Turns out it was two shooters: a man and wife, who are now both dead. And they're Muslims. So that sucks. Oh, and they had a six month old b… moreaby that they left at home.
The motive is really unclear. He worked there, so that suggests it was a case of "going postal". But he got his wife involved and, I hate to say it, but the fact that they're Muslims opens up the possibility that this was another case of Islamic extremism. Or maybe it was a combination. I dunno, this is a really weird story. If this was some sort of statement, I would have thought a video or manifesto would have popped up by now. But if it was an extreme case of workplace resentment, its really weird that he was able to convince his wife to join him, especially with a young baby at home.
I've seen several comments blaming Muslims as a whole for the actions of a few amongst other generalizations. Please keep discussion civil and constructive, as I've noticed a few comments that have made me consider locking this thread. Thanks.
While I do agree that mass shootings are a national security matter, the one's that have happened recently are shown to be religiously motivated.
The shooting in Oregon was religiously motivated, with the target being Christians.
And the shooting in California was also religiously motivated, with the perpetrators being Muslim.
And though I'm not sure if you addressed it or not, but I was certainly thinking about it today, that whenever there is a gun-related crime, everyone is so quick to blame guns and gun owners.
And to be honest, I feel that it is a very unfair thing to do!
For example, a loaded gun doesn't have the ability to pick itself off a table, aim at a person, and shoot said person.
Nor does a gun have a moral conscience, but just does as it's designed to do.
A gun is as good, or as bad, as the person who wields it.
And, not all gun owners are careless.
Most are very responsible, well-meaning people.
Many of them are decent and honest citizens who are just wanting to protect their constitutional rights, and to protect themselves and their families from harm.
To approach it from the logic of Liberals: Saying every gun-owner or gun advocate is evil, is just like saying every Muslim is evil when there is an act of terror carried out by Muslim extremists.
I NEVER said God wrote the constitution. No that was done by men. But the principles they incorporated into it, many are derived from the Bi… moreble.
Ah, my mistake for taking that a bit too literally. I still don't get what God has to do with any of this. Mass shootings are a national security matter, not a theological one.
Putting aside the constitutional / religious jargon, what to you have to support your claims that we need fewer firearm restrictions, rather than more.
I've seen several comments blaming Muslims as a whole for the actions of a few amongst other generalizations. Please keep discussion civil and constructive, as I've noticed a few comments that have made me consider locking this thread. Thanks.
Quite honestly, I could care less if Islam is a 'religion of peace' or not. I find the entire debate pointless. Who cares what Muslims believe? We know that a certain group of people are committing atrocities and pose a threat to the west, so why don't we just go after those people regardless of motives? If Muslims in western countries are respecting the law and don't pose a threat to anyone's safety, then who cares if they're Muslim or not?
While I do agree that mass shootings are a national security matter, the one's that have happened recently are shown to be religiously motiv… moreated.
The shooting in Oregon was religiously motivated, with the target being Christians.
And the shooting in California was also religiously motivated, with the perpetrators being Muslim.
And though I'm not sure if you addressed it or not, but I was certainly thinking about it today, that whenever there is a gun-related crime, everyone is so quick to blame guns and gun owners.
And to be honest, I feel that it is a very unfair thing to do!
For example, a loaded gun doesn't have the ability to pick itself off a table, aim at a person, and shoot said person.
Nor does a gun have a moral conscience, but just does as it's designed to do.
A gun is as good, or as bad, as the person who wields it.
And, not all gun owners are careless.
Most are very responsible, well-meaning people.
Many of them ar… [view original content]
I, quite frankly, don't think Islam is even relevant. Who cares if terrorists are Muslims or not? They're committing atrocities, so why don't we just go after them? If Muslims respect the law and contribute to society, then who cares?
I've seen several comments blaming Muslims as a whole for the actions of a few amongst other generalizations. Please keep discussion civil and constructive, as I've noticed a few comments that have made me consider locking this thread. Thanks.
