MiZery;842610510 said:

---

How about Christian terrorists?

---

Sure, there are so many that every time someone is killed in Paris you know they must be at it again

SRBear;842609971 said:

---

there are no terrorists in the US.

---

yeah there are, the domestic variety.

How about the abortion bomber, the charleston shooter.. etc. etc.

Or how about these?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/islamophobia-since-paris-attacks#.jpp0xQ3Q1

Watching the news now and the killer pledged allegiance to the Islamic State on Facebook right before the attack.

hhhmm...

NVBear78;842610516 said:

---

Sure, there are so many that every time someone is killed in Paris you know they must be at it again

---

That is your issue thinking that.

Meanwhile, you ignore the fact that a majority of terrorist attacks around the world are NOT done by Muslims.

Lets see

Jewish terrorists (settlers) in Israel. But the republican party okays those right?
over 10 countries currently bombing Syria, killing thousands of civilians who have nothing to do with Isis
Myanmar muslims being killed by Buddhists. Again, im sure you dont care because those are done by Muslims
Drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen
Bombing of a hospital in Afghanistan by the US
Russian terrorist attacks against Ukrainians
Russian terrorist attacks against Chechnyans
Multiple shootings in the US
HIndu violence against Muslims in India, including the Gujurati riots that killed thousands and women and children by Hindu mobs
Maoist attacks of civilians in India
Indian supression of kashmiris.

I can go on and on.. but you xenophobic idiots of republican parties don't care..




It seems that most terorrist attacks by Muslims are against Muslims.

MiZery;842610521 said:

---

That is your issue thinking that.

Meanwhile, you ignore the fact that a majority of terrorist attacks around the world are NOT done by Muslims.

Lets see

Jewish terrorists (settlers) in Israel. But the republican party okays those right?
over 10 countries currently bombing Syria, killing thousands of civilians who have nothing to do with Isis
Myanmar muslims being killed by Buddhists. Again, im sure you dont care because those are done by Muslims
Drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen
Bombing of a hospital in Afghanistan by the US
Russian terrorist attacks against Ukrainians
Russian terrorist attacks against Chechnyans
Multiple shootings in the US
HIndu violence against Muslims in India, including the Gujurati riots that killed thousands and women and children by Hindu mobs
Maoist attacks of civilians in India
Indian supression of kashmiris.

I can go on and on.. but you xenophobic idiots of republican parties don't care..




It seems that most terorrist attacks by Muslims are against Muslims.

---

Of course you are so right, everyone knows that Christians and Jews and those awful Right Wingers are responsible for the majority of terror attacks...not.

Read this if you have enough time, it is a very long list; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks


It has long puzzled me why many liberal/progressives view conservatives and Christians as the greatest threat to the world yet willfully and intentionally ignore every terror act by the religion of peace.

NVBear78;842610529 said:

---

Of course you are so right, everyone knows that Christians and Jews and those awful Right Wingers are responsible for the majority of terror attacks...not.

Read this if you have enough time, it is a very long list; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks


It has long puzzled me why many liberal/progressives view conservatives and Christians as the greatest threat to the world yet willfully and intentionally ignore every terror act by the religion of peace.

---

You did not even respond to my points about the other terrorist incidents by other RELIGIONS in the world. Even if they are done against Muslims, not one peep from you. Telling. Not once did you mention that most of the terrorist incidents in the US are committed by NON MUSLIMS.

You are a f*ing xenophobic douchebag to use the term religion of peace sarcastically, just like the rest of the republican party. I am ashamed you even went to Cal, or did you?

Tyou want a list of terrorist incidents. Here. Republicans = appeasing violence against Muslims everywhere.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html

MiZery;842610521 said:

---

That is your issue thinking that.

Meanwhile, you ignore the fact that a majority of terrorist attacks around the world are NOT done by Muslims.

Lets see

Jewish terrorists (settlers) in Israel. But the republican party okays those right?
over 10 countries currently bombing Syria, killing thousands of civilians who have nothing to do with Isis
Myanmar muslims being killed by Buddhists. Again, im sure you dont care because those are done by Muslims
Drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen
Bombing of a hospital in Afghanistan by the US
Russian terrorist attacks against Ukrainians
Russian terrorist attacks against Chechnyans
Multiple shootings in the US
HIndu violence against Muslims in India, including the Gujurati riots that killed thousands and women and children by Hindu mobs
Maoist attacks of civilians in India
Indian supression of kashmiris.

