight against isis, is the simple truth, providing as much information as possible.
One thing is to take action, if you have too. But the other is, to make sure that you reach also possible future generations of radicals. Or you just run in to the same problem over and over again.

And it's doing such a great job so far. We've got governments that then them slip in easy as can be and when they rape and murder people rush to defend them. With there being a new attack or assault almost everyday I'd say we've reached the point where we have to take action. And we won't run into the problem again if we stop trying to fuck around down there. We take out the people who fucked with us, we close our borders to them and we get the fuck out of there when it's over. If your country is a destabilized mess that produces massive terror attack you don't get to import your problems to our countries too. Simple as that.

 

[Crossfire]

Sure, they have barbaric laws but not terrorism, unless you count funding terrorism which they allegedly do.

Don't forget that 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudi.

Saudi Arabia exports Wahhabism, a source of global terrorism and the inspiration for ISIS's brand of Islam.

 

[olestra]

Thank you to whoever brought up Breivik, or the pro-Brexit gunman, or the non-Islamic fundamentalist who stabbed youths last year's Jerusalem Pride.

I can't tell if I just read this thread or swallowed a whole bottle of Gravol.

 

[Izak]

Don't forget that 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudi.
Saudi Arabia exports Wahhabism, a source of global terrorism and the inspiration for ISIS's brand of Islam.

I mean they don't suffer from terrorism.

 

[Crossfire]

Thank you to whoever brought up Breivik, or the pro-Brexit gunman, or the non-Islamic fundamentalist who stabbed youths last year's Jerusalem Pride.

I can't tell if I just read this thread or swallowed a whole bottle of Gravol.

No one is saying that muslims commit all of the terrorism everywhere, just that they are drastically over-represented.

 

[Vergil]

Thank you to whoever brought up Breivik, or the pro-Brexit gunman, or the non-Islamic fundamentalist who stabbed youths last year's Jerusalem Pride.

Congratulations, 3 completely separate people with no ties to one another outside of being "not moslem". Clearly this means we should ignore all these other attacks happening around the same time by multiple people who all claim allegiance to the exact same ideology, and are continuing to be enabled by the current immigration policies of Europe. By the way, would you like me to post the list of all the Islamic terror attacks and compare it those 3 people? I can guarantee there are far, far, far, far more cases of Islamic terrorism in Europe than these Right Wing boogeymen that I've yet to see commit any attacks in numbers and scale that even begin to rival those of islamic terrorism.

I can't tell if I just read this thread or swallowed a whole bottle of Gravol.

Epic argument. I feel beat the fuck out just looking at it.

 

[Crossfire]

I mean they don't suffer from terrorism.

Of course not, they've more or less got everything they want there.

 

[Vergil]

Speaking of Saudi Arabia, why is no one calling on them to take in all those moslem refugees? Why does Western Europe, a place with an entirely different culture, have to take in all of these migrants when Saudi Arabia, a country that would be a much better fit for these people, not have to take in any?

 

[Crossfire]

Speaking of Saudi Arabia, why is no one calling on them to take in all those moslem refugees? Why does Western Europe, a place with an entirely different culture, have to take in all of these migrants when Saudi Arabia, a country that would be a much better fit for these people, not have to take in any?

Nobody HAS to take any in. The west takes these burdens upon itself because it feels guilty about doing anything in its own interest. Its bizarrely masochistic.

 

[Vergil]

Nobody HAS to take any in. The west takes these burdens upon itself because it feels guilty about doing anything in its own interest. Its bizarrely masochistic.

Oh well of course no one has to but if you're going to claim that anyone has a responsibility to take them in it should be their terrorist funding, rich neighbors.

 

[Crossfire]

Oh well of course no one has to but if you're going to claim that anyone has a responsibility to take them in it should be their terrorist funding, rich neighbors.

I agree. They're at the top of the list with every other sovereign state in the region right below them.

 

[Izak]

Nobody HAS to take any in. The west takes these burdens upon itself because it feels guilty about doing anything in its own interest. Its bizarrely masochistic.

Well, Western nations, for the most part, do have to let some in.

Speaking of Saudi Arabia, why is nobody calling on them to take in all those moslem refugees? Why does Western Europe, a place with an entirely different culture, have to take in all of these migrants when Saudi Arabia, a country that would be a much better fit for these people, not have to take in any?

http://www.dw.com/en/arab-monarchies-turn-down-syrian-refugees-over-security-threat/a-19002873
'In part, the low numbers are due to a technicality, as the Gulf states are non-signatories to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, the governing international convention defining refugees and their rights.'

 

[Dr Fallout]

Why does ISIS attack random civilians with migrants?

So that Europe takes away hope from the migrants and forces them to ISIS. The whole point of these attacks is to invoke an emotional response that will result in negativity and hate against Muslims, which makes them join ISIS because they promise a way to fight back against the dickish Western Powers.

Opening Europe to migrants was a mistake, closing Europe to migrants will only make ISIS stronger. Keep in mind that ISIS is being beaten by allied forces in Syria, leaving their main strength in terrorist attacks.

 

[Vergil]

Well, Western nations, for the most part, do have to let some in.

The UN is a Goddamn joke. The idea that everyone follows all the rules is a pipe dream.

http://www.dw.com/en/arab-monarchies-turn-down-syrian-refugees-over-security-threat/a-19002873
'In part, the low numbers are due to a technicality, as the Gulf states are non-signatories to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, the governing international convention defining refugees and their rights.'

So it's totally ok that Saudi Arabia dicks around with terrorist groups and then doesn't have to take in any refugees because the UN is a shitty and ineffective organization?

Why does ISIS attack random civilians with migrants?

So that Europe takes away hope from the migrants and forces them to ISIS. The whole point of these attacks is to invoke an emotional response that will result in negativity and hate against Muslims, which makes them join ISIS because they promise a way to fight back against the dickish Western Powers.

Opening Europe to migrants was a mistake, closing Europe to migrants will only make ISIS stronger. Keep in mind that ISIS is being beaten by allied forces in Syria, leaving their main strength in terrorist attacks.

Baseless Conjecture: The Post
Also, we should let in more potential terrorists otherwise ISIS wins? What?

 

[Izak]

So it's totally ok that Saudi Arabia dicks around with terrorist groups and then doesn't have to take in any refugees because the UN is a shitty and ineffective organization?

Morally, no; legally, yes.

 

[olestra]

Epic argument. I feel beat the fuck out just looking at it.

Thank you /pol/, I'm flattered. I wasn't expecting a reply.

In any case isn't Saudi Arabia one of the regimes most terrified of attacks and a revolution sprouting up within its own borders? Aside from their tensions with Iran, I'm pretty sure ISIS is the greatest existential crisis they've ever faced. ISIS needing to be eliminated may be the only thing Saudi Arabia and Iran have seen eye to eye on for a long time for all I know. Isn't that why the price of oil is so low, because they are scared shitless of ISIS?

 

[Vergil]

I wasn't expecting a reply.

Didn't really deserve one either, but I'm just such a generous guy.

In any case isn't Saudi Arabia one of the regimes most terrified of attacks and a revolution sprouting up within its own borders? Aside from their tensions with Iran, I'm pretty sure ISIS is the greatest existential crisis they've ever faced. ISIS needing to be eliminated may be the only thing Saudi Arabia and Iran have seen eye to eye on for a long time for all I know. Isn't that why the price of oil is so low, because they are scared shitless of ISIS?

What the hell are you even talking about?
Eitherway even if any of that completely random conjecture you just came up with was true, it doesn't justify why Europe should have to take these people in and they don't.