Because not all Muslims respect the law and contribute to society. As much as I would like to remove Islam from the equation, quite simply, these terrorists are all Islamic. They aren't a combination of any other religion, they aren't Christian etc. That's not being discriminative, it's just truth. It's hard to 'go after them', when the religion is so spread out through all different countries, and there are many radicals part of it. Islam is not a bad religion, and most Islamic people are fine, but there are some who aren't, you know, the ones who kill hundreds of people for no apparent reason.
I, quite frankly, don't think Islam is even relevant. Who cares if terrorists are Muslims or not? They're committing atrocities, so why don't we just go after them? If Muslims respect the law and contribute to society, then who cares?
Because not all Muslims respect the law and contribute to society.
So what? What's the purpose of factoring Islam into the debate? Not all Christians obey the law. Not all men obey the law. Not all women obey the law. Within every group of people, there are those who do not respect the law. So who cares what group they belong to? We should just focus on putting a stop to those who are breaking the law, and separate them from the ones who don't break the law.
Because not all Muslims respect the law and contribute to society. As much as I would like to remove Islam from the equation, quite simply, … morethese terrorists are all Islamic. They aren't a combination of any other religion, they aren't Christian etc. That's not being discriminative, it's just truth. It's hard to 'go after them', when the religion is so spread out through all different countries, and there are many radicals part of it. Islam is not a bad religion, and most Islamic people are fine, but there are some who aren't, you know, the ones who kill hundreds of people for no apparent reason.
If you cared to read the rest of the comment, I said that the terrorists are all Islamic, so it does raise concern. How are we to tell who is a radical Islamic person, and who is not? When so many are entering our countries? Ask Paris mate, i'm sure they will tell you...it's a harsh truth. I know not all Islamic people are 'terrorists', but as the saying goes, all terrorists are Islamic, or under what they believe is 'Islam'. These terrorist attacks revolve around ONE aspect, the Islamic faith. So even though i'm sorry all the normal, peaceful Islamic members of our community have to live under such a banner (for the time being), for now, it is what it is. This isn't a simple case of 'breaking the law', this is a case of mass murder and terrorism from a group of people unfortunately using a peaceful religion as a means to commit these atrocious acts. Islam is just as big a factor of terrorism as the actual terrorists are. It isn't as simple as separating them...no matter how much we would both like it to be.
Because not all Muslims respect the law and contribute to society.
So what? What's the purpose of factoring Islam into the debate? N… moreot all Christians obey the law. Not all men obey the law. Not all women obey the law. Within every group of people, there are those who do not respect the law. So who cares what group they belong to? We should just focus on putting a stop to those who are breaking the law, and separate them from the ones who don't break the law.
I did read the rest of it, and you do know that ISIS is luring quite a few young people into joining them, right? You can't say with certainty what all of them believe. I'll raise the point that we should simply keep an eye on those who we suspect to be terrorists, Islamic or not. Who gives a damn what their religion is? If there's reason to suspect that they are a threat, then treat them accordingly. This is why I believe that the question of Islam being a religion of peace or not is irrelevant, because we should judge people for their actions and not for the group they fall into.
If you cared to read the rest of the comment, I said that the terrorists are all Islamic, so it does raise concern. How are we to tell who i… mores a radical Islamic person, and who is not? When so many are entering our countries? Ask Paris mate, i'm sure they will tell you...it's a harsh truth. I know not all Islamic people are 'terrorists', but as the saying goes, all terrorists are Islamic, or under what they believe is 'Islam'. These terrorist attacks revolve around ONE aspect, the Islamic faith. So even though i'm sorry all the normal, peaceful Islamic members of our community have to live under such a banner (for the time being), for now, it is what it is. This isn't a simple case of 'breaking the law', this is a case of mass murder and terrorism from a group of people unfortunately using a peaceful religion as a means to commit these atrocious acts. Islam is just as big a factor of terrorism as the actual terrorists are. It isn't as simple as separating them...no matter how much we would both like it to be.