I can go on and on.. but you xenophobic idiots of republican parties don't care..




It seems that most terorrist attacks by Muslims are against Muslims.

---

So is it safe to say mass deaths is not just an American problem?

MiZery;842610521 said:

---

That is your issue thinking that.

Meanwhile, you ignore the fact that a majority of terrorist attacks around the world are NOT done by Muslims.

Lets see

Jewish terrorists (settlers) in Israel. But the republican party okays those right?
over 10 countries currently bombing Syria, killing thousands of civilians who have nothing to do with Isis
Myanmar muslims being killed by Buddhists. Again, im sure you dont care because those are done by Muslims
Drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen
Bombing of a hospital in Afghanistan by the US
Russian terrorist attacks against Ukrainians
Russian terrorist attacks against Chechnyans
Multiple shootings in the US
HIndu violence against Muslims in India, including the Gujurati riots that killed thousands and women and children by Hindu mobs
Maoist attacks of civilians in India
Indian supression of kashmiris.

I can go on and on.. but you xenophobic idiots of republican parties don't care..




It seems that most terorrist attacks by Muslims are against Muslims.

---

The point you are bringing up is that Muslim societies are having a very hard time transitioning to liberal democratic values. As a result, Muslims are in conflict with virtually every religious and ethnic group on earth. This problem simply is not going away any time soon. Curiously, you seem to be claiming that western countries are the terrorists...

Bears2thDoc;842609917 said:

---

You're kidding, right?

School shooting deaths alone....
TOP 3.....
USA = 198
Germany (includes, west, east and Reich) =48
UK= 17

COUNTRIES OF THE AMERICAS.....
Canada= 16
Brazil = 12
Guatemala = 2

TOTAL BY CONTINENT......
North America = 224
South/Central America = 14
Europe=93
Asia = 103
Africa = 0
Australia = 0
Antartica =0

USA= 198
The rest of the world = 226

World Population = 7.3 Billion
Population of USA = 326 Million

YES.... It's an American problem

---

With all due respect, these are BS numbers. Africa has significant number of school snuff outs. its just the media turns a blind eye. I would also argue that your charectoization of this incident was way premature, and if you want to ask wether terrorism is just American problem, you are naive.

MiZery;842610533 said:

---

You did not even respond to my points about the other terrorist incidents by other RELIGIONS in the world. Even if they are done against Muslims, not one peep from you. Telling. Not once did you mention that most of the terrorist incidents in the US are committed by NON MUSLIMS.

You are a f*ing xenophobic douchebag to use the term religion of peace sarcastically, just like the rest of the republican party. I am ashamed you even went to Cal, or did you?

Tyou want a list of terrorist incidents. Here. Republicans = appeasing violence against Muslims everywhere.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html

---

Wow, you win with your eloquence and well reasoned arguments. And extra points for name calling. But your math doesn't really add up, not proportional at all.

ps so many Muslims are wonderful people and the vast majority don't practice Jihad but they suffer so much because of those who do.

CaliforniaEternal;842610538 said:

---

The point you are bringing up is that Muslim societies are having a very hard time transitioning to liberal democratic values. As a result, Muslims are in conflict with virtually every religious and ethnic group on earth. This problem simply is not going away any time soon. Curiously, you seem to be claiming that western countries are the terrorists...

---

Yes bombing a hospital in Afghanistan is terrorism ... Using drones to kill innocent children going to school is terrorism.

You don't get my point. My point is all religions have people committing violent acts under their name. Muslims only committed 5 percent according to the study.

wifeisafurd;842610537 said:

---

So is it safe to say mass deaths is not just an American problem?

---

Nor is it a Muslim problem. It's a human problem.

MiZery;842610542 said:

---

Yes bombing a hospital in Afghanistan is terrorism ... Using drones to kill innocent children going to school is terrorism.

You don't get my point. My point is all religions have people committing violent acts under their name. Muslims only committed 5 percent according to the study.

---

Yes but how many of those other 95% do it in the name of their religion (and not just because they happen to be of a certain religion...BIG difference)? If I happen to be a Cal grad who kills a bunch of people that's one thing. But if I'm a Cal grad who goes out and kills a bunch of people in the name of Cal...because I believe Cal will honor me by doing so....well that's another thing.

How many of those other 95% you cite think they're going to heaven because of the people they kill versus the 5% that we're talking about?

GivemTheAxe;842608272 said:

---

Yes but if you limit the number of new gun sales NATIONWIDE eventually the existing guns in operation will be significantly reduced by attrition and gun-buyback programs and confiscation upon arrest of felons carrying guns.

---

Do you have any sense what it would cost to buy back the guns in this country? Even if you get past the 2nd amendment issues (and GMP's comments are right re: how the second amendment has evolved), 47% of Americans who say they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property, according to Gallup, the highest reported number in two decades, and another $60 billion in estimated value of guns and ammunition is added every year according to an analysis by business research firm Hoovers. So who is coming-up with the Trillions of dollars to pay for confiscated weaponry from half the American households (or are you also doing away with the Fifth Amendment rights to compensation for taking property)?

MiZery;842610543 said:

---

Nor is it a Muslim problem. It's a human problem.

---

Glad to see we are in agreement.

The New York Times is printing a front page editorial on Saturday for the first time since 1920. About guns.
Hard to top the New York Daily for its front page about San Bernardino, though.

This thread represents the problem when people rush to quick conclusions based on preliminary media reports, and biased by their own views.

The killings are being investigated as terrorist action by the federal government. There is a very precise legal definitions of terrorism which allows the federal government to assume jurisdiction from the locals.

The FBI has announced that the guns were all legally purchased in California (with its purported strict gun control), but in many cases modified by the shooters to be more deadly. The FBI also announced they were investigating where the shooters obtained the bomb making material (which likely was not legal to buy in the US).

A lot of gun control folks that posted here may have good points that were obviated by their rush to call this incident a mass shooting related to the US love for guns. To give you some sense of the irony and repetitiveness, the parents of one of the two Columbine shooters were fervent and vocal anti-gun advocates. It doesn't mean the parents' beliefs were wrong, but it does mean we jump to judgments based on initial media judgments (particularly from the New York Times) which, with some irony, blamed what they assumed was the parents' gun culture for their child's acts.

The last group to be commenting on guns and mass killings should be the New York Times with their inaccurate reporting.

NVBear78;842610541 said:

---

Wow, you win with your eloquence and well reasoned arguments. And extra points for name calling. But your math doesn't really add up, not proportional at all.

ps so many Muslims are wonderful people and the vast majority don't practice Jihad but they suffer so much because of those who do.

---

All Muslims should practice jihad. Too bad you don't know what jihad is. I suggest you don't get your info about Islam from sites like Breitbart and talk to a Muslim with an open mind and heart. Only then you'll know what are beautiful beliefs are. You won't have to make sarcastic remarks about Muslims again.

Math does add u. Most terrorist acts are committed by Muslims, including the ones committed by our government. You still didn't even talk to my examples of terrorist acts against by Muslims.

Heck I forgot the attacks against Muslim students in Norway by a Christian...

MiZery;842610521 said:

---

That is your issue thinking that.

Meanwhile, you ignore the fact that a majority of terrorist attacks around the world are NOT done by Muslims.

Lets see

Jewish terrorists (settlers) in Israel. But the republican party okays those right?
over 10 countries currently bombing Syria, killing thousands of civilians who have nothing to do with Isis
Myanmar muslims being killed by Buddhists. Again, im sure you dont care because those are done by Muslims
Drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen
Bombing of a hospital in Afghanistan by the US
Russian terrorist attacks against Ukrainians
Russian terrorist attacks against Chechnyans
Multiple shootings in the US
HIndu violence against Muslims in India, including the Gujurati riots that killed thousands and women and children by Hindu mobs
Maoist attacks of civilians in India
Indian supression of kashmiris.

I can go on and on.. but you xenophobic idiots of republican parties don't care..




It seems that most terorrist attacks by Muslims are against Muslims.

---

That list is a complete crock. Of the 11 items only 3 of those could perhaps be considered "terrorist" attacks.


Jewish settlers are not terrorists. They are not willfully killing others in an attempt to generate terror. Heck, if you read the news its been the muslims engaging in the knife attacks in Israel.