Because the media exploits the feedback loop of fear and anxiety by creating a dangerous narrative that Muslims are ticking time bombs who could 'go jihad' at any moment.
In reality, the term Islamic terrorism is far too wide. Almost all western terrorists are radical Salafist (Wahhabist) Sunnis or radical Deobandi (think the Taliban) Sunnis. U.S. intelligence invests most of their time and energy in tracking and hampering these two groups, with modest success. The media and politicians don't make that distinction because most Americans don't know a Salafist from a Sufi and tend to view Islam as a single-minded monolith.
I, quite frankly, don't think Islam is even relevant. Who cares if terrorists are Muslims or not? They're committing atrocities, so why don't we just go after them? If Muslims respect the law and contribute to society, then who cares?
I did read the rest of it, and you do know that ISIS is luring quite a few young people into joining them, right? You can't say with certain… morety what all of them believe. I'll raise the point that we should simply keep an eye on those who we suspect to be terrorists, Islamic or not. Who gives a damn what their religion is? If there's reason to suspect that they are a threat, then treat them accordingly. This is why I believe that the question of Islam being a religion of peace or not is irrelevant, because we should judge people for their actions and not for the group they fall into.
You do realize there are dozens upon dozens of Islamic sects, with fierce ideological debates between them about everything from burial rites to deciding what concepts like 'jihad' even mean.
The Islamic State mainly consists of radical Salafist Sunnis, whom we can pretty much all agree are bad.
But there's other Islamic sects like Sufi or Alawi that have almost nothing in common with them and have a completely different interpretation of the prophet's teachings. Lumping them together with the Salafists is like lumping Amish and Greek Orthodox together as Christians. They believe in the same God, a messiah and read the same book, but that's about it. Islam is not a monolith, it is subject to the same divergences and ideological differences as any other religion. 'Radical Islam' is a punchy soundbite, but a gross oversimplification of reality. radical Salafist groups like ISIS exploit this by calling themselves "Islamic". Thereby, Da'esh is basically making the claim that their sect of Islam is the one true interpretation and that this fact makes their State the supreme moral authority for all Muslims. Needless to say, most non-Salafist Muslims see this as an extremely disturbing insult.
I am very aware of that diversity, but I was referring to what he wrote about the fact that we really can't tell what they believe which is bull. They are Muslims as you noticed so saying otherwishe is either a lack of knowledge or worse intentional misleading.
is like lumping Amish and Greek Orthodox together as Christians
They are Christians, just like Copts, Catholics Protestant ect.
Still this all comes down to the fact another massacre was caused by Muslims. To make matters funny i read that he started to shoot after he argued with his co-worker about Islam being a religion of peace....if that's true then it's a great way to prove that you opponent is 110% right.
You do realize there are dozens upon dozens of Islamic sects, with fierce ideological debates between them about everything from burial rite… mores to deciding what concepts like 'jihad' even mean.
The Islamic State mainly consists of radical Salafist Sunnis, whom we can pretty much all agree are bad.
But there's other Islamic sects like Sufi or Alawi that have almost nothing in common with them and have a completely different interpretation of the prophet's teachings. Lumping them together with the Salafists is like lumping Amish and Greek Orthodox together as Christians. They believe in the same God, a messiah and read the same book, but that's about it. Islam is not a monolith, it is subject to the same divergences and ideological differences as any other religion. 'Radical Islam' is a punchy soundbite, but a gross oversimplification of reality. radical Salafist groups like ISIS exploit this by calling themselves "Islamic". Thereby, D… [view original content]
Still this all comes down to the fact another massacre was caused by Muslims.
It was also another massacre caused by Salafi extremists. In my opinion, that label is far more precise and relevant. The West should vigorously combat Salafist 'cult of Jihad' wherever it rears it's ugly head but we should also draw a distinction.
I am very aware of that diversity, but I was referring to what he wrote about the fact that we really can't tell what they believe which is … morebull. They are Muslims as you noticed so saying otherwishe is either a lack of knowledge or worse intentional misleading.
is like lumping Amish and Greek Orthodox together as Christians
They are Christians, just like Copts, Catholics Protestant ect.
Still this all comes down to the fact another massacre was caused by Muslims. To make matters funny i read that he started to shoot after he argued with his co-worker about Islam being a religion of peace....if that's true then it's a great way to prove that you opponent is 110% right.
It was also another massacre caused by Salafi extremists. In my opinion, that label is far more precise and relevant. The West should vigorously combat Salafism wherever it rears it's ugly head but we should also draw a distinction.
I agree with that, seeing what French are doing now gives a spark of hope. They should simply label Salafi and Wahhabis as terroris and expel them from their countires. Also force Imam's to forbid teaching about Jihad and I guess most of the problems with internal terroris would be solved
Still this all comes down to the fact another massacre was caused by Muslims.
It was also another massacre caused by Salafi extremis… morets. In my opinion, that label is far more precise and relevant. The West should vigorously combat Salafist 'cult of Jihad' wherever it rears it's ugly head but we should also draw a distinction.
Maybe. I disagree with complete expulsion of Wahhabis, but the situation in France is much different than America. Self-policing tends to work fairly well. Also, an even better place to start would be cutting ties with Saudi Arabia as much as possible, the House of Saud is little better than Da'esh, IMO.
For all our bickering and disagreements, we can at least agree that Salafism is a cancer.
It was also another massacre caused by Salafi extremists. In my opinion, that label is far more precise and relevant. The West should vigoro… moreusly combat Salafism wherever it rears it's ugly head but we should also draw a distinction.
I agree with that, seeing what French are doing now gives a spark of hope. They should simply label Salafi and Wahhabis as terroris and expel them from their countires. Also force Imam's to forbid teaching about Jihad and I guess most of the problems with internal terroris would be solved
Maybe. I disagree with complete expulsion of Wahhabis, but the situation in France is much different than America. Self-policing tends to work fairly well. Also, an even better place to start would be cutting ties with Saudi Arabia as much as possible, the House of Saud is little better than Da'esh, IMO.
Ok something is wrong because we're agreed not once but twice this day. Yes Saudi Arabia is a caner most of the radicalist comes from over there. World should stop buying their damn oil and then we would see how the holy lands fares without the money of filthy infidels
Maybe. I disagree with complete expulsion of Wahhabis, but the situation in France is much different than America. Self-policing tends to… more work fairly well. Also, an even better place to start would be cutting ties with Saudi Arabia as much as possible, the House of Saud is little better than Da'esh, IMO.
For all our bickering and disagreements, we can at least agree that Salafism is a cancer.
The movement may be based on some radical idea of Islam, but how can you know for sure that they haven't manipulated or forced people into fighting for them?
Oh I know they're forcing people to fight for them if not there would be so many executions of deserters but I also know that thousand Muslims willingly went to Syria to join their little perfect country.
Also tell me how much you have to manipulate a person to kill innocent people and then shout God is great then blow themselves up?
That requires faith a lot of faith that after death you will go to better place. And we can all agree that Muslims are high risk group when it comes to radicalization.
The movement may be based on some radical idea of Islam, but how can you know for sure that they haven't manipulated or forced people into fighting for them?
Ok something is wrong because we're agreed not once but twice this day. Yes Saudi Arabia is a caner most of the radicalist comes from over there. World should stop buying their damn oil and then we would see how the holy lands fares without the money of filthy infidels.