Bombing Syria is not a terror attack, That's a governmental action which makes it an act of war not terror. Terrorists are non-governmental entities.

Myanmar muslims being killed by Buddhists. IIRC this is in retaliation to previous acts of violence and is on the lines of a religious war. I'll grant this at terrorist.

Drone attacks anywhere - governmental

Bombing of the hospital - governmental

Russian "terrorist attacks" - both of these are governmental actions and acts of war that no one wanted to respond to. Some terror was generated, but they don't fit into terrorist. They also aren't about religion, but about power and sovereignty over resources, people and territory.

Shootings in the US - most of these haven't not been by an organized group of even about an organized philosophy. The closest 2 were the Charleston church shooting and the Planned Parenthood attack. However, both of those were loudly condemned by just about any group that could have benefitted from any associated "terror" generated. I'll count this as terrorist even though the lack of any kind of support group for these makes that a very weak comparision.

Hindu violence against Muslims in India - this once again is in retaliation to previous acts of violence, but it also does fit the definition of terrorist. basically the Hindu's have decided to fight terrorism with terrorism in the hopes of destroying support for it. Honestly, I think they are right.

Maoist attacks - Isn't Maoism support for a form of government and not a religion? Either way, yes it is terrorism

Indian suppression of Kashmiris - IIRC this is the government taking action and its part of the long standing cold war India has with Pakistan, not sure it really fits the definition of "terrorism" Suppression of a group rarely does.

----

I find it rather pathetic that you had to stretch the definition of terrorism to far to find things to condemn rather than accept the fact that the most violent religion on the planet is Islam. Most of the things you listed aren't even based on religion, but you tried to equate them with the violence that is inherent in one of the most popular interpretations of a major religion.

CaliforniaEternal;842610538 said:

---

The point you are bringing up is that Muslim societies are having a very hard time transitioning to liberal democratic values. As a result, Muslims are in conflict with virtually every religious and ethnic group on earth. This problem simply is not going away any time soon. Curiously, you seem to be claiming that western countries are the terrorists...

---

The whole Islamic religion formed as a way to organize and control several different tribes in the Arab Peninsula. In many ways the Koran is a Constitution masquerading as a religious document. That's why Islam doesn't integrate well with democracies. Unlike Christianity where the head of the religion is NOT the head of government, an Islamic Imam is seen as the head of the local government.

There actually is no way that Islam and Liberalism can co-exist long term. Islam demands that all worshippers submit to the will of the religion and its leaders. This conflict won't be solved in the short term, and I expect the long term solution will require that either everyone convert, or that the religion is driven out of any position of power.

The fact that there are people who condemn Christianity but ignore the reality of Islam would cause me to shake my head if I didn't understand that the majority of the people doing this are Western Secularists who worship government, hate Christianity because it tells them that what they do is a sin, and have no clue that the rules of Islam are actually stricter and would be enforced on them should Islam have control of the region they live in. Ignorance may be bliss, but its dangerous in the extreme in this case.

Those dangerous Norwegians. One incident, 4 1/2 years ago. This week, however, like last month in Paris, it's the Muslims. When I go through airport security, and have to put up with the TSA nonsense, I have George Bush and Arab and or Muslim terrorists to thank. Not a Christian Norwegian. Not a Buddhist. Not an American atheist. Go ahead and talk about the Crusades, Mizery. But today, in the world we live in, the group that seeks credit for terrorism and deserves opprobrium for it are most often Arab and/or Muslim. When Muslim terrorists kill non Muslims in this country, my reaction is not more gun control.

OverUnder84;842610551 said:

---

The New York Times is printing a front page editorial on Saturday for the first time since 1920. About guns.
Hard to top the New York Daily for its front page about San Bernardino, though.

---

Love the New York Times, we have a terrorist attack in California so they will stick to the narrative and go after guns again. The percentage of the country buying that narrative vs the percentage who do not is shifting.

mvargus;842610573 said:

---

That list is a complete crock. Of the 11 items only 3 of those could perhaps be considered "terrorist" attacks.


Jewish settlers are not terrorists. They are not willfully killing others in an attempt to generate terror. Heck, if you read the news its been the muslims engaging in the knife attacks in Israel.