Yeah, what's funny is that the Saudi elites are terrible Muslims. Their greed and sense of entitlement comes before absolutely everything. Change might be in the air though. One of my friends, who's family fled SA said that that our generation is starting to really challenge the hegemony of the clerics and mutaween. The results have been bloody, but a government can't hold back the will of the non-elites forever.
And yes, cutting off Saudi oil would really help. Unfortunately, they also hold a lot of American debt, which means Saud more or less has us by the balls.
Maybe. I disagree with complete expulsion of Wahhabis, but the situation in France is much different than America. Self-policing tends to wo… morerk fairly well. Also, an even better place to start would be cutting ties with Saudi Arabia as much as possible, the House of Saud is little better than Da'esh, IMO.
Ok something is wrong because we're agreed not once but twice this day. Yes Saudi Arabia is a caner most of the radicalist comes from over there. World should stop buying their damn oil and then we would see how the holy lands fares without the money of filthy infidels
and sadly by extension the Europe which now have to deal with this shit while we're have other problems as well....Maybe it's time to install Democracy in SA
Ok something is wrong because we're agreed not once but twice this day. Yes Saudi Arabia is a caner most of the radicalist comes from over t… morehere. World should stop buying their damn oil and then we would see how the holy lands fares without the money of filthy infidels.
Yeah, what's funny is that the Saudi elites are terrible Muslims. Their greed and sense of entitlement comes before absolutely everything. Change might be in the air though. One of my friends, who's family fled SA said that that our generation is starting to really challenge the hegemony of the clerics and mutaween. The results have been bloody, but a government can't hold back the will of the non-elites forever.
And yes, cutting off Saudi oil would really help. Unfortunately, they also hold a lot of American debt, which means Saud more or less has us by the balls.
A theory I heard once was that some of the young people leaving to join ISIS had poor relationships with their families and little to no job prospects. Now I don't know exactly what ISIS says to people, but perhaps they're capitalizing on hatred or anger that some people feel for western society.
Oh I know they're forcing people to fight for them if not there would be so many executions of deserters but I also know that thousand Musli… morems willingly went to Syria to join their little perfect country.
Also tell me how much you have to manipulate a person to kill innocent people and then shout God is great then blow themselves up?
That requires faith a lot of faith that after death you will go to better place. And we can all agree that Muslims are high risk group when it comes to radicalization.
They do that yet they also call for the holy Jihad against us and many join them because of that. Islam sanction killing of infidels in their manual so they have a moral reason to do that.
A theory I heard once was that some of the young people leaving to join ISIS had poor relationships with their families and little to no job… more prospects. Now I don't know exactly what ISIS says to people, but perhaps they're capitalizing on hatred or anger that some people feel for western society.
Absolutely. Isolation and disenfranchisement play a huge role in extremism. Always has, always will.
It was Marx who said "religion is the opiate of the masses". When you grow up poor, with shit else in your life, it's much easier to be taken in by religious fanaticism. The million dollar question is : what can be done about it? Social liberals like myself would argue that the best solution is a more careful immigration policy and a strong social infrastructure to prevent the formation of ghettos and the like.
A theory I heard once was that some of the young people leaving to join ISIS had poor relationships with their families and little to no job… more prospects. Now I don't know exactly what ISIS says to people, but perhaps they're capitalizing on hatred or anger that some people feel for western society.
But not all Muslims do it, so again, what's stopping us from treating suspected terrorists in our society with caution? Innocent until proven guilty still exists, right? If there's no reason to believe that a specific individual poses a threat, then who cares what they believe?
Regardless, I think we might want to settle this specific discussion for the sake of the thread not getting derailed and closed.
They do that yet they also call for the holy Jihad against us and many join them because of that. Islam sanction killing of infidels in their manual so they have a moral reason to do that.
Well I'm rather those that say if you don't like it here get the hell out. Migrants should sign the document that they understand and will respect the local law even if they are clashing with their beliefs. Also they should learn the local language and find job in let's say two years and only then they are allowed to bring their families. If the terms are not met they are sent back to their countries
Absolutely. Isolation and disenfranchisement play a huge role in extremism. Always has, always will.
It was Marx who said "religion is … morethe opiate of the masses". When you grow up poor, with shit else in your life, it's much easier to be taken in by religious fanaticism. The million dollar question is : what can be done about it? Social liberals like myself would argue that the best solution is a more careful immigration policy and a strong social infrastructure to prevent the formation of ghettos and the like.
Well I'm rather those that say if you don't like it here get the hell out. Migrants should sign the document that they understand and will r… moreespect the local law even if they are clashing with their beliefs. Also they should learn the local language and find job in let's say two years and only then they are allowed to bring their families. If the terms are not met they are sent back to their countries
Because the media exploits the feedback loop of fear and anxiety by creating a dangerous narrative that Muslims are ticking time bombs who c… moreould 'go jihad' at any moment.
In reality, the term Islamic terrorism is far too wide. Almost all western terrorists are radical Salafist (Wahhabist) Sunnis or radical Deobandi (think the Taliban) Sunnis. U.S. intelligence invests most of their time and energy in tracking and hampering these two groups, with modest success. The media and politicians don't make that distinction because most Americans don't know a Salafist from a Sufi and tend to view Islam as a single-minded monolith.
I looked it up and Salafist jihadism is probably a more fitting description. Regardless, Salafist scholars still push an extreme form of Islam that revolves around a complete rejection of innovation, harsh interpretation of Sharia in defiance of international law and a direct focus on jihad against infidel nations. This is bad.
and sadly by extension the Europe which now have to deal with this shit while we're have other problems as well....Maybe it's time to install Democracy in SA
Comments
[removed]
I've seen several comments blaming Muslims as a whole for the actions of a few amongst other generalizations. Please keep discussion civil and constructive, as I've noticed a few comments that have made me consider locking this thread. Thanks.
If we're talking realistically, a Muslim family is obviously going to bring up a Muslim child.
Hearing about this stuff and having insane amount of anxiety is not a good combo.
While I do agree that mass shootings are a national security matter, the one's that have happened recently are shown to be religiously motivated.
The shooting in Oregon was religiously motivated, with the target being Christians.
And the shooting in California was also religiously motivated, with the perpetrators being Muslim.
And though I'm not sure if you addressed it or not, but I was certainly thinking about it today, that whenever there is a gun-related crime, everyone is so quick to blame guns and gun owners.
And to be honest, I feel that it is a very unfair thing to do!
For example, a loaded gun doesn't have the ability to pick itself off a table, aim at a person, and shoot said person.
Nor does a gun have a moral conscience, but just does as it's designed to do.
A gun is as good, or as bad, as the person who wields it.
And, not all gun owners are careless.
Most are very responsible, well-meaning people.
Many of them are decent and honest citizens who are just wanting to protect their constitutional rights, and to protect themselves and their families from harm.
To approach it from the logic of Liberals: Saying every gun-owner or gun advocate is evil, is just like saying every Muslim is evil when there is an act of terror carried out by Muslim extremists.
Did the other terrorist thread get closed down for that very reason?
Quite honestly, I could care less if Islam is a 'religion of peace' or not. I find the entire debate pointless. Who cares what Muslims believe? We know that a certain group of people are committing atrocities and pose a threat to the west, so why don't we just go after those people regardless of motives? If Muslims in western countries are respecting the law and don't pose a threat to anyone's safety, then who cares if they're Muslim or not?
I, quite frankly, don't think Islam is even relevant. Who cares if terrorists are Muslims or not? They're committing atrocities, so why don't we just go after them? If Muslims respect the law and contribute to society, then who cares?