Bombing Syria is not a terror attack, That's a governmental action which makes it an act of war not terror. Terrorists are non-governmental entities.

Myanmar muslims being killed by Buddhists. IIRC this is in retaliation to previous acts of violence and is on the lines of a religious war. I'll grant this at terrorist.

Drone attacks anywhere - governmental

Bombing of the hospital - governmental

Russian "terrorist attacks" - both of these are governmental actions and acts of war that no one wanted to respond to. Some terror was generated, but they don't fit into terrorist. They also aren't about religion, but about power and sovereignty over resources, people and territory.

Shootings in the US - most of these haven't not been by an organized group of even about an organized philosophy. The closest 2 were the Charleston church shooting and the Planned Parenthood attack. However, both of those were loudly condemned by just about any group that could have benefitted from any associated "terror" generated. I'll count this as terrorist even though the lack of any kind of support group for these makes that a very weak comparision.

Hindu violence against Muslims in India - this once again is in retaliation to previous acts of violence, but it also does fit the definition of terrorist. basically the Hindu's have decided to fight terrorism with terrorism in the hopes of destroying support for it. Honestly, I think they are right.

Maoist attacks - Isn't Maoism support for a form of government and not a religion? Either way, yes it is terrorism

Indian suppression of Kashmiris - IIRC this is the government taking action and its part of the long standing cold war India has with Pakistan, not sure it really fits the definition of "terrorism" Suppression of a group rarely does.

----

I find it rather pathetic that you had to stretch the definition of terrorism to far to find things to condemn rather than accept the fact that the most violent religion on the planet is Islam. Most of the things you listed aren't even based on religion, but you tried to equate them with the violence that is inherent in one of the most popular interpretations of a major religion.

---

Totally agree but now you can be called a xenophobe too!

mvargus;842610575 said:

---

The whole Islamic religion formed as a way to organize and control several different tribes in the Arab Peninsula. In many ways the Koran is a Constitution masquerading as a religious document. That's why Islam doesn't integrate well with democracies. Unlike Christianity where the head of the religion is NOT the head of government, an Islamic Imam is seen as the head of the local government.

There actually is no way that Islam and Liberalism can co-exist long term. Islam demands that all worshippers submit to the will of the religion and its leaders. This conflict won't be solved in the short term, and I expect the long term solution will require that either everyone convert, or that the religion is driven out of any position of power.

The fact that there are people who condemn Christianity but ignore the reality of Islam would cause me to shake my head if I didn't understand that the majority of the people doing this are Western Secularists who worship government, hate Christianity because it tells them that what they do is a sin, and have no clue that the rules of Islam are actually stricter and would be enforced on them should Islam have control of the region they live in. Ignorance may be bliss, but its dangerous in the extreme in this case.

---

Very well stated

1979bear;842610577 said:

---

Those dangerous Norwegians. One incident, 4 1/2 years ago. This week, however, like last month in Paris, it's the Muslims. When I go through airport security, and have to put up with the TSA nonsense, I have George Bush and Arab and or Muslim terrorists to thank. Not a Christian Norwegian. Not a Buddhist. Not an American atheist. Go ahead and talk about the Crusades, Mizery. But today, in the world we live in, the group that seeks credit for terrorism and deserves opprobrium for it are most often Arab and/or Muslim. When Muslim terrorists kill non Muslims in this country, my reaction is not more gun control.

---

Wtf are you talking about. I never mentioned the crusades, instead mentioned other terrorist actions committed by non Muslims which you failed to mention.

Yes your reaction is not gun control, instead it is to kill a bunch of innocent people in the Middle East.

NVBear78;842610644 said:

---

Very well stated

---

Are you an Islamic scholar? Surprising to see so much blatant xenophobia from a so called Cal grad

NVBear78;842610642 said:

---

Totally agree but now you can be called a xenophobe too!

---

No NVBear78, you are a xenophobe because you constantly bash the religion, and you proved it by using the term 'religion of peace' sarcastically. You also conveniently ignore my points.

MiZery;842610653 said:

---

Wtf are you talking about. I never mentioned the crusades, instead mentioned other terrorist actions committed by non Muslims which you failed to mention.

Yes your reaction is not gun control, instead it is to kill a bunch of innocent people in the Middle East.