Because not all Muslims respect the law and contribute to society. As much as I would like to remove Islam from the equation, quite simply, these terrorists are all Islamic. They aren't a combination of any other religion, they aren't Christian etc. That's not being discriminative, it's just truth. It's hard to 'go after them', when the religion is so spread out through all different countries, and there are many radicals part of it. Islam is not a bad religion, and most Islamic people are fine, but there are some who aren't, you know, the ones who kill hundreds of people for no apparent reason.
So what? What's the purpose of factoring Islam into the debate? Not all Christians obey the law. Not all men obey the law. Not all women obey the law. Within every group of people, there are those who do not respect the law. So who cares what group they belong to? We should just focus on putting a stop to those who are breaking the law, and separate them from the ones who don't break the law.
If you cared to read the rest of the comment, I said that the terrorists are all Islamic, so it does raise concern. How are we to tell who is a radical Islamic person, and who is not? When so many are entering our countries? Ask Paris mate, i'm sure they will tell you...it's a harsh truth. I know not all Islamic people are 'terrorists', but as the saying goes, all terrorists are Islamic, or under what they believe is 'Islam'. These terrorist attacks revolve around ONE aspect, the Islamic faith. So even though i'm sorry all the normal, peaceful Islamic members of our community have to live under such a banner (for the time being), for now, it is what it is. This isn't a simple case of 'breaking the law', this is a case of mass murder and terrorism from a group of people unfortunately using a peaceful religion as a means to commit these atrocious acts. Islam is just as big a factor of terrorism as the actual terrorists are. It isn't as simple as separating them...no matter how much we would both like it to be.
I did read the rest of it, and you do know that ISIS is luring quite a few young people into joining them, right? You can't say with certainty what all of them believe. I'll raise the point that we should simply keep an eye on those who we suspect to be terrorists, Islamic or not. Who gives a damn what their religion is? If there's reason to suspect that they are a threat, then treat them accordingly. This is why I believe that the question of Islam being a religion of peace or not is irrelevant, because we should judge people for their actions and not for the group they fall into.
Because the media exploits the feedback loop of fear and anxiety by creating a dangerous narrative that Muslims are ticking time bombs who could 'go jihad' at any moment.
In reality, the term Islamic terrorism is far too wide. Almost all western terrorists are radical Salafist (Wahhabist) Sunnis or radical Deobandi (think the Taliban) Sunnis. U.S. intelligence invests most of their time and energy in tracking and hampering these two groups, with modest success. The media and politicians don't make that distinction because most Americans don't know a Salafist from a Sufi and tend to view Islam as a single-minded monolith.
Yes we can, I mean seriously? You can't see the connection between Islamic State and Islam?
You do realize there are dozens upon dozens of Islamic sects, with fierce ideological debates between them about everything from burial rites to deciding what concepts like 'jihad' even mean.
The Islamic State mainly consists of radical Salafist Sunnis, whom we can pretty much all agree are bad.
But there's other Islamic sects like Sufi or Alawi that have almost nothing in common with them and have a completely different interpretation of the prophet's teachings. Lumping them together with the Salafists is like lumping Amish and Greek Orthodox together as Christians. They believe in the same God, a messiah and read the same book, but that's about it. Islam is not a monolith, it is subject to the same divergences and ideological differences as any other religion. 'Radical Islam' is a punchy soundbite, but a gross oversimplification of reality. radical Salafist groups like ISIS exploit this by calling themselves "Islamic". Thereby, Da'esh is basically making the claim that their sect of Islam is the one true interpretation and that this fact makes their State the supreme moral authority for all Muslims. Needless to say, most non-Salafist Muslims see this as an extremely disturbing insult.
I am very aware of that diversity, but I was referring to what he wrote about the fact that we really can't tell what they believe which is bull. They are Muslims as you noticed so saying otherwishe is either a lack of knowledge or worse intentional misleading.
They are Christians, just like Copts, Catholics Protestant ect.
Still this all comes down to the fact another massacre was caused by Muslims. To make matters funny i read that he started to shoot after he argued with his co-worker about Islam being a religion of peace....if that's true then it's a great way to prove that you opponent is 110% right.
It was also another massacre caused by Salafi extremists. In my opinion, that label is far more precise and relevant. The West should vigorously combat Salafist 'cult of Jihad' wherever it rears it's ugly head but we should also draw a distinction.
I agree with that, seeing what French are doing now gives a spark of hope. They should simply label Salafi and Wahhabis as terroris and expel them from their countires. Also force Imam's to forbid teaching about Jihad and I guess most of the problems with internal terroris would be solved
Maybe. I disagree with complete expulsion of Wahhabis, but the situation in France is much different than America. Self-policing tends to work fairly well. Also, an even better place to start would be cutting ties with Saudi Arabia as much as possible, the House of Saud is little better than Da'esh, IMO.
For all our bickering and disagreements, we can at least agree that Salafism is a cancer.
Ok something is wrong because we're agreed not once but twice this day. Yes Saudi Arabia is a caner most of the radicalist comes from over there. World should stop buying their damn oil and then we would see how the holy lands fares without the money of filthy infidels
The movement may be based on some radical idea of Islam, but how can you know for sure that they haven't manipulated or forced people into fighting for them?
Oh I know they're forcing people to fight for them if not there would be so many executions of deserters but I also know that thousand Muslims willingly went to Syria to join their little perfect country.
Also tell me how much you have to manipulate a person to kill innocent people and then shout God is great then blow themselves up?
That requires faith a lot of faith that after death you will go to better place. And we can all agree that Muslims are high risk group when it comes to radicalization.
Yeah, what's funny is that the Saudi elites are terrible Muslims. Their greed and sense of entitlement comes before absolutely everything. Change might be in the air though. One of my friends, who's family fled SA said that that our generation is starting to really challenge the hegemony of the clerics and mutaween. The results have been bloody, but a government can't hold back the will of the non-elites forever.
And yes, cutting off Saudi oil would really help. Unfortunately, they also hold a lot of American debt, which means Saud more or less has us by the balls.
and sadly by extension the Europe which now have to deal with this shit while we're have other problems as well....Maybe it's time to install Democracy in SA
A theory I heard once was that some of the young people leaving to join ISIS had poor relationships with their families and little to no job prospects. Now I don't know exactly what ISIS says to people, but perhaps they're capitalizing on hatred or anger that some people feel for western society.
They do that yet they also call for the holy Jihad against us and many join them because of that. Islam sanction killing of infidels in their manual so they have a moral reason to do that.
Absolutely. Isolation and disenfranchisement play a huge role in extremism. Always has, always will.
It was Marx who said "religion is the opiate of the masses". When you grow up poor, with shit else in your life, it's much easier to be taken in by religious fanaticism. The million dollar question is : what can be done about it? Social liberals like myself would argue that the best solution is a more careful immigration policy and a strong social infrastructure to prevent the formation of ghettos and the like.
But not all Muslims do it, so again, what's stopping us from treating suspected terrorists in our society with caution? Innocent until proven guilty still exists, right? If there's no reason to believe that a specific individual poses a threat, then who cares what they believe?
Regardless, I think we might want to settle this specific discussion for the sake of the thread not getting derailed and closed.
Well I'm rather those that say if you don't like it here get the hell out. Migrants should sign the document that they understand and will respect the local law even if they are clashing with their beliefs. Also they should learn the local language and find job in let's say two years and only then they are allowed to bring their families. If the terms are not met they are sent back to their countries
Fair enough. Let's not go down that road again, lol.
Agreed.
You do realise that the majority of Salafi scholars are against violent extremism?
I looked it up and Salafist jihadism is probably a more fitting description. Regardless, Salafist scholars still push an extreme form of Islam that revolves around a complete rejection of innovation, harsh interpretation of Sharia in defiance of international law and a direct focus on jihad against infidel nations. This is bad.
It will come, in time, Just let nature run it's course.