---

You scour the earth to find a non Muslim terrorist act. Look at your earlier list. In 2015, Muslims don't have a corner on terrorism, but some of their group are trying. And I mentioned the crusades because you look for any excuse you can find to deflect attention from the Muslim world when it comes to terrorism. That is Mizeryble.

mvargus;842610573 said:

---

That list is a complete crock. Of the 11 items only 3 of those could perhaps be considered "terrorist" attacks.


Jewish settlers are not terrorists. They are not willfully killing others in an attempt to generate terror. Heck, if you read the news its been the muslims engaging in the knife attacks in Israel.

Bombing Syria is not a terror attack, That's a governmental action which makes it an act of war not terror. Terrorists are non-governmental entities.

Myanmar muslims being killed by Buddhists. IIRC this is in retaliation to previous acts of violence and is on the lines of a religious war. I'll grant this at terrorist.

Drone attacks anywhere - governmental

Bombing of the hospital - governmental

Russian "terrorist attacks" - both of these are governmental actions and acts of war that no one wanted to respond to. Some terror was generated, but they don't fit into terrorist. They also aren't about religion, but about power and sovereignty over resources, people and territory.

Shootings in the US - most of these haven't not been by an organized group of even about an organized philosophy. The closest 2 were the Charleston church shooting and the Planned Parenthood attack. However, both of those were loudly condemned by just about any group that could have benefitted from any associated "terror" generated. I'll count this as terrorist even though the lack of any kind of support group for these makes that a very weak comparision.

Hindu violence against Muslims in India - this once again is in retaliation to previous acts of violence, but it also does fit the definition of terrorist. basically the Hindu's have decided to fight terrorism with terrorism in the hopes of destroying support for it. Honestly, I think they are right.

Maoist attacks - Isn't Maoism support for a form of government and not a religion? Either way, yes it is terrorism

Indian suppression of Kashmiris - IIRC this is the government taking action and its part of the long standing cold war India has with Pakistan, not sure it really fits the definition of "terrorism" Suppression of a group rarely does.

----

I find it rather pathetic that you had to stretch the definition of terrorism to far to find things to condemn rather than accept the fact that the most violent religion on the planet is Islam. Most of the things you listed aren't even based on religion, but you tried to equate them with the violence that is inherent in one of the most popular interpretations of a major religion.

---

oh boy, lets start off with a definition of Terrorism. Your reponse was a complete crock because you ignore the fact that INNOCENT MUSLIMS DIED.

noun
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

okay

1) jewish settlers are indeed terrorists due to religious views and they just dont want them there.. in case you forgot, they have torched a church as well. people engaging in knife attacks is wrong and considered terrorism, but I liked how to use an excuse for the attacks against Palestinians. Due to that logic, attacks on american civilians is deserved because of US bombings in the middle east. Wrong, killing ALL civilians is wrong. Whether government OR political motives.

2) Syria is political views, yes Besides what the hell is the different between bombing civilians due to a war they did not start, or bombing due to religious convictions. In both cases, people are dieing. You and your ilk dont realize that this is causing a ripple effect and causing more terrorists. Imagine if a hospital was bombed by ISIS in the US accidentally. What would be your reaction?

3) Drone attacks = killing innocent civilians because the US does not like the Taliban there. that is political, and henceforth it is terrorism. Again, innocent civilians die.

4) Hospital bombing, does it matter how or why it happened? Innocent people died trying to help other people as a result of an american bomb.

5) Abortion and Charleston shooting, you would be surprised at the number of racist rednecks who agreed to this shooting. Its a small population yes, but they do exists. I believe there was an article that pointed htis out, from peoples reactions on twitter.

Just the same - muslims have a small population of extremists.

6) Russian attacks on Chechnyans was most definitely political, and due to Chechnyans trying to gain independence. I refer you to what happened in Grozny before you claim this was not a terrorist incident. How many innocent people died? Its okay though since they are Muslims right? They don't die due to terrorist incidents right?

Same goes to what happened in Srebinica.

7) Hindu violence - you just embarrassed yourself by saying that they were right to kill Muslims? Explain the Gujarat riots or the killing of Muslims men because they ate pork? Btw, Hindu extremists are attack christians as well.

I find it pathetic that you equate the actions of a few to an entire religion that you know noting about.

1.5 billion Muslims int he world, you would think non Muslims would be in a lot of trouble. Thats like me judging all Christians due to the abortion doctor shooter or the Norway shooter.

In truth, Muslims have lived here for over a century without any issues. Twenty-four percent of all Muslims and 29 percent of immigrant Muslims have college degrees, compared to 25 percent for the U.S. general population. Forty-one percent of all Muslim Americans and 45 percent of immigrant Muslims report annual household income levels of $50,000 or higher. This compares to the national average of 44 percent. Immigrant Muslims are well represented among higher-income earners, with 19 percent claiming annual household incomes of $100,000 or higher (compared to 16 percent for the Muslim population as a whole and 17 percent for the U.S. average)

You are more likely to be healed by one (1 out of 10 doctors in the US are Muslim) then hurt by one.

mvargus;842610575 said:

---

The whole Islamic religion formed as a way to organize and control several different tribes in the Arab Peninsula. In many ways the Koran is a Constitution masquerading as a religious document. That's why Islam doesn't integrate well with democracies. Unlike Christianity where the head of the religion is NOT the head of government, an Islamic Imam is seen as the head of the local government.

There actually is no way that Islam and Liberalism can co-exist long term. Islam demands that all worshippers submit to the will of the religion and its leaders. This conflict won't be solved in the short term, and I expect the long term solution will require that either everyone convert, or that the religion is driven out of any position of power.

The fact that there are people who condemn Christianity but ignore the reality of Islam would cause me to shake my head if I didn't understand that the majority of the people doing this are Western Secularists who worship government, hate Christianity because it tells them that what they do is a sin, and have no clue that the rules of Islam are actually stricter and would be enforced on them should Islam have control of the region they live in. Ignorance may be bliss, but its dangerous in the extreme in this case.

---

where do you get your historical facts from?

1) Muslims have existed here in democratic countries for decades and existed in the world for centuries peacefully. Its only until the late 20th century, where the middle east has become violent.

2) Where is an imam the head of a local government?

3) Extremism in ALl religions is dangerous, not just Islam.

I'm not sure why it is not a gun control issue also just because the shooters were motivated by jihadi terrorism. We have a terrorism problem. We have a gun problem. In this instance they overlap. Will happen again.

NVBear78;842608187 said:

---

Yes, the elites in Paris dining sumptuously and emitting global warming pollutants by the barrel full sent a message to ISIS. At least according to the President...

---

Why do you just make sarcastic statements? No, the president said this. Tell me what is incorrect about the statement below.

"What we know is that as human beings are placed under strain, then bad things happen," the president told co-host Norah O'Donnell, in a conversation taped Wednesday. "And, you know, if you look at world history, whenever people are desperate, when people start lacking food, when people are not able to make a living or take care of their families that's when ideologies arise that are dangerous."

MiZery;842610696 said:

---

Why do you just make sarcastic statements? No, the president said this. Tell me what is incorrect about the statement below.

"What we know is that as human beings are placed under strain, then bad things happen," the president told co-host Norah O'Donnell, in a conversation taped Wednesday. "And, you know, if you look at world history, whenever people are desperate, when people start lacking food, when people are not able to make a living or take care of their families that's when ideologies arise that are dangerous."

---

It's a generality and an excuse. Im not doubting that people do bad things when they're under strain. But there are billions of people in the world who lack clean water, food, and security who don't strap bombs to their chest and blow themselves up to go to heaven.

hanky1;842610700 said:

---

It's a generality and an excuse. Im not doubting that people do bad things when they're under strain. But there are billions of people in the world who lack clean water, food, and security who don't strap bombs to their chest and blow themselves up to go to heaven.

---

Just like there are millions of poor muslims that do not do the above violent acts. The poorest countries in the world are in Africa, and these countries have plenty tribal wars that kill a lot of innocent people. This would not happen if these countries were not poor.

MiZery;842610708 said:

---

Just like there are millions of poor muslims that do not do the above violent acts. The poorest countries in the world are in Africa, and these countries have plenty tribal wars that kill a lot of innocent people. This would not happen if these countries were not poor.

---

I mostly agree with you here but some of the most prominent radical Islamic terrorist were rather wealthy.